Schlatter Reception Then: His 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 (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 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 (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. Knopf critics. He finds the historical element speaks for many when he says, “The “entirely missing” in Schlatter’s presen- dogmatician speaks to us in the book from tation, faulting him also for his total the first page to the last, the systematician neglect of source criticism and his conse- who flaunts a peculiar thought world and quent leveling of the Synoptics and John. rediscovers it in the thought world of the Bultmann also charges Schlatter with New Testament.”21 Holtzmann flatly naiveté regarding his own presupposi- states that Schlatter’s work is Christian tions, commenting that Schlatter only dogmatics (christliche Glaubenslehre) rather deceives himself18 when he claims the than New Testament theology.22 By choos- ability to see nothing but what is in the ing a few select themes (such as the cross sources and to manage entirely without and the regal will and status of Jesus, inferences and hypothetical reconstruc- the relationship between grace and judg- tions of his own. Is it not an inference, ment or between repentance and the king- Bultmann asks, when Schlatter claims that dom) and by stressing them in his Jesus’ consciousness of his birth was an discussion, Schlatter creates the appear- essential part of his self-understanding, or ance of a certain unity in the New Testa- when Schlatter hypothesizes that Jesus’ ment writings, but this exists as an realization of the failure of his call to artificial and self-made coherence—a repentance convinced him that he had to product of Schlatter the dogmatician die? Bultmann asks where the sources rather than a reflection of New Testament state these principles, or where they say teaching.23 His work should be recog- that the disciples considered the offense nized as an exercise in unhistorical of the cross to be not primarily the biblicism that glosses over discrepancies, Messiah’s suffering but his rejection by diversity, and contradictions.24 Israel? “Overall,” Bultmann writes, “one parts with this work that contains so much His Overemphasis on the Will in good with a feeling of pain: how can a Relation to the Cognitive Domain mind so receptive to the purely religious, of Faith so unclouded by prejudice, be so inca- Some critics take exception to pable of historical work?”19 Holtzmann Schlatter’s emphasis on the will over and others fault Schlatter for his conser- against the cognitive domain of faith. vative stance on the authorship of dis- They frequently consider this to reflect an puted New Testament writings such as 1 over-reaction against the unilateral focus Peter, the Pastorals, the Gospel of John, on Jesus’ teachings by the lehrbegriffliche or the Apocalypse.20 Methode. Bultmann in particular feels Schlatter overdoes his polemic against 43 intellectualism.25 Holtzmann likewise author in a different way. With thinly charges Schlatter with unduly demand- veiled sarcasm, he comments how issues ing for everything to reach the will. But that have eluded definitive solutions for what, he asks, are we to make of 1 Peter centuries present no problems for 3:19-20 or John’s discourse about the Schlatter, who solves them with enviable Logos?26 These passages seem to be aimed ease. A case in point is Schlatter’s expla- primarily at the cognitive domain. nation of Jesus’ use of the term “Son of Man” in terms of Jesus’ effort to accentu- His Failure to Interact with ate his commonality with man. Schlatter’s Other Scholars use of absolutist language and simplistic Schlatter’s critics fault him for his lack solutions seem naive and betray the fact of interaction with other scholars, his ste- that they are a product of faith rather than reotyping of those who hold differing the results of a judicious use of the views, and his polemic tone. They judge historical method.31 Schlatter’s lack of explicit interaction with his opponents’ views “an indulgence His Difficult Writing Style unbecoming of a first-rate theologian.”27 Some think Schlatter’s style resembles Schlatter should name his opponents and the style of “delphic oracles.”32 They cite their respective works for the benefit lament that he frequently expresses him- of his readers. As it is, Schlatter’s work self in awkward, even obtuse, ways and stands removed from the mainstream of that his idiosyncratic style makes it diffi- New Testament scholarship.28 Again, it is cult to follow his line of argument. Bultmann who complains that Schlatter often mocks and injures his opponents.29 Schlatter’s Response to His Critics Bauer, too, takes offense by Schlatter’s The cumulative force of these charges denunciation of those who engage in weighed heavily on Schlatter. Often he felt “speculations,” have “confidence in at a loss as to why his work met with such their own conclusions,” and are “dream- serious criticism.33 In particular, he found ers who give themselves to speculative it difficult to defend himself against the reconstructions.”30 various charges leveled against his work since these tended to be general rather His Alleged Lack of Humility than taking the form of concrete objec- Some critics object to Schlatter’s use of tions. “I will not be able to enter into absolutist words such as “always,” dialogue [with my critics]” Schlatter “never,” and “certainly.” They conclude lamented, “unless I am told, ‘here you that Schlatter operates on the basis of the overlook something or this or that view certainty of faith rather than in the realm is wrong.’”34 Nevertheless, while Schlatter of the relativity of historical scholarship. took these charges seriously, he insisted Bauer, for instance, points out how that when his rationale for his chosen pro- Schlatter seems to know precisely why the cedure was taken into account, it consti- sources are silent regarding a particular tuted a marked advance over against issue or why they say what they say, or competing contemporary models. Below why one apostle depicts a given matter in is a sketch of Schlatter’s response (or that one way and another New Testament of his defenders) against the above-listed 44 criticisms accompanied by brief com- has been followed by much of recent evan- ments of evaluation. gelical scholarship. Thus, the Tübingen scholar Peter Stuhlmacher self-con- His Approach to History sciously sees himself as operating in the To the charge of neglecting Einlei- tradition of Schlatter, as taking his cue tungsfragen and literary questions such as from him.38 source criticism, Schlatter responds that these matters serve as a prerequisite for His Dogmatic Bent New Testament theology rather than its Ironically, while Schlatter himself proper subject. He therefore feels no need claims to be a historian who emphasizes to defend his views on these matters at the priority of historical exegesis over length, but rather asserts his conclusions dogmatics, frequently he receives criti- at the outset of his work. Moreover, cism for being oblivious to the true nature Schlatter notes that the inability to solve of historical research and for operating as the riddle of the exact nature of the inter- a dogmatician. Among those defending relationships between the Synoptic Gos- Schlatter against this charge was Römer.39 pels does not necessitate uncertainty He contrasts Schlatter’s work with treat- concerning the history of Jesus, for the ments where a scholar’s general recon- Gospels mutually confirm each other in struction becomes the schema into which this regard. Jesus’ teaching is straightfor- details are fitted whether they suit this ward and univocal, so the interpreter of overall pattern or not. A total impression Jesus should not speak of the “words of is abstracted before the work is studied Jesus” but of “Jesus’ word.” Only what in detail; what does not cohere is declared turns out to be genuinely in doubt owing corrupt or interpolated, and it is alleged to the diversity of the Gospel accounts that Paul was himself unaware of breaks may therefore be set aside.35 in his logic, as were other New Testament Moreover, Schlatter rightly points writers. With fine irony, Römer observes out that his opponents’ skeptical stance that such interpreters would rather charge toward the sources’ reliability is rooted in Paul with inconsistency than suspect the Enlightenment thinking of Descartes incongruencies in their own thinking. So- (the “atheistic method”).36 For Schlatter, called “contradictions and inner tensions” historical work applied to the Gospels seem to characterize Jesus or Paul, sim- means to illumine the inner logic, ply because no effort is made to look at dynamic, and connections underlying the all the evidence first. And this is called events portrayed in these writings. But “scientific method”! To the contrary, because he does not embrace Descartian Römer charges, this method is riddled thought, and thus does not share its epis- with problems of its own, creating yet fur- temological skepticism, Schlatter stead- ther difficulties. Indeed, Schlatter himself, fastly refuses to pit the Jesus of history in his treatise on New Testament theology against the Christ of faith, as Bultmann and dogmatics, asks the question whether and many others did in the tradition of the “scientific method” can truly compre- D. F. Strauss.37 Rather, he affirms the New hend its subject in the practice of New Testament writers’ continuity with the Testament theology.40 As Römer points thought of Jesus. In this regard, Schlatter out, one who, like Schlatter, seeks to chal- 45 lenge a conventional “scientific” method church,” Schlatter writes. “We must allow will of course be called “unscientific” by Jesus to say what he himself wanted to proponents of this traditional approach. say rather than burdening him with our Some people’s difficulty in understand- modern questions, construing an answer ing Schlatter relates to the unconventional to our modern questions from his nature of his method. But to charge words.”41 In this, Schlatter felt further con- Schlatter with dogmatism merely because firmed by A. Schweitzer’s then-recent he fails to conform to commonly accepted work on nineteenth-century life of Jesus scholarly procedures in his day begs research. In hindsight, Schlatter’s consid- the question and betrays a defensive pos- eration of Jesus’ work alongside his ture rather than doing justice to Schlatter’s word and his effort to look at Jesus’ life work. holistically clearly constitutes an abiding Indeed, it may be argued that, contrary contribution to New Testament scholar- to the charges made by his critics, the ship. Many recent interpreters have approach underlying Schlatter’s New sounded similar calls to consider Jesus’ Testament Theology is not dogmatics but acts together with his words. By empha- biblical theology. The practice of biblical sizing Jesus’ appeal to the will, Schlatter theology, of course, still involves the se- in no way meant to minimize the contri- lection of major themes in the respective bution made by Jesus’ verbal proclama- New Testament writings. Yet while one tion. He rather opposed the tendency of may differ with Schlatter’s particular characterizing Jesus primarily as a teacher reconstruction, the charge that “the of content to be believed rather than of dogmatician is speaking to us from the commands to be obeyed. Charging first to the last page” seems unfair. Schlatter with neglecting the cognitive domain of faith therefore seems to mis- His Overemphasis on the Will in represent his true intentions. Relation to the Cognitive Domain of Faith His Failure to Interact with Schlatter was convinced that New Other Scholars Testament scholarship focused unduly on To his critics’ charge that he fails to Jesus’ sayings and teachings at the make explicit reference to his opponents expense of his appeal to the will. Not in his writings, Schlatter replies that he merely right belief, but repentance and does not want his work to be distracted trust were the intended results of Jesus’ from the apprehension of Jesus and the ministry according to Schlatter. Schlatter New Testament writings themselves. In- feels the Gospels themselves vindicate his deed, “hearing [the text] is imperiled position when read with an open mind. when at the same time we are stormed by For him, the foremost task of the New a jumble of voices. Stillness is the condi- Testament theologian is “a pure, sincere tion for hearing: it demands restricting our listening to Jesus.” But Schlatter did not communion to the one who now speaks mean that Jesus taught like a German to us.”42 According to Schlatter, the major university lecturer. “We must not make sources for Jesus are the Gospels, so the Jesus a Professor of Theology and answer- historian’s primary task is to read the Gos- man to all questions currently moving the pels. And the availability of these Gospels 46 for everyone to read allows everyone to assurance in Schlatter’s writing could judge for himself whether Schlatter inter- indeed convey the notion of arrogance. To prets them accurately or not.43 Generally, be sure, while part of the confidence per- it is indeed helpful to refer to one’s oppo- vading Schlatter’s work doubtless arises nents. But constant interaction with from his thorough study of Scripture, a opposing views can cloud the issues. certain dogmatism and polemic thrust are Schlatter is right: the primary sources for undeniable. Apart from his pietistic back- the understanding of Jesus are the Gos- ground, however, Schlatter’s idiosyncrasy pels, and the one who seeks to construe a in this regard may at least in part be New Testament theology must read the explained by his personal circumstances. Gospels. This is the standard by which any In many ways, he virtually stood alone in New Testament theology should be his day in defending a more conservative judged: how does it measure up against theological position. More than once he the primary texts, and does it reflect a expressed dismay at the notion that he thorough reading of the New Testament had to contend with an entire phalanx of writings? It is precisely the fact that interpreters who opposed his views.45 The Schlatter focuses his work on Scripture competing paradigm, the history-of-reli- rather than on interaction with con- gions approach practiced by Holtzmann, temporary scholars that allows his New B. Weiss, and, later, Bultmann, studied Testament Theology to remain relevant Jesus and the emergence of New Testa- to this day. His detractors’ writings have ment teaching largely from an evolution- not fared as well, in part because of ary perspective rather than the vantage their over-commitment to momentary point of divine revelation. Finally, scholarly concerns. Schlatter’s self-acknowledged stance as a believing scholar also provoked some of His Alleged Lack of Humility his contemporaries. Again, however, Schlatter devoted an entire essay to the Schlatter’s approach has begun to find issue of faith and scholarship in which he support in recent years through the work took to task the “atheistic” character of of G. Maier and M. Noll.46 contemporary biblical scholarship.44 He excoriated theological scholarship for its His Difficult Writing Style rootedness in Cartesian doubt and Schlatter contends the issue is not pri- skepticism, which he believed led to a marily his awkwardness of expression but dichotomy between faith and reason, and the element of mystery attached to his between history and theology. Question- subject matter. The coexistence of Law and ing the legitimacy of the Cartesian model grace or of temptation and forgiveness in the first place seemed, according to of sin are difficult to explain by anyone, Schlatter, the only way to overcome this because these matters are complex and chasm. While he frequently sounds con- demand spiritual appraisal. Launching a fident in his conclusions, this is in part a counter-offensive of his own, Schlatter function of his confidence in the reliabil- charges that post-Enlightenment scholar- ity of his sources, for he thinks these ship has undertaken to remove every sources enable a correct understanding of element of mystery in order to master Jesus and the early church. The tone of its subject. Rationalism, according to 47 Schlatter, is the antithesis of historical forgiveness (rather than merely teaching scholarship.47 But Schlatter’s protesta- or defining it). Thus, Schlatter does not tions notwithstanding, the difficulty of his merely gather similar passages and then style has indeed proven to be a major condense them as aspects of Jesus’ theol- stumbling block for the modern reception ogy. This strategy is frequently considered of his thought. Curiously, Schlatter’s style an improvement over against earlier stud- is quite uneven, and passages of great sim- ies of Jesus even by Schlatter’s oppo- plicity, clarity, and beauty alternate with nents.49 Interestingly, Bultmann faults convoluted sentences whose meaning is Holtzmann here precisely for failing to do difficult to discern. Thus, the translator what Schlatter does. According to Bult- must alleviate this potential obstacle as mann, Holtzmann places too much much as possible by choosing appropri- weight on the intellectual aspects of spiri- ate renderings. tual life in the New Testament. But the driving forces of history, Bultmann Reviewer Praise for Schlatter’s contends, are not theoretical ideas but New Testament Theology religious and ethical forces.50 One of the interesting features of the reception of Schlatter’s New Testament The- His Emphasis on the Jewish ology is the mixed nature of reviews. Even Background of the Gospels those highly critical of his work do not and the Life of Jesus offer wholesale denunciations of Schlat- Leipoldt commends Schlatter for his ter’s writings, preferring to combine harsh excellent refutation of the “modern leg- criticism with high praise.48 Four positive end” that early Christianity was some- features of Schlatter’s work are mentioned thing entirely non-Jewish, and many with particular frequency: his consider- others agree that Schlatter attained suc- ation of Jesus’ work as well as his word, cess in his efforts to demonstrate the his emphasis on the Jewish background essentially Jewish background of Jesus, of the Gospels and the life of Jesus, his Paul, and early Christianity.51 In an age intuitive grasp of the essence of Pauline when the history-of-religions school or Johannine theology, and the spiritually related early Christianity primarily to Hel- nurturing character of Schlatter’s writing. lenism, Schlatter was a lonely voice. But his stance has received abundant vindi- His Consideration of Jesus’ Work cation in recent scholarship. A case in as well as His Word point is Schlatter’s advocacy of the Pales- Schlatter contends that Jesus was not tinian provenance of the Fourth Gospel primarily a teacher, and that his message (now supported decisively by the did not merely constitute a system of new Qumran discoveries) at a time when it was concepts, doctrines, or religious insights. widely interpreted in Hellenistic terms. Rather, the Gospel presents Jesus’ minis- try primarily in active terms: he seeks to His Intuitive Grasp of the Essence of effect repentance, foster a decision of the Pauline and Johannine Theology52 will, offer forgiveness (rather than merely Windisch calls Schlatter “one of today’s provide instruction regarding God’s most thoughtful and perceptive theolo- gracious disposition), and grant divine gians.” He comments that the section on 48 Jesus’ piety is “particularly profound and present essay to adjudicate between beautiful,” and sees the chapter on Paul’s Schlatter and his critics. After all, more theology as among Schlatter’s most valu- recent responses to Schlatter’s work must able and penetrating scholarly contribu- be considered before a more definitive tions.53 Bultmann considers Schlatter’s assessment of his contribution to New grasp of the religious substance of the Testament scholarship can be made.60 At New Testament to be his greatest strength. a preliminary level, however, the survey He especially commends Schlatter for his of reviewer criticism and Schlatter’s treatment of ethical questions, such as his response suggests that Schlatter repeat- discussion of the “new commandment” in edly and very effectively countered the the chapter on Jesus’ call to repentance.54 charges brought against his work. A more conclusive evaluation of the legacy The Spiritually Nurturing Character bequeathed by Adolf Schlatter to modern of Schlatter’s Writing55 scholarship will be possible only as part Even Schlatter’s harshest critics are vir- of a survey of reactions to Schlatter’s writ- tually unanimous in commending him for ings in recent scholarship. the profundity of his theological insight and the spiritually nurturing character of APPENDIX: Reviews of Schlatter’s his writing, which suggests that it may New Testament Theology have been primarily Schlatter’s defiance in Order of Publication of existing paradigms that led to his schol- arly isolation in his day. Notably, 1. Ernst Kühl, Review of Das Wort Jesu, Schlatter’s harshest critics were part of the in Die Theologie der Gegenwart 3 (1909) German theological establishment, while 57-65. Response by Adolf Schlatter in his most grateful readers were local pas- Evangelisches Kirchenblatt für Württemberg tors and laymen.56 71 (1910) 25-27. 2. Johannes Leipoldt, Review of Das Final Observations Wort Jesu, in Theologisches Literaturblatt 30 The mixed nature of reviews Schlatter (1909) 363-366. received for his New Testament Theology re- 3. Christian Römer, Review of Das Wort flects the difficulty his contemporaries Jesu, in Evangelisches Kirchenblatt für had in evaluating his work. Was Schlatter Württemberg 70 (1909) 157-158. Response “incapable of historical work”?57 Did “the defending Schlatter in Evangelisches dogmatician speak to us . . . from the first Kirchenblatt für Württemberg 71 (1910) 137- page to the last”?58 Was Schlatter an anti- 139. intellectual fideist? Is that why he failed 4. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Review to interact explicitly with his opponents? of Das Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, Does this also explain the absolute tone in Theologische Literaturzeitung 35 (1910) characteristic of Schlatter’s writings, 299-303. which was regarded as naiveté at best or 5. Hans Windisch, Review of Das Wort arrogance at worst by Schlatter’s oppo- Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in Zeitschrift nents? And do Schlatter’s writings für wissenschaftliche Theologie 52 (1910) resemble “delphic oracles”?59 219-231. It is not the primary purpose of the 6. Rudolf Bultmann, Review of Das 49 Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in 2The History of the Christ: The Founda- 11Cf. R 233f., quoted in Neuer, Monatsschrift für Pastoraltheologie 8 tion of New Testament Theology, trans. Schlatter, 477. (1911/12) 440-443. Andreas J. Köstenberger (Grand 12Cf. Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 477-478. 7. Schöllkopf, Review of Das Wort Rapids: Baker, 1997). Note the commendation by M. Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in 3The Theology of the Apostles: The Kähler in Kähler an Schlatter, 14. 11. Monatsschrift für Pastoraltheologie 8 Development of New Testament Theol- 1909, quoted in Neuer, Schlatter (1911/12) 18-24. ogy, trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger (1996) 479. 8. Martin Dibelius, Review of Das (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming). 13The following survey focuses pri- Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in 4See esp. Werner Neuer, Adolf marily on the reviews of Schlatter’s Die christliche Welt 27 (1913) 938-941. Schlatter: Ein Leben für Theologie und work published between 1909 and 9. Rudolf Knopf, Review of Das Kirche (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1923 as listed above. Only occa- Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in 1996); Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of sional reference is made to the Theologische Studien und Kritiken 86 Germany’s Premier Biblical Theolo- reception of Schlatter’s work in (1913) 634-640. gian, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough recent scholarship. On modern 10. G. Beck, Review of Die (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); and Schlatter reception and relevance, Geschichte des Christus, in Monats- “Schlatter, Adolf (1852-1938),” in see the second part of this essay, schrift für Pastoraltheologie 17 (1921) Evangelisches Lexicon für Theologie “Schlatter Reception Now: His New 230-234. und Gemeinde, Vol. 3, ed. Helmut Testament Theology” by Robert 11. Walter Bauer, Review of Die Burkhardt and Otto Betz (Wup- Yarbrough in this issue of SBJT. Geschichte des Christus, in Theologische pertal: Brockhaus, 1994); and the 14Cf. e.g. Rudolf Bultmann, Review Literaturzeitung 48 (1923) 77-80. entries by Robert W. Yarbrough on of Das Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Adolf Schlatter in Handbook of 20th Apostel, in Monatsschrift für Pas- ENDNOTES Century Evangelical Scholars, ed. toraltheologie 8 (1911/12) 442; 1The two volumes of the first edition Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Henrich Julius Holtzmann, Review bore the titles Die Theologie des Neuen Baker); and Dictionary of Major Bible of Das Wort Jesu and Die Lehre der Testaments. Erster Teil: Das Wort Jesu Interpreters, ed. Donald McKim Apostel, in Theologische Litera- (Calw & : Verlag der Vere- (Downers Grove: InterVarsity), both turzeitung 35 (1910) 302. Note the insbuchhandlung, 1909) and Die forthcoming. discussion by Neuer, Schlatter (1996) Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5Cf. especially Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 472. Zweiter Teil: Die Lehre der Apostel 464-480. 15Holtzmann, 300-301; Bultmann, 442. (Calw & Stuttgart: Verlag der Vere- 6An Christine, 15. 10. 1908, quoted in 16Ernest Kühl, Review of Das Wort insbuchhandlung, 1910). The titles Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 465. Transla- Jesu, in Die Theologie der Gegenwart of the two volumes of the second tions from the German in this essay 3 (1909) 61-62. edition were Die Geschichte des are mine. 17Martin Dibelius, Review of Das Wort Christus (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereins- 7Ibid. Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in Die buchhandlung, 1920; rev. ed. 1923) 8On this, see Neuer, Schlatter (1996) christliche Welt 27 (1913) 939; Holtz- and Die Theologie der Apostel 467-470. mann, 300. (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuch- 9Cf. Gerhard Hasel, New Testament 18Cf. Bultmann, 443; the term ‘”self- handlung, 1922). For convenience’s Theology: Basic Issues in the Current deception” is echoed in Walter sake, both the first and the second Debate (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd- Bauer, Review of Die Geschichte des edition will be referred to in the re- mans, 1978) 46. Christus, in Theologische Literaturze- mainder of this two-part essay as 10Cf. Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 469, refer- itung 48 (1923) 78. Schlatter’s New Testament Theology ring to Schlatter, Das Wort Jesu, 358- 19Bultmann, 442-443. (in italics). 429. 20Holtzmann, 300. 50 21Rudolf Knopf, Review of Das Wort of the New Testament and Dogmat- Windisch sides with Kühl’s critical Jesu and Die Lehre der Apostel, in ics,” trans. Robert Morgan, in Rob- review (230, n. 1). Theologische studien und Kritiken 86 ert Morgan, The Nature of New Testa- 54Bultmann, 441-42; cf. also Holtz- (1913) 635-636; similarly, the New ment Theology, Studies in Biblical mann, 302. Testament scholars Bauer, Bult- Theology, 2/25 (London: SCM, 55Cf. for further examples Neuer, mann, Dibelius, Holtzmann, and 1973) 117-166. Now also in Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 471. Windisch. Schlatter (1995) 159-210. 56To the above cited commendations 22Holtzmann, 299. 41Schlatter, “Response to Kühl,” 25. of Schlatter’s New Testament Theol- 23Kühl, 63-64; Bauer, 78. 42This reference is from Neuer, ogy may be added the comments 24Holtzmann, 302. Schlatter (1996) 435, quoted in Yar- made by the British scholar P. T. 25Bultmann, 442. brough, “Schlatter” in Handbook. Forsyth in “The Faith of Jesus,” 26Holtzmann, 302. 43Schlatter, “Response to Kühl,” 26. Expository Times 21 (1909-10) 8-9 27Kühl, 64, echoed by Holtzmann, 44Originally published in BFCT 9 (cited in Evangelish-protestantischer 300. (1905), this essay is most readily Kirchenblatt für Wurttenberg 71 [1910] 28Holtzmann, 301. accessible in translation in Neuer, 94, by E. Nestle) who compares 29Bultmann, 442. Schlatter (1995) 211-225. Schlatter’s work with Holtzmann’s 30Bauer, 78. 45Cf. An Theodor, 22. 1. 1910, quoted as follows: “I remark in passing how 31Cf. especially Bauer, 77-80. in Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 475. Cf. I am struck with the moral and 32Kühl, 65. also Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 479-480. historic insight of this book in con- 33See in the foreword to the second 46Cf. Gerhard Maier, Biblical Herme- trast with the intellectual acumen edition of Das Wort Jesu entitled Die neutics, trans. Robert W. Yarbrough and fertility of combination of Geschichte des Christus, 6. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994); and Holtzmann. It is all the difference 34An Lütgert, 15. 1. 1910, cited in Mark A. Noll, Between Faith and between sympathetic interpretation Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 474. Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and analytic construction. The one 35Schlatter, “Response to Kühl,” 26- and the Bible in America, 2d ed. seems written from within, the 27. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). other from without; the one with 36Cf. Schlatter, “Atheistic Methods 47Schlatter, “Response to Kühl,” 25- radiance, the other with brilliance; in Theology,” in Neuer, Schlatter 26. the one so steadying, the other so (1995) 211-225. See also his Die 48Cf. Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 470, who illuminating; the one so grave, the philosophische Arbeit seit Cartesius. Ihr cites as examples the reviews of other so keen; the one so full of ethischer und religiöser Ertrag, in Bauer, Bultmann, Holtzmann, grace, the other of truth” (emphasis Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Knopf, and Kühl. added). I am indebted to W. Neuer Theologie 10 (1906). 49Cf. Römer, 157. This is noted also by for this reference. 37This is rightly noted by Bauer, 78. Neuer, Schlatter (1996) 471. 57Bultmann, 443. 38P. Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 50Bultmann, 434. 58Knopf, 635. Christ of Faith, trans. S. Schatzmann 51Johannes Leipoldt, Review of Das 59Kühl, 65. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) Wort Jesu, in Theologisches Litera- 60This is the subject of “Schlatter 1-7, 38. See also Markus Bockmuehl, turblatt 30 (1909) 366; cf. Dibelius, Reception Now: His New Testament This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah 940; and Knopf, 635. Theology” by Robert Yarbrough in (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994) 21-23. 52Apart from the reviews referred to this issue of SBJT. 39Christian Römer, Review of Das Wort below, see also Neuer, Schlatter Jesu, in Evangelisches Kirchen-blatt für (1996) 470. Würteemberg 71 (1910) 137-139. 53Windisch, 225, 228; similarly, Knopf, 40Cf. Adolf Schlatter, “The Theology 635-636, 639; and Bauer, 80. Still, 51