Adolf von Harnack

The German Lutheran Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack’s life spanned from May 7th 1851 to June 10th 1930.  His lectures entitled What is Christianity were an inspiration to his generation, and yet were rejected by the succeeding generation of distinguished theologians such as Karl Barth, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  To understand why the vision of this likable and passionate person was not ultimately able to satisfy his students I have identified seven important themes in this work, which could be called, as Rowen Williams has, appealing and yet deadly simplicities.  Only after looking at them as a whole will we be able to form some conception as to why Harnack’s analysis of Christianity was found inadequate.

Agreement about theosis in the Orthodox-Reformed dialogues played a strategic role in the ecumenical recovery of the patristic doctrine of deification and its emergence as a locus of Reformed theology. Ecumenical dialogue helped dispel the idea that theosis is a distinctively Orthodox doctrine incompatible with the Western tradition. This idea was first propounded in the nineteenth-century by Albrecht Ritschl, Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Adolf von Harnack and others associated with the Ritschlian school. It was later appropriated by Émigré Orthodox scholars. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue helped correct this and other misconceptions about theosis. This began informally in correspondence between Thomas F. Torrance and Georges Florovsky and continued in formal dialogue meetings. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue also highlighted patristic ways of thinking about salvation that were not then prominent in Reformed theology. However, as the Reformed participants consulted the works of John Calvin, they realized that he shared those patristic ways of thinking. Today Reformed theologians are eager contributors to the ecumenical recovery of theosis. They increasingly discuss theosis as a doctrine native to the Reformed tradition.

John Henry Newman spearheaded one of the first modern retrievals of the Christian doctrine of the Christian doctrine of deification. This article argues that, precisely because of the early date of Newman’s rehabilitation, his treatment is not tinted by the polemics surrounding theosis that developed in the late nineteenth century between Eastern and Western Christianity. To Newman, deification is not an Eastern doctrine, it is not cause for division between East and West, and it does not supplant justification. Instead, it is arises from a broad patristic consensus, it is a tool for union among the churches, and it provides resources for understanding justification properly.

Scholarship on early Christian martyrdom has long relied on a canon of narratives published in collections of texts. This article probes the shortcomings of this canon  through the test case of the “apocryphal” martyr narratives of Hegesippus, a later second-century writer known through Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. As seen in collections of martyr narratives published from 1901 to 2017, as well as Adolf von Harnack’s programmatic surveys of the genre, texts were canonized based on historical reliability (especially through claims to eyewitness testimony), on being stand-alone texts, and on describing persecution by Roman imperial agents. Since most scholars now reject older paradigms of historical reliability and genre, and investigate discourses rather than events, Hegesippus’s narratives—which were not eyewitness accounts, were embedded in a longer text, and involve Jewish persecutors—should enter the canon. The article concludes with two suggestions about how Hegesippus can enrich current scholarship. First, Hegesippus shows that the term martys did not unambiguously mean “martyr” until at least the third century. And second, Hegesippus’s famous martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus features distinctively Pythagorean traits, constituting a different kind of philosophical martyr than the Stoic or Socratic martyrs of canonical narratives.

The obscure 2nd century CE writer Ariston of Pella is mentioned in two accepted works: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and John of Scythopolis / Maximus Confessor's Notes on the Mystic Theology of the Areopagite. He is also mentioned in two other works but the attributions are currently regarded with suspicion: Moses of Chorene's History of Armenia and the Chronicon Paschale. Upon further investigation, it appears that an 18th century theory regarding Ariston's presence in the Chronicon Paschale as the author of a previously unknown Christian Apology is correct. Also, the investigation of the theory demonstrates that previous claims regarding the Chronicon material's reliance upon Ecclesiastical History are incorrect. With these points established, it becomes clear that Ariston can be regarded as the author of a Christian Apology addressed to the Roman Emperor Hadrian, with an internal assigned date during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE). This attribution sheds new light on Ariston of Pella and establishes a more reliable date for his floruit. In addition, it establishes a new Christian Apology from the time of the reign of Emperor Hadrian. It also contributes new information about Eusebius' sources for Ecclesiastical History and further information about Aquila of Pontus, Emperor Hadrian and the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

Augustine′s conversion to Christianity in A.D. 386 is a pivotal moment not only in his own life, but in Christian and world history, for the theology of Augustine set the course of theological and cultural development in the western Christian church. But to what exactly was Augustine converted? Scholars have long debated whether he really converted to Christianity in 386, whether he was a Platonist, and, if he adhered to both Platonism and Christianity, which dominated his thought. The debate of the last thirteen decades spans an immense body of literature in multiple languages. In this literature, four major views on Augustine′s conversion may be discerned. The first view is associated with Gaston Boissier and Adolph von Harnack, and was famously championed by Prosper Alfaric: that Augustine in 386 converted to neo-Platonism but not to Christianity. Second, there is the view recently promoted by Catherine Conybeare: that Augustine in 386 converted to Christianity and rejected neo-Platonism. Third, there is the view that he converted to Christianity and was also a neo-Platonist; the most famous adherents of this view are Robert J. O′Connell and Pierre Courcelle. Finally, there is the view recently promoted by Carol Harrison: that Augustine committed to Christianity in 386, yet did not utterly reject neo-Platonism; rather, he aimed to develop a Christian faith that was informed by neo-Platonic insight. In this article, I first explain and distinguish these four general views, and then I explain why I prefer the fourth view.

Der Aufsatz geht von Adolf von Harnacks Unterschrift unter den "Aufruf an die Kulturwelt" vom. Oktober aus und beleuchtet seine Hal-tung zum Ersten Weltkrieg in den Jahren /////. Dabei deuten zwei bisher in ihrer Gesamtheit unpublizierte Briefe des Theologen an den politischen Pub-lizisten und "Rassetheoretiker" Houston Stewart Chamberlain einerseits sowie an Kaiser Wilhelm II. andererseits darauf hin, dass Harnacks anfängliche Kriegs-begeisterung nicht allein durch das "Augusterlebnis" zu erklären ist, sondern in seinem politischen Denken zu Kriegsbeginn verwurzelt ist. Eine vergleichende Darstellung dieses Denkens bei Chamberlain und Harnack lässt strukturelle Ähn-lichkeiten erkennen, die erklären können, wieso der Kirchenhistoriker sich in dieser Zeit von den Pamphleten des Bayreuther Publizisten so angezogen fühlte, dass er sie dem Kaiser zur Lektüre empfahl. Dabei wird auch deutlich, dass sich Harnack zeitweise völkischem Denken annäherte. Eine Edition der beiden Briefe schließt den Aufsatz ab.

Introduzione di Mario Piantoni. Traduzione, con testo a fronte, di 5 testi di Adolf von Harnack, direttore della biblioteca reale (ora Staatsbibliothek) di Berlino. Seguono la traduzione di un testo del figlio Axel sul padre e due saggi sulla concezione biblioteconomica di Harnack.

In questo lavoro si ricostruisce la genesi e lo sviluppo della teoria del Dio in divenire di Scheler, uno dei maggiori esempi di panenteismo del XX secolo, attraverso la ricostruzione dell'influsso dell'ultimo Schelling, di Dostoevskij, di Nietzsche, del libro di Harnack su Marcione e dell'ateismo postulatorio di Hartmann. La tesi del Dio in divenire - uno dei momenti più significativi nel pensiero del filosofo tedesco Max Scheler - mette in discussione l'idea di una metafisica orientata a un mondo di essenze e di valori statici. Si tratta di un Dio indipendente dal tempo del mondo, ma che si manifesta nel mondo attraverso il sacro. Un Dio tragico che nel contatto con la finitezza non ammutolisce tutti gli interrogativi e non neutralizza all'istante tutte le sofferenze. Il sacro in questa prospettiva non si risolve nella produzione di certezze, ma risulta piuttosto qualcosa che rende possibili nuove esperienze, destabilizzando gli orizzonti della nostra soggettività. E' un sacro inteso come das Heilige, ciò che salva, cioè che guarisce. Un sacro inteso cioè come la struttura che regge e rende possibile l'apertura al mondo e con essa una libertà intesa come realizzazione e non come autoprogettualità. Ma il sacro può assumere anche la forma dell'assenza, del sottrarsi, e quindi venire esperito nella forma della dannazione. Per questo l’uomo può esperire il sacro attraverso i sentimenti contrapposti della beatitudine e della disperazione.

Today there is a distinction, based on the work of several 19th century scholars, between what can be determined by the historical method and the dogmatic claims of the Church, described in shorthand as the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith. This paper examines the genesis of this distinction by considering the work of Lessing, Strauss, and Harnack.

La théologie libérale en Allemagne. De quelques types que masque un chiffre théologique Jean-Marc Tétaz (Lausanne) I. À propos de l'histoire d'un chiffre théologique L'encyclopédie Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart est l'un des projets phares du libéralisme théologique du début du XX e siècle 1. Dans la première édition, parue entre 1909 et 1913, on cherchera pourtant en vain un article « Théologie libérale » ou « Libéralisme théologique ». Le lemme « Théologie libérale » est certes pris en compte dans la deuxième édition (1927-1931), mais il ne fait l'objet que d'un article bref d'une quarantaine de lignes 2. Dans la troisième édition (1957-1965), le lemme renvoie à l'article « Libéralisme III : libéralisme théologique et ecclésial » 3. C'est seulement dans la dernière édition en date, la quatrième, parue de 1998 à 2005 que la théologie libérale fait l'objet d'un article important et détaillé de 5 colonnes 4 , qui réunit les plumes de Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Matthias Wolfes, Robert Schelander et, peut-être plus surprenant, Klauspeter Blaser pour la section « théologie de la mission ». Cet état de fait est significatif de l'histoire du concept. Or, depuis les travaux de Reinhart Koselleck 5 , nous savons que faire l'économie d'une réflexion sur l'histoire 1 Cf. Alf Özen, « "Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart" als Beispiel für Hoch-Zeit und Niedergang der "Religionsgeschichtlichen Schule" », in : Gerd Lüdemann (dir.), Die « Religionsgeschichtliche Schule ». Facetten eines theologischen Umbruches,

Author: Ruth Hoppin
Publisher: CBE International

My field of research is Adolf von Harnack’s hypothesis that Priscilla is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.1 I argue for the theory. There are two main objections to the Priscilla theory that I want to state and refute in order to assure its plausibility.

This essay, like Gaul, is divided into three parts, but it begins with the same question Adolf von Harnack asked over a hundred years ago: What is Christianity? Like Harnack, we desire a historical answer. Christianity insistently directs its origin to a divine revelation to humanity in the person of Jesus, the Messiah and the Son of God, and while other definitions are available to us, a historical one is the most appropriate for a discussion on the early Church appropriation of pagan piety.

A strange quotation from Clement of Alexandria's now lost Hypotyposeis, preserved in the Areopagite material within the writings of Maximus Confessor/John of Scythopolis, claims that Luke the Evangelist wrote the Jewish-Christian dialogue Jason and Papiscus. This information seems so fantastic that several scholars have attempted to explain away the attribution through the composition of various hypotheses. The most popular of these was published by Johannes Ernest Grabe in his Spicilegium SS Patrum in 1698. Despite being cited by scholars from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century, Grabe's hypothesis has never been the subject of a detailed investigation. Two conclusions result from an investigation of his hypothesis: Grabe's claims of textual corruption are unfounded; and it seems clear that Clement actually did claim Lukan authorship for Jason and Papiscus.

The State Library Berlin and the University Library Heidelberg hold a number of letters which Adolf von Harnack received from the Scottish classicist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay. The correspondence between these two outstanding scholars is of great importance for the history of the disciplines concerned, Classics and History of the Early Church, as well as for the biographies of the two correspondents. In this article Ramsay’s letters are edited with introduction and commentary.

The books of the Hebrew Bible did not emerge as authoritative texts. The literary history of the texts shows that they originally were composed as intentional literature. Its aim was to establish programmatic religious concepts, ethical rules and concepts of identity. Only during the literary history gradually an authoritative Status of diese texts was accepted. That happened in parallel to the formation of the religious community. Based on the proces- ses and on the conceptual changes during the emergence of the Hebrew Bible the paper defines the Position and the function of the Old Testament in Christianity because the New Testament Scrip- tures emerged in an analogous process.

Franz Overbeck hat sechs Rezensionen zu Werken Adolf Harnacks (ab 1888 Professor der Kirchengeschichte in Berlin) verfast,1 die hier abgedruckte ist die letzte (1883). In der ersten Rezension (1874) ist ein prazeptoraler Ton nicht zu uberhoren, wenn der siebenunddreisigjahrige Basler Professor den Dreiundzwanzigjahrigen bescheidet: »Die Darstellung des Verf.’s ist wenig anmuthig. Ausdrucken wie ›der Wir-kungsumfang Marcion’s‹ wird man nicht wieder zu begegnen wunschen, so willkommen man sonst die Fortsetzung der Untersuchungen des Verf.’s heisen wird, […]«.2 Es folgen vier Rezensionen zu Harnacks Bemuhungen um Edition und Kommentierung der apostolischen Vater, einer Aufgabe, die Overbeck sich selbst nicht gestellt hat. Die Kritik ist respektvoll, »Fleis« ein haufig erteiltes Pradikat. Schon 1876 nennt Overbeck Harnack seinen »freundlichen Gegner«.3

Die Themenstellung geht zurück auf zwei Vorträge des großen Kirchenhistorikers des Wilhelminismus und der Wei-marer Republik, Adolf von Harnack. Dieser hielt am 3. August 1901 in der Aula der Berliner Universität aus Anlaß des Gedächtnisses an den Stifter der Universität, den preußischen König Friedrich Wilhelm III., einen Vortrag mit dem Titel: " Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultäten und die allgemei-ne Religionsgeschichte ". Das Thema griff er achtzehn Jahre später in einem Artikel für die " Preußischen Jahrbücher " , be-titelt " Die Bedeutung der theologischen Fakultäten " wieder auf. Harnack wandte sich in seinen Vorträgen unter anderem gegen die Behauptung, Religion und empirische Wissenschaft seien miteinander nicht vereinbar und die Theologie habe darum an den Universitäten nichts verloren. Auch wenn wir Harnack heute wahrlich nicht mehr in allen Punkten seiner Argumentation beipflichten können, so ist doch sein Ausgangspunkt aktuell wie eh und je. Bis hinauf in höchste Ebenen von Wissenschaftsministerien hört man heute die Behauptung, das Verfallsdatum der akademischen Theologie rücke immer näher, sie werde darum bald ihren Platz an den Hochschulen räumen müssen. Ich möchte zeigen, daß diese These deshalb falsch ist, weil sie das Wesen der Theolo-gie mißversteht. Ich beschränke meine Ausführungen dabei auf die Situation der evangelischen Theologie.

Georges Florovsky is the mastermind of a 'return to the Church Fathers' in twentieth-century Orthodox theology. His theological vision-the neopatristic synthesis-became the main paradigm of Orthodox theology and the golden standard of Eastern Orthodox identity in the West. Focusing on Florovsky's European period (1920-1948), this study analyses how Florovsky's evolving interpretation of Russian religious thought, particularly Vladimir Solovyov and Sergius Bulgakov, informed his approach to patristic sources. Paul Gavrilyuk offers a new reading of Florovsky's neopatristic theology, by closely considering its ontological, epistemological and ecclesiological foundations.

It is common to contrast Florovsky's neopatristic theology with the 'modernist' religious philosophies of Pavel Florensky, Sergius Bulgakov, and other representatives of the Russian Religious Renaissance. Gavrilyuk argues that the standard narrative of twentieth-century Orthodox theology, based on this polarization, must be reconsidered. The author demonstrates Florovsky's critical appropriation of the main themes of the Russian Religious Renaissance, including theological antinomies, the meaning of history, and the nature of personhood. The distinctive features of Florovsky's neopatristic theology—Christological focus, 'ecclesial experience', personalism, and 'Christian Hellenism'—are best understood against the background of the main problematic of the Renaissance. Specifically, it is shown that Bulgakov's sophiology provided a polemical subtext for Florovsky's theology of creation. It is argued that the use of the patristic norm in application to modern Russian theology represents Florovsky's theological signature.

Drawing on unpublished archival material and correspondence, this study sheds new light on such aspects of Florovsky's career as his family background, his participation in the Eurasian movement, his dissertation on Alexander Herzen, his lectures on Vladimir Solovyov, and his involvement in Bulgakov's Brotherhood of St Sophia.

* Offers an accessible introduction to the thought of Georges Florovsky
* Presents a new interpretation of twentieth-century Orthodox theology that revises the standard narrative of Russian émigré theology
* Contextualizes Florovsky's neopatristic theology through analysis of different currents of the Paris school of Orthodox theology
* Discusses little known aspects of Florovsky's biography
* Draws on unpublished works and correspondence

Readership: Students and scholars of Orthodox theology; of religious studies;of Slavic/ Russian studies.