Volume 28, Issue 1

Jüdische Gelehrte reagierten auf Bruno Bauers antisemitisches Pamphlet Die Judenfrage ( 1842) auf ganz verschiedene Weise. Gemeinsam war allen Antworten jedoch die Annahme, dass die Mission des Judentums an Kultur und Humanität noch nicht erfüllt ist und auch nicht vom Christentum allein erfüllt werden kann. Nur der mosaische Monotheismus war dazu bestimmt, „den zivilisierten Nationen eine moralische Grundlage zu geben“, wie Gotthold Salomon, einer der in diesem Aufsatz behandelten Denker, gegen Bauer schrieb. Andere Disputanten, wie Hermann Jellinek, behaupteten sogar eine absolute theologische Überlegenheit des Judentums gegenüber der halb-paganen christlichen Religion, wieder andere, wie der Luxemburger Oberrabbiner Samuel Hirsch, sahen im Judentum zumindest das bessere, das essentiellere Christentum. Keiner der jüdischen Gegner Bauers jedoch war mit dessen These einverstanden, dass es sich beim Judentum um ein überholtes Religionsmodell handelte, das nur noch künstlich von einigen halsstarrigen Traditionalisten am Leben gehalten wird. Ob die jüdischen Theologen Bauer als moralisch gefährlichen Atheisten oder eher als Hegelianischen Wiederbeleber der alten christlichen Substitutionslehre sahen, die hier besprochene öffentliche Debatte mit Bauer gab ihnen eine willkommene Gelegenheit – möglicherweise sogar zum allerersten Mal – den genauen Ort des Judentums innerhalb der Entwicklung der kulturellen Idee der Religion in der Weltgeschichte zu bestimmen.

In the article, a little-studied question of the critical interpretation of the theological position of the representative of German protestant tradition Otto Pfleiderer (1839–1908) in the eastern orthodox theology, especially in the work of Kharkiv Professor Timofej Butkevič (1854–1925), is presented. At first, the main periods of a clerical and creative career of Butkevič, including his studying at the Kharkiv Clerical Seminary (1869–1875) and the Moscow Clerical Academy (1875–1879), are considered. Then the features of the theological publications and the teaching of Butkevič at Kharkiv University are pointed out. His important works were two monographs: The evil, its essence and origin (1897) and Religion, its essence and origin (1902–1904) in two books. The positions of well-known German theologians such as Karl August von Hase (1800–1890), David Friedrich Strauß (1808–1874), Karl Theodor Keim (1825–1878), Karl Philipp Bernhard Weiss (1827–1918), and others were here analyzed. But Butkevič’s critical interpretation of the theological viewpoint of Otto Pfleiderer in his two volumes work Die Religion, ihr Wesen und ihre Geschichte (1869) and in his Geschichte der Religionsphilosophie von Spinoza bis auf die Gegenwart (1883) occupies a central place in this analysis. In turn, Butkevič’s important achievement was the popularization of the ideas of Otto Pfleiderer in Russia and Ukraine, in particular, because of his translation of extracts from Pfleiderer’s works.

The article deals with the so-called „System Althoff“, that is the network of advisers Friedrich Althoff, ministerial director of the Prussian ministry of cultural affairs, created and employed in order to administer the faculties of theology at Prussian universities. In addition to leading the process of decision making in the ministry itself, he recruited a number of theology professors from the two dominant Church parties to advise him on appointing new professors. Famously, he consulted the opponents Hermann Cremer, a “positive” biblicistic Systematic professor in Greifswald, and Adolf Harnack, a Ritschlian Church Historian in Berlin, but he also counted theologians like Friedrich Loofs and Martin Kähler among his advisers. The article’s main body focusses on Althoff’s correspondence with Cremer and Harnack in order to analyse the minister’s practice of administration in depth. In a second step the paper will relate the minister’s relationship with his two most prominent theological advisers to the wider „System Althoff“ in theology. Both parts serve to show that Althoff rationalized and professionalized the process of decision making in the ministry of cultural affairs by carefully considering different professorial advises in light of the current (church) political climate.

Was Schleiermacher the first who has given lectures on the life of Jesus? – The article discusses this question and provides a list of this type of lectures between 1778 and 1834 at German universities.

On September 12, 1949, the liberal politician Theodor Heuss, party leader of the „Freie Demokratische Partei“ (FDP), was elected by the Bundesversammlung (Federal Convention) as the first Bundespräsident, i. e. head of state, of the newly founded Bundesrepublik Deutschland. As a young man Heuss had been a close friend and political ally of Friedrich Naumann, the protestant pastor and left wing liberal politician, supported by Ernst Troeltsch. Heuss then working as a political journalist for liberal newspapers and Naumann’s weekly journal Die Hilfe , was an admirer of Troeltsch, and since 1910 they often met in Heidelberg, at Villa Fallenstein, Ziegelhäuser Landstraße 17, where Max and Marianne Weber as well als the Troeltschs lived; Heuss frequently visited Max Weber’s Sunday jour fixe. When in 1915 Troeltsch became a professor at the Philosophical Faculty of Berlin University Heuss regularly kept in contact with him especially through Hans Delbrück’s „Mittwochabend“, a weekly gathering of liberal intellectuals, professors, politicians and journalists discussing political reforms and the ongoing war. Both Troeltsch and Heuss, 19 years younger, demanded the democratization of the Deutsches Reich, and after the end of the war and the revolution of 1918/19 they became members of the newly founded left wing liberal party „Deutsche Demokratische Partei“ (DDP). After Troeltsch’s sudden death on February 1st, 1923, Heuss wrote an obituary, and, together with his wife Elly Heuss-Knapp, attended the funeral service conducted by Adolf von Harnack. Heuss was a member of the „Demokratischer Klub Berlin“, founded in 1919 by liberal politicians, bankers and academics to regularly discuss the political situation of the new democratic state, the Weimar Republic. Unknown until now, seven weeks after Troeltsch’s death the „Demokratische Klub“ invited its members (the club only had male mebers!) to a memorial act for Troeltsch. On this occasion Heuss delivered a speech „Zu Ernst Troeltschs Gedächtnis“ („To the Memory of Ernst Troeltsch“) which is published here for the first time.