No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Godforsakenness as the End of Prophecy: A Proposal from Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Extract
The rationalist Johann Friedrich Röhr makes a passing but telling comment in his 1823 review of Schleiermacher's then recently published Glaubenslehre, when moving on from the doctrines of redemption and reconciliation: “We can pass over the explanation of the ecclesial doctrine of the prophetic, high priestly, and kingly office of Christ. More important is the doctrine of justification.” Röhr's disinterest has, in large part, been retained by more recent theological considerations of Schleiermacher. Despite ample recognition of the fact that Schleiermacher rejuvenated the doctrine of Christ's threefold office after a period of general neglect, extended reflection upon the actual implications of Schleiermacher's understanding of Christ as prophet, priest, and king for the rest of his system, and his doctrine of redemption in particular, has been lacking. In both editions of the Glaubenslehre, however, four complete sections are devoted to the threefold office, which with two preceding sections on the redeeming and reconciling activity of Christ make up Schleiermacher's doctrinal heading “Of the Work of Christ” within his division on Christology.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2014
Footnotes
*
I would like to thank Kevin Hector, Matthew Robinson, Kyle Rader, and the participants of the Theology Workshop at the University of Chicago Divinity School, as well as the anonymous reviewers of this journal, for reading and offering valuable criticism of previous drafts of this paper.
References
1 For an edition of the Glaubenslehre see Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt (ed. Pieter, Herman; 1st ed., 1821–1822; KGA 1/7.1–2; repr., Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980Google Scholar; henceforth CG 1); Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt (ed. Rolf Schäfer; 2nd ed., 1830–1831; KGA 1/13.1–2; repr., Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003; henceforth CG 2); ET The Christian Faith (trans. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956). I will use Mackintosh and Stewart's English translation (of the 1830–1831 edition), citing: CG 2 section number, Mackintosh and Stewart page. When it is relevant I will include the German original in brackets, from CG 2.
2 Röhr, Johann Friedrich, “Besprechung Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre,” Kritische Prediger-Bibliothek 4 (1823) 371–94, 555–79Google Scholar, reprinted in Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Marginalien und Anhang (ed. Gerdes, Hayo and Peiter, Hermann; Kritische Gesamtausgabe [henceforth KGA] 1/7.3; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983) 505–33Google Scholar, at 528. The translation is mine, here and in all instances where only a German source is cited. Note also Schleiermacher's comment to his friend Joachim Christian Gass about Röhr's review: “My colleague Röhr has expressed himself about my dogmatics in his Prediger Zeitung, but I have learned nothing from his criticisms” (Friedrich Schleiermacher, On the “Glaubenslehre”: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke [trans. James Duke and Francis Fiorenza; AAR Texts and Translations 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981] 124).
3 CG 2 §§100–105; Christian Faith, 425–75.
4 Ritschl, Albrecht, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (trans. Black, John; Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872) 485Google Scholar.
5 This sort of proposal has some precedent: Isaak Dorner hints at a similar development of Schleiermacher's thought in line with the office of kingship (History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ [trans. William Lindsay Alexander and D. W. Simon; 5 vols. bound in 2 divisions as 3 vols.; Clark's Foreign Theological Library Series 3 10–11, 14–15, 18; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1861–1884]) div. 2 vol. 3:203–5).
6 Much of the recent discussion on Christ's forsakenness has followed the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale (for an edition see Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter [trans. Aidan Nichols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990]) and Jürgen Moltmann's The Crucified God (for an edition see The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology [trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden; New York: Harper & Row: 1974]), and is primarily concerned with how to reconcile (or whether to reject) divine immutability with the suffering of the Son, as well as how to account for the unity of Father and Son in the event of the cross. A good place to begin in the secondary literature is Bruce Marshall's essay “The Dereliction of Christ and the Impassibility of God,” in Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering (ed. James Keating and Thomas Joseph White; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009) 246–98; Marshall discusses the modern issue at length and with reference to Cyril of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas. See also John Yocum, “A Cry of Dereliction? Reconsidering a Recent Theological Commonplace,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 7 (2005) 72–80; Stump, Eleonore, “Atonement and the Cry of Dereliction from the Cross,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (2012) 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Novello, Henry, “Jesus’ Cry of Lament: Towards a True Apophaticism,” ITQ 78 (2013) 38–60Google Scholar. Novello's essay is distinguished by a more extensive consideration of the place of lament in Judaism and the implications of Christ's forsakenness for practical theology.
7 CG 2 §104.4; Christian Faith, 460.
8 “It has given me much pleasure to read that the late J. J. Hess, too, could not bring himself to regard the passage Matt 27:46 as a description by Christ of His own state of misery [unseligen Zustande], but only as the first words of the Psalm, quoted with reference to what follows” (ibid.).
9 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, The Life of Jesus (trans. Gilmour, S. Maclean; Lives of Jesus; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 423Google Scholar [emphasis is the translator’s]. (For the original see Das Leben Jesu. Vorlesungen an der Universität zu Berlin im Jahr 1832 [Berlin: Reimer, 1864].)
10 Schleiermacher likely discovered Hess's Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu during the 1820s. A new edition was published in 1822–1823, and Hess died in 1828—two occasions upon which Schleiermacher could plausibly have become familiarized with the work between the 1st and 2nd editions of the Glaubenslehre. Schleiermacher's copy was the 4th edition, from 1774 (Hess, Jakob, Geschichte der drey letzten Lebensjahre Jesu [Zurich: Bey Orell, Gessner, Fuesslin, and Compagnie, 1774]Google Scholar; see Schleiermachers Bibliothek [ed. Lars Emersleben; KGA 1/15; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005] 709). See also Friedhelm Ackva, Johann Jakob Heß (1741–1828) und seine biblische Geschichte (New York: Peter Lang, 1992).
11 Dawn DeVries gives a concise description of this opinion (see Jesus Christ in the Preaching of Calvin and Schleiermacher [Columbia Series in Reformed Theology; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996] 88), as does Emanuel Hirsch (see Schleiermachers Christusglauben [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1968] 86–87). Karl Barth, however, offers the most extensive account of Schleiermacher's changing thought on this passage and examines the evolution of his homiletic treatments of it in greater depth (see The Theology of Schleiermacher [trans. Geoffrey Bromiley; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982] 80–85).
12 In the first edition (CG 1 §125.4; Christian Faith, 93–94), Schleiermacher's broader argument is virtually the same, only without the exegetical reference to Hess and Psalm 22. For comments on the revision of §123/§102 concerning the munus triplex, see Gerdes, Hayo, “Anmerkungen zur Christologie der Glaubenslehre Schleiermachers,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 25 (1983) 112–25Google Scholar, at 118–19.
13 “Even as the Redeemer pronounced these opening words of the Twenty-second Psalm, the entire holy song was indisputably present in his soul, although only this extent of it could be heard aloud because of his increasing physical weakness [körperlicher Schwäche]” (Friedrich Schleiermacher, Sämmtliche Werke [30 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, 1834–1864] 2.2:404). In the Leben Jesu lectures, however, Schleiermacher rejects this explanation of the Redeemer's silence: “To be sure, once Christ had been crucified he spoke very little, but that cannot be regarded as the result of a weakened life force [geschwächter Lebenskraft]. On the contrary, Christ's relative silence was due to the fact that he was awaiting death and to the fact that he was exposed to public view” (Schleiermacher, Life of Jesus, 419).
14 Schleiermacher, On the “Glaubenslehre”, 71–72. Hess's view is presented as corroboration that is above such reproach, because Hess “is not one whom anyone can accuse of rationalism.” Nonetheless, in his response to the Leben Jesu Strauss continues to dismiss the argument on precisely the former lines of the 1821–1822 Glaubenslehre: “The explanation that the words are to be understood only as part of the entire psalm (Psalm 22), which concludes with a most joyous affirmation, is common to Schleiermacher and to the older, partially or completely rationalistic theologians” (David Friedrich Strauss, The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History [trans. Leander Keck; Lives of Jesus; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 124). Albert Schweitzer categorizes Hess as a part of the early rationalism of historical Jesus research, which still preserved some supernaturalist elements (see The Quest of the Historical Jesus [ed. John Bowden; Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies; Philadelphia: Fortress, 2001] 28–30).
15 Schleiermacher explains the effect of superfluity when discussing Scripture as a sufficient norm for faith (and thus not containing anything superfluous): “What is superfluous is confusing and hence of no more than negative value; also it tempts the mind into comparisons that lead nowhere” (CG 2 § 131.3; Christian Faith, 607). One might object that Christ's “sympathy with sin” (Mitgefühl der Sünde; see, e.g., CG 2 § 104.1; Christian Faith, 452) offers a positive content for suffering, but Schleiermacher clarifies that this suffering is vicarious without making satisfaction, and that such vicarious suffering is always also present in the wider community rather than unique to the work of the Redeemer (CG 2 § 104.3; Christian Faith, 461). While he takes this aspect of the Redeemer's suffering to be positive content, then, Schleiermacher does not seem to grant it particular redemptive significance. It does, however, play an important role in my proposal, where I will argue that the vicarious nature of sympathy with sin opens up the possibility of a feeling of godforsakenness.
16 CG 2 §98.1; Christian Faith, 416.
17 By “actualism” I mean a focus on Christ's activity as what constitutes the essential divine identity in him. One of many quotable summaries of Schleiermacher's christological actualism describes it in this way: “The existence of God in the Redeemer is posited as the innermost fundamental power within Him, from which every activity proceeds and which holds every element together” (CG 2 § 96.3; Christian Faith, 397). For a recent application of this terminology as it relates to Schleiermacher's Christology, see Hector, Kevin, “Actualism and Incarnation: The High Christology of Friedrich Schleiermacher,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 8 (2006) 307–22Google Scholar.
18 The Markan employment of Psalm 22 for the Passion Narrative is generally recognized as a literary structure central to the development of the early Christian doctrine of the Messiah, allowing Schleiermacher's reading, which focuses on literary coherence as the basis for a theological account of the experience of Jesus, to harmonize well with current New Testament scholarship. Donald Juel's Messianic Exegesis is an important study for recent literature considering the theological import of Old Testament quotations in the christological development of the early church (Juel, Donald, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] esp. 114–17Google Scholar). For some recent studies on the use of Psalm 22 in Mark's Passion Narrative, see the following: Esther Menn discusses the attribution of the originally generic lament psalm to great historical characters such as David, , Esther, , and Jesus, in “No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22,” HTR 93 (2000) 301–41Google Scholar, at 327–35; Matthew Rindge considers the reference as a key to understanding the Markan doctrine of God in “Reconfiguring the Akedah and Recasting God: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark,” JBL 130 (2011) 755–74; Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll considers the use of psalms of lament in Mark's gospel and draws important distinctions between Jesus and David, as well as between Mark's portrayal and the later Suffering Servant motif, in The Psalms of Lament in Mark's Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering (SNTSMS; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and William Sanger Campbell offers a valuable argument for the cry of dereliction as being the culmination of an “abandonment Christology” that runs throughout the Gospel of Mark in “‘Why Did You Abandon Me?’ Abandonment Christology in Mark's Gospel,” in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (ed. Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd; CBET 45; Louvain: Peeters, 2006) 99–117. The main textual concern for these studies is the doctrinal or literary importance of using Psalm 22 to present the identity of Jesus in a way that is biographically coherent and relevant to theological concept formation.
19 See Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Vorlesungen zur Hermeneutik und Kritik (ed. Virmond, Wolfgang and Patsch, Hermann; KGA 2/4; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012) 973Google Scholar.
20 See Schleiermacher, Friedrich, “Über die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien,” in Exegetische Schriften (ed. Patsch, Hermann and Schmid, Dirk; KGA 1/8; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001) 227–54Google Scholar. See also Johann Jakob Griesbach's Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur, which is reprinted with an English translation in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptical and Text-critical Studies, 1776–1976 (ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas W. Longstaff; trans. Bernard Orchard; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 68–135.
21 Helmer, Christine, “Recovering the Real: A Case Study of Schleiermacher's Theology,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (ed. Helmer, Christine; SBL Symposium Series 37; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 161–76Google Scholar, at 171.
22 Ibid., 165–66.
23 Kierkegaard, Søren, Philosophical Fragments (ed. and trans. Hong, Howard V. and Hong, Edna H.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985) 89–110Google Scholar.
24 See Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 114–17.
25 See Menn, “No Ordinary Lament,” 327–35; Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms of Lament, 197–212.
26 Schleiermacher considers the redemptive work of Christ in CG 2 §§100–101; Christian Faith 425–38. For a recent account of Schleiermacher's doctrine of Scripture as it relates to the redemptive work of Christ, see Nimmo, Paul, “Schleiermacher on Scripture and the Work of Jesus Christ,” Modern Theology (2013) doi: 10.1111/moth.12080Google Scholar. While Nimmo's article was published too late to incorporate into this essay, it will be an important reference for future research.
27 Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. McNeill, John T.; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC 10–11; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 2.15.2, 496Google Scholar.
28 Ibid. See also CG 2 §93.5; Christian Faith, 384–85 and CG 2 §103.3; Christian Faith, 447.
29 Edmondson, Stephen, Calvin's Christology (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 160–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 162. Edmondson is responding to Jansen, J. F., Calvin's Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: James Clark, 1956)Google Scholar.
30 CG 2 §6.2; Christian Faith, 27.
31 CG 2 §104; Christian Faith, 451–66.
32 CG 2 §103.2; Christian Faith, 443.
33 CG 2 §100.2; Christian Faith, 426–28. See also CG 2 §104.3; Christian Faith, 455: “Thus we are also enabled to distinguish the prophetic value of Christ's obedience from the high-priestly. To the prophetic office of Christ belongs everything which is proclamation, and so self-presentation as well, not in words only, but also in deed. This, however, is addressed to men in view of their opposition to Christ, in order to make them susceptible of union with Him. Hence the obedience of Christ in this aspect of it is held up even for all who are in the Church, and bears on the distinction between Christ and them which still persists.”
34 CG 2 §100.2; Christian Faith, 428.
35 Christian Faith, 68. See also CG 2 §14.3 and postscript; Christian Faith, 70, 73–75.
36 CG 2 §100.2; Christian Faith, 427.
37 CG 2 §103.2; Christian Faith, 446.
38 CG 2 §14, postscript; Christian Faith, 74–75.
39 “He is the end of all prophecy, because no new teaching can arise which, after His, would not be false; that is to say, from now on all true teaching in this sphere goes back, not to Moses and the law, but to the Son. He is also the end of prophecy for this reason, that now there can be no such thing as an independent personal inspiration, but only a being inspired by him” (CG 2 §103.3; Christian Faith, 445–46); “we have recognized Christ as the end of prophecy; which implies that even the Church does not acknowledge any gift of the Spirit enabling her to form a prophetic picture of a future on which (since it lies altogether beyond human experience) our action can exert no influence whatever; indeed, in the absence of all analogy we could hardly understand the picture aright or retain it securely” (CG 2 §157.2; Christian Faith, 697).
40 “The Scripture was now completely fulfilled in Him, and, erroneously as the great majority had always interpreted these glorious words of prophetic men, their true import would now be better apprehended by all” (Schleiermacher, Friedrich, “The Last Look at Life,” in Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher [trans. Wilson, M.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890] 235–49, at 240Google Scholar).
41 CG 2 §103.2; Christian Faith, 443.
42 CG 2 §104.3; Christian Faith, 455.
43 CG 2 §165.2; Christian Faith, 727.
44 CG 2 §169.1; Christian Faith, 735.
45 CG 2 §81; Christian Faith, 335.
46 CG 2 §81.3; Christian Faith, 336. The language of this passage may seem difficult to reconcile with the divine causality as absolute rather than present in discrete instances (which would subject the divine omnipotence to the interplay of natural causality). Nevertheless, Schleiermacher here clearly speaks of the rise of sin as a divine Wirkung. While a satisfactory resolution to this difficulty is beyond the scope of this essay, an answer lies in the direction of Schleiermacher's doctrine of the divine attributes, which in their particularity do not denote something particular in God but rather in the human feeling of absolute dependence. The divine causality as it is identifiable in its individual effects will therefore be an expression of divine omnipotence in its particularity—not adequate to a dogmatic understanding of divine activity, but also not in contradiction with Schleiermacher's understanding of divine activity.
47 Schleiermacher rarely discusses sin in such personal and confrontational terms; usually sin comes across as an obstruction or imperfection along the way to spiritual development rather than an oppositional stance. Noteworthy exceptions, however, include his account of the Jewish rejection of Christ (CG 2 §137.2; Christian Faith, 630) and Judas's betrayal (Life of Jesus, 413–14). The Jews in question came to faith and were seeking repentance and baptism by Peter; the actions of Judas are attributed to false ideas about the Messiah that led him astray.
48 See Schmidt, Thomas E., “Cry of Dereliction or Cry of Judgment? Mark 15:34 in Context,” BBR 4 (1994) 145–53Google Scholar. Schmidt even draws attention to the prophetic role of this episode (147–48).
49 CG 2 §97.3; Christian Faith, 407. This justification of sympathy in Christ, as well as its association with the humanity of Christ, should be read in light of §85; Christian Faith, 353, where mercy is dismissed as an attribute of God because “it is conditioned by a sensuous sympathy.”
50 CG 2 §104.1; Christian Faith, 452. Note that Schleiermacher is discussing the priestly office of Christ here, and identifies “a new difficulty . . . namely, that both the active and the passive obedience of Christ belong entirely to His self-presentation, and consequently to His prophetic office.” While Schleiermacher goes on to consider the matter “only insofar as it is something different” from the prophetic office, I am concerned precisely with the sympathy of Christ as it grounds his suffering within the prophetic office. This will come out more clearly as I respond to some of Schleiermacher's concerns about the idea of Christ's godforsakenness and its associations with vicarious substitution.
51 CG 2 §104.4; Christian Faith, 462.
52 CG 2 §68.3; Christian Faith, 278.
53 Friedrich Schleiermacher, “The Savior's Peace,” in Selected Sermons of Friedrich Schleiermacher, 314–25, at 317. Schleiermacher's intention here is to say that Christ spoke out of sympathy because he did not feel abandoned himself. I am, of course, attempting to make room precisely for an assertion of feeling rather than “sympathy” or “feeling-with” (Mitgefühl) and so I recognize that I am working against Schleiermacher's own conclusions. It is important to note 1) that Schleiermacher does acknowledge a “sympathy with sin” that leads to the cry of dereliction, 2) that elsewhere he speaks of this sympathy as “vicarious” (see n. 15 above), and 3) that for Schleiermacher the real problem with Christ's feeling of abandonment is the harmony between God and Christ that he thinks it threatens, rather than the idea that a fellow feeling of Christ with humanity cannot be taken up into his own personal state.
54 CG 2 §101.4; Christian Faith, 436 [emphasis mine].
55 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Selections from Friedrich Schleiermacher's Christian Ethics (trans. Brandt, James; Library of Theological Ethics; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 40Google Scholar. For the original see Die christliche Sitte nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche (ed. Ludwig Jonas; Berlin: Reimer, 1843) 39.
56 CG 2 §98.1; Christian Faith, 414–15. Elsewhere in the Glaubenslehre, this “quiescent consciousness” [ruhenden Bewußtseins] is present in “the human nature of Christ in its act of uniting with the quiescent consciousness of being accepted” (CG 2 §108.2; Christian Faith, 485). The risk here is similar to that in §97.3; Christian Faith, 407, where sympathy in Christ presents a state of passivity that must always stand in “association with an activity of the divine in Christ” (see Adams, Robert Merrihew, “Philosophical Themes in Schleiermacher's Christology,” Philosophia 39 [2011] 449–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 457–58).
57 Schleiermacher, “The Savior's Peace,” 315.
58 CG 2 §104.4; Christian Faith, 460.
59 Christian Faith, 317.
60 CG 2 §103.2; Christian Faith, 446.
61 See Sonderegger, Katherine, “Must Christ Suffer to Redeem? The Doctrine of Vicarious Atonement in Schleiermacher and Baeck,” Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte 2 (1995) 175–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 183 n. 27.
62 2 Cor 5:21.
63 Schleiermacher, Life of Jesus, 423.
64 The question of divine wrath has not been addressed in this paper because it is not prominent in Schleiermacher's account of the cry of dereliction, but consideration of it alongside other aspects of the suffering and death of Christ would be appropriate. See Schleiermacher's 1830 sermon “Daß wir nichts vom Zorne Gottes zu lehren haben,” translated as “The Wrath of God” in Servant of the Word: Selected Sermons of Friedrich Schleiermacher (trans. Dawn DeVries; Fortress Texts in Modern Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 152–65.
65 See Trillhaas, Wolfgang, “Der Mittelpunkt der Glaubenslehre Schleiermachers,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 10 (1968) 289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 299–300.
66 See CG 2 §98; Christian Faith, 413–17.
67 See CG 2 §93.2; Christian Faith, 377–79.
68 Junker-Kenny, Maureen, “Schleiermacher's Transcendental Turn: Shifts in Argumentation between the First and Second Editions of the Glaubenslehre,” New Athenaeum / Neues Athenaeum 3 (1992) 21–41Google Scholar, at 33–34. Junker-Kenny goes on to argue that Schleiermacher fails to establish adequately the unique dignity of Christ. I do not agree with this christological assessment, although I find her analysis of Schleiermacher's argumentation helpful.
69 CG 2 §98.1; Christian Faith, 414–15 and §104.4; Christian Faith, 460. These episodes were widely discussed during the period; especially worth noting are the articles of Carl Ullmann and Leonhard Usteri in Theologische Studien und Kritiken from 1828–1832. For an overview of the literature focusing on the temptation, see the appendix in Ullmann, Carl, The Sinlessness of Jesus: An Evidence for Christianity (trans. Taylor, Sophia; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870) 264–91Google Scholar.
70 CG 2 §98.1; Christian Faith, 414.
71 Matt 27:39–44. Note the allusion to the second temptation in the wilderness, although on the cross Jesus remains publicly silent while in Matt 4:7 he prophesies to the devil.
72 I follow Kevin Hector in identifying Schleiermacher's christological actualism with the persistent state of blessedness in Christ. Hector helpfully presents the effortless expression of the higher self-consciousness in Christ through the concept of “attunement” (see Hector, Kevin, “Attunement and Explicitation: A Pragmatist Reading of Schleiermacher's ‘Theology of Feeling’,” in Schleiermacher, the Study of Religion, and the Future of Theology: A Transatlantic Dialogue [ed. Sockness, Brent W. and Gräb, Wilhelm; Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 148; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010] 215–42Google Scholar, at 229–30).
73 CG 2 §11.2; Christian Faith, 54 [emphasis in original].
74 CG 2 §4.4; Christian Faith, 17.
75 “The feeling of dependence is the common element in all receptivity determinations of the subject, and it signifies a concrete determination of the subject by its codetermining other. Without the other and its influence, the subject would not be determined as he is” (Williams, Robert, “Schleiermacher and Feuerbach on the Intentionality of Religious Consciousness,” JR 53 [1973] 424–55Google Scholar, at 436–37).
76 Maureen Junker-Kenny's summary of the literature does a good job of illustrating the variety of angles from which one can interpret Schleiermacher's view on the significance of the suffering and death of Christ (see Junker, Maureen, Das Urbild des Gottesbewußtseins. Zur Entwicklung der Religionstheorie und Christologie Schleiermachers von der ersten zur zweiten Auflage der “Glaubenslehre” [Schleiermacher-Archiv 8; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990] 199–200Google Scholar).
77 Ritschl, Critical History, 470.
78 Bretschneider, Karl, “Ueber den Begriff der Erlösung und die damit zusammenhängenden Vorstellungen von Sünde und Erbsünde in der christlichen Glaubenslehre des Hrn. Prof. Dr. Schleiermacher,” Neues Journal für Prediger 67 (1825) 1–33Google Scholar, at 28–29. Bretschneider's better-known (and less successful) criticism of Schleiermacher concerns the relationship between piety and feeling built upon a criticism of Schleiermacher's conception of Gefühl as Selbstbewusstsein; see Schleiermacher, On the Glaubsenslehre, 38–39. An English translation of a section from Bretschneider's Handbuch der Dogmatik, which outlines his critique of Schleiermacher's doctrine of feeling, can be found in “Bretschneider's View of the Theology of Schleiermacher,” BSac 10 (1853) 596–616.
79 Schleiermacher, On the “Glaubenslehre”, 46.
80 Schleiermacher, On the “Glaubenslehre”, 46–47. Ullmann later calls the sinlessness of Jesus “ein Grundgedanke ihrer Systeme” (Ullmann, Carl, Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu. Eine apologetische Betrachtung [2nd ed.; Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1833] 9Google Scholar).
81 “According to the author, this is (in moral terms) no man, but rather a God, whom one can adore, but cannot follow” (Bretschneider, “Ueber den Begriff der Erlösung,” 28).