Luther, Barth, and Movements of Theological Renewal (1918–1933) Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann Herausgegeben von Bruce McCormack, Friederike Nüssel and Christoph Schwöbel Volume 188 Luther, Barth, and Movements of Theological Renewal (1918–1933) Edited by Heinrich Assel and Bruce McCormack ISBN 978-3-11-061090-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061206-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-061266-0 ISSN 0563-4288 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020933285 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Preface The essays contained in this volume are revisedversions of papers delivered at a trans-atlantic, interdisciplinary conference held at Princeton Seminary, June 18–21, 2017.The goal of this conference was to place the “dialectical theology” of Karl Barth and his friends in conversation with other movements of renewal taking place in the Weimar era (1918–1933). I should note that, although the Weimar Republic itself came toan end in early 1930,we extended our terminus adquemtothe 1933, in order to consider aswellthe break-up ofthe dialectical theologians. 2017 being a year of Luther celebrations, a proposed focal-point of the re- searchleadingtotheconferencewastoexaminewhetherandtowhatextentLu- ther provided stimulus for the theologians treated in this volume. Our thought was to say something about divergent interpretations of Luther that accompa- niedand,insomecases,informedtheworkofthetheologiansandphilosophers treatedhere.Intheend,thecohesivenessofthevolumedidnotrequireLuther- receptionasared-threadthroughalloftheessays,butourhopewasrealizedby someinathoroughlynaturalwaythroughconcentrationontheologicalrenewal. Weareespeciallypleasedthatthisvolumecouldcontainahithertounpub- lished work from the pen of Rudolf Bultmann – his review of Friedrich Gogart- en’sIchglaubeandendreieinigenGott.AppearingintheAppendix,itisthedis- covery of Prof. Dr. Heinrich Assel, my co-editor who also served as its editor. Funding for this project was provide by the German Academic Exchange Service(DAAD).Wewereabletoworkshopthepapers ofEuropeancontributors at the University of Greifswald in March 2017 with further financial assistance fromtheAlfriedKruppWissenschaftskollegatthatUniversity.Oursincerethanks gotoMichaelThomanekofDAADinNewYorkCityandDr.ChristianSuhmatthe Krupp Stiftung in Greifswald. And finally, a bigword of thanks todoctoral can- didateChelseaWilliamsatPrincetonTheologicalSeminarywhoeditedallofthe papersinthisvolumeforEnglishstyleanddidtheformatting.Dr.KnudHenrik Boysen, Lena Eke and Florian Pataki at Greifswald Theological Faculty revised the proof batches and prepared the index of names. Prof. Dr. Bruce L. McCormack Director of the Center for Karl Barth Studies Princeton Theological Seminary https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612066-001 Table of Contents Heinrich Assel Introduction Luther Renaissance and Dialectical Theology – A tour d’horizon 1906– 1935 1 Part I: Anticipations Hartwig Wiedebach Karl Barth on Kant’s “Biblical Theology” A Reading with Hermann Cohen 19 Jacqueline Mariña The Religious A Priori in Otto and its Kantian Origins 39 Christine Svinth-Værge Põder Luther’s Lectures on Romans in the Work of Karl Holl, Rudolf Hermann, and Karl Barth 57 Part II: Parallel Movements Henning Theißen Barth’s Explicit Reception of Luther An Auxiliary Tool for the Study of Karl Barth 77 Claire E. Sufrin Martin Buber between Revelation and Scripture 93 Volker Leppin Luther and Mysticism The Case of the Seebergsand Vogelsang 109 VIII TableofContents David W. Congdon Desperatio Fiducialis Barth and Bultmann on the Anthropological Significance of Revelation 125 Part III: Disruption Hent de Vries Theologia paradoxa, theologia crucis Heidegger’s Luther 149 Bruce L. McCormack The Man who became God or the God who became Man? The Concept of Revelation in the Theologies of Karl Barth and Friedrich Gogarten 171 Heinrich Assel Trinity, Incarnation, Political Theology Gogarten’s Luther between Luther Renaissance and Rudolf Bultmann 193 Christian Neddens Werner Elert and Hans Joachim Iwand – Political Theology and Theology of the Cross 213 Appendix Rudolf Bultmanns unpublizierter Kommentar (1928) zu Friedrich Gogartens „Ich glaube an den dreieinigen Gott“ (1926). Ediert von Heinrich Assel 233 Contributors 261 Index of Names 263 Heinrich Assel Introduction Luther Renaissance and Dialectical Theology – A tour d’horizon 1906–1935 1 Illusions and Origins of a Luther Renaissance 1932 1.1 State of Emergency A reviewer of the noteworthy new publications on Martin Luther in 1932 and 1933, the period leading up to the election of Hitler as Reich’s Chancellor and the 450th Anniversary of the birth of the Wittenberg Reformer in November 1933,would scarcely be able to avoid the impression that the leading academic voicesinLutherantheologywereproclaimingastateofemergency:aworsening crisisinandoftheorgansofstateregardingtherepublicanconstitutionandthe democratic sovereignty of the German people. They intensified the crisis with theirrhetoricof“judgment”and“fatefulplight”¹andtheyrespondedbyproduc- ingdrafts of “an emerging new Protestant doctrine of the state.” ThreeprominentauthorsformedthetriumvirateofanillusioncalledAnew Protestant doctrine of the state²: Friedrich Gogarten’s Political Ethics, Werner Elert’sMorphologyofLutheranism,andEmanuelHirsch’streatise,OntheHidden Sovereign.This Protestant doctrine of the state turned into a controversy about the content and the validity of Martin Luther’s legacy. They wanted to renew the basic structures of Luther’s political theology in a relevant way for their time. In particular, they wanted to distinguish a worldly political realm from a spiritual realm: that is,the distinction between a“worldly kingdom of God” as the created realm of worldly authority and “natural law,” and a“spiritual king- dom of God in Christ” as the “priesthood and kingdom of the baptized” and “Christianity.”  EmanuelHirsch,“VomverborgenenSuverän,”GlaubeundVolk2(1933):4–13,5.  FriedrichGogarten,PolitischeEthic:VersucheinerGrundlegung(Jena:Diederichs,1932);Wer- nerElert,MorphologiedesLuthertumsBd.2,SoziallehrenundSozialwirkungendesLuthertums (Munich:Beck,1932);Hirsch,“VomverborgenenSuverän,”s.fn.1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110612066-002 2 HeinrichAssel 1.2 Looking Back: Origins In1932,thepoliticizedLutheranswerereactingtotheglobaleconomiccrisis,the masssuffering,andtheinsurgenceofterrorismonthestreets.Buttheconceptof viewingthepoliticalasthehermeneuticallocationforthelawandthegospelof God had been in preparation for years.We must turn, for a moment,our atten- tion from1932 back to1921.At the end of1921, Karl Holl’sfamousbook Luther³ andthesecondeditionofKarlBarth’sCommentaryonRomans⁴werepublished. Holl’s Luther and Barth’s Romans Commentarybecame the best-sellingtheolog- icalbooksintheWeimarRepublic.Theimpactofbothbooksfrom1923oncanbe explainedbytheirrivalry,sinceHoll’sLutherbecamethecatalystfortheLuther Renaissance while Barth’s Romans Commentary was the catalyst for dialectical theology. However, in 1921, it would be erroneous to understand the origin of both books primarily in terms of this rivalry. For Holl’s interpretation of Luther, therivalrywithMaxWeberandErnstTroeltschwastheguidingfactor,andwhat wasatstakewasthedefinitionofthesignificanceofProtestantism–andthusof Luther – in the emergence of the modernworld.⁵ This was a struggleabout the final (e)valuation (Werturteil) of Luther’s and Calvin’spoliticaltheology,theirsocialdoctrine,andtherelationshipoftheirvo- cationalethostothe“spiritofcapitalism.”Thisdebatecontinuedfrom1906on- wards and reached its peak in 1920. ForHoll“Luther”and“Calvin”,takentogether,generatedacertainEthosof Responsibility springing from early Reformation religion. In 1921, Holl intro- duced the programmatic formula“Luther’s Religion of Conscience.” It was pio-  KarlHoll,GesammelteAufsätzezurKirchengeschichte,LutherBd.I.(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck, 1921,extendedandrevised19232+3,19274+5,19326,19487).  KarlBarth,DerRömerbrief(München:Kaiser,19222).  HeinrichAssel,“KarlHollalsZeitgenosseMaxWebersundErnstTroeltschs:Ethikhistorische Grundprobleme einer prominenten Reformationstheorie,” ZKG 127 (2016): 211–248. Troeltsch measured the importance of Protestantism for the modern world not in terms of Luther’s early reformation, but of those Calvinist churchdoms and Puritan and radical reformatory sects that Max Weber addressed in his famous studies. Inview of the “madness” of the lost World War, Troeltsch called for the “development” of Germany towards a republican and mass-democratic,free-marketcapitalistconstitutionandtoademilitarizedneutralityunderin- ternationallaw.Cf.ErnstTroeltsch,“DieBedeutungdesProtestantismusfürdieEntstehungder modernenWelt(1906/1911),”inKritischeGesamtausgabe:SchriftenzurBedeutungdesProtestan- tismus für die moderne Welt (1906–1913), ed.Trutz Rendtorff, Stefan Pautler, Ernst Troeltsch (KGA)8(Berlin/NewYork:DeGruyter,2001),183–198,199–316;ErnstTroeltsch,and“Wahnsinn oderEntwicklung?DieEntscheidungderWeltgeschichte(1917/1919),”inSchriftenzurPolitikund Kulturphilosophie1918–1923,ed.GangolfHübinger,KGA15(Berlin/NewYork:DeGruyter,2002), 70–94.