Exegesis and Theology: Julius Wellhausen

Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) is, of course, famous for his work on the documentary hypothesis concerning the Pentateuch. While reading through his section in Baird's History of NT Research 151-156), I couldn't help but think of the debate going on in the biblioblogosphere concerning exegesis and theology (to read more about this topic see posts by Bird, Meyers, and Chaplin). Here are Wellhausen's two cents on the subject:

Generally, on has no right to establish a priori any privileged points of view...One must rather proceed from certain impulses furnished by exegesis itself. (Baird, 2:152)

Was Wellhausen right? Should we try not to approach the text with our presuppositions? Or should be just admit that it can't be done and unabashedly do so anyhow?

Eduard Reuss on the Bible

Eduard Reuss (1804-1891) is "recognized as the founder of the Strasbourg school" and "was a mediator between German and French scholarship" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:93). Reuss had something interesting to say with regard to the Bible:

The books of "the" Bible can lose their external value; the ideas belong to humanity, and where they are recognized as true, they are of divine origin, even if they had never been written. The old literal orthodoxy is irretrievably vanquished; only imbeciles need it." (quoted in Baird 2:93).

Jim West, with his low view of inerrancy, would likely find the last sentence of Reuss' quote to be quite true!

Albrecht Ritschl on Jewish Christianity

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) is called "the architect of modern liberalism" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:86). He was a student of F.C. Baur's at Tübingen and eventually went on to teach at Bonn and Göttingen, where he William Wrede and Johannes Weiss were his students (2:87).

In light of the ongoing discussion in the biblioblogosphere about Jewish Christianity, Ritschl's reconstruction of the early believers in Jesus seems interesting and instructive:

Ritschl presents (1) a Jewish Christianity of the early apostles (sympathetic to Paul and the Gentile mission), (2) a Jewish Christianity (Judenchristen) opposed to Paul and the Gentile mission, (3) and Pauline Christianity, originally sympathetic to Jewish Christianity, eventually deviating from the true understanding of Paul and becoming increasingly legalistic and Hellenized, finally transformed into early catholic Christianity. (2:91)

So the first group would be represented in Acts 15, the second must have been the opponents in Galatians whose thoughts were carried on by the Ebionites, and the third eventually won the day through syncretism and codification. What do you think of his reconstruction? Is it possible? Probable?

F.A.J. Hort on Revelation in Jesus

Here's a good quote that I came across in Baird's History of NT Research (2:61):

All our primary knowledge of God is through Him, the true Son of the true Father. All of our primary knowledge of Him, the Son, is through His revelation in human flesh and blood under the conditions of earthly life, and through the testimony of those who had conversed with Him by their bodily senses. (F.A.J. Hort, The Way the Truth and the Life, 163)

The quote is from Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who was part of the Cambridge Triumvirate along with J.B. Lightfoot and B.F. Westcott. I find the quote both inspirational and daunting. It is great to think that God was revealed in the person of Jesus...but it is something else to think that this great revelation of God has been relayed to us "through the testimony of those who had conversed with Him by their bodily senses."

If Hort is right (and I think he is), then this should be a reminder to all of us who are confessing scholars to remember to be humble. Where is there room for arrogance when such a great thing (the revelation of God in Jesus) has come in such a dingy package (the testimony of people's senses)? Though the question was intended to be rhetorical, I'll answer it: There's no room for arrogance!

Philip Schaff and the Origin of "Justification by Faith" in Paul

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) was a European-born scholar who spent his career in America teaching primarily at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He is known more for his writings regarding church history but Schaff did contribute to the study of the NT.

An excellent example of his contribution to the history of NT research can be found in his understanding of the impact of Paul's conversion and his opponents on his teaching about justification by faith. In volume three of his work entitled History of the Christian Church, Schaff argues that Paul's

whole theology, doctrinal, ethical, and practical, lies, like a germ, in his conversion; but it was actually developed by a sharp conflict with Judaizing teachers who continued to trust in the law for righteousness and salvation, and thus virtually frustrated the grace of God and made Christ's death unnecessary and fruitless" (302-303; cited in Baird, History of NT Research, 2:49)

I find Schaff's words to be remarkably like those that we read in the Paul and the Law debates of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. His emphasis on the importance of Paul's conversion would be music to the ears of traditional readers of Paul like Seyoon Kim, while Schaff's realization that the "Judaizing teachers" actually brought Paul's theology into development is right in line with many New Perspectivists.

It has been instructive and exciting to watch, retrospectively, the development of these ideas that we all take for granted today!

Horace Bushnell on Miracles

Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) was an early American biblical scholar who has been called "the father of American liberalism" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:37). While Bushnell wrote and preached on a wide range of subjects, I found his definition of miracles to be interesting. For him, a miracle is:

a supernatural act, an act, that is, which operates on the chain of cause and effect in nature from without that chain, producing, in the sphere of the senses, some event that moves our wonder, and evinces the presence of more than human power. (cited in Baird, 2:40)

While it is obvious that Bushnell's presuppositions shine through in his definition of the miraculous, I find his explanation much more convincing than the minimalistic efforts that attempt to rationalize away everything supernatural in the Bible. Bushnell is trying to offer a mediating position here between those in Europe (like Baur and Strauss) and those in America (like Hodge). He does so by saying that a miracle is God entering into the cause-and-effect system for outside of it, thus not denying the "otherness" of God nor the need for the miracles to "make sense."

How would you rate Bushnell's definition?

Scholarly Arrogance: D.F. Strauss and F.C. Baur

As I read the first volume of William Baird's History of New Testament Research, I was struck by the arrogance of many of the scholars. Two shining examples are D.F. Strauss (1808-1874) and F.C. Baur (1792-1860). These two scholars, whose impact on the study of the NT cannot be underestimated, are the prime examples of the influence of German idealism (as first espoused by Hegel) on the study of the NT. I think a quote from each will indicate both their commitment to history and their arrogance with regard to their ability to discern said history.

Whether the unification of the divine and the human nature actually took place in Christ can be decided only by historians, not philosophers. (Strauss, In Defense of My Life of Jesus, 18).

Whether the person of Jesus of Nazareth really possesses the attributes which belong to the established concept of the Redeemer is in fact a purely historical question, which can be answered only through an historical investigation of the literary sources of the Gospel stories. (Baur, cited in Baird, History, 1:260)

There are, in my opinion, at least two problems with these quotes:

1. Both expect quite a bit out of historical investigation. How can trying to ascertain provable facts (as defined by nineteenth century standards) prove one way or another a proposition about Jesus that is beyond the limitations of Strauss' and Baur's sort of historical investigation, namely, the divinity of Jesus? By searching only for a particular set of data and excising the rest, Strauss and Baur succeeded in severing the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history.
   
2. Both Strauss and Baur have a presupposition that they take with them to the texts about Jesus -- that the supernatural is not possible. So is it any surprise that the texts of the NT are stripped bare of almost all of their meaning by these scholars since these very texts are filled with the supernatural on virtually every page? Perhaps they would have been better served by being open to the possibility of something beyond the scope of human understanding!