His New Testament Theology Andreas J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Schlatter Reception Then: His New Testament Theology Andreas J. Köstenberger Andreas J. Köstenberger is Asso- With the appearance of the first volume lexicographer Hermann Cremer. His next ciate Professor of New Testament at of Schlatter’s New Testament Theology1 in assignment led to Berlin (1893-1898), Southeastern Baptist Theological Semi- English,2 and the publication of the sec- where he was hired as an alternative to nary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He ond volume projected in the near future,3 the eminent liberal historian Adolf has translated Adolf Schlatter’s two- the question arises how Schlatter’s work Harnack, who at that time was enmeshed volume New Testament Theology, The was received when it first appeared in in controversy for criticizing the Apostle’s History of the Christ (Baker, 1997) and print over eighty years ago. It remains to Creed. The Theology of the Apostles (Baker, be seen how North American reviewers His last major career move took him to forthcoming). He is also the author of a will assess Schlatter’s contribution to New Tübingen, where he lectured in New Tes- number of articles and has most recently Testament scholarship at the end of the tament and systematics for almost twenty- published The Missions of Jesus and the twentieth century. Since this review pro- five years (1898-1922). During this time, Disciples According to the Fourth Gos- cess is just beginning to get underway, a his wife died prematurely (1907). The pel (Eerdmans, 1998). look at the historical reception of years after her death proved Schlatter’s Schlatter’s two-volume New Testament most productive as a scholar. In rapid suc- Theology will prove to be instructive. cession, he wrote his two-volume New Tes- After a brief biographical sketch, this tament Theology (1909/10, rev. ed. 1922/23) article will survey reviewer criticism, and no less than nine critical commentar- sketch Schlatter’s or his defenders’ ies on the Gospels, Romans, the Corinthian responses to these criticisms, evaluate epistles, the Pastoral epistles, and 1 Peter this dialogue, and summarize positive (published from 1929 until 1937). The year reviews. Some final observations conclude before his death on May 19, 1938, Schlatter the essay. published his last major work, a daily de- votional called Kennen wir Jesus? (Do We Biographical Sketch of Know Jesus?; 1937). Adolf Schlatter4 The seventh of nine children, Adolf The Composition of Schlatter’s Schlatter was born in St. Gallen, Switzer- New Testament Theology5 land, on August 16, 1852. After complet- Soon after the death of his wife, ing his theological studies in Basel and Schlatter decided to write a two-volume Tübingen (1871-1875), Schlatter served as New Testament theology. In it, he strove pastor in several Swiss state churches for ”pure perception, perception that pen- (1875-1880). A brief tenure at the Univer- etrates to the heart of the matter, to what sity of Bern (where Schlatter submitted his really happened, to who he [Jesus] was.”6 dissertation on John the Baptist) was fol- According to Schlatter, the major obstacle lowed by a post in Greifswald (1888-1893), to such a procedure was the “fog” created a small town in northern Germany. While by the opinions and hypotheses of his in Greifswald Schlatter worked in close scholarly colleagues.7 Schlatter’s own cooperation with the renowned Greek goal was the presentation of Jesus’ mes- 40 sage as Jesus himself had conveyed it work. The continuity between the mes- rather than how it was interpreted by sage of Jesus and apostolic teaching others. To this end, Schlatter affirmed the provides the New Testament with a sal- following three fundamental method- vation-historical and theological unity not ological convictions.8 merely accessible by faith but also by his- First, he distinguished categorically torical investigation. This conviction set between historical exegesis and “dogmat- Schlatter’s work apart from that of many ics.” New Testament theology, conceived of his contemporaries who, according to as a historical discipline, must come first; Schlatter, presented the relationship only then can the teaching of Scripture be between Jesus and the New Testament presented systematically. Hence, Schlatter writers as “torn by a thousand contradic- penned two volumes on New Testament tions.”11 In his attempt to exhibit the con- theology, then devoted a third volume to tinuity between the New Testament dogmatics. witnesses and the word and work of Jesus, Second, Schlatter pointed out that Schlatter started with “the convictions historical research must confine itself to represented by Jesus’ followers” (Mat- the exploration of available sources. He thew, James, Jude, John, and Peter), then refused to go beyond the evidence, and treated Paul and the theology of the as a result gave little weight to source- “coworkers of the apostles” (Mark, Luke, critical questions which, in his view, must Hebrews, 2 Peter), and finally discussed of necessity remain speculative. the “convictions prevailing in the Third, he portrayed Jesus’ teaching in churches.” As Werner Neuer observes, relation to his actual work rather than one of the most pervasive characteristics focusing exclusively on Jesus’ proclama- of Schlatter’s work is his effort to demon- tion. In this Schlatter broke decisively with strate common ground in the thought of the so-called lehrbegriffliche Methode (“con- the various New Testament writers. At the cept of doctrine method”)9 practiced by same time, original elements in an most of Schlatter’s contemporaries such author’s contribution are acknowledged as B. Weiss, H. J. Holtzmann, and P. Feine. as well, so that New Testament theology For Schlatter, Jesus’ word and work con- emerges as a “unity in diversity.”12 stitute an inseparable unity, and both are rooted in Jesus’ messianic consciousness. The Reception of According to Schlatter, Jesus’ major pur- New Testament Theology pose was not the impartation of dogmatic Eleven reviews of one or both volumes or ethical instruction (a Heilslehre) but the of Schlatter’s New Testament Theology were establishment of the saving, kingly rule published in Germany between 1909 and of God (Jesus’ Heilswille).10 Immediately 1923. Of these reviews, nine are of one or after completing Das Wort Jesu, Schlatter both volumes of the first edition (1909/ devoted himself to writing the second 10), while two are of the first volume of volume of his New Testament theology, the second edition. Notably, Die Theologie entitled Die Lehre der Apostel. The obser- der Apostel did not elicit a single review. vation that there exists a close relationship These reviews range in analysis with four between Jesus and the New Testament positive (Leipoldt, Römer, Beck, Schöll- witnesses served as the foundation for this kopf), three mixed (Windisch, Bultmann, 41 Dibelius), and four negative (Kühl, is a list of reviews in chronological order Holtzmann, Knopf, Bauer). The following of publication. Reviews of Das Wort Jesu (1909) Year Reviewer Reviewer’s Credentials General Assessment 1909 Ernst Kühl Professor of NT in Göttingen Mostly negative 1909 Johannes Leipoldt Professor of NT in Halle Very positive 1909 Christian Römer Dean at Tübingen Very positive Reviews of Das Wort Jesu (1909) and Die Lehre der Apostel (1910) Year Reviewer Reviewer’s Credentials General Assessment 1910 H. J. Holtzmann Professor emeritus of NT Very negative 1910 Hans Windisch Privatdozent of NT in Leipzig Mixed 1911/12 Rudolf Bultmann Privatdozent of NT in Marburg Mixed 1911/12 Schöllkopf Württemberg pastor Very positive 1913 Martin Dibelius Privatdozent of NT in Berlin Mixed 1913 Rudolf Knopf Privatdozent of NT in Marburg Mostly negative Reviews of Die Geschichte des Christus (1920, 1921) Year Reviewer Reviewer’s Credentials General Assessment 1921 G. Beck Württemberg pastor Very positive 1923 Walter Bauer Professor of NT in Göttingen Mostly negative Reviewer Criticism of ductory matters), history-of-religions New Testament Theology issues, and literary questions such as Only a brief summary of the major criti- source criticism.14 Schlatter’s opponents cisms of Schlatter’s work can be provided contend that he glosses over the critical here, followed by Schlatter’s response.13 issues pertaining to the Gospels rather One notes six recurring criticisms directed than facing them directly. Some, such at substance and style. Regarding matters as Holtzmann, consider Schlatter to be un- of substance, critics take exception to duly hostile and reactionary toward the Schlatter’s approach to history, his dog- historical-critical method and the history- matic bent, and his overemphasis on the of-religions school and feel that he stereo- will in relation to the cognitive domain of types those who hold differing views.15 faith. With regard to style, Schlatter is Also, his critics contend that he inter- faulted for the way he deals with his op- mingles the christologies of the Synoptics ponents, his alleged lack of humility, and and John indiscriminately without his difficult writing style. adequately differentiating between them. According to these critics, the distinction His Approach to History between older material and portions One of the most frequent charges added later is part of historical research, advanced by Schlatter’s critics is that he so it is not irrelevant which of the Synop- unduly neglects Einleitungsfragen (intro- tic texts is given priority.16 Indeed, they 42 charge Schlatter himself with operating His Dogmatic Bent under the assumption of a source theory, Schlatter is also charged with an artifi- and a dubious one at that: the notion of cial unity based upon an arbitrary selec- Matthean priority, defended on the basis tion of texts. Some of his critics allege that of scholarly convenience rather than Schlatter simply discusses his favorite historical considerations.17 Bultmann, passages of Scripture in meditational though not unappreciative of Schlatter’s form. This tendency, they claim, proves he work, stands as one of his most incisive acts as a dogmatician after all.