Kummel,
Werner Georg. The New Testament: The
History of the Investigation of Its Problems. New York: Abingdon Press,
1970.
But, alas, only the "True Light" that hath shon
since--and only since--the 18th-20th centuries of "Enlightenment."
Glad we got Kummel's memo.
Contents
Preface to the First Edition
Preface to the Second Edition
Translator’s Preface
Part 1: The
Prehistory
1.
Ancient and Medieval
2.
The Period of the Reformation
Part 2: The
Decisive Stimuli
1.
Textual Criticism
2.
English Deism and Its Early Consequences
Part 3: The
Beginnings of the Major Disciplines of New Testament Research
1.
J.S. Semler and J.D. Michaelis
2.
The Literary Problems
3.
The History of Primitive Christianity and its
World of Thought
4.
Biblical Theology
5.
Exegesis and the Laying of its Hermeneutical
Foundation
Part 4: The Consistently Historical Approach to the New
Testament
1. David Friedrich Strauss and
Ferdinand Christian Baur
2. The Dispute with Strauss and
Baur in Light of a Basic Solution of the Problem of Sources
3. The Correction of Baur’s
Picture of History
4. Individual Problems
5. The Questioning of the
Consistently Historical View of the New Testament
Part 5: The History-of-Religions of New Testament
Interpretation
1. The Pioneers of the
History-of-Religions School and Their Opponents
2. Consistent Eschatology
3. The History-of-Religions
Approach
4. The Radical Historical
Criticism
5. The Opposition to the View of
the New Testament Advanced by the School of History-of-Religions and Radical
Historical Criticism
Part 6: The Historico-Theological View of the New
Testament
1. The Literary Problems
2. The New History-of-Religions
Approach
3. The New Emphasis on Theological
Interpretation
4. Conclusion
Notes and Appendixes
List of Abbreviations
Notes
Literature on the History of New Testament
Research
Biographical Index
Index of Names
Part 1: The
Prehistory
Ancient and Medieval. We bring you three quotes to substantiate Mr.
(Prof.) Kummel’s dogmatic and creedal position:
that is, “the scientific view” of the New Testament “without dogmatic or
creedal bias” began with the “eighteenth century.” In his vicious circle, we are assured of the
new, regnant, scientific and—with good advertising—the “better and new” brand
of biblical scholarship. He offers three quotes.
The argument is this: these three authors
disputed the authorship of some NT books, but we—especially we Germans—since the
19th century have the new and improved brand for consumption; it’s the standard
hubris that we expect in Western centers of the academy—Germany, England, and
belatedly the US. Have there been advances? Of course. Have there been regressions? Most certainly, more like, retreats into
unbelief, bondage, dullness, apostasy and denial. While Mr. Kummel talks about
these “scientific advances” without creedal or dogmatic orientation, he makes a
“pitch” in his 2-page “conclusion” calling for an encounter with Christ.
Here are the ancients he copiously quotes to
indicate the backwardness, temporary lights, but still backwards. Marcion, Origen, Dionysius and Jerome.
Marcion—canonical disputes arise in Rome, but the Prof.
says nothing significant here. Ya’ see,
no one was doing post-Enlightenment scholarship, do ya’ get it from this point?
Origen (c. 185-254) discusses Hebrews and we quote:
“That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrew
has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech
[2 Cor. 11.6], that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the
framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern
differences of style. But again, on the
other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to
the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as
true who has given attention to reading the apostle…
“But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that
the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to
one who called to mind the apostle’s teaching and, as it were, paraphrases what
his master said. If any church,
therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this
also. For not without reason have the
men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth
God knows. Yet the account which has
reach us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans,
wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the
Acts.”
There ya’ have it. Origen in this pre-critical era could not
make an historical decision—and he was one of the better of the breed. But, alas, we have post-Enlightenment, truly
scientific and far better insights, right? We’ll depend on Bultmann or perhaps
Werner himself?
But, one needs some Dionysius of Alexandria
(bishop, 247-265) to further make the Prof’s point, to wit (this is long):
“Some indeed of those before our time rejected and altogether impugned
the book, picking it to pieces chapter by chapter and declaring it to be
unintelligible and illogical, and its title false. For they say that it is not John’s, no, nor
yet an apocalypse (unveiling), since it is veiled by its heavy, thick curtain
of unintelligibility; and that the author of this book was not only not one of
the apostles, nor even one of the saints or those belonging to the Church, but
Cerinthus, the same who created the sect “Cerinthian” after him, since he
desired to affix to his own forgery a name worthy of credit…
“But for my part I should not dare to reject the book, since many
brethren hold it in estimation; but, reckoning that my perception is inadequate
to form an opinion concerning it, I hold that the interpretation of each
several passage is in some way hidden and more wonderful [than appears on the
surface]. For even although I do not understand it, yet I suspect that some
deeper meaning underlies the words. For
I do not measure and judge these things by my own reasoning, but assigning to
faith the greater value, I have come to the conclusion that they are too high
for my comprehension, and I do not reject what I have not understood, but I
rather wonder that I did not indeed see them…
"After completing the whole one might say, of his prophecy, the prophet
calls those blessed who observe it, and indeed himself also; for he says, “Bless
is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and 1 John, name
John and that this book is by one John, I will not gainsay; for I fully allow
that it is the work of some holy and inspire person. But I should not readily agree that he was
the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose are the Gospel
entitled according to John and the Catholic Epistle. For I form my judgment from the character of
each and from the nature of the language and from what is known as the general
construction of the book, that [the John therein mentioned] is not the
same. For the evangelist nowhere adds
his name, nor yet proclaims himself, throughout either the Gospel or the
Epistles…
"John nowhere [mentions his own name], either in the first or the third
person. But he who wrote the Apocalypse
at the very beginning puts himself forward: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly, and he sent and signified
it by sending his angel to his servant John; who bore witness of the word of
God and his testimony, even of all things that he saw.”…”John to the seven churches
which are in Asia; Grace to you and peace [Rev. 1.12-14]. But the evangelist
did not write his name even at the beginning of the Catholic Epistle, but
without anything superfluous began with the mystery itself of the divine
revelation: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes.”…Nay, not even in the second and third extant
epistles of “the elder,” without giving his name. But this writer did not even consider it
sufficient, having once mentioned his name to narrate what follows, but he
takes up his name again: “I, John, your brother and partaker with you in the
tribulation and kingdom and in the patience of Jesus, was in the isle that is
called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” [Rev.1.9]. Moreover at the close he speaks thus: “Blessed
is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and 1 John, he that
saw and heard these things” [Rev. 22.7-8].
"That the writer of these words, therefore, was John, one must believe,
since he says it. But what John, is not
clear. For he did not say that he was,
as it frequently said in the Gospel, the disciple loved by the Lord, nor he
which leaned back on his breast, nor the brother of James, nor the eye-witness
and hearer of the Lord. For he would
have mentioned some one of these aforesaid epithets, had he wished to make
himself clearly known. Yet he makes us
of none of them, but speaks of himself as our brother and partaker with us, and
a witness of Jesus, and blessed in seeing and hearing the revelations. I hold that there have been many persons of
the same name as John the apostle, who for the love they bore him, and because
they admired and esteemed him and wished to be loved, as he was, of the Lord,
were glad to take also the same name after him; just as Paul, and for that
matter Peter too, is a common name among boys of believing parents. So then, there is also another John in the
Acts of the Apostles, whose surname was Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul too with
themselves [Acts 12.25], concerning whom also the Scripture says again: “And
they had also John as their attendant” [Acts 13.5]. But as to whether it was he
who was the writer, I should say No. For it is written that he did not arrive
in Asia along with them, but “having set sail,” the Scripture says, “from
Paphos Paul and his company came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John departed from
them and returned to Jerusalem” [Acts 13.13].
But I think there was a certain other [John] among those that were in
Asia, since it is said both that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each
of the two is said to be John’s.
"And from the conceptions too, and from the ideas and the word order, one
might naturally assume that this writer was a different person from the
other. For there is indeed a mutual
agreement between the Gospel and the Epistle, and they begin alike. The one says: “In the beginning was the Word”;
the other: “That which was from the beginning.” The one says: “And the Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten
from the father)” [John 1.14]; the other, the same words slightly changed: “That
which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we
beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was
manifested” [1 John 1.1]. For these
words he employs as a prelude, since he is aiming, as he shows in what follows,
at those who were asserting that the Lord has not come in the flesh. Therefore he was careful also to add: “And
that which we have seen, we bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the
eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; that which
we have seen and heard, declare we unto you also” [1 John 1.2-3]. He is
consistent with himself and does not depart from what he has proposed, but
proceeds throughout under the same main ideas and expressions, certain of which
we shall mention concisely. But the
attentive reader will find frequently in one and the other “the life,” the “light,”
“turning from darkness”; continually “the truth,” :the grace,” “the joy,” “the
flesh and blood of the Lord,” “the judgment,” “the forgiveness of sins,” “the
love of God toward us, “the “commandment” that we should “love one another,”
that we should “keep all the commandments”; the “conviction” of “the world,” of
the “devil,” of the “antichrist”; “the promise of the Holy Spirit”; “the
adoption of the sons of God”; the “faith” that is demanded of us throughout; “the
Father” and “the Son”: these are to be found everywhere. In a word, it is obvious that those who observe
their character throughout will see at a glance that the Gospel and Epistle are
inseparably in complete agreement. But
the Apocalypse is utterly different from, and foreign to, these writings; it
has no connexion, no affinity, in any way with them; it is scarcely, so to
speak, has even a syllable in common with them
Nay more, neither does the Epistle (not to speak of the Gospel) contain
any mention or reference to the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle,
whereas Paul in his epistles gave us a little light also on his revelations,
which he did not record in a separate document.
"And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference
between the Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless
Greek, but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their
reasonings, and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete absence of any barbarous
word, or solecism, or any vulgarisms whatever.
For the author had, as it seems, both kinds of word by the free gift of
the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not deny that the other writer had
seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy; nevertheless I observe
his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate, but that he
employs uncultivated idioms, in some places committing downright
solecisms. These there is no necessity
to single out. For I have not said these
things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the
dissimilarity of these writings” (16-18).
Jerome, in Lives
of Illustrious Men, heavily indebted on Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History,” noted the discussions in the early church.
“Simon Peter…wrote two epistles which are called catholic, the second of
which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by
many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his
disciple and interpreter is ascribed to him.
“James…wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic
Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been issued by someone else
under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.
“Jude, the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among
the seven Catholic Epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal
Book of Enoch, it is rejected by many.
Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned
among the Holy Scriptures.
“The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered
[Paul’s], on account of its difference from the others in style and language,
but is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or
according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement (afterwards bishop
of the church at Rome) who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in
his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was
in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salutation on
this account. He being a Hebrew wrote
Hebrew—that is, in his own tongue and most fluently—while the things which were
written well in Hebrew were even more eloquently turned into Greek and this is
the reason why it seems to different from other epistles of Paul.
“John, the apostle whom Jesus love…wrote also one epistle which begins as
follows, “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of
life” which is esteemed by all men who are interested in the church or in
learning. The other two of which the
first is, “The elder to the elect lady and her children,” and the other, “The
elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,” are said to be the work of
John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulcher is show at Ephesus
to the present day” (18-19).
But, alas, only the "True Light" that hath shon
since--and only since--the 18th-20th centuries of "Enlightenment."
Glad we got Kummel's memo.
