Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:09:36.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literature on the New Testament in Germany, Holland, and the Scandinavian Countries, 1921–1924

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Hans Windisch
Hans Windisch
Affiliation:
Professor of the New Testament in Leyden, Holland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A methodological discussion of the value and use of parallels from the history of religion retains its value, especially to-day, when the ‘religionsgeschichtliche Methode’ is rejected even by some scholars of genuine insight. Deissner, a conservative theologian, recognizes in principle the justification of the method, and aims to set the New Testament in its relation to the history of civilization and of religion. He holds the comparison of Christian traditions with kindred non-christian facts to be indispensable, but criticizes the usual method, as employed for instance by Bousset, on the ground that it pays too much attention to the connection of the New Testament with the world of religion outside and too little to the specific nature of Christianity itself. To him, comparison with other religions is a means for determining the connection and contact of the New Testament with the world at large (for example, in the field of language) with the object of showing how incomparable is the New Testament, how underived, real, original — dogmatically speaking, of showing its supernatural character, built up of elements which the conception of a purely immanent cause leaves unexplained. His book is intended to be conciliatory, and formulates in detail various sound principles, such as the distinction between adopting alien religious terminology and filling it with new and distinctive contents. He errs in making the problem too simple and trying to solve it by a dogma. The relations of primitive Christianity to the development of religion in general are too complicated to be covered by the mere distinction between form and contents. It is also a mistake to identify the individual and distinctive with the essential. To the essential elements of primitive Christian tradition belong in fact those which find complete analogy in syncretism and Judaism, and it is dangerous to rest the character of Christianity as revelation on those elements only which a scholar thinks not to be derivative or to have no analogies. Others may think differently, or the missing analogies may be found to-morrow! (See also Bultmann, ThLZ, 1922, no. 10.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1926 , pp. 1 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The notices written by Dr. Fridrichsen are signed (Fr.).

2 See below, p. 28.

3 See below, pp. 80f.

4 See also Bultmann, ThLZ, 1923, no. 19.

5 See Brückner. ThBl, 1923, no. 7.

6 See also Appel, H., Der Hebräerbrief ein Schreiben des Apollos an Judenchristen der Korinthischen Gemeinde, 1918.Google Scholar

7 See K.L. Schmidt, ThBl, 1922, no. 5; Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, no. 21; Sickenberger. BiblZ, xiv, 218.

8 See Strathmann, ThGg, 1924, 172 f.

9 See below. See also BiblZ, xvi, p. 225.

10 See the review and appreciation in the Harvard Theological Review, January, 1924, pp. 91–94.

11 See also J. de Zwaan, NThSt, 1924, p. 25.

12 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1924, no. 12.

13 See JThS, 1913–14, 307–326.

14 Cf. HThR 1922, 120 f.

15 Phil. Wochenschr., 1923, no. 39.

16 So also de Zwaan, NThSt, 1924, 20 f.

17 See also P. Koetschau, ThLZ, 1923, no. 25/26, with important supplementary material.

18 Compare Brückner, ThBl, 1923, no. 8.

19 Der Jakobusbrief nach Sinnzeilen ins Deutsche übertragen. 12 pp. Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1922.

20 See Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 241 f.

21 Compare Deissmann, , The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul, 1923, pp. 258 ff.Google Scholar

22 See also M. Dibelius, ThLZ, 1924, no. 2; Lohmeyer, DLZ, 1924, no. 10; Bultmann, ChW, 1924, no. 24/26, who in turn goes too far in his rejection of Deissmann's method.

23 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1923, no. 18, and Deissmann, ThGg, 1922, 268.

24 See G. Kittel, DLZ, 1924, 1221 ff.; W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 19; J. de Zwaan, NThSt, VII, 90; W. Windfubr, ThBl, Feb. 1923.

25 On the relative importance of rabbinical and apocalyptic sources for understanding the gospels see also Gressmann, Hellenistisches oder rabbinistisches Judentum? (ThBl, 1923, no. 6), a discussion of the views of G. F. Moore.

26 See also Dibelius, ThLZ, 1923, no. 22; Windisch, Mus, Sept. 1923.

27 See Cadbury's article, HThR, 1923, 81 ff.

28 The most important passages in Bousset are printed by Schmidt, pp. 104 f.

29 Compare W. Michaelis in ThBl, 1922, no. 12, 5, p. 275 ff.

30 See also Windisch, Mus, June, 1923; Jülicher, ThLZ, 1923, no. 1; K. L. Schmidt, ThBl, 1922, no. 9.

31 See Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 258 ff.; O. Moe, ThLBl, 1922, no. 10.

32 I may call attention here to the introduction to Plato's Phaedo. In fixing the gospel tradition, similar motives may have exerted an influence.

33 See also his article on Deissmann's Licht vom Osten; see above, p. 20.

34 Compare Leipoldt, , Die männliche Art Jesu, 1918.Google Scholar

35 The same journal (out of print) contains another interesting article, by K. H. Roessingh, professor of systematic theology at Leyden, on the data of a Christology which shall rest on the results of historical criticism. My own article has appeared in a second corrected and revised edition (77 pp.), 1925.

36 Compare K. Barth.

37 See W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 4.

38 See below, p. 48.

39 See my review, ThLZ, 1922, no. 15; Laible, ThLBl, 1922, no. 21; Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 275 ff.

40 See also Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 273 f.

41 See also Pöhlmann, ChW, 1921, no. 31.

42 See also Bultmann, ThBl, 1924, no. 7.

43 See Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 271 ff.

44 See ThlZ, 1922, no. 4.

45 See Lohmeyer, DLZ, 1922, no. 20; Bertram, ThBl, 1922, no. 12.

46 This cannot be said of Hebrews. See my excursus, ‘Christusmythe und geschichtlicher Jesus im Hebräerbrief,’ p. 27, in Der Hebräerbrief (Lietzmann's Handbuch), 1913.Google Scholar

47 So Völter, D., Paulus und seine Briefe, 1905.Google Scholar

48 See also his article, ‘Markion und sein Evangeliüm,’ in NThT, 1923, 28 ff.

49 See also A. Jülicher, DLZ, 1924. no. 11; Dibelius. ThLZ, 1924, no. 18.

50 See also Hönnicke, ThLZ, 1924, no. 2; Sickenberger, BiblZ, XVI, 255, objects that we do not know which were the intercalary years.

51 See Guthe, ThLZ, 1922, no. 14; Bultmann, ThBl, 1923, no. 5.

52 See von Dobschütz, ThLZ, 1924, no. 20.

53 See E. Peterson, ThLZ, 1925, no. 18, who rejects this explanation.

54 See W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 2; Gressmann, ThBl, 1923, no. 12.

55 See also Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 278 f.; K. L. Schmidt, ThBl, 1922, no. 12; Bultmann, ThLZ, 1923, no. 8.

56 Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, II, 156. See below, pp. 95 ff.

57 See also Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, no. 16/17.

58 See my review in NThT, 1924, 72 f.; Hônel, ThLBl, 1924, no. 1.

59 For Kittel's view that the incident of the widow was originally a genuine parable of Jesus, but drawn by him from an Indian source, see ThLBl, 1923, 358 ff. See also W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 2; G. A. v. d. Bergh v. Eysinga, NThT, 1924, 163–172.

60 Compare Delitzsch, Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie, 1855, 401 ff.

61 See Frick, ChW, 1922, no. 9; Th.Steinmann, ThLZ, 1922, no. 14; K.L. Schmidt, ThBl, Jan. 1922; K. Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 249 ff.

62 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1924, no. 16; Gressmann, ThBl, Nov. 1924.

63 Compare Glotta, 1912, 249–252; Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, p. 75.

64 Compare Behm, ThLZ, 1923, no. 16/17; Sickenberger, BiblZ, 1924, 279.

65 See HThR, 1922, 145.

66 See also de Zwaan, ‘Het tijdelijke en het andere in onze kennis van Jezus’ ethiek,’ and ‘Jezus' ethiek en het empirische Christendom,’ in Onze Eeuw, 1923, ii, 303–326; iii, 35–60.Google Scholar

67 See on the other side Windisch, H., Der messianische Krieg und das Urchristentum, 1909.Google Scholar

68 See Caldecott, JThSt, xxiv, 382 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, ibid, xxv, 386 ff.

69 See also Hänel, ThLBl, 1923, no. 25–26; K. L. Schmidt, ThBl, 1924, no. 4.

70 See also Lohmeyer, DLZ, 1922, no. 25; E. von der Goltz, ThLZ, 1922, no. 2.

71 Compare Bultmann, ThLZ, 1922, 10.

72 Thompson, Expositor, ser. 8, vols. x, xi.

73 See on this point, and on all the contributions to Eucharisterion, W. Bauer ThLZ. 1924, no. 10; Bertram, ThBI, Feb. 1924.

74 Compare also C. Clemen, ThLZ, 1923, no. 15.

75 See also Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 251 f.; Th. Zahn, Offenbarung des Johannes I, 100; Mundle, ThBl, 1923, no. 2; Bultmann, ThLZ, 1923, no. 8.

76 This hypothesis has apparently already been considered by Bruston, , ‘De quelques textes relatifs à Jean-Baptiste et non à Jésus-Christ,’ Revue de théologie, Montauban, 1911.Google Scholar

77 Compare also vs. 32, καὶ ἔμεινεν

78 See also Sickenberger, BiblZ, 1924, 287.

78a See also Wendt, Die Johannesbriefe und das johanneische Christentum, Halle, Waisenhaus, 1925.Google Scholar

79 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1924, no. 9, and Weinel's preface to the book.

80 See also W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 4.

81 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1922, no. 21.

82 See A. Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, no. 25; Bultmann, ChW. 1922, no. 18/20; Ph. Bachmann, NKZ, 1921, 517–547.

83 See E. von Dobschütz, ThLZ, 1924, no. 20.

84 See Strathmann, ThGg, 1924, 193 ff.

85 See Jülicher, DLZ, 1924, no. 2 (not so favorable); Strathmann, ThGg, 1923, 282 f.

86 See Jülicher, DLZ, 1924, no. 2 (unfavorable), and W. Bauer, ThLZ, no. 7.

87 See Jülicher, ThLZ, 1924, no. 14; Oepke, ThLBl, 1922, no. 1; Strathmann, ThGg, 1924, 191 f.

88 See E. von der Goltz, ThLZ, 1924, no. 14.

89 See Weiss, J., Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung des Apostela Paulus, 1902.Google Scholar

90 See my Commentary on 2 Cor. 5.

91 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1923, no. 21.

92 Compare Häring also in NKZ, 1923, 386–389.

93 See also Bultmann, DLZ, 1924, no. 5; Hadorn, ThLB, 1922, no. 1; Fiebig. LZB, 1921, no. 30; Deissner, ThGg, 1921,223 ff.

94 See M. R. James, JThSt, 1923–24.

95 See J. Behm, ThLZ, 1924, no. 14.

96 See the reviews (more or less decidedly unfavorable) by K. L. Schmidt, ChW, 1921, no. 7; Dibelius, DLZ, 1921, 225 ff., 1922, 999 ff., 1924, 1686 ff.; R. Schütz, ThBI, 1922, no. 4; 1924, no. 6; and, on the other side, Lietzmann, HZ, 1922, 137, Heft 1; Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, no. 24; 1924, no. 16.

97 For thoroughgoing anti-semitic representations of Jesus, see Dinter, A., Das Evangelium unseres Herrn und Heilandes Jesu Christi, 398 pp., Langensalza, 1923Google Scholar; and Jung, E., Die geschichtliche Persönlichkeit Jesu, 352 pp., Munich, Deutschlandverlag, 1924. Cf. Strathmann, ThGg, 1924, 185 f.Google Scholar

98 See E. von Dobschütz, ThStKr, 1922, 187–190.

99 See Lake, HThR, 1922, 97 ff.; Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 264 ff.

100 See Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, no. 5.

101 See Jülicher, ThLZ, 1922, 97–99.

102 Compare Preisker, ThBl, 1923, no. 1.

103 See Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 279 f.

104 See also Bertram, ThBl, 1922, no. 11; W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 3.

105 See W. Bauer, ThLZ, 1923, no. 3.

106 See Dibelius, ThLZ, 1922, no. 10; Deissner, ThGg, 1921, 236 ff.

107 See Harnack, ThLZ, 1922, no. 7, who writes in appreciation of the work, but finds Bousset's explanation of the origin and rise of the title to be untenable, and states afresh his principles with regard to the ‘religionsgeschichtliche Schule.’

108 See N. H. Schaeder, DLZ, 1922, no. 16; Geldner, ThLZ, 1922, no. 6, who, as an Indic scholar, rejects the Iranian origin of the Zarathustra fragment, the mystery of redemption, and the idea of the sleep of death; Ebeling, LZBl, 1922, no. 18, who looks for the ultimate source in Babylon on the ground of certain unpublished texts; and Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 238 ff.

109 See Bultmann, ThLZ, 1924, no. 15, 319–323; and F. Boll, DLZ, 1924, no. 10.

110 Compare also Gressmann, H., Tod und Auferstehung des Osiris nach Festbräuchen und Umzügen (Der alte Orient 23, 3). Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1923.Google Scholar

111 See K. L. Schmidt, ThBl, 1924, no. 4.

112 In this connection, see Fridrichsen, A., ‘Le Péché contre le Saint-Esprit,’ Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, iii, 1923, 367–372.Google Scholar

113 See DLZ, 1922, no. 41; Bultmann, ThLZ, 1922, no. 20 (on the whole unfavorable); Deissner, ThGg, 1922, 231 ff.