Новый образчик превратного понимания истории древней Церкви в немецкой богословской литературе[7]

Статья первая

Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. I: Die Entstehung der kirchlichen Dogmas. Freiburg–im–B., 1886; Bd. II: Die Entwickelung des kirchlichen Dogmas. Freib., 1887.

Von Dr. Adolf Harnack.

Professor der Kirchengeschichte

В газете «Московские Ведомости» в прошлом (1888) году в № 238 была помещена корреспонденция из Берлина, в которой между прочим читаем: «Важным событием в научном мире является приглашение на здешнюю кафедру марбургского теолога профессора Гарнака со стороны теологического факультета Берлинского университета. Но это событие, произведшее столько шума, далеко выходит за границы чисто научной области и имеет многосторонний интерес как по своему политическому значению, так и потому, что представляет характерное проявление той борьбы за охранение положительного религиозного содержания, которая ведется внутри протестантского общества. Когда Берлинский богословский факультет, отличающийся умеренным образом мыслей, единодушно решил призвать Гарнака, Верховный Церковный совет (то же, что и Св. Синод в нашей Церкви), стоящий на страже ортодоксального протестантизма, протестовал перед министром исповеданий против назначения профессором в Берлине этого представителя средней (?) партии, правда, даровитого, но отклоняющегося вместе с прочими последователями Ричли от ортодоксального учения. Сначала министр, потом все государственное министерство, не рассматривая богословской стороны вопроса, отклонили протест, как не обоснованный юридически. Дело было предоставлено решению короля (Вильгельма II), который утвердил назначение Гарнака. Эти события в высшей степени обострили вопрос. Если верить некоторым газетам, князь Бисмарк решительно выступил против Церковного совета, и министерство так серьезно отнеслось к этому делу, что в случае благоприятного для Церковного совета решения монарха, должен был последовать министерский кризис. Из германских органов только крайние консерваторы стояли на стороне Совета».

In the above tirade, we are talking about the same Adolphe Harnack, one of whose works we want to examine. In explanation of the above words of the correspondent of the Moscow Vedomosti, we consider it necessary to note: the Berlin Faculty of Theology elected Harnack to one of the local departments, and the Emperor approved this election, no doubt, because this professor represents a truly outstanding personality in his rare talent, amazing erudition and diligence, and in his sharpness of mind; The Supreme Church Council protested against the election of Harnack to the faculty also not without reason: Harnack is completely alien to Christian beliefs and clearly speaks about his convictions in his writings, avoiding, however, any polemics against Christianity.

For the present time we shall deal with the first volume of Harnack's History of Dogmas, which has this more special title: "The Origin of Christian Dogmas." What prompts us to study Harnack's History of Dogmas is not, of course, that this scientist has recently made so much noise in Germany and won the sympathy of the "iron" Chancellor himself, Bismarck, for all this we have little to do with, but something else, more important from a scientific point of view.

As a quarter of a century ago, the main exponent of the so-called negative views, on a scientific basis, on Christianity and the Christian Church, was F. H. Baur, so at present the most prominent representative of similar views in German theological science is Adolf Harnack. Baur, without a doubt, was a man of the highest gifted, industrious and original thinker; Harnack also possesses all these virtues, so that it is no exaggeration to say that the latter, in terms of the qualities of his intellect and moral energy, stands at the present time above all German church historians in Germany, despite the fact that he is still a young scholar, barely fifteen years of his scientific activity. All this cannot but draw the attention of our science to such a figure as Harnack. We compare Harnack with Baur, but this does not mean that we consider the former to be a disciple or follower of the latter in science. Harnack does not share Baur's views. At the present time there are few more or less faithful pupils of Baur in Germany: Hilgenfeld is comparatively notable among them for his literary activity. But German ecclesiastical history does not benefit from this circumstance in the least. Baur's views do not find ardent adherents, but his tendencies have been preserved in all their force, and his tendencies, as we know, consist in explaining the origin of Christianity and the development of the Church in a purely natural way... Similar tendencies are shared by many German theologians of our time. But none of them detects these tendencies with such clarity and energy as Harnack.

His work "History of Dogmas" (or, more precisely: "Textbook on the History of Dogmas") is the most decisive and multifaceted attempt to explain the origin of Christianity and the development of the Church from the point of view of rationalistic views. The very title of the work is not exact: it, the work, gives much more than is given by the so-called "histories of dogmas", it embraces the historical fate of Christianity and the Christian Church (its ancient period) from all essential aspects. If Harnack had written a history of the Church of the same period instead of his History of Dogmas, he would have had to add very little to what he had published. And Harnack's work is called a "textbook" completely out of place. It is not customary to write textbooks with such a broad program and problematic tasks anywhere, not excluding Germany. Harnack's work is a history of Christianity and the Christian Church in its ancient period, although not from all sides. This gives us the right to look at Harnack's work not as an elaboration of one particular and special theological discipline – the history of dogmas – but as an attempt to expound an entire science – church history for a certain period and from its most important aspects. Thus, Harnack's work is more important than its title allows.

It is hardly necessary to warn the reader of an Orthodox journal that Harnack's attempt to explain the origin of Christianity and the historical growth of the Christian Church by so-called secondary or secondary causes, by pointing out the same factors by which civil historians explain the origin and development of individual states, does not lead to the goal. Harnack's attempt, like other attempts of the same kind (Baur, Renan), is impracticable by the very nature of things. In conclusion, they always get more than what is given in the parcels. It is not without reason that it is so rare in science to encounter experiments in the "construction" of church history on rationalistic principles—serious and many-sided experiments; it is not for nothing that whole decades have passed since Baur "built" or undertook to build the history of the Church on these principles, and we do not find new works of this kind in Germany until the very appearance of Harnack's work, of which we are speaking. The majority of learned German theologians of the rationalist persuasion operate with particular questions of ecclesiastical and historical content, without daring to do anything more. Harnack proved to be bolder and more presumptuous than his brethren in direction; he took up the task that no one had dared to undertake since the time of Baur – to distort and remake the history of the Church, to present its development in a way that is not as "conservative" theologians imagine. And it is impossible not to give credit to the German scientist at least for the fact that he poses all the questions that appear to the mind of the investigator studying the subject from his point of view, directly and decisively, without resorting to any hypocrisy, and answers the questions as directly and without any subterfuge as other German scientists of the same kind resort to. This greatly facilitates the critic's work. There is no room for misunderstandings. Everything is already clear to the point of obviousness. One has only to read his work attentively and then ask oneself the question: what did he want to prove and how did he prove it, and the answer turns out to be direct and decisive: no, Harnack's attempt failed... because it is unrealizable.

In the first volume of the History of Dogmas, to which we will devote this article, Harnack studies the history of the Church in the first three centuries (20th and 1-696 pp.). First we will set forth the content of the book, without interrupting this exposition with any critical remarks, and then we will make an analysis of what has been said. Of course, we can do both without going into details and details.

Harnack's initial point of view is quite sufficiently characterized in the following words of his own. "All empty abstractions," he calls the idea of the fullness of Christian revealed truth, "must be discarded as scholasticism and a kind of mythology. Only in the living man did dogma (or Christianity) have its history, and only here." He does not want to know anything about Revelation, about miracles. Harnack says: "The historian is incapable of dealing with a miracle as a real historical event, for with this the point of view on which all historical research rests is destroyed. Each individual miracle remains, from the point of view of history, quite doubtful, and the sum of the doubtful never leads to the certain" (S. 12, 50). The author speaks here about the Gospel story. Harnack's initial point of view, we believe, is now clear to everyone.