Theology as Science in Nineteenth-Century Germany.

Adair-Toteff, Christopher

Theology as Science in Nineteenth-Century Germany. By Johannes Zachhuber. Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University, 2013. Pp. xiv + 318. $150.

Faith and science have historically been seen as being at odds, and no one seems to have resolved this fundamental tension. Zachhuber does not seek to resolve but to understand the tension. This is not a methodological question but a historical one; it concerns the notion of Christianity as an absolute faith and the idea of its history as a human science. Z. does not begin at 1800, nor does he end with 1900; rather, he starts in the 1830s and ends at the first decade of the 20th century. He focuses primarily on two "schools": the earlier one at Tubingen under F. C. Baur, and the later one at Gottingen led by Albert Ritschl. Z.'s narrative runs first from Baur to David Friedrich Strauss to Eduard Zeller, and second from Ritschl to Julius Kaftan to Ernst Troeltsch. Z. explains well the tensions in Baur's theology, the impact of Strauss's Leben Jesu, and the differences between Baur's conceptions of history and theology and those of Ritschl.

Z.'s lengthy account of Ritschl is particularly fine. He details the ways Ritschl agreed with Schleiermacher and Baur and disagreed with Baur and Hegel. Ritschl and Baur aligned themselves with Schleiermacher in opposing natural religion, but they did not go so far as to believe a superficial charge against Schleiermacher's alleged claim that the basis for religion was primarily emotion. Ritschl shared Baur's belief that understanding Christianity comes from understanding its history. One of the greatest strengths and weaknesses of Z.'s account is his reliance on philosophers. He makes a compelling case for the importance of Hegel and Schleiermacher, and then tries to argue that Schelling and Trendelenberg are also crucial. The former is perhaps important but the latter is known only because of his lengthy fight with Kuno Fischer over Kant and his later writings on natural law.

Z. discusses many of Ritschl's important works, like his Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (1870-1874), but he also draws from lesserknown but crucial writings such as Theologie und Metaphysik (1881). He also makes excellent use of the second edition of Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (1857) to show how Ritschl was able to formulate his disagreements with Baur over not only how the early Catholic Church developed but also to explain how Ritschl thought historical theology should be done.

Unfortunately, many important Protestant theologians have either been completely left out of this narrative or reduced to playing minor roles in it. Karl von Hase, Karl Rudolf Hagenbach, and Karl Bernhard Hundeshagen are among the former; Richard Rothe, Johann Neander, and Adolf von Hamack are among the latter. Z.'s discussion of Ernst Troeltsch is particularly problematic; he focuses almost exclusively on Troeltsch's first edition of Die Absolutheit des Christentums (1902) and ignores his major writings, Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit (1906), Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (1912), and particularly Der Historismus und seine Probleme (1922). Given that Z. ends his account with Troeltsch, why he did not treat more of Troeltsch's writings is puzzling.

One of Troeltsch's key concerns was the relationship between church and state; this opposition has a long history, and it was particularly important in Germany. The "Kulturkampf' pitted Bismarck's German Protestant government against the Roman Catholic Church. The question was to whom did German citizens specifically owe allegiance--the kaiser or the pope? This was not merely a political question but went to the heart of the notion of authority. Protestants believed that Catholics could not be real scholars because their "scientific" writings were always influenced by their theological doctrines. That there is no discussion of the "Kulturkampf' detracts considerably from Z.'s narrative.

Another major lacuna is a discussion of the various journals and encyclopedias that furthered the role of science in understanding theology. Z. mentions a couple of journals but ignores many others, including the impressive Theologische Kritiken und Studien. Also unmentioned but worthy of investigation for this narrative are the Realencyklopadiefurprotestantische Theologie und Kirche and Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. These contain remarkably informative essays that helped further the overlap between historical understanding and theological concepts. These omissions are significant and detract from Z.'s account. Nonetheless, the narrative that he does present is important, compelling, and very informative. It should serve to encourage others to investigate this crucial story of how theology became more scientific in 19th-century Germany.

DOI: 10.1177/0040563914565312

Christopher Adair-Toteff

University of South Florida, Tampa