HARNACK, ADOLF von. - Protestant theologian. b. Dorpat (Livonia) 7 May 1851, d. Heidelberg 10 June 1930. Professor at Giessen, Marburg c. 1888, at Berlin, he became in 1890 an influential member of the Berlin Academy and in 1905 general director of the Royal Library. Reared in an orthodox Lutheran family (his father Theodosius was the author of a book, written from an orthodox standpoint, on the theology of Luther), he broke away from the traditions of his father’s house to adhere to the theology of A. Ritschl, a typical representative of Bismarck’s liberal Germany. From Ritschl he took the distrust of metaphysics, which led him to condemn Greek philosophy as a formative element in the ancient Church, and from Ritschl he also learned the moralistic interpretation of eschatological concepts, such as the kingdom of God, etc. Ritschl had formulated his theology in contrast to the so-called Tübingen school (F. Chr. Baur and disciples), which had employed Hegelian dialectic in the field of Church history and explained the formation of the Catholic Church as the synthesis between Jewish-Christianity and Hellenistic Christianity. By adopting Ritschl’s viewpoint, H. saw unilaterally the Greek elements in the formation of ancient Christianity and failed to recognize the importance of Jewish-Christianity; nor did his theology show any understanding of Judaism or the Old Testament, a fact of great importance in explaining his later adherence to Marcion’s anti-Jewish theology.
H. wished to be and to remain a theologian. He was not truly a philologist (the famous Wellhausen, critic of the Old Testament, wrote of a book by H.: “For me the weak point of H. is what he considers his strength: philology”), and this lack of philological sense also blinded him to the problems of the comparative religion school, largely developed by classical philologists. Nor did he show any understanding of philosophy, not even in the form of Dilthey’s historicism. Thus he remained within the scope of a form of Protestant and liberal Christianity, which, however, was increasingly disintegrating. When Barth’s theology began to attack the positions of the old liberalism, H., once the leader of a very strong current in German Protestantism and protected by the favor of William II (even against the leaders of the Protestant Churches), was already quite isolated. His progressive liberalism moreover increasingly distanced him from every form of Church; in a letter to E. Peterson he openly expressed his sympathy for sectarian Christianity (Quakerism), and so it is not surprising that the Protestant Churches in Germany no longer speak with enthusiasm of the author of the once very famous book on The Essence of Christianity (1st ed., Leipzig 1900).
Placed within the history of German Protestant theology, one now sees how outdated are the guiding ideas of his great Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1st ed., Tübingen 1886, 1888; 4th ed., 1910). Two major publications by H. still retain their value today: Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. I. Die Überlieferung und der Bestand (Leipzig 1893). II. Die Chronologie (ibid. 1897–1904). Volumes of great erudition, but which are more a repertory than a history of ancient patristic literature. The other publication is Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (1st ed., ibid. 1902, 4th ed., 1924). Important for the material collected, unacceptable in the part that explains the spread of ancient Christianity. He also wrote Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (1st ed., ibid. 1921; 2nd ed., 1924).
In this book Marcion is contrasted with ancient tradition, detached from Gnosticism. In Marcion’s dualism H. sees a kind of Lutheranism, approaching in this point, without knowing it, the judgment of Möhler on Lutheran doctrine. H. was a great organizer. He deserves credit for organizing the edition of the Griechisch christlichen Schriftsteller, though without assuming responsibility for the edition of a Greek patristic text in this series. In the collection of Texte und Untersuchungen, which accompanied the publication of the collection, he published much of his research.
H. was a prolific publicist and brilliant writer, but often inclined to put forward unfounded hypotheses. He truly loved the earliest Christian writers. He told Peterson: “The ancient Church is my true wife; everything else was only concubines for me,” which shows that he had no real interest either in the Middle Ages or in the classical phase of Protestantism. Personally a man who could be fascinating, in the humanism of his person he resembled Erasmus more than any of the classical figures of German Protestantism. In his New Testament studies he followed a more traditional path. His return to tradition put him in open contrast in this field with the comparative religion school.