Deissmann the Philologist (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Alteren Kirche)

Albrecht Gerber Deissmann the Philologist

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 171

De Gruyter

Albrecht Gerber

Deissmann the Philologist

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-022431-3 e-ISBN 978-3-11-022432-0 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gerber, Albrecht. Deissmann the philologist / Albrecht Gerber. p. cm. - (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, ISSN 0171-6441 ; Bd. 171) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-022431-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Deissmann, Adolf, 1866-1937. I. Title. BX563.Z8D454 2010 2301.41092-dc22 [B] 2009054045

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.d-nb.de. 쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Dedicated to my dear friend Gerhard Deissmann, and to my darling wife Marianne

Figure 1 Gustav Adolf Deissmann, bronze bust, March 1936 (See ch. 9.2, and Appendix 9, f )

List of figures Figure 1: Gustav Adolf Deissmann, bronze bust, March 1936

v

Figure 2: Gustav Adolf Deissmann, c. 1895 – 8

5

(Created by Gerhard Schliepstein (1886 – 1963). Held privately)

(Used by permission of ZAW, Institut fîr Papyrologie, Heidelberg)

Figure 3: Henriette Elisabeth Behn in 1891, aged 18 (Held privately)

37

Figure 4: Gustav Adolf Deissmann in 1926

125

Figure 5: Deissmann’s farewell letter to Henriette, 1906 and 1909

130

Figure 6: Map of Deissmann’s 1906 journey Figure 7: Map of Ephesus

134 176

Figure 8: Diploma collage in honour of Deissmann’s role in the Ephesus excavations

179

Figure 9: Deissmann at Ephesus (sometime between 1927 – 9)

182

Figure 10: Detail of Fig. 9

183

Figure 12: The Deissmann family in front of their house ‘Anatolia’, Summer 1935 or 1936

367

(Detail from Fig. 8. Used by permission of §AI) (held privately)

(From Wiplinger/ Wlach, 43, plate 52; used with publishers’ permission) (Used by permission of §AI)

(From Wiplinger/ Wlach, 34, plate 42; used with publishers’ permission)

(Used by permission from the publishers) Figure 11: Gustav Adolf Deissmann, portrait in oil, January 1930 207 (Painted by Alfred Hamacher (1862 – 1935). Held privately) (Held privately)

Figure 13: The Deissmann family at the back door of their house ‘Anatolia’, 1934

371

Figure 14: Commemorative bronze plaque at the Langenscheid Pfarrhaus

381

(Held privately)

Abbreviations AA AAPS ABD AK

ALBl APF AR ARW AS ATLA BBKL BDAG Berlin AA Berlin BArch Berlin UArch BGU BJRL BPW

Archologischer Anzeiger Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., D.N. Freedman, ed., New York, 1992 ‘Amtskalender’, i. e. Deissmann’s cryptically written private diary, consisting of 38 annual books. Beginning with Jan. 1899, they are complete until his death in 1937, although the one for 1902 is lost. The AK provides significant private and professional background material, but tends to be quite thin in regard to the War, or political events. That it was not intended to be read by outsiders is clearly evident from its frequently messy entries, the enigmatic style of writing, and its many idiosyncratic abbreviations. Held privately. Allgemeines Literaturblatt Archiv fîr Papyrusforschung Antiquitten Rundschau Archiv fîr Religionswissenschaft Anatolian Studies American Theological Library Association T. Bautz, ed., Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 1 – 27, 1975 – 2007 (online databank) http:// www.bautz.de/bbkl/ F.W. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, Chicago, 20003 (1957) Politisches Archiv des Auswrtigen Amts, Berlin Bundesarchiv, Berlin Humboldt-Universitt Berlin, Universittsarchiv Berliner Griechische Urkunden Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Berliner philologische Wochenschrift

xii BR BS

Bst

CcW ChHist ChrW Colloquium Constr.Q CUQ DAI DBW DJZ DLZ EB

En Chr ET Ev.Th Ev.Wbr Exp EZA FiE Forschungen

Abbreviations

Biblical Review: Interdenominational Quarterly Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions chiefly from papyri and inscriptions, to the history of language, the literature and the religion of Hellenistic Judaism and primitive Christianity, A. Grieve, transl., Edinburgh, 1901 (this is a translation in one vol. of both Bst and NBst) Deissmann, Bibelstudien: Beitrge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums, Marburg, 1895 Chronik der Christlichen Welt Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture Die christliche Welt Colloquium. The Australian and New Zealand theological review The Constructive Quarterly The Christian Union Quarterly Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Berlin Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werke, 1 – 17, E. Bethge, et al., eds., Gîtersloh, 1986 – 99 Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung Deutsche Literaturzeitung Encyclopaedia Biblica: a critical dictionary of the literary, political and religious history, the archaeology, geography and natural history of the Bible, 1 – 3, T.K. Cheyne/ J.S Black, eds., London, 1899 – 1903 Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift, Die neutestamentliche Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht, Marburg, 1892 The Expository Times Evangelische Theologie Evangelischer Wochenbrief The Expositor Evangelisches Zentralarchiv, Berlin Forschungen in Ephesos Deissmann, Forschungen und Funde im Serai; mit einem Verzeichnis der nichtislamischen Handschriften im Topkapu Serai zu Istanbul, Berlin, 1933

Abbreviations

GAD

xiii

Gustav Adolf Deissmann (used primarily in footnotes, and Index of cited archival material) GGA Gçttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen GRS German Studies Review GStA Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Preußischer Kulturbesitz 1598 – 1998, Berlin Haskell Lectures Deissmann, The New Testament in the light of modern research. The Haskell Lectures, 1929, London, 1929 Heidelb. Stdt.Arch Stadtarchiv, Heidelberg Heidelberg UArch Universittsarchiv, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitt, Heidelberg Herborn Stdt.Arch Stadtarchiv, Herborn Hessen EKZA Zentralarchiv, Evangelische Kirche in Hessen und Nassau HJ Heidelberger Jahrbîcher IEph H. Wankel, ed., Inschriften von Ephesos, 1 a, 20, Bonn, 1979 IK Inschriften griechischer Stdte aus Kleinasien, Band 17, 2, Teil 7, 2, Die Inschriften von Ephesos, R. MeriÅ, et al., eds., Bonn, 1981 IMA Inscriptiones Maris Aegaei IMW Internationale Monatsschrift fîr Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik JAC Journal of Ancient Civilisation JCSoc Journal of Classical Sociology JR The Journal of Religion JRH Journal of Religious History Karlsruhe Glarch Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe Koblenz BArch Bundesarchiv, Koblenz LAE Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East; the New Testament illustrated by recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman world, L.R.M. Strachan, transl. of 1st edn., London, 1910 Lambeth Lambeth Palace Library, London LIMC Ackermann, H.C./ Gisler, J.R., eds., Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8, Zîrich, 1997 LR Literarische Rundschau LSJ A Greek-English lexicon, H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H.S. Jones, eds., Oxford, 19689, with rev. suppl. 1996 (1843)

xiv LvO

Abbreviations

Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-rçmischen Welt, Tîbingen, 1908 1909 edition of LvO, referred to by its publishers as LvO 2 ‘2./3. Auflage’ 4 LvO 1923 edition of LvO; 4th and most popular edition of LvO Makk. 4 Deissmann, ‘Das vierte Makkaberbuch’, in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testamentes, 2, E. Kautzsch, ed., Tîbingen, 1900, 149 – 77 MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae, 1 – 8 Manchester, 9 – 10 London, 1928 – 93 Manchester UArch John Rylands University Library, Manchester Marburg St.Arch Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Marburg Marburg UBibl Universittsbibliothek, Marburg MGWJ Monatsschrift fîr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums MHT Moulton, et al., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 1 – 4, Edinburgh, 1908 – 76 Mînchen St.Bibl Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Mînchen NBst Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien. Sprachgeschichtliche Beitrge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Erklrung des Neuen Testaments, Marburg, 1897 NJA Neue Jahrbîcher fîr das klassische Altertum NovT Novum Testamentum NT New Testament §AI §sterreichisches Archologisches Institut, Vienna §Jh Jahresheft des çsterreichischen archologischen Institutes OT Old Testament Pd. Archiv Pdagogisches Archiv. Monatsschrift fîr Erziehung, Unterricht und Wissenschaft Paulus Deissmann, Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, Tîbingen, 1911 PBl Pastoralbltter fîr Predigt, Seelsorge und kirchliche Unterweisung Philology Deissmann, The philology of the Greek Bible: its present and future, London, 1908 Pr.WL Protestant Weekly Letter

Abbreviations

Psenosiris Reichsbote RETK Rockefeller FArch RTP SD Selly Oak Lectures

Septuaginta-Papyri

SIG Spr. Erforschung

ThB ThPh ThR ThRev TLZ TLBl TRE Tîbingen UArch Uppsala UBibl VfZ Voss. Zeitung VT

xv

Deissmann, The epistle of Psenosiris. An original document from the Diocletian persecution (papyrus 713 Brit. Mus.), London, 1902 Reichsbote, deutsche Wochenzeitung fîr Christentum und Volkstum Realenzyklopdie fîr protestantische Theologie und Kirche, A. Hauck, ed., 1 – 22 (3rd edn.), Leipzig, 1896 – 1909 Rockefeller Family Archives, Record Group 2, Office of the Messrs Rockefeller, Cultural Interests Series Review of Theology and Philosophy Deissmann, ‘Adolf Deissmann’, in E. Stange, ed., Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, Leipzig, 1925, 42 – 78 Deissmann, The religion of Jesus and the faith of Paul. The Selly Oak Lectures, 1923, on the communion of Jesus with God & the communion of Paul with Christ, W.E. Wilson, transl., London, 1923 Deissmann, ed., Verçffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung. I, Die SeptuagintaPapyri und andere altchristliche Texte, Heidelberg, 1905 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwrtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben. Vortrge der theologischen Konferenz zu Gießen, XII. Folge, Giessen, 1898 Theologische Bltter Theologie und Philosophie Theologische Rundschau Theologische Revue Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologisches Literaturblatt Theologische Realenzyklopdie Universittsarchiv Tîbingen Universitetsbibliotek, Handskrifts- och Musikavdelningen, Uppsala Vierteljahrshefte fîr Zeitgeschichte Vossische Zeitung Vetus Testamentum

xvi Wiss.Z.HU.Berlin WKP Woodbrooke Wooster WUNT ZKG ZLB ZNThG ZNW ZTK ZVS

Abbreviations

Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der HumboldtUniversitt zu Berlin: Philosophie – Wissenschaft– Geschichte. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften Wochenschrift fîr klassische Philologie Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre, Birmingham Wooster College (Special Collections), Ohio Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fîr Kirchengeschichte Zentral- und Landesbibliothek, Historische Sondersammlungen, Berlin Zeitschrift fîr neuere Theologiegeschichte Zeitschrift fîr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche Zeitschrift fîr Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift fîr vergleichende Sprachforschung

Preface 2008 marks the centenary of the publication of a book still in print and still much admired: Adolf Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten (English version, Light from the ancient East). With that work he achieved a rare feat – to write a ‘popular’ book without distorting the technical information that provided its substance. When Deissmann died in 1937 he was acknowledged as the German NT professor whose influence beyond his homeland had spread most widely. His diverse intellectual and humanitarian contributions had ensured him considerable fame, and for many years a high profile internationally. Yet after his death, awareness of his achievements waned rapidly, and within a decade or so very few knew much about him, except perhaps that he was the author of Licht vom Osten. Even the publication of a booklet about him in 1967, for the centenary of his birth, did nothing to bring his name back from virtual obscurity. The present book is the first attempt to look systematically at Adolf Deissmann and his various undertakings and achievements as a whole. While a little more attention has been given to him in recent years, this is predominantly from a theological or ecumenical perspective. Yet Deissmann cannot be narrowly typecast as a theologian or ecumenist, despite holding two Chairs of NT in theological faculties. Although the book deals to some extent with Forschungsgeschichte it also includes aspects of NT and religious studies, archaeological work in Turkey, 20th century German social, political and church history, as well as certain aspects of the ecumenical movement and peace studies. The reader who seeks here a ‘typical’ biography may be disappointed, for while I have provided a great deal of personal information about Deissmann’s life, this is to some extent en passant. The contribution this man has made to the study of postclassical Greek by seeing the potential of the papyri and inscriptions for the linguistic analysis of the NT (and Septuagint) would be enough on its own to establish his name as a trailblazer. Yet he was also the prime mover in the recommencement of archaeological investigations of Ephesus after the First World War. And, from the start of hostilities in Europe in 1914, he undertook the writing of a regular newsletter in German and English for a period of seven years,

xviii

Preface

a newsletter which circulated surprisingly widely to Christians on both sides of the conflict. While this undertaking was not sui generis, it was unique in its impact, such that after the war Deissmann was the most obvious person in Germany to become involved in reconciliation work between Christians at an international level. And these were only some of his spheres of activities … It is curious, then, that this man has been so long overlooked; but the present book seeks to redress that neglect. The origin of my work lies in a PhD thesis presented at the beginning of 2008 in the discipline of Greek at the University of New England in Armidale, NSW. Naturally, it has been much revised for publication in the present form, and I thank the publishers, W. de Gruyter, for accepting my manuscript. Since this book makes use of a wide range of German primary sources – some dating back to before the orthographical reforms of 1901, or even before 1880, when Konrad Duden (1829 – 1911) published his pivotal German dictionary – irregular and occasionally idiosyncratic spelling and punctuation occurs in a number of citations. However, the convention I have adopted is to quote excerpts as accurately as possible in their original form (i. e. uncorrected). It is, therefore, not unusual to encounter certain words spelt variously, sometimes even within the same document or citation, particularly in respect to compounds, the ‘eszett’ (‘ß’) as opposed to the double sibilant ‘ss’, or the older ‘th’ as opposed to the newer ‘t’. Deissmann regularly signed his name with an ‘eszett’ (i. e. Deißmann), but in typed correspondence normally opted for the alternative ‘ss’; and, except for citations, this latter spelling is the one preferred here. On occasions where a word is either illegible, or missing because of document damage, it is normally signalled thus: ‘[.?. illegible]’. Italics are used in the text to indicate published works, individual foreign expressions and – very occasionally – for emphasis, but within the footnotes are reserved for published works to prevent possible confusion. I am, of course, very grateful to a host of individuals and institutions who have, in one way or another, helped me to bring this project to fruition. But, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. phil. Gerhard Deissmann and to his niece, Angelika Deissmann, for making me feel warmly welcome in their Bremen home on three extended occasions, and for providing a great deal of background information, as well as entrusting me with unfettered access to their private family papers and other personal material. My research in Europe during 2002 and 2004 has been considerably facilitated by two grants from the University of New England through

Preface

xix

the Keith & Dorothy Mackay Postgraduate Travelling Scholarship (2002), and the Maiben Davies Postgraduate Scholarship in Classics (2004), for both of which I am very much obliged. I am deeply indebted to my teacher and friend, Professor G.H.R. Horsley (Armidale), for paving and directing my way selflessly to the study of Deissmann, and for guiding me patiently from my undergraduate years through to the completion of my PhD and to the publication of this book. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor John Moses (formerly of Armidale, now Canberra) for the insightful counsel with which he has helped me throughout my PhD years in all aspects of modern history pertaining to my work. Among many others, I am also obliged to Dr. Manfred Kandler (Vienna), Dr. Hartmut Ludwig (Berlin) and Dr. Annette Gerlach (Berlin), for their frequent and much valued assistance. Furthermore, I am grateful to Emeritus Professor Michael Lattke (Brisbane), Dr. Alexander Weiss (Leipzig) and Professor Lars Rydbeck (Lund), who have not only examined my dissertation and encouraged me to publish it, but also provided many valuable suggestions for incorporation into the present book. Finally, I want to pay tribute to my dear and longsuffering wife Marianne, since I could not possibly have completed this work without her unwavering support. Albrecht Gerber

Woodvale, 7 December, 2009

Sadly, Dr. Gerhard Deissmann died very shortly before this book went to print.

Contents List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii 1

Part 1

D¼o t²kamt² loi paq´dyjar 1. 1.1. 1.2 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. 1.8.

Deissmann the discoverer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The language of the New Testament in the late 19th century . Academic preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backdrop to Neue Bibelstudien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien . . . . . . . . . . . . Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 7 9 14 23 36 40 48 58

2. Deissmann the lexicographer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.1. The state of Greek lexicography in the 19th and early 20th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.2. Preparations for a new lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2.3. Gearing up for lexicography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.5. Frustration and disappointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.6. The fate of Deissmann’s lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 3. Deissmann the philologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.1. Philologie and the NT in late 19th century Germany . . . . . . . 104

xxii

Contents

3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7.

Deissmann’s philological background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel (1889) . . . . . Die Septuaginta-Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte (1905) . The philology of the Greek Bible: its present and future (1908) . Turning point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108 112 114 118 120 123

Part 2

B Req± lgtqºpokir tµr )s¸ar … 1te¸lgsem Adokvom Deisslamm 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

From the study to the realia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127 127 137 144 152

5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9.

The Ephesus excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeology at Ephesus: background to its revival . . . . . . . . . Raising awareness and funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1926 Ephesus expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 Ephesus expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1928 Ephesus expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1929 Ephesus expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forschungen und Funde im Serai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ephesus after 1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155 155 159 174 184 191 196 198 201 205

Part 3 Deissmann in his contemporary context 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6.

From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political awakening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Democracy: the Naumann connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naumann’s vision of European integration: Mitteleuropa . . . . Deissmann’s political disengagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209 209 213 227 230 233 243

Contents

xxiii

7. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7.

Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter . . . . . . Genesis of Deissmann’s Evangelischer Wochenbrief . . . . . . . . . Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints . . . . . . Content of the Wochenbriefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing perspectives in the Wochenbriefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deissmann’s sources for his Wochenbriefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245 245 249 259 263 268 273 280

8. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6.

Ecumenical humanitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faith, War and the Quakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . War theology and the German God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anti-Semitism? ‘Socialismus der dummen Kerle’ . . . . . . . . . . Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’ . . . . . . . . . Deissmann bridges the gap to America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

283 283 300 307 313 334 340

9. From zenith to eclipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1. Berlin Rektorat: professional life’s crowning point . . . . . . . . . 9.2. Retirement, and 70th birthday honours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3. ‘Have pia anima’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4. Obscurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5. Epilogue to an anachronistic life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. A. Deissmann genealogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

343 343 351 356 361 366 369 373 379

Part 4 Appendices and Addenda Table of contents for Appendices and Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices to chapters 1 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of archives from which material has been drawn . . . . . . . . . Index of cited archival material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

383 387 541 591 599 613 615 627 637

Introduction Gustav Adolf Deissmann, third of five children, was born on 7 November 1866 in the Lutheran Pfarrhaus of the small Hessian village Langenscheid, where his father was Pfarrer of a small congregation. At the end of 1873 the family moved to Erbach (Rheingau), a predominantly Roman Catholic community, where Deissmann grew up. From 1879 – 85 he attended the Wiesbaden Gymnasium, followed by theology studies at Tîbingen (1885 – 8), a Kandidatenjahr at the Herborn Theological Seminary (1889), and the final theological examination at Wiesbaden. During the ensuing winter he acted as Vikar at Dausenau, on the river Lahn, to relieve the small community’s sick Pfarrer, after which he began to study for his licentiate at Marburg. Instead of a theological dissertation on baptism, as initially planned, he produced a philological Habilitationsschrift on the Greek preposition 1m in its postclassical usage, and by doing so set his course for an academic, instead of ecclesiastical profession. For reasons that were personal no less than strategic for his career he subsequently took up a position as Pfarrer for the Herborn parish, to which was attached a tenure as lecturer at the town’s influential Theological Seminary. Two-and-a-half years later he became professor for NT at the University of Heidelberg (1897 – 1908), as well as Geheimer Konsistorialrat; and in 1908 succeeded Bernhard Weiss on the Chair for NT theology at Berlin. He was the recipient of many national and international distinctions, including eight honorary doctorates from six different countries, and was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. While it is in the nature of this study to touch on a number of specialist fields, its focus is strictly on Deissmann’s intellectual contributions; and although it is biographical to some degree, it is intentionally not designed as a ‘cradle-to-grave’ account of his life. Instead, it aims to demonstrate both the breadth and far-reaching impact of his various outstanding achievements and pioneering ideas, on both a national and international level. My central thesis is that he has played a pivotal role in several wholly different fields of scholastic inquiry and that it is, therefore, high time that both the man himself and his extraordinary contributions be properly recognised.

2

Introduction

Deissmann has largely been neglected by modern scholarship, and although an upsurge of interest in certain facets of his work has occurred during the past decade – driven primarily by research from German theological faculties – this has tended to stereotype him over-narrowly as an ecumenist. However, since the remembrance of him has faded quickly not long after his death (especially in Germany), the question must be posed whether his contribution might perhaps have been of little consequence after all – despite the worldwide recognition he received during his lifetime. Moreover, his long but unsuccessful struggle to complete a pioneering and internationally anticipated NT lexicon could further suggest to some that he was a failure in terms of his own goals. Neither supposition paints a true picture. For the causes of his eventual obscurity were primarily circumstantial, rather than of his own making; and the same can also be said, even though to a lesser degree, with respect to his inability to finish the lexicon. As with many other German academics at that time, WWI and the subsequent decade completely dislocated his personal goals and caused him to redirect his energies into other fields. Thus, Deissmann’s strong prewar engagement with the philology of postclassical Greek lessened, while his international profile as a humanitarian ‘voice of reason’ began to grow by way of his regular bulletins he sent primarily to America – i.e. the Protestant Weekly Letter. This, in turn, generated an extensive network of well-connected individuals, which put him in an ideal position for his self-appointed task of building bridges of understanding (Verstndigungsarbeit), and later also enabled him to help initiate the revival of the archaeological excavations of Ephesus. Numerous scholars have been able to lay claim to dominance of a particular branch of erudite learning. What set Deissmann apart was his ability to perform at such a high level in each of several disparate disciplines and undertakings. The following selection of his national and international intellectual associations illustrates this: he was a member of both the German and Austrian Archaeological Institutes; a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Lund; a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy in Stockholm; a member of the German Commission for Academic Cooperation; an honorary member of various overseas bodies, such as the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, and the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis of North America; chairman of the Branch Committee for Evangelical Theology in Germany’s Notgemeinschaft; the president of the ecumenical ‘Life and Work’ Theological Commission; vice-president and executive member of

Introduction

3

the ‘Faith and Order’ movement, and chairman of the ‘Life and Work’ Committee for East-West Cooperation. The book itself is constructed in three parts: Part One demonstrates how Deissmann’s innovative philological approach to the language of the NT has led to a rethinking among researchers of postclassical Greek, and shows that despite the loss of his almost completed NT lexicon, his lexicographical contributions remain fundamental for the understanding of koine Greek. Part Two makes the point that Deissmann’s extraordinary interest in the archaeology of Ephesus is directly traceable to his philological study tour of the Middle East in 1906, and argues that were it not for his high international profile and energetic intervention for the salvaging of the ancient city’s archaeological remains, inestimable and irreversible historical losses would have been inevitable. Part Three shows that even though Deissmann was one of the foremost supporters of Friedrich Naumann’s social reforms, by 1933 he had become sceptical of German politics. This part further demonstrates that his Evangelischer Wochenbrief (with its English translation, Protestant Weekly Letter) was not written as war propaganda, but rather as an innovative forum for Vçlkerverstndigung. It argues that, his subsequent leading role in the ecumenical movement notwithstanding, Deissmann was not a ‘true’ ecumenist, and establishes that his fading into oblivion was due to a combination of his own character traits and uncontrollable external circumstances. Numerous appendices to each chapter are included; these consist of complete transcripts or excerpts, drawn largely from hitherto unpublished or difficult to access primary source documents which substantiate many of the statements made within this book. The research for this study is based heavily on a sizeable databank of source material, obtained in the first instance from some 25 archives in countries including America, Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. To this is added a large collection of valuable information from non-archival and private sources, and also incorporates information gleaned from personal interviews with family members and friends, as well as from an unfettered access to Deissmann’s private library, memorabilia and diary.

Part 1

D¼o t²kamt² loi paq´dyjar

Figure 2 Gustav Adolf Deissmann, c. 1895 – 8

1. Deissmann the discoverer Die Sprache des Neuen Testaments und damit auch die in dieser Sprache gefaßte Sache des Neuen Testaments wurde nunmehr geschichtlich und lokal in der Welt des Vorderen Orients der Sptantike angesiedelt. Diese Sprache wurde von Deissmann entdeckt und festgelegt als sptgriechische Umgangssprache.1

1.1. The language of the New Testament in the late 19th century Before Deissmann’s seminal book, Bibelstudien, was published in 1895, the language of the NT was routinely isolated from ‘profane’ Greek, as a separate ‘biblical’, ‘Jewish’, ‘Christian’, ‘Hebraistic’, or even ‘Holy Ghost’ Greek, and considered to be seriously indebted to the Alexandrian translation of the OT that had become known as the Septuagint. This general consensus was based on the fact that the writers of the NT had made copious use of this Greek translation, and because their language did not seem to fit the grammatical conventions of classical literature. Confirmation for this could readily be found in contemporary Greek grammars and lexicons, which helped to perpetuate this misconception. In 1822 Georg Benedikt Winer (1789 – 1858) published his Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, an epoch-making work for NT studies. Although Winer was a product of the Cartesian-rationalist tradition and saw no connection between the Greek of the NT and that of the vernacular koine,2 his grammar brought about ‘an 1

2

G. Harder/ G. Deissmann, Zum Gedenken an Adolf Deissmann. Vortrag anlßlich des 100. Geburtstages von Adolf Deissmann am 7. November 1966, gehalten am 26. April 1967 vor den Dozenten und Studenten der Kirchlichen Hochschule in Berlin, Bremen, 1967, 3. I shall use the term ‘koine’ in this book in line with Albert Thumb’s definition: ‘“hellenistisch” ist also alles, was dieser Culturepoche angehçrt, und “hellenistische Sprache” ist nichts anderes als was wir sonst kîrzer mit Joim¶

8

1. Deissmann the discoverer

enlightened philology’, which triumphed over the previously ‘unbridled [grammatical] license’.3 His work was subsequently revised by Georg Konrad Gottlieb Lînemann (1819 – 94), and later again by Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel (1851 – 1935), who published his first instalment of the eighth revision, but stopped mysteriously in mid-sentence on page 192, and never completed the task.4 Yet the latter’s introductory paragraphs showed, according to Deissmann, ‘… still too much Winer and too little Schmiedel,’ although, he conceded that the book itself ‘marks a characteristic and decisive turning point in NT philology’.5 The grammar’s title remained the same, however, revealing the author’s and editor’s fundamentally unchanged assumption that the Greek of the NT was an isolated language, separate from the rest of ancient Greek. The book’s influence quickly spread beyond Germany, especially after 1859, when Edward Masson’s English translation was published.6 This, too, was later revised, first by Joseph Henry Thayer (1828 – 1901), and then by William Fiddian Moulton (1835 – 98). But despite the book’s fundamentally sound philology, it did little to dispel the notion of a separate, ‘biblical’ Greek. In 1859, Alexander Buttmann (1813 – 93) produced another such grammar in Germany, entitled, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs; Thayer’s translation appeared in 1891 as A Grammar of New Testament Greek. In 1896 yet another one appeared, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, by Friedrich Blass (1843 – 1907), but it barely took Deissmann’s groundbreaking philology into account. Each of these grammars was a monumental work, and their philological methodology moulded the sociolinguistic perception of the following generations of scholars – particularly in the fields of

3 4 5 6

bezeichnen’. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beitrge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der JOIMG, Strassburg, 1901, 9. A.T. Robertson, A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research, London, 19193 (1914), 4. Robertson, ‘New Testament grammar after thirty years’, in K.L. Schmidt, ed., Festgabe fîr Adolf Deissmann, zum 60. Geburtstag 7. November 1926, Tîbingen, 1927, 83. Philology, 114, 115. W.F Moulton had begun to re-edit Masson’s translation, but died before its completion, leaving the work to his son, James Hope Moulton (see below). New linguistic discoveries convinced the latter to abandon the project, and he created an entirely new work: A grammar of New Testament Greek, based on W.F. Moulton’s edition of G.B. Winer’s grammar. Vol. 1: Prolegomena, Edinburgh, 1906. Robertson, ‘New Testament grammar’, 82 – 3.

1.2 Academic preparation

9

philology and theology. For if lexicons are the lifeblood of ancient linguistic studies, grammars are their very heart, since they provide the underpinning systemic structures for these disciplines. Yet they all shared an elemental flaw: the commonly held assumption that the language of the NT was a grammatical peculiarity and, therefore, subject to its own laws. In bold opposition to this consensus, Deissmann wrote with youthful zest (1898): ‘Theoretisch lsst sich eine NT Grammatik ebensowenig rechtfertigen, wie etwa ein Hierozoikon. Es gibt so wenig eine NT Sprache wie es biblische Tiere gibt.’7 His three major philological books on the Greek of the NT, Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien and Licht vom Osten, have conclusively succeeded in proving the truth of his graphic metaphor. It was with these works that Deissmann has opened the door to a new era in postclassical Greek studies and systematically set the language of the biblical books into their correct historical setting.

1.2 Academic preparation When Deissmann arrived at the Marburg University during the Easter break in 1891, having enrolled for the regular licentiate, the young Pfarrer – a graduate from Herborn and Wiesbaden – had no lofty aspirations. The Faculty of Theology offered three separate degrees: the lesser licentiate, the somewhat more prestigious Doctor of Theology, and the purely academic Habilitation,8 but he later affirmed: ‘an Habilitation dachte ich zunchst noch nicht’.9 In the course of the previous twelve years, the Theological Faculty of Marburg’s nearly 400 year-old Philipps-University had gained a steadily growing reputation for academic excellence and openmindedness to new ideas.10 The fundamental criteria for the selection of lecturers were 7 GAD, Schulbltter, 1898. 8 E.C. Ranke, Bestimmungen îber die Promotionen und die Habilitation bei der theologischen Fakultt zu Marburg, Marburg, 1874, §1, §8 – 9. 9 SD, 50. For a full transcript of SD see Addendum 2. 10 G.A. Jîlicher, ‘Zur Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultt’, in H. Hermelink/ S.A. Kaehler, eds., Die Philipps-Universitt zu Marburg 1527 – 1927: Fînf Kapitel aus ihrer Geschichte (1527 – 1866), Marburg, 1927, 569. From its beginning in 1866 until 1879, when J.W. Herrmann’s influence ushered in a new era, the Faculty was seriously fragmented by infighting: ‘die einzelnen

10

1. Deissmann the discoverer

no longer allowed to depend on a candidate’s theological or political views, but rather on their research productivity, academic objectivity and teaching qualification. Enrolments rose from sixty in 1878 to 241 a decade later,11 boosted particularly in 1886 by the arrival of Adolf Harnack (1851 – 1930).12 He was ‘der fleißigste, originellste Kirchenhistoriker von ungewçhnlicher Produktivitt und wissenschaftlicher Forschungsgabe sowie der anregendste Dozent unter ihnen [i.e. German theology professors]’.13 During his three years at Marburg, students kept flocking in from every part of Europe as well as the USA; nevertheless, in 1889 he transferred to Berlin, where he remained until his retirement 32 years later. Therefore, Deissmann missed him at this early point in his intellectual development.14 It was to this thriving University that Deissmann wrote a lengthy autobiographical application letter on 14 April 1891, in which – on the grounds of parental financial strains – he successfully requested a stipend that would enable him to pursue further studies for the licentiate. The application ended with an earnest undertaking that ‘in jedem Falle, sollte ich die Licentiatenprîfung bestehen oder nicht, ist es meine Absicht, zunchst wieder in den Dienst der Nassauischen Landeskirche zu treten’.15 Since Deissmann wanted to focus his studies more deeply on the NT, his main teacher at Marburg was Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici (1844 – 1915), who had held the NT Chair since 1874 and was also a member of the Kassel Consistory. At the very end of his life, in spring of 1915, he founded the Religionsgeschichtliches Forschungsinstitut at the Leipzig University, with the specific task of re-editing16 the mid-18th century

11 12 13 14 15 16

Professoren lasen îber die verschiedensten Dinge, wie wenn jeder das Ganze allein zu vertreten htte und dem anderen nichts îberlassen dîrfte; unmçglich kçnnen dabei ihre Vorlesungen gleichwertig geworden sein.’ Ibid. Jîlicher, 569 – 70. The preposition ‘von’ was added to his name at his ennobling on 22.3.1914. F.W. Bautz, ‘Harnack, Adolf v. (1851 – 1930)’, BBKL, 2, 1990, 556. In SD (49) GAD wrote: ‘Adolf Harnack, der im Sommer 1888 noch nicht in Berlin gewesen war, wirkte [in Herborn, 1889] zum ersten Male auf mich, indirekt, durch einen seiner Marburger Schîler.’ See further, ch. 1.3. For a transcript of GAD’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, dated 14. 4. 1891, see Appendix 1, a. Heinrici’s real objective was far grander, although ultimately unrealistic; for he had decided ‘eine mçglichst vollstndige Sammlung der Parallelen fîr das Neue Testament aus dem Gebiete des Hellenismus herzustellen’. G. Strecker/ U. Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, 1, Berlin, 1996, x.

1.2 Academic preparation

11

Wettstein.17 To achieve this, he set up a small team under his leadership, and with Deissmann’s collaboration.18 Although Heinrici’s main interest was in early Christianity, with a particular penchant for the Apostle Paul, regarding whom he had written several books, he was also an outstanding classical scholar.19 It was, therefore, no surprise when he suggested to his young prot¤g¤ that he should consider for his research topic a study on Paul’s teachings on water baptism. Heinrici’s colleague, Wolf Wilhelm Graf von Baudissin (1847 – 1926), specialised in OT theology, but stood in decisive opposition to Julius Wellhausen (1844 – 1918). Some 26 years after attending his lectures Deissmann celebrated Baudissin as a founding father of modern religious history, and eulogised him as one who had done more than others to liberate the OT from isolation, by bringing it into line with Semitic and general religious history.20 Church history was Deissmann’s third subject, taught by Carl Mirbt (1860 – 1929), who had only recently (20 December 1890) been appointed Ordinarius. He was a zealous Protestant, whose passion for missionary work was equalled only by his ardent anti-Roman Catholic 17 In 1751 – 2 Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693 – 1754), one of the most noteworthy 18th century NT text critics, produced a monumental edition of the Greek NT, in opposition to the commonly accepted Textus Receptus. Beneath his Greek text he provided a comprehensive running commentary, with masses of parallel material drawn from classical and rabbinical sources. 18 In LvO4 GAD added an informative footnote that shows his erstwhile enthusiasm for this project: ‘Gewiß, es wre eine Aufgabe, wohl wert der Lebensarbeit eines Forschers, das großartige îber anderthalb Jahrhunderte alte Neue Testament von Johann Jakob Wettstein … neu herauszugeben.’ 2, n. 3. It is worth pointing out that he only meant an updated re-edition and not, as Heinrici wanted, a complete reworking, based on the old Wettstein. It cannot be determined with any certainty when GAD’s role in this team ended, but from the tenor of this footnote, it appears that the extremes of Germany’s postwar economic conditions caused the project’s temporary suspension. Although it recommenced in 1921, Heinrici’s unworkable ideal proved too overwhelming, and the work lapsed for almost three-quarters of a century, despite numerous later attempts. The Neuer Wettstein, published in 1996, finally succeeded because it consciously followed GAD’s above-mentioned narrower parameters, instead of Heinrici’s unrealistic goals. See Neuer Wettstein, xi. 19 e.g. he edited Die Leipziger Papyrusfragmente der Psalmen. Beitrge zur Geschichte und Erklrung des Neuen Testaments, 4, Leipzig, 1903. 20 GAD gave this tribute at Marburg (26. 9. 1917), in honour of Baudissin’s 70th birthday. The address is reprinted in Ev.Wbr, 21. 10. 1917, 4 – 5 (for Ev.Wbr, and Pr.WL citations, see explanation, ch. 7, n. 2).

12

1. Deissmann the discoverer

convictions (attested by his many writings on the topic).21 Despite his robust orthodoxy, he had obtained some distinction through his new historical methodology that integrated church and secular history. Deissmann’s fourth field of study was systematic theology, the domain of Johann Wilhelm Herrmann (1846 – 1922), who had occupied this Chair since 1879. He was a foremost disciple of Albrecht Ritschl (1822 – 89), but had also studied under Friedrich August Gotttreu Tholuck (1799 – 1877) – who, incidentally, had also been one of the teachers of Deissmann’s father.22 A pious evangelical, Herrmann’s emphasis on the relationship between religion and ethics was akin to Harnack’s and Ritschl’s and brought him widespread prestige. Several of his students eventually surpassed him in achievement and public profile, among them Karl Barth (1886 – 1968), Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884 – 1976) and Deissmann himself. Finally, there was Ernst Christian Achelis (1838 – 1912), who taught applied theology and simultaneously acted as university chaplain. In 1890 and 1891 he published the first two of his three-volume Lehrbuch der praktischen Theologie, for he had more than two decades experience in pastoral work and successfully established a new church in Hastedt near Bremen. However, these five teachers were not the only ones to influence Deissmann’s intellectual development at Marburg, for in his later years he also paid tribute to three other professors who had acted as ‘leuchtende gute Sterne’. There was Julius Wellhausen, a philologist who taught with ‘einsame[r] Wucht’;23 the church historian Adolf Jîlicher (1857 – 1938), an independent and self-professed liberal theologian24 and representative of the strictly historico-critical school, 21 These include: Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des rçmischen Katholizismus, Tîbingen, 19676 (1895); Die Entstehung des Papstthums, 1890; Der deutsche Patriot und die Jesuitenfrage, 1893; Die preußische Gesandtschaft am Hofe des Papstes, 1899; Geschichte der katholischen Kirche von der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zum Vatikanischen Konzil, 1913. 22 SD, 46. For GAD’s father, see ch. 3.2. 23 Ev.Wbr, Apr., 1921, 185. 24 Unlike the later ‘Ritschlian liberalism of the 1880s, early 19th century German liberalism was a two-pronged philosophical trend: 1) Liberalism of doctrine, which questioned and rejected traditional Christian beliefs. 2) Liberalism of biblical scholarship, which challenged the historicity and divine inspiration of Scripture. Although David Friedrich Strauss (1808 – 74) published his dissenting landmark, Das Leben Jesu, in 1835, its roots were in the 18th

1.2 Academic preparation

13

with his ‘geschliffene[m] Scharfsinn’, and Hermann Cohen (1842 – 1918), a neo-Kantian philosopher, logician and authority on Judaism, full of ‘ironische[m] Pathos’. Returning now to Deissmann’s aforementioned application: he had evidently made contact with Heinrici some time before his Dausenau Vikariat of 1890/1, in the hope of furthering his NT knowledge. At first he tried to take up Heinrici’s challenge, but soon became disheartened with the difficulties of ‘home studies’ and, for practical reasons concluded that he should enrol at a university once again: Herr Consistorialrat Professor D. Heinrici zu Marburg hatte die Gîte, mir vor einiger Zeit “die Aussagen des Apostels Paulus îber die Taufe” als Thema fîr dieses Examen zu empfehlen, und ich habe bereits angefangen, dieses Thema zu bearbeiten. Whrend meines Vikariates zu Dausenau hat sich mir jedoch die Erfahrung aufgedrngt, daß man fernab von jeder besseren Bibliothek nicht in der zureichenden Weise wissenschaftlich arbeiten kann und daß man auch sonst durch die großen Schwierigkeiten, welche das praktische Amt fîr den Anfnger hat, zu einer planmßigen und intensiven Wissenschaftlichen Arbeit von sonst kaum gelangen wird. So habe ich dann nach reichlicher ˜berlegung den Entschluß gefaßt, nochmals an einer Universitt zu studieren. Ich gedenke das kommende Sommersemester mich in Marburg zum Licentiatenexamen vorzubereiten.25

Deissmann had not rushed lightly into this decision, but first sought advice from some of his earlier teachers, namely, Emil Kautzsch (1841 – 1910), Max Wilhelm Theodor Reischle (1858 – 1905) and Eugen Friedrich Ferdinand Sachse (1839 – 1917). He had initially come under Kautzsch’ tutelage in summer of 1885, during his theology training at Tîbingen, where he studied three semesters under this Hebraist and OT exegete.26 For Deissmann it was Kautzsch’s literary criticism and captivating OT exegesis which had ‘die grçßte Anziehungskraft’ and impressed on him the historical value of the OT.27 Max Reischle also came to know him at Tîbingen, but only during Deissmann’s last semester, when he attended his classes on ‘Dogmatische Controversfragen der Gegenwart’.28 But Reischle’s easygoing geniality endeared him to his students and also had an effect on

25 26 27 28

century Enlightenment. C. Clark, Iron Kingdom: the rise and downfall of Prussia, 1600 – 1947, London, 2006, 247 – 83. GAD’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 14. 4. 1891; see Appendix 1, a. For GAD’s subject enrolment lists at Tîbingen see Appendix 3 (I-VI). GAD, ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27.3.1889. For a transcript see Appendix 1, b. Subject enrolment list, WS 1887/8.

14

1. Deissmann the discoverer

Deissmann’s later style of teaching in his own classes.29 Eugen Sachse met him first in 1889 at the Herborn Theological Seminary,30 which the former directed, but other than encouraging the young graduate to undertake further studies, he appears to have had no perceptible impact on his academic development. These then, were the three men who, more than others, guided him towards the crucial decision to enrol in the Marburg University.

1.3. The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO Immediately after Easter 1891, Deissmann made a renewed start on Heinrici’s suggested dissertation apropos early apostolic baptism31 – this time at the University itself, where he had access to an extensive library. It was not long, though, before the innocuous but constantly recurring Pauline formula 1m Wqist` – which had possibly come to his notice through Harnack32 – began to draw his attention away from his broadly exegetical topic towards the minutiae of Greek philology. A quick commentary search revealed that disappointingly few analytical studies had been made on the unpretentious 1m with a singular dative, but for Deissmann it looked like a much more stimulating problem than the project topic he had accepted from Heinrici. He was, of course, not the first to be struck by Paul’s unorthodox grammatical construction, for some 164 instances are known in which the Apostle employed this oddly worded phrase, and that despite the fact that 1m with a singular personal name rarely occurs in other Greek literature. In particular, however, it was Paul’s metaphysical application 29 A quarter of a century later, GAD wrote of Reischle that he ‘frîh erkannt hatte, daß ein von jugendlicher Begeisterung mit frçhlichen Augen vorgetragenes Problem junge Menschen mehr anzieht und fçrdert, als der spitze hçhnische Schulmeisterton des îbergescheiten Griesgrams’. Ev.Wbr, 14.5. 1917, 4. For GAD’s own teaching style see Appendix 9, l. 30 Before a graduate theologian could be licensed as Pfarrer within the duchy of Nassau, he had to complete two semesters of supplementary studies at this institution. J. Wienecke, ed., Mitteilungsblatt des Geschichtsvereins Herborn e. V., 40, 1, Herborn, 1992, 5. 31 GAD recalled: ‘Er hatte mir schon vorher geraten, îber die urchristliche Taufe zu arbeiten, und es lag in diesem Rat zugleich der Hinweis auf eine Untersuchung der antiken Mysterien und ihres etwaigen Ertrags fîr das Verstndnis der altchristlichen Sakramente.’ SD, 50. 32 See ch. 1, n. 14, and also Appendix 1, c.

1.3. The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO

15

of this preposition in relation to a person that caught his attention. A little over a year later, when Heinrici assessed Deissmann’s new and upgraded dissertation, he made the point that this small preposition had long baffled NT commentators, and stated: ‘Der Verfasser besttigt durch seine Leistung das Urtheil Buttmanns, daß die Prposition 1m ein Buch erfordere’.33 Notwithstanding, it was not Buttmann, but the versatile Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834), who first realised the far-reaching consequences this construction could have for NT hermeneutics,34 and any topical commentaries written in the intervening decades between him and Deissmann rested squarely on the former’s inconclusive observation. In den Kommentaren oftmals îbergangen oder mit einer gewaltsamen dogmatischen Interpretation des ‘in’ auf den ‘historischen’ Christus und sein Heilswerk gedeutet, erschien [die Formel] mir je lnger je mehr als eine eigenartige inhaltsschwere Schçpfung wahrscheinlich des Apostels Paulus selbst, als das eigentliche Kenn- und Losungswort seiner Gemeinschaft mit dem pneumatischen, ihm gegenwrtigen Christus, seiner Christusmystik.35

Even so, it was no mean task to produce a thorough study on this topic, not least because of the relative scarcity of experienced and willing philologists the young researcher could turn to, for these traditionally tended to patronise theologians and generally distanced themselves from biblical language studies.36 Moreover, despite the intensive multilingual training theologians underwent in at least three ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin), no specific branch of learning existed in Germany that specialised in the philology of the Greek Bible. Nevertheless, Heinrici agreed to continue the supervision of Deissmann’s new topic, although its philological character was somewhat alien to him, and the latter – probably on his Doktorvaters suggestion – made frequent visits by train to the aged Karl Johannes Tycho Mommsen (1819 – 1900) in Frankfurt. Although retired by then, the latter had been a very successful director of the Gelehrtenschule37 in Frankfurt since 1864, and over the decades had sedulously 33 Heinrici, ‘Referat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G.A. Deißmann: Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht’, 9.6.1892. For a transcript see Appendix 1, d. 34 En Chr, 71. 35 SD, 50. 36 SD, 51. 37 i. e. roughly corresponding to English Grammar Schools.

16

1. Deissmann the discoverer

accumulated a comprehensive collection of Greek prepositions from classical literature, which he now made freely available to his young colleague. It was here where Deissmann first began to comprehend ‘was treue Kleinarbeit im Laufe eines Gelehrtenlebens leisten kann’.38 The septuagenarian’s indefatigable methodology greatly facilitated Deissmann’s research in the non-biblical literary corpus, but it also inspired him with resolve for his own research, for to be able to make a thoroughgoing and well-grounded evaluation of the prepositional 1m required precisely this kind of systematic tenacity. In den Monaten, als ich mich als Spezialisten fîr das Wort ‘in’ gern necken ließ, habe ich versucht, den Sprachgebrauch der gesamten literarischen Grzitt, soweit die Prposition 1m mit dem persçnlichem Dativ in Frage kam, festzustellen.39

With ‘gesamte Grzitt’ he also included the Septuagint and NT, which Mommsen did not seem to have trawled. When Deissmann embarked on this wearisome undertaking, the Hatch and Redpath concordance for the Septuagint had not even reached the letter epsilon. Thus, although the double-columned layout of the old Leander von Ess edition made his task somewhat easier, he was forced to search through the entire 650,000 words, to hunt down where the tiny two-letter preposition occurred.40 Despite its mechanical aspect, Deissmann was unabashedly proud of this particular achievement and claimed, not without some justification, that he had begun, … um des 1m willen, die ganze Septuaginta rasch im Fluge durchzulesen und habe sie in einigen Wochen auch glîcklich bewltigt … Man kann zweifeln, ob es viele abendlndische Zeitgenossen gibt, die den ganzen Septuagintatext gelesen haben. Meist wurde und wird er nur stellenweise oder buchweise benutzt … und ich îbertreibe nicht, wenn ich sage, daß mir jene Septuagintawochen die Entdeckung einer griechischen Weltbibel bedeuteten, ohne welche die andere griechische Weltbibel, diejenige, die den Nachlaß der Evangelisten und Apostel gerettet hat, nicht verstanden werden kann.41 38 SD, 52. 39 SD, 51. 40 ‘My work was much helped at that time by the fact that there was no possibility for me to use the Septuagint Concordance. That seems to be a paradox; but it is true: Hatch and Redpath in those days had not got as far as the preposition “1m”, and in consequence I was driven to reading through the whole of the Septuagint for myself, with the special view of discovering the uses of “1m.” I wonder whether it would have been possible for me to read the whole Old Testament in Greek otherwise.’ Selly Oak Lectures, 165. See further SD, 52. 41 SD, 52.

1.3. The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO

17

Even though he wrote this almost thirty years after the event (1925), he appears to have inflated the undertaking in his mind, for instead of reading ‘den ganzen Septuagintatext’ he had merely trawled it, to discover how its writers had employed the prepositional 1m. By Deissmann’s own account, he scanned with rapid speed but little concern for textual comprehension, and scoured ‘nicht nur Wortbilder, sondern auch Zeilenbilder mit einem einzigen Blick’.42 Ironically, since his scanning was narrowly focused he subjected himself to the very same charge of selective content utilisation that he would later bring against his colleagues. To be sure, he engaged sufficiently with the wider context of each 1m to discover that the Septuagint was something other than a Semitic book in Greek dress, as was commonly taught at that time.43 Even thirteen years later, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare (1856 – 1924) and St. George William Joseph Stock (1850 – 1922) still clung with stubborn determination to the by then largely discredited view that: If we want to understand the Greek of the New Testament, it is plain that we must compare it with the Greek of the Old, which belongs, like it, to postclassical times, is colloquial rather than literary, and is so deeply affected by Semitic influences as often to be hardly Greek at all, but rather Hebrew in disguise.44

However, Deissmann’s systematic scanning had convinced him that, far from being ‘Hebrew in disguise’, the Greek of the Septuagint reflects the process of the Hellenisation of Semitic monotheism, and consequently it should be read and understood as a Greek book in its own right. That it is a translation goes without saying, yet since it does not slavishly follow Hebrew Vorlagen (as Aquila’s, for example), its text is frequently ‘ersetzend’ instead of ‘îbersetzend’.45 His initial findings were later confirmed by his papyrological research (see ch. 1.4), and in 1902 he presented a paper at the International Congress for Oriental Studies in Hamburg, where he urged that Septuagint studies be reoriented in line with his findings.46 Yet three years later Conybeare and Stock were still arguing that 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 F.C. Conybeare/ St.G.W.J. Stock, Grammar of Septuagint Greek. With selected readings, vocabularies, and updated indexes, Peabody, 1995 (1905), 21. 45 SD, 53. 46 SD, 53.

18

1. Deissmann the discoverer

the language of the Septuagint, so far as it is Greek at all, is the colloquial Greek of Alexandria, but it is Biblical Geek, because it contains so large an element, which is not Hellenic, but Semitic … One of our difficulties in explaining the meaning of the Greek in the Septuagint is that it is often doubtful whether the Greek had a meaning to those who wrote it.47

Despite a general lack of enthusiasm for Deissmann’s chosen research topic amongst theologians, historians and philologists alike, he had succeeded in upgrading his status midstream from Lizentiaten to Habilitand, and on 14 May 1892 successfully submitted his completed Habilitationsschrift. Still, it must be emphasised that he neither aimed for nor obtained a doctoral degree with his habilitation, although Marburg certainly offered this option (see ch. 1.2). In fact, he received his first doctorate honoris causa – from Marburg – at Christmas 1897, in recognition of his two Bibelstudien books, when he was already teaching at Heidelberg. He had originally started on a ‘sensible’ theological dissertation for his licentiate, but this was now transformed into an unconventional but respectable philological Habilitationsschrift. It took Heinrici three and a half weeks to assess it, before he concluded: Fasse ich mein Urtheil zusammen, so darf ich sagen, daß die Abhandlung mir eine fruchtbare und fçrderliche Behandlung einer wichtigen exegetischen Frage darzubieten scheint und ich daher sie als ein Specimen eruditionis im Sinne und nach der Bitte des Verf.[assers] anzusehen beantrage.48

Nevertheless, the dissertation failed to excite his enthusiasm, for he remained unconvinced by its fundamental argument that Paul had created the 1m Wqist` YgsoO formula as a ‘bequemer Ausdruck’ for his Christology. On the other hand, he commended Deissmann’s methodical treatment of the Septuagint, as well as his observations and rejection of ‘Judengriechisch’.49 The dissertation, together with Heinrici’s written assessment, was then passed on to the 34-year-old Dekan of the Faculty, Adolf Jîlicher,50 who endorsed Heinrici’s general appraisal, adding: ‘Der 47 Conybeare/ Stock, 22 – 3 (Italics their own). 48 Heinrici, ‘Referat’. See Appendix 1, d. 49 GAD had cautioned: ‘Das Griechisch der LXX darf nicht mit dem von den jîdischen Hellenisten gesprochenen Griechisch identifiziert werden’. En Chr, 134. 50 Although young, he had a reputation as an analytical thinker: ‘wer etwas lernen und nicht gerade sich unterhalten will, wird viel besser an Jîlicher gewiesen, als

1.3. The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO

19

Fleiß und die Sorgfalt D’s verdienen die hçchste Anerkennung’. Yet he too was not overly impressed, and went so far as to say: Die sprachgeschichtlichen Untersuchungen D’s in dem ersten Teile der Arbeit erscheinen mir fast als etwas ˜berflîssiges, denn ich meine, dass man zu dem richtigen Sinne des paulinischen 1m wq. auch ohne diese [.?. illegible] durch die griechische und judengriechische Litteratur gelangt wre.

Notwithstanding this critique, Jîlicher’s report is particularly significant in that he was the first to recognise formally Deissmann’s aptitude for postclassical Greek philology and lucid writing style, for he concluded his Referat with the prescient prediction: ‘Wenn er eine gewisse Steifheit îberwinden haben wird, so darf man – anliegende Arbeit gibt dazu das Recht – noch recht tîchtige Leistungen von ihm erwarten.’51 When Deissmann received the news that his Habilitationsschrift had been accepted, he immediately began preparations to have it printed by the Marburg publishers, N.G. Elwert, hoping that it may appear in bookshops with the beginning of the winter semester in October. However, to save costs with the copies he was expected to provide at his dissertation defence, Heinrici suggested that he print only a small number of part one for that event,52 but since Jîlicher considered that section as almost superfluous Deissmann ended up producing merely the second, a copy of which is still held at the Marburg State Archive. The public dissertation defence was his final hurdle before he could be formally habilitated, and took place at noon on Thursday, 20 October, in the University’s assembly hall. An open invitation had been posted and details printed on the front cover of the inaugural dissertation itself;53 his an Harnack’. F. Overbeck, cited by H.J. Klauck, in G. Schwaiger, ed., Historische Kritik in der Theologie. Beitrge zu ihrer Geschichte, Gçttingen, 1980, 99. 51 Jîlicher, ‘Correferat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G.A. Deissmann: “Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht”’, 3.7.1892. For a transcript see Appendix 1, e. 52 GAD, letter to Theological Faculty, 8.8.1892. The dissertation’s first part dealt primarily with Greek philology, the second with GAD’s thesis that Paul had conceived the formula 1m Wqist` specifically for his Christology. 53 Besides the title, the cover stated that it was an ‘Inaugural-Dissertation, welche samt den beigefîgten Thesen zur Erlangung der Wîrde eines Licentiaten der Theologie sowie der venia docendi mit Genehmigung der Hochwîrdigen Theologischen Facultt zu Marburg am 20. Oktober 1892, 12 Uhr, in der Aula der Universitt çffentlich verteidigen wird G. Adolf Deissmann, Repetent an dem Seminarium Philippinum. Opponenten: Lic. theol. Johannes Bauer, Privatdocent an der Universitt Marburg; Lic. theol. Bernhard Bess, Privatdocent an der Universitt Marburg.’

20

1. Deissmann the discoverer

two disputants were Privatdozenten and licentiate theologians. Johannes Bauer (1860 – 1930), whose recent Habilitationsschrift had only just been published,54 and Bernhard Bess (1863–?), whose first monograph appeared less than a year earlier.55 No record of the apologia appears to exist, but Mirbt, who had by now succeeded Jîlicher as Dekan, wrote a brief note, probably to the Kultusminister, confirming that ‘… am heutigen Tage Herr Lic. theol. Adolf Deißmann als Privatdozent an der geistigen theologischen Fakultt sich habilitiert hat’.56 Deissmann had never thought of his habilitation as an end in itself, but rather as a necessary learning exercise to gain clearer insight into the language, culture and history of early Christianity, since he fully intended to return to the Pfarramt after completion of his studies (see ch. 1.2). Nonetheless, his dissertation initiated him into the world of academia and drew him away from parish ministry even though his prepositional research had created little interest and few recognised its implications. However, since not even his Doktorvater and Faculty Dekan showed much enthusiasm for the topic, it is no wonder that it took some time before its significance began to be understood by other scholars. Yet three decades later he listed 27 separate works, which either sprang from, or were influenced by his Habilitationsschrift.57 Deissmann was fighting an uphill battle against deeply entrenched beliefs within the international fraternity of biblical scholarship. In England, for instance, the Grammarian Samuel Gosnell Green (1822 – 1905) argued that the NT writers only used 1m with the dative because a similar Hebrew preposition had affected early Greek speaking Christians via the Septuagint. His explanation of the Pauline formula bordered on mysticism:

54 Die Trostreden des Gregorius von Nyssa in ihrem Verhltnis zur antiken Rhetorik, Marburg, 1892. 55 Zur Geschichte des Constanzer Konzils, Studien I; Frankreichs Kirchenpolitik und der Prozess des Jean Petit, Marburg, 1891. Bess was editor of ZKG since 1891, and in Feb. 1912 wrote a ten-page letter to GAD (‘Du’ form), together with a preliminary contract, in an unsuccessful attempt at securing his co-editorship of a new publication, the Theologische Zeitschrift, planned to be launched that summer. 56 Mirbt, note (unaddressed), 20.10.1892. 57 The lengthy listing of what he termed the ‘wichtigsten Arbeiten’ occurs in the second edition of Paulus (1925), 111 – 2, n.1, whereas the first edition (1911) merely refers to his Habilitationsschrift.

1.3. The formula 1m Wqist` YgsoO

21

The frequent phrase 1m Wqist` (so 1m Juq¸\, &c.), means, not simply attached to Christ as a follower, but in Christ, in the most intimate abiding fellowship. So “Christ in you, me,” [sic] Rom. viii. 10 …58

Two years after Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift was published, Friedrich Blass – a widely respected classical philologist at the University of Halle, and one of the foremost authorities on the language of the NT – wrote an article in which he declared, ‘das neutestamentliche Griechisch ist als ein besonderes, seinen eigenen Gesetzen folgendes anzuerkennen’.59 His grammatical dominance was so pervasive that his views left a very long shadow indeed. For more than eighty years later, the standard (revised) Blass-Debrunner Greek grammar – by then in its tenth edition – still claimed that the NT ‘use of 1m owes its extension especially to the imitation of Hebrew constructions …’; Deissmann’s work received only grudging acknowledgement: The phrase 1m Wqist` (Juq¸\), which is copiously appended by Paul to the most varied concepts, utterly defies definite interpretations; cf. Deissmann, Die nt. Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’, Marburg, 1892.60

This continual, almost defeatist, shoulder-shrugging by theologians and philologists alike, was perhaps most colourfully described by the theologian and philosopher August Detlef Christian Twesten (1789 – 1876), when he asked: Was heisst das: in Gott leben? Ein hebraisierender Ausdruck, den zu meinem ørger auch Fichte61 immer im Munde fîhrt. Von gleicher Art ist das Aufgehen in Gott. Das sind hohle Worte, die kein Mensch versteht, und vor denen gerade deswegen jeder Ehrfurcht hat, als lge recht etwas Hohes darin.62

Deissmann repeated these same sentiments in his dissertation, but concluded with a stern challenge against such arcane presuppositions. 58 S.G. Green, Handbook to the grammar of the Greek Testament, together with a complete vocabulary, and an examination of the chief New Testament synonyms, London, 1880, 261 – 2. 59 TLZ, 19, 1894, 338. 60 F. Blass/ A. Debrunner, A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, R.W. Funk, transl., London, 19619/10 (1896), 117 – 8. The 17th German edition of 1990 makes use of GAD’s Bst and LvO. 61 Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1797 – 1879), German philosopher. 62 A. Twesten, cited by GAD, in En Chr, 73. Twesten succeeded Schleiermacher and was the immediate predecessor of Bernhard Weiss at Berlin (see ch. 1.4) who, in turn, was succeeded by GAD.

22

1. Deissmann the discoverer

Hçrt man z. B. in einer Predigt, dass der Sînder seinen Frieden “in Christo” findet, dann weiss man weder, wie das zu denken ist, noch auch – und das ist das Schlimme – wie das zu erreichen ist. “In Christo”? Soll das heissen: “in einem Raisonnement îber den Menschen Jesus der evangelischen Geschichte” oder “in dem Vertrauen auf eine Thatsache, durch welche Gott versçhnt ist und die ich kurzerhand “Christus” nenne”, oder “in einem persçnlichen Gebetsverkehre mit dem lebendigen Christus”? Die Wendung “in Christo” gehçrt heute zu den vieldeutigsten unserer gesamten religiçsen Terminologie … Jedenfalls darf keiner, der das “in Christo” gedankenlos braucht, sich einbilden, er rede paulinisch.63

Deissmann’s study offered for the first time a systematic linguistic explanation of what hitherto had been primarily based on tradition. He demonstrated that the Greek preposition 1m must be understood in a locative sense, but also relate to a living person; it was not meant to be a replacement for di², or any other preposition, and the accompanying dative of the formula does not signify the ‘historical’ Christ or his work.64 Instead, it characterises the metaphysical relationship of a Christian’s spiritual being (Sichbefinden) with a living but spiritual Christ. In an attempt at elucidating this idea Deissmann resorted to metaphorical language: air is inside us, he wrote, since we inhale it, yet at the same time we are also ‘in’ air (locative), since it fully envelopes us.65 His research further convinced him that Paul’s formula is neither a Semitism, nor Septuagint-dependent Greek, but the Apostle’s own creation in the particular way in which he used it for his fundamental Christological philosophy.66 Despite the value of Deissmann’s research, Die neutestamentliche Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht was not one of his enduring works and is barely known today. Nevertheless, he successfully accomplished with it what many before him had shied away from: a systematic 63 En Chr, 133. 64 En Chr, 79 – 80. 65 En Chr, 98. He also employed this metaphor in Paulus, 87. D.J. Timms, in his unpublished PhD dissertation, ‘The Pauline use of en Christo: Re-examining meaning and origins – a linguistic analysis’, concluded: ‘It is appropriate to regard Adolf Deissmann as the father of the modern mysticism interpretation of 1m Wqist`.’ Macquarie University, 2000, 237. 66 ‘Paulus hat ihn gebildet, um dadurch irgend etwas Eigentîmliches, was nur ihn interessierte, auszudrîcken. Er ist der Bildner der Formel, nicht in dem Sinne, als htte er zum ersten Male 1m mit dem persçnlichen Singular verbunden, sondern so, dass er unter Benutzung eines bereits vorhandenen Sprachgebrauches einen ganz neuen terminus technicus schuf ’. En Chr, 70.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

23

philological study of an apparently unfruitful grammatical peculiarity within the Greek NT texts. Although his findings created no headlines, it was a crucial first step towards his subsequent discovery that the commonly-held idea of widespread Semitisms in the NT is unsupportable.67

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery After his habilitation Deissmann began to work almost immediately at the Marburg University as Privatdozent; at first it was only a part-time job for non-staffed teaching, and paid for by private tuition fees. At the end of January he applied to the Faculty for an additional subsidy, but it took another three months before the university registrar replied that his request was granted and he entered into contractual state employment. It was a modest stipend,68 for his position had not changed; but at least it enabled him to continue his philological research for a new and much more consequential book than his initial one. Moreover, he had now, as it were, a ‘foot in the university door’. The agreement was backdated to 1 April, 1893 and for administrative purposes, this became the official starting date from which Deissmann’s employment as a civil servant was reckoned; it ended only upon retirement 41 years later to the day (see ch. 9.2). Although he was now 67 K. Beyer wrote: ‘So standen am Anfang dieses Jahrhundert zwei Lager gegenîber, die etwa durch die Namen Wellhausen – Torrey – Burney auf der einen und Deissmann – Moulton – Radermacher auf der anderen Seite charakterisiert werden kçnnen. Und daran hat sich im wesentlichen bis heute nichts gendert. Ja, man muß sagen, daß Skepsis gegenîber allen Versuchen, eine neutestamentliche Stelle vom Semitischen her zu erklren, die Regel ist.’ Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament, I, Satzlehre, Teil I, Gçttingen, 19682 (1962), 7 – 8. But G.H.R. Horsley observed: ‘Despite the promises of the title of K. Beyer’s Semitische Syntax im NT … this book does not provide that demonstration, even for the temporal and conditional clauses which he investigates in such detail. Indeed, it is clear that his concern is not really with Jewish Greek as such but with Semitic influence on the NT.’ ‘The fiction of “Jewish Greek”’, New Documents illustrating early Christianity, 5, Sydney, 1989, 31, see also 82. 68 The official letter states: ‘… [ich] benachrichtige hierdurch … daß der Herr Minister … Ihnen ein Stipendium von jhrlich 500 M. vom 1. April d. J. ab auf zwei Jahre bewilligt … und dieselbe durch ihre Hauptkasse in vierteljhrlichen Raten praenumerando zahlen zu lassen’. Steinmetz to GAD, 26.4.1893.

24

1. Deissmann the discoverer

formally employed as a Repetent,69 he also taught concurrently at the Faculty’s closely linked Seminarium Philippinum. While doing some research in the University library, some time during 1893, Deissmann – by a fortunate stroke of serendipity – briefly noticed a new publication, which his colleague, the Indogermanist Wilhelm Schulze (1863 – 1935), was reading; it was a philological volume on papyri entitled, Berliner Griechische Urkunden.70 The photographic reproductions of ancient autographs immediately caught Deissmann’s attention. But no sooner had he began to thumb through its pages than he noted a curious Greek phrase, and, as he later pointed out, it is this chance find that marks a watershed in his life: Dieser Augenblick bedeutete mir eine plçtzliche Befruchtung, fîr die ich nicht dankbar genug sein kann: er wies mich in die Papyri, oder besser gesagt, zu den unliterarischen Resten der Umwelt der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments.71

What he saw was the phrase 5tour 6[j]tou ja· tqiajostoO [t/r] Ja¸saqor jqat¶seyr heoO uRoO.72 Its honorific epithet (heoO uRoO) fed his growing suspicion that the Greek of the NT might, in fact, not be so very different from the lingua franca of early Christians, and if this proved to be true, the NT could then be read as a kind of repository of 1st century Hellenistic (i. e. koine) Greek.73 Such an idea flew directly in the face of contemporary consensual teaching on the character of that language. One long ‘established’ tenet was: ‘“das Neue Testament” redet die Sprache der Septuaginta’, implying that the latter was written in a distinctively idiomatic language, well known to the NT writers, but not spoken by the general public.74 The corollary of this kind of reasoning was that no parallels of such ‘biblical’ Greek should have existed outside the Septuagint and Scripture. But the papyri, whose publications rapidly became a torrent of texts with considerable linguistic prospects, had the potential to raise serious questions which 69 This academic teaching position was primarily provincial and more commonly associated with Tîbingen. The position formed an integral part of the academic staff in non-Prussian universities and seminaries. See also Ev.Wbr, 14. 5. 1917, 4. 70 The item, Pap. Berol. 7006, was edited by Fritz Weber, BGU, 1, 6, 1893, 174. 71 SD, 53. 72 See further Bst, 167, also LvO4, 294 – 5 . 73 For a concise discussion on koine, see Horsley, ‘Koine or Atticism – a misleading dichotomy’, New Documents, 5, 41 – 8. 74 Bst, 59.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

25

challenged the consensus – but someone was needed to articulate that challenge to the theologians. The first papyri finds had already been made in the 18th century, but the strongest influx to reach European museums began to arrive during the last two decades of the 19th century. This unexpectedly large quantity of ancient texts provided a new lease of life for the study of antiquity, including its languages, history, culture, law, economics and religion. By the late 1900s, many thousands of papyri had been found and catalogued, with a considerable number published.75 Deissmann began to immerse himself in the mass of these published papyri, as well as some of the published inscriptions. Ich las mich bald in viele gyptische Papyrusbltter und Mittelmeerweltinschriften ein und konnte die Fîlle des auf mich einstrçmenden Materials an sprach- und religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen … zur griechischen Bibel kaum bergen.76

Most of his textual database had, therefore, been available for some time,77 but it was his methodical analysis of this material that was to distinguish his work.78 It was around this time that he first began to correspond with the historian and papyrologist, Ulrich Wilcken (1862 – 1944).79 But from 75 Stuart Pickering’s claim that ‘by the late 1900s … some 40,000 had been published’ appears excessive. See, ‘Papyri, Biblical and early Christian’, in J.D. Douglas, ed., New twentieth-century encyclopedia of religious knowledge, Grand Rapids, 19912 (1955), 626. 76 SD, 53. 77 e.g. BGU, SIG, or IMA. 78 J.S. Banks wrote: ‘He sets himself to illustrate from the great collections of inscriptions and papyrus records published at Berlin and Vienna in 1895 the orthography, grammatical forms, and especially the meanings and idioms, of the N.T. text.’ ‘New Testament Greek’, ET, 9, 6, 1898, 272. J.H. Moulton later wrote: ‘But the use of the papyri is the most characteristic feature of the book [i.e. BS]. There the material has been accumulating during the last ten years with bewildering rapidity. How rapid the growth has been is best realized by observing that in the four years since Deissmann’s Neue Bibelstudien was published there have appeared four goodly volumes of papyrus texts from Drs. Grenfell and Hunt, – apart from the theological Amherst Papyri, – while the Berlin papyri have grown from one and a half volumes to two and a half big folios; moreover, the Inscriptiones Maris Aegaei, from which Deissmann gathers great spoil, are now in three volumes instead of one.’ ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362. 79 See G. Poethke, ‘Ulrich Wilcken (1862 – 1944)’, in M. Capasso, ed., Hermae: scholars and scholarship in papyrology, Pisa, 2007, 81 – 96.

26

1. Deissmann the discoverer

Deissmann’s writings it appears that it took another decade before the two professors met each other for the first time: when Wilcken came to visit Heidelberg for a few days in early October 1901.80 Deissmann proudly acknowledged the latter’s influence on his philological work, and wrote of ‘… zahlreichen immer ergiebigen Begegnungen und einem dreißigjhrigen brieflichen Austausch, bei dem ich immer der Nehmer war …’.81 He had somewhat oddly – but quite deliberately – entitled his new book Bibelstudien, although this technical work is not a devotional nor inspirational aid to the Bible.82 It is the wordy subtitle83 that was meant to alert the reader that the book is a philological treatise on a historical aspect of the Greek language and has little to do with religion itself. Bibelstudien is dedicated to one of Deissmann’s former teachers at Tîbingen, Carl Heinrich von Weizscker (1822 – 99), and also to his Doktorvater at Marburg, Georg Heinrici. The book is divided into six chapters, with the third one taking up some 40 % of the entire work and entitled: ‘Beitrge zur Sprachgeschichte der griechischen Bibel’.84 It is in this chapter where the author developed and tested his new methodology for his thesis that the language of the NT reflects the contemporary vernacular, and successfully began to demolish the deeprooted myth of a ‘biblical’ Greek. He did this through philological discussions of 75 Septuagint words, idioms and phrases,85 most of 80 So the AK, 7 – 9.10,1901; see further SD, 55. 81 SD, 55. 82 ‘Bibelstudien nenne ich die folgenden Untersuchungen, weil sie sich alle mehr oder weniger mit den geschichtlichen Fragen beschftigen, welche die Bibel, insbesondere die griechische Bibel, der Wissenschaft stellt. Ich bin freilich nicht der Ansicht, als gebe es eine besondere Bibelwissenschaft. Wissenschaft ist Methode … die Wissenschaft, die hier in Betracht kommt, ist dieselbe, mag sie sich mit Plato oder den siebzig Dolmetschern und den Evangelien beschftigen. Das sollte selbstverstndlich sein.’ Bst, vii. 83 Beitrge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums. 84 The other chapters are, I: Griechische Transkriptionen des Tetragrammaton; II: Ein epigraphisches Denkmal des alexandrinischen Alten Testaments; IV: Zur biblischen Personen- und Namenkunde; V: Prolegomena zu den biblischen Briefen und Episteln; VI: Spicilegium. 85 i. e. !c²pg, !ccaqe¼y, !dekvºr, !mastq´volai, !mav²kamtor, !mav´qy, !mtik¶lptyq, !mt¸kglxir, !n¸yla, !pº, !qetakoc¸a, !qet¶, !qwisylatov¼kan, %vesir, bast²fy, beba¸ysir, c´mgla, cocc¼fy, cqallate¼r, cq²vy, di²dowor, diadewºlemor, dijaior, di_qun, eQr, 1jtºr, eQ l¶, 1m, 1mtaviast¶r, 1mtucw²mym, 5mteunir,

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

27

which occur in the NT as well, but had thus far been considered as exclusively ‘biblical’ or ‘Hebraistic’. Yet by comparing their usage with a range of contemporaneous non-literary and often fragmentary texts from papyrus or inscriptional sources he demonstrated successfully that each one of them belonged, in fact, to the lingua franca of that time. What Deissmann did, in essence, was to amalgamate papyrology – which scholars like Wilcken regarded simply as a branch of philology – with NT linguistics; and through this he originated the academic discipline of NT philology (see ch. 3.6). The point Deissmann made with his new methodology was sound, although it could perhaps be argued that isolated occurrences of individual words outside the ‘biblical’ corpus are insufficient evidence for the existence of an entire language branch (i. e. late Greek vernacular). However, he did not merely write comparative philology, centred on a few papyri, or amass pointless examples; instead, he focused on noteworthy words contained within non-literary texts; on morphology, orthography and syntax – and that not only from Egyptian papyri and ostraca, but also of inscriptions from diverse other locations. By demonstrating their common, ‘secular’ usage – ranging from funerary stelae to reminder lists, and from building inscriptions to personal letters – he was able to contextualise these words philologically for the first time, and thereby disprove the whole idea of a ‘biblical’ Greek. It was not a smooth battleground that Deissmann had picked, and he described what he was up against as follows: So kam es zu den in meinen ‘Bibelstudien’ (1895) und ‘Neue Bibelstudien’ (1897) niedergelegten Forschungen, die vor allem die eine Wirkung hatten, daß das von Theologen und Philologen unnçtig und gewaltsam isolierte besondere ‘Bibelgriechisch’ … aus dieser Einzelhaft befreit wurde.86

Nevertheless, his broad generalisation could give the impression that no other serious philological work was being done on the Greek Bible, or that he was a lone voice within the halls of academia. This was far 1mtuw¸a, 1qcodi¾jtgr, eqýkator, eqwaqist´y, tº hel´kiom, Udior, Rkast¶qior, Rkast¶qiom, Rstºr, jaqpºy, jat², keitouqc´y, keitouqc¸a, keitouqcijºr, k¸x, koce¸a, leifºteqor, b lijqºr, mºlor, emola, ax¾miom, paq²deisor, paqep¸dglor, pastovºqiom, peqid´niom, peq¸stasir, peqit´lmy, p/wur, potislºr, pq²jtoq, pqesb¼teqor, pqºhesir, puqq²wgr, sitol´tqiom, sjeuov¼kan, spuq¸r, svuq¸r, st²sir, succem¶r, sum´wy, s_la, rpof¼ciom, v¸kor, uRºr (t´jmom), b uR¹r toO heoO.

86 SD, 53 – 4.

28

1. Deissmann the discoverer

from true, as his closest British friend, James Hope Moulton (1863 – 1917), rightly observed: ‘Deissmann was not of course the original patentee of his central thesis’.87 The first ‘modern’ scholar, who used Greek inscriptions to elucidate parts of the NT, is likely to have been the German classicist and palaeontologist, Johann Ernst Immanuel Walch (1725 – 78), whose work, Observationes in Matthaeum ex graecis inscriptionibus, was published posthumously in 1779. This was followed in 1814 by Observationum ex marmoribus graecis sacrarum specimen, written by the Danish bishop Friedrich Mînter (1761 – 1830).88 Fifty years later, Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828 – 89), professor of divinity at Cambridge University, commented presciently on a NT word that had until then only been found in Herodotus: You are not to suppose that the word had fallen out of use in the interval, only that it had not been used in the books which remain to us: probably it had been part of the common speech all along … if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we shall have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the New Testament generally.89

According to James Rendel Harris (1852 – 1941),90 it seems that Lightfoot may, in fact, have been indebted to Edward Masson for this often quoted prediction.91 For two years earlier, the latter had published substantially similar thoughts in the prolegomena to his translation of Winer, a grammar with which Lightfoot was certainly 87 Moulton, ‘Deissmann’s “Bible Studies”’, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362. See also W.L. Lorimer, ‘Deissmannism before Deissmann’, ET, 32, 7, 1921, 330. It appears that the pejorative term ‘Deissmannism’ was coined by Lorimer, see also ch. 9.4. On Moulton, see Horsley, ‘Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917)’, in S.E. Porter, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, London, 2007, 230 – 1 88 Compare LvO, 7, n. 1. 89 Quoted in G.R. Treloar, Lightfoot the Historian: the nature and role of history in the life and thought of J.B. Lightfoot (1828 – 1889) as churchman and scholar, WUNT, II/103, Tîbingen, 1998, 319. Also cited in German by GAD, LvO, 42, n. 3. 90 Harris had held various distinguished academic positions in succession, at the Johns Hopkins University, Haverford College, Cambridge University and Leyden University (NT Greek, theology and paleography). After rejecting Congregationalism during the 1880s he joined the Society of Friends (see ch. 8.1) and in 1904 became the first director of studies at the Quaker’s ‘Woodbrooke’ study centre in Birmingham. 91 J.R. Harris, ‘The so-called Biblical Greek’, ET, 25, 2, 1913, 54 – 5.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

29

familiar. However, because of the highly compressed translator’s prolegomena, where Masson fleetingly stated his own understanding of Greek linguistic history, Harris speculated that since the translator’s views clashed with the original author, Masson may have been editorially curtailed. Writing a full generation prior to Deissmann, Masson had not arrived at his conclusions via the papyri, but used his knowledge of Modern Greek instead;92 nevertheless, his linguistic conclusions were astonishingly advanced. The diction of the New Testament is the plain and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious subjects. It cannot be shown that the New Testament writers introduced any word or expression whatever, peculiar to themselves; … the history and doctrines of Christianity had been for some years discussed in Greek before any part of the New Testament was written … Apart from the Hebraisms – the number of which has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated – the New Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine facsimile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated Grecian gentlemen of the 1st century, who spoke without pedantry – as Qdi_tai and not as sovista¸.93

These brief excerpts lead to the plausible conclusion that Moulton alluded to Lightfoot and Masson as ‘the original patentee[s] of [Deissmann’s] central thesis’, for Harris’ assumption that Moulton would have been unaware of Masson’s prolegomena, in the front pages of the very book he was to re-edit himself, is certainly untenable.94 Deissmann was, therefore, not unique in his work on the language of the NT, but thus far no one had been able to come up with a tangible methodology that could systematically prove what this ‘biblical’ language really was. Whether from a philological or a theological perspective, linguistic research was not lacking for the NT, but most newer publications of the late 1880s and early 1890s were still very much under the spell of ‘biblical’ Greek, as a few of the more prominent titles demonstrate. In 92 He was professor of modern history at Athens University in the 1830s. 93 E. Masson, cited in Harris, ‘The so-called Biblical Greek’, 55. 94 Harris knew Moulton well, but concluded his brief article with: ‘Even Professor Moulton, who had the re-editing of Winer in hand, does not seem to have been aware that any one had arrived some fifty years since, by the road of modern Greek, at the main conclusions of the papyrologists.’ Harris, ‘The so-called Biblical Greek’, 55.

30

1. Deissmann the discoverer

1889 Edwin Hatch (1835 – 89) published Essays in Biblical Greek,95 seven years later, Hermann Cremer (1834 – 1903) produced his eighth edition of Biblisch-theologisches Wçrterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grzitt (Gotha, 1866). Furthermore, two NT grammars also came on the market, both with similarly revealing titles: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms (1894 and 1897), by Paul Schmiedel,96 and the first edition of Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (see ch. 1.1). Deissmann’s closest English counterpart was certainly James Moulton at Cambridge (1887 – 1901), and later (1908 – 17) Greenwood Professor of Hellenistic Greek and Indo-European philology at Manchester. In the same year in which Deissmann published Bibelstudien he, too, had his first major book printed: An introduction to the study of NT Greek. The two scholars agreed on their central philological postulates; but it was Deissmann, not Moulton, who first developed the method of systematic papyrological comparison with the NT texts to demonstrate the latter’s vernacular roots, an achievement for which Moulton explicitly credited his German friend. Thus, he wrote in a review of the combined 1901 English translation of his Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien: Of course there are few scholars who would dare to confess that they had not read the books in the original, for they undeniably belong to the exceedingly small class to which the much-abused term ‘epoch-making’ properly belongs … Deissmann … is the first to seize upon the new material that the last decade provided, and use it in a way which gives us a wholly new and indispensable tool for the study of the Greek Bible … the use of the papyri is the most characteristic feature of the book.97

Since Deissmann’s philological approach to the study of the NT language was novel for theologians as well as philologists, it made him vulnerable 95 Full title: Essays in biblical Greek. Studies on the value and use of the Septuagint, on the meanings of words and psychological terms in Biblical Greek, on quotations from the Septuagint, on Origen’s revision of Job, and on the Text of Ecclesiasticus, Amsterdam, 1970 (1889). Hatch’s book is squarely founded on the presumption of Semitic Greek. 96 Schmiedel’s complete revision of Winer’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als sichere Grundlage der neutestamentlichen Exegese, Leipzig, 1830, appeared in two parts: Einleitung und Formenlehre, Gçttingen, 1894, and Syntax. Erstes Heft, Gçttingen, 1897. 97 Moulton, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362. GAD’s first publication in English was probably ‘Prolegomena to the epistle to the Romans – a word to students of theology’, ET, 11, 3, 109 – 11.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

31

to opposition from either camp. On one side arose theological conservatives with strongly traditional views concerning the sacredness of ‘biblical languages’, and on the other were progressive philologists, whose ‘linguistic supremacy’ was based on their claim to specialist knowledge of these newly discovered texts. The latter’s low opinion of theological researchers as a group was evident, but Deissmann singled out two of his main opponents: øhnlich ging es mir mit der Vernderung der Gesamtauffassung vom Charakter der Sprache des Neuen Testaments. Als sich mir die ˜berzeugung mehr und mehr aufdrngte, daß die Apostel in der Hauptsache das unliterarische Griechisch des Volkes gesprochen und geschrieben haben, wurde diese Theorie von Hermann Cremer und Friedrich Blaß als Depravation des Neuen Testaments scharf bekmpft.98

Cremer was professor of systematic theology in Greifswald, but served simultaneously as acting senior pastor of the local St. Mary’s Church until 1890. His thinking was underpinned by a deeply religious conviction of the inerrancy of Scripture and Paul’s teaching of justification by faith in Christ. Moreover, he enjoyed a distinguished reputation ever since his highly successful lexicon was first published in 1867. In contrast, Blass was not a trained theologian, but a leading classical philologist with a well-established name as a NT linguist. Nevertheless, as a deeply religious man, he was opposed to liberal Christianity and critical theology and, therefore, not favourably inclined towards Deissmann’s research. Even though he was in the process of changing his views on Semitisms in the NT, his Grammatik still betrayed his earlier convictions that the ‘New Testament Greek’ was a distinctive language with unique grammatical rules.99 It was because of these men’s predominant but disparate philosophical viewpoints that Deissmann singled them out as chief opponents of his work. However, similar notions were also held by the Septuagint lexicographer Edwin Hatch, who lamented that philological research in the NT was being neglected and that ‘there is no good lexicon. There is no philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar’.100 Yet he did not call for a changed approach to the study of postclassical Greek; on the contrary, what he advocated was that ‘the NT language’ 98 Ev.Wbr, 19. 10. 1918, 6. 99 Blass, TLZ, 19, 1895, 487. For Blass’ philological about turn, as documented by GAD in NBst, see Appendix 1, f. 100 Hatch, 1.

32

1. Deissmann the discoverer

be taken seriously as a philological subject in its own right, and as historically distinct from ‘secular’ Greek; ‘Biblical Greek’, he wrote, ‘is thus a language which stands by itself ’.101 As mentioned above, the implications of the emerging mass of published papyrological and inscriptional data had also stirred the imagination of other researchers in NT linguistics, yet none had made the necessary systematic research to prove a connection between these non-literary writings and the NT texts. What Deissmann achieved was remarkable because of his innovative philological methodology by which he was able to demonstrate that the language of these ancient texts had clear parallels in the NT and Septuagint. His philological comparison between the biblical texts and the language used in the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions was a completely new approach to an old problem. Yet it provided conclusive evidence that the Greek of the NT was not dependent primarily on the Septuagint, but was squarely based on the language commonly used by Greek speakers of the 1st century, namely the Hellenistic koine. Bibelstudien, therefore, dealt a major blow to the traditional argument that the Bible was written in some kind of special language. Deissmann’s findings provoke the question how one is to account for the various grammatical styles and idiosyncratic vocabularies within the NT. He attempted to answer this in his second largest chapter (pp. 187 – 252), entitled ‘Prolegomena zu den biblischen Briefen und Episteln’. The book’s fundamental argument that the sociolinguistic and religious history of early Christianity can be studied via the vernacular usage of contemporaneous papyri and inscriptions depends to a large extent on the treatment of the idiomatic distinctions between these colloquial writings and the extra-biblical literature of that time. The corollary to his argument, however, is that since the bulk of these non-literary papyri was demonstrably written in koine – whose grammar, syntax, form and vocabulary are clearly reflected in the NT – the latter, as a whole, must be rooted in the same colloquial language. Since at least 21 of the 27 NT books are either letters or epistles, Deissmann reasoned that it was essential to make a distinction between these two kinds of communications, as only ‘true’ letters would be written in the vernacular of the day. He defined letters, therefore, as ‘something non-literary’, intimate and personal, intended only for the eyes of specific recipients and never for a wider public. In 101 Ibid., 11.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

33

contrast, he described epistles as a literary art form; a genre within literature that shares with letters only their external appearance, while their content is always intended for the ears of a wider public. Form never differentiates between letters and epistles, as Isocrates’ letters prove, ‘sondern in letzter Linie nur die Absicht des Verfassers’.102 Although Deissmann cited various authors who had written on this topic, a difficult dilemma lay in the questions of how a writer’s actual ‘Absicht’ could be determined, and at what point a private letter would turn into a public epistle. He reasoned that even if someone were to write to a group of people (a church or club, for example), it could be done in the form of a ‘personal’ letter and, therefore – depending on the writer’s intent – would not necessarily constitute a public epistle, but as a letter could serve to illustrate the writer’s everyday language.103 With this weak argument Deissmann attempted to bolster his contention that most NT ‘letters’ were written in the non-literary koine instead of a special kind of Greek. However, perhaps his boldest assertion (and also one of the most difficult for him to maintain), occurred when he asserted: Der Brief unterscheidet sich seinem innersten Wesen nach in nichts von der mîndlichen Zwiesprache; er ist persçnliche, vertraute Mitteilung so gut wie diese, und je mehr der Brief den Ton der Zwiesprache trifft, um so brieflicher das heisst besser ist er.104 102 Bst, 218. Even three decades later, he wrote: ‘nach dreißig Jahren dauernder Beschftigung mit diesem Problem glaube ich sagen zu sollen, daß hier alles abhngt von der Frage der Absicht des Briefschreibers.’ SD, 56. Eighty years thereafter, H.-J. Klauck writes: ‘A. Deissmann sought to cut through the knot involved in letter classification by positing a simple dichotomy between a letter and an epistle … An essential part of Deissmann’s categorization lives on the distinction between non-literary and literary letters, which nobody denies today, and therefore Deissmann hardly deserves the sharp censure he gets in some of the more recent literature. That Deissmann’s simple bifurcation of letter types is insufficient in the long run and that he made too little use of transitional categories goes without saying. Nevertheless, more sympathetic recent scholarship has demonstrated a simple way of making Deissmann’s two categories of the “letter” and “epistle” more flexible, namely by combining them to make four categories.’ Ancient letters and the New Testament: a guide to context and exegesis, D.P. Bailey, transl. and ed., Waco, 2006, 70. 103 Bst, 229. 104 Bst, 189. Thirteen years later he had become somewhat less rigid on this distinction, writing: ‘[ein Brief ] unterscheidet sich in keiner wesentlichen Weise von der mîndlichen Zwiesprache’. LvO, 158.

34

1. Deissmann the discoverer

In his attempt at justifying the argument that epistles are philologically distinct from letters, he compared them with the differences between formal dialogues and private conversations, historical dramas and actual past events, or stylistic obituaries and the comforting words of a father. Epistles, he claimed, were as different from letters ‘wie die Kunst von der Natur’;105 for letters were a reflection of the writer’s actual speech, while epistles were a calculated creation of literary art. From this he concluded that letters could be used to reconstruct the ‘true’ vernacular of a language. But it was a rather narrow-minded thesis and heavily dependent on his tenuous notion of intent versus spontaneity. What mattered to Deissmann’s mind was primarily whether the writer intended his work to be read by (or rather, to) a broad public audience, or by a privately casual one. This could include a family, a club, a church, or an association – regardless of size. Style, form, syntax, grammar, address, content, or vocabulary itself, are of no immediate consequence in making a distinction. For he argued that while some letters read like libelli, certain epistles could be full of endearing prattling with an engaging style to mask ultimately insincere motives.106 As unconvincing as his basic premise may appear, he certainly did not dissociate himself from traditional systematic epistolography, for he had in mind to write a separate book on this very topic himself.107 Unfortunately, like so many other commendable projects he had envisaged – one need only call to mind his lexicon (see ch. 2.6) – the consequences of WWI caused this to come to nothing as well. The young theologian was certainly not the first to research, or indeed, to write about epistolary genres in the NT; even Eusebius had long ago shown some awareness of such matters.108 Where Deissmann differed was in how he applied this knowledge to his sociolinguistic 105 LvO, 159. 106 Bst, 218. GAD made no mention of the ancient practice of reading even private letters aloud, with the corollary that they were usually written to be heard. ‘Throughout antiquity even private reading was done aloud – Augustine found it strange that Ambrose read in such a way that his “eyes glanced over the pages”, while “his voice and tongue were silent”.’ W. Doty, Letters in primitive Christianity, Philadelphia, 1973, 7. 107 Bst, 235, n. 1. GAD had already collected some material, and made a rough plan for this book, in which he intended to treat subjects such as addresses, introductions, endings and style. This is doubtless why he revisited this topic in LvO. 108 Eusebius, HE, 7.26.2.

1.4. Bibelstudien: breakthrough to discovery

35

research with regard to the koine of the NT. In 1699 the English philologist Richard Bentley (1662 – 1742) had published his Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, in which he presented the hypothesis that Deissmann now expanded and adopted for his own use.109 The latter’s predecessor in Berlin, Carl Philipp Bernhard Weiss (1827 – 1918) had also written on this, but held firmly to the commonly accepted idea that an epistolary distinction was only necessary in private letters, as distinct from Gemeindebriefe.110 However, for Deissmann this was not specific enough, since it failed to deal with the essential nature of the manuscripts themselves and was solely conditional on who their recipients were.111 But it appears that a few pages from Wilamowitz have managed to give him a clearer grasp of this topic than those from any other writer,112 for of the sixteen times he cited him in Bibelstudien, ten were from these nine pages. Besides, he lamented, ‘Schade, dass manche der neusten Kritiker der Paulusbriefe diese paar Seiten nicht vor sich hatten. Sie htten dann vielleicht gemerkt, was ein Brief und was Methode ist’.113 Although his ‘intent hypothesis’ is too nebulous, he did succeed in calling attention to what had been overlooked before, namely that unpretentious letters could be used to demonstrate the vernacular of a language. Deissmann had never intended Bibelstudien to be ‘the final word’ with regard to this aspect of the historical development of the Greek language. On the contrary, in the preface of the first volume he cautioned: Wie viel ist allein noch zu thun, bis die Sprache der Septuaginta, das Verhltnis des sogenannten neutestamentlichen Griechisch zu ihr, die Geschichte der religiçsen und ethischen Begriffe, des griechischen Judentums und des lteren Christentums auch nur in ihren Grundzîgen deutlich geworden ist …114

Five years later, when the English edition of Bible Studies appeared, he made it known that those ancient texts he had made use of were but a 109 110 111 112

Bst, 207, n. 2. Bst, 205. Bst, 205. Bst, 218. GAD referred to Enno Friedrich Wichard Ulrich von WilamowitzMoellendorff (1848 – 1931), one of Germany’s most influential classical philologists (see also ch. 3.1). The relevant pages are from Wilamowitz’s Aristoteles und Athen, II, Berlin, 1893, 391 – 9. 113 Bst, 218, n. 3. 114 Bst, vii-viii.

36

1. Deissmann the discoverer

minute selection of a much greater quantity of historical material, for which reason he appealed for researchers to engage in this new work that he had pioneered yet could not possibly complete on his own. I have so far availed myself of portions of the more recent discoveries … but what remains for scholars interested in such investigations is hardly less than enormous, and is being augmented year by year. I shall be greatly pleased if yet more students set themselves seriously to labour in this field of biblical research.115

It is undeniable that Bibelstudien was a philologically groundbreaking work, and the author successfully demonstrated the overarching implications his new comparative papyrological and inscriptional methodology had for the study of early Christianity and its linguistic history. When the book appeared it began to open substantial new horizons among theologians and philologists alike; but Deissmann knew that his work had only just begun.116 It was crucial to keep the momentum going, especially since some leading religious conservatives remained unconvinced on account of their personal belief in divine inspiration.117 To persuade such influential sceptics it was imperative that he consolidate the gains made by his research, which is why Neue Bibelstudien followed so hard on its heels.

1.5. Backdrop to Neue Bibelstudien While Deissmann was working on Bibelstudien, his income came from the two part-time teaching positions at the Marburg University and the local Seminary. His private life was about to change considerably, for he had fallen in love with Henriette Elisabeth Behn (1873 – 1955), the

115 BS, viii. Re: ‘augmented’, see Moulton, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362 – 3. 116 In the introduction to Bst GAD wrote metaphorically: ‘da, wo ich gearbeitet habe, muss noch mancher Quader zurecht gemacht werden, ehe man an die Auffîhrung des Baues denken kann’. 117 e. g. Hermann Cremer (see ch. 1.4, also ch. 2.1). On 19. 2. 1908 GAD wrote to his friend Moulton: ‘Ich bin anlsslich der Berufung [Berlin] von der konservativen [kirchlichen] Presse heftig angegriffen worden, da ich îberhaupt kein Theologe sei und keine Beitrge zum Verstndnis des N.T. gegeben habe, sondern bloß zum Missverstndnis des N.T. und gewagt htte, die beiden grçßten Sprachforscher Cremer und Blass anzugreifen.’

1.5. Backdrop to Neue Bibelstudien

37

Figure 3 Henriette Elisabeth Behn in 1891, aged 18

daughter of Theodor August Behn (1816 – 86)118 and his third wife Eleonore Henriette Katharine Wendt (1848 – 1926).119 The prospect of matrimony had compelled the young Privatdozent to search for a better-paid position, and towards the end of 1894 an

118 A Hamburg shipping magnate, judge, and then-autonomous Bremen’s first consul in Singapore (1844 – 51). 119 In a private letter to this author, GAD’s youngest son, Gerhard Deissmann (1911-), wrote (30. 3. 2003): ‘Die Mutter meiner Mutter war die dritte Ehefrau von Theodor August Behn, der 1886 verstarb. Sie hat nach seinem Tode, soweit ich mich entsinnen kann, noch zweimal geheiratet … Offenbar begegnete GAD bei seinem Aufenthalt in Marburg an der Lahn der damaligen Henriette Wendt (verwitwete Behn) und ihrem Mann sowie ihrer Tochter Henriette Behn aus ihrer ersten Ehe, meiner Mutter, gesellschaftlich und lernte sie schtzen. Als sie sich kennen lernten, war meine Mutter 19 (1892) und als sie in der Elisabeth-Kirche Marburg 1895 heirateten 22 Jahre alt.’

38

1. Deissmann the discoverer

opportune vacancy presented itself as Pfarrer of the Herborn parish.120 The wedding date had already been set for 18 April 1895, but the preceding three months became very hectic for Deissmann. Not only was he labouring over the final proofs for Bibelstudien, but his new post as Pfarrer had come into effect on 1 January, although he still lived at Marburg and continued to teach there.121 For thirteen weeks he commuted regularly between the two towns by train, yet in spite of giving sermons in the one and lectures in the other, he managed to finalise his proofs well before the wedding, and concluded the preface as follows: Ich habe das Buch nicht als Pfarrer sondern als Marburger Privatdocent geschrieben, aber freue mich es als Pfarrer verçffentlichen zu kçnnen. Herborn (Bezirk Wiesbaden), den 7. Mrz 1895.122

The first printed copy of Bibelstudien arrived in his mail three weeks later, a mere five days before his termination at Marburg. During that week he had begun to move into the Herborn manse to make it ready for his bride, and on the same day when he left Marburg he also commenced as resident Pfarrer at Herborn, where one of his more enjoyable concomitant duties entailed teaching at the Theological Seminary (see below). The Herborn parish included not only the town itself, but also the three nearby farming communities Hçrbach, Sinn and Hirschberg. According to the national census of 1880 Herborn’s population was 3044, while Hçrbach consisted of 394, Sinn of 674 and Hirschberg of 175. It is safe to say, therefore, that Deissmann’s responsibility fifteen years later probably included some 5000 individuals, as the overwhelming majority of these towns were made up of Lutherans.123 Hçrbach is situated along the Rehbach, a small tributary of the river Lahn. Since the village had no public transport, it took a good half-hour’s walk from the manse to its mid-13th century chapel that, with partial 120 In later years, GAD described Herborn as ‘meine Heimat’, because ‘wie mein Vater und mein Großvater, so war auch ich selbst als Kandidat sein [i.e. Predigerseminar] Schîler gewesen und hatte von beiden Eltern her, die hier jung gewesen waren und sich, wie schon die Großeltern, hier gefunden hatten, eine Fîlle verwandtschaftlicher und persçnlicher Beziehungen zu dem alten schçnen Stdtchen und seiner Nachbarschaft.’ SD, 58 – 9. 121 SD, 58 – 9. Also in an undated Standesliste (Karlsruhe GArch.). 122 Bst, x. 123 Kreisblatt fîr den Dillkreis, Amt Herborn, Herborn, 14.9.1882.

1.5. Backdrop to Neue Bibelstudien

39

modifications, survives intact to this day. Hirschberg was even more difficult of access, for Deissmann regularly had to walk for more than an hour to get to its tiny 14th century chapel. Sinn, on the other hand, was easily reached by train, and the trip took less than five minutes from Herborn. Today an impressive stone church (built in 1900) dominates the town, but the little hillside chapel in which Deissmann preached remains well preserved and stands just a few metres across the road from the church itself. Years later Deissmann described his ministry among these villagers as an important part of his theological maturing process. Fîr besonders wichtig halte ich es, daß ich damals in meinen Dçrfern Hçrbach, Hirschberg und Sinn, besonders in den beiden ersten, inmitten einer aus Kleinbauern und zwergbuerlichen Hîttenarbeitern gemischten Bevçlkerung, den Laienpietismus der Stillen im Lande, der Gemeinschaften, in einer kirchentreuen, biblisch nîchternen und doch (namentlich im Missionsgeiste) îberaus aktiven Lebendigkeit kennen lernte. Schon mein Vater hatte mir mit großer Bewegung von diesen Bauernpietisten des Dilltales erzhlt.124

These hardworking farmers revered the position of Pfarrer, since they believed it existed by divine appointment, but this had the effect of generating a strong dependence on the clergy’s spiritual guidance, which could be extremely demanding, especially for a young and newly married man like Deissmann.125 Some of his Marburg colleagues were of the opinion that this Pfarramt was ‘eine Art von Erniedrigung’.126 Nevertheless, he decided in its favour because it offered an immediate opportunity for him and Henriette to establish their own household; later he described his decision as one of the better ones he had made, and explained: ‘mir ist dadurch … die Begrîndung meines Hausstandes mçglich geworden und eine vielleicht lange und lhmende Wartezeit als Privatdozent erspart geblieben’.127 But besides the financial appeal, he also believed that the position would help him to keep his newly found academic momentum going, at least until such 124 SD, 60. 125 ‘Ich gestehe offen, daß mir, ganz erfîllt von wissenschaftlichen Interessen wie ich war, die mannigfachen ungeistlichen Ttigkeiten, die der geistliche Beruf mit sich brachte, nicht ganz leicht geworden sind. Und das regelmßige und viel zu hufige Predigenmîssen (nicht das Predigen als solches) hat mir wieder schwere Nçte bereitet.’ SD, 59. 126 SD, 59. 127 SD, 58.

40

1. Deissmann the discoverer

time as some university would offer him a professorship, for he had already begun to work on a follow-up volume for Bibelstudien and aimed at completing it as soon as possible. Another consideration for them was the fact that Henriette fell pregnant almost immediately with their first child: Henriette Marie was born on 27 January 1896. Deissmann came to Herborn for the practical Pfarramt, but it was his academic Nebenamt as teacher at the Theological Seminary that tipped the scales in favour of making this move, as it gave him an opportunity to continue his work within a scholarly environment. The Seminary, a former Gothic palace adjacent to the church, had gained a somewhat misleading reputation for conservatism during the latter half of the 19th century. But in 1890, when Eugen Sachse was succeeded by the new director, Karl Friedrich Zimmer (1855 – 1919),128 the latter was certainly not a conservative but rather a liberal theologian, who wrote of the Seminary: ‘man brachte dem Herborner Seminar das Vorurteil entgegen … es sei eine orthodoxe Presse’,129 but then proceeded to make the case that this bias had been ill-founded for some time. Besides Zimmer, there were three other principal teachers: Heinrich Maurer (1834 – 1918), Karl Haussen (1855 – 1943) and Deissmann himself;130 these men enjoyed an academically stimulating camaraderie among themselves. This, then, is the backdrop to Deissmann’s companion volume to Bibelstudien. It was here, in the relatively well-stocked library and tranquil study rooms of the Herborn Theological Seminary, that he was able to complete his Neue Bibelstudien,131 which was published in May 1897.

1.6. Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien Neue Bibelstudien is essentially an expansion of Bibelstudien, for it provides additional discussions on another 92 words, idioms, technical expressions, or phrases, which were generally accepted as ‘biblical’ or ‘Hebraistic’ peculiarities. Importantly, it is in this second work where Deissmann first publicised his principal objective, namely that the two 128 129 130 131

Sachse accepted a professorship at the University of Bonn. Wienecke, 25. SD, 58. See also Wienecke, 32 – 3, 36. SD, 58 – 9.

1.6. Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien

41

Bibelstudien should establish an initial basis for a forthcoming NT Lexicon, founded on an entirely new lexicographical methodology (see ch. 2.2). ‘Derartige Untersuchungen auch fernerhin anzustellen, ist meine Absicht: sie sollen – sub conditione Jacobea – dereinst zu einem Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament fîhren.’132 This second volume consists of three parts; the first deals with orthography, particularly vowel and consonant changes, while the second focuses on morphology, declensions, some personal names and verbs. Most of the book, however, is taken up by the third (pp. 22 – 96), which is subdivided into six chapters wherein the author expands on the topic he first raised in Bibelstudien, namely that the new papyrological evidence demanded a thorough revision of the linguistic history of the Greek language in the postclassical period. The alleged high number of biblical Hebraisms, and the notion of ‘Jewish Greek’, with its ‘biblical’ or ‘New Testament’ words and grammatical constructs, were clearly no longer tenable (see ch. 1.3). Even though Neue Bibelstudien is smaller than its predecessor, it achieved its purpose of consolidating Deissmann’s position as a philological trailblazer in NT studies. The combined effect of these two books was pervasive throughout Germany; even in England Moulton gave a glowing report and referred to them as genuinely ‘epoch-making’ (see ch. 1.4). Since Deissmann’s language studies had opened up new papyrological and methodological possibilities, he became an international trendsetter among biblical and postclassical Greek scholars. He had developed a new empirical rationalism for the philology of the NT, and with it demystified its language. Widespread and supportive international interest was fast becoming the norm for the author, who looked back many years later on this era and somewhat lyrically wrote: Unter der Sonne der Welt erlebte die lange steril gewesene biblische Philologie eine Zeit hoher Blîte. Eine ganze kleine Bibliothek von Einzeluntersuchungen und zusammenfassenden grammatischen und lexikalischen Arbeiten wurde uns geschenkt, und besonders auch in den neueren Kommentaren zum Neuen Testament wirken diese ganzen Forschungen sehr stark mit.133 132 NBst, vii. The Latin caveat, with its intimation of mortality, is based on James 4:14 – 15. GAD used this same qualifier at other times as well; e. g. letter to Sçderblom, 29.7.1908. GAD clearly planned to expand on Bst and NBst and reiterated this intention in the preface to BS: ‘I must, however, reserve further items for future Studies’. 133 SD, 54.

42

1. Deissmann the discoverer

On 17 June 1897, only days after publishing Neue Bibelstudien, Deissmann presented an address at a theological conference in Giessen,134 55 km south-east of Herborn. His one-hour paper was not only compelling by virtue of its extraordinary content, but also because it dared to challenge some of the most elementary theological and philological presumptions of the time, and singled out several of their most ‘sacrosanct’ proponents by name. He drew attention to the recent upswing in linguistic biblical research and literature, but argued that – to the detriment of the Greek of the Bible – the large bulk of these books ‘dienen … der Erforschung nicht der griechischen Bibel, sondern des biblischen Griechisch’. He posited as erroneous the philological presuppositions on which most of these works were based,135 and referred specifically to Hatch, Cremer and Blass – the latter two still alive and generally held in high regard throughout Germany.136 The single most visionary challenge Deissmann delivered that day was his urgent call for a complete overhaul of the entire existing Greek NT lexical corpus;137 many of his listeners would not yet have read his preface to Neue Bibelstudien. Deissmann’s distinctive approach to the Greek of the NT had also come to the attention of Baden’s Kultusminister;138 and when Karl Christian Johann Holsten (1825 – 97), NT professor ordinarius at Heidelberg’s Ruprecht-Karls-Universitt, suddenly died on 26 January, the Marburg graduate seemed a suitable replacement for him. Thus, on 18 July 1897 the Grand Duke of Baden formally approved Deissmann’s appointment to the ‘Professur fîr neutestamentliche Exegese und Kritik’ – just one month after the Giessen conference – although his commission became effective only with his release from the Herborn Pfarramt on 1 September.139 Since his classes were to commence with the winter semester on 1 October he used the intervening time to relocate his young family from Herborn to Heidelberg and make himself acquainted with the workings of the University. Their new flat at Brîckenstrasse 10 was pleasantly situated 134 The paper was later published as a booklet (1898), entitled: Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwrtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben. For a full transcript see Addendum 1. See further, ch. 3.3. 135 Spr. Erforschung, 6, 7. 136 Neither was present at the conference. 137 Spr. Erforschung, 24; see also ch. 2.2. 138 SD, 62. See also n. 140 below. 139 Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg University Senate, 23.7.1897.

1.6. Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien

43

in a quiet side street on the opposite side of the river Neckar, but settling into the Faculty proved more difficult, for almost from the start he clashed with what he called the ‘mehr oder weniger doktrinren Gesamtauffassung des lteren Liberalismus …’.140 Yet he was not alone, for Ernst Troeltsch (1865 – 1923) was also a young theologian there, and he had held the Chair in systematic theology since 1894. Thus, it is not surprising that the two quickly formed a close friendship.141 The Faculty had changed little since Troeltsch had written a colourful letter to Wilhelm Bousset (1865 – 1920) three years earlier, in which he described its environment as well as his colleagues with undisguised antipathy. Die Fakultt ist hçchst kurios zusammengesetzt und durchaus kein Genuss. Merx142 … ist fîr mich die reine Qual, von einer so lcherlichen Eitelkeit und Vielwisserei … man kann ihn nur durch schwere Beleidigung sich einigermassen vom Halse halten. Hausrath143 ist absolut ungeniessbar, mit Gott und der Welt zerfallen, ein … reizbarer und ungleicher Unterhalter, ein vollkommener Vernichter aller Theologie und aller Theologen … Nun kommt noch der holdselige Lemme,144 der von einer unglaublichen Unver-

140 SD, 62. Although faculties submitted their candidates’ proposals for a Chair to the Kultusminister, professors were commonly appointed at the latter’s personal discretion, which could lead to internal discord within faculties. Thus, ‘wenn z. B. heutigen Tages die evangelisch-theologische Fakultt in Bonn notorisch unheilvoll in Partien zerklîftet ist, so trgt einen grossen Teil der Schuld davon das vom Ministerium befolgte Verfahren, Professuren ohne Rîcksicht auf die Wînsche und Vorschlge der Fakultten zu besetzen. Um so grçsser ist die Befriedigung darîber, dass der neue Herr Kultusminister [Ludwig Holle, see ch. 2.4] in den bisher zu seiner Entscheidung gekommenen Besetzungsfllen, erst in Breslau und dann in Berlin und Halle, verstndnisvoll den Vorschlgen der Fakultten Rechnung getragen hat.’ ChrW, 8, 18, 1908, 99. The same anonymous writer also claimed that when he once asked: ‘“Hat mich denn die Fakultt vorgeschlagen?” – die brîske Antwort zuteil wurde: “Die Staatsregierung beruft Sie, was gehen Sie die Vorschlge der Fakultt an?”. Wir haben daher in den letzten Zeiten ma[n]che Ernennung erlebt, die gegen die Vorschlge der Fakultten erfolgte.’ 98. 141 Later they fell out with each other for several years, over GAD’s unwillingness to support Troeltsch’s appointment as successor for Edvard Lehmann at the Berlin Theological Faculty. SD, 62 – 3. 142 Adalbert Merx (1838 – 1909), professor of OT. 143 Adolf Hausrath (1837 – 1909), professor of church history and NT exegesis. 144 Ludwig Lemme (1847 – 1927), professor of systematic theology and a passionate opponent of Harnack.

44

1. Deissmann the discoverer

schmtheit und Unkollegialitt ist … und hlt sich fîr den Retter Gottes in Baden … Es ist klar, dass es eine ziemlich krumme Fakultt ist.145

Ten months after Deissmann’s arrival Troeltsch wrote in another letter to Bousset: ‘Ein Glîck ist nur, dass Deissmann ein sehr angenehmer College ist, ja mir bereits mehr als das ist. Durch ihn habe ich endlich wieder wissenschaftliche Anregung und Aussprache.’146 Despite the somewhat strained Faculty environment, Neue Bibelstudien had demonstrated that the new professor was a force to be reckoned with. Moreover, his rather extraneous paper147 at Giessen – that could almost have been perceived as a kind of inaugural lecture – had left no one in doubt that his two books were merely the groundwork for an undertaking of far greater consequence: an entirely novel Greek NT lexicon (see ch. 2.2). Nevertheless, his confidence in his new philological approach to the NT, together with his relatively young age (30), was perceived as theological ignorance by the Faculty members and contributed to the initial friction. He had barely begun his teaching at Heidelberg, when Jîlicher, his erstwhile Habilitationsschrift examiner at Marburg, wrote a memo to his Faculty in regard to Deissmann.148 He had been the first to spot the young theologian’s potential, and now advocated that his Alma Mater become the first to acknowledge their alumnus, by considering him for a Doctorate of Theology (honoris causa) at their next meeting. They quickly resolved to grant this sign of their recognition for the rising star, and on Christmas Day he received a surprise package that he described as ‘die hçchste Ehre … welche die Theologie ihren Jîngern zuteilen lßt’.149 It was the first of a string of academic honours he was to receive during his lifetime. Earlier that year, when Deissmann was still at Herborn, the Scot, James Hastings (1852 – 1922), editor of The Expository Times and various major biblical dictionaries, had sent a letter to him – almost immediately after reading Neue Bibelstudien – in which he wrote:

145 Troeltsch, letter to Bousset, 12. 10. 1894, in E. Dinkler-von Schubert, ‘Ernst Troeltsch. Briefe aus der Heidelberger Zeit an Wilhelm Bousset, 1894 – 1914’, HJ, 20, 1976, 23 – 7. 146 Dinkler-von Schubert, 32. 147 See Addendum 1. For a comparison with other Giessen papers see Appendix 1, g. 148 A. Jîlicher, memo to Marburg Theological Faculty, 14.11.1897. 149 GAD, letter to Marburg Theological Faculty, 31.12.1897.

1.6. Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien

45

You may have seen some references in the Expository Times to your Bibelstudien and Neue St. [sic]. I believe that an English translation would be welcomed. But it would have to be edited for English readers. And I am glad to say that Professor W.M. Ramsay150 is willing to undertake the editing, if you will grant permission … the best possible translator would be found and the work would be published by the eminent firm of Messrs. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh.151

The letter’s general tone suggests that Hastings did not know Deissmann personally. Nevertheless, here was a firm offer to have his works published in English, and to make them accessible to an international professional audience.152 It was Hastings who advocated that the translation of the two books should appear as a single volume. Deissmann had planned to consolidate his research, but publishing these technical books in English would certainly give him a broader international opportunity to do this.153 Thus, he agreed to a translation, but rejected the suggestion that Ramsay should be the principal editor, opting instead to do this himself, and proposing that Alexander Grieve, Minister of the United Presbyterian Church at Forfar (Scotland), be employed as translator. It appears that the two men had become acquainted first at Marburg, where the Scot’s outstanding command of languages and finely tuned 150 William Mitchell Ramsay (1851 – 1939), since 1886 professor of Humanity at Aberdeen, knighted in 1906. 151 Hastings, letter to GAD, 18. 7. 1898 (underscore by Hastings). 152 Like its two German originals, the book was not written for the general public, for it presumes a good deal of Greek knowledge and specific interest by the reader, which is why GAD wrote: ‘what remains for scholars interested in such investigations is hardly less than enormous … I shall be greatly pleased if yet more students set themselves seriously to labour in this field of biblical research’. BS, viii. 153 From GAD’s preface it is apparent that the translation was aimed at British, not American scholars: ‘Having been honoured by a request to sanction an English translation of my Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien, I have felt it my duty to accede to the proposal. It seems to me that investigations based upon Papyri and Inscriptions are specially calculated to be received with interest by English readers. For one thing, the richest treasures from the domain of Papyri and Inscriptions are deposited in English museums and libraries, for another, English investigators take premier rank among the discoverers and editors of Inscriptions, but particularly of papyri; while, again, it was English scholarship which took the lead in utilising the Inscriptions in the sphere of biblical research.’ BS, vii. A letter from T. & T. Clark to GAD, dated 16. 12. 1910, reveals that by then ‘1128 copies [of BS] have been sold, of which 318 have gone to the United States of America and to British Colonies’.

46

1. Deissmann the discoverer

poetic intellect made a sufficiently deep impression on Deissmann to nominate him now for the task of translating his books. As a student at Edinburgh, Grieve’s success had been ‘almost unprecedented’, and he went on to further his studies at Berlin, Leyden, Marburg and Leipzig, where the latter ‘conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy’.154 Deissmann was obviously mindful that a wider international exposure through an English translation of his books was going to have consequences for his academic reputation. Accordingly, he added some supplementary material specifically for this version155 and also took ‘the most active interest in the preparation of the translation, and [his] painstaking revision of the proofs had been of the highest service’.156 As a linguist, he was only too aware of the vagaries of translating one language into another, and this was particularly problematic with his esoteric treatment of some of the finer points of koine Greek, encased in German technical jargon. So, if this book was to convey the import of his discovery successfully amongst a wider Anglo-Saxon readership of theologians and philologists, it would have to mirror his own thinking precisely and not represent that of an interpretative translator. For a title he decided, therefore, simply to translate that of his German versions, and explained: Bible Studies is the name I have chosen for the following investigations, since all of them are more or less concerned with the historical question which the Bible, and specially the Greek version, raises for scientific treatment.157

Grieve’s translation was published early in 1901; it is a clear and skilful rendition of Deissmann’s two books, reads like an original English work and, similar to its German precursors, received widespread acclaim. However, since it was intentionally aimed at a limited professional audience – primarily theologians and philologists – sales would be limited. Five years after publication T. & T. Clark wrote to Deissmann that his market was close to saturation. Sales had progressively dwindled and although they kept the book’s title prominently advertised in their catalogues, a discouraging 28 copies had been sold during the entire past twelve months, which left the 154 A. Reid, The Bards of Angus and the Mearns: an Anthology of the Counties, Paisley, 1897, 207 – 8. See also, Reid, The Royal Burgh of Forfar, Paisley, 1902, 168. 155 BS, viii. 156 Translator’s Preface by A. Grieve, BS, xiv. 157 BS, ix.

1.6. Consolidation of discovery: Neue Bibelstudien

47

publishers still £50 in arrears.158 By now, Deissmann was beginning to feel somewhat uncomfortable with them,159 and four years later, when he discussed publication of his impending Lexicon in a letter to his friend James Moulton, he wrote: Die Frage des Verlegers ist sehr wichtig und muß sehr reiflich îberlegt werden. Offen gestanden, habe ich zu T. und T. Clark keine besondere Lust da ich mit den Bible Studies keine gute Erfahrungen gemacht habe.160

Despite the slow sales, Bible Studies was well received in Britain, which is not surprising, since the free Anglo-German exchange of academic information (especially between Scotland and Germany) was a wellestablished tradition that linked the two countries.161 Thus, Rendel Harris commended the book as a ‘notable volume’ that … will bring [Deissmann] into the hands of a multitude of students, who have hitherto only known him by report, and by the significant applause of almost the whole company of New Testament experts.162

His friend James Moulton had read both Bibelstudien soon after publication and immediately recognised the consequences of Deissmann’s work. Now he also recommended the English translation without reservation (see ch. 1.4), although he was careful to point out that the steadily growing mass of papyrus publications and inscriptions would keep this philological undertaking in animated flux. For while Deissmann cited a single example of !qqab¾m (pledge) and eight of its orthographical variant !qab¾m, Moulton had since then already discovered a total of twelve occurrences of the former and eleven of the latter. Similarly too, with eW l¶m, of which Deissmann gave two 158 T. & T. Clark, letter to GAD, 26.12.1905. 159 The reason for his dissatisfaction with T. & T. Clark appears to have been primarily the slow sale of BS, for on 26. 12. 1905 (see preceding note) their reply to an enquiry by GAD five days earlier, was apologetic: ‘Unfortunately we are not able to write anything more encouraging about the sale of the English Translation’. Later he was evidently appeased, for he used the same publisher again in 1907 for New Light on the New Testament (see ch. 1.7), and in 1909 for BS2, and 1923 for BS3. 160 GAD, letter to Moulton, 27.12.1909. For a transcript of this letter see Appendix 1, h. See also Horsley, ‘The origin and scope of Moulton and Milligan’s vocabulary of the Greek Testament, and Deissmann’s planned NT Lexicon. Some unpublished letters of G.A. Deissmann to J.H. Moulton’, BJRL, 76, 1, 1994, 201 – 6. 161 Compare Ev.Wbr, 10. 5. 1918, 2. 162 Harris, ‘Deissmann’s “Bible Studies”’, The Examiner, 15. 4. 1901, 1.

48

1. Deissmann the discoverer

citations, but Moulton had by now found six. He also estimated the occurrence of 1kai¾m (olive garden) to be doubled once the newly published texts were taken into consideration. Nevertheless, he raised the easily overlooked point that Bible Studies, although revised and updated, was essentially a translation of two books, of which the first had been published six years ago! Since he understood that Deissmann planned further similar studies, he expressed his hope that those would be translated ‘pari passu so that English readers will not have to wait’.163 The two German Bibelstudien, together with their English translation, assured Deissmann a prestigious position among international and domestic colleagues alike, and his innovative method set in motion distinctive changes in Greek philology, theology and religious history. Yet because of the esoteric nature of the two ‘papyrological’ and ‘inscriptional’ books, his accomplishments remained largely unknown by the general public. Even so, he had successfully achieved his goal of establishing and reinforcing his original ideas, which first emerged through his Habilitationsschrift, then were developed in Bibelstudien and confirmed with Neue Bibelstudien and Bible Studies. Now that Greek philologists in Germany, including Blass,164 had begun to grasp the significance of his discoveries, Deissmann decided to make it known to a broader readership that could include the educated nonexperts.

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten During the decade following Neue Bibelstudien Deissmann was subjected to several significant personal changes. For one thing, he had shifted his family from Brîckenstrasse 10 to a larger house at Rçmerstrasse 52,165 and by 1907 they had three children, the youngest, Liselotte, born in April that year.166 But what had brought about the most profound 163 Moulton, ‘Deissmann’s “Bible Studies”’, 362 – 3. 164 See ch. 1.4. Blass also published a review of Bst, in which he wrote that GAD ‘… verdient besondere Anerkennung wegen des Fleißes und der Sorgfalt, womit die … entlegensten und am meisten versteckten Urkunden des Alterthums herangezogen und fîr die Bibel verwerthet worden sind’. TLZ, 19, 1895, 486. 165 Heidelberg population registry, 1898 and 1903. 166 Born, 7. 4. 1907 (died 1985), although christened, Elisabeth Charlotte Theresa, she became known as Liselotte or ‘Lilo’. The eldest child, Henriette Marie, nicknamed ‘Ettchen’, was born 27. 1. 1896 (died 1978); Ernst Adolf (Ernst), was born 26. 11. 1899 (died 1975).

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten

49

change in his academic life during that period of time occurred in 1906, when he was accepted as a member of a two-months study tour to Anatolia, Greece and Crete (see ch. 4.1). Within a year of returning from that journey he published another English book, entitled, New light on the New Testament,167 a small but useful treatise, written to popularise the idea that ‘secular’ papyri can and, indeed, should be applied to NT exegetical studies.168 It was based on five lectures he had first given at Frankfurt between January and February 1905, and which his colleague Lionel Richard Mortimer Strachan (1876–?),169 lecturer in English at the Heidelberg University, later translated for publication in The Expository Times (October 1906 to April 1907).170 Deissmann now revised and compiled these journal instalments for print in book format,171 and for a title proposed ‘The Book and the World’. But the publishers, T. & T. Clark, considered this unsuitable, after which Deissmann suggested ‘Light from the East’, only to be informed that this represented ‘… unfortunately already the title of a book by Dr. Ball …’.172 New light on the New Testament was, therefore, a forerunner and basis for Deissmann’s subsequent and much celebrated Licht vom Osten, although, as he explained, the defining motivation that underpinned the latter work was his Orient trip of 1906 (see ch. 4.1): In die Heimat zurîckgekehrt, schickte ich mich an, die Eindrîcke der Studienreise mit frîheren Beobachtungen am Studiertisch zu einem Buche 167 Full title: New light on the New Testament, from records of the Graeco-Roman period, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., Edinburgh, 1907. 168 The Scottish theologian Alexander Souter (1873 – 1949) wrote: ‘It is very fitting that Dr. Deissmann, with whose name this new aspect of New Testament study will always be connected, has saved some time from the more fascinating work of research for the important work of popularisation.’ Review of GAD, New light on the New Testament, in RTP, 1907, 411. 169 GAD later referred to him as ‘an old friend’, whom he had ‘learnt to know … through his position as translator …’, Pr.WL, 24. 7. 1915, 6. 170 Since GAD used much of this material as a convenient ‘dry run’ for LvO, only a synopsis of these lectures was published in German, entitled, ‘Das Neue Testament und die Schriftdenkmler der rçmischen Kaiserzeit’, Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts zu Frankfurt am Main, Tîbingen, 1905, 79 – 95. 171 The book consists of five chapters: ‘The problem – Nature of the evidence’; ‘The importance of the texts for the philological interpretation of the New Testament’; ‘The importance of the texts for the literary interpretation of the New Testament’; ‘The importance of the texts for the religious interpretation of the New Testament’; ‘Recapitulation – Problems for future investigation’. 172 T. & T. Clark, letter to GAD, 17.4.1907. This appears to be the first time GAD had heard of Ball; see also ch. 1.7.

50

1. Deissmann the discoverer

zu vereinigen. Als Grundlage diente mir ein Lehrgang, den ich 1905 im Freien Deutschen Hochstift zu Frankfurt am Main hatte halten dîrfen und der dann englisch zuerst in einer Zeitschrift und spter als Buch erschienen ist.173

Similar to the two Bibelstudien volumes, Licht vom Osten deals with material of an intrinsically technical and highly specialised nature, access to which had thus far been limited to a relatively small body of specialists. But with Licht vom Osten, Deissmann attempted something that had not been achieved successfully before, namely, to arouse enthusiastic interest in both a professional and non-professional readership, with ancient papyri and inscriptions in connection with early Christianity. In other words, by taking what he later described as ‘den an sich sehr sprçden Stoff unzhliger gelehrter Einzelbeobachtungen’,174 he was able to popularise the notion of the relevance of papyri and inscriptions for the 20th century, by freeing this material from its arcane confines. Although he attributed the well-received final format of the text to his editor, Paul Siebeck,175 the idea of writing it for nonspecialist readers was Deissmann’s own.176 He had expected the publication to be ready at the beginning of 1908,177 but the printing process took somewhat longer than anticipated, and the first edition – with a print run of 1000 copies178 – was only released on 7 May. One month later he presented a seminal paper at the Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongress in Dessau; it was based ‘sachlich und mitunter auch formal auf meinen frîheren Arbeiten, insbesondere dem kîrzlich erschienenen Buche “Licht vom Osten”’.179 Although the social history paper generated a lively debate, ‘[es gelang

173 174 175 176 177 178

LvO, vi. SD, 65. LvO, vi. SD, 65. See also J.C.B. Mohr, letter to GAD, 24.8.1907. GAD, card to Moulton, 26.11.1907. J.C.B. Mohr, invoice to GAD, 9.5.1908. GAD received M.1500.40 for these books. In comparison, a Heidelberg University memorandum, dated 22. 8.1907, states that ‘Professor Dr. Deissmann erhielt … Gehaltszulage mit Wirkung vom 1. Juli 1907 an: zu bisherigen 5300 Mk jhrlich 200 Mk. Von da an Einkommensanschlag 6700 Mk und zwar an Gehalt 5500 Mk an Wohnungsgeld 1200 Mk.’ 179 Das Urchristentum und die unteren Schichten, 2. Sonderausgabe, Gçttingen, 1908, 4.

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten

51

nun] Deissmann – und das ist forschungsgeschichtlich bedeutsam – die Formulierung eines Konsenses.’180 The book itself proved so successful that within a matter of months after its first appearance a second and revised edition was planned for 1909,181 and this time 2100 copies were produced. In their invoice, the publishers referred to this version as ‘2./3. Auflage’, although it was a single print run, and the cover of the book states that it was the ‘Zweite und dritte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage’.182 The war years intervened, and not until 1923 was a fourth and thoroughly revised edition published;183 its print run was 5000.184 Licht vom Osten was Deissmann’s most successful and enduring work: the latest reprinting (in English) was produced as recently as 2004.185 180 R. Hochschild, Sozialgeschichtliche Exegese. Entwicklung, Geschichte und Methodik einer neutestamentlichen Forschungsrichtung, Gçttingen, 1999, 111. Regarding this debate, GAD wrote: ‘Man findet daselbst [Kongress Verhandlungen] auch das Stenogramm der lebhaften Diskussion, die sich an den Vortrag anschloß und an welcher Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Arthur Titius, Georg Hollmann, Adolf Harnack, Friedrich Naumann, Johannes Fischer, Johannes Herz und der Referat teilnahm.’ Das Urchristentum, 4. See also S.J. Friesen’s discussion article, ‘Poverty in Pauline studies: beyond the so-called new consensus’, JSNT, 26.3, 2004, 329. 181 While the first edition included 59 plates, the second had 68 and the fourth 83 (see also following notes). 182 J.C.B. Mohr, invoice to GAD, 23.7.1909. No third edition of LvO exists. 183 This edition is also remarkable for its fine presentation at a time when ‘es fîr mindestens 90 % unserer produktiven Forscher … unmçglich ist, ihre Forschungen zu verçffentlichen.’ GAD, Die Gegenwrtige Lage Deutschlands und die christlichen Kirchen Amerikas, Berlin, 1920, 3 – 4. By 1923 inflation was totally out of control and ‘Herstellungskosten fîr den Druckbogen wissenschaftl. Verçffentlichungen [ergeben sich] von 112-2 Milliarden Mark’. Circular from F. Schmidt-Ott to Notgemeinschaft, 29.9.1923. GAD explained in a letter (27. 6. 1923) to his American friend H.A. Gibbons (see ch. 8, n. 209) how LvO4 had been published: ‘Der Verleger hatte das Papier schon seit Jahren reserviert, und so konnte er trotz der jetzigen Schwierigkeiten dieses Buch schçn ausstatten. Das Buch ist in keiner Weise typisch fîr unseren gegenwrtigen Zustand.’ The publishers evidently rated LvO as exceptional (and saleable) enough to justify printing on their paper reserves. 184 According to the Mohr Siebeck Verlag (email, 15 April 2003), a total of 8061 copies of LvO had been sold with the 1923 edition included. The sale of the 1908 edition was 998; of the 1909 edition 2096, and of the 1923 edition included 4967. 185 Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene. The first English translation of LvO appeared in 1910, entitled: Light from the Ancient East; the New Testament illustrated by recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman world, its translator

52

1. Deissmann the discoverer

However, neither the actual format in which Licht vom Osten was presented, nor its title, was altogether new; but the insinuation by the Septuagint researcher Eberhard Nestle (1851 – 1913) that the book was modelled on an earlier English publication, cannot be sustained. He claimed: Ich kann an dem Titel nichts Absonderliches finden, eher an seiner Verteidigung … ist nicht ‘Light from the East’ der Titel eines schon 1899 erschienenen Werkes, dass in vielen Stîcken geradezu ein alttestamentliches Gegenstîck und Vorbild fîr das vorliegende genannt werden kçnnte, bis auf Format, Abbildungen und Einband hinaus?’186

He referred to an outwardly similar book by C.J. Ball, entitled: Light from the East;187 consisting of 256 indexed pages with a massive 255 illustrations, including a large range of photographic plates to which the written content merely played a secondary role. However, despite some technical resemblances,188 Light from the East was not at all concerned with the philology or sociolinguistic history of the NT, but dealt primarily with the relevance and supportive role archaeology can have for OT students.189 It appears certain that Deissmann did not know of Ball’s book until mid-April 1907, when the manuscript for his own work was almost finished. Moreover, since 1895 he had been appealing for more NT researchers in the field of papyri and inscriptions, and any author he cited within his publications was either commended or critiqued, but never used without proper accrediting.

186 187 188 189

was given as L.R.M. Strachan. However, it is generally not known that for the index Strachan had the assistance of Friedrich Pfister (1883 – 1967), for the former wrote to GAD: ‘Mohr has settled up handsomely … and he paid the sum (M.240) that you named … At my request he divided it between Pfister und me, Pfister receiving M.100 and I the rest. I had the extra work of duplicating the proofs for you, but otherwise P. did as much work as I did, and of course detected lots of errors that had escaped me’. Letter, dated 31.7.1909. See also ch. 2, n. 155. E. Nestle, review of GAD, LvO, in BPW, 49, 1908, 1524. Light from the East; or the witness of the monuments: an introduction to the study of biblical archaeology, London, 1899. Judging from the correspondence between J.C.B. Mohr and GAD in respect to LvO, these were probably more due to the publishers (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London) than the author himself. In his introduction, Ball wrote (viii): ‘The present work is the fruit of an honest endeavour to furnish Bible students who are not versed in the languages of the ancient East, with some of the chief results of recent Oriental research and discovery’.

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten

53

This applied even to authors such as Cremer, Preuschen, or Schwartz.190 In Licht vom Osten Deissmann referred to some 650 different scholars; Ball’s absence from that list seems to indicate either a lack of awareness, or he thought his book irrelevant, since it had little in common with his own. Moulton, the Englishman, certainly did not think of his compatriot Ball, when he reviewed Licht vom Osten. ‘Deissmann’, he wrote, ‘has had predecessors, notably Canon Hicks and Sir W.M. Ramsay; but his work in this volume has quite a distinctive note of its own’.191 Licht vom Osten is divided into five main sections, with a lengthy supplement and comprehensive indices. The first part identifies the problem: i. e. the necessity to reconstruct the historical socioreligious background of the NT and early Christianity. Deissmann argues that even if all the ancient literature were known and understood, it would only show a limited aspect of the reality of its overall society, for literary texts were widely being overestimated in the historical reconstruction of the ancient world. Non-literary papyrological writings, on the other hand, could do far more than merely increase this literary source pool, since they had the potential to add an entirely new perspective on the daily life of people from various lower or middle social strata. His was, therefore, not merely a ‘cold’ philological approach to the question of social stratification as such, but an early type of Alltagsgeschichte – a focus on ancient life itself. Mit dieser Betonung des “Lebens” als eigentlichem Ziel historischer Arbeit nimmt Deißmann einen Begriff auf, der um die Jahrhundertwende Konjunktur hatte. Einmal durch die sog. Lebensphilosophie, jener philosophischen Strçmung, die ohne eine Schule bilden zu kçnnen, das “Leben” zum Ausgangspunkt ihres Denkens machte. Zu ihr gehçrten so verschiedene Denker wie Nietzsche, Dilthey und Henri Bergson.192

In section two Deissmann discusses the meaning of newly discovered texts for the linguistic history of the NT, but although it is obviously patterned on Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien its new range of demystified ‘biblical’ words offer yet another supplement to his expanding philological catalogue. In part three the author revisits and 190 Erwin Friedrich Ferdinand Wilhelm Preuschen (1867 – 1920), Pfarrer and theologian (see ch. 2.3). Eduard Schwartz (1858 – 1940), classical philologist (see ch. 4.3). 191 Moulton, ‘Deissmann’s ‘Light from the East’’, ET, 20, 1, 1908, 31. 192 Hochschild, 113.

54

1. Deissmann the discoverer

then expands on a theme he had first developed in Bibelstudien, namely, the problem of letters versus epistles. The penultimate section addresses the question of how the new texts affect scholarly understanding of cultural and religious history and provides some significant parallels from the technical language of the Christ and Caesar cults. The last part highlights the necessity of future tasks in the area of NT philology, theology and postclassical Greek lexicography. Although J.C.B. Mohr had stipulated that he add no more than ten new images to his first draft, the 59 photographs of various papyri and inscriptions which Deissmann insisted on including193 give the book a pleasing visual appeal. His language and almost conversational register is readily understandable, and from the start captures the reader’s imagination with its refreshingly engaging style. Thus, Licht vom Osten stands in some way juxtaposed to the two Bibelstudien volumes, especially since it goes beyond NT philology, by attempting to reconstruct the milieu of those people whose language its author has been able to retrieve in part, while simultaneously reinforcing and popularising his specialised work for a wider audience. In his later years Deissmann considered his three major works on the language of the NT as a logical trilogy: Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien and Licht vom Osten. To his mind, the hiatus of eleven years between the first and third volume did not diminish this at all, for he correctly rated Licht vom Osten as ‘das Buch, das mit den “Bibelstudien” und “Neuen Bibelstudien” zusammengehçrt’.194 Nevertheless, Licht vom Osten stands apart from Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien in that its Greek content has been conveniently rendered into German, and also because of its inclusion of many photographic illustrations. This was a deliberate change of direction for Deissmann, as he had written the Bibelstudien books exclusively for a specialist audience, whereas Licht vom Osten could now be understood and used by non-professionals as well. Nonetheless, in keeping with his new philological method of comparing ‘biblical’ words with ancient non-literary fragments, he provided a new assortment of such examples, but this time mainly from inscriptions and ostraca, including material from his private collection.195 This is not to say that he 193 Publishing contract, 17.10.1907. 194 SD, 65. 195 LvO2, 375. Almost all his collection of 92 ostraca (published by P.M. Meyer as O.Deiss.) is now held at the Nicholson Museum, University of Sydney.

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten

55

neglected the papyri; on the contrary, not only did he make good use of them, but he also explained in great detail their relevance, provenance, general history and even manufacturing technique. By using his distinctive methodology the book sheds ‘new light’ on various ‘old’ and seminal ‘biblical’ words, many of which, such as 1jjkgs¸a, "laqtykºr, or pk¶qgr, had previously been regarded as fully understood. As indicated earlier, in Licht vom Osten Deissmann revisited the topic of letters and epistles, which he had earlier discussed in Bibelstudien (see ch. 1.4), but although he now acknowledged the existence of a Mittelgattung between the two types of letters,196 he dismissed their usefulness scornfully: Solche halb und halb auf die §ffentlichkeit berechneten “Briefe”, solche epistolischen Briefe, sind schlechte Briefe und kçnnen uns mit ihrer Frostigkeit, Geziertheit oder eitelen Unwahrhaftigkeit lehren, wie ein wirklicher Brief nicht sein soll.197

The corollary of this is that letters would have to be subjectively rated according to a kind of psychological sliding scale on which a ‘good’ letter can drift across linguistically to where it may be treated as a ‘bad’ letter. When Deissmann wrote Bibelstudien he had cautiously commented: ‘Fîr den zweiten und dritten Johannesbrief wage ich hier nicht die Entscheidung zu geben; die Frage Brief oder Epistel? ist da besonders schwer zu beantworten.’198 Now, however, he had no more such scruples, for he added: ‘Noch zwei wirkliche Briefe stehen im Neuen Testament, der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief ’.199 Similarly with the Pastorals, which he now treated as genuine letters,200 whereas he had assessed them as epistles in Bibelstudien.201 The contrived distinction between epistles and letters was not fundamental to Deissmann’s 196 197 198 199

LvO, 160. Ibid. Bst, 242, n.1. LvO, 175. He based this assessment primarily on Wilamowitz’ ‘Lesefrîchte, Hermes’. 200 LvO, 166, 201, 225, 273. In his Haskell lectures (1929) he acknowledged that ‘Real difficulties remain only in the case of the so-called pastoral letters, those to Timothy and Titus … But it seems to me certain that also in the pastoral letters we have, at least, a good number of genuine lines by Paul’. Haskell lectures, 31. 201 Bst, 247. Although GAD speculated that ‘vielleicht echte paulinisch-briefliche Bestandteile eingearbeitet sind’.

56

1. Deissmann the discoverer

contention that the language of the NT was a linguistic treasure trove of 1st century Hellenistic Greek; but he used it in an effort to bolster his argument, even though it tended to affect his judgement on matters of authorship, dating and even provenance. While his disputable attempt to distinguish letters from epistles was strained, his basic rationale for it was sound enough and can be summarised briefly as follows. Theologians, philologists and historians, in their attempts to understand the world in which the apostles lived, had traditionally based their investigations on the literature of that time, but this produced, so he argued, a distorted view of the social and linguistic history of early Christianity, by artificially elevating its writers to the higher middle or aristocratic classes.202 In contrast, Deissmann – deeply impressed by the experience of his first Orient trip (see ch. 4.1) – was convinced that they were part of a ‘grass roots’ movement, and declared: Daß es im wesentlichen die Menschen der unliterarischen, der unteren und mittleren Schicht waren, ist auf diesen Blttern so hufig von den verschiedensten Erwgungen aus angedeutet, daß ich gar nichts dagegen einwenden wîrde, wenn man diese These als eine Hauptsache in meinem Buche bezeichnen wollte.203

In his eagerness to reconstruct the vernacular koine of the NT, Deissmann tended to allow his academic objectivity to be swayed by his passion for the subject. Thus, he wrongly equated the Greek lingua franca of the 1st century with the lower to intermediate social classes, and overlooked the possibility that although a modestly educated individual may, indeed, be unable to create sophisticated writings, the reverse would not necessarily hold true. Appreciation of the significance of linguistic register did not occur until well after Deissmann’s death. Since register can be defined as ‘the configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture typically associates with a situation type’,204 it follows that educated aristocrats have a stylistic choice whether to exercise their linguistic Hochkultur or not. In private letters, for example, or in certain communiqu¤s to non-cultured recipients, such writers have the

202 LvO, 2 – 4. 203 LvO, 209. For a brief comparison how GAD’s views shifted in this respect between LvO and LvO4 (1923) see Appendix 6, c. 204 M.A.K. Halliday, Language as social semiotic; the social interpretation of language and meaning, London, 19792 (1978), 111.

1.7. Popularisation of discovery: Licht vom Osten

57

intellectual versatility to adapt both their style and their vocabulary very considerably. Yet it is important to keep in mind that Licht vom Osten was principally written as a sociolinguistic corrective against common trends in NT studies, rather than to break new ground per se.205 By laying such strong emphasis on the non-literary writings of the lower social levels, Deissmann presented a feasible alternative to the dominant upper strata hypothesis; but it was only in the book’s second edition that he drew attention to the intrinsic dangers of oversimplifying social stratification, by adding the following rider: Daß es in vielen Fllen schwierig ist, die Schichtung nachzuweisen, daß oft die Grenzen zwischen der “Oberschicht” und den “unteren” Schichten fließend sind, ist mir wohlbekannt … Das Problem der Schichtung beschftigt mich stark.206

Fourteen years later, in his fourth edition, Deissmann showed a somewhat more even-handed approach to the question of stratification, by adding a lengthy segment to the above footnote, wherein he stressed that ‘[ich] jetzt mehr pluralisch von “Oberschichten” und “Unterschichten” spreche und ausdrîcklich betone, daß in Einzelpersçnlichkeiten verschiedene Schichtungstypen sich mischen kçnnen’.207 Despite overestimating the significance of papyri to some extent as a vehicle for reconstructing the sociohistorical milieu of early Christianity, 205 GAD stated: ‘Als ein Versuch, die Arbeit an dem historischen Hintergrund des Urchristentums zu ergnzen und zugleich der ˜berschtzung der literarischen Denkmler zu begegnen, wolle man es auffassen, wenn ich auf diesen Blttern die Bedeutung der nichtliterarischen Schriftdenkmler der Kaiserzeit skizzieren werde.’ LvO, 3. 206 LvO2, 4, n. 1. 207 LvO4, 6, n. 1. He credited principally the reviewers of LvO for his modified approach. Significantly, in LvO4, 405 (not in LvO, or LvO2) he also critiqued Karl Kautsky’s book, Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung, Stuttgart, 1908, and asserted: ‘Der Hauptdissensus zwischen Kautsky und mir liegt in der prinzipiellen Beurteilung der urchristlichen Bewegung: er sieht in ihr eine proletarische Emanzipationsbewegung mit kommunistischer Tendenz und unterschtzt dabei die Wirkungen der schçpferischen Persçnlichkeit Jesu und des Apostels Paulus ganz betrchtlich; ich erkenne, je lnger ich in diesen Stoffen arbeite, um so strker den volkstîmlich-religiçsen Enthusiasmus des Urchristentums und kçnnte alles nicht verstehen ohne das Kraftzentrum Jesus, dessen inneres Leben in Paulus und allen anderen nachschwingt und nachzittert.’ See also S.J. Friesen’s earlier mentioned discussion article.

58

1. Deissmann the discoverer

Licht vom Osten was a timely work whose primary objectives were fulfilled masterfully. The American grammarian and theologian, Archibald Thomas Robertson (1863 – 1934) summarised the thoroughly revised fourth edition (1923) well: ‘this volume alone would guarantee fame to any scholar. It simply confirmed it for Deissmann’.208 It succeeded in counteracting the heavy literary imbalance in contemporary Greek NT research, by providing fresh perspectives and raising new debate in sociolinguistic, literary and religious historical research. Perhaps most importantly though, its author was able to effect a change in public perception with regard to the value of ancient textual studies, and raise a wider awareness of the connection such writings have with modern life. His uncomplicated style and the book’s appealing format assured it not only a lasting place as an indispensable teaching and resource tool for theologians and philologists, but also made it useful for students and non-specialist readers. However, although it made Deissmann’s name widely known, the real groundbreaking work had been done in his two earlier books. Licht vom Osten was not only the popularisation of that prior achievement, but also put it within a tangible sociohistorical context.

1.8. Conclusion Deissmann has earned a rightful place as a discoverer and pioneer in the field of postclassical Greek. It was he who first documented (and in general terms correctly weighed up), the value of the papyri and inscriptions in respect to the true character of the language of the NT. It was also he who led the way, with his innovative philological methodology, in the use of ancient papyrus fragments to discern the linguistic place of biblical texts within the broader historical and linguistic spectrum of the Greek language. With his trilogy – Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien, and Licht vom Osten – he helped to initiate a greater appreciation of the nature of Greek in the period in which Christianity came into being; and this had ramifications for the social and historical understanding of the Christian groups and its individual members. In this chapter the main focus has been placed on Deissmann’s unusual situation: a theologian intent on philological research. Mostly, 208 Robertson, in Schmidt, Festgabe, 85.

1.8. Conclusion

59

his contemporaries, whether they were theologians or classical philologists, took some time to come to terms with this. During the 1890s he conceived a larger goal – to produce a lexicon of the NT – and it is to consideration of this that we now turn.

2. Deissmann the lexicographer Von einem Wçrterbuch darf jetzt verlangt werden, daß es die Ergebnisse der neueren Sprachwissenschaft berîcksichtigt, daß es also speciell die Erkenntnisse nicht ignoriert, die uns durch die Funde der letzten Jahrzehnte ermçglicht werden.1

2.1. The state of Greek lexicography in the 19th and early 20th century The following pages are not intended as a history of Greek NT lexicons,2 but rather to sketch the general context of Deissmann’s own lexicographical undertaking. Almost three decades after Bibelstudien first appeared, Deissmann wrote with a touch of unconcealed impatience: ‘die immer noch wichtigste Aufgabe der neutestamentlichen Forschung ist: das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament’.3 The year was 1923 and a large number of Greek language studies had been published by then, not least of which were two more recent Greek lexicons in Germany alone.4 How could such a claim be justified? J.A.L. Lee sheds light on this question: Over the course of the last five centuries there have been a great many New Testament lexicons. It is impossible to give an exact figure. One finds a 1 2 3 4

Spr. Erforschung, 24. On this topic see J.A.L. Lee, A history of New Testament lexicography, New York, 2003. LvO4, 341. In both prior editions (1908, 1909) this sentence reads: ‘… zur Zeit wohl die wichtigste Aufgabe der neutestamentlichen Forschung ist: das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament’. LvO, 294, LvO2, 305 (underscore my own). Erwin Preuschen’s (1910) and that of Friedrich Preisigke (1921). The latter’s Wçrterbuch was not NT specific, but it was advertised in July 1914 as a fiveyear funded philological project to produce a comprehensive papyrological lexicon that would include virtually every Greek word occurring in the papyri. Delayed by WWI, it began to appear in 1921. See also Lee, NT lexicography, 123 – 4, 133, 139 – 43.

62

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

constant succession of new works, as well as new editions and revisions of older works. The names of those who have compiled or revised a lexicon of some kind reach as many as a hundred. The major lexicons alone, the equivalents in their time of Bauer/BDAG, come to at least a dozen … but [they] have depended on their predecessors: they simply take over most, or even all, of the material of an earlier lexicon … but the foundation is usually a previous work.5

The basic idea of lexicography is almost as old as literature itself, but the earliest known printed Greek-Latin glossary for the NT is the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514.6 A century later Theodor Georg Pasor (1570 – 1637) produced a more extensive work at Herborn, entitled Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum (1619), and it was this latter that became widely regarded as the first NT lexicon.7 However, even in the 19th century such wordbooks were normally no more than Greek-Latin glossaries, not translated into a modern language, since it was wrongly assumed that Latin could express the ‘meaning’ of ancient Greek words more accurately than a modern language.8 A fundamental deficiency in all NT lexicons was the standard practice – extending well into the 20th 5 6

7

8

Lee, NT lexicography, 6. Lee traces NT lexicography back via glosses, through the medieval period, to the NT writers themselves, and concludes: ‘But 1514 marks a major turning point, when the first attempt at a full New Testament lexicon was printed’, NT lexicography, 51, 54 – 5. See also Lee, ‘Dimitrios Doukas and the accentuation of the New Testament text of the Complutensian Polyglot’, NovT, 47, 2005, 250 – 90. GAD acknowledged Pasor as the founder of NT lexicography, because his work was specifically published for this purpose: ‘Ihr Begrînder ist der nassauische Theolog Georg Pasor, der 1619 in Herborn das erste Speziallexikon zum griechischen Neuen Testament drucken ließ … und mit diesem Buche die neutestamentlichen Studien in allen protestantischen Lndern bis zum Ende des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts stark beeinflußt hat.’ LvO, 299 – 300. See also Lee, NT lexicography, 49. Lee, NT lexicography, 7, 20, 99 – 100. In 1894 Friedrich Zimmer (see ch. 1.5) wrote: ‘Allerdings hçrt die grîndliche Kenntniss des Lateinischen in Deutschland immer mehr auf; die gegenwrtige jîngere Generation beherrscht das Lateinische nicht mehr. Man mag das beklagen oder als gleichgîltig ansehen … aber das Lateinsprechen und -schreiben hat aufgehçrt, und damit ist Werken, wie dem Grimm’schen, fîr den praktischen Gebrauch der Studierenden und Geistlichen der Todesstoss versetzt.’ Zimmer, review of S.C. Schirlitz, Griechisch-deutsches Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testamente (fifth edn.), in TLZ, 12, 1894, 315. See also C. Stray, Classics transformed: schools, universities, and society in England, 1830 – 1960, Oxford, 1998, 96 – 102.

2.1. The state of Greek lexicography in the 19th and early 20th century

63

century – of trawling words en bloc from predominantly classical literature, which had the effect of presenting a lopsided aspect of the sociolinguistic reality of ancient Christianity. Some of the main authors regularly cited included Herodotus, Thucydides, Homer, Anacreon, Pindar, Theocritus and Aristophanes. Thus, in 1908 Deissmann wrote: Weder die großen Fortschritte der Etymologie, noch die Probleme des Bedeutungswandels, noch die gewaltige Bereicherung des statistischen Materials durch die neuen Texte sind heute in irgendeinem griechischen Handwçrterbuch genîgend berîcksichtigt, wenn auch zu hoffen ist, daß die von Wilhelm Crçnert in Angriff genommene Neubearbeitung des alten Wçrterbuchs von Franz Passow den Anfang zur Besserung bedeuten wird. Auch der Umstand, daß die vorhandenen Lexika fast gar nicht in die gelehrte Diskussion einfîhren und fast gar keine offenen Fragen andeuten, gibt ihnen einen mehr dogmatischen, als wissenschaftlichen Charakter.9

A further problem (particularly with Greek-English lexicons)10 – identified by the Master of the Classical School in Belfast, Thomas Dix Hincks (1767 – 1857) – was at the pedagogical level, that is to say, how the language was being taught and learned. The most glaring faults of School Lexicons are, that they take in words occurring only in obscure authors, omit great numbers that do occur in the authors most read, and make no distinction between the words actually used, and those which have been imagined by Grammarians in conformity with a supposed analogy.11

Such shortcomings had the effect, particularly with NT lexicons, of producing a linguistically presumptive knowledge base that under9 LvO, 296. Significantly (see ch. 2.6, Preuschen), GAD left this contentious paragraph entirely unchanged in his thoroughly revised LvO4 (342 – 3), except for some additions to the footnotes. 10 ‘New Testament lexicography in English has had a chequered history. From beginning to end it is characterised by lack of continuity … it has relied on infusions from elsewhere to produce the major lexicons … only Parkhurst in the eighteenth made his own start, but then nothing followed, apart from a chain of revisions … All this is true too of general Greek lexicography in England: the initiative lay elsewhere … and when English was first tried in a major lexicon, that of Liddell and Scott, it involved translation of a foreign work, the German lexicon of Passow.’ Lee, NT lexicography, 97 – 8. 11 T.D. Hincks, Greek-English Lexicon. All the words that occur in the books used in most schools and collegiate courses, London, 18432, (1831), iii. Hincks is not mentioned by Lee, but for an instructive extract of the former’s preface see Appendix 2, a.

64

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

pinned the Greek of most theologians. Although Hincks was not specifically referring to NT lexicons in the above citation, his catalogue of ‘biblical’ words was sufficiently inclusive to classify this work as a lexicographical attempt to serve two subject areas: theology and classical philology.12 His fundamental thinking can be seen as fairly representative of that time, for it showed an unease with the lexical status quo, yet had a tendency to denigrate or ignore ancient writings outside the traditional canon of Greek literature, while elevating the ‘classical’ authors as the only ‘true’ standard-bearers of the language.13 Hincks’ lexicon was entirely based on ‘indexes or particular dictionaries, like those of Dammius, Sturzins, and Schleusner’, although it was the lexicon of Franz Ludwig Carl Friedrich Passow (1786 – 1833) that he ‘constantly referred to’.14 In 1812 the latter had written an essay, entitled, ‘Zweck, Anlage, und Ergnzung griechischer Wçrterbîcher’, in which he formulated lexicographical guidelines,15 and set new standards for Greek lexicography. It was Passow’s lexicon that Henry George Liddell (1811 – 98) and Robert Scott (1811 – 87) took ‘as the basis of their work’.16 In NT lexicography, Pasor’s work was succeeded by the sweeping revision of Johann Friedrich Schleusner (1759 – 1831),17 but although this reached its fifth edition in 1825, it was supplanted by the Greek12 This is also evident from Hincks’ abundant inclusion of ‘biblical’ names, and from entries, such as YgsoOr, which he rendered as: ‘Joshua, or Jesus, i. e. Saviour, the name of several Jews, and, by divine appointment, that of our blessed SAVIOUR’ (emphases his own). 13 Hincks made the point that he ‘had read and concurred in many of the remarks made by Reviewers on the defective state of the Lexicons’, yet admitted that his ‘ideal’ Greek lexicon would be limited to a vocabulary, which was ‘used by writers who lived before Alexander the Great, and by some selected writers of a later period … [but] would insert no meaning which was not illustrated by a quotation from a writer held in estimation.’ Hincks, iii. 14 Hincks, iv. Passow’s lexicon (1819 – 24) was an extensive revision of Johann Gottlob Schneider’s glossary, Kritisches griechisch-deutsches Handwçrterbuch, Jena, 1797 – 8. 15 ‘Passau had laid down, in his essay … the canons by which the lexicographer should be guided, amongst which the most important was the requirement that citations should be chronologically arranged in order to exhibit the history of each word and its uses.’ H.S. Jones, LSJ, iii. 16 Jones, LSJ, iii. This standard work first appeared in 1843 and has continued in its ninth edition since 1940, but its Supplement was last revised in 2005. 17 Novum lexicon graeco-latinum in Novum Testamentum, Leipzig, 1792.

2.1. The state of Greek lexicography in the 19th and early 20th century

65

Latin lexicon of Christian Abraham Wahl (1773 – 1855).18 He cut back on Schleusner’s extraneous material, included more of the smaller and regularly occurring words, and paid better attention to the etymological background from Hebrew, Septuagint and traditional Greek literature. Just three years later the American Edward Robinson (1794 – 1863) broadened this book’s usefulness with his revision and translation of its Latin into English (1825).19 Nevertheless, German scholarship still tended to favour the use of Latin for their scholarly works, and in 1841 Christian Gottlob Wilke (1786 – 1854) produced another Greek-Latin lexicon, Clavis Novi Testamenti philologica.20 This work, in turn, was completely overhauled by Karl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm (1807 – 91) and published in 1868; he rated Wilke’s lexicon as a book that had been compiled ‘extremely hastily and without plan’.21 Four years before Grimm’s publication, Joseph Henry Thayer (1828 – 1901), professor of sacred literature at Andover, had secured an arrangement with Grimm’s German publishers to begin an augmented translation of this lexicon,22 but it took 22 years before it was finally published in 1886. Besides minor additions and the provision of a statistical list for 767 ‘biblical’ (i. e. NT) words, Lee observes: ‘what we have in Thayer is basically WilkeGrimm’.23 In 1908 Deissmann commended Thayer’s corrected edition of 1896 as ‘das beste bis jetzt vorhandene Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament’, but advised: ‘… aber auch er ist heute veraltet’.24 18 Clavis Novi Testamenti philologica: usibus scholarum et iuvenum theologiae studiosorum accommodata, Leipzig, 1822. 19 Robinson also translated, together with Moses Stuart (1780 – 1852), the first edition of Winer’s Grammar of New Testament Greek – published the same year as his translation of Wahl – before producing his own Greek-English lexicon of the NT in 1836. Apropos Robinson’s translation of Wahl, ‘there were revisions, new editions and reprints, among them a number that brought the work to Britain. This line petered out in the 1870 s’. Lee, NT lexicography, 95. 20 Its full title is exactly the same as Wahl’s (see n. 18 above), but it was written with a Roman Catholic (as opposed to Lutheran) bias and published in Dresden. Danker in BDAG (v) gives the publication dates as 18512 (1839), but see Lee, NT lexicography, 353. 21 Cited by Lee, NT lexicography, 106. 22 Lee, NT lexicography, 3; also BDAG, v. 23 Lee, NT lexicography, 114. On Thayer’s strikingly high figure for ‘biblical’ words, see LvO, 46 – 7. 24 LvO, 45, n. 6; 300. While Lee grants that ‘some’ give the publication date for Thayer’s fourth edition as 1896, he admits: ‘I have not been able to confirm

66

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

In 1867, approximately one year prior to the appearance of Grimm’s revision, Hermann Cremer – at that time still Pfarrer in Ostçnnen north of Dîsseldorf – published his Biblisch-theologisches Wçrterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grzitt, which was so well received that he revised it nine times before his death in 1903. It was based on his underlying belief that early Christianity had generated its own language through divine empowerment, an assumption he alluded to throughout his work. The first edition was published almost thirty years before Deissmann’s Bibelstudien, at a time when lexicographers still stood ‘unter dem Banne des “neutestamentlichen” Griechisch’. Yet this lexicon enjoyed considerable prestige well into the 20th century,25 possibly because Cremer had made it very clear that he regarded the Greek of the NT as a divinely created – and, therefore, linguistically isolated – language. Man kann in der That mit gutem Fug von einer Sprache des heiligen Geistes reden. Denn es liegt in der Bibel offen vor unseren Augen, wie der in der Offenbarung wirksame gçttliche Geist jedesmal aus der Sprache desjenigen Volkskreises, welcher den Schauplatz jener ausmacht, sich eine ganz eigentîmliche religiçse Mundart gebildet hat, indem er die sprachlichen Elemente, die er vorfand, ebenso wie die schon vorhandenen Begriffe zu einer ihm eigentîmlich angemeßenen Gestalt umformte. Am evidentesten veranschaulicht das Griechische des Neuen Testamentes diesen Vorgang.26

Cremer’s views were not uncommon amongst the Lutheran clergy, from where they percolated to their congregations by way of sermons whose exegesis was supported by this or similar lexicons. Deissmann was well aware of the power these books could have, as the following colourful excerpt illustrates: Merkwîrdig kontrastiert mit der weitverbreiteten wissenschaftlichen Geringschtzung des Wçrterbuchs eine ebenso weitverbreitete sklavische Beugung unter die einzelnen Auskînfte des Wçrterbuches: “hier steht’s, so ist’s”, das ist die Meinung unzhliger, die ein fremdes Wort zu verdolmetschen haben und nun rasch das Wçrterbuch zu Rate ziehen.27

any earlier than 1898’ (Edinburgh). NT lexicography, 354. The 1896 edition that GAD used for all four editions of LvO was published in New York, see LvO, 46 – 7, n. 6. 25 The ninth (1911) and tenth (1923) editions were revised by Julius Paul Kçgel (1871 – 1928). 26 Cited in Spr. Erforschung (6) from Cremer’s eighth edition (1895). 27 LvO, 294.

2.2. Preparations for a new lexicon

67

It is amidst this ongoing tide of widely held but erroneous linguistic presumptions, particularly in academic circles, that Deissmann’s push for a more accurate lexicon must be understood.

2.2. Preparations for a new lexicon Deissmann’s lifelong passion for lexicography sprang originally from his research on the preposition 1m (see ch. 1.3), although the idea of producing a NT lexicon had at that time not yet germinated in him, nor had he formulated any advanced thoughts on lexicography. But less than two-and-a-half years later, when his landmark Bibelstudien was published, the book showed a mature rationale behind his dissatisfaction with prevailing NT lexicography. The second volume in 1897 proved that he was not only uniquely capable, but already in the preparatory stages of creating a NT lexicon with his new philological methodology. This was even understood in England, where John Shaw Banks (1835 – 1917), professor of theology at Headingley College, wrote that Deissmann’s Bibelstudien were ‘intended, we are told, to lead, some day, – sub conditione Jacobea, – to a N.T. lexicon, which will be a welcome addition to the works of worthy predecessors’.28 As mentioned earlier, immediately after publishing Neue Bibelstudien Deissmann took part at a theological conference in Giessen (see ch. 1.6), where he practically spelt out his lexicographical plan. After first highlighting the urgent need for a Septuagint lexicon,29 he openly declared: ‘Die nchste große Aufgabe ist auch fîr das Neue Testament 28 Banks, 272. For GAD’s Latin caveat see ch. 1, n. 132. 29 See Addendum, 1. Z. Rosenbach’s Lexikon breve in LXX interpretes et libros apocryphos (Herborn, 1634), had long been obsolete and GAD made no mention of it. However, he passingly referred to Biel-Schleusner’s Lexicon graeco-latinum in Novum Testamentum seu lexicon in LXX, 1819 – 214 (1792), as ‘eine ziemlich salzlose Verarbeitung der Konkordanz von Tromm’, Spr. Erforschung, 14. The first complete Septuagint lexicon (based on Rahlfs’ edition), is J. Lust, et al. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 1 – 2, Stuttgart, 1993 – 7 (revised, New York, 2004). It was based on the presumption of ‘translation Greek’, viii. The first one based on the Gçttingen edition, is T. Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint: chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets, Leuven, 2003. Like GAD, Muraoka considers ‘the language of the Septuagint to be a genuine representative of the contemporary Greek’, ix.

68

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

ein Wçrterbuch’.30 As excellent as Grimm, Thayer or Cremer may have been, Deissmann’s new research had proven them to be misleading, since none paid sufficient attention to recent philological advances. His paper was clearly not intended to curry favour, but rather to test the reaction among theologians to his new lexicographical approach. Was die Inschriften anlangt, so htten sowohl Grimm als auch Cremer ihnen bereits vieles entnehmen kçnnen, dessen Nichtberîcksichtigung sich strafen wird … ebenso lßt sich bei vielen Wçrtern, denen namentlich von Cremer eine specifisch “biblische” oder “christliche” Sonderbedeutung beigelegt wird, diese Bedeutung auch aus “profanen” Quellen belegen … Das kînftige Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament wird, zu dieser Voraussage bedarf es keiner Prophetengabe, in noch hçherem Grade als die Grammatik verweltlicht sein, das heißt befruchtet von den Ergebnissen der historischen Erforschungen der griechischen Sprache.31

He did not say it in so many words, but his two Bibelstudien volumes had given him a considerable headstart for the new lexical task he now championed, since he was already well advanced with its preliminary stages, as both books demonstrated. Moreover, that same year he also published an essay in which he contended that the historico-linguistic place of the language in the NT was not separate from the common Hellenistic Greek. But since the ‘secular’ and the ‘sacred’ koine – a distinction flatly rejected by Deissmann32 – shared identical grammatical forms, vocabulary and syntax, they naturally also shared the same historical position. It followed for him that they were one and the same language, and that it was Atticistic Greek – not the language of the NT – that was a linguistic anachronism, even though the bulk of post 1st century Greek literature was written in this inflated style.33 When Deissmann elaborated on this topic many years later, he described Atticism34 as a cloud that began to form during the days of 30 31 32 33

Spr. Erforschung, 24. Spr. Erforschung, 24 – 5. Spr. Erforschung, 6 – 7, Bst, 59 – 61. ‘Nicht die Profangrzitt ist der sprachgeschichtliche Gegensatz zur ‘biblischen’, sondern das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, daß die Eigentîmlichkeiten des ‘biblischen’ Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schriften auch der Syntax) im großen und ganzen Eigentîmlichkeiten des spteren und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch îberhaupt sind.’ ThR, 5. 1, 1898, 465. 34 See W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, 1 – 5, Hildesheim, 1964 (1887 –

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

69

the Apostles, but went on to overshadow and hinder the development of the Greek language until the Middle Ages. But he aptly explained what in essence was a 2nd century purist movement as a sweeping attempt to force the Hellenic language and its literary production into an artificial canon of grammatical rules, based on classical Attic prose when it was at its zenith.35 His corrective observations on Greek linguistic history – as first presented at the Giessen conference and then expounded in Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien – provide a good methodological perspective on how far his planned lexicon was intended to diverge from traditional NT lexicography. Despite Deissmann’s initial difficulties at fitting into the Heidelberg Theological Faculty (see ch. 1.6), he was elected Dekan on 4 November 1899. That year had been particularly difficult for him in regards to his health, since he suffered from recurring migraines, painful eye infections and various other ailments. Moreover, on Thursday, 19 July, his father, Jacob Ernst Friedrich Adolf Deissmann (1832 – 1900), suddenly fell gravely ill, and by the following Tuesday Deissmann received a telegram that he should come home at once. He arrived at the Erbach manse just in time to be alongside his father when he died.36

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography During the latter part of 1903, and in conjunction with the classical philologist Albrecht Dieterich (1866 – 1908),37 a student colleague from his Marburg years, Deissmann founded an interfaculty philosophical study group for academics, aptly named Eranos.38 Leading colleagues

35 36 37 38

97). GAD correctly assessed these volumes as ‘Grundlegend’ and a ‘gediegenes Werk’; see LvO, 38, n. 2. Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 268. So the AK. He died on Wed., 25. 7. 1900, aged 68. He was professor of classical philology, specialised in ancient religions, and authored several books, incl. the influential Eine Mithrasliturgie, Leipzig, 1903. While this Greek word can simply be understood as ‘the club’, in their case it took on the more specific meaning of a commonly celebrated meal to which each participant contributed his share. For a recent study of the ‘Eranos Kreis’ see H. Treiber, ‘Der “Eranos” – Das Glanzstîck im Heidelberger Mythenkranz’, in W. Schluchter/ F.W. Graf, eds., Asketischer Protestantismus und der ›Geist‹ des modernen Kapitalismus: Max Weber und Ernst Troeltsch, Tîbingen, 2005, 75 – 151. Also R.M. Lepsius, ‘Der Eranos-Kreis Heidelberger Gelehrter 1904 – 1908. Ein Stîck Heidelberger Wissenschaftsgeschichte

70

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

from every faculty were invited to join this exclusive club, whose stated purpose was to create an informal atmosphere, conducive to debates on various topics related to religious studies and contemplated from diverse perspectives. Meetings were held once a month on a Sunday evening (normally at 6 p.m.) in each other’s homes and on a rotating basis. The host acted as entertainer and main speaker for the evening, and was expected to give a prepared talk on a topic of his choice, after which it was customary for a lively debate to ensue. These frequently lasted well into the night and it was not uncommon to hear spirited disputing to continue in the dark and otherwise silent streets, as members made their way home.39 The first of these meetings was suitably held at the Deissmann home in Rçmerstrasse, and took place on the 31 January 1904, where, according to his diary, the host quite unsurprisingly spoke on the ‘Unterschichten in der antiken Welt’. The success of Eranos is undeniable, and resulted to a large degree from the diverse, professional backgrounds of its participants. Deissmann’s membership list is instructive, for it comprised the following academics:40 Wilhelm Windelband (1848 – 1915), professor of philosophy; Albrecht Dieterich (see above);41 Friedrich von Duhn (1851 – 1930), professor of archaeology and director of the Heidelberg Archaeological Institute; Erich Marcks (1861 – 1938), professor of

anhand der neu aufgefundenen Protokollbîcher des Eranos’, Jahrbuch der Heidelberger Akademie, Heidelberg, 1983, 46 – 50. 39 SD, 64 – 5. GAD also asserted that he had neither before nor since experienced any other such collegial, stimulating and fruitful academic exchange of ideas as at Eranos. It was not comparable to ‘Graeca’ at Berlin, of which he later became a member, but which was primarily for the purpose of reading ancient texts (see ch. 2.5). 40 As provided in SD, 22 – 3, but for further details see Treiber, 80 – 1, and Lepsius. The latter also makes the perceptive link: ‘Die Auflçsung des Eranos-Kreises fllte zeitlich zusammen mit der Grîndung der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 1909. Von den 12 Mitgliedern des Eranos-Kreises im Jahre 1909 wurden 4 ordentliche und 5 außerordentliche Mitglieder der Akademie. Man kçnnte sagen, der Eranos-Kreis wurde in die Akademie îberfîhrt. Freilich, das verbindende wissenschaftliche Interesse an der Religionswissenschaft hatte wohl durch den Fortgang von Deißmann und den Tod von Dieterich die organisatorischen Impulse verloren, die aus den individuellen Interessen eine wissenschaftliche Vereinigung hatten werden lassen.’ 47 – 8. 41 Dieterich succeeded Erwin Rohde (1845 – 98) in the Chair of classical philology, but had also a special interest in the origin of Christianity.

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

71

modern history;42 Alfred von Domaszewski (1856 – 1927), professor of ancient history; Georg Jellinek (1851 – 1911), professor of national and international law; Karl von Lilienthal (1853 – 1927), professor of jurisprudence; Eberhard Gothein (1853 – 1923), professor of economics; Karl Rathgen (1856 – 1921), professor of economics (successor to Max Weber); Max Weber (1864 – 1920), professor of economics; Ernst Troeltsch (see ch. 1.6),43 and Deissmann himself. In 1906 they were also joined by Hans von Schubert (1859 – 1931), professor of church history, who had newly come to Heidelberg. Thus, of Eranos’ thirteen members named by Deissmann only three were from the Theological Faculty. The regular interaction among these colleagues engendered various literary contributions, and in an indirect way also provided a significant impetus for Deissmann’s lexicon. For it was through the archaeologist Friedrich von Duhn that he seized the opportunity of making his first journey to Anatolia, Greece and Crete (see ch. 4.1). That 66-day study tour during April and May 1906 left him with such a profound impression that one month after returning home he wrote to Theodor Wiegand (1864 – 1936), his friend since schooldays:44 Eine Wirkung meiner Reise war îbrigens bei mir der Entschluß, mich jetzt ganz auf meine wissenschaftliche Arbeiten zu konzentrieren und die Nebendinge praktischer, besonders sozialpolitischer Art, die mich viel Zeit und Kraft gekostet haben, in der nchsten Zeit lieber anderen zu îberlassen. So werde ich dann voraussichtlich oft auf den Boden wenigstens in der Phantasie zurîckkehren, den Du bearbeitest: die Inschriften werden neben den Papyri mein Hauptarbeitsgebiet fîr die nchste Zeit sein, im Interesse des großen Wçrterbuchs zum Neuen Testament.45

The veiled reference to a withdrawal from sociopolitical participation appears to refer primarily to his practical involvement with local politics and not to his association with Friedrich Naumann (see ch. 6.2), which lasted until the latter’s death in 1919. What Deissmann 42 He became one of Germany’s most respected historians and biographers (with works on Calvin, Queen Elizabeth and Bismarck), but later advocated Germany’s authoritarian politics of power. 43 A close friend of Max Weber, with whom he shared the same house for a number of years. 44 They had both attended the Wiesbaden Gymnasium from 1879 to 1885. See further, ch. 4.1. 45 GAD, letter to Wiegand, 4.7.1906.

72

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

wrote here shows that the Orient expedition of 1906 had produced a distinctive shift in his academic priorities by imbuing his lexicographical project with a new sense of urgency. Before he had the opportunity to experience the Eastern way of life firsthand his entire cultural knowledge of the region was founded on an abstract, bookish perception. Granted, he had access to the latest publications of papyri and inscriptions, yet for all their potential to link a modern reader with the ancient writers, by way of printed pages and a scholarly imagination, they could still not provide the tangible realism of the world within which they originated. However, this journey allowed him to enliven his lexicographical task by stepping away from his philological training and into the realia of the living, geographical and cultural context of the people and their language itself.46 The lexicon was an ambitious task, a huge undertaking that involved the assistance of many contributors and helpers (see n. 137 below). Deissmann’s exposure to the ‘real’ Eastern cultures, the ‘real’ Greek language, the ‘real’ ancient world, gave him not only the energy-boost to persevere, but also many new and helpful contacts (see ch. 4.1). His lexical objective was not an enthusiastic language experiment, but a thoroughly planned philological enterprise for which he was well qualified and – as his Bibelstudien books demonstrated – better equipped than anyone else at that time.47 The form that Deissmann’s NT lexicon was going to take can be inferred from his polemic at the Giessen conference (see ch. 1.6), as well as from some of his published material48 and private correspondence, but above all, from his two Bibelstudien. It was to be a comprehensive NT tool (‘großes Wçrterbuch’49) based on his new philological methodology. To this end, he was drawing on all the newest research in connection with the Greek language, including papyrological and inscriptional, both literary and documentary; and any material neglected by Grimm and 46 GAD, ‘Study-travel in New Testament Lands’, ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487. See also ch. 4.2. 47 How large GAD’s private library was is now uncertain, but when the ZLB acquired part of his Nachlass in 1937/8, it included ‘1520 Bdn, 879 Broschîren, 145 Ksten und 140 Konvoluten’. F. Krause/ P. Raabe, eds., Handbuch der historischen Buchbestnde in Deutschland, 14, 1, Hildesheim, 1995, 236. Further to GAD’s Nachlass at the ZLB, see also ch. 7, n. 23; ch. 9, nn. 57, 84. 48 e. g. Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 275 – 6; Philology, 110 – 46. 49 GAD’s letter, 4.7.1906.

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

73

Cremer would be revisited. Although designed as a biblical aide, this lexicon was to be radically different to any of its predecessors, in that he intentionally ‘secularised’ – that is, put in its profane historical context – the ‘sacred’ language of the NT, by giving evidence from the contemporary vernacular. The man who understood Deissmann’s lexicographical ambition better than any other was James Moulton, since 1902 tutor at Didsbury College (Manchester); but although they had correspondence for several years, the two men had not yet met each other. It appears that Moulton contacted Deissmann first in response to Bibelstudien or Neue Bibelstudien, probably soon after their publication: he had read these books and considered them truly ‘epoch-making’.50 Since Moulton pursued a philological direction similar to that of Deissmann, he had immediately recognised the ramifications of the latter’s work and apparently wrote to congratulate him. Unfortunately, very few of Moulton’s letters to Deissmann have survived; so far I have only been able to discover nine, all in the Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin.51 The earliest extant correspondence between them discovered until now is from Deissmann to Moulton, dated 1 January 1904, but it plainly belongs to a continuum of earlier correspondence. For Deissmann felt sufficiently relaxed to write with unguarded colloquialism: ‘Sie haben auch ganz Recht mit Ihrer Wertschtzung von Palles. Die Recension in der Theol. Lit.-Zeitung ist eine Eselei; der Mann hat keine Ahnung …’.52 After this letter a lacuna of three years occurs, before another one – written by Deissmann on 12 January 1907 – appears.53 It is a most informative document, and begins with an apologetic declination of an invitation Moulton had made in a now lost letter (dated 30 December 1906) that they team up together to produce an English NT lexicon. Moulton was already heavily committed to finish the second volume for his grammar of NT Greek,54 and found that he could not possibly do justice to a full lexicon on his own. Thus, he wrote in a journal 50 Moulton, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362. 51 One from 1907 (ZLB DEI 534); four from 1910 (ZLB DEI 929); one from 1911 (ZLB DEI 168); two from 1912 (ZLB DEI 169), and one from 1913 (ZLB DEI 170). 52 Letter, dated 1.1.1904. 53 GAD, letter to Moulton, 12.1.1907. For a transcript see Appendix 2, b. For a commentary on this letter, see Horsley, ‘origin and scope’, 194 – 6. 54 He never completed it. The first one (Prolegomena) had recently been published (1906), but the second only appeared posthumously in 1919.

74

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

article: ‘I had not, however, finished the draft of words in a, before I saw that the task was beyond my unaided capacity, especially as my time was primarily mortgaged to the completion of my grammar. I sought a colleague …’.55 Moulton’s first choice was originally Edward Lee Hicks (1843 – 1919), who lived only a short journey away from Manchester and whom he described as a man with ‘expert knowledge, which no one in England can rival’.56 It is a measure of the high personal and professional regard in which Moulton held Deissmann that when Hicks declined the offer, Moulton did not then appeal to another of his countrymen, but instead called upon his German friend for collaboration. Only after Deissmann declined as well did Moulton seek out the help of George Milligan (1860 – 1934), with whom he eventually produced their celebrated ‘lexicon’.57 G.H.R. Horsley suggests that this letter ‘might give the impression’ that Deissmann proposed they should split the work, with Moulton confining himself to the papyri, while he himself would treat the later inscriptions.58 Yet Moulton’s request was not for unpublished new material, but rather that his existing papyrological entries be supplemented with additional epigraphical texts. Since he believed that his lexicon should be based on ‘a systematic search of the papyri, and to a less extent the later inscriptions’,59 it is to be inferred that he found this ‘less extent’ more time consuming than he had anticipated. Perhaps more than anything else, this proposal demonstrates how far advanced Moulton thought Deissmann’s own lexicographical work to be. For he knew very well that, like him, his German colleague was predominantly converging on the massive papyrological data, for already seven years earlier he had written that ‘the most characteristic feature’ of Deissmann’s Bible Studies was his distinctive use of papyri (see ch. 1.4). During the latter half of September 1906 the University of Aberdeen celebrated its 400th anniversary, and Deissmann was invited to travel to Scotland and there receive his first foreign honorary doctorate. The 55 Moulton, ‘Lexical notes from the papyri’, Exp, 7, 5, 1908, 51. 56 J.H. Fowler, cited by J.L. North, ‘“I sought a colleague”: James Hope Moulton, Papyrologist, and Edward Lee Hicks, Epigraphist, 1903 – 6’, BJRL, 79, 1, 1997, 198. 57 The vocabulary of the Greek Testament illustrated from the Papyri and other nonliterary sources, Fasc. 1 – 8, London, 1914 – 29. 58 Horsley, ‘origin and scope’, 196. 59 Moulton, cited by North, 196.

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

75

investiture ceremony took place on Wednesday morning 26th, and festivities were staged throughout the week, but although Deissmann had an opportunity to meet many notables for the first time during his nine-day stay Moulton was unable to attend. However, after leaving Aberdeen the former arrived in York on Sunday afternoon, and on the following day the two professors met each other for the first time60 and were able to spend Monday and part of Tuesday together before parting. Since no records exist of their conversations, one can only guess at what they discussed, but it is certain that philological ideas were being compared and that Moulton was sufficiently impressed with Deissmann to ask for his help three months later. Thus, two weeks after receiving Moulton’s letter, when Deissmann reluctantly penned his decision to reject the request on the grounds of his own lexical work, he wrote no longer to a foreign colleague but a personal friend. This is reflected by the familiarity with which he addressed him: ‘Mein lieber Moulton!’ The entire letter is of considerable historical value, but the following extract will suffice here. Und es wre mir auch eine ganz besondere Ehre, mit Ihnen zusammen diese wichtige Arbeit zu tun. Aber ich fîrchte, sie wîrde mich auf Jahre hinaus von der Verçffentlichung des Wçrterbuchs abhalten. Je mehr ich meine Zukunftsaufgaben îberlege, um so mehr empfinde ich aber die Verpflichtung, dieses opus vitae zuerst zu beenden. Jeder neue Jahresanfang ist mir eine Mahnung und eine Anklage. Ich bin ja gewiss nicht faul gewesen, ein sehr stattliches Material liegt in meinen Ksten … ich [habe] mir aber ernstlich vorgenommen, jetzt alles andere nach Mçglichkeit zurîckzustellen, um bloß das Wçrterbuch zu fçrdern. Ostern dieses Jahres hoffe ich nach Vollendung einer kleinen Arbeit so weit zu sein, dass ich sonst frei bin.61

What is most striking here is that Deissmann evaluated his own lexicon as his personal opus vitae, and that he had changed his academic focus from theology – which served primarily as his source of income – to the philological pursuit of NT lexicography. Six months had passed since 60 AK. This belies Samuel Angus’ claim: ‘I had just recently returned from Berlin [in 1910] and Moulton had many questions to ask about Deissmann. There were four [!] outstanding Hellenists at that period – Deissmann of Berlin, Thumb of Marburg, George Milligan of Glasgow, and Moulton himself. At that time none of these four famous scholars knew another, but I, a student under Deissmann [Berlin, 1910] and Thumb [Marburg, 1908], had the privilege of knowing all of them.’ Alms for oblivion: chapters from a heretic’s life, Sydney, 1943, 171 – 2. GAD and Thumb also knew each other, for they were in correspondence since well before Oct. 1900; see Thumb, iv, 9. 61 GAD’s letter, 12. 1. 1907; see Appendix 2, b.

76

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

he had confided to Theodor Wiegand that he would concentrate more fully on his Wçrterbuch, yet his private engagements continued almost unabated, and this letter to Moulton shows signs of frustration, since his progress was far from what he had hoped it would be by then. The first two-and-a-half months following his return from the Orient had given him little time for his lexicographical work, and immediately after semester’s end (August)62 he worked four days with Lionel Strachan in connection with his English translation of Licht vom Osten (i. e. Light from the Ancient East), after which he took his family for a two-week holiday to Lake Geneva, before journeying to Great Britain (see above).63 During his absence in Switzerland he was awarded the Ritterkreuz First Class from the Grand Duke of Baden.64 It was a deep but unintended irony that the more notable his academic profile became, the less time he would find for the lexicon. Deissmann’s letter to Moulton appears, therefore, unnecessarily apologetic; even somewhat irritated: ‘I have certainly not been idle …’. This self-defensive urge was not a reaction to something Moulton had written, but rather betrays Deissmann’s own anxiety that others might beat him to the prize of creating the first NT lexicon based on his own innovative methodology. For Erwin Preuschen was an industrious writer and well known to Deissmann,65 and since the first test page for the former’s lexicon had appeared a few months later (see ch. 2.5) one can confidently assume that Deissmann knew that work to be under way. This would certainly explain his frustration and sudden sense of urgency. Yet the growing preoccupation with his lexicon must not be confused with an egotistic ambition to ‘be first’. Instead, it stems from his fifteen years of preparatory labours, some of which he had put into 62 For an overview of GAD’s teaching programs between summer semester 1904 and winter semester 1935/6 see Appendix 9, e. 63 GAD left Heidelberg for Aberdeen on 19. 9. 1906 and returned 9.10.1906. 64 i. e. ‘Orden vom Zhringer Lçwen, Ritterkreuz I. Klasse’. Honours list, 27.8.1906. The exact reason why GAD received this distinction is no longer certain. 65 See GAD, review of E. Preuschen, Vollstndiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Fasc. 1), in DLZ, 30, p. 1882, where he wrote that Preuschen was ‘… [ein] auf anderen Gebieten hochverdienten und wegen seines produktiven Fleiß von mir stets bewunderten Verfasser …’. As Pfarrer in Steinbach und Wieseck near Giessen (1894 – 6), Preuschen would almost certainly have attended the Giessen conference and there made personal contact with GAD.

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

77

the public domain with his two Bibelstudien books and could potentially be used as a ‘lexical template’ by someone like Preuschen. It was, therefore, an understandable reaction and – in comparison to a similar situation Moulton faced some five-and-a-half years later – reasonably restrained. For in early June 1912 Samuel Angus (1881 – 1943) wrote to him, ‘from somewhere in Virginia’, that Archibald Robertson (see ch. 1.7) was not far from releasing a comprehensive new grammar.66 Moulton was incensed and wrote to Deissmann: I wonder if I can possibly get my one volume Grammar out first, and so prevent his annexing my public! For really I must say his book was so very bad, and was so absurdly puffed, that I felt quite violated at his getting the Prioritt [sic].67

Two days after receiving this letter, Deissmann replied feelingly: ‘Dass Robertson nun eine grçßere Grammatik machen will, ist mir neu gewesen. Die Analogie mit Preuschen liegt mir nahe’.68 For the present, however, mounting social, professional and familial commitments were beginning to bear heavily on Deissmann; besides, Henriette was pregnant with their third child, Liselotte, due to be born on 7 April 1907. Notwithstanding, he kept his lexical labours tirelessly on the move, collecting and evaluating masses of data and selecting useful examples for the lexicon entries. A glimpse of this tedious process can be gained from his complaint: Schwer muß ich anderseits die Aufgabe … deshalb nennen, weil von Aufgaben reden soviel bedeutet wie von Unfertigem reden, von Dutzenden îbereinandergeschichteten aufgeschlagener Bîcher, von hunderten beschriebener Zettel und Bltter, von Staub, trîben Nebeltagen und Lampenlicht, von Spannung und Enttuschung und von dem tglichen und klglichen Tauschhandel des Forschers, der ein einziges gelçstes Problem hingibt und zehn ungelçste dafîr zurîckerhlt.69

Despite these wearisome efforts, it became more and more evident that it would take impossibly long to complete his lexicographical work while he remained in his present position as a theology professor. He was not fooled by an unrealistic short-term goal, but understood that the project would require many years; after all, he had toiled incessantly 66 A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research, Cambridge, 1914. 67 Letter, dated 3.6.1912. 68 Letter, dated 5.6.1912. 69 LvO, 291.

78

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

on it for well over a decade by now. Nevertheless, when he wrote to Moulton in January, he was under the impression that he could send him the first proofs for translation ‘in a few years’.70 This is revealing on two accounts; firstly the forecast time span provides some indication of the magnitude of the project – bearing in mind that he had begun the work in the mid-1890s. But what is even more remarkable is the wording of the letter itself, for it takes it as settled that Moulton would be responsible for the translation of Deissmann’s lexicon, even though the former was still in the process of compiling his own in English.71 The two men had not only become good friends, but also formed a mutual understanding that Deissmann’s work would address a niche in the English-speaking world which Moulton’s could not fill. Since their lexicographical convictions were virtually identical – that is to say, they believed that existing NT lexicons had exhausted the use of literary words and, therefore, now necessitated ‘a similar apparatus for the Greek of common life’72 – Deissmann’s book would differ not so much in methodology as in its comprehensive detail. For Moulton’s proposition that they collaborate rested on the understanding that, aside from Deissmann’s papyrological progress, the latter was also well prepared with inscriptional work. If his opus vitae were to succeed, it became increasingly imperative that he implement some changes in his life. Thus, he made the decision to do whatever was necessary to finish the lexicon within a shorter timeframe; but as soon as his colleagues became aware of this a flurry of activities ensued at the Faculty. On 26 November 1907, Jellinek, the then Rektor of the Heidelberg University, wrote an urgent and lengthy letter on behalf of the Senate to the Kultusministerium at Karlsruhe. In it he registered the fact – and in a surprisingly ardent manner – that the entire Theological Faculty, together with the unanimous Senate, wished for Deissmann to remain at the University. But in case the Ministry should decline to take immediate action to facilitate his lexicographical project, they feared that die Universitt eine so zweifellos hervorragende Kraft, wie Deissmann verlieren kçnnte, der auf die Dauer nicht in der Lage ist, in seiner gegenwrtigen gedrîckten Stellung zu verharren, sondern sich bereits jetzt mit dem Gedanken trgt, eine Pfarrstelle in einem billigeren Orte 70 GAD’s letter, 12. 1. 1907; see Appendix 2, b. 71 On this see Horsley, ‘origin and scope’, 196. See also Appendix 2, b. 72 Moulton, cited by North, 196.

2.3. Gearing up for lexicography

79

anzunehmen, damit er die nçtige Muße finde, sein Lebenswerk zu vollenden.73

Deissmann’s mounting sense of urgency was being fuelled, on the one hand, by his growing frustration, and on the other, by his conviction that he now possessed sufficient data, as well as the methodological experience, to produce a lexicon that would set NT philology on a truly academic level. To reach this goal, he was evidently on the point of making far-reaching personal and financial sacrifices, and that despite the recent addition to his family with the infant Liselotte. His expressed intentions were not idle talk. The note in his diary for Tuesday, 19 November, reads: ‘8 v. Duhn A[bend] Essen’, followed the next Wednesday by an equally cryptic: ‘8 1/2 Dieterich A. Essen’.74 These two entries are of significance, for, given the quick developments,75 it is safe to conclude that Deissmann sought their advice about his contemplated departure from university life, unless a way could be found that would enable him to work on the lexicon with fewer distractions. To that end, one small hope remained, for he had recently proposed that a new department for Greek NT philology should be established within the Theological Faculty (see ch. 3.6). However, at this point it must suffice to say that on the Thursday before Dieterich had dinner at the Deissmanns’ – two days after von Duhn was there – Dieterich had already written a strongly worded letter to the University Senate, in which he stressed that … die Vollendung von Deissmanns geplantem Wçrterbuch des Neuen Testamentes als der nchsten grundlegenden Leistung auf diesem Gebiet aufs dringendste gewînscht wird. … Wîrde Deissmann, wenn er den einschlagenden Studien mehr und pflichtmssig sich widmen kann und muß, sein großes Wçrterbuch besser vollenden, so wre auch durch den erbetenen Auftrag der Wissenschaft ein nicht geringer Dienst erwiesen.76 73 Jellinek, letter to Kultusministerium, 26.11.1907. For a transcript see Appendix 2, c. 74 Dieterich died five and half months later (6. 5. 1908), four days after his 42nd birthday. 75 GAD wrote: ‘Als ich im Oktober des letzten Jahres das Buch zu drucken anfing, konnte ich nicht ahnen, daß es, vollendet, fîr mich den Abschied von der Ruperto-Carola [Heidelberg University] bedeuten werde’. LvO, viii. See also letter from Dieterich (note 76 below), where he wrote of ‘in der durch die Eile der Sache gebotenen Kîrze’. 76 Dieterich, letter to Jellinek, 21.11.1907. For a transcript see Appendix 2, d. This was a response to a letter from Jellinek three days earlier, which requested: ‘Im Einverstehen mit den dem Engeren Senate angehçrigen Mitgliede in der

80

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Deissmann’s conception of how a NT lexicon should be constructed was quite sophisticated for his time. In his view lexicography was a ‘historische Wissenschaft’ and lexicons the ‘historische Statistik des Wortschatzes’, and consequently much more than a mere compilation of words with corresponding glosses.77 When he posed the rhetorical question, ‘was ist ein Wçrterbuch?’ he proceeded to explain with lucidity and passion: Nach dem Urteil der Meisten etwas sehr Einfaches: da stehen in alphabetischer Reihenfolge hier die fremden Wçrter, dort die deutschen Bedeutungen. Also gar nichts Besonderes und auch gar nichts besonders Wissenschaftliches, sondern vor allen Dingen ein geschftliches Unternehmen und ein Buch fîr die Bedîrfnisse des praktischen Lebens, etwa wie ein Kursbuch oder ein Adreßbuch, ußerlich betrachtet vielleicht ein recht stattlicher Band, innerlich aber mehr der Technik, als der Wissenschaft verwandt … Die wissenschaftliche Betrachtung und die wissenschaftliche Lexikographie beginnt dagegen in dem Augenblicke, der uns lehrt, daß wir die Bedeutung eines einzelnen Wortes nicht ohne weiteres aus dem Buche ablesen kçnnen, vielmehr jedes Wort zunchst als ein Problem zu behandeln haben und daß wir erst wagen dîrfen, wissenschaftlich îber ein Wort zu reden, wenn wir seine Geschichte erkannt haben, d. h. seinen Ursprung, seine Bedeutung und seine die Bedeutung zerspaltenden und die Bedeutung gestaltenden Schicksale.78

Deissmann definitely intended to raise the standard of NT lexicography to a completely new level, and scholars on both sides of the North Sea anticipated his innovative work and made reference to it in print: Alexander Souter at Oxford;79 James Moulton at Manchester;80 James Iverach (1839 – 1922) at Aberdeen;81 Georg Pfeilschifter (1870 – 1936) at Freiburg/Br.,82 and at Halle Johannes Leipold (1880 – 1965) wrote

77 78 79 80 81 82

theologischen Fakultt, den Herrn Kollegen Bassermann und Troeltsch, bitte ich Euer Hochwohlgeboren Ihr fachmnnisches Urteil îber die Notewendigkeit des fîr Herrn Professor Deissmann von der theologischen Fakultt geforderten Lehrauftrags umgehend angeben zu wollen. Die Angelegenheit soll in der nchsten Montag stattfindenden Senatssitzung verhandelt werden.’ Letter, dated 19.11.1907. LvO, 295. LvO, 294 – 5. RTP, 1907, 412. ET, 20, 1, 1908, 33. ET, 22, 6, 1911, 251. LR, 1, 1912, 12.

2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision

81

that Deissmann was ‘… wie kein zweiter dazu berufen’ to produce such a lexicon.83 Nevertheless, the Kultusministerium remained unmoved by the petition from Heidelberg, and through their negative reply became, in effect, instrumental in bringing about an end to Deissmann’s productive years at Heidelberg.84

2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision At about the same time, the eighty-year old Bernhard Weiss contacted Deissmann with a request to write ‘eine Anzeige seines Buches îber die Religion des Neuen Testaments’.85 The politically and theologically conservative ‘Altmeister’86 of NT exegesis had met Deissmann for the first time almost two decades before, when the latter was a student in his Seminars at Berlin during the summer semester 1888.87 But his role as Vortragender Rat in the Prussian Kultusministerium also necessitated that he oftmals und nicht ungern akademische Erkundigungsreisen machen musste, um die theologischen Dozenten, besonders auch die jîngeren, persçnlich kennen zu lernen. Wenn er dann etwa in Marburg auftauchte, unangemeldet wohl und ohne die Mçglichkeit, inkognito zu bleiben, so war das immer ein kleines akademisches Ereignis. Wir lteren Kandidaten und Lizentiaten suchten dann die Hçrsle der abzuhçrenden Privatdozenten nach Krften zu fîllen und erreichten einmal auch fîr einen jungen Kirchenhistoriker als Beweis seiner großen Anziehungskraft ein bengstigend îberfîlltes Auditorium, was dem alten Herrn aus Berlin aber nicht weiter imponierte, da er die wirkliche Hçrerzahl lngst von der Qustur angefordert hatte.88 83 TLBl, 47, 20. 11. 1908, 560. 84 Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg University Senate, 9.12.1907. 85 SD, 68. GAD received Weiss’ letter ‘Ende 1907’ (no longer extant). Weiss’ book was entitled: Die Religion des Neuen Testaments, Stuttgart, 19082 (1903). 86 GAD used this respectful designation frequently in the typed but hand-corrected draft of his commemorative address for the 100th anniversary of Weiss’ birthday, held in Berlin on 26.6.1927. 87 GAD’s other teachers during that time were, ‘in den îblichen Fchern’, Julius Wilhelm Martin Kaftan (1848 – 1926), Otto Pfleiderer (1839 – 1908), and ‘in der leider nicht îblichen Christlichen Archologie’, Ferdinand Karl Wilhelm Piper (1811 – 89). SD, 48 – 9. For Piper see also ch. 5, n. 2. 88 From GAD’s commemorative address, 26. 6. 1927, 25.

82

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Weiss had observed Deissmann’s steadily developing international profile and deemed his ‘unorthodox’ approach to NT studies of potentially more benefit to the Theological Faculty at Berlin than the ‘positive Vertretung’ of a traditionalist, because – the octogenarian reasoned – Deissmann had earned ‘wesentliche Verdienste und [hat] neue Bahnen eingeschlagen’.89 According to the latter, Weiss could see that his own conservative (positive) theology and his ‘Lehrbîcher’ were no longer being cited by the younger generation, and had begun to think of himself as somewhat of a theological anachronism.90 Deissmann accepted Weiss’ invitation, but correctly interpreted it as a pretext for a personal meeting of much greater consequence than the latter had led him to believe,91 for shortly thereafter (4 January) he also received a formal request from the Prussian Kultusministerium to come to Berlin and discuss the possibility of succeeding Weiss in his Chair (Lehrstuhl fîr Neues Testament).92 By that time Deissmann had already arrived at a point where he realised that the necessary support to complete his opus vitae at Heidelberg would not be forthcoming, which is why he was eager to investigate this possibility of a transfer from provincial Heidelberg to the bustling capital of Prussia. A mere two days after receiving the invitation he sent a card with the news to James Moulton and confided that he would make the five-hours train trip to Berlin by Wednesday, ‘um mit der Regierung zu verhandeln’.93 89 Weiss, cited in Kreuzzeitung, 31.1.1908. 90 In his commemorative address for Weiss (26. 6. 1929, 14) GAD noted: ‘In allzu grosser Resignation hat der Herausgeber [Weiss] seiner Lebenserinnerungen gemeint, die Wissenschaft sei bereits whrend der letzten Jahre des Sich-selbstUeberlebenden îber ihn hinausgegangen. Das trifft nicht zu.’ In 1966 the bishop of Berlin, Otto Dibelius (1880 – 1967), published a newspaper article in which he depicted Weiss unfairly as a scheming old ‘kingmaker’; ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene, zum 100. Geburtstag des Theologen Adolf Deißmann’, Der Tagesspiegel, 6. 11. 1966, 9. But compare GAD’s more thoughtful appraisal of his predecessor, e. g. Pr.WL, 16. 10. 1915, 1; Ev.Wbr, 11. 6. 1917, 1 – 2; 21. 1. 1918, 1 – 5, and his commemorative address. 91 ‘Ich interpretierte seine Anfrage richtig: der Achtzigjhrige wînschte tatschlich eine Aussprache mit mir îber die Hauptfragen unseres Faches, und zwar mit Rîcksicht auf seine Nachfolgerschaft’. SD, 68. 92 The AK reads: ‘11.40 Ruf Berlin kam’. A contractual agreement, signed by GAD and Ludwig Elster (for the latter, see ch. 4.2), and dated 9. 1. 1908, states: ‘Herr Deissmann weiss, dass ihm in dieser Stellung die Verpflichtung obliegt, die neutestamentliche Theologie und Exegese sowie die Philologie der griechischen Bibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments in Vorlesungen und Uebungen zu vertreten’. 93 Card, dated 6.1.1908.

2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision

83

When Deissmann arrived in the city two days later the streets were covered in a blanket of snow, but he received a congenial welcome from all Faculty members, on both a personal and professional level. When he met Weiss he did not play down their different theological ‘Gesamtauffassung’,94 for he knew that the aged professor had always opposed the extreme liberalism of the Tîbingen School,95 even though it had fallen into decline after the death of Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792 – 1860). Yet Weiss was able to tolerate – and under certain circumstances even admire – the ensuing, more sophisticated Ritschlian liberalism,96 of which his colleague, Harnack, was a forthright proponent97 and Deissmann a moderate adherent. Weiss now raised this matter with his Heidelberg colleague, and Deissmann later recalled: Den starken Unterschied der Gesamtauffassung konnte ich ihm da nicht verhehlen, der zwischen uns beiden namentlich in Bezug auf die sog. Neutestamentliche Theologie bestand und der ihm gewiß auch nicht unbekannt gewesen war. Ich konnte andererseits andeuten, daß ich in der Behandlung der Echtheitsfragen sein maßvolles Vertrauen zur ltesten ˜berlieferung im allgemeinen teile.98

Their meeting evidently confirmed for Weiss that his choice was right, and an amicable and genuine bond began to develop between the two men. This continued unabated until Weiss’ death in January 1918; and at his funeral Deissmann delivered a moving eulogy, which he also published in his Evangelischer Wochenbrief.99 During his ‘Verhandlungen’ with the Kultusminister, Dr. Ludwig Holle (1855 – 1909), the latter pointed out the significant financial benefits a relocation to Germany’s most internationalised and prestigious university could mean for him. In fact, the offer was so generous that on the same day (9 January) Deissmann sent a message back to the Baden Kultusministerium at Karlsruhe with details of the offer, although this may have been no more than a courteous gesture 94 95 96 97

SD, 68. See H. Harris, ‘Tîbingen School’, in Preston, et al., 696. See P.N. Hillyer, in Preston, et al., 595. Although Weiss himself had taken no part in the Faculty’s vote regarding Harnack – initiated by the Ministry during the 1887/8 winter semester to replace the ailing church historian, Karl Semisch (1810 – 88) – he assented to his appointment on the grounds that he was the most productive and original theologian of his time. 98 SD, 68. 99 Ev.Wbr, 21. 1. 1918, 1 – 7.

84

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

to elicit an apposite response.100 It informed them that Berlin had proposed an annual salary package that more than doubled his present one at Heidelberg, where he received M.6700 plus some M.400 in lecture fees,101 for now he had an offer of M.11,700, plus a guaranteed M.4500 in lecture fees.102 This news caused a remarkable reaction in the Kultusministerium, for the Minister hastily posted a telegram to Heidelberg’s Theological Faculty that they were willing to increase Deissmann’s salary to M.8800, and authorised him to create a department for NT philology with an additional remuneration of M.1800. Even so, their proposition was ill thought-out. In the first place, it was only a short-term contract, limited to the coming summer semester; and secondly, it would have removed him even more from his lexicographical project, since he would have been expected to set up and run the new department in addition to his present duties. More will be said about this later, but given that their decision came only in the wake of Jellinek’s letter (see ch. 2.3), their offer suggests it may have been primarily a ‘face saving’ exercise. The warm reception at Berlin – and generous salary offer – made it relatively easy for Deissmann to decide in favour of a transfer from Heidelberg, and he formally accepted the position via telegram on 13 January, stating simply: ‘nehme berufung berlin an: Deissmann’.103 Three weeks later he received a letter from Holle that the Kaiser had ratified his appointment, mit der Verpflichtung, die neutestamentliche Theologie und Exegese sowie die Philologie der griechischen Bibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments in Vorlesungen und ˜bungen zu vertreten. Zugleich bestelle ich Sie zum Mitdirektor des Theologischen Seminars.104

Less than a week earlier he had explained to Wiegand, in a private letter, that his decision to accept the offer had been decisively influenced while he was still in Berlin, by ‘viel Entgegenkommen auf persçnlichem und 100 AK; GAD’s letter is cited in a letter from Karlsruhe Kultusministerium to Heidelberg Theological Faculty, 14.1.1908. 101 Einkommensanschlag, 30.8.1907. With the exception of a modest M.200 increase on 1. 7. 1907, GAD’s salary had remained unchanged since 27.10.1903. 102 Kultusministerium, letter, 14.1.1908. 103 GAD, telegram to Kultusministerium, 13.1.1908. 104 The fact that he was expected to teach NT and OT (Septuagint) philology did not mean that a separate department had been created. Holle, letter to GAD, 3. 2. 1908 (via Heidelberg University Senate). See also GAD, contract with Elster, 9.1.1908.

2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision

85

wissenschaftlichem Gebiete’, which evidently included recognition of his NT philology. But although he anticipated progress on his lexicon to become temporarily impeded by the move, he expected this to be only for a short time, on the grounds that it would soon be compensated for by his much-increased ‘Wirkungskreis’.105 However, the letter also reveals a further incentive: it was going to be easier to reach the Orient from Berlin than from Heidelberg, since the Balkan train formed a direct link between the Prussian capital and the East,106 and the city had a considerable stake in oriental archaeological exploration. Wiegand himself – the instigator of the PergamonMuseum on Berlin’s Museumsinsel, and excavator of such sites as Miletus, Didyma and Samos – was also director of the city’s museums, although lived in Istanbul (see ch. 4.1). It is significant that Deissmann now thought of Berlin as a kind of doorway to the East, for it suggests that his ‘Verhandlungen’ included a provision to organise a repeat journey to that part of the world which had so deeply impressed him in 1906. Indeed, less than a year after moving to Berlin he was leading a similar educational tour, plans for which must have begun shortly after – and as a result of – his ‘Verhandlungen’.107 From Deissmann’s letter it is clear that he was under the impression, ‘Die Fakultt hatte mich einstimmig vorgeschlagen’.108 But did it? For not long after his appointment, Martin Rade (1857 – 1940), editor of the prominent paper Die Christliche Welt, published a polemic against Reinhold Seeberg (1859 – 1935), in which he focused on Deissmann’s recent ‘Berufung’ and expressly stated: ‘ein einstimmiges Votum kam hier nicht zu stande … eine Mehrheit von fînf Fakulttsmitgliedern schlgt an erster Stelle Jîlicher vor’.109 How then could Deissmann write to Wiegand that his nomination had been unanimous? The selection process was complex and various individuals were considered, at the end of which the Faculty’s Dekan, Adolf Harnack, wrote a 22page letter of recommendations to Kultusminister Holle, in which he detailed their deliberations and explained: 105 106 107 108

GAD, letter to Wiegand, 29.1.1908. For a transcript see Appendix 2, e. GAD described this graphically in Pr.WL, 16. 8. 1916, 2. For GAD’s 1906 and 1909 study tours, see ch. 4.1 – 2. GAD also makes this claim in a letter to Moulton: ‘Bernhard Weiß, … dessen prsumptiver Nachfolger ich auf einstimmigen Vorschlag der Berliner Fakultt geworden bin’. 19.2.1908. 109 M. Rade, ‘Von aktuellen Sachen. 7. Das System Seeberg und die innerkirchliche Lage’, ChrW, 20.2,1908, 420.

86

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Die Fakultt schlgt an zweiter Stelle Herrn Prof. Deißmann in Heidelberg mit vier Stimmen vor (Kleinert, Harnack, Graf v. Baudissin, Holl). An erste Stelle rîcken ihn die Herren Weiß Exz., Kaftan, Seeberg, und die dritte Stelle D. Pfleiderer, der an 2. Stelle D. Schmiedel – Zîrich nennt; es haben sich also tatschlich alle Stimmen, aber in verschiedener Weise auf D. [Deissmann] vereinigt.110

For 31 years Bernhard Weiss had acted as oikonomos of the Faculty,111 and now he interceded robustly on behalf of his prot¤g¤ by arguing that Jîlicher was too liberal and intractable.112 It was often difficult to resist the will of the ‘Altmeister’,113 but in this case the sometime Vortragender Rat (1880 – 99) was particularly passionate, because he felt personally affected by the decision, a factor that is unequivocally expressed in Harnack’s letter. Endlich erliegt Jîlicher nach der Meinung der Minoritt [e.g. Weiß] nicht selten der Versuchung, seiner Kritik abweichender Anschauungen eine verletzende Form zu geben und habe das auch gegenîber der von dem jetzigen Inhaber des neutestamentlichen Lehrstuhls vertretenen Forschungsweise nicht unterlassen, weshalb es der Minoritt unbillig scheint, gerade ihn zu dessen Mitarbeiter und spteren Nachfolger zu berufen.114

Thus, despite the divergence of opinions, a quasi-consensus was reached on the one commonly proposed name, since, in essence, every Faculty colleague agreed that Deissmann would be a worthy successor to Weiss, while three refused to endorse Jîlicher at all. Yet as soon as his appointment became known, the theologically conservative Lutheran papers began to lambast the choice, and even attacked Deissmann as if he were himself responsible for the Minister’s decision. Thus, while still at Heidelberg, he wrote to Moulton: Ich bin anlsslich der Berufung von der konservativen Presse heftig angegriffen worden, da ich îberhaupt kein Theologe sei und keine Beitrge zum Verstndnis des N.T. gegeben habe, sondern bloß zum Missverstndnis des N.T. und gewagt htte, die beiden grçßten Sprachforscher Cremer und Blass anzugreifen. Man hat mich aber hauptschlich politisch angegriffen, da ich hier [Heidelberg] auf Seiten der Arbeiter gestanden 110 Faculty recommendations to Kultusministerium, 25.12.1907. For a transcript see Appendix 2, f. 111 So GAD, Ev.Wbr, 12. 1. 1918, 4. 112 SD, 68. 113 O. Dibelius wrote less kindly in 1966 (see n. 90 above): ‘Alle Welt nannte ihn schon seit langem “den Alten” … und was er einmal gesagt hatte, war immer “richtig”’, in ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene’. 114 Faculty recommendations, 25. 12. 1907; see Appendix 2, f.

2.4. Berlin: a crucial decision

87

habe. Diese zum Teil blçdsinnigen Angriffe haben zwar nichts geholfen, der Kaiser hat meine Ernennung schon Ende Januar vollzogen, aber schmerzlich sind sie doch gewesen. Ich dachte aber oft an England und Schottland, wo auch in konservativen Kreisen mehr Verstndnis fîr meine Arbeit vorhanden ist, als bei unseren Parteifanatikern.115

His reference to the ‘konservativen Presse’ denotes the right-wing religious papers,116 which, according to Rade (p. 421), stirred up this journalistic ‘Hexentanz’. However, as the date and past tense of Deissmann’s letter indicate, it was not an ongoing campaign, but a short, yet sharp reactionary outcry by religious traditionalists, who feared that progressive liberalism would undermine the old Lutheran faith which Weiss had long personified for them. It was this fear rather than some personal dispute with Deissmann that was at the core of their heated debate, as the following excerpt from an open letter to Reinhold Seeberg shows: Warum sollen denn die positiv-kirchlichen Kreise nicht das Recht haben, ihre Stimme laut werden zu lassen, wenn sie die Zerstçrung wahrnehmen, welche – wenigstens ihrer ˜berzeugung nach – der theologische Liberalismus je lnger um so mehr anrichtet?117

One has to wonder how Seeberg – this staunchly Prussian royalist, who was Berlin’s symbolic figurehead of right-wing church politics as well as of its press – was able to justify his primary choice of Deissmann to his Glaubensgenossen who looked to him as their champion. Perhaps the likeliest answer to this question rests in his collegial deference to Weiss, whose strong belief that Deissmann was best suited as his academic successor seems to have guided his decision.118 When Deissmann wrote to Wiegand that his lexical project would only be temporarily impeded by his move to Berlin he did not elaborate further. But in a letter written six months later to Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) Sçderblom (1866 – 1931), he expressed what may, 115 GAD’s letter, 19.2.1908. It was published first by Horsley, in ‘origin and scope’, 198 – 201. 116 See also P. Wendland, review of GAD, LvO, in DLZ, 50, 1908, 3148: ‘Das Werk [LvO] ist die vornehmste Erwiderung auf die Angriffe, die die kirchliche Rechte gegen Deissmann zu richten sich veranlaßt fîhlte.’ 117 N. Bonwetch/ C. Stange, open letter to E. Seeberg, in Rade, 422. 118 Despite Rade’s acerbic cynicism regarding Seeberg’s vote in favour of GAD, he accepted that loyalty to Weiss may have been the motivational factor, but censured Seeberg’s silence in the ensuing press outcry, since he was in a prime position to quell the entire clamour. Rade, 421.

88

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

in fact, have swayed him more than anything else. Sçderblom, professor of theology at the University of Uppsala (1901 – 14),119 had sent the new Berlin professor an invitation to give a series of lectures at their Theological Faculty during the 1910 Easter break (see ch. 4.3). The next day Deissmann wrote an acceptance letter, to which he added: ‘Mein eigenes Lexikon soll hier in Berlin sehr gefçrdert werden; ich hoffe in nicht allzu ferner Zeit den Druck beginnen zu kçnnen’.120 It appears, therefore, that the Prussian Kultusministerium had recognised Deissmann’s lexicographical potential and hoped to add him to their scholastic halls of fame by promising every support to bring his lexicon to fruition. This, perhaps more than the pecuniary allurements, seems to have underpinned his ready acceptance of their offer. From Deissmann’s point of view, therefore, the drawbacks of moving into the fast-paced Prussian capital were far outweighed by the distinct advantages, above all – so he thought – the assured facilitation of his opus vitae. The winter semester at Heidelberg concluded in the last week of February. Deissmann’s final Seminar lecture was given on Thursday the 27th, with the Proseminar ending the day after. By Saturday morning the Deissmann family was bound for the south of Switzerland, on a three-week holiday in Casaratte near Lugano, where they stayed in the same ‘Villa Castagnola’ in which they had spent a relaxing fortnight three years earlier. However, this time Deissmann carried with him the index for Licht vom Osten; the book had already been in the press since October, and its publishers were pushing for the index to be finalised. The holiday was not a restful time for him; assisted by Henriette, he laboured almost every day on the 26-page, fourcolumned index, and, as a result, suffered a series of stress-related headaches. Although he dedicated the book to Henriette he made no mention of her help, yet wrote in the Vorwort that Lionel Strachan ‘half opferwillig beim Index’.121 As soon as the latter read this, he wrote to Deissmann: I noticed the altogether undeserved mention you have made of me in the Preface! You are more than just to me, and a little less than just to Mrs. 119 Between 1912 – 4 he also held a concurrent Chair in religious history at Leipzig University, and from 1914 until his death he was archbishop of Uppsala. 120 Letter, dated 29.7.1908. 121 LvO, vii.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment

89

Deissmann, I think, for she really did help you with the index! You might have mentioned her and left me out!122

Three weeks after returning to Heidelberg the family moved to the flat in Berlin Wilmersdorf that was to be their home for more than a generation,123 and on 28 April Deissmann gave his first lecture as Bernhard Weiss’ successor.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment The Deissmanns’ transition to Berlin was considerably eased by the wide circle of professional colleagues who took a personal interest in the family. For already on the first Sunday in their new home (19 April) Bernhard Weiss came to welcome them, followed that evening by his son Bernhard Wilhelm Johannes (1863 – 1914). The next day appeared Adolf Harnack, Reinhold Seeberg and Karl Holl (1866 – 1926); and on Tuesday, Carl Schmidt (1868 – 1938) visited. By Wednesday, Harnack shared the first of many meals with the Deissmanns,124 and a month later Julius Kaftan’s wife invited Henriette to her home. These sociable connections contributed a great deal in helping Deissmann and his family to settle into Berlin, yet it was only three years later, when they were able to acquire a holiday house in rural Wînsdorf, that they began to feel ‘vçllig eingewurzelt’.125 122 Strachan, letter to GAD, 18.5.1908. 123 Prinzregentenstrasse 7. The number of this flat was later changed to 6, as reflected in some of GAD’s correspondence. 124 GAD described Harnack as a towering persona of German vita activa, ‘… mit dem mchtigen Bauernschdel und dem schmetternden Streittenor’. During GAD’s postgraduate studies at Herborn he had attended some of the former’s lectures at Marburg on the history of dogmatic theology, but their first personal encounter had only occurred in recent months, when they met at the Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongress in Strassburg (chaired by Harnack, 1902 – 11). Ev.Wbr, 7. 5. 1921, 184 – 5. 125 ‘Vçllig eingewurzelt in den Norden fîhlte sich meine rheinische Seele aber erst, seitdem wir 1912 fîr uns und unsere Kinder weit draußen ein Stîck mrkischen Sandbodens und mrkischen Kiefernwaldes am Gestade eines mrkischen Sees erwerben und das “Haus Anatolia” bauen konnten.’ SD, 69. Three years after GAD and his family had moved to Berlin, a colleague mentioned that a small weekend-house was for sale in Wînsdorf, at Seestraße 16, about one hour’s train ride south of Berlin. GAD first set eyes on the house on 15. 7. 1911 and was immediately captivated by its bucolic charm, nestled among what he hyper-

90

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Although Deissmann was a Hessian and not a Prussian, his provincial background was not unusual among the professors in the Berlin University. The church historian Karl Holl hailed from Tîbingen; Harnack and Seeberg were both from the Livland, one from the middle-sized university town Tartu and the other from rural Pççravere near Prnu; and Kaftan – Harnack’s friend for more than thirty years – came from the small village of Loit near Apenrade in North Schleswig. In fact, the widespread mobility of Germany’s academics before WWI was thought to produce a healthy mix of pan-Germanic intellect, many of whom eventually gravitated to Berlin. Weiss had never set up a Proseminar for his undergraduates, so Deissmann immediately rectified this; but although he had the help of various assistants for the extra task126 it soon became evident that his workload was going to be considerably higher than he had anticipated. It took considerable effort to lift the department from the moribund ways of his predecessor into a modern School; for one thing, the Faculty library had been weighted heavily towards Lutheran orthodoxy, and there were not enough study rooms for the students. Weiss had sought completely new blood, and it was greatly to his satisfaction that Deissmann fulfilled this role perfectly, for he threw himself into the task of establishing his department in keeping with modern theological studies and began to revitalise the Faculty. Gradually he was able to obtain more rooms, as well as expanding the library by adding new books, pictures, slides and maps. His express aim was to set up a ‘Grundstock zu einer Biblischen Sammlung nach Art der Museen der Weißen Vter in Jerusalem und des Istituto Biblico in Rom … die in bolically liked to describe as a ‘Kiefernwald’. A week later he took his wife Henriette to view the property, and on 17. 8. 1911 they signed a contract to renovate and extend the existing building into a functional holiday house. The family moved in on 5. 7. 1912, and GAD shifted his private study there the following week. Several years later the Deissmanns also acquired an adjacent empty block – the ‘Kriessen’ – on which they built a small log cabin for their son Paul and his wife Ingeborg. Here GAD set up a playground, including a bocce field and air-rifle range. Between June and Aug. 1933 ‘Anatolia’ was thoroughly rebuilt and enlarged, in preparation for his retirement, and on 19. 3. 1934 GAD and Henriette moved out of their rented flat at Prinzregentenstraße 6 (Berlin) and into ‘Anatolia’. See also Happe, ch. 9, n. 85. For Henriette’s eviction by Russian soldiers in Apr. 1945, see ch. 2.6, and Appendix 2, h. 126 SD, 69.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment

91

besserer Zeit hoffentlich einmal fortgefîhrt werden kann’.127 However, he took his new position so seriously that he was fast becoming sidetracked from his opus vitae. Three days after his first lecture he was invited to attend Graeca, a Greek reading club vaguely akin to Eranos at Heidelberg,128 and he became a regular participant until at least January 1934. Moreover, he agreed to be on the roster to preach from time to time in the University’s newly commenced academic religious services, started devotional Biblestudy evenings for students,129 and continued his organisation of the projected second journey to the East. To top it all off, his growing academic profile brought with it an onerous flood of daily correspondence. One major consequence of Deissmann’s study tour of 1906 (see ch. 4.1) had been his firm resolve to allow fewer distractions to impede his lexicographical progress, which is why he had declined to join forces with Moulton (see ch. 2.3). And when he came to Berlin he believed that his opus vitae would stand a much better chance of completion there than at Heidelberg. Yet it was now, when he had less and less time to work on his lexicon, that Erwin Preuschen published the first fascicule (a – !qcuqojºpor) of his Handwçrterbuch (see below). When Deissmann wrote the previously mentioned letter to Sçderblom (see ch. 2.4), he used the curious phrase, ‘mein eigenes Lexikon’, which can now be put in context. Four days before writing that letter, Deissmann’s review of Preuschen’s fascicule had been published (25 July 1908). This was not the first time he was forced to give careful consideration to this Pfarrer, as the latter had a single test page printed earlier in the year. At that time Deissmann reported to Moulton that the fundamental methodology of Preuschen’s lexicon was wholly inadequate, because the author ‘will gar keine Belege geben aus der Vulgrgrzitt!’ and could, therefore, offer no advancement for the understanding of the linguistic history of Greek and early Christianity.130 The implication was that Preuschen was wasting his time, since Deissmann’s ‘own’ lexicon would patently eclipse it in every way. Nonetheless, Preuschen’s forthcoming work was announced by its publishers with the ostentatious title: Vollstndiges Griechisch-Deutsches 127 128 129 130

Ibid. SD, 65. See also n. 38 above. SD, 69. GAD, card to Moulton, 21.5.1908. See also n. 133 below (Lee).

92

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Handwçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur.131 Despite Deissmann’s seeming lack of concern displayed in his letter to Moulton, the three acerbic book reviews132 reflect the intensifying anxiety he had first shared with his British friend on 12 January 1907 (see ch. 2.3). Preuschen’s lexicon was not an inconspicuous work that could easily be ignored, for it was planned to comprise 1120 – 1280 pages, and ended up with 1183 pages. This was a book on the scale that Deissmann had intended for his own lexicon; indeed, his review refers to Preuschen’s ‘großes Lexikonformat’, which is how he had described his own book to Wiegand two years earlier. Thus, in his first review Deissmann made no attempt to hide his irritation, and he allowed himself to slip into emotive and occasionally personal language, especially since the book claimed to take up where Grimm had left off. Jedermann erwartet nun, dass das neue Lexikon da einsetzt, wo Grimm “nur noch teilweise entspricht” … Statt dessen erleben wir etwas ganz Ungeheuerliches: diese neuen Sprachquellen werden von Preuschen nicht nur nicht ausgeschçpft, sondern auch das alte treffliche Material Grimms aus den Klassikern, Philo, Apokryphen usw. wird radikal ausgemerzt! Und Pr. wagt das einen seiner lexikalischen “Grundstze” zu nennen.133

Preuschen’s lexicography was undeniably disappointing because of its perfunctory documentation, particularly as it was the first NT lexicon to appear since Deissmann’s two Bibelstudien books had demonstrated how the papyri and inscriptions could be used to elucidate the NT vocabulary well beyond what was possible until then. On the other hand, it did have a significant positive feature which Deissmann approvingly saluted: it was the first NT lexicon to include the vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers and extra-canonical gospel 131 Published (from the first fascicle) by A. Tçpelmann, Giessen, 1908 – 10. 132 DLZ, 25. 7. 1908, 29. 2. 1909, 7.5.1910. Later, GAD wrote: ‘… eine ungeheuere Reduzierung eines sicheren und notwendigen Wissensstoffes, in einem Zeitalter, das voll Mißtrauen ist gegen die wissenschaftlichen Qualitten der Theologie!’. ThR, 1912, 356. 133 DLZ, 25. 7. 1908, 30, 1878. Lee concurs: ‘Far from incorporating any new documentary material, it cited no outside evidence of any kind. Even the LXX got short shrift … But it was Preuschen’s work that formed the basis of the next major lexicon. Bauer in his 1928 overhaul of Preuschen had to put back the literary (and LXX) parallels that Preuschen had stripped out, and begin the process of incorporating the new documentary evidence that Preuschen had failed to tackle.’ NT lexicography, 123 – 4.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment

93

fragments.134 Nevertheless, a glimpse of the emotions that Preuschen’s first fascicule of 160 pages created in Deissmann, is betrayed in the conclusion to his review: So bedeutet die erste Lieferung des neuen Wçrterbuchs eine große und schmerzliche Enttuschung, und nicht ohne Teilnahme wird man von dem auf anderen Gebieten hochverdienten und wegen seines produktiven Fleißes von mir stets bewunderten Verfasser sagen mîssen, daß er sich in diesem Falle vorzeitig an eine Aufgabe gewagt hat, fîr deren Lçsung er die Mittel noch nicht smtlich beisammen hatte.135

The ambiguities do not seem to be accidental; for this ‘große und schmerzliche Enttuschung’ was something he was beginning to feel keenly. This is not to say that he entertained any personal animosity against Preuschen, despite the somewhat equivocal hint that the author may have acted rashly, for Deissmann was not a rancorous man. However, he was now quite certain that it was indeed Preuschen who would produce the first complete 20th century NT lexicon; yet he still maintained the hope of publishing his own within the very near future.136 As alluded to earlier (see ch. 2.3), his lexicographical work was no secret undertaking. On the contrary, it involved a great deal of anonymous contributors who helped to collect material on both sides of The Channel,137 and several British publishers had already declared their interest in an English edition. In summer 1907, when he gave his four lectures at Cambridge on the philology of the Greek NT,138 he was approached by Peter Giles (1860 – 1935), Reader in comparative philology and Fellow of Emmanuel College (Cambridge), whether he would consider to have the book published by Cambridge University Press. Some time earlier, William Robertson Nicoll (1851 – 1923), 134 GAD, review of Preuschen, DLZ, 30, 1880. In Lee’s words: ‘His big innovation (though he had a forerunner in Baljon) was the inclusion of other early Christian literature, hailed ever since as a significant advance’, NT lexicography, 140. 135 DLZ, 25. 7. 1908, 30, 1881. 136 GAD’s letter, 29.7.1908. 137 The Faculty recommendations to the Kultusminister (25. 12. 1907) stated: ‘Er hat bereits sehr bedeutende Proben seiner [lexikographischer] Arbeit verçffentlicht [e.g. Bst, NBst] und sich durch diese einen hohen Ruf auch in England und Amerika erworben’. J. Iverach wrote of GAD’s work that ‘… there is in preparation a Lexicon of Patristic Greek, and that many workers are gathering material for it’. See Appendix 2, f. Also ET, 22, 6, 1911, 251; LvO, vii. 138 These were given between Tue. and Fri. (30 July to 2 Aug.) and later published in book form (i. e. Philology), but appeared only in English (see ch. 3.5).

94

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

editor of The Expositor, had asked that the lexicon should be entrusted to Hodder & Stoughton, while T. & T. Clark also showed a distinct interest in its publication. It was, therefore, no exaggeration when Deissmann commented to Moulton: ‘an Offerten fehlt es nicht’.139 Although there was a widespread anticipation that the lexicon would come on the market within the not too distant future (see ch. 2.3) it never came to fruition. Deissmann’s non-teaching time during his first year in Berlin was mostly absorbed by planning and organising his 1909 journey to the East; this was followed by preparations for his lectures at Uppsala. It was during this time that Deissmann’s old determination to complete his opus vitae as soon as possible began to weaken, for in reply to an enquiry from Moulton on how the lexicon was progressing, he answered in the above mentioned letter: Zunchst einen kurzen Bericht îber den Plan des Lexikons. Ich will ein Studenten-Buch machen, das aber gleichzeitig die wissenschaftliche Lexikographie des N.T. auf die neuen Grundlagen stellt. Das Buch soll viel kleiner werden als Thayer. Ich glaube, die îbermßige Anhufung von Bibelstellen ist vom ˜bel, und Preuschens Absicht, eine Konkordanz mçglichst zu “ersetzen”, ist ganz tçricht.140

It is not entirely clear what finally tipped the balance in favour of this considerable change, but the underlying cause was almost certainly more his demanding professional commitments than the publication of Preuschen’s lexicon.141 Only a year earlier, Moulton had announced in the Expository Times that Deissmann’s ‘next gift is likely to be on a yet grander scale’, referring to his friend’s forthcoming ‘großes Wçrterbuch’ that would replace the old Grimm-Thayer. ‘New Testament students’, he wrote, ‘know enough of Adolf Deissmann now to expect with lively satisfaction the Lexicon he is soon to give us’.142 Nevertheless, this scaled-down student lexicon would still be a useful work, and in 1910 the two scholars arranged for an English translation to be made as soon as it was finished. Thus, Deissmann wrote to Moulton: Ich bin ganz damit einverstanden, dass Sie das zum großen Teil mechanische Werk der ˜bersetzung des Lexikons nicht selbst tun. Aber ich werde meinerseits spter ganz besonderes Gewicht darauf legen, dass Sie die

139 140 141 142

GAD’s letter, 27. 12. 1909; see Appendix 1, h. Ibid. See ch. 2.5, also n. 133 above. ET, 20, 1, 1908, 33.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment

95

englischen sheets inhaltlich prîfen und anglisieren; denn niemand kann das Buch besser in England einfîhren als Sie.143

Since the early 1890s Deissmann had steadily compiled a large collection of lexicographical material, much of which could be relatively easily organised for printing by now, and already in 1907 he had written to Moulton, ‘ich bin ja gewiss nicht faul gewesen, ein sehr stattliches Material liegt in meinen Ksten’.144 Dr. Gerhard Deissmann vividly remembers his father’s ‘Zettel-Ksten’, of which there were approximately a dozen in his study.145 Each was painted black, sturdy and individually lockable from the top, measuring somewhere around 350 x 200 x 150 mm.146 His description allows a cautious hypothesis to be raised as to the size and progress of Deissmann’s original undertaking, since the boxes had been separately made and were solely dedicated to the lexicon. On a conservative calculation of a mere ten boxes filled to two-thirds capacity, one can arrive at a figure of approximately 8000 ‘Zettel’ in all. This admittedly rough estimate finds some support in Deissmann’s explanation to Moulton that, because he had not been lazy (‘nicht faul’, see ch. 2.3), the boxes were full of lexicographical notes. In November 1907 Albrecht Dieterich had recommended to the Heidelberg Faculty of Theology that Deissmann’s lexicon, ‘als der nchsten grundlegenden Leistung auf diesem Gebiet aufs Dringendste gewînscht wird’,147 an assessment which the University Senate supported unanimously.148 Some eight months later, Deissmann confided to Sçderblom that he hoped to start printing the lexicon in ‘nicht allzu ferner Zeit’;149 and by October 1908 Moulton announced that Deissmann’s book would appear ‘soon’ (see above). It seems fair, therefore, to deduce that his ‘Zettel-Ksten’ contained at least a considerable amount of material that could have been ready for publication in fascicules. Moreover his Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien were both designed ‘dereinst zu einem Wçrterbuch zum 143 Card, dated 7.5.1910. 144 GAD’s letter, 12. 1. 1907; see Appendix 2, b. 145 Neither GAD’s specially made ‘Zettel-Ksten’ nor their contents seem to have survived; they should not be confused with the 145 ‘Ksten’ which the ZLB obtained after his death. See ch. 2, n. 47, and ch. 2.6. 146 G. Deissmann, letter to this author, 30.3.2003. 147 Dieterich’s letter, 21. 11. 1907; see Appendix 2, d. 148 Jellinek’s letter, 26. 11. 1907; see Appendix 2, c. 149 GAD’s letter, 29.7.1908.

96

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

Neuen Testament [zu] fîhren’,150 and – as Moulton reminded Deissmann – they were ‘virtually only your lexicon in another form’.151 A noteworthy clue, which further supports the argument that Deissmann was close to publishing, is found in his diary on Sunday, 30 October 1910, where it reads: ‘End Oct 1910 MS an Moulton, Lexicon’ – remarkably, the whole entry is struck through. He had a habit of noting various expected or planned events far in advance – sometimes in considerable detail – and there are more than thirty entries post mortem, of which the last one is dated almost eight months after his death. In this case, however, he explicitly (and uncharacteristically) wrote ‘1910’, even though the entire booklet was specifically produced for that year. It is, therefore, conceivable that he made this entry sometime during the last weeks of 1909, since these diaries regularly became available well in advance of year’s end. In all probability, he did it as a result of Moulton’s recent letter and postcard (apparently lost), which Deissmann answered collectively on 27 December with the already cited but crucially informative letter, in which he also referred to these manuscripts, although in their advanced form as ‘Druckfahnen’. Ich werde Mr. Kellet und Ihnen die Druckfahnen (sheets) zusenden lassen. Natîrlich sind diese noch nicht absolut korrekt und werden auch noch Vernderungen erfahren, am meisten wohl durch Sie selbst. Denn ich werde natîrlich gern von Ihren Korrekturen, sachlichen Zustzen etc. Gebrauch machen.152

Evidently, he had planned for the first galley proofs to be ready in October 1910, and expected Moulton to begin the process of adapting his work for English theologians. But since Deissmann’s diary entry is crossed out, one must assume that with the approach of the target date came also the realisation that it would have to be postponed yet again. These somewhat tenuous pointers combine to add further support to the above case, and also provide a new context for this letter.153 It appears, therefore, that Moulton had already obtained an agreement from Ernst Edward Kellett (1864 – 1950) to translate the lexicon, while he himself would subsequently make any necessary 150 151 152 153

NBst, vii. Letter, dated 19.2.1912. For a transcript see Appendix 2, g. GAD’s letter, 27. 12. 1909; see Appendix 1, h. It was first published by Horsley in ‘origin and scope’, but his conclusion that ‘there is no evidence that [GAD] actually had any material ready’ may now be questioned.

2.5. Frustration and disappointment

97

corrections and additions, a proposal that met with Deissmann’s approval.154 A few months earlier Strachan had written a blunt letter to Deissmann regarding his translation of the Licht vom Osten index, and this could account for Moulton’s proposal of Kellett as an alternative translator, for he wrote: Of course it is your book, and your index, so you do as you like with it … The work on this index was not entertaining, and it was severe. The only pleasure one had was the thought that the new index would be more useful than the old. And I think you have thoughtlessly taken away some of that pleasure from us. I have only checked my part of the index, not Pfister’s.155

Four months after Deissmann made these arrangements with Moulton, the last seven fascicles (eQ – ¡v´kilor) of Preuschen’s lexicon appeared in print for an introductory price of M.14 each. Moulton himself was not perturbed by Preuschen’s book, but Deissmann wrote to him that his lexicon would be delayed yet again, at least until the extensive reworking of his Swedish Paulus was finalised.156 The relentless pressure of work obligations allowed him considerably less time for the lexicon than he had at Heidelberg,157 and at the close of 1911 he wrote to Moulton with obvious frustration: Sie sind ein jaqdiocm¾stgr ! mein Lexikon ist ‘a painful subject’ fîr mich. Berlin ist ein Vampyr. Die Universittsarbeit mit 2 großen, 1 kleinen Vorlesung und 2 Seminaren absorbiert die meiste Kraft; dazu Vortrge sonst in großer Zahl und eine nicht zu bewltigende Korrespondenz!158

154 Precisely two years later, however, GAD wrote to Moulton: ‘Dass Strachan Ihnen die [Lexikon] Sheets senden wird, ist meine Absicht’. Letter, 27.12. 1911. Either some change of circumstances had occurred in the interim, making GAD decide on Strachan as translator, rather than Kellett; or, more likely – to gain time – he arranged for Strachan (Heidelberg) to work in conjunction with Kellett (Cambridge). The latter was a successful translator of several German books, including Harnack’s lectures, Das Mçnchtum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte, London, 1901. Moulton and Kellet knew each other well: see Horsley, ‘origin and scope’, 203. 155 Letter, dated 14.7.1909. However, two weeks later, Strachan wrote a much more genial letter, and signed it: ‘your grateful friend’, 31.7.1909. On Pfister, see ch. 1, n. 185. 156 GAD, card to Moulton, 3.10.1910. For Paulus see ch. 4.3. 157 In addition, Henriette had given birth to the twins, Gerhard and Paul (12.5. 1911), increasing the family from three to five children. 158 GAD’s letter, 27.12.1911.

98

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

This stands in marked contrast to the keen optimism he displayed in his letter to Theodor Wiegand four years earlier.159 For by now he had come to see the city that had initially appeared to offer him so much for his career, as a figurative ‘vampire’,160 in that it had become a debilitating drain on his private time. Yet, to some degree, Deissmann’s lack of satisfactory progress on the lexicon was also his own doing. For in the same letter he indicated that he was approximately two-thirds through a revision of Bibelstudien and asked his friend ‘Was meinen Sie dazu?’. For seven weeks Moulton was unable to reply,161 but when he did, he concluded his amiable letter by mildly criticising Deissmann about his priorities: You wouldn’t think of stopping BS [Bibelstudien] now, I’m sure. But from the first I have wondered how you could draw the line between a new edition of BS. and what is virtually only your Lexicon in another form!162

He knew, of course, that Deissmann would not abandon the process at this late stage, but certainly did not believe his revision work to be a wise use of time, especially since any necessary alterations could have been moved directly into the lexicon itself. Berlin’s pressured work environment had temporarily caused Deissmann to lose his sense of priorities, and Moulton tried to help him regain it, with the reminder that the two Bibelstudien were originally produced as a means to an end: the NT lexicon. Deissmann had long known that his chronic shortage of ‘free’ time was at least partly due to his own inability to say ‘no’, for almost two years earlier he had confided to Moulton that ‘man ist hier in dem Tohu-wa-bohu der großen Stadt nicht Herr seiner selbst und ich hatte mir sonst zu viel aufgeladen’.163

159 GAD’s letter, 29. 1. 1908; see Appendix 2, e. 160 GAD’s metaphorical use of the term ‘Vampyr’ almost certainly alludes to Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897), which had been published in German less than two years earlier and proved to be a huge public success. 161 He mentioned his mother’s death, and preparations for the six weeks of Hibbert Lectures he gave at Oxford and London. 162 Moulton’s letter, 19. 2. 1912; see Appendix 2, g. 163 GAD, card to Moulton, 2.3.1910. For ‘tohu-va-bohu’ see Hebrew text of Gen. 1:2.

2.6. The fate of Deissmann’s lexicon

99

2.6. The fate of Deissmann’s lexicon For a large part of his academic life Deissmann persevered in the hope that his opus vitae would one day become a reality. But this ambition was progressively slipping away from him in Berlin, and Emil Bock (1895 – 1959), a former student of his, wrote: Daß er mit dieser Arbeit nicht recht vorwrts kam, bedrîckte ihn sehr. Denn mehr, als er nach außen sichtbar werden ließ, beschftigte es ihn, daß man ihn wissenschaftlich nicht ganz fîr voll nahm und ihm die streng-exakte Methode absprach. Obwohl er die Einseitigkeit und Organlosigkeit seiner Kritiker wohl durchschaute, schwang er sich nicht voll zu der Souvernitt auf, zu der er wohl ein gutes Recht gehabt htte.164

However, it would be wrong to assume that his lexicographical work had, therefore, left no mark on international scholarship. For example, he exerted a particularly strong influence on Moulton’s and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament and, besides Albert Thumb (see ch. 3.2), was the only collaborator who was named in the preface to fascicle I (1914). But the increasingly tumultuous years leading up to and including WWI began to strangle Deissmann’s academic productivity; and at the end of 1921 he wrote the following poignant ‘obituary’ to his opus vitae: Meine großen wissenschaftlichen Lebensaufgaben habe ich in aller dieser Zeit zurîckgestellt. Oftmals ist mir’s dann in schlafloser Nacht wie eine Vision gekommen, es sei dieser, ja wirklich dieser eigentliche Teil meines kurzen Gelehrtenlebens, es sei insbesondere das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament vorzeitig erwîrgt durch die Elendsfaust dieses schlimmen øon.165

Nevertheless, the hope was still flickering in him that he may one day yet be able to complete his life-work.166 But the war years had decisively shifted his intellectual focus to the much more pressing field of Vçlkerverstndigung (see ch. 7), although this allowed him even less time for the lexicon. An additional factor for his failing to complete it may well have been the tragic death of James Moulton (7 April 1917), his closest friend and supporter in Britain.167 Even on Deissmann’s sixtieth 164 E. Bock, ‘Adolf Deissmann 1867 [sic] – 1937’, Zeitgenossen, Weggenossen, Wegbereiter, E. Bock, ed., Stuttgart, 1959, 43. 165 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 275. 166 Ibid., 276. 167 GAD wrote: ‘Am 4. April 1917 wurde im Mittelmeer der britische Dampfer “City of Paris” von einem deutschen Unterseeboot torpediert. An Bord war,

100

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

birthday he still received encouragement from well-wishers who continued to look forward to the completion of his lexicon. One of these was Archibald Robertson, who wrote: ‘It is to be hoped that Dr. Deissmann may yet be able to push on this important task to fruition’.168 In reality, he had become far too heavily involved in the nascent ecumenical movement (see ch. 8.4) as well as with an archaeological venture in Turkey (see ch. 5), to re-immerse himself in NT lexicography. Besides, he almost certainly knew that the Gçttingen theologian, Walter Bauer (1877 – 1960), was well advanced with his reworking of Preuschen’s lexicon, the second edition of which duly appeared in 1928.169 Finally, when Bauer produced his third edition in 1936, Deissmann reviewed the book – it was to be his last published contribution – and applauded it as … ein hocherfreuliches Ereignis im akademischen und kirchlichen Raum. Denn dank der Sachkentniss und dem eisernen Fleiße Walter Bauers besitzen wir nun ein ganz auf den gegenwrtigen Stand der Forschung gebrachtes lexikalisches Hilfsmittel zur Erschließung des Urtextes unserer heiligsten Urkunde.170

It was not the kind of lexicon he had originally planned, but at least Bauer had ‘put back the evidence from parallels that Preuschen had stripped out’, and further improved the lexicon’s quality by adding references to inscriptions – drawn from Moulton-Milligan – and to literary texts.171 One week later Deissmann died suddenly from a heart embolism in his house at Wînsdorf.

168 169 170

171

von Indien kommend, mein nchster und treuester englischer Freund Dr. James Hope Moulton. Schon vorher schwer leidend, starb er, von unserem gemeinsamen Freunde Dr. Rendel Harris bis zum letzten Atemzug betreut, infolge der furchtbaren Entbehrungen nach der Aussetzung einige Tage spter im Rettungsboot, eines der Millionen unschuldiger Opfer des Krieges und eines der besten!’ Ev.Wbr, June 1921, 209; also 14. 5. 1917, 5. Robertson, ‘New Testament grammar after thirty years’, 84 – 5. Griechisch-Deutsches Wçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Giessen, 19282 (1910). GAD, review of W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur (19363), DLZ, 13, 1937, 520. In 1928 Gerhard Kittel (1888 – 1948) also commenced work on the Theologisches Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament. He edited the first four of its ten volumes, two of which appeared during GAD’s lifetime. However, he merely alluded to Kittel’s work in passing and seemed not to have evaluated it. DLZ, 13, 1937, 520. Lee, NT lexicography, 144 – 7.

2.6. The fate of Deissmann’s lexicon

101

After concerning himself for nearly five decades with the linguistic history of the Greek language in the postclassical period, the obvious question arises as to what became of his extensive collection of lexical material, destined for his dictionary. In July 1912, when he moved part of his private study172 from Berlin to their weekend house in Wînsdorf, he also brought along all his lexical storage boxes, which, according to Dr. Gerhard Deissmann, remained untouched in their place after his father’s death and, therefore, did not become part of the Deissmann Nachlass obtained by the Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin. For another eight years Henriette continued to live in the house into which they had moved permanently a mere three years before her husband’s death. But during a military pincer attack on Berlin in April 1945 Wînsdorf and its neighbouring town Zossen (a Wehrmacht command centre) were occupied by the Russian army; they seized the Deissmann home, evicted Henriette and turned the house into a military headquarters. What happened to the lexicon can no longer be determined with a good degree of certainty, but a private letter, written by Deissmann’s eldest son Ernst Adolf Deissmann (1899 – 1975), might provide some clues.173 It describes how the house and contents were looted by soldiers and civilians alike: Der schlimmste Strolch war der “wolgadeutsche” Nachbar nebenan, der gleich in den ersten Tagen in der schlimmsten Weise plînderte … im Laufe der Zeit [ist] praktisch alles irgendwie Wertvolle auch an Mçbeln aus dem Hause herausgetragen und weggeschaft worden, zumeist von der abziehenden Truppe.

At the risk of his life Ernst Deissmann repeatedly made the more than eighty km round-trip from Berlin to Wînsdorf by bicycle, in an attempt to salvage as much of their family’s personal possessions as he could, but focusing primarily on his father’s books, which had been piled on a heap in an upstairs bedroom. His wife Gisela, too, had boldly walked into ‘Anatolia’ twice and was able to rescue a few small belongings. Despite these daring efforts, the lexical boxes disappeared

172 Until Mar. 1934 GAD had a study (and worked) in both Wilmersdorf and Wînsdorf. Compare n. 125 above. 173 E. Deissmann, letter to his younger brother G. Deissmann, 15.8.1946. For a transcript see Appendix 2, h.

102

2. Deissmann the lexicographer

and nothing has been recovered of their contents since.174 There are two possible scenarios which can be offered. In 1991, while visiting his father’s grave in Wînsdorf after reunification, Gerhard Deissmann happened to meet a local resident who related how, shortly after WWII, he had found a copy of Gerhard’s PhD dissertation lying in the garden of Deissmann’s former home.175 This may suggest the entirely reasonable hypothesis that his father’s Fachliteratur could eventually have been thrown out of the window, onto a heap behind the house, to make room for the officers who moved in. If, indeed, this was what happened, Deissmann’s lexical labours would have quite literally been scattered to the winds. An alternative course of events can be reconstructed, however, from Ernst Deissmann’s letter. He observed that when their house was taken over by the Russian officers, they began to heat it with whatever they could lay their hands on. Nevertheless, it is not likely that many books would have been burnt for that purpose, as they are difficult to incinerate, provide very little heat, lots of smoke and large amounts of residual soot. While ‘Anatolia’ itself was kept more or less intact, the smaller log cabin (‘Blockhaus’) – built behind it in 1934 for Paul Deissmann and his wife Ingeborg – had its timber stripped from the walls to provide heat for the house. It seems, therefore, most plausible that the thousands of loose pages and lexical notes, which for any nonspecialist would appear utterly meaningless, might have been used as ready-to-hand kindling material.

2.7. Conclusion For some two decades Deissmann kept thinking of his intended lexicon as his academic opus vitae; yet this very way of speaking or thinking about the undertaking may help us understand why he never completed it. For this Latin clich¤ does not signal ‘most urgent’; on the contrary, for him the phrase had the constant psychological effect of a ‘long term 174 In 1953 friends of the family conducted a thorough but fruitless search of the house and property. Moreover, despite intensive archival research at the ZLB (and elsewhere) in 2002 and 2004, I have thus far not found any tangible remains of GAD’s lexicon. See also n. 145 above. 175 As told to me by G. Deissmann. The dissertation’s title was, Vernderung der Bevçlkerungsverteilung im Raum Berlin-Brandenburg 1875 – 1925, Berlin, 1936.

2.7. Conclusion

103

enterprise’, and other urgent demands or easily doable projects continually tended to take priority. The war was certainly a significant factor why the lexicon was never completed, but blaming it on this alone leaves some awkward questions. For Deissmann frequently allowed himself to become sidetracked with other time-consuming tasks, of which the unproductive work on a second edition of Bibelstudien is a case in point. He also kept assisting Moulton and Milligan with their lexicon, without regard for his own progress. Was he overambitious to attempt the huge task of creating such a lexicon single-handedly? One might well argue that if he had followed Moulton’s earlier lead and engaged the help of a capable assistant, his life-work could have been accomplished. While this would have been an obvious decision to make in hindsight, it must be borne in mind that a suitable collaborator was, as Lee comments, ‘seldom in fact found’.176 It is to Deissmann’s credit, therefore, that he succeeded on his own as far as he did with his lexicon, and for a few years he was tantalisingly close to finishing at least part of this work. His association with lexicography was directly related to the strong interest he had long held in the language of the NT, that is to say, the philology of postclassical Greek. This aspect of Deissmann’s work is what the following chapter will examine in some detail.

176 At least two of GAD’s former students are known to have been working in the same field as he did, but died in WWI: Jean Rouffiac (?-1915) who wrote, Recherches sur les caractºres du grec dans le Nouveau Testament d’aprºs les inscriptions de Priºne, Paris, 1911 (see ch. 4, n. 75); and Gottfried Thieme, who one year after graduating under GAD, produced, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mander und das NT, Tîbingen, 1906. Lee makes the salient point that NT lexicography is not only a frustratingly slow, but also lonely task: ‘at this stage we will be wondering how the work will ever be completed, and will be looking for some means – any means – of getting on faster. A collaborator? Not so easily arranged, and seldom in fact found in the history of New Testament lexicons: most have been the work of one person.’ NT lexicography, 6.

3. Deissmann the philologist Greek philologists, enslaved to the prejudice that only the so-called classical Greek is beautiful, have long treated the texts of the later period with the greatest contempt. A good deal of their false judgments about late Greek is the simple consequence of their complete ignorance of it. 1

3.1. Philologie and the NT in late 19th century Germany Before Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913) laid the foundations for modern linguistics a century ago, the word ‘philology’, or ‘classical philology’, tended to refer mostly to the diachronic study of premodern languages. The English term and its German counterpart Philologie had different connotations however – especially during the 19th and early 20th century – for although both could be applied to the same academic research, their conceptual character differed. While in Great Britain, for instance, ‘philology’ was normally understood to mean comparative studies in ancient languages, in the United States the same label was more broadly applied to classical language studies. The first philological Seminar was established in Germany in 1738 by Johannes Matthias Gesner (1691 – 1761) at Gçttingen.2 But two divergent views emerged in 1833, when a literary wrangle ensued over the publication of an edition of Aeschylus’ Eumenides by Karl Otfried Mîller (1797 – 1840), who included art and archaeology to support and illuminate his philological work.3 On the one side was Gottfried Hermann (1772 – 1848), whose rigorous grammatico-critical Wortphilolo1 2 3

Philology, 56. Wilamowitz, Geschichte der Philologie, Leipzig, 19593 (1921), 42, 45. Mîller’s Eumenides embodied ‘the notion, already propounded by Welcker [Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868)], that art and archaeology should contribute to the understanding even of a work of literature’. H. Lloyd-Jones, ‘Introduction’, in Wilamowitz, History of classical scholarship, A. Harris, transl., London, 1982 (1921), x.

3.1. Philologie and the NT in late 19th century Germany

105

gie emphasised language competence, textual reconstruction and source criticism. On the other was August Boeckh (1785 – 1867), who considered the work of Mîller – his favourite student4 – as significant, as his own Realphilologie also drew upon ancient history, literature and art. Thus, Hugh Lloyd-Jones (1922–) concluded: ‘from a fusion between the school of Boeckh and the school of Welcker and Mîller came the concept of Altertumswissenschaft’.5 This had the effect that German philology students of the Boeckh School were being educated in Realphilologie, while for those under Hermann’s influence it was Wortphilologie. While this is largely true, the term itself had actually been coined much earlier by the German philologist Friedrich August Wolf (1759 – 1842), who formulated a broad program for Altertumswissenschaft in his lectures as early as the 1780s; later published as Darstellung der Alterthums-Wissenschaft nach Begriff, Umfang, Zweck und Werth. 6 A new philological perspective began to arise during the 1870s through Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900), and despite its bad press it should not be ignored. This classical philologist-turned-philosopher defined Philologie as, jene ehrwîrdige Kunst, welche von ihrem Verehrer vor Allem Eins heißt, bei Seite gehn, sich Zeit lassen, still werden, langsam werden –, als eine Goldschmiedekunst und -kennerschaft des Wortes, die lauter feine vorsichtige Arbeit abzuthun hat und Nichts erreicht, wenn sie es nicht lento erreicht.7

This semi-mystical analogy appears to equate philology with reading slowly (lento). Nonetheless, his methodology was not too different from prevailing 19th century hermeneutical text criticism, although he saw philology no longer as a tool to discover how things were in the past, but rather how things came to be the way they are. Nietzsche was educated at Schulpforta (1858 – 64), one of Germany’s then most distinguished Gymnasiums, after which he studied classical philology at Bonn, but in 1865 followed his teacher, Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl (1806 – 76), to Leipzig, where the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) began to fascinate him. Seven 4 5 6 7

Wilamowitz, Geschichte, 57. So Lloyd-Jones, ‘Introduction’, xi. F.A. Wolf/ P. Buttmann, eds., Berlin, 1807 (repr., Berlin, 1985). An accessible partial reprint of Wolf ’s work can also be found in W. Nippel, ˜ber das Studium der Alten Geschichte, Mînchen, 1993, 76 – 103. F. Nietzsche, Morgenrçthe. Nachgelassene Fragmente, Anfang 1880 bis Frîhjahr 1881, 1, Berlin, 1971, 9.

106

3. Deissmann the philologist

years later Nietzsche published Die Geburt der Tragçdie aus dem Geiste der Musik, a bifurcated conception of a slave and master morality, with the implicit corollary that classical studies were misleading and unable to supply relevant paradigms for modern society. The book was widely perceived as a calculated departure from Altertumswissenschaft and outraged most of his colleagues,8 above all the somewhat explosive Wilamowitz, whose caustic reaction in an open pamphlet became the principal cause for Nietzsche’s switch from philology to philosophy. Four years his junior, Wilamowitz’ education began very similarly to Nietzsche’s. He, too, attended Schulpforta and graduated to study philology at the University of Bonn; but this is where the parallels end. By age 27 he became professor ordinarius at Greifswald, where he taught for seven years before moving to Gçttingen (1883), and later to Berlin (1897). Few scholars had as profound an impact on classical scholarship as Wilamowitz with his dominant conception of what Philologie actually meant. He wrote over seventy books, innumerable articles and reviews and was the central figure in Germany’s philological triumvirate, with his father-in-law Theodor Mommsen (1817 – 1903) on the one side, and Eduard Schwartz – his Greifswald student and lifelong friend – on the other. Wilamowitz stood quite opposed to Nietzsche and Hermann; thus, while ignoring the former in his Geschichte der Philologie, he wrote sardonically of the latter: ‘so hat er denn îberaus segensreich gewirkt, ohne die Wissenschaft positiv zu fçrdern’.9 His own argument was that pure Philologie was more than an academic discipline. Weil das Leben, um dessen Verstndnis wir ringen, eine Einheit ist, ist unsere Wissenschaft [Philologie] eine Einheit. Die Sonderung der Disziplinen Philologie, Archologie, Alte Geschichte, Epigraphik, Numismatik, neuerdings auch Papyrologie, hat lediglich in der Beschrnktheit des menschlichen Kçnnens ihre Berechtigung, und darf auch in dem Spezialisten das Bewußtsein des Ganzen nicht ersticken.10

Thus, he conceived Philologie in a holistic sense that depended on productive multi-disciplinary research into ancient cultures, with each discipline merely a sub-branch of true Philologie, separated from one 8 Although his close friend, Erwin Rohde (see ch. 2, n. 41), remained stalwart in his defence, even he eventually dissociated himself when Nietzsche wrote Jenseits von Gut und Bçse (1886). 9 Wilamowitz, Geschichte, 50. See also ch. 1, n. 112. 10 Ibid., 1.

3.1. Philologie and the NT in late 19th century Germany

107

another only because of the limitations of the human mind. He ended his tour de force by concluding: Was Philologie ist und sein soll, hat sich aus ihrer Geschichte ergeben. Lehrte uns die lange Reihe von Namen, die an uns vorîbergezogen ist, auch was der Philologe sein soll? Verzeichnet sind sie alle, weil sie die Wissenschaft gefçrdert haben; aber sie waren an Geisteskraft und Charakter sehr verschieden, verschieden in der Richtung ihrer Neigungen und Fhigkeiten. Da wird die bescheidenste Definition wohl die beste bleiben. Treiben mag der Philologe sehr viel Verschiedenes, mag’s auch auf verschiedene Weise treiben, aber eins muß er sein, wenn er etwas Bleibendes leisten will: vir bonus, discendi peritus.11

To Wilamowitz bona fide philologists were those who advanced the collective understanding of the ancient world, not those who merely studied or statically taught the discipline itself. In contrast, however, the formal epithet Philologe was normally conferred on scholars in Germany as a result of training and not ‘production’; thus, a ‘philologically productive’ individual from a different discipline would not be accepted as a Philologe, regardless of competence or academic contributions. Biblical researchers were a case in point. Even though the language and sociolinguistic history of the NT were an integral and legitimate part of the ancient world, their research was traditionally left to theologians, and few 19th century philologists concerned themselves with it.12 Ever since the Purist controversies of the 17th century, when scholars unsuccessfully attempted to prove that the Greek of the NT was as ‘pure’ as literary Attic, this language was held in a kind of linguistic limbo between religious dogmatism on the one hand and dogmatic philology on the other. While the former attempted to make a case for a ‘sacred tongue’, or ‘biblical’ Greek, the latter turned to catch-words, such as ‘classical’, ‘vulgar’ or ‘common’ Greek – neither doing justice to the historical development of the language.13 But by 11 Ibid., 80. ‘Die lange Reihe von Namen’ is a pivotal phrase, referring to the more than 300 scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds whom Wilamowitz included in his Geschichte, and which he based on John Edwin Sandys’ History of Classical Scholarship, 1 – 3, Cambridge, 1903 – 8. 12 e.g. Friedrich Blass (see ch. 1.3), Johann Theodor Paul Wendland (1864 – 1915) and Eduard Schwartz. 13 GAD, ‘Hellenistisches Griechisch’, Realencyklopdie fîr protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 7, Leipzig, 1899, 627. See also Horsley, ‘The fiction of “Jewish Greek”’, New Documents, 5, 37 – 40.

108

3. Deissmann the philologist

the end of the 18th century it was the Hebraists who won the struggle, through their focus on ostensible ‘Hebraisms’ in the NT texts. This became the prevailing consensus for a full century, until the tide began to shift with the appearance of Deissmann’s Bibelstudien, H.A.A. Kennedy’s Sources of the New Testament Greek, or James Moulton’s Introduction to the study of NT Greek – all published in 1895.

3.2. Deissmann’s philological background During his Gymnasialjahre in Wiesbaden (1879 – 85) Deissmann became deeply impressed by the director, Herr Phler, whose readings of Horace and Sophocles so stirred the young man’s imagination that he ‘… dem Wunsche meines Vaters zuwider Philologie studieren wollte’.14 To the elder Deissmann, who was Pfarrer in Erbach and himself son of a Lutheran Pfarrer, this was not an appropriate option, especially since his firstborn, Wilhelm Karl Adolf (1862 – 1911), had not followed in his father’s footsteps.15 Despite his second son’s personal ambition the paternal authority prevailed, and in spring 1885 he was enrolled as a theology student at the 400-year old Tîbingen University. Later, Deissmann wrote wryly that he had managed to secure a youthful compromise with his father, ‘… daß ich … als Theologe immatrikuliert wurde, aber doch auf der Visitenkarte mich stud. theol. et phil. nannte’.16 He had, in fact, little say in regard to his theological education, since his father was obligated to sign a guarantee, ‘daß ich demselben [Deissmann] smtliche Geld-Mittel zu seinem Studium und Lebensunterhalt gewhre, auch etwaige Schulden desselben zahlen werde’.17 But although the 14 SD, 47. 15 He became a prison inspector. About his father’s influence, GAD wrote later: ‘It was the impressions of my early youth in my Rhineland home which first drew my attention to the monuments of the Roman Empire. Through my father I was first introduced to those Roman antiquities of my homeland. Then as a pupil of the classical State-school at Wiesbaden, through the monuments which are there in the Museums like the Mithra-stone of Heddernheim, and through the excellent personal influence of teachers, I was filled with lasting love for antiquity.’ Haskell Lectures, 8. 16 SD, 47. 17 Erklrung, by GAD’s father, 22.4.1885. Intriguingly, he also wrote: ‘Behufs der Immatrikulation meines Sohnes Adolf Deissmann der Stud: theol: & philol: an der Universitt zu Tîbingen …’, but see Appendix 1, b, where GAD only referred to ‘Theologie’.

3.2. Deissmann’s philological background

109

calling card seemed to offer a palliative for his youthful pride, it did not change the fact that he was enrolled only in theological subjects.18 The decisive change came at Marburg during the second half of 1891, while Deissmann was studying for his Licentiate under Georg Heinrici. Despite the latter’s able supervision of Deissmann’s ‘new’ philological project (see ch. 1.3), it was, in his own words, ‘in der Hauptsache autodidaktisch …[und] ist von großem Einfluß auf meine gesamte theologisch-philologische Ausbildung geworden’.19 But there were other less obvious factors which also helped to foster his philological education at Marburg, for here he befriended the philologists Georg Wissowa (1859 – 1931), Wilhelm Schulze and Albrecht Dieterich,20 and participated in a daily Tischrunde ‘von glîcklichster Zusammensetzung’ of philologists, librarians and theologians. Uralte schnçde Bonner und Gçttinger Philologenwitze îber die Theologen wurden abgewehrt durch lchelnde Bescheltung grulicher Philologenlaster, und der frçhliche Zank der Fakultten hakte sich schließlich in endlosen Aussprachen îber ernsthafte, beiden Forschergruppen gleich wichtige Probleme erfreulich fest.21

Heinrici had given Deissmann’s 1m Wqist` a distinctly philological appraisal, by using phrases such as ‘philologischer Unterbau’, ‘philologischer Zweck’, or ‘Philologie’.22 The young man’s predilection for philology had obviously not waned through his theological studies. Instead, his Habilitationsschrift became the catalyst through which he was able to crystallise his vocation in NT philology at Heidelberg, where three years later he published the first of his two fundamentally philological Bibelstudien (see ch. 1.4). These two volumes established Deissmann as a leading philological researcher of the Greek in the NT, and during the next seven or eight years he kept publishing numerous smaller philological contributions.23 Then, in 1905, he made a request to his colleague Friedrich von Duhn that he would allow him to take part in a forthcoming study tour of 18 For GAD’s subject enrolments see Appendix 3 (I-VI); also Appendix 1, b. 19 SD, 51. 20 ‘Georg Wissowa und Wilhelm Schulze verdanke ich reichliche literar- und sprachgeschichtliche Belehrung, und Albrecht Dieterich, der wie ein princeps juventutis unter uns weilte …’. SD, 51. 21 Ibid. 22 See Appendix 1, d. 23 See ‘Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material’.

110

3. Deissmann the philologist

Greece and Asia Minor (see ch. 4.1). What is relevant here is that this journey was intended specifically for philologists and promoted as ‘Studienreise badischer Philologen’. Although Deissmann was formally employed as professor of theology, the Ministry not only granted his extraordinary request and gave him the necessary time off, but also approved a travelling stipend of M.500 – amounting to one third of the overall cost24 – and with it implicitly conceded his growing philological profile. Thus, when Nestle reviewed Licht vom Osten three years later, it comes as no surprise that he gave the following assessment: Das Buch ist … fîr Philologen wie Theologen gleich geeignet, wenigstens fîr die theologisch und religiçs interessierten unter den Philologen und die philologisch d. h. historisch gerichteten unter den Theologen.25

He criticised the author for transgressing occasionally against one of the fundamental tenets of the ‘philological Decalogue’ – ‘˜berschtze deinen Codex nicht’ – but readily conceded that the errors were small, and ‘im Grunde ist das freilich bei jedem Bahnbrecher unvermeidlich’. Furthermore, he emphasised that Deissmann had made much useful progress for theologians and philologists alike, and backed his assertion that while some ‘theologische Fanatiker’ had badly erred regarding the ancient world, philologists had shared this blame by displaying a ‘Gleichgîltigkeit gegen das gewaltigste Buch der Kaiserzeit’.26 An even stronger testimonial to Deissmann’s philological aptitude came from the professor of classical philology at Breslau, Paul Wendland (see n. 12), who emphasised that while some few scholars might be derisive of Licht vom Osten, the vast majority … werden die philologische Gelehrsamkeit aufs hçchste preisen und das Material zu fleißigster Benutzung empfehlen. Den Widerspruch gegen Ergebnisse moderner Kritik werden sie, wohl unter Hervorhebung der philologischen Autoritt, mit Wohlgefallen notieren.

He reasoned that since Deissmann had habilitated as a theologian, yet continued to demonstrate his philological abilities through his ‘Forschungen’, some of his theological colleagues would ‘mit liebenswîrdigster Nachsicht îber seine theologischen Defekte hinweggehen, wenn er nur Philologe wre – expertus scio – …’, as no one would then 24 Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg Theological Faculty, 21.12.1905. 25 Nestle, ‘LvO’, BPW, 1524. 26 Nestle, ibid., 1525. The quotation is from LvO, 282.

3.2. Deissmann’s philological background

111

expect him to write Christian literature. But since his academic writings were primarily of a philological nature, he would be indelibly stigmatised by such critics as someone ‘[der] seinen Beruf verfehlt hat’.27 Until his transfer to Berlin, Deissmann’s routine as professor of NT theology at Heidelberg had allowed him to be intellectually productive in postclassical Greek philology and lexicography. His work on the language of the NT demonstrated far more than purely lexicographical proficiency, for his arguments – both individual and cumulative – that a considerable part of postclassical Greek linguistic history was in urgent need of being rewritten also highlighted his philological erudition. When Bibelstudien appeared in 1895 it offered for the first time a definitive philological solution to the question of the linguistic continuum – and by implication, cultural development – between the literary Greek of the classical period and the lingua franca of the 1st/2nd century Hellenic world. Deissmann provided a credible philological advance by developing a new methodology, and supplying solid evidence for his conclusion that the Greek of the NT was based on the common vernacular of the time. As we have seen in chapter 1, previous assumptions about the history of this stage of the language – made by philologists, linguists and theologians alike – were seriously brought into question, which paved the way for a renewed historicolinguistic approach to early Christianity. Of equal importance, however, was his systematic work of applying the linguistic features found in documentary papyri to philological questions concerning the NT. Not least, he may also have smoothed some of the path for the indologist and Greek philologist, Albert Thumb (1865 – 1915), who in 1901 produced his influential book, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, in which he explained the true character of koine from a Modern Greek perspective,28 and stated: ‘Meine Ausfîhrungen berîhren sich eng mit denen Deissmanns’.29 27 Wendland, DLZ, 3148 – 9. 28 See ch. 1, n. 2. The book’s six chapters argue for a linear historical development of the Greek language through natural linguistic evolution and emphasises the value of Modern Greek for the study of classical or koine texts. Significantly, Thumb based the koine directly on Attic Greek, and although he proposed five different koine dialects he rejected the idea that the NT represented a ‘Jewish Greek’, and on the question of NT ‘Hebraisms’ wrote: ‘doch scheint mir Deissmanns vorlufiges Urteil berechtigt zu sein’. 122. 29 Thumb, 9, also 20, 120 – 30.

112

3. Deissmann the philologist

One of the principal characteristics of a ‘true’ philologist, according to Wilamowitz, was that he should advance the existing academic understanding of past societies (see ch. 3.1). This was a distinguishing feature in many of Deissmann’s books, papers, essays and book reviews during his Heidelberg years.30 A brief evaluation of the significance of some of these contributions follows here, to demonstrate his continuing philological development between his two Bibelstudien volumes and Licht vom Osten. 31

3.3. Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel (1889) As already mentioned in chapter 1, Deissmann presented a paper with the title Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel at the Giessen theological conference on 17 June 1897. In it he asserted that the gulf between theology and philology was not only regrettable, but ‘ganz unberechtigt’.32 As controversial as his challenge might have appeared, it was not without strong foundation. One example he gave was how, in exactly the same field of NT Greek grammar, the work of the theologian Paul Schmiedel contained less philological failings than the theological errors of judgment committed by the philologist Friedrich Blass.33 Deissmann assessed Schmiedel’s work without any apparent collegial partiality, but was especially critical of Blass, because his grammar ‘bears the name of a famed philologist’, yet was still governed by the erroneous assumption that a distinct Biblical Greek existed.34 Therefore, Deissmann urged that the recently developed historico30 e.g. Spr. Erforschung (1898); Makk. 4 (1900); Ein Original-Dokument aus der Diocletischen Christenverfolgung, (Papyrus 713 des Britischen Museum) (1902); Septuaginta-Papyri (1905); Philology (1908). Wilamowitz and GAD appeared to have had a collegial, although somewhat distant, relationship. On the former’s 60th birthday (22.12.1908), GAD, together with William Ramsay, visited him privately, and some years later GAD asked his advice on a philological matter, on behalf of Moulton, which Wilamowitz promptly answered. GAD, letters to Moulton, 8.2.1912, and 12.2.1912 (the latter quotes Wilamowitz’ reply – no longer extant – to GAD). 31 While GAD published more than 30 Greek language-related contributions during that decade, theologically exegetical ones are virtually non-existent. 32 Spr. Erforschung, 21. See also Addendum 1. 33 Ibid., 22. 34 Spr. Erforschung, 7, 22.

3.3. Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel (1889)

113

linguistic methodology (i. e. his own) be more widely embraced by scholars, and emphasised that … die griechische Philologie gegenwrtig im Zeichen einer vielverheißenden Renaissance [steht] und fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, daß sie in engste Fîhlung trete mit der historischen Erforschung der griechischen Sprache.35

His primary concern was a historico-linguistic correction for the Greek of the NT, rather than advancing biblical theology per se; thus he asserted that the ‘Inspirationstheorie’ stood in the way of understanding the historical reality behind the language of the NT. Already two years earlier he had argued that the ‘Inspirationsgedanke’ should be eradicated, if the Greek of the Bible was to be understood in its proper historical context.36 He demonstrated his familiarity with the latest Fachprojekten and academic trends, contended that the NT was a neglected but fertile witness to Greek linguistic history, and made the salient point that, in respect to its language, he considered ‘eine Trennung zwischen Philologie and Theologie fîr ganz unberechtigt und den hier und da aufflackernden Streit der Fakultten fîr bedauerlich’. At this point he also expressed his linguistic standpoint for the first time with the term ‘neutestamentliche Philologie’.37 Quite obviously, these were not the words of a conventional theologian, nor did they fit in well with the other conference papers;38 but it remains a seminal document for researchers in postclassical Greek, and reflects Deissmann’s penchant for NT philology at an early stage in his life.

35 Ibid., 5. 36 Bst, 57, 76. GAD first referred to the ‘Theorie von der Inspiration’ in a small booklet entitled, Johann Kepler und die Bibel, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Schriftautoritt, Marburg, 1894, 12. 37 Spr. Erforschung, 21. 38 See also Appendix 1, g.

114

3. Deissmann the philologist

3.4. Die Septuaginta-Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte (1905)39 In 1897 the University of Heidelberg had the opportunity to purchase numerous Greek, Coptic, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, Persian, hieratic and demotic texts, written on papyrus, parchment and wooden tablets. Their original provenance was given as the Fayum, Ashmunein, Achmin and Gebelein, but they were bought privately from the first dragoman of the Prussian consul in Cairo, Karl Reinhardt (1849 – 1923).40 This purchase became the foundation for the Heidelberg Papyrus collection. On 27 November 1900, Reinhardt wrote a letter to the Heidelberg University and suggested that if they were interested, he could show them a number of hitherto unknown Septuagint papyrus-codex fragments. Subsequently, their authenticity and intrinsic value were carefully assessed by various scholars, including Deissmann and Ulrich Wilcken, but it was particularly Deissmann who urged their purchase.41 These were the fragments which the latter now edited,42 with the formal backing of Baden’s Kultusministerium, who funded the expensive process of reproducing the sixty high quality collotypes in his book. It betokens the considerable esteem in which Deissmann was already held at that time that it was he who was accorded the task of publishing the first volume of the Heidelberg papyrus collection 39 See also A. Gerber, ‘Gustav Adolf Deißmann, die Heidelberger Papyri und ein Durchbruch in griechischer Philologie’, Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1 – 7 August, 2004, vol. 1, J. Frçs¤n, et all., eds., Helsinki, 2007, 369 – 83. 40 R. Seider, ‘Aus der Arbeit der Universittsinstitute: Die Universitts-Papyrussammlung’, Heidelberger Jahrbîcher, 8, 1964, 142. In 1886 Reinhardt succeeded Tycho Mommsen as director of the Frankfurt Gelehrtenschule. 41 Seider relates (148, 150): ‘Neben Prof. [Karl] Zangenmeister [1837 – 1902] setzte sich besonders Prof. Deissmann fîr die Erwerbung der Handschrift ein … Deissmann war in jenen Dezembertagen 1900 nur noch mit dem … Papyrus beschftigt. “Ich [i.e. GAD] habe sehr interessante Tatsachen îber den Papyrus ermittelt. Das Stîck mîssen wir erwerben.” … Zangenmeister und Deissmann reisten sofort nach Karlsruhe und trugen Minister Kokk, mit dem Reinhardt schon verhandelt hatte, ihr Anliegen persçnlich vor.’ Seider’s citation of GAD is from a letter to Zangenmeister (4.12.1900). 42 After GAD’s death, an unpublished fragment of Ex. 4 was found among his papers, this was published by Horsley: ‘An unpublished Septuaginta papyrus from the Nachlass of Adolf Deissmann’, APF, 39, 1993, 35 – 8.

3.4. Die Septuaginta-Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte (1905)

115

– the first volume anywhere that was largely devoted to Septuagint papyri. Although the coptologist Carl Schmidt published the second volume of this series a year ahead of Deissmann’s first, the former’s larger book went almost unnoticed because its text, Acta Pauli, was written in Coptic.43 Deissmann’s Septuaginta-Papyri, on the other hand, created substantial interest among scholars, since his were texts of the Bible, and not only reproduced in Greek, but edited in an easy to read and attractive manner. The Austrian papyrologist Carl Wessely (1860 – 1931) was not one to give compliments lightly,44 yet he commended Deissmann’s edition as a ‘prchtige, mit Lichtdrucken reich ausgestattete Publikation’, and paid tribute to the author’s careful transcription of the texts and ‘genaue kritische Wîrdigung’. Finally he commended his ability to edit successfully the 4th century Christian letter included in these papyri, although it was ‘verstîmmelt und wegen seiner vulgren Ausdrucksweise schwer verstndlich’.45 Wessely’s commendation of the philological aptitude Deissmann had shown with this collection was by no means an exception, for he received similar recognition from many others as well, including Eberhard Nestle, Erich Klostermann (1870 – 1963) and Lajos Blau (1861 – 1936). Nestle wrote that Deissmann’s philological work opened the publication of the Heidelberg papyri in ‘wîrdigster Weise’, called attention to his orthographical exactitude, and commended his ‘mit großer Sorgfalt gearbeitete’ critical apparatus and ‘sehr ausfîhrlichen Erluterungen’.46 Klostermann reminded his readers that Deissmann’s ‘Beschftigung mit fremden Papyruspublikationen … unserer Wissenschaft bereits reiche Frîchte getragen [hat]’. His new work, he wrote, was no less valuable, because it was evident that this volume with its ‘liebevollen und erschçpfenden Behandlung der Texte wie mit ihren vortrefflich gelungenen Tafeln den besten an die Seite stellt’.47 Blau was the rector of the Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest, and as a prominent Talmudic specialist particularly qualified to speak on 43 On Schmidt, see ch. 4, n. 31. 44 e.g. he critiqued LvO with the self-pitying note: ‘Schade, daß dieses Buch, das ich mit Vergnîgen wiederholt gern gelesen htte, mit mir, dem alten Papyrusforscher seit 1881, so umspringt’. C. Wessely, review of GAD, LvO, in ALBl, 10, 17, 1909, 295. See also H. Harrauer, ‘Carl Wessely (1860 – 1931), in Hermae, 71 – 5. 45 Wessely, review of GAD, Septuaginta-Papyri, in WKP, 12, 1906, 315. 46 Nestle, review of GAD, Septuaginta-Papyri, in BPW, 25, 1905, 1305. 47 E. Klostermann, review of GAD, Septuaginta-Papyri, in TLZ, 4, 1906, 101.

116

3. Deissmann the philologist

Septuagint manuscripts. He complimented Deissmann for the ‘scharfsinnige Untersuchung’ of what Blau understood to comprise some extremely problematic manuscript fragments, and wrote: ‘Zu bewundern ist allenfalls die Geduld und die Gelehrsamkeit, die bei ihrer Behandlung an den Tag treten’. For this reason he expressed the wish that Deissmann ‘… auch die îbrigen Heidelberger Papyri in hnlichen Ausgaben vorlegen mçge’.48 Septuaginta-Papyri consists of 167 pages, of which 75 are devoted to 27 leaves from a 7th century Septuagint papyrus codex. The surviving portion begins with Zech. 4:6 and ends at Mal. 4:5, but is in various stages of preservation. The collection also included a very defective papyrus fragment from a 3rd/4th century onomasticon sacrum, and an equally difficult to decipher mid-4th century Christian letter. Besides these, Deissmann also included a number of smaller parchment fragments, each one written on both the flesh and the hair sides. One is a 7th century Greek-Coptic piece, with parts of Exod. 15 and 1 Sam. 2; three others are badly preserved fragments from a 6th century Gospel of Mark, and a further two very small ones originated from a 5th century Acts and James tradition. The items mentioned in this paragraph are, in order: • P. Heid., 1.1 (van Haelst, 290). • Ibid., 1.5 (van Haelst, 1136), single leaf; back blank. • Ibid., 1.6 (van Haelst, 1195), single leaf, address on back; includes a quotation from Prov. 10:19. • Ibid., 1.2 (van Haelst, 243), not an amulet as GAD thought, but for liturgical use. • Ibid., 1.3 (van Haelst, 391), double column codex, comprising Mark 6:30 – 41. • Ibid., 1.4 (van Haelst, 489), double column codex, comprising Acts 28:30 – 1 and Jas. 1:11. Deissmann dedicated the volume to the Theological Faculty at Marburg, with the phrase d¼o t²kamt² loi paq´dyjar, borrowed from Matt. 25:22. Deissmann’s fine sense of language made it plain that he intentionally selected this locution because of its convenient ambiguity. For, while it is possible to understand it as a reference to his Marburg education and later conferral of an honorary doctorate, it actually draws attention, rather elegantly, to his two ‘talents’ in philology and 48 Blau, review of GAD, Septuaginta-Papyri, in MGWJ, 50, 13, 1906, 755, 758.

3.4. Die Septuaginta-Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte (1905)

117

theology. For it is not to be doubted that by this volume the theologian further demonstrated his philological competence, with the aim of gaining wider recognition among classical philologists as a ‘legitimate’ confrºre. Before 1905 the provenance of only a few Septuagint manuscripts was known with any certainty, however, Deissmann – with the help of his Berlin colleague Carl Schmidt – plausibly located these codex fragments to the Fayum. They had been palaeographically dated to the 7th century by Frederic George Kenyon (1863 – 1952) of the British Museum, which corresponded with Wilcken’s earlier estimation of 6th or 7th century.49 Accordingly, Deissmann knew that this manuscript was unlikely to present a new textual tradition, but believed it might shed some light on the history of the Septuagint transmission itself. He was not disappointed: a critical philological comparison of the fragments’ orthography, together with palaeographic and external evidence, led to his conclusion that they were likely the residue of an Egyptian ‘Dorfbibel’. Significantly, he discovered that its text was related to the Hesychian recension, an assessment with which Blau, Klostermann, Wessely and Nestle concurred. Deissmann’s work helped, therefore, to add credibility to the hypothesis that this particular recension did in fact take place, and that it was distinct from the better known Lucianic texts. Deissmann’s textual reconstruction of the onomasticon sacrum papyrus was an especially remarkable achievement, given its poor state of preservation, for it consisted of only 26 lines – of which three were illegible and two incomplete – listing twenty Hebrew names rendered into Greek. In his review of Septuaginta-Papyri, Klostermann expressed the thought that this papyrus could possibly be a fragment from a small Christian etymological lexicon of Hebrew names. But Deissmann proposed that the manifestly theophoric (or Jawistic) names, and the sentence Gki Gki safawhami 7 he´ lou, he´ lou, 1r t¸ le 1mjat´kiper,50 were not typical of any lexicon, but rather of an early Christian amulet or phylacterion, a view that met with general acceptance at the time.51 The fragment’s multiple folds added further weight to this, as did his observation that it had never belonged to a codex, despite its late date. He considered it as a ‘kostbares Blatt’, because it provided a small 49 Septuaginta-Papyri, 6 – 7. 50 A corruption of either Matt. 27:46, or Mark 15:34. 51 A later proposal is that it presents a school exercise: see van Haelst, 1136.

118

3. Deissmann the philologist

window into the Christian biblical etymological tradition that existed some eighty years before Jerome’s Liber interpretationis. The fragment was written approximately fifty years after Origen and was, therefore, the oldest known ‘lexical’ compilation. Deissmann concluded: ‘endlich wissen wir, daß das Werk des Origenes eine Bearbeitung und neutestamentliche Ergnzung des “philonischen” Onomasticon gewesen ist’.52 The Septuaginta-Papyri volume demonstrated Deissmann’s credentials as a capable philologist because he transcribed and edited the texts, and supplied an interpretative commentary in a manner that advanced knowledge of the subject and made the material easily accessible. As Nestle stated in his review: Erst wenn man versucht, mit den 60 Lichttafeln allein zu arbeiten, wird man ganz gewahr, welche Arbeit voranging, bis wir die 100 Seiten Text und Erklrung so bequem lesen.53

3.5. The philology of the Greek Bible: its present and future (1908) This easily readable book stands juxtaposed to the philologically technical Septuaginta-Papyri, but since Deissmann declared, ‘… das kleine Buch ist gedacht als erste Einfîhrung in das ganze Gebiet’,54 it deserves some consideration here. It came about as a result of four lectures he gave at the Cambridge Summer School of Free Churches in July/August 1907. Rendel Harris (see ch. 1.4) had invited him, and although Deissmann hesitated at first, because of his concern that he lacked English fluency, he eventually accepted, as it gave him an opportunity to ‘discharge a debt of gratitude to British scholarship’.55 Lionel Strachan translated his manuscripts into English and the four lectures were printed in The Expositor between October 1907 and January 1908 and, after some minor editing and updating, published as a book.

52 53 54 55

Septuaginta-Papyri, 88. Nestle, ‘Septuaginta-Papyri’, BPW, 25, 1905, 1302. ThR, 15, 16, 1912, 347. Philology, vii-viii.

3.5. The philology of the Greek Bible: its present and future (1908)

119

Philology consists of four chapters,56 in which Deissmann argued that the Septuagint should not be studied as a translation from the Hebrew, but as a Greek book in its own right, and elucidated the relationship between the language of the Septuagint and that of the NT. His repeated use, in the final chapter, of the phrase ‘NT philology’57 must have seemed a somewhat confronting non sequitur to specialist readers who were aware of the chasm that existed between philology and theology in Germany. But as he said a decade earlier at Giessen, he now submitted to his English readers: Now in my opinion the separation between theology and philology is altogether without justification in this field of research and the controversy that occasionally flares up is regrettable.58

Nevertheless, he acknowledged that as a result of the ‘modern philology of the New Testament’ primitive Christianity had at least been set in its rightful place within the Hellenistic world, and the language of the NT freed from philological isolation.59 Thus, while New light on the New Testament began to popularise the idea that ‘secular’ papyri can and should be applied to NT exegetical studies,60 Philology was an attempt at popularising the concept of NT philology as a respectable academic discipline in its own right. Judging by the liberty with which he was able to advance his thoughts, Deissmann must have felt that he was among like-minded peers; indeed, half a year later he wrote to Moulton that there was more understanding in England and Scotland for his work than within Germany itself.61 However, what exactly did he mean with his ‘biblical philology’ or ‘NT philology’? Importantly, he did not confuse the terms with ‘Bible scholarship’, which he considered a distinctive domain of theology, nor did he equate them with classical or Neuphilologie – at least, not as the German philological faculties understood these terms, for too great a gulf existed between them and theology. On the other hand, neither 56 i.e. ‘The Greek Bible as a compact unity – the new linguistic records’; ‘The problem of “Biblical” Greek’; ‘Septuagint philology’, and ‘New Testament philology’. 57 Philology, 111 (2x), 115, 127, 132, 136, 144, 146 (2x). 58 Philology, 117. See also Addendum 1, j21. 59 Philology, 144. 60 For New light’s connection with LvO see ch. 1.7. 61 GAD’s letter, 19.2.1908. See also ch. 2, n. 115.

120

3. Deissmann the philologist

did he limit ‘biblical philology’ to the recovering and reconstruction of ancient ‘religious’ texts. Instead he summarised: Our discussion in the second lecture on methods of studying the language of the Greek Bible may be said to result in two requirements, one for specialization of the study, the other for its incorporation as a branch in the larger complex of studies dealing with late Greek.62

This was not a proposal that theology should be merged with classical studies, but a call for the recognition of a well-defined specialisation, through the creation of NT philology as a new branch of classical philology, but subordinate to the Faculty of Theology. While much progress was being made in the field of biblical research, very few scholars of that era could be regarded as ‘true specialists’ in NT philology, and those who came closest to qualify were usually trained as classical philologists, with a personal interest in the NT.63 The professional commitments of academics typically restricted their teaching to the province of their respective Hauptfach, which is the basic reason why Deissmann’s regular lectures remained primarily theological throughout his career.64 Philology was never published in German; this may well be on account of the deprecating attitude German scholars generally had towards popular writing on academic topics, and also because he felt that his philological work was not fully appreciated by classical specialists in Philologie (see ch. 2.6).

3.6. Turning point Since Deissmann viewed biblical or NT philology as an integral branch of classical philology, its learning would need to include specialised study of the Hellenistic language, philosophies, cultures, sociology, politics and economics. The ultimate goal was to gain a more sophisticated understanding – through the philological lens of Greek linguistic history – of the phenomenon of Christianity within the cultural context of the world in which it flourished. In other words, he advocated that advanced language training was fundamental to answer 62 Philology, 69. 63 e.g. Blass, Dieterich, Schwartz, or Wendland. 64 For an overview of GAD’s teaching programs between 1904 and 1936, see Appendix 9, e.

3.6. Turning point

121

the questions of how this ancient socioreligious movement had evolved and perpetuated itself within its Hellenistic background. Within four months of the Cambridge lectures Deissmann had succeeded in convincing his own Faculty and the University Senate to lodge a formal appeal to the Kultusminister that a special Lehrauftrag for NT philology should be created for him. Their unanimity in this rested substantially on the favourable recommendation Albrecht Dieterich wrote to Adolf Jellinek on 21 November 1907 (see ch. 2.3). Yet while a certain personal bias was inevitable because of the close friendship between Deissmann and Dieterich (extending back to their Marburg days), the essence of the latter’s argument revolved not so much around his colleague as to the weightier matter of an authorised new Lehrauftrag. Moreover, as Geheimer Hofrat he knew that his considered opinion would be freely relied upon and cited – as indeed it was in Jellinek’s letter to the Kultusminister.65 Before WWI no place of learning existed where NT philology could be studied under teachers who were specialised in this field; the only alternatives were via theology or classical philology. Yet the gulf between these two branches of learning had to be faced if the approach to the study of ancient Greek were to become professionally holistic, and Deissmann’s proposal of establishing a separate department for NT philology would have been an effective way out of this dilemma.66 How necessary such specialist training really was became manifest in a twist of irony some three years later, when Friedrich Pfister reviewed a recently published grammar of the Greek NT by the Viennese classical philologist Martin Ludwig Radermacher (1867 – 1952), and apparently without realising the paradox made the remarkable observation: obwohl ein Philologe die Aufgabe, sie [Grammatik] zu schreiben, îbernommen hat, gebîhrt das Verdienst, daß eine solche îberhaupt in den Plan des Handbuches aufgenommen und daß sie so bearbeitet werden konnte, entschieden den Theologen, und zwar ist mit dieser Tatsache der Name Adolf Deißmanns fîr immer verknîpft …67 65 Dieterich’s letter, dated 26.11.1907; see Appendix 2, c. 66 The creation of new departments was not unusual. History received its own in 1889 (although ancient history remained part of archaeology); oriental studies in 1894; economics in 1897; geography in 1899; comparative linguistics (modern) in 1909 and Egyptology in 1910. 67 F. Pfister, review of L. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik. Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache, in Pd. Archiv, 11, 1911, 633.

122

3. Deissmann the philologist

Dieterich, however, tried to forestall exactly this kind of danger for traditional philology, lest it slide conveniently into a kind of ‘compromised NT philology’. His letter is, therefore, most revealing, in that it unequivocally reminded the Senate that they had an exceptionally capable man right on their doorstep, who would perfectly suit the demanding role of the new department. Unsere theologische Fakultt besitzt die unbestrittene erste Autoritt auf dem in Rede stehenden Gebiete. Deissmann hat es durch seine ausgezeichneten ‘epochemachenden’ Arbeiten … durchgesetzt daß die Forderung, die Sprache der gr. Bibel aus der Sprache der griechischen Welt jener Zeit zu erklren, heute îberall anerkannt … wird. Deissmann steht nicht nur fîr Deutschland, sondern auch fîr England im Mittelpunkt der philologischen Arbeit an der griech. Bibel.68

Noteworthy is Dieterich’s emphasis on Deissmann’s international profile, as this had become considerably raised since the appearance in 1901 of the English translation, Bible Studies. It was, therefore, not difficult to convince the University Senate of Deissmann’s unique academic standing, and Dieterich’s enthusiastic recommendation confirmed it decisively for them. As noted earlier (ch. 2.3), if the Kultusministerium had provided the necessary backing at that stage, Deissmann’s philological (and lexicographical) career might not have been so disappointingly cut short. For he could arguably have gained more students who would have focused on postclassical Greek and, therefore, might have carried on his work (see ch. 2, n. 176). Even though the University had introduced a series of sweeping reforms between 1848 and 1862, the Baden government continued to resist the trend towards ‘modern’ liberalism, for ‘auch in ihrer Berufungspolitik betrieb die Regierung eine Schwchung des liberalen Elementes unter den Heidelberger Professoren’.69 Although this applied particularly to the 1850s and 1860s, the anti-liberal resistance had not lessened, as Deissmann discovered upon his arrival at the University in 1897 (see ch. 1.6). Thus, since he overtly attempted to ‘secularise’ some fundamental biblical traditions,70 he was regarded by some as an extreme liberal theologian, which might explain the Ministry’s half-hearted attempt to retain its ‘star’ professor.

68 Dieterich’s letter, 21.11.1907; Appendix 2, d. 69 Classen/ Wolgast, 54. Compare ch. 1, n. 140. 70 SD, 62.

3.7. Conclusion

123

3.7. Conclusion In contrast to his youthful ambition, as an adult Deissmann never aspired to be a classical philologist. Yet he found a way to bridge the gap between philology and theology, and with it became internationally recognised as a pioneer in postclassical Greek philology. Although some classical philologists with an interest in the NT had also been working in this field, the foregoing chapters have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Deissmann may legitimately be described as the founder of postclassical Greek and NT philology. The bulk of his major publications between 1895 and 1908 testify to his leadership in this field. When Bibelstudien was published in 1895 its new methodology proved a considerable surprise to academics and, together with Neue Bibelstudien two years later, had the effect of bringing about a shift in thinking among researchers of postclassical Greek, in particular with theologians. These two works underpinned his appointment to the Chair in NT theology at Heidelberg in 1897, as did Licht vom Osten and the Septuaginta-Papyri when he transferred to Berlin in 1908. His influential philological trilogy (Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien and Licht vom Osten) changed the course of biblical studies everywhere and, perhaps more importantly, established his contention that the linguistic history of postclassical Greek needed to be rewritten, and to be set firmly into its sociopolitically correct historical context. The proposal to establish an innovative teaching position for NT philology at Heidelberg would not only have increased his prospects of finishing the lexicon, but also have had the effect of raising a fresh generation of philologically-trained biblical specialists. Thus, to stereotype Deissmann as a ‘mere’ theologian is to disregard the sixteen most research-productive years of his academic life, and to overlook that it was he who spearheaded NT philology as a credible new subdiscipline. Although he was not a classical philologist, he was without question ‘die unbestrittene erste Autoritt’71 as a philologist in the then relatively uncharted field of postclassical Greek. Now that due consideration has been given to Deissmann’s philological work in NT and postclassical Greek studies, it is time to examine how he came to understand that the language question was inextricably linked with the realia of its period, and what he did to 71 Dieterich’s letter, 21.11.1907; Appendix 2, d.

124

3. Deissmann the philologist

reflect that connection in his writing, as well as in his practical activities. It is to these questions that we now turn in Part 2.

Part 2

B Req± lgtqºpokir tµr )s¸ar … 1te¸lgsem Adokvom Deisslamm

Figure 4 Gustav Adolf Deissmann in 1926

4. From the study to the realia The subject of my remarks is study-travel, not exploration. In other words, the purpose of the journey is first of all receptive, not productive. The journey is receptive in the sense that it enables us by personal observation to supplement and put life into all that we have learnt from the researches and exploration of others. Of course the journey should be and will be productive in the indirect sense owing to the abundance of new impressions that are absorbed and go to enrich a man’s knowledge, experience, and powers when he has returned home.1

4.1. Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete At an ‘Eranos’ meeting towards the end of 1905, Deissmann learned that Friedrich von Duhn was to lead a state-subsidised journey to the Middle East (see ch. 2.3). It was specifically designed to provide classical philologists with an opportunity to gain firsthand insight into the realia of archaeological discoveries within their local settings, and to increase their practical experience in working with unpublished inscriptions. Although Deissmann’s philological advances in the language of the NT were by now well recognised internationally, with the exception of various ostraca and papyri from the Heidelberg collection, he had thus far worked predominantly from published sources. This upcoming tour would, however, provide a rare chance for him to round out his intellectual knowledge with some practical experience in the field, which is why he asked von Duhn whether he could include him. When the latter agreed, Deissmann immediately sought written permission from the Kultusministerium (28 October 1905), and included a request for a travelling stipend if he were allowed to go. 1

GAD, in ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487.

128

4. From the study to the realia

Their reply arrived four weeks later and stated that – despite the tour’s specifically philological purpose and program – they would grant him leave to participate, provided he would meet the estimated total cost of M.1400 – 1500, equal to c. two-and-a-half months’ salary. As to any kind of monetary support, they wrote: ‘Auf Ihr Gesuch um Gewhrung eines Reisezuschusses kçnnen wir erst zu Anfang des nchsten Jahres Entschliessung treffen’.2 Nonetheless, their response appears to have been calculated to test his personal commitment for the undertaking, since they informed him four weeks later that he would, indeed, receive a travel grant of M.500.3 This financial backing was undoubtedly attributable to Deissmann’s successful publication of the Heidelberg Septuagint papyri earlier that year (see ch. 3.4). It was this study tour in 1906 – supplemented by a more theologically focused one three years later (see ch. 4.2) – which laid the foundation for his important contributions to Anatolian archaeology during the latter stages of his life. But even though highlights of his two journeys are found sporadically woven into the texts of Paulus and Licht vom Osten, no coherent reconstructions of these decisive experiences in Deissmann’s life have thus far been produced. One exception is an account of his first tour, published by this author in 2005,4 for which reason I shall only give an abridged overview of it in the following pages. Before setting out on his travel, Deissmann wrote three brief yet emotionally charged farewell messages; one to Henriette, another (jointly) to his Mother and his four siblings, and a third one to his son Ernst. While these may appear somewhat melodramatic to 21st century readers, his apprehensions were not altogether unfounded, as he explained in Paulus: … die Nacht ist keines Menschen Freund, die wilden Hunde der rohen Hirten stellen sich wîtend in den Weg, Ruber trachten nach dem Mantel und dem Reittier, und die Dmonen des Fiebers drohen den Erhitzten und Ermîdeten aus der kalten Nachtluft …5 2 3 4 5

Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 25.11.1905. Kultusministerium, letter, 21.12.1905. A follow-up letter showed that the grant came from the Schîler’sche Foundation. Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 21.2.1906. Gerber, ‘Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1866 – 1937): trailblazer in biblical studies, in the archaeology of Ephesus, and in international reconciliation’, Buried History, Journal of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, 41, 2005, 32 – 5. Paulus, 45.

4.1. Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete

129

Only a few months earlier (29 September) the young American archaeologist Theodore Woolsey Heermance (1872 – 1905) had died in Athens of typhoid fever. But perhaps even more concerning was their plan of traversing through parts of the increasingly unstable Ottoman Empire.6 Nevertheless, Deissmann’s desire for firsthand experience overruled his anxiety, and he wrote to Henriette: Sollte ich nicht wiederkommen, so wisse fîr den Rest Deines Lebens, daß Du mir viele glîckliche Jahre geschenkt hast und daß ich Dich im vollen dankbaren Bewusstsein Deiner treuen und zuverlssigen Liebe verlassen habe. Halte Deine Hand fest und mîtterlich îber den Kindern, erziehe sie im evangelischen Glauben zur Arbeit und zu der Gesinnung, die ich hochgehalten habe. Mit Dir und ihnen sei Gott der Herr, in dessen Welt ich jetzt einen tiefen Blick zu werfen hoffe.7

The combined parting message to his mother, two brothers and two sisters seemed more optimistic, for he could not know that his cheery hope would turn into sorrow within a matter of days: Am Vorabend der großen Reise nach Griechenland und Asien gedenke ich auch Euer aller in treuer und dankbarer Gesinnung und hoffe auf ein glîckliches Wiedersehen. Gott mit Euch allen!8

Emilie Deissmann (n¤ Rullmann, 1833 – 1906) was a deeply religious woman, who throughout her 73 years had placed an uncomplicated trust in God’s providence, by randomly drawing Bible verses from a Zieh-Bibel. Now, as her son was about to leave, she gave it to him as a farewell present.9 Nine days into his tour Deissmann wrote his first letter to her from Istanbul, but she died the day before it arrived, and the news of her passing only reached him at Smyrna – a full day after the funeral. A further glimpse of Deissmann’s rationale behind his eagerness to take part on this journey can be seen in his letter to his six-year-old son Ernst: Ich reise in das Land, wo die Sonne aufgeht und wo ich mit meinen Studenten im Geiste oft gewesen bin. Hoffentlich kannst Du, wenn Du 6

7 8 9

Since 1880 various liberal groups, collectively known as ‘Young Turks’, had pressed the last Ottoman Sultan Abd al-Hamid II (1842 – 1918) to re-establish his country’s 1876 constitution and parliamentary democracy. This culminated in the revolution of 1908. Dated, 26. 3. 1906 (see Fig. 5); held privately. Ibid. SD, 43 – 4.

130

4. From the study to the realia

Figure 5 Deissmann’s farewell letter to Henriette, 1906 and 1909

groß bist, auch einmal dorthin wandern. Lerne brav in Deiner Schule, mein lieber Sohn, und mache Deiner Mama immer Freude. Gott segne Dich immerdar!10

Prior to 1906 Deissmann’s studies and teaching were primarily based on literary sources, ostraca and papyri, much of which was published material. But he had long felt disadvantaged by his lack of personal experience of the region or people whose language and social history he was researching.11 Now, however, he seized the opportunity to round out his intellectual knowledge through substantial travel 10 Dated, 29. 3. 1906; held privately. 11 SD, 66.

4.1. Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete

131

exposure, so that the contrasts between ‘… modern-abendlndischer Buchkultur und unliterarischer antikanatolischer Kultur … greifbar [werden]’.12 Even though contemporary NT theologians centred their cultural studies very narrowly on Palestine and Syria, Deissmann contended that the historical background of early Christianity was in fact ‘die antike Welt im weitesten Sinne’.13 He did not narrowly limit this to the regions around the Mediterranean basin, but included the entire Hellenised and Romanised domain. This ancient part of the world, he believed, had to be tangibly experienced as much as possible from within to be more realistically comprehended. Thus, he was an early advocate of what Peter Pilhofer, almost a century later, terms ‘lokalgeschichtliche Methode’.14 Unsurprisingly, such views did not pass without opposition, and some years later Deissmann protested: ‘Es ist mehr als sonderbar, wenn seßhafte Autoritten, die solche Reisen nicht gemacht haben, ihren Wert bezweifeln wollen. Man kann darîber wirklich nicht streiten.’15 The Heidelberg philologists’ journey began on Friday, 30 March. Besides von Duhn and Deissmann there were at least three other members: Samuel Brandt (1848 – 1938),16 Friedrich Pfister, and Rudolf Pagenstecher (1886 – 1921) who also habilitated under von Duhn in 1909.17 In preparation for their imminent field studies, they visited Vienna first, to see the recently opened Lower Belvedere exhibition and the Theseus Temple in the Volksgarten.18 Both these cultural centres had been dedicated to outstanding archaeological discoveries from Ephesus, made under the auspices of the §AI; for the Lower Belvedere had on display ‘the ten most complete slabs of the Parthian Monument’.19 The journey resumed on Tuesday morning by ‘Orient 12 Paulus, vi. 13 LvO, 1. 14 P. Pilhofer, Die frîhen Christen und ihre Welt, Tîbingen, 2002, 8 – 9, 44 – 5. See n. 66 below. 15 SD, 66. See also ch. 4.2. 16 LvO2, 209, n. 6 (not mentioned in LvO). 17 In the English translation of LvO, GAD provided these names (except for Brandt) in a caption to a photograph taken on Delos. LAE, 61. The names are absent from all LvO editions. 18 GAD had spent a week in the Austrian capital during May 1904 (apparently for the first time), and was already acquainted with the leading work that the §AI did at Ephesus. 19 G. Wiplinger/ G. Wlach, Ephesus, 100 years of Austrian research, Weimar, 1996, 178. On the acquisition of this material see ch. 5.1.

132

4. From the study to the realia

Express’, via Budapest and Bucharest, to the Black Sea port Constanza. Here they embarked on the steamer ‘Romania’, sailing south and through the Bosporus to Istanbul, where they docked on Friday, 6 April. That afternoon, Wiegand visited Deissmann at his hotel and subsequently invited him to his home. Since the former’s appointment in 1899 as director of the Berlin museums’ antiquities division, he had set up his headquarters in Istanbul.20 Then, in January 1900, when Wiegand married Marie von Siemens (1876 – 1960), the second daughter of Deutsche Bank’s co-founder and director, Georg von Siemens (1839 – 1901), the pair also made their home in the Turkish metropolis. Wiegand was a consummate promoter of Anatolian archaeology, with an impressive record that already included the successful excavation of Priene and Miletus.21 For the past 21 years he had lost contact with Deissmann, but now they renewed their fellowship, and while he entertained his old school friend (see ch. 2.3) he explained his newest undertaking: unearthing the Apollo temple at Didyma. Later Deissmann wrote to Wiegand: … es gehçrt jetzt, im Rîckblick auf die ganze Reise zu dem Wertvollsten, daß ich auf dem anatolischen Boden die alte Jugendfreundschaft mit Dir habe erneuern dîrfen. Nun hoffe ich nur, daß wir recht bald einmal die Freude haben, Dich mit Deiner Gattin hier bei uns zu haben. … Sonst herrscht große Freude und die erneute Erfahrung, daß ein fester Bund durch lngere Trennung nur gefestigt wird.22

The German tourists spent five days sightseeing in Istanbul, but Deissmann contracted keratitis and was confined to his hotel for two days, during which he wrote the earlier mentioned last letter to his mother. Later, when they put to sea on the steamer ‘Albania’, Wiegand joined their tour with Wilhelm Dçrpfeld (1853 – 1940). The former made this relatively short leg of the journey, through the Dardanelles and south to Miletus, to introduce the German scholars to the archaeological fieldwork their compatriots had carried out along the coastal 20 Wiegand, letter to his mother, 30. 5. 1899, in G. Wiegand, ed., Halbmond im letzten Viertel: Briefe und Reiseberichte aus der alten Tîrkei von Theodor und Marie Wiegand 1895 bis 1918, Mînchen, 1970, 36 – 8; also Wiegand, letter to his fianc¤, 10. 9. 1899, in Ibid., 39. 21 See A.M. Greaves, Miletos: a history, New York, 2002. Although Greaves states in the introduction that he hopes ‘to present the reader with a concise summary of key points in the archaeology of Miletos’, disappointingly little is said about Wiegand’s pivotal role in its excavation. 22 GAD’s letter, 4.7.1906.

4.1. Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete

133

regions of Western Turkey, while Dçrpfeld was to act as their guide and instructor until Athens, where he was director of the DAI branch (1887 – 1912). Trained as an architect, he was also a highly experienced archaeologist who had worked at Olympia, Troy and Tiryns, and since 1900 was engaged in excavations at Pergamon with Alexander Conze (1831 – 1914). Moreover, Dçrpfeld was a leading authority on Homer, which, together with his rhetorical abilities and wide archaeological expertise, made him an authoritative speaker. In addition, he also organised and directed scholarly archaeological tours, including one he had conducted especially for Greece’s King George I. Under the guidance of these two outstanding authorities, von Duhn’s party visited some of the best known classical archaeological sites in Western Anatolia (see map, Fig. 6). They began by spending a day at Pergamon on Friday, 13 April, and on Sunday Deissmann set eyes on Ephesus for the first time. Here, their guide was Josef Keil (1878 – 1963), a Czech-born archaeologist and the secretary of the §AI, who had worked on this site since 1904. Deissmann and Keil had apparently not met before, but their brief encounter now engendered a lasting friendship between them; and as a result of the latter’s guidance through the sprawling site of the ancient metropolis, Deissmann began to understand the overarching significance of the work that was being done there. A few years later he wrote in The Expository Times: … the view from the castle hill or from the ‘prison of St. Paul’, with its unforgettable wealth of impressions, first revealed ancient Ephesus to me and enabled me at length really to study the monumental work of the Austrians on Ephesus with full profit.23

Three days after his brief yet consequential visit to this ruined city they sailed to Chios, from where they took the steamer ‘Bulgaria’ for an overnight passage to Athens, arriving there on Thursday, 19 April, just as the Intermediary Olympic Games came to a close. During their three weeks’ stay at the ‘classics capital’ von Duhn and Dçrpfeld gave almost daily archaeology and history lectures, as well as conducting regular educational tours, while several other notable specialists presented topical sessions. Ulrich Wilcken, for instance, who happened to be in Athens at that time, elucidated a number of inscriptions, while Dçrpfeld’s representative Georg Karo (1872 – 1963), 23 ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487.

134

4. From the study to the realia

Figure 6 Map of Deissmann’s 1906 journey

who had close ties to the German court,24 taught on the topic of Delphi. Moreover, Rudolf Heberdey (1864 – 1936), the Austrian archaeologist and regular leader of the Ephesus excavation since 1898, led a one-day tour to Eleusis, and also gave some practical field talks at Athena Nike’s temple on the western tip of the Acropolis, where he had recently (1904) succeeded in reconstructing parts of its fragmented poros gable and balustrade. 24 He was a frequent guest at the Achilleion, the Corfu summer palace of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who took a personal interested in Karo’s excavations at Tiryns und Corfu. In 1910 Karo became co-director (with Dçrpfeld) of the DAI, Athens.

4.1. Study tour 1906: Anatolia, Greece and Crete

135

Deissmann’s diary entries of 2nd and 9th May 1906 show that he bought at least three codices at Athens, of which one was a gospel; it also alludes to several private meetings with professional colleagues who were not directly connected with the study tour.25 After three weeks at Athens they studied various archaeological sites in the Peloponnese and visited Delphi, before journeying to Crete for its Minoan heritage, including the palace ruins at Knossos, which Arthur John Evans (1851 – 1941) had excavated less than three years earlier. On their way back they sailed via Thera to Delos, where a large Cretan/ Mycenaean settlement was being excavated by Maurice Holleaux (1861 – 1932). He explained various inscriptions to the tour participants, including one that Deissmann had discussed eleven years prior in Bibelstudien.26 Their last cruise within Greek territory took them around the top of the Peloponnese to Olympia, where they stayed for three days before commencing their homeward journey via Genoa. *

*

*

As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, this study tour was designed for philologists, not for theologians; yet the extent to which it impacted on Deissmann’s life must not be underestimated. It provided him with a unique opportunity to become personally acquainted with several leading archaeologists, classicists and philologists and of forming friendly intellectual links with them. The experience also refocused his dedication to the work on the NT lexicon (see ch. 2.3) and underpinned – indeed, was a sine qua non for – the book for which he became best known, and that well beyond the academy: Licht vom Osten (see ch. 1.7). Friedrich von Duhn hatte die Fahrt organisiert und leitete sie meisterhaft. In den großen Museen, wie auch in den Zentren der internationalen Ausgrabungen hatten wir neben seiner Belehrung die grçßte Fçrderung durch die ersten archologischen und epigraphischen Autoritten, §sterreicher, Ungarn, Rumnen, Tîrken, deutsche Landsleute, Griechen, 25 Among them: Zolotas, Karolides and Kyriakos. Zolotas probably refers to Georgios Ioannou Zolotas (1845 – 1906), an authority on the history of Chios; Paulos Karolides (1849 – 1930) was professor of history; and Anastasios Diomedes Kyriakos (1874 – 1951), who had written a history of the oriental church, was professor of theology. 26 BS, 172 – 5. A photograph in LvO (34) shows Holleaux using a cane to explain this inscription to a group of four men: GAD is in the middle.

136

4. From the study to the realia

Englnder, Franzosen und Italiener; ganz besonders verpflichteten uns Wilhelm Dçrpfeld und mein alter Kamerad Theodor Wiegand … In die Heimat zurîckgekehrt, schickte ich mich an, die Eindrîcke der Studienreise mit frîheren Beobachtungen am Studiertisch zu einem Buche zu vereinigen.27

As a result of this journey Deissmann’s intellectual perception of the classical world had undergone a profound change. He was well aware of this, and in the introduction to Licht vom Osten acknowledged that the concentrated exposure to archaeological realia and numerous leading field authorities had so enriched him that he ‘superimposed’ his newly gained experience and impressions onto a series of earlier publications, which were based solely on his ‘desktop research’ (see ch. 1.7). A comparative literary analysis of his initial Frankfurt lectures (1905), their English publication in The Expository Times, and the subsequently revised book form (New light on the New Testament – see ch. 1.7), together with Licht vom Osten, could provide some useful perspectives apropos the intellectual value of ‘lokalgeschichtliche Methode’. Even a cursory comparison between the style and tone of New Light and Licht vom Osten demonstrates Deissmann’s inner transformation that had occurred as a consequence of this study tour. From an earlier tendency in his writing towards what Jîlicher had once described as a ‘gewisse Steifheit’ (see ch. 1.3), to what Emil Schîrer (1844 – 1910) referred to sixteen years later in his review of Licht vom Osten, as a ‘dithyrambischer Stil’.28 The continual exposure to on-site archaeological work during this 66day study tour introduced Deissmann to the latest professional methodologies and discoveries, as well as the various stages of progress (or deterioration) of more than two-dozen major archaeological sites. Not least, this, his first journey, also inspired a similar second one, although he specifically designed that for the benefit of theologians. However, many years later it was the 1906 tour that he rated as one of the most transforming experiences of his academic life. Diese Reise bildet fîr mich einen Markstein meines wissenschaftlichen und persçnlichen Lebens … eine große Fçrderung meiner religionswissenschaftlichen Studien verdanke ich ihr. Mir war 1906 jedenfalls ein so großes Erlebnis gewesen, daß ich 1909 von Berlin aus selbst eine zweite, grçßere Studienreise … durchfîhren durfte … sie ergnzte meine Anschauung der 27 LvO, vi. 28 TLZ, 20, 33, 1908, 554.

4.2. Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt

137

neutestamentlichen Welt so bedeutsam, daß ich nunmehr fast von jedem Schauplatz des Neuen Testaments einen selbsterhaltenen plastischen Eindruck habe.29

4.2. Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt As early as January 1908 Deissmann wrote to Wiegand from Heidelberg: ‘Ich glaube auch, daß der Orient fîr mich von Berlin wieder besser zu erreichen ist, als von hier’;30 in fact, he was already beginning to make preliminary plans for his second study tour, which came about as an immediate result of his interviews at Berlin a few weeks earlier (see ch. 2.4). He was the sole driving force for its inception and bore full responsibility for its organisation, although he did do so in close cooperation with two colleagues, his assistant Carl Schmidt,31 and the young classical philologist and historian Wilhelm Weber (1882 – 1948).32 Besides these three, there was one other unnamed young man who accompanied them.33 Despite the small number of participants, Deissmann was able to secure M.2000 for himself and M.1000 for Schmidt from the ‘Kçnigliches Ministerium der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinalangelegenheiten’.34 That the Auswrtiges Amt was supportive of this journey is evident from their letter to the Kultusminister: Die kaiserlichen Konsularbehçrden in Bukarest, Constanza, Konstantinopel, Brussa, Konia, Mersina, Barnaca (Cypern), Alexandretta, Aleppo, Damaskus, Bairut, Haiffa, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Alexandrien, Port Said und Kairo sind angewiesen worden, dem Professor D. Adolf Deißmann und seinen beiden Begleitern, Professor D. Dr. Carl Schmidt und Dr. Wilhelm Weber, auf ihr Ersuchen mit Rat und Tat zur Seite zu stehen und sie erforderlichen Falles auch mit weiteren Empfehlungen zu versehen. Soweit es sich um Konsularbehçrden in der Tîrkei handelt, sind diese ferner beauftragt 29 SD, 66 – 7. 30 GAD’s letter, 29. 1. 1908; see Appendix 2, e. 31 He was nicknamed ‘Koptenschmidt’, because of his mastery of the Coptic language and ethos, but Schmidt was also a trained Egyptologist and authority on that country’s antiquarian markets. He worked with GAD on the Heidelberg papyri in 1904 (see ch. 3.3). 32 Weber completed his doctorate at Heidelberg in 1907, with the dissertation ‘Die Adoption Kaiser Hadrians’, but during 1908/9 was on a stipend from the DAI. 33 LvO2, viii; see also ET, 25, 11, 1914, 490. 34 LvO2, viii; see also GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 25.1.1909.

138

4. From the study to the realia

worden, den Reisenden, wenn sie sich an sie wenden, bei der Beschaffung von Teskeres (tîrkischen Inlandspssen) behilflich zu sein.35

Unfortunately, the AK entries are considerably terser for this tour than for the one in 1906; still, it is possible to reconstruct a satisfactory picture by drawing on various other sources.36 One may easily get the impression that the two journeys combined served as a kind of twinned ‘cultural induction’ experience;37 yet they were fundamentally different. Deissmann designed the second one specifically to help himself and his travelling companions to contextualise biblical history, sociology and geography,38 for which reason it focused primarily on ‘biblical’ rather than ‘classical’ places of interest. As in 1906, Deissmann again wrote brief farewell notes to his wife and son, although this time merely appended to his first ones, which had evidently been kept by the family. Nevertheless, he made the following informative addition for Henriette: Etwas anderes kann ich auch jetzt nicht sagen, nur daß durch das geliebte Liselottchen alles noch viel besser geworden ist. Laß Dir von Harnack, Kahl, Elster, helfen, wenn Du Hilfe nçtig hast.39

Harnack had befriended the Deissmann family since their arrival in Berlin, and occasionally enjoyed their hospitality. Wilhelm Kahl (1849 – 1932), a lawyer, was the University’s Rektor for that year, and Ludwig Elster (1856 – 1935) was Geheimer Oberregierungsrat and Vortragender Rat in the Kultusministerium, with whom Deissmann had negotiated his employment the year before, and who supported the tour warmly.40 The latter two were not personal friends of the family, but could evidently be relied upon as useful and influential contacts for Henriette. *

35 36 37 38 39 40

*

*

Auswrtiges Amt, letter to Kultusministerium, 5.2.1909. e.g. LvO2, LvO4, Paulus, ET, correspondence, et al. Compare, SD, 66 – 7; ET, 25, 11, 1914, 486 – 90; ET, 25, 12, 1914, 535 – 8. ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487. This postscript is dated 23. 2. 1909 (see Fig. 5). Elster had written: ‘… daß ich die Bitte des ordentlichen Professors … Adolf Deißmann in seinem beiliegenden Gesuch vom 12. Januar d. Js. warm befîrworte’. Letter to Auswrtiges Amt, 20.1.1909.

4.2. Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt

139

The journey commenced on Wednesday, 24 February 1909, one day after the University’s winter semester concluded. This time, however, instead of travelling through Vienna, Deissmann chose the faster northerly trainroute through Poland, via Krakow and Lemberg (Lviv) in the Western Ukraine, then diagonally across Rumania to Constanza, where the men arrived on Thursday. Similar to the tour of 1906, they boarded a steamer – the ‘Regele Carol I’ – and docked at Istanbul by Friday noon, where Wilhelm Weber who was already there (see n. 32) greeted them, before they checked in at the Hotel Bristol and were welcomed by Theodor Wiegand. On Saturday they looked around the Topkapı palace-complex,41 which had fallen into disrepair during the latter 19th century – only later (1923) was it transformed into the museum where Deissmann would be working in 1928 and 1929 (see ch. 5.7). The following day he was predominantly concerned with the closely adjacent ‘Hagia Eirene’; although this building had been turned into a military museum in 1874, it was of church historical significance, because the second Ecumenical Council had taken place there in 381. The afternoon was devoted to Istanbul’s most striking structure: the nearby ‘Hagia Sophia’. From Istanbul they travelled by train to Ankara. Deissmann had reasoned that the Apostle Paul must have passed through this place;42 but it was particularly the ‘Monumentum Ancyranum’ – judged by T. Mommsen as ‘the queen of Latin inscriptions’43 – which they came to see; later, Deissmann discussed its epigraphy briefly in Paulus.44 Their next goal was Konya (Iconium), where the Apostle Paul had preached occasionally;45 in later centuries the town developed into an important provincial Christian city until its Islamic overthrow in 708. Here Deissmann organised a guided tour of the sizeable jail, in an attempt to discover a possible explanation for the large number of ancient prison letters. 41 In the AK, GAD repeatedly used the narrower Persian term ‘Serail’ (‘Serai’ in Forschungen); it originally referred to the Topkapı’s Harem (Topkapı Sarayı), or more precisely, living quarters for the females of their Muslim household. 42 Paulus, 29, i. e. on his second missionary journey. 43 T. Momsen, Roman Civilization: selected readings, vol. 1, The Republic and the Augustan Age, N. Lewis/ M. Reinhold, eds., New York, 19903, 561. 44 Paulus, 29 – 30. GAD cautioned against the assumption that the monument’s inscription would prove that Latin was a ‘world language’ like Greek. 45 Acts 14:1; 15:36 – 16:4; 2 Tim. 3:11.

140

4. From the study to the realia

Ein Besuch des großen Zuchthauses in Konia (Ikonium) am 6. Mrz 1909 zeigte mir handgreiflich deutlich den starken Verkehr der Gefangenen durch das Gittertor mit ihren zugereisten Angehçrigen. [In the second edition (1925) he added:] So ist es verstndlich, daß wir eine ganze Anzahl antiker Gefangenenbriefe auch sonst besitzen … Eine Sammlung der antiken Gefangenenbriefe wre eine reizvolle Aufgabe.46

What may, at first sight, appear to be a rather eccentric activity, serves to illustrate his interest in the ‘lokalgeschichtliche Methode’ as a way to bridge the gap between recorded texts and localised realia, and to enliven the former by personal experience with the latter. On the advice of William Ramsay,47 Deissmann had abandoned his original plan of continuing from Konya to Tarsus via the Cilician Gates – although, as it turned out, travel conditions would have been ideal – and thus the group forfeited a visit to the provincial ‘Pauline’ towns (Acts 14:21; 16:1) of Lystra, Derbe and Pisidian Antioch.48 Instead, they took the train to Afyon, and the following day proceeded – with brief stopovers at ancient Philadelphia and Sardis – to Smyrna, stayed there for 24 hours, and then continued to Laodicea. In that way they visited five places which are directly associated with the ‘seven churches’ referred to in the NT (Rev. 1 – 3), with two days allowed for Ephesus, although this time in the absence of Keil or Wiegand. Neither Laodicea nor its north-easterly neighbour Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale) had by then been scientifically excavated – even though the latter was once a Roman health resort – yet the travellers were able to explore Laodicea’s extensive ruins, as well as read some of its inscriptions. However, Deissmann was not ‘coldly’ history-focused on this journey, for he had a distinctly romantic side (see ch. 5.2); thus, he described the short hike from Goncali to Hierapolis, which

46 Paulus, 13, n. 2. 47 GAD met Ramsay for the first time at Edinburgh, probably on 24.9.1906. The latter visited him in Berlin two months before this tour commenced. AK. 24. 9. 1906, 22, 24.12.1908. 48 Ramsay had written to GAD, ‘In March Konia and that region are most uninviting, and the country is often literally untraversable except where there is a rail-way.’ As cited by GAD, who corresponded with Ramsay about this journey because he regarded him as ‘the leading authority on ancient Asia Minor’. ET, 25, 11, 1914, 489.

4.2. Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt

141

they made the next day, as taking the slow route ‘per pedes apostolorum’.49 The tour then returned to Smyrna, as they were booked on the ‘Korniloff ’, an aged Russian cruiser, due to sail for Mersin at 11 pm that night. The ship was en route from Odessa to Palestine, and apparently overloaded with hundreds of Jewish pilgrims. It took twoand-a-half days before they reached Mersin, from where they first visited the nearby ruined Roman seaport of Soloi-Pompeiopolis. Twice, over the next two days, they travelled by train from Mersin to Tarsus, for which Ramsay had provided Deissmann with written introductions.50 Although the latter liked to refer to this modern city as the ‘Paulusstadt’,51 not much archaeological realia remained from ancient Tarsus, and even the so-called ‘Paulustor’, mentioned briefly in Paulus,52 was a later construction. From Mersin they sailed by night to Alexandretta (modern Iskenderun), and then travelled by car to Antioch on the Orontes. The approach to this ancient metropolis (where the term ‘Christian’ is said to have originated, see Acts 11:26) so impressed Deissmann that he wrote: ‘the first sight of Antioch with its sharply defined ancient walls … is an experience most stimulating to the historic [sic] imagination’.53 Since 1895 Anatolia had been affected by increasingly violent conflicts between Muslim nationalists and Armenian Christians, but Deissmann’s group seemed to stay just ahead of serious political and social trouble,54 and he reported: wenige Wochen [nachher] brach in dieser schwîlen cilicischen Ebene ein Fieber aus, das bis nach dem syrischen Antiochien hin, schlimmer als die rgste Malaria die Menschen dezimiert hat, der religiçse und nationale Fanatismus aufgestachelter mohammedanischer Mordgesellen, deren Wîten Tausende von armenischen Christen zum Opfer fielen.55

49 ET, 25, 12, 1914, 535. GAD’s romantic disposition comes clearly to the fore in some of his writings, especially in connection with his two study tours; e. g. Paulus, vi-vii. See also n. 87 below, and ch. 5, n. 52. 50 See ET, 25, 12, 1914, 489; also, Paulus, 19, n. 1. 51 Paulus, 21, 22. 52 Ibid., 22. 53 ET, 25, 12, 1914, 535. 54 The AK shows that they left Antioch on 25. 3. 1909, and on 19. 4. 1909 it states: ‘Massacre in Antiochien’. 55 Paulus, 21.

142

4. From the study to the realia

After two days at Antioch, the four Germans drove back to Alexandretta, from where they sailed south to Beirut, and then drove with another car 85 km north to Baalbek, which Wiegand had excavated over the past decade.56 From there they travelled across the Syrian border and south to Damascus, a city closely associated with the Apostle Paul’s conversion. Although Deissmann knew that ancient Damascus lay buried deep beneath the modern city, it again stirred his ‘historical imagination’. Wenn man in einem Seitengang des Bazars von Damaskus einen Frber mit seinen nackten blauen Armen in die Farbengrube hineinlangen sieht, erinnert man sich, dass … vor fast zweitausend Jahren die Zunftgenossen dieses Frbers an denselben Gruben standen und mit denselben blauen Armen dasselbe Wollengarn aus der Brîhe heraufzogen.57

From Damascus they drove south to Tiberias, on the western shore of lake Gennesaret, where they attended a synagogue and witnessed a traditional burial by the town’s Jewish immigrants. They also investigated Tell Hum – generally accepted as biblical Capernaum – before they journeyed westwards to Jerusalem via Nazareth. Their arrival was intentionally timed to coincide with the city’s Easter celebrations, but they stayed there for a total of 11 nights and during that time spent two days at Jericho and also made a side-trip to Bethlehem. They left Jerusalem on 19 April by driving to Jaffa, Israel’s biblical Joppa, where the new city Tel Aviv-Yafo was being founded that same year through the settlement of 60 nearby Jewish families.58 Here the Germans embarked on an overnight sea journey to Port Said, and then took a train to Cairo, where they were stationed for the next six nights, visited the Giza pyramid complex, and made a 30 km excursion upstream to the ancient necropolis of Saqqara. After relocating to Alexandria on 27 April, their study tour drew to an end with a visit to the city’s Alexandria Museum, for the following day Deissmann and his colleagues boarded the steamer ‘Prinz Heinrich’, and five days later

56 Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, 1 – 3, Berlin, 1921 – 5. 57 Paulus, 36. Note GAD’s empirical (i. e. lokalgeschichtlicher) approach to ancient history. 58 At first called Ahuzat Bayit, based on Ezek. 3:15; it was renamed Tel Aviv in 1910.

4.2. Study tour 1909: the Levant and Egypt

143

they arrived at Marseille, from where they made their way back to Heidelberg by train. *

*

*

From the foregoing somewhat mechanical reconstruction of Deissmann’s two study tours, an obvious distinction emerges between them. Von Duhn had interacted with, and significantly benefited from, numerous leading experts in relation to classical philology and, besides imparting practical on-site experience, also provided opportunities for professional ‘networking’. However, although the journey Deissmann organised and conducted in 1909 provided less contact with scholars and their works, his personal motive was similar to when he made the tour with von Duhn. The object of my journeys was to supplement my study of books by seeing things for myself … Others may have no need to see things in this way; I have the need, and I know many people constituted like myself, who do not find their bearings historically until they begin to see things as a concrete image in space.59

Deissmann had made this same point during negotiations in regard to his call to Berlin, when he expressed his intention to lead a second ‘ergnzende Reise’ to complement the one of 1906. Although his rationale behind these journeys was evidently being misunderstood by some,60 the fact that it was viewed favourably in 1906 by his Faculty at Heidelberg, with similarly warm support at Berlin in 1909 where the Kultusministerium showed him ‘das wohlwollendste Verstndnis’,61 reflects the high academic esteem in which he was held. His travel motives had never revolved around exploration or discovery, but were primarily intended to supplement his and his companions’ personal knowledge and understanding of the ancient world. Since his objective was ‘study-travel, not exploration’, he advised that ‘the prerequisite of every such journey is a thorough study of the published original records of the New Testament countries and the literature of modern research in the East’.62 This distinction was

59 60 61 62

ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487. Ibid; see Appendix 4, a. GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 24.10.1908. ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487.

144

4. From the study to the realia

precisely what Ramsay had missed with his occasionally pernickety criticism of Deissmann’s Paul.63 Although both of Deissmann’s journeys were memorable experiences in his life, it is the first one that he later singled out as ‘einen Markstein meines wissenschaftlichen und persçnlichen Lebens’.64 He was convinced that other scholars would – and indeed, should – benefit from similar study tours: ‘Mçchte recht vielen Fachgenossen die gleiche Gelegenheit gegeben werden, die Schaupltze des Evangeliums und des Urchristentums persçnlich zu sehen’.65 But he recognised that such practical ‘Umwelt familiarisation’ was very much in its infancy, at least amongst theologians. As regards the organization of New Testament study-travel there is still room for considerable discussion, since much experience has yet to be gathered. Of one thing I am perfectly sure: the starting-point of the Eastern tour proper must certainly not be Egypt or Palestine.66

Just as his first journey strongly influenced Licht vom Osten, so the second one helped in the formulation of Paulus and, not surprisingly, produced a book that departed considerably from the commonly accepted ‘Paulusbild’.

4.3. Paulus In the summer of 1908 Nathan Sçderblom was travelling through Berlin and took the opportunity to go and hear a lecture by Deissmann, who had taken up the NT Chair as ordinarius less than three month earlier (see ch. 2.4). In March 1910 Sçderblom recalled this particular lecture and said to him: 63 64 65 66

Ramsay, The teaching of Paul. SD, 66. LvO2, ix. ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487. Almost a century later, Peter Pilhofer explicitly picked up GAD’s line of reasoning, coined it ‘lokalgeschichtliche Methode’ and – referring to the latter’s expressed hope in the introduction to LvO2 – writes: ‘Ein knappes Jahrhundert spter ist dieser Wunsch von den “Fachgenossen” auf die Studierenden des Faches auszuweiten. Fîr die Lehrenden bedeutet dies, daß Exkursionen fester Bestandteil des Curriculums werden mîssen. Fîr Palstina ist diese Forderung seitens der Alttestamentler an manchen Fakultten schon erfîllt. Aber wie steht es mit Italien, Griechenland, der Tîrkei, Syrien? Welcher angehende Pfarrer, welche angehende Lehrerin hat eines dieser Lnder unter kundiger Anleitung besucht …’. Pilhofer, 7, 9, 45.

4.3. Paulus

145

In meinen Ohren klingen ein Paar Worte, die ich vor bald zwei … Jahren in Berlin hçrte, als ich bei einem ganz zuflligen kurzen Besuch an der Universitt zwischen zwei Zîgen einer Ihrer [Deissmann’s] Vorlesungen beiwohnte. Es handelte sich um das 8te Kap. des Rçmerbriefs … wir danken Ihnen fîr Ihre vçllige Freiheit von theologischer Barbarei grçberer oder feinerer Art.67

It is unlikely that this visit to Deissmann’s lecture was quite as coincidental as Sçderblom claimed. As a forward-looking theologian, with a strong background in philology and close ties to German theology, he was well aware of his colleague’s work and the controversy his recent appointment as ordinarius had stirred. It is, therefore, much more likely that Sçderblom had intentionally made the decision to get to know him personally, since he himself was equally opposed to the inflexible dogmatism that prevailed among German theologians. Subsequently, within weeks of returning to Sweden, he wrote to Deissmann and invited him to present a series of eight lectures on the topic of the Apostle Paul’s life, at the Olaus-Petri-Stiftelsen (University of Uppsala) during the Easter holidays 1910. The tenor of Deissmann’s favourable reply indicates that they had met for the first time when Sçderblom attended his lecture, and it is certain that the latter did not yet know Henriette,68 nor had Deissmann ever been to Sweden before.69 On Sunday, 6 March 1910, Deissmann and his wife arrived in Uppsala on the midday train, and were welcomed by Sçderblom and his twelve-year-old son. The following afternoon Deissmann gave his 67 Cited by Anna Sçderblom in her letter of congratulation for GAD’s 70th birthday (7. 11. 1936). She explained this citation by adding: ‘Mit diesen Worten hat Nathan Sçderblom Adolf Deissmann am Schluße derselben PaulusVorlesungen an der Olaus-Petri Stiftelsen der Universitt Uppsala im Jahre 1910 gedankt.’ Held privately. See further, ch. 4.3. 68 GAD’s letter, 29.7.1908. In his reply he also asked deferentially: ‘Darf ich Sie noch bitten, mir einiges îber die Geschichte der Stiftung [Olaus-Petri] mitzuteilen? Weiter mçchte ich mir die Anfrage gestatten, ob es erlaubt ist, meine Frau mitzubringen. Sie ist Enkelin einer Schwedin … und sieht ziemlich schwedisch aus.’ 69 In Nov. 1909 GAD wrote: ‘Sehr dankbar wre ich Ihnen fîr Angabe des besten Reisewegs (wohl îber Saßnitz-Trelleborg?) und der Anschlîße nach Upsala … Wie ist das Wetter gewçhnlich im Mrz in Upsala.’ Letter to Sçderblom, 29.11.1909. Five months later he confided: ‘Upsala ist mir, nachdem es vorher ein bloßer geographischer und akademischer Begriff war, jetzt eine Realitt …’. Letter to Sçderblom, 10.4.1910.

146

4. From the study to the realia

first lecture there, entitled ‘Die Aufgabe; Die Quelle’. The series finished on Tuesday, 22 March, but four days later – while they were still at Uppsala – Henriette suddenly took seriously ill during the night and had to be admitted to hospital, where she remained for a full week before they were able to return to Berlin. The exact nature of her abrupt confinement is not definitive, for Deissmann’s diary merely records: ‘Upsala Nachts 12 Uhr Ette erkrankt und abends ins Krankenhaus, Dr. Lindqvist’, and for the following six days his entries keep repeating: ‘Upsala Ette im Krankenhaus’. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to conclude that she had probably suffered a miscarriage; for two weeks after returning to Berlin, Sçderblom wrote to Deissmann: Es freut uns zu wissen, dass Sie nach Ihrem durch so traurige Umstnde verlngertem Aufenthalt in Upsala glîcklich in Ihrem Heime zurîck sind. Gott wolle, dass Ihre Frau Gemahlin … bald wieder volle Gesundheit und frische Krfte geniessen werden!70

The ‘traurige Umstnde’ must obviously refer to an occurrence which brought a kind of sadness to the Deissmanns that could not be fully alleviated by her release from the hospital, and left her weak for some time after. Moreover, Deissmann wrote two letters of gratitude, one to the acting physician Dr. Lindqvist for treating Henriette without charge, and the other to the latter’s superior, the director of the Gynaecological Clinic, Prof. Josephsen, to whom he also sent a donation, with the revealing instruction: ‘zu Besten unbemittelten Wçchnerinnen der Klinik gîtigst verwenden zu wollen’.71 This act of donating money to needy women who had recently given birth seems almost vicarious, and is consistent with the sensitive empathy the loss of an expected child through miscarriage might produce. Deissmann had finalised his preparations for the Uppsala lectures during February 1910 (AK), with the study tour still fresh in his mind, which is why much of his subject matter was structured around it. On the other hand, it should be noted that Sçderblom had invited him about half a year before that journey actually began, which makes it reasonable to infer that the latter’s specified topic (Paul’s life) would almost certainly have influenced Deissmann’s decisions concerning where he wanted to go on the tour and what he wanted to see.

70 Letter, dated 21.4.1910. 71 Letter, dated 9.5.1910.

4.3. Paulus

147

The original notes for his Olaus-Petri lectures seem to be lost now, but in May 1910 Axel Nelson (1880 – 1962) translated them into Swedish, and this substantially unchanged translation was published as a book; it was Deissmann’s first on the Apostle Paul.72 Over the next 14 months he revised and expanded his notes before publishing the greatly changed German version, Paulus, in 1911 – dedicated to Adolf Harnack.73 Deissmann’s diary notes on 17 September 1911 show that he had also made arrangements for Lionel Strachan to translate Paulus into English,74 and for his former student, Jean Rouffiac, to translate it into French. The latter was killed in action, however, and a French version never eventuated.75 Paulus was Deissmann’s reaction against the ongoing attempts at defining a dogmatic ‘system’ of Pauline theology, and at intellectualising and westernising the Apostle. Neben den zum Abendlnder und Scholastiker gemachten Paulus, neben den aristokratisierten, stilisierten und modernisierten Paulus, der in dem papierenen Kerker des ‘Paulinismus’ in seiner achten Gefangenschaft schmachtet, sei denn der Paulus gestellt, den ich in Tarsus, Jerusalem und Damaskus, in Antiochien, Lykaonien, Galatien, Ephesus und Korinth glaube gesehen zu haben …76

Paulus is therefore best understood as an attempt to wrench its subject character from his ‘paper prison’ back into the ‘real’ world of his native 1st century Middle East. The book is divided into nine chapters, but the most scholarly contributions are found in the addenda. There, in keeping with his philological style in Bibelstudien, Deissmann made a thorough epigraphical re-edition of four previously published Delphic 72 Paulus. En kultur- och religionshistorisk skiss. Olaus-Petri-fçrelsningar hllna vid Uppsala Universitet, A. Nelson, transl., Stockholm, 1910. 73 Significantly, GAD dedicated the second edition (1925) to his fallen students: ‘Dem ehrenden Gedchtnis von einhundertvierundsechzig hoffnungsvollen im Weltkrieg gefallenen Kommilitonen des neutestamentlichen Seminars und Proseminars der Universitt Berlin aus dem Jahrzehnt 1908 – 1918. Oqj 1m pkani`m kih_mair !kkû 1m pkani`m jaqd_ar’. On Harnack, see also ch. 1, n. 14. 74 St. Paul, a study in social and religious history, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., London, 1912. 75 When GAD reviewed Rouffiac’s own book (see ch. 2, n. 176) he commented: ‘Inhaltlich ist diese Erstlings-Arbeit ertragreich und recht geeignet, in die Art der Vorarbeiten zum Wçrterbuch des N. T. einzufîhren’, TLZ, 37, 23, 1912, 711. 76 Paulus, vi-vii.

148

4. From the study to the realia

stone fragments.77 This fresh analysis allowed him to fix the beginning of Iunius Gallio Annaeanus’ proconsulship of Achaia (see Acts 18:12) to mid-summer 51, and extrapolate with fair confidence that after Paul’s arrival at Corinth during the first months of the year 50, he probably left the city in the summer of 51.78 The back of this book also has a coloured foldout map of the entire Mediterranean region, entitled ‘Die Welt des Apostels Paulus’. It was designed by Deissmann himself, and praised by others as the most readable and comprehensive map of its time in respect to Pauline research.79 Privately, Deissmann admitted to Moulton: … in Deutschland ist das Buch îbrigens eigenartig aufgenommen worden: hçhnische Ablehnungen sprachen die Einen aus, enthusiastische Zustimmungen die Anderen. Sic et Non! Ich hoffe im Frîhling eine Streitschrift zu verçffentlichen, in der ich die Probleme nochmals bespreche.80

The extent of this polarisation is illustrated in that, on the one hand, some claimed: ‘[Paulus] ist ohne Zweifel eines der anregendsten und interessantesten wissenschaftlichen theologischen Werke, welche die jetzige Theologengeneration hervorgebracht hat’,81 while another complained: ‘… dem Verfasser verschwinden [Gegenstze] gnzlich in mystischem Dampf und er tischt ernsthaft solche Ungeheuerlichkeiten auf, wie S. 90 …’.82 No critic attacked Deissmann more acerbically over Paulus than Eduard Schwartz,83 and this resulted in a tension between the two 77 The inscription is photographed in Paulus (iv) and discussed, 159 – 77. GAD gave credit (162 – 3) to Ãmile Bourguet (1868 – 1939) for its discovery (1905) and Adolphe J. Reinach (1887 – 1914) for being the first to connect it with Pauline chronology (1907). 78 Paulus, 174. 79 e.g. the theologian Max Meinertz (1880 – 1965), ThRev, 3, 1912, 83. In contrast, GAD himself considered the map’s physical size (42 x 84 cm) far too small; Paulus, 182. 80 GAD’s letter, 27.12.1911. 81 H. Gebhard, PBl, June 1912, 581. 82 E. Schwartz, review of GAD, Paulus, in Sonder-Abdruck aus den Gçttingischen gelehrten Anzeigen, 1911, 661. 83 In a private letter to his friend Hans Lietzmann, Gerhard Loeschke wrote: ‘Was hltst Du von Schwartz’ anzeige von Deißmanns Paulus. Gçttingen jubelt. Ich kenne Deißmanns buch nicht, es lockt mich auch nicht, denn ich mag Deißmanns art auch nicht. Trotzdem ist meine begeisterung fîr Schwartz’ anzeige auch nicht groß. ˜berhaupt: … ich habe Schwartz immer fîr gewaltttig gehalten, aber daß aus dieser gewaltttigkeit so viel falsches folgte

4.3. Paulus

149

men that lasted until they met at a conference for the Notgemeinschaft at Dresden in November 1928. It was there when Schwarz took the initiative to reconcile himself with Deissmann, who later wrote to a colleague that the former came to sit at his table and greeted him with … sehr freundli[chen] Worten und dem Wunsche eines Friedensschlusses, auf den ich nat[îrlich] ebenso freundlich reagiert habe. Die Spannung zwischen i[hm und] mir war mir in all den Jahren doch eine rechte Last und ich fr[eue] mich, dass sie hinweg gerumt ist; denn Sie kçnnen sich denken [wie] hoch ich Schwartz bei aller Verschiedenheit unserer theologisch[en Ein]stellung als Gelehrter schtze.84

However, despite the controversy over Paulus, Deissmann’s planned ‘Streitschrift’ failed to come to fruition and 18 months later, in another letter to Moulton, he explained: Sehr gern htte ich schon jetzt der Victoria-Universitt mein im letzten Jahr begonnenes Werk “Paulus-Probleme” gewidmet; ich bin aber noch nicht fertig und hoffe im nchsten Jahre das Buch senden zu kçnnen.85

The book was well under way, with several chapters already completed, when WWI brought its progress to a standstill and, like his lexicon, it was never finished.86 Paulus does not rank as one of Deissmann’s best academic works, for – as Schwartz correctly pointed out – it is frequently infused with romantic mysticism rather than academic objectivity.87 Deissmann also

84

85

86 87

wie in diesen bemerkungen, hatte ich doch nicht erwartet. Der mann beginnt gefhrlich zu werden.’ Letter dated 1. 12. 1911 (orthography, sic); in K. Aland, ed., Glanz und Niedergang der deutschen Universitt: 50 Jahre deutscher Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Briefen an und von Hans Lietzmann (1892 – 1942), mit einer einfîhrenden Darstellung, Berlin, 1979, 307 – 8. GAD, letter to Sickenberger, 31. 12. 1928 (the right border is partially missing). On 7. 12. 1928 GAD also wrote to Schwartz: ‘Ich habe mich unserer Begegnung in Dresden aufrichtig gefreut; denn die seitherige Spannung hatte all die Jahre hindurch mich recht bedrîckt.’ Letter, dated 1.7.1913. E. Eidem (see ch. 9, n. 16) anticipated this work under the earlier (working) title ‘Im Kampf um Paulus’. See his partially GADinfluenced thesis, Pauli bildvrld. Bidrag till belysande av apostelns omgivning, uttrycksstt och skaplynne. 1. Athletæ et milites Christi, Lund, 1913, 2. Paulus2, 230 – 1. No convincing evidence exists to support a hypothesis that GAD’s shift from NT philology might be related to Schwartz’ review of Paulus. Instead, see Appendix 4, b. e.g. ‘Mein verewigter Vater hatte Paulus verstanden, als er von dem kçlnischen Glasmaler Schmitz in der evangelischen Kirche des oberen Rheingaus zu Erbach, im Weinlande, den Gekreuzigten darstellen ließ unter Verwertung der

150

4. From the study to the realia

reasserted his strained distinction between letters and epistles, first presented in Bibelstudien, then repeated in Licht vom Osten, and vacillated between discrepant social positions for Paul by initially declaring: … deshalb darf man den Zeltmacher von Tarsus doch nicht zu Origenes, Thomas und Schleiermacher stellen; er gehçrt zu den Hirten von Thekoa und dem Bandwirker von Mîllheim … Sicher scheint mir da zu sein, daß Paulus von Tarsus … aus den handarbeitenden unliterarischen Schichten gekommen und auch bei ihnen geblieben ist.88

Yet a little later he visibly struggled with this radical swing from the contemporary view of Paul and made a somewhat lacklustre attempt at redefining his thesis. Aber … sein Griechisch [ist] nicht eigentlich vulgr in der Art, die auf vielen gleichzeitigen Papyri zu Worte kommt. Auf Grund der Sprache ist Paulus vielmehr einer gehobenen Schicht zuzuweisen. Es ist ja gewiß îberhaupt unendlich schwierig, das Problem der antiken Schichtung zu beantworten; auch bei unserem Versuch, die soziale Schicht des Paulus zu gewinnen, sind wir uns bewußt, nur tastend vorwrts zu kommen.89

Having said this, it is essential to remember Deissmann’s rationale for the book, for he specifically stated in the preamble that Paulus was not intended as anything more than ‘eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze’ apropos Paul, and written to stir fresh debate about the Apostle’s social stratum. [Paulus] … ist weit mehr Beter und Zeuge, Bekenner und Prophet, als gelehrter Exeget und grîbelnder Dogmatiker. Zu zeigen, daß dies so ist, betrachte ich als die Aufgabe dieser Skizze, bei der es sich nicht um eine Vertiefung in die mannigfachen Probleme der ußeren Biographie des Paulus handeln kann, und in der speziell die Besprechung der chronologischen und literarkritischen Fragen ganz zurîcktreten muß hinter der Hauptaufgabe der kultur- und religionshistorischen Charakteristik.90

One might wonder whether Paulus was perhaps contrived to silence the accusations in the conservative press against his Berlin appointment that johanneischen Allegorie vom Weinstock: das Kreuz hat Wurzel geschlagen im Erdreich, zum lebendigen Weinstock geworden ist das tote Marterholz, und unter den ausgebreiteten Heilandsarmen grînen die Wunderreben mit leuchtenden Blttern und schwerer Frucht hernieder zur Abendmahlsgemeinde.’ Paulus, 120. 88 Ibid., 3 – 4, 35. 89 Ibid., 37. 90 Ibid., 4.

4.3. Paulus

151

he was ‘îberhaupt kein Theologe … und keine Beitrge zum Verstndnis des N.T. gegeben habe, sondern bloß zum Missverstndnis’.91 The fact that the book leans so strongly towards conservatism and accepts every Pauline epistle as genuine – with the merest wisp of a doubt for the Pastorals92 – could conceivably point that way. Nonetheless, circumstances tip the balance against this hypothesis. For Paulus was published well over two years after his appointment to Berlin, and it was Licht vom Osten that had come on the market within weeks of the attacks. Yet, although the timing of the latter book was coincidental (the printing process had begun in October 1907, long before the invitation from Berlin arrived), Wendland’s perspicacious observation that this particular work was Deissmann’s best defence against such allegations had already settled the matter sufficiently.93 Even before the turn of the century Deissmann had argued against the common trend of transforming Paul into an intangible theological construct – ‘eine der Wirklichkeit entrîckte Heiligengestalt’ – and opposed the notion that the Apostle was subject to a formal eschatological or theological system.94 Now that he had been introduced to life in the Orient, and gained numerous experiences from most locations germane to Pauline research, he was able to support this longstanding hypothesis with a good measure of empirical knowledge. Deissmann was thoroughly conversant with the extensive literature relating to the Apostle Paul, yet for the purpose of his book steered intentionally away from engaging with it, lest the ‘Charakter des Ganzen als einer “Skizze” aufgegeben wre’.95 He would hardly have made such a decision – which could readily be interpreted as plain ignorance – had he intended to prove his ‘theological merit’ through Paulus. Rather, he was attracted to Paul’s humanity ever since 1m Wqist`, and had already there cautioned that ‘Paulus … nun einmal 91 92 93 94

See ch. 1, n. 117. Paulus, 10 – 11. See ch. 2, n. 116. See GAD’s review of G. Stosch, St. Paulus, der Apostel, in TLZ, 3, 1896, 87. Also E. Teichmann, ‘Die paulinische Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht’, TLZ, 1, 1898, 14. 95 Paulus, v, viii. This important rider seems to have escaped Jan de Villiers in his very misleadingly entitled essay, ‘Adolf Deissmann: a reappraisal of his work, especially his views on the mysticism of Paul’, in S.E. Porter, ed., Paul and his theology, vol. 3, Boston, 2006, 393 – 422.

152

4. From the study to the realia

kein Systematiker ist’.96 Later, at Herborn, while teaching on the Apostle’s prison letters, it was Deissmann who developed the now commonly accepted hypothesis that Paul had been incarcerated at Ephesus.97 It is, therefore, improbable that Paulus came about because of the author’s need for professional self-justification at Berlin. Instead, the first edition, which was not in German but Swedish, was published in accordance with his usual practice of publishing his international lecture series in book form.98

4.4. Conclusion Deissmann’s two extensive study tours to the Middle East undoubtedly changed the way he was thinking, and formed a watershed in his academic and his personal life.99 Thus, while his earlier ‘Studiertisch Beobachtungen’ had enabled him to produce Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien and the Septuaginta-Papyri, it was always difficult for him to find his ‘historical bearings’ until he was able ‘to see things as a concrete image in space’.100 For fifteen years he had worked on the topic of the NT’s linguistic history without the benefit of local on-site knowledge; finally, when the opportunity presented itself to rectify this, he considered it ‘eine îberaus wichtige Sache’. But why was this so important to him? Study tours (as distinct from explorations) were still a highly unorthodox means of expanding a theologian’s learning. Two motives can be identified which drove him to expose himself willingly to the physical dangers inherent in those two journeys: his pioneering spirit, fuelled by his romantic attachment to the ‘world of the NT’, and his intellectual need to break loose from the confines of his study to the archaeological and cultural realia of the regions on which his academic work was focused. While the first journey resulted 96 En Chr, 93. 97 GAD, ‘Zur ephesinischen Gefangenschaft’, 122. See also Pilhofer, 7. GAD defended it as his own hypothesis in LvO2, 171 n. 1: ‘Ich verdanke diese Hypothese îbrigens nicht, wie ein Rezensent gemeint hat, dem Buche von H. Lisco Vincula Sanctorum, Berlin 1900, sondern habe sie bereits 1897 im Herborner Seminar den Kandidaten vorgetragen.’ 98 e.g. Philology (Cambridge, 1907); Selly Oak Lectures (Selly Oak, 1923); Haskell Lectures (Oberlin, 1929). 99 SD, 66. 100 ET, 25, 11, 1914, 487.

4.4. Conclusion

153

in Deissmann’s magnum opus (Licht von Osten) the second engendered the much lighter Paulus, which, however, was written as a ‘Skizze’ – not a biography – to bring into question the growing fixation ‘an dem “Theologen” Paulus und an der “Theologie” des Paulus’.101 The controversy that ensued over this book’s premises indicates that this objective was achieved. Notably, it was the 1906 and 1909 study tours that first introduced him to the significance of the archaeological work at Ephesus and stirred his interest in this site. Some two decades later, when it had fallen into danger of being permanently lost to posterity, it was Deissmann who made possible the salvaging of this ancient metropolis. The following chapter will reveal not only how this came about, but also the long-term ramifications of his energetic actions on behalf of Ephesus.

101 ‘Paulus ist seinem Wesen nach in erster Linie ein Heros der Frçmmigkeit. Das Theologische ist das Sekundre. Das Naive ist bei ihm strker als das Reflektierte, das Mystische strker als das Dogmatische; Christus bedeutet ihm mehr als die Christologie, Gott mehr als die Lehre von Gott.’ Paulus, 4.

5. The Ephesus excavations Du hast einst îber die Grenzen hinaus das große Ephesosunternehmen … zu neuem Leben erweckt und hast es betreut als heiligen Besitz geistiger Art … Voll grçßter Dankbarkeit haben wir Deiner an Deinem 70. Geburtstag zu gedenken. Aber so wie ich, kann es keiner tun, weil ich mehr als alle anderen, nicht nur das, was Du getan hast, kenne, sondern auch um die große, glîhende Liebe weiß, aus der heraus Dein ganzes Tun geflossen ist.1

5.1. Archaeology at Ephesus: background to its revival Archaeology, particularly with regard to early Christianity, had appealed to Deissmann since boyhood, and in 1889 he wrote that during his studies at Berlin (1888), he ‘benutzte … u. a. die gute Gelegenheit im christlichen Museum der Universitt unter Leitung des ehrwîrdigen Professor D. Piper eine lngst betriebene Liebhaberei in wissenschaftliche Bahnen zu lenken, die christliche Archologie’.2 And again, two years later: ‘Mit besonderem Dank muss ich hier noch der archologischen Vorlesungen des inzwischen verstorbenen Herrn Professor D. Piper gedenken’.3 At another time he recalled that he had ‘in jîngeren Jahren einmal die Gelegenheit gehabt die Ausgrabungen frnkischer Grber bei Heidelberg zu beobachten …’;4 evidently, it had been an experience 1 2

3 4

Keil, letter to GAD, 5.10.1936. For a transcript see Appendix 9, g (IV). GAD’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27. 3. 1889; see Appendix 1, b. Ferdinand Piper was a church historian who originated the study of Christian monuments from antiquity (Monumentale Theologie) and founded the Berlin University’s Christian Museum, as well as the internationally first Christian-Archaeological Institute. GAD’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 14. 4. 1891; see Appendix 1, a. GAD’s address, entitled, ‘Rede des Rektors der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt beim Goldenen Doktorjubilum des Herrn Geheimrat Professor Dr. Gustaf Kossina’, 2.8.1931.

156

5. The Ephesus excavations

that impressed him enough to remember it some three decades later. Thus, when Deissmann first set eyes on Ephesus he was struck by its broad historical value; and within less than a year of visiting the site for the second time in 1909 he was preparing the ‘Paulus lectures’ for Uppsala (see ch. 4.3), in which, spread throughout his text, he referred to the ancient city some 28 times. Although Ephesus had stirred the imagination of travellers for centuries, until the late 1860s this once ‘first and greatest Metropolis of Asia’ was no more than a huge expanse of rubble and scattered ruins which reminded the occasional traveller of the city’s glorious past. It was well known that the great temple of Artemis had once stood there, but its exact location remained elusive. In 1845, Edmund Falkner, while not the first to attempt a drawing of the city’s general layout, produced the first useful map that correctly identified many of its ruins.5 It was almost a quarter-century later, when the British engineer John Turtle Wood (1821 – 90) finally discovered the Artemision’s marble floor, buried beneath seven metres of detritus.6 He was backed by the British Museum, but the undertaking had to be terminated in 1874 due to technical problems; nevertheless, the Museum authorised him to purchase an allotment of land, believed to include the Artemision.7 Fourteen years passed before David George Hogarth (1862 – 1927) resumed the excavations (1904 – 5) – also on behalf of the British Museum – but he had the advantage of employing a massive steam pump, similar to what was being used in the goldmining industry.8 Hogarth’s sluicing work brought to light many artefacts; yet he, too, never found the temple’s Altar – ultimately discovered and unearthed some distance to the west by Anton Bammer (1965 – 68). The earlier, narrowly-focused British excavations had been driven chiefly by romantic notions about ‘old world treasures’; and the discovery of the ‘biblical’ temple of Diana (Acts 19:28) was viewed more in terms of a prestigious national scoop for Britain than an academic contribution to the understanding of ancient civilisations. 5 6 7 8

Wiplinger/ Wlach, 2. Ibid., 5. For a recent study on these earlier British excavations, see I. Donkow, ‘The Ephesus excavations 1863 – 74, in the light of the Ottoman legislation on antiquities’, AS, 54, 2004, 109 – 17. Wiplinger/ Wlach, 5, 13. A. Bammer, Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos, Graz, 1984, 9.

5.1. Archaeology at Ephesus: background to its revival

157

The first Austrian who excavated at Ephesus with scientific methodology was Otto Benndorf (1838 – 1907), professor of classical archaeology at Vienna. The president of the Unterrichtsministerium, Dr. Paul Gautsch (1851 – 1918) – Freiherr von Frankenthurn, and, later, three times prime minister of Austria – had urged that a largescale archaeological venture should be sought, to raise the AustroHungarian Empire’s international prestige, upon which Benndorf suggested Ephesus as a possible site. He was soon able to secure the cooperation of Carl Humann (1839 – 96), who ‘acted as a sort of academic consul general for archaeological affairs in the Orient’ and whose ‘expert report was the basis for the work that followed in Ephesus’.9 In 1894 Humann formulated a comprehensive technical proposal, including plans and budget forecasts for excavations, upon which the Austrian government purchased 340,000 square metres of land at Ephesus10 and an old light rail track with 14 wagons. Through Humann’s engineering and drainage experience they made good progress within the first season (1895), and by 1913 had at least partially excavated and examined an impressive number of structural relics.11 Less than two years after Austria’s first campaign, Kaiser Franz Joseph I (1830 – 1916) granted a request from Gautsch to establish an archaeological institute at Vienna (15. 3. 1897), with Benndorf as its first director. By that time the latter had already obtained the good favour of the Turkish sultan, not only to unearth Ephesus, but (importantly) also to export any discoveries to their new museums at Vienna.12 However, the empire’s archaeological opportunities for cultural enrichment were short-lived, for with the onset of WWI funding was terminated and the work lapsed. The postwar era brought no better prospects either, and in 1922 the secretary of the §AI, Josef Keil, wrote to Theodor Wiegand: Leicht ist das Leben fîr uns nicht; wir haben ja nur eine mçblierte Zweizimmerwohnung [i.e. a single bedroom] (mit Kîchenbenîtzung [i.e. shared kitchen]) und unser Gehalt ist augenblicklich weit schlechter als der eines 9 Wiplinger/ Wlach, 12. 10 This entailed two separate fields adjacent to the British one. Ibid., 14. 11 These included parts of the Artemision, the harbour gymnasium, harbour gates and theatre; a circular monument on Panayır Dag˘, the city’s water supply, the Arcadiane and halls of Verulanus; the commercial agora, Celsus library, Curetes street and the hall of Nero; the church of the Virgin Mary, the Magnesian gate, agora, stadium and the temple of Serapis. Ibid., 14. 12 Gautsch, letter to Benndorf, 7. 9. 1896, in Bammer, 23.

158

5. The Ephesus excavations

Universittsassistenten … Daß ich unter diesen Umstnden auch zu Hause gar vieles helfen muß, kçnnen Sie sich vorstellen … wenn auch manche Stunde so fîr die Wissenschaft verloren geht. Im Institut habe ich jetzt die ganze Rechnungsfîhrung, fîr die frîher ein Beamter des Ministeriums zugeteilt war, zu machen; das braucht wieder gar manche Stunde …13

Even five years later Keil’s salary was still a mere M.400 per month,14 for in reality, Austria was bankrupt, as it had been reduced to a mere quarter of its former size, and its national economy was in tatters. The consequent lapse in excavations at Ephesus, after the 1913 season, was far more than a temporary setback for its archaeological progress, because much of the §AI’s initial work was being undone again or permanently lost through annual flooding, vigorous vegetation growth, fires and persistent looting (see ch. 5.2). Not until 1921 – 2, during the short Greek occupation of Western Asia Minor, did some limited archaeological investigations resume (at the St. John’s basilica), led by Georgios A. Sotiriou (1880 – 1965). Nevertheless, after Greece’s defeat by Turkey, he was forced to terminate the work in 1922,15 with more than half of the basilica still buried. Before departing, he managed to store a large number of small sculptures and architectural fragments in an unused mosque at the nearby village of Ayasoluk. Unfortunately, this building was soon taken over by Turkish immigrants (Muhajirun) and, except for a few heavy blocks, all but disappeared. A year later Keil informed Wiegand that the §AI had lost all contact with Ephesus, and that while Sotiriou had updated them on his work on the basilica, no one seemed to know the site’s present condition.16 By now Vienna also faced an increased risk of having its excavation rights for Ephesus rescinded by Turkey. Indeed, a few months later, when the American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia Minor 13 Keil, letter to Wiegand, 2.5.1922. For a transcript see Appendix 5, a. 14 Keil, letter to Wiegand, 12.5.1927. He also commented that the M.400 ‘… ja freilich etwas hçher zu bewerten sind, weil das Leben hier etwas billiger ist, aber bei einem, der nicht einmal eine Wohnung hat, ist der Unterschied nicht groß’. 15 He published his findings in two reports, in Archaiologikon Deltion, 1922. 16 ‘Von Ephesus haben wir keinerlei Nachrichten, [Theodor] Macridy schrieb mir, daß sie in Cospoli auch nichts wîßten. Der griechische Ephoros Sotiriu, der unlngst wegen einer Augenoperation hier war, hat mir die wundervollen Ergebnisse seiner Ausgrabungen in der Johanniskirche gezeigt. Wirklich prachtvoll, wie das Problem gelçst wird.’ Letter, 2.4.1923.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

159

attempted to obtain a similar permit, they reported that ‘the present attitude of the Turkish Government towards foreigners and foreign concessions is such that a written agreement from them is out of the question’.17

5.2. Raising awareness and funding18 In a prospectus Deissmann wrote early in 1925 with the aim of promoting awareness of the plight of Ephesus, he declared: For some years this situation [i.e. disintegration of the site] has been a peculiar problem and anxiety to me. I have been at Ephesus twice, in 1906 and 1909, and have been able to appraise the really exemplary work done by the Austrian Institute. Repeatedly I have turned the attention of students … to these excavations … More and more I have occupied myself with the Ephesian problems …19

Yet despite his concerns regarding the site’s postwar fate, he was unable to do anything about it, because of the economic chaos in Germany that yielded him a numerical salary of 90 billion Marks, and the wages of a printer’s assistant soared from 50 to 850 million within a single month!20 Besides regularly highlighting Ephesus’ plight to his students, Deissmann was forced to wait until the protracted series of political and economic crises had settled. Thus, it was spring 1925 before he was able to launch a promotional campaign within the USA by mailing out his prospectus, ‘Excavations in Ephesus’, explicitly written for an American readership.21 A few months later he explained the reasons for his keen engagement with Ephesus to the Reichsministerium: Umfassende Studien haben mich seit Jahren zu der ˜berzeugung gebracht, daß wir von einer weiteren Erforschung der ungeheuren Trîmmersttte wesentliche Aufschlîsse … erhalten mîßten. Ich habe mich daher entschlossen, dieser Aufgabe nher zu treten …22 17 Bell, letter to Rockefeller Jr., 19.12.1925. 18 See also Gerber, ‘Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1866 – 1937) and the revival of archaeological excavations at Ephesus after the First World War’, §Jh, 75, 2006 [2007], 39 – 46. 19 The undated prospectus is entitled, ‘Excavations in Ephesus’. 20 Ministerial remittance note, 20. 11. 1923, and Schmidt-Ott, circular to Notgemeinschaft committee chairmen, 29.9.1923. 21 GAD, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b. 22 GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b.

160

5. The Ephesus excavations

Initially, Deissmann had contacted Keil and the §AI with his idea. Not only was he on friendly terms with Keil, but the latter was arguably the world’s best living authority on Ephesus; moreover, the §AI was the only body licensed by the Turkish authorities to undertake excavations there. Consequently, Deissmann proposed that they draw up a joint plan to recommence archaeological work in autumn 1926, for which he himself would raise the necessary finance, while Keil would organise a professional team. A few months later Keil was employed by the American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia Minor, to make a surface survey of Cilicia.23 During that trip he detoured to make his first brief inspection of Ephesus since 1913, which enabled him to send Deissmann an up-to-date report on its condition.24 The site turned out to be in far greater jeopardy than they had presumed. Before the mid-1980s, when the Turkish government raised the road level between the ancient city and the Kaystros river, the ruins were subject to annual flooding, which scoured and inundated many vulnerable structures, reburying them metres-deep under enormous amounts of silt. Rampant vegetation covered everything else and did much damage to exposed masonry, which, in turn, was severely compounded by the traditional practice of burning off. Two earthquakes had also occurred in Western Anatolia during recent years: one in November 1919, the other in November 1924 – irreversible structural devastation was only a matter of time. But perhaps the most pressing problem was the imminent threat of wholesale plundering. Keil’s letter explained how in 1923, as a result of Turkey’s struggle for democratic independence, Ayasoluk had been razed to the ground and its Greek residents expelled. Muhajirun then proceeded to build a new town on the rubble and renamed it SelÅuk; but their steady influx triggered a growing demand for building materials, of which an obvious source existed in the stones and marble slabs of the nearby ruins. Keil’s bleak prognosis for Ephesus was independently corroborated by an earlier American report which concerned Anatolia more broadly: Up to the present time the ruins of Asia Minor have been relatively undisturbed, owing to the fact that cities of any size are rare, and that the thinly scattered population is largely composed of peasant-farmers. Except 23 These investigations resulted in J. Keil/ A. Wilhelm, Denkmler aus dem rauhen Kilikien, MAMA III, Manchester, 1931. 24 GAD, letter to Richardson, 16.12.1925. For a transcript see Appendix 5, c.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

161

in a few centres there has been little building, and consequently the ancient sites have been left comparatively unpillaged. Now, however, the great wave of ‘progress’ that is sweeping over the country cannot but be fatal to the remains of antiquity. The widespread desire for modern improvements that is characteristic of the new Turkey will bring about the transformation of the old centres into modern towns, with the consequent use of ancient sites as places from which building materials may be extracted. The development … and the carrying out of … exploitation of the country will thus bring destruction to the antiquities throughout the whole region.25

The signatories to this report added weight to the argument of urgency, for they included the secretary of the American Archaeological Survey of Asia Minor, Harold Wilmerding Bell (1885 – 1947); the director of the Geographical Society and US chief territorial adviser at the Versailles conference, Isaiah Bowman (1878 – 1950); the classicist and archaeologist, William Hepburn Buckler (1867 – 1952); the chairman of the American Archaeological Survey of Asia Minor and in 1919 member of the American peace negotiating commission, David Magie (1872 – 1966); the curator of ethnography at the American Museum of Natural History, Clark Wissler (1870 – 1947); and William Linn Westermann (1873 – 1954), professor of history at Columbia University. *

*

*

Between December 1914 and November 1921 Deissmann produced the Evangelischer Wochenbrief, of which, until 1917, an English edition, the Protestant Weekly Letter, was sent to a carefully selected clientele throughout the United States (see ch. 7.2). One effect of these bulletins was that he had gained a wide international circle of highly influential friends, among them the Episcopalian bishop of New York State West, Charles Henry Brent (1862 – 1929), who was also on the eight-member board of trustees for the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund in New York.26 Deissmann met Brent for the first time at the Stockholm Universal Christian Conference on ‘Life and Work’ in August 1925 (see ch. 8.4), 25 From a 13-page report entitled ‘Memorandum concerning a proposed archaeological survey of Asia Minor’ (p. 4 – 5), while it is undated, the attached coverletter from Buckler to Richardson was written on 15.6.1923. 26 The Fund was established in 1918 by John Davison Rockefeller Sr. (1839 – 1937), in memory of his wife, Laura Celestia Spelman Rockefeller (1839 – 1915); it was merged with the Rockefeller Foundation in 1929. Brent was born and educated in Ontario, but emigrated to America in his early twenties.

162

5. The Ephesus excavations

when both men were elected to the eight-member subcommittee for international relations. No records exist of their private discussions, but it is certain that the topic of Ephesus must have come up. For three months later Brent wrote to Deissmann that he had contacted Beardsley Ruml (1894 – 1960), director of the Rockefeller Fund, and that the latter had invited Deissmann to send details concerning his salvaging plans for Ephesus to Willard S. Richardson (1866 – 1952).27 Richardson was the Fund’s secretary and private spiritual advisor of John Davison Rockefeller Jr. (1874 – 1960), son of the world’s first billionaire. Brent’s suggestion to Deissmann is worth noting; for it appears that he was motivated by precedent, since Richardson had once before been approached for support of a comparable archaeological expedition in Anatolia by William Buckler. On 28 December 1922 the latter had presented a decisive paper at New Haven to ‘a Joint Meeting of the American Historical Association and the Archaeological Institute of America’. In its detailed report he shrewdly predicted that, as a result of Turkey’s fundamental political changes, Anatolia would soon present archaeological opportunities, where ‘Americans can do such work on a scale which European scholars cannot at present afford, and this fact throws upon us the burden of a duty’.28 Within six months of this he had submitted a plan to Richardson for a large-scale systematic archaeological surface survey of Asia Minor (see below), which Rockefeller’s Committee on Benevolence conditionally funded to one quarter of the proposed cost.29 Therefore, in keeping with Brent’s advice, Deissmann wrote a letter to Richardson, in which he outlined Ephesus’ deteriorating condition and projected a cost of US$20,000 for one season’s work.30 With it he also included his prospectus, ‘Excavations in Ephesus’, as well as Keil’s informative booklet, Ein Fîhrer durch die Ruinensttte und ihre Geschichte.31 But although Richardson’s initial reply was sympathetic he offered scant hope of financial assistance. In actual fact, while 27 GAD’s letter, 16. 12. 1925; see Appendix 5, c. 28 Buckler, paper, 28.12.1922. 29 The report (see n. 25 above) proposed four teams for a duration of five years, with an estimated total annual cost of US$20,000. See also Richardson, letter to Buckler, 29.6.1923. 30 GAD’s letter, 16. 12. 1925; see Appendix 5, c. 31 Wien, 1915. The attractively produced 90-page first edition featured, besides two detailed maps, 46 photographs, sketches and building plans.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

163

Deissmann was waiting for a definitive response, Thomas Baird Appleget (1893 – 1982), the new secretary of Rockefeller’s Committee on Benevolence, wrote to Harold Bell on another matter, but added that they had received Deissmann’s proposal, and then surprisingly advised: ‘Mr. Richardson and I would like the opportunity of conferring with you in regard to the possibility of the work at Ephesus being taken over by the American Society’.32 Bell’s answer two days later tactfully sidestepped this suggestion by requesting a personal meeting instead, after which the matter was dropped. Another month went by before Appleget sent Deissmann the answer he had hoped for, namely that Rockefeller was willing to contribute US$10,000, provided Deissmann could raise an equivalent amount from German sponsors.33 The decision was swayed by Bell’s recommendation that the project was worthy of Rockefeller’s support and that ‘the excavation should, by all means, be completed. The abandonment of such a task once begun always involves a great loss in effort and results’.34 Long before Appleget’s news arrived Deissmann had also lobbied vigorously for support within Germany itself. For although he was unaware of the former’s radical idea, he knew that since the end of WWI Italy had also been making strong efforts to claim a stake in Ephesus.35 Accordingly, he first sought advice from the president of the Notgemeinschaft fîr Deutsche Wissenschaft,36 Friedrich Schmidt-Ott 32 33 34 35

Appleget, letter to Bell, 8.1.1926. Appleget, letter to GAD, 8.2.1926. Memorandum, entitled, ‘Deissmann excavation project at Ephesus’, 28.1. 1926. A decade later GAD wrote in a confidential report: ‘Ich mçchte da streng vertraulich mitteilen, dass wir allen Anlass haben, eine kulturelle Rivalitt der italienischen Archologen auf dem Boden von Ephesus zu erwarten. Es stand wohl im Zusammenhang mit den politischen Expansionsbestrebungen Italiens in Kleinasien, als nach dem Weltkriege von italienischer Site der ernsthafte Versuch gemacht wurde, das Stadtgebiet von Ephesus fîr die italienische Archologie zu sichern. Ephesus war im alten Imperium Romanum die Hauptstadt der Provinz Asia. Daher kommt es, dass der Plan italienischer Ausgrabungen in Ephesus vielleicht nicht ganz unbeeinflusst ist von den imperialistischen Trumen derer, die sich gern als Rechtsnachfolger der rçmischen Caesaren betrachten.’ GAD, report to Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1.6.1935. For a transcript, see Appendix 5, d. 36 A nationwide body founded in Oct. 1920 by the former Kultusminister, Friedrich Schmidt-Ott (1860 – 1956), to distribute funds for academic purposes equitably. It constituted a union of ‘smtliche Wissenschaftsakademien, Universitten, technischen, landwirtschaftlichen und tierrztlichen Hochschulen des Reichsgebietes mit der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher

164

5. The Ephesus excavations

(1860 – 1956). Deissmann had no intention to involve the Notgemeinschaft itself, for as chairman of its Theological Committee he thought it inappropriate to compete for funds with the Archaeological Committee,37 but the powerful and diplomatically highly experienced Schmidt-Ott was his best source of advice when it came to fundraising. Possibly on the latter’s suggestion, Deissmann had also discussed the matter with Hermann Strathmann (1882 – 1966)38 who, in turn, sent a letter to Martin Schiele (1870 – 1939), the Reichsminister des Innern, in which he strongly commended Deissmann’s proposal. Nevertheless, his appeal was direct and smacked strongly of nationalism;39 furthermore, he imprudently emphasised: ‘es handelt sich nur um einen einmaligen Beitrag’ of M.40,000.40 Schiele was unimpressed however, and passed the letter on to Schmidt-Ott. As a result, Strathmann met again with Schiele and this time suggested that the support could be shared between the Auswrtiges Amt, the Reichsministerium des Innern and the Notgemeinschaft.41 It is against this background that Deissmann made his first formal presentation on behalf of Ephesus at the Reichsministerium des Innern, where he met with the Ministers Richard Donnevert and Georg Gîrich on Monday, 27 July. Here he explained his plan, and provided an estimate that the undertaking would require US$20,000 per season, of which he hoped the Department would contribute half. He stressed that the prospects of obtaining the balance ‘durch meine akademischen und kirchlichen Beziehungen in Nordamerika’ were good, provided he could first secure tangible German support.42 Two days after presenting his proposal Deissmann had an appointment with Max von Stockhausen, personal adviser to Reichskanzler Hans Luther (1879 – 1962), and later that day he showed a collection of Ephesus slides to some American visitors in the hope of

37 38 39 40 41 42

und ørzte, um die Gefahr des Zusammenbruchs [deutscher Wissenschaft] abzuwehren’. Schmidt-Ott, ‘Die Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft’, Sonderdruck from Die Woche, 5, 5.2.1921. GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b. A theologian and parliamentarian for the conservative Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP). Strathmann saw the Ephesus project primarily as an opportunity to advance German scholarship. Schiele was also a representative of the DNVP. Strathmann, letter to Schiele, 10. 7. 1925 (Italics my own). Memorandum to Schmidt-Ott, 24.7.1925. GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

165

interesting them in the venture.43 That Friday he formalised his discussion with the Ministers in a letter ‘… [um] das Wichtigste hierdurch schriftlich zu wiederholen’.44 *

*

*

When Deissmann first conceived the notion of possibly being able to revive the Ephesus excavations, it was based on his assumption that he had sound prospects for raising the required funds, on account of his many influential and international connections, particularly in the United States. Since these were predominantly subscribers to the Protestant Weekly Letter, or professional friends and, therefore, typically Protestants in positions of wide-ranging influence, the prospectus was written with an overtly Christian orientation. Its central argument proposed that ‘the significance of Ephesus for the history of Apostolic Christianity is far greater than was formerly supposed’. Moreover, it affirmed that Deissmann’s primary objective was an investigation of ‘… the early Christian ruins in Ephesus, especially those early churches, which have not yet been excavated’.45 From this it would be easy to stigmatise Deissmann as a mere fundraising theologian who was making use of his international connections to seek archaeological authentication for the Christian cause. This was exactly what some Germans had feared at the outset of his campaign, and the grounds for any such misgivings were not unfounded. For his letter to the Reichsministerium des Innern outlined that he, in conjunction with the §AI, had formulated ‘ein Programm der Kooperation’ that was not only accepted by them, but ‘… meinem Wunsch entsprechend, vorwiegend auf die Probleme der christlichen Geschichtswissenschaft eingestellt’.46 His motivation stemmed in the first instance from the significant possibilities Ephesus could offer research related to early church history, yet the underlying rationale for the tone of the prospectus itself was 43 AK, 29. 7. 1925; see also memorandum, 24.7.1925. 44 GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b. 45 The prospectus is signed very formally: ‘Professor Adolf Deissmann, Hon. D. theol. (Marburg), Hon. D. D. (Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Manchester), Corresponding Member of the Archaeological Institute of the German Reich, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Director of the Berlin New Testament Seminar, University of Berlin.’ ‘Excavations in Ephesus’. 46 GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b.

166

5. The Ephesus excavations

not his personal beliefs, but his American target audience. Nonetheless, his particular interest in the city’s Christian remains did not diminish his enthusiasm for anything else it had to offer. For ever since he published Bibelstudien in 1895 he had repeatedly stated in his philological works that he rejected any idea of a dichotomous approach to the study of the ancient world, and instead argued: Man kann den Aberglauben der Kaiserzeit nicht in die verschiedenen Kategorien heidnisch, jîdisch und christlich einteilen. So deutlich hebt sich an manchen Punkten nicht einmal der Glaube des Heiden und Juden von dem des Christen ab.47

Similarly – as already pointed out (see ch. 4.1) – he did not elevate his ‘theological’ study tour of 1909 above the ‘classical philological’ one he undertook in 1906. At any rate, Deissmann’s prospectus had already specified that the excavations would also entail work ‘concerning the old Ionic city’,48 and in the accompanying letter he expressly stated that it was to be ‘an endeavor to make for international research both for the secular and holy history …’.49 Again, in his letter to the Reichsministerium des Innern he made it known that he had decided ‘dieser Aufgabe [i.e. Ephesus excavation] nher zu treten, die insbesondere auch indirekte Bereicherung unseres Wissens betrifft, die wir aus den sonstigen (nichtchristlichen) Resten erhoffen dîrfen’.50 Besides, any suggestion to the contrary could only cast aspersions on the academic integrity of the §AI, which is why Keil was stung to remark: … [ich] wundere mich, daß man mir immer von auswrts so schreibt, als htte er nur fîr die christlichen Monumente von Ephesos Interesse und wollte uns von den antiken abhalten usw. Es ist fast als ob jemand solche Nachrichten, die ja wirklich der Wahrheit ganz zuwider laufen, absichtlich in die Welt setzte. Mir gegenîber hat Deissmann von Anfang an einen ganz anderen Standpunkt eingenommen, wenn er auch natîrlich auf das Christliche nicht verzichten kann, das ja schon wegen der Propagandakraft volle Berîcksichtigung finden muß.51

Evidently, there were some who construed Deissmann’s enthusiastic interest for Ephesus to be driven by an amateurish romanticism. There is, indeed, no denying that he was a romantic at heart (see ch. 4.2); in 47 48 49 50 51

Bst, 25. ‘Excavations in Ephesus’. GAD’s letter, 16. 12. 1925; see Appendix 5, c. GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925, see Appendix 5, b. Keil’s letter, 12.5.1927.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

167

fact, it was a personal characteristic that sometimes impinged on his literary style and occasioned such oddly expressed sentiments as: ‘Die Welt des Paulus die Welt des §lbaums!’52 However, while Deissmann was not a trained archaeologist, to infer a connection between his romantically inclined personality and a dilettante antiquarianism would be too far-fetched. Keil’s strong rebuttal of any such allegations certainly demonstrates that he perceived his colleague’s archaeological rationale to be beyond reproach, an assessment that is particularly relevant, since it was he who had once elucidated for Wiegand what he understood as the sine qua non for all archaeology and history: So wie Geschichte, mag sie welche Periode immer darstellen wollen, doch nur dann ihrer Aufgabe gerecht wird, wenn sie auf unniversal-historischer [sic] Grundlage aufgebaut ist, das heisst, jede Periode und jede Sttte im Zusammenhang mit der zeitlichen und rumlichen Umgebung erfaßt, so ist es Aufgabe jeder grçßeren Ausgrabung, die gesamte Umgebung mit allen ihren historischen Problemen mit einzubeziehen, so wie Sie es getan haben … Sie [haben] gezeigt, dass auch die Ausgrabungen im Sinne der Universalhistorie gemacht und geleitet werden kçnnen.53

Evidently, Keil believed Deissmann’s Ephesus initiative to deserve serious merit – even within his Christian-oriented framework – and considered any suggestions which might imply that it was no more than the romantic fancy of an enthusiastic theologian as mean-spirited. *

*

*

Besides his Christian perspective, Deissmann had, perhaps less judiciously, also raised a point that could be interpreted as Germanocentric: Die deutsche Wissenschaft hat bis 1914 (und noch nachher) das antike Kleinasien in vorbildlicher Weise erforscht … Die geplante Kooperation zwischen mir selbst und Wien wîrde (obwohl natîrlich ebenso sehr ein 52 Paulus, 26. GAD’s romantic inclination can also be detected in the AK, although not as frequently as might be expected. On 12. 9. 1908, for example, he noted that while spending some time on the island of Rîgen by himself, he carved the letter ‘H’ (for Henriette) into a tree trunk, and the following afternoon returned once more to it. On 3. 7. 1933 he wrote, ‘erster Spatenstich zum Neubau’, referring to the commencement of an extensive reconstruction of the Deissmanns’ weekend-house at Wînsdorf – which he had evocatively christened ‘Anatolia’. See also ch. 2, n. 125 and ch. 9, nn. 85, 93. 53 Keil’s letter, 2. 5. 1922; see Appendix 5, a.

168

5. The Ephesus excavations

neuer Anfang fîr das çsterreichische Schwester-Institut) einen Neubeginn dieser deutschen Arbeit bedeuten.54

After Schiele had forwarded Strathmann’s endorsement to Schmidt-Ott (see above), the latter thought it prudent to call on Wiegand’s expertise for advice, since he was chairman for the Notgemeinschafts committee for Kunstwissenschaften and the organisation’s specialist adviser on archaeological matters. Wiegand received both Strathmann’s letter and Deissmann’s submission for consideration, but in his official report ignored the former and focused solely on the content of the latter’s proposal. Although the request had come from the Notgemeinschaft, Wiegand also mailed a copy of his recommendation to the §AI to seek further information. He expressed concern about parts of Deissmann’s plan, and cautioned that it would be methodologically inadmissible for the excavators to confine themselves to a single (i. e. Christian) epoch at a complex archaeological site such as Ephesus.55 What troubled him most was that he interpreted Deissmann’s letter to suggest the Ephesus work would no longer be an Austrian but a German enterprise, under Austrian supervision. Despite that, Wiegand’s unease seemed primarily caused by the wording of Deissmann’s letter itself, rather than by the theologian’s personal objective. For earlier, when the two had discussed the matter in private, Wiegand had evidently given his verbal assent to his friend, since the latter would otherwise scarcely have written to the Reichsministerium: ‘beide Herren [i.e. Wiegand and Strathmann] stimmen dem Plan freudig zu’.56 Still, it was Wiegand’s letter, ‘dessen Stellungnahme sich ganz mit der der Notgemeinschaft deckt,’57 that convinced Schmidt-Ott to decline any financial assistance at that time. Despite their close friendship and occasional exchange of professional ideas, Wiegand’s high archaeological profile and experience carried less weight with Deissmann in respect to the work at Ephesus than Josef Keil’s extensive archaeological experience of that particular site. The former met Keil first during his 1906 study tour (see ch. 4.1), from where a lifelong friendship began to develop between them. Now, in 54 GAD’s letter, 31. 7. 1925; see Appendix 5, b. 55 Wiegand, report to Notgemeinschaft, 16.8.1925. For a transcript see Appendix 5, e. 56 As did the general secretary of the DAI, Martin Rodenwaldt (see ch. 5.4); see also GAD’s letter 31. 7. 1925, Appendix 5, b. 57 Schmidt-Ott’s memorandum, 20.8.1925.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

169

1925, it was Keil with whom Deissmann planned the renewed excavations, and whose scientific methodology and experience shaped his archaeological thinking the most. Although Wiegand seemed to have misinterpreted Deissmann’s intent to some degree, it was understood clearly at the §AI. For its director, Emil Reisch (1898 – 1933), had quickly replied to Wiegand’s report, that Keil would not only be directing the entire expedition on his own, but that they regarded it as a wholly Austrian undertaking in all respects – including any publications rights. However, Innerhalb des Rahmens dieses çsterreichischen Unternehmens haben wir uns selbstverstndlich gerne bereit erklrt, Herrn Prof. Deissmann einen von ihm noch zu bestimmenden Anteil an den gestellten Aufgaben zu selbststndiger Bearbeitung zu îberlassen.58

Reisch’s letter also emphasised that their archaeological work would not be restricted to Ephesus’ Christian remains, although the choice of actual sites ‘sollte wohl so getroffen werden, dass die vorwiegend an frîhchristlichen Objekten interessierten Kreise der Geldgeber ihre Befriedigung finden wîrden’. It was not unreasonable for the §AI to consent to this agreement, since the expected American funding was to come from (as yet unspecified) Christian sponsors who offered a practical means to resume excavations. But Reisch went a step further and suggested: Es wîrde natîrlich eine vom Institute mit besonderer Dankbarkeit begrîsste Strkung der Position des Institutes bedeuten, wenn die deutsche Notgemeinschaft, die çsterreichische Unternehmungen schon so vielfach gefçrdert hat, sich bereit finden wîrde, die neue ephesische Grabung im Sinne eines çsterreichischen Unternehmens durch Gewh[r]ung eines Beitrages zu unterstîtzen, sodass wir nicht mehr ausschliesslich oder fast ausschliesslich mit amerikanischen Geldern arbeiten wîrden.59

Although Reisch did not misinterpret Deissmann’s intent, he had gained the wrong impression regarding his fundraising strategy, since the latter had already specified that American capital would be conditional on substantial commitments from German sources.60 Wiegand forwarded Reisch’s reply to Schmidt-Ott, since, in effect, it constituted a funding request for the Notgemeinschaft. This time the 58 Reisch, letter to Wiegand, 20.8.1925. For a transcript see Appendix 5, f. 59 Reisch’s letter, 20.8.1925. 60 See Appendix 5, b.

170

5. The Ephesus excavations

latter’s memo, written to the Reichsministerium des Innern, was much less diplomatic, for he protested with unconcealed indignation: Eine Hilfe der Notgemeinschaft mçchte ich nach dem Inhalt seines letzten Schreibens îberhaupt in die letzte Linie rîcken. Es ist kaum zulssig, wenn die Oesterreicher sich der Mittel der Notgemeinschaft als einer fîr sie bestimmten Einrichtung bedienen. Die Notgemeinschaft hat beschlossen, dass çsterreichische Unternehmen nur ganz ausnahmsweise, soweit sie unbedingt dem Kreis der deutschen Forschung angehçren … in Betracht gezogen werden dîrfen.61

His reply also affected how the Reichsministerium des Innern viewed the case. Thus, despite Deissmann’s initial efforts, no firm pledges of any consequence seemed likely to emanate from Germany. Yet four months later, when he wrote to Richardson,62 his tone was sanguine, even though the letter showed signs that he had made little progress so far in his fund raising quest. It was not until 17 January when he received the news ‘that three German donors together promised for the Ephesus Fund 25,000 Marks (that is about 6000 $) on condition that I would receive the same sum from America’.63 It is not totally clear what tipped the balance in his favour, but it appears that it was due to his determination (and reasonable prospects) to raise the funds mainly from overseas’ sources. This would certainly have caused concern that Ephesus might be turned into an American project – with the concomitant likelihood of significant historical artefacts being shipped abroad. Nevertheless, despite Deissmann’s use of the word ‘promised’, any such gifts were in fact still very tentative, and seven weeks later he wrote more cautiously that ‘begrîndete Hoffnung besteht’.64 Thus, three weeks before Rockefeller’s conditional offer, three separate German sponsors had already given an equally conditional agreement that they could provide a total of M.25,000 – provided Deissmann would raise a corresponding sum from America.65 To avoid a stalemate, diplomacy was clearly of paramount importance! The three German benefactors included the Reichsministerium des Inneren and the Notgemeinschaft, with a pledge of M.10,000 each, and the Auswrtiges Amt whose offer of M.5000 was almost 61 62 63 64 65

Schmidt-Ott, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31.8.1925. See Appendix 5, b. GAD, letter to Brent, 18.1.1926. GAD, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 5.3.1926. For a transcript see Appendix 5, g. GAD’s letter, 18.1.1926.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

171

perfunctory.66 However, to reach Rockefeller’s condition of M.42,000 (US$10,000) Deissmann now had numerous meetings with highranking diplomatic figures, among them the Kultusminister Carl Heinrich Becker (1876 – 1933); the Ministerialrat Richard Donnevert; the Ministerialrat and soon to be Ministerialdirektor Reinhold Richter (1874 – 1946); the Generalsekretr of the DAI, Martin Karl Gerhart Rodenwaldt (1886 – 1945), and Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, also a former Staatsminister. Despite Schmidt-Ott’s initially negative reaction (see above), Deissmann was able to clarify the situation in person, and a few days later followed it up with a handwritten explanatory letter, in which he informed him of Rockefeller’s decision and addressed his earlier objections by stressing that the initiative originated from himself (i. e. Deissmann) and not from Vienna. He concluded by suggesting: Dass diese Kooperation auch Wirkungen htte, die, ohne dass man viel davon spricht, fîr unser Verhltnis zu §sterreich îberhaupt wohlttig wren, brauche ich nicht zu sagen. Ich darf nur wiederholen, was ich neulich andeutete, dass auch die preuß. Regierung mich zu meiner Bitte ermutigt hat. Herr Min.-Direktor Professor Richter wird Ihnen das gerne besttigen …67

How much bearing this letter had on the Auswrtiges Amt is uncertain, but five weeks later they decided to treble their contribution to M.15,000,68 although to avoid political speculations in the press their involvement was to be kept discreetly quiet.69 Thus, together with a modest contribution of M.5000 from the §AI, and M.2600 from the §sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deissmann had now succeeded in raising a total of M.42,600 (US$ 10,095) and with it fulfilled Rockefeller’s stipulation. Accordingly, on 30 April 1926 Appleget sent a bank draft for US$10,000 to the §AI.70 Right at the outset of his campaign Deissmann had created a provisional trust fund for Ephesus to facilitate and manage prospective 66 67 68 69

GAD’s letter, 5. 3. 1926; see Appendix 5, g. GAD’s letter, 5. 3. 1926; see Appendix 5, g. Auswrtiges Amt, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 7.4.1926. ‘Dass das Ausw. Amt nicht besonders genannt worden ist [in a public acknowledgement], entsprach dem Wunsche des Herrn Heilbron, der, wie ich glaube mit Recht, annahm, die Beteiligung des Ausw. Amtes werde im Ausland leicht politisch gegen uns verwerkt werden kçnnen’. GAD, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 8.3.1927. 70 Appleget, letter to GAD, 30.4.1926.

172

5. The Ephesus excavations

donations, and had also drawn attention to this in his prospectus. Now that financial support was assured, this fund was formalised on Friday, 16 April, under an Austrian-German partnership agreement. Keil and his wife travelled to Berlin from Vienna for the occasion. Reisch had also been invited and was expected to be amongst the dozen or so guests at the Deissmanns’ home for a celebratory dinner,71 but was unable to attend, and Deissmann informed him by letter of their proceedings.72 The meeting itself was held at the Auswrtiges Amt, chaired by the Ministerialdirektor Friedrich Heilbron, and attended at least by Deissmann, Donnevert, Keil, Rodenwaldt, Schmidt-Ott and Wiegand. They resolved to name Deissmann’s fund the ‘Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung’, and appointed four trustees for its administration: Reisch, Wiegand, Rodenwaldt, and Deissmann as chairman, an honorary position he occupied uninterruptedly until his death.73 *

*

*

Keil’s task of organising an effective archaeological team had turned out more difficult than expected, and he felt compelled to write to the wellconnected Wiegand for advice. In his letter he confided that his greatest misgiving for a successful undertaking was the Institute’s lack of archaeologically experienced architects, since the Ephesus veteran Wilhelm Wilberg – who had taken part in the early campaigns from 1899 – 1908, 1911 and 1913 – was now too old for this kind of work.74 Thus far, Max Theuer (1878 – 1949), a professor of architecture and Dekan at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna, had apparently not yet become a contender in Keil’s mind, since he wrote in another letter to Wiegand more than four months later that his most recent prospect, Hans Hçrmann, was unsuitable because of a possible career move to 71 That day (15. 4. 1926) GAD wrote in the AK: ‘8 A.brot [i.e. Abendbrot] bei uns, geladen: Reisch, Keil + Fr., Wiegand + Fr., Schrader + Fr., Michaelis, Hillers 2, Rodenwaldts 2. Hiller, Keil/Reisch, Deißmann, Rod.[enwaldt], Wiegand, He.[ilbron?], Donnevert, Schmidt-Ott.’ 72 GAD, letter to Reisch, 24.4.1926. For a transcript see Appendix 5, h. 73 On a 1937 letterhead for the ‘Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung’, a cross is drawn besides the names of the deceased trustees, Reisch and Wiegand, and the Viennese archaeologist Camillo Praschniker (1884 – 1949) and Josef Keil are added (in handwriting) as trustees. GAD to the Forschungsgemeinschaft, 29.1.1937. 74 Keil, letter to Wiegand, 26.12.1925.

5.2. Raising awareness and funding

173

Bayern.75 Even though the latter joined the team in 1927, 1928 and 1930, Wiegand eventually settled on Theuer for the 1926 season. For his junior colleague Keil selected Franz Miltner (1901 – 59), a barely 25-year-old Viennese archaeologist who had recently distinguished himself with his work on the amphitheatre at PetronellCarnuntum near Vienna, and in 1925 had accompanied Keil to Turkey to assist with inscriptional work for the American surface survey of Cilicia (see above). As it turned out, he proved to be an excellent choice, since he became an integral part of every Ephesus campaign until 1931 and again from 1954 to his untimely death in 1959. One unexpected member of the team was the Turkish archaeologist Ahmet Aziz Ogˇan (1888 – 1956), who was normally referred to as Aziz Bey. As Turkish commissioner for archaeological excavations (and later general director of Istanbul’s Museums) he had been attached to the Ephesus campaign as a result of negotiations between the Turkish government and the Austrian charg¤ d’affairs, August Kral. Constant political uncertainties76 had compelled Turkey to call a halt on all archaeological work and travel by foreigners within Western Anatolia in 1926; and as late as May it appeared that Ephesus was to suffer yet another year’s delay.77 However, Kral was able to obtain the government’s acquiescence, by urging that the campaign should go ahead under the aegis of the Smyrna Museum, with Aziz acting as official leader, although in practice he worked in full cooperation with the §AI. This arrangement worked very well, and Deissmann wrote almost a decade later that: … Aziz Og˘an [der] in den ersten Jahren als tîrkischer Ausgrabungskommissar in Ephesus unser Mitarbeiter war, hierdurch in sehr freundschaftliche Beziehungen mit uns getreten ist …78

That this amicable relationship had already been formed at the start of the 1926 campaign is evident from Deissmann’s letter to Wiegand, written one week after he arrived at Ephesus: 75 ‘In Berlin hat Rodenwaldt Reisch gegenîber Bedenken geußert, Hçrmann zu engagieren, weil er schwerlich mehr als fîr eine Kampagne verfîgbar wre. Er suche einen Posten in Bayern und wîrde einen solchen wahrscheinlich in absehbarer Zeit erhalten und damit natîrlich nicht mehr abkommen kçnnen’. Keil, letter to Wiegand, 10.5.1926. 76 For an allusion to this see GAD’s report, 1. 6. 1935; Appendix 5, d. 77 Keil, letter to Wiegand, 10.5.1926. 78 GAD’s report, 1. 6. 1935; see Appendix 5, d.

174

5. The Ephesus excavations

Herr Aziz Bey ist ein îberaus angenehmer Hausgenosse. Ich glaube, dass hier in Ephesus die formelle Leitung des Unternehmens durch die tîrkische Unterrichtsverwaltung so, wie die Dinge liegen, große Vorteile fîr die Sache hat.79

The fifth member of the team was Deissmann himself. Despite his lack of practical archaeological experience, his role in the 1926 expedition was not insignificant, nor did he overstate it when he wrote to Schmidt-Ott: Ich gehe als Sachverstndiger fîr die altchristlichen Dinge mit und habe einen betrchtlichen Einfluß auf das in diesem Sommer 1926 beginnende Gesamtunternehmen.80

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition The first fully organised Austrian excavation team to return to Ephesus since 1913 started work there at the beginning of September 1926, but Deissmann was not able to join them for another six weeks. For even though the Ministry had approved a small stipend of M.1500 towards his personal expenses81 and granted him sabbatical leave for the entire wintersemester,82 his holidays only began on 1 October. The working party had already done most of the necessary preparations during these first weeks, including clearing and restoring the Institute’s badly neglected headquarters in nearby SelÅuk, hiring an initial crew of 40 – 50 labourers, and clearing the overgrown vegetation from the most affected ruins. Six days after Deissmann arrived, and saw the fully operating activities on the site he had so passionately campaigned for, he wrote to Wiegand: Ich bin hier nach guter, wenn auch sehr umstndlicher Reise in bestem Wohlsein gelandet und auf das Freundschaftlichste von allen Genossen aufgenommen worden … Haus [i.e. §AI headquarters in SelÅuk] gut imstande, die Arbeit im vollem Gang mit schçnen Erfolgen. Dass sich Keils Hypothese îber die Lage der ionischer Stadt besttigt hat, wirst Du wohl schon durch ihn gehçrt haben. … Dass es nach vielen Enttuschungen 79 GAD, letter to Wiegand, 23.10.1926. 80 GAD’s letter, 5. 3. 1926; see Appendix 5, g. 81 Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 17.5.1926. Compare this to Keil’s monthly salary of M.400, see Keil’s letter, 12.5.1927. 82 This extended leave was allowed to enable GAD to accept an invitation for a subsequent lecture-tour in the USA (Jan. to Mar.), but which had to be postponed due to illness; see ch. 8.5.

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition

175

schließlich doch gelungen ist, diese Thîr [i.e. to Ephesus] wieder offen zu machen, ist eine der grçßten Freuden meines Lebens.83

The euphoric tone of this letter betrays more than mere proud or romantic pleasure in what he had achieved; it intimates that he regarded the 1926 season as the beginning of a long-term archaeological undertaking of which he expected to be an integral part. For in the same letter he also confided that he was already in the process of writing to the American sponsors, in an endeavour to obtain their renewed financial backing for 1927. And two days later he sent a report from SelÅuk, addressed to Beardsley Ruml and Thomas Appleget, in which he detailed the team’s work and results of the past seven weeks, gave the program for the rest of the season and stressed the importance of the enterprise’s ongoing character. He concluded with the hope, ‘to come to the States in January 1927. And then I have the intention to visit you and to tell you more about Ephesus’.84 This visit was not so much intended to report on what was achieved during the 1926 season, but rather to make a strong case for ongoing financial support. Shortly thereafter he wrote in another letter to an English friend: ‘I began this new period of my life in a new inspiration [sic], being here for many weeks and participating in the new excavation work of the Vienna Institute …’.85 During his first two weeks he worked closely with Josef Keil and Franz Miltner, familiarising himself with the site, the finds and the archaeologists’ methodology. He also compared Sotiriou’s four-year-old photographs of the St. John’s basilica with the ransacked state of the partially excavated edifice which remained, and became so appalled at the difference that he reported: It is a pity to say that the inhabitants of the Turkish village Seltchouk (formerly called Ayasoluk) have plundered and are still plundering these venerable ruins in a horrible measure when they are erecting their houses and stables, most of them being “Muhadschirs” (Turkish immigrants and refugees) who have no houses when they arrive.86

Already in an earlier letter to the Notgemeinschaft he had stressed that almost all of the basilica’s marble flooring and a large section of a tiled wall had been removed, while much of the marble architecture that 83 84 85 86

GAD’s letter, 23.10.1926. ‘Thîr’ is an allusion to 1 Cor. 16:8 – 9. Letter, dated 25.10.1926. GAD, letter to Bell, 14.11.1926. GAD, letter to Appleget, 21. 2. 1927 (parentheses his own).

176

5. The Ephesus excavations

Figure 7 Map of Ephesus

was still left lay toppled over and smashed.87 However, within two weeks of his arrival he had rediscovered most of the missing items from Sotiriou’s work (see ch. 5.1) – fitted into various stone walls in the neighbourhood of the old Mosque – and with Aziz’s energetic intervention, in conjunction with local authorities, he was able to recover several wagonloads of artefacts.88 The two men also cleaned up the St. John’s ruins and catalogued, packaged and stored all loose or broken pieces with the ones they had located. For the next month Deissmann worked almost daily with Miltner at the Seven Sleepers’ caves89 on the rocky north-eastern slopes of Panayır 87 GAD, grant application to Notgemeinschaft, 7.2.1927. 88 GAD, ‘The excavations in Ephesus 1926’, n. d., a report to Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund. Also J. Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 23, Beiblatt, 1926, 297. 89 Christian and Muslim traditions share the myth of how during the Decian persecution (249 – 51), seven young men escaped into one of the local caves, where, on the Emperor’s order, they were sealed in. The youths fell into a deathlike sleep, but were awakened by God two centuries later. When the ‘new’ Emperor Theodosius II (408 – 50) came to see this miracle, he hailed them as living proof of bodily resurrection. Later, after dying a natural death,

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition

177

Dag˘ and ‘barely visible above the deep layer of rubbish which encompassed [it]’.90 By employing 130 labourers91 they were able to remove more than 500 cubic metres of rubble per day, but the sheer size of the project proved too large for a single season’s work. Nevertheless, what they uncovered surpassed all expectations, since it proved to be not only an extensive Christian necropolis but also a centuries-long pilgrimage site. As Deissmann explained: Almost all the types of graves already known to us through explorations made in the other catacombs of the Mediterranean world were found here also: trough graves with arches (arcosolia), graves in niches, with many burial places above one another, walled sunken graves, loculi, and various other types.

Furthermore, he regarded the ruinous church itself as a uniquely built ‘cemetery-church for the cult of the Seven Boys and biblical Saints, who are buried in special chapels lying just north of the building’.92 On Monday, 22 November – the penultimate excavation-day, and four days before the team was due to leave SelÅuk – a hole opened up amongst the rubble and gave way to a large subterranean passage. The entrance was hastily cleared and revealed what Keil and Deissmann separately described as a catacomb with numerous burial alcoves on either side. The next day they also discovered an apse, but were forced to backfill the access hole immediately thereafter, ‘with rubbish in order to save it against robbery till the next campaign in fall 1927’.93 Although the entire necropolis had been raided centuries earlier, it still yielded:

90 91 92 93

they were buried in the same cave, and Theodosius commissioned a basilica to be built over their tombs. It was also believed that Mary Magdalene and the ‘300 fathers’ lay buried in the same place. The necropolis continued to be sought out by pilgrims until at least the 13th century. Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 286. For an annotated English translation of the Wanderlegende see S. Brock, ‘Jacob of Serugh’s poem on the Sleepers of Ephesus’, in F.S. Lattke, Early Christian Studies, 12, 2007, 13 – 30. See also M. Huber’s (still) fundamental work Die Wanderlegende von den Siebenschlfern. Eine literargeschichtliche Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1910. GAD, ‘The excavations in Ephesus 1926’. Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 289. The labourers were primarily Muhajirs, ‘from Crete, Macedonia and other regions which formerly belonged to Turkey’; GAD, ‘The excavations in Ephesus 1926’. GAD, ‘The excavations in Ephesus 1926’. GAD’s letter, 21. 2. 1927; also Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 292.

178

5. The Ephesus excavations

Wandmalereien, Mînzen der verschiedensten Epochen und Graffiti, die bis in die Kreuzfahrerzeit hinein zu reichen scheinen, eine Anzahl von Grabplatten mit Inschriften und vor allem Tonlampen … von denen mehrere Hunderte aus den Grbern geborgen werden konnten.94

Factory marks and symbolic decorations on the lamps – which by the season’s end amounted to more than 1900 – showed that most of the approximately 170 variants had been locally manufactured during a considerable time span, and brought there by Christians, Muslims and Jews. In addition, the caves’ wall paintings, graffiti and inscriptions provided a tangible record of Ephesus’ religious history and spanned a full millennium.95 Nothing had so far been discovered in Asia Minor that would compare with this cemetery complex. Three weeks after arriving at Ephesus, Deissmann wrote in his diary: ‘Ephesus … frîh zum Prtorium + Stadion … erhielt ein Diplom’. The original of this handcrafted Diploma is no longer extant, although it has survived in the form of a photograph, held at the §AI. It consisted of a seven-piece collage, with each of the six outer panels apparently hand painted, and a central photograph of the five-member excavation team.96 The photograph (see next page) was taken in front of the entrance to the §AI’s headquarters at SelÅuk, and shows – besides the date of Deissmann’s birthday, and two damaged Roman statues97 – the five members of the excavation team (from the left): Franz Miltner, Adolf Deissmann, Josef Keil, Ahmet Aziz Ogˇan and Max Theuer. The uppermost panel depicts a westward view from the theatre (extending past the Arcadian¤ ), with the silted harbour and the Pagos Astyagu (left) on the western tip of Bîlbîl Dagˇ. The telltale protrusion (top left) shows the Hellenic watchtower (or lighthouse?), traditionally also known as ‘Paul’s prison’, and forms part of the city wall’s extreme west. In 1906 Deissmann gained from there one of his first unforgettable impressions of Ephesus’ vast expanse and archaeological wealth (see ch. 4.1).98 94 Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 294. 95 Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 24, Beiblatt, 1928, 13 – 15. 96 Dr. Manfred Kandler from the §AI informed me that with the exception of the central photo, ‘Alles andere scheint mit Pinsel und Feder und vielleicht Wasserfarben gemacht worden [zu] sein’. He has also confirmed my hypothesis that the artist was very probably Max Theuer. Email, 7.3.2006. 97 Now in the archaeological museum at SelÅuk. Published by J. Inan/ E. Rosenbaum (1966), and E. Atalay (1989). 98 For a striking modern photographic comparison see Wiplinger/ Wlach, photo 29, and colour plate 8.

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition

179

Figure 8 Diploma collage in honour of Deissmann’s role in the Ephesus excavations

The inscription on the left, composed in careful imitation of ancient Greek, and whose lettering style reflects that of the early Roman imperial period, was almost certainly drafted by Josef Keil (standing at rear of photo). It reads:

4

8

B Req± lgtqºpokir t/r )s¸ar ja· meojºqor t/r Aqt´lidor ja· t/r pamac¸ar ja· toO "c¸ou Yy²mmou 9ves¸ym pºkir B to»r toO lec²kou !postºkou Pa¼kou he¸our kºcour

180

5. The Ephesus excavations

!jo¼sasa ja· diadoOsa eQr sytgq¸am 12 toO jºslou 1te¸lgsem Adokvom Deisslamm 2n¶jomta 5tg !qet/r 6mejem ja· vi16 k¸ar ja· t/r eQr aqt¶m !diake¸ptou leaf eqeqces¸ar leaf

The left bottom panel shows a votive relief of Cybele standing with two lions between Zeus and Hermes.99 Deissmann discussed this relief briefly in an article,100 although – possibly because of the absence of the flat hat normally associated with Hermes – he identified the figure on the left as Attis. An entry in his diary on 26 October 1926 simply states: ‘Nische Relieffragment mit Lçwen gefunden …’; whether this refers to himself or someone else as the discoverer is inconclusive, but since this particular relief was photographically reproduced on his diploma it implies his involvement in its location. This hypothesis is confirmed by Keil’s report, for there he discussed similar votive reliefs and included a photo of what appears to be the same one painted in the diploma. Moreover, he explained that two of these had been discovered in the town of SelÅuk during the 1926 season,101 which is a clear allusion to Deissmann’s recovery work of the missing sculptures and architectural fragments from the Johannine basilica (see above). The panel on the lower right portrays a griffin clasping an animal (young lion?) in its clutches, and most probably represents a second rediscovery by Deissmann, since, similar to the Cybele relief, it also depicts a plate that was originally unearthed by Sotiriou and later taken away to SelÅuk.102 In between these two reliefs is a second painting, this one of the Byzantine citadel on the Ayasoluk hill, northeast of Ephesus and seen from the less commonly presented south. The ruins of St. John’s 99 LIMC, 8.1.750; pl. at 8.2.508. 100 ‘Das wiedererstehende Ephesos’, Die Woche, 11, 1927, 299. 101 Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 256 – 7. The same photo occurs also in GAD, ‘Das wiedererstehende Ephesos’, 299. 102 G. Sotiriou, Deltion 7, 1922, 177. H. Hçrmann, ‘Die Johanneskirche’, FiE, 4, 3, 1951, 254 (with Taf. 58, 5). I owe the identification of this relief to Dr. Kandler.

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition

181

basilica were still only partially excavated at that time, but are shown in the foreground; the various houses belong to the northerly outskirts of SelÅuk. A photo taken from the narthex amongst these ruins towards the northwest exists in Keil’s ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’ (p. 64) and shows the large white structure with the cypress. There he described the building as a formerly Muhajir-occupied Greek Orthodox church that had been evacuated by Turkish authorities and turned into a museum for artefacts related to the basilica (p. 53). All these border designs, including the honorific inscription in Greek, are part of the aesthetic intent of the diploma. However, it is the German text on the right that is particularly informative, as it identifies Deissmann as the pivotal individual who – together with Keil – made possible the rescue of ancient Ephesus: Adolf Deissmann dem Wiedererwecker der ephesischen Ausgrabungen als Zeichen herzlichster Verehrung, gewidmet von seinen Mitarbeitern und Freunden Josef Keil, Max Theuer, A. Aziz, Franz Miltner.

Despite this honorific gift from his colleagues, in recognition of Deissmann’s unique contribution for Ephesus, his remarkable achievement has by now become practically forgotten. So much is this the case, that a reasonably recognisable picture of him (see Fig. 9, with detail of it in Fig. 10), printed as a full-page photograph in the commemorative book, Ephesus, 100 years of Austrian Research – published by the §AI – failed to be identified by its authors and was also placed within the wrong chapter, dealing with the era 1895 – 1913.103 Furthermore, the book fails to make any mention of him,

103 Wiplinger/Wlach, 35, photo 42. But see T. Wohlers-Scharf, who pointed to Keil’s ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, and noted: ‘Die finanzielle Hilfe wurde vorwiegend durch Vermittlung und Einsatz A. Deißmanns mobilisiert. Der Theologe an der Berliner Universitt konnte den amerikanischen Mzen John Rockefeller jun. sowie wissenschaftlich interessierte Kreise des Deutschen Reiches, namentlich die Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, dazu motivieren, die Geldmittel fîr die Wiederaufnahme der Grabungen zur Verfîgung zu stellen.’ Die Forschungsgeschichte von Ephesos: Entdeckungen, Grabungen und Persçnlichkeiten, Frankfurt, 1996 (1995), 106 – 7; see also 112 – 3. On the other hand, D. Knibbe refers to Wiplinger/Wlach and makes scant mention of Deissmann; Ephesus: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Portrait einer modernen Großgrabung, Frankfurt, 1998, 239 – 40.

182

5. The Ephesus excavations

Figure 9 Deissmann (lower left) at Ephesus (Sometime between 1927 – 9)

since the authors were manifestly unaware of the critical role he played for Ephesus – as well as for the §AI itself. *

*

*

In his first correspondence with Wiegand from Ephesus, Deissmann happily reported: ‘Herrlichstes Wetter, unerhçrte Trockenheit, keine Mîcken und kein Fieber im Dorf ’.104 He had been advised that 104 GAD’s letter, 23.10.1926.

5.3. 1926 Ephesus expedition

183

Figure 10 Detail of Figure 9

mosquitoes were not going to be a problem and that precautionary measures against malaria were, therefore, unnecessary.105 But one week before leaving SelÅuk he wrote in his diary: ‘Ephesus; Siebenschlfer (Arbeitstag trotz Fieber)’. It had started insidiously, and he kept working until the last day of the campaign, when a bad case of malaria made him seriously ill. For three days he lay sick in a Smyrna hotel, before he was able to travel by train to Istanbul. When he arrived there on Monday, 29 November, he ‘… found an asylum in the German pastor’s home, where I have been very ill, the fever being high and enervating’.106 According to Deissmann’s itinerary, he was scheduled to give numerous lectures on his homeward journey – in Sofia, Belgrade and Novisad – but was now forced to cancel them, as he spent almost two weeks recuperating in Istanbul. His doctors also ‘strictly prohibited’ the planned lecture tour of America, and Deissmann acquiesced, ‘being past sixty I could not be disobedient and gave up the carefully 105 GAD, letter to Gyllenberg, 10.6.1929. 106 GAD’s letter, 21.2.1927.

184

5. The Ephesus excavations

prepared journey’.107 Yet this did not deter him from campaigning for greater public awareness about Ephesus, which also included some radio talks transmitted by Germany’s first radio broadcaster, ‘Funkstunde’.108

5.4. 1927 Ephesus expedition The initial two months of the 1926 expedition had required relatively few labourers, which, together with the organisers’ cooperation and strict frugality, allowed the season to conclude M.30,000 (US$7000) below budget. This surplus was immediately earmarked for the following year;109 but one week after coming to Ephesus that season, Deissmann had already written his first ‘on-site’ report to Beardsley Ruml and Thomas Appleget, in an attempt to secure adequate funding for 1927. You see that this first new campaign is a very hopeful beginning. For future work there is besides many other objects one undertaking of a really unique character and world-wide importance: the excavation of the C[h]urch of St. John the Divine … more than half … is concealed still in the big rubbish masses of the centuries … there is a hope that this Church of St. John when fully excavated may be perhaps the most remarkable ruin of that classic period of Iustinianic Art.110

Back in Berlin, after the excavation season ended, Deissmann met with Schmidt-Ott on 13 January to discuss future support for the Ephesus excavation, and made a case for the Notgemeinschaft to continue its financial backing. The next day he telephoned Ministerialrat Donnevert, and after a second conversation on the 24th they arranged to meet on Saturday 29th. Immediately following this – and for the same purpose – he also had an appointment with Legationsrat Terdenge at the Auswrtiges Amt, and two days later invited several guests to his home, among them Schmidt-Ott and Donnevert. Since Deissmann was scheduled to present a public lecture at the Archaeolog107 Ibid. For his subsequent America tour in 1929, see ch. 8.5. 108 The AK is unclear, but there are four separate entries in reference to radio talks given by GAD: 10. 4. 1927 (Ephesus excavations), 16. 4. 1927 (Ephesus excavations), 23. 12. 1929 (ecumenism), 20. 12. 1930 (German students). Germany entered the age of radio broadcasting on 29. 10. 1923 with ‘Radiostunde Berlin’. In March 1924 the program was renamed ‘Funkstunde’ and ten years later this became ‘Reichssender Berlin’. 109 GAD’s grant application, 7.2.1927. 110 GAD’s letter, 25.10.1926.

5.4. 1927 Ephesus expedition

185

ical Society the next evening,111 it is highly likely that the topic of Ephesus would also have been discussed at their informal meeting. Coincidentally, this lecture was given on the same day for which he had originally been scheduled to present the Woodward Lecture at Yale, even though he was still under doctor’s order to avoid any exertion until fully recuperated from his malaria. Nevertheless, as his letter to the Notgemeinschaft shows a week after, he was far from being idle: Ich hatte bereits die Ehre, den hohen Stellen, die das Unternehmen hier gefçrdert haben, mîndlich eingehenden Vortrag darîber zu halten, unterstîtzt durch eine Anzahl von Photographien und Plnen, habe dann auch in der Archologischen Gesellschaft Berlin am 1. Februar dieses Jahres einen ungewçhnlich stark besuchten Lichtbildervortrag darîber gehalten …112

According to his diary, Deissmann had entitled his audio-visual presentation, ‘Der Wiederbeginn der Ausgrabungen in Ephesus 1926’, thereby indicating his long-term hopes for this undertaking. And now that the door to Ephesus’ future had once again been opened, he wanted to maintain the momentum of popular and scholarly interest. Thus, in the same letter, he formally urged the Notgemeinschaft to repeat its backing for at least one more season. Upon this, Schmidt-Ott prompted Wiegand to invite Keil to Berlin, with the request that the latter should address the ‘Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst’ at the Staatliche Kunstbibliothek on Saturday afternoon, 12 March.113 Schmidt-Ott himself organised an executive meeting at the Notgemeinschaft offices for that same morning, and invited the Reichsministerium des Innern (probably Donnevert), the Auswrtiges Amt (Terdenge or Heilbron), Rodenwaldt, Wiegand, Deissmann, Keil and Reisch.114 Each trustee of the ‘Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung’ was present, which was of some consequence, since all three former sponsors had agreed to extend their backing for a 111 The ‘Archologische Gesellschaft zu Berlin’ was founded in 1842 as a private but closely connected arm of the DAI. Almost all of Berlin’s archaeologists belonged to it, but it was also open to interested non-professionals, such as GAD. He was a corresponding member of the Institute since 1922, but became a full member on Wiegand’s initiative in 1928. I owe this information to Dr. Antje Krug of the DAI. 112 GAD’s grant application, 7.2.1927. 113 GAD, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 17.2.1927. 114 Schmidt-Ott, invitation, 28.2.1927.

186

5. The Ephesus excavations

minimum of two more years,115 but there was also unanimity, ‘dass die Notgemeinschaft von jetzt ab die Fîhrung der Hilfsaktion hat …’.116 This decision did not relieve Deissmann altogether of his mediatory role, but gave the Notgemeinschaft a better opportunity to coordinate the German patrons. It was very good news for the §AI, since the move indicated the benefactors’ obvious readiness to extend funding beyond the 1927 season. While German backing seemed thus assured, without Rockefeller’s contribution it amounted to only half the required budget estimate. But in Deissmann’s letter to Appleget – written three weeks earlier – he had already informed him ‘that there is a well founded hope that the German and Austrian patrons shall contribute again a considerable amount for 1927 as they did in 1926’.117 He had also pointed to the remarkable successes of the previous excavations, and included a progress report as well as a concise summary of their plans for the next campaign, in an effort to win over Rockefeller’s funding for the 1927 expedition. However, he added that since there was a financial surplus from the previous season (see above), the trustees had authorised him to ask that Rockefeller’s contribution ‘may be specifically designated for the great task of the excavation of the St. John’s basilica in Ephesus’. Deissmann also sent a copy of his letter to Charles Brent who, in turn, wrote to Appleget that Deissmann was a ‘notable personality’, whose initially expressed anticipations for Ephesus had been fully justified by the discoveries during the 1926 season, and advised, ‘… that it is worth Mr. Rockefeller’s earnest consideration as to whether he could not again aid in this valuable work’.118 Deissmann’s friendly and informative letters had already made a good impression on Appleget, who replied four days later: ‘I must confess that something of [Deissmann’s] unusual personality you describe had gradually emerged during our correspondence’, and assured Brent that his commendatory letter would ‘be included in any consideration of the matter’.119 Subsequently, Rockefeller’s board of trustees resolved – on his behalf and under the same stipulations as the previous year – to 115 116 117 118 119

Schmidt-Ott, memorandum to Reichsministerium des Innern, 14.7.1927. GAD’s letter, 8.3.1927. Also, GAD, letter to Appleget, 4.4.1927. GAD’s letter, 21.2.1927. Letter, dated 4.3.1927. Letter, dated 8.3.1927.

5.4. 1927 Ephesus expedition

187

contribute US$10,000 for the forthcoming season.120 Nevertheless, as Appleget wrote to Deissmann the next day, Rockefeller neither wished to designate his gift to specific aspects of the undertaking, nor did he ‘feel it is wise for him to contribute regularly to such enterprises’. What, then, persuaded him to repeat his donation at all? Appleget gave the credit to Deissmann’s savoir-faire, as well as the tangible successes achieved during the 1926 season: ‘We were very much interested in the account which you gave us of the previous excavations and thoroughly appreciate the importance of the results’.121 Appleget’s letter was mailed a day before the previously mentioned executive meeting at the Notgemeinschaft offices on 12 March. In Deissmann’s subsequent reply of appreciation he made the somewhat superfluous point that he had received it several days after that seminal meeting – evidently meaning to impress on the Americans that the German patrons’ appraisal of the undertaking was not contingent on Rockefeller’s decision. Now that financing was assured, Reisch wrote to Deissmann: Es ist mir eine ganz besondere Freude, Ihnen im Namen des çsterreichischen archologischen Institutes den Empfang der neuen großen Spende des Herrn Joh Rockefeller jor [sic] besttigen zu kçnnen, die wir in erster Linie Ihren unermîdlichen Bemîhungen um die Weiterfîhrung der Ephesosgrabung zu verdanken haben, und durch die uns nunmehr eine sichere finanzielle Grundlage fîr die Durchfîhrung der großen Arbeiten gegeben ist, welche wir fîr die heurige und die nchstjhrige Kampagne in Aussicht genommen haben.122

Reisch had every reason to be pleased. But all was not well at the §AI; for although Josef Keil was indisputably their pivotal authority on Ephesus, he had found conditions at Vienna increasingly difficult to tolerate, and that same week confided despondently to Wiegand: Vor einigen Tagen habe ich nun den Ruf fîr Greifswald und eine Einladung zu einer Besprechung in Berlin erhalten; mein Schicksal wird sich also entscheiden. Daß ich nicht leicht und nicht gern von Wien weggehe, wissen Sie und verstehen Sie auch zu wîrdigen. Aber ich war geradezu deprimiert, wie Reisch in seiner Unterredung mit mir von Anfang an gleich den Standpunkt zur Basis der Diskussion machte, daß er mich zwar ungern verliere, aber daß er leider nur ganz bescheidene und nur materielle Verbesserungen erreichen kçnne. Bei der Universitt ist nichts 120 Memorandum, 10.3.1927. 121 Appleget, letter to GAD, 11.3.1927. 122 Letter, dated 7.5.1927.

188

5. The Ephesus excavations

zu machen usw. Ich bin schließlich mit dem Gefîhle geringsten Wertes weggegangen … 25 Jahre habe ich dann fast Oesterreich in Krieg und Frieden gedient! Ergebnis: 400 Mark monatlich … Zu dumm, daß ich mich innerlich doch etwas krnke.123

He accepted the Chair at Greifswald (commencing 1 December 1927), and remained there for eight years before resuming his position at Vienna in 1936. Despite his move to North Germany he continued to lead the expeditions at Ephesus on behalf of the §AI, for his disillusionment was not with the Institute or the University but with the Government-imposed stringent economic conditions under which he was expected to work. *

*

*

The leaders of the team for the 1927 campaign consisted of the same group as in 1926. However, contrary to Keil’s earlier fears that an apparent lack of suitable architects might defeat the project (see ch. 5.2), Hans Hçrmann had now been engaged to join them as well,124 thus providing Keil with a second architect. Their archaeological objectives were threefold for this season: firstly, to complete their work at the Seven Sleepers’ necropolis; secondly, to begin uncovering and investigating the large but previously unexplored building near the stadium (then still thought to be the praetorium); and thirdly, to complete the excavation of the St. John’s basilica.125 They had agreed that these three goals were so urgent that ‘auf deren Erledigung mit allen Mitteln hingearbeitet werden mußte’.126 Deissmann left Berlin on 28 August and, after first spending a full day at Smyrna, where he met with Keil and Aziz, reached Ephesus on 6 September.127 Miltner was already there (possibly with Theuer); Keil and Aziz arrived two days later, and Hçrmann another five days after that. Miltner was again put in charge of excavations at the Seven Sleepers’ site, with Deissmann working alongside him for the first week. During 123 Keil’s letter, 12. 5. 1927 (underscore by Keil). 124 ‘Als neue Hilfskraft war Regierungsbauamtmann Dr. Hans Hçrmann aus Passau gewonnen worden …’. Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 6. 125 GAD’s letter, 21.2.1927. 126 Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 7. 127 This time, as in subsequent seasons, he protected himself against malaria with regular doses of quinine: see ch. 5.3.

5.4. 1927 Ephesus expedition

189

the past few months the former had done some preliminary work on the cave’s previously discovered plethora of lamps (See ch. 5.3), while Deissmann had agreed to compile and evaluate its literary traditions.128 Thus, the latter had written to Rendel Harris earlier in the year: Now I am engaged in a research about the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus … I would be very much interested if you could give me some hints concerning English books or articles about the 2pt± pa?der.129

Nevertheless, it appears that his project never advanced past the research stages, since he failed to publish anything of substance concerning the tradition.130 But a letter from Keil to Wiegand, written four months later, may shed some light on the likely cause of this: Deissmann … war wohl in der letzten Zeit mit der Bischofskonferenz îberlastet und wird die Niederlage, die er wenigstens bei der zweiten Lesung davongetragen hat, wie ich fîrchte schwerer tragen als notwendig wre.131

As pivotal as the excavation, preservation and historical evaluation of ancient Ephesus were for Deissmann personally, he was also a leading figure in the ecumenical movement and participated actively in numerous church synods and conferences.132 While Miltner and Deissmann worked on the necropolis, Keil and Theuer sank an experimental trench at the ‘praetorium’. But as soon as the Seven Sleepers’ project drew to a close Deissmann began to assist Keil with fragmentary building inscriptions.133 These, together with the discovery of a frigidarium, conduits and heating ducts, made it apparent that this building was not a praetorium but the gymnasium of Publius Vedius Antonius.134 Three weeks later, progress was impeded by a delay in the arrival of stronger lifting equipment and a week of inclement weather. Moreover, a Turkish army convoy appeared 128 Keil, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 285, and ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 20. Miltner’s findings were eventually published in 1937, entitled, ‘Das Cçmeterium der Sieben Schlfer’, FiE, 4, 2, 93 – 200. 129 GAD, letter to Harris, 15.1.1927. 130 In ‘Das wiedererstehende Ephesos’ GAD wrote two small paragraphs on the Seven Sleepers’ grotto, and included two photos of the site, one with four of its lamps. 131 Keil’s letter, 12.5.1927. See also ch. 8.4. 132 See ch. 8.1 introductory paragraph. 133 Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 36, n 20. 134 Ibid., 30, n. 12.

190

5. The Ephesus excavations

on the site, and – despite the §AI’s permit from the Government, and their active cooperation with the Smyrna Museum (see ch. 5.2) – confiscated a roll of film.135 Notwithstanding, the following day Hçrmann was able to recommence the previous season’s work on the St. John’s basilica, with Deissmann assisting, particularly in regard to the inscriptions.136 A full excavation of the entire structure would have been too complex and costly, but they were able to unearth the narthex completely, and also dig experimental trenches to find the building’s pre-Justinian foundations, which allowed them to make an accurate ground plan.137 Since Deissmann was due back in Berlin for the winter semester, he was only able to spend about two weeks at the basilica before leaving Ephesus on Friday, 21 October, a month before the §AI excavation season concluded. *

*

*

When Deissmann arrived at Istanbul three days later the general director of the city’s museums and member of the Turkish Parliament, Dr. Halil Edhem (1861 – 1938) – of whom Keil had previously written that he was ‘stets ein gîtiger Berater’ for their team138 – invited Deissmann to a private tour of the Topkapı Sarayı. He led him to a large room with several long tables, on which were spread out Pergament- und Papier-Codices, aufgerollte Pergament-Rotuli und einzelne unzusammenhngende Pergamente grçßten Formats … meist mit griechischer oder lateinischer Schrift, die großen Bltter mit herrlichen Landkarten geschmîckt … es war unschwer zu erkennen, daß es sich hier um Teile der legendenumrankten Serai-Bibliothek handeln mîsse. Infolge ihrer seither ungînstigen Lagerung waren diese Reliquien durch Feuchtigkeit und andere Zerstçrungsursachen zum Teil in einem sehr bedenklichen Zustand.139

Already in earlier correspondence with Appleget, Deissmann had described the size of this collection with enthusiasm: ‘there I saw hundreds and thousands big and small fragments of parchment and 135 So the AK. Aziz and Keil appear to have been in Smyrna at that time. 136 So the AK. One of these inscriptions was published in Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 61 – 6. See also IK, 4337. 137 Keil, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 61 – 2. 138 Ibid., 299. 139 Forschungen, 3.

5.5. 1928 Ephesus expedition

191

paper manuscripts in many different languages …’.140 Now, however, Halil had especially brought up everything from the cellar of the ‘Schatzhaus’ in an organised fashion, and offered that he was willing to close all access to these historical treasures for a year, provided Deissmann would accept a formal invitation to catalogue the material and undertake some preliminary textual research.141 Halil also took him to the perilously decayed 5th century Studios Monastery near the Golden Gate (Porta Aurea), and asked if he could perhaps use his connection with Rockefeller to raise some financial assistance for its preservation. Once back in Berlin, Deissmann wrote the abovementioned letter to Appleget, and there also emphasised that the ruined ancient monastery was about ‘to fall to the ground if [Halil] cannot immediately take care of some repairs’. It was only a modest request for 2000 Turkish pounds (US$1000), to be equally divided between building repairs and manuscript preservation, but he concluded: ‘I could control myself [sic] next fall the utilization of this sum for the purposes indicated. But Dr. Halil Bej is a personality worthy of the highest confidence’.142 Although Halil had tried to raise these funds himself, the Turkish government did not accede to his request. The Rockefeller Foundation’s initial reaction was also not enthusiastic, since they reasoned that ‘there are other buildings throughout the world, which require similar protective measure and other manuscripts which need protection’. Nevertheless, they decided to grant Deissmann’s request, on the grounds that ‘friendly negotiations with the Director of the Turkish Museum in Istanbul might open up avenues of information or approach which would later be useful’.143

5.5. 1928 Ephesus expedition Since the executive meeting in March 1927 had effectively provided the §AI with a guarantee of financial support for two successive archaeological seasons, and sufficient funds remained from Rockefeller’s second grant, resources were assured for 1928 without involving the latter. 140 141 142 143

Letter, dated 26.1.1928. Forschungen, 3. GAD’s letter, 26.1.1928. Memorandum, 16.2.1928.

192

5. The Ephesus excavations

The Notgemeinschaft – now acting as designated liaison for the three German patrons – had already transferred an initial donation of M.15,000 to the Ephesus Trust Fund in July 1927, and a month later another M.7500 came from the Reichsministerium des Innern, but another M.12,500 were needed. When Deissmann reminded SchmidtOtt of this the latter advised that he should contact the Auswrtiges Amt himself. A month later, with the balance still not reached, Deissmann wrote a similar letter to the Auswrtiges Amt and the Reichsministerium des Innern, upon which the former transferred M.7500 to the trust, but for the remaining M.5000 Donnevert (Reichsministerium des Innern) redirected Deissmann back to the Notgemeinschaft. As late as July, when the §AI was trying to finalise preparations for the third expedition, this contribution was still not forthcoming. Again Deissmann contacted Schmidt-Ott, appealing that the money – which the §AI had expected at the beginning of July – should be paid ‘baldtunlichst’.144 Appleget happened to be in Europe during that summer and there took the opportunity to meet Deissmann for the first time.145 The latter immediately updated him on Halil’s work, and how Rockefeller’s donation had made it possible to clean all the manuscripts and place them between protective sheets of glass. He also gave Appleget some recent photographs of the Studios Monastery which Halil had sent, and said that his Turkish friend had ‘done wonders’ with the money, but ‘could profitably employ another thousand [dollars] in order to brace the tottering walls [of the Studios Monastery] and complete the cleaning process’.146 Appleget’s subsequent report, on behalf of Deissmann, to Rockefeller’s advisory board was favourably received and resulted in an additional donation of US$750, with another US$250 kept in reserve should it be needed. On his way to Ephesus in mid-October, Deissmann made a four-day stopover at Istanbul to see Halil and make a preliminary assessment of the Topkapı Sarayı’s non-Islamic manuscripts, which the latter had again prepared for him to view. As a consequence of this Deissmann gave him the assurance, ‘… den Versuch zu machen, Mitarbeiter zu gewinnen, um mit ihrer Hilfe die allerdringendsten Arbeiten in Angriff 144 GAD, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 12.7.1928. 145 A precise date cannot be established, but they met sometime between late June and mid July. 146 Appleget, letter to Richardson, 6.8.1928.

5.5. 1928 Ephesus expedition

193

zu nehmen’.147 By ‘Mitarbeiter’ he had in mind primarily Hugo Ibscher (1874 – 1943), conservator at the Egypt Museum in Berlin, and Europe’s foremost expert on papyrus preservation, with whom he hoped to return to Istanbul in 1929.148 To help with this, and at the same time enable Deissmann to seek collegial assistance with manuscript identification, Halil provided him with numerous photographs of the material. Within ten days after returning to Berlin Deissmann sent a letter to Eduard Schwartz on another matter (see ch. 4.3), to which he appended the following handwritten paragraph: Ich habe hier inzwischen noch viele Feststellungen îber die von mir gesehenen Codices etc im Serail gemacht; ich war dort ohne alle Hilfsmittel und in großer Hetze. Bitte betrachten Sie gîtigst die vorlufigen Mitteilungen als streng vertraulich. Ich mçchte in jedem Fall vermeiden, dass die Sache in den internationalen Klatsch kommt, ehe ich au[f ]geklrt habe, was ich aufklren kann.149

The reason for his caution was that the Turkish Ministry of Education had quietly commissioned him with the preservation, ordering and cataloguing of the library’s non-Islamic items, and Halil had now restricted all access to the collection until Deissmann’s findings could be published (see ch. 5.7).150 *

*

*

The new archaeological season at Ephesus began during the first week of September with the same team as in 1927, and concluded eleven weeks later. The objectives were again threefold: finalising the St. John’s basilica excavation; investigating the extent of the gymnasium; and searching for pre-Hellenic remains of the city.151 But as Deissmann had two prior speaking engagements at the Church of England congress in Cheltenham and at the University of Wales in Bangor, he only arrived 147 Forschungen, 6. 148 Forschungen, 7. Ibscher, a bookbinder by trade, was largely self-taught, but had received an honorary doctorate from the University of Hamburg for his innovative preserving methods, and was in constant demand in Museums throughout Europe. 149 GAD’s letter, 7.12.1928. 150 Forschungen, 6. 151 Keil reported that up to 250 labourers had been employed, and: ‘Dank intensiver reibungsloser Zusammenarbeit aller Beteiligten ist dieses Programm in 11 Grabungswochen bewltigt worden’, ‘XIV. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 25, Beiblatt, 1929, 8.

194

5. The Ephesus excavations

at Ephesus on 21 October. Yet shortly thereafter he began to work at the basilica’s site; Keil’s report makes it clear that excavations were still in full swing at that time, for the ruin lay buried beneath some 6 m of rubble. Es hat zehnwçchentlicher schwierigster und angestrengtester … Arbeit bedurft, ehe diese Schutt- und Trîmmermassen … auf vier von verschiedenen Seiten und auf verschiedenem Niveau herangefîhrten Feldbahnlinien abtransportiert und damit die Voraussetzungen fîr eine Aufnahme und ein genaues Studium des justinianischen Bauwerkes wie der darunter befindlichen Reste lterer Anlagen geschaffen waren.152

In a letter that Deissmann wrote to Appleget just before leaving Ephesus, he assessed the basilica’s excavation as the season’s ‘most important result’, but advised, ‘the technical difficulties were very great’.153 This was partly due to the sheer size of the multi-storied building (100 x 65 m),154 and partly because of its position on the southern slope of the Ayasoluk hill. Although details are sketchy apropos Deissmann’s activities at Ephesus that year, he did work on the basilica’s newly-found inscriptions, as well as in the nearby museum (Johannes Haus). His practical involvement with the archaeological work can also be gauged from the §AI’s official report, in which Reisch highlighted the ‘… Bedeutung der Grabung [viz. the basilica], an deren glîcklicher Durchfîhrung neben Hçrmann auch Keil, Deißmann und Miltner ihren vollgemessenen Anteil haben’.155 However, much of the second week of November was wet, with heavy rain and thunderstorms, which helped in the discovery of several sarcophagi, but created a hazard 152 Ibid., 11. 153 GAD, letter to Appleget, 17.11.1928. In a memorandum, dated 19. 3. 1929, Appleget later noted that, in addition to the substantial structural excavation, ‘they have discovered some very good pieces of statuary and a remarkable variety of manuscripts – some fifty in total number and including something from Ovid, Homer, the cosmography of Ptolemy, as well as inscriptions on walls and pillars made by Christian pilgrims.’ Memorandum, entitled: ‘Excavations at Ephesus, conversation: Dr. Adolf Deissmann’. It is uncertain what one should make of his comments, for the survival of MSS in Ephesus’ swampy soil is inconceivable, and Keil’s report says nothing about this. Perhaps GAD had mentioned the Istanbul MSS to Appleget, who then confused them with finds at Ephesus. 154 A ground plan, drawn by Hans Hçrmann in Jan. 1931, shows that a further 30 m of foundations had been discovered, bringing the total length of the building to 130 m. See Wiplinger/ Wlach, 50. 155 Reisch, ‘Bericht îber die Gesamtsitzung des §sterreichischen Archologischen Institutes 1930’, §Jh, 26, Beiblatt, 1930, 309.

5.5. 1928 Ephesus expedition

195

among the ruins. Early in the morning on the second-last day of the season (15 November) a section of a stone floor shifted and fell on Hçrmann, resulting in his evacuation to Smyrna hospital with a broken right leg.156 The weekend before the accident, Deissmann, Aziz and Theuer had travelled to Pergamon to visit Wiegand. The latter took them on a tour of the site, hoping that he might interest Deissmann to use his connection with Appleget and Rockefeller to raise funds for the excavation of Pergamon’s former Hadrianic Temple of Serapis. The building had been converted into a Christian church during the 4th century and dedicated to St. John,157 which gave it a somewhat tenuous sociohistorical connection with the St. John’s basilica at Ephesus. But, although Deissmann had reluctantly agreed to raise the matter with Appleget, he emphasised to him that he definitely wanted the Foundation ‘to consider Ephesus as the first interest’.158 His continuous appeals to Rockefeller’s generosity could easily become interpreted as being exploitative, a possibility he had diplomatically tried to avoid; and a year later he explained to a close friend: Ich habe … bei verschiedenen Verhandlungen mit einem Vertrauensmann des Mr. John Rockefeller jun. [i.e. Appleget] den Eindruck erhalten … dass die Verwaltung der Rockefeller Stiftung recht zurîckhaltend geworden ist, namentlich wenn von ein- und derselben Seite [i.e. Deissmann] verschiedenartige Antrge gestellt werden. Ich selbst hatte wegen der ja seit Jahren gewhrten Unterstîtzung fîr die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus hauptschlich zu verhandeln. Diese Verhandlungen sind noch nicht zum Abschluss gekommen. Ich hatte ausserdem noch zwei andere Auftrge [Halil and Wiegand], durch die natîrlich der Hauptauftrag Ephesus betreffend nicht besonders gînstig beeinflusst wurde … und ich hatte das deutliche Gefîhl, dass ich durch eine Hufung meiner Bitten schliesslich jede einzelne gefhrdete.159

156 So the AK; see also Keil, ‘XIV. Vorlufiger Bericht’, 6, 51. 157 Packard, letter to Wiegand, 28.10.1929. The request was denied on policy grounds. Arthur W. Packard was an administrator of the Rockefeller Foundation. 158 Appleget, memorandum, 19. 3. 1929, entitled, ‘Excavations at Ephesus, conversation: Dr. Adolf Deissmann’. 159 GAD, letter to Keller, 10.5.1929. Adolf Keller (1872 – 1963) was a leading Swiss ecumenist whom GAD had befriended at the Helsingborg ecumenical conference in 1922, and by 1928 they addressed each other in the ‘Du’ form. GAD, letter to Keller, 30.11.1928.

196

5. The Ephesus excavations

5.6. 1929 Ephesus expedition Three months after Deissmann returned to Berlin he boarded a steamer bound for New York, to commence a two-month speaking tour in America (see ch. 8.5). During his stay there he met Appleget on several occasions, and two days before returning to Germany discussed with him once again the need for ongoing funding for Ephesus. The next day several copies of Keil’s archaeological report for 1928 arrived in the mail and Deissmann immediately posted two of them to Appleget, accompanied by a letter, in which he wrote: According to the program made with you yesterday, I now have the honour to ask Mr. John Rockefeller jun., in behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Ephesus Excavation, kindly to renew his generous support of $10,000, which he gave twice, in 1926 and 1927, for the next Ephesus campaign beginning on September 1., 1929.160

Deissmann did not know that as a result of his last meeting with Appleget the latter had immediately written a memorandum, in which he affirmed: The secretary [i.e. Appleget] is very favourably inclined toward continuation of these contributions and is planning to present the matter to the Advisory Committee as soon as possible without waiting for Deissmann’s formal request.161

The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial had recently been merged with the Rockefeller Foundation, which led to a reprioritising of the kind of projects which could be funded (see below, n. 162). Consequently, the Advisory Committee took the decisive step – on Appleget’s recommendation – to ‘relieve the Foundation of the Deissmann project’, and instead resolved that the Committee itself would renew the sponsoring for the following year. Explaining this decision, Appleget wrote that … this technical referring of border line cases between the Foundation and the Advisory Committee is a necessary and entirely advisable procedure … [and] is helpful to the Advisory Committee in defining its field.162 160 GAD, letter to Appleget, 24.4.1929. For a transcript see Appendix 5, i. 161 Appleget, memorandum, entitled, ‘Excavations at Ephesus, conversation: Dr. Deissmann’, 23.4.1929. 162 Appleget, letter to Vincent, 28.5.1929. George Edgar Vincent (1864 – 1941) was president of the Foundation (1917 – 29). Its primary objective was public welfare and the betterment of living standards.

5.6. 1929 Ephesus expedition

197

On 29 May Appleget sent Deissmann the news that Rockefeller had agreed to contribute a further US$10,000 under the same conditions as in previous years, but indicated that their support might soon have to be discontinued.163 Indeed, two years later, when Deissmann wrote another request for Rockefeller to renew his support for the 1932 – 33 seasons, the Advisory Committee recommended that Mr. Rockefeller has carried on the interest [of Ephesus] for a long enough period, and that this is as good a time as any to terminate the interest, although the decision will not come to Dr. Deissmann at a particularly happy time for him.164

Their reference to bad timing was not only an allusion to the Great Depression, but also to Deissmann’s university duties as Rektor and Prorektor, which prevented his active participation at those excavations (see ch. 9.1). However, a month after Deissmann received Appleget’s letter of 29 May (see above), he was able to reply to him that the German benefactors had again pledged their ongoing financial support, as in previous seasons: Meanwhile I was very busy to fulfil the conditions mentioned in your letter and am glad to say that I have had a full success. I secured in cash the amount of $10.000 (= RM 42.000.–) from other sources.165

The Ephesus Trust Fund and the §AI had agreed that these donations were to be sufficient for the 1929 as well as the 1930 season. To reach their required M.42,000 the Notgemeinschaft contributed M.20,000,166 while the Auswrtiges Amt and the Reichsministerium des Innern each provided M.7500, and a further M.7000 came from the §AI. 163 Appleget, letter to GAD, 29.5.1929. The New York Stock Exchange collapsed five months later (see ch. 9.1), however, the Benevolence Committee had questioned ongoing support already in March: ‘We wonder if it would not now be well to consider how far we plan to go in the future’. Appleget’s memorandum, 19.3.1929. 164 Packard, memorandum to Appleget, 13.7.1931. 165 GAD, letter to Appleget, 6.7.1929. 166 With an added caveat that M.10,000 of this sum was allocated for the 1930 season and would be subject to review, since the other two patrons ‘weit hinter dem Anteil der Notgemeinschaft zurîckbleiben’. Schmidt-Ott, letter to GAD, 22.7.1929.

198

5. The Ephesus excavations

The principal working team in 1929 consisted of Aziz, Keil, Miltner and Theuer. Hçrmann was absent, although whether this was due to his injury is not certain; and Deissmann, having worked at Sofia and Istanbul for the past five weeks (see ch. 5.7), could only spend seven days at Ephesus. He had no inkling that this would be his last journey to the site,167 but fortuitously both Henriette and their 18-year-old son Gerhard were able to accompany him – an experience the latter still remembers keenly, almost eight decades later. During that week Deissmann worked on various inscriptions at the gymnasium and the fishermen’s association stele of Neronian date, from the tekym?om t/r Qwhuij/r found near the harbour.168

5.7. Forschungen und Funde im Serai When Deissmann accepted Halil’s invitation to work at the Topkapı Sarayı in 1929, he intended not only to win over Hugo Ibscher for the specialised restoration and preservation tasks, but also to engage the help of his wife Henriette and youngest son Gerhard, which is why they accompanied him on this journey. It seems that Deissmann had taken Strachan’s reprimand to heart – made two decades earlier when he omitted Henriette’s name from the credits in Licht vom Osten (see ch. 2.4) – for this time he wrote in Forschungen: Auch die Hilfe meiner Frau und meines Sohnes Gerhard kann ich hier nicht verschweigen. Sie war betrchtlich. Sie bestand in Arbeiten der Reinigung, der Paginierung, der Identifizierung von Fragmenten und der Katalogisierung. Das vorlufige Verzeichnis der Gesamtbestnde, das ich vor unserer Heimreise im Serai hinterlassen konnte, htte ich ohne diese Mitarbeit nicht zustande gebracht.169

While many of the codices had already been sighted and described by others,170 Halil brought much fresh material, and also allowed 167 GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 15. 8. 1933; see Appendix 5, j. 168 Keil, ‘XV. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 26, Beiblatt, 1930, 56. See also H. Wankel, IEph, 1a, 20, pl. 20 (text but no commentary); Horsley, ‘A fishing cartel in first-century Ephesos’, New Documents, 5, 95 – 114; id. ‘The inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament’, NovT, 34, 2, 1992, 105 – 68, at 127 – 35. 169 Forschungen, 11 – 12. 170 GAD credits specifically F. Blass (Die griechischen und lateinischen Handschriften im alten Serail zu Konstantinopel, 1888), Th. Ouspenky (La bibliothºque du S¤rail

5.7. Forschungen und Funde im Serai

199

Deissmann unrestricted access to search for overlooked texts in every room of the hitherto largely inaccessible Topkapı Sarayı complex. This included the subterranean treasure chamber, two large secret crypts beneath it, and a third one even further down and accessible only via a trap door, as well as the massive cellars of the Bagdad-Kiosk itself. Deissmann was able to confirm Emil Jacobs’ earlier supposition that the entire collection belonged to the private library of the conqueror of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmet II (1432 – 81). The polyglotic collection included incunabula, codices, rotuli,171 parchments and fragments; manuscripts from classical and Christian authors, cultic texts, grammars, lexica and ancient maps. Concerning this last category, an international sensation was created when a sizable section was discovered of the world map drawn by Piri Re’‚s’ (c. 1470 – 1554), an Ottoman admiral, writer and cartographer,172 since it provided the only known (partial) copy of Christopher Columbus’ lost chart and, therefore, tangible evidence on how the latter visualised the earth geographically. While Deissmann studied Mehmet’s collection he had noticed the Sultan’s penchant for geography and, therefore, asked Halil to search the palace for any maps which might thus far have been overlooked or disregarded. Upon this, Halil promptly found an old bundle that included a curious Turkish parchment map, and he brought his find to Deissmann on 9 October.173 Coincidentally, the German orientalist Paul Ernst Kahle (1875 – 1964) happened to be in Istanbul at that time, and Deissmann had already succeeded in co-opting him to assist with the identification of Seragliensis 101 – 12 (eleven liturgical and one Samaritan Pentateuch manuscripts). He was working with him the day before, but now, with Halil’s permission, he showed him the ancient map (Seragliensis 87). Kahle was singularly qualified to make a formal appraisal, for only three years earlier he had published Piri et ses manuscrits grecs, 1907), J. Ebersolt (Mission Arch¤ologique de Constantinople 1920, 1921) and A. MuÇoz (Nella Biblioteca del Serraglio a Constantinopoli, Nuova Antologia, 1907). Forschungen, 4, nn. 1 – 3. 171 See Appendix 5, k for a synopsis of GAD/ H. Wegener, eds., Die Armenbibel des Serai; Rotulus Seragliensis Nr. 52, Berlin, 1934. On the question of how GAD came to be selected for this cataloguing task, see Forschungen, 1 – 8. 172 See P. Lunde, ‘Piri Reis and the Columbus Map’, Aramco World, 43, 3, 1992, 48 – 59. Also, Forschungen, 111 – 22. For GAD’s account of its discovery, see Appendix 5, l. 173 See Appendix 5, l.

200

5. The Ephesus excavations

Re’‚s’ sailing manual, ‘Bahr‚je’, and now he quickly recognised that this map was based on a lost chart of Christopher Columbus (1451 – 1506). Although Deissmann credited Kahle with the identification and interpretation of the map and Halil with its discovery, this find was a significant coup in which he, too, shared an integral part. However, Kahle announced his findings only two years later, in a paper at the International Orientalist Congress, Leiden.174 Deissmann had originally intended to publish the results of his own work in the Topkapı Sarayı in 1931, but attributed the two-year delay to his Rektorat.175 While this was undoubtedly the main reason, another contributing factor lay also in the belated date of Kahle’s publication of the map. For Deissmann had, of course, to rely on specialist research for his own lengthy analysis of it,176 and a perfunctory treatment of this historic find would have broken the trust that Halil and the Turkish Ministry of Education had placed in him. Forschungen is a 144-page book dedicated to Halil and is well presented, with a useful index. Deissmann makes it clear that his work was based on that of Emil Jacobs (1868 – 1940),177 director of the Prussian State Library, although the latter never set foot in the Topkapı Sarayı and himself relied very considerably on the 16th century account of Dominico Yerushalmi (1552 – 1622). Forschungen was the first attempt at a complete index of the library’s non-Islamic material. It is divided into two sections; part one gives an overview of the library’s history, architecture, previous inventories and literary character; and part two consists of 127 separate textual listings – consisting of a total of 20,000 folia – descriptions and select expos¤s. Deissmann cautiously referred to this second half as ‘Verzeichnis’ rather than ‘Katalog’, since his criterion for what 174 P. Kahle, ‘Eine Amerika-Karte, gezeichnet auf Grund einer Columbus-Karte und portugiesischer Karten vom Tîrken Piri Re’‚s im Jahre 1513’, Actes du XVIIIe Congres International des Orientalistes, Leiden 7 – 12 Septembre, 1931, Leiden, 1932, 105 – 6. His more detailed paper, ‘A lost map of Columbus’ (Geographical Review, 23, 1933, 621 – 38), was published several months after GAD’s Forschungen. 175 See Appendix 5, m. 176 Besides Kahle, he also credited Eugen Oberhummer (1859 – 1944), since they planned to publish the map jointly, ‘in einer großen wissenschaftlichen Publikation’; Forschungen, 113 – 4. Their plan did not come to fruition. 177 E. Jacobs, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bibliothek im Serai zu Konstantinopel, Band 1 (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.hist. Klasse, 1919, 21. Abhandlung), Heidelberg, 1919.

5.8. Ephesus after 1931

201

constituted a scholarly catalogue was high, and the book, by his own estimation, fell short of it.178 The vital cleaning and preservation tasks, particularly of the badly damaged but valuable 13th century Ptolemy codex (Seragliensis Nr. 57), had taken more time than expected, which curtailed his textual research and, due to his limited time frame, made a more thorough cataloguing impossible. Instead, he considered his work as merely a first ‘zusammenfassende Aufnahme’; this may account for the volume’s somewhat unbalanced title.

5.8. Ephesus after 1931 Despite the suspension of Rockefeller’s funding (see ch. 5.7), a limited Ephesus expedition was still made possible in 1932, largely because of financial assistance from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (formerly known as Notgemeinschaft, it was renamed in December 1929). Although Deissmann was no longer able to take part in any fieldwork after 1929 (see below, and ch. 9.1), and Rockefeller’s backing seemed – as Schmidt-Ott glumly expressed it – ‘endgîltig fehlgeschlagen’,179 his enthusiastic support for the city’s archaeology remained undiminished. During the spring of 1932, when the vice-president of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Europe branch, Selskar Michael Gunn (1883 – 1944), was in Berlin on another matter, Deissmann promptly arranged to meet him, and gained his sympathy for Ephesus. This resulted in an appointment with David Harrison Stevens (1884 – 1980), the Foundation’s new branch director at Paris. Thus, one month later, Deissmann travelled by train to France, with the sole purpose of interesting Stevens in continuing Rockefeller’s financing of the Ephesus 178 ‘Mit Absicht nenne ich die folgende Liste Verzeichnis, nicht Katalog. Ich habe eine hohe Vorstellung vom Wesen eines wissenschaftlichen Katalogs und mçchte nicht den Anschein erwecken, als entsprche diese Liste dem, was mir persçnlich bei einem Kataloge vorschwebt. An die knappe mir im Serai zur Verfîgung stehende Zeit gebunden und diese Zeit zu einem guten Teile noch fîr die unaufschiebbaren technischen Arbeiten der Reinigung und vorlufigen Konservierung der Handschriften bençtigend, konnte ich nicht mehr erstreben, als diese erste zusammenfassende Aufnahme eines ehrwîrdigen, durch harte Schicksale zum Teil chaotisch gewordenen Bestandes.’ Forschungen, 39. 179 Schmidt-Ott, letter to Reisch, 4.8.1931.

202

5. The Ephesus excavations

work through the latter’s Europe office. They met during the afternoon of 17 May, but that night Deissmann was back on the train to Berlin without a positive answer. Yet despite Schmidt-Ott’s pessimism, the ongoing Great Depression (see ch. 9.1) and Germany’s increasing sociopolitical uncertainties, Deissmann persevered in the hope that sufficient money could still be forthcoming for an expedition in 1933. In December he wrote a letter to Paul Zingerle (1868 – 1947), Vizedirektor of the §AI, and revealed, … dass ich infolge einer von mir in Paris herbeigefîhrten Konferenz mit dem Leiter der Sektion fîr klassische Altertumswissenschaft bei der Rockefeller-Stiftung zu New York begrîndete Aussicht zu haben glaube, eine wenn auch wieder bescheidenere Expedition nach Ephesus 1933 zu finanzieren. Die seither von mir flîssig gemachten Mittel kamen, wie Sie wissen werden, aus der Privatschatulle des Mr. John Rockefeller. Solche privaten Mittel kann unser Wohltter kînftig nicht mehr zur Verfîgung stellen.180

Deissmann’s redoubled fundraising efforts can partly be attributed to his own plan of returning to Ephesus briefly before the winter semester. Forschungen had been published earlier that year, and as a result the Turkish Ministry of Education had invited him back to Istanbul to examine and catalogue a quantity of recently located Greek manuscripts, including a biblical codex. By the end of March Deissmann wrote to Reisch: Ich hatte alles daran gesetzt, dass diese Pariser mîndliche Aussprache zustande kme, weil ja eine einzige Stunde eines solchen persçnlichen Austausches oft grçsseren Erfolg hat als eine îber viele Wochen sich erstreckende Korrespondenz … Ich hatte dann nach langem Warten die Freude, dass die Rockefeller Foundation sich bereit erklrte, fîr die Kampagne der Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung einen Betrag von 2.500.– Dollars zurîckzulegen.181

Thus, in August he wrote to the Kultusministerium that he wished, ‘in der zweiten Septemberhlfte 1933 wiederum eine Forschungsreise nach Bulgarien und der Tîrkey anzutreten’.182 His travel expenses were already paid for by a non-specified foundation, and his diary entry for 1 September reads: ‘Fîr Sept. + Oktober ist ein 2-bettiges Zimmer im

180 Dated 5.12.1932. 181 GAD, letter to Reisch, 30.3.1933. 182 GAD’ letter, 15. 8. 1933; see Appendix 5, j.

5.8. Ephesus after 1931

203

Institut von Istanbul fîr uns reserviert’; Henriette was evidently planning to accompany him again. Thus far, the Deissmanns had their residency at Prinzregentenstrasse 6 in Wilmersdorf, Berlin, but on 3 July – in preparation for their retirement183 – they began extensive reconstruction and development work on their weekend house and property at Wînsdorf, which led to a last minute cancellation of their journey, on account of unexpected building complications.184 Disappointed, Deissmann wrote to his colleague and former student Martin Dibelius (1883 – 1947):185 Meine Forschungsreise nach Bulgarien, Konstantinopel und Ephesus habe ich auf nchstes Jahr verschieben mîssen, da ich durch die Bauarbeiten in Wînsdorf noch auf Wochen hinaus hier festgehalten werde.186

The journey never eventuated. Rockefeller’s Foundation had redirected its support elsewhere,187 and in May 1934 Deissmann wrote to Schmidt-Ott that because of the ‘wohl noch lngere Zeit andauernden schwierigen Finanzlage …’ the Ephesus excavations would have to be suspended for that year. Nevertheless, he urged that it was ‘dringend notwendig … um den vorlufigen Abschluss verantworten zu kçnnen’ that a number of urgent tasks be completed on site.188 Wiegand commended Deissmann’s proposal to Schmidt-Ott by declaring, ‘das zu diesem Zweck von Geheimrat Professor Deissmann vorgelegte Programm entspricht diesen Forderungen in allen Punkten’.189 Keil himself considered a scientifically responsible conclusion so important that he wrote to Wiegand for advice. 183 See ch. 9, n. 94. 184 On 4 September, the building inspector rejected the initial construction work (so the AK). 185 M. Dibelius, GAD’s most prominent doctoral graduate (1910), became a pioneer in NT form criticism, and NT Ordinarius at Heidelberg. He wrote to GAD for his 70th birthday that he had been ‘der erste, der bei Ihnen die venia legendi empfing’. Letter, dated 7. 11. 1936; held privately. 186 Dated, 13.9.1933. 187 ‘Die Rockefeller-Foundation [hatte] erklrt, dass sie ihre Aufgabe begrenzen mîsse und Ausgrabungen in Zukunft voraussichtlich ausserhalb ihres Interessengebietes fallen wîrden.’ GAD’s report, 1. 6. 1935; see Appendix 5, d. 188 ‘1. Die Erforschung des Mausoleums von Belevi, 2. Die Erforschung der kleinen Johannes-Kapelle auf dem Gipfel von Ajasoluk, 3. Die Bergung wertvoller, dem Verderb ausgesetzter Skulpturen und Inschriften von dem weiten Ruinenfeld in das von uns angelegte Museum von Ephesus, 4. Die kartographische Aufnahme des Gesamtgebietes der Lysimachischen Stadt.’ Letter, dated 19.5.1934. 189 Letter, dated 29.5.1934.

204

5. The Ephesus excavations

Gewiss wird sich Deissmann auch schon in derselben Sache an Sie gewendet haben; ich bin ihm so dankbar, wie er sich fîr die Sache abmîht. Aber ich muss doch noch versuchen seine Bemîhungen bei Ihnen persçnlich zu unterstîtzen … Kann ich selbst [bei der Forschungsgemeinschaft] meine Sache vertreten, mîndlich, mit aller mir zur Verfîgung stehenden Beredsamkeit oder ist es besser, wenn im Stillen durch Deissmann der Versuch gemacht wird, damit nicht etwa politische Schwierigkeiten wachgerufen werden?190

Indeed, two weeks later it was Deissmann who, in a three-page letter to the Forschungsgemeinschaft, made his case for the necessity of a prudently thought-through closing campaign for Ephesus, and detailed its costing and general objectives. Earlier that year, he had made one last attempt at persuading the Rockefeller Foundation to contribute towards it, but was unsuccessful.191 However, the Forschungsgemeinschaft replied on 20 June that they had accepted Deissmann’s application and were willing to provide M.7000 towards the project, as he had requested.192 It was on Deissmann’s initiative that excavations were resumed at Ephesus in 1926, and it was again he – much inspired by a lecture Keil gave in Berlin on 15 May 1934 – who proposed (and made sure) that these excavations were not terminated abruptly, as they were in Sotiriou’s case, but were drawn to a professionally responsible conclusion that could provide a sound basis for future archaeological research. Wir wîrden unseren betrchtlichen moralischen Kredit bei der tîrkischen Wissenschaftsverwaltung in nicht geringem Masse gefhrden, wenn wir, zu einer vorlufigen lngeren Unterbrechung der Ephesus-Arbeit gençtigt, unsere Grabungsobjekte in einem z. T. halbfertigen Zustand hinterliessen. Es ist doch in hçchstem Grade wînschenswert, dass die tîrkische Behçrden uns das einzigartige Forschungsfeld Ephesus fîr eine fernere Zukunft weiterbelassen.193

190 191 192 193

Keil, letter to Wiegand, 17.5.1935. GAD’s report, 1. 6. 1935; see Appendix 5, d. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, letter to GAD, 20.6.1935. GAD’s report, 1. 6. 1935; see Appendix 5, d.

5.9. Conclusion

205

5.9. Conclusion Deissmann was once aptly described as ‘die Seele des Planes’ for the renewed Ephesus excavations.194 But although it may be pointless to speculate what this important archaeological site would be like today without his timely and tireless initiatives, which he maintained until his death (see ch. 5.2), it is certain that immeasurable historical losses were being avoided because of his proactive determination to preserve this city’s ancient remains. Today, four million visitors are drawn to Ephesus each year, resulting in a huge public exposure of the site; it is summed up well in the words of Dr. Wilfried Seipel, director-general of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna: ‘Ephesus has done more, in these [past] 100 years, than any other city on the west coast of Turkey to further the understanding of ancient civilization’.195 Deissmann had first come in contact with the ruins of Ephesus during his two study tours of 1906 and 1909 (see ch. 4.1 – 2), and was then so struck by its far-reaching potential for scholarship that this became the primary motive which underpinned his later involvement with the city’s excavation. His conviction that archaeological realia formed the strongest material link for the understanding of the language, thinking and culture of the postclassical Greek world, led him to believe that this would also provide an advanced way for a more accurate understanding of the NT itself. That the §AI, and especially Keil – whose professional contribution to Ephesian archaeology was second to none – took Deissmann seriously is evident in that they made him an integral part of their excavation teams for four successive seasons. Although untrained in archaeology and, therefore, not on the same level of proficiency as Keil and Miltner, he was nevertheless kept fully ‘in the loop’ at all times by Keil and the Institute’s directors. In spite of the fact that Deissmann was prevented from participating in excavations after 1929, he continued as chairman of the ‘Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung’ until his death (see ch. 5.2). In recognition of Deissmann’s unique role for Ephesus – and by extension also for the §AI itself – the latter bestowed on him full membership of the Institute on 5 June 1930.196 No words could 194 Strathmann’s letter, 10.7.1925. 195 Wiplinger/ Wlach, vii. 196 Membership certificate, dated 15.7.1930.

206

5. The Ephesus excavations

conclude this chapter more fitly and authoritatively than those expressed by Keil on the occasion of Deissmann’s 70th birthday in 1936. Es wre schrecklich, wenn sich die Grenze des Staates als eine Grenze der Freundschaft oder der geistigen Zusammenarbeit ußern wollte. Es kann ja aber, Gott sei dafîr gedankt – nicht sein! Du hast einst îber die Grenzen hinaus das große Ephesosunternehmen, dem Deine und unsere Liebe galt, zu neuem Leben erweckt und hast es betreut als heiligen Besitz geistiger Art, fîr den unter deutschen Menschen keine Grenze bestehen kann. Voll Dankbarkeit haben wir 1926 Deinen 60. Geburtstag in der ‘Metropolis’ gefeiert. Voll grçßter Dankbarkeit haben wir Deiner an Deinem 70. Geburtstag zu gedenken. Aber so wie ich, kann es keiner tun, weil ich mehr als alle anderen, nicht nur das, was Du getan hast, kenne, sondern auch um die große, glîhende Liebe weiß, aus der heraus Dein ganzes Tun geflossen ist. Um diese glîhende Liebe weiß ich selbst, weiß auch meine Frau. An sie denken wir an Deinem Ehrentage und es ist uns, ob alles, was Dir an Ehrungen und Auszeichnungen gegeben wurde und gegeben werden kann, nichts ist im Vergleich zu ihr.197

Keil’s allusion to international political changes reveals that Deissmann celebrated his 70th birthday not as he did a decade earlier at his 60th (see ch. 5.3), in visionary anticipation for what Ephesus might bring to scholarship, but in an era of national and personal anxiety about the future. The following chapters are designed, therefore, to place him firmly into his contemporary context, and aim to demonstrate how this versatile scholar, in search of archaeological realia that might deepen his understanding of the NT, came to be involved in work, at an international level, of a social, cultural and ecumenical nature.

197 Keil’s letter, 5. 10. 1936 (italics mine); see Appendix 9, g (IV).

Part 3 Deissmann in his contemporary context

Figure 11 Gustav Adolf Deissmann, portrait in oil, January 1930

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik1 [Deissmann ist] eine Persçnlichkeit … die, an keine Formeln der Schule gebunden und durch keine Parteirîcksichten eingeengt, sich mit großer Selbststndigkeit bewegt.2

6.1. Political awakening Since this chapter focuses on Deissmann’s political development within the context of contemporary late 19th and early 20th century Germany, it is inevitable that a variety of significant political or historical questions of that time will be touched upon. However, my subject is Deissmann, not German political history, for which reason I shall only treat these topics inasmuch as they bear on and are relevant to the overall focus of this book. When Deissmann accepted his Ordinarius position as successor to Bernhard Weiss in Berlin the religious press attacks were severe but not unexpected (see ch. 2.4). He had made his controversial d¤but into Prussia’s conservative capital of Wilhelmine imperialism as a provincial liberal theologian, whose primary contribution to academic progress seemed to some no more than a reformist agenda of later Greek philology, which the city’s devout traditionalists believed to run counter to Prussian Lutheran orthodoxy.3 Compounding this was his active involvement with a political movement that the editor of the Reichsbote termed ‘revolutionre Sozialdemokratie’,4 and Otto von Bismarck (1815 – 98) contemptuously branded ‘the party of subversion’.5 The far-reaching neo-Lutheran Zweireichelehre (see ch. 8, n. 3) of the Wilhelmine era dominated almost completely every aspect of Prussia’s so1 2 3 4 5

Except in citations, I shall generally use the English term ‘social politics’ as an equivalent of the German Sozialpolitik. Wendland, DLZ, 3148. ‘Der bedrohte Kultusminister’, Voss. Zeitung, 30.1.1908. ‘In Sachen D. Deissmann’, Reichsbote, 26.6.1908. F. Fischer, Germany’s aims in the First World War, London, 1967, 6.

210

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

ciopolitical conscience. This caused any unorthodox activity in support of the broader working classes to be regarded as a sign of disloyalty or dissent – particularly among the 7000 aristocrats who dominated the city – and, by extension, a threat to Germany’s socioreligiously unstable nation. Thus, when Deissmann wrote to Moulton about his appointment to Berlin, he remarked: ‘Man hat mich aber hauptschlich politisch angegriffen, da ich hier [Heidelberg] auf Seiten der Arbeiter gestanden habe’.6 Having been raised and educated primarily within the provincial and for the most part Roman Catholic Grand Duchy of Baden,7 he had acquired personal experience with what he termed ‘menschliche[s] Elend’ amongst the rural Lahn-valley communities.8 Despite the boom years (1896 – 1905) which followed in the wake of the trade policies of Bismarck’s successor, Chancellor Graf Georg Leo von Caprivi (1831 – 99), Germany’s working classes continued to face harsh socioeconomic conditions, especially in rural regions. In contrast, Deissmann’s earlier years at Heidelberg seemed almost carefree, and he described them as ‘jene reichen Jugendtage’, when neither he nor his immediate colleagues – with the possible exception of Max Weber – possessed sufficient political foresight to be concerned about their country’s growing international isolation.9 This did not mean, though, that Deissmann was politically disengaged; such a position would have been almost untenable for any turn-of-the-century German academic.10 For as a professor he was obliged to swear a Beamteneid, based – even in

6 GAD’s letter, 19. 2. 1908 (see also ch. 2.4). 7 In 1890 Roman Catholics made up 62 % of Baden’s population, as against 36 % Lutheran and 1.6 % Jewish. 8 SD, 49. 9 SD, 63. 10 Some three decades later, when nationwide student protests gave rise to the question of ‘wieweit die Politik an den Hochschulen … eine Stelle haben soll’, Justizrat Ernst Heymann pointed out: ‘Es ist sehr bequem dies damit abzutun, daß man die Hochschulen als Sttte der Wissenschaft und ihrer Lehre von der Politik loszulçsen fordert … Man kann auch nicht … den studentischen Korporationen und Vereinigungen die politische Erçrterung und die Pflege politischer Gesinnung verbieten. Damit stellte man sie ungînstiger als die Massen der jungen Arbeiter und Angestellten, obwohl gerade die geistig besonders gut Vorgebildeten sich frîh mit dem politischen Leben der Nation vertraut zu machen streben werden und vertraut machen mîssen.’ Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 36, 15, 1931, 986 – 7.

6.1. Political awakening

211

that predominantly Roman Catholic part of Germany – on Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (see ch. 8.1), by vowing: Ich schwçre Treue dem Großherzog und der Verfassung, Gehorsam dem Gesetze, des Fîrsten wie des Vaterlandes Wohl nach Krften zu befçrdern und îberhaupt alle Pflichten des mir îbertragenen Amtes gewissenhaft zu erfîllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.11

The reference to the national welfare (‘Vaterlandes Wohl’) was in no way intended for the benefit of the working classes with whose plight Deissmann had been sympathising since his youth. Instead, it demanded full dedication to the State itself – that is to say the abstract Rankean concept of the State as a divine ‘idea’12 – which, thus deified, endowed ‘the State’ with extraordinary power over individuals. This was theologically reinforced and justified by Luther’s dogma that monarchies rose and fell in accordance with God’s providential will, making the Kaiser, as God’s appointed paterfamilias of Germany, the summus episcopus of the Lutheran Church. Deissmann’s father had a somewhat unorthodox yet strongly conservative Lutheran Weltanschauung,13 which had left an understandably deep mark on Deissmann’s personal life-formation. However, the latter’s sociopolitical consciousness received its first awakening only at the age of 21, during a summer semester’s study at Berlin in 1888, where he happened to see the frail Kaiser Wilhelm I (1797 – 1888),14 as well as Bismarck. He had, in fact, come to the imperial city during what later would be remembered as the chaotic Drei-Kaiser-Jahr.15 11 Verhandlung, 11.10.1897. This document also provides details of the formal part of GAD’s induction proceedings. 12 See J.A. Moses, ‘The British and German churches and the perception of war, 1908 – 1914’, War & Society, 5, 1, 1987, 31 – 4. 13 ‘In den innerkirchlichen Kmpfen stand mein Vater entschieden rechts … Fîr die mechanischen Verwaltungsgeschfte des Pfarramts und der Schulleitung … hat er mit zunehmendem Alter immer mehr unter ihnen geseufzt und auch die Behçrden seufzen lassen … Durch seine energisch protestantische Stellungnahme in der Diaspora kam er wiederholt in langwierige Preßfeden und politische Prozesse, aus denen er nicht ohne Narben, aber siegreich hervorging.’ SD, 46 – 7. 14 SD, 48. Although GAD referred to him there as Friedrich, he was generally known as Wilhelm I (full name Wilhelm Friedrich Ludwig). He died 9.3. 1888. 15 The term appears to be an allusion to Tacitus’, Historiae, 1.2 (69 CE). A catchy mnemonic soon appeared in German schools, which characterised the three sovereigns in the ditty: ‘Wilhelm I. war der greise Kaiser, Friedrich III. der weise Kaiser und Wilhelm II. der Reisekaiser’.

212

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

When the nearly 91-year-old Wilhelm died on 9 March he was succeeded by his liberal son Friedrich Wilhelm (Kaiser Friedrich III) – on whom had rested the hope of a constitutional monarchy, reflecting that of Britain – but after ruling Prussia for only 99 days he died of throat cancer.16 On 15 June his young and impulsive son Wilhelm II inherited the throne,17 and with it commenced a reign that ended three decades later in his ignominious exile and the demise of Germany’s monarchy. When Deissmann arrived in Berlin, it was filled with every kind of gaudy uniform,18 and open displays of social arrogance were common, in stark contrast to how he had come to perceive life in the provinces. Although his jolting encounter with the effects of Berlin’s escalating militarism lasted only a few months, it left ‘eine tiefe Narbe’ in him – intensified by the mysterious suicide (in Berlin) of his very close Hessian friend Wilhelm Rîckert.19 Feeling socially isolated, Deissmann spent Sundays frequently with his Uncle Theodor Halbey,20 a Jurist and Vortragender Rat in the Ministerium des Innern, who was engaged in the process of revising the ordinances for Prussia’s rural communities. While Deissmann did not elucidate, it can certainly be extrapolated from Selbstdarstellungen that this senior governmental servant must have shared many political thoughts with his young nephew, especially since the latter intimated that ‘… [er] mir viel Vertrauen schenkte’.21 He also described his semester’s study in Berlin as ‘eine unerhçrt erregte Spanne Zeit, voll neuer Eindrîcke aus dem sozial und politisch damals maßlos 16 See further, J.A. Nichols, The Year of the three Kaisers, Chicago, 1987, 19 – 31. 17 On this Kaiser, C. Clark advises: ‘Wilhelm once announced to a group of admirals: “All of you know nothing, I alone know something. I alone decide.” If we assume that the Kaiser was congenitally deranged then we will read these remarks literally, as evidence to a deluded world-view. But we could also read the same remarks situationally. The German Kaiser was surrounded by people (including military and naval personnel) whose expertise posed a threat to his personal authority over the many domains under his nominal control.’ Kaiser Wilhelm II, Edinburgh, 2000, 22. 18 Later satirised by the German playwright Carl Zuckmayer, in ‘Der Hauptmann von Kçpenick’ (1931). 19 SD, 48. See also Appendix 1, b, where GAD indicated that they had both been members of the same theological fraternity (‘Vereinsbrîder’). 20 Married to the only sister of GAD’s mother, Amalie Rullmann (1838 – 1915). 21 SD, 49.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

213

aufgewîhlten Leben der Hauptstadt’.22 What he alluded to was not simply a detached observation of Prussia’s political instability at that time; but rather, it was there where his first contact with the effects of Adolf Stoecker’s factional movement took place (see ch. 6.2), and the earliest beginnings of his own sociopolitical philosophy began to take shape. For shortly before the end of his life, Deissmann fondly remembered these particular student-days in Berlin for the political direction they had given him: Wer die von Stçcker entfachte Bewegung als Berliner Student und nachmals als junger Dozent und Geistlicher miterlebt hat, wie sie die Massen aufrîttelte und eine Auslese von Arbeitern, Theologen und anderen Akademikern, Bîrgern und Bauern herausstellte in die Zeit, wie sie im Namen des Evangeliums den Kampf um die Seele des Volkes aufnahmen gegen die kosmischen Mchte des Materialismus und des Mammonismus, des Klassenkampfs und der Vaterlandslosigkeit, blickt auf diese Jahre immer als auf Lichtpunkte seiner Jugend mit Dankbarkeit zurîck.23

The last phrase highlights that it was this summer semester of 1888 in Berlin – more than paternal influences during his youth24 – which gave the impetus for his later involvement with social politics at Heidelberg. Moreover, it indicates that Deissmann had been showing an interest in Christian social politics for some time prior to coming in contact with Friedrich Naumann’s movement.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection The closing decades of the 19th century had thrown Prussia into grave social turbulence, in which the rift between industrialists and the working classes had become so strong that organised reactions were inevitable, and gave rise to trade unions and socialist parties. Thus, in 1863 the Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein (ADAV) was formed by Ferdinand Lassalle (1825 – 64),25 followed six years later by the more Marx-oriented Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (SDAP), led by

22 SD, 48. 23 GAD, Reinhold Seeberg, ein Gedchtniswort, Stuttgart, 1936, 33. 24 Although he credited his mother for having helped him through those ‘stormy days of Anti-Semitism’, an allusion to his stay in Berlin. Pr.WL, 26. 2. 1916, 1. 25 F.L. Carsten, August Bebel und die Organisation der Massen, Berlin, 1991, 25.

214

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

August Bebel (1840 – 1913).26 These two parties coalesced in 1875 to form the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD);27 Nonetheless, Bismarck felt politically threatened by its leftist ideologies of social equality and shared wealth. Thus, when two assassination attempts were made on the Kaiser in 1878, which were widely blamed on the party’s effects on the general society, he seized the opportunity to push his anti-socialist bill (Sozialistengesetz) through parliament.28 That same year the Hofprediger, Adolf Christian Stoecker (1835 – 1909) – a passionate monarchist who feared that the church was losing touch with the working classes and their poor social conditions – founded the Christlich-Soziale Arbeiterpartei (CSAP).29 A charismatic demagogue, he aimed to gain the support of workers through the party’s conservative Christian social policies and overtly anti-Semitic propaganda, in direct opposition to the SPD. But in 1883 he, too, fell foul of Bismarck, and was forced to cease all political activities. However, after the Chancellor’s dismissal by the Kaiser on 18 March 1890, and the repeal of the Sozialistengesetz,30 the SPD was decriminalised and gained the support of 1.5 million voters.31 Stoecker now resumed his political career through the Deutschkonservative Partei (DkP), which he successfully won over to his (simplistic) anti-Semitic ideology, and, in his aspiration for a church-centred social democratic coalition, began again to organise mass rallies. On 28 May he became a founding member of the Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongress (ESK), which was established to deliberate on Germany’s social problems from the perspective of Protestant ethics. 26 Ibid., 44 – 8. Of him, F. Naumann wrote: ‘Er war ein gewaltiger Aufwecker schlafender Seelen, ein Wohltter der Versunkenen, denen er Hoffnung gab, zugleich ein Phantast, voll von fabelhaftem Glanze fîr das arme Volk … Was er brachte, war eine Art neuer Religion an Stelle der alten … Man kann sich den Bebelschen Sozialismus nicht denken ohne uneingeschrnkte Machtgewinnung … Hier genîgte es festzustellen, dass Bebel revolutionrer Machtpolitiker ist und sein muß.’ Demokratie und Kaisertum: ein Handbuch fîr innere Politik, Berlin, 19054 (1900), 1 – 2. 27 Carsten, 68 – 74. 28 Ibid., 82. See also P.G. Pulzer, The rise of political anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, New York, 1964, 88 – 102. 29 Renamed Christlich-Soziale Partei (CSP) in 1881. See R.L. Massanari, ‘True or false Socialism: Adolf Stoecker’s critique of Marxism from a Christian Socialist perspective’, ChHist, 41, 4, 1972, 487 – 96. 30 On 25. 1. 1890, but only effective from 30.9.1890. 31 A. Richie, Faust’s Metropolis; a history of Berlin, New York, 1998, 180.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

215

Friedrich Naumann (1860 – 1919) met Stoecker for the first time in 1880,32 and the following year invited him to give a public address at the launch of the Verein Deutscher Studenten at Leipzig. He had written to the well-known Hofprediger, ‘um dem Verein den großen Auftrieb zu geben’ – a successful tactic, for Stoecker’s speech, ‘große Zeiten, große Aufgaben’, drew a crowd of a thousand students, and ‘der Eindruck des Abends war gewaltig’.33 A few years later Naumann gained first-hand experience of the harsh social effects of industrialisation, initially while working as a Protestant social worker in Wichern’s Rauhe Haus, an orphanage near Hamburg (1883 – 5), and later as Pfarrer in Langenberg, in the industrial Erzgebirge (1886 – 90).34 Despite Stoecker’s notoriously polemical antiSemitism, Naumann remained a keen admirer of the man and his progressive Christian political ideologies, although he wrote to Martin Rade in 1887: daß ich kein blinder Bewunderer bin, haben Sie aus einigen einschrnkenden Stzen gewiss gesehen … Seine Theologie ist mir wertlos … aber trotz allem und allem, er hat seinen Zauber fîr mich nicht verloren, denn er ist ein Mann voll christlicher Kraft, wie ihn Berlin braucht. Er lsst mich bisweilen an das Wort denken, das Calvin von Luther gesagt haben soll: und wenn er mich einen Teufel nennete, ich wîrde ihn ehren.35

Naumann himself saw no reason for opposing Stoecker on the subject of Jews, since his own ideology differed only by degrees from the latter’s basic contention that Germany was on the verge of Verjudung. This racially motivated fear that Jews were corrupting the German nation with genetically inferior blood, materialistic work ethics, shallow morals and greedy financial practices had found fuel in the stock market crash of 1873, and swelled during the ensuing Long Depression (1873 – 96). In fact, their increasing preponderance in the business and financial sector had troubled Naumann as well, but he centred his political theories rather on what a cooperation of Germany’s liberal democratic forces could achieve socially than on blaming a religious minority for the nation’s socioeconomic disparity. Thus, despite his unfavourable personal attitude towards Berlin’s 32 T. Heuss, Friedrich Naumann: der Mann, das Werk, die Zeit, Mînchen, 19683 (1937), 69. 33 Ibid., 52 – 3. 34 Ibid., 55 – 7, 70 – 4. On the Wichern orphanage, see n. 53 below. 35 Ibid., 69.

216

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

prominent Jewish entrepreneurs, he steered away from reducing Prussia’s social questions to the one-dimensional racist platform on which Stoecker had chosen to run his campaign. However, Naumann was also a member of several Protestant workers’ unions and, like Stoecker, hoped to fuse the various progressive organisations into a large-scale coalition for social reform, based on Christian instead of Marxist principles and functioning as a Protestant alternative to the SPD.36 Nevertheless, the fundamental difference between Stoecker and Naumann was ultimately one of age37 – the conservative Stoecker being a quarter-century older than Naumann – which is why the latter tended to appeal more to the younger generation, nicknamed ‘Die Jungen’,38 men like Max Weber, Bernhard Weiss’ son Bernhard Wilhelm Johannes Weiss (1863 – 1914), and Deissmann. By 1895 a rift had developed between Naumann and Stoecker, even so, the latter wrote to Naumann: ‘Schenkt es Ihnen Gott, was er uns versagt hat, daß Sie eine große Arbeiterpartei zu bilden vermçgen, so wird sich niemand mehr freuen als ich …’.39 But the formation of an independent political party seemed still premature to Naumann, and he cautioned: ‘Wir sind zur Parteibildung noch lange nicht fertig, und ich warne stets, sich zeitiger in den Kampf zu stellen, als die Krfte beisammen sind’.40 The following spring Stoecker resigned from both the conservative party and the ESK. After launching Die Zeit, an official newspaper for national socialism based on Christian principles, Naumann organised a conference at Erfurt for 23 – 25 November 1896, to which non-conservative Christian socialists – Deissmann among them – were invited, and where the Nationalsozialer Verein was formed. Naumann’s initial proposal to name it a ‘Politischer Verein als Vorbereitung zu einer Partei’ shows that this was not the setting up of a political party as such, but rather of an association whose expressed purpose was to raise awareness and 36 Naumann had argued: ‘Eine Unmasse Kraft verzehrt sich im internen Kampf der Parteien und Personen … Solange die Parteien sich gegenseitig aufheben, ist das Recht des Reichstages, seinerseits Gesetze vorzuschlagen, beinahe ein schlummerndes Recht.’ Demokratie und Kaisertum, 54. 37 Heuss, 111. Naumann himself wrote: ‘In einem Punkt trennte sich Stoeckers und unsere Arbeit: er blieb konservativ, wir wurden antikonservativ und werden und mîssen es bleiben …’. Demokratie und Kaisertum, 110. 38 Heuss, 111. Conversely, Stoecker’s followers were called, ‘Die Alten’. 39 Ibid., 122. 40 Ibid., 129.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

217

support, and so facilitate the launching of a new political party at the federal elections in 1898.41 That summer they were able to present candidates in eleven constituencies, with Naumann himself standing equally for Jena and for Frankfurt am Main, but with a total count of only 27,200 votes not one of them succeeded.42 Afterwards, Deissmann wrote consolingly to Naumann: Unsere Sache steht in den Anfngen; wir haben kein Geld, keine Presse, keine geschulten Massen. Aber wir haben eins: Glauben. Wir haben deshalb keine Ursache, an unserer Sache zu verzweifeln … Dass Sie selbst nicht gewhlt sind, beklage ich freilich aufs tiefste und mit mir viele an den deutschen Hochschulen, aber … halten Sie fest an unserer Sache, lassen Sie sich nicht entmutigen, bieten Sie wie seither allem Spott, aller øchtung, aller Verlumdung, aller Verblendung die Stirn! Es kommt auch Ihr Tag!43

*

*

*

Naumann’s biographer and first president of the German Republic (1949 – 59), Theodor Heuss (1884 – 1963), claimed that Deissmann ‘seit der Jugend dem Gestorbenen [Naumann] nachgefolgt war …’.44 This is incorrect, since he was more than 21 years old when he first encountered Stoecker’s church-centred socialism in Berlin, while Naumann was still a Pfarrer in the faraway Saxon town of Langenberg. In fact, it is highly improbable that Deissmann has ever met Naumann before June 1890 at the earliest, when the latter had moved to Frankfurt to take up his new position as chaplain for the Home Mission (i. e. Evangelischer Verein fîr Innere Mission).45 It was from there that Naumann’s political ascent began, although – since he became almost immediately incapacitated by severe asthma attacks – he made a rather inauspicious start. His respiratory debility prevented him from participating in the first ESK on 28 May 1890, and subsequently it almost forced him to resign from his new position.46 Not until May 1891 was he fit and confident enough to immerse himself fully into

41 Ibid., 130 – 1. 42 Ibid., 142. 43 Letter, dated 20.6.1898. Heuss appears to have been unaware of this letter. For a transcript see Appendix 6, a. 44 Heuss, 534. 45 Ibid., 89. 46 Ibid., 91 – 2.

218

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

his task – just in time for the second ESK – and it was very likely there where the two men met for the first time. Both Stoecker and Naumann were working towards the formation of a Christian Social-Democratic Party to represent Germany’s disadvantaged working classes from an essentially Lutheran perspective. Their hope was that it would gain sufficient political impact to bring about socioeconomic changes, but their movement lacked ongoing solidarity, and Deissmann observed: Es ist leider nicht gelungen, dieser Bewegung die ursprîngliche Einheitlichkeit zu erhalten. Aber die von ihr ausgegangenen Sonder-Organisationen, die kirchlich-soziale Stçckers selbst und nach ihm Seeberg, und die nationalsoziale des Stçckerschîlers Friedrich Naumann, haben, wie sie den gleichen harten Widerstand namentlich aus der Schwerindustrie erlebten, doch auch weiterhin gemeinsam dazu beigetragen, das nationale und soziale Gewissen des evangelischen Deutschland wachzuhalten und zu schrfen.47

Deissmann made a neat distinction here between Stoecker’s extreme right-wing and ideologically driven socialism (espoused by Reinhold Seeberg) and Naumann’s progressive evolutionary socialism, which he increasingly came to follow as the latter’s political profile developed. For he genuinely believed that Naumann was able to offer Germany an innovative political program for social and economic reform that would be rooted within broadly biblical principles. The old laissez-faire policies of industrial capitalism were already being challenged effectively by the SPD, but Naumann’s push towards a Christian based, balanced and nationally integrated social system appealed to the young Marburg theologian, who sympathised more with employees than employers. Thus, no sooner had Deissmann taken up his new position as Pfarrer of Herborn (see ch. 1.5) than he ran foul of the district’s church authorities because of his political activities, which were perceived as plebeian agitation by the local conservative Lutheran council. Als ich dann 1895 die Universitt verließ und an das Theologische Seminar (Predigerseminar) zu Herborn ging … ließen [sie] mir in wissenschaftlichen Dingen vçllige Freiheit: nur meiner sozialpolitischen Bettigung (es waren damals die Tage der nationalsozialen Bewegung) war der seinerseits îbrigens selbst als Parteipolitiker hervorgetretene juristische Konsistorialprsident wenig gewogen und suchte mich vor “Agitation” zu warnen, deren Beginn er so zu bestimmen unternahm, daß von einer bestimmten 47 GAD, Reinhold Seeberg, 33.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

219

Kilometerzahl vom Kirchenspielort ab die erlaubte politische “Arbeit” aufhçre und die unerlaubte “Agitation” anfange.48

This amusing anecdote alludes to a noteworthy aspect of Deissmann’s early involvement with Naumann. For although he preached in churches and lectured at universities, to think of the young theologian as a public political agitator is demonstrably out of character. Deissmann was well known for his quiet and self-possessed personality; besides, his speaking style was peculiarly solemn, so much so that his students nicknamed him ‘ein Scheich’.49 One of them later reminisced: Er war eigentlich immer mit einer gewissen unnahbaren Feierlichkeit umgeben, vielleicht eine unbewußte Abwehrhandlung eines zarten und fast schîchternen Gemîtes … Auch in den Seminarsitzungen ging es feierlich zu.50

His persona simply did not fit that of a political provocateur; but this raises the question why, then, he was put under such pressure to cease ‘agitation’? In December 1894, not long before Deissmann received this strange warning, Naumann launched the weekly paper Die Hilfe.51 It was published as a ‘mouthpiece’ and forum for younger Christian social democrats – specifically labourers, tradesmen and farmers – although ‘in zweiter Linie [auch fîr] Gebildete, die sich fîr eine volkstîmliche Behandlung der sozialen Frage interessieren’.52 It is now no longer possible to determine whether Deissmann received a copy of the paper’s first edition, although this seems likely. Nevertheless, the consistory president’s admonition that he should refrain from political activities outside a set radius from the Herborn church, suggests that 48 Ev.Wbr, 15. 2. 1919, 4. 49 ‘… Deißmann mit seiner ruhigen Art – immer “feierlich wie ein Scheich”, pflegte die jîngere, respektlose Generation damals von Deißmann zu sagen.’ O. Dibelius, ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene’. Further to GAD’s personality, see also ch. 5, n. 52; ch. 9, n. 88. 50 Harder/ Deissmann, 5. 51 Subtitled until 1902: ‘Gotteshilfe, Selbsthilfe, Staatshilfe, Bruderhilfe’. Heuss, 111 – 3. 52 Ibid., 114. H.C. Meyer noted: ‘From the outset [Die Hilfe] accepted the German working masses as an integral part of society and strove to convince the middle class of this reality; thus Naumann tried to bridge a wide social gulf, preaching conciliation and understanding on a basis of common national sentiment and interest.’ Mitteleuropa in German thought and action 1815 – 1945, The Hague, 1955, 89.

220

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

the ‘agitation’ of the young Pfarrer may have consisted of no more than distributing Die Hilfe among the farmers of the rural villages Hçrbach, Sinn and Hirschberg (see ch. 1.5). He considered them ‘meine Dçrfer’, as they belonged to the Herborn parish and he was responsible for their general welfare. Their population consisted primarily of ‘Kleinbauern und zwergbuerlichen Hîttenarbeitern’,53 and was precisely the target audience Naumann sought to reach. Shortly after that first warning he received a second one; this time from Berlin itself and, oddly enough, it came through his former teacher Bernhard Weiss. However, as Deissmann recalled many years later, the encounter turned out to have an almost darkly comical side to it. Ich bin selbst einmal in der Aera Stumm als junger Geistlicher und Dozent in Herborn von ihm [Weiß] ins Hotel bestellt worden und habe von ihm statt des halb erhofften Extraordinariats eine allerdings sehr vterlich gehaltene Mahnung empfangen, mich nicht allzu sehr an der evangelischsozialen Bewegung, der îbrigens auch sein Sohn Johannes Weiß und sein Schîler Arthur Titius nahestanden, zu beteiligen. Zwei Generationen begegneten einander in jener Zeit, in diesem Falle ohne Misstrauen, aber doch in einer achtungsvollen Distanz; das Wichern-Erbteil54 der lteren Generation hatte sich bei der jîngeren umgesetzt, wie die Alten sagten, – fortgesetzt wie die Jungen selbst meinten, – im Aktivismus Adolf Stçckers und Friedrich Naumanns.55

The notion of a connection between Weiss’ admonition and Carl Ferdinand von Stumm-Halberg (1836 – 1901) might appear somewhat tenuous at first. But Deissmann’s reference to the ‘Aera Stumm’ almost certainly implies that Stumm – a passionately authoritarian member of the Prussian parliament, and rigorous suppressor of the rapidly growing social democratic movement – had prompted the aged Weiss to rein him in. In his role as Vortragender Rat to the Kultusministerium the octogenarian was closely connected with the Reichstag, and it would have been in his, as well as Stumm’s ideological interests to dissuade Deissmann from taking this specific political direction.

53 SD, 60. 54 Johann Hinnrich Wichern (1808 – 81), founder of the ‘Innere Mission’ and leader of the Hamburg orphanage ‘Rauhes Haus’, where Naumann worked between 1883 – 5. 55 GAD’s commemorative address, 26.6.1927.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

221

Stumm was satirically nicknamed ‘Herrscher von Saarabien’,56 an allusion to his excessively ostentatious lifestyle, and because of his quasi-monarchical opposition to the rise of social democracy in the Saarland. Thus, he enforced an obscure industrial ruling from 1877 that decreed the dismissal of any employee known to fraternise with social democrats; even reading papers suspect of socialist content was sufficient cause. Towards the end of 1894, shortly after Stumm had come in contact with Naumann, this same law also began to be applied to anyone reading Die Hilfe, in an all-out effort to gag the political voice of Naumann’s movement, even though it differed significantly from the SPD. During January and early February Stumm followed this up with a string of vituperative speeches on the scourge of social democracy, in which he fallaciously equated Naumann’s ideology with that of the SPD, but attacked it as ‘noch viel gefhrlicher’.57 This then, was the general political context within which Bernhard Weiss attempted to dissuade Deissmann from associating further with Naumann. It was hardly coincidental that Deissmann received two such similar admonitions at the very outset of his short-lived parish ministry, especially since both came from strongly conservative royalists and Stumm sympathisers. The Reichstag – under powerful pressure from Stumm58 – evidently deemed the young state employee to be building up too much momentum towards the political left in the kirchentreuen Herborn parish, and this could have led to a state-wide swing against the centre-right throughout the newly industrialised Hessen. Deissmann’s ardent participation at this early stage in Naumann’s rise to politics is of some consequence, as he must have been convinced of the merits of the latter’s sociopolitical philosophy even before Naumann himself had completely grasped its full potential. Deissmann’s staunch belief that this Pfarrer-cum-politician’s liberal Christian socialism could bring about sweeping socioeconomic changes in Germany is expressed unmistakably in a letter he wrote to Hermann Cohen. Wenn irgend etwas, dann gestattet das Erstarken des sozialen Geistes einen hoffenden Ausblick aufs neue Jahrhundert. Ich weiß nicht welchen Grad von Interesse Sie seither der an den Namen Naumann sich knîpfenden Bewegung geschenkt haben; jedenfalls hat dieselbe eine gewaltige Kraft, 56 Heuss, 115. 57 Ibid., 117. 58 Ibid., 115 – 6.

222

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

gewaltiger als ihr selbst noch zum Bewußtsein gekommen ist. Und ohne pro Domo reden zu wollen, glaube ich sagen zu dîrfen, dass mir aus dieser Pforte dereinst ein gut Teil der Schaffenslust kommen wird, in die sich der soziale Drang einfîgen wird. Die inhaltsschweren Stze Ihres Programms sind eine wissenschaftliche Legalisierung unserer Bewegung …59

It would take another ten months before the Nationalsozialer Verein was formed and, except for Die Hilfe, no formal political organ had thus far been set up by Naumann or his followers. Yet Deissmann wrote of their loose association not only in superlative terms, but also referred to it as ‘unsere Bewegung’, thus overtly siding with the political left. More than a quarter-century later he related how this quasirevolutionary ideology had affected the Weltanschauung of Naumann’s followers, including himself. It instilled in them an optimistic confidence that a nationally unifying, socioeconomic reform was possible and could be brought about by their movement. Wir waren im îbrigen ganz hingegeben einer unerschîtterlichen nationalen Zuversicht und setzten unsere Kraft hauptschlich dafîr ein, der schweren inneren Gefhrdung der deutschen Einheit, die durch das Auseinanderstreben der handarbeitenden Massen und der “bîrgerlichen” Gesellschaft gegeben war, zu begegnen.60

In 1897, when Deissmann was appointed to the Chair in NT theology at Heidelberg, the right-wing press attacked him in much the same way as they were to do eleven years later, when he accepted Bernhard Weiss’ Chair at Berlin, and wrote philosophically: Die in einigen Blttern gegen meine Berufung [nach Berlin] erschienenen Artikel haben mir den Gedanken nahegelegt, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass genau dieselben Artikel auch bei meiner Berufung nach Heidelberg 1897 erschienen sind; ich vermisse nur das damals benutzte Argument, ich sei 59 GAD, letter to Cohen, 6. 2. 1896, in Nottmeier, ‘Hermann Cohen und Adolf Deissmann: Dokumente aus dem Nachlaß Adolf Deissmanns’, ZNThG, 9, 2002, 319. 60 SD, 63. By ‘“bîrgerlichen” Gesellschaft’, GAD makes an allusion to the ‘Bildungsbîrgertum’, on which see W. Conze, et al., eds, Bildungsbîrgertum im 19. Jahrhundert, 1 – 4, Stuttgart, 1985 – 90. In vol. 4 (p. 17), Jîrgen Kocka cautions: ‘Doch scheint im Falle des Bildungsbîrger-Begriffs besondere Vorsicht angebracht. Wer ihn als Verstndigung erleichternde Kîrzel benutzt, sollte prsent haben und erkennen lassen, daß der Begriff auf dem Kontinuum zwischen realittsnaher Verallgemeinerung und ideal-typischem Konstrukt sehr nah auf den zuletzt genannten Pol hin gravitiert. Man sollte ihn nur mit spitzen Fingern gebrauchen, gleichsam in Anfîhrungsstrichen, nicht aber als tragende Sule der Analyse.’

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

223

ein langweiliger Dozent. Von den konservativen Kreisen Badens damals mit starkem Misstrauen aufgenommen, habe ich in den zehn Jahren meiner Wirksamkeit mit einer grossen Zahl konservativer Badener freundliche, ja freundschaftliche Beziehungen anknîpfen kçnnen …61

The conservatives’ strong distrust of Deissmann was based on the grounds that he had once been a ‘nationalsozialer Parteifîhrer’62 and ‘ein ausgesprochener Parteimann von der Linken’.63 However, this charge seems to have arisen from a probable confusion between Naumann’s Nationalsozialer Verein, which Deissmann chaired at Heidelberg until 1903, and an actual political party, of which he was never a leader. Yet this misconception was at the heart of several newspaper articles written in reaction to his appointment at each university. Bernhard Weiss – whose son, Johannes, was also a member of the Nationalsozialer Verein – understood the distinction well, which is why he was able to defend Deissmann as a man whom he knew intimately, ‘und von dem ich konstatieren muss, dass er einer der wenigen unter den hervorragenden Theologen ist, den man in keiner Weise als “Parteimann” bezeichnen kann’.64 Although this apologia was written in 1908, it was meant to silence the allegation of the theologian Ernst Bunke (1866 – 1944).65 While the latter undeniably propagated a false report, it is true that Deissmann was one of the region’s leading proponents of Christian social-democracy – especially before 1903. By the time Deissmann moved to Heidelberg in 1897 he had already developed a strong sense of social justice and civic duty. Accordingly, when he was nominated to chair the city’s coal co-operative in October 1900 he immediately wrote a letter to the University Senate and,

61 GAD, letter to unknown recipient (possibly Ludwig Elster), 17.1.1908. 62 E. Bunke, ‘Die Professorenfrage’, cited in CcW, 4, 23. 1. 1908, 51. 63 ‘Der neutestamentliche Lehrstuhl in Berlin’, Das Reich, 2.2.1908. For some of GAD’s refutations, see GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 25. 2. 1908; also Reichsbote, 26.6.1908. 64 Weiss, CcW, 8, 20. 2. 1908, 101. 65 On 1. 2. 1908, a newspaper report stated: ‘Es war also ein sehr unbesonnener Feldzug, den Herr Bunke in der “Reformation” erçffnete, und dem dann andere konservative Bltter Heeresfolge leisten zu mîssen glaubten’. ‘˜ber die Neubesetzung des Lehrstuhls fîr Neues Testament’, Die Tgliche Rundschau.

224

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

despite suffering from severe chronic migraines, requested that they permit him to accept.66 This honorary office was by no means his only municipal role there, for he also became engaged in the local politics of Heidelberg’s town council, and took on the role as acting director of the Academic Volunteer Ambulance Corps.67 Unfortunately, sizeable documentary lacunae make a more detailed assessment of this part of Deissmann’s life quite problematic. Still, a brief entry in his diary on 4 December 1901 indicates that he had been elected Kreisrathsabgeordneter; and in Selbstdarstellungen he wrote of that time: ‘Durch die Beteiligung am çffentlichen Leben als Stadtverordneter und als Berater in gemeinnîtziger genossenschaftlicher Arbeit blieb ich in Fîhlung mit allen Schichten der Bevçlkerung’.68 The latter position is a reference to the coal cooperative of which he was a member until 1908, but he also remained active as a city councillor, even after the disbanding of the Nationalsozialer Verein in 1903. On 16 June that year, when Naumann failed the second time to win a mandate for the Nationalsozialer Verein at the polls, he wrote an essay entitled Die Niederlage, in which he declared: Wenn wir (trotz aller Mîhe) verloren haben, so bedeutet das: wir sind nicht imstande, die neue Partei zu grînden. Das ist eine bittere Klarheit, aber es ist Klarheit. Jetzt handelt es sich nicht mehr um den weiteren Versuch, Partei zu sein, sondern es handelt sich nur noch um die Vertretung eines politischen Gedankenganges … Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass wir die Form unserer Arbeit ndern mîssen …69

While this prompted considerable dissension within the troubled association, Naumann led the remaining adherents – Deissmann among them – to join forces70 with the left liberal Freisinnige Vereinigung of Theodor Barth (1849 – 1909) who, incidentally, also happened to be one of the leaders of Germany’s Verein zur Abwehr des 66 ‘[Ich bitte] um hochgeneigte Genehmigung zur Fîhrung des Vorsitzes im Aufsichtsrate der Heidelberger Kohlen-Einkaufs-Genossenschaft … Ich bemerke dabei, daß diese Stelle fîr mich weder mittelbar noch unmittelbar mit einem Gewinn oder einer Belohnung verbunden ist.’ GAD, note to University Senate, 17.10.1900. 67 Pr.WL, 6. 12. 1914, 3. 68 SD, 64. 69 Heuss, 191. 70 The decisive meeting was held on 29 – 30. 8. 1903, when 111 of the 187 representatives voted in favour of the coalition.

6.2. Social Democracy: the Naumann connection

225

Antisemitismus (or Abwehrverein), a political organisation established in 1890 to fight rising anti-Semitism.71 Five days earlier Naumann had been awarded an honorary doctorate of theology from the University of Heidelberg. The proposal came from Deissmann, who was Dean of the Theological Faculty for that year. It was supported by Troeltsch and accepted, but only after some had expressed the view that Naumann aus guten Grînden eigentlich gerade kein Theologe, sondern ein praktischer Held des Glaubens und des Opfers gewesen ist, da er in die weltliche Mission seine reine und herrliche Glaubens- und Liebeskraft einstrçmen ließ.72

The timing of the award also ensured that it took on a certain ‘demonstrativen Zug’, as Heuss observed, for, ‘war nicht eben das Scheitern eines Versuches offenbar geworden, der seinen Einsatz im Religiçsen genommen hatte?’.73 An oblique allusion to Naumann’s failed attempt seems also to occur in a letter Deissmann wrote a few years after, where he claimed: Ich habe niemals einen Hehl daraus gemacht, dass ich das gegen das Zentrum gerichtete Stichwahlabkommen des badischen Grossblocks 1905 gebilligt habe. Die ganze Universitt (mit ganz geringen kuriosen Ausnahmen) hat es gebilligt, im eigensten Interesse der Wissenschaft …74

Heidelberg had been Germany’s southwest centre for the nationalsocialist movement for several years,75 and Deissmann’s letter, although referring to a ballot some two years later, implies that the Theological Faculty as a whole would have been in support of Naumann, if only for their own interests. The corollary of this honorary doctorate, therefore, is that it can be seen as a symbolic gesture of the Faculty’s solidarity with his Christian sociopolitical ideology.

71 It later cooperated closely with the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (founded after WWI; see ch. 6.4), among its members, also Theodor Mommsen. 72 Troeltsch, letter to Naumann’s widow, 9. 9. 1919, Die Hilfe, 15. 8. 1919; cited by Ursula Krey, in ‘Der Naumann Kreis: Charisma und politische Emanzipation’, in R. von Bruch, ed., Friedrich Naumann in seiner Zeit, Berlin, 2000, 323. 73 Heuss, 158. 74 GAD’s letter, 25.2.1908. The ‘Zentrum’ (short for Deutsche Zentrumspartei) was a major political party, representing Germany’s Roman Catholic population. Founded in 1870, it was dissolved by the Nazis in July1933. 75 SD, 64.

226

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

In the lead-up to Baden’s state elections Democrats and Liberals had managed to combine forces against the conservative succeeded in defeating them. Two days Tageblatt reported:

of Oct. 1905 the Social forge an agreement to centralists and thereby later, the Heidelberger

Herr Prof. Deißmann bezeichnete das getroffene Abkommen (mit den Sozialdemokraten), das auch in vielen Kreisen Norddeutschlands Beifall gefunden habe, als historisch bedeutsam fîr die Entwickelung des deutschen Liberalismus. Ganz Deutschland habe an diesem Wahltage seine Augen auf Baden gerichtet … In den Kreisen der Universitt sei man im großen und ganzen von der Notwendigkeit dieses Zusammengehens îberzeugt, denn unter der Herrschaft des Zentrums kçnnte besonders auch unsere Hochschule leiden. So werde auch die Ruperto-Carola den Aelteren den Rîcken decken. Sein Hoch galt der liberalen Jugend und der großliberalen Zukunft Badens.76

Predictably, Deissmann’s public endorsement aroused an adverse reaction amongst the conservatives, who berated him in the press for selling out to the ‘Revolutionspartei’ – i. e. the SPD – and for backing their alliance with the Liberal Party against the conservative central powers of Berlin. Yet surprisingly his response appeared somewhat lacklustre and merely referred to the new coalition as a political ‘Akt der Notwehr’ against the ‘drohende Zentrumsherrschaft’77 – not a word was said about Naumann. The explanation for this is that Deissmann had already began to distance himself somewhat in public from his friend’s political course towards federal politics, although they remained well disposed to each other in private. While the University staff was generally in favour of the newly formed coalition, for their own academic interests, Deissmann backed the move because he saw in it the only way forward to more equitable socioeconomic conditions for what he referred to as ‘unteren Schichten unseres Volkes’.78 As late as March 1906 Deissmann’s name still appears on Heidelberg’s voting sheets for the election of the ‘geschftsleitenden Vorstandes der Stadtverordneten’, where he was the only academic listed.79 However, three weeks after this election he embarked on his life-changing study tour with the Heidelberg philologists (see ch. 4.1), following which he wrote to Wiegand that he had reassessed his sociopolitical involvement, 76 77 78 79

‘In Sachen D. Deissmann’, 26.6.1908. Ibid. For ‘Zentrumsherrschaft’ see n. 74 above. ‘In Sachen D. Deissmann’, 26.6.1908. Stimm-Zettel, 7.3.1906.

6.3. Naumann’s vision of European integration: Mitteleuropa

227

and determined to resign from some of his most time-consuming positions to focus more specifically on his Greek lexicon. Eine Wirkung meiner Reise war îbrigens bei mir der Entschluß, mich jetzt ganz auf meine wissenschaftliche Arbeit zu konzentrieren und die Nebendinge praktischer, besonders sozialpolitischer Art, die mich viel Zeit und Kraft gekostet haben, in der nchster Zeit lieber anderen zu îberlassen.80

This did not mean that he withdrew from politics altogether, for his diary shows that, with the exception of 1906, he continued to attend the irregularly convened meetings of the local national socialists until February 1908. Moreover, once his appointment to Berlin became apparent, the press attacks – although focusing primarily on his past role as chairman of the Nationalsozialer Verein – also held against him his then still-current position as Stadtverordneter and his presiding over the coal cooperative board.81 Having thus stood actively ‘aufseiten der Arbeiter’ for almost two decades,82 Deissmann began to withdraw from party politics when he came to Berlin.

6.3. Naumann’s vision of European integration: Mitteleuropa In August 1911, when Deissmann sent Naumann a copy of his Paulus, the latter read the book in one sitting and immediately wrote a warm letter back in which he expressed open doubts about his friend’s apostolic portrait, but remarked: durch Ihr buch [sic] ist der Wunsch, Sie endlich einmal wieder ordentlich sprechen zu kçnnen bei mir sehr lebhaft geworden. Ich … komme, wenn es Ihnen passt, ausserordentlich gern zu Ihnen.83

In fact, he hoped to make a visit within the next fortnight, but Deissmann was on a two-week recreational holiday in Wennigstedt on the north Frisian coast. It also served as a convenient stopover on his way to Scotland, where – as one of three representatives from the University of Berlin who were sent to participate in the 500th anniversary of the University of St. Andrews – he would receive his 80 GAD’s letter, 4.7.1906. 81 ‘Zur Besetzung des neutestamentlichen Lehrstuhls in Berlin’, Das Reich, 1.2.1908. 82 GAD’s letter, 19.2.1908. 83 Naumann, letter to GAD, 25.8.1911.

228

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

honorary doctorate of divinity in a special graduation ceremony on 14 September.84 Thus, Naumann’s visit was postponed to 25 November; but during the following years he stayed at Deissmann’s house ‘Anatolia’ on several other occasions. Deissmann continued to hold his colleague in highest regard even after he himself had long ceased to be active in party politics. On the afternoon of the same day we were favored with a visit from Berlin: our old friend, the sociologist and politician Dr. Friedrich Naumann, a member of the Reichstag, together with his wife, took occasion to find a few hours of recreation in the midst of our rural tranquillity, between two busy sessions of Parliament. Through his “Mitteleuropa” Dr. Naumann has become one of our leaders in political thought during the present period. This book of his aroused a general European discussion, especially participated in by England. This debate we continued in miniature last Sunday under our roof. Out of the inexhaustible rich store of his experiences during the war, our guest lavished upon us gift after gift, one thing suggesting the other. His journey to Bulgaria, his interviews with Austrian and Hungarian politicians, the internal affairs in the politics of our own country during the past months, formed the centre of our discussion.85

Deissmann understood very clearly – and, significantly, supported – Naumann’s principal idea of a socio-economically peacefully integrated central Europe as expounded in his controversial but visionary book Mitteleuropa, published in October 1915. As the historian Fritz Fischer (1908 – 99) pointed out, the basic concept of a United States of Europe had been mooted since von Caprivi’s time,86 but Naumann’s plan was fundamentally different, in that he argued for an entirely voluntary, non-expansionist and systematic integration process.87 The author’s underlying assumption can be summed up in his postulate: ‘Der Geist des Großbetriebes und der îberstaatlichen 84 Rachel M. Hart, of the University of St. Andrews Library, informed me (email, 20. 2. 2002) that ‘there appears to be no copy of a laureation address and the local press does not cover the honorary graduation ceremony in any detail due to the volume of honours bestowed. It may have been that there was no detailed laureation of every individual in what must have been very long ceremonials.’ The AK, too, provides only scant particulars of the ceremonies for what was his third honorary doctorate. 85 Pr.WL, 4. 10. 1916, 2 – 3. 86 e.g. by economists such as Heinrich Herkner (1863 – 1932) and Albert Schffle (1832 – 1903), as well as Wilhelm II himself. Fischer, War of illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914, New York, 1975, 7. 87 For a salient excerpt from Mitteleuropa see Appendix 6, b.

6.3. Naumann’s vision of European integration: Mitteleuropa

229

Organisation hat die Politik erfasst’.88 As a consequence, isolated or smaller European nations would become less and less competitive on the world’s stage unless they entered some kind of federation or alliance. He hypothesised that – quite apart from war strategies – since France and Great Britain had formed an entente cordiale in the west (1904), reinforced by Russia in the east (1907), the governments of this triple entente would shun an economic alliance with Germany for the foreseeable future. The kernel for a central European integration would, therefore, have to begin first with a successful union between Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, before other European states could be invited to join. Importantly, Naumann emphasised that any participating states would have to maintain their political and cultural sovereignty, and warned: Will man das Neue einen Staatenbund nenen [sic], so wird man seinen Charakter treffen, doch soll er kein Bundesstaat werden. Das zweite wîrde zwar sachlich viel mehr sein als das erste, aber es wîrde nicht zustande gebracht werden kçnnen.89

He conceded that it would be an enormously complex task and, ‘keineswegs kann dazu ein einzelner Akt oder Beschluß ausreichen. Ein Menschenalter wird mindestens daran zu tun haben’.90 Mitteleuropa was, as Henry Cord Meyer (1913 – 2001) rightly pointed out, Naumann’s last major work, the climax of his career as a political writer … it was an immediate sensation … it was the most important book published in Germany during the war and the greatest success from a publisher’s point of view since Bismarck’s memoirs’.91

Yet within months of its appearance Naumann’s treatise came to be seen by the allies as evidence of German imperialism92 – an erroneous perception that continues to be perpetuated by some writers of German history. For example, Alexandra Richie assumes that his book is ‘a pamphlet … which envisaged Germany taking enormous chunks of Europe’.93 Even Fischer wrongly yoked Naumann together with those who ‘proclaimed the kernel of the new world power to be “German Mitteleuropa” from Spitzbergen to the Persian Gulf ’, and 88 89 90 91 92 93

Naumann, Mitteleuropa, 4. Naumann, Mitteleuropa, 233. Ibid., 5. Meyer, 197 – 8, 206; also Heuss, 363. Meyer, 215; also Heuss, 361, Richie, 271.

230

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

dismissed Mitteleuropa as ‘a remarkable, but yet thoroughly unrealistic flight of fancy’.94 In contrast, however, Deissmann unequivocally took Naumann’s side, and defended both the author and his idea by making the important case that … dessen Buch alles andere war als ein Programm des gierigen Imperialismus. Was Friedrich Naumann wollte, war die freundschaftliche politische und soziale Organisation der von der Vorsehung in diesen Ebenen und auf diesen Bergen und an diesen Strçmen aufs engste zusammengefîhrten und aufeinander angewiesenen Nationen und Nationalittensplitter zu einer in Solidaritt lebendigen und durch Solidaritt gesicherten Vçlkerfamilie.95

While Naumann’s hypothesis may once, indeed, have appeared to be an ‘unrealistic flight of fancy’, it is his basic idea that has now been largely realised in the modern European Union. But that Deissmann published his solidarity with Naumann’s plan in his bulletins to America is remarkable, yet wholly consistent with his primary objective of Vçlkerverstndigung (see ch. 7).

6.4. Deissmann’s political disengagement One political consequence of Germany’s ruinous military defeat was the emergence of the left-liberal Deutsche Demokratische Partei (DDP). Some sixty public figures undersigned its Grîndungsaufruf which appeared on 16 November 1918, including Deissmann, who proudly declared: Mit innerer Freudigkeit konnte ich mich daher mit vielen anderen zu einem Bekenntnis vereinen, das morgen verçffentlicht werden soll: “In diesem Augenblick der Wehen, die Deutschlands Leib und Seele erschîttern, damit, wie wir erhoffen, ein neues lebensstarkes Reich geboren werde, dîrfen alle, die fîr des Landes Schicksal eine Verantwortung in sich fîhlen, nicht einsam, vereinzelt abseits bleiben … Wir stellen uns rîckhaltlos dem Volk, seinem Willen und seinen Vertretern zur Verfîgung. Wir wollen nach besten Krften, wo man uns braucht, der werdenden Gestaltung dienen.”96 94 Fischer, Germany’s aims, 160, 208. Yet Naumann had specifically warned against such expansionistic thinking; see Appendix 6, b. 95 Ev.Wbr, 31. 12. 1919, 7 – 8. 96 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 2 – 3.

6.4. Deissmann’s political disengagement

231

Naumann did not sign their proclamation, nor was he involved in establishing the party, but two months later he allowed himself to be nominated as their primary candidate; and on 22 July 1919 – five weeks before his sudden death – he was elected as the Party’s first president, and took a seat in the Reichstag. Notwithstanding Deissmann’s unshaken belief in the national social democratic ideology and his personal friendship with Naumann, the profound social and psychological impact of the war years had increasingly redirected his attention from German social politics to international Vçlkerverstndigung through conciliatory ecumenism. Moreover, he had begun to harbour doubts regarding the wisdom of the Nationalsozialer Verein’s decision in 1903, when they chose to dissolve their free association and merge with Theodor Barth (see ch. 6.2). By 1925 – with the hindsight of more than two decades – Deissmann concluded that this union had been an error of political judgment, and acknowledged, ‘dass [die nationalsoziale Bewegung] … sich parteimßig organisiert hatte, halte ich heute fîr einen Fehler’.97 Eight years later he wrote in a frank and detailed letter to his friend Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1891 – 1956)98 what is, in effect, an ‘obituary’ of his own political career. Ich selbst habe mich, je mehr ich in die kirchliche Arbeit hineingewachsen bin, sowohl in die preussische und deutsche wie auch in die çkumenische, mehr und mehr von parteipolitischer Bettigung ferngehalten. Ich fîhle mich dazu eigentlich auch schon als Mitglied des hçchsten Preussischen Kirchengerichts (des Spruchkollegiums) fîr verpflichtet. Formell bin ich auch schon lngere Zeit aus der Partei ausgetreten, in die ich damals mit Friedrich Naumann eingetreten war. Sie war zu steril geworden, und ich habe sie in ihrer Dîrftigkeit whrend meines Rektorates besonders unerfreulich kennen gelernt. Als Whler hielt ich mich schon lange zu den verlorenen Schafen des christlich-sozialen Hauses. Wer seinerzeit mit Friedrich Naumann die grosse national-soziale Idee begriffen, fîr sie gearbeitet und gelitten hat, wer dann beim Kriegsausbruch die praktische Verwirklichung eines nationalen Gesamtdeutschland ohne Unterschied der Klassen erlebt hat, fîhlt sich, wenn er die Bewegungen von heute gewissenhaft prîft, gleichermassen angezogen und abgestossen. Das ist bei mir der Fall und ich stehe daher still aber doch hellugig auf der Warte. Die Erbweisheit der Englnder “wait and see” ist in solcher Seelenverfassung die zunchst gebotene. Vor allen Dingen muss man als 97 SD, 64. 98 Schmidt was GAD’s assistant before becoming Privatdozent. In 1921 he accepted a Chair of NT at Giessen, moved to Jena in 1925, and from 1929 – 34 was NT professor at Bonn; see further, n. 101 below.

232

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

Akademiker zunchst abwarten, wie die nchsten Neuberufungen ausfallen werden. Erst dann wird man sich ein Urteil bilden kçnnen.99

His despondency vis-”-vis ‘die Bewegungen von heute’ is an allusion to Hitler’s spectacular rise and recent appointment (six weeks earlier) as Chancellor of Germany, which resulted in a rapid upsurge for his Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP – i. e. Nazi Party). Deissmann’s irresolute ‘wait and see’ approach now stood in contrast to his youthfully optimistic worldview that he had before the turn of the century, when he wrote to Hermann Cohen that Naumann’s social politics would offer ‘einen hoffenden Ausblick aufs neue Jahrhundert’.100 Thus, his long association with social politics had fizzled out into disappointment, as a result of Germany’s new political trends and his cautiously ambivalent foreboding of what could transpire under Hitler’s new regime.101 In retrospect, it can be said with a fair degree of confidence that it was Naumann’s political ideology – much more so than Stoecker’s – that gave Deissmann the impetus to plunge himself into social politics at Heidelberg. Naumann’s social philosophy had exerted a very tangible influence on Deissmann’s adult life, which reached its political zenith during his tenure at Heidelberg and also motivated him to participate in local politics and communal affairs. Nevertheless, he never regarded his earlier political involvement as an end in itself, but rather as a logical extension of his linguistically-centred studies into the social and religious history of early Christianity, to which he had dedicated himself for some eighteen years prior to moving to Berlin. Thus, he reflected in his Selbstdarstellungen: Diese politischen Dinge wîrde ich hier nicht berîhren, wenn sie nicht fîr meine innere Gesamtentwicklung in der Heidelberger Zeit indirekt sehr wichtig gewesen wren. Durch die Beteiligung am çffentlichen Leben als Stadtverordneter und als Berater in gemeinnîtziger genossenschaftlicher Arbeit blieb ich in Fîhlung mit allen Schichten der Bevçlkerung, und es war mir ein Hçhepunkt, als ich in einem Mannheimer VolkshochschulKursus einer großen Zahl von Industriearbeitern die Entstehung des 99 GAD, letter to K.L. Schmidt, 17.3.1933. 100 GAD’s letter, 6. 2. 1896, in Nottmeier, ‘Hermann Cohen und Adolf Deissmann’. 101 In Jan. 1934, when the Nazis dismissed K.L. Schmidt from his Chair at Bonn, GAD intervened on his behalf (as he did for some others later), although he proved unsuccessful. C. Markschies, ‘Adolf Deißmann – ein Heidelberger Pionier der §kumene’, ZNThG, 12, 2005, 83. Also Nottmeier, ‘Ein unbekannter Brief ’, 123.

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence

233

Neuen Testaments erzhlen durfte und mit ihnen in einen auch mich fçrdernden Austausch îber die massenhaften, von verschafften Hnden geschriebenen Zettel des Fragekastens treten durfte. Mein Interesse fîr das Problem des “Volkstîmlichen” gewann hier viel neues Anschauungsmaterial.102

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence When the First World War broke out it was six years since Deissmann had left provincial Heidelberg; but his long involvement there with Naumann’s Sozialdemokratie had given him a mistaken sense of his own perspicacity about Prussian Weltmachtpolitik, and prompted him to make the somewhat na€ve claim: I consider myself competent to pass judgment on [the political questions of the war] … The material [i.e. quantity] of information which stands at the disposal of the German public is very large, both as referring to official documents and as regarding unofficial news of various kinds.103

Deissmann’s misplaced confidence in bureaucratic transparency derived from his inexperience with the workings of Berlin’s centralist government, for publicly available political information had long been subject to significant censorship – considerably more pervasive than in France and Britain.104 Four weeks after Germany invaded Belgium, and with it triggered England’s declaration of war (see below), a group of 29 leading Lutherans and theologians from 15 cities throughout Germany signed an Aufruf addressed to all Protestant Christians abroad.105 In Germany it was first published in the Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung on 4 September 1914, and it appeared more or less simultaneously in British and American newspapers – one of its 29 signatories was Adolf 102 SD, 64. For shifts from GAD’s initially extreme views on the significance of the lower classes in early Christendom, compare ch. 1, n. 200; also Appendix 6, c. 103 Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 3. 104 G.D. Stark, ‘Trials and tribulations: authors’ responses to censorship in Imperial Germany, 1885 – 1914’, GRS, 12, 3, 1989, 448. 105 See G. Besier, Die protestantischen Kirchen Europas im Ersten Weltkrieg: ein Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, Gçttingen, 1984, 40 – 5. Also J. Jenkins, Christian pacifism confronts German nationalism: the ecumenical movement and the cause of peace in Germany, 1914 – 1933, New York, 2002, 108 – 10. The Aufruf was authored by Karl Theodor Georg Axenfeld (1869 – 1924), Director of the Berliner Missionsgesellschaft.

234

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

Deissmann. The basic charge was that foreign powers (i. e. the triple entente) had concocted a protracted and ‘planmßiges Lîgengewebe, das den internationalen Telegraphen-Verkehr beherrscht’, in order to blame Germany for the war. The proclamation sought to counter this with an assertion that it was Germany who had maintained the international peace for the past 43 years and, therefore, ‘daß wir die Verantwortung fîr das furchtbare Verbrechen dieses Krieges und alle seine Folgen … abweisen dîrfen und mîssen.’106 However, the Aufruf was not merely an ill-conceived attempt at averting further escalation of the war, but on the contrary, it served to give notice of the nation’s will to fight aggressively under the banner of German Protestantism – that is, national Protestantism107 – and for her Kultur, Weltaufgabe and Weltmission, which translated into nothing less than Germanic Christianisation of the world. Thus, the Aufruf justified the war as a God-given opportunity for the imperialistic aspiration of the Reichstag, under the guise of national self-defence. In heiliger Begeisterung, Kampf und Tod nicht scheuend, sind wir alle im Augenblick zu Gott einmîtig und freudig bereit, auch unser Letztes fîr unser Land und unsere Freiheit einzusetzen.108

Their proclamation triggered what might be described as a ‘paper war’ of protestations between Germany, Britain, France and, to a lesser degree, the United States.109 Thus, on 23 September a British reply was published that paid tribute to the German signatories as men of integrity and highest esteem internationally, but the undersigned expressed incredulity at their German colleagues’ ignorance concerning the political lead-up to the war. They stopped short of accusing them of antagonistic deception, or at the least historical negligence, and emphasised that England valued the ‘principle of truth’ higher than maintaining peace at all costs.110 This rebuttal was signed by 42 churchmen, of whom two names stand out because of their links with 106 Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 40 – 5. 107 For an analysis of this phenomenon see D.R. Borg, ‘German national Protestantism as a civil religion’, International perspectives on church and state, M. Mor, ed., Omaha, 1993, 255 – 67. 108 Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 42. 109 Pr.WL, 15. 4. 1916, 1 – 3. The first edition of GAD’s bulletins (i. e. Pr.WL, and Ev.Wbr) appeared only three months later, which explains the scarcity of references there to this topic. 110 Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 45 – 52.

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence

235

Deissmann: his good friend James Moulton (see ch. 1.4), and Sir William Ramsay who had advised him in the planning of his second study tour to the Levant (see ch. 4.2). Each side professed that their respective proclamations were motivated by a desire for mutual understanding based on Christian love. But the nationalistic propaganda machinery and counterinformation manoeuvres in Berlin, London and Paris had heated public emotions to such a pitch of chauvinism, even xenophobia, that any such proclamations or protestations were doomed from the start to be ineffectual. On 4 October a further Aufruf was published,111 this one signed by 93 of Germany’s most influential minds, among them thirteen theologians. Its tenor was belligerent, and the first sentence underpinned their rationale that it was ‘… Lîgen und Verleumdungen, mit denen unsere Feinde Deutschlands reine Sache in dem ihm aufgezwungenen schweren Daseinskampfe zu beschmutzen trachten’. But although Moulton had opposed the first proclamation, Deissmann signed this one too, together with such luminaries as Wilhelm Dçrpfeld, Friedrich von Duhn, Adolf von Harnack, Friedrich Naumann, Theodor Wiegand and Ulrich von WilamowitzMoellendorf. The document was translated into fourteen Western languages and widely distributed in the neutral countries, in an attempt to counteract six so-called ‘Lîgen und Verleumdungen’ by Germany’s enemies.112 That Deissmann endorsed both proclamations is especially significant in the light of his uncommonly close ties with Britain,113 and also because 111 B. v. Brocke adds: ‘Der Text des Aufrufs ,An die Kulturwelt!‘ wurde entworfen von Ludwig Fulda, er wurde in Beratung mit H. Sudermann u. a. îberarbeitet, er wurde in Thesenform gebracht von dem dichterisch ambitionierten freisinnigen Berliner Bîrgermeister Georg Reicke.’ Cited in J. v. UngernSternberg/ W. v. Ungern-Sternberg, Der Aufruf ,An die Kulturwelt!’: das Manifest der 93 und die Anfnge der Kriegpropaganda im Ersten Weltkrieg; mit einer Dokumentation, Stuttgart, 1996, 14. See also Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 78 – 83. 112 Ungern-Sternberg, 18. 113 In a letter to his sister Marie Louise Emilie Bornschein (1864 – 1937), GAD wrote: ‘Es war vor einigen Jahren in London, ich glaube in Queen’s Hall. Da hatte ich eine Friedensbotschaft unserer deutschen Kirchen an die englische Christenheit zu îbermitteln. Tief erregt îber die englische Kriegserklrung, schme ich mich heute jener Botschaft doch nicht. Du weißt, welche Gesinnung fîr England wir hatten, von Jugend auf durch so viele persçnliche Bande

236

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

he belonged to a relatively small minority of highly educated Germans who were equally familiar with the spoken as well as written form of English. Besides these strong personal connections, he had received three honorary doctorates – from Aberdeen (26. 9. 1906), St. Andrews (14. 9. 1911) and Manchester (29. 6. 1912) – and had visited the country on at least five separate occasions, during which he gave numerous lectures.114 Moreover, he knew that his philological work was better understood and appreciated in Britain than on the continent.115 Why then, would he lend his name – and apparently unqualified support – to these two nationalistic and blatantly provocative Aufrufe? To gain an understanding of Deissmann’s mindset during that time one should not think in terms of academic naivet¤ or chauvinistic duplicity, as this would be anachronistically censorious, given the thenprevailing propaganda, economic sanctions and threatening military buildup throughout Europe. The Wilhelmine mantra of an international conspiracy against Germany, and its concomitant imperative of national defence seemed, in fact, logical, even on the evidence of the triple entente (1905) and French and British economic sanctions alone. For these had become increasingly severe since 1897116 and added weight to the imperialistic argument that Germany was destined to advance on a God-ordained, sociopolitical Sonderweg.117 The first signs of a crack in Deissmann’s nationalistic confidence start to become apparent one month after the publication of the October

114

115 116 117

mit den Menschen dort vertraut, seit den Tagen, als wir mit unseren Gsten Arthur und Wilfred [unknown] im rheinischen Pfarrhaus îber den Bildern der großen Londoner Bltter kauerten … Du gingst dann spter selbst hinîber, auch unsere Mutter und Schwester lernten das Land kennen, und einen wirklichen englischen Vetter bekamen wir durch Heirat in unsere Familie. Zuletzt meine eigenen Besuche Englands und meine englischen Freundschaften – mit voller Hingabe an eine große Sache konnte ich jene Friedensbotschaft îberbringen, ein kleines Glied in einer großen Kette deutscher bona voluntas. Sie reut mich nicht.’ Printed under the title, ‘Ver sacrum’, in GAD, Deutscher Schwertsegen. Krfte der Heimat fîrs reisige Heer, Berlin, 1915, 18 – 19. i.e. Sept.-Oct. 1906 (see ch. 2.3); July-Aug. 1907 (see ch. 2.5); Sept. 1911 (conferral of Hon. D. D. from St. Andrews University, so the AK); Mar. 1912 (see ch. 8.4) and June 1912 (conferral of Hon. D. D. from Manchester University, so the AK). See GAD’s letter, 19.2.1908. For an analysis of how Germany’s Weltpolitik contributed to WWI, see Fischer, War of illusions, and Fischer, Germany’s aims. See Moses, ‘Justifying war as the will of God: German theology on the eve of the First World War’, Colloquium, 31.1, 1999, 3 – 7.

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence

237

Aufruf. For in mid-November, while giving a public Kriegsrede in Berlin, he reminded his listeners that there was another side to Germany which should not be ignored: the working classes and wider provincial public, whose historical and political knowledge was sketchy. He intimated that their simple belief in God’s providence and idea of a divine mandate for the Kaiser was beginning to be strained to its limits as the war kept dragging on.118 He also proclaimed that ‘eine nicht geringe Zahl’ of these particular citizens had dreaded the prospect of an international conflict, and that the (later much sensationalised) vaterlndische Begeisterung during the so-called Augusterlebnis was not an allencompassing national phenomenon at all. Es ist ganz zweifellose, daß fîr eine nicht geringe Zahl von Einzelmenschen der Krieg wie eine religiçse Katastrophe gewirkt hat. Ein Zusammenknicken unter der ˜berlast der persçnlichen Sorge war bei manchen der Verlassenen die fast natîrliche Wirkung des Krieges. Ich kann ein Bild nicht los werden, ein Bild, das manchem vielleicht nichts sagt, mir aber ein typisches geworden ist: am Abend nach der Mobilmachung, auf dem Anhalter Bahnhof, dessen Hallen wie ein brandendes Meer erbrausten von dem Wogenschwall vaterlndischer Begeisterung, eine kleine gebîckte Frau aus der handarbeitenden Schicht mit einem Ausdruck tiefsten Entsetzens auf dem totenblassen Gesichte ihren Zug suchend, wie das Gespenst der Sorge durch die Hallen der jubelnden Kraft huschend, – diese Unbekannte hatte Schwestern und Brîder der inneren Not genug, und was ist alles seit jenem Abend dazugekommen, seit die Verlustlisten das andere Gesicht des Krieges tglich unter uns enthîllt haben!119

He freely admitted to being troubled by what he now saw as a typical reaction to the war, namely: ‘tiefstes Entsetzen’ among the working classes. Initial Siegeslust could never alleviate the horrifying indictment of the subsequent Verlustlisten. The Schlieffen Plan had collapsed at the Marne, with Germany’s ‘invincible’ furor teutonicus120 being forced to retreat (9 – 11 September) and its troops digging themselves in for a 118 Fischer wrote: ‘A campaign which, according to the original calculations, should have been successfully concluded in two months, having failed, Germany was … faced with the threat of a war of exhaustion for which she was neither armed nor economically prepared, and in which there was no guarantee of final victory.’ Germany’s aims, 184; see also, 95 – 120. 119 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion. Rede am 12. November 1914 gehalten von D. Adolf Deissmann’, Deutsche Reden in schwerer Zeit, 9, Berlin, 1914, 6 – 7. 120 ‘Der “furor teutonicus”, von dem der Menschenkenner Bismarck so hoch dachte, ist erwacht und unsere Feinde sollen ihn zu spîren bekommen’, cited from ‘Waffensegen. Die Alldeutschen zum Kriegsbeginn’, in Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 34 – 5. See also Pr.WL, 30. 4. 1915, 1.

238

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

defensive stand along the lower Aisne river. Trench warfare had started, and with it an unwinnable war of attrition. Germany’s bourgeoisie may well have believed their Reich to be God’s supreme Erzieher of foreign nations,121 or imagined it to be the chosen ‘hammer of God’,122 but the spiralling cost of ubiquitous human suffering was quickly beginning to change Deissmann’s erstwhile attitude to the war. Although he remained patriotic, he started to feel ambivalent about its unfolding; for his humanitarian empathy with the common people, on the one hand, and his patriotic trust in what he believed to be God’s chosen government, on the other, caused him serious inner conflict, as his Kriegsrede intimates throughout. Werfen wir keine Steine in die Huser, welche Szenen dumpfen, fassungslosen Schmerzes, Augenblicke auch des religiçsen Zusammenbruchs erlebt haben! Wie wîrden wir dastehen, wenn wir selbst so getroffen wren, wenn wir selbst monatelang uns in der Ungewißheit îber einen Vermißten qulen mîßten, selbst Herd und Heim besitzlos als Flîchtlinge vor den Kosaken verlaßen mîssten?123

This sombre admonition proved to be amazingly prescient; for, without realising it, he spoke ‘prophetically’ of what his own family would have to suffer as a result of WWII, when his son Paul (1911 – 45) became missing in action, and his aged – and by then, widowed – Henriette was forced to flee their home ‘Anatolia’ (see ch. 2.6). Eight months after delivering this public address he wrote: But I admit that I am liable to error, and that my soul stirred by the tremendous vibration of the general upheaval about me may look at some things in a different way than I would if that quiet, objective mood were prevalent to which we are accustomed under normal conditions.124

Deissmann’s gravest error in respect to WWI was doubtlessly his signing of the two Aufrufe – especially the second one which rejected German culpability for the invasion of Belgium. However, by 15 April 1916 he had begun to question the wisdom of its original wording, particularly 121 As argued by Ferdinand Kattenbusch (1851 – 1935), professor of systematic theology at Halle. See M. Greschat, ‘Krieg und Kriegsbereitschaft im deutschen Protestantismus’, Bereit zum Krieg: Kriegsmentalitt im wilhelminischen Deutschland 1890 – 1914. Beitrge zur historischen Friedensforschung, J. Dîlffer/ K. Holl, eds., Gçttingen, 1986, 44; see also ch. 8.1. 122 Moses, ‘Justifying war’, 8. 123 Deutsche Reden, 7. 124 Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 6.

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence

239

since the English translation had significantly altered the intended tenor of their actual assertions.125 This predicament was clearly highlighted to him by Charles Stedman Macfarland (1866 – 1956),126 General Secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, when he paid Deissmann a friendly visit in early January. The Secretary pointed out that the English version of the first Aufruf declared international Christian fellowship with Germany to be ‘now irreparably destroyed …’, which Americans understood to mean ‘impossible for all future’, whereas the German text had simply stated: ‘Wenn diese Gemeinschaft jetzt heillos zerbrochen ist’.127 In an attempt at rectifying this translational blunder Deissmann used his Protestant Weekly Letter to explain: The word “heillos” does not mean “unheilbar, “unwiederherstellbar” … but is a synonym for “awfully”, “terribly” … Our declaration speaks of a “schier” [i.e., “fast” (almost)] “unheilbaren Riss” in Teutonic Protestantism; the translation on the other hand makes of this a “simply incurable rent” … It would be of little use to still ask whether this intensification of the German terms could have been avoided in the translation …128

Five weeks before he signed the first Aufruf, Russia commenced its preemptive mobilisation against Austria; and Deissmann – like Naumann and most German academics, students and metropolitan bourgeoisie – considered this sufficient justification for Germany to come to Austria’s aid – unbidden – in what they perceived to be a defensive war against a mutual aggressor. For it was no secret that Russia had primed its people with the martial sentiment: ‘We are preparing for a war in the west … The whole nation must accustom itself to the idea that we arm ourselves for a war of annihilation against the Germans’.129 This military threat from the east, heightened by Russia’s French and British 125 It appears that GAD has not seen the English version before publication. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he has seen the German one, for ‘deutlich war damals immerhin schon, daß viele Unterschriften auf telegrafische Aufforderung hin ohne Kenntnis des Textes gegeben worden waren’. UngernSternberg, 13 – 14. 126 A close friendship had developed between GAD and Macfarland through the Pr.WL. Macfarland represented some thirty US Christian denominations, which included 125,000 separate congregations. Pr.WL, 15. 1. 1916, 5. 127 Ev.Wbr, 15. 4. 1916, 2. Also Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 43. 128 PrWL, 15. 4. 1916, 2. Bracketing GAD’s own. 129 Cited from a Russian military journal, in S.B. Clough, et al., European history in a world perspective: Modern times, 19753 (1964), 1449. See also Heuss, 348 – 52.

240

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

allies in the west (triple entente), gave further credibility to the popular rationale that Germany was being ‘encircled’ and, consequently, forced to take ‘defensive’ action. Indeed, Russia was perceived to be such an ominous peril that the Aufruf condemned their ‘sabre rattling’ as the war that ‘der Zar als den Entscheidungskampf gegen Germanentum und Protestantismus çffentlich proklamiert hat’.130 This national fear became the basis of the widespread support for both Kaiser and Kanzler when Berlin declared war on Russia (1 August), and underlies the popular thinking behind the two Aufrufe which Deissmann signed. John Moses summarised this phenomenon as follows: What has emerged very strongly is that there was an unshakable conviction among German Protestant pastors and theologians that Almighty God had undoubtedly been at work in guiding the destiny of the nation, in particular protecting it from the depredations of the degenerate, Papalist French twice during the nineteenth century (1806 – 1815 and 1870 – 71). These views not only served to heighten the perception of Germany as the homeland of the Reformation but also to give rise to the notion of German “chosenness” by Almighty God to uphold genuine Christian values in a world of enemies, and in turn led to the evaluation of the German nation as “God’s nation” with the task of both defending true Christian values and of punishing those nations which offended against it.131

Deissmann had an innate disposition for stepping into conceptually new territory, and being in the vanguard of such intellectual developments where he thought he could make a difference. Signing the two proclamations gave him an opportunity to use his international reputation in Germany’s moral defence, by registering his protestation and declaring his patriotic allegiance to ‘King and Country’. Nonetheless, it was a badly misjudged decision and one he increasingly came to regret as the war protracted (see below). Belgium’s neutrality in perpetuity had been recognised by international law since January 1831. Thus, when news reached England that Germany had given Belgium an ultimatum to permit their armies free passage through the neutral state’s territory, the British cabinet immediately sent a counter-ultimatum to Berlin via their Ambassador, Sir Edward Goschen (1847 – 1924), that they withdraw their demands forthwith or face the consequences. The Reichskanzler, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856 – 1921), berated Goschen for some 20 minutes, and argued 130 Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 42. 131 Moses, ‘Justifying war’, 7.

6.5. Belgian invasion, and first cracks in confidence

241

that the step taken by His Majesty’s Government was terrible to a degree, just for a word “neutrality,” a word which in wartime had so often been disregarded – just for a scrap of paper, Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her.132

Thus, when German soldiers began a battle at Liºge on the morning of 4 August, England promptly declared war on Germany, and Deissmann wrote laconically into his diary: ‘Reichstag einstimmig; England erklrt uns den Krieg’. He was heartened by his Government’s unanimity, for not only had the Reichskanzler been able to win over the recalcitrant SPD, but the Kaiser dramatically announced: ‘Ich kenne keine Parteien mehr, ich kenne nur Deutsche’.133 That same day, von Bethmann Hollweg, speaking in the Reichstag about the Belgian invasion, openly confessed: ‘Gentlemen, that is a breach of international law …’, yet he justified their act by reasoning that, ‘The wrong – I speak openly – the wrong we thereby commit we will try to make good as soon as our military aims have been attained’.134 However, as the war continued to take its toll and their aims proved to be unachievable, Deissmann began to revise his earlier high regard for the nation’s leadership; his conscience increasingly stirred by the chancellor’s prewar confession that the Regierung had committed the nation to an international moral contravention. Je lnger ich nun meinerseits whrend des Krieges îber dieses Unrecht nachgedacht habe, um so furchtbarer und verhngnisvoller ist es mir erschienen, und weder die Tatsache, daß unsere Heeresleitung in der grçßten Not handelte, noch der Umstand, daß das Verhalten unserer Gegner zu den Neutralen prinzipiell das gleiche Unrecht in sich schloß, haben mir, obwohl sie mir zuerst großen Eindruck gemacht hatten, auf die Dauer genîgt, um die qulende Erkenntnis zu bannen, dass wir mit dem Einmarsch in Belgien eine schwere Schuld auf uns geladen haben. Wenn ich das erst heute nach Wiederherstellung der Redefreiheit çffentlich sagen kann, so fîhle ich nur darin ein Gefîhl der Gewissensentlastung, daß wir uns durch die Regierung des Prinzen Max135 schon zu jeder Wiedergutmachung bereit erklrt haben.136 132 ‘The “Scrap of Paper” Incident, 1914’, in L.L. Snyder, ed., Documents of German History, New Jersey, 1958, 333 – 4. 133 Cited in a speech written by Adolf von Harnack and presented at Karlsruhe (14. 12. 1914) by Prinz Max von Baden (see n. 135 below), Ev.Wbr, 24.12. 1917, 9. 134 Snyder, 340 – 1. 135 Prinz Max von Baden (1867 – 1929), transitional Reichskanzler from 3.10 – 9.11.1918.

242

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

Public ‘Redefreiheit’, particularly freedom of the press, had been restricted under the Kaiser since the beginning of his reign, through strict censorship laws which limited political criticism.137 As a consequence of the outbreak of WWI these laws were expanded and applied rigorously, particularly to published material, which also restricted the content of Deissmann’s Wochenbriefe to some degree (see ch. 7.3). Immediately after censorship was repealed, a number of Germany’s Christian organisations united and sent representatives to Berlin, where a committee ‘zur Prîfung der moralischen Verantwortung im Kriege’ was established. Deissmann explained: Ich habe in der ersten Versammlung dieses Ausschusses ein ausfîhrliches Referat îber die belgische Frage erstattet und darin ganz den Standpunkt vertreten, den ich sofort nach der Revolution auch in meinem Wochenbrief Nr. 91/92 [16 Nov. 1918] … kundgetan hatte.138

Gerhard Besier claimed that upon the lifting of censorship Deissmann changed his views regarding Belgium ‘in plçtzlichem Sinneswandel’, thus implying political opportunism for his motive.139 In actual fact, Deissmann’s change of heart resulted from a genuine process of politically enlightened rethinking and not mere expediency. This can readily be demonstrated through his correspondence with various influential Swiss – including the editor of Semeur Vaudois, Roger Bornard, one of his harshest critics – ‘… denen ich whrend der beiden letzten Jahre wiederholt hatte andeuten mîssen, daß ich whrend des Krieges außerstande sei, z. B. die Verletzung der 136 137 138 139

Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 3 – 4. Stark, 448 – 50; Richie, 222. Ev.Wbr, 13. 3. 1919, 6. Besier, Krieg – Frieden – Abrîstung: die Haltung der europischen und amerikanischen Kirchen zur Frage der deutschen Kriegsschuld 1914 – 1933; ein kirchenhistorischer Beitrag zur Friedensforschung und Friedenserziehung, Gçttingen, 1982, 89. Similarly, K. Hammer, Deutsche Kriegstheologie, 1870 – 1918: Dokumente, Mînchen, 1971, 35, 62, 103. However, on Besier, see F.W. Graf: ‘Im Personenregister von B.’s Habilitationsschrift wird allein F. Siegmund-Schultze noch hufiger als Deissmann genannt. ˜ber die “çkumenische Erweckung” im frîhen 20. Jh. liegen zahlreiche Publikationen Deissmanns vor, in denen er ausfîhrlich auch die politischen Belastungen christlicher Einheit durch die Kriegsfolgen behandelte. B. scheint diese Texte, mit nur einer Ausnahme (vgl. 362), genau so wenig wie ein theologisch-biographisches Selbstportrait Deissmanns [i.e. SD] zu kennen. Auf die Auswertung von Deissmanns Nachlaß hat er verzichtet, obwohl ihm dessen Existenz und Aufbewahrungsort bekannt gewesen sein mîssen.’ ‘Historie in hçherer Absicht’, ThR, 50, 1985, 417.

6.6. Conclusion

243

belgischen Neutralitt so zu besprechen, wie es notwendig sei’.140 To be sure, until October 1915 Deissmann had endorsed Germany’s action against Belgium on at least four separate occasions,141 but between November 1915 and December 1918 the topic was no longer raised. However, now that censorship had ceased to obstruct intellectually critical expression, he took pains to explain, daß es insbesondere eine Ehrenpflicht unseres Volkes ist, Belgien fîr die Folge unseres unrechtmßigen Einmarsches zu entschdigen. Nachdem ich am Anfang des Krieges infolge unvollstndiger und irrefîhrender Informationen die belgische Frage anders beurteilt hatte, habe ich mir allmhlich unter schweren inneren Kmpfen jene ˜berzeugung errungen und ihr sofort nach Wiederherstellung der Redefreiheit auch Ausdruck gegeben.142

The question, therefore, whether Deissmann was deliberately party to calculated political rationalisation in regard to the Belgian invasion, as Besier implies, can be answered in the negative. While he was considered to be a leading theologian, in 1914 this was primarily based on his philological achievements in the Greek of the NT and not on theological, philosophical, historical, or political investigations he had made. He had erred by signing the two nationalistic proclamations, but in this he was no exception, for the second Aufruf was signed by many others, including no fewer than nine previous and three future Nobel Laureates.143

6.6. Conclusion Deissmann had never seen himself as a politician, nor ever aspired to become one. Instead, his political attachments were a logical adjunct to his theologically-grounded social philosophy, as they provided him with comparative analogies for his research into the social history of early 140 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 3. 141 Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 4; 14. 8. 1915, 4; 25. 9. 1915, 1; 30. 10. 1915, 1. 142 Ev.Wbr, 20. 12. 1918, 5. See also: 16. 11. 1918, 3; 20. 11. 1918, 5; 27. 3. 1919, 5; 31. 10. 1919, 9. 143 Wilhelm Conrad Rçntgen, 1901 (Physics); Emil von Behring, 1901 (Medicine); Emil Fischer, 1902 (Chemistry); Adolf von Baeyer, 1905 (Chemistry); Philipp Lenard, 1905 (Physics); Paul Ehrlich, 1908 (Medicine); Rudolf Eucken, 1908 (Literature); Wilhelm Ostwald, 1909 (Chemistry); Wilhelm Wien, 1911 (Physics). Future Laureates who also signed were: Richard Willsttter, 1915 (Chemistry); Fritz Haber, 1918 (Chemistry); Max Planck, 1918 (Physics).

244

6. From postclassical Greek to Sozialpolitik

Christianity. In other words, it can be said that a ‘quasi-symbiotic’ connection existed between his sociopolitical and his theological persona; but on the question, whether it was his political or his faithbased social conscience that developed first, one must conclude that it was the latter which fed the former. Indeed, at Naumann’s memorial service this is exactly what Deissmann attributed to him, when he spoke of how his friend’s social principles, inspired by practical Christianity, had affected and changed his followers – including Deissmann himself – and woken them up to the troubling reality of their country’s social disparities. Weite Strecken unseres Innenlebens waren unbestellt und unfruchtbar, und dem theologischen Schaffen fehlte die Blutwrme, weil wir jenseits der Wirklichkeit arbeiteten, jenseits des jeder Paragraphierung spottenden lebendigen Lebens. Da danken wir es vor allem Friedrich Naumann, daß er uns aus der vergangenheitssatten Stille der Studierstuben auf die Plattform der wogenden und tosenden Wirklichkeit sozialer Aufgaben und sozialen Kampfes gestellt hat …144

This chapter has shown that Deissmann did not limit his thinking to questions concerning the ancient world, but that he also applied himself for some two decades to the task of social reform in Wilhelmine Germany, and that he did this through political engagement. Between 1908 and 1914, however, his interest in social politics was increasingly being redirected to his more pressing concern for the need of international Vçlkerverstndigung, which he began to pursue during the war through the writing of a regular bulletin: the Evangelischer Wochenbrief. It was an unequalled literary endeavour that will be more fully investigated in the next chapter, by way of a general analysis of these bulletins as well as of Deissmann’s motives for producing them.

144 Ev.Wbr, 30. 8. 1919, 5 – 6.

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter Die Wochenbriefe sind in einem so çkumenischen, wahrhaft versçhnenden Geiste geschrieben, daß sie tatschlich ein Kristallisationspunkt der Friedens- und Verstndigungsbestrebungen wurden, welchem kein anderes derartiges Unternehmen an die Seite gestellt werden kann.1

7.1. Genesis of Deissmann’s Evangelischer Wochenbrief The preceding chapters have occasionally referred to, or quoted, Deissmann’s Evangelischer Wochenbrief or Protestant Weekly Letter, but it is time now to give this important production some detailed attention. These bulletins2 are remarkable not merely for their conception, range of topics, and continuity, but also for the fact that one man, who was busy with other commitments, was able to produce such a volume of material under the constraint of wartime and the immediate postwar years in defeated Germany. What follows does not claim to be an exhaustive treatise on the corpus of Deissmann’s bulletins; it is, however, intended to establish a general but solid preliminary working platform, in the hope this might encourage that long overdue full-scale investigation which this extraordinary work has deserved since more than 80 years. The moderate leader of the Roman Catholic Deutsche Zentrumspartei, Matthias Erzberger (1875 – 1921), had for years advocated a nationally controlled press service, and in 1911 succeeded in establishing a fund ‘zur Verbreitung deutscher Nachrichten im 1 2

W. Hadorn, Kirchenfreund, Basel, 1. 10. 1918, cited in Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1918, 6. Except for titles and citations – and in cases where a distinction between the English and German editions is required – I shall henceforth refer to both editions as ‘bulletins’. Citations drawn from those written before America severed diplomatic relations with Germany (Feb. 1917) are normally from the Pr.WL, while those written after come from the Ev.Wbr.

246

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Ausland’.3 Although this was sanctioned by the Reichstag, once the Kaiser declared Germany to be in a state of impending war (31 July 1914), the military immediately issued a mandate that ‘keine einzige deutsche Zeitung îber die Grenzen gehen sollte’ – and this ‘trotz der Zensur im Innern’. It took three weeks before the Auswrtiges Amt was informed of that order,4 by which time massive piles of newspapers had begun to accumulate at custom houses. Erzberger complained that when Amerikaner in ihre Heimat zurîckkehren wollten, fehlte es an allem und jedem Material, um einem fremden Volk zu zeigen, wie das deutsche Volk in den Weltkrieg hineingeraten war’.5

In a hasty reaction to ameliorate the sequestering effects of this insular mandate, a senior captain of the Reichsmarineamt called on a number of unnamed politicians, including Erzberger, that they should produce an informative booklet within 48 hours, written specifically for departing Americans, and presenting Germany’s perspective on how the war had come about. In his memoirs, Erzberger later identified this pamphlet as ‘… die erste deutsche Aufklrungsschrift whrend des Krieges’; indeed, it became a basis for Germany’s subsequent war propaganda. But during the early stages of WWI, neither the Reichstag, nor the military, nor any other bureaucratic state organisations, showed the slightest interest in how foreign nations perceived Germany. Only when business people began to return from neutral countries and îber die dortige Stimmung berichteten, sah man ein, daß man in den ersten drei Wochen wohl militrische Erfolge erzielt, aber gleichzeitig eine politische Niederlage nach der anderen erlitten hatte. Es war ein Hamburger Weltkaufmann, der aus Holland kam und einigen amtlichen Stellen darlegte, wie dringend notwendig es sei, eine einheitlich zusammengefaßte Aufklrungsarbeit fîr das Ausland zu schaffen. Whrend man an einigen Stellen dem Vorschlag achselzuckend gegenîberstand, nahmen zwei Marineoffiziere denselben auf und traten an mich mit der Aufforderung heran, ich mçchte die Leitung der Auslandspropaganda îbernehmen; der Stellvertreter des Reichskanzlers … habe nicht nur hierzu seine Zustimmung gegeben, sondern wînsche aufs dringendste, dass ich mich dieser Arbeit unterziehe.6 3 4 5 6

M. Erzberger, Erlebnisse im Weltkrieg, Stuttgart, 1920, 3. For ‘Zentrumspartei’ see ch. 6, n. 74. Erzberger, 3. Ibid., 4. Ibid., 4.

7.1. Genesis of Deissmann’s Evangelischer Wochenbrief

247

Initially, Erzberger objected that any such Aufklrungsarbeit was already too late by then, and that even if he were to attempt such a task, the German military, with its overarching wartime powers encompassing the domestic front, would make it impossible. Nevertheless, he was put under considerable pressure, and after negotiations with the Auswrtiges Amt acceded to take charge of foreign propaganda, which by that time had become virtually out of control.7 Two months after the military’s initial press Abgrenzung, he discovered that under the widely repeated catchcry, ‘Die Wahrheit ins Ausland!’, some 27 independent and ‘wilde Propagandabureaus’ had been established throughout the country. Tens of thousands of newspapers, filled with all kinds of nationalistic propaganda, were now being released into neutral countries, but ‘dabei wurde so gedankenlos verfahren, daß man z. B. Bltter … welche die schrfste antidnische Politik in Nordschleswig vertraten, massenhaft nach Dnemark sandte’.8 Once he had brought these counterproductive publications under the control of the Zentralstelle fîr Auslandsdienst,9 Erzberger approached Deissmann in November 1914 with the proposal that he consider producing a Protestant-oriented weekly bulletin, specifically for an American readership. Some time later, Deissmann readily acknowledged that what he himself had named ‘Evangelischer Wochenbrief ’ or ‘Protestant Weekly Letter’ (its English edition), had not come about on his own but rather on Erzberger’s initiative: Der Gedanke, die kirchlichen und theologischen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Amerika zur Strkung des guten Verhltnisses beider Lnder auszunutzen, muss als ein sehr glîcklicher bezeichnet werden. Schon als er mir im November 1914 durch Herrn Reichstagsabgeordneten Matthias Erzberger, der seit dem Sptsommer 1914 einen Zweig des Auslandsdienstes leitet und einen “Katholischen Wochenbrief ”10 bereits organisiert hatte, geussert wurde, leuchtete er mir ungemein ein. Je mehr ich dann die Methoden seiner Ausfîhrbarkeit îberdachte, umso zeitgemsser erschien er mir. Ein christlicher Theologe konnte sich auch mit umso grçsserer Freudigkeit in den Dienst dieses Gedankens stellen, als 7 8 9 10

Ibid., 5. Ibid., 5. It was dissolved in 1917 and brought under military control. ‘Eine weitere beachtenswerte Kundgebung waren die “Katholischen Wochenbriefe”, welche in erster Linie fîr Klçster und Kongregationen und fîr katholische Wochenschriften des Auslandes bestimmt waren und in Dr. Schnitzler einen sachkundigen Berater fanden.’ Erzberger, 16.

248

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

er damit Gelegenheit hatte, die durch den Krieg schwer erschîtterte internationale christliche Solidaritt strken zu helfen.11

Thus, Deissmann’s bulletins started off as an afterthought by Erzberger, who wanted them to complement Germany’s already existing Roman Catholic war literature.12 Although the concept originated with this political leader, Deissmann accepted the challenge primarily because it presented him with a splendid opportunity to help strengthen international Christian solidarity. Erzberger was willing to give him wide-ranging editorial powers so that he could make his voice heard, ‘… unter eigenster, persçnlichster und alleiniger Verantwortung’.13 Certainly, it would also allow Deissmann to portray Germany in a favourable light; but it was the international breakdown of Christian solidarity and consequent paucity of ecclesiastical cooperation that motivated him to accept the undertaking. He had no inclination to add just another paper to the vast morass of existing war propaganda: ‘ich habe mir in diesen Briefen kein kriegspolitisches Programm zu vertreten vorgenommen, sondern ein religions- und kulturpolitisches’.14 This led Deissmann’s friend, Valentin Schwçbel,15 to ask the obvious question: zu welchem Zweig der Theologie gehçrt denn diese Deine Ttigkeit [i.e. Wochenbriefe]? Wo bleiben die neutestamentlichen Studien und Kritiken? Ist das die politische Theologie? Aber so, wie Du sie treibst, stehst Du mit beiden Fîßen im Neuen Testament.16

The bulletins are not easily pigeonholed, indeed, but seem best included within the genre of ‘religions- und kulturpolitische’ literature, as their author has indicated. Although Deissmann bore sole responsibility for the production, content, timing, format and circulation of his bulletins they were to be distributed through Erzberger’s office, thus circumventing the censorship machinery to which the domestic press was subject. The 11 ‘Bericht des Professors Geh. Konsistorialrats D. theol. Adolf Deissmann îber seine “Evangelischen Wochenbriefe” (“Protestant Weekly Letters”) nach Nordamerika 1914/16’, 4. 7. 1916, 1. 12 On this topic, see Erzberger, 1 – 20. 13 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 271. 14 Ev.Wbr, 26. 8. 1917, 3. 15 Schwçbel’s name occurs first in GAD’s writings in 1900 (AK, 11. 5. 1900), he was Pfarrer in Mannheim (died 1921). 16 Ev.Wbr, 26. 8. 1917, 3.

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints

249

Reichstag had allocated to the Auswrtiges Amt an annual propaganda budget of M.300,000 ‘zur Verbreitung deutscher Nachrichten im Ausland’;17 from this sum Erzberger received a distribution, of which a small portion was earmarked to cover stationery and postage costs for Deissmann’s bulletins. However, occasionally the Auswrtiges Amt also assisted the latter directly with non-pecuniary support, by providing some basic equipment, including a storage cupboard. Although there were no subscription fees for the bulletins, by 31 December 1920 private donations had raised their account (held in trust at the Auswrtiges Amt) to M.16,481,18 and in his last issue Deissmann wrote: Beim Abschied habe ich viel und vielen zu danken. Fîr ein hohes Maß freiwilliger ußerer Fçrderer aus dem In- und Auslande zuerst; sie hat es ermçglicht, daß das Unternehmen bis zuletzt weitergefîhrt werden konnte und daß in einem Zeitalter des Zusammenbruchs wichtiger anderer christlicher Organe nicht finanzielle Not es ist, die zum Abschluß drngt.19

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints The bulletins’ seven-year-long publication began with an unpretentious, typed issue, mailed to approximately 300 addresses,20 and dated 6 December 1914. Eighteen months later Deissmann wrote that fourfifths of his American recipients were Anglo-Americans and one-fifth German-Americans.21 Numerically the circulation remained far smaller than Roman Catholic publications, such as the Katholische Monatsbriefe, edited by Engelbert Krebs (1881 – 1950), produced in seven languages and with a circulation of 30,000.22 Unfortunately, it is now no longer possible to determine a precise distribution rate for 17 Erzberger, 3. 18 Auswrtiges Amt, letter to GAD, 18.2.1922. While Germany’s inflation was on the rise since 1918, at the end of 1920 it had ‘only’ reached c. M.70 to the US dollar. 19 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 277. 20 Besides individual recipients, this number included a list of 78 different theological schools, distributed among c. half the states of the USA. Rockwell, letter to GAD, 8.2.1915. 21 Pr.WL, 10. 5. 1916, 2 – 3. 22 Erzberger, 16. The full title of Krebs’ Monatsbriefe was, Katholische Monatsbriefe zur Verteidigung deutscher und katholischer Interessen im Weltkrieg. They were produced in Freiburg and Berlin (1915 – 9); English title: Catholic Monthly Letters. See also n. 57 below.

250

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Deissmann’s bulletins, nor the exact peak of their circulation, other than to say that his readership kept increasing.23 Series one was specifically written for an American audience and consisted of 111 separate bulletins. Die Erste Reihe (Nr. 1 – 111), deutsch und englisch, reichte bis zum Eintritt Nordamerikas in den Krieg; die “Neue Folge” (Nr.1 – 150), deutsch, von da bis zur Ratifizierung des Vertrags von Versailles; die “Dritte Reihe” (Nr. 1 – 104) deutsch, setzte Anfang 1920 ein und schließt Ende 1921 mit dieser Sammlungsnummer ab.24

Despite his claim of 111 editions, the Zentral- und Landesbibliothek in Berlin has an apparently unpublished yet complete 11-page double-issue (112/13) of a Protestant Weekly Letter, dated 15 January 1917. The precise reason for Deissmann’s silence on the existence of this particular bulletin, and why it was withdrawn from publication, is not certain, but it seems probable that it was frozen by the Auswrtiges Amt. For on 9 January 1917 a war-council meeting, presided over by Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg, had agreed to resume unrestricted U-boat warfare on 1 February, in the full expectation that America would be drawn into the war by this. Moreover, Deissmann’s bulletin was written (not printed25) on 15 January, four days before the ignominious Zimmermann note was intercepted by the British and handed to the American Ambassador in London.26 Deissmann wrote every bulletin in German and then, for the English version, had the text translated as accurately as possible; there is, there23 The ZLB holds a substantial amount of material in relation to GAD’s bulletins. However, due to water damage during WWII, countless glue-backed address labels have become laminated into semi-solidified slabs. There are also large quantities of either handwritten or typed addresses on loose sheets; or random scraps of paper, with messily written names and/or addresses, frequently unrelated, incomplete, or physically damaged (e. g. ZLB DEI 139, 147, 148, 149). It is, therefore, unlikely that a complete list of all subscribers to GAD’s bulletins can be reconstructed. Further to GAD’s Nachlass in the ZLB, see ch. 9, n. 61. 24 Preliminary to Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921. 25 GAD provided an important explanation regarding the dates printed on the bulletins’ front-pages: ‘Ihr Datum bezeichnet nicht, wie einige meiner Leser annahmen, den Tag des Reindrucks, sondern den Beginn der Abfassung des Manuskriptes. Zwischen Manuskript und Absendung liegt daher immer ein gewisser Zeitraum.’ Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1919, 3. 26 See Snyder, 361; also B.W. Tuchmann, The Zimmermann Telegram, New York, 1958.

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints

251

fore, no substantive difference between the two versions.27 Thus, despite a claim in The Constructive Quarterly that ‘the English is Dr. Deissmann’s own’, he clarified: My “Letters” owe their English-American garment to a friend of mine Rev. J. Quiring, A.M. (University of Chicago), B.D. (Mc Cormick [sic] seminary). This American gentleman has been attending our Berlin University since the fall of 1913 and under Dr. Friedrich Delitzsch, Dr. Eduard Sachau, Dr. Hermann Strack and Dr. Eduard Meyer is pursuing a course of studies in Semitics and Orientalia. My ability to speak and write English is not yet as great as my desire to master the English as well as Mr. Quiring does the German.28

The first 44 issues were typewritten by Deissmann himself, a practice he only changed with the 45th edition, in which he also provided a hint of the almost overwhelming manual labour these bulletins demanded. You will of course have at once noticed the new dress in which the “Weekly Letters” now appear. I confess the old garb was distasteful to me. Strictly speaking “letters” ought not be multiplied through the typist, if new copies are needed they should be autographed in order to preserve their intimate character. But unfortunately I have no time to rewrite the first draft of my letters with autographic ink; my fingers are stiff enough as it is, they are almost callous like the knees of a camel. The method of multiplication employed thus far became more and more unsatisfactory and painful to me on account of its technical imperfections; from now on I will therefore try this new way and hope to use less space and render the letters more legible.29

Series two, or ‘Neue Folge’ 1, began on 21 February 1917, two weeks after America had formally broken diplomatic relations with Germany. Later, Deissmann explained the shift to this new series – which he produced only in German from then on: Es kam der Eintritt Nordamerikas in den Krieg. Eine vçllig neue Lage, deren furchtbaren Ernst ich im Gegensatz zu vielen, die die moralischen, wirtschaftlichen, militrischen und politischen Krfte der Vereinigten Staaten nicht kannten und darum unterschtzten, sofort zu erkennen glaubte! Ich stellte daher den “Evangelischen Wochenbrief ” auf andere Grundlagen. Die schon bis dahin durch ausgewhlte Adressaten mitbedachten Kirchen 27 Some addresses received both the English and German editions simultaneously; e. g. Alexander, letter to Rosenberg, 6. 4. 1916, states: ‘Ich erlaube mir, Ihnen in der Anlage No. 68 dieser “Evangelischen Wochenbriefe” in deutscher und englischer Sprache zu îberreichen’. 28 Pr.WL, 30. 10. 1915, 4. 29 Pr.WL, 9. 10. 1915, 4.

252

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

der neutralen Lnder Europas wurden … mehr und mehr das Feld der Briefe … auch hier dîrfte sich mein Grundsatz bewhrt haben, nicht wahllos zu versenden … So habe ich wieder persçnliche Beziehungen, insbesondere zu Freunden, Kollegen, ehemaligen Schîlern aus Marburg, Heidelberg und Berlin und zur christlichen Presse ausnutzend, mir damals einen deutschen Adressatenkreis geschaffen, der allmhlich den auslndischen an Zahl îberstieg.30

His claim to have recognised what many of his countrymen had neglected to see was no mere boast, for he possessed a relatively uncommon proficiency in the English language and had developed close personal connections with many influential Americans, among them Charles Brent (5.2), Herbert Adams Gibbons (8. n. 209) and Charles Macfarland (6.5). ‘Neue Folge’ 2 commenced on 1 January 1918, and while its initial target audience remained unchanged, from 8 June 1918 onward Deissmann expanded his bulletins’ circulation to include ‘christliche Persçnlichkeiten’ in Estonia, Livonia and the Courland, although a few Baltic theologians had already been on his mailing list prior. Altogether uncharacteristically, he superscribed this particular edition with the modified Johannine greeting: ‘Den evangelischen Glaubensgenossen in Kurland, Livland und Estland Gnade und Friede von Dem, der da ist, und der da war, und der da kommt!’.31 This series concluded on 31 December 1919 and was superseded on 2 February 1920 – under the Weimar Republic – by the ‘Dritte Reihe’, which Deissmann terminated in early November 1921. Throughout their entire seven-year production the bulletins were judiciously targeted at a restricted but usually influential number of recipients, the selection of whom was based on a number of criteria, which the editor listed as follows in 1916: 1. Meine frîheren Schîler und die mir sonst befreundeten Amerikaner. 2. Eine Anzahl von theologischen Kollegen an amerikanischen Universitten, mit denen ich schon frîher im literarischen Austausch gestanden hatte. 3. Kollegen, von denen ich annehmen konnte, dass sie mich literarisch kennen. 4. Fîhrende Persçnlichkeiten aus den amerikanischen Missionskreisen aller Denominationen. 30 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 273. 31 Ev.Wbr, 8. 6. 1918, 1; compare Rev. 1:4.

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints

253

5. Sonstige mir von Sachkundigen als besonders geeignet namhaft gemachte Persçnlichkeiten, namentlich die Schriftleiter kirchlicher Bltter.32 Nineteen months later, Deissmann again referred to the process by which he determined to whom his bulletins were mailed, and emphasised: Ich habe mir zum Grundsatz gemacht, meine “Wochenbriefe” nicht wahllos an leicht ermittelbare Adressatenmassen zu senden … Meine Briefe gehen nur an Adressaten, die sorgfltig ausgewhlt sind, und ich bin, wenn mein eigenes Wissen naturgemß oft versagt, von Kennern freundlichst beraten worden. Der liebste Zuwachs an Interessenten kommt mir aber durch Empfehlung von Mensch zu Mensch.33

Some of his more distinguished readers were: Toms Garrigue Masaryk (1850 – 1937), founder and first president of Czechoslovakia; Randall Thomas Davidson (1848 – 1930), the archbishop of Canterbury; Nathan Sçderblom; Charles Brent, and Charles Macfarland. The idea of a select readership originated with Deissmann himself, since he reasoned that ‘eine an unbekannte Massen wahllos gerichtete Propaganda mehr schaden, als nîtzen kçnne’.34 But the choice of ‘appropriate’ addressees was no simple task, which is why he sought advice from various colleagues in Germany and the United States. Erzberger wrote: ‘… [Deissmann] hat die Auswahl der Adressaten mit großem Geschick vollzogen. Er wandte sich fast durchweg an seine frîheren Schîler, befreundete und bekannte Institute und hervorragende Einzelpersonen’.35 There were several advantages to this narrow approach, although it depended significantly on an implied presumption of Deissmann’s high reputation among his professional colleagues and former students. But since these recipients could be expected to think of his bulletins as a reliable news source with sound 32 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 7 – 8. 33 Ev.Wbr, 9. 2. 1918, 3. Among GAD’s German advisors were Friedrich SiegmundSchultze (see ch. 7.2), Ernst von Dobschîtz (1870 – 1934, Prof. of NT), Siegfried Graf von Lîttichau (1877 – 1965, Pfarrer), Karl Axenfeld (see ch. 6, n 105), August Wilhelm Schreiber (1867 – 1945, mission director) and Julius Richter (1862 – 1940, Prof. of Missionswissenschaft). GAD’s American advisors included William Walker Rockwell (1875 – 1958, Prof. of church history); Clarissa H. Spencer (YWCA general secretary); Herbert Adams Gibbons (see ch. 8, n. 209), Jacob Quiring (see above), and perhaps most importantly, Charles Macfarland (see ch. 6.5). 34 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 7. 35 Erzberger, 19.

254

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

‘inside knowledge’, they would likely also read them with considerable care. On the other hand, a heavy onus rested on their author to maintain his prewar credibility, since his semi-private publication was vulnerable to quick collapse, should his readers ever come to perceive it as mere nationalistic propaganda (see ch. 7.3). However, because the bulletins were spread chiefly by reputation, and that amongst a generally well-educated readership, it suggests that the editor was deemed to be trustworthy with his information. Moreover, it was also essential that he be regarded as a man with the moral right to produce such material for a foreign readership. Deissmann was acutely aware of this, and reasoned that he would only have this right, ‘… wenn ich mich als den Sprecher einer … Gemeinschaft von gesinnungsverwandten Landsleuten fîhlen kçnnte’.36 This is the logic that underpinned his push in early 1917 to broaden the circulation within Germany itself, and not to restrict it to the neutral countries alone. Deissmann had outlined the initial scope of his bulletins in an accompanying letter to the first edition,37 and later paraphrased it by explaining that he had given … den Adressaten meine Absicht, dass ich mich auf das Thema “Der Krieg und die Religion” beschrnken wolle. Dass nebenbei auch manches Politische mit einfloss, ist selbstverstndlich, und wurde, als die amerikanischen Antworten einsetzten, auch noch notwendiger; das Politische wurde aber stets nur mehr indirekt behandelt, eine Methode, die ich fîr wirksam halte.38

Until January 1917 the bulletins’ linguistic register was specifically aimed at an American Protestant audience, although their author had arranged for some copies to reach England as well.39 The fundamental objective

36 37 38 39

Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 273. For a transcript of this letter see Appendix 7, a. Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 11. Davidson, letter to GAD, 22. 9. 1915, in Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 132. Moreover, Siegmund-Schultze wrote to GAD: ‘Wie Sie wissen, haben inzwischen Ihre amerikanischen Briefe auch in England viel Aufsehen erregt; îbrigens sowohl in dem Sinne, daß sie den Englndern als abtrglich fîr ihre Interessen erschienen, wie auch in dem Sinne, daß man sich îber den vornehmen Stil der deutschen Darstellung darin verwundert und erfreut hat.’ Letter, 18.6.1915.

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints

255

was to strengthen international Christian solidarity – not to cause political debate.40 On Thursday evening, 12 November 1914 (three weeks before writing the first of his bulletins), Deissmann gave a speech at a public venue in Spandau (Berlin), entitled ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’ (see also ch. 8.2), in which he acknowledged a personal struggle with this problematic topic. Die Religion ist der flammende Protest gegen den Krieg, und der Krieg ist der schmhliche Bankerott der Religion; die Kriegsartikel und das Vaterunser stammen aus zwei unîberbrîckbar voneinander geschiedenen Welten … Denn ich gestehe es offen: ich fîr mein Teil kann jetzt nicht îber den Krieg und die Religion theoretisch reden … ich erlebe das Ereignis mit. Ob ich will oder nicht, ich erlebe es mit.41

While this may sound like mere wartime rhetoric, it signified a genuine swing in Deissmann’s intellectual values, for the increasing barrage of inexplicable theological, philosophical and ethical perplexities of the war had begun to repress his earlier lexicographical objectives (see ch. 2). Now that the international Christian Gemeinbîrgerschaft was breaking up, in that Christian nations opposed each another in mortal combat, he became so preoccupied with the necessity for Vçlkerverstndigung that he wrote: ‘So schweigt bei mir … das theoretisch-wissenschaftliche Interesse vçllig’.42 Yet it was this shift in analytical focus that allowed him to embark on the production of his bulletins, and the extent to which he engaged in it can only be described as astounding (see ch. 7.5). His primary objective was, therefore, a twofold effort to seek an answer to what he termed, ‘the problem of Christian solidarity still unsolved’;43 it was neither political nor nationalistic, but socioethical (humanitarian) and theological. Erzberger and the Auswrtiges Amt had originally intended these bulletins to be a part of Germany’s propaganda machinery, but by giving Deissmann almost unfettered editorial powers he was able to shape his ‘letters’ into a transnational organ for Vçlkerverstndigung and 40 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 1. Or, as Erzberger put it: ‘… [um] die kirchlichen und theologischen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Amerika zu strken’. Erzberger, 18. 41 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 3 – 4. 42 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 4. This did not mean that he ceased his routine duties as professor (see Appendix 9, e), rather that he was no longer able to work on his opus vitae, i. e. the NT lexicon. 43 Pr.WL, 25. 4. 1916, 1.

256

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Christian solidarity (see ch. 7.6). The Auswrtiges Amt considered his distinctive work to be in the broader German national interest, and thus continued to support him.44 Although he produced these bulletins in three distinct series they remained consonant with his initially formulated (yet at that time still inadequately defined) subject matter of ‘der Krieg und die Religion’, and his original goal, ‘die durch den Krieg schwer erschîtterte internationale christliche Solidaritt strken zu helfen’.45 For the first two-and-ahalf years they appeared once a week, but from 28 May 1917 he began to produce them fortnightly until 1919, after which he wrote and mailed them approximately once a month, on account of the ‘gegenwrtige Schwierigkeiten und Kosten des Druckes’.46 Until 1917 they were written without explanatory superscript, but after 21 February of that year each issue was headed with Deissmann’s now sharply crystallised statement of purpose: Die am 1. Advent 1914 begonnenen “Evangelischen Wochenbriefe” sollen der Verstndigung unter den Vçlkern und der Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt dienen. Fîr offenen Meinungsaustausch ist der Verfasser stets dankbar; er bittet auch um Nennungen von Persçnlichkeiten (Mnner und Frauen), die mit der Absicht dieser Briefe sympathisieren.

Editorial work itself was not entirely new to Deissmann, as he had been on the editorial board of the American Constructive Quarterly since early 1913.47 James Moulton had first introduced him in writing to the journal’s founder,48 Silas McBee (1853 – 1924), and after the latter had 44 Auswrtiges Amt, letter to GAD, 18.2.1922. 45 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 1. 46 Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1919, 3, n*. For statistics on the bulletins’ production, see Appendix 7, b. 47 This strongly ecumenical journal’s stated: ‘that the constructive treatment of Christianity would make for a better understanding between the isolated communions of Christendom, and … that an atmosphere of mutual confidence might be created and a better understanding and a truer sense of fellowship be induced.’ Constr.Q, editorial board circular, 1.8.1922. Its editorial board spanned four continents. GAD was also on the editorial board of the Baltimore based CUQ, see ch. 8.4. 48 Moulton wrote: ‘May I introduce to you Mr. Silas McBee, late Editor of an influential church paper in New York, who is gathering with wonderful success a representative Advisory Board for a new enterprise which will I am sure win your hearty sympathy? No one can advise him better than you can in his search for the best men to invite in Germany for this international and interconfessional Christian journal.’ Moulton, letter to GAD, 4.6.1912.

7.2. Target readership, objectives, and editorial constraints

257

briefly visited Deissmann in Berlin on 27 November 1913, the two remained corresponding friends until McBee’s death on 3 September 1924. Significantly, the underlying intent of Deissmann’ bulletins was not only wholly compatible with the Constructive Quarterly but to some degree also indebted to it, since it helped Deissmann to crystallise his own goals. His semi-personal bulletins could only measure up to their declared mediatory role on a basis of perceived editorial veracity, yet despite the carefully selected (and mostly Germanophile) recipients some readers voiced their concern in regard to German censorship. When Deissmann addressed these uncertainties in his September 1915 bulletin he was still unaware of Erzberger’s later expressed view that German censorship was at that time ‘frisiert’ and ‘gefhrlich nach innen wie nach außen’,49 since he reasoned defensively: Dr. Gibbons, like some others of my correspondents, fears his letters might not pass the German censor. This apprehension is unwarranted. In all my comprehensive foreign correspondence I do not know of a single instance where any of my letters were cancelled by the German censor. Certainly, I have lost mail but not through German censorship; it occurred outside the German frontier. Only a people with a sense of its own weakness, will have a strict censorship at a time of war.50

Deissmann’s unsophisticated sentiments reflect the arguments which Erzberger was making in parliament, for the latter was an outspoken opponent of Germany’s extremely short-sighted censorship-laws and contended that his country was damaging itself badly with their ‘official’ attitude of ‘Uns kann keiner!’. He himself allowed his own (small) propaganda staff considerable liberties, insisting only that ‘absolut wahre Tatsachen’ were written for foreign readers. As a quasiindependent editor Deissmann was not part of this group, yet still enjoyed Erzberger’s personal patronage. This allowed him to be somewhat shielded from the Militrzensur,51 especially since his 49 Erzberger, 7. 50 Pr.WL, 11. 9. 1915, 2. For Gibbons, see ch. 8, n. 209. 51 The following extract from Erzberger’s memoirs demonstrates this: ‘Alle Schilderungen îber Mangel im deutschen Volk, seine Unternhrung, sein Leiden und Darben, wurden verpçnt und verboten. Deutsche ørzte und Wissenschaftler mußten schreiben und schreiben, daß es fîr den Deutschen sehr gesund sei, wenn er weniger als vor dem Kriege esse. Man machte umfangreiche Statistiken darîber auf, mit wie wenig der Mensch durchkommen kçnne; man wollte so dem Ausland beweisen, daß die Vorrte an Lebensmitteln und an

258

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

bulletins were sent as private mail, which tended to avoid the rigorous scrutiny imposed on the public press. This explains why his bulletins include some remarkable data on German losses and social conditions, even though his colleague in the ecumenical work, Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze (1885 – 1969), cautioned him rather critically ‘Es ist im allgemeinen nicht gut, die Grçße der Verluste in Briefen nach Amerika hervorzuheben, weil die Verluste drîben so fabelhaft îbertrieben werden.’ But Deissmann replied with confidence: ‘˜ber die Verluste schrieb ich absichtlich um den im satten Comfort ihrer îberflachten Christlichkeit erstickenden Brîdern eine Ahnung von dem furchtbaren Ernst des Krieges zu geben.’52 Despite Deissmann’s patently wrong assertion that German censorship was minimal, he had been instructed to avoid the topic of the Belgian invasion, or otherwise handle it only with the greatest restraint.53 Another case of editorial gagging applied to the Armenian genocide in which up to a million people perished. Deissmann was one of six theologians who signed a petition on 10 March 1916, addressed to von Bethmann Hollweg, in which they called for an emergency relief team to be sent to that region, but no mention was made of this in his bulletins.54 It was not until November 1916 when he first conceded that German censorship was, in fact, distorting reality, since ‘public opinion as reflected in the press, is, generally speaking, hardly representative, for military and political reasons demand the existence of a censorial office in some form

Gegenstnden des tglichen Bedarfs so groß seien, daß Deutschland nie ausgehungert werden kçnne. Dieselbe Stelle [i.e. Militrzensur] dachte aber nicht daran, daß das Ausland die deutsche Speisekarte, die deutschen Rationen mit Leichtigkeit erfahren konnte … Wie ganz anders ging die Entente vor! Sie hat das Mitleid, das das hrteste Herz erweicht, in ihren Dienst gestellt. Wenn kein Propagandastoff fîr Erregung des Mitleids da war, so wurde solcher erfunden. Es sei nur an die belgischen Kinder mit abgehauenen Hnden erinnert … Die deutsche Propaganda durfte unter dem Druck militrischer Stellen kein Gegengewicht schaffen.’ Erzberger, 8. 52 Siegmund-Schultze, letter to GAD, 15. 3. 1915; and GAD, letter to SiegmundSchultze, 18.3.1915. For Siegmund-Schultze, see Jenkins. 53 Erzberger, 15 – 16. 54 See Appendix 7, c. In Pr.WL, 18. 12. 1915, 3, 4, GAD referred cautiously to the ‘Armenian problem’ and ‘Armenian disturbances’, and in 18. 3. 1916, 3, to the ‘Armenian cause’. Only after the lifting of censorship was he able to expand on the topic; see Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 7 – 8; 30. 6. 1919, 18.

7.3. Content of the Wochenbriefe

259

or other’.55 Only when censorship began to be lifted by the provisional Weimar Government in November 1918 did he express the wish, … bestimmte, seither nicht frei diskutierbare Einzelfragen, die ungeklrt und stçrend zwischen den deutschen und den auslndischen Christen stehen, in voller Offenheit zu behandeln’.56

The absence of certain topics in his bulletins – such as the Belgian invasion – is, therefore, not necessarily a reflection of Deissmann’s character, academic integrity, or political perspective, but rather symptomatic of the editorial constraints under which he laboured, despite Erzberger’s patronage.

7.3. Content of the Wochenbriefe At first, Deissmann’s bulletins consisted for the most part of discussions on Germany’s morale (Gesamtstimmung), religious, or church related topics, interspersed with personal war experiences and numerous statistics. Although it was a Protestant paper he readily cooperated with Roman Catholics. In der Regel beschrnkte ich mich auf das innere Leben des protestantischen Deutschlands einschliesslich der protestantischen Freikirchen, habe gelegentlich aber auch, wo es mir richtig zu sein schien, auch [sic] charakteristische Aeusserungen des christlichen Lebens der rçmisch-katholischen Kirche mit berîhrt.57

At the urging of American academics he also began to include material that demonstrated the effects of the war on Germany’s scholastic body and on their international research.58 Since Deissmann’s editorial horizons were expansive, his bulletins were more suitable as a source of information for intellectual individuals or larger religious papers, than localised church bulletins or the general public. Neither were they mere wartime publications, for he continued to produce them until the end of 1921 with the same unabated passion for maintaining and 55 Pr.WL, 15. 11. 1916, 2. 56 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 3. 57 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 12. He was also a regular reader of what he described as ‘the excellent “Catholic Monthly Letters” of my colleague Professor Dr. Engelbert Krebs’. Pr.WL, 25. 10. 1916, 2. See also n. 22 above. 58 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 11 – 12.

260

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

rebuilding international Christian cooperation and mutual trust as he had at the outset – and that despite an ongoing inner turmoil. The promotion of our international, Christian relationship to my mind occupies a very important place within the sphere of religious interest, which forms the principal subject of these letters. The reader of my “Weeklies” will have noticed, how much I am not only interested, but even much concerned as to whether we will succeed in keeping the invincible threads of Christian fellowship between the nations amid the raging of this terrible world-struggle and even to do preparatory work for the strengthening of the same after the conflict is over.59

Deissmann’s motivational conviction was that the NT message had the power to bridge national borders, political impasses, language barriers and social strata. This fundamentally optimistic Weltanschauung enabled him throughout the seemingly endless global conflict to maintain a philosophical outlook, and to focus on the problem of a fragmented postwar Christianity. What he wrote in his bulletins was, therefore, not primarily intended for the ‘here and now’, but should be understood within this larger framework of the reconstruction of Christian fellowship internationally. Deissmann drew his confidence largely from Luther’s Zweireichelehre,60 for he believed: ‘die Ecclesia Invisibilis bleibt bestehen, trotz aller Irrungen der Visibilis. Darum bleibe ich optimistisch …’.61 Although his political perspectives changed during his bulletins’ sevenyear publication, it was this trust in God’s providence that kept his primary focus unwavering – despite the Church’s failure to prevent the war in the first place.62 The substance of his wartime bulletins constitute, in effect, a farsighted attempt at preparing his readers for the challenging religious intangibles that a political peace would inevitably pose for Christendom after the war. Sich im Frieden auf den Krieg zu rîsten, gehçrt fîr die Vçlker bei dem jetzigen Tiefstande der Kultur immer noch zu den bitteren Notwendigkeiten … Sich im Kriege auf den Frieden zu rîsten, ist eine nicht weniger ernste 59 60 61 62

Pr.WL, 12. 6. 1915, 1. See ch. 8, n. 3. Ev.Wbr, 29. 7. 1917, 2 – 3. Three months into the war, GAD had posed the rhetorical question: ‘Was leistet nun die Religion dem Kriege? Sie hat ihm nicht geleistet, daß sie ihn, als er noch ein Gespenst war, bannte. Sie hat ihn nicht verhindert, wie sie in der Vergangenheit Kriege nicht verhindert hat und wie sie vieles nicht verhindern kann …’. ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 18 – 19.

7.3. Content of the Wochenbriefe

261

Notwendigkeit. Der Friede … ist undenkbar ohne eine bestimmte seelische Temperatur derer, die ihn schließen; anderenfalls ist er nur eine Atempause des Krieges. Die Schaffung dieser Temperatur aber muß schon whrend des Kampfes versucht werden …63

Repairing the shattered cooperation and goodwill between Christians worldwide was no easy undertaking contingent merely on the signing of a peace treaty. For hazy popular notions – such as ‘war guilt’, ‘vanquished’, or ‘victor’ – would inevitably arise to become de rigueur within the international press, and alienate the conflicting nations’ major religious organisations even further. Instead, the war’s effect on Europe’s psyche required an optimistic voice to counteract it, one that could keep alive people’s hope for a better future through what Deissmann termed a ‘trotziger Dennochsglaube’.64 This positive outlook is continually evident throughout the war period of the bulletins,65 and was buttressed by the editor’s recognition that Christian fellowship through shared suffering could be a powerful force to foster mutual understanding among the combating nations. ‘It matters not whether it is our people who suffer loss or the hostile party, the awfulness of the tragedy remains the same.’66 It was crucial, therefore, that his bulletins be understood for what they were: regular, informative communiqu¤s, which attempted – by grappling frankly with the problem of war and religion – to foster understanding and cooperation among Christians, in line with the NT instructions on social harmony.67 While the bulletins inevitably touched on political topics, such as the Versailles Treaty or the Armenian genocide, they were not politically ‘maskierte Propaganda’ – as, for example, the Swiss radical socialist theologian Leonhard Ragaz (1868 – 1945) had claimed68 – nor do they 63 Ev.Wbr, 2. 12. 1917, 3. 64 GAD, De Profundis; ein Dienst am Wort, Berlin, 1925, 73; see also Ev.Wbr, 12. 10. 1918, 7. 65 e.g. Pr.WL, 12. 3. 1915, 5; 20. 11. 1915, 2; 29. 1. 1916, 2; 9. 12. 1916, 6; 24. 12. 1916, 2; Ev.Wbr, 31. 7. 1918, 1 – 2. 66 Pr.WL, 1. 4. 1916, 4. 67 e. g. Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27, John 13:34 – 5, Gal. 3:26 – 8, Eph. 4:2 – 6, Jas. 3:17 – 18. 68 Neue Wege: Bltter fîr religiçse Arbeit, Mar. 1918. Ragaz’s vituperative article is partly reprinted in Ev.Wbr, 26. 4. 1918, 2. See further, nn. 126 – 30 below. That the intent of GAD’s bulletins is still being misunderstood in the 21st century, and equated with German WWI propaganda, is reflected in Jenkins’ comment: ‘While [the bulletins] undoubtedly served a propagandist purpose,

262

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

show any systematic attempt at fostering diplomatic relations between nations. Die Verstndigung, an die ich denke, ist eine viel feinere Sache, als es politische Abmachungen îber Grenzen und Tarife sein kçnnen. Ich denke an seelische Annherung durch den Kampf gegen die eigene pharisische Selbstgerechtigkeit, durch den aufrichtigen Willen, dem anderen innerlich gerecht zu werden, durch gemeinsame Beugung unter die ewigen Ideale der Religion.69

By ‘ewigen Ideale’ he meant Christ’s teaching on mutually tolerant and forgiving love, as expanded on by the Apostle Paul.70 This is the Judaeo-Christian social ethic that underlies Deissmann’s bulletins and gave him the theological authority to apply its tenets to his reconciliation work – not only during wartime, but carrying through into the early 1920s and a new era of unprecedented religious ecumenism. Even when Germany lay in ruins towards the conclusion of WWI, Deissmann’s spiritual bridge building continued with unabated optimism. Die Einheit der Christenheit ist mir nach vier Jahren der Vernichtung nicht ein Scherbenhaufen zerstçrter Illusionen, sondern ein zwar gefhrdetes, aber deshalb um so treuer zu hîtendes und auszubauendes Heiligtum. Und es ist ein gefhrlicher Irrtum, zu meinen, man mîsse erst die internationale Liquidation der harten politischen Interessenprobleme des Weltkrieges abwarten, ehe man wieder an jene feineren Dinge denken kçnne. Im Gegenteil: gerade um die ungeheure Arbeit des seelischen Wiederaufbaus der Christenheit nach dem Kriege zu ermçglichen, muß schon whrend des Krieges vor dem Volke … der Einheitsgedanke auf den Leuchter gestellt werden.71

Not only was Deissmann’s focus on Christian solidarity – especially in respect to the question of war and religion – the prime mover of his bulletins, but his unshakable belief in the ‘Una Sancta’ also kept sustaining his positive outlook throughout the dark years of WWI and can be detected in many of his dispatches. For example: Aber wir kçnnen den Gedanken der Gemeinschaft der einen heiligen Kirche nicht abschîtteln, wenn die Vçlker politisch aufeinandertreffen. Ich htte by challenging false enemy reports and currying favour amongst the neutral nations for Germany’s position, nevertheless, they were also intended to help maintain friendly ties between the churches’, 139. 69 Ev.Wbr, 2. 12. 1917, 4. 70 1 Cor. 13:1 – 13. 71 Ev.Wbr, 12. 10. 1918, 7.

7.4. Changing perspectives in the Wochenbriefe

263

den Krieg innerlich nicht ertragen, wenn ich mich nicht an dem Gedanken der Una Sancta htte halten kçnnen.72

And in the conclusion to the last of his Wochenbriefe Deissmann wrote: In einer Zeit tiefsten Menschheitselends lege ich die Feder aus der Hand … [aber] um so strahlender bleibt vor meinem zukunftssehnenden Auge das christliche Ideal der Solidaritt Aller, die Menschenantlitz tragen’.73

7.4. Changing perspectives in the Wochenbriefe While the main theme of the bulletins remained constant throughout the seven years of their publication, many of Deissmann’s political, social and religious views shifted considerably between 1914 and 1918. In his first issue he sought to defend Prussian militarism, with the imprudent assertion that Germany’s army was ‘the safest guarantee for the maintenance of peaceful conditions; a bellicose leading statesman or prince, or even a warlike Reichstag are impossible in Germany, thanks to its military organization’.74 He had evidently accepted the specious notion that the German army would never allow itself to be used in any frivolous military action. Subsequently, he made claims that the Kaiser’s command was honourable and a joy to follow,75 and that the war was producing a grand spiritual awakening which would one day be reckoned as one of ‘the great religious movements in the history of the world’76 – even leaving its mark on the nation’s churches for the next fifty years.77 Later, he also told his readers that Germany rejoiced in ‘the strongest democracy the world has seen’,78 for which von Hindenburg had defeated ‘the million-armies of Russia’,79 in a military conflict that was purely ‘a holy war of self-defence’.80 However, only a few months after first lauding Germany’s military organisation, Deissmann referred to it as 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Pfarrer W. Brandl, cited in Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 282. Ibid., 277. Pr.WL, 6. 12. 1914, 1. Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1914, 3; 5. 2. 1915, 2. Pr.WL, 20. 12. 1914, 1. Pr.WL, 12. 2. 1915, 3. Pr.WL, 11. 9. 1915, 4. Compare this paragraph with Appendix 7, g. Pr.WL, 30. 4. 1915, 2. This is a reference to the battle of Tannenberg (17.8 – 2. 9. 1914), and to the subsequent first battle of the Masurian Lakes (9 – 14. 9. 1914). 80 Pr.WL, 29. 5. 1915, 4.

264

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

… our notorious German militarism. It is an awful fact, but none the less true, our militarism last winter began to influence our Christmas festival and the toys given the children. Even more awful it most certainly was, that innocent American children should have been drawn into the clutches of this German octopus. – My wife, namely, had presented my friend, Dr. Herbert Adams Gibbons, before his departure from Berlin with two soldier dolls in remembrance of his visit to us in the War Year 1914. Later he wrote us from Paris that his children had been charmed by their Christmas gift.81

During the first years of the war Deissmann showed distinct confidence in the Kaiser’s political integrity, by repeatedly endorsing him in his bulletins,82 even so, as an ‘alter Nationalsozialer’83 he was never Prussian at heart. Thus, on 24 December 1917 he printed a complete speech by Prinz Max von Baden, delivered ten days earlier at Karlsruhe, not only because it contained political criticism of Germany’s enemies, but more to the point, because it included the kind of political Selbstkritik he could easily publish despite censorship.84 Ten months later, while Deissmann was on a two-week speaking engagement in Sweden, Wilhelm II abdicated and Prinz Max von Baden took control of the new provisional government in preparation for what was to become the Weimar Republic. Deissmann’s reaction to the news is revealing, for it shows no nostalgic emotions at all regarding the dramatic collapse of Prussia’s royal tradition for which he once confessed ‘Liebe zum Kaiser und Reich’.85 Instead, he was now able to pronounce his view openly that the Wilhelmine Reichstag had been ‘ungeschickt’ in its foreign diplomacy,86 and had misled the public in regard to Belgium.87 Thus, he signed a public declaration in support of Max von Baden, ‘mit innerer Freudigkeit’, and stated: ‘Wir halten nicht zu dem Zertrîmmerten [i.e. Prussian monarchy], sondern zu dem Werdenden [democratic republic] … im großen Wandel der Dinge, den wir gut heißen …’.88 81 Pr.WL, 11. 9. 1915, 1. 82 Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1914, 3; 15. 2. 1915, 2; 19. 2. 1915, 1; 16. 4. 1915, 1; 23. 10. 1915, 1; 6. 11. 1915, 4; 18. 12. 1915, 1; 24. 12. 1915, 4; 18. 10. 1916, 2; 15. 12. 1916, 4; 1. 1. 1917, 2; Ev.Wbr, 28. 2. 1917, 3. 83 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 2. 84 Ev.Wbr, 24. 12. 1917, 7. 85 Ev.Wbr, 28. 2. 1917, 3. 86 Ev.Wbr, 20. 12. 1918, 8. 87 Ibid., 5. 88 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 2.

7.4. Changing perspectives in the Wochenbriefe

265

A similar shift is evident in Deissmann’s evaluation of Germany’s collective religious disposition. Whereas the initial Siegeslust phenomenon had engendered an ecclesiastical zealotry – which Deissmann at first overinterpreted as one of the ‘great religious movements in the history of the world’ (see above) – on the whole, it occurred mostly among the already practising Lutheran population. It was Siegmund-Schultze who pointed this out to Deissmann by reminding him that Die Arbeiterschaft der Grossstdte … von der christlichen Bewegung kaum berîhrt worden [ist] – ausser etwa in Wîrttemberg und im Wuppertal –; und die religiçse Bewegung ist schnell wieder verraucht. Gerade inbezug auf die Arbeiterschaft hat sich die Kirche die grosse Gelegenheit der ersten Wochen entgehen lassen, hauptschlich auch deshalb, weil die Fîhrer unserer Kirchen sich einbildeten, sie kçnnten durch die Erregung der ersten sechs Wochen die Arbeiterschaft innerhalb der Kirchen einfangen …89

Deissmann justified his sanguine view by replying somewhat lamely: ‘˜ber die religiçse Erweckung denke ich gînstiger als Sie, da ich das dabei Wildwachsende hçher schtze als Sie’.90 But once the war was over, his retrospective evaluation of the same phenomenon changed entirely, for now he observed: Die ersten Kriegsmonate mit ihrem îberwltigenden Gefîhle der vaterlndischen Not hatten zwar einen großen Aufschwung des religiçsen Lebens gebracht; die Kirchen waren îberfîllt, die Liebesgaben flossen îberreichlich … aber die furchtbaren Rtsel und Schicksale der Kriegszeit haben bei vielen eine Erkaltung des religiçsen Gefîhls zur Folge gehabt. Die uralten religiçsen Zweifel der Menschheit … brachten Unzhlige zur Verzweiflung, Skepsis oder religiçsen Apathie. In enger Wechselwirkung stand diese religiçse Ermîdung und Verdorrung mit dem bereits erwhnten moralischen Niedergang.91

This collapse of morale was a consequence of the overconfident national belief that Germany, by means of her ‘inner attitude’ and vigorous political engagement of all its citizens, regardless of social status, believed to have the strongest democracy on earth – a self-delusion that Deissmann also shared during the early stages of WWI (see above). It turned out to be an empty boast; for when the revolution came he assessed it as ‘keineswegs bîrgerlich-demokratisch’, even though he still 89 Siegmund-Schultze’s letter, 15.3.1915. 90 GAD’s letter, 18.3.1915. 91 Ev.Wbr, end of July, 1920, 59.

266

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

rejoiced in that the new German Republic would and could provide ‘Halt und Zuversicht’ for the future of his shattered nation.92 After von Hindenburg defeated Russia in 1914 his victory provided Deissmann with what he thought to be a conclusive demonstration of Germany’s superior might and Kultur. Yet his confidence was shortlived, for less than two years later he had come to realise that far from being beaten, ‘the two world-powers, England and Russia, are engaged in a war of conquest pure and simple’.93 At about that time, he also condemned some British and French atrocities which he believed had been inflicted on German missionaries within Germany’s protectorates Cameroon and Togo, and resolutely asserted: Mit dieser Verçffentlichung, die einen Einblick in die brutalen Methoden der englischen Organe gegen unsere westafrikanischen Missionare gestattet, ist die deutsche Prîfung der englischen Angaben îber die Vorflle in Kamerun und Togo abgeschlossen.94

Here it becomes evident that he also revised his evaluation of documented information – even from governmental sources – since he replaced much of his earlier patriotic enthusiasm with greater caution, and even scepticism. For when he wrote about similar war atrocities a year later, he handled it with a far more balanced approach. Ein neues Kapitel der lngst zu einer festen Kriegseinrichtung gewordenen Atrozittenhetze! Ich habe mich außerordentlich viel mit diesen Dingen beschftigt und bin im allgemeinen sehr ruhig und sehr kritisch, wenn ich von neuen “Fllen” hçre. Es ist z. B. ein kriegspsychologisches Gesetz, dass in einem Kriege jeder Erfolg des Gegners von der unterliegenden Seite als Tiefpunkt diabolischer Verworfenheit empfunden und durch leidenschaftliche Einzelverlsterungen nach einem ganz bestimmten festen Greuelschema quittiert wird: Suglinge auf Bajonetten, geschndete Nonnen, lebendig gebratene Priester, Pistolenschießen betrunkener Generle und Prinzen auf den Kruzifixus usw. Als Zeugen werden in der Regel “Korrespondenten” zitiert, die tausend Kilometer von den angeblichen Ereignissen entfernt leben.95

92 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 2. 93 Ev.Wbr, 15. 1. 1917, 1 (unpublished; see ch. 7.2). 94 Ev.Wbr, 21. 3. 1917, 1. ‘Verçffentlichung’ refers to the German White Book, for which see ch. 7.5. 95 Ev.Wbr, 15. 3. 1918, 2.

7.4. Changing perspectives in the Wochenbriefe

267

At the beginning of WWI Deissmann was completely convinced that Germany was in mortal danger from Britain’s Einkreisungspolitik,96 brought into effect through the triple entente. This wholly reinforced and justified his initial belief in the exigency of national defence, to the point where he affirmed: ‘from its very beginning before God and the entire world we have declared a holy war for self-defence’.97 However, three-and-a-half years later, when von Hindenburg’s jubilant victories had been wiped from Germany’s collective memories by the tribulations of his beaten, demoralised and ‘God-forsaken’ country, Deissmann expressed the question that plagued the whole nation: Warum? Die qulende Frage nach dem Sinne des Unheils, die Frage, die unter den grauenhaften Erlebnissen der vier letzten Jahre in Hunderttausenden von Einzelmenschen schon erwacht war, bedrngt uns jetzt alle als Volksgemeinschaft. Warum mußte das alles îber uns kommen? Ist denn aller hoher Opfersinn, alle Vaterlandstreue, alle Pflichterfîllung unserer Besten umsonst gewesen? Umsonst das Hinsterben der Blîte der Nation? Hîtet euch, in leidenschaftlicher Verbitterung diese Frage rasch zu bejahen.98

Like most Germans, he once believed implicitly that God would liberate their beleaguered nation, vindicate her Kultur and establish Luther’s homeland amongst the leading nations of the world. Thus fortified with divine authority, how could they possibly lose? Yet now that the reality and scale of their nationwide devastation had begun to set in, their one time euphoria gave way to a profound and pervasive anguish. Es gibt nur einen Weg, der zu einer Verneinung des “Umsonst!” und zu einer Bejahung der Sinnfrage fîhrt … 1914 wurden wir auf den Adlersfittigen einer ungeheueren vçlkischen Seelenbewegung emporgerissen zu den Hçhen der Gnade; 1919 mîssen wir auf zerrissenen Sohlen keuchend und stçhnend an schwindelnden Abgrînden vorîber langsam den Pfad erklimmen zu den Bergen, von denen unsere Hilfe kommt.99 Die einzige Mçglichkeit, in den Erschîtterungen des qulenden Geschehens innerlich aufrecht zu bleiben, liegt in dem trotzigen Anschlusse an den lebendigen Gott.100 96 On 14. 11. 1906 the Chancellor, Prince Bernhard Heinrich Karl Martin von Bîlow (1849 – 1929), had mooted the idea in a Reichstag address that Germany was being encircled by a constellation of surrounding European powers. Subsequently, this notion of national Einkreisung became widely believed and feared throughout the country. 97 Pr.WL, 29. 5. 1915, 4. 98 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 6 – 7. This was written five days after the Armistice. 99 A reference to Ps. 121:1. 100 Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 7.

268

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Notwithstanding censorship during the war period, Deissmann’s bulletins provide an excellent record of how his prewar perspectives changed during the seven years of their publication, yet his Christian optimism remained unwavering throughout, even in times of painful soulsearching. Neither did he lose sight of the original aim of his bulletins: ‘Verstndigung unter den Vçlkern und der Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt’. Steadfastly he managed to adhere to this formula as part of his philosophical investigation of how war and religion interact in societies, and how this very interaction can be used to bring nations together through mutual humanitarian appreciation. It bears repeating here, though, that the theme – indeed, the initial purpose of the bulletins – was to search for an answer to the ethical dilemma that the war presented for Christians, and to Protestants in particular. The question for whom this answer was actually intended is particularly interesting, for since the bulletins frequently point to Deissmann as the principal beneficiary it infuses them with a quasi-autobiographical value, during what was arguably his most life-changing years (see ch. 7.6). By writing these regular reports he was continually faced with the difficult challenge of articulating his personal ideas and perceptions, in the full knowledge that these would then be read and critiqued by a wide variety of Christians internationally.

7.5. Deissmann’s sources for his Wochenbriefe Although he had acquired some editorial practice with the Constructive Quarterly (see ch. 7.2), when Deissmann began to write his own bulletins he had no experience at all with wartime propaganda and the deliberate leaking of counter-information. His na€vet¤ in this regard is reflected by his impulsive reaction to a wild rumour of an antiGerman atrocity in Belgium that was supposed to have happened three months before he commenced his bulletins, but of which he later admitted: Ich habe damals, noch vçllig unerfahren in diesen Dingen, die Sache zunchst geglaubt und selbst auch weitergegeben; als ich aber bald darauf zweifelhaft wurde und nhere Nachforschungen anstellen ließ, hçrte ich, dass … [es] eine Fiktion sei. Seitdem habe ich mich eingehender mit der

7.5. Deissmann’s sources for his Wochenbriefe

269

Atrozittenpropaganda beschftigt und sehe auf Grund meiner inzwischen gewonnenen grçßeren Erfahrung in der … Nachricht glatten Schwindel.101

The veracity of Deissmann’s reports was thoroughly contingent on the integrity of his sources, and paramount to his stated objective of Vçlkerverstndigung and international Christian solidarity. As a philologist, he understood the importance of source-criticism well and, therefore, had quickly learnt that the war gave rise to ‘an immense number of false individual reports’.102 Since his bulletins depended to a large degree on contributed material, his philosophy for determining ‘publication-value’ can be summed up broadly in his statement that ‘accounts which are not personally signed and dated nor indicate the exact location, and such whose authority is not backed up by the name of an absolutely trustworthy personality, should only be regarded as sources of second or third rate’.103 Notwithstanding his claim early in the series that ‘in my communications I have been especially careful to back my statements with names and sources …’,104 these are not always easy to verify, as vague allusions tend to be fairly common. For example: ‘a person well acquainted with the existing conditions [wrote] …’;105 ‘ich bin nicht ermchtigt die Namen des Adressaten und des Briefschreibers zu nennen …’;106 or, ‘ein Freund in einem neutralen Land schreibt mir …’.107 However, the lack of precise source documentation does not diminish the reliability of Deissmann’s bulletins; on the contrary, it allowed him to pass on particulars while shielding his informants from the prying eyes of both German and British censors. Although he was supported by the Auswrtiges Amt, Deissmann’s specifics came largely from sources which were not connected with it. Between December 1914 and December 1918 (i. e. covering the era of German military censorship) the bulletins include approximately 600 instances where sources can be more or less identified. Of them some 39 % (c. 235) originated from Germany, followed with 19 % (c. 115) 101 Ev.Wbr, 22. 8. 1918, 6. The report asserted that the son of a German Pfarrer was, ‘in Kreuzform an die Zimmerwand genagelt worden’. 102 Pr.WL, 12. 3. 1915, 1. 103 Ibid. 104 Pr.WL, 9. 4. 1915, 3. 105 Pr.WL, 27. 11. 1915, 2. 106 Ev.Wbr, 30. 7. 1919, 2. 107 Ev.Wbr, 7. 10. 1917, 8.

270

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

from the USA – although these ceased after January 1917 – 10 % (c. 60) from England, 8 % (c. 50) from Switzerland, 6.5 % (c. 40) from France and 4 % (c. 25) from Sweden. Other countries from which Deissmann received and cited data were (in descending order of frequency): Holland, Italy, Scotland, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Cameroon, Poland, Spain, Canada, India, Ireland, Japan, Palestine, Panama and Turkey. No significant changes occurred in this respect after the Armistice, except that American reports began to appear again amongst the c. 200 sources given between January 1919 and January 1920. But Deissmann now referred to the USA less than half as often – 8.5 % (c. 17) – than before 1917, whilst sources from within Germany increased slightly to 45 % (c. 90).108 This reflects not so much anti-American sentiments on the editor’s behalf as the effects of Britain’s strongly increased postwar naval blockade and the concomitant change of readership. But Deissmann’s use of sources can be further broken up, in round numbers, as follows for the publication period between 1914 and 1918:109 Foreign publications110 German publications Foreign correspondence111 German correspondence Foreign formal statements112 German formal statements Personal meetings with foreigners113 Personal meetings with Germans

................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ...................

33 % 18 % 11 % 9% 7% 3% 1% 2%

(200) (110) (65) (55) (45) (20) (5) (10)

108 Other countries GAD drew material from during that particular period were (in descending order of frequency): Britain, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, France, Norway, Belgium and Finland. 109 Some of GAD’s sources only show their country of origin, which is why the sum of the following table falls short by c. 14 % of the 600 mentioned on previous page. 110 ‘Publications’ includes material drawn from articles, booklets, brochures, essays, journals, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and general reports. 111 ‘Correspondence’ includes material drawn from private letters, memos and telegrams. 112 ‘Formal statements’ includes material drawn from public appeals, declarations, manifestos, petitions, proclamations, records, resolutions and published statements. 113 ‘Personal meetings’ includes material drawn from personal interviews and meetings with individuals or organisations.

271

7.5. Deissmann’s sources for his Wochenbriefe

Foreign governmental sources114 German governmental sources

................... 1 % ................... 1 %

(5) (5)

These statistics change only slightly after the war, although between January 1919 and January 1920 a perceptible increase in the use of foreign formal statements begins to occur. While this shift gravitates primarily in support of Germany as a nation, there is a concomitant absence of governmental sources, although this is hardly surprising, given the collapse of the Wilhelmine bureaucracy and subsequent political revolution. Foreign publications German publications Foreign correspondence German correspondence Foreign formal statements German formal statements

................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ...................

1919 – 20 27 % (c. 55) 25 % (c. 50) 5 % (c. 10) 8 % (c. 15) 17 % (c. 35) 7.5 % (c. 15)

1914 – 18 33 % È 18 % É 11 % È 9% È 7% É 3% É

6% 7% 6% 1% 10 % 4.5 %

This statistical overview not only establishes where Deissmann drew the substance of his data from, but also that the resources on which his bulletins were based remained reasonably stable throughout the entire period of the conflict and its immediate aftermath. Much of the documentation he made use of was mailed to him from abroad, and that in ever increasing amounts. Thus, he made occasionally revealing comments about it; for example: ‘Aus meinem Leserkreise erhalte ich fast tglich wertvolle literarische Erscheinungen …’;115 or, ‘… ich habe darîber [Cameroon] viele Zeitungsausschnitte und anderes Material erhalten …’;116 and in another place: ‘… from an acquaintance in Arkansas … [who] enclosed newspaper clippings …’.117 Sometimes he also provided lengthy acknowledgment lists, which reveal the large circle of international correspondents who supplied him with relevant reportages.118 It is well to remember that his initial readership consisted primarily of influential intellectuals within America, although this eventually spread to other nations as 114 ‘Governmental sources’ includes material drawn from Britain’s Blue Book, Germany’s White Book, and government reports. 115 Ev.Wbr, 7. 9. 1918, 7. 116 Bericht, 4. 7. 1916, 16. 117 Pr.WL, 18. 9. 1915, 1. 118 e.g. Ev.Wbr, 28. 9. 1919, 14 – 16; 31. 12. 1919, 21 – 3.

272

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

well. After 1917, when the bulletins began to be mailed to an increasing number of recipients throughout Germany, Deissmann’s address-lists also begin to show more readers in other European countries, ranging from Czechoslovakia to France, from Switzerland to Scandinavia and from Britain to Turkey. Not uncommonly these also tended to enjoy access to privileged information that would otherwise have been unobtainable for Deissmann, yet which, on account of their common goal of Christian solidarity and personal trust, they would make available to him for publication in the bulletins. Much of this material was in a non-German language (mostly French or English), and thus enabled him to acquire intelligence from a greatly increased pool of reliable contacts. Despite some contemporary detractors (see ch. 7.6), the engaging style of his bulletins tended to bring about a kind of bonding effect between writer and reader, particularly since he answered all correspondence personally, and through this formed an extensive network of international friends. Eine neben den gedruckten “Wochen-Briefen” einhergehende internationale tgliche Einzelkorrespondenz ist nach wie vor ein Hauptteil meiner Arbeit. Ich mçchte sie, obwohl sie mich wegen ihres Umfangs zu Zeiten zu erdrîcken droht, nicht missen. Wertvollstes Material und wertvollste persçnliche Beziehungen verdankte ich ihr auch in den trîben Zeiten der Sperre.119

One example of the kind of ‘most valuable material’ that he was able to obtain through his foreign contacts is the British Blue Book, for it had come to him from England via some unnamed Swiss readers of his bulletins.120 Soon after the outbreak of war the Reichstag issued a kind of ‘warapologia’ in book-form. It included 27 high-level diplomatic telegrams and letters, and its text was produced with the overt aim of convincing the German public that their nation was acting in martial self-defence against Russia. The publication became commonly known as the German White Book and was quickly taken up as a model by the British Parliament, who responded with a Blue Book that comprised 159 documents.121 Although these publications offered a considerable 119 Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1919, 3. 120 Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 4. 121 S.B. Fay, The origins of the World War, New York, 19382 (1928), 3 – 8. See also Snyder, 311 – 12.

7.6. Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe

273

but very selective amount of factual information, they were, in fact, selfserving governmental propaganda and, therefore, had to be interpreted with caution. In respect to Germany’s White Book, for instance, Erzberger bemoaned the fact that it only presented ‘ein mangelhaftes Bild der schwrzesten acht Tage der Weltgeschichte’,122 which might perhaps explain why Deissmann cited it only once during the war, whereas he made reference to Britain’s Blue Book five times. It must be remembered that the bulletins were not only restricted to, but also dependent on, a generally well-informed and well-principled primary readership whose reliability was often testable.123 This became increasingly the case as Deissmann’s data collection began to accumulate on account of his massive two-way correspondence, which allowed him to cross-reference and countercheck much of the material he received against what he already had.

7.6. Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe Already by 1916 this relentlessly increasing correspondence and its associated research was consuming most of Deissmann’s waking hours. All his academic projects had come to a halt; but with his bulletins he was able to create a unique historical record, not only through their very publication, but even more so because of the correspondence and documentary resource they engendered. Zu den umfassenden fortlaufenden Korrespondenzreihen mit mehr oder weniger offiziellen Stellen kam … ein tglicher Brief- und Postkartenverkehr mit sehr vielen Einzellesern des In- und Auslandes … Das Brief- und Dokumenten-Archiv des “Ev. Wochenbrief ” ist, das versteht sich nach diesen Andeutungen von selbst, ein wohl einzigartiger Spiegel der seelischen Geschichte der sieben Kriegsjahre … Mehr und mehr wurde so von Jahr zu Jahr der “Ev. Wochenbrief ” zu einem Stîck persçnlichsten Lebens, das mir unbeschreiblich wichtig und lieb geworden ist … Seit etwa 1916 habe ich so gut wie meine ganze nicht der Lehrttigkeit an der Universitt gewidmete freie Zeit diesem Werk gewidmet … Meine großen

122 Erzberger, 4. 123 Since the bulletins were also sent to many institutions (see n. 20 above), their secondary – i. e. non-subscription – circulation must have reached a much wider although somewhat less restricted readership, through the practice of borrowing and lending individual copies (see ch. 7.3).

274

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

wissenschaftlichen Lebensaufgaben habe ich in aller dieser Zeit zurîckgestellt.124

The question must be posed, therefore, whether these seven years of Deissmann’s life might not have been spent more productively on academic pursuits. For while he himself regarded his bulletins and their associated private archive to be of considerable significance, not everyone shared this view, and opposition was to be expected. His most extreme detractor was the Swiss Leonhard Ragaz (see ch. 7.3), who maligned Deissmann’s character and motives on the basis of some limited knowledge of his bulletins, without understanding either their objectives, nor having ever met the author. Die Kriegspropaganda in ihrer Aufdringlichkeit, ja Frechheit, ihrer Plumpheit und Raffiniertheit gehçrt zum Gemeinsten, was der Weltkrieg ans Licht gebracht hat … Verchtlich aber wird sie uns, wo sie auf Schleichwegen ihr Ziel sucht und ekelhaft vollends, wo sie ideale Masken aufsetzt … Davon ein Beispiel die Ttigkeit des Professors der Theologie Adolf Deißmann … Dieser Mann … lsst seit langer Zeit sogenannte “Evangelische Wochenbriefe” ausgehen, die sich besonders an die Neutralen wenden und zahlreichen unter diesen zugestellt werden … Sie treiben ganz einfach Propaganda, und diese nun eben in einer verdeckten Form. Das ist es, was wir als ungehçrig empfinden …125

A month later, after Deissmann had – with obvious restraint – briefly mentioned this editorial outburst in the Notizen section of his bulletins,126 Ragaz reacted with even greater vitriol: Prof. Deißmann … fordert also Schweizer auf, mit ihm îber ihren Landsmann [i.e. Ragaz] zu Gericht zu sitzen. Das ist ein Mangel an jedem Gefîhl des Taktes und Anstandes, ja eine Frechheit, wie sie nur einem solchen Propagandisten einfallen kann. Wenn sie draußen in ihren Blttern abschlachten (in contumaciam!), wer ihnen in neutralen Lndern 124 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 275. 125 Cited in Ev.Wbr, 26. 4. 1918, 2. 126 i. e. ‘Professor Ragaz hat, wie mir mehrere Korrespondenten aus der Schweiz mitteilen, in der Mrznummer seiner Zeitschrift “Neue Wege” einen außerordentlich heftigen Angriff auf mich und meine Wochenbriefe gerichtet. Ein Korrespondent schreibt, der Artikel sei eine Verunglimpfung; ein anderer sagt, Ragaz verdchtige die Ehrlichkeit meines Verstndigungsbestrebens. Ich habe den Angriff seither nicht zu Gesicht bekommen, werde mich aber, auch wenn er noch bçsartiger ist, als er den Schweizer Briefschreibern vorkommt, von Ragaz nicht auf den alten, vorevangelischen Weg in der Behandlung des Nchsten drngen lassen.’ Ev.Wbr, 29. 3. 1918, 9.

7.6. Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe

275

unbequem ist, habeant sibi, aber vom Ausland her in einem fîr die Schweiz bestimmten Blatte vor Schweizern eine solche Verhandlung vorzunehmen, empfinde ich als Gipfel der Unverschmtheit. Man stelle sich einmal vor, das Umgekehrte geschhe. Das gbe einen Lrm! … O du armer Tropf!127

Despite these bizarre claims, Ragaz must have known that the bulletins were not targeted at a Swiss readership, neither could Deissmann’s conciliatory answer have possibly incited Swiss against Swiss. In Germany it was Martin Rade who came to Deissmann’s defence, by writing in his Christliche Welt that Ragaz’s outburst was the most abusive personal polemic he had come across in years, and protested: ‘Seine Sprache ist so maßlos, daß unsereinem darîber die Sprache vergeht’.128 However, the bulletins’ strongest vindication came from within Switzerland itself, namely from Ragaz’s compatriot in Basel, Professor Paul Wernle (1872 – 1939). He wrote in the Swiss Protestant Kirchenblatt an extensive but balanced defence of Deissmann, in which he reasoned that the task which the latter had set himself was eine der allerschwersten Aufgaben, die sich heute ein Christ stellen kann! Und fîr einen deutschen Theologen vielleicht ganz besonders schwer, da man … seiner Verstndigungsabsicht mit grçßtem Mißtrauen begegnen wird. Man wird hier einen Deutschen nur dann zum Worte kommen lassen, wenn er zuerst die ‘Verbrechen’ seines Volkes bekennt und dadurch der gegnerischen Auffassung recht gibt.129

He commended Deissmann for his ‘ungewçhnliches Maß von Selbstbeherrschung’ in the face of Ragaz’s insults and declared that he felt obliged to explain publicly to the former, daß man auch in der evangelischen Schweiz îber diese Behandlung [Ragaz] empçrt ist, und ihn [Deißmann] zu bitten, doch in keiner Weise seine Verstndigungsarbeit dadurch bestimmen zu lassen … Deißmann versuchte … aus allen feindlichen Lndern die edeln, menschlichen und christlichen Zîge zu sammeln, damit von hier aus das Bewußtsein der Solidaritt selbst mitten im Krieg nicht ganz untergehe und sich und die Seinen stets daran zu erinnern: dort drîben sind Brîder, sind Christen, sind Menschen, die trotz allem und allem mit uns zusammengehçren.130

127 128 129 130

Cited in Ev.Wbr, 26. 4. 1918, 3. ChrW, 25. 7. 1918, cited in Ev.Wbr, 10. 8. 1918, 3. Cited in Ev.Wbr, 10. 8. 1918, 3. Ibid., 5. See also Appendix 7, d.

276

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Despite Ragaz’s charges of war propaganda, Deissmann’s bulletins maintained their integrity: ‘Verstndigung unter den Vçlkern und … Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt’. In this respect they were without equal, despite the many outwardly similar publications which existed during the war, such as the Christliche Stimmen in Switzerland, Die Eiche in Germany, Goodwill in Britain, International Christendom in Holland and Meddelande in Sweden. None could compete with Deissmann’s highly individualistic bulletin for Vçlkerverstndigung, and the Swiss Professor Wilhelm Hadorn (1869 – 1929), editor of Der Kirchenfreund, rightly asserted: Die Wochenbriefe sind in einem so çkumenisch, wahrhaft versçhnenden Geiste geschrieben, daß sie tatschlich ein Kristallisationspunkt der Friedens- und Verstndigungsbestrebungen wurde, welchem kein anderes derartiges Unternehmen an die Seite gestellt werden kann.131

But one man who continued to question Deissmann’s motives for writing the bulletins, even after their publication had long ended, was Hans Lietzmann (1875 – 1942) the church historian, classical philologist and successor of Adolf von Harnack. He had known Deissmann since at least 1908,132 and after moving to Berlin in 1923 had an uneasy relationship with the latter, since he had formed a low view of Deissmann’s intellectual capacity, on the basis of his perceived mild personality.133 Yet in 1937, when it fell on him to present the 131 Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1918, 6. For a fuller extract see Appendix 7, e. 132 That autumn, the publisher Paul Siebeck wrote to GAD on behalf of Lietzmann, asking whether he would write part of the latter’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, to speed up its publication (Siebeck, letter to GAD, 17. 10. 1908). GAD declined, but suggested the Wiesbaden Pfarrer Heinrich Schlosser (1874 – 1942) instead, after which he wrote in a highly abbreviated letter draft, addressed to Lietzmann: ‘Ich habe mit H[err] Pfr. Liz. H. Sch[losser] W[iesbaden] korr[espondiert]. Er hatte anfangs Bedenken wegen Mangels an Bîchern. Ich ermutigte ihn jedoch, die Sache so zu sehen: er arbeitet erst mit unvollk[ommenen] biblioth[ekarischen] Mitteln am Entwurf des Komm[entars] zu Hebr. 1, kommt dann einige Wochen hierher, wo ihm mein Sem[inar] zur unbeschr[nkten] Verfîgung steht; Sie selbst werden zu dem so verbessertem MS gewiss auch einiges beisteuern, was ich natîrlich auch da und dort tun will.’ Briefentwurf, dated 7.11.1908. See also Loeschke’s letter, ch. 4, n. 83. The intimate and unguarded register of its writer suggests that Loeschke knew Lietzmann to share his low view of GAD. 133 Lietzmann eventually (1933) plotted GAD’s removal from the Notgemeinschaft because of this: see Appendix 7, f. The tension between them appears to have become inflamed over GAD’s Proseminars, for in 1926 Lietzmann wrote to

7.6. Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe

277

University’s commemorative lecture for Deissmann, he paid tribute to his Verstndigungsarbeit, but then cited a British newspaper article, ostensibly to illustrate the wide polarity of opinions the latter’s bulletins had engendered: Das Ausland hat ihn um seiner Wochenbriefe willen gescholten, und auch im Inland war mancher nicht mit ihm einverstanden. Nun – als seine Todeskunde in die Welt klang, schrieb eine angesehene englische Zeitung: “Im Kriege war er ein deutscher Propagandist, den England zu fîrchten guten Grund hatte. Er war verantwortlich fîr die deutsch-freundliche Einstellung in den Vereinigten Staaten und verzçgerte in mancher Hinsicht Amerikas Eintritt in den Krieg”.134

Propagandist on the one hand, international political influence on the other! Unfortunately Lietzmann did not provide the source of his citation, and despite considerable efforts I have not been able to discover either its origin or its author. At any rate, Lietzmann’s reported claim is not only overstated but also betrays a considerable lack of insight into Deissmann’s mindset and actual work. In the first place, ‘England’ certainly never had a reason to ‘fear’ him – the archbishop of Canterbury, or the Dean of St. Paul’s would readily have testified to this.135 As for America’s national attitude towards Germany, one should bear in mind that the recipients of the bulletins in the early stages of its publication consisted mostly of Germanophiles. And so, for Lietzmann to cite such an equivocal claim about Deissmann’s him: ‘Zu den Grundstzen, die das akademische Leben regeln und von denen meiner Meinung nach auch in Kleinigkeiten niemals und nirgends abgewichen werden darf, schon um des Beispiels willen, das wir andern Kollegen zu geben verpflichtet sind, gehçrt der § 36 unserer Fakulttsstatuten, der meines Wissens an allen Universitten Geltung hat. Nun sind Sie der Meinung, daß der langjhrige Brauch Ihres Proseminar eine Ausnahme von dieser Grundregel rechtfertigt. Dieser Meinung kann ich mich nicht anschließen.’ Lietzmann, letter to GAD, 26. 4. 1926, in Aland, 511. 134 H. Lietzmann, ‘Adolf Deissmann zum Gedchtnis. Rede bei der Gedenkfeier der Theologischen Fakultt zu Berlin am 18. Juni 1937’, ZNW, 35, 1937. 304. See also ch. 8.4. 135 GAD wrote: ‘So hatte ich wiederholt einen Briefwechsel mit dem Erzbischof von Canterbury. Der “Ev. Wochenbrief ” selbst ist in mehreren Fllen von bedeutenden Kirchenmnnern Großbritanniens çffentlich und nicht unfreundlich erwhnt und verwertet worden, am bemerkenswertesten wohl durch den Dean von St. Paul’s (London) Dr. Inge in seiner großen Rede vor dem Anglikanischen Kirchenkongreß zu Schottland im Oktober 1920.’ Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov., 1921, 275. The veracity of GAD’s claim could easily have been verified by his readers.

278

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

bulletins in a memorial lecture was, in effect, an endorsement of the assertions made by some of the latter’s detractors at the end of the war, that he had merely engaged in war propaganda. Lietzmann does not emerge well from this ambivalent address, for he appears to have allowed his personal dislike of Deissmann to distort his judgement to such a degree that he used this solemn occasion to cast inexplicit aspersions on his colleague’s wartime achievements. To be fair, however, it was sometimes easy to misunderstand the real objectives behind the bulletins, and single editions and paragraphs – especially if they were quoted outside their overarching context – could believably be construed as German propaganda. Deissmann was well aware of this, and cautioned that his bulletins were not to be understood as some kind of war chronicle. Instead, they represented individual fragments within his international work of Verstndigungsarbeit. I also concede that the whole technique of my letters is imperfect, because, taken separately, they are composed of single pictures and for this reason can never represent a complete whole. Each letter is only a fragment, and all combined do not constitute an unbroken comprehensive view.136

Deissmann’s bulletins had never been intended to provide leverage for political decision-makers in any country, nor were they meant to stir up some grass-roots movement amongst the neutrals against the entente. If either of this had been the case, his enterprise would clearly have been a failure. Moreover, his practice of expressly restricting the subscriber list to a select and predominantly Protestant readership would have been equally senseless. Rather, the bulletins were designed to act as an informative forum for Vçlkerverstndigung, through a consistent strengthening and encouraging of international Christian solidarity. While they were not apolitical, their fundamental theme revolved mostly around socioreligious and not political matters. Indeed, after receiving the final edition, Nathan Sçderblom – a member of the Swedish Academy and future Nobel laureate – commended them as a highly significant religious work. Die große Freude îber die letzte Nummer des Evangelischen Wochenbriefes wird getrîbt durch die Nachricht, dass Sie diese hoch bedeutsame geistliche und evangelische Tat nach so vielen Jahren von Mîhe, Tapferkeit und selbst136 Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 6. Although written relatively early in the war, this had not changed markedly by their conclusion in 1921.

7.6. Appraisal of the Wochenbriefe

279

îberwindender Geduld jetzt aufgeben mîssen. Schade dass diese Kundgebung des besten evangelischen Geistes in Deutschland nicht einige Jahre weiter dauern kann … Diese Bltter werden in der Geschichte der Kirche eine ehrenvolle Stellung fîr immer behalten.137

Rising production costs had threatened the bulletin’s future as early as January 1920, when Deissmann wrote to Sçderblom, ‘ich hoffe, daß es mir gelingen wird, die Ev. Wbr. auch 1920 weiterzufîhren. Wir stehen in der deutschen Presse vor katastrophalen Schwierigkeiten mit Papier, Druckerlçhne usw’.138 Seven weeks later (8 March) he collapsed, suffering from a severe intestinal disease and internal bleeding, and ‘todkrank zusammengebrochen’ he remained bedridden for two months. The time afforded for reflection helped him come to the decision that he would have to bring his bulletins to an end, and return ‘zum gelehrten Schaffen … wenn irgend Gott der Herr mir die volle Kraft zurîckgeben wîrde’.139 Eventually, it was at the Stuttgart Kirchentag in September 1921 when he concluded that the circumstances were now right to terminate the bulletins, for there he found an opportunity to pass the baton of his Verstndigungsarbeit to others. Ich [bin] durch die Tatsache, daß dem Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenbund in Stuttgart als eine seiner Arbeiten die Pflege der evangelischen Gemeinbîrgerschaft mit den außerdeutschen Kirchen zugewiesen worden ist, innerlich recht erleichtert worden. Nachdem diese çkumenische Aufgabe vom deutschen Protestantismus als solchem nunmehr anerkannt worden ist, werden sich andere Arbeiter finden, die, vielleicht in anderer Weise, aber nicht in einem anderen Geiste, diesem großen Werk sich hingeben.140

A few months after producing his last bulletin Deissmann was invited to assume the position of Landesbischof over Nassau, to replace Ludwig Nebel who had been president of the Darmstadt Oberkonsistorium since 1907. As a young Pfarrerkandidat, more than two decades earlier, Deissmann had once written to this Consistory that he intended to return to the church ministry after academic studies (see ch. 1.2). Now, however, he decided not to waste the experience which he had gained through the bulletins and, therefore, accepted a Lehrauftrag from his 137 Sçderblom, letter to GAD, 25.1.1922. 138 GAD’s letter, 26.1.1920. 139 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 275; see Appendix 7, g. The Ev.Wbr lapsed between end of Feb. and mid-June, see Appendix 7, b. 140 Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 276.

280

7. Evangelischer Wochenbrief and Protestant Weekly Letter

Faculty instead, to teach a new course, entitled: ‘Einfîhrung in das Pressewesen des Protestantismus’.141 Die Arbeit am “Evangelischen Wochenbrief ” hatte mir eine Fîlle auslndischer Pressebeziehungen und eine nicht unbetrchtliche Kenntnis der auslndischen kirchlichen Presse eingebracht. Diese Erfahrung wollte ich nicht brach liegen lassen und habe mir daher … einem Ruf nach der Heimat, als Landesbischof von Nassau, nicht Folge leisten[d], einen Lehrauftrag fîr das Pressewesen des Protestantismus geben lassen und seither wiederholt Vorlesungen und ˜bungen îber dieses Gebiet gehalten. Mir erscheint die Ausbildung tîchtiger Pressefachleute fîr die jetzt ganz auf sich selbst gestellte Kirche besonders wichtig zu sein. Pastorale Salbungen und schmauchende Langsamkeit allein tun es da nicht, und wir kçnnen von der Technik namentlich der angelschsischen kirchlichen Presse noch sehr viel lernen.142

7.7. Conclusion With his bulletins, Deissmann had not only created an important heritage of reliable primary and secondary sources for church or religious historians, but also preserved a wealth of otherwise no longer extant (or accessible) material that can throw considerable light on crucial aspects vis-”-vis the German Protestant understanding of the Great War. Yet historically valuable record as it may be, if that alone were the totality of its worth one might wonder whether Deissmann really did direct his energies to best effect over those seven fraught years. As a matter of fact, it may be suggested that there is another, far more significant point to draw from this enterprise: its effect on the man himself. What made Deissmann’s bulletins distinctive? Partly it was their highly individualistic approach to Vçlkerverstndigung, and partly that the addressees were carefully targeted people of authority, ability and articulation. The latter may qualify the bulletins as an effective piece of propaganda – if, indeed, ‘propaganda’ were the right word. But it is not, for Deissmann was willing to criticise things done by either side in the conflict; and his bulletins’ continuation for some years after the war speaks against this being their intention. 141 For GAD’s lecture program on this topic, see Appendix 9, e. 142 SD, 73. Bock was clearly wrong when he claimed (45): ‘Auch îbernahm er [GAD] den Lehrauftrag fîr das Pressewesen des Protestantismus nicht, den man ihm in der gleichen Zeit anbot’.

7.7. Conclusion

281

When the war threatened a European-wide breakdown in Christian solidarity, Deissmann’s shift from social politics to the production of regular bulletins was a consistent extension of his innate humanitarianism. Is it, therefore, appropriate to see through his altruistic publication and his own experience of the war that the one-time Pfarrer, who had striven to become a philological theologian, was now on the way back to seeing himself as a kind of Pfarrer once again? Not, that is, a Pfarrer in a local congregation, nor even in a Land as a bishop (see ch. 7.6) – but in a wider, international ministry of peace among man. His abandoning of philological work did not happen because of Preuschen’s lexicon (see ch. 2.5), but because he came to realise through the war years that there was a different and – now – more pressing task that he needed to do. The archaeology of Ephesus fitted in with this, because it involved realia which had points of contact with philology, and such realia offered a greater immediacy of contact and accessibility for those with a special interest in NT studies. The bulletins gave Deissmann an opening through which he could systematically explore the phenomenon ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, while simultaneously strengthening goodwill and solidarity amongst Christians everywhere. Thus, it developed into a unique and on the whole widely respected forum for Vçlkerverstndigung, both during and immediately after the war. This gained him not only an international network of highly influential friends, but also a worldwide reputation as an ambassador for peace, and consequently put him in an ideal position for his active ecumenical endeavours, of which more will be said in the next chapter.

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism The scientific investigator can never be satisfied with the mere repetition of the opinions of authorities. All respect is due to the authorities; without them we could have done nothing. But our ultimate purpose is not to ascertain the opinion of another about the truth, but rather to find the truth for ourselves as we see it.1

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers Since Deissmann is (and was) typically thought of primarily as a theologian,2 I must point out here that this chapter is not intended to be a treatise on ‘Deissmann the theologian’, nor is it a detailed account or evaluation of all his ecumenical and ecclesiastical activities. Instead, it focuses on certain aspects of consequence, which emanated from his personal belief-system and proceeded to shape his views on life – and implicitly, his ecumenical motives – in matters as diverse as pacifism, war theology, the idea of a German God, anti-Semitism and international relations. It is the sum total of these which distinguished Deissmann from contemporary German ecumenists. *

*

*

Deissmann’s WWI-driven preoccupation with the ethical dilemma of war and religion (see ch. 7.2) has undoubtedly affected his Christian faith and contributed considerably to the changes in some of his prewar beliefs. Perhaps the most far-reaching of these can be seen in the transformation of his thinking on the subject of the controversial neo-Lutheran Zweireichelehre.3 1 2 3

GAD, Haskell Lectures, 6. e. g. E. Bock, O. Dibelius, G. Frischmuth, C. Markschies, C. Nottmeier, E. Plîmacher, K.-W. Trçger, J. de Villiers. For particulars see Bibliography. Alternative spelling: ‘Zwei-Reiche-Lehre’. Although this doctrine had underpinned Lutheranism for almost 400 years, the German epithet itself was first coined by

284

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Although it embodied within itself a latent potential for the ‘most disastrous consequences’,4 at the time when WWI broke out, Deissmann’s Christian faith certainly reflected this ideology. On 12 November 1914, when he gave the earlier mentioned public speech on the topic ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’ (see ch. 7.2), he made copious use of its slogans, in the evident belief that this dualist concept – although at that time not yet systematically analysed by contemporary theologians – constituted the widest acceptable Lutheran orthodoxy.5 … die Kriegsartikel und das Vaterunser stammen aus zwei unîberbrîckbar voneinander geschiedenen Welten … Wir machten da gar keinen Unterschied mehr zwischen der Masse und den Fîhrerpersçnlichkeiten, denn wir sahen keinen Unterschied mehr … ich bin îberzeugt, daß die bei uns Verantwortlichen, ich nenne nur den Kaiser und den Kanzler, weil sie fromm sind, das tiefe Grauen des Frommen vor dem Krieg empfunden und alles getan haben, um ihn zu vermeiden, bis zum ußersten … Die Religion des Neuen Testaments … ist eine Religion der Polaritten, ein

4 5

Harald Diem in 1938, when he proved that this idea stemmed from Luther’s systematic teaching that Christ’s incarnation resulted in a dualism of ‘realms’ and ‘armies’ on earth: the ‘spiritual’ (believers, i. e. ‘Reich Gottes’, governed by the Gospel) vs. the ‘worldly’ (unbelievers, i. e. ‘Reich des Bçsen’, ruled by secular law). Religion (church) and politics (state) are polarised, and rulers (providentially ordained by God to apply their law against ‘sin’, as per Rom. 13:1 – 2, 4 – 6; 1 Pet. 2:13 – 17) are no longer bound by Christian ethics in their decisions (Eigengesetzlichkeit). See Harald Diem, ‘Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen’ and Hermann Diem, ‘Luthers Predigt in den zwei Reichen’, both repr. in G. Sauter, ed., Zur Zwei-Reiche-Lehre Luthers. Mit einer Einfîhrung von Gerhard Sauter und einer kommentierten Bibliographie von Johannes Haun, Mînchen, 1973, 1 – 173 and 175 – 214. In 1940 P. Althaus formulated the following perspicacious abstract of the Zweireichelehre: ‘Reformator der Kirche wurde Luther durch seine aus der Heiligen Schrift, vor allem aus Paulus begrîndete strenge und saubere Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium. Mit ihr hngt eng zusammen die Unterscheidung der beiden Reiche, des Reiches Gottes und des Reiches der Welt. Sie ist die Wurzel aller Stze Luthers îber den Staat und îber das Ethos der Politik.’ Althaus, quoted in K. Nowak, ‘Zweireichelehre: Anmerkungen zum Entstehungsprozeß einer umstrittenen Begriffsprgung und kontroversen Lehre’, ZTK, 78, 1981, 125. For the subsequent disputation about Diem’s thesis, see Nowak, 105 – 27. For a challenge to Diem’s thesis, see J. Estes, ‘The role of godly magistrates in the Church: Melanchthon as Luther’s interpreter and collaborator’, ChHist, 67, 3, 1998, 463 – 84. See also D.M. Whitford, ‘Cura religionis or two kingdoms: the late Luther on religion and the state in the lectures on Genesis’, ChHist, 73, 1, 2004, 41 – 6. F. Alt, cited in Moses, ‘The British and German churches’, 24, 34. For GAD’s subsequent changes in his sociopolitical perspectives see ch. 7.4.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

285

Komplex der allermannigfaltigsten Gewißheiten und Impulse, deren Reichtum noch niemand zusammenzuqulen verstanden hat in einer einzigen Formel. Sie ist sanftmîtig und freimîtig; sie ist kindlich und mnnlich; sie duldet und sie kmpft; sie segnet und sie zîrnt … sie selbst [hat] heroischen Charakter. Sie ist ein Dennochsglaube, sie verlangt ein Einsetzen der ganzen Persçnlichkeit und die Bereitschaft, das eigene Leben hinzugeben, sie ist ein Kriegsdienst, sie ist Mrtyrerreligion, geweiht durch das Blut ihrer Bekenner … sie [ist] siegesgewiß erhaben îber die Welt und ihre Bosheit.6

One upshot of the Zweireichelehre was the radical extrapolation of a governmental Eigengesetzlichkeit,7 which underpinned Bismarck’s Realpolitik and justified Wilhelmine Weltpolitik. But although Deissmann was clearly affected by this Lutheran dualism prior to the war, it did not dominate him. Thus, in a small essay, entitled ‘Geistige Weltpolitik’, he offered his opinion that Geistige Weltpolitik – which in Wilhelmine Prussia was based on the Zweireichelehre – was an ethical failure when used as a political subterfuge. Wir haben auch politische Weltpolitik des Geistes zu machen versucht. Ich rechne hierzu das Unternehmen des deutsch-amerikanischen ProfessorenAustausches … aber im ganzen ist dieses Experiment geistiger Weltpolitik wohl nicht gelungen … [sie] wird um so wirksamer sein, je weniger politisch und je mehr geistig sie ist … Die beste geistige Weltpolitik ist hier die, daß man ohne Rîcksicht auf den berechenbaren Effekt dem fremden Volke sein Bestes zu geben bereit ist: wir sollen erziehen wollen, nicht um zu erzielen, Konzessionen, Auftrge fîr uns zu erzielen, sondern um Menschen zu erziehen.8

Deissmann’s humanitarian motivation stands juxtaposed to that of his influential contemporary and liberal theologian Ferdinand Kattenbusch (see ch. 6, n. 121), who in 1906 had published the widely read booklet, Das sittliche Recht des Krieges. There, he systematically 6 7 8

‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 3, 13, 19, 21 – 2. For a similarly contrived speech, in which GAD referred to prisoners of war as ‘lebendige Trophen’, see Appendix 8, a. See n. 3 above; also G. Oaks, ‘Max Weber on value rationality and value spheres: critical remarks’, JCSoc, 2003, 3, 27 – 45. ‘Geistige Weltpolitik’, in E. Jckh/ P. Rohrbach/ P. Stein, Deutsche Politik: Wochenschrift fîr Welt- und Kultur-Politik, Werbeheft, Weimar, 1916, 9. On 11. 12. 1915, at the Winkelmannsfest of the Archologische Gesellschaft, Rohrbach had asked GAD’s opinion on this topic, and since then, the latter wrote, ‘… geht mir immerfort das Losungswort durch den Kopf … “Geistige Weltpolitik”’, 7. GAD had turned down a request to take part in this intellectual exchange program, see ch. 8.5.

286

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

developed the view that any nation deemed inferior by German standards, should be treated like ‘verwahrloste Kinder’ and subjected to ‘Zwangserziehung’, for the purpose of national assimilation.9 While Kattenbusch may seem extreme, his thoughts were, in fact, a logical consequence of the Zweireichelehre. Deissmann, on the other hand, although clearly affected by this dogma, found inner strength more naturally in the simplicity of his own mystical trust in God’s love for all mankind. This was far more important to him than the Lutheran orthodoxy of national superiority – it was a spiritual trust he attempted to verbalise by explaining: Wer gelernt hat, hinter treuherzig schlichten, volkstîmlich-antiken Ausdrucksformen urwîchsige, in sich selbst ruhende Gewißheit des ewigen Lebens zu finden, wird nicht an den Formen mkeln, sondern durch die Berîhrung mit der Kraft selbst Kraft zu gewinnen suchen.10

A year later he began to distance himself openly from the Zweireichelehre, preaching in a sermon: ‘Und nun begreifen wir noch besser als zuerst, warum Jesus den dem Reiche Gottes sehnsuchtsvoll sich Entgegenreckenden vorwrts blicken heißt’.11 Nevertheless, thus far he had not yet given an explicit sermon or lecture on the NT teaching of God’s kingdom and its relation to Luther’s dualist exegesis. However, no sooner had the war ended than Deissmann put his signature to a new Aufruf; but although this one was addressed ‘An die deutsche Jugend’, it was not written for teenagers, but aimed primarily at university students and young returned soldiers.12 When juxtaposed with Der Krieg und die Religion, it emphatically illustrates how far Deissmann’s Christian and political beliefs had shifted during the intervening years, for in signing this proclamation he openly confessed: 9 Greschat, 45. 10 GAD’s sermon, entitled ‘Auferstehung’, preached 22. 4. 1916, and published in De Profundis, 1 – 9 (5). For GAD’s account of his spiritual conversion from a theological belief-system based on historical criticism to his idiosyncratic, practical Christian mysticism, see Appendix 8, b. 11 GAD’s sermon, entitled ‘Die Hand am Pflug’, preached on 6.5.1917. Die Hand am Pflug. Predigt im akadem. Gottesdienst in der Kaiser-Friedrich-Gedchtniskirche zu Berlin am Sonntag Cantate, 6. Mai 1917 (Semester-Anfang), Sonderdruck, Berlin, 7 – 8. The sermon was also published as a supplement to Ev.Wbr, 28. 5. 1917, 10 – 16, and in De Profundis 10 – 21. 12 Date and provenance are missing, but the text suggests that it was written after the monarchical dissolution (Nov. 1918) and before the general elections (Jan. 1919). For a transcript of this Aufruf, see Appendix 8, c.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

287

Wir kçnnen sagen, daß wir fîr den neuen Geist ttig gewesen sind, whrend noch die alten Krfte am Werke waren. Wir haben gearbeitet und gewirkt, soweit es mçglich war. War [sic] haben erkannt, daß die Fîhrung der deutschen Politik dem Abgrund zutrieb. Jeder von uns hat an seiner Stelle versucht, die zerstçrerischen Machtfaktoren einzudmmen und aufzuhalten, dem Geist der Mßigung und Beschrnkung, der Vernunft und Wahrhaftigkeit Gehçr zu verschaffen. Durch zahlreiche Kanle hat die Gesinnung, die wir gepflegt und hochgehalten, die Anschauung, die wir gewonnen haben, ihren Weg in weite und immer weitere Kreise gefunden.13

When Deissmann signed this declaration he evidently had his own bulletins in mind, and although it is not sure who authored its final wording, the document certainly seems to allude to his Verstndigungsarbeit. Importantly, it also condemned Germany’s foreign policy, nationalistic isolationism, the militarisation of civilian life, and Prussian bureaucracy. He had progressively come to deplore all of this when he began to realise that his country was being led into a human catastrophe on the back of a Lutheran war theology that was based on two illusory kingdoms. This new declaration obliquely implicated the Kaiser and his Chancellor in war guilt, and thus constituted an indictment against Germany’s Obrigkeit that could not have been lost on its young readers. But none of this would have been conceivable under the yoke of the Zweireichelehre, since its tenets elevated the Kaiser to summus episcopus of the Lutheran Church and, as Christ’s Viceroy, rendered him altogether unimpeachable. Now, however, the Aufruf boldly declared: Ereignisse von elementarer Wucht haben alte Gewalten und Wertungen mit einem Schlage vernichtet. Sie sind nicht wiederherstellbar. Eine Machtpolitik, die in ihrer Ueberspannung und Verblendung îber alle Grenzen und Ziele hinwegsah, ein Nationalismus, der die Rechte anderer mißachtete, eine einseitig militaristische Auffassung, die in alle Zweige des çffentlichen Lebens îbergriff, eine bîrokratische Beamtenhierarchie, die vielfach ohne Verbindung war mit den lebendigen Krften des Volkes, – das alles hat sich selbst das Urteil gesprochen. Es ist gestîrzt, weil sich die Aufgabe, in deren Dienst sich das ganze System stellte, als unlçsbar erwies.14

The reproachful reference to ‘Aufgabe’ and ‘System’ speaks of Prussia’s grandiose imperialistic designs, and indicates that Deissmann – as a signatory to the Aufruf – no longer held to the Lutheran idea that 13 ‘An die deutsche Jugend’; see Appendix 8, c. 14 Ibid.

288

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

‘good’ rulers are dependable agents of God. The document is, in effect, a resolution of censure against the fallen Prussian government and, by extension, also against nationalistic Lutheranism. Germany’s culpability in the war was beyond dispute; with its militaristic Machtpolitik and neo-Lutheran Zweireichelehre it had contributed much towards Europe’s disintegration. But this did not mean that Deissmann would automatically have to agree with the Versailles Treaty when it was signed some six months later – on the contrary.15 Article 231 of this indenture charged Germany and her allies with sole responsibility for the outbreak of WWI.16 It was a facile verdict which Deissmann tenaciously continued to reject, on the grounds that ‘die allgemeine Schuld an der Disposition Europas zum Kriege … sich auf viele Schultern in allen kriegsfîhrenden Lndern verteilt’.17 Already a month before Kaiser Wilhelm’s abdication, Deissmann gave two Olaus-Petri lectures at Uppsala, where he declared that he had progressively learned, ‘… daß die Betonung des Zukunftscharakters des Reiches Gottes berechtigt ist …’, and concluded: ‘die alte Theorie wîrde mir heute nur eine hinter uns liegende Trîmmersttte zeigen; die neue Theorie stellt mich vor ein frisch zu pflîgendes Ackerfeld’.18 15 For GAD’s reaction to the treaty, two days after it was signed, see Appendix 8, d. 16 The article states: ‘The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies’. The treaty of peace between the allied and associated powers and Germany. The protocol annexed thereto, the agreement respecting the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine and the treaty between France and Great Britain respecting assistance to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany. Signed at Versailles, June 28th, 1919, London, 1919. See also D.R. Borg, ‘German Protestants and the Ecumenical Movements: the war-guilt imbroglio, 1919 – 1926’, JCS, 10, 7, 1968, 51 – 71. 17 Ev.Wbr, 20. 12. 1918, 6. After the cumulative publication of many revealing war documents in several countries, a British newspaper reported in 1925 that ‘the fiction of Germany’s sole war guilt … is not now held by responsible historians’; see Appendix 8, e. For a deeper insight into GAD’s assessment of German war guilt, his bulletins present an excellent primary source, particularly those written in the post-censorship era. See Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 4; 16. 11. 1918, 7; 20. 12. 1918, 5; 27. 3. 1919, 5, 6, 7, 8; 15. 5. 1919, 8; 30. 6. 1919, 3; 11.1920, 111; 7.1921, 228. 18 ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’, IMW, 13, 4, Leipzig, 1919, 347 (Italics mine). The two lectures were given 7 – 8.10.1918. See Appendix 8, f. On the Zukunftscharakter of the kingdom of God, see B. Chilton, ed., The

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

289

This appears to have been his first definite and public renunciation of the Zweireichelehre, although encapsulated within the broader context of German theology and church unity. But he confirmed his changed position even stronger in another series of lectures, presented at Birmingham in 1923 (see below), for this time he devoted an entire paper to the topic of God’s kingdom. It was awkwardly entitled, ‘The working out of communion with God in the message of the Kingdom’, but decisively explicated the Lutheran theory as erroneous. We had long become accustomed to the comfortable idea that the Kingdom of God had for a long time been present, that it was established by Jesus Himself, and that we had simply to join ourselves to it by faith. I regard it as a great service rendered by the newer study of the Bible, that it strongly emphasized the coming character of the Kingdom according to Jesus … I do not think, either, that the expressions “dualism” or “antinomy” properly apply to the position of Jesus. These two words do not solve the problem – they merely state it, or conceal it.19

At around the same time as Deissmann was in the process of moving away from the Zweireichelehre, he also began a growing personal involvement with the ecumenical movement. For his revised belief that God’s kingdom was in prospect convinced him that Christians had … a great programme, of home and foreign mission, and of international work, both political and social. If Christianity of today adopted the expectation of the Kingdom which Jesus had [as against Luther’s exegesis] then it would be … pointing forward to the great goal of God for humanity.20

In 1914 he had made a serious blunder by signing the two nationalistically apologetic Aufrufe; but despite his new understanding of the kingdom of God, one must wonder why in 1918 he again lent his name to an almost totally antithetical – yet potentially no less tendentious – appeal to Germany’s younger generation. The explanation for this does not simply lie in his changed attitude to his country’s leadership and the war, nor, for that matter, in the abolition of censorship and subsequent freedom of expression. Rather, the Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus (Issues in religion and theology, 5), London, 1984; also, E. Zenger, ‘Herrschaft Gottes/ Reich Gottes’, in TRE, 15, 1986, 172 – 89. 19 Selly Oak Lectures, 116, 119. See also GAD, Die Stockholmer Bewegung. Die Weltkirchenkonferenz zu Stockholm 1925 und Bern 1926 von innen betrachtet, Berlin, 1927, 86 – 9. 20 Selly Oak Lectures, 121 – 2.

290

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

psychological, religious and political transformation he had undergone personally, through the experience of a world at war and the soulsearching work of his bulletins (see ch. 7.4), had reawakened and reinforced in him the values of his erstwhile liberal-pietistic belief that the Christian faith ought to be a pragmatic way of life, not an intellectual quest for theological dogma21 – and particularly not a quest for Germanic imperialism. He had been anti-dogmatic from his youth and, therefore, could never hold a high opinion of what he contemptuously termed ‘selbstgenugsame Sesseltheologie’,22 but it was chiefly through the war years that he came to understand how prone Luther’s double-pronged doctrine was to specious conjecture – and how easily it lent itself to self-justifying war theology. Therefore, he wrote in his bulletins, a few days after the earlier mentioned Olaus-Petri lectures, that German theologians, himself included, ought to ask themselves seriously whether they were in fact able to contribute favourably in bringing about Christian solidarity – and with it a possible facilitation for a resolution to the war. It was a call to rethink their ecumenical efficacy through more objective selfcriticism, because he reasoned that they would become increasingly helpful, … je mehr wir durch Selbstkritik die Gefahren der militarisierten Theologie îberwinden, jener wie ein gefallener Engel durch alle christlichen Vçlker whrend des Krieges gehenden und besonders uns Theologen in den kriegfîhrenden Lndern gefhrdenden Kriegstheologie, die im Kriegerischen stark ist, im Theologischen schwach.23

Deissmann’s charge that German theology was ‘schwach’ was not an indiscriminate attack on his colleagues as such, but rather a public acknowledgement that his Wissenschaft, as a whole, had lost the Christian way of peace. This had come about by yielding to the insidious sociopolitical pressures of nationalistic war theology – a presumptuous way of thinking to which he himself had also succumbed during the first years of the conflict (see ch. 7.4) – but now he strove to eradicate it (‘îberwinden’). 21 SD, 43 – 4. 22 GAD, Die çkumenische Erweckung. Ein Jahrzehnt zeitgençssischer Kirchengeschichte. Rede bei der Feier der Erinnerung an den Stifter der Berliner Universitt, Kçnig Friedrich Wilhelm III. in der Alten Aula am 3. Aug. 1929, Berlin, 1929, 6. 23 Ev.Wbr, 19. 10. 1918, 6 – 7.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

291

Great thinkers in the German tradition had long been struggling with the question of war and peace, among them Luther, Kant and Hegel. On the one hand, Kant – combining the philosophical traditions of British empiricism and continental rationalism – argued for a perpetual peace in which war could be abolished forever by means of a foedus pacificum (e. g. League of Nations, or UN).24 On the other hand, Hegel – following Luther’s thinking on war25 – contended that any such (Kantian) agreements between sovereign states could never be more than a pactum pacis, since they would of necessity be ‘infected with contingency’, and, consequently impermanence.26 In contrast to these abstract yet commonly accepted philosophies,27 Deissmann’s own investigation into this topic rested primarily on his work with the bulletins and was, therefore, more heuristic than theoretical, but he acknowledged: Es handelt sich um eines der ganz großen Probleme der theologischen und der philosophischen Ethik, und zu den Gedankenmassen, die es in der Literatur erzeugt hat, haben die grçßten ihren Beitrag gegeben. Ich wage mich nicht, zu diesen mich zu gesellen; und selbst wenn ich es versuchen dîrfte, Bericht erstattend îber Meinung und Gegenmeinung der großen Denker die Frage in ihrer ganzen Schwierigkeit wenigstens aufzurollen, und irgendwie auch einen Ausweg zu versuchen, dann wîrde ich es heute und an diesem Orte doch nicht tun.28

After two-and-a-half years of struggling with this question he had still not advanced much further, and wrote: ‘das furchtbare Rtsel, das der Weltkrieg dem christlichen Glauben auferlegt hat, ist noch nicht gelçst, und ich weiß nicht, ob … [die] jetzt Lebenden jemals eine vçllige Lçsung schauen werden’.29 Surprisingly, it was neither a belief in Germanic superiority nor a hope for an ethical resolution to the war, but his three-year-old twins, Paul and Gerhard, who helped him ‘durch 24 I. Kant, ‘Towards Perpetual Peace’, Practical Philosophy: The Cambridge edition of Immanuel Kant, M.J. Gregor, ed. and transl., Cambridge, 1996, 8:356. 25 See W. Walther’s small anthology of Luther citations in Deutschlands Schwert durch Luther geweiht, Leipzig, 1914. 26 G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, T.M. Knox, transl., Oxford, 1967, § 333. See also Moses, ‘The British and German churches’, 31. 27 For a thesis on how these disparate philosophies still influence current international politics (e. g. USA v. Iraq), see M. de Lourdes Borges, ‘War and perpetual peace: Hegel, Kant and contemporary wars’, ethic@, Revista Internacional de Filosofia da Moral, 5, 1, 2006, 81 – 90. 28 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 3 – 4. 29 ‘Die Hand am Pflug’, 11.

292

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

ihre wundervolle Unbesorgtheit und Lebensfreude îber die qulenden Dinge dieses furchtbaren Ringens hinweg’.30 Despite the fact that one of his more influential teachers at Marburg had been the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen (see ch. 1.2), neither Kant’s idea of a perpetual peace, nor the Lutheran-Hegelian inevitability of recurring war were consistent with Deissmann’s empirical perception of human nature; although – notwithstanding his innate optimism – he tended more towards the latter. Thus, while the League of Nations was being established after WWI, he remained sceptical and referred to it as the essentially ‘kalte politische Vçlkerbundidee’.31 However, some months later his assessment softened a little and he cautiously wrote: … das einzig Gute, das [Versailles] brachte, ist der Vçlkerbund, der aber unvollkommen ist, solange nicht Deutschland und die anderen Zentralstaaten gleichberechtigte Mitglieder sind.32

While Deissmann urged that Germany’s militarised theology was inherently dangerous, at the outset of the war he had still been under its pervasive sway and, therefore, quickly volunteered to join the Landsturm – equivalent to the British Home Guard – as a noncombatant chaplain.33 Already 29 years earlier, while still a student at Tîbingen, he had fulfilled his voluntary basic training in the local Wîrttemberg infantry regiment.34 This time he wanted to enlist, not because he favoured the idea of war, but because he had accepted Berlin’s propaganda that Germany was being encircled by those nations who ‘… das Netz der Kriegsverschwçrung gegen Deutschland seit 30 31 32 33

GAD, letter to Crusius, 7.3.1915. Ev.Wbr, 10. 4. 1919, 4. Ev.Wbr, 31. 10. 1919, 13. On 16. 8. 1914 GAD wrote in his AK: ‘Meine Freiwillige Meldung zum Landsturm, W.dorf ’. Two years later (5. 8. 1916), he (together with Harnack) was awarded the Eisernes Kreuz II. Klasse, but the exact reason for this is uncertain. See Trott/Stolz, letter to Kultusminister, 5.8.1916. 34 ‘Mein 2. u. 3. Semester benutzte ich zur Erfîllung meiner Militrpflicht; am 1. Oktober 1885 meldete ich mich zum Eintritt in die 10. Comp. 7. Wîrtt. Infanterie, Regiments Nr. 125, zu Tîbingen, wurde am 1. April 1886 zum Gefreiten îbersetzt, erhielt im Juli die erste Schießprmie und wurde am 30. September 1886 unter Qualificierung zum Reserveoffizier als Unteroffizier zur Reserve beurlaubt … am 16. Juli 1886 stîrzte ich im Dienste einer Turnîbung und zog mir eine Verstauchung des linken Kniegelenkes zu, welche trotz eines 58 tgigen Lazarethaufenthaltes nur notdîrftig geheilt ist und bis heute eine große Schwchung zurîckgelassen hat.’ ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27.3.1889. This knee injury troubled GAD throughout his life.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

293

lange im verborgenen arglistig gesponnen und jetzt îber uns geworfen haben, um uns zu ersticken’.35 Moreover, he also trusted his government’s projections that the conflict would be quick and decisive and that Germany, as God’s favoured nation, was destined to be victorious as a matter of course.36 Apart from Deissmann’s Landsturm chaplaincy, his private (i. e. nonuniversity related) time was almost entirely absorbed by his work on the bulletins (see ch. 7.6); yet he still did what he could for the welfare of prisoners of war, by occasionally making use of his high international profile on their behalf.37 However, it is his two visits to the frontlines in 1916 and 1917 which are of special significance, since they offer a revealing parallel for his personal development in his Verstndigungsarbeit, with that of his archaeological role as reviver of the Ephesus excavations (see ch. 5.3). For just as his firsthand impressions of that ancient city stirred him to its rescue two decades later, so his brief experience at the Front contributed to his gradual shift in thinking and strengthened his position as a leading proponent for solidarity among the internationally fragmented Christian churches. During December 1916, the Central Committee for Home Missions, in conjunction with the army’s provost, arranged two consecutive theological training courses on the Eastern Front, one in Warsaw (5 – 8 December), the other in Vilnius (12 – 15 December). They comprised a series of structured two-hour lectures given by seven participating theologians, and each session was followed by an open questions-anddiscussion segment of approximately equal duration.38 The program was set up in response to many requests from army chaplains who were continually being confronted with extraordinary theological and ethical dilemmas. Reinhold Seeberg was its principal organiser and leader, but had the help of Gerhard Fîllkrug (1870 – 1948), director of the Central Committee for Home Missions. Other theological field conferences had been held near the frontlines prior to that, but these two were distinct because of the speakers’ high academic profile, their personal connection to many of the participants and, above all, their specially adapted didactic objective. Four of the seven instructors were professors from the 35 ‘Aufruf deutscher Kirchenmnner und Professoren: An die evangelischen Christen im Ausland’, cited in Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 44. 36 See ch. 6, n. 118. 37 See Appendix 8, g (I-II). 38 Pr.WL, 9. 12. 1916, 3.

294

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Berlin University’s Theological Faculty, where many of the attending chaplains had once studied. It was a rare opportunity for Deissmann to come face-to-face with the inexplicable real-life dichotomy of war and religion; and he evaluated the Warsaw cursus by declaring: Without hesitation I can truthfully say that the lectures which came to a close here in Warsaw last night fulfilled all expectations, and the reaction upon the theological professors themselves in the form of instruction and stimulation more than corresponded with the benefit the hearers themselves declared to have derived.39

Approximately 90 field chaplains came to participate from the southern section of the Front, and some high-ranking civil and military functionaries from the city itself also attended, among them the military governor of occupied Poland, Hans Hartwig von Beseler (1850 – 1921). Deissmann’s account shows that the teaching was not simply unidirectional. For although there are no records of what ethical and theological questions the chaplains had actually raised during these meetings, he conceded that he was struck by their ‘realistic point of view, their sober judgment, their vigorous concentration upon the few strong and central truths of our faith’. This personal interaction with men who faced the grim reality of frontline existence on a daily basis had evidently challenged at least some of his unspoken assumptions, for he conceded: ‘Personally I learned much from their practical ideas, and in my later “Letters” I hope to make use of much that I heard’.40 The four-day course at Vilnius was a repeat of the one at Warsaw, with a similar number of Feldgeistlichen attending from the Front’s northern sector.41 Here, during discussion times, Deissmann found several opportunities to raise what he referred to as ‘the problem of Christian nationalism and internationalism’42 – a ‘problem’, because it ran counter to the spirit of the nascent ecumenical movement that he had begun to advocate explicitly in his bulletins over the course of the previous eight months.43 39 Ibid., 2. 40 Ibid., 5. 41 The day after Deissmann arrived at Vilnius the Reichstag proclaimed a renewed peace resolution, endorsed by the Kaiser. Pr.WL, 15. 12. 1916, 3 – 4. For GAD’s reaction to this proposal, see Appendix 8, h. 42 Pr.WL, 15. 12. 1916, 3. 43 e.g. Pr.WL, 1. 4. 1916, 1 – 5; 15. 4. 1916, 1 – 5; 21. 6. 1916, 2; 11. 10. 1916, 1.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

295

The success of the Warsaw/Vilnius conferences prompted the Central Committee for Home Missions to organise a similar program at Brussels for the field chaplains on the Western Front. Here, more than 200 men attended, many coming from as far as the borders of Switzerland or the North Sea. Although this course was compressed into two ‘fast îberreich besetzte Tage brîderlichen Austauschs’ (7 – 8 March 1917),44 Deissmann and Seeberg had arrived in Belgium by train on Monday 5 March, and stayed in the country’s capital for nine days. In Vilnius they had come to within a few dozen kilometres of the Eastern Front, but ‘in Brîssel atmeten wir doch weit mehr als in Warschau und Wilna den glîhenden Odem des Krieges selbst’.45 It was a decisive experience for Deissmann, for here it began to dawn on him that the task for the frontline chaplains was becoming ‘… von Monat zu Monat [ein] schwieriger werdenden Dienst …’.46 Eight weeks later he drew attention to this conference, in a sermon he preached in the academic worship service at the Kaiser-Friedrich-Gedchtniskirche in Berlin,47 and testified: ‘Ein Feldgeistlicher bezeugte es uns bei einer Tagung in Brîssel, das seelische Bedîrfnis der Soldaten kçnnte nur noch mit dem Tiefsten, das wir haben, gestillt werden …’. Nationalistic OT metaphors, he said, no longer sufficed to steel the resolve of disillusioned warriors, neither could the Psalms provide answers anymore for the relentless attrition of their numbers. Instead, he learnt that these men needed what he termed, ‘das Bauernbrot des Evangeliums’.48 In other words, the theological war dogma of 1914 had become meaningless in the soldiers’ unholy world of endless carnage and crippling uncertainties. Guided by a marine chaplain, Deissmann was able to visit Antwerp and Bruges some 90 km to the west; but the most powerful impression came from a two-day tour, ‘nahe an den ußersten Flîgel unserer Westfront’, of which he wrote: 44 45 46 47

Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 2 – 4. Ev.Wbr, 15. 3. 1917, 4. Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 3. After ‘jahrzehntelanger Unterbrechung’, this special religious service was revived on 31. 10. 1916 by Friedrich Mahling (1865 – 1933), to provide mutual support for academics whose student-losses due to war deaths were sometimes in the hundreds (see n. 50 below); Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 1 – 2. GAD preached occasionally at these services. 48 ‘Die Hand am Pflug’, 9.

296

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

ganz besonders aber ein zweitgiger Aufenthalt an der Seefront zwischen der hollndischen Grenze und Nieuport, der mir mit D. Seeberg … vom Kommando des Marinekorps in Flandern gestattet worden war, fîgte Erlebnisse hinzu, die zu den tiefsten und erschîtternsten der ganzen Kriegszeit gehçrten … [Samstag] war ruhig, die Feuerttigkeit schwach, unser persçnliches Risiko sehr gering, aber wir hçrten, ohne auf Dolmetscher angewiesen zu sein, den Krieg selbst reden, und wir lasen, ohne lange Entzifferungsnotwendigkeiten, seine welthistorisch dmonischen Autogramme. Nicht nur in den Dînen und Marschen hatte er sie eingegraben, seine deutlichste Handschrift trugen die Wohn- und Gebetssttten der Menschen; einen Greuel der Verwîstung … Die deutschen Soldatenfriedhçfe in den Dînen von Middelkerke und auf der Feldmark von Leffinghe hielten uns zu alledem … ihre stille Predigt.49

This visual and deeply symbolic ‘stille Predigt’ provoked Deissmann into a reality check; for it disturbed him more than anything he had seen in the war thus far. Its ‘Greuel’ was compounded by the knowledge that some of his own students and exstudents lay buried in those grounds – the number of their dead had climbed rapidly from 18 in February 1915 to over 100 by the time he made this tour.50 Already eighteen months before this, Deissmann had dared to criticise Prussian militarism, by writing in his bulletins that it was ‘an awful … German octopus’;51 but in subsequent issues he carefully ‘atoned’ for it by commending the Kaiser on at least twelve separate occasions. Now, however, that he had come in contact with the war’s ‘dmonischen Autogramme’ at the Western Front, he completely ceased to refer to his sovereign in the bulletins, and when Wilhelm II abdicated one-and-a-half years later, he reported it with undisguised relief (see ch. 7.4). The concept that Christian nations were actually engaged in war against each other had posed a serious ethical problem for Deissmann from the beginning of the conflict, for he reasoned: ‘die Religion ist der flammende Protest gegen den Krieg, und der Krieg ist der schmhliche Bankerott der Religion’.52 This philosophical rationale was 49 Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 4 – 5. Concerning this bulletin’s date, see Appendix 7, b (n. 1). 50 Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 1. See further, ch. 9.4. Two years earlier this figure stood at 18 (Pr.WL, 12. 2. 1915, 4), but by war’s end it had risen to 164. See also ch. 4, n. 73. 51 Pr.WL, 11. 9. 1915, 1; see ch. 7.4. Compare also with GAD’s earlier assessment that ‘Berlin ist ein Vampyr’, GAD’s letter, 27.12.1911. 52 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 3. See also ch. 7.2.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

297

more consistent with the pacifist idealism of British and American Quakers than with Germany’s widely accepted Lutheran orthodoxy that had progressively ‘normalised’ warfare. It was also in stark contrast to the leading Lutheran paper, Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, which boasted: Nachgerade muss doch jeder Zeitungsleser wissen, dass gerade unsere Rîstung es ist, die Europa 42 Jahre lang den Frieden erhalten hat. Und wiederum Dr. Martin Luther ist es, der uns darîber belehrt, daß auch ,Kriegsleute im seligen Stand sein’ kçnnten, denn sie seien so notwendig wie der Arzt.53

Indeed, Deissmann had only been able to justify the war through the notion of national self-defence, as he reasoned this to be consistent with the NT teaching that true Christian love was evidenced in a readiness to sacrifice one’s life for another.54 But while that rationale may have been relatively easy to believe at the outset of the conflict, once the latter escalated and the reality of its indiscriminating destruction became apparent, his grounds began to crumble and gave way to tormenting and indissoluble doubts – ‘Warum mußte das alles îber uns kommen?’55 The quandary of the morality of war had driven Deissmann’s bulletins from the start; but in 1915 the Quaker, Edward C. Wood – a member of the board of directors of the Christian Association of the University of Pennsylvania, and subscriber to the Protestant Weekly Letters – began to correspond with him. In his letters, Wood repeatedly tried to present, what Deissmann termed, ‘… the arguments in favor of the truly Biblical standpoint of “non-resistance”’, and introduced him to ‘the world of ideas and ideals of the American Friends through aptly chosen newspaper clippings, pamphlets and sermons’.56 It was through this correspondence that Deissmann came to understand and appreciate the American Quakers’ way of thinking. Their peace-loving beliefs, as elucidated in Wood’s writings, gained his highest respect, and he agreed that their argument for non-violence was ‘unbedingt biblisch’, but cautioned against the practice of sedulous ‘Buchstaben-Exegese’. He was not a pacifist in the ideological sense of the word, but with his public declaration that ‘die Religion der 53 54 55 56

Greschat, 38. He based this on John 15:13 and 1 John 3:16.; see Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1915, 3. Ev.Wbr, 16. 11. 1918, 6; see further, ch. 7.4. Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1915, 1. For GAD’s response to the Quakers, see Appendix 8, i.

298

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

flammende Protest gegen den Krieg [ist]’, he had expressed an overt criticism of Germany’s prevailing nationalist war theology. Even during the early years of the conflict he felt in many ways more drawn to the utopian ideals of the Quakers than the strident militarism of German Protestantism. Nevertheless, the balance tipped slightly in favour of the latter because of his conviction on national self-defence; but of the Quakers he wrote that their correspondence with him has given me much pleasure for a two-fold reason: First, because of its manly frankness in declaring war against war, no matter who may be engaged in the same. Germany is wrong in carrying on war, but England also is guilty of the same crime, that is the sum and substance of all these letters.57

Quakerism was not new to Deissmann. Rendel Harris, who in 1901 had written a glowing review of Bible Studies,58 had invited him five years later to give a series of lectures at Cambridge.59 The book that ensued from those lectures is entitled, The philology of the Greek bible (see ch. 3.5), and dedicated ‘to my friend Dr. J. Rendel Harris, joim± t± t_m v¸kym ’. On 12 June 1909 the latter visited Deissmann in Berlin, for the two men shared not only the same philological interests and very similar thinking on the necessity for Vçlkerverstndigung, but they also had a mutually close friend in James Moulton. Deissmann’s Christian faith – as opposed to his academic theology – differed little from the Quakers’ beliefs in world peace and conflict resolution. Both were driven by a humanitarian desire to promote harmonious coexistence on national and individual levels, based on a platform of practical NT ethics. In fact, Deissmann considered the group’s unwavering pacific efforts in America and Britain a mark of the true Quaker spirit, ‘… den ich als Exeget des Neuen Testaments mit dem echten Ethos des Evangeliums identifizieren muß …’.60 This was an extraordinary endorsement – very few German theologians of that era would have been willing to put such sentiments to print. In response to the Quakers’ moral support for his Verstndigungsarbeit, Deissmann wrote in the December 1915 bulletin – dedicated entirely to them – that he was touched by their trust, and that ‘I am 57 Ibid., 1, 4. 58 See ch. 1, n. 162. 59 According to the AK, it appears that Harris probably asked GAD in person sometime during the latter’s stay in Britain (19.9 – 8. 10. 1906), when he came for the occasion of his Hon. D.D. conferral from the University of Aberdeen. 60 Ev.Wbr, 31. 12. 1919, 10.

8.1. Faith, War and the Quakers

299

very grateful for the same, and assure them that I shall never forget it’.61 True to his word, he strengthened his affiliation with them; and, from this point onward, portrayed the Quakers favourably in the bulletins on at least seven more occasions, even including a number of their public declarations in unabridged form.62 Not long after Deissmann terminated his bulletins he received an invitation from the Selly Oak Colleges’ Central Council to present a six-week homiletic lecture program during spring 1923, on the sweeping topic of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.63 The ten sessions were uncommonly well attended, and a Woodbrooke student journal reported ‘a great rush to Dr. Deissmann’s lecture’, as these attracted ‘great lights: bishops and minor canons stroll around awaiting an interview’. Significantly, another entry in the same journal recorded that Deissmann took part in ‘his first Friends’ Meeting’ on Sunday, 18 March.64 His own diary reveals further that he stood up during that meeting to express his gratitude to the ‘Friends’ for their steadfast encouragement and goodwill. As a matter of fact, Deissmann had become so impressed with the educational model of the Quakers’ learning centre that he enrolled his daughter Liselotte there for a summer semester in 1927, and repeated this for her brother Gerhard in 1929. This ‘family tradition’ continued even to Deissmann’s granddaughter, Angelika Deissmann, who studied at Woodbrooke for three terms during the 1960s. Deissmann’s growing rapport with the Quakers, and his public approval of their pacifist ideology as the true ethos of the Gospel, may also have had some impact on the peace ethics of one of his bestknown students, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 – 45). He joined Deissmann’s classes for the winter semester 1924 – 5 – some eighteen months after Woodbrooke – and the following summer attended his innovative Proseminar, ‘˜bungen zur Kunde des christlichen Auslandes 61 Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1915, 1. For a complete transcript see Appendix 8, i. 62 For Quaker references in GAD’s bulletins see Pr.WL, 25. 9. 1915, 3 – 4; 31. 12. 1915 (entire issue); Ev.Wbr, 11. 6. 1917, 8 – 10; 29. 7. 1917, 5; 25. 1. 1919, 7; 31. 12. 1919, 10 – 11; June 1920, 36; Nov. 1920, 121. 63 GAD, letter to Reinhold Richter, 4.12.1922. For a transcript of this letter see Appendix 8, j; for an overview of GAD’s Selly Oak Lectures see Appendix 8, k. 64 From an unpublished, semi-humorous Woodbrooke student journal, written by M. Wharton. Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre, Birmingham; also AK, 18.3.1923.

300

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

im Spiegel seiner Presse’,65 followed by a further semester under him in winter 1925 – 6. In an Empfehlungsschreiben Deissmann later observed that Bonhoeffer was ‘… one of his best men of recent years’.66 All in all, it is no coincidence that Deissmann’s move away from the Zweireichelehre – where God’s kingdom was ‘something finished and ready for us’67 – corresponded with his increasing affinity with the Quakers and their philosophy of peace and reconciliation. In many respects he had long been ecumenically minded; however, now that his time-horizon had been so considerably expanded, he could envisage a ‘great programme, of home and foreign mission, of international work, both political and social’.68 It was this fundamentally changed, forwardlooking perspective that gave his Verstndigungsarbeit its necessary impetus as well as its sustaining energy.

8.2. War theology and the German God Initially, Deissmann had been swept along by the insidious war theology that pervaded every part of German society at the outbreak of WWI. But by the end of the conflict he had long come to recognise what he termed, ‘die Gefahren der militarisierten Theologie’, and warned of ‘… jener wie ein gefallener Engel durch alle christlichen Vçlker whrend des Krieges gehenden und besonders uns Theologen in den kriegfîhrenden Lndern gefhrdenden Kriegstheologie’.69 This sobering transformation of his theological reaction to the war had occurred mainly through his Verstndigungsarbeit with the bulletins (see ch. 7.4), and by early 1917 he was repudiating German war theology publicly. Thus, on 6 May, when he addressed an academic worship service in Berlin (see n. 11 above), he admonished: Es ist kein kriegerisches Jesuswort, um das wir uns sammeln … und wenn am Anfang des Krieges nicht selten Bibelworte durch Eindeutung verweltlicht und militarisiert worden sind, so kehren wir, je lnger der Krieg dauert, um so mehr zur biblischen Innerlichkeit zurîck, wenden uns 65 So the AK, but see also DBW, 9, 640. 66 Bell, letter to Talbot, 16.10.1934. For the most recent work on Bonhoeffer, see Moses, Reluctant revolutionary – Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s collision with PrussianGerman History 1918 – 1945, New York, 2009. 67 Selly Oak Lectures, 121. 68 Ibid. 69 Ev.Wbr, 19. 10. 1918, 6 – 7.

8.2. War theology and the German God

301

auch von der klirrenden Kraft des Alten Testaments wieder mehr zu der stillen Zhigkeit des Neuen Testaments.70

During the buildup phases of WWI this militaristic OT Weltanschauung seemed to reach its zenith more in the nationalistic press than in theological ratiocination. Deissmann wrote of this phenomenon with undisguised aversion: Eine ungeheuere religiçse Literatur hat der Krieg hervorgebracht. Welche Masse namentlich an Kleinliteratur allein in Deutschland gedruckt worden ist, ist kaum zu îbersehen … ja man kann ruhig sogar eine Kategorie “religiçse Schundliteratur” aussondern. Mir hat sich dieses harte Wort aufgedrngt, als ich vor einiger Zeit einmal ein Gutachten îber eine im Manuskript mir vorgelegte Sammlung von Kriegs-Gedichten und Betrachtungen abzugeben hatte: ein hohles Pathos patriotischer Phrasen verband sich mit pharisischer Selbstgeflligkeit und geistlosgeistlicher Trivialitt.71

As a direct consequence of Prussia’s victory over France in 1871, German national Protestantism72 – that is to say, a Lutheran-Hegelian-Rankean philosophical syncretism – began to pervade the nation with the selfaggrandising delusion that God had providentially chosen them as a kind of international pedagogue, to bring Kultur to the world (i. e. Sendungsbewusstsein).73 Were they not direct descendents of a superior progenitorial stock, capable of producing such inspired minds as Bach, Beethoven and Wagner; Kant, Hegel and Ranke; Goethe, Schiller and Arndt? Had God not guided their nation along a Sonderweg,74 and manifested his particular grace on them by leading their armies to glorious military victories against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866) and France (1871)?75 Rooted within the convoluted reasoning of the Zwei70 Ev.Wbr, 28. 5. 1917, 10 – 16. 71 Ev.Wbr, 4. 4. 1917, 2. 72 See D.R. Borg, ‘German National Protestantism as a Civil Religion’, in M. Mor, ed., International Perspectives on Church and State, Omaha, 1933, 255 – 67. 73 Greschat, 35; also Moses, ‘Justifying war’, 13, and ‘The British and German churches’, 23 – 44. 74 The Sonderweg thesis has been challenged by Blackbourn and Eley, but not persuasively; see Moses, ‘Justifying war’, 5 – 7. 75 i.e. the wars of national unification. Although many Germans saw 1813 as the ‘sacred year’ (victory over Napoleon), opinions were divided on how much the French popular uprising actually contributed to that conquest. See H. Lehmann, ‘“God our Ally”: The chosen people theme in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century German Nationalism’, in W.R. Hutchison/ H.

302

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

reichelehre this seemed all very obvious, especially when WWI became imminent. For the almost universally accepted belief among Germans was that this would be a war of national self-defence, and this elevated their struggle from a mere fight for national existence to a divinely preordained holy war against ‘das Reich des Bçsen’ (see n. 3 above) – God’s pedagogue could not possibly lose … In spring 1917 the Schweizerisches Protestantenblatt published a series of three debates between two pastors, Hans Baur and Oskar Frei, on the topic of war theology. Subsequently, Deissmann devoted an entire issue of his bulletins to this matter, and summarised the clergymen’s debate with evident approval: Fîrs erste mîsse man mit dem Ausdruck “Kriegstheologie” sehr vorsichtig sein. Eigentlich verwerfliche Kriegstheologie sei der alttestamentliche Henotheismus, der Gottes Sache mit der des eigenen Volkes vçllig gleichstelle und Feuer vom Himmel erflehe, den Nationalfeind zu strafen. Verwerflich sei auch die Schîrung der Haß- und Kriegsinstinkte mit frommen Tiraden. Ein typisches Beispiel sei der Schweizer Pfarrer Bernhard Hirzel mit seinem Zîriputschwort: “I Gottes Name, Schîßed!” Wir sind alle einig, daß diese Art Frçmmigkeit verderblich ist und bekmpfen sie mit ganzer Kraft.76

Importantly, the Swiss had further observed that ‘… die bedenkliche Art der Kriegstheologie in Deutschland îbrigens allgemein im Schwinden [ist]’.77 Their assessment was correct; for by 1917 Germany’s corporate morale had shifted from the Augustbegeisterung of 1914, to a kind of national fatalism that advocated rationales such as: ‘daß der Sinn des Lebens der Tod ist, das nimmermehr zu vergessen, mahnen uns die Gefallenen: ›Wer sein Leben liebhat, der muß es verlieren.‹’.78 However, this creeping melancholia gave raise to the complex question concerning personal versus social ethics, a theological dilemma that Deissmann referred to as ‘das Problem der Probleme’.79 Indeed, for him it was one of the ‘… furchtbaren Lasten des Weltkrieges’; since he could neither find a satisfactory answer to it in pacifism (i. e. Quakers), nor in traditional Protestantism. To make matters worse,

76 77 78 79

Lehmann, eds., Many are chosen: divine election and Western nationalism, Minneapolis, 1994, 91. Ev.Wbr, 28. 5. 1917, 2. Ibid. P. Lippert, cited in Hammer, 311. Ev.Wbr, 28. 5. 1917, 3.

8.2. War theology and the German God

303

contemporary studies on the topic were for the most part heavily distorted by war rhetoric and, he charged, bewußt oder unbewußt, im Dienste der geistigen Kriegfîhrung: je nach den Sympathien und Antipathien hat man mit der Heraushebung der Einzelerscheinungen der Kriegstheologie den seelischen Hochstand in Freundesland, den seelischen Tiefstand in Feindesland zu erweisen gesucht. Dabei hat man oft Methoden gehandhabt, die zwar von alters her “theologische” sind, die aber deswegen doch auf die îbelsten Abwege fîhren. Ich denke besonders an zwei Methoden: die Dogmatisierung impulsiver Gelegenheitskundgebungen und die Generalisierung von Einzelerscheinungen; auf die letzteren hat auch Hans Baur den Finger gelegt. Von der leider auch weit verbreiteten Methode der Flschung sehe ich dabei noch vçllig ab.80

He cautioned against oversimplifying the concept of ‘ethics’ by dividing it into various categories, as this could only be done ‘wenn man sein eigenes Gewissen zuvor vierteilt’.81 Despite his far-reaching search for a satisfactory answer – indeed, despite the considerable dialogue his bulletins generated on the matter – he could not fully reconcile personal with social ethics, and was forced to concede: zu einer wirklichen Lçsung der Probleme ist unsere Generation îberhaupt wohl noch nicht reif genug. Insbesondere die Spezialfrage der “internationalen Ethik” ist vielen îberhaupt noch nicht aufgegangen’.82

One notable exception was the young editor of Die Eiche, SiegmundSchultze, who had recently published an essay on this topic in a Festgabe for Wilhelm Herrmann,83 and was actively engaged in developing ecumenical initiatives with British colleagues. Nevertheless, after thirty months of producing his bulletins Deissmann concluded: es gibt fîr den christlichen Teilnehmer am Weltkrieg kaum eine grçßere innere Strkung, als wenn er das stille Walten christlicher Gerechtigkeit, christlicher Barmherzigkeit, christlicher Gelassenheit, christlicher Versçhntheit innerhalb der sich zerfleischenden Menschheit, hîben und drîben, bei Freund und Feind, beobachtet, und die Weltgeschichte wird ihr Urell [sic = Urteil] îber die Mentalitt der kmpfenden Vçlker dereinst nicht nach dem armseligen Gesichtspunkte fllen, welches Volk am wenigsten geflucht und getobt hat, sondern welches Volk am meisten geglaubt und geliebt hat.84 80 81 82 83 84

Ibid., 4. Ibid., 3. Ibid., 4. Also in ZTK, 27, 1917, 250 – 62. For Herrmann, see ch. 1.2. Ev.Wbr, 28. 5. 1917, 6.

304

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

The metaphysical presumptions embodied in the neo-Lutheran Zweireichelehre led to a thoroughly chauvinistic understanding of moral principles, in which the war was construed as a divine purifying agent. Christian piety became, therefore, organically equated with German patriotism (nationalism), where the highest ideal was to die a ‘hero’s death’ for one’s Vaterland. Nur wenn der Krieg als Pflicht der Liebe verstanden werden kann, darf von seiner Berechtigung auch fîr den Christen die Rede sein … Im Gegensatz zu dem gefhrlichen einseitigen Individualismus, der die Gemîter zu beherrschen angefangen hatte, ist wieder das Bewusstsein um die große Wahrheit erwacht, daß wir auch Teile eines Ganzen sind, eines von Gott dem Schçpfer und Leiter der Geschichte zu einer realen Einheit verbundenen Volkes, daß darum auch der Einzelne fîr das Ganze da ist und Opfer zu bringen, ja sich selbst zu opfern bereit sein muß … Die Plage des Krieges wird zum Segen Gottes.85

Thus, inasmuch as God was the God of the Germans, who believed that they were his chosen nation through whom he would ‘educate’ her enemies with superior Germanic Kultur,86 international ethics was a matter for God. The act of war itself became ‘unser heiliger Krieg’87 through which the nation would merely fulfil God’s inscrutable will for the rest of mankind. Gott ist der Gott der Deutschen. Unsere Lage ist derjenigen Israels gleich … Wir sind die Auserwhlten Gottes unter den Vçlkern. Daß unsere Gebete zum Sieg erhçrt werden, ist nach der religiçs-sittlichen Weltordnung eigentlich ganz selbstverstndlich.88

By August 1914, such jingoism, in the guise of Sozialreligion, had become extraordinarily widespread among German theologians and clergymen. And despite the great philosophical advances in the history of churchdogma and in critical theology (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Harnack, Troeltsch, etc.), Protestant nationalism found a revived justification in the tribal war-god writings of the OT, as Deissmann pointed out in his speech on war and religion: 85 W. Walther, ‘Deutschlands Schwert durch Luther geweiht’, cited in Hammer, 293 – 4. 86 An article in the Evangelische Freiheit (1916) advised: ‘Wir wollen zu diesem pdagogischen Zweck das Evangelium unseres Herrn ruhig ein wenig nationalisieren und verweltlichen. Was es an Tiefe dabei vielleicht einbîßt, gewinnt es in die Breite.’ Cited in Hammer, 310. 87 ‘Ver sacrum’, in GAD, Deutscher Schwertsegen, 21 – 2. 88 A.M.R. Uckeley, in Greschat, 49.

8.2. War theology and the German God

305

Insbesondere unsere gegenwrtige soziale Religion zeigt oft, daß sie nationale, daß sie deutsche Zîge trgt, und von dem deutschen Gott predigen nicht bloß etliche unter unseren Poeten und Propheten, sondern auch ein Historiker wie Max Lenz hat mit feurigen Zungen in tiefer Dankbarkeit von der Offenbarung des deutschen Gottes in unserem heiligen Kriege Zeugnis abgelegt. Der deutsche, der nationale Gott! Schon in jungen Semestern haben wir Theologen in den Hçrslen gelernt, daß der nationale Gott einer niederen Stufe der Religionsgeschichte angehçrt und zahllose Lizentiatendisputationen haben ihn mit spitzen Thesen voll ironischer ˜berlegenheit erledigt. Und nun ist er mit einem Male wieder da, nun haben die Worte des Alten Testaments … bei uns wieder einen Glanz und eine schwingende Energie erhalten … und mit dem brausenden Psalmen- und Lutherwort auf den Lippen “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott!” ziehen unsere deutschen feldgrauen Divisionen ein in das eroberte Antwerpen.89

This highly popular Luther hymn was being sung by Christians worldwide, usually as a celebration of ‘good’ conquering ‘evil’; but now the possessive pronoun ‘unser’ (in the title and first stanza) conjured up in most Germans an image of a national God – not one patterned on the Teutonic Wotan, but on the Israelite warrior-deity Yahweh.90 In the full knowledge that this religious atavism had pervaded the nation – at least during the first months of WWI91 – Deissmann posed the rhetorical question: ‘was sollen wir davon halten? Hat der Krieg hier die Religion gestçrt, oder hat er sie gesthlt?’ With characteristic optimism he answered: ‘Ich sage, er hat sie gesthlt’.92 In the light of his ecumenical outlook and strong international ties on personal and 89 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 17. 90 This applied to both Protestants and Roman Catholics alike; e. g. on 1 and 2 Aug. 1914 massive crowds in Berlin sang the hymns, ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’ (Protestant) and ‘Großer Gott wir loben Dich’ (Roman Catholic). See, M. Eksteins, Rites of spring: the Great War and the birth of the modern age, London, 1989, 61. 91 e.g. on 5. 8. 1914 the Evangelischer Presseverband published a letter from Wilhelm Stapel, in which he wrote: ‘der 5. August … zeigt’s der Welt, daß das deutsche Volk nun nimmermehr von Gott verlassen sein kann, denn heut hat Deutschland seinen Gott wiedergefunden … das ist Gottes Werk, Gottes Hand, der sein liebes deutsches Volk heut beiseite nimmt und mit ihm redet … Fîrchte dich nicht, ich bin bei dir! Dieser alte Gott redet jetzt mit unserem Volk, und unser Volk versteht ihn … Gott, der alte Alliierte … Ein einig deutsches Volk und Gott mit ihm!”. W. Stapel, cited in Besier, Quellenund Arbeitsbuch, 36 – 7. 92 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 16.

306

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

academic levels, it begs the question how he could have reached such a positive conclusion. The answer lies in both the purpose and the audience of his public speech, ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’ (see ch. 7.2). The event had been jointly organised by the Zentralstelle fîr Volkswohlfahrt and the Verein fîr volkstîmliche Kurse; it was well attended by non-combatants and women whose husbands or sons were in active service, which is why Deissmann’s talk was meant to be edifying as well as educational. This was an audience that sang Sunday after Sunday in their churches, ‘Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott’, and at that time still clung to the belief that this God would lead their country to glorious victory. To these people Deissmann spoke about the resurgent notion of a ‘German God’, by attempting to provide an interpretation that would counteract those who ‘von dem deutschen Gott predigen’. For there was no ‘German God’, he explained, because Germany had no more claim on the idea (‘Begriff ’) of God than any other nation, since he was the God and Father of all mankind. Wie der einzelne “seinen” Gott nicht dem anderen streitig macht, sondern Gott preist, wenn mçglichst oft ein einzelner ihn als “seinen” Gott findet, so streiten wir auch als Volk mit den anderen Vçlkern nicht um den Besitz Gottes. Wir gçnnen ihnen diesen Besitz. Das Bekenntnis zu “unserem” Gott und Vater ist nicht ordinr exklusiv, ist darum kein religiçser Atavismus …93

The Bible was not to be understood in a literal sense, for ‘diese altevangelischen Zeilen sind niemals buchstbelnd fixierte Gesetzworte, sondern Geisttrger, und jedem Zeitalter hat der Geist das seine zu sagen’. Nor was the true Christian religion a matter of interpreting the past, but rather a continuing quest for spiritual strength in an everchanging present.94 Although he treated this sensitive topic with considerable tact throughout his public address, in its printed form the speech was later misconstrued in France as nationalistic pseudo-theology and Deissmann accused of odieux sacrilºges. However, this was largely based on a mistranslation that rendered his use of the phrase ‘Religion der

93 ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 17. See Appendix 8, l. 94 Ibid., 24 – 5.

8.3. Anti-Semitism? ‘Socialismus der dummen Kerle’

307

Kraft’, as ‘la religion de la force’, instead of ‘… de la puissance’.95 One year later – at a commemorative worship service attended by Wilhelm II and his wife, Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz (1894 – 1930), as well as Deissmann and most of Berlin’s Bîrgerschaft – the Oberhofprediger Ernst von Dryander (1843 – 1922) preached a historically significant sermon based on 1 Kings 8:57 – 8. For here, in front of Germany’s leading aristocracy and academics, the Kaiser’s chief court chaplain revoked the idea of a German God. Two weeks later Deissmann wrote in his bulletins: It was deeply stirring to see how the veteran speaker, without all presumption, refused to accept the idea of an exclusive national religion and how he testified of the God revealed to us through His son Jesus Christ, of that God, who is the God and Father of all nations. And it seemed to me a unique moment within the scope of the present religious situation, when Dr. Dryander in the presence of the Kaiser, certainly in full harmony with his thoughts, spoke of that day when God shall draw not only our nation but all its enemies into His kingdom of everlasting peace, when all shall greet each other as brothers in their Father’s house.96

Being an internationalist, Deissmann had never accepted the jingoistic notion of a German God. His open aversion to it is summed up in a sermon he gave in May 1917, when he exhorted his hearers: ‘… es ist kein kriegerisches Jesuswort, um das wir uns sammeln …’.97

8.3. Anti-Semitism? ‘Socialismus der dummen Kerle’ In 1965, the German linguist Werner Betz published an article in which he completely misconstrued Deissmann’s standpoint on the ‘German God’ idea – evidently without consulting any of the relevant primary sources – and even fabricated a link between Deissmann and Hitler. Als ein letztes Beispiel … sei hier noch das Kompositum “Weltjudentum” behandelt. Soviel bisher bekannt ist, erscheint es zuerst bei dem Theologen Adolf Deißmann 1908. Es ist der gleiche Deißmann, der 1914 vom “deutschen Gott” gesprochen hat … der nchste, der das Wort im Deutschen gebraucht, ist Hitler. Am 13. 4. 1923 spricht er von der “klar 95 See Pr.WL, 22. 1. 1916, 1 – 3, compare, ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’, 25. For similar misunderstandings in English translations of GAD’s works, see also ch. 8.3. 96 Pr.WL, 6. 11. 1915, 4. 97 ‘Die Hand am Pflug’, 3.

308

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

erkennbaren Bestrebungen des Welt-Judentums” und nennt “Weltjude und Weltbçrse die Urschuldigen am Weltkriege”.98

Granted, in 1908 Deissmann did make use of the word ‘Weltjudentum’ – in his book Licht von Osten,99 but it occurs within the following context: Nicht als wre die Welt unvorbereitet gewesen fîr den Einen [Christ]: die griechischen Denker, Platon vor allen, hatten ihm den Weg gebahnt, und das christliche Manifest spricht dankbar von der Gottesschau Etlicher unter den Poeten. Dazu war die Propaganda des griechischen Weltjudentums und seiner Weltbibel getreten.100

Deissmann’s use of the words ‘Weltjudentum’ and ‘Weltbibel’ were certainly not historical; instead, they were substitute terms for ‘Jews collectively’, and their bible, the Septuagint. Betz has simply dreamed up some kind of tenuous connection between this phrase, Deissmann and Hitler; but this amounts to ‘snapshot history’, based on a mixture of fragmentary information and groundless conjecture,101 and is completely misleading. The earliest extant indication of Deissmann’s attitude towards Jews is found in a letter he wrote to his old teacher Hermann Cohen (see ch. 1.2) in 1896, in which he made the perspicacious point: Ich glaube îbrigens doch, dass der Antisemitismus mehr aus Racenaffekten [sic] und wirtschaftlichen Instinkten zu erklren ist, als aus religiçsen Stimmungen. Er ist auch mir der Socialismus der dummen Kerle und der Chauvinisten.102

Anti-Semitism had been on the rise in Germany since the 1870s (see ch. 6.2), and proliferated within the popular culture of racist nationalism that spawned from the social Darwinism which Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) championed with his theory ‘survival of the fittest’. It dovetailed conveniently with the Lutheran Zweireichelehre – 98 W. Betz, ‘Wortschatz, Weltbild, Wirklichkeit’, in C. Bauer/ L. Boehm/ M. Mîller, eds., Speculum Historiale: Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung, Mînchen, 1965, 41. 99 LvO, 284. 100 Ibid. On ‘Weltjudentum’ (i. e. Jews collectively) see M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berîcksichtigung Palstinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., WUNT, 10, Tîbingen, 19732 (1969), 192 – 5. 101 Similarly, Barbara Beuys: see ch. 8.3. 102 GAD to Cohen, 6. 2. 1896, in Nottmeier, ‘Hermann Cohen und Adolf Deissmann’, 319.

8.3. Anti-Semitism? ‘Socialismus der dummen Kerle’

309

constructed, as it was, on the presumption of German racial superiority. On these premises Jews were not regarded as a religious sub-culture but an alien race – indeed, one guilty of Christ’s death and accursed of God – for which reason anti-Semitic sentiments were readily fomented by reactionaries such as Treitschke, Stoecker and Bernhardi.103 Twenty years after writing to Cohen that anti-Semitism amounted to asinine racism, a cursory reading of Deissmann’s Protestant Weekly Letter may at first suggest that he, too, had now succumbed to the ideology that Jews were a distinctive race. For although he protested against ‘inhuman cruelties’ perpetrated by a ‘despotic’ Russian government on ‘the Finns, the Baltic population, the Lettes [i.e. Latvians], the Lithuanians, the Poles, the Jews, the Ukraines, the Moslems, the Georgians …’, he did refer to them as ‘nine different suppressed nationalities of the Russian Empire’.104 Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that this English bulletin was a translation; the word ‘nationalities’ is an understandable, although not inconsequential, misinterpretation by Deissmann’s translator, Jacob Quiring (see ch. 7.2). In the original German version Deissmann had written of ‘neun unterdrîckten Vçlkern des russischen Reiches’.105 Quiring’s rendition of ‘Vçlker’ as ‘nationalities’ is technically correct, but misses Deissmann’s intended meaning of ‘peoples’ – not ‘nationalities’. This alternative sense of the word is also supported by the context in which it is used, since the author included in the list not only Jews but Muslims as well. Although Deissmann regularly proofread the translated texts before they were printed, his mastery of the English language was not faultless and, therefore, it must have escaped him that the two nouns have different semantic content. Only a few months earlier he had written in his bulletins: ‘my ability to speak and write English is not yet as great as my desire to master the English as well as Mr. Quiring does the German’.106 103 Friedrich von Bernhardi (1849 – 1930), a strident military writer, advocated both social and economic Darwinism. The vociferous Prussian historian Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 – 96) declared that ‘Millions must tend the fields and forge and plane so that a few thousands may explore, paint, and govern … Due to the natural order of things, the huge majority of men must always and everywhere devote themselves to menial work, to crudely material pursuits, and this mass can live only in poor economic conditions’. A. Dorpalen, Heinrich von Treitschke, London, 1957, 199, 202. For Stoecker see ch. 6.2. 104 Pr.WL, 10. 5. 1916, 3 – 4 (Italics mine). 105 Ev.Wbr, 10. 5. 1916, 3 – 4 (Italics mine). 106 Pr.WL, 30. 10. 1915, 4.

310

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

However, an even more consequential misunderstanding on the emotionally charged topic of anti-Semitism occurred during Deissmann’s visit to London from 20 to 26 May 1933. He had come there to present three lectures at King’s College on the Ephesus excavations, followed by a private celebration for the seven-week-old (German born) Ernst Peter Georg Adolf Deissmann, whom his oldest son Ernst and wife Gisela had recently adopted.107 That afternoon (25 May) Deissmann met the archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang (1864 – 1945), at Lambeth Palace to discuss religio-political trends in Germany. But nine days before that, the German ambassador, Leopold Gustav Alexander von Hoesch (1881 – 1936), had also had an audience with Lang, and reportedly told him: The hatred of the Jews is due to the fact that many of that race have profited by the misfortunes of Germany and have grown rich while Germans starved, flaunting their ill-gotten gains and giving foreigners a false impression of German prosperity – others of a lower sort have corrupted the German youth at nightclubs & the like.108

Now the archbishop wanted to sound out Deissmann, from a theological perspective, concerning the latter’s stance on Germany’s treatment of the Jews. But although Deissmann tried to convey an optimistic and historically balanced picture to Lang,109 the latter decided that his 107 Ernst worked in London as director of the Anglo-German Bureau from 1930 – 4, where their first and only child died at birth (30. 9. 1931). 108 As reported by Lang’s chaplain, Alan Don; in A. Chandler, ‘A question of fundamental principles: the Church of England and the Jews of Germany 1933 – 1937’, in J.A.S. Grenville, ed., Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 38, London, 1993, 229 (Italics mine). 109 GAD’s AK entry on 25. 5. 1933 is written minuscule and difficult to decipher, but reads: ‘Besuch des Friedhofs: Ernst Adolf Deißmann, Moni [the baby’s pet name] R.i.p.; Adoption Feier London; Ernst Peter Georg Adolf; 1 Uhr Lunch; Omnibus 9. 33. 73; bei Pfr. Werhahn [.?. illegible]; 3 Lambeth Palace: Archbishop of C.bury.; Starker Druck [.?. illegible] ergibt Demonstration [.?. illegible]; Erwhnt Besuchung von Botschafter Hoesch, Sabt. [sic] Ich ussere mich îber kirchliche Bewegung. Ich gab Skizze optimistisch. Erzhlte alles betr. 2 Gruppen der Deuts. Christen: Fezer Mçller: Neues Programm; Judenfrage beginnt mit 1918; Viele Juden entlassen, weshalb damals kein Protest; Zuflucht in Amerika, Sîd Afrika, [.?. illegible]; Bolschewisten [.?. illegible]; Presse, Theater, etc.; Keine Freiheit der Presse [.?. illegible]; Post nicht mçglich; Kirche hinter der Synode Boykott gestoppt [.?. illegible] 24 Stunden.’

8.3. Anti-Semitism? ‘Socialismus der dummen Kerle’

311

German colleague only confirmed what Hoesch had told him a few days earlier, and reported in his memorandum: ‘I could see that he [Deissmann] had a good deal of sympathy with this dislike of the Jews’.110 The conclusion to his notes indicates that he regarded Deissmann as a deluded anti-Semite, since he wrote that the latter ‘was rather pathetic in his plea that I should try to help people here to understand things from the point of view of the German people themselves’.111 Yet Lang misjudged Deissmann’s extraordinary drive and commitment in the matter of Vçlkerverstndigung. His low opinion was at least partially due to cultural and linguistic misunderstandings – an aspect which Andrew Chandler’s one-sided report seems to have overlooked. Yet in 1994 Barbara Beuys based a newspaper article on Chandler’s essay, in which she uncritically accepted his assessment of Deissmann as historically reliable, and further embellished the former’s fragmentary citations by asserting: ‘Die Abneigung des Theologen [Deissmann] gegenîber den Juden ist unîberhçrbar, und flehentlich bittet er darum, doch den Standpunkt seines Volkes zu verstehen’.112 Contrary to such misleading ‘snapshot history’, Deissmann’s lifelong sympathy for the rights of Jews had remained unchanged. Thus, a few months after the Reichstag had passed the infamous Arierparagraph into law (7 April 1933), he signed a risky five-point public declaration against it, entitled ‘Neues Testament und Rassenfrage’.113 In essence, it argued for the ‘grundstzliche Gleichheit aller Menschen vor Gott’; and that the Christian church was – in accordance with the NT – composed of ‘“Juden und Heiden”, die sich sichtbar in einer Gemeinde zusammen finden’. Deissmann’s colleague in the ecumenical movement, Hermann Sasse (1895 – 1976), had recently been appointed professor of theology at Bavaria’s Erlangen University, where a similar protest declaration was being planned; and Deissmann promptly

110 Lang, cited in Chandler, 229. 111 Ibid. 112 B. Beuys, ‘Ein Primas auf seiten der Juden’, Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt, 3, 21. 1. 1994, 18. 113 It was initiated by the Marburg theologians Rudolf Bultmann, Adolf Jîlicher, Heinrich Otto Ludwig Albin Schlier (1900 – 78) and Hans von Soden (1881 – 1945). For a transcript of this document see Appendix 8, m.

312

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

offered him, ‘sollte dies zustande kommen, so senden Sie mir doch einige Exemplare zu’.114 During WWI Deissmann was a subscriber and regular reader of the orthodox Jewish paper, Jîdische Presse,115 and in 1924 the Akademie fîr die Wissenschaft des Judentums invited him to become a member of their Kuratorium for the new Cohen Foundation.116 He continued to maintain a prudent but decisive stand against anti-Semitism even during the Nazi era, yet in such a way as not to compromise his international Verstndigungsarbeit.117 Seven months before his death he took part in the ‘Faith and Order’ conference at Chamby sur Montreux,118 after which he noted in his diary that there had been a ‘Große Debatte îber Sympathie fîr Juden’. The debate was stirred up by a proposal from Bishop George Kennedy Allen Bell (1883 – 1958), regarding the sharply increased suffering of Christians as a result of the Nazis’ Aryan ideology. It stated that the Council should give power to the Administrative Committee … to take any action they could … particularly in the matter of non-Aryan children at school in Germany, in connection with the whole non-Aryan (and specifically non-Aryan Christian) situation.

The ensuing discussion laid specific stress on the fact that anti-Semitism ‘was penetrating like a contagious disease, into all parts of the world’, after which Bell moved the following cautiously worded resolution, supported by Deissmann: The Universal Christian Council has had its attention called to the fact that the mind of the Churches is greatly exercised by the distress of those who suffer in different parts of the world in consequence of faith, nationality or race. In profound sympathy with these sufferers the Council refers to 114 GAD, letter to Sasse, 29.9.1933. In Aug. 1949 Sasse accepted an invitation to the Chair in theology at the Immanuel Theological Seminary of the united Lutheran Church in North Adelaide, South Australia, where he lived until his death on 9.8.1976. 115 Pr.WL, 8. 1. 1916, 4. 116 Wassermann, letter to GAD, 31. 5. 1924, in Nottmeier, ‘Hermann Cohen und Adolf Deissmann’, 324. 117 In an obituary for GAD, Siegmund-Schultze wrote: ‘Wir haben verstanden, daß er seine große internationale Autoritt, die fîr die çkumenische Sache so viel wert ist, nicht durch den Kampf gegen die derzeitigen Kirchenbehçrden aufs Spiel setzen wollte’. ChrW, 20. 3. 1937, 334. 118 GAD was president of the Theological Committee.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

313

the Administrative Committee the earnest consideration of what steps can be taken to alleviate and remedy the present distress.119

Deissmann’s own sympathy with the Jews remained unwavering throughout his life. His pluralistic philosophy was ultimately founded in the Pauline dictum that ‘in Christ Jesus there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Scythian, nor Barbarian, nor freeman, nor slave, but all are one in Christ’.120 He believed that, according to Ephesians 2:13 – 16, all enmity between Jews and Gentiles had been abolished through Christ’s vicarious atonement, and both were equally reconciled to God. Since, therefore, Christ had spiritually succeeded in unifying all of humanity through the notion of common brotherhood, his will, according to Deissmann, was ‘that they might find the possibility of harmonious cooperation – “You are one in Christ”’.121

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’ In June 1937, when Hans Lietzmann presented the Theological Faculty’s commemorative address for Deissmann (see ch. 7.6), he depicted him as ‘ein deutscher Propagandist’ whose reaction to the war manifested itself in his ecumenical rationale: also mîssen die Kirchen mehr Einfluß in der Welt gewinnen … Das war sein Glaube, mit dem er in die çkumenische Bewegung hereinschritt … [Deissmann] hat schnell und intensiv Einfluß auf die çkumenische Bewegung gewonnen. Er hat in den Weltkirchenkonferenzen von Stockholm und Lausanne eine fîhrende Stellung eingenommen. Mitglied des çkumenischen Rates fîr praktisches Christentum war er seit 1929, auf der Lausanner Weltkonferenz war er 1927 Vizeprsident.122

That Lietzmann misinterpreted the rationale of Deissmann’s Verstndigungsarbeit has already been demonstrated in the previous chapter (ch. 7.6); but could the latter’s underlying motives for his involvement in ecumenism have been as political as his colleague insinuated – that 119 Minutes of the Council Meeting Chamby sur Montreux, August 21 – 5, 1936, 67 – 9. 120 A loose citation of Col. 3:11, in The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the nations, GAD’s sermon given on 25. 3. 1923 at the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting, Tottenham Court Road, London, reproduced in tract form, Cardiff, 2. 121 The cross of Christ, 2. 122 Lietzmann, 305 – 6.

314

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

is to say, driven by the hope that the Christian Church would gain greater sway over politics on an international level? Deissmann’s atypical Christian beliefs allowed him not only to engage meaningfully and sincerely with representatives of non- Lutheran traditions – such as the diverse splinter groups of Protestantism123 (including Quakers, see ch. 8.1), Roman Catholics,124 and Eastern Orthodox125 – but also with Jews (as we have just seen), and with Muslims.126 It is important, therefore, to understand that his nondenominational faith was not self-limited within the confines of traditional Western Christianity. For he was guided by a firm conviction in the unity of mankind and that, according to the Apostle Paul’s credo, Not only a few individuals [are reconciled to God], nay, the world itself, all humanity has come from the condition of enmity with God to the condition of peace with God and it is God Himself who in Christ has achieved this work of atonement.127

It is upon these premises that Deissmann reasoned: ‘[Christ] stamps even the most insignificant comrade with a value for eternity’ through his vicarious death.128 But he also understood that humans express their spirituality in a multiplicity of ways, since ‘die Art, wie die Menschen 123 ‘Meine Stellung zu den deutschen Freikirchen ist whrend des Krieges eine wesentliche andere geworden … wir sehen in diesen kleinen Kirchenkçrpern nicht mehr die der Großkirche feindliche “Sekte”, sondern betrachten sie mit ihrer Bezogenheit auf die internationale Kirchengeschichte als lebensberechtigte Gebilde, mit denen man ohne Bedenken in einen brîderlichen Wetteifer der Liebe treten kann.’ Ev.Wbr, 31. 10. 1918, 8. 124 e.g. see Pr.WL, 26. 2. 1916, 1. See also n. 182 below, and ch. 7.3. 125 ‘I am very fond of the Oriental churches, provided they are modest and unassuming, lifting up the soul in their old yet conscientiously practised form of worship, and when on the ruins of Eleusis or on one of the many isles of the Grecian Archipelago, I willingly lit my candle upon entering such an archaic chapel.’ Pr.WL, 9. 12. 1916, 5. Also: ‘Der Westen kann … viel von dem Osten lernen’, Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 2. See also GAD, Una Sancta, zum Geleit in das çkumenische Jahr 1937, Gîtersloh, 1936, 23 – 6. 126 ‘… a very unique religious ceremony took place in the Wînsdorf Islamic [POW] camp, viz; [sic] the dedication of a recently erected mosque. I am sorry to say that I was not permitted to attend this service … But however much I felt disappointed, I am nevertheless glad to say that it was a chivalrous regard for the adherents of a different creed … A religious ceremony, like the one referred to, meant very much to our Mohammedan prisoners.’ Pr.WL, 24. 7. 1915, 2 – 3. 127 The cross of Christ, 2. See also Pr.WL, 6. 11. 1915, 2; Ev.Wbr, 12,10.1918, 6. 128 Selly Oak Lectures, 252 – 3.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

315

vom ewigen Leben reden … so verschieden [ist], wie die Menschen selbst sind’.129 Auf dem breiten Wege der gottesgelehrten Christologie gibt es rçmische, lutherische, reformierte, anglikanische, methodistische Bîrgersteige. Der schmale Pfad der Gottesgemeinschaft in der Nachfolge Christi hat wenig Raum fîr Sondergleise; einer tritt in des anderen Spur, und der Vorderste sieht nur die Fußtapfen des Meisters.130

For Deissmann, religion was therefore not primarily a matter of dogma – Christian or otherwise. He remembered from his two study tours in the Orient (see ch. 4.1 – 2) how primitive ‘kultische Religion’ had there provided the uncultured with a mystical sense of spiritual perceptiveness and fulfilment.131 From this he later deduced that ‘Hinter dem stockenden Buchstabieren der Unzînftigen’ must lay a more powerful force than that which motivated the ‘Arabesken unserer studierten Beredsamkeit’.132 Wer einmal erkannt hat, daß kein Alphabet der Menschen die Hieroglyphen der Ewigkeit restlos wiederzugeben vermag, wird sich auf sein eigenes Alphabet nicht schulmeisterlich versteifen wollen. Selbst die Propheten sprechen, ob sie gleich den lebendigen Gott kînden, nicht die Sprache Gottes, sonder die Mundarten der Menschen und der Menschen ihres Zeitalters. Auch die lapidaren Bekenntnisse jener großen philosophischen Betrachter des ewigen Lebens, von Plato bis Kant, Fichte und Schleiermacher, tragen in Morgen- und Abendland das wechselnde Gewand der Generationen. Wehe aber dem Zînftigen von heute, wenn er seine eigenen Stze vom Leben nur deshalb fîr die besten hlt, weil er gelernt hat, sie mit dem Alpha, Beta, Gamma oder gar mit dem Aleph, Beth und Gimel zu schreiben.133

Deissmann was fundamentally anti-dogmatic, and energetically objected to any suggestion that theology was a religious speciality. Instead, he saw it as an academic discipline (Wissenschaft), and a ‘Hineinstellung eines von Hause aus als heilige ˜berlieferung den profanen Maßstben unzugnglichen Stoffgebietes in das volle Licht der historisch-kritischen Methode’.134 When the philosopher and author, Fritz Mauthner 129 De Profundis, 4. 130 Ev.Wbr, 21. 10. 1917, 2 – 3. 131 SD, 67. For GAD’s distinction between ‘Mysticismus’ and ‘Mystik’, and his additional division of the concept ‘mysticism’ into either ‘acting’ or ‘re-acting’, see Selly Oak Lectures, 245 – 78. 132 De Profundis, 5. 133 De Profundis, 5. 134 Ev.Wbr, 15. 2. 1919, 3.

316

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

(1849 – 1923), published an article in which he argued that theological faculties should not enjoy equal rights with the ‘irdische’,135 Deissmann retorted with considerable heat: ‘als wre unsere Fakultt eine himmlische’. Mauthner also insisted that those who claimed theology to be an academic discipline like any other, perpetrated a ‘bewußte und grobe Lîge’. To this Deissmann countered: Mauthner hat offenbar die Vorstellung, daß wir in unseren Arbeitszimmern und Hçrslen … unsinnige Priesterphantasien reproduzieren und in bigotter Tradition weitergeben’.136

Deissmann’s clear separation between personal religious beliefs and academic theology underpinned his religious pluralism. For instead of seeking an impossible dogma consensus he considered religious diversity to be a mutually enlightening force and, therefore, something to be celebrated rather than syncretised. This might explain why he cultivated personal friendships with such contrasting individuals as the liberal Adolf von Harnack and the Bulgarian protopresbyter Stephan Zankow; or the conservative Lutheran Reinhold Seeberg137 and the Jesuit priest Max Friedrich Albert Pribilla (1874 – 1954);138 or the bishop of Chichester George Bell and the Quaker Rendel Harris. Indeed, one merely has to read the list of well-wishers who congratulated Deissmann on his 70th birthday to see that his friendship circle spanned not only the globe, but also a panoply of religious as well as secularly minded individuals. Deissmann’s ecumenical drive was neither a product of, nor a reaction to WWI, although it had certainly been sharpened by it. But, as he once 135 GAD cites Mauthner from the Berliner Tageblatt, 658, 25. 12. 1918, in ‘Die Zukunft der theologischen Fakultten’, Revolution und Kirche, Berlin, 1919, 353 – 4. 136 Ev.Wbr, 15. 2. 1919, 3. See also GAD, ‘Die Zukunft der theologischen Fakultten’, 352 – 5. 137 After Seeberg’s death on 23. 10. 1935, the Kultusministerium wrote to GAD that despite his ‘Entpflichtung’ (see ch. 9.2): ‘Auf Grund einer letzten Willensußerung des verstorbenen Geheimrats D. Reinhold Seeberg’, he was requested to teach the latter’s ‘beabsichtigte Uebung im Institut fîr Sozialethik îber “Das Gemeindeleben des Urchristentums”’. The AK shows that GAD was still teaching this two-hour Seminar on 13. 11. 1935 in the Institut fîr Soziale Ethik – four months after he had been requested to cease teaching. Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 7.11.1935. For GAD’s retirement, see ch. 9.2. 138 On GAD’s association with Pribilla, see K.H. Neufeld, S.J., ‘Grundlagen des çkumenischen Dialogs: A. Deissmanns Briefe an M. Pribilla S.J. 1927 – 1928’, ThPh, 52, 2, 1977, 215 – 41. See also Appendix 8, n.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

317

explained in his bulletins, ‘meine Lebensfîhrungen haben mich seit vielen Jahren, eigentlich schon von Kind auf, çkumenisch-christlich fîhlen und denken gelehrt’.139 However, already a year earlier he had attributed this – at least in part – to his mother Emilie, whose pietistic Nchstenliebe seems to have shaped his commitment to Vçlkerverstndigung more than other factors. I owe it to my deceased mother, that from my childhood days I was unable to treat with contempt or hatred any group of people (nations, religious bodies or social classes). I grew up in the midst of a strong Catholic environment on the Rhine, and there witnessed the struggle of State and Church accompanied with all the hateful manifestations of fanaticism on both sides; but even in the heat of passion of this bitter conflict between the two parties, I could not learn to harbor feelings of hatred or disdain for the Roman-Catholic people; just as little as I was able during the stormy days of Anti-Semitism140 to take a hostile attitude toward the Jew. If in my personal intercourse ill-feelings were aroused, my mother interpreted to me the word from the Old Book: “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath”, in a more impressive way than I am able to do it today as Professor of New Testament Exegesis, and just here it was that the influence of my mother proved itself a constant source of strength for me.141

Several years later, while writing his autobiographical Selbstdarstellungen, he harked back to his Heidelberg years (1897 – 1908) and highlighted the lively foreign connections he had been able to make during those years. Still, it proved to be only the beginning of greater things, for ‘in Berlin aber hat sich dieser Verkehr mit dem akademischen und kirchlichen Ausland sehr verstrkt’. Yet here, too, he traced his predisposition to ecumenicalism right back to his childhood: Die çkumenische Einstellung meines Elternhauses, in dem ich schon als Kind vieles vom christlichen Ausland hçrte und sah, hat hierin wohl noch stark nachgewirkt. Ich betrachte es als einen großen inneren Gewinn, daß ich … vor 1914 Gelegenheit gehabt habe, çfter im Ausland zu weilen und eine betrchtliche Anzahl fîhrender Forscher und Kirchenmnner persçnlich kennenzulernen, eigenartige Einrichtungen zu sehen und die Typen der protestantischen und îberhaupt der christlichen Kirchenbildung aus der Anschauung zu studieren.142

139 140 141 142

Ev.Wbr, 2. 12. 1917, 2. An allusion to Adolf Stoecker; see ch. 6.2. Pr.WL, 26. 2. 1916, 1. SD, 70.

318

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

He was plainly in no doubt that his ecumenical thinking – as opposed to his ecumenical pursuit (see below) – was rooted in his childhood through the nurture of his parents. Deissmann’s broad-minded interfaith rationale can, therefore, be traced to an inherent pietism, rather than a political ideology. It was neither a residual outgrowth from Wilhelmine Weltpolitik, or geistige Weltpolitik, nor from Prussian Machtpolitik, or neo-Rankean Realpolitik,143 but an idiosyncratic religious utopianism.144 This is what manifested itself in his ecumenical endeavour, although it must further be emphasised that his kind of utopianism was not related to Lutheran ecclesiastical imperialism. In 1923, when Deissmann was invited to address the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting in London, on the subject of international reconciliation, he spoke metaphorically about building bridges of understanding between nations. Because these were still alienated through the ‘mighty power of ignorance’ in that they knew too little of each other, he reasoned that they commonly ‘stand under the fatal spell of silly generalisations and a pharisaical self-conceit’. The unprecedented scale of WWI had produced a ‘powerful [global] movement for unity’, although, he said, this had already started before the war. It was, therefore, ‘the duty [of Christian churches] to improve the spiritual atmosphere, to create a basis for mutual confidence, to develop by small acts of personal endeavour a network of honest relations from people to people’.145 For Deissmann, this had nothing to do with ecclesiastical imperialism, but was a logical response to the Apostle Paul’s teachings on ‘God, World [and] Reconciliation’. It was Paul’s ‘placing of these things into relation with each other [that] was indeed a tremendous issue in the spiritual history of mankind’. For it is this, Deissmann claimed, that formed the basis upon which the Apostle had produced the ‘unheard-of ’ dictum: 143 Compare, Besier, Krieg-Frieden-Abrîstung, 104 – 10. Besier misinterprets GAD’s sermon, ‘Versailles’ (in De Profundis, 55 – 8), as ‘martialische Sprache’, but GAD’s preceding paragraph (neglected by Besier) puts this sermon within the context of GAD’s actual thinking at that time. On Besier, see ch. 6, n. 139. 144 This term is to be understood within the definition by Andrew Heywood: ‘Utopianism is … characterised by the abolition of want, the absence of conflict and the avoidance of oppression and violence. Utopianism is a style of political theorising that develops a critique of the existing order by constructing a model of an ideal or perfect alternative.’ A. Heywood, Political Ideologies: an introduction, London, 19982 (1992), 193. 145 The cross of Christ, 5 – 6.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

319

‘in Christ Jesus there is neither Greek, nor Jew, nor Scythian, nor Barbarian, nor freeman, nor slave, but all are one in Christ’. He went on to elucidate: The Apostle did not say this to deny or cancel national peculiarities. He himself was a Jew and proud to be one. He desired that the individual nations should not act as disintegrating powers, but that they might find the possibility of harmonious cooperation – “You are one in Christ”.146

Deissmann believed that international peace could, indeed, be attainable – but not because of Emanuel Kant’s ideas (see ch. 8.1), or the dialogues of foreign politics, or the efficacy of proselytising the world. For him, it was possible because he had an unshakable conviction that this was God’s ultimate will, in answer to Christ’s prayer as recorded in John’s Gospel ch. 17. Thus, Deissmann preached in London: ‘when [Jesus] viewed the great multitude from all nations – [he prayed] “that they all may be one”’.147 Nevertheless, six years later in Ohio, when John B. Kelso introduced him to the president of the Wooster College to receive an honorary Doctor of Literature degree (see ch. 8.5), Kelso announced: Sein Ideal ist eine Welt ohne Krieg, eine Welt des “Ewigen Friedens,” eine Welt der Gerechtigkeit, worin alle Vçlker versçhnt sein werden durch Jesu Christ, unseren Frieden, unsern Herrn und Heiland.148

This was only partly true and tended to present a somewhat slanted picture of Deissmann, since it failed to take into account what he had explicitly stressed earlier, in London, namely that The ideal of an evangelical reconciliation for the nations presents a programme for the centuries … [For] ours is not a fantastical programme of sudden revolutions from one day to another, but we are conscious of a task to be accomplished, step by step, throughout the world’s ages. The soberer we remain in the conviction that all we can do today must

146 Ibid., 2. 147 Ibid. 148 From Kelso’s induction address on the occasion of GAD’s honorary doctorate, 24.4.1929. Since Kelso did not know GAD personally, this characterisation might have been suggested by GAD himself, or –perhaps more likely – by Charles Macfarland; see ch. 8.5. On 26. 4. 1926, a Wooster student newspaper reported: ‘… The ceremony was made very impressive by the presence of the heads of departments in academic robes. Dr. Kelso told of Dr. Deissmann’s many achievements and previous honors in a speech made partly in German and partly in English.’ The Wooster Voice, 39. 21 (26. 4. 1929), 1, 4.

320

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

necessarily be pioneering work, the better we shall keep in view our last, faroff goal.149

This view set Deissmann apart from the majority of Germany’s religious leaders,150 who tended to see the postwar ecumenical movement either as a para-political conduit for debating the war guilt question,151 or a concession to a pacifism that ignored Germany’s ongoing subjugation to the status of an Ententenkolonie.152 Some theologians, such as Emanuel Hirsch (1888 – 1972) and Paul Althaus (1888 – 1966), went so far as to insinuate that those ‘verantwortliche Mnner, in der deutschen evangelischen Christenheit’, who engaged themselves in ecumenism, were guilty of virtual treason; because, zwischen uns Deutschen und den im Weltkriege siegreichen Nationen [gibt es] keine andere Verstndigung als ihnen zu bezeugen, daß whrend ihres fortgesetzten Krieges wider uns eine Verstndigung nicht mçglich ist … wer diese Lage, wer den Bruch der Gemeinschaft, den sie bedeutet, mit Worten oder durch sein Verhalten, verhîllt, der wird schuldig an allen denen innerhalb der andern Vçlker, die das Rechte wollen … Wer da glaubt, der Verstndigung heute anders dienen zu kçnnen, als so, der verleugnet das deutsche Schicksal und verwirrt die Gewissen im Inlande und Auslande, weil er hier der Wahrheit nicht die Ehre gibt.153

The earliest ‘modern’ ecumenical endeavours can conceivably be traced back to the 16th century,154 but it is really a 20th century phenomenon 149 The cross of Christ, 5. For a fuller excerpt see Appendix 8, o. 150 Some notable exceptions were men like Karl Axenfeld, Ernst von Dryander, Carl Heinrich Ihmels (1888 – 1967), Hermann Kapler, Julius Richter, Hermann Sasse, Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze, Friedrich Albert Spiecker (1854 – 1936). 151 ‘Aber wir wissen ja, daß viele Deutsche, auch viele deutsche Delegierte, die Konferenz nur unter diesem Gesichtspunkt angesehen haben. Sie kamen nach Stockholm, um einen Sieg fîr die deutsche Sache zu erfechten.’ F. SiegmundSchultze, ‘Die çkumenische Konferenz von Stockholm, vom 19.–29. August 1925. Eine kritische Wîrdigung ihrer Bewegung’, Die Eiche, 13, 4, 1925, 353. 152 ‘Am richtigsten bezeichnet man Deutschland jetzt als Ententenkolonie mit stark beschrnkter Selbstverwaltung. Und mit ungeheuerlicher Tributpflicht.’ E. Hirsch, Deutschlands Schicksal. Staat, Volk und Menschheit im Lichte einer ethischen Geschichtsansicht, Gçttingen, 1922, 142. See also M. Ohst, ‘Der 1. Weltkrieg in der Perspektive Emanuel Hirschs’, in T. Kaufmann/ H. Oelke, eds., Evangelische Kirchenhistoriker im ‘Dritten Reich’, Gîtersloh, 2002, 64 – 121. 153 P. Althaus/ E. Hirsch, ‘Evangelische Kirche und Vçlkerverstndigung. Eine Erklrung’, TBl., 9, 1930, 177 – 8. 154 ‘Die Ursprînge der christlichen Einigungsbewegung liegen allerdings viel weiter zurîck [als der Krieg] … Mit dem Osten suchten evangelische Abendlnder schon im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert Verbindung.’ W. Elert, ‘Rede bei dem

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

321

that began to emerge with the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh (14 – 23 June 1910). Deissmann did not attend it, yet less than two years later he was the main speaker at the annual meeting of the British Peace Committee in the Queen’s Hall, London, where he delivered a distinctly ecumenical message of Christian solidarity. That evening he had dinner at the Lambeth Palace with the equally ecumenical minded Archbishop Randall Davidson.155 These things are hardly surprising, given the high profile Deissmann enjoyed in Britain, and the fact that he represented the Berlin University’s Theological Faculty at the Brandenburg Provinzialsynode.156 Although this Friedensbotschaft was one of Deissmann’s first international ecumenical talks, it is not possible to pinpoint an exact date or episode when he consciously became a part of the ecumenical movement, since he considered its fundamental tenets as a logical consequence of his inherently pluralistic ‘fîhlen und denken’, imbibed from early childhood (see above). Rather, it was a slow transition from that intellectual assent – sympathy, even – to his active participation in an emerging international movement that he saw as ‘an ideal’ work, even though he knew it could not possibly be completed within his own lifetime. During his talk at the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting he made it clear that he had not joined the ecumenical cause as a result of the war, because ‘I was in this movement from its beginning, long before the war, and then I spoke in the same spirit as I do today. The only difference now is that I am speaking with even greater conviction’.157 It was no idle postwar boast, for already on 2 August Antritt des Rektorates der Friedrich-Alexanders-Universitt Erlangen, gehalten am 4. November 1927’, Sonderdruck, 1928, 3. Various interdenominational Christian organisations were formed during the 19th century, e. g. Evangelical Alliance (1846), YMCA (1844), YWCA (1858), World Student Christian Fellowship (1895). 155 Monday, 25.3.1912. Although not inclined to attend ecumenical conferences himself, Davidson was a strong promoter of the ecumenical idea; his residential chaplain and later biographer, G.K.A. Bell (see above), became a pioneer in the ecumenical movement. 156 See Pr.WL, 13. 12. 1914, 1; also in an undated Standesliste (Berlin BArch). This synod represented well over 2000 Protestant churches, with a nominal membership in excess of 5 million, Ev.Wbr, 15. 5. 1919, 12. In 1914 GAD also became a member of the Generalsynode; see ‘Kunst und Wissenschaft’, Magdeburgische Zeitung, 30.7.1930. 157 The cross of Christ, 6.

322

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

1907 he concluded the last of his Cambridge lectures on the philology of the Greek Bible (see ch. 3.5) with the following revealing ideal: And if this study [NT philology] has brought together a band of workers from all Protestant countries on one common field – workers whom enthusiasm for Christ and His Cause and the desire for knowledge have united in one great brotherhood – then the philology of the New Testament, with this international alliance in work, is helping in little to fulfil the great hope of the New Testament “that we may all be one in Christ”.158

The significance of what Deissmann said here lies not only in that it shows us his underlying ecumenical rationale three years before the groundbreaking Edinburgh conference, but also the biblical Leitmotiv that inspired and sustained his life-long religious pluralism. It was almost sixteen years later when he gave his address at the Whitefield Men’s Meeting, yet it sprang – despite the intervening global upheaval – from that same Johannine prayer: ‘That they all may be one’.159 And finally, at the very end of his life, he concluded his last book, Una Sancta, by citing that same New Testament passage one more time, by exhorting Christians everywhere, die Zune der Verfeindung und Verbitterung niederzureißen, einander zu vergeben und miteinander einen neuen Anfang zu machen, der Welt zeigen, wer Christus ist, woher er gekommen ist, was er gibt und was er fordert: ‘auf daß sie alle Eins seien …160

Accordingly, there can be no doubt that Deissmann was right when he claimed to be engaged in ‘pioneering work’. However, the goal of this work was for him futuristic – the ideal of the ‘reconciliation for the nations’; he could only accomplish small incremental steps towards a perceived process that would continue ‘throughout the world’s ages’.161 This was far more than a practical religio-political reconciliation; for he thought of it as the elusive ideal of an ‘Una Sancta’ – one harmonious, earthly body of Christ, manifested in a globally-integrated Christian Church. It was not an original concept per se, since it had 158 Philology, 146 – 7. The final clause is based on John 17:21. 159 The cross of Christ, 2. On 3. 8. 1929 GAD also wrote: ‘Die Idee der Einheit war der Christenheit eingestiftet von dem Meister selbst und seinen Aposteln, und in bestimmten Perioden der christlichen Kirchengeschichte drangen die Bitten des Parakleten-Gebetes von Johannes 17 mit gleicher Inbrunst empor wie am ersten Tag.’ Die çkumenische Erweckung, 18. 160 Una Sancta, 57. 161 The cross of Christ, 5. See also Appendix 8, o.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

323

long been taught as an abstract biblical model, but the momentumgathering ecumenical movement seemed to provide an encouraging pathway to facilitate its potential reality sooner than otherwise expected. Ich gebe ja zu, daß der Einheitsgedanke literarisch innerhalb der dogmatischen Produktion aufs beste vertreten worden ist; in den Bîchern wie in den Kollegheften stand stets ein feiner Paragraph îber die Una Sancta. Aber in praxi versagte man; der schçne Paragraph war der Kfig, an dessen Eisenstben der Einheitsgedanke, sehnsuchtsvoll in die Weite strebend, sich die Fittiche zerbrach.162

After WWI, Deissmann’s erstwhile ecumenical objectives bifurcated; on one level, he maintained his long-term ‘step by step’ approach, but on another he now became driven by some relatively short-term but more immediately pressing considerations. For the war had convinced him that a disjointed Christianity would inevitably tear itself to pieces for the sake of politics and, therefore, could not possibly survive into the future, unless the churches could be brought together in a spirit of international cooperation and solidarity. Wenn ich irgend etwas gelernt habe … in den Wettern dieser vier Jahre, so ist es dies, daß das Christentum steht und fllt mit der Einheit der Kirche. Der urchristliche Einheitsgedanke ist mir gerade durch den Krieg in seiner ganzen gçttlichen Grçße und Wucht deutlicher geworden denn jemals zuvor. Eine Kirche, die ihn aufgeben wollte, wîrde sich selbst aufgeben. Kirchen kann es îberhaupt ja nicht geben ohne Kirche. Die Kirche ist nicht die Summierung von Kirchen, sondern die Kirchen sind Emanationen der Kirche.163

This ecclesiastical insight was not specific to Deissmann, and he knew that many religious leaders within the Christian solidarity movement shared his concerns; thus in 1923 he wrote: … [ich] sah in der Fçrderung der als Reaktion gegen die Selbstzerfleischung der großen christlichen Vçlker strker und strker in allen Lndern aufkommenden çkumenischen Einigungsbewegung eine gerade mir durch meine Lebensfîhrung gestellte Aufgabe.164

The movement was, indeed, being fuelled by worldwide anti-war sentiments against the unprecedented carnage among nations of similar creeds. One need only think of the interdenominational advances made possible through men like the Canadian-born British Quaker, Joseph 162 ‘Die Einheit der Kirche’, 350. 163 Ibid., 339. 164 SD, 72.

324

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Allen Baker (1852 – 1918); the Canadian Episcopalian bishop, Charles Brent (see ch. 5.2); the American president of the Federal Council of Churches, Charles Macfarland (see ch. 6.5); and the Swedish archbishop, Nathan Sçderblom (see ch. 2.4). Deissmann himself had preached religious pluralism in London as early as 1907, and since 1913 was on the editorial board of America’s leading ecumenical journal ‘Constructive Quarterly’ (see ch. 7, n. 47); but his greatest contribution to the cause of ecumenism during the war years was undoubtedly his bulletins, of which he wrote in 1916 – not without considerable prescience: The time will come when in England also the real earnest Christians will realize that I had no other purpose than to serve the ecumenical interests of Christian solidarity so high above all fanaticism or partisanship, when during the war I endeavored to strengthen the bonds of brotherly love, to again pick up the broken cords and even to spin new threads of fellowship.165

He was also a member of the ‘World Alliance of Churches for Promoting International Friendship’, founded in 1914 at a specially convened symposium in Konstanz.166 This Alliance was able to organise a crucial postwar conference at ‘Oud Wassenaer’, a castle near The Hague, where 57 delegates from 14 nations met together for the first time since the war,167 and ‘wohnten und [hatten] alle Mahlzeiten gemeinsam’.168 The pensive ambience of this unique forum was later articulated by Nathan Sçderblom in his Nobel Lecture, when he reminded the listeners that with aching hearts, losses in their families, and destitution in their nations, and with understandable distrust evoked by opposition and falsehood, they still joined together in saying “Our Father”, and “Forgive us our trespasses”.169

Deissmann’s own impressions were similar, for he wrote that the conference ‘… damals begreiflicherweise noch sehr unter dem Einfluß 165 Pr.WL, 21. 6. 1916, 2. 166 Further to the Konstanz conference, see Jenkins, 122 – 30. 167 i.e. from 26.9 – 3.10.1919. Delegates came from: Britain (10), USA (10), Germany (5), Switzerland (5), Finland (4), Holland (4), Hungary (4), Italy (3), Sweden (3), Belgium (2), Denmark (2), France (2), Norway (2), Latvia (1). Ev.Wbr, 31. 10. 1919, 16. 168 Ev.Wbr, 31. 10. 1919, 2. See also Jenkins, 163 – 71. 169 N. Sçderblom, ‘The role of the Church in promoting peace’, Nobel Lectures, including presentation speeches and laureates’ biographies, Peace, 1926 – 1950, 2, F.W. Haberman, ed., New York, 1972, 100.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

325

der Kriegszeit [stand] und schien mir durch Mißverstndnisse noch stark belastet zu sein’.170 But despite some language and cultural difficulties, he made it a point to speak privately to as many delegates there as possible, and to initiate, rekindle, or reinforce, personal friendships which spanned political and religious boundaries. Ich gestehe gern, daß mir diese [Aussprachen] zum Teil bis tief in die Nacht hinein whrenden privaten Begegnungen fast am meisten gegeben haben … mit welch tiefer innerer Bewegung ich in Oud Wassenaer vielen Vorkmpfern der Una Sancta die Hand reichen durfte, alten Freunden und neu Befreundeten.171

One of those ‘old’ friends was Charles Macfarland, who wrote many years later in his autobiography: ‘I know of no man in Europe who was more prophetic than Deissmann’, referring to a private discussion the two men had in Berlin during the night of 31 December 1915.172 However, one year after that initial meeting, Macfarland had sent a series of potentially decisive telegraph messages to Deissmann, in an attempt at brokering peace – tragically, they were intercepted and never arrived. The perceived lack of response lead to a subsequent breakdown in communications between the two ecumenical leaders, because – Deissmann wrote – the American ‘hat mir mein vermeintliches Nichtreagieren auf seine wichtige und freundschaftliche Aktion von 1916 als eine Brîskierung seiner Person îbelgenommen’. Only when they met again at Oud Wassenaer were they able to resolve their misconceptions, through a conversation ‘lasting well into the morning hours’.173 Upon his return to Berlin Deissmann was able to track down the missing telegrams at the Auswrtiges Amt, where they had been gathering dust due to a bungle by some German censorship officials.

170 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 36. For a contemporary comparison between GAD and Sçderblom, see Appendix 8, p. 171 Ev.Wbr, 31. 10. 1919, 2 – 3. Including Peter Ainslie (1867 – 1934), editor of The Christian Union Quarterly (Baltimore), which led to GAD joining the editorial board of Ainslie’s ecumenical paper. Ev.Wbr, June, 1920, 37. 172 C.S. Macfarland, Across the years: Charles Stedman Macfarland, New York, 1936, 145. That same day GAD wrote in his AK: ‘Abends 12 Uhr mit MacFarland zum Dom (Dryander)’. 173 Across the years, 114. Here, they also agreed that GAD would prepare an appraisal for the American Federal Council of Churches, on the topic: ‘Die gegenwrtige Lage Deutschlands und die christlichen Kirchen Amerikas’. GAD produced this report in July 1920.

326

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Der wichtigste Funkspruch freilich, vom Ende Dezember 1916, der in einer politisch fîr uns sonst gînstigen Zeit wertvolle, von dem Geschftsfîhrer des grçßten amerikanischen Kirchenbundes sicher nicht aus dem ørmel geschîttelte Winke fîr die Herbeifîhrung ehrenvoller Friedensverhandlungen enthielt, ist mir durch das Ungeschick einer hiesigen amtlichen Stelle nicht mitgeteilt worden.174

Macfarland’s sequestered messages concerned serious peace plans, which involved the highest levels of governments on both sides of the Atlantic. Deissmann’s role within Germany – similar to that of Macfarland in America – was to be mediatorial. ‘Oud Wassenaer’ became the foundation on which six years later the first Christian world conference for ‘Life and Work’ – led by Nathan Sçderblom – was convened at Stockholm. Its fundamental purpose was to seek some international consensus on the practical role that the global Church had within an alienated postwar society, or, as Deissmann wrote: Oud Wassenaer in Holland ist der Beginn einer großen, die christliche Welt umspannenden Aktivitt gewesen. Diese kleine … Konferenz … ist eine Keimzelle geworden fîr die große Weltkirchenkonferenz fîr Praktisches Christentum, die nach weiteren Vorkonferenzen und von einer ungeheuren Kleinarbeit sorgfltig vorbereitet, im August [19 – 30] 1925 in Stockholm stattgefunden hat.175

In his opening address for the Stockholm conference, the Swedish King, Gustaf Adolf VI (1882 – 1973), expressed its purpose thus: ‘Sie will angesichts der brennenden Fragen unserer Zeit … versuchen, es klar herauszustellen, was das Christentum tun kann und soll’.176 According to Deissmann, this conference with more than 500 delegates from 37 countries – yet conspicuously without official Roman Catholic represen-

174 For details of this US-initiated plan, and transcripts of its related messages, see Across the years, 114 – 24, and Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 272 – 3. 175 Una Sancta, 39. For a contemporary overview of the Stockholm conference, see GAD, Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz. Vorgeschichte, Dienst und Arbeit der Weltkonferenz fîr Praktisches Christentum, 19.–30. August, 1925. Amtlicher Deutscher Bericht, Berlin, 1926; and Die Stockholmer Bewegung. See also, ‘Die §kumenische Konferenz von Stockholm’, 349 – 77; and Siegmund-Schultze’s critical ‘Nachwort zu Stockholm’, Die Eiche, 14, 1, 1926, 40 – 50, concerning which, see also n. 183 below. Also, ‘Ein Jahrzehnt çkumenisch-theologischer Zusammenarbeit’. 176 Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz, 113.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

327

tation177 – can only be understood, ‘wenn man den aus Allem, auch aus dem meinetwegen Bizarren und Schwrmerischen, erschîtternd hervorbrechenden Willen zu einem neuen gemeinsamen Anfang der Christenheit erfaßt hat’.178 Considering his high regard for the Roman Catholic Christians, this appears to be a somewhat surprising assessment, and two weeks after the conference, the German edition of the Vatican’s official paper L’Osservatore Romano reported: In Stockholm fehlte Christus. Der Konferenz des Christentums fehlte ihr Stifter. Man kann wieder nur die alte Formulierung wiederholen, daß die abtrînnigen Kirchen, um nur ein Minimum an Verstndigung in praktischen Dingen zu erzielen, zuerst Christus abschaffen mußten. Das ist die Rache der Geschichte. Man kann sich nicht von Rom trennen, ohne sich von Christus zu trennen.179

In his hopeful push towards the elusive ‘Una Sancta’,180 Deissmann was unwilling to condone the Vatican’s regrettable antagonism, as the latter tried to stifle any interdenominational ‘new beginning’ for global Christianity. However, he protested that Stockholm was not merely an ‘Einigung des Weltprotestantismus’, as some had criticised;181 for besides the Protestant Western churches were also represented those from the Eastern Orthodox faiths. The third major branch of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, would most gladly have 177 Despite considerable negotiations between the conference organisers and Rome, Pope Pius XI had turned down their invitation, and on 6. 1. 1928 declared in his encyclical of the Twelfth Day (Mortalium animos) that ecumenical assemblies were to be condemned, and Roman Catholics prohibited from participating. 178 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 97 (Italics mine). In a newspaper article, entitled ‘Stockholm und die Bischofsfrage’, GAD elucidated this as ‘… einer aus den tiefsten Quellen des Neuen Testaments gespeisten, weltweiten neuen Bewegung auf die Una Sancta hin’. ThR, 529, 45, 27.11.1925. A useful contemporary tool for evaluating the Stockholm Conference is F. Gaertner’s selection of national and international press reactions, ‘Deutsche und auslndische Stimmen îber Stockholm’, Die Eiche, 14, 1, 1926, 51 – 8. 179 L’Osservatore Romano, 212, 13.9.1925. Since this newspaper article is in GAD’s Nachlass one can safely assume that he must have read it, and therefore knew of the Vatican’s official reaction. 180 GAD was actively engaged in the major preparatory conferences leading up to Stockholm, and after ‘Oud Wassenaer’ participated in the conferences on the Beatenberg (25.8 – 28. 8. 1920), Mîrren (29.8 – 2. 9. 1920), Copenhagen (7.8 – 11. 8. 1922), and Helsingborg (12.8 – 15. 8. 1922). Regarding his postStockholm ecumenical activities, see nn. 196 – 7 below. 181 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 81.

328

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

been welcomed into the ecumenical process, but its deliberate absence could not be allowed to impede advances in the religious dialogue.182 Stockholm was certainly a landmark for Deissmann’s personal faith, for it seemed a vivid confirmation to him that Christian solidarity had become a realistic possibility. Thus, he enthused of the conference: ‘Wer Augen hatte fîr die Tatsachen der geistigen Welt, sah … die Einheit des Leibes Christi war zur [symbolischen] Tatsache geworden.’183 And a little later in the same book he described his personal feelings of triumph, when the ‘Botschaft an die Christenheit’ was accepted by the delegates. Als ich von der Plattform aus in jenem Augenblick der Abstimmung im Saal beobachtete, wie alle diese Hunderte von Hnden sich fîr die Botschaft emporreckten und unter ihnen die deutschen Hnde ohne jede Ausnahme, da fîhlte ich einen Kampf in mir selbst beendet, der zu den ernstesten meines Lebens gehçrt hatte: die an schwerem Leid reiche Stockholmer Auseinandersetzung mit einem in voller bona fides zunchst auf falschen Wegen vorgehenden Teile meiner deutschen Landsleute. Es gab in diesem Kampfe nur Besiegte: îberwunden hatte uns alle zuletzt das Evangelium.184

But Stockholm was more than a spiritual landmark for Deissmann, for it turned out to be the acme of his ecumenical efforts. Nevertheless, Markschies’ claim that it was the ‘Hçhepunkt seines Lebens îberhaupt’185 fails to allow for the various other, more secular, ‘Hçhepunkte’ – as perceived by the many-faceted Deissmann himself. Thus, the latter described his 1906 study tour as ‘einen Markstein meines wissenschaftlichen und persçnlichen Lebens’ (see ch. 4.1), and the reopening of the Ephesus excavations two decades later, as ‘eine der grçßten Freuden meines Lebens’ (see ch. 5.2). The Haskell lectureship was ‘an exquisite experience in my academic life’ (Haskell Lectures, vii); and upon his 182 In 1920, GAD suggested a ‘Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt zunchst der nicht-rçmischen Kirchen, aber auch der Christenheit îberhaupt’. In ‘Die gegenwrtige Lage Deutschlands’, 10. For GAD’s explanation on why the Roman Catholic Church abstained, see Appendix 8, q. 183 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 65. But compare Siegmund-Schultze’s over-critical article of the movement, in Die Eiche, 13, 4, 1925, 357 – 8. For a balancing response see E. Stange, ‘Widersprîche gegen die Kritik des Herausgebers an der Stockholmer Delegation’, Die Eiche, 14, 2, 1926, 185 – 203. 184 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 140. GAD was elected to produce the conference’s official German report; see Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz, 747. For some of the difficulties he encountered in producing the conference’s message to the Christian world, see Appendix 8, r (I-II). 185 Markschies, ‘Adolf Deißmann – ein Heidelberger Pionier’, 73.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

329

election as Rektor of the Berlin University (see ch. 9.1), he wrote in a letter to his sister Marie Bornschein: ‘im Leben eines Universittsprofessors bedeutet das Rektorat eine gewisse Krçnung der Berufsarbeit’.186 The sister movement to ‘Life and Work’ was that of the American prewar instigated ‘Faith and Order’, which Deissmann had at first viewed with some scepticism, although not without sympathy.187 It was led by Charles Brent and had taken 17 years of preparatory work before the first fully constituted World Conference could be held at Lausanne in 1927 (3 – 21 August). Its objectives were far more idealistic than those at Stockholm,188 as the theologian Werner Elert (1885 – 1954) summarised in his 1927 Rektorat address at the University of Erlangen: Nicht nur Kooperation soll das Ziel sein, nicht nur Verbîndung der bestehenden Gruppen, sondern wirkliche Einheit! Einheit worin? konnte man fragen. Die Antwort lag schon im Namen der Konferenz: Einheit in Glauben und Verfassung der Kirche.189

It was largely due to Deissmann’s high respect of Brent that he eventually became heavily involved with the ‘Faith and Order’ movement,190 and at Lausanne – where 439 delegates represented more than 150 million Christians worldwide – was one of four vice-presidents, and responsible for drafting the conference’s ‘Botschaft der Kirche an die Welt’.191 Nonetheless, he freely admitted that the unrealistic conference objectives were vulnerable to criticism: 186 Letter, dated 31.7.1930. 187 For GAD’s account on why he eventually gained confidence in it, see Appendix 8, s. 188 Although it was at the former where Brent famously preached: ‘… [ich] betone noch einmal meine ˜berzeugung, daß die christliche Kirche, wenn sie wirklich die rechte Gesinnung hat, im Namen Jesu imstande ist, innerhalb einer Generation den Krieg auszuschalten und den Frieden einzuschalten. Ich mag damit ein Narr sein. Aber dann bin ich Gottes Narr.’ Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz, 455. 189 Elert, 6. Elert also mentioned (11) that the conference was partly funded by Rockefeller Jr. personally. 190 Die Stockholmer Bewegung, 64. 191 Arthur Cayley Headlam (1862 – 1947), bishop of Gloucester, in ‘Botschaft der Englischen Kirchen zum Tode Adolf Deissmann’s’, E. Deissmann, transl., 5.4.1937. The ecumenical message is reprinted in Una Sancta, 59 – 60 and includes the revealing statement: ‘Das Evangelium ist die Kraftquelle der sozialen Erneuerung und gibt den einzigen Weg an, auf welchem die Menschheit Befreiung von dem sie jetzt verwîstenden Klassenhaß und

330

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Wer sich bei uns dieser Konferenz zuerst nherte, hatte leicht den Eindruck des Utopischen, und mancher der Vorbereiter der Stockholmer Konferenz hatte wohl auch die Befîrchtung, beide Konferenzen nebeneinander kçnnten einander stoßen oder durch Zersplitterung der Krfte einander abschwchen.192

These were legitimate concerns, and Deissmann himself had to concede that Lausanne’s ‘Faith and Order’ movement was confronting ‘eine ungleich schwierigere Aufgabe als Stockholm und darum [hat sie] auch ein ungleich ferneres Endziel’.193 While this ‘Endziel’ was still a reference to his vision of an ultimate ‘Una Sancta’, its realisation had evidently become even more elusive at Lausanne. For in contrast to Stockholm’s ‘Life and Work’ conference, little tangible progress was being made and no majority votes were taken. And despite Deissmann’s half-hour address – in English – entitled, ‘The church’s message to the world: The Gospel’, no ‘Botschaft’ was drafted for the Christian world to complement the one from Stockholm.194 Deissmann left Lausanne nine days early, owing to his commitment to participate in the Ephesus excavations (see ch. 5.4), and was, therefore, not present during the final stages of the conference; but later he expressed frustration at the anticlimactic manner in which it had concluded. Wre es denn wirklich îbereilt gewesen, wenn die Konferenz neunzehn Jahrhunderte nach der Urprophetie des Evangeliums und nach so langwieriger und mîhsamer eigener Arbeit sich zu einem gemeinsamen Ausdruck ihrer ˜berzeugung in Sachen des Evangeliums fçrmlich bekannt htte? … Glaubt man denn wirklich, daß in absehbarer Zeit wieder eine solche Gelegenheit kommt, wie sie uns in Lausanne geschenkt war? Glaubt man denn wirklich, daß die jetzigen Trger der çkumenischen Rassenhaß, wie auch Veredelung des Volkslebens sowie Freundschaft und Frieden unter den Vçlkern finden kann.’ 192 Die çkumenische Erweckung, 29. Four years later GAD wrote: ‘Man hat damals nicht selten die Frage aufgeworfen, ob es einen Sinn habe, diese beiden Theologen-Kommissionen nebeneinander weiterzufîhren, insbesondere ob der aus der Stockholmer Weltkirchen-Konferenz heraus entstandene Oekumenische Rat fîr Praktisches Christentum ein Bedîrfnis fîr eine wissenschaftliche Theologen-Kommission habe. Ich darf mir hierzu wohl ein Wort gestatten, da ich als Vorsitzender der Theologen-Kommission des Oekumenischen Rates von Anfang an die strksten Mçglichkeiten hatte, die çkumenische Lage kennen zu lernen, und die dringende Nçtigung empfinden mußte, îber das Recht und die Aufgaben der von mir geleiteten Kommission nachzudenken.’ In ‘Ein Jahrzehnt çkumenisch-theologischer Zusammenarbeit’, 13. 193 Die çkumenische Erweckung, 28. 194 Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz, 684 – 8.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

331

Bewegung noch einmal Gelegenheit haben, nach ˜berwindung aller ungeheuren organisatorischen und finanziellen Schwierigkeiten zu einer solchen Weltkonferenz zusammenzukommen … Es wre besser gewesen, die Konferenzteilnehmer htten Lausanne mit etwas schwererem Gepck verlassen.195

Stockholm had resulted in numerous smaller but recurring worksymposiums, continuing committees and administrative meetings, convened in various parts of the world; and after Lausanne this ecumenical activity increased considerably. Yet, despite his disappointment with the latter’s outcome, Deissmann continued to play a leading role in both movements,196 although on the question of how many such meetings he actually participated in he could only say: ‘die Zahl dieser Arbeitskonferenzen ist … eine sehr betrchtliche’.197 Deissmann’s belief that worldwide Christian reconciliation was a ‘programme for the centuries’ (see above) compelled him to find a successor who would continue his work. But it was certainly no coincidence that he began to cast about for such an individual less than a year subsequent to Lausanne, when he wrote to Martin Dibelius: … ich habe bei meiner ganzen Ausland-Arbeit, die durch Stockholm und Lausanne ja eine sehr grosse Ausdehnung gewonnen hat, immer den Gedanken erwogen, dass diese Arbeit von anderen fortgefîhrt werden mîsse. Ich mçchte im Interesse der Sachen nicht den Zustand erleben, dass diese ganze Ttigkeit zu stark mit meiner Person verwachsen bleibt … [ich] halte Sie fîr den besten Nachfolger und mçchte Sie zunchst bitten, einmal zu erwgen, ob Sie die Freudigkeit haben, diesen grossen Dienst an der Christenheit zu îbernehmen … die ganze Frage … muss sehr vorsichtig behandelt werden, damit nicht nationale Rivalitten wach werden.198 195 Una Sancta, 64 – 5. 196 e.g. After Stockholm, GAD played a significant role in organising AngloGerman conferences (Canterbury, Eisenach, Chichester), which resulted in the goodwill essay-anthology by G.K.A. Bell/ G.A. Deissmann, eds., Mysterium Christi. Christological studies by British and German theologians, London, 1930. 197 ‘Ein Jahrzehnt çkumenisch-theologischer Zusammenarbeit’, 14. GAD’s AK provides many useful details about his post-Stockholm ecumenical involvements, yet it presents an incomplete overall picture of his movements apropos the symposiums he attended. 198 GAD, letter to M. Dibelius, 3.7.1928. For the relevant correspondence between the two men, see Appendix 8, t (I-III). In a letter dated 3. 12. 1928, GAD also asked Dibelius to be his ‘Stellvertreter’ on the theological committee of the Notgemeinschaft. For M. Dibelius, see ch. 5, n. 185.

332

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

Although Dibelius was not averse to Deissmann’s proposition, he urged his Doktorvater to continue. The grounds he gave for this were that the latter’s distinctive international prominence was virtually unsurpassed among Germans who were involved in the ecumenical movement, and that he himself felt quite reluctant and inadequate to step in his former teacher’s shoes. But there was also another reason why Deissmann wanted to ease his ecumenical workload after Lausanne; it had to do with his ongoing commitment to the archaeological investigations at Ephesus. Because, fifteen months after Stockholm, and in the midst of his preparation for the Lausanne conference, he wrote to Bishop Bell that he regarded the excavation of this ancient city as a ‘new period of my life in a new inspiration’.199 Despite the massive international efforts and high ecclesiastical expectations from the Stockholm and Lausanne conferences, relatively little tangible progress was being made on either front. This has perceptibly affected Deissmann’s mystical ideal of an ‘Una Sancta’, and he began a slow process of spiritual goal adjustments. Initially he had been driven by an active desire to bring about global peace, through the creation of an internationally united Christian Church, modelled on Jesus’ prayer, ‘that they all may be one’ (see above). Thus he recounted: Das Ethos unserer Zusammenarbeit war ein çkumenisches. Das will heißen: wir standen unter dem Gefîhl einer heiligen Verpflichtung gegen die Una Sancta. Unsere Arbeit war nicht kîhle Wissenschaft um der Wissenschaft willen. Sie war durchglîht von der Leidenschaft fîr Christus und sein Reich … sie wollte mit lebendigen Steinen den Dom der Una Sancta bauen helfen.200

However, by the time Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations (1933) and Hitler had politically isolated his country, Deissmann’s earlier endeavours to ‘build’, or bring about the elusive ‘Una Sancta’ had undergone a complete turnabout. For now he reasoned: Der Sinn der çkumenischen Arbeit ist nicht der, das wir die Una Sancta “machen” sollen, machen sollen mit Bîchern und Broschîren, mit Reden, Konferenzen, Stimmzetteln, Jupiterlampen und Tonfilmapparaturen. Nein: die Una Sancta bedarf nicht der Mache. Die Una Sancta ist da; sie ist

199 GAD’s letter, 14.11.1926. 200 ‘Ein Jahrzehnt çkumenisch-theologischer Zusammenarbeit’, 17.

8.4. Utopian ecumenism and the elusive ‘Una Sancta’

333

îberall da, wo der Eine ist, Christus! Also brauchen wir sie nicht herzustellen. Darstellen sollen wir sie, und darstellen wollen wir sie.201

After his strenuous labours within the movement, Deissmann reverted to the simplicity of his erstwhile mystical trust in God’s unifying love for mankind; and with it his fundamental outlook on the ‘Una Sancta’ changed from a proactive to a more reactive religious pluralism. Nevertheless, he continued his efforts for religious cooperation until his death, and less than two months prior to it was chairing the ‘Faith and Order’ executive committee in Paris (9 – 11 February 1937). Furthermore, his diary shows that he had made arrangements to attend the two (second) World Conferences for ‘Life and Work’ at Oxford (12 – 26 July 1937) and ‘Faith and Order’ at Edinburgh (3 – 18 August 1937). For his fundamental role in the ecumenical movement Deissmann was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929, and again in 1930.202 His nominees were: Adolf von Harnack, Friedrich Meinecke (1862 – 1954), Herman Oncken (1869 – 1945), Heinrich Maier (1867 – 1933), Arthur Titius (1864 – 1936), Erich Seeberg (1888 – 1945), Max Planck (1858 – 1947, Nobel Laureate for Physics in 1918) and Wilhelm Weber (1882 – 1948). In their submission, these leading German academics presented Deissmann as a man who during WWI had taken the ‘bedeutsame Aufgabe’ upon himself to inform foreign nations, by means of his bulletins, about ‘die deutschen Verhltnisse und Gesinnungen’. Moreover, after the war … hat Professor Deissmann im Weltbund fîr internationale Freundschaftsarbeit der Kirchen eine hervorragende Rolle gespielt und insbesondere zum Gelingen der Konferenz von Kopenhagen im Sommer 1922 wesentlich beigetragen. Ebenso hat seine Persçnlichkeit auf der Stockholmer Konferenz, an der er als fîhrender Vertreter des deutschen Protestantismus intensive mitgearbeitet hat, dazu geholfen, dass die Tendenzen der deutschen Delegation sich mit den Wînschen der Gesamtkonferenz und der îbrigen Delegationen zusammengefunden haben; es ist sodann sein Verdienst, dass die “Botschaft der Kirchen an die Welt”, die in Lausanne 1927 beschlossen wurde, die Zustimmung aller dort vertretenen Kirchen erlangt hat. Professor Deissmann ist zweifellos derjenige deutsche Protestant, der bei den îbrigen evangelischen Kirchen der Welt, sofern sie

201 Una Sancta, 30. 202 In both instances, this was together with Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze.

334

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

der Idee des Friedens und der kirchlichen Vereinigung dienen, die grçsste Achtung geniesst.203

He was not selected; his nominators – although substantial – were all Germans, which may well have affected the decision to some degree.204 Instead, the Peace Prize for 1929 was awarded to Frank Billings Kellogg (1856 – 1937), and in 1930 to Nathan Sçderblom. Yet for all that, the fact that Deissmann was nominated at all shows that his international Verstndigungsarbeit had achieved considerable recognition within Germany.

8.5. Deissmann bridges the gap to America While he was at the Stockholm conference Deissmann met Shailer Matthews (1863 – 1941), professor of comparative theology at the University of Chicago, who invited him to teach for a term at his university’s Divinity School. Deissmann gave a tentative promise to consider the proposal, but informed him that the Ephesus excavations were his first priority.205 By that time he was already so well known in the USA that he wrote to the Auswrtiges Amt: ‘Nun huften sich in den letzten zehn Jahren die amerikanischen Einladungen an mich in einem solchem Masse, dass ich schliesslich nicht mehr ablehnen konnte’. He was alluding here not only to Matthews, but more particularly to an invitation from the Dean of the Oberlin College (Ohio),206 Thomas Wesley Graham (1882 – 1971), to present the 203 Nobel Peace Prize submission, 18.2.1929. On 11. 12. 1929 this application was repeated for the following year, with the addition: ‘Die Unterzeichneten erneuern den von ihnen im vorigen Jahre gestellten Antrag, bei der Verleihung des Friedenspreises der Nobel-Stiftung diejenigen Glieder der christlichen Kirchen zu berîcksichtigen, welche sich in der Friedensarbeit der Kirchen, die zugleich die Nationen verbindet, hervorgetan haben. Die Unterzeichneten nennen hierfîr noch einmal den Professor D. Dr. of Divinity Deissmann in Berlin …’. 204 No records exist of any deliberations by the five-member selection committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament. 205 Matthews, letter to GAD, 11.11.1926. 206 GAD, letter to Auswrtiges Amt, 24. 5. 1929; see also n. 208 below, and Appendix 8, v. He wrote that the College ‘… in der Geschichte der amerikanischen Erziehung eine besonders bedeutende Stellung einnimmt (Coeducational!) und auch als Ausgangspunkt der Prohibitionsbewegung gilt’. The College is the oldest coeducational school in the USA, and the first to admit African-American students.

8.5. Deissmann bridges the gap to America

335

Haskell Lectures in February 1927. Graham had joined Oberlin in 1920, at the instigation of its first dean, Edward Increase Bosworth (1861 – 1927), who was a regular and sympathetic reader of Deissmann’s bulletins and strongly encouraged him to continue his Verstndigungsarbeit through the postwar period of reconstruction.207 The Haskell lectureship, established in 1899, would offer Deissmann a unique opportunity to promote the cause of ecclesiastical pluralism, by strengthening delicate postwar relations between Germany and the USA and befriending many of that continent’s leading churchmen who were unable to attend ecumenical conferences in Europe. Deissmann’s strong connection with North America had developed primarily through his philological work and the subsequent bulletins, but he made the point: Schon whrend meiner Heidelberger Zeit knîpften sich fîr mich zahlreiche amerikanische Beziehungen an. Es studierten begabte junge Theologen aus den Vereinigten Staaten nach Abschluss ihrer dortigen akademischen Bildung in Heidelberg und traten mir persçnlich nher. Dazu kamen hufige Besuche amerikanischer Kollegen und Kirchenmnner. Diese Beziehungen verstrkten sich, seitdem ich 1908 an die Universitt Berlin berufen worden war. Ich hatte in allen diesen Berliner Jahren amerikanische Hçrer, die meistens nachher in ihrer Heimat akademische Lehrstîhle erhielten.208

Indeed, in 1915 his popularity in the USA was such that when Siegmund-Schultze sent certain ‘interesting facts’ to Herbert Adams Gibbons (1880 – 1934),209 the latter replied uncomfortably that … owing to the exigencies of the way in which such matter must be presented to the newspaper, I had to attribute to Dr. Deissmann some of the interesting facts that I got from you. I did this, because his name is so 207 Pr.WL, 25. 9. 1915, 3. 208 GAD’s letter, 24.5.1929. In the same letter he also wrote: ‘Ueberall begrîssten mich alte Schîler, die zum Teil jetzt selbst akademische Lehrstîhle innehaben …’. 209 GAD first met Gibbons and his wife, Helen Davenport Gibbons (1883 – 1960), at Tarsus during his 1909 study tour (see ch. 4.2), and the two began to develop a close friendship with the Deissmann family. H.A. Gibbons was a prolific author, whose works include, The story of the recent European diplomatic crises and wars and of Europe’s present catastrophe (New York, 1915); The foundation of the Ottoman Empire: A history of the Osmanlis up to the death of Bayezid I, 1300 – 1430 (Oxford, 1916); Europe since 1918 (New York, 1923). His wife is the author of The red rugs of Tarsus: a woman’s record of the Armenian Massacre of 1909, New York, 1917.

336

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

well known in America and because he vouched personally to me afterwards for the statements made by you.210

Deissmann’s American itinerary for 1927 had been planned in some detail,211 but the malaria he contracted on the last day of that season’s Ephesus campaign ruled out any strenuous travel for some time (see ch. 5.3). In a letter to Martin Rade, written three weeks before his intended departure to the USA, he explained: Ich war, nachdem ich auf der Rîckreise einen heftigen Malaria-Anfall zu îberstehen gehabt hatte, wieder zu Hause und werde auch die nchste Zeit hier sein, da ich noch recht erholungsbedîrftig bin und darum die Amerikareise habe aufgeben mîssen.212

Consequently, Oberlin postponed their invitation to March/April 1929; but although the Haskell Lectures213 were the primary reason for Deissmann’s journey to the USA, his itinerary, organised by Macfarland, became heavily overloaded. As president of the Federal Council of Churches, Macfarland was in liaison with most of the institutions which had shown a desire for Deissmann to visit, and the latter wrote: … [Macfarland] hatte die Freundlichkeit, auf Grund dieser Einladungen einen grossen Reiseplan fîr mich auszuarbeiten und auch alle Korrespondenz mit den Universitten und alle Vorbereitungen fîr die Einzelreisen durch sein Bîro zu erledigen.214

Significantly, the original idea for Deissmann’s American lecture tour came not from Germany but from the USA itself (see above). This was distinctly different than the prewar request (‘Aufforderung’) by the Prussian Kultusministerium that he take part in the German-American

210 Gibbons, letter to Siegmund-Schultze, 15.2.1915. He added: ‘If I write later a really serious book on the subject of the war, as I am planning to do [a possible reference to Europe since 1918, see preceding note], I shall give to you their full credit in the question of the discrepancy between the British Parliamentary papers’. 211 e.g. the crossed out AK entry for 24. 1. 1927 reads: ‘D.[Dampfer] ‘Columbus’ kommt an in New York, Pier 84 Manhattan; Dr Mansfield oder Mr Miller holt mich ab’. 212 GAD, letter to Rade, 26.12.1926. 213 For a synopsis of GAD’s lectures, in their book format, see Appendix 8, u. 214 GAD’s letter, 24.5.1929.

8.5. Deissmann bridges the gap to America

337

‘Professoren-Austausch’ program (1904 – 14) – a call he had managed to avoid at that time.215 Despite the high profile he enjoyed in America, Deissmann had felt reluctant to undertake such a heavily booked lecture tour in 1929, because ‘das ganze Unternehmen stand bei der Abreise wie ein hoher Berg vor mir’. This was not because of any personal misgivings about America’s past direction during WWI – for the underlying reasons for his visit were unquestionably founded in his Verstndigungsarbeit – but rather because he knew that the overloaded itinerary would compel him to an unremitting program of speaking and social engagements, which demanded an ‘ungewçhnliche Kraftanstrengung … [und] ein besonderes Maß von Konzentration’, because of the continual need to speak in English.216 Even so, he decided to accept Oberlin’s renewed invitation, and on Sunday 17 March Deissmann arrived in Manhattan on the steamer ‘Berlin’. Upon his disembarkation, Macfarland welcomed him at the pier and immediately brought him to the Yale Club, where a room had been reserved for Deissmann’s headquarters during his stay in New York. That afternoon they attended a worship service at the Federal Council’s religious radiobroadcasting centre – with an estimated audience of 20 million – at the conclusion of which Deissmann was formally presented to the listeners and asked to give the benediction. After this aerial introduction his relentless schedule began the next day with an exclusive Interboard Group Luncheon at the Rockefeller Foundation. They had previously requested of him to give a prepared talk on the ‘General conditions and attitudes in Germany at present’, to which Deissmann wrote ‘ich hatte mich in Anbetracht der sehr auserlesenen Hçrerschaft recht sorgfltig darauf vorbereitet’.217 During the next 37 days he presented lectures,218 beginning in New York City at the Episcopalian General Theological Seminary, followed by the then largest theological school in the country, the Union Theological Seminary. After that, he taught at three Ivy League universities – Harvard, Princeton and Yale – and at the latter gave a five-day course in which he drew on all spheres of his learning, as the lecture titles demonstrate: ‘The excavations at Ephesus’; ‘The language of the New Testament’; ‘The 215 216 217 218

‘Geistige Weltpolitik’, 7; see also ch. 8.1. GAD’s letter, 24. 5. 1929; see also Appendix 8, v. Ibid. See Appendix 8, v.

338

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

historical value of the New Testament’; ‘The papyri and the theology of the New Testament’, and ‘The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the Nations’. Moreover, he also had speaking engagements at the Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary, the Boston City Club and Boston University School of Theology, the Chicago University and Chicago Theological Seminary, the College of Wooster (where he received his honorary Litt. D.; see ch. 8.4), Oberlin College,219 and – on the last day – the Biblical Seminary at New York City. Besides these large institutions, Deissmann also preached at many churches and gave impromptu talks at numerous informal occasions. At the end, the thrust of his messages220 to America during these two months was well summarised in The Federal Council Bulletin: American Churchmen have been listening during recent weeks with deep interest to a voice from Germany – the voice of Dr. Adolf Deissmann of Berlin. The distinguished scholar came to the United States primarily for the purpose of delivering the Haskell Lectures in the Graduate School of Theology at Oberlin, and the large numbers of ministers, students, and laymen who have heard him in other parts of the country owe a great debt of gratitude to Oberlin. Identified as he is with the Stockholm and Lausanne movements for church cooperation and Christian unity, Dr. Deissmann has been widely welcomed in the United States and has made a profound impression. He has placed particular emphasis upon the bridging of the differences between churches and nations.221

219 See above, and also Appendices 8, b and 8, u. 220 GAD’s various American lecture topics can be broken up into the following four categories: 1) Sociopolitical: ‘General conditions and attitudes in Germany at present’. 2) Theological: ‘The origin of the NT’, ‘The historical value of the NT’ (used c. 6x), ‘The religious value of the NT’, ‘The language of the NT’ (used c. 4x), ‘The papyri and the religion of the NT’ (used c. 5x), ‘The interest of the cross of Christ’, ‘The NT in world history’. 3) Ecumenical: ‘The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the nations’ (used c. 4x), ‘Ecumenical co-operation in the NT study’, ‘International and interdenominational co-operation in NT studies’. 4) Archaeological: ‘The excavation of Ephesus’ (used c. 6x), ‘Ephesus in the days of ancient Christianity’, ‘The catacombs of the seven Sleepers and other ancient Christian monuments’, ‘The church of St. John the divine and the tomb of St. John the divine’, ‘Ephesus since 1000 BC, a general survey of its history from 1000 BC till today’, ‘Some chapters of the history of the Ephesian paganism’. 221 Federal Council Bulletin. A Journal of Interchurch Cooperation, 12, 5, 1929, New York, 1.

8.5. Deissmann bridges the gap to America

339

Macfarland, a personal friend of the then president of the United States, Herbert Hoover (1874 – 1964),222 had planned for Deissmann to travel by train from Wooster to Washington D.C., and to meet with the president on Tuesday 23 April, but later, when Deissmann submitted his formal report to the Auswrtiges Amt, he wrote: Da meine Zeit aber durch andere Verpflichtungen ungewçhnlich in Anspruch genommen war, bat ich Dr. Macfarland, von dem Besuche im Weissen Hause absehen zu wollen. Ich sah keine Mçglichkeit ihn [i.e. Hoover] in das einmal festgelegte Programm einzugliedern.223

One of these ‘andere Verpflichtungen’ was a necessary last-minute meeting with Thomas Appleget in connection with Rockefeller’s funding for Ephesus (see ch. 5.6); and another one was with the ecumenist Frederick Lynch, vice-president of the Carnegie Church Peace Union, whom Deissmann had met at the first International Christian Press Conference in Kçln only a few months earlier (19 – 21 August 1928). Lynch (as well as Charles Macfarland and Shailer Matthews) was on the board of trustees of the Church Peace Union, whose ultimate goal, as expressed by Andrew Carnegie (1835 – 1919), was not dissimilar to that of Deissmann’s religious utopianism, namely: ‘This crime [i.e. war] we wish to banish from the earth’.224 In 1914 Deissmann wrote that his two Oriental tours (see ch. 4.1 – 2) had to be understood as ‘… study-travel, not exploration. In other words, the purpose of the journey is first of all receptive, not productive …’.225 Fifteen years later his perspective was surprisingly similar about his American lecture tour, for although he had given some kind of public address almost every day in that country, he concluded: … ich traf am 6. Mai frîh wohlbehalten wieder in Berlin ein, mit dem einen Wunsch, nun einmal einige Monate vçllig schweigen zu dîrfen. Leider musste dieser Wunsch unerfîllt bleiben, da ich sofort wieder meine akademische Ttigkeit in Berlin aufnehmen musste. Ich … habe doch viel gelernt, viel Gutes gesehen … und vor allem den Eindruck gewonnen, wie wichtig die Zusammenarbeit um das gegenseitige Vertrauensverhltnis der akademischen und kirchlichen Persçnlichkeiten beider Lnder ist …226

222 223 224 225 226

Across the years, 182, 204, 229, 266, 269 – 70. GAD’s letter, 24.5.1929. See also Appendix 8, v. The American Journal of International Law, 8. 2. 1914, 350. ET, 25, 11. 8. 1914, 487. See also ch. 4.1. GAD’s letter, 24.5.1929. See also Appendix 8, v.

340

8. Ecumenical humanitarianism

However, the Federal Council Bulletin shows that it was a mutually beneficial time, for there one reads: ‘Dr. Deissmann … has made a profound impression … [and] at a farewell luncheon on April 24 a group of leaders in church cooperation gathered to express their appreciation of what [his] visit had meant to America’.227

8.6. Conclusion Like most of his German contemporaries, Deissmann’s earlier years were to some degree affected by the neo-Lutheran Zweireichelehre, which, for him, culminated in his war theology during the initial stages of WWI. Nevertheless, he was essentially a broadminded humanitarian who had always believed in the Pauline principle encapsulated at Col. 3:11, or Gal. 3:28: all of mankind is equal before God. Thus, when the war set individual Christians and their nations against each other in conflict, it posed a deeply troubling ethical and spiritual dilemma for him. He had hoped that his work with the bulletins would provide some helpful insight into the problems posed by the conundrum, ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’. What he had not expected was an insight into the Quakers’ philosophy of peace and conciliation. Yet this was what supported him in the process of distancing himself from the Zweireichelehre, and expanded his spiritual horizons to a forward-looking perspective that gave the impetus to his international Verstndigungsarbeit. One of Deissmann’s guiding principles was that an honest researcher’s ‘ultimate purpose is not to ascertain the opinion of another about the truth, but rather to find the truth for ourselves as we see it’.228 This (subjective) ‘truth’ became progressively clearer for him as the war dragged on, and his mystical trust in God’s love and overarching will for mankind began to stir in him a desire to help tirelessly in reuniting the alienated world through the concept of an ‘Una Sancta’. And with this he joined a small band of ecclesiastical pioneers in the field of international Christian cooperation. Nevertheless, since Deissmann’s motives were driven by a utopian longterm view rather than a religiopolitical short-term one (see ch. 8.4) he was distinctly atypical of the 227 Federal Council Bulletin, 1, 4. 228 Haskell Lectures, 6.

8.6. Conclusion

341

majority of German ecumenists – and, therefore, should perhaps not be called an ecumenist in a strict sense at all.229 For Deissmann’s 70th birthday the Swiss theologian, Adolf Keller, summed up his humanitarian and intellectual achievements with the following tribute, published in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung: Das Lebenswerk, das Deissmann in seine Scheunen gebracht hat, bedeutet fîr ihn und damit auch fîr die deutsche Wissenschaft und Theologie ein ganz ungewçhnlich reiches Kapitel an Dank und Freundschaft, das er sich in der ganzen Welt erworben hat … Die Bîcher Deissmanns wanderten weit îber die Grenzen Deutschlands hinaus und trugen den Ruhm deutscher Theologie an die Enden der Erde … Der dies schreibt, hat mit eigenen Ohren gehçrt, mit welcher Dankbarkeit Deissmanns Name ausgesprochen wird, nicht nur im Bereich des deutschen Sprachgebietes, sondern in bischçflichen Palsten der orthodoxen Welt des Nahen Ostens, in Mçnchszellen auf dem Sinai und in Palstina, in stillen vornehmen Gelehrtenstuben von Oxford und Edinburgh, in einsamen Pfarrhusern im mittleren Westen Amerikas und am pazifischen Ozean.230

229 Compare ch. 8.4 above, where GAD expressed the wish: ,Ich mçchte im Interesse der Sachen nicht den Zustand erleben, dass diese ganze Ttigkeit [Stockholm] zu stark mit meiner Person verwachsen bleibt.‘ See also n. 198 above. 230 Cited in Harder/ Deissmann, 23. For Keller, see ch. 5, n. 159.

9. From zenith to eclipse Aber jetzt, wo die Zeiten so ganz anders sind als damals, verkçrpert er [Deissmann] fîr mich als einer der bedeutendsten Theologen seiner Zeit eine Epoche der Forschung, die man nicht in Vergessenheit versinken lassen sollte.1

9.1. Berlin Rektorat: professional life’s crowning point Deissmann’s significant and ongoing contributions to the ecumenical movement did not go unrecognised at the Berlin University, as Otto Dibelius highlighted in a newspaper item in which he wrote: daß man ihm, dem so manche angelschsische Universitt hohe Ehrungen hat zuteil werden lassen, jetzt das Rektorat der grçßten deutschen Hochschule anvertraut hat, ist die Anerkennung einer bedeutenden Lebensleistung, die weithin mit Genugtuung empfunden werden wird.2

At first sight, it may appear as if Dibelius’ reference to Deissmann’s ‘Lebensleistung’ alluded primarily to his work within the evolving ecumenical movement, rather than his academic contributions – particularly those from his Heidelberg years. He pointed out that, while Germany’s Lutheran Church was occasionally blamed for being ‘westlich orientiert’, Deissmann had done much in bringing together East and West through his ecumenical tact, international experience and visionary drive. An over-narrow interpretation of Dibelius’ article could, indeed, create an impression that Deissmann’s philological labours were mere preparatory steps towards his ‘true calling’: ecumenism. However, this would do an injustice to both men, since Dibelius linked his colleague’s Rektorat not only to his ecumenical achievements, but even more firmly to the honorary doctorates he had received from British universities – Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Manchester (see ch. 6.5) and Oxford (see below). Of these, the first three were 1 2

Schweitzer, letter to H. Deissmann, 19.4.1951. O. Dibelius, ‘Sonntagsspiegel’, Der Tag, Berlin, 3.8.1930.

344

9. From zenith to eclipse

awarded solely in recognition of his philological and not his ecumenical work. As a matter of fact, Deissmann’s election to the Rektorat was not altogether unexpected, for the University had traditionally chosen a Rektor from the Theological Faculty about every fifth year throughout the past three-and-a-half decades.3 What no one could foresee was that he would be the last Rektor from that particular Faculty for a long time; not until 1990/91 did another theologian hold the highest administrative position at the Berlin University once again.4 The Rektorat election was held in the University’s Alte Aula on Friday, 25 July 1930. All ordinarius professors from each of the four Faculties were entitled to vote, although Privatdozenten and Extraordinarien were excluded. An overwhelming majority decided in favour of Deissmann, and in the final ballot he gained 87 of the 94 cast votes.5 To give this some perspective, while his immediate successor, the Indologist Heinrich Lîders (1869 – 1943), received only 58 of 114 votes in 1931, the Jurist who succeeded Lîders in 1932, Eduard Kohlrausch (1874 – 1948), attained with 98 of 116 votes a majority barely 8 % smaller than that of Deissmann. However, the latter was understandably pleased with his election, and wrote to his older sister Marie Bornschein: Im Leben eines Universittsprofessors bedeutet das Rektorat eine gewisse Krçnung der Berufsarbeit. Ich bin besonders erfreut darîber, dass meine Wahl mit einer ganz aussergewçhnlichen grossen Mehrheit erfolgt ist: mit

3

4

5

i.e. K. Holl, 1924/5; R. Seeberg, 1918/9; W.W. Graf von Baudissin, 1912/3; J.W.M. Kaftan, 1906/7; A. von Harnack, 1900/1; O. Pfleiderer, 1894/5. Theologians prior to that: H.W.P. Kleinert, 1885/6; E. Zeller, 1878/9; C.F.A. Dillmann, 1875/6; I.A. Dorner 1864/5; K.I. Nitzsch, 1848/9; A.D.C. Twesten, 1839/40, 1850/1, 1860/1; G.F.A. Strauss, 1833/4; P.K. Marheineke, 1817/8, 1831/2; F.E.D. Schleiermacher, 1815/6. Heinrich Fink (1935-). Since its constitutional changes in 1992 the University is headed by a president (whose term, unlike the Rektorat, is no longer limited to a single year). As of 2006, this position is held by the theologian Christoph Markschies (1962-). The process normally comprised two stages. In the first instance, professors proposed a name of their choice on a slip of paper (GAD received 80 of 92 cast votes), the three names with the highest total were then placed in a second ballot, where the candidate with an absolute majority determined the Rektor for that year.

9.1. Berlin Rektorat: professional life’s crowning point

345

87 von 94 Stimmen. Es ist natîrlich ein besonderer moralischer Rîckhalt fîr das an Fussangeln nicht ganz arme Berliner Rektorat.6

It seems only natural that Deissmann interpreted such a decisive electoral victory as a sign of the University’s moral support; but in reality his competition within the Theological Faculty was quite limited. The only other possible contenders were the church historian Hans Lietzmann, and the professor of OT exegesis and Biblical archaeology, Ernst Franz Max Sellin (1867 – 1946); but neither had the international profile that Deissmann enjoyed and, consequently, received a mere three votes each.7 Five days after his election he wrote to the University’s music director, Max Friedlnder (1852 – 1934), to ask whether he could arrange that Robert Schumann’s ‘Talismane’, ‘aus dem Westçstlichen Divan: “Gottes ist der Orient”’, might be performed at the Rektoratsîbergabe on 15 October, as he felt its third stanza to be especially apposite.8 For organisational reasons Friedlnder was not able to fulfil his request, but Deissmann’s choice of this particular poem was symbolic of his own pietism, while the title of Goethe’s book in which the poem appeared would also have pointed to his dedication to the ecumenical cause. When he wrote to his sister that the Rektorat would not be without ‘Fussangeln’, he could not have known that three months later (11 – 13 November) he would have to deal with the first of several waves of strong student unrest, provoked by the nation’s rapidly deteriorating economy, sharply spiralling unemployment and drops in real wages.9 The Great Depression had started on 24 October 1929 with the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange; as a result, Germany was 6 7

8

9

GAD’s letter 31.7.1930. On the same day he wrote to his friend Theodor Wiegand: ‘… ich [bin] doch sehr îber die Tatsache erfreut, dass ich eine ganz ungewçhnliche Mehrheit gefunden habe’. Letter, dated 31.7.1930. According to the AK, the results of these two-stage elections were, in the preliminary round: GAD 80 votes, Sellin 4, Lietzmann 4, Mahling 1, Becker 2, Weiss 1. And in the final round, GAD gained 87, Sellin 3, Lietzmann 3 and Weiss 1. i.e. ‘Mich verwirren will das Irren; doch du weißt mich zu entwirren. Wenn ich handle, wenn ich dichte, gib du meinem Weg die Richte.’ ‘Talismane’ is one of Goethe’s better-known poems. GAD had the first stanza engraved in a featurebeam beneath the veranda of his house ‘Anatolia’; the text is still clearly visible. In Oct. 1929, registered unemployment in Germany was c. 1.25 mil., when GAD began his Rektorat a year later this figure had climbed to almost 4 mil., and by 1932 to 5.4 mil. Berlin’s unemployment rate alone rose from a mere 31,000 in 1929 to more than 700,000 in Apr. 1932.

346

9. From zenith to eclipse

hit particularly hard. In the wake of WWI, the Weimar Republic had been forced to borrow heavily from the US to pay for war reparations, and also to provide itself with a semblance of public opulence – especially in its capital, Berlin. But now that American lending institutions suddenly began to recall their credits, Germany’s banking system became insolvent and triggered widespread poverty. Thus, on 13 November Deissmann issued a written personal appeal to the unruly student body, announcing that he preferred not to involve ‘behçrdliches Eingreifen’ to quell their grievances unless absolutely necessary,10 and concluded with the appeal: ‘Kommilitonen! Es geht um das kostbare Gut unserer akademischen Freiheit. Hilft mir, dass dieses Gut nicht verschleudert werde!’11 It was far more than a plea for cooperation in a time of exceptional austerity. Since the death of Gustav Stresemann (1878 – 1929) the Weimar Republic had begun its political decline, and Deissmann made no secret of his deep concern in respect to where the University was heading. On 20 December he gave a short radio talk on the general situation faced by students, in which he took a sympathetic stand in their favour, saying: … unsere Studenten haben keinen Raum. Das heisst nicht bloss, dass fast îberall die usseren Bedingungen des Studiums zu knapp geworden sind: die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen, die Bîcherbeschaffung, die Mçglichkeit, Arbeitspltze in den Hçrslen und Instituten der Hochschulen zu finden. Sondern vor allem, dass fîr viele Fcher die Zukunftsaussichten geradezu trostlos sind. Unzhlige werden nach Ablegung ihrer Prîfungen die offene Tîr nicht finden, die offene Tîr zu einer Lebensstellung.12

In this same address he also made it a point to register his dismay regarding the way some universities were increasingly being used as a battleground for political ideologies instead of academic advance10 In a private letter, the editor of the Kçlnische Zeitung had suggested to GAD a ‘studentische Gesamtvertretung’, to which he replied (28. 11. 1930): ‘Es ist mir immer klar gewesen … dass wir die bestehenden hochschulpolitischen Schwierigkeiten nur durch ein vertrauensvolles Hand in Hand gehen auch mit der Presse bewltigen kçnnen … ich [bin] der Meinung, dass wir diese Frage zunchst einmal durch innerakademische Aussprachen weiterbringen sollten … Mir scheint nmlich, dass man zunchst an den einzelnen Universitten, wo die Dinge je nach ihrer Entwicklung oft ganz verschieden liegen, lokale [Studenten] Vertretungen erstreben sollte, die dann auch lokale Besonderheiten haben kçnnten.’ 11 The appeal is dated 13.11.1930. For a transcript see Appendix 9, a. 12 GAD’s radio talk was broadcast on, 20.12.1930. For the full text see Appendix 9, b.

9.1. Berlin Rektorat: professional life’s crowning point

347

ment.13 Indeed, he argued that young people were being mentally harmed by ubiquitous nationalistic propaganda to which they were exposed in one way or another since primary school. Therefore, he appealed to all students: ‘Bleibt akademische Menschen und werdet immer mehr akademische Menschen … fîr den Aufbau einer jenseits der Dschungel sich organisierenden Menschheit’.14 The initial student protests simmered down within a week; but they signalled the beginning of a trying year for the University’s new Rektor. On 1 May 1931 Deissmann noted in his diary that sociopolitical commotions were going on in the streets of Berlin, and the next day he wrote laconically: ‘Mai Klamauk kochende Volkseele’. Demonstrations reignited again on 27 June, but this time with the added outrage against sharply increased student fees. The riots reached such a pitch of anarchy that he ordered the University to be barricaded for a day (30 June), had security guards placed on the roof, and the entire building searched for possible intruders. The crisis lasted until 5 July, during which time Deissmann imposed measures to stop the increasing mob violence from spilling over into the University itself, by setting up a special security service, authorised to check the legitimacy of anyone within the institution’s precincts. One week later, with the University still unsettled and several of its planned events cancelled,15 a subdued Deissmann welcomed 350 foreign students who had come for the summerschool program. In his address he acknowledged that they had the misfortune to arrive at a moment of ‘historischem Ernst, einem Zeitpunkt der Krise’. He felt ‘tief bedrîckt’ by this, especially since he himself had enjoyed frequent opportunities in the past, ‘… als Gast an auslndischen Universitten zu arbeiten. Dankbar darf ich bekennen, wie viel ich auslndischen Gelehrten, auslndischer Wissenschaft und Literatur verdanke’. But it was not only that which saddened him, for he had also learned the day before that his close friend Nathan Sçderblom had died in Uppsala. Now he took the opportunity to eulogise him, and made the link with the visiting students, because ‘er gehçrt seelisch zu dem, was wir hier 13 In GAD’s Doktorsjubilum address for Gustaf Kossina (1858 – 1931), he said: ‘Gerade whrend des abgelaufenen Semesters sind durch die unsere Jugend leidenschaftlich erregenden politischen Wirren bei vielen jungen Akademikern die eigentlichsten Aufgaben der Universitt in den Hintergrund gedrngt worden’. Dated 2. 8. 1931. 14 GAD’s radio talk, 20.12.1930. 15 e.g. Dies academicus (8 July), University sports day (12 July).

348

9. From zenith to eclipse

wollen … Das Institut dient dem Zwecke, die Vçlker zusammenzufîhren’.16 The success of Deissmann’s benevolent handling of the student unrest may be questionable, since even a most sympathetic newspaper article stated: ‘er, der bescheidene, vornehme Mann, besaß nicht die Robustheit, die gegen verhetzte Jînglinge not tut’.17 In contrast, he received a letter of gratitude from the ‘Arbeitsausschuß der evangelischen Studenten in Berlin’, who wrote to express their appreciation for the ‘gîtige und wohlwollende Weise’ in which he had helped them through a most difficult year, and said that he had enabled them ‘ein gutes Stîck vorwrts gekommen [zu] sein’.18 Throughout his Rektorat Deissmann remained in close consultation with all student bodies of the University and attended numerous formal meetings with their representatives. This liaison enabled him to submit a well-received initiative to the national Rektorenkonferenz at Goslar (9 – 12 October 1931), which then nominated him, ‘mit den in Betracht kommenden studentischen und anderen Stellen in einen vertraulichen Austausch îber die bestehenden oder neu sich erçffnenden Mçglichkeiten zu treten’.19 However, during the first few months of his Rektorat it was Deissmann’s social prestige that was most notable, for his schedule became crowded with personal invitations from foreign dignitaries and politicians, as well as prominent industrialists and socialites who tried to ingratiate themselves. Thus, on 9 December the Reichsminister, Julius Curtius (1877 – 1948), invited him to a breakfast with the former state president of Argentina, Marcelo Torcuato de Alvear (1868 – 1942); this was followed the next afternoon by another invitation for Deissmann and his wife to meet the Chinese ambassador at a private tea party. Three days later, Argentina’s consul invited the couple for dinner at the Hotel Adlon; and four days after that came an 16 Extract from GAD’s address, printed in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts fîr Auslnder an der Universitt Berlin, 8, 8, 18. 8. 1930, 64 – 5. Sçderblom was succeeded as archbishop of Uppsala (1931 – 50) by Erling Eidem (1880 – 1972), who was one of GAD’s former students at Berlin. 17 ‘Das Gesicht des deutschen Gelehrten’, 8-Uhr Sportsblatt, 23. 8. 1932; see further, n. 88 below. 18 The letter is dated 7.10.1931. 19 Bericht îber das Amtsjahr 1930/31 (121. Rektoratsjahr) erstattet bei der Rektoratsîbergabe am 15. Oktober 1931 von Adolf Deißmann, Berlin, 1931, 12. See also Appendix 9, c.

9.1. Berlin Rektorat: professional life’s crowning point

349

invitation from the Bolivarian states of Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Panama, for a centenary dinner in celebration of their liberator, Simûn Bol„var (1783 – 1830). Then arrived various invitations to private soir¤es, including one each from the minister of Venezuela, the ambassador of the USSR, and Admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder (1876 – 1960), as well as an invite from the Egyptian consul to a birthday-banquet in honour of King Fuad 1 (1868 – 1936).20 After the Rektoratswechsel to Heinrich Lîders on 15 October 1931, Deissmann became Prorektor, and during the course of Lîders’ tenure represented him officially on at least 27 separate days. During the subsequent Rektorat of Eduard Kohlrausch, Deissmann became Dekan of the Theological Faculty, and between October 1932 and October 1933 stood in for the Rektor on 26 separate days.21 On 23 August 1932 the 8-Uhr Sportsblatt ran a feature entitled, ‘Das Gesicht des deutschen Gelehrten’; there Deissmann was set side by side with the 1931 Nobel laureate for medicine, Otto Warburg (1883 – 1970), and portrayed as an example of virtuous intellect. It also reported that Deissmann ‘… heute 65 Jahre alt ist (aber viel jînger wirkt)’, and that although he was an ‘îberzeugter Liberaler … von der Reinheit seiner Gesinnung legt die unvergeßliche Rede Zeugnis ab, die er am Sarge seines Freundes Friedrich Naumann hielt’ (see ch. 6.6). The article went on to claim that within Germany he was ‘wohl der Hauptvorkmpfer des çkumenischen Gedankens’, and that it was ‘kein Wunder, daß Deißmann bei den Protestanten der ganzen Welt hçchstes Ansehen genießt’. The panegyric concluded with the pointed message: ‘seine Staatstreue, seine politische Einsicht kçnnte vielen seiner Amtsgenossen ein Vorbild geben’.22 Three weeks later he received a letter from the professor for systematic theology and theological ethics at the University of Uppsala, Arvid Runestam (1887 – 1962), inviting him to accept an honorary doctorate from the University on 5 November. This was Deissmann’s seventh degree honoris causa, and proved to be the last conferred in his 20 For dates of the invitations in this paragraph, see ‘Index of cited archival material’. 21 Under Lîders: 18. 10. 1931; 18. 1. 1932; 15 – 31. 3. 1932; 1. 5. 1932; 24 – 9. 6. 1932; 26.9.1932. Under Kohlrausch: 18. 1. 1933; 10 – 20. 3. 1933; 11 – 17. 4. 1933; 24 – 7. 4. 1933; 7 – 9.9.1933. 22 ‘Das Gesicht des deutschen Gelehrten’.

350

9. From zenith to eclipse

lifetime.23 His reply shows how highly he valued this honour: ‘[ich] betrachte … die von Uppsala beschlossene Ehrenpromotion als eine ganz besondere Ehrung und Verpflichtung’. It was the only such ceremony for which he requested an exclusively designed commemorative ring, at his own cost.24 The high international esteem that Deissmann had attained is further illustrated by two small events, one sparked mainly by Hitler’s domestic policy, the other by an amalgam of the latter’s national and foreign policies. On the prompting of Bishop Bell, Arthur Stuart DuncanJones (1879 – 1955), the Dean of Chichester, flew to Berlin at the end of June 1933 to interview the new Reichskanzler. Three days before his appointment he visited Deissmann, and although no records exist of their discussions it can safely be assumed that the substance of their conversations revolved around Hitler’s recently introduced Arierparagraph (see ch. 8.3) and Britain’s concern regarding Nazi interference with the internal workings of Germany’s Lutheran Church. Yet within hours of Duncan-Jones’ meeting with the Fîhrer, Deissmann met the British dean once more in private at his hotel.25 Three months later, when Hitler withdrew his country from the League of Nations, Charles Macfarland also travelled to Berlin to hold discussions with the Reichskanzler on the burning topic of church and state relationships. The American was in Europe at that time to attend a session of the League of Nations, as well as the Conference on Disarmament, but like Duncan-Jones before him, he too visited Deissmann immediately after meeting with Hitler. Again, the conversation between the two theologians was not recorded, but from Macfarland’s book it is evident that he was struck more by the German leader’s intractable course of political isolationism than by the blunt answers he had received to his prepared questions. Accordingly, he lamented: He has no foreign policy; it is all negative … Hitler had a good case before the world regarding the Versailles Treaty, but he himself is partly, if not 23 On the occasion of the University of Athens’ 100th anniversary (3. 5. 1937) GAD was posthumously awarded an eighth doctorate (philosophy) – four weeks after his death. 24 GAD, letter to Runestam, 28.9.1932. The ring is engraved with nine crosses and leaves and the Swedish abbreviation: ‘HEDERDR. THEOL. 19 5/11 32’. It is held privately. 25 So the AK; see also Appendix 9, d. The AK yields no further details (compare ‘AK’ in Abbreviations).

9.2. Retirement, and 70th birthday honours

351

entirely, to blame for its loss. He has a one-track mind, which is the cause of both his success and his failure.26

Neither Duncan-Jones nor Macfarland expected Deissmann to have some kind of indirect influence on Hitler or his regime, but it seems quite obvious that the American and British envoys still saw Deissmann as a German who had attained a position of privileged trust and sociopolitical insight due to his high-ranking ecumenical profile. As far as is known, Deissmann himself has never had any personal contact with Hitler; had there been, his diary would certainly indicate it in some way, yet there is nothing to suggest this. It is safe to say, therefore, that Deissmann’s international profile reached its zenith during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Within the short space of less than four years he had toured America, presented the Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, held the Rektorat at Germany’s most prestigious university, acted as Prorektor for a further two years, was awarded three honorary doctorates from three different countries – USA (Wooster, 22 April 1929), England (Oxford, 27 June 1929) and Sweden (Uppsala, 5 November 1932). Besides, it was within this same eventful period of time that he was proclaimed by some of the media as an outstanding exemplification of all that was admirable in the German academic world.

9.2. Retirement, and 70th birthday honours Due to a federal law newly introduced on 21 January 1935, the retirement age for German professors was set ‘zum Schluß des Semesters, in dem sie ihr 65. Lebensjahr vollenden’.27 Thus, along with six of his colleagues in the Theological Faculty,28 Deissmann was ‘officially’ entpflichtet from his professorial Chair on 31 March of that year. However, he did not receive a Lehrverbot and was, therefore, permitted to continue teaching until his successor Johannes Behm (1883 – 1948) – a member of the Nazi-friendly, anti-Semitic Deutsche 26 Macfarland, 165 – 7. 27 ThB, 14, 1935, 101. 28 Bertholet, Lîtgert, Sellin, C. Schmidt, and Stuhlfauth; significantly, the first three had also co-signed with GAD the protest letter (2. 11. 1934) against Reinhold Seeberg’s Gutachten; compare n. 38 below, see also ch. 1.4.

352

9. From zenith to eclipse

Christen and of the NSDAP – could replace him at the beginning of the winter semester.29 Deissmann’s lecture plan for the winter semester 1935/6 shows that he had no intention of giving up teaching at that stage.30 His attitude towards retirement can also be borne out by a private letter he wrote as Rektor five years earlier to the philologist Karl Strecker (1861 – 1945), in which he congratulated him on his 70th birthday, but made it clear that he expected him to continue in his work. Wir sind auch der Zuversicht, dass der biblische Tag,31 den Sie feiern, fîr Sie zugleich der Beginn einer neuen Arbeitsperiode ist, – so, wie der mrkische Bauer nach der Bergung seiner Ernte sofort den Acker wieder unter den Pflug nimmt fîr die Wintersaat. Zu einem gesegneten Weiterwirken als Forscher und Lehrer schenke Ihnen Gott der Herr noch manchen gesunden Arbeitstag!32

But on Sunday evening, 2 June 1935, after spending the afternoon uncharacteristically at the Faculty, he wrote in his diary: ‘Rektor bittet mich im WS 35/36 nicht zu lesen’.33 It seems like a dispassionate enough entry, except when one looks at the initially blank and unpaginated back pages of that same book; for there he had recorded his lecture plan for the current winter semester, but directly below it jotted: ‘Diese Vorlesungen wurden auf Veranlassung des Rektors Krîger (Tier-Anatome) gestrichen’. Throughout Deissmann’s 38 annual Amtskalender, which he used as diaries, are scattered 143 references to Rektoren, yet only 15 times does he actually name any of them, and with the exception of Krîger’s appellation ‘Tier-Anatome’ he connects not a single one with their personal Sachgebiet – but here, it is plainly used in a contemptuous way. Wilhelm Krîger (1898 – 1977) had been a member of the NSDAP since 1933 (later he also joined the SS), and in April 1935 was appointed Rektor of the University – despite the express disapproval of the teaching staff. Five months after this man instructed Deissmann to cease teaching, the personal advisor to the Ministerialprsident wrote a 29 See H. Ludwig, ‘Die Berliner Theologische Fakultt 1933 bis 1945’, Die Berliner Universitt in der NS-Zeit, 1, C. Jahr, ed., Stuttgart, 2005, 107. For an overview that spans 31 years of GAD’s general teaching programs, see Appendix 9, e. 30 See Appendix 9, e. 31 An allusion to Ps. 90:10. 32 GAD, letter to Strecker, 1.9.1931. 33 The AK places GAD and Krîger there between 3 and 6 pm; whether anyone else was present can no longer be established with certainty.

9.2. Retirement, and 70th birthday honours

353

lengthy letter of complaint about Krîger to the Kultusminister, in which he stated: Einer der gelufigsten Angriffe whrend der Kampfzeit war es, wenn man uns vorwarf, wir htten keine Kçpfe. Wenn jetzt, nachdem das Unberechtigte dieses Angriffes lngst erwiesen ist, diese Vorwîrfe wieder laut werden, so nehmen wir sie ernster, wenn sie, wie im vorliegenden Fall [i.e. Krîger] durch schlechte Personalpolitik von uns selbst verschuldet sind. Seit Beginn des Sommersemesters 1935 sind wir diesen Angriffen bezîglich des Rektors der Berliner Universitt ausgesetzt und mîssen sie, da sie sich gegen einen Parteigenossen richten, zurîckweisen, obwohl wir ihre Berechtigung in diesem Falle selbst anerkennen mîssen. Es ist bekannt und unbestreitbar, dass der Rektor Professor Krîger den Anforderungen, die die Berliner Universitt berechtigt und verpflichtet ist, an den Fîhrer der Universitt zu stellen, nicht entspricht.34

Gertrud Frischmuth, one of Deissmann’s most devoted students, later frankly wrote that her former teacher’s meeting with Krîger resulted in an ‘unter recht unerfreulichen Begleitumstnden erfolgten Zur-RuheSetzung’.35 While it is not possible to reconstruct with accuracy what was being said, or why their encounter turned out to be so unpleasant for Deissmann, we are not left entirely without a clue. Deissmann had begun to show an increasingly transparent disillusionment with Germany’s political and socioreligious trends (see ch. 6.4),36 and in 1933 was one of ten theologians who signed a declaration against Hitler’s Arierparagraph (see ch. 8.3). This, at a time when Jewish and pro-Jewish academics were being driven from Berlin’s Friedrich-Wilhelms University en masse.37 Then, towards the latter part of 1934, relations soured considerably between Deissmann and the Faculty Dekan, Erich Seeberg. The latter’s father, Reinhold Seeberg (see ch. 2.4), had managed to publish a Gutachten in favour of the Arierparagraph, ostensibly in behalf of the entire Faculty, even though Deissmann 34 Wolter, letter to Ministerialprsident, 27.11.1935. See also M. Grîttner, Biographisches Lexikon zur nationalsozialistischen Wissenschaftspolitik, Heidelberg, 2004, 101. 35 G. Frischmuth, ‘Adolf Deissmann – Ein Leben “in Christo” fîr die Una Sancta’, in G. Gloede, et al., eds., Oekumenische Profile, Gestalten der Einen Kirche in aller Welt, 2, 5, Berlin, n. d., 7. 36 See also GAD’s letter, 17.3.1933. 37 Between 1933 and 1936 a total of 242 of the University’s 746 Hochschullehrer were dismissed. M. Grîttner/ S. Kinas, ‘Die Vertreibung von Wissenschaftlern aus deutschen Universitten 1933 – 1945’, Vierteljahrshefte fîr Zeitgeschichte, 55, 2007, 123 – 87.

354

9. From zenith to eclipse

and five other Faculty members had voted against it. Subsequently, these six wrote the following letter of protest to the Dekan: Die Verçffentlichung der Fakulttsvoten zu dem Gutachten des Herrn Koll.[egen] Reinh.[old] Seeberg durch Herrn D. Witte empfinden wir als einen den Pflichten der Kollegialitt widersprechenden Vertrauensbruch. Wir werden kînftighin Fakulttssitzungen erst dann wieder besuchen, wenn uns Garantieen gegen hnliche Vorkommnisse geboten werden.38

Erich Seeberg was evidently incensed, and wrote a letter to the dissidents in which he requested that they had better let the matter rest, or he would consider it necessary ‘die ganze Angelegenheit dem Minister zur Entscheidung zu unterbreiten’.39 It can safely be assumed, therefore, that Deissmann’s meeting with the Rektor on the 2nd of June revolved around two main topics: firstly, the fact that the former had lost support of the Dekan on account of his opposition to the Faculty’s move towards Nationalsozialismus,40 and secondly, the Minister’s appointment of Johannes Behm as Deissmann’s Nachfolger. For instead of someone more broad-minded, like Martin Dibelius,41 his successor was going to be a Nazi member who was in complete opposition to all that Deissmann had taught and stood for. Seventeen months later, on the occasion of Deissmann’s 70th birthday – held on Saturday, 7 November 1936, at the ‘Ratswein Keller’ in Schçneberg (Berlin) – Martin Dibelius had organised an anthology of greetings from congratulants worldwide, and in his presentation speech – as if to remind him of a better time – nostalgically reminisced: ‘ … was waren das fîr Zeiten in Heidelberg …’.42

38 Protest letter to E. Seeberg, 2.11.1934. The letter is signed by Bertholet, GAD, Lietzmann, Sellin, Lîtgert and Schmitz; compare with n. 28 above. 39 E. Seeberg, letter to six professors, 8.11.1934. 40 ‘Witte und Stolzenburg bauten die Berliner Fakultt in eine NS/DC-Einrichtung um … Lîtgert klagte: “Unsere Fakultt ist vçllig zerrîttet … die beiden Seebergs treiben mit einer durch das Alter abgestuften Fahrgeschwindigkeit eine Politik des Opportunismus”.’ Ludwig, 108. These radical changes were due to the Nazi ideology of Gleichschaltung, a totalitarian process enacted within the first months of Hitler’s chancellorship to enforce centralised control over all aspects of society. 41 GAD had hoped for Martin Dibelius: see ch. 5, n. 185; ch. 8, n. 198. Other names put forward were Rudolf Bultmann or Gerhard Kittel. Ludwig, 107. 42 See Appendix 9, f.

9.2. Retirement, and 70th birthday honours

355

All in all, 282 individuals (including a few corporate bodies) from 17 countries contributed to this unique ‘Glîckwunschbuch’.43 Many seized the opportunity to include lengthy letters of gratitude and veneration, a number of them with strikingly artistic embellishments. The impressive register comprised 189 congratulants from Germany, 17 from Britain, 14 from Sweden, twelve each from Finland and the USA, ten from Switzerland, five from Greece, three each from Austria, Holland, Hungary, Norway and Poland, two from Bulgaria and Rumania, and one each from Australia, Denmark and France. Not unexpectedly, the principal subscribers were mainly academics, theologians and pastors, but included four archbishops (Thyatira, Uppsala, Warsaw and York), two editors, the Greek minister of education and the arts, a publishing house, and Germany’s Armeeoberpfarrer. George Simpson Duncan (1884 – 1965), professor of Biblical criticism at the University of St. Andrews, asked in his letter the rhetorical question: ‘Is there any theologian of your generation who has so many friends and well-wishers in lands outside his own?’44 Another, Friedrich Gerke (1900 – 1966), director of the Berlin Seminar fîr Christliche Archologie und Kirchliche Kunst, praised his part in the archaeology of Ephesus, and wrote: Sie waren nicht nur mein Lehrer in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, sondern fçrderten auch meine archologische Arbeit. Sie weckten durch Ihre Paulusstudien die Sehnsucht nach Ephesus in mir und bahnten mir den Weg dorthin. Das Institut, dass ich jetzt zu fîhren habe, bewahrt Ihren Namen auf, nicht nur weil Sie es wie einst Adolf Harnack fîr kurze Zeit geleitet haben, sondern weil Sie immer fîr unsere jungen eben erst selbststndig gewordene Wissenschaft eingetreten sind. … Wir haben Sie nçtig! Wir alle wînschen, dass Sie uns jîngere Generation noch lange fîhren und Vorbild bleiben und einen neuen Aufstieg unserer Fakultt miterleben mçchten.45

It was a moving plea that Deissmann should continue to make good use of his extensive network of influential connections to help revive the Theological Faculty’s halcyon days – yet five months later he died at his home in Wînsdorf. 43 Adolf Deißmann, zum 7. November 1936. It is held privately. See Appendix 9, f. 44 It is dated 25.7.1936. 45 For a complete transcript of this and three other sample letters see Appendix 9, g (I-IV).

356

9. From zenith to eclipse

9.3. ‘Have pia anima’46 The radical changes at the University, in particular at ‘his’ Faculty, had a deleterious effect on Deissmann. He continued to be active in the preparations for the second World Conferences on ‘Life and Work’ at Oxford (12 – 26 July 1937) and for ‘Faith and Order’ at Edinburgh (3 – 18 August); and while his diary shows that he was planning to participate at both occasions, his life ended three months beforehand (5 April 1937). In his last book, Una Sancta, he still presented an image of positive ecumenism: ‘Das §kumenische ist heute so aktuell wie mçglich … die Una Sancta ist Gegenwartslosung und ist Gegenwartsaufgabe, die nicht wir angepackt haben, sondern die uns angepackt hat’.47 But those who knew him personally during those trying years remembered him as a deeply troubled man. Thus, Friedrich SiegmundSchultze wrote in his obituary of Deissmann: Ein Mann wie Deißmann hat genug darunter gelitten, daß ihm das alte Professorenrecht, die Vorlesungen auch îber die Alters- und Amtsgrenze fortzufîhren, entzogen wurde. Und ein Einfluß auf das Geschehen in der Sphre von Wissenschaft und Kultur war ihm ja auch nicht mehr mçglich.48

As early as 1921 Deissmann had asked the question: ‘Steht die Menschheit im Begriff, die letzen Methoden ihrer Selbstvernichtung zu entdecken? Wetterleuchtet bereits Harmageddon?’49 And a little over a decade later, his lifelong optimistic belief in the innate goodness of mankind was showing distinct signs of wearing thin, as the inevitability of yet another large-scale war became increasingly apparent.50 46 This Latin formula occurs ten times in the AK; i. e. upon the deaths of H. Wendt, E. Troeltsch, N. Sçderblom, C. Becker, F. Mahling, E. Schumann, E. v. Dobschîtz, N. Bares, P. Schubrig and T. Wiegand. Upon his own death GAD’s eldest son, Ernst, entered the same formula into the AK (the only entry not made by GAD himself ): ADOLF DEIßMANN “HAVE PIA ANIMA!” Although the formula was of significance to GAD himself, its occurrence in the AK seems randomly, for in the c. 90 other cases where GAD recorded the death of someone (even close relatives and friends) he typically marked it only with a cross after the name. 47 Una Sancta, 30. 48 Siegmund-Schultze, ChrW, 20. 3. 1937, 334. For two further obituaries see also Appendix 9, h (I-II). 49 Ev.Wbr, Aug. 1921, 244. 50 e.g. On 30. 6. 1934 Hitler had some 200 potential opponents murdered (‘RçhmPutsch, or ‘Nacht der langen Messer’). By 16. 3. 1935 he introduced compulsory military service to expand his army to 36 divisions, in direct contravention to the *

9.3. ‘Have pia anima’

357

Gertrud Frischmuth related the story of a young student who visited Deissmann in October 1933 to seek advice in respect to the increasingly stifling effect Germany’s National Socialism had on the Lutheran Church. Er fand ihn [Deissmann], dessen ußeres und inneres Wesen sonst vollendete Ruhe und Wîrde waren, seltsam bewegt und erschîttert. Seine Gestalt war von Leid und Gram gezeichnet. Er, dem man die hohen Sechziger nicht angesehen hatte – kein Silberfaden durchzog das tiefdunkle Haar – war, in wenigen Monaten um Jahre gealtert. Was er in dieser Stunde ußerte, waren tiefe Befîrchtungen, war die klare Vorausschau kommender Katastrophen …

‘Was dann kam’, wrote Frischmuth, ‘war schwerstes Herzensleid fîr Adolf Deissmann. ˜ber seiner bisher so ungebeugt gebliebenen Gestalt lag fortan oft genug der leise Schatten einer schwermîtigen Trauer’.51 To some degree this melancholia can even be detected in Una Sancta, in spite of the fact that he wrote it ‘zum Geleit in das çkumenische Jahr 1937’; for although it includes a section entitled, ‘Die çkumenische Weltlage’, this consists of a mere 200 words, is lacklustre and backward- rather than forward-looking.52 Hitler’s Nationalsozialismus tolerated no alternative sociopolitical models or ideas, especially if these involved links with foreign countries. This put Deissmann into a precarious position, since his ecumenical profile could readily be interpreted as unpatriotic, or even traitorous. To counteract this, he kept right out of church politics during his last years; and although he maintained his political ‘wait and see’ approach (see ch. 6.4), he gave an outward appearance of practical cooperation with the state-approved church authorities, even under Reichsbischof Johann Heinrich Ludwig Mîller (1883 – 1945). Predictably, many interpreted Deissmann’s difficult position as a sign of spinelessness, which is why Siegmund-Schultze explained in his obituary: Versailles Treaty (Art. 160). One year later (7. 3. 1936) Hitler ordered German troops into the demilitarised Saarland, and on 26. 8. 1936 announced his Vierjahresplan in the Reichstag, in which he declared openly that the German army and the national economy were to be ready for war within four years. (GAD noted the first three events in the AK, but was in Switzerland on 26. 8. 1936). GAD had mooted the possibility of such a war in Ev.Wbr, 29. 5. 1919, 3 – 9. 51 Frischmuth, 2, 18. 52 Una Sancta, 29 – 30.

358

9. From zenith to eclipse

In den letzten Jahren hielt er sich von dem innerdeutschen Kirchenkonflikt fern und stand mit seinen Anschauungen zwischen den Bewegungen und Parteien, hielt sich aber praktisch an die jeweils bestehende offizielle Kirchenleitung oder an das kirchliche Auslandsamt, das zur Zeit des Reichsbischofs Mîller eingesetzt, sich durch alle folgenden Wandlungen erhalten hat. Manche Vorwîrfe sind ihm wegen dieser Haltung gemacht worden, îber die er auch im letzten Jahr noch mit uns tiefbedrîckt gesprochen hat. Wir haben verstanden, daß er seine große internationale Autoritt, die fîr die çkumenische Sache so viel wert ist, nicht durch einen Kampf gegen die derzeitigen Kirchenbehçrden aufs Spiel setzen wollte.53

Adolf Deissmann died at Wînsdorf, quite suddenly, of a coronary thrombosis during the early hours of Monday morning, 5 April 1937. That same day, one newspaper reported: Der bekannte Theologe der Berliner Universitt Geh. Konsistorialrat Prof. D. Dr. Adolf Deißmann ist nach kurzem Unwohlsein in der Nacht zum Montag in seiner Wohnung in Wînsdorf bei Berlin im 71. Lebensjahr gestorben.54

His son, Gerhard Deissmann, described what happened that night, in a private letter to this author: Soweit ich mich erinnern kann, erkrankte mein Vater im Frîhjahr 1937 plçtzlich und kurzfristig an einer Thrombose am Herzen mit der Folge einer Verstopfung einer der zentralen Arterien und der Loslçsung von Blutgerinnseln bis zur tçdlichen Embolie. Damals gab es noch keine Notarztwagen mit sofortigem Transport in ein Krankenhaus, nur der aus Berlin herbeigerufene Hausarzt und ein Wînsdorfer Arzt waren schnell zur Stelle und leisteten Hilfe, so gut sie konnten. Alles ging erschreckend schnell, wenige Tage nach dem Anfall von Herzschwche ist der Vater ruhig eingeschlafen.55

The funeral took place on Thursday afternoon 8 April 1937 at Wînsdorf;56 and, in accordance with Deissmann’s wishes, he was buried in the village cemetery, where his gravesite and tombstone are maintained to this day. After his death the Berliner Stadtbibliothek purchased a sizeable part of his private library,57 but most of the 53 Siegmund-Schultze, ChrW, 20. 3. 1937, 334. 54 Berliner Lokalanzeiger, 5.4.1937. For an obituary that describes GAD’s funeral, see Appendix 9, h (I). 55 Letter, dated 27.7.2002. 56 For a detailed newspaper account of the service, see Appendix 9, h (I). 57 ‘Ein großer Teil der Bibliothek und der umfangreiche Nachlaß des Berliner Bibelwissenschaftlers und Rektors der Berliner Universitt Adolf Deißmann (1866 – 1937) wurde in den Jahren 1937/38 erworben. Er bestand zu dieser

9.3. ‘Have pia anima’

359

remaining books, correspondence and lexicographical work which was retained by his family at home were subsequently lost (see ch. 2.6). His collection of books at the Theological Faculty was purchased in 1939 by the Ministerium fîr Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung and bequeathed to the University of Uppsala. However, this was not merely a gesture of academic goodwill, for the underlying motive was at least partly inspired by political expediency. A letter from the Kultusministerium to the Dekan of the Berlin Theological Faculty, Arnold Stolzenburg (1887 – 1966) – an active NSDAP member – states: Angesichts der begreiflichen Verstimmung schwedischer Wissenschaftskreise îber das Verbot des Nobelpreises fîr Wissenschaft wre zu erwgen, ob man nicht eine freundschaftliche Geste dorthin machen sollte, z. B. Schenkung der Bibliothek von Professor Deißmann fîr das neutestamentliche Seminar in Uppsala.58

Fourteen years after Deissmann’s death Albert Schweitzer (1875 – 1965) wrote to his widow Henriette: ‘Wir verstehen, dass Ihr Mann an gebrochenem Herzen starb’.59 Schweitzer evidently understood someZeit aus 1520 Bdn, 879 Broschîren, 145 Ksten und 140 Konvoluten. Da dieses umfangreiche Material nicht verlagert wurde, geriet es in die Umlagerungen der Nachkriegszeit, wobei jede Ordnung zerstçrt wurde. In den letzten Jahren wurde der gesamte noch vorhandene Bestand vollstndig neu geordnet. In ihm befinden sich zahlreiche Druckschriften, auch solche aus den letzten Jahrzehnten des 19. Jhs. Die nur noch geringen Reste der Privatbibliothek sind zunchst gesichert und sollen im Anschluß an den Nachlaß wieder aufgestellt werden.’ Krause/ Raabe, 236. In 1939 the Auswrtiges Amt bought another 21 boxes of books from Henriette Deissmann and presented them to the Uppsala University. See Lietzmann, letter to Fridrichsen, 26. 5. 1939, and Fridrichsen, letter to Lietzmann, 10. 8. 1939, in Aland, 1097, 1113. Some other material, such as 16 diverse editions of Pasor’s Lexicon Graeco-Latinum, has also survived in a private collection. See further, SD, 54; also Nottmeier, ‘Ein unbekannter Brief’, 123 – 5. 58 The letter is dated 26.7.1937. For a transcript of three letters in connection to this, see Appendix 9, i (I-III). 59 Schweitzer’s letter, 19. 4. 1951, see also epilogue to this chapter. In private correspondence with this author, Gerhard Deissmann wrote: ‘Henriette Deissmann hat ihren Mann noch 18 Jahre îberlebt, in Wînsdorf (bis 1945), vorîbergehend in Berlin (beim Sohn Ernst), dann in Westfahlen (bei der Tochter Henriette) und schließlich fîr lange Jahre in ihrer geliebten Vaterstadt Hamburg, wo sie 82 jhrig 1955 verstarb. Besonders die Monate April bis Juni 1945, als russische Besatzer Wînsdorfs sie aus dem Hause Anatolia in eine Notunterkunft im Dorfe vertrieben, waren wirklich der Tiefpunkt ihres Lebens, in der ihr ltester Sohn Ernst sich in treuer Aufopferung von Berlin aus um sie kîmmerte. Z. T. gegen russischen Widerstand gelang es ihm, mit

360

9. From zenith to eclipse

thing of the mental anguish Deissmann had endured during his last years, particularly as a champion of international ‘Friedens- und Verstndigungsbestrebungen’60 during a time when all such efforts, generated from within Germany itself, were systematically being undermined. Thus, in 1937 the German government refused to endorse passports for delegates who wanted to attend the ecumenical conferences at Oxford and Edinburgh (see above).61 Unfortunately, the message from the Oxford Conference that conveyed their consolidated ecumenical support for German Christians came too late for Deissmann. But it serves to bespeak his personal distress at that time, for the Conference members had resolved to send a deputation to Germany, ‘to affirm that their [i.e. Germany’s] sufferings have become the suffering of the whole Christian Church …’.62 These accounts by Siegmund-Schultze, Frischmuth and Schweitzer all agree in their depiction of Deissmann as someone whose consistently positive Weltanschauung had sustained him throughout WWI and the subsequent Great Depression, but who finally died a very despondent man – his vision of a prospective global peace broken. He once wrote: ‘Ich htte den Krieg [WWI] innerlich nicht ertragen, wenn ich mich nicht an dem Gedanken der Una Sancta htte halten kçnnen …’.63 Yet during his final years it was precisely this ecclesiastical utopianism that failed him, when its illusory ideals were progressively vaporised by the seemingly unstoppable rise of Hitler’s Third Reich.

60 61

62 63

dem Fahrrad (!) nach Wînsdorf zu fahren, um ihr beizustehen und dann bald den Umzug nach Berlin zu organisieren.’ (Underscore by E. Deissmann) W. Hadorn, in Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1918, 6. See also ch. 8.4. E.E. Aubrey, ‘The Oxford Conference, 1937’, JR, 17, 4, 1937, 381 – 3. Aubrey added the following observation (p. 383): ‘Germany was represented by an Old Catholic Church delegate and by two delegates (Bishop Melle and Rev. Paul Schmidt) from the Federation of Protestant Free Churches. The latter, incidentally, created an embarrassing situation by that staunch support of the Nazi program under which these minority groups work in freedom.’ See also Frischmuth, 2. Aubrey, 389. Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 282.

9.4. Obscurity

361

9.4. Obscurity Schweitzer’s 1951 tribute that Deissmann personified an era of academic research ‘… [das] man nicht in Vergessenheit versinken lassen sollte’, suggests that the life and works of his colleague were already widely forgotten by that time. Indeed, in April 1959 Emil Bock verified that this was the case: In Adolf Deißmann ist dann aber um die Jahrhundertwende zugunsten der griechischen Bibel ein einzigartiger Anwalt hervorgetreten. Leider ist seine Stimme fast ungehçrt verhallt, und als zwei Jahrzehnte seit seinem Tode vergangen waren, geriet er bereits in Vergessenheit.64

For all that, it should not be altogether surprising that the names and memories of once world-renowned and celebrated individuals can pass into virtual anonymity within a short time after their death. This can especially occur when new world leaders, new human achievements, or new scientific discoveries emerge which are capable of shifting the focus of the academic and popular imagination on to the next generation. Deissmann was never completely forgotten; yet his slide into relative obscurity happened not only with respect to his pioneering work in Greek philology (see chs. 1 – 3), but all the more so with the unique position he attained within the archaeological history of Ephesus (see ch. 5), and even with the extraordinary international Verstndigungsarbeit (see chs. 7 – 8) that he achieved by way of his bulletins and later through the ecumenical movement. The causes for this are varied, but broadly converge in a tragic cumulation of the effects of WWI and WWII, momentous postwar events, and subsequent historical revisionism. By 1917 Deissmann had, according to his own estimate, already lost about 100 of his students in the war, among them ‘eine Auslese der Begabtesten und Hoffnungsvollsten’;65 it bears noting that this figure did not include former graduates from his Heidelberg years, when his academic productivity was at its peak. Yet from that distinctive period at least two are known to have carried on his work in postclassical Greek: Jean Rouffiac and Gottfried Thieme66 – both were killed in the war. It can safely be inferred, therefore, that Deissmann lost most, if 64 Bock, 36. 65 Ev.Wbr, 9. 3. 1917, 1; see ch. 8, n. 50. Compare with ch. 2, n. 176, and ch. 4, n. 73. 66 See ch. 2, n. 176.

362

9. From zenith to eclipse

not all, of his Nachwuchs in that specialist field of academic research that had initially made him world-renowned.67 However, long before the war, he had, in fact, allowed an excellent opportunity to pass that would have tied his name much more prominently and firmly to NT lexicography than his philological trilogy was able to do (see ch. 1.7). But although he once admitted to his friend James Moulton that the non-completion of his lexicon was at least partly his own doing – because, ‘ich hatte mir sonst zu viel aufgeladen’68 – publicly he tended to shift the blame for its failure to come to fruition squarely on the war: ‘… das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament [wurde] vorzeitig erwîrgt durch die Elendsfaust dieses schlimmen øon’.69 Deissmann’s own death occurred eight months into Hitler’s second Vierjahresplan; and two-and-a-half years later the world had descended into a new global war that resulted in a chaotic Europe and a crushed German nation. Then, within the decade following WWII, came the sensational first discoveries – and – announcement to the press (April 1948) – of seven ancient scrolls, found in a cave near the Dead Sea. Shortly thereafter an initial scientific report of one of these scrolls was published (in Hebrew) by Eleazar Lipa Sukenik (1889 – 1953), and less than two years later, Millar Burrows produced the first book in English, entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery (vol. 1), and published by the American School of Oriental Research. After that, the early 1950s produced a ‘great glut of material – a bonanza that far exceeded the wildest dreams of scholars’.70 The rapidly growing worldwide interest in all this new material which ‘revolutionised study of the Bible, early Judaism, and early Christianity’,71 had the effect of almost completely eclipsing Deissmann’s already fading sociolinguistic work of a half-century earlier. But was this ‘revolution’ really such a positive step forward towards a better understanding of the NT? G.H.R. Horsley summarised it as follows:

67 68 69 70

See Appendix 9, j. GAD, card to Moulton, 2.3.1910. See also ch. 2.7. Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov. 1921, 275. See also ch. 2.6. M. Wise, et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: a new translation, Rydalmere, 1997 (1996), 5. 71 Ibid., 7.

9.4. Obscurity

363

The 1930s witnessed a reaction against the approach to the Greek of the NT of which Deissmann was the foremost representative.72 The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the following decade implicitly appeared to confirm the correctness of this reaction against ‘Deissmannism’; for they have encouraged researchers to give much greater weight to the Jewish background of the NT writings, especially the Gospels.73

Thus, by 1960 ‘the scrolls had become an entire subdiscipline of ancient history, and a “proper” publication now had to include vast analyses, large syntheses, and detailed assessments placing every fragment in its place in the history of Judaism, Christianity, and humankind’.74 Within this general context arose another factor that lessened Deissmann’s renown, particularly in the English speaking world: the publications of Nigel Turner (1916–), who asserted: ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls provide some clues for Pauline terminology (e. g., flesh and spirit), and for words like sin and temptation, and they indicate the local Palestinian origin of Johannine ideas …’.75 Already in 1955 Turner had published a primary essay with which he began a long campaign to revive the 19th century notion of Biblical Greek,76 and thereby to discredit Deissmann’s philological discoveries. He contended that ‘… many are finding their way back to the Bible as a living book and perhaps are pondering afresh the old question of a “Holy Ghost language”’.77 Deissmann was no longer there to answer Turner’s claims; and those of his students who once might have been able to do so had long since perished in the war. Already in 1919 Deissmann had

72 For a survey on this topic, see J. Ros, De studie van het Bijbelgrieksch van Hugo Grotius tot Adolf Deissmann, Nimwegen, 1940. 73 Horsley, ‘The inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament’, 163 – 4. See also Lorimer, 330; on the term ‘Deissmannism’, see ch. 1, n. 87. 74 Wise, 7. 75 N. Turner, ‘Modern issues in biblical studies: philology in New Testament studies’, ET, 71, 4, 1960, 107 (italics, Turner). 76 Turner, ‘The unique character of Biblical Greek’, VT, 5, 1955, 13. But see Horsley, ‘The fiction of “Jewish Greek”’, New Documents, 5, 5 – 40. 77 Turner, in MHT, vol. 3, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Syntax, N. Turner, ed., Edinburgh, 1963, 9. This quotation comes from Turner’s most influential book, Syntax, not from Moulton’s Grammar. Turner’s work gained credibility because of the association with Moulton’s name, even though he was diametrically opposed to the latter’s views. See Horsley, ‘The Syntax volume of Moulton’s Grammar’, New Documents, 5, 49 – 65.

364

9. From zenith to eclipse

mourned this loss, by writing: ‘die Mitarbeiter haben zu einem guten Teile die Werkstatt verlassen’.78 Although the name ‘Deissmann’ no longer meant as much to as many as it did during the early decades of the 20th century, there remained those who tried to keep his memory alive. On the 25th anniversary of his death, Kurt Aland (1915 – 94) paid tribute to him in a newspaper article, and stressed: ‘Adolf Deißmann als Persçnlichkeit ist unwiederholbar, er kann nicht nachgeahmt werden’.79 In June of that same year the small village of Langenscheid organised a commemorative service at their Pfarrhaus, where Deissmann was born, and there unveiled a large bronze plaque with a relief of Deissmann’s profile and the embossed text: D. Adolf Deissmann Professor der Theologie Forscher und Lehrer fuer Neues Testament Freund seiner Studenten in Herborn, Heidelberg und Berlin Foerderer der oekumenischen Bewegung der Kirchen geboren als nassauischer Pfarrerssohn in diesem Hause am 7. November 1866 gestorben in Wuensdorf bei Berlin am 5. April 1937 gedenket an eure Lehrer, die euch das Wort Gottes gesagt haben. Hebr. 13. 7.80

Four years later, on the centenary of Deissmann’s birth, Otto Dibelius, the first bishop of the Evangelische Kirche in Berlin-Brandenburg, wrote in the newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel: ‘An seinem 100. Geburtstag, dem 7. November 1966, erneuert die theologische Wissenschaft und die evangelische Kirche ihren Dank fîr das, was uns in diesem Manne geschenkt war’.81 And a few days later, the Hamburg Pastor, Theodor Lescow, produced a commemorative item in the Berliner Sonntagsblatt, wherein he pointed out that while the mainstream had forgotten who Deissmann was, his real magnum opus (see ch. 4.4) had maintained a lasting relevance: Der Journalismus hat sich der Archologie angenommen und durch eine Reihe glnzend geschriebener Romane und Berichte breiten Kreisen an dieser Faszination Anteil gegeben. Doch wer von denen, die sich an diesen Bîchern begeistern, hat etwas von Adolf Deißmann gehçrt? Dabei hat er schon vor 60 Jahren ein Buch verçffentlicht, das Epoche gemacht hat und 78 ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’, 356. For a fuller extract see Appendix 9, j. 79 K. Aland, ‘In Christus Jesus. Zum 25. Todestag von Adolf Deißmann’, Berliner Sonntagsblatt, 15, 5. 4. 1962, 6. 80 Today the plaque (see Fig. 13) is mounted on the renovated stonewall near the Pfarrhaus gate. For a fuller account of the unveiling service (with a slightly altered plaque text), see Appendix 9, k. 81 O. Dibelius, ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene’.

9.4. Obscurity

365

bis heute Gîltigkeit besitzt. Das Buch heißt “Licht vom Osten”. Und es ist nicht nur ein Buch von immenser Gelehrsamkeit, sondern auch eines, das man lesen kann.82

Moreover, a one-time student of Deissmann, Professor Gînther Harder (1902 – 1978) – in conjunction with the former’s youngest son, Dr. phil. Gerhard Deissmann – published a commemorative, biographical booklet that comprises some useful personal and bibliographical material, as well as a selection of letter and book extracts.83 Despite these well-meaning attempts at keeping Deissmann’s memory alive, by the early 1980s few scholars were familiar with his name. One notable exception was G.H.R. Horsley; in 1981 he began to draw attention to the theologian’s philological work in the area of postclassical Greek, and by the end of the decade warned: ‘In discounting so heavily the linguistic contribution of the likes of Deissmann NT philology is in danger of turning in on itself ’.84 A moderate revival of interest in Deissmann did occur during the 1990s, albeit predominantly from a theological perspective,85 and a precise trigger for this resurgence is not altogether certain. However, it was Horsley who first established contact with Dr. Gerhard Deissmann, in 1991, and subsequently drew specific attention to the family’s private collection, as well as pointing to the fact that important archival material in relation to Deissmann existed also outside of Germany.86 82 T. Lescow, ‘“Hast Dich schçn benommen!” “Licht vom Osten” – Adolf Deißmann entdeckte das Alltagsleben der Antike’, Berliner Sonntagsblatt, 46, 13.11. 1966, 12 – 13. 83 Harder/ Deissmann; see ch. 1, n. 1. 84 Horsley, New Documents, 1, 1981, 13, 20. The citation is drawn from ‘The fiction of “Jewish Greek”’, New Documents, 5, 39. Compare, E. Plîmacher, ‘Deißmann, Adolf (1866 – 1937)’, TRE, 8, 1981, 406 – 8; Graf (see ch. 6, n. 139). Both pointed to GAD’s Nachlass at the ZLB (for which, see ch. 2, n. 47, ch. 7, n. 23, and n. 57 above). Also Besier, Krieg – Frieden – Abrîstung, 1982, passim; Besier, Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, 1984, passim. 85 e.g. K.-W. Trçger, ‘Adolf Deißmann – ein Protagonist fîr das theologische Studium der Religionen und fîr die çkumenische Bewegung’, Wiss. Z.HU.Berlin, 1992, 4, 111 – 7. H. Happe, ‘Wînsdorf, Seestraße 16, Haus “Anatolia”’, 1 and 2, Mrkische Allgemeine, 19. 6. 1993, 10 and 23. 6. 1993, 10; in the latter she makes the laudable suggestion that GAD’s house be heritagelisted and a commemorative plaque erected. Since reunification the house has now passed out of the family’s hands. Also, Beuys, 1994 (see ch. 8, n. 112); Krause/ Raabe, 1995 (see ch. 2, n. 47). For more recent works in respect to GAD, see ch. 8, n. 2. 86 Horsley, ‘origin and scope’, passim.

366

9. From zenith to eclipse

9.5. Epilogue to an anachronistic life Behind his public persona Deissmann himself was a rather shy romantic who always felt somewhat chronologically displaced, for ‘in der unmittelbaren Gegenwart war er nicht so vçllig zuhause wie in der urchristlichen Vergangenheit und in der çkumenischen Zukunft’.87 This is certainly reflected in his frequently nostalgic language when he spoke or wrote of early Christianity and the Middle East, or in his utopian drive for an ‘Una Sancta’. He had attained quasi-celebrity status on an international level, particularly among educated Protestant Christians, yet it was his striking character that impressed those who knew him personally, for he was ‘immer mit einer gewissen unnahbaren Feierlichkeit umgeben’,88 and according to George Bell, ‘it is the personality … which his friends will chiefly miss’.89 Although Deissmann sometimes tended to be finicky and headstrong,90 he possessed an even temper with a fine sense of humour, and radiated an all-round positive outlook on life. This is why he made friends easily – even under difficult circumstances – and loyally maintained his friendships by keeping up with an astonishing amount of private correspondence. Moreover, he was a passionate peacemaker, whether on an individual or international scale, and a successful mediator who himself lived by the ‘golden rule’, as Gertrud Frischmuth pointed out. “Alles nun, was ihr wollt, daß euch die Leute tun sollen, das tuet ihr ihnen auch” (Matth. 7,12). Daß dieser Satz Maß und Norm fîr alles Christsein sei … daß er verbindlich sei fîr das Zusammenleben des Ich mit dem Du, in der Familie, in den weiteren umfassenderen Gemeinschaften, ja, daß er verbindlich sei fîr das Zusammenleben der Vçlker, dies zu lehren und zu verkînden ist Adolf Deissmann ein Leben lang nicht mîde geworden.91

During his 27-year tenure at Berlin, Deissmann had very little private time for leisure and relaxation,92 but liked to retreat into his large fruit and vegetable garden whenever he could, quietly concealed behind his 87 Bock, 45. See also Appendix 9, l. 88 Harder/ Deissmann, 5. Further to GAD’s personality, see also ch. 9.5; ch. 6, n. 49, and Appendix 9, k. 89 Bell, ‘Obituary Prof. Deissmann’, see Appendix 9, h (II). 90 e.g. there are many punctiliously detailed train timetables in his AK; re. headstrong, see e. g. ch. 2.5. 91 Frischmuth, 13. 92 e.g. see ch. 2.5 and ch. 7.1.

9.5. Epilogue to an anachronistic life

367

Figure 12 The Deissmann family in front of their house ‘Anatolia’ (Summer 1935 or 1936)93.

house ‘Anatolia’,94 which was itself sheltered by a fragrant spinney of pine trees. He was extremely fond of this garden – watered by a private bore – and occasionally drew proud attention to it in his bulletins or correspondence, with words such as: ‘Mein lieber Moulton, mehrere Wochen habe ich so gut wie nicht geschrieben, meine Hnde sind hart von Gartenarbeit und Holzspalten, meine Augen voll Sgemehl …’.95 He worked hard to transform its ‘mrkischer Sandboden’ into an idyllic sanctuary for relaxation or contemplation; and in the midst of the war he once wrote to Sçderblom: 93 From left to right: GAD, Paul, Henriette jr. with son Reinhard, Ernst’s wife Gisela, Henriette sr. with Henriette jr.’s second son Helmut, Gerhard (Theodor Wiegand’s grandson) with his mother Liselotte, Ernst with adopted son Peter (compare ch. 8, n. 109), Gerhard. Absent are Henriette jr.’s husband, Prof. Paul Niederhoff (1890 – 1954), and Liselotte’s husband, Werner Wiegand (1900 – 45). 94 On ‘Anatolia’ see ch. 2, n. 125; also Happe, n. 85 above. 95 GAD, letter to Moulton, 26.8.1912. The letter’s date shows that all this work was being done during the summer holiday, i. e. less than eight weeks after the family had moved into the house. See also, Pr.WL, 14,6,1916, 1; Ev.Wbr, 16,4,1917, 1 – 2; 24,5,1918, 1. Between 1916 and 1937 the AK makes frequent reference to GAD’s gardening activities.

368

9. From zenith to eclipse

Ich bin jetzt bis Ende September in unserm Sommerheim [i.e. ‘Anatolia’] und arbeite dort auch viel mit der Hand. Aber ob ich nun die Axt oder den Spaten oder die Gießkanne in der Hand habe, meine Gedanken weilen fast unausgesetzt bei der gegenwrtigen Lage der Christenheit …96

Deissmann’s vineyard was planted with specially introduced muscatel vines from Palestine,97 although his son Gerhard remembers that despite their naturally sweet flavours, theirs often tasted unpleasantly sour for lack of sun. Deissmann derived great pride and joy from his homegrown fruit and vegetables, and on special occasions presented friends or relatives with an arrangement of such produce. Thus, he wrote to Max Friedlnder (see ch. 9.1) for his 80th birthday: ‘Einige Frîchte aus unserem mrkischen Garten in Wînsdorf mçgen Ihnen an ihrem schwachen Teil den Feiertag zu einem Erntefest gestalten helfen’.98 As for Deissmann’s professional persona, there exists probably not a more sensitive and informative contemporary description than that written by Emil Bock (see ch. 2.6), who completed his theology licentiate under Deissmann’s supervision in July 1921. Although the following is a very sizable citation its inclusion here is justified by its remarkable content. Man kann nicht sagen, dass er seine Hçrer durch geistreichen oder mitreißenden Vortrag gefesselt htte. Ganze Welten trennten seine Art von der intellektuell-geistsprîhenden Beredsamkeit eines Harnack und der elementar-eruptiven Rednerwucht eines Troeltsch. Eher hatten seine Vorlesungen, die er fast durchweg wçrtlich aus Heften ablas, etwas Monotones. Sie waren auch nicht reich an Gedanken, kreisten vielmehr um einige wenige Grundideen, die ihm fîr die drei ersten Evangelien, das Johannesevangelium und fîr die Paulusbriefe als Schlîssel dienten. Dennoch war sein Sprechen wie das Wegziehen des Vorhangs vor einer Welt, in die man nunmehr staunend hineinahnte. Die Formulierungen, die Deißmann seinen Gedanken gab, waren smtlich genau abgewogen und von einem ans Feierlich-Sakrale grenzenden kînstlerischen Formbewußtsein, wie denn auch schon in der Verbeugung, mit der er jede Vorlesung begann, und in der langsamen Art zu sprechen – er hatte eine bestimmte Art, bei jedem halben Satz einmal îber die Brille hinweg in seine Zuhçrerschaft hineinzublicken – etwas Eigenartig-Gravittisches lag.

96 GAD, letter to Sçderblom, 24.7.1918. 97 Bock, 45. 98 GAD, letter to Friedlnder, 11.10.1932.

9.6. Conclusion

369

Eigentlich wirkte Deißmann, trotz der hessischen Dialektfrbung seines Sprechens, nicht wie ein Mitteleuroper. Bis in seine ußere Erscheinung, die einerseits durch den tiefbraunen Glanz seiner Augen und seinen schwarzen Vollbart, anderseits durch seine immer etwas feierlich langsamen Bewegungen charakterisiert war, machte er den Eindruck eines griechischen Patriarchen. Verstrkt wurde das dadurch, daß er in seinen Darlegungen immer wieder Bemerkungen, Motive und Nuancen hineinverwob, die auf seine Reisen nach Kleinasien und Palstina zurîckgingen. Ich konnte mich dem Gefîhl nicht verschließen, daß es die Welt des griechischen, çstlichen Christentums sein mîsse, der Boden des ersten Urchristentums, die Geburtssttte des Neuen Testamentes, was sich so rtselhaft-substantiell durch das Sprechen und Wesen dieses Mannes kundtat.99

9.6. Conclusion Although Deissmann had produced his highest academic achievements at Heidelberg before 1908, it was in Berlin where his professional career reached its zenith – and that specifically within the four years between 1929 and 1932. During this relatively short period, he toured America, was nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, became Rektor of the Berlin University, and received three honorary doctorates from America, England and Sweden. Yet while these crowning achievements were partly due to the ecumenical prominence he had gained after the war, none of this would have been possible were it not for his fundamental philological work at Heidelberg; for it was this that had launched him into the international arena, and later – as Martin Dibelius observed – underpinned his election to the Rektorat of the Berlin University. However, Deissmann lived the last four years of his life under the bane of the Nazis’ Gleichschaltung policy, and the circumstances of his retirement in 1935 reflect some of the inner distress and disillusionment this was causing him. The First World War had already claimed a very large number of his students, so that no one was left to carry on his philological work. His long-held hope that his former student and ecumenical colleague, Martin Dibelius, would become his ordinarius successor, was not realised, due to the – at least partly political – appointment of Johannes Behm instead. Finally, Deissmann saw the Faculty, where he had invested more than a quarter-century of his life, 99 Bock, 36 – 7.

370

9. From zenith to eclipse

systematically being broken up by his government’s totalitarian ideologies. A great deal of what he had worked and stood for throughout his life had been taken away from him before his death, and this goes a long way to explain why some of his friends wrote that he had died of a ‘broken heart’.100

100 e.g. Frischmuth, 2, and Schweitzer’s letter, 19.4.1951.

General conclusion

Figure 13 The Deissmann family at the back door of their house ‘Anatolia’, in 1934. From left to right: Gerhard, Paul, Henriette Jr., Liselotte, Deissmann, Henriette Sr., Ernst

General conclusion It is true that, in the historical investigation of any great personality of the past, the investigator is bound to come to the limits of his knowledge. 1

Adolf Deissmann’s lifespan coincided with Germany’s long struggle for sociopolitical reform from deeply entrenched 18th century authoritarianism to 20th century liberal-democratic modernity and, therefore, covered an epoch of almost continuous social anxiety within his country. He grew up during the national unificationage of Bismarck (1862 – 90), lived through Kaiser Wilhelm’s militaristic reign (1888 – 1918) and the subsequent socioeconomic ‘roller-coaster’ of the Weimar Republic (1919 – 33), and finally, in retirement, experienced the first four years of Hitler’s dictatorship with the concomitant rise of Nazi totalitarianism (1933 – 45). Yet out of all this, Deissmann emerges as an atypical humanitarian internationalist – quite distinct from his compatriots – a many-faceted individual who cannot be ‘pigeonholed’ without seriously distorting his true persona. Since no rounded appraisal of his many influential achievements has existed until now, his role in certain areas of the 20th century’s historical and intellectual development has been widely underestimated or misunderstood by post-WWII scholarship. While one of the goals of this book is to provide a modern reassessment of Deissmann’s contributions in the areas of postclassical Greek philology, especially as it bears on NT scholarship, it also draws new light on the remarkable part he played in the archaeological excavations of Ephesus. In addition, it evaluates his personal sociopolitical development, as well as some lesser-known yet consequential aspects of his interwar social, cultural and ecumenical conciliation efforts. I have shown that his work in most of these spheres has become largely forgotten soon after his death, and that the main reasons for this were: i) he had no students left after the war who could keep alive the memory of his philological achievements by mediating them to the next student generation; and ii) the effects of the upheaval that began to engulf Germany, Europe and, indeed, the world, from the late 1930s. Deissmann’s slide into virtual oblivion was not unique to him; for to some extent this was also a ‘side effect’ of WWII and its aftermath for 1

GAD, Selly Oak lectures, 18

374

General conclusion

other once prominent Germans. But in his case, this has affected not only our understanding of an integral aspect of the history of classical scholarship, but also of 20th century socioreligious German history, the archaeological history of Ephesus, and to some extent even the history of the international ecumenical movement. But seven decades after his death it is now high time for his diverse – and, indeed, pioneering – contributions to be fully recognised and acknowledged. Part One has demonstrated that Deissmann was the first to apply systematically the inscriptions and papyri to contextualise and illuminate the nature of the Greek of the NT. By doing this, he helped to bring about a distinct shift in thinking among researchers of the postclassical period. If he initially overstated his case in some respects, that is a reflection of his being an enthusiast who was well ahead of others; and in any case, he modified his stance with the passing of time. • Chapter 1 highlighted the fact that he wrote Bibelstudien, Neue Bibelstudien and Licht von Osten as a Greek philological trilogy, and with it established that the language of the NT was an intrinsic part of the broader koine, thus placing it more effectively within its correct historical setting. • Chapter 2 showed that Deissmann not only conceived but was well under way with the production of an original NT lexicon, based on his philological and lexicographical methodology that drew heavily upon inscriptions and papyri for its illustrative and comparative material. • Chapter 3 drew attention to the recognition Deissmann received as an authority on postclassical Greek philology; and how his attempt to bridge the gulf that existed between theology and classical philology was impeded by bureaucratic decisions in Heidelberg, and later also by his workload and other preoccupations in Berlin. Part Two explored and revealed how significant Deissmann’s role was in the revival of the archaeological work at Ephesus through the Austrian Archaeological Institute. It showed why the two study tours he had made to the Middle East in 1906 and 1909 were fundamental to his later engagement in the salvaging of Ephesus, and that it was his high international standing, gained primarily through his far-reaching Verstndigungsarbeit and the success of his Evangelischer Wochenbrief, that gave him entr¤e to influential American and German funding agencies, which made the excavations possible.

General conclusion

375

• Chapter 4 provided a sketched reconstruction of Deissmann’s philological (1906) and theological (1909) study tours, and argued that these formed a watershed in both his academic and personal life, with the first journey resulting in Licht vom Osten and the second in Paulus. • Chapter 5 detailed Deissmann’s international awareness- and fundraising efforts on behalf of the archaeological excavations at Ephesus between 1926 and 1935, as well as his practical involvement during the first four seasons, and demonstrated that the Austrians fully recognised the unique significance of his role in this. Part Three considered Deissmann’s political engagement within Germany, as well as his conciliatory and ecumenical involvements internationally, and poses the question whether it is in fact correct to refer to him as an ecumenist. The conclusion reached by the material assessed in these chapters indicate that he was not typical of German ecumenists, but sought through the ecumenical movement to find an effective ecclesiastical and spiritual way ahead for all Christians, regardless of their own traditions. • Chapter 6 investigated Deissmann’s political side: his involvement with and withdrawal from Christian Sozialdemokratie, and his friendship with Friedrich Naumann. It contended that, despite his initial high regard for the nation’s leadership during WWI, he began to distance himself from its official policies early in the war. • Chapter 7 presented an analysis of Deissmann’s Evangelischer Wochenbrief and its translated version, Protestant Weekly Letter. It concluded that he did not write these bulletins as war propaganda, but rather as an idiosyncratic (although not eccentric) forum to provide a broad point of connection for Vçlkerverstndigung. • Chapter 8 examined some of Deissmann’s underlying Christian and ethical beliefs. It demonstrated that he was influenced by Quakerism, opposed anti-Semitism and German war theology; and advanced the proposition that – in spite of his leading role within the international ecumenical movement – he was, in a strict sense, not a ‘true’ ecumenist. • Chapter 9 mentioned some of the high points in Deissmann’s life, and showed that the reasons for his slide into relative obscurity were primarily circumstantial, although in some instances his own personality may also have been a contributory factor. Had Deissmann lived even a few years longer he would eventually have run foul of the Nazis; for since his public stance against Hitler’s Arier-

376

General conclusion

paragraph he was definitely a marked man, as suggested by his enforced Ruhestand. In spite of this, he maintained his endeavours for peace through his ongoing Verstndigungsarbeit, and played an active role in the preparatory work for the ecumenical conferences at Oxford and Edinburgh, even though the German government barred its expected delegates from participating. This book has established that Deissmann should not be characterised narrowly (or merely) as ‘a theologian’, nor, indeed, as an ecumenist. Adolf Deissmann was not an academic theoriser, but he was an intellectual pragmatist. He was not a freethinker, but he was a man highly independent in his thinking. He was not a pacifist, but he was a passionate peacemaker. He was not a devout Lutheran, but he was a pietistic believer in a Pauline Christ-mysticism. He was not a nationalistic Bildungsbîrger, but he was a patriotic Gebildeter. He was not a stereotypical ecumenist, but he was an altruistic latitudinarian who, in the final analysis, was driven by Christ’s prayer ‘that they all may be one’.

G. A. Deissmann Genealogy

G. A. Deissmann

379

Part 4 Appendices and Addenda

Figure 14 Commemorative bronze plaque at the Langenscheid Pfarrhaus (see Appendix 9 k)

Table of contents for Appendices and Addenda1 Appendix to ch. 1

387

1, a. 1, b. 1, c. 1, d.

387 389 391 392

1, e. 1, f. 1, g. 1, h.

Transcript of Deissmann’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 14.4.1891 Transcript of Deissmann’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27.3.1889 Karl Gruhl, letter to Hans Lietzmann, 15.6.1937 Georg Heinrici, assessment of Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift, 9.6.1892 Adolf Jîlicher, assessment of Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift, 3.7.1892 A comment regarding Friedrich Blass’ changing views in NT philology Conference topics at Giessen Theological Conferences from 1884 – 96 Deissmann, letter to Moulton, 27.12.1909

395 397 398 398

Appendix to ch. 2

401

2, a.

401

2, b. 2, c. 2, d. 2, e. 2, f. 2, g. 2, h.

Partial transcript of the preface to T.D. Hincks, Greek English Lexicon (1831) Deissmann, letter to James Moulton, 12.1.1907 Adolf Jellinek, application to Karlsruhe Kultusministerium, 26.11.1907 Albrecht Dieterich, letter to Adolf Jellinek, 21.11.1907 Deissmann, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 29.1.1908 Berlin Theological Faculty recommendation regarding Deissmann’s appointment to the Chair for NT, 25.12.1907 James Moulton, letter to Deissmann, 19.2.1912 Ernst Deissmann, letter to Gerhard Deissmann, 15.8.1946

402 403 404 405 406 414 415

Appendix to ch. 3

421

3 (I-VI) Transcripts of Deissmann’s subject enrolment lists at the University of Tîbingen, 1885 – 88

421

1

All documents included in these Appendices are reproduced with permission of the relevant archives, libraries or individuals. Transcriptions are my own, unless otherwise noted. In a few instances the original document contains some illegible wording: this is signalled thus: ‘[.?. illegible]’. Documents in each appendix are normally listed in order of the first reference-occurence not in order of date.

384

Table of contents for Appendices and Addenda

Appendix to ch. 4

425

4, a.

425

4, b.

Extract from Deissmann’s journal article, ‘Study-travel in New Testament Lands, I’ Extract from Deissmann’s book, Paulus

426

Appendix to ch. 5

429

5, a. 5, b. 5, c. 5, d.

429 431 433 436

5, e. 5, f. 5, g. 5, h. 5, i. 5, j. 5, k. 5, l. 5, m.

Josef Keil, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 2.5.1922 Deissmann, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31.7.1925 Deissmann, letter to Willard Richardson, 16.12.1925 Deissmann, report to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1.6.1935 Theodor Wiegand, report to Notgemeinschaft, 16.8.1925 Emil Reisch, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 20.8.1925 Deissmann, letter to Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, 5.3.1926 Deissmann, letter to Emil Reisch, 24.4.1926 Deissmann, letter to Thomas Appleget, 24.4.1929 Deissmann, letter to Kultusministerium, 15.8.1933 Synopsis of Deissmann’s book, Die Armenbibel des Serai Extract from Deissmann’s book, Forschungen und Funde im Serai Preface to Forschungen und Funde im Serai

439 441 443 445 445 446 448 449 450

Appendix to ch. 6

451

6, a. 6, b. 6, c.

451 452 453

Deissmann, letter to Friedrich Naumann, 20.6.1898 Extract from Naumann’s book, Mitteleuropa Exemplars of Deissmann’s changing perspective in regard to early Christian social classes (1908 – 23)

Appendix to ch. 7

455

7, a. 7, b. 7, c.

455 456 461

7, d. 7, e. 7, f. 7, g.

Deissmann’s cover letter to the first issue of the Pr.WL Statistical overview of Ev.Wbr, and Pr.WL publications Extract from a petition to Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg regarding humanitarian aid for Armenia, 10.3.1916 Extract from Ev.Wbr, 10.8.1918 Extract from Ev.Wbr, 30.11.1918 Hans Lietzmann, letter to Emanuel Hirsch, 7.2.1933 Extract from Deissmann’s concluding article to his Ev.Wbr, entitled: ‘Abschied vom Evangelischen Wochenbrief ’

462 468 469 470

Appendix to ch. 8

473

8, a.

473

8, b.

Extract from Deissmann’s dedication speech for a memorial cross at Zossen, 10.7.1915 Extract from Deissmann’s book, The Haskell Lectures

473

Table of contents for Appendices and Addenda

8, c. 8, d. 8, e. 8, f. 8, g.

8, h. 8, i. 8, j. 8, k. 8, l. 8, m. 8, n. 8, o. 8, p. 8, q. 8, r.

8, s. 8, t.

8, u. 8, v.

Transcript of the Aufruf ‘An die deutsche Jugend’ (c. end of 1918) Extract from Deissmann’s speech, entitled, ‘Versailles’, 30.6.1919 Newspaper article, ‘Britain to publish war documents’, 1.1.1925 Extract from Deissmann’s Olaus-Petri lecture, ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’ Transcripts of two letters from Deissmann, concerning the care of prisoners of war within German territory I. Deissmann, letter to Nathan Sçderblom, 13.4.1915 II. Deissmann, letter to Emil Fleury, 14.4.1915 Extract from the Pr.WL, 15.12.1916 Transcript of Pr.WL, 31.12.1915 Transcript of Deissmann’s letter to Ministerialrat Reinhold Richter, 4.12.192 Overview of Deissmann’s Selly Oak lectures Extract from Der Krieg und die Religion ‘Neues Testament und Rassenfrage’, 23.9.1933 Extract from a radio talk by Deissmann, entitled ‘Bedeutung der §kumene’, 23.12.1929 Extract from Deissmann’s address at the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting in London, 25.3.1923 Extract from a newspaper article on Deissmann, written by Otto Dibelius, 6.11.1966 Extract from Deissmann’s address, Die çkumenische Erweckung (1929) Transcripts of two letters, concerning the Stockholm Conference’s ‘Message to the world’ and their official report I. Deissmann, letter to Hermann Kapler, 28. 1. 1926 II. Deissmann, letter to Nathan Sçderblom, 13. 8. 1926 Extract from Die Stockholmer Bewegung Transcripts and extracts of correspondence between Deissmann and Martin Dibelius I. Extract of a letter from Deissmann to M. Dibelius, 3.7.1928 II. Transcript of a letter from M. Dibelius to Deissmann, 10.7.1928 III. Transcript of a letter from Deissmann to M. Dibelius, 12.7.1928 Overview of Deissmann’s book, The New Testament in the light of modern research: The Haskell Lectures, 1929 Extract from Deissmann’s report to the Auswrtiges Amt, 24.5.1929

385 475 479 481 482 482 482 484 485 486 489 490 491 493 496 497 498 499 501 501 504 505 506 506 507 508 509 510

386

Table of contents for Appendices and Addenda

Appendix to ch. 9

515

9, a.

515

9, b. 9, c. 9, d. 9, e. 9, f. 9, g.

9, h.

9, i.

9, j. 9, k. 9, l.

Transcript of Deissmann’s appeal to students at the Berlin University, 13.11.1930 Transcript of Deissmann’s typed radio address, 20.12.1930 Extract from Bericht îber das Amtsjahr 1930/31 Extract from Deissmann’s annual report to the Ecumenical Council, 15.8.1933 Transcript of Deissmann’s teaching programs, as recorded in his diary, 1904 – 36 Transcript of Martin Dibelius’ address on Deissmann’s 70th birthday, 7 Nov. 1936 Transcripts and extract from four select letters to Deissmann on the occasion of his 70th birthday. In Adolf Deißmann, zum 7. November 1936 I. Letter from an English Archbishop II. Letter from a German biblical archaeologist III. Extract of a letter from an American Seminary dean IV. Letter from an Austrian classicist and archaeologist Transcripts of a German and a British obituary for Deissmann I. Obituary of Deissmann, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 9.4.1937 II. Obituary of Deissmann, The Times, 14.4.1937 Transcripts of three letters in respect to Deissmann’s Nachlass I. Kultusministerium, letter to A. Stolzenburg, Dekan of the Berlin Theological Faculty, 26.7.1937 II. H. Lietzmann, letter to A. Fridrichsen, 26.5.1939 III. A. Fridrichsen, letter to H. Lietzmann, 10.8.1939 Extract from Deissmann’s Olaus-Petri lecture, ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’ Transcript of a newspaper article from the Lahnzeitung, 27.6.1962 Extract from G. Harder/ G. Deissmann, Zum Gedenken an Adolf Deissmann

516 517 519 520 525 528 528 528 529 530 531 531 532 534 534 534 535 536 537 538

Addenda

541

1. 2.

541 559

Transcript of Deissmann’s Giessen paper Transcript of Deissmann’s Selbstdarstellung

Appendix to chapter 1 1, a. Transcript of Deissmann’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 14. 4. 1891 (References: ch. 1, nn. 15, 25; ch. 5, n. 3)

Deissmann wrote this by way of an application for a stipend to further his studies at the Marburg University. It is addressed to the ‘Kçnigliche Regierung Abteilung fîr Kirchen und Schulsuche zu Wiesbaden’. Kçnigliche Regierung bitte ich hierdurch ganz gehorsamst um hochgeneigte Genießung eines Stipendiums aus dem Nassauischen Centralstudienfond fîr ein weiteres akademisches Studium an der Universitt Marburg im kommenden Semester zum Zwecke der Vorbereitung auf das Licentiatenexamen. Geboren am 7. November 1866 zu Langenscheid (Kreis Unterlahn) als der Sohn des Pfarrers Deißmann und dessen Ehefrau Emilie geb. Rullmann, erhielt ich meine Vorbildung an dem Kçniglichen Gymnasium zu Wiesbaden, woselbst ich Ostern 1885 das Maturittsexamen unter Dispens von der mîndlichen Prîfung bestand. Mit Begin des Sommersemesters 1885 bezog ich die Universitt Tîbingen und studierte an derselben einschließlich des Militrjahres 6 Semester. Fîr meine wissenschaftliche Bildung war mir dort der Umstand von dem grçßten Werte, daß ich in den 3 letzten Semestern als Vorsitzender des wissenschaftlichen Theologischen Vereins in nhere Beziehung mit den akademischen Lehrern Herren D.D. Buder, Kautzsch, Kîbel, Weiß und Lic. Reischle kommen durfte. Ostern 1888 bezog ich die Universitt Berlin und hçrte bei den Herren Professoren D.D. Kaftan und Pfleiderer die Dogmatik, bei Herr Professor D. Weiß den Rçmerbrief und die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, bei Herrn Professor D. Kleinert die praktische Theologie. Mit besonderem Dank muss ich hier noch der archologischen Vorlesungen des inzwischen verstorbenen Herrn Professor D. Piper gedenken. Nachdem ich mich whrend des Winters 1888/89 in der Heimat auf das Examen prolicentia concionandi vorbereitet hatte, bestand ich dasselbe im Mai 1889 an dem Kçniglichen Theologischen Seminar zu

388

Appendix to chapter 1

Herborn mit der Note ‘gut’ und absolvierte sodann das Herborner Seminar, wo ich mich unter der Leitung des Herrn Professors D. Sachsse, besonders mit den systematischen und praktischen Fchern beschftigte. Im August v. J. bestand ich das Examen pro ministerio zu Wiesbaden ebenfalls mit dem Prdikate ‘gut’, war whrend des Winters als Vikar zu Dausenau bei Bad Ems thtig und bin gegenwrtig wieder im Elternhause. ˜ber beide Examina fîge ich die Zeugnisse in beglaubigten Abschriften bei. Von jeher war es mein sehnlichster Wunsch, mich dereinst der wissenschaftlichen Lehrbahn widmen zu kçnnen. Ich habe deshalb die Absicht, zunchst das Examen eines Licentiaten der Theologie abzulegen. Herr Consistorialrat Professor D. Heinrici zu Marburg hatte die Gîte, mir vor einiger Zeit „die Aussagen des Apostels Paulus îber die Taufe“ als Thema fîr dieses Examen zu empfehlen, und ich habe bereits angefangen, dieses Thema zu bearbeiten. Whrend meines Vikariates zu Dausenau hat sich mir jedoch die Erfahrung aufgedrngt, daß man fernab von jeder besseren Bibliothek nicht in der zureichenden Weise wissenschaftlich arbeiten kann und daß man auch sonst durch die großen Schwierigkeiten, welch das praktische Amt fîr den Anfnger hat, zu einer planmßigen und intensiven Wissenschaftlichen Arbeit von sonst kaum gelangen wird. So habe ich dann nach reichlicher ˜berlegung den Entschluß gefaßt, nochmals an einer Universitt zu studieren. Ich gedenke das kommende Sommersemester mich in Marburg zum Licentiatenexamen vorzubereiten. Es ist mir bei diesem fîr mein Leben so wichtigen Schritte eine große Beruhigung, daß ich vonseiten der akademischen Lehrer, welche mich nher kennen und die ich um Rat gefragt hatte, zu diesem Schritte durchaus ermutigt worden bin, wesentlich von den Herren Professoren D.D. Kautzsch – Halle, Sachsse – Bonn und Lic. Reischle – Stuttgart. So sehr mein Vater mein Vorhaben billigt, so kann ich doch nach Absolvierung meiner normalen Studiumzeit, da ich noch 4 Geschwister habe, weitere Mittel nicht von ihm beanspruchen, zumal er als Pfarrer nur mit großem Opfer die Kosten meiner frîheren Studien hat aufbringen kçnnen. In jedem Falle, sollte ich die Licentiatenprîfung bestehen oder nicht, ist es meine Absicht, zunchst wieder in den Dienst der Nassauischen Landeskirche zu treten. Ich wage daher die ehrerbietigste und gehorsamste Bitte, Kçnigliche Regierung wolle mir ein weiteres akademisches Studium an der

Appendix to chapter 1

389

Universitt Marburg im kommenden Semester behufs Vorbereitung auf das Licentiatenexamen durch hochgeneigte Gewhrung eines Stipendium aus dem Central ermçglichen helfen. [signed] G. A. Deißmann, Pfarramtskandidat. * * * 1, b. Transcript of Deissmann’s ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27. 3. 1889 (References: ch. 1, n. 27; ch. 3, nn. 17, 18; ch. 5, n. 2; ch. 6, n.19)

This document is not addressed, but appears to be written for the same purpose as that of 14. 4. 1891 (see Appendix 1, a). Lebenslauf des Studierenden der Theologie Gustav Adolf Deißmann zu Erbach i/Rhg. Am 7. November 1866 wurde ich zu Langenscheid (Amts Diez) als Sohn des evangelischen Pfarrers Adolf Deißmanns und dessen Ehefrau Emilie geb. Rullmann geboren und erhielt in der h. Taufe den Namen Gustav Adolf. Nachdem ich seit meinem 6. Lebensjahr die Elementarschule meines Heimatdorfes 2 Jahre lang besucht hatte, trat ich nach der mittlerweile erfolgten Berufung meines Vaters auf Erbach im Rheingau Herbst 1874 in die dortige Realschule ein, woselbst ich die Vorbildung zum Gymnasium erhielt. Ostern 1879 in die Quarta des Kçniglichen Gymnasiums zu Wiesbaden aufgenommen, bestand ich im Herbst desselben Jahres die Prîfung nach Untertertia und rîckte Ostern des folgenden Jahres, 1880, in die Obertertia auf, um von hier an die îbrigen Klassen in der normalen Zeit durchzumachen. Ein wichtiger Lebensschritt fllt in diese Zeit am 24. April 1881 wurde ich nach voraufgegangenem Unterrichte durch den teueren Freund unserer Familie, Herrn Konsistorialrat August Ohly (ð 1884), in der Hauptkirche zu Wiesbaden konfirmiert. Aus der Folgezeit ist vielleicht der Erwhnung wert, daß ich im Herbst 1884 bei der General Versammlung des G.-A.-V. zu Wiesbaden, die Ehre hatte, namens der evangelischen Gymnasiasten dem Centralvorstande eine Anzahl von vasa sacra mit einer kurzen lateinischen Rede zu îberreichen. Ostern 1885 bestand ich das Maturitts-Examen und bezog die Universitt Tîbingen um Theologie zu studieren. Dort trat ich in den Theologischen Verein ein. Mein 2. u. 3. Semester benutzte ich zur Erfîllung meiner Militrpflicht; am 1. Oktober 1885 meldete ich mich

390

Appendix to chapter 1

zum Eintritt in die 10. Comp. 7. Wîrtt. Infanterie, Regiments No. 125 zu Tîbingen, wurde am 1. April 1886 zum Gefreiten îbersetzt, erhielt im Juli die erste Schießprmie und wurde am 30. September 1886 unter Qualificierung zum Reserveoffizier als Unteroffizier zur Reserve beurlaubt. Die Erinnerung an diese Zeit wre eine vçllig ungetrîbte, wenn nicht ein Ereignis mir bis zur Stunde ein trauriges Andenken hinterlassen htte: am 16. Juli 1886 stîrzte ich im Dienste einer Turnîbung und zog mir eine Verstauchung des linken Kniegelenkes zu, welche trotz eines 58 tgigen Lazarethaufenthaltes mir notdîrftig geheilt ist und bis Heute eine große Schwchung zurîckgelassen hat. Nichts desto weniger versuchte ich die vorschriftsmßige achtwçchentliche ˜bung im Mrz und April 1887 zu absolvieren, was jedoch nur bei der allergrçßten Schonung mçglich war und wurde am 1. April 1887 zum Vizefeldwebel befçrdert. Um meine militrischen Verhltnisse gleich hier zu erledigen, bemerke ich, daß ich seitdem stets auf Heilung des langwierigen Leidens gehofft habe, aber vergebens. So habe ich dann durch verschiedene Rîckflle bewogen, im Laufe dieses Winters dienstliche Meldung gemacht. Meine Militrbehçrde hat die Sache in wohlwollendste Erwgung gezogen und befohlen, daß ich im Laufe des Sommers durch die Kgl. Oberersetzkommission untersucht werde, welche dann îber mein weiteres militrisches Schicksal entscheiden wird. Das Resultat wird meines Erachtens Invalidierung sein! Trotz dieser traurigen Angelegenheit, welche mir schon manche trîbe Stunde bereitet hat, ist mir das Militrjahr, wie ich glaube, doch von großem Nutzen gewesen und ich muß gestehen, daß ich diese Zeit – wenn sie auch wissenschaftlich unfruchtbar war – doch nie als eine verlorene ansehen werde. Fîr meine wissenschaftliche Bildung nun war mir entschieden der Umstand von dem grçßten Nutzen, daß ich durch den theologischen Verein und in demselben bald in nhere Berîhrung kam mit den akademischen Lehrern D.D. Buder, Kautzsch, Kîbel, Weiß u. a., und ich mçchte auch in diesen kurzen Zeilen die Gelegenheit nicht vorîbergehen lassen, ohne den Gefîhlen aufrichtigsten Dankes gegen die hochwertvollen Professoren Ausdruck zu geben. Im ganzen studierte ich außer dem Militrjahre 4 Semester in Tîbingen, fîr die ich mir im einzelnen auf mein Vorlesungserzeugnis zu verweisen erlaube. Die grçßte Anziehungskraft hatte fîr mich die alttestamentlichen Vorlesungen bei Kautzsch und spter die systematischen Vorlesungen bei Weiß und Lic. Reischle. Mein Berliner Semester, Sommer 1888 verwandte ich hauptschlich auf das Studium der Dogmatik und hatte auch hier das

Appendix to chapter 1

391

Glîck, wieder mit einem meiner Professoren, Herrn D. Kaftan, persçnlich bekannt zu werden. Auch benutzte ich u. a. die gute Gelegenheit im christlichen Museum der Universitt unter Leitung des ehrwîrdigen Professor D. Piper eine lngst betriebene Liebhaberei in wissenschaftliche Bahnen zu lenken, die christliche Archologie. Daß der Berliner Aufenthalt durch die schmerzlichen Ereignisse im Kaiserhause in meiner Erinnerung immer eigenartigen, unvergeßlichen Hintergrund erhielt und dem ganzem Semester einen wehmîtigernsten Charakter aufgeprgt hat, braucht nur angedeutet zu werden; fîr mein inneres Leben war nicht minder wichtig der plçtzliche Tod eines mir sehr nahestehenden vielversprechenden Vereinsbruder. Das letzte Semester beschloß ich im Elternhause zuzubringen, um mich hier in der Stille auf das erste theologische Examen vorzubereiten. Nun stehe ich am Schlusse meiner akademischen Zeit und werde, falls ich das Examen bestehen sollte, in die altberîhmte, mir durch des Großvaters, Vaters und Oheims Studienzeit besonders werten Thore des Herborner hohen Schule einziehen. Erbach im Rheingau, 27. Mrz 1889 [signed] G. Ad. Deißmann, stud. theol. * * * 1, c. Karl Gruhl, letter to Hans Lietzmann, 15. 6. 1937 (Reference: ch. 1, n. 32)

Extract from K. Aland, ed., Glanz und Niedergang der deutschen Universitt: 50 Jahre deutscher Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Briefen an und von Hans Lietzmann (1892 – 1942), mit einer einfîhrenden Darstellung, Berlin, 1979, 892. Sie sagten, Deißmann habe whrend seiner Studentenzeit auch in Berlin den Lehrer nicht gefunden, der ihn richtunggebend beeinflußt habe. In der scharfen Zuspitzung, in der Sie den Satz und zwar zweifellos mit voller Absicht gebracht haben, ist er wohl richtig. Gleichwohl erscheint mir zweifelhaft, ob er ganz Deißmanns Selbstbeurteilung entspricht. Es lehrte immerhin seit 1888 [Winter] Harnack in Berlin, und wenn er auch „der“ Lehrer fîr Deißmann nicht wurde in dem von Ihnen zugespitzten Sinn, so hat er doch Deißmann nachhaltig beeinflußt, wofîr Deißmann in seinem Beitrag zu Harnacks 70. Geburtstag selbst Zeugnis ablegt. Und jedenfalls ist Ihnen vielleicht folgendes von Interesse: Ich besinne mich

392

Appendix to chapter 1

noch ganz genau darauf, daß Harnack, der in seiner sprudelnden Lebhaftigkeit kaum eine Vorlesungsstunde, bestimmt aber keine Seminarsitzung vorîbergehen ließ, ohne irgend eine Anregung fîr eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit ergehen zu lassen, eines Tages auch sagte: „Die neutestamentliche Formel 1m Wqist` ist eine von denen, die jeder gedankenlos nachspricht und noch niemand wirklich wissenschaftlich untersucht hat.“ Harnack glich einem Semann, der geradezu îberreich Samen streute, und es ging ihm, wie dem Semann im Gleichnis. Grade nach dem aber, was Sie heute ausfîhrten îber das Verhltnis eines wissenschaftlich selbstndigen Schîlers zu seinem Lehrer oder man mçchte fast lieber sagen zu seinem Anreger, will es mir scheinen, als htte in diesem Fall ein von Harnack ausgestreutes Samenkorn in Deißmann ein Stîck „guten Landes“ gefunden und sich mit der von Heinrici ausgegangenen Anregung zu einer îberaus fruchtbaren Keimzelle eigener wissenschaftlicher Arbeit verbunden. . * * * 1, d. Georg Heinrici, assessment of Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift, 9. 6. 1892 (References: ch. 1, nn. 33, 48; ch. 3, n. 22)

Referat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G. A. Deißmann: Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht. Die Abhandlung ist nach der Vorbemerkung des Verfassers eine Vorarbeit fîr eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung „der Gemeinschaft mit Christus im Neuen Testament.“ Sie giebt den philologischen Unterbau, und zwar in der umfassendsten Weise. Der Verf. besttigt durch seine Leistung das Urtheil Buttmanns (S. 72), daß die Prposition 1m ein Buch erfordere. Es kommt darauf an, den Sprachgebrauch von 1m mit dem persçnlichen Dativ des Singular im N.T. festzustellen und zu erklren. Zu diesem Zweck bahnt sich der Verf., wie ein Blick auf die Inhaltsîbersicht ergiebt, den methodisch richtigen Weg. Nach einer statistischen ˜bersicht des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, die geschickt graphisch dargestellt ist, und nach angemessenen methodischen Erwgungen untersucht er den Sprachgebrauch der Profangrcitt und des unter semitischen Einflîssen stehenden Griechisch. Sodann kommt er zum Neuen Testament und giebt namentlich im 8. u. 10. Abschnitte

Appendix to chapter 1

393

eindringende Erwgungen, welche seine These begrînden: Paulus habe die Formel 1m Wq. Y. zuerst ausgeprgt und stets in einheitlichem Sinne angewandt, welcher sich aus der lokalen Grundbedeutung des 1m ableiten lasse. Dieses Resultat ist von Bedeutung, wenn es die Probe besteht. Es giebt einen sicheren Punkt, fîr den auch Maßbestimmungen der inneren Kritik gewonnen werden kçnnen. Aus der Benutzung und dem Fehlen der Formel, und ihrer Verschiefung und Umformung lassen sich Schlîsse auf litterarische Verhltnisse und Beziehungen machen, welche weit sicherer sind, als die auf problematische Auslegungen und „Gesamtanschauungen“ gegrîndeten Hypothesen. Fîr das Verhltniß der Pauluslitteratur zu der johanneischen z. B., fîr die Frage nach der Authentie der Pastoralbriefe sind diese sprachlichen Anstze von schwerwiegendem Einfluß. Die Aufgabe, die sich der Verf. gestellt hat, ist daher eine fruchtbare. Was weiter ihre Durchfîhrung betrifft, so bewhrt dieselbe eine grîndliche Orientierung îber den Thatbestand und philologischen Zweck. In neuerer Zeit hat die Arbeit fîr Gestaltung einer „historischen“ Grammatik der griechischen Sprache in der Philologie einen tîchtigen Aufschwung genommen. ˜ber die einschlagenden Probleme und Arbeiten ist D. gut unterrichtet und benîtzt sie ausgiebig. Er selbst bereichert durch seine Mittheilungen aus den LXX die Forschungsstoffe und macht sehr beachtungswerthe Beobachtungen îber den Werth des „Judengriechisch“ und der verschiedenen ˜bersetzungen, ohne sich îber die Grenzen seiner Aufgabe zu weit hinaus zu begeben. ˜ber den Umfang seiner Mittheilungen und den Sprachgebrauch lßt sich rechten, auch îber die Art seiner Anfîhrungen. Aus der Profangrcitt giebt er zu viel und zu wenig. Einerseits ist bei der Anhufung der Citate wichtiges und unwichtiges nicht ausreichend unterschieden, anderseits muß man, um sich îber den Sachverhalt ins Klare zu setzen, die in mçglichster Knappheit gegebenen Citate in den Quellen vergleichen. (Wo ich das in Stichproben gethan habe, waren die Citate richtig). Htte hier D. das Material besser gruppiert und eine knappere Zahl von wirklich herakleitischen Stellen gesammelt und eingehender besprochen, so wîrde dieser Theil der Arbeit gewonnen haben, der jetzt eine trockene und dazu nicht vollstndige Zusammenstellung giebt (Lucian, Arrian, Epiktet u. a. fehlen, die Autoren vor Aristoteles, abgesehen von Pindar und Euripides bringen wenig zur Sache). Dazu kommt, daß die Frage nach der

394

Appendix to chapter 1

Richtigkeit der Subsumtion den Leser nicht zur Ruhe kommen lßt, weil er den Thatbestand nicht ausreichend îbersieht. Wie wohl D. einer fruchtbaren Durchforschung der Untersuchung gewachsen ist, zeigt seine Behandlung der LXX wie die geschickte Gruppierung der Stellen im 10. Abschnitt, welche in der That zu einer Klrung einer wichtigen exegetischen Frage einen werthvollen Beitrag mir zu liefern scheint und im 8. Abschnitte in einer trefflichen, an Vorarbeiten sich anlehnende Forschung îber das Verhltnis von Wqistºr und s_la wohl vorbereitet ist. Was nun die These betrifft, daß Paulus die Formel 1m Wq. Y. gebildet habe, um einen bequemen Ausdruck fîr seine christologische Grundanschauung zu gewinnen, so scheint sie mir nicht îber allen Zweifel gesetzt. Auch ihre Deutung „in dem Elemente“ etc. (vgl. die Zusammenfassung S. 115) muß ich fîr zu bestimmt halten. Der Wechselbegriff der Formel, auf den D. mit Recht aufmerksam macht, Wqist¹r 5m timi, auch der Collectivgebrauch von Wqistºr z. B. 1. Kor. 12, 12 legen es nahe, nicht zu stark das lokale Element bei Deutung der Formel zu betonen.* Darin aber scheint mir D. Recht zu haben, daß bei der Deutung von der lokalen Grundbeurteilung von 1m auszugehen ist. Fîr die Sicherstellung der Schlîsse wre es weiter wichtig gewesen, die Frage zu erwgen, ob nicht die ˜bereinstimmung des P. und Joh. im Gebrauche der Formel auf eine urapostolische Grundanschauung zurîckweisen, oder ob man zur Annahme litterarischer Abhngigkeit des einen von dem anderen gezwungen ist. Ohne diese Erçrterung sind die Anstze nicht ausreichend fundiert. Der Stil ist klar und prcis. Selten trifft man auf gravierende Auslassungen wie S. 124 f. Inwieweit bei den statistischen Mittheilungen die abweichende Lit. berîcksichtigt sind, wird nicht ersichtlich. Fasse ich mein Urtheil zusammen, so darf ich sagen, daß die Abhandlung mir eine fruchtbare und fçrderliche Behandlung einer wichtigen exegetischen Frage darzubieten scheint und ich daher sie als ein Specimen eruditionis im Sinne und nach der Bitte des Verf. anzusehen beantrage. *Die problematische Auslegung von Col. 2,9 (S. 129) besttigt dieses Desideratum. Marburg 9. Juni 1892. [signed] Heinrici. *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 1

395

1, e. Adolf Jîlicher, assessment of Deissmann’s Habilitationsschrift, 3. 7. 1892 (Reference: ch. 1, n. 51)

Correferat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G. A. Deißmann: „Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht.“ Den Ausfîhrungen des Herrn Referenten îber den Plan der vorliegenden Arbeit und îber die Bedeutung ihres Ergebnisses habe ich nichts hinzuzufîgen. Auch sein Urteil îber die Vorzîge und Mngel der Abhandlung kann ich mir durchweg aneignen und befîrworte seinen Antrag, sie als eine fruchtbare und fçrderliche Leistung zu acceptieren. Der Fleiß und die Sorgfalt D’s verdienen die hçchste Anerkennung; selbst kleinere Versehen sind selten zu verbessern geblieben; nur statt jatoijgt¶qiom schreibt D. consequent jatoijt¶qiom. Im Stil finde ich bisweilen etwas Geschraubtes, so S. 98 wo von der „gigantischen Energie“ des paulinischen Christusglaubens die Rede ist, oder S. 81 „Wer den mechanischen Servilismus zum Zunftmeister hat, erscheint wenig geeignet, die gleichen Fesseln einem frei waltenden Geiste anzulegen.“ Ausfîhrungen wie die polemische S. 97. f. îber den historischen Christus sind mindestens zu breit gerathen, und S. 137 ff. ist an die modernen Homileten, die gedankenlos, die Formel „in Christo“ gebrauchen, nach meinem Gefîhl ein Pathos verschwendet, das an dieser Stelle nicht den rechten Platz hat. Die entscheidende Erçrterung D’s îber den Sinn des 1m Wq. bei P. S. 85 – 119 [.?. illegible] und fîr Christentum besitzt. Ich glaube, daß dieser Mangel, dem abzuhelfen er die Formel 1m Wq. geschaffen hat, stark ins Gewicht fllt bei Ergrîndung ihres Ursprungs und bei der Verstndigung îber ihre Geschichte. Die sprachgeschichtlichen Untersuchungen D’s in dem ersten Teile der Arbeit erscheinen mir fast als etwas ˜berflîssiges, denn ich meine, dass man zu dem richtigen Sinne des paulinischen 1m Wq. auch ohne diese [.?. illegible] durch die griechische und judengriechische Litteratur gelangt wre. Wenn wir fîr 1m – in der paulinischen Formel – mit dem ursprînglichen localen Begriff der Prposition auskommen, wenn wir damit neue befriedigende Erklrung aller 1m Wq.– Stellen erreichen, wenn die damit geforderte Anschauung îber das Verhltnis der Glubigen zu Christus sich trefflich in die Gesamtauffassung des Paulus von der religiçsen Prozessur einfîgt, dann ist m. E. die Debatte geschlossen und [.?. illegible] auf semitische Einflîsse a liminie abzuweisen. Das kann

396

Appendix to chapter 1

geschehen ganz unabhngig von dem Urteil îber das Verhltnis der paulinischen Syntax im Allgemeinen zu der der LXX. Der Abschnitt VI: „Die Quellen der paulinischen Syntax“ ist dann auch m. E. under dem IV Ka. (cf. Referat) das Mindestgelungene. So in Spannung wie es dort geschieht, kann die Unabhngigkeit des Apostels von dem griechischen Alten Testament in der Syntax nicht bewiesen werden; der Satz das Paulus griechisch sei nicht besser und nicht schlechter als das des Epiktet und des Plutarch (S. 81) ist doch wohl etwas gewagt und seltsam ist der ußere Grund der S. 81 es sehr wahrscheinlich machen soll, daß die LXX syntaktisch den Paulus beeinflußt haben solle. „Er ist Originalschriftsteller, die LXX sind ˜bersetzer.“ Der Vergleich mit dem Verhltnis der anderen religiçsen Sprachen zu der der Lutherbibel greift gar nicht; denn wir bilden unsere Sprache, auch die religiçse, die sich syntaktisch von der gewçhnlichen nicht unterscheiden darf, an den großen nachlutherischen Klassikern; Paulus wird griechische Klassiker schwerlich in hnlichem Maße studiert haben, und dann sind wir reine Deutschen wie Luther nichts als Deutscher war. Paulus aber ist halb Jude und halb Grieche und die Semitismen seiner griechischen Bibel waren ihm nicht so auffallend wie uns die Archaismen unserer lutherischen Bibel. Indeß ist die Sache von gar keiner Bedeutung fîr das Resultat. Und wenn Paulus sonst das schlechteste LXX-Griechisch schriebe, wîrde sein 1m Wq. doch erklrt werden mîssen, wie D. es unter Heranziehung des Anspruchs neuer Gedanken auf neue Formen erklrt; unserseits wînschen wir, falls die lokale Bedeutung des 1m unhaltbar wre, dass es an das weitere hebrische [.?. illegible] zu [.?. illegible] haben und einen Paulus sonst den Stil eines Thucydides schriebe. Anregend sind indeß auch diese Erçrterungen, der Verf. zeigt darin ein lçbliches Bestreben, das Einzelne in grçßere Zusammenhnge zu bringen und von weiterem Gesichtspunkte aus zu behandeln. Wenn er eine gewisse Steifheit îberwinden haben wird, so darf man – anliegende Arbeit gibt dazu das Recht – noch recht tîchtige Leistungen von ihm erwarten. Marburg 3 Juli 1892. [signed] Jîlicher. *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 1

397

1, f. A comment regarding Friedrich Blass’ changing views in NT philology (Reference: ch. 1, n. 99)

Neue Bibelstudien chronicles a remarkable turnaround in Friedrich Blass. It begins with a lengthy citation from the latter’s critical review of Bibelstudien, made some two years earlier, in which he had declared Deissmann’s book to be misleading because of its contention that ‘biblical Greek’ was no more than a myth, but that the NT constituted an integral link in the sociolinguistic history of the Greek language. Blass cautioned: Uns scheint dies mehr naturalistisch als theologisch geredet … bleibt es [doch] unanfechtbar, dass die neutestamentlichen Bîcher eine besondere, zunchst aus sich zu erklrende Gruppe bilden, einmal des eigenthîmlichen Geistes wegen …1

It is worth drawing attention to the undisguised irony in Blass’ jibe here; for while he claimed that the Theologian, Deissmann, was resorting to ‘naturalistic talk’ to understand the language of the NT, he himself – the Philologist – relied on the NT’s ‘characteristic spirit’! Be that as it may, what is certainly significant, is that despite his criticism, Deissmann’s new methodology left a deep mark on Blass,2 for he made an almost complete about-face during the intervening months and by the time he published his NT Grammar in 1896, wrote: … ganz rein, viel reiner noch als selbst im NT., tritt die gesprochene Sprache in ihren verschiedenen Abstufungen in den privaten Aufzeichnungen hervor, deren Zahl und Bedeutung durch die sich mehrenden Funde Aegyptens in fortwhrendem Steigen begriffen ist. In diesem Zusammenhang also lsst sich die neutestamentliche Sprache mit allem Rechte eingliedern, und wer eine Grammatik der damaligen Volkssprache schreibt, auf Grund aller dieser verschiedenen Zeugnisse und Denkmhler, verfhrt vom Standpunkte des Grammatikers vielleicht richtiger, als wer sich auf die Sprache des NT. beschrnkt.3

*

1 2 3

*

*

NBst, 1 – 2. GAD wrongly attributes this citation to TLZ, 20, 1895, 487, instead of TLZ, 19, 1895. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gçttingen, 1896, 57 – 8. NBst, 2 – 3.

398

Appendix to chapter 1

1, g. Conference topics at the Giessen Theological Conferences from 1884 – 98 (References: ch. 1, n. 147; ch. 3, n. 38)

The following series of papers – presented at the Giessen Theological Conferences between 1884 and 1898 – are listed here to illustrate the unorthodox nature of Deissmann’s philological topic in 1897. The list of topics is printed on the back-cover of Spr. Erforschung. ‘Theologische Wissenschaft und pfarramtliche Praxis’ (Diegel, 1884); ‘Der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’ (Baudissin, 1884); ‘Die geschichtliche Entwickelung der Kirche im 19. Jahrhundert und die ihr dadurch gestellte Aufgabe’ (Sell, 1886); ‘Die Forschung îber die paulinischen Briefe’ (Heinrici, 1886); ‘Der Begriff der Offenbarung’ (Herrmann, 1887); ‘Bericht îber den gegenwrtigen Stand der Forschung auf dem Gebiet der vorreformatorischen Zeit’ (Mîller, 1887); ‘Ueber die Mçglichkeit Gott zu erkennen’ (Sachsse, 1888); ‘Ueber die wissenschaftliche Behandlung und praktische Benutzung der heiligen Schrift’ (Eibach, 1889); ‘Ueber den gegenwrtigen Stand der johanneischen Frage’ (Schîrer, 1889); ‘Das neue Testament und die Taufe’ (Ehlers, 1890); ‘Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl. Zur Orientierung îber d. gegenwrt. Stand der Dogmatik’ (Kattenbusch, 1893); ‘Sohms Kirchenrecht und der Streit îber das Verhltnis und Recht und Kirche’ (Reischle, 1895); ‘Das Alte Testament im evangelischen Religionsunterricht’ (Flçring, 1895); ‘Verußerlichung, eine Hauptgefahr fîr die Ausîbung des geistlichen Berufes in der Gegenwart’ (Walz, 1896); ‘Der deutsche Protestantismus und die Heidenmission im 19. Jahrhundert’ (Mirbt, 1896); ‘Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwrtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben’ (Deissmann, 1897); ‘Religion und Moral. Streitstze fîr Theologen’ (Rade, 1898). * * * 1, h. Deissmann, letter to Moulton, 27. 12. 1909 (References: ch. 1, n. 160; ch. 2, nn. 139, 152)

Mein lieber Moulton! Sehr gerne beantworte ich Ihren Brief und Ihre Karte umgehend und hoffe, dass Sie meinen Brief noch erhalten, whrend Mr. Kellet bei Ihnen ist.

Appendix to chapter 1

399

Zunchst einen kurzen Bericht îber den Plan des Lexikons. Ich will ein Studenten-Buch machen, das aber gleichzeitig die wissenschaftliche Lexikographie des N.T. auf die neuen Grundlagen stellt. Das Buch soll viel kleiner werden als Thayer. Ich glaube, die îbermßige Anhufung von Bibelstellen ist vom ˜bel, und Preuschens Absicht, eine Konkordanz mçglichst zu „ersetzen“, ist ganz tçricht. Ein wenig Vernunft und ein wenig Kenntnis des Griechischen traue ich den Lesern zu, z. B. dass, wenn pºkir Stadt heisst und basike¼r Kçnig, pºkir basik´yr Stadt eines Kçnigs heisst. Preuschen hat sein Buch mit tausend solcher Trivialitten gefîllt und das wirklich Wissenswerte fortgelassen. Sodann îber Ihre Fragen. 1., Ich bin durchaus mit Mr. Kellet einverstanden. 2., Ich werde Mr. Kellet und Ihnen die Druckfahnen (sheets) zusenden lassen. Natîrlich sind diese noch nicht absolut korrekt und werden auch noch Vernderungen erfahren, am meisten wohl durch Sie selbst. Denn ich werde natîrlich gern von Ihren Korrekturen, sachlichen Zustzen etc. Gebrauch machen. 3., Wegen der Zustze in […] [sic] lasse ich Ihnen ganz freie Hand, besonders auch, wenn Sie etwa gegen eine Aufstellung von mir polemisieren wollen; das ist Ihr gutes Recht. Sie mîßen auch selbst am besten wissen, was sich speciell fîr englische Theologen eignet, besonders im Hinblick auf die Beachtung der engl. Bibelîbersetzungen und der engl. Fachlitteratur, die ich bloss zum kleinen Teile kenne. 4., Die Frage des Verlegers ist sehr wichtig und muß sehr reiflich îberlegt werden. Offen gestanden, habe ich zu T. und T. Clark keine besondere Lust, da ich mit den Bible Studies keine guten Erfahrungen gemacht habe. Im Sommer 1907 fragte mich Dr. Giles, ob ich das Lexicon der Cambridge University Press geben wolle; ich habe ihm damals gesagt, dass mir der Gedanke nicht unsympathisch sei. Ich weiss freilich nicht, wie Sie dazu stehen; vielleicht hat das auch manches gegen sich. Schon frîher hatte Dr. Nicoll mich gebeten, das Buch an Hodder und Stoughton zu geben; ich habe nicht abgelehnt, aber auch hier mich nicht gebunden. Sie sehen, lieber Freund, an Offerten fehlt es nicht; zu Hodder and Stoughton htte ich jetzt das beste Zutrauen. ˜berlegen Sie bitte vor allem, ob Cambridge Univ. Press in Betracht kommt. Mir ist der Gedanke gekommen, dass ein Privatverleger in vielen Fllen bequemer ist (fîr den Autor), als eine officielle Druckerei, die

400

Appendix to chapter 1

immer an die Entscheidungen der Syndics gebunden ist und mit welcher z. B. die Korrespondenz immer etwas lnger dauert. Dem einen Privatverleger gegenîber gilt Gal. 3.20: a d³ les¸tgr 2m¹r oqj 5stim. Mit den herzlichsten Grîßen und allen guten Wînschen fîr 1910 Ihr treu ergebener [signed] Adolf Deißmann P.S. Die Wahlreden des im Dienste der Tories stehenden Sozialisten haben wir hier nicht ernst genommen. Sollten mir deutsche Pressstimmen auffallen, die eine Widerlegung bedîrfen, so schreibe ich Ihnen und bitte Sie um einige aufklrende Worte. Sie kçnnen in England immer auf die Tatsache hinweisen, dass ein Volk mit allgemeiner Wehrpflicht wie das deutsche friedliebend sein muss; der Krieg ist fîr uns viel furchtbarer, als fîr England, da bei uns fast jede Familie Soldaten stellt. Vor 4 Jahren wren allein aus meiner engeren Familie drei Leute im Falle eines Krieges Soldaten gewesen (heute sind sie zum Teil nicht mehr dienstpflichtig).

Appendix to chapter 2 2, a. Partial transcript of the preface to T.D. Hincks, Greek English Lexicon (1831) (Reference: ch. 2, n. 11)

As printed in the second edition of 1843. It is about three years since application was made to the Author of this Work, to prepare an Introductory School Lexicon, somewhat of the size and plan of Entick’s Latin Dictionary. He had read and concurred in many of the remarks made by Reviewers on the defective state of the Lexicons, and though he had been more disposed to thank those who had preceded him in such labours for what they had done, than to censure them for not having done more, he thought it his duty to avail himself of the opportunity presented to carry into execution, at least in part, a plan which might contribute to the more easy acquisition of a language undervalued by none, but by those who are ignorant of it. The most glaring faults of School Lexicons are, that they take in words occurring only in obscure authors, omit great numbers that do occur in the authors most read, and make no distinction between the words actually used, and those which have been imagined by Grammarians in conformity with a supposed analogy. Had circumstances been favourable, the author of the present work would have aimed at including all words used by writers who lived before the time of Alexander the Great, and by some selected writers of a later period; he would have endeavoured to distinguish those used only by poets; he would have given the meanings of words, with a reference to the chronological use of them, giving, for example, the sense in which a word was used by Homer or Pindar, before that in which it was used by Xenophon or Demosthenes; and this again before that in which it was used by Polybius or in the Greek Testament; endeavouring, as far as his materials would permit, to carry into effect a plan of the late Charles James Fox, in his correspondence with Gilbert Wakefield; he would have inserted no meaning which was not illustrated by a quotation from a writer held in estimation; he

402

Appendix to chapter 2

would have uniformly given the corresponding Latin word as well as the English, and would have adopted some minor improvements, which he has attempted in the present School Lexicon. The circumstances, however, under which he undertook the work, did not admit of so much being attempted, and he judged it better to do what he could, than to lose the opportunity offered to him. … it is necessary to state, that though the words were taken entirely from indexes or particular dictionaries, like those of Dammius, Sturzins, and Schleusner, and that the common lexicons were thrown aside, and seldom even looked into, the Greek-German dictionary of Schneider, revised by Passow, was constantly referred to … * * * 2, b. Deissmann, letter to James Moulton, 12. 1. 1907 (References: ch. 2, nn. 53, 61, 70, 71, 144)

Mein lieber Moulton! Vielen Dank fîr Ihren vertrauensvollen Brief vom 30. Dec. 06. Ich habe mir alles genau îberlegt und bin zu folgendem Resultat gekommen. Ihr Vorschlag, dass ich zu den Papyrus-Nachweisen Ihres geplanten Buches die Inschriften-Belege hinzufîgen soll, hat einen großen Reitz fîr mich. Und es wre mir auch eine ganz besondere Ehre, mit Ihnen zusammen diese wichtige Arbeit zu tun. Aber ich fîrchte, sie wîrde mich auf Jahre hinaus von der Verçffentlichung des Wçrterbuchs abhalten. Je mehr ich meine Zukunftsaufgaben îberlege, um so mehr empfinde ich aber die Verpflichtung, dieses opus vitae zuerst zu beenden. Jeder neue Jahresanfang ist mir eine Mahnung und eine Anklage. Ich bin ja gewiss nicht faul gewesen, ein sehr stattliches Material liegt in meinen Ksten; aber Vortrge u. Vereinsarbeit auf mehreren Gebieten haben mich neben der akademischen Ttigkeit so sehr in Anspruch genommen, dass die große Aufgabe meines Lebens sehr in den Hintergrund gestellt worden ist. Im November bin ich 40 Jahre alt geworden. Man sagt bei uns, dass die Schwaben dann verstndig werden. Obwohl ich kein Schwabe bin, habe ich mir aber ernstlich vorgenommen, jetzt alles andere nach Mçglichkeit zurîckzustellen, um bloß das Wçrterbuch zu fçrdern. Ostern dieses Jahres hoffe ich nach Vollendung einer kleinen Arbeit so weit zu sein, dass ich sonst frei bin.

Appendix to chapter 2

403

Darum bitte ich Sie, lieber Freund, lassen Sie mir Freiheit! Wollen Sie sich nicht auf die Papyri beschrnken? Oder von den Inschriften bloß die neueren Ausgaben, soweit sie Indices haben, benutzen? Die Durcharbeitung der anderen ist eine Riesenarbeit. Mittlerweile arbeite ich am Lexikon und hoffe in einigen Jahren soweit zu sein, dass ich Ihnen die ersten Druckbogen zur englischen Bearbeitung geben kann. Ihre Papyrus-Studien werden mir vorher, hoffe ich, die trefflichsten Dienste tun. Eine kurze Anzeige der zweiten Auflage Ihrer Grammatik kommt demnchst in der ThLZ. Mit der Bitte, meine Antwort freundschaftlichst zu verzeihen und in grçßter Hochschtzung [signed] Ihr Adolf Deißmann * * * 2, c. Adolf Jellinek, application to Karlsruhe Kultusministerium, 26. 11. 1907 (References: ch. 2, nn. 73, 148; ch. 3, n. 65)

A letter in support of Deissmann’s proposal to establish a Department for postclassical Greek philology. Engerer Senat. Die Erteilung eines Lehrauftrags an Professor Dr. Deißmann fîr Bibelgriechisch betr. Gr.[oßherzogliches] Ministerium beehren wir uns die Eingabe des Herrn Prof. Dr. Deißmann um ˜bertragung eines Lehrauftrages fîr Philologie der griechischen Bibel gez.[iemend] vorzulegen. Die theolog. Fakultt hat diesen, von dem Genannten ausfîhrlich begrîndeten Antrag einmîtig zu dem ihrigen gemacht u. einstimmig beschlossen, dafîr die Bewilligung eines Honorars von jhrlich 1500 M vorzuschlagen. Wir haben zunchst noch ein fachmnnisches Urteil des Herrn Geh. Hofrat Dr. A. Dieterich eingeholt. Dieser empfiehlt die Eingabe aufs wrmste, und der Senat hat daraufhin in seiner gestrigen Sitzung den einstimmigen Beschluß gefaßt, das Gr.[oßherzogliche] Ministerium aufs Dringendste zu bitten, dem Antrage entsprechen zu wollen. Fîr den Beschluß des Senates war nicht nur das sachliche Bedîrfnis maßgebend, sondern auch die Befîrchtung, daß die Universitt eine so zweifellos hervorragende Kraft, wie Deißmann

404

Appendix to chapter 2

verlieren kçnnte, der auf die Dauer nicht in der Lage ist, in seiner gegenwrtigen gedrîckten Stellung zu verharren, sondern sich bereits jetzt mit dem Gedanken trgt, eine Pfarrstelle in einem billigeren Orte anzunehmen, damit er die nçtige Muße finde, sein Lebenswerk zu vollenden. Zudem haben wir in Betracht gezogen, daß der Aufwand fîr die Theologische Fakultt weitaus geringer ist, wie der fîr jede der anderen Fakultten und schon deshalb ein sachliche und persçnliche Bedîrfnisse dieser Fakultt betreffender Antrag unserseits besondere Unterstîtzung zu beanspruchen das Anrecht hat. [signed] Jellinek * * * 2, d. Albrecht Dieterich, letter to Adolf Jellinek, 21. 11. 1907 (References: ch. 2, nn. 76, 147; ch. 3, nn. 68, 71)

Eurer Magnifizenz beehre ich mich der an mich ergangenen Aufforderung entsprechend meine Ansicht îber den von der theologischen Fakultt geforderten Lehrauftrag in der durch die Eile der Sache gebotenen Kîrze auszusprechen. Eigentlich mîßte in jeder theologischen Fakultt, die eine wissenschaftliche Auffassung ihrer Aufgaben hat, eine besondere Professur fîr Philologie der griechischen Bibel vorhanden sein, da in dem traditionellen Betrieb der Professor fîr neues Testament andere Dinge in den Vordergrund seiner Ttigkeit zu stellen hat und der Vertreter der griechischen Philologie an der Universitt, selbst wenn er wissenschaftlich auch im Stande ist, keine Zeit und Kraft îbrig haben kann, um ˜bungen und Vorlesungen zu halten, die zunchst nur eine Lîcke des theologischen Lehrbetriebs auszufîllen htten. Die Erfassung des Hellenismus, die in Archaeologie und klassischer Philologie heute im Mittelpunkt der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, weil wir erkannt haben, daß dort so viele … unserer europischen Kultur aufzudecken sind, daß wir uns von dort die Genesis des Christentums begreifen kçnnen, hat einen Umfang angenommen, daß viele wissenschaftliche Arbeiten diesem Gebiete immer ausschließlicher ihre Krfte widmen. Die Sprache, in der die Hellenistische Welt und das Urchristentum redete, kann und muß heute aus tausenden und abertausenden von Inschriften, aus den Massen neuentdeckter Papyri, aus der Fîlle neuer Dokumente erforscht werden; die Haupturkunden unserer Religion

Appendix to chapter 2

405

kçnnen erst auf dieser Grundlage richtig verstanden werden. Und diese Behandlung der philologischen Grundlagen des Studiums der griechischen Bibel – oder der “Philologie” der griechischen Bibel, die innerhalb der theologischen Fakultten Deutschlands nirgends wirklich gelehrt wird und dort erst ein wissenschaftliches Studium von Septuaginta und Neuem Testamente ermçglichen wîrde, wenn meiner Ansicht nach durch besondern Lehrauftrag zu sichern, sobald ein Mann vorhanden ist, der einem solchen Lehrauftrag entsprechen kann. Unsere theologische Fakultt besitzt die unbestrittene erste Autoritt auf dem in Rede stehenden Gebiete. Deissmann hat es durch seine ausgezeichneten ‘epochemachenden’ Arbeiten (ich citiere die Ausdrîcke anderer Fachleute) durchgesetzt, daß die Forderung, die Sprache der gr.[iechischen] Bibel aus der Sprache der griechischen Welt jener Zeit zu erklren, heute îberall anerkannt und die Vollendung von Deissmanns geplantem Wçrterbuch des Neuen Testamentes als der nchsten grundlegenden Leistung auf diesem Gebiete aufs dringendste gewînscht wird. Deissmann steht nicht nur fîr Deutschland, sondern auch fîr England im Mittelpunkt der philologischen Arbeit an der griech. Bibel und die Heidelberger Universitt htte durch die Erteilung des gewînschten Lehrauftrags die wertvollste Ergnzung und die anerkannteste Verbesserung ihres theologischen und philologischen Unterrichts. Wîrde Deissmann, wenn er den einschlagenden Studien mehr und pflichtmßig sich widmen kann und muß, sein großes Wçrterbuch besser vollenden, so wre auch durch den erbetenen Auftrag der Wissenschaft ein nicht geringer Dienst erwiesen. [signed] Albrecht Dieterich * * * 2, e. Deissmann, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 29. 1. 1908 (References: ch. 2, nn. 105, 159; ch. 4, n. 30)

Mein lieber Wiegand! Im Auftrag des Herrn Direktor Wiegand sandte mir gestern die Generalverwaltung der Kgl. Museen zu Berlin Dein Milet II und brachte mir dadurch nicht bloß die hochinteressante Kunde vom erfolgreichen Fortschritt Eurer Arbeiten, sondern auch einen erneuten persçnlichen Gruß von Dir selbst. Ich bin Dir außerordentlich dankbar fîr die wertvolle Gabe und beglîckwînsche Dich mit Deinen Symbuleuten zu

406

Appendix to chapter 2

diesem schçnen ‘Rathaus’, von dem herunterkommend man zweifellos klîger geworden ist, als man beim Betreten der ersten Stufe war. Durch einen merkwîrdigen Anlaß hat sich die Fertigstellung meines Opus etwas verzçgert: ich erhielt am 4. Januar einen Ruf nach Berlin, fuhr dorthin, unterhandelte mit dem Kultusministerium, freute mich einer alle Sînden der Stadt zudeckenden blendend weißen Schneedecke und habe, da ich viel Entgegenkommen auf persçnlichem und wissenschaftlichem Gebiete fand, den Ruf dann auch angenommen. Das hat dann zur Folge, daß wir alle einschließlich Deiner (goldigen) Patin Liselotte Theodora zum Sommer von hier [Heidelberg] weggehen. Und daß wir wahrscheinlich in Berlin eher Gelegenheit haben, Dich zu sehen und die Deinen kennen zu lernen. Das ist uns eine besondere Freude. Ich glaube auch, daß der Orient fîr mich von Berlin wieder besser zu erreichen ist, als von hier. Der Abschied von Heidelberg wird uns allen nicht leicht, aber ich konnte die Gelegenheit, den Wirkungskreis so betrchtlich zu erweitern, nicht ausschlagen. Die Fakultt hatte mich einstimmig vorgeschlagen. Mein Buch [Licht vom Osten] wird nun erst in einigen Wochen fertig, – ohne daß ich es ahnen konnte, mein Heidelberger Abschied Gruß. Uns geht es hier ganz nach Wunsch, ich hoffe von Dir und Deiner Familie das Gleiche. Mit den besten Empfehlungen von Haus zu Haus. Dein alter [signed] Adolf Deißmann * * * 2, f. Berlin Theological Faculty recommendation regarding Deissmann’s appointment to the Chair for NT, 25. 12. 1907 (References: ch. 2, nn. 110, 114, 137)

It was written by the then Dekan, Adolf Harnack, and addressed to Kultusminister Ludwig Holle. An den Herrn Minister Ew. Excellenz unterbreitet die Theologische Fakultt gehorsamst die Vorschlge zur Besetzung einer ordentlichen Professur fîr das Neue Testament. Diese Vorschlge sind aus Erwgungen hervorgegangen, die sich îber smtliche Ordinarien und Extraordinarien, die an deutschen

Appendix to chapter 2

407

Hochschulen das Neue Testament vertreten, erstreckten. Unter diesen Dozenten befinden sich mehrere, die mit Recht einen europischen, bez. einen Weltruf genießen, von denen die Fakultt aber deshalb absehen zu mîssen meinte, weil sie bereits in vorgerîcktem Alter stehen. Dies gilt in erster Linie von Prof. Zahn in Erlangen und Prof. Schîrer in Gçttingen, von denen Jener im 70., Dieser im 64. Lebensjahr steht, in zweiter Linie von Prof. Haupt in Halle und Prof. Heinrici in Leipzig. Jener ist 66, Dieser 63 Jahre alt. Keiner von ihnen ist eine so eminente Lehrkraft, daß die Fakultt berechtigt oder verpflichtet wre, îber ihr vorgerîcktes Alter hinwegzusehen. Gleich bei dem Beginn ihrer Erwgungen hat die Fakultt einen Gelehrten ins Auge gefaßt, an den zu denken ihr besonders nahe liegen mußte. Der Professor extraordin. D. Prof. von Soden hat 18 Jahre in ihrer Mitte als neutestamentlicher Exeget gewirkt, hat sich in dieser Ttigkeit große Verdienste erworben und steht durch seine wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten, besonders auch durch sein großes textkritisches Werk, in der ersten Linie der neutestamentlichen Forscher. Er wîrde jeden ordentlichen Lehrstuhl seines Fachs zieren, wie er dann auch schon seit Jahren çfters fîr einen solchen ins Auge gefaßt worden ist. Allein die Fakultt hat – zu ihrem lebhaften Bedauern – doch gemeint, von ihm absehen zu mîssen. In Folge seiner angespannten Ttigkeit als Pastor, als Professor und als Forscher und Schriftsteller hat Herr Prof. von Soden nach der einmîtigen ˜berzeugung der Fakultt die Frische und Spannkraft nicht mehr, die sie fîr den zu berufenden Ordinarius wînschen und verlangen muß. Die Fakultt mçchte es aber bereits an dieser Stelle aussprechen, wie dankbar sie jede Anerkennung der großen und ersprießlichen Ttigkeit Dr. von Sodens seitens Ew. Excellenz begrîßen wîrde. Die Ernennung desselben zum Ordentl. Honorarprofessor kme wohl in erster Linie hier in Frage. Was nun die positiven Vorschlge der Fakultt anlangt, so hat sich Einstimmigkeit leider nicht erreichen lassen, wohl aber ein Majorittsbeschluß, der in Bezug auf die drei vorgeschlagenen Gelehrten keine einstimmige Minoritt gegen sich hat. Bei dieser Sachlage und weil die Majoritt auf den an erster Stelle zu Berufenden besonderes Gewicht legt, erscheint es angezeigt, die Vorschlge fîr die erste, zweite u. dritte Stelle gesondert darzulegen. I. Die Fakultt schlgt an erster Stelle Herrn Prof. Jîlicher in Marburg mit fînf Stimmen (Pfleiderer, Kleinert, Harnack, Graf v. Baudissin, Holl) gegen drei Stimmen (Weiss Exz., Kaftan, Seeberg) vor.

408

Appendix to chapter 2

Den neutestamentlichen Gelehrten von europischem bez. von Weltruf, die oben genannt worden sind, steht unter den jîngeren Forschern nach dem Urteil der Majoritt der Fakultt nur Prof. Jîlicher ebenbîrtig zur Seite, ja îbertrifft sie in mancher Richtung. Diese Stellung hat er sich erworben durch seine virtuose Kenntnis und Beherrschung der griechischen Sprache, sowohl nach Seiten der Grammatik wie auch des Sprachgefîhls, durch seine ausgebreiteten patristischen Kenntnisse, die er zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments wie kein Anderer hinzuzubringen vermag, durch seine scharfe und exakte Kritik und Exegese endlich durch ein ganz originales Vermçgen, sich als Theologe und Denker in den Inhalt der Urkunden zu versetzen und ihren Gehalt, vor allem auch den religiçsen, ans Licht zu bringen. Dabei ist er ein ausgezeichneter Schriftsteller und ein vorzîglicher Lehrer, der sowohl in den Vorlesungen wie im Seminar durch die Kraft seiner lauteren Persçnlichkeit ebenso stark wirkt wie durch die Schrfe seiner Methode, sein stets parates Wissen und seine Gewissenhaftigkeit in der Erforschung des Wirklichen und Wahren. Die Fakultt, d. h. ihre Majoritt, legt das hçchste Gewicht darauf, diesen Gelehrten zu gewinnen, in welchem sie alle Eigenschaften vereinigt sieht, die der Exeget besitzen soll und an dem sie die Verbindung von Schrfe der Kritik und einem starken Vermçgen, den positiven Kern der Persçnlichkeiten und Dinge zu erfassen, bewundert. Sie kann auch neben ihm die Gelehrten, welche sie gemß der Aufforderung Ew. Exz. noch vorzuschlagen verpflichtet ist, nur in einem gemessenen Abstande nennen. Dagegen kann sich die Minoritt dem Vorschlage der Majoritt nicht anschließen aus folgenden Grînden: Bei aller Anerkennung der Gelehrsamkeit und akademischen Lehrerfolge D. Jîlichers ist sie doch der Meinung, daß seine Verdienste und Leistungen von der Mehrheit der Fakultt stark îberschtzt werden. Sie scheinen der Minoritt nicht so groß zu sein, daß die schweren Bedenken, die ihrer Meinung nach gegen seine Berufung nach Berlin sprechen, dadurch entkrftet wîrden. Diese Bedenken erwachsen der Minoritt daraus, daß Jîlicher einer heute weit verbreiteten kritischen Richtung huldigt, die in einer geschichtlich nicht zu rechtfertigenden Weise die apostolische Verkîndigung in Gegensatz zur Predigt Jesu bringe, was ihres Erachtens die Auslegung des Neuen Testaments auf irrefîhrende und verhngnisvolle Weise beeinflussen muß. Auch zeigen die neuesten Verçffentlichungen Jîlichers, daß er in Gefahr steht, einer radikalen Richtung nachzugeben, welche den geschichtlichen Boden, auf dem die

Appendix to chapter 2

409

Evangelisten stehen, vçllig zweifelhaft macht. Endlich erliegt Jîlicher nach der Meinung der Minoritt nicht selten der Versuchung, seiner Kritik abweichender Anschauungen eine verletzende Form zu geben und habe das auch gegenîber den von dem jetzigen Inhaber des neutestamentlichen Lehrstuhls vertretenen Forschungsweise nicht unterlassen, weshalb es der Minoritt unbillig scheint, gerade ihn zu dessen Mitarbeiter und spteren Nachfolger zu berufen. Die Minoritt muß sich daher aufs entschiedenste gegen den Vorschlag der Fakultt, Jîlicher betreffend, erklren, sie schlgt an erster Stelle Herrn Prof. D. Deißmann in Heidelberg vor. Da die Majoritt Herr Deißmann an zweiter Stelle selbst nennen wird, so verzichtet die Minoritt hier darauf, ihren Vorschlag zu begrînden. Die Fakultt hat geglaubt, die Kritik der Minoritt an ihrem Votum, Herr Prof. Jîlicher betreffend, ausfîhrlich und an dieser Stelle zu Wort kommen lassen zu sollen; aber sie braucht nicht erst zu bemerken, daß sie weder die Kritik der Minoritt noch ihre Befîrchtungen fîr zutreffend hlt. In Bezug auf den Vorwurf, daß Jîlicher die Predigt Jesu und der Apostel auseinanderreiße, bemerken sie, daß gerade er ein Buch “Jesus und Paulus” verfaßt hat, in welchem der Zusammenhang beider gegenîber radikaleren Meinungen dargelegt ist. II. Die Fakultt schlgt an zweiter Stelle Herrn Prof. Deißmann in Heidelberg mit vier Stimmen vor (Kleinert, Harnack, Graf v. Baudissin, Holl). An erste Stelle rîcken ihn die Herren Weiß Exz., Kaftan, Seeberg, und die dritte Stelle D. Pfleiderer, der an 2. Stelle D. Schmiedel – Zîrich nennt; es haben sich also tatschlich alle Stimmen, aber in verschiedener Weise auf D. [i.e. Deissmann] vereinigt. Prof. Deißmann (geb. 1866 in Hessen-Nassau, als Dozent frîher in Marburg und Herborn wirkend) ist seit einer Reihe von Jahren ordentlicher Professor der neutestamentlichen Exegese in Heidelberg. Das Spezialgebiet, auf welchem er ttig und in dessen Bearbeitung er anerkanntermaßen der Erste ist, ist die Untersuchung der neutestamentlichen Grcitt in ihrer Verbindung mit der allgemeinen hellenistischen. In den letzten 20 Jahren ist eine Fîlle von Papyri, Inschriften u.s.w. aus der Zeit um d. J. 200 vor Chr. bis zur Zeit um 200 nach Chr. ans Licht getreten, ein Material, nach Form und Inhalt so umfangreich, daß es die gesamte Kenntnis jener Epoche auf eine neue Stufe hebt. Dieses Material fîr das Neue Testament nutzbar zu machen und mit seiner Hilfe ein neutestamentliches Lexikon zu schaffen, welches nicht nur auf die Worte und Formen, sondern auch auf den Inhalt ein anderes Licht wirft, ist die Lebensaufgabe, die sich Deißmann gestellt hat. Er hat

410

Appendix to chapter 2

bereits sehr bedeutende Proben seiner Arbeit verçffentlicht und sich durch diese einen hohen Ruf auch in England und Amerika erworben – nach England ist er kîrzlich zu Vorlesungen îber diesen Gegenstand gerufen worden. Durch seine auch von Philologen anerkannte Meisterschaft und durch seinen Fleiß bietet er die sichere Gewhr, daß seine zielstrebige Arbeit auch zum Ziele fîhren wird. Neben diesem Studium hat Deißmann auch historische und religiçse Probleme feinsinnig und fçrdernd behandelt. Er ist keineswegs nur Philologe, auch nicht in erster Linie Philologe, sondern in erster Linie ein ausgeprgter religiçser Charakter und Lehrer, dem es vor Allem darum zu tun ist, seine Schîler in der Religion des Neuen Testaments heimisch zu machen. Man erkennt das aus seinen Schriften, und die, welche seine Wirksamkeit in Heidelberg beobachtet haben, bezeugen es. Vielleicht kommt zwischen seiner direkt religiçsen, fast pastoralen, und seiner philologisch-exegetischen Ttigkeit die Theologie im strengen Sinn des Wortes etwas zu kurz; aber man kann von einem Mann nicht Alles zugleich fordern. Erkundigungen, die in Heidelberg eingezogen worden sind, lauteten sehr gînstig. Neben seiner Lehrgabe wird namentlich seine Ttigkeit im Seminar hervorgehoben. Daß er in dem Seminar Anforderungen stellt, die der Durchschnittsstudent als schwierig empfindet, gereicht ihm gewiß nicht zur Unehre; wer arbeiten will ist ihm dankbar, und er hat es verstanden, auch Auslnder nach Heidelberg zu ziehen. Bei den Kollegen, auch der anderen Fakultten, genießt er hohes Ansehen, gilt auch bei den Philologen als Fachmann und durch die Lauterkeit und den Ernst seines Wesens sowie durch den Reichtum von Kenntnißen, die neben ihm in dieser Weise kein Anderer hat, îberwindet er ohne Mîhe die Anstçße, die sonst leicht theologische Persçnlichkeiten seiner Art Außenstehenden bieten. So empfiehlt ihn die Fakultt mit vier Stimmen an zweiter, mit drei Stimmen sogar an erster und mit einer Stimme an dritter Stelle. Diese eine Stimme (D. Pfleiderer) beanstandet das Votum der Fakultt im Allgemeinen nicht, glaubt aber in Professor Schmiedel – Zîrich eine noch tîchtigere Kraft empfehlen zu kçnnen. Die Fakultt vermochte sich davon bei aller Anerkennung der Verdienste dieses Gelehrten nicht zu îberzeugen, und sie trgt außerdem Bedenken einen Mann vorzuschlagen, der bereits das 56. Lebensjahr erreicht hat, also noch um ein Jahr lter als Herr von Soden ist. III. In Bezug auf die dritte Stelle schlgt die Fakultt mit fînf Stimmen Prof. v. Dobschîtz – Straßburg vor, whrend zwei Stimmen (Weiß Exz. und Seeberg), indem sie Deißmann an die erste Stelle

Appendix to chapter 2

411

rîcken, ihm Feine – Breslau und Kîhl – Kçnigsberg folgen lassen wollen, eine Stimme aber (D. Pfleiderer) Deißmann an die dritte Stelle setzt. Die Auswahl in Bezug auf die dritte Stelle hat der Majoritt der Fakultt nicht geringe Schwierigkeiten bereitet. Was Umfang der Arbeiten und Fleiß, Selbstndigkeit des Urteils und frisches Anfassen neuer Probleme betrifft, so wre Bousset – Gçttingen in erster Linie zu nennen. Aber die Fakultt konnte sich nicht davon îberzeugen, daß dieser Gelehrte als Gesamtpersçnlichkeit und in der Lebhaftigkeit seines Wirkens so ausgeglichen sei, daß man ihm mit voller Zuversicht das verantwortungsvolle Lehramt in Berlin îbertragen kçnne. Neben ihm hat sich Johannes Weiß – Marburg durch vielseitige und fçrdernde Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet des Neuen Testaments ausgezeichnet und gilt mit Recht als ein verdienter und vielversprechender Gelehrter. Aber nach allen Seiten aufgeschlossen und jeden frischen Eindruck aufnehmend, ist dieser Forscher noch nicht so in sich geschlossen, daß die Fakultt ihn zu berufen das volle Vertrauen hat. Ein starkes Talent – und vielleicht noch mehr – ein ausgezeichneter Lehrer, sich ganz seinen Studenten hingebend, und ein religiçser Charakter von origineller Prgung ist D. Weinel – Jena. Aber von ihm gilt etwas hnliches – wenn auch in anderer Weise – als von D. Bousset: man kann nicht ganz sicher wissen, wie sich der jetzt erst 35 jhrige Gelehrte ausreifen und wie er seinen definitiven Schwerpunkt finden wird. Unter solchen Umstnden hat die Fakultt in ihrer Majoritt schließlich keine Bedenken getragen, Prof. v. Dobschîtz – Straßburg zu nennen. Prof. v. Dobschîtz, der Nachfolger Holtzmann’s in Straßburg, bringt zu dem Studium des Neuen Testaments eine sehr grîndliche Kenntnis der ltesten Kirchengeschichte und Patristik und eine exakte Schulung in der Handschriftenkunde und den Methoden der textkritischen und palographischen Forschung. Sein großes Werk îber die Literatur des alten Christusbildes ist die Frucht eines unverdrossenen, eisernen Fleißes. Seine Licentiaten-Schrift îber die “Predigt Petri” ist die erste Monographie îber die Fragmente eines wichtigen urchristlichen Denkmals. Sein Buch îber die Gemeinden des apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalters ist nicht besonders originell, beleuchtet aber doch die urchristliche Entwicklungsgeschichte unter einem Gesichtspunkt, der bisher weniger beachtet worden ist. Seit Jahren ist er fîr die Akademie der Wissenschaften mit der Herausgabe der Apokryphen neutestamentlichen Literatur betraut und hat auf zahlreichen Reisen den ungeheuren Stoff gesammelt und ist mit seiner Durcharbeitung beschftigt. Der unter-

412

Appendix to chapter 2

zeichnete Dekan, der Einsicht in diese Materialien gewonnen hat, kann die Vorzîglichkeit der weitschichtigen Arbeiten bezeugen. In den wichtigsten Fragen des apostolischen Zeitalters hat von Dobschîtz literarisch Stellung genommen und sich als ein besonnener, ruhig abwgender und gereifter Theologe bewhrt. Seine Lehrgabe wird gerîhmt und ebenso seine Wirksamkeit im Seminar. Der Fakultt ist es nicht zweifelhaft, daß sowohl in Ansehung der Leistungen als auch dessen, was nach Prîfung der Verhltnisse in Zukunft von ihm zu erwarten steht, Prof. v. Dobschîtz die Fachmnner, die neben ihm genannt werden kçnnten, erheblich îbertrifft. Das gilt insbesondere in Bezug auf die beiden Gelehrten, welche nach dem Urteil der aus den Herren D. Weiß Exz. u. D. Seeberg bestehenden Minoritt îber Herrn Prof. v. Dobschîtz gestellt werden, nmlich den Prof. Feine in Breslau und Prof. Kîhl in Kçnigsberg. Die Herren D. Weiß Exz. u. D. Seeberg begrînden ihre abweichende Meinung wie folgt: Sie kçnnen sich trotz aller Anerkennung der Arbeiten des Prof. v. Dobschîtz nicht verhehlen, daß dieselben sich mehr auf kirchengeschichtlichem Gebiete bewegen und noch keinerlei Gewhr dafîr bieten, daß er in der Auslegung des Neuen Testaments und in der Verwertung desselben fîr die biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments eine fruchtbare Wirksamkeit an der Fakultt entfalten wird. Sie zhlen dagegen D. Feine (geb. 1859) zu den grîndlichsten und sorgfltigsten Auslegern des Neuen Testaments in der jîngeren Generation. Sie sind îberzeugt, daß er durch die solide Methode und die strenge Unparteilichkeit seiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeit die er in einer Anzahl grçßerer Werke dargetan hat, sowie durch die klare und anregende Art seines Vortrages in ganz hervorragender Weise fîr die Neutestamentliche Professur an unserer Fakultt qualifiziert ist und den hiesigen Bedîrfnissen aufs beste entsprechen wîrde. Von seinen Schriften heben sie hervor: Eine vorkanonische ˜berlieferung des Lukas, 1891. Der Jakobusbrief, 1893. Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus, 1898. Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902. Die Erneuerung des paulinischen Christentums durch Luther, 1903. Paulus als Theologe, 1906. Inwiefern ist Jesus der Offenbarer Gottes?, 1906. ˜ber D. Kîhl (geb. 1861) urteilen sie also: durch verschiedene Schriften und Aufstze habe er ein lebhaftes und wichtiges Interesse fîr die Probleme der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft gezeigt, sowie sich als einen, besonders in der Detailexegese methodisch geschulten und sorgfltig arbeitenden Forscher erwiesen. Da seine Lehrttigkeit stets von außerordentlichem Erfolg begleitet gewesen sei, sodaß er fast

Appendix to chapter 2

413

immer die besuchtesten Vorlesungen in seiner Fakultt gehabt habe und da er, allen kirchenpolitischen Agitationen abhold, sich ohne Frage mit ganzer Kraft der akademischen Wirksamkeit widmen werde, so tragen sie kein Bedenken, ihn als Stîtze und eventuell Nachfolger seines Lehrers D. Weiß an der Fakultt zu empfehlen. Von seinen Schriften nennen sie: Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi 1890. Die Stellung des Apostel Paulus zum alttestamentlichen Gesetz 1894. Zur paulinischen Theodicie 1897. Die Briefe Petri und Juda (in Meyers Kommentar) 2. Aufl. 1897. ˜ber Phil. 2, 12 f. (in den Stud. und Kritiken) 1898. Rechtfertigung des Glaubens und Gericht nach den Werken bei Paulus 1904. ˜ber 2. Kor. 5,1 – 10, ein Beitrag zum Hellenismus bei Paulus 1904. Die Stellung des Jakobusbriefs zum Alttestamentlichen Gesetz und zur paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre 1905 und ganz besonders seine auf grîndlichen exegetischen Studien beruhende Erluterung der paulinischen Briefe Band I. 1907. Die Fakultt verharrt gegenîber diesen Charakteristiken der D.D. Feine und Kîhl, die sie sich nicht anzueignen vermag, bei ihrem Votum fîr D. v. Dobschîtz. Die Vorschlge der Fakultt lauten: 1. Jîlicher – Marburg 2. Deißmann – Heidelberg 3. v. Dobschîtz – Straßburg. Ad. (1.) Jîlicher ist mit 5 Stimmen vorgeschlagen; 3 Stimmen fielen fîr die erste Stelle auf Deißmann. Ad. (2.) Deißmann ist mit 4 Stimmen fîr die zweite, mit 3 Stimmen fîr die erste mit 1 Stimme fîr die dritte Stelle vorgeschlagen. Zwei Stimmen fîr diese zweite Stelle fielen auf Feine, eine Stimme fiel auf Schmidel. Ad. (3.) v. Dobschîtz ist mit 5 Stimmen fîr die dritte Stelle vorgeschlagen; zwei Stimmen fielen auf Kîhl und eine auf Deißmann. Dekan und Professoren. [signed] Harnack, Weiß, Kleinert, Pfleiderer, Baudissin, Kaftan, Seeberg, Holl *

*

*

414

Appendix to chapter 2

2, g. James Moulton, letter to Deissmann, 19. 2. 1912 (References: ch. 2, nn. 151, 162)

Didsbury College, Manchester. Dear Deissmann I am terribly in arrears with you! You will forgive me, I am sure, when I tell you that I begin my Hibbert Lectures in Oxford today week! I have six Mondays in Oxford and six Tuesdays in London (where I repeat the lectures) between now and the middle of May. And at the beginning of this month my dear Mother passed away, just before the fourteenth anniversary of my father’s passing. They kept that “Birthday” together in their Golden Wedding year. So you may imagine I am extremely full of work. But I can’t postpone a line of warm thanks to you for helping me about that Plutarch passage. I need not say how I value the note you sent me from Wilamowitz, which I have inserted verbatim. Will you be good enough to convey to him my very hearty thanks for the trouble he has so kindly taken? The thought of the aristocracy of scholarship in the midst of which you live makes me constantly look wistfully over to the home in Wilmersdorf 1 where I know I could safely invite myself for the treat of a lifetime if only I could get free!! Is there any chance of your coming over here? I have such arrears of important things that I am eager to talk over with you. The end of June, for instance, when College and University work will be over and Hibberts have ceased to trouble, would be a most excellent breathing-space for me: I wonder if by any lucky chance you are free for a little time then. If only for two or three days – more, thankfully, if possible – the visit would save reams of letters as to the Lexicon and other work. Could you drop me a postcard when you receive this, simply to say whether that time is conceivable? Some other immediate arrangements depend upon it. The possibility of a visit from you at some other time, should that one be impossible for you, we might discuss later. So I never answered your Christmas letter! Forgive me. It was extremely interesting, and I could sit down and write another sheet on it with keen enjoyment. The recent sudden improvement in AngloGerman [sic] relations has lifted a huge weight off my mind. You know, no liberal would ever admit that the barest dream of attack was ever in the minds of our Government: the Liberal Party would kick every one of them out if such a thing were proved. I altogether agree 1

i. e. GAD’s home at Prinzregentenstrasse 7. See ch. 2, n. 136.

Appendix to chapter 2

415

with the case you make for Germany. The mischief is unfounded suspicion on both sides. You wouldn’t think of stopping BS [i.e. new edition of Bibelstudien] now, I’m sure. But from the first I have wondered how you could draw the line between a new edition of BS. and what is virtually only your Lexicon in another form! But I must stop. With every good wish Ever heartily yours [signed] James Hope Moulton I sent my little book to Lehmann * * * 2, h. Ernst Deissmann, letter to Gerhard Deissmann, 15. 8. 1946 (Reference: ch. 2, nn. 125, 173)

Because of its private nature, I have withheld a few personal names and addresses, which occur in the original. Mein lieber Gerhard! Ich habe mich ausserordentlich îber Deinen Brief vom 13. 7. gefreut und îber den Postkartengruss auf der Karte an Herrn Hagemann. Es ist ja sehr erfreulich, dass nun die direkte Verbindung hergestellt ist und die Korrespondenz jetzt ziemlich glatt luft. Alle anderen Familienmitglieder haben sich auch sehr îber deinen Brief gefreut. Ich bin ganz ausserordentlich îberlastet, will Dir aber in Stichworten I. einen Situationsbericht der gegenwrtigen Lage geben und II. die von Dir gewînschte Schilderung îber die Einzelheiten in Wînsdorf. I. Mutter sah ich kîrzlich in Plettenberg. Es geht ihr sehr gut, auch gesundheitlich hat sie sich fein erholt. Sie ist bei sehr ordentlichen Leuten untergebracht, ganz in der Nhe von Ette [i.e. sister, Henriette]. Ich habe es fîr sie erreichen kçnnen, dass sie zum 1. September mit dem Auto zu Tante Marthi’s 70. Geburtstag nach Marburg fhrt, worauf sie sich sehr freut. Lilo [sister, Liselotte] ist jetzt auch glnzend untergebracht und zwar bei unseren alten Freunden Wild bezw. in deren elterlichem Haus in Wattenscheid (Wattenscheid-Leithe [address] bei Schulte-Kemna), wo Lilo die Hauswirtschaft und die Geflîgelzucht des grossen Gutsbetriebes fîhrt, dort also nunmehr eine neue Existenz unter idealen Bedingungen hat. Sie ist sehr glîcklich.

416

Appendix to chapter 2

Gisela [Ernst’s wife] wohnt jetzt in Hoya/Weser [address] wo ich zwei Zimmer gemietet habe und çfter zum Wochenende mal hingehe. Die Verhltnisse sind dort auch einigermassen gînstig. Ich habe auch Peter [adopted son] jetzt seit kurzem dort, der aus Berlin mit mir per Flugzeug herîberkam, zunchst fîr die Ferien. Er soll aber in Hoya bleiben und nicht wieder nach Gebesee zurîck, da die Grenzpassierverhltnisse zwischen Ost- und Westzone zu schwierig sind und unter Umstnden noch schwieriger werden kçnnen, sodass ich eine unfreiwillige Trennung unter keinen Umstnden riskieren mçchte. Inge: mit ihr bist Du ja in Kontakt und selbst gut orientiert. Sie war kîrzlich hier und hat jetzt eine Stellung beim Landrat in Northeim. Vom Paul [Gerhard’s twin brother, missing in action since Apr. 1945] leider noch keine Nachricht. II. Wînsdorf: Der russische Durchbruch auf Wînsdorf kam seinerzeit so îberraschend, dass ich bei meinem Versuch, Mutter noch zu holen, nur bis Rangsdorf kam und umkehren musste, weil dort schon Kmpfe im Gange waren. [Neighbours] hatten sich in keiner Weise bewhrt, sondern waren kurz vor dem Einbruch in Wînsdorf unter Mitnahme unserer Handwagen in Richtung Potsdam getîrmt, nahmen Mutter îbereilt mit, die aber in dem Marschtempo nicht mitkommen konnte, sondern am Ausgang des Dorfes in der Nhe des Schwarzen Lochs zurîckblieb und allein umkehren musste, wobei [Neighbours] noch einen Teil ihres Gepcks auf dem Wagen hatten. Mutter erlebte also allein und ohne mnnlichen Schutz den Russeneinbruch, wurde sehr treu von Nachbarn Umnus, insbesondere von der Frau mit der Hasenscharte versorgt, erlebte aber Schlimmes. Tag und Nacht gingen Soldaten und Zivilisten plîndernd durch das Haus [i.e. ‘Anatolia’, see ch. 2, n. 125], whrend sie im Bett lag. Der schlimmste Strolch war der “wolgadeutsche” Nachbar nebenan, der gleich in den ersten Tagen in der schlimmsten Weise plînderte, u. a. die von mir sorgfltig eigenhndig gepackten und im Keller gut versteckten Kisten mit den wertvollen Kleidungsstîcken von Mutter und Dir. Er hatte wohl beobachtet, wie ich etwa 14 Tage vorher die Kisten in den Keller geschafft hatte. Auch ein Koffer mit meinen besten Sachen, den ich im kleinen Haus auf dem Dachboden versteckt hatte, wurde gefunden. ˜berhaupt waren die “Volksgenossen” die schlimmsten Plînderer. Das Haus wurde von Russen besetzt, Mutter musste mit wenigen Habseligkeiten ins Dorf, wo sie unter kîmmerlichen Verhltnissen lebte. Alsbald nach Beendigung der Kampfhandlungen fuhr ich unter Lebensgefahr per Rad nach Wînsdorf, fand die Seestrasse abgesperrt

Appendix to chapter 2

417

mit Schlagbaum und vçllig von Russen besetzt, und Mutter nach vielen Mîhen im Dorf. Ich war dann noch etwa achtmal per Rad in Wînsdorf, immer mit grçssten Schwierigkeiten, und fand jedesmal vernderte Verhltnisse vor. Einige Dinge konnte ich noch im Hause retten. Nach Freigabe der anderen Huser blieb unser Haus immer noch besetzt durch den fortgesetzten Wechsel der Besatzung. Lange Zeit lag eine russische Dienststelle in unserem Hause. Immer mehr auch unkontrollierbare Leute gingen aus und ein, hauptschlich bei dem plçtzlichen Wechsel der Besatzungen wurde dann viel geplîndert. Es war usserst schwierig, in das Haus selbst hereinzukommen, selbst mit allerlei russischen Bescheinigungen, die ich mir besorgt hatte, gelang da nicht viel. – Gisela ist zweimal sehr couragiert einfach hineingegangen und hat noch verschiedene Kleinigkeiten gegriffen. Ich selbst habe einmal die Erlaubnis erwirkt, in einem riesigen Bîcherhaufen, der oben in Inges Zimmer lag, noch einige Sachen mitzunehmen, insbesondere die Bîcher von Vater. In Dein Zimmer kam ich îberhaupt nicht hinein. Jedenfalls ist im Laufe der Zeit praktisch alles irgendwie Wertvolle auch an Mçbeln aus dem Hause herausgetragen und weggeschafft worden, zumeist von der abziehenden Truppe, sodass das Haus jetzt mit fremden Mçbeln mçbliert ist. Die Garderobesachen und die Wsche sowie das Silber waren natîrlich lange weg. Das kleine Haus hat auch sehr Schaden gelitten. Man hat vielfach die Bretter von den Wnden abgerissen zu Feuerungszwecken. Das grosse Haus ist aber durch die Bewohnung wenigstens geheizt und in Ordnung gehalten. Ob wir jemals wieder die Mçglichkeit haben werden, das Grundstîck in Besitz zu nehmen, ist sehr fraglich. Ich wurde einmal in Wînsdorf angehalten, weil man mich mit Dir verwechselte; die ganze Atmosphre dort ist sehr unerfreulich. Jedenfalls war fîr Mutter dort nicht mehr die Mçglichkeit, weiter zu existieren. Die Ernhrungslage wurde immer schwieriger und die Einsamkeit war ganz unertrglich, so dass ich am 1. 7. mit Hilfe eines in Berlin organisierten Tempo-Dreiradwagens Mutter mit ein paar geretteten Habseligkeiten nach Berlin brachte, wo sie dann bei uns bis zum Juni 46 wohnte. Dann gelang es endlich Gisela, sie per Flîchtlingszug hierher zu bringen. Gisela und ich haben in Berlin whrend der fîrchterlichen Strassenkmpfe viel durchgemacht. Gisela hatte noch whrend der Beschiessung in einer Garage im Nebenhaus einen Notverbandsplatz aufgemacht und sich dort und auch vorher an anderer Stelle sehr exponiert. Dieses Notlazarett war beim Hçhepunkt der Kmpfe ausserordentlich in

418

Appendix to chapter 2

Anspruch genommen von deutschen Wehrmachtangehçrigen, Volkssturmleuten, Zivilisten und sogar von Russen. Es lagen dort manchmal bis zu 15 Schwerverwundete. Manche sind gestorben, vielen wurde das Leben gerettet. Es waren aber sehr kritische Momente, zumal ein Russe in dem Lazarett starb und die Gefahr bestand, dass die Russen uns beschuldigten, an seinem Tode schuldig zu sein. Gisela hat sich in diesen Kampftagen ganz hervorragend bewhrt. Du kannst Dir denken, wie schwierig es war, diese vielen Menschen 14 Tage hindurch aus freiwilligen Spenden der in den Kellern hausenden Nachbarn zu verpflegen und zu bekçstigen, Verbandmaterial, ørzte und alles zu beschaffen – alles unter fortgesetztem Beschuss und nachher mit den wilden Russen, die uns viel zu schaffen machten und die gerade in der Nymphenburgerstrasse in Massen einquartiert waren. – Gisela hat îber alles damals Buch gefîhrt, das musst Du spter einmal lesen. Der Kampf um Berlin war eines der grçssten Verbrechen, die die “Fîhrung” îber uns gebracht hat. Du kannst Dir nicht vorstellen, wie furchtbar das alles war und wie verraten und verkauft sich die Berliner Bevçlkerung, um deren Schicksal sich îberhaupt niemand kîmmerte, vorkam. Die schlimmsten Beschdigungen und Zerstçrungen sind auch in diesen Kampftagen und durch blçdsinnige Sprengungen der SS îber Berlin hereingebrochen. Es gbe ja noch so unendlich viel zu berichten, aber ich muss mich auf diese Darstellung beschrnken, die Dir ein ungefhres Bild von dem Ablauf der Dinge gibt. – Heute kam aus Berlin ein ganzer Schwung alter Briefe von Dir an Mutter, die ganzen ersten Briefe, die wir leider nicht bekommen hatten. Wir alle freuen uns ausserordentlich, dass Du eine so ausgefîllte und befriedigende Ttigkeit hast und wir hoffen, dass der Tag Deiner Entlassung [Gerhard was interned in Italy 1945 – 47] nun nicht mehr fern ist. Du darfst jedenfalls unter keinen Umstnden nach Wînsdorf oder îberhaupt dorthin gehen, sondern hast ja nun auch Deine ganze Familie und alle Angehçrigen in der britischen Zone. Dass Giselas Vater bei den Kmpfen um Berlin ums Leben gekommen ist, habe ich wohl schon geschrieben. Von Gerhard Wiegand kam heute wieder eine Karte aus Moskau. Er hat jetzt auch schon unseren Brief erhalten. Seine Adresse ist mir im Augenblick nicht zur Hand. Das Furchtbare ist eben, das von Paul immer noch

Appendix to chapter 2

419

keinerlei Nachricht vorliegt und die Hoffnung, dass er noch am Leben ist, immer mehr schwindet, aber man darf die Hoffnung nicht aufgeben. Soviel fîr heute, lieber Gerhard. Mit allen guten Wînschen [signed] Dein Bruder Ernst PS. – Mutter hat mich gebeten, Dir diesen Bericht zu geben, da es fîr sie selbst auch besser ist, wenn sie sich nicht mehr so viel in Gedanken mit den schrecklichen Monaten vor einem Jahr abgibt. –

Appendix to chapter 3 3 (I–VI) Transcripts of Deissmann’s subject enrolment lists at the University of Tîbingen, 1885 – 88 All but one are undated. I (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Adolf Deissmann, st—ud. theol., aus Erbach im Rheingau, Preussen, Prov. Hessen-Nassau, Reg.-Bez. Wiesbaden, wohnhaft bei Frau Pfarrer Frisch, Neckarhalde 70 – gedenkt im Sommersemester 1885 zu hçren: 1., Psalmen bei Prof. Dr. Kautzsch, 4 stîndig. 2., Encyklopdie der Theologie bei Prof. Dr. Kautzsch, 3 stîndig. 3., Epheserbrief bei Prof. Dr. Kîbler, 2 stîndig. 4., Geographie Palstinas bei Prof. Dr. Socin, 2 stîndig. 5., Geschichte der neuesten Zeit bei Prof. Dr. Kugler, 3 stîndig. 6., Michel Angelo bei Privatdozent Dr. Holtzinger, 1 stîndig. * * * II (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Einjhrig-Freiwilliger, Stud. theol. Adolf Deißmann, in der Wohnung bei Frau Pfarrer Frisch, Neckarhalde 70, hçrt in diesem Winter-Semester 1885/86 folgende Vorlesungen: Geschichte der neueren socialen Revolutionen bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Kugler. Luthers Schriften bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Kîbel. Erklrung des ersten Korintherbriefs bei Herr Prof. Dr. Buder. Tîbingen, den 4ten Nov. 85. *

*

*

422

Appendix to chapter 3

III (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Der Stud. theol. A. Deißmann, Einjhrig-Freiwilliger Gefreiter im 7. Wîrtt. Inf.-Regt. No 125, in Wohnung bei Frau Pfarrer Sophie Frisch geb. Steinheil, Neckarhalde 70 gedenkt folgende Vorlesungen im S.S. 1886 zu hçren: 1., Philosophische Anthropologie bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Pfleiderer (4 Stunden). 2., Erklrung der Augustana bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Buder (2 Stunden). * * * IV (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Adolf Deißmann, stud. theol., in Wohnung bei Frau Pfarrer Frisch geb. Steinheil, Neckarhalde 70, gedenkt im W.S. 1886/87 folgende Vorlesungen zu hçren: 1., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 5 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Kautzsch. 2., Erklrung der Genesis, 4 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Kautzsch. 3., Erklrung des Briefes an die Galater, 2 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Buder. 4., Erklrung des Jacobus- & ersten Petrusbriefes, 2 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Kîbel. 5., Kirchengeschichte erster Teil, 6 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. von Weizscker. 6., Dogmengeschichte erster Teil, 5 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. von Weizscker. 7., Philosophische Ethik, 4 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. Dr. Pfleiderer. * * * V (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Adolf Deißmann, stud. theol., aus Erbach im Rheingau, in Wohnung bei Frau Pfarrer Frisch, Neckarhalde 70, gedenkt im S.S. 1887 folgende Vorlesungen zu hçren: 1., Grundprobleme der Religionsphilosophie & Apologetik, 3 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. D. Buder.

Appendix to chapter 3

423

2., Augustana, 2 stîndig desgl. (wiederholt). 3., Ethik I, 5 stîndig bei Herrn Prof. D. Weiß. 4., Grundprobleme der philos. Weltanschauung, 4 stîndig bei Herr Prof. Dr. Pfleiderer. 5., Rafael, 1 stîndig bei Herrn Priv. Doz. Dr. Holtzinger. * * * VI (References: ch. 1, n. 26; ch. 3, n. 18)

Adolf Deißmann, stud. theol., aus Erbach im Rheingau, in Wohnung bei Frau Pfarrer Frisch, geb.– Steinheil, Neckarhalde 70, belegt fîr das Wintersemester 1887/88 folgende Vorlesungen: 1., Bibl. Theologie des A. T. bei Prof. D. Kautzsch. 2., Erklrung des Buches Hiob bei Prof. D. Kautzsch. 3., Neutestamentliche Theologie bei Prof. D. Buder, 4., Kirchengeschichte I Teil bei Prof. D. v. Weizscker 5., Kirchengeschichte des 19. Jahrh. bei Prof. D. v. Weizscker 6., Exegetisch-Homiletische Behandlung der wichtigsten Sonntagsperikopen, Kîbel. 7., Christliche Ethik II Teil bei Prof. D. Weiß. 8., Dogm. Controversfragen der Gegenwart Rep. Lic. Reischle.

Appendix to chapter 4 4, a. Extract from Deissmann’s journal article, ‘Study-travel in New Testament Lands, I’ (Reference: ch. 4, n. 60)

ET, 25, 11, 1914, 486 – 7. Two visits to the East had greatly strengthened a conviction of mine, that in studying St. Paul far more than the usual amount of stress should be laid on the Eastern background of the Apostle’s personality, and that literary knowledge of the East must be supplemented by travel. To this view I gave expression in my book on St. Paul; and it has fared with me as I might have expected. I have met with warm approval, especially from those who themselves know the East, and scornful repudiation, especially from those who obviously do not. The most valuable to me is the approval in principle of a man who, in the enthusiasm of his own great knowledge of Asia Minor gained by explorations extending over many years, objects to the shortness of my visits, though he fully recognizes the importance of the theory that guided me: I refer to Sir William M. Ramsay … The subject of my remarks is study-travel, not exploration. In other words, the purpose of the journey is first of all receptive, not productive. The journey is receptive in the sense that it enables us by personal observation to supplement and put life into all that we have learnt from the researches and exploration of others. Of course the journey should be and will be productive in the indirect sense owing to the abundance of new impressions that are absorbed and go to enrich a man’s knowledge, experience, and powers when he has returned home. This will all stimulate, promote, and enliven this scientific output. But study-travel does not claim to be and cannot be productive in the other sense, as if its objects were to excavate, to carry out topographical and meteorological investigations, collect epigraphical material and so on. Of course, every one who travels with an open eye and makes the most of the facilities afforded him may come in for various bits of new material, but that is a by-product. I

426

Appendix to chapter 4

have therefore, as I said, never ventured to speak of my journeys undertaken for purposes of study as if they were exploration. I am too well acquainted with the history of the ‘exploration’ of Asia Minor and Palestine to do that. I have always made it clear that the object of my journeys was to supplement my study of books by seeing things for myself – to gain knowledge which to me personally is beyond price. The prerequisite of every such journey is a thorough study of the published original records of the New Testament countries and the literature of modern research in the East. Only thus can the object of the journey be attained by travellers to whom (since most of them are engaged in teaching) speed is a necessary consideration. As regards to the original records and the modern literature, it generally happens that they are better understood and appreciated after one’s return than before. The study of books is the preparation for the journey, but the journey in turn promotes the understanding of the literature. I gladly confess that a single hour on the Mount of Olives or on the Mons Silpius has done more to make me understand Jerusalem or Antioch than days spent in the study of maps and books, and that the view from the castle hill or from the ‘Prison of St. Paul,’ with its unforgettable wealth of impressions, first revealed ancient Ephesus to me and enabled me at length really to study the monumental work of the Austrians on Ephesus with full profit. Similarly, of Sir William Ramsay’s writings, those are now the most profitable to me which deal with things I have seen with my own eyes. Others may have no need to see things in this way: I have the need, and I know many people constituted like myself, who do not find their bearings historically until they begin to see things as a concrete image in space. * * * 4, b. Extract from Deissmann’s book, Paulus (2nd edn. 1925) (Reference: ch. 4, n. 86)

In the 2nd edn. Deissmann added a chapter, entitled ‘Zur Abwehr’; it was in direct answer to E. Schwarz’ vitriolic critique of Paulus’ 1st edn. in 1911 (see ch. 4, n. 83), Paulus, 230 – 1. Daß ein gegen hergebrachte und herrschende Auffassungen so stark kritisches Buch wie mein “Paulus” heftigen Widerspruch finden werde, war zu erwarten. In den vielen Besprechungen, die es im In- und

Appendix to chapter 4

427

Auslande erlebt hat, sowie in der reichen persçnlichen Korrespondenz îber das Buch waren Zustimmung zu den wesentlichen Linien meines Paulusbildes und Ablehnung etwa so verteilt. In Deutschland haben nicht wenige ltere und jîngere Fachgenossen beider Konfessionen, zahlreiche andere theologische und philologische Leser sowie bibelkundige und religionsverstndige Laien mehr oder weniger zugestimmt; dazu kamen hnliche Urteile von kontinentalen, angelschsischen und griechisch-orthodoxen Kritikern. Ablehnung auf der anderen Seite, oft in gereiztestem Ton, erfuhr das Buch durch eine Anzahl Paulusforscher links und rechts, besonders durch diejenigen, die der Mystik als solcher ablehnend gegenîberstehen. Ich hatte die Absicht, in dieser großen und lehrreichen Aussprache alsbald durch ein besonderes Buch auch meinerseits das Wort zu ergreifen. So war es denn schon vor 1914 zur Ausarbeitung einer Anzahl von Kapiteln gekommen. Aber der Ausbruch des Weltkrieges nahm mir nicht nur die Stimmung zur akademischen Disputation, sondern neue Pflichten drngten mich alsbald fîr viele Jahre zu praktisch-kirchlicher und kulturpolitischer Arbeit am inneren Aufbau und an der Fçrderung der evangelisch-çkumenischen Bewegung. Wenn ich mitten im Chaos und Elend dieser Jahre gelegentlich an meine ehedem geplanten Kapitel dachte, dann spîrte ich daß der Drang, in wissenschaftlichen Streitfragen selbst zu zeigen, daß man im Rechte sei, erheblich bei mir nachgelassen hatte. Und die Meinung festigte sich mehr und mehr, daß ich es, auch ohne selbst mitzureden, dem inneren Fortschritt der Forschung vorbehalten kçnne, festzustellen, wo ich richtig und wo ich falsch gesehen htte. Auch heute ist diese Meinung noch so stark bei mir vorhanden, daß ich die eingehende Aussprache mit meinen Kritikern unterlassen mçchte. Statt dessen sind einige Hauptprobleme (besonders die um die Begriffe Kult, Kultgeschichte und Mystik gelagerten) in der neuen Auflage schrfer herausgestellt worden, um Mißverstndnissen und Mißdeutungen meiner Auffassung besser vorzubeugen.

Appendix to chapter 5 5, a. Josef Keil, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 2. 5. 1922 (References: ch. 5, nn. 13, 53)

Hochverehrter Herr Geheimrat, lieber Freund! Wieder ist es mir wie bei Ihren frîheren liebenswîrdigen Zusendungen gegangen: die Freude îber die großartige Leistung des Herakleiabuches, an der ja auch Sie einen sehr bedeutenden Anteil haben, wird ein wenig getrîbt durch das Eingestndnis, daß ich Ihnen immer noch keine einigermaßen entsprechende Gegengabe zusenden kann. Die Publikationsverhltnisse und dann auch die Verhltnisse meines Lebens hier in Wien îberhaupt sind leider so; wie oft habe mir [sic] schon die Frage vorgelegt, ob meine wissenschaftliche Arbeit nicht eine ganz andere geworden wre, wenn mich mein Schicksal statt nach Ephesos einst nach Milet und in ihren Arbeitsbetr.[ieb?] gefîhrt htte! Nheres darîber schreibe ich nicht; ich bin ja Deutschbçhme und wenn ich gesund bleibe, werde ich mich dennoch durchringen, wenn hier auch îberall Bleifesseln an den Gliedern hngen. Wie freue ich mich mit Ihnen, daß wieder ein Miletband u. zw. ein so schçner heraus ist. Sobald ich einmal an die ephesische Stadtmauer gehen kann, werde ich ihn noch genauestens zu studieren haben, denn die Befestigungen von Herakleia sind ja schon wegen ihrer einzigartigen Erhaltung îberall das Fundament, auf dem wir bauen mîssen. Wie gut wars, daß Sie die Stadt mit in das Miletwerk einbezogen haben, so wie sie es mit den Latmosklçstern seinerzeit getan haben. So wie Geschichte, mag sie welche Periode immer darstellen wollen, doch nur dann ihrer Aufgabe gerecht wird, wenn sie auf universalhistorischer Grundlage aufgebaut ist, das heisst jede Periode und jede Sttte im Zusammenhang mit der zeitlichen und rumlichen Umgebung erfaßt, so ist es die Aufgabe jeder grçßeren Ausgrabung, die gesamte Umgebung mit allen ihren historischen Problemen mit einzubeziehen, so wie Sie es getan haben. Wie wîrde es wohl heute um die ephesischen Probleme stehen, wenn Sie im Kaystrostal statt im Mandertal gearbeitet htten? Wre es dann mçglich, daß wir îber die allerwichtigsten Fragen noch vçllig im Dunklen tappten, wo doch der Raum so eng ist, daß das Suchen gar nicht

430

Appendix to chapter 5

so große Mîhe machen kann? Aber mag dem sein wie ihm wolle, mit der Karte der milesischen Halbinsel, dann der Karte von Ionien, die wohl auch in naher Aussicht steht, mit Didyma, dem Monodendrialtar, mit den Latmosklçstern, mit Herakleia, mit der Unterstîtzung des neuen prienensischen Theaterbuches von Gerkan u.s.w. haben Sie gezeigt, daß auch die Ausgrabungen im Sinne der Universalhistorie gemacht und geleitet werden kçnnen und das darf Ihnen Befriedigung geben, auch wenn Sie selbst in dem und jenem Punkte es gerne noch anders, noch besser eingerichtet htten. Nun will ich Ihnen ganz kurz von mir berichten! Zunchst, daß meine Frau und ich Gott sei Dank gesund sind und daß sich auch unser Junge, der nun bereits den 7. Monat îberschritten hat, prchtig entwickelt. Leicht ist das Leben fîr uns nicht; wir haben ja nur eine mçblierte Zweizimmerwohnung (mit Kîchenbenîtzung) und unser Gehalt ist augenblicklich weit schlechter als der eines Universittsassistenten oder eines Gymnasiallehrers. Daß ich unter diesen Umstnden auch zu Hause gar vieles helfen muß, kçnne [sic] Sie sich vorstellen, aber auch das wird geleistet, wenn auch manche Stunde so fîr die Wissenschaft verloren geht. Im Institut habe ich jetzt die ganze Rechnungsfîhrung, fîr die frîher ein Beamter des Ministeriums zugeteilt war, zu machen; das braucht wieder gar manche Stunde, die ich besser zu nîtzen wîßte. An der Universitt lese ich îber alte Geschichte, in diesem Semester das schwierige Kapitel des demosthenischen Zeitalters; das giebt viel Arbeit, aber die ist schçn und wird hoffentlich auch spter Ergebnisse zeitigen. Daneben hab ich fîr die Ramsayfestschrift einen lngeren Artikel „Lydische Kulte“ geschrieben, dann einen kleineren fîr die Bulicfestschrift. Anderes steckt in den Jahresheften, wird aber, weiß Gott wann, erscheinen. Daß der III. Ephesosband seit zwei Jahren bis auf Reischs Vorrede fertig ist, wissen Sie ja vielleicht. Im nchsten Semester will ich Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Religion lesen, wohl ein Novum an unserer Universitt. Im Sommer aber muß ich whrend meines Urlaubs meiner Schwester in Reichenberg helfen, deren Mann vor Kurzem infolge eines Kopfschusses geisteskrank geworden ist. Ruhe ist da keine fîr mich, aber ich muß es tun und wenigstens versuchen, meiner Aufgabe auch da gerecht zu werden. Fîr Sie und die Ihren bin ich wie immer voll guter voll besten und innigsten Wînsche. Hoffentlich ist alles gesund und die Einstellung in die neue Zeit îberall mçglich. Daß deutsche Volk muss auch solche

Appendix to chapter 5

431

Zeiten îberstehen kçnnen; so dîrfen wir, seine geistigen Fîhrer, am wenigsten verzagen. In Treue herzlichst [signed] Ihr J Keil Praschniker bittet mich, beste Grîße zu bestellen. * * * 5, b. Deissmann, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31. 7. 1925 (References: ch. 5, nn. 21, 22, 37, 42, 44, 46, 50, 54, 56, 60, 62)

It concerns Deissmann’s proposal for renewed excavations at Ephesus. In der Aussprache, die ich am 27. Juli d. J. im jReichsministerium des Innern mit Herrn Geh. Rat Gîrich und Herrn Ministerialrat Donnevert gehabt habe, hatte ich die Ehre die Hauptgesichtspunkte der geplanten Grabungen in Ephesus persçnlich darzulegen. Ich beehre mich nun heute, das Wichtigste hierdurch schriftlich zu wiederholen. Die Interessen der neutestamentlichen Forschung wie auch der alten Kirchengeschichte sind eng mit der Erforschung von Ephesus verknîpft. Ephesus war das Zentrum der Mission des Apostels Paulus, aber auch die fîr die Wende des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts grundlegend wichtige Johannes-Tradition ist mit Ephesus verbunden. In den folgenden Jahrhunderten sodann ist Ephesus einer der Vororte des christlichen Ostens geblieben, gleich wichtig fîr die Geschichte der christlichen Lehre, des christlichen Kultus und der christlichen Kunst (insbesondere der Baukunst). Umfassende Studien haben mich seit Jahren zu der ˜berzeugung gebracht, daß wir von einer weiteren Erforschung der ungeheuren Trîmmersttte wesentliche Aufschlîsse fîr dieses ganze hochwichtige Gebiet erhalten mîßten. Ich habe mich daher entschlossen, dieser Aufgabe nher zu treten, die insbesondere auch indirekte Bereicherung unseres Wissens betrifft, die wir aus den sonstigen (nichtchristlichen) Resten erhoffen dîrfen. Die Erforschungsgeschichte der Trîmmerhalden von Ephesus ist in dem anliegenden „Fîhrer durch Ephesus“ von Josef Keil dargelegt; ebendaselbst auch ein ˜berblick îber die fast îberreichen Ergebnisse der seitherigen britischen und çsterreichischen Grabungen (denen sich 1921/ 22 kurze griechische Grabungen anschlossen). Die Fortsetzung der Grabungen, zu denen das §sterreichische Archologische Institut in Wien immer noch die Berechtigung von der

432

Appendix to chapter 5

Tîrkischen Regierung hat, ist seither daran gescheitert, daß die §sterreicher auch nicht die geringsten Mittel dazu aufbringen konnten. Die §sterreicher haben einen ausgezeichneten Stab von hervorragend tîchtigen Grabungsfachmnnern in Josef Keil (Wien) und seinen Architekten. Aber es besteht die Gefahr, daß diese jetzt noch in der Vollreife ihrer Kraft stehenden Mnner zu alt werden, wenn die Wiederaufnahme der Spatenarbeit sich noch lange verzçgert. Anderseits ist das Grabungsgelnde auch durch die ˜berschwemmungen des Kaystros und anderer Bergflîsse sowie durch die îppige Vegetation und den Raub durch Eingeborene dauernd gefhrdet. Diese Tatsachen haben mich bewogen, alte und freundschaftliche Beziehungen zum Wiener Institut von Prof. Otto Benndorf her (ich bin auch zweimal in Ephesus persçnlich gewesen 1906 und 1909) wieder aufzunehmen und mit ihm ein Programm der Kooperation zu entwerfen. Dieses von Wien angenommene Programm ist, meinem Wunsche entsprechend, vorwiegend auf die Probleme der christlichen Geschichtswissenschaft eingestellt: 1. Erforschung der noch nicht ausgegrabenen altchristlichen Kirchen, incl. der noch nicht vçllig ausgegrabenen Johannes-Basilika; 2. der Nekropolen von Ephesus. Wir hoffen dabei, auch die seither noch nicht entdeckte altjonische Stadt zu finden. Ich habe die Absicht, im Jahre 1926 zusammen mit Josef Keil (der fîr alles Technische die einzigartig sachverstndige Persçnlichkeit ist) diese Arbeiten aufzunehmen. Die Mittel gedenke ich zu einem Teil durch meine akademischen und kirchlichen Beziehungen in Nordamerika zu erhalten und habe die Werbearbeit dafîr bereits begonnen. In der Anlage gebe ich das auf das amerikanische Interesse eingestellte Werbeblatt wieder, das ich meinen Werbebriefen beilege. Als aufzubringenden Gesamtbetrag habe ich den Amerikanern die Summe von 20 000 Dollars angegeben. Ich habe aber, wie die Dinge liegen, nur dann Aussicht, Mittel von drîben zu erhalten, wenn ich auch in Deutschland Mittel aufbringe. Wiederholte Besprechungen mit meinem Kollegen Professor D. Strathmann, M.d.R., haben mir den Eindruck gegeben, daß der Herr Reichsminister des Innern dem Plane sehr wohlwollend gegenîbersteht. Und Herr Strathmann selbst hat in îberaus gîtiger Weise ein dahingehendes Gesuch an den Herrn Reichsminister des Innern bereits gerichtet und mir mitgeteilt, daß der Herr Minister auch das Auswrtige Amt (und eventuell die Notgemeinschaft) dafîr interessieren wolle.

Appendix to chapter 5

433

Die deutsche Wissenschaft hat bis 1914 (und noch nachher) das antike Kleinasien in vorbildlicher Weise erforscht. Die geplante Kooperation zwischen mir selbst und Wien wîrde (obwohl natîrlich ebenso sehr ein neuer Anfang fîr das çsterreichische Schwester-Institut) einen Neubeginn dieser deutschen Arbeit bedeuten. Ich habe daher sofort von Anfang an die beiden fîr Kleinasien hauptschlich in Betracht kommenden Stellen îber meinen Plan informiert: Geh. Rat Wiegand und Prof. Rodenwaldt, den Generalsekretr des Archologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reichs (dessen korrespondierendes Mitglied ich bin). Beide Herren stimmen dem Plane freudig zu. Ich erlaube mir nun die Bitte, das hohe Reichsministerium des Innern wolle einen einmaligen Betrag von etwa 10 000 Dollars fîr die geplante Grabung zur Verfîgung stellen. Mittel der Notgemeinschaft mçchte ich meinerseits nicht in Anspruch nehmen, da ich als Vorsitzender des Fachausschusses fîr Theologie in der Notgemeinschaft seither niemals fîr eigene Forschungen etwas von Notgemeinschaft erbeten habe und dem Fachausschuß fîr Archologie keine Konkurrenz machen mçchte. [signed] D. Adolf Deißmann, Geheimer Konsistorialrat, ordentlicher Professor der Theologie an der Universitt Berlin, Direktor des Neutestamentlichen Seminars. * * * 5, c. Deissmann, letter to Willard Richardson, 16. 12. 1925 (References: ch. 5, nn. 24, 27, 30, 49)

My dear Mr. Richardson, My dear friend Bishop Brent wrote me yesterday, saying that Dr. Ruml had suggested you might like some details concerning the projected excavations at Ephesus. It is both an honor and a pleasure for me to do this. The enclosed prospectus, as well as the booklet, „A GUIDE THROUGH EPHESUS“ by Josef Keil, which I am forwarding under separate cover, will give you some idea of the general situation of the work. But I should like to add some further information about the absolute necessity of immediate action. This necessity grows out of the present conditions at Ephesus, as well as out of the situation of the men who are to be the excavators.

434

Appendix to chapter 5

In regard to the situation at Ephesus, I am glad to be able to give you the most recent news. My friend Professor Josef Keil of Vienna University, the best living expert, has recently returned from a tour of inspection in Asia Minor. He wrote me that in 1923 during the GreekTurkish War, the village of Ayasoluk, which is situated near the ruins of Ancient Ephesus, had been burned, and the Christian inhabitants had been expelled. You know that the whole Christian population of Asia Minor has been the victim of Turkish cruelty, either by frightful massacres, or by expulsion. Hence the Ephesus-Greeks from Ayasoluk, in so far as they were not killed, are now refugees in Greece, and there is no hope that they may return. Meanwhile the Turks settled there a colony of „Mouhadshirs“, that is, Turkish immigrants, and they erected upon the ruins of Ayasoluk a new Turkish village called Seldshuk. This whole vicinity is full of such Mouhadshirs. The big town Kirkindshe, for example, formerly inhabited by Christian Greeks, is now occupied by Turkish settlers. There its therefore great need of building materials, and there is imminent danger that the marbles of St. Paul’s city will be used as building stones or will be put into lime-kilns. For these purposes there is great likelihood that the natives will begin robber excavations. The Austrian Archaeological Institute, which had worked with such admirable success at Ephesus during the two decades previous to 1914, have still the only permission from the Turkish government to make excavations there. But if they do not resume the excavations in the near future, the danger is great that the venerable site of this unparalleled center of the ancient and Christian culture may be exploited by the Mouhadshir robbers. And there is another risk. The Ephesus plain is overflowed from spring to spring by the waters of the Kaystros River, bringing with itself masses of stone and sand. After the inundations a luxuriant vegetation covers the plain and endangers the ruins. From time to time the natives burn the vegetation in the ruins of the old churches, etc., but this method is of course disastrous to the marble. On the other hand, if in 1926 a well organized excavation campaign should be undertaken, there would be the possibility not only of protecting the ruins already excavated, but also of securing the unexplored area against the robbery of the Mouhadshirs by having a permanent guard placed there. The Turkish government would help in this case by providing some gendarmes as guards. There is till another very important consideration. There are two great Austrian archaeologists connected with Ephesus by lifelong and

Appendix to chapter 5

435

successful work: Dr. Josef Keil and Dr. Rudolf Heberdey. The latter is now 62 years old, while Dr. Keil is some few years younger, but both scholars have according to all human expectations before them only a comparatively short time of unbroken working-power. The same condition faces me for I am already 59. It is abssolutely [sic] unwise to send young archaeologists to reopen the excavations, because they have no personal experience or knowledge of the enormous area of Ephesus. The renewing of the work must be entrusted to the older experts, but of course before they are too old. Considering all these facts I feel obliged to say that there can be no delay: we must begin as soon as possible. Younger scholars may then go to Ephesus and may learn from Dr. Keil and Dr. Heberdey what to do and how to do it, and thus become followers of these masters. I shall myself be a member of the Ephesus staff for all New Testament and ancient Christian problems, and I shall take with me a young American student from Boston University and now at Berlin University. And of course we should be glad to have other American helpers. Now you may be interested to hear something about the outlook for the work. You will see in the prospectus the principal program: we wish to excavate the unexcavated ancient Christian churches, the large necropoles, and to find if possible the old Ionic city (about 1000 B.C.) It is of course rather difficult to give anything like an infallible surmise about the results we expect. There is no X-ray apparatus for archaeology by which we can see into the innermost parts of the unexplored area before excavation. Excavate them and you will see the results! But it is very probable that the soil of that big unique centre of ancient secular and holy history may give important results in the future, as it has so splendidly done in the past. We may find architecture, sculpture, bronze, inscriptions; we may find large fragments of that Ancient Mediterranean World which was the background of the Pauline mission, and of the earliest Christian Church. A single inscription from Ephesus, for example, might give important help in Biblical Chronology or might establish the truth of a far-reaching passage of the Acts or of the Apocalypse. Concerning the cost of the work, I have said what is necessary in the prospectus. May I add that I estimate the cost of a successful reopening of the excavation in 1926 at $20,000. Since the Austrians are unable to get money from their government or from private sources, they have adopted my proposal to join with me in the effort to interest foreign patrons. The work is planned not as a special Austrian undertaking, but as an endeavor

436

Appendix to chapter 5

to make for international research both for the secular and holy history of that important Biblical center. I thank you in advance for all you can do in the interest of this work. Very sincerely yours [signed] Adolf Deißmann * * * 5, d. Deissmann, report to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1. 6. 1935 (References: ch. 5, nn. 35, 76, 78, 187, 191, 193)

Im Jahre 1926 war es mir mçglich gewesen, die durch den Weltkrieg unterbrochenen Ausgrabungen in Ephesus wieder ins Leben zu rufen. Durch meine nahen Beziehungen zu dem fîhrenden Bischof der amerikanischen Protestant Episcopal Church Dr. Brent war es mir gelungen, Mr. John Rockefeller jr. fîr Ephesus zu interessieren und sehr betrchtliche Zuwendungen fîr das Werk von ihm zu erhalten. Die Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft hat sich ebenfalls mit erheblichen Betrgen beteiligt, und konnten in den Jahren 1926 bis 1931 und 1933 sieben Ausgrabungskampagnen unter Leitung des besten Kenners von Ephesus, Herrn Professor Dr. Josef Keil (Universitt Greifswald), mit grossem und allgemein anerkanntem Erfolge durchgefîhrt werden. Auch nachdem in den letzten Jahren anstelle des Mr. John Rockefeller die Rockefeller-Foundation die Arbeit, wenn auch mit geringeren Mitteln, unterstîtzt hatte, hat die Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft durch ihre Subventionen die erfolgreiche Durchfîhrung der Arbeiten ermçglicht. Die Berichte îber diese sieben Kampagnen befinden sich in den Akten der Forschungsgemeinschaft, zuletzt der von mir am 19. Februar 1935 eingesandten Ausgrabungsbericht von Professor Keil îber das Jahr 1933. Im Jahre 1934 musst die Arbeit unterbrochen werden, da die Rockefeller-Foundation erklrt hatte, dass sie ihre Aufgaben begrenzen mîsse und Ausgrabungen in Zukunft voraussichtlich ausserhalb ihres Interessengebietes fallen wîrden. Ich habe trotzdem noch einmal versucht, die Rockefeller-Foundation fîr unser Werk weiterzuinteressieren, erhielt aber kîrzlich die Mitteilung, dass sie ausser Stande sein werde, eine Beihilfe zu geben. Es bleibt uns daher nur die Mçglichkeit, uns

Appendix to chapter 5

437

hiermit wiederum vertrauensvoll an die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft zu wenden. Inanbetracht der insbesondere durch die Devisenschwierigkeiten entstandenen Notlage hatten wir schon seit zwei Jahren vor, einen vorlufigen Abschluss der Ausgrabungen herbeizufîhren. Das Gebiet der antiken Stadt Ephesus ist zwar so ausgedehnt, dass kînftig bei einer gînstigeren Finanzlage grosse neue Objekte in Angriff genommen werden kçnnten. Aber davon kann jetzt selbstverstndlich nicht die Rede sein. Indessen mîssen die seither begonnenen Arbeiten, soweit sie noch nicht abgeschlossen waren, sowohl um der Sache willen, als auch mit Rîcksicht auf die berechtigten Erwartungen des tîrkischen Kultusministeriums zu einem Abschluss gebracht werden. Ich habe mit Herrn Professor Keil (Greifswald) eingehend beraten, welches Mindestprogramm, unter Abstossung aller anderen an sich berechtigten Mçglichkeiten, einen vorlufigen Abschluss der Arbeiten bedeuten wîrde, einen Abschluss, der vor der Wissenschaft und auch mit Rîcksicht auf unser kulturpolitisches Prestige in der Tîrkei verantwortet werden kçnnte. Wir sind zu folgendem Ergebnis gekommen. An erster Stelle erscheint es als unbedingt erforderlich, das im ephesischen Stadtgebiet gelegene, seither etwa zur Hlfte erforschte grosse Mausoleum von Belevi vçllig auszugraben. Von Professor Keil wird es als das Mausoleum des Seleukidenkçnigs Antiochos II. Theos (drittes Jahrhundert vor Christus) angesprochen; vgl. zuletzt Keils Bericht 1933. Seine Entdeckung und die bisherigen Ergebnisse der Durchforschung, insbesondere der ungewçhnlich wertvollen Skulpturen, haben grosses Aufsehen erregt. Aber noch harrt die andere Hlfte der Erschliessung, und erst nach Vollendung dieser Arbeit wird die wissenschaftliche Bearbeitung dieses einzigartigen Denkmals mçglich sein. Die jetzt halbausgegrabene riesige Ruine sich selbst zu îberlassen, wîrde îbrigens auch ihre starke Gefhrdung durch Raubgrabungen der Eingeborenen bedeuten. An zweiter Stelle halten wir es fîr dringend notwendig, dass vor dem vorlufigen Abschluss der Grabungen ein Generalplan des antiken Ephesus hergestellt wird, auf dem auch die Ergebnisse smtlicher seitherigen Ausgrabungskampagnen eingetragen werden. Dieser Pan kann nur dann von einem geschulten Topographen hergestellt werden, wenn derselbe unter dauernder Kontrolle von Professor Keil, dem einzigen Gelehrten, der die topographischen Probleme von Ephesus vçllig beherrscht, an Ort und Stell arbeiten.

438

Appendix to chapter 5

Bei sparsamster Kalkulation der fîr diese beiden Aufgaben notwendigen Mittel bençtigt Professor Keil im Ausgrabungsgebiet selbst 3.500 Tîrkische Pfund; das sind rund RM 7.000.– Fîr die Reisekosten des Herrn Professor Keil und seiner Mitarbeiter genîgt wohl ein bei der Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung vorhandener kleiner Restbestand. So richte ich denn hiermit an die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft die ehrerbietige Bitte, fîr die als vorlufig abschliessend gedachte Kampagne in Ephesus im Herbst 1935 einen Betrag von RM 7.000.– gîtigst zur Verfîgung stellen zu wollen. Ich weiss wohl, wie gross auch bei einer solchen Zuwendung die Schwierigkeiten infolge der Devisenlage sein werden. Aber ich mçchte doch auch darauf hinweisen, dass zu den allgemeinen wissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten in diesem Falle auch kulturpolitische Erwgungen hinzukommen, die unsere Bitte besonderes zu rechtfertigen geeignet sind. Ich darf darîber vielleicht einige Andeutungen hinzufîgen. Die guten seit vielen Jahren bestehenden deutsch-tîrkischen Kulturbeziehungen sind zu einem ganz erheblichen Teil der deutschen archologischen Erforschung Kleinasiens zu verdanken. Sie haben sich glîcklicherweise durch alle Schwierigkeiten der letzten Jahrzehnte erhalten und stellen einen aussenpolitischen Aktivposten ersten Ranges dar. Unsere eigene seit vielen Jahren in Ephesus geleistete Arbeit hat, das darf ich wohl in aller Bescheidenheit sagen, diese gute Beziehungen nicht unerheblich gestrkt. Namentlich auch dadurch, das der jetzige sehr einflussreiche Generaldirektor der Museen in Istanbul Aziz Ogan in den ersten Jahren als tîrkischer Ausgrabungskommissar in Ephesus unser Mitarbeiter war, hierdurch in sehr freundschaftliche Beziehungen mit uns getreten ist und natîrlich das grçsste Interesse an einer Fortfîhrung bezw. an einem vorlufigen ordentlichen Abschluss der Arbeit hat. Wir wîrden unseren betrchtlichen moralischen Kredit bei der tîrkischen Wissenschaftsverwaltung in nicht geringem Masse gefhrden, wenn wir, zu einer vorlufigen lngeren Unterbrechung der EphesusArbeit gençtigt, unsere Grabungsobjekte in einem z. T. halbfertigen Zustand hinterliessen. Es ist doch in hçchstem Grade wînschenswert, dass die tîrkischen Behçrden uns das einzigartige Forschungsfeld Ephesus fîr eine fernere Zukunft weiterbelassen. Dies Letztere ist durchaus nicht selbstverstndlich. Ich mçchte da streng vertraulich mitteilen, dass wir allen Anlass haben, eine kulturelle Rivalitt der italienischen Archologen auf dem Boden von Ephesus zu erwarten. Es stand wohl im Zusammenhang mit den politischen Expansionsbestrebungen Italiens in Kleinasien, als nach dem Weltkriege von

Appendix to chapter 5

439

italienischer Seite der ernsthafte Versuch gemacht wurde, das Stadtgebiet von Ephesus fîr die italienische Archologie zu sichern. Ephesus war im alten Imperium Romanum die Hauptstadt der Provinz Asia. Daher kommt es, dass der Plan italienischer Ausgrabungen in Ephesus vielleicht nicht ganz unbeeinflusst ist von den imperialistischen Trumen derer, die sich gern als Rechtsnachfolger der rçmischen Caesaren betrachten. Glîcklicherweise haben wir uns das einzigartige Objekt rechtzeitig gesichert, aber wir mîssen nun auch alles tun, um es der deutschen Forschung zu erhalten. In Anlage fîge ich den Ephesus-Bericht Keils 1935 und Abschrift eines von Herrn Professor Dr. G. Rodenwaldt erstatteten Gutachtens bei. Herrn Staatsrat Prsident D. Dr. Theodor Wiegand habe ich gebeten, ein Gutachten direkt bei der Forschungsgemeinschaft einzureichen Heil Hitler!1 Der Vorsitzende der Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung [signed] D. Adolf Deißmann * * * 5, e. Theodor Wiegand, report to Notgemeinschaft, 16. 8. 1925 (Reference: ch. 5, n. 55)

Die Ausgrabungsfelder von Ephesus sind mir durch hufige Besuche und Beobachtungen genau bekannt, so daß ich mir îber deren Bedeutung ein Urteil zutrauen darf. Die englischen Arbeiten dortselbst, ausgefîhrt von Wood (1866 – 74) und Hogarth (1904) hatten nur den Artemistempel als Objekt. Die griechischen Arbeiten whrend der Besetzung des westlichen Kleinasien durch Ententetruppen hatten den Charakter einer christlichnationalen Demonstration und galten ausschließlich den Resten der Johannesbasilika auf der Hçhe beim heutigen Dorfe Ajasoluk. Die großangelegte Erforschung der gesamten eigentlichen Stadt Ephesus und ihrer Umgebung in allen ihren Epochen dagegen ist ausschließlich das Werk der çsterreichischen Archaeologie. Sie erhielt diese Form von dem grçßten unter den çsterreichischen Archologen, Otto Benndorf, und wurde so weitergefîhrt von Georg Niemann, Wihelm Wilberg, Rudolf Heberdey und Josef Keil. 1

This official formula must not be overinterpreted. For GAD’s personal view of the rise of Hitler see chs. 6 and 7.

440

Appendix to chapter 5

Die çsterreichische Forschung ist also bei ihren langjhrigen Arbeiten stets darauf ausgegangen, ein Gesamtbild der Stadt zu schaffen, die Aufdeckungen dementsprechend systematisch vorzunehmen, nicht aber tastend nach Objekten einer einzelnen Epoche zu suchen, whrend der Rest liegen bleibt und das Ganze in Verwirrung gert. In diesem Großen Zusammenhang hat die çsterreichische Ausgrabungsleitung die christlichen Altertîmer stets sorgfltig berîcksichtigt und u. a. bereits die große Concilskirche und das sog. Lucasgrab freigelegt. Es wîrden sich bei weiterem systematischen Vorgehen gewiß auch noch andere wichtige christliche Denkmler zwangslufig ergeben. Bedenken erregt es aber, wenn eine Ausgrabung in einer Stadt wie Ephesus mit einem Mal ganz vornehmlich auf die christliche Epoche abgestellt werden soll. Ich wîrde dies nicht fîr eine richtige Methode halten kçnnen, und es wre m. E. notwendig, îber diesen Punkt Aufklrung zu erlangen, bevor die Notgemeinschaft nhere Stellung nimmt, und zwar von dem in Aussicht genommenen Leiter, Professor Keil selbst, an den ich mich brieflich gewandt habe. Ich bezweifle, daß Herr Keil, ohne eine Bodenbewegung im bisherigen Sinne, eine grçßere Anzahl christlicher Bauten namhaft machen kann, die man sofort freilegen kçnnte. Nahe liege es dagegen, daß man die griechischen Grabungen an der Johanneskirche kontrolliert, ergnzt und aufnimmt, ebenso die Umgebung der Concilkirche durch Ausgrabungen erweitert. Aber schon da wre es unmçglich, lediglich die christlichen Gebude freizulegen, die darunter liegenden Epochen dagegen zu îbergehen. Solche Ausgrabungsmethoden kann heute niemand befolgen, ohne sich die schrfste Kritik zuzuziehen. Herr Geheimrat Deissmann bezeichnet Herrn Professor Keil als die „fîr alles Technische einzigartig sachverstndige Persçnlichkeit“. Aber Herr Keil ist vor allem Historiker, Epigraphiker und Archaeolog, und ich hoffe, daß eine Beschrnkung dieses ausgezeichneten Forschers auf das Technische der Grabung damit nicht ausgesprochen werden soll. Auch dies zu klren habe ich bei Professor Keil brieflich unternommen. Was aber ganz besonders Bedenken erweckt, ist der Umstand, daß nach dem Gedanken Geheimrats Deissmanns die neue Grabung offenbar nicht mehr eine çsterreichische sein soll, sondern eine deutsche unter çsterreichischer Beteiligung. Dies kçnnte den Anschein erwecken, als ob Deutschland sich nunmehr auch in Ephesus festsetzen wollte und dieser Eindruck muß m. E. durchaus ferngehalten werden. Professor Keil bezw. das §sterreichische archologische Institut mîßte es sein, die bei der tîrkischen Regierung die Bereitschaft zur Wiederaufnahme der Arbeit anzeigen und die Genehmigung dazu beantragen. Woher die Gelder

Appendix to chapter 5

441

kommen, kann der tîrkischen Regierung gleichgîltig sein. Was die zu erwartenden Ergebnisse betrifft, so wîrde nach der bisherigen ˜bung nichts im Wege stehen, daß Herr Professor Deissmann dieselben wissenschaftlich verwertet, ohne eine sptere Gesamtdarstellung der Grabungen im Rahmen des çsterreichschen Ephesuswerkes auszuschließen. Einen Punkt in dem Plan des Herrn Geheimrat Deissmann gibt es, in dem sich die Interessen der Gesamtarchologie mit dem christlich-archaeologischen Spezialinteresse unmittelbar decken: in der weiteren Erforschung der Nekropolen. Und hier wre es mçglich, auch die unbedingt notwendige Suche nach der archaischen Stadt Ephesus einzuschließen, die im Gebiet der Nekropolen zu liegen scheint. Ich bitte Eure Exzellenz, auf diesen ganzen Fragenkomplex nochmals eingehen zu dîrfen, nachdem ich die Antwort vom Professor Keil resp. von Hofrat Professor Dr. Reisch, dem Direktor des §sterreichischen Archaeologischen Instituts, erhalten habe, an den ich mich ebenfalls brieflich gewandt habe. [signed] Wiegand * * * 5, f. Emil Reisch, letter to Theodor Wiegand, 20. 8. 1925 (References: ch. 5, n. 58)

Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege! Ihre freundlichen Mitteilungen îber den Plan einer ephesischen Grabung, die durch Prof. Deissmann hauptschlich mit amerikanischen Geldern finanziert werden soll, sind mir erst gestern hier in meinem Tiroler Ferienorte zugekommen und ich beeile mich, Ihnen fîr Ihr energisches Eintreten zugunsten des Unternehmens, sowie insbesondere fîr die nachdrîckliche Wahrung der Interessen des çsterr. archologischen Institutes wrmsten Dank zu sagen. Ihre aus genauester Kenntnis aller wissenschaftlichen und praktischen Gesichtspunkte geschçpfte Auffassung der Sachlage deckt sich vollkommen mit den Anschauungen, die vom çsterreichischen Institute in der vorlufigen, von Prof. Keil mit Prof. Deissmann gefîhrten Korrespondenz vertreten worden sind. Nach unsrer Meinung htte das geplante Unternehmen, dessen Leitung an Ort und Stelle in die Hnde Prof. Keil’s gelegt wîrde, als ein Unternehmen des çsterr. archologischen Institutes zu gelten und wre als

442

Appendix to chapter 5

solches sowohl in den Verhandlungen mit der tîrkischen Regierung, wie auch bei der Publikation der Ergebnisse zu bezeichnen. Die tîrkische Antikenverwaltung hat, wie ihnen bekannt ist, in weitgehender Loyalitt bei wiederholten Anlssen und auch neuerdings vor wenigen Monaten die vom çsterr. Institute frîher erworbenen Vorrechte auf die wissenschaftliche Erschliessung von Ephesus als noch zu Recht bestehend anerkannt, sodass wir auf alle notwendigen Ermchtigungen von Seiten der tîrkischen Regierung rechnen dîrfen, unsererseits aber natîrlich auch die Verpflichtung haben, so bald als mçglich mit einer neuen Bettigung am Orte einzusetzen. Innerhalb des Rahmens dieses çsterreichischen Unternehmens haben wir uns selbstverstndlich gerne bereit erklrt, Herrn Prof. Deissmann einen von ihm noch zu bestimmenden Anteil an den gestellten Aufgaben zu selbstndiger Bearbeitung zu îberlassen. Die Frage, in wieweit etwa die amerikanische Beihilfe auch noch durch Zuziehung eines amerikanischen Mitarbeiters zur Geltung kommen solle, ist noch nicht zur Erçrterung gekommen. Es wîrde natîrlich eine vom Institute mit besonderer Dankbarkeit begrîsste Strkung der Position des Institutes bedeuten, wenn die deutsche Notgemeinschaft, die çsterreichische Unternehmungen schon so vielfach gefçrdert hat, sich bereit finden wîrde, die neue ephesische Grabung im Sinne eines çsterreichischen Unternehmens durch Gew[r]ung [sic] eines Beitrages zu unterstîtzen, sodass wir nicht mehr ausschliesslich oder fast ausschliesslich mit amerikanischen Geldern arbeiten wîrden. Was nun die Absteckung der Grabungsaufgaben anbelangt, so haben wir vom Anfang an den Standpunkt vertreten, dass die Arbeiten sich nicht auf christliche Objekte beschrnken dîrften. Die Wahl der zu untersuchenden Stellen sollte wohl so getroffen werden, dass die vorwiegend an frîhchristlichen Objekten interessierten Kreise der Geldgeber ihre Befriedigung finden wîrden – fîr wichtige Feststellungen und Funde zur Geschichte des ephesischen Christentums lsst sich auf dem Boden von Ephesus sichere Gewhr geben – aber wir haben natîrlich nicht daran gedacht, solche Untersuchungen anders als im Zusammenhange mit der Erforschung des Gesamtbildes der antiken Stadt anzustellen. Wir haben vielmehr die Absicht, nach Massgabe der Mittel auch Objekte der rçmischen und hellenistischen Zeit zu erfassen, und wie es der gegenwrtige Stand der Forschung nahelegt, vor allem auch den Problemen der archaiischen [sic] Siedlung nachzugehen. Wenn auch zu erwarten ist, dass dieser unserer Fassung des Grabungsprogrammes auch von seiten der amerikanischen Geldgeber zugestimmt werden wird, so kçnnte es uns doch nur erwînscht sein, wenn die Spende

Appendix to chapter 5

443

der Notgemeinschaft mit der ausdrîcklichen Bestimmung gegeben wîrde, dem Institute die Einbeziehung bestimmter Probleme der lteren ephesischen Stadtgeschichte in das Arbeitsprogramm der neuen Campagne zu ermçglichen. Ich darf annehmen, dass diese Zeilen fîr den Augenblick genîgen werden, um die Richtlinien klarzustellen, die fîr das çsterreichische archologische Institut bei den geplanten Unternehmen massgebend sein mîssten. Ich hoffe, dass Professor Keil noch in diesem Herbste die Sttte von Ephesus besuchen wird und so weitere Unterlagen fîr die Aufstellung eines genaueren Grabungsprogrammes wird gewinnen kçnnen. Frîhjahr 1926 wre der frîheste Termin, an dem unsere Arbeit einsetzen kçnnte. Ich werde nicht versumen, mich mit Ihnen îber die weiteren vorbereitenden Schritte in Verbindung zu halten und wiederhole nochmals meinen herzlichen Dank fîr alle Ihre freundschaftlichen Bemîhungen in der Angelegenheit. In herzlicher Ergebenheit [signed] Ihr Emil Reisch. * * * 5, g. Deissmann, letter to Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, 5. 3. 1926 (References: ch. 5, nn. 64, 66, 67, 80)

Hochverehrteste Excellenz, die kurzen Angaben, die ich am Montag bei dem durch einen glîcklichen Zufall ermçglichten Zusammentreffen mit Ihnen machen konnte, mçchte ich heute dahin besttigen, dass Mr. Rockefeller jun. eine Beihilfe von 10 000 Dollars fîr die Grabungen in Ephesus unter der îblichen Bedingung mir zugesagt hat, dass wir die gleiche Summe aus anderen Quellen unserseits beschaffen. Nun hatte ich bereits (natîrlich inoffiziell) von Herrn Prof. Rodenwaldt die erfreuliche Nachricht vorher gehabt, dass begrîndete Hoffnung bestehe, dass das Reichsmin. des Inneren M 10 000., die Notgemeinschaft M 10 000 und das Ausw. Amt M 5000 bewilligen werde, zusammen M 25 000., vorausgesetzt, dass ich betrchtliche Mittel aus Amerika aufbringen wîrde. Da mir dies ja gelungen ist (durch Mithilfe des mir befreundeten Bischofs Brent, Buffalo), darf ich wohl mit dieser Summe rechnen. Das sind etwa 6000 Dollars. Dann wren also, um die Bedingung des amerik. Spenders zu erfîllen, noch etwa 4000 Dollars notwendig. Und dahin geht, verehrter Herr Staatsminister, heute meine Bitte, dass auf irgend eine Weise durch

444

Appendix to chapter 5

das Zusammenwirken der drei Stellen auch dieser Betrag noch bereitgestellt werden mçge. Es handelt sich um eine Sache ersten Ranges, das steht außer jeder Frag; ich lege den (fîr Amerika berechneten) Prospekt hier nochmals ein. Der Einwand ist ja gewiß zunchst aufzuwerfen, ob man dem §sterreichischen Archol. Institut deutsche Mittel geben solle und kçnne. Aber demgegenîber mache ich folgendes geltend: Die ganze Initiative kommt in diesem Falle von deutscher Seite, nmlich von mir. Es handelt sich um eine gemeinschaftliche deutsch-çsterr. Unternehmung, eine Kooperation zwischen dem §sterr. Arch. Institut (als dem in Ephesus grabungspriviligierten Teil und dem so erfolgreichen Trger der Arbeit seither) und mir selbst. Ich gehe als Sachverstndiger fîr die altchristlichen Dinge mit und habe einen betrchtlichen Einfluß auf das in diesem Sommer 1926 beginnende Gesamtunternehmen. Die amerikanischen Mittel werden mir anvertraut und auch die deutschen Mittel bitte ich (unter der selbstverstndlichen Bedingung genauer Rechnungsablegung) mir zu bewilligen. Das §sterr. Arch. Institut, das finanziell sehr Geringes nur, wenn îberhaupt Nennenswertes, zu leisten vermag, gibt die große Leistung in die gemeinsame Unternehmung, dass es sein Grabungsprivileg zur Verfîgung stellt (die Italiener machen die grçßten Anstrengungen, die Hand auf Ephesus zu legen) und die ganze Erfahrung und einzigartige Kapazitt seiner langjhrigen Ephesus-Erforscher neu aktiviert. Das ist meines Erachtens eine gerade ideale Kooperation, und es kann verantwortet werden, wenn der erbetene Betrag mir bewilligt wird. Ich habe mir selbst dieses Werk in das Licht jenes Hçlderlin-Wortes gestellt, das Sie mir einmal, verehrte Exzellenz, ins Haus sandten. Dass diese Kooperation auch Wirkung htte, die, ohne dass man viel davon spricht, fîr unser Verhltnis zu §sterreich îberhaupt wohlttig wre, brauche ich nicht zu sagen. Ich darf nur wiederholen, was ich neulich andeutete, dass auch die preuß. Regierung mich zu meiner Bitte ermutigt hat. Herr Min. Direktor Professor Richter wird Ihnen das gerne besttigen, er wollte selbst mit Ew. Exzellenz Fîhlung nehmen. In grçßter Ehrerbietung Ew. Excellenz ergebenster [signed] Adolf Deißmann *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 5

445

5, h. Deissmann, letter to Emil Reisch, 24. 4. 1926 (Reference: ch. 5, n. 72)

Hochverehrter Herr Kollege, In Besttigung der Ihnen bereits mîndlich gemachten Mitteilungen beehre ich mich hierdurch Ihnen zu Kenntnis zu bringen, dass es mçglich gewesen ist, zur Wiederaufnahme der Ausgrabungen des §sterr. Archol. Instituts in Ephesus einen Fond von rund 20 000 $ zu beschaffen. Die Beitrge setzen sich außer aus den vom Institut selbst geleisteten aus einer großen Zuwendung von Mr. Rockefeller jun. in New York (10 000 $) und aus Beitrgen der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft sowie anderer hiesiger interessierter Kreise zusammen. Smtliche Spender haben eine Bindung fîr eine Wiederholung ihrer Leistung in einem spteren Jahre nicht îbernommen. An die Spender ist keine Bedingung geknîpft. Die gesamte technische und wissenschaftliche Leitung der Ausgrabungen hat, wie seither, Ihr Institut. Zur Entgegennahme und ˜berweisung der Gelder an das Institut sowie zur finanziellen Rechenschaftsablage ist die „Treuhnderschaft Ephesus-Grabung“ konstituiert worden, bestehend aus Ihnen selbst, Geheimrat Wiegand, Prof. Rodenwaldt und mir. Als Vorsitzender der Treuhnderschaft bin ich gewhlt worden. Unserer Verabredung gemß hoffe ich mich auch vom September – Ende 1926 ab [sic] als Mitarbeiter in Ephesus zu bettigen. Indem ich meiner Freude Ausdruck gebe, Ihnen diese Mitteilungen besttigen zu dîrfen, verbleibe ich mit ausgezeichneter Hochachtung Ihr ergebenster [signed] Adolf Deißmann * * * 5, i. Deissmann, letter to Thomas Appleget, 24. 4. 1929 (Reference: ch. 5, n. 160)

My dear Mr Appleget: I am glad to say that just now, before departing to Germany (I shall board the Steamer „Stuttgart“, North German Lloyd, on Thursday morning) I received the first copies of Dr. Josef Keil’s third Ephesus Report 1928. It gives me great satisfaction to send you immediately two copies, one of which I ask you to give to Mr. John Rockefeller jun. with the best compliments of the Board of Trustees of the Ephesus Excavation. The other one is for your own library.

446

Appendix to chapter 5

According to the program made with you yesterday, I now have the honour to ask Mr. John Rockefeller jun., in behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Ephesus Excavation, kindly to renew his generous support of $10,000, which he gave twice, in 1926 and 1927, for the next Ephesus campaign beginning on September 1., 1929. You understood that I already was successful to obtain a promise by the „Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft“ (Berlin), that they would be ready to give, for 1929, the same sum as Mr. Rockefeller would give. They did it, you know, also in 1926 and 1927. The general plan for the next campaign is the following: 1., to finish the exploration of the Church of St. John the Divine (col. 5 ff of the enclosed Report); 2., to explore the Southern part of the Gymnasium near the Stadium (col. 21 ff ); 3., to excavate the big unexplored building near the Theatre (col. 42 ff ); 4., to excavate the Necropolis near the Magnesian Gate (col. 45 ff ). We are expecting again important results and we would, of course, work again as we did before, as economically as possible. I sincerely hope that Mr. John Rockefeller will enable us to continue the Ephesus Excavation, for which I found the greatest interest in American scholarly circles when lecturing about it in the last months at Yale, Boston, Princeton, Gettysburg, Chicago, Oberlin and Wooster (Ohio). I mentioned there, of course, Mr. Rockefeller’s generous gifts. I would be very much obliged to you, if you could kindly give me a preliminary answer by cable to my Berlin address. Thanking you again for all your kind interest I remain, dear Mr. Appleget, Very cordially yours [signed] Adolf Deißmann, Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Ephesus Excavation. * * * 5, j. Deissmann, letter to Kultusministerium, 15. 8. 1933 (References: ch. 5, nn. 167, 182)

Hierdurch melde ich ehrerbietigst, dass ich die Absicht habe, in der zweiten Septemberhlfte 1933 wiederum eine Forschungsreise nach Bulgarien und der Tîrkei anzutreten, um rechtzeitig zu Beginn des Wintersemesters hier zurîck zu sein. Ich habe auf frîheren Reisen nach

Appendix to chapter 5

447

Kleinasien, die ich aus Anlass der von mir wieder ins Leben gerufenen Ausgrabungen in Ephesus gemacht habe, auch die mir zugnglichen Bibliotheken des Ostens besucht und 1929 im Auftrage des Tîrkischen Unterrichts-Ministeriums die Serai-Bibliothek zu Istanbul durchforscht und in dem im Frîhjahr 1933 erschienenen Buche „Forschungen und Funde im Serai“ katalogisiert. Die Tîrkische Regierung hat mich jetzt wiederum gebeten, eine grçssere Anzahl von griechischen Handschriften (darunter auch eine Gruppe biblischer Codices), die aus den im tîrkischgriechischen Kriege untergegangenen griechischen Kirchen und Klçstern Kleinasiens stammen, zu prîfen und aufzunehmen. Die biblischen Stîcke will ich in jedem Falle photographieren. Ausserdem will ich in dem Museum des Heiligen Synod zu Sofia einige von mir dort ermittelte sehr eigenartige Handschriften des griechischen Neuen Testaments untersuchen und photographieren und einen kurzen Besuch in Ephesus anschliessen, wo es mir mçglich gewesen ist, auch in diesem Herbst eine wenn auch kleine Kampagne unter Leitung des Herrn Professors Dr. Josef Keil (Greifswald) mit Unterstîtzung der Rockefeller-Stiftung und der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft zu organisieren. Gemss §14 der Satzung unserer Berliner Universitt zeige ich hiermit an, dass mein Assistent Herr Privatdozent Lic. Dr. Schneider whrend meiner Abwesenheit das von mir geleitete Neutestamentliche Seminar betreuen wird. Die Mittel fîr die geplante Forschungsreise sind mir aus einer Stiftung zur Verfîgung gestellt worden. Ich bedarf aber fîr die Devisenbewirtschaftungsstelle einer amtlichen Empfehlung meines dorthin zu richtenden Gesuches um Genehmigung der Mitnahme des fîr die Reise notwendigen Betrages, den ich einschliesslich der betrchtlichen Kosten fîr die photographischen Aufnahmen auf RM 2.000.– schtze. Ich richte daher an das Hohe Ministerium die ehrerbietigste Bitte, mir baldgeflligst ein demnchst von mir mit meinem Gesuche an die Devisenbewirtschaftungsstelle zu sendende Empfehlung gîtigst zugehen zu lassen, die Devisenbewirtschaftungsstelle mçge mir gestatten, einen Betrag bis zu RM 2.000.– zum Teil in Form eines Kreditbriefes zum Teil in bar auf die Reise mitzunehmen. [signed] D. Adolf Deißmann *

*

*

448

Appendix to chapter 5

5, k. Synopsis of Deissmann’s book, Die Armenbibel des Serai (Reference: ch. 5, n. 171)

One small and little known offshoot of Deissmann’s work at Istanbul is the joint publication with Hans Wegener of Seragliensis 52, a unique mid 15th century parchment scroll (11 m Ò 27 cm) consisting of biblia pauperum illustrations. Deissmann had discovered this rotulus on 25 October 1927, amidst the mass of material Halil prepared for him. It is exceptional in several ways, the most striking being its scroll format and the 42 hand-drawn iconographic monochrome panels depicting mostly biblical scenes. The scroll is devoid of any text, except for a concise caption below each panel; even the 24 scrolls drawn in plates 40 and 41 are deliberately left blank. It was clearly not intended for religious purposes but served as an artistic pattern for the production of marketable Armenbibeln. Deissmann had first described this scroll in Forschungen: Biblia Pauperum in Rollenform; Folge von 38 neutestamentlichen Bildertafeln (Leben Jesu), flankiert durch je zwei alttestamentliche „Vorbilder“ (diese lateinisch beschriftet); im Maßwerk der architektonischen Umrahmung oben und unten je zwei Kçnige und Propheten; zum Schluß zwei allegorische Gestalten sowie zwçlf Propheten und Kçnige und zwçlf Apostel. Federzeichnung. Ca. 1450, wahrscheinlich aus Venedig.2

Although Die Armenbibel lacks an index, it is an elegant small monograph, consisting of 48 text pages and an additional 40 full-page reproductions, approximately 3/4 original size of the scroll’s panels. Deissmann dedicated it to the University of Oxford ‘als Symbol der Dankbarkeit fîr die am 27. Juni 1929 ehrenhalber verliehene Wîrde eines Doctor of Divinity’. It seems a disappointingly feeble offering, especially since the foreword plainly states that most of the research belonged to Hans Wegener, his young Mitarbeiter, and only ‘Einzelheiten, besonders biblisch-theologischer Art, durfte ich dazu beisteuern’. It appears, however, that he viewed the scroll’s discovery itself as a sufficient gift of gratitude, since he stressed ‘Die Einleitung habe ich geschrieben, wie ich auch fîr die Faksimilierung der Gruppenbilder des von mir aufgefundenen Rotulus Sorge getragen habe.’ * 2

Forschungen, 86 – 7.

*

*

Appendix to chapter 5

449

5, l. Extract from Deissmann’s book, Forschungen und Funde im Serai (References: ch. 5, nn. 172, 173)

This extract is drawn from pp. 111 – 13 and concerns the discovery of the Piri Re’‚s Map. Seekarte der Alten und der Neuen Welt, auf Grund einer Amerikakarte von Christoph Columbus und anderen Vorlagen gezeichnet von Piri Re’‚s zu Gallipoli im Mrz 1513; Original, von Piri Re’‚s dem Sultan Selim I. in Kairo 1517 îberreicht. Pergament, ca. 85 mal 60 cm. Diese Karte ist, obwohl tîrkisch beschriftet, in die nichtislamischen Stîcke der Serai-Bibliothek eingereiht, weil ihre Hauptbedeutung darin besteht, daß sie zum ersten Male eine verschollene Amerikakarte des Columbus erschließt; hiergegen tritt alles andere von ihr gebotene Material in den Hintergrund. Die Entdeckung dieses einzigartig wertvollen Stîckes im Serai hat, als sie im Winter 1931/32 bekannt wurde, in der internationalen Tagespresse begreiflicherweise das grçßte Aufsehen erregt. Dabei sind den Berichterstattern mitunter irrige Angaben îber die nheren Umstnde der Auffindung unterlaufen, wodurch namentlich das hohe Verdienst Halil Bejs verdunkelt worden ist. Die Fundgeschichte ist tatschlich die folgende. Als ich im Herbst 1929 die mir von Halil Bej îbergebenen Stîcke untersuchte, ordnete und mich dabei mehr und mehr davon îberzeugte, wie bedeutend die geographischen Bestnde der Sultansbibliothek seien, bat ich Halil Bej, er mçge doch seinerseits Nachforschungen anstellen, ob noch anderes seither unbekannt gebliebenes Material an Karten und dergleichen vorhanden sei. Halil hat meine Bitte sofort mit Eifer und bestem Erfolg erfîllt: er konnte mir am 9. Oktober 1929 ein ganzes Bîndel orientalischer und abendlndischer, von ihm neu entdeckter Karten îbergeben, einschließlich einer sehr eigenartigen tîrkischen Karte. Nun war es natîrlich fîr uns ein großer Glîcksfall, daß Paul Kahle, dessen gute Dienste ich bei der Identifikation der Samaritana und anderer Teile der Serai-Bibliothek dankbar hatte in Anspruch nehmen dîrfen und der als Herausgeber des großen tîrkischen Segelhandbuches „Bahr‚je“ von Piri Re’‚s Sachverstndiger ersten Ranges fîr tîrkisches See- und Kartenwesen ist, in Istanbul anwesend war. Ich zeigte ihm mit Halils Erlaubnis das Blatt, das er alsbald identifizierte. Das ist sein besonderes Verdienst. Halil selbst hat ihm sogleich mit großer Liberalitt erlaubt, die

450

Appendix to chapter 5

Karte tagelang in meinem Arbeitsraum zu studieren und hat sich auch an der Lesung der tîrkischen Beschriftung der Karte seinerseits beteiligt. Er hat ihm auch im Februar 1931 eine Photographie der Karte herstellen lassen. * * * 5, m. Preface to Forschungen und Funde im Serai (Reference: ch. 5, n. 175)

„Seit Jahrhunderten webt die Sage ihre Fden um die Bibliothek im Serai zu Konstantinopel, sie zu zerreißen ist bis auf den heutigen Tag nicht gelungen und ernsthaft auch nicht versucht worden. Von den beiden Wegen, die beschritten werden mîssen, und die nur gemeinsam zum erwînschten Ziele, zur Lîftung des Schleiers fîhren kçnnen, hat man den einen nur unvollkommen, den andern bisher gar nicht eingeschlagen. Weder haben an Ort und Stelle zur rechten Zeit so grîndliche Nachforschungen stattgefunden, daß der Vorrat an Bîchern, Handschriften, der sich noch jetzt im Serai befindet, genau bekannt wre, … noch hat man sich die Mîhe genommen, die aus verschiedenen Zeiten vorhandenen Nachrichten îber deren Bestnde und Aufbewahrungsorte einer sorgfltiger Prîfung zu unterziehen.“ Emil Jacobs, der mit diesen Worten sein Serai-Buch von 1919 erçffnete, ist den zweiten Weg gegangen. Den ersten Weg zu beschreiten ist mir selbst vergçnnt gewesen. Aber, das sei schon hier mit Dankbarkeit betont: ich htte, was ich auf diesem meinem Weg gesehen habe, lngst nicht alles verstanden, htte Jacobs nicht vorher seine Wanderung gemacht. So steht mein Serai-Bîchlein im engen Zusammenhang mit seiner Arbeit. Ich hatte die Absicht, die Ergebnisse meiner Untersuchungen schon 1931 zu verçffentlichen. Das fîr die stille Arbeit wissenschaftlicher Produktion in den gegenwrtigen Zeitluften nicht gerade îbermßig geeignete Rektorat der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt Berlin hat mich aber so vçllig in Anspruch genommen, daß ich erst nach seinem Abschluß zur eigentlichen Ausarbeitung gekommen bin. Diese Verzçgerung bedeutet keinen Verlust fîr die Sache; denn gerade im abgelaufenen Jahre konnte ich noch Wesentliches zu dem bis dahin Erarbeiteten hinzulernen.

Appendix to chapter 6 6, a. Deissmann, letter to Friedrich Naumann, 20. 6. 1898 (Reference: ch. 6, n. 43)

Hochverehrter Freund! Es drngt mich, Ihnen nach der Wahl ein paar Worte zu sagen. Vor allem lebhaftester Dank fîr die rastlose, opferbereite Thtigkeit der letzten Monate. Und wenn der „Erfolg“ ußerlich ausgeblieben ist, ohne wirklichen Erfolg ist der Wahlkampf doch nicht gewesen. Unsere Sache steht in den Anfngen; wir haben kein Geld, keine Presse, keine geschulten Massen. Aber wir haben eins: Glauben. Wir haben deshalb keine Ursache, an unserer Sache zu verzweifeln. Jetzt ist zum ersten Male in grçßerem Maßstab fîr die Vorbereitung der national-sozialen Gedanken gesorgt worden: wir mîssen nur warten lernen. Daß die alten „Parteien rettungslos ihrem Ende“ zueilen, ist durch die Wahl ja wieder deutlich geworden. Wir hatten nichts zu verlieren, sondern nur zu gewinnen, und die etwa 16,000 Stimmen, die wir erhalten haben, sind ein erfreulicher Anfang. Daß Sie selbst nicht gewhlt sind, beklage ich freilich aufs tiefste und mit mir viele an deutschen Hochschulen; aber daß die Thatsache an sich nicht tragisch genug ist, um zu verzweifeln, das ist gewiß auch Ihre eigene Stimmung. Ich mçchte Sie herzlichst bitten: Halten Sie fest an unserer Sache, lassen Sie sich nicht entmutigen, bieten Sie wie seither allem Spott, aller øchtung, aller Verlumdung, aller Verblendung die Stirn! Es kommt auch Ihr Tag! Daß wir von einer Enttuschung zur anderen mîssen, daß die Gunst der Machthaber uns nicht lchelt, das ist notwendig: die Schwachen werden abgestoßen, die Enthusiasten werden nîchtern, die Starken werden gesthlt. Arbeiten, Warten, Vertrauen, Treuehalten – das sind unsere Lehren aus dem Wahlkampf. Gott mit Ihnen! Ihr treu ergebener [signed] Adolf Deißmann *

*

*

452

Appendix to chapter 6

6, b. Extract from Naumann’s book, Mitteleuropa (References: ch. 6, nn. 87, 94)

This extract is drawn from pp. 180 – 1 and throws valuable light on how Naumann viewed the idea of a ‘Mitteleuropa’. Wen sollen und kçnnen wir einladen? Hier beginnt ein Abschnitt unserer Arbeit, îber den mehr noch als îber andere das Wort „Vorsicht“ geschrieben werden muß, denn wir leben noch mitten im Kriege, sollen îber „Kriegsziele“ im engeren Sinne des Wortes aus sehr berechtigten Grînden nichts verçffentlichen und dîrfen in diesem leidenschaftlich erregten Kriegszustand im benachbarten Auslande nicht îberall auf wohlwollende Auslegung unserer Darlegungen rechnen. Also lieber ein Wort zu wenig, als zu viel! Es gibt zwar auch in Deutschland wie sonst in Europa gerade jetzt eine Meng Leute, die ihrer willkîrlichen Phantasie gar keine Zîgel anlegen und so reden, als wren sie im Nebenamt mit der Verwaltung von Holland, Skandinavien, Rumnien, Bulgarien, Griechenland und des tîrkischen Reiches betraut und brauchten nur die Namen dieser Lnder auf das Papier zu schreiben, um die in den Weltwirtschaftsverband Mitteleuropa aufzunehmen. Ja, es finden sich kîhne Denker, die gleich auch noch die Schweiz, Frankreich, Spanien und nach einer gewissen Suberungsfrist selbst Italien hinzuziehen wollen und dann mit oder ohne Belgien die Vereinigten Staaten von Europa grînden. Das alles hat nur den Wert eines Spieles mit Mçglichkeiten, schadet aber, wenn es in den betreffenden Staaten gelesen wird, weil es fast immer einseitig deutsch gedacht ist und nicht berîcksichtigt wird, daß zum Vertragschließen mindestens zwei gehçren, von denen jeder seine eigenen Interessen und Sorgen hat. Wer auf diesem Gebiete zu viel will, der will im Grunde gar nichts, als eben nur sich selbst ußern. Wir rîcken in aller Klarheit von dieser leichten und virtuosen Behandlung des Problems ab und haben eben darum im ganzen bisherigen Verlauf unserer Arbeit immer nur vom Zusammenschlusse zwischen Deutschland und §sterreich-Ungarn gesprochen, weil es unsere ˜berzeugung ist, daß erst die zwei Zentralmchte verbunden sein mîssen, ehe irgendeine Anfrage an einen weiteren Staat auch nur die geringste Aussicht auf Erfolg haben kann. Zwischen dem Deutschen Reiche und §sterreich und Ungarn mîssen die Grundformen der neuen Vertrge und Einrichtungen entstehen. Mißlingt hier der Versuch, dann braucht man andere Staaten gar nicht erst zu belstigen. Gelingt er, so weiß man, was man den îbrigen Beteiligten

Appendix to chapter 6

453

bieten kann, und redet zu ihnen mit benannten Ziffern und in berechenbaren Werten. Es ist darum auch falsch, von einer deutschçsterreichisch-ungarischen Gemeinschaft nur so im Vorîbergehen als einem Hilfsmittel fîr deutsch-tîrkische Ziele zu reden, als sei das letztere die Hauptsache und jenes nur eine irgendwie zu erledigende Nebenarbeit. Alles das wird in §sterreich und Ungarn sehr genau gemerkt und erhçht dort keineswegs die Lust zum Eintreten in ernste, schwere Verhandlungen. Der §sterreicher und Ungar denkt dabei an seine eigenen balkanischen und tîrkischen Interessen, die ihm nher liegen, als ihm die unsrigen liegen kçnnen, und ist erstaunt, daß wir Deutsche Tîrkenpolitik sozusagen îber seinen Kopf weg machen wollen. Und dabei hat er recht! Er weiß, daß alle deutschen Tîrkenplne ohne Triest und Fiume nur Wasser sind. * * * 6, c. Exemplars of Deissmann’s changing perspective in regard to early Christian social classes (1908 – 23) (References: ch. 1, n. 203; ch. 6, n. 102)

By juxtaposing and comparing LvO (1908) with LvO 4 (1923), subtle, yet significant changes emerge in Deissmann’s attitude regarding the influence of lower social classes on early Christianity. The following selections should suffice to illustrate these modifications, from the hypothesis he originally presented in 1908, to his revised idea in 1923. Die soziale Struktur des Urchristentums weist uns durchaus in die untere und in die mittlere Schicht … LvO, 4. Die soziale Struktur des Urchristentums weist uns durchaus in die unteren und in die mittleren Schichten … LvO 4, 6. In a newly added footnote to this sentence he qualifies his alteration to the plural with the following noteworthy explanation: Daß es in vielen Fllen schwierig ist, die Schichtung nachzuweisen, daß oft die Grenzen zwischen „Oberschichten“ und „unteren Schichten“ fließend sind, ist mir wohlbekannt. In Dessau [Evangelischer Sozialer Kongress, 9.–11. Juni 1908] ist hierîber manches Bedeutsame von den Diskussionsrednern gesagt worden, und auch mehrere Rezensenten dieses Buches haben mit Recht diesen Punkt besprochen … das Schlagwort vom „proletarischen“ Charakter des Urchristentums scheint mir allerdings die Verstndigung zu erschweren… Gut verstanden hatte mich Friedrich Naumann… Das Problem der Schichtung beschftigt mich sehr stark, und ich glaube der Sache zu dienen, wenn ich, um den Schein einer mechanischen Trennung zu

454

Appendix to chapter 6

meiden, jetzt mehr pluralisch von „Oberschichten“ und „Unterschichten“ spreche und ausdrîcklich betone, daß in Einzelpersçnlichkeiten verschiedene Schichtungstypen sich mischen kçnnen.

____________ Das Urchristentum lehrt eben, was jeder andere Frîhling auch lehrt: der Saft steigt von unten nach oben. Zur oberen Schicht stand das Urchristentum in einem natîrlichen Gegensatz, nicht erst als Christentum, sondern schon als Bewegung der Unterschichten. Vergleichbar mit dem Urchristentum ist daher zunchst bloß die ihm im Heidentum entsprechende Schicht. LvO, 4 – 5. Das Urchristentum lehrt eben, was jeder andere Frîhling auch lehrt: der Saft steigt von unten nach oben. Zur antiken Hochkultur stand das Urchristentum in einem natîrlichen Gegensatz, nicht erst als Christentum, sondern schon als Bewegung der Unterschichten. Vergleichbar mit dem Urchristentum ist daher zunchst bloß die ihm im Heidentum entsprechende seelische Provinz, die antike Masse. LvO 4, 7. ____________ Daß es im wesentlichen die Menschen der unliterarischen, der unteren und mittleren Schicht waren, ist auf diesen Blttern so hufig von den verschiedensten Erwgungen aus angedeutet worden, das ich gar nichts dagegen einwenden wîrde, wenn man diese These als eine Hauptsache in meinem Buche bezeichnen wollte. LvO, 209. Daß es im wesentlichen die Menschen der unliterarischen Schichten waren, ist auf diesen Blttern so hufig von den verschiedensten Erwgungen aus angedeutet worden, das ich gar nichts dagegen einwenden wîrde, wenn man diese These als eine Hauptsache in meinem Buche bezeichnen wollte. LvO 4, 247.

Appendix to chapter 7 7, a. Deissmann’s cover letter to the first issue of the Pr.WL (Reference: ch. 7, n. 37)

It was reprinted in Pr.WL, 3. 7. 1915, 2 – 3. The great war of 1914 has been the cause of a distinct and in many places marked revival of Christian life. Especially in Germany, competent observers are unanimous that for the past few months the Protestant Churches and denominations have undergone a period of intensified religious feeling, which has hardly ever been reached before. Letters from different friends and old pupils of various Protestant creeds in America have proved to me, that Protestant Christianity in the New World takes a deep interest in this development, especially in the mutual relation between war and religion. On account of this, I have resolved to describe freely in “Evangelischen Wochenbriefen” (Weekly Protestant Letters) some details of this very interesting religious time for a number of prominent American personalities, and it will be a pleasure to me to send you these letters every week. Should you think that these communications would be of interest for a larger circle, I shall gladly submit to you the printing of the same in whatever way you think suitable, and should be grateful if you would send me two copies. But in any case I hope that you will look on them in a kind and brotherly way. Every bond of Christian Unity, which is formed in the “Iron times” secures the invisible bond of brotherhood among the Children of God towards which we are all striving. *

*

*

456

Appendix to chapter 7

7, b. Statistical overview of Ev.Wbr, and Pr.WL publications (References: ch. 7, nn. 46, 139; ch. 8, n. 49) * = supplementary material added (e. g. letters, newspaper articles, documents) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

6.12.1914 13. 12. 1914 20. 12. 1914 24. 12. 1914 31. 12. 1914 7.1.1915 16. 1. 1915 22. 1. 1915 29. 1. 1915 5.2.1915 12. 2. 1915 9.2.1915 26. 2. 1915 5.3.1915 12. 3. 1915 19. 3. 1915 26. 3. 1915 1.4.1915 9.4.1915 16. 4. 1915 23. 4. 1915 30. 4. 1915 7.5.1915 14. 5. 1915 22. 5. 1915 29. 5. 1915 5.6.1915 12. 6. 1915 19. 6. 1915 26. 6. 1915 3.7.1915 10. 7. 1915 17. 7. 1915 24. 7. 1915 31. 7. 1915 7.8.1915 14. 8. 1915 21. 8. 1915 28. 8. 1915 4.9.1915

4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 4 5 5 6 5* 6 5 5* 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 8 5 6 18* 5 8 7 3 5 4 4 4

7 7 4 7 7 9 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

457

Appendix to chapter 7

Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

11. 9. 1915 18. 9. 1915 25. 9. 1915 2.10.1915 9.10.1915 16. 10. 1915 23. 10. 1915 30. 10. 1915 6.11.1915 13. 11. 1915 20. 11. 1915 27. 11. 1915 4.12.1915

5 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

11. 12. 1915 18. 12. 1915 24. 12. 1915 31. 12. 1915 8.1.1916 15. 1. 1916 22. 1. 1916 29. 1. 1916 5.2.1916 12. 2. 1916 19. 2. 1916 26. 2. 1916 4.3.1916 11. 3. 1916 18. 3. 1916 25. 3. 1916 1.4.1916 8.4.1916 15. 4. 1916 22. 4. 1916 25. 4. 1916 28. 4. 1916 1.5.1916 10. 5. 1916 17. 5. 1916 24. 5. 1916

4 5 5 4 5 5 4 8* 5 5 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4

7 7 6 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 7 7 9

End of first year

458

Appendix to chapter 7

Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

31. 5. 1916 7.6.1916 14. 6. 1916 21. 6. 1916 28. 6. 1916 5.7.1916 12. 7. 1916 19. 7. 1916 26. 7. 1916 2.8.1916 9.8.1916 16. 8. 1916 23. 8. 1916 30. 8. 1916 6.9.1916 13. 9. 1916 20. 9. 1916 27. 9.1916 4.10.1916 11. 10. 1916 18. 10. 1916 25. 10. 1916 1.11.1916 8.11.1916 15. 11. 1916 22. 11. 1916 29. 11. 1916 9.12.1916 15. 12. 1916

3 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 6 5

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 10 6

End of second year Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

109 110 111 112/13

24. 12. 1916 1.1.1917 8. 1. 1917 15. 1. 1917

4 4 4 11

9 7 7 7 (unpublished, see ch. 7)

Neue Folge 1 (German only) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

1/2 3

21. 2. 1917 28. 2. 1917

9 4

7 7

459

Appendix to chapter 7

Neue Folge 1 (German only) (Continued) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

4/5 6 7 8 9/10 11 12/13 14 15 16/17 18/19 20/21 22 23/24 25/26 27/28 29/30 31/32 33/34 35/36 37/38 39/40 41/42 43/44 45/46

4.3.1917 21. 3. 1917 28. 3. 1917 4.4.1917 9.4.1917 14. 4. 1917 29. 4. 1917 7.5.1917 14. 5. 1917 28. 5. 1917 11. 6. 1917 20. 6. 1917 4.7.1917 15. 7. 1917 29. 7. 1917 12. 8. 1917 26. 8. 1917 9.9.1917 23. 9. 1917 7.10.1917 21. 10. 1917 4.11.1917 22. 11. 1917 2.12.1917 24. 12. 1917

9* 4* 5 6* 13 5* 8* 5 5 16* 10* 12* 7* 12* 8 8* 8* 10* 6* 8* 8* 10* 8* 10* 10*

71 7 7 7 5 5 7 8 7 14 14 9 14 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 18 10 21

End of third year Neue Folge 2 (German only) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

47/48 49/50 51/52 53/54 55/56 57/58 59/60

1.1.1918 7.1.1918 21. 1. 1918 9.2.1918 23. 2. 1918 15. 3. 1918 29. 3. 1918

8 10* 8 10* 10* 8* 9*

8 6 14 17 14 21 14

1

Pages 1 – 4 (dated 9. 3. 1915) of this bulletin were written in Brussels (see ch. 8.1), but pp. 4 – 9 (dated 15. 3. 1915) in Berlin – after GAD’s return from the Western Front.

460

Appendix to chapter 7

Neue Folge 2 (German only) (Continued) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

61/62 63/64 65/66 67/68 69/70 71/72 73/74 75/76 77/78 79/80 81/82 83/84 85/86 87/88 89/90 91/92 93/94 95/96 97/98

12. 4. 1918 26. 4. 1918 10. 5. 1918 24. 5. 1918 8.6.1918 30. 6. 1918 12. 7. 1918 31. 7. 1918 10. 8. 1918 22. 8. 1918 7.9.1918 21. 9. 1918 12. 10. 1918 19. 10. 1918 31. 10. 1918 16. 11. 1918 30. 11. 1918 12. 12. 1918 31. 12. 1918

8* 10* 10* 10* 10* 8* 8* 6* 8* 6* 7* 8* 8 8 9 8* 10* 16* 6

14 14 14 14 14 22 12 19 10 12 16 14 23 15 12 16 16 12 19

End of fourth year Neue Folge 3 (German only) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

99/102 103/106 107/108 109/111 112/115 116/118 119/120 121/124 125/128 129/132 133/136 137/141 142/145 146/150

25. 1. 1919 15. 2. 1919 13. 3. 1919 27. 3. 1919 10. 4. 1919 15. 5. 1919 29. 5. 1919 30. 6. 1919 30. 7. 1919 30. 8. 1919 28. 9. 1919 31. 10. 1919 30. 11. 1919 31. 12. 1919

12* 19* 10* 12* 16* 12* 10 19* 13* 12* 16* 23* 16* 23*

25 21 26 14 14 35 14 32 30 30 29 33 31 31

End of fifth year

2 months publication interval, due to severe sickness

Appendix to chapter 7

461

Dritte Reihe (German only) Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

1/4 5/8 9/14 15/19 20/24 25/32 33/39

2.2.1920 29. 2. 1920 6.1920 7.1920 8.1920 10.1920 11.1920

14* 16* 21* 15* 18* 20* 16*

33 27 c. 110 – – – –

Nr:

Date:

Pages:

Intervals in days:

40/46 47/55 56/62 63/68 69/78 79/85 86/91 92/104

12.1921 1.1921 3.1921 4.1921 6.1921 7.1921 8.1921 10/11.1921

12* 21* 17* 15* 19* 17* 14* 37*

– – – – – – – –

End of sixth year

End of seventh year

*

*

*

7, c. Extract from a petition to Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg regarding humanitarian aid for Armenia, 10. 3. 1916 (Reference: ch. 7, n. 54)

‘Die unterzeichneten Gesellschaften, die mit ihrer Arbeit unter den Christen des Orients ausschliesslich humanitre und kulturelle Zwecke verfolgen, wînschen eine Hilfsexpedition auszurîsten nach den Gebieten in Syrien und Mesopotamien, in welche die Frauen und Kinder des armenischen Volkes der Tîrkei deportiert worden sind. Die Expedition soll aus Aerzten und Krankenschwestern und solchen Herren bestehen, die der Landesverhltnisse kundig sind. Der Zweck der Expedition ist, unter der Masse der deportierten Frauen und Kinder, die nach Hunderttausenden zhlt und ohne Fîrsorge, Hilfsmittel, Pflege und Obdach der langsamen Vernichtung durch

462

Appendix to chapter 7

Hunger und Krankheit preisgegeben ist, Lebensmittel und Unterstîtzung zu verteilen, fîr sanitre Massnahmen zu sorgen und rztliche Hilfe zu bringen. Wir bitten Eure Excellenz, die Genehmigung der tîrkischen Regierung fîr die Samariter-Arbeit dieser Expedition erwirken zu wollen. Die tîrkische Regierung hat, soviel uns bekannt ist, derartige Hilfeleistungen von neutraler Seite abgelehnt. Umsomehr ist es die Pflicht der humanitren Kreise Deutschlands, die mit den einschlgigen Verhltnissen vertraut sind, durch die Vermittlung der Reichsregierung einen Notstand lindern zu helfen, fîr dessen Fortbestand Deutschland als Bundesgenosse der Tîrkei von der îbrigen Welt moralisch verantwortlich gemacht wird … Der Untergang einer halben Million von Frauen und Kindern kann in keinem Falle als politisches Interesse der Tîrkei anerkannt werden …’. Besides Deissmann’s signature are those of five other theologians: Dr. Johannes Lepsius, founder of ‘Deutsche Orient-Mission’ and ‘Armenisches Hilfswerk’; Dr. Paul Rohrbach, author of the book, In Turan und Armenien, auf den Pfaden russischer Weltpolitik (Berlin 1898); Prof. Martin Rade (see ch. 2.5); Prof. Hermann Guthe, founder of the ‘Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palstinas’, and Pfarrer Ewald Stier who signed on behalf of the ‘Deutsch-Armenischen Gesellschaft’. * * * 7, d. Extract from Ev.Wbr, 10. 8. 1918 (Reference: ch. 7, n. 130)

This extract is drawn from pp. 3 – 7 and concerns the Swiss Leonhard Ragaz’ polemics against the Ev.Wbr, and against Deissmann himself. Zunchst sei ein kurzes Votum von D. Martin Rade wiedergegeben (“Die Christliche Welt” Nr. 31/32 vom 25. Juli [soll heißen 1. August] 1918): Das Ausflligste, was wir an persçnlicher Polemik seit Jahren gelesen haben, hat Professor Ragaz in Zîrich in seinen Neuen Wegen gegen Deißmann und seine Evangelischen Wochenbriefe geliefert. Seine Sprache ist so maßlos, daß unsereinem darîber die Sprache vergeht. Ich habe, was ich versuchte dazu zu sagen, ungedruckt gelassen. Besonders auch aus dem Grunde, weil es dann fîr unsereinen notwendig wîrde, îber den ganzen Ragaz zu handeln. Das kann man billigerweise erst nach dem Kriege tun. Denn unsere deutschen Leser sind jetzt nicht in der Lage seine Neuen Wege zu verfolgen.

Appendix to chapter 7

463

Ausbleiben wird diese Auseinandersetzung nicht, aber kurz wird sie auch nicht sein kçnnen. Inzwischen hat als Schweizer Professor Wernle in Basel zu dem Zwischenspiel Ragaz-Deißmann im Kirchenblatt fîr die reformierte Schweiz Nr. 28 das Wort genommen. Daß es gerade Deißmann widerfahren muss, so aller nationalistischen Grundschlechtigkeit geziehen zu werden, htte etwas Befreiendes, wenn es nicht – von solcher Stelle her – auch wieder hart niederdrîckte.”

Der von D. Rade erwhnte Artikel D. Paul Wernles vom 13. Juli 1918 “Deißmanns Evangelische Wochenbriefe und die Schweiz”, fîr den ich herzlich dankbar bin und dessen Grundgedanken îbrigens auch in nicht wenigen Briefen anderer Schweizer an mich zum Ausdruck kamen, lautet in seinen wesentlichen Teilen wie folgt: Seit letztem Herbst wandern des Berliner Professors Adolf Deißmann, ,Evangelische Wochenbriefe‘ îber die Grenze zu mir herîber, wie ich vermute, als Antwort auf meine Unterschrift zu der Adresse der Schweizer Theologen an die Protestanten Deutschlands.2 Diese ,Evangelischen Wochenbriefe‘ sollen der Verstndigung unter den Vçlkern und der Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt dienen, wie ihr Verfasser versichert. Eine der allerschwersten Aufgaben, die sich heute ein Christ stellen kann! Und fîr einen deutschen Theologen vielleicht ganz besonders schwer, da man in den neutralen wie den kriegsfîhrenden Lndern seiner Verstndigungsabsicht mit grçßtem Mißtrauen begegnen wird. Man will hier einen Deutschen nur dann zum Worte kommen lassen, wenn er zuerst die ,Verbrechen‘ seines Volkes bekennt und dadurch der gegnerischen Auffassung recht gibt. Deißmann aber strebt nach Verstndigung mit den Gegnern, ohne sich von seinem Volke innerlich loszusagen. Mir kommt es trotzdem hoch erfreulich vor, daß es ihm wenigstens gelungen ist, eine Art Gedankenaustausch mit fîhrenden welschen religiçsen Zeitungen hervorzurufen, in denen man sich von beiden Seiten anstndig begegnete. Auch ein so hochstehender Franzose wie Romain Rolland versagte dem deutschen Professor seine Achtung nicht. Was aber vor allem fîr Deißmann spricht, das dîrfte seine ehrliche Selbsterkenntnis sein, die ihn schreiben ließ: ,Daß es mir durchaus nicht immer gelingt, in diesen Briefen die rechten Worte und, was noch wichtiger ist, die rechte Modulation zu finden, weiß ich selbst, und wer sie von Anfang an gelesen hat, wird Irrlinien, Serpentinen und Kurven meines Weges genug bemerkt haben. Dies diem docet. Nichts aber hilft so sehr zur rechten Methode als ein ermunterndes Wort, und wre es auch mit Kritik gemischt.‘

Im Sammeln und Sichten der Stimmen aus der Schweiz fîr oder gegen eine Verstndigung der Vçlker stieß Deißmann u. a. auf das berîhmte Telegramm der zehn internationalen Sozialisten aus der Schweiz vom 2

Ev.Wbr, 21.10.1917.

464

Appendix to chapter 7

10. Dezember 1917 an Lenin und Trotzki, das die Warnung vor der ungeheuren Gefahr eines russischen Sonderfriedens mit den Zentralmchten bezweckte. Deißmann erklrte nun in Nr. 53/54 [9. 2. 1918] seiner Wochenbriefe, daß er speziell die Beteiligung von Ragaz an diesem Telegramm nicht verstehe. Er kenne den Zîrcher Professor zu wenig, um sich ein Gesamturteil îber ihn zu gestatten; von dem Ernste seines Suchens denke er hoch. Aber gerade an einem Tag wie dem Datum seines Briefes, da in Berlin der Sonderfriede mit der Ukraine jubelnd gefeiert wurde, und, nach vier Jahren brutaler Vernichtung die Menschen aufzuatmen begannen, konnte Deißmann diese Aktion gegen den Frieden ganz und gar nicht begreifen; er fand darin eine Verirrung der Ideologie: ,vivat doctrina, pereat mundus‘! Auf diese im Grund sehr harmlosen Zeilen erhielt Deißmann verschiedene Erwiderungen, von denen er zur Klrung des Urteils îber den ,merkwîrdigen Mann‘ fîr sich und die andern zwei Stimmen in Nr. 57/58 [15. 3. 1918] verçffentlichte. Das eine ein sehr gînstiges Urteil îber Ragaz aus der Feder eines schsischen evangelischen Geistlichen, der Ragaz das denkbar hçchste Lob erteilte als einem Mann reinen Herzens, der von der Leidenschaft, fîr Gott zu wirken, verzehrt werde, der auch eine große Liebe zum deutschen Geist empfinde und aus tiefer Sorge fîr dessen Wohl vor einem gînstigen Sonderfrieden gewarnt habe. Das andere aus der Feder eines Schweizer Geistlichen, der Deißmann seine Freude an seinen Bestrebungen aussprach: ,Gesegnet Alle, die irgendwie der Flut des Hasses, Mißverstndnisses und Mißtrauens sich entgegenwerfen!‘, der jedoch hinzufîgte: ,ich war frîher Mitarbeiter von Ragaz, kann aber seine jetzige politische Stellung nicht mehr mitmachen und glaube mehr als er wirklich neutral zu denken. Ich bleibe ihm fîr vieles, was ich von ihm gelernt und empfangen habe, zeitlebens dankbar, und habe Ideale, die ich mit ihm teilte, festgehalten, aber jetzt kann ich nicht mehr in verba magistri schwçren‘. Wer diese Briefauszîge Deißmanns unbefangen liest, wird sie nicht anders auffassen kçnnen, als einen ehrlichen Versuch, das Mçgliche zu tun, um Ragaz gerecht zu werden und, unbeschadet der entgegengesetzten Ansichten, seinen Charakter in Ehren zu halten. Zur Antwort erhielt Deißmann von Seite des Zîrcher Professors eine Zîchtigung, wie sie etwa in alten Zeiten ein Schuljunge von einem leidenschaftlichen Prîgelpdagogen zu bekommen pflegte.

Appendix to chapter 7

465

Wernle gibt nun unter Zitierung mehrerer Kraftstellen den Hauptinhalt der meinen Lesern durch mich ja schon bekannt gemachten Polemik von Ragaz wieder und fhrt dann fort: Auf Deißmanns Erwiderung ist mir ordentlich angst gewesen. Der Berliner Professor gab zuerst, als er nur von andern îber die Antwort von Ragaz vernahm, die Erklrung ab, er wolle sich, auch wenn der Angriff noch bçsartiger sei, als er den Schweizer Briefschreibern vorkomme, von Ragaz nicht auf den alten vorevangelischen Weg in der Behandlung des Nchsten drngen lassen. Als er dann die beiden ihn betreffenden Nummern der Neuen Wege zur Einsicht bekam, schrieb er eine Antwort in Nr. 63/64 [26. 4. 1918] seiner Wochenbriefe. Um den Lesern selbst einen Begriff von der Sache zu geben, gab er die Hauptstellen der Ragazischen Polemik im Wortlaut und fîgte zu der zweiten Erklrung vom ,ehrlosen Tropf‘ hinzu: “Wie stark muß doch die Kriegsleidenschaft die Besonnenheit des Urteils getrîbt haben, wenn das offene Bekenntnis von Meinungsverschiedenheiten mit bitterster Gehssigkeit erwidert wird! Ich kann in der Art, wie Ragaz seinen Landsmann behandelt, nichts von einem ,neuen‘ Wege entdecken; nur den alten Weg sehe ich, den mit unzhligen Fußspuren gezeichneten breiten Weg des Pfaffentums.”

Fîr sich persçnlich ußerte er seinen Schmerz îber die Kampfweise von Ragaz und wies darauf hin, daß er seit Kriegsbeginn aus Feindesland keine derartige Verdchtigung erlebt habe; die Ehrlichkeit seines christlichen Verstndigungswillens htte auch englische und amerikanische Kritiker seiner Wochenbriefe nicht anzutasten gewagt. Der Rest seiner Antwort befaßte sich mit der Frage der Methode der christlichen Verstndigung, fîr die er als erste Bedingung die gegenseitige Anerkennung der bona fides forderte; die notwendigen Zugestndnisse der Fehler des eigenen Volkes wîrden sich dann von beiden Seiten vonselbst ergeben. Diese Erwiderung legt jedenfalls fîr ein ungewçhnliches Maß von Selbstbeherrschung des so schwer beleidigten Briefschreibers Zeugnis ab; wer sich selbst eine christliche Antwort zutraut, der mag es tun. Jedenfalls bemîhte sich Deißmann, alles zu vermeiden, den Gegner wieder zu beleidigen; den Satz vom Pfaffentum schrieb er ausdrîcklich zur Verteidigung seines Korrespondenten, nicht zur Abwehr der gegen sich gerichteten Schmhungen. Liest man dagegen die Antwort von Ragaz in der Juninummer der Neuen Wege, so hat Deißmann in seine Antwort ,soviel Gift und Galle gegossen, als das Gefß nur zu fassen vermochte. Er tut nur so, als ob er von der Hçhe der Bergpredigt her rede und stopft doch seinen Artikel mit Beleidigung und Rache voll.‘ Seinerseits hlt Ragaz

466

Appendix to chapter 7

alles, ausnahmslos alles aufrecht, was er in der Mrznummer und in der Aprilnummer geschrieben hatte. Das heißt, mit ganz geringen Retraktionen, die die Sache doch nicht anders machen. Deißmann handelt vielleicht nicht aus ,bewußter Heuchelei‘, nicht, um andere zu betrîgen, sondern aus Selbstbetrug; er treibt Propaganda in religiçser Form, das ist das letzte Wort, jetzt wie vormals. Unverzeihlich ist, daß er eine Zensur îber Ragaz aussprach in einem fîr Neutrale bestimmten Blatt; solches ,Dreinreden‘ weist Ragaz zurîck mit scharfen Worten ,im Namen unserer nationalen Ehre‘. Das Eintreten eines Schweizers fîr den beleidigten Deißmann zuungunsten von Ragaz deutet auf ,Lakaiengesinnung‘: man will draußen besser erscheinen als der verdchtigte Landsmann; es ist darum ,nationale Ehrlosigkeit‘. Jenen Pfarrer freilich soll das nicht treffen, weil sein Brief als Ganzes einen anderen Sinn hatte. Das Pfaffentum liegt natîrlich nicht bei Ragaz vor, sondern bei dem deutschen Gegner, der unter der Miene christlicher Sanftmut und ˜berlegenheit alle Gehssigkeit geîbt hat. Es fehlt Deißmann die eine Eigenschaft, die ein Mann der Verstndigung haben mîßte: der Sinn fîr die Wahrheit, mit der sich die Liebe verbinden muß. Solchen findet Ragaz einzig bei den Deutschen, die ihrem Vaterland in den Rîcken schießen und das Schuldkonto Deutschlands beweisen helfen; die allein sind eine Ehre des deutschen Volkes und zum Teil auch des Christentums. ˜ber die einzelnen Punkte kann man vielleicht verschiedener Meinung sein. Mir kommt es vor, Einmischung in die Interna anderer Vçlker dîrfe der am allerwenigsten andern und speziell Deutschen vorwerfen, der selber den russischen Bolschewiki den Rat gibt, wie sie sich gegen die Zentralmchte zu verhalten haben, und der fast in jeder Nummer der Neuen Wege von deutscher Politik und deutschem Wesen schreibt, als ob er dazu berufen wre. Aber es wîrde nicht helfen, darîber und îber anderes zu streiten, wo es an allen Elementen der Verstndigung fehlt. Ich habe hier diesen Fall zur Sprache bringen zu mîssen geglaubt, weil ich als Christ und als Schweizer mich verpflichtet fîhle, einem von schweizerischer Seite gehssig und gemein behandelten Deutschen offen zu erklren, daß man auch in der evangelischen Schweiz îber diese Behandlung empçrt ist, und ihn zu bitten, doch in keiner Weise seine Verstndigungsarbeit dadurch bestimmen zu lassen. Das erscheint mir geradezu Pflicht schweizerischer Ehre, der man gewiß den schlechtesten Dienst tut durch Beschimpfung anstndiger Deutscher und durch Andichtung gemeiner Motive, wo man als Schweizer und als Christ sich freuen sollte îber jeden ernsten Willen zur Verstndigung. 3 Meinerseits habe 3

Deissmann’s footnote states that these two sentences are emphasised in Wernles’s original article.

Appendix to chapter 7

467

auch ich selbst gegen Deißmanns Methode da und dort ernste Bedenken, die ich ihm vorgetragen habe; ich habe ihm z. B. offen geschrieben, daß ich von dem Abdruck von Gefangenschaftsberichten das Gegenteil der Verstndigung, die er anstreben mçchte, befîrchte. Deißmanns Antwort bewies mir, daß er fîr solche Bedenken Verstndnis hat und gerne auch Kritik vernimmt. Darin aber hat er zweifellos recht: wenn wir von den andern verlangen, daß sie uns gegenîber zu allererst mit dem Bekenntnis der besonders schweren Schuld ihres Volkes aufrîcken sollen, kçnnen wir mit der Verstndigung warten bis zum jîngsten Tag. Ich wîrde heute, wenn ich Deutscher wre, persçnlich an der Schuld meines Volkes und seiner Regierung schwer mittragen, aber mit solchen Bekenntnissen die Liebe der Gegner zu suchen, der Gegner, die einzig darauf lauern, solche Bekenntnisse in ihrem Interesse zu verwerten, das wîrde ich ablehnen mit aller Entschiedenheit und mit gutem Gewissen vor meinem Gott. Weit gangbarer scheint mir der von Deißmann versuchte Weg, aus allen feindlichen Lndern die edeln, menschlichen und christlichen Zîge zu sammeln, damit von hier aus das Bewußtsein der Solidaritt selbst mitten im Krieg nicht ganz untergehe und sich und die Seinen stets daran zu erinnern: dort drîben sind Brîder, sind Christen, sind Menschen, die trotz allem und allem mit uns zusammengehçren. Und wenn zunchst nur das Leid sie zusammenfîhrt, es ist ein tieferes Band als Sîndenbekenntnisse der andern, die ich mir zu Nutze mache oder die doch andere gewiß sich zu Nutze machen. ˜ber die Schuld richtet, Gott sei Dank, Gott und Gott allein, kein Weltkongreß und kein Professor Ragaz, und das ist unser Trost, daß dies Tiefste und Schwerste vor Gottes Augen gehçrt und dort den rechten Richter finden muß. P. Wernle.

Bedeutsame Reflexe von Schweizer Stimmungen enthlt schließlich der Artikel “Politische Pfarrer” von Pfarrer Hans Baur (Basel) im “Schweizerischen Protestantenblatt”, den ich nach der “Zîricher Post” vom 8. August 1918 wiedergebe. Man ist ihnen – den politischen Pfarrern – nicht gewogen. Der ehrwîrdige Andreas Heusler schreibt in seiner ,Geschichte Basels‘ … seine Meinung îber diese Schuster, die nicht bei ihren Leisten bleiben. Zwingli sei ,kein politischer Kopf‘ gewesen und htte, wie seine Nachfolger, besser die Hnde vom Staat gelassen. Wir wissen, daß Wilhelm Oechsli anderer Meinung ist und auf das Jubilum 1919 diese etwas kîhne Behauptung bekmpfen wird. Einstweilen tun die Schîler Ragaz unter Vorantritt ihres Fîhrers allerdings alles Erdenkliche, den Heuslerschen Satz zu erweisen. Wir wollen hier die ganze Pfarrerpolitik vom berîhmten Telegramm an Kerensky4 bis zu den von ihnen im Heer betriebenen ,Soldatenbînden‘ 4

Deissmann’s footnote states: ,Wohl Druckfehler fîr ‘Trotzki’?

468

Appendix to chapter 7

nicht aufrollen, haben aber stîndlich Gelegenheit, die gewaltige Empçrung der besten kirchlichen Kreise zu Stadt und Land îber diese Agitation zu beobachten. Die Leitartikelserie Professor Paul Schweizers, eines hochgeachteten, hochverdienten Zîrcher Historikers in der ,Neuen Zîrcher Zeitung‘, die ernstgemeinten Erçrterungen Dr. Hans Oehlers in der ,Zîricher Post‘, um nur diese zu nennen, sind Zeugnisse fîr die tiefgehende Erregung im Kirchenvolk. Und wenn junge Schîler Ragaz’ auf der Kanzel die Nationalspende als militrisches Mançver bekmpfen, welch ein Eindruck auf die Gemeinden wird dadurch ausgelçst! Nun wendet sich Ragaz’ alter Freund, Professor Wernle, im ,Kirchenblatt‘ gegen ihn, weil er in leidenschaftlich kopfloser Weise den Berliner Professor Deißmann, den Herausgeber der ,Evangelischen Wochenbriefe‘, der ihn auf das freundlichste behandelt hatte, angerempelt und der versteckten Propaganda angeklagt hatte. Wernle bittet den uns Schweizern îberaus wohlgesinnten Friedensfreund in aller Form çffentlich um Verzeihung fîr die ungerechte Beschimpfung, die ihm aus der Schweiz zuteil geworden. * * * 7, e. Extract from Ev.Wbr, 30. 11. 1918, 6 (Reference: ch. 7, n. 131)

This extract is from p. 6 and concerns a Swiss defence of the Ev.Wbr and of Deissmann. Im “Kirchenfreund” (Basel) 52 (1918) Nr. 19 vom 1. Oktober gibt der verantwortliche Redakteur Professor D. W. Hadorn, Pfarrer in Bern, unter dem obigen Titel eine Wîrdigung meiner Briefarbeit. Ich habe begreiflicherweise gezaudert, sie abzudrucken, meine aber doch, sie am 4. Jahrestag der “Ev. Wochenbriefe” wiedergeben zu dîrfen. Nicht um der Worte willen, die D. Hadorn îber mich persçnlich sagt, sondern als Zeichen einer erfreulichen Resonanz: ich glaube, auch die Leser haben ein Anrecht darauf, zu sehen, daß die internationale christliche Verstndigungsarbeit nicht ohne Frucht bleibt. Wir haben schon mehrmals mit Freude und Zustimmung die ,Evangelischen Wochenbriefe‘ erwhnt und zitiert, die Prof. Dr. Deißmann in Berlin seit einigen Jahren herausgibt. Sie sollen nach der Absicht des Herausgebers der Verstndigung unter den durch den Krieg getrennten Christen dienen. Natîrlich ist es ihm nicht mçglich,

Appendix to chapter 7

469

die Christen in den mit Deutschland im Kriege stehenden Lndern auf diesem Wege direkt zu erreichen, da jede derartige Verbindung ausgeschlossen ist. Aber auf indirektem Wege erreicht seine Stimme doch das Ohr der feindlichen evangelischen Christen, indem die Wochenbriefe in den neutralen Lndern evangelischen Bekenntnisses, im skandinavischen Norden, in Holland, in der Schweiz und bis vor dem Kriegseintritt auch in Amerika eine große Verbreitung fanden, und von dort aus ihr Inhalt durch die Presse eben doch auch ins feindliche Ausland weitergeleitet wurde. ˜brigens ist das auch nicht der einzige Zweck der Wochenbriefe. Sie sollen ebensosehr auf die evangelische Christenheit in Deutschland einwirken im Sinne der Bekmpfung des Hasses und der Anbahnung einer gerechten Wîrdigung der Gegner, zu welchem Zweck sich Deißmann die grçßte Mîhe gab, die freundlichen und versçhnenden øußerungen aus dem feindlichen Ausland zur Kenntnis seiner Leser zu bringen. Er hat denn auch nicht nur in seinem Vaterlande, sondern auch in neutralen Lndern in steigendem Maße Anerkennung und Zustimmung gefunden. Und mit Recht. Die Wochenbriefe sind in einem so çkumenisch, wahrhaft versçhnenden Geiste geschrieben, daß sie tatschlich ein Kristallisationspunkt der Friedens- und Verstndigungsbestrebungen wurde, welchem kein anderes derartiges Unternehmen an die Seite gestellt werden kann. * * * 7, f. Hans Lietzmann, letter to Emanuel Hirsch, 7. 2. 1933 (Reference: ch. 7, n. 133)

The following transcript is taken from Aland, 727 – 8. Lieber Freund! Zunchst herzlichen Dank fîr Deinen Vortrag hier, der sehr gut aufgenommen ist und die Leute sehr stark beschftigt hat. Es war ein Jammer, daß ich nicht dabei sein konnte. Heute schreibe ich wegen einer anderen Sache. Fîr die Notgemeinschaft mîssen die Fachausschîsse neubesetzt werden. Ich wîrde empfehlen, im allgemeinen nicht an den bestehenden Besetzungen zu ndern. Nur in einem Punkte glaube ich, daß es Zeit ist, endlich einmal den nchst erforderlichen Wandel zu schaffen. Es ist schlechthin unmçglich, daß systematische und praktische Theologie von Deißmann vertreten wird, der keine Ahnung von den Dingen hat und infolgedessen mit çkumenischer Milde alles

470

Appendix to chapter 7

empfiehlt. Die Folge ist, daß er schon lngst keine Autoritt gegenîber dem Hauptausschuß hat. ˜berlege Dir mal, ob da nicht ein Besserer zu finden sei, und wenn Du ihn weißt, sorge dafîr, daß die Kandidatur an allen Fakultten bekannt gemacht wird: es braucht kein Berliner zu sein und ist sogar gut, wenn es das nicht ist. Aber es muß ein Mann sein, der ein Urteil hat, energisch ist, und pînktlich arbeitet – was alles dreies bei Deißmann fehlt. Du kannst ja mal mit Rîckert und Althaus und Beyer korrespondieren. Nur darum bitte ich Dich herzlich, daß Du auch in dessen vertraulichen Briefen meinen Namen îberhaupt nicht erwhnst. Ich greife hier nur ein, weil ich im Hauptausschuß der Notgemeinschaft bin und die Unzulnglichkeit von D. seit zehn Jahren zu verfolgen Gelegenheit habe. Aber ich mçchte nicht das ohnehin schon sehr labile Verhltnis zu D. durch ein Bekanntwerden dieses meines Schrittes restlos zerstçrt sehen. Er wird sich in seiner Eitelkeit schwer verletzt fîhlen, wenn man ihn absgt, und wîrde mir das Mitwirken dabei trotz aller ostentativ betonten Bergpredigtsethik nie vergeben. Da bin ich Pazifist und wînsche Krach zu vermeiden, wo es geht. Ungerufen kommt schon so genug. Also herzliche Grîße und guten Erfolg! [signed] Getreulich Dein [H. Lietzmann] * * * 7, g. Extract from Deissmann’s concluding article to his Ev.Wbr, entitled: ‘Abschied vom Evangelischen Wochenbrief ’ (Reference: ch. 7, nn. 78, 139)

Ev.Wbr, Oct./Nov., 1921, 271 – 8. Die Stuttgarter Tage haben einen inneren Kampf beendigt, der mir besonders seit meiner Erkrankung im Frîhjahr 1920, aber auch schon vorher oftmals schwer zu schaffen gemacht hatte … Mehr und mehr wurde so von Jahr zu Jahr der “Ev. Wochenbrief ” zu einem Stîck persçnlichsten Lebens, das mir unbeschreiblich wichtig und lieb geworden ist. Aber er bedeutet fîr mich auch eine wachsende Sorge. Seit etwa 1916 habe ich so gut wie meine ganze nicht der Lehrttigkeit an der Universitt gewidmete freie Zeit diesem Werk gewidmet, ohne eigentlich jemals, trotz erfreulicher Unterstîtzung durch tîchtige Hilfskrfte, das Gefîhl gehabt zu haben, fertig zu sein. Meine großen wissenschaftlichen Lebensaufgaben habe ich in aller dieser Zeit zurîck-

Appendix to chapter 7

471

gestellt. Oftmals ist mir’s dann in schlafloser Nacht wie eine Vision gekommen, es sei dieser, ja wirklich dieser eigentliche Teil meines kurzen Gelehrtenlebens, es sei insbesondere das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament vorzeitig erwîrgt durch die Elendsfaust dieses schlimmen øon. Als ich im Frîhling 1920 todkrank zusammengebrochen war, verfolgte mich in meiner Selbstbesinnung jene wîrgende Hand noch hohnvoller, bis ich sie, langsam genesend, durch den Entschluß bannte, zum gelehrten Schaffen zurîckzukehren, wenn irgend Gott der Herr mir die volle Kraft zurîckgeben wîrde. Ich sagte mir dabei ein zweifaches. Einmal, daß ich der Christenheit auf die Dauer doch vielleicht einen noch grçßeren, einen wahrhaft çkumenischen Dienst leisten wîrde, wenn ich durch das Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament manch einem da und dort in christlichen Landen den Weg zum alten Evangelium bahnen hîlfe … So ist es nicht die Geschichte eines Bruches, die ich hier bekenne, wenngleich der Abschied vom “Ev. Wochenbrief ” mir nicht ohne sehr schmerzliche Bewegung mçglich ist. Ich war schon vor Stuttgart5 zu diesem Schritt fest entschlossen, und die Beratung mit nahestehenden Landsleuten und einem in der alten und neuen Welt wirkenden Freunde, der einer der verstndnisvollsten Fçrderer des “Wochenbriefs” war, hatte mich nur bestrkt. Dennoch bin ich durch die Tatsache, daß dem Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenbund in Stuttgart als eine seiner Arbeiten die Pflege der evangelischen Gemeinbîrgerschaft mit den außerdeutschen Kirchen zugewiesen worden ist, innerlich recht erleichtert worden. Nachdem diese çkumenische Aufgabe vom deutschen Protestantismus als solchen nunmehr anerkannt worden ist, werden sich andere Arbeiter finden, die, vielleicht in anderer Weise, aber nicht in einem anderen Geiste, diesem großen Werk sich hingeben. Beim Abschied habe ich viel und vielen zu danken. Fîr ein hohes Maß freiwilliger ußerer Fçrderer aus dem In- und Auslande zuerst; sie hat es ermçglicht, daß das Unternehmen bis zuletzt weitergefîhrt werden konnte und daß in einem Zeitalter des Zusammenbruchs wichtiger anderer christlicher Organe nicht finanzielle Not es ist, die zum Abschluß drngt. Ich habe mehr noch zu danken fîr Verstndnis und Vertrauen, das ich in beschmender Fîlle erfahren habe; fîr Belehrung und fîr Zugnglichmachung von sonst fast unerreichbarem intimen Material, fîr freundliche Kritik, fîr Geduld bei Mißgriffen und falschen Urteilen, die mir, besonders in den ersten Jahren, nicht 5

i. e. Stuttgart Kirchentag, 11 – 16.9.1921.

472

Appendix to chapter 7

selten passiert sind. Ich habe sie aber durch Verkennungen, denen ich persçnlich durch einzelne mit ihrem Urteil allzu leicht fertigen Kritiker gelegentlich ausgesetzte war, vielleicht abgebîßt. Das Wesen meiner Arbeit brachte es mit sich, daß ich, in vollster persçnlicher Unabhngigkeit, nicht selten mit Mitgliedern in- und auslndischer kirchlicher und staatlicher Behçrden verkehrt habe; auch ihnen werde ich mich stets verpflichtet fîhlen. In einer Zeit tiefsten Menschheitselends lege ich die Feder aus der Hand. Der sogenannte Frieden von Versailles hat, den Haß und die Rache verewigend, die Vçlker in einem so erschreckenden Maße dem Unfrieden, dem wirtschaftlichen Niedergang, dem Hunger preisgegeben, wie es in der Geschichte beispiellos ist. Und unsere deutsche Not ist durch das Diktat îber Oberschlesien auf ihrem dunkelsten Tiefpunkt gekommen. Die dem klaren Selbstbestimmungswillen der Bevçlkerung zuwiderlaufende Zerreißung Oberschlesiens ist ein Hohn auf die Gerechtigkeit und eine furchtbare Gefhrdung des Weltfriedens. Um so strahlender bleibt vor meinem zukunftssehnenden Auge das christliche Ideal der Solidaritt Aller, die Menschenantlitz tragen. Um so inniger bleibe ich aber auch mit meinem unglîcklichen Volk verwachsen, und um so fester werde ich den jetzt neu versklavten Hunderttausenden meiner Landsleute die Treue halten. Um so trotziger bleibt meine Zuversicht, daß im Weltenplane Gottes der Haß und die Ungerechtigkeit nicht das letzt Wort haben … Beugen wir selbst uns denn, ein jeder bei sich anfangend, mehr und mehr in tiefem Bußernst unter die Wahrheit des lebendigen Gottes! Je ernster wir selber es mit dieser evangelischen und reformatorischen Beugung unter die Wahrheit nehmen, um so mehr erwerben wir uns ein Recht zu der Erwartung und Forderung, daß sich auch die Herzen der mit uns noch verfeindeten Glaubensgenossen der Wahrheit çffnen und daß dann Gesinnung und Tat christlicher Solidaritt wiederherstellen helfen, was wir vor Gott und Menschen haben mîssen und was die Voraussetzung ist fîr den Frieden der Welt: unser Recht und unsere Freiheit. Berlin-Wilmersdorf, den 31. Oktober 1921. [signed] Adolf Deißmann

Appendix to chapter 8 8, a. Extract from Deissmann’s dedication speech for a memorial cross at Zossen, 10. 7. 1915 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 6)

It is cited in Besier, Quellen and Arbeitsbuch, 125 – 127. Ein Kreuz aus Holz, mit Ngeln beschlagen, sei das Sinnbild der Gedanken, die uns erfîllen. Mit unseren eisernen Zeichen bedeckt, soll dieses Holzkreuz aus dem Heldenzeitalter unseres deutschen Ringens hineinragen in die deutsche Zukunft. Zeugnis soll es ablegen von dem Geiste, der 1914/15 bei uns lebendig ist an der Front und in der Heimat … Erzhlen soll das Zossener Eisenkreuz von den Tausenden und aber Tausenden, die auf den Ruf des Kaisers … voll jauchzender Freude in den Vçlkerkampf hinausgezogen … und die dann zu Hunderten ihr Leben willig dahingaben zum Schutze der bedrngten Heimat. Festhalten soll das Kreuz auch das Gedchtnis der Monate, als unsere ruhmgekrçnten Streiter von Woche zu Woche die lebendigen Trophen ihrer Siege zu Hunderttausenden ins deutsche Land sandten. Zehntausende von ihnen kamen auch hierher nach Zossen und Wînsdorf, ein buntes Gewimmel von Franzosen, Englndern und Russen, von Europern, Kanadiern, Australiern und kulturtriefenden Afrikanern und Asiaten, mit ihrem Geschick in unserer deutschen Pflege bald ausgesçhnt. * * * 8, b. Extract from Deissmann’s book, The Haskell Lectures (References: ch. 8, nn. 10, 219)

This extract is drawn from pp. 170 – 4 and concerns Deissmann’s spiritual journey from rational theology to mystical Christianity (see also Appendix 8, u).

474

Appendix to chapter 8

Many believe that the religious value of a Biblical text depends on the results of historical criticism. As a young theologian I shared this opinion. But I came to regard it more and more as untenable. With the final rejection of that principle, I experienced a beneficent inner deliverance. I was of the opinion that the demonstration of the historical value of the New Testament was the basis for the recognition and validity of its religious value. I thought that theological science must for each new generation, perhaps with new methods, first bring the demonstration of the historical value of the classical sources of the New Testament, and that on this foundation would arise the religious value, and the religious appreciation of the New Testament would be possible, beginning with personal edification and going on to the edification of communities and inspiration of the work of evangelization and missions. Put in other words, if the demonstration of the historical value of the classical sources should fail, as a whole or in part, through a proof of the spuriousness of any one of the texts, then the religious foundation not only of the Christian Church but also of Christianity in general would be shaken. This theory to which I look back today with sympathy as belonging to struggling youth, expressed in formula would be this: the historical is the basis of the holy. Whoever understands this formula in all that it implies will perceive that with it an attitude is taken to one of the greatest problems of modern thought since the time of Richard Simon, Spinoza, and Lessing. It is a problem, recognized or not, that lies behind all controversies about the Bible which have moved and shaken, impoverished and enriched, Christendom since historical criticism entered into theology. I cannot unfold at full length this problem of the relation of the historical to the holy. I must be content with emphasizing that I became more and more convinced of the primacy and the autonomy of the holy … the holy is prehistoric and metahistoric. The holy does not live on the favors of history. It lives on the secret of divine spontaneous generation … With these main indications I profess a conception of religion which is more mystic and practical than intellectual. Religion, and especially Christian religion, does not consist for me in the first place in acknowledging certain facts of the past. Christian religion is to me a living and moving in the present living God, a fellowship with the living Christ, which is a fellowship of submission and of following Him. The facts of the past have an eminent religious value, but they acquire that value from our present faith. The facts of the past are not the basis of faith. The only basis of our faith is the present living God, and Jesus

Appendix to chapter 8

475

Christ when He has become for us in some way or other a present and effective Reality. * * * 8, c. Transcript of the Aufruf ‘An die deutsche Jugend’ (c. end of 1918) (Reference: ch. 8, nn. 12 – 14)

Eine neue Zeit ist angebrochen, whrend die deutsche Jugend mit einem Heldenmut und Opfersinn sondergleichen die Heimat verteidigte und dem Feinde den Eintritt in deutsches Gebiet wehrte. Unser Land ist von den Verwîstungen des Krieges fast ganz verschont geblieben. Das danken wir denen, die in dem blutigsten aller Kriege jahrelang Mîhen und Entbehrungen auf sich genommen haben, und wir sind uns dieses Dankes in tiefer Seele bewußt. Wer aus dem Felde zurîckkehrt, wer in den Kreis der Seinen eintritt und dachte, er wîrde sich der ersten Stunden des wiedergegebenen Friedens in ruhigem Genuß erfreuen kçnnen, der sieht sich getuscht. In ein schicksalschweres Geschehen wird er gerissen, das alles, was dem deutschen Volk an Kraft geblieben ist, herausfordert. Jeder Einzelne ist dabei zum Handeln berufen, zum Handeln verpflichtet. Niemand darf beiseitestehen; jeder muß sich rîhren und Partei ergreifen. Denn der Bau unseres Vaterlandes ist zusammengebrochen. Da heißt es: abstoßen, was zermîrbt und vermorscht war, aufraffen, was noch lebenskrftige Elemente birgt und als wertvolles Band zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft dienen kann, schçpferische neue Formen gestalten. Wenn wir jetzt das Wort an die deutsche Jugend richten, so wird uns vielleicht die Frage entgegengerufen: weshalb fîhlt gerade ihr euch befugt, euch an uns zu wenden? Es ist der Augenblick der großen Rechenschafts- und Sîhneforderungen, aber auch der Augenblick der großen Vertrauensbeweise und Gewissensentlastungen. Wir kçnnen sagen, daß wir fîr den neuen Geist ttig gewesen sind, whrend noch die alten Krfte am Werke waren. Wir haben gearbeitet und gewirkt, soweit es mçglich war. War [sic] haben erkannt, daß die Fîhrung der deutschen Politik dem Abgrund zutrieb. Jeder von uns hat an seiner Stelle versucht, die zerstçrerischen Machtfaktoren einzudmmen und aufzuhalten, dem Geist der Mßigung und Beschrnkung, der Vernunft und Wahrhaftigkeit Gehçr zu verschaffen. Durch zahlreiche Kanle hat die Gesinnung, die wir gepflegt und hochgehalten, die Anschauung, die wir gewonnen haben, ihren Weg in weite und immer weitere Kreise gefunden. Kein

476

Appendix to chapter 8

Mißverstehen, keine Anfeindung hat uns abgehalten, uns zu dem, was wir als recht erfunden haben, zu bekennen. Die Aufgaben, die sich vor dem deutschen Volke auftîrmten, und was im Bereiche des Mçglichen lag, haben wir klar ins Auge gefaßt, ohne uns trîgerischen Hoffnungen hinzugeben und uns îber die Wirklichkeiten hinwegzutuschen. So haben wir fîr die Gegenwart vorgearbeitet, und deshalb dîrfen wir Vertrauen fordern vonseiten aller derer, die um eine sinnvolle Gestaltung unserer Zukunft ehrlich bemîht sind. Die Zukunft gehçrt der deutschen Jugend. Ohne sie wre alle unsere Arbeit vergeblich. Auf sie setzen wir unsere Erwartungen, grînden wir unsere Plne. Fîr sie wird der neue Staat errichtet, der fîr eine reichere Entfaltung ihres Lebens Spielraum bieten soll. Ereignisse von elementarer Wucht haben alte Gewalten und Wertungen mit einem Schlage vernichtet. Sie sind nicht wiederherstellbar. Eine Machtpolitik, die in ihrer Ueberspannung und Verblendung îber alle Grenzen und Ziele hinwegsah, ein Nationalismus, der die Rechte anderer mißachtete, eine einseitig militaristische Auffassung, die in alle Zweige des çffentlichen Lebens îbergriff, eine bîrokratische Beamtenhierarchie, die vielfach ohne Verbindung war mit den lebendigen Krften des Volkes, – das alles hat sich selbst das Urteil gesprochen. Es ist gestîrzt, weil sich die Aufgabe, in deren Dienst sich das ganze System stellte, als unlçsbar erwies. Sobald einmal erkannt war, daß dieses System an dem Unglîck, das Deutschland betroffen hat, mit Schuld trug, gab es kein Halten mehr. Es ist hinweggefegt worden durch eine Revolution – darein haben wir uns zu finden, mag auch mancher bedauern, daß Institutionen und Ideale, die ihm teuer waren, in Trîmmer gelegt sind. Blicken wir auf die Leistungen des deutschen Volkes in diesem Kriege zurîck, an denen die Jugend einen so starken Anteil hat, so haben wir gewiß allen Grund stolz zu sein. Mit ererbter Manneszucht, mit Pflichtgefîhl und Tapferkeit sind die schwierigsten Hindernisse îberwunden worden. Der Geist unserer großen Denker, ein Gefîhl fîr das, was an dem deutschen Geiste zeugend und schçpferisch ist, begleitet viele in den Kampf, – davon geben zahlreiche Briefe aus dem Felde Kunde. Vor dem, was unsere sittliche, geistige und staatliche Entwicklung groß gemacht hat, kann sich kein billig Urteilender verschließen. Jetzt ist aber nicht der Augenblick, Vergangenem nachzuklagen, sondern mit aller Energie Kommendes anzubahnen. Es darf vielleicht als ein Glîck angesehen werden, daß uns keine Zeit bleibt, lhmenden Gedanken îber die Niederlage nachzuhngen, daß wir sogleich zu einer gewaltigen, verheißungsvollen Leistung aufgerufen werden: unseren inneren Aufbau

Appendix to chapter 8

477

selbst in die Hand zu nehmen. Deutschlands Militrmacht ist besiegt, aber die deutsche Volkskraft, der deutsche Lebenswille, die deutsche Seele sind ungebrochen. Aus ihnen heraus muß sich die Erneuerung vollziehen. Dieser Regenerationsprozeß kann nur auf einer demokratischen Grundlage vor sich gehen. Demokratie bedeutet: gleiche Rechte fîr alle, Schutz auch der Minoritten, keine Vergewaltigung durch irgend eine Klasse oder Instanz. Der erste Schritt fîr eine wahrhaft demokratische Gestaltung muß sein: eine gesetzgebende Versammlung einzuberufen, die, aus dem allgemeinen, gleichen Wahlrecht hervorgegangen, den Willen des gesamten Volkes zum Ausdruck bringt. Als einen besonderen Gewinn und als einen Ersatz fîr manchen Verlust dîrfen wir es begrîßen, daß unsere Stammesgenossen in Oesterreich sich entschlossen haben, ihr Geschick mit dem unsrigen zu verketten. Die Farben Schwarz-Rot-Gold sollen ein Symbol sein fîr den Geist, der auf der gesetzgebenden Versammlung ruht. Was viele der Besten unserer Ahnen in der Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts als hçchstes Ziel ihrer Wînsche ersehnten, drngt, lebendige Wirklichkeit zu werden. Ein Einheitsstaat, der alle deutschen Stmme umschließt, mit einer demokratischen Verfassung, soll aus der Nationalversammlung hervorgehen. Das dieses Ziel erreicht wird, darauf mîssen jetzt alle Krfte zusammenwirken. In diesem Gedanken mîssen sich alle vereinigen! Der neue deutsche Staat soll sich als ein Glied einfîgen in jene hçhere Gemeinschaft, die als Vçlkerbund die zivilisierten Nationen umfaßt und bestimmt ist, die zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen zu regeln, die Rechte und Lebensnotwendigkeiten der einzelnen Nationen zu schîtzen, die vçlkerverbindenden Gedanken zu fçrdern, die Arbeit des Friedens und den Fortschritt der Kultur zu begînstigen. Wir wollen uns diesen Plan mit voller Ehrlichkeit und Aufrichtigkeit zu eigen machen in der Voraussetzung, daß wir als Gleichberechtigte in den Rat der Nationen eintreten, der durch eine zwischenstaatliche Organisation kînftighin jeden Konfliktsstoff mçglichst aus dem Wege rumen soll. Schon vor dem Kriege hatte sich deutscher Geist an dem Gedankenausbau solch einer Institution beteiligt. Liegen doch fîr alles, was wir anstreben und erreichen wollen, die Keime und Anstze schon bereit in unserer eigenen Entwicklung seit mehr als hundert Jahren: es ist uns nichts von außen aufgezwungen worden. Wie aber so oft in der Geschichte sind Krfte, die durch einen stetigen Druck an ihrer Entfaltung gehemmt waren, plçtzlich durch eine gewaltsame Krise gelçst worden und kçnnen sich nun, nachdem die Hindernisse gefallen sind, frei ihrem Ziel zu bewegen.

478

Appendix to chapter 8

Eine solche plçtzliche und radikale Lçsung birgt aber Gefahren in sich. Unter dem Sturz des Alten droht manches verschîttet zu werden, was nicht zum Untergang bestimmt war und Anknîpfungspunkte bieten kann fîr Fragen und Probleme der Zukunft. Im Namen der Freiheit wird manche Mauer niedergerissen, die ihre Standfestigkeit bewhrt hat. Es gibt eine Art von modernem Geist, der mehr zerfetzend als aufbauend, mehr verneinend als bejahend ist. Revolutionre Zeiten spîlen allerhand Existenzen, Abenteurer und Flibustier des Geistes, an die Oberflche, von denen die allgemeine Verwirrung benutzt wird, um unklare und unreife Vorstellungen in die Masse zu werfen, zîgel- und zuchtlose Gedanken als echte Freiheitsideale vorzuspiegeln, Vorhandenes, das sich als gehaltsvoll und dauerhaft erwiesen hat, geringschtzig beiseite zu schieben. Sie erreichen damit nur, daß sie den Bestand der Kultur der Anarchie und dem Chaos ausliefern. Hinter verblîffenden Ueberspanntheiten und Maßlosigkeiten verstecken sie die Armut, Leere und Undurchfîhrbarkeit ihrer Gedanken. Sie drngen sich an die Jugend heran, weil sie ihr nicht das Unterscheidungsvermçgen zwischen Ideal und Farce zutrauen. Unduldsam in ihrem Gebaren trachten sie alles zu terrorisieren, was nicht Folge leisten will. Freiheit kann sich aber nur dann als Glîck erweisen, wenn sie von freiwilliger Selbstzucht und Selbstbescheidung geleitet ist. Sie darf nicht zur Vergewaltigung der Freiheit Andersdenkender Entwîrdigt werden. Das deutsche Volk hatte den Weltkrieg auf sich genommen, weil es neben dem heimatlichen Boden die Gîter seiner Kultur zu verteidigen dachte. Hîten wir uns, daß nicht eine dem Kriege entwachsene Revolution uns um einen wesentlichen Teil unserer Kulturerrungenschaft bringt. Diejenigen Kreise der deutschen Jugend, die sich nicht durch falsche Propheten und neuerungssîchtige Aufpeitscher den Kopf verwirren lassen, mçgen sich zusammentun zur Wahrung des Errungenen. Sie dîrfen sich nicht ausschalten lassen, die Stunde gebietet, daß sie mit Ueberzeugungstreue und Festigkeit ihren Willen kundtun und ihr Gewicht in die Wagschale werfen. In solcher Gesinnung mçgen sie sich mit uns vereinigen. Weit entfernt davon, bloße Anbeter des Gewordenen zu sein, wollen wir nicht Verstaubtes und Ueberholtes kînstlich konservieren. Wir glauben einen freien und offenen Blick zu haben fîr alles Werdende, das entwicklungsfhig ist. Deshalb gehen wir Hand in Hand mit der Jugend. Wir erkennen an, daß das Erziehungswesen, Schulen und hçhere Bildungsanstalten, und vieles andere reformbedîrftig ist, aber wir wollen verhîten, daß Reformen aus einer Augenblicksstimmung heraus

Appendix to chapter 8

479

îberstîrzt werden. Wir glauben, den Interessen der Jugend zu dienen, wenn wir sie davor bewahren mçchten, daß ein politischer Umschwung und eine Uebergangszeit fîr Experimente auf geistigem Gebiet ausgebeutet wird. Nach der Einbuße an politischer Macht bleibt uns unsere geistige und sittliche Macht. Gestrkt durch die lebendigen Krfte, die uns aus den reichen Quellen unserer Vergangenheit zustrçmen, und erfîllt von neuen, aus den Bedîrfnissen der Gegenwart geborenen Gedanken, die nicht nur einer Mode des Tages und einem Antrieb der Stunde entspringen, sondern, auf echte und edle Werte begrîndet, ein stets und klar erkanntes Ziel ins Auge fassen, wollen wir auf eine Erneuerung hinarbeiten, durch die ein sicheres Fundament fîr unsere Zukunft gelegt wird. Wir sind bereit und gerîstet, der Jugend zur Seite zu stehen, wenn sie uns braucht, wie wir in den Tagen des Kampfes die geistige Front fîr sie gehalten haben. Gemeinsam mit ihr wollen wir die Wiederaufrichtung unseres Vaterlandes im Geiste wahrer Freiheit zur Durchfîhrung bringen. Prof. D. Adolf Deißmann; Prof. Heinrich Herkner; Prof. Hans Mackowsky, Kustos an der National-Galerie; Prof. Friedrich Meinecke; Prof. Walter Nernst; Prof. Samuel Saenger; Prof. Otto Schroeder, Dirktor des Kaiserin-Augusta-Gymnasiums; Lic. F. Siegmund-Schultze, Leiter des Jugendamts der Stadt Berlin; Prof. Ernst Troeltsch; Prof. Werner Weisbach. * * * 8, d. Extract from Deissmann’s speech, entitled, ‘Versailles’, 30. 6. 1919 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 15)

It was given at the Berlin University and reprinted in De Profundis, 55 – 8. Seitdem wir uns hier zuletzt um das Johannes-Evangelium vereint hatten, hat sich, am 28. Juni 1919, das tragische Schicksal unseres Vaterlandes vollendet. Zerschmettert liegt, in tiefer Erniedrigung und Schmach, das Deutsche Reich am Boden. Nicht genug damit, daß wir der um ein Vielfaches îbermchtigen Weltkoalition unserer Gegner erlegen sind: der, nach schndlichstem Bruch der feierlichen Abmachungen des Waffenstillstands mit ihrer klaren Verpflichtung auf die Vierzehn Punkte des Prsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Nordamerika, unter dem Wîrgestrick der (auch nach unserer Einstellung der Feindseligkeiten

480

Appendix to chapter 8

fortgesetzten) Hungerblockade und zuletzt durch neue Kriegsbedrohung erzwungene Friede von Versailles bedeutet nicht den Abschluß der unerhçrten Leidenszeit unseres Volkes. Er ist vielmehr der Anfang neuer langer Qualjahre insbesondere fîr die ørmsten und Schwchsten, fîr Frauen, Kinder und Alte; er erçffnet eine Periode der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Unfreiheit, wie wir sie in unserer alten und ehrenvollen Geschichte noch nie erlebt haben. Dieser Friede ist kein Friede. Dieser Friede ist kein frisch gepflîgter und neu bestellter Menschheitsacker, sonder eine Drachensaat siegestollen Vçlkerhasses, der die ganze Grçße seiner Raubsucht und rachgierigen Hybris sogar unter dem weltweiten Mantel seiner pharisischen Selbstgerechtigkeit nur schlecht verbergen kann. Dieser Friede ist keine Beendigung, sondern eine Verschrfung des Menschheitselends; denn er enthlt in keiner einzigen Zeile seiner Tausende von Stzen den einen Gedanken, der allein Licht verheißen htte nach der Finsternis dieser fînf Blutjahre: den gçttlichen und wahrhaft menschlichen Gedanken der Versçhnung! Dieser diktierte Rachefrieden, innerlich von allen verabscheut, ist unfhig, sich moralisch durchzusetzen. In welcher Gesinnung wollen wir als deutsche evangelische Theologen diesen Frieden hinnehmen? Ginge es nach unserem natîrlichen Menschen, so wre die Antwort leicht: das Lamechlied mit seiner siebenfachen und siebenundsiebzigfachen Rache wre, wie es seither die Weisheit der Entente gewesen ist, fortan unser nationales Evangelium. Aber als Haßgelîbde wre es doch eben ein Evangelium des Antichristen. Gewiss, wir mîssen in unzerstçrbarer Treue gegen unser Volk und insbesondere gegen die wider ihren Willen gewaltsam vom lebendigen Leibe unseres Volkes losgerissenen Glieder nicht rasten und ruhen, bis das Skularunrecht von Versailles gesîhnt ist und die fîr ein freiheit- und ehrliebendes Volk unertrglichen Ketten schmachvollen Frondienstes fîr die Fremden zerrissen sind. Aber den Weg dahin finden wir nicht im blinden, blutigen Haß, der ja nichts weiter vermag, als zu zerstçren; wir finden ihn allein durch die Mobilisation jener dem Haß weit îberlegenen Edelkrfte, um die wir uns als um das gçttliche Erbteil der großen Offenbarung unserer heiligen Urzeit Tag fîr Tag hier versammeln, wenn wir uns in das Neue Testament vertiefen. Am Anfang dieser Krfte steht îberall im Neuen Testament, im Evangelium wie bei den Aposteln, die bußfertige Selbsterkenntnis. Das heißt fîr uns heute: wir mîssen die schwere nationale Demîtigung als ein Gericht Gottes ansehen lernen, das uns zur persçnlichen und

Appendix to chapter 8

481

nationalen Luterung dienen soll, durch rîcksichtslose Verurteilung unserer persçnlichen und vçlkischen Verfehlung und durch mutigen Kampf gegen unsere persçnlichen und vçlkischen Schwchen. * * * 8, e. Newspaper article, ‘Britain to publish war documents’, 1. 1. 1925 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 17)

Printed in The Christian Century, 5. Although several acts of the new British conservative government have been far from assuring to the friends of world appeasement, the decision of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, minister for foreign affairs, in providing for the publication of all documents in the archives of the foreign office bearing on the origin of the world war, will be hailed with satisfaction. There is probably no one element in the present world situation that makes more insistently for irritation than the fiction of Germany’s sole war guilt, incorporated as that fiction is in the treaty of Versailles. The publication of official documents in all the countries where there have been changes in the form of government has undermined this theory to such an extent that it is not now held by responsible historians. In France, Italy and Great Britain there have been printed personal records tending to support the revelation of the state papers of the other countries. But none of these three has until now thrown its archives open to distinterested [sic] inspection, and until such inspection takes place the material for a final judgement on war guilt is necessarily incomplete. Great Britain, therefore, by deciding to make public the contents of its foreign office files, is rendering a conspicuous service. By his choice of Mr. Gooch and Major Temperly as investigators, Mr. Chamberlain makes it clear that the examination is to be thorough and honest. The work that Mr. Gooch has already done in this difficult field has been of great importance. If the Herriot government continues in power in France, and if M. Herriot is not forced to buy that position at too hight a price, it may well happened that the publication of the British documents will open the files of the French foreign office. *

*

*

482

Appendix to chapter 8

8, f. Extract from Deissmann’s Olaus-Petri lecture, ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’ (References: ch. 8, n. 18)

It was presented at Uppsala on 7 – 8.10.1918. IMW, 346 – 7. See also Appendix 9, j. Ich gedenke der Diskussionen vor zwei, drei Jahrzehnten îber den Begriff „Reich Gottes“ bei Jesus. Als damals strker und strker der Zukunftscharakter des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus erkannt wurde, ging das vielen Gutmeinenden auf die Nerven, und sie hatten alle mçglichen Befîrchtungen, daß man damit aus dem Bereiche anstndiger wohlgeordneter Kirchlichkeit in das Nebelland der Schwarmgeisterei komme. Ich muss gestehen, je mehr ich selbst erkannt habe, daß die Betonung des Zukunftscharakters des Reiches Gottes berechtigt ist, und je mehr mir der wachsende Ernst meiner Lebensfîhrung die praktischen Probleme der Gegenwart neben die Fragen der Bibelforschung gelegt hat, um so wertvoller ist mir jene Erkenntnis. Ich mçchte heute, nach vier Jahren Weltkrieg, die Gewißheit wahrhaftig nicht missen, daß wir nach dem Willen des Meisters des kommenden Reiches harren sollen und daß wir die Vaterunser-Bitte „Dein Reich komme!“ im ursprînglichsten Sinne Jesu beten dîrfen. Die alte Theorie wîrde mir heute nur eine hinter uns liegende Trîmmersttte zeigen; die neue Theorie stellt mich vor ein frisch zu pflîgendes Ackerfeld. * * * 8, g. Transcripts of two letters from Deissmann, concerning the care of prisoners of war within German territory I. Deissmann, letter to Nathan Sçderblom, 13. 4. 1915 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 37)

Hochverehrter Herr Erzbischof, lieber Freund! Sogleich nach Empfang Ihres ersten Briefes vom 15. 3. habe ich mich mit dem Kriegsministerium in Verbindung gesetzt. Der von Ihnen erwhnte Artikel lag dem Briefe nicht bei, ich konnte aber aus dem Texte des Briefes und der schwedischen und deutschen Beilage der Antwort Ihrer hochverehrten Frau Gemahlin ersehen, worum es sich handelte, und Ihre zweite Mitteilung vom 27. Mrz hat alles noch ergnzt. Ich fand sofort

Appendix to chapter 8

483

(trotz der durch die Anwesenheit von etwa 850,000 Gefangenen in Deutschland begreiflicher ˜berlastung der Leiter der betreffenden Abteilung des Kriegsministeriums) ein îberaus freundliches Entgegenkommen. Der eine der maßgebenden Herren, der die Verhandlungen fîhrte, musste dann eine lngere Revisionsreise durch die Gefangenenlager machen, lud mich aber sofort nach seiner Rîckkehr auf heute frîh zu einer Konferenz im Kriegsministerium. Dieselbe ist sehr befriedigend verlaufen. Der Herr, Hauptmann von Lîbbers, ist eine hochgebildete, vornehme Persçnlichkeit, mit der sofort der Kontakt unbedingten Vertrauens hergestellt ist. Herr von Lîbbers war îber Ihr Interesse sehr erfreut und lsst Ihnen dafîr seinen herzlichen Dank aussprechen. Er bat mich dann, Ihnen die beiden anliegenden Texte zu îbermitteln: 1., einen Erlass des Kriegsministeriums an das Auswrtige Amt îber die Grundstze der Behandlung unserer Kriegsgefangenen, vom 15.2.15. 2., einen Bericht des in der Gefangenenfîrsorge hervorragend ttigen Prof. D. Stange – Gçttingen (unseres bekannten Kollegen) îber das Lager in Gçttingen. Ich mache besonders auf den Schlusspassus dieses Berichtes aufmerksam, da[s] die Mitwirkung der Christl. Vereine junger Mnner in der Gefangenenfîrsorge betrifft. Von mir aus glaube ich versichern zu dîrfen, dass der peinlichkorrekte Geist unserer deutschen Verwaltung fîr die praktische Verwirklichung der oben genannten Grundstze îberall sorgt. Aber es finden fortwhrend durch die amerikanische und spanische Botschaft, durch das Rote Kreuz in Genf, durch philanthropische Organisationen Besuche und Prîfungen unserer Lager statt, die stets ein gînstiges Urteil im Gefolge haben … Herr von Lîbbers hat mich dann ermchtigt, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass Sie, falls Sie selbst (oder ein Vertrauensmann von Ihnen) sich durch den Augenschein von den Zustnden in den Lagern îberzeugen wollten, herzlich willkommen sein werden. Einen dahingehenden Wunsch Ihrerseits wîrde ich sehr gern an das Ministerium îbermitteln. Bei der Beurteilung unserer Gefangenenfîrsorge dîrfen die ungeheueren Schwierigkeiten nicht îbersehen werden, die schon allein auf hygienischem Gebiete bestehen … Und was die Verpflegung betrifft, so hat Ihre Gattin ganz recht, wenn Sie schreibt, dass manches deutsche Pfarrhaus nicht so reichlich und krftig isst, wie die Kriegsgefangenen es kçnnen.

484

Appendix to chapter 8

Herr Hauptmann von Lîbbers ersuchte mich Ihnen noch eine Bitte vorzutragen. Der Weltbund der Christl. Vereine junger Mnner hat auch in Russland die Absicht, sich der Gefangenen anzunehmen, findet dort aber dem Vernehmen nach bis jetzt kein Entgegenkommen bei den Behçrden. Kçnnten Sie Ihren Einfluss vielleicht zugunsten der Bestrebungen des Weltbundes geltend machen? Wenn ich recht unterrichtet bin, interessiert sich Herr Graf Pahlen, in St. Petersburg fîr die Sache, und von ihm kçnnten Sie Nheres hçren. Ich stehe, verehrtester Freund, auch in Zukunft gern zu Ihrem Dienste, wenn Sie Ihr außerordentlich gîtiges Interesse fîr die Gefangenen bettigen wollen und verbleibe mit den herzlichsten Grîßen von Haus zu Haus [signed] Ihr treu ergebener Adolf Deißmann ____________ II. Deissmann, letter to Emil Fleury, 14. 4. 1915 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 37)

Hochgeehrter Herr Leutnant! Ihr Freund Mr. Herbert Adams Gibbons, mit dem ich seit einem Besuch in Tarsus 1909 befreundet bin und der mich im Dezember 1914 hier besucht hat, bat mich Ihnen in seinem Namen ein Packet mit Lebensmitteln zu senden. Da es nicht erlaubt ist, dass aus Deutschland Lebensmittel in die Lager gesandt werden, bat ich Mr. Gibbons, er mçge Ihnen direkt aus Paris ein Packet senden, was ja erlaubt ist. Ich wollte Sie, sehr geehrter Herr Leutnant, aber doch sogleich von der freundlichen Absicht Ihres Freundes verstndigen, da ich glaube, auch der Wille allein macht Freude. Gleichzeitig mçchte ich Ihnen meine Dienste anbieten, falls Sie jetzt oder spter irgendein Anliegen haben, das zu erfîllen ich imstande bin. Mit den besten Wînschen fîr Ihr Wohl habe ich die Ehre zu sein [signed] Ihr ergebenster D. Adolf Deißmann Ord. Professor der Theologie an der Kgl. Universitt Berlin *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 8

485

8, h. Extract from the Pr.WL, 15. 12. 1916 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 41)

This extract is from pp. 4 – 5 and concerns Deissmann’s reaction to the Kaiser’s peace proposal that year. December 12. is a day of historic moment and world-wide importance, and will ever be memorable to us since it arrived while we were still in Wilna. Surrounded by our field chaplains we had just gathered around the dinner table in the German Solders’ Home, when the pastor of this rendezvous for our soldiers, greatly stirred, entered the dining-hall and began to read the Kaiser’s general order for the army which had been received at the telephone office a few minutes before. The Kaiser therein communicated to both army and navy that jointly with the rulers of the Allied States he had made a peace-proposal to his opponents. At the same time when this message, sent out to tell the world of the peaceful intentions of the German Government and people, reached our various fronts in East and West and South, covering on its way a distance of some thousands of kilometers, the Chancellor in Berlin before the assembled Reichstag read the full text of this momentous declaration. Soon everywhere in Wilna extras were handed out and the people flocked to the windows and signposts to read the stirring news, and side by side with the Lithuanians and poles our tan-faced soldiers discussed this epochmaking event with animation. I value the political and moral consequence of the German peaceproposal very highly. Having reached a climax in our military successes, we put the question of peace, the great question of humanity to our opponents. Herewith Germany has confirmed anew that state of mind and heart of which, in spite of the campaign of lies and slander started and vigorously continued by our adversaries, it was possessed from the beginning. Hindenburg, our national hero, is right when speaking in a telegram to the Chancellor with reference to the peace-proposal of „the deep moral convictions to which the German people had given so vigorous an expression.“ It was last summer when my friend Dr. James Hope Moulton (Manchester), one of England’s best men, in a letter from Bombay (June 2, 1916) made the following statement: „Till your Kaiser cries ‘Enough!’, shells and other horrors must go on destroying lives that neither country can spare.“

486

Appendix to chapter 8

These words were written under the assumption, held in good faith, that the Kaiser was the disturber of the peace in this world and that he alone could put an end to the carnage. I do not wish to again enter upon the question, so often discussed, as to who is to blame for this world struggle. The murder of Serajewo was its immediate cause and for this we cannot be held responsible. Today it suffices to call attention to the fact that, after the splendid achievements in the Roumanian campaign, the Kaiser in behalf of humanity actually has stretched out his hand for peace and reconciliation, that he actually cried his „Enough!“ Will our opponents grasp his hand? In calm reserve we will wait whether they will take upon themselves the responsibility for carrying on the war. „Whatever comes, we are ready!“ * * * 8, i. Transcript of Pr.WL, 31. 12. 1915 (References: ch. 8, nn. 56, 61)

It concerns Deissmann’s perspective of the Quakers, and is reprinted in full here. The closing year reminds me of a debt, still unpaid, which must be attended to before the first day of 1916 has greeted us. It concerns a brotherly request, recently and repeatedly expressed from members among the Society of Friends in North America, viz: to say something about the great theme, „The War and the Gospel.“ To Mr. Edward C. Wood, member of the Board of Directors of the „Christian Association of the University of Pennsylvania“, Howard Houston Hall, West Philadelphia, Pa., I am especially indebted for having time and gain attempted in touching words to present the arguments in favor of the truly Biblical standpoint of „non-resistance“. I am grateful to him for having introduced me into the world of ideas and ideals of the American Friends through aptly chosen newspaper clippings, pamphlets and sermons. This correspondence with the Friends has given me much pleasure for a two-fold reason: First, because of its manly frankness in declaring war against war, no matter who may be engaged in the same. Germany is wrong in carrying on the war, but England also is guilty of the same crime, that is the sum and substance of all these letters. One American

Appendix to chapter 8

487

Friend even goes so far as to write: „Our President seems to be living in the Old Testament period of civilization, as most of Europe is doing“. In the second place, I am touched by the confidence which they seem to place in me and my good will. I am very grateful for the same, and assure them that I shall never forget it. In this age when international hatred is holding its orgies, every manifestation of willingness for a square deal and mutual understanding acts like a firm grip of the hand. Just as I should never be writing these „Weekly Letters“, did I not believe in the goodwill of the people across the Atlantic, so I can assure you that this bona voluntas is not lacking with us either. „Belonging to the Old Testament period,“ „unchristian“ the Quakers believe this conflict, to be, as well as every other struggle, because our Savior commanded us to love our enemies, and exhorted us, especially, not „to resist him that is evil“, (Mat 5,39). This point of view seems clear and its motivation is certainly biblical; without further argument, I can truthfully say, that I have the greatest respect for everyone, who, for conscience’ sake, and in the literal fulfillment of these words of Jesus, refuses to take up arms, and keeps his distance from everything having the odor of gunpowder, even to the extent of personal martyrdom for his conviction. Nevertheless I am just as convinced that the problem of „resistance“ and „war“ is not solved by referring to these simple words of the Master. The oftener I work over the Sermon on the Mount, the more evident it becomes to me: We dare not apply these words of Jesus, any more than in other sayings, as single paragraphs of a law code, nor dare we petrify the wonderful intentional paradox these words express by sticking to the exegesis of the letter. All the sayings of Jesus being a reflex of his own thought, appeal to our sentiment and to our conscience; their purpose is not, like a manual of casuistry, to lay down good rules for every possible case, but to discipline our hearts and minds toward that „perfection“, which our heavenly Father possesses. In the words referred to above, Jesus’ aim is to train us in forbearance, indulgence, and willingness for sacrifice, yea in love, which includes even our enemy. The self-sacrificing love for our neighbor, which otherwise is the Alpha and Omega of the Master’s mind and teaching, is on that account by no means set asside [sic] or made obsolete. There are numerous instances where, by abandoning resistance „to him that is evil“, the love to the neighbor would be made of no effect. I cannot draw the unreal conclusion from Jesus’ words, that I must be an idle looker-on when robbers threaten the lives of the family members placed in my

488

Appendix to chapter 8

protective care, when an attack on my person endangers the life of their bread-winner and educator, or when the freedom of my people is hazarded by a greatly superior enemy. In such instances I refer the right to defend my neighbor from his law of love – even at the point of the sword, if necessary. Therefore personal or national self-defence in my opinion do not contradict the spirit of the Gospel for this age. War as such, isolated from the bitter causality of the necessity of defence for national existence, is a mockery of the Gospel. I feel this just as strongly as the sensitive and peaceloving soul of the Friends. Woe unto him who wilfully or presumptuously kindles any war. The distressing cry of the widow and orphan, the infant’s wail, the sorrow of the blind, the halt and the maimed, the smouldering ruins of human abode – all alike will once stand as his accusers before the judgment seat of God. On the other hand, he who is forced to carry on a war in self-defence, wishes to save his children from starvation, to protect the peaceful homes of his fellow citizens, and, with the greatest possible self-sacrifice, he is even willing to stake his life for these highest ideals. Just in this manly willingness to lay down his life for his people and country, the Christian can and does fulfill the highest ideal of love given by the Master: „Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends“, (John 15, 13), as well as that of the Apostle, who like Jesus, considers it the highest duty of love „to lay down our lives for the brethren“, (1 John 3, 16). As awful as war is in itself, and as great as the endeavor of every Christian must be, to hinder, if possible, a re-occurence of so horrible a tragedy as this present world struggle, nevertheless, many Christians, now, as in previous conflicts, though with bleeding hearts, have done their duty with a clear conscience. A „Friend“ asked me what I should do in case an Englishman attacked me with the intention to kill. This question is very difficult to answer theoretically while engaged in a peaceful task at my desk; I believe, though, in such moments of immediate danger, long deliberation has little space, and presume that even a „Friend“ under similar circumstances, would resist without much consideration. At all events, I should try, with every means at my disposal, to hinder the Englishman’s crime against his fellowman. Thereby I take it for granted, the question refers to an attack of an English civilian assaulting me as a civilian, perchance in Whitechapel or elsewhere. Should it refer to the attack of a soldier assaulting me as soldier in time of war, I would, without any

Appendix to chapter 8

489

personal malice toward my opponent, attempt to do my duty toward my country. I believe myself just as capable, however, of rushing to his immediate aid, should I have been compelled to wound him. At a Christmas celebration with the students in my New Testament Seminar at the University on the last Sunday in Advent, one student gave a short address under the candle-lit Christmas tree on the subject: „The New Testament in time of War.“ This young man is that same Ulan volunteer, whose exegesis of Romans 3, 25 I communicated to you last winter. After many long months at the front, he, on account of severe illness, was forced to return home, and now in his Ulan uniform is again pursuing his studies in theology. The fundamental note of his address, true to fact and full of Christian patriotism was: During a war the New Testament does not affect a person so much as a book that is read, but rather as an energy manifesting itself outwardly. As an unspeakably great, yea, even the greatest effect the New Testament has in time of war, this well-bred and gifted young man, who has tasted all the horrors of the conflict, characterized the spirit of unselfish sacrifice in which millions lay down their live for the brethren – a sacrifice, before the awful grandeur of which we stand in silent admiration. I wish to ask these „Friends“, who have honored me by calling me their friend: Is this testimony of a fellow-combatant, who was not only a warrior, but a Christian at the same time – is not this testimony an all-important contribution, worthy of notice, to my answer to your question? What must certainly have been unsatisfactory from a purely theoretical standpoint, will perhaps be understood more easily from this illustration based upon practical experience. * * * 8, j. Transcript of Deissmann’s letter to Ministerialrat Reinhold Richter, 4. 12. 1922 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 63)

It provides details of Deissmann’s itinerary in England. Hochverehrter Herr Geheimrat! In Verfolg unseres Gesprches neulich mçchte ich hierdurch nun auch noch formell mitteilen, dass ich von den ‘Selly Oak Colleges Central Council’ in Selly Oak bei Birmingham eine Einladung erhalten habe, im Febr. und Mrz 1923 sechs Wochen lang Vorlesungen îber Jesus und Paulus zu halten. Es handelt sich um 5

490

Appendix to chapter 8

verschiedene, aber fîr bestimmte Aktionen gemeinsam auftretende Colleges: Woodbrooke (Quker-Hochschule fîr religiçse u. soziale Studien); Kingsmead (Quker-Missionssemiar); Westhill (Seminar fîr Ausbildung von Erziehern besonders fîr Jugendpflege); Fircroft (Arbeiterhochschule); Carey Hill (Seminar fîr Missionarinnen). Ich soll dort wçchentlich an zwei Tagen je 11/2 Stunden in englischer Sprache lesen. Zwischendurch komme ich wohl viel im Land herum, zu Vorlesungen und evangelischen Ansprachen. Bis jetzt habe ich Einladungen nach London (Whitefield Mission und Religionswissensch. Gesellschaft) und Dudley (Vereinigte Freikirchen), sowie persçnliche Einladungen des Bischofs von Oxford und des Dean von Worcester. Des Weiteren soll ich bei dem großen Jahreskongress der Freikirchen reden. Alles ohne das geringste Zutun meinerseits, sondern ganz aus freister und freundlichster Initiative der Englnder. Auch fîr Holland habe ich, als man dort von meiner Reise las, Einladungen zu Vorlesungen in Leiden und Rotterdam. Apostolisch redend kçnnte ich sagen: h¼qa loi !m´\cem lec²kg ja· 1meqc¶r. Da glaube ich verantworten zu kçnnen, wenn ich um Urlaub bitte ab 10. Februar 1923. Meine hiesigen Vorlesungen werde ich entsprechend komprimieren; das Seminar kann Lic. Michaelis zu Ende fîhren. Ich habe das Ausw. Amt schon benachrichtigt und wre dankbar fîr ein Wort der Empfehlung dort (z. H. des Herrn Ministerialdirektor Heilbron). Mit der ergebenster Bitte, auch Herrn Staatsminister Dr. Becker dieses Schreiben gîtigst zu zeigen und besten Empfehlungen [signed] Ihr ergebenster Adolf Deißmann * * * 8, k. Overview of Deissmann’s Selly Oak lectures (Reference: ch. 8, n. 63)

The lectures were printed in book format, entitled: The religion of Jesus and the faith of Paul. The Selly Oak Lectures, 1923 on the communion of Jesus with God & the communion of Paul with Christ, London, 1923. No German edition was produced, possibly because of Deissmann’s concern that these homiletic lectures could be misconstrued by German critics as pandering to ‘Quakerism’, as the translator’s note by William E. Wilson seems to intimate:

Appendix to chapter 8

491

There is no German edition of this book. My function as translator was much more intimate and personal than is that of one who renders a printed book out of one language into another. The privilege of the hours spent with Professor Deissmann when we gave his thought, expressed in German, the English dress presented in these lectures is one on which I shall always look back with the deepest pleasure. I know I am only expressing the feelings of all my colleagues at Selly Oak and of the students there in saying that we welcomed Dr. Deissmann as a great scholar and theologian, and that we parted from him as a great religious teacher and a personal friend.

The 284-page book is divided into two main parts (‘Communion with God in the experience of Jesus’, and ‘Communion with Christ in the experience of Paul’), consisting of five chapters each. Part 1: 1: ‘The task, the sources and the method’ 2: ‘The prayer life of Jesus as the reflex of his communion with God’ 3: ‘The communion of Jesus with God the Father and God the Lord’ 4: ‘The working out of communion with God in the message of the kingdom’ 5: ‘The dynamic culmination of communion with God in Jesus’ consciousness of mission and messiaship. What new thing did Jesus bring? ’ Part 2: 1: The task, the sources and the method. Preliminary exegetical questions’ 2: ‘The beginning and essential nature of communion with Christ’ 3: ‘Salvation in communion with Christ’ 4: ‘The new creation in communion with Christ. The fellowship of the suffering of Christ’ 5: ‘Christ – mysticism and ethics. Later developments from the Pauline community with Christ’ * * * 8, l. Extract from Der Krieg und die Religion (Reference: ch. 8, n. 93)

This extract is drawn from pp. 17 – 18 and concerns the idea of a ‘German God’. Wie der einzelne den hçchsten Flug zur Gottesgemeinschaft tut, wenn er bekennen kann: „Mein Gott“, wenn der tote theoretische Begriff „Gott“

492

Appendix to chapter 8

Fleisch und Blut geworden ist, indem der Fromme sich mit „seinem“ Gott verbindet, so erreicht die Volksgemeinde ihren Aufstieg, wenn sie mit „ihrem“ Gott eins wird. Darin liegt keine Gefahr fîr die Menschheit. Wie der einzelne „seinen“ Gott nicht dem anderen streitig macht, sondern Gott preist, wenn mçglichst oft ein einzelner ihn als „seinen“ Gott findet, so streiten wir auch als Volk mit den anderen Vçlkern nicht um den Besitz Gottes. Wir gçnnen ihnen diesen Besitz. Das Bekenntnis zu „unserem“ Gott und Vater ist nicht ordinr exklusiv, ist darum kein religiçser Atavismus; unsere deutschen Kirchen haben bis jetzt auch die Feinde in ihren Gebeten nicht vergessen, und hinter den lauten Bittgebeten unserer Volksgemeinde steht heimlich die stille Sehnsucht nach dem Menschheits-Vaterunser, zu welchem alle Vçlker und Zungen sich dereinst vereinigen mîssen. Und so ist die religiçse Stimmung, die durch das Wort von dem „deutschen Gott“ charakterisierbar ist, nicht mit dem Schlagwort „minderwertige Volksreligion“ beschrieben und abgetan; die Losung vom deutschen Gott symbolisiert nur jene Sthlung, jene Heroisierung unserer Religion, die uns die harte Zeit gebracht hat, und in der Geschichte sind die Zeitalter solcher Religionssthlung immer Hçhepunkte. Ein hollndischer Freund schrieb mir in einem brîderlichen Briefe kîrzlich, er erschrecke vor dem „deutschen“ Gott; ich antwortete ihm, wir in Deutschland beteten viel zu dem niederlndischen Gott, in den altniederlndischen Gebetsliedern, die in jeder Schulklasse und jeder Kompagnie gesungen werden, und unsere Berliner Universitt habe die Arbeit ihres Kriegssemester begonnen mit dem niederlndischen Gebetslied von 1568 „Wilhelmus von Nassaue“: „Mein Schild und mein Vertrauen Bist du, mein Gott und Herr! Auf dich nur will ich bauen, Verlaß mich nimmermehr.“

Der Freund wird verstanden haben, was ich meinte: daß bei uns jetzt ein hnliches Heldenzeitalter der Religion angebrochen ist, wie bei ihnen unter dem Oranier „von deutschem Blut“, und daß wir nun nicht anders beten kçnnen, als ihre Vter vor drei Jahrhunderten zu ihrem – und unserem Gott. *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 8

493

8, m. ‘Neues Testament und Rassenfrage’, 23. 9. 1933 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 113)

This proclamation was drawn up by the Marburg Theological Faculty and published simultaneously in various German Christian papers. Aus dem Neuen Testament ist eine direkte Antwort auf die Rassenfrage nicht zu entnehmen, weil ihm die Rassenfrage und der Begriff der Rasse im modernen Sinne fremd sind. Auch der Antisemitismus, den es schon – freilich nicht durch den Begriff der Rasse bestimmt – in der damaligen Welt gegeben hat, spielt im Neuen Testament keine Rolle. Der Gegensatz „Jude – Grieche“ oder „Jude – Heide“ ist fîr das neutestamentliche Denken in der Erwhlung des jîdischen Volkes durch Gott begrîndet. Er wird deshalb weder als ein Gegensatz natîrlicher oder geistiger Volksindividualitten verstanden, noch als ein Unterschied des Wertes nach menschlichen Maßstben beurteilt. Sind fîr jîdisch-christliches Denken der neutestamentlichen Zeit die „Heiden“ in Sînden versunken, so wird diese Sîndigkeit nicht als Folge der natîrlichen Beschaffenheit der heidnischen Volkstîmer, als Ergebnis erbbiologischer Faktoren verstanden, sondern sie wird als Schuld beurteilt, die in der Urschuld, nmlich in der Verleugnung des auch fîr die Heiden erkennbaren Einen Gottes, begrîndet ist. Von Paulus wird aber der Gegensatz Juden – Heide als ein Gegensatz ethischer Qualitten îberhaupt bestritten durch den Hinweis darauf, daß Juden wie Heiden in gleicher Weise vor Gott Sînder sind: (Rçm. 3, 22: „Denn einen Unterschied gibt es nicht; gesîndigt haben sie alle“; vgl. îberhaupt Rçm. 1, 18 – 3, 20). Diese Behauptung spricht nur deutlich aus, was in der prophetischen, an das jîdische Volk gerichteten Gerichtspredigt vom Alten Testament îber den Tufer (vgl. Matth. 3, 9) bis zu Jesus teils implizit enthalten, teils auch gelegentlich schon ausgesprochen war (Matth. 8, 11 f.) Der Gegensatz Juden – Heiden als ein Gegensatz vçlkisch verschiedener Gruppen wird aber als vçllig irrelevant bezeichnet angesichts der von Gott in Christus gewirkten Heilstat, deren Sinn die Vergebung der Sînde und die Verleihung des Lebens an den ist, der sich im Glauben dem Urteil Gottes unterwirft, das in solcher Heilstat gesprochen ist. Von Paulus wird diese Irrelevanz mehrfach und deutlich ausgesprochen, Rçm. 3, 29: „Oder ist Gott nur Gott der Juden? Nicht auch der Heiden? Ja wohl auch der Heiden! Wenn anders es Ein Gott ist, der gerecht

494

Appendix to chapter 8

sprechen wird die Beschnittenen aus Glauben und die Unbeschnittenen aus Glauben“. Rçm. 10, 12: „Es ist hier kein Unterschied zwischen Juden und Griechen. Ein und derselbe ist aller Herr, der da reich ist fîr alle, die ihn anrufen“. (1. Kor. 12, 13; Gal. 3, 28; Kol. 3, 11). Solche Aussagen sind antithetisch motiviert. Der Konflikt zwischen Juden- und Heidenchristentum, aus dem die paulinischen Thesen erwachsen sind, hat seinen Grund nicht in der Frage nach Volkstum und Rasse, sondern in der Frage nach der Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen rituellen Gesetzes. So wenden sich freilich die paulinischen Stze in ihrer damaligen Aktualitt nicht gegen eine in Rassenbiologie begrîndete Weltanschauung, die ja îberhaupt nicht im Gesichtskreis des Neuen Testaments lag; aber sie lehnen grundstzlich und radikal die Ansicht ab, daß Unterschiede, die innerhalb der menschlichen Sphre einen – wie immer begrîndeten – Sinn haben, vor Gott irgend eine Bedeutung haben. Das kommt besonders deutlich darin zu Tage, daß fîr Paulus die heilsgeschichtlichen Charakteristika „Volk Israel“ und „Abrahams Same“ aus ihrer ursprînglichen Bindung an das jîdische Volk in seinem empirischen, natîrlichgeschichtlichen Bestande gelçst sind und als Charakteristika der aus jedem beliebigen Volkstum stammenden Glubigen gebraucht werden (Gal. 3, 6 – 29; 4, 21 – 31; 6, 16; Phil. 3, 3; Rçm. 2, 28 f.). Aus der grundstzlichen Gleichheit aller Menschen vor Gott als Sînder oder –sofern ein Mensch „glaubt“ – als Geretteter folgt nun fîr das Neue Testament nicht ein wirtschaftliches oder politisches Programm, das den Gleichheitsgedanken zum Prinzip der Umgestaltung der innerweltlichen Verhltnisse macht. Vielmehr wird solche Mçglichkeit ausdrîcklich abgewiesen (1. Kor. 7, 17 – 24; Philemon; Rçm. 13). Aber es folgt daraus allerdings die vçllige Gleichheit der Glubigen innerhalb der Gemeinde, die der „Leib Christi“ ist, und in die der Glaubende durch die Taufe aufgenommen wird. In ihr hçren die weltlichen Unterschiede auf (1. Kor. 12, 13: „Denn durch Einen Geist sind wir alle zu Einem Leibe getauft worden, Juden oder Griechen, Knechte oder Freie, und sind alle mit einem Geiste getrnkt worden“; Gal. 3. 28: „Da – nmlich in der sichtbaren, durch die Taufe konstituierten Gemeinde – ist nicht Jude noch Grieche, nicht Knecht noch Freier, nicht Mann noch Weib; denn alle seit ihr Einer in Christus Jesus“). In Christus ist der Glubige ein neues Geschçpf, und alle weltlichfleischliche Bestimmtheit hat ihre Bedeutung verloren (2. Kor. 5, 16 f.). Jede Bettigung in der Gemeinde und fîr die Gemeinde wird nicht verstanden als Aeußerung und Aktivierung natîrlicher Anlagen des Menschen, sondern als Wirkung des Heiligen Geistes, der in der Taufe

Appendix to chapter 8

495

den Glubigen geschenkt wird (1. Kor. 12 – 14). Der Gedanke, daß die Religion, als die „tiefste Kraft der Seele“, dazu da sei, die natîrlichen Anlagen des Menschen zur Entfaltung zu bringen, liegt dem Neuen Testament ebenso fern wie die Reflexion auf die Nîtzlichkeit des christlichen Glaubens fîr die weltlichen, die natîrlich-geschichtlichen Gemeinschaften, wie Familie und Volk, Gesellschaft und Staat. Deshalb liegt auch der Gedanke ganz fern, daß eine amtliche Bettigung in der Gemeinde nach dem Gesichtspunkt vçlkisch-rassischer Zugehçrigkeit zu regeln sei. Kann sich jeder Glubige nach Maßgabe des in ihm wirkenden Geistes in der Gemeinde und fîr die Gemeinde bettigen (Rçm. 12, 3 – 8; 1. Kor. 12, 4 – 11), so hngt die Uebertragung eines Gemeindeamtes von der persçnlichen Eignung des Betreffenden ab. Diese ist durch verschiedene Faktoren gegeben, durch Erfahrung und Alter, durch natîrliche Begabung und wirtschaftliche Situation, vor allem durch den sittlichen Wandel. Spielt unter dem Gesichtspunkt der natîrlichen Anlage der Unterschied der Geschlechter eine Rolle – obwohl doch in Christus Mann und Weib vor Gott gleich sind – , so doch niemals der Unterschied vçlkisch rassischer Bestimmtheit. Wie wenig aber jene Rîcksicht auf den Unterschied der Geschlechter grundstzliche Bedeutung hat, zeigt sich ja schon daran, daß der Gedanke nie aufkommen kann, etwa gesonderte Gemeinden einzurichten, die nur aus Frauen bestehen und von Frauen geleitet werden. Angesichts der heute die Diskussion bewegenden Fragen erklren wir Professoren und Dozenten der Theologie, denen von Amts oder Berufs wegen die Sorge um die Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes anvertraut ist, Folgendes: 1. Nach dem Neuen Testament ist die christliche Kirche eine Kirche aus „Juden und Heiden“, die sich sichtbar in einer Gemeinde zusammen finden (vgl. außer den oben genannten Stellen: Rçm. 9 – 11; Eph. 2, 14 ff.; Gal. 2, 11 ff.; Act. 2, 1 ff.; 10, 34 f.). 2. Nach dem Neuen Testament sind fîr die Zugehçrigkeit zu dieser Gemeinde allein der Glaube und die Taufe maßgebend; es kçnnen aber Juden und Heiden in gleicher Weise zum Glauben kommen und getauft werden (Matth. 28, 18 ff.; Mark. 16, 15 ff.; 1. Kor. 12, 12 ff.). 3. Nach dem Neuen Testament sind zu kirchlichen Amtstrgern Juden und Heiden in grundstzlich gleicher Weise geeignet. Sie werden zu einem kirchlichen Amt allein nach dem Maßstab ihres Glaubens, ihres Wandels und ihrer persçnlichen Eignung von der Kirche und nur von

496

Appendix to chapter 8

ihr berufen (1. Tim. 3, 2 – 4; Tit. 1, 6 ff.; 2 Tim. 2, 24; 1. Pt. 5, 2 f.; Act. 20, 28). 4. Diese Haltung grîndet darin, daß nach dem Neuen Testament die Kirche ihr Dasein in der Welt allein dem Heiligen Geist verdankt. Es ist Gott, der durch das hçrbare Wort der Verkîndigung und das sichtbare Zeichen der Taufe die Menschen aller Rassen und Vçlker in die eine gemeinsame Kirche ruft, deren Glubige der sichtbare Leib des unsichtbaren Hauptes, Christus, und daher in der sichtbaren Gemeinde als seine Glieder miteinander verbunden sind (vgl. außer den oben genannten Stellen Eph. 4, 4 f.; Joh. 1, 12 f.; 10, 16). 5. Wir sind daher der Meinung, daß eine christliche Kirche in ihrer Lehre und in ihrem Handeln diesen Standpunkt grundstzlich nicht aufgeben darf. Den 23. September 1933 Bultmann – Marburg, Deißmann – Berlin, Fitzer – Breslau, Jîlicher – Marburg, Lietzmann – Berlin, Lohmeyer – Breslau, Lîcken – Frankfurt, Lîtgert – Berlin, Oepke – Leipzig, Schlier – Marburg, K.L. Schmidt – Bonn, Schmitz – Mînster, von Soden – Marburg, Windisch – Kiel. * * * 8, n. Extract from a radio talk by Deissmann, entitled ‘Bedeutung der §kumene’, 23. 12. 1929 (References: ch. 8, n. 138)

It was broadcast via the Berliner Rundfunk, and at the conclusion he alerted his hearers to a forthcoming talk by the ecumenical Jesuit priest Max Pribilla. Deissmann’s talk is reprinted in K.H. Neufeld, ‘Grundlagen des çkumenischen Dialogs. A. Deissmanns Briefe an M. Pribilla S. J. 1927 – 1928’, in ThPh, 52, 2, 1977, 219 – 20, n. 12. Es wre eine unverantwortliche Unterlassung, wenn in dieser Vortragsreihe neben dem protestantischen Sprecher nicht auch einem hervorragenden katholischen Fachmann das Wort gegeben wîrde. Es ist bekannt, daß die katholische Kirche in bezug auf die Frage der Einheit der Christenheit ihren eigenen Weg geht, und daß sie darum den Bestrebungen der nicht rçmisch-katholischen Kirchen mit Zurîckhaltung gegenîbersteht. Aber gerade diese Zurîckhaltung mag den anderen Kirchen ein Anlaß sein, ihre eigene Problemstellung schrfer zu

Appendix to chapter 8

497

durchdenken, die vorhandenen Schwierigkeiten klarer zu erkennen und sich selbst mehr und mehr zu vertiefen, damit die Schwierigkeiten geringer werden. Alles dieses in der Gesinnung des Meisters, der der eine Hirte îber die eine Herde sein will. Der Berliner Rundfunk hat den vielleicht besten katholischen Kenner der çkumenischen Bewegung der Gegenwart als Vortragenden gewonnen, den Herrn Pater Max Pribilla in Mînchen. Pater Max Pribilla hat zu dieser Sache wirklich etwas zu sagen. Dieser zur Gesellschaft Jesu gehçrende Theologe und Publizist hat die Bewegung von Anfang an mit dem grçßten Interesse beobachtet und, im vertrauensvollen Austausch mit fîhrenden Persçnlichkeiten dieser Bewegung stehend, sich auch eine ganz außergewçhnliche Kenntnis der Krfte dieser Bewegung erworben. Er hat vor kurzem in einem ebenso gelehrten wie in seiner Gesamthaltung erfreulichen Buch mit dem Titel ,Um kirchliche Einheit. Stockholm, Lausanne, Rom‘ eine Gesamtdarstellung gegeben, zu der auch nicht-katholische Interessenten greifen mîssen, wenn sie eine wirkliche Kenntnis der Bewegung erlangen wollen. * * * 8, o. Extract from Deissmann’s address at the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting in London, 25. 3. 1923 (pp. 4 – 6) (References: ch. 8, nn. 149, 161)

It is entitled, The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the nations. We Christians want to promote, of course, every endeavour towards economical reconciliation, but the ideal reconciliation which we mean when speaking of the Cross and the Reconciliation of the Nations, is not synonymous with commercial conciliation, but is based on deeper reasons and aims. It is obvious that, if the churches promote the inward reconciliation of the nations, this will make for friendly intercourse in industrial, commercial and scientific circles. But we advance this cause of reconciliation, not on account of commerce, nor of the exchange of goods, but because we are fully convinced that God wills it, that the crucified Master commands it. … I say, secondly, the evangelical movement for the reconciliation of the nations does not demand from any one of its promoters the surrender of patriotic convictions and feelings. Thus the German Christian who promotes this movement is not called upon to surrender any of his love for his humiliated country, but is to assist in the fight for a real peace, for

498

Appendix to chapter 8

liberty and international justice, which has become our special task since the peaceless peace of Versailles, and especially at this present moment when militarism faces an unarmed moral resistance. … I wish to lay stress upon one other thought. The ideal of an evangelical reconciliation for the nations presents a programme for the centuries and places us upon the neverending path of arduous labour. Ours is not a fantastical programme of sudden revolutions from one day to another, but we are conscious of a task to be accomplished, step by step, throughout the world’s ages. The soberer we remain in the conviction that all we can do today must necessarily be pioneering work, the better we shall keep in view our last, far-off goal. … The nations know too little of each other, and stand under the fatal spell of silly generalisations and a pharisaical self-conceit. Distrust and hatred embitter the souls of men. Here the Churches have the duty to improve the spiritual atmosphere, to create a basis for mutual confidence, to develop by small acts of personal endeavour a network of honest relations from people to people. … Christianity has the great and peaceful task … to build bridges and to restore good fellowship is the chief task of that powerful movement for unity which at the present time, is actuating the Protestantism of the world. * * * 8, p. Extract from a newspaper article on Deissmann, written by Otto Dibelius, 6. 11. 1966 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 170)

It is entitled, ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene. Zum 100. Geburtstag des Theologen Adolf Deißmann’, in Der Tagesspiegel, 9. [Deißmann] war einer der wenigen deutschen Theologen, die sowohl den Westen wie den Osten kannten – nicht aus Bîchern, sondern durch persçnliche Erfahrung und Beobachtung. Deißmann wußte, was Kirche war. Fîr ihn war es etwas ganz Selbstverstndliches, mit kirchlichen Persçnlichkeiten aus der ganzen Welt îber die großen Aufgaben der Christenheit zu sprechen, unbekîmmert um die scharfen nationalen Gegenstze, die damals, zur Zeit der ersten Welt-Kirchenkonferenz in Stockholm 1925, die Welt beherrschten. Und anderen in Deutschland fiel das damals noch sehr schwer.

Appendix to chapter 8

499

Fîr den genialen Sçderblom, den großen schwedischen Erzbischof, der stets organisierte und immer vorwrtsstîrmen wollte, war Deißmann mit seiner ruhigen Art – immer „feierlich wie ein Scheich“, pflegte die jîngere, respektlose Generation damals von Deißmann zu sagen – die glîcklichste Ergnzung. Die beiden waren schnell Freunde geworden. Niemand von denen, die die Anfnge der §kumene mitgemacht haben, vergißt das Bild, das sich uns oft genug geboten hat – am Vorstandstische einer Versammlung oder einer großen Sitzung: in der Mitte Sçderblom mit seinen blonden Locken, immer beweglich, immer in der Initiative. Neben ihm Deißmann mit seinem schwarzen Vollbart, hinter den Brillenglsern die ruhigen, klugen Augen. Sçderblom war ewig loderndes Feuer, an dem sich mancher die Finger verbrannte, Deißmann war die gelehrte Autoritt, anerkannt von allen, auch – was damals ganz neu und ganz wichtig war – von den Patriarchen und Metropoliten der orthodoxen Kirchen. Sie liebten ihn. Und er liebte sie. Als er auf einer seiner Reisen zusammen mit einer großen Schar russischer Pilger auf dem Schiff nach Palstina fuhr, sagte er, ergriffen von seinen Beobachtungen: Die Russen sind das frçmmste Volk Europas! Er durfte das damals sagen! * * * 8, q. Extract from Deissmann’s address, Die çkumenische Erweckung (1929) (Reference: ch. 8, n. 182)

It is taken from pp. 30 – 2, and concerns the Roman Catholic Church’s abstention from the ecumenical work. Wiederholt mußte ich in diesen Ausfîhrungen das Wort „alle“ einschrnken durch die Bemerkung „mit Ausnahme der rçmischkatholischen Kirche“. Damit ist eine Tatsache berîhrt, îber die man nicht schweigend hinweggehen kann. Wer von uns sie berîhrt, kann es nicht ohne ein Gefîhl des Schmerzens tun. Warum ist Rom an dieser großen çkumenischen Bewegung nicht beteiligt? Der Grund liegt nicht etwa darin, daß die rçmisch-katholische Kirche weniger aufgerîttelt worden wre, oder daß ihr die Idee der Einheit weniger wichtig wre. Auch die rçmisch-katholische Kirche, die, was ihren Bestand und ihre Geltung in der §ffentlichkeit anlangt, durch das Kriegszeitalter, trotz schwerer Abfalls- und Verwahrlosungserscheinungen auch in ihren Bezirken, eher mit einem Plus hindurchgegangen ist (in

500

Appendix to chapter 8

einigen Lndern mit einem betrchtlichen Plus) hat in zahlreichen ihrer Glieder dasselbe Maß von innerer Aufrîttelung erlebt wie wir, und die Idee der Einheit ist ihr ja ein articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. Es ist auch festzustellen, daß die çkumenische Bewegung der nicht rçmischkatholischen Christenheit bei rçmisch-katholischen Christen ein sehr starkes und meist auch sympathisches Interesse gefunden hat. Es ist kein Zufall, daß eines der besten Bîcher îber unsere Bewegung gerade jetzt von einem namhaften katholischen Publizisten verçffentlicht worden ist. Ich meine das Buch des Mînchener Jesuitenpaters Max Pribilla: „Um kirchliche Einheit, Stockholm, Lausanne, Rom“. Es ist nicht nur mit einer ungewçhnlichen Sachkenntnis, sonder auch mit großer Achtung geschrieben und verrt einen çkumenischen Takt, von dem auch wir viel lernen kçnnen. Die Grînde der Nichtbeteiligung Roms sind dogmatischer Natur und haben durch den gegenwrtigen Papst in der berîhmten Enzyklika „Mortalium animos“ vom Epiphanienfest des Jahres 1928 einen deutlichen Ausdruck gefunden. Wir achten diese Grînde, ohne den uns anempfohlenen Weg der Unterwerfung fîr richtig und betretbar halten zu kçnnen. Hoffnungsvoller erscheint uns der Weg des Dienstes, des freiwilligen gegenseitigen Sichdienens mit den Gaben, die jeder empfangen hat. Hier hat namentlich die christliche Theologie aller Bekenntnisse eine große Aufgabe. Und es gehçrt zu den hoffnungsvollen Zeichen der gegenwrtigen gesamtchristlichen Lage, daß bei uns eine wenn auch nicht amtlich regulierte, so doch faktische Zusammenarbeit auch mit der rçmisch-katholischen Theologie auf vielen Gebieten besteht. Den Tag herbeizufîhren, an dem auch die rçmisch-katholische Kirche mit ihrem ungeheuren Erbteil an apostolischen Energien in die Gesamtfront der çkumenischen Bewegung eintritt, mîssen wir einem anderen îberlassen. Dem, der das „ut omnes unum“ gesprochen hat. Bis dahin sei unsere Losung: Achtungsvoller Wettstreit um die hçchsten Ziele! *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 8

501

8, r. Transcripts of two letters concerning the Stockholm Conference’s ‘Message to the world’ and their official report. I. Deissmann, letter to Hermann Kapler, 28. 1. 1926 (References: ch. 8, nn. 184)

Hochverehrter Herr Prsident! Mit verbindlichstem Danke besttige ich den Empfang Ihrer Zuschrift vom 27. Jan. 26, die mir außerordentlich wertvoll ist. Als Herausgeber des deutschen Amtlichen Berichts muss ich ja selbst ein unbedingt zuverlssiges Urteil îber die ‘amtliche’ Form der Botschaft mir bilden, und hierfîr ist mir Ihre Aufklrung unentbehrlich. Die Entstehung des Textes der Botschaft ist mir nicht in allen Teilen bekannt. Ich trat erst am Mittag des 28. August 25 (Freitag) in Aktion, als die Hauptabschnitte der Botschaft schon festgestellt waren. Mir wurde im Korrekturbogen eine deutsche Textform vorgelegt, die, wie ich glaube, Herr D. SiegmundSchultze als ˜bersetzer hergestellt hatte, die aber auch bereits wieder handschriftliche Korrekturen aufwies. Ich hatte nun mit dem Dean of Canterbury (D. Bell) und Herrn Prof. Wilfred Monod eine lange Sitzung, in der zunchst der englische Text als ‘Urtext’ Wort fîr Wort festgestellt wurde. Hierbei wurden noch sachliche ønderungen vorgenommen, hauptschlich infolge eines sehr ernsten Briefes des Herrn Landesbischofs von Sachsen an Erzbischof Soederblom. Herr D. Ihmels hatte nmlich den auch mir vorgelegten deutschen Korrekturbogen bereits fîr den letzten endgîltigen Text gehalten und schwere Bedenken angedeutet. In einer Konferenz mit mir hatte er dieselben dann substanziiert: es schien ihm hauptschlich der Schein nicht vçllig vermieden worden zu sein, als ob Stockholm doch etwas wie eine kirchliche Union bedeute. Auch eine der religiçsen Wendungen des Textes erschien ihm bedenklich. Es fiel nicht schwer, mit Herrn D. Ihmels Fassungen zu finden, die seine Bedenken zerstreuten, und diese Fassungen sind dann endgîltig in den englischen ‘Urtext’ gekommen. Beilufig: fîr mich war dieser Brief des Herrn Landesbischofs von Sachsen, den mir D. Sçderblom zur Kenntnisnahme und zur Glttung der Schwierigkeit zugesandt hatte, fast der schwierigste Augenblick der ganzen Konferenz. Denn es bestand ja die Gefahr, dass nun zum Schluße eine ernste Debatte noch ausgebrochen und die Botschaft als solche gefhrdet gewesen wre. Ich werde darum Herrn D. Ihmels es niemals vergessen, dass er in jener Unterredung unter vier Augen sich so bald und

502

Appendix to chapter 8

mit so herzlicher Friedensgesinnung auf eine fîr alle annehmbare Fassung mit mir einigte. Nach Vollendung des ‘Urtextes’ in engl. Sprache durch Dr. Bell, Monod und mich hatte ich nun unter einem geradezu furchtbaren Druck durch die Knappheit der abrollenden Stunden die Aufgabe, den deutschen Text nach diesem Urtext herzustellen, fortwhrend gedrngt durch den Chef der Druckerei, die den Text (der am Sonnabend Mittag in den drei Konferenzsprachen und schwedisch fertig vorgelegt werden musste) dringend erbat. Als Grundlage diente mir der Korrekturbogen mit der ˜bersetzung D. Siegmund-Schultzes, die ich aber an zahlreichen Stellen verbessern mußte. Ich habe das Manuskript der endgîltigen deutschen Fassung so hergestellt, dass ich es in den Text des Korrekturbogens und auf aufgeklebte breite Rnder kalligraphisch schrieb. Ich brauchte fîr diese ˜bersetzungs- und Schreibarbeit etwa sechs Stunden, von etwa 4 – 10 Uhr abends ohne Pause. Als dann der Chef der Druckerei wieder erschien, erklrte er, fîr seine schwed. Setzer mîsse er dieses ‘Manuskript’ doch noch erst in Maschinenschrift umsetzen lassen. Er brachte dann auch das Unglaubliche fertig, dass er etwa um 11 Uhr nachts (Freitag) noch eine der deutschen Damen des Ev. Preß-Verbandes mobilisierte, die dann das Ganze tippte. Whrend der Nacht wurde der Text hierauf gesetzt und am 8 Uhr frîh (Sonnabend 29. Aug.) hatte ich die Korrekturabzîge dieses Textes in meinem Hotel und konnte sie mit Morgenaugen sorgfltig korrigieren und das Imprimatur erteilen. Um Mittag war der Text in den Hnden der Delegierten und am Nachmittag wurde dieser Text von Ihnen, verehrter Herr Prsident, amtlich verlesen und von der Weltkonferenz nahezu einstimmig angenommen. Der Text hat dann seltsame Schicksale gehabt. Vorweg: der franzçsische Text, von W. Monod verlesen, stellte sich als eine sehr freie mit mancherlei z. T. wichtigen ønderungen und Zustzen versehener ˜bertragung jenes englischen Urtextes heraus. Sicherlich eine Eigenmchtigkeit Monods, die Pfarrer Lic. Ren¤ Heinrich Wallen soeben durch eine genaue synoptische Vergleichung im ‘Neuwerk’ (SchlîchternHabertshof ) Dez. 25 und Jan. 26 ausgezeichnet klargestellt hat. (Die Franzosen hatten îbrigens ja auch den Text des Berichtes des Subkomit¤e I der Kommission III so maßlos sachlich gendert, dass der Schotte Dr. Flemming und ich als die fîr den Urtext dieses Dokuments Verantwortlichen dagegen schriftlich bei der Konferenzleitung protestierten), Der engl. und deutsche Text der Botschaft, wie sie verlesen wurden, stimmte sachlich îberein.

Appendix to chapter 8

503

Dann der Wolff-Text. Welches seine Quelle ist, ist mir immer noch nicht klar. Darf ich um zwei oder drei Abdrîcke desselben bitten? Trotz des Vermerks auf S. 3 Ihres Briefes „(siehe Anlage)“ lag er nicht bei. Schließlich der Keller-Text. Es kann gern sein, dass er an einigen Stellen bessere Wendungen gefunden hat; an vielen anderen wîrde ich es nicht zugeben kçnnen. Ich hatte keine Gelegenheit, ihn vor seiner Drucklegung zu sehen und htte dann gewiß abgeraten, ihn zu verçffentlichen. Denn eins steht mir ohne jede Frage fest: als amtlicher Text kann nur der von Ihnen verlesene und von der Weltkonferenz am 29. August angenommene Text gelten. Nur diesen Text kann ich auch in den Amtlichen Bericht aufnehmen. Weichen wir von diesem Kanon ab, so kommen wir ins Uferlose. Ganz besonders auch mit Rîcksicht auf unsere deutsche Delegation, die diesen Text einstimmig annahm, sind nachtrgliche ønderungen unmçglich. Ich habe das auch meinem lieben Freund Adolf Keller geschrieben. Ich werde dies Alles auch in meinem Buch ‘Stockholm’ klarstellen. Soeben habe ich in meinen Papieren nochmals nachgesucht und folgende Feststellungen gemacht. Es gab in Stockholm bereits zwei verschiedene schwedische Texte. Der eine deckte sich, so viel ich sehe, mit dem englisch-deutschen ‘Urtext’ und ist offiziell so herausgegeben mit den drei anderen Texten (englisch, deutsch, franzçsisch, schwedisch). Der andere (z. B. ‘Svensk Kyrkotidning’ (Upsala), Nr. 35, 2. Sept. 25) ist, soviel ich sehe, ˜bersetzung des eigenmchtigen Monod Textes. Ich habe ein Fragment des deutschen Wolff-Textes, das ich besitze, verglichen: dieses ist abhngig irgendwie vom Monod-Text!! Wahrscheinlich so, dass der franzçs. Monod-Text ins Schwedische îbersetzt nach Deutschland telegraphiert und hier verdeutscht wurde. Der Vorwurf, die Deutschen htten einige besonders wichtige Stellen der Botschaft nachtrglich unterdrîckt, ist vçllig haltlos. Die Franzosen (oder der Franzose Monod) haben einige ihnen besonders wichtige Stellen in den ‘Urtext’ eingefîgt. Der Vorwurf konnte dadurch entstehen, daß telegraphisch zuerst der lngere Monod-Text bekannt wurde bei uns, der authentische Text aber erst nachher. Eine genaue Prîfung behalte ich mir vor, sobald ich den Wolff-Text vollstndig besitze. In grçßter Verehrung verbleibe ich, Herr Prsident, Ihr ergebener [signed] Adolf Deißmann

504

Appendix to chapter 8

II. Deissmann, letter to Nathan Sçderblom, 13. 8. 1926 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 184)

Hochverehrter teurer Freund! Ehe wir uns in Bern sehen, mçchte ich Ihnen kurz mitteilen, wie es mit dem deutschen Bericht steht. Es ist mir gelungen, mit einer allerdings ganz ungewçhnlichen Anstrengung meiner Krfte die Arbeit soweit zu fçrdern, dass heute bereits alles bis einschliesslich Freitag, den 28. August 1925, in der Druckerei gesetzt ist. Die beiden letzten Tage, 29. und 30. August, werden Anfang nchster Woche gesetzt sein. Die schwierigste Arbeit, die mich ganz ausserordentlich aufgehalten hat, war die Herstellung guter deutscher Uebersetzungen, und ich habe smtliche mir von Upsala und meinen deutschen Helfern gelieferten Uebersetzungen persçnlich sehr gewissenhaft durchgearbeitet und hoffe, in dieser Hinsicht Qualittsarbeit geliefert zu haben. Nun sind noch die Korrektur und ein ausfîhrlicher Index zu machen. Ich hoffe, Ihnen eine Anzahl Probebogen mit nach Berlin bringen zu kçnnen. Durch die beiden amtlichen Berichte wird die Weltkonferenz aufs Neue und zwar in konzentriertem Masse wirksam. Ich habe durch Monate hindurch, Zeile fîr Zeile durcharbeitend, doch wieder einen grossen Gesamteindruck erhalten, zumal ich smtliche Diskussionsreden entweder in vollem Wortlaut oder im Auszug Mitaufnehmen konnte und auch die gottesdienstlichen Teile der Konferenz sehr stark berîcksichtigt habe. Der Preis des sehr gut ausgestatteten Quartbandes von etwa 700 Seiten betrgt bei Bestellung bis zum 10. September 15 Reichsmark, spter mindestens 20 Reichsmark. Das ist ein ausserordentlich niedriger Preis, der nur dadurch mçglich geworden ist, dass der Deutsche Evangelische Kirchenbund das Buch stark subventionierte. Ich habe den Furche-Verlag gebeten, sich wegen der Verbreitung des Werkes in Schweden mit Ihrem schwedischen Diakonie-Verlag in Verbindung zu setzen. Vielleicht kçnnen Sie dem Diakonie-Verlag ein Wort der Ermunterung schreiben, denn fîr den Furche-Verlag ist das Ganze trotz der Subvention immer noch ein starkes Risiko. Beifolgend erlaube ich mir, Ihnen zwei Antrge an den Fortsetzungsausschuss fîr Bern zu îberreichen.

Appendix to chapter 8

505

In der Hoffnung, Sie bald in gewohnter Frische in Bern begrîssen zu dîrfen, verbleibe ich mit den besten Grîssen von Haus zu Haus Ihr treu verbundener [signed] Adolf Deißmann * * * 8, s. Extract from Die Stockholmer Bewegung (Reference: ch. 8, n. 187)

This extract is from pp. 64 – 5 and concerns Deissmann’s reason why he supported the ‘Faith and Order’ movement. Drei volle Tage habe ich vor Beginn der Konferenz das Glîck gehabt, in der Stille des Schlosses von §rbyhus mit Bischof Brent eng zusammenzuarbeiten und mich auch eines lebhaften privaten Austausches mit ihm zu erfreuen. Ich erwhne es hier, weil es eben eigenste Eindrîcke sind, aus denen heraus ich Bischof Brent zu wîrdigen versuche und insbesondere betone, daß ich ihn als eine der fîr die Weiterentwicklung der kirchlichen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Amerika wertvollsten Persçnlichkeiten betrachte. Das Vertrauen, das er in den Vereinigten Staaten genießt, ist ein ungewçhnliches. Wiederholt hat man ihn dort in schweren wirtschaftlichen Kmpfen erfolgreich als Schiedsmann zwischen Kapital und Arbeit gewhlt; aber er hat ebenso leicht Zutritt zu den Fîhrern der amerikanischen Politik. Seit ich ihn nher kenne, stehe ich der „Faith and Order“ Bewegung anders gegenîber. Ich hatte sie immer mit Sympathie begleitet, war aber in Bezug auf die Mçglichkeiten ihrer praktischen Verwirklichung skeptisch gewesen. Etwas von diesen Bedenken habe ich in Stockholm verloren: so lange die Bewegung von Bischof Brent geleitet wird, wird sie niemals in dogmatische Znkereien ausarten. Die Stockholm nur mit Business-Gedanken messenden Nçrgler, die immer nur feststellen wollen, was wir bei der Konferenz Sichtbares „fîr uns herausgeschlagen“ haben, sollten doch einmal bedenken, was es in der geistigen Welt bedeutet, wenn Mnner von den Fîhrerqualitten und der Frçmmigkeit dieses amerikanischen Bischofs sich voll ˜berzeugung mit hineinstellen in das unsichtbare, aber starke Netzwerk, das uns mit den anderen zu einer großen vertrauensvollen Jîngergemeinschaft zusammenschließt um dein Einen Meister. *

*

*

506

Appendix to chapter 8

8, t. Transcripts and extracts of correspondence between Deissmann and Martin Dibelius. I. Extract of a letter from Deissmann to M. Dibelius, 3. 7. 1928 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 198)

Bei dieser Gelegenheit gestatten Sie mir eine freundschaftliche Frage: ich habe bei meiner ganzen Ausland-Arbeit, die durch Stockholm und Lausanne ja eine sehr grosse Ausdehnung gewonnen hat, immer den Gedanken erwogen, dass diese Arbeit von anderen fortgefîhrt werden mîsse. Ich mçchte im Interesse der Sachen nicht den Zustand erleben, dass diese ganze Ttigkeit zu stark mit meiner Person verwachsen bleibt. Darum mçchte ich im nchsten Jahre die Leitung unserer Stockholmer Theologen Kommission in jîngere Hnde abgeben, ohne natîrlich auf intensive eigene Mitarbeit zu verzichten. Aus vielen Grînden, die ich nicht weiter zu entwickeln brauche, halte ich Sie fîr den besten Nachfolger und mçchte Sie zunchst bitten, einmal zu erwgen, ob Sie die Freudigkeit haben, diesen grossen Dienst an der Christenheit zu îbernehmen. Bei diesen Erwgungen wollen Sie bitte nicht îbersehen, dass es nicht Viele gibt, die îberhaupt in Betracht kommen, schon was die usseren Eignungen betrifft. (Sprachen- und Personen-Kenntnis usw.) Ich wîrde, falls Sie, meiner Hoffnung entsprechend, sich prinzipiell bereit erklren kçnnten, die ganze Frage zuerst in Prag vertraulich aufrollen. Sie muss sehr vorsichtig behandeln werden, damit nicht nationale Rivalitten wach werden. Wie die Dinge liegen, kommt eben gerade fîr diese Arbeit doch wohl nur ein deutscher Theologe von internationalem Ansehen in Frage. Aber man muss diese etwas delikate Sache natîrlich sehr vorsichtig behandeln. Die Hauptarbeit der Kommission wird auch in den nchsten Jahren in der Veranstaltung von sorgfltig vorbereiteten kleinen Konferenzen bestehen, wie wir eine solche jetzt wieder in Paris am 8. Juni 1928 organisiert haben und fîr Eisenach zum 11. bis 18. August 1928 (2. Britisch-Deutsche TheologenKonferenz). Man muss da alles allmhlich so einspielen, dass die eigentliche Organisationsarbeit nicht dem Vorsitzenden zufllt, der seinerseits nur die Fden in der Hand zu halten hat. Zu Ihrer Orientierung fîge ich Ihnen beifolgend noch ein Exemplar des Rundschreibens bei, das an smtliche nicht rçmisch-katholische Fakultten und Seminare der Welt gegangen ist. Sie kennen es bereits ja aus meiner Zusendung an die Heidelberger Fakultt.

Appendix to chapter 8

507

____________ II. Transcript of a letter from M. Dibelius to Deissmann, 10. 7. 1928 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 198)

Verehrter lieber Freund, Ihr Brief vom 3. d. M., fîr den ich herzlich danke, hat mich mit großer Dankbarkeit fîr Ihr Vertrauen erfîllte, ist mir aber auch der Anlaß ernstester ˜berlegung geworden. Denn ich stehe ja jetzt an der Wende von einem Ausnahmezustand, der infolge der Wohnungsschwierigkeiten vor dem Rektorat nun schon ein dreiviertel Jahr andauert, zu den normalen Verhltnissen, und es melden sich allerlei Demobilmachungsschwierigkeiten. Der Kçrper wartet auf Ausspannung, die Seele auf Nahrung und die Arbeit auf Wiederinangriffnahme. Und ein so wichtiger Antrag, wie den, den Sie mir machen, will wohl îberlegt sein, gerade weil ich ihn sehr ernst nehme. Ich darf vielleicht heute schon dies sagen, daß ich sehr gern in der mir am Herzen liegenden çkumenischen Arbeit mithelfen wîrde, mehr als bisher. Ich wre also grundstzlich gern bereit, die Leitung der Stockholmer Theologenkonferenz zu îbernehmen. Ich glaube auch, daß ich die dazu unbedingt nçtige warme Gesinnung fîr die Sache mitbringe, wenn auch meine sonstige Ausrîstung zu wînschen îbrig lßt. Aber ich sehe noch einige Schwierigkeiten, die ich offen zur Sprache bringen mçchte. Die erste Schwierigkeit liegt in der Lage. Ich glaube, wir sind noch nicht so weit, daß Sie jetzt schon ersetzt werden kçnnten und sollten im Vorsitz. Es wre m. E. nçtig daß Ihr bewhrter und Vertrauen genießender Name das Werk noch zu grçßerer kirchlicher Anerkennung fîhrte. Ich fîrchte, daß ein vorschneller Rîcktritt Ihrerseits vom Vorsitz auch den deutschen Vorsitz gefhrden kçnnte. Das legt mir die Bitte nahe, daß Sie den Vorsitz noch etwas fîhren mçchten. Daß Sie grundstzlich einmal auf mich zhlen kçnnten, wissen Sie ja. Zweitens liegen aber auch Schwierigkeiten in meiner Person, die ich ernsthaft zu îberlegen bitte. Zunchst bin ich in der Arbeit noch lngst nicht so erfahren, daß ich mir den Vorsitz zutrauen dîrfte. Sodann: in meinen Bîchern wie in meinem Wesen sind genug Ketzereien, die einmal hier oder dort Anstoß erregen kçnnten. Nun kçnnen Deutsche freilich sagen: was kîmmert es uns, ob eine Kirchenbehçrde einmal ungndig

508

Appendix to chapter 8

drein schaut? Fîr Auslnder liegt die Sache aber nicht so. Und wie man Auslndern schwer Verstndnis fîr die Tatsache beibringt, daß deutsche Theologieprofessoren unabhngig von der Kirche arbeiten, so wîrde ein reprsentativer Vorsitzender wenig Anziehungskraft fîr sie haben, der von der Kirchenbehçrde – ich sage gar nicht verfolgt, sondern nur: beiseite geschoben wîrde. Und ich mçchte nicht gern in die Lage kommen, daß ich nun immer mit dem Gedanken an das Wohlwollen kirchlicher Instanzen denken mîßte, so sehr ich mich freuen wîrde, falls ich es im Leben noch einmal besitzen sollte. Ich mçchte auch nicht auf diesem Wege die innere Kirchenpolitik in mein Leben hineinbekommen, die ich bisher mit gutem Grund mir fern gehalten habe. Eine dritte Schwierigkeit liegt in den Verhltnissen meines Lebens. Zu dieser Arbeit braucht man eigentlich ein Bîro, zum mindesten eine Sekretrin und eine ausfîhrliche Registratur. Man muss ferner den Geldquellen mçglichst nahe sitzen, und muß auch selbst nicht zum Sparen verurteilt sein. Denn nur so lassen sich die Aufgaben einer gewissen Reprsentation durchreisenden Auslnder-Kollegen gegenîber, lassen sich die Vorbereitungen zu Konferenzen usw. erledigen ohne daß die Sache leidet. Und nur so wird solch eine berufliche Arbeit nicht zu einer Belastung des Lebens, die die berufliche Arbeit hemmt. Ich weiß also auch in dieser Hinsicht nicht, ob ich allen Ansprîchen genîgen kann. Und ich darf Sie bitten, sich alle diese Dinge, vor allem aber die erste Erwgung noch einmal durch den Kopf gehen zu lassen. Sind sie alle hinfllig, so bin ich grundstzlich fîr die Sache zu haben – immer vorausgesetzt, daß ich gesund bleibe und daß Ihnen die Durchfîhrung des Planes gelingt, ich meine daß ein Deutscher îberhaupt in Frage kommt. Mit herzlichen Grîßen von Haus zu Haus bin ich Ihr dankbar ergebener [signed] Dibelius ____________ III. Transcript of a letter from Deissmann to M. Dibelius, 12. 7. 1928 (Reference: ch. 8, n. 198)

Lieber Freund, Vielen Dank fîr Ihren Brief vom 10. Juli, ganz besonders fîr das grundstzliche Einverstndnis. Die Frage, ob der Wechsel noch

Appendix to chapter 8

509

verschoben werden kann, werde ich mir ernsthaft îberlegen. Die andere Schwierigkeit, die aus dem Verdacht der Hresie stammt, ist nicht so schlimm. Davon weiss man im Ausland nicht viel und vielleicht kommen Sie îber kurz oder lang ja doch auch in eine Landeskirche, die Ihnen Vertrauen entgegenbringt. Zum dritten Punkt: die Kommission verfîgt îber ein Aversum von 100 Pfund Sterling jhrlich. Davon kçnnen die Kosten fîr das Bîro bestritten werden. Fîr besondere Veranstaltungen mîssen besondere Geldquellen erschlossen werden, aber auch das ist seither gegangen und wird auch in Zukunft hoffentlich weiter gehen. Wir wollen also zunchst einmal noch ein Stadium der Ueberlegung einschieben. Mit vielen herzlichen Grîssen, Ihr getreuer [unsigned] * * * 8, u. Overview of Deissmann’s book, The New Testament in the light of modern research: The Haskell Lectures, 1929 (References: ch. 8, nn. 213, 219)

(See also Appendix 8, b) The book’s dedication, apparently drafted by either Hughes or Craig (see below) on Deissmann’s behalf, reads: ‘To his dear friend Dr. Charles S. MacFarland General Secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. A token of gratitude from the author.’ In the preface, written 1 May 1929 on board the steamer ‘Stuttgart’, Deissmann states: ‘The main credit for putting the text into English goes to my young friend Mr. Robert Hughes at Bangor (North Wales). To my esteemed fellow worker Professor Clarence Tucker Craig [1895 – 1953], Ph.D., D.D., at Oberlin I am greatly obliged for smoothing the English idiom of the manuscript for publication.’ The book is essentially a transcript of the six lectures Deissmann presented at the Oberlin College, on the relevance of the New Testament in the 20th century. Its 193 pages are divided into six chapters, entitled 1. The origin of the New Testament (A) 2. The origin of the New Testament (B) 3. The language of the New Testament 4. The New Testament in world history

510

Appendix to chapter 8

5. The historical value of the New Testament 6. The religious value of the New Testament Deissmann’s fundamental thesis is influenced by his self-confessed mysticism but can be summed up in his conclusion (192 – 3): ‘Considered historically, the New Testament is a trustworthy record of Jesus and His Apostles. Religiously considered, it proves itself from within by its influence to be the Magna Charta of the present Jesus Christ. Therefore we confess the New Testament as a Holy Book, the Book of Life.’ * * * 8, v. Extract from Deissmann’s report to the Auswrtiges Amt, 24. 5. 1929 (References: ch. 8, nn. 206, 216, 218, 223, 226)

It concerns his trip to the USA, between March and April 1929. Schon whrend meiner Heidelberger Zeit knîpften sich fîr mich zahlreiche amerikanische Beziehungen an. Es studierten begabte junge Theologen aus den Vereinigten Staaten nach Abschluss ihrer dortigen akademischen Bildung in Heidelberg und traten mir persçnlich nher. Dazu kamen hufige Besuche amerikanischer Kollegen und Kirchenmnner. Diese Beziehungen verstrkten sich, seitdem ich 1908 an die Universitt Berlin berufen worden war. Ich hatte in allen diesen Berliner Jahren amerikanische Hçrer, die meistens nachher in ihrer Heimat akademische Lehrstîhle erhielten. Auf eine noch breitere Grundlage kamen meine amerikanischen Beziehungen durch den von mir verfassten und versandten „Evangelischen Wochenbrief“ („Protestant Weekly Letter“), der, wie an zahlreiche Adressen in anderen christlichen Lndern, so auch an viele hervorragende amerikanische Theologen und Kirchenmnner von Dezember 1914 ab bis 1921 ging. Als der Generalsekretr des Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, Dr. Charles Macfarland Ende 1915 in Deutschland weilte, um zu prîfen, was von Seiten der amerikanischen Kirchen etwa geschehen kçnne, um das Kriegselend zu lindern und den Frieden herbeizufîhren, trat er mit mir in einen sehr engen Austausch … Schon vor dem Weltkrieg hatte ich von dem Preussischen Kultusministerium die Aufforderung erhalten, als Austausch-Professor fîr eine lngere Zeit nach Amerika zu gehen. Ich

Appendix to chapter 8

511

konnte damals aber nicht Folge leisten. Nun huften sich in den letzten zehn Jahren die amerikanischen Einladungen an mich in einem solchen Masse, dass ich schliesslich nicht mehr ablehnen konnte. So hatte ich denn bereits fîr das Jahr 1927 die Einladung des hochangesehenen Oberlin College in Oberlin (Ohio) zur Abhaltung der Haskel Lectures angenommen, wurde aber leider durch eine Erkrankung an Malaria gelegentlich der Ausgrabungen in Ephesus verhindert, diese Reise anzutreten. Ich konnte jedoch eine erneuerte Einladung als Haskell Lecturer fîr 1929 annehmen. An diese Haupteinladung knîpfte sich eine Fîlle anderer Aufforderungen wohl von allen namhaften Universitten und Colleges, die ich aber lngst nicht alle annehmen konnte. Der oben erwhnte Generalsekretr des Federal Council, Dr. Macfarland, hatte die Freundlichkeit, auf Grund dieser Einladungen einen grossen Reiseplan fîr mich auszuarbeiten und auch alle Korrespondenz mit den Universitten und alle Vorbereitungen fîr die Einzelreisen durch sein Bîro zu erledigen. Ich war auch whrend meines Aufenthaltes in New York sein stndiger Gast in dem wunderschçnen Hochhaus des Yale Club, gegenîber der Grand Central Station. Das Federal Council betrachtetet mich whrend meiner amerikanischen Zeit als einen seiner Vertrauensmnner und erwirkte mir dadurch viele Erleichterungen meiner Reise … Am Montag, den 18. Mrz war ich Gast der Vertrauensleute und Ratgeber von Mr. John Rockefeller jun., zu denen ich durch die EphesusAusgrabungen bereits Beziehungen hatte. Man hatte mich durch Kabel gebeten, îber die allgemeine Lage und Stimmung in Deutschland zu reden, und ich hatte mich in Anbetracht der sehr auserlesenen Hçrerschaft recht sorgfltig darauf vorbereitet. Ich fand die gespannteste Aufmerksamkeit und glaube, dass die ungewçhnlich warme Versicherung des Dankes durch den Vorsitzenden Mr. B. Raymond Fosdick [i.e. Raymond Blaine Fosdick (1883 – 1972)] am Schluss ernst gemeint war. Mit einem dieser Vertrauensleute hatte ich spter noch wiederholt lngere erfolgreiche Verhandlungen îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus, die seither von Mr. Rockefeller wirkungsvoll unterstîtzt worden sind. Vom 19. Mrz ab hielt ich nun die lange Reihe meiner Vorlesungen, Ansprachen und Predigten. Zunchst in New York selbst im „General Theological Seminary“ der Protestant Episcopal Church, dann im „Union Theological Seminar“, dem grçssten Theologischen Seminar der Vereinigten Staaten und am letzen Tage in dem „Biblical Seminary“. Zwei Vorlesungen (die eine mit Lichtbildern) hielt ich in Gettysburg (Pennsylvanien), dem bekannten Schlachtort des Bîrgerkrieges, in dem

512

Appendix to chapter 8

bedeutenden Theologischen Seminar der Lutheraner. Am 22. Mrz gab mir das Administrative Committee des Federal Council einen Empfang um 2 Uhr, bei dem ich îber die Zusammenarbeit der amerikanischen und der europischen Kirchen sprach, unter besonderer Berîcksichtigung der deutschen Kirchen. Am Abend des gleichen Tages gaben mir das Federal Council, der Weltbund fîr Freundschaftsarbeit der Kirchen und die Church Peace Union ein Bankett im Waldorf Astoria Hotel, an dem in Vertretung des Herrn Generalkonsuls von Lewinsky Herr Konsul Dr. Drechsler teilnahm. Nach zahlreichen Begrîssungsreden hielt ich eine Dankesansprache und verbreitete mich îber die grossen Aufgaben der christlichen Kirchen in der gegenwrtigen Lage der Menschheit. Am folgenden Tage hatte ich eine eingehende Aussprache mit den Fîhrern der United Lutheran Church (Prsident Dr. Knubel, Dr. Morehead und Dr. Scherer) und war am Abend Gast von Dr. Frederik Lynch, einem einflussreichen christlichen Fîhrer und Schriftsteller. In der Karwoche war ich die ersten fînf Tage ausschliesslich als Lecturer an der Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut) ttig und hielt dort vier stark besuchte wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen und am Karfreitag eine religiçse Ansprache îber das Kreuz Christi und die Versçhnung der Vçlker. Ich hatte an dieser berîhmten Universitt eine besonders freundliche Aufnahme, war in mehreren Professorenfamilien zum Dinner eingeladen, was immer auch noch eine kleine Ansprache oder wenigstens die Beantwortung von Fragen nach dem Tisch mitbedeutete. Die smtlichen Vorlesungen und Ansprachen meines Programms hatte ich sehr sorgfltig englisch vorbereitet, whrend ich bei den mehr inoffiziellen Gelegenheiten desçfteren auch extemporierte … Von Chicago begab ich mich nach Oberlin College in Oberlin (Ohio), das in der Geschichte der amerikanischen Erziehung eine besonders bedeutende Stellung einnimmt (Coeducational!) und auch als Ausgangspunkt der Prohibitionsbewegung gilt. In akademischer Hinsicht ist es ein bedeutendes Zentrum der Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften, wie auch der Musik. Kommt man aus der unbeschreiblich wuchtigen und interessanten Weltstadt Chicago im Frîhling nach Oberlin, so erlebt man an dieser stillen Pflegesttte einer hohen Geistigkeit bei blîhenden Birnund Pfirsichbumen ein reizendes Idyll, in dessen Bannkreis man tief aufatmet, wenn man die besten Krfte amerikanischer Kultur am Werke sieht. Ich habe dort zwei unvergessliche Wochen zugebracht, hielt die sechs Haskell Lectures îber das Neue Testament im Lichte der modernen Forschung und einen Zyklus von fînf Lichtbildervortrgen îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus, sowie eine religiçse Ansprache an die Stu-

Appendix to chapter 8

513

dentenschaft und eine Sondervorlesung fîr die Theologiestudierenden îber Paulus und war wieder fast tglich redender Gast in den verschiedenen Clubs oder bei den massgebenden Persçnlichkeiten des Colleges. Am Sonnabend, den 20. April holte mich dann Dean Kelso in seinem Automobil nach Wooster (Ohio) ab, wo ich eine Vorlesung, eine Predigt und eine religiçse Morgenfeier îbernommen hatte. Das College von Wooster ist in mancher Hinsicht demjenigen von Oberlin hnlich, namentlich in seinem intimen Gesamtcharakter, fernab von dem lauten Rhythmus des amerikanischen Lebens. Wie an den meisten anderen von mir besuchten Universitten und Colleges, so herrscht auch hier eine grosse Bauttigkeit; die Stiftungen der Alumni und anderer Gçnner fliessen in einer nie aufhçrenden Fîlle, und die Amerikaner haben einen Stil ihrer akademischen Architektur, der praktischste Raumverteilung und Inneneinrichtung mit schçner Gesamtwirkung nach aussen hin verbindet. Das College von Wooster erwies mir îbrigens am letzten Tage die Ehre einer feierlichen Promotion honoris causa zum Doctor of Literature (Litt. D.) Fîr einen der letzten Tage meines Aufenthaltes hatte der Generalsekretr des Federal Council Dr. Macfarland meinen Besuch bei dem Prsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten Mr. Hoover, mit dem er seit langen Jahren befreundet ist, in Washington vorgesehen und hatte deswegen wohl auch mit unserem Botschafter Fîhlung genommen. Da meine Zeit aber durch andere Verpflichtungen ungewçhnlich in Anspruch genommen war, bat ich Dr. Macfarland, von dem Besuche im Weissen Hause absehen zu wollen. Ich sah keine Mçglichkeit, ihn in das einmal festgelegte Programm einzugliedern … Ich hatte mich zu dieser grossen amerikanischen Reise ungern entschlossen, und das ganze Unternehmen stand bei der Abreise wie ein hoher Berg vor mir. Ich bin jetzt aber doch dankbar, dass ich die Reise gemacht habe. Sie bedeutet fîr mich zwar eine ungewçhnliche Kraftanstrengung, da das Gesamtprogramm zweifellos îberladen war und der fortwhrende Gebrauch der fremden Sprache ein besonderes Maß von Konzentration erforderte. Aber ich habe doch viel gelernt, viel Gutes gesehen (das auch bei uns reichlich vorhandene Bçse interessiert mich in einem fremden Lande weniger) und vor allem den Eindruck gewonnen, wie wichtig die Zusammenarbeit und das gegenseitige Vertrauensverhltnis der akademischen und kirchlichen Persçnlichkeiten beider Lnder ist, und wie stark doch die unsichtbaren Fden sind, die uns in

514

Appendix to chapter 8

Wissenschaft und religiçser Kultur mit den Vereinigten Staaten verbinden.

Appendix to chapter 9 9, a. Transcript of Deissmann’s appeal to students at the Berlin University, 13. 11. 1930 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 11)

Der Rektor der Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitt Kommilitonen! Ich habe mich gestern persçnlich fîr die Wiederherstellung der Ordnung der Universitt eingesetzt. Wollen wir diese Ordnung aus eigener Kraft, ohne behçrdliches Eingreifen, aufrechterhalten, so bedarf ich der loyalen Unterstîtzung durch die gesamte Studentenschaft. Fîhrer verschiedener, bei den Ereignissen anwesend gewesenen Studentengruppen haben mir diese Unterstîtzung zugesagt. Ich erwarte, daß diese Unterstîtzung eine allgemeine sein wird. Es mîssen vor allem jene tiefbedauerlichen Schmhworte und Krnkungen aufhçren, durch welche die Wîrde unserer Alma Mater grçblich verletzt wird. Ich appelliere an den Geist akademischer Kameradschaft, Ritterlichkeit und Gemeinbîrgschaft. In diesem Geist, ein Anwalt auch der Minderheiten zu sein, ist mir eine Ehrenpflicht. Ich bin bereit, einen neutralen Boden zu schaffen, auf dem die besten Kçpfe von rechts und links sich im geistigen Ringen miteinander messen kçnnen. Aber zuerst mîssen wir durch Selbstbeherrschung den Beweis erbringen, dass wir der akademischen Selbstverwaltung fhig und wîrdig sind. Kommilitonen! Es geht um das kostbare Gut unserer akademischen Freiheit. Helft mir, dass dieses Gut nicht verschleudert werde! Der Rektor [signed] Adolf Deißmann *

*

*

516

Appendix to chapter 9

9, b. Transcript of Deissmann’s typed radio address, 20. 12. 1930 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 12)

It is entitled: ‘Schallplatte des Berliner Rundfunks 20. Dezember 1930. Der Rektor der Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universitt zu Berlin Professor D. Adolf Deissmann’. Erhlt der Rektor der Universitt Berlin fîr vier Minuten das Wort zur Lage der Gegenwart, so atmet er, an die akademischen vierzig oder fînfundvierzig Minuten gewçhnt, zunchst auf und ist der Funkstunde dankbar, dass er, kaum er das Wort erhalten hat, so bald wieder aufhçren darf. Aber dann erschrickt er doch vor der Grçsse der Aufgabe und schrnkt notgedrungen das ungeheure Thema ein, indem er nur wenige Worte îber das sagt, was ihm jetzt besonders am Herzen liegt, îber Lage und Aussichten der akademischen Jugend. Die Lage unserer akademischen Jugend ist eine ernste. Das ist allgemein bekannt. Um es mit einer von der grossen akademischen Wirtschaftsorganisation, dem Deutschen Studentenwerk zu Dresden, kîrzlich geprgten Formel zu sagen: unsere Studenten haben keinen Raum. Das heisst nicht bloss, dass fast îberall die usseren Bedingungen des Studiums zu knapp geworden sind: die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen, die Bîcherbeschaffung, die Mçglichkeit, Arbeitspltze in den Hçrslen und Instituten der Hochschulen zu finden. Sondern vor allem, dass fîr viele Fcher die Zukunftsaussichten geradezu trostlos sind. Unzhlige werden nach Ablegung ihrer Prîfungen die offene Tîr nicht finden, die offene Tîr zu einer Lebensstellung. Eine Zauberformel zur Beseitigung dieser Not kenne ich leider nicht. Aber ich wiederhole auch hier, was ich in den letzten Wochen Tausenden von Berliner Studenten bei der Immatrikulation immer wieder gesagt habe: leistet Qualittsarbeit, holt das Letzte und Beste aus Euch heraus, was in Euch liegt, damit Ihr îber den Durchschnitt der Examensmittelmssigkeit hinauskommt! Die Lage der akademischen Jugend ist aber noch aus einem anderen Grunde ernst. Um die Seele unserer Studenten werben die grossen geistigen Mchte des Zeitalters. Solche Werbung ist an sich berechtigt. Aber sie gefhrdet unsere Studenten, wenn sie die jungen Seelen allzufrîh dogmatisch verhrtet. Wir leben in einem Zeitalter, in dem es uns fast an allem fehlt, nur nicht an einer riesigen Kartothek fertiger „Weltanschauungen“; in jeder Obertertia schon gibt es siebenzehn unabnderlich erstarrte „weltanschauliche Einstellungen“, und die Sprechchçre der

Appendix to chapter 9

517

Elfjhrigen zwitschern den Sopran ihrer Dogmen îber den Asphalt. Alle diese ganz eindeutig Eingestellten haben die Einbildung, sie htten hauptschlich die Sendung, aufeinander einzuhauen. In einem solchen Zeitalter soll der akademische Mensch am Ringen bleiben; soll mit den Problemen ringen; soll Staunen lernen und staunend sein Blickfeld weiten; soll die Einsicht vertiefen und in solchem akademischen Ringen immerfort an der Gestaltung seiner Persçnlichkeit arbeiten. Nur die immerfort in solchem Ringen sich gestaltenden Menschen kçnnen auch die Gestalter unserer grossen Gemeinschaften sein, in Staat und Kirche, in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Rîhrt die gegenwrtige furchtbare Selbstzerfleischung Deutschlands, die Deutschlands Ohnmacht bedeutet, nicht daher, dass Fertige, Frîhfertige, Fixundfertige, Allzufertige hart und eckig und polternd aufeinander prallen und immer nur neue Schutt- und Splitterhalden zurîcklassen? Hier setzt mein Appell an die akademische Jugend ein. Bleibt akademische Menschen und werdet immer mehr akademische Menschen. Lasst lebenswarmes akademisches Ethos zusammenstrçmen zu einer einzigen ungeheuren und schçpferischen Energiezentrale fîr die Volgsgemeinschaft [sic] und fîr den Aufbau einer jenseits der Dschungel sich organisierenden Menschheit. Deuten und Gestalten, Schauen und Wollen sei denn die Losung unseres akademischen Tages! Rîckwrts und einwrts gewandtes Schauen, gesthlt durch vorwrts drngendes Wollen! Wenn wir Gnosis und Ethos, Wissenschaft und Leben miteinander verbînden, dann dîrfen wir, mit den Worten des Arbeiterdichters, auch von uns bekennen: Wir sind die ordnenden Gewalten, Auf! Diese Welt neu zu gestalten, Sei trotzig unser Werk vollbracht.

* * * 9, c. Extract from Bericht îber das Amtsjahr 1930/31 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 19)

The extract is drawn from pp. 10 – 13. So sehr die hierbei vorgekommenen Ausschreitungen, gegen welche die akademischen Behçrden pflichtgemß einzugreifen hatten, bedauert werden mîssen, so verkehrt wre es, wollte die ja von Tag zu Tag mehr zusammenschmelzende Sippe der rsonierenden akademischen Bourgeois

518

Appendix to chapter 9

diese Vorflle stirnrunzelnd mit dem Schlagwort „Radikalisierung der Jugend“ etikettieren und sich einbilden, damit irgend etwas fîr das wirkliche Verstndnis der Lage und fîr ihre Besserung beigetragen zu haben. Der Freund der akademischen Jugend (und ich kann versichern, daß die besten Freunde unserer Studenten ihre akademischen Lehrer sind) wird sich bemîhen, die Ursachen dieser Radikalisierung zu erkennen und wird mitzuarbeiten suchen, diese Ursachen zu beseitigen. Sie sind auf allen Seiten, rechts und links, im wesentlichen die gleichen. In ein durch die Katastrophe des Weltkrieges verdîstertes und unfreies Deutschland hineingewachsen, und dann mehr und mehr in den Mahlstrom einer ungeheuren wirtschaftlichen Weltkrisis erbarmungslos mithineingerissen, ringt die junge Generation um ihr eigenes Recht auf Scholle und Raum, auf Sonne und Freiluft, auf Arbeitssttte und Herd, ringt sie aber auch, in apokalyptischen Schauern und opferbereit, um eine lichtere Zukunft der Volksgemeinschaft, Deutschlands, der Menschheit. Solche ringende Jugend ist liebenswerter als genießende und satte Jugend. Solcher ringenden Jugend muß man Hnde entgegenstrecken und Wege bahnen. Mit der bloßen Kundmachung der illusionsfreieren Weisheit des Alters ist ihr wenig geholfen. Was wir akademischen Lehrer hier tun kçnnen, ist dies: daß wir mit noch grçßerer Treue das starke und feine Ethos akademischer Gesinnung hineinstrçmen lassen in die aufgewîhlten Seelen unserer Studenten; daß wir in ihnen Leidenschaft erwecken fîr hochwertige akademische Qualittsarbeit und auch, als ihre lteren Kameraden, fîr akademische Kameradschaft, um aus der Erkenntnis der gemeinsamen Not das verlorene Solidarittsgefîhl in unserer Jungmannschaft wiederzuerwecken und damit die moralischen Reserven vaterlndischer Kraft zu strken. Das sind keine magisch wirkenden Rezepte, und sie haben auch nur dann einen Sinn, wenn bei uns selbst ein fester mnnlicher Dennochsglaube dahinter steht … Ich habe vorhin angedeutet, was wir fîr die seelische Not der Studenten vielleicht tun kçnnen. Fîr die immer mehr anwachsende wirtschaftliche Not hat die Universitt auch im abgelaufenen Jahr getan was sie konnte: durch ganzen oder halben Gebîhrenerlaß an 4369 Studenten [i.e. c. 27 %]; durch zahlreiche kurzfristige und langfristige Darlehen; durch Studienbeihilfen, die der Herr Minister wieder in dankenswerter Weise zur Verfîgung gestellt hatte, oder die aus den ˜berschîssen eigener Betriebe genommen werden konnten; aber auch durch private Fîrsorge eines Berliner akademischen Lehrers und

Appendix to chapter 9

519

mehrerer Gçnner der Universitt, die dem Rektor ein Hilfswerk in einer Zeit ermçglichten, als alle anderen Quellen versiegt waren. * * * 9, d. Extract from Deissmann’s annual report to the Ecumenical Council, 15. 8. 1933 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 25)

It is entitled: ‘§kumenischer Rat fîr praktisches Christentum. Kommission fîr çkumenische Zusammenarbeit der Professoren der Theologie: Jahresbericht îber die Ttigkeit der Kommission 1932/33 (Genf bis Novi Sad) erstattet dem çkumenischen Rat Mitte August 1933’. Im Rîckblick auf die Arbeit der Kommission ist es mir ein Bedîrfnis, zunchst voll Dankbarkeit von den ausgedehnten Ttigkeiten unseres stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden, Herrn Professor Martin Dibelius (Heidelberg) zu berichten. Seine Mitarbeit war umso notwendiger, als ich selbst auch in dem abgelaufenen Jahre durch besondere dienstliche Pflichten (Prorektorat der Universitt Berlin und dann Dekanat der Theologischen Fakultt Berlin) stark in Anspruch genommen war … Als dann, unmittelbar nach dem grossen politischen Umschwung des 30. Januars [i.e. Hitler became Reichskanzler] eine Anzahl unserer çkumenischen Fîhrer in Berlin zu Beratung anwesend waren, konnte ich die Herren Bischçfe von Chichester und Hadersleben, Herrn Professor William Adams Brown, Herrn Generalsekretr Henriod und die Herren Patoren [sic] Guillon, Karlstrçm und Ehrenstrçm mit Vertretern unserer kirchlichen und staatlichen Behçrden, der Theologischen Fakultt Berlin und anderen interessierten Persçnlichkeiten zu einem einfachen Abendempfang im Harnack-Haus am 3. Februar vereinigen, bei dem Herr Professor Martin Dibelius den bereits oben erwhnten Vortrag hielt. Selbstverstndlich standen die innerdeutschen Ereignisse im Mittelpunk namentlich der privaten Aussprachen. Es setzte alsdann, von Woche zu Woche wachsend, ein Strom von Besuchern aus dem Ausland ein, insbesondere aus Grossbritannien und den Vereinigten Statten von Nordamerika, die ich zu eingehenden Aussprachen empfing. Ich habe bei ihnen allen nicht nur das Bestreben vorgefunden, unserer besonderen Lage mit allen ihren Schwierigkeiten gerecht zu werden, sondern auch ein Verstndnis dafîr, dass ich als Deutscher die Dinge nicht im luftleeren Raum einer faktisch ja nirgends

520

Appendix to chapter 9

in der Welt vorhandenen farblosen und seelenlosen Gleichgîltigkeit sehen und darstellen konnte, sondern eben nur als ein eng mit seinem Volk verbundener patriotischer Deutscher. Wohl die wichtigste Aussprache hatte ich îbrigens in England selber vor Pfingsten 1933. Bei Gelegenheit eines Vorlesungs-Zyklus îber die Ausgrabungen zu Ephesus, zu dem mich die Universitt London eingeladen hatte, wurde ich von dem Herrn Bischof von Chichester, des Herrn Erzbischof von Canterbury und anderen Fîhrern der britischen Christenheit zu lngeren Unterredungen eingeladen und konnte auch vor einem Kreise von englischen Geistlichen die innerkirchliche Entwicklung unseres Landes darlegen. Nicht lange danach flog auf Anregung des Herrn Bischofs von Chichester der Herr Dean von Chichester (Very Rev. Arthur S. Duncan-Jones) nach Berlin. Ich habe ihn wiederholt bei mir gesehen und konnte ihm vieles sagen. Dass es ihm gelang persçnliche Aussprache mit unseren kirchlichen und politischen Fîhrern zu erhalten, den Herrn Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler eingeschlossen, war mir eine besondere Freude. * * * 9, e. Transcript of Deissmann’s teaching programs, as recorded in his diary, 1904 – 36 (References: ch. 2, n. 62; ch. 3, n. 64; ch. 7, nn. 42, 141; ch. 9, nn. 29, 30)

It comprises a comprehensive timetable and subject titles of his routine lectures and tutorials from summer semester 1904 until winter semester 1935/36, with only a few semesters missing. All abbreviations are as per AK, and illegible words are represented by the symbol ‘.?.’. SS 1904

1) 2) 3) WS 1904/05 1) 2) 3) 4) SS 1905 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1905/06 1) 2) 3) 4)

Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Fr. 9 – 10 Erklrung Ausgewhlter Wçrter Jesu (fîr Hçrer aller Fak.) Mi., 12 – 1 NT Seminar Do., 6 – 8 Erklr. des Mt. Ev. unter B. der Parallele bei M. + Lk. Mo., Fr., 3 – 4 Erklr. des Gal. Briefes Fr., 9 – 10 Der Ap. Paulus (fîr Hçrer aller Fak.) Mi., 11 – 12 Sem. Do., 6 – 8 Einleitung Di.–Fr., 5 – 6 1. Kor. Mo., Di., Mi.–Fr., 6 – 7 Kursor Joh. Ev. Sa., 10 – 12 NT Sem. Do., 6 – 8 Lukas Mo.–Fr., 5 – 6 2. Cor. Mi., 11 – 1 NT Sem. Do., 6 – 8 NT Prosem. Fr., 3 – 4 Sprechstunde Mo.–Do., 3 – 4 Fr., 12 – 1

Appendix to chapter 9 SS 1906

1) 2) 3) 4)

WS 1906/07 no SS 1907 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1907/08 no SS 1908 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) WS 1908/09 1) 2) 3) SS 1909 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1909/10 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) SS 1910 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1910/11 1) 2) 3) 4) SS 1911 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1911/12 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) SS 1912 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1912/13 1) 2) 3)

521

Erklrung des Rçmerbriefes Mo.–Fr., 5 – 6 Kursor. Erklr. des Joh. Ev. Fr., 8 – 10 NT Sem. Do., 6 – 8 NT Prosem. Mo., 6 – 7 Sprechstunde Mo.–Fr., 3 – 4 entry Einleitung i. d. NT Mo.–Do., 4 – 5 Erklrung des 1. Kor. Briefes Mo.–Mi., 6 – 7 NT Seminar Do., 6 – 8 NT Prosem. Mo., 5 – 6 entry Rçmer Brief Di.–Fr., 4 – 5 Kursus Lek. Joh. Ev. Mo., 4 – 5 Seminar Do., 6 – 8 Di.–Mi., 6 – 7 Einfîhrung in das Studium des hellenist. Griechisch (Koine) Prosem. Fr., 2 – 4 NT Theologie .?. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Rçmer Brief .?. Mo., Di., Do., Fr. Sem. .?. Fr., 5 – 7 Erklrung des Ev. der Johannes Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklrung des Gal. Briefes und der Jakobus Epistel Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. Mi., 4 – 6 NT Prosem. (mit Unterstîtzung durch einen Assistenten) Fr., 4 – 6 Erklrung der Synoptiker unter Zugrundelegung des Matthus Ev. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklrung der Korinther Briefe Mo., Di., Fr., 12 – 1 Paulus Do., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. Fr., 4 – 6 NT Seminar Mi., 3 – 5 Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 NT Theologie Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (mit Unterstîtzung eines Assist.) Fr., 4 – 6 NT Sem. Mi., 4 – 6 Erklrung der Synopt. unter Zugrundelegung des Lk. Ev. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Einleitung in das NT Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. Fr., 4 – 6 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklrung der Gal. + Philip. Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (mit Unterst. durch einen Assistenten) Fr., 4 – 6 NT Sem. Mi., 4 – 6 Die Schaupltze des NT (mit Lichtbilder) Di., 6 – 7 Erklrung der Synopt. unter Zugrund. des Mt. Ev. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklr. der Kor. Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (mit Unterst. durch einen Assistenten) Fr., 3 – 5 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 Erkl. des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 NT Theologie Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (mit Unterst. durch ein Assist.) Fr., 3 – 5 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 Erkl. der synopt. Evangelien mit Zugrundelegung des Luk. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Einleit. i. d. NT Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5

522

Appendix to chapter 9

4) 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1913/14 1) SS 1913

2) 3) 4) 5) SS 1914 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1914/15 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

SS 1915 no WS 1915/16 no SS 1916 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1916/17 1) 2) 3) 4) SS 1917 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1917/18 no SS 1918 no WS 1918/19 no SS 1919 no WS 1919/20 no SS 1920 1) All entries for SS 1920 2) are crossed out, due to Deissmann’s long illness and subsequent convalescence.

3) 4)

WS 1920/21 1) 2) 3)

NT Prosem. (mit Unterst. durch einen Assist.) Fr., 3 – 5 Erklr. des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklr. der Gal. + Philipperbriefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 NT Prosem. (mit Unterst. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 Die Welt des NT (Heimat + Missionsgebiete des UrchristenDi., 5 – 7 tums in Pal., Syria, Kl. Asien + Sîdeuropa) mit Lichtbildern Erklr. der Synoptiker mit Zugrundel. des Mt. Ev. Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklrung der Korinther Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (mit U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 NT. Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 NT Theologie Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Seminar Mi., 4 – 6 NT Prosem. (mit U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 Die Entstehung des Christentums (fîr Hçrer aller Fk.) Di., 6 – 7 Erklr. der synopt. Evs. (mit Zugrundel. des Lk.) Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Einleitung in das NT Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. Mi., 3 – 5 NT Prosem. (mit U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 wegen der von dem Assistenten des NT Sem. zu haltenden Spezialkurses îber Septuaginta, Sprache + Palaeographie der griech. Bibel wird auf den Anschlag verwiesen entry entry Erklr. des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 NT Theologie Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Prosem. (m. U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 NT Sem. Mi., 4 – 6 Erklr. der synopt. Evs. (auf Zugrundel. des Lk.) Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Einleit. in das NT Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. (Johannes Probleme) Mi., 3 – 5 NT Prosem. (Ausz. Teile der alten Geschichte mit U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 Erklrung der Gal. + Philipper Briefe Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. (das Gebet bei Paulus) Mi., 1/23 – 4 NT Prosem. (Die Epistel des Johannes) (mit U. durch 1 Ass.) Fr., 3 – 5 entry entry entry entry entry Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 11 – 12 NT Theologie (Die Religion Jesu + seiner Apostel) Mo., Di., Do., Fr., 12 – 1 NT Sem. (Johannische Probleme) Mo., 4 – 6 N. Prosem. (mit U. durch 1 Ass.) a) Neue ˜bungen II Petr. Epist. Fr., 3 – 5 b) Kurs lesen des NT, Apostelgesch. 2 Parallel .?. Do., 4 – 5 + 5 – 7 Erklrung der synopt. Evang. unter Zugrundel. des Lukas Ev. Mo., So. [Sonnabend], 11 – 1 Erklrung des Galater Briefes Mo., So., 10 – 11 NT Sem. (Das Gebet bei Paulus) Mi., 3 – 5

Appendix to chapter 9 SS 1921

WS 1921/22

SS 1922

WS 1922/23

SS 1923 WS 1923/24

SS 1924 WS 1924/25 SS 1925

WS 1925/26 SS 1926

WS 1926/27 SS 1927 WS 1927/28 SS 1928

523

1) Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + der Johan. Briefe Mi., So., 11 – 1 2) NT Sem. a) ˜bungen (Die Paulus Briefe als Urkunde des Christus Kultes) Mo., 3 – 5 b) Colloquium Biblicum mit beschrnkter Teilnehmerzahl So., 10 – 11 (Bibelwissenschaftliche Tagesfragen) 1) Erklrung der syn. Evs. m. Zug. des Matt. Ev. Mi., So., 11 – 1 2) NT Theologie (Die Religion Jesu + seiner Apostel) Di., Fr., 4 – 6 3) NT Sem. a) ˜bungen: Ausgewhlte Johannesprobleme Mi., 3 – 5 b) Colloq. Bibl. mit beschrnkter Teilnahme (Bibelwissenschaftliche Di., 6 – 7 Tagesfrage) 4) NT Prosem (Johannes Briefe) Fr., 3 – 5 1) Einleitung des Rçmer Briefes Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) Einleitung in das Neue Testament Mo. So.11 – 1 3) Einfîhrung in das Presswesen des Protestantismus (mit ˜bungen) Fr., 6 – 7 4) NT Seminar a) ˜bungen (Das Reich Gottes in dem prophetischem [.?.] Mo., 3 – 5 b) Colloquium Biblicum mit beschrnkter Teilnehmerschaft Di., 6 – 7 5) NT Proseminar (Leiden der Offenbarung Joh.) Fr., 21/2–4 1) Erklrung des Lukas Evangeliums Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) Die Welt des Neuen Testaments (mit Lichtbildern) fîr Hçrer Fr., 6 – 7 aller Fakultten 3) NT Seminar (persçnl. + soziale Rel. bei Paulus) Mo., 3 – 5 4) NT Proseminar (Jakobus Epistel) Fr., 21/2 –4 5) .?. .?. 1) Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) Neutest. Seminar (persçnliche und soziale Rel. bei Paulus) Mo., 4 – 6 3) NT Proseminar (Sendschr. der Offenb. Joh.) Fr., 21/2–4 1) Neutest. Th. (Rel. Jesus + s. Apostelgeschichte) Do., Fr., 4 – 6 2) Einfîhrung in das Pressewesen des Protestantismus (mit ˜bungen) Fr., 6 – 7 3) NT Seminar (Vorfragen der paulinischen Mystik) Mo., 4 – 6 4) NT Prosem. (Johannes Briefe) Fr., 21/2–4 1) Einl. des Rçmer Briefes Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Seminar (Probleme der paulinischen Mystik) Mo., 4 – 6 1) Erklrung der synopt. Ev. .?. .?. Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Seminar (Wredes ‘Paulus’) Mi., 3 – 5 1) Der deutsche Protestantismus der Gegenwart, seine religiçsen, Di., 6 – 7 internationalen und çkumenischen Aufgaben (fîr Hçrer aller Fak.) 2) Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Di., Fr., 4 – 6 3) NT Seminar (das Gebet bei Paulus) Mi., 4 – 6 1) NT Theologie (die Religion Jesu + seiner Apostel) Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Seminar (Pl. + Joh.) Mi., 4 – 6 1) Erklr. des Rçmerbr. Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Seminar (Pl. + Joh.) Mi., 4 – 6 3) ˜bungen zur Kunde des christlichen Auslandes im Spiegel seiner Presse; Das neue Prosem. veranstaltet ˜bungen im Kursos, Lesen des NT no entry 1) Erklr. des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefen Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Sem. (Philipper Brief ) Mi., 4 – 6 1) Erklr. der synopt. .?. .?. des Luk. Ev. Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) Entstehung + Wesen des Urchristentums .?. .?. Fr., 6 – 7 3) NT Sem. (Reich Gottes) Mi., 4 – 6 1) Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Di., Fr., 4 – 6 2) NT Seminar (persçnl. + soziale Relig. bei Paulus) Mi., 4 – 6 3) N. Prosem. Do., 4 – 6

524 WS 1928/29 1) 2) 3) SS 1929 1) 2) 3) WS 1929/30 1) 2) 3) SS 1930 1) 2) 3) WS 1930/31 1) 2) 3) 4) SS 1931 1) 2) 3) WS 1931/32 1) 2) 3) SS 1932 1) 2) 3) WS 1932/33 1) 2) 3) SS 1933 1) 2) 3) WS 1933/34 1) 2) SS 1934 1) 2) 3) 4) WS 1934/35 1) 2) 3) SS 1935 1) 2) 3) WS 1935/36 1)

Appendix to chapter 9 NT Theologie (Die Rel. Jesus + seiner Apostel) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Sem. (persçnl. + soz. Relig. bei Paulus) Mi., 16 – 18 Das NT Prosem. Mo., Do., 16 – 18 Erklr. des Joh. Ev. + der Joh. Briefe Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Paulus Probleme) Mi., 16 – 18 Das N. Prosem. Do., 16 – 18 Erklr. der syn. Evang. im .?. des Mt. Ev. Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (W. Wredes ‘Paulus’) Mi., 16 – 18 Das N. Prosem., ˜bungen Lesen des NT Mo., Do. Erklr. des Rçmer Briefes Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Das Gebetsleben des Paulus) Mi., 16 – 18 NT .?. ˜bungen des NT Mo. Erklr. der synopt. Evang. (.?. des Lukas Ev.) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Philipper Brief ) Mi., 16 – 18 Prosem. Unter Leitung von Prof. Deißmann (Johannes Briefe) Fr., 141/2–16 Das NT Pros. veranstaltet ˜bungen im Lesen des NT Mo., Do., 141/2–16 Erklrung des Joh. Ev.+ d. Johannes Briefes Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (persçnl. + soziale Religion bei Paulus) Mi., 16 – 18 Das NT Prosem. ˜bungen im Lesen des NT (Prosem: Sendschreiben der Offenb. Joh.) Mo., Do., 141/2–16 NT Theologie (Die Rel. Jesu + seiner Apostel) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (persçnl. + soziale Rel. bei Pl.) Mi., 16 – 18 Das NT Prosem. wie oben ˜bungen Erklrung des Rçmer Briefes Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Das Reich Gottes im Evangel. Jesu + seiner Apostel) Mi., 16 – 18 Das Neutest. Prosem. veranstaltet unentgeltliche ˜bungen im Mo., Do., Lesen des NT 141/2–16 Erklr. der synopt. Evs. (mit .?. des Mat. Ev.) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Paulus + Johannes) Mi., 16 – 18 Das NT Prosem. ˜bungen im Lesen des NT Mo., Do., 141/2–16 Einleitung in das NT (mit Lichtbildern) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Sem. (Pl. + Joh.) Mi., 14 – 16 Das NT Prosem. veranstaltet unentgeltliche ˜bungen im NT Lesen Mo., Do. 141/2–16 Erklrung des Joh. Ev. + Joh. Briefes Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (persçnl. + sozial Religion bei Paulus) Mi., 16 – 18 Einleitung in das NT (mit Lichtbildern) Mo., Do., 11 – 13 Erklrung des Rçmerbriefes Mo., Do., 16 – 18 NT Semin. (persçnliche + soziale Religion bei Paulus) Di., 18 – 20 Das NT Pros. veranstaltet unentgeltliche ˜bungen im Lesen des NT (Pfarrer Harder) Mo., Do., 141/2–16 NT Theologie (Die Relig. Jesu Christi + seiner Apostel) Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Das Gebetsleben des Apostels Paulus) Di., 18 – 20 Das NT Prosem. .?. Erklrung des Joh. Ev.+ der Joh. Briefe Di., Fr., 16 – 18 NT Seminar (Das Reich Gottes im Evangel. Jesu + seiner Apostel) Di., 18 – 20 Das NT Pros. ˜bungen im Lesen des NT 141/2–16 Erklrung des Rçmerbriefes Di., Fr., 16 – 18 Diese Vorlesungen wurden auf Veranlassung des Rektors Krîger (Tier-Anatome) gestrichen

*

*

*

Appendix to chapter 9

525

9, f. Transcript of Martin Dibelius’ address on Deissmann’s 70th birthday, 7 Nov. 1936 (Reference: Figure 1, ch. 9, nn. 42, 43)

It is entitled ‘Gruß an ADOLF DEISSMANN zum 70. Geburtstag’, in Adolf Deißmann, zum 7. November 1936. Hochverehrter Kollege, lieber Freund, Das hohe und schçne Fest Ihres siebzigsten Geburtstages findet Sie rîstig und unbeschwert von der Last der Jahre – also daß man fast an der Zuverlssigkeit der îberlieferten Chronologie zu zweifeln ein Recht htte. Aber wenn auch die Empirie zu freundlich-falschen Schlîssen verleiten kçnnte, so gibt es doch noch die Quellen- und Urkundenforschung, und die belehrt uns in der Tat, daß Adolf Deißmann heute vor siebzig Jahren die Augen zu beglîcktem und beglîckendem Dasein auftat – diese Augen, die er alsdann mit gleicher Freude auf die vom Licht des Ostens îberfluteten Horizonte der §lbaumzone richtete wie auf die abgebrochenen Zeilen von Inschriften und Papyri. Nun kommen wir, unsere Wînsche zu diesem Tag zu sagen; zunchst wir 5 Mitglieder eines Ausschusses, von denen 4 anwesend sind. Er besteht aus drei Mitgliedern der Nachkriegsgeneration Ihrer Schîler; wir beiden ølteren, Herr Behm und ich, dîrfen uns heute vielleicht einmal so interpretieren, daß wir sagen, wir klammern sozusagen Ihre Berliner amtliche Ttigkeit ein: Ich, der erste, der bei Ihnen die venia legendi empfing, er derjenige, dem Sie dann Ihre potestas docendi weiterreichen. Aber hinter uns steht ein großer Kreis von Gratulanten, in dessen Namen wir reden, Menschen verschieden von Zunge und Herkunft, Menschen auch verschiedener Kirchen. Aber doch alle in einem vereint – und es ist sicher in Ihrem Sinn, lieber Freund, wenn ich jetzt einmal nicht das freundschaftliche oder kollegiale Verhltnis zu Ihnen an erster Stelle nenne, sondern sage, daß die meisten dieser Gratulanten in irgend einer Weise, forschend, lehrend, predigend, dem Neuen Testament verbunden sind und daß dadurch ihre freundschaftliche Beziehung zu Ihnen ihren besonderen Akzent erhlt. Diese Verbindung mit dem Neuen Testament ist freilich ganz verschiedener Art. Den einen geht es um das Schreibmaterial und die Buchstaben, den anderen um die Wçrter, den Dritten um das Wort; hier haftet der Blick auf der Umwelt des kleinen Buches, dort auf seiner eigensten, inneren heiligen Welt. Aber gerade diese Vielheit der Blickrichtungen stellt hçchst sichtbar dar, daß Sie selbst in allen diesen Richtungen um dieses Buch bemîht waren, angefangen vom

526

Appendix to chapter 9

øußersten bis zum Innersten – und am meisten hat es Sie wohl befriedigt, wenn Sie, von einem Urwort der Gemeinde ausgehend, dessen Bedeutung mit aller Kunst entfalten konnten, bis Sinn und Meinung des Gottesworts getroffen war; einige von uns haben das noch jîngst an Ihrer Auslegung von Marana tha erfahren dîrfen. Und davon sind wir ja wohl îberzeugt: wer irgend einmal Hand angelegt hat an die neutestamentliche Forschungsarbeit, der hat auch etwas gespîrt vom Geist dieses Buches. Und so ist es eine sinnvolle Art der Gratulation, des sucwa¸qeim, wenn sich zu Ihrem Fest ein Kreis zusammenfindet, der seine Einheit in diesem Buche hat. Denn dieses Buch hat einigende Kraft; und darum ist es eine große, eine symbolische Fîgung Ihres Lebens gewesen, daß Sie von der Arbeit am Neuen Testament aus in die çkumenische Arbeit gingen. Denn das Neue Testament ist das strkste Einheitsband, das die christlichen Kirchen besitzen. Sie hatten gelernt, in dem Vielerlei der Wçrter die Einheit des Wortes zu finden; Sie verstanden es nun auch, in den mancherlei Stimmen der Kirche, die pokuleq_r ja· pokutqºpyr und nicht immer in reiner Harmonie zusammen klingen, ertçnen zu lassen als cantus firmus die eine Botschaft des Evangeliums. Wie Sie so in unserem Kreise die verschiedenen Arten Ihrer Arbeit dargestellt finden, so auch die verschiedenen Zeiten Ihres Wirkens. Es grîßen Sie heute manche, die noch die ersten Entdeckerfreuden der Bibelstudien und der neuen Papyrusforschung mit Ihnen geteilt haben. Was waren das fîr Zeiten in Heidelberg, da die Ostraka-Kiste ihre Schtze spendete und Sie die Zeugnisse unbekannter Menschen aus øgypten deuteten, des Soldaten Apion und des bçsen Buben Theon! Sie waren einer der ersten, der das Seelenleben dieser Menschen entschleierten. Heute sind ihre Briefe in Schulbîcher aufgenommen, und die orthographischen Fehler des bçsen Buben Theon dienen unsern guten und bçsen Buben als warnendes Beispiel! Und nun darf ich noch in besonderem Sinn von Heidelberg sprechen: Ihre alte Fakultt in neuer Besetzung denkt Ihrer heut mit besonderen Wînschen, und der Dekan hat mich beauftragt, dieser Verbundenheit Ausdruck zu geben und dem Stolz, daß Sie zu uns gehçren mit einem guten Teil Ihrer Arbeit! Nun aber spreche ich wieder im Auftrag des anderen grçßeren Kreises und habe die Ehre, Ihnen und den Ihren als unsere Gabe diese Bîste zu

Appendix to chapter 9

527

îbergeben – die zweite Formung der anderen Bîste,1 die zugleich im Neutestamentlichen Seminar der Berliner Universitt aufgestellt wird. Dort soll sie ein Stîck der Tradition darstellen, deren Erhaltung unseren Universitten besonders not tut. Sie aber, liebe gndige Frau, und Sie, meine Damen und Herren Herborner, Heidelberger und Berliner Herkunft, Sie wollen dieses Bild des Gatten und Vaters nicht einfach mit dem gleichsetzen, das Sie in Ihrem Innern tragen. Ich weiß zu wohl, die Nchsten kçnnen mit einem Abbild selten zufrieden sein. Dies ist der Mann, der seinem Amt, seinen Studenten, seiner Kirche gehçrt; dies Bild soll Sie nur erinnern an den, der Ihnen gehçrt, – und wir, die wir manchesmal bei Ihnen hineinschauen durften, wir wissen, in welchem Maß er Ihnen gehçrt! Und nun bringe ich Ihnen noch ein zweites Portrt, ein Abbild Ihrer selbst, entworfen von Ihren Freunden. Denn ein solches Protrt [sic] ist das Glîckwunschbuch, das ich Ihnen hiermit îberreiche, nicht nur ein Verzeichnis der Freunde, die Ihnen mit dieser Gabe gratulieren, sondern ein hçchst persçnliches Buch: eine Sammlung von handschriftlichen Glîckwînschen. Urschriften, nicht Abschriften, lieber Freund! Und behaftet mit allen Eigenwilligkeiten einer Urschrift! Kein Abschreiber hat die Ligaturen beseitigt, mit denen namentlich unsere angelschsischen Freunde so freigebig sind; Sie werden an manchem dieser Zeugnisse vielleicht zu tun haben, und ich zweifle, ob die Entzifferung so glatt geht wie die der Ostraka durch Herrn Wilcken in jenen Heidelberger Tagen! Der grçßte Augenblick in der exegetischen Arbeit ist es, wenn einem aus den entzifferten Zeichen, Worten, Stzen in einer ˜berschau der innere Sinn des Ganzen lebendig wird. So mag Ihnen, wenn Sie dieses Buch entziffern und wenn Sie der Wînsche gedenken aus Fern und Nah, der innere Sinn Ihres Lebens erstehen in dem Bewußtsein, daß von Ihrer Arbeit Segen ausging fîr viele. Und wir fîgen hinzu: so wie Ihr Leben gesegnet war und ist, so soll es gesegnet sein und bleiben – das erbitten wir, das mçge Gott geben! *

1

*

*

See Figure 1, also ch. 9.2. This second bust is located in the Theologische Fakultt der Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin.

528

Appendix to chapter 9

9, g. Transcripts and extracts from four selected letters to Deissmann on the occasion of his 70th birthday. In Adolf Deißmann, zum 7. November 1936. I. Letter from an English Archbishop (Reference: ch. 9, n. 45)

Bishopthorpe, York, June, 4. 1936 It is a great honour as well as a great pleasure to be associated with this tribute to Dr. Adolf Deissmann. He has put under a most real obligation all students of the New Testament; in my own country his work is widely known and exerts a powerful influence. But it is more for his personal qualities and his significance as an international figure that I have learnt to revere him. As a leader in the Movement on Faith and Order and on Life and Work he has contributed as much as any one in the world to mutual understanding and appreciation between Christians of different countries, and so to Christian unity and to good will among the nations. I count it a high privilege that I am permitted to number him among my friends. [signed] William Ebor Archbishop of York ____________ II. Letter from a German biblical archaeologist (Reference: ch. 9, n. 45)

Hochverehrter und lieber Herr Geheimrat, zu Ihrem 70. Geburtstag bitte ich Ihnen in Ehrfurcht und Dankbarkeit meine persçnlichen Glîckwînsche und die des Instituts fîr Christliche Archologie an unserer Universitt bringe zu dîrfen. Sie waren nicht nur mein Lehrer in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, sondern fçrderten auch meine archologische Arbeit. Sie weckten durch Ihre Paulusstudien die Sehnsucht nach Ephesus in mir und bahnten mir den Weg dorthin. Das Institut, dass ich jetzt zu fîhren habe, bewahrt Ihren Namen auf, nicht nur weil Sie es wie einst Adolf Harnack fîr kurze Zeit geleitet

Appendix to chapter 9

529

haben,2 sondern weil Sie immer fîr unsere jungen eben erst selbststndig gewordene Wissenschaft eingetreten sind. Bewahren Sie der christlichen Archologie und besonders unseres Instituts die Treue und Hilfsbereitschaft! Das Institut hat solche Hilfsbereitschaft nçtiger denn je, da es sich anschickt, an große Aufgaben zu gehen. Helfen Sie uns, dass uns die Mçglichkeit eines großzîgigen Aufbaus unserer Sammlungen und des Lehrmuseums gegeben wird! Das Beste, was die Jugend einem Meister zum Geburtstag sagen kann, ist ihr Bekenntnis: Wir haben Sie nçtig! Wir alle wînschen, dass Sie uns jîngere Generation noch lange fîhren und Vorbild bleiben und einen neuen Aufstieg unserer Fakultt miterleben mçchten. [signed] In Ehrfurcht, ihr ergebener Friedrich Gerke, Berlin – Friedman, im Okt. 1936 ____________ III. Extract of a letter from an American Seminary dean (Reference: ch. 9, n. 45)

… There was another emphasis, which made your lectures fruitful: the idea of the Christian movement as a part of the social process. Not a new idea to me, it has been carried far in the American universities … but it came from your lectures with unusual freshness, especially after your journeys to the Near East … it is almost superfluous to speak of the wide influence which your philological studies have had in America. Mine is not the only theological classroom in the United States to which you have brought Licht vom Osten. They are scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. It is superfluous also to speak of your interdenominational and international labors. If they have taken time and strength which many of your former students would like to have seen devoted to scientific tasks, they have been richly rewarded by the influence you have had on lessening the spirit of strife and furthering oecumenical Christianity, in America not less than in other lands. 2

This is a likely reference to GAD having been locum tenens during Georg Stuhlfauth’s directorship (1913 – 1934), for with the appointment of Hans Lietzmann as Harnack’s successor in winter 1923 the Faculty and the Seminar began to work in close cooperation.

530

Appendix to chapter 9

[signed] Mc.Cown, D.D., Dean & Prof. of NT Lit., Pacific School of Religion ____________ IV. Letter from an Austrian classicist and archaeologist (Reference: ch. 5, nn. 1, 197, ch. 9, n. 45)

Lieber hochverehrter Freund, ich denke, gerade Du wirst mich verstehen, wenn ich Dir heute gestehe, daß es mir in den 3 Monaten, da die Entscheidung îber die Annahme des Rufes nach Wien in Frage stand, einfach unmçglich war, den schlichten Dir zugedachten Glîckwunsch zu Deinem 70. Geburtstag zu Papier zu bringen; es war da etwas wie eine Unklarheit zwischen uns, die ich nicht zu îberwinden mochte. Heute, da ich nach schweren ˜berlegungen, weil ich es fîr meine Pflicht hielt, an meinen Ausgangspunkt zurîckgekehrt bin, ist die Unklarheit verschwunden, aber dafîr ist schon in den ersten Tagen die Sehnsucht nach meinen Freunden im Reich erwacht. Es sind dort so wundervolle Menschen, und es wre schrecklich, wenn sich die Grenze des Staates als eine Grenze der Freundschaft oder der geistigen Zusammenarbeit ußern wollte. Es kann ja aber, Gott sei dafîr gedankt – nicht sein! Du hast einst îber die Grenzen hinaus das große Ephesosunternehmen, dem Deine und unsere Liebe galt, zu neuem Leben erweckt und hast es betreut als heiligen Besitz geistiger Art, fîr den unter deutschen Menschen keine Grenze bestehen kann. Voll Dankbarkeit haben wir 1926 Deinen 60. Geburtstag in der ‘Metropolis’ gefeiert. Voll grçßter Dankbarkeit haben wir Deiner an Deinem 70. Geburtstag zu gedenken. Aber so wie ich, kann es keiner tun, weil ich mehr als alle anderen, nicht nur das, was Du getan hast, kenne, sondern auch um die große, glîhende Liebe weiß, aus der heraus Dein ganzes Tun geflossen ist. Um diese glîhende Liebe weiß ich selbst, weiß auch meine Frau. An sie denken wir an Deinem Ehrentage und es ist uns, ob alles, was Dir an Ehrungen und Auszeichnungen gegeben wurde und gegeben werden kann, nichts ist im Vergleich zu ihr. Mçge der gîtige Gott das heilige Feuer dieser in Dir glîhenden Liebe Deiner Familie und uns allen noch viele viele Jahre brennen und leuchten lassen! Das ist der große reine Wunsch Deines getreuen [signed] J. Keil mit Frau Wien, den 5. Oktober 1936 *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 9

531

9, h. Transcripts of a German and a British obituary for Deissmann. I. Obituary of Deissmann, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 9. 4. 1937 (References: ch. 9, nn. 48, 54, 56)

This unpaginated newspaper cutting (held in private collection) is signed only with the initials M.H. Adolf Deißmann wurde am Donnerstagnachmittag auf dem stillen Friedhof in Wînsdorf, wie es der Verstorbene gewînscht hatte, in mrkischer Erde unter mrkischen Fichten und Kiefern zu Grabe getragen. Voraus ging eine schlichte Feierstunde in der alten Dorfkirche. Und diese Feierstunde wurde in ihrem ußeren Rahmen zu einem Symbol fîr die weltenweite Wissenschaft des Heimgegangenen, zugleich aber fîr seine enge Verbundenheit mit der mrkischen Wahlheimat und ihren Menschen. Neben Vertretern der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche, des Oberkirchenrats, des Weltbundes fîr Freundschaftsarbeiten der Kirchen und der Schwedischen Kirche in Berlin, neben Rektor, Dekan und Professorenschaft der theologischen Fakultt der Universitt Berlin, neben zahlreichen Professoren aller Berliner Hochschulen und Fakultten, darîber hinaus reichsdeutscher und auslndischer Hochschulen sowie anderer wissenschaftlicher und kirchlicher Kçrperschaften waren viele Mnner und Frauen aus dem Dorf erschienen, die in die Fîlle kostbarer Krnze als Zeichen ihres Gedenkens bescheidene Frîhlingsstruße am Sarge niederlegten. Superintendent Lic. Irmer legte seiner Ansprache die Worte D. Deißmanns aus „Die Hirten“ zugrunde: „Auch auf den Hçhen intellekter Hochkultur ist es mçglich, zu der heiligen Einfachheit des Evangeliums hindurchzudringen.“ Wenn je bei einem Menschen diese Worte Wirklichkeit geworden seien, wenn je ein Leben erfîllt war von geistiger Hochkultur und Schlichtheit des Christusglaubens und Lebens, dann das Leben des Verstorbenen. Als Gelehrter auf den Hçhen handelnd, ein leuchtender Kînder der Offenbarung Gottes und Jesu Christi, blieb er der einfache Mensch und schlichte Christ, der den Acker bestellt hatte, jederzeit bereit, dem Ruf Gottes zu folgen. Superintendent Irmer gedachte auch der Gattin, die dem Heimgegangenen den Weg zum großen Schaffen geebnet habe.

532

Appendix to chapter 9

Dann grîßt Professor D. Martin Dibelius (Heidelberg), dem Verstorbenen durch jahrelanges gemeinsames Schaffen und Wollen eng verbunden, noch einmal dem Freund, den klugen, gîtigen Menschen, der Freundschaft zu halten und zu wahren wußte in guten und in bçsen Tagen, der auch in seinen menschlichen Beziehungen ein Zeuge des Evangeliums war, ein Mann, der bei seinem großen wissenschaftlichen Namen und der Reichweite seiner Beziehungen Herzensfrçmmigkeit und Herzensfreundschaft bewart hat. Einen Tag zuvor noch, ehe Deißmann die kurze, heimtîckische Krankheit befiel, waren die Freunde in der lndlichen Stille Wînsdorfs beieinander. Prof. Dibelius rief seinem Freund als letzten Gruß die Worte nach, die er zuletzt aus seinem Mund gehçrt hat: Gott befohlen! Gesnge eines Studentenchors und Orgelspiel umrahmten die wîrdige Feierstunde. Als sich die Trauergemeinde unter Glockengelut gemeinsam zum Friedhof begab, machten die grauen Wolken hellem Sonnenschein Platz. Der Einsegnung folgte des Verstorbenen Lieblingslied „Morgenglanz der Ewigkeit’. ____________ II. Obituary of Deissmann, The Times, 14. 4. 1937 (References: ch. 9, nn. 48, 89)

It is written by the bishop of Chichester, G.K.A. Bell. 14. 4. 1937, 47, 658. With the death of Adolf Deissmann, after a short and severe illness last week, a great and many-sided Christian personality has passed away. The excellent notice in The Times described the pre-eminence of the scholar in the world of theology. I should like to add a tribute to the great work done in a different field. For the greater part of his active life, Deissmann was a foremost worker for the friendship of the nations through the fellowship of the Churches. he was a pioneer in seeking a mutual understanding between the German Evangelical Churches and the Churches of Great Britain. Before the War he did much to this end in personal interviews with Archbishop Davidson and others, and at various meetings arranged by Lord (then Mr. W.H.) Dickinson, Mr. Allan Baker,

Appendix to chapter 9

533

and their colleagues. During the War, while the most patriotic of Germans, and a strong critic of the Allied Powers, not afraid of controversy, he spoke friendly words about the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom, after the Armistice, he appealed in vain for intervention against the blockade. My own first meeting with Deissmann was at the sessions of the International Committee of the World Alliance for Promoting Friendship through the Churches at The Hague in September 1919, soon after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. He looked an unhappy and suffering man, but he retained his feelings of friendship, and cordial messages were exchanged between him and Dr. Davidson. And though still suffering, and bearing the marks of strain, it gave him peculiar pleasure to be welcomed most cordially at Lambeth when he visited England three or four years later. A further special task of Church friendship, which Deissmann was very active in promoting, was the series of conferences between German and English theologians soon after the World Conference of the Churches held at Stockholm in 1925. These conferences took place in the happiest circumstances, first at Canterbury, then at the Wartburg, and next at Chichester; six German and six English scholars attending each. The result of the discussions was published a few years ago both in German and in English in a volume of essays on the Person of Christ, entitled ‘Mysterium Christy’ (Longmans). A fourth conference was to have taken place in Germany in 1933 but owing to the difficulties of the time it has not yet been held. But the cause for which the conference stood was specially dear to Deissmann’s heart. Deissmann believed in, and strove ardently for, Christian fellowship along many lines. He was president of the Theologians’ Commission of the Universal Christian Council for Life and Work, and did immense good in drawing scholars of many nations and traditions to common work. He was one of the most impressive figures at Stockholm in 1925, a particular friend of the late Archbishop Sçderblom, and a part author of the Stockholm Message, which he read in moving tones last year to the Universal Council at Chamby, standing, as it chanced, almost by Mrs. Sçderblom’s side. And his friends of many countries were looking forward to his collaboration at the World Conference on Church, Community, and State, to be held at Oxford next July. But it is the personality behind all these works, which his friends will chiefly miss. With his fine presence and black beard and hair, he looked much younger than his years. He was a man of moderation, reserved and even a little on his guard at times: a clear and distinguished speaker, with a striking style, as was fitting in the

534

Appendix to chapter 9

Rector of Berlin University and a scholar of deep insight and sympathy. Above all, he was an earnest and humble minded Christian disciple, and an unconquerable believer in Una Sancta, the One Holy Catholic Church of Christ. * * * 9, i. Transcripts of three letters in respect to Deissmann’s Nachlass. I. Kultusministerium, letter to A. Stolzenburg, Dekan of the Berlin Theological Faculty, 26. 7. 1937 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 58)

Professor D. Lietzmann hat zu der Frage eines Ausbaues der wissenschaftlichen theologischen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Schweden nachstehende Anregungen gegeben: Uppsala hat die theologischen Beziehungen zu Deutschland immer besonders gepflegt. Demnchst wird Professor Fridrichsen nach Berlin kommen. Es wird nîtzlich sein, mit ihm îber die Fçrderung der Verbundenheit zu sprechen. – Angesichts der begreiflichen Verstimmung schwedischer Wissenschaftskreise îber das Verbot des Nobelpreises fîr Wissenschaft wre zu erwgen, ob man nicht eine freundschaftliche Geste dorthin machen sollte, z. B. Schenkung der Bibliothek von Professor Deißmann fîr das neutestamentliche Seminar in Uppsala (Professor Fridrichsen!). Oder Stiftung fîr einen christlich-archologischen Lehrapparat in Uppsala. Professor Fridrichsen beabsichtigt, einen schwedischen jungen Dozenten nach Berlin zu schicken, damit er bei uns christliche Archologie studiert, und gleichzeitig von uns dort îber dieses Gebiet Vorlesungen halten zu lassen. Das kann fîr unser Institut von großem Wert sein. ____________ II. H. Lietzmann, letter to A. Fridrichsen, 26. 5. 1939 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 58)

The letter is printed in K. Aland, ed., Glanz und Niedergang der deutschen Universitt: 50 Jahre deutscher Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Briefen an und von Hans Lietzmann (1892 – 1942), mit einer einfîhrenden Darstellung, Berlin, 1979, 963.

Appendix to chapter 9

535

Lieber Freund Fridrichsen! Was ich Ihnen bei meinem letzten Besuch als Hoffnung aussprach, ist Wirklichkeit geworden. Das Ministerium hat die Bibliothek Deißmann tatschlich angekauft und wird sie Ihnen zum Geschenk machen. Ich habe die amtliche Mitteilung vom Ministerium bekommen und habe auch die Kisten selbst heute in der Austauschstelle der Staatsbibliothek stehen sehen. Sie werden demnchst an die Deutsche Gesandtschaft in Stockholm verfrachtet und dann werden Sie das Weitere von dort erfahren. Ich freue mich riesig, daß das gelungen ist und hoffe, Sie werden auch Freude daran haben. Wir alle Grîßen Sie und die Ihrigen herzlich und hoffen, Sie bald mal wieder hier zu sehen. In alter Treue [signed] Ihr [H. Lietzmann] ____________ III. A. Fridrichsen, letter to H. Lietzmann, 10. 8. 1939 (Reference: ch. 9, n. 58)

In Glanz und Niedergang, 972. Lieber Herr Kollege! Eigentlich ist dieser Brief an Frau L[ietzmann], der ich recht herzlich danken mçchte fîr Ihren Brief mit den mir sehr willkommenen Nachrichten von der Familie L. Ich bitte, Gruß und Dank zu îbermitteln. Schçn, dass der Kaffee good schmeckt; Tabak ohne Kaffee (nur Wein) macht eine einseitige Dit. Die 21 Bîcherkisten vom Ministerium sind in unseren Hnden. Anbei Kopie von dem Dankschreiben der Fakultt. Wîrden Sie freundlichst dieselbe an Frau Deißmann weiterbefçrdern? Die Munifizenz des Ministers wird wohl noch weiter offizielle Konsequenzen haben, die aber noch im Dunkel der Zukunft liegen … Mit herzlichen Grîßen Ihr A. Fridrichsen. *

*

*

536

Appendix to chapter 9

9, j. Extract from Deissmann’s Olaus-Petri lecture, ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’ (Reference: ch. 9, n. 67, 78)

In IMW, 355 – 6. See also Appendix 8, f. Mittlerweile gingen dann große Vernderungen im Personalbestand der deutschen Theologenschaft vor sich. Ich glaube nicht, daß jemals in so wenigen Jahren so viele namhafte und zum Teil fîhrende Forscher bei uns gestorben sind, als whrend des Krieges: Johannes Weiß, Alfred Seeberg, Georg Heinrici, die fachverwandten Philologen Albert Thumb und Paul Wendland, dann Gustav Wohlenberg, Julius Wellhausen, Bernhard Weiß, Ernst Kîhl, Albert Hauck, Friedrich Nippold, – das ist eine Verlustliste bloß der biblischen und historischen Fcher, bei der ich im Augenblick nicht einmal weiß, ob sie vollstndig ist. Der furchtbare seelische Druck der Zeit und der Hungerkrieg gegen unsere Nichtkombattanten, der die Widerstandsfhigkeit auch gegen leichtere Erkrankungen verminderte, stehen da mit im Hintergrunde. Als direkte Opfer der Front fielen, wenn ich nur an biblische Forscher denke, Franz Dibelius, Caspar Ren¤ Gregory (in seiner lauteren originellen Persçnlichkeit ein leuchtendes Symbol der Einheit der Kirche) und Traugott Schmidt (Privatdozent fîr neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft in Gçttingen); außer ihnen ein großer Teil des jîngsten theologischen Nachwuchses, der fîr die literarische und akademische Laufbahnen in Betracht gekommen wre, junge Lizentiaten und Doktoren die, mit ihren wissenschaftlichen Problemen ins Feld gezogen, nur das eine große persçnliche Problem ihrer vaterlndischen Pflicht restlos erfîllen durften. Die Verwîstungen des Krieges in der akademischen Jugend gehçren zu den entsetzlichsten Tatsachen dieser Zeit; die theologischen Fakultten sind besonders stark betroffen. So ist heute unser Personalbestand ein wesentlich anderer als 1914: die Mitarbeiter haben zu einem guten Teile die Werkstatt verlassen, und unsere Hçrsle sind verçdet. Ich kann Ihnen nicht sagen, wie sehr es mich ergreift, hier bei ihnen der in ungebrochener Kraft arbeitenden akademischen Jugend Ihrer ehrwîrdigen Alma mater ins Auge blicken zu dîrfen; diese von jungen Mnnern vollen Bnke sind ein Anblick, dessen wir uns nahezu entwçhnt haben. *

*

*

Appendix to chapter 9

537

9, k. Transcript of a newspaper article from the Lahnzeitung, 27. 6. 1962 (Reference: ch. 9, nn. 80, 88)

It is entitled: ‘Ein Festtag fîr die ganze Gemeinde: feierliche Enthîllung der Gedenktafel fîr Professor D. Adolf Deissmann’. Langenscheid. Ein strahlend schçner Sommertag. In den Zweigen der hohen Akazie auf dem altertîmlichen Pfarrhof summen die Bienen. Da fîllt sich der sonst so stille daliegende Hof mit festlich gekleideten Menschen, deren Blicke gerichtet sind auf die Wandflche neben der Haustîr. Dort hngt ein Tuch, das eine Tafel verdeckt: die Gedenktafel fîr Professor D. Adolf Deissmann, die hier an seinem Geburtshause enthîllt werden soll. Nach kurzer Begrîßung der Gste durch Ortspfarrer Siebert nahmen zwei Kirchenvorsteher die Hîlle ab, und die schçne Bronzetafel, von Glockengießer Fritz Rincker aus Sinn gegossen, wird nun vor aller Augen sichtbar: der charaktervolle Kopf, den Bildhauer Helmuth Uhrig aus Arnoldshain gestaltet hat, dazu die Inschrift: „D. Adolf Deissmann, Professor der Theologie, Forscher und Lehrer fîr Neues Testament, Freund seiner Studenten in Herborn, Heidelberg und Berlin. Fçrderer der çkumenischen Bewegung der Kirchen, geboren als nassauischer Pfarrerssohn in diesem Hause am 7. November 1866, gestorben in Wînsdorf bei Berlin am 5. April 1937. Gedenket an eure Lehrer, die euch das Wort Gottes gesagt haben. Hebr. 13, 7.“

Prof. D. Bertram (Gießen), einer der noch lebenden Schîler Deissmanns, hlt die Gedenkrede. Er wîrdigt ausfîhrlich das Lebenswerk Deissmanns, der bei der Erforschung des Neuen Testaments ganz neue Wege ging, indem er die griechische Umgangssprache der Zeit Jesu zum Vergleich heranzog, die aus zahlreichen Handschriftenfunden damals bekannt wurde. Die andere Seite von Deissmanns Wirken war die Freundschaftsarbeit der Kirchen, in die er sich freudig hineinstellte und die zu den Weltkirchenkonferenzen von Lausanne und Stockholm fîhrte, an denen er fîhrend beteiligt war. Marburg, Herborn, Heidelberg und Berlin waren die Stationen auf Deissmanns Lebensweg. Dann sprach Prof. D. Kîmmel (Marburg) îber den Anfang des jungen Dozenten in Marburg, ferner Prof. D. Graffmann (Herborn) îber die Herborner Jahre, in denen der junge Gelehrte zugleich Gemeindepfarrer fîr Hçrbach, Hirschberg und Sinn war. 1898 wurde der kaum

538

Appendix to chapter 9

Dreißigjhrige auf den Lehrstuhl fîr Neues Testament in Heidelberg berufen. Einer seiner dortigen Nachfolger, Prof. D. Kuhn îberbrachte die Grîße der Ruperto-Carolina, Heidelberg. In seinen Heidelberger Jahren stand Deissmann auf der Hçhe seines Schaffens. Von 1908 wirkte er in Berlin fast drei Jahrzehnte. Verschiedene Schîler Deissmanns aus seiner Berliner Zeit waren anwesend, von denen einige ihres alten Lehrers gedachten, so Dekan Bohirs (Altendiez) und Frau Pfr. Gramm (Diez). Die Grîße der Kirchenleitung îberbracht Propst D. zur Nieden (Wiesbaden), der zugleich die Bedeutung des theologischen Lehrers Adolf Deissmann fîr den Pfarrerstand hervorhob. Die Feier auf dem Pfarrhof endete mit einem Dankeswort von Rechtsanwalt Dr. Ernst Deissmann, der als ltester Sohn im Namen der ganzen Familie fîr die Ehrung dankte, die seinem Vater 25 Jahre nach seinem Tode zuteil geworden sei. Bei einer festlichen Kaffeetafel im Saalbau Kîchler wurden weiter Grîße und Wînsche ausgetauscht. Kirchenvorsteher Ewald Kîchler hieß die Gste im Namen der Kirchengemeinde Langenscheid willkommen. Pfarrer Debusmann (Mensfelden) îberbrachte Grîße des Pfarrvereins. Schriftliche Wînsche hatten unter anderen îbersandt die Theologische Fakultt der Universitt Mainz, der stellvertretende Kirchenprsident, Oberkirchenrat D. Sucker, die frîheren Langenscheider Pfarrer Dietz und Ernst Steubing u. a. Der Einweihung der Gedenktafel ging ein festlicher Gottesdienst voran, in dem Dekan Bohirs die Predigt hielt. Die jîngste Tochter Prof. Deissmanns sang nach der Predigt das Lieblingslied ihres Vaters: „Morgenglanz der Ewigkeit …“ * * * 9, l. Extract from G. Harder/G. Deissmann, Zum Gedenken an Adolf Deissmann (Reference: ch. 1, n. 29; 9, n. 87)

This extract is from p. 5 and gives a description of Deissmann’s teaching style. Unvergesslich steht er vor mir auf dem Katheder, der stattliche Mann mit dem schwarzen Vollbart. Pînktlich fînf Minuten nach Viertel betrat er den Hçrsaal. Sein Assistent Michaelis hat mir einmal erzhlt, es sei das Vorrecht der Ordinarien, die Vorlesung mit fînfminîtiger Versptung zu

Appendix to chapter 9

539

beginnen. Gemessenen Schrittes ging er zum Katheder. Er war eigentlich immer mit einer gewissen unnahbaren Feierlichkeit umgeben, vielleicht eine unbewußte Abwehrhandlung eines zarten und fast schîchternen Gemîtes – so jedenfalls habe ich es empfunden. Auch auf dem Katheder stand er fast unbewegt, eine Hand auf dem Rîcken, whrend er hufig den Daumen der anderen Hand ein wenig gegen die Unterlippe drîckte. Seine Sprache war ruhig, von mittlerer Lautstrke, nur in der Klangfarbe den heimatlichen Dialekt verratend. Gern ließ er einen fein abgewogenen Scherz in die Rede eingleiten. Seine Formulierungen waren wohldurchdacht und wiederholten sich çfter in ganz bestimmten Wendungen. Auch in den Seminarsitzungen ging es feierlich zu. Begleitet vom Assistenten und Senior des Seminars betrat Deissmann jenen, den Hçrern von damals unvergeßlichen, von ihm ausgeschmîckten Seminarraum, indem sich Abklatsche wichtiger Inschriften, ein Bild von Ephesus und ein großes §lgemlde, das die Entstehung der Sakramente aus der Seitenwunde des Gekreuzigten darstellte, befanden. Auch in diesem Seminarraum gab es ein Katheder, auf dem die genannten drei Platz nahmen. Deissmann pflegte in den Raum und in alles, was darin an Bîchern und Bildern ausgestellt war, einzufîhren. Dann verwies er im Sommersemester gern auch auf die herrliche Kastanienblîte, den Rest vom sogenannten Kastanienwldchen im nçrdlichen Hof der Universitt, und fîgte schmunzelnd hinzu: „Diese Kastanienblîte gehçrt zu den besten Leistungen des Seminars.“

Addenda The two transcripts included here are fundamental to an appreciation of Deissmann as a philologist, and to how he himself reflected on the different directions his life took. Yet neither of the two texts is easily obtainable today, especially outside Germany. Inserted page numbers follow those of the original documents, and have been added to assist cross-referencing. 1. Transcript of Deissmann’s Giessen paper, ‘Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwrtiger Stand und ihre Aufgabe’. (Reference: ch. 1, nn. 134, 147; ch. 2, n. 29; ch. 3, nn. 32, 58)

He presented it at the Theological Conference in Giessen, on 17 June 1897, and it was published as a separate pamphlet in 1898. j3 Ein Bericht îber den Stand der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung eines einzelnen Gebietes hat in zwei Fllen am ehesten eine Berechtigung: entweder wenn die Arbeit an einem Punkte angelangt ist, wo die Bedeutsamkeit der Leistungen einen lohnenden Rîckblick verheißt, oder wenn unerwartete Bereicherungen des Arbeitsmaterials oder wesentliche Korrekturen der Arbeitsmethode die Disciplin vor neue oder doch erweiterte Aufgaben gestellt haben. Im ersten Falle wird der Rîckblick mehr den Charakter eines ruhig registrierenden litterarischen Berichtes tragen, im zweiten Falle ist er nicht denkbar ohne ein starkes kritisches und methodologisches Interesse. Der Versuch, îber den Stand der sprachlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel Bericht zu erstatten, kçnnte in der einen und in der anderen Weise unternommen werden. Denn er rechtfertigt sich sowohl durch den Rîckblick auf die Arbeiten der letzten Zeit, als auch durch den Ausblick auf neue oder doch erweiterte Aufgaben. Allein die letzten fînf Jahre haben uns – um nur die Hauptsache zu nennen – fîr das griechische Alte Testament das Riesenwerk einer neuen

542

Addenda

Konkordanz gebracht, fîr das Neue Testament zwei neue Grammatiken, zwei Auflagen des Wçrterbuchs von Cremer und ebenfalls eine neue Konkordanz, fîr beide Testamente zusammen den Beginn des großen, auch die außerkanonische altchristliche Litteratur umfassenden Wçrterbuchs von Baljon. Dazu j4 kommt die Menge des in Monographien und Aufstzen, in Kommentaren und Recensionen enthaltenen Einzelmaterials. Im Hinblick gerade auf die letztverflossenen Jahre dîrfen wir also zweifellos von einer Neubelebung des sprachwissenschaftlichen Interesses an der griechischen Bibel reden, und wenn es nicht eigentlich etwas ganz Natîrliches wre, mîßte man es als etwas besonders Erfreuliches bezeichnen, daß auch die Philologen begonnen haben, sich wieder mehr fîr unsere Texte zu interessieren. Gewiß fehlte das Interesse auch den frîheren Jahrzehnten nicht. Besitzen wir doch aus dieser Zeit fîrs Neue Testament so bedeutende Bîcher wie die Grammatik von Alexander Buttmann und das Wçrterbuch von Wilibald Grimm, und hatte doch der alte Winer 1867 eine siebente Auflage erlebt. Aber im allgemeinen, namentlich im Verhltnis zu anderen Disciplinen, war unser Gebiet zumal in Deutschland lngere Zeit recht vernachlssigt worden. Nichts kennzeichnet diese Thatsache deutlicher, als der Umstand, daß zwischen der siebenten und der achten Auflage des Winer beinahe dreißig Jahre liegen, in denen gewiß hunderte und Aberhunderte von deutschen Theologiestudierenden eine Grammatik zum Neuen Testament nie in die Hand bekommen haben. Ich muß es unterlassen, den Ursachen dieser zeitweiligen Sterilitt nachzugehen; auch so wird man es begreiflich finden, daß eine Neubelebung der biblischsprachlichen Studien als der natîrliche Rîckschlag gegen jene unproduktive Periode kommen mußte. Diese Neubelebung fiel in eine Zeit, in der man anfing, das Maß der sprachwissenschaftlichen Vorbildung der gelehrten Berufe zu vermindern; das ist bemerkenswert: die Pessimisten sollen, wie es scheint, nicht recht behalten mit ihrer Befîrchtung, durch die Reform des Gymnasialwesens werde mit der Zeit die Auslegung der heiligen Schrift dem kîhneren Werben der Dogmatik und der Partei vollends ausgeliefert werden. Dieselbe Zeit, in der eine solche Befîrchtung gehegt werden konnte, hat die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen j5 Bibel durch Darbietung neuer sehr reichlich fließender Quellen fîr die griechische Sprachgeschichte vor eine wesentlich erweiterte Aufgabe gestellt. Autoren und Litteraturwerke, die man nur noch dem Namen nach kannte, sind wiederentdeckt worden; mehrere der lngst bekannten, aber im Verhltnis zu den sogenannten Klassikern frîher vernachlssigten

Addenda

543

griechischen Schriftsteller aus den Jahrhunderten der Religionswende haben fleißige Herausgeber oder Bearbeiter gefunden; die lteren Inschriftensammlungen werden revidiert und Jahr um Jahr fast durch neue Folianten bereichert; und zu alledem kommen die unzhligen Papyrusbltter mit griechischer Schrift, die nach jahrhunderte- und jahrtausendelangem Schlummer in dem alten Wunderlande am Nil unserem Geschlechte wiedergeschenkt und den Kostbarsten Schtzen unserer Museen zugesellt worden sind. Durch neue Erkenntnisse befruchtet, steht die griechische Philologie gegenwrtig im Zeichen einer vielverheißenden Renaissance und fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, daß sie in engste Fîhlung trete mit der historischen Erforschung der griechischen Sprache. Wird demnach ein Versuch der Berichterstattung durch die Bedeutsamkeit sowohl der Leistungen wie auch der Aufgaben nahegelegt, so mçchte ich keinen Zweifel darîber lassen, daß ich es fîr richtiger halte, diesen Versuch nicht nach Art eines bibliographischen ˜berblickes zu geben. Ich wre hierzu auch gar nicht imstande; denn das erste Erfordernis eines solchen ˜berblickes wre Vollstndigkeit. Mir ist aber manches, besonders aus der auslndischen Litteratur, bis jetzt nicht zugnglich gewesen. Ich muß mich also darauf beschrnken, die hauptschlichsten Erscheinungen der letzten Jahre und im Anschluß daran die Aufgaben der Forschung kurz zu charakterisieren. Dabei soll der Hinweis auf die seitherigen Leistungen immer in dem Dienst einer mçglichst klaren und methodisch abgegrenzten Darlegung der Aufgaben gestellt sein. j6

I

Wohl die meisten Werke der letzten Zeit dienen – das ist ihr Gemeinsames – der Erforschung nicht der griechischen Bibel, sondern des biblischen Griechisch, oder eines Teiles, des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Dies muß von vornherein mit dem ausdrîcklichen Zusatz betont werden, daß die Unterscheidung der Erforschung der griechischen Bibel von der Erforschung des biblischen Griechisch nicht ein Spiel mit Worten ist, sondern eine principielle Sache von großer Tragweite. Werfen wir einen Blick auf einige Titelbltter. Da schreibt Edwin Hatch „Essays in Biblical Greek“ und sein selbstndiger Schîler H.H.A. Kennedy „Sources of New Testament Greek“. Hermann Cremers Werk ist nach wie vor ein „Biblisch-theologisches Wçrterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Grcitt“, der neue Winer erscheint unter dem alten Titel

544

Addenda

„Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms“, und Friedrich Blaß beschenkt uns mit einer „Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch“. Daß in solcher Fassung des Titels sich eine bestimmte Eigenart der wissenschaftlichen Methode ankîndigt, zeigen pointierte Stze wie die folgenden. Hatch schreibt: „Das biblische Griechisch ist eine selbstndige Sprache“, Cremer macht sich die Worte von Richard Rothe zu eigen: „Man kann in der That mit gutem Fug von einer Sprache des heiligen Geistes reden. Denn es liegt in der Bibel offen vor unseren Augen, wie der in der Offenbarung wirksame gçttliche Geist jedesmal aus der Sprache desjenigen Volkskreises, welcher den Schauplatz jener ausmacht, sich eine ganz eigentîmliche religiçse Mundart gebildet hat, indem er die sprachlichen Elemente, die er vorfand, ebenso wie die schon vorhandenen Begriffe zu einer ihm eigentîmlich angemeßenen Gestalt umformte. Am evidentesten veranschaulicht das Griechische des Neuen Testamentes diesen Vorgang.“ Auch Blaß, aus dessen Ausfîhrungen in der Grammatik j7 hervorgeht, daß er – trotz des Titels – seinen principiellen Standpunkt in dieser Frage inzwischen gendert hat, bemerkte 1894 in einer Recension, das neutestamentliche Griechisch sei „als ein besonderes, seinen eigenen Gesetzen folgendes anzuerkennen’. Ich glaube, daß diese Stze, denen sich hnliche aus anderen Bîchern in nicht geringer Zahl anreihen ließen, der Ausdruck einer weitverbreiteten Meinung sind, die, ob ausgesprochen oder nicht, besonders in der Exegese von tiefgreifender Wirkung ist. Aus der Masse der vom Altertum uns îberlieferten Denkmler der griechischen Sprache wird die griechische Bibel oder wenigstens das Neue Testament herausgestellt, etwa wie von einem Herausgeber griechischer Inschriften die im dorischen Dialekt verfaßten zu einem besonderen Bande oder Abschnitte vereinigt werden kçnnen. Isoliert wird die Bibel, weil sie im „biblischen“, das Neue Testament, weil es im „neutestamentlichen“ Griechisch abgefaßt sei, in einer „Sprache“ einem „Idiom“, einer „Mundart“, einem „Griechisch“, das von dem mit Vorliebe „Profangrcitt“ genannten îbrigen Griechisch scharf zu unterscheiden sei. Es fehlt nur noch, daß von einem biblischen oder einem neutestamentlichen „Dialekt“ gesprochen wird, einem Ausdruck, der mir in der Litteratur noch nicht begegnet ist, aber sicherlich das bezeichnet, was sich manche unter der „Sprache“ der Bibel oder des Neuen Testaments vorstellen. Dieses Griechisch, so urteilt man etwa weiter, nach außen von unverkennbarer Eigenart, ist nach innen einheitlich, eigenen Gesetzen unterworfen und im Besitze eines eigenen Wortschatzes; auch diejenigen Wçrter, die nicht zu den specifisch „biblischen“ oder „neutestamentlichen“ zu rechnen sind,

Addenda

545

zeigen zum großen Teile eine oft weitgehende Abwandlung ihrer Bedeutung, nicht selten infolge des Einflusses des hebrischen oder des semitischen Sprachgeistes. Fassen wir zusammen: die zwei in der Litteratur zumeist vertretenen Grundgedanken îber den sprachlichen Charakter j8 der griechischen Bibel sind die der Eigenart und der Einheitlichkeit des biblischen oder doch des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Durch die Vertretung dieser beiden Grundgedanken zeigen ihre Verfechter mehr oder weniger deutlich ihren Zusammenhang mit den frîheren Stadien der Forschung. Namentlich der zweite Gedanke, der der Einheitlichkeit des biblischen Griechisch, ist alt, so alt, wie die wissenschaftlichen Erwgungen îber die Sprache der griechischen Bibel. in dem berîhmten Streite der Puristen und der Hebraisten ist er wohl keinen Augenblick in Frage gestellt worden; er war die Voraussetzung fîr die Theorien beider Richtungen. Und er ist geschichtlich unschwer zu begreifen; er ist die einfache Folge der mechanisch aufgefaßten Lehre von der Inspiration zunchst des Neuen Testaments. Die Ausdehnung des Gedankens auf das griechische Alte Testament, die wohl erst neueren Datums ist, dîrfte durch einen ebenso einfachen formalen Rîckschluß vom Neuen Testament aus zustande gekommen sein. Gestîtzt wurde der so fundamentierte Gedanke durch den in seiner Art ebenfalls ganz logischen und einfachen Begriff des Biblischen im litterarischen Sinn, des Kanonischen. Wie steht es nun mit den Gedanken der Eigenart und der Einheitlichkeit des biblischen Griechisch thatschlich? Eins scheint mir da von vornherein klar zu sein: es ist mindestens unvorsichtig, sie zum Ausgangspunkt der Forschung zu machen. Und wenn wir die mechanische Inspirationstheorie aufgegeben haben, wird uns ein Blick auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der einzelnen Teile der griechischen Bibel noch bedenklicher machen. Denn diese Geschichte zeigt uns die Mçglichkeit und die Wahrscheinlichkeit zeitlicher und çrtlicher Differenzierung. Aber am deutlichsten reden die heiligen Texte selbst. Sie verlangen gebieterisch, daß man sie sprachwissenschaftlich zunchst in zwei große Gruppen einteilt, in ursprînglich-griechische Schriften und ˜bersetzungen semitischer Vorlagen. Die hier zu ziehende Linie, ohne welche namentlich die syntaktische Beurteilung j9 der biblischen Spracherscheinungen die Richtung verliert, luft nicht so, daß diesseits die LXX und jenseits die Schriften des Neuen Testaments liegen. Vielmehr sind den Denkmlern des ˜bersetzergriechisch auch die meisten Teile der synoptischen Evangelien und vielleicht einiges aus der

546

Addenda

Apokalypse des Johannes zuzurechnen, den griechischen Originalen mehrere der sogenannten Apokryphen des Alten Testaments. Diese beiden Gruppen unterscheiden sich nach ihrem Sprachcharakter ganz außerordentlich; man vergleiche beispielshalber einmal den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Korinther mit dem griechischen Psalter. Die originalgriechischen Schriften sind Denkmler eines wirklich gesprochenen Griechisch, die ˜bersetzungen zeigen ein ad hoc zurechtgemachtes papierenes Griechisch, das in strkerem oder geringerem Maße bewußt oder unbewußt die Eigentîmlichkeit der fremden Vorlage nachahmt; ein Griechisch, wie es von einem in die hellenische Fremde verschlagenen Aramer vielleicht einmal gestottert, aber schwerlich von einem geborenen Alexandriner oder Asiaten, der zur Feder griff, gesprochen worden ist. Selbst die allsabbathliche Verlesung der griechischen Thora in der Diaspora der Hellenen, selbst das gelehrte Studium des Buches der Siebenzig vermochte seinem kînstlichen, unlebendigen Dolmetschergriechisch bei Hçrern und Lesern nicht zum Leben zu verhelfen, wie die Beispiele des Paulus und des Philo zeigen. Kaum daß ein paar formelhaft gewordene Wendungen, einige leicht einprgbare Konstruktionen in die feierliche, altertîmelnde religiçse Sprache îbergegangen waren. Auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptgruppen finden wir, wie nicht anders zu erwarten ist, bemerkenswerte Verschiedenheiten. Die ˜bersetzungen sind nicht von einer und derselben Hand gemacht und nicht nach einheitlicher Methode; die Herrnworte der Evangelien z. B. sind im allgemeinen besser îbersetzt, als viele Partien der LXX. Von welcher Eigenart ist die Sprache des Evangeliums und der Briefe des Johannes im Verhltnis etwa zur Hebrerj-10epistel! Angesichts solcher Thatsachen ist es eine Fiktion, wenn man annimmt, etwa unter den Ptolemern sei bei den gyptischen Juden ein sakrales Griechisch entstanden, das spter unter Tiberius, Claudius usw. bis ins zweite Jahrhundert hinein auch die Sprache der Christen in Syrien, Asien, Achaia und Rom gewesen sei. Werden die griechischen Texte des Alten und des Neuen Testaments einer sprachwissenschaftlichen Betrachtung unterzogen, so kann der erste Eindruck nur der sein: es liegen hier sprachlich disparate Elemente neben einander. Um den sprachwissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkt kann es sich aber bei Stellung und Lçsung unserer Aufgabe allein handeln. Ein gut Teil der Unklarheit, die wir hier konstatieren mîssen, rîhrt daher, daß man mit dem sprachwissenschaftlichen den religionswissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkt vermischt hat Religionsgeschichtlich gehçren die heiligen Texte trotz ihres Mangels an sprachlicher Einheitlichkeit zusammen als

Addenda

547

die Urkunden und Denkmler zweier Phasen, die nicht von einander getrennt werden kçnnen. Das ist zweifellos, und ebenso zweifellos ist, daß die Gedanken, die Begriffe, der Geist des griechischen Alten Testaments und des Neuen Testaments verwandt sind und daß sie sich in ihren Grundbezîgen charaktervoll von dem Durchschnittsglauben des griechisch-rçmischen Heidentums unterscheiden. Aber das sind religionsgeschichtliche Momente, die nicht konstituierend sein kçnnen fîr Auszeichnung einer specifisch biblischen oder christlichen „Grcitt’. Nur von einer einzigen sprachgeschichtlichen Erwgung aus lßt sich fîr die biblischen Schriften eine gewisse sprachliche Eigenart und Einheitlichkeit behaupten, freilich nur in einem formalen Sinne: sie sind fast alle als Denkmler des spteren und zwar unlitterarischen Griechisch zu beurteilen, und dies mit dem ausdrîcklichen Vorbehalt, daß man sich unter dem „Sptgriechischen“ nicht eine scharf umrissene und allenthalben kontrollierbare Grçße vorstellt, sondern etwas Fließendes, etwas oft Problematisches, etwas j11 was wir nicht vçllig kennen, ein Stîck lebendiger und deshalb geheimnisvoller Sprachgeschichte. Eine Formel, welche das Wesen des Sptgriechischen kurz beschreibt, giebt es nicht; sie ist auch gar nicht nçtig, und Werturteile, die es als ein „schlechtes“ Griechisch, als graecitas fatiscenes bezeichnen, sind aus einer ungeschichtlichen, doktrinren Stimmung heraus entstanden oder den Grammatikern nachgesprochen, die das Weben und Wechseln der Dinge glaubten hindern zu kçnnen. Das Sptgriechisch und mit ihm das originale Griechisch der Bibel ist weder gut noch schlecht; es trgt die Zîge seines Zeitalters und behauptet seine eigentîmliche Stelle in einer großartigen Sprachbewegung und Sprachentwicklung, die in der Urzeit begonnen hat und bis auf den heutigen Tag andauert. Es hat vieles abgestreift, was in der Vergangenheit Brauch war, und es enthlt Keime zukînftigen Werdens, die das Neugriechische entfalten sollte. Lediglich also im Gegensatze zu frîheren oder spteren Phasen der griechischen Sprachgeschichte, nicht aber im Gegensatze zur „Profangrcitt“ darf von einer gewissen Eigenart und Einheitlichkeit des originalen „biblischen“ Griechisch geredet werden. In der Formenbildung ist sie am ehesten zu konstatieren. Die syntaktischen Eigenheiten der ˜bersetzungen, ihre verkleideten Semitismen, sind dabei ganz fîr sich zu betrachten; denn sie sind nicht Erscheinungen des unbefangenen Waltens der Sprachentwicklung, sondern kînstliche øußerungen einer piettsvollen Befangenheit. Was aber in den originalgriechischen Schriften der Bibel nach Semitismen aussieht, legitimiert sich, wenn es wirklich als

548

Addenda

ungriechisch erwiesen werden sollte, eben als Ausnahme und kann das Urteil îber den Grundcharakter der Sprachen nicht wesentlich verndern. j12

II

Specialisierung der Forschung und Eingliederung in den grçßren Zusammenhang der Erforschung des Sptgriechischen, das sind die beiden Forderungen, die als das Ergebnis unserer methodologischen Erwgungen bezeichnet werden kçnnen. Fîr die so aufgefaßte sprachliche Weiterarbeit an der griechischen Bibel haben wir seit kurzem ein außerordentlich wichtiges Hilfsmittel an der in diesem Jahre vollendeten großen Konkordanz zu den LXX und den anderen griechischen ˜bersetzungen des Alten Testaments von Edwin Hatch und Henry A. Redpath. Ursprînglich wohl nur den Interessen der praktischen Bibelauslegung dienend, gehçren die Konkordanzen – wenn man von den „Indices“ zu einigen klassischen Autoren absieht, recht eigentlich eine Specialitt des theologischen Handwerkszeugs – jetzt zu dem unentbehrlichen Apparate der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Sie ermçglichen einen raschen ˜berblick îber den Gebrauch der Wçrter, der Formen und Konstruktionen, und wenn sie eine Ironie auf das Wort oq d¼matai kuh¶mai B cqav¶ zu sein scheinen, so dienen sie bei einem verstndigen Gebrauche thatschlich dem intimeren Verstndnisse der Bibel. Die Hauptforderungen, die man an eine Konkordanz stellen muß, sind Zuverlssigkeit und Vollstndigkeit der Angaben. Die LXX-Konkordanz, auf die man seither angewiesen war, hatte diesen Forderungen nicht genîgt. Der alte Tromm vom Jahre 1718 ist der Stammvater unzhliger Erbsînden in den Citaten der Kommentare. Die neue Konkordanz, begonnen unter den Auspicien von Hatch, der freilich das Erscheinen selbst der ersten Lieferung nicht mehr erleben durfte, wird da gewiß Wandel schaffen; denn sie ist, wenn auch als Menschenwerk nicht fehlerfrei, doch im allgemeinen zuverlssig; ein Hauptfortschritt ist die Berîcksichtigung der fîr das sprachliche Interesse so îberaus wichtigen Partikeln, wiewohl Schmiedel sicherlich Recht hat, wenn er wînscht, die Herausgeber htten auch hier j13 die Stellen ausgeschrieben; denn es sei wichtiger, schnell îber den Gebrauch von %m orientiert zu werden, als in langen Listen das Vorkommen des Wortes %mhqypor verfolgen zu kçnnen. Nicht einstimmen kann ich in die schmerzliche Klage Cremers, dem das System der Statistik in der neuen Konkordanz ein Mißgriff zu sein scheint; ich halte es im Gegenteil fîr einen Vorzug, das man jetzt îber den Sprachgebrauch der einzelnen Bîcher rascher Aufschluß erhlt;

Addenda

549

durch die dabeistehenden Ziffern gewinnt man dann ja doch immer Auskunft îber die hebrische Vorlage, fîr die Berîcksichtigung der Hauptvarianten der Handschriften, in denen sich manches sprachgeschichtlich sehr bedeutsame Detail verbirgt. Zum Beispiel kann das frîher nicht bekannte Adjectivum doj¸lior, fîr zwei Stellen des Neuen Testaments, an denen es verkannt wurde, recht wichtig, aus LXXVarianten nachgewiesen werden; sein Vorkommen wird dann durch die Papyri besttigt. Angesichts des mit der schlichten englischen Vornehmheit gedruckten Werkes, das fîr Jahrzehnte und vielleicht fîr Jahrhunderte das einzige seiner Art bleiben dîrfte, kann man nur bedauern, daß der hohe, wenn auch nicht zu teuere Preis es wohl von den meisten deutschen Studierstuben besonders auch der Pfarrhuser fernhalten wird. Eine Konkordanz will keine positive Fçrderung der Sprachforschung sein; aber sie kann der Antrieb zu einer Neubelebung der Studien werden. So ist zu hoffen, daß die neue LXX-Konkordanz uns dem Ziele nher bringen wird, welches sich die LXX-Forschung, soweit sie den Grcisten angeht, zunchst stecken muß, ich meine das LXX-Wçrterbuch. Das andere große Problem der LXX-Forschung, die Herstellung eines mçglichst alten Textes, – so weit es îberhaupt lçsbar ist – hat, mag es immerhin sonderbar klingen, fîr den Grcisten kein so direktes Interesse, wie fîr den Semitisten. Natîrlich lßt sich beides schließlich nicht trennen; aber es wre unverantwortlich, wenn die Arbeit am LXXj14Lexikon so lange zurîckgestellt wîrde, bis man etwas wie einen kritischen Text hat. Das Lexikon soll ja nicht fîr Jahrhunderte bestimmt sein; es thut seinen Dienst nur so lange, bis es durch ein besseres abgelçst wird, und gerade auch der Kritiker des Textes kann ein Lexikon nicht entbehren. Bis jetzt existiert ein Wçrterbuch zu den LXX noch nicht. Der alte Biel-Schleusner ist eine ziemlich salzlose Verarbeitung der Konkordanz von Tromm und macht, wenn man wirklich etwas aus ihm lernen mçchte, oft den Eindruck einer Sammlung alphabetisch angeordneter sj²mdaka. Der Schlîssel zu den alttestamentlichen Apokryphen von Christian Abraham Wahl ist in seiner Art besser, aber ebenfalls nicht mehr genîgend. Aus neuerer Zeit sind nur Vorarbeiten fîr das kînftige Wçrterbuch zu nennen. Besonders die von Cremer in seinem Biblisch-theologischen Wçrterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Grcitt gebotenen Studien dîrfen nicht außeracht gelassen werden; ich habe freilich das Gefîhl, als stnden sie zum Teil unter dem nicht fçrdernden Einflusse des Dogmas von der „biblischen“ Grcitt und halte nachprîfende Kritik jedenfalls fîr

550

Addenda

geboten. Dasselbe gilt von den lexikalischen Arbeiten Hatchs in seinen schon genannten Untersuchungen zum biblischen Griechisch, die im îbrigen reich an schçnen Beobachtungen sind. Auch sein Schîler, der schottische Pfarrer H.A.A. Kennedy, ist hier zu nennen. Ausgehend von dem Grundgedanken Hatchs, kam er im Verlauf seiner Arbeit immer mehr zu der richtigen ˜berzeugung, daß dieser Grundgedanke abzulehnen sei, daß ein specifisch biblisches Griechisch nicht existiere. So giebt er denn – zum LXX-Wortschatz wie nachher zum Neuen Testament manchen richtigen Beitrag aus den gleichzeitigen Quellen der griechischen Sprache. Erfreulich schon durch ihre bloße Existenz ist die Halenser Doktordissertation von Heinrich Anz. Die Vorstellung des „biblischen“ Griechisch, die den Fortschritt der Arbeit so leicht hemmt, j15 macht dem jungen Philologen offenbar recht wenig Kopfzerbrechen; frisch und frank nimmt er das Buch der Siebenzig hin, wie es ist und wie es sich giebt, und behandelt es als Denkmal des volkstîmlichen Griechisch. Seine sprachhistorische Untersuchungen zu einer Anzahl von Verben der Bîcher Genesis und Exodus machen einen recht gediegenen Eindruck und dîrfen als Vorarbeiten fîr das LXX-Wçrterbuch betrachtet werden; schade, daß dem Verfasser die neueren Papyrusfunde noch nicht zugnglich waren. Eine Fortsetzung dieser Studien, die er zum Schlusse ankîndigt, ist mir noch nicht zu Gesicht gekommen. Auch von dem vor kurzem begonnenen großen Wçrterbuch des Utrechter Theologen J.M.S. Baljon, dessen erste Lieferung erschienen sind, kann ich noch nicht aus Autopsie berichten. Es enthlt oder will enthalten den Wortschatz der LXX und ihrer Trabanten, des Neuen Testaments und îberhaupt der altchristlichen Litteratur. Der Gedanke ist ohne Zweifel ein guter, aber man wird das Bedenken nicht los, als sei er im gegenwrtigen Zeitpunkt ein zu großartiger, vorausgesetzt natîrlich, daß nicht irgend welcher Schund auf den Markt geworfen werden soll, sondern eine Arbeit, welche die Wissenschaft fçrdert. So im Handumdrehen kann weder ein Lexikon zu den LXX noch eins zum Neuen Testament gemacht werde, wenn es das enthalten soll, was man heutzutage verlangen kann. Blaß urteilt denn auch, einen Philologen befremde nicht weniges an diesem Buche. Die eigentîmlichen Schwierigkeiten eines LXX-Wçrterbuches werden gewçhnlich unterschtzt. Man hlt die Aufgabe fîr gelçst, wenn festgestellt ist, welchem hebrischen Worte oder welchen hebrischen Wçrtern ein LXX-Wort entspricht; man schlgt dann nach, was das hebrische Wort bedeutet und gewinnt damit die „Bedeutung“ des LXXWortes. Die ußerlich leicht konstatierbaren Wortgleichungen werden ohne weiteres zu Begriffsgleichungen gemacht. Man îbersieht dabei,

Addenda

551

daß die LXX sehr oft nicht îbersetzt, sondern ersetzt haben, wie ja schließlich jede ˜bersetzung eine wenn j16 auch oft nur leise Vernderung des Sinnes der Vorlage reprsentiert. Was ein LXX-Wort bedeutet, kann nicht aus der Vorlage, die es îbersetzt oder ersetzt, erschlossen werden, sondern allein aus den Quellen der griechischen Sprache, besonders aus den gyptischen Quellen, die neuerdings so reichlich fließen. Auch Blaß hat diese Position eingenommen, die leider nicht selbstverstndlich ist, sondern im Kampfe gegen die Methodelosigkeit erst langsam erobert werden muß. Baljon z. B. fîhrt in seinem Lexikon fîr das LXX-Wort %qjeuhor die Bedeutung „Olivenbaum“ und „Cypressenbaum“ an. Die hebrischen Wçrter fîr diese beiden Bume werden nun allerdings von den ˜bersetzern gelegentlich durch %qjeuhor wiedergegeben, also – schließt Baljon – hat %qjeuhor in der LXX-Sprache diese Bedeutung. Nein – sagt Blaß – %qjeuhor bedeutet „Wacholder“, und „die falsche Uebersetzung macht den Wacholder nicht zur Olive noch zur Zypresse“. Das ist vçllig richtig. Eine Analogie macht die Sache vielleicht klarer. In der Lutherbibel wird die „Terebinthe“ des Urtextes gewçhnlich durch „Eiche“ îbersetzt. In einem Wçrterbuche zur Lutherbibel mîßte nach Analogie des Baljonschen Artikels fîr das Wort „Eiche“ die Bedeutung „Terebinthe“ notiert werden, whrend die Sache doch so liegt, daß Luther – ich will nicht sagen falsch, aber unrichtig îbersetzt hat; er hat den orientalischen Baum verdeutscht. Bei den religionsgeschichtlich wichtigen LXX-Wçrtern zeigt sich der unerfreuliche verwirrende Einfluß jener mechanischen Gleichsetzerei noch deutlicher; die ußerlichen Wortgleichungen werden zu weitgehenden Folgerungen benutzt. Selbst ein LXX-Forscher wie Eberhard Nestle hlt sich in seinen da und dort zerstreuten und gewçhnlich recht lehrreichen Bemerkungen nicht ganz frei von dieser Methode. Ich nenne als Beispiel fîr diese ganze Sache das Wort Rkast¶qiom. Von ihm steht in den achtbarsten theologischen Bîchern zu lesen, es „bedeute“ in der LXX-Grcitt oder in der „biblischen“ Grcitt soviel wie j17 kapporeth, „Deckel der Bundeslade“. Nun bedeutet Rkast¶qiom, wie die Etymologie lehrt und einige Inschriften besttigen, „Sîhnegegenstand“. Wenn die LXX den Deckel der Bundeslade durch Rkast¶qiom wiedergeben, so haben sie den Begriff ersetzt, der die sakrale Bestimmung des Gertes verdeutlicht; der Deckel der Bundeslade ist wohl ein Rkast¶qiom, aber deswegen bedeutet Rkast¶qiom weder bei den LXX, noch bei Paulus oder sonst „Deckel“, sondern „Sîhnegegenstand“. Ein großer Teil der sogenannten „biblischen“ Bedeutung gemeingriechischer Wçrter verdankt sein Dasein in den Wçrterbîchern lediglich jener mechanischen Gleichsetzerei. Zur

552

Addenda

Konstatierung der Wortgleichungen bedarf es keines Lexikons, da reicht die Konkordanz aus. Das Lexikon hat ganz andere und kompliziertere Aufgaben; es muß das griechische Wort in der Geschichte seines Gebrauches vorfîhren unter Benutzung besonders der çrtlich und zeitlich naheliegenden Sprachdenkmler, es muß Bedeutungsdiskrepanzen innerhalb der Wortgleichungen ermitteln und zu erklren suchen. So groß diese Aufgabe ist, so dankbar ist sie; man wird finden, wie ausgiebig die ˜bersetzer trotz ihrer Piett gegen die syntaktischen Eigenheiten der Vorlage den Sprachschatz ihrer Umgebung benutzt haben, namentlich auch mit seinen technischen und prgnanten Ausdrîcken. Fîr das Buch Esther hat dies in einem lehrreichen Aufsatz B. Jacob gezeigt; einzelnes findet sich in den Schriften von Jean-Ant. Letronne und Giac. Lumbroso zur gyptischen Geschichte unter den Ptolemern und in der immer noch wertvollen Arbeit von H.W.J. Thiersch îber den griechischen Pentateuch. Als Beispiele des gyptisierenden und von ihrem Standpunkte auch modernisierenden Zuges der ˜bersetzer mçchte ich folgende auffîhren. Im Buch Esther kommt ein Beamter vor, der den Titel „Schwellenhîter“ fîhrt; die LXX geben den Titel wieder durch !qwisylatov¼kan, also „oberster Leibwchter“, eine Bezeichnung, die aus gyptischen Inschriften und Papyri j18 als Titel eines Beamten am Ptolemerhofe zu belegen ist. Joel 1, 20 wird zur Schilderung der Not des Landes gesagt, die Bche seien vertrocknet; die gyptischen ˜bersetzer haben die „Bche“ in „Kanle“ verwandelt, denn so ist die Schilderung fîr gyptische Verhltnisse viel plastischer. Auch die Wçrter „Strom“ und „Fluß“, wo sie bildlich vorkommen, sind gelegentlich durch „Kanal“ ersetzt; die Vergleiche wurden fîr das von Kanlen durchschnittene Land am Nil dadurch verstndlicher. [In] Genesis 50, 2 f. steht, die ørzte htten die Leiche Jakobs einbalsamiert, die LXX sagen statt „ørzte“ 1mtaviasta¸, denn 1mtaviast¶r war wie ein Papyrus des ersten Jahrhunderts vor Christus ergiebt, der technische Ausdruck fîr die Mitglieder der Gilde, die das Einbalsamieren besorgte. Das schon genannte Bîchlein von Thiersch hat zum Hauptinhalt grammatische Studien îber die Pentateuchîbersetzung. Es ist eine in jeder Beziehung gute Leistung, in manchen Punkten seiner Zeit zweifellos vorauseilend. Leider hat Thiersch so gut wie keine Nachfolger gefunden. Eigentlich grammatische Untersuchungen zu den LXX fehlen ganz, abgesehen von dem, was gelegentlich die Grammatiken zum Neuen Testament bieten, besonders Schmiedel. Und doch ist dies ein recht fruchtbares Gebiet der Forschung; man wolle nur nicht großspurig gleich mit einer Grammatik der LXX beginnen. Hçchstens die Formenlehre des

Addenda

553

ganzen Buches kçnnte einmal im Zusammenhang untersucht werden. Sonst muß es sich zunchst um grammatische Studien zu den einzelnen Bîchern handeln, deren syntaktische Probleme zumeist identisch sind mit der Frage nach der Methode der ˜bersetzung, und bei denen beachtet werden muß, daß nicht Phnomene eines wirklich gesprochenen Griechisch vorliegen. Ebenso notwendig wren exegetische Bearbeitungen einzelner Bîcher der LXX. Daß solche bis jetzt îberhaupt nicht vorhanden sind, ist wohl die empfindlichste Lîcke der Forschung. Ein Buch der LXX, sagen wir einmal das Buch der Psalmen, ist ein ganz anderes Buch, als der hebrische j19 Psalter. Die îbertriebene Wçrtlichkeit und doch wieder eine verhltnismßige Freiheit gegenîber der Vorlage, die kleinen und großen Bedeutungsverschiebungen, die jede ˜bersetzung in sich schließt, alles dies wirkt zusammen, um ein vçllig neues Buch entstehen zu lassen, das seine eigentîmlichen Schwierigkeiten zeigt. Hier hat der Forscher im wesentlichen noch jungfrulichen Boden zu bearbeiten. Aber wo sind die Arbeiter? Fast muß man den Wunsch haben, daß sich ein verstndiger Verleger finde, der die îppige Produktionskraft der Ausleger des Alten Testaments einmal auf das unverantwortlich vernachlssigte Gebiet der Septuagintaexegese zu lenken wîßte. Die LXX auslegen heißt die Bibel des Apostels Paulus und îberhaupt des lteren Christentums auslegen. III Das fîr das Neue Testament im Gegensatz zu dem griechischen Alten Testament eine ins Unîbersehbare wachsende exegetische Litteratur vorhanden ist, braucht nicht gerade als das Hauptkennzeichen fîr die Neubelebung des Interesses an seiner sprachlichen Erforschung angesehen zu werden, und auf die exegetische Litteratur selbst kann in einem ˜berblick wie dem unseren nicht nher eingegangen werden, so wertvolles Material sie auch im einzelnen enthlt. Die neue Konkordanz zum Neuen Testament ist mir noch nicht zu Gesicht gekommen. Das Hauptereignis, von dem berichtet werden muß, ist das Erscheinen der zwei bereits genannten neuen Grammatiken von Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel und von Friedrich Blaß. Eigentlich sind es bis jetzt noch keine zwei Grammatiken, sondern nur eine halbe und eine ganze. Aber fîr die Beurteilung macht es kaum etwas aus, daß der Schmiedel noch nicht fertig ist; Schmiedel ist Schmiedel und er wird es auch in der hoffentlich j20 im Jahre 1898 erscheinenden zweiten Hlfte sein. Der 1894 zu Gçttingen erschienenen „Einleitung und Formenlehre“ ist in diesem

554

Addenda

Jahre das erste Heft der „Syntax“ gefolgt, und mittenhinein îberraschte uns Blaß vorigen Herbst mit einer vollstndigen, îbrigens im gleichen Verlag wie Schmiedel herausgekommenen Grammatik. Schmiedels Buch trgt bekanntlich den Titel „G.B. Winer’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Achte Auflage neu bearbeitet von D. Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel usw.“ Der alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen die Willkîr eines anmaßenden Empirismus. Durch ein halbes Jahrhundert hat er einen entscheidenden Einfluß auf die exegetische Arbeit ausgeîbt; das ist fîr eine Grammatik eine lange, fîr eine griechische Grammatik des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts eine sehr lange Zeit. Bei wrmster Anerkennung seiner Verdienste darf man, ohne der Wahrheit etwas zu vergeben, sagen: seine Zeit war endlich abgelaufen. Wenn man ihn heute benutzt – und entbehrlich ist er noch nicht – kann es einem passieren, das man auf den Gedanken kommt, in dem, was die Strke des Buches war, liege auch seine Schwche. Und ich glaube, diese Empfindung ist nicht unbegrîndet. Man erhlt zu oft den Eindruck einer Gesetzmßigkeit, wo es keine Gesetzmßigkeit giebt, einer Einheitlichkeit, wo die Individualitt des Einzelnen berîcksichtigt sein will. Kurzum, man erhlt zu sehr den Eindruck eines „neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms“ als einer scharf umrissenen sprachgeschichtlichen Grçße. Wenn ich bei dem Bericht îber Schmiedels neuen Winer mit einer Ausstellung beginnen darf, so mçchte ich als seine Schwche bezeichnen, daß das Buch noch zu sehr Winer und zu wenig Schmiedel ist. Das gilt aber eigentlich nur fîr die einleitenden Paragraphen, in denen Schmiedel manches stehen gelassen hat, wozu seine eigenen Ausfîhrungen spter in einem stillen Widerspruch stehen. Im großen und ganzen bezeichnet die neu bearbeitete Auflage, die ein ganz neues Buch geworden ist, eine charakte-j21ristische und entscheidende Wendung in der neutestamentlichen Philologie. Die Spracherscheinungen der neutestamentlichen Texte sind gewissenhaft und im allgemeinen ausreichend in ihrem sprachgeschichtlichen Zusammenhange dargestellt; die Schmiedel zugnglichen Quellen, besonders die Inschriften und Papyri, sind ausgeschçpft; was an philologischen Vorarbeiten vorhanden war, ist benutzt, und man kann leider nicht sagen, daß sich viele Vorarbeiten darboten. Um so grçßer muß unser Respekt sein vor dem Fleiß, der Treue im kleinen und dem Blick fîr die großen Zusammenhnge sprachhistorischer Forschung, von welchen Eigenschaften das Buch Zeugnis ablegt. Die Akribie des Doctor subtilis ist bekannt; es ist eine Herzstrkung, daß man in dieser falschen Welt so zuverlssigen Citaten begegnet. Alle diese Vorzîge sind denn

Addenda

555

auch von der Kritik durchweg anerkannt; ich verweise namentlich auf die eingehende und lehrreiche Besprechung durch Wilhelm Schmid in Tîbingen, einen der ersten Kenner des spteren Griechisch. Auch Blaß, aus dessen Anzeige des Winer-Schmiedel, wenn man sie mit seinen Anzeigen besonders englischer Erscheinungen Vergleicht, eine gewisse Zurîckhaltung, um nicht zu sagen Frostigkeit, sprach, hat in seiner Grammatik erklrt, daß er Schmiedel sehr viel verdanke. Wenn Blaß in jener Anzeige meint, die vorhandene Kluft zwischen Theologie und Philologie mache sich hier und da auch noch bei Schmiedel merklich, so fordert er damit die Anlegung desselben Maßstabes an die eigene Grammatik heraus. Ich halte nun zwar gerade auf diesem Gebiete eine Trennung zwischen Philologie und Theologie fîr ganz unberechtigt und den hier und da aufflackernden Streit der Fakultten fîr bedauerlich. Aber wie die Sachen nun einmal liegen, hat der philologische Grcist, der sich mit der Bibel beschftigt, im allgemeinen den Vorteil einer grçßeren Kenntnis der außerbiblischen Sprachquellen, der Theolog verfîgt îber eine grçßere Vertrautheit mit den biblischen Texten und ihren exegetischen Problemen. Mag j22 es immerhin subjektiv klingen, ich habe bei der Vergleichung beider Grammatiken den Eindruck erhalten: die philologischen Schwchen bei Schmiedel sind geringer, als die theologischen bei Blaß, oder, in die Sprache der fakulttslosen Menschheit îbersetzt: fîr das positive Verstndnis der Texte des Neuen Testaments giebt Schmiedel mehr Anregung, soweit dies nach dem ersten Hefte seiner Syntax gesagt werden kann. In einer Grammatik muß die Freudigkeit des Nichtentscheidenwollens vorhanden sein; mit dem Zugestndnis, daß es offene Fragen giebt, muß Ernst gemacht werden. Daß Blaß prinzipiell ja ebenfalls so denkt, zeigt folgende gelegentliche Bemerkung in der Grammatik: „Die Art der Beziehung, welche zwischen dem Gen[itiv] und seinem Nomen obwaltet, kann nur aus Sinn und Zusammenhang erkannt werden: es ist dies im Neuen Testament oft lediglich Sache des theologischen Verstndnisses, welches in einer Grammatik nicht gelehrt werden kann.“ Aber dieser methodologisch îberaus wichtige Satz ist nicht immer befolgt; an Stellen, wo sicher eigentîmliche Ausdrucksweisen vorliegen, wo die exegetischen Mçglichkeiten sich die Wage halten, kommt Blaß çfter mit dem grammatischen Hobel und beseitigt, was wie eine Unebenheit aussah, was aber keine Unebenheit war. Ich sehe schon, wie sich Anfnger in der Exegese bei dem beruhigen werden, was sie mit Hilfe des Stellenindex im Blaß gefunden haben. Gewiß wre das nicht in seinem Sinne gehandelt;

556

Addenda

aber es dîrfte die Konsequenz dessen sein, was also der theologische Mangel des Buches beklagt werden muß. Eine Grammatik, zumal wenn sie den Name eines berîhmten Philologen trgt, stellt sich der Durchschnittsbenutzer leicht als eine Zusammenstellung dessen vor, was auf feste Gesetze zurîckgefîhrt werden kann und deswegen absolut sicher ist. Kçnnte Blaß sich in der nchsten Auflage entschließen, bei der Syntax an recht vielen Stellen diese devote Genîgsamkeit des jugendlichen Lesers energisch aufzurîtteln, so j23 wîrde sein Buch an Wert als Studentenbuch entschieden gewinnen. Zu den Vorzîgen des Buches rechne ich seine principielle Stellung zur Frage des „neutestamentlichen“ Griechisch, die in der Einleitung erledigt wird; man sieht deutlich, daß es – trotz des Titels und mancher, wohl nicht tragisch aufzufassender Rîckflle in die frîher von Blaß vertretene Methode – ein besonderes „neutestamentliches Griechisch“ nicht giebt, daß also das Recht einer Specialgrammatik zum Neuen Testament nur durch die praktischen Bedîrfnisse des Bibelstudiums zu begrînden ist. Wie von Blaß nicht anders zu erwarten war, enthlt seine Arbeit im einzelnen viele schçne Beobachtungen. Immerhin htte ich mir von einem Kenner, der so unzhlige griechische Texte auch der nachklassischen Zeit gelesen hat, noch reichere Belege zu den analogen Erscheinungen des Neuen Testaments versprochen. Dafîr berîcksichtigt Blaß – und das verdient ja zweifellose unser dankbares Interesse – in ausgiebiger Weise den Hirten des Hermas, den Barnabasbrief und die clementinische Litteratur und hilft dadurch das schçne Wort seiner nicht ohne grimmigen Humor geschriebenen Widmungsepistel an August Fick verwirklichen: „die Isolierung des Neuen Testaments ist eben ein schlimmes Ding fîr das Verstndnis, und muß gehoben werden soviel man immer kann.“ Alles in allem: wir dîrfen uns freuen, daß wir den Blaß haben, und diese Freude wird wesentlich dadurch erhçht, daß wir nicht nur den Blaß haben, sondern auch den Schmiedel. Hoffentlich ist mit dem Erscheinen dieser beiden großen Werke das grammatische Studium des Neuen Testaments nicht fîr eine Weile zum Stillstand gekommen. Es giebt der Einzelaufgaben genug, auf dem Gebiete der Formenlehre so gut wie der Syntax; mir scheint eine nhere Untersuchung z. B. der Syntax der Prpositionen und der Casus besonders bei Paulus recht notwendig und fruchtbar zu sein, ebenso der Verfolg der von Blaß begonnenen Er-j24 forschung des Hiatus, eines Kapitels, das scheinbar geringfîgig ist, aber große Anforderungen an den Arbeiter stellt und fîr kritische Fragen von Bedeutung werden kann. Daß sich die Amerikaner, Englnder und Franzosen an dieser Arbeit beteiligen

Addenda

557

werden, darf man nach den grammatischen Specialuntersuchungen von Burton, Biteau und anderen Forschern erwarten. Ich habe Burtons Studie noch nicht in die Hand bekommen und mir îber Biteaus umfangreiche Arbeiten ein eigenes Urteil noch nicht bilden kçnnen. Blaß ußert sich îber Burton und den ersten Band von Biteau recht gînstig. Als ein Zeichen, daß auch in der katholischen Kirche deutscher Zunge wenigstens der gute Wille zur grammatischen Mitarbeit nicht fehlt, nenne ich das mit den Prpositionen des Neuen Testaments eQr, 1m und 1j sich beschftigende Programm von Alois Theimer. Die nchste große Aufgabe ist auch fîr das Neue Testament ein Wçrterbuch. So vorzîglich in der Hauptsache Wilibald Grimms Bearbeitung der Wilkeschen Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica auch gewesen ist, was namentlich in der viel korrekteren englischen Ausgabe von Joseph Henry Thayer zu Tage tritt, so sehr Cremers Wçrterbuch im Laufe der Jahre gewonnen hat, beide Werke, von anderen zu schweigen, genîgen doch nicht mehr. Von einem Wçrterbuch darf jetzt verlangt werden, daß es die Ergebnisse der neueren Sprachwissenschaft berîcksichtigt, das es also speciell die Erkenntnisse nicht ignoriert, die uns durch die Funde der letzten Jahrzehnte ermçglicht werden. Was die Inschriften anlangt, so htten sowohl Grimm als auch Cremer ihnen bereits vieles entnehmen kçnnen, dessen Nichtberîcksichtigung sich strafen wird. Schon jetzt kann auf Grund von Inschriften, Papyri oder îbersehenen Autorenstellen eine Reihe der fîr „biblisch“ oder „neutestamentlich“ gehaltenen Wçrter gestrichen werden: !c²pg, !jat²cmystor, !mtik¶lptyq, 1kai¾m, 1m¾piom, eq²qestor, eqýkator, Reqate¼y, jahaq¸fy, juqiajºr, koce¸a, meºvutor, aveik¶, peqid´niom, !p¹ p´qusi, pqoseuw¶, puqq²jgr, j25 sitol´tqiom, 5mamti, vikopqyte¼y, vqemap²tgr kommen alle außerhalb der Bibel vor; ebenso lßt sich bei vielen Wçrtern, denen namentlich von Cremer eine specifisch „biblische“ oder „christliche“ Sonderbedeutung beigelegt wird, diese Bedeutung auch aus „profanen“ Quellen belegen. Derartige Thatsachen haben direkte Korrekturen unserer Wçrterbîcher zu Folge, und hierzu werden Erweiterungen der Sprachgeschichte der einzelnen Wçrter kommen mîssen. Das kînftige Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testament wird, zu dieser Voraussage bedarf es keiner Prophetengabe, in noch hçherem Grade als die Grammatik verweltlicht sein, das heißt befruchtet von den Ergebnissen der historischen Erforschung der griechischen Sprache. Zum Schlusse sollen wenigstens einige der hauptschlichsten neueren Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der griechischen Sprachwissenschaft genannt werden, die fîr den theologischen Forscher als Quellen und

558

Addenda

Hilfsmittel fîr das Verstndnis der griechischen Bibel zuerst inbetracht kommen. Eine lang vernachlssigte, aber fîr uns auch als Sprachdenkmal sehr bedeutsame Schrift wird hoffentlich recht bald in einer guten Ausgabe vorliegen, die Aristeasepistel. Die neue Ausgabe des Josephus von Benedictus Niese und die des Philo von Leopold Cohn und Paul Wendland werden eine grîndlichere Verwertung der beiden an der Schwelle der Bibel stehenden Schriftsteller ermçglichen; fîr den Sprachgebrauch des Josephus hat uns Wilhelm Schmidt bereits eine lehrreiche Untersuchung geschenkt. Die weitesten Ausblicke gewhren das große Werk von Wilhelm Schmid îber den Atticismus und die Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik von G.N. Hatzidakis. Die Zahl der zu durchstçbernden Inschriften ist Legion; es empfiehlt sich, die Inschriften gewisser Gegenden immer mçglichst zusammenzunehmen. Die sakralen werden wohl am ersten eine Ausbeute gewhren; wie nahe sie sich teilweise sprachlich und auch inhaltlich mit biblischen Texten berîhren, zeigte der Streit der Ge-j26lehrten îber die Herkunft der Aberkiosinschrift. Das wegen der Mannifaltigkeit und der frischen Unmittelbarkeit seiner Stoffe interessanteste Gebiet sind die aus øgypten stammenden griechischen Papyri. Nachdem bereits in frîheren Jahrzehnten Bruchstîcke in die Museen von Turin, Rom, Paris, London, Berlin und anderen Orten gelangt waren, haben uns die letzten Jahre mit einer îberraschenden Menge dieser unersetzlichen Urkunden des Altertums beschenkt. Zu Tausenden liegen die großenteils noch unentzifferten Bltter und Fetzen in den europischen Museen; das Berliner Museum steht in der vordersten Reihe. Die Papyri – wohlverstanden die im Original erhaltenen Texte – reichen zurîck bis ins 3. Jahrhundert vor Christus. Der Englnder Flinders Petrie entdeckte im Faij•m alte, zu Mumienhîllen verarbeitete Kartonnagen, aus denen Papyrusbltter und -Fragmente entwickelt wurden, die in den Tagen geschrieben sind, als das Werk der LXX kaum in seinen ersten Anfngen existierte. Zu diesen Kabinettstîcken kamen durch andere Entedecker weitere vorchristliche Bltter, dann eine Fîlle von Papyri vom ersten bis zum achten Jahrhundert nach Christus. Wir haben also ein fast lîckenloses archivalisches Material îber tausend Jahre hin, von den Tagen des Philadelphos bis in die Zeiten des Isl’m hinein. Der Inhalt dieser griechischen Texte ist ein sehr mannigfaltiger; Fragmente von Autoren machen den geringsten Teil aus; weitaus die meisten Papyri sind unlitterarisch, Aktenstîcke aus der Verwaltung der Dçrfer, Stdte und Tempel, Urkunden aus der Rechtspflege, Pacht- und Mietvertrge, Rechnungen und Quittungen, Testamente, Heiratsvertrge, Tagebîcher, endlich eine große Anzahl von

Addenda

559

Privatbriefen kleiner Leute. Aus dieser Mannigfaltigkeit des Inhaltes erklrt sich der Reichtum des Wortschatzes; die Fîlle interessanter Formen und Formeln wird nicht durch ngstliche Pedanterie eingeschrnkt. So haben die Papyri einen unersetzlichen Wert fîr die Erforschung des spteren Griechisch. Die meisten kçnnen j27 bis auf den Tag datiert werden; das ist auch fîr uns von Wichtigkeit. Handelt es sich doch bei vielen formellen Dingen der griechischen Bibel um die Frage, ob sie auf Rechnung der Abschreiber zu setzen oder fîr ursprînglich zu halten sind. Die Papyri gewhren hier zuverlssige Auskunft, indem sie uns zeigen, welche Formen, Schreibungen usw. im Zeitalter der LXX und des Neuen Testaments mçglich waren, indem sie uns also in vielen Fllen wenigstens wahrscheinliche Urteile gestatten. So ist die griechische Bibel umrahmt von einem frischen Kranze gleichzeitiger Texte. In einer Beziehung sind namentlich die neutestamentlichen Schriften, abgesehen von der Sprache, diesen Texten verwandt; sie wollen zum großen Teil ebensowenig „Litteratur“ sein wie die Briefe, Protokolle und Testamente aus øgypten. Beide Gruppen sind im wesentlichen unbefangen; denn sie sind nicht mit Rîcksicht auf die §ffentlichkeit und die Nachwelt verfaßt. In ihrer Unbefangenheit liegt aber ihr geschichtlicher Wert. Sie lassen uns ahnen, was die Menschen im Zeitalter der Religionswende empfunden und gedacht, gehofft und gelitten haben, nicht die Großen dieser Welt, die Mnner des Staates, der Kunst, der Wissenschaft, sondern die !cq²llatoi, die Unbekannten, die Vergessenen. Wer dieser Zeit geschichtlich nher kommen will, der lasse ihre Selbstzeugnisse auf sich wirken. Je tiefer man den Menschen von damals ins Herz schaut, um so mehr lernt man verstehen, wie es kam, daß was die !cq²llatoi des Neuen Testaments geschrieben haben, das Buch der Menschheit geworden ist. * * * 2. Transcript of Deissmann’s Selbstdarstellung (References: passim)

This short autobiography was published in 1925, but provides an indispensable source of background material to Deissmann’s life and works. j43 Wer immer sich mit Religionswissenschaft als Fachmann befaßt, wird in der Art wie er die religiçsen Phnomene sieht und beurteilt, bewußt

560

Addenda

oder unbewußt in irgendeinem Grade von dem Religionsbegriff abhngig sein, der ihm, lngst ehe er „Begriff“ wurde, durch die Herkunft eingeboren und durch die Eindrîcke seiner Erziehung vertieft worden ist. Fîr meine Gesamtauffassung der Religion und dann auch der Religionswissenschaft verdanke ich das Beste meinem Elternhaus. Sohn und Enkel evangelischer Geistlicher, bin ich auch mîtterlicherseits Nachkomme theologischer und religiçs eigenwîchsiger Vorfahren, bis zurîck zu Christian Knorr von Rosenroth († 1689), dem Snger des „Morgenglanz der Ewigkeit“. Nicht alle Theologenhuser sind religiçs fruchtbar. „There is darkness at the foot of the lighthouse“, dieses resignierte, in Amerika çfters gebrauchte japanische Sprichwort hat leider nicht ganz selten recht, wenn man fragt, welche Dauerwirkung wohl das Lebenswerk eines Geistlichen bei seinen Allernchsten hinterlßt. Am Fuße meines heimatlichen Leuchtturms herrschte keine Dunkelheit: Morgenglanz der Ewigkeit fiel schon in meine frîheste Kindheit. Zuerst an der Lahn, im Pfarrhaus meines Geburtsortes Langenscheid in Nassau (von 1866 bis 1873), dann in der Diaspora des katholischen Mittelrheins in Erbach im Rheingau (von 1874 bis 1879) habe ich von den Eltern her und in der dçrflichen Volksschule wie auch nachher in der vom Vater geleiteten Erbacher Realschule die Lebensluft des evangelischen Christentums eingeatmet, ohne zu merken, daß ich es tat und daß das etwas Besonderes sei: Religion trat mir da entgegen als etwas Selbstverstndliches. Und als etwas Praktisches, das man betend und singend ausîbt und das sich ußerlich daran zeigt, wie man sich betrgt. Meiner Mutter verdanke ich da zunchst wohl am meisten. Sie zog uns in der Stunde unserer Geburt Lebenssprîche aus ihrer Zieh-Bibel, sie hat uns j44 beten gelehrt, sie sammelte den großen Geschwisterkreis um das geistliche Lied, und sie erklrte uns schon in frîhster Kindheit die bunten Bilderhefte aus der Heidenmission. Die Losungen der Brîdergemeinde spielte eine große Rolle durch ihr ganzes Leben; sie hat mir das Losungsbîchlein zum letzten Mal geschenkt vor meiner Orientreise 1906, auf der mich in Smyrna, am Großen Sabbat, die Nachricht von ihrem Heimgang traf. Aus alter Juristen- und Theologenfamilie stammend, mit hellem Verstand und feinem Taktgefîhl ausgestattet, hatte meine Mutter eine tiefe, von dem aristokratischen Pietismus der Jahrhundertmitte erwrmte und belebte Frçmmigkeit, die sie in den vielerlei Nçten und Beengungen, durch die sie hindurchmußte, bewhrte. Von Erbach aus nahm sie uns oft mit zu den Gottesdiensten, die, ohne mit dem pastor loci (meinem Vater) in Zwist zu kommen, im nahen Eltville der hessische

Addenda

561

renitente Pfarrer Zîlch abhielt, im Hause des Freiherrn Langwerth von Simmern. Sie war mit der Familie von ihrer Mdchenzeit her befreundet. Hier lernten wir ein charaktervolles Luthertum kennen, ohne zu wissen, daß es Luthertum war und daß wir Erbacher eigentlich „uniert“ waren. Verstrkt wurde der frîh empfangene (wie ich heute sage kultische) Eindruck von der Religion, als ich als Achtjhriger kurze Zeit in die nominell simultane, tatschlich katholische Erbacher Volkschule ging und dort in aller Unschuld gelegentlich auch katholisches Beten mitmachte. ˜berhaupt hat das nahe Zusammenleben mit katholischen Christen mir viele Eindrîcke vermittelt, die ich heute nicht missen mçchte. Die noch aus der Zeit des Friedens der Konfessionen stammenden ehrwîrdigen alten Erbacher Priester, der Dekan und der Frîhmesser (dessen Titel dem Knaben lange ebenso rtselhaft wie interessant war), verkehrten mit meinem Vater freundschaftlich, und ich verbinde mit den Erinnerungen an den îberaus stattlichen Herrn Dekan und seine gîtigen Augen immer die Rosen und das Edelobst seines herrlichen Gartens bei der katholischen Kirche und den „Erbacher“ seines geistlichen Kellers. Sein Neffe Franz Giesen, mein guter Freund, ist nachmals Jesuit geworden. In der jungen Generation herrschte, trotzdem man gelegentlich nachgeschwatzte Dummheiten îber die „Lutherischen“ hçrte, ebenfalls Burgfriede, und ich habe mit meinen Geschwistern oftmals die Goldregen- und Schwertlilienstruße, die sich die katholischen Kameraden fîr Fronleichnam erbaten, in unserem Pfarrgarten geschnitten. Und meinem Vater j45 liefen, wenn er durch die Dçrfer seiner Diaspora schritt, die katholischen kleinen Kinder wohl alle zu mit dem „Gelobt sei Jesus Christus!“ und wollten seine Hand haben, die er ihnen dann auch gern mit dem „In Ewigkeit Amen!“ reichte. In der Realschule lehrte mich Latein ein junger katholischer Kaplan, der schon einer anderen Welt angehçrte. Er war, obwohl er uns gelegentlich Geschichten erzhlte, die den Heiligenkult gutmîtig ironisierten, bereits eine schrfere Nummer, – auch menschlich, wenn er am Samstag Morgen aus seinem Priesterrock einen, die Nacht zuvor in Wasser gelegten Strick hervorholte, mit dem er die whrend der ganzen Woche bis dahin aufgesparten Strafen frçhlich und zunftgerecht austeilte. Der Kulturkampf war, als ich Schîler bei ihm war, in seinen ersten Stadien, und meine ganze weitere Jugend, auch nachher als Gymnasiast und Student, steht unter dem tiefen Eindruck dieses Kampfes, der in

562

Addenda

unsere Diaspora hinein seine sehr spîrbaren Wellen warf und meinen Vater in viele kleinere und grçßere Fehden verwickelte. *

*

*

Mein Vater war in den Rheingau gekommen durch das Vertrauen der Prinzessin Marianne der Niederlande (der Mutter des Prinzen Albrecht von Preußen), die in Erbach ihr Schloß Reinhartshausen hatte und die Erbauerin unserer Kirche und unseres Pfarrhauses gewesen war. Unsere Kinderjahre waren durch den Verkehr mit dem Schloß oft eigenartig belebt. Die Prinzessin, die ungewçhnlich harte Schicksale gehabt hatte, war in ihrem hohen Alter von einer milden und Kindern gegenîber sonnigen Gîte. Wir waren, modisch (aber fîr den Weg durch das Dorf uns hçchst peinlich) dazu aufgeputzt, ihre Gste in ihrem Park, in ihrer herrlichen Bildergalerie und auf ihrer Rheininsel (der Erbacher Aue), die auf einer großen „Nhe“ (Fhre) erreicht werden mußte. Und zu Ostern erschienen rotbewestete Lakaien bei uns mit großen Kçrben der besten Messina-Apfelsinen. Die Kinder ihres aus hollndischen Familien bestehenden Hofstaates waren unsere Spielkameraden. Mein Vater schtzte die alte Fîrstin sehr hoch; ein großes Bîndel ihrer hçchst originellen, klugen Briefe an ihn ist noch in meinem Besitz. Er hat ihr Vertrauen erwidert und durfte ihr bis in ihre letzten schweren Tage beistehen und sie auf dem Erbacher Friedhof bestatten. Mein Vater war eine Persçnlichkeit von stark ausgeprgter Eigenart. Hochbegabt und im Vollbesitz einer nie erschlaffenden j46 Energie, von feurigem, zu Groll und Begeisterung glîhend erregbarem Temperament, offenbarte er, nicht der Welt, aber den Seinen, ein weiches Gemît. Fîr seine religiçse Entwicklung waren die verschiedensten Einflîsse bedeutsam gewesen: das Elternhaus, die Persçnlichkeit Tholucks, in der Kandidatenzeit einige der alten Herborner Gemeinschaftsleute, spter die Erfahrung des geistlichen Amtes zumal in der Diaspora. Sein Herborner Lehrer August Nebe hatte ihn fîr die historische Erforschung der nassauischen kirchlichen Vergangenheit anzuregen gewußt; Frîchte dieser Studien waren, abgesehen von einer volkstîmlich gehaltenen Darstellung der Reformation im Rheingau, seine beiden Schriften îber das Benediktinerkloster Walsdorf und die Waldenser der Grafschaft Schaumburg. Seinem lebendigen Interesse fîr die Vorzeit verdankte ich schon als Knabe viel Anregung, wenn er mir etwa seine rçmischen Kaisermînzen zeigte, die „Heide-Kçppcher“, die seine Taunus-Bauern am „Pfahlgraben“ (Limes) gefunden und ihm geschenkt hatten, oder

Addenda

563

wenn er mich im Wiesbadener Museum vor das Heddernheimer MithrasRelief fîhrte. In den innerkirchlichen Kmpfen stand mein Vater entschieden rechts, trat aber im Gustav-Adolf-Verein, Evangelischen Bund und Pfarrer-Verein aus vollster ˜berzeugung in die Arbeitgemeinschaft mit Mnnern der anderen Gruppen. Er hatte dabei einen ihm selbst vielleicht gar nicht so bewußten starken kultischen Instinkt, und in Aussprachen îber das Osterfest, die ich als Kandidat mit ihm hatte, hatte er vom Kultischen aus, obwohl ich das damals nicht einsehen konnte, gewiß mehr Recht, als ich mit meiner jungen Universittsweisheit. Eine hohe Auffassung hatte er von seinem Pfarrerberuf; der Pfarrerssohn faßte das Wort „Beruf“ im Sinne der jk/sir des Apostels Paulus und konnte bittere Worte finden, wo er einen niedrigen Sinn zu entdecken glaubte. Erfîllt von warmer Heilandsliebe und stark durch den Gebetsverkehr mit seinem Herrn und Meister, war er als Prediger vor allem Zeuge, seltener Apologet, niemals aber Advokat des Evangeliums. Mit besonderer Freude legte er auf den Friedhçfen der Rheingauer Diaspora vor einer oft nach Hunderten zhlenden und der Mehrzahl nach katholischen Hçrerschaft von den positiven Glaubensgîtern der evangelischen Christenheit Zeugnis ab. In der Schule, der er fast den besten Teil seiner Kraft gewidmet hat, wirkte er weniger durch die Methode als durch seine Persçnlichkeit. Fîr die mechanischen Verwaltungsgeschfte des Pfarramts und der Schulleitung fehlte ihm der innere j47 Drang, und er hat mit seinem zunehmenden Alter immer mehr unter ihnen geseufzt und auch seine Behçrden seufzen lassen. Wo aber ein Gemeindeglied in Gefahr stand, wo mit Kinderherzen ein schmhlicher Seelenfang versucht wurde, da kannte er keinen Feierabend: unter unsglichen Mîhen, nicht selten auch im Kampf gegen die mit den verschiedenen Phasen des Kulturkampfes wechselnde kirchenpolitische Haltung oberer Instanzen hat er manche gefhrdete Seele fîr die evangelische Kirche gerettet. Durch seine energisch protestantische Stellungnahme in der Diaspora kam er wiederholt in langwierige Preßfehden und politische Prozesse, aus denen er nicht ohne Narben, aber siegreich hervorging. In den Kreisen des katholischen Volkes hatte er sich bei alledem doch viel Vertrauen und Liebe erworben, und mancher Katholik verdankt ihm Fîhrsprache und materielle Hilfe. *

*

*

564

Addenda

Die Gymnasialjahre in Wiesbaden (1879 bis 1885) beließen mich, obwohl ich in der Stadt wohnte, noch in dauernder Verbindung mit dem Elternhaus. Sie waren, von der damals îblichen Durchschnittsmethode und ihren Vertretern her, nichts weniger als sonnig, aber einzelne meiner Lehrer (namentlich Friedrich Lohr) haben fîr die jungen Seelen doch ein Verstndnis gezeigt, und der Direktor Phler hat mich durch die Art, wie er Horax und Sophokles mit uns behandelte, außerordentlich angeregt, so sehr, daß ich lngere Zeit dem Wunsche meines Vaters zuwider Philologie studieren wollte. Religiçs gefçrdert hat mich mein Wiesbadener Konfirmator, Konsistorialrat August Ohly, einer der besten Prediger Nassaus und der Vertrauensmann aller Pfarrhuser bei dem allzu nordisch besetzten Konsistorium: „ich geh mal zum Ohly“ war die ultima ratio manches Bedrngten. Der treffliche, durch seinen Witz und Humor mehr als durch die Amtsmiene wirkende Mann hat mit den Gymnasiastenbnken seiner großen Konfirmandenschar gern auch etwas theologisiert und fragte mich bei der Prîfung in der Markt-Kirche nach dem Wort he²mhqypor. *

*

*

Ein Kompromiß zwischen Vater und Sohn war es, daß ich im Frîhling 1885 nach Tîbingen zog und als Theologe immatrikuliert wurde, aber doch auf der Visitenkarte mich stud. theol. et phil. nannte. Ich habe in der einzigartig schçnen Universittsstadt am j48 Neckar sechs volle Semester zugebracht. Zwei davon in besonders fruchtbarer Lernzeit: als Freiwilliger im siebenten Wîrttenbergischen Infanterie-Regiment. Gegen Ende der Dienstzeit beim Tiefweitsprung schwer verletzt, lag ich lange Wochen im Lazarett und hatte dort viel Anregung durch einen schwindsîchtigen Kameraden, einen Bauernsohn vom Schwarzwald, der mir alle Volks- und Soldatenlieder, die er kannte, geduldig in die Feder diktierte, – ein feiner stiller Mensch, an den ich oft noch gedacht habe. Die Tîbinger Vorlesungen gaben mir ein gutes Mittelmaß dessen, was ich bedurfte. Das Neue Testament war aber nicht besonders gut vertreten, und theologische Seminare gab es damals in Tîbingen fîr „Norddeutsche“ (als solcher galt ich dort immer) meiner Erinnerung nach nicht, jedenfalls wußten wir nichts von ihrer Existenz. Doch hatte ich einen guten Ersatz dafîr in meinem studentischen Kreis, dem „Theologischen Verein“, den ich zuletzt mehrere Semester leiten durfte. ˜beraus groß ist die Anregung, die ich durch ihn erfuhr. Mehrere unserer Lehrer besuchten uns da fast regelmßig an unseren wissenschaftlichen

Addenda

565

Abenden, und ich hatte auch sonst viel Verkehr mit ihnen: Robert Kîbel, Paul Buder, Albert Socin und besonders Emil Kautzsch und Max Reischle, welch beiden ich am meisten verdanke. Dem damals geistig bedeutendsten, Carl Weizscker, bin ich erst spter, von Marburg aus, persçnlich etwas nher getreten, hatte aber in seinen Vorlesungen viel Gewinn. Eine große Wohltat, der wir uns nicht immer bewußt wurden, war die Atmosphre der ehrefesten wîrttembergischen frommen Kirchlichkeit, die uns, ohne aufdringlich zu sein, in Schlichtheit und Kraft umgab. In Bad Boll lernte ich in dem jîngeren Blumhardt auch einen ihrer wertvollsten Sondertypen kennen. Ein Berliner Sommer brachte meine Studentenzeit zum Abschluß, im Dreikaiserjahr 1888. Den sterbenden Kaiser Friedrich habe ich noch selbst gesehen und Bismarck, als er zu ihm ins Charlottenburger Schloß fuhr. Eine unerhçrt erregte Spanne Zeit, voll neuer Eindrîcke aus dem sozial und politisch damals maßlos aufgewîhlten Leben der Hauptstadt, – mir eine tiefe Narbe hinterlassend durch den bis heute unaufgeklrten Selbstmord meines Landesmannes und hochbegabten nahen Freundes Wilhelm Rîckert im Plçtzensee. In meiner Dachstube in der Albrechtstraße habe ich viel arbeiten und schon damals erfahren kçnnen, daß man nirgends in Deutschland einsamer sein kann als in Berlin. Aber die Lernmçglichkeiten in den dichtgedrngten Hçrslen habe ich j49 natîrlich auch gern ausgenutzt. Otto Pfleiderer, Julius Kaftan, Bernhard Weiß waren meine hauptschlichsten Lehrer in den îblichen Fchern, Ferdinand Piper in der leider nicht îblichen Christlichen Archologie, die er, hochbetagt, mit jugendlicher Begeisterung, grçßter Sachkenntnis und gutem Lehrgeschick vortrug in seinem geliebten Christlichen Museum. Dankbar gedenke ich vieler schçner Berliner Sonntage im Hause meines Oheims Theodor Halbey, der damals als vortragender Rat im Ministerium des Innern die preußische Landgemeinde-Ordnung bearbeitete und mir viel Vertrauen schenkte. *

*

*

Einem Arbeitswinter im Erbacher Elternhaus folgte 1889 das Kandidatenexamen und das Kandidatenjahr in Herborn unter Eugen Sachsse und Heinrich Maurer. Von Herborn will ich nachher noch etwas mehr erzhlen. Das dort verlebte Seminarjahr war mir eine Lernzeit von hçchstem Wert, hauptschlich durch einen ungemein lebendigen Austausch der zahlreichen jungen Kollegen untereinander. Fast alle Universitten und wohl alle theologischen Standpunkte waren unter uns

566

Addenda

vertreten; Adolf Harnack, der im Sommer 1888 noch nicht in Berlin gewesen war, wirkte hier zum ersten Male auf mich, indirekt, durch einen seiner Marburger Schîler. Im Jahr darauf machte ich das zweite theologische Examen in Wiesbaden und war dann eine Zeitlang meinem Vater im geistlichen Amt behilflich, bis ich im Winter 1890 als Vikar nach Dausenau an der Lahn (bei Bad Ems) îbersiedeln mußte. Der dortige, als Volksschriftsteller bekannt gewordene Pfarrer C.W. Mîller war schwer erkrankt. Bis zum Frîhling habe ich ihn unter schwierigen ußeren Verhltnissen vertreten und kam in große Nçte, als ich in der Passionszeit dreimal wçchentlich zu predigen hatte. Ich hatte, glîcklicherweise, noch keine Routine im Predigen und habe wohl selten eine schwierigere Aufgabe gehabt, als diese drei verschiedenen Predigten aus demselben Stoffgebiet innerhalb einer Woche. Doch sind mir diese Wintermonate an der heimatlichen Lahn von großem Gewinn gewesen, durch die Nachbarschaft mit neutestamentlichem Elend (auch in der nahen Idiotenanstalt zu Scheuern) und durch Verkehr mit gefçrderten Persçnlichkeiten. Dennoch folgte ich, als das Vikariat zu Ende war, einem bereits in Herborn sich strker regenden inneren Drang nach tieferer wissenj50schaftlicher Durchbildung und ließ mich zum Zwecke der Lizentiatenpromotion (an Habilitation dachte ich zunchst noch nicht) von meiner Kirchenbehçrde beurlauben. *

*

*

Nach Marburg kam ich Ostern 1891 zu Georg Heinrici mit einem starken Interesse fîr die Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Heinrici hatte eine ausgebreitete Kenntnis hauptschlich der literarischen ˜berreste dieser Umwelt, die er mit einer von pfffischem Apologetenzelos freien Sachlichkeit und nicht selten mit sichtlicher Sympathie verwertete. Er hatte mir schon vorher geraten, îber die urchristliche Taufe zu arbeiten, und es lag in diesem Rat zugleich der Hinweis auf eine Untersuchung der antiken Mysterien und ihres etwaigen Ertrags fîr das Verstndnis der altchristlichen Sakramente. Ich begann die Arbeit mit einer genauen Prîfung des gesamten neutestamentlichen Materials. Hier blieb ich dann aber bald an einer Einzelheit haften, die mir um so merkwîrdiger erschien, als sie eigentlich noch niemals wirklich untersucht worden war: die so îberaus hufig gebrauchte urchristliche Formel „in Christo Jesu“. In den Kommentaren oftmals îbergangen oder mit einer gewaltsamen dogmatischen Interpretation des „in“ auf den „historischen“ Christus und

Addenda

567

sein Heilswerk gedeutet, erschien sie mir je lnger je mehr als eine eigenartige inhaltsschwere Schçpfung wahrscheinlich des Apostels Paulus selbst, als das eigentliche Kenn- und Losungswort seiner Gemeinschaft mit dem pneumatischen, ihm gegenwrtigen Christus, seiner Christusmystik. Von ihrer richtigen mystischen Deutung hngt ganz außerordentlich viel ab fîr das Gesamtverstndnis des Paulus. Man kann ruhig sagen: die zwei großen Typen des modernen Paulusbildes, die in der Forschung miteinander ringen, der mehr doktrinr-theologische und der mehr mystisch-prophetische, kommen aus der Verschiedenheit der Interpretation der „In“-Formel. Meine Untersuchung erschien als Promotions- und Habilitationsschrift 1892, wurde recht freundlich aufgenommen, hat aber erst allmhlich eine grçßere Wirkung erlebt, als die Bedeutung dieses scheinbar so geringfîgigen Problems fîr die paulinische Mystik mehr und mehr erkannt wurde. j51 Die Art, wie ich mir, in der Hauptsache autodidaktisch, den Weg zum Verstndnis der „In“-Formel gebahnt habe, ist von großem Einfluß auf meine gesamte theologisch-philologische Ausbildung geworden – wie îberhaupt diese Marburger Monate vor der Habilitation und dann die dort verlebten kurzen Dozentenjahre meine beste Lernzeit gewesen sind. Ich habe auch noch als Privatdozent bei vielen Marburger Lehrern gehçrt und erfreute mich eines persçnlichen Austausches fruchtbarster Art. Wilhelm Herrmann, Adolf Jîlicher, Julius Wellhausen waren neben Heinrici meine hauptschlichsten theologischen Fçrderer. Hermann Cohen, dem ich in schwerer Zeit, als sein Augenleiden anfing, Abraham Kuenens „Volksreligion und Weltreligion“ vorlesen durfte mit langen daran angeknîpften nchtlichen Aussprachen, gab mir, schon damals eine priesterliche Persçnlichkeit von hohem Range, in Vorlesung, Seminar und Zwiesprache außerordentlich viel Anregung und wîrdigte mich eines bis zu seinem Heimgang niemals vernderten gîtigen Vertrauens. Georg Wissowa und Wilhelm Schulze verdankte ich reichliche literar- und sprachgeschichtliche Belehrung, und Albrecht Dieterich, der wie ein princeps juventutis unter uns weilte und sein altes Marburg jung machte, wo immer er redete, sprudelte, leuchtete, war ein Mittelpunkt religionsgeschichtlichen Wissens und Forschens. Wir hatten damals eine Tischrunde junger Kollegen von glîcklichster Zusammensetzung. Philologen, Bibliothekare, Theologen und andere trafen sich tglich, in ausgelassenem ˜bermut einander oftmals aufziehend und doch jeder aus seinem jungen Wissen fîr den anderen ergiebig. Uralte schnçde Bonner und Gçttinger Philologenwitze îber die Theologen wurden abgewehrt durch lchelnde Bescheltung grulicher Philologen-

568

Addenda

laster, und der frçhliche Zank der Fakultten hakte sich schließlich in endlosen Aussprachen îber ernsthafte, beiden Forschergruppen gleich wichtige Probleme erfreulich fest. *

*

*

In den Monaten, als ich mich als Spezialisten fîr das Wort „in“ gern necken ließ, habe ich versucht, den Sprachgebrauch der gesamten literarischen Grzitt, soweit die Prposition 1m mit persçnlichem Dativ in Frage kam, festzustellen. Damals trat ich im nahen Frankfurt mit dem greisen Tycho Mommsen in Fîhlung, der mir, als er mir seine umfassenden Sammlungen zum griechischen j52 Prpositionengebrauch zeigte, zum erstenmal einen Begriff davon vermittelte, was treue Kleinarbeit im Laufe eines Gelehrtenlebens leisten kann. Etwas bedrîckt war ich dann, als ich den Sprachgebrauch der Septuaginta aufzuhellen begann: die neue große Septuaginta-Konkordanz von Hatch und Redpath reichte damals noch nicht bis zum Epsilon! Von einem guten Geist geleitet, begann ich daher, um des 1m willen, die ganze Septuaginta rasch im Fluge durchzulesen und habe sie in einigen Wochen auch glîcklich bewltigt, nach dem alten Druck von Leander van Eß, dessen Spaltensatz die rasche Lektîre sehr erleichterte, da man nicht nur Wortbilder, sondern auch Zeilenbilder mit einem einzigen Blick in sich aufnehmen konnte. Bald sah ich, welch außerordentlich kostbare Sonderbeute mir diese Pîrschgnge hinter dem 1m her einbrachten. Man kann zweifeln, ob es viele abendlndische Zeitgenossen gibt, die den ganzen Septuagintatext gelesen haben. Meist wurde und wird er nur stellenweise oder buchweise benutzt, fîr die Textkritik und die Exegese des Alten Testaments, fîr das Verstndnis der neutestamentlichen Septuagintazitate, fîr lexikalische Studien, die allerdings unter dem Bann der „øquivalenten“-Theorie meist auf vçllig falschen Fhrten blieben. Statt solcher abgerissener und irrefîhrender Zufallseinsichten erhielt ich nun eine Gesamtschau, und ich îbertreibe nicht, wenn ich sage, daß mir jene Septuagintawochen die Entdeckung einer griechischen Weltbibel bedeuteten, ohne welche die andere griechische Weltbibel, diejenige, die den Nachlaß der Evangelisten und Apostel gerettet hat, nicht verstanden werden kann. Fîr ein semitisches Buch in unvollkommener griechischer Verkleidung hatten die großen Bibelforscher das alexandrinische Alte Testament gehalten, und wir hatten das nachgesprochen: noch Emil Schîrer hatte, vom attizistischen Blickpunkt aus, erklrt, ein Grieche

Addenda

569

habe die Sprache der Septuaginta îberhaupt nicht verstehen kçnnen. Nun offenbarte sich mir eine von der semitischen Vorlage sprachlich und sachlich natîrlich auch stark beeinflußte, aber doch als Ganzes dem Zeitalter der Religionswende nicht unverstndliche Koine-Bibel, die in Tausenden ihrer Zeilen den seelischen Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments erkennen lßt und als Gesamtbibel eine der am tiefsten wirkenden Tatsachen der Religionsgeschichte widerspiegelt, die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus. Daß man diese Bibel zuerst als griechischen j53 Text lesen muß („griechisch“ natîrlich nicht im Sinne der attischen und attizistischen Kunstprosa), daß man sich den Sinn der SeptuagintaWçrter und -Stze nicht einfach durch die Vorlage suggerieren lassen darf (die Vorlagen sind nicht immer, was man ohne ˜berlegung meist annahm, „øquivalente“ der ˜bersetzung und umgekehrt), daß man Septuaginta-Exegese treiben muß, durch welche die hufige Selbstndigkeit des die Vorlage modifizierenden (weil nicht immer îbersetzenden, sondern oft ersetzenden), glttenden, verfeinernden, nicht selten verinnerlichenden Septuagintatextes sich mehr und mehr herausstellt, – diese Erkenntnis verdanke ich mehr oder weniger jenem ersten raschen Lesen. Eine große Vertiefung erhielten sie bald darauf, als ich die Papyri kennen lernte. Zehn Jahre spter habe ich in einem programmartigen Vortrag auf dem XIII. Internationalen Orientalistenkongreß zu Hamburg von 1902 diese Richtlinien der Septuagintaforschung, wie ich sie zu sehen glaubte, angedeutet. *

*

*

Es war in der Marburger Universittsbibliothek, als ich eines Tages, einem Kollegen îber die Schulter sehend, in einem der ersten Hefte der Berliner Griechischen Urkunden, das mir zunchst nur wegen seiner autographischen Vervielfltigung ußerlich aufgefallen war, das auf Augustus angewandte Wort heoO uRºr las. Dieser Augenblick bedeutete mir eine plçtzliche Befruchtung, fîr die ich nicht dankbar genug sein kann: er wies mich in die Papyri, oder besser gesagt, zu den unliterarischen Resten der Umwelt der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments. Ich las mich bald in viele gyptische Papyrusbltter und Mittelmeerweltinschriften ein und konnte die Fîlle des auf mich einstrçmenden Materials an sprach- und religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen (Kontaktparallelen und Kontrastparallelen) zur griechischen Bibel kaum bergen. Die frische Unmittelbarkeit dieser „˜berreste“, die, oft bis auf den Tag datierbar, als Originale aus den Tagen der Siebenzig, des Evangeliums und der Apostel

570

Addenda

stammten und mir sehr bald ein apostolisches Griechisch zu reden schienen, machte mir einen weit tieferen Eindruck, als es literarische Parallelen jemals zuvor vermocht hatten. So kam es zu den in meinen „Bibelstudien“ (1895) und „Neuen Bibelstudien“ (1897) niedergelegten Forschungen, die vor allem die eine Wirkung hatten, daß das von Theologen und Philologen un-j54nçtig und gewaltsam isolierte besondere „Bibelgriechisch“ (dessen Besonderheit Friedrich Blass freilich zunchst noch mit Entschiedenheit zu behaupten fortfuhr, bis er diese These dann in seiner Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch aufgab) aus dieser Einzelhaft befreit wurde. Zahlreiche Mitforscher des In- und Auslandes beteiligten sich alsbald an diesen Forschungen, und unter der Sonne der Welt erlebte die lange steril gewesene biblische Philologie eine Zeit hoher Blîte. Eine ganze kleine Bibliothek von Einzeluntersuchungen und zusammenfassenden grammatischen und lexikalischen Arbeiten wurde uns geschenkt, und besonders auch in den neueren Kommentaren zum Neuen Testament wirken diese ganzen Forschungen sehr stark mit. Ich habe auf der Giessener Konferenz 1897 und dann wieder in Cambridge 1907 îber diese Studien und die neue Theorie vom Bibelgriechisch zusammenfassend berichtet, aber auch in vielen Rezensionen und in vier grçßeren Sammelberichten der Theologischen Rundschau 1897/98, 1899, 1906 und 1912 diese Forschungen fernerhin begleiten und weiterfîhren dîrfen. *

*

*

Die Beschftigung mit den Papyri, Ostraka und Inschriften, deren Zahl in unseren europischen Sammlungen ich auch wiederholt habe mehren helfen (in Heidelberg, Manchester und im Berliner Neutestamentlichen Seminar) und bei deren Verçffentlichung ich mich auch selber als Herausgeber oder Helfer habe beteiligen kçnnen, verdanke ich eine Fîlle persçnlicher Beziehungen, die zum Teil zu Freundschaften wurden, im In- und Auslande. Die Kooperation der Fachgenossen verschiedener Fakultten und Nationen war auf dem Gesamtgebiete der historischen Wissenschaften vor dem Kriege ja wohl nirgends so eng und herzlich wie auf diesem einzelnen Felde, und sie ist auch nach dem Kriege, wenigstens zum Teil, rascher als in anderen Bezirken wiederhergestellt worden. An den besonderen Problemen der Bibelforschung, die aus den neuen Texten erwuchsen, bettigte die angelschsische Welt ein ganz besonderes Interesse, und sie stellte Mitarbeiter von hohen j55 Qualitten in unsere

Addenda

571

Reihen. Ich gedenke hier mit besonderer, nie verlçschender Dankbarkeit eines Frîhvollendeten: meines teueren Freundes James Hope Moulton, des britischen Methodisten, Grammatikers und Lexikographen, der der Wissenschaft und der Kirche als Opfer des Seekrieges entrissen worden ist. Seine lautere und vornehme Forscherpersçnlichkeit, seine wahrhaft christliche Seele sind mir nicht untergegangen, als der gemeinsame Freund J. Rendel Harris ihn in den Wogen des Mittelmeeres bestatten mußte, und sie werden mich bis zum Ziel meines eigenen Weges begleiten. Daß ich nach zahlreichen immer ergiebigen Begegnungen und einem dreißigjhrigen brieflichen Austausch, bei dem ich immer der Nehmende war, mit unserem deutschen Altmeister der Papyruskunde Ulrich Wilcken nun schon seit Jahren an der gleichen akademischen Sttte wirken darf, ist mir, um hier wenigstens einen einzigen Lebenden zu nenne, ein hohes Gut. Was waren das doch fîr kçstliche Zeiten, als in Heidelberg bei mir die lange ersehnten Kisten mit griechischen Ostraka aus øgypten angekommen waren und Wilcken als unser Gast Tag fîr Tag Scherbe um Scherbe aus dem Hcksel holte und fast immer sofort (so wie wir Postkarten und Rechnungen lesen) die von keinem Gelehrtenauge vorher gesehenen Texte verstand und erlutern konnte! *

*

*

Der Ungemein tiefe Eindruck, den mir die im Original uns wiedergeschenkten Papyrusbriefe aus der Umwelt des Neuen Testament sofort machten, als ich sie zuerst vor Augen bekam, lçste in mir eine formengeschichtliche Fragestellung aus, die mir je lnger je mehr von Wichtigkeit zu sein scheint: welches ist der eigentliche Charakter der uns literarisch îberlieferten „Briefe“ des Neuen Testaments, besonders des Paulus? Ich glaubte sehr bald eine Linie zu erkennen, die einen Bestand zweifellos literarisch gemeinter, die Briefform nur ußerlich anwendender „Episteln“ von einer Gruppe wirklicher „Briefe“ schied und bin dann mit großer Entschiedenheit fîr die unliterarische Brieflichkeit der Paulusbriefe eingetreten (in den „Prolegomena zu den biblischen Briefen und Episteln“ meiner „Bibelstudien“); scharfsinnige, wenn auch meines Erachtens nicht bis zum Ende durchgedachte methodologische Untersuchungen von Franz Overbeck gaben mir dabei fruchtbare Anregungen. j56 Noch nach dreißig Jahren dauernder Beschftigung mit diesem Problem glaube ich sagen zu sollen, daß hier alles abhngt von der Frage der Absicht des Briefschreibers Paulus: wollte er als der „erste christliche

572

Addenda

Schriftsteller“ durch epistolische, fîr die §ffentlichkeit und die Nachwelt bestimmte und darum sofort vervielfltige Flugschriften eine theologischliterarische Wirkung ausîben, oder hat er als Mann der Praxis die Aufgaben der Propaganda des Christuskults, die er sonst meist persçnlich, Auge in Auge mit den Menschen der antiken Großstadt, gelçst hat, sich des vertrauten, in einem einzigen Exemplar an einen ganz bestimmten Adressaten oder Adressatenkreis gehenden und nur fîr diese seine Adressaten bestimmten Briefes bedient, der nichts anderes war, als der Ersatz der mîndlichen Beeinflussung? Ist Paulus Epistolograph oder Briefschreiber? Die Antwort, die ich 1895 gab, ist mir von Jahr zu Jahr sicherer geworden: Paulus ist Briefschreiber, und sein im Neuen Testament nachtrglich durch Sammlung und Vervielfltigung zur Literatur und durch Kanonisierung zur heiligen Literatur gewordenen Briefe sind die unliterarischen „˜berreste“ der ltesten apostolischen Kultpropaganda (so wie der jetzt aufgetauchte Brief des Sarapisdieners Zoilos an den gyptischen Finanzminister Apollonios aus dem dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr. ein ˜berrest der Sarapis-Propaganda ist). Mit dieser historischen Charakteristik scheint mir der Wert der Paulusbriefe als historischer Quellen fîr das Verstndnis der Persçnlichkeit ihres Urhebers und fîr die Gesamtgeschichte des Urchristentums betrchtlich gesteigert und auch der Weg fîr eine bessere, weniger doktrinr-literarische als psychologisch-religiçse Exegese der Briefe etwas freier gemacht zu sein. Es ist ein nur aus unserer Verstricktheit in die Vorurteile einer allzu papieren gewordenen Kultur stammendes Mißverstndnis, wenn man gemeint hat, ich verkleinere durch das Schlagwort „unliterarisch“ wie auch durch den damit innerlich zusammenhngenden und spter von mir stark betonten Gesichtspunkt des „Volkstîmlichen“ oder „Urtîmlichen“ den großen Apostel und entwerte dadurch seine Briefe. Ich glaube im Gegenteil: gerade in seiner unliterarisch urwîchsigen, prophetischen Genialitt ragt Paulus um mehr als Haupteslnge îber alle anderen durch ihre literarische Produktion bekannten Zeit-j57genossen empor, weil er das grçßere Maß persçnlicher Kraft und die strkere Leidenschaft des religiçsen Wollens einzusetzen hatte. Meine Charakteristik des „unliterarischen“ und „volkstîmlichen“ Paulus ist so wenig eine Verkleinerung schçpferischer Fîhrergrçße, wie meine Auffassung des „neutestamentlichen“ Griechisch eine schlechte Zensur bedeutet: daß die Apostel nicht attizistische Kunstprosa sprachen und schrieben, sondern die volkstîmliche, in diesem Falle allerdings von begnadeten Edelmenschen gehandhabte und darum den abgenutzten Schablonen der Kunstprosa weit îberlegene Sprechsprache der Mittel-

Addenda

573

meerwelt, ist ein Tatbestand, der durch den Spott attizistisch verbildeter Epigonen von seiner inneren Grçße nichts verliert. Das methodologische Leitwort der „Brieflichkeit“ hat mich auch sonst im Studium der Paulusbriefe gefçrdert. Es gab mir wertvolle Gesichtpunkte fîr eine psychologisch reproduzierende Exegese und es lehrt mich vor den bei uns zu stark im Vordergrunde des Interesses stehenden Fragen nach dem „Lehrgehalt“ der Briefe mehr auf die doch zu allererst zu lçsende Frage nach ihrer Entstehung zu achten, die eben durch schrfste Anwendung aller aus der Idee der Brieflichkeit sich ergebenden Einzelfragestellung noch viel mehr gefçrdert werden kann, als es seither mçglich zu sein schien. In Herborn habe ich so mit den Kandidaten des Predigerseminars schon 1897 das Problem der paulinischen Gefangenschaftsbriefe aufgerollt und kam auf die Hypothese der ephesischen Gefangenschaft des Apostels. Daß Andere unabhngig die gleiche Vermutung fanden und daß dieselbe heute von Vielen gebilligt wird, obwohl sie noch nicht einmal bis in ihre letzten Sonderfragen durchgearbeitet ist, spricht gewiß nicht gegen ihre Wahrscheinlichkeit. Ihre Tragweite fîr die Chronologie der Paulusbriefe, fîr die ich den Galliostein von Delphi energisch herangezogen habe (im „Paulus“), und fîr die gesamte Biographie des Apostels selbst ist eine ganz betrchtliche. *

*

*

Unliterarische Texte haben es mir dann, seitdem ich die Paulusbriefe in ihre Reihe hinein gestellt hatte, oft angetan. Ich kenne kaum eine anziehendere Aufgabe, als solche, immer ein Stîck Wirklichkeit festhaltenden, wenn auch oft ganz fragmentarischen Reste nach mçglichster Wiederherstellung ihrer Urform zu interpretieren. Wiederholt habe ich das getan mit merkwîrdigen Texten j58 auf Bleitafeln, Marmor, Papyrus und Tonscherben: Liebeszauberzeilen, Rachegebeten, inhaltsreichen Grabinschriften, chronologisch bedeutsamen Inschriften, mit einer ganz besonderen Vorliebe fîr antike Originalbriefe. In meinem Buch „Licht vom Osten“ sind viele derartige Texterklrungen vereinigt. Auch Briefe aus neuerer Zeit konnte ich einmal herausgeben, den Nachlaß eines Herborner Studenten aus dem Anfang des siebzehnten Jahrhundert. In der Behandlung aller dieser oft fragmentierten Texte glaube ich von der Beobachtungsmethode unserer Archologen viel gelernt zu

574

Addenda

haben. Die ganze Wissenschaft vom Neuen Testament ist îbrigens ja auch eine Beschftigung mit Fragmenten. Religiçs betrachtet gewiß „allgenugsam“, ist das Neue Testament, als historische Quellen betrachtet, eine Sammlung von Fragmenten; es gibt uns wesentliche Fragmente zwar, aber doch eben nichts Vollstndiges. Wie gering sind doch z. B. die direkten Angaben îber den Kult der ltesten Gemeinden oder îber das Leben der apostolischen Fîhrer! Die historische Methode der meisten neueren Schulen rechts und links hat das frîher zu wenig beachtet und daher geglaubt, man kçnne durch Aneinanderkitten aller vorhandenen Stîcke so oder so das Ganze wiedergewinnen, „den“ petrinischen „Lehrbegriff“ etwa, oder „die“ „Lehre“ Jesu oder „den“ „Paulinismus“. Die mit Fragmenten bewußt arbeitende Archologie, zu der ich besonders durch meine Studienreisen ein mehr als oberflchliches Verhltnis glaube gewonnen zu haben, kann uns da lehren, wie man aus Fragmenten, deren Bruchflchen nicht aufeinanderpassen, hypothetisch ein Ganzes wieder gewinnen kann. *

*

*

Daß ich zu Beginn des Jahres 1895, nach kurzer Marburger Dozentenzeit (whrend deren ich auch als Repetent am Seminarium Philippinum arbeiten und lernen durfte), einer Berufung in meine Heimat nach Herborn Folge gab, betrachte ich als einen der richtigen Schritte meines Lebens. Mir ist dadurch nicht nur die Begrîndung meines Hausstandes mçglich geworden und eine vielleicht lange und lhmende Wartezeit als Privatdozent erspart geblieben. Ich kam auch auf ein Arbeitsfeld, das mir menschlich ungemein sympathisch war und mich trotz starker praktischer Inanspruchnahme im geistlichen Dienst an drei weitabgelegenen Filialdçrfern doch dauernd im akademischen Kontakt erhielt; an der Seite von Friedrich Zimmer, Heinrich Maurer und Karl j59 Haußen hatte ich im Nebenamt als Lehrer an dem alten Herborner Theologischen Seminar zu wirken und konnte hier sogar ein gelehrtes Werk verçffentlichen, die Neuen Bibelstudien (1897). Ein ˜berrest der alten reformierten Hohen Schule Herborn, ist dieses in dem stattlichen Schloß îber der Stadt hochgelegene nassauische Predigerseminar die „als solche“ erhaltene alte Theologische Fakultt. Wie mein Vater und mein Großvater, so war auch ich selbst als Kandidat sein Schîler gewesen und hatte von beiden Eltern her, die hier jung gewesen waren und sich, wie schon die Großeltern, hier gefunden hatten, eine Fîlle verwandtschaftlicher und persçnlicher Beziehungen zu dem alten

Addenda

575

schçnen Stdtchen und seiner Nachbarschaft. Niemals habe ich hier unter den Armseligkeiten kleinstdtischer Rîckstndigkeit gelitten. Der genius loci des kleinen Ortes, von dem in den Schriften meines Landsmannes Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl mancherlei zu lesen ist, war immer noch akademisch, von der großen Zeit Herborns her, im sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhundert, als die unter den Oraniern blîhende Hohe Schule bedeutende und weithin bekannte Theologen und Juristen zu ihren Lehrern zhlte und Hunderte von begabten Studenten aus der gesamten reformierten Welt bis Ungarn und Schottland anzog; damals hat ein Vorfahr von mir, Michael Theismann, zusammen mit dem jungen Amos Comenius in Herborn studiert. Nichts war mir, der ich vielerlei von der Vergangenheit der heimatlichen Alma mater wußte, in den Gassen und Gßchen der alten Stadt trivial. Der Verkehr mit den Bîrgern und mit der Kollegenschaft des großen Dekanats war rege, und mit Marburg und Gießen blieb man ohnehin in Verbindung. Die „Gießener Konferenz“ bedeutete da jedesmal einen Hçhepunkt des Austausches und der Anregung. *

*

*

Das ich den grçßten Teil meiner Kraft in Herborn dem praktischen Pfarramt zu widmen hatte, erschien einigen meiner Marburger akademischen Freunde als eine Art von Erniedrigung. Ich gestehe offen, daß mir, ganz erfîllt von wissenschaftlichen Interessen wie ich war, die mannigfachen ungeistlichen Ttigkeiten, die der geistliche Beruf mit sich brachte, nicht ganz leicht geworden sind. Und das regelmßige und viel zu hufige Predigenmîssen (nicht das Predigen als solches) hat mir wieder schwere Nçte bereitet. Aber blicke ich heute auf diese Jahre der Praxis zurîck, j60 so habe ich doch eher die Empfindung, als htte ich damals auf der Cathedra superior gestanden und als sei dem theologischen Lehrer eine neue, fîr sein ganzes kînftiges akademisches Leben fruchtbare Lernzeit beschieden gewesen. Anschauungen, die mir wohl von Kind auf im Blute lagen, kamen hier zum vollen Durchbruch: ein Verstndnis der empirischen Religion als einer zunchst nicht theoretischen, sondern praktischen Angelegenheit, ein Verstndnis des Kultischen und des Mystischen, insbesondere der zentralen Bedeutung des Christuskultes und der Christusmystik von der Apostelzeit bis heute, ein seelisches Verstndnis derjenigen Menschenschichten, die, wie von Anbeginn, so durch alle Jahrhunderte die eigentlichen Trger der christlichen Frçmmigkeit gewesen sind, ein Verstndnis dafîr, was

576

Addenda

Propaganda und was Seelenbehandlung ist, was Aufrichtigkeit vor Gott und was fromme Phrase ist, und wie sich die Religion in der ungeheueren Vitalitt ihrer praktischen Triebkraft mit anderen geistigen Mchten im Guten und Bçsen verbindet. Fîr besonders wichtig halte ich es, daß ich damals in meinen Dçrfern Hçrbach, Hirschberg und Sinn, besonders in den beiden ersten, inmitten einer aus Kleinbauern und zwergbuerlichen Hîttenarbeitern gemischten Bevçlkerung, den Laienpietismus der Stillen im Lande, der Gemeinschaften, in einer kirchentreuen, biblisch nîchternen und doch (namentlich im Missionsgeiste) îberaus aktiven Lebendigkeit kennenlernte. Schon mein Vater hatte mir mit großer Bewegung von diesen Bauernpietisten des Dilltales erzhlt. Wie wandelte sich mir nun auf dem Rîckweg von den Dçrfern mein Universitts- und Lehrbuchbegriff des „Paulinismus“, wenn ich auf den gelbleuchtenden Trollblumenmatten der Westerwaldtler oder im Winter in ihrer Schneeeinsamkeit alles bedachte, was ich in persçnlicher Aussprache oder in der „Versammling“ gesehen, gehçrt und gefîhlt hatte bei diesen ernsten, tiefgrîndigen, auf die Marter des Heilands sich verbindenden und an Gottes Wort ganz hingegebenen Menschen. Und wie wurde statt des Paulinismus Paulus lebendig! Das waren ja doch seine „Hausversammlungen“ gewesen, und das Beste paulinischer Christusfrçmmigkeit war, ohne Studium, ohne Griechisch, ohne Examen lebendig geworden. Daß der matte Doktrinarismus gewisser Vertreter der lteren Paulusforschung zum Teil gewiß aus ihrer Unbekanntschaft mit der Wirklichkeit der religiçsen Praxis und aus einem prîden Sichselbstabsperren gegen jede Befruch-j61tung ihrer reproduzierenden historischen Phantasie durch die Praxis stammte, ist mir klarer und klarer geworden, und ich habe spter oftmals betont, wie wichtig dem jungen akademischen Nachwuchs, soweit er sich mit Religion befaßt, die eigene genaue Bekanntschaft mit der Praxis ist – nicht bloß mit Rîcksicht auf seine kînftigen Hçrer, sondern vor allem im Interesse einer biologischen Erfassung des wissenschaftlichen Objektes. Es ist doch wirklich nicht notwendig, daß die wissenschaftliche Wiedergabe eines großen Phnomens der Religionsgeschichte sich wie ein lebloses anatomisches Prparat ausnimmt oder wie das Nebenprodukt einer G.m.b.H. fîr Trbertrocknung. *

*

*

Die doktrinre Methode der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, die nachmals William Wrede einer so treffenden Kritik unterzogen hat,

Addenda

577

obwohl sein „Paulus“ durchaus nicht frei davon geblieben ist, ist letztlich die Nachwirkung einer stark verweltlichten Auffassung von Christentum und Religion îberhaupt. Man betrachtet die religiçsen Seeleninhalte vorwiegend in ihrem zweiten Stadium, in dem Stadium der Reflexion, der „Weltanschauungs“- und Systembildung, macht aus Propheten Theologen, aus Frçmmigkeit ein Lehrbuch von Ismen, aus Mystik Dogmatik. Man vergißt das erste Stadium der schçpferischen Naivitt. Daß Reflexion, Systembildung, Dogmatik im Gefolge der Religion hochkommen, oft so hoch, daß die Religion hinter aller Hoffart der Werktagsreflexion verschwindet, ist sicher; aber das Erste und Vornehmste muß das Erste bleiben: das Heilige. Und dies kann nur aus einer religiçsen Kongenialitt heraus wissenschaftlich erfaßt werden, unter Abgrenzung von den Methoden, die man etwa fîr die Geschichte der Philosophie oder des wissenschaftlichen Denkens îberhaupt herausgebildet hat und unter bewußter Repatriierung des Neuen Testaments aus seinem abendlndischen Exil in seine çstliche seelische Heimat. So fîhlte ich mich mehr und mehr zu einer neuen Aufgabe hingedrngt, die ich wohl bezeichnen kçnnte als die Entwicklung unserer religionswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung des Christentums und der Religion îberhaupt. Es scheint eine Paradoxie zu sein, ist aber, wenn ich mich selbst prîfe, nur eine folgerechte Entwicklung, daß ich die Aufgabe dieser Entweltlichung deutlicher erst dann empfunden habe, als ich das kînstlich sakral gemachte j62 Griechisch der Bibel versucht hatte zu verweltlichen. Meine sprachgeschichtlichen Untersuchungen hatten dies ja zweifellos bedeutet: eine Skularisation der dogmatischen Philologia sacra. Dadurch war mir der Weg frei geworden zum wirklichen Sacrum: von den Wçrtern zum Wort, vom Buch zum Geist der ersten Zeugen, zur prdogmatischen, naiven Frçmmigkeit des Meisters und seiner alsbald sich um ihn im Kult scharenden Gemeinde. Das sich frîhe schon diese Naivitt da und dort umsetzte in Reflexion, daß z. B. bei Paulus starke Momente der Reflexion vorhanden sind, blieb mir dabei nicht verborgen. Ich habe daher die Frage der wissenschaftlichen Erfassung und Beurteilung des Urchristentums nicht als mechanische Alternative aufgefaßt, sondern als ein Problem der historischen Akzentsetzung *

*

*

Nach Heidelberg wurde ich 1897 auf den Lehrstuhl von Karl Holsten berufen. Ich habe den ehrwîrdigen Mann nicht persçnlich gekannt; aber sein Wesen ist mir durch viele seiner besten Schîler, die tief von ihm

578

Addenda

erfîllt geblieben waren, nahegekommen. Stimmungsmßig prallte ich als junger Heidelberger Ordinarius zunchst mit der mehr oder weniger doktrinren Gesamtauffassung des lteren Liberalismus zusammen, der indessen in Baden, wohl noch unter dem Einfluß von Richard Rothe, durchaus nicht verhrtet war und mir viel gîtiges Vertrauen entgegenbrachte. Einer seiner fîhrenden Mnner war Heinrich Bassermann, vorbildlich durch seine Vornehmheit, Innerlichkeit und Beredsamkeit. In den Kreisen der Geistlichen lebte bei vielen das Paulusbild meines Vorgngers. Dieser Marmorbîste, in ihrer Art einem Meisterwerke, auf dem von der edlen Persçnlichkeit Holstens etwas wie ein warmer Sonnenblick haftete, ein anderes Bild gegenîberzustellen, betrachtete ich in Vorlesung, Seminar und wissenschaftlicher Produktion als eine ernste Aufgabe. Starkes Verstndnis begegnete mir hier bei dem wenig lteren Ernst Troeltsch, der schon damals den hohen akademischen Rang einzunehmen begann, den seine glnzende Begabung und seine faszinierende Persçnlichkeit ihm widerspruchslos zuwiesen. Er war besonders interessiert fîr alles, was sich auf eine kultgeschichtliche Betrachtung des Urchristentums und seine prliterarische Naivitt bezog, und unser letztes Heidelberger Gesprch nach einer langen Reihe von Jahren fçrdernder Freundschaft und j63 gemeinsamer Kmpfe hatte es eben mit diesem Problem zu tun. Ich habe spter den großen Schmerz erlebt, daß ich mit Troeltsch eine Zeitlang auseinanderkam. Er schien mir nicht verzeihen zu kçnnen, daß ich nach dem Fortgang von Edvard Lehmann aus unserer Berliner Theologischen Fakultt nach Lund nicht fîr ihn als Nachfolger eingetreten war, sondern fîr die Wiederbesetzung des Lehrstuhls mit einem Religionshistoriker. Die in der Sache liegenden Grînde, die mich dabei leiteten, habe ich damals in einer besonderen Schrift dargelegt (Der Lehrstuhl fîr Religionsgeschichte 1914) und glaube, daß sie schwerwiegend sind. Ob ich in Anbetracht der ungewçhnlich bedeutenden Persçnlichkeit Troeltsch die sachlichen Erwgungen wirklich htte zurîckstellen sollen? Troeltsch hat sich spter mit seiner Verpflanzung in die Berliner Philosophische Fakultt nicht nur abgefunden, sondern kein Hehl daraus gemacht, daß er sie fîr den normalen Abschluß hielt, auf den seine Entwicklung hingedrngt habe, und er hat sich der vollendeten Tatsache gefreut. Der Kriegsausbruch hat die drohende schwere Gefhrdung unsere alten Gemeinschaft durch diesen in 1pistoka· baqe?ai ja· Qswuqa· zunchst heftig tobenden Konflikt gemildert. Lngere Aussprachen nach Troeltschs ˜bersiedelung hatten ebenfalls eine klrende Wirkung; in vielen ernsten Fragen der vaterln-

Addenda

579

dischen Notzeit seitdem standen wir auf dem gleichen Boden, und es ist mir eine wehmîtige Freude, daß er meinen „Evangelischen Wochenbrief“ mit seiner Anerkennung begleitete und daß ich unmittelbar vor dem jhen Abschied, den er nehmen mußte, mit ihm noch auf seine Bitte in der Europischen Hilfsaktion fîr unsere Studenten zusammen wirken konnte. *

*

*

Wer htte von den deutschen Schicksalen, die auf der Mittagshçhe des Lebens mitzutragen uns auferlegt wurde, in jenen reichen Heidelberger Jugendtagen etwas geahnt? Max Weber war damals vielleicht der einzige von uns, der außenpolitische Ahndung genug hatte, die sich drohend heranwlzende Gefahr der wachsenden Isolierung Deutschlands mit voller Deutlichkeit zu sehen. Wir waren im îbrigen ganz hingegeben einer unerschîtterlichen nationalen Zuversicht und setzten unsere Kraft hauptschlich dafîr ein, der schweren inneren Gefhrdung der deutschen Einheit, die durch das Auseinanderstreben der handarbeitenden Massen und der „bîrgerlichen“ Gesellschaft gegeben war, zu begegnen. Die j64 nationalsoziale Bewegung erlebte in Heidelberg, unter hufiger Anteilnahme Friedrich Naumanns selbst, eine Zeit hoher Blîte und hatte bei uns ein sîdwestdeutsches Zentrum. Das sie sich parteimßig organisiert hatte, halte ich heute fîr einen Fehler. Sie hat dann ein einziges Mal erlebt, daß ihre Ideen sich in geradezu welthistorischem Ausmaß verwirklichten: beim Kriegsausbruch 1914, als wir wirklich ein Volk geworden waren. Ihre Ideen blieben trotz des spteren furchtbaren inneren Niedergangs in Zerklîftung, in Nichtverstehen und Haß das politische Testament fîr den deutschen Aufstieg. Diese politischen Dinge wîrde ich hier nicht berîhren, wenn sie nicht fîr meine innere Gesamtentwicklung in der Heidelberger Zeit indirekt sehr wichtig gewesen wren. Durch die Beteiligung am çffentlichen Leben als Stadtverordneter und als Berater in gemeinnîtziger genossenschaftlicher Arbeit blieb ich in Fîhlung mit allen Schichten der Bevçlkerung, und es war mir ein Hçhepunkt, als ich in einem Mannheimer Volkshochschulkursus einer großen Zahl von Industriearbeitern die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments erzhlen durfte und mit ihnen in einen auch mich fçrdernden Austausch îber die massenhaften, von verschafften Hnden geschriebenen Zettel des Fragekastens treten durfte. Mein Interesse fîr das Problem des „Volkstîmlichen“ gewann hier viel neues Anschauungsmaterial.

580

Addenda

*

*

*

Alles Heidelberger Erleben wurde mir aber îberstrahlt durch unseren „Eranos“. Mit dem alten Marburger Genossen Albrecht Dieterich zusammen habe ich bald nach seiner Berufung an die Ruperto-Carola Schritte getan, einen Kreis von Kollegen der verschiedensten Fakultten zusammenzubringen zur gemeinsamen Behandlung religionswissenschaftlicher Fragen. Monatlich einmal seit 1904 trafen wir uns am Sonntagnachmittag bis zum spten Abend in unseren Husern. Der Hausherr war Redner und Wirt; die Aussprache nach dem Vortrage war bis zum gemeinsamen Mahl parlamentarisch geordnet und setzte sich dann bis auf die oft weiten Nachhausewege in sprudelnder Ergiebigkeit fort. Daß Nichttheologen die große Mehrheit dieses religionswissenschaftlichen Kreises bildeten (Wilhelm Windelband, Albrecht j65 Dieterich, Friedrich von Duhn, Erich Marcks, Alfred von Domaszewski, Georg Jellinek, Karl von Lilienthal, Eberhard Gothein, Karl Rathgen, Max Weber neben Ernst Troeltsch und mir, war von ungemein anregender Wirkung. Die alte Marburger Tafelrunde war gleichsam wiederaufgelebt, nur, wie es sich gehçrt, mit grçßerer Gravitt der Genossen. Die Weltgeltung der Religion und ihre tiefe Verflochtenheit in alle Gebiete des geistigen Lebens, politische Geschichte, Recht, Wirtschaft, Kunst, Philosophie kam in diesen Sonntagsfeierstunden zu einem ganz plastischen Ausdruck, und die oft eigenartige, im guten Sinne des Wortes unzînftige Stellungnahme der Nichttheologen gab dem mit hergebrachten Schemata vertrauten Theologen viel zu denken. Ich habe niemals eine so hochstehende und so ergiebige Form akademischen Austauschs und freundschaftlich-geselliger Geistigkeit wiedererlebt. Die Berliner Graeca, der ich spter auch viel verdankte, ist durch ihr Herkommen in erster Linie dem Lesen von antiken Texten gewidmet und lßt darum den Austausch mehr zurîcktreten. Im Heidelberger „Eranos“ kamen im Laufe der Semester Probleme zur Uraussprache, die nachmals, ausgereift und literarisch vertreten, der Ausgangspunkt wichtiger neuer Forschungen geworden sind. *

*

*

In Heidelberg gab ich einen knappen Abriß meiner damaligen Gesamtauffassung der Religion der christlichen Urzeit in dem Beitrag „Evangelium und Urchristentum“ zu einem Sammelwerke heraus, das den ohne meine Verantwortung gewhlten unglîcklichen, unfrommen Titel trug: „Beitrge zur Weiterentwicklung der christlichen Religion“

Addenda

581

(Mînchen 1904). Ich konnte dann auch einen großen Teil meiner sprach-, literar-, religions- und kulturgeschichtlichen Studien zum Neuen Testament in einem großen Werk zusammenfassen, in dem ich îbrigens auch den Versuch machte, den an sich sehr sprçdern Stoff unzhliger gelehrter Einzelbeobachtungen in einer Form darzubieten, die dem Gebildeten verstndlich sein sollte: „Licht vom Osten“ (1908). Das Buch, das mit den „Bibelstudien“ und „Neuen Bibelstudien“ zusammengehçrt, hat eine große Verbreitung erlebt und ist 1923 in der vierten deutschen Auflage erschienen; die dritte englische steht j66 bevor. Methodologisch glaubte ich hier îbrigens die religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen differenzieren zu sollen, je nachdem sie analogischer oder genealogischer Art sind und meine, daß diese Unterscheidung fruchtbar ist fîr die religionsgeschichtliche Forschung îberhaupt. Daß ich selbst je lnger je mehr das Schlagwort „religionsgeschichtlich“ lieber von dem Singular „Religion“ als von dem Plural „Religionen“ ableite und fast mit „kultgeschichtlich“ identifiziere, sei hier nicht verschwiegen. *

*

*

Es war im Heidelberger „Eranos“, daß ich Friedrich von Duhn bat, mich an der von ihm fîr 1906 geplanten großen Badischen Studienreise nach Wien, Budapest, Bukarest, Konstantinopel, Westkleinasien, Griechenland mit den Inseln und Sîditalien teilnehmen zu lassen. Diese Reise bildet fîr mich einen Markstein meines wissenschaftlichen und persçnlichen Lebens. Die Erfîllung eines lange gehegten Wunsches (der aber nur der Ausdruck einer lngst gefîhlten wissenschaftlichen Verpflichtung war), bedeutete mir diese Wanderung im vierzigsten Jahre meines Lebens eine wundervolle erste Schau des neutestamentlichen, insbesondere des paulinischen Ostens und war eine ungemeine innere Bereicherung durch einen Schatz, der mir seitdem wie durch Zinseszins von Jahr zu Jahr wertvoller geworden ist. Eine große Fçrderung meiner religionswissenschaftlichen Studien verdanke ich ihr. Der Leiter der Fahrt war ein Meister der Fîhrung und Einfîhlung; îberall waren die ersten Autoritten der Altertumsforschung an Ort und Stelle unsere besonderen Lehrer, die çsterreichschen, ungarischen rumnischen Archologen zuerst; dann die tîrkischen, deutschen, nochmals (in Ephesus) die çsterreichischen, weiter die britischen, griechischen, franzçsischen und italienischen Forscher, unter ihnen allen auch mein treuer Jugendfreund von Wiesbaden her, Theodor Wiegand. Es ist mehr als sonderbar, wenn

582

Addenda

seßhafte Autoritten, die solche Reisen ihrerseits nicht gemacht haben, ihren Wert bezweifeln wollen. Man kann darîber wirklich nicht streiten. Mir war 1906 jedenfalls ein so großes Erlebnis gewesen, daß ich 1909 von Berlin aus selbst eine zweite, grçßere Studienreise mit Carl Schmidt (dem Kopten) und Wilhelm Weber (dem Althistoriker) organisierte und glîcklich durchfîhren durfte. Sie brachte uns auch in das innere Kleinasien bis Angora und Konia, j67 nach Phrygien, Westkleinasien und Cilicien, nach Syrien mit Antiochien, Baalbeck und Damaskus und, wie eine Pilgerreise, oft mit russischen und sibirischen Pilgern zusammen, zuletzt nach dem heiligen Land und der heiligen Stadt, dann îber øgypten nach Hause. Sie ergnzte meine Anschauung der neutestamentlichen Welt so bedeutsam, daß ich nunmehr fast von jedem Schauplatz des Neuen Testaments einen selbsterhaltenen plastischen Eindruck habe. Die beiden Studienreisen gaben mir wohl auch ein noch grçßeres Verstndnis fîr die Psyche der çstlichen Menschen, insbesondere fîr die Seele des neutestamentlichen Menschen durch die Jahrtausende oft treulich bewahrende religiçse Eigenart. Ich sah noch deutlicher, was kultische Religion ist (die mit Kultusreligion nicht verwechselt sein will). Die Reisen halfen mir so bei der Repatriierung des Neuen Testaments und seiner schçpferischen Persçnlichkeit, minderten die abendlndische und akademische Hoffart und mehrten den Respekt vor dem Urtîmlichen. Sie erleichterten mir ganz besonders die historische Vergegenwrtigung des großen apostolischen Weltwanderers Paulus. *

*

*

In Uppsala durfte ich 1910 auf Einladung durch Nathan Soederblom, mit dem mich seitdem eine tiefe Freundschaft und Gesinnungsgemeinschaft verbindet, in der Olaus-Petri-Stiftung das Paulusbild skizzieren, wie es sich mir nun allmhlich gestaltet hatte; daraus erwuchs 1911 mein „Paulus“. Aus dem seither Gesagten kann vermutet werden, wie er etwa aussieht: Mensch des antiken Ostens, unliterarisch, Jude und Hellenist, homo novus und doch Fîhrerpersçnlichkeit, Klassiker der Christusmystik und des Christuskultes und eines unerhçrten, von daher gesthlten ethischen Aktivismus, Prophet und Grîbler, schçpferischer Skularmensch von welthistorischen Wirkungen. Der Protest gegen den papierenen Paulus der Lehrbîcher brachte mir leidenschaftliche Angriffe ein; ich habe jetzt eben, im Anhang der neuen Auflage (Tîbingen 1925) nach langem Zçgern ein Wort der Abwehr ausgehen lassen und im Buche selbst diejenigen Punkte durch

Addenda

583

Typisierung besser beleuchtet, die besonders umstritten sind: Christusmystik und Christuskult. Die Unterscheidung zwischen der agierenden und der reagierenden Mystik (wenn man auf die Entstehung des mystischen Erlebens sieht) sowie zwischen der Unio-Mystik und der Communio-Mystik (wenn j68 man auf das Ziel des mystischen Erlebens sieht), sowie die Charakterisierung des Paulus als reagierenden Communio-Mystikers wird hoffentlich zur Klrung beitragen; ebenso wie die grundstzlichen Erçrterungen îber agierenden und reagierenden Kult. Die angedeutete Typisierung der Mystik hatte ich îbrigens schon hnlich so in den Selly Oak Lectures von 1923 îber die Gottesgemeinschaft Jesu und die Christusgemeinschaft des Paulus versucht. *

*

*

Mit alledem habe ich weit vorausgegriffen und muß noch etwas îber meine Berufung nach Berlin nachholen. Ende 1907 hatte ich von dem Berliner Altmeister der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft Bernhard Weiß, dem ich vorher nach dem Berliner Semester wiederholt noch flîchtig begegnet war, einen Brief erhalten, in dem er mich fragte, ob ich bereit sei, eine Anzeige seines Buches îber die Religion des Neuen Testaments zu schreiben. Ich interpretierte seine Anfrage richtig: der Achtzigjhrige wînschte tatschlich eine Aussprache mit mir îber die Hauptfragen unseres Faches, und zwar mit Rîcksicht auf seine Nachfolgerschaft. Den starken unterschied der Gesamtauffassung konnte ich ihm da nicht verhehlen, der zwischen uns beiden namentlich in bezug auf die sog. Neutestamentliche Theologie bestand und der ihm gewiß auch nicht unbekannt gewesen war. Ich konnte andererseits andeuten, daß ich in der Behandlung der Echtheitsfragen sein maßvolles Vertrauen zur ltesten ˜berlieferung im allgemeinen teile. Er scheint dann lebhaft fîr mich eingetreten zu sein, und als ich zu Ostern 1908 in die Fakultt aufgenommen wurde, ist er mir auf das Gîtigste entgegengekommen. Ich habe dann, durch die Methode des Sehens und Formulierens, durch Stammesart und Temperament aufs strkste von ihm verschieden und durch eine Generation von ihm getrennt, noch zehn Jahre ungetrîbten Vertrauens mit ihm erlebet. Schweren Familienschicksalen preisgegeben und durch die Hungerblockade zuletzt maßlos mitgenommen, hat er kein leichtes nunc dimittis gehabt; ich durfte ihm, als er in seinem einundneunzigsten Lebensjahre von uns geschieden war, in meiner Gedchtnisrede einen ehrlichen Zoll der Dankbarkeit und Verehrung weihen.

584

Addenda

Ich habe Berlin in den langen Jahren seit 1908, ganz besonders whrende des Krieges, allmhlich lieb gewonnen, die ungeheuer arbeitende Stadt, das Sturmzentrum unseres deutschen Schicksals. j69 Vçllig eingewurzelt in den Norden fîhlte sich meine rheinische Seele aber erst, seitdem wir 1912 fîr uns und unsere Kinder weit draußen ein Stîck mrkischen Sandbodens und mrkischen Kiefernwaldes am Gestade eines mrkischen Sees erwerben und das „Haus Anatolia“ bauen konnten. *

*

*

Wie schon in Heidelberg, so verwandte ich auch in Berlin große Sorgfalt auf das Neutestamentliche Seminar, dem ich sogleich ein Proseminar hinzufîgte, bei dem ich mich stets der Hilfe von tîchtigen Assistenten erfreute. Allmhlich erhielt ich auch genîgende Rume und konnte den wissenschaftlichen Apparat fîr Septuaginta und Neues Testament an Bîchern, Bildern, Lichtbildern und Karten stark vermehren und den Grundstock zu einer Biblischen Sammlung nach Art der Museen der Weißen Vter in Jerusalem und des Istituto Biblico in Rom schaffen, die in besserer Zeit hoffentlich einmal fortgefîhrt werden kann. Den numerus clausus habe ich nicht beibehalten, weil ich in den Seminaren staatliche Unterrichtsanstalten sehe, deren Tore man nicht ohne Not verschließen darf. Die sonst wohl durch den numerus clausus mitbeabsichtigte Auslese an wirklich Gereiften, die in die Zahl der selbstndigen Forscher einmal eintreten kçnnten, findet sich dabei von selbst. Man kann die Nachteile großer Mitgliederzahlen auch durch Gliederung in Sonderkreise unter Mitwirkung der jîngeren Kollegen mildern; wiederholt habe ich auch fîr Fortgeschrittene neben dem Seminar ein besonderes Colloquium Biblicum abgehalten. Um bei meiner ganzen Auffassung unseres großen Objektes, des Neuen Testaments, Gelegenheit auch zum Besten, zur religiçsen Reproduktion des klassischen Urwortes zu haben, habe ich nicht nur in dem von Friedrich Mahling neu begrîndeten Berliner Akademischen Gottesdienst von Zeit zu Zeit gepredigt, sondern auch versucht, in vertrauten Abendstunden Studenten im Seminarraum um große Texte (meist Paulusworte) in apostolischer Gemeinschaft zu versammeln. In meinem soeben im Furche-Verlag Berlin 1925 herauskommenden Heft „De profundis“ ist einiges aus diesem Berliner Dienst am Wort gesammelt worden. *

*

*

Addenda

585

Die Mitgliedschaft in einer so großen und zentralen Fakultt wie der Berliner brachte reiche Anregung durch die Kollegen mit j70 sich, aber auch eine Fîlle von sonstigen neuen wissenschaftlichen Beziehungen mit dem In- und Auslande. Zwar schon in Heidelberg hatte ich durch Schîler aus anderen protestantischen Lndern, durch zahlreiche Besuche von Kollegen und einen betrchtlichen Briefwechsel viele auswrtige Fîhlung gehabt und war wiederholt in Großbritannien gewesen, zuletzt 1907 in Cambridge zu dem bereits erwhnten Vortragszyklus îber die Philologie der griechischen Bibel.1 In Berlin aber hat sich dieser Verkehr mit dem akademischen und kirchlichen Ausland sehr verstrkt. Die çkumenische Einstellung meines Elternhauses, in dem ich schon als Kind vieles vom christlichen Ausland hçrte und sah, hat hierin wohl noch stark nachgewirkt. Ich betrachte es als einen großen inneren Gewinn, daß ich, auch abgesehen von den beiden Studienreisen in den Orient, vor 1914 Gelegenheit gehabt habe, çfter im Ausland zu weilen und eine betrchtliche Anzahl fîhrender Forscher und Kirchenmnner persçnlich kennenzulernen, eigenartige Einrichtungen zu sehen und die Typen der protestantischen und îberhaupt der christlichen Kirchenbildung aus der Anschauung zu studieren. Von meiner Fakultt seit lngeren Jahren stets als Abgeordneter zu unserer Provinzial- und zur Generalsynode entsandt und also auch kirchenpolitisch ttig, war ich fîr vieles im kirchlichen Ausland auch technisch interessiert und habe z. B. manche Anregung zu meinem energischen Eintreten fîr die Wiederherstellung des evangelischen Bischofsamtes auf der Preußischen Verfassungsgebenden Kirchenversammlung von 1921/22 durch Beobachtungen jenseits unsere Grenzen erhalten. Die Hauptsache aber, die ich im christlichen Ausland gesehen zu haben glaube, ist das faktische Vorhandensein einer weitreichenden kultischen Einheit (nicht Kultus-Einheit) und Gesinnungseinheit der durch Bekenntnis, Liturgie und Verfassung sonst oft so stark voneinander getrennten Kirchen. Etwas von der Unsichtbaren Kirche glaubte ich da zu schauen und habe, als der Amerikaner Silas McBee 1912 an mich herantrat, ich mçchte in den Board des von ihm beabsichtigten interdenominationalen Organs „The Constructive Quarterly“ eintreten, gern zugesagt und ihm manchen Beitrag zu seinem bald zu hoher Blîte gelangten Unternehmen gegeben. Ich wußte nicht, daß diese

1

,zuletzt‘ appears to refer only to GAD’s philological lectures, but gives an incomplete picture; see ch. 6, n. 114.

586

Addenda

Weissagung auf die Una Sancta bald îberschrieen werden wîrde durch andere Stimmen. *

*

*

j71 Der Ausbruch des Weltkrieges hatte innerhalb der kriegfîhrenden Lnder große Organisationen fîr den geistigen Vçlkerkampf zur Folge. Auch kirchliche Krfte wurden dafîr alsbald mobil gemacht. In Frankreich hatten Katholiken und Protestanten schon frîhe ganz außerordentliche Einrichtungen fîr die literarische Auseinandersetzung und zur seelischen Eroberung der çffentlichen Meinung. Ebenso nahmen in Großbritannien fîhrende Theologen an solcher Arbeit teil, mit besonderer Vornehmheit und Wîrde der greise Fachgenosse William Sanday in Oxford. In Deutschland wurde die Notwendigkeit eines kirchlichen Auslandsdienstes natîrlich auch dringend empfunden, und als ich im Herbst 1914 gefragt wurde, ob ich nicht wçchentliche Briefe an die neutralen Glaubensgenossen schreiben wolle, habe ich ohne Bedenken zugesagt, um so mehr, als ein deutscher katholischer Auslandsdienst bereits mit großer Energie organisiert worden war. So habe ich den „Evangelischen Wochenbrief“ begrîndet, in vollster persçnlicher Unabhngigkeit und unter eigenster Verantwortung, als einen Dienst an der Verstndigung unter den Vçlkern und an der Strkung der christlichen Solidaritt. Er ging durch Vermittlung des Auslandsdienstes (die einzige, die damals mçglich war) seit dem ersten Advent 1914 deutsch an eine von Woche zu Woche wachsende Zahl von Adressaten ins europische Ausland, englisch als „Protestant Weekly Letter“ nach Nordamerika, seit 1917 nur noch deutsch an die Neutralen und zahlreiche deutsche Adressaten des In- und Auslandes. Ich konnte nicht ahnen, daß ich damit eine Arbeit begonnen hatte, die durch volle sieben Jahre hindurch fast meine gesamte, nicht durch die Universittspflichten besetzte Zeit in Anspruch nehmen wîrde. Nur durch Vortrge und durch Artikel in großen Zeitungen habe ich nebenher mich um die Strkung der moralischen Front bemîht. Diese Texte sind zum Teil auch in Sonder- und Sammelausgaben spter wiedergedruckt worden. Alles andere, darunter große wissenschaftliche Aufgaben, habe ich zurîckgestellt, besonders als nach dem Zusammenbruch 1918 ganz neue ungeheuere Aufgaben an mich herantraten: die nunmehr durch keine Zensur gehemmte freie Aussprache îber die moralischen und religiçsen Kriegs- und Nachkriegsprobleme, der Kampf um unsere Freiheit gegen das Unrecht von Versailles, das Eintreten fîr die Glaubensgenossen der

Addenda

587

abgetretenen Gebiete, die Unterstîtzung der Hilfsaktionen fîr unser verelendetes Volk, insbesondere die Kinder, die Studenten und die gesamte zermîrbte und deklassierte j72 Bildungsgeschichte, der Widerstand gegen die geplante geistige Dauerblockade Deutschlands. Hauptschlich aber sah ich in der Fçrderung der als Reaktion gegen die Selbstzerfleischung der großen christlichen Vçlker strker und strker in allen Lndern aufkommenden çkumenischen Einigungsbewegung eine gerade mir durch meine Lebensfîhrung gestellte Aufgabe, die ich wiederholt auch durch Teilname an wichtigen Konferenzen mit namhaften Fîhrern der verschiedensten Kirchen zu lçsen suchte. Oftmals hatte ich die Verbindung herzustellen zwischen deutschen und außerdeutschen kirchlichen Organisationen und hatte eine unendliche Flut von auslndischen Besuchern Woche um Woche. Als ich dann noch 1921 zum Vorsitzenden des Fachausschusses fîr Theologie in der Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft von meinen evangelischen und katholischen Kollegen gewhlt worden war und neue akademische Hilfsaktionen dazu kamen, stand ich bald vor der Frage, ob ich diese ganz literarische Auslandsarbeit weiter fortsetzen kçnne, wenn ich îberhaupt noch etwas als Gelehrter zu leisten beabsichtigte. Ich mußte mir diese Frage verneinen und schloß den „Evangelischen Wochenbrief“ mit dem siebenten Jahrgang ab. Mitentscheidung fîr diesen Entschluß war die Tatsache, daß der inzwischen begrîndete Deutsche Evangelische Kirchenbund die Pflege der kirchlichen Auslandsbeziehungen inzwischen selbst amtlich îbernommen hatte und andere Krfte dafîr frei machen konnte; ich wurde Mitglied des Auslandsauschusses [sic] des Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenbundes und habe regen Anteil an der Vorbereitung der fîr August 1925 in Stockholm geplanten „Allgemeinen Konferenz der Kirche Christi fîr praktisches Christentum“ genommen, auf dem Deutschland durch 60 – 70 amtliche Abgeordnete vertreten sein wird. Daß meine ebensosehr von nationalen wie von christlichen ˜berzeugungen getragene Auslandarbeit (in der ich whrend eines aus den Fugen gegangenen Zeitalters innerhalb einer literarischen Produktion von sieben Jahren selbstverstndlich auch Fehler gemacht habe) mir neben vielen erhebenden persçnlichen Erfahrungen auch heftige Bekmpfung und Beschimpfung im Ausland eingetragen hat und dazu manche Verkennung bei eigenen Landsleuten, die seelisch aus dem Gleichgewicht gebracht, gegen christliche Werte indifferent und mit dem Ausland nicht vertraut waren, muß wohl von einem evangelischen Theologen getragen werden kçnnen. In zahlreichen Fllen habe ich Persçnlichkeiten, die das Ethos meiner j73 Auslandsarbeit grîndlich

588

Addenda

verkannten, die aber, wenn sie meine Vermittlung brauchten, sich doch meiner erinnerten, Tîren, die ihnen verschlossen waren, çffnen dîrfen – das ist vielleicht eine gewisse Genugtuung fîr Schweres, das ich erlebt habe. Daß der Verkehr mit dem Ausland sich nur im Geist vornehmer nationaler und christlicher Wîrde vollziehen kann, kçnnten die Unwissenden leicht erkennen, wenn sie selbst auch nur den Anfang zu solchem vaterlndischen Dienste machen und sich auch nur ein einziges Mal an die eigentliche Front des geistigen Vçlkerkampfes stellen wîrden. Und sie wîrden diese Methode dann wohl auch anderen zutrauen, anstatt sich selbst, in Verkrochenheit wîrdeprotzend, fîr die Alleinpchter des Nationalgefîhls zu halten. Die Arbeit am „Evangelischen Wochenbrief“ hatte mir eine Fîlle auslndischer Pressebeziehungen und eine nicht unbetrchtliche Kenntnis der auslndischen kirchlichen Presse eingebracht. Diese Erfahrungen wollte ich nicht brach liegen lassen und habe mir daher, als ich 1922 einem Ruf nach der Heimat, als Landesbischof von Nassau, nicht Folge leistete, einen Lehrauftrag fîr das Pressewesen des Protestantismus geben lassen und seither wiederholt Vorlesungen und ˜bungen îber dieses Gebiet gehalten. Mir erscheint die Ausbildung tîchtiger Pressefachleute fîr die jetzt ganz auf sich selbst gestellte Kirche besonders wichtig zu sein. Pastorale Salbung und schmauchende Langsamkeit allein tun es da nicht, und wir kçnnen von der Technik namentlich der angelschsischen kirchlichen Presse noch sehr viel lernen. *

*

*

Es hng mit dem tiefen Erleben der seelischen Geschichte des letzten Jahrzehnts zusammen, daß ich nicht nur glaube, auf seinem Elendshintergrunde die Erlçserkrfte des Neuen Testamentes noch deutlicher sehen und noch besser verstehen gelernt zu haben, sondern daß ich auch in ein großes Sonderproblem hineingefîhrt worden bin. So oft es sich jetzt bei mir meldet, empfinde ich es nicht nur in seiner ganzen gedanklichen Breite und Tiefe, sondern auch in einem mich persçnlich ungemein bedrngenden und erschîtternden Ernste: die Frage nach dem Primat des christlichen Ethos. Lngst war mir die Frage ja vertraut gewesen. In den Kmpfen unserer christlich-sozialen und nachmals auch der nationalj74sozialen Bewegung war sie oftmals aufgerollt und von mehreren meiner Freunde auf der rechten und auf der linken Seite auch beantwortet worden. Meist in voller akademischer Ruhe durch den Satz von der Eigengesetzlichkeit des politischen Handelns, – einen Satz, der praktisch

Addenda

589

die christliche Ethik auf das private Handeln beschrnkt und den Primat des christlichen Ethos aufhebt. In einem satten und mîden Skulum als anregende und niederzukmpfende Diskussionsthese vielleicht ertrglich, erschien mir innerhalb des Menschheitsbebens, in dem wir immer noch stehen, der akademische Satz von der Eigengesetzlichkeit des politischen Handelns wie eine Bankerotterklrung des Christentums an einem Weltentage, der hçchste Hochspannung seiner Energien von ihm verlangte. Der Weltkrieg, sein Ausgang und der sogenannte Friedensschluß zu Versailles, – was waren sie anders gewesen, als der Triumph des morallosen eigengesetzlichen politischen Handelns? Nur daß man (wie aus einer heimlichen Anerkennung des Primats des christlichen Ethos heraus) absolut widerchristliches Handeln maskiert hatte durch Schlagworte, die, wenn ernsthafte Leitworte, zu den kostbarsten, dem Geist von Sehern verkanten und mit dem Blut der Mrtyrer geweihten Kleinodien der christlichen Ethik gehçrten. Lag dann in dem trotzigen, von Hunderttausenden ernster Menschen jenseits unserer Grenzen mit uns gemeinsam zum Firmament emporgesandten moralischen Protest gegen die grausame Barbarei des eben erlebten eigengesetzlichen politischen Handelns nicht ein wuchtiges argumentum e consensu omnium, daß das christliche Ethos den ihm theoretisch abgestrittenen Primat praktisch doch zu beanspruchen habe? Und war nicht der Glaube an die, trotz aller akademisch beglaubigten Niedertracht der autonomen Raubtiermoral, unbedingt zum Triumph gelangende theonome christliche Moral der Stern, der unseren verdîsterten Gemîtern durch die Nacht des Elendes den Weg zur Freiheit wies? Kann es die Aufgabe der christlichen Theologen sein, dieses Himmelszeichen auszulçschen und die Zuversicht eines machtvollen vaterlndischen Ethos, die allein unter seinem Licht lebendig bleiben kann, zu lhmen durch christliche Ethiken, die Handbîcher des unchristlichen Handelns sind, schwchliche Kapitulationen vor den kosmischen Mchten, die zu zerstçren der Sohn der Menschen gekommen ist? Es liegt eine tiefe Ironie in der Tatsache, daß die Anwlte der politischen Eigengesetzlichkeit, wenn sie sich selbst von dem moralischen Unrecht etwa der Diktatparagraphen von Versailles entj75rechtet fîhlen, auch ihrerseits mit starkem, moralischen Pathos gegen diejenigen zu protestieren beginnen, die in diesen Gesetzestafeln wider die Gebote Gottes handelten. Lge es nicht in der folgerichtigen Linie ihres Denkens, daß sie statt dessen, mit dem ja gewiß etwas fragwîrdigen Hochgefîhl recht behalten zu haben, die Auswirkung einer von ihnen

590

Addenda

selbst als normal gerechtfertigten Eigengesetzlichkeit in schweigender Unterwerfung bewunderten? Das Problem des Primaten des christlichen Ethos im politischen Handeln ist von unsglicher Schwierigkeit. Gewiß; aber die Schwierigkeiten der christlichen Privatethik sind genau ebenso groß, und wenn man auf Grund der empirischen Erfahrung das çffentliche Handeln aus dem Hoheitsbereich des Evangeliums glaubt herausstellen zu sollen, so mîßte man, wenn man sich bei der Empirie Rats holt, genau dasselbe auch in bezug auf das „private“ Handeln tun. Die christliche Ethik kann man nun einmal nicht auf die moralischen Dîrftigkeiten, die einer platten Weltlichkeit als ausfîhrbar erscheinen, kontingentieren und rationieren. Nimmt man ihr ihre çffentliche Mission, dann untergrbt man ihr Fundament. Friedrich Meineckes tiefes Buch îber die Idee der Staatsrson kann jetzt als Kompaß durch das Problem des politischen Handelns dienen: obwohl die Nadel auch bei ihm noch nach dem Dmonischen ausschlgt, weist sie doch auf das Gçttliche, und die Ehrfurcht dieses historischen Denkers vor dem Absoluten ist ein Bußruf an die, die sich fîr Hîter des Gçttlichen halten, es aber leichtherzig preisgeben, wenn ihnen vom hohen Berge aus die Reiche der Welt gezeigt werden. Dies scheint mir eine der ganz großen Aufgaben der christlichen Ethik von heute zu sein: daß sie ohne Scheue vor dem zynischen Lcheln der Wissenden –, derer, denen die Religion hçchstens zur Niederhaltung der begehrlichen Massen als brauchbar erscheint, in einem leidenschaftlich ehrlichen Austausch der besten Denker aller Vçlker das Riesenproblem des Primates der christlichen Ethik neu aufrollt, kritisch durchdringt und von dem ungebrochenen, nicht auf Kapitulation vor der Welt, sondern ganz auf Weltîberwindung gerichteten Geiste des Neuen Testaments aus lçst.

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material I am aware of a number of written contributions from Deissmann in journals, newspapers and other publications, to which he has made passing reference in his letters to colleagues, or occasionally in his published material, but for which I have not been able to confirm all the usual citation details; and some others lack too much basic information to make their inclusion here useful. Thus, while every effort has been made to compile a fully exhaustive list of all his writings, it does not claim to be absolutely complete or consistent in every detail. Of his books, only the first editions are listed; and, except for his more seminal works, translations are not included. Although various of his journal or newspaper articles have been printed unchanged in more than one publication, only one of these will be given here. 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1898 1898 1898

Die neutestamentliche Formel „in Christo Jesu“ untersucht, Habilitationsschrift, Marburg ‘Zur Methode der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments’, ZTK, 3, 126 – 39 Johann Kepler und die Bibel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Schriftautoritt, Marburg Bibelstudien. Beitrge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums, Marburg Review of G. Stosch, St. Paulus, der Apostel, in TLZ, 3, 86 – 7 Neue Bibelstudien. Sprachgeschichtliche Beitrge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Erklrung des Neuen Testaments, Marburg ‘Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel’, ThR, 1, 463 – 72 Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwrtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben, Vortrge der theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen, XII. Folge, Giessen ‘Briefe eines Herborner Classicus aus den Jahren 1605 und 1606’, Denkschrift des Kçniglich Preußischen Evangelisch-theologischen Seminars zu Herborn fîr die Jahre 1893 – 1897, Herborn Review of F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, in GGA, 120 f

592

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1898 1898

‘Die Groschenbibel’, Die Hilfe, 16 f Review of J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti translated revised and enlarged, in GGA, 12, 920 – 3 ‘Der Beter Jesus. Ein vergessenes Kapitel der Neutestamentlichen Theologie’, ChrW, 13, 701 – 7 ‘Hellenistisches Griechisch’, RETK, 7, 627 – 39 ‘Prolegomena to the epistle to the Romans – a word to students of theology’, ET, 11, 3, 109 – 11 ‘Das vierte Makkaberbuch’, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testamentes, 2, E. Kautzsch, ed., Tîbingen, 149 – 77 ‘Der sakrale Begriffschatz des griechischen Ostens und des Urchristentums’, ChrW, 14, 291 f ‘Theologie und Kirche’, ChrW, 47, 22 f ‘Elements’, EB, 2, 1258 – 62 ‘Epistolary Literature’, EB, 2, 1323 – 9 ‘Papyri’, EB, 3, 3556 – 63 ‘Lord’s Day’, EB, 3, 2813 – 6 ‘Mercy Seat’, EB, 3, 3027 – 35 Bible Studies: Contributions chiefly from papyri and inscriptions, to the history of language, the literature and the religion of Hellenistic Judaism and primitive Christianity, A. Grieve, transl., Edinburgh ed., Ein Original-Dokument aus der Diocletischen Christenverfolgung, (Papyrus 713 des Britischen Museum), Tîbingen ‘Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte’, ChrW, 16, 1181 – 2 (Undetermined article), article in Sonnen-Aufgang, Mitteilungen aus dem Orient, 9, 58 f ‘Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel’, ThR, 5, 58 – 69 ‘Rkast¶qior und Rkast¶qiom, eine lexikalische Studie’, ZNW, 4, 193 – 212 ‘Der Marktpreis der Sperlinge’, ChrW, 17, 203 f ‘Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus’, NJA, 11, 161 – 77 ‘Papyrus und Papyri’, RETK, 14, 667 f ‘Das angebliche Evangelium-Fragment von Kairo’, ARW, 7, 387 f ‘Evangelium und Urchristentum. Das Neue Testament im Lichte der historischen Forschung’, Beitrge zur Weiterentwicklung der christlichen Religion, Mînchen, 77 – 138 ‘Religiçse Fragen aus der unteren Schicht’, Patria, Jahrbuch der „Hilfe“, Berlin

1899 1899 1900 1900 1900 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1903 1903 1903 1904 1904 1905 1905

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1905 1905 1905 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1908 1908

593

Verçffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung. I, Die Septuaginta-Papyri und andere altchristliche Texte, Heidelberg ‘Das Neue Testament und die Schriftdenkmler der rçmischen Kaiserzeit’, Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts zu Frankfurt am Main, Tîbingen, 79 – 95 Beitrge zur Weiterentwicklung der christlichen Religion, G.A. Deissmann, et al., eds., Mînchen ‘The new Biblical papyri at Heidelberg’, ET, 17, 6, 248 – 54 ‘The New Testament in the light of recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman World. I. The Problem’, ET, 18, 1, 8 – 15 ‘The New Testament in the light of recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman World. II. The importance of the texts for the philological interpretation of the New Testament’, ET, 18, 2, 57 – 63 ‘The New Testament in the light of recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman World. III. The importance of the texts for the literary interpretation of the New Testament’, ET, 18, 3, 103 – 8 Review of H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wçrterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grzitt (9th edn.), in ThR, 9 ‘Der Name Panthera’, Orientalische Studien, Theodor Nçldeke, C. Bezold, ed., 2, Giessen, 871 – 5 (Undetermined article on Panagia Kapulk), in ChrW, 20 ‘Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel’, ThR, 9, 210 – 29 ‘The New Testament in the light of recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman World. IV. The importance of the texts for the religious interpretation of the New Testament’, ET, 18, 5, 202 – 11 ‘The New Testament in the light of recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman World. V. Recapitulation – Problems for future investigation’, ET, 18, 7, 305 – 10 New Light on the New Testament, from records of the Graeco-Roman period, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., Edinburgh Review of J.H. Moulton, A grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I, Prolegomena, in TLZ, 2, 38 – 9 R.C. Trench, Synonyma des Neuen Testaments. Ausgewhlt und îbersetzt von Heinrich Werner. Mit einem Vorwort von Ad. Deissmann, Tîbingen Four essays on the philology of the Greek Bible, Exp, Oct. 1907–Jan. 1908 Das Urchristentum und die unteren Schichten, 2. Sonderausgabe, Gçttingen (appeared first in Verhandlungen des 19. EvangelischSozialen Kongress in Dessau, Gçttingen, 1908) The philology of the Greek bible: its present and its future, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., London

594

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1908

Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-rçmischen Welt, Tîbingen Review of E. Preuschen, Vollstndiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Fasc. 1), in DLZ, 30, 1878 – 81 ‘Die Anfnge der Septuaginta-Grammatik’, IWW, 26 Sept., Berlin ‘Neuere Britische Septuaginta-Arbeiten’, NJA, 1, 23, 99 – 106 Review of E. Preuschen, Vollstndiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Fasc. 2), in DLZ, 8, 476 – 8 Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung, Tîbingen Light from the Ancient East. The New Testament illustrated by recently discovered texts of the Graeco-Roman world, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., London Paulus. En kultur- och religionshistorisk skiss. Olaus-Petri-fçrelsningar hllna vid Uppsala Universitet, A. Nelson, transl., Stockholm Review of E. Preuschen, Vollstndiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur, (Fasc. 3 – 7), in DLZ, 19, 1181 – 3 Paulus. Eine kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, Tîbingen Review of J. Rouffiac, Recherches sur les Caractºres du Grec dans le Nouveau Testament, d’aprºs les Inscriptions de Priºne, in TLZ, 23, 711 – 2 ‘Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel’, ThR, 15, 16, 339 – 64 St. Paul. A study in social and religious history, L.R.M. Strachan, transl., London Review of H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wçrterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grzitt (10th edn.), in TLZ, 17, 521 – 3 (Undetermined article on papyri), in ThR, 15) ‘Non post multos dies’, ZVS, 45, 60 f ‘International and Interdenominational Research of the New Testament’, Constr.Q ‘Der Krieg und die Religion’ (Rede am 12. November 1914 gehalten von D. Adolf Deissmann), Deutsche Reden in schwerer Zeit, 9, Berlin Der Lehrstuhl fîr Religionsgeschichte, Berlin ‘Study-travel in New Testament lands, I’, ET, 25, 11, 486 – 90 ‘Study-travel in New Testament lands, II’, ET, 25, 12, 535 – 8 ‘Jerusalem the holy city’, Constr.Q, June ‘Die deutsche Erweckung’, IMW, 9 Oct., 115 – 22 (Undetermined article in AA, 6 Jan.) Evangelischer Wochenbrief

1908 1908 1909 1909 1910 1910 1910 1910 1911 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1913 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914–21

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1914–17 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916 1917 1917 1918

1919 1919 1919 1919 1920 1920 1920 1920 1921 1921 1921 1922 1922 1922

595

Protestant Weekly Letter Deutscher Schwertsegen. Krfte der Heimat fîrs reisige Heer, Berlin Inneres Aufgebot. Deutsche Worte im Weltkrieg, Berlin ‘Christianity in Germany during the war’, Constr.Q, Sept. ‘The war and the ethico-religious renewal of national life’, BibW, Aug. ‘Geistige Weltpolitik’, Deutsche Politik. Wochenschrift fîr deutsche Welt- und Kulturpolitik, Werbeheft, E. Jckh, et al., eds., Weimar, 7 – 12 ‘Das Kriegsmanifest der amerikanischen Kirchen’, Deutsche Politik, May, 1112 – 8 Die Hand am Pflug. Predigt im akadem. Gottesdienst in der KaiserFriedrich-Gedchtniskirche zu Berlin am Sonntag Cantate, 6. Mai 1917 (Semester-Anfang), Sonderdruck, Berlin ‘Ephesia Grammata’, Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft. Wolf Wilhelm Grafen von Baudissin zum 26. September 1917 îberreicht von Freunden und Schîlern und in ihrem Auftrag und mit Unterstîtzung der Straßburger Cunitz-Stiftung, Giessen, 121 – 4 ‘Den Tyska Teologien och Kyrkans Enhet: Olaus-Petri-Forlsningar av Prof. Dr. A. Deissmann, den 7 och 8 oktober 1918’, Tysklands Evangeliska Kristenhet och Kyrkans Enhet, Stockholm ‘Die deutsche Theologie und die Einheit der Kirche’, IMW, 13, 4, 337 – 62 ‘Die Zukunft der theologischen Fakultten’, Revolution und Kirche, F. Thimme/E. Rolffs, eds., Berlin, 352 – 64 Die Inschriften der jîdischen Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, N.A. Bees/G.A. Deissmann/N. Mîller, eds., Leipzig ‘German theology and the unity of the church’, Constr.Q, 8, 204 – 24 The condition of the minorities in Poland, Sonderdruck (transl. from Ev.Wbr, Oct., 1920), Berlin ‘Tragende und sthlende Krfte des Neuen Testamentes’, Festgabe fîr Julius Kaftan, Tîbingen, 44 – 55 Die gegenwrtige Lage Deutschlands und die christlichen Kirchen Amerikas, Sonderdruck, Berlin ‘Fortschritte und Hemmungen der kirchlichen Einheit in Europa’, CUQ ‘Progress and obstruction in church union in Europe’, CUQ, 11 ‘Lukios – Lukas’, Festgabe fîr Adolf von Harnack, Tîbingen, 117 – 20 ‘Friend, wherefore art thou come?’, ET, 33, 11, 491 – 3 Zur Bischofsfrage, Berlin ‘Ein Schlußwort zur Kontroverse D. v. Pechmann – D. SiegmundSchultze’, ChrW, 36, 25, 456 – 8

596

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1922

‘Der Deutsche Evangelische Kirchenbund’, Leyden Pilgrim Messenger, 1, Leyden ‘The Protestant Churches in Germany since the war’, Review of Churches, London ‘Der evangelische Bischof ’ (Rede auf der Verfassunggebenden Kirchenversammlung fîr die evangelische Landeskirche der lteren Provinzen Preußens), Bericht îber die Verhandlungen der Verfassunggebenden Kirchenversammlung fîr die evangelische Landeskirche der lteren Provinzen Preußens, 1. Teil, Sitzungsverhandlungen, Berlin, 1004 – 15 The religion of Jesus and the faith of Paul. The Selly Oak Lectures, 1923 on the communion of Jesus with God & the communion of Paul with Christ, W.E. Wilson, transl., London ‘The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the nations’, The Christian World Pulpit, 103, 2683, London ‘Zur ephesinischen Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus’, W.H. Buckler/W.M. Calder, eds., Anatolian studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Manchester, 121 – 7 ‘England-Reise im Frîhling 1923’, Die Eiche, 11, 167 – 175 ‘The religious situation in Germany’ (paper presented at the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland in Edinburgh 1924), Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 88 – 92 ‘Athanasiana’, ET, 36, 1, 8 – 11 ‘Kampf im Urchristentum. Ueberraschende Funde zur alten Kirchengeschichte’, Vossische Zeitung, 27. 4. 1924, Berlin De Profundis; ein Dienst am Wort, Berlin ‘Adolf Deissmann’, Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, E. Stange, ed., Leipzig, 42 – 78 ‘Paulus, the Prophet of the Una Sancta’, Die Eiche, 13 ‘Excavations in Ephesus’, archaeological prospectus, Berlin What can the churches do to promote the cause of peace, and remove the cause of war?, Sonderdruck, Stockholm ‘Stockholm und die Bischofsfrage’, ThR, 45, 529 ‘International and interdenominational Cooperation in the Research of the New Testament’, The Review of the Churches, 2, 190 f ‘Protest gegen die Nichtrumung von Kçln’ (Rede in der Aula der Universitt Berlin), Der Weg zur Freiheit, 5, 2, Berlin Die Stockholmer Weltkirchenkonferenz. Vorgeschichte, Dienst und Arbeit der Weltkonferenz fîr Praktisches Christentum, 19.–30. August, 1925. Amtlicher Deutscher Bericht, Berlin Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work, Stockholm, 1925, Berlin

1922 1923

1923 1923 1923 1923 1923

1924 1924 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1926 1926

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1926 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1929

1929 1929 1930 1930 1930 1930 1931 1931 1931 1933 1933

1933 1933

597

Zur Bischofsfrage. Denkschrift fîr die Altpreußische Generalsynode im Advent 1925, Berlin ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos in 1926’, ThB, 6 Die Stockholmer Bewegung. Die Weltkirchenkonferenz zu Stockholm 1925 und Bern 1926 von innen betrachtet, Berlin Die Botschaft der Kirche an die Welt: Das Evangelium, Boston ‘Der Wiederbeginn der Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, AA, 42, 170 – 4 ‘Das wiedererstehende Ephesos’, Die Woche, 11 ‘AR 1m 9v´s\ !masjava· jat± t¹ 1926’, PQAJTIJA TGS AJADGLIAS AHGMYM, 2, 1927, 119 – 23 ‘Fernblick auf Lausanne’, Evangelisches Deutschland, 47 Die çkumenische Erweckung. Ein Jahrzehnt zeitgençssischer Kirchengeschichte (Rede bei der Feier der Erinnerung an den Stifter der Berliner Universitt, Kçnig Friedrich Wilhelm III. in der Alten Aula am 3. Aug. 1929), Berlin The New Testament in the light of modern research. The Haskell Lectures, 1929, London ‘Amerika-Fahrt 1929’, ThB, 8, 207 – 10 Die Schicksale des Neuen Testaments (Rede zum Antritt des Rektorats der Friedrich Wilhelms-Universitt zu Berlin am 15. Okt. 1930), Berlin Die Welt des Apostels Paulus, Judentum Evangelium und Urchristentum in Heimat und Welt. Die Reisen des Paulus in Kartographischer Darstellung, Tîbingen ‘The Excavations in Ephesus’, BR, 15 Mysterium Christi. Christological studies by British and German theologians, G.K.A. Bell/G.A. Deissmann, eds., London Reichsverfassung und Kirchenverfassung (Rede zur Verfassungsfeier am Sonntag, dem 5. Juli 1931, in der Neuen Aula der Universitt), Berlin Bericht îber das Amtsjahr 1930/31 (121. Rektoratsjahr) erstattet bei der Rektoratsîbergabe am 15. Oktober 1931, Berlin ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus’, AR, 29, 440 – 2 Forschungen und Funde im Serai. Mit einem Verzeichnis der nichtislamischen Handschriften im Topkapu Serai zu Istanbul, Berlin ‘Ein Jahrzehnt çkumenisch-theologischer Zusammenarbeit. Festvortrag in der Erçffnungssitzung des Zweiten §kumenischen Sommerkursus der Luther-Akademie zu Sondershausen am 30. Juli 1933’, Nachrichten der Luther-Akademie in Sondershausen, 4, 10 – 18 ‘Wînsdorf im Weltkrieg’, National Sozialistische Zeitung, Berlin ‘Ein literarischer Papyrus des 11.–12. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.’, G.A. Deissmann/P. Maas, Aegyptus 13, 11 – 20

598

Chronological bibliography of Deissmann’s published material

1934

Die Armenbibel des Serai. Rotulus Seragliensis Nr. 52, G.A. Deissmann/H. Wegener, eds., Berlin ‘Ein Evangelienblatt aus den Tagen Hadrians’, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 Dec., 564 ‘Handschriften aus Anatolien in Ankara und Izmit’, ZNW, 34, 10, 262 – 84 Reinhold Seeberg, ein Gedchtniswort, Stuttgart Una Sancta. Zum Geleit in das çkumenische Jahr 1937, Gîtersloh ‘Papyrusrollen aus Palstina’, Rheinisch-Westflische Zeitung, 117 ‘Die Irrfahrt einer Handschrift. Das Schicksal des Codex vom Sinai’, Volk & Welt, 11 ‘Herstellung oder Darstellung der Una Sancta. Zum Eingang in das çkumenische Jahr’, Berlin (Undetermined article) in DLZ Review of W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wçrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der îbrigen urchristlichen Literatur (3rd edn.), in DLZ, 13, 520 – 1

1935 1935 1936 1936 1936 1936 1937 1937 1937

Bibliography Some minor contributions which I have made use of within this book – such as certain reviews, obituaries, or other brief articles – are not normally included in this bibliography. Aland, K., ed., ‘In Christus Jesus, zum 25. Todestag von Adolf Deißmann’, Berliner Sonntagsblatt, 15, 1962, 6 ––––––––––, Glanz und Niedergang der deutschen Universitt: 50 Jahre deutscher Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Briefen an und von Hans Lietzmann (1892 – 1942), mit einer einfîhrenden Darstellung, Berlin, 1979 Allied and Associated Powers, The treaty of peace between the allied and associated powers and Germany. The protocol annexed thereto, the agreement respecting the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine and the treaty between France and Great Britain respecting assistance to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany. Signed at Versailles, June 28th, 1919, London, 1919 Anderson, G., The Second Sophistic, a cultural phenomenon in the Roman Empire, London, 1993 Angus, S., Alms for Oblivion: chapters from a heretic’s life, Sydney, 1943 Arzt-Grabner, P., Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament: Philemon, Bd. 1, Gçttingen, 2003 Arzt-Grabner, P., et al., eds., Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, 1. Korinther, Bd. 2, Gçttingen, 2006 Aubrey, E.E., ‘The Oxford Conference, 1937’, JR, 17, 4, 1937, 379 – 96 Bhr, H.W., ed., Albert Schweitzer: Leben, Werk und Denken 1905 – 1965, mitgeteilt in seinen Briefen, Heidelberg, 1987 Ball, C.J., Light from the East; or the witness of the monuments: an introduction to the study of biblical archaeology, London, 1899 Bammer, A., Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos, Graz, 1984 Barnes, K.C., Nazism, Liberalism, and Christianity. Protestant social thought in Germany and Great Britain 1925 – 1937, Lexington, 1991 Bean, G.E., Aegean Turkey. An archaeological guide, London, 1966 Beetham, D., Max Weber and the theory of modern politics, London, 1974 Besier, G., Krieg – Frieden – Abrîstung. Die Haltung der europischen und amerikanischen Kirchen zur Frage der deutschen Kriegsschuld 1914 – 1933; ein kirchenhistorischer Beitrag zur Friedensforschung und Friedenserziehung, Gçttingen, 1982 ––––––––––, Die protestantischen Kirchen Europas im Ersten Weltkrieg. Ein Quellen- und Arbeitsbuch, Gçttingen, 1984 Bettenson, H., ed., Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford, 19633 (1943)

600

Bibliography

Betz, W., ‘Wortschatz, Weltbild, Wirklichkeit’, in C. Bauer, et al., eds., Speculum Historiale: Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung, Mînchen, 1965, 34 – 44 Beuys, B., ‘Ein Primas auf seiten der Juden’, Deutsches Allgemeines Sonntagsblatt, 3, 21. 1. 1994, 18 Beyer, K., Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament, Bd. 1, Satzlehre, Teil 1, Gçttingen, 19682 (1962) Blass, F., Review of G.A. Deissmann, Bst., TLZ, 19, 1895, 486 – 8 Blass, F./Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gçttingen, 1896 ––––––––––, A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, R.W. Funk, transl., London, 19619/10 (1896) Blau, L., Review of G.A. Deissmann, Septuaginta-Papyri, MGWJ, 50, 13, 1906, 754 – 8 Bock, E., ‘Adolf Deissmann 1867 [sic] – 1937’, in E. Bock, ed., Zeitgenossen, Weggenossen, Wegbereiter, Stuttgart, 1959, 35 – 45 Borg, D.R., ‘German Protestants and the Ecumenical Movements: the war-guilt imbroglio, 1919 – 1926’, JCS, 10, 7, 1968, 51 – 71 ––––––––––, ‘German National Protestantism as a Civil Religion’, in M. Mor, ed., International Perspectives on Church and State, Omaha, 1993, 255 – 67 Brock, S., ‘Jacob of Serugh’s poem on the Sleepers of Ephesus’, in F.S. Lattke, Early Christian Studies, 12, 2007, 13 – 30 Burrows, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, 1. The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, New Haven, 1950 Bury, J.B./ Meiggs, R., A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great, London, 19834 (1900) Capasso, M. ed., Hermae: scholars and schloarship in papyrology, Pisa, 2007 Carsten, F.L., August Bebel und die Organisation der Massen, Berlin, 1991 Chandler, A., ‘A question of fundamental principles: the Church of England and the Jews of Germany 1933 – 1937’, in J.A.S. Grenville, ed., Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, vol. 38, London, 1993, 221 – 61 Chilton, B., ed., The Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus (Issues in religion and theology, 5), London, 1984 Clark, C., Kaiser Wilhelm II, Edinburgh, 2000 ––––––––––, Iron Kingdom: the rise and downfall of Prussia, 1600 – 1947, London, 2006 Classen, P./Wolgast, E., Kleine Geschichte der Universitt Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 1983 Clough, S.B., et al., European history in a world perspective. Modern times, Lexington, 19753 (1964) Conybeare, F.C./Stock, St.G.W.J., Grammar of Septuagint Greek. With selected readings, vocabularies, and updated indexes, Peabody, 1995 (1905) Conze, W. et al., eds, Bildungsbîrgertum im 19. Jahrhundert, 1 – 4, Stuttgart, 1985 – 90 Cotterell, P./Turner, M., Linguistics & Biblical interpretation, London, 1989

Bibliography

601

Deissmann, G., ‘Theodor August Behn. Erster bremischer Konsul in Singapur’, in H. Roder, ed., Bremen-Ostasien. Eine Beziehung im Wandel, Bremen, 2001, 78 – 82 de Lourdes Borges, M., ‘War and perpetual peace: Hegel, Kant and contemporary wars’, ethic@, Revista Internacional de Filosofia da Moral, Florianûpolis, vol. 5, 1, 2006, 81 – 90 de Villiers, J., ‘Adolf Deissmann: a reapprisal of his work, especially his views on the mysticism of Paul’, in S.E. Porter, ed., Paul and his theology, vol. 3, Boston, 2006, 393 – 422 Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tîbingen, 1919 Dibelius, O., Friede auf Erden? Frage, Erwgungen, Antwort, Berlin, 1930 ––––––––––, ‘Vorkmpfer des Jahrhunderts der §kumene, zum 100. Geburtstag des Theologen Adolf Deissmann’, Der Tagesspiegel, 9, 6 Nov. 1966, 9 Dinkler-von Schubert, E., ‘Ernst Troeltsch. Briefe aus der Heidelberger Zeit an Wilhelm Bousset, 1894 – 1914’, HJ, 20, 1976, 19 – 52 Donkow, I., ‘The Ephesus excavations 1863 – 1874, in the light of the Ottoman legislation on antiquities’, AS, 54, 2004, 109 – 17 Dorpalen, A., Heinrich von Treitschke, London, 1957 Doty, W., Letters in primitive Christianity, Philadelphia, 1973 Douglas, J.D. ed., New twentieth-century encyclopedia of religious knowledge, Grand Rapids, 19912 (1955) Eidem, E., Pauli bildvrld. Bidrag till belysande av apostelns omgivning, uttrycksstt och skaplynne. 1. Athletæ et milites Christi, Lund, 1913 ––––––––––, Det kristna livet enligt Paulus, Stockholm, 1927 Eksteins, M., Rites of spring: the Great War and the birth of the modern age, London, 1989 Elert, W., Rede bei dem Antritt des Rektorates der Friedrich-Alexanders-Universitt Erlangen, gehalten am 4. November 1927, Sonderdruck, 1928 Erzberger, M., Erlebnisse im Weltkrieg, Stuttgart 1920 Estes, J., ‘The role of godly magistrates in the Church: Melanchthon as Luther’s interpreter and collaborator’, ChHist, 67, 3, 1998, 463 – 84 Evans, R.J., ed., Society and politics in Wilhelmine Germany, Surrey, 1978 Fay, S.B., The origins of the World War, New York, 19382 (1928) Fischer, F., Germany’s aims in the First World War, London, 1967 ––––––––––, War of Illusions. German policies from 1911 to 1914, M. Jackson, transl., New York, 1975 ––––––––––, From Kaiserreich to Third Reich. Elements of continuity in German history, 1871 – 1945, R. Fletcher, transl., Sydney, 1986 (1979) Flasch, K., Die geistige Mobilmachung. Die deutschen Intellektuellen und der Erste Weltkrieg, Berlin, 2000 Fowler, J. H., ed., The life and letters of Edward Lee Hicks (Bishop of Lincoln 1910 – 1919), London, 1922 Freeman, M., Atlas of Nazi Germany, Beckenham, 1987 Friedman, N., The Cold War experience, 1945 – 1991, London, 2005

602

Bibliography

Friedrich, J., et al., eds., Rechtfertigung. Festschrift fîr Ernst Ksemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tîbingen, 1976 Friesen, S.J., ‘Poverty in Pauline studies: beyond the so-called new consensus’, JSNT, 26.3, 2004, 323 – 361 Frischmuth, G., ‘Adolf Deissmann – Ein Leben „in Christo“ fîr die Una Sancta’, in G. Gloede, et al., eds., Oekumenische Profile, Gestalten der Einen Kirche in aller Welt, 2, 5, Berlin, n. d., 2 – 19 Gaertner, F., ‘Deutsche und auslndische Stimmen îber Stockholm’, Die Eiche, 14, 1, 1926, 51 – 8 Gerber, A, ‘Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1866 – 1937): trailblazer in biblical studies, in the archaeology of Ephesus, and in international reconciliation’, Buried History, Journal of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, 41, 2005, 29 – 42 ––––––––––, ‘Gustav Adolf Deißmann, die Heidelberger Papyri und ein Durchbruch in griechischer Philologie’, Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology, Helsinki, 1 – 7 August, 2004, vol. 1, J. Frçs¤n, et al., eds., Helsinki, 2007, 369 – 83 ––––––––––, ‘Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1866 – 1937) and the revival of archaeological excavations at Ephesus after the First World War’, §Jh, 75, 2006 [2007], 39 – 46 Gibbons, H.A., The story of the recent European diplomatic crises and wars and of Europe’s present catastrophe, New York, 1915 ––––––––––, Europe since 1918, New York, 1923 Gibbons, H.D., The red rugs of Tarsus: a woman’s record of the Armenian Massacre of 1909, New York, 1917 Graf, F.W., ‘Historie in hçherer Absicht’, ThR, 50, 1985, 411 – 27 Greaves, A.M., Miletos: a history, New York, 2002 Green, S. G., Handbook to the grammar of the Greek Testament, together with a complete vocabulary, and an examination of the chief New Testament synonyms, London, 1880 Gregor, M.J., ed. and transl., Practical Philosophy: The Cambridge edition of Immanuel Kant, Cambridge, 1996 Greschat, M., ‘Krieg und Kriegsbereitschaft im deutschen Protestantismus’, in J. Dîlffer/K. Holl, eds., Bereit zum Krieg: Kriegsmentalitt im wilhelminischen Deutschland 1890 – 1914. Beitrge zur historischen Friedensforschung, Gçttingen, 1986, 33 – 55 Grîttner, M., Biographisches Lexikon zur nationalsozialistischen Wissenschaftspolitik, Heidelberg, 2004 Grîttner, M./Kinas, S., ‘Die Vertreibung von Wissenschaftlern aus deutschen Universitten 1933 – 1945’, VfZ, 55, 2007, 123 – 86 Halliday, M.A.K., Language as social semiotic; the social interpretation of language and meaning, London, 1979 (1978) Hammer, K., Deutsche Kriegstheologie, 1870 – 1918: Dokumente, Mînchen, 1971 Harder, G./Deissmann, G., Zum Gedenken an Adolf Deissmann. Vortrag anlßlich des 100. Geburtstages von Adolf Deissmann am 7. November 1966, gehalten

Bibliography

603

am 26. April 1967 vor den Dozenten und Studenten der Kirchlichen Hochschule in Berlin, Bremen, 1967 Harrauer, H., ‘Carl Wessely (1860 – 1931), in Capasso, 71 – 5 Harris, J.R., ‘The so-called Biblical Greek’, ET, 25, 2, 1913, 54 – 5 Hartunian, A.H., Neither to laugh nor to weep; a memoir of the Armenian genocide, V. Hartunian, transl., Boston, 1968 Hatch, E., Essays in biblical Greek. Studies on the value and use of the Septuagint, on the meanings of words and psychological terms in Biblical Greek, on quotations from the Septuagint, on Origen’s revision of Job, and on the Text of Ecclesiasticus, Amsterdam, 1970 (1889) Hayes, B.B., Bismarck and Mitteleuropa, London, 1994 Hegel, G.W.F., The Philosophy of Right, T.M. Knox, transl., Oxford, 1967 Heinrici C.F.G., ed., Die Leipziger Papyrusfragmente der Psalmen. Beitrge zur Geschichte und Erklrung des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 4, Leipzig, 1903 Helfferich, K., Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges, Berlin, 1919 Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berîcksichtigung Palstinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., WUNT, 10, Tîbingen, 19732 (1969) Hentschke, A./Muhlack, U., Einfîhrung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Darmstadt, 1972 Herzfeld E./Guyer S., Meriamlik und Korykos. Zwei christliche Ruinenstdte des rauhen Kilikiens, MAMA, vol. 2, Manchester, 1930 Heuss, T., Friedrich Naumann: der Mann, das Werk, die Zeit, Mînchen, 19683 (1937) Heywood, A., Political Ideologies: an introduction, London, 19982 (1992) Hincks, T.D., Greek-English Lexicon. All the words that occur in the books used in most schools and collegiate courses, London, 18432, (1831) Hirsch, E., Deutschlands Schicksal. Staat, Volk und Menschheit im Lichte einer ethischen Geschichtsansicht, Gçttingen, 1922 Hobhouse, L.T., The metaphysical theory of the state; a criticism, London, 19595 (1918) Hochschild, R., Sozialgeschichtliche Exegese. Entwicklung, Geschichte und Methodik einer neutestamentlichen Forschungsrichtung, Gçttingen, 1999 Hoover, A.J., God, Germany and Britain in the Great War. A study in clerical nationalism, New York, 1989 Horsley, G.H.R., New Documents illustrating early Christianity, vols. 1 – 5, Sydney, 1981 – 9 ––––––––––, ‘Divergent views on the nature of the Greek of the Bible’, Biblica, 65, 1984, 393 – 403 ––––––––––, ‘The inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament’, NovT, 34, 1992, 105 – 68 ––––––––––, ‘An unpublished Septuaginta papyrus from the Nachlass of Adolf Deissmann’, APF, 39, 1993, 35 – 8 ––––––––––, ‘The origin and scope of Moulton and Milligan’s vocabulary of the Greek Testament, and Deissmann’s planned New Testament Lexicon. Some unpublished letters of G.A. Deissmann to J.H. Moulton.’, BJRL, 76, 1, 1994, 187 – 216

604

Bibliography

––––––––––, ‘Four early biblical codex fragments in Australia: putting the pieces together’, Buried History, Occasional Papers No. 1, P. Crocker/G. Jenkins, eds., Melbourne, 1994 ––––––––––, ‘Towards a Lexicon of the New Testament with documentary parallels’, Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze 1998, Firenze, 2001, 655 – 67 ––––––––––, ‘Deissmann, Gustav Adolf (1866 – 1937)’, in S.E. Porter, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, London, 2007, 72 – 3 ––––––––––, ‘Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917)’, in Porter, Dictionary of Biblical Criticism, 230 – 1 Howard, T.A., Protestant theology and the making of the modern German university, Oxford, 2006 Huber, M., Die Wanderlegende von den Siebenschlfern. Eine literargeschichtliche Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1910 Jckh, E., et al., eds., Deutsche Politik: Wochenschrift fîr Welt- und Kultur-Politik, Werbeheft, Weimar, 1916 Jacobs, E., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Bibliothek im Serai zu Konstantinopel, Band 1 (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1919, 21. Abhandlung), Heidelberg, 1919 Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and modern studies, Oxford, 1968 Jenkins, J., Christian pacifism confronts German nationalism: the ecumenical movement and the cause of peace in Germany, 1914 – 1933, New York, 2002 Judge, E.A., The social pattern of Christian groups in the first century, London, 1960 ––––––––––, ‘St. Paul and classical Society’, JbAC, 15, 1972, 19 – 36 ––––––––––, Social distinctives of the Christians in the first century: pivotal essays, D.M. Scholer, ed., Peabody, 2007 Jîlicher, G.A., ‘Zur Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultt’, in H. Hermelink/ S.A. Kaehler, eds., Die Philipps-Universitt zu Marburg 1527 – 1927: Fînf Kapitel aus ihrer Geschichte (1527 – 1866), Marburg, 1927 Kaplan, M. A., The making of the Jewish middle class: women, family, and identity in Imperial Germany, Oxford, 1991 Ksemann, E., An die Rçmer, HNT, 8a, Tîbingen, 19743 Kautsky, K., Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung, Stuttgart, 1908 Keil, J., Ephesos: Ein Fîhrer durch die Ruinen-Sttte und ihre Geschichte, Wien, 1915 ––––––––––, ‘XII. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 23, Beiblatt, 1926, 247 – 300 ––––––––––, ‘XIII. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 24, Beiblatt, 1928, 5 – 68 ––––––––––, ‘XIV. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 25, Beiblatt, 1929, 5 – 52 ––––––––––, ‘XV. Vorlufiger Bericht îber die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, §Jh, 26, Beiblatt, 1930, 5 – 66

Bibliography

605

Keil J./Wilhelm A., Denkmler aus dem rauhen Kilikien, MAMA, vol. 3, Manchester, 1931 Kennedy, P.M., The rise and fall of British naval mastery, London, 1976 Klauck, H.-J., Ancient letters and the New Testament: a guide to context and exegesis, D.P. Bailey, transl. and ed., Waco, 2006; revised and enlarged transl. from Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch, H.-J. Klauck, Paderborn, 1998 Klein, M., Westdeutscher Protestantismus und politische Parteien: Anti-ParteienMentalitt und parteipolitisches Engagement von 1945 – 1963, Tîbingen, 2005 Klostermann, E., Review of G.A. Deissmann Septuaginta-Papyri, TLZ, 4, 1906, 101 – 2 Knibbe, D., Ephesus: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Portrait einer modernen Großgrabung, Frankfurt, 1998 Koester, H., ed., Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: an interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture, Cambridge, 1995 Kramer, J., ‘Papyrologie und Sprachwissenschaft: Die Pionierzeit (1891 – 1906)’, in A. Bîlow-Jacobsen, ed., Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrology, Copenhagen 1992, Copenhagen 1994, 71 – 80 Kraus, W./ Niebuhr, K.W., eds., Frîhjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie; mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, Tîbingen, 2003 Krause, F./ Raabe, P., eds., Handbuch der historischen Buchbestnde in Deutschland, vol. 14, 1, Hildesheim, 1995 Krey, U., ‘Der Naumann Kreis: Charisma und politische Emanzipation’, in R. von Bruch, ed., Friedrich Naumann in seiner Zeit, Berlin, 2000, 115 – 47 Kîmmel, W.G., ‘Martin Dibelius als Theologe’, in E. Grßer, et al., eds., Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, Gesammelte Aufstze 1933 – 1964, Marburg, 1965, 192 – 206 Lampe, P., Die stadtrçmischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, WUNT, II/18, Tîbingen, 19892 (1987) Landes, D., The wealth and poverty of nations, why some are so rich and some so poor, London, 1999 (1998) Lee, J.A.L., A history of New Testament lexicography, New York, 2003 ––––––––––, ‘Dimitrios Doukas and the accentuation of the New Testament text of the Complutensian Polyglot’, NovT, 47, 2005, 250 – 90 Lehmann, H., ‘God our old ally: the chosen people theme in late nineteenthand early twentieth-century German nationalism’, in W.R. Hutchison/H. Lehmann, eds., Many are chosen: divine election and Western nationalism, Minneapolis, 1994, 85 – 107 Leipold, J., Review of G.A. Deissmann, LvO, in TLBl, 47, 1908, 557 – 61 Lepsius, R.M., ‘Der Eranos-Kreis Heidelberger Gelehrter 1904 – 1908. Ein Stîck Heidelberger Wissenschaftsgeschichte anhand der neu aufgefundenen Protokollbîcher des Eranos’, Jahrbuch der Heidelberger Akademie, Heidelberg, 1983, 46 – 50

606

Bibliography

Lewis, N./ Reinhold, M., eds., Roman Civilization: selected readings, vol. 1, The Republic and the Augustan Age, New York, 19903 Lietzmann, H., ‘Adolf Deissmann zum Gedchtnis. Rede bei der Gedenkfeier der Theologischen Fakultt zu Berlin am 18. Juni 1937’, ZNW, 35, 1937, 299 – 306 Longenecker, B.W., ‘Exposing the economic middle: a revised economy of scale for the study of early urban Christianity’, JSNT, 31.3, 2009, 243 – 278 Lorimer, W.L., ‘Deissmannism before Deissmann’, ET, 32, 7, 1921, 330 Ludwig, H., ‘Die Berliner Theologische Fakultt 1933 bis 1945’, Die Berliner Universitt in der NS-Zeit, 1, C. Jahr, ed., Stuttgart, 2005, 93 – 121 Lunde, P., ‘Piri Reis and the Columbus Map’, Aramco World, 43, 3, 1992, 48 – 59 Lust, J., et al., eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, vols. 1 – 2, Stuttgart, 1993 – 7 Macfarland, C.S., Across the years: Charles Stedman Macfarland, New York, 1936 Malherbe, A.J., Social aspects of early Christianity, Baton Rouge, 1977 Markschies, C., ‘Adolf Deißmann – ein Heidelberger Pionier der §kumene’, ZNThG, 12, 2005, 47 – 88 ––––––––––, ‘Adolf Deißmann. Ein Pionier der §kumene’, in C. Mçller, et al., eds., Wegbereiter der §kumene im 20. Jahrhundert, Gçttingen, 2005, 32 – 53 Martel, G., Modern Germany reconsidered, 1870 – 1945, London, 1992 Massanari, R.L., ‘True or false Socialism: Adolf Stoecker’s critique of Marxism from a Christian Socialist perspective’, ChHist, 41, 4, 487 – 96 Meeks, W., The first urban Christians, New Haven, 1983 –––––––––– ed., Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, G. Memmert, transl., Munich, 1979 Metzger, B.M., The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, Oxford, 20054 (1964) Meyer, H.C., Mitteleuropa in German thought and action 1815 – 1945, The Hague, 1955 Meyer, P.M., Griechische Texte aus øgypten, II. Ostraca der Sammlung Deissmann, Berlin, 1916 Miltner, F., ‘Das Cçmeterium der Sieben Schlfer’, FiE, 4, 2, 1937, 93 – 200 Mommsen, W.J., ed., Kultur und Krieg: Die Rolle der Intellektuellen, Kînstler und Schriftsteller im Ersten Weltkrieg, Mînchen, 1996 Morgan, R., ed., Germany 1870 – 1970, a hundred years of turmoil, London, 1970 Moses, J.A., ‘The British and German churches and the perception of the war, 1908 – 1914’, War & Society, 5, 1, 1987, 23 – 44 ––––––––––, ‘State, war, revolution and the German Evangelical Church, 1914 – 18’, JRH, 17, 1, 1992, 47 – 59 ––––––––––, ‘Justifying war as the will of God: German theology on the eve of the First World War’, Colloquium, 31, 1, 1999, 3 – 20 ––––––––––, Australia and the Reich, 1870 – 1942: Deutschtumspolitik in Australia from Kaiserreich to third Reich, Chauvel Seminar series, 1, University of New England, NSW, 30. 3. 1999

Bibliography

607

––––––––––, The terror of Naivety and the arrogance of orthodoxy: Australian history and the First World War, Russel Ward Lecture, University of New England, NSW, 3. 11. 1999 ––––––––––, ‘Incarnation and the State: The modern German example’, That our joy may be complete: essays on the incarnation for the new millennium, 2000, 80 – 96 ––––––––––, ‘Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Repudiation of Protestant German War Theology’, JRH, 30, 3, 2006, 354 – 70 ––––––––––, Reluctant revolutionary: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s collision with PrussioGerman History, New York, 2009 Moulton, H.K., ed., James Hope Moulton, 11th October–7th April 1917, London, 1963 Moulton, J.H., ‘Recent research in the language of the New Testament’, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 342 – 5 ––––––––––, ‘Deissmann’s „Bible Studies“’, ET, 12, 8, 1901, 362 – 3 ––––––––––, ‘Deissmann’s „Light from the East“’, ET, 20, 1, 1908, 30 – 3 ––––––––––, ‘Lexical notes from the papyri’, Exp 7, 5, 1908, 51 – 60 ––––––––––, ‘Hellenistic Greek’, in L. Whibley, ed., The year’s work in classical studies, London, 1911, 169 – 72 ––––––––––, ‘Hellenistic Greek’, in C. Bailey, ed., The year’s work in classical studies, London, 1913, 187 – 92 Moulton, J.H./Howard, W.F., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2 (Accidence and word-formation), Edinburgh, 1929 Muraoka, T., A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint: chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets, Leuven, 2003 Naumann, F., Mitteleuropa, Berlin, 1915 ––––––––––, Demokratie und Kaisertum: ein Handbuch fîr innere Politik, Berlin, 19054 (1900) Neill, S.C./Rouse, R., eds., A history of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517 – 1948, London, 19672 (1954) Nestle, E., Review of G.A. Deissmann, Septuaginta-Papyri, in BPW, 25, 1905, 1302 – 5 ––––––––––, Review of G.A. Deissmann, LvO, in BPW, 49, 1908, 1523 – 7 Neufeld, K.H., ‘Grundlagen des çkumenischen Dialogs. A. Deissmanns Briefe an M. Pribilla S. J. 1927 – 1928’, ThPh, 52, 2, 1977, 215 – 41 Neville, G., ed., The diaries of Edward Lee Hicks, Bishop of Lincoln, 1910 – 1919, Lincoln Record Society, 82, 1993 Nichols, J.A., The Year of the three Kaisers, Chicago, 1987 Nietzsche, F., Morgenrçthe. Nachgelassene Fragmente, Anfang 1880 bis Frîhjahr 1881, Band 1, Berlin, 1971 Nippel, W., ˜ber das Studium der Alten Geschichte, Mînchen, 1993 Nipperdey, T., Deutsche Geschichte 1866 – 1918, Bd. 1, Arbeitswelt und Bîrgergeist, Mînchen, 19933 (1990) North, J.L., ‘I sought a colleague’: James Hope Moulton, papyrologist, and Edward Lee Hicks, epigraphist, 1903 – 1906’, BJRL, 79, 1, 1997, 195 – 206

608

Bibliography

Norton, P.B./ Esposito, J.J., eds., The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 8, Chicago, 199515 (1768) Nottmeier, C., ‘Ein unbekannter Brief Max Webers an Adolf Deißmann’, Mitteilungen der Ernst-Troeltsch-Gesellschaft, Bd. 13, Augsburg, 2000, 99 – 131 ––––––––––, ‘Hermann Cohen und Adolf Deißmann: Dokumente aus dem Nachlaß Adolf Deißmanns’, ZNThG, 9, 2002, 302 – 25 Nowak, K., ‘Zweireichelehre: Anmerkungen zum Entstehungsprozeß einer umstrittenen Begriffsprgung und kontroversen Lehre’, ZTK, 78, 1981, 105 – 27 Oaks, G., ‘Max Weber on value rationality and value spheres: critical remarks’, JCSoc, 2003, 3, 27 – 45 Ohst, M., ‘Der 1. Weltkrieg in der Perspektive Emanuel Hirschs’, in T. Kaufmann/ H. Oelke, eds., Evangelische Kirchenhistoriker im ‘Dritten Reich’, Gîtersloh, 2002, 64 – 121 Oster, R.E., Bibliography of ancient Ephesus, ATLA Bibliography Series, vol. 19, London, 1987 Peukert, D.J.K., The Weimar Republic, the crisis of classical modernity, R. Deveson, transl., London, 1991 (1987) Pfeiffer, R., History of classical scholarship from 1300 to 1850, Oxford, 1976 Pfister, F., Review of L. Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik. Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache, in Pd. Archiv, 11, 1911, 633 – 4 Pickering, S., ‘Papyri, Biblical and early Christian’, in Douglas, 626 – 8 Pilhofer, P., Die frîhen Christen und ihre Welt, Tîbingen, 2002 Plîmacher, E., ‘Deißmann, Adolf’, TRE, 7, 1981, 406 – 8 Poethke, G., ‘Ulrich Wilcken (1862 – 1944)’, in Capasso, 81 – 96 Porter, S.E., ed., Handbook of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period (330 BC–AD 400), Leiden, 1997 Porter, S.E./Carson, D.A., eds., Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, open questions in current research, Sheffield, 1993 Powicke, F.M., Bismarck and the origin of the German Empire, Edinburgh, 1914 Preisendanz, K., ed., Papyri Graecae Magicae; die griechischen Zauberpapyri, rev. A. Henrichs, Stuttgart, 19732 (1928) Pressel, W., Die Kriegspredigt 1914 – 1918 in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands, Arbeiten zur Pastoraltheologie, Bd. 5, Gçttingen, 1967 Preston, D., et al., eds., New Dictionary of Theology, Downers Grove, 1988 Pulzer, P.G., The rise of political anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, New York, 1964 Ramsay, W.M., The cities and bishoprics of Phrygia, being an essay of the local history of Phrygia from the earliest times to the Turkish conquest, vol. 1, part 2, Oxford, 1897 ––––––––––, The teaching of Paul in terms of the present day. The Deems Lectures in New York University, London, 1913

Bibliography

609

Rebenich, S., Theodor Mommsen und Adolf Harnack. Wissenschaft und Politik im Berlin des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts. Mit einem Anhang: Edition und Kommentierung des Briefwechsels. Berlin, 1997 Reid, A., The Bards of Angus and the Mearns: an Anthology of the Counties, Paisley, 1897 ––––––––––, The Royal Burgh of Forfar, Paisley, 1902 Reisch, E., ‘Bericht îber die Gesamtsitzung des §sterreichischen Archologischen Institutes 1930’, §Jh, 26, Beiblatt, 1930, 263 – 312 Reiser, M., Sprache und literarische Formen des Neuen Testaments: eine Einfîhrung, Paderborn, 2001 Richie, A., Faust’s Metropolis: A history of Berlin, New York, 1998 Robertson, A.T., A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research, London, 19193 (1914) ––––––––––, ‘New Testament grammar after thirty years’, in Schmidt, 82 – 92 Ros, J., De studie van het Bijbelgrieksch van Hugo Grotius tot Adolf Deissmann, Nimwegen, 1940 Rouffiac, J., Recherches sur les caractºres du grec dans le Nouveau Testament d’aprºs les inscriptions de Priºne, Paris, 1911 Rupp, G., Christologies and cultures: towards a typology of religious worldviews, The Hague, 1974 ––––––––––, Culture-Protestantism: German Liberal Theology at the turn of the twentieth century, Atlanta, 1977 Rydbeck, L., Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament: zur Beurteilung der sprachlichen Niveauunterschiede im nachklassischen Griechisch, Uppsala, 1967 Sandys, J.E., History of Classical Scholarship, vols. 1 – 3, Cambridge, 1903 – 8 Sauermann, H., ‘Demographic changes in postwar Germany’, AAPS, 260, 1948, 99 – 107 Sauter, G., ed., Zur Zwei-Reiche-Lehre Luthers. Mit einer Einfîhrung von Gerhard Sauter und einer kommentierten Bibliographie von Johannes Haun, Mînchen, 1973 Schmid, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, Bd. 1 – 5, Stuttgart, 1887 – 97 Schmidt, K.L., ed., Festgabe fîr Adolf Deissmann, zum 60. Geburtstag 7. November 1926, Tîbingen, 1927 Schîtte, H.W., ‘Zwei-Reiche-Lehre und Kçnigsherrschaft Christi’, in A. Hertz, ed., Handbuch der christlichen Ethik, Bd. 1, Freiburg, 1978, 339 – 53 Schwabe, K., Wissenschaft und Kriegsmoral. Die deutschen Hochschullehrer und die politischen Grundfragen des Ersten Weltkrieges, Gçttingen, 1969 Schwaiger, G., ed., Historische Kritik in der Theologie. Beitrge zu ihrer Geschichte, Gçttingen, 1980 Schwartz, E., Review of G.A. Deissmann, Paulus, in Gçttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1911, 657 – 71 Schweitzer, A., Zwischen Wasser und Urwald. Erlebnisse und Beobachtungen eines Arztes im Urwalde øquatorialafrikas, Mînchen, 1921

610

Bibliography

Seeberg, R., Geschichte, Krieg und Seele: Reden und Aufstze aus den Tagen des Weltkrieges, Leipzig, 1916 Seider, R., ‘Aus der Arbeit der Universittsinstitute: Die Universitts-Papyrussammlung’, HJ, 8, 1964, 142 – 203 Sharpe, E.J., Nathan Sçderblom and the Study of Religion, Chapel Hill, 1990 Shaw, S.J./Shaw, E.K., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2, Cambridge, 1977 Sheehan, J.J., German liberalism in the nineteenth century, Chicago, 1983 (1978) Schramm, M., Das Deutschlandbild in der britischen Presse 1912 – 1919, Berlin, 2007 Siegmund-Schultze, F., ‘Internationale Ethik’, ZTK, 27, 1917, 250 – 62 ––––––––––, ‘Die çkumenische Konferenz von Stockholm, vom 19.–29. August 1925. Eine kritische Wîrdigung ihrer Bewegung’, Die Eiche, 13, 4, 1925, 349 – 77 ––––––––––, ‘Nachwort zu Stockholm’, Die Eiche, 14, 1, 1926, 40 – 50 ––––––––––, ‘Adolf Deißmann’, ChrW, 51, 1937, 333 – 6 ––––––––––, ‘Die Weltkonferenz fîr Kirche, Volk und Staat (Oxford, 12. bis 26. Juli 1937). Kritischer Bericht des Herausgebers’, in F. SiegmundSchultze, ed., §kumenisches Jahrbuch 1936 – 7, Leipzig, 1939, 275 – 348 ––––––––––, ed., Briefe und Botschaften an einen deutschen Mitarbeiter, Gedchtnisheft zum 100. Geburtstag des schwedischen Erzbischofs, Marburg, 1966 Snyder, L.L., ed., Documents of German History, New Jersey, 1958 Sçderblom, A., ‘Erinnerungen an G. Adolf Deissmann’, in F. Heiler, ed., Die Hochkirche, 19, 1937, 118 – 22 Sçderblom, N., ‘The role of the Church in promoting peace’, in F.W. Haberman, ed., Nobel Lectures, including presentation speeches and laureates’ biographies: Peace, 1926 – 1950, vol. 2, New York, 1972 Souter, A., Review of G.A. Deissmann, New Light on the New Testament, in RTP, 1907, 411 – 2 Stange, E., ‘Widersprîche gegen die Kritik des Herausgebers an der Stockholmer Delegation’, Die Eiche, 14, 2, 1926, 185 – 203 Stark, G.D., ‘Trials and tribulations: authors’ responses to censorship in Imperial Germany, 1885 – 1914’, GRS, 12, 3, 1989, 447 – 468 Stray, C., Classics transformed: schools, universities, and society in England, 1830 – 1960, Oxford, 1998 Strecker, G./Schnelle, U., Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, Bd. 1, Berlin, 1996 Theissen, G., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, Tîbingen, 1979 ––––––––––, The social setting of Pauline Christianity, ET, Edinburgh, 1982 ––––––––––, ‘Theologie und Exegese in den neutestamentlichen Arbeiten von Gînther Bornkamm’, Ev.Th, 51, 4, 1991, 308 – 32 Thieme, G., Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mander und das NT, Tîbingen, 1906 Thumb, A., Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beitrge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der KOINH, Strassburg, 1901

Bibliography

611

Timms, D.J., The Pauline use of en Christo: Re-examining meaning and origins – a linguistic analysis, unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie University, 2000 Trebilco, P., The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, WUNT, I/166, Tîbingen, 2004 Treiber, H., ‘Der „Eranos“ – Das Glanzstîck im Heidelberger Mythenkranz’, Asketischer Protestantismus und der ›Geist‹ des modernen Kapitalismus: Max Weber und Ernst Troeltsch, in W. Schluchter/F.W. Graf, eds., Tîbingen, 2005,75 – 151 Treloar, G.R., Lightfoot the Historian, the nature and role of history in the life and thought of J.B. Lightfoot (1828 – 1889) as churchman and scholar, WUNT, II/ 103, Tîbingen, 1998 Trçger, K.-W., ‘Adolf Deißmann – ein Protagonist fîr das theologische Studium der Religionen und fîr die çkumenische Bewegung’, Wiss.Z.HU.Berlin, 1992, 4, 111 – 7 Tuchmann, B.W., The Zimmermann Telegram, New York, 1958 Turner, N., ‘The unique character of Biblical Greek’, VT, 5, 1955, 208 – 13 ––––––––––, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: 3, Syntax, Edinburgh, 1963 ––––––––––, Grammatical insights into the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1965 van Haelst, J., Catalogue des papyrus litt¤raires juifs et chr¤tiens, Paris, 1976. Vogt, H., The Burden of Guilt, a short history of Germany, 1914 – 1945, H. Strauss, transl., London, 1965 von Strandmann, H., ed., Walter Rathenau, industrialist, banker, intellectual, and politician: notes and diaries, 1907 – 1922, Oxford, 1985 von Ungern-Sternberg, J./v. Ungern-Sternberg, W., Der Aufruf ,An die Kulturwelt!’: das Manifest der 93 und die Anfnge der Kriegpropaganda im Ersten Weltkrieg; mit einer Dokumentation, Stuttgart, 1996 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U., Geschichte der Philologie, Leipzig, 19593 (1921) ––––––––––, History of Classical Scholarship, A. Harris, transl., H. Loyd-Jones, ed., London, 1982 Wakefield, G.S., ‘Ministerial training: James Hope Moulton (1863 – 1917)’, Epworth Review, 15, 1, 1988, 45 – 51 Walther, W., Deutschlands Schwert durch Luther geweiht, Leipzig, 1914 Ward, M., ‘James Hope Moulton’, London Quarterly & Holborn Review, 1963, 306 – 14 Watzinger, C., Theodor Wiegand, ein deutscher Archologe, 1864 – 1936, Mînchen, 1944 Weimar, K., Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, Mînchen, 1989 Wendland, H.D., Wege und Umwege: 50 Jahre erlebter Theologie; 1919 – 1970, Gîtersloh, 1977 Wendland, P., Review of G.A. Deissmann, LvO, in DLZ, 50, 1908, 3141 – 50 Wessely, C., Review of G.A. Deissmann, LvO, in ALBl, 10, 17, 1909, 295 – 6 ––––––––––, Review of G.A. Deissmann, Septuaginta-Papyri, in WKP, 12, 1906, 315 – 6

612

Bibliography

Whitford, D.M., ‘Cura religionis or two kingdoms: the late Luther on religion and the state in the lectures on Genesis’, ChHist, 73, 1, 2004, 41 – 6 Wiegand, G., ed., Halbmond im letzten Viertel: Briefe und Reiseberichte aus der alten Tîrkei von Theodor und Marie Wiegand 1895 bis 1918, Mînchen, 1970 ––––––––––, Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, Bd. 1, Berlin 1921 Wienecke, J., ed., Mitteilungsblatt des Geschichtsvereins Herborn e. V., 40, 1, Herborn, 1992 Wiplinger, G/Wlach, G., Ephesus, 100 years of Austrian research, Weimar, 1996 Wise, M., et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: a new translation, Rydalmere, 1997 (1996) Wohlers-Scharf, T., Die Forschungsgeschichte von Ephesos: Entdeckungen, Grabungen und Persçnlichkeiten, Frankfurt, 1996 (1995) Zenger, E., ‘Herrschaft Gottes/Reich Gottes’, TRE, 15, 1986, 172 – 89 Zimmer, F., Review of S.C. Schirlitz, Griechisch-deutsches Wçrterbuch zum Neuen Testamente (fifth edn.), TLZ, 12, 1894, 313 – 6

Index of archives from which material has been drawn Berlin BArch Berlin AA Berlin UArch DAI EZA GStA Heidelberg Stdt.Arch Heidelberg UBibl Herborn Stdt.Arch Hessen EKZA Karlsruhe GArch Koblenz BArch Lambeth Manchester UArch Marburg St.Arch Mînchen St.Bibl Sydney Nicholson Museum Norwegian Nobel Institute §AI Rockefeller FArch Tîbingen UArch Uppsala UBibl Geneva WCC Archive Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre ZLB Privately held material

Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany England England Germany Germany Australia Norway Austria USA Germany Sweden Switzerland England Germany Germany

Index of cited archival material (listed in date order) Instead of providing the full archival Signatur with each item referred to in the footnotes of this book or in the Appendices, they are listed here in chronological order, to facilitate sourcing. Archives are indicated as per Abbreviations (pp. xi–xvi), and the diverse forms of documentary referencing conform to the stipulations set out for each collection by the various archives. 1874 1882 1885 1885 – 8 1889 1891 1892 1892 1892 1892 1893 1897 1897

E.C. Ranke, Bestimmungen îber die Promotionen und die Habilitation bei der theologischen Fakultt zu Marburg, Marburg, 1874. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. I 3 (1897) Kreisblatt fîr den Dillkreis, Amt Herborn, 14.9.1882. Herborn Stdt.Arch A. Deissmann Sr., ‘Erklrung’, to Tîbingen University, 22.4.1885. Tîbingen UArch, UAT 40/41, Nr. 79 Faculty subject enrolment lists (1885 – 8). Tîbingen UArch, UAT 40/41, Nr. 79 [see Appendix, 3, a (I–VI)] GAD, ‘Lebenslauf ’, 27.3.1889. Hessen EKZA, Best. 120 A/98 [see Appendix, 1, b] GAD, ‘Lebenslauf ’, 14.4.1891. Hessen EKZA, Best. 120 A/98 [see Appendix, 1, a] G. Heinrici, ‘Referat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G.A. Deißmann: Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht, 9.6.1892. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. D 5 [see Appendix, 1, d] A. Jîlicher, ‘Correferat îber die Probeschrift des Repetenten G.A. Deissmann: „Die Formel 1m Wqist` YgsoO untersucht“, 3.7.1892. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. D 5 [see Appendix, 1, e] GAD, letter to Theological Faculty, 8.8.1892. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. D 5 C. Mirbt, note (unaddressed), 20.10.1892. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. D 5 [?] Steinmetz, letter to GAD, 26.4.1893. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a Nr. B6 Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg University Senate, 23.7.1897. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 Verhandlung, 11.10.1897. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880

616 1897 1897 1898 1898 1898 1898 1900 1900 1904 1905 1905 1905 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907

Index of cited archival material

A. Jîlicher, memorandum for Marburg Theological Faculty, 14.11.1897. Marburg St.Arch, 307, Nr. D 4 GAD, letter to Marburg Theological Faculty, 31.12.1897. Marburg St.Arch, 307 a, Nr. D 4 GAD, letter to F. Naumann, 20.6.1898. Koblenz BArch, N 3001/ 205 [see Appendix, 6, a] J. Hastings, letter to GAD, 18.7.1898. ZLB, DEI 454 GAD, Schulbltter, 1898. ZLB, DEI 306 Population registry, 1898 and 1903. Heidelberg Stdt.Arch Ministerium der Justiz, letter to GAD, 16. 8. 1900, Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 GAD, note to University Senate, 17.10.1900. Heidelberg UArch, Acta Personalia, PA 1463 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 1.1.1904. Manchester UArch, MA MOU V 36 A Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 25.11.1905. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg Theological Faculty, 21.12.1905. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 T. & T. Clark, letter to GAD, 26.12.1905. ZLB, DEI 534 Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 21.2.1906. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 Stimm-Zettel, 7.3.1906. Heidelberg Stdt.Arch GAD, letter to his wife Henriette, 26.3.1906. Held privately GAD, letter to his mother and siblings, 29.3.1906. Held privately GAD, letter to his son Ernst, 29.3.1906. Held privately GAD, letter to T. Wiegand, 4.7.1906. DAI, NL Wieg. Kiste 2 Honours list, 27.8.1906. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 12.1.1907. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 37 [see Appendix, 2, b] T. & T. Clark, letter to GAD, 17.4.1907. ZLB, DEI 534 University memorandum, 22.8.1907. Heidelberg UArch, Acta Personalia, Signatur: PA 1463 J.C.B. Mohr, letter to GAD, 24.8.1907. ZLB, DEI 304 Urkunde îber den Einkommensanschlag, 30.8.1907. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 J.C.B. Mohr, publishing contract for GAD, 17.10.1907. ZLB, DEI 304 G. Jellinek, letter to A. Dieterich, 19.11.1907. Heidelberg UArch, Acta Personalia, Signatur: PA 1463 A. Dieterich, letter to G. Jellinek, 21.11.1907. Heidelberg UArch, Acta Personalia, Signatur: PA 1463 [see Appendix, 2, d]

Index of cited archival material

1907 1907 1907 1907 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908

617

GAD, card to J. Moulton, 26.11.1907. Manchester MArch, MA MOU II 39 G. Jellinek, letter to Kultusministerium, 26.11.1907. Heidelberg UArch, Acta Personalia, Signatur: PA 1463 [see Appendix, 2, c] Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg University Senate, 9.12.1907. Karlsruhe Glarch, 235/1880 Faculty recommendations to Kultusministerium, 25.12.1907. Berlin UArch, Theol. Fak., Nr. 168, Fiche 3 [see Appendix, 2, f ] GAD, card to J. Moulton, 6.1.1908. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 41 GAD, contractual agreement with L. Elster, 9.1.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 127 – 8 GAD, telegram to Berlin Kultusministerium, 13.1.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Bl. 130 Karlsruhe Kultusministerium, letter to Heidelberg Theological Faculty, 14.1.1908. Karlsruhe Glarch, Karlsruhe 235/1880 GAD, letter to unnamed recipient (possibly Ludwig Elster), 17.1.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 219 GAD, letter to T. Wiegand, 29.1.1908. DAI, NL Wieg. Kiste 2 [see Appendix, 2, e] Newspaper cutting, ‘Der bedrohte Kultusminister’, in Voss. Zeitung, 30.1.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 147 B. Weiss, cited in Kreuzzeitung, 31.1.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 239 Newspaper cutting, ‘Zur Besetzung des neutestamentlichen Lehrstuhls in Berlin’, in Das Reich, 1.2.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 238 Newspaper cutting, ‘˜ber die Neubesetzung des Lehrstuhls fîr Neues Testament’, in Die Tgliche Rundschau, 1.2.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 240 Newspaper cutting, ‘Der neutestamentliche Lehrstuhl in Berlin’, in Das Reich, 2.2.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 148 L. Holle, letter to GAD, 3. 2. 1908 (via Heidelberg University Senat). Berlin UArch, UK D 37, Bd. II, Blt. 1 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 19.2.1908. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 42 M. Rade, ‘Von aktuellen Sachen. 7. Das System Seeberg und die innerkirchliche Lage’, ChrW, 20.2,1908, 419 – 24, ZLB, DEI 939 GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 25.2.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 241

618 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1908 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1910 1910 1910 1910 1910 1910 1910 1911 1911 1912

Index of cited archival material

J.C.B. Mohr, invoice to GAD, 9.5.1908. ZLB, DEI 304 L. Strachan, letter to GAD, 18.5.1908. ZLB, DEI 724 GAD, card to J. Moulton, 21.5.1908. Uppsala UBibl, Olaus Petristiftelsen 2 Newspaper cutting, ‘In Sachen D. Deissmann’, Reichsbote, 26.6.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 44, Bd. 6, Blt. 214 – 15 GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 29.7.1908. Uppsala UBibl, Olaus Petristiftelsen 2 P. Siebeck, letter to GAD, 17.10.1908. ZLB, DEI 578 GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 24.10.1908. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 6, Blt. 238 – 39 GAD, Briefentwurf to H. Lietzmann, 7.11.1908. ZLB, DEI 929 L. Elster, letter to Auswrtiges Amt, 20.1.1909. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 6, Blt. 218. GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 25.1.1909. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 4, Blt. 221 Auswrtiges Amt, letter to Kultusministerium, 5.2.1909. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 4, Blt. 224 L. Strachan, letter to GAD, 14.7.1909. ZLB, DEI 300 J.C.B. Mohr, invoice to GAD, 23.7.1909. ZLB, DEI 300 L. Strachan, letter to GAD, 31.7.1909. ZLB, DEI 300 GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 29.11.1909. Uppsala UBibl, Olaus Petristiftelsen 2 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 27.12.1909. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 46 [see Appendix, 1, h] GAD, card to J. Moulton, 2.3.1910. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 47 GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 10.4.1910. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Brev fr. utl. N. Sçderblom, letter to GAD, 21.4.1910. ZLB, DEI 929 GAD, card to J. Moulton, 7.5.1910. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 48 GAD, letter to [?] Josephson, 9.5.1910. ZLB, DEI 929 GAD, card to J. Moulton, 3.10.1910. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 51 T. & T. Clark, letter to GAD, 16.12.1910. ZLB, DEI 533 F. Naumann, letter to GAD, 25.8.1911. ZLB, DEI 929 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 27.12.1911. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 57 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 8.2.1912. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 58

Index of cited archival material

1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1915 1915 1915 1915 1915 1915 1916 1916 1916

1916 1918 1918 1920

619

GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 12.2.1912. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 59 J. Moulton, letter to GAD, 19.2.1912. ZLB, DEI 169 [see Appendix, 2, g] B. Bess, letter to GAD, and journal contract, Feb. 1912. ZLB, DEI 169 J. Moulton, letter to GAD, 3.6.1912. ZLB, DEI 169 J. Moulton, letter to GAD, 4.6.1912. ZLB, DEI 169 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 5.6.1912. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 65 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 26.8.1912. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II. 69 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 1.7.1913. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 70 GAD, letter to J. Moulton, 19.4.1914. Manchester UArch, MA MOU II 75 H. Gibbons, letter to F. Siegmund-Schultze, 15.2.1915. Berlin BArch N 2046/2 (S 193) W. Rockwell, letter to GAD, 8.2.1915. EZA, 51/D II i GAD, letter to O. Crusius, 7.3.1915. Mînchen St.Bibl, Crusiusiana I F. Siegmund-Schultze, letter to GAD, 15.3.1915. EZA, 51/DIIi GAD, letter to F. Siegmund-Schultze, 18.3.1915. EZA, 51/DIIi GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 13.4.1915. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Brev. fr. utl. [see Appendix, 8, g (I)] GAD, letter to E. Fleury, 14.4.1915. Berlin BArch N 2046/2 (S 188) [see Appendix, 8, g (II)] F. Siegmund-Schultze, letter to GAD, 18.6.1915. EZA, 51/D II i Petition to send aid to Arminia, addressed to T. v. Bethmann Hollweg, 10.3.1916. Berlin AA, R 14091 (Tîrkei 183, Band 42), Mikrofich Nr. 7143 [see Appendix, 7, c] E. Alexander, letter to F. v. Rosenberg, 6.4.1916. Berlin AA, R 14091 (Tîrkei 183, Band 42), Mikrofich Nr. 7143 ‘Bericht des Professors Geh. Konsistorialrats D. theol. Adolf Deissmann îber seine „Evangelischen Wochenbriefe“ („Protestant Weekly Letters“) nach Nordamerika 1914/16’, 4.7.1916. ZLB, DEI 652 Trott/Stolz, letter to Kultusminister, 5.8.1916. Berlin UArch, UK D37, Bd.I, Blt. 7 GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 24.7.1918. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Ekum. saml. A 6 Aufruf, ‘An die Deutsche Jugend’. ZLB, F 16203 [see Appendix, 8, c] GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 26.1.1920. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Brev fr. utl.

620 1920 1921 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 1922 1923

1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1923 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925

Index of cited archival material

GAD, Die gegenwrtige Lage Deutschlands und die christlichen Kirchen Amerikas, July, 1920. EZA, ç 4033 F. Schmidt-Ott, ‘Die Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft’, Sonderdruck from Die Woche, 5, 5.2.1921. ZLB, DEI 216 N. Sçderblom, letter to GAD, 25.1.1922. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Brev t. sv. o. utl. Auswrtiges Amt, letter to GAD, 18.2.1922. ZLB, DEI 472 J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 2.5.1922. DAI, NL Wieg., Kiste 5 [see Appendix, 5, a] Constr.Q, editorial board circular, 1.8.1922. Berlin BArch N 2046/1 (S 5) GAD, letter to R. Richter, 4.12.1922. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 6, Blt. 193 [see Appendix, 8, j] W. Buckler, conference paper, 28.12.1922. Rockefeller FArch, folder 480 The cross of Christ and the reconciliation of the nations, GAD’s sermon given on 25. 3. 1923 at the Whitefield’s Men’s Meeting, Tottenham Court Road, London, reproduced in tract form, Cardiff. EZA, F 5611 [see Appendix, 8, o] J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 2.4.1923. DAI, NL Wieg., Kiste 5 W. Buckler, memorandum to W. Richardson, 15.6.1923. Rockefeller FArch, folder 480 GAD, letter to H. Gibbons, 27.6.1923. Berlin BArch, N 2046/2 (S 19) W. Richardson, letter to W. Buckler, 29.6.1923. Rockefeller FArch, folder 480 F. Schmidt-Ott, circular to Notgemeinschaft committee chairmen, 29.9.1923. ZLB, DEI 883 Ministerial remittance note, 20.11.1923. Berlin UArch, UK D 37, Bd. I, Blt. 13 H. Strathmann, letter to M. Schiele, 10.7.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 Memorandum for F. Schmidt-Ott, 24.7.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 GAD, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31.7.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 [see Appendix, 5, b] T. Wiegand, report to Notgemeinschaft, 16.8.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 [see Appendix, 5, e] Memorandum from F. Schmidt-Ott to M. Schiele (unnamed), 20.8.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 E. Reisch, letter to T. Wiegand, 20.8.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 [see Appendix, 5, f ]

Index of cited archival material

1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1925 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1927 1927

621

F. Schmidt-Ott, letter to Reichsministerium des Innern, 31.8.1925. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 Newspaper cutting, L’Osservatore Romano, 212, 13.9.1925. ZLB, DEI 333 GAD, letter to W. Richardson, 16.12.1925. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 [see Appendix, 5, c] H. Bell, letter to J. Rockefeller Jr., 19.12.1925. Rockefeller FArch, folder 480 J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 26.12.1925. DAI, NL Wieg., Kiste 5 GAD, Prospectus, ‘Excavations in Ephesus’, n. d. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 T. Appleget, letter to G. Bell, 8.1.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to C. Brent, 18.1.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 Memorandum, entitled, ‘Deissmann excavation project at Ephesus’, 28.1.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to H. Kapler, 28.1.1926. EZA, 5/20 [see Appendix, 8, r (I)] T. Appleget, letter to GAD, 8.2.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 5.3.1926. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 [see Appendix, 5, g] Auswrtiges Amt, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 7.4.1926. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 GAD, letter to E. Reisch, 24.4.1926. §AI [see Appendix, 5, h] T. Appleget, letter to GAD, 30.4.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 10.5.1926. DAI, NL Wieg. Kiste 5 Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 17.5.1926. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sek. 2, Tit. iv, Nr. 55, Bd. 6, Blt. 453 GAD, letter to N. Sçderblom, 13.8.1926. Uppsala UBibl, N. Sçderblom, Ekum. sam. A 6 [see Appendix, 8, r (II)] GAD, letter to T. Wiegand, 23.10.1926. DAI, NL Wieg., Kiste 2 GAD, letter to B. Ruml and T. Appleget, 25.10.1926. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 S. Matthews, letter to GAD, 11.11.1926. ZLB, DEI 274 GAD, letter to G. Bell, 14.11.1926. Lambeth, Bell papers, 18 [i] GAD, letter to M. Rade, 26.12.1926. Marburg, NL Rade, MS 839 GAD, ‘The excavations in Ephesus 1926’, n. d., report to Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to R. Harris, 15.1.1927. Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre GAD, grant application to Notgemeinschaft, 7.2.1927. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917

622 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1927 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1928 1929

Index of cited archival material

GAD, letter to Schmidt-Ott, 17.2.1927. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 21.2.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 F. Schmidt-Ott, invitation, 28.2.1927. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 C. Brent, letter to T. Appleget, 4.3.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 480 GAD, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 8.3.1927. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 T. Appleget, letter to C. Brent, 8.3.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 Memorandum, entitled, ‘Deissmann excavations at Ephesus’, 10.3.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 T. Appleget, letter to GAD, 11.3.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 4.4.1927. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 E. Reisch, letter to GAD, 7.5.1927. §AI J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 12.5.1927. DAI, NL Wieg. Kiste 5 GAD’s commemorative address on the 100th anniversary of B. Weiss’ birthday, 26.6.1927. ZLB, DEI 565 F. Schmidt-Ott, memorandum to Reichsministerium des Innern, 14.7.1927. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 26.1.1928. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 Memorandum, entitled ‘Constantinople Antiquities’, 16.2.1928. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to M. Dibelius, 3.7.1928. ZLB, DEI 306 [see Appendix, 8, t (I)] M. Dibelius, letter to GAD, 10.7.1928. ZLB, DEI 306 [see Appendix, 8, t (II)] GAD, letter to M. Dibelius, 12.7.1928. ZLB, DEI 306 [see Appendix, 8, t (III)] GAD, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 12.7.1928. Koblenz UArch, R 73/ 10917 T. Appleget, letter to W. Richardson, 6.8.1928. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 17.11.1928. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to J. Keller, 30.11.1928. ZLB, DEI 306 GAD, letter to M. Dibelius, 3.12.1928. ZLB, DEI 903 GAD, letter to E. Schwartz, 7.12.1928. Mînchen St.Bibl, Schwartziana II A GAD, letter to J. Sickenberger, 31.12.1928. ZLB, DEI 859 Nobel Peace Prize submission, 18.2.1929. Norwegian Nobel Institute

Index of cited archival material

1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1929 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930

623

Memorandum, from T. Appleget, ‘Excavations at Ephesus, conversation: Dr. Adolf Deissmann’, 19.3.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 Memorandum, from T. Appleget, ‘Excavations at Ephesus, conversation: Dr. Deissmann’, 23.4.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 24.4.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 [see Appendix, 5, i] J. Kelso, induction address on the occasion of GAD’s Doctorate h.c., 24.4.1929. ZLB, DEI 274 GAD, letter to A. Keller, 10.5.1929. ZLB, DEI 4 Federal Council Bulletin. A Journal of Interchurch Cooperation, 12, 5, 1929 New York, 12.5.1929. GStA; HA.i, Rep.76 Va, Sek. II, Tit.IV, Nr. 55, Bd.VIII, Blt. 165 – 8 GAD, report to Auswrtiges Amt, 24.5.1929. GStA; HA.i, Rep.76 Va, Sek. II, Tit.IV, Nr. 55, Bd.VIII, Blt. 160 – 4 [see Appendix, 8, v] T. Appleget, letter to G. Vincent, 28.5.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 T. Appleget, letter to GAD, 29.5.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, letter to R. Gyllenberg, 10.6.1929. ZLB, DEI 727 GAD, letter to T. Appleget, 6.7.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 F. Schmidt-Ott, letter to GAD, 22.7.1929. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 A. Packard, letter to T. Wiegand, 28.10.1929. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 Nobel Peace Prize application, 11.12.1929. Norwegian Nobel Institute GAD’s §AI membership certificate, 15.7.1930. §AI Newspaper cutting, ‘Kunst und Wissenschaft’, in Magdeburgische Zeitung, 30.7.1930. ZLB, DEI 10 GAD, letter to M. Bornschein, 31.7.1930. ZLB, DEI 10 GAD, letter to T. Wiegand, 31.7.1930. ZLB, DEI 10 Newspaper cutting, O. Dibelius, ‘Sonntagsspiegel’, Der Tag, Berlin, 3.8.1930. ZLB, DEI 12 GAD, Student appeal, 13.11.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 [see Appendix, 9, a] GAD, letter to editor of Kçlnische Zeitung, 28.11.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 J. Curtius, formal invitation to GAD, 9.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 Chinese consular invitation to GAD, 10.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 Argentine consular invitation to GAD, 13.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 Bolivarian States, formal invitation to GAD, 17.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 GAD, typed radio address, broadcast on 20.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 5 [see Appendix, 9, b]

624 1930 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1932 1932 1932 1932 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1935 1935

Index of cited archival material

Venezuelan minister, formal invitation to GAD, 29.12.1930. ZLB, DEI 9 USSR consular invitation to GAD, 2.3.1931. ZLB, DEI 9 E. Raeder, formal invitation to GAD, 17.3.1931. ZLB, DEI 9 Egyptian consular invitation to GAD, 18.3.1931. ZLB, DEI 9 K. Remme, letter to GAD, 23.6.1931. ZLB, DEI 10 A. Packard, memorandum to T. Appleget, 13.7.1931. Rockefeller FArch, folder 481 GAD, Doktorsjubilum address for Gustaf Kossina 2.8.1931. ZLB, DEI 11 F. Schmidt-Ott, letter to E. Reisch, 4.8.1931. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 University Students’ Arbeitsausschuss, letter to GAD, 7.10.1931. ZLB, DEI 11 F. v. Gaertringen, letter to GAD, 15.10.1931. ZLB, DEI 11 Newspaper cutting, ‘Das Gesicht des deutschen Gelehrten’, in 8-Uhr Sportsblatt, 23.8.1932. ZLB, DEI 11 GAD, letter to A. Runestam, 28.9.1932. ZLB, DEI 307 GAD, letter to M. Friedlnder, 11.10.1932. ZLB, DEI 11 GAD, letter to J. Zingerle, 5.12.1932. §AI GAD, letter to K. Schmidt, 17.3.1933. Held privately GAD, letter to E. Reisch, 30.3.1933. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 GAD, letter to Kultusministerium, 15.8.1933. GStA; PK, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Nr. 10013, Blt. 341 [see Appendix, 5, j] GAD, annual report to Ecumenical Council, 15.8.1933. EZA, 5/38 [see Appendix, 9, d] GAD, letter to M. Dibelius, 13.9.1933. ZLB, DEI 180 Gutachten, Neues Testament und Rassenfrage, 23.9.1933. ZLB, DEI 180 [see Appendix, 8, m] GAD, letter to H. Sasse, 29.9.1933. ZLB, DEI 180 GAD, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 19.5.1934. Koblenz BArch, R 73/ 10917 T. Wiegand, letter to F. Schmidt-Ott, 29.5.1934. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 G. Bell, letter to E. Talbot, 16.10.1934. Lambeth, Bell papers 42 f. 46 Protest letter to E. Seeberg, 2.11.1934. Berlin UArch, Theol. Fak., Nr. 91, Blt. 116 E. Seeberg, letter to six professors, 8.11.1934. Berlin UArch, Theol. Fak., Nr. 91, Blt. 114 T. Wiegand, letter to GAD, 29.4.1935. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 J. Keil, letter to T. Wiegand, 17.5.1935. DAI, NL Wieg. Kiste 5

Index of cited archival material

1935 1935 1935 1935 1936 1936 1936 1936 1937 1937 1937 1937 1946 1951 1962

2003 n. d. n. d.

625

GAD, report to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1.6.1935. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 [see Appendix, 5, d] Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, letter to GAD, 20.6.1935. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 Kultusministerium, letter to GAD, 7.11.1935. Berlin UArch, UK D 37, Bd. I, Blt. 22 Wolter, letter to Ministerialprsident, 27.11.1935. GStA; HA.i., Rep. 90 Xlr., 1771 Universal Christian Council for Life and Work. Minutes of the Council Meeting Chamby sur Montreux, August 21 – 25, 1936. WCC Archive, Geneva, Br 280. 24, U3 m, 1936 J. Keil, letter to GAD, 5.10.1936. Held privately N. Sçderblom, letter to GAD, 7.11.1936. Held privately M. Dibelius, letter to GAD, 7.11.1936. Held privately GAD, letter to Forschungsgemeinschaft, 29.1.1937. Koblenz BArch, R 73/10917 Newspaper cutting, A. Headlam, ‘Botschaft der Englischen Kirchen zum Tode Adolf Deissmann’s’, E. Deissmann, transl. (in letter format), 5.4.1937. EZA, 5/74 Newspaper cutting, Berliner Lokalanzeiger, 5.4.1937. EZA, 5/74 Kultusministerium, letter to A. Stolzenburg, 26.7.1937. Berlin UArch, Theol. Fak., Nr. 175, Blt. 198 [see Appendix, 9, i (I)] E. Deissmann, letter to G. Deissmann, 15.8.1946. Held privately [see Appendix, 2, h] A. Schweitzer, letter to H. Deissmann, 19.4.1951. Held privately Newspaper cutting, ‘Ein Festtag fîr die ganze Gemeinde: feierliche Enthîllung der Gedenktafel fîr Professor D. Adolf Deissmann’, in Lahnzeitung, 27.6.1962. Hessen EKZA, Best. 120 A/98 [see Appendix, 9, k] G. Deissmann, letter to A. Gerber, 30.3.2003. Held privately Standesliste. Karlsruhe Glarch., PA, 235/1880 Standesliste. Berlin BArch, N 2046

Name Index Abd al-Hamid II (1842 – 1918) 129 Achelis, E.C (1838 – 1912) 12 Ainslie, P (1867 – 1934) 325 Aland, K (1915 – 94) 149, 277, 359, 364, 391, 469, 534, 599 Althaus, P (1888 – 1966) 284, 320, 470 Angus, S (1881 – 1943) 75, 77, 599, Appleget, T.B (1893 – 1982) 163, 171, 175, 184, 186f, 190ff, 194ff, 339, 384, 445f, 621ff Axenfeld, K.T.G (1869 – 1924) 233, 253, 320 Aziz Bey (see Aziz Ogˇan) Aziz Ogˇan, A (1888 – 1956) 173f, 176, 178, 181, 188, 190, 195, 198, 438 Baden, v. (see Prinz Max von Baden) Baker, J.A (1852 – 1918) 324, 532 Baljon, J.M.S (1861 – 1908) 93, 542, 550f Ball, C.J. 49, 52f, 599 Bammer, A (1965 – 68) 156f, 599 Banks, J.S (1835 – 1917) 25, 67 Barth, K (1886 – 1968) 12 Barth, T (1849 – 1909) 224, 231 Bassermann, H (1849 – 1909) 80, 578 Baudissin, v., W.W (1847 – 1926) 11, 86, 344, 398, 407, 409, 413, 595 Bauer, J (1860 – 1930) 19f Bauer, W (1877 – 1960) 62, 92, 100, 598 Baur, F.C (1792 – 1860) 83 Baur, H. 302f, 467 Bebel, A (1840 – 1913) 213f, 600

Becker, C.H (1876 – 1933) 171, 356, 490 Behm, J (1883 – 1948) 351, 354, 369, 525 Behn, H.E (See also Deissmann: wife, Henriette) ix, 36f, Behn, T.A (1816 – 86) 37, 601 Bell, G.K.A (1883 – 1958) 159, 175, 300, 312, 316, 321, 331f, 350, 366, 501f, 532, 597, 621, 624 Bell, H.W (1885 – 1947) 161, 163, 621 Benndorf, O (1838 – 1907) 157, 432, 439 Bentley, R (1662 – 1742) 35 Bernhardi, v., F (1849 – 1930) 309 Beseler, v., H.H (1850 – 1921) 294 Besier, G (1947-) 233ff, 237, 239f, 242f, 254, 293, 305, 318, 365, 473, 599 Bess, B (1863-?) 19f, 619 Bethmann Hollweg, v., T (1856 – 1921) 240f, 250, 258, 307, 384, 461, 619 Betz, W (1912 – 1980) 307f, 600 Beuys, B. 308, 311, 365, 600 Beyer, K. 23, 470, 600 Bismarck, v., O (1815 – 98) 71, 209ff, 214, 229, 237, 285, 373, 565, 603, 608 Blass, F (1843 – 1907) 8, 21, 30f, 36, 42, 48, 86, 107, 112, 120, 198, 237, 383, 397, 544, 550f, 553 – 7, 570, 591, 600 Blau, L (1861 – 1936) 115ff, 600 Bock, E (1895 – 1959) 99, 280, 283, 361, 366, 368f, 600 Boeckh, A (1785 – 1867) 105

628

Name Index

Bonhoeffer, D (1906 – 1945) xii, 299f, 607 Bornard, R. 242 Bornschein, M.L.E (1864 – 1937) 235, 329, 344, 623 Bosworth, E.I (1861 – 1927) 335 Bourguet, Ã (1868 – 1939) 148 Bowman, I (1878 – 1950) 161 Brandt, S (1848 – 1938) 131 Brent, C.H (1862 – 1929) 161f, 170, 186, 252f, 324, 329, 433, 436, 443, 505, 621f Buckler, W.H (1867 – 1952) 161f, 596, 620 Bîlow, v., B.H.K.M (1849 – 1929) 267 Bultmann, R.K (1884 – 1976) 12, 311, 354, 496 Bunke, E (1866 – 1944) 223 Buttmann, A (1813 – 93) 8, 15, 105, 392, 542 Caprivi, v., G.L (1831 – 99) 210, 228 Carnegie, A (1835 – 1919) 339 Chandler, A. 310f, 600 Clark, C. 13, 212 Clark, T.&T. 45ff, 49, 94, 399, 616, 618 Cohen, H (1842 – 1918) 13, 221f, 232, 292, 308f, 312, 567, 608 Columbus, C (1451 – 1506) 199f, 449, 606 Conybeare, F.C (1856 – 1924) 17f, 600 Conze, A (1831 – 1914) 133, Cremer, H (1834 – 1903) 30f, 36, 42, 53, 66, 68, 73, 86, 542ff, 548f, 557, 593f Curtius, J (1877 – 1948) 348, 623 Davidson, R.T (1848 – 1930) 253f, 321, 532f Deissmann: – Daughter, Henriette (1896 – 1978) 40, 48, 359, 367, 371, 379, 415

– Daughter, Liselotte (1907 – 1985) 48, 77, 79, 299, 368, 371, 379, 406, 415 – Daughter-in-law, Gisela (?) 101, 310, 367, 416ff – Daughter-in-law, Ingrid (? – 1990) 90, 102 – Father, Adolf (1832 – 1900) 1, 12, 69, 108, 211, 379 – Granddaughter, Angelika (1944 – ) xviii, 299 – Mother, Emilie (1833 – 1906) 98, 128f, 132, 212f, 317, 379, 387, 389, 616 – Son, Ernst (1899 – 1975) 48, 101f, 128f, 310, 356, 359, 367, 371, 379, 383, 415f, 419, 538, 616 – Son, Gerhard (1911 – 2009) v, xviii, xix, 7, 37, 95, 97, 101f, 198, 291, 299, 358f, 365, 367f, 371, 379, 383, 415f, 418f – Son, Paul (1911 – 1945) 90, 97, 102, 238, 291, 368, 371, 379, 416, 418 – Wife, Henriette (1873 – 1955) ix, 36f, 39f, 77, 88ff, 97, 101, 128ff, 138, 145f, 167, 198, 203, 238, 264, 348, 359, 367, 371, 379, 415, 616 (see also Behn, H.E.) Delitzsch, F (1850 – 1922) 251 de Villiers, J. 151, 283, 601 Dibelius, M (1883 – 1947) 203, 331f, 354, 369, 385f, 506ff, 519, 525, 532, 601, 605, 622, 624f Dibelius, O (1880 – 1967) 82, 86, 219, 283, 343, 364, 385, 498, 601, 623 Dieterich, A (1866 – 1908) 69f, 79, 95, 109, 120ff, 383, 403ff, 567, 580, 616 Dillmann, C.F.A (1823 – 1894) 344 Dobschîtz, v., E (1870 – 1934) 253, 256, 410ff Domaszewski, v., A (1856 – 1927) 71, 580

Name Index

Dominico Yerushalmi (1552 – 1622) 200 Donnevert, R (1896 – 1970) 164, 171f, 184f, 192, 431 Dorner, I.A (1809 – 1884) 344 Dçrpfeld, W (1853 – 1940) 132ff, 136, 235 Dryander, v., E (1843 – 1922) 307, 320, 325 Duden, K (1829 – 1911) xviii Duhn, v., F (1879 – 1920) 70f, 79, 109, 127, 131, 133, 135, 143, 235, 580f Duncan, G.S (1884 – 1965) 355 Duncan-Jones, A.S (1879 – 1955) 350f, 520 Eidem, E (1880 – 1972) 149, 348, 601 Elert, W (1885 – 1954) 320, 329, 601 Elster, L (1856 – 1935) 82, 84, 138, 223, 617f Erzberger, M (1875 – 1921) 245 – 9, 253, 255, 257ff, 273, 601 Evans, A.J (1851 – 1941) 135 Falkner, E. 156 Fichte, I.H (1797 – 1879) 21, 315 Fischer, F (1908 – 99) 209, 228ff, 236f, 601 Fosdick, R.B (1883 – 1972) 511 Franz Joseph I (see General Index, ‘Kaiser’) Friedlnder, M (1852 – 1934) 345, 368, 624 Friedrich III (see General Index, ‘Kaiser’) Frischmuth, G (1903-?) 283, 353, 357, 360, 366, 370, 602 Fuad I (1868 – 1936) 349 Fîllkrug, G (1870 – 1948) 293 Gautsch, P (1851 – 1918) 157 Gerber, A. xix, 114, 128, 159, 602, 625 Gerber, M. v, xix Gerke, F (1900 – 1966) 355, 529

629

Gerlach, A. xix Gesner, J.M (1691 – 1761) 104 Gibbons, H.A (1880 – 1934) 51, 252f, 257, 264, 335f, 484, 602, 619f Gibbons, H.D (1883 – 1960) 335, 602 Giles, P (1860 – 1935) 93, 399 Goschen, E (1847 – 1924) 240 Gothein, E (1853 – 1923) 71, 580 Graham, T.W (1882 – 1971) 334f Green, S.G (1822 – 1905) 20f, 602 Greschat, M (1934-) 238, 286, 297, 301, 304, 602 Grieve, A. xii, 45f, 592 Grimm, K.L.W (1807 – 1891) 62, 65f, 68, 72, 92, 94, 542, 556f, 592 Gunn, S.M (1883 – 1944) 201 Gîrich, G. 164, 431 Haber, F. (1868 – 1934) 243 Hadorn, W (1869 – 1929) 245, 276, 360, 468 Halbey, T. 212, 565 Halil, E (1861 – 1938) 190ff, 195, 198ff, 448f Happe, H. 90, 365, 367 Harder, G (1902 – 1978) 7, 219, 341, 365f, 386, 524, 538, 602 Harnack, v., A (1851 – 1930) 10, 12, 14, 19, 43, 51, 83, 85f, 89f, 97, 138, 147, 235, 241, 276, 292, 304, 316, 333, 344, 355, 368, 391f, 406f, 409, 413, 519, 528f, 566, 595, 609 Harris, J.R (1852 – 1941) 28f, 47, 83, 100, 104, 118, 189, 201, 298, 316, 571, 603, 611, 621 Hastings, J (1852 – 1922) 44f, 616 Hatch, E (1835 – 89) 16, 30f, 42, 543f, 548, 550, 568, 603 Hausrath, A (1837 – 1909) 43 Haussen, K (1855 – 1943) 40, 574 Headlam, A.C (1862 – 1947) 329, 625 Heberdey, R (1864 – 1936) 134, 435, 439

630

Name Index

Heermance, T.W (1872 – 1905) 129 Hegel, G.W.F (1770 – 1831) 291f, 301, 601, 603 Heilbron, J. 171f, 185, 490 Heinrici, C.F.G (1844 – 1915) 10f, 13ff, 18f, 26, 109, 383, 388, 392, 394, 398, 407, 536, 566f, 603, 615 Herkner, H (1863 – 1932) 228, 479 Hermann, G (1772 – 1848) 104ff Herrmann, J.W (1846 – 1922) 9, 12, 303, 398, 567 Heuss, T (1884 – 1963) 215ff, 219, 221, 224f, 229, 239, 603 Hicks, E.L (1843 – 1919) 53, 74, 601, 607 Hincks, T.D (1766 – 1857) 63f, 383, 401, 603 Hindenburg, v., P (1847 – 1934) 263, 266f, 485 Hirsch, E (1888 – 1972) 320, 384, 469, 603, 608 Hitler, A (1889 – 1945) 232, 307f, 332, 350f, 353f, 356f, 360, 362, 373, 375, 439, 579f Hoesch, L.G.A (1881 – 1936) 310f Hogarth, D.G (1862 – 1927) 156, 439 Holl, K (1866 – 1926) 86, 89f, 238, 344, 407, 409, 413, 602 Holle, L (1855 – 1909) 43, 83ff, 406, 617 Holleaux, M (1861 – 1932) 135 Holsten, K.C.J (1825 – 97) 42, 577f Hoover, H (1874 – 1964) 339, 513, 603 Hçrmann, H. 172f, 180, 188, 190, 194f, 198 Horsley, G.H.R. xix, 23f, 28, 47, 73f, 78, 87, 96f, 107, 114, 198, 362f, 365, 603 Humann, C (1839 – 96) 157 Ibscher, H (1874 – 1943)

193, 198

Ihmels, C.H (1888 – 1967) 320, 501 Iverach, J (1839 – 1922) 80, 93 Jacobs, E (1868 – 1940) 199f, 450, 604 Jellinek, G (1851 – 1911) 71, 78f, 84, 95, 121, 383, 403f, 580, 616f Jenkins, J. 233, 258, 261, 324, 604 Jîlicher, G.A (1857 – 1938) 9f, 12, 18ff, 44, 85f, 136, 311, 383, 395f, 407ff, 413, 496, 567, 604, 615f Kaftan, J.W.M (1848 – 1926) 81, 86, 89f, 344, 387, 391, 407, 409, 413, 565, 595 Kahl, W (1849 – 1932) 138 Kahle, P.E (1875 – 1964) 199f, 449 Kandler, M. xix, 178 Kant, E (1724 – 1804) 13, 291f, 301, 315, 319, 601f Kapler, H.P (1867 – 1941) 320, 385, 501, 621 Karo, G (1872 – 1963) 133f Karolides, P (1849 – 1930) 135 Kattenbusch, F (1851 – 1935) 238, 285f, 398 Kautzsch, E (1841 – 1910) xiv, 13, 387f, 390, 421ff, 565, 592 Keil, J (1878 – 1963) 133, 140, 155, 157f, 160, 162, 166ff, 172 – 81, 185, 187ff, 193ff, 198, 203ff, 384, 429, 431 – 41, 443, 445, 447, 530, 604f, 620ff, 625 Keller, A (1872 – 1963) 195, 341, 503, 561, 623 Kellett, E.E (1864 – 1950) 96f Kelso, J.B. 319, 513, 623 Kennedy, H.A.A (1866 – 1934) 108, 312, 543, 550, 605 Kenyon, F.G (1863 – 1952) 117 Kittel, G (1888 – 1948) 100, 354 Klauck, H.-J. 19, 33, 605 Kleinert, H.W.P (1837 – 1920) 86, 344, 387, 407, 409, 413 Klostermann, E (1870 – 1963) 115, 117, 605 Kçgel, J.P (1871 – 1928) 66

Name Index

Kohlrausch, E (1874 – 1948) 344, 349 Kossina, G (1858 – 1931) 155, 347, 624 Kral, A (1869 – 1953) 173 Krebs, E (1881 – 1950) 249, 259 Krîger, W (1898 – 1977) 352f, 524 Kyriakos, A.D (1874 – 1951) 135 Lang, C.G (1864 – 1945) 310f Lassalle, F (1825–64) 213 Lattke, M. xix Lee, J.A.L. 61ff, 65, 91ff, 100, 103, 605 Leipold, H (1880 – 1965) 80 Lemme, L (1847 – 1927) 43 Lescow, T. 364f Liddell, H.G (1811 – 98) xiii, 63f Lietzmann, H (1875 – 1942) 148f, 276ff, 313, 345, 354, 359, 383f, 386, 391, 469f, 496, 529, 534f, 599, 606, 618 Lightfoot, J.B (1828 – 89) 28f, 611 Lilienthal, v., K (1853 – 1927) 71, 580 Lilo (see Deissmann, Liselotte) Lorimer, W.L (1885 – 1967) 28, 363, 606 Lîders, I.H (1869 – 1943) 344, 349 Ludwig, H. xix, 352, 354, 606 Lînemann, G.K.G (1819 – 94) 8 Luther, H (1879 – 1962) 164 Luther, M (1483 – 1546) 211, 215, 260, 267, 284, 286, 289ff, 297, 304f, 396, 412, 421, 551, 601, 609, 611f Lîttichau, v., S (1877 – 1965) 253 Lynch, F (1867 – 1934) 339, 512 Macfarland, C.S (1866 – 1956) 239, 252f, 319, 324ff, 336f, 339, 350f, 509ff, 513, 606 Magie, D (1872 – 1966) 161 Mahling, F (1865 – 1933) 295, 345, 356, 584 Maier, H (1867 – 1933) 333 Marcks, E (1861 – 1938) 70, 580

631

Marheineke, P.K (1780 – 1846) 344 Marianne, Prinzess (1810 – 83) 562 Markschies, C. 232, 283, 328, 344, 606 Masaryk, T.G (1850 – 1937) 253 Masson, E. 8, 28f Matthews, S (1863 – 1941) 334, 339, 621 Maurer, H (1834 – 1918) 40, 565, 574 Mauthner, F (1849 – 1923) 315f McBee, S (1853 – 1924) 256f, 585 Meinecke, F (1862 – 1954) 333, 479, 590 Meinertz, M (1880 – 1965) 148 Merx, A (1838 – 1909) 43 Meyer, E (1855 – 1930) 251 Meyer, H.C (1913 – 2001) 219, 229, 606 Meyer, P.M. 54, 413, 606 Milligan, G (1860 – 1934) 47, 74f, 99f, 103, 603 Miltner, F (1901 – 59) 173, 175f, 178, 181, 188f, 194, 198, 205, 606 Mirbt, C (1860 – 1929) 11, 20, 398, 615 Mommsen, K.J.T (1817 – 1903) 15f, 114, 568 Mommsen, T (1819 – 1903) 106, 139, 225, 609 Moses, J.A. xix, 65, 211, 236, 238, 240, 284, 291, 300f, 606 Moulton, J.H (1863 – 1917) xiv, 8, 23, 25, 28ff, 36, 41, 47f, 50, 53, 73 – 8, 80, 82, 85f, 91f, 94 – 100, 103, 108, 112, 119, 148f, 210, 235, 256, 298, 362f, 367, 383, 398, 402, 414f, 485, 571, 593, 603f, 607, 611, 616ff Moulton, W.F (1835 – 98) 8 Mîller, J.H.L (1883 – 1945) 316, 357f Mîller, K.O (1797 – 1840) 104f Mînter, F (1761 – 1830) 28 Naumann, F (1860 – 1919) xxii, 3, 51, 71, ch. 6 passim, 349, 375, 384,

632

Name Index

452f, 579, 603, 605, 607, 616, 618 Nebel, L. 279 Nelson, A (1880 – 1962) 147, 594 Nestle, E (1851 – 1913) 52, 110, 115, 117f, 551, 607 Neufeld, K.H. 316, 496, 607 Nicoll, W.R (1851 – 1923) 93, 399 Niederhoff, P (1890 – 1954) 367 Nietzsche, F (1844 – 1900) 53, 105f, 607 Nitzsch, K.I (1787 – 1868) 344 Nottmeier, C. 222, 232, 283, 308, 312, 359, 608 Oberhummer, E (1859 – 1944) 200 Ogˇan Aziz (see Aziz Ogˇan) Oncken, H (1869 – 1945) 333 Pagenstecher, R (1886 – 1921) 131 Pasor, T.G (1570 – 1637) 62, 64, 359 Passow, F.L.C.F (1786 – 1833) 63f, 402 Paul (Apostle), passim Pechmann, v., W (1859 – 1948) 595 Pfeilschifter, G (1870 – 1936) 80 Pfister, F (1883 – 1967) 52, 97, 121, 131, 608 Pfleiderer, O (1839 – 1908) 81, 86, 344, 387, 407, 409ff, 413, 422f, 565 Pilhofer, P. 131, 144, 152, 608 Piper, F.K.W (1811 – 89) 81, 155, 387, 391, 565 Piri Re’‚s (1470 – 1554) 199f, 449, 606 Planck, M (1858 – 1947) 243, 333 Plîmacher, E. 283, 365, 608 Praschniker, C (1884 – 1949) 172, 431 Preisigke, F (1856 – 1924) 61 Preuschen, E.F.F.W (1867 – 1920) 53, 61, 63, 76f, 91ff, 97, 100, 281, 399, 594 Pribilla, M.F.A (1874 – 1954) 316, 496f, 500, 607

Prinz Max von Baden (1867 – 1929) 241, 264 Quiring, J.

251, 253, 309

Rade, M (1857 – 1940) 85, 87, 215, 275, 336, 398, 462f, 617, 621 Radermacher, M.L (1867 – 1952) 23, 121, 608 Raeder, E.J.A (1876 – 1960) 349, 624 Ragaz, L (1868 – 1945) 261, 274ff, 462 – 8 Ramsay, W.M (1851 – 1939) 45, 53, 112, 140f, 144, 235, 425f, 430, 596, 608 Ranke, v., L (1795 – 1886) 211, 301, 318 Rathgen, K (1856 – 1921) 71, 580 Redpath, H.A (1848 – 1908) 16, 548, 568 Reinach, A.J (1887 – 1914) 148 Reinhardt, K (1849 – 1923) 114 Reisch, E (1898 – 1933) 169, 172f, 185, 187, 194, 201f, 384, 430, 441, 443, 445, 609, 621f, 624 Reischle, M.W.T (1858 – 1905) 13f, 387f, 390, 398, 423, 565 Richardson, W.S (1866 – 1952) 160ff, 170, 192, 384, 433, 620ff Richter, J (1862 – 1940) 253, 320 Richter, R (1874 – 1946) 171, 299, 385, 444, 489, 620 Ritschl, A (1822 – 89) 12, 83, 304, 398 Ritschl, F.W (1806 – 76) 105 Robertson, A.T (1863 – 1934) 8, 58, 77, 100, 609 Robinson, E (1794 – 1863) 65 Rockefeller, J.D. Jr (1874 – 1960) 159, 162f, 170f, 181, 186f, 191f, 195ff, 201f, 329, 339, 436, 443, 445f, 511, 621 Rockefeller, J.D. Sr (1839 – 1937) 161 Rockefeller, L.C.S (1839 – 1915) 161

Name Index

Rockwell, W.W (1875 – 1958) 249, 253, 619 Rodenwaldt, M.K.G (1886 – 1945) 168, 171ff, 185, 433, 439, 443, 445 Rohde, E (1845 – 96) 70, 106 Rouffiac, J (?-1915) 103, 147, 361, 594, 609 Rullmann, A (1838 – 1915) 212 Rullmann, E (see Deissmann: mother, Emilie) Ruml, B (1894 – 1960) 162, 175, 184, 433, 621 Runestam, A (1887 – 1962) 349f, 624 Rydbeck, L. xix, 609 Sachau, E (1845 – 1930) 251 Sachse, E.F.F (1839 – 1917) 13f, 40, 501 Sasse, H (1895 – 1976) 311f, 320, 624 Saussure de, F (1857 – 1913) 104 Schffle, A (1832 – 1903) 228 Schiele, M (1870 – 1939) 164, 168, 620 Schleiermacher, F.D.E (1768 – 1834) 15, 21, 150, 304, 344, 398 Schleusner, J.F (1759 – 1831) 64f, 67, 402, 549 Schlier, H.O.L.A (1900 – 1978) 311, 496 Schlosser, H (1874 – 1942) 276 Schmidt, C (1868 – 1938) 89, 115, 117, 137, 351, 582 Schmidt, K.L (1891 – 1956) 8, 58, 231f, 496, 609, 624 Schmidt-Ott, F (1860 – 1956) 51, 159, 163f, 168 – 72, 174, 184ff, 192, 197, 201ff, 384, 443, 620 – 4 Schmiedel, P.W (1851 – 1935) 8, 30, 86, 112, 409f, 548, 552 – 6 Schopenhauer, A (1788 – 1860) 105 Schreiber, A.W (1867 – 1945) 253 Schubert, v., H (1864 – 1920) 71 Schulze, W (1863 – 1935) 24, 109, 567

633

Schîrer, E (1844 – 1910) 136, 398, 407, 568 Schwartz, E (1858 – 1940) 53, 106f, 120, 148f, 193, 609, 622 Schweitzer, A (1875 – 1965) 343, 359ff, 370, 599, 609, 625 Schwçbel, V (?-1921) 248 Scott, R (1811 – 87) xiii, 63f Seeberg, E (1888 – 1945) 87, 333, 353f, 624f Seeberg, R (1859 – 1935) 85ff, 89ff, 213, 218, 293, 295f, 316, 344, 351, 353f, 407,409f, 412f, 598, 610, 617 Sellin, E.F.M (1867 – 1946) 226, 345, 351, 354 Semisch, K (1810 – 88), 83 Siegmund-Schultze, F (1885 – 1969) 242, 253f, 258, 265, 303, 312, 320, 326, 328, 333, 335f, 356ff, 360, 479, 501f, 595, 610, 619 Siemens, v., G (1839 – 1901) 132, Siemens, v., M (see Wiegand, M.) Soden, v., H (1881 – 1945) 51, 311, 407, 410, 495 Sçderblom, A.; 145 Sçderblom, L.O.J (1866 – 1931) 41, 87f, 91, 95, 144ff, 253, 278f, 324ff, 334, 347f, 356, 367f, 385, 482, 499, 501, 504, 533, 582, 610, 618ff, 625 Sotiriou, G.A (1880 – 1965) 158, 175f, 180, 204 Souter, A (1873 – 1949) 49, 80, 610 Spencer, C.H (1820 – 1903) 253 Spencer, H (1820 – 1903) 308 Spiecker, F.A (1854 – 1936) 320 Stevens, D.H (1884 – 1980) 201 Stockhausen, v., M (1890 – 1971) 164 Stoecker, A (1835 – 1909) 213 – 8, 232, 309, 317, 606 Stolzenburg, A (1887 – 1966) 354, 359, 386, 534, 625 Strachan, L.R.M (1876-?) xiii, 49, 52, 76, 88f, 97, 118, 147, 198, 593f, 618

634

Name Index

Strack, H (1848 – 1922) 251 Strathmann, H (1882 – 1966) 164, 168, 205, 432, 620 Strauss, D.F (1808 – 1874) 12 Strauss, G.F.A (1786 – 1863) 344 Strecker,K(1861 – 1945) 10,352 Stresemann, G (1878 – 1929) 346 Stuart, M (1780 – 1852) 65 Stumm-Halberg, v., C.F (1836 – 1901) 220f Terdenge, H (1882 – 1959) 184f Thayer, J.H (1828 – 1901) 8, 65, 68, 94, 399, 557, 592 Theuer, M (1878 – 1949) 172f, 178, 181, 188f, 195, 198 Thieme, G. 103, 361, 610 Tholuck, F.A.G (1799 – 1877) 12, 562 Thumb, A (1865 – 1915) 7, 75, 99, 111, 536, 610 Tirpitz, v., A (1894 – 1930) 307 Titius, A (1864 – 1936) 51, 220, 333, Treitschke, v., H (1834 – 96) 309, 601 Troeltsch, E (1865 – 1923) 43f, 69, 71, 80, 225, 304, 356, 368, 479, 578, 580, 601, 608, 611 Turner, N (1916-) 363, 611 Twesten, A.D.C (1789 – 1876) 21, 344 Vincent, G. E (1864 – 1941) 623

196,

Wahl, C.A. (1773 – 1855) 65, 549 Walch, J.E.I (1725 – 78) 28 Warburg, O (1883 – 1970) 349 Weber, M (1864 – 1920) 69, 71, 210, 216, 285, 579f, 599, 608, 611 Weber, W (1882 – 1948) 137, 139, 333, 582 Wegener, H. 199, 448, 598 Weiss, A. xix Weiss, B.W.J (1863 – 1914) 216, 220, 411, 536

Weiss, C.P.B (1827 – 1918) 1, 21, 35, 81ff, 85ff, 89f, 209, 216, 220ff, 345, 387, 390, 407, 409 – 13, 423, 536, 565, 583, 617, 622, Weizscker, C.H (1822 – 99) 26, 422f, 565 Welcker, F. G (1784-1868) 104f Wellhausen, J (1844 – 1918) 11f, 23, 536, 567 Wendland, J.T.P (1864 – 1915) 87, 107, 110f, 120, 151, 209, 536, 558, 611 Wendt, E.H.K (1848 – 1926) 37 Wendt, H.H (?-1916) 356 Wernle, P (1872 – 1939) 275, 463, 465ff Wessely, C (1860 – 1931) 115, 117, 603, 611 Westermann, W.L (1873 – 1954) 161 Wettstein, J.J (1693 – 1754) 10f, 610 Wichern, J.H (1808 – 81) 215, 220 Wiegand, G. 132, 418, 612 Wiegand, M., n¤ Siemens (1876 – 1960) 132, 172, 612 Wiegand, T (1864 – 1936) 71, 76, 84f, 87, 92, 98, 132, 136f, 139f, 142, 157f, 167ff, 172ff, 182, 185, 187, 189, 195, 203f, 226, 235, 245, 256, 367, 383f, 405, 429, 433, 439, 441, 445, 581, 611, 616f, 620 – 5 Wiegand, W (1900 – 45) 367 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, v., E.F.W.U (1848- 1931) 35, 55, 104ff, 112, 235, 414, 611 Wilberg, W. 172, 439 Wilcken, U (1862 – 1944) 25ff, 114, 117, 133, 527, 571, 608 Wilhelm I (see General Index, ‘Kaiser’) Wilhelm II (see General Index, ‘Kaiser’) Wilke, C.G (1786 – 1854) 65, 557, 592 Windelband, W (1848 – 1915) 70, 580 Winer, G.B (1789 – 1858) 7f, 28ff, 65, 542f, 554f

Name Index

Wissler, C (1870 – 1947) 161 Wissowa, G (1859 – 1931) 109, 567 Wolf, F.A (1759 – 1842) 105, 503 Wood, E.C. 297, 486 Wood, J.T (1821 – 90) 156, 439 Zahn, T.

407

635

Zangenmeister, K (1837 – 1902) 114 Zankow, S. 316 Zeller, E (1814 – 1908) 344 Zimmer, K.F (1855 – 1919) 40, 62, 574, 612 Zingerle, P (1868 – 1947) 202, 624 Zolotas, G.I (1845 – 1906) 135

General Index Note that while the book incorporates a large amount of German documentation, this index lists entries primarily in English, but the page numbers include occurrences (where applicable) of all corresponding German equivalents. However, certain specifically German terms occur, and are listed, only in that language, while some others require separate German and English entries. Italics are reserved for Book titles and the Latin ‘passim’, and pagination of placenames that refer to publications is not normally given here. Aberdeen 45, 74ff, 80, 165, 236, 298, 343 Abwehrverein 225 Alexandretta 137, 141f Alexandria 7, 18, 142 Alliances 226, 229, 321f, 324 Allies 229, 240, 288, 485, 533, 599 Alltagsgeschichte 53 Altertumswissenschaft 105f, 202, 581 America xi, xxiii, 2f, 10, 45, 51, 58, 65, 93, 129, 158-64, 166, 169f, 173ff, 181, 183f, 187, 196, 200, 230, 233, 239, 242, 245-56, 258f, 264, 270f, 277, 285, 291, 297f, 310, 324ff, 329, 334-41, 346, 350f, 355, 362, 369, 374, 386, 410, 432, 435f, 441- 44, 446, 449, 455, 465, 469, 479, 483, 486, 490, 505, 509-13, 519, 529, 556, 560, 585f, 595, 597, 599, 613, 619f Anatolia xi, xxii, 49, 71, 127f, 131ff, 141, 160, 162, 173, 596, 598 (see also ‘Haus Anatolia’) Angora (see Ankara) Ankara 139, 582, 598 Antioch 140ff, 147, 426, 437, 582 Anti-Semitism xxiii, 213ff, 225, 283, 307-12, 317, 351, 375, 493, 608

Archaeological Institutes: – American 162 – American Society for Archaeological Research 158, 160, 163 – Australian 128, 602 – Austrian ix, xiv, 2, 131, 133, 157ff, 160, 165f, 168ff, 172ff, 178, 181f, 185ff, 190ff, 194, 197, 202, 205, 374, 430ff, 439ff, 609, 613, 621-24 – Christian 155, 355, 528f, 534 – German xii, 133f, 137, 165, 168, 171, 185, 203, 433, 613, 616f, 620ff, 625 – Heidelberg 70 Archaeology xi, xii, xiv, xvii, xxii, 2f, 52, 70f, 81, 85, 100, 104, 106, 121, 127ff, 131-36, 141, 152f, 155, 157f, 160ff, 163-69, 172-75, 178, 184f, 187f, 191, 193f, 196, 199, 201, 204ff, 281, 285, 293, 332, 338, 345, 355, 361, 364, 373ff, 386f, 391, 404, 433ff, 438-41, 444f, 528ff, 534, 565, 573f, 581, 596, 599, 602, 605, 609, 611 (see also Ausgrabungen) Archbishop (see Bishops) Architects 133, 172, 188, 432 Archives xi-xv, xxiii, 3, 19, 102, 121, 273f, 249, 365, 384, 481, 558, 608, 613, 615-25

638

General Index

Arierparagraph 311, 350, 353, 375 Armenbibel 199, 384, 448, 598 (compare Dorfbibel) Armenia 141, 384, 461f Armenian genocide 141, 258, 261, 335, 461, 602f Armistice 267, 270, 533 Artemision (see Temples: Artemis) Aryan 312 Asia Minor xiii, xiv, 110, 129, 140, 156, 158, 160ff, 167, 178, 369, 425f, 430, 433f, 438f, 447, 522, 546, 581f, 605, Athens 29, 35, 129, 133ff, 350 Attic (see Greek language: Attic) Aufruf 230, 233-40, 243, 286f, 289, 293, 385, 475, 611, 619 (see also Proclamations) Ausgrabungen 135, 142, 155, 158, 163, 167, 169, 172f, 176, 178, 181, 185, 187, 193ff, 198, 202ff, 429-33, 436-445, 447, 511f, 520, 597, 604f, 612 (see also Excavations) Australia xii, 3, 128, 312, 355, 473, 602, 604, 606f, 613 Austria xiv, 2f, 115, 131, 133ff, 157ff, 168-74, 181, 186ff, 194, 214, 228, 239, 270, 301, 355, 374f, 386, 426, 431-5, 439-44, 452f, 477, 530, 581, 608f, 612, 613 Ayasoluk 158, 160, 175, 180, 194, 434 (see also Ephesus and SelÅuk) Baalbek 142, 582, 612 Baden 42, 44, 76, 83, 114, 122, 210, 223, 226, 241, 264, 578 Basel 245, 275, 463, 467f Basilica (St. John) 158, 175, 177, 180f, 186, 188, 190, 193ff, 203, 432, 439f Beatenberg 327 Belevi mausoleum 203, 437 Belgium xxii, 233, 238, 240ff, 258f, 264, 268, 270, 295, 324, 452 Belief (see Faith)

Berlin, passim Bibelstudien xii, xxi, 7, 9, 18, 23, 26f, 30, 32, 35f, 38, 40f, 45, 47f, 50, 53ff, 58, 61, 66ff, 72f, 77, 92, 95, 98, 103, 108f, 111ff, 123, 135, 147, 150, 152, 166, 374, 397, 415, 526, 570f, 581, 591 (see also Bible Studies and Neue Bibelstudien) Bible, passim Bible Studies xi, 28, 35, 46ff, 74, 122, 298, 399, 592, 607 (see also Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien) Bibliothek (see Libraries) Bildungsbîrgertum 222, 376, 600 Birthdays 7f, 47, 65, 76, 82, 99, 104, 106, 155f, 206, 212, 229, 233ff, 241, 267, 270ff, 276, 288, 298, 321, 324, 350, 355, 364, 369, 385, 391, 415, 481, 498, 525, 528ff, 532, 537, 560, 599, 603 Bishops 28, 82, 88, 161, 189, 253, 277, 279f, 281, 299, 310, 312, 316, 321, 324, 327, 329, 332, 348, 350, 355, 357, 360, 364, 386, 433, 436, 443, 482, 490, 499, 501, 505, 520, 528, 532f, 585, 588, 595ff, 601, 607f, 610 – Deissmann’s call to office 279f, 588 Bolshevik 310, 466 Bremen xviii, 12, 37, 601 Britain 47, 65, 76, 99, 104, 156, 212, 229, 233ff, 241, 267, 270ff, 276f, 288, 298, 321, 324, 350, 355, 385, 481, 519, 532, 585f, 599, 603 (see also England) Broadcasts (see Radio) Bucharest 132, 137, 581 Budapest 115, 132, 581 Bîlbîl Dagˇ 178 Bulgaria 202f, 228, 316, 355, 446, 452 Bulletin xii, 2, 161, 230, 234, 244f, 247-64, 268f, 271-81, 287f, 290f, 293f, 296-300, 302f, 307, 309, 317, 324, 333, 335, 338, 340, 361, 367, 375, 459, 623

General Index

Cairo 114, 137, 142, 449, 592 Canterbury 253, 277, 310, 331, 501, 520, 533 Capernaum 142 Catholic (see Roman Catholic) Censorship 233, 242f, 246, 248, 257ff, 264, 268f, 288f, 310, 325, 466, 610 (see also Redefreiheit) Chamby sur Montreux 312f, 533, 625 Chancellor 210, 214, 232, 240f, 267, 284, 287, 354, 485 (see also Reichskanzler) Character (see Deissmann’s personality) Chauvinism 235f, 304, 308 (see also Jingoism) Chichester 316, 331, 350, 519f, 532f Children 1, 40, 48, 77, 89 97, 129, 146, 258, 264, 286, 291, 310, 312, 317, 461f, 480, 488, 561f, 575, 584f, 587 (see also Twins) Childhood 317f, 321, 560, 562 (see also Children) Christian Archaeology (see Archaeology) Chios 133, 135 Cilicia 140, 160, 173 Classical philology 21, 31, 35, 53, 59, 64, 69f, 104f, 110, 117, 120f, 123, 127, 137, 143, 166, 276, 374 Codices 110, 114, 116f, 135, 190, 193, 198f, 201f, 447, 487, 598, 604 Columbus World-Map (see Piri Re’‚s Map) Conciliation xviii, 128, 219, 231, 262, 300, 313, 318f, 322, 331, 338, 340, 373, 375, 486, 497f, 596, 602, 620 (see also Vçlkerverstndigung) Conferences: – Ecumenical 161, 189, 195, 289, 312f, 320ff, 324, 326-35, 356, 360, 376, 385, 498, 501-8, 533, 537, 587, 596f, 599, 610, 620, 625 (see also ‘Faith and Order’ and ‘Life and Work’

639

– Political 50, 89, 214, 216ff, 350, 453, 593 (see also Versailles) – Theological xv, 42, 67, 69, 72, 76, 112f, 193, 293, 295, 384, 398, 533, 541, 570, 591 – Miscellaneous 17, 114, 149, 161, 189, 200, 202, 339, 348, 350, 483, 501, 587, 602, 604f Congress (see Conferences) Constantinople 157, 198ff, 203, 450, 581, 604, 622, (see also Istanbul) Constanza 132, 137, 139 Copenhagen 327, 333, 605 Coptic 114ff, 137, 582 Corfu 134 Corinth 147f, 421, 521f, 546, 599 Crete xxii, 49, 71, 127, 135, 177 Culture xii, 7, 20, 25, 56, 72, 106, 120, 205, 308f, 315, 434, 605, 609 (see also Kultur) Czechoslovakia 133, 253, 272 DAI (see Archaeological Institutes: German) Damascus 137, 142, 147, 582 Dardanelles 132 Darwinism 308f Daughter 37, 132, 299, 359, 538 Dausenau 1, 13, 388, 566 Dead Sea Scrolls 362f, 600, 612 ‘Deissmannism’ 28, 363, 606 Deissmann’s personality 89f, 167, 186, 219, 276, 366f, 532, 533f, 538f Deissmann’s students (see Students) Deissmann’s teaching (see Teaching) Dekan 18, 20, 69, 85, 172, 349, 353f, 359, 386, 406, 412f, 519, 526, 531, 534, 538, 561, 575 (see also Dean) Dean 255, 277, 334f, 350, 386, 490, 501, 513, 520, 529f (see also Dekan) Delos 131, 135 Delphi 134f, 147, 573 Denmark 270, 301, 247, 324, 355

640

General Index

Depression 197, 202, 215, 345, 360 Deutscher Gott (see German God) Deutsches Archologisches Institut (see Archaeological Institutes: German) Diaspora 211, 546, 560ff Didyma 85, 132, 430 Die Formel en Christo (see En Christo) Diez 389, 538 Dissertation xix, 1, 14f, 18-22, 35, 102, 137, 550 Doctorates (honoris causa) 1, 18, 44, 74, 116, 193, 225, 228, 236, 319, 343, 349ff, 369, 448, 513, 623 Doktorvater 15, 20, 26, 332 Dorfbibel 117 (compare Armenbibel) Dozent 7, 10, 81, 213, 220, 223, 407, 409, 495, 534, 567, 603 (see also Privatdozent) Dresden 65, 149, 516 Ecumenical movement xvii, 3, 100, 189, 233, 288f, 294, 310, 313f, 320f, 323, 325-9, 331ff, 361, 364f, 374f, 385, 427, 497, 499, 500, 505, 537, 587, 597, 600, 607, 610f Ecumenism, passim Edinburgh 45f, 66, 140, 321ff, 341, 356, 360, 376, 596 Egypt xxii, 25, 27, 117, 121, 137, 144, 193, 349, 397, 526, 546, 551f, 558f, 569, 571f, 582, 624 Egyptology 121, 137, Eigengesetzlichkeit 284f, 588ff Eisenach 331, 506 Eisernes Kreuz (see Iron Cross) Eleusis 134, 314 Eltville 560 En Christo xii, xxi, 14f, 18-22, 152, 353, 392ff, 566f, 591, 602, 611, 615 England 3, 20, 41, 62f, 67, 74, 87, 93, 95, 119, 122, 193, 228, 233ff, 240f, 254, 266, 270, 272, 277,

298, 310, 324, 351, 369, 400, 405, 410, 485f, 489, 520, 533, 596, 600, 610, 613 (See also Britain) Entente 229, 234, 236, 240, 258, 267, 278, 320, 439, 480 Ephesus ix, xvii, xiii, xvii, xxii, 2f, 128, 131, 133f, 140, 147, 152f, ch. 5 passim, 281, 293, 310, 313, 328, 330, 332, 334, 336ff, 355, 361, 363, 373ff, 421, 426, 42947, 511f, 520, 528, 530, 539, 573, 581, 595ff, 599-605, 608, 611f, 621ff (see also Ayasoluk and SelÅuk) Epigraphy xiv, 26, 74, 106, 135, 139, 147, 425, 440, 592, 607 Epistles xv, 26, 30, 32ff, 54ff, 150f, 161, 521ff, 546, 556, 558, 571f, 592 (see also letters) Eranos, 69ff, 91, 127, 580f, 605, 611 (compare Graeca) Erbach 1, 69, 108, 149, 389, 391, 421ff, 560ff, 565 Erfurt 216 Erlangen 311, 321, 329, 407, 601 ESK (see Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongress) Europe xvii, xviii, xxii, 10, 25, 30, 162, 192f, 201f, 219, 227ff, 233, 236, 239, 242, 252, 261, 267, 272, 281, 288, 297, 325, 335f, 350, 362, 369, 373, 384, 404, 407f, 452, 473, 487, 499, 512, 522, 558, 570, 579, 586, 595, 599ff, 606f Evangelischer Wochenbrief, passim (but see Bulletin) Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongress (see Conferences: Miscellaneous) Excavations ix, xxii, 2, 85, 132ff, 140, 142, ch. 5 passim, 293, 310, 328, 330, 332, 334, 337f, 373ff, 425, 431, 433ff (see also Ausgrabungen) Faith xv, xxiii, 3, 31 87, 244, 283f, 289f, 294, 298, 312, 314, 218, 327ff, 333, 356, 474, 486, 490, 505, 528, 596 (see also Glaube)

General Index

‘Faith and Order’ 3, 312, 329f, 356, 505 (see also ‘Life and Works’, and Conferences) Father 1, 11f, 22, 34, 38f, 69, 92, 95, 101f, 108, 149, 177, 211, 353, 358, 388f, 391, 414, 417f, 527, 538, 560-4, 566, 574, 576 Forschungsgemeinschaft 163, 172, 181, 201, 204, 384, 436ff, 625 (see also Notgemeinschaft), Forschungsgeschichte xvii, 51, 181, 431, 612 (see also History of Classical Scholarship) Forschungsreise (see Study Tours) France 20, 201, 229, 233f, 270, 272, 288, 301, 306, 324, 355, 452, 481, 586, 599 Frankfurt 15, 49f, 114, 136, 217, 496, 568, 593 Free Churches 118, 259, 314, 360, 490, 596 Freikirchen (see Free Churches) Funeral 83, 129, 358, 562, 571 Garden 48, 102, 366ff, 561 Geneva 76, 483, 519, 613, 625 Genoa 135 German God xxiii, 283, 300f, 304ff, 491f, 605 Giessen xv, 42, 44, 67, 69, 72, 76, 112, 119, 231, 383, 386, 398, 537, 541, 570, 575 Giza (pyramids) 125 Glaube 87, 129, 166, 217, 225, 252, 261, 285, 291, 313, 329, 395, 413, 493ff, 518, 531, 547, 563, 586, 589 (see also Faith) Gleichschaltung 354, 369 Glîckwunschbuch 355, 527 Goncali 140 Gçttingen xiii, 67, 100, 104, 106, 109, 148, 407, 411, 483, 536, 553, 567, 609 Grabungen (see Ausgrabungen) Graeca 70, 91, 580 (compare Eranos) Grandfather 38, 391, 574 Grandmother 37

641

Great Britain (see Britain) Great Depression (see Depression) Greece xxii, 49, 71, 110, 127, 129, 133, 144, 158, 355, 434, 452, 581, 600 Greek, passim Greek Bible xv, xxii, 8, 11, 15f, 21, 23, 25ff, 30, 42, 44, 47, 58, 61, 74, 77, 79, 82, 84, 93, 99, 112f, 118ff, 121f, 298, 308, 322, 361, 396, 398, 401, 403ff, 522, 541-5, 548, 558f, 568f, 577, 585, 591ff, 602f, 609 Greek language: – Alexandrian 7, 26, 568 – Ancient 8, 15, 62, 121, 179 – Attic 24, 68f, 107, 111, 558, 568f, 572f, 609 – ‘Biblical’ 7ff, 18, 24, 26-32, 40ff, 53ff, 64f, 68, 107, 112, 119, 363, 397, 543ff, 547, 549ff, 557, 603, 608, 611 – Classical 7, 11, 16, 63f, 68, 104, 107, 111 (see also Classical Studies) – Greek of NT 7ff, 17, 24, 32, 42, 66, 107, 111, 113, 121, 243, 363, 374, 547, 577, 603, 608 (see also Koine) – Hebraistic 7, 17f, 21ff, 27, 29ff, 40f, 108, 111, 251, 392, 395f, 545, 547, 568f, 600 – Hellenistic 7f, 10, 17f, 24, 26, 29f, 32, 56, 68f, 75, 107, 111, 120f, 409, 413, 521, 592, 607, 610 – ‘Holy Ghost Greek’ 7, 66, 363, 544 – ‘Jewish Greek’ 7, 18f, 23, 41, 107, 111, 363, 365, 393, 395 – Koine 3, 7, 24, 32, 33, 35, 46, 56, 68, 111, 374, 521, 569 – Modern 29, 111 – ‘NT Greek’ xiv, 8, 21, 25, 28, 30ff, 35, 42, 65f, 73, 108, 112, 363, 397, 543ff, 556, 570, 572, 591, 593, 600, 607, 611 – Patristic 93, 408, 411

642

General Index

– Postclassical xvii, xxii, 1ff, 9, 17, 19, 31, 41, 54, 58, 103, 111, 113, 122f, 205, 209, 361, 365, 373f, 403, 609 – Profane 7, 68, 73, 392f, 544, 547, 557 – Semitic (see Hebraistic) – Septuagint Greek 16ff, 22, 24, 35, 67, 119, 396, 550ff, 568f, 600 – Translation Greek 57, 67, 486, 545 Greek NT (see Greek Bible) Gymnasium: – ancient 157, 189, 193, 198, 446, – modern 1, 71, 105, 108, 387, 389, 564, 479 Habilitation 9, 18ff, 23, 110, 131, 566f, 615 Habilitationsschrift xii, 1, 18-21, 44, 48, 109, 242, 383, 392, 395, 567, 591 (see also En Christo) Hagia Eirene 139 Hagia Sophia 139 Hamburg 17, 37, 193, 215, 220, 246, 359, 364, 569 Handwçrterbuch (see Lexicon) Harbour 157, 178, 198 Haskell Lectures xiii, 55, 108, 152, 283, 328, 335f, 338, 340, 351, 384f, 473, 509f, 511ff, 597 ‘Haus Anatolia’ ix, 89f, 101f, 167, 228, 238, 345, 359, 365, 367f, 371, 416, 584 Hebraism 7, 21, 27, 29, 40f, 108, 111, 545 (see also Semitism) Hebrew 13, 15, 17, 20f, 65, 98, 114, 117, 119, 362, 396, 545, 549ff, 553 Heidelberg, passim Hellenism xii, xiv, 8, 10, 17f, 26, 111, 119, 121, 131, 178, 193, 308, 404, 413, 442, 546, 569, 582, 591f, 594, 603, 605, 608, 610 Helsingborg 195, 327 Herborn xiii, xiv, 1, 9f, 14, 38ff, 42, 44, 62, 67, 89, 152, 218ff,

364, 388, 391, 409, 527, 537, 562, 565f, 573ff, 591, 612f, 615 Hessen xiii, xiv, 1, 90, 212, 221, 369, 409, 421, 560, 613, 615, 625 Hierapolis 140 Hierozoikon 9 Hirschberg 38f, 220, 537, 576 History of Classical Scholarship 104, 107, 374, 608f (see also Forschungsgeschichte) Holland 246, 270, 276, 324, 326, 355, 452, 469, 490 Honorary Doctorates (Deissmann) 1, 18, 44, 74, 116, 227f, 236, 298, 319, 338, 343, 349ff, 369, 448, 513, 623 Hçrbach 38f, 220, 537, 576 Humanitarianism xvii, xxiii, 2, 238, 255, 268, 281, 283, 285, 298, 340f, 373, 384, 461f Hungary 135, 157, 228, 324, 355, 452f, 575, 581 Iconium (see Konya) Inscriptions xii-xv, xvii, 25ff, 32, 36, 45, 47f, 50, 52, 54, 58, 68, 71f, 74, 78, 92, 100, 103, 127, 133, 135, 139f, 148, 173, 178f, 181, 189f, 194, 198, 203, 363, 374, 402ff, 409, 435, 525, 537, 539, 544, 551f, 554, 557f, 570, 573, 591f, 594f, 603, 609f Inspiration (divine) 12, 36, 113, 545 Integration xxii, 12, 218, 227ff, 322 Intent hypothesis 33ff, 571 Interdenominationalism xii, 321, 323, 327, 529, 585, 594, 596 Interfaith 318 Iron Cross 292 (see also Ritterkreuz) Iskenderun (see Alexandretta) Islam xii, 139, 141, 192f, 200, 314, 449, 597 Istanbul xii, 85, 129, 132, 139, 173, 183, 190-4, 198f, 202f, 438, 447ff, 597 (see also Constantinople)

General Index

Italy 136, 144, 163, 438f, 444, 452, 581 Jaffa 137, 142 Jena 217, 231, 411 Jericho 142 Jerusalem 90, 137, 142, 147, 426, 584, 594 Jews xii, xiv, 13, 26, 35, 64, 141f, 166, 178, 210, 215f, 262, 307-14, 317, 319, 353, 362f, 396, 493ff, 582, 591f, 597, 600, 603ff Jingoism 304, 307 (see also Chauvinism) Johanneskirche (see Basilica [St. John]), Journeys 1906/ 1909 (see Study Tours) Kaiser: – Franz Joseph I (1830-1916) 157 – Friedrich III (1831-1888) 211f, 214, 565 – Wilhelm I (1797-1888) 211, – Wilhelm II (1859-1941) 84, 87, 134, 211f, 214, 237, 240ff, 246, 263f, 284, 287f, 294, 296, 307, 373, 473, 485f, 600 Kanzler (see Chancellor) Karlsruhe xiii, 78, 83f, 114, 241, 264, 383, 403, 613 Kaystros (river) 160, 429, 432, 434 Knossos 135 Kçln 149, 339, 346, 596, 632 Konia (see Konya) Konstanz 20, 324 Konya 137, 139f, 582 Krieg (see War) Kriegsreden (see Speeches) Kriegsschuld (see War: War Guilt) Kriegstheologie (see War Theology) Kultur xiv, 56, 131, 147, 150, 163, 234f, 248, 260, 266f, 285, 301, 304, 356, 404, 427, 437f, 454, 461, 473, 477f, 512, 514, 531, 572, 581, 594f, 604, 606, 611 (see also Culture) Kulturkampf 561, 563 Landesbischof (see Bishop)

643

Langenscheid ix, 1, 364, 381, 387, 389, 537f, 560 Laodicea 140 Latin 15, 41, 62, 64f, 67, 102, 114, 139, 190, 198, 356, 359, 389, 401f, 448, 561 Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund 161, 176, 196, 621 (see also Rockefeller Foundation) Lausanne 313, 329-33, 338, 497, 500, 506, 537, 597 League of Nations 291f, 322, 350, 477 Lecturer 1, 9, 49, 511f (see also Dozent) Lehrer 144, 352f, 355, 364, 387f, 390ff, 408, 410f, 413, 430, 518, 528, 537f, 562, 564f, 567, 574f, 581, 609 (see also Teacher) Lehrverbot 351 Letters (ancient) 26, 28, 32ff, 54ff, 115f, 139f, 150, 152, 368, 393, 398, 413, 422, 520ff, 546, 559, 571ff, 605 Levant xxii, 13, 235 Lexicography xxi, 3, 31, 41, 54, 619, 72-8, 80, 84, 88, 91ff, 95, 99f, 103, 111, 255, 259, 362, 374, 605 Lexicon, passim Libraries xi, xiii, xiv, xvi, 3, 13f, 24, 40f, 45, 72f, 90, 101, 109, 157, 185, 190, 193, 198ff, 228, 250, 276, 358f, 383, 388, 445, 447, 449f, 534f, 567, 569f, 604 Licentiate 1, 9f, 13, 18ff, 109, 368, 387ff, 411 Licht vom Osten xiv, xvii, xxi, 9, 4855, 57f, 76, 88, 97, 110, 112, 123, 128, 135f, 144, 150f, 153, 198, 308, 365, 374f, 406, 529, 573, 581, 594 (see also Light from the ancient East) ‘Life and Work’ 2f, 161, 313, 326, 329f, 333, 356, 519, 528, 533, 587, 596, 625 (see also ‘Faith and Order’, and Conferences)

644

General Index

Light from the ancient East xiii, xvii, 49, 51ff, 76, 594 (see also Licht vom Osten) Linguistic Register 54, 56, 254, 276 Linguistics xvii, 8f, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31f, 34, 36, 41f, 52f, 55ff, 63, 66ff, 91, 101, 107, 111, 113, 119ff, 123, 152, 232, 254, 311, 362, 365, 397, 600, 608, 611 Lokalgeschichtliche Methode 136, 140, 142, 144 London 235f, 250, 277, 310, 313, 318f, 321, 324, 385, 414, 490, 497, 520, 558 Lugano 88 Lutheran, passim LXX (see Septuagint) Lystra 140 Machtpolitik 214, 233, 287f, 318, 476 Magnesia 103, 157, 446, 610 Magnum Opus (see Opus Vitae) Malaria 141, 183, 185, 188, 336, 511 Manchester xiv, 30, 73f, 80, 165, 236, 343, 414, 485, 570, 613 Manse (see Pfarrhaus) Marburg xiv, 1, 9-14, 18f, 21, 23, 26, 36ff, 42, 44f, 46, 69, 75, 81, 89, 109, 116, 121, 165, 218, 252, 292, 311, 387ff, 394, 396, 407, 409, 411, 413, 415, 493, 496, 537, 565ff, 569, 574f, 580, 604, 613, 615f Marriage 37ff, 132, 212, 236, 414, 558 Marseille 143 Marxism 214, 216, 606 Mersin 137, 141 Miletus 85, 132, 405, 429, 602 Miscarriage 146 Mitteleuropa xxii, 219, 227ff, 369, 384, 452, 603, 606f Mittelgattung 55 Monasteries 191f, 362, 562, 600 Monumentum Ancyranum 139 Mosques 158, 176, 314

Mother 37, 98, 128f, 132, 212f, 236, 317, 367, 414-9, 560, 562, 616 Muhajirs 158, 160, 177, 181 Mîrren 327 Muslim (see Islam) Nachfolger (see Successor) Nachlass 72, 101, 114, 250, 327, 365, 386, 534, 603 Nassau xiii, 10, 14, 62, 279f, 364, 387f, 409, 421, 492, 537, 560, 562, 564 National Protestantism 234, 301, 304, 600 National Socialism 216, 218, 223, 227, 231, 264, 353f, 357, 579, 602 Nationalism 141, 164, 233, 235f, 243, 247, 254f, 287ff, 294f, 298, 301f, 304, 306, 308, 347, 463, 476, 603ff (compare Patriotism) Nationalsozialer Verein 222ff, 227, 231 Nazareth 142 Nazis (see Political Parties: NSDAP) Neue Bibelstudien, xiv, xxi, 9, 18, 25ff, 30, 36, 40ff, 44f, 48, 53f, 58, 67, 69, 72f, 77, 92, 95, 98, 109, 112, 123, 152, 374, 397, 570, 574, 581, 591 (see also Bibelstudien and Bible Studies) Neutrality 235, 240f, 243, 246f, 252, 254, 262, 269, 274, 278, 462ff, 466, 469, 515, 586 New Haven 162, 512 New Testament, passim New York 66, 161, 196f, 202, 256, 336, 338, 345, 445, 511, 608 Nobel Prize 1, 243, 278, 324, 333f, 349, 351, 359, 369, 534, 610, 613, 623 Norway 3, 270, 324, 334, 355, 613, 623 Notgemeinschaft 2, 51, 149, 163f, 168ff, 175f, 181, 184ff, 192, 197, 201, 276, 384, 432f, 436, 439,

General Index

442f, 445ff, 469f, 620, 622 (see also Forschungsgemeinschaft) Novisad 183 §AI (see Archaeological Institutes: Austrian) Oberlin 152, 334ff, 351, 446, 509, 511ff Obituary 34, 99, 231, 312, 356ff, 364, 366, 386, 531f, 599 Odessa 141 §kumene (see Ecumenical Movement) Olaus-Petri Lectures 145, 147, 288, 290, 385f, 482, 536, 582, 594f, 618 Old Testament xiv, 7, 11, 13, 16, 43, 52, 84, 295, 301, 304, 345, 487 Olympia 133, 135 Opus Vitae 75, 78, 82, 88, 91, 94, 99, 102, 153, 255, 364, 402, 406 Orient 7, 17, 49, 52, 56, 72, 76, 85, 121, 131, 135, 137, 151, 157, 199f, 251, 314f, 339, 345, 362, 406, 449, 461f, 551, 560, 585, 592f Ostraca 27, 32, 54, 127, 130, 526f, 570f, 606 Ottoman Empire 129, 156, 199, 335, 601, 610 Oud Wassenaer 324ff Oxford 2, 80, 98, 333, 335, 341, 343, 351, 356, 360, 376, 414, 448, 490, 533, 586, 599 Pagos Astyagu 178 Palestine 131, 141, 144, 270, 308, 341, 363, 368f, 421, 426, 462, 499, 522, 598, 603 Pamukkale (see Hierapolis) Panayır Dagˇ 157, 176 Papyri ix, xi, xii, xiv, xv, xvii, xxi, 11, 17, 24ff, 29f, 32, 36, 41, 45, 47ff, 52ff, 57f, 62, 71f, 74, 78, 92, 106, 111f, 114-9, 123, 127f, 130, 137, 150, 152, 190, 193, 338, 374, 402ff, 409, 449, 525f, 534, 549f, 552, 554, 557ff, 569ff,

645

573, 591ff, 597ff, 602f, 605, 607f, 610 Pastor 12, 31, 183, 240, 280, 302, 355, 364, 407, 410, 485, 560, 588 (see also Pfarrer) Pastorals xiv, 55, 151, 393, 608 Patriotism 12, 238, 240, 266f, 301, 304, 357, 376, 489, 497, 520, 533 (compare Nationalism) Paulus xiv, xxii, 13, 20, 22, 97, 128, 131, 138-42, 144, 147-53, 156, 167, 227, 375, 384, 425f, 573, 582, 594, 609 Peloponnese 135 Pentateuch 67, 199, 552, 607 Pergamon 85, 133, 195 Persia 114, 139, 229 Personality (see Deissmann’s personality) Pfarrer 1, 9, 14, 20, 38ff, 42, 53, 66, 76, 78, 91, 108, 144, 211, 215, 217f, 220f, 248, 253, 263, 269, 276, 279, 281, 302, 364, 387ff, 398, 404, 421ff, 462, 466ff, 502, 524, 537f, 550, 561, 563, 566, 575 (see also Pastor) Pfarrhaus ix, 1, 38, 69, 236, 341, 364, 381, 483, 537f, 549, 560ff, 564 Philologie xvi, xxi, 41, 82, 84, 1049, 113f, 119f, 393, 403ff, 543, 554f, 564, 570, 585, 602f, 611 (see also Philology) Philology, passim Philology of the Greek Bible xiv, 8, 72, 93, 104, 112, 118ff, 152, 298, 322, 593 Piri Re’‚s Map 199f, 449, 606 Pluralism (see Religious pluralism) Poland 139, 270, 294, 355, 395 Political Parties: – ADAV 213 – CSAP 214 – CSP 214 – DkP 214 – DNVP 164 – ESK 214, 216ff

646

General Index

– NSDAP 225, 232, 312, 350ff, 354, 359f, 369, 373, 375, 599, 601, 604 – SDAP 213 – SPD 214, 216, 218, 221, 226, 241 – Zentrum 225f, 245f Pompeiopolis 141 Postwar 11, 157, 159, 245, 260, 262, 270, 320f, 324, 326, 335, 359, 361, 462, 525, 570, 586, 609 Preaching (see Sermon) Press 36, 40, 86ff, 93, 105, 150, 171, 209, 211, 217, 222, 226ff, 242, 245, 247f, 252, 258, 261, 279f, 300f, 305, 310, 312, 327, 339, 346, 362, 390f, 449, 451, 469, 502, 523, 563, 588, 610 Prewar 2, 241, 254, 257, 268, 283f, 329, 336, 469, 477, 570 Priene 132, 430 Privatdozent 20, 23, 37, 39, 81, 231, 344, 421, 447, 536f, 567, 574 (see also Dozent) Proclamations 231, 234f, 240, 243, 270, 286, 493 (see also Aufruf) Propaganda 3, 166, 214, 235f, 246ff, 253ff, 257f, 261, 268f, 273f, 276ff, 292, 308, 313, 347, 375, 466, 468, 572, 576, 611 Prorektor 197, 349, 351, 519 (see also Rektor) Proseminar 88, 90, 147, 276f, 299, 520-4, 584 (see also Seminaries: Theological) Protestant, passim Protestant Weekly Letter, passim (but see Bulletin) Prussia xiii, 12f, 24, 81f, 85, 87f, 90, 114, 200, 209, 212f, 216, 220, 223, 231, 263f, 285, 287f, 296, 300f, 309, 318, 336, 510, 565, 585, 591, 597, 600, 607 Purism 69, 107, 545 Quakers xvi, xxiii, 28, 283, 297ff, 302, 314, 316, 323, 340, 375, 486-

90, 613, 621(see also Woodbrooke) Quellen 12, 68, 92, 146, 233ff, 327, 329, 365, 393, 396, 443, 473, 479, 503, 508f, 519, 525, 542, 550f, 554f, 557, 572, 574, 599 (see also Sources) Radio 184, 326, 337, 346f, 385f, 496f, 516, 624 Realpolitik 285, 318 Reconciliation (see Conciliation) Redefreiheit 241ff (see also Censorship) Reden (see Speeches) Register (see Linguistic Register) Reichskanzler, 164, 240f, 246, 250, 284, 307, 350, 384, 461, 519f (see also Chancellor) Reichstag 216, 220f, 228, 231, 234, 241, 246f, 249, 263f, 267, 272, 294, 311, 357, 485 Rektorat xxiii, 78, 138, 155, 197, 200, 231, 321, 329, 343ff, 347ff, 351ff, 358, 369, 450, 507, 515f, 519, 524, 531, 597, 601 (see also Prorektor) Rektoratsîbergabe 345, 348f, 597 Religious pluralism 313, 316, 321f, 324, 333, 335 Repetent 15, 19, 24, 392, 395, 574, 615 Retirement xxiii, 10, 15, 23, 90, 203, 316, 351f, 353, 369, 373, 376 Ritterkreuz 76 (see also Iron Cross) Rockefeller Foundation 161, 191, 195f, 201ff, 337, 436 (see also Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund) Roman Catholic 1, 11, 65, 210f, 225, 245, 248f, 259, 305, 314, 317, 326ff, 360, 499, 534 Rîgen 167 Rumania 139, 355 Russia 90, 101f, 141, 229, 239f, 263, 266, 272, 309, 349, 359,

General Index

416ff, 462, 464, 466, 473, 484, 499, 582 Schlieffen Plan 237 Scholarship 2, 12, 20, 25, 33, 45, 65, 99, 104, 106f, 118f, 164, 205f, 373f, 414, 608f, 611 (see also Wissenschaft) Scholarships xix (see also Stipend) Schulpforta (see Gymnasium) Scot (see Scotland) Scotland 44f, 47, 49, 74, 119, 227, 270, 596 Scrolls 362f, 448, 598, 600, 612 (see also Dead Sea Scrolls) SelÅuk 160, 174f, 177f, 180f, 183, 434 (see also Ayasoluk and Ephesus) Selly Oak xv, 16, 152, 289, 299f, 314f, 373, 385, 489, 490f, 583, 596 Seminaries: – Miscellaneous 24, 115, 251, 355, 490, 606 – Theological, 1, 14, 19, 24, 36, 38, 40, 81, 84, 88, 97, 104, 147, 152, 165, 218f, 312,316, 337f, 359, 386ff, 408, 410, 412, 433, 447, 489, 490, 506, 511f, 520-4, 527, 529, 534, 539, 564f, 567, 570, 573f, 578, 584, 591 (see also Proseminar) Septuagint xv, xvii, xxii, 7, 16ff, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30ff, 35, 52, 65, 67, 84, 92, 112, 114-9, 123, 128, 152, 308, 393f, 396, 405, 522, 545f, 548-53, 568f, 584, 593f, 600, 603-7, 611 Septuaginta-Papyri xv, xxii, 112, 114-8, 123, 152, 593, 600, 605, 607, 611 Seragliensis 199, 201, 448, 598 Serai xii, xxiii, 139, 190, 193, 198ff, 384, 447ff, 486, 597f, 604 (see also Topkapı) Sermon xiv, 22, 38f, 66, 214f, 218, 284, 286, 295ff, 305ff, 313, 318, 408f, 411, 465, 470, 486f, 493,

647

511, 513, 525, 538, 563f, 566, 573, 575, 584, 595, 608, 620 Seven Sleepers’ necropolis 176ff, 183, 189, 338, 600, 604, 606 Ships 37, 99f, 132f, 139, 141f, 148, 170, 196, 336f, 445, 499, 509 Siebenschlfer (see Seven Sleepers’ necropolis) Siegeslust 237, 265 Sinn (town) 38f, 220, 537, 576 Smyrna 129, 140f, 173, 183, 188, 190, 195, 560 Social, passim – Classes 53, 56f, 150, 214, 219, 244, 260, 265, 317, 384, 453 – History xvii, 50f, 56, 58, 130, 147, 232, 243, 353, 453, 490, 594, 603 – Politics xi, xxii, 50, 71, 89, 209, 213f, 215f, 218-24, 226f, 231ff, 244, 264, 281, 375, 451, 453, 588, 593, 597, 602 – Reform 3, 206, 215f, 218, 223, 230f, 244, 329, 421 Socialism xxiii, 214, 216f, 218, 221f, 225, 227, 261, 304f, 307f, 353f, 357, 579, 606 Society of Friends (see Quakers) Sofia 183, 198, 447 Son 8, 37, 89f, 101, 108, 128ff, 138, 145, 162, 198, 212, 216, 220, 223, 238, 269, 306f, 310, 356, 358f, 364f, 367f, 387, 389, 416, 537f, 560, 563f, 589 Sonderweg 236, 301 Sources xviii, xxiii, 3, 11, 27, 53, 74f, 105, 108, 127, 130, 138, 160, 164, 169f, 197, 253, 259, 266, 268ff, 273, 277, 280, 288, 307, 317, 435, 474, 491, 543, 559, 615 (see also Quellen) Speeches 20, 155, 215, 221, 237f, 241, 255, 264, 277, 284f, 290, 304, 306, 319f, 324, 332, 349, 354, 384f, 389, 400, 473, 479, 504, 512, 537, 539, 594, 596f, 601, 606, 610

648

General Index

St. Andrews 165, 227f, 236, 343, 355 Stipend 10, 23, 110, 127, 137, 174, 387, 389 (see also Scholarships) Stockholm 2, 147, 161, 289, 313f, 320, 325-34, 338, 341, 385, 497f, 500f, 503, 505ff, 533, 535, 537, 587, 594ff, 601f, 610 Studentenzeit 391, 565 Students (Deissmann’s) 75, 90f, 99, 103, 122, 129, 147, 159, 203, 219, 253, 296, 299, 346, 348, 353, 357, 361, 363ff, 369, 373, 410, 489, 516, 518, 527ff, 537, 579, 584 Study Tours: – 1906 ix, xxii, 3, 49, 71f, 85, 91, 109f, 127-39, 143, 152f, 166, 168, 205, 226f, 315, 328, 339, 369, 374f, 425, 529, 560, 574, 581f, 585 – 1909 xxii, 85, 91, 94, 128, 13746, 152f, 166, 205, 235, 315, 335, 339, 369, 374f, 425, 499, 574, 582, 585 Stuttgart 279, 388, 445, 470f, 509 Successor 43, 71, 82, 85ff, 89, 163, 209f, 276, 331, 344, 351, 354, 369, 409, 411, 413, 439, 467, 506, 529, 538, 552, 578, 583 Summus episcopus 211, 287 Sweden 2f, 97, 145, 147, 152, 164, 270, 276, 278, 324, 326, 350f, 355, 359, 369, 482, 499, 502ff, 531, 534, 610, 613 Switzerland 76, 195, 242, 272, 274ff, 295, 302, 324, 341, 357, 452, 462, 463-9, 613 Syria 114, 131, 141f, 144, 461, 522, 546, 582 Tarsus 140f, 147, 150, 335, 484, 602 Teacher xix, 10, 12f, 26, 40, 81, 105, 108, 121, 220, 292, 308, 332, 353, 491 (see also Lehrer) Teaching: – Deissmann’s style 14, 219, 347f, 368f, 533f, 538f

– Deissmann’s program 76, 280, 351f, 386, 520-4 Tel Aviv 142 Temples: – Apollo 132 – Artemis 156f, 439, 600 – Athena Nike 134 – Serapis 157, 195 – Theseus 131 The Hague 219, 324, 533, 606, 609 Thera 135 Tiberias 142 Tiryns 133f Tombs 177, 338, 358 Topkapı xii, 139, 190, 192, 198ff, 597 (see also Serai) Trains 15, 38f, 82, 85, 89, 139-43, 145, 183, 194, 201f, 237, 295, 339, 366 Translation xii, xiii, xv, 3, 7f, 17, 21, 28ff, 33, 45-9, 51, 62f, 65, 67, 73, 76, 78, 94, 96f, 104, 118f, 122, 131, 147, 177, 234f, 239, 250, 291, 306f, 309, 329, 362, 375, 490f, 591-6, 600ff, 605f, 608, 610ff, 625 Translation errors 17, 239, 306f, 309, 551, 569 Treuhnderschaft EphesusGrabung 172, 185, 202, 205, 438f, 445 Trilogy 54, 58, 123, 362, 374 Troy 133 Tîbingen xv, 1, 13, 24, 26, 83, 90, 108, 292, 383, 387, 389f, 421, 555, 564, 582, 613, 615 Turkey xvii, 100, 129, 132f, 135, 137, 144, 157-62, 173, 175, 177, 181, 189-93, 199f, 202, 205, 270, 272, 434, 437, 446, 453, 461f, 599, 608, 610, 612, 619 Twins 97, 138, 291, 416 (see also Children) Ukraine 139, 309, 464 Una Sancta 314, 322, 326, 329, 331, 333, 356f, 598

General Index

‘Una Sancta’ (Idea) xxiii, 262f, 313, 322f, 325, 327, 330, 332f, 340, 353, 356, 360, 366, 534, 586, 596, 598, 602 University, passim Uppsala xv, 88, 94, 145ff, 156, 288, 347-51, 355, 359, 482, 503f, 534, 582, 594, 609, 613, 618ff USA (see America) Utopianism xxiii, 298, 313, 318, 330, 339f, 360, 366 Versailles 161, 250, 261, 288, 292, 318, 350, 357, 385, 472, 479ff, 498, 533, 586, 589, 599 Vienna xiv, xix, 25, 121, 131, 139, 157f, 167, 171ff, 175, 187f, 205, 243, 429, 431ff, 530, 581 Vikar 1, 13, 388, 566 Vçlkerbund (see League of Nations) Vçlkerverstndigung 2f, 99, 230f, 244f, 255f, 262, 268f, 274-81, 287, 293, 298, 300, 311f, 317, 320, 334f, 337, 340, 361, 374ff, 463, 465-9, 586 (see also Conciliation) War, passim (see also WWI and WWII) War Guilt 261, 287f, 298, 320, 353, 466f, 476, 481, 486, 599, 600, 611

649

War Theology xxiii, 242, 283, 287, 290, 292, 298, 300, 302f, 340, 375, 602, 607 Wedding (see Marriage) Weimar 252, 259, 264, 346, 373, 608 Weltjudentum (see Jews) Weltpolitik 236, 285, 318, 337, 462, 595 Wiesbaden 1, 9, 38, 71, 108, 276, 387ff, 421, 538, 563f, 566, 581 Wissenschaft, passim (see also scholarship) Woodbrooke xvi, 28, 299, 490, 613, 621 Wooster xvi, 319, 338f, 351, 446, 513 Wînsdorf 89, 100ff, 167, 203, 314, 355, 358ff, 364f, 368, 415ff, 473, 531f, 537, 597 WWI xvii, 2, 34, 61, 90, 99, 103, 121, 149, 157, 159, 163, 209, 225, 233, 236, 238, 242, 246, 261f, 265, 267, 283f, 288, 292, 300ff, 305, 312, 316, 318, 323, 333, 337, 340, 346, 360f, 369, 395, 601f, 606f WWII 102, 238, 250, 361f, 373 Zettelksten 95 Zossen 101, 384, 473 Zweireichelehre 209, 211, 260, 283-9, 300ff, 307f, 340, 482, 608f, 612