Volume 29, Issue 1

Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) were two seminal 19 th century thinkers, each of whom presented dramatically different theological and philosophical conceptions of Christianity and truth. Prior historical investigations into the relationship between these two individuals have problematised what was once a truism in Nietzsche (and Kierkegaard) studies whereby the younger Nietzsche was considered to have nil knowledge of the older Kierkegaard insofar as the former did not read the latter’s writings. Focusing on the topic of truth, this study canvasses the historical literature on Nietzsche’s reception of Kierkegaard to evidence the various ways in which Nietzsche indeed may be said to have ‘known’ Kierkegaard, or at least to have become conversant with Kierkegaard’s thought at some level of awareness. However, despite evidence of Nietzsche having encountered the thought of Kierkegaard in general and Kierkegaard’s theory of truth in particular, this study will contend that such evidence for Nietzsche’s knowledge of Kierkegaard generates as many questions as answers for the historical inquirer. Of note, as Nietzsche inauspiciously did not, in unequivocal writing, address Kierkegaard, this study concludes by illustrating a central challenge confronting historians and historiographers intent on tracking these thinkers’ influence on theological truth claims without recourse to a primary literature. That is, without recourse to a literature in which Nietzsche autonomously responded to Kierkegaard regarding the topic of truth.

This study seeks to explore the origin and formation of the so called “Hungarian traditional” theology within the Reformed Church of Hungary from the 1840s till the 1860s. The research paper also throws light on how the new orthodoxy movement of Debrecen grew out of this trend from the 1870s which had an enormous impact on the Protestant theological landscape of Hungary, the largest Protestant community in Central Europe. Hungarian new orthodoxy precedes both the orthodoxy developed by Kuyper and the Barthian neoortodoxy which is a much later theological trend. It also points out that Western European Protestant theological trends did have a great impact on the Hungarian theological context. This work aims to demonstrate how the doctrinal views of Hungarian traditional theology were developed through the works and life of selected influential leaders like Imre Révész senior, Lajos Filó, József Heiszler while debating with liberal theology. Reference will be made to the foreign impact of conservative theologies represented by evangelical, Pietist and mediating theologies of Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Britain. The doctrinal debates appeared in contemporary journals. Analysing the texts, it is possible to delineate what the stance of traditional theology was about: inspiration of the Scripture, the uniqueness of Revelation, the doctrine of original sin, the necessity of atonement, deity of Jesus Christ, the confession of Trinity, faith in the last judgement and Christ’s second return and the reality of miracles.

In diesem Aufsatz wird den Enfluss der steigenden kulturellen Autorität des naturwissenschaften Erkenntnisses auf die Entwicklung der deutschen evangelishen Theologie im Laufe des 19. Jahrunderts untersucht mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Albrecht Ritschl und seine theologische Nachfolger, Wilhelm Herrmann, Ernst Troeltsch, und Rudolf Otto. Dieser Einfluss besteht nicht in erster Linie in den direkten Antworten dieser Theologen auf die Behauptungen der Vertreter verschiedener nicht-theistischen Weltanschuungen, sondern vielmehr in der Übernahme philosophischer Begriffe und Argumentationsmittel, die ihre eigenen theologischen Programme unterschiedlich geformt haben.

Der Aufsatz behandelt das Konzept der „Christentumswissenschaft“ ( Kirisutokyo gaku ) Tetsutarō Arigas, der der erste Dekan der Theologischen Fakultät an Doshisha Universität gewesen war und nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg auf den Lehrstuhl für Christentumswissenschaft an der Kyoto Universität berufen wurde. Ariga stammte aus einer „monotheistischen“ Familie mit einem muslimischen Vater und einer christlichen Mutter. Nachdem er an der Doshisha Universität graduierte, studierte er am Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Es ist zu vermuten, dass Ariga aufgrund seiner liberalen demokratischen Gesinnung auf den Lehrstuhl an der Kyoto Universität berufen wurde. In der Einleitung in die Christentumswissenschaft unterschied Ariga zwischen der Christentumswissenschaft an der nationalen Universität und der Theologie an den privaten Universitäten. Ariga als Christentumswissenschaftler hat ohne die kirchlichen Autoritäten historisch-kritisch das Christentum erforscht, während er als Theologe sich mit pragmatischen Aufgaben, z. B. Ökumenismus, beschäftigt hat. Aus der Spannung zwischen der Christentumswissenschaft und der Theologie erzeugte er seine reichen wissenschaftlichen Leistungen.

Throughout his life, Leo Strauss (1899–1973) employed the expression “Jerusalem and Athens” to refer metaphorically to the two opposing poles of his thinking: biblical faith and ancient philosophy. While Strauss continuously stressed that “Jerusalem” and “Athens” pose a radical alternative, which demands a binary choice, he himself did not present his decision to the public. The following essay examines for the first time four different lectures that Strauss gave in New York City (1946 and 1967), Annapolis (1946), and Chicago (1950) under the title “Jerusalem and Athens.” Using not only the new first edition of the 1950 lecture published in this volume – Strauss’s most extensive public treatment of the issue – but also dozens of recently discovered archival sources, I try to illuminate the historical settings in which Strauss spoke about the tension between “Jerusalem” and “Athens.” This biographical approach highlights rhetorical strategies adopted by Strauss in his lectures and intends to show different reasons he had to abstain from opting publicly for either “Jerusalem” or “Athens.” In the concluding part, I discuss Strauss’s previously unknown but well-advanced (if eventually abandoned) plans to publish a monograph entitled Jerusalem and Athens with the University of Michigan Press in 1956/1957.

For the first time, this edition presents Leo Strauss’s Hillel House lecture series on “Jerusalem and Athens.” The three lectures, delivered in the fall of 1950, investigate the agreement, disagreement, and conflict between the biblical and the philosophic “ways of life”: “Philosophy in the full sense is [...] incompatible with the biblical way of life. Philosophy and the Bible are the alternatives or the antagonists in the drama of the human soul. Each of the two antagonists claims to know the truth, namely, the decisive truths, the truths regarding the right way of life. But there can be only one truth, and, hence, conflict is inevitable.”