HARNACK, ADOLF von. — Protestant theologian. Born in Dorpat (Livonia) on 7 May 1851, died in Heidelberg on 10 June 1930. Professor at Giessen, Marburg and, from 1888, Berlin, he became an influential member of the Berlin Academy in 1890 and, in 1905, director general of the Royal Library. Educated in an orthodox Lutheran family (his father, Theodosius, was the author of a book on Luther’s theology written from an orthodox standpoint), he broke with the traditions of his paternal home in order to adhere to the theology of A. Ritschl, a typical representative of the liberal Germany of Bismarck. From Ritschl he acquired his distrust of metaphysics, which led him to condemn Greek philosophy as a formative element of the ancient Church; from Ritschl he also learned the moralistic interpretation of eschatological concepts, such as the kingdom of God, etc. Ritschl had formulated his theology in opposition to the so-called Tübingen school (F. Chr. Baur and his disciples), which had employed Hegelian dialectic in the field of ecclesiastical history and explained the formation of the Catholic Church as the synthesis of Jewish Christianity and Hellenistic Christianity. By adhering to Ritschl’s viewpoint, H. saw the Greek elements in the formation of ancient Christianity one-sidedly and failed to recognize the importance of Jewish Christianity; moreover, his theology had no understanding either of the Jewish religion or of the Old Testament, an important fact because it explains his later adherence to the anti-Jewish theology of Marcion.
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 one of H.’s books: “For me, H.’s weak point is what he considers his strength: philology”), and this lack of philological sense also blinded him to the problems of the comparative school of religions, developed largely by classical philologists. But he also lacked any understanding of philosophy, even in the form of Dilthey’s historicism. Thus he remained within the sphere of a form of liberal Protestant Christianity that, however, was increasingly disintegrating. When Barth’s theology began to attack the positions of the old liberalism, H.—once the leader of a very powerful current within German Protestantism and protected by the favor of Wilhelm 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 the Christianity of the sects (Quakerism), and it is therefore not surprising that the Protestant Churches in Germany no longer speak enthusiastically 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 can now see 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). These are volumes of great erudition, but 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 assembled, but unacceptable in its explanation of 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 detached from Gnosticism, in opposition to the ancient tradition. In Marcion’s dualism H. sees a kind of Lutheranism, thereby approaching, without knowing it, Moehler’s judgment on Lutheran doctrine. H. was a great organizer. He deserves credit for organizing the edition of the Griechisch christlichen Schriftsteller, although he did not himself undertake responsibility for editing a Greek patristic text in this series. In the collection Texte und Untersuchungen, which accompanies publication of the series, he published a large part of his investigations.
H. was an extremely prolific publicist and a brilliant writer, but often inclined to put forward poorly founded hypotheses. He genuinely loved the earliest Christian writers. He said to Peterson: “The ancient Church is my true wife; everything else was nothing but concubines to me”; this makes it clear that he had no real interest either in the Middle Ages or in the classical phase of Protestantism. Personally, he was a man capable of fascination; in the humanism of his personality he resembled Erasmus more than any of the classical figures of German Protestantism. In his studies of the New Testament he followed a more traditional path. His return to tradition brought him, in this field, into open conflict with the comparative school of religions.