Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:20:41.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

J. P. Gabler and the Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

John Sandys-Wunsch  and
Laurence Eldredge
John Sandys-Wunsch
Affiliation:
Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt John's Newfoundland Canada AIC 5S7
Laurence Eldredge
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cabler's inaugural address De justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque racte utriusque finibus was written in a very complex, classically-based Latin, but the ideas he expressed were those of eighteenth-century Enlightenment theology. The responsibility for this translation was shared in that Dr Eldredge dealt with the philological and idiomatic sense of the Latin, and Dr Sandys-Wunsch filled in the theological background to Gabler's thought. Dr Sandys-Wunsch alone is responsible for the commentary and discussion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 133 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1980

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

page 136 note i The best things to read in this connexion are the observations truly and learnedly made by the late immortal Ernesti, J. A. in his learned work Pro grammatica interpretatione librorum sacrorum and De vanitate philosophantium in interpretations librorum sacrorum, in Opuscula Philologica (2nd ed.; Leiden, Luchtman, 1764) 219–232 and 233–51Google Scholar; and the very distinguished Morus, in Prolus. de discrimine sensus et significationis in interpretando (Leipzig, 1777)Google Scholar.

page 136 note ii Tittmann, C. C., Progr(amm) de discrimine theologiae et religionis (Wittemberg, 1782)Google Scholar.

page 137 note 1 A.O.O.H. Presumably an abbreviation for Auditores omnium ordinum honorabiles.

page 137 note 2 The translation here represents a conjectural emendation of the untranslatable Latin text. Quanta has been added before Patres.

page 138 note iii Zachariae, G. T. in his noted work Biblische Theologie (5 vols.; Göttingen and Kiel, 1771, 1772, 1774, 1775, 1786)Google Scholar.

page 139 note 1 The expression from Gal 4.9 is cited in Greek in Gabler's text. It is translated here as Gabler understood it but many modern commentators would interpret it otherwise.

page 140 note iv The late Professor Ernesti warned us of this problem in his distinguished fashion in his two works De difficultatibus N.T. recte interpretandi and De dtfficultate interpretationis grammatica N.T., in Opuscula Philologies, 198–218 and 252–87.

page 140 note v That excellent man Morus, S. F. N. in his Prolus. de nexu significationum eiusdem verbi (Leipzig, 1776) has taught us what caution must be observed in interpreting the relationship amongst meanings of the same word.Google Scholar

page 140 note 1 This is a technical term referring to allegorical or similar methods of extracting a ‘spiritual’ meaning from a text.

page 141 note vi The distinguished Noesselt, J. A. did this in his Disp. de discernenda propria et tropica dictiane (Halle, 1762).Google Scholar

page 141 note vii That great man dealt with this first in his Disp. de notionibus universis in Theologia and then in his Prog. de utilitate nolionum universarum in Theologia (Leipzig, 1782)Google Scholar.

page 143 note 1 This is a transcription of the term Gabler uses in Greek script. ‘Theopneustia’ was often used for ‘inspiration’ in the eighteenth-century debates on the subject.

page 143 note 2 This is a technical expression that refers to the standard collection of proof texts in the orthodox theology of the eighteenth century. G. T. Zachariae had been the first to challenge the usefulness of these lists of texts isolated from their context.

page 144 note viii Toellner, J. G., Theologische Untersuchungen (Riga, 1772) 1. 264ff.Google Scholar

page 144 note 1 Here our translation differs from Merk's ‘biblical theology in a stricter sense than Zachariae followed’. The Latin is ambiguous at this point, but in the next sentence the expression ‘stricter sense’ is used without any direct comparison. Furthermore, Gabler is very dependent on Zachariae here in his reference to the dicta classica and therefore he seems to be making this remark in connexion with rather than as a contrast to Zachariae's position. At all events there is no real difference between Gabler's and Zachariae's approach to biblical theology on this point.

page 144 note 2 The remainder of Gabler's address is not concerned with biblical theology but with the polite formalities of the occasion. Merk translates this section in his work.

page 145 note 1 Toellner, J. G., Grundriss einer erwiesenen Hermeneutik der heiligen Schrift, 1765.Google Scholar

page 145 note 2 This hope of general agreement amongst sane, educated persons is widespread in eighteenth-century hermeneutic discussion. See, for example, Bahrdt, C. (or K.) F., Versuch eines biblischen Systems der Dogmatik (1769, 70) 1.28Google Scholar.

page 146 note 1 Bahrdt's book was a good example of this. Gabler's reference to that ‘unfortunate fellow’ (181) may be to Bahrdt.

page 146 note 2 This distinction between the simplicity of the Bible and the complexity of theology was not confined to the eighteenth century. See Hurley, Michael, ‘Scriptura Sola: Wyclif and his Critics’, Traditio 16 (1960), pp. 275–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 147 note 1 This term has been used by modern historians since Wilhelm Mauer to designate the theologians who steered a middle way between defending the whole of orthodox theology on rational principles and those who denied that there was any revelation apart from reason alone. In the eighteenth century ‘neologian’ was usually a term of abuse. The development of this term has not been adequately chartered by historians; however, Gabler appears to have been one of the first to use ‘neologian’ in a purely descriptive sense free from pejorative overtones.

page 148 note 1 It should be remembered that for Gabler, as for most theologians of his day, ‘reason’ was a far more inclusive term than ‘logic’. Reason was man's natural faculty for becoming aware of many things including God and his demands.

page 149 note 1 There is no extensive treatment of Gabler in English. The best German works on him are: Smend, R., ‘Johann Philipp Gabler's Begründung der biblischen Theologie’, Evangelische Theologie 22 (1962), pp. 345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and sections in O. Merk, Biblische Theologie, and Leder, K., Universität Altdorf: Zur Theologie der Aufklärung in Franken (Nürnberg: Spindler, 1965)Google Scholar. Kraus, H. J., Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Problemalik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970)Google Scholar, needs to be treated with caution.

page 149 note 2 Biblische Theologie (2 vols.; Leipzig: Barth, 1836), pp. 22–23Google Scholar. de Wette, W. M. L. was the first writer of a biblical theology to mention Gabler's address explicitly in his Lehrbuch der Christlichen Dogmattk I: Biblische Dogmatik Alten und Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1813), p. 30.Google Scholar

page 149 note 3 Neueste Theologische Bibliothek 2 (1772), p. 509.Google Scholar

page 149 note 4 Vol. 2, part 1, 1789; the work was never completed.

page 149 note 5 Leipzig: Weygand, 1779.

page 150 note 1 Leipzig: Kohler, 1813.

page 150 note 2 Einleitung in die neuere Geschichte der Religion, der Kirche und der theologischen Wissenschaften (Schleswig: Roehss, 1797), p. 185.Google Scholar

page 150 note 3 Entwurf einer Reinen biblischen Theologie (Erlangen: Palm, 1792).Google Scholar

page 150 note 4 Theologie des alten Testaments oder Abriss der religiüsen Begriffe der alten Hebräer (Leipzig: Wegand, 1796)Google Scholar. See Merk, , Biblische Theologie, pp. 164–167Google Scholar.

page 150 note 5 Kraus, , Biblische Theologie, p. 52.Google Scholar

page 151 note 1 Merk, , Biblische Theologie, p. 42Google Scholar. Smend considers that Gabler's references to Zachariae spring more from courtesy than conviction, ‘Gablers Begriindung’, p. 353.

page 151 note 2 Zachariae, , Paraphrastische Erklärung der beyden Briefe an die Corinthier (Göttingen: Brose, 1786)Google Scholar*5 r. (Often leaves but not sides are numbered in eighteenth-century prefaces; ‘r’ and ‘v’ refer to recto and verso respectively.) This is confirmed by a note of Gabler's, in Journal für Theologische Literatur 2 (1801), pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

page 152 note 1 ‘Man siehet leicht, doss ich keine systematische Abhandlung der gesamten Theologie zu schreiben gedenke, aber auch eine weitere Absicht habe, als bloss die vornehmsten Beweisstellen der Theologie zu erklären.’ (Biblische Theologie 1; * 1 v.) An unfortunate misprint in Kraus' citation of this passage (Biblische Theologie, pp. 33) reads ‘keine weitere Absicht’ thus inverting Zachariae's meaning.

page 152 note 2 Gabler, p. 179; Zachariae, Biblische Theologie I. XI-XII.

page 152 note 3 Zachariae, Biblische Theologie I. XXXIII. The whole quotation is: ‘Zwar kann mann nach ausgemachten güttlichen Eingebung der heiligen Schriftstelle die Richtigkeit des wirklich in ihr enthaltenen Satzes voraussetzen, wenn nur das gewiss ist, dass der aus ihr hergeleitete Satz bey einer richtigen Auslegung wirklich in ihr angetroffen worde, welches man bey menschlichen Schriften nicht allemal sicher voraussetzen kan. Es ändert dis aber in der Art zu beweisen nichts.

page 152 note 4 Both rely heavily on Ernesti: Zachariae, Biblische Theologie I. CXXXLX; Gabler, pp. 181, 187.

page 153 note 1 Gabler, p. 185; Zachariae, , Philosophische-Theologische Abhandlungen als Beilagen zur biblischen Theologie zu gebrauchen (Lemgo: Meyer, 1776), p. 56.Google Scholar

page 153 note 2 Merk (Biblische Theologie, p. 25) has argued that Zachariae did not attribute any importance to history. However, I have argued in a forthcoming article on Zachariae that Merk has misinterpreted a statement of Zachariae's which referred not to history as such but to church history as a branch of theology.

page 153 note 3 Zachariae, Biblische Theologie 1. *2 v.: ‘Denn überhaupt machet die von unserer Art zu denken and zu reden stark abweichende hebraische Denkungs- und Schreibart des A. T. welche notwendig auch die Denkungs-und Schreibart der Apostel im N.T. besonders in Glaubenslehren, bestimmen müssen, die gröste Schwürigkeit bey Vergleichung unserer gewohnten Vorstellungen mit den biblischen.’

page 153 note 4 Zachariae, Biblische Theologie I, p. 217: ‘Die Ruhe Gotles war bey ihm selbst nichts besonderes, sondern sie wird ihm blos nach der Denkungsart der damaligen Völker und in Beziehung auf diese verordnete strenge Ruhe der Israeliten am Sabbath beygeleget.

page 153 note 5 Gabler, 186; Zachariae, Biblische Theologie, I, XI-XII.

page 154 note 1 Zachariae, Biblische Theologie I. *4 v.: ‘Art der successiven Kundmachung der göttlichen Anstalten …’, Gabler, 191.

page 154 note 2 This explains his extensive treatment of the life of Jesus in his Biblische Theologie. In his Philosophische-Theologische Abhandlungen, p. 74, he states: ‘Ich sage aber deshalb, dass auch historische Sätze zu den theologischen gehören, weil niemand in Zweifel ziehn wird, dass die Sätze von der Geburt, dem Leiden and Tode des Erlösers historische Sätze seyn, und doch notwendig zu den theologischen gerechnet werden müssen.’

page 155 note 1 Thiess, Einleitung, 89.

page 156 note 1 ‘De notionibus universis in theologia’ (in Dissertationes theologicae et philologicae. Leipzig: Grieshammer, 1798, I, pp. 239–307), p. 239.Google Scholar

page 157 note 1 Later Gabler came to describe this as the difference between wahre and reine biblical theology; for example, Journal für Theologische Literatur 1 (1801), p. 403.

page 157 note 2 See Smend, R., ‘Universalismus und Partikularismus in der Alttestamentlichen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderls’, Evangelische Theologie 22 (1962), pp. 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar