Taking up
Schleiermacher’s Challenge to the Canon
In many ways it seems justified to
think of Friedrich Schleiermacher as a second Martin Luther,
personifying a watershed in the history of Christian faith. James Barr
suggests that canon formation is uniquely part and parcel of the
foundational stage of a religion,1
but Luther and Schleiermacher were “second founder” figures,
refashioning Christianity in comprehensive ways. Thus it seems not only
appropriate but even inevitable that both should have raised anew the
problem of the canon of scripture, as did another “second founder,”
Marcion of Sinope. But usually such a revolutionary, no matter how many
disciples he may attract, manages to get much farther out ahead of them
than they will ever be willing to follow him. We may think of the
Redeemer, who set his face resolutely for
Jerusalem,
carrying his anxious disciples in tow, knowing that when push came to
shove, he would find himself alone. Even so, Luther had few takers when
he suggested that the New Testament canon ought to be thinned down,
relegating James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation to the status of
appendices, if not to the River Elbe. Luther did manage to work his will
when it came to the Old Testament Apocrypha, though even it managed to
hang on in printings of the King James Version till 1823.
Schleiermacher, too, questioned the boundaries of the canon, only it was
the entirety of the Old Testament that he wanted displaced and demoted
to an appendix. Schleiermacher, pursuing consistently Martin Luther’s
program of the grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture,
recognized the futility of any appeal to Messianic proof texts in the
Hebrew Scriptures, a phantom with which Luther himself was still
haunted. Thus Schleiermacher, unlike Luther, could afford to envision
the Marcionite trimming of the canon. But Schleiermacher’s canon
proposals, like Luther’s, largely fell on deaf ears, even among
theological liberals, Harnack being one of the only ones to agree that
the Old Testament was not properly part of the Christian Bible.2
But if his heirs did not go quite as far as their master, the master
himself went farther still, declaring that the process of canon
criticism, of sorting out the apocryphal tares from among the (properly)
canonical wheat, ought to continue both between the covers of the canon
and long after the supposed completion of the canon. Of subsequent
theologians, who but Willi Marxsen even seconded the motion?3
In the present paper, I will attempt to extrapolate how we as
“Schleiermacher’s modern sons” (and daughters) in Kenneth Hamilton’s
phrase,4
might follow the trajectory set by the father of liberal theology,
reopening and pursuing the question of canon criticism and (re)formation
today, especially in view of scholarly developments since
Schleiermacher’s day.
Positive versus Natural Religion
Schleiermacher sought to protect
liberal Christianity from evaporating into abstract Deism a la Kant in
at least two ways. First, he insisted that there is a uniquely religious
experience, that of God-consciousness, a sense and taste for the
Infinite, the feeling of absolute dependence, and that moralism alone
cannot capture or produce this. Second, he warned that, as soon as one
seeks to take refuge from the parochialisms and corruptions of specific,
historic religions by retreating into the abstraction of “natural
religion” or religion in general, one will find oneself retreating into
thin air. One must stand on a specific piece of ground, not just
somewhere in general. As the incarnation of the Redeemer entails a
“scandal of particularity,” so does anyone’s and everyone’s life of
faith. I believe Schleiermacher recalls the ghost of this issue when he
redefines the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. For him
inspiration implies no special mode of production of texts, no magical
immunity to errors either mundane or spiritual, and no permission to
interpret bad passages as good ones for apologetics’ sake. Inspiration
is instead tantamount to that extent to which any canonical writing is
informed by and expressive of the contagious God-consciousness stemming
from the Redeemer. Insofar as it flows through the pages of a writing
that writing is inspired. We think at once of Luther’s dictum that the
genuinely canonical is that which “bears Christ” to the reader. We
think even of that rare piece of subjectivity in Barthian theology, that
Scripture can and may “become the Word of God” to the reader insofar as
it awakens him to the grace of Jesus Christ. Some conservative
Protestant theologians (G.C. Berkouwer, George Eldon Ladd, Jack Rogers)5
have sought to incorporate such an understanding of what makes the Bible
special into a traditional doctrine of plenary inspiration, but
Schleiermacher understood that such attempted mixtures of oil and water
can never succeed. “Such authority we do not ascribe uniformly to every
part of our Holy Scriptures, but only in proportion as the writers
attained to the condition just described, so that casual expressions and
what are merely side-thoughts do not possess the same degree of
normativeness as belongs to whatever may at each point be the main
subject.”6
If, as the conservatives, one seeks for an intrinsic warrant for
scriptural authority (the Bible partakes in Heilsgeschichte)
instead of an extrinsic one (God dictated the Bible),7
one is still hoping
to retain a complete and completely authoritative canon. By elevating
above the text a standard to which some texts attain and others do not,
Schleiermacher has robbed all New Testament texts of an automatic tenure
in the canon.
But then we may ask, why have a canon
of scripture at all? Why a list of actual books, and not just a message
of salvation, something to function as the rule of faith, a proto-creed,
did for second-century apologists? If, with Ernst Käsemann, we distill a
canon within the canon,8
why insist on penning it within the canon, like a genie inside a lamp?
It is just here that the danger, if it is a danger, of a docetic
theology, one not incarnated in written texts arises. It is the prospect
of what we might call “natural scripture” instead of “positive
scripture.” We would be like Paul’s righteous Gentiles who lack the
Torah but manage to follow a law written upon our hearts. Rationalists
embraced precisely this understanding. For Rationalist and Deistical
theologians, the only scripture was nature, and one needed only the
spectacles of reason in order to read its pages. And this Schleiermacher
did not want. Why not? And what was his alternative?
We find the answer when we recall how
Schleiermacher made the God-consciousness of the Redeemer the touchstone
for inspiration or canonicity. And such a picture of Jesus as the
God-conscious man is painted from the pallet of historical reports about
him. As Ritschl would subsequently argue against the subjectivity of
Pietism, a “Jesus” fabricated of the cloudy devotional projections of
pietists, the imaginary playmate who acts as the mouthpiece for one’s
own neuroses and opinions, quickly becomes “another Jesus” when we grant
him precedence over the historical Jesus to whom the gospels attest.
“But every form of influence exerted by Christ must find its criterion
in the historical figure presented by his life…Unless the conception of
his present lordship receives its content from the definite
characteristics of His historical activity, then it is either a
meaningless formula or the occasion for all kinds of extravagance.”9
The living picture of Jesus Christ which regenerates and refreshes the
soul is that in the gospels, held clearly and firmly before the mind’s
eye, not some figment of faith who “walks with me and talks with me and
tells me I am his own” or who tells one to appeal to one’s television
audience to send in money to pay for one’s superfluous hospital.10
So Schleiermacher needs historical
sources for a historical Jesus who may provide the template and the
conduit (as he is preached) for the contagion of God-consciousness. But
these he claims to derive from the very texts (some of them) under
consideration as to whether they shall prove themselves worthy of
canonical status or not. Depending upon what one judges consistent with
authentic Christ-consciousness in the gospel glimpses of Jesus, the
contours of that consciousness itself may differ. Shall we, for example,
conclude that Jesus, given his belief in God’s fatherly compassion,
would never condemn any to Hell (Matthew 23:33)? And on what basis
should we excise such texts as reeking of residual Jewishness? (“Jewish
and pagan views and maxims were still uneradicated, and their antagonism
to the Christian spirit could only be recognized gradually.”)11
Or shall we decide (as most orthodox traditionalists have) that God’s
love, as Jesus sees it, is not incompatible with so stern a justice?
Such a decision is not a light one but rather governs the whole of one’s
whole approach to religion, to people of one’s own religion, of other
faiths, and of none, as well as to the concept of God and our own
relation to him: is God intolerant? A torturer? If so, may we emulate
him?
It is a delicate and imposing task,
but not an unusual one for the historian, for what we have here is but a
cameo of the challenge of hermeneutics generally.12
Schleiermacher
recognizes the play of the hermeneutical circle in the interpretation of
every recorded utterance of any figure of the past. We must approach a
text which is to some degree alien to us, equipped with what Bultmann13
calls a preunderstanding of its substance, and equally with the open
willingness to have it correct our preunderstanding. We and the text
circle one another like combatants, each seeking an opening. The part is
a tool for understanding the whole, but we have a preliminary grasp of
the whole, and we must allow it to make us take a second look at the
piece of the puzzle upon which we are concentrating at the moment. And
each piece, each shard of the shattered past we examine, may
revolutionize our understanding of the whole and cause us to reject our
initial paradigm.
The Canon within the Gospels
And the goal of all such activity is
to divine the mind, to tap into the thought, the consciousness, of the
ancient speaker or writer.14
Hence the aptness of the whole approach for the study of the gospels.
What other avenue can there be into the consciousness, especially the
God-consciousness, of the Redeemer? It is not hard to recognize here the
germ of the program of the New Quest for the historical Jesus in the
1960s, where the Jesus tradition was scrutinized for evidence that Jesus
himself had experienced that radical openness to God as the owner of his
future that Bultmann had said Jesus inculcated among his hearers.15
The New Questers had taken up Schleiermacher’s challenge, at least in
some measure. Today their work has been self-consciously revived by the
Jesus Seminar with their aggressive sifting of every bit of the Jesus
tradition. And yet the work of the Jesus Seminar has resulted in
findings16
(common, really, to most contemporary gospel criticism) that
Schleiermacher would have found astonishing. The Jesus Seminar ends up
with only about 18 per cent either of the sayings or of the reported
acts of the gospel Jesus as likely being historically authentic.
Schleiermacher had no idea that such ruthless and radical surgery on the
gospel tradition would ever be necessary. Of course he believed that
John’s gospel was the faithful transcript of an apostolic eyewitness,
and that Luke’s, though written at second hand, was scarcely inferior.17
Matthew and Mark he deemed less sound, though still largely reliable in
general terms (just the opposite of Albert Schweitzer,18
who took Matthew and Mark to be most reliable though he did not hesitate
to mine gems from Luke as well). He laid great store by the historical
accuracy of the gospel material. “But the reproduction of memories, be
it oral or written, can never quite be separated from historical
composition, as may be seen from the narration even of one isolated
fact; and the effort to exhibit the Redeemer in His habit as He lived is
also the work of the Spirit of truth, and only so far as it is so can
such narrative have a place in Holy Scripture. If, on the other hand, we
consider that what happened first was the communication of such isolated
narratives, their collection in wholes like our Gospels following later,
we must concede both possibilities – that the narrator presents only
what he himself had experienced in this or that connexion, and that with
his personal experiences he mingles what he has heard credibly from
others; nay more, that one who himself had no experience in the matter
might yet, moved by the same impulse and the same Spirit, put together
material which he had derived from the pure and original knowledge of
others as fruitfully as an original witness could have done. If what was
principally needed was the right selection and arrangement of historical
facts already to hand, the influence of the Holy Spirit in and
throughout such work is entirely analogous to His influence in the
selection of individual books for the Canon.”19
The analogy between the compilation
of the gospels and that of the canon is important for more reasons than
Schleiermacher envisioned. It implies that the same sort of ongoing,
searching scrutiny he advocated in the case of the canon must be applied
to the gospel tradition itself, in minute and exacting detail.
Obviously, Schleiermacher himself felt entitled to choose among and to
rank the canonical gospels, but he seems not to have foreseen the
magnitude of the process in their case. The work of the Jesus Seminar is
precisely that of reexamining each and every gospel pericope as if it
were a book seeking admission to the New Testament. But what of the
criteria employed to this end by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar, as by
critical scholars generally? Not that the validity of them hangs upon
the degree to which Schleiermacher had anticipated them, but it is
striking the degree to which he had anticipated many of the techniques
used after his time. For one thing, in the extended quote reproduced
just above, it is plain that Schleiermacher was already making allowance
for the fragmentary character, as well as the multiple and unknown
origins, of many of the gospel pericopes.
Gospel critics have long relied upon
the criterion of multiple attestation as making it more likely
that this or that pericope should be authentic.20
If, on the other hand, a saying appears in only one source, and
especially if it partakes of a style or idiom unparalleled in other
sources, it is likely to be the idiosyncratic coinage of some prophet,
redactor, or trident, not a real saying of the historical Jesus. The
historian feels on firmer ground assigning the saying to Jesus if it
occurs, or is closely paralleled, in other sources. Schleiermacher had
already observed the importance of parallelism and redundancy along
these very lines: “Scripture does contain much that is little more than
repetition, indeed, frequent repetition, of what is said elsewhere…
[but] repetitions in the historical books are all the better guarantee
of the authenticity of tradition, while quite possibly they may
supplement each other.”21
Schleiermacher anticipates the
criterion of dissimilarity, too.22
This principle is based on the assumption that, if we are to isolate the
uniqueness of Jesus and his teaching (which is certainly what
Schleiermacher wants to do!), we must trim away all the material
attributed to Jesus which could plausibly have been added to the gospel
tradition from Judaism, as Christians with one foot in each faith, the
old and the new, perhaps unwittingly mingled them, thinking to draw the
new back into more convenient conformity with the old. Such a phenomenon
is just what one might expect to have occurred simply by the analogy
already drawn with the radical advances of Martin Luther and
Schleiermacher himself, compared with the faint-heartedness of their
contemporaries and heirs, reluctant to follow them into blue sky, eager
instead to accommodate new wine to old wineskins. While Jesus must have
had at least something in common with his Jewish contemporaries, and
thus may have said many things familiar and amenable to Jewish hearers,
else he could hardly have communicated with them at all, gospel critics
feel sure little of importance will be lost even if we wind up trimming
such sayings that are actually authentic, since the goal is to discover
just where Jesus was distinctive, not where he reiterated common
opinions. “If we consider the Church during the Apostolic Age as a
unity, its thinking as a whole cannot supply a norm for that of later
ages. For owing to its naturally most unequal distribution of the divine
Spirit, as well as to the further fact that not everyone was equally
productive in religious ideas even in the measure of his participation
in the common spirit, it was very easily possible (since Jewish and
pagan views and maxims were still uneradicated and their antagonism to
the Christian spirit could only be recognized gradually) that
expositions of religion might be produced which, strictly speaking, were
rather Judaism or paganism coloured by Christianity rather than
Christianity itself, i.e., were, if considered Christian, in the
highest degree impure. Contemporary with all this very imperfect
material, however, were the presentations given in preaching by the
immediate disciples of Christ. In their case, the danger of an
unconsciously debasing influence from their previous Jewish forms of
thought and life on the presentation of Christianity by word and deed
was averted, in proportion as they had stood near to Christ, by the
purifying influence of their living memory of Christ as a whole… This
holds good, in the first place, of their narratives of Christ’s words
and deeds, which fixed the standard that was to have the widest
purifying influence.”23
These words will offend the
ecumenical sensitivities of the present day, when we rightly esteem
Judaism the equal of Christianity, but one may easily bracket the sense
of superiority which Schleiermacher, as a son of his time, could not
easily have transcended. It is true that even the post-World War Two
historical Jesus critics shared Schleiermacher’s patronizing view of
Judaism, but the criterion of dissimilarity does not depend upon it. All
we need do is to ask after the distinctive voice of Jesus, for no one
will deny that Jesus set in motion forces that eventually led to the
emergence of Christianity as a separate faith, whether or not a better
one. And yet, even here we may run contrary to the currents of today’s
“ecumenical correctness,” since there is a great desire on the part of
Jews and Christians to construct a “historical Jesus” who will be a good
Jew. Jesus thus becomes a Christ of ecumenical faith. The criterion of
dissimilarity thus seeks to disclose something inconvenient to
twenty-first century ecumenical theology, since the latter prizes, or
imagines, a Jesus who is anything but unique and stands comfortably
among the sages of Israel. One wonders if this endeavor disregards the
warning of Paul Tillich that inter-religious dialogue will get nowhere
if each party to the dialogue does not actually espouse its own historic
faith.24
Subtle syncretism is a cheap pseudo-solution, to be swiftly repudiated
by the very faith communities the compromising parties pretend to
represent. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Begin could make peace
with Sadat. Thus in our day New Testament criticism may not abandon the
criterion of dissimilarity, and it will only carry Schleiermacher’s
agenda further in the direction of separating the apocryphal
“afterbirth” of the new faith from its newborn distinctiveness in the
words attributed to its creator. We will recognize the words on Matthew
5:17-19 as a product of the Galatian-style Judaizing for which Paul
rebukes Cephas and for which Marcion condemned the nascent Catholicism
of his day.
Though scarcely new to us, redaction
criticism has disclosed things about the gospels that would have
surprised Schleiermacher very much. But I think he would have found the
arguments of Conzelmann, Marxsen, Bornkamm,25
and the others convincing. And I think we know how he would have, or at
least could have, accommodated these new factors in his familiar
paradigm. He would have grasped what we do, that redaction criticism
reveals how little the evangelists were even trying simply to pass along
accurate memories of Jesus, how much instead they were trying to adapt
the gospel tradition to new circumstances and to reinterpret it as they
thought best. This means that what is not genuine reminiscence is
neither “apocryphal” error nor corruption, no mere heresy. It may yet be
“canonical” insofar as the theology of the redactors is seen as
consistent with the God-consciousness of the Redeemer to whom they
witness in their various ways: “all His actions were presentations of
Himself, and as such were fruitful for his Proclamation of the Kingdom
of God. Yet these incidents could be interpreted in very different
ways.”26
Schleiermacher goes on to explain that he refers to the correct
interpretations of the immediate disciples versus the invidious
distortions of the hostile and the obtuse, but he does admit of degrees
of propriety in the interpretation of Jesus when he subordinates Matthew
and Mark to Luke and John. No doubt he would consistently rank their
redactional theologies as closer or more distant to true inspiration,
just as he ranked the various world religions as to how well they did
their common job: inculcating pure God-consciousness. There would be
degrees, including acceptable degrees, of canonical as well as
apocryphal (recalling Barth’s bottom-line assessment of Schleiermacher:
even he was a Christian theologian!).27
All Schleiermacher need do is to
redraw the lines between what he called the “historical” and the
“doctrinal” books of the New Testament. He already recognized the
difference as secondary anyway: “nor can we in this respect make any
distinction between the apostolic teachings and the evangelical
narratives.”28
Redaction criticism performed precisely this Derridean upending of
hierarchies and interpenetration of categories by revealing that what
had seemed to be straight reporting of evangelical events was very often
narratized “apostolic,” “doctrinal” teaching. Schleiermacher saw it as a
matter of the apostles teaching doctrines derived from memories of
Jesus, whereas we would see the relationship of derivation being more
the reverse.
The Jesus Seminar, under the guidance
of Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Bernard Brandon Scott,29
and others, has sought, in the tradition of Schleiermacher, to locate
the center of gravity in the gospel sayings, the place where the
self-consciousness and the God-consciousness of Jesus was most clearly
conveyed, and this they found in the parables. The criterion thus
produced was brought to bear (among many other factors) to help
determine which other sayings ascribed to Jesus might be historically
authentic. Anything that smacked of traditional apocalyptic was
immediately suspect, since the Jesus of the Seminar did not defer the
Parousia of God till an imaginary cosmic denouement; rather, he preached
the unsuspected presence of God among the poor, the outcast, the profane
of this world. He sought, much like a Zen master,30
to shove the
consciousnesses of his hearers into a new manner of perception so that
they would come to see this world differently, as already bearing the
oceanic grace of the Reign of God. Bultmann’s efforts had been much in
the same direction, in that he, too, sought to establish a
preunderstanding of Jesus’ stance of being in the world, modeled after
Heideggerian categories, and then to bring it to bear on various gospel
texts Any that did not partake of the sense of urgency, of novelty, and
of radical obedience to the God in whose hands one’s future lies, would
not make the grade.31
In Schleiermacher’s terms, such sayings would be apocryphal. While
neither Bultmann’s sketch of Jesus’ stance nor that of the Jesus Seminar
matches precisely that of Schleiermacher, it is nonetheless evident that
both are adopting Schleiermacher’s method of reading Jesus’ unique
consciousness from his authentic utterances, then measuring the
authenticity of these and other utterances ascribed to him by measuring
them against this “canon within the canon.” Again, it is the
hermeneutical circle.
So, although Schleiermacher
bequeathed us sturdy and flexible theological categories for such a
minute and extensive sifting between canonical and apocryphal within the
gospels as has since become commonplace, he may not have seriously
envisioned the repercussions, at least in detail. But he saw where the
winds were blowing: “The same influence reveals itself even yet in the
Church’s careful estimate of the different grades of normative authority
to be conceded to particular portions of Scripture, as also in decisions
regarding all sorts of lacunae and interpolations; so that the
judgment of the Church is only approximating ever more closely to a
complete expulsion of the apocryphal and the pure preservation of the
canonical.”32
The Jesus Seminar undertook exactly the sort of sifting Schleiermacher
enjoined, seeking to weed out genuine (and therefore normative) memories
of Jesus from subsequent accretions recognizable as such not only by
occasional anachronisms but paramountly by their inconsistency with the
fundamental picture of Jesus and his unique consciousness and view of
the world evident in the core sayings. The assembled scholars voted,
rating every saying and story in the gospels as almost certainly
authentic (red), very likely authentic (pink), most likely inauthentic
(gray), and certainly inauthentic (black). In this they simply adapted
the procedure of the text critics whose deliberations produced the
United Bible Societies critical Greek New Testament. These “lower
critics” employed the same four categories to rate various readings,
passages contained in some but not all manuscripts, by letters: A for
strongly attested, B for well-attested, C for rather weakly attested,
and D for poorly attested. Both groups of scholars were carrying forward
Schleiermacher’s project of separating the apocryphal from the canonical
within the canon. Both produced printed texts that used sigils (colors
or letters) to establish a hierarchy of what Schleiermacher would have
called apocryphal and canonical.
Epistles and Apostles
Schleiermacher speaks as if the
epistles owe their place in the canon to their privileged position as
conduits for the teaching of the eyewitnesses of Jesus, those uniquely
suited to convey his God-consciousness at second hand: shake the hand
that shook the hand. “[J]ust as their faith sprang from Christ’s
preaching of Himself [and here Schleiermacher must be thinking of the
Gospel of John, which he took to be eyewitness reporting], so in the
case of others faith sprang from the preaching of Christ by the Apostles
and many more. The New Testament writings are such a preaching come down
to us, hence faith springs from them, too.”33
And yet he knew it was not so simple, if only for the reason that the
major New Testament epistolarian, Paul, was not an apostle of the same
kind as the twelve. “Paul does not belong to this circle [of the
eyewitnesses], and if the Church has never regarded him as the inferior
of the other Apostles in respect of inspiration, it thereby ascribes to
him the same prerogatives as to them, although in a sense he had
required them in a different way.”34
What way was that? Schleiermacher cannot consistently have imagined that
any blinding vision, as that composed by Luke (based no doubt on the
unwilling conversions of Pentheus in Euripides’ Bacchae and of
Heliodorus in 2 Maccabees 3), could have communicated to Paul/Saul
Jesus’ God-consciousness by personal acquaintance, as months or years
with the twelve had done. Perhaps he took Ananias to be the conduit who,
by sharing stories of the historical Jesus, had kindled
Christ-consciousness in the newly converted Saul. Or perhaps
Schleiermacher intended nothing in particular. But at any rate, he has
opened up an important possibility for considering non-apostolic works
to be inspired, or genuinely Christ-bearing, hence properly canonical.
Schleiermacher was the first to
explode the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy, regarding it a
half-successful pastiche of the genuine (as he thought) Pauline letters
to Timothy (2 Timothy) and Titus.35
He must already have reckoned with the improbability of the traditional
ascriptions of the Catholic Epistles to James the Just, Simon Peter, and
Jude, the brother of Jesus, not to mention the Revelation of John.
Technically, according to the deliberations of the ancient councils,
these writings all owed their presence in the canon to their ostensible
apostolic authorship. But Schleiermacher did not think canonicity
depended upon apostolic authorship so much as the writings’
participation in and ability to catalyze in their readers the
Christ-consciousness that did ultimately stem from the apostles’ direct
experience of Christ: “it follows that the authoritative character of
Scripture does not in the least depend on each book having been written
by the particular person to whom it is ascribed. A book might, owing to
a later judgment, be wrongly attributed to a certain author in all the
surviving MSS., and in this sense be inauthentic, and yet it might
belong to the circle where alone we can expect to find canonical
writings and hence would none the less remain an integral part of Holy
Scripture… Hence even if many of the doubts that have been raised as to
the correct statement of authors’ names should be confirmed, we should
have no right, much less would it be our duty, to expel those books from
the canon.”36
What circle does Schleiermacher have in mind? He might possibly mean
associates of the apostles, though this seems unlikely, given his dim
view of Irenaeus’ canon apologetics: “The accounts given by Irenaeus,
H.E. ii. 15, iii. 24, 39, v. 8, and elsewhere, are bound, as time
goes on, to be less and less regarded as based on trustworthy
information.”37
And of course, Irenaeus was trying to vindicate the ascription of the
four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with Mark as Peter’s
secretary and Luke as Paul’s. It seems odd Schleiermacher would repair
to the same far-fetched expedient of building a tenuous rope-bridge from
the unavailable apostles to the unknown evangelists. It seems more
likely he means that even pseudepigrapha that have Christ-consciousness
to pass on to us must ipso facto have received it, by hook or by crook,
from some predecessor who must have been in a position to have it, since
he did in fact have it. The thought would be much like that of Paul
Tillich, who argued that there must have been a historical anchor for
the New Being, since the fact is that it has escaped into the Church and
must have come from somewhere, even if we cannot, theoretically,
guarantee the name Jesus to its first historical bearer.38
And, again, here we are getting very close to Martin Luther, who judged
a book canonical as long as it preached the gospel whether it be written
by Paul or Peter, or by Annas, Herod and Judas!39
In terms of the early church’s
criteria for canonicity, Schleiermacher would have combined apostolicity
with orthodoxy. A book need be “apostolic” only in the sense that it
contained proper “apostolic” doctrine. But of course it was already
implicitly so in the earliest deliberations themselves, since claims to
apostolic authorship were decided on the basis of the content of the
book anyway. Why was Hebrews judged Pauline? Because many liked what it
had to say, despite its anonymity.40
Why was the anonymous Matthew taken accepted as apostolic? Same reason.
Why was the Gospel of Peter rejected as a heretical forgery? The term
was redundant; if judged heretical in content, it must be spurious in
authorship. Hence, the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, though a case may
be made for a first century date for each,41
were condemned as forgeries. So, implicitly, for Schleiermacher the
canon critic, “apostolicity,” “canonicity,” and “inspiration” all mean
the same thing: the quality of conveying Christ’s God-consciousness to
the reader.
Schleiermacher allows that, if a
particular writing were judged by honest criticism to be a forgery, a
pious fraud, it would lose its position, like an effective employee who
nonetheless turned out to have faked his credentials. “It is only if
such a self-description were positively intended to mislead that the
book could not be recognized as fitted to supplement the normative
presentation of Christianity.”42
Schleiermacher’s words raise, for a moment, the ghost of Reimarus,43
one of the few critics whose hostility enabled them to recognize signs
of blatant imposture in the New Testament, such as Mark’s statement that
Mary Magdalene and the others had disobeyed the angel, neglecting to
convey the news of the empty tomb, a clear indication that the story is
self-consciously late and fictive, or the fact that the resurrection
appearances are confined to small groups of friendly witnesses behind
locked doors. Should we excise such passages as noncanonical?
If imposture counts against a book,
we would seem here to have permission and even the obligation to cast
out 2 Peter, which certainly appears to want to be read as genuinely
Petrine, a sequel to 1 Peter, as well as 2 Thessalonians, which seeks to
supplant 1 Thessalonians which it deems a piece of Millerite fanaticism.44
May not Schleiermacher even have in mind 1 Timothy, the lameness of
whose attempt to sound Pauline Schleiermacher himself demonstrated? I do
not think so. And here we may have the real reason that even faithful
disciples of Schleiermacher did not press on to cut items from the
canon. Schleiermacher, in the very next breath, makes “fraud” a
meaningless term when it comes to the Bible. If the great religious
virtue is piety, then a pious fraud can never really be a fraud. “Nay
more, at its very first appearance a writing (owing to a fiction
permitted by the author’s moral sense and sanctioned by the feeling of
his contemporaries) might have born in its title the name of someone
other than its real author, and yet a book of this character might be an
authentic part of the Bible.”45
He hints here at the liberal apologetic of pseudonymity as a widespread
and acknowledged convention among the ancients, as if the spurious
epistles attributed to Plato, Socrates, Diogenes, and others were all
offered and received with a knowing and appreciative wink, as in our day
when Norman Mailer writes The Gospel According to the Son. It
seems more likely, in my judgment, that the utility of pseudepigrapha
would be reduced to nil if ancient readers were not (intended to be)
taken in and deceived. Surely the scribe who penned the Apocalypse of
Baruch, or of Elijah, or of Ezra, or of Enoch, sought to exploit the
venerable credibility attaching to such an ancient name, or what’s the
point?46
And yet all such authors, like Joseph Smith or the Deuteronomic writers,
certainly had it in mind to edify readers as well. For instance, in his
preface to The Archko Volume, a collection of patently spurious
“ancient” documents (including “Jonathan’s Interview with the Bethlehem
Shepherds,” the “Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrim concerning the
Resurrection of Jesus,” and “Herod Antipater’s Defence before the Roman
Senate in regard to his Conduct at Bethlehem”), the Rev. W.D. Mahan
piously writes, “I offer this book to the public feeling assured it…
will convince the infidel of the truth of the Scriptures.”47
Actually, the public had had the chance to read most of it already,
since, as Edgar Goodspeed and Per Beskow demonstrated, most of it was
lifted verbatim from Lew Wallace’s novel Ben-Hur.48
It is apparent that the Reverend Mahan’s deceit was “a fiction permitted
by the author’s moral sense.” And the same must be acknowledged for any
religious forger.
So Schleiermacher’s canon criticism
furnishes little basis for dropping books from the canon. We might eject
the Catholic Epistles and not feel we were missing much, since, despite
their excellence in offering practical wisdom or documenting early
Christian life and thought, they are a bit “strawy” (as Luther said)
when it comes to conveying Christlike God-consciousness. The Book of
Revelation, too, might be judged deficient on this score, partaking so
much, as it does, of that very apocalyptic extravagance Schleiermacher
elsewhere judges negligible and expendable from the standpoint of
Christian piety since it does nothing to inculcate Christ-consciousness
in the Christian: “Strictly speaking, therefore, from our point of view
we can have no doctrine of the consummation of the Church, for our
Christian consciousness has absolutely nothing to say regarding a
condition so entirely outside our ken.” Again, “these propositions are
not doctrines of faith, since their content (as transcending our
faculties of apprehension) is not a description of our actual
consciousness.”49
Would the Epistle of James make the
cut? While it contains little explicitly promoting piety in the
theocentric, almost mystical, sense of Schleiermacher, no other New
Testament book sounds so much like the wisdom of Jesus as recorded in
the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Q). Bultmann classified the Catholic
Epistles, the Pastorals, and the Acts of the Apostles as symptomatic of
a general post-apostolic declension, what his student Ernst Käsemann
called “nascent Catholicism.”50
For Schleiermacher such a judgment would spell the loss of canonicity.
But I am not so sure Schleiermacher would agree, at least not in the
case of the Pastorals and Acts. Bultmann and Käsemann were fiercely
individualist Protestants, Bultmann an existentialist to boot. So
neither had much use for the Church as a self-appointed mediator of
salvation, an institutional machine administering the sacraments to
dues-paying members. But, if I may be permitted something of a
left-field analogy, Schleiermacher’s understanding of the Church was
more sympathetic, somewhat resembling that of the charismatic Irvingite
Movement, the Catholic Apostolic Church.51
Here the church was a carefully constructed elaborate institution which
did, however, convey Christ-consciousness to every one seeking it. For
Schleiermacher, the Church as the embodiment of the Christian Community
formed the matrix in which the Spirit of Christ could remain alive and
available. Thus I think Schleiermacher would have found the increasingly
tame and bourgeois piety of Acts and the Pastorals just to his liking. I
know I do.
New Arrivals
Almost by accident Schleiermacher
raises the hypothetical prospect of new manuscript discoveries. His
point is that the mere fact, if we knew it, of genuine apostolic
authorship would not necessarily count for canonicity, since even
apostles might, on a bad day, have written something uninspired and
uninspiring. Discovering Peter’s grocery list or James’ laundry list
would not automatically provide new canonical material. “On the
contrary, even if new writings should be discovered which were
attributable with the highest degree of human certainty to an immediate
disciple of Christ or even to an Apostle, we should not without more ado
incorporate them in the New Testament, but at most attach them to it as
an appendix.”52
But what if new writings were to be discovered which, while of dubious
authorship (something Schleiermacher can forgive, all else being equal),
did seem to be inspired in the crucial sense of conveying
Christ-consciousness to the reader? Might we not add these to the canon
itself? Many would nominate the Gospel according to Thomas, discovered
in 1945, for inclusion, and we cannot help thinking Schleiermacher would
agree. Consider these sayings:
If those who lead you say to you,
“Behold! The Kingdom is in the sky!”, then the birds will arrive ahead
of you. If they say to you, “The Kingdom is in the sea!”, then the fish
will arrive ahead of you. But the Kingdom is within you, and it is
without you. If you will know yourselves, you will know that you are
sons of the Living Father. If you will not know yourselves, you remain
in poverty, and you are poverty. (3)
As per Schleiermacher, consciousness of the overarching presence of God,
God’s kingdom, cannot be restricted to any particular place, nor is it
far off and hard to find. It is instead all around everyone, and the
pious person has eyes to see it. And such constitutes the great fortune
of the pious, though the insensitive worldling may deem him a pauper.
I shall give you what eye has not
seen and what ear has not heard and what hand has not touched and what
has not arisen in the human heart. (17)
This saying views the Redeemer in
Schleiermacher’s favorite terms as the unique revealer of God-conscious
piety, the sense and taste for the Infinite. It is not what the eye sees
or the ear hears, for it is nothing objectified. The believer
experiences the very consciousness of Jesus, that none other could
impart, that “all things have been delivered unto me by my Father,”
i.e., a comprehensive and synoptic insight into the totality of all
finite things in the universal whole that is God.
His disciples say to him, “Show us
the place where you are, for it is needful for us to seek it.” He says
to them, “Whoever has ears, let him hear. Within a man of light there is
light, and he illuminates the whole world. When he does not shine,
darkness prevails.” (24)
Where is the living Christ, the light of the world? Now it, he, is
within the very hearts, the pious consciousnesses, of the disciples
themselves. We must seek Christ within, where the heart sees God in all
things without. What is the light with which the pious Christian
illumines the world? Simply the recognition of his absolute dependence
upon the Whole that embraces him as it does the rest of the world. As
the pious sees the kingdom of God, he sees that the knowledge of God
washes over the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Where there are three gods, they are
gods. Where there are two or even one, I am with him. (30)
Jesus Christ was so fully conscious of God in all things that this
awareness amounted to a virtual existence of God within him. The same
has to be true for any and all who have contracted the blessed contagion
of the Redeemer’s own God-consciousness in the fellowship of the
Christian Community. Thus imbibing the Spirit of the Christian
Community, the believer is himself or herself something after the manner
of a God, as Jesus says in John 10:34-36.
Blessed are the solitary and the
elect, for you shall attain unto the Kingdom. Because you came from it,
you shall return there. (49)
Here is the cardinal doctrine of
Schleiermacher, the absolute receptivity the believer feels upon the
divine Source. All things have come from the matrix of the Infinite, but
only those who have attuned themselves to it, by the grace of the
Redeemer, can return to it, attain unto it by means of blessed awareness
of that dependence which all share but few feel. These last are the true
elect.
If they say to you, “Whence did you
originate?” tell them, “We have come from the Light, where the Light has
originated from itself. For he stood and he revealed himself in their
image.” Should they say to you, “Who are you?” say, “We are his sons”,
and, “We are the elect of the Living Father.” Should they ask you, “What
is the token of your Father’s presence in you?” say to them, “It is a
movement and a rest.” (50)
Who are “they”? We will never know
what the evangelist intended, whether the looming archons who seek to
bar the ascent of the pneumatikoi to the Pleroma, or the
skeptical interrogation of the pious by the obtuse ecclesiarchs of their
day. But Schleiermacher might prefer the latter interpretation. In this
case, the saying advises the pietist to provide an answer to those who
call him to account for one’s quiet fervor, an eye of the soul’s
stillness at the center of life’s storm, the anchor afforded by the
sense of absolute dependence.
His disciples say to him, “When will
the repose of the dead begin? And when will the new world arrive?” He
says to them, “What you expect has come, but you do not recognize it.”
(51) But the one who sees
the world through the diamond lens of God-consciousness such as the
Redeemer bequeathed us sees the outspread kingdom in its radiant glory.
It is the resurrection and new life of those formerly dead in the sin of
God-forgetfulness. It is a new world in that the old one is seen in a
new way. The Zen masters would identify with the saying quite as easily
as Schleiermacher.
His disciples say to him,
“Twenty-four prophets prophesied in Israel, and every one of them
predicted you!” He says to them, “But you have ignored the Living One
who stands before you, and you have prated about the dead!” (52)
The saying is in perfect, prescient accord with Schleiermacher’s disdain
for the antiquated and Judaizing attempts to provide worldly credentials
for the Redeemer by way of clairvoyant predictions. “Further, the
history of Christian theology shows only too clearly… how gravely this
effort to find our Christian faith in the Old Testament has injured our
practice of the exegetical art… Thus a thoroughgoing improvement is only
to be looked for when we utterly discard Old Testament proofs for
specifically Christian doctrines, preferring to put aside what chiefly
rests on such support.”53
Indeed, does not Schleiermacher precisely echo the sentiment of Thomas,
saying 52 when he says, “it does not in the least follow that for our
faith we still need these earlier premonitions, since we have actual
experience.”54
“If we were to ask: Does everything that Christ relates to himself as
messianic prophecies and regards as passages that represent him as the
one foreseen by the prophets mean that he was convinced that the
prophets had him in mind as he actually was when he appeared? We should
have to answer that we have no right to make such a claim.”55
His disciples say to him, “Is there
any value to circumcision, or not?” He says to them, “If there were any
point to it, men’s fathers would beget them without the foreskin right
from the womb. But the true circumcision, that of the spirit, has
replaced it in importance.” (53)
“In their case, the danger of an
unconsciously debasing influence from their previous Jewish forms of
thought and life on the presentation of Christianity by word and act was
averted, in proportion as they had stood near to Christ, by the
purifying influence of their living memory of Christ as a whole.”56
Look upon the Living One as long as
you live, otherwise, you may die and look for him in vain. (59)
How may we “look upon the Living One”? Who has explained it better than
Schleiermacher, the latter-day prophet of God-consciousness, of
beholding God in all things and all things in God? And in this saying,
the legacy of such consciousness stems from the same source
Schleiermacher named: Christ the Redeemer.
Salome asks, “Who are you, man, and
whose son, you who have accepted my shelter and food?” Jesus answers
her, “I am he who originated from himself. To me was given a share of my
Father’s divinity.” Salome says, “Behold your disciple!” Jesus answers
her, “Accordingly, I tell you, if a disciple is at one with his Lord, he
will be full of light. But if his heart is divided, he will instead be
filled with confusion.” (61b)
The division warned of here would be
the merely intermittent contemplation of God, a state that is mostly
profane God-forgetfulness, the state of sin from which Jesus came to
rescue us. Jesus received a share of the Father’s divinity in the only
relevant sense: the virtual incarnation of God in him by virtue of his
single-minded God-awareness. Like Salome, every Christian may follow him
on this path into the adytum of divine fellowship with his or her Lord.
The light that Christ has kindled will blaze forth from us as well, and
thus will the fire that Christ has tended (Thomas, saying 10) blaze
forth into a light that cannot be hidden.
Whoever knows all things yet fails to
know himself lacks everything. (67)
For Schleiermacher, to know oneself
truly is to recognize and to make ever conscious one’s absolute
dependence upon God. Lacking that awareness, the impious person, no
matter how richly cultured, is at an utter loss, for he lacks the sense
and taste for the Infinite.
When you bring forth that which you
have inside you, what you bring forth will save you. If you lack what is
inside, what you lack will kill you. (70)
Let every soul make explicit what is implicit within every human breast:
the fact of entire dependence upon the God in whom we live and move and
have our being. All theological statements for Schleiermacher are
extrapolations of the religious consciousness, an interior state of
affairs. The task of the theologian, then, is to bring to bear upon the
consciousness of piety the tool of phenomenological analysis (as we
should say today) and to map out the empty, yearning hand of faith, and
the implied contours of that hand which clasps it back in prayer and
meditation. If one should lack that experience of God, there cannot be
one word of theology, for no objective revelation such as the
pre-Kantians boasted lies ready to hand for us.
I am the Light that is above all
things. I am the All! All that exists came forth from me, and all things
attained unto me again. Chop the wood; I am there. Raise the stone, and
you will find me there! (77)
One sees all things, as a Christian,
through the Christ-consciousness of the Redeemer, that awareness of God
in all things that constituted Jesus as the Christ and in which we
participate through his Spirit. Jesus is the light of the world for us
in that his perspective on the world causes us to see it altogether anew
(2 Corinthians 5:17, “Behold, if anyone is in Christ, there is a new
creation. Old things have passed away; the new has come”). The Christian
will see the face of Christ in all things, as a great mirror in which
one struggles for an ever more perfect vision of Christ’s glory until
one reflects it as a mirror oneself (2 Corinthians 3:18). Rapt in
God-consciousness, one beholds a Christomorphic world in which even the
least of the brethren is one with the Son of Man and all things find in
him their homecoming.
“Now, when the fact of Jesus’
personal influence upon us has led us to recognize that God reveals
Himself to us and pours out His love upon us, the whole world is
transformed for us. For the world wherein this has befallen us is no
longer to our eyes a weary stretch of numberless and perplexing events….
The whole world appears to us now to be a well-ordered system whose
culminating point is the Person of Jesus and His work upon us” (Wilhelm
Hermann).57
The Kingdom of the Father is like a
woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was yet a long way
from home, the handle of the jar cracked. The meal streamed out in her
wake onto the road without her being aware of it, since she had not
noticed any problem. Once she arrived home again, she opened the jar—to
find it empty! (97) How
perfect a depiction of the danger of sin in the unique idiom of
Schleiermacher! How subtle is the loss of God-awareness amid a world
that tempts our gaze to all manner of both urgencies and trivia! We have
lost all divine preoccupation before we are even aware of the danger!
God-forgetfulness is an emptiness filled by other, lesser things, like
the swept and aired-out room that soon plays host to a gang of stifling
demons.
The Kingdom is like a shepherd who
tended a hundred sheep. One of them wandered off, the largest.
Abandoning the rest of the ninety-nine, he searched for the one,
unwilling to stop till he found it. Exhausted, he said to the sheep,
“You are more precious to me than the other ninety-nine put together!”
(107) Those eager to see
Gnosticism in every line of Thomas understand this saying to depict the
Gnostic Redeemer as aloof to the plight of the sarkic ones, the
irredeemable, delighting only in his pneumatic kindred spirits, for
whose sake alone he descended into this veil of tears. And that may be.
Certainly many ancient readers, Manicheans and Valentinians, read it
that way. But with equal justification Schleiermacher would see in the
parable the wise choice of any individual between a life full of
ninety-nine distractions versus the surpassing treasure of
God-consciousness. It is a hard choice to make, especially since it must
be a choice renewed every day, even every moment. One’s attention
strays, and one must disengage from the distractions (so much harder to
set aside than God!) to go in search of a lost mindset, a lost mood, a
lost peace.
Whoever drinks from my mouth shall
become as I am; and I myself shall become he; thus shall the arcana be
revealed to him. (108)
This is surely the most perfect statement of the communication of
Christ’s God-consciousness to the believer! And what are the hidden
things that suddenly come into focus? They are all the things one sees
everyday, now revealed as inhering together in the oneness of existence
in God on whom all things depend absolutely.
The Kingdom is like a man who owned a
field with a buried treasure unbeknownst to him. When he died, the field
passed to his son, who did not know about it either. Once it was his, he
sold it. The purchaser went to plough the field and came upon the
treasure. He began doling out the money to anyone he wished. (109)
The field is the world,
and the treasure hidden in it is the right view of it, the relief into
which things fall once viewed in their proper context of meaning, the
ultimate horizon of God who embraces and upholds them all. Note how in
the parable the previous owners remained oblivious of the treasure they
owned because they had never taken the elementary trouble to plow the
field! That is what we must do, and before long what had seemed a barren
stretch of dry ground will yield the lush fruit of God, who is all and
is in all.
Jesus says, “The heavens and the
earth shall be rolled up as you watch, but no one who lives in the
Living One need fear death.” For Jesus says, “Whoever finds himself, the
world is unworthy of him.” (111)
This fragment of apocalyptic would
not fall beneath the dogma-critical scythe of Schleiermacher because it
is expressive of the consciousness of piety. It parallels 1 John
4:16-17, “So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love,
and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. In this
is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of
Judgment, because as he is so are we in this world.” By sharing in the
love of the Redeemer, one already participates in the eternal, and this
relation will transcend the passage of life and death. With
Schleiermacher, we cannot imagine what an afterlife will be like, but
our experienced fellowship with the divine here and now persuades us we
shall not be orphaned. We can know nothing of eschatology beyond this,
but what more do we need to know?
His disciples ask him, “When will the
Kingdom come?” Jesus says, “It will not come in response to expectation.
They will not say, ‘Behold, here it is!’ Or, ‘There!’ Instead, the
Father’s kingdom is spread over the earth without anyone recognizing
it.” (113) It is, once
again, the open secret of God-consciousness. The one who looks high up
or far away for God is looking for him where he may never be found, for
he is behind the very eye that scans the heavens. There is no place
where his presence does not extend, for nothing can exist except as a
chick beneath his all-encompassing wings. Piety knows this; to know this
is piety itself. Hence it is a new commandment, yet also one all souls
have known from the beginning: to behold the new amid the old, Nirvana
amid Samsara, the only place it could be.
It is not too much to suggest that,
if anything, the Gospel of Thomas is more full, more redolent, more
revealing of God-consciousness as Schleiermacher describes and
prescribes it than some of the gospels traditionally received as
canonical. If Schleiermacher really did not feel constrained to abide by
the ancient decisions on the boundaries of the canon, certainly here is
a change he would have made (or that, as his followers, we ought to
make). I cannot believe he would have relegated Thomas to a mere
appendix. It would take its place beside the other four, at the heart of
the canon, and of the apostolic testimony.
Everything Old is New Again
Would Schleiermacher’s judgment on
the Old Testament stand today? His words may make us wince in a climate
of super-ecumenical sensitivity, but in fact I think his decision more
appropriate than ever, precisely given our place in history. If
Schleiermacher’s view of the Old Testament be viewed as Marcionite, that
is no shame. It now appears, thanks to the work of R. Joseph Hoffman,58
that Marcionite Christianity was neither anti-Semitic nor even
theologically anti-Jewish. It would be nearer the truth to say that he
saw the two religions as independent, each possessing its own validity
and each with its own agenda. He granted that the Hebrew God had every
right to do all that he did. He granted that the messianic prophecies
had nothing to do with Jesus but would some day be fulfilled as Jews
believed they would: with the coming of a nationalistic deliverer. It is
just that none of this had aught to do with the faith or the revelation
of Jesus Christ, which was a brand new thing. What Marcion sought to do
by cutting loose the Old Testament was to repudiate the current
Christian attempt to hijack and co-opt the Jewish Scriptures by making
them into an exegetical ventriloquist dummy for Christian theology.
Would this approach not have saved the Christian Church a great deal
both of intellectual dishonesty and of strife with a sister faith? It is
no slight to Hinduism to recognize that the Rig Veda is not a Christian
book. Nor need one include in the Christian canon every book Christians
may profit from reading.
Conclusion?
Schleiermacher could peer only so far
into the future, though what he glimpsed has set us a substantial
agenda. We may tackle this or that aspect of the continuing task of
canonization, but just because Christianity must ever pursue a course of
self-renewing evolution, the canon question can never be closed without
Scripture again becoming, as Schleiermacher warned religion’s cultured
despisers, a dead letter.59
So the last thing I want to do here is to pretend to have settled this
issue, even provisionally. If anything, I hope to have demonstrated in a
small way the value of the exercise, if only for the theologian himself,
of taking up anew Schleiermacher’s challenge to the canon.
-
James Barr, The Bible in the
Modern World (NY: Harper & Row, 1973) p. 154.
-
Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The
Gospel of the Alien God. Trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma
(Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1990; German original 1924), pp.
136-138.
-
Willi Marxsen, The New Testament
as the Church’s Book. Trans. James E. Mignard (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1972; German original 1966), pp. 15-21, 25, 54-56, 61.
-
I believe this phrase was a chapter
title in Kenneth Hamilton’s Revolt Against Heaven: An Inquiry into
Anti-Supernaturalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965).
-
G.C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 89. George Eldon Ladd, A
Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p.
32. Jack Rogers, Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), p. 62.
-
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The
Christian Faith. Ed. Hugh Ross MacKintosh and J.S. Stewart. Par,
129. Trans. H.R. MacKintosh (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark,1928. trans. of
second German ed.), p. 596.
-
David H. Kelsey, The Uses of
Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975),
p. 30. James Barr, The Bible in the Modern World , pp. 27-34.
-
Ernst Käsemann, “The Canon of the
New Testament and the Unity of the Church” in Essays on New
Testament Themes. Trans. W.J. Montague. Studies in Biblical
Theology 41 (London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 95-107.
-
Albrecht Ritschl, The
Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation.
Trans. A.B. MacAulay, A.R. Gordon, R.A. Lendrum, James Strachan, Hugh
Ross MacKintosh. Ed. Hugh Ross MacKintosh and A. B. MacAulay.
(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1900), pp. 406.
-
Wilhelm Hermann, The Communion
of the Christian with God, Described on the Basis of Luther’s
Statements. Trans. J. Sandys Stanton, rev. R.W. Stewart from
fourth German ed. of 1903. (NY: Putnam’s, 1906), pp. 281-283.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 595.
-
R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of
History (NY: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 244-245.
-
Rudolf Bultmann, “Is Exegesis
without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter
Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. Trans. And ed. Schubert M. Ogden (NY:
Meridian Books/World Publishing Company, 1964), pp. 290-296.
-
Friedrich Schleiermacher,
Hermeneutics: The Handwritten Manuscripts. Trans. James Duke and
Jack Forstman. Ed. Heinz Kimmerle. American Academy of Religion Texts
and Translations 1 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 97, 150, 185:
The goal must be “a divinatory certainty which arises when an
interpreter delves as deeply as possible into an author’s state of
mind.”
-
James M. Robinson, A New Quest
of the Historical Jesus. Studies in Biblical Theology 25 (London:
SCM Press, 1959). For a damning critique of the movement see Van A.
Harvey, The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical
Knowledge and Christian Belief (NY: Macmillan, 1969), chapter VI,
“The Morality of Historical Knowledge and the New Quest of the
Historical Jesus,” pp. 164-203.
-
Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and
the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The
Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (NY: Macmillan, 1997).
Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What Did
Jesus Really Do? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco [sic], 1998).
-
Friedrich Schleiermacher,
The Life of Jesus. Trans. S. MacLean Gilmour. Ed. Jack C.
Verheyden. Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975):
“We find the same difference here that exists elsewhere between John’s
Gospel and the other three Gospels. I know no rule to set up except
this: The Gospel of John is an account by an eyewitness, and the whole
gospel was written by one man. The first three Gospels are
compilations of many accounts that earlier stood by themselves” (pp.
432-433). “Luke presents a strikingly different account of what
happened. In this Gospel we see a purely historical tendency at work…
[I]n both the Gospel and the book of the Acts of the Apostles Luke
presents a contrast to the other two synoptic accounts” (pp. 434-435).
Schleiermacher, Luke: A Critical Study. Trans. Connop Thirlwall.
Add. material by Terrence N. Tice. Schleiermacher: Studies and
Translation 13 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press,
1993): “the narratives of Matthew and Mark were either originally more
hastily taken down, or were obscured by passing through a great number
of hands” (p. 77). “In fact if we compare Matthew and Luke, here too I
at least find more signs of a well informed eye-witness in Luke’s
narrative” (p. 97).
-
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of
the Historical Jesus: From Reimarus to Wrede. Trans. W. Montgomery
(NY: Macmillan, 1961): “A simple introduction from the ‘facts’ takes
us beyond Mark. In the discourse-material of Matthew, which the
modern-historical school thought they could sift in here and there,
wherever there seemed to be room for it, there lie certain hidden
facts--fact that never happened, but are all the more important for
all that” (p. 360). “Mark, Matthew, and Paul are the best sources for
the Jewish eschatology of the time of Jesus” (p. 368). Schweitzer,
The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Trans. Walter Lowrie (NY:
Schocken Books, 1964): “The Sermon on the Mount, the commission to the
Twelve, and the eulogy of the Baptist are not ‘composite speeches,’
but were for the most part delivered as they have been handed down to
us” (pp. 7-8). Basically, it appears that Schweitzer’s high estimate
of the value of Matthew and Mark is another way of saying that he
needed material from them to build his theory.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian
Faith, pp. 601-602.
-
Norman Perrin,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (NY: Harper & Row, 1976), pp.
45-47
-
Schleiermacher, Christian
Faith, pp. 607.
-
Perrin, pp. 39-43.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian
Faith, pp. 595.
-
Paul Tillich, Christianity and
the Encounter of the World Religions (NY: Columbia University
Press, 1964), p. 62.
-
Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of
St. Luke. Trans. Geoffrey Buswell (NY: Harper & Row, 1961); Willi
Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of
the Gospel. Trans. Roy A. Harrisville (NY: Abingdon Press, 1969);
Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition
and Redaction in Matthew’s Gospel. Trans. Percy Scott. New
Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); Joachim
Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists. Trans.
Dorothea M. Barton. New Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1968); Norman Perrin, What Is Redaction Criticism?
Guides to New Testament Scholarship, New Testament Series
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969).
-
Schleiermacher, Christian
Faith, pp. 600.
-
Karl Barth, Protestant
Thought from Rousseau to Ritschl. Trans. Brian Cozens (NY: Harper
& Row, 1959), pp. 310, 313.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian
Faith, p. 601.
-
Robert W. Funk, Parables and
Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982); John Dominic Crossan, In Parables: The
Challenge of the Historical Jesus (NY: Harper & Row, 1973);
Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the
Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989); Charles W.
Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994); James Breech, The Silence of Jesus:
The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1983).
-
Crossan, pp. 76-77.
-
Rudolf Bultmann, History of the
Synoptic Tradition. Trans. John Marsh (NY: Harper & Row, rev. ed.,
1972), p. 105: “It will only be in very few cases that one of the
logia can be ascribed to Jesus with any measure of confidence: such
sayings as arise from the exaltation of an eschatological mood…;
further sayings which are the product of an energetic summons to
repentance…. And finally we may include sayings which demand a new
disposition of mind…. All these sayings… contain something
characteristic, new, reaching out beyond popular wisdom and piety and
yet are in no sense scribal or rabbinic nor yet Jewish apocalyptic. So
here if anywhere we can find what is characteristic of the preaching
of Jesus.”
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 603.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 593.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 599 n.
-
Friedrich
Schleiermacher, On the So-called First Epistle of Paul to Timothy:
A Critical Open Letter to Joachim Christian Gass, Consistorial
Assessor and Army Chaplain at Stettin, 1807. Trans. Robert M.
Price (forthcoming).
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 604.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 605 n.
-
Paul Tillich, Systematic
Theology II: Existence and the Christ (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1957), p. 114.
-
Martin Luther, Preface to James and
Jude: “What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, not even if
taught by Peter or Paul. On the other hand, what does preach Christ is
apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod does it.”
-
Hans von Campenhausen, The
Formation of the Christian Bible. Trans. J.A. Baker (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 232-233.
-
Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of
Thomas and Christian Wisdom (NY: Seabury Press, 1983). Barbara
Thiering, “The Date and Unity of the Gospel of Philip” Journal of
Higher Criticism 2/1 (Spring 1995), pp. 102-111.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 604.
-
Hermann Samuel Reimarus,
Reimarus: Fragments. Trans. Ralph S. Fraser. Ed. Charles H.
Talbert. Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970).
-
F.C. Baur properly dismissed both
Thessalonian epistles as forgeries: “But how could the apostle himself
have thought it necessary formally to adjure the Church to which his
Epistles were addressed, not to leave them unread? That could be done
only by an author who was not writing in the living pressure of the
circumstances which he treated, but transporting himself while writing
into an imagined situation, and who wished to vindicate for his own
pretended apostolic Epistles the consideration with which the original
apostolic Epistles had become invested by the growth of custom.”
Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His
Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine, a Contribution to the
Critical History of Primitive Christianity Vol. II. Trans.
Alexander Menzies. Ed. Edward Zeller (London: Williams and Norgate,
1875), p. 96.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 604.
-
J.A. Farrer, Literary Forgeries
(London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907), chapter VII, “Forgery in the
Church,” pp. 126-144. “The motives of the writers may be fairly well
divined” (p. 131).
-
[W.D. Mahan,] The Archko Volume
or, The Archaeological Writings of the Sanhedrim and Talmuds of the
Jews. Trans. Drs. MacIntosh and Twyman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1929, (p. 42).
-
Edgar J. Goodspeed, Famous
Biblical Hoaxes: Or, Modern Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1956), p. 44. Per Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus: A
Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983),
p. 55.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 697.
-
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the
New Testament. Two Volumes in One. (NY: Scribner’s, 1951, 1955),
Part Five, “The Development toward the Ancient Church,” Vol. 2, pp.
95-251. Ernst Käsemann, “Paul and Early Catholicism,” in New
Testament Questions of Today. Trans. W.J. Montague (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 236-251.
-
P.E. Shaw, The Catholic
Apostolic Church, Sometimes Called Irvingite: A Historical Study
(Morningside Heights, NY: King’s Crown Press, 1946).
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 605.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 610.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 611.
-
Schleiermacher, Life of Jesus,
p. 253.
-
Schleiermacher, Christian Faith,
p. 595.
-
Hermann, pp. 123-124
-
. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On
the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of
Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century. AAR Academy
Series 46 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 226-234.
-
Friedrich Schleiermacher, On
Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Trans. John Oman
(NY: Harper & Row, 1958): “You are right in despising the wretched
echoes who derive their religion entirely from another, or depend on a
dead writing, swearing by it and proving out of it” (p. 91).
Robert M. Price