¹ Wilhelm Bousset (1865–1920), Privatdozent (PD) in NT in Göttingen (1889); Prof. (1896); Prof, in Gießen (1916). For bibliography and comprehensive account of his life and work, see Verheule, Wilhelm Bousset: Leben und Werk. Ein theologiegeschichtlicher Versuch, Amsterdam, 1973.

² Wilhelm Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament’, in ThR VII, 1904, pp. 265–277, 311–318, 353–365, here p. 364f.

³ Bousset, , What is Religion? tr. Law, F. B., London, 1907, p. 288.Google Scholar

⁴ Bousset, , ‘Der religiöse Liberalismus’ in Was ist Libera? ed. Nelson, L., Munich, 1910, p. 22.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘Religionsgeschichte’ is translated accurately as ‘history of religion’ and not as the more usual ‘history of religions’. The members of the History of Religion School were interested chiefly not in specific religions but in the universal phenomenon of religion’. Cf. Herrmann Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze, Göttingen, 1913, p.vf.: ‘From the outset we did not understand history of religion as the history of religions but as the history of religion’. For discussions of the History of Religion School, see esp. Gerd Lüdemann, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule in Göttingen, Göttingen, 1987 and ‘Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’ in Theologie in Göttingen, ed. Bernd Moeller, Göttingen, 1987; F. W. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker< der >kleinen Göttinger Fakultät< Ernst Troeltschs Promotionsthesen und ihr Göttinger Kontext’ in Troeltsch-Studien I, eds. F. W. Graf and Horst Renz, Gütersloh, 1982, pp. 235–290; Kümmel, W. G., The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, London, 1972, pp. 245–324Google Scholar; Ittel, G. W., ‘Die Hauptgedanken der “religionsgeschichtlichen Schule”’ in ZRGG X, 1958, pp. 20–55Google Scholar; Anthonie Verheule, op. cit.; W. Klatt, Hermann Gunkel, Zu seiner Theologie der Roligionsgeschichte und zur Entstehung der fomgeschichtlichen MethodeFRLANT 100, Göttingen, 1969; Martin Rade, ‘Religionsgeschichte’ in RGG¹, Vol. IV, cols. 2183ff. Neill, Stephen gives a summary treatment in The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1961, Oxford, 1964, pp. 157–167.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Troeltsch, ‘Das Wesen des modernen Geistes’, in Gesammelte Schriften IV (GS IV), ed. Hans Baron, Tübingen, 1925, pp. 297–338, esp. p. 310f.

⁷ Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923), PD in Göttingen (1891);Prof.of theology in Bonn (1892); Heidelberg (1894); Prof, of Philosophy in Berlin (1915).

⁸ Troeltsch, ‘Meine Büpcher’ in GS IV, p. 5. These problems are explored briefly by Graf, F. W. in ‘Religion und Individualität’ in Troeltsch-Studien III, eds. Graf, F. W. and Renz, Horst, Gütersloh, 1984, pp. 207–230.Google Scholar

⁹ Gunkel, , ‘Gedächtnisrede an Wilhelm Bousset’ in Evangelische Freiheit X, 1920, pp. 141–162, here p. 146.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Lüdemann, ‘Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’, pp. 325ff.

¹¹ Greßmann, Hugo, Eichhorn und die religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Göttingen, 1914, p.25Google Scholar

¹² Bousset, , Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des judentums, des neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apocalypse, Göttingen, 1895Google Scholar. ET The Antichrist Legend. A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, London, 1896.

¹⁵ Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeil und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungüber Gen. I und Ap.Joh. XII, Göttingen, 1895. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), PD in NT in Göttingen (1888); PD in Halle (1889); Prof, in Berlin (1895); Prof, of OT in Gießen (1907); Prof, in Halle (1920). See esp. Klatt (op. cit.). For incomplete bibliography see Eucharisterion, ed. Hans Schmidt, Göttingen, 1923, pp. 214–225.

¹⁴ William Wrede (1859–1906), PD in NT in Göttingen (1891); Prof, in Breslau (1893). See esp. intro. by A. Wrede in W. Wrede, Vorträge und Studien, Tübingen, 1907, pp. iii-xiv. For bibliography see Strecker, G., ‘William Wrede’ in ZThK 57, 1960, pp. 67–91Google Scholar. Cf. Wiefel, W., ‘Zur Würdigung William Wredes’ in ZRGG 23, 1971, pp. 60–83Google Scholar; and Rollmann, Hans, ‘From Baur to Wrede’ in Studies in Religion 17, 1988, pp. 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Briefe aus der Heidelberger Zeit an Wilhelm Bousset’, ed. Dinkler-von-Schubert, Erika von in Heidelberg Jahrbuch 20, 1976, pp. 19–52, here p. 27.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Troeltsch, , ‘Geschichte und Metaphysik’ in ZThK VIII, 1898, pp. 1–69Google Scholar, p. 5. Kümmel, (op. cit., p. 443 n. 330) dates it from 1904. Colpe, (in Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Darstellung und Kritik ihres Bildes vom gnostischen Erlösermythus, FRLANT, NF60, Göttingen, 1961) dates it from the publication of Bousset's essay, Die Mission und diereligionsgeschichtliche Schule (Göttingen, 1970). On the development of the History of Religion School, see esp. F. W. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<’, pp. 235–290; Gerd Lüdemann, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule in Göttingen; and Horst Renz, Albert Eichhorn und die Anfänge der religionsgeschichtlichen Schule, unpublished diss., Augsburg, 1985.

¹⁷ Troeltsch, ‘Die >kleine Göttinger FakultäK von 1890’, in Die Christliche Welt (CW) 34, 1920, cols. 281–283, here col. 282. On the student life of Troeltsch and Bousset, see esp. Horst Renz ‘Troeltschs Theologiestudium’ in ‘Troeltsch-Studien I, Gütersloh, 1982, pp. 48–59, and Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<’.

¹⁸ Cf. Lüdemann, ‘Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’, p. 325, p. 332; Graf (in ‘Der>Systematiker<’assesses the theses presented as part of the doctoral examination at Göttingen partly in terms of the severity of the rejection of Ritschl. This rejection was clearly recognised by Bousset who, looking back in 1919, remembered that ‘it was only forty years since we heard Ritschl say that everything was dependent upon the Old Testament’ (‘Religion und Theologie’ in W. Bousset, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Ausfsätze zur religionsgeschichtlichen Studien des hellenistischen Zeitalters (Novum Testamentum), Supplementary Volume L, Leiden, 1979, ed. Anthonie F. Verheule, p. 41). Cf. Colpe, op. cit., p. 9: ‘The.History of Religion School's claim to theological legitimacy in the research of Israel and of Christianity is explicable in terms of a reaction to the scientific methods of the eighties’.

¹⁹ Gunkel, . ‘Gedächtnisrede an Wilhelm Bousset’ in Evangelische Freiheit X, 1920, pp. 141–162, here p. 158.Google Scholar

²⁰ ibid. p. 146. Albert Eichhom (1856–1926), PD in Halle (1886); Prof, in Halle (1888); Prof, in Kiel (1901–13). Suffered from severe illness. See esp. Horst Renz, Albert Eichhom, and Greßmann, op. cit.

²¹ Letter from Troeltsch to Greßmann cited in Klatt, op. cit., p. 22.

²² Johannes Weiβ (1863–1914), son of Bernhard Weiß; PD in NT Göttingen (1888); Prof. (1890); Prof, in Marburg (1895); Prof, in Heidelberg (1908). Alfred Rahlffs (1865–1935), PD in Göttingen (1891); Prof. (1901); worked extensively on Lagarde. Heinrich Hackmann (1864–1935), PD in Göttingen (1893–4); Pastor in Shanghai; Prof, of history of religion in Amsterdam (1913–33). Wilhelm Heitmüller (1869–1926), PD in Göttingen (1902); Prof, in Marburg (1902); Prof, in Bonn (1920); Prof, in Tübingen (1924); Co-edited ThR with Bousset. Hugo Greβmann (1877–1927), Prof, of OT in Kiel (1902–6); Prof, in Berlin (1907–27). Paul Wernle (1872–1939), PD of NT in Basel (1897); Prof, of Church History and Dogma at Basel (1900). Denied membership of the School (Cf. Die Religion in ihrer Selbstdarstellung V, 1929, p. 228). Heinrich Weinel (1874–1936), PD in NT in Berlin (1899); PD in Bonn (1900); Prof, of NT in Jena (1904); Prof, of Systematic Theology in Jena (1925). Particularly concerned with contemporary questions. Richard Reitzenstein (1861–1932); Philologist; Published many works on Hellenistic religions. See esp. Colpe, op. cit., pp. 1Off., and Neill, op. cit., pp. 160f

²³ Rühle, Otto (in Der theologische Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1926)Google Scholar gives an account of the origins of this series. The publisher's advertising material for the Volksbücher ran as follows: ‘Through systematic studies the religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher intend to satisfy the inquiry through a study that is radical in the sense of being thoroughgoing, popular in the sense of its unembellished clarity, comprehensive in the sense that nothing necessary is left out of consideration, and scientific in the sense that all the best educated specialists (who are free from apologetic but also free from every other tendency) present it in such a way as the experts set it forth’ (p. 119, n. 39).

²⁴ Greßmann, op. cit., p. 25. F. W. Graf (in ‘Der >Systematiker<’ p. 289) emphasises a self-identification with a particular set of ideas, the ‘conviction that theology must radically build on the basis of the historical consciousness’. Although he maintains that the precise origins and the exact membership of the School give rise to more questions than answers, (Cf. Lüdemann, ‘Die Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’, p. 360) ‘what can be ascertained is that there was a group-specific self-understanding in the sense of a content-definite consciousness of a theological belonging which nevertheless did not deny the individuality of the young Göttinger’.

²⁵ Troeltsch, , ‘The Dogmatics of the “Religionsgeschichtliche Schule”,’ in the American Journal of Theology XVII, 1913, pp. 1–21, here p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Die Dogmatik der religionsgeschichtlichen Schule’ in Gesammelte Schrifien II, Tübingen, 1913, pp. 500–524, here p. 502f.

²⁶ ‘Does the historical study of religion yield a dogmatic theology?’ in the American Journal of Theology XIII, 1909, p. 565.Google Scholar

²⁷ Troeltsch, ‘The Dogmatics’, p. 4; ‘Die Dogmatik’, p. 502f.

²⁸ ibid. p. 4; p. 503f.

²⁹ Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament’, p. 364.

³⁰ It is this aspect which has been overlooked in most of the discussions of the School which have tended to see the common conviction merely in die shared historical method, Ittel, for instance (op. cit., p. 62), sees the common conviction of the School to rest in their shared appropriation of Troeltsch's method of probability, analogy and reciprocity outlined in his response to Friedrich Niebergall (‘Uber historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie’, GS II, pp. 729–753, esp. pp. 731–735). Ittel does not see anything distinctive in the concept of religion itself.

³¹ Gunkel, , ‘Das alte Testament im Lichte der modernen Forschung’ in Beiträge zur Weiterentwicklung der christlichen Religion, Munich, 1905, pp. 40–76, here p. 55.Google Scholar

³² Gunkel, Hermann, Reden und Aufsätze, p. 15.Google Scholar

³³ Gunkel, CW 1906, col. 176.

³⁴ Wrede, William, ‘Das theologische Studium und Religionsgeschichte’ in Vorträge und Studien, p. 66.Google Scholar

³⁵ Gunkel, , ‘Was will die >religionsgeschichtliche< Bewegung?’ in Deutsch-Evangelisch V, 1914, p. 356f., here p. 356.Google Scholar

³⁶ Troeltsch, ‘The Dogmatics’, p. If.; ‘Die Dogmatik’, p. 500.

³⁷ Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstöndnis des neuen Testaments, Göttingen, 1903, p. 96.

³⁸ ibid., p. 4.

³⁹ Gunkel, , ‘Das alte Testament im Lichte der modernen Forschung’, p. 64.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Bousset, , What is Religion? p. 263Google Scholar. Cf. p. 289: ‘History shows us that in many departments the heights already reached cannot be overstepped’. Cf. Weiß, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, Göttingen, 1892, p. 7: ‘Historical research can never prove the judgment of faith that in Jesus full revelation is given: But historical research can give this the necessary foundation’. Bousset sees religion as progressing through five stages: (i) the religion of the savages; (ii) natural religions; (iii) prophet reformers; (iv) religions of the law; and (v) redemption religions. On their own, redemption religions paint too sharp a contrast to everyday life, and thus require an input from religions of the law: ‘Wherever these two lines meet, where a religion can avoid the narrowness which characterises both types of religion, and combines their good points, where redemption is united with the moral element — there we shall have the perfect form of religion. We shall now see whether the Christian religion satisfies these postulates!’ (What is Religion? p. 212). According to Bousset, Jesus freed religion from nationalism (p. 218), and in the Gospel of redemption the individual finds salvation, yet it is only with the Reformation that Christianity ‘accepts, in principle, human life and all the work appertaining to it because it accepts the morality revealed by it’ (p.232). It thus turns out that the highest religion was revealed by the Reformers (just as for Hegel the goal of history was the Prussian state): ‘The Reformation was a mighty act of freedom for Christianity accomplished by the German Spirit, a return to simplicity and truth.’

⁴¹ Bousset, , Das Wesen der Religion ³Halle, 1906, p. 17.Google Scholar

⁴² Bousset, , Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus ⁵ foreword by Bultmann, Rudolf, Göttingen, 1965, p. 113.Google Scholar

⁴³ Troeltsch, , The Absoluteness of Christianity and the History of Religion, tr. Reid, David, London, 1972, p. 67.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Troeltsch, review of Aug. Dorner, Die Metaphysik des Christentums, in TLZ 42, 1917, cols. 84–87, here col. 87.

⁴⁵ Gunkel, , ‘Gedächtnisrede auf Wilhelm Bousset’, p. 145f.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Troeltsch, ‘Die theologische und religiöse Lage der Gegenwart’, in GS II, pp. 1–21, here p. 19. This volume of Troeltsch's collected works is dedicated to the memory of Lagarde. Paul de Lagarde (real name, Paul Bötticher) was born in Berlin in 1827. PD in Oriental Studies in Halle (1851); Gymnasium teacher (1854); Prof, of Oriental Languages in Göttingen (1869); died 1891. Especially remembered for his work on the Septuagint. Cf. Hanhart, Robert, ‘Paul Anton de Lagarde und seine Kritik an der Theologie’ in Theologie in Göttingen, ed. Moeller, Bernd, Göttingen, 1987, pp. 271–305Google Scholar; Stern, Fritz, The Politics of Cultural Despair, Berkeley, 1974.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Paul de Lagarde, ‘Über das Verhältnis des deutschen Staates zu Theologie, Kirche und Religion. Ein Versuch Nicht-theologen zu orientieren’ in Deutsche-Schriften,⁵ 1920, p. 47. The influence of the idea of a science of religion spread very rapidly, Faculties of Religionswissenschaft being founded in Holland (1876) and Switzerland (1873). Chiefly because of Harnack's opposition, however, it was not until 1910 that a Chair was established in Berlin. On the development of the science of religion, see esp. Kitigawa, Joseph M. and Strong, John S., ‘Friedrich Max Miiller and the Comparative Study of Religion’ in Nineteenth Century Religious Thought in the West, ed. Smart, Ninian et al. , Cambridge, 1985, pp. 179–214, esp. p. 204f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Lagarde, op. cit., p. 47.

⁴⁹ Rade, op. cit., col. 2189.

⁵⁰ Troeltsch, , ‘The Absoluteness of Christianity, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁵¹ There is possibly a tactical reason for the veneration of Lagarde by the History of Religion School. Ritschl regarded Luther as of supreme relevance for the contemporary balance between faith, history and ethics. This is emphasised in the Festrede given to the University of Göttingen to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of Luther's birth. (Published in English in David Lotz, Ritschland Luther, Nashville, 1974, pp. 187–202). Lagarde, on the other hand, regarded Luther as a sectarian, and objected to the celebration of Luther's birth. Ritschl's speech was a step by step repudiation of Lagarde's views (Cf. Lotz, op. cit., p. 166). In honouring Lagarde, Troeltsch and Gunkel were perhaps emphasising the impotence of a modern day Protestantism which attempted to revitalise the tradition of Luther. A return to the Middle Ages, as characterised by Ritschl's theology, was no longer possible. There has been little work on the direct influence of Lagarde on the History of Religion School (Cf. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<’, p. 284, n. 156).

⁵² Gunkel, Review of Reischle, Theobgie und Religionsgeschichte, in DLZ 25, 1904, cols. 1100–1110, here col. 1103.

⁵³ Troeltsch, , ‘Theologie und Religionswissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1902, pp. 91–120, here p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Bernhard Duhm (1847–1928), Prof, of OT in Göttingen (1877; Prof, in Basel (1888). On Duhm and the History of Religion School see esp. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<', n. 10, p. 25; Klatt, op. cit., p. 34, p. 203. Cf. Bousset, Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus vom Gestez, (unveröffentliche Göttinger Habilitationsschrift, 1890), ed. Horst. Renz, in Mitteilungen der Ernst-Tweltsch-Gesellschaft IV, Augsburg, 1989, p. 90. Cf. Kraus, H. J., Geschichte der historischen-kritischen Erforschung des alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, Neukirchen, 1969, pp. 275–283Google Scholar, and Rogerson, John, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, London, 1984, p. 260.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Troeltsch, ‘Die >kleine Göttinger Fakultät <von 1890’, col. 282.

⁵⁶ Gunkel, , ‘Gedächtnisrede auf Wilhelm Bousset’, p. 145f.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Duhm, , Über Ziel und Methode der theologischen Wissenschaft, Basel, 1889. p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ ibid. p. 26.

⁵⁹ Duhm, , Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage für die innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der Israelitischen Religion, Bonn, 1875.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Gunkel, , Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des A postels Paulus, Göttingen, 1888Google Scholar. References are to the second edition of 1899. Here p. xi.

⁶¹ Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament’, p. 272. Cf. Mackintosh, H. R., Types of Modern Theology, London, 1937, p. 183Google Scholar: ‘The movement may be said to have opened with the publication of Gunkel's book on the operations of the Holy Spirit published in 1888’. Other works emphasising the primacy of the spirit quickly followed. See, for instance, Weinel, , Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister in nahapostolischen Zeitalter bis auf lrenäus, Freiburg, 1899Google Scholar; Eichhorn, , Das Abendmahl im neuen Testament, Supplement to CW 36, Leipzig, 1898Google Scholar; Heitmüller, , Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. Darstellung und religionsgeschichtliche Beleutung, Göttingen, 1903, p. 52.Google Scholar

⁶² Gunkel, , Israel und Babylonien, Göttingen, 1903, p. 36.Google Scholar

⁶³ Gunkel, , Die Wirkungen, p. 20.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Ritschl, , Geschichte des Pietismus, 3 vols., Bonn, 1880–1886.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ibid. p. 7.

⁶⁶ ibid. p. 27f.

⁶⁷ ibid. p. 28.

⁶⁸ Bousset, , What is Religion?, p. 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Otto, Rudolf, Geist und Wort nach Luther, diss. Göttingen, 1898, esp. p. 36Google Scholar. According to H-W Schütte (in Religion und Christentum in der Theologie Rudolf Ottos, Berlin, 1969) this book was at the basis of all Otto's subsequent theology and philosophy of religion. For Otto's relationship to the History of Religion School, see esp. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<’, p. 268.

⁷⁰ Wrede, , Vorträge und Studien, p. 66.Google Scholar

⁷¹ ibid. p. 65.

⁷⁵ ibid. p. 77.

⁷³ Gunkel, , Reden und Aufsätze, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Bousset, ‘Das Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament,’ p. 360.

⁷⁵ Bousset, Kyrios Christos, p. vii, p. xf. Troeltsch sees his task as t he reconciliation of Volksretigion with Bildungsreligion. Cf. esp. ‘Religionsphilosophie’ in Die Philosophie im Beginn des 20.Jahrhunderts, ed. W. Windelband, Heidelberg, 1904, pp. 104–162, esp. p. 132; and Troeltsch, , ‘Die Selbständigkeit der Religion’, ZThK, 1896, p. 108.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament’, p. 271.

⁷⁷ ibid. p. 355.

⁷⁸ Gunkel, , Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis, p. vi.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 271.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Heitmüller, W., ‘Im Namen Jesu’. Eine Sprach-und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung Zum neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe, Göttingen, 1903, p. 253.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ritschl, , Geschichte des Pietismus, Vol. I, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁸² Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze, p. vf.

⁸³ Wrede, Paulus (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher I, nos. 5, 6), Tübingen, 1904, p. 103f.; ET, Paul, Boston, 1908, p. 179f. Cf. ibid.: ‘As a rule even liberal theology has shied away from the conclusion that he refounded Christianity. But it is not to be evaded: True, he has not dominated everywhere, especially not in the life of simple, practical piety, but throughout long stretches of Church History — one need only think of the councils and the dogmatic controversies — he has utterly thrust into the background that greater person whom he meant to serve’.

⁸⁴ Gunkel, , Die Wirkungen, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ ibid. p. 96. Cf. p. 96f: ‘The spirit was the only power which could work definite miracles and was guarantor of certain miracles; with Paul the present possession of the Spirit is all that the Christian possesses in time and eternity.’

⁸⁶ ibid. p. 86.

⁸⁷ ibid. p. 96.

⁸⁸ Bousset, , Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, p. 93.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ ibid. p. 91.

⁹⁰ ibid. p. 119.

⁹¹ Wernle, Paul, Die Anfänge unserer Religion, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901, p. 27.Google Scholar

⁹² Gunkel, , Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Ventändnis, p. 95.Google Scholar

⁹³ Gunkel, , Die Wirkungen, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ ibid. p. 43.

⁹⁵ ibid. p. viii.

⁹⁶ Bousset, , Die Mission und die religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Göttingen, 1907, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Bousset, , Unser Gottesglaube, Tübingen, 1908, p. 20.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Weiß, Johannes, Earlist Christianity: a history of the period AD30–150, New York, 1959, p. 42fGoogle Scholar; tr. of Das Urchristentum, Göttingen, 1914.

⁹⁹ Bousset, , Unser Gottesglaube, p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Bousset, , What is Religion? p. 287.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis, p. 93. Cf. Klatt, op. cit., p. 99: ‘Gunkel wanted to elevate history to a new stringency; in the last resort he could not carry this through and fled into mysticism’.

¹⁰² Bousset, , Unser Gottesglaube, Tūbingen, 1908, p. 48.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Bousset, , Das Wesen der Religion, Halle, 1906, p. 17.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Wrede, , Vorträge und Studien, p. 37f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See esp. Rudolf Otto, ‘Jakob Fries’ Religionsphilosophie’ in ZThK 1909, pp. 31–56, 108–161 and 204–242.

¹⁰⁶ Bousset, ‘Kantisch-Fries'sche Religionsphilosophie und ihre Anwendung auf die Theologie’ in ThR XII, 1909, pp. 419–488. It is interesting that the debate between Otto, Bousset and Karl Bornhausen provoked such vitriol that the editors of the ZThK were forced to make a written apology to their readers. The discussions of the role of history in religion became shrouded in discussions of a half-forgotten philosopher — a great deal more was at issue than mere philosophical interpretation. See esp. Karl Bornhausen, ‘Wider den Neofriesianismus in der Theologie’ in ZThK 1910, pp. 341–405; Bousset's remarkably libellous reply, ‘In Sachen des Neofriesianismus’ in ZThK 1911, pp. 159–165; Borhhausen's reply to this, ‘Duplik des Kritikers’ in ZThK 1911, pp. 159–165; and the editorial apology by Herrmann, Wilhelm and Rade, Martin, ‘Nachwort der Redaktion’ in ZThK 1911, p. 165f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Bousset, , ‘Kantisch-Fries'sche Religionsphilosophie’, p. 432.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ ibid. p. 479.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Bornhausen, ‘Wider den Neofriesianismus’, p. 405: ‘Psychologism, neo–Friesianism has come too late; we have already progressed further. The next great battle for philosophy and religion will be fought on the ground of the philosophy of history.’

¹¹⁰ Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 93.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ ibid. p. 154.

¹¹² ibid. p. 93.

¹¹³ ibid. p. 144f.

¹¹⁴ Bousset, , ‘Religion und Theologie’, p. 43.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Bousset, , Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus vom Gesetz, p. 122.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 122.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ ibid. p. 360.

¹¹⁸ ibid.

¹¹⁹ ibid. p. 361.

¹²⁰ Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das neue Testament’, p. 353f.

¹²¹ Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 360.Google Scholar

¹²² ‘Religion und Theologie’, p. 29. On this point see esp., Pressel, W., Die Kriegspredigt 1914–1918, Göttingen, 1967Google Scholar; Brakelmann, G., Protestantische Kriegstheologie im ersten Weltkerieg, Reinhold Seeberg, Bielefeld, 1974.Google Scholar

¹²³ It was this message that was loudest in the Munich revolution with its cry of ‘Away with all historical ballast!’ (‘Religion und Theologie’, p. 35).

¹²⁴ ‘Religion und Theologie’, p. 37; Cf. p. 33: ‘As soon as mankind has reached the highest stage of prophetic religion, which strives after universalism, reason (Ratio) makes its presence felt’.

¹²⁵ ibid. p. 36.

¹²⁶ ibid.

¹²⁷ ibid. p. 38.

¹²⁸ ibid.

¹²⁹ ibid. p. 31.

¹³⁰ ibid. p. 29.

¹³¹ ibid. p. 36f.

¹³² ibid. p. 39.

¹³³ ibid. p. 43.

¹³⁴ ibid.

¹³⁵ ibid.

¹³⁶ ibid. p. 32.

¹³⁷ Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 87.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ ibid. p. 90.

¹³⁹ ibid. p. 106.

¹⁴⁰ Bousset, , Die Bedeutung der Person Jesu für den Glauben. Historische und rationale Grundlagen des Glaubens, Berlin, 1910, p. 17.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Bousset, , What is Religion?, tr. Law, F. B., London, 1907, p. 299Google Scholar. Cf. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 391: ‘The Christian interpretation of eschatology is just as eclectic and inorganic as the Jewish. From the Christian standpoint also, the fact that the tradition, though so little understood, was nevertheless handed on, is to be understood as a result of holy awe before the deep mystery of the revelation’.

¹⁴² Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 119.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ In retaining this faith in the ethical message of the historical Jesus, Bousset steers clear of the eschatological message of Weiß and Schweitzer.

¹⁴⁴ Bousset, , What is Religion?, p. 298.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ ibid. p. 288.

¹⁴⁶ ibid. p. 274. Verheule, op. cit., p. 369. suggests that Bousset saw Friedrich Naumann as the figure who was most fit to take on the mantle of Goethe and Bismarck.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Kahlert, Heinrich, Der Held und seine Gemeinde. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Stifterpersömnlichkeit und Verehrergemeinschaft in der Theologie des freien Protestantismus, Frankfurt, 1984Google Scholar. Bousset's ideas show a resemblance to those of Max Weber.

¹⁴⁸ Wrede, , Vortäge und Studien, p. 66Google Scholar. Cf. Bodenstein, Walter, Neige des Historismus: Ernst Troeltschs Entwicklungsgang, Gütersloh, 1959, p. 37:Google Scholar ‘[Troeltsch] drew the consequences in a clear and sober fashion and thus became the sytematic theologian of the History of Religion School’. Cf. Reischle, , Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, p. 11Google Scholar. and F. W. Graf, ‘Der >Systematiker<’, p. 235f.

¹⁴⁹ Troeltsch, , Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kitchen und Gruppen, Tübingen, 1912, p. 857Google Scholar; tr. Wyon, Olive, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, London, 1931, p. 737.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ ibid. p. 939, ET p. 797f. Cf. ‘Schleiermacher und die Kirche’ in Schleiermacher, der Philosoph des Glaubens, ed. Naumann, Friedrich, Berlin-Schōneberg, 1910, pp. 9–35.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Troeltsch, Review of Günther, Die Grundlagen der Religionsphilosophie Troeltschs, in TLZ 41, 1916, cols. 488–450, here col. 450.

¹⁵² Troeltsch, ‘The Dogmatics’, p. 3; ‘Die Dogmatik’, p. 502.

¹⁵³ Troeltsch, , ‘Religionsphilosophie’, p. 131.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Troeltsch, , Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Johann Gerhard und Melanchthon, Göttingen, 1891, p. 3 n.1.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Troeltsch, , Glaubenslehre, ed. von le Fort, Gertrud, Munich and Leipzig, 1926, p. 93.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Troeltsch, Review of Gunther, col. 450.

¹⁵⁷ Bousset, ‘Kantisch-Fries'sche Religionsphilosophie’, p. 474.

¹⁵⁸ Troeltsch, , ‘Das Historische in Kants Religionsphilosophie: Zugleich ein Beitrag zu den Untersuchungen über Kants Philosophie der Geschichte’ in Zu Kants Gedächtnis. Zwölf Festgaben zu seinem 100-jährigen Todestage, ed. Vaihinger, Hans and Bauch, Bruno, Berlin, 1904, pp. 21–154, here p. 143.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ ibid. p. 62. Cf. Crumbach, K-H, Theologie in kritscher Öffentlichkeit: Die Frage Kants an das kirchliche Christentum, Munich and Mainz, 1977, p. 169Google Scholar: ‘Kant's own doctrine of religion does not: aim at a religion of reason, but rather at reforming the faith of the Church in so far as it can be made to approximate to pure reason in the practical situation of the present.’

¹⁶⁰ Troeltsch, ‘Das Historische’, p. 72.

¹⁶¹ Troeltsch, Review of P. Kalweit, Kants Stellung zur Kirche in Kantstudien X, 1905, pp. 166–170, here p. 167. Cf. Troeltsch, ‘Religionsphilosophie’, pp. 137ff.

¹⁶² Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren, p. 936 n. 504a; ET p. 985 n. 504a.

¹⁶³ The vital importance of the role of history in Troeltsch's theology has often been underplayed, for example by Birkner, H-J. ‘Glaubenslehre und Modernitätserfahrung’ in Troeltsch-Studien IV, pp. 325–337Google Scholar, esp. p. 337; T. Yasukata, Ernst Troeltsch: Systematic Theologian of Radical Historicality, AAR Series no. 55, Chico, Ca., 1983, p. 65f; Drescher, H-G, Glaube und Vernunft bei Ernst Troeltsch, diss. Marburg, 1957, p. 56Google Scholar; Becker, G., Neuzeitliche Subjektivität und Religiosität, Regensburg, 1982, p. 255Google Scholar; and most influentially, Karl-Ernst Apfelbacher, Frömmigkeit und Wissenschaft, Munich, 1978, esp. Ch. 5, where Troeltsch is used as an example of a mystical theology which gains interconfessional relevance in the ecumenical debate.

¹⁶⁴ Troeltsch, ‘Prinzip, religiöses’ in RGG,’ Vol. IV, cols. 1842–46, here col. 1845.

¹⁶⁵ ibid. col. 1846.

¹⁶⁶ Troeltsch, ‘Glaube IV: Glaube und Geschichte’ in RGG, Vol. II, cols. 1447–56, here col. 1456.

¹⁶⁷ Troeltsch, ‘Ethik und Kapitalismus’ in CW XIX, 1906, cols. 320–326, here col. 323.

¹⁶⁸ Troeltsch, unpublished lecture on Practical Christian Ethics given at Heidelberg, 1911–12; prepared from the lecture notes of Gertrud von le Fort by Eleonore von la Chevallerie, and deposited in the Ernst-Troeltsch-Archiv at Obergünzburg, Bavaria. Here typescript, p. 49f.

¹⁶⁹ Troeltsch, , Die Soziallehren, p. 986; ET p. 1013.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ In a review of Hirsch (TLZ 1923, col. 23) Troeltsch is deeply critical of the ‘crass impossibility’ of his critique of the Enlightenment: ‘Somebody who recognises the infinite complexity and the real contradictions of life and the spiritual mixture of modern nations, just has nothing to say to those who make these generalisations’.

¹⁷¹ Troeltsch, , ‘Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit’ in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, ed. Hinneberg, Paul, Part I, Division IV, Berlin and Leipzig, 1906, pp. 253–458, here p. 451.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Die Soziallehren, p. 470 n. 214; ET p. 833 n. 214.

¹⁷³ ibid. p. 424f; ET p. 381.

¹⁷⁴ Troeltsch, ‘Grundprobleme der Ethik’ in GS II, pp. 552–672, here p. 663.

¹⁷⁵ Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren, p. 844; ET p. 726.

¹⁷⁶ Troeltsch, , Der Berg der Läuterung: Zur Erinnerung an den 600-jährigen Todestag Dantes, Berlin, 1921, p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Cf. Troeltsch, ‘Die Kirche im Leben der Gegenwart’ in GS II, pp. 91–108, esp. p. 105f.Cf. ‘Die Zukunftsmöglichkeiten des Christentums in Verhältniszur modernen Philosophic’ in GS II, pp. 837–862.

¹⁷⁸ Troeltsch, , Der Historismus und seine Problem, GS III, Tübingen, 1922, p. 771f.Google Scholar