His New Testament Theology Robert Yarbrough

Schlatter Reception Now: His New Testament Theology Robert Yarbrough Robert Yarbrough is Professor of Past reception of Schlatter’s two-volume The only English-language monograph New Testament at Trinity Evangelical New Testament theology, now becoming yet to appear on Schlatter tries to depict Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He available in English for the first time ever,1 him as post-modern before such a thing has translated Werner Neuer’s biogra- may be readily mapped out. After all, as “the great ‘proto-narrative’ theologian phy Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of reviews of it have been in print for 70 years of the late 19th and early twentieth-cen- Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian or more. But current reception would turies” existed.6 The mind boggles at the into English. He has also translated a seem more difficult to characterize, since attempt to enlist Schlatter, a critical real- number of other works written in Ger- the English translation has only recently ist who insisted that the historian could man, and has recently co-authored been completed, and there has been no see with his eyes and not just through self- Encountering the New Testament: A time for reviews to appear. tinted glasses,7 for the post-modernist Historical and Theological Survey (Baker, In any case, to assess current reception cause. Gerald Bray writes that Schlatter 1998). of Schlatter’s New Testament theology, first defended J. T. Beck and was a follower of several misconceptions need to be identi- Hermann Cremer.8 Neither of these fied. Otherwise, present consideration may claims can be sustained.9 be hampered by past misunderstanding. It is important to reconsider Schlatter’s A number of common opinions about place in the history of scholarship, espe- Schlatter are at least slightly skewed. For cially as it relates to recent New Testament example, George Ladd linked Schlatter theology. In some ways this assessment is directly to the Erlangen school. But this already taking place, for as stated below, view has almost nothing to commend it.2 Schlatter’s name and thought have influ- Leonhard Goppelt rightly notes that con- enced an astonishingly diverse set of New nections between Schlatter and Erlangen Testament theologians right up to the are formal and not genetic.3 James Dunn present time in spite of common misrep- and James Mackey seem to imply that resentations of his heritage and views. Schlatter’s main distinction is his use of This fact, combined with the availability the New Testament to “do” conservative of an increasing number of his works in theology.4 This is a distortion, not least English, suggests that Schlatter will because “conservative” is at best a vague remain a significant, though perhaps and crude characterization of Schlatter’s unnoticed, force for some time to come. theological outlook.5 Moreover, it over- In the interest of bringing clarity to this looks the fact that the majority of Schlatter’s rethinking, I will explore how Schlatter major scholarly works were rigorously both figures into and defies Bultmann’s philological and historical, not theological monumental treatment of New Testament as Dunn and Mackey use the term. To theology. Next I will comment on other imply that Schlatter primarily exploited the ways that Schlatter has continued to play New Testament for conservative theologi- a role in the methodological discussion so cal purposes suggests unfamiliarity with foundational to current New Testament the full Schlatter corpus. theology. I will conclude with a few 52 observations on grounds for his future theory of the early church’s syncretism importance. lacking. He also felt that scholarly aver- sion to acknowledging the plausibility of Schlatter and Bultmann Jesus’ messianic claims pointed to an ob- Reginald Fuller notes, “Bultmann had duracy of modern scholars directly analo- a high regard for the theological side of gous to “the teachers of Capernaum and Schlatter’s exegesis, though he was poles the theologians of Jerusalem” in Jesus’ apart from him in matters of historical earthly days.15 Bultmann also lamented criticism and NT introduction.”10 Schlatter’s “peculiar inhibitions” in “all Bultmann agreed with Schlatter’s rejec- questions of historical criticism, especially tion of the “doctrinal concepts” approach where literary-historical investigation of to New Testament theology used by the gospels is concerned.”16 This itself those such as Bernard Weiss and Theo- seems a peculiar sidestepping of the dore Zahn.11 He also agreed with massive and cogent weight of critical Schlatter’s criticism of the history-of- argumentation comprised by Schlatter’s religions reductionism that replaced the linguistically rigorous commentaries on New Testament’s “theology” with “reli- each of the four Gospels, especially when gion.” Bultmann believed in theology— seen in the light of Schlatter’s numerous of a sort. But beyond this he parted historical monographs. Bultmann simply company with Schlatter, who believed refused to see much historically accurate that Jesus was the Messiah promised by reportage in the Gospels, while Schlatter God in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that insisted that the historically constrained historical evidence centered in the first exegete was bound to acknowledge a century, primarily consisting of the New great deal of accuracy in them. Testament documents, supported this Where Bultmann followed Schlatter assertion.12 Accordingly, his New Testa- was in his refusal to separate the Denkakt ment theology affirms the conviction that (act of thinking) from the Lebensakt (act of the earthly Jesus actually possessed and living). Schlatter saw, correctly in exhibited what can only be termed divine Bultmann’s view, the New Testament prerogatives—an impossibility for Bult- documents and their message as both mann’s philosophical naturalist commit- products of and appeals to the will, not ments, which inclined him to affirm that just reflections of ancient intellectual Jesus became the Christ only in early processes of possible interest to modern church preaching. And this exaltation- intellectual agendas. The New Testament through-proclamation was the effect of is not just about thinking and ideas; it is Hellenistic influence, according to Bult- about living, about decision. While mann, whereas Schlatter saw the primary Schlatter did not push this in the direc- background of the four gospels’ presen- tion of the existentialist Entscheidung tation as real events and reminiscences (decision) which for Bultmann was the rooted in the Jewish soil of Galilee and act of faith itself, Bultmann saw in Schlat- Palestine.13 In Bultmann’s words, Schlatter ter’s work a nascent legitimization of his was oblivious to “the importance of Hel- program. lenistic syncretism.”14 For Schlatter’s part, Heikki Räisänen correctly notes that he found documentary evidence for the “Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament 53 still stands as the unrivaled classic in its no clear recovery. In 1973 Robert Morgan field. There is hardly a shadow of a chal- translated and published William Wrede’s lenger in view.” 17 Some New Testament classic essay on New Testament theology theologians, like Jeremias18 and Goppelt from a history-of-religions viewpoint, (see below), reacted against Bultmann, pairing it with an equally formidable trea- while others, like J. M. Robinson19 and tise on method by Schlatter.22 Morgan’s Räisänen,20 have sought to go beyond accompanying 67-page essay rounds out him. But it would be foolhardy as yet to the volume. There Morgan makes his ignore him completely, and he will cer- Wredian sympathies clear. But his respect tainly be of central importance in the his- for Schlatter is apparent, too, for Morgan tory of the discipline as long as it endures says he “can be rated in the same class as in anything like its present form. Since [F. C.] Baur, Wrede, Bousset, and Bult- Bultmann’s importance persists, and mann.”23 Morgan also wisely comments, given that he took his bearings in some “In a state of methodological confusion it respects from Schlatter, Schlatter’s effect is generally wise to look to history to find remains very much with us in the current one’s bearings.”24 Schlatter stands as a discussion. It is with us particularly in the giant in that history, and Morgan shows willingness we see in those such as why Schlatter has continued to inform at Stuhlmacher, Hans Hübner, and Alfons least background debate regarding New Weiser to continue to pursue theology in Testament theology over the years. their historical analysis when Wrede, J. M. Also in the early 1970s there appeared Robinson, and Räisänen have called for Otto Merk’s landmark treatment of bibli- mere religious history instead (see below). cal theology’s rise and early history.25 This theological focus, whose existence Merk grants Schlatter monumental impor- in twentieth-century biblical studies is of- tance as a forerunner to Bultmann and as ten traced to Barth and neo-orthodoxy, continuing the tradition in New Testa- may owe at least as much to Schlatter. His ment theology stretching back to J. P. defense of theological sensitivities precisely Gabler. This trajectory, says Merk, tends on the part of the New Testament histo- to stress “interpretation,” the relevance of rian kept theology alive in his New Testa- theology for today, rather than “recon- ment work, and Scripture at the core of struction,” the analysis of past reality his dogmatics, a full decade before Barth in itself as determined by application published his Romans commentary.21 of modern historiographical tools and canons.26 But for Merk, Schlatter’s impli- Schlatter in cation in this line of analysis marks Schlat- More Recent Discussion ter’s fatal weakness as well. Quoting Kümmel, Merk writes, “The historical Robert Morgan, Otto Merk task, which Schlatter undertook to Schlatter’s current importance for New address, cannot be carried out using this Testament theology extends back to the approach.”27 In the end Merk accuses early 1970s.

Load more