Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:21:17.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation and Understanding in Schleiermacher's Theology: Some Critical Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

James B. Torrance
James B. Torrance
Affiliation:
Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the fascinating features of theology in our day is the revival of interest in Schleiermacher in the same century which has witnessed the most radical questioning of both his method and point of view.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1968 , pp. 268 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1968

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 268 note 1 For example, on the one hand Brunner, Emil, Die Mystik und das Wort, Tübingen 1924Google Scholar; Barth, Karl, Theology and Church, Eng. tr. 1962Google Scholar, or his more gentle strictures in From Rousseau to Ritschl, 1959. On the other hand, Niebuhr, Richard R., ‘Schleiermacher, Theology as Human Reflection’, Harvard Theological Review, 1962Google Scholar; Schleiermacher on Christ and Religion, New York 1964Google Scholar; Harvey, Van A., ‘A Word in defence of Schleiermacher's Method’, Journal of Religion, Chicago 1962Google Scholar; Dupré, Louis, ‘Towards a revaluation of Schleiermacher's Philosophy of Religion’, Journal of Religion, Chicago 1964Google Scholar; Graby, James K., ‘The Question of Development in Schleiermacher's Theology’, Canadian Journal of Theology, 1964.Google Scholar

page 268 note 2 The Christian Faith, sec. 15.

page 268 note 3 Schleiermacher, , Hermeneutik, Nach den Handschriften neu herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Heinz Kimmerle, Heidelberg 1959Google Scholar; Brief Outline in the Study of Theology, trans. Tice, T. N., Richmond 1966.Google Scholar

page 268 note 4 Dilthey, Wilhelm, Die Hermeneutik Schleiermachers, 1860Google Scholar; Das Leben Schleiermachers, 1870; Die Entstehung der Hermeneutik, 1900; Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, 1944Google Scholar; The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey, 1952.

page 268 note 5 Bultmann, R., Jesus, 1926Google Scholar, introductory ch. on ‘Viewpoint and Method’. Cf. his later History and Eschatology, Edinburgh 1957.Google Scholar

page 269 note 1 Hermeneutik, pp. 57ff, 90ff, 161ff; cf. Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, pp. 25ff, 124ffGoogle Scholar. The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey, pp. 11ff, 236ff.

page 269 note 2 ibid., pp. 107ff, 113ff, 1653. ‘Die grammatische Interpretation ist wohl eigentlich die objective, die technische die subjective’, p. 31. Cf. Einleitung, p. 21.

page 270 note 1 Hermeneutik, p. 90; cf. Kimmerle, Einleitung, p. 17, ‘Beim konkreten hermeneutischen Prozess führt die rationale Ungreifbarkeit der wesentlichen Einheit einer Wortbedeutung den Ausleger in einen ähnlichen scheinbaren Zirkel, wie er in der Geschichte der Hermeneutik schon immer gesehen worden ist: in bezug auf das Verstehen des Ganzen aus seinen Teilen und dieser wiederum aus dem Ganzen. Diesem scheinbaren Zirkel entgeht man nach Schleiermachers Ausfuhrungen dadurch, dass bei einem einzelnen gesuchten Wortgebrauch aus dem Zusammenhang des betreffenden Satzes und durch “vergleichung” aller schon bekannten Anwendungen dieses Wortes seine allgemeine Spbäre auf eine vorläufige Art und Weise bestimmt wird.’ Cf. Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, pp. 26ff.Google Scholar

page 270 note 2 Hodges, H. A., The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey, p. 140.Google Scholar

page 270 note 3 Hermeneutik, p. 109, Ms. III, ‘Für das ganze Geschäft giebt es vom ersten Anfang an zwei Methoden, die divinatorische und die comparative, welche aber wie sie auf einander zuruckweisen auch nicht nicht dürfen von einander getrennt werden.’ Cf. Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, p. 28Google Scholar; The Philosophy of W.D., p. 141.

page 271 note 1 Op. cit. p. 3. Cf. Löftier, P., ‘Selbstbewusstsein und Selbstverstandnis als theologische Principien bei Schleiermacher und Bultmann’, in Kerygma und Dogma, II. 4, 1956, pp. 3O4ff.Google Scholar

page 271 note 2 Hermmeutik, Einleitung, p. 15: ‘Schleiermacher lenkt zum erstenmal in der Geschichte der Hermeneutik den Blick auf das Phänomen des Verstehens überhaupt, er sucht dessen allgemeine Gesetzmässigkeiten zu erfassen. … Dadurch gewinnt die Hermeneutik für ihn eine philosophische Bedeutung, die ihm auch je länger desto mehr selber bewusst wird.’

page 271 note 3 Perhaps the fullest discussion in English of Schleiermacher's philosophical views is to be found in Brandt, , The Philosophy of Schleiermacher, The development of His Theory of Scientific and Religious Knowledge, New York 1941Google Scholar. There are also good expositions in Van Harvey and Louis Dupré, op. cit.; cf. Flückiger, F., Philosophic und Theologie bei Schleiermacher, 1947.Google Scholar

page 271 note 4 Hodges, H. A., The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey, pp. 129ff, 329ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hodges' valuable discussion of the similarities and differences between Dilthey and Collingwood on this subject.

page 273 note 1 This is the word used by Ferré, F. in his Language, Logic and God, p. 148Google Scholar, in his evaluation of contemporary linguistic philosophy and the attempt of certain contemporary theologians to define faith non-cognitively.

page 274 note 1 The Christian Faith, sec. 50, pp. 194ff.

page 274 note 2 ibid., sec. 30, pp. 126ff.

page 275 note 1 cf. Louis Dupré, op. cit., pp. 109ff.

page 276 note 1 Ferré, F. in a chapter entitled ‘The manifold logic of Theism’ in his Language Logic and God, London 1962Google Scholar, uses the words ‘semantic’, ‘syntactic’, ‘interpretic’ to maintain in similar fashion to the above that ‘three factors are present in every “significant situation” ’: pp. 146ff.

page 276 note 2 Of course, words like ‘objective’, ‘factual’ need to be examined carefully, raising as they do the question of verification and the nature of knowledge. In spite of Kant and Schleiermacher and certain forms of contemporary empiricism, has theology not much to learn from contemporary science at this point rather than fall back on the model of aesthetics or ethical reductionism?

page 276 note 3 Van A. Harvey, op. cit., pp. 152ff.

page 277 note 1 ibid., p. 153.

page 277 note 2 In his article replying to Harvey, Van entitled ‘Schleiermacher and Relational Theology’ in Journal of Religion, Chicago 1964, pp. 29ffGoogle Scholar. Also ‘Under Schleiermacher's Banner’, Religion in Life, 1962–3.

page 278 note 1 ibid., p. 32. Kierkegaard, S., Concluding Unscientific Postscript, pp. 493–498.Google Scholar

page 278 note 2 The Christian Faith, sec. 172, p. 748.

page 279 note 1 sec. 5, pp. 18ff; cf. Van Harvey's careful discussion of this, op. cit. Also Dupré, op. cit.

page 280 note 1 ibid., sec. 4, p. 13.

page 280 note 2 ibid., sec. 4.4, p. 17.

page 281 note 1 ibid., sec. 4.4, p. 18.