ZAHN, THEODOR. — Protestant exegete and patrologist, born at Mörs (Rhineland) on 10 October 1838, died at Erlangen on 15 March 1933.
He studied theology at Basel (1855), then at Erlangen, where J. Christian Konrad Hofmann (1810–77) exerted a lasting influence upon him; he was subsequently a repetiteur at Göttingen (1865), Privatdozent (1868), and extraordinary professor (1871). He succeeded Hofmann (1878) at Erlangen and thereafter held that chair, except from 1888 to 1892, when he was ordinary professor at Leipzig. He became emeritus in 1909, but continued working until the age of ninety-five. His studies were initially directed toward patristics, then toward the investigation of the biblical canon, textual criticism, and introduction, and subsequently toward commentaries on the New Testament.
Many of his works possess enduring value because of their wealth of erudition, acumen of investigation, and clear exposition of solutions. Z. appreciates the Church’s most ancient tradition, defends the full authenticity and historicity of every passage of the New Testament, and, something rarer, is a great connoisseur of the history of exegesis; these qualities make him valuable to Catholics as well.
From Hofmann, however, the true head of the Erlangen school, Z. also inherited a serious limitation. According to that school, all theology has at its foundations the experience of spiritual rebirth, also called the experience of salvation (Heilserfahrung), a concept descending from Pietism, from Schleiermacher, and ultimately from Luther. In this theological “I,” however, supernatural truth is not immediately given in accordance with its most important principles, contrary to Schleiermacher’s opinion; rather, a conclusion must be drawn, called a “regress,” which Hofmann compared to the procedure followed by physicists in discovering the laws of nature by starting from natural phenomena. The regress proceeds as follows: the experience of rebirth, which, according to Lutheran dogma, makes us absolutely certain of our salvation, is effected through Christ the mediator, who took upon himself the hell deserved by us and, filled with the Holy Spirit, makes us new creatures of the Father. Thus one arrives at a “prehistory” of the experience of salvation within the Trinity. Upon reflection, we discover through further conclusions that there is an entire “history of salvation” (Heilsgeschichte), lived by great personages through vivid religious experiences and so interconnected as to constitute a complex (Zusammenhang) of “salvific tradition”; it follows that the past down to the present is the presupposition of our “experience of salvation,” and that the future, up to eschatological times, will be its fulfillment (Erfüllung). From this there arose a certain method of theological work: that tradition which is salvific must be venerated and sought by every means, while that which is its senseless hardening must be rejected with equal vigor; each person must strive to raise and broaden his theological knowledge so as to understand the essential principles of the “history of salvation,” and therefore must incorporate the history of exegesis into his biblical commentaries. If all this is good, however, a less favorable aspect emerges when Hofmann’s and Z.’s method is compared with the analytical method of Catholic fundamental theology. The latter too proceeds from an experience, namely, that of the Catholic Church today in the person of the believer, and broadens the horizon until it reaches the miracle of the existence of this one and holy Church amid so many persecutions and defections; from this it draws its conclusions, arriving at Christ, the living divine bond within the Church, and at his living and traditional magisterium. But here there is an exceedingly important difference: that magisterium instituted by Christ is not intermittent, with religious experiences more vivid according to the personages involved—a doctrine already rejected by the Church in its struggle against Montanism (v.) and subsequently revived by Protestants—but possesses the irresistible stability of a salvific institution. Thus the Church’s tradition should not be divided by declaring, in accordance with Luther’s objective but limited experience, which becomes the measure of all theological truths, that one part is living and the other an abusive hardening, as Z. does in his biblical commentaries, striving, for example, to prove that “the Maria” (he knows no more respectful expression than this article “the”) was not virgo post partum and that, from a normal marriage with Joseph, she had other children (v. PRATTELLI DI GESÙ), while conceding that the philological expressions could bear the meaning defended by Catholics, and choosing to despise that “hardened” tradition which he admits is already found in St. Martyr (v.). The same naturally applies to other passages of the New Testament that lend themselves to controversies with the Catholic Church. Z. is more moderate than other Protestants; but he always adopts the tradition that serves the Erlangen experience, not the true tradition in itself. He was therefore in constant controversy with Catholics, as he was also with the “critics.” Nor are somewhat artificial solutions to many biblical problems lacking in Z. His outstanding merits remain: his defense of the authenticity of the biblical writings and of undivided tradition, both fundamental to the Catholic faith.
Works up to 1918 are listed in Zahn-Bibliographie (Leipzig 1918). Patristic works: Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha 1867); Der Hirt des Hermas (ibid. 1868); Ignatius von Antiochien (ibid. 1873); he was co-editor, with O. V. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, of the series Patrum apostolicorum opera (a vols., Leipzig 1876–78, editio minor 1877, 6th ed. 1920), in which he published, in a critical edition, Ignati et Polycarpi epist., martyria, fragmenta (Leipzig 1876); he conceived and published the important series Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons und der altkirchl. Liter. (Erlangen–Leipzig 1881–1929; 10 vols., for the most part written by Z.); Das apost. Symbolum (ibid. 1893); Shizzen aus den Leben der alten Kirche (ibid. 1894; 3rd ed. 1908). — Exegetical works (also on the apocrypha): Acta Johannis (Erlangen 1880); Gesch. des neutest. Kanons (2 vols., ibid. 1888–92); Das Evang. des Petrus (ibid. 1893); Einleitung in das Neue Testam. (2 vols., Leipzig 1897–99; 3rd ed. ibid. 1906–1907); Grundriss der Gesch. des neutest. Kanons (ibid. 1901; 2nd ed. ibid. 1904); he directed the Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (18 vols., Leipzig 1903), in which Z. contributed the commentaries on Mt. (1903; 4th ed. 1922), Gal. (1905; 4th ed. 1922), Io. (1908; 6th ed. 1921), Rom. (1910; 3rd ed. 1925), Lc. (1913; 4th ed. 1920), Act. (2 vols., 1920–21; 4th ed. 1927), Apoc. (2 vols., 1927); Grundriss der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig 1928); Grundriss der neutest. Theologie (ibid. 1928; 2nd ed. 1932); Grundriss der Gesch. des Leben Jesu (Leipzig 1928).