Search

Hegel envisioned his philosophical enterprise as a "System of Science" that would encompass all finite realities in a systematic grasp of absolute reality. He also envisioned, initially at least, two ways of entry into this system. Part 1 would be "The Science of the Experience of Consciousness"the Phenomenology of Spirit of 1807, described as a "pathway to science" or as a "ladder" to the absolute standpoint. Part 2 would be the Science of Logic, published during the period 1812-16. These represent, respectively, the phenomenological and the logical (or speculative) entrees to the system. These two "sciences" were combined in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817) but in reverse order and with the addition of a second, middle part, the philosophy of nature. The third part of the Encyclopedia, the philosophy of spirit, encompassed not only materials found in the Phenomenology of Spirit but also those covered by the

Hegel's interpretation of the history of religions in the second part of his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Determinate Religion, has generally been neglected, a neglect attributable both to the length and difficulty of the material and to the unsatisfactory character of the older editions, which amalgamated quite distinct lectures into an editorially constructed scheme. The new edition, published by the University of California Press, separates for the first time Hegel's four series of lectures on the philosophy of religion1821, 1824, 1827, and (in the excerpted form provided by D. F. Strauss) 1831-publishing them as independent texts on the basis of a complete reediting of the available sources.' When the lectures are read in sequence as originally delivered, it is possible to trace Hegel's unrelenting efforts to work out an adequate philosophical conceptualization of the history of religions.2 Several factors account for the sweeping changes introduced by Hegel into his successive lectures on religion: the fact that philosophy of religion was a novel discipline at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the influence of his concurrent lectures on other disciplines

THE title, "Son of Man," occurs some sixty-eight times in the Synoptic Gospels, invariably on the lips of Jesus. It is precisely this fact which constitutes the baffling interpretive problems with respect to the "Son of Man" and which makes this title, or the use of it, so important for understanding Jesus' self-consciousness. For no other character in the Synoptic narratives refers to the Son of Man, nor do the several Gospel writers themselves, nor for that matter do the authors of the Epistles. It is a term used exclusively-according to the tradition-by Jesus, who, moreover, employs no other title to characterize the messianic redeemer of God, to whom he is somehow mysteriously related. As John Knox puts it, in The Death of Christ:' "This striking fact creates a very strong presumption that Jesus was actually remembered to have used the phrase and that he used it with some seriousness and impressiveness. The early Church can hardly be thought of as originating the phrase and then confining it so narrowly to Jesus' own usage." This puts the dilemma about as sharply as possible, and, of the scholars investigated for this study, only Hans Lietzmann argues that none of the Son of Man sayings are authentic. All others have attempted to show that at least some of the sayings are authentic, which accounts for the fact that Jesus was actually remembered to have used the phrase. It can also be used as a device to explain why the community was led to attribute further usage of the term to Jesus in contexts of which the authenticity may now be questioned. Invariably, the argument for unauthenticity of one group of sayings rests upon a prior judgment that another group, or groups, are authentic. On the other hand, no modern critical scholar claims that all the sayings are authentic. It is already apparent that the Son of Man sayings can be grouped fairly unambiguously into three categories, which must become the basis for any analytical investigation.2 Among scholars, there are discrepancies in detail, but on the whole this schema is accepted in one form or another. We have said that the title occurs sixty-eight times in the Synoptics. When parallels are eliminated, the number of different occurrences is reduced to forty. Of this number, the Son of Man is referred to in the general context of apocalypticism nineteen times, according to Knox,3 and sixteen times, according to Eduard Schweizer.4 Following the suggestion of Knox, we shall call this Group A; here the exaltation of the Son of Man at God's right hand is being affirmed, or his coming on the clouds of heaven is being predicted. A second category, Group B, has to do with the suffering which Jesus has to undergo, specifical* Peter C. Hodgson has an A.B. degree from Princeton and B.D. and M.A. degrees from Yale. He is presently working for a Ph.D. in contemporary theology in the Department of Religion at Yale University.

LAUDE Welch has written the first truly significant history of nineteenthcentury Protestant thought in the English language. In fact, among the more recent works available in German, there is nothing really comparable to it, with the possible exceptions of Barth's Die protestantische Theologie (eleven chapters of which have been translated into English) and the great history by Emanuel Hirsch, which is on a different scale. In short, the appearance of this book is a publishing event of the highest significance for the theological world. Here, for the first time, the extraordinarily rich heritage of the nineteenth century, without which contemporary religious thought (Catholic as well as Protestant) cannot properly be understood, is made available in a singularly attractive and useful format. Although citing the best critical studies and monographs and often being guided by their interpretations, Welch works primarily with the original sources, offering fresh and creative interpretations of his own. His descriptive analyses of the major figures are economical in the use of language yet extraordinarily rich, finely textured, and very clearly developed. In place of extensive quotations, he catches in his own words the inner logic and distinctive mood of individual thinkers, whose positions are presented straightforwardly and sympathetically. The author has no axes to grind. Rather, he insists upon heeding "the actual theological intentions of the thinkers themselves." This he does to a remarkable degree, and it is the most distinctive feature of his book. In an introductory chapter on "The Problem of a History of NineteenthCentury Theology," Welch points out that all previous treatments of this subject

* Peter C. Hodgson is assistant professor of theology at Vanderbilt Divinity School. He received his A.B. degree from Princeton University in 1956 and his B.D., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Yale University in 1959, 1960, and 1963. He taught at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, before joining the Vanderbilt faculty in 1965. In addition to articles in the Journal of Religion (1961) and Church History (1964), he has published The Formation of Historical Theology: A Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) and is editing and translating a volume of materials by Baur for "A Library of Protestant Thought." the one to which all other claims, including the understanding of God, are related and from which they derive their peculiar meaning-and that when this conviction collapses or becomes meaningless, as it by and large has in our time, the internal coherence of the Christian faith dissolves.

The appearance of the first two volumes of a reprint edition of some of Ferdinand Christian Baur's most important writings marks an important event in contemporary historical theology: the rediscovery of a man whom Emanuel Hirsch has called “the greatest and at the same time the most controversial theologian to be produced by German evangelical Christianity since Schleiermacher.” Baur's greatness consists in his recognition of the radically historical quality of the Christian Church and Christian faith, and in his concomitant development of an historical method appropriate to a critical and theological study of the Church and its founding events, a study which he understood to be an intrinsically proper and necessary theological discipline. The controversy over Baur has been generated partially with respect to the extent of his alleged “Hegelianism,” and partially with respect to the validity of his attempt to discover the “truth” of Christianity by means of historical-critical theology. Criticism of him has arisen more often out of misunderstanding, but sometimes precisely out of recognition of what he was trying to achieve theologically. This new edition of some of his major works will help to base both acclaim and criticism on the latter rather than the former ground; and it surely will enhance our appreciation of the greatness and originality of this strangely neglected man, who stands as such an essential link between Schleiermacher at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the Ritschlians at the end, but who belongs to neither.

The fundamental problem facing contemporary theology--one radicalized by the death of God theologies-concerns a proper understanding of the relation between God and the world. Traditional "religious" conceptions of this relation have collapsed as a result of the process of secularization in its various aspects. This is the essence of the cultural revolution of our time as it bears upon theology and the Christian faith. We know clearly enough that the world can no longer be confused with divinity as in primitive religion and in modern idolatries. But neither is it to be subordinated to a supramundane deity, who stands above the world in dualistic antithesis, as in traditional Christian theism (or, as Bonhoeffer put it, in "religious" Christianity). Secularization on the one hand has meant freeing the world from confusion with the divine, permitting, indeed demanding, the recognition of its finitude, contingency, temporality, historicity. This was the secularization accomplished in the first instance by biblical faith vis-a-vis the nature religions of ancient man, and by literary iconoclasm against modern forms of idolatry. Secularization on the other hand has meant freeing the world from subservience to a putative religious, supernatural realm, evoking recognition of its genuine autonomy and creativity and of the capacities of man within certain inexorable limits to constitute and humanize his world. This is the secularization accomplished by the rise of historicalscientific-technological consciousness against the otherworldliness of Christianity, and mirrored in various configurations of the death of God theme. We are left, then, with the question of a proper understanding of the relation between God and the world-one in which God is neither confused with the world nor separated from it, one that transcends the alternative of monism versus dualism. If this question cannot be intelligently answered, the possibility of belief in God will tend to evaporate for contemporary man, whose experience no longer allows him to fit the world into either of these religious models.