Religion Past and Present. Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion, Volume 1 (A-Bhu)

Religion Past & Present

VOLUME A − Bhu

I

Religion Past & Present Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion

EDITED BY

Hans Dieter Betz Don S. Browning Bernd Janowski Eberhard Jüngel

VOLUME A − Bhu

I

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Bill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Bill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishres, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

Originally published in German as Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Vierte, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Herausgegeben von Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski und Eberhard Jüngel. Copyright © Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 1998–2005.

Despite our efforts we have not been able to trace all rights holders to some copyrighted material. The publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

ISBN 10 (volume) 9004 13980 X ISBN 13 (volume) 978 90 04 13980 0 ISBN 10 (set) 9004 14666 0 ISBN 13 (set) 978 90 04 14666 2

printed in the netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden (André van der Waal) Data structuring and typesetting: Asiatype, Inc. Suite 114 Columbia Tower Ortigas Avenue, Greenhills Mandaluyong City Phillippines

Preface to the Fourth Edition As the fourth edition is published, the RGG has almost reached the century mark in its history. Both in their entirety and as individual articles, the four editions together reflect the 19th and 20th centuries in a way unmatched by virtually any other document in the history of religious and theological scholarship. Alongside the evident differences between the editions, it is not difficult to see the points of agreement. The planning for the first edition (1909–1913) in 1904–1906 already linked its intent to summarize the state of research of the 19th century with an extension of perspective beyond the traditional primary disciplines, listed as the history of extra-Christian religion, art and music, education, the social sciences, church law and church politics, as well as contemporary Christianity. This basic concept continued to apply in the subsequent editions, though the overall perspective and the attention given to individual subject areas were necessarily subject to change as appropriate. The preparations for the second edition (1927–1932), which began shortly after the end of the First World War, amounted almost to a complete revision. The 1927 Preface lists its aims as consideration of the new general situation in theology, an increased emphasis on non-Christian religions and the interplay between religion and culture (art, literature, philosophy, the social sciences) as well as an account of the results of scholarly endeavor thus far, in view of the “dynamism and abundance of present-day religious and theological life,” as it cautiously puts it. The third edition (1957–1965) emerged at the time of European reconstruction after the catastrophe of the Second World War. It was a result of the new orientation in the church and theology in view of the collapse that occurred at the end of the war, a collapse that had left nothing but ruins in the fields of religion, theology, and the church. A feature of this edition was the seriousness with which the “Protestant” Christian faith was now regarded as well as its deliberate location in the increasingly significant ecumenical movement among the churches. From these points of view, established wisdom and the recently added reservoir of knowledge was sifted and set out in accessible order. The fact that this edition was tailored largely to the prevailing circumstances in the German-speaking world contributed, paradoxically enough, to its abiding importance. It is appropriate here, finally, to point out a further point of agreement between the editions up to now. All three editions would never have been possible without the initiative, risk-accepting courage and resolute commitment of the publishing house of Mohr Siebeck. The new fourth edition also stands in this tradition. The developments of the last 50 years in the areas of science and technology have not left the world of religions untouched. For one thing the general economic upturn and the global expansion of scholarly research in old and new subject areas have led to an accumulation of knowledge that would scarcely have been conceivable in earlier times. Not only this, but on the basis of new knowledge, methods and perspectives scholarly thinking has itself undergone radical change, though the extent of these changes and their effects on the fields of theology and religious studies are not yet clear. In addition a new ecumenical appreciation of the problems has established itself. So what does “completely revised” mean in relation to the fourth edition? Completely revised, first of all, are the list of subject areas and the list of entries, though the tracking down of gaps and overlaps by careful comparison with earlier editions was only the beginning. The lists of subjects and lemmata then had to be adjusted to the new scholarly circumstances. New too is the international perspective in the commissioning of area editors and authors, extending beyond Europe. For the editors too, this expansion made the preparatory work a voyage of discovery in less familiar fields. The journey was longer than expected, and on the way we learned to appreciate our traveling companions, the area editors, authors, editors and the publisher. For our part we now invite readers to discoveries in the variety of articles in the new RGG.

Preface to the Fourth Edition

vi

The articles take their orientation by the following guidelines: 1. The fourth edition of RGG, too, sees itself as a continuation of the aim that began with the first edition to provide a reference dictionary for theology and religious studies that would give an account of the essential phenomena of religious and ecclesiastical life and of the theological reflection pertaining to this life. Despite all the necessary changes, the traditional framework of the division of subjects has been largely maintained. The title, however, has dropped its former definite article, which was open to misunderstanding. The dictionary is now called “Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart”. 2. In dealing with the evangelic heart of the Christian faith, Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart is to be so presented that readers are informed in the best way possible in the available space and that they are given the wherewithal to form a balanced view in relation to other and alien religious realities as well as their own. The RGG is not committed to any particular theological tendency or school. 3. The articles should offer a snapshot of the current state of knowledge, present the relevant methodological issues and draw attention to open questions and tasks for future research. 4. Regarding the problem of how to refer to the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Old Testament in articles and article headings, a rule was established that should ensure the cooperation of all authors. Following a number of discussions aimed at facilitating Christian-Jewish cooperation on biblical texts, an international compromise solution has emerged which has in the meantime been acknowledged by all sides and has established itself. In accordance with this, both Old Testament and Hebrew Bible are used as standard terms. Authors are free to use either of these terms. 5. In order to avoid imbalance in the compilation or an arbitrary selection, the fourth edition of RGG has refrained from including articles on persons who are still alive. Significant figures in contemporary history may be found in the corresponding specialized articles via the index. 6. The bibliographical information in RGG has been kept brief in view of the many possibilities of access to detailed bibliographies in modern databases. Mention is made of standard works, text editions, biographies, and special monographs essential for scholarly work, important journal articles, as well as references to complete bibliographies in other publications. No bibliographies are given for the history of interpretation of biblical books, since these are now available in up-to-date commentaries and electronic media. 7. Although the home of RGG is in Germany, from the first edition on, it has been a feature of the work to take in a perspective beyond the national boundaries. This orientation will be reinforced in the fourth edition, so that the dictionary will in future have an even stronger international profile and also be able to serve as a source of information for countries beyond Europe. November 1998

Hans Dieter Betz Don Browning Bernd Janowski Eberhard Jüngel

Preface to the English Edition Brill is proud to introduce Religion Past and Present (RPP), a translation and adaptation of the fourth edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG). This work provides the reader with a depth and breadth of information unmatched by any comparable theological reference work in the English language. In its comprehensiveness and through its systematic presentation of the material, RPP offers a coherent theological vision rooted in the tradition of modern Protestantism without, however, being bound to any particular theological school or program. In doing so, it recalls the tradition of the universal encyclopedia, providing a compendium of material extending across a wide and diverse range of disciplines. It covers not only all the major theological disciplines (biblical studies, church history, systematic theology, ethics, church law and practical theology) but also allied fields such as history, philosophy, sociology, psychology, science, law and economics. In addition, there are a substantial number of entries on topics in literature, music and the arts. Naturally, the entire field of religious studies is represented, as is the range of religious experience found in traditions other than Christianity. But in addition to its aim of comprehensiveness, RPP strives to be both international and contemporary, providing the reader with summary of the state of each discipline at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Although its language is terse and compact, befitting an encyclopedia, RPP will appeal to a wide range of readers. For the sake of readability, abbreviations in the text have been minimized, and RPP’s style follows current academic convention in following, where appropriate, that of the Society of Biblical Literature. In short, this is a reference work that embodies the highest standards of contemporary scholarship without sacrificing clarity and accessibility. In the interest of mediating the full depth and scope of the German work, we have been selective and conservative about making changes. We are convinced that readers will benefit from learning how topics are approached from perspectives which may stand at variance with their own habits and styles of thought. At the same time, the work has been selectively adapted to bring out the international character and intent of the original. This has been done in the first place by omitting a number of minor articles that were written primarily for the (esp. German) situation of the original audience. We have also lightly edited some articles in order to meet the needs of the international reader. In adapting the work we were guided by the principle: as little as possible, but as much as necessary. We have, however, been able to add a small number of new articles, including biographical ones on figures such as Gerhard Ebeling, Paul Ricoeur, Hans-Georg Gadamer, John Paul II, who have died since the publication of the German work. In addition, we have tried to aid the reader by providing information about existing English editions where available and accessible, including originally English items which RGG cites only in German translation. At the same time, we have resisted any temptation to equate international scholarship with works written in or translated into English, and the bibliographies contain references to works in all major European and many non-European languages. We are grateful for the assistance of a highly skilled team of translators and editors for their work on this and forthcoming volumes. Without their help this tremendous undertaking would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the general editors, particularly Professors Hans Dieter Betz and Don Browning, for their interest in and commitment to this project. Our thanks also go to the RGG area editors for their willingness to contribute their expert advice and help and to the publisher of RGG, Georg Siebeck, and the publishing house Mohr Siebeck, for their assistance and cooperation. We would also like to thank Fem Eggers, Brill’s project manager for this work, her predecessor Anita Roodnat, and Jean-Louis Ruijters for his work with the lemma list. We would like to thank Robert Meyer, Bas van der Mije and Ernest Suyver for their hard work and commitment in the final editing stages of this volume. We would like to acknowledge the helpful advice of Dr. David Green on specific issues of form and style. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Michael G. Parker, and Dr. David E. Orton, the editor-in-chief, to whom we owe a double debt of gratitude in his role as both translator and editor. Leiden, October 2006

Brill

RPP Editorial and Translation Team Volume I Managing Editor Michel G. Parker Assistant Editors David E. Green Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger Robert M. Meyer Sebastiaan R. van der Mije Edgar J. Smith Ernest Suyver Translators Jennifer H. Adams-Maßmann Mark E. Biddle O.C. Dean David E. Green Brian McNeil Charlotte Methuen David E. Orton Joanne Orton Doug W. Stott

Editor-in-Chief David E. Orton

Subject Areas and Area Editors Biblical and Christian Archaeology Hermann Michael Niemann, Rostock, in cooperation with Guntram Koch, Marburg Church History: Asia, Africa, Latin America Klaus Koschorke, Munich, in cooperation with Johannes Meier, Mainz, Kevin Ward, Leeds, England, and Martin N. Dreher, São Leopoldo, Brazil Church History: Early Church Christoph Markschies, Berlin (preparation until 1995: Barbara Aland, Münster)

Ecumenism: Orthodox Church Karl Christian Felmy, Erlangen Ecumenism: Reformed Churches Mark A. Noll, Wheaton, IL (until vol. I: Glenn Hinson, Richmond, VA) Dogmatics Christoph Schwöbel, Tübingen Ethics and Related Social Sciences Eilert Herms, Tübingen

Church History: Middle Ages and Reformation Ulrich Köpf, Tübingen

Fundamental Theology Christoph Schwöbel, Tübingen

Church History: Europe in Modern Times I Albrecht Beutel, Münster (until vol. II: Johannes Wallman, Bochum)

History of Religion: Prehistory to the Ancient Near East Manfred Hutter, Bonn (until vol. IV: Firtz Stolz, Zürich, Switzerland)

Church History: Europe in Modern Times II Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Munich (until vol. II: Joachim Mehlhausen, Tübingen)

History of Religion: Greco-Roman Antiquity Hubert Cancik, Tübingen

Church History: North America, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand Mark A. Noll, Wheaton, IL (until vol. I: Martin E. Marty, Chicago, IL)

History of Religion: Pre-Islamic Religions, Islam and Arab Christianity Josef van Ess, Tübingen

Church Music and Liturgy Franz Karl Praßl, Graz, Austria, in cooperation with Anthony William Ruff, Collegeville, MN (until vol. III: Don E. Saliers, Atlanta, GA, in cooperation with Robin A. Leaver, Princeton, NJ; vol. IV: J. Neil Alexander, Atlanta, GA)

History of Religion: Other Religions Lawrence Sullivan, Notre Dame, IN

Church Law Christoph Link, Erlangen Culture, Art, Media, and Religion Enno Rudolph, Lucerne, Switzerland, in cooperation with Thomas Schmidt, Göttingen, Reinhard SchmidtRost, Bonn, and Peter Burke, Cambridge, England (until vol. I: Frank Burch Brown, Indianapolis, IL, in cooperation with Rainer Volp, Mainz, and Graham Howes, Cambridge, England) Ecumenism: Catholicism Peter Neuner, Munich (preparation until 1995: Werner G. Jeanrond, Lund, Sweden)

History of Religion: South, Central and East Asia Hubert Seiwert, Leipzig

Judaism: Early Judaism Peter Schäfer, Berlin and Princeton, NJ, in cooperation with Klaus Herrmann, Berlin Judaism: Middle Ages and Modern Times Michael Brenner, Munich (until vol. II: Joseph Dan, Jerusalem, Israel and Berlin) New Testament Hans-Josef Klauck, Chicago, IL Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Eckart Otto, Munich and Pretoria, South Africa

xi

Subject Areas and Area Editors

Philosophy Günter Figal, Freiburg i.Br. Philosophy of Religion Christoph Schwöbel, Tübingen Practical Theology and Related Social Sciences, Education Christian Grethlein, Münster (until vol. I: Friedrich Schweitzer, Tübingen in cooperation with Richard R. Osmer, Princeton, NJ, and Volker Drehsen, Tübingen)

Religion and Science Ted Peters, Berkeley, CA (until vol. III: Philip Hefner, Chicago, IL) Religious Studies Manfred Hutter, Bonn (until vol. IV: Fritz Stolz, Zürich, Switzerland) Religious Studies and Missiology Werner Ustorf, Birmingham, England

Authors and Contributors Abramowski, Luise, Tübingen, Germany Adogame, Afe, Bayreuth, Germany Ahme, Michael, Kiel, Germany Ahrens, Theodor, Hamburg, Germany Aleaz, K.P., Calcutta, India Alexander, J. Neil, Sewanee, TN, USA Alles, Gregory D., Westminster, MD, USA Allison, Christopher FitzSimons, Georgetown, SC, USA Andelson, Jonathan, IA, USA Anderson, Gary A., Cambridge, MA, USA Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane, Washington, DC, USA Arffman, Kaarlo, Helsinki, Finland Assel, Heinrich, Bonn, Germany Astley, Ian, Edinburgh, Scotland Attridge, Harold W., New Haven, CT, USA Aubenque, Pierre, Paris, France Auch, Eva-Maria, Göttingen, Germany Auffarth, Christoph, Tübingen, Germany Avemarie, Friedrich, Marburg, Germany Avis, Paul, London, England Axmacher, Elke, Bielefeld, Germany Axt-Piscalar, Christine, Basel, Switzerland Bader, Günter, Bonn, Germany Badry, Roswitha, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Balch, David L., Fort Worth, TX, USA Balz, Heinrich, Berlin, Germany Balzer, Jette K. B., Tübingen, Germany Bangs, Carl O.(†) Banning, Joop H.A. van, Innsbruch, Austria Baral, Karl, Rutesheim, Germany Barbour, John D., Northfield, MN, USA Barone, Giulia, Rome, Italy Barrucand, Marianne, Paris, France Bartelmus, Rüdiger, Kiel, Germany Bassi, Hasko von, Berlin, Germany Bauckham, Richard, St. Andrews, Scotland Baudy, Gerhard, Konstanz, Germany Bayer, Oswald, Tübingen, Germany Becker, Dieter, Neuendettelsau, Germany Becker, Hans-Jürgen, Göttingen, Germany Becking, Bob, Utrecht, Netherlands Beckwith, Francis J., Waco, TX, USA Beintker, Michael, Münster, Germany Beltz, Walter, Berlin, Germany Bendlin, Andreas, Oxford, England Bendroth, Margaret L., Cambridge, MA, USA Benrath, Gustav Adolf, Mainz, Germany Beozzo, José Oscar, São Paulo, Brasil Berger, Klaus, Heidelberg, Germany

Bergman, Jan(†) Bergmann, Sigurd, Lund, Sweden Berner, Hans-Ulrich, Hannover, Germany Bethge, Hans-Gebhard, Berlin, Germany Betz, Hans Dieter, Chicago, IL, USA Beutel, Albrecht, Münster, Germany Beyer, Michael, Leipzig, Germany Bieberstein, Klaus, Bamberg, Germany Bienert, Wolfgang A., Marburg, Germany Bieritz, Karl-Heinrich, Rostock, Germany Binder, Hans-Otto, Tübingen, Germany Binder, Gerhard, Bochum, Germany Bischoff, Georges, Strasbourg, France Bizer, Christoph, Göttingen, Germany Bloedhorn, Hanswulf, Tübingen, Germany Blum, Erhard, Augsburg, Germany Blumhofer, Edith, Chicago, IL, USA Bochinger, Christoph, Bayreuth, Germany Bollée, Willem, Heidelberg, Germany Boring, M. Eugene, Forth Worth, Texas, TX, USA Bouchard, Larry D., Charlottesville, VA, USA Bovon, François, Cambridge, MA, USA Bowden, Henry Warner, New Brunswick, NY, USA Bozeman, Theodore Dwight, Iowa City, IA, USA Brackney, William H., Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Brague, Rémi, Paris, France Brakelmann, Günter, Bochum, Germany Brändle, Werner, Hildesheim, Germany Brauneder, Wilhelm, Vienna, Austria Brecht, Martin, Münster, Germany Brenne, Stefan, Tübingen, Germany Brennecke, Hanns Christof, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Breuer, Dieter, Aachen, Germany Breward, Ian, Melbourne, Australia Breytenbach, Cilliers, Berlin, Germany Bridges, Linda McKinnish, Richmond, VA, USA Broek, Roelof van den, Utrecht, Netherlands Broer, Ingo, Siegen, Germany Brooten, Bernadette J., Waltham, MA, USA Browning, Don S., Chicago, IL, USA Bruns, Peter, Bochum, Germany Brüske, Martin, Munich, Germany Bryner, Erich, Zürich, Switzerland Burger, Christoph, Amsterdam, Netherlands Bürki, Bruno, Neuchâtel and Fribourg, Switzerland Burch Brown, Frank, Indianapolis, IN, USA Buttler, Gottfried, Darmstadt, Germany Byrne, Peter, London, England Byrnes, Joseph F., Stillwater, OK, USA

xiii

Authors and Contributors

Cameron, James K., St. Andrews, Scotland Campenhausen, Axel von, Göttingen, Germany Cancik, Hubert, Tübingen, Germany Caplan, Kimmy, Ramat-Gan, Israel Careri, Giovanni, Paris, France Carrasco, David, Princeton, NJ, USA Carrington, Don, Sydney, Australia Cesa, Claudio, Pisa, Italy Clark, Christopher, Cambridge, England Clayton, John(†) Cohen, Mark R., Princeton, NJ, USA Collins, Adela Yarbro, Chicago, IL, USA Conrad, Joachim, Püttlingen/Saar, Germany Cook, Michael, Princeton, NJ, USA Cooke, Paul, Leicester, England Copeland, Kirsti, Redlands, CA, USA Cornwall, Robert D., Santa Barbara, CA, USA Costen, Melva Wilson, Atlanta, GA, USA d’Aquili, Eugene, Philadelphia, PA, USA Daiber, Karl-Fritz, Marburg, Germany Dan, Joseph, Berlin, Germany and Jerusalem, Israel Danz, Christian, Vienna, Austria Dash Moore, Deborah, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA de Groot, Aart, Utrecht, Netherlands de Wall, Heinrich, Erlangen, Germany Dekar, Paul R., Memphis, TN, USA Dellsperger, Rudolf, Bern, Switzerland Demandt, Alexander, Berlin, Germany den Hollander, August, Amsterdam, Netherlands Derlien, Jochen, Tübingen, Germany Dietz, Walter R., Mainz, Germany Dingel, Irene, Mainz, Germany Dober, Hans Martin, Tübingen, Germany Dogniez, Cécile, Paris, France Dohmen, Christoph, Osnabrück, Germany Dohna, Yvonne, Rome, Italy Domínguez Reboiras, Fernando, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Döpmann, Hans-Dieter, Berlin, Germany Dörfler-Dierken, Angelika, Heidelberg, Germany Dormeyer, Detlev, Dortmund, Germany Douglass, William A., Reno, NV, USA Drees, Willem B., Enschede and Amsterdam, Netherlands Dreher, Martin N., São Leopoldo, Brasil Drehsen, Volker, Tübingen, Germany Drijvers, Han J. W., Groningen, Netherlands Dufour, Alain, Geneva, Switzerland Dummer, Jürgen, Jena, Germany Dunkel, Daniela, Tübingen, Germany Dürkop, Martina, Berlin, Germany Ebner, Martin, Münster, Germany Edwards, Mark Julian, Oxford, England Egelhaaf-Gaiser, Ulrike, Tübingen, Germany Eggensperger, Thomas, Düsseldorf, Germany

Ehmer, Hermann, Stuttgart, Germany Ehrenschwendtner, Marie-Luise, Munich, Germany Eire, Carlos, New Haven, CT, USA Ellwood, Robert S., Los Angeles, CA, USA Elm, Susanna, Berkeley, CA, USA Endres, Johannes, Trier, Germany Endreß, Gerhard, Bochum, Germany Engelbert, Pius, Rome, Italy Engels, Eve-Marie, Tübingen, Germany Engfer, Jürgen, Leipzig, Germany Enskat, Rainer, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany Erbe, Michael, Mannheim, Germany Esbroeck, Michel van, Munich, Germany Ess, Josef van, Tübingen, Germany Evans, Gillian R., Cambridge, England Evers, Dirk, Tübingen, Germany Fackre, Gabriel, Newton, MA, USA Farrow, Douglas B., Montreal, Canada Faupel-Drevs, Kirstin, Hamburg, Germany Fechner, Jörg-Ulrich, Bochum, Germany Felmy, Karl Christian, Erlangen, Germany Fichte, Jörg O., Tübingen, Germany Figal, Günter, Tübingen, Germany Figl, Johann, Vienna, Austria Fincke, Andreas, Berlin, Germany Fine, Steven, Baltimore, MD, USA Fischer, Georg, Innsbruck, Austria Flynn, William, Atlanta, GA, USA Foerst, Anne, Cambridge, MA, USA Fraas, Hans-Jürgen, Munich, Germany Frankfurter, David, Durham, NH, USA Franklin, R. William, New York, NY, USA Franzen, Beatriz Vasconcelos, São Leopoldo, Brasil Freiday, Dean, Manasquan, NJ, USA Frenschkowski, Marco, Hofheim am Taunus, Germany Frey, Christofer, Bochum, Germany Frey, Jörg, Munich, Germany Friedlander, Albert H.(†) Friedmann, Yohanan, Jerusalem, Israel Frieling, Reinhard, Bensheim, Germany Fritz, Volkmar, Gießen, Germany Gäbler, Ulrich, Basel, Switzerland Gabriel, Karl, Osnabrück/Vechta, Germany Gahbauer, Ferdinand R., Ettal, Germany Galleni, Lodovico, Pisa, Italy Ganz, David, Münster, Germany Gärtner, Claudia, Münster, Germany Geerlings, Wilhelm, Bochum, Germany Geldbach, Erich, Bochum, Germany Gensichen, Hans-Werner(†) George, Martin, Bern, Switzerland Geringer, Karl-Theodor, Munich, Germany Germann, Michael, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Gern, Wolfgang, Mainz, Germany Gerö, Stephen, Tübingen, Germany

Authors and Contributors Gertz, Jan Christian, Mainz, Germany Geyer, Iris, Munich, Germany Gibson, Robert D., Sidmouth, England Gill, Robin, Canterbury, England Gilley, Sheridan W., Durham, England Gilliot, Claude, Aix-en-Provence, France Gladigow, Burkhard, Tübingen, Germany Gnoli, Gherardo, Rome, Italy Goertz, Hans-Jürgen, Hamburg, Germany Gogolok, Osmar, Mettingen, Germany Goldberg, Gisela, Munich, Germany Görg, Manfred, Munich, Germany Graetz, Michael, Heidelberg, Germany Graham, William A., Cambrigde, MA, USA Grätzel, Stephan, Mainz, Germany Graumann, Thomas, Bochum, Germany Graves, Thomas H., Richmond, VA, USA Grethlein, Christian, Münster, Germany Griffith, Sydney H., Washington, D.C., USA Grim, John A., Lewisburg, PA, USA Grohs, Gerhard, Munich, Germany Grözinger, Albrecht, Basel, Switzerland Grube, Dirk-Martin, Groningen, Netherlands Grundmann, Friedhelm, Hamburg, Germany Gyanfosu, Samuel, Cape Coast, Ghana Hadot, Ilsetraut, Paris, France Hage, Wolfgang, Marburg, Germany Hagel, Doris, Weilburg/Lahn, Germany Hagemeister, Michael, Bochum, Germany Hahn, Ferdinand, Munich, Germany Haile, Getatchew, Collegeville, MN, USA Hainthaler, Theresia, Frankfurt/M., Germany Halbrooks, G. Thomas, Richmond, VA, USA Halfwassen, Jens, Cologne, Germany Halm, Heinz, Tübingen, Germany Hampe, Michael, Kassel, Germany Hannick, Christian, Würzburg, Germany Harich-Schwarzbauer, Henriette, Graz, Austria Härle, Wilfried, Heidelberg, Germany Harsch, Helmut, Ober-Mörlen, Germany Härtel, Hans-Joachim, Munich, Germany Hartmann, Wilfried, Tübingen, Germany Hastings, Adrian(†) Haunerland, Winfried, Würzburg, Germany Hauptmann, Peter, Münster, Germany Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter, Münster, Germany Haussherr, Reiner, Berlin, Germany Häußling, Angelus A., Maria Laach, Germany Haynes, Deborah J., Boulder, CO, USA Heckel, Martin, Tübingen, Germany Hecker, Karl, Münster, Germany Hefner, Philip, Chicago, IL, USA Hehl, Ulrich von, Leipzig, Germany Heim, Manfred, Munich, Germany Heimbrock, Hans-Günter, Frankfurt/M., Germany Heine, Peter, Berlin, Germany

Heininger, Bernhard, Würzburg, Germany Hellholm, David, Oslo, Norway Henkys, Jürgen, Berlin, Germany Henze, Barbara, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Henze, Dagmar, Göttingen, Germany Herbers, Klaus, Tübingen, Germany Hermle, Siegfried, Tübingen, Germany Herms, Eilert, Tübingen, Germany Herrmann, Klaus, Berlin, Germany Herzog, Ze’ev, Tel Aviv, Israel Heyden, Ulrich van der, Berlin, Germany Heyer, Friedrich(†) Hezser, Catherine, Berlin, Germany Hiddleston, J. A., Oxford, England Hilsch, Peter, Tübingen, Germany Himmelfarb, Martha, Princeton, NJ, USA Hinson, E. Glenn, Richmond, VA, USA Hodges, John O., Knoxville, TN, USA Hoedemaker, Bert, Groningen, Netherlands Hoeps, Reinhard, Münster, Germany Hoffmann, Gizella, Szeged, Hungary Hoffmann-Richter, Andreas, Kyoto, Japan Hollerbach, Alexander, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Holm, Nils G., Åbo, Finland Holmes, Stephan R., London, England Honneth, Axel, Frankfurt/M., Germany Hoornaert, Eduardo, Salvador, Brasil Hopkins, David C., Washington, D.C., USA Hornig, Gotffried, Bochum, Germany Horst, Pieter W. van der, Utrecht, Netherlands Horstmann, Monika (Boehm-Tettelbach, Monika), Heidelberg, Germany Hossenfelder, Malte, Graz, Austria Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Bonn, Germany Hostetler, Beulah S., Goshen, IN, USA Houtman, Cornelis, Kampen, Netherlands Hübner, Michael, Erlangen, Germany Hübner, Ulrich, Kiel, Germany Hübner, Wolfgang, Münster, Germany Hühn, Lore, Berlin, Germany Hultkrantz, Åke, Stockholm, Sweden Hüttel, Richard, Trier, Germany Hutter, Manfred, Graz, Austria Imbach, Ruedi, Fribourg, Switzerland Imorde, Joseph, Münster, Germany Irons, William, Evanston, IL, USA Ivanov, Vladimir, Munich, Germany Jackson, Timothy P., Atlanta, GA, USA Jacobs, Martin, Berlin, Germany Jakubowski-Tiessen, Manfred, Göttingen, Germany Janowski, Bernd, Tübingen, Germany Janowski, J. Christine, Bern, Switzerland Jeanrond, Werner G., Lund, Sweden Jecker, Hanspeter, Liestal, Switzerland Jeffery, Robert, Oxford, England Jenkins, Paul, Basel, Switzerland

xiv

xv

Authors and Contributors

Jenny, Beat Rudolf, Basel, Switzerland Jeremias, Jörg, Marburg, Germany Jericke, Detlef, Tübingen, Germany Jödicke, Ansgar, Zürich, Switzerland Jones, Ivor H., Cambridge, England Jongeneel, Jan A.B., Utrecht, Netherlands Jouët, Philippe, Paris, France Juckel, Andreas, Münster, Germany Jung, Martin H., Basel, Switzerland Jürgensmeier, Friedhelm, Osnabrück, Germany Kaczynski, Reiner, Munich, Germany Kadelbach, Ada, Lübeck, Germany Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, Lausanne, Switzerland Kalb, Herbert, Linz, Austria Kallmeyer, Lothar, Münster, Germany Kalu, Ogbu, Nsukka, Nigeria Kannengießer, Charles, Montreal, Canada Karrer, Martin, Wuppertal, Germany Kattan, Assaad, Marburg, Germany Kaufhold, Hubert, Munich, Germany Kaufmann, Thomas, Munich, Germany Keserü, Bálint, Szeged, Hungary Khoury, Adel-Theodor, Heidelberg, Germany Kiener, Ronald C., Hartford, CT, USA Kinzig, Wolfram, Bonn, Germany Kirk, James, Glasgow, Scotland Klauck, Hans-Josef, Munich, Germany Klein, Wolf Peter, Berlin, Germany Klein, Aloys(†) Klengel, Horst, Berlin, Germany Klengel-Brandt, Evelyn, Berlin, Germany Kligman, Mark L., New York, NY, USA Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim(†) Klingebiel, Thomas, Göttingen, Germany Kloos, John, Lisle, IL, USA Kloppenburg, Wim, Hilversum, Netherlands Knauf, Ernst Axel, Bern, Switzerland Knight, George R., Berrien Springs, MI, USA Koch, Ernst, Leipzig, Germany Koch, Günter, Würzburg, Germany Koch, Guntram, Marburg, Germany Koch, Klaus, Hamburg, Germany Kodalle, Klaus-M., Jena, Germany Konersmann, Ralf, Kiel, Germany Köpf, Eva(†) Köpf, Ulrich, Tübingen, Germany Körntgen, Ludger, Tübingen, Germany Körtner, Ulrich H.J., Vienna, Austria Koschorke, Klaus, Munich, Germany Köster, Beate, Münster, Germany Kraatz, Martin, Marburg, Germany Kraft, Ekkehard, Dossenheim, Germany Krahwinkler, Harald, Klagenfurt, Austria Kramer, Ferdinand, Eichstätt, Germany Kranemann, Benedikt, Erfurt, Germany Kratz, Reinhard G., Göttingen, Germany

Kraus, Birgitta M., Bonn, Germany Kraus, Georg, Bamberg, Germany Kraut, Benny, Cincinnati, OH, USA Krech, Volkhard, Heidelberg, Germany Kreimendahl, Lothar, Mannheim, Germany Kreiner, Josef, Bonn, Germany Kreiser, Klaus, Bamberg, Germany Kreuzer, Siegfried, Wuppertal, Germany Krieg, Robert A., Notre Dame, IN, USA Kronauer, Ulrich, Heidelberg, Germany Krötke, Wolf, Berlin, Germany Krüger, Hartmut(†) Kruk, Remke, Leiden, Netherlands Kubovy, Miri, Cambridge, MA, USA Kühlmann, Wilhelm, Heidelberg, Germany Kuhn, Thomas K., Basel, Switzerland Künne, Wolfgang, Hamburg, Germany Küster, Volker, Heidelberg, Germany Lachmann, Rainer, Bamberg, Germany Ladányi, Sándor, Budapest, Hungary Lai, Pan Chiu, Hong Kong, China Lampe, Armando, Chetumal, Mexico Lampe, Peter, Kiel, Germany Landau, Peter, Munich, Germany Landfester, Manfred, Gießen, Germany Lange, Dietz, Göttingen, Germany Lanwerd, Susanne, Berlin, Germany Lapsley, James N., Princeton, NJ, USA Larson-Miller, Lizette, Berkeley, CA, USA Lathrop, Gordon W., Philadelphia, PA, USA Lawo, Mathias, Berlin, Germany Leaver, Robin A., Sommerset, NJ, USA Lehmann, Gunnar, Beer-Sheva, Israel Lehmann, Hartmut, Göttingen, Germany Leinkauf, Thomas, Münster, Germany Lentes, Thomas, Münster, Germany Leonard, Bill J., Winston-Salem, NC, USA Leppin, Volker, Heidelberg, Germany Lermen, Birgit, Cologne, Germany Lewis, Kevin, Columbia, SC, USA Lienhardt, Conrad, Linz, Austria Liessmann, Konrad Paul, Vienna, Austria Lindemann, Andreas, Bielefeld, Germany Lindner, Thomas, Riedenburg, Germany Link, Christoph, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Lipiński, Edward, Leuven, Belgium Listl, Joseph, Augsburg, Germany Liverani, Mario, Rome, Italy Loder, James E.(†) Lohberg, Gabriele, Trier, Germany Löhr, Winrich A., Cambridge, England Löhr, Gebhard, Göttingen, Germany Lorenz, Sönke, Tübingen, Germany Lößl, Josef, London, England Lotz, Denton, Washington, D.C., USA Lüdemann, Gerd, Göttingen, Germany

Authors and Contributors Lührmann, Dieter, Marburg, Germany Lütcke, Karl-Heinrich, Berlin, Germany Luth, Jan R., Groningen, Netherlands Lütt, Jürgen, Berlin, Germany Macdonald, Hugh, St. Louis, MO, USA MacEoin, Denis, Durham, England Mahlmann, Theodor, Marburg, Germany Malik, Jamal, Derby, England Mallimaci, Fortunato, Buenos Aires, Argentinia Manley, Kenneth R., Parkville, Australia Markschies, Christoph, Jena, Germany Marquardt, Manfred, Reutlingen, Germany Marshall, Bruce D., Northfield, MN, USA Marti, Andreas, Bern, Switzerland Mathys, Hans-Peter, Basel, Switzerland Matthias, Markus, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany Maul, Stefan Mario, Heidelberg, Germany May, Georg, Mainz, Germany May, Gerhard, Mainz, Germany May, John, Dublin, Ireland Mazar, Amihai, Jerusalem, Israel McCafferty, John, Dublin, Ireland McCann, Dennis P., Chicago, IL, USA McClelland, William L., New Concord, OH, USA McKim, Donald K., Memphis, TN, USA McKinley, Edward H., Wilmore, KY, USA McLean, Margaret R., Santa Clara, CA, USA McLeod, W. Hew, Dunedin, New Zealand Mehlhausen, Joachim(†) Meier, Dominicus, Meschede, Germany Meijering, Eginhard Peter, Leiden, Netherlands Meixner, Uwe, Regensburg, Germany Mélèze Modrzejewski, Joseph, Paris, France Mell, Ulrich, Hohenheim, Germany Mennekes, Friedhelm, Cologne, Germany Merk, Otto, Erlangen, Germany Merle, Jean-Christophe, Tübingen, Germany Mertens, Dieter, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Meßner, Reinhard, Innsbruck, Austria Metzger, Marcel, Strasbourg, France Metzinger, Jörg, Saarbrücken, Germany Meurer, Siegfried(†) Meyer zur Capellen, Jürg, Münster, Germany Meyer, Dietrich, Düsseldorf, Germany Meyer-Abich, Klaus Michael, Essen, Germany Michaels, Axel, Heidelberg, Germany Mikuda-Hüttel, Barbara, Trier, Germany Mills Sr., Frederick V., LaGrange, GA, USA Moore, James F., Valparaiso, IN, USA Mosig, Jörg, Durham, England Most, Glenn Warren, Heidelberg, Germany Motta, Roberto, Recife, Brasil Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, Göttingen, Germany Mühling, Andreas, Bonn, Germany Mühling-Schlapkohl, Markus, Heidelberg, Germany Müller, Gerhard, Erlangen, Germany

Müller, Christine-Ruth, Berlin, Germany Müller, Ludger, Bamberg, Germany Müller, Hans-Peter, Münster, Germany Müller, Rainer A.(†) Müller, Walter W., Marburg, Germany Müller, Hans Martin, Tübingen, Germany Mullin, Robert Bruce, Raleigh, NC, USA Mürmel, Heinz, Leipzig, Germany Murphy, Frederick J., Worcester, MA, USA Nagel, Tilman, Göttingen, Germany Nagy, László, Budapest, Hungary Neijenhuis, Jörg, Schönau bei Heidelberg, Germany Neufeld, Karl H., Innsbruck, Austria Neuner, Peter, Munich, Germany Neuser, Wilhelm H., Münster, Germany Newbigin, Lesslie(†) Nicolaisen, Carsten, Munich, Germany Niederwimmer, Kurt, Vienna, Austria Niemann, Hartwig A.W., Wolfenbüttel, Germany Niemann, Hermann Michael, Rostock, Germany Niewöhner, Friedrich, Wolfenbüttel, Germany Nikolaou, Theodor, Munich, Germany Nikolasch, Franz, Salzburg, Austria Nipkow, Karl Ernst, Tübingen, Germany Nischan, Bodo(†) Nissen, Hans J., Berlin, Germany Noll, Mark A., Wheaton, IL, USA Norden, Günther van, Wuppertal, Germany Noth, Albrecht(†) Nüchtern, Michael, Karlsruhe, Germany Obst, Helmut, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany O’Connor, Daniel, Edinburgh, Scotland Oeming, Manfred, Heidelberg, Germany Ofer, Avi, Ma’anit, Israel Ohme, Heinz, Berlin, Germany Ohst, Martin, Jena, Germany Oppenheimer, Arahon, Tel Aviv, Israel Osiek, Carolyn, Chicago, IL, USA Oswalt, Julia, Frankfurt/M., Germany Otto, Eckart, Munich, Germany Padberg, Lutz E. von, Everswinkel, Germany Panaino, Antonio, Bologna, Italy Parker, G. Keith, Brevard, NC, USA Parratt, John K., Birmingham, England Patte, Daniel, Nashville, TN, USA Peacocke, Arthur R., Oxford, England Pearson, Birger A., Santa Barbara, CA, USA Peter, Niklaus, Riehen bei Basel, Switzerland Peters, Ulrike, Bonn, Germany Peters, Christian, Münster, Germany Petzoldt, Martin, Würzburg, Germany Pfefferl, Horst, Marburg, Germany Pfeifer, Michaela, Mönchhof, Austria Pfleiderer, Georg, Basel, Switzerland

xvi

xvii

Authors and Contributors

Pirson, Dietrich, Munich, Germany Plank, Peter, Würzburg, Germany Plümacher, Eckhard, Berlin, Germany Podella, Thomas, Lübeck, Germany Podskalsky, Gerhard, Frankfurt/M., Germany Pollmann, Karla, St. Andrews, Scotland Poscharsky, Peter, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Post, Stephen G., Cleveland, OH, USA Powell, Paul R., Princeton, NJ, USA Praßl, Franz Karl, Graz, Austria Prenner, Karl, Graz, Austria Pretorius, Hennie L., Wellington, South Africa Prickett, Stephen, Glasgow, Scotland Puza, Richard, Tübingen, Germany Queen, Edward L., II, Indianapolis, IN, USA Radler, Aleksander, Burträsk, Sweden Raeder, Siegfried, Tübingen, Germany Raguse, Hartmut, Basel, Switzerland Ramstein-Roth, Christoph, Lausen, Switzerland Rasch, Christian Willm, Tübingen, Germany Rasche, Ulrich, Jena, Germany Raschzok, Klaus, Jena, Germany Ratzmann, Wolfgang, Leipzig, Germany Raupp, Werner, Göppingen, Germany Recki, Birgit, Hamburg, Germany Reed, David Benson, Louisville, KY, USA Rees, Wilhelm, Innsbruck, Austria Regn, Gerhard, Munich, Germany Reichert, Klaus, Frankfurt/M., Germany Reinhardt, Rudolf, Tübingen, Germany Reiter, Johannes, Mainz, Germany Rejwan, Nissim, Jerusalem, Israel Rese, Friederike, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Restle, Marcell, Munich, Germany Richey, Russell E., Durham, NC, USA Riede, Peter, Tübingen, Germany Rieger, Reinold, Tübingen, Germany Riehm, Heinrich, Heidelberg, Germany Ries, Julien, Louvain-la Neuve, Belgium Riethmüller, Albrecht, Berlin, Germany Ringleben, Joachim, Göttingen, Germany Ritter, Adolf Martin, Heidelberg, Germany Robertson, Edwin H., London, England Robinson, David M., Corvallis, OR, USA Robinson, Martin, Birmingham, England Röcke, Werner, Berlin, Germany Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto, Coimbra, Portugal Rohr, John R. von, Walnut Creek, CA, USA Roloff, Jürgen(†) Rombold, Gunter, Linz, Austria Root, Michael, Columbus, OH, USA Rösel, Hartmut N., Haifa, Israel Rosenau, Hartmut, Duisburg, Germany Rothermund, Dietmar, Heidelberg, Germany Rowland, Christopher, Oxford, England

Rubenson, Samuel, Lund, Sweden Rudolph, Kurt, Marburg, Germany Rudolph, Enno, Heidelberg, Germany Rudolph, Ulrich, Göttingen, Germany Ruff, Anthony William, Collegeville, MN, USA Rüpke, Jörg, Potsdam, Germany Russell, Robert John, Berkeley, CA, USA Ruster, Thomas, Dortmund, Germany Rutgers, Leonard Victor, Utrecht, Netherlands Rydbeck, Lars, Lund, Sweden Sachs, William L., Wilton, CT, USA Saliers, Don E., Atlanta, GA, USA Sallmann, Martin, Basel, Switzerland Sandkaulen, Birgit, Jena, Germany Sarot, Marcel, Utrecht, Netherlands Satran, David, Jerusalem, Israel Sauer, Thomas, Jena, Germany Sauter, Gerhard, Bonn, Germany Sautter, Hermann, Göttingen, Germany Savage, Sara B., Cambrigde, England Schäfer, Klaus, Hamburg, Germany Schäfer, Peter, Berlin, Germany and Princeton, NJ, USA Schäferdiek, Knut, Bonn, Germany Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Christa H., Bielefeld, Germany Schaik, Ton H.M. van, Utrecht, Netherlands Schaller, Berndt, Göttingen, Germany Schaper, Joachim, Munich, Germany Schatz, Andrea, Berlin, Germany Scheible, Heinz, Heidelberg, Germany Scheid, John, Paris, France Schelbert, Georg, Fribourg, Switzerland Schenke, Hans-Martin(†) Schenker, Adrian, Fribourg, Switzerland Schenkluhn, Angela, Mössingen, Germany Schetelich, Maria, Leipzig, Germany Schieder, Rolf, Koblenz-Landau, Germany Schilson, Arno(†) Schiwy, Günther, Munich, Germany Schjørring, Jens Holger, Aarhus, Denmark Schloemann, Martin, Wuppertal, Germany Schlögl, Hermann A., Fribourg, Switzerland Schlosser, Jacques, Strasbourg, France SchmelIer, Thomas, Dresden, Germany Schmend, Rudolf, Göttingen, Germany Schmid, Anne, Hemmingen, Germany Schmidt, Tilmann, Rostock, Germany Schmidt-Lauber, Hans-Christoph, Vienna, Austria Schmidt-Rost, Reinhard, Kiel, Germany Schmitt, Armin, Regensburg, Germany Schmitz, Heribert, Munich, Germany Schmucki, Oktavian, Lüzern, Switzerland Schneider, Johann, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Schneider, Bernd Christian, Tübingen, Germany Schneider, Hans, Marburg, Germany Schnelle, Udo, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

Authors and Contributors Schoberth, Ingrid, Wuppertal, Germany Schoberth, Wolfgang, Bayreuth, Germany Schöck, Cornelia, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Schöllgen, Georg, Bonn, Germany Schottroff, Luise, Kassel, Germany Schreiner, Peter, Cologne, Germany Schröer, Henning(†) Schröter, Christoph, Quedlinburg, Germany Schuler, Christof, Tübingen, Germany Schulz, Heiko, Wuppertal, Germany Schulz, Günther, Münster, Germany Schulz, Hermann, Bremen, Germany Schulz-Flügel, Eva, Beuron, Germany Schumann, Olaf, Hamburg, Germany Schwartz, Daniel R., Jerusalem, Israel Schweitzer, Friedrich, Tübingen, Germany Schwemer, Daniel, Würzburg, Germany Schwöbel, Christoph, Kiel, Germany Seckler, Max, Tübingen, Germany Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, Paris, France Seebass, Horst, Bonn, Germany Seibel, Wolfgang, Munich, Germany Seiwert, Hubert, Leipzig, Germany Selge, Kurt-Victor, Berlin, Germany Sellin, Gerhard, Hamburg, Germany Sernett, Milton C., Syracuse, NY, USA. Seybold, Klaus, Basel, Switzerland Sfameni Gasparro, Giulia, Messina, Italy Shenk, Wilbert R., Pasadena, CA, USA Sieben, Hermann Josef, Frankfurt/M., Germany Sievernich, Michael, Frankfurt/M., Germany Simon, Gerhard, Cologne, Germany Skarsaune, Oskar, Oslo, Norway Smit, Dirk J., Cape Town, South Africa Smolinsky, Heribert, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Smylie, James H., Richmond, VA, USA Sommer, Deborah, Gettysburg, PA, USA Sørensen, Per K., Leipzig, Germany Spanke, Daniel, Emmen, Germany Sparn, Walter, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Spelthahn, Dieter, Essen, Germany Sperlich, Diether, Tübingen, Germany Spiegler, Michael D., Providence, RI, USA Spindler, Marc, Talence, France Sporbeck, Gudrun, Cologne, Germany Stackhouse Jr., John G., Winnipeg, Canada Stanley, Brian, Cambridge, England Steck, Wolfgang, Munich, Germany Steiger, Johann Anselm, Hamburg, Germany Stella, Aldo, Padua, Italy Stephan, Achim, Osnabrück, Germany Stock, Alex, Cologne, Germany Stock, Konrad, Bonn, Germany Stolz, Jörg, Zürich, Switzerland Stolz, Fritz (†) Stolzenberg, Jürgen, Göttingen, Germany Sträter, Udo, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany

xviii

Strohm, Stefan, Stuttgart, Germany Strohm, Christoph, Bochum, Germany Strohmaier-Wiederanders, Gerlinde, Berlin, Germany Stubbe, Ellen, Zürich, Switzerland Suermann, Harald, Bonn, Germany Sugirtharajah, R.S., Birmingham, England Suntrup, Rudolf, Münster, Germany Süss, Paolo Günter, São Paolo, Brasil Szasz, Ferenc, Albuquerque, NM, USA Takenaka, Masao, Kyoto, Japan Teixeira, Faustino, Juiz de Fora, Brasil Temporini, Hildegard(†) Thiede, Werner, Bayreuth, Germany Thiel, Josef F., Frankfurt/M., Germany Thiele, Christoph, Kassel, Germany Thierfelder, Jörg, Heidelberg, Germany Thomas, Günter, Bochum, Germany Thornton, Sybil Anne, Tempe, AZ, USA Thümmel, Hans Georg, Greifswald, Germany Tietmeyer, Hans, Frankfurt/M., Germany Timm, Stefan, Hamburg, Germany Trompf, Garry Winston, Sydney, Australia Tuckett, Christopher M., Oxford, England Turner, Harold W.(†) Uehlinger, Christoph, Fribourg, Switzerland Ullmann, Manfred, Tübingen, Germany Urban, Josef, Bamberg, Germany Ursinus, Michael, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Usarski, Frank, São Paolo, Brasil Ustorf, Werner, Birmingham, England Uthemann, Karl-Heinz, Amsterdam, Netherlands Vaggione, Richard P., Berkeley, CA, USA Valeri, Mark, Richmond, VA, USA Veltri, Guiseppe, Halle-Würtenberg, Germany Ven, Johannes van der, Nijmegen, Netherlands Vielberg, Meinolf, Jena, Germany Vincent, Jean Marcel, Paris, France Vinzent, Jutta, Cambridge, England Vinzent, Markus, Cambridge, England Vogel, Werner, Berlin, Germany Volk, Robert, Scheyern, Germany Volp, Rainer(†) Vondung, Klaus, Siegen, Germany Vrints, Lutgard, Sint-Joost-ten-Node, Belgium Wacht, Manfred, Regensburg, Germany Wainwright, Geoffrey, Durham, NC, USA Walde, Christine, Basel, Switzerland Waldstein, Michael, Gaming, Austria Walf, Knut, Nijmegen, Netherlands Wallace Jr., Dewey D., Washington, D.C., USA Wallmann, Johannes, Witten-Buchholz, Germany Wallraff, Martin, Jena, Germany Walls, Andrew F., Edinburgh and Aberdeen, Scotland

Authors and Contributors Wandrey, Irina, Berlin, Germany Ward, Benedicta, Oxford, England Ward, Kevin, Leeds, England Watson, Francis B., London, England Weaver, Douglas, Mount Vernon, GA, USA Weaver, Rebecca, Richmond, VA, USA Weber, Petra, Munich, Germany Weber, Gregor, Eichstätt, Germany Wedderburn, Alexander J.M., Munich, Germany Weder, Hans, Zürich, Switzerland Wegenast, Klaus, Bern, Switzerland Wehnert, Jürgen, Göttingen, Germany Weiner, Sheila L., Cambridge, MA, USA Weingartner, Paul, Salzburg, Austria Weinhardt, Joachim, Hechingen, Germany Weismayer, Josef, Vienna, Austria Weiß, Otto, Rome, Italy Weitlauff, Manfred, Munich, Germany Welker, Michael, Heidelberg, Germany Welte, Michael, Münster, Germany Wendt, Reinhard, Freiburg i. Br., Germany Wennemuth, Udo, Heidelberg, Germany Werbeck, Wilfrid, Tübingen, Germany Wessels, Anton, Amsterdam, Netherlands Westerlund, David, Uppsala, Sweden Whaling, Frank, Edinburgh, Scotland White, James F.(†) Wieland, Georg, Tübingen, Germany Wieland, Wolfgang, Heidelberg, Germany Willaschek, Marcus, Münster, Germany Williams, Rowan D., Newport, Wales

Willi-Plein, Ina, Hamburg, Germany Wilson, H. Clyde, Columbia, MO, USA Wingate, Andrew, Birmingham, England Winkler, Gabriele, Tübingen, Germany Winnekes, Katharina, Cologne, Germany Winter, Jörg, Karlsruhe, Germany Wischmeyer, Oda, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany Wischmeyer, Wolfgang, Vienna, Austria Wißmann, Hans, Mainz, Germany Wohlmut, Josef, Bonn, Germany Wohlrapp, Harald, Hamburg, Germany Wolf, Hubert, Frankfurt/M., Germany Woschitz, Karl Matthäus, Graz, Austria Xella, Paolo, Rome, Italy Yarnold, Edward John(†) Yates, Timothy Edward, Derbyshire, England Zaepernick, Gertraud, Berlin, Germany Zasche, Gregor, Schäftlarn, Germany Zeller, Dieter, Mainz, Germany Zelzer, Michaela, Vienna, Austria Zenkert, Georg, Heidelberg, Germany Zinser, Hartmut, Berlin, Germany Zorn, Jean-François, Montpellier, France Zorzin, Alejandro, Buenos Aires, Argentinia Zschoch, Hellmut, Wuppertal, Germany Zumkeller, Adolar, Würzburg, Germany Życiński, Józef, Lublin, Poland

xix

Notes for Users Alphabetical Order. The lemmas are ordered alphabetically, with ä, å, ø, and ü treated as a, o, and u. Ae, æ, oe, œ and ue on the other hand are placed after ad, od or ud, according to pronunciation, and ß is to be found under ss. Biblical names are given in the form customary in English usage. Persons who died before 1500 are generally listed under the (first) name by which they are known; later persons are generally given by their surname (family name). In names of a romance origin, articles are taken into account in the alphabetization: La Faye, Antoine de. Families are generally given in chronological order. References. Cross-references (symbol: →) to another article indicate that the subject-matter in question is dealt with there, or supplementary information is to be found there. References are given to God, Bible, Church, the great Reformers etc. only when the reference is to a particular subsection. Where confusion is unlikely, the lemma to which reference is made is shortened: → Arius (instead of → Arius/Arianism). For personal names, the forename is abbreviated in the reference: H. → Gruber; first names of persons without an article of their own are given in full where possible. Abbreviations. For ease of use, the lemma is generally given in full when mentioned in the text. The abbreviations used are set out in the Abbreviations lists below. Transliteration. Words from alphabets with foreign scripts are given in transliteration, unless the English spelling has become well established (so as, for example, to be the preferred spelling in the Encyclopedia Britannica). Ancient Greek: α a, αι ai, αυ au, β b, γ g (before γ, κ, ξ, χ: n), δ d, ε e, ει ei, ευ eu, ζ z, η ē, ηυ ēu, ϑ th, ι i, κ k, λ l, μ m, ν n, ξ x, ο o, ου ou, π p, ρ r (at the beginning of a word: rh, when doubled: rrh), σ s, τ t, υ y, ϕ ph, χ ch, ψ ps, ω ō, a h. Accents are given uniformly with an acute accent. Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic: Consonants:  h,  b,  g,  d,  h,  w,  z, ˙, (†),  y, k, l,  m,  n,  s,  a,  p,  ß,  q,  r,  ś,  š,  t. Dāgeš lene is not taken into account, dāgeš forte is expressed by the doubling of the consonant. Vowels:  ā (Qāmæß ˙ā(†)ûp å),  a,  æ,  e,  i,  o,  u; with mater lectionis:   æˆ,   ê,   î,   âw, ! ô, " û; as Óā(†)ep-sound: # a∏ , $ a, % æ; & (mobile) e ;  furtivum: a. Postbiblical Hebrew: Consonants:  within a word ’, not given at the beginning and end of a word,  v, ' b (doubled within a word),  a (not given at the end of a

word),  w,  z, ch, t,  y, kh, ( k (doubled within a word),  s (doubled within a word),  ` (not given at the end of a word),  f, ) p (doubled within a word),  ts,  q,  s,  sh,  t. Vowels:  ,  e,  ,  a, & (mobile) e, other vowels as pronounced (sefardic). However, titles of rabbinic works follow SBL style (see the lists of abbreviations). Arabic and Palestinian place-names: The system used by the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft is followed. Indian languages: The transliteration system in general scholarly use is used: cf. K. Mylius, Wörterbuch Sanskrit - Deutsch, Leipzig 41992. Chinese: The Pinyin system, the official system in the People’s Republic of China, is used; where necessary the older Wade-Giles system in added in parentheses; cf. K. Kaden, Die wichtigsten Transkriptionssysteme für die chinesische Sprache, Leipzig 21983. Japanese: Transliteration follows J.C. Hepburn (Hebonshiki-rōmaji); cf. B. Levin, Abriß der japanischen Grammatik, Wiesbaden 31990, 32f. Korean: The McCune-Reischauer system is used; cf. “Tables of the McCune-Reischauer System for the Romanization of Korean,” Transactions of the Korea Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 37, 1961, 121–128. Vietnamese: The transliteration of the so-called National language (quoc ngu) is used; cf. W. Boscher, Wörterbuch Vietnamesisch – Deutsch, Leipzig 51989, 9. Tibetan: Transcription follows the simplified system of R.A. Stein, Die Kultur Tibets, Berlin 1993; where necessary the scholarly transliteration according to the system followed by German libraries is added in parentheses. Otherwise the guidelines of the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, vol. I, Wiesbaden 1994, xvii–l, are followed. Bibliographies. Sources and, in biographical articles, the works of the persons concerned are given at the beginning of the bibliography. Otherwise bibliographic items are given in chronological order, in some cases in parallel with the article or structured in accordance with the material. The lemma of dictionary articles cited is only indicated when it differs from that of RPP. The note (bibl.) draws attention to the fact that further bibliography is to be found in the cited work. Authorship. The articles are signed with the name of the author. The author’s situation is given in the list of contributors.

xxi

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations

I. Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations 1. Old Testament Gen Ex Lev Num Deut Josh Judg 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs Isa Jer Ezek Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal Ps(s) Prov Job Song Ruth Lam Qoh Esth Dan Ezra Neh 1 Chr 2 Chr

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Psalm(s) Proverbs Job Song of Songs Ruth Lamentations Ecclesiastes (or Qohelet) Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Chronicles Chronicles

The following selection of writings takes its lead from the most recent text edition in German: Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, ed. W.G. Kümmel and H. Lichtenberger, vols. I and V, Gütersloh 1973ff. Cf. also E. Kauzch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, vols. I and II, Darmstadt 41975. Further texts in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.d. Charlesworth, vols. I and II, Garden City, NY, 1983/1985ff.; La Bible. Écrits Intertestamentaires, ed. A. Dupont-Sommer and M. Philonenko, Paris 1987ff.; Los Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, ed. A. Diez-Macho, vols. I and V, Madrid, 1982–1987. 2. OT Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha Add Dan Add Esth Ahiq

Additions to Daniel Additions to Esther A˙iqar

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations Apoc. Ab. Apoc. El. Apoc. Ezra Apoc. Mos. Apoc. Sedr. Apoc. Zeph. Apocr. Ezek. Let. Aris. Aris. Ex. Aristob. Artap. Asenc. Isa. As. Mos. Bar 2 Bar. 3 Bar. 4 Bar. Cl. Mal. Dem. Ep Jer Eup. Ezek. Trag. 1 En. 2 En. 3 En. Jdt Jos. Asen. Jub L.A.B. 1 Macc 2 Macc 3 Macc. 4 Macc. Mart. Isa. Pr. Man. Par. Jer. Ph. E. Poet Pss. Sol. Ps.-Eup. Ps.-Hec. Ps.-Orph. Ps.-Philo Ps.-Phoc. Wis Sib. Or. Sir 5 Apoc. Syr. Pss. T. Ab. T. Adam T. Job T. Isaac T. Jac. T. Mos. T. 12 Patr. T. Reu. T. Sim. T. Levi

Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Elijah Apocalypse of Ezra (also 4Ezra) Apocalypse of Moses (also VitAd) Apocalypse of Sedrach Apocalypse of Zephaniah Apocryphon of Ezekiel Letter of Aristeas Aristeas the Exegete Aristobulos Artapanos Ascension of Isaiah Assumption of Moses (1) Baruch 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse) 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) Cleodemus Malchus Demetrius (the Chronographer) Epistle of Jeremiah Eupolemos Ezekiel the Tragedian 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 3 Enoch (Hebrew Apocalypse) Judith Joseph and Aseneth Jubilees Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Martyrdom of Isaiah (in Mart. Ascen. Isa.) Prayer of Manasseh Paraleipomena Jeremiou (= 4 Bar.) Philo the Epic Poet Psalms of Solomon Pseudo-Eupolemos Pseudo-Hecataeus Pseudo-Orpheus L.A.B. Pseudo-Phocylides Wisdom of Solomon Sibylline Oracles Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Five Apocryphal Syriac Psalms Testament of Abraham Testament of Adam Testament of Job Testament of Isaac Testament of Jacob Testament Moses (= As. Mos.) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Testament of Reuben Testament of Simeon Testament of Levi

xxii

xxiii T. Jud. T. Iss. T. Zeb. T. Dan T. Naph. T. Gad T. Ash. T. Jos. T. Benj. Tob L.A.E. Liv. Pro.

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations Testament of Judah Testament of Issachar Testament of Zebulun Testament of Dan Testament of Naphtali Testament of Gad Testament of Asher Testament of Joseph Testament of Benjamin Tobit Life of Adam and Eve (= Apoc. Mos.) Lives of the Prophets

3. Qumran Manuscripts not mentioned in the following list of abbreviations are cited by manuscript number only (see below). Catalogues and indexes of manuscripts: E. Tov, et al., eds., The Text from the Judaean Desert. Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (DJD 39, 2002); E. Tov, Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls Microfiche Edition, 21995; idem, “Appendix F: Texts from the Judean Desert,” in: P.H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style, Peabody MA, 1999, 176–233; S.A. Reed, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 32, 1994). Fragments and lines are indicated by Arabic numerals, columns by Roman numerals. The individual references are cited according to the scheme: manuscript, fragment, column, and line (e.g. 4QMMTa 8 III 7), column and line (e.g. 1QS III 15), or fragment and line (e.g. 4QMMT a 9 1). Editions: Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 1, 1955ff. ◆ M. Burrows et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark’s Monastery, New Haven CT I–II, 1950–1951 ◆ J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, Tübingen/Louisville 1, 1994ff. ◆ M.P. Horgan, Pesharim, CBQ.MS 8, 1979 ◆ E.L. Sukenik, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1955 ◆ B.Z. Wacholder & M.G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, Washington, DC I–IV, 1991–1996 ◆ K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen I–II, 1984/1994 ◆ F. García Martínez & E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Leiden I–II, 1997–1998 ◆ E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran, Darmstadt 41986 ◆ J. Maier, Die Qumran Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Munich I–III, 1995–1996. Some manuscripts are only provisional, not yet (or not fully) published in series. Their places of publication are given, where possible, following the explanation of the abbreviations. For manuscripts and publications of individual fragments not mentioned in the list of abbreviations see the manuscript catalogues. ALD

apGen

apocrDan apocrJer apocrJosh apocrJoseph apocrLevi apocrMos apocrPent A–B ApPs Barki Nafshi

Aramaic Levi Document: CTLevi Cam.Bod (ALD-manuscript from the Cairo Geniza in Cambridge and Oxford; R.H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1908); 1QLevi ar (1Q21); 4QLevia–f ar (4Q213, 213a, 213b, 214, 214a, 214b; for the whole of the ALD see R.A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 9, Atlanta 1996) Genesis Apocryphon: 1QapGen ar (1Q20; N. Avigad & Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon, 1956; J.C. Greenfield & E. Qimron, in: T. Muraoka [ed.], Studies in Qumran Aramaic, Abr-nahrain Supplement 3, Leuven 1992, 70–77; M. Morgenstern et al., Abrnahrain 33, 1995, 30–54) Apocryphon of Daniel: 4QapocrDan ar (4Q246) Apocryphon of Jeremiah: 4QapocrJer A (4Q383); 4Qpap apocrJer B? (4Q384); 4QapocrJer Ca–f (4Q385a, 387, 388a, 389–390, 387a) Apocryphon of Joshua: 4QapocrJosha, b (4Q378–379); Mas apocrJosh (Mas1l; S. Talmon, JJS 47, 1996, 128–139) Apocryphon of Joseph → NPC Apocryphon of Levi: 4QapocrLeva–b? ar (4Q540–541) Apocryphon of Moses: 1QDM (apocr Mosesa?; 1Q22); 1QLit. of 3 Tongues of Fire (1QapocrMosesb?; 1Q29); 4Qapocr Mosesa, b?, c? (4Q375, 376, 408) Apocryphal Pentateuch A–B (4Q368, 377; DJD 28, 131–149; 205–217) Apocryphal Psalms: 11QApPsa (11Q11) Barkî Napšî: 4QBark Nafa–e (4Q434, 435–438)

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations Ber BibPar Cat A CalDoc A–G

CalDoc/Mish CD

CommGen CTLevi DibHam DM EnGiants

Flor H Inst Melch MidrEschat

Misc. Rul. Mish A–J MLM MMT MSM Myst NJ NPC Ord Ordo PrNab Otot PB pergCfr pGen pHab pHos pIsa pMi pNah pPs pZeph PP prEsther

xxiv

Berakhot: 4QBera–e (4Q286–290); 11QBer? (11Q14) Biblical Paraphrase → RP Catena A → MidrEschat Calendrical Document A–G: 4QpapCalDoc A? (4Q324b); 4QcryptA CalDoc B (4Q313c); 4QCalDoc C (4Q326); 4QCalDoc D (4Q394 1–2); 4QCalDoc E? (4Q3337); 4QcryptA CalDoc F?–G? (4Q324g – 324h); → Mish A–J Calendrical Document/Mismàrôt A–D: 4QCalDoc/Mish A–D (4Q320-321, 321a, 325); → Mish A–J Damascus Document: CD (mss. A and B from the Cairo Geniza; S. Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, ed. J.A. Fitzmyer, New York 1970; M. Broshi, ed., The Damascus Document Reconsidered, Jerusalem 1992); 4QDa–h (4Q266–273); 5QD (5Q12); 6QD (6Q15); pergCfr (possibly a further D-fragment from the Cairo Geniza; J.A. Fitzmyer, ed., op. cit., 14) Commentary on Genesis: 4QCommGen A–D (4Q252–253, 254, 254a) → ALD dibrê hamme’ôrôt: 4QDibHama–c (4Q504–506) Words of Moses (dibrê mosh ․æh): ApocrMos Book of Giants: 1QEnGiants a, b ar (1Q23, 24); 2QEnGiants ar (2Q26); 4QEnGiantsa–d ar (4Q203, 530–532; J.T. Milik, Books of Enoch, 1976; J.C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony, MHUC 14, Cincinnati 1992; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, TSAJ 63, Tübingen 1997) Florilegium → MidrEschat Hôdāyôt: 1QHa, b (1Q no number, 1Q35; H. Stegemann, “Rekonstruktion der Hodajot,” diss., Heidelberg 1963; É. Puech, JJS 39, 1988, 38–55); 4QH a–f (4Q427–432) Instruction → MLM Melkißedeq Pesher: 11QMelch (11Q13) Midrash on Eschatology: 4QMidrEschata, b (4Q174, 177; A. Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde [4QMidrEschata.b], StTDJ 13, Leiden/New York/ Cologne 1994) Miscellaneous Rules (4Q265) Mišmārôt A-J: 4QMish A–I (4Q322–324, 324a, 324c, 328–329, 329a, 330); 4QcryptA Mish J (4Q324i); → CalDoc A–G; CalDoc/Mish A–D mûsār lemebîn (“Discipline for an Instructor”): 4QInstructiona-e, f ?, g (1Q26; 4Q415–418, 418a, 418c, 423) miqßat maaa≤ê hattôrāh (“Some precepts of the Law”): 4QMMTa–f (4Q394–399); 4QcryptA MMTg ? (4Q313) Midrash Sefer Moshe: 4Qpap cryptA Midrash Sefer Moshe (4Q249) Book of Mysteries: 1QMyst (1Q27); 4QMysta–c (4Q299–301) New Jerusalem: 1QNJ ar (1Q32); 2QNJ ar (2Q24); 4QNJa–c ar (4Q554, 554a, 555; DJD 3,184–193); 5QNJ ar (5Q15); 11QNJ ar (11Q18) Narrative and Poetic Composition: 4QNPCa–c (4Q371–373; DJD 28, 151–204) Ordinances: 4QOrda–c (4Q159, 513, 514) Ordo: 4QOrdo (4Q334) Prayer of Nabonidus: 4QPrNab ar (4Q242) Otot (calendrical text at the end of 4QSe): 4QOtot (4Q319 olim 4Q260B) Patriarchal Blessings → CommGen → CD Pesher on Genesis → CommGen Pesher Habakkuk: 1QpHab (1Q no number) Pesher Hosea: 4QpHosa, b (4Q166, 167) Pesher Isaiah: 4QpJesa–e (4Q161–165) Pesher Micah: 1QpMi (1Q14); 4QpMi → (4Q168) Pesher Nahum: 4QpNah (4Q169) Pesher Psalms: 1QpPs (1Q16); 4QpPsa, b (4Q171, 173) Pesher Zephaniah: 1QpZeph (1Q15); 4QpZeph (4Q170) Pentateuchal Paraphrase → RP Proto-Esther: 4QPrEsthera–f ar (4Q550, 550a–e; J.T. Milik, RdQ 15, 1991–1992, 321–406)

xxv psDan PsJosh psEzek psMos RP S

Sa Sb Sap Work A SD Shir ShirShabb SM T Test tg Job TLevi TQahat VisAmram 1QIsa,b 1QJuba,b 1QLevi 2QJuba,b 3QJub 4QEna–g 4QEnastra–d 4QJuba,b 4QLevia–f ar 4QpaleoExodm 4QToba–d ar 4QTobe 11QJub 11QpaleoLev 11QPsa 8ÓevXII

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations Pseudo-Daniel: 4QpsDana–b, c ar (4Q243–244, 245) Psalms of Joshua → apocrJosh Pseudo-Ezekiel: 4QpsEzeka–e (4Q385, 386, 385b, 388, 391) Pseudo-Moses: → apocrJer Reworked Pentateuch: 4QRPa–e (4Q158, 364, 365, 366, 367) a–j Community Rule (særæk hayyah ․ad): 1QS (1Q28); 4QS (4Q255–264; S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, StTDJ 21, Leiden/New York/ Cologne 1997); 5QS (5Q11): 11QS? (11Q29) Rule of the Congregation (særæk haaedāh): 1QSa (1Q28a); 4Qpap cryptA Serekh haaEdaha–i? (4Q249a–i) Rule of the Blessings (dibrê habberākôt): 1QSb (1Q28b) Sapiential Work A → MLM særæk damæšæq → Misc. Rul. Songs of the maśkîl: 4QShira,b (4Q510, 511) Sabbath Songs (šîrôt aôlat haššabbat): 4QShirShabba–h (4Q400–407); 11QShirShabb (11Q17); MasShirShabb (Mas1k; DJD 11, 239–252) særæk hammilh ․āmāh/sefær hammilh ․āmāh: 4QSM (4Q285); 11QSM (11Q14) Temple Scroll: 4QT? (4Q365a; DJD 13, 319–333); 4QT (4Q524; DJD 25, 85–114); 11QTa, b, c? (11Q19, 20, 21; Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, I–III, Jerusalem 1983) Testimonia: 4QTest (4Q175) Targum of Job: 4Qtg Job ar (4Q157); 11Qtg Job ar (11Q10) Testament of Levi: → apocrLevi Testament of Qahat: 4QTQahat ar (4Q542) Vision of Amram: 4QVisAmrama-f, g? ar (4Q543–549) Isaiah mss. from Cave 1 (1Q no number, 1Q8; D.W. Parry & E. Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll [1QIsa a], StTDJ 32, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1999) Jubilees mss. from Cave 1 (1Q17, 18) → ALD Jubilees mss. from Cave 2 (2Q19, 20) Jubilees mss. from Cave 3 (3Q5) Enoch mss. with 1 Enoch texts from Cave 4 (4Q201, 202, 204–207, 212; J.T. Milik, Books of Enoch, Oxford 1976) mss. of 1 Enoch 72–82 (4Q208–211; J.T. Milik, Books of Enoch, Oxford 1976) Jubilees mss. from Cave 4 (4Q216–224) → ALD ms. in palaeo-Hebrew from Cave 4 (4Q22) Tobit mss. from Cave 4 (4Q196–200) Jubilees ms. from Cave 11 (11Q12) Leviticus ms. in palaeo-Hebrew from Cave 11 (11Q1; D.N. Freedman & K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll [11QpaleoLev], Winona Lake 1985) Psalms Scroll from Cave 11 (11Q5; J. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 1967; DJD 4; Frgm. E.F. = DJD 23, 29–36) Greek scroll of the Twelve Prophets from Na˙al Óever (8Óev1)

4. New Testament Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts of the Apostles Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess 1 Tim 2 Tim Tit Pastoral Epistles Phlm Heb Jas 1 Pet 2 Pet 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Rev

xxvi

Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Pastoral Epistles Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

5. NT Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Early Christian Literature Editions: Die Apostolischen Väter. Griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe, ed. A. Lindemann, H. Paulsen, Tübingen 1992 ◆ Schriften des Urchristentums. Griechisch und deutsch, vol. I: Die apostolischen Väter, ed. J.A. Fischer. Darmstadt 91986; vol. II Didache (Apostellehre). Barnabasbrief. Zweiter Klemensbrief. Schrift an Diognet, ed. K. Wengst, Darmstadt 1984; vol. III Papiasfragmente. Hirt des Hermas, ed. U.H.J. Körtner et al., Darmstadt 1998 ◆ Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. W. Schneemelcher, vol. I: Evangelien, Tübingen 61990; vol. II: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, Tübingen 61997. Acts Andr. Acts John Acts Paul Acts Pet. Acts Phil. Acts Pil. Acts Thom. Apoc. Pet. (Gk) Apoc. Paul Apoc. Thom. Barn. 1 Clem. 2 Clem. Apos. Con. Desc. Chr. Did Diogn. Ep. Apos. Ep. Paul Sen. Ep. Tit. Gos. Eb. Gos. Eg. (Gk) Gos. Heb. Inf. Gos. Thom. Gos. Naz. Gos. Nic. Gos. Pet. Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. 5 Ezra

Acts of Andrew Acts of John Acts of Paul Acts of Peter (not identical to Acts Pet. 12 Apos., NHC VI, 1) Acts of Pilate Acts of Philip Acts of Thomas (Greek) Apocalypse of Peter (not identical to NHC VII, 3) (Greek) Apocalypse of Paul (= Vision of Paul) Apocalypse of Thomas Barnabas 1 Clement 2 Clement Apostolic Constitutions and Canons Descent of Christ Didache Diognetus Epistle to the Apostles Epistles of Paul and Seneca Pseudo-Titus Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of the Egyptians (Greek; not the same as the Coptic Gos. Eg. NHC III, 2; IV, 2) Gospel of the Hebrews Infancy Gospel of Thomas Gospel of the Nazarenes Gospel of Nicodemus Gospel of Peter Gospel of Philip (= NHC II, 3) Gospel of Thomas (= NHC II, 2) 5 Ezra

xxvii 6 Ezra Herm. Herm. Mand. Herm. Sim. Herm. Vis. Ign. Eph. Ign. Magn. Ign. Phld. Ign. Pol. Ign. Rom. Ign. Smyrn. Ign. Trall. Pre. Pet. 3 Cor. Ep. Lao. Mart. Pol. Odes Sol. Pap. Pol. Phil. Prot. Jas. Ps.-Clem. H Ps.-Clem. R Sib. UBG Vis. Paul

Biblical and Extrabiblical Abbreviations 6 Ezra Shepherd of Hermas Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude Shepherd of Hermas, Vision Ignatius, To the Ephesians Ignatius, To the Magnesians Ignatius, To the Philadelphians Ignatius, To Polycarp Ignatius, To the Romans Ignatius, To the Smyrnians Ignatius, To the Trallians Preaching of Peter 3 Corinthians Epistle to the Laodiceans Martyrdom of Polycarp Odes of Solomon Fragments of Papias Polycarp, To the Philippians Protevangelium of James Pseudo-Clementines Homilia Pseudo-Clementines Recognitiones Sibyllines Unknown Berlin Gospel Vision of Paul (= Apoc. Paul [Greek])

Rabbinic Literature

II. Rabbinic Literature 1. Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud tractates aAbod. Zar. hAbot aArak. B. Bat. B. Meßi‘a Bek. Ber. Beßah Bik. Demai ‘Erub. ‘Ed. Gi(†). Óag. Óal. Hor. Óul Kelim Ker. Ketub Kil. Ma‘aś. Š. Ma‘aś. Mak. Makš. Meg. Me‘il. Mena˙. Mid. Miqw. Mo’ed Mo’ed Qa(†). Naš. Naz. Ned. Nez. Nid. ’Ohal. ‘Or. Parah Pe’ah Pesa˙. Qinnim Qidd. Qod. Roš Haš. Sanh. Šabb. Šeb. Šebu. Seder Šeqal. So(†)ah

aAbodah Zarah hAbot aArakin Baba Batra Baba Meßi‘a Bekhorot Bekharot Beßah (= Yom ˇob) Bikkurim Demai ‘Erubin ‘Eduyyot Gi(†)(†)in Óagigah Óallah Horayot Óullin Kelim Kerithot Ketubbot Kil’ayim Ma‘aśer Šeni Ma‘aśerot Makkot Makširin Megillah Mei‘lah Mena˙ot Middot Miqwa’ot Mo’ed Mo’ed Qa(†)an Našir Nazir Nedarim Neziqin Niddah ’Ohalot ‘Orlah Parah Pe’ah Pesa˙im Qinnim Qiddušin Qodašim Roš Haššanah Sanhedrin Šabbat Šebi‘it Šebu‘ot Seder Šeqalim So(†)ah

xxviii

xxix Sukkah Ta‘an. Tamid Tem. Ter. ˇehar. ˇ. Yom. ‘Uq. Yad. Yebam. Yoma Zabim Zeba˙ Zera.

Rabbinic Literature Sukkah Ta’anit Tamid Temurah Terumot ˇeharot ˇebul Yom ‘Uqßin Yadayim Yebamot Yoma (= Kippurim) Zabim Zeba˙im Zera‘im

2. Midrashim, Targumim, Collections Ag. Ag.

Ag. Ber. Ag. Esth. Ag. Shir. ARN b.

Bat. M. BHM DER DEZ Deut. R. Esth. R. Ebel Rabbati Exod. R. Frg. Tg. Gen. R.

Gen. Rab. Gen. Z. ISG

Kalla Lam. Rab.

Aggadat Aggadot. C.M. Horowitz ed., Aggadat Aggadot. Qovez Midrashim Qetanim. Sammlung kleiner Midraschim. vols. I–III, Berlin and Frankfurt/M. 1881–82, repr. Jerusalem 1967 Aggadat Bereshit. S. Buber, ed., Aggadat Bereshit, Cracow 1903, repr. Jerusalem 1973 Aggadat Esther. S. Buber, ed., Aggadat Esther. Agadische Abhandlungen zum Buche Esther, Cracow 1897, repr. Jerusalem 1982 Aggadat Shir HaShirim. S. Schechter, ed., Aggadath Shir HaShirim, JQR 6, Philadelphia 1894, 672–697 Abot deRabbi Nathan. Recensions A and B. S. Schechter, ed., Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Vienna 1887, repr. Hildesheim 1979 Talmud Bavli, Romm edition, Vilna 1880–1886, several printings ◆ L. Goldschmidt, ed. and trans., Der babylonische Talmud, The Hague 1933–1935 ◆ I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud. Translated into English, London 1935–1952 ◆ A. Steinsaltz, Talmud Babli. Meboar meturgam umenuqqad, Jerusalem 1967ff. Bate Midrashot. A.J. Wertheimer, ed., Bate Midraschot, 25 rabbinische Midraschim, vols. I–II, Jerusalem 21954, repr. 1980 Beth Ha-Midrash. A. Jellinek, ed., Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner Midraschim, vols. I–II, Leipzig and Vienna 1853–1877, 31967 Derek Erez Rabba. M. Higger, ed., The Treatises Derek Erez. Masseket Derek Erez, Pirke Ben Azzai, Tosefta Derek Erez, vols. I–II, New York 1935, repr. Jerusalem 1970 Derek Erez Zuta. D. Sperber, ed., Masechet Derech Eretz Zutta and Perek Ha-Shalom, Jerusalem 1994 Deuteronomy Rabba. S. Liebermann, ed., Midrash Debarim Rabbah, Jerusalem 1940, 2 1964, repr. 1992 (see also Midrash Rabbah) Esther Rabba (see Midrash Rabba) → Sem (Semahot) Shemot Rabba (see Midrash Rabba) Fragmentary Targum (Targum Yerushalmi II). M.L. Klein, ed., The Fragment-Targum of the Pentateuch, vols. I–II, AnBib 76, Rome 1980 Genesis Rabba. (= Bereshit Rabba) J. Theodor & C. Albeck, ed., Bereschit Rabba, mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, vols. I–III, Berlin 1912–1936, Jerusalem 21965, repr. 1996 (see also Midrash Rabba) Genesis Rabbati. C. Albek, ed., Midras Beresit Rabbati, Jerusalem 1940, repr. 1967 Bereshit Zutah. M. Ha-Kohen, ed., Midrash Bereshit Zuta, Jerusalem 1962 Iggeret Rab Sherira Ga’on. B.M. Lewin, ed., Iggeret Rav Scherira Ga’on, Haifa 1921, repr. Jerusalem 1972 ◆ M. Schlüter, Auf welche Weise wurde die Mischna geschrieben? TSMJ 9, Tübingen 1993 Kalla. M. Higger, ed., Massekhtot Kalla, New York 1936, repr. Jerusalem 1970 Lamentations Rabbati. S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Vilna 1899, repr. Hildesheim 1967 (see also Midrash Rabba)

Rabbinic Literature Lam. Z. Leq. T.

Lev. R. m

Meg. Ta ‘an. Mek.

Mek. SbY Midr. Deut. Midr. Exod. Midr. Gen. Midr. Lev. Midr. Mishle Midr. Num. Midr. Rab.

Midr. Sam. Midr. Song Midr. Tann. Midr. Teh. Num. R. OzM Pesiqta Sutarta Pesiq. Rab. Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pirqe R. El. Qoh. R. Qoh. Z. Ruth R. Ruth Z. S. Eli. Rab. S. Eli. Zut. S. Olam Rab.

S. Olam Z. S. Tan. Am. SAME Shocher Tov

xxx

Lamentations Zuta (see Midrash Zuta) Lekah Tov. S. Buber, ed., Lekach-Tob (Pesikta Sutarta), Ein agadischer Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buche Mosis, Vilna 1880, repr. n.p., n.d. ◆ J.M. Padwa, ed., Midrash Leqah Tov . . . al Hamisha Humshe Tora (Wajjiqra, Bemidbar, Devarim), Vilna 1880, repr. n.p., n.d. Wayyiqra Rabba. M. Marguilies, ed., Midrash Wayyikra Rabba, vols. I–V, Jerusalem 1953– 60, repr. New York 1993 (see also Midrash Rabba) Mishnah. C. Albeck, ed., Shisha Sidre Mishna, vols. I–VI, Jerusalem 1952–1958, several printings ◆ Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung, begründet von G. Beer & O. Holtzmann, Gießen, Berlin & New York 1912 ff. Megillat Ta ‘anit. H. Lichtenstein, ed., Die Fastenrolle, HUCA 8–9, Cincinnati 1931–32, 257–351) Mekhilta deRabbi Ishma‘el. H.S. Horovitz & I.A. Rabin, eds., Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael, Frankfurt/M. 1931, repr. Jerusalem 1970 ◆ J.Z. Lauterbach, ed. and trans., Mekilta deRabbi Ismael, vols. I–III, Philadelphia 1933–1935 Mekilta d’Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yohai. J.N. Epstein & E.Z. Melamed, eds., Mekhilta d’Rabbi Shim‘on b. Jochai, 1955, 2nd ed., n.d. Deuteronomy Rabbah. S. Fisch, ed., Midrash Haggadol. Deuteronomy, Jerusalem 1972 Exodus Rabba. M. Margulies, ed., Midrash Haggadol. Exodus, Jerusalem 1956, repr. 1967 Genesis Rabba. M. Margulies, ed., Midrash Haggadol. Genesis, vols. I–II, Jerusalem 1947, repr. 1967 Leviticus Rabba. A. Steinsaltz, ed., Midrash HaGadol. Sefer Wayyiqra, Jerusalem 1975 Midrash Mishle. B.L. Visotzky, ed., Midrash Mishle, New York 1990 Numbers Rabbah. Z.M. Rabinowitz, ed., Midrash Haggadol. Numbers, Jerusalem 1957, repr. 1967 Midrash Rabba. → Gen. R., Exod. R., Lev. R., Num. R., Deut. R., Esth. R., Qoh. R., Ruth R., Songs R. Midrash Rabba al Hamisha Humshe Tora, Romm ed., Vilna 1887, several printings. Midrash Shemu’el S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Samuel, Cracow 1893, repr. Jerusalem 1965 Midrash Shir HaShirim (see Song R. [Shir HaShirim Rabba]) Midrash Tanna’im. D. Hoffmann, ed., Midrasch Tannaïm zum Deuteronomium, Berlin 1908/09, repr. n.p. n.d. Midrash Tehillim S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Tehillim (Schocher Tob), Vilna 1891, repr. Jerusalem 1966 Numbers Rabbah (see Midrash Rabba) Ozar Midrashim. J.D. Eisenstein, ed., Ozar Midrashim. A Library of Two Hundred Minor Midrashim, vols. I–II, New York 1928 → LeqT (Leqach Tob) Pesiqta Rabbati. M. Friedmann, ed., Pesiqta Rabbati, Vienna 1880, repr. n.p., n.d. Pesiqta deRab Kahana. B. Mandelbaum, ed., Pesikta deRav Kahana, vols. I–II, New York 1962, 21987 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer. Sefer Pirqe Rabbi Eli‘eser, Warsaw 1852, repr. New York 1946 Qohelet Rabba (see Midrash Rabba) Qohelet Zuta (see Midrash Zutta) Ruth Rabba (see Midrash Rabba) Ruth Zutta (see Midrash Zuta) Seder Eliyahu Rabba. M. Friedmann, Seder Eliahu rabba und Seder Eliahu zuta (Tanna d’be Eliahu), Vienna 1902, Jerusalem 21960 Seder Eliyahu Zuta (see on S. Eli. Rab.) Seder Olam Rabba. B. Ratner, ed., Seder Olam Rabba. Die grosse Weltchronik, Vilna 1897, repr. Jerusalem 1988 ◆ C.J. Milikowsky, ed., “Seder Olam. A Rabbinic Chronography,” diss., Yale 1981 Seder Olam Zuta. M.J. Weinstock, ed., Seder Olam Zuta HaShalem, Jerusalem 1957 Seder Tanna’im we Amora’im. M. Grosberg, ed., Seder Olam zuta and Complete Seder Tannaim v ’Amoraim, London 1910, repr. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem 1970 Sifre deAggadta Megillat Esther. S. Buber, ed., Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Esther, Vilna 1886, repr. n.p., n.d. → Midr. Teh (Midrash Tehillim).

xxxi Sek. T. Sem. Siddur Sifra Sifre Deut. Sifre Num. Sifre Z. Sof. Song R. Song Z. t Tan˙. Tan˙. B. Tanna d’be Eliyahu Tg. Yer. I Tg. Yer. II Tg. Jon. Tg. Onq. Tg. Ps.-J. y

Yalq.

Yalq. M.

Rabbinic Literature Sekhel Tov. S. Buber, ed., Sechel Tob. Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buch Mosis, Berlin 1901, repr. Tel Aviv n.d. Semahot (Evel Rabbati). D. Zlotnick, The Tractate “Mourning” YJS 17, New Haven & London 1966 Sidur Sefat Emet, with German translation by S. Bamberger, repr. Basel 1993 ◆ Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, ed. I. Davidson & S. Assaf & B.I. Joel, Jerusalem 1963 Sifra. I.H. Weiss, ed., Sifra deVe Rav, Vienna 1862 ◆ L. Finkelstein, ed., Sifra on Leviticus, New York 1983ff. Sifre Devarim. L. Finkelstein, ed., Siphre ad Deuteronomium, Berlin 1939, New York and Jerusalem 31993 Sifre Bemidbar. H.S. Horovitz, ed., Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta, Leipzig 1917, repr. Jerusalem 1992 Sifre Zuta (see Sifre Num) Soferim. M. Higger, ed., Masseket Soferim, New York 1937, repr. Jerusalem 1970 Shir HaShirim Rabba (see Midrash Rabba) Shir HaShirim Zuta (see Midrash Zutta) Tosefta. M.S. Zuckermandel, ed., Tosephta, Pasewalk 1880, Jerusalem 21937, repr. 1970 ◆ S. Lieberman, ed., The Tosefta, 1955ff. ◆ K.H. Rengstorf (co-founder), Rabbinische Texte. Series 1: Die Tosefta, 1953ff. Tan˙uma. Midrash Tanchuma, Jerusalem edition 1960 Tan˙uma (Buber). S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Tanchuma, Vilna 1885, repr. n.p., n.d. → S. Eli. Rab., S. Eli. Z. (Seder Eliyahu Rabba/Zuta) Targum Yerushalmi I (see Tg. Ps.-J.) Targum Yerushalmi II (see Frg. Tg.) Targum Jonathan. A. Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, vols. II–III, Leiden 1959–1962, repr. 1992 Targum Onqelos. A. Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, vol. I, Leiden 1959, repr. 1992 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Yerushalmi I). E.G. Clarke, ed., Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch, Hoboken 1984 Talmud Yerushalmi, Krotoschin edition 1866, several printings ◆ P. Schäfer & H.J. Becker, eds., Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi, Tübingen 1975ff. ◆ M. Hengel, H.-P. Rüger & P. Schäfer, eds., Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, Tübingen 1975ff. Yalqut Sim‘oni. Yalqut Shim‘oni, Jerusalem edition, vols. I–II, 1952 ◆ A. Hyman, D.N. Lerrer & J. Shiloni, eds., Yalqut Shim‘oni al HaTora LeRabbenu Shim‘on HaDarshan, Jerusalem 1973 ff. Yalqut Makiri. J. Spira, ed., The Yalkut on Isaiah of Machir ben Abba Mari, Berlin 1894, repr. Jerusalem 1964 ◆ A.W. Greenup, ed., Jalqut HaMakhiri al Tre Asar, vols. I–II, London 1909–1913, repr. Jerusalem 1967 ◆ S. Buber, ed., Jalkut Machiri . . . zu den 150 Psalmen, Berdyczew 1899, repr. Jerusalem 1964 ◆ E.L. Grünhur, ed., Jalqut HaMakhiri al Mishle, Frankfurt/M. 1902, repr. Jerusalem 1964

Nag Hammadi

xxxii

III. Nag Hammadi Text editions: The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, published under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities of the Arab Republic of Egypt in conjunction with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), introduced by J.M. Robinson, 15 vols., Leiden 1972–1984. NHS NHMS

BCNH.T

TU

Nag Hammadi Studies, Leiden 1971ff. From 1991 continued as Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies NHMS 33, 1995; NHS 2, 1972; NHS 22/23, 1985; NHS 20/21, 1989; NHS 4, 1975; NHMS 27, 1991; NHS 26, 1984; NHS 11, 1979; NHMS 30, 1996; NHMS 31, 1991; NHS 15, 1981; NHS 28, 1990 Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section textes, Quebec 1977ff. BCNH.T 18,1987; 12,1983; 5,1980; 9, 1983; 16,1986; 17,1986; 15,1985; 3, 1978; 2,1977; 11,1983; 3,1978; 7,1982; 6,1982; 13,1983; 8,1983; 1,1977; 5,1980; 14,1985; 11,1983; 4,1978 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin 1882ff. TU 60, 21972 (including BG [Berolinensis Gnosticus] 1–4); 136,1989; 101,1967; 143,1997; 138,1989; 119,1976; 141,1997; 142,1996; 132,1984 Pistis Sophia/Berlin Codex: NHS 9, 1978; NHS 13, 1978; BCNH.T 10, 1983; TU 8, 1892; TU 60, 1972.

Complete translation: The Nag Hammadi Library in English, translated and introduced by Members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, ed. J.M. Robinson, Leiden etc. 31988 (German translation 1999 as GCS [Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte], KoptischGnostische Schriften II, ed. H.-M. Schenke). Bibliographies in: D.M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948–1969 (NHS 1, Leiden 1971); 1970–1994 (NHMS 32, Leiden 1997) ◆ A. Böhlig & C. Markschies, Gnosis und Manichäismus (BZNW 72, Berlin 1994) Act Pet. Acts Pet. 12 Apos. Allog Ap. Jas. Ap. John Apoc. Adam 1 Apoc. Jas. 2 Apoc. Jas. Apoc. Pet. Apoc. Paul Ascl. Auth. Teach. Dial. Sav. Disc. 8–9 Ep. Pet. Phil. Eugnostos Exeg. Soul Gos. Eg. Gos. Mary Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom.

Act of Peter; BG 4 (TU 60, 21972, 296–319; W.C. Till & H.M. Schenke) Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles; NHC VI, 1 (NHS 11, 1979, 197–229; R.McL. Wilson & D.M. Parrott) Allogenes; NHC XI, 3 (NHS 28, 1990, 173–267; A.C. Wire, J.D. Turner & O.S. Wintermute) Apocryphon of James; NHC I, 2 (TU 136, 1989; D. Kirchner) Apocryphon of John; BG 2; NHC II, 1; III, 1; IV, 1 (NHS 33, 1995; M. Waldstein & F. Wisse) Apocalypse of Adam; NHC V, 5 (NHS 11, 1979, 151–195; G.W. MacRae) (First) Apocalypse of James; NHC V, 3 (NHS 11, 1979, 65–103; W.R. Schoedel) (Second) Apocalypse of James; NHC V, 4 (NHS 11, 1979, 105–149; C.W. Hedrick) Apocalypse of Peter; NHC VII, 3 (NHMS 30, 1996, 201–247; M. Desjardins & J. Brashler) Apocalypse of Paul; NHC V, 2 (NHS 11, 1979, 47–63; W.R. Murdock & G.W. MacRae) Asclepius 21–29; NHC VI, 8 (NHS 11, 1979, 395–451; P.A. Dirkse & D.M. Parrott) Authoritative Teaching; NHC VI, 3 (NHS 11, 1979, 257–289; G.W. MacRae) Dialogue of the Savior; NHC III, 5 (NHS 26, 1984, 1–17.19–127; H. Koester, E.H. Pagels & S. Emmel) Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth; NHC VI, 6 (NHS 11, 1979, 341–373; P.A. Dirkse, J. Brahsler & D.M. Parrott) Letter of Peter to Philip; NHC VIII, 2 (TU 141, 1997; H.-G. Bethge) Eugnostos the Blessed; NHC III, 3; V, 1 (NHS 27, 1991; D.M. Parrott) Exegesis of the Soul (Exegesis de anima); NHC II, 6 (NHC 21, 1989, 136–169. 248–264; W.C. Robinson Jr., B. Layton & S. Emmel) Gospel of the Egyptians (actually: Egyptian Gospel); NHC III, 2; IV, 2 (NHS 4, 1975; A. Böhlig, F. Wisse & P. Labib) Gospel of Mary; BG 1 (NHS 11, 1979, 1–45; R.McL. Wilson & G.W. MacRae) Gospel of Philip; NHC II, 3 (TU 143, 1997; H.-M. Schenke) Gospel of Thomas; NHC II, 2 (NHS 20, 1989; H. Koester, B. Layton, T.O. Lambdin, H.W. Attridge & S. Emmel)

xxxiii Gos. Truth Great Pow. Hyp. Arch. Hypsiph. Interp. Know. Jeû Marsanes Melchizedek NHC VI,5 Norea On Anointing Orig. World Paraph. Shem Pist. Soph. Pr. Thanks. Pr. Paul Teach. Silv. Testim. Truth Thom. Cont. Thund. Treat. Res. Treat. Seth Trim. Prot. Tri. Trac. Sent. Sextus Soph. Jes. Chr. Steles Seth Val. Exp. Zost.

Nag Hammadi Gospel of Truth; NHC I, 3; XII, 2 (NHS 22, 1985, 55–117; NHS 23, 1985, 39–135; NHS 22, 1985, 119–122; H.W. Attridge, G.W. MacRae & F. Wisse) The Concept of our Great Power; NHC VI, 4 (NHS 11, 1979, 291–323; F. Wisse & F.E. Williams) Hypostasis of the Archons; NHC II, 4 (NHS 20, 1989, 220–259. 321–336; R.A. Bullard, B. Layton & S. Emmel) Hypsiphrone; NHC XI, 4 (NHS 28, 1990, 269–279; J.D. Turner) Interpretation of Knowledge; NHC XI, 1 (TU 142, 1996; U.K. Plisch) The Books of Jeû Marsanes; NHC X (NHS 15, 1981, 229–250. 252–347; B.A. Pearson) Melchizedek; NHC IX, 1 (NHS 15, 1981, 87–99; B.A. Pearson & S. Giversen) Plato, Republic 588B–589B; NHC VI, 5 (NHS 11, 1979, 325–339; J. Brashler) Thought of Norea; NHC IX, 2 (NHS 15, 1981, 87–99; B.A. Pearson & S. Giversen) On the Anointing; NHC XI, 2A (NHS 28, 1990, 142f.; J.D. Turner) On the Origin of the World; NHC II, 5 (NHS 21, 1989, 12–134. 210–247; H.-G. Bethge, B. Layton & S. Emmel) Paraphrase of Shem; NHC VII, 1 (NHMS 30, 1995, 15–127; F. Wisse) Pistis Sophia Prayer of Thanksgiving; NHC VI, 7 (NHS 11, 1979, 375–387; P.A. Dirkse & J. Brashler) Prayer of the Apostle Paul; NHC I, 1 (NHS 22, 1985, 5–11; NHS 23, 1985, 1–5; D. Müller) Teachings of Silvanus; NHC VII, 4 (NHS 30, 1995, 249–369; M.L. Peel & J. Zandee) Testimony of Truth; NHC IX, 3 (NHS 15, 1991, 101–203; B.A. Pearson & S. Giversen) Book of Thomas the Contender; NHC II, 7 (TU 138, 1989; H.-M. Schenke) Perfect Mind; NHC VI, 2 (NHS 11, 1979, 231–255; G.W. MacRae) Treatise on the Resurrection; NHC I, 4 (NHS 22, 1985, 123–157; NHS 23, 1985, 137– 215; M.L. Peel) Second Treatise of the Great Seth; NHC VII, 2 (NHMS 30, 1995, 129–199; G. Riley) Trimorphic Protennoia; NHC XIII (NHS 28, 1990, 371–454; J.D. Turner) Tripartite Tractate; NHC I, 5 (NHS 22, 1985, 159–337; NHS 23, 1985, 217–497; H.W. Attridge & E.H. Pagels) Sentences of Sextus; NHC XII, 1 (NHS 28, 1990, 295–327; F. Wisse) Sophia of Jesus Christ; BG 3; NHC III, 4 (NHS 27, 1991; D.M. Parrott) Three Steles of Seth; NHC VII, 5 (NHMS 30, 1995, 371–421; J.E. Goehring & J.M. Robinson) A Valentinian Exposition; NHC XI, 2 (NHS 28, 1990, 89–141. 153–171; E. Pagels & J.D. Turner) Zostrianos; NHC VIII, 1 (NHS 31, 1991, 7–225; B. Layton & J. Sieber)

Ancient authors and works

xxxiv

IV. Ancient authors and works The present list of frequently cited ancient authors comprises, in alphabetical order, Greek and Latin names of Christian as well as non-Christian provenience. As a rule the ancient authors are cited in Latinized form and in accordance with the critical editions, in particular the following (with abbreviations) 1. Sources for works of ancient authors ACO ActaSS BiTeu CChr.SG CChr.SL CMG CSCO CSEL GCS LCL OCT OECT PG PL PO PTS SC SCBO TU

Acta conciliorum oecomenicorum, Berlin 1914ff. Acta sanctorum, Antwerpen 1668–1701, Paris 1863ff. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig, Berlin 1849ff. Corpus Christianorum (series graeca), Turnhout 1977ff. Corpus Christianorum (series latina), Turnhout 1982ff. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Leipzig 1982ff. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, Rome 1903ff. Corpus scriptorumecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna 1866ff. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Berlin 1897ff. Loeb Classical Libray, London/Cambridge (MA) 1912ff. (repr. 1961ff.) Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford 1969ff. Oxford Early Christian Texts, Oxford 1971ff. Patrologiae cursus completus (series graeca), Paris 1857ff. Patrologiae cursus completus (series latina), Paris 1844ff. Patroliga orientalis, Paris 1907ff. Praktische Texte und Studien, Berlin 1964ff. Sources chrétiennes, Paris 1941ff. Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin 1882ff.

2. Ancient authors Aesch. Aesch. Ag. Aesch. Cho. Afric. Afric. Chron. Alb.(Alc.) Alex. Aphr. Alex.Aphr. fat. Ambr. Ambr. Epist. Ambr. Fid. Ambr. Hymn Ambr. Off. Ambr. Spir. Apophth. Patr. Apul. Apul. Apol. Arist. Arist. An. post. Arist. An. pr. Arist. Ath. Pol. Arist. Cael. Arist. Cat. Arist. Eth. eud. Arist. Eth. Nic.

Aeschylus Aeschylus, Agamemnon Aeschylus, Choephoroi Iulius Africanus Iulius Africanus, Chronographia Albinus (Alcinous) Alexander of Aphrodisias Alexander of Aphrodisias, De Fato Ambrose (Ambrosius) Ambrose, Epistulae Ambrose, De fide Ambrose, Hymni Ambrose, De officiis ministrorum Ambrose, De spiritu sancto Apophthegmata Patrum Apuleius Apuleius, Apologia Aristotle (Aristoteles) Aristotle, Analitica posteriora Aristotle, Analitica priora Aristotle, Athenaion politeia Aristotle, De caelo Aristotle, Categoriae Aristotle, Ethica eudemia Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea

xxxv Arist. Frag. Arist. Metaph. Arist. Phys. Arist. Poet. Arist. Pol. Arist. Top. Aristides Apol. Aristoph. Aristoph. Lys. Athan. Athan. Apol. Const. Athan. Apol. sec. Athan. Ar. Athan. Ep. Epict. Athan. Ep. fest. Athan. Gent. Athan. Hist. Ar. Athan. Inc. Athan. Syn. Athan. Virg. Aug. Aug. Catech. Aug. Civ. Aug. Conf. Aug. Doctr. chr. Aug. Ep. Aug. Gen. lit. Aug. Nat. et grat. Aug. Serm. Aug. Simpl. Aug. Spir. et lit. Aug. Trin. Bas. Bas. Ep. Bas. Hex. Bas. Hom. Bas. Reg. Bas. Spir. Boethius Boethius Categ. Boethius Cons. Boethius. Porph. Caes. Caes. Civ. Cass. Cass. Inst. Chrys. Chrys. Hom. Chrys. Jud. Chrys. Laud. Paul. Chrys. Laz. Chrys. Virg. Cic. Cic. Acad. Cic. Hort. Cic. Nat. d. Cic. Off. Cic. Rep.

Ancient authors and works Aristotle, Fragmenta Aristotle, Metaphysica Aristotle, Physica Aristotle, Poetica Aristotle, Politica Aristotle, Topica Aristides, Apologia Aristophanes Aristophanes, Lysistrata Athanasius Athanasius, Apologia ad Constantium Athanasius, Apologia secunda contra Arianos Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos Athanasius, Epistula ad Epictetum Athanasius, Epistulae festivales Athanasius, Contra gentes Athanasius, Historia Arianum ad monachos Athanasius, De incarnatione Athanasius, Epistola de synodis Armini et Seleuciae Athanasius, De virginitate Augustine (Augistinus) Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus Augustine, De civitate Dei Augustine, Confessiones Augustine, De doctrina Christiana Augustine, Epistulae Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram Augustine, De natura et gratia Augustine, Sermones Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum Augustine, De spiritu et littera Augustine, De trinitate Basil of Caesarea Basil of Caesarea, Epistulae Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae hexaemeron Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae Basil of Caesarea, Regulae Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto Boethius Boethius, In categorias aristotelis Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae Boethius, In isagogem Porphyrii comenta Caesar Caesar, De bello civili Ioannes Cassianus Ioannes Cassianus, De institutis coenobiorum John Chrysostom (Ioannes Chrysotomus) John Chrysostom, Homiliae John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos John Chrysostom, Delaudibus Pauli John Chrysostom, In Lazarum John Chrysostom, De virginitate Cicero Cicero, Academia Cicero, Hortensius Cicero, De natura deorum Cicero, De officiis Cicero, De re publica

Ancient authors and works Cod. Iust. Cod. Theod. Cyp. Cyp. Dom. orat. Cyp. Ep. Cyp. Laps. Cyp. Unit. Eccl. D.L. Dam. Dam. Fid. Dam. Haer. Dam. Hom. Dam. Parall. Dion. Ar. Dion. Ar. Cael. hier. Dion. Ar. Div. nom. Dion. Ar. Eccl. hier. Dion. Ar. Ep. Dion. Ar. Myst. Epic. Epic. Frag. Epict. Epict. Ench. Epict. Frag. Epict. Gnom. Epiph. Epiph. Anc. Epiph. Haer. Eurip. Eus. Eus. Dem. ev. Eus. Eccl. theol. Eus. Hist. eccl. Eus. Laud. Const. Eus. Praep. Eus. Vita Const. Gennad. Gennad. Vir. ill. Greg. Cypr. Greg. M. Greg. M. Dial. Greg. M. Ep. Greg. M. Mor. Greg. M. Past. Greg. Naz. Greg. Naz. Carm. Greg. Naz. Ep. Greg. Naz. Or. Greg. Nyss. Greg. Nyss. An. Greg. Nyss. Ep. Greg. Nyss. Or. catech. magna Greg. T. Greg. T. Hist. Hdt. Heraclit Hes. Hes. Theog.

Codex Iustinianus Codex Theodosianus Cyprian (Cyprianus) Cyprian, De dominica oratione Cyprian, Epistulae Cyprian, De lapsis Cyprian, De unitate ecclesiae Diogenes Laertius, Vitae John of Damascus ( Joannes Damascenus) John of Damascus, De fide John of Damascus, Liber de haeresibus John of Damascus, Homiliae John of Damascus, Sacra parallela Dionysius Areopagita Dionysius Areopagita, De caelesti hierarchica Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus Dionysius Areopagita, De ecclesiastica hierarchica Dionysius Areopagita, Epistulae Dionysius Areopagita, De mystica theologica Epicurus Epirurus, Fragmenta Epictetus Epictetus, Enchiridion Epictetus, Fragmenta Epictetus, Gnomologium Epiphanius of Salamis Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalaiosis Epiphanius of Salamis, Liber de haeresibus Euripides Eusebius of Caesarea (Eusebius Caesareanus) Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio evangelica Eusebius of Caesarea, De ecclesiastica theologica Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica Eusebius of Caesarea, De laudibus Constantini Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio, Evangelica Eusebius of Caesarea, De vita Constantini Gennadius Gennadius, De viris illustribus Gregory of Cyprus (Gregorius Cyprius) Gregory the Great (Gregorius Magnus) Gregory the Great, Dialogi Gregory the Great, Epistulae Gregory the Great, De mortuis Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis Gregory of Nazianzus (Gregorius Nazianzenus) Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmina Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistulae Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes Gregory of Nyssa (Gregorius Nyssenus) Gregory of Nyssa, De anima Gregory of Nyssa, Epistulae Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica magna Gregorius of Tours Gregorius of Tours, Historiae Herodotus, Historiae Heraclitus Hesiod (Hesiodus) Hesiod, Theogonia

xxxvi

xxxvii Hilary Hilary Trin. Hipp. Hipp. Haer. Hom. Hom. Hym. Hom. Il. Hom. Od. Hor. Hor. Carm. Hor. Ep. Hor. Saec. Iamb. Iamb. Myst. Iamb. Protr. Iamb. Vita Pyth. Iren. Iren. Haer. Isid. Isid. Vir. ill. Jerome Jer. Chron. Jer. Comm. Jer. Ep. Jer. Hist. eccl. Jer. Vir. ill. Jer. Vita Hil. Jos. Jos. Ant. Jos. Apion. Jos. Bell. Jul. Jul. Ath. Jul. Ep. Jul. Gal. Jul. Mis. Just. Just. 1 / 2 Apol. Just. Dial. Lact. Lact. Inst. Lact. Ira Leo M. Leo M. Ep. Leo M. Serm. Lib. Lib. Decl. Lib. Ep. Lib. Or. Lib. Ref. Livy Luc. Macr. Macr. Sat. Mar. Vict. Mar. Vict. Ar. Mart. Perp. Or.

Ancient authors and works Hilary (Hilarius) Hilary, De trinitate Hippolytus Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium Homer (Homerus) Hymni Homerici Homer, Ilias Homer, Odysseia Horace (Horatius) Horace, Carmina Horace, Epistulae Horace, Carminae saeculare Iamblichus Iamblichus, De mysteriis Iamblichus, Protrepticus in philosophiam Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica Irenaeus Irenaeus, Adversus haereses Isidorus of Sevilla Isidorus of Sevilla, De viris illustribus Jerome (Hieronymus) Jerome, Chronicon Jerome, Commentarii Jerome, Epistulae Jerome, Historia ecclesiastica Jerome, De viribus illustribus Jerome, Vita S. Hilarionis eremitae Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatae Judaicae Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Julian (Iulianus, Imperator) Julian, Epistula ad Atheniensis Julian, Epistulae Julian, Contra Galileos Julian, Misopogon Justin Martyr (Iustinianus) Justin Martyr, Apologiae Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo Lactantius Lactantius, Divinae institutiones Lactantius, De ira dei Leo the Great (Leo Magnus) Leo the Great, Epistulae Leo the Great, Sermones Libianus Libianus, Declamationes Libianus, Epistulae Libianus, Orationes Libianus, Refutationes Livy (Livius), Ab urbe condita Lucian (Lucianus) Macrobius Macrobius, Saturnalia Marius Vicotirus Marius Vicotirus, Adversus Arium Martyrium vel Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis Origen (Origenes)

Ancient authors and works Or. Cels. Or. Comm. Or. Hom. Or. Or. Or. Philoc. Or. Princ. Orph. Orph. Hym. Ovid Ovid, Am. Ovid, Ep. Ovid, Met. Pass. Philo Philo Abr. Philo Aet. Philo Agr. Philo Anim. Philo Apol. Philo Cher. Philo Conf. Philo Congr. Philo Cont. Philo Decal. Philo Det. Philo Deus Philo Ebr. Philo Flacc. Philo Gig. Philo Her. Philo Jos. Philo Leg. All. Philo Legat. Philo Migr. Philo Mos. Philo Mut. Philo Opif. Philo Plant. Philo Post. Philo Praem. Philo Prob. Philo Prov. Philo Quaest. Ex. Philo Quaest. Gen. Philo Sacr. Philo Sobr. Philo Somn. Philo Spec. Philo Virt. Philost. Hist. eccl. Philostr. Philostr. Vita ap. Philostr. Vita soph. Phot. Bibl. Plato Alc. Plato Apol. Plato Def.

Origen, Contra Celsum Origen, Commentarii Origen, Homiliae Origen, De oratione Origen, Philocalia Origen, De principiis Orpheus Orpheus, Hymni Ovid (Ovidius) Ovid, Amores Ovid, Epistulae Ovid, Metamorphoses Passiones Philo of Alexandria Philo, De Abrahamo Philo, De aeternitate mundi Philo, De agricultura Philo, De animalibus Philo, Apologia pro Judaeis Philo, De Cherubim Philo, De confusione linguarum Philo, De congres eruditionis gratia Philo, De vita contemplativa Philo, De decalogo Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis Philo, De ebrietate Philo, In Flaccum Philo, De gigantibus Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Philo, De Josepho Philo, Legum allegoriae, Book I, III Philo, Legatio ad Gaium Philo, De migratione Abrahami Philo, De vita Mosis, Book I, II Philo, De mutatione nominum Philo, De opificio mundi Philo, De plantatione Philo, De posteritate Caini Philo, De praemiis et poenis Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit Philo, De providentia, Book I, II Philo, Quaestiones in Exodum, Book I, II Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini Philo, De sobrietate Philo, De somniis, Book I, II Philo, De specialibus legibus, Book I, II Philo, De virtutibus Philostrogius, Historia ecclesiastica Philostratus Philostratus, Vita apollonii Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum Photius, Bibliotheca Plato, Alcibiades Plato, Apologia Plato, Definitiones

xxxviii

xxxix Plato Epist. Plato Gorg. Plato Krit. Plato Parm. Plato Phaid. Plato Phaidr. Plato Polit. Plato Prot. Plato Rep. Plato Soph. Plato Tim. Plot. Plut. Plut. Morph. Porph. Porph. Abst. Porph. Antr. Porph. Chr. Porph. In cat. Porph. Vita Plot. Porph. Vita Pyth. Ps.-. . . . Sen. Sen. Apoc. Sen. Dial. Sen. Ep. Socr. Hist. eccl. Sophoc. Sophoc. Ant. Sophoc. El. Sophoc. Oed. R. Sophoc. Phil. Soz. Hist. eccl. Stob. Strabo Suet. Suet. Aug. Suet. Cal. Suet. Cl. Suet. Dom. Tert. Tert. An. Tert. Apol. Tert. Bapt. Tert. Carn. chr. Tert. Cor. Tert. Herm. Tert. Marc. Tert. Nat. Tert. Praesc. Tert. Prax. Tert. Res. Tert. Val. Thdt. Thdt. Affect Thdt. Comm. In Thdt. Ep.

Ancient authors and works Plato, Epistulae Plato, Gorgias Plato, Criton Plato, Parmenides Plato, Phaido Plato, Phaidrus Plato, Politicus Plato, Protagoras Plato, De re publica Plato, Sophista Plato, Timaeus Plotinus Plutarch (Plutarchus) Plutarch, Moralia Porphyry (Porphyrius) Porphyry, De abstinentia Porphyry, De antro nympharum Porphyrius, Contra Christianos Porphyry, In Aristotelis categorias commentarius Porphyry, Vita Plotini Porphyry, Vita Phythagorae Pseudo- . . . Seneca Seneca, Divi Claudii apocolocyntosis Seneca, Dialogi Seneca, Epistulae morales at Lucilium Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica Sophocles Sophocles, Antigone Sophocles, Electra Sophocles, Oedipus Rex Sophocles, Philoctetes Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica Stobaeus Julius Caesar Strabo Suetonius Suetonius, Divus Augustus Suetonius, Caligula Suetonius, Divus Claudius Suetonius, Domitianus Tertullian (Tertullianus) Tertullian, De anima Tertullian, Apologeticum Tertullian, De baptismo Tertullian, De carne Christi Tertullian, De corona Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Tertullian, Ad nationes Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian, Adversus Praxean Tertullian, De resurrectione mortuorum Tertullian, Adversus Valentianos Theodoret of Cyrus (Theodoretus Cyrius) Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentarii Theodoret of Cyrus, Historia religiosa Theodoret of Cyrus, Graecarum affectionum curatio

Ancient authors and works Thdt. Hist. eccl. Thdt. Hist. rel. Thuc. Var. Var. An. Verg. Verg. Aen. Verg. Ecl. Verg. Georg.

Theodoret of Cyrus, Epistulae Theodoret of Cyrus, Historia ecclesiastica Thucydides, Historiae Terentius Varro Terentius Varro, Annales Vergil (Vergilius) Vergil, Aeneis Vergil, Eclogae Vergil, Georgica

xl

xli

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals

V. Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals AA AAAbo AAAbo.H AAAp AACCB AAE AAH AAS AAS.S AASF

AASF.DHL AAST ÄAT AAug AAWG AAWG.PH AAWLM AAWLM.G AB ABAW ABAW.PH ABAW.PP ABAW.PPH ABD ABG ABI ABlEKD ABlVELKD ABSt AcAr ACar AcAs ACC ACER ACi ACJD ACO

ACO.I AcOr ACORP ActaSS ACW ADAJ

Archäologischer Anzeiger, Berlin 1849ff. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Åbo – Series A: Humaniora 1,1920ff. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, post Constantin Tischendorf ed. R.A. Lipsius & M. Bonnet, Leipzig 1–2.2, 1891–1903; repr. 1959; 1972; 1990 All-Africa Conference of Churches Bulletin, Nairobi etc. 1,1963/64–11,1982 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, Copenhagen 1,1990ff. Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest 1,1951ff. Acta apostolicae sedis Commentarium officiale, Rome 1,1909ff. – Supplemento per le leggi e disposizioni . . . 1,1929ff. Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae, Helsinki – Series A: 1,1909ff. – Series B: 1,1909ff. – Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 1,1973ff. Atti dell’(a R.)Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Turin 1,1865–62,1926/27; from 69,1933/34ff.: Acta R. Academiae Scientiarum Taurinensis Ägypten und Altes Testament, Wiesbaden 1,1979ff. Analecta Augustiniana, Rome 1,1905/06ff. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Göttingen – Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen, 3rd series 27,1942ff. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Mainz – Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse 1950ff. Assyriologische Bibliothek, Leipzig 1,1881–26,1927; NS 1–2,1933 Abhandlungen der (Königlich-)Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich – Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, NS 1,1929ff. – Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 1,1835–24,1906/09 – Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse 25,1909–34,1928 Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York etc. 1,1992ff. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Bonn 1,1955ff. Accademie e biblioteche d’Italia, Rome 1,1927ff. Amtsblatt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Berlin 1,1947ff. Amtsblatt der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands, publ. Lutherisches Kirchenamt der VELKD Hannover, Hamburg 1954ff. Archaeology and Biblical Studies, Atlanta, GA, 1,1988ff. Acta archaeologica, Copenhagen 1,1930ff. Analecta Cartusiana, Berlin etc. 1,1970–129,1988; NS 1,1989ff. Acta Asiatica, Tokio 1,1960ff. Alcuin Club Collections, London etc. 1,1899ff. Annales du Centre d’Étude des Religions, Brüssel 1,1962–3,1969 Analecta Cisterciensia, Rome 21,1965ff. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog, Munich 1,1967ff. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz , Berlin 1914ff. – 1. Concilium universale Ephesenum 1922ff. – 2. Concilium universale Chalcedonense 1,1932–6,1938 – 3. Collectio Sabbaitica contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata 1940 – 4. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum 1,1914– 3,1984 – Index generalis tomorum 1–4, 1,1974ff. Acta orientalia, Societates Orientales Batava, Danica, Norvegica, Svecica, Leiden 1,1923ff. American Center of Oriental Research Publications, Amman 1,1993ff. Acta sanctorum, ed. J. Bolland / G. Henschen, Antwerpen etc. 1,1643ff. (70,1944); Venice, 2nd ed. 1,1734–43,1770; Paris etc., 3rd ed. 1,1863–60,1870 Ancient Christian Writers, Westminster, MD etc. 1,1946ff. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman 1,1951ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Adamantius ADB ADEB ADipl ADPV AE AEAl Aeg. AEI aej aej.M aej.SB aej.ST AELKZ AEM AEPHE AEPHE.R AES AEvKR Aevum AEWK AFER AFH AFMF AfO AfO.B AFP Afranc Africa AfS AFS AGB AGBELL AGJU AGK AGK.E AGLB AGP AGPh AGTL AGU AGWG AGWG.PH

xlii

Adamantius Notiziario del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su «Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina», Pisa 1,1995ff. Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, Leipzig 1,1875–56,1912; 2nd ed. 1967–1971 The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography, ed. B. Dickey, Sydney, 1994 Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde, Cologne etc. 1,1955ff. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Wiesbaden 1969ff. L’année Épigraphique, Paris 1888ff. Archives de l’Église d’Alsace, Strasbourg etc. 17,1946ff. Aegyptus. Rivista italiana di egittologia e di papirologia, Mailand 1,1920ff. Avhandlinger utgitt av Egede Instituttet Studies of the Egede-Institute, Oslo 1,1947ff. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Evangelischen Jugend in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Berlin West e.V. – Materialien, Stuttgart 1980ff. – Studienbände Beiträge zur evangelischen Jugendarbeit, Stuttgart 1980ff. – Studientext, Stuttgart 1980–1986 (continued by Studientexte. Zeitschrift für Konzeption und Geschichte evangelischer Jugendarbeit) Allgemeine evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung. Organ der Allgemeinen EvangelischLutherischen Konferenz, Leipzig 1,1868–74,1941 Anuario de estudios medievales, Barcelona 1,1964ff. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 1,1893ff. – Section des Sciences Religieuses 1,1893ff. Archives européennes de sociologie, Paris 1,1960ff. Archiv für Evangelisches Kirchenrecht. Allgemeines Kirchenblatt für das evangelische Deutschland und das Deutsche Pfarrarchiv, Berlin 1,1937–5,1941 Aevum. Rassegna di scienze storiche, linguistiche e filologiche, Milan 1,1927ff. Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. J.S. Ersch & J.G. Gruber, Leipzig 1818–1889 Africanae fraternae ephemerides Romanae, A.F.E.R, Rome 1,1932ff. Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, Florence 1,1908ff. Arbeiten zur Frühmittelalterforschung. Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Frühmittelalterforschung der Universität Münster, Berlin etc. (1,1981); 2,1967ff. Archiv für Orientforschung Internationale Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft vom Vorderen Orient, Graz etc. 3,1926ff. – Beiheft 1,1933ff. Archivum fratrum praedicatorum, Rome 1,1930ff. Analecta Franciscana, Quaracchi etc. 1,1885ff. Africa. Journal of the International African Institute, ed. D. Westermann, Edinburgh 1,1928ff. African Studies, Johannesburg 1,1942ff. Asian Folklore Studies, publ. by the Society for Asian Folklore, Tokio 22,1963ff. Archiv für die Geschichte des Buchwesens, publ. Historische Kommission des Börsenvereins des Deutschen Buchhandels, Frankfurt/M. 1,1956–91,1972 Arbeiten zur Geschichte der Braunschweigischen Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Büddenstedt 1,1982ff. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, Leiden 1970ff. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Kirchenkampfes, Göttingen 1,1958–30,1984 and index volume 1984 – Ergänzungsreihe (suppl. series) 1,1964–14,1986 Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1957ff. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Pietismus, Witten 1,1967ff. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Berlin 1,1888ff. Arbeiten zur Geschichte und Theologie des Luthertums, Berlin 1,1955–26,1972; NS 1,1981ff. Archief voor de geschiedenis van het Aartsbisdom Utrecht, Utrecht 1,1875–75,1957 Abhandlungen der (Königlichen) Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Göttingen 1,1838/41–40,1894/95 – Philologisch-historische Klasse, NS 1,1896/97–25,1930/31; 3rd series 1,1932–26,1940

xliii AHAW AHAW.PH AHC AHDL AHG AHP AHR AHSJ AHVNRh AHw

AIHI AION AION.FG AIPh AIS AJA AJAH AJP AJPs AJS AJS Review AJTh AKathKR AKG AKGH AKIZ AKIZ.A AKIZ.B AKM AKThG AKuG AKVB AKVK ALASP Alei Sefer ALGHJ Allbus Allpanchis Altaner ALW AM

AmA Americas

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg – Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1,1913–10,1935; 1950ff. Annuarium historiae conciliorum, Paderborn etc. 1,1969ff. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, Paris 1,1926/27–10/11,1935/36; 21,1946ff. Archiv für hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Darmstadt 1,1836–15,1884; NS 1,1894ff. Archivum historiae pontificae, Rome 1,1963ff. American Historical Review, New York etc. 1,1895ff. Archivum historicum Societatis Jesu. Periodicum semestre, Rome 1,1932ff. Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein, insbesondere die Alte Erzdiözese Köln, Cologne 1,1855ff. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (1866–1947), bearbeitet von W. v. Soden, 3 vols., Wiesbaden 1,1965–3,1981; Vol. 1 21985 Archives internationales d’histoire des idées. International Archives of the History of Ideas, The Hague 1,1963ff. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Naples 1,1929ff. – Sezione Germanica: filologia germanica 1,1958–16,1973; NS 1,1991ff. Annuaire de L’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales (from 4,1936:) et Slaves, Brussels 1,1932/33–3,1935; 4,1936–27,1985 Annales Instituti Slavici, Cologne etc. 1.1,1964ff. American Journal of Archaeology (1st series:) and of the History of Fine Arts, Princeton, NJ, etc. 1,1885–11,1896; 2nd series 1,1897ff. Anglo-Jewish Art and History, London 1,1966ff. American Journal of Philology, Baltimore, MD, 1,1880ff. The American Journal of Psychology, Champaign, IL, 1,1887ff. American Journal of Sociology, Chicago, IL, 1,1895/96ff. Association for Jewish Studies Review, Cambridge, MA, 1,1976ff. The Asia Journal of Theology, Singapore 1,1987ff. Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, Mainz etc. 1,1857ff. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, Berlin etc. 1,1915ff. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Hamburgs, Hamburg 1,1958ff. Arbeiten zur kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen – Series A: Quellen 1984ff. – Series B: Darstellungen 1,1975ff. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, publ. Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Leipzig etc. 1.1,1857ff. Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, Weimar 1,1996ff. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, Berlin etc. 1,1903ff; Beiheft = BAKG Altkatholisches Volksblatt, Baden-Baden 1,1887–36.12,1922; 53.13,1922–72,1941; NS 1,1949–8,1956 Altkatholischer Volkskalender, Baden-Baden 1,1891–30,1920 Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas, Münster 1,1988ff. Alei Sefer. A Journal of Hebrew Bibliography and Booklore, ed. S.Z. Havlin, Ramat-Gan 1,1975ff. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums, Leiden 1,1968ff. Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften, Cologne 1,1984ff. Allpanchis. Revista anual, organo del Instituto Pastoral Andina, Cuzco 1,1969ff. B. Altaner. Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter; from the 7th ed.: A. Stuiber, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1931; 2,1950; 9,1980 Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, Regensburg 1,1950ff. Asia Major, publ. Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica, Taiwan, Taipeh [1922/23]; 1,1924–10, 1934/35; NS 1,1944 [?]; NS 1,1949/50–19, 1975; 3rd series 1,1987/88ff. American Anthropologist, Menasha, WI, 1,1888–11,1898; NS 1,1899ff. The Americas. A Quarterly Review of Inter-American Cultural History, Washington, DC, 1,1944ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals AMI AmPs AMRG AMRhKG AmUSt AmUSt.H AmUSt.TR AMZ AnAl AnBib AnBib AnBoll AncB ANEP ANET ANETS ANL AnPont ANRW

AnSt Antaios AntClass Anthr. ANTT ANTZ AO AOAT AOB AoF AÖR AOT APARA

APAT APAW APAW.PH APF APG

xliv

Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, publ. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, EurasienAbteilung, Aussenstelle Teheran, Berlin 1,1929/30–9,1938; NS 1,1968–28,1996 American Psychologist. Journal of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1,1946ff. Arbeitsmaterialien zur Religionsgeschichte, Cologne 1,1976ff. Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, Speyer etc. 1,1949ff. American University Studies, New York – Series 9: History 1,1986ff. – Series 7: Theology and Religion 1984ff. Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift. Monatshefte für geschichtliche und theoretische Missionskunde, Berlin 1,1874–50,1923 Antichità altoadriatiche, Triest etc. 1,1972ff. Analecta biblica, Rome 1,1952ff. Analecta biblica, Rome 1,1952ff. Analecta Bollandiana, Brüssel 1,1882ff. Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY, 1,1964ff. Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. Bennett Pritchard, Princeton, NJ, 1954; 21969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. Bennett Pritchard, Princeton, NJ, 1950; 21955; 31969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, Lewiston etc. 1,1986ff. Annua nuntia Lovaniensia, Louvain 1,1934/35ff. Annuario Pontificio, Vatican City 1860–1871; 1912ff. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini et al., Berlin – I. Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik 1,1972ff. – II. Principat 1,1974ff. – III. Spätantike und Nachleben – IV. Indexes Anatolian Studies. Journal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1,1951 Antaios. Zeitschrift für eine freie Welt, Stuttgart 1,1959ff. L’antiquité classique. Revue semestrielle, Brüssel 1,1932ff. Anthropos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Völker- und Sprachenkunde, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1906ff. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, Berlin 1,1963ff. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte, Berlin 1,1987ff. Der alte Orient, Leipzig 1,1899–43,1945 Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Kevelaer etc. 1,1969ff.; (2,1968) Altorientalische Bilder zum Alten Testament, ed. H. Gressmann, Tübingen etc. 1909; 2 1927 Altorientalische Forschungen, Berlin 1,1974ff. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, Tübingen 27,1911–40 (= NS 1),1921–73 (= NS 34),1944; 74 (= NS 35),1948ff. Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, ed. H. Gressmann, Tübingen 1909; 2nd ed., Berlin 1926; repr. 1970 Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rome – Series 1–2: Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 1,1821– 15,1864; 2nd series 1,1881–15,1921 (= DPARA) – Series 3: Memorie della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 1,1923/24ff. (= MPARA) Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, ed. E. Kautzsch, Tübingen 1–2,1900 Abhandlungen der (Königlich) Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1901–1907 – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1908–1944 Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete, Berlin etc. 1,1901ff. Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, ed. B. Erdmann, Halle/S. 1,1893– 52,1920

xlv APh APKG Apocrypha Apocryphes ApolCA Apoll. APOT APraem APTh APuZ AQDGMA AQDGNZ Arabica ARCEG ARelG ARG ARGU ARID ARID.S Ariel ArOr ArPh ArPh.SB ArsOr ARSP ArtAs ArtB ArTe ArtQ ARTS ARW ARWAW ARWG AS ASAE Aschkenas ASCL ASCOV ASEs ASGW ASGW.PH ASKG ASoc ASOC ASOSB

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Archiv für Philosophie. Organ der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Philosophie und Sozialwissenschaft, ed. J.v. Kempski, Stuttgart etc. 1,1947–13,1964 Aufsätze zur portugiesischen Kulturgeschichte, Münster 1,1960ff. Apocrypha. Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes, Turnhout 1,1990ff. Apocryphes. Collection de poche de l’AELAC, Brepols etc. 2,1993ff. Apology of the Confessio Augustana Apollinaris. Quaderni di Apollinaris. Pontificium Instituti Utriusque Iuris, Rome 1,1928ff. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R.H. Charles, Oxford 1–2,1913 Analecta Praemonstratensia, Tongerloo 1,1925ff. Arbeiten zur Pastoraltheologie, Göttingen 1,1962ff. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, publ. Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Bonn 1,1954ff. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, Darmstadt 1,1955ff. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte der Neuzeit, Darmstadt 1,1960ff. Arabica. Revue d’études arabes (40ff.: subtitle: Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies), Leiden etc. 1,1954ff. Acta reformationis catholicae ecclesiam Germaniae concernentia saeculi XVI. Die Reformationsverhandlungen des deutschen Episkopats 1520–1570, Regensburg 1,1959–6,1974 Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, Munich 1,1999ff. Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte. Internationale Zeitschrift zur Erforschung der Reformation und ihrer Weltwirkungen. Archive for Reformation History, Berlin etc. 1,1903/04ff. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums. Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity, Frankfurt/M. 1,1995ff. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Rome 1,1960ff. – Supplementa 1,1960ff. Ariel. Zeitschrift für Kunst und Bildung in Israel, German ed., Jerusalem 1,1966ff. Archiv orientální, Prague 1,1929ff. Archives de philosophie, Paris 1,1923ff. – Supplément bibliographique 7,1929ff. Ars Orientalis, Washington, DC, 1,1954ff. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Wiesbaden etc. 27,1933/34ff. Artibus Asiae, Ascona etc. 1,1925/26ff. Art Bulletin, New York etc. 2,1919/20ff. Arnoldshainer Texte, Frankfurt/M. 1,1981ff. The Art Quarterly, Detroit, MI, 1,1938–37,1974; NS 1,1977/78–2,1979 The Arts in Religious and Theological Studies, New Brighton, MN, 1,1988ff. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, Leipzig etc. 1,1898–37,1941/42 Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Cologne etc. 48,1972ff. Abhandlungen zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung. Münchener Universitätsschriften. Juristische Fakultät, Berlin etc. 1,1971ff. Assyriological Studies, Chicago, IL, 1,1931ff. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte, Cairo 1,1900–55,1958; 61,1973ff. Aschkenas. Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der Juden, Vienna etc. 1,1991ff. Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania, Rome 1,1931ff. Acta synodalia sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, Vatican City 1.1,1970ff.; vol. 0.1: Indices, 1980; vol. 0.2: Appendix, 1980; vol. 0.3: Appendix altera, 1986 Annali di storia dell’esegesi, Bologna 1,1984ff. Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Leipzig – Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1,1850–30,1914/15 Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte, Hildesheim etc. 1,1936ff. L’année sociologique, Paris 1,1896/97–12,1909/12; NS 1,1923–2,1925; 3rd series 1940/48–1964; 16,1965ff. Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, Rome 1,1945–20,1964 Acta sanctorum ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. L. d’Achery & J. Mabillon, Paris 1,1668– 6.2,1701; Venice 2 1,1733–6.2 (1740); Paris 3 1,1935–3.1 (1939)

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals ASR ASS ASSR ASTI AStRev ATD ATD.A AThANT AThD ÄthF AThR aAtiqot aAtiqot(H) ATLA ATLA.BS ATM ATSAT ATSl ATTM AU AÜ AuA AuC AUF Aufklärung

Aug. Aug(L) AugL AugSt AUSS AUU AUU.SSU AVTRW AW AWA AWEAT AWH.PH AWR AWR.AT AWR.B AWR.L AWR.N AWR.PG AWR.PT AWR.RG

xlvi

American Sociological Review. Official Journal of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, etc. 1,1936ff. Acta sanctae sedis, Rome 6,1870–41,1908 Archives de sciences sociales des religions, Paris 18/35,1973ff. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, ed. Svenska Teologiska Institutet, Leiden 1,1962–12,1983 African Studies Review, publ. African Studies Association, East Lansing, MI, 13, 1970ff. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk, Göttingen 1949ff. Das Alte Testament Deutsch – Apokryphen, Göttingen 1998ff. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Zürich etc. 3,1944ff. Acta theologica Danica, Åarhus etc. 1,1958ff. Äthiopistische Forschungen, Wiesbaden 1,1977ff. Anglican Theological Review, New York etc. 1,1918/19ff. aAtiqot. Journal of the Israel Department of Antiquities, publ. the Department of Antiquities and Museums in the Ministry of Education and Culture, Jerusalem 1,1955ff. – Hebrew Series 3,1964ff. American Theological Library Association, Metuchen, NJ – ATLA Bibliography Series 1,1974ff. Altes Testament und Moderne, Münster 1,1988ff. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, St.Ottilien 1,1976ff. Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik, Munich 1,1973ff. K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Göttingen 1,1984–2,1994 Der altsprachliche Unterricht. Arbeitshefte zu seiner wissenschaftlichen Begründung und praktischen Gestalt, Stuttgart 1,1951ff. Afrika und Übersee. Sprachen, Kulturen, ed. Institut für Afrikanistik und Äthiopistik der Universität Hamburg, Berlin 36,1951ff. Antike und Abendland, Hamburg etc. 1,1945ff. Antike und Christentum, ed. F.J. Dölger, Münster 1,1929–6,1940/50 Archiv für Urkundenforschung und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, Berlin 1,1908–18,1944 Aufklärung. Interdisziplinäres Jahrbuch zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts und seiner Wirkungsgeschichte, publ. Deutsche Gesellschaft für die Erforschung des Achzehnten Jahrhunderts, Hamburg 1,1986ff. Augustinianum. Periodicum quadrimestre Instituti Patristici “Augustinianum,” Rome 1,1961ff. Augustiniana. Tijdschrift voor de studie van Sint Augustinus en de Augustijnenorde, Louvain 1,1951ff. Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. C. Mayer, Basel etc. 1,1986ff. Augustinian Studies. Publication of Villanova University, Villanova, PA, 1,1970ff. Andrews University Seminary Studies, Berrien Springs, MI, 1,1963ff. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis – Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 1,1968ff. Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, Berlin 1,1958ff. Antike Welt, Feldmeilen 1,1970ff. Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe der Werke Martin Luthers. Texte und Untersuchungen, Cologne 2,1981ff. Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, Halle/S.1,1867– 2.2,1872 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1,1997ff. Aus der Welt der Religion. Forschungen und Berichte, Gießen 1,1924–4,1925; NS 1,1960ff. – Alttestamentliche Reihe 1,1926[?] – Biblische Reihe 1,1926–11,1936 – Liturgische Reihe 2,1925–3,1925 – Neutestamentliche Reihe 1,1930–3,1930[?] – Problemgeschichtliche Reihe 1,1930[?] – Praktisch-theologische Reihe 1,1924–7,1927[?] – Religionsgeschichtliche Reihe 1,1924–4,1928[?]

xlvii AWR.RP AWR.RW AZP AzTh BA BABKG BAGB BaghM BAH BAI BaJ BAKG BalS BAR BAR BASOR BASPap BASPap.S BAug BAW.AO BB BBA BBAur BBB BBBW BBG BBGG BBGW BBKG BBKL BBKR BBL BBN bbRf

BBS BBVO BC BCAr BCH BCJ BCNH.T BDG BDLG BE BEAT

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals – Religionsphilosophische Reihe 1,1926–3,1930[?] – Religionswissenschaftliche Reihe 1,1930; 2,1924–25,1936; NS 1,1940–3,1940[?] Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Stuttgart 1,1976ff. Arbeiten zur Theologie, Stuttgart etc., 1st series 1,1960ff.; 2nd series 1,1962–15,1969 Biblical Archaeologist, publ. American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven, CT, 1,1938–60,1997 Beiträge zur altbayerischen Kirchengeschichte, ed. Verein für Diözesangeschichte von München und Freising, Munich 14.1–2/3, 1929/33; 15,1936ff. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé, Paris 1,1923–67, 1939/40; NS 1, 1946–12, 1950; 1951ff. Baghdader Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Baghdad, Berlin 1,1960ff. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, Paris 1,1921ff. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, Bloomfield Hills, MI, 1,1987ff. Basler Jahrbuch, Basel 1,1879ff. Beiheft zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, Marburg 1,1951ff. Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki 1,1960ff. Bonner akademische Reden, Bonn 1,1929–28,1939; NS 1,1949ff. Biblical Archaeology Review, Washington, DC, 1,1975ff. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem etc. 1,1919ff. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, New Haven, CT, 1,1963/64 (1965) ff. Supplement 1,1978ff. Bibliothèque augustinienne, Paris 1,1936ff. Bibliothek der Alten Welt, series: Der Alte Orient, Zürich etc. 1,1950ff. Badische Biographien, ed. F. v. Weech, Heidelberg 1,1875–6,1901; NS ed. B. Ottnad, Stuttgart 1,1982 Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten, Berlin 1,1956ff. Bibliotheca bibliographica Aureliana, Baden-Baden 1,1959ff. Bonner biblische Beiträge, Bonn 1,1950ff. Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Wiesbaden 1,1954ff. Beiträge zur baltischen Geschichte, Hannover 1,1973ff. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, Grottaferrata 1, 1929/30–14, 1943; NS 1, 1947ff. Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Basel 1,1938ff. Beiträge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, ed. T. Kolde, Erlangen 1,1894–32,1925 Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, ed. F.W. Bautz, Hamm 1,1975ff. Beiträge zu den Bau- und Kunstdenkmälern im Rheinland, Düsseldorf 22,1978ff. Bulletin de la Bible latine. Bulletin d’ancienne littérature chrétienne latine, Maredsous 1955/73ff. Bibliotheca bibliographica Neerlandica, Nieuwkoop 4,1974ff. Bayreuther Beiträge zur Religionsforschung. Eine Schriftenreihe der Facheinheit Religion an der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth, ed. C. Bochinger, E. Nestler & W. Schoberth et al., Bayreuth 1, 2000ff. Berliner byzantinistische Studien, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1994ff. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, Berlin 1,1982ff. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament, ed. C.F. Keil, Leipzig, 1861ff. Bibliothèque des Cahiers archéologiques, Paris 1,1966ff. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, École Française d’Athènes, Paris etc. 1,1877ff. Bibliothèque de la Companie de Jésus, ed. C. Sommervogel, Brussels 1,1890–12,1930; 3rd ed. 1,1960–12,1961 Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section textes, Quebec 1,1977ff. Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 1517–1585, ed. K. Schottenloher, vol. 7 ed. K. Thürauf, Leipzig 1,1933–6,1940; 2nd ed. 1,1956–7,1966 Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, ed. G.W. Sante et al., Göttingen 83,1936/37ff. Biblische Enzyklopädie, ed. W. Dietrich & W. Stegemann, Stuttgart etc. 1,1996ff. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, Frankfurt/ M. etc. 1,1984ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Beer-Sheva BEFAR BeKa Ben. BenshH BeO BEO BET BEThL BEvTh BFChTh BFLTP BFWUG BGAM BGAM.S BGBE BGBR BgF BGl BGLRK BGP BGPhMA BGrL BGS BHCJ BHEL BHF BHG BHG NAuct BHH BHK BHL BHO BHR BHRef BHS BHSt BHTh Bib. Bib.Int. BiBe Bibliotheca Bibliothek BICS BICS.S BIDC BiDi BiDi.R

xlviii

Beer-Sheva. Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East, Beer-Sheva 1,1972; 2,1985ff. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, Paris 1,1877ff. Bedi K’art’lisa. Recueil historique, scientifique et littéraire géorgien. Le destin de la Géorgie, Paris 1,1948–43,1984 Benedictina. Rivista di studi benedettini, Rome 1,1947ff. Bensheimer Hefte, Göttingen (8,1962); 11,1961ff. Bibbia e oriente, Milan etc. 1,1959ff. Bulletin d’études orientales, Damascus 1,1931ff. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, Frankfurt/M. 1,1976ff. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium, Louvain etc. 1,1947ff. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie, Munich 1,1940ff. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, Gütersloh 1,1897–51,1966 Bulletin de la Faculté Libre de Théologie Protestante de Paris, Paris 1,1934/35–21,1958 Beiträge zur Freiburger Wissenschafts- und Universitätsgeschichte, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1952ff. Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Mönchtums und des Benediktinerordens, Münster 1,1912ff. – Supplementband 1,1938ff. Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese, Tübingen 2,1959ff.; vol. 1 entitled: Beiträge zur Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Exegese, 1955 Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg, ed. G. Schwaiger, Regensburg 1,1967ff. Bibliographia Franciscana, Rome 1,1929/30ff (= Supplement to CFr) Beweis des Glaubens (im Geistesleben der Gegenwart), Gütersloh 1,1865–44,1908 Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der reformierten Kirche, Neukirchen 1,1937ff. Bibliographie zur Geschichte des Pietismus, ed. K. Aland & E. Peschke et al., Berlin 1,1972ff. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen, Münster 1,1891–43,1969/72; NS 1,1970ff. Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur, Stuttgart 1971ff. Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, ed. E.v. Ivanka, Graz etc. 1,1954ff. J. Lászlo Polgár, Bibliographie sur l’histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus 1901–1980, Rome 1,1981–3.3,1995 Bibliotheca historico-ecclesiastica Lundensis, Lund 1,1955ff. Bonner historische Forschungen, Bonn 1,1952ff. Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca, publ. Socii Bollandiani, Brussels 1895; 21909; 3rd ed. ed. F. Halkin, 1–3,1957 = 1986 and Auctarium 1969 Novum Auctarium Bibliothecae hagiographicae graecae, ed. F. Halkin, Brussels 1984 Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch, ed. B. Reicke & L. Rost, Göttingen 1,1962–4,1979 Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart 1905/06; 71951; 161973 Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina antiquae et mediae aetatis, publ. Socii Bollandiani, Brussels 1,1898–2,1901 and Supplement 21911 Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis, ed. P. Peeters, Brussels 1910 Bibliothèque d’humanisme et renaissance, Geneva etc. 1,1941ff. Bibliotheca humanistica et reformatorica, Nieuwkoop 1,1971ff. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger & W. Rudolf, Stuttgart 1,1969–15,1975; 2,1984 Berliner historische Studien, Berlin 1,1980ff. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, Tübingen 1,1929–11,1936; 12,1950ff. Biblica. Commentarii periodici ad rem biblicam scientifice investigandam, Rome 1,1920ff. Biblical Interpretation. A Journal of Contemporary Approaches, Leiden 1,1993ff. Biblische Beiträge, Einsiedeln, NS 1,1961ff. Bibliotheca Nubica. Schriftenreihe Bibliothek. Forschung und Praxis, Munich 1,1977ff. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, London 1,1954ff. – Supplement 1,1955ff. Bibliothèque de l’Institut de Droit Canonique de l’Université de Strasbourg, Paris 1,1921ff. Bibliotheca dissidentium, Baden-Baden 1,1980ff. – Répertoire des non-conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-septième siècles 1,1980ff.

xlix BIFAO BIHBR Bijdr. BIJS BiKi BiKon BiLi Bill. BiOr BIRS BISI BiToTe BJDN BJRL BJVK

BK BKGP BKP BKV BLGNP BM.OP BMF BMGS BMHG BMKG BMus BN BNP BNTC BoBKG BOCV BoJ BoJ.B Boreas BOTK BoTr BPat BPfKG BPhC BPhM BPr BPTF BR BrAR BRGA

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo 1,1901ff. Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome, Rome etc. 1,1919ff. Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor philosophie en theologie, Nimwegen etc. 14,1953ff. Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies, London 1,1973ff. Bibel und Kirche. Organ des katholischen Bibel-Werkes, Stuttgart 1,1946ff. Biblische Konfrontationen, Stuttgart 1977ff. Bibel und Liturgie. Baustein für das Leben in Gemeinden, Düsseldorf etc. 1,1926/27ff. H.L. Strack/P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munich 1,1922–6,1961 Bibliotheca orientalis, publ. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden 1,1943ff. Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies, Westport, CT 1,1984ff. Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, Rome 50,1935ff. Bible de tous les temps, Paris 1,1984ff. Biographisches Jahrbuch und deutscher Nekrolog, Berlin 1,1897–18,1917 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (1972ff.: Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library), Manchester 1,1903ff. Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde, publ. Kommission für Bayerische Landesgeschichte at the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Volkskunde, Wolnzach 1,1950ff. Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament, ed.M. Noth/H.W. Wolff, Neukirchen 1955ff. Blätter für Kirchengeschichte Pommerns, Stettin etc. 1,1928–22/23,1940 Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, Meisenheim 1,1960ff. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Kempten etc. 1,1869–80,1888; 2nd ed. 1,1911–62/63,1931; 2nd series 1,1932–20,1938 Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme, Kampen 1,1978ff. Occasional Papers, British Museum, London 1,1978ff. Die Biene auf dem Missionsfelde. Monatsblatt der Gossner’schen Missionsgesellschaft, Berlin 1,1834–108,1941 Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Birmingham 1,1975ff. Bijdragen en mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, publ. by the Historisch Genootschap, Utrecht, The Hague 1,1877–67,1949; 76,1962–82,1968. Beiträge zur Mainzer Kirchengeschichte, Frankfurt/M. 1,1986ff. Bibliothèque du Muséon, Louvain 1,1929–54,1968 Biblische Notizen. Beiträge zur exegetischen Diskussion, Bamberg 1,1976ff. Brill’s New Pauly, Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, Leiden 2002– Black’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. H. Chadwick, London 1957ff. Bonner Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Cologne etc. 1,1972ff. J.S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Hildesheim etc. 1975 Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande, Bonn 96/97,1895ff. – Beihefte 1,1950ff. Boreas. Münsterische Beiträge zur Archäologie, Münster 1,1978ff. Bibliothek für orthodoxe Theologie und Kirche, Zürich 1,1961–3,1964 Bogoslovskie trudy. Theological Works. Travaux théologiques, Moscow 1,1960ff. Biblioteca patristica, Florenz 1,1984ff. Blätter für Pfälzische Kirchengeschichte und religiöse Volkskunde, Grünstadt 1,1925ff. Bibliothèque de philosophie contemporaine, Paris 1931ff. Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, Louvain 6,1964ff. Bensberger Protokolle. Veröffentlichungen der Thomas-Morus-Akademie, Bensberg 1,1976ff. Bijdragen van de philosophische en theologische faculteiten der nederlandsche Jezuiten, Nimwegen 1,1938–13,1952 Biblical Research. Papers of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Chicago, IL etc. 1,1956ff. British Archaeological Reports. International Series, Oxford 43,1978ff. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums, Halle/S.1,1932–5,1952

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals BrJ BRL BS BSAC BSACH BSGJF BSGR BSGRT BSHPF BSHST BSKG BSKORK BSLK BSOAS BSRK BSS BSt BT BTAVO BTAVO.A BTAVO.B BTB BTBF BThSt BThZ BTS BU BudCS BVerfGE BVerwGE BVSAW BVSAW.PH BVSGW.PH BWANT BWB BWFKG BWKG BWPGN BWV ByA ByF ByN ByN.S

l

Bremisches Jahrbuch, Bremen 1,1864ff. K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, Tübingen 1937; 2,1977 Bibliotheca sacra. A Theological Quarterly, Dallas, TX, etc. 21,1864ff. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte. Magallat Gam-aiyat al-Atar al-Qibtiya, Cairo 4,1938ff. Bulletin of the Society for African Church History, Abingdon 1,1963ff. Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Judaistische Forschung. Bulletin de la Société Suisse d’Etudes Juives, Zürich 1,1992ff. Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, ed. A. Hahn et al. , Breslau 1842; 3 1897 = 1962 Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig etc. 1849ff. Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, Paris 1,1852ff. Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, Bern 23,1975ff. Beiträge zur sächsischen Kirchengeschichte, Dresden etc. 1,1882–47,1942 Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche, ed. W. Niesel, Zollikon etc. 3,1938 Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, publ. Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenausschuss, Göttingen 1930; 2,1952; 3,1956; 10,1986; 12,1998 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London 10,1940/42ff. Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, ed. E.F.K. Müller, Leipzig 1903 Bibliotheca sactorum Istituto Giovanni XXIII., Rome 1,1961–12,1969; Index 1970; Appendices 1,1987–2,1999 Biblische Studien, Neukirchen 1,1951–65,1975 The Bible Translator, London 1,1950–22,1971 Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Wiesbaden – Series A: Naturwissenschaften 1,1977ff. – Series B: Geisteswissenschaften 1,1972ff. Biblical Theology Bulletin, New York 1,1971ff. Beiträge zur theologischen Bachforschung, Neuhausen-Stuttgart 1,1983ff. Biblisch-theologische Studien, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1,1977ff. Berliner theologische Zeitschrift, Berlin 1,1984ff. Beiruter Texte und Studien, publ. Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden 1,1964ff. Biblische Untersuchungen, Regensburg 1,1967ff. Buddhist Christian Studies, Honolulu 1,1981ff. Bundesverfassungsgericht: Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, publ. members of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Tübingen 1,1952ff. Bundesverwaltungsgericht: Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts, publ. members of the Supreme Administrative Court of Germany, Berlin 1,1955ff. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Leipzig – Philologisch-Historische Klasse 71,1919–106,1962 – Philologisch-historische Klasse 1,1849–70,1918 Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart etc. 1926ff. Baden-Württembergische Biographien, ed. B. Ottnad, Stuttgart 1,1994ff. Beiträge zur westfälischen Kirchengeschichte, Witten etc. 1,1974ff. Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1886–10,1895; NS 1,1897– 47,1943; (3rd series:) 48,1948ff. Biographisch woordenboek van protestantsche godgeleerden in Nederland, The Hague 1919ff. W. Schmieder, Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke von J.S. Bach. Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, Leipzig 1950; 21958 Byzantinisches Archiv, Leipzig etc. 1,1898–9,1927; 10,1959ff. (= supplement to ByZ) Byzantinische Forschungen, Amsterdam 1,1966ff. Byzantina Neerlandica, Leiden – Series B: Studia 1,1970ff.

li ByN.T BySl BySl.S ByZ Byz. BZ BzA BZAR BZAW BZGAK BzH BZNW CA CAF CAH CAH3 CANE CAr Carmelus CAsJ Cass. Cass.S CAT Cath(M) Cath. Cathedra CAVC CB CB.NT CB.OT CBCo CBCR CBET CBM CBQ CBQ.MS CByrsa CČt CCAR CCAR.YB CCath CCen CCEO CChr CChr.CM CChr.SA CChr.SG CChr.SL CCL CCMéd

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals – Series A: Textus 1,1969ff. Byzantinoslavica. International Journal of Byzantine Studies, Prague 1,1929ff. – Supplementa 1,1933ff. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Leipzig etc. 1,1892ff. Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines, Brüssel 1,1924ff. Biblische Zeitschrift, Paderborn etc. 1,1903–24,1938/39; NS 1,1957ff. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Stuttgart etc. 1,1990 Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, Wiesbaden 1,2000ff. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin etc. 1,1896ff. Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Basel 1,1902ff. Beiträge zur Hagiographie, Stuttgart 1,2000ff. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, Berlin etc. 1,1923ff. Confessio Augustana Congrès Archéologique de France, Paris 1,1834ff. The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. J.B. Bury, Cambridge 1,1924–12,1939; Handbooks 1,1927–5,1939 The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd. ed. by I.E.S. Edwards et al., 1,1970ff. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J.M. Sasson, New York 1–4,1995 Cahiers archéologiques, Paris 1,1946ff. Carmelus. Commentarii ab Instituto Carmelitano editi, Rome 1,1954ff. Central Asiatic Journal. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature, History and Archaeology of Central Asia, Wiesbaden 1,1955ff. Cassiciacum. Eine Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Forschungen über den hl. Augustinus und den Augustinerorden, Würzburg 1,1936ff. – Supplement 1,1968ff. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, Neuchâtel 1963ff. Catholica. Jahrbuch für Kontroverstheologie, Münster etc. 1,1932ff. Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui, demain, ed. G. Mathon & J. Gabriel, Paris 1,1948ff. Cathedra for the History of Eretz Israel and its Yishuv. Qatedra le-tōledōt Eres-Yisra’el weyīssūvah, Jerusalem 1,1976ff. Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum tomus . . ., ed. A. Mai, Rome 1,1828–10,1838 Coniectanea biblica, Lund – New Testament Series 1,1966ff. – Old Testament Series 1,1967ff. Cahiers de la Bibliothèque Copte, Leuven 1,1983ff. Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, Leiden etc. 1,1937–5,1980 Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, Kampen 1990ff. Chester Beatty Monographs, London etc. 1,1951ff. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington, DC, 1,1939ff. – Monograph Series 1,1971ff. Cahiers de Byrsa, Paris 1,1950–10,1964/65 Christianskoe cčtenie, St. Petersburg 1,1821–98,1918 Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York – Yearbook 1,1890ff. Corpus catholicorum, Münster 1,1919ff. Christian Century, Chicago, IL 17,1900ff. Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium Corpus Christianorum, Turnhout – Continuatio mediaevalis 1,1971ff.; (4,1966) – Series apocryphorum 1,1983ff. – Series Graeca 1,1977ff. – Series Latina 1,1954ff. Corpus christianorum seu nova Patrum collectio series Latina, Turnhout etc. 1953ff. Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Xe–XIIe siècles, Poitiers 1,1958

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals CCMon CConf CCSSM CEFR CeS CF CFan CFHB CFHB.B CFM CFM.S CFr CGG CH CHB ChFe ChH CHIQ Chiron CHM CHR Chrêsis ChUP ChW CIC CIG CII CIJ CIL CIMAH CIS CistSQ CistSS CISy CivCatt CJud CLA CLSt CMC CMCS CMG CMH CNEB CNT CNT(N) COD Cod.Theod. Cognoscere

lii

Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum, Siegburg 1,1963ff. Corpus confessionum. Die Bekenntnisse der Christenheit. Sammlung grundlegender Urkunden aus allen Kirchen der Gegenwart, ed. C. Fabricius, Berlin 1928–1944 Convegni del Centro di Studi sulla Spiritualità Medievale, Todi 1,1957ff. Collection de l’École Française de Rome, Rome 8,1972ff. Civilisations et Sociétés, Paris 1,1965ff. Collectanea Friburgensia, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1894–9,1900; 10 (= NS 1),1901–37 (= NS 28),1940; 29,1942ff. Cahiers de Fanjeaux, Fanjeaux etc. 1,1966ff. Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae, Washington, DC, 1,1967ff. – Series Berolinensis Corpus fontium Manichaeorum, Turnhout 1,1996ff. – Subsidia 1,1997ff. Collectanea Franciscana, Rome etc. 1,1931ff.; Supplement = BgF Christlicher Glaube in moderner Gesellschaft. Enzyklopädische Bibliothek in 30 Themenbänden und 7 Quellenbänden, ed. F. Böckle, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1981–37,1984 Cahiers d’histoire, Lyon etc. (1),1956; 2,1957ff. Cambridge History of the Bible, Cambridge 1,1963–3,1970 Ching Feng. Quarterly Notes on Christianity and Chinese Religion and Culture, Hong Kong 1,1957ff. Church History. American Society of Church History, Chicago, IL, etc. 1,1932ff. Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly. A Journal for the History of Lutheranism in America, St. Louis, MO, 1,1928/29ff. Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Munich 1,1971ff. Cahiers d’histoire mondiale, Paris 1,1953–14,1972 The Catholic Historical Review, Washington, DC, 1,1915/16ff. Chrêsis. Die Methoden der Kirchenväter im Umgang mit der antiken Kultur, Basel 1,1984; 2,1993ff. Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle et al., Paris 1,1889–4,1897 Christliche Welt, Gotha 1,1886; 1,1887–55,1941 Codex Iuris Canonici, Rome 1917; 1983 (= AAS 75,2) Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin 1,1828–6,1877 Corpus inscriptionum Indicarum, Benares 1,1961ff. Corpus inscriptionum Judaicarum. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions, Vatican City 1,1936ff. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin 1,1862ff. Corpus inscriptionum medii aevi Helvetiae, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1977ff. Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, Paris 1,1881ff. Cisterian Studies Quarterly. An International Review of Monastic and Contemplative Spirituality, Vina, CA, 27,1992ff. Cistercian Studies Series, Shannon 1,1969ff. Cahiers internationaux de symbolisme, Geneva etc. 1,1963ff. Civiltà cattolica, Rome 1,1850–18,1903; 55,1904ff. Conservative Judaism, New York 1,1945ff. Codices Latini antiquiores, ed. E.A. Lowe, Oxford 1,1934–11,1969 Canon Law Studies, Washington, DC, 1,1916ff. Collana Magistero conciliare, Turin 1,1967ff. Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, Cambridge 1,1981–25,1993 Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Leipzig etc. 1908ff. Cambridge Medieval History, Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1924–1936; individual vols. in some cases later The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, Cambridge 1963ff. Coniectanea neotestamentica, Uppsala 1,1936–20,1964 Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, ed. F. Bovon, Neuchâtel etc. 1949ff. Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. H. Jedin, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1962; 2,1962; 3,1973 Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen, Berlin 1–2,1905; 21954; 41971 Cognoscere: erkennen – entdecken – verstehen, Berlin 1,1993ff.

liii Comitatus Comm. Comptes rendus

ComSoc Conc(D) Conceptus ContEras Contubernium CoptGnL COst COT CP CPF CPG CPJ CPL CPS CPS.L CQ CQR CR CRAI CRB CRBS CRI Critique CRM CRP CrSt CRThPh CSA CSASE CSCO CSCO.Ae CSCO.Ar CSCO.S CSCO.Sub CSCP CSCT CSEL CSHB CSMLT CSoc CStS CT

CTA

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Comitatus. A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Los Angeles, CA, 1,1970ff. Commentary, publ. American Jewish Committee, New York, NY 1,1945/46ff. Comptes rendus des séances, de l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris 1,1857(1858)–8,1864; NS 1,1865–7,1871; 3rd series 1,1872; 4th series 1,1873(1874)– 27,1899; 1900ff. Communicatio socialis. Internationale Zeitschrift für Kommunikation in Religion, Kirche und Gesellschaft, Mainz etc. 1,1968ff. Concilium. Internationale Zeitschrift für Theologie, Einsiedeln etc. 1,1965ff. Conceptus. Zeitschrift für Philosophie, St. Augustin, 1,1967–6,1972; 7 = 21,1973ff. Contemporaries of Erasmus. A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. P.G. Bietenholz & T.B. Deutscher, 3 vols., Toronto etc. 1985–1987 Contubernium. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 1,1971ff. Coptic Gnostic Library, Leiden 1,1978ff. Der christliche Osten. Amtliches Mitteilungsblatt der Catholica Unio Deutschlands, österreichs und der Schweiz, Würzburg 7,1952ff. Commentaar op het Oude Testament, Kampen 1951ff. Classical Philology, Chicago, IL etc. 1,1906ff. Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, Florence 1,1989ff. Clavis patrum Graecorum . . ., ed. M. Geerard, Brepolis-Turnhout (1,1983); 2,1974ff. Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum, Cambridge, MA 1,1957–3,1964 Clavis patrum Latinorum . . ., ed. E. Dekkers et al., Steenbrugge 1951; 21961; 31995 Corona patrum Salesiana, Sanctorum patrum Graecorum et Latinorum opera selecta, Turin – Series Latina 1,1935ff. Classical Quarterly, London etc. 1,1907– 45 (= NS 1), 1951ff. Church Quarterly Review, London 1,1875–169,1968 Corpus reformatorum, Berlin etc. 1,1834ff. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris 1,1857ff. Cahiers de la Revue biblique, Paris 1,1964ff. Currents in Research, Biblical Studies, Sheffield 1,1993ff. Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad novum testamentum, Assen 1974ff. Critique. Revue générale des publications françaises et étrangères, Paris 1,1946ff. Commentarium pro religiosis (16,1935ff.:) et missionariis, Rome 1,1920–24,1943; 25,1944/46; 26,1947; 27 = 29,1948ff. Collection «Recherches pastorales», Paris 1,1963ff. Cristianesimo nella storia, Bologna 1,1980ff. Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Geneva etc. 1,1977ff. Corpus scriptorum Augustinianorum. Opera auctorum Ordinis Sancti Augustini iussu Curiae Generalis critice edenda, Rome 1970ff. Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge 1,1990ff. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, Rome etc. 1,1903ff. – Scriptores Aethiopici 1,1903ff. – Scriptores Armeniaci 1,1953ff. – Scriptores Syri 1,1903ff. – Subsidia 1,1950ff. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, Ithaca, NY etc. 1,1887ff. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, Leiden 1,1972ff. Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna 1,1866ff. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, Bonn 1,1828–50,1897 Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Cambridge 1,1920–15,1930; NS 1,1951–14,1970; Series 2 6,1979; Series 3 1,1969–21,1984; Series 4 1,1986ff. Christianisme social, Paris etc. 22,1909–79,1971 Collected Studies Series, London 1970ff. Concilium Tridentinum. Diarium, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum nova Collectio, publ. Societas Goerresiana promovendis inter Catholicos Germaniae Litterarum Studiis, Freiburg i.Br. 1901ff. A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétique: découvertes à Ras ShamraUgarit de 1929–1939, Paris 1–2,1963

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals CTh CThAP CThM CThM.BW CThM.PT CThM.ST CTJ CTMA CTR CTun CUC CUCon CUE CUFr Curare D&A DA DACL Daed. DaF DaM DAWW DAWW.PH db DB(V) DBA.Mf DBAT DBE DBF DBI DBiblI DBJ DBL DBL 3 DBS DBW DCA DCB DCH DDC DDD DE DEBl

liv

Cahiers théologiques, Neuchâtel etc. 27,1950ff. Cahiers théologiques de l’actualité protestante, Neuchâtel 1,1943–26,1949 Calwer theologische Monographien, Stuttgart – Series A: Bibelwissenschaft 1,1972ff. – Series C: Praktische Theologie und Missionswissenschaft 1,1973ff. – Series B: Systematische Theologie und Kirchengeschichte 1,1973ff. Calvin Theological Journal, Grand Rapids, MI, 1,1966ff. Colección teología y mundo actual, Santander 16,1969ff. Chinese Theological Review, Holland, MI 1,1985ff. Les cahiers de Tunisie. Revue de sciences humaines, Tunis etc. 1,1953ff. Concilium universale Chalcedonense, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin etc. 1,1932–6,1938 Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum, Berlin etc. 1,1914– 3,1984 Concilium universale Ephesenum, Berlin etc. 1922ff. Collection des universités de France, Paris 1920ff. Curare. Zeitschrift für Ethnomedizin, publ. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ethnomedizin e.V., Berlin 1,1978ff. Dialogue & Alliance. A Journal of the International Religious Foundation, New York 1,1987ff. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, Marburg etc. 1,1937–7,1944; 8,1950/51ff. Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, F. Cabrol & H. Leclercq, Paris 1.1,1907–15.2,1953 Daedalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston, MA, 86,1955/57ff. Damaszener Forschungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Station Damaskus, Mainz 1,1989ff. Damaszener Mitteilungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Station Damaskus, Mainz 1,1983ff. Denkschrift der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Vienna – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1,1850–73.1,1947 Deutsche Bibliothek. Sammlung seltener Schriften der älteren deutschen NationalLiteratur, ed. Kurz, Leipzig 1,1862ff. Dictionnaire de la bible, ed. F. Vigouroux, Paris vol. 1.1,1895/97–5.2,1912 Deutsches Biographisches Archiv, ed. B. Fabian et al., Munich 1986, microfiche edition; NS 1993 Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche, Dielheim 1,1972ff. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, ed. W. Killy, Munich 1995ff. Dictionnaire de biographie française, Paris 1,1923ff. Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, Rome 1,1960ff. Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. J.H. Hayes, Nashville, TN, 1–2,1999 Deutsches Biographisches Jahrbuch, publ. Verband der Deutschen Akademien, Stuttgart etc. 1,1914/16–5,1923; 10,1928–11,1929; vols. 6–9 did not appear Dansk biografisk leksikon, Copenhagen 1,1933–27,1944 Dansk biografisk leksikon, 3rd ed., Copenhagen 1,1979–16,1984 Dictionnaire de la bible, Supplément, ed. L. Pirot et al., Paris 1,1928ff. D. Bonhoeffer, Werke, ed. E. Bethge, E. Feil & C.Gremmels, Munich 1,1986–16,1998 Dizionario della chiesa ambrosiana, Milan 1,1987ff. Dictionary of Christian Biography. Literature, Sects and Doctrines . . ., ed. W. Smith et al., London 1,1877–4,1887; repr. New York 1967 The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. D.J.A. Clines, Sheffield 1,1993ff. Dictionnaire de droit canonique, Paris 1,1924–7,1965 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking & P.W. van der Horst, Leiden 1995; 2nd rev. ed. 1999 Deutsch-evangelisch. Monatsblätter für den gesamten deutschen Protestantismus, Leipzig etc. 1,1910–11.6,1920 Deutsch-evangelische Blätter, Halle/S.1,1876–33,1908

lv DECA DEM deutsche jugend DH

DHEE DHGE DHP DHS DHug DI Diacritics Diak(US) Dial. Die Sammlung Digest des Ostens DiKi Diog(GB) DIP DiTh DJD DK DKH DKL DL DLAS DMW DNB

DNP DOA DÖAW DÖAW.PH DOP DöV DPA DPAC DPARA DR DRTA DRTA.JR DRTA.MR

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien, ed. A. di Berardino, Paris 1–2,1990 Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. N. Losskij, Geneva 1991; 22002 Deutsche Jugend. Zeitschrift für Jugendfragen und Jugendarbeit, publ. in association with the Deutscher Bundesjugendring, Weinheim 1,1953ff. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen, verbessert, ed. P. Hünermann, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 371991 Diccionario de historia Eclesiastica España, ed. Q.A. Vaquero, Madrid 1,1972–4,1975; Supplement 1987 Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, ed. A. Baudrillart, Paris 1,1912ff. Dictionnaire historique de la papauté, ed. P. Levillain, Paris 1994 Deutsche Hochschulschriften, Egelsbach etc. 401,1991ff. Der deutsche Hugenott. Zeitschrift für die Mitglieder des . . . Deutschen Hugenotten-Vereins, ed. R. Fouquet, Bad Karlshafen 1,1929–61,1997 Die deutschen Inschriften, Stuttgart 1,1942ff. Diacritics. A Review of Contemporary Criticism, Baltimore, MD, 1,1971ff. Diakonia. A Quarterly Devoted to Advancing Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, Bronx, NY, 1,1966–19,1984 Dialectica. International Review of Philosophy of Knowledge, Neuchâtel etc. 1,1947ff. Die Sammlung. Zeitschrift für Kultur und Erziehung, Göttingen 1,1945/46–15,1960 Digest des Ostens, Königstein/Taunus [1],1958–20,1977 Dialog der Kirchen. Veröffentlichungen des ökumenischen Arbeitskreises Evangelischer und Katholischer Theologen, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1982ff. Diogenes. An International Review of Philosophy and Humanistic Studies, Providence, RI, 1,1952ff. Dizionario degli istituti di perfezione, Rome 1,1974ff. Disputationes theologicae, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1975ff. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Oxford 1,1955ff. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels/from the 6th ed. W. Kranz, Berlin etc. 1903; 61951 Danske kirkes historie, Copenhagen 1,1950–8,1966 Das deutsche Kirchenlied. Kritische Gesamtausgabe der Melodien, ed. K. Ameln, Kassel 1,1975ff. W. Kosch, Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon, Bern, 2nd ed. 1,1949–4,1958; 3rd, fully rev. ed. by B. Berger et al. 1,1968ff. Deutsche Literatur von den Anfängen bis 1700, Bern etc. 1,1988ff. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, Stuttgart 1,1875ff. Dictionary of National Biography from the Earliest Times to 1900, ed. L. Stephen & S. Lee, London 1,1885–63,1900; Supplement 1,1901–3,1901; 2nd ed. 1,1908–22,1909; Supplement 1,1912ff. Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, 15 vols., ed. H. Cancik & H. Schneider, Stuttgart 1996ff. The Dictionary of Art, 36 vols., ed. J. Turner, New York 1996 Denkschriften. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna – Philosophisch-historische Klasse 73,1947ff. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Cambridge, MA, 1,1941ff. Die öffentliche Verwaltung, Stuttgart 1,1975ff. Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, Paris 1,1989ff. Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, ed. A. Di Berardino, Casale Monferrato 1,1983–3,1988 Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rome 1,1821–15,1864; 2nd series 1,1881–15,1921 Downside Review, Bath 1,1880/82ff. Deutsche Reichstagsakten, publ. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Gotha etc. – Jüngere Reihe 1,1893ff. – Mittlere Reihe 1,1867ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals DS DSD DSM-IV

DSp DTb DtBis DTC DTh DThC DtPfrBl DVBl DVjs DWb DWü

DZGW DZKR EA EAEHL EAZ EBrit EC ECC EcclLJ ED EdF EDG EdM EE EEBS EEC EETS EETS.ES EETS.SS EGTSK EHK EHP EHS EHS.G

lvi

Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. H. Denzinger & A. Schönmetzer, Freiburg i.Br. 361976 Dead Sea Discoveries, Leiden 1,1994ff. Diagnostisches und statistisches Manual psychischer Störungen, trans. of the 4th ed. of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders der American Psychiatric Association, Göttingen 1996 Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire, founded by M. Viller, Paris 1,1937ff. Dalp-Taschenbücher, Bern etc. Die deutschen Bischöfe, Bonn 0.1, 1968–0.6,1973; 1,1973ff. Dictionnaire de théologie chrétienne. Par une équipe internationale de théologiens, ed. J. Doré, Paris 1,1979 Deutsche Theologie. Monatsschrift für die deutsche evangelische Kirche, Stuttgart 1,1934– 10,1943 Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Paris 1,1903–15,1950 and Tables générales 1,1951– 3,1972 Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, Stuttgart etc. 1,1897ff. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, ed. K. Blaum et al., Cologne 65,1950ff. Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, Halle/S. 1,1923ff. Deutsches Wörterbuch, founded by J. Grimm & W. Grimm, Leipzig 1,1854–16,1954 and index of sources 1971; new ed. 1,1965ff. Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene, ed. H. Meyer, H.J. Urban & L. Vischer, Paderborn etc. vol. 1: 1931–1982, 1983; vol. 2: 1982–1990, 1992 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1889–12,1894/95; NS 1,1896/97–2,1897/98 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, Tübingen 1,1891–25,1915/16 El Amarna-Briefe. The Amarna Letters, ed. and trans. W.L. Moran , Baltimore, MD, etc. 1992 Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land, ed. M. Avi-Yonah, London 1,1975–4,1978 Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift, Berlin etc. 1,1960ff. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edinburgh etc. 1,1768–3,1771; 9th ed. 1875–1889; 14th ed. 1–24,1929; 15th ed. 1962 etc. Enciclopedia cattolica, ed. G. Pizzardo, Vatican City 1,1948–12,1954 The Eerdmans Critical Commentary, ed. D.N. Freedman & A.B. Beck, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000ff. Ecclesiastical Law Journal. The Journal of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, London 1,1987ff. Euntes Docete, Rome 1,1948ff. Erträge der Forschung, Darmstadt 1,1970ff. Enzyklopädie deutscher Geschichte, Munich 1,1988ff. Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung, ed. K. Ranke, Berlin 1,1975ff. Estudios eclesiásticos, Madrid 1,1922–15,1936; 16,1942ff. Epetēris Hetaireias Byzantinōn Spudōn. Annuaires de l’Association d’Études Byzantines, Athens 1,1924ff. Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. A. Di Berardino, New York 1–2,1992 Early English Text Society. Original Series, London etc. 1,1864ff. – Extra series 1,1867–126,1935 – Supplementary series 1,1970ff. Essener Gespräche zum Thema Staat und Kirche, Münster 1,1966ff. Eine heilige Kirche. Zeitschrift für ökumenische Einheit, Munich 16,1934–29,1957/58; NS 1,1963 Encyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, ed. W. Rein, Langensalza 1,1894–7,1899; Supplement 1,1906–3,1911; 2nd ed. 1,1902–10,1911 Europäische Hochschulschriften, Frankfurt/M. etc. – Series 3: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 1,1967ff.

lvii EHS.R EHS.T EI EI 2 EI(D) EichM EIr EJ EJ(D) EK EKD EKD.D EKD.T EKGB EKK EKKd EkklAl EKL EKO EkTh EKZ EL Elephantine

ELKZ EMISJ EMM EMML

EMZ

EnAC EncBud EncDSS EncIt EncPh EncR EncRel (E) EO EOMJA EOr Eos EpdD EpGF

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals – Series 2: Rechtswissenschaft 1,1967ff. – Series 23: Theologie 1,1970ff. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. M.T. Houtsma, Leiden 1,1913–4,1934; Supplement 1938 The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New ed. by C.E. Bosworth etc., Leiden 1,1960ff.; Supplement 1980ff. Enzyklopädie des Islam, ed. M.T. Houtsma, Leiden 1,1913–4,1934; Supplement 1938 Eichstätter Materialien, Regensburg 1,1984ff. Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, London 1,1982ff. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1–16,1971; 17,1982ff. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Berlin 1,1928– 10,1934 Evangelische Kommentare, Stuttgart 1,1968ff. Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland – Die Denkschriften der EKD, Gütersloh 1,1978ff. – Texte, Hannover 2,1982ff. Einzelarbeiten aus der Kirchengeschichte Bayerns, Nürnberg 1,1925ff. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Neukirchen 1975ff. Evangelische Kirchenkunde, Tübingen etc. 1,1902–7,1919 Ekklēsiastikē alētheia, Constantinople 1,1880/81–43,1923 Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Göttingen 1,1956–4,1961; 2nd ed. 1,1961–4,1962; 3rd ed. 1,1986ff. Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts, ed. E. Sehling, Leipzig etc. 1,1902–15,1977 Ekklēsia kai theologia. Church and Theology, London 1,1980ff. Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. Organ der Evangelisch-Lutherischen innerhalb der Preußischen Landeskirche, Berlin 1,1827–104,1930 Ephemerides liturgicae, Vatican City 1,1887ff. Elephantine. Grabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo in Zusammenarbeit mit dem schweizerischen Institut für ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde Kairo, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Berlin, Mainz 1980ff. Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung, Munich 1,1947–15,1961 Estudios y monografias. Institución San Jeronimo para la Investigacion Biblica, Madrid 1,1977ff. Evangelisches Missions-Magazin, Basel, NS 1,1857–118,1974 G. Haile & W. Macomber, eds., A Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa, and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville, MN, 1975ff. Evangelische Missionszeitschrift. Monatsblatt für Missionswissenschaft und evangelische Religionskunde, Stuttgart 1,1940–5,1944; NS 6,1949–31,1974; (6,1949–15,1958 entitled: Evangelische Missionszeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und evangelische Religionskunde) Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique. Fondation Hardt pour l’Etude de l’Antiquité Classique, Geneva 1,1954ff. Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, ed. G.P. Malalasekera et al., Colombo 1,1961ff. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L.H. Schiffman, 2 vols., Oxford 2002 Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, Rome 1,1929–36,1939; Appendices [37],1937ff. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. P. Edward et al., New York etc. 1–8,1967 The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. H.J. Hillerbrand, New York 1996 The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade, New York 1–16,1987 Ecclesia orans. Periodica de scientiis liturgicis, Rome 1,1984ff. Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima: canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae, ed. C.H. Turner, Oxford 1.1,1899–3,1939 Échos d’Orient, Bucharest etc. 1,1897/98–39/40,1940/42 Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, Wroclaw etc. 1,1894ff. Evangelischer Pressedienst. Dokumentation: ein Informationsdienst, Frankfurt/M., 1968– 1993; Epd-Dokumentation, 1994ff. Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies, Göttingen 1988

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals EPH EphMar EPhW EpigrAnat EPRO ER Eranos ERE ErIs ErJb EScR ESI ESL EspSag ESt EstB EStL ET EtB EtCl EtGr Ethica EThL Ethnog. EThSt ETR Études EU EuA EuG Euphorion EuS EvDia EvErz EvJ EvMis EvQ EvSoz EvTh EWNT EWP Exchange

FaCh FAT FBESG

lviii

Études de philologie et d’histoire, Geneva 1,1967ff. Ephemerides Mariologicae. Commentaria de re Mariali a Superioribus Scholis C.M.F. exarata, Madrid 1,1951ff. Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, ed. J. Mittelstrass, Mannheim 1,1980ff. Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift für Epigraphik und historische Geographie Anatoliens, Bonn 1,1983ff. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain, Leiden 1,1961ff. Ecumenical Review. World Council of Churches, Geneva 1,1948/49ff. Eranos. Yearbook, Leiden 39,1970ff. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh 1,1908–13,1926 Ereß-Yiśrā’ēl. Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem 1,1951ff. Eranos-Jahrbuch, Zürich 1,1933–38,1969 Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses, ed. F. Lichtenberger, Paris 1,1877–13,1882 Excavations and Surveys in Israel, ed. I. Pommerantz, Jerusalem 1,1982ff. Evangelisches Soziallexikon, Stuttgart 1954; 21956; 31958; 41963; 51965; 61969; 71980; new ed. 2001 España sagrada. Theatro geographico-historico de la Iglesia de España, Madrid 1,1754– 56,1957 Eichstätter Studien, Eichstätt etc. 1,1937–8,1962; NS 1,1968ff. Estudios bíblicos, Madrid 1,1929–8,1936 (= No. 1–24/25); 2nd series 1,1941/42ff. Evangelisches Staatslexikon, Stuttgart 1966; 2 1975; 3rd ed. 1–2,1987 The Expository Times, Edinburgh etc. 1,1889/90ff. Études bibliques, Paris 1903ff.; NS 1,1983ff. Les Études classiques, Namur 1,1932ff. Études grégoriennes, Solesmes 1,1954ff. Ethica. Wissenschaft und Verantwortung, Innsbruck 1,1993ff. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses, Leuven etc. 1,1924ff. L’Ethnographie, Paris 1913/14ff. Erfurter theologische Studien, Leipzig 1,1956ff. Études théologiques et religieuses, Montpellier 1,1926ff. Études. Revue catholique d’intérêt général, ed. Pères de la Compagnie de Jésus, Paris 34,1897ff. Evangelische Unterweisung, Dortmund 1,1946–25,1970 Erbe und Auftrag. Benediktinische Monatschrift, Beuron 35,1959ff. Erkenntnis und Glaube. Schriften der Evangelischen Forschungsakademie Ilsenburg, Berlin 1,1950ff. Euphorion. Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte, Heidelberg 1,1894ff. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften. Streitforum für Erwägungskultur, Opladen 1,1990ff. Die Evangelische Diaspora. Jahrbuch des Gustav-Adolf-Werkes, Leipzig 2,1920/21ff. Der evangelische Erzieher, Frankfurt/M. 1,1949ff. Evangelische Jahresbriefe, publ. for the Evangelische Michaelsbruderschaft, Kassel 6,1936/37–16,1951/52 Evangelische Mission. Jahrbuch, publ. Verband Evangelischer Missionskonferenz, Hamburg 1,1969–17,1985. Evangelical Quarterly, London etc. 1,1929ff. Evangelisch-sozial. Mitteilungen des Evangelisch-Sozialen Kongresses. Vierteljahresschrift für die sozialkirchliche Arbeit, Göttingen 1904–1943 Evangelische Theologie, Munich 1,1934/35–5,1938; 6,1946/47ff. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. H.R. Balz & G. Schneider, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1980–1983; 2 1992 Erziehung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Munich 1,1967ff. Exchange. Bulletin de la littérature des églises du Tiers Monde. Bulletin of Third World Christian Literature. Interuniversitair Instituut voor Missiologie en Oekumenica, Leiden 1,1972ff. Fathers of the Church, Washington, DC, 1,1932ff. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Tübingen 1,1991ff. Forschungen und Berichte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft, Witten etc. 16,1959ff.

lix FBPG FBPG.NF.B FBPG.NS FC FCCO FChr FDA FEB FGH FGIL FGLP FGNK FHG FJB FKDG FKGG FKRG FKRW FKTh FMAG FMSt FOP FOTL FPDR FPT FQKGO Francia Francia.B FrFor FRKG FRLANT FrPr FrS FS FS.B FSATS FSÖTh FSThR FTF FThL FThSt FTS FuGB FuH FV FVK

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte, publ. for the Preussische Historische Kommission, Berlin 1,1888–55.1,1944 – New series, supplement 1,1992ff. – New series 1,1992ff. Formula Concordiae Fontes Codificazione canonica orientale. Sacra Congregazione per la Chiesa Orientale, Rome 1st series 1,1930–15,1934; 2nd series 1,1935–30,1942; 3rd series 1,1943ff. Fontes Christiani. Zweisprachige Neuausgabe christlicher Quellentexte aus Altertum und Mittelalter, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1990ff. Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1865ff. Flugschriften des Evangelischen Bundes, Halle/S.1,1887–352,1914 Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby, Berlin etc. 1,1923ff. Forschungen zur Geschichte des innerkirchlichen Lebens, Innsbruck 1,1929– 5/6,1937 Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus, Munich 1,1928–4,1928; 10th series 1,1942–43,1972 Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Literatur, ed. T. Zahn, Leipzig 1,1881–10,1929 Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Müller, Paris 1,1841–5,1870 Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge, Frankfurt/M. 1,1973ff. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, Göttingen 1,1952ff. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1922–21,1941; NS 1,1956– 8,1959 Forschungen zur kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, Cologne etc. 1,1957ff. Forschungen zur Kirchenrechtswissenschaft, Würzburg 1,1986ff. Forum Katholische Theologie, Rothenburg ob der Tauber 1,1985ff. Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte, Berlin 1,1956ff. Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Berlin 1,1967ff. Faith and Order Papers, World Council of Churches, Commission on Faith and Order, Geneva 1,1910–34,1921; NS 1,1949ff. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Grand Rapids, MI, 1,1983ff. Forum zur Pädagogik und Didaktik der Religion, Weinheim 1,1988ff. Forschungen zur praktischen Theologie, Frankfurt/M. 1,1986ff. Forschungen und Quellen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands, Cologne etc. 1,1964ff. Francia. Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte, Munich 1,1973ff. – Supplement series 1,1975ff. Franziskanische Forschungen, Werl 1,1935ff. Forschungen zur Rechts- und Kulturgeschichte, Innsbruck 1,1964ff. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Göttingen 1,1903ff. France protestante, Valence 1,1952–8,1959 Franciscan Studies. A Quarterly Review, St. Bonaventure, NY, 1,1924–26,1945; NS 6,1946ff. Franziskanische Studien, Münster etc. 1,1914ff. – Supplement 1,1915ff. Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, Leipzig 1720–1750 Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie, Göttingen 9,1962ff. Forschungen zur systematischen Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, Göttingen 1,1955– 8,1961 Forhandlingar. Teologiska Föreningen, Uppsala 1,1951/55 (= UUÅ) Forum theologiae linguisticae, Bonn 1,1972ff. Freiburger theologische Studien, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1910ff. Frankfurter theologische Studien, Frankfurt/M. 1,1969ff. Fuldaer Geschichtsblätter, Fulda 1,1902–13,1914; 14,1920–29,1937/38; 30,1954ff. Fuldaer Hefte, ed. F. Hübner, Berlin 10,1955ff. Foi et vie, Paris 1,1898ff. Forschungen zur Volkskunde, Düsseldorf etc. 1,1930–32,1938; 33,1950ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals fzb FzB FZPhTh G&R GAGS GAKGS GAT GBDHV GBNTL GCh GCS GCS.NF GD GDK GeGe GeJu GeLe Genava GermBen GermSac

Gesenius Gesenius 18 GFd GFd.B GGA GGB GK GKT GlLern GLOK Gn. GNO GNT GÖB

GOF GOF.H GOF.I GOF.S

lx

Forschungen zur Bibel, Würzburg 1,1972ff. Forschung zur Bibel, Stuttgart 1971ff. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, Freiburg, Switzerland 68,1957ff. Greece & Rome, Oxford 1,1931/32ff. Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen . . ., Göttingen 1,1753–214,1801 Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, Münster 9,1945–32,1988 (= Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft, Series 1) Grundrisse zum Alten Testament, Göttingen 1,1975ff. Geschichtsblätter des Deutschen Hugenottenvereins, Sickte etc. 1,1890/94–14,1910/14; NS 1,1924–7,1936; 15,1937/59ff. Göttingische Bibliothek der neuesten theologischen Literatur, Göttingen 1,1795–5,1800 Die Geschichte des Christentums. Religion, Politik, Kultur, ed. J.-M. Mayeur et al., Freiburg etc. 1991ff. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Berlin 1,1897– 53,1969; 1971ff. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, publ. BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin NS 1,1995ff. Die großen Deutschen, Berlin 1,1935–5,1937 Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, ed. H.B. Meyer et al., Regensburg 1983ff. Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für historische Sozialwissenschaft, Göttingen 1,1975ff. Germania Judaica, ed. I. Elbogen et al., Tübingen 1,1964–3.2,1995 Geist und Leben. Studien zur Verwirklichung der christlichen Botschaft, Würzburg 1,1971ff. Genava. Une revue d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie, Geneva 1,1923–30,1952; NS 1,1953ff. Germania Benedictina, Ottobeuren 2,1970ff. Germania Sacra, Berlin – Abteilung 1: Die Bistümer der Kirchenprovinz Magdeburg 1,1929–4.2,1972 – Abteilung 2: Die Bistümer der Kirchenprovinz Mainz 1.1,1937–2,1966 – Abteilung 3: Die Bistümer der Kirchenprovinz Köln 1,1938 – NS 1,1962ff. W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, Berlin etc. 17 1915; repr. 1960 W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 2 vols., 18th ed., ed. and rev. H. Donner, Berlin etc. 1987–1995 Geschichtsfreund, Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins der Fünf Orte Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden ob und nid dem Wald und Zug, Stans 1,1843ff. – Supplement 1,1949ff. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, Göttingen 1,1801ff. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. O. Brunner et al., Stuttgart 1,1972ff. Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1984–12,1985 Grundkurs Theologie, Stuttgart 1,1988ff. Glaube und Lernen, Göttingen 1,1986ff. Geist und Leben der Ostkirche, Graz etc. 1,1961ff. Gnomon. Kritische Zeitschrift für die gesamte klassische Altertumswissenschaft, Munich etc. 1,1925ff. Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Leiden 1,1921ff. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament, Göttingen 1,1971ff. (= supplement series to NTD) R. Rouse & S.C. Neill , Geschichte der ökumenischen Bewegung, Göttingen (German ed. of HEM) – 1517–1948: Part 1 (= GöB 1), 1957, 21963; Part 2 (= GöB 2), 1958, 21973 – 1948–1968 (= GöB 3), ed. H.E. Fey, rev. G. Gassmann, 1974 Göttinger Orientforschungen, Wiesbaden – Series 6: Hellenistica 1,1974ff. – Series 3: Iranica 1,1973ff. – Series 1: Syriaca 1,1971ff.

lxi GöK GOTR GPM GrB GRBS GRel GRM GrTS GSL.AT GSL.NT GT GT.P GT.S GTA GTBS GThW GuL GuV GVUL

GWU Gymnasium HAE HAHR HALAT HAT HATS HAW HB HbEG HbKL HBO HBOT HBS HbSS HBSt HCE HCO HCOT HdbEG HDEKM HDG

HDIEO

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Geschichte der ökumenischen Konzilien, ed. G. Dumeige, Mainz 1,1964ff. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Brookline, MA, 1,1954ff. Göttinger Predigtmeditationen, ed. M. Fischer, Göttingen 1,1946/47ff. Grazer Beiträge. Zeitschrift für die klassische Altertumswissenschaft, ed. F. Stoessl 1,1973ff. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, MA 1,1958ff. Geographia religionum. Interdisziplinäre Schriftenreihe zur Religionsgeographie, Berlin 1,1985ff. Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift, ed. H. Schröder, Heidelberg 1,1909–31,1943; 32 (= NS 1), 1950–76 (= NS 45),1995; NS 46,1996ff. Grazer theologische Studien, Graz 1,1978ff. Geistliche Schriftlesung. Erläuterungen zum Alten Testament, Düsseldorf 1,1969ff. Geistliche Schriftlesung. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament, Düsseldorf 1,1962ff. Gesellschaft und Theologie, Munich etc. – Abteilung Praxis der Kirche 1,1970ff. – Abteilung Systematische Beiträge 1,1970–26,1978 Göttinger theologische Arbeiten, Göttingen 1,1975ff. Gütersloher Taschenbücher Siebenstern, Gütersloh 2,1964ff. Grundriß der theologischen Wissenschaft, Tübingen 1,1893ff. Geist und Leben. Zeitschrift für Askese und Mystik, Würzburg 20,1947ff. R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Tübingen 1,1933–4,1965 Großes vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste, welche bißhero durch menschlichen Verstand . . . erfunden . . . worden . . ., ed. J.H. Zedler, Halle/S. etc. 1,1732–64,1754; supplement vols. 1,1732–4,1754 Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, Offenburg 1,1950ff. Gymnasium. Zeitschrift für Kultur der Antike und humanistische Bildung, ed. F. Bömer, Heidelberg 48,1937ff. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Darmstadt 1995 Hispanic American Historical Review, publ. in association with the Conference on Latin American History of the American Historical Association, Durham, NC 1,1918ff. Köhler & W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Leiden 3rd ed. 1,1967; 2,1974; 3,1983; 4,1990 Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tübingen 1934ff. Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, Cambridge, MA 1,1965ff. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Munich 1922ff. Historische Bibliothek, Munich 1,1896–50,1923 Handbuch zum Evangelischen Gesangbuch, Göttingen 1,1995ff. Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik, ed. L. Eisenhofer, 2 vols., Freiburg i.Br. 1932/33, 2,1941 Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft, Halle/S. 1,1979ff. Hebrew Bible, Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation, ed. M. Sæbø, Göttingen 1.1,1996ff. Herders biblische Studien, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1994ff. Handbuch der Seelsorge, rev. I. Becker et al., Berlin 1983; 2,1983; 3,1986 Hefte zum Bibelstudium, Barmen 1,1922–7,1926 Handbuch der christlichen Ethik, ed. A. Hertz, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1978–3,1982; new updated ed. 1–3,1993 Histoire des conciles oecuméniques, Paris 1,1962ff. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. C. Houtman, Kampen etc. 1993ff. Handbuch zum Evangelischen Gesangbuch, Göttingen 1,1995ff. Handbuch der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenmusik, Göttingen 1935ff. Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, ed. M. Schmaus et al., Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1951ff. – vol. 1: Das Dasein im Glauben 1.1,1971–6,1972 – vol. 2: Der trinitarische Gott, die Schöpfung, die Sünde 1.2–3.3,1985 – vol. 3: Christologie, Soteriologie, Mariologie, Reich Gottes und Kirche 1.1,1965– 5.2,1980 – vol. 4: Sakramente, Eschatologie 1.1,1980–7.4,1988 Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’église en Occident, ed. G. Le Bras, Paris 1,1955ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals HdJb HDR HDRG HDSW HDtG HDThG HDThG2 HdWW HEG Heimbucher HEKG HelSac HEM

HEO Hephaistos HerChr Hereditas HerKorr Hermeneia Hermes HeTe HeyJ HeyM HFTh HGIAL HGM HispJud Hist. Hist.E Hist.S HistJ HistJud HistMun HJ HJLG HK HKAW HKG HKG(J) HKi

lxii

Heidelberger Jahrbücher, Heidelberg etc. 1,1957ff. Harvard Dissertations in Religion, Missoula, MT 1,1975ff. Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. A. Erler et al., Berlin 1,1971ff. Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, ed. E. v. Beckerath, Stuttgart etc. 1,1956– 12,1965; list of contributors and index of names, 1966; Index vol., 1968 Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, ed. B. Gebhardt et al., Stuttgart etc. 9th ed. 1,1970– 4,1976 Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, ed. C. Andresen, Göttingen 1,1982– 3,1984 Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, 2nd revised and extended ed. by C. Andresen & A.M. Ritter, Göttingen 1988 Handwörterbuch der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, ed. W. Albers et al., Stuttgart etc. 1,1977– 9,1982; Index vol. 1983 Handbuch der europäischen Geschichte, Stuttgart 1968ff. M. Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche, Paderborn 5 1987 Handbuch zum Evangelischen Kirchengesangbuch, ed. C. Mahrenholz & O. Söhngen, Göttingen 1.1,1953–3.2,1990 Helvetia sacra, St. Gallen 1,1972ff. A History of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. R. Rouse & S.C. Neill, Philadelphia, PA, etc. (for German ed. see GÖB) – 1517–1948 (= HEM 1), 1954; 2,1967; 3,1986; 4,1993 – The Ecumenical Advance, ed. H.E. Fey (= HEM 2), 1970; 2,1986; 3,1993 Hautes études orientales (= Publications du Centre de Recherches d’Histoire et de Philologie de la IVe Section de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes), Geneva 1,1968ff. Hephaistos. New Approaches in Classical Archeology and Related Fields, Kissing et al. 1,1979ff. Herbergen der Christenheit. Jahrbuch für deutsche Kirchengeschichte, Leipzig 1957ff. Hereditas. Studien zur alten Kirchengeschichte, Bonn 1,1987ff. Herder-Korrespondenz. Orbis catholicus, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1946/47ff. Hermeneia. A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, Philadelphia, PA 1971ff. Hermes. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Wiesbaden 1,1866ff. Herrenalber Texte, Stuttgart 1,1978ff. Heythrop Journal. A Quarterly Review of Philosophy and Theology, Oxford etc. 1,1960ff. Heythrop Monographs, London 1,1976ff. Handbuch der Fundamentaltheologie, ed. W. Kern, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1985–4,1988; 22000 Historia general de la Iglesia en América latina, ed. E.D. Dussel, Salamanca 1981ff. Historici Graeci Minores, ed. L.A. Dindorf, Leipzig 1–2,1870/71 Hispania Judaica, Jerusalem 1,1978ff. Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, Wiesbaden etc. 1,1950ff. – Einzelschriften 1,1956ff. Historia, publ. Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Historia, Santiago de Chile 1,1961ff. Historical Journal, Cambridge etc. 1,1958ff. Historia Judaica, New York 1,1938–23,1961 Historia mundi, Munich etc. 1,1952–10,1961 Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, Munich etc. 1,1880–61,1941; 62/69,1949; 70,1951ff. Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte, Marburg 1,1951ff. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, Göttingen 1892ff. Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Munich etc. 1885ff. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte für Studierende, ed. G. Krüger, Tübingen 1,1909–4,1913; 2 1923–1931 Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. H. Jedin, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1962–7,1979; Supplement 1970 Die Hochkirche. Monatsschrift der Hochkirchlichen Vereinigung, Munich 1,1919–15,1933

lxiii HKKR HKKR2 HL HlD HLL HLV HMK HMT HNT HNTA HO HÖ HOK HoLiCo HoRe HosEc HPB HPBl HPhG HPs HPTh HPTh(G) HR HRG HRGem HRPG HRWG HS HSCP HSCP.S HSK HSKR HSM HST HTh HTh Theme Issue HThK HThK.S HThKAT HThR HThS HTS HUCA HUTh

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, ed. J. Listl, H. Müller & H. Schmitz, Regensburg 1983 Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, 2nd rev. ed., ed. J. Listl & H. Schmitz, Regensburg 1999 Humanistica Lovaniensia, Leuven 1,1928ff. Heiliger Dienst, publ. Liturgischer Institut, Erzabtei St. Peter, Salzburg, Salzburg 1, 1947ff. Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur der Antike (= Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Abt. 8), ed. R. Herzog & P.L. Schmidt, Munich 5,1989; 4,1997; 1,2002ff. Hans-Lietzmann-Vorlesungen, Berlin 1,1996ff. Hefte zur Missionskunde, Herrnhut 1,1907–31,1935 Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, looseleaf ed., 5 vols., ed. H.H. Eggebrecht, Stuttgart 1972ff. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen 1907ff.; new ed. 1925ff. Handbuch zu den neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, ed. E. Hennecke, Tübingen 1904 Handbuch der Orientalistik, Leiden etc. 1948ff. Handbuch der Ökumenik, ed. H.J. Urban et al., Paderborn 1,1985–3,1987 Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, ed. E.V. Ivánka et al., Düsseldorf 1971; rev. ed., ed. W. Nyssen 1,1984–3,1997 Homiletisch-Liturgisches Korrespondenzblatt, Nürnberg etc. 1,1825–14,1838; NS 1,1983/84ff. Homo religiosus, Louvain-la-Neuve 1,1978ff. Hospitium ecclesiae. Forschungen zur bremischen Kirchengeschichte, Bremen 1,1954ff. Hessisches Pfarrerblatt, publ. Evangelische Pfarrvereinen in Hessen und Nassau, sowie Kurhessen-Waldeck, Frankfurt 1971–1990 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, Munich 1,1838–171,1923 Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe, ed. H. Krings et al., Munich 1,1973–6,1974 Handbuch der Psychologie, ed. K. Gottschaldt, 12 vols., Göttingen 1959–1983 Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie. Praktische Theologie der Kirche in ihrer Gegenwart, ed. F.X. Arnold et al., Freiburg i.Br. 1,1964–5,1972; 2nd ed. 1,1970–3,1972 Handbuch der praktischen Theologie, ed. P.C. Bloth et al., Gütersloh 2,1981–4,1987 History of Religions, Chicago, IL, 1,1961/62ff. Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte, ed. J.P. Asmussen, Göttingen 1,1971–3,1975 Handbuch Religiöse Gemeinschaften, ed. H. Reller, Gütersloh 1978; 2 1979; 3 1985 Handbuch religionspädagogischer Grundbegriffe, ed. G. Bitter, Munich 1–2,1986 Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, ed. H. Cancik et al., Stuttgart etc. 1,1988ff. Historische Studien, ed. E. Ebering, Berlin 1,1896ff. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Cambridge, MA, 1,1890ff. – Supplement 1,1940ff. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, co-founded by G. Ungeheur, ed. H. Steger et al., Berlin 1.1,1982ff. Handbuch des Staatskirchenrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ed. E. Friesenhahn 1,1974–2,1975; 2nd ed., ed. J. Listl & D. Pirson 1,1994–2,1995 Harvard Semitic Monographs, Cambridge, MA, 1,1968ff. Handbuch systematischer Theologie, ed. C.H. Ratschow, Gütersloh 1979ff. History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History, Middletown, CT, 1,1960/61ff. – Theme Issue 33,1994ff. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, Freiburg i.Br. 1953ff. – Supplement 1,1986ff. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg i.Br. 1999ff. Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, MA, 1,1908ff. Harvard Theological Studies, Cambridge, MA, etc. 1,1916ff. Hervormde teologiese studies, Pretoria 9,1952/53ff. Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati, OH, 1,1924ff. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, Tübingen 1,1962ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals HUWJK HV HWDA HWP HWR Hyp. HZ IAF IAH Bulletin IBMR IBSt IC ICC ICD-10 ICHR ICMR ICUR IDB IdF IEJ IESS IG IGF IGLS IHR IIJ IJAL IJMES IJPR IJPT IJT IK IKaZ IKP IKZ ILCV ILex IliffRev ILRef ILS Imago INJ

lxiv

Heidelberger Untersuchungen zu Widerstand, Judenverfolgung und Kirchenkampf im Dritten Reich, Munich 1,1989ff. Historische Vierteljahrschrift. Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft und für lateinische Philologie des Mittelalters, Leipzig etc. 1,1898–31,1937/39 Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, ed. H. Bächtold-Stäubli, Berlin 1,1927– 10,1942 Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter, Basel etc. 1,1971ff. Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. G. Ueding, Tübingen etc. 1,1992ff. Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben, Göttingen 1,1962ff. Historische Zeitschrift, Munich etc. 1,1859ff. Internationales Asien-Forum, Munich 1,1970ff. IAH Bulletin. Publikation der Internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Hymnologie/ Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, Groningen 1,1974ff. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Ventnor, NJ, 5,1981ff. Irish Biblical Studies, London 1,1979ff. Islamic Culture, Hyderabad 1,1927ff. International Critical Commentary of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Edinburgh 1895ff. International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, publ. WHO, 1992ff. Indian Church History Review, Calcutta 1,1967ff. Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Birmingham etc. 1,1990ff. Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, ed. J. Baptista de Rossi et al., Rom 1,1862–2,1888; Supplement 1,1915; NS 1,1922–4,1956 The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G.A. Buttrick, New York etc. 1–4,1962; Supplement 1976 Impulse der Forschung, Darmstadt 1,1969ff. Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem 1,1950/51ff. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York 1–17,1968 Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1,1873ff. Indogermanische Forschungen, Berlin etc. 1,1891ff. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Paris 1,1929ff. International History Review, ed. E. Ingram & I. Mugridge, Downsview, Ontario etc. 1,1979ff. Indo-Iranian Journal, The Hague 1,1957ff. International Journal of American Linguistics, New York etc. 1,1917/20ff. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Cambridge 1,1970ff. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Hague 1,1970ff. International Journal of Practical Theology, Berlin 1,1997ff. Indian Journal of Theology, Serampore etc. 1,1952ff. Inschriften griechischer Städte in Kleinasien, Bonn 1,1972ff. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift, Frankfurt/M. 1,1972ff. Internationaler Kongreß für Papyrologie. International Congress of Papyrologists 3,1933ff. Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift. Revue internationale ecclésiastique. International Church Review, Bern 19,1911ff. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae veteres, ed. E. Diehl , Berlin 1,1925–3,1931; 2nd ed. 1–4,1967 = Dublin 1970 Islam-Lexikon, ed. A.T. Khoury, L. Hagemann & P. Heine, 3 vols., Freiburg 1991; repr. 1996; new rev. ed. 1999 Iliff Review, Denver, CO 1,1944ff. Im Lichte der Reformation. Jahrbuch des Evangelischen Bundes, Göttingen 1,1958ff. Inscriptiones Latinae selectae, ed. H. Dessau, Berlin 1,1892–3,1916; 2nd ed. 1954–1955 and Supplement; 3 1962 = Dublin 1974 Imago. Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Geisteswissenschaften, ed. S. Freud, Leipzig etc. 1,1912–23,1934 Israel Numismatic Journal, Jerusalem 1,1963ff.

lxv Inst. Int. Interp. IOS IP IPQ Iran Iraq Irén. IRM Islam IslSt Ist. ITC IThS IusEcc JA JAAR JAAS JaC JAC JAMS JAOS JapRel JAR JARCE JARG JArL JArS JAUK JAWG JAWL JbAC JbAC.E JBAW JBBKG JbDEI JBK JBL JBLG JbM JBQ JBrKG JbSalSt JBTh JChS JCOI JCS JCSW JDAI

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals J. Calvin, Christianae Religionis Institutio, Geneva 1559 Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Atlanta, GA, 1982ff. Interpretation. A Journal of Bible and Theology, Richmond, VA 1,1947ff. Israel Oriental Studies, Tel Aviv 1,1971ff. Instrumenta patristica, The Hague etc. 1,1959ff. International Philosophical Quarterly, New York etc. 1,1961ff. Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies, London 1,1963ff. Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London 1,1934ff. Irénikon. Revue des Moines de Chevetogne, Chevetogne etc. 1,1926ff. International Review of Missions, London etc. 1,1912ff. Der Islam. Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients, Berlin etc. 1,1910ff. Islam Studies. Journal of the Islamic Research Institute of Pakistan, Islamabad, 1962ff. Istina. Publication avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris etc. 1,1954ff. International Theological Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987ff. Innsbrucker theologische Studien, Innsbruck 1,1978ff. Ius Ecclesiae. Rivista internazionale di diritto canonico, Milan 1,1989ff. Journal asiatique, Paris 1,1822ff. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, MA, etc. 35,1967ff. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Des Plaines, IL, 1,1986ff. Judaism and Christianity, London etc. 1,1937ff. Journal of Ancient Civilizations, Changchun 1,1986ff. Journal of the American Musicological Society, Richmond, VA, etc. 1,1948ff. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore, MD, etc. 1,1843ff. Japanese Religions. A Magazine Issued by the NCC Centre for the Study of Japanese Religions, Kyoto 1,1959/60ff. Journal of Anthropological Research, Albuquerque, NM, 29,1973ff. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Boston, MA, 1,1962ff. Jahrbuch für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte, ed. A. Rupp, Saarbrücken 1,1973– 5,1984 Journal of Arabic Literature, Leiden 1,1970ff. Journal of Archaeological Science, London 1,1974ff. Jahrbuch der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg, founded by F. Hoffmann, Berlin 1,1951– 29,1994 Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Göttingen 1939ff. Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Wiesbaden etc. 1950ff. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Münster 1958ff. – Supplement vol. 1,1964ff. Jahrbuch der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich 1912ff. Jahrbuch für Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 38,1963ff. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes, Fürth 1,1989ff. Jahresbriefe des Berneuchener Kreises, Kassel 1,1931/32–6,1936/37 Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, PA, 9,1890ff. Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Landesgeschichte, Berlin 1,1950ff. Jahrbuch Mission, Hamburg 18,1986ff. The Jewish Bible Quarterly, Jerusalem 18,1989/90ff. Jahrbuch für brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1,1904–36/37,1941/42 Jahrbuch für Salesianische Studien, Eichstätt 1963–1975; 14,1976ff. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, Neukirchen 1,1986ff. Journal of Church and State, Waco, TX, 1,1959ff. Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, Bombay 1,1922ff. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven, CT, 1,1947 Jahrbuch für christliche Sozialwissenschaften. Institut für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften, Münster 9,1968ff. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin 1,1886ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Jdm JDS JDTh JE JEA JECS JEH JEM JES JET JETh

JEtS JewBA JFLF JGMOD JGNKG JGNKG.B JGO JGPrö JGPS JHAW JHI JHKGV JHS JJGL JJLG JJS JJSoc JK JKGV JLH JLW JMRS JNAW JNES JNWSL JÖB JÖBG JöR JPC JPh JPS JPSET JPsT JPSt JPSTC

lxvi

Judaism. A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, New York 1,1952ff. Judean Desert Studies, Jerusalem 1,1963ff. Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Gotha etc. 1,1856–23,1878. Jewish Encyclopedia, New York etc. 1,1901–12,1906; NA 1–12,1925 Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, publ. Egypt Exploration Society, London 1,1914ff. Journal of Early Christian Studies. Journal of the North American Patristic Society, Baltimore, MD, 1,1993ff. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, London etc. 1,1950ff. Jahrbuch evangelischer Mission, Hamburg 1957–1968 Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Philadelphia, PA, etc. 1,1964ff. Journal of Empirical Theology, Kampen 1,1988ff. Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie, publ. on behalf of the Arbeitskreis für Evangelikale Theologie (AfeT Germany) and the Swiss Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Biblisch Erneuerte Theologie (AfbeT Switzerland), Wuppertal 1, 1987ff. Journal of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa 1,1963ff. Jewish Book Annual. Senatôn has-sefer hay-yehûdî. Jidiser buk-almanak, publ. Jewish Book Council of America, New York (2),1943/1944; 3,1944/45ff. Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, Neustadt/Aisch 1,1935ff. Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands, Tübingen 2,1953ff. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte, Braunschweig etc. 46,1941; 47,1949ff. – Supplements 53,195–69,1971; 77,1979–81,1983; 88 = 11,1990ff. Jahrbücher für die Geschichte Osteuropas, Munich etc. 1,1936–6,1941; NS 1,1953ff. Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich, Vienna 96,1980ff. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, Stuttgart etc. 1,1970ff. Jahrbuch der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg 1,1962/63ff. Journal of the History of Ideas, New York etc. 1,1940ff. Jahrbuch der Hessischen Kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung, Darmstadt 2,1950/51 Journal of Hellenic Studies, London 1,1880ff. Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur, publ. Verbande der Vereine für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur in Deutschland, Berlin (1),1898; 2,1899–31,1938 Jahrbuch der Jüdisch-Literarischen Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/M. 1,1903–22,1931 Journal of Jewish Studies, London 1,1948/49ff. The Jewish Journal of Sociology, London 1,1959ff. Junge Kirche, Dortmund 1,1933ff. Jahrbuch . . . des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins e.V., Cologne 1,1912ff. Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, Kassel 1,1955ff. Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, publ. Verein zur Pflege der Liturgiewissenschaft e.V. in association with O. Casel, Münster 1,1921–15,1935(1941)? Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Durham, NC, 1,1971ff. Jaarboek. K. Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam 1937/38ff. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago, IL, 1,1942ff. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, Leiden 1,1971ff. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, Vienna etc. 18,1969ff. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, Vienna etc. 1,1951–17,1968 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, Tübingen 1,1907–25,1938; NS 1,1951ff. Journal of Pastoral Care, New York 1,1947ff. Journal of Philosophy, New York etc. 18,1921ff. Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia Jesuit Primary Sources in English Translation, St. Louis 1,1970ff. Journal of Psychology and Theology. An Evangelical Forum for the Integration of Psychology and Theology, Rosemead, CA, 1,1973ff. Journal of Palestine Studies. A Quarterly on Palestinian Affairs and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Berkeley, CA, 1,1971/72ff. – Torah Commentary 1989ff.

lxvii JPTh JQR JR JRA JRAI JRAr JRAr.S JRAS JRH JRP JRS JRT JS JSAf JSAI JSAm JSFWU JSFWU.B JSHRZ JSJ JSKG JSNT JSNT.S JSOT JSOT/ASOR JSP JSQ JSS JSSR JSSt JSSt.M JSTM JThS Jud. JudChr Jura Jurist JuS JusEcc JVABG JVEB

JVK JWCI JWKG JZ

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie, Leipzig 1,1875–18,1892 Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, PA, etc. 1,1888–20,1908; NS 1,1910/11ff. Journal of Religion, Chicago, IL, 1,1921ff. Journal of Religion in Africa. Religion en Afrique, Leiden 1,1967/68ff. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London 1,1871/72ff. Journal of Roman Archeology, Portsmouth, RI, 1,1988ff. – Supplementary Series [1],1990ff. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London 1,1834–20,1863; NS 1,1864–21,1889; 1890ff. Journal of Religious History, Sydney 1,1960/61ff. Jahrbuch für Religionspädagogik, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1,1984ff. Journal of Roman Studies, London 1,1911ff. Journal of Religious Thought, Washington, DC, 1,1943/44ff. Journal des savants, Paris 1665ff. Journal de la Société des Africanistes, Paris 1,1931–42,1972 Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, Jerusalem 1,1979ff. Journal de la Société des Américanistes, Paris 1,1896–5,1904; NS 1,1904ff. Jahrbuch der Schlesischen Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität zu Breslau, Würzburg 1,1955ff. – Supplement 1,1963ff. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, ed. W.G. Kümmel & H. Lichtenberger, Gütersloh 1,1973–5,1995 Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, Leiden 1,1970ff.; Supplement 49,1996ff. Jahrbuch für Schlesische (32,1953–38,1959: Kirche und) Kirchen-geschichte, Düsseldorf etc. NS 32,1953ff. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Sheffield 1,1978/79ff. – Supplement Series 1,1980ff. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sheffield 1,1976ff. – American Schools of Oriental Research, Monograph Series 1,1985ff. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Sheffield 1,1987ff. Jewish Studies Quarterly, ed. J. Dan & P. Schäfer, Tübingen 1,1993/94ff. Journal of the Siam Society, Bangkok 1,1904–31,1939; 36,1946/47ff. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, DC etc. 1,1961/62ff. Journal of Semitic Studies, Manchester 1,1956ff. – Monograph 1,1960ff. Journal of Supervision and Training in Ministry, Chicago, IL 1,1978ff. Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford etc. 1,1899–50,1949; NS 1,1950ff. Judaica. Beiträge zum Verständnis des jüdischen Schicksals in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Zürich 1,1945/46ff. Judaica et Christiana, Bern etc. 1,1976ff. Jura. Juristische Ausbildung, Berlin 1,1979ff. The Jurist. Studies in Church Law and Ministry. Catholic University of America, School of Canon Law, Washington, DC, 1,1941ff. Juristische Schulung. Zeitschrift für Studium und praktische Ausbildung, Munich etc. 1961ff. Jus ecclesiasticum. Beiträge zum evangelischen Kirchenrecht und zum Staatskirchentum, Munich 1,1965ff. Jahrbuch des Vereins für Augsburger Bistumsgeschichte, Augsburg 1,1967ff. Die Bibel in der Welt. Jahrbuch des Verbandes der evangelischen Bibelgesellschaften in Deutschland (from 13,1970: des evangelischen Bibelwerkes), Stuttgart 1,1951/57– 22,1989 Jahrbuch für Volkskunde, ed. W. Brückner & N. Grass on behalf of the Görres-Gesellschaft, Würzburg etc. NS 1,1978ff. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, London 1,1937/38ff. Jahrbuch für westfälische Kirchengeschichte, Bethel 66,1973ff. Juristenzeitung, ed. K.S. Bader et al., Tübingen 6,1951ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals KAI Kairos Kanon Kanonika KanR

KantSt KAT KatBl KAV KBANT KBL KD KEK Kennzeichen Keos KfA KGE

KGMG KGQS KGS KH KHÅ KHC KHL KHS(K) KIG KiHiSt KiKonf KilR KiSo KiZ KJ KKK KKTS Kl. Kleos

lxviii

Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, ed. H. Donner et al., Wiesbaden 1,1962– 3,1964; 2nd ed. 1,1967–3,1969 Kairos. Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, Salzburg 1,1959–10,1968; NS 11,1969ff. Kanon. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht der Ostkirchen, Vienna etc. 1,1971 (1973)ff. Kanonika. Facultas Iuris Canonici, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, Rome 1,1992ff. Kanonisches Recht. Lehrbuch aufgrund des Codex Iuris Canonici, founded by E. Eichmann, continued by K. Mörsdorf, revised by W. Aymans, Paderborn etc., 13th ed. 1,1991–2,1997 Kant-Studien. Philosophische Zeitschrift der Kant-Gesellschaft, Berlin etc. 1,1897ff. Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Leipzig etc. 1,1913ff. Katechetische Blätter, Munich etc. 1,1875ff. Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern, Göttingen 1,1989ff. (= KEK supplement series) Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Düsseldorf 1968ff. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, ed. L. Köhler & W. Baumgartner, Leiden 1953; Supplement 1958 K. Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik, Zürich I/1,1932–IV/4,1967; ET: Church Dogmatics, 1975ff., repr. 2004 Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, founded by H.A.W. Meyer, Göttingen 1832ff. Kennzeichen. Studien und Problemberichte aus dem Projekt «Frauen als Innovationsgruppen» des Dt. Nationalkomitees des Luth. Weltbundes, Offenbach 1,1977ff. Keos. Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 1,1977ff. Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten, ed. N. Brox, Freiburg i.Br. etc., 2001ff. Kirchengeschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, Berlin – 1. Alte Kirche und frühes Mittelalter 1,1985ff. – 2. Spätes Mittelalter und Reformation 1983ff. – 3. Neuzeit 1989ff. Kirchengeschichte als Missionsgeschichte, Munich 1,1974ff. Kirchengeschichtliche Quellen und Studien, St. Ottilien, 1,1950ff. Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Münster 1,1891–6,1903 Kirchliches Handbuch ( für das katholische Deutschland), publ. Amtliche Zentralstelle für Kirchliche Statistik des Katholischen Deutschland, Cologne 1,1907/08ff. Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift, Uppsala 1,1900ff. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, Tübingen etc. 1,1897–20,1904 Kirchliches Handlexikon, ed. M. Buchberger, Munich 1,1907–2,1912 Kirkehistoriske studier, Copenhagen, 2nd series 3,1958ff. Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte. Ein Handbuch, founded by K.D. Schmidt, ed. B. Möller, Göttingen 1961ff. Kieler historische Studien, Stuttgart 1,1966ff. Kirche und Konfession, Göttingen 1,1962ff. Kirche im ländlichen Raum. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für den Dienst auf dem Lande, EKD, Altenkirchen 30,1979ff. Kirche im Sozialismus. Materialien zu Entwicklungen in der DDR, publ. Berliner Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kirchliche Publizistik, Berlin 1973–1990 Kirche in der Zeit. Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, Düsseldorf 5,1950–22,1967 Kirchliches Jahrbuch für die evangelischen Landeskirchen Deutschlands, Gütersloh 27,1900ff. Ecclesia Catholica. Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche, Munich etc. 1993 Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien, Paderborn 1,1959ff. Kleronomia. Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki 1,1969ff. Kleos. Estemporaneo di studi e testi sulla fortuna dell’antico, Bari 1,1994ff.

lxix Klio Klio.B KLK KLL KlProt KlT KlTh KM KMJ KNLL KO KO.B KO.M KonChal Kos KP KPS KR KRA KSGW KSL KSMS KSMS KStT KStTh KTA KThR KTU KUB KuD KuI KuKi KulturPoetik KuM KuOr KU-Praxis KuR KuS KVR KVS KW

KWCO Kyrios KZfSS KZfSS.S KZG LÄ LACL

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Berlin 1,1901ff. – Beiheft 1,1903–14 (= NS 1),1923–49 (= NS 36),1944 Katholisches Leben und Kämpfen. Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, Münster 1,1927ff. Kindlers Literaturlexikon, Zürich 1,1965–7,1972; Supplement 8,1974 Klassiker des Protestantismus, ed. C.M. Schröder, 8 vols., 1962–1967 Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, Berlin etc. 1,1902–192,1978 Klassiker der Theologie, ed. H. Fries, Munich 1,1981–2,1983 Die Katholischen Missionen, Bonn etc. 1,1873ff. Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch, Regensburg 1,1886ff. Kindlers neues Literatur-Lexikon, ed. W. Jens, 1988–1992 Kirche im Osten, Stuttgart etc. 1,1958ff. – Beiheft 1,1959–3,1962 – Monograph series 4,1962ff. Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Würzburg 1–3,1952–1954 Kos. Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschungen, Archäologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches, Berlin 1,1932ff. Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, Stuttgart 1,1962–5,1975 Klassisch-philologische Studien, Wiesbaden 1,1927–38,1971 Kirche und Recht. Zeitschrift für die kirchliche und staatliche Praxis, Neuwied 1, 1995ff. Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, Stuttgart 1,1902–118,1938 Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, Göttingen 1,1972ff. Katholisches Soziallexikon, ed. A. Klose, Innsbruck etc. 1964; 2 1980 Kierkegaard Studies. Monograph Series, Berlin etc. 1,1996ff. Kierkegaard Studies. Yearbook, Berlin etc. 1,1996ff. Kanonistische Studien und Texte, Amsterdam etc. 1,1928ff. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie, Stuttgart 1991ff. Kröners Taschenausgabe, Stuttgart etc. 1,1926ff. Konstanzer theologische Reden, Constance 1,1985ff. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Kevelaer 1976 (= AOAT 24,1) Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Berlin 1,1921ff. Kerygma und Dogma, Göttingen 1,1955ff. Kirche und Israel. Neukirchener theologische Zeitschrift, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1,1986ff. Kunst und Kirche, Darmstadt 1,1924/25ff. KulturPoetik. Zeitschrift für kulturgeschichtliche Literaturwissenschaft, Göttingen 1,2001ff. Kerygma und Mythos, Hamburg 1,1948ff. Kunst des Orients, Wiesbaden 1,1950ff. KU-Praxis. Eine Schriftenreihe für die Arbeit mit Konfirmanden, Gütersloh 1,1973ff. Kirche und Recht, Vienna 1,1962ff. Kirche und Synagoge. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden, ed. K.H. Rengstorf, Stuttgart 1–2,1968–1970 Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, Göttingen 1954ff. Kölner Vierteljahrshefte für Soziologie, Munich etc. 3,1923–12,1933 Die Kirchen der Welt, Stuttgart – Series A: Selbstdarstellungen 1,1959/60ff. – Series B: Ergänzungsbände 1,1960ff. Kleines Wörterbuch des christlichen Orients, ed. J. Assfalg, Wiesbaden 1975 Kyrios. Vierteljahresschrift für Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte Osteuropas, Berlin etc. 1,1936–6,1943; NS 1,1960–14,1974 Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Cologne etc. 7,1955ff. – Sonderheft 1,1956ff. Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte. Internationale Halbjahresschrift für Theologie und Geschichtswissenschaft, Göttingen 1,1988ff. Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. W. Helck, Wiesbaden 1,1972–6,1986 Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Döpp et al., Freiburg i.Br. 1998; 3rd, revised and extended ed. 2002

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals LACT LäS LASBF LAW LCC LChrJ LCI LCPM Lectures LeDiv LeDiv.Comm. Leit. Leit.NF Lev. Levant LexBioeth LexCap LexRP l’homme Lias Liddell/Scott LIMC LitWo LIW LJ LK LKGG LKStKR LKW Llex LM LMA LMed LMG LO LouvSt LP LPäd(F) LPäd(R) LPs LQF LR LRG LRS LThK

lxx

Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, Oxford 1,1841–32,1863 Leipziger ägyptologische Studien, Glückstadt 1,1935–11,1939 Liber annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem 30,1980ff. Lexikon der Alten Welt, ed. C. Andresen, Zürich etc. 1965 Library of Christian Classics, London 1,1953ff. Lernprozeß Christen Juden, Düsseldorf 1,1980ff. Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. E. Kirschbaum, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1968–8,1976 = 1990 Letture cristiane del primo millennio, Milan 2,1987ff. Lectures of the British Academy, London 1909ff. Lectio divina, Paris 1,1946ff. – Commentaires, Paris 1,1993ff. Leiturgia. Handbuch des evangelischen Gottesdienstes, Kassel 1,1954–5,1970 – new ed., Hanover 1,1991ff. Levante. Rivista trimestrale del Centro per le Relazioni Italo-Arabe, Rome 1,1953ff. Levant. Journal of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London 1,1969ff. Lexikon der Bioethik, ed. W. Korff et al., Gütersloh 1–3,1998 Lexicon Capuccinum. Promptuarium historico-bibliographicum Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Capuccinorum (1525–1950), Rome 1951 Lexikon der Religionspädagogik, ed. N. Mette & F. Rickers, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001 Cahiers de l’homme: ethnologie, géographie, linguistique, publ. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris NS 1,1961ff. Lias. Sources and Documents Relating to the Early Modern History of Ideas, Amsterdam 1,1974ff. A Greek-English Lexicon, Compiled by H.G. Liddell & R. Scott, rev. ed., Oxford 1968 Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, ed. J. Boardman et al., Zürich 1,1981ff. Liturgisch woordenboek, ed. L. Brinkhoff et al., Roermond 1,1958–2,1968; 3rd Supplement 1970 Lexikon der islamischen Welt, ed. K. Kreiser, Stuttgart etc. 1–3,1974; 21992 Liturgisches Jahrbuch, Münster 1,1951ff. Lexikon der Kunst, ed. H. Olbrich, Leipzig 1,1987ff. Die Lutherische Kirche, Geschichte und Gestalten, Gütersloh 1,1976ff. Lexikon für Kirchen- und Staatskirchenrecht, ed. A. v. Campenhausen, J. RiedelSpangenberger & R. Sebott, Paderborn etc. 1–3,2000 Lutherische Kirche in der Welt. Jahrbuch des Martin-Luther-Bundes, Neuendettelsau 18,1971ff. Literaturlexikon. Autoren und Werke deutscher Sprache, ed. W. Killy, Gütersloh 1,1988ff. Lutherische Monatshefte, Hamburg 1,1962ff. Lexikon des Mittelalters, Munich etc. 1,1980ff. Lexikon Medizin, Ethik, Recht, ed. E. Eser et al., Freiburg i.Br. 1989 Lexikon missionstheologischer Grundbegriffe, ed. K. Müller, Berlin 1987 Lex orandi, Paris 1,1944ff. Louvain Studies, publ. Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Louvain, Leuven 1,1966/67ff. Le Liber pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. L. Duchesne, Paris 1,1886– 2,1892 (= 1–2,1955; repr. 1981); 3,1957 Lexikon der Pädagogik, ed. H. Rombach/Deutsches Institut für Wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, Münster etc. 1,1952–4,1955; Supplement 1964; new ed. 1,1970–4,1971 Lexikon der Pädagogik, ed. E.M. Roloff, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1913–5,1917 Lexikon der Psychologie, Gütersloh 1995 Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen, Münster 23,1928–31,1939 Lutherische Rundschau. Zeitschrift des Lutherischen Weltbundes, Stuttgart etc. 1,1951– 27,1977 Lexikon religiöser Grundbegriffe. Judentum, Christentum, Islam, ed. A.T. Khoury, Graz etc. 1987, special ed. 1996 Living Religions Series, London 1971ff. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. M. Buchberger et al., Freiburg i.Br. – 1,1930–10,1938; 2nd ed. 1,1957–10,1965 and index vol. 1967

lxxi

LThK 3 LuJ Luth. Luther Luthertum LuThK

LuthQ LV(L) LWB LWB.D LWB.R LWQF M.d.R.

MAES MAGW Man.NS ManS ManS.N Mansi MAR MARG MarL MäSt MBTh MChA MCom MCSM MD MDAI MDAI.A MDAI.K MDAI.R MDF MDF.S MdKI MDOG Medieval Encounters MEFR MEFRA MEFRM MEKGR MennQR MESJ METG MethH

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals – 12–14: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erklärungen 1,1966–3,1968; 2nd ed. 1–3,1986 – Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte. Die Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart 1970 Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, founded by M. Buchberger, ed. W. Kasper, Freiburg i.Br. 3rd ed. 1,1993ff. Luther-Jahrbuch. Jahrbuch der Luther-Gesellschaft, Leipzig 1,1919ff. Luthertum, Erlangen etc. 45,1934–55,1944 Luther. Zeitschrift der Luthergesellschaft, ed. T. Knolle, Göttingen 1,1919ff. Luthertum. Eine Schriftenreihe, Berlin 1,1951–28,1967 Lutherische Theologie und Kirche. Vierteljahreszeitschrift für schriftgemäße und bekenntnisgebundene kirchliche Theologie, publ. Fakultät der Lutherischen Theologischen Hochschule in Oberursel, Oberursel 1,1977ff. Lutheran Quarterly, Gettysburg, PA, NS 8,1878–57,1927; 3rd series 1,1949–29,1977; NS 1,1987ff. Lumière et vie. Revue de formation et de réflexion théologiques, Lyon 1,1951ff. Lutherischer Weltbund – Dokumentation, Geneva 1,1978ff. – Report, Stuttgart etc. 1/2,1978–28/29,1990 Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, Münster 32,1957ff. Die Reichstagsabgeordneten der Weimarer Republik in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Politische Verfolgung, Emigration und Ausbürgerung 1933–1945, ed. M. Schuhmacher, Düsseldorf, 2nd ed. 1992; 3rd extended ed. 1994 Monographs of the American Ethnological Society, Seattle, WA, 3,1940–46,1973 Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, Vienna 1,1871ff. Man. A Monthly Record of Anthropological Science, London, NS 1,1966ff. Manichaean Studies, Leuven 1,1991ff. Manichaean Studies Newsletter, Turnhout 1,1988ff. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 vols., Florence etc. 1759–1827; repr. and continued ed. L. Petit & J.B. Martin in 60 vols., Paris 1899–1927 The Mythology of all Races, ed. L.H. Gray, New York 1–13,1964 Mitteilungen für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte, Münster 6,1991ff. Marienlexikon, ed. Bäumer, St. Ottilien 1,1988–6,1994 Münchner ägyptologische Studien, Berlin 1,1962ff. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, Münster 1,1923ff. Mitteilungen zur christlichen Archäologie, Vienna 1,1995ff. Miscelánea Comillas, Comillas 1,1943 Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali, Milan 1,1956ff. La Maison-Dieu. Cahiers de pastorale liturgique, Paris 1,1945ff. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin etc. 1,1948–6,1953 – Athenische Abteilung 1,1876ff. – Abteilung Kairo, 14,1956–46,1990 – Römische Abteilung 1,1886ff. Mitteldeutsche Forschungen, Cologne etc. 1,1954ff. – Sonderreihe: Quellen und Darstellungen in Nachdrucken 1,1983ff. Materialdienst des Konfessionskundlichen Instituts, Bensheim 1,1950ff. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Berlin 1,1898/99ff. Medieval Encounters. Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture in Confluence and Dialogue, Leiden etc., 1995ff. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome – Série Antiquité, Paris 83,1971ff. – Série Moyen âge, temps modernes, Rome 83,1971–100,1988 Monatshefte für evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes, Düsseldorf 1,1952ff. Mennonite Quarterly Review, Goshen, IN, 1,1927ff. Missiologian ja Ekumeniikan Seuran Julkaisuja. Annals of the Finnish Society for Missiology and Ecumenics, Helsinki 1,1957ff. Mitteilungen der Ernst-Troeltsch-Gesellschaft, Augsburg 1,1986ff. Methodist History. American Association of Methodist Historical Societies, Lake Junaluska, NC, 1,1962/63ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals MEW MFCL MGD

MGG MGG2 MGG Prisma MGH MGH.AA MGH.B MGH.Cap MGH.Conc MGH.Const MGH.D MGH.Ep MGH.ES MGH.F MGH.H MGH.L MGH.LL MGH.PL MGH.QG MGH.SRG MGH.SRI MGH.SRM MGH.SS MGI MGKK MGMA MGP MGSL MGSL.E MGWJ MH MHP MHSJ MHuB MIC MIC.C MIC.G MIC.S Michmanim Mid-Stream Mind MIÖG Mischna Miss. MissCatt

lxxii

K. Marx & F. Engels, Werke, Berlin 1,1956–42,1983 Mémoires et travaux publiés par des professeurs des Facultés Catholiques de Lille, Lille 1,1905ff. Musik und Gottesdienst. Zeitschrift für evangelische Kirchenmusik, publ. Schweizerischer Kirchengesangsbund and the Reformierten Organistenverbände der Deutschsprachigen Schweiz, Zürich 1,1949ff. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. F. Blume, Kassel etc. 1,1949–17,1986 Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, founded by F. Blume, 2nd rev. ed. by L. Finscher, Kassel etc. 1,1994ff. MGG Prisma, Kassel etc. 2001ff. Monumenta Germaniae historica inde ab a. C. 500 usque ad a. 1500, Hanover etc. 1826ff. – Auctores antiquissimi 1,1877–15,1919 – Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 1,1949ff. – Capitularia regum Francorum, 1, 1883–2, 1897; NS 1, 1996ff. – Concilia 1,1893ff. – Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum 1,1893ff. – Diplomata – Epistolae 1,1887ff. – Epistolae selectae 1,1916ff. – Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui 1869ff.; NS 1,1933ff. – Hilfsmittel 1,1975ff. – Leges (in folio) 1,1835–5,1875/89 – Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI et XII conscripti 1,1891–3,1897 – Poetae Latinae medii aevi 1,1880ff. – Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 1,1955ff. – Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum . . . 1,1826–32,1913; NS 1,1922ff. – Schriften des Reichsinstituts für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 1,1938ff. – Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1,1884–7,1920 – Scriptores 1,1826–32,1934 Mitteilungen des Grabmann-Instituts, Munich 1,1958–13,1966 Monatsschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst, Göttingen 1,1896–46,1941 Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, Stuttgart 1,1970ff. Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica, Berlin 1,1886–62,1938 Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, Salzburg 1,1860ff. – Supplement 1,1960ff. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, Breslau etc. 1,1851– 83,1939 Museum Helveticum. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für klassische Altertumswissenschaft, Basel etc. 1,1944ff. Miscellanea historiae pontificiae, Rome 1.1,1939ff. Monumenta historica Societatis Jesu, Rome 1,1894ff. Monumenta humanistica Belgica, Nieuwkoop 1,1966ff. Monumenta iuris canonici, Rome – Series B: Corpus collectionum 1,1973ff. – Series A: Corpus glossatorum 1.1,1969ff. – Series C: Subsidia 1,1965ff. Michmanim. Bulletin of the Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, Haifa 1,1985ff. Mid-Stream. An Ecumenical Journal, Indianapolis, IN, 1,1961/62ff. Mind. A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, ed. G.E. Moore et al., Edinburgh 1,1876–16,1891; NS 1,1892ff. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Vienna 1,1880ff. Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung, ed. G. Beer /(1956ff.:) K.H. Rengstorf, Gießen etc. 1.1,1912–6.12,1967 Missiology. American Society of Missiology, South Pasadena, CA, etc. 1,1973ff. Le Missioni cattoliche. Bulletino settimanale illustrato dell’Opera di Propagazione della Fede, Milan 1,1872–97,1968

lxxiii Mission Missionalia MisSt MJBK MJTh MKCIC

MkP ML ML.H ML.St MLexR MLJb MLR MM MMAIBL MMAS MMHST MMMA MMS Mn. Mn.S MNAW.L

MNDPV MNHIR MNTC MoBi MOFPH MonHas MÖSA MoslR MoTh MPARA MPF MPh MPL MPTh MRKG MRTS MS MSAK MSC MSer

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Mission. Nordisk missions tidsskrift, Copenhagen 82,1971ff. Missionalia. Journal of the South African Missiological Society, Pretoria 1,1973ff. Mission Studies, Leiden 1,1984ff. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, Munich 1,1906–13,1923; NS 1,1924– 13,1938/39; 3rd series 1,1950ff. Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie, Marburg 1,1987ff. Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und in der Schweiz, ed. K. Lüdicke, loose-leaf collection, Essen 1985ff. Monatsschrift für die kirchliche Praxis, Tübingen, NS 1,1901–6,1906 Museum Lessianum, Brüssel – Section historique 1,1940ff. Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Leuven – Series 1: Studia 1,1972ff. Metzler Lexikon Religion. Gegenwart – Alltag – Medien, ed. C. Auffarth, J. Bernard & H. Mohr, 4 vols., Stuttgart 1999–2002 Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch. Internationale Zeitschrift für Mediävistik, Stuttgart 1,1964ff. Modern Language Review, Cambridge etc. 1905ff. Miscellanea mediaevalia, Berlin etc. 1,1962ff. Monuments et mémoires, publ. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris 1,1894ff. Münstersche Mittelalterschriften, Munich 1,1970ff. Münchener Monographien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, Munich 1,1977–11,1986 Monumenta monodica medii aevi, Kassel 1,1956ff. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Dettelbach 1/2,1952; 3,1953ff. Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca Classica/Philologica Batava, Leiden 1,1852–11,1862; NS 1,1873– 60,1933; 3rd series 1,1934–13,1947; 4th series 1,1948ff. – Supplement 1,1938ff. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Amsterdam 1,1856–52,1920; 53,1922–84,1937; divided by topic: – Series A: Letteren, wijsbegeerte, godgeleerdheed (odd numbers) – Series B: Geschiedenis, volkenkunde, rechtswetenschap (even numbers) – NS 1,1938ff. Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Leipzig 1,1895–18,1912 Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome, The Hague 1,1921– 35,1971 The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, London 1928ff. Le monde de la Bible, Geneva 1,1971ff. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum historica, Rome etc. 1,1896ff. Monographia Hassiae. Evangelische Kirche von Kurhessen-Waldeck, Kassel 1,1972ff. Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, Vienna 1,1948ff. Moslemische Revue, Leipzig etc. 1,1924–16,1940 Modern Theology, Oxford 1,1984/85ff. Memorie della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rome 3rd series 1,1923/24ff. Monographien zur philosophischen Forschung, Reutlingen etc. 1,1947ff. Modern Philology, Chicago, IL, 1,1903ff. Monumenta polyphoniae liturgicae sanctae ecclesiae Romanae, Rome etc., 1st series 1,1948ff.; 2nd series 1,1947ff. Monatsschrift für Pastoraltheologie (1,1904/05–52,1963:) zur Vertiefung des gesamten pfarramtlichen Wirkens, Göttingen 1,1904/05–54,1965 Monatshefte für rheinische Kirchengeschichte, Cologne etc. 1,1907–37,1943 Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, Binghamton, NY, 1,1981ff. Mediaeval Studies. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto etc. 1,1939ff. Mitteilungen aus dem Stadtarchiv von Köln, Cologne 1,1882/83ff. Maîtres de la spiritualité chrétienne, Paris 1,1942ff. Monumenta Serica. Journal of Oriental Studies, Tokio 1,1935/36ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals MSHAB MSR MSS MThA MThJ MThS MThS.H MThS.K MThS.S MThSt MThZ MTSR MuK Mün. MusAl Muséon MUSJ MW

MWF MWF(L) MyGG MySal MZ NA

NAKG NAMZ NAWG NAWG.PH NBD

NBL NBST NBW NC NCB NCB.NT NCB.OT NCBC NCE NDB NDIEC

lxxiv

Mémoires de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Bretagne, Rennes 1,1920ff. Mélanges de science religieuse, Lille 1,1944ff. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Munich 1,1952ff. Münsteraner theologische Abhandlungen, Altenberge 1,1988ff. Marburger theologisches Jahrbuch, Marburg 1,1987ff. Münchener theologische Studien, Munich – Historische Abteilung 1,1950ff. – Kanonistische Abteilung 1,1951ff. – Systematische Abteilung 1,1950ff. Marburger theologische Studien, Marburg 1,1931–7,1931; NS 1,1963ff. Münchener theologische Zeitschrift, Munich etc. 1,1950–35,1984 Method and Theory in the Study of Religion. Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion, Leiden etc. 1,1989ff. Musik und Kirche, Kassel 1,1929ff. Das Münster. Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst und Kunstwissenschaft, ed. H. Schnell, Regensburg 1,1947ff. Musik und Altar. Zeitschrift für Musik in Kirche und Schule, Jugend und Haus, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1948–24,1972 Muséon. Revue d’études orientales, Leuven etc. 1,1882–33,1915; 34,1921ff. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut 8,1913ff. The Muslim World. A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Study and of Christian Interpretation among Muslims, Hartford, CT, etc. 38,1948ff.; 1,1911–37,1947 with the title: Moslem World Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen, Gütersloh 1,1962ff. Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Missionswissenschaft, Leipzig 1,1920–10,1936 Mystik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt – Abteilung 1: Christliche Mystik 1,1985ff. Mysterium salutis. Grundriß heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, ed. J. Feiner, Einsiedeln 1,1965–5,1976; Supplement 1981 Mainzer Zeitschrift. Mittelrheinisches Jahrbuch für Archäologie, Kunst und Geschichte, Mainz 1,1906ff. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde zur Beförderung einer Gesamtausgabe der Quellen deutscher Geschichte des Mittelalters, Hanover 1,1876–50,1933/34 Nederlands(ch) archief voor kerkgeschiedenis, Den Haag NS 1,1900/02ff. Neue allgemeine Missionszeitschrift, Gütersloh 1,1924–16,1939 Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Göttingen 1941ff. (until 1940: NGWG) – Philologisch-historische Klasse 1,1987ff. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland: nebst ergänzenden Akten, publ. Preussischer historischer Institut in Rom, Gotha etc. – Abteilung 1: 1522–1559, 1892–1981 – Abteilung 2: 1560–1572, 1897ff. – Abteilung 3: 1572–1585, 1892ff. Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg et al., Zürich 1,1991–3, 2001. Neukirchener Beiträge zur systematischen Theologie, Neukirchen 1,1981ff. Nationaal biografisch woordenboek, Brüssel 1,1964ff. Nouvelle Clio. Revue mensuelle de la découverte historique, Brussels 1/2,1949/50– 10/12,1958/62 New Clarendon Bible based on RSV Text, Oxford – New Testament 1963ff. – Old Testament 1966ff. The New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI, 21,1980ff. New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York etc. 1–15,1967; Supplement 16,1974–17,1979 Neue deutsche Biographie, Berlin 1,1953ff. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, ed. Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, North Ryde 1,1976 (1981)ff.

lxxv NDL NEA NEAEHL NEB NEB.AT NEB.NT NEB.Themen NedThT NELKB Neotest. Nestle-Aland Neue Sammlung New Grove NGAU NGWG NGWG.PH NH NHC NHL NHMS NHP NHQ NHS NHThG NIC.NT NIC.OT Nietzsche-Studien NJW NKD NKZ NLA NND Not. NRTh NSchol NSJ

NSK.AT NT NT.S NTA NTApo

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts, Halle/S.1,1876– 325,1957 Near Eastern Archaeology. A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Atlanta, GA 61,1998ff. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, Jerusalem 1993. Neue Echter Bibel, Würzburg – Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung 1,1980ff. – Kommentar zum Neuen Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung (4,1983); 1,1985ff. – ed. C. Dohmen, 2,1999ff. Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift, Den Haag 1,1946/47ff. Nachrichten der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern, Munich 6,1951ff. Neotestamentica. Annual Publication of the New Testament Society of South Africa, publ. Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika, Pretoria 1,1967ff. Novum testamentum Graece, founded by E. Nestle & E. Nestle, ed. K. Aland et al., Stuttgart, 27th ed. 1994 Neue Sammlung. Vierteljahres-Zeitschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, ed. G. Becker, Stuttgart 1,1961ff. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie, 20 vols., London etc. 1981; 22001 Nachrichten von der Georg-August-Universität und der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Göttingen 1845–1883 Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Berlin 1884–1940/43 (1845–1883: NGAU; from 1941: NAWG) – Philologisch-Historische Klasse 1894–1933 Neues Hochland, Munich 64,1972–66,1974 Nag Hammadi Codex, see Abbreviations list for Nag Hammadi Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, ed. K. v. See, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1978ff. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, Leiden 1991ff. (1971–1987: NHS) Neue Hefte für Philosophie, Göttingen 1,1971–35,1995 New Hungarian Quarterly, Budapest 1,1960–33,1992 Nag Hammadi Studies, Leiden 1,1971–35,1987 Neues Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, ed. P. Eicher, Munich 1,1984–4,1985; 2nd ed. 1–5,1991 The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI, 1973ff. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R.K. Harrison, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976ff. Nietzsche-Studien. Internationales Jahrbuch für die Nietzsche-forschung, Berlin 1972ff. Neue juristische Wochenschrift, Munich etc. 1,1947/48ff. Nachkonziliare Dokumentation, Trier 1,1967–58,1977 Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, Erlangen etc. 1,1890–44,1933 Nachrichten der Luther-Akademie (1,1932–31,1944:) in Sondershausen, Göttingen 1,1932–31,1944; 32,1949–38,1957 Neuer Nekrolog der Deutschen, Ilmenau etc. 1,1824–30,1854 Notitiae. Commentarii ad nuntia et studia de re liturgica, Vatican City 11,1975ff. Nouvelle revue théologique. Museum Lessianum, Section Théologique, Leuven etc. 1,1869ff. The New Scholasticism. Journal of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, Washington, DC, etc. 1,1927–63,1989 Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte. Organ des Historischen Vereins für Niedersachsen in Hannover, ed. Historische Kommission für Niedersachsen und Bremen, Hildesheim etc. 7,1930ff. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar – Altes Testament, ed. C. Dohmen, Stuttgart 1992ff. Novum Testamentum. An International Quarterly for New Testament and Related Studies, Leiden 1,1956ff. – Supplements 1,1958ff. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Münster 1,1908–21,1960/61; NS 1,1965ff. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, founded by E. Hennecke, ed. W.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals

NTD NTM NTOA NTS NTSV NTTS Nubica (et Aethiopica)

Numen NV NVwZ NZ Wehrr NZM NZM.S NZSTh ÖAKR OBC ÖBFZPhTh ÖBL OBO OBO.A ÖBS ÖC OCA OCP OCT ODB ODCC ÖE OEANE OECT OeFo

ÖEH OEZW OGE Oikonomia OIP OK ÖkSt ÖL OLA OLB

lxxvi

Schneemelcher, Tübingen 1904; 21924; from the 3rd ed. two vols.: – Vol. I: Evangelien 31959; 41968; 51987; 61990 – Vol. II: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes 31964; 41971; 51989; 61997 Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk, Göttingen 1932ff.; Supplementary series: GNT Norsk tidsskrift for misjon, Oslo 2,1948ff. Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus, Freiburg, Switzerland etc. 1,1986ff. New Testament Studies. An International Journal Published under the Auspices of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Cambridge etc. 1,1954/55–19,1972/73; 20,1974ff. Nordisk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap, Oslo 1,1928–25,1971 New Testament Tools and Studies, Leiden etc. 1,1960ff. Nubica (from 1999: et Aethiopica). Internationales Jahrbuch für äthiopische, meroitische und nubische Studien (from 1999: Internationales Jahrbuch für koptische, meroitischnubische, äthiopische und verwandte Studien), Warsaw etc. 1/2,1987/88ff. Numen. International Review for the History of Religions, Leiden 1,1954ff. Nova et vetera. Revue trimestrielle, Geneva 1,1926ff. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, vereinigt mit Verwaltungsrechtsprechung, ed. in cooperation with the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1982ff. Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht, Neuwied etc. 1,1959ff. Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft. Nouvelle revue de science missionaire, Beckenried 1,1945ff. – Supplementa 1,1950ff. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, Berlin 1,1959ff. Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht, Vienna 1,1950ff. Orientalia biblica et christiana, Glückstadt 1,1991ff. Ökumenische Beihefte zur Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1968ff. Österreichisches biographisches Lexikon: 1815–1950, publ. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften directed by L. Santifaller, Graz etc. 1,1957 Orbis biblicus et orientalis, Freiburg, Switzerland etc. 1,1973ff. – Series archaeologica 1,1980ff. Österreichische biblische Studien, Klosterneuburg 1,1979ff. Das östliche Christentum, ed. G. Wunderle, Würzburg 1,1936–12/13,1941; NS 1,1947ff. Orientalia Christiana analecta, Rome 101,1935ff. Orientalia Christiana periodica, Rome 1,1935ff. Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford 1,1894ff. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, New York 1–3,1991 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, London 1957; 21974; 31997 Ökumenische Einheit. Archiv für ökumenisches und soziales Christentum, Munich 1,1948/50–3,1952 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York/Oxford 1–5,1997 Oxford Early Christian Texts, Oxford 1971 Oekumenisches Forum: Grazer Hefte für konkrete Ökumene, publ. Institut für Dogmengeschichte und ökumenische Theologie der Theologischen Fakultät Graz/ Interkonfessioneller Arbeitskreis Ökumene in der Steiermark, Graz 1,1977 Ökumenische Existenz heute, Munich 1,1986ff. Orientierungen und Berichte. Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, Stuttgart 1,1974ff. Ons geestelijk erf, Anvers etc. 1,1927ff. Oikonomia. Quellen und Studien zur orthodoxen Theologie, Erlangen 1979ff. Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago, IL 1,1924ff. Orden der Kirche, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1955ff. Ökumenische Studienhefte, Göttingen 1,1993ff. Ökumene-Lexikon, ed. H. Krüger et al., Frankfurt/M. 1983; 2 1987 Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, Leuven 1,1975ff. O. Keel & M. Küchler, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel, Zürich et al. 1,1984; 2,1982

lxxvii OLoP OLP OLP.S OLZ OR ÖR OR(D) Or. ÖR.B OrChr

OrdKor ORDO Oriens Orita Orph. OrSuec OrSyr OrthFor Orthodoxia

OS OSAP ÖTBK OTE OTG OTG ÖTh ÖTKNT OTL OTP OTS ÖTS OTSt OuO ÖZS PAAJR PädR Paid. Palaeoslavica PalMus

PaP Papirologica PapyCol

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Orientalia Lovaniensia periodica, Leuven 1,1970ff. Oriental Library Publications, Mysore – Sanskrit Series 1,1893–86,1944 Orientalische Literaturzeitung, Berlin etc. 1,1898ff. L’osservatore romano, Vatican City 1849–1852; 1,1861ff. Ökumenische Rundschau, Stuttgart 1,1952ff. – OR weekly ed. in German 1,1971ff. Orientalia, Rome 1,1920–55,1930; NS 1,1932ff. – Beiheft 1,1965ff. Oriens Christianus, Rome etc. 1,1901–8, 1908; NS 1,1911–14,1924; 23 (= 3rd series: 1),1926–36 (= 3rd series: 14),1939; 37 (= 4th series: 1), 1953–65 (= 4th series: 29),1981; 66,1982ff. Ordenskorrespondenz. Zeitschrift für Fragen des Ordenslebens, Cologne 1,1960ff. Ordo. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Stuttgart 1,1948ff. Oriens. Zeitschrift der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Orientforschung, Leiden etc. 1,1948–35,1996; 36,2001ff. Orita. Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies, Ibadan 1,1967ff. Orpheus. Rivista di umanità classica e cristiana, Catania 1,1954–24/25,1977/78; NS 1,1980ff. Orientalia Suecana, Uppsala 1,1952ff. Orient Syrien, Paris 1,1956–12,1967 Orthodoxes Forum, St. Ottilien 1,1987ff. Orthodoxia. Episemon ethikothreskeutikon trimeniaion periodikon tu Oikumeniku Patriarcheiu. Orthodoxia. The Official Ethical-Religious Quarterly Periodical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Thessaloniki (1st series) 1994; 2nd series 1995ff. Ostkirchliche Studien, Würzburg 1,1952ff. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford 1,1983ff. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament, Gütersloh 2,1979ff. Old Testament Essays. Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, Pretoria 17/18,1974/75ff. Old Testament in Greek. According to the Septuagint, ed. H.B. Swete, Cambridge 1,1887– 3,1894; 3rd ed. 1,1901–3,1905; 4th ed. 1,1909–3,1912 Old Testament Guides, Sheffield 1,1983ff. Ökumenische Theologie, Zürich etc. 1,1978ff. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament, ed. E. Grässler, Gütersloh 1,1977ff. Old Testament Library, London 1,1960ff. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, London etc. 1,1983–2,1985 Oudtestamentische studiën, Leiden 1,1942ff. Ökumenische Texte und Studien, Marburg 1,1952ff. Old Testament Studies. Society for Old Testament Study, Edinburgh etc. 1,1935; 2,1936; 3,1956 Orient und Occident, Leipzig 1,1929–17,1935; NS 1–3,1936 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, publ. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Soziologie, Opladen etc. 1976ff. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, New York etc. 1,1928/30ff. Pädagogische Rundschau. Monatsschrift für Erziehung und Unterricht, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1947ff. Paideuma. Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1938ff. Palaeoslavica. International Journal for the Study of Slavic Medieval Literature, History, Language and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA, 1,1993ff. Paléographie musicale. Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, ambrosien, mozarabe, gallican publiés en facsimilés phototypiques par les Bénédictins de Solesmes, Paris etc. 1,1889ff. Past and Present. A Journal of Scientific History, London 1,1952ff. Studi di Messina. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Messina 1992ff. Papyrologica Coloniensia, Cologne 1,1964ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Par. ParOr PastPsy PaThSt PatMS Patr. PatSor PatST PBA PBR PBSR PCB PenOrth PEQ PerGe PF PG

PGE PGL PGrM PH Ph. PH.S PhB Phil. PhJ PhN PhQ PhR PhRev Phron. PhuG PhW Phylon PIASH PiLi PIR PJ PKG PKNT PKZ

lxxviii

Paradosis. Études de littérature et de théologie ancienne, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1947ff. Parole de l’Orient, Kaslik 1,1970ff. Pastoral Psychology, Great Neck, NY, 1,1950/51ff. Paderborner Theologische Studien, Paderborn etc. 1,1974ff. Patristic Monograph Series, Cambridge, MA, 1,1975ff. Patristica, Paris 1,1953ff. Patristica Sorbonensia, Paris 1,1957ff. Patristic Studies. Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 1,1922ff. Proceedings of the British Academy for the Promoting of Historical, Philosophical and Philological Studies, London 1,1903ff. The Patristic and Byzantine Review. Paterike-Byzantine epitheoresis, Kingston, NY, 1,1982ff. Papers of the British School at Rome, London 1,1902ff. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black & H.H. Rowley, London 1962 La pensée orthodoxe, Paris 1 (= 12),1966–2 (= 13),1968; 3 (= 15),1983ff. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London 69,1937ff. Persönlichkeit und Geschichte. Biographische Reihe, Göttingen 1,1957ff. Pädagogische Forschungen. Veröffentlichungen des Comenius-Instituts, Heidelberg 1,1957–54,1973 Patrologiae cursus completus, – Series Graeca, accurante J.-P. Migne, Paris 1,1857–167,1866 and index vols. 1,1928– 2,1936 Propyläen-Geschichte Europas, Frankfurt/M. 1,1975–6,1976; supplement vol. 7,1993– 8,1994 Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.W.H. Lampe, Oxford 1961ff. Papyri Graecae magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz et al., Leipzig etc. 1,1928–2,1931ff.; 2nd improved ed., ed. A. Heinrichs, 2 vols. 1973/74 Paedagogica historica. Journal of the History of Education, Ghent 1,1961ff. Philologus. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Berlin etc. 1,1846–46,1888; 47 (=NS 1),1889–NS 50,1944; 97, 1948; 98,1954ff. – Supplementary Series, 1,1995ff. Philosophische Bibliothek, Leipzig 1,1868ff. Philosophy. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge etc. 6,1931ff. Philosophisches Jahrbuch (62,1953–67,1959) der Görres-Gesellschaft, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1888ff. Philosophia naturalis. Archiv für Naturphilosophie und die philosophischen Grenzgebiete der exakten Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Frankfurt/M. 1,1950ff. Philosophical Quarterly, St. Andrews 1,1950ff. Philosophische Rundschau. Eine Vierteljahresschrift für philosophische Kritik, Tübingen 1,1953ff. The Philosophical Review, Ithaca, NY etc. 1,1892ff. Phronesis. A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, Assen 1,1955/56ff. Philosophie und Geschichte. Eine Sammlung von Vorträgen und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Philosophie und Geschichte, Tübingen 1,1922– 83/84,1969 Philosophisches Wörterbuch, ed. W. Brugger, Freiburg i.Br. 1947; 17 1986 Phylon. The Atlanta University Review of Race and Culture, Atlanta, GA, 1,1940ff. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem 1,1963/67ff. Pietas liturgica. Studia, St. Ottilien 1,1985ff. Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I, II, III, ed. E. Groag, Berlin etc., 3 vols., 1897–1898; 2nd ed. 1,1933ff. Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem, Berlin 1,1905–37,1941 Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1,1923–16,1926; new ed. in 18 vols., ed. K. Bittel, 1967–1983; repr. 1985 Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, ed. P. Arzt-Grabner et al., Göttingen 1,2002ff. Protestantische Kirchenzeitung für das evangelische Deutschland, Berlin 1,1854–43,1896

lxxix PL

PLP PLRE PLS PLSp PMLA PMS Pneuma PO POC POT PPR PrakTh PravMysl PRC PRE

PRE.S PrJ PrKZ PrM PRMCL Prom. Prooftexts Protest. PrTh PS PSt(S) PSt(S).B PTD PTh PTHe PThH PThI PTS Publizistik PUCSC PuH PuN PuP PVTG PWM Qad. QD QDGNS QDGR

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Patrologiae cursus completus, – Series Latina, accurante J.-P. Migne, Paris, 1st series 1,1841–79,1849; 2nd series 80,1850–217,1855 Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp, Vienna 1,1976–13,1996 A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale & J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge etc. 1,1971; from vol. 2 ed. J.R. Martindale, 2,1980–3,1992 Patrologiae Latinae supplementum, Paris 1,1958–5,1970 Praktisches Lexikon der Spiritualität, ed. C. Schütz, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1988 Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, Washington, DC, 1,1884ff. Publications in Mediaeval Studies. University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 1,1936ff. Pneuma. The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Fresno, CA, 1,1979ff. Patrologia orientalis, Paris etc. 1,1907ff. Proche-Orient chrétien, Jerusalem 1,1951ff. Princeton Oriental Texts, Princeton, NJ, 1,1930–10,1943 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. A Quarterly Journal, Providence, RI, 1,1940ff. Praktische theologie. Nederlands tijdschrift voor pastorale wettenschappen, Zwolle 1,1974ff. Pravoslavnaja mysl’. Trudy Pravoslavnago Bogoslovskago Instituta v Parize, Paris 1,1928; 2,1930; 5,1947–11,1957; 14,1971 Periodica de re canonica, Rome 80,1991ff. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, new ed. inaugurated by G. Wissowa, Stuttgart – 1st series 1,1894–24,1963, – 2nd series 1,1914–10,1972 – Supplement 1,1903–16,1980 Preußische Jahrbücher, Berlin 1,1859–240,1935 Preußische Kirchenzeitung, Berlin 1,1905–29,1933 Protestantische Monatshefte, Leipzig 1,1897–25,1921 Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica, Rome 16,1907–79,1990 Prometheus. Rivista quadrimestrale di studi classici, Florence 1,1975ff. Prooftexts. A Journal of Jewish Literary History, Baltimore, MD, 1,1981ff. Protestantesimo. Rivista trimestrale, publ. Facoltà Valdese di Teologia, Rome etc. 1,1946ff. Praktische Theologie. Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Kirche, Gütersloh 29,1994ff. Patrologia Syriaca, Paris 1,1897–3,1926 Predigtstudien: für das Kirchenjahr, ed. E. Lange, Stuttgart 1,1968/69ff. – Beiheft 1,1968ff. Praktische Theologie im Dialog, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1987ff. Pastoraltheologie. Wissenschaft und Praxis, Göttingen 55,1966–58,1969; 70,1981ff. Praktische Theologie heute, Stuttgart 1,1991ff. Praktisch-theologisches Handbuch, ed. G. Otto, Hamburg 1970; 2 1975 Pastoraltheologische Informationen, Mainz 1,1968ff. Patristische Texte und Studien, Berlin 1,1964ff.; (2,1963) Publizistik. Vierteljahreshefte für Kommunikationsforschung, pub. in association with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Publizistik und Zeitungswissenschaft, Wiesbaden, 1,1956ff. Pubblicazioni dell’ Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, NS 1,1944–79,1960 Poetik und Hermeneutik. Arbeitsergebnisse einer Forschungsgruppe, Munich 1,1964ff. Pietismus und Neuzeit. Ein Jahrbuch zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus, Göttingen 1,1974ff. Päpste und Papsttum, Stuttgart 1,1971–23,1984 Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece, Leiden 1,1964ff. Perspektiven der Weltmission, Ammersbek bei Hamburg etc. 1,1968ff. Qadmōnijjōt. Qadmoniot. Quarterly for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Biblical Lands, Jerusalem 1968ff. Quaestiones disputatae, Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1958ff. Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens, Hanover 1,1883ff. Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Geschichte des Reformationsjahrhunderts, Leipzig etc. 1,1906–18,1911

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Qedem QFIAB QFRG QFSKG QFWKG QGP QGPRK

QGT QGTS QLP QMRKG QS QSGHK Quat. QuLi RA RabelsZ RAC RAC Suppl RAM RAMi RAPC RAPC2 RäRG RasIsr RB RBen RBK RBL RBMA RBML RBPH RCEA RCSF RDC RDK RDL RdQ RE REA REArm REAug REByz

lxxx

Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem 1,1975ff. Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, Tübingen 1,1898ff. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, Gütersloh etc. 3,1921ff. Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, Strassburg etc. 1,1874ff. Quellen und Forschungen zur württembergischen Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1967ff. Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus, ed. J. Kunze & K. Stange, Leipzig 1,1904–13,1932 Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des römischen Katholizismus, ed. C. Mirbt, 6th, completely new ed. by K. Aland, Tübingen 1895; 51934 – 1st series: 6 1967ff. – 2nd series: Die Kirche nach dem II. Vatikanischen Konzil 1–2,1972 Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, Gütersloh 3,1938ff. Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, ed. L.v. Muralt et al., Zürich 1,1952ff. Questions liturgiques et paroissiales, Leuven 5,1919/20–50,1969 Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, Mainz 1,1954ff. Qirjat Sefer. Kirjat Sepher. Bibliographical Quarterly of the Jewish National and University Library Jerusalem, Jerusalem 1,1924ff. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der helvetischen Kirche, Zürich 1,1932ff. Quatember. Vierteljahreshefte für Erneuerung und Einheit der Kirche, Hanover 17,1952ff. Questions liturgiques, Leuven 1,1910/11–4,1913/14; 51,1970ff. (5,1919–50,1969 = QLP) Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale, Paris 1,1884/85ff. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Tübingen etc. 26,1961ff. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser et al., Stuttgart 1,1950ff. – Supplement, ed. E. Dassmann, Stuttgart 1,1985ff. Revue d’ascétique et de mystique, Toulouse 1,1920–47,1971 Rivista di ascetica e mistica, Florence 26,1956ff. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, ed. V. Grumel et al., Constantinople 1,1932ff. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. 2nd corr. ed. J. Darrouzès, Paris 1.1,1972ff. H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin 1952; 21971 Rassegna mensile di Israel, Rome 1,1925 Revue biblique, Paris 1892ff. Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, Maredsous 7,1890ff. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, ed. K. Wessel et al., Stuttgart 1,1966ff. Reclams Bibellexikon, ed. K. Koch, E. Otto, J. Roloff & H. Schmoldt, Stuttgart 1978; 2 1979; 31982; 41987; 51992; 62000 Repertorium biblicum medii aevi, ed. F. Stegmüller, Madrid 1,1950–7,1961 Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Literatur, Leipzig 1,1777–18,1786 Revue belge de philologie et d’historie, Brussels 1,1922ff. Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, Cairo 1,1931–13,1944; 14,1954ff. Rivista critica di storia della filosofia, Milan etc. 5,1950–38,1983 Revue de droit canonique, Strasbourg etc. 1,1921ff. Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1933ff. Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturgeschichte, ed. P. Merker, Berlin 1,1926–4,1931; 2nd ed. by W. Kohlschmidt, from vol. 4 ed. K. Kanzog 1,1958–5,1988; 3rd ed. = RLW Revue de Qumrān, Paris 1.1,1958/59ff. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, founded by J.J. Herzog, ed. A. Hauck, Gotha 1,1854–22,1868; 2nd ed. 1,1877–18,1888; 3rd ed. 1,1896–24,1913 Revue des études anciennes, Talence 1,1899ff. Revue des études arméniennes, Paris 1,1920–11,1933; NS 1,1964ff. Revue des études augustiniennes, Paris 1,1955ff. Revue des études byzantines, Paris 4,1946ff.

lxxxi RECA RechAug Ref. REG REGC ReH REI REJ REL RelEd RelLife RelRea RelSoc RelSt Rep. ReRö RestQ RET RevSR RExp RF(M) RFHMA RFIC

RFNS RFTP RGA RGD RGG RGG2 RGG3 RGG4 RGRW RGST RGST.S RGVV RH RHC RHC.Hor

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung, ed. A. Pauly, Stuttgart etc. 1,1839–6,1852 Recherches augustiniennes, Paris 1,1958ff. (= Supplement to REAug) Reformatio. Evangelische Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, Zürich etc. 1,1952ff. Revue des Études Grecques. Publication de l’Association pour l’Encouragement des Études Grecques, Paris 1,1888ff. Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes, Paris 1,1985ff. Recusant History. A Journal of Research in Post-Reformation Catholic History in the British Isles, Bognor Regis 4,1957/58ff. Revue des études islamiques, Paris 1,1927ff. Revue des études juives, publ. Société des Études Juives, Paris 1.1,1880ff. Revue des études latines, Paris 1,1923ff. Religious Education. Official Publication of the Religious Education Association of the United States and Canada, Chicago, IL, 1,1906ff. Religion in Life. A Christian Quarterly of Opinion and Discussion, Nashville, TN etc. 1,1932–49,1980 Religion and Reason, Den Haag 1,1971ff. Religion and Society, Bangalore 5,1958ff. Religious Studies, London etc. 1,1965/66ff. Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, ed. F.W. Deichmann, rev. G. Bovini & H. Brandenburg, Wiesbaden etc. 1.1,1967ff.; index vols. 1,1996ff. J. Renz & W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, Darmstadt 1,1995ff. Restoration Quarterly, publ. The Restoration Quarterly Corporation, Abilene, TX 1,1957ff. Revista española de teología, Madrid 1,1940/41ff. Revue des sciences religieuses. Faculté Catholique de Théologie, Strassburg etc. 1,1921– 20,1940; 21,1947ff. Review and Expositor. A Baptist Theological Quarterly, Louisville, KY, 1,1904ff. Revista de filosofia. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid 1,1942ff. Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, Rome 1,1962ff. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica, Turin 1,1872–22,1894; 23 (= NS 1),1859–24 (= NS 2),1986; 25,1897–50,1922; 51 (= 2nd series: 1), 1923–90 (= 2nd series: 40), 1962; 3rd series 91,1963ff. Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica, Milan 1,1909ff. Recherches. Facultés de Théologie et de Philosophie de la Compagnie de Jésus, Montreal, Paris etc. 1,1971ff. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, ed. J. Hoops, Strassburg 1,1911–4,1919; Berlin 2nd ed. 1,1968 Reihe Gottesdienst, Berlin etc. 1,1969ff. Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. F.M. Schiele, L. Zscharnack, H. Gunkel & O. Scheel, Tübingen 1,1909–5,1913 Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2nd completely rev. ed., ed. H. Gunkel, L. Zscharnack, A. Bertholet & H. Faber/H. Stephan, Tübingen 1,1927–5,1931; index vol. 1932 Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd, completely rev. ed., ed. K. Galling, H. Frhr. von Campenhausen, E. Dinkler, G. Gloege & K.E. Løgstrup, Tübingen 1,1957– 6,1962; index vol. 1965 Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th, completely rev. ed., ed. H.D. Betz, D.S. Browning, B. Janowski & E. Jüngel, Tübingen 1,1998ff. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. R.B. van den Broek, H.J.W. Drijvers, & H.S. Versnel, Leiden 114,1992ff. Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, Münster 1,1906ff. – Supplement vol. 1,1965ff. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, Berlin etc. 1,1903–27,1939; 28,1968ff. Revue historique, Paris 1,1876ff. Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, publ. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris – Historiens Orientaux, 16 vols., 1841–1906

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals RHE RHEF Rhetorica Rhetorik RhLB RHLF RhM RHPhR RHR rhs RhV RhWAW RhWAW.G RI

RIBLA Ricerca Papirologica RIDA Rießler RIHEE RIL RIS RISM RISM.B RITh RivAC RivBib RivLi RJ RKAM RKM RKZ RLA RLS RLV RLW RM RMab RMet RMM RMP

lxxxii

Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, Leuven 1,1900ff. Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, Paris 1,1910ff. Rhetorica. A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, publ. International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Berkeley, CA, 1,1983ff. Rhetorik. Ein internationales Jahrbuch, ed. J. Dyck et al., Tübingen 1,1980ff. Rheinische Lebensbilder, Düsseldorf 1,1961ff. Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France, Paris 1,1894ff. Rheinischer Merkur. (1980ff.:) Christ und Welt, Cologne etc. 1,1870–3/27,1872; 35,1980ff. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses, Strasbourg etc. 1,1921ff. Revue de l’histoire des religions, Paris 1/1,1880–98/196,1979; 197,1980ff. Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen. Zeitschrift des Bundesverbandes der Katholischen Religionslehrer an Gymnasien e.V., Düsseldorf 1,1958ff. Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter, Bonn 1,1931–12,1942; 13,1948ff. Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Düsseldorf – Vorträge, Reihe G.: Geisteswissenschaften, 165,1970–324,1993 Regesta imperii, rev. after J.F. Böhmer publ. Kommission für die Neubearbeitung der Regesta Imperii bei der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna etc. 1889ff. Revista de interpretación biblica latinoamericana, publ. Departemento Ecuménico de Investigaciones, San José 1,1988ff. Ricerca Papirologica. Università degli Studi di Messina. Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Messina 1992ff. Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, Brussels 1,1948–4,1951; 3rd series 1,1954ff. P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel, Augsburg 1928; Freiburg i.Br. etc. 5 1984 Revista del Instituto de Historia Eclesiástica Ecuatoriana, Quito 1,1974ff. Rendiconti. (R.) Istituto Lombardo (up to 91,1957:) di Scienze e Lettere, Milan, 2nd series 1,1868ff. Rerum Italicarum scriptores, ed. L.A. Muratori, Città di Castello et al. 1,1723–25,1751 Répertoire international des sources musicales. Internationales Quellenlexikon der Musik, publ. Société Internationale de Musicologie, Kassel etc. – Systematische Reihe 1,1960ff. Revue internationale de théologie. Internationale theologische Zeitschrift. International Theological Review, Bern 1,1893–18,1910 Rivista di archeologia cristiana, Rome 1,1924ff. Rivista biblica, Rome etc. 1,1953ff. Rivista liturgica. Bimestrale per la formatione liturgica, Turin 1,1914/15–50,1963; NS 51,1964ff. Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, ed. L. Bruhns, Tübingen 1,1937–23,1988 Religion und Kultur der alten Mittelmeerwelt in Parallelforschungen, Munich etc. 1,1969ff. Religiöse Kulturen der Moderne, Gütersloh 1996ff. Reformierte Kirchenzeitung, publ. on behalf of the Reformierter Bund, Neukirchen-Vluyn etc. 1,1851–9, 2000 Reallexikon der Assyriologie, ed. E. Ebeling & B. Meissner, Berlin etc. 1,1928ff. Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters: für die Zeit 1150–1350, ed. J.B. Schneyer, Münster 1,1969ff. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, ed. M. Ebert, Berlin 1,1924–15,1932 Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, ed. H. Fricke, K. Grubmüller, J.D. Müller & K. Weimar, Berlin etc. 1,1997ff. Die Religionen der Menschheit, Stuttgart 1,1961ff. Revue Mabillon. Revue internationale d’histoire et de littératures religieuses, Paris 1,1905– 57,1967/68; 62 (= NS 1), 1990/91ff. Review of Metaphysics. A Philosophical Quarterly, Washington, DC, 1,1947ff. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, Evry 1,1893ff. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Bonn etc. 1,1827–3,1929; NS 1,1833–6,1839; 3rd series 1,1842ff.

lxxxiii RNSP RNT RNum RöHM RoJKG RomF RPäB RPFE RPh RPP RpP RPR RPR(J)

RPR.GP RQ RQ.S RR RRef RRelRes RS RSCHS RSCI RSCr RSE RSEt RSFen RSLR RSoO RSPhTh RSR RSSS RStB RSTh RSV RSWV RT RThAM RThom RThPC RThPh RTL ru RV

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie, Leuven 17,1910–43,1940/45 Regensburger Neues Testament, ed. A. Wikenhauser & O. Kuss, Regensburg 1,1956– 10,1962; rev. ed., ed. J. Eckert 1,1974ff. Revue numismatique, Paris 1,1836–21,1856; 6th series 1,1958ff. Römische historische Mitteilungen, publ. Österreichischer Kulturinstitut in Rom and the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 1,1956ff. Rottenburger Jahrbuch für Kirchengeschichte, Sigmaringen 1,1982ff. Romanische Forschungen, Frankfurt/M. 1,1883 ff. Religionspädagogische Beiträge, Kaarst 1,1978ff. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, Paris 1,1876ff. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes, Paris 1,1845–2,1847; NS 1(= 3) 1877–50(= 52), 1926; 3rd series 1(= 53), 1977ff. Religion Past and Present. ET of RGG4, ed. H.D. Betz, D.S. Browning, B. Janowski & E. Jüngel, Leiden 1,2006ff. Religionspädagogische Perspektiven, ed. R. Kollmann, Essen 1,1984ff. Review of Philosophy and Religion, Allahabad 1,1930ff. Regesta pontificum Romanorum, Berlin – Ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed. P. Jaffé, Leipzig 1851; 2nd ed. 1,1885–2,1888 – Germania pontificia 1,1911ff. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1887ff. – Supplement issue 1,1893ff. Review of Religion, New York 1,1936/37–22,1957/58 Revue réformée, Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1,1950ff. Review of Religious Research, New York 1,1959/60ff. Religion and Society, The Hague etc. 1,1976ff. Records of Scottish Church History Society, Edinburgh etc. 1,1923ff. Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, Milan 1,1947ff. Roma sotterranea cristiana, Rome 1,1936ff. Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, Paris etc. 1,1860–93,1906 Rassegna di studi etiopici, Rome 1,1941ff. Rivista di studi fenici, Rome 1,1973ff. Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, Florence 1,1965ff. Religion and the Social Order, Greenwich, CT, 1,1991ff. Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, Paris etc. 1,1907–8,1914; 9,1920– 29,1940; 31,1947ff. Recherches de science religieuse, Paris 1,1910ff. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, Greenwich, CT, 1,1989ff. Ricerche storico-bibliche, Bologna 1,1989ff. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie, Bern etc. 1,1976ff. Religiöse Stimmen der Völker, Jena 1,1925ff. Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft, Paderborn, new ed. 9,1972ff. Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. W. Beyerlin, Göttingen 1975; 2 1985. Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, Leuven 1,1929–12,1940; 13,1946ff. Revue Thomiste. Revue doctrinale de théologie et de philosophie, Toulouse etc. 1,1893ff. Revue de théologie et de philosophie chrétienne, Paris etc. 1,1850–15,1857 Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Geneva NS 1,1913–38,1950; 3rd series 1, 1951– 27,1977; 3rd series 28=110,1978ff. Revue théologique de Louvain, Leuven 1,1970ff. ru. Ökumenische Zeitschrift für die Praxis des Religionsunterrichts (up to 22,1992: ru. Zeitschrift für die Praxis des Religionsunterrichts), Munich etc. 1,1971ff. Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart, Tübingen – 1st series: Religion des Neuen Testaments 1,1904–22/23,1911 – 2nd series: Religion des Alten Testaments 1,1904–26,1921 – 3rd series: Allgemeine Religionsgeschichtsvergleiche 1,1904–18,1914

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals

RVV RWGS RWR SAAS SAC SAE Saec. SAGM SAGM.B SAH SAK SAL Sal. Salm. SAM Sammlung SAT SAWW SAWW.PH SBA SBAB SBAW SBAW.PH SBAW.PPH SBB SBEC SBF SBF.A SBF.CMa SBFLA SBi SBibSt SBL SBL.CA SBL.DS SBL.EJL SBL.MS SBL.PS SBL.SCSt SBL.SP SBL.SS SBL.TT SBNE SBS SBT SBW SC SCA SCCNH

lxxxiv

– 4th series: Kirchengeschichte 1,1906– 32/33,1920 – 5th series: Weltanschauung und Religionsphilosophie 1,1905–23,1919 – 6th series: Praktische Bibelerklärung 1,1913–10/12,1921 Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, Gießen etc. 1,1903ff. Die Religionswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, Leipzig 1,1925–5,1929 Religionswissenschaftliche Reihe, Marburg 1,1988ff. State Archives of Assyria Studies, ed. the New-Assyrian Text Corpus Project of the Academy of Finland, Helsinki 1992ff. Studi di antichità cristiane, Rome etc. 1,1929ff. Studia et acta ecclesiastica. Tanulmányok és okmányok a Magyarországi Református Egyház történetébol a négyszáz éves jubileum alkalmából, Budapest 1,1965ff. Saeculum. Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte, Munich etc. 1,1950ff. Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 21,1929ff. – Beiheft 1,1961ff. Studia Augustiniana historica, Rome 1,1976ff. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur, Hamburg 1,1974ff. Studies in Arabic Literature, Leiden 1,1971ff. (= Supplement to JArL) Salesianum. Pontificio Atheneo salesiano, Turin 1,1939ff. Salmanticensis. Commentarius de sacris disciplinis, Salamanca 1,1954ff. Schriften zur antiken Mythologie, Mainz 1,1972ff. Die Sammlung. Zeitschrift für Erziehung und Gesellschaft, ed. G. Becker, Stuttgart 1,1961ff. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl, Göttingen 1,1909–3,1915 Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Vienna – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1.1,1848–224.5,1947 Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Basel 1,1945ff. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände, Stuttgart 1,1988ff. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in München, Munich 1860–1870 – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse/Abteilung 1924ff. – Philosophisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse 1871–1923 Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge, Stuttgart 1,1965ff. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, New York 1,1981ff. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem – Analecta 1981ff. – Collectio major 1,1941ff. Studii Biblici Franciscani liber annuus, Jerusalem 1,1950/51–29,1979 Sources bibliques, Paris 1963ff. Sources for Biblical Study, Missoula, MT, 1,1973ff. Society of Biblical Literature, Missoula, MT – Christian Apocrypha 1,1990 – Dissertation Series 1,1972ff. – Early Judaism and its Literature 1,1991ff. – Monograph Series 15,1971ff. – Pseudepigrapha Series 1,1972ff. – Septuagint and Cognate Studies 1,1972ff. – Seminar Papers. Annual Meeting 100,1964ff. – Symposium Series 1,1996ff. – Texts and Translations 1,1972ff. Studi bizantini e neoellenici, Rome etc. 1,1924–10,1963 Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, Stuttgart 1,1965ff. Studies in Biblical Theology, London 1,1950–50,1966; 2nd series 1,1967ff. Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, Leipzig 1,1932–24,1932 Sources chrétiennes, Paris 1,1941ff. Studies in Christian Antiquity, Washington, DC, 1,1941ff. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, Winona Lake, IN, etc. 1,1981ff.

lxxxv ScEs SCH(L) SchlAr Scholastik Schweich Lectures SCI SCJ ScrHie Scriptura SCSt SD SDAW SDAW.S SDB SDGSTh SDIO SDKG SE SEÅ SEAB SEAug SecCen SEECO SEER Sefunot

SEG SEL Sem. Semeia Semeia Studies SESJ SFJC SFJC.A SFJC.B SFS SGKA SGM SGNP SGRR SGSG SGSLE SGV SHAJ SHANE SHAW SHAW.PH SHCANE

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Science et Esprit. Revue théologique et philosophique, Bruges 20,1968ff. Studies in Church History. Ecclesiastical History Society, London 1,1964ff. Schleiermacher-Archiv, Berlin 1,1984ff. Scholastik. Vierteljahresschrift für Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1926– 40,1965 The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, London 1909ff. Scripta Classica Israelica, Jerusalem etc. 1,1974ff. Sixteenth Century Journal. A Journal for Renaissance and Reformation Students and Scholars, Kinksville, MO, 3,1972ff. Scripta Hierosolymitana, Jerusalem 1,1954ff. Scriptura (Stellenbosch). Tydskrif vir bybelkunde, Stellenbosch 1,1980 Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Series), Cambridge, MA, 1,1972ff. Solida Declaratio Sitzungsbericht der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin – Klasse für Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 1950–1961 Straßburger Diözesanblatt und kirchliche Rundschau, Strassburg 18,1899–37,1918 Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie, Zürich 1,1952ff. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia, Leiden 1,1936ff. Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, Strassburg 1,1894ff. Sacris erudiri. Jaarboek voor godsdienstwetenschappen, Steenbrugge etc. 1,1948ff. Svensk exegetisk årsbok, Lund etc. 1,1936ff. Studies in East Asian Buddhism, Honolulu 1,1983ff. Studia ephemerides «Augustinianum», Rome 1,1967ff. The Second Century, Abilene, TX 1,1981ff. Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae occidentalis, ed. P.B. Games, Regensburg 1873 and Supplement 1879–1886 The Slavonic and East European Review, Leeds 7,1928/29ff. Sefûnôt. Sefer sana le-heqer qehîllôt Yisra’el bam-mizrah. Sefunot. Studies and Sources on the History of the Jewish Communities in the East, Jerusalem 1,1517=1956– 15,5731/41=1971/81; NS 1=16,5740=1980ff. Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum, Amsterdam etc. 1,1923ff. Studies in English Literature 1500–1900, Houston, TX, 1,1961ff. Semitica, Paris 1,1948ff. Semeia. An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism, publ. Society of Biblical Literature, Chico, CA etc. 1,1974ff. – Semeia Studies series 10,1982ff. Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, Helsinki 23,1966ff. (Analecta Gregoriana:) Series Facultatis Iuris Canonici, Rom – Sectio A 1,1938ff. – Sectio B 1,1940ff. Spicilegii Friburgensis subsidia. Texte zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Lebens, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1963ff. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, Paderborn 1,1907–23,1942 Sources gnostiques et manichéennes, Paris 1,1984ff. Studien zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus, Gießen etc. 1,1907–17,1939 Studies in Greek and Roman Religion, Leiden 1,1980ff. Studi gregoriani per la storia di Gregorio VII e della riforma gregoriana, Rome 1,1947– 7,1960 Studi gregoriani per la storia della «Libertas Ecclesiae», ed. A.M. Stickler et al., Rome 8,1970ff. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen 1,1896ff. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Amman 1,1982ff. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, Leiden etc. 1,1982–5,1995 Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Heidelberg – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 1,1910–38, 1953/54; 1955ff. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, Leiden etc. 6,1996ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals SHCSR SHCT SHG SHL SHMR SHR SIDA SIG SIGC SIJD SIM Siyyōn SJ SJKR SJLA SJOT SJP SJRS SJTh SKG SKG.G SKGNS SKI SKRG SKZ SLA SLAG SLB SLG SlgHor SLH SM SMAFN SMBen SMBen.BE SMCH SMGB SMGH SMRT SMSR SNG SNG Danish National Museum SNG Israel SNTSMS

lxxxvi

Spicilegium historicum Congregationis Sanctissimi Redemptoris, Rome 1,1953ff. Studies in the History of Christian Thought, Leiden 1,1966ff. Subsidia hagiographica, Brussels 1,1886ff. Supplementa humanistica Lovaniensia, Leuven 1,1978ff. Studies in the History of Medieval Religion, Woodbridge 1,1989ff. Studies in the History of Religions, Leiden 1,1954ff. (= Supplement to: Numen) Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis, Stockholm 1,1967ff. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1–2,1883; 2nd ed. 1,1898–4,1901; 3rd ed. 1,1915–4,1923 = 1960 Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums, Frankfurt/M. etc. 1,1975ff. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, Münster etc. NS 1954ff.; NS Göttingen 1993ff. Studia Instituti Missiologici Societatis Verbi Divini, St. Augustin et al. 1,1962ff. Siyyōn. Rivōn le-heqer tōledōt Yisra’el. Zion. A Quarterly for Research in Jewish History, Jerusalem 1,1925–6,1933/34; NS 1,1935ff. Studia Judaica. Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, Berlin 1,1961ff. Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Kirchenrecht. Annuaire suisse de droit ecclésial, Bern 1,1976ff. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Leiden 1,1973ff. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Oslo 1987ff. Salzburger Jahrbuch für Philosophie (1,1957–3,1959:) und Psychologie, Salzburg etc. 1,1957ff. The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies, Stirling 1,1980ff. Scottish Journal of Theology, Edinburgh 1,1948ff. Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Halle/S. – Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 1,1924–18,1944 Studien zur Kirchengeschichte Niedersachsens, Göttingen 1,1919ff. Studien zu Kirche und Israel, Berlin 10,1987ff. Schriften zur Kirchen- und Rechtsgeschichte, Tübingen 1,1956ff. Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung. Fragen der Theologie und Seelsorge, Lucerne etc. 1,1832ff. Studien der Luther-Akademie <Sondershausen>, Gütersloh etc. 1,1932–17,1949; NS 1,1953–7,1959 Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft (in Finnland), Helsinki etc. 1,1941–14,1967; Series A: 15,1972ff. Schwäbische Lebensbilder, Stuttgart 1,1940ff. Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. Poetarum lyricorum Graecorum fragmenta quae recens innotuerunt, ed. D. Page, Oxford 1974 Sammlung Horizonte, Einsiedeln 1,1956–10,1965; NS 3,1971ff. Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, Dublin 1,1955ff. Sacramentum mundi. Theologisches Lexikon für die Praxis, ed. K. Rahner et al., Freiburg i.Br. etc. 1,1967–4,1969 Spätmittelalter und frühe Neuzeit. Tübinger Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung, Stuttgart 1,1978ff. Serie monografica di «Benedictina». Monographische Reihe von «Benedictina». Monographic series of «Benedictina». Série monographique de «Benedictina», Rome – Sezione biblico ecumenica. Biblical Ecumenical Section. Biblisch-ökumenische Abteilung. Section biblico-oecuménique 1,1976ff. Studies in Medieval Cistercian History, Kalamazoo, MI, 1,1971ff. Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige, Munich 32,1911ff. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Stuttgart 10,1950ff. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, Leiden 1,1966ff. Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, L’Aquila 1,1925–40,1969; NS 7,1983ff. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum – The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Copenhagen etc. 1.1,1942ff. – Israel, London 1,1988 Monograph Series. Society for New Testament Studies, Cambridge 1,1965ff.

lxxxvii SNTU SNTU.A SNTU.B SNVAO SNVAO.HF SO SO.S SÖAW SÖAW.PH Sob.

SOC Soc. SOC.Ae SocComp Societas SOPMA SOr SOrth SPA SPAW SPAW.PH SPB SPCK SPCK.LP Spec. SpicCas SPMed SPT SPTh SQS

SQWFG SR SROC SRP SSAC SSAM SSAW SSAW.PH SSCR SSHKG SSL SSN SSRel StA STA Staat

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, Linz – Series A: 1,1976ff. – Series B: 2,1978ff. Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Oslo – Historisk-Filosofisk Klasse, 1925(1926)–1960(1961); NS 1,1962ff. Symbolae Osloenses, Societas Graeco-Latina, Oslo 2,1923ff. – Fasciculus suppletionis 1,1925ff. Sitzungsberichte. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 225,1947ff. Sobornost. The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, London, NS 1,1935– 3rd series 24,1959; 4th series 1,1959–12,1965; 5th series 1,1965–10,1970; 6th series 1,1970–10,1974; 7th series 1,1975–7,1978; 8th series 1,1979ff. Studia orientalia Christiana, publ. Centro Francescano di Studi Orientali Christiani, Cairo Sociologus. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie, Leipzig 8,1932–9,1933; NS 1,1951ff. – Aegyptiaca 10,1958ff. Social compass. Revue des études socio-religieuses, The Hague etc. 1,1953ff. Societas. A Review of Social History, Oshkosh, WI, 1,1971–8,1978 T. Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi, Rome 1,1970ff. Sources orientales, Paris 1,1959ff. Stimme der Orthodoxie. Golos pravoslavija, Berlin 1961ff. Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Leuven 1,1990ff. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1882–1921 – Philosophisch Historische Klasse 1922–1938 Studia patristica et Byzantina, Ettal 1,1953–11,1965 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge – SPCK Large Paperbacks, London 5,1970ff. Speculum. A Journal of Mediaeval Studies, Cambridge, MA, 1,1926ff. Spicilegium Casinense complectens analecta sacra et profana e codd. Casinensibus . . ., Monte Cassino 1, 1888–4,1936 Studia patristica Mediolanensia, Milan 1,1974ff. (= subseries of PUCSC) Studies in Patristic Thought, New York 2,1967ff. Studien zur Praktischen Theologie, Munich 1,1963ff. Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, ed. G. Krüger, Tübingen – Series 1: 1,1891–12,1896 – Series 2: 1,1901–9,1911 – NS 1,1924–6,1933 Studien und Quellen zur westfälischen Geschichte, Paderborn 1,1957ff. Studies in Religion. Revue canadienne. Sciences religieuses, Toronto 1,1971/72–6,1976/77; 7,1978ff. Studi e ricerche sull’Oriente cristiano, Rome 1,1978ff. Scriptores rerum Prussicarum, Leipzig 1,1861ff. Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane, Rome 1,1936ff. Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Spoleto 1,1953ff. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften – Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Berlin etc. 107.1,1962ff. Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion, Stockholm 1,1961ff. Studien zur schleswig-holsteinischen Kunstgeschichte, Neumünster etc. 1,1935ff. Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Leuven 1, 1922ff. Studia semitica Neerlandica, Assen etc. 1,1955ff. Studi storico-religiosi, L’Aquila etc. 1,1977–6,1982 Ph. Melanchthon, Werke in Auswahl, study ed., ed. R. Stupperich, Gütersloh 1,1951– 7,1975 Studia et testimonia antiqua, Munich 1,1966ff. Der Staat. Zeitschrift für Staatslehre, öffentliches Recht und Verfassungsgeschichte, Berlin 1,1962ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals STAC StAlb StAns StANT StCan StD STG StGen STGMA StGra StGS SThGG StHib SThKAB StHU SThZ StII StIr StIren StIsl StL STL StLi StMed StMiss StML StMon StNT STö STö.H STö.T Stolberg StOR StPatr StPB STPIMS STPS Strieder StStor StT STT StTDJ StTh StTr Studia Archaeologica StudMed StudPhil(B) StudPhil(P)

lxxxviii

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, Tübingen 1,1998ff. Studia Albornotiana, Bologna etc. 6,1966ff. Studia Anselmiana. Philosophica, theologica, Rome 1,1933ff. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Munich 1,1960–41,1975 Studia canonica, Ottawa 1,1967ff. Studies and Documents, London etc. 1,1934ff. Studien zur Theologie und Geschichte, St. Ottilien 1,1989ff. Studium generale, Berlin etc. 1,1947/48–24,1971 Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, Leiden 1,1950ff. Studia Gratiana. Post octava Decreti saecularia autore consilio commemorationi Gratianae instruendae edita, Bonn 1,1953ff. Studien zur Germania sacra, Göttingen 1,1967ff. Studien zur Theologie und Geistesgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen 1,1972ff. Studia Hibernica/Coláiste Phádraig, Baile Atha Cliath 1,1961ff. Schriften des Theologischen Konvents Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses, Berlin 1,1951– 9,1955 Studies in the Humanities. Literature, Politics, Society, New York etc. 1,1967ff. Schweizerische theologische Zeitschrift, Zürich 16,1898–37,1920 Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Reinbek 1,1975ff. Studia Iranica, Paris 1,1972ff. Studia Irenica, Hildesheim etc. 12,1972ff. Studia Islamica, Paris 1,1953ff. Staatslexikon. Recht, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, publ. Görresgesellschaft, Freiburg i.Br., 6th ed. 1,1957ff.; 7th ed. 1,1985ff. Studia theologica Lundensia, Lund 1,1952ff. Studia Liturgica. An International Ecumenical Quarterly for Liturgical Research and Renewal, Rotterdam etc. 1,1962ff. Studi medievali, Spoleto 1,1904–4,1912/13; NS 1,1928–18,1952; 3rd series 1,1960ff. Studia missionalia, Rome 1,1943ff. Stimmen aus Maria Laach, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1871–44,1914 Studia monastica, Barcelona 1,1951ff. Studien zum Neuen Testament, Gütersloh 1,1969ff. Sammlung Töpelmann, Berlin – Series 2: Theologische Hilfsbücher 1,1935ff. – Series 1: Die Theologie im Abriß 1,1932ff. S.E. zu Stolberg-Stolberg, Katalog der fürstlich Stolberg-Stolberg’schen LeichenpredigtenSammlung, ed. W.K. v. Arnswaldt, Leipzig 1,1927– 4/2,1935 Studies in Oriental Religions, Wiesbaden 1,1976ff. Studia patristica. Papers Presented to . . . the International Conference of Patristic Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, ed. K. Aland, Berlin 1,1957ff. Studia post-biblica, Leiden 1,1959ff. Studies and Texts. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto 1,1955ff. Studien zur Theologie und Praxis der Seelsorge, Würzburg 1,1989ff. F.W. Strieder, Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gelehrten- und Schriftstellergeschichte, Göttingen 1,1781–21,1861; repr. 1983 Studi Storici. Rivista trimestrale, Rome 1,1959ff. Studi e testi. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City 1,1900ff. Semitic Texts with Translations, Assen 1,1964ff. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Leiden 1,1957ff. Studia theologica. Scandinavian Journal of Theology, Lund etc. 1,1947ff. Studia Transylvanica, Cologne 1,1968ff. Studia Archaeologica, Rome 1,1961ff. Studia Mediterranea, Pavia 1,1979ff. Studia philosophica . Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Philosophischen Gesellschaft, Bern etc. 6,1946ff.; Supplement 3,1946ff. Studia philosophica. Commentarii Societatis Philosophicae Polonorum, Cracoviae 1,1935ff.

lxxxix StUNT stw StZ SubMed SUC Sulamith SuR SVF SVigChr SVRG SVRKG SVSHKG SVSHKG.B SVSHKG.S SVSL SVSQ SVTP SVTQ SWBAS SWI SWJA SWK Syr. SZG TAM TAMS TANZ TAPhA Tarb. TARWPV TaS TAVO TAzB TB TBAW TBLNT TBT TC TCS TD TD.P TD.T

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen 1,1962ff. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, Frankfurt/M. 1,1973ff. Stimmen der Zeit. (Katholische) Monatsschrift für das Geistesleben der Gegenwart, Freiburg i.Br. 1914ff. Subsidia mediaevalia, Toronto 1,1972ff. Schriften des Urchristentums, Darmstadt 1,1956ff. Sulamith. Eine Zeitschrift zur Beförderung der Cultur und Humanität unter den Israeliten, ed. D. Fränkel, Dessau etc. 1,1806/1808–8,1837; NS 1=9,1845/1848 Spätmittelalter und Reformation. Texte und Untersuchungen, Berlin 1,1977ff.; NS Tübingen, 1,1990ff. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. H. v. Arnim, Stuttgart 1,1903–4,1924; 2 1999 Supplements. Vigiliae Christianae. Review of Early Christian Life and Language, Leiden 1,1987ff. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, Gütersloh etc. 1.1,1883ff. Schriftenreihe des Vereins für Rheinische Kirchengeschichte, Düsseldorf etc. 3,1956ff. Schriften des Vereins für Schleswig-Holsteinische Kirchengeschichte, Flensburg etc. 1,1899ff. – Beiträge und Mitteilungen 1,1897/1900ff. – Sonderheft 1,1922ff. Skrifter utgivna av Vetenskaps-Societeten i Lund. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund, Lund 1,1921ff. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, New York 1,1952–4,1956; NS 1,1957–12,1968 Studia in veteris testamenti pseudepigrapha, Leiden 1,1970ff. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Crestwood, NY 13,1969ff. The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series, Sheffield 1,1983ff. Studies of the Warburg Institute, London 1,1936ff. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM 1,1945–28,1972 Stimmen der Weltkirche, publ. DBK, Bonn 1,1977ff. Syria. Revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie, publ. Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, Paris 1,1920ff. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte. Revue suisse d’histoire. Storica svizzera, Basel 1,1951ff. Tituli Asial Minoris, Vienna 1901ff. Tel Aviv Monograph Series, Tel Aviv University, S. and M. Nadler Institute of Archaeology, ed. ham-Makôn le-Arkê’ôlôgya, Tel Aviv 1,1991ff. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, Tübingen 1,1989ff. Transactions of the American Philological Association, New York 1,1869ff. Tarbiz. A Quarterly Review of the Humanities, Jerusalem 1,1929ff. Theologische Arbeiten aus dem Rheinischen Wissenschaftlichen Predigerverein, Stuttgart 1,1872–12,1892; NS 1,1897–19,1922; 3rd series 1,1934–2,1947 Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, Cambridge etc. 1,1891–10,1952; NS 1,1954ff. Tübinger Atlas zum Vorderen Orient, ed. Sonderforschungsbereich 19 der Universität Tübingen, Wiesbaden 1,1977–26,1993 Texte und Arbeiten zur Bibel, Bielefeld 1,1984ff. Theologische Bücherei. Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, Munich 1,1953ff. Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1,1927ff. Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, ed. L. Coenen, Wuppertal 1,1967– 2.2,1971; rev. ed. 1,1997ff. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Berlin 1,1952ff. Traditio Christiana. Texte und Kommentare zur patristischen Theologie, Zürich 1,1969ff. Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Locust Valley, NY, 1,1966ff. Textus et documenta in usum exercitationum et praelectionum academicarum, Rome – Series philosophica 1,1932–17,1960 – Series theologica 1932–30,1955

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals TDL TDL.T TDW TEE TEF TEF.SG TEG TEH Tel Aviv Tem. TF TFUF TGA TGI TGP

ThA THAT ThBeitr ThBer Theol(A) Theol(P) Théologiques Theoph. These ThFen ThFr ThG ThG(B) ThGl ThH ThHK ThIK ThJb ThLZ Thom. ThPh ThPM ThPQ ThPr

xc

Travaux de doctorat, Université Catholique de Louvain, Leuven – Section Théologie, Facultés des Sciences Théologiques et Canoniques 10,1983– 11,1985 Theologie der Dritten Welt, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1981ff. Threskeutikē kai ethikē enkyklopaideia, Athens 1,1962–12,1968 Theological Education Fund, London – Study Guide 3,1969ff. Traditio exegetica Graeca, Leuven 1,1991ff. Theologische Existenz heute. Eine Schriftenreihe, ed. K. Barth et al., Munich 1,1933– 77,1941; NS 1,1946ff. Tel Aviv. Journal of the Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archeology, ed. ham-Makôn leArkêhôlôgya, Tel Aviv 1,1974ff. Temenos. Studies in Comparative Religion, Helsinki 1,1965ff. Teheraner Forschungen, publ. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abt. Teheran, Berlin 1, 1961f. Teologiska Föreningens i Uppsala förhandlingar. Acta Societatis Theologicae Upsaliensis, Uppsala 1/2,1951/52–1956/1960 (= UUÅ) Theologie der Gegenwart in Auswahl. Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule der Redemptoristen in Gars und München, Bergen-Enkheim 3,1960–9,1966 Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels, ed. K. Galling, Tübingen 1950; 21968; 31979 Texte zur Geschichte des Pietismus, Berlin etc. – Abteilung 2: August Hermann Francke, Schriften und Predigten 1,1981ff. – Abteilung 3: August Hermann Francke, Handschriftlicher Nachlaß 1,1972ff. – Abteilung 5: Gerhard Tersteegen, Werke 1,1979ff. – Abteilung 7: Friedrich Christoph Oetinger 1,1977ff. – Abteilung 8: Einzelgestalten und Sondergruppen 1,1979ff. Theologische Arbeiten, Berlin 1,1954ff. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni & C. Westermann, Munich etc. 1–2,1971–1976; 41,1984; 32,1984 Theologische Beiträge, Wuppertal 1,1970ff. Theologische Berichte, publ. on behalf of the Theologische Hochschule Chur and the Theologische Fakultät Luzern, Zürich etc. 1,1972ff. Theologia. Epistemonikon periodikon, Athens 1,1923ff. Théologie. Études publiées sous la direction de la Faculté de Théologie S.J. de LyonFourvière, Paris 1,1944ff. Théologiques. Revue de la Faculté de Théologie de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal 1,1993ff. Theophaneia. Beiträge zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums, Bonn 1,1940ff. These. New York University Ottendorfer Series, Bad Homburg, NS 1,1970ff. Theologia Fennica, Helsinki 1,1939–7,1963 Theologie und Frieden, Stuttgart etc. 1,1986ff. Theologie der Gegenwart, Leipzig 1,1907–33,1939 Theologie der Gegenwart. Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule der Redemptoristen in Gars und München, Bergen-Enkheim 3,19609,1966 Theologie und Glaube. Zeitschrift für den katholischen Klerus, Paderborn 1,1909ff. *Théologie historique, Paris 1,1963ff. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, Leipzig etc. 1928ff. Theologie im Kontext. Informationen über theologische Beiträge aus Afrika, Asien und Ozeanien, Aachen 1979; 1,1980ff. Theologisches Jahrbuch, Göttingen 2,1875–26,1899 Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig 1,1876–69,1944; 72,1947ff. The Thomist. A Speculative Quarterly Review of Theology and Philosophy, Washington, DC, etc. 1,1939ff. Theologie und Philosophie, Freiburg i.Br. 41,1966ff. Theologisch-praktische Monatsschrift, Passau etc. 1,1891–30,1919/20 Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift, Regensburg 1,1848ff. Theologia practica, Hamburg 1,1966–15,1980; 23,1988ff.

xci ThQ ThR THR ThRev ThRv ThSt(B) ThStKr ThT ThTh ThV ThViat ThW ThWAT ThWNT ThZ ThZ.S TIB TJT TK TKTG TM TMCB TMLT TOTC TPAPA TPL TPS TPT Tr. Trad. Trajecta Trans-euphratène TRE TRG TrGF Tribus TrZ TS TSAJ TSFH TSMAO TSMJ TSSI TSTP

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen etc. 1,1819ff. Theologische Rundschau, Tübingen 1,1897/98–20,1917; NS 1,1929ff. Travaux d’humanisme et renaissance, Geneva 1,1950ff. Theological Review. The Near East School of Theology, Beirut 1,1978ff. Theologische Revue, Münster 1,1902ff. Theologische Studien, ed. K. Barth et al., Zürich 1,1938–142,1997 Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie, Hamburg etc. 1,1828–109,1941/47 Theologisch tijdschrift, Leiden etc. 1,1867–53,1919 Themen der Theologie, ed. H.J. Schultz, Stuttgart 1,1969ff. Theologische Versuche, ed. J. Rogge, Berlin 1,1966–18,1993 Theologia viatorum. Jahrbuch der Kirchlichen Hochschule Berlin, Berlin 1,1948/49– 15,1979/80 Theologische Wissenschaft, Stuttgart etc. (1,1978); 2,1972ff. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G.J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren, Stuttgart etc. 1,1973ff. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel et al., Stuttgart 1933– 1979 Theologische Zeitschrift. Theologische Fakultät der Universität Basel, Basel 1,1945ff. – Sonderband 1,1966ff. Tabula Imperii Byzantini, ed. H. Hunger, Vienna 1,1976ff. (= DöAW.Ph) Toronto Journal of Theology, Toronto 1,1985ff. Texte und Kommentare. Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe, Berlin 1,1963ff. Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, Gütersloh 1,1966ff. Temps modernes, Paris 1.1,1945ff. Travaux et mémoires. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation Byzantines, Paris 1,1965ff. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts, Toronto 1,1972ff. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D.J. Wiseman, Leicester etc. 1967ff. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Bronx, NY, etc. 1,1896ff. Textus patristici et liturgici, Regensburg 1,1964ff. Transactions of the Philological Society, London etc. 1,1854ff. Themen der Praktischen Theologie. Theologia practica, Munich 16,1981–22,1987 Traditio. Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion, New York etc. 1,1943ff. Tradition. A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, New York 1,1958ff. Trajecta. Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis van het katholiek leven in de Nederlanden, Nijmegen 1,1992ff. Transeuphratène. Recherches pluridisciplinaires sur une province de l’Empire Achéménide, Paris 1,1989ff. Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. G. Krause & G. Müller, Berlin 1,1976ff. Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis. Revue d’histoire du droit. The Legal History Review, Dordrecht etc. 1,1918ff. Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ed. B. Snell, Göttingen 1,1971ff. Tribus. Jahrbuch des Linden-Museums, Stuttgart NS 2/3,1952/53ff. Trierer Zeitschrift (11,1935ff.:) für Geschichte und Kunst des Trierer Landes und seiner Nachbargebiete, Trier 1,1926ff. Theological Studies, publ. Theological Faculties of the Society of Jesus in the United States, Woodstock, MD, etc. 1,1940ff. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism = Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, Tübingen 1,1981ff. Texts and Studies. Foundation for Hellenism in Great Britain, London 1,1982ff. Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, Turnhout 1,1972ff. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, Tübingen 1,1986ff. J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 3 vols., Oxford 1,1971–3,1982; repr. vol. 1,1981 Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie, Mainz 1,1991ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals TThSt TThZ TTK TTM TTS TU TUAT Tusculum-Lexikon TutzT TVELKD TVGMS Tyche TzF TzT TzT.D TzT.F TzT.M TZTh UALG UB UBL UCOP UCPCP Ueberweg UeberwegAntF Ueberweg Philos 17 UF UIGSK UKG UMM UMS UMS.H UMSS UnCo UnFr UNHAII UnSa UPT US USQR UTB UUÅ VAFLNW VAFLNW.G VApS VarAnat VB

xcii

Trierer theologische Studien, Trier 1,1941ff. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift, Trier 56,1947ff. Tidsskrift for teologi og kirke, Oslo 1,1930ff. J. Maier, Die Qumran-Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Munich 1–3,1995/96 Tübinger Theologische Studien, Mainz 1,1973–34,1990 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin etc. 1,1882ff. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh 1,1982ff. Tusculum-Lexikon griechischer und lateinischer Autoren des Altertums und des Mittelalters, ed. W. Buchwald, A. Hohlweg & O. Prinz, Munich 31982 Tutzinger Texte. Evangelische Akademie, Munich 1968ff. Texte aus der VELKD, publ. Vereinigte Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands, Hanover 1,1978ff. Theologische Verlagsgemeinschaft (TVG-) Monographien und Studienbücher, Wuppertal etc. 1981ff. Tyche. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Vienna 1,1968ff. Texte zur Forschung, Darmstadt 1,1971ff. Texte zur Theologie, ed. W. Beinert, Graz 1988ff. – Abteilung Dogmatik, 1988ff. – Abteilung Fundamentaltheologie, 1990ff. – Moraltheologie, 1999ff. Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, Tübingen 1,1828/29–11,1840 Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, Berlin 1,1968ff. Urban-(Taschen-)Bücher, Stuttgart etc. [1],1953ff. Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur, Altenberge 1,1984ff. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, Cambridge 1,1956ff. University of California Publications in Classical Philology, Berkeley, CA, 1,1904– 20,1964 Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie, founded by F. Ueberweg, new, completely rev. ed., Basel etc. – Die Philosophie der Antike, by K. Döring, ed. H. Flashar, 1994ff. Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts, ed. J.-P. Schobinger, 1988ff. Ugarit-Forschungen, Neukirchen etc. 1,1969ff. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, Strassburg 1,1910–10,1942; NS Berlin etc. 1,1985ff. Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte, Witten 1,1965ff. University Museum Monographs. The University Museum of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 1949ff. University of Michigan Studies, Ann Arbor, MI – Humanistic Series 1,1904–50,1951 University Museum Symposium Series/Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology , Philadelphia, PA, 1,1988ff. Unio und confessio, Witten 1,1956ff. Unitas Fratrum, Hamburg 1,1977ff. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, Istanbul 1,1956ff. Unam sanctam, Paris 1937ff. Untersuchungen zur Praktischen Theologie, ed. A. Exeler, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1972ff. Una Sancta. Rundbriefe für interkonfessionelle Begegnung, Meitingen 6,1951ff. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, New York 1,1945/46ff. Uni-Taschenbücher, Heidelberg etc. 1,1971ff. Uppsala Universitets årsskrift, Uppsala 1877ff.; see TFUF and FTF [Veröffentlichungen der] Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes NordrheinWestfalen, Cologne – Geisteswissenschaften 1,1953–175,1971 Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhles, Bonn 1,1976ff. Varia Anatolica, Istanbul 1,1988ff. Vestigia bibliae. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Bibel-Archivs, Hamburg 2,1980ff.

xciii VC VD16

VD17

VDWI Verbum VerLex Vestnik RStChD VF VGG VGI VHK VHKH VHKM VHKM VHKW VHVOPf

Viator VIEG VIEG.B VigChr VIöG ViSa VisRel Vivant Univers VKAMAG VKZG VKZG.F VL VLAR VM VMNBT VMNBT.M VMPIG VMStA

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Verbum caro. Revue théologique et ecclésiastique oecuménique, Taizé etc. 1/1,1947– 23/92,1969 Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, publ. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich in association with the Herzog-August-Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, revised by I. Bezzel, Stuttgart 1,1983ff. Das Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des XVII. Jahrhunderts, ed. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, 1996ff., available only via internet Veröffentlichungen des Diakoniewissenschaftlichen Instituts an der Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg 1,1989ff. Verbum. Tijdschrift voor geloofsonderricht, Nijmegen 1,1930ff. Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, ed. W. Stammler & K. Langosch, Berlin etc. 1,1933–5,1955; 2nd ed. 1,1978ff. Vestnik Russkogo Christianskogo Dvizenija, Paris 1928; 1935,12/1936,1/2; 1953– 1996/97,1–2 Verkündigung und Forschung, Munich 1,1940ff. Vereinsschrift der Görres-Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Wissenschaft im Katholischen Deutschland, Cologne 1876–1940 Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Instituts zur Erforschung der Mittelalterlichen Theologie und Philosophie, Munich etc. NS 1,1967ff. Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin 1,1955ff. Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Hessen und Waldeck, Marburg 1,1901ff. Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Mecklenburg, Rostock – Series B: Schriften zur mecklenburgischen Geschichte, Kultur und Landeskunde 8,1995ff. Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission Westfalens, Münster 1,1898ff. Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg (1,1831– 4,1837/1839: Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für den Regenkreis), Regensburg 4.2–3,1837–8,1944; 9 (= NS 1),1845–66 (= NS 58),1916; 68,1918–114,1974 Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, publ. Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Turnhout 1,1970ff. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte, Mainz, Wiesbaden etc. 1,1952ff. – Beiheft 1,1975ff. Vigiliae Christianae. Review of Early Christian Life and Language, Amsterdam 1,1947ff.; Supplements = SVigChr Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Vienna 3,1947; 4,1946ff. Vite dei Santi, Verona 1,1974ff. Visible Religion. Annual for Religious Iconography, Leiden 1,1982ff. Vivant univers – vivante Afrique. Revue de la promotion humaine et chrétienne en Afrique et dans le monde, Namur 260,1969ff. Vorträge und Forschungen. Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für Mittelalterliche Geschichte, Konstanz 1,1955ff. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Zeitgeschichte bei der Katholischen Akademie in Bayern, Mainz – Series B: Forschungen 1,1965ff. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, Freiburg i.Br. 1,1949ff. Veröffentlichungen der Luther-Akadmie e.V. Ratzeburg, Erlangen 1,1990ff. Vita monastica. Trimestrale di spiritualita. Storia e problemi monastici, Rome 9,1955ff. Verzameling van middelnederlandse bijbelteksten. Corpus sacrae scripturae Neerlandicae medii aevi, Leiden – Miscellanea 1,1977ff. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, Göttingen 1,1972ff. Veröffentlichungen des Missionspriesterseminars St. Augustin, St. Augustin etc. 1,1957ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals VSB VT VT.S VVAW VVAW.L VVDStRL VVKGB VVPfKG VWGTh WA WA.Br WA.DB WA.TR WAAFLNW WBC WBS WCC WCE WdC WdF WDGB WdL Westfalen WF WI WiWei WJP WLB WM WMANT WMH WMyst WO Word WPKG WRJ WSA WSB WSB.AT WSB.NT WSFT WSt WTJ WUB WuD WuG

xciv

Vies des saints et des bienheureux selon l’ordre du calendrier: Avec l’historique des fêtes, ed. J.L. Baudot & L. Chaussin, Paris 1,1935–13,1959 Vetus Testamentum, publ. for the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 1,1951ff. – Supplements 1,1953ff. Verhandelingen van de K. Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Brussels etc. – Klasse der Letteren 1,1941ff. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer, Berlin 1,1924ff. Veröffentlichungen des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte in der Evangelischen Landeskirche Badens, Karlsruhe 1,1928ff. Veröffentlichungen des Vereins für Pfälzische Kirchengeschichte, Speyer etc. 1,1963ff. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, publ. Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Theologie, Gütersloh 7,1994ff. M. Luther, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe («Weimarer Ausgabe»), Weimar 1,1883ff. – Briefwechsel 1,1930ff. – Deutsche Bibel 1,1906ff. – Tischreden 1,1912ff. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung und Lehre des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Cologne etc. 1,1958–47,1971 Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas, TX 1987ff. Wiener byzantinistische Studien, Graz 1,1964ff. World Council of Churches, Geneva World Christian Encyclopedia, ed. D.B. Barrett, Nairobi etc. 1982, 2nd ed., ed. D.B. Barrett, G.T. Kurian & T.M. Johnson, Oxford 2001 Wörterbuch des Christentums, ed. V. Drehsen, Gütersloh 1988 Wege der Forschung, Darmstadt 1,1956ff. Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsblätter, Würzburg 1,1933ff. Wege des Lernens, Neukirchen 1,1983ff. Westfalen. Hefte für Geschichte, Kunst und Volkskunde, Münster 1,1909ff. Westfälische Forschungen, Münster etc. 1,1938ff. Die Welt des Islams, Leiden etc. 1,1913–25,1943; NS 1,1951ff. Wissenschaft und Weisheit. Franziskanische Studien zu Theologie, Philosophie und Geschichte, Werl 1,1934ff. Wiener Jahrbuch für Philosophie, Vienna etc. 1,1968ff. Westfälische Lebensbilder, Münster 1,1930ff. Wörterbuch der Mythologie, ed. H.W. Haussig, Stuttgart 1,1965ff. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Neukirchen 1,1960ff.; (2,1959) Weltmission heute, Stuttgart 1,1952ff. Wörterbuch der Mystik, ed. P. Dinzelbacher, Stuttgart, 1989; 2nd extended ed. 1998 Die Welt des Orients. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes, Göttingen etc. 1,1947/52ff. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX etc. 1982ff. Wissenschaft und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft, Göttingen 59,1970–69,1980 Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch. Westdeutsches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Cologne 1,1924ff. Wolfenbütteler Studien zur Aufklärung, Heidelberg 1,1974ff. Wuppertaler Studienbibel, founded by F. Rienecker, Wuppertal etc. – Series: Altes Testament 1976ff. – Series: Neues Testament 1953ff. Würzburger Studien zur Fundamentaltheologie, Frankfurt/M. 1,1986ff. Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie und Patristik, Vienna 1,1897ff. Wesleyan Theological Journal. Bulletin of the Wesleyan Theological Society, Lakeville, IN, 1,1966ff. Welt und Umwelt der Bibel. Archäologie, Kunst, Geschichte, Stuttgart 1996 Wort und Dienst. Jahrbuch der Theologischen Schule Bethel, Bielefeld NS 1,1948ff. Wissenschaft und Gegenwart, Frankfurt/M. 1,1931ff.

xcv WUNT WZ(G) WZ(G).G WZ(G).GS WZ(H) WZ(H).GS WZ(J) WZ( J).GS WZKM WZKSA WZKSO WzM YJS YLBI YOS YOS.B YOS.R YPR ZA ZAA ZAC ZAH ZAM ZAR ZAS ZäS ZAW ZBGV ZBK ZBK.AT ZBK.NT ZBKG ZBLG ZBRG ZDA ZDMG ZDMG.S ZDPV ZDS ZDT ZDVKW ZDW ZdZ ZE

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Tübingen 1,1950ff.; 2nd series 1,1976ff. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Greifswald – Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Reihe 33.1,1984–39.3,1990 – Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 1,1951/52–32,1983 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/ S.1,1951/52–2,1952/53 – Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 3,1952/54ff. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena – Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 1,1952/52–32,1983 Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vienna 1,1887ff. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie, Vienna etc. 14,1970ff. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie, Vienna etc. 1,1957– 12/13,1968/69 Wege zum Menschen. Monatsschrift für Arzt und Seelsorger, Erzieher, Psychologen und soziale Berufe, Göttingen 6,1954ff. Yale Judaica Series, New Haven, CT, 1,1948ff. Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute of Jews from Germany = Publications of the Leo Baeck Institute of Jews from Germany, London 1,1956ff. Yale Oriental Series, New Haven, CT, etc. – Babylonian Texts 1,1915ff. – Researches 1,1912ff. Yale Publications in Religions, New Haven, CT, etc. 1,1960ff. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie (1,1886–44,1938: und verwandte Gebiete) und vorderasiatische Archäologie, Leipzig etc. 1,1886ff. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, Frankfurt/M. 1,1953ff. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. Journal of Ancient Christianity, Berlin etc. 1,1997ff. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik, Stuttgart 1,1988ff. Zeitschrift für Aszese und Mystik. Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Würzburg 1,1925/26–19,1944 Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte, Wiesbaden 1,1995ff. (supplement series see BZAR) Zentralasiatische Studien des Seminars für Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiens der Universität Bonn, ed. W. Heissig, Wiesbaden 1,1967ff. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, Berlin etc. 1,1863–78,1943; 79,1954ff. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin 1,1881ff. Zeitschrift des Bergischen Geschichtsvereins, Neustadt/Aisch 1,1863ff. Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Zürich etc. 1960ff. – Altes Testament 1,1976ff. – Neues Testament 1972ff. Zeitschrift für bayerische Kirchengeschichte, Munich etc. 1,1926ff. Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte, Munich 1,1928ff. Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte, Zürich 1,1970ff. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, Wiesbaden etc. 1,1841ff. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden etc. 1,1847ff. – Supplement 1,1969ff. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Wiesbaden etc. 1,1878–67,1945; 69,1953ff. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache, Berlin 20,1964–27,1971 Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie, Kampen 1.1,1985ff. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin 1,1934–10,1943; 17,1963ff. Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung, Berlin 1,1900/01–15,1914; 16,1960–19,1963 Die Zeichen der Zeit. Evangelische Monatsschrift für Mitarbeiter der Kirche, Berlin 1,1947ff. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Braunschweig etc. 1,1869ff.

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals ZEE Zet. ZEvKR ZfB ZfdPh ZfKG ZfR ZfS ZFSL ZGDP ZGEU ZGNKG ZGO ZGSHG ZHB ZHF ZHF.B ZHTh ZKG ZKR ZKR.E ZKTh ZLB ZLThK ZM ZME ZMiss ŽMP ZMR ZMRW ZNR ZNT ZNThG/JHMTh ZNW ZOF ZP ZP.B ZPE ZpH ZPhF ZPK ZPrTh ZPs ZRG ZRGG ZRGG.B ZSHG ZSKG

xcvi

Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, Gütersloh 1,1957ff. Zetemata. Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Munich 1,1951ff. Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht, Tübingen 1,1951/52ff. Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Leipzig 1,1884–104,1990 Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, Berlin 1,1869–69,1944/45; 70,1948/49ff. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, Munich etc. 1,1932ff. Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft, Marburg 1,1993ff. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Stuttgart 1,1972ff. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, Wiesbaden etc. 11,1889ff. Zeitschrift für Gottesdienst und Predigt, Gütersloh 1,1983ff. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Erziehung und des Unterrichts, Berlin 1,1911–28,1938 Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte, ed. K. Kayser, Braunschweig 1,1896–45,1940 Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, publ. Kommission für Geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1,1850ff. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte, Neumünster etc. 1,1870ff. Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie, Berlin 1,1896–23,1920 Zeitschrift für historische Forschung. Vierteljahresschrift zur Erforschung des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, Berlin 1,1974ff. – Beiheft 1,1985ff. Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie, Leipzig 1,1832–6,1836; NS 1,1837–39,1875 Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart etc. 1,1877ff. Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, Berlin etc. 1,1861–22,1889 – Supplement vol. 1865–1876 Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, Vienna etc. 1,1877ff. Zeitgeschichte in Lebensbildern, Mainz 1,1973–6,1984 Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig 1,1840–39,1878 Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft, Münster 1,1911–27,1939 Zeitschrift für medizinische Ethik. Wissenschaft, Kultur, Religion, Ostfildern 39,1993ff. Zeitschrift für Mission, Stuttgart 1,1975ff. Žurnal Moskovskoy Patriarchii, Moscow 1931–1935; 1943ff. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, Münster 18,1928–25,1935; 34,1950ff. Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, Berlin 1,1886–54,1939 Zeitschrift für neuere Rechtsgeschichte, Vienna 1979ff. Zeitschrift für Neues Testament, Tübingen etc. 1,1988ff. Zeitschrift für neuere Theologiegeschichte = Journal for the History of Modern Theology, Berlin 1,1994ff. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, Berlin etc. 1,1900ff. Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, Marburg 1,1952ff. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. Zweimonatsschrift, Weinheim etc. 1,1955ff. – Beiheft 1,1959ff. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bonn 1967ff. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Historiographie (1995–2000: Neue Pestalozzi-Blätter), Zürich 7,2001ff. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, Meisenheim etc. 1,1946ff. Zeitschrift für Protestantismus und Kirche, Erlangen 1,1838–5,1840; NS 1,1841– 72,1876 Zeitschrift für praktische Theologie, Tübingen 1,1879–22,1900 Zeitschrift für Psychologie. Mit Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie, Leipzig 41,1906ff. Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar 1,1861–13,1878 Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Cologne etc. 1,1948ff. – Beihefte 1,1953ff. Zeitschrift für saarländische Heimatgeschichte, Saarbrücken 1,1951–5,1955 Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte. Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique suisse, publ. Vereinigung für Schweizerische Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg, Switzerland 1,1907ff.

xcvii ZSRG ZSRG.G ZSRG.K ZSRG.R ZSTh ZSV ZThK ZThK.B ZVGA ZVHaG ZVHG ZVHG.S ZVK ZVPS ZVRW ZW Zwing. ZWLG ZWTh Zygon ZZ

Lexicons, Primary Sources, Series, Journals Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar – Germanistische Abteilung 1,1880ff. – Kanonistische Abteilung 1,1911ff. – Romanistische Abteilung 1,1880ff. Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie, Berlin etc. 1,1923–24,1955 Zeugnisse der Schwabenväter, Metzingen 1,1961ff. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Tübingen 1,1891ff. – Beiheft 1,1959ff. Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Münster 1,1838–86,1929 Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte, Hamburg 1,1841ff. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hessische Geschichte und Landeskunde, Kassel 1,1837ff. – Supplement 1,1840–10,1865; NS 1,1866ff. Zeitschrift für Volkskunde. Halbjahresschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde, Münster etc. 39,1929/30ff. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie, Berlin 1,1925–7,1931 (from 1932 = Soc.) Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (einschließlich der ethnologischen Rechtsforschung), Stuttgart 1,1878ff. Zeitwende. Die neue Furche, Hamburg 1,1925ff. Zwingliana. Mitteilungen/Beiträge zur Geschichte Zwinglis, der Reformation und des Protestantismus in der Schweiz, Zürich 1,1897/1904ff. Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte, Stuttgart 1,1937ff. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, Jena etc. 1,1858–55,1913/14 Zygon. Journal of Religion and Science, Chicago, IL, 1,1966ff. Zwischen den Zeiten, Munich 1,1923–11,1933

Vatican II Documents

xcviii

Vatican II Documents AA AG CD DH DV GE GS IM LG NA OE OT PC PO SC UR

Apostolicam actuositatem. Decree of 18.11.1965 on the apostolate of the laity Ad gentes. Decree of 7.12.1965 on the mission activity of the Church Christus Dominus. Decree of 28.10.1965 on the pastoral office of bishops in the Church Dignitatis humanae. Declaration of 7.12.1965 on religious freedom Dei verbum. Dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, 18.11.1965 Gravissimum educationis. Declaration of 28.10.1965 on Christian education Gaudium et spes. Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, 7.12.1965 Inter mirifica. Decree of 4.12.1963 on the media of social communications Lumen gentium. Dogmatic constitution on the Church, 21.11.1964 Nostra aetate. Declaration of 28.10.1965 on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions Orientalium Ecclesiarum. Decree of 21.11.1964 on the Catholic churches of the eastern rite Optatam totius. Decree of 28.10.1965 on priestly training Perfectae Caritatis. Decree of 28.10.1965 on the adaptation and renewal of religious life Presbyterorum Ordinis. Decree of 7.12.1965 on the ministry and life of priests Sacrosanctum Concilium. Constitution of 4.12.1963 on the sacred liturgy Unitatis redintegratio. Decree of 21.11.1964 on ecumenism

xcix

General Abbreviations

VI. General Abbreviations acc. adj. Akkad. Ammonite Amorite ANE ANE app. approx. Arab. Aram. art. Ass. b. Bab. BCE bibl. bibl. bill. biogr. Byz. c. c(c) Cath. CE cent. cf. ch. CIS cit. col. coll. Comm. comm. compl. ed. crit. cuneif. CW d. dat. DBK (Deutsche Bischofs-Konferenz) DEK (Deutsche Evangelische Kirche) Deut. Deut.-Isa. DeutHist diff. diss. (typescr.) dist. Dtr. dtr. EBA ed. edn Edom.

accusative adjective Akkadian Ammonite Amorite ancient Near East ancient Near Eastern apparatus approximately Arabic Aramaic article/essay Assyrian born Babylonian Before the Common Era, Before Christ biblical bibliographic, bibliograpy billion biography/biographic Byzantine circa canon(s) Catholic Common Era/Anno Domini century confer/compare chapter Commonwealth of Independent States cited column collected Commentary commentated complete edition critical cuneiform complete works died dative German Bishops Conference German Evangelical Church Deuteronomic Deutero-Isaiah/Second Isaiah Deuteronomistic History different from dissertation (typescript) distinctio Deuteronomist Deuteronomic, Deuteronomistic Early Bronze Age edition, edidit, edited by, editor edition/printing Edomite

General Abbreviations EG Egyp. EKD EKG EKU Elohist emd. Engl. ep. esp. Eth. etym. EU f(f ). fem. fig. fol. Fr. FRG frgm. FS GDR gen. Ger. Germ. Gk Gt. Habil. Hasm. HB Heb. hell. HG hierogl. Hist. eccl. Hitt. Hung. IA ibid. idem illus. in Isr. Isrl. Ital. J Je Joh. Jr. l. Lat. Latin. LBA LF lit. Luth. LXX

Evangelisches Gesangbuch (Hymnal of the Evangelical Church in Germany) Egyptian Evangelical Church in Germany Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch (Hymnal of the Evangelical Church) Evangelische Kirche der Union Elohist emendation English epistula(ae) especially Ethiopic etymology/etymological European Union following feminine figure folio French Federal Republic of Germany fragment, fragmentary Festschrift German Democratic Republic genitive German Germanic Greek the Great Habilitation (typescript) Hasmonean Hebrew Bible Hebrew hellenistic High German hieroglyphic Historia ecclesiastica Hittite Hungarian Iron Age ibidem idem illustration in (the year) Israeli Israelite Italian Yahwist Jehovist Johannine Junior line Latin Latinized Late Bronze Age long form literal, literary, literature Lutheran Septuagint

c

ci m. m. MA masc. Masor. MBA med. med. MHG mill. MkR ms./mss. MT n. n./nn. n.d. n.p. Nab. neut. no. nom. NS NT obj. OHG or orig. OT P p./pp. par./parr. para. Pers. Phoen. pl. PN Port. poss. pr. Prof. prop. Proto-Isa. Ps.ps.publ. Q q. R r. rabb. re. Ref. repr. rev. Russ. s.v. sc.

General Abbreviations meter(s) million Middle Ages masculine Masoretic Middle Bronze Age medical medieval Middle High German millennium Markan Redactor manuscript(s) Masoretic Text noun note(s) no date no place Nabatean neuter number nominative new series New Testament object Old High German or/respectively original(ly) Old Testament Priestly Document page(s) and parallel(s) paragraph Persian Phoenician plural personal name Portuguese possible/possibly printed Professor propositio Proto-Isaiah Pseudopseudopublication, published (by) Logia/Sayings Source Q quaestio Redactor responsio rabbinic regarding Reformed reprint revised by, revisor Russian sub voce scilicet

General Abbreviations sem. SF sg. Slav. Span. St. subj. Sumer. suppl. Syr. trans. Trito-Isa. Ug. UN v./vv. var. VELKD (United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany) vol./vols. WCC WHO

semitic short form singular Slavonic Spanish Saint subject Sumerian supplement, supplementary issue, supplemented Syriac/Syrian translated (by), translator Trito-Isaiah Ugaritic United Nations verse/verses variant(s) United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany volume(s) World Council of Churches World Health Organization

States of the USA AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND

Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Iowa Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana North Carolina North Dakota

cii

ciii NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY

General Abbreviations Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming

A A cappella (Italian: in the manner of a chapel) historically refers to choral music accompanied by instruments colla parte; today to unaccompanied choral music of any genre (sacred or secular). The practice of unaccompanied singing stems from ancient prohibition of musical instruments in church. Via reforms of the Council of Trent (1545–1564). The choral singing in the Sistine Chapel became the model of choral music for worship. Especially the Cecilian reform of the 19th century revived idealized notions of appropriate church music requiring stylistic features similar to those recommended at Trent: few dissonances, intelligible textures, and unaccompanied singing. B. Janz, MGG I, 1994, 1123.

William Flynn

A priori / a posteriori I. The distinction between a priori (“from the former”) and a posteriori (“from the latter”) is used by philosophy on various levels. 1. Fundamental is the epistemological distinction between two kinds of epistemic (i.e. cognitive) justifications (e.g. grounds or proofs). A justification is a priori if it is not based on experience; otherwise it is a posteriori. The result is an important distinction between two kinds of knowledge: a true conviction involves a priori knowledge when it can be justified a priori (i.e., independent of experience), otherwise a posteriori knowledge. The latter is also called empirical knowledge. 2. When applied to concepts, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori has two meanings: A concept is a priori in the genetic sense when it can be employed before anyone finds applications for it in actual experience; it is a priori in the epistemological sense when it is employed in a priori knowledge. Ideas other than concepts can be treated analogously. II. Historically, the present-day distinction goes back to → Aristotle, who noted that what is naturally prior is often epistemologically later (as when a cause is inferred from its effects). In the Middle Ages, the Latin expressions a priori and a posteriori became standard in this context, usually combined with the view that one can determine a posteriori (from consequences or effects) that something is the case, but that one can only explain a priori why something is the case. Later G.W. → Leibniz

identified the a priori/a posteriori distinction with the distinction between (necessary) “truths of reason” and (accidental) “truths of fact.” The present-day importance of the distinction is due to I. → Kant. Although it has been customary since Kant to view independence from experience as the hallmark of the a priori, the precise line of demarcation between a priori and a posteriori is still disputed. The discussion involves three primary questions: 1. What exactly is meant by “experience”? Depending on whether “experience” refers only to outward sensory perceptions or includes psychic, religious, or even extrasensory perceptions, the concept of the a priori will be narrower or broader. 2. What is the relationship of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and that between analytic and synthetic statements or judgments? (A statement is analytic if its truth or falsity can be determined solely by the rules of logic and the meaning of the terms it contains.) While empiricists generally hold the view that only analytic statements can be the object of a priori knowledge, Kant in particular defended the possibility of “synthetic judgments a priori.” 3. What is the relationship of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and that between necessary and contingent (accidental) statements? According to Leibniz and Kant, the two distinctions are coincident: what is necessarily true can only be known a priori, and vice versa. Recently, however, some philosophers have espoused the view that the truth and necessity of necessarily true statements can be the object of empirical knowledge. Aristotle An. Post. 71b/72a ◆ G.W. Leibniz, Nouveaux Essais, VI.2 ◆ I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (B), Introduction ◆ R. Eisler, H. Schepers & G. Tonelli, HWP I, 1971, 462–474 ◆ A. Casullo, “‘A priori/a posteriori’ and ‘a priori Knowledge,’” in: Companion to Epistemology, ed. J. Dancy & E. Sosa, 1992, 1–8. Marcus Willaschek

A priori, Religious. The concept of religious a priori was shaped, in analogy to the terminology of I. → Kant, by E. → Troeltsch in 1904. He attempted, by means of the insights of consciousness theory, to ascertain the value of religion according to the goals of objective conceptions of religion. This attempt involved a point of contact with Kant’s doctrine, but also a profound difference from it. As Kant understood it, a priori are those structures of consciousness that form the basis equally for the categorical conceptualization of spatial-temporal

A priori, Religious experience, for the moral self-determination of rational subjects, and for assent to aesthetic judgments. From this concept, the expression “religious a priori” adopts the claim of a structural necessity of religion for consciousness. To be sure, this contention includes a broad modification of Kant’s starting point. For, while for Kant it is precisely those structures that belong to any consciousness as such that make it possible to justify the validity of assessments of experience of the world, of morality, or of aesthetics, for Troeltsch, the religious a priori refers to the unifying function of the transcendent and empirical subject. The theory of religious a priori maintains that, as a structural task of all consciousness, it must relate to one another the questions of transcendental validity and the empirical constitution of itself in the modality of an always pre-existent, although with degrees of clarity of consciousness, becoming unity. This a priori unifying function of religion can only be perceived empirically, i.e. historically, and cannot be deduced from the transcendental structures of consciousness. In this way, a relationship of religious formation of unity with other objective cultural structures becomes apparent. The uniqueness of religion lies in the fact that in it the accomplishment of unity as such (an “absolute relationship of substance” as Troeltsch says) is thematic. With this unifying function, the religious a priori assumes a higher, integrative level in relation to the mere transcendental concept of a priori. It refers to that structure of consciousness which is always only perceptible as such in historical manifestation, but which is always already realized. Accordingly, the religious a priori serves as the determination of the place of religion in the consciousness. This place, however, can only be possessed by historical religions that, for their part, lay a claim – even if unnoted and unidentified – to ultimate certainty. Consequently, the theory of the religious a priori can also endorse religious consciousness itself as a conceptual articulation of its claim to validity. Thus, it can also be utilized as a methodical center of organization for the study of religion. Through the religious a priori, history becomes the theme of an interpretation of the consciousness overall. Through it the status of the transcendental structures of consciousness are altered. For their part, regardless of their function for claims of validity, they are historically affixed. Troeltsch came to this concept of religious a priori on a path that did not proceed directly from Kant. Instead, psychological analyses of religion forced him to questions concerning a non-psychological foundation for the validity of religion. Similarly, the expansion of Kant’s concepts in southwest German neo-Kantianism (Heinrich Rickert, Wilhelm Windelband) contributed to the history of the formation of the concept. Of course, Troeltsch’s explicit interpretation of Kant in 1904 (“The

2 Historical in Kant’s Philosophy of Religion”), in which the question of the historicity of transcendental structures already appeared, bundled these strands together. The fact that he did not himself bring final clarity to the term has to do with this genesis of the concept and with Troeltsch’s unexecuted plan for a philosophy of religion. R. → Otto represented another variant of the concept. Following the extension of Kant’s doctrine by J.F. → Fries, Otto understood the religious a priori as the equivalent of a unifying function belonging to consciousness itself that shifts the relationship between transcendental and empirical subject into the realm of a “penalty” or “faith.” Thereby, however, in contrast to Troeltsch’s concept, a general unity of consciousness, manifest psychologically, is taken into account for which religion offers only the most advantageous and psychologically profound illustrative material. “The holy,” then, presents the religious a priori to the extent that it encompasses the attractive and repellent emotions brought upon the person through confrontation with the pre-existent unity of his or her self and of reality as a whole. In this manner, indeed, the religious a priori is transformed from a practicalhistorical concept into a theoretical-speculative concept. Associated with this is a religious claim to universality in relation to culture which Troeltsch’s stricter understanding of the concept in terms of the theory of consciousness excludes as a possibility. In the subsequent debate, which has extended over 30 years and has been conducted with greatest controversy, these two versions of a religious a priori have sometimes been played against one another and sometimes both have been rejected (though for different reasons). Sometimes, the attempt has also been made to form alternatives to both (Dunkmann, A. → Nygren). None of these conceptualizations has endured. At the same time, one can conclude from the current critical revision of the discussion that the concept of a religious a priori may be considered an indication of the necessity of a symbolic representation of the unifying function of the empiricalpsychological and transcendental-intelligible subject that signifies the constant necessity of a historical manifestation of the consciousness in the medium of religion. Furthermore, it stresses the question of the historicity of the transcendental. To this extent, the concept has not been surpassed as an indicator of the problem. E. Troeltsch, “Die Selbständigkeit der Religion,” ZThK 5, 1895, 261–436; ZThK 6, 1896, 71–110, 167–218 ◆ idem, Das Historische in Kants Religionsphilosophie, 1904 ◆ idem, Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie in der Religionswissenschaft, 1905 ◆ idem, “Wesen der Religion und der Religionswissenschaft,” (1909), Gesammelte Schriften 2, 452–499 ◆ R. Otto, Kantisch-Fries’sche Religionsphilosophie und ihre Anwendung auf die Theologie, 1909 ◆ K. Dunkmann, Das religiöses A priori und die Geschichte, 1910 ◆ R. Otto, Das Heilige, 1917 ◆ R. Köhler, Der Begriff a priori in der modernen Religionsphilosophie, 1920 ◆ A. Nygren, Die Gültigkeit der religiösen Erfahrung, 1922 ◆ A. Paus, Religiöser Erkenntnisgrund:

3 Herkunft und Wesen der Aprioritheorie Rudolf Ottos, 1966 ◆ H. Bräunlich, “Das Verhältnis von Religion und Theologie bei E. Troeltsch und R. Otto,” Diss., 1978 ◆ F.W. Veauthier, “Das religiöse A priori: Zur Ambivalenz von E. Troeltschs Analyse des Vernunftmomentes in der Religion,” KantSt 78, 1987, 42–63 ◆ M.D. Chapman, “Apologetics and the Religious A Priori: The Use and the Abuse of Kant in German Theology 1900–1920,” JTS NS 43, 1992, 470–510. Dietrich Korsch

Aachen, since the 1st century ce a Roman settlement (Lat. Aquis, Aquisgrani) with thermal baths (hot springs). In the Frankish Period, the town became a royal possession. After king Pippin spent the winter of 765/66 there, it became a palatinate and was expanded by → Charlemagne, who resided there more often and longer as he grew older. He also convoked imperial assemblies and church synods there. Immediately next to the palace, he built the Collegiate Church of St. Mary and its monastery. Here he was entombed on Jan 28, 814. A commercial center connected with the Aachen financial complex supplied the palace; merchants and craftspeople settled nearby. Beginning with → Otto I, most of the German kings were crowned at Aachen. In 1165, → Frederick I had Charlemagne declared a saint; in 1166, he declared Aachen the capital of the empire and granted the city privileges to promote its economic life. In 1171–1175 a wall was built, and after about 1200 we find ministeriales et burgenses recognized as an universitas. Toward the end of the 13th century, in a conflict with Jülich, the commune secured its independence and succeeded in becoming a free imperial city. Beginning in 1349, the “relics” from the treasury of Charlemagne (the tunic of the Virgin Mary, the swaddling-clothes and loincloth of Jesus, etc.) were exhibited every seven years, making Aachen one of the most important pilgrimage centers of Germany. The Reformation, which was implemented in Aachen in 1530, was effectively suppressed after 1614. In 1930, the diocese of Aachen was erected from portions of the dioceses of Cologne and Münster. H. Schiffers, Die Aachener Heiligtumsfahrt, 1937 ◆ B. Poll, ed., Geschichte Aachens in Daten, 21965 ◆ D. Wynands, Kleine Geschichte Aachens, 21986. Sönke Lorenz

Aalto, Alvar (Hugo Alvar Henrik; Feb 3, 1898 Kuortane, Finland – May 11, 1976, Helsinki), architect. After studying at the Helsinki University of Technology, from 1923 he practiced as a free-lance architect. From 1946 to 1948 he was a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and from 1963 to 1968 he served as president of the Finnish Academy. His international projects include residential and office buildings, city centers, hospitals, theaters, museums, churches, and university buildings. He designed Vuoksenniska Church, near Imatra, built

Aaron in 1946, one of the most significant modern churches in Europe. Here Aalto overlays functionalistic forms with expressionistic forms. Six other churches followed, including Wolfsburg (1962), Detmerode (1968), and Riola di Vergato (1978). Aalto’s buildings are characterized by diverse stylistic periods, which go beyond puristic and rational roots. His work features collage-like additions and contrasting forms, sensitive engagement with the natural environment, and refined details (bentwood furniture). Here he joins the ranks of Finnish “romantic nationalism” (including Eliel Saarinen in architecture, Gallén-Kallela in painting, and Jean Sibelius in music), which became a symbol of the will for political freedom of Finland, which had been independent since 1917. Aalto’s significance for international architecture and church architecture transcends his own period, because he enriches the contemporary utilitarian sytle with elements of artistic play. P.D. Pearson, Alvar Aalto and the International Style, 1978 ◆ M. Quantrill, Alvar Aalto, 1983 ◆ K. Fleig, Alvar Aalto, 21984 ◆ G. Schildt, Alvar Aalto: Complete Catalogue of Architecture, 4 vols., 1984–94 ◆ In Berührung mit Alvar Aalto, pub. by the Alvar Aalto Museum Jyväskylä, 1992 (exhibition catalogue). Lothar Kallmeyer

Aaron I. Old Testament – II. Early Judaism

I. Old Testament The origin of the name is uncertain. In the Old Testament Aaron is the brother of → Moses and his spokesman (Exod 4:14f.). He was reputed to be a “Levite” (priest; Exod 4:14), and the traveling companion and deputy of Moses (Exod 7:1–7), a miracle-worker (Exod 8:1f.), a charismatic leader (Exod 17:10–12; 24:14) and the progenitor of the legitimate, Levitical-Aaronic priesthood of Israel (Exod 28f.; Lev 8–10; Num 3:5–4:49; 8:5–26; 16–18). At the same time, however, he was responsible for the establishment of the illegitimate cult of the golden bull (Exod 32). Here it may be a matter of a negatively directed etiology of the sanctuary at Bethel (Beyerlin), whose priests probably saw in Aaron their progenitor. Num 12 portrays Aaron as an adversary of his brother: along with his sister → Miriam he questioned Moses’ claim to exclusive leadership. Nevertheless, the heaviest penalty did not fall on him, but Miriam. All this together makes clear that several strands of tradition have influenced one another. At the most, the pre-priestly source lying behind the tradition of Aaron as a charismatic leader might prove to be a historical recollection. The historical Aaron appears to have come from the southern tribes: the oldest traditions associated with him (Exod 15:29; 17:8–16; 18:12) come from south Judah (Noth). The traditions that portray Aaron as the brother of Moses, prophet, wonder-worker or ancestor of the priesthood

Aaronic Blessing are later. Eventually, these traditions were written down in P, whose Aaronic genealogy was the result of postexilic compromises among priestly groups (→ Zadokites, “→ Levites,” Abiatharides) fighting for predominance. Since then the whole priesthood has traced itself back to Aaron as its common ancestor (1 Chr 5:27–41). J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 1878, 61905, 135–137 ◆ M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 1948, 31966, 195–199 ◆ W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen, 1961, 144–163 ◆ A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, FRLANT 89, 1965 ◆ A. Cody, “Aaron, Aaronitisches Priestertum” I, TRE I, 1977, 1–5 ◆ H. Valentin, Aaron, OBO 18, 1978 ◆ N. Allen, “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood during the Exile”, Hey J 23, 1982, 259–269 ◆ S.L. Cook, “Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel’s Priesthood”, JBL 114, 1995, 193–208. Joachim Schaper

II. Early Judaism → Philo gave prominence to the understanding of Aaron as the spokesman of the word of God, in which role he is nevertheless ranked below Moses, and Philo designated Aaron as the “expressed word” (λόγος προϕορικός/ lógos prophorikós; migr. 78; det. 39.126). In a few writings from → Qumran there appears the expectation of a Messiah from the lineage of Aaron, who is conceived of as the priestly partner of the Davidic Messiah (1QS 9.11; cf. CD 13.1). In rabbinic literature one encounters the struggle for reconciliation as the characteristic feature of Aaron (m.Avoth 1.12). Because he is the prototype of the High Priest, rabbinic exegesis leaned toward minimizing his responsibility for the affair with the golden calf (Lev.R. 10.3). By contrast they emphasize Aaron’s strength in the face of the death of his sons Nadab and Abihu, for which various explanations were sought. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. III, 1911 ◆ L. Smolar & M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature,” HUCA 39, 1968, 91–116 ◆ G.J. Brooke, “The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document”, RQ 15, 1991, 215–230. Martin Jacobs

Aaronic Blessing I. Old Testament – II. Early Judaism – III. Liturgy

I. Old Testament The priestly Blessing, transmitted within the framework of the so-called Priestly Source (→ Pentateuch) in Num 6:23–26, which is also attested in some inscriptions (e.g. in Ketef Hinnom near Jerusalem), consist of traditional blessing formulae, linked together in three stair-stepped lines. Each line begins similarly with two jussive wishes with equivalent beginnings and the tetragrammaton in second position. The delay in invoking the divine name creates a semantic impetus, which strengthens the hortatory character of the blessing. With its formulaic expressions, it promotes the wish for a divine blessing,

4 consisting of protection (Num 6:24), gracious favor (25), and continuing presence (26), and mediates a personal offer of salvation. It is interpreted in v. 27. For later references see Ps 67; 1QS 2.1–10. K. Seybold, Der aaronitischer Segen, 1977 (bibl.) ◆ G. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnon in Jerusalem,” Tel Aviv 19, 1992, 139–194 (bibl.) Klaus Seybold

II. Early Judaism In Qumran a Midrashic expansion of the Aaronic Blessing appears in 1QS 2.2–4, which among other things draws out of Num 6:25 the promise of knowledge. This blessing formula, which antithetically follows a curse, may have had liturgical functions. In rabbinic Judaism, during synagogue worship, the priests gave the Aaronic Blessing in the context of the → Shemone Esre (m.Ber. 5.4). Furthermore, the verb (˙anan) from Num 6:25b was combined (in a way similar to Qumran) in the fourth blessing of this prayer with the request for knowledge (m.Ber. 5.2). I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 31931 ◆ G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 1985, 295ff. Martin Jacobs

III. Liturgy The history of the development of Num 6:24–26 in the sphere of piety and liturgy is long. In the late Middle Ages the Aaronic Benediction was spoken, but was not part of the liturgical directions in the Missal. It was integrated into the closing benediction on Sundays by most Reformation churches. Luther recommended the Aaronic Benediction in various forms in his writing Formulae missae (1523) and as a biblical text in the Deutsche Messe (1525/26). In 1535 Zwingli introduced a dialogical form. In Forme des prières (1542) Calvin assigned the speaking of the Benediction to the preacher. The Benediction was also used in free churches and was introduced by → Vatican II as one of the five possible forms of the final blessing, to which the congregation responded with “Amen” after the sign of the cross. W. Düring, “Der Entlassungssegen in der Meßfeier,” LJ 19, 1969, 205–218. Don. E. Saliers

Abba represents the Greek transliteration (ἀββά) of the Aramaic address to God as Father in three bilingual invocations, Mark 14:36, Gal 4:6, and Rom 8:15. Since J. → Jeremias explained it in 1953 as a unique, diminutive address to God in the language of small children, it has been attributed particular theological and christological significance as an expression of Jesus’ unique understanding of God. Though Jeremias withdrew his derivation and interpretation of the term as babble, this withdrawal has remained without effect on theological and homiletical literature. Even if a Greek were to have

5 been reminded of his own childish term πάππα ( páppa, vocative), as we of “Daddy,” the translation in all three passages with “πατήρ” (pat¶r, Father) shows the expression to be the equivalent for the normal term, “Father.” The NT passages are the earliest witnesses to the pronunciation of '*(habbā’), which the later pointed targum texts also exhibit. The unusual lengthening of the '* can be explained as an assimilation to + *  (himmā’ = mother, not “Mamma”!). Nonetheless, the simple address of God as '*, is not attested in the rare Aramaic prayers from the Jewish environment. Yet, Targum Mal 2:10 and Ps 89:27 render - (hāb = Father) with “abba.” Pious Aramaic-speaking Jews may have had no reservations about using “Abba” in their personal prayers when they wanted to address God as “Father” or “my Father.” The evidence for the uniqueness of Jesus’ relationship to God is to be found in his proclamation as a whole. J. Jeremias, “ABBA,” in Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte, 1966, 15–67 ◆ idem, Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. I, 1971, 45, 67–73, 175–196 ◆ G. Schelbert, “Abba, Vater!” FZPT 40, 1993, 259–281; 41, 1994, 528–531 (bibl.). Georg Schelbert

Abbadie, Jacques (1656, Nay, Béarn – Nov 25, 1727, London). Educated in Huguenot academies (→ Huguenots), Abbadie was an important leader of the refugee community in Berlin from 1680 to 1689. As a field chaplain, he participated in the Ireland campaign of William III of England, and lived thereafter on benefices of the → Anglican Church (beginning in 1699, he was Dean of the cathedral of Killaloe, Ireland). In intraHuguenot conflicts, he represented the trend of accommodation to the Anglican state church. Abbadie was a widely read author of theology, moral philosophy, and politics. His anti-Deistic apologetics (→ Deism) were especially valued. Works include: Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne, 1684 ◆ L’art de se connoître soy-même, 1692 ◆ Défense de la nation britannique, 1692 ◆ Bibl.: G. Heinz, Divinam christianae religionis originem probare, 1984 ◆ R. Whelan, “Between Two Worlds,” Lias 14, 1987, 101–117, 143–156 ◆ idem, “From Christian Apologetics to Enlightened Deism,” MLR 87, 1992, 32–40. Martin Ohst

Abbey. From the 7th century, the word abbatia originally designated the office of the → abbot/abbess of a cloister or a non-monastic → basilica. From the 9th century onward, it often referred to the cloister’s property as a → benefice. Additionally, it acquired the connotations of monastery and coenobium as the designation for the buildings and the living space of a community. They ere usually established by founders (bishops, kings, nobles) who regarded the abbey as their own monastery. Monastic reform movements sought to obtain the independence of abbeys from worldly influences by incorporating the abbeys in unions of cloisters. In church law, the abbey is an independently governed monastery

Abbot/Abbess or convent of monks, choristers, or nuns headed by an abbot/bbess. In order to establish one, the statutes of the orders foresee at least twelve members under vows. From the Middle Ages until CIC 1983, the establishment of abbeys was reserved for the Holy See; it now falls to the authorities within an order (General Chapter). Similarly, the discontinuation of an abbey, subject to the rights of the local bishop, lies in the hands of the orders (c. 616 §3). The independent legal status of the abbey finds expression in the right to its own novitiate and in the binding of monks or nuns to the cloister where they took vows, for reasons of stability. The abbatia territorialis circumscribes a regional entity similar to a diocese led by an abbot in the fashion of a diocesan bishop (cc. 368, 370). P. Hofmeister, “Gefreite Abteien und Prälaturen,” ZSRG. K, 81, 1964, 127–248 ◆ J. Wollasch, Mönchtum des Mittelalters zwischen Kirche und Welt, 1973 ◆ F.J. Felten, Äbte und Laienäbte in Frankreich, 1980. Dominicus Meier

Abbo of Fleury (940/45 – Nov 13, 1004) was from 965 on the head of the school and the abbot from 988 on of the monastery of → Fleury (St.-Benoît-sur-Loire, east of Orléans). Abbo authored, inter alia, lives of saints and a collection of canons, as well as works of grammar and chronology whose major significance for the scholarship of his time only became evident through the recently published critical editions. In church politics, Abbo came to the fore as an opponent of papal primacy and as a champion of church reform as suggested by → Cluny. While visiting a prior from his monastery, he was murdered in Gascony. M. Mostert, The Political Theology of Abbo of Fleury, 1987. Wilfried Hartmann

Abbot/Abbess. The head of an independent monastery or nunnery under the → Benedictine Rule, sometimes, also, of other communities, in the East of almost all monasteries. Abbás (Gk ἀββάς; Aram. abba, Copt. apa) originally designated the experienced monk as a spiritual father, although → Pachomius was already also a superior. At first charismatic in character (still so in → Basil the Great), the abbot concept became ever more juridical in the major communities of Late Antiquity. The abbot was not necessarily a cleric, but if he was, he was subject to episcopal jurisdiction (Chalcedon, c. 8). In the Eastern Church, the terms “hegúmenos” or “archimandrite” were customary, while the West preferred the term “abbas.” The Regula Benedicti definitively shaped the Western abbot concept. The abbots of the major monasteries of Franconia undertook state tasks, in the 9th century occasionally as “lay abbots” (nobles who were not monks); such political aspirations of abbots continued to be frequent on into the 12th century.

Abbot, George The monastic reform movement (esp. → Cistercians) returned to the abbot’s office its spiritual character. In the late Middle Ages, the office was undermined by “commendatory abbots”: clerics without profession or residential cloister, who lived on the incomes of their abbeys (in France until the French Revolution). The monastic restoration of the 19th century saw the abbots, as do the Eastern Churches to this day, primarily as spiritual fathers. Justinian I (530/546) already regulated the election of abbots. According to the Regula Benedicti (64.1), the choice should be unanimous or by the pars sanior. Today, the Catholic Church practices election by majority for life or for a limited period. An abbot consecration is attested as early as the 6th century in the Sacramentarium Gregorianum; according to the Pontificale Romano-germanicum (10th cent.), the local bishop performs it and it involves the conferral of rule and staff as well as laying-on-of-hands, according to the Ordo of 1973, usually without laying-on-of-hands. The office of abbess (Gk. ἡγουμένη/heguménē, Lat. abbatissa) developed in analogy to male monasteries. First attested in 514 for S. Agnese in Rome, the title is already presumed to be common by → Caesarius of Arles. Today’s regulations are similar to those for male cloisters, apart from legal governance, which is reserved to the priesthood. The Lutheran church has in some cases retained the abbot title (→ Loccum, → Bursfelde) and the office of abbess (women’s seminaries). B. Hegglin, Der benediktinische Abt in rechtsgeschichtlicher Entwicklung und geltendem Kirchenrecht, 1961 ◆ P. Salmon, L’abbé dans la tradition monastique, 1962 ◆ I. Kotsouis, ῾Ηγούμενος, TEE VI, 1965, 5–7 ◆ F.J. Felten, Äbte und Laienäbte im Frankenreich, 1980. Pius Engelbert

Abbot, George (Oct 10, 1562, Guildford – Aug 4, 1633, Croydon), from 1611 Archbishop of → Canterbury, Abbot played a leading role in the translation of the Authorized Version of the (King James) Bible, convinced the Scottish Church (→ Church of Scotland) to adopt the office of bishop and sent a delegation to the Synod of → Dort (1618). His critical attitude toward the party of W. → Laud, his refusal to yield to one of the king’s favorites in the so-called Essex nullity suit (1616), and the accidental shooting of a warden during a hunt robbed him of his influence. P.A. Welsby, George Abbot, the Unwanted Archbishop, 1962 ◆ R.A. Christophers, George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1966 (bibl.). Christopher FitzSimons Allison

Abbott, Edwin (Dec 20, 1838, London – Dec 10, 1926, Hampstead), teacher and scholar. He studied at St. John’s College in Cambridge (1857–1861), became Fellow in St. John’s in 1862, resigning the office, however, when he married in 1863. Ordained a deacon in

6 the → Church of England in 1862 and a priest in 1863, he dedicated his life, however, primarily to education, especially as the head of the City of London School (1865–1889). The reforms in teaching methods and curriculum that he introduced led to the far-reaching reputation of the institution. His most outstanding theological works are New Testament studies. In his more general theological writings, he represented the viewpoint of the “broad church.” L.R. Farnell, DNB I, 1922, 1–2.

Glenn Hinson

Abbott, Lyman (Dec 18, 1825, Roxbury, MA – Oct 22, 1922, New York) was a Congregationalist pastor (→ Congregational Christian Churches) and perhaps America’s most influential proponent of liberal Protestantism. The lawyer who had not studied theology at university continually downplayed religious and confessional differences in order to seek fellowship with all who were engaged for a better society. Works include: The Theology of an Evolutionist, 1897 ◆ Reminiscences, 1923 ◆ Bibl.: I. Brown, Lyman Abbott, 1949. Ferenc Szasz

Abbreviations I. Medieval Abbreviations – II. Catholic Orders

I. Medieval Abbreviations Medieval abbreviations are based on the principles of suspension and contraction developed in antiquity (epigraphical, juridical-administrative abbreviations, sacred names). In the 6th–7th/9th centuries, the book scripts that developed variously by region (→ Printing and Publishing ) developed different traditions in the use of abbreviations. The Carolingian minuscule that gradually gained predominance abandoned many abbreviations and leveled many differences. Because of the rapid development of academic publishing at the universities, the number and methods of abbreviations are again on the increase. L. Traube, Nomina Sacra, 1907 ◆ W.M. Lindsay, Notae Latinae, Latin 1915, repr. 1965 ◆ N. Giovè Marchioli, Alle origini delle abbreviature latine, Ricerca Papirologica 2, 1993. Anne Schmid

II. Catholic Orders Abbreviations for order designations appear (nonuniformly) from the late Middle Ages onwards. The following selection explains the standard abbreviations: B.M.V.=Beata Maria Virgo; C.=Congregatio; Can.=Canonicus; Cl.=Clerici; I.=Institutum; Miss.= Missionarius; O.=Ordo; Reg.=Regularis; S.=Sanctus; Soc.=Societas. AA (C. Augustinianorum ab Assumptione): → Assumptionists; C(an)R(eg): → Canons Regular; CCF (C. Caritatis Fratrum): → Mercy, Brothers and Sisters of ; CFA (C. Fratrum Alexianorum): → Alexians; CMF

7 (Cordis Mariae Filii): → Claretians; CMM (C. Miss. de Mariannhill): Missionaries of → Mariannhill ; CP (C. Passionis Iesu Christi): → Passionists; CR (O.Cl.Reg. vulgo Theatinorum): → Theatines; C(R)SA (Can.Reg. S. Augustini): → Canons Regular of St. Augustine ; CRSP (C.Cl.Reg. S. Pauli Decollati): → Barnabites; CSsR (C. Sanctissimi Redemptoris): → Redemptorists; CVUOSB (C. Vallis Umbrosae O.S. Benedicti): → Vallombrosans; FMA (Filiae Mariae Auxiliatricis): Sons of Mary, Help of Christians, → Salesian Sisters; FMS (I. Fratrum Maristarum a Scholis): → Marists FSC (I. Fratrum Scholarum Christianarum): → Brothers of the Christian Schools; IBMV: → English Ladies; MAfr (Miss. Africae, Patres Albi): → White Fathers; MI (O.Cl.Reg. Ministrantium Infirmis): → Camillians; OAD (O. Augustiniensium Discalceatorum): Augustinians-Discalced ; OAnnM (O. de Annuntiatione B.M.V.): → Annunciates; OC/OCarm (O. Fratrum B.M.V. de Monte Carmelo): → Camillians; OCart (O. Cartusiensis): → Carthusians; OCD (O. Fratrum Discalceatorum B.M.V. de Monte Carmelo): Discalced Carmelites; Ocist (O. Cisterciensis): → Cistercians; OCR/OCSO (O. Cisterciensium [Reformatorum seu] Strictioris Observantiae): → Trappists; OdeM (O.B.M.V. de Mercede): Mercedarians; OFM/ OFMCap/OFMConv (O. Fratrum Minorum] Capuccinorum/Conventualium-): → Franciscans/ → Capuchins/ → Minorites; OH (O. Hospitalarius S. Joannis de Deo): Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God; OM (O. Minimorum): Paulists (→ Minims); OP (O. Praedicatorum): → Dominicans; OPraem (Candidus et Can.O. Praemonstratensis): → Premonstratensians; Or (I. Oratorii S. Philippi Nerii): → Oratorians; OSA (O. Fratrum S. Augustini): Augustinians (until 1969 → Augustinian Hermits [OESA]); OSB (O.S. Benedicti): → Benedictines; OSC (O.S. Crucis): Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross; OSCl (O.S. Clarae): → Clarists; OSM (O. Servorum Mariae): → Servites; OSPPE (O. Fratrum S. Pauli Primi Eremitae): → Pauline Fathers; OSSalv (O. Sanctissimi Salvatoris): → Bridgettines; OSST (O. Sanctissimae Trinitatis): → Trinitarians; OSU (O.S. Ursulae): → Ursulines; OT (O. Fratrum Domus Hospitalis S. Mariae Teutonicorum in Jerusalem): → Teutonic Order (Priests of the Teutonic Order); PSS (Soc. Presbyterorum a S. Sulpitio): Sulpicians; RSM (Religious Sisters of Mercy, Sorores a Misericordia): SAC (Soc. Apostolatus Catholici): Pallottini: SCVO (Sorores Caritatis S. Vincentii a Paul): → Vincentians; SDB (Soc. S. Francisci Salesii): Salesians; SDS (Soc. Divini Salvatoris): → Salvatorians; SI/SJ (Soc. Iesu/Jesu): Society of Jesus, → Jesuits; SM (Soc. Mariae): → Marianists; S(ch)P (O.Cl.Reg. Pauperum Matris Dei Scholarum Piarum): → Piarists; SSND (C. Pauperum Sororum Scholarum Nostrae Dominae): → School Sisters

Abelard, Peter of Notre Dame ; SSS (C. Presbyterorum a Sanctissimo Sacramento): → Eucharistines; SVD (Soc. Verbi Divini): → Steyler Missionaries. H. Ooms, Repertorium universale siglorum Ordinum et Institutum religiosorum in Ecclesia catholica, 1958 ◆ G. Schwaiger, ed., Mönchtum, Orden, Klöster, 21994, 476f. ◆ AnPont 1996. Manfred Heim

Abel → Cain and Abel Abelard, Peter (Abailardus, Baiolardus; “Peripateticus Palatinus”) was born in 1079 in Le Pallet near Nantes, and died on Apr 21, 1142 in St-Marcel near Chalon-sur-Saône. In order to devote himself to scholarship, he renounced his rights as firstborn in his equestrian family. From 1095 to 1102, he studied logic under → Roscelin of Compiègne and under → William of Champeaux in Paris. From 1102 to 1105, he taught in Corbeil and Melun. After spending some time in his home town, he studied rhetoric in 1108/1109 under William in Paris, but clashed with him over the question of → universals. From 1109 to 1112, he taught in Melun and on Mont Ste-Geneviève outside Paris; during this period, William was his enemy. In 1113, Abelard wanted to study theology under → Anselm of Laon, but it was he himself who held the lectures on Ezekiel in 1113/1114. From 1114 to 1116, he was a canon in Paris and taught logic and theology at Notre-Dame. His love affair with his pupil Heloise ended when both entered religious communities (in Argenteuil and St-Denis). He was able to resume teaching c. 1120. In 1121, the synod of Soissons condemned Abelard’s first draft of a theology. After a brief imprisonment in St-Médard and conflicts in St-Denis, he founded an oratory (the Paracletus) in Quincy in 1122, and many students followed him there. In 1127, he became abbot of St-Gildas-le-Rhuys, where he endeavored in vain to restore monastic discipline. In 1129, the nuns under Heloise’s leadership were expelled from Argenteuil, and settled in Paracletus. In 1132/1133, Abelard fled from his monastery and began teaching for a second time in Ste- Geneviève; in 1137, he began teaching in Paris itself. On Jun 2, 1140, the Synod of Sens condemned a list of alleged errors of Abelard which had been drawn up by → William of St-Thierry, Thomas of Morigny, and → Bernard of Clairvaux. On his journey to Rome to appeal against this verdict, Abelard was welcomed as a guest in → Cluny by → Peter the Venerable. Abelard was active in many scholarly fields. He began as a logician and wrote glosses and commentaries on → Porphyry, → Aristotle (Cat.; De Interpretatione), and → Boethius. He summarized his logic in the Dialectica, which reveal no knowledge of the other writings of

Abercius, Inscription of Aristotle on logic, which were beginning to be available in western Europe at that period. Abelard distinguishes between the intensio and the extensio of concepts (→ Extension/Intension), analyzes the affirmative proposition as a predication in two parts, and considers the modalities not from a statistical perspective, but with an intention which goes against or beyond the de facto situation. He attempts to trace ontological questions back to linguistic-logical questions, and this is why he treats the universals as terms which form potential predicates rather than as things; nor does he treat them as mere “sounds,” because they have a point of contact with things in that they denote these things in their status. In his ethics (Scito te ipsum, 1138/1139), he understands sin not as a deed, but as the assent given to an evil will, as the intention to do evil. This accentuates the subjective dimension of ethics. In 1119/1120, Abelard wrote the first tractate of his theology (Theologia summi boni), which is directed primarily against Roscelin’s teaching on the three trinitarian substances. Abelard sees an anticipation of trinitarian doctrine in Moses, the prophets, and pagan thinkers, where he finds the divine mysteries hidden (involucrum, integumentum) in resemblances, images, and parables. This makes it possible to construct a relationship between the teachings of pagan philosophers and Christianity. Against the attacks of the “hyper-dialecticians,” Abelard employs dialectic itself, in order to meet them on their own ground. This is why his theology does not claim to offer a proof of religious truth, but only to respond to dialectical objections by showing that religious truth does not contradict reason. This rational-analytic character of Abelard’s theology, which is retained in the later versions too (Theologia christiana and Theologia scholarium), met with opposition on the part of monastic theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux, who saw it as a threat to the affective character of Christian teaching. In his collection of mutually contradictory affirmations by the Church Fathers (Sic et non, 1121–1126), Abelard shows clearly that a mere appeal to theological authorities will not do; at the same time, however, he indicates how these contradictions might be overcome. In exegesis too (commentaries on the Hexameron and Romans, 1133–1137), he insists on the rhetoricaldialectical perspective. For the Paracletus monastery, Abelard wrote hymns and set these to music. He is also said to have composed love poetry. The authenticity of his correspondence with Heloise has been disputed up to the present day. Abelard had many pupils who were also productive writers, e.g. in collections of Sentences (Sententiae Florianenses, Sententiae Hermanni, Sententiae Parisienses). His pupils included Berengar of Poitiers, Roland Bandinelli (→ Alexander III), → Peter Lombard,

8 → John of Salisbury, → Robert of Melun, and → Arnold of Brescia. Fumagalli, The Logic of Abelard, 1969 ◆ M.T. BeonioBrocchieri & J. Jolivet, Arts du langage et théologie chez Abélard, 1969 ◆ P.E. Luscombe, The School of Peter Abelard, 1969 ◆ E.M. Buytaert, ed., Peter Abelard, 1974 ◆ J. Jolivet & R. Louis, eds., Pierre Abélard – Pierre le Vénérable, 1975 ◆ M. Tweedale, Peter Abelard on Universals, 1976 ◆ R. Thomas, ed., Peter Abelard, 1980 ◆ J. Verger & J. Jolivet, Bernard – Abélard, 1982 ◆ D.F. Blackwell, Non-ontological Constructs, 1988 ◆ P.H. Jussila, Peter Abelard on Imagery, 1995 ◆ J. Jolivet, La théologie d’Abélard, 1997 ◆ M.T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life, 1997 ◆ Bibl.: CChr. CM 11, 1969, xxix–xxxviii; CChr. CM 13, 1987, 23–37. Reinhold Rieger

Abercius, Inscription of. In 1883, two fragments of an altar slab with portions of a lengthy Greek epitaph of a certain Abercius were discovered at Hieropolis on the Glaucus, near Synnada in Phrygia (western Turkey). The fragments were given to Pope → Leo XIII by Sultan Abdülhamid II in 1888 and are now in the Museo Pio Cristiano in the Vatican, with a reconstruction of the altar. The inscription comprises 18 incomplete lines, with 9 verses (7–15). The entire inscription (a distich and 20 hexameters) is preserved in the legendary Life of a Bishop Abercius, which may go back to the 4th century; it appears in a 10th-century text by Simeon → Metaphrastes. Its author had probably seen the altar tomb. Portions are used in the epitaph of an otherwise unknown Alexander, also from Hieropolis, dated in the year 216 (now in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul); the Abercius inscription must therefore be earlier. – The text has been the subject of much discussion. It has been asked whether the inscription derives from Greek mystery religion – specifically the cult of → Cybele and Attis –, is syncretistic, or can be interpreted in a Christian sense. In the first person, Abercius (who never refers to himself as a bishop!) records that he erected a memorial (i.e. the altar tomb) for himself in his 72nd year; he calls himself a “disciple of the chaste shepherd” (Christ), who taught him the Holy Scriptures; he has been in Rome and Syria, “having Paul as a companion”; everywhere he has found fellow believers; everywhere the faith has preceded him and fed him with a fish (ἰχθύς/ichthýs = Christ), mighty and pure, caught by a virgin. As is common in pagan epitaphs, the text ends with a warning not to bury anyone else in the tomb, threatening an unusually high fine. The inscription must be Christian, but its language and form still adhere to the tradition of pagan epitaphs, specifically those of Phrygia. The “queen of Christian inscriptions” is thus an extremely important witness to early Christianity in Asia Minor. Bishop(?) Abercius probably was active in the late 2nd century and died c. 200 ce.

9

Abortion

H. Strathmann & T. Klauser, RAC I, 1950, 12–17 ◆ W. Wischmeyer, “Die Aberciusinschrift als Grabepigramm,” JAC 23, 1980, 22–47 ◆ G.F. Snyder, Ante Pacem, 1985, 139f, plate 48. Guntram Koch

Aberhart, William (Dec 30, 1878, Kippen, Ontario – May 23, 1943, Vancouver), fundamentalist minister, radio preacher, and politician. Having established a reputation in Calgary, Alberta, as a representative of Darbyite evangelical theology (→ Plymouth Brethren), he shifted to politics during the depression of the 1930s. He supported the “social credit” program of Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879–1952) as a means of redistributing wealth. As leader of the Social Credit Party, Aberhart was twice elected (1935, 1940) Prime Minister of the province of Alberta. D.R. Elliott & I. Miller, Bible Bill, 1987.

Mark A. Noll

Abjuration designates in canon law renunciation in cases of apostasy (→ Apostate), → heresy and → schism (c. 2314 CIC/1917), as well as the conversion of a nonCatholic Christian (→ Church Membership). Today, reconciliation in offences of the faith, leaving the church, and conversion, as regulated by local church law (cc. 751 and 1364 CIC), requires the deposition of a confession of faith. W. Rees, “Die Strafgewalt der Kirche,” KStT 41, 1993, 88–96, 228f., 426–429. Wilhelm Rees

Ablutions → Purification

Ablutions, Ritual → Clean and Unclean Åbo (Finnish Turku). Åbo lies at the mouth of the Aura River, on the southwest coast of Finland. The ancient commercial center took on increased importance in the 13th century, when it became the religious and political center of → Finland (Swedish Eastland). Until 1554, the Diocese of Åbo encompassed all of Finland. The cathedral, the burial site of Bishop Henrik, martyred c. 1155, was expanded into a Gothic structure of brick. After the Reformation, a university was established at Åbo. In 1812, how ever, Helsinki became the capital of the new Grand Duchy of Finland, and soon afterward the university was moved there. Åbo, however, remained the ecclesiastical center (an archiepiscopal see since 1817). Today the Swedish-speaking university (Åbo Akademi) includes a theological faculty that trains theologians primarily for the Swedish-speaking diocese of Borgå Kaarlo Arffman (Porvoo).

Abolitionism, the movement to abolish slavery in the USA, derived its power from its emphasis on the equality of all people before the law, which was a heritage of the Enlightenment, and the high regard for moral perfectibility typical of 19th-century evangelicalism. While some religious groups, primarily the → Quakers and → Methodists, had attacked slavery as early as the 18th century, the actual movement to abolish slavery began in 1831 with the appearance of W.L. → Garrison’s newspaper The Liberator. The movement to free the slaves, sparked by Garrison and his allies (T.D. → Weld, Sarah and Angelina Grimké, Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and Frederick Douglas), led in 1833 to the establishment of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The society’s opposition to slavery together with its advocacy of equal rights for blacks and women made it the target of many attacks, often violent. In 1837 one of these attacks targeted Elijah P. Lovejoy, an editor and Presbyterian minister, who was killed by a mob in Alton, Illinois. In the 1840s, the conflict over slavery led to divisions among the Methodists and Baptists. The abolitionist argument, which proclaimed that Christianity was incompatible with slavery, intensified the conflicts within Presbyterianism (→ Presbyterians) and contributed to the schism of 1837. Within abolitionism itself there was a division between those who championed political action and those who, like Garrison, believed in the power of moral suasion alone. When the Civil War ended in 1865, many thought the time had come to dissolve the movement; others, who saw a commitment to securing the legal rights of the emancipated slaves as part of the crusade, continued the organization until ratification of the 15th amendment to the constitution, which granted blacks the right to vote. Then the organization disbanded: its work was done. B. Quarles, The Black Abolitionists, 1969 ◆ T.L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform, 1980. Edward L. Queen II

Abortion I. The Unborn and Personhood – II. Bodily Rights – III. Legal Arguments

The procured or spontaneous premature termination of → pregnancy. Unlike spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage), procured abortion is intended to terminate a pregnancy. Its moral and legal permissibility depends on the nature of the unborn, the mother’s bodily rights, and/or how the law ought to address controversial matters of life and death. I. The Unborn and Personhood The dominant view is that abortion’s permissibility depends on the nature of the unborn: if and only if the unborn is a person, then abortion is almost always

Abrabanel unjustified. There is, however, disagreement as to when the unborn, becomes a → person. Some argue that this occurs at conception, since all human beings are persons by nature (Lee 1996). Not using personhood language, Marquis (1989) nevertheless contends that the unborn has a right to life early in pregnancy (if not at conception) because it has a “future like ours” (FLO). Boonin (2002) accepts the FLO idea but rejects Marquis’s account of it. Boonin maintains that the unborn does not have a FLO until organized cortical brain activity (OCBA) arises between 25 and 32 weeks post-conception. For this is when the brain acquires the infrastructure to have conscious experience and thus desires, conditions without which a human being does not have a FLO. Disputing this account, Lee (1996) and Beckwith (2004) argue that a being may have a right to life without these conditions. Brody (1973) argues for personhood at the presence of brain waves (40–42 days post-conception), while Sumner (1981) contends that the unborn is a person at sentience (13 to 15 weeks post-conception). Tooley (1983) claims that a person exists when an organism is aware of itself as a continuous locus of experiences and mental states over time, suggesting that a human being is not a person until after birth. Personhood, however, is not always decisive for those who oppose abortion throughout most of pregnancy. They concede that abortion may be procured when pregnancy is a certain and imminent threat to the mother’s life (Brody 1975, Lee 1996). Because this typically occurs early in pregnancy, abortion is the only means to avoid death of both mother and child. Thus, its purpose is to save a life, despite the unfortunate, though foreseeable, consequence of another’s death. II. Bodily Rights Thomson (1971) and Boonin (2002) argue that abortion’s permissibility is based on the pregnant woman’s bodily rights even if the unborn is a person. They maintain that consent to sex does not entail consent to pregnancy, a condition that requires that the woman’s body provide the unborn with shelter and sustenance. Just as an adult does not have the right to another’s body part (e.g. kidney) for continued life even if it is the only means by which he can remain alive, the unborn is not entitled to the use of its mother’s body without her consent. Critics contend that this position fails to take into consideration pregnancy’s uniqueness, parental obligation to children, the responsibility one has when one’s action results in producing a needy being, and/or its implications for justifying child support laws that require fathers to provide for offspring to which they did not consent (Beckwith 1992, Lee 1996). Given these criticisms, some maintain that the argu-

10 ment applies only to rape-caused pregnancy. Others reject this exception because the harm to the woman carrying the child is less than the harm done to the innocent unborn by abortion (Lee 1996). III. Legal Arguments Dworkin (1993) and Thomson (1995) argue that the law should permit abortion because it should remain neutral on metaphysical questions over which there is reasonable disagreement. Beckwith (2004) and Finnis (1998) maintain that the law necessarily takes sides on the metaphysical issue of personhood even when it claims to be “neutral.” For example, if the law permits abortion throughout pregnancy with virtually no restrictions, then the law is saying that the unborn are beings unworthy of legal protection. Beckwith (2004) contends that reasonable disagreement over the unborn’s personhood is a good reason to prohibit abortion: if it is not unreasonable to believe that abortion results in the death of innocent life, society ought to err on the side of life and prohibit most abortions. J.J. Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, 1971 ◆ D. Marquis, “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, 1989 ◆ F. Beckwith, “Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist: A Critical Analysis,” International Philosophical Quarterly 32 (March), 1992 ◆ R. Dworkin, Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, 1993 ◆ P. Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life, 1995 ◆ L.W. Sumner, Abortion and Moral Theory, 1995 ◆ J.J. Thomson, “Abortion: Whose Right?,” Boston Review 20.3, 1995 ◆ M. Tooley, “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Abortion Controversy 25 Years after Roe v. Wade, ed. L. Pojman & F. Beckwith, 21998 ◆ J. Finnis, “Public Reason, Abortion, and Cloning,” Valparaiso University Law Review 32, 1998 ◆ B. Brody, Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A Philosophical View, 2002 ◆ D. Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, 2002 ◆ idem, “Thomson’s ‘Equal Reasonableness’ Argument for Abortion Rights: A Critique,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 49, 2004. Francis J. Beckwith, for RPP

Abrabanel 1. Isaac ben Judah (1437, Lisbon – 1508, Venice) was an important Jewish leader, diplomat, exegete and philosopher in the period before and after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (1492). Abrabanel was from a prominent family who were reputed to stem from the house of David. He was a financial advisor to King Alfonso V of Portugal, although he was forced to leave the country because of charges that he participated in a conspiracy against Alfonso’s successor, Joao II. Thereupon, he settled in Castille and became a diplomat and advisor in the court of Ferdinand and Isabella. Here he attempted to hinder the decree expelling the Jews, although without success. As the most influential leader of the exiles, he first settled in Naples and later in Venice. His writings include detailed, comprehensive commentaries on most books in the Hebrew Bible as well as a Messianic Trilogy

11

Abraham

in which he proposed that the distress of his time symbolized the imminence of the Messianic redemption whose realization he expected even in his lifetime. Influenced by the humanism of the Renaissance, he maintained contact with contemporary Christian scholars and often applied their views in his commentaries, some of which were translated into Latin and had a degree of influence in Italy. His fundamental attitude was rationalist, but he insisted that religious tradition is the ultimate source of truth. His son Judah was also a philosopher. A.J. Heschel, Don Jizchak Abravanel, 1937 ◆ J.S. Minkin, Abravanel and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, 1938 ◆ B. Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, 1968. Joseph Dan

2. Judah (Leone Ebreo, Leo Hebraeus; 1460, Lisbon – 1523, Naples) was one of the most important philosophers in the Italian → Renaissance, the author of the Dialoghi d’Amore, a masterpiece of Platonic philosophy that exerted significant influence in the 16th and 17th centuries. Abrabanel was the oldest son of 1, who was an important leading personality among Spanish Jews at the time of the expulsion of Jews from Spain (1492). The origins of the family were traced back to David. After the expulsion, the family settled in Naples, where Abrabanel was active as a physician, the Dialoghi were also apparently written there. Abrabanel maintained contact with the Florentine Platonists, esp. G. → Pico della Mirandola. His work is incomplete (the fourth dialogue may never have been written) and structurally and conceptually multi-layered. The three preserved dialogues contain discussions between Sophia and Philone, bound by Platonic love, concerning the nature of love and its relationship to wisdom. Love is a living, essential power that unites God, the creation and humanity in beauty and wisdom. The highest goal is the attainment of unity with God through the love of beauty and of wisdom in all things and entry into the “circle of love” that holds together the entire cosmos. The work contains many poetic discussions of all the philosophical and scientific themes of its time. The work was first printed in Rome in 1525, and 25 editions were published between 1535 and 1607, half of which were translations into Spanish, Latin, French and Hebrew. His influence is perceptible, for example, in the works of G. → Bruno and B. → Spinoza. H. Pflaum, Die Idee der Liebe, 1926 ◆ M. Dorman, Dialoghi d’Amore, 1983. Joseph Dan

Abraham I. Old Testament – II. New Testament – III. Judaism – IV. Qur’ān

I. Old Testament 1. Name. The name .**&,/’abrāhām is a by-form of .*&,/’abrām or .*$/’abîrām (Num 16:1, etc.). With the meaning “Father (= God) is exalted,” it corresponds

to a widely dispersed West-Semitic name pattern and, as a praise or confessional name, belongs in the realm of personal piety. The otherwise unattested extended form is interpreted in Gen 17:4f. in a popular etymology as “Father (-/’āb) of a multitude (/0/hāmôn) of nations” – in an entirely programmatic manner as signaled by the association of the alteration of “Abram” into “Abraham” (parallel: “Sarai” into “→ Sarah”; 17:15) and the covenant with God: Abraham as a new beginning in the history of humankind (see below). 2. The Abraham Tradition as the History of Israel’s Origins. In biblical tradition, Abraham and his wife Sarah are Israel’s first ancestors. Additionally, Arab tribes in the south and east of Canaan descended from Abraham, the eponymous ancestor of the Ishmaelites (and his descendants, Gen 25:13ff.) by → Hagar, Sarah’s slave (16; 21), and other groups by Keturah (25:1ff.). Abraham’s own genealogy in 11:10ff. contains names (Serug, Nahor, Terah) that point to Aramaic city-states in northern Mesopotamia. Furthermore, the Abraham narrative (11:27–25:10) as a whole involves an ethnogenesis, which provides the Israelite addressees with aids to basic orientation and identification: among other things, foundations are given for the names and territorial relationships of peoples (e.g. for Israel, → Ishmael, Ammon, [→ Ammonites] → Moab), particular lifestyles (Ishmael), legal claims (21:25ff.; 23), but also distinctions which are relevant to identity. Thus, the → Philistines are not considered as related to Abraham (20), nor are the other elements of Canaan’s population (14; 23). Thus, in its traditional form, the Abraham narrative appears as an etiological history of the origins of Israel and its environment. This “popular historical” horizon already shapes the oldest substance of the text, whether it be in etiological tendencies (e.g. 16; 18:1–16, an allusion to “Isaac”!; 19) or in paradigmatic elements (12:10ff., see below). At any rate, the content and intention of individual episodes are not entirely devoted to this horizon: they deal simultaneously with the essential experiences of small family groups, especially of women (rape, childlessness, rivalry, etc.), of distress and deliverance, of danger and protection; the larger compositions, in particular, are concerned (e.g. in the programmatic promise texts) with basic questions in the history of YHWH with his people. 3. The Question of Historical Background. The Abraham texts – reflecting their basic etiological structure – take “Israel” as a given. Their historical substratum is, consequently, to be sought primarily in the historical reality of the addressees. Whether the narrative material permits one to draw any conclusions regarding an early era or even a pre-Israelite “patriarchal period” seems dubious, despite massive efforts in research (Westermann, EdF). Three approaches have been followed with particular intensity: (a) The

Abraham so-called “tribal history interpretation” of earlier research read the narratives as novelistically “couched” accounts of earlier historical phenomena (union/separation, wanderings, etc. of groups). The notion of a tribal history behind texts to be decoded, however, corresponds neither to their self-conception nor to their etiological inclination. (b) The so-called “archaeological approach” of W.F. → Albright et al. relies on archaeologically obtained “external evidence” (names, legal customs, etc. in the ancient Near East) to locate Abraham historically in a “patriarchal period” in the second millennium bce. Initially widely received, its diverse reconstructions have not been able to withstand the critical examination of evidence and method (Thompson, Van Seters). (c) A. → Alt’s hypothesis of a nomadic patriarchal religion identified Abraham and the other “patriarchs” as “founders of cults and recipients of revelation,” whose traditions (especially promises of land and descendants) were nurtured in pre-Israelite clans and later integrated into Yahwism. This subtly developed thesis, which long shaped research and stimulated more extensive hypotheses, has, however, found firm opposition more recently (Köckert, etc.). The critique draws attention, for instance, to the late, compositional character of the promise speeches and to the fact that Alt’s characterization of a “nomadic” type of religion (the term “God of my Father/personal name,” etc.) belongs to the more general phenomena of family piety; they reflect, therefore, the specific narrative world of Genesis in which Israel’s history and family history coincide. If, accordingly, the figure of Abraham remains inaccessible historically, it must necessarily originate in Judean tribal tradition. → Hebron/Mamre may have been an early locus of the tradition, if the hieros logos material in Gen 18 that deals with a visit of a divine triad with Abraham, the → theoxeny, was not developed entirely from the Sodom story and corresponding motifs (cf. 2 Kgs 4:8ff.; Ovid Met. VIII, 611ff.). To the extent that tribal genealogies mirror existing constellations, the association of Abraham with the northern Israelite → Jacob in the triad Abraham-Isaac-Jacob can be envisioned shortly before → David, but not much later. 4. The History of Transmission and a Profile of the Content of the Abraham Texts in Genesis. The markedly episodic arrangement of the Abraham narrative evokes in a particular manner H. → Gunkel’s view of Genesis as a “collection of legends.” In fact, many of his characteristics of the genre “legend” are evident here, especially its “poetic tone,” the “laws” of folk narrative, recurrent materials, and etiological elements. At the same time, this permits no direct inference regarding a history of oral transmission of the text. The Abraham narratives are literature. Along with the fixing of oral materials in writing, we should think also of pure compositions,

12 including among other instances cases of “doublets.” Thus, the ancestress episode in Gen 20 assumes the reader’s knowledge of the parallel in 12:10–20 and (with 21:22ff.) is simultaneously oriented toward the Isaac chapter, 26. The Ishmael episode in 21 may be based on an independent narrative variant of the material, but at the same time it is now shaped with a view to the literary context (with 16, see below). Even where oral models may be suspected, their reconstruction seems no longer possible (e.g. in 12:10ff.; 16; 18; 22). The Abraham-Lot cycle in 13*; 18:1–16, 20–22a; 19 (*21:1–7 is over-layered with P – Gunkel) is beyond question a literary-compositional framework. Along with the exposition in 13 and the continuation between the Mamre and Sodom episodes and their parallel execution (theoxeny; the unusual birth of descendants; 18:1–5//19:1–3), it comprises a tight macro-narrative of the genesis of the peoples of Israel, Ammon, Moab, and the harsh ecological conditions in the environs of the Dead Sea. In contrast to Lot (13:8ff.), Abraham lives out an ethos of solidarity there, not guided by “having,” and the eventual gift of the miraculous birth of a son corresponds to this. Within the tradition of “JE” materials, connecting links thus stretch out a more extensive pathway for Abraham which reveals the divine demand to abandon the land of his family in favor of promises of becoming a great nation and an exemplary blessing (12:1–3), and culminates in the “binding of Isaac” (22). Gen 13:14– 16, where Abraham is shown the Promised Land as a symbolic taking of possession (13:14//12:1), already marks a first destination after the departure from Harran. In between lies the excursion to Egypt that puts everything at risk (with Abraham’s abandonment of Sarah) and includes a prefigured exodus (plagues, dismissal with property). Also shaped by exodus echoes (with reversed roles: the Egyptian oppressed, expelled/in-flight, heard by God), the Hagar-Ishmael episodes in 16 (with v. 9) and 21 focus on the still open problem of Abraham’s descendants and introduce a countermovement at the same time as their “solution”: including the annunciation of Isaac and his miraculous birth (18–19; 21*), they expound the question of the inheritance of the promise. The harsh answer, the expulsion of Hagar and her son (with the promise of a great nation, 12:2, also for Ishmael, 21:13, 18!), turns out, then, even in its wording (21:14, 17, 19//22:3, 11f., 13), to be a prelude to an even greater drama: in close correspondence with the first order to depart (12:1//22:2; cf. Gen.R. 55:7), Abraham is commanded to offer up his beloved son, the negation of his entire pathway. He stands the test of faith because in his behavior he acknowledges the deity’s right to the son (cf. Exod 13:2) while, during the pilgrimage he endured (vv. 4–8), he trusted in the “providing” God

13 (8a, 12b, 14). In the end, then, Abraham has reached the “Mountain, where YHWH allows himself to be seen” (v. 14b), i.e. Zion (with Abraham’s only sacrifice)! The great promise speeches in 12:1–3; 13:14ff. have lasting significance for the context indicated. At the same time, its horizon extends further: in terms of composition, at least a “patriarchal narrative” is in view here (28:13–14). The promises of the land and of becoming a people/multiplying offer theological answers to experiences that call them into question (so runs the widely held recent view). In Abraham’s external and internal pathway between Mesopotamia, Egypt and Moriah/Zion, the concern is with Israel’s future – but after 587/6 bce evidently in response to an apparently revoked history of salvation. Younger, post-exilic extrapolations elevate the promises to divine oaths as in Gen 15* (with a staged promise of descendants and of the land as a solemn berît [→ Covenant]); 22:15–18; 24:7 (cf. 26:3–5). New here too is the establishment of the territorially expanded promise of the land on Abraham’s faith reckoned to him as “righteousness” (ß edāqāh, 15:16), and the oaths concerning descendants and blessing on the strength of his obedience (22:15ff.). The struggle for inviolability, sustainable even in deepest crisis (Exod 32:13; Gen 22:16f.), is perceptible. In terms of the history of tradition, these texts are heirs to Deuteronomy’s tradition; in terms of the history of literature, they belong in the horizon of the forming → Pentateuch. The P tradition exhibits little narrative substance in relation to Abraham (as is also true generally of Gen 12– 50). The report of the purchase of the cave in Machpelah as a burial site for Sarah (23) constitutes an exception. It aims to demonstrate the commercially obtained property rights to the ancestral graves in Hebron and can, thus, be situated in the post-exilic era when the city was no longer Judean. P shapes the Abraham image of the final text through its comprehensive chronology (16:3, 16; 17:1; 21:5, etc.), especially, however, through the great “covenant text,” Gen 17. Here we no longer encounter only descendants and land as berît promises, but now also YHWH’s intention to be Israel’s God (17:7f.), with → circumcision as the corresponding covenant obligation and covenant sign. Thereby, in the alignment of Gen 1 and 9 (Noah covenant), indeed a new beginning in the history of creation is marked: the partial restitution of the good creation realized in the dwelling of the holy God with Israel. To be sure, this can unfold only in accordance with the genesis of God’s people (cf. Exod 6:2ff.; 29:42ff.; Lev 26:6–13//Gen 17:1b, 6–9), but it is already inherent in the berît with Abraham. Finally, diverse late interpolations introduce additional matters. Thus, the acquisition of a bride for Isaac (24) deals with the post-exilic conflict between (legitimate) marriage among (Mesopotamian) relatives and

Abraham remaining in the land (24:3ff.). The intercession for Sodom (18:17–19, 23–33) and the Abraham-Abimelech narrative (Gen 20 + 21:22ff.) show Abraham for the first time as a prophet (20:7; 18:17) and “didactically” treat questions of God’s righteousness on the example of non-Israelites – with a significant relationship to Jonah. The insertion of Gen 14 with the Melchizedek scene and a somewhat related redaction in Gen 15 (e.g. vv. 1f., 13–16) are also probably late post-exilic. 5. Abraham Elsewhere in the Old Testament. Among the 42 references to Abraham outside Genesis, none is unequivocally pre-exilic. Usually, Abraham appears in the patriarchal triad within a divine designation or as a promise-bearer (e.g. Exod 3:6; Lev 26:42; Deut 1:8; 2 Kgs 13:23), as well as in summary receptions of Pentateuchal narratives (Ps 105:6, 9, 42; Neh 9:7; in Josh 24:2f. with the new motif of the patriarchs’ idolatry up until Abraham). Significant are the prophetic texts which attest how Abraham was apparently newly discovered as a figure with whom one could identify in Judah’s time of crisis. Ezek 33:24 cites the argumentation of non-exiled Judeans who appealed to Abraham who, as an individual, “inherited the land, and we are many.” Isa 51:1f. encouragingly points (returnees?) to the call, blessing, and fertility (Gen 12:1–3!) of the ancestors (see also Isa 41:8; 63:16). According to Ps 47:10 (MT), in contrast, the “nobles of the peoples” assemble in veneration of the universal king, YHWH, as “people of the God of Abraham” – as it were a final intensification of the multiplication of the father of nations. Commentaries on Genesis : A. Alt, “Der Gott der Väter,” Kleine Schriften I, 1929, 1–78 ◆ M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 1948 ◆ H. Gunkel, RGG 2 I, 1927, 65–68 ◆ R. de Vaux, Die Patriarchenerzählungen und die Geschichte, SBS 3, 1965 ◆ R.E. Clements, ThWAT I, 1973, 53–62 ◆ T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, BZAW 133, 1974 ◆ J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975 ◆ C. Westermann, Genesis 12–50, EdF 48, 1975 (bibl.) ◆ idem, Die Verheißungen an die Väter, FRLANT 116, 1976 ◆ R. MartinAchard, TRE I, 1977, 364–372 (bibl.) ◆ E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte WMANT 57, 1984 ◆ M. Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißung, FRLANT 142, 1988. Erhard Blum

II. New Testament John the Baptist contrasts Abraham with contemporary Israelites (Matt 3:8–9; Luke 3:8). Like Jesus, Abraham and the patriarchs will be in the kingdom of God, in contrast to his contemporaries (Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28). Abraham’s bosom receives the deceased (Luke 16:22–25), but Abraham cannot intercede for his descendants (Luke 16:28–30). Jesus defends the reality of the resurrection on the basis of the epithet “God of Abraham” (Matt 22:32; Mark 12:26–27; Luke 20:37). Matthew (Matt 1:1, 2, 17), as well as Luke (Luke 1:55, 73; 3:34), anchors Jesus in Israel’s history by means of Abraham. Luke characterizes Jesus as

Abraham the one upon whom the needy daughter (Luke 13:16) and the remorseful son (Luke 19:9) of Abraham call. He portrays how Peter (Acts 3:13) and Stephen see in Abraham the beginning of salvation history (Acts 7:2) and the recipient of God’s promise (Acts 3:25; 7:16–17, 32). John 8:30–59 vigorously rejects Jewish claims in the dispute over the status of “Abraham’s descendants.” For Paul, himself “of Abraham’s tribe” (Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22), Abraham stands for the faith that receives justification through grace (Gal 3:6–14; Rom 4:1–12), while Abraham’s place in salvation history relativizes the law (Gal 13:15–18). As father of the faithful (Rom 4:16), Abraham fulfills God’s promise (Gen 12:3) that he will be a blessing to the nations (Gal 3:8–9). His true children are not physical descendants, but those who accept the promise (Gal 4:21–31; Rom 4:13–25; 9:6–9). James 2:21–24 uses Abraham to criticize Paul; Abraham’s works, especially his sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), justified him. In Heb 7:1–10, Abraham’s gift of the tithe to → Melchizedek demonstrates the superiority of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek over the Levites. Abraham is also an example (Heb 6:13–17) of the humble acceptance of the promise sworn by God (Gen 22:17). In Heb 11:8–19, Abraham embodies faithfulness since he left his homeland for a heavenly home and was prepared to sacrifice his son at God’s command. F.E. Wieser, Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament, 1987. Harold W. Attridge

III. Judaism 1. Antiquity. Several elements of the Abraham cycle had a great influence on post-biblical Judaism: the call to leave Babylon and to migrate westward to the land of Canaan, the covenant of circumcision, and Abraham’s preparedness to sacrifice Isaac (Aqeda, binding). The biblical text narrates the call of Abraham in the briefest conceivable form. After Gen 11 concludes with a list of the 10 generations after Noah, Gen 12 begins with a rather unexpected scene in which God speaks directly to Abraham and commands him to leave friends and relatives and to journey to the land of Canaan in order become a great people. This election produces in Abraham a reaction of unconditional obedience, which defines his character in almost all Jewish sources. The unexpected character of this call set the exegetes to work, and already in the book of Jubilees (2nd cent. bce), Jewish interpreters of the Bible had filled the gaps in the biblical narrative and found a reason for Abraham’s selection as well as a motivation for his migration to Canaan. By and large, all Jewish interpreters represent the opinion that Abraham had recognized the errors of Mesopotamian religion. As a consequence of this dramatic “conversion,” Abraham came into conflict with family and neighbors (and some-

14 times with king Nimrod) and was forced to abandon Babylon in order to save his life. Abraham was otherwise famed for his willingness to offer his only son Isaac, a biblical narrative (Gen 22) which often served as a motif for early Jewish and Christian imagery. Antiquity would have viewed this act, which seems so barbaric to modern readers, as the highest expression of piety. In fact, Philo (Abr. 183) had to defend against pagan slanderers who maintained that the act was not so uniquely praiseworthy since others in the ancient world had acted similarly. So important was this moment that the ram offered in Isaac’s place had already been prepared on the day of creation. Isaac’s blood was often equated with the redemptive blood of the Passover lamb at the time of the exodus (Mek. 7). The Aqeda was also seen as Abraham’s highest test of faith. In the context of this concept, a tradition arose that Abraham was tested 10 times and the Aqeda was the last test. In all these tests Abraham proved faithful and he bequeathed the profits of his faith to all Israel. G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 1961 ◆ G. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham, 1976 ◆ J. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 1993. Gary A. Anderson

2. Middle Ages. In addition to the traditions from antiquity, the chief aspects of the appearance of Abraham in medieval Jewish culture are: (a) as “author” of the Sefer → Yetzirah; (b) in biblical exegesis and rationalistic philosophy; (c) in medieval Jewish mysticism; (d) in medieval Hebrew narrative literature. a. The final section in the ancient cosmogony-cosmology, the Sefer Yetzirah, a major work of esoteric knowledge in the Middle Ages concerning which innumerable commentaries were written by philosophers, scientists, esoterics, and mystics, described Abraham as the only one who understood the teachings of this work and who was therefore beloved by God. Medieval tradition relied on this passage to characterize Abraham as an author and, consequently, as the highest authority in matters related to the origin of the universe in the letters of the Hebrew language and to all other themes derived from this work. The belief that the Sefer Yetzirah contained instructions for creating an artificial person, → Golem, found in a few such commentaries, led to the appearance of the account that Abraham together with Shem, Noah’s son, created such a being. b. Medieval exegetes belonging to various ideological schools integrated Abraham into their theological systems in various ways. One example of this is the rationalist Rabbi Jakob → Anatoli, who at the court of Emperor → Frederick II, the Great in Naples, wrote a book of sermons, Malemad ha-Talmidim. He interpreted Abraham and his wife Sarah as an expression of the Aristotelian duality of material and form; similar allegories also appear in other works. c. The medieval Kabbalists (→ Kabbalah)

15 associated Abraham with one of the 10 divine powers (→ Sefirot) in their system; he was usually identified with the element of grace in the divine world, while in contrast to him, Isaac stands for the strictness of divine justice (→ Bahir, Sefer ha-Bahir, Scholem’s translation, §§92– 94). The → Zohar and numerous other sources described him as God’s right hand who distributes benevolence and love to the universe. d. Ancient accounts of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac were expanded in medieval narratives, and a few of them gained central importance in Jewish martyr literature. According to a few centralEuropean traditions, Abraham sacrificed Isaac on the altar and later God revived the son. J. Dan, The Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages, 1974 (Heb.). Joseph Dan

IV. Qur’ān Abraham appears in the Mecca sura as one of God’s emissaries, who, like → Mu˙ammad, were commissioned to warn their people and to call to monotheistic faith. He recognized that neither sun, moon, nor stars deserve divine worship since they execute their course according to the determination of the one creator God (see also → Astrology). This story (sura 6:74–84) reflects Mu˙ammed’s manner of argumentation in relation to the unbelieving citizens of Mecca. Since Abraham was led to knowledge of the one Creator through observation of nature directed by God, he established with the creator the face-to-face relationship that guarantees salvation (sura 6:79). He became, as it is said, a ˙anīf, a monotheist, and this even before Moses and Jesus. This is the basis of the Islamic claim that it preserves the pure form of → monotheism (cf. sura 2:135), free of the supposed distortions of later Jewish or Christian tradition. Thus, through Mu˙ammad’s efforts in the Medina period, Abraham became an identity-giving figure by whom the new faith community could differentiate itself from others. This understanding of the figure of Abraham finds its clearest expression in sura 2:124–134, which discusses the construction of the Kaaba, the most important cultic structure in Islam, by Abraham and → Ishmael. H. Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, 1931, 31988, 120–186 ◆ E. Beck, “Die Gestalt des Abraham am Wendepunkt der Entwicklung Mu˙ammads,” Muséon 65, 1952, 73–94. Tilman Nagel

Abraham a Sancta Clara, Catholic preacher and writer (Aug 2, 1644, Kreenheinstetten, Swabia – Dec 1, 1709, Vienna; secular name Johann Ulrich Megerle). The son of a tavern keeper, he received a thorough humanistic education in Ingolstadt and Salzburg. In 1662, at the monastery of Mariabrunn near Vienna, he joined the order of → Augustinian Hermits and

Abraham Ecchellensis took Abraham a Sancta Clara as his religious name. After studying in Vienna, Prague, and Ferrara, he was ordained to the priesthood in Vienna in 1668 and served as preacher at the pilgrimage shrine of Taxa, near Augsburg; after 1672, he preached on Sundays and feast days in and around Vienna. His preaching is the basis of his 60 or so literary works, which had appeared in 353 editions by the year 1785. His ingenious ability to hold his listeners’ amused attention by means of far-fetched witticisms and unexpected spiritual applications made him one of the most successful writers of the Baroque period. His best-known works included Mercks Wien (Vienna 1680, Tübingen 1983), a description of the Vienna plague of 1679; Auff, auff ihr Christen (1683), a stirring exhortation against the Turks; Reim Dich, Oder Ich liß Dich (1684), a collection of sermons; and Judas der Ertz-Schelm (4 vols., 1686–1695), an entertaining moral satire. After his death, ten additional works, some in several volumes, were ascribed to him. Other works: Grammatica Religiosa, Lat. 1691, Germ. 1699 ◆ Neu-eröffnete Welt Galleria, 1703 ◆ Heilsames Gemisch Gemasch, 1704 ◆ Huy! und Pfuy! der Welt, 1707 ◆ Geistlicher Kramerladen, 1710 ◆ On Abraham a Sancta Clara: T.G. von Karajan, Abraham a Sancta Clara, 1867 ◆ F. Eybl, Abraham a Sancta Clara: Vom Prediger zum Schriftsteller, 1992. Dieter Breuer

Abraham Abulafia → Abulafia, Abraham Abraham ben Azriel was one of the major authors belonging to the → Kalonymus circle of 13th-century Rhineland esoterics and mystics; he was among the third generation of scholars produced by this school. He came to Speyer from Bohemia to study with Rabbi Judah the Pious (d. 1217) and especially with Rabbi → Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, whom he referred to as his immediate teacher. He is the author of Arugat ha-bosem (“Bed of Spices”: Song 5:13), completed in 1234, an exhaustive commentary on the piyuttim of the Jewish prayer book. Its encyclopedic compass makes Arugat ha-bosem unique among the works written by Central European Jews during the Middle Ages. Besides presenting his own esoteric worldview, Abraham conscientiously cites the views of hundreds of other authors, turning his book into an impressive anthology. E. Urbach, ed., Sefer Arugat ha-bosem le Rabbi Abraham, 4 vols., 1939–1964. Joseph Dan

Abraham Ecchellensis (Feb 18, 1605, Óāqil – Jul 15, 1664, Rome). The name is Latinized from the Arabic (al-)Óāqilānī (“from Óāqil” in Lebanon). A → Maronite, he studied in Rome, was deacon, teacher of Syriac and Arabic in Rome, Pisa, and Paris, a collaborator in the Parisian Polyglot Bible, and from 1660 scriptor in the Vatican Library. Through editions and translations, he acquainted Europe with many Arabic and Syriac works.

Abraham I of Aghbatan G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. III, 1949, 354–359 ◆ N. Gemayel, Les échanges culturels entre les Maronites et l’Europe, vol. I, 1984, 387–400. Hubert Kaufhold

Abraham I of Aghbatan was Armenian Catholicos from 607 to 610. His time saw the schism of the Georgian church from unity with the other Caucasian churches, the Armenian and the Albanian. While the Georgian Catholicos, Kyrion, joined with the Chalcedonians (→ Chalcedonian Definition), Abraham insisted on the positions of → monophysitism. F. Tournebize, DHGE I, 1912, 163 ◆ E. Boshof, ed., Bischöfe, Mönche und Kaiser, vol. IV, 1994 ◆ R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, 1995. Christian Hannick

Abraham Maimuni (Abraham ben Moses ben Maimon; 1186, Cairo – 1237, Cairo), son of M. → Maimonides, inherited the position of his father as the leader of the Jewish community in Egypt (→ Egypt: III, 3, b); he extended the philosophical work of his father. When the great controversy over the rationalistic work of Maimonides arose in 1232–1235 in northern Spain and the provinces, Abraham responded with “The War of the Lord” (Milchamot ha-Shem), an apology for the rationalistic style of writing of his father; he defended vigorously the allegorical interpretation and Talmudic explanations of biblical verses. His own theological views were contained above all in his Comprehensive Guide for the Servants of God (Arabic Kifayat alAbidin). He maintained in essence the rationalism of his father and was inclined to adopt the mystical approach of the Islamic Sufis (→ Islam: II, 5), whose teachings he believed were derived from Jewish biblical sources. He saw the prophet Elijah as the most important model for the Sufi way of life. The ultimate goal of religious life is union with God attained through minimizing association with worldly things and obedience to strict, ascetic forms of behavior. S. Eppenstein, Abraham Maimuni, 1914 ◆ S. Rosenblatt, The Highways to Perfection of Abraham Maimuni, 2 vols., 1927, 1938. Joseph Dan

Abrahamic Religions are not the Abrahamists (according to Sozomen [5th cent.], known at least in Gaza: cf. Crone), and not the Abrahamites of Bohemia (18th cent.). Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic religions that trace themselves to Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These religions argued over him (cf. John 8:30–47; Gal 3:7–10; 4:22–31; Qur’ān 2:135–141; 3:67–68), but he could still form a bridge between them. P. Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, 1987, 190–191, n. 4 ◆ H.J. Kuschel, Streit um Abraham, 1994. Adel-Theodor Khoury

16 Abrahamic Writings I. Apocalypse of Abraham – II. Testament of Abraham

I. Apocalypse of Abraham The Apocalypse of Abraham is one of several → apocalypses written in reaction to the destruction of the second temple. The text begins with a description of → Abraham’s rejection of idol worship while assisting his father in the fabrication of idols. God then dispatches the angel Iaoel to fetch Abraham. With the help of Iaoel, Abraham rises to the divine chariot throne in the seventh heaven, where he sings a song in praise of God with Iaoel and the creatures surrounding the throne. Many elements of this heavenly journey, including the song, have parallels in the → Hekhalot Literature. God then shows Abraham a vision of the course of history, including the destruction of the temple and its place in the plan of salvation. The Apocalypse of Abraham is one of the few apocalypses that combine a heavenly journey with a vision of history. The vision contains a difficult passage, which appears to be a Christian addition, though its meaning remains unclear. The Apocalypse of Abraham is extant only in the Slavic language, and was presumably translated from Greek. The original language was probably Hebrew, which suggests Palestine as its place of origin. The concern with the destruction of the Temple points to a date of origin in the late first or early second century ce. B. Philonenko-Sayar & M. Philonenko, L’apocalypse d’Abraham. Introduction, texte slave, traduction et notes, Sem. 31, 1981, 1–117 (bibl.) ◆ R. Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” in: J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. I, 1983 ◆ M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 1993, 6–71 Martha Himmelfarb

II. Testament of Abraham The Testament of Abraham is an entertaining account of Abraham’s death with a few seemingly comical elements. When the angel Michael comes to him to announce his impending death, Abraham insists on undertaking a journey around the whole world before departing from life. In the course of this journey, the sinless Abraham witnesses how humans sin in various ways and threatens them with terrible punishment. In order to preserve humanity from total annihilation, God puts an end to the journey and shows Abraham the judgment of the souls after death. Instead of proclaiming the doom of the sinners, Abraham now prays for a soul whose good and evil deeds were of equal weight, thereby showing that he has learned the value of compassion. God then sends death unto Abraham. With considerable difficulty, death finally succeeds in wresting away Abraham’s soul. The Testament of Abraham is preserved in two different Greek versions. The summary above is based on the longer version, which is usually considered to

17

Absolute, The

be closer to the original, although its language is often later than the shorter version. There is a scholarly consensus that the Testament of Abraham is a Jewish work from Egypt, probably from the first century ce. Both versions, however, contain Christian elements, which is why some scholars are of the opinion that the text is a Christian work. E. Janssen, “Testament Abrahams,” JSHRZ 3,2, 1975 ◆ M.E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham, SBL.PS 2, 1972 ◆ G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Studies on the Testament of Abraham, SBL.SCSt 6, 1976 (bibl.) Martha Himmelfarb

itself as “absolute spirit” in relation to what is other than itself. Against Hegel, J.G. → Fichte’s late work maintains the difference between the absolute and introspective knowledge, which he understands as an image of the absolute. In the 20th century, following up on theories of ultimate causation in late Neo-Kantianism (P. → Natorp, Richard Hönigswald), W. → Cramer once again sketched a theory of the absolute that seeks to account for the emergence of the many from the one. W. Cramer, HPhG 1, 1973, 1–20 ◆ P. Reisinger, “Modelle des Absoluten,” in: ΟΚΕΙΩΣΙΣ, FS R. Spaemann, ed. R. Löw, 1987, 225–249. Jürgen Stolzenberg

Absolute, The I. Philosophy – II. Philosophy of Religion

I. Philosophy Etymologically, the word “absolute” means something separate from and independent of everything that is only relative. In this sense, the absolute can be understood ontologically as → substance, logically as → principle. If the absolute is taken as a singulare tantum, then it refers to something apart from which there is nothing that exists independently. This raises the question of how to conceive the relationship to the absolute of what is only relative. This is the fundamental question of Western metaphysics. The first theoretically considered answer appears in → Plato’s theory of ideas. In this theory, the idea of the good is the unconditional absolute; everything that exists relatively relates to it through the mode of participation. In the metaphysics of → Aristotle, the equivalent of the absolute is the concept of the primary eternal unmoved mover, thinking of itself, which is the source of all motion and thus the unifying principle of all natural phenomena. Both conceptions, which came to dominate the thought of the Christian West, are radically contrary to the metaphysics of the absolute propounded by → Spinoza. With the thesis that “Everything that exists, exists in God” (Ethica I), Spinoza rejects the transcendence of the absolute with respect to the relative and the many, which he understands as modes of the attributes “extension” and “thought”; these attributes express all that humans can know of the nature of the one, infinite substance. Following upon → Kant’s critique of metaphysics and in reaction to the so-called “pantheism controversy” initiated by F.H. → Jacobi, German idealism made the notion of the absolute a fundamental concept of modern philosophical theory. The rapid development of various schematic systems, each seeking to outbid its predecessors, led to a variety of different theories of the absolute. While → Schelling understands the absolute as reason, indifferent to all difference – or, in his late work, as pure unpremeditatable being –, according to → Hegel, the absolute should be thought of simply as a process in which the absolute understands

II. Philosophy of Religion The concept of the absolute has a double structure: on the one hand, it is independent and unconditional; on the other, it relates to other things as their ground and principle. Therefore philosophical theology – especially in the fusion of Christian and (neo-)Platonic thought common since Late Antiquity – found it natural to identify the absolute with God or the divine (implicitly in → Anselm of Canterbury, Monologion I, 29, 31; I, 46; II, 9, 24, 31; explicitly first in → Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia I, 2, 5; I, 5, 14; in the 20th cent. above all in P. → Tillich, My Search for Absolutes), especially to justify philosophically the Christian doctrine of God and creation. But such attempts at identification have not gone unchallenged, both theologically and philosophically. With regard to the absolute, the common dichotomy between the “God of the philosophers” and the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” which goes back to B. → Pascal, reflects the fluctuating and strained relationship between philosophy and theology, more particularly the opportunities for and limits of a (Christian) philosophy of religion. In the name of God’s personal nature and freedom, theology has warned particularly against the pan(en)theistic implications of a religio-philosophical conception of the absolute (→ Pantheism; → Dialectical Theology); with reference to the debate over ultimate causes and proofs of the → existence of God, philosophy has pointed out the epistemological problems involved in trying to speak meaningfully of the absolute (critical philosophy, positivism, critical rationalism, philosophy of language, analytic philosophy). Such objections can foster discrimination in religiophilosophical discussion of the absolute. Recourse to the philosophical discussion of the absolute is unavoidable – as a framework for explication, if not as a foundation – if one is to speak responsibly of God as the “all-determining reality” (Bultmann), above all to emphasize the categorial difference between being and things that be, reality and things that are real, between God and the world. The metaphysical tradition might, for example, make it possible to reclaim the absolute at least as a limiting

Absolute Necessity concept for epistemology and the transcendental self-sufficiency of “I think” (cf. the self-limitation of the ego as an “image” of the absolute in Fichte’s late philosophy), or to discuss it as a horizon both enticing and forbidding for existential phenomena, successful or abortive (borrowing and extending the → existential theology of S. → Kierkegaard). In contrast to both the ancient and the scholastic tradition, however, we must remember that to be plausible today religio-philosophical talk of God as the absolute must have less to do with the doctrine of God and creation in the narrower sense than with soteriological and eschatological questions, which must in turn be grounded in a philosophico-theological anthropology. R. Kuhlen, “Absolut, das Absolute,” HWP I, 1971, 12–31 (bibl.) ◆ F. Wagner, “ ‘Vernunft ist die Bedingung der Offenbarung’: Zur theologischen Bedeutung von Wolfgang Cramers Theorie des Absoluten,” in: D. Korsch & H. Ruddies, Wahrheit und Versöhnung, 1989, 98–121 ◆ W. Janke, Vom Bild des Absoluten: Grundzüge der Phänomenologie Fichtes, 1993. Hartmut Rosenau

Absolute Necessity I. Philosophy of Religion – II. Philosophy

I. Philosophy of Religion The German word das Unbedingte (literally, “the unconditional”) is first found in philosophical texts from the last third of the 18th century, as a translation of the Latin absolutum. It was I. → Kant (see II below) who gave this concept its specific connotation, which had a long-lasting influence on subsequent theology and the philosophy of religion. The absolute necessity is the ultimate → principle, which is not conditioned by anything else, and in which the plurality finds the basis of its unity. In this methodological justificatory function, the idea of absolute necessity is the core of the philosophical idea of God (→ God: IV). For Kant, absolute necessity is an idea of the reason with a regulative function, in that it introduces an intellectually necessary notion of conclusion in the process of reflection. Kant’s transcendental-philosophical idea of God challenges reason to go beyond each individual conditional datum by taking the totality of conditions into account. This view of absolute necessity was taken up in various ways in German → Idealism and further specified with the help of the Spinozist idea of God (→ Spinoza) as an a priori synthesis. In his practical philosophy, Kant provides a new definition of the idea of absolute necessity, in which it is not the concluding thought, but rather the starting point. The practical → self-consciousness is a consciousness of freedom (→ Freedom: V, VI) which exemplifies the ethical requirement of religion in its own characteristics form. Absolute necessity has been a fundamental concept of the philosophy of religion since the 1920s. The

18 various approaches all transpose absolute necessity into the religious act itself, and define it as faith or religion. P. → Tillich identifies absolute necessity with the concepts of meaning and of truth, and interprets religion as a relating of consciousness to something unconditional. In this relation, the → consciousness becomes transparent to itself, thus enabling it to understand the specific data of its life as historically mutable forms in which unconditional meaning finds expression. P. Tillich, Die Frage nach dem Unbedingten, in: idem, Gesammelte Werke, V, 1964, 21978; ET: My Search for Absolutes ◆ N. Hinske, “Kants Rede vom Unbedingten und ihre philosophischen Motive,” in: H.-M. Baumgartner & W.G. Jacobs, eds., Philosophie der Subjektivität?, I, 1963, 265–281 ◆ U. Barth, “Was ist Religion?,” ZThK 93, 1996, 538–560. Christian Danz

II. Philosophy With Kant, “absolute necessity” becomes an independent goal of post-critical → metaphysics. As a regulatory limitative concept, its usage in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781, 21787; ET: Critique of Pure Reason) expresses reason’s need for unity, as evidenced by Kant’s efforts to establish a correspondence between the conditional insights of rationality and a fixed point in which the totality of conditions converge, the latter being represented by the → soul (II), the → world (II), freedom, and God as ideas accessible through thought. In the Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (1788; ET: Critique of Practical Reason), this “problematic” option is complemented by the practical interest of the reason, which aspires, on the basis of the law of → morality, to define absolute necessity in the sense of a reconciliation of morality and → happiness/bliss, while now being permitted to postulate the reality of the ideas generated by reason. A different view was introduced by the Kant-critic F.H. → Jacobi (Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelsohn, 21789), who argued that it is absurd to search for absolute necessity from the vantage point of the conditional and claimed that the exact contrary was in fact the case, namely that the conditional actually presupposes the notion of absolute necessity, the unconditional. The finalizing function of a limitive concept is thus inverted into the expression of an unquestionable point of origin which necessarily eludes systematic cognizance in the chain of conditional conditions, while its reality can only be envisioned in the original → certainty (I) deriving from the experience of action. With the formulation of this argument, Jacobi provided an initial stimulus for the development of German Idealism, which, on the basis of the assumption of that absolute point of departure, transformed the ideas and postulates of Kant’s metaphysics into a speculative systemmetaphysics, thereby also contradicting Jacobi’s reservations regarding the inaccessibility of absolute necessity. Following J.G. → Fichte’s declaration that the absolutely fundamental, truly unconditional principle of knowledge

19

Absolution

is to be taken as the expression of the absolutely “characteristic accomplishment” of the self (Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre, 1794/95), it was above all F.W.J. → Schelling who based his own system on the principle of the absolute necessity (Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie oder über das Unbedingte im menschlichen Wissen, 1795), the objectification of which is simply impossible. By way of logical reflection on the nature of the point of origin, G.W.F. → Hegel, finally, came to the conclusion that the unity of condition and causality is the truly determining factor of absolute necessity (Wissenschaft der Logik: Die Lehre vom Wesen, 1813). In the wake of → historicism and → pragmatism, the notion of absolute necessity eventually forteited its status as a basic philosophical concept. Whether it has become utterly obsolete, however, may appear doubtful in the light of current debates about our naturalistic “conditioning”. B. Sandkaulen, Ausgang vom Unbedingten. Über den Anfang in der Philosophie Schellings, 1990 ◆ G. Schönrich, Bei Gelegenheit Diskurs, 1994. Birgit Sandkaulen

Absolution I. Dogmatics – II. Practical Theology

I. Dogmatics Absolution is the assurance, in the context of → confession (II, III), that sins have been forgiven. The history of absolution traces back to Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22f. Drawing on → Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae III, q. 84), the Councils of → Florence (DH, 1323) and → Trent (DH, 1673) defined absolution as the form of the sacrament of penance or → repentance (IV), which has as its matter the actions of the penitent (→ Penitence, confession, satisfaction). The relationship of absolution to the full reality of penance was discussed at length between the 12th and 16th centuries. → Peter Lombard (Sententiae IV, d. 18) supported the view that absolution expresses divine forgiveness already received by a truly contrite penitent. → Gratian (PL 187, 1519–1563), however, taught that forgiveness is not received until absolution has been pronounced (→ Sin/Guilt and Forgiveness). By using the categories of → form and → matter, Thomas sought to integrate absolution and contrition: the grace received in absolution also serves to perfect imperfect contrition. According to Lombard, in an exigency a lay person could pronounce absolution; Thomas permitted this, but considered the sacrament defective in such cases (although Christ as high priest rectifies the defect). Luther (e.g. WA 2, 714–722) emphasized absolution as the forgiving word of God spoken to the penitent, either in the setting of a liturgical general confession or in the context of private confession. The combination of confession and absolution constitutes penance. Luther withdrew the whole question from the legal domain, refusing

to interpret absolution as a legal action associated with the office of the keys, entrusted solely to the clergy (DH, 1685), as Trent later asserted. In its declaration that absolution bestows not only God’s forgiveness but also → reconciliation (VI) with the church, → Vatican II sought to overcome the overly individualistic understanding of absolution that had emerged from its association with private confession. H. Vorgrimler, Buße und Krankensalbung, HDG 4/3, 1978 ◆ J. Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 1986 ◆ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 21997, §§1422–1498. Michael Root

II. Practical Theology Catholics hold that absolution, as an essential element of sacramental penance, is the effectual declaration of forgiveness of sins in God’s name, through the priest who administers the sacrament. It is dependent on a proper confession of sins (contrition, confession) and satisfaction performed by the penitent; today (at least in the case of mortal sin) it is understood once more as reconciliation with the church. In this context, absolution is both a pastoral and a jurisdictional expression of the church’s pastoral office. Today in the Latin church, absolution is pronounced in the indicative (Ego te absolvo, “I forgive you”); in the Orthodox churches, the optative form (“God forgive you”) has also remained in use. In the Reformers’ understanding of penance, renewed by the witness of scripture and the gospel of justification, absolution is “most highly prized” as the declaration of forgiveness, “being the voice of God and pronounced by God’s command” (CA 25); it sets the penitent free for → sanctification (III, IV). In the Lutheran churches, the indicative form is preferred because of its kerygmatic character and pastoral aim (increase of faith). The dialectic of faith and God’s word is bolstered in the Lutheran liturgy “by the optative: ‘According to your faith let it be done to you’” (Volp, 1218). In this sense, Calvin urged conditional absolution, because → certainty (III) of absolution must not be subject “to the will of an earthly judge” (Inst. III, 4, 18). Therefore he emphasizes the kerygmatic form of absolution and understands its conditional nature not jurisdictionally but in the sense of Matt 8:13; 9:19 (Inst. III, 4, 22). The Protestant churches have renewed “public confession” as a collective confession of sin by the congregation assembled for worship and have thus also given a fixed liturgical form to the → general absolution (esp. before the Lord’s Supper). J.A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bußriten, vol. I, 1932 ◆ P. Brunner, “Zur Lehre vom Gottesdienst der im Namen Jesu versammelten Gemeinde,” Leit. 1, 1954, 83–361, esp. 199f. ◆ E. Weismann, “Der Predigtgottesdienst und die verwandten Formen,” Leit. 3, 1956, 1–97, esp. 20f. ◆ R. Browning & R. Reed, The Sacraments in Religious Education and Liturgy, 1985 ◆ R. Volp, Liturgik, vol. II, 1994, esp. 1216–1230 ◆ See also → Repentance: IV, 5. Hans-Martin Müller

Absolutism Absolutism. From the middle of the 16th century to the last third of the 18th, when absolutism was the dominant form of government in Europe, the term itself was not used. Not until the 1790s, when absolutism was fundamentally challenged by the outbreak of the French Revolution, did people in France begin to use the term “absolutisme” to describe the notion of sovereignty that dominated the preceding period. In the 1830s and 40s, when the influence of absolutism was also waning in central Europe, the term was translated into English and German. Decades later, historians began to discuss the extent and significance of absolutism. At the same time, they replaced the pejorative connotations that had burdened the term with a positive assessment and sought to distinguish the age of absolutism from earlier and later periods. Wilhelm Roscher distinguished the “confessional” absolutism of Philip II and Ferdinand II, the “court” absolutism of Louis IV, and “enlightened” absolutism. Reinhold Koser, Otto Hintze, Friedrich Meinecke, and Fritz Hartung, and since 1950 Kurt von Raumer, Gerhard Oestreich, Rudolf Vierhaus, and Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin have criticized this categorization. The understanding of absolutism has been differentiated and made more precise. To the present day, scholars have used the term “absolutism” to describe the unique form of political sovereignty and political ambition dominant in Europe from the Reformation to the French Revolution. It denotes both the theory and the practice employed by princes to free themselves from ancient rights and traditional limitations and ground their politics and policies on the sovereignty they exercised through the grace of God. Certain elements of the absolutist program are especially significant: expansionist foreign policy, a legal system based on the sovereignty of the prince, boosting of the economy through mercantilism and intentional expansion of the population, and above all the transformation of capital cities into centers of courtly culture and symbols of power. In many countries, the estates could not be fully suppressed. On the other hand, even where absolutism did not prevail (England), the state came to play a major role. The idea of → freedom of religion and conscience (→ Freedom of Belief ) arose out of conflict with absolutism. Recent studies emphasize that absolutism and the Enlightenment are antithetical and propose replacing the expression “enlightened absolutism” with “reform absolutism.” The worlds inhabited by the middle and lower classes, however, were influenced only partially by the decrees of the princes. Noteworthy, finally, is the association of absolutism with the “crisis of the 17th century.” On the one hand, absolutist government with its exaggerated political ambitions at home and its foreign adventurism triggered wars and civil wars. On the other, princes ruling with

20 absolute power claimed to be able to deal with the consequences of the “crisis” better than other political entities (the estates, parliaments). In many European countries, therefore, absolutism both aggravated the “crisis of the 17th century” and used it for political gain. R. Vierhaus, “Absolutismus,” in: Sowjetsystem und Demokratische Gesellschaft, ed. C.D. Kernig, vol. I, 1966, 18–35 ◆ F. Wagner, ed., Europa im Zeitalter des Absolutismus und der Aufklärung, HEG 4, 1968 ◆ G. Oestreich, Geist und Gestalt des frühmodernen Staates, 1969 ◆ J. Freiherr von Kruedener, Die Rolle des Hofes im Absolutismus, 1973 ◆ D. Gerhard, ed., Ständische Vertretungen in Europa im 17. und im 18. Jahrhundert, 21974 ◆ W. Hubatsch, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 41975 ◆ T. Rabb, The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe, 1975 ◆ H. Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 1980 ◆ P. Anderson, Die Entstehung des absolutistischen Staates, 21984 ◆ R. Vierhaus, Deutschland im Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 21984 ◆ J. Kunisch, Absolutismus, 1986 ◆ B. Stollberg-Rilinger, Der Staat als Maschine, 1986 ◆ W. Hubatsch, ed., Absolutismus, 21988 ◆ J. Brewer, The Sinews of Power, 1989 ◆ H. Duchhardt, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 1989, 21992 ◆ N. Elias, Die höfische Gesellschaft, 71994 ◆ M. Stolleis, ed., Staatsdenker in der Frühen Neuzeit, 31995 ◆ G. Vogler, Absolutistische Herrschaft und ständische Gesellschaft, 1996. Hartmut Lehmann

Abstinence → Asceticism Abstract Expressionism is the internationally acknowledged American art movement of the 1940s/ 1950s, which developed mainly independently of Europe and which is of singular importance since it signals the shift of the Western art center from Europe to the United States. Abstract expressionism is also known by the names “New York School,” stressing its geographical location, and “Action Painting,” to take account of one of the styles of abstract expressionism. Abstract expressionism, which was first used as a term in 1929 in connection with the work of W. → Kandinsky, is shaped by individualism in terms of theme and style. Similarities are evident with regard to the fundamental concern with abstraction through which the essence of human experience can be expressed, and with regard to physical attention to color and the matching alienation from American society. At the same time abstract expressionism is directed against conventional religions. Accordingly, Jackson Pollock’s life-long pantheism is influenced by → theosophy, fashionable in his home country, and by the thought of Krishnamurtis. The roots of abstract expressionism lie in 1920s and 1930s America, shaped especially by regionalism and abstract art. The latter experienced a growth due to the exhibition of Cubism and Abstract Art (1936, New York, Museum of Modern Art) and the founding of the American Abstract Artists in 1936. The style of Arshile Gorky of these years is traditionally abstract (e.g. “Organization,” 1933–1936, Washington DC, National Gallery of Art); Pollock’s style shows the influence of the rural American West, the area of steel production, oil production, and

21 coal mining (e.g. “Camp with Oil Rig,” c. 1930–1933, private collection). Many future abstract expressionists worked for the Works Progress Administration’s Federal Art Project (WPA/FAP), which opened up the opportunity for using larger formats and trying out techniques. Towards the end of the 1930s, American European influences were added: 1. From → surrealism, which had taken hold in North America owing to the exhibition of Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936/1937, New York, Museum of Modern Art) and owing to emigrations from Paris (e.g. André Breton, André Masson, and Max Ernst), “automatism” was adopted, which, however, rejects surrealist irrationalism. 2. The interest of abstract expressionists, such as Robert Motherwell and Pollock, in fundamental human experiences is fed by C.G. → Jung ’s concept of myth. Myths, also termed by Jung as archetypes, lend expression to such experiences. They also appear mainly in primitive art, which is a source for abstract expressionism (e.g. Pollock, “Guardians of the Secret,” 1943, San Francisco, Museum of Modern Art). Since the actual significance of such myths appears obscure because of their simple illustration, abstract expressionism takes up abstract forms and symbols. Such images were displayed in the exhibition Ideographic Picture organized by Barnett Newman in 1947 (Betty Parsons Gallery, New York). In order to achieve an absolute intensity beyond a mythical approach, however, artists turned from graphic symbols, which continue to describe events and forms, to color and form, as well as malact. Paint running over a painting achieves the impression of an unusually complex space (e.g. Gorky, “Water of the Flowery Mill,” 1944, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art). Hans Hofman was one of the first to splatter color and to let it drip onto the canvas. Pollock refined this technique, which is also known as “dripping,” by giving up the limitations of the paintbrush and the vertical position of the easel in 1947 and, working directly on the floor, by dripping paint from the tin (e.g. “Number 2,” 1949, Utica, New York, Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute). The term “all-over” is sometimes also used to describe the restlessness in the composition, which falls into fragments. The unconventional way of using paint is to affect the direct experience of the observer, psychologically and physically (hence large-sized paintings). Besides this, the artist himself is also aware of this directness, whereby the spiritual circumstances are directly – and free of formal methods – transformed into painting by the “automatic” process, so that the act of painting becomes a “selfoccurrence.” Such products, also described as “action painting,” of course give rise to the question of when a work is considered completed. The concentration on the essential led in the early 50s to the so-called “Color Field Paintings,” large-sized color fields, which minimalize the internal relation-

Absurd, The ships within the painting and seem to point to infinity through their seeming framelessness (e.g. Mark Rothko, “Orange and Yellow,” 1956, Buffalo, Albright-Knox Art Gallery collection). It is its goal to guide the observer beyond observation to a metaphysical experience of the painting. As the “Color Field Paintings” extend, as regards their minimalization of the painting space, even beyond the reduction that cubism accomplished, they were favored by one of the first critics of abstract expressionism, Clement Greenberg. Also in the early 50s, Willem de Kooning returned with his paintings of women to the figurative (e.g. “Woman I,” 1950–1952, New York, Museum of Modern Art); Franz Kline, however, eliminated the individual in his black-and-white abstractions (e.g. “Wotan,” 1950/1951, Houston, Texas, Museum of Fine Arts). Both artists clarify the heterogeneity within abstract expressionism, whose common denominator in the 1950s was the intensified debate with the world of art, which became necessary owing to increasing national recognition. During the Cold War, the USA used abstract expressionism as a banner to propagate freedom of opinion and expression, a pigeon-holing against which the artists defended themselves. Abstract expressionism came to an end in the 1950s. Pollock, one of the main representatives, died unexpectedly in 1956. Moreover, a new generation of artists such as Helen Frankenthaler and Joan Mitchell established itself, artists who translated the demand of abstract expressionism for the existential essential into a more lyrical and decorative language (e.g. Frankenthaler, “Mountains and Sea,” 1952, artist’s collection, lent to Washington DC, National Gallery of Art). C. Greenberg, Art and Culture, 1961 ◆ H. Rosenberg, The Tradition of the New, 1961 ◆ W.C. Seitz, Abstract Expressionist Painting in America, 1983 (1955) ◆ D. & C. Shapiro, eds., Abstract Expressionism: A Critical Record, 1989 ◆ D. Anfam, Abstract Expressionism, 1990 ◆ A.E. Gibson, Abstract Expressionism. Other Politics, 1997. Jutta Vinzent

Absurd, The. Absurd (Lat. “dull-sounding”) is widely understood as “ridiculous,” cf. “reductio ad absurdum”. In literary contexts the term Absurd has been in great demand since existentialism. 20th-century literature frequently testifies (often in a grotesque way) to the experience of the Absurd; cf. F. → Kafka, Eugène Ionesco, S. → Beckett, Harold Pinter, Luigi Pirandello, Thomas Bernhard, Elfriede Jelinek and others. In the 19th century, S. → Kierkegaard is the respected thinker of the Absurd (partly synonymous with “paradox”): it is nonsensical for finite reflection to try to grasp eternally perfect existence as temporally historical. The gospel’s challenge is precisely to get passionately involved in this boundary of reflection: the God-in-time – a reality which is unattainable through reflection. The paradox of

22

Abū Rāhi†a faith appears to outsiders as the Absurd. – Kierkegaard also influenced L. → Wittgenstein. His attempt strictly to determine the boundaries of what can be said rationally, resulted in the fact that overwhelming experiences regarding the meaning of life can only be expressed as an absurd collision with the boundaries of language. – It is in exactly this border area that the philosophy of J.P. → Sartre lies very close to that of A. → Camus. According to Sartre, existence is ontologically meaningless and coincidental; all efforts to become a part of the perfecting of existence are futile. Camus develops an ethics of heroic endurance of the Absurd. Whoever does not attempt to avoid the Absurd and rejects promises of comfort, will discover a new solidarity with his neighbor. A. Camus, L’Homme révolté, 1951; ET: The Rebel ◆ idem, Le Mythe de Sisyphe, 1955; ET: The Myth of Sisyphus ◆ S. Kierkegaard, “Abschließende unwissenschaftliche Nachschrift,” GW, ed. E. Hirsch et al., section XVI, 1958, 195 ◆ L. Wittgenstein, “Vorlesung über Ethik” (1930), in: Geheime Tagebücher. 1914–1916, ed. W. Baum, 1991, 73–82 ◆ J.P. Sartre, L’Être et le rien, 1943; ET: Being and Nothingness, 1993. Klaus-M. Kodalle

Abū Rāhi†a, Óabīb ibn ›idma (d. after 828), often called at-Takrītī on account of his association with the Mesopotamian city of Takrit. He was active in the first half of the 9th century as a scholar and teacher of the Syrian Orthodox Church ( Jacobites, → Syria). Many modern scholars believe he may even have been a bishop. Abū Rāhi†a was one of the first Christians living in the Islamic world who wrote a steady stream of theological and apologetic works in Arabic. He wrote against such opponents as the → Melkites and Nestorians (→ Syria) as well as Muslim apologists and polemicists. Eleven separate Arabic works from his pen are extant, including some of the earliest texts of the Muslim-Christian dialogue on the doctrines of the → Trinity and the →Incarnation. G. Graf, Die Schriften des Jacobiten Óabīb ibn ›idma Abū Ra hi†a, 1951 ◆ J.-M. Fiey, “Óabīb Abī Rāhi†a,” in: K. Samir, ed., Actes du deuxième congrès international d’études arabes chrétiennes, 1986. Sydney H. Griffith

Abu Íāli˙, historian. Armenian by birth, he wrote a description of the churches and monasteries of Egypt in Arabic around 1300. His ties with the Coptic Church explain his interest in this church and the language he used. His work is a rich source of information about the demography and economy of the Copts as well as ecclesiastical and monastic life in Christian Egypt. Works: The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries, trans. B.T.A. Evetts, 1895 ◆ On Abu Íāli˙: G. Graf, Geschichte der christlich-arabischen Literatur, vol. II, 1946 ◆ A. Kapoīan-Kouymjian, L’Egypte vue par les Arméniens, 1988. Christian Hannick

Abulafia, Abraham (1240, Saragossa – 1291, Italy). Abulafia, one of the most important mystics among the medieval Kabbalists, created a highly individual form of mystic contemplation, based on a mystical interpretation of language. Leaving Spain, he journeyed through many lands until reaching → Akko in 1260; he lived and taught in Sicily, Greece, and Italy. G. → Scholem characterized his work as “ecstatic” or “prophetic” → Kabbalah, and Abulafia occasionally described himself as a prophet. He rejected the Kabbalistic symbols of the ten divine attributes, the → sefirot, and developed mystical techniques for attaining an awareness of the divine that included bodily exercises, a rare phenomenon among Jewish mystics. Although Abulafia was well-versed in rationalistic philosophy, his commentary Sitrei Torah (“Mysteries of the Torah”) on M. → Maimonides’ philosophical work Moreh Neukhim (“Guide for the Perplexed”) led many to ascribe Kabbalistic ideas to him. He wrote a great number of treatises, including a commentary on the divine name comprising 72 letters (Sefer ha-Shem, “Book of the Name”), commentaries on the Sefer → Yetzirah (“Book of Creation”), and polemics. In 1280 Rome condemned Abulafia to death after he attempted to meet Pope → Nicholas III. The Pope’s death saved him. The meeting was thought to be an eschatological event, since Abulafia had increasingly combined messianic expectations with his prophetical claims. In his last years, messianic elements dominated his activities. Abulafia’s writings influenced Christian Kabbalists like → Pico della Mirandola and J. → Reuchlin. Some of the 16th-century → Safed Kabbalists made use of his work, and several later Jewish mystics took their ideas from him. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 1954 ◆ M. Idel, Mystical Experiences of Abraham Abulafia, 1988 ◆ idem, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, 1989. Joseph Dan

Abuna. The title “abuna” (“our father”), given to hierarchs of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and also used as a form of address, expresses trust and confidence. Formerly it was associated particularly with the Coptic metropolitan for Ethiopa and after the granting of → autocephaly with the five patriarchs Baselyos (1959– 1970), Tewoflos (1971–1975; murdered in 1992), Täkla Haymanot (1976–1988), Marqorewos (1988– 1992; deposed), and Paulos (1992–). Monastic saints are also given the title. F. Heyer, Die Kirche Äthiopiens, 1971, 2–15.

Friedrich Heyer

Acacius of Beroea (c. 330 – c. 433), originally a monk, was consecrated bishop of Beroea (= Aleppo) in 378. He first came to prominence in church politics as an adherent of → Meletius of Antioch (also as a participant in the Council of → Constantinople in 381),

23

Academy

he was to be found later among the opponents of John → Chrysostom (probably because of his rigorism). He sought to mediate in the → Nestorian Controversy, as is attested in five of his letters, still preserved (PG 77.99– 102; 84.647f.; ACO I.1.1,7). He also participated in the preparations for the 433 Formula of Union before he died at an advanced age. His chorepiscopus, the Syrian poet Balai (→ Syrian Christian Literature), dedicated five hymns to him (Ger. BKV2 6. 71,78–89).

the church without disavowing Chalcedon. Not in the first instance because of the Henotikon, but because of the recognition of → Petrus Mongus as Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope → Felix II terminated relations with Constantinople in 484 (the so-called Acacian Schism). The schism lasted until 519, when, under new political conditions, Pope → Hormisdas (514–23) and Emperor Justin (518–27) sought a new compromise in church policy.

CPG 3, 6477–6481 ◆ G. Bardy, “Acace de Bérée et son rôle dans la controverse nestorienne,” RevSR 18, 1938, 20–44 ◆ A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, I, 1979, 31990 (index). Adolf Martin Ritter

Sources: CPG 3, 5590–5594 ◆ CSEL 35, 1/2, 1895/98. On Acacius: E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, ABAW.PPH 32, 1927 ◆ idem, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, ABAW.PH NS 10, 1934 ◆ W.H.C. Frend, “Eastern Attitudes to Rome during the Acacian Schisma,” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. D. Baker, 1976, 69–81 ◆ H.C. Brennecke, “Chalkedonense und Henotikon,” in Chalkedon, ed. J. van Ort & J. Roldanus, 1997, 24–53. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Acacius of Caesarea (d. c. 366) was a student and then, after c. 340, the successor of → Eusebius of Caesarea as bishop; he was one of the outstanding theologians and church politicians leading the Eastern theologians under the reign of Emperor → Constantius II who were critical of Nicea in the tradition of Origen. He was a participant in the Synod of Antioch (341); in Sardica (342, → Arius and Arianism) the Western Synod condemned him as the leader of the Orientals. After the Synod of Seleucia (359) he was the leading representative of the Eastern → homoeans, whose confession traced back to him, and the resolute opponent of → Aetius and → Eunomius, outstanding representatives of the ecclesial policy of Constantius II. His supposed conversion during the reign of Emperor → Jovinian (363/64) to the → Nicene creed (to be interpreted in homoousian fashion) rests on a confusion; the Synod of the → Homoiousians at Lampsakus (364/65) condemned him anew. The catena tradition and fragments against Marcellus in Epiph. (Haer. 72.6–10) preserve only fragments of his writings; his vita of Eusebius has been lost. Sources: CPG 2, 3510–3515. On Acacius: J.M. Leroux, “Acace, évèque de Césarée de Palestine,” TU 93, 1966, 82–85 ◆ H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer, BHTh 73, 1988 ◆ J.T. Lienhard, “Acacius of Caesarea, Contra Marcellum,” CrSt 10, 1989, 1–22. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Acacius of Melitene, Saint (before 431 Bishop of Melitene in lesser Armenia, d. before 439) was lector in Melitene around 384 (educated Euthymius, who was later abbot), a dedicated follower of → Cyril of Alexandria , and at the Council of → Ephesus (431) a determined opponent of → Nestorius (ACO I/2, 40, 44, 52f.; cf. his homily, also in the Ethiopic Qērellos). His struggle after 433, together with → Rabbula of Edessa, against the distribution of the works of → Theodore of Mopsuestia in Armenia (letter to Catholicos Sahak and to the princes) belongs to the pre-history of the → Three Chapters Controversy. He is venerated as a saint (Apr 17). Sources: CPG 3, 5792–5795, cf. 5340, 5368, 5369 ◆ B.M. Weischer, Qērellos IV 1, 1979, 37f., 68–81 ◆ A.-J. Festugière, Moines d’Orient, vol. III/1, 1962. On Acacius: V. Inglisian, “Die Beziehungen des Patriarchen Proklos von Konstantinopel und des Bischofs Akakios von Melitene zu Armenien,” OrChr 41, 1957, 35–50 ◆ G. Winkler, “Die spätere Überarbeitung der armenischen Quellen zu den Ereignissen der Jahre vor bis nach dem Ephesinum,” OrChr 70, 1986, 143–180. Theresia Hainthaler

Academy I. General – II. Academies of the Arts and Sciences

Acacius of Constantinople/Acacian Schism. Acacius of Constantinople (d. 489) was Patriarch of Constantinople (471–489); from 474, he guided the church policy of Emperor Zenon (471–91), and in 475/ 6 opposed the anti-Chalcedonian measures (→ Chalcedonian Definition) of the usurper Basiliscus. In 482, on Zenon’s commission and in the context of the policy of compromise in relation to anti-Chalcedonian Egypt, he authored the “→ Henotikon” as a typical imperial formula of compromise, which relies theologically on the 433 Formula of Union that was influenced more by → Cyril of Alexandria, in order to preserve the unity of

I. General 1. Term, Platonic Academy. The word “academy,” employed in almost all European languages with only minor variants, derives from the Greek term ἀκαδήμεια, ἀκαδημία (akadēmeia, akadēmia); it designates, first, a park-like, walled, sacred precinct probably primarily dedicated to Akademos, a local Athenian god and heros, then also to Athena. In this enclosed precinct there was a → gymnasium in addition to a sanctuary. The central connotation in current use – in addition to the miscomprehension involving the association with institutions such as the university, research centers, etc.

Academy rooted in 19th century Plato interpretation – signifying a separate, intellectually independent discussion site has preserved material continuity with the reference of the Greek expression after it moved from its reference to a sanctuary and its environs before the northwestern Dipylon Gate of Athens to reference to a school led by → Plato. Presumably, from c. 387 bce, Plato taught both in the gymnasium of the Academy (courses for beginners) and also in his own garden (discussions with his closer students). Expressions such as “Plato teaches” or the students are “in the academy” in which the topographical designation transformed into a metaphorical usage soon became common. The founding of the Academy is to be understood in the context of similar educational institutions; through these schools, rapidly gaining in reputation, and the contemporary nomothetics in the poleis, the dominance of the competitive and of martial agonalia that characterized older Greek tradition was overcome, except for a structure of cooperation that shapes the academy idea to this day, as the → agon was played out in the freedom of lecture and dialogue. 2. Instruction. Instruction took place in various forms: in dialogues, in the form of disputations, through lectures or seminar exercises. In addition to the respective head of the school chosen by secret ballot – for the Older Academy (see below) initially Plato (387–348/ 47), then Speusippos (348/48–339/38), then Xenocrates (339/38–314/13), Polemon (314/13–276/75) and Crates (276/75–274/73) – the Academy also included other researchers, such as → Aristotle, Eudoxus of Knidos, Heracleides Ponticus or Philip of Opus. Because of their involvement, the Academy in its original form resembles a center of philosophical and scientific research which, to be sure, exhibited certain focal points, following Plato (mathematics [geometry], astronomy), but also dealt with almost all areas of knowledge at the time in a critically, and especially, methodologically sharpened form (dialectical method): natural philosophy, astronomy, psychology, rhetoric, politics. 3. Life. The reality of the Academy did not just consist of its philosophical and scientific activity, but it encompassed, especially, the whole of life and thus extended from a very conscious attention to external matters with a sensitivity to urbanity via the cultivation of the divine (celebrations on the festivals of the deities) to the rhythm of feasts and gatherings defined by moderation. Soon after Plato’s death, the dates of birth and death of → Socrates and Plato became festivals. 4. Periods. The periodization in the history of the Academy, which is usually divided into early, middle, later and neoplatonic Academy, is Hellenistic in origin and takes its lead from the orthodox and dogmatic fundamental position of → Antiochus of Ascalon (between 140/125 and 68 bce), one of → Cicero’s teachers:

24 According to it, the period of Speusippus, the direct successor of Plato, until Crates is to be understood, not only in a chronological, but especially in a programmatic sense, as the “old” Academy that traces back to Plato; the – from Antiochus’s perspective – schismatic tradition between Arcesilaus and → Philo, by contrast, is to be understood as the “new” Academy, which follows a fundamentally skeptical approach. For Cicero, however, the Antiochene position is conversely the “new” Academy, and the skeptical school was quite generally designated that of the academici or academia. The tripartite division into “old,” “middle” and “new” Academy, unknown to Cicero, appears first in Philodemus’s (?) Academicorum Index (XXI 37–42) and then later (Numenius of Apameia [in → Eusebius of Ceasarea]) in an expansion to five periods: from Plato or Speusippus = old; since Arcesilaus = middle; since Carneades = new; since Philo = fourth and since Antiochus = fifth Academy. The notion derived from this tradition and still current that the Academy existed continually on into the time of → Neoplatonism, indeed, even until the closing of all pagan schools under Justinian in 529 ce, is no longer tenable: between Plato’s Academy and the “school” founded later by → Plutarch from Athens, which was aware of a regular succession of scholarchs, stand 500 years in which there was no Academy. → Platonism, as an increasingly systematized philosophical option, found continuation, however, in Alexandria through Eudorus c. 50 bce; this continuation cannot, however, be interpreted as a “school” in the sense of the Academy. The “school” led by Plotinus in Rome can be no more considered an official “Platonic Academy” than can Proclus’s Institute. 5. Academy in Florence. The Academy as an intellectual and scientific lifestyle experienced an emphatic resumption in the 15th century through the Platonic Academy at Florence (Academia Florentina, Academia Ficiniana, Academia Careggiana, Academia Cosimesca) founded by Marsilio → Ficino (1433–1499) under the protection of Cosimo de → Medici and the subsequent cultivation of Lorenzo. The foundation for this were, on the one hand, instructional sites such as the Convent of Santo Spirito with Luigi Marsigli and the free teaching assemblies held after the Council of Florence by the Greek exiles (Cardinal → Bessarion, John Argyropoulos, etc.) in a few Italian cities which they described as “Academies.” On the other hand, however, Ficino, who, because of his early engagement with Plato and Platonism, which far exceeded what was common in early humanism, wanted to connect directly with the Academy tradition in life and study (not an actual founding, but a “faire renaître”). Florence was considered the “new Athens,” Ficino was the “old Plato,” a villa in Chareggi (near Florence), given by Cosimo de Medici (1462), the Academy or gymnasium. The Florentine Academy

25 represented a circle around the person of Ficino and around the charisma of his Christian interpretation of Plato in which, however, the individual diversity of capabilities and the freedom of positions remained protected (Angelo Poliziano, Cristoforo Landino, G. → Pico della Mirandola). The “Florentina” was initially supposed to form a regular school, entirely in character with the Old Academy; its Speusippus, i.e. the direct student and successor of Ficino, was Francesco da Diacceto (1466–1522), who assumed a position of concordance between Plato and Aristotle, a position related to Neoplatonism and widespread in the 15th century. The Academy moved now, however, from Careggi in the “Orti Oricellari” into Florence itself, ideal and financial support shifted from the Medici to the Ruccellai – Bernardo Ruccellai made his house and the “Orti” available – and the designation changed to “Platonica seconda” or “Academia degli Orti Oricellari.” The center of thought and focus of the academic discussions under Diacceto’s leadership was, however, a theory of love inspired by Ficino. With Diacceto and the scandal concerning the conspiracy against Giulio de Medici in 1522, in which the Academy was implicated, ended the period of the Florentine Academy prematurely. The numerous simultaneous or subsequent establishments of academies in Florence and the other centers of humanistic culture in Italy never claimed this exclusive connection to Plato’s original Academy. C. Wachsmuth, “Akademia,” RE I/1, 1893, 1132–1134 ◆ A. della Torre, Storia dell’ academia platonica di Firenze, 1902 ◆ M. Maylaender, Storia delle Accademie d’Italia, vol. IV, 1929, 294–315 ◆ P.O. Kristeller, “The Platonic Academy of Florence,” Renaissance News, 14, 1961, 147–159 ◆ H. Cherniss, Die ältere Akademie, 1966 ◆ P. Merlan, “The Old Academy,” in: The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A.H. Armstrong, 1967, 14–38 ◆ J. Glucker, “Antiochus and the Late Academy,” Hyp. 56, 1978, 233–235 ◆ H.J. Krämer, “Die ältere Akademie,” in: Ueberweg: Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. III, 1983 ◆ W. Görler, “Älterer Pyrrhonismus: Jüngere Akademie Antiochos von Askalon,” in Ueberweg: Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. IV, 1994 ◆ K. Trampedach, Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgenössische Politik, 1994. Thomas Leinkauf

II. Academies of the Arts and Sciences 1. Academies of the Sciences: Function and Organization. Academies of the sciences are associations or societies of scholars established to cultivate the sciences through interdisciplinary discussion of their own research and that of others and to increase scientific knowledge by encouraging, carrying out, and supporting scientific projects. They differ from educational institutions in considering themselves to be devoted solely to research, as institutions where the elite of all fields of scientific endeavor convene. This elitism is reflected in their limited membership and the strict requirements for the election of new members as well as their involvement in scientific

Academy policy and the belief that through their knowledge they assist in solving the scientific and social problems of their time. Most academies of science are organized nationally, although in Germany, for instance, they developed territorially or regionally (an exception being the “Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina” in Halle). In most cases this focus on basic research excludes the more “applied” or “practical” sciences from the canon of disciplines represented by the academy, inasmuch as some of their representatives do not engage solely in pure research. This holds true for fields like theology, law, and economics unless studied philosophically, philologically, or historically, and such domains of the natural sciences as clinical medicine and engineering or technology when the interest in theoretical science is not primary. The tension between the claim to represent the theoretical sciences in their totality and the need for specialized discussion of the results of research has led to the organization of different divisions within the academies of the sciences. As a rule the result has been a division into two equal sections, one for the humanities and one for the natural sciences, although there have also been attempts at further differentiation. The scholarly profile of the academies is defined by their regular members, eminent scholars elected because their research has contributed substantially to the extension of knowledge in their fields. Through the device of “corresponding members” – originally actually expected to present their research to the regular members through correspondence – the academy relates to major scholars throughout the world. Round-table conferences constitute the traditional nucleus of the academy’s work; attendance of the regular members is compulsory. These sessions embody the ideal of “integrated science” through interdisciplinary exchange of ideas and initiatives, in an attempt to preserve at least in principle the unity of the sciences despite the differentiation and almost unimaginable multiplicity of specialized disciplines in this “republic of scholars.” The results of this intellectual exchange are generally published in lecture form in the transactions of the academy. In the 18th century, the prizes awarded by an academy were an important tool for stimulating and guiding scholarly research; today the academies bestow numerous prizes and honors on both scholars of distinction and the coming generation of researchers. Since the end of the 19th century, the academies themselves have become involved in major research projects, often lasting for decades, which can expect ongoing progress over the years only under the aegis of an academy or are so complex that they require the attention of experts from a variety of fields. The German academies are institutions of public law responsible to the states in which they are located, whose

Academy support they receive. The seven German academies are members of the Konferenz der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften headquartered in Mainz, which thus continues the tradition of the “cartel” of the academies established in 1893. It is the function of the conference to coordinate the efforts of the individual academies and oversee common projects, to decide whether to include a proposed project in the program of the academies, and to represent the interests of the academies to the federal government and to the states (especially with regard to common financing). In international representation of the sciences, the conference substitutes to some extent for the nonexistent national academy of Germany. 2. History. The history of the modern scientific academies begins in Renaissance Italy in the 15th century, in centers like Florence, Rome, and Naples. The loose circles of Humanists and scholarly communities that grew up around eminent individual scholars, initially interested primarily in dialogue with classical authors and texts, often enjoyed the support of a princely patron. Here at the beginning of the academy movement we already find a pedagogical interest in scholarly associations as universal educational institutions benefiting “society as a whole.” The first German scholarly society of this sort was the Sodalitas litteraria Rhenania founded by C. → Celtis in Heidelberg in 1495. The first generation of these academies, products of the spirit of → Humanism, came to an end in the polarization created by the religious unrest and intellectual chaos around 1520. The second generation of such academies also originated in Italy; they became the model for the European academy movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. We may single out the Accademia della Crusca founded in Florence in 1584 and the Accademia dei Lincei founded in Rome in 1603, which represent the two basic types of academy: the philological academy or society and the society of natural scientists. The general trend toward institutionalization of the academies under state sponsorship (privilege) was already clear by the second half of the 16th century. Besides an edition of Dante, a central concern of the Accademia della Crusca was publication of an Italian dictionary, which has gone through many editions to the present day. Both projects were intended to refine and purify the mother tongue. With this charge to cultivate the language, perceived as a patriotic national duty, the Florentine academy served as a model for the philological societies of the 17th century, from the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft founded in Weimar in 1617 to the Académie Française. The importance of the Roman academy lay primarily in the systematic introduction of the experimental method (e.g. by → Galileo) into scientific discussion. In Germany cultivation of the natural sciences first became a function of a scholarly society with the establishment of the Societas Ereunetica by J.

26 → Jungius in Rostock in 1622. Not until 1652, however, was there a lasting and effective scientific academy: the Academia Naturae Curiosorum, which received imperial recognition in 1672/1677 and was granted official status as the imperial academy Leopoldina in 1687. In 1670 the Leopoldina made a special contribution to international scientific communication by beginning to publish a periodical, the Miscellanea curiosa sive Ephemerides medico-physicae, the oldest scholarly journal in the world devoted to medicine and the natural sciences. In the 17th century, the future of the academy movement was being pioneered in France and England. In the France of Richelieu and Louis XIV, the Italian model reached full flower. Here around 1635 Marin Mersenne had already proposed an international and interdisciplinary exchange of research results. Instead, through the influence of Richelieu, the Académie Française emerged in 1635 from the circle of literary men around Valentin Conrart; it was devoted totally to promoting absolutist cultural policies. Its scope was exclusively linguistic and literary: to produce a French dictionary and to promote and regulate the national language (e.g. through normative literary criticism). The aura surrounding its 40 members drawn from cultural and political circles, the “immortals,” has made it the most respected and influential scholarly body in France to the present day. Under the direct influence of Colbert were founded the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1661), responsible for archaeology and history, and the Académie des Sciences (1666), a society for natural scientists. By including foreign members, the latter realized something of the idea of international cooperation among the sciences. Since academies were also created for the arts, under Louis XIV almost all the arts and sciences in Paris were organized in academies. In 1795 the scientific academies in Paris were brought under a common roof in the Institut de France, which later came to include the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, founded in 1832. In England F. → Bacon had established the importance of the inductive method for the study of nature. In 1660 one of the important scientific academies of Europe, the Royal Society, was founded as the College for the Promoting of Physicomathematical Experimental Learning. The experiments conducted by its members and by others and their (theoretical) study and explanation were the focus of the Royal Society, although for a short period it also dealt with questions of cultivating and regulating language in England. I. → Newton became a member in 1672. Not until 1901 was a British Academy established in Great Britain, with an eye on the association of the academies. Leibniz was primarily responsible for bringing to Germany the model of the French and English acad-

27 emies, which he also characteristically altered. Leibniz rejected the notion that the work of the academies should be devoted “to simple curiosity or hunger for knowledge and barren experiments”; instead he emphasized the usefulness of the sciences in their combination of theory and practice. The work of the societies combined absolutist and mercantilist ideas with moralistic pedagogical expectations. Leibniz’s significance for the history of the German academies consists primarily in his adoption of the encyclopedic scope of the earlier academies, thus establishing the internal structure of the German academies as societies divided into sections for a variety of specialized subjects, a structure that has endured to this day. The continued existence of the Prussian academy, founded in 1700, was not assured until 1744/1746, when it was reformed after the French model by → Frederick II. During the second half of the 18th century, academies were established in various territories of the empire: the Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1751) in the electorate of Hanover; the Kurmainzische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1754) in Erfurt; the Kurbayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1759) in Munich; the Kurpfälzische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1763) in Mannheim; and finally a Böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1770/1784) in Prague. Alongside the “universal” academies with their divisions for the natural sciences and for historical and philological disciplines there also emerged, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, many societies of a more private and bourgeois cut for individual fields of study. The academies constituted the vanguard of the entire 18th-century evolution of societies. Characteristically the academies – with the exception of Göttingen – were near the seats of rulers. The sciences, like the arts, were incorporated into the program by which the baroque court presented its public face. The academies associated with the court could often develop into important centers of shared scientific research. The scholars enjoyed a substantial measure of academic freedom; in intellectual debate, barriers of class and confession were overcome. The functions of the academies were determined by the needs of the court or the government: study of the past and publication of historical sources in the service of dynastic historiography, study of the natural world to advance agriculture, trade, industry, mining, and hygiene. In spite of these practical goals, however, not rarely was the research performed by the academies innovative for the sciences. The academies were provided with institutes to further their work: libraries, collections (“cabinets”), laboratories, observatories, meteorological stations, etc. In the course of the 18th century, the academy movement spread throughout Europe and reached America. National scientific academies emerged in Bologna (1711), Madrid (1713/1714), St. Petersburg (1724).

Academy Stockholm (1739), Copenhagen (1742), Turin (1757), Brussels (1772), Lisbon (1779), and Dublin (1786). In the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and other English-speaking countries, academies remained a matter for private initiative. The first learned society in what would become the United States was founded by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1743 and was called the American Philosophical Society. The rival American Academy of Arts and Sciences was proposed by John Adams in 1779 and founded in Boston a year later and the National Academy of Sciences was founded in Washington, DC, in 1863. In Europe, the end of the ancien régime was also an existential crisis for the academies; many folded (e.g. Mannheim) or temporarily shut their doors. Fundamental reforms based on the Paris model (e.g. Munich in 1807) were needed to keep the academies viable as scientific institutions. In Germany the reorganization of the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften between 1812 and 1838, under the leadership of such figures as W. and A. von → Humboldt, Barthold Georg Niebuhr, and F. → Schleiermacher, pointed the way. The academies took on a new identity as places of pure scientific research (“the last and highest sanctuary of the sciences and the corporate body most independent of the state”), alongside and in cooperation with the universities, which were more focused on the needs of the state. The academies were forced to accept a diminution of their importance as research centers when they had to entrust most of their institutes to the care of the universities. The viability of the academy idea was demonstrated by the establishment of a whole series of new academies, e.g. Leipzig (1846) and Vienna (1847), where all 18th-century attempts to establish an academy had failed. In the Wilhelminian era, which put great faith in science and progress, yet another academy was founded at Heidelberg (1909). Internationally the network was strengthened by the foundation of many new national or regional academies – in Amsterdam (1808), Geneva (1815), Budapest (1825), Rome (Pontifical Academy 1847), Washington (1863), Agram (Zagreb) (1866), Wellington (1867), Cracow (1872), Buenos Aires (1874), Cape Town (1877), Tokyo (1879), and Belgrade (1886) –, but Europe remained the center of the academy movement. In the 19th century, massive editorial projects became increasingly important. The organization of this largescale research led to the establishment of national (1893) and international (1899) associations of academies. At the same time, though, many national scientific associations were organized, as well as large-scale research institutes for the various natural sciences and technologies, separate and independent of the academies, whose importance and scope they diminished. Thus the importance

Academy of the academies in shaping scientific policy shifted to a (mediating) role in the development of transregional and international cooperation in the sciences and to largescale projects in the humanities. The outbreak of World War I destroyed the international perspective of scientific cooperation, since the academies, especially in Germany and France, were in the forefront of scholarship contributing to the war effort. At the end of World War II, when international scientific relations were restored, the mistakes of 1919 were not repeated. Nevertheless development proceeded along different lines in East and West Germany. New forms of cooperation between the academies developed especially in Spanish-speaking and socialist countries. In South America and the Philippines 20 language academies had arisen by 1931, and in 1952 they joined together in Mexico in the “Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española”. As the highest scholarly institutions in their countries, since 1962 the Academies of Science in the socialist countries have developed special forms of international cooperation so as to be able to research fundamental problems in the natural and social sciences together and to work towards “socialist reconstruction.” In the United States, in the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, the structure according to class was relinquished in favor of a section-based division. Other institutions are closely associated with the Academy, such as the National Academy of Engineering (1964) and the Institute of Medicine (1970). The National Research Council, founded by the Academy as early as 1916, has developed as the most important working instrument of the Academy. 3. Academies of the Arts. The history of the academies of the arts since the 17th century runs parallel to that of the academies of the sciences. Often the two types were combined, for until the end of the 18th century little fundamental distinction was made between writers, artists, and scientists. On the French model, the belles-lettres were often integrated into the structure of the academies of the sciences. The academies of the arts owe their existence to the need of princes for self-presentation through art. But the princely sponsors also placed great store in the academies’ immediate value (not least economic) as training schools for the next generation of artists and the development of norms. The academies of the arts also thought of themselves as institutions bringing together the elites of their various forms – music, literature, the fine arts, architecture. Even today we occasionally still find hybrid academies of the arts and sciences such as the Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts in Brussels and the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. In the Institut de France, the fine arts constitute an academy on an equal footing with the scientific institutions.

28 The end of the ancien régime necessarily also spelled the end of the art academies oriented to meet the needs of court and aristocracy. During the 19th century, sections for music were integrated into many academies; at the same time many academies evolved into colleges (academies of art and music). In the 20th century a change began, entailing in some instances a loss of importance for Academies of the Arts, in particular as centers of artistic education. The educational courses of the Paris École des Beaux-Arts were reformed only after the violent student protests of 1968. A conservative character was also evident in some academies in their attitudes to modern art, as in the case of Sir Alfred Munnings, President of the Royal Academy in London, in 1949. Many academies of art are now making their name by means of their archives and collections as well as their exhibitions. A. von Harnack, Geschichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 3 vols., 1900 ◆ W. His, Zur Vorgeschichte des deutschen Kartells und der internationalen Association der Akademien, 1902 ◆ A. von Harnack, “Vom Großbetrieb der Wissenschaft,” PrJ 119, 1905, 193–201 ◆ A. von Harnack, “Die Akademien der Wissenschaften,” in: Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft, F. Milkau, ed., vol. I, 1931, 850–876 ◆ R. Meister, Geschichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 1847–1947, 1947 ◆ A. Kraus, Vernunft und Geschichte: die Bedeutung der deutschen Akademien für die Entwicklung der Geschichtswissenschaft im späten 18. Jahrhundert, 1963 ◆ B. Schroeder-Gudehus, Deutsche Wissenschaft und internationale Zusammenarbeit 1914–1928, 1966 ◆ M. Purver, The Royal Society, 1967 ◆ R. Hahn, The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: the Paris Academy of Science 1666–1803, 1971 ◆ N. Pevsner, Academies of Art, Past and Present, 21973 ◆ Die Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Zeit des Imperialismus, 3 vols., 1975–1979 ◆ Wissenschaftspolitik in Mittel- und Osteuropa: Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaften, Akademien und Hochschulen im 18. und beginnenden 19. Jahrhundert, ed. E. Amburger et al., 1976 ◆ Der Akademiegedanke im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert., ed. F. Hartmann et al., 1977 ◆ R. Landrock, Die Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1945–1971: ihre Umwandlung zur sozialistischen Forschungsakademie, 3 vols., 1977 ◆ U. Imhof, Das gesellige Jahrhundert: Gesellschaft und Gesellschaften im Zeitalter der Aufklärung, 1982 ◆ L. Hammermayer, Geschichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1759–1807, 2 vols., 1983 ◆ B. von Brocke, “Wissenschaft und Militarismus: der Aufruf der 93 ‘An die Kulturwelt!’ und der Zusammenbruch der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik im Ersten Weltkrieg,” in: Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren, ed. W.M. Calder et al., 1985, 649– 719 ◆ L. Hammermayer, M. Stoermer & F. Letzelter, StL7 1985, 66–72 ◆ J.-P. Caput, L’Académie Française, 1986 ◆ R. von Dülmen, Die Gesellschaft der Aufklärer, 1986; ET: The Society of the Enlightenment, 1992 ◆ G. Kanthak, Der Akademiegedanke zwischen utopischem Entwurf und barocker Projektmacherei, 1987 ◆ C. Grau, Berühmte Wissenschaftsakademien, 1988 ◆ Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft: Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, ed. R. Vierhaus et al., 1990 ◆ R. Vierhaus, “Akademie und Universität,” JAWG 1989, 1990, 90–101 ◆ L. Hammermayer, “Freie Gelehrtenassoziation oder Staatsanstalt? Zur Geschichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Zeit der Spätaufklärung und Reform (1787–1807),” ZBLG 54, 1991, 159–202 ◆ C. Grau, Die Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1993 ◆ R. Mayntz & H.-G. Wolf, Deutsche Forschung im Einigungsprozeß, 1994 ◆ B. Parthier, Die Leopoldina, 1994 ◆ U. Wennemuth, Wissenschaftsorganisation und Wissenschaftsförderung in Baden: die Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 1909–1949, 1994 ◆ Die

29

Accommodation

Elite der Nation im Dritten Reich: das Verhältnis von Akademien und ihrem wissenschaftlichen Umfeld zum Nationalsozialismus, 1995 ◆ Europäische Sozietätsbewegung und demokratische Tradition, ed. K. Garber et al., 2 vols., 1996 ◆ E. Lea & G. Wiemers, Planung und Entstehung der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig 1704–1846, 1996 ◆ “Die Kunst hat nie ein Mensch allein besessen”: dreihundert Jahre Akademie der Künste und Hochschule der Künste, 1996 ◆ Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung, Das Akademieprogramm, 1996 ◆ A. Schindling, Bildung und Wissenschaft in der frühen Neuzeit 1650–1800, 21999. Udo Wennemuth

Accident → Substance and Accident Acclamation. A liturgical term used to refer to (sometimes spontaneous) responses of people in the congregation to an announcement, a reading or a prayer. These include such occasions as acclaiming candidates for ordination as “worthy,” ratifying the election of a bishop, and permitting the consecration of an abbot, or the coronation of a pope. In recent years, the term has referred especially to congregational responses during the Eucharistic prayer. Such refrains, which have a long tradition, punctuate the Eucharistic prayer with phrases such as “Remember, Lord . . .” A variety of such acclamations are used in recent liturgical texts besides the ancient → Sanctus. Perhaps most widely used ecumenically is the memorial of Christ: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” A. Hänggi & I. Pahl, eds., Prex Eucharistica, 1968 (bibl.) ◆ R.C. Jasper & G.J. Cuming, eds., Prayers of the Eucharist, 1987. James F. White

Accommodation I. Dogmatics, Fundamental Theology – II. Missiology

I. Dogmatics, Fundamental Theology The term “accommodation” (from Latin accommodatio, “accommodation, adaptation”) originated in classical → rhetoric (I); it denotes the adaptation of an object to its environment – in → rhetoric (II), the adaptation of linguistic expression to its subject matter, purpose, and audience. In Christian rhetoric, it took on a deeper theological meaning. → Augustine interprets the analogies of the Creator in nature as divine eloquence (CSEL 34, 184f ). → Hilary of Poitiers had already spoken previously of God’s accommodation to the weakness of the human intellect (CCL 62, 91). From here we may trace a connection with the theories of accommodation developed in the theological controversies of the 16th through 19th centuries. Matthias → Flacius calls God’s use of human language as a medium of revelation an instance of divine accommodation. J.A. → Quenstedt explains the grammatical and stylistic differences between the books of the Bible as an accommodation of the Holy Spirit to the language and style of the individual authors. For exponents

of the burgeoning natural sciences like J. → Kepler and → Galileo, however, it was the biblical authors themselves who employed accommodation (anthropomorphisms, etc.). The notion of accommodation reached full flower in J.S. → Semler, a theologian of the Enlightenment who maintained that the biblical authors used accommodation as a “condescension to the toleration of erroneous ideas held by ignorant Christians” (Versuch einer biblischen Dämonologie, 1776, 346), which the advance of education would make unnecessary. The resulting controversy over accommodation peaked toward the end of the 18th century. Between Protestant orthodoxy and rationalistic biblical criticism stood the accommodation theory of J.G. → Hamann; drawing on incarnational theology, it interprets the growth of the Bible as an indulgence on the part of God and uses “accommodation” synonymously with “condescension.” Lutheran theology of the 19th century used the related concept of kenosis. The discussion of accommodation by Enlightenment theologians, however, continued on in the debate over demythologization initiated by R. → Bultmann. F. Blanke, Hamann-Studien, SDGSTh 10, 1956 ◆ K. Gründer, Figur und Geschichte, 1958 ◆ G. Hornig, Die Anfänge der historischkritischen Theologie, FSThR 8, 1961 ◆ K. Scholder, Ursprünge und Probleme der Bibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert, FGLP 10/33, 1966 ◆ H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, 31990; ET: Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, 1998. Ulrich H.J. Körtner

II. Missiology In the theology of missions, “accommodation” means adjustment (and adaptation) of the gospel to the particular culture in which it is proclaimed. The gospel is likened to the kernel of a nut, which can be ensheathed in a new culture once the old cultural shell has been removed. Metaphors of clothing and vegetation are also common: the gospel is clothed in new garments or planted in new soil. The basic problem goes back to the beginnings of the Christian faith. Jesus, born a Jew, was the founder of a renewal movement within Judaism. As it spread, the gospel moved beyond the cultural boundaries of the Greek, Roman, and Germanic world. In the modern era, attendant on → colonialism and imperialism, Christianity became globalized. Accommodation was a missionary necessity, debated, for example, in the → rites or accommodation controversy. Missiological theory first began in the 20th century. Catholic theology in particular employed the term “accommodation,” which received its classic expression in the work of T. → Ohm in the triad “accommodation – assimilation – transformation.” Like the preferred Protestant term “→ indigenization,” “accommodation” implies a static view of the relationship between gospel and culture. With → Vatican II, a dynamic understanding of cultural contact began to prevail, which found expression in the model of → inculturation. Within

Acculturation

30

the sphere of the → World Council of Churches, the parallel concept of contextualization (→ Contextual Theology: II) was developed, which provides a common term covering the inculturation and liberation theologies of the socalled Third World. Evangelical circles prefer translation models (Kraft), a modern variant of accommodation. In the Christian art of the third world, accommodation can denote the representation of Christian subject matter in a traditional style; inculturated or contextual art, on the other hand, represents iconological innovation. In missionary history, accommodation has usually marked the beginnings of cultural contact; as the story continues, the gospel, which can be mediated only in a particular cultural setting, takes on a new contextual form. C.H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 1979 ◆ F. Kollbrunner, “Die klassische Theorie: Akkommodation,” NZM.S 37, 1990, 133– 141 (bibl.) ◆ V. Küster, “Theologie im Kontext,” SIM 62, 1995, 18–52 ◆ idem, “Images of Christ from Africa and Asia,” MisSt 12, 1995, 95–112. Volker Küster

Acculturation → Inculturation Acedia (Gk. ἀκηδία/akēdia) originally meant “indifference, apathy.” From the fourth century on, monastic spirituality used the term to denote the fundamental temptation of a monk: spiritual surfeit that finds expression in melancholy and inward desolation. → Athanasius was the first to associate acedia with the “noonday demon” (Ps 91:6). The classic description of acedia is that of → Evagrius Ponticus, who lists it among the eight evil “thoughts” (logismoi). → Cassian transmitted to western spirituality Evagrius’s schema of eight vices and hence the characterization of acedia as a vitium. → Gregory I, who counts only seven vitia principalia, subsumes acedia under tristitia (sorrow). → Hugo of St. Victor and → Peter Lombard restored acedia to the catalog of vices. In the Middle Ages, the spiritual experience of acedia was interpreted as tristitia de spirituali bono (→ Thomas Aquinas); from the 13th century on, moral instruction also understood it as laziness and sloth. In the late Middle Ages, acedia was also interpreted as melancholy (F → Petrarca). G. Bunge, Akedia, 41995.

Josef Weismayer

Achelis 1. Ernst Christian ( Jan 13, 1838, Bremen – Apr 10, 1912, Marburg). Studied theology in Heidelberg (1857–1859) and Halle (1860); served as a Reformed curate in Arsten and pastor in Hastedt (1862) and Wuppertal-Unterbarmen (1875); 1882–1911 as professor of practical theology at Marburg. Achelis first made his mark as a biblical homiletician and as an advocate of a moderate accommodation of historical Christianity to modern culture. His magnificent encyclopedic treatment of practical theology laid a

foundation that to this day remains unsurpassed “in historical comprehensiveness and pedagogical consistency” (Doerne 401). He believed that a historical approach to practical theology provided the basis for theological discrimination that could effectively restrain the appetite for arbitrary subjectivity. Achelis understood practical theology as “the study of how the church must work for its own edification . . . using the means provided by God in his Word and his Spirit” (Praktische Theologie, 25), a theological discipline more analytic and critical than programmatic. Works include: Praktische Theologie, 2 vols., 1890/91 (3 vols., 31911) ◆ Grundriss der Praktischen Theologie, 1893, 61912 ◆ On Achelis: M. Doerne, “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der praktischen Theologie,” in G. Krause, ed., Praktische Theologie, 1972, 400–417 ◆ G. Krause, TRE I, 1977, 399–402. Volker Drehsen

2. Hans (Mar 13, 1865, Hastedt – Feb 25, 1937, Leipzig), son of 1.; church historian and archaeologist. Following his doctorate (1887) and habilitation (1893), he served as professor at Königsberg (1901), Halle (1907), and Bonn (1913); in 1918, he succeeded A. → Hauck at Leipzig. Introduced to the study of early church history by A. → Harnack, he studied the manifestations of the church’s life in the cult of the saints, ecclesiastical law, the penitential system, and above all in Christian art, especially in the catacombs of Rome and Naples. A. Alt, “Nachruf auf Hans Achelis,” BVSAW.PH 90, 1938; 3, 1939 ◆ E. Schäfer, NDB I, 29f. Christoph Bizer

Achievement I. Ethics – II. Education – III. Practical Theology

I. Ethics With regard to processes in general, “achievement” refers to their efficacy. Ethics, however, speaks of achievement only with regard to actions (→ Action: III) – and not actions in general, but only actions that are ethically justified. This is possible only when two conditions are met. First: It must be possible to distinguish the ethically justified actions from others. A criterion is required for the moral quality of actions. This means: actions are moral when they do not go against the predetermined purpose of the individual but contribute to its attainment. This criterion is applicable only to the extent that it is generally and publicly accepted. Second: There must be a sufficiently clear and sophisticated criterion for the technical goodness of an action whose performance turns a morally justified action into an achievement. Put in general terms: the action achieves its intended end by means whose quality is determined in advance. But this criterion can be applicable only if it takes into account the difference of various types of end inherent in the nature of the situation and the systematic variability of the qualities required of the means. Ends are either prod-

31 ucts (to be achieved through poiesis) or situations (to be achieved through praxis [→ Praxis and Poiesis]), and they can be determined by sufficiency (e.g. a dam) or simply necessity (e.g. a Christian congregation). The prescribed nature of the means can be minimized with respect to the definition of the end (“Achieve this end, no matter how”), the end can be downplayed with respect to the nature of the means (“Use these means, regardless of the outcome”), or certain conditions can be imposed on the means leading to the end (e.g. “Achieve this end at minimal cost”); a prescription of this latter kind presupposes in turn a definition of the term “cost.” This technical criterion of goodness, too, can be used publicly only when it has been generally agreed to. Ethics will work toward situations in which the given conditions for judging morally justified actions to be “achievements” are possible. If these conditions are not fulfilled, however, ethics can judge the assessment of actions as “achievements” only as a mode of acting that cannot be justified ethically per se, because it cultivates an approach to action that does not respect its nature. – The ethical → judgment (II) that an action is an “achievement” belongs to the theory of goods (→ Goods, Ethics of ). This judgment must be distinguished from judgment concerning the capability of the actants, which belongs to the theory of virtue (→ Virtues). An actant is said to be capable in the broader sense if s/he is able to effect a particular achievement, in the narrower sense if s/he is both able and willing to effect it continually. Only capability in the narrower sense may be considered a virtue. It presupposes participation in the public agreement concerning the explicit moral and technical criteria of the good used in judging actions and their acceptance by the actants. A. Gehlen et al., Sinn und Unsinn des Leistungsprinzips, 1974 ◆ W. Blankenburg, “Leistungsprinzip,” HWP 5, 1980, 220–225 ◆ B. Joerges, ibid., 215–220 ◆ E. Herms, “ ‘Leistung’ in Kirche und Diakonie,” in: Arbeitskreis Evangelischer Unternehmer in Deutschland, ed., Personalführung und Personalentwicklung in Wirtschaft, Kirche und Diakonie, 1997, 43–73. Eilert Herms

II. Education Achievement has an anthropological root in the human need and ability to learn: children and adults enjoy acquiring new competencies (→ Competence). “Reinforcement” is therefore the most important pedagogical function (F. → Schleiermacher). Encouragement must precede accountability. In addition, the principle of achievement embodies the modern ideal of → equality. “Each according to his achievement: in a social world still largely defined by boundaries of class and guild, that had to be a liberating, indeed a revolutionary demand” (Dreitzel, 34). This aspect, too, is still fundamentally valid. On the downside, achievement has become subject to the constraints

Achievement of efficiency and social advancement. Society based on achievement has replaced society based on class. The unification of the criteria for academic promotion since the 19th century (Furck) and the linkage of the educational system with the employment system are the most striking (and ambivalent) effects. The measurement of achievement that makes the most pedagogical sense would be “individual,” measuring an individual’s effort and personal academic progress relative to prior achievement. The principle of equality, however, demands “criterial” measurement according to standards that are the same for all. Unfortunately even today we still find “collective measurement,” which takes as its criterion the changing average achievement of a group in comparison with others. It does the most to fuel competitive jealousy and means that some are always losers. It can be argued that school must prepare students realistically for the competitive world. Educators, however, point out that children do not cease to be persons in their role as students. Children with learning disabilities furnish an especially telling example. Education must tame and restrict the unbridled ideal of achievement, inculcating → solidarity with and → responsibility toward others. C.-L. Furck, Das Problem der Leistung in der Schule, 1961, 51975 ◆ H.-P. Dreitzel, “Soziologische Reflexionen über das Elend des Leistungsprinzips,” in: Sinn und Unsinn des Leistungsprinzips, mit Beiträgen von A. Gehlen et al., 1974, 31–53 ◆ H.-K. Beckmann, ed., Leistung in der Schule, 1978 ◆ K. Ingenkamp, “Leistungsbeurteilung – Leistungsversagen,” Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft, ed. D. Lenzen, vol. VIII, 1995, 495–500. Karl Ernst Nipkow

III. Practical Theology Practical theology deals with the nature and work of the actual church and, overlapping with Christian ethics (see I above), the ethically responsible conduct of Christians in society. Ecclesiastical practice is guided by theological analysis. Endowments and abilities necessary for achievement are interpreted as “gifts of God.” What God has entrusted to the individual is to be used responsibly for the benefit of others. There are no Christian grounds for a fundamental rejection of achievement. The interpretive framework just cited places God at the center and relativizes human purposes. This fundamental complementary self-limitation of individuals and their “works” with respect to their “salvation” (cf. the doctrine of → justification) includes their achievements as well. Christianity also prohibits idolizing achievement. In practice, the two principles taken together define an ecclesiastical praxis that must constantly scrutinize demands for achievement to determine which are justified and which are not. Praxis cannot be regulated a priori by abstract → norms. Christian faith must be demonstrated in a → love for God’s creation that acts in a way that is situationally appropriate, thoughtful, and creative. “→ Good

Achzib works” are the grateful response to what one has received from God – an expression of salvation, not its condition. In the history of the church, the dynamic of love has created a culture of → mercy. Today, contemporaries find Christian service in imitation of Christ to be the most convincing form of ecclesiastical praxis that is not dominated by the principle of achievement but nevertheless does not reject individual effort and achievement (see II above on “effort-oriented” achievement). As a social institution and an employer, the church is involved in the achievement-oriented conventions of society. In the educational system, this is manifested in a grading system for religious instruction that emphasizes promotion, as well as in all the church’s training programs and employment practices. It is good if the church can succeed in preserving its own self-understanding under the same social conditions that apply to others (Nipkow). At the same time, the church must advocate spheres of life that are fundamentally free of the need to achieve. A fulfilled life does not depend on achievement. → Meaning must be received before it can be achieved (Gollwitzer). H. Gollwitzer, Krummes Holz – aufrechter Gang: Zur Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens, 1970 ◆ K.E. Nipkow, Religionsunterricht in der Leistungsschule, 1979. Karl Ernst Nipkow

Achzib, called Casal Imbert by the Crusaders, is situated on the Mediterranean coast 9 miles (14 km) north of → Akko. As a strategically located city on the Way of the Sea, it controlled access to the so-called Ladder of Tyre. Achzib was settled from the Middle Bronze period (c. 2000 bce) to the time of the Crusades. The characteristic “Sea People” pottery and weapons from around 1150 bce are probably associated with the destruction of the fortifications at the end of the Late Bronze period. Achzib, which the Israelite tribe of Asher (→ Tribes of Israel) failed to capture ( Judg 1:31; cf. Josh 19:29), was a Phoenician city during its prime, from the 11th to the 6th century. Local proper names like “Adoni-Milk” and “Zakar-Milk” reflect the Tyrian cult of the divine “king” Milk. In the talmudic period, Achzib had a Jewish community and a synagogue (t.Ter. 2, 13). M. Avi-Yonah, EJ II, 1971, 313–314 ◆ B. Delavault & A. Lemaire, RSF 7, 1979, 3–5 ◆ M.W. Prausnitz & E. Mazar, NEAEHL I, 1993, 32–36 ◆ E. Mazar, “. . .   1 ” Qad 27, 1994, 29–34. E. Lipiński

Acknowledgement and Recognition I. Philosophy – II. Dogmatics and Ethics

I. Philosophy The concept of “acknowledgment” (German: Anerkennung) has always played an essential role in practical philosophy. Thus, in ancient ethics the conviction pre-

32 vailed that a good life could be led only by those persons whose behavior could find social esteem in the polis. The Scottish moral philosophers took their lead from the idea that public acknowledgment or disapproval represents the social mechanism by which the individual is held to the attainment of the desired virtues. For → Kant the categorical imperative is tied to the requirement to treat every other person only as a purpose in his or her own right, and thus to acknowledge him or her. Yet, → Hegel first gave the concept systematic application and made it the normative central category of his practical philosophy by linking to → Fichte’s considerations in his famed Foundations of Natural Law, though he accorded them an essentially greater significance. While Fichte started from the idea that the individual subject’s consciousness of law was due to the experience of acknowledgment by a counterpart, Hegel generalized this thesis into the claim that the constitution of self-consciousness as a whole is attributed to the experience of various forms of acknowledgment. There are three kinds of knowledge that Hegel begins to distinguish in this way very early on, and that he even maintains when, in his later legal philosophy, the theoretical framework of his argument is significantly altered. Love, as well as legal relationships, and finally relationships of citizens with one another should be understood as various forms of reciprocal acknowledgement corresponding to various types of moral duties. This gives rise to a series of impulses which can again be fruitful today for a moral theory that takes its point of departure from the normative conditions of human inter-subjectivity. L. Siep, Anerkennung als Prinzip der praktischen Philosophie, 1979 ◆ A. Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung, 1992; ET: The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, 1996. Axel Honneth

II. Dogmatics and Ethics In dogmatics, acknowledgment belongs to the concept of faith → Thomas Aquinas described as follows: “movetur . . . intellectus ad assentiendum his quae sunt fidei, ex imperio voluntatis” (Summa Theologiae I–II q.56 a.3). Thereby, faith becomes voluntary acknowledgment of true propositions; in relation, the moment of trust remains subordinate. In contrast, Luther identified fide with fiducia in order to limit an intellectualization of faith and an understanding of it as a human effort, and to describe it as a pure reception of divine grace. In principle, Melanchthon held to this position, but, in response to Catholic objections, integrated the moments of recognition and agreement into the concept of faith, although in relation at first to God’s promises, not to doctrinal propositions (Loci 1535, CR 21,422). Later, he approached the Catholic concept of faith

33 when he defined it as “Fiducia est motus in voluntate, necessario respondens assensione,” and he included in acknowledgment “omnium articulorum notitia” (Loci 1559, CR 21,751). Even though, as with Calvin (Inst. 1559, III 2.6, cf. 2.5), defense against the fides implicita is primarily in view, he had nonetheless thereby prepared for the orthodox concept of faith. While the FC still defined faith as fiducia atque agnitio divinae gratiae (SD IV, BSLK 941,12) and had previously described it as donum Dei (SD III, BSLK 917f. 11), all of orthodoxy placed within the concept of faith the intellectual moments of notitia and assenus before fiducia as its precondition (e.g. J. → Gerhard, Loci XVI, 67, ed. Frank, 1885, vol. III, 350). – After the difficulties in this concept of faith had become self-evident in the Enlightenment, → Schleiermacher differentiated religion or faith from every form of knowledge and volition and defined it as participation, imparted by grace, in Jesus’ consciousness of God (The Christian Faith, ET new ed. 1999, §108; cf. §3). With this, he defined all of free Protestant theology in the 19th century. Thus, A. → Ritschl expressly contrasted faith as confidence with the “acknowledgment of the correctness of communicated facts” and the “acceptance of truth propositions” (Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 31888, 97), and W. → Herrmann saw in the concept of faith as acknowledgement of doctrinal propositions an intellectual legalism (“Die Lage und Aufgabe der evangelischen Dogmatik,” in ThB 36/II, 16). In his return to the “objectivity” of faith, K. → Barth defined it as “acknowledgment, recognition, and confession” (KD IV/1, 839, 847) in relationship to the lordship of Jesus Christ (849f.). Acknowledgment is a person’s free obedience. Others, such as Gerhard Ebeling, insist, following Luther and Schleiermacher, on a more stringent distinction between faith as the gift of relationship with God and reflection about faith (Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens, 1979, vol. I, 80–89, 106f.). In ethics one can distinguish between heteronomous commandment ethics, which requires obedience, and autonomous or theonomous deontological ethics, in which the issue is the acknowledgment of duties or also of norms or values; in the case of norms as variable entities, acknowledgment itself establishes their factual validity (Honecker, 219, 222). The precondition of a deontological ethics is the acknowledgment of the equality of all people before the ethical requirement. W. Korff, Norm und Sittlichkeit (1973) 1985 ◆ E. Gössmann & R. Slenczka, “Glaube V/VI,” TRE XIII, 1984, 308–365 ◆ M. Honecker, Einführung in die theologische Ethik, 1990. Dietz Lange

Acoemetae (Gk. ἀκοίμητοι, “the sleepless”) was the designation of a Byzantine monastic community

Acontius, Jacobus in Late Antiquity consisting of Greeks, Romans, and Syrians (originally also Copts), which came after 404 with its founder, Alexander (355–430), from Syria to Constantinople and lived, until its condemnation as → Messalian in 426/27, in the monastery of St. Menas. With the assistance of Patriarch Hypatios, the community continued to exist nonetheless, finally to experience its zenith under Marcellus (c. 448–484) in the Eirenaion monastery on the Bosporus; their good fortunes ended with renewed condemnation as Nestorians (→ Nestorian Controversy) in 534. Until c. 1204, only individual Acoemetae are known. The uniqueness of the Acoemetae was that choirs alternated in praising God in three languages, day and night. Despite their enormous influence on their contemporaries, their spiritual significance can only be appreciated indirectly, for example via the → Studites. Callinicos, Vie d’Hypatios, ed. G.J.M. Bartelink, SC 177, 1971 ◆ G. Dagron, “Les Moines et la ville,” TMCB 4, 1970, 229–276, esp. 235–237 ◆ A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient II, 1960, 185–192. Susanna Elm

Acolyte. Section 65 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (41975) describes the primary function of an acolyte (Gk. ἀκολουθέω/akoloutheō, “accompany”; original function to accompany the bishop): “The acolyte is instituted to serve at the altar and to assist the priest and deacon.” “In particular it is for him. . . as a special minister of the eucharist, to give communion to the faithful.” Paragraph 70 emphasizes that “laymen, even if they have not received institution as ministers, may perform all the functions below those reserved to deacons.” The motu proprio Ministeria quaedam (May 15, 1972) emphasizes that the ministry of acolytes is based on the common priesthood of all the baptized. Institution of acolytes in the setting of a liturgical observance is provided for but not required. The presence of an acolyte is particularly important when the chalice is administered (→ Eucharist/Communion). F. Nikolasch, “Die Neuordnung der kirchlichen Dienste,” LJ 22, 1972, 169–182 ◆ G. Duffrer, “Ein geglücktes Experiment,” Gottesdienst 7, 1973, 137–140. Franz Nikolasch

Acontius, Jacobus (Giacomo; before 1515, Ossana, Val di Sole, or Trient – 1566/67, presumably London). After studying law and a period as notary (attested 1540 in Ossana and 1548 in Trient), Acontius entered the service of Count Giovanni Francesco Landriano and Cardinal C. → Madruzzo from 1549 to 1557. Because of his Protestant convictions, he fled in 1557 to Basel and Zurich, where he made the acquaintance of B. → Ochino, C.S. → Curione, and perhaps S. → Castellio. Thereafter, he moved to Strasbourg and in 1559 on to England, where he was active as a fortification engineer. Here Acontius

Acosta, José de was a proponent of tolerance toward the → Baptists, for example, which brought him an only partially effective excommunication by bishop E. → Grindal. Acontius, whose writings have not all been preserved, composed – in addition to a logical method, an introduction to reading histories, and a treatise concerning city fortifications – many religious tractates, of which the “Satanae Stratagemata” (Basel 1565) was the most important. In it, with the aid of a biblically-based reduction of dogma, he grounded toleration for religiously divergent groups on a few fundamental articles essential for salvation and the plea for tolerance toward those who do not violate these dogmas, and warned against the execution of heretics by the secular authorities. His ideas, important for the history of → tolerance and intolerance, were influential primarily in England and the Netherlands. D. Cantimori, DBI I, 1960, 154–159 ◆ E. Hassinger, TRE I, 1977, 402–407 ◆ VD16 1, 1983, 27–28 ◆ L. Girard, “L’itinéraire intellectuel de Giacomo Aconcio,” RSPhTh 67, 1983, 531–552 ◆ D. Gutzen, Die deutsche Literatur. Biographisches und bibliographisches Lexikon II, 1, 1991, 99–110 ◆ A.G. Kinder, “Jacobus Acontius,” BiDi 16, 1994, 55–117. Heribert Smolinsky

Acosta, José de (Oct 9, 1540, Medina del Campo – Feb 5, 1600, Salamanca) entered the order of the → Jesuits in 1552, and went as a missionary to → Peru, in 1572 was provincial there (1576–1581), and participated as theologian in the 3rd Council of Lima in 1582 (→ Lima, Provincial Councils); he was the co-author of a trilingual catechism. In 1587, he returned to Spain via Mexico, was active there and in Rome in diplomacy and writing, and died as rector of the college of Salamanca. His accomplishments include the organization of the mission in Peru, an influential theory of mission (De procuranda Indorum salute, 1588, in 2 vols. 1984/87), as well as a description of America’s natural and cultural history (Historia natural y moral de las Indias, 1591, repr. 1979). Works include: Obras, ed. F. Mateos, 1954 ◆ Bibl.: L. Lopetegui, El Padre José de Acosta y las misiones, 1942 ◆ M. Sievernich, “Vision und Mission der Neuen Welt Amerika bei José de Acosta,” in Ignatianisch, ed. M. Sievernich & G. Switek, 1990, 293–313. Michael Sievernich

Acquoy, Johannes Gerhardus Rijk ( Jan 3, 1829, Amsterdam – Dec 15, 1896, Leiden). Theological studies in Amsterdam 1850; doctorate Leiden, 1857. Teacher of Hebrew at Amsterdam grammar school, 1854–1857. Pastor in Eerbeek, Koog aan de Zaan, and Zaltbommel. Church professor of church history and practical theology at Leiden from 1878. University professor of church history and historical theology, 1881–1896. Acquoy is important not only for church history but also for hymnology. His publications dealt with medieval sacred song, the melodies of the Geneva Psalter, and the discovery of five important 16th-century Dutch hym-

34 nals. He was one of the most significant defenders of the introduction of rhythm in congregational singing. Works include: “Gerardi Magni epistolae XIV,” diss., 1857 ◆ Het klooster te Windesheim en zijne invloed, 1875–1880. Jan R. Luth

Acrostic. Word, name, clause, or alphabet consisting of the initial letters (syllables, words) of sequential verses or strophes of a poem. Acrostics have Eastern roots (for instance Hymnos Akathistos, including the alphabetic acrostics in the OT and in Latin hymns). They originally had magical, mnemonic and protective significance. They were a literary art form in the Middle Ages and in the Baroque period, also in hymns; for example, EG 523 (names of authors), 525 (commemorative names), 70, 147, 367 (dedicatory initials), 242, 361, 402 (proverb, motto). A. Kadelbach, “Das Akrostichon im Kirchenlied: Typologie und Deutungsansätze,” JLH 36, 1996/97, 175–207. Ada Kadelbach

Act and Potency I. Philosophy – II. Philosophy of Religion

I. Philosophy Act and potency (actus, realization, reality – potentia, predisposition, possibility), one of the pairs of concepts introduced by → Aristotle. It is intended to do justice to the circumstance that not only that which actually exists belongs to the category of being as a whole, but also the sphere of tendencies, dispositions, and capacities that relate to something which is itself not or not yet a reality, but which may become one. The distinction between what is real and what is only potential and thus the assumption of a region lying between being and non-being belongs to the irreducible constants of human orientation in the world; many, perhaps all, of the natural languages take it into account, often through modal auxiliary verbs and structural elements such as conjunctives and optatives, but also through adverbs, verbal adjectives, and particles. The concept-pair actuality and potentiality (A&P) permits the thematization of such structures; at the same time, it offers a framework for the conceptual comprehension of movements, changes, and actions that one usually experiences as irreversible in the everyday human world and therefore interprets in a teleonomous way, i.e. from the perspective of their results. The logical concept of possibility does not fall under the semantic range of the A&P concept pair; it applies to anything that is unobjectionably conceivable. Aristotle developed the doctrine of A&P in the Metaphysics (Book IX). The concept of potentiality in the broader sense designates a natural or acquired capacity to produce or experience alterations. It effects

35 the transition to action when it becomes active or when a corresponding activity affects it. Unreasonable potentialities always operate in one direction only, as does the fire which can only warm but never cool; rational potentialities are assigned alternatives such as, for example, the art of healing which can bring about health, but, in principle, also illness. – A narrower sense of A&P does not relate to activities and changes, but to modes of being; it permits the distinction between what really is and what is potential: At first, the real statue potentially exists in the block of marble from which it is carved. Both in a logical and a chronological perspective, that which really exists takes presedence over that which potentially exists, as only the direct observation of an act allows one to determine what something may potentially become, and because there must already exist something real in order to transform potential existence into reality. In this sense, the contrast between A&P determines everything which is finite and subject to movement. Because the material of an object is potentially what can be made from it, the concepts of form and material are analogous to the conceptual pair A&P. At first, the Aristotelian doctrine of A&P had rather modest consequences in the philosophy of antiquity. → Neoplatonism was the first to take it up again, albeit in an altered form. → Plotinus dedicated a monograph (Enneade II 5) to the concept-pair. He gave precedence to potentiality by characterizing oneness as the highest principle in terms of a pure potentiality that represents the origin and possibility of everything. Its realization, by contrast, was attributed by him to the secondary level of the spirit. A long-enduring effective history is associated with the doctrine of A&P following the reception of Aristotelian philosophy by the scholasticism of the High Middle Ages. In the modern era, the significance of the concepts of A&P has declined in proportion to the extent in which philosophy as well as the upcoming natural sciences, have distanced themselves from teleonomous explanation models. Meanwhile, they are present, often under other names, wherever direct (G.W. → Leibniz, → F.W. Schelling, G.W.F. → Hegel, M. → Heidegger) or indirect (A.N. → Whitehead → Neo-Thomism) references to Aristotelian philosophy are made. L. Fuetscher, Akt und Potenz, 1933 ◆ J. Stallmach, Dynamis und Energeia: Untersuchungen am Werk des Aristoteles zur Problemgeschichte von Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit, MPF 21, 1959 ◆ H. Deku, “Possibile Logicum,” in: idem, Wahrheit und Unwahrheit der Tradition, W. Beierwaltes, ed., 1986, 27–46 ◆ M. Heidegger, “Aristoteles, Metaphysik,” Θ 1–3, in: Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe, vol. XXXIII, 21990 ◆ O. Schwemmer, EPhW I, 1995, 59–61 (bibl.) ◆ C. Rapp, ed., Aristoteles, Metaphysik: Die Substanzbücher (Z, H, Θ), Klassiker auslegen, vol. IV, 1996. Wolfgang Wieland

Act and Potency II. Philosophy of Religion The Aristotelian concepts of A&P played a significant role in western philosophy and theology. → Scholasticism employed them in discussions concerning God and nature as well as in those concerning the soul and its capacities, with the reservation that they neither formally nor substantially represent an adequate theory of possibility. A related field for theological usage of the concepts of A&P is the question regarding human capacities and their natural or supernatural activation in the formation of the theological → virtues; → Thomas Aquinas found a locus for miracles in Aristotelian natural philosophy, namely on the basis of the postulate that all creatures have the passive potentiality to be moved by a particular supernatural influence (potentia oboediantialis). There are no unrealized potentialities in the Aristotelian deity. Because the → unmoved mover is immutable, they would only ever exist as mere potentialities, a situation which Aristotle considered to be impossible (Metaph. XII 7). His argument for the necessity of ever-existent being which is based on this conception was used by Thomas Aquinas in his third proof of God. The scholastic doctrine of God as pure actuality (actus purus) without the least determinability further developed the Aristotelian and neoplatonic notion of the first being as the highest actuality, a position that was also widely adopted in modern theology and theistic philosophy (→Theism). Not only the pantheists and panentheists (→ Pantheism; → Panentheism), but also several conservative theologians have criticized the idea as an inappropriate philosophical abstraction. According to Aristotle, the potentialities realized in nature and the separate substances represent all the forms in which being may appear. This was the dominant way of thinking in the philosophy of antiquity. According to Christian theology, God created the world and time from nothing. → Augustine emphasized that God freely chose the world and that it could also have been otherwise. Only the principle of contradiction limits divine omnipotence and the possibilities that it may bring to realization. These originally theological ideas contributed to the formation of the new modal semantics that were worked out in the late Middle Ages and in which the concept of logical possibility was primary. Since divine omnipotence was understood as a realizing potentiality, it became possible to ask whether the realizable possibilities had an ontological basis in the divine being (e.g. Thomas Aquinas), whether they were preconditions of being which were independent of God ( J. → Duns Scotus; William of → Occam), or whether even the possibilities were devised by God (R. → Descartes). These are the chief alternatives of theistic modal metaphysics.

Action J. Aertsen, Nature and Creature: Thomas Aquinas’ Way of Thought, 1988 ◆ L. Honnefelder, Scientia transcendens, 1990 ◆ S. Knuuttila, Modalities in Medieval Philosophy, 1993. Simo Knuuttila

Action I. Philosophy – II. Theology – III. Ethics – IV. Practical Theology

I. Philosophy The concept of action is of central importance for philosophical ethics and anthropology. It is closely related to the concept of → person, since persons are the subjects of action and cognition (the latter always itself an action, since it necessarily involves judgment). We may distinguish several forms of action: external and internal, autonomous and heteronomous, free and unfree. Common usage, however, suggests that we understand “action” as referring only to action that is external, autonomous, and free. Of course we also speak of action under duress, which is neither free nor autonomous. But the essential connotation of “action” is that of a sovereign intervention in the course of the external world. Action was already a philosophical topic in classical Greek philosophy; as an active shaping of society, history, and the natural world, it also came to play an important role in the philosophy of the modern era, insofar as this philosophy adopts the sovereign subject as a premise. But the philosophical significance of action becomes increasingly peripheral when this premise becomes increasingly problematic, as has been the case from the middle of the 19th century to the present. Finally, should the naturalization of the human person succeed – a project being pursued by many scientists and philosophers – there would be no place for action in the traditional sense, since there would no longer be a place for sovereign subjects of action. It is still not clear, however, whether it is possible to describe human persons strictly from the perspective of natural science. I. Thalberg, Enigmas of Agency: Studies in the Philosophy of Human Action, 1972 ◆ E. Runggaldier, Was sind Handlungen?, 1996 ◆ U. Meixner, “Die Ersetzung der Substanzontologie durch die Ereignisontologie und deren Folgen für das Selbstverständnis des Menschen,” in: R. Hüntelmann, ed., Wirklichkeit und Sinnerfahrung, 1998, 87–103. Uwe Meixner

II. Theology Clarification of how → God’s action and human action differ and how they are related is the task of theological analysis of the concept of action. Action can be defined by saying that persons A as a necessary condition bring about an event B on the basis of knowledge C according to certain rules D for a particular goal E. Human action is a fundamental anthropological concept, since personality can be defined by the concept of action if events

36 are traced to intentions, thus distinguishing action from behavior resulting from stimulus-response mechanisms and effects based on causality. The concept of intention is characterized by a relative → freedom in the choice of goals, both restricted and at the same time enabled by factors constitutive of the concept of action but not directly under the control of the agent: the affective disposition and cultural background of the person A. the event structure of the world B that precedes the action; the knowledge C available to the person, comprising empirical factual knowledge as well as ideological and religious certainties; the norms and values subsumed under the rules D; and the realistic future possibilities from which the goal E may be chosen. All these elements derive ultimately from the action of God; here the structure of ideological certainties, of → faith as trust (→ Fiducia), plays a special role, since faith is the locus where the other elements come together. Faith, generated outwardly by proclamation of the word and inwardly by the action of the Holy Sprit (the internal witness), is a gift to the actor, enabling him to act. The actor is enabled to choose realistic goals on the basis of an appropriate affective impetus and a correct grasp of the situation, as well as suitable values and norms. Thus the differences and similarities between the action of God and human action, as comprehended in the doctrine of → justification, correspond to the relationship between faith and works. This ability to act, established through faith by the action of God, does not guarantee that the intended outcome will come to pass, since human action in faith is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an event to occur. The thematization of a specific personal constitution, of norms and values, and of a correct choice of goals are objects of ethical analysis in a doctrine of virtues, duties, and goods. A deeper theological analysis can subsume both human and divine action univocally under a single uniform concept of action. W. Härle & R. Preul, eds., Vom Handeln Gottes, MJTh 1, 1987 ◆ C. Schwöbel, God: Action and Revelation, 1992. Markus Mühling-Schlapkohl

III. Ethics “Action” denotes the behavior of persons in contrast to that of nonpersonal individuals. All such behavior takes place in the ongoing intramundane present of an individual as a selective translation of one possibility of that individual’s potential future into the sphere of his actual past, which is increasingly determined by this behavior. Action is involved when a choice is made not only for the behaving individual but also by him. This is possible only when this individual’s present is accessible to him as the present of the initiator of all possible choices open to him. This accessibility precedes every personal choice made by the individual. It constitutes the actional

37 present of the choice and is therefore manifest as the immediate, actual, inescapable, and (for the particular choice!) absolute → certainty that action is required. All the effects of the action enter into the duration of this certainty. Consequently a relative certainty arises secondarily on the foundation of the absolute certainty. Action is therefore always grounded in the absolute and relative self-certainty of the actor. It is self-consciously free (an exercise of “causality arising from freedom” [I. → Kant; → Causality]) and is responsible for all choice that is required by virtue of the actional present, in the eyes of all the authorities to which the actor is responsible in the actional present. 1. Demands for action arise from future possibilities, among which the initiator of the action must choose in the actional present. Action chooses (always simultaneously): (a) – directly and inclusively – possibilities open to the initiator of the action, including (b) whether or not to recognize the absolutely predetermined certainty of the duration of the actional present, which outlives all implicit becoming, (c) discerning reflection on or formative intervention in it, (d) in either case a goal (of knowledge or formation), (e) rules of choice (rules of action) necessary for achieving the goal, (f ) predictable intermediate goals and their interrelationship (plans of action), (g) continuation, alteration, or termination of the pursuit of a plan, and (h) individual actions, consistent with the rules and plan, that are directed toward the goal. The actional present makes action possible, but at the same time subjects it to predetermined conditions, restrictions. These include the increasing empirical particularity of a person’s actional present and its ongoing particularities: (a) the physical, psychological (affective and mental), and social situation of the actor (conditions that have come to be out of individual becoming), (b) the ethos and technical power of the social environment (conditions that have come to be out of collective becoming), (c) the state of the world (conditions that have come to be out of becoming in the world), (d) the ongoing transmundane conditions of the ongoing world in its transcendental particularity, predetermined for everything that takes place within it. These restrictions imply that action can choose only among possibilities that associate the actor with like actors, can only be inter-action. This shared action is made possible by implicit agreement, based on shared existence, concerning (a) the kinds of choices to be made and (b) the possibility and necessity of seeking and maintaining explicit agreement concerning them. It constitutes social systems which can only figuratively be said to act but nevertheless condition the action of all individuals. Thus restricted, action displays three aspects, all

Action equally primary: → consequence, obligation, and manifestation of the actor’s competence (virtue). Action is also responsible for the knowledge and observance of its restrictions. 2. The tribunals to which action is responsible are also determined by the constitution of the actional present. Action is responsible to the actor, other actors, and the transmundane ground of the intramundane actional present (God). This presupposes criteria of preferability: (a) preferable in the eyes of God is action that accords with the original determination of life in the personal actional present; (b) preferable in the eyes of the actor is action that makes the most important contribution to achieving his avowed life goal; and (c) preferable in the eyes of others is action that accords with the commonly recognized goals and rules of life together. Only (a) is predetermined for all action; therefore the criterion of preferability is also predetermined for the personal (b) and social (c) norms that are themselves grounded in action (individual choice). In the social context, of course, these norms are initially controversial and can be applied only after and on the basis of ongoing efforts to reach agreement. Insofar as such an agreement is reached, action also takes place as interaction within an → ethos. The constitution of the actional present also means that action includes reflection on its responsibility within its ethos. This reflection in the form of systematic theorization is what we call → ethics. It thematizes action in each of its aspects grounded in the constitution of the actional present. T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, 2 vols., 1937 ◆ A.R. White, ed., The Philosophy of Action, 1968 ◆ R. Bubner, Handlung, Sprache und Vernunft, 1976 ◆ G. Meggle & A. Beckermann, eds., Analytische Handlungstheorie, 2 vols., 1977 ◆ H. Lenk, ed., Handlungstheorien interdisziplinär, 4 vols., 1977– 1984 ◆ J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 vols., 1981 ◆ N. Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung, vol. III, 1981 ◆ C. Taylor, “What is Human Agency?” in: idem, Philosophical Papers, vol. I, 1985, 15–44 ◆ E. Herms, Gesellschaft gestalten, 1991. Eilert Herms

IV. Practical Theology The concept of action has played an important role in the theory of practical theology since its appearance as an academic discipline at the beginning of the 19th century. The types of action identified on a theoretical level by F. → Schleiermacher in his Christliche Sitte (effective action, purgative or restorative, and representative action) have remained influential to the present day. He uses these types to categorize situations and realms of action. Church action is one of the fields in which the ethical action of the individual Christian must prove its worth. More recently, the types proposed by Habermas – goaloriented, teleological, strategic action versus understanding-oriented, communicative action, have found a place

Action, Philosophy of in comprehensive treatises on practical theology as well as in individual monographs. Theories of practical theology as a discipline concerned with action arose at the end of the 1960s; they use the term in the sense of a sociological theory of action or without further definition. Recently there have been renewed attempts to address the concept of action from a theoretical perspective. F. Schleiermacher, Die christliche Sitte, ed. L. Jonas, 1843, 30– 81 ◆ J. Habermas, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 1984, 571–606 ◆ D. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology, 1991 ◆ G. Heitink, Praktische Theologie, 1993; ET: Practical Theology, 1999 ◆ H. Haslinger, “Die wissenschaftstheoretische Frage nach der Praxis,” in: Handbuch praktischer Theologie, ed. H. Haslinger & C. BundschuhSchramm, vol. I, 1999, 102–122. Karl-Fritz Daiber

Action, Philosophy of. Several empirical disciplines (especially psychology and sociology) deal in different ways with the theory of action. Their approaches often do not distinguish sharply between mere behavior and action in the strict sense. The philosophy of action, on the other hand, is concerned to explicate the concept of action particularly in contrast to mere behavior. The following basic principles apply: (1) actions are intentional behaviors on the part of a → person ; (2) actions are behaviors that the person could have refrained from doing; (3) actions are behaviors that the person causes independently. These three basic principles of the philosophy of action are independent of each other: none of the three principles implies or excludes either of the others. This independence allows what is probably the most satisfactory solution, framing a maximal concept of action by combining the three principles: actions are intentional behaviors of a person that the person independently causes and could have refrained from producing. Common to all three principles is the notion that only behaviors of persons count as actions; they differ in that (1) and (3) yield a compatibilist concept of action, whereas (2) yields an incompatibilist concept. In other words, (1) and (3) allow that there could be actions even if the world were ruled by consistent determinism (if everything that takes place were to take place by → necessity); determinism contradicts (2), which states that actions are eo ipso optional. Because (1) and (3) allow the existence of actions to be compatible with determinism, they represent interpretations of the concept of action that are metaphysically more neutral than (2), according to which the mere existence of actions implies the existence of freedom in the sense of freedom of choice, liberum arbitrium (→ Free Will). But at present concepts of action that include (2) as a defining criterion are still dominant in our society (e.g. in jurisprudence). There are other themes for the philosophy of action to address: Are there explanations for actions? What is the ontological status of actions? (Actions are

38 events, but how should events be categorized ontologically?) Can the actions of a group be reduced to the actions of its members or do they represent a distinct category? A.R. White, ed., The Philosophy of Action, 1968 ◆ C.J. Moya, The Philosophy of Action, 1990 ◆ E. Runggaldier, Was sind Handlungen? 1996. Uwe Meixner

Action, Science of (Handlungswissenschaft) I. Terminology – II. Social Sciences – III. Practical Theology

I. Terminology From the 18th century on, the German term Handlungswissenschaft denoted the study of → trade (Handel). It thus came to represent one of the precursors of modern economics. Nowadays it has this meaning only in historical contexts. Its present-day usage refers to the disciplines that deal with action in the broadest sense, from trade through → pedagogy to → psychology, → sociology, and → political science. Its new usage emerged from discussion of the mission of the German → universities in the 1960s and the related debate over the reform of academic study. H. → Schelsky pointed out problems in the traditional division of academic study into the → natural sciences and the → humanities and proposed a new third field of study, which he called “social sciences.” At the same time, he pointed out that the humanities had evolved into the historical study of culture (210–214). This classification, however, has not gained general acceptance. II. Social Sciences As a rule, the term is employed to characterize some of the social sciences. Often this usage is not scientifically precise. Precision is best achieved by a more restrictive qualification of “action science”: in psychology to distinguish it from behavioristic concepts, in sociology in the sense of structural functionalism in the manner of T. → Parsons, combining → action philosphy and → system theory, or by reverting to → critical theory or the theory of communicative action in the sense of Jürgen Habermas. A theoretical perspective limited to a single position shifts the focus away from scientific “action research.” III. Practical Theology “Social action research” first became a topic of theological discussion in the early 1960s, in the context of debate over curriculum reform. This discussion sought primarily to increase the openness of → theology to the → social sciences. The demands of that period were set amid a variety of efforts to address the current situation, especially in → homiletics, → pastoral theology, and catechetics (→ catechesis). G. → Krause and H. Schröer made an initial attempt to understand → practical theology as action research. The theoretical underpinnings were established

39 later, mostly after the mid-1970s, through the efforts of both Catholic and Protestant practical theologians. Despite dissenting voices, the concept of action research achieved a relatively broad consensus within the discipline. The primary impetus was emphasis on the autonomy of practical theology vis-à-vis systematic theology, coupled with an inductive and situational approach to problem solving. The practical theologians also realized that understanding social and individual reality required interdisciplinary cooperation with the social sciences. Finally, there was hope of reinforcing the functions of theology in general as a guide to action. The role of action research in criticizing current church practice was emphasized. The movement for → church reform of the 60s and early 70s also stood in the background of the discussion. Scholars working in the field of action research often approach it differently. Zerfass is particularly interested in the theoretical relationship between theology and action research and follows the lead of the American theologian S. → Hiltner. Otto approaches action research from the perspective of critical theory. Daiber operates on the basis of → critical rationalism. The majority of science-of-action approaches are devoted to the interests of pastoral work within the church. The vagueness of the boundary between action research and pastoral theology has led to criticism of the concepts of action research. Theoretical approaches focusing on the subject have attempted to overcome this weakness. A second source of criticism has to do with the distance between action research and classical concerns, especially on the part of systematic theology. One particular variant of the science of action has been developed in the context of → social welfare theory and expanded to include ecclesiastical leadership ( Jäger). Last but not least, it is clear that action research seeks to make it possible to ground theological praxis in reality. On I and II: J.M. Leuchs, Allgemeine Darstellung der Handlungswissenschaft, 1791, repr. 1979 ◆ H. Schelsky, Einsamkeit und Freiheit, 1963, 21971 ◆ M. Dechmann, Soziologie als Handlungswissenschaft, 1976 ◆ H. Steinmann, Betriebswirtschaftslehre als normative Handlungswissenschaft, 1978 ◆ R. Fuchs, Psychologie als Handlungswissenschaft, 1995 ◆ A. Balog & M. Gabriel, eds., Soziologische Handlungstheorie: Einheit oder Vielfalt, ÖZS Suppl. vol. IV, 1998 ◆ III: W. Hermann & G. Lautner, Theologiestudium: Entwurf einer Reform, 1965 ◆ G. Krause, “Probleme der praktischen Theologie im Rahmen der Studienreform, 1967,” in: idem, ed., Praktische Theologie, 1972, 418–444 ◆ H. Schröer, “Inventur der Praktischen Theologie 1969, with suppl. 1970,” in: ibid., 445–459 ◆ R. Zerfass, “Praktischen Theologie als Handlungswissenschaft,” in: F. Klostermann & R. Zerfass, eds., Praktische Theologie heute, 1974, 164–177 ◆ Praktischtheologisches Handbuch, ed. G. Otto, 21975 ◆ H. Peukert, Wissenschaftstheorie, Handlungstheorie, Fundamentale Theologie, 1976; ET: Science, Action and Fundamental Theology, 1986 ◆ K.-F. Daiber, Grundriß der Praktischen Theologie als Handlungswissenschaft, 1977 ◆ N. Mette, Theorie der Praxis, 1978 ◆ A. Jäger, Diakonie als christliches Unternehmen, 1986, 41993 ◆ G. Otto, Grundlegung der Praktischen Theologie, 1986 ◆ J. van der Ven & B. Schultz, Entwurf einer empirischen Theologie, 1990;

Action, Types of ET: Practical Theology: an Empirical Approach, 1993 ◆ A. Jäger, Konzepte der Kirchenleitung für die Zukunft: wirtschaftsethische Analysen und theologische Perspektiven, 1993 ◆ K.-F. Daiber, Religion in Kirche und Gesellschaft, 1997 ◆ H. Schröer, “Praktische Theologie,” TRE XXVII, 1997, 190–220 ◆ C. Grethlein & M. Meyer-Blanck, eds., Geschichte der Praktischen Theologie, 1999 ◆ G. Heitink, Practical Theology, 1999 ◆ Handbuch Praktische Theologie, ed. H. Haslinger & C. Bundschuh-Schramm, 2 vols., 1999–2000. Karl-Fritz Daiber

Action, Types of. In his Philosophical Ethics, F. → Schleiermacher distinguished between “symbolizing action” and “organizing action”; in his Christliche Sitte, he further distinguished “representative” and “effective” action, as well as “purgative” and “broadening action.” Habermas, in his recent Theory of Communicative Action, uses analogous language to indicate the difference between teleological, strategic, norm-based, dramaturgical, and communicative action. Both authors point – independently – to the same basic phenomenon: The possibility condition of → action – in the actional present of persons, constituted through self-disclosure – establishes not only the viewpoints for distinguishing the various types of objects of choice open to action (tasks), the systematic cluster of its restrictions, of its constitutive aspects (actualization of its author’s potential [virtue], following rules [duty], and determination of a consequential effect [of a good]), but also the viewpoint for distinguishing types of action themselves. This difference concerns the various possible ways in which action intentionally perceives its relationship to the world in which it stands by virtue of the actional present that both enables and requires it, namely – with “world” understood in each instance as the sphere of ongoing common conditions for a multiplicity of different event complexes – its relationship to the world of its personal life within the social world of its common life with others in a specific “we,” within the cosmic universe in which all possible “we”s coexist. Every instance of action focuses intentionally on various aspects of this complex relationship to the world. What Schleiermacher calls “effective action” intends its effect within the world, “organizing action” intends effectively to appropriate the world, “symbolizing action” intends to acquire a personal and common set of instruments to describe the world, “representative action” intends a mutual presentation of how the members of a community relate to each other, “broadening action” intends expansion of the community, and “purgative action” intends the elimination of whatever disrupts the community. Habermas’s “teleological” action also intends its effect within the world, “strategic” action intends its effect in the common world, “norm-based” action intends fulfillment of justified expectations within a socially accepted set of rules, “dramaturgical” action intends the representation of how individuals relate to each other, and “communicative” action

Activity and Passivity intends the establishment and continuation of understanding. In each instance, the different intentions shape the claim, the achievement, and the fulfillment conditions of the action differently, but they do not divorce it from the overall context of its relationship to the world. Unintended aspects of the action’s relationship to the world are also present: “organizing” action is implicitly “symbolizing,” “communicative” implicitly “teleological,” etc. The difference between action types makes possible the functional differentiation of interaction orders. F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Entwürfe zu einem System der Sittenlehre, in: O. Braun & J. Bauer, eds., F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Werke: Auswahl in vier Bänden, vol. II, 1913 ◆ idem, Die christliche Sitte, Sämtliche Werke, vol. I/12, 1843 ◆ J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 vols., 1981; ET: The Theory of Communicative Action, repr. 1985. Eilert Herms

Activity and Passivity I. Philosophy of Religion and Fundamental Theology – II. Dogmatics

I. Philosophy of Religion and Fundamental Theology From the perspective of fundamental theology, the relationship between activity and passivity thematizes the constitution of the christian certainty of Dasein. Its theoretical description in terms of consciousness or personhood must be examined for its ontological presuppositions and understood within their framework. Only in the framework of an ontological understanding of activity and passivity (1) does this theoretical understanding of personhood find its true place (2). 1. Activity is the attribute of entities at work in → processes (I) where it is the sufficient condition for individual events to occur and/or regularities to appear (for the act of selective realization of a particular event and/or a regularity of events from the epitome of all that are equally possible), which determine the situation within the process and thus all entities participating in this situation as well. Passivity is the corresponding attribute of entities determined by the appearance of events and/or regularities, whose sufficient condition it and/or other entities may be. Activity and passivity always appear together. They are inherent in all entities at work in processes: impersonal and personal, entities with a finite and an infinite range of possibilities. To personal entities the epitome of the voluntary acts they can carry out is apparent (present) as the epitome of the selections they must carry out in the light of this appearance, and are therefore all intentional. Because they are so constituted, personal entities realize not only individual events – as do impersonal entities – but also rules governing multiple events and potential total situations of their Dasein. – An infinite range of selection char-

40 acterizes an entity whose domain of possible autonomous choices is determined solely by its own acts of selection, quantitatively inexhaustible and qualitatively unlimited; they befit only a personal entity, and only the creator (→ Creation: VI) (WA 18, 616, 2–5). The creator also possesses both activity and passivity. But his passivity – including passivity with respect to the created world (→ Creatureliness) – is determined exclusively by his own activity. Impersonal creatures are also characterized by both activity and activity. But their activity is determined solely by their passivity with respect to other impersonal and finite personal entities, and ultimately with respect to the creator. In the case of finite persons, the first truth is that their activity is determined and limited by their passivity, originally with respect to the activity of the creator – and thus implicitly with respect to the activity of other finite persons and impersonal entities. But in this context it is also true that their passivity is determined by their own activity, inasmuch as it helps determine the range of possibilities of their passivity with respect to the activity of other finite persons and impersonal entities. – For finite persons, then, the creator, created impersonal entities, and the persons themselves and their equals are all present from the outset in the process of creation, but distinguished by the systematic difference of the relationship between activity and passivity. 2. The being of finite persons (as being determined to self-determination and determination of the world) is defined as the relationship (c) of two relationships of their activity: on the one hand their passivity with respect to the activity of the creator (a), on the other their passivity with respect to finite entities (themselves and the world they inhabit) (b). a. The first is radical and constitutive of personhood; it institutes the domain of activity of finite persons, including all their conditioned possibilities, and thus also the immediate self-presence of finite persons, which determines their self-determination and determination of the world. With respect to it, the activity of persons is limited to representational acts. b. The second is implicit in the first. It constitutes the epitome of the restrictions that limit and define the activity of finite persons that presents (and thus realizes) their total scope; it is thus universal, but only relative. c. Because the relative passivity of finite persons is established by their radical passivity, their activity, by relating to their relative passivity, is necessarily related to their radical passivity, and their activity can relate to their radical passivity only by relating to their relative passivity. How the activity of finite persons relates to their radical passivity in its relationship to their relative passivity depends on how the self-presence of the persons is determined at any given moment, grounded in their radical passivity, which sublates all the effects of their activity grounded in their relative passivity.

41 M. Luther, De servo arbitrio, 1525 (WA 18, 1908, repr. 1964, 600–787) ◆ F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube, vol. I, 21830, new ed. 71960, 3–6 ◆ L. Landgrebe, “Das Problem der passiven Konstitution,” in: idem, Faktizität und Individuation, 1982, 71–87 ◆ E. Herms, “Meine Zeit in Gottes Händen,” in: K. Stock, ed., Zeit und Schöpfung, 1997, 67–90 ◆ idem, “Prozeß und Zeit,” in: M. Laarmann & T. Trappe, eds., Erfahrung – Geschichte – Identität, FS R. Schäffler, 1997, 281–306. Eilert Herms

II. Dogmatics The approach of dogmatics to activity and passivity involves the Christian understanding of God, human beings, and the impersonal created world – in themselves and in their mutual relationship – in all aspects where activity or passivity plays a role. Therefore the theological question of activity/passivity cannot be limited to an isolated domain of dogmatics; it is an aspect of the Christian understanding of reality that permeates the whole of dogmatics. Nevertheless there are areas where the relationship between activity and passivity is concentrated and controversial. These include: the relationship between creator and creature in the process of creating and preserving the world; divine and human activity and passivity with regard to the reality of → sin (VII); the ability of human beings to accept or reject → salvation (III); the role of human passivity or activity in hearing the → proclamation (II) of God’s word and receiving the → sacrament (II); and the relationship between human and divine activity and passivity in the context of → prayer (VIII). The fundamental dilemma may be stated as follows: Either human beings are accorded activity independent of God, which appears to call God’s divinity into question, or human beings are declared purely passive in relationship to God, which calls into question human personhood (and hence human → responsibility). Both errors – → synergism (I) and → determinism (II) – can be avoided if “activity” and “passivity” are understood as “determining” and “determined,” and if the following principles, put forward under I, are taken as the basis for defining their relationship. 1. Activity and passivity always appear together. 2. They are inherent in all entities, finite and non-finite, impersonal and personal. 3. The passivity of God is determined solely by God’s own activity. 4. The activity of the creature (like its passivity) is limited and determined by the activity of God. It follows that the activity of God directly includes God’s passivity (as selfdetermination), that as self-determination of the creator it indirectly includes the creator’s passivity in relationship to creatures, and thus as self-determination of the creator of personal creatures indirectly includes the creator’s passivity in relationship to acts of choice on the part of personal creatures. In each of these forms, nevertheless, God’s passivity is grounded entirely in God’s activity. These statements hold true equally in

Acton, Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg relationship to the constitution of creaturely existence, the interruption of the power of sin, and the knowledge of reality that awakens faith because it brings assurance. An essential concern of the Christian faith, with regard to activity and passivity, is that creation, redemption, and sanctification are grounded solely in the activity of God and thus do not take place ex nihilo, but also that God’s activity simultaneously imputes activity to creatures and thus opens to them a domain in which to shape their lives (with individual responsibility). M. Luther, Von den guten Werken, 1520 (WA 6, 1888, repr. 1966, 204–276) ◆ Handeln Gottes, MJTh 1, 1987 ◆ Vorsehung und Handeln Gottes, QD 115, 1988, esp. 116–167 ◆ Glaube, MJTh 4, 1992 ◆ C. Schwöbel, God, 1992 ◆ W. Härle, Dogmatik, 1995, esp. 282–302 ◆ M. Seils, Glaube, HST 13, 1996. Wilfried Härle

Acton , Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg ( Jan 10, 1834, Naples – Jun 19, 1902, Tegernsee), Roman Catholic layperson and historian. His openness to the world led him to Munich to study for six years with J.J.I.v. → Döllinger. From Döllinger he adopted a liberal attitude and a critical yet development-capable view of history. He learned to see Christianity, not as a collection of dogmas and institutions, but as a historical process whose claims are subject to change and which gradually reveals its true nature. He was of the opinion that historical experiences slowly bring institutions of all kinds closer to authentic expressions of their own character. The necessary condition for such a process is freedom to engage in critical investigation. By proposing progressive ideas he wanted to encourage the Catholic Church to open up to new intellectual streams. A brief parliamentary career (1859–1865) resulted in Acton’s close friendship with W.E. → Gladstone. But he first drew public attention with articles for English liberal Catholic journals. In 1858, he became co-owner of the monthly, Rambler, which appeared until 1862. When → Vatican I made the → infallibility of the Pope a dogma, he raised vigorous protest. When Gladstone’s The Vatican Decrees appeared in 1874, Acton differed, however, from his friend’s position. Gladstone saw in Roman Catholicism a danger to the English state, a view Acton rejected. Affirming his opposition to Rome’s views, Acton emphasized that the Catholic Church should not be identified with its hierarchy. As an idealist, Acton saw true Catholicism as the pledge of the institution of this church and its goal. He battled absolutism and dogma, but also fought for what he considered the essence of Catholicism. Although his position alienated him from the leadership of the English Catholic Church, Acton never wavered in his own sense of loyalty, nor was he excommunicated. Through his great erudition and his research, Acton gained reputation as a historian. In 1886, he sponsored

Acts of Andrew the famed English Historical Review. Furthermore, he was the first publisher of the Cambridge Modern History, although he did not contribute to it. In 1895, he was named the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. His inaugural lecture dealt with the themes of freedom and progressive development. Acton saw the modern world as liberated from its past and dependent on its critical capacities. Yet, he saw in divine influence the key for distinguishing between good and evil in social experience. G. Himmelfarb, Lord Acton, 1952 ◆ L. Kochan, Acton on History, 1954 ◆ J.L. Altholz, The Conscience of Lord Acton, 1970 ◆ R. Mill, Lord Acton, 2000. William L. Sachs

Acts of Andrew (Acts And.). The Acts of Andrew recounts the missionary journeys of the apostle → Andrew from Pontus to Achaia. The theme of his preaching, which is accompanied by healings and exorcisms, is a world-denying and ascetic form of Christianity. His conversion of Maximilla, the wife of the Roman governor Aegeas, enrages the latter. Facing crucifixion at Patras, he sings the praises of the cross. The last paragraph shows the initiatory character of the work, the first part of which is lost (but see the recent reconstructions). Many versions of the martyrdom are extant. The work is first mentioned in Manichaean hymns and the early fathers (→ Eusebius of Caesarea, → Epiphanius of Salamis, Philastrius of Brescia, etc.). NTApo II, 51989, 93–137 ◆ J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 2 vols., CChr.SA 5–6, 1989 ◆ D. MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals, SBL. CA 1, 1990 ◆ J.-M. Prieur, Actes de l’apôtre André, Apocryphes 7, 1995. François Bovon

Acts of John → John, Acts of Acts of Paul (Acts Paul ). As with most → apocryphal acts of the apostles, the text of the Acts Paul is also only preserved in fragments. Its content, → Paul’s missionary activity, depicted in the form of only a single journey from Damascus via numerous intermediate stations in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, etc. to Rome accompanied by equally numerous miracles, can be reconstructed primarily with the aid of two papyri, a Greek (PH) and a Coptic (PHeid), although significant lacunae remain (NTApo II, 198–211). Only three texts (already independently transmitted quite early on) are better transmitted: in addition to the Martyrdom of the Apostle (Mart. Paul), these include the Acta Pauli et Theclae (Acts Paul Thecla) and the correspondence between the Corinthian community and Paul (3 Cor). The Acts of Paul and Thecla, a self-contained composition set primarily in Iconium and Pisidian Antioch, deals with the conversion, fate (including two martyrdoms

42 which she survived) and violent death of the Encratite (→ Encratites) → Thecla, who baptized (ch. 34) and, at the behest of Paul also taught the Word of God (ch. 41, 43), may be based on older (already documentary) material. In the context of Acts Paul, they stand out since in them Thecla, not Paul, stands at the center of the narrative’s interest; furthermore, motifs borrowed from pagan (love) novella occur in Acts Paul Thecla with unusual frequency and the miracles (ch. 22, 35) are, as in the pagan novel, but in contrast to Acts Paul otherwise, not drastic → miracles but rationally explainable πλάσματα/plasmata. Originally not part of Acts Paul, but only later integrated into them, 3 Cor fights against a dualistic → Gnosis (1:9–15), emphasizing against this Gnosis the unity of creator God and redeemer, as well as his saving activity already on Israel’s behalf (3:9f ), Christ’s incarnation (3:12–18), and the resurrection of the body (3:24– 32). In comparison to this, Paul’s sermon in the genuine Acts Paul is supremely simple; in essence, it consists of the appeal to sexual abstinence and the proclamation of the resurrection hope (Acts Paul Thecla 5), in which regard the first sometimes appears as even necessary for salvation (Acts Paul Thecla 12) and even illuminates the lion baptized by Paul (NTApo II, 242). The Acts Paul, which does not always deal with legendary local traditions in a seamless fashion, is already attested shortly after 200 in → Hippolytus’s commentary on Daniel (III 29) and in → Tertullian, who adduces it as an example of women teaching and performing the sacrament, of which he disapproved, and cites as its author an anonymous presbyter from Asia Minor who compiled (construxit) it for love of Paul and who lost his office because of this forgery (acta . . . perperam scripta; Bapt. 17) but was apparently not excommunicated by the church. As a result, Acts Paul, probably composed toward the end of the 2nd century with a thorough knowledge of Luke’s Acts, was not initially considered heretical in the area where it originated, despite its crude Encratite tendencies. R.A. Lipsius & M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, vol. I, 1891, repr. 1959, 104–117, 235–272 (Greek text of the Martyrdom of Paul and Acts of Paul and Thecla) ◆ C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift no. 1, 1904, repr. 1965 (text and German trans. of and comm. on PHeid) ◆ idem, Acta Pauli: Nach dem Papyrus der Hamburger Staats- und Universitäts-Bibliothek, 1936 (text and German trans. of and comm. on PH) ◆ M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer 10–12, 1959, 1–45 (Greek text of 3 Cor) ◆ E. Plümacher, PRE. S 15, 1978, 24–30, 51f., 59–61 ◆ W. Schneemelcher, NTApo II, 51989, 193–241 (German trans. and comm.) ◆ W. Rordorf, Lex orandi, lex credendi, 1993, 368–496 ◆ J.N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, 1996 (bibl.). Eckhard Plümacher

Acts of Peter (Acts Pet.). Only a few fragments of Acts Pet., first attested (and rejected as non-canonical)

43 with certainty by → Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. III 3.2), are preserved. Among these, a Latin translation, the so-called Actus Vercellenses, which originated in the 3rd/4th century and adheres rather closely to the original Greek version of the Acts, represents the most important fragment offering about two-thirds of the original account of the Acts Pet. The Martyrdom of → Peter (Mart. Pet.) is chiefly transmitted in Greek. A text dealing with his daughter (Papyrus Berolinensis Gnosticus [BG] 8502.4), which must have appeared in the now lost beginning portion of the Acts, stems from the Coptic tradition. The effort to rediscover it in NCH VI, 1, a writing titled Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles stemming from the 2nd/3rd century (Acts Pet. 12 Apos.), fails because of its somewhat muddled content. The narrative of Acts Pet., in which the motif of the itinerant apostle – characteristic of the → Apocryphal Acts – plays a subordinate role, is dominated by the elaborate depiction of a dispute between Peter and → Simon Magus, which begins in Jerusalem and continues in Rome and is manifested in particular in a miracle competition. (→ Miracle) between the two antagonists, containing the very crassest of miracles. The author of the Acts does not harbor anti-Gnostic intentions: apart from ch. 31, where Simon announces his ascension to heaven, which later fails as a result of Peter’s prayer, in Gnostic terminology and thereby at least alludes to a Gnostic myth (→ Gnosis), Simon is portrayed merely as a deceptive magician in the service of Satan (ch. 17; → Devil). The issue is the struggle between God and the devil, not between heresy and orthodox belief. Acts Pet. gains uniqueness, however, through a strict Encratitism (→ Encratites) which teaches rigorous sexual restraint (see ch. 33; BG 8502.4). Its proclamation by the apostle found resonance especially among the women of the Roman social elite (chs. 33f.), which then became the trigger for the martyrdom of Peter (→ Martyrs: II), which he suffered in the form of (not uncommon, see Seneca, Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3) inverted crucifixion. In the account of the martyrdom, one finds the sole text in the Acts that stems with certainty from the tradition: Peter’s speech in chs. 37–39, whose Gnostic origin results among other things from the interpretation of Peter’s crucifixion, which is based on anti-cosmic Gnostic speculation. With regard to the time of composition of Acts Pet., a date in the last two decades of the 2nd century has the best support. Rome or Asia Minor are possible places of origin; the author’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Vatican’s Tropaion of Peter argues against Rome (Lampe 99). R.A. Lipsius & M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, vol. I, 1891, repr. 1959, 45–103 (Greek and Latin text) ◆ J. Brashler & D.M. Parrott, The Acts of Peter, NHS 11, 1979, 473–493 (Coptic text and English transl. of BG 8502:4) ◆ G. Poupon, “Les Actes de Pierre et leur remaniement,” ANRW II 25/26, 1988, 4363–

Acts of the Apostle 4383 ◆ H.-M. Schenke, NTApo II, 51989, 368–380 (German transl. of and comm. on Acts Pet.) ◆ W. Schneemelcher, op. cit., 243–289 (German trans. and comm.) ◆ P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 21989, 99–103 ◆ J.N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Peter, 1998 (bibl.). Eckhard Plümacher

Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC VI,1; Acts Pet. 12 Apos.) → Apocrypha/ Pseudepigrapha Acts of Pilate → Nicodemus, Gospel of Acts of the Apostles I. Introductory Issues – II. Genre – III. Structure and Purpose – IV. Content – V. Rhetorical and Narrative Criticism

I. Introductory Issues 1. Author and date. Acts is the second part of a twovolume work, the first of which is the Gospel of → Luke. Neither of the two prologues names the author, although Luke 1:1–3; Acts 1:1 use the first person pronoun, which also occurs in the “we” travel narrative of Acts (16:10–17; 20:5–8, 13–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke 1:2 distinguishes the author from “eye-witnesses,” but tradition (→ Irenaeus, → Muratorian Canon) identified him as Luke, → Paul’s companion (cf. Phlm 24; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). The Gospel of Mark (→ Mark, Gospel of ) is probably one Lukan source, so that the date is post-70, which is indicated also by Luke 19:43; 21:20. The irenic view of Roman rule and the author’s failure to cite Paul’s epistles, which were available by the early second century, indicate a first-century date. The books were probably written in the 80s, but an origin as early as the 70s or as late as the 90s cannot be excluded. 2. Text transmission. Recent commentaries assume that the Alexandrian text is closer to the original than the “Western” text. Blass proposed that both texts are from the original author, a thesis supported by Boismard. The critique has been that one “Western” text never existed, that it is a modern construct combining several mss. from diverse places and centuries. Some mss. omit the reference to Christ’s ascension in Luke 24:51 (on Easter night), perhaps because it is in tension with Acts 1:3–11 (which dates it 40 days later). Such inconsistencies are characteristic of this author, but a few scholars argue that the ascension is an interpolation made either when the second volume was composed or when it was separated from the first. 3. Sources. Many scholars doubt there was an extended source for the first half of Acts, but some posit an Antiochene source (→ Antioch) and/or a collection of stories about → Peter. More probably, Luke imitated the LXX in Luke 1–2 and Acts 1–12, as contemporary authors (Arrian, → Lucian of Samosata) imitated Attic Greek. Many assume an itinerary as the source for the “we”

Acts of the Apostle sections. Some think the speeches are summaries of actual speeches; most conclude that they are Lukan creations, with the exception of Stephen’s speech (→ Stephen [the First Martyr]), observing that their style and theology are consistently the author’s. II. Genre Acts is biography, novel, or history-writing, genres that overlap. Talbert argues that Luke is the biography of a founder and that Acts focuses on legitimate succession, the primary parallel being → Diogenes Laertius (Lives of Eminent Philosophers). However, (1) only six of Laertius’s biographies have the threefold pattern of life, successors, teaching; (2) Laertius does not legitimate successors, but only lists those who claimed to be followers; and (3) these lists are not narratives and hence are unlike Acts. Further, speeches are typical of historiography, not biography. Pervo urges that Acts, unlike Luke, is an adventure novel, observing that action-packed stories (persecution, arrests, trials, escapes, riots, with a shipwreck as a climax) make it entertaining. But Acts is not a novel, nor is the discussion exclusively literary. Unlike novels, Acts does not have a love and/or sex theme, and in novels the goal of the narrative is not arrival in Rome. Nor is Luke–Acts focused on the character of individuals as are the genres of biography and novel. The genre of Acts is more closely related to historiography, though whether this is to Deuteronomic or Greco-Roman history is disputed by Conzelmann, van Unnik, Dupont, Plümacher, Hengel, Sterling, and Cancik. Luke’s Bible includes 2 Maccabees, a work which reflects both forms. Hengel argues for the historical accuracy of Luke–Acts in modern terms, but this differs from affirming their generic closeness to ancient historiography. Van Unnik compares especially Lucian and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Antiquitates Romanae, AR). Unlike → Josephus, Luke was not directly dependent on Dionysius, but these three authors share a common ideology. Dionysius first narrates the ancestors’ origins (AR I 9–70). Second, the key, central epoch of history is the monarchy, the “biographies” of seven kings (AR I 71–IV 85). Third are the successors, the annual consuls (books V–XX). These three epochs correspond to Luke’s three stages of salvation history: Israel (Luke 3:23–38 [genealogy]; Acts 7:1–53 and 13:16–41, 46–47 [ancestors]), Jesus – the central epoch – and third, the church. Previous histories of Israel had not focused on Jewish experience outside Israel, so at this major transition, Luke inserts Stephen’s speech, which reviews the history of Israel in the form of an invective ψόγος/psógos (cf. the speech of Brutus, AR VI 74–75, 80). Both Dionysius and Luke date their founders, both heroes are born of God (AR I 77.1–3; cf. IV 2.2–4) and so are sons of God (AR II 3.3; Luke 1:35); both teachers give paradigmatic

44 speeches (AR II 3–29; Luke 4:16–30; Acts 2:14–36); the sun is eclipsed at both their deaths (AR II 56.6; Luke 23:45), and both appear in physical bodies after their death, but “disappear” again and ascend to heaven (AR II 63.3–4; Livy 1.16; Luke 24:13–35, 51; Acts 1:3, 9). However, Romulus works no miracles (Numa does, AR II 60), and Jesus fights no military battles. In the third epoch of history, their successors pursue their political programs. Plümacher shows that the mission speeches in Acts 10 and 13 are causative of epoch-making events, as in the historian Dionysius. Luke typically includes a christological kerygma, witness by disciples, and scripture citations explaining Jesus’ death and enthronement and the offer of salvation for all nations, and finally an exhortation to repentance. The speeches in chs. 7, 14, and 17 have a different structure. As Dionysius criticized Thucydides, so Luke criticizes Mark for not being “accurate,” that is not “complete,” for not presenting these epoch-making speeches (cf. AR VII 66.1–3, 5; XI 1.3–5; Thuc 15.1; 2 Macc 2:28; Luke 1:3). The sea storm and shipwreck in ch. 27 do not demonstrate that Acts is a novel, but rather that Paul was not being divinely punished, but was innocent, and was saved to carry the gospel to Rome in accordance with God’s plan. III. Structure and Purpose Acts begins with Jesus’ ascension to heaven (Acts 1:3–11), the event that closed the gospel (Luke 24:44–53). After this, Acts is difficult to outline; various authors divide it into two or into as many as six sections. Acts 1:8 supplies a theological/geographical outline of the mission to Jerusalem (1:9–8:3), Judea and Samaria (8:4–11:18), and Rome (11:19ff.; cf. 19:21). The author divides not only geographically, however, but chronologically; the apostolic period (2:1–15:35) differs from post-apostolic times represented by Paul (15:36–28:31). Therefore, after the introduction the phase between Easter and Pentecost is narrated (ch. 1), in two main sections. The first main section narrates the growth of the Word in three phases, from Jerusalem and Judea (2:1–8:3), through Samaria and the coastal regions (8:4–11:18), to the formation of the first Gentile churches, including Antioch, outside Palestine (11:19–15:35). The second main section (15:36–28:31) narrates the proclamation of the Word by Paul in post-apostolic times through Europe and Asia (15:36–19:20) to Rome, a proclamation that Luke apologetically describes as “unhindered” by the state (the final word of the two volumes). In addition, Talbert sees elaborate architectural patterns between Luke and Acts and within Acts. Acts has been understood as political apologetic directed to the Roman authorities, but Nock (829) has expressed doubt that a pagan, unless already half-converted, would have understood it. Many see a theological purpose: to substitute salvation history for

45 the imminent parousia (now indefinitely postponed). But a primary purpose is to legitimate the (mission to the) Gentile church, stressing its ancient Mosaic and Davidic origins. This focus is seen in the preface (“events that have been fulfilled among us,” 1:1), which anticipates the mission account, e.g. the “we” sections of Acts. Jesus’ programmatic sermon in Luke 4 (vv. 24–27) anticipates the acceptance of Gentile believers (Acts 10ff.). The conclusion in Luke 24:47–49 explicitly looks forward to Acts 1–2. And Paul’s interpretation of Isa 49:6 as a prophecy of his Gentile mission (Acts 13:47; cf. 28:28) is an echo of Simeon’s canticle (Luke 2:32). IV. Content 1. Delay of the Parousia and Salvation History. According to Conzelmann, Luke substitutes salvation history for the imminent parousia. Jesus’ and John’s births are synchronized with Roman history (Luke 2:1; 3:1), for “this was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26). Believers are no longer survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem soon to be gathered by the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven (Mark 13:14, 26–27), an image Luke omits in 22:69 (cf. Mark 14:62); the church is rather a preordained institution with a purpose in world history. The imminent parousia is false teaching (Luke 21:8; Acts 1:6–8), which rejects Jesus’ proclamation in Mark (1:15); persecution (21:12–19) and the prophetic event of Jerusalem’s fall (21:20–25) are past. The prophecy of the end (21:25– 28) locates crucial events on earth, but vv. 28 and 31–32 do affirm the coming of the eschatological “kingdom of God” (cf. Luke 10:9, 11). There is a mixed eschatological picture in the gospel, perhaps because Luke focuses on a spatial, “growing” world mission, displacing chronological, imminent eschatology from the center (e.g. Acts 1:6–8), as in Colossians and especially Ephesians. For Luke–Acts Jesus begins salvation history; his appearance is not the single eschatological event, but rather a phase. The final period is the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24; cf. Acts 2:17). Acts transforms (Mark’s) → apocalypticism into Hellenistic historiography. The history and mission of the church continue the proclamation of the “kingdom.” The “beginning” was both Jesus’ time (Luke 1:2) and Pentecost (Acts 11:15). The kingdom of God does not “come” as eschatological event (Mark 9:1), but the reverse: through tribulations one enters the kingdom (Acts 14:22), and Paul “persuades” his hearers of it through catechesis (19:8). To proclaim Christ is identical to proclaiming the kingdom (Acts 8:4, 5, 12). Luke makes the → ascension of Christ an antetype of the parousia (1:11, “thus he will come”). As the ascension ends the central epoch of Jesus, so the parousia will end the epoch of the church in mission. The Spirit does not bring the eschaton, but enables apostolic witness. The individual gains or loses life at death (Luke 12:20; Acts 7:59).

Acts of the Apostle 2. Jews and Gentiles. (→ Jewish Christians; → Gentile Christians). Luke–Acts takes biblical prophecy as relating not only Christ’s suffering and resurrection (Luke 24:46; cf. Mark 8:31), but also as indicating that “repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem” (24:47). Dupont argues persuasively that this second prophecy is the reason Luke wrote the second volume, Acts. The “reception” of foreigners is also a theme in contemporary historiography. Dionysius narrates histories of the groups who emigrated to found archaic Rome and were “received” (ὑποδέχεσϑαι/[hypo]déchesthai; AR I 57.4; 60.3; 63.2; 66.2; 89.3). He gives a list of the nations received: Aborigines, Pelasgians, Pallantians, Epeans, Phemeats, and Trojans (AR I 60.3; cf. I 89.2–3; III 10. 4–5). When Dionysius later outlines Romulus’s constitution, he observes that a practice that made Rome great was to welcome fugitives from cities governed by tyrannies, a “growth” that generated “envy” among the neighbors (I 59.5; cf. II 32.2 and 62.5). This cluster of ideas is reflected in the prophecies and in the narrative of Luke–Acts. After the Pentecost speech, those who received (οἱ ἀποδεξάμενοι/hoi apodexámenoi) the word were baptized, and 3000 souls were added (προσετέϑησαν/prosetéthēsan; Acts 2:41). The verb δέχεϑαι/déchesthai (cf. Acts 11:1) differs in meaning, but προστίϑημι/prostíthēmi is strikingly similar to AR II 16.3 (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:14; 11:24; also 6:1, 7; 9:31; 11:20–21; 12:24; 14:1; 16:5; 19:20). And these “additions” lead to “growth” (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). As Dionysius does, Acts 2:9–11 lists the nations added. It may not be coincidental that both Rome and the church begin with (only) 3000 persons. In both Dionysius and Acts, the addition of ἀλλόφυλοι/allóphuloi stimulates debate (AR III 10.5; Acts 10:28), so must be treated apologetically, that is, the authors answer criticisms of the policy of reception (AR III 10–11; Acts 6:13–14; 21:21; 28–29) and claim the founder(s) instituted it (AR II 15–17; Luke 2:31–32; 3:6; 4:23–27; 24:47; Acts 2:21; 13:47; 26:16–18). All nations are received, which is incompatible with some exegetes’ interpretation of the conclusion, who claim it narrates the cessation of the mission to Jews. The two-volume work concludes by observing that “[Paul] received all (ἀπεδέχετο πάντας/apedécheto pántas) who came to him” (28:30), which is correctly interpreted by the scribes of mss. 614, 2147, vg, sy, who add “both Jews and Greeks.” 3. Reversal (Poor and Rich). The poor/rich theme belongs to the gospel, not Acts, but it is part of a larger bipolar reversal theme reflected also in Acts. This reversal theme occurs in the Magnificat (Luke 1:52–53) and in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19–31; cf. 6:20–26), as well as in Greco-Roman historiography. In conflict between patricians and plebeians, Brutus

Acts of the Martyrs voices these themes (AR VI 72–80). Brutus, himself one of the “humbled,” addresses the “proud” (οἱ ὑπερήφανοι/ hoi hyper¶phanoi; VI 72.3). Christians confessed that Christ “humbled” himself, and God “highly exalted” him (Phil 2:8–9). The rich man in Luke 16 lifted his eyes from Hades and saw Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom. Peter proclaims that Christ was not abandoned in Hades (Acts 2:27, 31), but “exalted” to God’s right hand (v. 33). Readers of Greco-Roman historiography would recognize this reversal theme in the Magnificat, applied ethically in the parable to the rich man and Lazarus, and christologically in the Pentecost sermon. V. Rhetorical and Narrative Criticism Scholars have analyzed the rhetoric of the speeches, noting that some of them are only loosely connected to the narrative, for instance the history of Israel in ch. 7 does not answer the charges against Stephen in 6:11, 13–14. The defense speeches of Paul respond to the charges brought against him (Acts 21:21, 38; 24:5–8) by arguing that the main issue is the → resurrection of Jesus (23:6; 24:21; 26:6–7), which agrees with a doctrine of the → Pharisees (23:6–9), which the author has the tribune Claudius interpret in a fictional letter to governor Felix as “questions of their law, but . . . nothing deserving death or imprisonment” (23:29; cf. 25:8, 18–19, 25; 26:3, 31; 28:19), so that Paul may preach even in Rome “unhindered” (ἀϰωλύτως/akōlÿtōs), the final word of the two volumes (28:31). Recent narrative criticism argues that the narrator of Acts is reliable and communicates necessary information to the reader, for example, differences between Pharisees and → Sadducees (23:8, similar to the late first-century description by Josephus, War II, 162–65; Ant. XVIII, 14.16). Tannehill observes that major characters are often introduced first as minor ones, e.g. Philip, Saul/Paul, and James. There are a number of “round” characters, whose literary roles change and develop, a technique which is not common in contemporary biography or historiography. The faults of Jesus’ disciples in the Gospel are overcome in Acts: Peter’s denial is replaced by his bold confession before the Sanhedrin (4:8–12, 19–20; 5:29–32). Tannehill points to the order in which the reader learns of events, noting the “reviews” and “previews” in Paul’s speech in 20:17–38. The author repeats the stories of Paul’s conversion, Peter’s encounter with Cornelius, and the apostolic decree. Conflict in the story occurs within Judaism too, not exclusively between Jews and Christians. There is considerable disagreement about the concluding episode of Acts, whether it is meant to be triumphant, ironic (Tyson), or tragic (Tannehill). The book is not a biography of Peter or Paul, but a story of the “growth of the word,” and the apologetic ending narrates that Paul was able to “receive all who came to him.”

46 F. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 1898, repr. 1969 ◆ W.C. van Unnik, “First Century A.D. Literary Culture and Early Christian Literature,” NedTT 25, 1971, 28–43 ◆ H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 21972 ◆ A.D. Nock, “The Book of Acts,” in: idem, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart, vol. II, 1972, 821–832 ◆ M.-É. Boismard & A. Lamouille, Le texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres, 2 vols., 1984 ◆ M. Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung, 21984 ◆ J. Dupont, Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, 1967 ◆ idem, Nouvelles études sur les Actes, 1984 ◆ J.B. Tyson, The Death of Jesus in LukeActs, 1986 ◆ G. Lüdemann, Das frühe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte, 1987 ◆ R.I. Pervo, Profit with Delight, 1987 ◆ R.C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, vol. II, 1990 ◆ G.E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 1992 ◆ C.H. Talbert, art. “Biography,” ABD I, 1992, 745–749 ◆ E. Plümacher, “Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte und Dionys von Halikarnass,” NTS 39, 1993, 161–177 ◆ B.W. Winter, ed., The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, 5 vols., 1993–1996 ◆ D. Marguerat, “Juden und Christen im lukanischen Doppelwerk,” EvTh 54, 1994, 241–264 ◆ M.L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 1994 ◆ J. Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1994 ◆ D.L. Balch, “Rich and Poor, Proud and Humble in Luke-Acts,” in: L.M. White & R.L. Yarbrough, eds., The Social World of the First Christians, 1995, 214–233 ◆ idem, “Paul in Acts: You teach all the Jews . . . (Act 21,21),” in: Panchaia, FS K. Thraede, JbAC.E 22, 1995, 11–23 ◆ C.H. Talbert & J.H. Hayes, A Theology of Sea Storms in LukeActs, SBL.SP 1995, 321–336 ◆ H. Cancik, “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography,” JBL 116, 1997, 681–703. David L. Balch

Acts of the Martyrs. In his new edition of the Martyrologium Romanum (1583–; cf. esp. the appended “De martyrologio Romano praecapitulatio dicendorum”), C. → Baronius borrowed the expression acta martyrum from Pontius’s Vita Cypriani 11 (cf. Cyprian Epis. 77, 2), understanding the martyr literature handed down in protocol form as original trial transcripts or as protocols recorded by ecclesiastical notarii (combining Cyprian Epis. 12, 2, 1 with LP 1, 148) to serve as documentation for liturgical commemoration. In 1643 the Acta sanctorum of the → Bollandists marked the beginning of hagiographic (→ hagiography) publishing, a project still being actively pursued (AnBoll, 1882–; SHG, 1886–). Although it focuses primarily on martyr literature (Delehaye), its interests are broader. In response to mounting historical criticism, especially of the number of → martyrs and the graphic exaggeration of their agonies, there developed the notion of the so-called Acta sincera, an expression used by Theodor Ruinart in 1689 in his dispute with H. → Dodwell (Dissertatio Cyprianica 11: De paucitate martyrum, 1680). Later, questions raised by various disciplines (ancient history, religious studies, literary criticism) led to close study, often critical, of the texts and their archaeological, historical, and cultural setting. After vigorous debate, modern scholarship has achieved a synthesis that emphasizes the literary character of the acts of the martyrs (Berschin): they were utilitarian texts of popular religious literature serving diverse functions: liturgical, pastoral, recreational, and

47 pedagogical. Ronchey stresses the great reduction in the number of texts that can be considered authentic. The variety of literary forms – e.g. pastoral letters (beginning with the Martyrdom of → Polycarp and the Martyrdom of the Martyrs of → Lyon and Vienne) and protocols (the Passion of the → Scillitan Martyrs, the oldest Christian document in Latin) – and the multiplicity of traditional designations – e.g. passio, martyrium, acta, occasionally disputatio – make it difficult to identify their literary genre, since in fact we are always dealing with hybrid forms, as the complex Martyrdom of Perpetua illustrates. The texts seek to restage the trial, sentencing, and execution of the martyr, describing the torments and tortures accompanying the whole process, ending in death. They borrow from a great variety of contemporary literary forms – first protocols and letters, but soon many other forms (letter, commentary, biography, vision narrative [→ Vision/Vision Account], philosophical dialogue, encomium, funeral oration, sermon, novel, satire, dramaturgy). Short theological tracts also appear (usually in prologues: the Martyrdom of Perpetua and the Passion of Agape, Chione, and Irene of Thessalonica, dating from 304). All are employed and reshaped for the purpose at hand (→ parenesis, → edification, instruction, reading material, liturgical celebration, private enjoyment). The texts of this utilitarian literature are “fluid” in two senses: in them several genres identified by modern form criticism flow together, and the texts, originally firmly shaped and constructed, are expanded in the course of transmission by the inclusion of new elements. A good illustration is so apparently simple a text as the so-called Acta proconsularia of → Cyprian of Carthage (257 and 258 ce), the composition and motifs (Reitzenstein) of which became a kind of model for Latin martyr literature. Often, as is typical of utilitarian texts, only late recensions have been preserved. A genuine distinguishing characteristic of the acts of the martyrs – besides a wealth of biblical allusions and particularly strong echoes of the passion of Jesus in the gospels – is the adaptation of earlier acts. For example, the Passion of Agape, itself a combination of three protocol-like sources, was later incorporated into the Acta Anastasiae. In addition, certain literary elements frequently recur: consular dating (often erroneous from the outset, even given the uncertainty of the textual tradition), terminology for municipal or state authorities that is often anachronistic or otherwise ambiguous, and urban or architectural local color, sometimes very precise (Martyrdom of → Pionius; cf. Robert). In short, the extant martyr literature must be viewed less as an authentic historical snapshot of Christians during the persecutions than as a witness to the mentality of its anonymous authors and the Christians who received and used this literature in their congregations

Acts of Thomas and devotions (including individual readers). “A variety of creative elements were used to idealize or heroize types of individual Christians” (Seeliger, 413), establishing a chain of continuity with the holy men of the past, who were thus linked with those of the present but also with other spiritual figures like the bishop or abbot. The martyr literature thus expresses the ecclesiological consciousness of the Christian communities in which it arose and provides a critical framework for the world in which they lived. Later martyr literature outside the Roman Empire (e.g. the so-called Acts of the Persian Martyrs and documents concerning the persecution of the Christians in → Najrān) was modeled after the earlier literature. Sources: C. Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum, ed. H. Rosweydus, 1613 ◆ T. Ruinart, Acta primorum martyrum sincera, 1689 = Acta martyrum, 31859 ◆ O. von Gebhardt, Acta martyrum selecta, 1902 ◆ R. Knopf, G. Krüger & G. Ruhbach, Ausgewählte Märtyrerakte, 1965 ◆ H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, 1972, repr. 2000 ◆ A.A.R. Bastiaensen et al., Atti e passioni dei martiri, Scrittori greci e latini, 1987 ◆ On the Acts: E. Lucius, Die Anfänge des Heiligenkultes in der christlichen Kirche, ed. G. Anrich, 1904 ◆ R. Reitzenstein, “Ein Stück hellenistischer Kleinliteratur,” NGWG 1904, 309–332 ◆ J. Geffcken, “Die christlichen Martyrien,” Hermes 45, 1910, 481–505 ◆ A. Harnack, “Das ursprüngliche Motiv der Abfassung von Märtyrer- und Heilungsakten in der Kirche,” SPAW.PH 7, 1910, 1, 106–125 ◆ R. Reitzenstein, Die Nachrichten über den Tod Cyprians, SHAW.PH 14, 1913 ◆ idem, “Bemerkungen zur Märtyrerliteratur 2,” NGWG.PH 1919, 177–219 ◆ H. Delehaye, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, SHG 13b, 1921, 21966 ◆ G. Lazzati, Gli sviluppi della letteratura sui martiri nei primi quattro secoli, 1956 ◆ A.-J. Festugière, “Lieux communs littéraires et thèmes de folklore dans l’hagiographie primitive,” WSt 73, 1960, 123–152 = his Études de religion grecque et hellenistique, 1972, 271–301 ◆ G. Lanata, Gli atti dei martiri come documenti processuali, 1973; 2nd ed.: Processi contro cristiani negli atti dei martiri, 1989 ◆ W. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, vol. I, 1986 ◆ V. Saxer, Bible et hagiographie, 1986 ◆ G.A. Bisbee, Pre-Decian Acts of Martyrs and Commentarii, HDR 22, 1988 ◆ J. Fontaine, HLL V, 1989, §§593– 598 ◆ B. Dehandschutter, “The Martyrium Polycarpi,” ANRW II.27/1, 1993, 485–522 ◆ S. Ronchey, “Gli atti dei martiri tra politica e letteratura,” Storia di Roma III/2, 1993, 781–825 ◆ B.D. Shaw, “The Passion of Perpetua,” PaP 139, 1993, 3–45 ◆ L. Robert, G.W. Bowersock, C.P. Jones & A. Vaillant, Le martyre de Pionius prêtre de Smyrne, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 10, 1994 ◆ A. Wlosok, HLL IV, 1997, §§472.1–9 ◆ H.R. Seeliger, LACL, 1998, 411–419. Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Acts of Thomas (Acts Thom.). The Acts Thom. report the missionary journeys of → Thomas Didymus toward and in India. The complete text is preserved in two manuscripts, one Syriac from the 10th century and one Greek from the 12th century. Abbreviated forms exist in the Greek, Syriac, Latin, Armenian, Coptic and Arabic languages. The Syriacisms in the Greek indicate a Syriac original; at any rate, the Greek manuscripts preserve a more original and less “orthodox” version of the text than the still existing Syriac version. The oldest witness of textual remnant is a Syriac palimpsest from the

Actualism 5th century; the first witnesses in other writings appear at the end of the 4th century in Epiphanius (Panarion, 47.1; 60.1.5), Augustine (De sermone Domini in monte, I 20,65; Contra Adimantium, 17; Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 14), and the Manichaean Pss. Or. hom. 3 in Gen and Eus. Hist. Eccl. III 1 report the activity of Thomas in Parthia, not in India. Thus, Thomas narratives already existed in the 3rd century, although the extant version of the text dates to the late 3rd or early 4th century. Some parts, such as the famed Pearl Hymn, are certainly redactional additions. The first six acts (chs. 1–61) consist of individual accounts, the first of which describes how his “twin brother” Jesus sold the defiant apostle to Indian slave traders. On the way to the East, Thomas participated in a royal marriage at the court of King Gundafor. The apostle persuaded bride and bridegroom to refrain from consumating the marriage, an indication of the ascetic character of the text. The subsequent chapters report various healings and exorcisms, an awakening from the dead, and an encounter with a talking donkey. The subsequent six acts (chs. 62–149) consist of a self-contained novella concerning Thomas’s activity at the court of King Mizdai. The conclusion depicts his martyrdom (chs. 150–171). The narrative also mentions baptism and Eucharist and contains liturgical prayers (chs. 27, 51). Two symbolic poems, the Bridal Hymn (chs. 6f.) and the Pearl Hymn (chs. 108–113) are to be read as cosmic and soteriological allegories. G. Bornkamm, Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen ThomasAkten, FRLANT 49, 1933 ◆ H.J.W. Drijvers, NTApo II, 51989, 289–367 ◆ J.N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, 2001 ◆ A.J.F. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas, NT.S 5, 108, 22003. Harold Attridge

Actualism (→ Grace, Doctrine of , → Act and Potency). The concept of actualism originated with Gentile. Theology treats the proper order of → nature and grace under the heading actualism, with the tendency to allow nature as an independent and pre-existent entity to merge where possible into the constantly creative and active gracious behavior of God. K. → Barth expounded a thoroughgoing actualism. To the extent that anthropological structures are permitted and only an objectifying scholastic metaphysics is excluded, one can speak of moderate actualism. G. Gentile, Der aktuale Idealismus, 1931 ◆ W. Joest, Ontologie der Person bei Luther, 1967. Gregor Zasche

Adalbert of Bremen (c. 1000 – Mar 16, 1072) was a member of the family of the count of Goseck. From 1032 on, he was cathedral provost in → Halberstadt and was elevated to archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen in 1043 by Henry III (→ Hamburg : I, → Bremen).

48 He was responsible for the expansion of sovereign rule in his diocese. From 1062 to 1066, he was influential on imperial policy as a member of the regency of → Henry IV. Above all, Adalbert was important as the initiator of the Scandinavian mission. There, as papal legate (from 1053), he ordained a series of bishops and founded (c. 1052) the dioceses of → Ratzeburg and → Mecklenburg in the Slavic region east of the Elbe. His plan to establish a patriarchate of the north and to affiliate the Scandinavian bishoprics with his seat failed, and the Slavic rebellion of 1066 destroyed his attempts at an ecclesial organization in the land of the Abodrites. P. Johanek, “Die Erzbischöfe von Hamburg-Bremen und ihre Kirche im Reich der Salierzeit,” in Die Reichskirche in der Salierzeit, ed. S. Weinfurter, = Die Salier und das Reich, II, 1991, 79–112. Wilfried Hartmann

Adalbert of Prague (Vojtîch; c. 956 – 997) was the second bishop of Prague. Adalbert, who was educated in the cathedral school in Magdeburg, was elevated to bishop in 983. Rigorously, but unsuccessfully, he tried to gain acceptance for church norms among the still half-pagan population of Bohemia, yet he succeeded in founding the first monastery at Břevnov. His limited success and the political rivalry between his Slavnikide family and the Přemyslide count forced him to depart his bishopric twice (c. 989, c. 994). In Rome, he entered the Greco-Latin Bonifatius-Alexius monastery, an educational center for the clergy of western Slavic lands. With his friend emperor Otto III, he discussed far-reaching missionary plans. On the commission of the Polish count Boleslaw Chrobry, Adalbert went on a mission to the pagans in Prussia in 997, where he suffered martyrdom. Buried in Gnesen, he was immediately venerated as a saint. His missionary and church work in Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary showed him to be a central figure of early east-central European church history. H.G. Voigt, Adalbert von Prag, 1898 ◆ P. Hilsch, “Der heilige Adalbert in der neueren deutschen Historiographie,” in: J. Hofmann, ed., Tausend Jahre Benediktiner in den Klöstern B®evnov, Braunau und Rohr, 1993, 147–156. Peter Hilsch

Adam and Christ I. New Testament – II. Dogmatics

I. New Testament In 1 Cor 15:21f., 45–49 and Rom 5:12–21, Paul draws a contrast between Adam as the primal, earthly-material human being and Christ as his eschatological, heavenlyspiritual counterpart. 1 Cor 15:45f. indicates that Paul reached this conclusion by performing – within the context of an apocalyptic concept of time and body – an eschatological inversion of an originally protological conception of a “first” (spiritual) and a “second”

49 (earthly) primal man, as held by the disclaimers of → resurrection in Corinth (1 Cor 15:12). The entire AdamChrist schema can therefore not be traced back to a single tradition within the history of religion; rather, the protological doctrine of the primal man (Corinthians) and Paul’s eschatological correction have different roots. The search, in Judaism or Gnosticism, for an Adam conception that would encompass both “the fall” and redemption is thus futile. Adam and Christ relate to each other only inasmuch as they stand out as representatives of their own respective categories of human beings. This is to be seen against the background of the archetype of the dual creation of humanity, as formulated in → Philo of Alexandria’s Allegorical Commentary (Leg. All. I, 31–42) on the basis of Gen 1:27 and 2:7. In Rom 5:12–21, Paul employs this schema in the context of his doctrine of → justification (II), giving it an (un-)redemptive interpretation through which it acquires the sense of a “deed”: because of Adam’s transgression, sin came into the world, and “because all have sinned,” “death came to all people” (5:12). Though a doctrine of → original sin cannot be derived from this, Adam’s deed nonetheless sets the pattern for the inevitability and accountability of sinful action for every human being. An innovation with respect to 1 Cor 15 is the integration of the salvation-historical function of the law (however, cf. already 1 Cor 15:56). As a whole, Rom 5:12–21 belongs to the context of Pauline texts that seek to establish a correspondence to the primal image (1 Thess 1:6f.; 2:14; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17). It may well be that Mark 1:13 implies an interpretation of Jesus as the eschatological countertype to Adam (restoration of paradisaical peace in the animal world). R. Bultmann, “Adam and Christus according to Rom 5,” in: W. Klassen & G.F. Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, 1962, 143–165 ◆ J. de Fraine, Adam und seine Nachkommen, 1962 (French original 1959) ◆ E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, WMANT 7, 1962 ◆ R. Scroggs, The Last Adam, 1966 ◆ U. Wilckens, “Christus, der ‘letzte Adam’, und der Menschensohn,” in: R. Pesch & R. Schnackenburg, eds., Jesus und der Menschensohn: FS A. Vögtle, 1975, 387–403 ◆ G. Sellin, Der Streit um die Auferstehung der Toten, FRLANT 138, 1986. Gerhard Sellin

II. Dogmatics A primary task of theological discourse on the relationship between Adam and Christ is to clarify the relationship between → anthropology and → Christology. Indeed, the symbolic figure of “Adam” denotes (even beyond its “mythological” use) the humanity of the → human being (VII) as a creature of God, as well as human life in the actual commission of → sin (VII). In this sense, it stands for humanity. Jesus Christ, however, is the human being through whom God entered human history and led the → creatureliness of the human being to its fulfillment in truth. This means: He is the human

Adam and Eve being who came entirely from God and exists entirely from God. This happened by virtue of God’s oneness with him, which proved effective in his → resurrection (II) from the dead as the eschatological fulfillment of his humanity. This event establishes the difference between Jesus’ true humanity and the sinful humanity subsumed under the name “Adam,” but also its fundamental relationship to it. Since divine openness to humanity and human openness to God correlate clearly in Jesus Christ, he is the “image of God” (cf. 2 Cor 4:4) in which all human beings are created (cf. Gen 1:27; → Image: III). By partaking of the faith in his “being,” which marks the difference from sin, the realization of true humanity in the midst of Adam’s humanity and in the hope of its eschatological fulfillment thus also becomes possible. From this position, the assumption that humanity in general finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ and that Christian theology should therefore understand it as coming only from him (Barth) is comprehensible. This stands in contrast to the objection that human openness to God must first be explained from the realities of being human and of human history in order to make Jesus Christ comprehensible as the one who brings about the fulfillment of that which is most human. This view has its justification, inasmuch as sinful humanity cannot, in fact, entirely deny that it owes its existence to God and lives it in the presence of the creator. No human being is “godless.” As a creature of God, he is structurally open to his creator and always the object of God’s thoughtful attention. Yet, the signs of true humanity discernable in the overwhelmingly sinful history of humankind are, in Christian theology, only recognizable as such under the assumption of the true humanity that reaches its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. No path leads from the reality of sinful existence to the perception and fulfillment of the true humanity coming from the acceptance of God’s salvation. This is the enduring truth of the Pauline parallel between Adam and Christ. In the encounter of humankind “in Adam” with Christ, however, it becomes clear that the truth inherent in all humanity is none other than its destiny to relate to God, a destiny that is supported by God himself and which not even sin can invalidate. K. Barth, Christus und Adam nach Röm, V, 21952 ◆ A. Peters, Der Mensch, HST 8, 1979 ◆ E. Jüngel, “Der Gott entsprechende Mensch,” in: Entsprechungen, BEvTh 88, 1980, 290–317 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983; ET: Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1999. Wolf Krötke

Adam and Eve I. Ancient Judaism – II. Art

I. Ancient Judaism According to Gen 1–5, Adam and Eve were the first human couple. Although the two figures play a major

Adam, Books of role in ancient Judaism, their importance is often overrated. The tendency to see a widespread myth of Adam in Second Temple sources is connected with the pivotal role of Adam in the Pauline epistles (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). The fall of Adam and Eve does not play a role in all schools of ancient Judaism. One significant strand of tradition, represented by Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. CD 2.14–21), emphasizes instead the myth of the fall of the Watchers. In this tradition, the intercourse of angels with the daughters of humans (Gen 6:1–4) was the primal sin. In other Palestinian sources, Adam and the fall play a larger role. According to 2 Esd 7:10–12, the world was created for the sake of Israel, but “when Adam transgressed my statutes, what had been made was judged.” As a result, the entrances to this world were made “narrow and sorrowful and toilsome,” and the world they led to became “full of dangers and involved in great hardships.” The author of 2 Baruch (54:15) underscores the universal consequences of Adam’s sin, but also takes the position that the sin of each individual demands punishment. → Philo of Alexandria is known for his doctrine of double creation. In the first creation (Opif. 68 on Gen 1:26), God fashions a heavenly human as God’s true likeness, without any perishable, earthly being; in the second creation (Opif. 134 on Gen 2:7), God creates an earthly human out of clay, subject to change and mortality. The fall itself he interprets allegorically. Adam represents reason, Eve sensuality, the serpent pleasure. As long as reason’s vision of God remains unclouded, life is pure bliss; but the temptations of sensuality (Eve, mediated through the serpent) bring about the fall (Opif. 157). It is often claimed that post-biblical documents favor a reading of Gen 2–3 that burdens Eve with greater guilt (Philo; 1 Tim 2:14; L.A.E. 3:2). Rabbinic sources do not support this claim. One tradition records that Adam surrounded the law with a high “fence” when he gave it to Eve and therefore bore total responsibility for her transgression (’Abot R. Nat. 1). Adam’s fall had cosmic consequences. According to Gen. R. 12:6, there were three changes in Adam’s person: his luminous glory vanished, he forfeited his immortality, and his gigantic size dwindled. As to Adam’s bringing sin into the world, the Rabbinic sources do not present a uniform picture. One tradition totally denies the significance of Adam’s sin for the coming of death; instead, God ordained death for all human beings in proleptic reaction to the hubris of Hiram and → Nebuchadnezzar, who considered themselves “gods” (Gen. R. 9:5). P. Schäfer, “Adam in der jüdischen Überlieferung,” in: Vom alten zum neuen Adam, ed. W. Strolz, 1986, 69–93 ◆ J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch, 1988 ◆ G. Anderson, “The Penitence Narrative in the Life of Adam and Eve,” HUCA 63, 1992, 1–38 ◆ M.E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 1994. Gary A. Anderson

50 II. Art Textual and pictorial representations of Adam and Eve have helped define religious and cultural attitudes toward gender, sexuality, and the relationship between man and woman. The story of Adam and Eve is a common subject of Christian art, portrayed in a variety of narrative and didactic representations: the creation of Adam (Gen 2:7), Adam’s taxonomy (2:20), the creation of Eve (2:21–23), the marriage of Adam and Eve (Golden Legend), temptation and fall (Gen 3:1–7), expulsion from paradise (3:8–24), Adam’s toil (3:23), birth of Cain and Abel (4:1–2), birth of Seth (4:25), first Adam/second Adam, first Eve/second Eve (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:35; → Adam and Christ: I), and the Anastasis (Gos. Nic.). Adam has usually been represented as a young Greek god, cleanshaven, handsome, and naked, Eve as a beautiful young woman with long hair. The creation of Eve was interpreted as prefiguring the birth of the church: just as Eve came forth from Adam’s side, so the church came forth from the wound in the side of the crucified Jesus. The commonest motif was that of creation and fall: The serpent – in the late Middle Ages sometimes represented with the head and torso of a woman and associated with Lilith – tempted Eve, who in turn tempted Adam by offering him the forbidden fruit, usually represented as an apple. In the Middle Ages, Eve alone was blamed for the entry of sin into the world; she became a visual metaphor for dissipated sexuality, temptation, and guilt. The expulsion from paradise was depicted either by a representation of Adam protesting his innocence while Eve blames the serpent or by the figure of the archangel Michael expelling the two from paradise. The common medieval motif of Adam tilling the soil with a pregnant Eve sitting nearby symbolizes the frailty of human beings and their subjection to God’s authority. The Byzantine iconography of the Anastasis combines the resurrection of Jesus Christ with his descent into hell: as the firstborn of those redeemed from damnation, a white-bearded, aged Adam and a white-haired, matronly Eve are led by the risen Christ into the kingdom of heaven. D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Women in Religious Art, 1996, 126, 130 ◆ P. & L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996, 3f. ◆ D. ApostolosCappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 21997, 14–16, 129– 131. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Adam, Books of. The Books of Adam are a group of apocryphal sources which portray the life of Adam and Eve after their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. They have been preserved in six different languages: Greek (Apoc. Adam), Latin (Vita Adam), Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Coptic. The date and origin of these texts are difficult to determine. There are indications of Christian authorship between 100 and 600

51 ce. The Latin text begins with the history of the repentance of Adam and Eve immediately after the expulsion. During her penance Eve was tempted a second time by Satan; then the famous story of the primordial fall of Satan is told. The Greek text begins with the history of Cain and Abel, and leads then to Adam’s deathbed and Eve’s detailed review of the Fall. The Greek and the Latin texts both end with a lengthy report of the burial rites for Adam and Eve. Important indicators suggest that the Armenian and Georgian versions preserve the more original form of the documents. M.P. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” OTP II, 1985, 249–295 ◆ M. de Jonge & J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature, 1997. Gary A. Anderson

Adam Kadmon (Qadmon; / ., literally: primordial man). In 13th-century → Kabbalah and later as well, Adam Kadmon articulated in anthropomorphic terminology the idea of the highest, concealed nature of the totality of divine powers, namely, of the pl¶roma (Gk. πλήρωμα). The antithetical concept is that of shihur qoma in → Hekhalot mysticism (with which it belongs together in the Kabbalah). In the → Zohar and in the Lurianic myth of the late 16th century, in which it represents the first → emanation of the eternal divine light, Adam Kadmon is a creative mystical symbol. In connection with cosmogony, it often represents the highest stage of the divine hierarchy, demonstrating that the kabbalists understood the divine powers as members of an enormous mystical, anthropomorphic unity. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 1954 ◆ idem Kabbalah, 1974. Joseph Dan

Adam, Karl (Oct 22, 1876, Pursruck, Oberpfalz – Apr 1, 1966, Tübingen) became a priest in 1900, received his doctorate in 1904, and was habilitated as professor of Latin patristics in 1908 at the University of Munich; he was professor of Catholic dogmatics at Tübingen 1919–1949. Adam revived the theology of the perception of faith with a phenomenological method close to that of M. → Scheler. Influenced by the Catholic Tübingen School, he placed the idea of the Church as the body of Christ at the center of his ecclesiology. In all, Adam created a “theology of life” that contributed significantly to the rediscovery of the humanity of Jesus Christ in Catholic Christology and opened the path to → Vatican II. After the War, he formulated important impulses for ecumenical theology. Works include: Das Wesen des Katholizismus, 1924, 121949; ET: The Spirit of Catholicism, 1997 ◆ Christus, unser Bruder, 1929, 91960 ◆ Jesus Christus, 1933, 81949 ◆ Una sancta in katholischer Sicht, 1948 ◆ On Adam: H. Kreidler, Eine Theologie des Lebens, 1988 ◆ R. Krieg, Karl Adam, 1992. Robert A. Krieg

Adam Scotus Adam of Bremen (d. Oct 12 before 1085). Educated at the cathedral school of Bamberg, he worked in Bremen from 1066/67 (become cathedral scholar in 1069); in 1067/68, he was at the Danish royal court, where he took instruction on conditions in the nordic countries. This information was recorded in the fourth volume of his Church History, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, which was the first thorough report in the Middle Ages concerning Scandinavia, Iceland, and Greenland. The first two volumes of the work deal with the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen up to 1043; volume III is dedicated to → Adalbert of Bremen. In these sections, too, mission work in the north stands in the foreground. This history sets a high standard by virtue of its treatment of documents and historiographic sources. Adam later revised the work, which had originally been completed in 1075/76. With over 20 preserved manuscripts, it was clearly widely copied. F.-J. Schmale, VerLex2 I, 1978, 50–54 ◆ G. Theuerkauf, “Die Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte Adams von Bremen,” in: Historiographia Mediaevalis. FS F.-J. Schmale, 1988, 118–137. Wilfried Hartmann

Adam of St. Victor (apparently d. Jan 14, at the latest in 1146) was the author of hymn-like sequences (“later style”). His background, biographical data, and works attributed to him are disputed. While earlier scholarship (LMA I, 1990, 110f.) equated him with Adam Brito mentioned in the necrology of St. Victor – who, according to later sources, died in 1192 –, Fassler sees him as the canon Adam attested as the “praecentor” of the cathedral chapter of Notre-Dame (Paris) from 1107 to 1133, who withdrew to St. Victor around 1133. M.E. Fassler, “Who Was Adam of St. Victor?” JAMS 37, 1984, 233–269. Mathias Lawo

Adam Scotus (Adam of Dryburgh; 1127/40 – 1212) was abbot-coadjutor in Dryburgh (OPraem) from 1184. In 1188/89, he moved to the Carthusian monastery in Witham, where, like other representatives of the reform orders of his time, he considered life as a hermit to be the highest form of religious life. In his writings, which were primarily devoted to questions of monastic life, contemplation, and asceticism, there is evidence of deep familiarity with the Bible and tradition (esp. → Augustine), as well as the influence of the → Victorines. A. Wilmart, “Maître Adam,” APraem 9, 1933, 209–232 (Vita) ◆ J. Bulloch, Adam of Dryburgh, 1958 ◆ M.J. Hamilton, Adam of Dryburgh, ACar 16, 1974. Marie-Luise Ehrenschwendtner

Adam Wodham

52

Adam Wodham (Woodham, Godham, Goddamus; c. 1298–1358), OFM, was an important student of William of → Occam. He was educated in the order’s school in London, c. 1325–1329 in Oxford; he lectured on the Sentences in 1330 in Norwich, until 1333 in Oxford, also in London; until 1339, when he journeyed to Basel, he was the director of studies for the OFM in Oxford. His doctrine of grace was attacked in Oxford and Paris as semi-Pelagian (→ Pelagius, Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians). W.J. Courtenay, Adam Wodham, 1978.

Christoph Burger

Adamantius, Dialogue of. Adamantius (“Man of Steel”) is the name of the orthodox principal speaker in a Greek dialogue (subtitled De recta in deum fide) that attacks → Marcionites, Bardesanites (→ Bardesanes), and Valentinians (→ Valentinianism). It was composed some time after 325 ce in Asia Minor or Syria. As early as the 4th century, Adamantius was identified with Origen and considered the author of the dialogue (cf. the Latin translation by → Rufinus). The work is dependent on → Methodius. Its value as a source of information concerning the heresies attacked is disputed. CPG 1, 1726 ◆ Der Dialog des Adamantius, ed. W.H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, GCS, 1901 ◆ Tyrannii Rufini librorum Adamantii Origenis adversus haereticos interpretatio, ed. V. Buchheit, STA 1, 1966. Gerhard May

Adamites (Adamians). A type of heretic encountered in Early Church authors that corresponds to no historically identifiable persons. Since Epiphanius, it refers primarily to nude worship in subterranean cult sites called “Paradise.” The primal purity presumably sought after had ascetic significance, also certain eschatological elements, but was understood, especially in the Middle Ages, as an immoral orgy, then also as an alliance with the devil. Adamites are mentioned in the early 14th century, sometimes along with other terms (e.g. Luciferians, Brooders), in Austria, Bohemia, and Cologne. In 1421, a group of Taborites were defamed and expelled as Adamites. Adamite nudity is attested in Amsterdam in 1535; c. 1580, Anabaptists were again called Adamites there. The accusation of Adamitism continued as a quite rare cliché on into the 19th century. H. Haupt, RE3 I, 1896, 164–166 ◆ B. Töpfer, “Hoffnungen auf Erneuerung des paradiesischen Zustandes,” in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. A. Patschovsky & F. Šmahel, 1996. Kurt-Victor Selge

Adamnan (Adomnán; c. 624–704), associated with → Columba (Columcille). Adamnan, a learned Irish monk, was the ninth abbot of → Iona (679–704). Around 686/87 he was sent on a diplomatic mission

to ransom Irish prisoners of war from King Aldfrith of Northumbria. He was the author of a law, passed at the synod of Birr in 697, forbidding the war-time killing of women, children, and clergy (Cáin Adomnáin). He also urged acceptance of the Roman date for Easter (→ Paschal/Easter Calendrical Controversies). His major works are De locis sanctis, an itinerary through the Holy Land based on an account by the Frankish bishop Arculf, which Adamnan revised with the aid of earlier scholarly sources ( Josephus, Jerome, et al.), and the Vita Columbae (c. 692), a masterpiece of early Irish → hagiography and a first-rate source for the history of early Irish → monasticism. The Fís Adomnáin (“Vision of Adamnan”), a Middle Irish visionary narrative, probably dates from the 10th or 11th century. Adomnán’s Life of Columba, ed. A.O. Anderson & M.O. Anderson, 1991 ◆ F. Brunhölzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, I, 1975, 173–178. Eva Köpf

Adams, Ansel (Feb 20, 1902, San Francisco – Apr 22, 1984 Carmel, CA), photographer, best known for his impeccably printed black-and-white photographs of the American wilderness. These technically accomplished but nevertheless poetic images, mainly of landscapes in western America, display incredible beauty in tone, texture, and detail, while inspiring an appreciation of nature’s simple grandeur. Though Adams did not confess to being religious, he was an ardent conservationist. His work, which has often been reproduced and sold in large numbers, has helped to create a new spiritual consciousness of nature and of human responsibility for its preservation. Works include: This is the American Earth, 1960 ◆ The American Wilderness, ed. A. Stillman, 1990 ◆ On Adams: M.S. Alinder & A.G. Stillman, eds., Ansel Adams, 1988. Frank Burch Brown

Adams, Henry (Feb 16, 1838, Boston, MA – Mar 27, 1918, Washington DC), descendant of the great family of American statesmen. Towards the end of his life he was deeply preoccupied with the religious origins of his family. The medieval French imaginaire of the Virgin Mary was an aesthetic replacement for his own agnosticism and an aesthetic way of coming to terms with his wife’s suicide. If Adams’s highly stylized autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams (1906), was a meditation on his intellectual and public life, the visionary Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres (1904) was partly a meditation on his religious and private life. R. Mane, Henry Adams on the Road to Chartres, 1971 ◆ J.F. Byrnes, The Virgin of Chartres, 1981. Joseph F. Byrnes

Adamson , Patrick (Mar 15, 1537, Perth – Feb 19, 1592), Scottish clergyman and archbishop of St.

53 Andrews. He studied at St. Mary’s College in the University of St. Andrews (M.A. 1558) and supported the Reformation. In 1560 he was appointed by the General Assembly (the supreme court of the Scottish Reformed church) for service in the church and for education. In 1564 he wrote a number of Latin poems attacking the Roman Catholics of Aberdeen. In 1566 he went abroad as a private tutor, visiting Paris, Padua, and Geneva for theology and Bourges for civil law. In 1576 he became archbishop of St. Andrews at a point when the Presbyterians had gained ascendancy in the church under A. → Melville’s leadership. With royal support he launched a counteroffensive as an apologist for episcopacy in 1583, denouncing the Presbyterian program of the Second Book of Discipline of 1578. He received little support from the English church and government, or from the French church in London, or from Zürich or Geneva. Excommunicated by the Synod of Fife in 1586, he was obliged to confess his errors in defying the courts of the church and he appealed for help to his old adversary Melville. He died still excommunicated. G. Donaldson, Scottish Church History, 1985 ◆ J. Kirk, Patterns of Reform, 1989. James Kirk

Adaptation. The fact that all living creatures are almost perfectly adapted to their environment in their form, physiology, sensorium, and behavior is explained by the natural sciences as the result of an evolutionary process extending over millions of years (→ Evolution: I). According to C. → Darwin, natural → selection may be considered a primary agent of evolutionary adaptation: in the event of surplus production, individuals whose function and performance achieve the greatest effectiveness under given environmental conditions can produce more offspring than others. Since differences in the effectiveness of function and performance (Dar winian “fitness”) are generally hereditary, there is a constant process of adaptation whose dynamic makes organisms continue to develop. The reality of this basic hypothesis has been demonstrated by observations in the natural world, successful breeding, and experiments in population genetics. When complex events are reduced to the effects of a few hereditary traits, the principles of these adaptive processes can be described and analyzed by theoretical mathematical models. Not infrequently the principle of biological adaptation has been applied to human social systems (so-called social Dar winism): the hereditary, adaptive ability of coexisting individuals of a population is looked upon as the basis of a natural scale of value (→ Darwinism). Today the natural sciences are still concerned with the question of whether and to what extent Darwinian theories are applicable to human behavior and where the results might lead. An extensive scholarly literature has grown

Adat up around this question. This is an important albeit highly controversial area, where the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology all converge (→ Ethnology: IV, → Evolutionary Ethics). C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 2 vols., 1859 ◆ T. Dobzhansky, Vererbung und Menschenbild, 1966 ◆ R.D. Alexander, Darwinism and Human Affairs, 1979 ◆ I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens, 1984 ◆ C. Vogel, “Evolution und Moral,” in: H. Maier-Leibnitz, ed., Zeugen des Wissens, 1986, 467–507 ◆ D. Sperlich, Populationsgenetik, 1988 ◆ P. Hefner, The Human Factor, 1993. Diether Sperlich

Adat. “Adat” derives from Arab. hāda, “the constantly recurring,” custom, tradition, customary law. The term spread with Islam; in its Persian form, hādat, it came to designate pre-Islamic legal traditions, as well as cultural and even religious traditions, especially in Southeast Asia. In other Islamic areas, the equivalent term is hurf. Adat is rooted in the original worldview of the peoples of the Malayo-Polynesian cultural sphere, including the mountain peoples of Taiwan. Thus it embraces all domains of human life – personal, social, and thus religious. Adat is intimately associated with ancestor worship. In practice, all actions are performed in the presence of the ancestors and within the framework of the cosmic order that ultimately governs even the gods, in which the adat of all beings and phenomena is grounded. The habitat of the adat community is the “village of the fathers,” more broadly the territory of the tribe. Realized here is the unity between the genealogically defined ethnic group and the territory inherited from the ancestors, which provides the community its sustenance. The efforts of modern Islamic legal scholars to develop a uniform Islamic legal system throughout Indonesia that also incorporates adat as an autochthonous legal tradition constantly run up against the problem that adat is unique to each tribe, even among the Islamic tribes, and thus resists the establishment of a uniform (Islamic) law code. For people who live by adat, both Islamic and Western law suffer from a fundamental weakness, since both are introduced from without into the territory governed by adat. Furthermore, since Sharīha derives from a God who himself stands outside the order that governs the cosmos (that he established this order from without is also not clear), it has an element of alienness, unlike the familiarity of adat. The alienness of the Christian idea of God and the teaching that human beings are alienated from their God have also placed great difficulties in the way of an acculturation of Christianity. Attempts to understand adat simply as custom or tradition and thus deny its religious character have usually failed, at least as long as traditional popular religiosity holds sway. As a result, the missionaries and usually also the first Christians as a rule

Addams, Jane totally rejected everything connected with adat, including its cultural expressions. It would seem that a positive relationship between adat and Christianity will be possible only if Christian theology can grant the ancestors a place of honor in an ongoing communion of the living and the dead. C.S. Hurgronje, The Achehnese, 1906 ◆ C. van Vollenhoven, Het Adatrecht van Nederlandsch-Indië, 3 vols., 1918–1933 ◆ V.E. Korn, Het Adatrecht van Bali, 21932 ◆ H. Schärer, Die Gottesidee der Ngadju-Dajak in Süd-Borneo, 1946 ◆ B. ter Haar, Adat Law in Indonesia, 1948 ◆ J. Prins, Adatrecht en islamitische Plichtenleer in Indonesië, 1948 ◆ C. Geertz, The Religion of Java, 1960 ◆ R.O. Winstedt, The Malays, 61961 ◆ F.L. Cooley, Ambonese Adat, 1962 ◆ L. Schreiner, Adat und Evangelium, 1972 ◆ J.E. Garang, Adat und Gesellschaft, 1974 ◆ J.F. Holleman, Van Vollenhoven on Indonesian Adat Law, 1981 ◆ W. Kraus, Zwischen Reform und Rebellion, 1984 ◆ M. Woodward, Islam in Java, 1990. Olaf Schumann

Addams, Jane (Sep 6, 1860, Cedarville, IL – May 21, 1935, Chicago), social reformer, humanist, and leader of the → peace movement. With the opening of Hull House in Chicago in 1889 Addams founded the Settlement House Movement, an initiative to establish social centers in the big cities. She campaigned for women’s voting rights and worked in the pacifistic women’s movement. Addams wrote many works on social ethics and set up a campaign for the legislative reform of factory labor laws. In 1931 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Works include: Twenty Years at Hull House, 1910. Margaret Lamberts Bendroth

Addiction → Drug and Alcohol Addiction Adelard of Bath. This English translator and natural philosopher was a → Benedictine, who lived between 1070 and 1160 and was probably from Bath, to which he returned in 1130; he studied in Tours, probably taught in Laon, and undertook extensive journeys in the Mediterranean region, where he became acquainted with Arab science. His chief merit consists in his mediation of ancient and Arab natural philosophy of Antiquity to the → West. He translated Euclid’s Elements, the introduction to astrology by Abu Mashar, and the astronomical tables of al-Khwarizmi from the Arabic into Latin. In his own writings, such as De eodem et diverso, he presented the foundations of his metaphysics that sought to accommodate → Plato with → Aristotle on the question of universals, and in the Quaestiones naturales he presented his natural philosophy. Thus, he gave impetus to the development of scientific thought in England. C. Burnett, Adelard of Bath, 1987 ◆ L. Cochrane, Adelard of Bath: The First English Scientist, 1994. Reinhold Rieger

Ādi Granth. This Ādi Granth is the holy scripture of the Sikhs (→ Sikhism), also called Gurū-Granth.

54 The standard version (see below) is titled Ādi Srī Gurū Granth Sāhibjī, “The guru in first position in the form of the book.” He was appointed by the 10th and final guru, Gobind Singh (period of office: 1675–1708), to continue the human succession of gurus since its founder, Nānak (1469–1539) and as the ultimate authority of the office. Based on material already collected by the third guru (2nd half of 16th cent.), Arjan, the fifth guru, ordered the first version, which was completed in 1604 and used in the ritual at the main sanctuary in → Amritsar. The standard version (Damdamā version), recognized as authoritative today, was produced by the ninth guru (2nd half of 17th cent.), who added additional material. A third version, the “Banno version,” is considered invalid. The standard text has 1430 pages and its language is a combination of variants of Western Hindi and Punjābi in the Gurmukhi-script. The texts represent hymnic and lyric poetry. Apart from the liturgical beginning (1–13) and the section of short articles (1353–1430) it is divided into chapters according to rāgas, “tonal pitch,” and follows a consistent arrangement within the chapters. The Ādi Granth contains works of gurus 1–5 and 9, as well as texts of the so-called Bhagats, i.e. → Bhakti writers of the pre-Nānak era and of the Sufi master Shaikh Farīd ud-Dīn. The Ādi Granth attracts religious respect just like a living guru. The entire cult takes place in its presence. Ādi Srī Gurū Granth Sāhibjī, Amritsar, n.d. ◆ W.O. Cole & P.S. Sambhi, The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 41978 ◆ W.H. McLeod, transl. and ed., Textual Sources for the Study of Sikhism, 1984 ◆ Sri Guru-Granth Sahib; ET: Gopal Singh, 4 vols., 1984 ◆ Sri Guru-Granth Sahib; ET: Gurbachan Sigh Talib, 4 vols., 1984–1990. Monika Horstmann

Adiaphora I. Philosophy – II. Theology – III. Social Ethics

The expression (Gk ἀδιάϕορα; semantic equivalents: intermediates, Gk μέση, mesē-, that which is permitted) designates phenomena of human life that are neither positive (good, bonum) nor negative (evil, malum) in the ethical realm (i.e. with regard to the attainment of human destiny). In the strict sense, then, adiaphora occur only in ethical systems whose guiding understanding of humanity knows phenomena that are external to human essence and destiny. This is evident in the classical discourse of philosophy, theology, and today in social ethics. I. Philosophy Owing to their concept of humanity, the → Stoics were the first to pose the question of adiaphora: the nature of a human being is self-control in rational behavior, his or her destiny is that kind of eudaimonia (→ Eudaemonism) that appears as the self-sufficiency of rational self-control (→ Autarchy). Animal nature does not belong to the

55 nature and destiny of a human being. All the goods and ills of this realm are adiaphora. Acts of rational choice are oriented only toward moral goods. Those things that are physically preferable are recognized and chosen by moral perception and inclination. Disadvantages of this position include: life is no longer unified, reason no longer the sole designer of life. These consequences are avoided when the rational choice of the moral good includes the decision concerning the moral use of the physical good/ill. From Chrysippus on, all middle and later Stoics argued thus. Then, the relationship of the rational life to the physical good/ill becomes the central theme; and especially the relationship of reason, as a moral norm, to animal nature: the control of the former over the latter. The following leads to the immoral reversal of this relationship: the predominance of the senses and the influence of public opinion on the as yet uneducated person. They are to be overcome by an education that strengthens the Logos. → Boethius transmitted this problem on to the ethics of a later period. I. → Kant maintained, in view of the exclusivity of the alternative between the moral and the immoral relationship between the dictates of reason and particular willing, that no life phenomenon can be an adiaphoron. In fact, however, he only showed that no life phenomenon can fall in a morally indifferent place, but he did not show that, in the moral or immoral spheres, several acts cannot be equally good or bad. This could only be excluded if the moral requirement pertained to the content of the individual act. The related anthropological assumption is that, in a certain respect, human physicality no longer counts as morally relevant, but in other respects is set aside. Only a view of personhood that includes physis and logos as equally original and essential can help solve the problem. II. Theology Such a concept of humanity is essential for Christian faith. Its fundamental ontological distinction regarding persons is not physis/logos, but opus Dei/opus hominum – the distinction between the freedom of the creator (the gracious objective toward which his will and work lead the world and humanity) and the freedom of the human being (the objectives that one’s free will and work pursue). This distinction does not fall in the human life, but encompasses it as the totality of the free life of corporeal persons. Therefore, the NT does not discuss life phenomena that are not determined by God’s objectives, his will and work, as “adiaphora,” but as realms and manifestations of creaturely freedom which lives either in the darkness of its absence, or in the light of knowledge (disclosed through the revelation in Christ) of the creator’s will and his demands on human beings. Its orientation with respect to the inner norm of true understanding – distorted by blindness or disclosed by revelation – of existence determines the moral goodness/badness of

Adiaphora a behavior, not its external conformity with external norms and their casuistry. The NT objection to the casuistry of individual rules (e.g. Mark 2:18–3:12; Matt 23; Rom 14:17–21) does not express consciousness of “adiaphoria,” but consciousness of the freedom of faith grounded in its inner ties with certainty-through-revelation. If and to the degree that this inner orientation of faith by ontological certainty concerning God’s will and demand is replaced with external orientation by external norms, the concept of adiaphora, of what is permitted, together with the ensuing problems, become apparent again: in the Early Church in → Tertullian (cf. Cor. 2), → Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Stromata IV 26,164,4), → Origen (Cels. V 36; Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. IV 9; Hom. in Num. XVI 7; Comm. in Ioann. XX 55.220), → Lactantius (Inst.), → Basil the Great, → Ambrose, and John → Cassian. Indeed, → Augustine was aware of the exclusivity of the alternative of a behavior in the state of sin or in the state of grace (Ep. 82.13), but within the state of grace, on the other hand, adiaphora are not excluded. The Scholastic distinction between praecepta and consilia (→ Counsels of Perfection) also presumes this, as does the doctrine of the opera supererogatoria. In contrast, Luther returned to the NT understanding of the morality of faith as an inner motivation and as the orientation of the exercise of freedom exclusively by the certainty of faith concerning God’s will and commandment. There is no evidence that this left open a realm for adiaphora for the individual in Luther’s eyes. The requirement “To praise God and help one’s neighbor” covered behavior in individual cases. All historical arrangements of communal life and their norms are, for Luther, human products and variable, but as such they are not adiaphora. They are required by the morality of faith and are to be evaluated with respect to their utility in light of its motivating and orienting certainty. The order of the church and that of worship are free to be shaped by faith in inner orientation to its certainty, but they are not adiaphora. The first generation after Luther already misunderstood this: in the “first → Adiaphorist Controversy” proponents and opponents of the → Augsburg Interim started from the assumption that, in the realm of the external arrangement of worship, there are always adiaphora and – in the Stoic tradition – that the criterion of their moral treatment is the meaning that the pertinent custom has for the individual by virtue of intention and that it can acquire for a third party by virtue of contextual incorporation. The basis of Christian ethics – i.e. its understanding of human existence, the freedom of faith, and of its fundamental norm – impacted, then, the “second Adiaphorist Controversy” conducted from 1682 (the criticism of the opera by the chief pastors of Hamburg) until the first decades of the 18th century. Here, the issue was the goods (pleasures, enjoyments) of cor-

Adiaphorist Controversy poral life, society and art in the salvation-oriented course of a Christian’s life. The conceptual framework was the opinion, established following the first Adiaphorist Controversy, that there are realms of behavior that are per se neither good nor evil, but always become so in individual cases on the basis of intention and/or circumstances (e.g. B. → Meisner, Philosophia sobria I 5.2 c. 4). On this basis – and under the influence of Calvinist “precision” – representatives of → Pietism, i.e. Joachim → Lange (Antibarbarus orthodoxiae), but also P. J. → Spener (Theologische Bedenken II, 484) argued that the pursuit of such corporal, social, esthetic goods could only be sin. For God’s will requires exclusive devotion to God, and encompases the entirety of faith in the manner of direct commandments for individual cases. Consequently, every act not intended directly to honor God or to further one’s piety or the piety of another is sin. The orthodox defense, by V.E. → Löscher (Timotheus Verinus, ch. 8), for example, objected against this view that there is no explicit divine prohibition against such behavior. The concept of existence of both sides, therefore, knew of realms of life to which per se no meaning for the attainment of human destiny can be assigned, and both sides conceived of the external regulation of the life of faith; beyond this, the Halle side also conceived of the inner restriction by direct divine commandment for the individual case. The distance from the biblical and Reformation understanding of the morality of faith based on inner restrictions is obvious. – Only F. → Schleiermacher (“Über den Begriff des Erlaubten,” Sämtliche Werke III/2, 418–445) radically destroyed the concept of the adiaphora as a failure of the principle doctrine of ethics, namely its understanding of humanity. He, too, started from the exclusivity of the alternatives between moral and immoral in the total makeup of the human being in the hierarchical relationship between “lower” and “higher nature.” He defined this difference, however, no longer as that between physis and logos, but between relationship to the world (a sphere of relative freedom and dependence) and relationship to God (a sphere of outright dependence). Immoral is the relationship of the dominance of the relationship to the world over the relationship to God; the reverse is moral. Because the relationship to the world and the relationship to God were originally combined in the relationship to self, there is no realm of existence that per se falls outside life under the ethical alternatives; and by virtue of the always unique coexistence of world- and God-relationship, every act stands for every individual under the exclusive alternative of corresponding to one’s individual destiny or not. – This radical critique had effect in Protestant theology. Without regard to schools – into the 20th century, even in K. → Barth (KD IV/1, 533) – the concept of adiaphora is rejected. The only topics still under discussion are how the awareness of the inner binding will

56 of God is constituted, the extent to which, in individual instances, knowledge of one’s individual destiny reaches, and whether rest also stands under the ethical alternative (W. → Herrmann, Gottschick). III. Social Ethics After the individual ethical destruction of adiaphora, structurally equivalent claims concerning indifference returned at the end of the 19th century with the thesis of the “autonomy” either of the entire social realm or of some of its arenas (e.g. business, science). The anthropological assumption was the (neo-Kantian) failure to recognize that the Christian understanding of the essence and destiny of human beings includes sociality. Two forms of the claim of indifference occur: (a) The human being is not responsible for the development of the social order, but only for leading one’s own life. It can be objected that the regulation of communal life is also the consequence of interaction. Its moral – in the Christian case: oriented by certainty concerning the will and commandment of God – performance is, in all realms, the first and necessary condition for beneficial development of relationships. (b) The relationships achieved – the results of interaction – did not themselves decide what use individuals made of them. Nevertheless, the exercise of human freedom always takes place under social conditions that hamper or encourage its morality. The results of all interaction stand under these alternatives, even in business and science. J. Gottschick, RE3 I, 1896, 168–179 ◆ M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 2 vols., 1948f. ◆ W. Trillhaas, “Adiaphora,” ThLZ 79, 1954, 457–462 ◆ J. Habermas, Wissenschaft und Technik als Ideologie, 1968 ◆ idem, Erkenntnis und Interesse, 1971; ET: Knowledge and Human Interests, 1971 ◆ G. Maurach, HWP I, 1971, 83–85 ◆ M. Honecker, Einführung in die Theologische Ethik, 1990, 314– 326 ◆ D. Lange, Ethik in evangelischer Perspektive, 1992, 90, 112, 374. Eilert Herms

Adiaphorist Controversy. Adiaphoron (ἀδιάϕορον), in the context of the Adiaphorist Controversy, indicates the assessment of the requirements laid upon the Protestants after their defeat in the Schmalkaldic War by the → Augsburg Interim of 1548: the reintroduction of organizational elements from liturgy and church law that had fallen by the wayside or come under suspicion with the Reformation, to be instituted as a means of anti-Reformation religious policy. The problem of these organizational elements had already occupied Saxon-Albertine theology since 1543. The conflict that resulted in the Adiaphorist Controversy took on essential elements of a dispute concerning political ethics and dealt with the question of whether the requirements were irrelevant. With a view to the situation in the state, Melanchthon and several of his friends in Albertine Saxony aimed at a compromise, while

57 seeking to avoid conceding anything in the Confession. M. → Flacius along with some of the younger generation of theologians, followed the principle: “nihil est adiaphoron in casu confessionis et scandali,” which also found a hearing among Albertine theologians. The Adiaphorist Controversy was the cause of the conflict between → Gnesio-Lutheran and Philippists that dominated the three subsequent decades among adherents to the → Augsburg Confession. The Formula of → Concord affirmed the theological principle of Flacius. W. Trillhaas, “Adiaphoron: Erneute Erwägung eines alten Begriffs,” ThLZ 79, 1954, 457–462 ◆ G. Wartenberg, “Philipp Melanchthon und die sächsisch-albertinische Interimspolitik,” LuJ 55, 1988, 60–82. Ernst Koch

Adler, Alfred (Feb 7, 1870, Vienna – May 28, 1937, Aberdeen), of Jewish parentage, converted to Protestantism in 1904; physician, psychotherapist, social educationalist, and professor of clinical psychology; beside C.G. → Jung , one of the most important students of S. → Freud, who, with his (socio-psychologically and socio-medically oriented) “individual psychology” formed a depth psychology school independent from psychoanalysis. He did not interpret neuroses causally and in the framework of Freudian libido theory, but characterologically in the context of individual “lifestyle” and finally as an expression of the “feeling of inferiority”; he saw the goal of therapy in the development of a “feeling of community.” The status as psychological science of Adler’s theory, which was created consciously as a generally understandable “knowledge of humankind” is still disputed today. Adler’s attention to religion occurred late and remained marginal. Reception of his work among theologians led in particular to the pastoral care movement in the USA after World War II. Works include: Studie über Minderwertigkeit von Organen, 1907; ET: A Study of Organ Inferiority, 1917 ◆ Über den nervösen Charakter, 1912 ◆ Praxis und Theorie der Individualpsychologie, 1920; ET: The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology, 1927 ◆ On Adler: E. John & A. Adler, Religion und Individualpsychologie, 1933, repr. 1975 ◆ R. Dreikurs, Grundbegriffe der Individualpsychologie, 1969; ET: Fundamentals of Adlerian Psychology, 1985 ◆ P. Bottome, Alfred Adler: A Portrait from Life, 1957 ◆ H. & R. Ansbacher, The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler, 1964 ◆ J. Ellerbrock, Alfred Adlers Psychologie als Interpretament christlicher Überlieferung, 1985 ◆ J. Rattner, Tiefenpsychologie und Religion, 1987 ◆ H. Mosak, A Primer of Adlerian Psychology, 1999. Hans-Günter Heimbrock

Adler, Felix (Aug 13, 1851, Alzey – Apr 24, 1933, New York), social and educational reformer who also worked for religious reform. After earning his doctorate at Heidelberg in 1873, Adler rejected theism and in 1876 founded in America the “New York Society for Ethical Culture,” in which he sought to develop an ethi-

Administration cal philosophy that would serve as a foundation for concrete social reforms. He became a professor of political and social ethics at Columbia University. F. Adler, An Ethical Philosophy of Life, 1918 ◆ On Adler: B. Kraut, From Reform Judaism to Ethical Culture, 1979. Benny Kraut

Adler, Jakob Georg Christian (Dec 8, 1756, Arnis, Schleswig – Aug 22, 1834, Giekau, Holstein), studied theology and Middle Eastern languages in Kiel, Bützow, Rostock, and Copenhagen. In 1780–1782 he began text-critical research on Greek and Middle Eastern manuscripts of the Bible in European libraries, including Rome. In 1783 he became professor of Syriac, in 1788 of theology, in 1789 the German court chaplain in Copenhagen, in 1792 the general superintendent of Schleswig and in 1806 also of Holstein. In 1797 Adler, a moderate philosopher of the Enlightenment who was open to reform, introduced a uniform, rationalistic agenda against the resistance of the churches. Adler’s reform of the school system and his efforts to professionalize teaching were more successful. List of works in: H. Ehrencron-Müller, Forfatterlexikon omfattende Danmark, Norge og Island, 1, 1924, 64–67 ◆ On Adler: G. Bickell, ADB I, 1875, 85–86 ◆ H. Striedl, NDB I, 1953, 70 ◆ W. Göbell, “Jakob Georg Christian Adler,” ZGSHG 82, 1958, 268–276 ◆ D. Reichert, “Untersuchungen zur Adlerschen Agende von 1798,” SSHKG 2/36, 1980, 27–60 ◆ J. Alwast, “Die Aufklärungszeit,” Schleswig-Holsteinische Kirchengeschichte 5, 1989, 28f., 39–42 ◆ W. Göbell, Biographisches Lexikon für Schleswig-Holstein, V, 1989, 15–20. Manfred Jakubowski-Tiessen

Administration I. Bible – II. History – III. Law – IV. Church Administration – V. Ethics

I. Bible 1. In Israel and Judah. From the 10th into the 8th century bce, only a rudimentary administration can be assumed in Israel and Judah in comparison to → Egypt and → Mesopotamia. State income was basically produced by the royal demesne, which at the time of → Hezekiah supplied provisions for fortresses (royal seal). The royal demesne was under the control of a major-domo or steward (’šr al hbyt; 1 Kgs 4:6, passim; epigraphic evidence in ReRö II, 113f.; in a private household: Gen 43:16, passim). The designation of the official as a “servant” (‘bd, “slave”) of the king reveals that these functionaries were members of his oíkos. Taxes were levied through corvée or compulsory labor, for which the corvée steward was responsible (’šr ‘l hms; 2 Sam 20:24, passim; epigraphic evidence in ReRö II, 114). The military administration included the fortress governor (´sr h‘r; 2 Kgs 10:5, passim; ReRö II, 114) and the officers of the standing army (a commander-in-chief is attested only for the early

Administration period for the states of Israel and Judah, 2 Sam 20:23; 1 Kgs 4:4). The “herald” (mzkr; 1 Kgs 4:3, passim) occupied an office at the court; the “governors” of → Solomon (1 Kgs 4:7–19) were not officials in the technical sense. → “Scribes,” i.e. administrative officials, could be found not only at the court and in municipal (self-) administration (Gezer Calendar, early 9th cent. bce), but soon also in the service of magnates, as attested by the 8th-century Samaritan Ostraca (delivery receipts to the nobility residing at court from their estates). On seals, these “private officials” are designated not as ‘bd PN (“slave of PN”), but as n‘r, “squire” of PN (ReRö II, 113). In the 7th century bce, a scribe is also assigned to a relatively small contingent of Judean forced laborers at the Egyptian-controlled coast (MĕÂsad Óăšavyāhū Ostracon), while another is stationed in → Arad (with a garrison of 50 men at most). Fiscal stamps now regularly attest tithes or dues (mks) of the local community to the state (ReRö II, 417–422). The expanding centralization and bureaucratization of → Judah can now be discerned in the sharp rise in the number of preserved written witnesses. 2. Persian and Hellenistic Period. A “governor” (Aram. pē˙ā, Gk [Persian] satrápēs) can be the governor of Babylon and the trans-Euphrates as well as a governor of → Samaria, Yehud, Idumea (Edom), Dedan, or Tema. Dues were paid into the local “treasury” (bēt ginzē malkā), from which primarily the local administration was remunerated (cf. Ezra 6:4; 7:20; Neh 5:14–18). Coins were also struck locally during the 4th century bce (in Samaria, Yehud, → Ashkelon, → Ashdod, and → Gaza). The military administration granted “archer-,” “horse-,” and “chariot-fiefs” (whence presumably the place names Beth-Marcaboth and Hazar-Susah; Josh 19:5). The head tax (Neh 5:4) prevented subsistence farming. The Ptolemies (→ Ptolemaic Dynasty) based the → economy (III, 3) completely on money (as late as the 4th cent. bce, the smallest coin was the approximate equivalent of 20 euros [2005 value]) and increased the tax burden to over 60% of agricultural income through head, property, consumer, and special taxes. To make tax collection more cost-efficient, tax tenancy was introduced through which generally a local tax collector (Gk telōnē s) provided the advance for the tax income for a relatively large area and was then at great liberty to take advantage of taxpayers. The → Seleucids generously granted cities the status of a pólis, i.e. the right to self-administration by the local upper class according to the Greek model and simultaneously also jurisdiction over the surrounding area. Sophisticated exploitation of local rivalries filled the state’s coffers with money from bribery. 3. Roman Period. By adopting the Seleucid system, the Romans were able to get by with sending out only a mini-

58 mum of administrative officials. The patrician Quirinius (→ Quirinius, Publius Sulpicius) (Luke 2:2), proconsul (NRSV: governor) of Syria in 6/7 ce, had authority over “free” cities such as those of the → Decapolis (selfadministered, including the right to strike copper coins), the remaining Herodian and Nabatean vassal states (with their own coinage, legal jurisdiction, and military/police, cf. Matt 8:5), and finally Judea (→ Palestine) under a procurator from the estate of princes (Matt 27; Luke 3:1; Acts 3:13; 23:24–24:27; 24:27–26:32). The New Testament distinguishes between tetrarchs, vassal princes (Matt 14:1, passim), and vassal kings (Matt 2:1; 14:9, passim), though not between legates/proconsuls and procurators/prefects – both of whom are called hegemōn. On 1.: H.M. Niemann, Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat, FAT 6, 1993 ◆ idem, “Megiddo und Solomon,” Tel Aviv 27, 2000, 61–74 ◆ N. Sacher Fox, In the Service of the King. Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, MHUC 23, 2000 ◆ On 2.: K.G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBL.DS 125, 1992 ◆ R. Albertz, “Zur Wirtschaftspolitik des Perserreiches,” in: idem, Geschichte und Theologie, BZAW 326, 2003, 335–357 ◆ On 3.: B. Isaac, “Roman Administration and Urbanization,” in: A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, U. Fuks, ed., Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, 1990, 151–159 ◆ A.K. Bowman, “Provincial Administration and Taxation,” CAH 10, 21996, 344–370 ◆ E. Badian, Zöllner und Sünder. Unternehmer im Dienst der römischen Republik, 1997. Ernst Axel Knauf

II. History 1. Developmentally, administration in the broad sense represents a specific form of activity that focuses on the ongoing, planned execution of goal-oriented, purposive tasks within a given organizational framework. “Administration” applies to such entities as the empire, country, → city, manorial estate, → guild, → university, and church (see IV below), but also to legal unions such as the → family, → house, and company. The transition between such entities and private administration, by a lord, etc. can be fluid, e.g. between the house of a prince and the territorial administration or between the patrician company and the city administration. Whereas especially after the separation of private and public law the forms of nonprofessional administration were absorbed in institutions provided by private law such as → marriage, guardianship, (commercial) companies, those of professional administration developed into a separate, independent legal institution focused on comprehensive responsibility for public tasks. Essential components for these forms include the “→ office” with responsibilities shaped either by specific tasks and/or locale, entities for written record keeping (chancellery), a legal foundation, and increasingly also jurists as legally trained officials. During the Middle Ages, this foundation constitutes the difference between the office (officium) and the kind of generalpersonal service associated with princes (servitum); as

59 inchoate as the latter was, it was not really part of administration. Just as judges, municipal scribes, tax collectors, and even the territorial prince were viewed as offices, the administration proper encompassed “adjudication,” the keeping of municipal records, and legislation “by virtue of the princely office.” From a different perspective: the means employed by this comprehensive administration included legislation, justice, and other activities on behalf of the polity. This understanding in concurrence with the diverse offices brought about the depersonalization of → dominion (III) on the way toward understanding the polity or community itself as an institution. As early as the late Middle Ages, regional and local offices of the territorial prince or even of the landed estates were already divorced from personal service at the royal or princely court itself for the purposes, e.g. of tax levying. The development came about most enduringly with the administrative reforms at the beginning of modernity in the empire and particularly in the territories. The establishment of such (overall) administration in the empire was also aided by its character as an electoral monarchy. The imperial supreme court – far from the royal court itself – and later the imperial diet directory, which was also separate from the court, and the imperial chancellery and imperial council together formed the self-assured imperial bureaucracy. In the territories themselves, these institutions were reflected in the corresponding court advisory council, chancellery, courts and chambers, and military council. Even though these authorities brought about a further differentiation within the (overall) administration – visible, for instance, in the imperial supreme court as a judicial authority or in the court financial administration – this development did not yet actualize the later notion of a balance of power (→ Powers, Separation of ), since the court councils and regional councils were still authorities associated with fiefs, the court, and (in the narrower sense) administration; regional government, for instance of the Habsburg monarchy (→ Habsburgs), functioned both as court and (in the narrower sense) as administrative authorities, and the court military council in Vienna was in part also responsible for foreign policy. The expansion of state services resulted in an expansion of the concept of administration as well; alongside the “administration of the worldly government” one also finds that “of the spiritual government” (Seckendorff, Teutscher Fürsten Staat, 1656, 71737, 75, 301), while → Frederick II, the Great spoke, among other things, of the “administration de la justice,” “des domains,” and “des finances.” This expansion concurs with the early-modern concept of the “police” as the comprehensive service provided to the “polity” by the authorities. 2. It was precisely the reforms of enlightened → absolutism, however, that altered the concept of administration. Although from the 16th century “courts and law,” i.e.

Administration legal jurisdiction and legislation, had emerged as specific means of maintaining the law, they were still viewed as an instrument of general administration. Johann Joachim Becher’s (1635–1682) five uppermost “collegia” not only made distinctions with regard to different service areas, but in addition to various other administrative departments also included a “judicium.” The influence of → natural rights and the → Enlightenment, however, prompted a differentiation according to specific fields of activity. Because → natural law and state law constituted the foundations of the various activities carried out by professional authorities, a sphere of legislation was separated from those activities, particularly the monopoly of the monarch. The same took place with the assignment of private (→ Civil Law) and penal law (→ Penal Code) to courts with their particular freedom of directive. The “state administration,” in this new understanding, was now restricted to the third sphere of activity, the administration of law by authorities subject to instructions from above. The spheres of legal jurisdiction and administration were further differentiated by the nature of the → law in question: on the one hand, the laws of justice deriving from the great codices with claims to eternal validity; on the other hand, the almost limitless mass of changing political laws. These were the subject of the two scholarly branches of polity legal studies as carried out by → legal positivism and polity studies with a focus on political law. 3. In the constitutions of the constitutional monarchies beginning in the period of the Confederation of the Rhine, legislation, administration, and legal jurisdiction constituted the elements of the balance of power through which the exercise of state power by monarch and people was organized. Although the administration was viewed as a power subject only to the monarch, within the framework of the realization of the idea of the → rule of law its hierarchy of officials and official channels, its dependence on the law (principle of legality), and finally also its administrative jurisdiction imposed an element of independence on it facilitating the later transition to Republican systems. Through interaction with the administration associated with the rule of law within the state, from 1850 an independent legal discipline of administrative law emerged alongside civil and penal law, as did a corresponding systematic scholarly discipline of administrative law, which replaced polity legal studies and polity studies as such. The scholarly and conceptual organization of administrative studies, however, was made more difficult by the enormous variety of specialized spheres involved. In any event, a distinction should be made between the spheres of higher administration and service administration. 4. Alongside the state administration proper, during the early 19th century from within city and estate rule, but

Administration also from within guilds and universities, various forms of self-administration developed in which the earlier, more comprehensive understanding of administration lives on to the extent that it encompasses not only normative tasks (legislation in the material sense), for instance through local ordinances, but also their implementation and enforcement. K.G. Jeserich, H. Pohl & G.-C. v. Unruh, eds., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, 6 vols., 1983–1988 ◆ M. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, 3 vols., 1988–1999 ◆ R. Koselleck et al., GGB VII, 1992, 1–96 ◆ W. Brauneder, Studien, vol. I: Entwicklung des öffentlichen Rechts, 1994 ◆ T. Simon, LMA VIII, 1997, 1594–1596 ◆ G. Dilcher, “Verwaltung II: Städte,” HDRG V, 1998, 871–875 ◆ D. Willoweit, “Verwaltung I: Reich und Territorien,” ibid., 864–871. Wilhelm Brauneder

III. Law 1. The Legal concept. Legal terminology uses the term “public administration” in the material sense to refer to a specific part of the fulfillment of public services, then also in the organizational sense to refer to all organizational entities established for the sake of providing such services, and finally in the formal sense to refer to all administrative activities associated with the organizational sense. The legal definition of the term “administration” in the material sense involves various normative and descriptive elements. Normative elements include the differentiation from the state functions of → legislation and adjudication in the legal scheme of a division of powers (→ Powers, Separation of ). It is described negatively as state activity apart from legislation and adjudication, and positively as “the implementation of the affairs of the community and its members as such, implementation which is multifarious, conditionally determined or merely purposeoriented, and to that extent heteronomous, in the form of planning within a partial focus, and of executive and creative decisions, by functionaries of the community being appointed for that purpose” (Wolff & Bachof, vol. I, §2, marginal no. 19). 2. Organization. The proper subject of state administration is borne by the state as juridical person; besides this, there is indirect state administration with the right of selfadministration exercised by the bodies, institutions, and foundations incorporated under public law, especially local communities (→ Communities: IX ). The smallest organizational unit is the → office (VIII). Organizational principles include bureaucracy (for rationalism in the administration) and hierarchy (for legitimation). 3. Forms of action. An administration acts primarily in the forms of public law by means of the administrative act (authoritative regulation of an individual case directed at having an immediate external legal effect), administrative contracts, informal acts, and – in the form of parliamentary ordinances and statutes – by executive legislation on

60 the basis of parliamentary authorization. An administration can also act in the form of private civil law. 4. Legality. The activities of an administration are bound to the principle of law and to → laws and legislation (V). They are subject to the authority of the law. Any intervention in the law on the part of an administration requires parliamentary authorization (prerogative of the law). The legal exemption once granted to administrative action is no longer recognized; this applies not only to measures affecting citizens (external legal relationships) but also to internal procedures (internal legal relationships). Where the law allows for more than one option, the administration is empowered to use its own discretion, within the limits set by law and in accordance with its mandate. The legality of an administrative act is subject to judicial checks; anyone who can show that his/her rights have been infringed by the administration is entitled to → legal protection by the court. 5. Democratic legitimation. In a → democracy, the executive authority of the administration ultimately derives from the people. In a parlimentary system of government an administration derives its legitimation from the elected representatives of the people: in terms of personnel, through an unbroken chain of responsibility from the lower echelons to the parliamentary government itself; in terms of policy, mainly through the subordination of administrative decisions to the precedence and restrictions of parliamentary law, but also through the executive hierarchy installed by the government, which is again answerable to parliament. H.J. Wolff, O. Bachof et al., Verwaltungsrecht, vol. I, 111999; vol. II, 62000; vol. III, 52004. Michael Germann

IV. Church Administration 1. History. The history of church administration is part of the history of → church polity. What is included in the modern concept of administration and what is distinguished from other ecclesiastical functions was historically subsumed under the more comprehensive notions of → ecclesiastical authority, and → church governance. If one traces back to the early church that particular sphere of ecclesiastical activity covered today by “administration,” one will likely end up at the office of the → diaconate with its tasks associated with assistance in worship services and charitable tasks. Under a monepiscopate, church administration is the sphere of episcopal → jurisdiction. At the same time, it is also subject to the jurisdictional primacy of the pope and its implementation by the officials of the → Roman Curia. Over the course of the Middle Ages, the administrative unit of the bishopric or diocese became differentiated in various ways. The decentralization of church estates into → parishes, → cathedral chapters, and → monasteries (II) resulted in a corresponding decentralization of the

61 concomitant administrative tasks. Up to the 13th century, bishops lost important jurisdictional authority to → archdeacons, who exercised such jurisdiction in their stead, but were usually appointed by the → chapter. The medieval view of administrative authority as monetary privilege permitted such authority to be transferred to secular territorial rulers as well. Beginning in the 13th century, bishops with the help of their own officials, especially their vicars, → vicar generals and → judicial vicars, were able to regain some of their authority. The Reformation could have continued the assignment of ecclesiastical administrative power to the bishop, albeit on a fundamentally different basis, namely, that of the ius humanum. Because the bishops declined, however, the Protestant territorial rulers incorporated into their own sphere the responsibility for the vacant episcopal jurisdiction, including ecclesiastical administration. To this end, they established → consistories as special authorities within their territorial ecclesiastical authority consisting of canonists and theologians. In their relationship with the general administration associated with the emergent modern state, these consistories initially enjoyed a fair measure of independence, a situation reflecting a consciousness of the special status and limitations of the authority of the territorial ruler (→ Three Estates Doctrine, → Episcopalism : I). Soon, however, the absolutistic understanding of the state in the sense of → territorialism made it necessary to view the ecclesiastical administration and the consistories as organs of the administrative state apparatus. → Collegialism, with its renewed distinction between the → ius in sacra and the ius circa sacra, then introduced a theoretical distinction between collegial selfadministration of the church and the administration of the state. In the 19th century, the status of consistories was fundamentally altered. Until that time, they had gradually forfeited virtually all their authority to the general state administration. In some states – notably → Prussia in 1809 – they were even temporarily suspended. After being revivified, reshaped or reconstituted later, they became the central officials of ecclesiastical selfadministration (→ Church authorities). There is some justification in seeing here the beginning of the history of modern Protestant church administration (Maurer). The consistories gradually became independent from the state administration and ultimately were subject directly to the territorial ruler in his status – from the perspective of ecclesiastical law and separate from his status with the state at large – as the summepiscopate (→ Summepiscopate of the territorial ruler). It remained characteristic of the → state church that consistory officials were also state officials. → Synods joined the consistories as deliberative organs of the ecclesiastical self-administration, and

Administration shared especially, through synodal committees, responsibility for ecclesiastical administration. The constitutions of the → regional churches, which after 1919 were formally released from ecclesiastical state status and allowed self-determination, distinguished more sharply between ecclesiastical administration and church leadership. It was now primarily the synods that rose in status to become those responsible for church leadership. The consistories, now frequently called “regional church offices” or something similar, embodied the continuity, professionalism, and legal integrity of the ecclesiastical administration. When in 1933 the → Deutsche Christen, who had National Socialist leanings, managed to become part of the church leadership in most of the Protestant regional churches, they were able to exploit the “church-policy neutrality” of these church administrations to their own purposes. The experiences of the Kirchenkampf (→ National Socialism: I) continued to echo in the frightening image of a “church led by jurists” and after 1945 prompted the development of several church constitutions that tried, with theologically motivated rigor, to subordinate the ecclesiastical administration to synodal and episcopal church leadership. In contrast, the principle was soon implemented according to which the legal and spiritual leadership and administration in the church is to be conducted in “inalienable unity” (thus, e.g. article 89.2 of the “Grundordnung der Evangelischen Kirche von Kurhessen-Waldeck,” 1967). R. Smend, “Die Konsistorien in Geschichte und heutiger Bewertung,” ZEvKR 10, 1963/64, 134–143 ◆ W. Maurer, “Verwaltung und Kirchenleitung,” in: FS E. Ruppel, ed. H. Brunotte, K. Müller & R. Smend, 1968, 105–128, = in: idem, Die Kirche und ihr Recht, ed. G. Müller, G. Seebass, 1976, 526–553 ◆ H.E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte: die katholische Kirche, 51972 ◆ W. Reinhard, “Die Verwaltung der Kirche,” in K.G.A. Jeserich, H. Pohl & G.-C. v. Unruh, eds., Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. I, 1983, 143–176 ◆ D. Willoweit, “Das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” in: ibid., 361–369 ◆ C. Link, “Die Entwicklung des Verhältnisses von Staat und Kirche,” in: ibid., vol. III, 1984, 527–559, = idem, Staat und Kirche in der neueren deutschen Geschichte, 2000, 49–97 ◆ A. v. Campenhausen, “Kirchenleitung,” ZEvKR 29, 1984, 11–34, = in: idem, GS, ed. J.E. Christoph et al., JusEcc 50, 1995, 27– 49 ◆ T. Barth, Elemente und Typen landeskirchlicher Leitung, JusEcc 53, 1995 (bibl.) ◆ H. de Wall, “Die Verselbständigung der evangelischen Konsistorien in Preußen und Bayern im 19. Jahrhundert als Schritt zu kirchlicher Unabhängigkeit,” in: Staat und Kirchen in Westeuropa in verwaltungshistorischer Perspektive (19./20.Jh.), ed. J.C.N. Raadschelders, Jahrbuch für Europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte, 14, 2002, 151–169. Michael Germann

2. Practical Theology. Church administration is the subject of practical theology under the rubric of → cybernetics (III), demonstrating that administration is to be viewed as being closely related to community and church leadership. This relationship should not,

Administration however, obscure the primary task of church administration, namely, to fulfill the church’s own proclamatory commission. This central task of administrative church action coincides with the current view that administrative church offices are also service providers. Church constitutions generally assign responsibility for church administration to the leading organs of the church organization level in question, with the local church council bearing responsibility for the orderly administration, e.g. of all matters relating to personnel, finance, and construction. Responsibility for the administration of a church district, → parish/diocese, or superintendency resides with the primary council at this particular ecclesiastical mid-level that oversees the respective administrative office. The highest administrative authorities of the regional churches or member churches of the EKD are the church offices, regional church offices, consistories, or senior church counsels. These bodies are generally constituted as collegial authorities or offices that participate in the activities of church leadership to the extent that they provide stimuli and prepare and implement the resolutions of the church leaders or synods. Some church constitutions (e.g. that of the Evangelical Church of Westphalia) regulated the membership of church leadership so that members of the church office elected by the synod also belong to that leadership. In other member churches, the person bearing the primary spiritual office is also head of the highest church office. Such close connection between leadership committees, on the one hand, which by nature meet only sporadically, and the highest administrative authorities, on the other hand, whose activities are ongoing, minimizes communication problems and provides for shared responsibility. Other church constitutions stipulate that the highest administrative authority is not also an organ of leadership (as in the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of North Elbe). The activities of church administration are carried out according to the regulations presented by synods or by the church leadership proper. The organizational structure of administrative church offices resembles those of the authorities of the respective district, state, or federation, with whom the church offices are related through various cooperative channels (e.g. in questions of → monuments, protection of ). The German pattern for the Evangelical Church is not followed everywhere. Administrative church activities, like church law, acquire a special character insofar as they must have theological legitimacy; therefore, it is quite natural to find canonists and theologians (and even construction specialists) working together in the highest administrative church offices (among other places). It is up to them to ensure that within the framework of the concrete implementation of the church’s legal life, exercise of the rights of church communities and individual

62 members of the church is not perceived as a restriction of the freedom of the gospel. A. Jäger, Konzepte der Kirchenleitung für die Zukunft, 1993 ◆ A. v. Campenhausen, Kirchenrecht – Religionswissenschaft, 1994 ◆ R. Preul, Kirchentheorie, 1997 ◆ D. Kraus, ed., Evangelische Kirchenverfassungen in Deutschland, 2001 ◆ E. v. Vietinghoff, “Zwei Professionen – ein Auftrag,” in: Im Dienste der Sache. FS J. Gaertner, ed. R. Dill, 2003 ◆ G. Wegner, “Leiden als Bedingung der Freiheit. Kirchliche Organisation und geistliche Entscheidung,” PTh 92, 2003, 403–417 ◆ N. Doe, The Legal Framework of the Church of England, 1996. Michael Ahme

3. Church Law. a. In a manner similar to state or national law (see III above), → canon law/church law (II) distinguishes the church activities of administration from those of legislation and adjudication, though in this case such distinctions derive from basic pragmatic considerations rather than from any attempt to ensure a balance in the distribution of power. This is especially discernible in Roman Catholic church law, where administration is ultimately, alongside legislation and adjudication, one form of action within the larger authoritative unit of the jurisdiction of the bishop (potestas exsecutiva, c. 135 § 1, cc. 136–44 CIC/1983). Recent Protestant church constitutions increasingly understand administration explicitly as part of the “inalienable unity” of spiritual and legal leadership, and understand church administration specifically as part of the division of labor and mutual responsibility of church organs as such. Thus church administration is not limited to being a vehicle of merely technical implementation and execution. Instead, its activities within the Protestant church can be related to the communal understanding about what can be reviewed as spirituality indicated, as manifested in its legal obligations and ties and in the relegation of assessment powers. b. The organizational center of administration in the Roman Catholic Church is the diocesan administration (→ Diocese). The bishop oversees auxiliary organs which constitute the diocesan curia (469–494 CIC/1983). The papal administration is organized within the offices of the Roman Curia (cc. 360f. CIC/ 1983, apostolic constitution “Pastor Bonus” of 1988). Financial administration is overseen by the head of the responsible body which is aided by an administrative council (cc. 1279f.), applying especially to the diocesan and parish finance administrative councils (cc. 492, 537 CIC/1983). It is especially in this sphere that laypersons also participate in administration. c. At the level of the local parish/community, → clergy and → presbyteries work together not only within church leadership but also in the administration. Protestant churches that have their origin in the state church typically make their administration subject to a supreme church authority, inherited, for instance, from the former consistory – a name still used in some cases (see above, 1.). It is customarily led by a committee of theolo-

63 gians and lawyers, which may in turn be incorporated in various ways into the institutional church leadership. d. In state law, church administration is protected in principle by corporative freedom of religion. W. Busch, Die Vermögensverwaltung und das Stiftungsrecht im Bereich der katholischen Kirche, HSKR 1, 21994, 947–1008 ◆ C. Meyer, Die Vermögensverwaltung und das Stiftungsrecht im Bereich der evangelischen Kirche, ibid., 907–946 ◆ T. Barth, Elemente und Typen landeskirchlicher Leitung, JusEcc 53, 1995 (bibl.) ◆ H. de Wall, “Die Bindung der Kirchen an das Rechtsstaatsprinzip – Zur Bedeutung von Vorrang und Vorbehalt des Gesetzes für die kirchliche Verwaltung,” ZEvKR 43, 1998, 441–460 ◆ H. Pree, “Die Ausübung der Leitungsvollmacht,” HKKR2, 1999, 157–175 ◆ R. Puza, “Die Verwaltung des Kirchenvermögens,” ibid., 1093–1102 ◆ L. Schick, “Die Diözesankurie,” ibid., 463– 474 ◆ For additional bibliography, see → Administrative Act, → Church ; → Jurisdiction, Administrative. Michael Germann

V. Ethics Administrative ethics reflects on the conditions and standards contributing toward ethically “good” administration. The many aspects of such reflection include: the legality and purposive nature of administrative actions; the official ethos of those who act on behalf of the administration, who are obligated to maintain loyalty to the employer, political neutrality, neutrality over against particularized preconceptions, impartiality toward particularized interests, and a focus on service to the → common good ; moreover, such persons must also be dedicated to service in a fashion transcending “service according to the letter” and always considering unwritten needs as well, while guarding against arbitrariness. More recent developments include attempts to tie the service nature of administration more closely to economic criteria as a way to increase the efficiency of the use of resources, become more consumer-oriented, and enhance the internal and external presentation of “corporate identity.” More broadly conceived initiatives are attempting to describe the maxims of administrative activities within the framework of an “administrative culture.” The rationality of action is served by the organizational principle of bureaucracy, its mode of efficiency by the employment of so-called new steering models (new public management), the transparency of ethically complex administrative decisions by the inclusion of ethics commissions composed of specialists, and finally the institutionalization of administrative ethics itself by professional officials. The same factors ensuring ethically “good” administration, however, also reveal several risk areas. One (albeit obviously significant) part of such concerns is subsumed under the global initiatives – focusing on “ethical conduct” – to prevent corruption in public service. M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie, 1921/1922, 51972, 551–579 ◆ R.A. Chapman, ed., Ethics in Public Service, 1993 ◆ H.G. Frederickson, ed., Ethics

Administrative Union and Public Administration, 1993 ◆ H. Hattenhauer, Geschichte des deutschen Beamtentums, 21993 ◆ R. Mayntz, Soziologie der öffentlichen Verwaltung, 41997 ◆ P. du Gay, In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics, 2000 ◆ OECD, ed., Trust in Government. Ethics Measures in OECD Countries, 2000 ◆ W. Kluth, ed., Verwaltungskultur, 2001 (bibl.) ◆ K.-P. Sommermann, “Ethisierung des öffentlichen Diskurses und Verstaatlichung der Ethik,” ARSP 89, 2003, 75–86 ◆ N. Behnke, Ethik in Politik und Verwaltung. Entstehung und Funktion ethischer Normen in Deutschland und den USA, 2004. Michael Germann

Administrative Act, Church I. In keeping with the vocabulary of civil law, ecclesiastical administrative acts can be described as decisions which an ecclesiastical body takes to regulate a specific case in ecclesiastical law. By definition, such decisions are only treated as administrative acts under civil law to the extent that in the applicable church-state system they have a share in the sovereignty of the state. II. The 1983 Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law gives detailed regulations in c. 35–93 for the presuppositions, forms, and effects of “singular administrative acts,” and distinguishes between “singular decrees and precepts,” → rescripts, → privileges, and → dispensations. Normally, every holder of jurisdiction can posit an administrative act within the area of his own competence, without any need for special authorization. An administrative act which contradicts the law is null and void (c. 38 CIC/1983). One who feels that his or her rights have been infringed by means of an administrative act can lodge a complaint with the hierarchical superior of the one who posited this act (c. 1732, 1737 CIC/1983). Legal protection by courts with respect to administrative acts applies only to those posited by the dicasteries of the → Roman Curia. III. Protestant ecclesiastical law knows no such codification of ecclesiastical administrative acts. However, the concept and the term play a role in its regulations on legal protection by ecclesiastical administrative courts. The binding of ecclesiastical administrative acts to ecclesiastical law implements their responsibility within the ecclesiastical communion. H. Kalb, “Verwaltungsakte und Verwaltungsverfahren,” HKKR 21999, 118–135 ◆ H.J. Wolff, O. Bachof, et al., Verwaltungsrecht II, 102000, § 45 ◆ R. Mainusch, Rechtsprobleme des kirchlichen Verwaltungsverfahrens ZEvKR 50, 2005, 16–45. Michael Germann

Administrative Union. This concept has its origin in the efforts to overcome the confessional schism of German → Protestantism at the beginning of the 19th century. The aspired union (→ Unions, Church) between the Lutheran and the Reformed confessional churches was realized in various ways, either in the form of a confessional (“consensus”) union under one single,

Administrator

64

united confessional position in the regional church (e.g. in Baden from 1821 onward), or in the form of an administrative union that abstained from reaching a doctrinal consensus on the level of the regional church, but united the confessionally distinct parishes under the same synodal constitution and a common ecclesiastical administration. An administrative union was the simplest possible form of union, and did not encroach upon the religious life of the parishes. A prominent example is the Protestant church of the → Old Prussian Union, which was founded in 1817. In the preamble to its constitutional charter of 1922, this church affirms that the confessional positions of the church provinces and parishes are to remain unaffected by the external order laid down in the constitution, so that “the parishes and their members may continue to use, in addition to the general appellation ‘evangelisch,’ ‘Protestant,’ the specific designations ‘ProtestantLutheran,’ ‘Protestant-Reformed,’ or ‘United’” (Huber and Huber, 545). However, the Prussian Union is more than a purely administrative union, since it prescribes community in worship and in the Eucharist. This is why it can also be cited as an example of the federative type of church union. G. Lüttgert, Verfassungsurkunde für die Evangelische Kirche der altpreußischen Union, 1920 ◆ G. Holstein, Die Grundlagen des evangelischen Kirchenrechts, 1928, 243–259 ◆ J.F.G. Goeters, “Evangelische Kirche der Union,” EstL I, 31987, 810–816 ◆ E.R. Hubert & W. Huber, Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, IV, 1988, 544–587 ◆ J.F.G. Goeters & J. Rogge, eds., Die Geschichte der EKU, I, 1992; II, 1993; III, 1999. Jörg Winter

Administrator. In the Roman Catholic Church, the administrator, as apostolic administrator, is leader of a church entity similar to a diocese and is called apostolic administrator. In the law, he is equal to the diocesan bishop (c. 381 2 CIC/1983) and is usually a titular bishop (→ Episcopal Titles). He exercises his office as a representative of the pope (c. 371 2 CIC/1983). The diocesan administrator was formerly called chapter vicar. He leads a vacant diocese. In this regard, the principle sede vacante nihil innovetur pertains. Other administrators include the pastoral administrator, as well as persons given responsibility for managing church property. HKKR, 1983, 335, 347f., 409f.

Richard Puza

Admission to Church Membership → Church Membership Admission Admonition to Parliament, The (1572). A Puritan manifesto, demanding a non-episcopal constitution for the Church of England. It condemned the → Book of Common Prayer both in general and on specific points as “papist”. It called for the abolition of the entire leader-

ship of the → Church of England with its non-residences, pluralities, episcopal hierarchy, and power. It also called for its replacement by a Presbyterian government of ministers, elders, and deacons. The authors justified the reorganization as a restoration of the church to its pristine purity. A Second Admonition was necessary to describe the process involved in facilitating the reorganization. D.J. McGinn, The Admonition Controversy, 1949 ◆ W.H. Frere & C.E. Douglas, eds., Puritan Manifestos (text), 1954. Glenn Hinson

Adolescence → Youth/Adolescence Adonai is a Hebrew title for God (*$ /hadonay) which appears frequently – 217 times in Ezekiel alone – in combination with the name  (Yahweh), which it gradually supplanted in early Judaism (cf. e.g. Exod 15:11 with 1QH 7.28). The latter phenomenon appears above all in the qere perpetuum of the divine name in the Masoretic manuscripts of the OT (→ Masoretes), in which – except in the double construction mentioned above – the consonants of  were combined with the vowel points of *$ (leading in Christian circles to the erroneous reading “Jehovah” well into the 19th cent.). The grammatical interpretation of this unique form of the Hebrew substantive /2- (hādōn, “lord”; antonym “servant”), from the Northwest Semitic nominal root /, is disputed; as an appellative, it is usually considered a fossilized plural of majesty with the first person singular suffix (see most recently Gesenius18). The Masoretes lengthened the normal connecting vowel a to distinguish the term for God from the secular expression “my lord.” The LXX translates *$ with κύριος (kýrios), the Vulgate with dominus. English versions almost invariably use “Lord.” At least when used as an appellative, hadōnāy did not originally characterize the nature of God as sovereign but was simply a title of honor – a phenomenon also found elsewhere when a person of lower rank addresses one of higher rank ( Jenni). The expression “my lord” is also used as a polite form of address in conversations between family members (cf. Gen 18:3; 31:35; etc.). The situation is different in the seventy or so passages where hadōnāy is not an appellative but simply means “the Lord” (cf. Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2f.). Whether here hadōnāy is a secondary substitution for yahweh or all these passages represent late formulations is disputed, as is the question whether yahweh is secondary in the passages where hadōnāy appears (cf. for example W. Zimmerli, BKAT 13, 1250– 1258, 1265). Since divine names in the ancient Near East often appear conjoined with the epithet “Lord,” there is some reason to conclude that the construction hadōnāy yahweh is ancient; if so, the absolute use of hadōnāy could possibly (but not necessarily) be secondary.

65 W.W. Graf Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, 4 vols., 1929 ◆ “hâdōnāy” in Gesenius18, I, 1987, 17 ◆ HALAT, 31995, 12f ◆ E. Jenni, TLOT I, 41997, 23–29 ◆ O. Eissfeldt, TDOT I, 1974, 62–72. Rüdiger Bartelmus

Adonis (West Semitic “lord”), a young male god worshiped by the Greeks – attested from the 6th century bce onward – and borrowed by the Phoenicians. In the Greek myth, Adonis was begotten in Phoenicia in an incestuous father-daughter relationship. The goddesses Persephone and → Aphrodite quarreled over the newborn Adonis, who became Aphrodite’s lover as a young shepherd. The jealous Ares killed him during a wild game hunt. The death of Adonis plunged the entire natural world into sympathetic mourning. Aphrodite’s lamentation for her young lover furnished the aition for annual lamentation litanies, which Greek women and girls intoned during the Adonia festivals (around Jul 20). In the Greek homeland, the Adonis cult was practiced privately. It allowed the female family members to work through their grief over the loss of their sons and brothers in a substitutionary ceremony. For the younger girls taking part in the cult, Adonis – representing the ephebes just reaching sexual maturity – was a surrogate for their future husbands. Literary innuendos about premarital sex at the Adonis festival reflect prenuptial rites. At the Adonia, which marked the conclusion of the grain harvest, women placed so-called “Adonis gardens,” vessels containing the germinating seeds of grain and vegetables, in the sun on their flat roofs, where the seedlings rapidly withered: an ancient precursor of the modern technique of proofing seeds. The seedlings thus tested for viability suggested the transformation of the dead shepherd into edible plants. When they were displayed at the festival, the ritual lamentation was transformed into rejoicing over the resurrection of the dead Adonis. In addition, these miniature gardens contained likenesses of Adonis, probably representing the god – as in the analogous cult of Erichthonius and Osiris – as both a phallus and a newborn infant. This made it possible to give the young girls sex instruction through ritual anticipation of procreation and birth. The rapid withering of the seedlings reenacted the premature death of Adonis. On the morning after the festival, the women bade him a sad farewell by throwing the “Adonis gardens” into a river or the sea. Thus the cult of Adonis both gave license to procreation and promoted a minimal agricultural competence needed by every adult smallholder. W.W. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, 1911 ◆ G.J. Baudy, Adonisgärten, BKP 176, 1986 ◆ H. Tuzet, Mort et résurrection d’Adonis, 1987 ◆ G.J. Baudy, “Der Heros in der Kiste,” AA 38, 1992, 1–47. Gerhard Baudy

Adoptionism Adoption. There is no endorsement, or even explicit mention, of adoption as an ongoing practice in Old Testament law. There are, in effect, three references to acts of adoption – of Moses (Ex 2:10), Genubath (1 Kgs 11:20), and Esther (Esth 2:7, 15) – but, as is often noted, these all take place outside of Palestine and thus in contexts foreign to Jewish rule and custom. Torah tradition as such simply does not admit that someone who is not one’s biological child can be rendered one’s son or daughter by legal fiction. It was St. Paul who first introduced the notion of adoption into Judeo-Christian theology. The New Testament Greek word translated by the NRSV as “adoption” is huiothesia, from huios (“son”) and tithemi (“to put or place”). The term appears five times in Paul’s epistles (Rom 8:15; 8:23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5), but not once in the Gospels. Construed literally, huiothesia is gendered and connotes a legal placing or taking in of someone as a male heir who is not one’s biological son. One can readily see why Paul – that liminal figure at the dividing line between the historical Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Judaism and Christianity, Rome and barbarism – would have been attracted to adoption metaphors. Paul knew himself to have been an outsider graciously allowed in, and he saw in his personal experiences a model of God’s salvific way with the wider world: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption of children” (Gal 4:4–5). Paul’s influence is no doubt partly responsible for the fact that there are between five and six million adoptees in the United States today, and that in 1998 approximately 10,000 US adoptions crossed racial or cultural lines. “Adoption,” in: M.F. Unger & W. White, Jr., eds., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1996, 13f ◆ Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q. 23, art. 1 ◆ Dowd, Nancy E., In Defense of Single-parent Families 1997 ◆ Pertman, Adam, Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, 2000 ◆ Solinger, Rickie, Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States, 2001. Timothy P. Jackson

Adoptionism Adoptionism is the conventional term for a Christological conception that denies Christ’s preexistence and generation before all time, maintaining instead that God adopted the human Jesus as Son. I. Two theologians from Asia Minor are mentioned as exponents of Adoptionism in early Christianity: Theodotus the Money-Changer (or Banker) and → Theodotus the Tanner (or Theodotus of Byzantium). As heads of schools in Rome in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, they formulated a Christology that

Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund considers Jesus Christ an outstandingly devout human being, begotten of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, who was inspired by the Spirit when he was baptized in the Jordan (Hipp. Haer. VII, 35). In attacking the Monarchian theology (→ Monarchianism) of the school of → Noetus of Smyrna and → Callistus I, the Bishop of Rome, the Theodotians supported their position with a dossier of testimonia (Epiph. Haer. 54, 1–6). There is no explicit mention of adoption. During the episcopate of Victor (189?–199?), the Theodotians were marginalized and ostracised. In the 3rd century, a “Christology from below” is also represented by the Roman theologian Artemon (Eus. Hist. eccl. V, 28) and the Antiochene bishop → Paul of Samosata. The latter was condemned by two Antiochene synods in 264 and 268, on the grounds that he taught that Christ was a “human being from below.” From the 4th century on, a heresiological cliché of “Adoptionism” associated with the name “Theodotus” was constructed and attacked. II. The term “Adoptionist Controversy” refers to a conflict within the Spanish church at the end of the 8th century, in which the bishops Elipandus of Toledo and → Felix of Urgel denied the simple identification of Christ’s Davidic and divine sonship, maintaining that Christ was a natural son as to his divine nature, and an adopted son as to his human nature. Here they appealed onesidedly to the traditional formularies of the Western chuch and especially the → Mozarabic liturgy. Since Felix of Urgel was a bishop within the Carolingian Empire, several synods (792 Regensburg, 794 Frankfurt, 796 Friuli, 799 Rome, 800 Aachen) debated his theological position. He was forced to recant, and Adoptionism was condemned. Confronted by the church of the newlyformed Carolingian Empire, Spanish Adoptionism was unable to gain universal acceptance for its polemical position, which emerged from a partisan reading of Western theological traditions. H. de Riedmatten, Les Actes de Paul de Samosate, Par. 6, 1952 ◆ K. Schäferdiek, “Der adoptianische Streit im Rahmen der spanischen Kirchengeschichte,” ZKG 80, 1969, 291–311; 81, 1970, 1–16 ◆ G.C. Stead, “Marcel Richard on Malchion and Paul of Samosata,” in: H.C. Brennecke et al., eds., Logos, FS L. Abramowski, 1993, 140–150 ◆ W.A. Löhr, “Theodotus der Lederarbeiter und Theodotus der Bankier,” ZNW 87, 1996, 101–125. Winrich A. Löhr

Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund (Sep 11, 1893, Frankfurt am Main – Aug 6, 1969, Visp, Canton Wallis) is along with M. → Horkheimer the most significant representative of the first generation of → Critical Theory. The focus of his thought is a radical critique of the rationalism that was then manifesting itself academically, technically and socially. Adorno studied in Frankfurt am Main and, after receiving his PhD in philosophy in 1924, he studied composition under Alban

66 Berg in Vienna. In 1930 he gained his Habilitation with a thesis on S. → Kierkegaard in Frankfurt am Main. In 1934 he emigrated first to England and then in 1938 to the USA where, together with M. Horkheimer, he wrote his first major philosophical work, the Dialektik der Aufklärung. In 1949 Adorno returned to Germany and taught as a professor in Frankfurt am Main until his death. Adorno made his name as the author of numerous essays on the philosophy of art and on issues of sociology and diagnostics of the present. Besides his Negative Dialektik Adorno’s Ästhetische Theorie, a penetrating philosophical discussion of modern art, which was published posthumously, may be considered his most significant book. Adorno’s work is to be read in the context of a post-Hegelian criticism, developed especially by Kierkegaard and F. → Nietzsche, of rationalism’s claim to universality. His work is influenced by the opinions of cultural critics such as G. → Simmel and L. → Klages and by S. → Freud’s psychoanalysis. It adheres to the tradition of undogmatic → Marxism. According to Adorno’s diagnosis reason (or rationalism) has always meant the mastery of nature. It has emancipated itself from the context of nature and has made itself autonomous. With the rationalization of the world that reaches its height in modern times a universal constraint has been established that is in no respect inferior to the constraints imposed by nature’s unlimited rule. Adorno believes that an end to this situation can only be found within an → eschatology understood in negative theological terms. Modern art allows such a perspective to remain open by nevertheless making rationalism’s relationship to power transparent with rational methods. Main works: Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des Ästhetischen, 1930; ET: Kierkegaard: Construction of the Aesthetic, 1989 ◆ Dialektik der Aufklärung (with M. Horkheimer), 1947; ET: Dialectic of Enlightenment, 2002 ◆ Philosophie der neuen Musik, 1949 ◆ Minima Moralia, 1951; ET: 2006 ◆ Versuch über Wagner, 1952 ◆ Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnistheorie, 1956 ◆ Noten zur Literatur I–IV, 1958–1974 ◆ Mahler, 1960; ET: 1988 ◆ Negative Dialektik, 1966; ET: Negative Dialectics, 1973 ◆ Ästhetische Theorie, 1970; ET: Aesthetic Theory, 1998 ◆ Gesammelte Schriften, 20 vols., 1970ff ◆ On Adorno: G. Figal, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, 1977 ◆ H. Mörchen, Adorno und Heidegger, 1981 ◆ H.L. Arnold, ed., Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, 1983 ◆ W. Brändle, Rettung des Hoffnungslosen: Die theologischen Implikationen der Philosophie Theodor Wiesengrund Adornos, 1984 ◆ L. von Friedeburg & J. Habermas, eds., Adorno-Konferenz 1983, 1985 ◆ B. Lindner & M. Lüdke, eds., Materialien zur ästhetischen Theorie Theodor Wiesengrund Adornos, 1985 ◆ J. Früchtl, Mimesis, 1986 ◆ R. Wiggershaus, Die Frankfurter Schule, 1986 ◆ W.V. Reijen & G. Schmid-Noerr, Vierzig Jahre Flaschenpost, “Dialektik der Aufklärung 1947–1987”, 1987 ◆ B. Recki, Aura und Autonomie, 1988 ◆ H. Scheible, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, 1989 ◆ H. Brunkhorst, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, 1990 ◆ A. García Düttmann, Das Gedächtnis des Denkens. Versuch über Heidegger und Adorno, 1991 ◆ G. Schweppenhäuser, Ethik nach Auschwitz, 1993 ◆ G. Seubold, Das Ende der Kunst und der Paradigmenwechsel in der Ästhetik, 1997 ◆ H. Brunkhorst, Adorno and Critical Theory, 1999 ◆ B. O’Connor, ed., The Adorno Reader, 2000 ◆

67

Advent

T. Huhn, The Cambridge Companion to Adorno, 2004 ◆ S. MullerDoohm & R. Livingstone, Adorno: A Biography, 2005. Günter Figal

Adriani, Nicolaus, (Sep 15, 1865, Oud-Loosdrecht, The Netherlands – May 1, 1926, Poso, Indonesia), defended his dissertation in 1893 and worked for the Netherlands Bible Society in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, from 1895 to 1926. He wrote a book on church growth in Central Sulawesi as well as a grammar and dictionary of the Bare’e language. He also translated a large part of the New Testament into this language. Adriani’s principle was that christianization should precede Bible translation. Many, but not all, missionaries and Bible translators in Indonesia agreed with this new principle. Works: Verzamelde werken, 1932 ◆ On Adriani: H. Kraemer, Dr. Nicolaus Adriani, 1930 (biogr.). Jan A.B. Jongeneel

Adso (c. 910–992), reforming abbot of Montier-enDer (from 967/68) and St. Bénigne (c. 982–985). Adso composed lives of various saints and (between 949 and 954) an influential summary of the Antichrist tradition in biographical form. In it, Adso categorized the West Frankish → Carolingians (to whom his patron Gerberga was related by marriage) as the heirs of Rome in God’s plan of salvation. CCCM 45, 1976 ◆ R. Konrad, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, 1964. Volker Leppin

Adult Education → Education of Adults Adveniat. In 1961, at the request of the German Bishops’ Conference, the first Christmas collection for the church in Latin America was taken up. In 1962, under the title Adveniat, it was continued for a second year and then established permanently. It was first put in place by bishop Franz Hengsbach, with the support of the Joseph Teusch, the vicar-general of Cologne (among others). The Diocese of Essen has since been responsible for administering the program. The purpose and mandate of the Episcopal Action Adveniat are defined in the statute of Sep 21, 1993. Adveniat promotes the pastoral work of the Catholic Church in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Germany, Adveniat provides ongoing information concerning the ecclesial and social realities of Latin America and appeals for action in solidarity. Every Catholic institution in Latin America can apply directly to Adveniat. Since 1961, in excess of 3.1 billion DM (1.5 billion euro) has been collected to support more than 150,000 projects. L. Watzal, Die Entwicklungspolitik der katholischen Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1985, 191–218. Dieter Spelthahn

Advent I. Origin of the Liturgical Season – II. Liturgical Meaning of Advent

Adventus (Lat.), παρουσία (parousia) and ἐπιϕάνια (epiphania, Gk) form a complex of related terms in pagan and Christian usage. The terms were generally employed cultically and referred to the coming of the deities amongst their worshipers. Adventus became the standard term for the coming of Christ both historically and eschatologically. I. Origin of the Liturgical Season In the 4th century the liturgical season of Advent was peculiar to the western rites. It first developed outside Rome. The earliest reference to Advent appears in Hilary’s Liber Officiorum (Tractatus Mysteriorum; SC 19). Philastrius of Brixia (CChr. SL IX 312) knew of a fast before Christmas. A caution in the Canons of the Council of Saragossa, 380 (PL 85.66) urges believers to persist in prayer between Dec 17 and Jan 6. Some believe this three-week period to be a preparatory fast before Epiphany baptism. Others explain the caution with respect to the pagan feasts in midwinter, which were followed by the Natale solis invicti and the Kalends of January. A letter from Pope Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Mansi, III. 656B) suggests that Dec 25 was also kept as a baptismal day in addition to Epiphany and furthermore that baptisms occurred on one or more occasions between Dec 25 and Jan 6. The theory that the preparatory fasts before Epiphany baptism were a contributing factor in the development of Advent is no longer a secure one. Advent first appears in the liturgical books of Rome in the late 6th and early 7th centuries. In the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries the prayers for Advent are placed after the Common of Saints. In the Comes of Würzburg, an early 7th-century list of epistles and gospels, those assigned for Advent are found at the end. The lists begin with the feast of the Nativity indicating that, at that time, Christmas was the beginning of the liturgical year. In the 8th and 9th century prayers and readings for Advent were placed in the texts at the beginning of the annual cycle. In early liturgical books the remnants of six Sundays of Advent at Rome can be seen, a custom maintained by the Ambrosian Rite at Milan. However, the number of Sundays was eventually to be limited to four. Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestant churches that follow the liturgical year share the essential shape of Advent with the Roman Church. The Orthodox churches do not follow Advent with prescribed prayers, scripture readings, and liturgical adaptations. The Byzantine rite keeps a 40-day fast before the Nativity without interrupting the regular

Adventists pattern of scripture reading already underway toward the Divine Liturgy. The Syrian rite follows a sequence of four to five “annunciation” Sundays in anticipation of the Nativity. II. Liturgical Meaning of Advent The early sources from outside Rome suggest a strongly penitential character with an emphasis on fasting and ascetic discipline. The scripture readings were understood as texts of terror. In Rome, by contrast, the shift of the readings and prayers from the end to the beginning of the annual cycle made it possible for the church to hear the same texts filled with eschatological promise. In this way Advent at Rome acquired the character of a festive preparation based around the themes of longing, hope and expectation. The coming of the Redeemer in the flesh and the second coming of the Redeemer at the end of the age are themes constantly interwoven in the liturgical texts. These two themes continue in the liturgical texts, hymns and observance of the season to the present. Recent reforms retain the first two Sundays of Advent in thematic continuity with the last Sundays after Pentecost culminating in the proclamation of the Second Advent. The third and fourth Sundays turn to the anticipation of Christmas, the fourth Sunday being devoted to the Annunciation. T.J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 1986, 147–155 ◆ J.N. Alexander, Waiting for the Coming, 1993, 7–27. ◆ J. McKinnon, The Advent project, 2000. J. Neil Alexander

Adventists I. Emergence, History, Dissemination and Doctrines – II. Missions

I. Emergence, History, Dissemination and Doctrines 1. Emergence. Modern Adventism traces its direct roots back to the movement begun by William Miller (1782–1849, Baptist minister from New York State) which predicted the return of Jesus in 1843 and 1844. Following what became known as the “Great Disappointment” of Oct 22, 1844, the Millerite Adventist movement split into several divisions. The dominant remaining division of Millerism is the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDA) which was approaching a worldwide membership of ten million in 1997. Between 1844 and 1848 members of the SDA developed several distinctive beliefs, including the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath, Christ’s ministry in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, conditional immortality and annihilationism, and the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. → White. Under the leadership of Joseph Bates and James and Ellen White, the Sabbatarian Adventist movement began, in 1848, to form around its distinctive doctrines and the mis-

68 sion of the third angel of Rev 14:9–12. The following year J. White published the movement’s first periodical Present Truth. The movement’s publishing work grew rapidly throughout the 1850 and was largely responsible for giving the Sabbatarians a sense of cohesion. Those publications also continued to bring new members into Sabbatarian Adventism’s sphere of influence. The formal organization of the SDA denomination began in 1861 with the formation of the first local conference (the Michigan Conference) of SDA churches. Other local conferences were soon established. In May 1863 the various local conferences united to form the General Conference of SDA. At that point the new denomination’s 3,500 members all resided in the United States. 2. History. The early 1860s found the young denomination with an established conference system and publishing work, but that would merely be a foretaste of the denomination’s institutional development. In 1863 Adventism became part of the contemporary health reform movement of the larger culture. That emphasis not only encouraged individual SDAs to become health reformers, but it also led to the establishment of the Western Health Reform Institute. The Institute would soon be renamed as Battle Creek Sanitarium, which under the leadership of John Harvey Kellogg would become the model health institution for a system that would span the globe by the end of the century. In the 1870s two further SDA hallmarks came into existence. The first was its educational work, begun in 1874 with the founding of Battle Creek College. The second was the beginning of SDA foreign missions. In 1874 the denomination sent J.N. Andrews to Switzerland as its first official overseas missionary. The 1880s found the rapidly developing denomination faced with the necessity of theological reformation. That reformation began to take place at the 1888 General Conference session at Minneapolis, Minnesota. The session made many SDA leaders aware of the need for the church to become more evangelical as this contexted its distinctive beliefs within a more adequate soteriology. During the 1890s Adventism spread throughout the world, including the non-Protestant countries of Latin America and Africa. The spread of SDA missions (see below II) also dictated the spread of the denomination’s publishing, health, and educational institutions. In 1901 Adventism reorganized its administrative structure in order to facilitate its international work more efficiently. During the first half of the 20th century the SDA Church continued to build on the institutional and international foundation that had been laid in the 19th century. A milestone was reached in the 1920s when the SDA population outside of North America came to exceed that inside of the country. The latter

69 half of the 20th century found a maturing denomination. Not only did Adventism move in the eyes of many from the status of cult to that of church, but it also began to establish universities that would eventually offer doctoral degrees in what a few years before had been regarded as rather primitive “mission fields.” In the second half of the century the church also internationalized its denominational leadership and transformed the very concept of mission. By the 1990s the concept of “interdivisional worker” had replaced that of “missionary” as the Adventist global village adopted the motto of “from everywhere to everywhere.” 3. Dissemination and doctrines. As of January 1997 the SDA church had 9,296,127 members, 42,220 churches, and 20,063 ministers in its various world divisions. In addition, the denomination owned and operated 87 universities and colleges, 5,356 secondary and elementary schools, 587 health-care institutions, 55 publishing houses, and 28 food industries. Beyond these institutions, SDAs supported an extensive welfare work under the auspices of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency International (ADRA). The SDA church is unified worldwide under the General Conference of SDAs and its 13 regional divisions. These divisions, as of January 1997, were composed of 90 union conferences and missions which, in turn, were made up of 474 local conferences and missions. Undergirding those administrative structures were more than 42,000 local congregations. Whereas the church developed in North America, by 1997 the majority of its membership lived in Africa and Latin America with only about 10% residing in North America. SDAs issued publications in 238 languages and used 725 languages in their oral and publishing work. The denomination had established work in 204 of the 230 nations recognized by the United Nations. The growth pattern of the SDA church has been relatively consistent, with membership just about doubling each decade. Although the SDA Church technically has no officially adopted creed or confession, it has developed several statements of doctrinal beliefs. The most recent of these is the statement of 27 fundamental beliefs, adopted at the 1980 General Conference session. Adventism’s doctrinal beliefs may be divided into two sections. The first include those evangelical beliefs that Adventists share with other Christians. Within this category are those beliefs relating to the authority of scripture, the Godhead, human nature, the experience of salvation by grace through faith, the ordinances, and the role of the church. The second section includes those beliefs that tend to make SDAs unique. Within this category are the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, annihilationism and conditionalism, the two-phase ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary, the prophetic role of E.G. White, and the premillennial return of Jesus.

Adventists The SDA role in history is generally viewed in terms of the three angels’ messages in Rev 14:6–12. SDAs regard themselves as a people with a last-day message to preach to the entire world. In addition to these doctrinal beliefs, SDAs also have strong views on several life-style issues. Prominent among these are the importance of attending to one’s health, conservatism in entertainment and dress, and a preference for non-combatant participation in the military. II. Missions Although Adventists understand themselves as an “international family,” in practice the organization remained essentially American. They taught their converts a western life-style that isolated them from their indigenous communities. Their extensive evangelistic, educational, medical and welfare work was largely funded from grants raised in the USA. After the two world wars, however, the church underwent rapid transformation numerically, structurally and theologically with far-reaching implications for its future mission. Adventists themselves have spoken of an “identity crisis” that has been interpreted either as a danger of cultural and religious fragmentation or as an enrichment through increasing diversity. What exactly has made Adventist missions so attractive to Africa and Latin America despite its Western package of Christianity? The following factors may provide an answer: 1. The interpretation of the gospel as “Present Truth” and its emphasis on justification by faith alone as propounded by E.G. White. 2. The adoption of Adventism as a life-style which translates into healthcare, nutrition, education and improved standards of living. 3. Adventism as a lay-movement that does not distinguish between evangelism and social care. 4. The belief in the imminent return of Christ, who will turn the evil on earth into eternal salvation. In the face of sectarian tendencies, individualistically conceived ethics and a spiritually understood mission, Adventists from the Two-Thirds-World, who constitute the majority, have demanded a renewal of the Church from biblical and reformed origins, a contextualization of its theology, the teaching of the Sabbath as a sign of God’s creation and salvation, and a dedication to the cause against racism and social injustice. In comparison, the special Adventist doctrines play a subordinate role. Despite the apparently democratic structure of the Church, the financial and administrative center of power lies in Washington, DC. For a long time, the highly centralized structure jeopardized a fair representation of ethnic minorities and non-white members. The 70s and 80s, however, witnessed protest movements by Black Adventists which resulted in increasing participation of national churches in the running of the Church,

Advocatus Dei/diaboli

70

the appointment of indigenous leadership replacing expatriate missionaries, and also the appointment of Latin-Americans and Africans to leading positions in Washington. In 1990 the General Conference adopted a global mission program, which, in view of the year 2000, divided the world population into 5,000 ethnolinguistic and ethnographic segments of one million each, in order to focus on regions that have had little or no contact with the Gospel. It remains to be seen whether this strategy will shape the “Christian character” which according to Adventist beliefs will hasten Christ’s rule on earth and promote unity within its cultural, ethnic and theological diversity. The internationalization of the Church will necessitate a revaluation of certain positions such as regards the role of the founder, the interpretation of the Bible, the significance of the 27 basic doctrines, formulated exclusively in the North, and the ordination of women. R.W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant, 1979 ◆ G. Land, ed., Adventism in America, 1986 ◆ Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 1988 ◆ G.R. Knight, Anticipating the Advent: A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists, 1993 ◆ G.R. Knight, Millennial Fever and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism, 1993 ◆ D.R. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, 2 vols., 21996. George R. Knight

Advocatus Dei/diaboli. Until the reorganization of the beatification and canonization procedures in 1983, the written exchange of arguments pro and contra between the candidate’s advocate and the Promotor fidei at the Congregation of Rites (today known as the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints) played a central role. The one who presented the favorable arguments was popularly known as “God’s advocate,” while the one who put forward the arguments against the candidate was popularly known as “the devil’s advocate.” M. Sieger, Die Heiligsprechung, 1995.

Herbert Kalb

Advowson Church. This concept refers to the legal situation whereby in the early Middle Ages churches belonged as ecclesiae propriae to individual persons or to a monastery, who therefore possessed extensive rights over these buildings and their use. U. → Stutz held that the root of this praxis lay in the pre-Christian Germanic custom of having domestic priests in private temples, and saw this as the most important evidence of Germanic legal traditions in canon law. Subsequent research has, however, concluded that the genesis of advowson is connected with the development of property rights in Late Antiquity. It came into being where private churches were founded; these are attested in the late Roman Empire in the countryside from c. 400 onward. The property of these private churches was exempt from the administrative authority of the bishop.

The usufruct of the founders of the churches went so far that from the 8th century onward, the parochial law entitled the holder of the advowson to employ the revenues of the church for himself; his only obligation was to care for the maintenance of the church and the livelihood of the priest. The priests who served in advowson churches were chosen by the lord, and were often serfs. In the 9th century, the concept of dominium tended to be employed to describe the legal position of the possessors of the churches, e.g. in a treatise of Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims devoted specifically to advowson. Councils of the → Carolingian period explicitly acknowledged the legal situation of advowson churches. This praxis became established above all in France and Anglo-Saxon England, as well as in parts of Italy, so that it is probable that most rural churches in the early medieval period were advowson churches. This gave the laity a power in the church which lasted until the 12th century. In the → Investiture Controversy, a number of authors (Deusdedit, Placid of Nonantula) rejected the idea that churches could be the property of laymen; councils under → Urban II decreed that the laity must relinquish the possession of advowson. In the → canon law of the early 12th century, there was a tendency to reject outright the lay dominium over churches. In his decretals (→ Corpus Iuris Canonici), → Gratian took a mediating position: he accepted lay dominium over churches, but limited the rights of the holder of the advowson to the presentation of a priest and to a claim to material help in situations of need. This reduced legal position has been known as → patronage since the canonist Rufinus (c. 1164). In later treatises on canon law, advowson rights of ecclesiastical persons (bishops and monasteries) were no longer accepted; these were interpreted as instances of patronage held by clerics. Hincmar of Rheims, Collectio de ecclesiis et capellis, MGH. F 14, 1990 ◆ U. Stutz, “Das Eigenkirchenvermögen,” in: FS O. Gierke, 1911, 1187–1268 ◆ idem, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechts, 1895 (1955) ◆ idem, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens, 1895 (21961) ◆ P. Landau, Ius Patronatus. Studien zur Entwicklung des Patronats im Dekretalenrecht und der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, FRKG 12, 1975 ◆ M. Hartmann, “Der rechtliche Zustand der Kirchen auf dem Lande: Die Eigenkirche in der fränkischen Gesetzgebung des 7. und 9. Jahrhunderts,” SSAM 28, 1982, 397–444 ◆ P. Landau, “Eigenkirchenwesen,” TRE IX, 1982, 399–404 ◆ K. Schäferdiek, “Das Heilige in Laienhand. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der fränkischen Eigenkirche,” in: FS G. Krause, 1982, 122–140 ◆ R. Schieffer, “Eigenkirche, Eigenkirchenwesen I. Allgemein,” LMA III, 1986, 1705–1708 ◆ M. Stefánsson, “Eigenkirche II. Besondere Entwicklungen in Skandinavien,” LMA III, 1986, 1708–1710 ◆ P. Landau, “Das ‘Dominium’ der Laien an Kirchen im Decretum Gratiani und in vorgratianischen Kanonessamlungen der Reformzeit,” ZSRG.K 83, 1997, 209–222. Peter Landau

Adwa. A hamlet in Tigray, northern → Ethiopia. The settlement earned its fame as the site of the first defeat

71

Aegean/Minoan/Mycenaean Religions

of a European colonial power by an African nation. On Mar 1, 1896, the Ethiopian army, led by Emperor Menelik II (1889–1913), won a decisive victory over the Italian army, led by General Oreste Baratieri, frustrating the Italians’ attempt to make Ethiopia an Italian colony. Adwa became an important date of reference for political nationalism and the → Ethiopian Movement in Africa. O. Baratieri, Memorie d’Africa (1892–1896), 1898 ◆ G.F.-H. Berkeley, The Campaign of Adowa and the Rise of Menelik, 21935 ◆ R. Battaglia, La Prima Guerra d’Africa, 1956 ◆ S. Rubenson, “Adwa 1896,” in: Protest and Power in Black Africa, R.I. Rotberg & A.A. Mazrui, eds., 1970, 113–142. Getatchew Haile

Aegean/Minoan/Mycenaean Religions I. In the Context of the East – II. Historical and Regional Differentiation – III. Religion and Cults

I. In the Context of the East All around the Aegean in the 2nd millennium bce cultures emerged with an orientation toward the East, borrowing eastern systems, such as the economic, military, high-societal, religious centrality of cities with sophisticated palaces, the archive system with clay tablets and the technique of writing, seafaring techniques, the use of battle chariots, iconography and especially also types of religious systems of signs. In the opposite direction too religious wealth from the Greek culture was adopted in the East (e.g. the new excavations at Tel ab Daba in the Nile delta), albeit to a smaller extent. The linking of the Greek cultures to the Eastern ones came in phases. After the Bronze Age, with a distinct break around 1200, when the seafaring peoples made voyages impossible, the Greek polis-culture emerged in renewed association with Euboia/Boeotia. It reached a peak in the “epoch of orientalization” (7th/6th cent.), then again in → Hellenism (e.g. Alexandria) until the late imperial period and early Byzantium. Throughout this era there were Eastern cultural patterns present in Greek culture which were imported, imitated and acculturated, understood as foreign or native, or defamiliarized again and eclipsed. Alongside the direct exchange of cultural artifacts, which appear in importations in archeological finds, there is imitation and independent further development by the local culture. To what extent identical signs are also filled with identical meanings, can only be assessed by means of developed literary sources. From the scales in Mycenaean tombs it is hardly possible to infer already in the Bronze Age the adoption of the “judgment of the dead” and developed Egyptian conceptions of the world to come. II. Historical and Regional Differentiation The earliest palaces appeared on Crete (Knossos, Mallia, Zakros, Ajia Triadha, Phaestos, Chania), then somewhat later the Cycladic culture (Thera/Santorin) which,

destroyed by the eruption of the volcano c. 1645 bce, only became important again on the island of Melos in the late phase. Finally there are the palaces in the Peloponnese (Mycene/Tiryns, Pylos), Attica (Athens), Boiotia (Gla) and, on the coast of Asia Minor (Miletus). Egyptian and Hittite sources suggest amalgamations (leagues of cities or formation of states), which may be based on the Greeks’ self-designations as “Achaioi” and “Danaoi.” (see map of Aegean Religions). III. Religion and Cults The Minoan Cretans led processions to cult places in the palace or in caves, rarely to special temples, marked by stones (baityla), double axe and birds, in order to experience the appearance of the goddess and to participate in daring bull-riding. During the procession, fruits as well as animals were brought to the altar as a blood sacrifice. In terms of iconography the Mycenaeans are part of the Minoan religious tradition, though they differ in the ritual forms. In the late phase there is evidence of a clear differentiation of idols (occasionally male as well), and now also clay idols and a number of relics. Contemporary archival documentation also verifies a plurality of deities named after Greek gods; hence this points to a distinct expression of polytheism which cannot be derived from the cult of a female palace deity. There is little information to be gained from the lists of the economy and imported iconography about the relations of the deities; nevertheless there is a well-developed pantheon with a prominent female ruler called Pótnia, family structures and departmental deities. Likewise in the phase of Minoan religion the forms of the cult are already too diversified to be traced back to a cult of a single Eastern fertility goddess with her dying and rising prince, as J.G. → Frazer and A.J. → Evans have argued. More likely this expresses a principle of polytheistic religion which, despite the plurality of gods, entrusts everything to the local deity, including areas that elsewhere are attributed to other and more specific gods. Myths from the ancient east conveying models of such dynamics as palace revolutions against the “kingdom in heaven,” the origin and end of the world, the city as cosmos, the assembly of the gods, as well as such rituals as hepatoscopy, initiation sacrifice, → purifications and harmful magic seem to have been adopted only after the Bronze Age. This presupposes a lengthy period of tradition and processing of Hittite and Ugaritic knowledge of ritual following their demise, as appears to have been possible in Cyprus and Phoenicia. A.J. Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos, 4 vols., 1921–1936 ◆ M.P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Micenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion, 21950 ◆ F. Matz & I. Pini, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, 13 vols. and supplements, 1966–1996 ◆ M. Gérard-Roussea, Les mentions religieuses dans les tablettes mycéniennes, 1968 ◆ C. Long, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus, 1974 ◆ E. Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and

a-

Tiryns

T

modern name

Source: Brill's New Pauly, ed. H. Cancik & H. Schneider, vol. I, Leiden 2002.

historical name

Pylos

Melos

Finds of Aegean imports (possibly local imitations; selection)

Finds of archives in linear B or archives of Hittite clay tablets

Other settlements of historical importance (archaeological and/or literary evidence)

Main town (archaeological and/or literary evidence)

Assyrian Empire and sphere of Assyrian influence

Hittite Empire and sphere of Hittite influence

New Kingdom and sphere of Egyptian influence

a o Melos

Knos(s)os

Thera/Santorini

Gödelesin

Heliopolis Memphis

Hattusa

Tarsos

Tyana

Bogazköy

Ascalon

hwt w rt Tall ab-Dab a

Kypros

Cape Uluburun (Wreck) Cape Gelidonya (Wreck)

ijawa

Crete

ju D a n

i?

Smyrna Sardeis

Milawa(n)da Miletos

Samos

Thermi

Troja/Ilios

Ahh

Expansion and spheres of influence c. 1400–1200 BCE

na -

Messene

Mykenai

Gla Thebes

Lesbos

Wilusa

Lemnos

ai

Pylos

Ephyra

Dodona

Thasos

h Ac

? oi

Aegean Religions

Korkyra

Kastanas

Aegean/Minoan/Mycenaean Religions 72

73

Aequitas canonica

Poetry, 1979 ◆ R. Hägg & N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1981 ◆ O. Dickinson, The Aegean Bronze Age, 1994, 257–294 ◆ W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution, 1992 ◆ N. Marinatos, Art and Religion in Ancient Thera, 1984, 1988 ◆ C. Renfrew, The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary of Phylakopi, 1985 ◆ M. Bernal, Black Athena, 1987 21992 ◆ J.L. Crowley, The Aegean and the East, 1989 ◆ J.G. Griffiths, “The Divine Verdict: A Study of Divine Judgment in the Ancient Religions,” SHR 52, 1991, see also Auffarth, WO 24, 1993, 147–149 ◆ C. Auffarth, Der drohende Untergang: Schöpfung und Ritual und Mythos im Alten Orient und in Griechenland, RGVV 39, 1991 ◆ J. and E. Sakellarakis, Archanes, 1991 ◆ O. Dickinson, The Aegean Bronze Age, 1994, 257–294 ◆ N. Marinatos, Minoan Religion, 1995 ◆ D.R. West, Some Cults of Greek Goddesses of Oriental Origin, AOAT 233, 1995 ◆ C. Auffarth, Hera und ihre Stadt Argos, 1995 ◆ M. Lefkowitz, ed., Black Athena Revisited, 1996 ◆ W.-D. Niemeier & S. Deger-Jalkotzy, BNP (Antiquity) vol. I. Christoph Auffarth

Aelfric (c. 955–1020) was the son of a West Saxon aristocratic family; as a → Benedictine, he was educated in Winchester under St. Aethelwold; from 1005, he was abbot of Eynsham near Oxford. Because of his literary activity, Aelfric became one of the foremost personalities in the Benedictine reform movement in England. Especially important are his many vernacular sermons (two collections of Sermones Catholici and a collection of legends of the saints) and translations (including Bede’s De temporibus anni and the first seven books of the OT). Aelfric also made a name for himself as a grammarian with his Grammar and his Colloquy, a textbook for Latin instruction. J.E. Cross, Aelfric and the Mediaeval Homiliary, 1963 ◆ J. Hurt, Aelfric, 1972 ◆ M.McC. Gatch, Preaching and Theology in AngloSaxon England: Aelfric and Wulfstan, 1977 ◆ P.E. Szarmach & B.F. Huppé, eds., The Old English Homily and Its Backgrounds, 1978. Jörg O. Fichte

Aelia Capitolina → Bar Kokhba Revolt, → Jerusalem Aelred of Rievaulx, Saint (Ailred, Ethelred etc.; 1110, Hexham – 1167, Rievaulx), Cistercian abbot (→ Cistercians), author, and historian. From 1124 to 1134, he received his education and served as an economist at the Scottish court of David I; he entered Rievaulx in 1134, became master of novices in 1142, the founding abbot of Revesby in 1143, and from 1147 the abbot of Rievaulx, which he led to its greatest prosperity. Aelrid is the abbot par excellence for English monasticism to this day and one of the four “Evangelists of Cîteaux” that influenced the original charisma for the Cistercian order. In addition to the emotional quality and the rich imagery of his language, psychological sensitivity and human warmth characterize his monastic theology. He interpreted the relationships between monk and monastery community as (granted or refused) social grace; at the same time, through the transformation of the ancient ideal of friendship into a Christian ideal, he founded a theology of dialogical mysticism; his guidance concern-

ing the methodical examination of the life of Jesus continued to be influential until → Ignatius of Loyola. W. Daniel, Vita Aelredi, ed. F.M. Powicke, 1950 ◆ G. Fösges, Das Menschenbild bei Aelred von Rievaulx, 1994 (bibl.). Michaela Pfeifer

Aeneas of Gaza (2nd half of 5th cent. ce), Christian (probably → Monophysite), as a rhetorician belonged to the school of rhetoric in Gaza. Extant are a collection of 25 letters (ed. Massa Positano, 21962) and a dialogue “Theophrastus” (ed. M. Colonna, 1958), a writing dated between 485 and 490. It consists of a debate of the Christians Aegyptus and Euxitheos – the latter calls himself a student of the Neoplatonist → Hierocles – with → Theophrastus, a neoplatonic Athenian philosopher who had recently arrived in → Alexandria. CPG 3, 7450–7451 ◆ M. Wacht, Aeneas als Apologet, Theoph. 21, 1969 ◆ E. Gallicet, “Per una rilettura del Teofrasto di Enea di Gaza e dell’ Ammonio di Zacaria Scolastico,” AAST 112, 1978, 117–135, 137–167 ◆ A. Segonds, art. “Ainéas de Gaza,” DPA I, 1989, 82–87. Ilsetraut Hadot

Aepinus, Johannes (Hoeck) (1499, Ziesar – May 13, 1553, Hamburg). In 1517 Aepinus was premonstratensian in Belbuck (near Treptow on the Rega). He studied in Wittenberg from 1518 to 1520, after which he taught in Ziesar, was imprisoned and fled, taught in Greifswald, and in 1524 in Stralsund, where he composed a church order on the commission of the Council in 1525. In 1529, he became pastor at St. Petri in Hamburg; he was pastor and lector at the cathedral and Superintendent from 1532 to 1553. He received the Dr. theol. in Wittenberg in 1533. He was an emissary to England in 1534. In 1537 he was at the Bundestag in Schmalkalden. In 1544 he authored the church order for Bergedorf and the Vierlande, in 1552 for Buxtehude. In his teaching at the cathedral, Aepinus interpreted Christ’s → Descent into Hell on the basis of Ps 16 as his deepest humiliation, in contrast to the typical understanding as the beginning of his elevation. The church in Hamburg in which Aepinus initially had the upper hand was divided over this issue for years. Formula Concordiae IX rejects such speculation. EKO IV, 1911, 540–545; 5, 1913, 386–390 ◆ VD 16, 1, 1, 1983, 68–72 A354–390 ◆ H. Düfel, TRE I, 1977, 535–544 Heinz Scheible

Aequalitas exacta mutuaque → Parity Aequitas canonica. This principle of Catholic canon law is rooted in the aequitas (“equity”) of Roman law, in biblical thinking, and in → Aristotle’s theory of epikeia (→ Epiky). The aim of the aequitas canonica (unlike that of epikeia) is to achieve a harmony between already codified law and the legal judgment required in a specific situation.

Aeschylus The effect is a moderation of existing law; on occasion, however, the law may also be tightened (oikonomia). E. Wohlhaupter, Aequitas canonica, 1931 ◆ G. Wingren, art. ◆ “Billigkeit” TRE VI, 1980, 642–645 ◆ A. Hollerbach, art. “Billigkeit,” StL7, I, 1985, 809–813 ◆ W. Aymans & K. Mörsdorf, Kanonisches Recht I, 131991, 187–189. Wilhelm Rees

Aeschylus (c. 525/24 – 456/55 bce), Athenian dramatist. Of the approx. 70–90 tragedies and satirical plays attributed to Aeschylus the following are preserved: Persians (472 bce), Seven against Thebes (467), Hiketides (461?), as well as Agamemnon, Choephoroi and Eumenides (458) and the so-called Oresteia. Others are preserved in fragmentary form. By means of the trilogy Aeschylus was able to present connected plots spanning extended periods of time. These plots and the resultant misfortune are over-determined: for Aeschylus’s tragic characters they are a part of divine action; human behavior and its consequences, however, are not simply given in advance by the gods but are always determined in part by the actors themselves as well. Even if the vengeance of the gods affects not only those directly involved but also subsequent generations, divine intervention always correlates with human freedom of action and responsibility. The predications of Zeus, by means of which Aeschylus’s characters portray the omnipotence of the deity, are not preliminary stages of Christian → monotheism but henotheistic patterns of interpretation in the framework of ancient polytheism. As the almighty father of gods and humans Zeus, too, follows a sociomorphic model, whereby reality can be conceptualized at least, if not explained. This does not result in a transcendent conception of God, nor does the critique of divine action expressed by the tragic characters lead directly to the problem of → theodicy. The gods are not subject to the standards of human morality; instead their central theme is the incompatibility of divine and human patterns of behavior. In the Oresteia this ultimately leads to the transformation of the representatives of divine vengeance, the Erinyes, into benevolent deities. This harmony between gods and humans, belonging to the mythic-historical past in Athens, expresses a theological optimism which Aeschylus formulates at the apex of Athenian power. Later Athenian dramatists were no longer able to muster such optimism. A. Wartelle, Bibliographie historique et critique d’Eschyle 1518– 1974, 1978 ◆ A.H. Sommerstein, Aeschylean Tragedy, 1996. Andreas Bendlin

Aesthetics I. Philosophy – II. Theology

I. Philosophy Aesthetics is the discipline concerned with reflective perception, feelings, and the beautiful in nature and

74 art. The discussion of “aesthetics” has used this term, however, only in the modern era. In the context of → metaphysics and → ontology, epistemology and practical → philosophy, poetics and → rhetoric, however, the questions of aesthetics have accompanied thought since Antiquity. In fact, the history of aesthetics began with → Plato, who designated the beautiful as the goal of human endeavor in the Symposion and underscored the transcendental significance of earthly → beauty in the Phaidros. Earthly beauty reminds the soul of the divine sphere where, before its earthly existence, it viewed beauty’s pure prototype; we feel, as it were, inspired to come close again to the heavenly state. Beauty produces goodness. – In his Politeia, Plato sought to situate aesthetic appearance explicitly under rational control according to the standards of the reasonable ethicopolitical order, and by this very statement referred critically to the power of art. → Aristotle, in contrast, wanted to lay claim positively to this power. In the Poetics, he lauded tragedy for its therapeutic effect of a sublimated expression of the emotions. Antiquity generally emphasized the unity of the good, the true, and the beautiful. It was not until the 18th century that aesthetic questions in the true sense came to consciousness. The themes were sense perception, the productive imagination, the refined judgment of taste, the works of genius, the perfection of form, and reflective sensibilities. A. → Baumgarten defined the term for the new discipline with his Aesthetica (1750/1752), in which he assigned sensory perception its status in comparison to reason. I. → Kant marked a new epoch in the context of his critique of reason in his Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790; ET Critique of Judgment) by establishing its essence: as an act of judgment, aesthetic judgment concerning beauty and the sublime has its principle in a feeling, springing from reflection, of desire for the mere form of things. To this aesthetic feeling, Kant linked the highest speculative expectations: the experience of beauty permits one to become conscious, in the inner harmony of passionate contemplation, that one also fits harmoniously into nature – conceived of in teleological terms. In this state, one feels free and finds oneself therefore also oriented toward one’s moralpractical freedom: the beautiful is the symbol of the morally good. It is not by chance that this independence of aesthetics with respect to subject matter and method took place in the → Enlightenment: the determination of the achievements and limits of reason systematically provoked interest in the status of sensory perception and feeling. This Enlightenment stands in interplay with the movement in which the arts find such autonomy that they become exemplary for the self-consciousness of the modern individual. G.W.F. → Hegel followed this after 1820 with his in-depth reflections on art as a

75 form of the living “human as well as divine” spirit. Art, here, is conceived as a manifestation of the divine in the form of human freedom. It achieves the portrayal of the absolute in the medium of perceptible appearance. In relation to the ideal of the correspondence of absolute idea and perceptible form, it goes through the three phases of symbolic, classical, and romantic art, which Hegel interpreted, with a view to art from Antiquity to his own time, as the aspiration for, the attainment of, and the surpassing of this ideal. According to this historico-philosophical model, art ceased to be the appropriate form of expression of the human spirit with the romantic art of the Christian Middle Ages; at first, religion took over this function, and finally, philosophy. According to A. → Schopenhauer’s assessment of music as the complement of a pessimistic worldview and S. → Kierkegaard’s critique of the hedonism of everything aesthetic, F. → Nietzsche declared aesthetic productivity to be the principle of reality in his “artists’ metaphysics.” While, in the 20th century, G. → Simmel concerned himself with the combination of ethics and aesthetics in the concept of individuality, E. → Cassirer emphasized its liberating effects as well in his symbol theory of culture with its epistemic role for art. For T. → Adorno, an uncontrollable principle of experience is at work in the autonomy of aesthetic form in art; the work of art thereby becomes the subject of opposition to a society marred by domination. While here there is again an unsurpassable speculative estimation of great art, the currently dominant theoretical approaches to aesthetic experience are pushing the boundaries of the subject. A.G. Baumgarten, Aesthetica, 1750/1752 ◆ I. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, 1790 ◆ G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen zur Ästhetik, 1823 ◆ A. Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, Book 3, 1819 ◆ S. Kierkegaard, Entweder – Oder, 1843 ◆ F. Nietzsche, Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geist der Musik, 1872 ◆ S. Simmel, Das individuelle Gesetz, 1918 ◆ E. Cassirer, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, 1923–1929; ET: The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume One: Language, 1955; Volume Two: Mythical Thought, 1955; Volume Three: The Phenomenology of knowledge, 1957 ◆ idem, Die Philosophie der Aufklärung, ch. 7, 1932 ◆ T.W. Adorno, Ästhetische Theorie, 1970; ET: Aesthetic Theory, 1997 ◆ W. Tatarkiewicz, Geschichte der Ästhetik, 3 vols., 1979/1980, 1987 ◆ P. Perpeet, Antike Ästhetik, 21988 ◆ A. Gethmann-Siefert, Einführung in die Ästhetik, 1995 ◆ B. Scheer, Einführung in die philosophische Ästhetik, 1997. Birgit Recki

II. Theology Despite attention to aesthetics in recent years and despite the importance of religious literature and art, as well as music, for the life of the church, a theological aesthetics continues to be rather a desideratum than an established discipline; therefore, only its tasks can be described. Constitutive for the genuinely modern discipline of aesthetics is the association of the three themes of beauty, art, and sensory perception; all three are of immediate theological significance.

Aesthetics 1. In the theological tradition, the subject of aesthetics appears primarily in reflection concerning beauty. In this respect, classical metaphysical thought, following (neo-)Platonic tendencies, conceived of beauty not principally as beauty in appearance, but, above all, as the beauty of the invisible world in God. Visible beauty leads the human spirit to perceive the beauty of God; this understanding shaped all medieval art. Beauty is not, therefore, related to the receptive subject, but is a transcendental condition of reality itself; God is conceived of as the epitome of beauty. As the highest beauty, God is simultaneously the highest good and the greatest truth; thus, in God, beauty, goodness, and truth coincide. As conditions of reality, beauty and goodness, especially, are linked. The collapse of the classical form of metaphysics brought the loss of the transcendental basis of beauty; it ceased to appear as the basic definition of reality and became a subjective category of “pleasure.” As a concept of taste, it also lost its function as a central aesthetic category and has been replaced, since F. → Schiller, by the concept of → truth. This has theological consequences: while beauty can be regarded as the sensory presentation of the ordered cosmos, the concept of truth refers also to the brokenness of the world. Beauty, therefore, can only be conceived in the unredeemed world as an eschatological category. This very usage, however, can once again express what was conceived in the pre-modern era as the transcendental character of beauty. The theological task of the (sensory) disclosure of the world as creation points, therefore, to aesthetics; it finds in H.U. v. → Balthasar’s monumental work, which sought to uncover, in a fashion critical of the Enlightenment, the world’s transparency to God’s “glory,” an indispensable, but not unproblematic, point of reference. In this work, both speculative and mystical, aesthetics is the starting point for experiencing the self-revelation of God in its proper mystery and beauty, without reducing it to the customary categories of reason. Such an aesthetics shatters the common schemata by defining the cross of Christ as the locus through which all other true perception of the world and of humanity becomes possible. Thus, v. Balthasar not only reintegrated the three themes of the aesthetic theology of revelation, but also expressed the unity of the transcendental: the One reveals himself in his beauty, proves to be good, and thereby demonstrates his truth. 2. With the loss of the transcendental significance of beauty, the development of art has proceeded such that one can actually speak of art, in the contemporary sense, only in the modern era. By loosening itself from its theological context, art increasingly conceived of itself not only as autonomous, but also as the heir of and substitute for religion or as the true religion: art should express the unity of the finite subject with the infinite and the uncon-

Aetheria ditional, a unity that no longer seems perceptible in religion. At the same time, art is supposed to expand reason to include what is excluded from it: the romantic interest in the dark and “irrational” is a clear protest against the rationalistic restriction of life. Alongside this stands the claim that art can elevate morals: “for truth, beauty, and goodness” becomes the slogan of civil art in which genius is supposed to unify what has disintegrated in thought. The excessive philosophical and religious demands on art required by bourgeois aesthetics leads to a deep systematic conflict between → art and religion, the moment of truth for Kierkegaard’s consequential differentiation between ethical and aesthetic which was understood as a dichotomy, and seems to legitimate the theological alienation of contemporary art. The aesthetic modern age denies the religious claims of absolute art and expresses the ambivalence of the world; thus, it overcomes the tendency, implicit in absolute art, toward → theodicy or cosmodicy. The modern aesthete also makes concessions toward faith even where no religious implications are apparent. Theological aesthetics emphasizes together with modern aesthetics (most explicitly in Adorno, see above, I) the biblical → prohibition of images: the reconciled world is, indeed, beyond representation; instead, it is reserved for God’s future. 3. As a theory of sensory perception, theological aesthetics is, though only rudimentarily developed, of particular urgency. The central task of theological aesthetics is guidance for experiencing the reality of God in encountering the world “with reason and all the senses.” As aesthetics shatters the illusion of an autonomous subject and brings the irreducible receptivity of life to experience, it is indispensable for a contemporary articulation of the doctrine of creation. The necessity for a theological aesthetics is, consequently, not only based on the importance of aesthetics as a cultural phenomenon, but indispensable for the selfawareness of faith. Current aesthetic discourse needs the articulation of the Christian tradition; aesthetic modernity finds facticity guilty of the existence of its conventionality and puts pressure on the authentic expression of individual life. This is especially true in view of a postmodern aestheticism that wishes to separate itself from the question of truth as a culture dominated by stereotypical images: theological aesthetics is a task of critical perception. H.U. v. Balthasar, Herrlichkeit, 1961–1969; ET: The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, 1982–1991 ◆ A. Grözinger, Praktische Theologie und Ästhetik, 1987 ◆ G. Picht, Kunst und Mythos, 21987 ◆ P. Fuller, Theoria: Art, and the Absence of Grace, 1988 ◆ F. Burch Brown, Religious Aesthetics, 1989 ◆ J.S. Begbie, Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts, 1991 ◆ W. Lesch, ed., Theologie und ästhetische Erfahrung, 1994 ◆ W. Schoberth, Geschöpflichkeit in der Dialektik der Aufklärung, 1994 ◆ R. Viladesau, Theological Aesthetics: God in Imagination, Beauty, and Art, 1999 ◆ J.W. de Gruchy, Christianity, Art, and

76 Transformation, 2001 ◆ D.B. Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 2003. Wolfgang Schoberth

Aetheria → Egeria Aetiology I. Greco-Roman – II. Old Testament

I. Greco-Roman The word is formed from the Greek αἴτιον/aition (reason, ground) and λόγος/lógos (doctrine). → Aristotle (Metaph. 982b–983a) sees the first steps toward a “scientific” explanation of the world in the curious astonishment to which one feels compelled in the face of the phenomenal world before one’s eyes. The question concerning the why, the aetion, that gives rise to the aetiology encompasses all aspects of life, from the appearance of the plants to the search for the cause (or causal principle) of the cosmos. The need for explanation produced the effort, in mythology, to interpret the origin of the world surrounding humanity “rationalistically.” Aetiology may be regarded as an instrument for justifying the development of a social order. Preferably, gods are linked with the origin of aetia (e.g. as the punitive authority). Aetiology is recorded in literature, in nearly all literary genres (e.g. the aetiological conclusions of Euripedes’ dramas) in → Hellenism, which, motivated by an antiquarian compulsion, produced collections of aetia (Callimachus; Apollonius Rhodius); later, for Ovid, aetia became characteristic of a genre. Aetiology relates to the most widely varied aspects of life, so that it is nearly impossible to systematize. The most important aetia include: 1. Nature aetia, which explain natural phenomena. The astral aetia (constellations and their names) constitute a favored group. They are regularly explained by catasterism (immortalization in the stars) and often result from the metamorphosis of persons or objects. 2. Culture aetia explain the origin of important cultural phenomena (farming, viniculture). A sub-group includes the attribution of human achievements to an inventor. 3. Cult aetia interpret rites as the historical translation of a mythical event. Festival customs fall into this category as well as divine attributes and practices. Living beings and objects associated with the cult are also interpreted in this manner. 4. Name aetia arise through the establishment of etymological relationships. 5. Places are associated with and named after mythical events. M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. I, 31967, 27–35 ◆ P.M. Forbes Irving, Metamorphosis in Greek Myths, 1990. Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer

II. Old Testament Aetiologies often appear in the OT in formal elements such as name etymologies, paronomasia, naming formu-

77 lae (e.g. Gen 11:9; 25:30; Exod 2:22; 15:23), and references to transtemporal validity or efficacy (“until this day,” e.g. Judg 1:26; 2 Sam 6:8), and are present especially as narrative elements. Often, a text contains more than one aetiology (e.g. Gen 11:1–9 – confusion of languages, dispersal over the earth, explanation of a name). Some circumstances have more than one aetiology; e.g. Beersheba = “well of the oath” (Gen 21:23f., 31; 26:31) and “well of seven” (Gen 21:28ff.; 26:32f.). The aetiologies in Gen 1–11 relate to human existence, the distance between God and humanity, human mortality (Gen 1–3), the relationship between the sexes (Gen 2:24), etc.; the aetiologies in Gen 12ff. relate to the history of Israel and its ancestors. Aetiologies may be divided according to themes: personal names (e.g. Gen 38:29f.; Judg 6:32), often of patriarchs (e.g. Gen 29:31–30:24), places (e.g. Gen 32:3, 31; Judg 18:12), wells (e.g. Exod 17:7; Judg 15:19), the fall of cities (e.g. Gen 19:1–28), or the disappearance of populations (e.g. Josh 11:21f.), population lists (e.g. Judg 1:27–35), the subjugation of population groups (e.g. Josh 9:21, 27), feasts (e.g. Exod 13:2–16) and customs (e.g. Gen 32:33; Exod 4:26), regulations and institutions (e.g. 1 Sam 30:25), proverbs (e.g. 1 Sam 10:11f.), stone monuments or the like (e.g. Gen 19:26; 35:19f.; Josh 8:29; 24:26f.; 1 Sam 7:10ff.), etc. The historical content of aetiologies was a point of contention between the Alt/Noth and Albright schools (A. → Alt; M. → Noth; W.F. → Albright). According to current opinion, the existence of an aetiology does not automatically imply that a tradition is unhistorical. The dispute concerns whether the early period of Israel was when the aetiologies originated and whether the term aetiology is also applicable to literary layers and larger tradition complexes. In the current text of the OT, the aetiologies predominantly serve a rhetorical and theological function. The formula “until this day” emphasizes the reliability of what has been recounted, legitimizes property claims, etc. The hieros logos in Gen 28:10–22 elucidates YHWH’s presence with Jacob; the explanation of Moses’ name (Exod 2:10) offers a preview of the future; the aetiology of Mara (Exod 15:22–26) is in the service of the temptation theme, etc. F. Golka, “Zur Erforschung der Ätiologie im Alten Testament,” VT 20, 1970, 90–98 ◆ idem, “The Aetiologies in the Old Testament,” VT 26, 1976, 410–428; 27, 1977, 36–47 ◆ P.J. van Dyk, “The Function of the So-called Etiological Elements in Narratives,” ZAW 102, 1990, 19–33 ◆ B.S. Childs, “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” ZAW 108, 1996, 362–377. Cornelis Houtman

Aetius (d. 365 ce), leader of the Anomoeans (→ Neo-Arianism) of → Antioch. Probably a convert to Christianity, most of his teachers were disciples of → Lucian of Antioch. He later studied medicine at Alexandria, and like Lucian served the poor. His vocation

Affect as dialectician and defender of doctrine was confirmed by a vision. He had both male and female disciples. He was ordained deacon in 344 but was removed from his position again after much opposition. Rejecting both ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) and ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) he said the Son was ἀνόμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν (anhomoios kat’ ousian, unlike the Father in essence), and thus founded the Anomoean party. An associate of Emperor Gallus, he was favored by Julian. Often condemned, his followers named him “bishop at large.” Almost executed by Valens for supporting the usurper Procopius, he died in bed and was buried by his disciple → Eunomius. His works survive in fragments (CPG 2, 3445–3451). L.R. Wickham, “The Syntagmation of Aëtius the Anomoean,” JTS 19, 1968, 532–569. Richard P. Vaggione

Afanasev, Nikolai (Sep 4 or 16, 1893, Odessa – Dec 4, 1966, Paris) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, forced from his homeland with the White Army, who studied theology in Belgrade from 1921 to 1925 and immigrated to Paris in 1929, where, beginning in 1932, he taught at the Orthodox Theological Institute of St. Serge. He was ordained as a priest in 1940; he led a community in Tunis from 1941–1947, then returned to St. Serge where he was named professor of canonistics in 1950. His main achievement was the rediscovery of the original ecclesiology (→ church) which, in view of the equation of both the Communion bread (1 Cor 10:16f.) and the congregation (1 Cor 12:27) with the body of Christ, he called the Eucharistic and contrasted with the universalistic view which he traced to → Cyprian: the local congregation gathered for the Eucharist, linked with others in reception and care, is the church in the full sense and not merely a part of the same. P. Plank, Die Eucharistieversammlung als Kirche, 1980 ◆ K.C. Felmy, Die Orthodoxe Theologie der Gegenwart, 1990. Peter Hauptmann

Affect I. Philosophy of Religion and Ethics – II. Practical Theology

I. Philosophy of Religion and Ethics I. The term affect (Gk: πάθος/páthos) originates from the Greek and Latin tradition rather than the biblical (here: “heart”). The term, however, became very popular in the history of Christian theology and piety. While, unlike ἦθος (ēthos), the term denotes the unregulated passion and suddenness of emotion, πάθη are experienced and described as the forceful essence of divine power. In mythical texts, therefore, Φόβος (Phobos), ᾽Ελπίς (Elpis) are for example found as the – even transparent – names of gods. In this way affects already formed part of theology before becoming a Christian term. In postmythical philosophy, on the other hand, the term – disregarding

Affectio papalis playful remythicization and poeticizing – reflects inner psychological phenomena (ϕόβος, ἐλπίς), which, though these are more or less strong instabilities, are, in principle, meant to be controlled. It is only after regarding the theological significance of affects that their strictly ethical significance can be contemplated. A certain doctrine of affects can now develop, i.e. the attempt to systematize what cannot be systematized by distinguishing between primary and secondary affects or through the fluid parameters of pleasant/unpleasant and present/future, from which the classic four affects (joy/suffering, desire/fear) arise. For the Christian reception of the term, the difference between the Aristotelian and Augustinian concepts of affect is of importance. It is understood that → Aristotle regarded affects as irrational, emotive strivings which can be controlled by reason, whereas → Augustine, while adopting Platonic motives, regarded affects also as expressions of rational potential. A distinction should be made between the belief that affects are controllable by something other than affects, e.g. by reason, and the belief that they can be controlled by affects alone. Aristotle presented the latter belief in his theory of the effects of tragedy (κάθαρσις παθημάτων/katharsis pathēmatōn, cleansing of passions), which returns in the early works of Melanchthon in the variation “affectus affectu vincitur.” The image thus resembles the “pugna affectuum,” which can be associated with elements of experiential theology. G. Metzger, Gelebter Glaube, 1964 ◆ I. Cramer-Ruegenberg, ed., Pathos Affekt Gefühl, 1981 ◆ G.J.P. O’Daly & A. Zumkeller, art. “Affectus,” AugL I, 1986/94, 166–180 ◆ L. Wisse, Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero, 1989 ◆ K.-H. zur Mühlen, “Die Affektlehre im Spät-Mittelalter und in der Reformationszeit,” ABG 35, 1992, 93–114 ◆ A. Zierl, Affekte in der Tragödie: Orestie, Oidipus Tyrannos und die Poetik des Aritoteles, 1994 ◆ G. Bader, Psalterium affectuum palaestra: Prolegomena zu einer Theologie des Psalters, 1996 ◆ K.-H. zur Mühlen, “Melanchthons Auffassung vom Affekt in den Loci communes von 1521,” in: M. Beyer & G. Wartenberg, eds., Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation, 1996, 327–336. Günter Bader

II. Practical Theology The affective life fills the interiority of an individual and can be thought of as primarily positive or negative. Negative affect is experienced in determinative forms of alienation, such as depression, guilt, or shame; positive affect expresses a satisfying feeling of wholeness as in elation, trust, or joy. Most common synonyms are mood, feeling, and emotion, all of which are distinguished from sensation. Sensation has a given object for its content, but affect is the impression made on an individual by the object. In contrast to feeling, mood or emotion, the term affect is most accurately used as a quality of observable behavior. F. → Schleiermacher, the father of practical theology in the modern era, made the unique feeling of the unity of “immediate self-consciousness” the experiential foundation of all religion. As Pannenberg puts it,

78 this was based on the grounds that feeling was understood as receptivity to the whole of the finite world. To affectively grasp the totality of the finite is already to have transcended it, so a comprehensive self-consciousness already implies the infinite. This is the → intrinsic religious significance of affect, but for Pannenberg this can be understood as such only in the cognitive domain. Most contemporary psychological studies of affect tend to focus on one affect or another, such as studies of guilt, anger, ecstasy, or pleasure, but do not grasp the significance of affect as a totality. Thus, such affects tend to appear diffuse in comparison to cognitive states. A typical issue in dealing with specific affects concerns guilt: is the guilt in question based on a determinative objective transgression of a norm, or is it part of a neurotic condition? Real guilt and guilt feelings do not necessarily go together, but both are powerful determinants of behavior. W. Pannenberg, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983; ET: Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1995, ch. 6 ◆ J.M. Jones, Affect as Process, 1995. James E. Loder

Affectio papalis. Since the pope possesses immediate and plenary jurisdiction in the church (c. 331 CIC), he may exercise his ius evocandi to reserve to himself any matter of administration (cf. c. 595 § 1) or any judicial case (c. 1405 § 1 n. 4), thus bypassing the person or body to which responsibility for this issue has been delegated. Every member of the faithful is entitled to bring his cause (c. 1417) directly to the pope (ius reclamandi). The affectio papalis came into existence in the High Middle Ages, especially in law relating to the appointment to ecclesiastical offices; this law has lost its relevance today. J. Haring, “Die Affectio papalis,” AKathKR 109, 1929, 127– 177. Karl-Theodor Geringer

Affiliation. In Catholic canon law, similar to the secular realm, “affiliation” (Lat. affiliare: “adopt”) denotes a special relationship of association; more specifically it is used in terms of aggregation (laws of religious orders and associations), incorporation or incardination and, in the context of the law code governing higher education, the affiliation of a university with a faculty. On the basis of papal privilege, letters of affiliation granted participation in the good works of a religious association. E. Magnin, DCC I, 1935, 263f.

Wilhelm Rees

Afghanistan I. History of Religions – II. History of Christianity

I. History of Religions 1. Pre-Islam. The geographical term Afghanistan occurs first in 10th-century Arabic and Persian sources.

79 The political boundaries of Afghanistan were established in the 2nd half of the 19th century by the colonial powers of England and Russia. Although the realm of modern Afghanistan tends to be described as a buffer zone between the Indian, central Asian and Iranian world, it is nevertheless a geographical and cultural unity. At the same time, however, Afghanistan always was a realm through which armies and commercial travelers passed, as well as intellectual trends and religious ideas. The earliest literary sources are from the 7th century and point to major Iranian influence in the western part of contemporary Afghanistan and thus to considerable significance of the Sassanid state religion, namely Zoroastrianism (→ Zarathustra), which drove out → Buddhism. In the eastern and northeastern part of modern Afghanistan Buddhism was able to assert itself. The monumental Greco-Buddhist relief statues of Bamian (destroyed by the Taliban in 2001) are just one example of the remarkable syncretism and the impressive cultural symbiosis of ancient western and Indian ideas. The most important source for the pre-Islamic situation is the travelogue of Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang), the Chinese pilgrim who visited the Kabul valley and numerous important cities around 644. He observed that alongside Buddhism other religious practices of Indian origin were observed. There is also evidence for the existence of Nestorian Christianity. As late as the 12th century there was a Nestorian church in a location called Zarang, which the Indian troops of Mahmud, the ruler of Ghaznavid, destroyed. There were also Jewish communities in existence. Islamic sources report on a Jewish residential area in Balkh where the prophet → Ezekiel is supposed to have lived. Numerous tombstones with Jewish-Persian, as well as with Hebrew and other inscriptions, which can be dated back to 752 ce, bear witness to Jewish life. Even in the early 1980s there was a Jewish community in the town of Maimana. 2. Islam. During the second half of the 7th century Islamic armies advanced into modern Afghanistan. Initial tolerance gave way to suppression and persecution of Zoroastrian priests and the destruction of the temple of fire. The political leaders of the local population objected that in the Qur’ān Zoroastrianism, along with Judaism and Christianity, had been recognized as a religion of the book and therefore as a religious community to be protected. The Islamic authorities concurred. The subsequent transition towards Islam proceeded slowly and by peaceful means. By 1000 ce the Islamization of the country can be considered to have been complete. Until 1896 the Kafirs (pagans), whose religion was described as a blend of polytheism and animism, were able to maintain themselves in modern Nuristan. Today Afghanistan is an Islamic state in which 99% of the population is Muslim, 85% of whom are → Sunnis. The

Afghanistan remaining 15% are Shiaites, most of them being adherents of the Twelve Šīaa (Shiaa) (→ Islam: II). E. Bosworth, “The Coming of Islam to Afghanistan,” in Y. Friedmann, Islam in Asia, vol. I, 1984, 1–22 ◆ P. Heine, “Das Verbreitungsgebiet der islamischen Religion,” in W. Ende & U. Steinbach, eds., Der Islam in der Gegenwart IV, 1996, esp. 129–148. Peter Heine

II. History of Christianity The presence of Christians in Afghanistan is traced back to the Nestorians (→ Nestorius; → Nestorianism; → Syria: V) who had been engaged in mission work in central Asia already in the early 5th century. By 424 the city of Herat was a diocesan seat and as such was also linked with the council of Seleucia; around 560 it became a metropolitan city (→ Metropolitan: I). The order of the names of the Nestorian bishops in Herat is known only until 1065. In the larger towns there were numerous Nestorian Christian communities; no detailed knowledge is available about their size, hierarchical organization and social structure. It is likely that the Nestorians initially turned to the lower strata of the population. Already around 498 Hun tribes of the Hephthalites are said to have been converted and in 549 requested the sending of a bishop. According to an ancient tradition even the apostles Thomas and Barnabas were supposed to have proclaimed the Gospel in Afghanistan. There is no unambiguous scholarly support for Balkh having been a diocesan seat. In the first half of the 7th century an archbishopric is supposed to have been established in this town for the bishop of Tocharestan. Balkh developed into a significant missions center which sent 636 missionaries to → China (III, V) on the → Silk road. After the Christian communities had finally disappeared by the late 14th century, under Tamerlane (1360–1405), Armenian traders (Armenia: II) in the 17th century established trade centers in Kabul, Herat, Jalalabad and Kandahar. In Kabul the colony of Armenian (→ Armenia: II) traders experienced their heyday around 1670 and 1707, when they enjoyed the special privileges under the rulers of the Moguls at that time, such as complete freedom of movement, exemption from dress regulations and tax reductions. In 1737 Nadis Shah Afshar (1688–1747) settled several hundred families in Kabul in order to promote IndianPersian trade. During this time the Armenians may have established the first church in Afghanistan, which was destroyed during the second Anglo-Afghanistan war (1878). In the 19th century the number of Armenians and their importance steadily decreased. On account of professional and social restrictions many Armenians left the country. On the order of Abdur Rahman Khans (1880–1901) the remaining Armenians were expelled from the country.

Afonso I Currently the only Christians in Afghanistan are expatriates who reside there because of their professional engagement, e.g. the Brethren of the Fellowship of → Christ-Bearers or the → Brothers/Sisters of Jesus, but also engineers and employees of various aid organizations. J.-M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, n.d. ◆ B. Spuler, Die morgenländischen Kirchen, HO 8/2, 1964 ◆ V. Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, 1969 ◆ H.W. Haussig, Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse in vorislamischer Zeit, 1983, repr. 1988. Birgitta Kraus

Afonso I (1465 [?] – 1543), Mvemba Nzinga, son of Nzinga Nkuvu, who was king of the Congo (→ Kongo Kingdom) when the Portuguese first arrived there in the 1480s. At the time Congo was a considerable and prosperous state. Nzinga Nkuvu was baptized in 1491 like many other African kings on encountering the Portuguese. He received the name of João I. His son, at the time governor of the province of Nsundi, was baptized a month later, receiving the name of Afonso. While the king abandoned Christianity soon after, Afonso refused to do so, and when his father died in 1506, he marched on the capital, Mbanza Congo, and defeated his non-Christian brother who had been chosen by the great chiefs as king. In this he received Portuguese assistance. He ruled the Congo from then until his death in 1543. During his long reign Afonso established the publicly Catholic character of his kingdom in a way which was maintained by all his successors for 300 years. The remarkable series of his letters is unique for any African king of the period. In them he appealed to the king of Portugal for educational and technical assistance while criticizing Portuguese behavior and their slave trade. He appears as both an evangelizer and a modernizer. His son Henry was sent to Lisbon for education, was made a bishop there in 1521 and returned to the Congo, where he died before 1530. Henry was the only Catholic African bishop before the 20th century. In his pursuit of foreign assistance, Afonso finally sent his brother Manuel in 1539 on a mission to the pope but the Portuguese never allowed him to proceed beyond Lisbon, where he remained until Afonso died. Afonso’s memory remained uniquely strong in the Congo. He stands out both in his Christian activism and political achievement from all other African kings of his period. A. Brasio, Monumenta Missionaria Africana, 2 vols., 1952/3 ◆ C.-M. de Witte, “Heride Congo, évêque titulaire d’Utique, d’après les documents romains,” ED 21, 1968, 587–599 ◆ L. Jadin & M. Dicorato, Correspondence de Dom Afonso, roi du Congo 1506–1543, 1974 ◆ J. Thornton, “Early KongoPortuguese Relations,” History in Africa 8, 1981, 183–204. Adrian Hastings

80 Afra of Augsburg (Saint) (martyr, d. c. 304). The earliest witnesses to Afra’s veneration are Venantius → Fortunatus (c. 560) and the Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Bern Codex, c. 600). The author of an early medieval Afra Passion (7th cent.?) portrayed Afra as a converted prostitute (meretrix), who, because of her Christian confession, was condemned to be burned at the stake. The extent to which an authentic tradition underlies this Afra Passion is difficult to determine. A Roman sarcophagus found in 1064 has since been considered Afra’s burial site (opened once again in 1804). The remains removed at that time rest in the crypt (constructed in 1962) of the Church of St. Ulrich and Afra in Augsburg. Afra is the second patroness of the city and bishopric of Augsburg (feast day Aug 7; her veneration is widespread throughout the bishopric of Augsburg). W. Berschin, “Die älteste erreichbare Textgestalt der Passio S. Afrae,” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 46, 1981, 217–224 ◆ F. Prinz, “Die heilige Afra,” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 46, 1981, 211–215 ◆ idem, “Am Grab der heiligen Afra,” JVABG 16, 1983, 108–121 ◆ W. Gessel, LThK 3 I, 1993, 192f. Manfred Weitlauff

Afrahat. There are 23 Syriac expositions traditionally ascribed to “Afrahat (Aphraates), the Persian sage.” Gennadius Vir. ill. 1 (= 136) and the Armenian tradition mistakenly identify the author with the renowned → Jacob of Edessa (from Nisibis), who as bishop of → Edessa took part in the Council of → Nicea . Little is known of Afrahat’s life and person. He describes himself as a celibate ascetic, one of the so-called “sons of the covenant” (18, 1, 12); he was active in the western region of the Sassanid Empire (10, 9). His literary corpus is divided into two sections (10, 9): the first (expositions 1–10) dates from the year 337 and treats ascetic and practical questions; the twelve expositions (11–22) of the second section, dating from the year 344 (22, 25), display a marked anti-Jewish attitude and discuss the validity of Jewish rituals, the election of the church, the divine sonship of the Messiah, and eschatological themes. Afrahat is a significant literary figure: he can be called the first major witness to an independent Syriac literature that does not owe its existence to translation from the Greek. His skill as a writer rests in his imaginative reproduction and assimilation of traditional materials, especially from the OT and Jewish sources. His major theological sources are the OT and the gospel, which he knew only in the form of the → Diatessaron. Citing the OT and later rabbinic traditions, Afrahat vigorously defends the divinity of the Messiah, the superiority of celibacy to marriage, and Christian freedom from the Jewish ceremonial law. Works: J. Parisot, ed., PS 1–2, 1894–1907; text & Lat. trans. ◆ G. Lafontaine, ed., CSCO.Ar 7–12, 1977–1980; Armenian

81

Africa

text & Lat. trans. ◆ P. Bruns, ed., FChr 5/1–2, 1991; Ger. trans. ◆ On Afrahat: P. Bruns, Das Christusbild Afrahats, 1990 ◆ D. Juhl, Die Askese im Liber graduum und bei Afrahat, 1996. Peter Bruns

Africa

“international welfare case” and take its place as a full partner in the society of nations. V. Jamal & J. Weeds, Africa Misunderstood, or, Whatever Happened to the Rural-Urban Gap? 1993 ◆ C. Ake, Democracy and Development in Africa, 1996 ◆ S. Ellis, ed., Africa Now: People, Policies and Institutions, 1996. Hermann Sautter

I. Geopolitical Survey – II. History of Religion – III. Christianity

I. Geopolitical Survey Africa presents a troubled, contradictory picture. Its population is growing faster than that of any other continent. Civil wars and repeated periods of drought force millions to flee. An aggressive Islamism is unsettling the fragile equilibrium of multireligious societies. Political borders drawn by the colonial powers, which often sunder peoples and tribes, are a constant occasion for regional conflicts. But at the same time, Africa has succeeded in defusing one of its greatest conflicts: by its own efforts, the Republic of South Africa suppressed its → apartheid regime and thus forged new possibilities for domestic and international cooperation. With its increased moral influence, the African country with the strongest economy has taken on a mediating role in the internal and international conflicts of its neighbors. In the context of international politics, conditions for development in Africa have improved since the end of the 1980s. During the East-West conflict, Africa was the scene of so-called surrogate wars. For strategic reasons, the West armed rebels to destabilize regimes with socialist leanings and gave political support to pro-Western regimes less interested in the welfare of their countries than in consolidating their own power. The end of this East-West rivalry has increased Africa’s chances of finding a way to stable autonomous development. The tasks facing Africa are immense. Above all, it must spur its economic development. Exploitation of natural resources, which today still constitutes a significant part of the gross national product of African nations, will not by itself support the growing population. The continent must diversify the range of goods it produces, increase its productivity in both the industrial and the service sector, and thus in foreign trade transcend its traditional role as an exporter of raw materials and an importer of manufactured goods. The requirements for an economic development that would benefit the entire population include protection of political and social → human rights, participation of the population in the processes promoting informed political opinion, improvement of educational and health care, and economic policies that encourage private initiative and provide for it a reliable legal framework. The chances are not bad. During the 1990s, several countries set political and economic reforms in motion. If Africa pursues this course consistently, it can shed the odium of being an

II. History of Religion 1. Indigenous African Religions. Scientific research into indigenous African religions is strongly multidisciplinary, although most studies have been conducted by scholars of religion, anthropologists, or historians. The lack of sources often poses a serious problem for the study of Africa’s traditional religious heritage, especially from a historical perspective. As a rule, written descriptions do not appear until the period of modern colonialism (19th and 20th cents.). These early accounts by travelers, missionaries, and others were usually of poor quality. Oral sources are an important supplement, but they encompass only a very limited period. The rock paintings dating from the Stone Age and later, found primarily in southern Africa, are an important example of archaeological evidence. Many of them are graphic representations of a therapeutic dance that is still a central element in the religion of the “San” and “Bushmen.” The San from Southern Africa and the → Pygmies from Central Africa are the best known of those few peoples whose economic system is still based to some extent on hunting and gathering. In the therapeutic dance, which represents a type of → shamanism, three kinds of ambivalent spirits are believed to be present: God the creator, who is essentially good, an inferior deity, whose evil or destructive side predominates, and the spirits of the departed. All these spirits are associated with the heavenly realm; they bestow good things like health and food as well as diseases and other misfortunes. Especially severe visitations are caused by the lesser deity and the spirits of the departed. The ambivalent superhuman power activated by healing shamans in the dance comes from God the creator, who thus ultimately becomes the source of health and disease, life and death. Among pastoralist peoples, belief in and worship of a creator God are often the predominant aspect of the indigenous religion. The Nuer in southern Sudan are one of those pastoralist groups who believe in a rich spirit world, in which the spirits, as it were, are God (kwoth) in various forms. Thus God is both one and many. Another well-known pastoral people with a more clearly monotheistic religion are the Massai in → Kenya and → Tanzania. Worship customarily involves prayers and offerings, from simple libations of milk to elaborate sacrifices of cattle. A Massai myth tells how God (enkAi) gave the Massai people cattle, which are therefore extremely important in their culture and religion. Cattle are sacrificed by the

Africa

82

Algiers

Tunis Kairouan

Tunisia

Rabat

Casablanca

Alexandria

Tripoli

Morocco

Cairo

Algeria

Libya

El-Aaiun

Egypt

West Sahara

Mauritania

Mali

Nouakchott

Conakry Freetown

Bamko

Chad

Ivory-Coast Accra

Abidjan

G

Gondar

Malabo Sao Tome

Equatorial Guinea

Djibouti (city)

Yaoundé

Uganda

Kigali Kampala Rwanda

Libreville

Gabon Congo

Democratic

Brazzaville Kinshasa Republic of Bujumbura

Nairobi

Dodoma

Tanzania

Lusaka

Z

a m bia

Moroni

Lilongwe Harare

Mozambique

Zimbabwe

Namibia Windhoek

Dar es Salaam

Comoros

Malawi

Angola

Mogadishu

Kenya

Burundi

Luanda

Africa – Religions

Somalia

Ethiopia

Central African Cameroon Bangui Republic

the Congo

Antananarivo

Madagascar

Botswana Gaborone

Pretoria Mbabane Bloemfontein Maseru

Islam (Sunnis) Indigenous/Traditional Religion The hachures indicate which religious community is the largest in each respective country. If two groups are equally large, this is indicated by a half hachure.

Aksum

Addis Ababa

Abuja

Ibadan Porto Novo Lomé

Christianity Catholic churches Protestant churches Orthodox and Eastern churches

Asmera

Sudan

N’Djamena

Nigeria

Eritrea

Khartoum

Niamey

Burkina Faso Ouagadougou

ha

e S i e r ra Leon Monrovia Liberia

Niger

Togo B e nin

Guine a-B is

Senegal Gambia Bissau sau Guinea

na

Dakar Banjul

South Africa

Maputo

Swaziland Lesotho

Cape Town

elders, who wield strong religious and secular power, or by special religious leaders. The Massai religion generally does not involve belief in a life after death; formerly, at least, the dead were not buried but were left outside the villages to be devoured by wild animals. In many agricultural areas with sedentary populations and decentralized indigenous socio-political systems, the ancestor cult or worship of the spirits of → ancestors is still the most important aspect of religion, even though its importance has gradually been declining. The living may turn regularly to the ancestors of the last four or five generations, whose names are remembered. Among peoples who had powerful chiefs and kings in the pre-colonial and colonial period, like the Ganda in

southern → Uganda, even chiefs and kings who died long ago can play a leading role in the cult. Sacred rulers, both living and dead, can influence the health and prosperity of all the people in their territory. Ordinary ancestors, by contrast, can only influence the lives of their own descendants. In religions in which the ancestor cult is predominant, the ancestors can play a major role as guardians of morality. They can punish offenses against the social norms with various kinds of misfortune – usually not especially serious. To avoid such misfortune, it is important to pray regularly to the ancestors and make offering to them. For a few agrarian peoples, especially in parts of Central and West Africa, the so-called fetish cult

83 (→ Fetishism) is more important than the ancestor cult or ancestor worship. The original Kongo people (bakongo) from the Republic of the Congo (→ Congo, Republic of ), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (→ Congo Democratic Republic of ), and → Angola are an example of a group in which certain spirits associated with sacred objects (minkisi or fetishes), usually in the form of bundles or sculptures, were of particular importance, at least prior to the 20th century. Most of these spirits were erstwhile human beings, for example founders of a clan. Like other spirits (and deities as well), the fetish spirits of indigenous African religions are ambivalent. For example, they can both cause and heal diseases. The spirits are highly specialized, as are the healers associated with the various spirit cults. Several peoples with their own highly hierarchical socio-political systems – such as the → Yoruba in → Nigeria and the Akan in → Ghana – have a great number of specialized gods and goddesses with their own shrines, priests and priestesses, and a rich oral literature of myths and other genres. The Yoruba pantheon comprises hundreds of deities (orisha), who are associated both with nature and with the human world. For example, a deity may be a river god as well as a deified king and protector of a city. Some deities are worshiped by specific occupational groups. For example, smiths and hunters may belong to a cultic association that worships Ogun, the god of iron and war. The Yoruba share with certain other African peoples the notion of a mother-earth deity (Onile) who, like the heavenly father (Olorun), belongs to a special category of divinity distinct from the deities (orisha). Like other peoples of West Africa, the Yoruba also believe in → reincarnation, which – unlike certain religious traditions of Asia – they look on as something positive. Although there are substantial differences between the various African religions as well as within them, there are also significant similarities. Among other things, the conceptions of God as the eternal and omniscient creator are highly congruent. Mythologically, God occupies a central position even in religions in which he is hardly or not at all the (direct) subject of the cult. Myths of the divine origin of life and the source of suffering, disease, and death in some unhappy accident or act of disobedience appear in practically all the tribal religions of Africa. Notions of the evil machinations of “witches” and “sorcerers” – which, depending on one’s definition of religion, may or may not be included in a description of these religions – are likewise of great importance in almost parts of Africa, though they are most common in agrarian societies where social status is earned rather than ascribed. While the importance of ancestors, “fetish” spirits, and deities has decreased markedly since the 19th century, problems with witchcraft have actually increased. This phenomenon may reflect in part the

Africa growth of socio-economic competition. A universal feature of African tribal religions is their emphasis on this life. Therefore they focus on addressing human concerns here and now more than salvation in a life after death. 2. Islam. Although today in practically all African countries only a minority are officially followers of an African tribal religion, it must be noted that much of the religious heritage of the tribal religions survives in Islam (as well as Christianity). The early Muslim history of North Africa (→ Egypt and the Maghrib) is well documented in writings by Arabs. The major sources for the study of the early history of Islam in sub-Saharan Africa are likewise the works of Arab authors. From the 16th century on, works in Arabic written by African Muslims became particularly important. Oral traditions also contribute to these African perspectives. Archival material, especially from the modern period of colonialism, is available in Europe. There is now also a significant amount of scholarly literature about Islam in Africa – especially North Africa, but also the predominantly Muslim regions further south, from Somalia in the east to countries like Senegal in the west. In East Africa, particular attention has been devoted to the coastal regions. There are few studies, however, of Muslims as minorities in Central and southern Africa. In North Africa, Islam has a long history and is therefore deeply rooted. The Islamic conquest of this part of the continent began during the 7th century, shortly after the death of the prophet → Mu˙ammad. Islam expanded more rapidly than did the Arabic language. In the early history of the Muslims in North Africa, besides the Sunnis, first the Kharijites and later the Shiaites acquired unusually great influence. The Šīaa missionary impact culminated during the 10th century in the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate, which founded Cairo. Further divisions arose in the subsequent dynasties of the Almoravids and Almohads. In addition, Sufism gradually grew very strong, and its expansion continued under Ottoman rule. From the middle of the 19th century on, however, there was an appreciable increase in the influence of orthodox or reformist schools of Islam, which were strongly opposed to Sufism and Western colonialism. Especially important was the Salafiya movement, one of whose leaders was the Egyptian Mu˙ammad aAbduh. At least as early as the 8th century, Arab and Berber traders from North Africa began to influence subSaharan Africa. By the 11th century, these traders had settled in the capitals of African states in the Sahel, e.g. the kingdom of Ghana. But Islam penetrated only slowly, and was limited primarily to people engaged in commerce. In the gigantic, multiethnic empire of → Mali, which flourished in the 14th century, the presence of Islam was of greater importance (e.g. in the form of mosques and Muslim scholars), but even there only

Africa a small minority converted to Islam. On the whole, in the great West African empires like Mali and Songhia the influence of Islam was limited to urban centers and social elites. Not until the 17th and 18th centuries did Muslims begin to penetrate deeper into the interior and gain followers among the peasants and others. The new religion incorporated many pre-Islamic beliefs and practices, and the influence of Islamic law was very limited. A series of reform movements, including jihad (→ Holy war), began in the late 17th century, both to “purify” the mixed Islam of Africans and to achieve political ends. To some extent these movements were influenced by similar developments in North Africa and other parts of the Muslim world. The most famous example of reform in West Africa is the → Fulani (Fulbe) jihad, launched by Usman dan Fodio, which led to the establishment of the Sokoto caliphate in the early 19th century. Several Hausa kingdoms in modern northern Nigeria were conquered, and serious but only partially successful attempts were made to introduce Islamic law. During the first centuries of Islam, the new religion also advanced south of Egypt along the Nile valley as far as the Sudan, and in → Ethiopia Muslims soon extended their influence to regions that were not under the control of the Christian kingdom. Somali traditions claim that the founders of their clans were Muslim Arabs who entered into mixed marriages with native women from the coast. Further south in East Africa, Arabs and other Muslims from Asia likewise contracted mixed marriages and settled there during the first centuries of Islam. This development proceeded along the coast as far as the Swahili culture and language, a combination primarily of → Bantu-African and Arabic elements. In the interior of East Africa, as in other parts of the continent, Muslims engaged in trade, including slaves. But it was not until the modern period of European colonialism that a substantial number of Africans from this interior part of the continent became followers of Islam. During this period, Islam also spread very rapidly in other regions south of the Sahara. Improved communication, urbanization, and the inclusion of literate Muslims in local government were among the factors that promoted the spread of Islam – and Christianity. In some instances, Islam became a religion of anticolonial resistance and independence. The prevalence of local leadership and an often highly flexible accommodation to local circumstances reinforced this position. But there were also examples of cooperation between Muslim leaders and colonial administrations, e.g. the emirs in northern Nigeria and the Sufi sheikhs or marabouts in Senegal. Massive missionary efforts were particularly characteristic of the Sufi orders or turuq (Syr. tariqa). While Sufism in North Africa has been somewhat weakened by modern reform movements, it is the predominant

84 form of Islam in sub-Saharan Africa. Sufism was primarily responsible for “africanizing” Islam and adapting it to a rural population. The Sufi orders have a “mystical” approach to religion, but most of them are also deeply involved in social, economic, and political questions. A good example of the engagement of Sufis in economic and political affairs is Muridiyya in → Senegal, founded in the 19th century by Ahamad Bamba. According to Bamba and his successors, not only obedience to the marabout but also work in the field is a religious duty. The most influential Sufi order in West Africa is Tijaniyya, founded by Ahmad al Tijani in the 18th century, along with its reformed offshoot Niassiya, founded by Ibrahim Niass (1900–1975). In East Africa, the ancient and markedly international Qadiriyya with its various subgroups constitutes the dominant order. The great majority of African Muslims in the north as well as in the sub-Saharan countries are Sunnis. The small Shiaite groups in East and Southern Africa are primarily descendants of South Asian immigrants, while many Shiaites in West Africa are of West Asian origin. The → A˙madīya sect has never been numerically strong, but it plays a major role in the production and distribution of Muslim literature. In West Africa, as in the Maghrib and the → Sudan, the Maliki is the predominant Islamic school, while in Egypt and East Africa the Shafii school is the most important. Except in the Sudan, where the political role of Islam was strengthened in the 1980s, the status of Islamic law has been politically weak in sub-Saharan Africa. As the African states achieved independence, generally c. 1960, the new regimes adopted policies of secularization and modernization. Since the 1970s, however, so-called fundamentalist or Islamist movements and organizations have become increasingly influential as opposition groups, especially in North Africa. The Islamists react strongly to Western values and dominance, as well as to the “degenerate” forms of Sufi Islam. Although they reject a few → Enlightenment values that support modernism of secular modernity, they are (Muslim) modernizers who have as their goal an Islamization of modernity. Islamism is in part a reaction to (perceived) failings on the part of secularistic regimes. Factors such as urbanization, a strong organizational bent on the part of Islamistic groups, and their efforts on behalf of development have nevertheless contributed to the growing importance of these groups. Of the minority religions in Africa, the → Bahāhī faith, → Hinduism, and → Judaism probably have the most followers. The Bahāhī faith is particularly well represented in East and Central Africa. Its followers are often very active missionaries. The Hindus, of whom the great majority are descendants of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, live mostly in urban centers of East Africa and southern Africa. Jews are found mostly

85 in Ethiopia, where the Falasha have a long history, and in Southern Africa. Formerly there was also a significant Jewish minority in North Africa. In addition, various areas south of the Sahara have a very limited number of Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, and followers of Chinese religions, as well as an apparently growing number of people interested in New Age movements. An interesting example of a new religion originating in Africa is Godianism, founded in Nigeria in 1948 by Chief Onyioha. It reflects the influence of both Islam and Christianity on indigenous African religiosity. E. Dammann, Die Religionen Afrikas, RM 6, 1966 ◆ J.S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 1969 ◆ T. Ranger & I. Kimambo, The Historical Study of African Religion, 1972 ◆ V. Mulago, La religion traditionelle des Bantu et leur vision du monde, 21980 ◆ M. Hiskett, The Development of Islam in West Africa, 1984 ◆ E.T. Lawson, Religions of Africa, 1984 ◆ R.L. Pouwels, Horn and Crescent: Cultural Change and Traditional Islam on the East African Coast, 800–1900, AfS, 53, 1987 ◆ L. Brenner, Muslim Identity and Social Change in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1993 ◆ M. Hiskett, The Course of Islam in Africa, 1994 ◆ J. Platvoet, J. Cox & J. Olupona, eds., The Study of Religions in Africa: Past, Present and Prospect, Religions of Africa 1, 1996. David Westerlund

III. Christianity The beginnings of Christianity in Africa presumably go back to → Alexandria. Situated on the Mediterranean, it was basically a Greek city with a large Jewish community. Its Christian church developed within the creative tension between Jewish tradition and Greek civilization. By virtue of its trade with Asia, the city was exposed to a multiplicity of cults. In this environment, Christianity produced an impressive series of theologians, from → Clement of Alexandria to → Athanasius, as well as a dazzling variety of Gnostic teachers, including → Basilides and → Valentinus, active in the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century. Initially “Orthodox” and “Gnostic” Christianity in Egypt spoke Greek, but it did not take long for both to spread among the rural inland populations, who spoke Coptic. Undoubtedly the Bible was translated into Coptic around the middle of the 3rd century, as well as a host of Gnostic documents like the collection of codices discovered in 1945/46 at → Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. It would be fair to say that African Christianity, in contrast to the Christianity of the Greek- and Latinspeaking Mediterranean, began with this development of a Coptic church rooted in rural and village life. In this totally new environment, where the proclamation of the gospel went forward independently of the GrecoLatin world, there arose one of the great Christian religious movements: → monasticism. Around 269 ce, → Anthony, a young Copt who spoke no Greek, felt called to give away all his possessions and withdraw to a solitary life of extreme asceticism in the desert. Many other hermits followed in Anthony’s footsteps; but c. 320

Africa → Pachomius, a Copt from Upper Egypt, founded a monastery in Tabennisi, wrote for it the first monastic rule, and transformed the entire movement from eremitic to cenobitic. Only later was monasticism adopted by the Greek and Latin churches. Anthony and Pachomius became disciples of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and supported him in the conflict with Arianism (→ Arius). From this perspective, Athanasius represented a healthy fusion of Greek and Coptic, strengthening the Egyptian church. The growing identification of the Greek church with → Constantinople, now both the residence of the emperor and a domineering patriarchate, a century later undermined this alliance, alienated Egyptian Christianity from the Greek world, and paved the way for acceptance of Arabo-Muslim rule from the early 7th century on. The Coptic Church survived as the original form of the church in Africa, but was subsequently to play only a peripheral role in the mainstream of Christian history. The history of the church west of Egypt in the Roman province called Africa (modern Tunisia and Algeria) is similar in many ways. Here Latin largely supplanted the local languages, which, unlike Coptic, never developed well-defined written forms. The church that arose in the 2nd century used Latin exclusively. From this church came → Tertullian and → Cyprian of Carthage, the first major Christian theologians to write in Latin. It developed early on a highly distinctive tradition, which especially glorified martyrdom. It also cultivated a sectarian spirit that was not open to compromise and mistrusted the power of the Empire and non-African influences. The result was → Donatism, Africa’s first schism. Soon after → Constantine came to power, this schism spread, playing off the Cyprianic tradition against communion with Rome. Initially it was centered in Cyprian’s → Carthage, but its domain shifted to the less Latinized population of Numidia. → Augustine, the most important of the African theologians and church fathers, attempted as bishop of Hippo to end the schism, first by theological arguments and later by using state coercion. While he was partially successful, the conflict – coupled with the invasion of North Africa by the Arian Vandals and the fall of the Western Roman Empire – weakened North African Christianity, so that two centuries later the Arab conquest and the flight of many Christians across the Mediterranean caused a further loss of direction. Until the 12th century, remnants of a dying church survived around Carthage; but here, as in Egypt, there was tension between a Christianity rooted primarily in African society and a Christianity associated with a cosmopolitan culture still centered in Rome. This tension reappeared throughout Africa in the 20th century. South of Egypt, Christianity expanded during the 4th and 5th centuries to the Horn of Africa, in the

Africa coastal kingdom of → Axum, which gradually became → Ethiopia, and then up the Nile to the small kingdom of Nubia. The conversion of Aksum and its king Ezana was initially the work of → Frumentius, a Syrian whom Athanasius had consecrated bishop. While the early history of Christianity in Ethiopia remains obscure, it is clear that the Bible had been translated into Ethiopic before the end of the 5th century. In this period a group of monks called the “Nine Saints,” probably from Syria, came and built several monasteries, including → Dabra Dāmo, which still exists. In the same period, various other works of Christian literature were translated, mostly writings of the Alexandrian school (→ Alexandrian Theology), including the Rules of Pachomius and the Life of Anthony; an understanding was reached that the bishop of Ethiopia must always be an Egyptian, consecrated and sent by Alexandria. When the Coptic Church rejected the Council of → Chalcedon and became in the traditional sense “Monophysite” (→ Monophysites) by maintaining its own theological tradition, the Church of Ethiopia followed suit. But there are no grounds for assuming – apart from technical theological terminology that was hardly translatable into Ethiopic – that there were any crucial differences in christology separating Ethiopia, Constantinople, and Rome. The origin of the church in Nubia is still obscure. Christianity must have spread there from Upper Egypt long before Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora dispatched missionaries to the region in 543. From then on there were several Christian kingdoms along the Upper Nile, including a northern state around Dongola and a southern state with its capital at Sūbah, near modern Khartoum. In contrast to Ethiopia, they appear to have had several bishops, at least some of whom were indigenous, but whether the Bible was ever translated into Nubian is uncertain. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs in the 7th century hindered communication between Ethiopia and Nubia and the rest of the Christian world; but ties with the Coptic Church remained of crucial importance. Nevertheless, Christian Nubia later flourished, especially from the 8th to the 12th century. Monasteries and cathedrals were built and decorated with wonderful paintings. Only gradually did pressure from an increasingly Muslim Egypt and the advance of Islam among neighboring peoples lead to an increase in the Muslim population in the Nubian kingdoms and finally, around the 15th century, to the ruin of their churches. Despite its isolation, Christian Ethiopia also had its period of growth and florescence. Strangely, there is little evidence of ties between Nubia and Ethiopia. In the very period of Nubia’s disintegration, the church in Ethiopia, reinforced by new monastic movements and a strong monarchy, reached its apogee under kings such as

86 Amda Tseyon in the early 14th century and Zara Yakob and Baeda Margaym in the late 15th century. Over the centuries, the coastal Semitic state of Aksum was transformed into an unambiguously African kingdom centered on the inland provinces of Amhara and Shewa. Round churches replaced the rectangular churches of the early period, the musical tradition became the center of church life, monasticism acquired an idiosyncratic local form, and → circumcision and observance of the → sabbath alongside → Sunday became distinctive marks of identity. The Ethiopian Church viewed itself as the successor to the Israel of Solomon, but it combined this Hebrew identity with the import and translation of an ever-increasing body of medieval Western European literature, especially Marian material. The Ethiopian monastery in Jerusalem and the patriarchate of Alexandria were bridges helping to maintain communication with the rest of the Christian world. In 1529 A˙mad Grāñ, from the Muslim state of Adal, launched a jihad against Ethiopia. Within ten years, the Christian kingdom was almost totally vanquished; Grāñ was recognized as king, the churches and monasteries were looted, and a great many Christians were forced to convert. Ethiopia would have been lost as a Christian state and very probably as a church had a Portuguese expedition not arrived in 1541 and defeated Grāñ. During the next century, the Portuguese, Rome, and the Jesuits endeavored to build on this development by catholicizing the → Ethiopian Orthodox Church. When Emperor Susenyos, inspired by P. → Paez, an influential Spanish Jesuit, professed his adherence to the Catholic faith in 1622, it seemed that this would actually come about. But when the “patriarch” Alphonsus Mendes, who had been dispatched by the pope in 1625, insisted on doing away with many Ethiopian practices, including circumcision, he soon aroused general resistance that finally led to Susenyos’s abdication. As a consequence, although the Ethiopian Church did survive, it was isolated, suspicious of Western Christians, and incapable of serving as a kind of bridgehead to the rest of Africa. Its history, like that of Nubia, Egypt, and North Africa, shows how markedly the fate of African Christianity has been determined by Islam, but also by the often seemingly irreconcilable demands of the indigenous culture on the one hand and the Catholic Church on the other. From the 15th until the late 18th century, the Portuguese generally dominated the history of African Christianity. The mission left a lasting impression in many coastal areas – especially → Sierra Leone and Warri on the west coast, in the → Kongo Kingdom, on the east coast from the mouth of the Zambezi to Mombasa, and even deep in the interior as in the empire of the Mwene Matapa. Several kings from these regions were baptized.

87 Furthermore, in the two most important Portuguese colonies established after the end of the 16th century – around Luanda in the west and the Zambezi valley in the east – quasi-ecclesiastical societies were maintained. Their members were mostly mulattos. The few Jesuit, Dominican, and Franciscan priests – who were also involved in the slave-based economic system typical of the Portuguese Empire – had hardly any missionary effect. The spiritual needs of the colonial ruling class came first. In → Angola, however, there developed a tradition of local priests, usually mulattos, who helped preserve a little church activity when the European missionary orders were forced to leave the country. In → Mozambique, from the early colonial period down to the modern period no church remained, nor in any other previously mentioned part of Africa, with the minor exception of the Kongo. The Kongo had a unique Christian history. The first king to be baptized (1491), Nzinga Nkuwa, had converted to Christianity without much change of mind, like many other minor African kings who became Christians to please the Portuguese in hopes of getting weapons and engaging in profitable trade. But his son → Afonso I, who succeeded him in 1506, had much stronger ties to Christianity. He remained king until his death in 1543. During this time he founded a kind of church, demanding that all Kongolese kings belong to it, a requirement that survived into the 19th century. There were few missionaries and only a handful of local priests – almost all mulattos – were ever ordained. The Catholicism of the Kongo Kingdom was integrated into the belief structure of its traditional religion, although from 1645 on the vigorous efforts of Italian Capuchins clearly marked a different approach. At the end of the 16th century the capital, Mbanza Kongo (renamed São Salvador), became a diocese; but the see was soon moved de facto to the Portuguese colony in Luanda. Kongo was recognized as an independent kingdom outside the Portuguese Empire, but its ties to the Catholic Church were totally dependent on the goodwill of the Portuguese; in practice, they allowed neither Rome nor non-Portuguese missionary societies to provide the support necessary. In the 1620s a Jesuit, M. → Cardoso, wrote and published a catechism in Kikongo; otherwise, however, very little indigenous literature was produced, although several Capuchins wrote a series of manuscripts in Kikongo. Without its own priests or books, the church survived through the spiritual leadership of a group of maestri, who functioned simultaneously as catechists, teachers, and translators, as well as through the determination of the kings to maintain their Christian tradition. From the 1720s on there were few missionaries, and there were always lengthy periods when not a single missionary visited the country. Nevertheless there was still a certain sense of Christian

Africa identity around São Salvador when Baptist missionaries arrived there in 1878. Toward the end of the 18th century, the map of Christian Africa suddenly began to change – a result of the missionary zeal of Pietists in Germany, Evangelicals in England, and converted or former slaves in England and America. The Evangelical campaign to end the slave trade led to the establishment of a colony of former slaves in Freetown; it also encouraged the establishment of new missionary societies – first Protestant, then Catholic – which soon dispatched their members to various coastal regions of Africa: first of all Cape Town and its hinterland, then the West African coast from Liberia south, and, a little later, the East African Coast. While the original settlement at Freetown in 1787 was unsuccessful, 1792 in fact marked the beginning of a very Christianized colony of former slaves from America. In the subsequent decades, their numbers were augmented by thousands rescued from slave ships by the British navy. They were not Christians and had never known a form of society other than that of their coastal homelands. Among them it was especially the Yoruba who generally converted, having settled in villages around Freetown as members of an expressly Christian society. They preserved the knowledge of their own language but also learned English. When they began to return to their homes, taking Christianity with them, they were ideal bridge-builders for their new faith. The classic example is S. A. → Crowther. As a Yoruba youth named Adjai he landed in Freetown in 1922; in 1843 he became an Anglican priest and missionary in Nigeria and translated the Bible into Yoruba. In 1864 he was appointed bishop of Nigeria. At the same time, missionaries from many parts entered Africa. Two things proved to be primarily important for their work: translation of the Bible and translation of other elementary texts, especially catechisms and hymns, into many indigenous languages with no prior written literature. Johann Christaller of the → Basel Mission worked with Akan and Twi, Jacob Friedrich Schön with Hausa and Igbo, Westlund with Kikongo, John Moffat with Tswana, and V. Eugene Johnson with Chinanga. Many other linguists explored and created the linguistic and social map of modern Africa by creating a literary medium for communicating the nature of Christian life, comparable to what had come into being in ancient Ethiopia, the like of which was not seen again until the 19th century. Since their books were cheaply printed and sold and found a wide market, they became unexpectedly influential. This was made possible by the other side of the missionary enterprise: its influence on groups that were often quite small – catechists, teachers, servants, occupants of a mission station adopted the new teaching, took the Christian literature with them when

Africa they moved, and thus became the self-appointed mediators of Christian life and Christian formation. Some of them founded independent churches; others, like W.W. → Harris, who evangelized large portions of the southern Ivory Coast and the Gold Coast in 1915, succeeded in converting whole population groups without help from any foreign missionaries. The message of these people was rather simple. It often struck a strongly chiliastic note found in both the Bible and their preaching, but basically it concentrated on the power of God, the futility of traditional religious practices, the importance of entering into a new life symbolized by the Bible, observance of Sunday, and the singing of certain hymns. The evangelization of Africa was in part an almost spontaneous phenomenon. There were places where missionaries stayed for years and almost nothing happened; in other places, Christianity spread almost like wildfire. Certain places and situations seemed to trigger this kind of explosion. Freetown was such a place in West Africa, Buganda in East Africa. The Anglican → Church Missionary Society (CMS) reached Buganda in 1877; the Catholic White Fathers followed in 1879. In the 15 years that followed, there began a process of Christianization that was unique in its significance but was nevertheless comparable to small endeavors elsewhere. Mutesa, the king of Buganda, forced both missionary groups to stay in the vicinity of his residence. The result was competition, but they were also able to give many people around the royal court a feeling for spiritual and intellectual questions. They began to “read,” and “read” soon meant “believe” – in Luganda, the word for “read” has also conveyed the other meaning ever since. In a few years, ties of friendship and family produced groups of believers in places no missionary had ever visited. Mutesa’s son and successor Mwanga tried to put a stop to what he viewed as a shift of loyalty from him to other authorities, visible or invisible: in 1885/86, he began a persecution in which several hundred Christians were executed. The result, however, was an increase in conversions. His incompetence led to a civil war in which his Christian and Muslim subjects first joined together to drive him from the throne and then attacked each other. The Muslims seized power and forced the Christians into exile, but the Christians recovered their strength and drove out the Muslims, only to be divided into Catholic and Protestant camps. At this point the English took control of the country and put an end to the worst social conflicts that had resulted from religious conversions. While they secured political victory for the Protestants, they also guaranteed freedom of expression for all parties. In the 1890s there followed a mass campaign of evangelism, in which hundreds of quickly trained Ganda catechists, both Protestant and Catholic, set to work

88 not only in their own country but also among neighboring peoples. This very broad African missionary initiative paralleled the later “Ganda subimperialism” in the political sphere: the new Christian Buganda exported its identify and was soon viewed as a model by its neighbors, even as they tried to oppose its subimperialistic political expansion. Soon all the kings of the region converted to Christianity. They viewed it as the religion of the new colonial order, its status reinforced by the power of the Europeans – by weapons and railroads, by reading and writing. But they also considered it a hierarchical religion: both Anglicanism and Catholicism were well adapted to the hierarchical character of the lacustrine Bantu monarchies but not to the other peoples, who did not live under a centralized monarchy. The power of the Buganda model of Christianity was also made clear by the rapid translation of the Bible and many other works into Luganda, as well as by the rapid development of an African clergy, both Protestant and Catholic. By 1893 Bishop Tucker of the CMS had already ordained six deacons, followed down to 1900 by a significant number of priests. Perhaps even more surprising was the ordination of the first Catholic priest by Bishop Streicher in 1913, the first of a long line. For centuries the Catholic Church had tried in vain to create an African clergy. Here, too, the breakthrough was accomplished by the White Fathers in Buganda; other places took them as a model, and in 1939 the first African diocesan bishop was appointed, J. → Kiwanuka of Masaka. Nowhere else was there a conversion movement so rapid, extensive, and complete as in Buganda; but comparable advances were made in Ijeshaland and among the Igbos in Nigeria, as well as among the Manyika in east Zimbabwe, the Sotho and other Tswana in southern Africa, the Chaga of Kilimanjaro, and somewhat later in → Ruanda and → Burundi. In most cases the result was a kind of popular Christianity, whether or not deliberately intended by missionaries, as in the conversion of Chaga to the Lutheran Church, which was shaped by the strategy of B. → Gutmann of the → Leipzig Mission. But all these strategies naturally proved to be overly simplistic: they concentrated on bringing together African tradition and Christianity while ignoring the pervasive forces of modernization, which profited and also supported the advance of Christianity. Among most of the African peoples there was no such tendency toward wholesale conversion; but in the first half of the 20th century almost everywhere south of a line delimiting the area with an Islamic majority, the often very diverse Christian churches became an integral part of African life on two levels. One was the villages, where the result was a Christianity represented by a catechist, a church with a grass roof, and a simple bush school. Catechists were generally neither well educated

89 nor well paid; but in the innumerable rural churches visited only rarely by ordained clergy, whether missionaries or indigenous priests, they provided the indispensable ongoing presence of the clerical office. Here the process of → indigenization, which included an unspoken acceptance of many traditional belief and practices, proceeded rapidly. In the course of the 20th century, many parts of the continent – especially South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya – witnessed the appearance of more and more “independent” churches (“Ethiopian,” “Zion,” “Apostolic,” etc.). When catechists began to preach frank millenarianism, heal the sick, utter ecstatic prophecies, or perform unauthorized mass baptisms, they were generally excommunicated by the missionaries. But it would be wrong to view the influence of prophets and Pentecostal evangelists – including Daniel Nkonyane and I. → Shembe in Zululand, Ignatius Lekhanyane in Transvaal, and Samuel Mutendi in Rhodesia, as well as Harris (see above) in the Ivory Coast, S. → Kimbangu in the Congo, and the large group of → Aladura followers in Nigeria during the 1920s, including Joseph Babalola and Josiah Ashitelu – from the perspective of their relationship to the missionaries. Essentially, what was happening here was a deep-rooted appropriation of the Christian faith and the missionary program on the part of African Christians – more an extension of the missionaries’ work than a negative reaction to it. The setting was almost always a mission station of the Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, or Low Church Anglicans, very rarely of the Catholics or Lutherans; but the development of the Protestant churches that emerged from the processes of appropriation moved more in the direction of catholicizing ritual and a corresponding church order. In their sermons they attacked the practices of traditional African religion more vigorously than most of the missionary churches did, but at the same time they were able to adopt many aspects of the indigenous culture, which in a few cases could lead to approval of polygamy. A striking feature of many prophetic churches was the founding of a holy city, a new Jerusalem, dwelling place of the prophet – and, in time, the site of his tomb. Holy cities like Shembe’s Ekuphakameni, Kimbangu’s Nkamba, and Lenshina’s Zioni in Kasomo multiplied throughout Africa as centers of a highly imaginative new liturgy and places of healing. But this practice was far from universal; it was rare in the case of the “Ethiopian” or “Apostolic” groups like the widespread Christ Apostolic Church in West Nigeria, led by Babalola and Isaac Akinyele. Some churches were particularly popular with the very poor. This was particularly true in South Africa, where they were also the most numerous. African Christians generally felt very alienated in the missionary churches, which maintained ties with a racist regime.

Africa Nevertheless, for many segments of the population the churches popular with the poor performed a function similar to that of the mission stations. The latter, however, had no competition in the education of a new elite through a network of boarding schools for higher education, teachers colleges, and technical schools. To the end of the Second World War, the colleges of the missionary churches educated surprisingly few clergy, but from them emerged secular leaders who were to dominate politics in most countries from the 1950s to the 1970s. In the 1960s, as political independence approached for more and more countries (coming first to Ghana in 1957), there were two major forms of Christianity: a multitude of rural churches under the leadership of catechists on the hand and a small but very significant educated lay elite on the other. Christianity’s strength lay in the combination of the two, despite the fact that in most countries only a relatively small percentage of the population could be counted officially as church members. Family ties and the prestige of a church connection made sure that many more people claimed somehow to be Christians than had ever been baptized. Although many outside observers were increasingly inclined to dispute the strength of the churches and to claim that with the coming of political independence they would largely disappear when the support of the colonial powers dried up, what took place was exactly the opposite. Once Africa became independent, all public prestige enjoyed by the traditional religion quickly vanished, whereas in medicine and education the major churches proved as useful for the new regimes as they had for the old, and the great majority of the population increasingly established some kind of official ecclesiastical ties. The number of ordained African clergy likewise increased sharply. When Pope → Pius XII died in 1958, there were some 20 indigenous bishops in the whole continent of Africa. In the same year there were 300 African Catholic priests in the Congo, but there was still only one African bishop, and he was not a diocesan. In 1957 the Anglican Universities Mission to Central Africa celebrated its centennial without batting an eye at the total absence of African bishops in the countries where it served. All this changed very quickly in the ’60s. The change was triggered both by political independence and by → Vatican II, which explicitly promoted indigenization of the local church and its clergy, translation of the liturgy into the vernacular, and the fostering of cultural pluralism. By the end of the ’70s, the great majority of leaders in all denominations were natives, not missionaries. One consequence was a reduction of the antithesis between “historical” churches under missionary leadership and “independent” churches under African leadership. All the churches were now under African leadership, and they all took seriously the need for → inculturation. The

Africa inculturation program necessarily led to increased theoretical discussion. There came into being in Africa innumerable new universities with departments of religious studies and theology. From the mid-’60s on, a substantial body of “African theology” – previously expressed only in practice – began to appear in print. Harry Sawyerr in Sierra Leone, Bolaji Idowu in Nigera, Engelbert Mveng in Cameroon, Vincenet Mulago in Congo/Zaire, and John Mbiti in Kenya and Uganda were among the first wave of academically trained theologians, followed by Desmond Tutu and many others in South Africa, John Pobee and Kwame Bediako in Ghana, and Jean-Marc Éla in Cameroon. More and more theologians studied the relationship between traditional African religion and Christianity, the reformulation of Christianity in the cultural language of Africa, the political and ethical demands imposed on the church by an independent Africa, and many other themes. It is possible that Christianity has never experienced so great a quantitative expansion as in Africa between 1960 and the end of the 20th century. This expansion was furthered by a great natural population increase, by the loss of legitimacy of most traditional African institutions – a loss paradoxically manifested more clearly under independent regimes than in the colonial period –, and by the great political and economic instability of most countries. This instability undermined the credibility of other social institutions, including the political parties, strengthening as a result the moral authority of the major churches. In the ’60s, with the influence of Vatican II, religious renewal rested substantially in the hands of the Catholic Church; in the ’90s it emerged instead from one or another form of the → Pentecostal movement, usually inspired by American models when it came from without, but often indigenous as well. There is still an enormous variety of churches. In most countries, the Roman Catholic Church, now under the leadership of many cardinal archbishops, is the largest denomination, both in membership and in the number of institutions; but in the course of the 20th century in Africa almost every significant Christian tradition, from Lutheranism to the Quakers, has experienced enormous growth. While the northern portion of the continent is overwhelmingly Muslim, the southern half is explicitly Christian in virtually the same measure. In between lies a band of countries – including the Sudan, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania – where both religions are heavily represented and tensions can even lead to civil war. In Tanzania, though, as in many other places, Christian-Muslim relations are good and are part of a pluralism that is the foundation of modern Africa. When this pluralism suffers an extreme breakdown ending in genocide, as in Rwanda, both sides may even be nominally Christian and even belong to the

90 same denomination (in Rwanda the Roman Catholic Church). Africa faces enormous problems at the start of the 3rd millennium. It is still the most under-developed continent, economically, politically, and educationally. It would be naïve to believe that the churches can assume responsibility for the majority of the problems or find a solution for them. They must simply live with them. But outstanding church figures have repeatedly led the way as good examples, denouncing the rule of violence and demanding more democracy. The churches are constantly present everywhere and are in fact often the only relief organizations on the spot. Nowhere else in the world today do they play so important a role, both in evangelism and in service to society – humanitarian, political, and economic. U. Monneret de Villard, Storia della Nubia cristiana, 1938 ◆ B. Sundkler, Bantu Prophets in South Africa, 1948, repr. 1961 ◆ C.P. Groves, The Planting of Christianity in Africa, 4 vols., 1948– 1958 ◆ J. Taylor, The Growth of the Church in Buganda, 1958 ◆ K. Schlosser, Eingeborenenkirchen in Süd- und Südwestafrika, 1958 ◆ M. Cramer, Das Christlich-koptische Ägypten einst und heute, 1959 ◆ M. Brandel-Syrier, Black Woman in Search of God, 1962 ◆ F. Bartels, The Roots of Ghana Methodism, 1965 ◆ J. Ajayi, Christian Missions in Nigeria, 1965 ◆ E. Ayandele, The Missionary Impact on Modern Nigeria 1842–1914, 1966 ◆ G. Coldham, A Bibliography of Scriptures in African Languages, 1966 ◆ K. Michalowski, Faras: Centre artistique de la Nubie chrétienne, 1966 ◆ H. Turner, History of an African Independent Church, 2 vols., 1967 ◆ C. Baeta, ed., Christianity in Tropical Africa, 1968 ◆ E. Ayandele, Holy Johnson: Pioneer of African Nationalism 1837–1917, 1970 ◆ R. Rotberg & A. Mazrui, eds., Protest and Power in Black Africa, 1970 ◆ M. Daneel, Old and New in Southern Shona Independent Churches, 3 vols., 1971, 1974, 1988 ◆ V. Salvadorini, Le missioni a Benin e Warri nel XVII secolo, 1972 ◆ J. Sales, Mission Stations and the Coloured Communities of the Eastern Cape 1800–1852, 1975 ◆ T. Ranger & J. Weller, eds., Themes in the Christian History of Central Africa, 1975 ◆ W. Ustorf, Afrikanische Initiative: Das aktive Leiden des Propheten Simon Kimbangu, 1975 ◆ E. Kamphausen, Anfänge der kirchlichen Unabhängigkeitsbewegung in Südafrika: Geschichte und Theologie der äthiopischen Bewegung 1872–1912, 1976 ◆ D. Williams, Umfundisi: A Biography of Tiyo Soga 1829–1871, 1978 ◆ E. Fasholé-Luke et al., eds., Christianity in Independent Africa, 1978 ◆ L. Pirouet, Black Evangelists: The Spread of Christianity in Uganda 1891–1914, 1978 ◆ R. Strayer, The Making of Mission Communities in East Africa: Anglicans and Africans in Colonial Kenya 1875–1935, 1978 ◆ T. Filesi & I. de Villapadierna, La “Missio Antiqua” dei Cappucini nel Congo 1645–1835: Studio preliminare e guida delle fonti, 1978 ◆ A. Hastings, A History of African Christianity 1950–1975, 1979 ◆ N. Etherington, Preachers, Peasants and Politics in Southeast Africa 1835–1880, 1979 ◆ J. Thornton, The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition 1641–1718, 1983 ◆ S. Kaplan, The Monastic Holy Man and the Christianization of Early Solomonic Ethiopia, 1984 ◆ A. Hilton, The Kingdom of Kongo, 1985 ◆ J. Waliggo, A History of African Priests, 1988 ◆ A. Hastings, The Church in Africa 1450–1950, 1994 ◆ D. Shank, Prophet Harris, the “Black Elijah” of West Africa, 1994 ◆ H. Hinfelaar, Bemba-Speaking Women of Zambia in a Century of Religious Change (1892–1992), 1994 ◆ P. Gifford, The Christian Churches and the Democratization of Africa, 1995 ◆ L. Sanneh, West African Chirstianity. The Religious Impact, 1983 ◆ E. Isichel, A History of Christianity in Africa. From Antiquity to the Present, 1995 ◆ B. Sundkler & C. Steed, A History of the Church

91 in Africa, 2000 ◆ A.H. Anderson, African Reformation. African Initiated Christianity in the 20th Century, 2001 ◆ F. Ludwig & A. Adogame, European Traditions in the Study of Religion in Africa, 2004 ◆ O.U. Kalu, African Christianity: An African Story, 2005 ◆ K. Koschorke, ed., African Identities and World Christianity in the Twentieth Century, 2005 ◆ K. Koschorke, F. Ludwig & M. Delgado, eds., History of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, 1450–1990, forthcoming 2007. Adrian Hastings

African Independent Churches I. Since the 18th century there has been a massive invasion of Black, sub-Saharan Africa by European peoples and Western culture. During this period the modern missionary movement from the West has planted its churches so extensively and firmly that the sub-continent is now predominantly Christian. Following this initial response to missions, there has been an equally broad, independent response from the indigenous peoples themselves in the form of a great number of new religious movements that represent various forms of interaction with the new faith. Some five groups may be distinguished: Neo-primal movements seek to strengthen the indigenous tradition by adopting new features such as one universal divinity, preaching or baptism, and by rejecting → magic. Synthetist movements consciously combine elements from each tradition to form a new religion for Africans with a Christian component. Deviationist movements depart from indigenous traditions by adopting Christian content, but still rejecting some of the central Christian elements. Africanized movements intend to be Christian but concentrate more on spiritual power than on Christian orthodoxies. In → Nigeria these are called → Aladura churches, in West Africa and other areas “spiritual” churches, and in southern and central Africa → “Zionist” or more generally, “prophet-healing” churches. Orthodox movements, known in southern Africa as Ethiopian (→ Ethiopian Movement), aim to be fully Christian under African leadership, independent of missionary control. The majority of movements are contained within the last two groups, usually defined as African independent or indigenous churches. Owing to a lack of established traditions and institutions, and while still working out new forms, there may be considerable mobility in belief and practice, although a Christian intention remains. Despite discrepancies and fluid boundaries the following characteristics can be summarized: The founder, with some Christian background, has a mystical experience of a new revelation from the spirit world. This is often described as dying, visiting heaven, and then returning to earth to start the new religion with a new way, not as a man-made invention but with divine authority. The divinity is now seen as a personal, supreme being with ultimate power and who will help people if they obey him. The founder is accepted as an authentic African prophet, called by

African Independent Churches God, occasionally as a new messiah. Contrary to the traditional authorities the founder is often young and sometimes a woman. Selected elements of local culture are rejected or retained. Magic, divination and the occult are discouraged, but revelatory dreams and visions, polygamy, drums and dancing, food taboos, color and other symbolisms may be retained and reshaped. Considerable creativity is shown in new forms of worship. There are new hymns, vestments, styles of architecture, and new major festivals, often a new holy mountain or community center with a biblical name. The new blessing or salvation offered includes healing, divine guidance, and the support of a new and disciplined community as a place to belong. These blessings depend on following the new rituals and the new ethic, which generally emphasizes love, discipline and diligence but bans luxury, alcohol and tobacco. Expansion by missionary activity, sometimes transcending tribe and nation, is a major innovation. This is based on the new universal deity and his revelation, and on the church being a new open and voluntary society in distinction from societies traditionally defined according to age or race and from secret societies. The contribution to modernization and development may be substantial. The new worldview replaces magical control of power by rational and scientific methods, expressed in the economic implementation of new, low technology and improved farming, coupled with a new work ethic; their own past story and future hopes introduce the dimension of history into a culture dominated by myth; the traditional closed, sacral, integrated society is replaced by the new open, desacralized, pluralist forms implied by these movements; and evil is internalized, implying responsibility for one’s misfortunes rather than blaming them on external evil powers. Psychologically and culturally there is a break with the past and an openness to an innovative future. Theologically they are pragmatic rather than dogmatic, pneumatological rather than christological, emphasizing baptism rather than the Eucharist and atonement, but with signs of development in these directions. II. The African Independent Churches seek to appropriate the power of the Christian Gospel to renew African society after its traumatic experience of Western culture. They provide a home where traditional society disintegrates, and access to spiritual power for guidance and prosperity, and above all for healing when new illnesses abound and modern treatments are not readily available. While the concerns are pragmatic the solutions are highly spiritual. They regard themselves both as Christian in the authentic biblical tradition and as Africans applying this to Africans in African ways to meet African needs. At the same time there is decreasing antipathy to the Western and older missionrelated churches, and a great desire to raise the standards

African Independent Churches Association (AICA) of their own leadership and to be accepted as churches in ecumenical bodies. III. The first African movements probably arose under Portuguese influence in the → Kongo Kingdom in the late 17th century. The best known is the Antonian sect of prophetess Béatrice which sought to become the Kongo national church until her martyrdom in 1706. Missions and white settlement in South Africa in the early 19th century led to the Xhosa millennial movements of → Ntsikana and Nxele, and to the Ndhlambe tribes’ near extinction in the millennial movement of 1857. Such early native, anti-white and millenarian features were gradually dissolved until the movements that have proliferated in the 20th century were less politically orientated but rather more church-like and Christian. Since 1970, when the → Kimbangu Church was admitted to the → World Council of Churches, there have been further such admissions, also to local Christian councils. This marks a reversal of the earlier hostility of missions and the older churches, and a growing interest in the independent churches as pioneers of indigenization. These movements have not developed to the same extent in all areas of Black Africa. They are commonest where Christianity has been established longest, as in → Ghana and → Nigeria, in → South Africa and in the → Congo (Democratic Republic), and where the Scriptures have been translated early and widely distributed. This explains why certain tribes and some areas, such as → Cameroon and → Tanzania, have produced few movements of this kind. The total number of distinct movements may be as high as 20,000. Some, however, are very small, with perhaps no more than twenty members. Others have several million members, e.g. the Kimbangu Church in Congo and central Africa, begun in 1921. The Zion Christian church in southern Africa is reported to have several million assemble at its Easter festival at Zion City Moriah in Transvaal. Figures for South Africa report perhaps 30% of all blacks, about 6 million members, in that one country. IV. These movements represent a new, broad, religious development in Africa as a result of interaction with the Christian faith in the context of Western culture. This unplanned and indirect consequence of Christian missions has achieved a greater degree of indigenization than found in the older churches. Their chief problems may lie in disputes over leadership succession and in their tendency to schism. Their relation to the main Christian churches and their public acceptance are likely to increase without destroying their independence or their expansion. They now occupy a new and permanent category in the history of Christianity.

92 B.G.M. Sundkler, Bantu Prophets in South Africa, 21961 ◆ H.W. Turner, African Independent Church, 2 vols., 1967 ◆ D.B. Barrett, Schism and Renewal in Africa, 1968 ◆ M.L. Daneel, Quest for Belonging, 1987 ◆ P. Gifford, ed., New Dimensions in African Christianity, 1992 ◆ O.U. Kalu, ed., African Christianity: An African Story, 2005. Harold W. Turner

African Independent Churches Association (AICA). The tendency of the African indigenous churches (cf. → African Independent Churches) in → South Africa towards divisions is countered by efforts to cooperate. AICA is connected to these initiatives, which go back to 1915. AICA was founded in 1965 as a voluntary association of over 400 churches which, while retaining their individual autonomy, cooperated at the same time to ensure an adequate theological training for the church leaders. The membership was drawn from the poorer, black part of society, both rural and urban, and represented a variety of languages. The member churches covered a wide spectrum of indigenous churches, including Ethiopians and Zionists, the major group. Initially the financial situation presented the main hindrance to further theological education. A breakthrough came in 1965 when the Christian Institute (CI) of South Africa, led by Christiaan Frederick Beyers Naudé, sought to provide assistance with overseas support. For some years AICA achieved its aim through theological refresher courses, a small college and an ambitious correspondence course. A successful Women’s Association ran parallel to AICA. Incessant leadership struggles caused fragmentation in 1973. Its financial standing and the assistance offered by the CI became at once AICA’s largest asset and its greatest problem. Currently there is no ecumenical body (or person) coordinating all the indigenous churches. M. West, Bishops and Prophets in a Black City, 1975, esp. 142– 170 ◆ B. Sundkler, Zulu Zion and some Swazi Zionists, 1976, esp. 288–303 ◆ H.-J. Becken, Wo der Glaube noch jung ist, 1985, esp. 212–227. Hennie L. Pretorius

African Methodist Episcopal Church. This Church was founded in 1816 in the Bethel Church of Philadelphia, PA, under the leadership of its first bishop, Richard → Allen, after a Methodist Episcopal congregation refused entry to some free blacks as early as 1787. The AMEC developed a Book of Discipline and a statement on the “Mission and Purpose of the Church,” which emphasized the “preaching of the gospel” and social service. A General Conference, meeting every four years, legislates for the body, while a Council of Bishops serves as the executive branch of the church. Church work focuses mainly on education (in the 19th cent. the AMEC founded several colleges and two theological seminaries) and on mission in the USA, Africa and the Caribbean. The oldest known journal by blacks, the A.M.E. Review, has been published since 1881. Since 1948 women have

93

African Theologies

been ordained to the position of elder. The AMEC is the largest black Methodist community with 3.3 million adherents in 7,200 churches (1995). H.D. Gregg, History of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1980. James Smylie

African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. In the 1790s tensions arose between whites and free blacks in the Methodist Episcopal Church in New York City. As a result, blacks founded a Zion Church and a denomination of black Methodists in 1820. James Varick became the first superintendent or bishop. Disagreements with the → African Methodist Episcopal Church resulted in the addition of the word Zion. The congregations follow the rules of the Doctrines and Disciplines. A General Conference is the supreme lawmaking body and meets every four years. A Connectional Council sets the budget. A Board of Bishops supervises the church between the sessions of the General Conference. Through historical members such as Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and F. → Douglass the church became known as the “Freedom Church.” The church was first among Methodist denominations to support women’s ordination. It sponsors colleges, a theological seminary and mission work in South America, Africa and the West Indies. In 1995 the AMEZC had around 1.2 million members in 3,000 churches. W.J. Walls, The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1974. James Smylie

African Theologies I. Development – II. Leading Representatives

This article will not deal with the North African Latin fathers or the Orthodox churches. Modern movements in → Ethiopia and → Sudan which have emerged from recent conflicts, are mainly represented at present by oral vernacular theology. For the purposes of this article African theology may be defined as Christian theology produced by Africans domiciled on the African continent. It emerged in the mid-1950s, mainly as a reaction to mission Christianity, which seemed too western to serve the needs of the African church. The movements for political independence throughout the continent, ideologies such as “Négritude” (a return of the Africans to their own culture), “African Personality,” “African Socialism,” and “Black Consciousness,” and the emergence of the → African Independent Churches, were also important factors. Western Christianity however suffered from the flaw of having ties with colonial powers and of denigrating African culture. I. Development In the early debate about African theology three broad trends may be identified: 1. A number of African

Catholics (especially in francophone Africa) focussed on the need for a philosophical approach to theology, which would first analyze the religious worldview of traditional Africa and then use these insights to inform certain aspects of Christian doctrine. This approach was partly influenced by P. → Tempels (Bantu Philosophy, 1945, 1969). It was pioneered, among others, by Alexis Kagame, Vincent Mulago and Tharcisse Tshibangu. More recent exponents include Charles Nyamiti and Bénézet Bujo. 2. The Protestant anglophone approach was more empirical, and was especially concerned to relate aspects of African culture to the Bible. It emerged mainly from West Africa and produced the important symposium Biblical Revelation and African Belief (ed. K.A. Dickson & P. Ellingworth, 1950, 1972). At the forefront of this movement were Harry Sawyerr, Kwesi A. Dickson and Eman Bolaji Idowu. John S. Pobee, John S. Mbiti and Edward Fasholé-Luke are also included in the same tradition. 3. The first coherent political theologies emerged in East Africa in dialogue with the African Socialism of Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda, and were largely supportive of governmental policy. By contrast the South African Black Theology strongly opposed → Apartheid. Deeply influenced by the philosophy of Black Consciousness developed by Steve Biko, it began in the University Christian Movement in the late 1960s. Among its first spokesmen were Manas Buthelezi, Allan Boesak, Boganjalo Goba and Desmond Tutu. In a second phase the South African Black Theology proved to be heavily influenced by Marxism and enjoyed a brief popularity in the 1980s (see e.g. Itumeleng Mosala’s Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology, 1989). More recently Christian political protests against one-party states and corrupt governments have emerged elsewhere in the continent, though little coherent theology has yet resulted from this. – At present differences between these early theological trends are less sharply defined. The distinction between “African Theology” and “Black Theology” was never absolute and both cultural and political interests now influence the great bulk of theology in Africa. Political theology draws upon cultural symbols, and cultural theology is also seen as liberation theology. A growing feminist theology is now emerging in the work of Mercy Oduyoye (Hearing and Knowing, 1993), Tessa Okure, Nyambura Njoroge and others. II. Leading Representatives The Zairean Bénézet Bujo may be cited as a leading example of francophone Catholic theology. His African Theology in its Social Context (1986) begins by examining African society. This he understands as a basic unity, concerned with human wholeness, both material and spiritual, and which is mediated through the ancestors. To honor the ancestors is to honor God. Ancestorship

African-American Music in Christian Worship is the key to christology and ecclesiology. Jesus is the “Proto-Ancestor,” who fulfills all the virtues of the ideal ancestor, but at the same time transcends them by his resurrection. The church constitutes his “descendants,” through whom his life flows out to humanity. Ghanaian Kwesi A. Dickson, in his Theology in Africa (1983) defends the theory that there are two focuses in African theology. The first is the Bible, which is “re-lived” in the experience of African Christians. The second is culture, which is intimately bound up with African religions. Cultural aspects, which can inform theology, include the concept of the community, and concern for justice and sharing. Dickson emphasizes the need to formulate theological categories, which are genuinely African. Manas Buthelezi, a South African Lutheran bishop, explores the theological meaning of the existence of blacks under the conditions of Apartheid (see esp. “Ansätze Afrikanischer Theologie von Kirche,” in: Theologie im Konfliktfeld Südafrika, ed. I. Tödt, 1976, 33–132). African life was one of human wholeness, but was nevertheless brutally disrupted by European impact and missions. Buthelezi seeks to answer the question of how blacks trapped in an economy of poverty can be liberated to become their authentic selves and enjoy the wholeness of God’s creation. Recent concerns of African theologians have included the role and use of “oral theology,” African history and contemporary culture as theological sources, and rapid social and political change. The “third wave” of Christianity on the continent in the form of neo- → Pentecostalism (following the Mission and the Independent churches) will also probably have an impact upon mainstream theology in Africa. A.A. Boesak, Black Theology, Black Power, 1978 ◆ J. Pobee, Toward an African Theology, 1979 ◆ J.-M. Ela, African Cry, 1986 ◆ I. Mosala & B. Thlagale, The Unquestionable Right to be Free, 1986 ◆ J. Schreiter, ed., Faces of Jesus in Africa, 1992 ◆ E. Martey, African Theology, 1993 ◆ J. Parratt, Reinventing Christianity, 1995 ◆ H. Sawyerr, The Practice of Presence, 1995 ◆ J. Parratt, ed., A Reader in African Christian Theology, 21997. John Parratt

African-American Music in Christian Worship is, first and foremost, a mosaic of religious and artistic forms for expressing belief in God. Despite common historical and cultural roots, → music in worship is and has always been very multifaceted. The musical spectrum extends from extreme solemnity to “boundless enthusiasm.” The circumstances under which the encounter with Christianity occurred determine the music’s forms and styles. Under the oppression of slavery, special texts, forms, and modes of expression emerged which reflect the slaves’ longing for freedom. The migration into the urban centers brought other forms and styles of worship and music to the fore. Among the incipient creations of the slave community are hymns, labor songs, calls for liberation and songs of celebration. As they were heavily

94 dependent on oral tradition, Afro-American songs were composed spontaneously and improvised on well-known melodies. In this way the first songs mainly had a social function for Africans in the New World, who had to settle into their new lives and harmonize their religious beliefs with the Christianity of the slave-owners. The dialogical essence of → worship and the tendency of many Afro-Americans to form communities make communication through music and movement a central element of worship. Music is thoroughly connected with community and has its roots in emotions. As before, differences between the various denominations influence the choice and style of worship music. Some congregations have adopted traditional Afro-American spirituals into their repertoire alongside classical hymns, traditional and new Gospels alongside Euro-American songs, psalms, → anthems as well as old and new forms of “praise songs.” Hymn books are often used, and the singing is enthusiastic and responsive, so that it expresses a unified, meaningful, and joyous response to the God of love. M. Costen, African American Christian Worship, 1993. Melva Costen

African-American Religion I. Central and South America – II. North America

I. Central and South America 1. Movements and Denominations. The millions of African slaves brought to the Americas and the Caribbean found in their religion the deepest and most enduring mode of cultural resistance, enabling them to survive slavery and recover their identities. The African deities, uprooted and under attack, were forced in exile to adapt to the new social and political conditions as well as to conflict with other gods. The models of African organization and their religious ideas were better able to survive in a few communities of runaway slaves, who throughout America established a multitude of quilombos, palenques, or maroon societies. These quilombo communities normally included blacks of diverse ethnic origin and religion; because women were scarce, there was also intermarriage with Indian groups, resulting in mutual cultural exchange: along the Oyapock River, which forms the boundary between Brazil and French Guiana, the Karipuna and Galibi-Marworno Indians ultimately adopted Creole, the language of the runaway slaves. On the Caribbean coast of Central America from Yucatan to La Mosquitia in Nicaragua, the black Caribbeans developed their own civilization and language – Garifon, a blend of English, Indian, and African languages. As a result of these encounters, black religious rites began to incorporate Indian beliefs, myths, and deities, e.g. among the Candomblés of the caboclos in Brazil.

95 Baptized after little if any catechesis, the African slaves were forced to convert to Catholicism (LusoHispanic and French America) or Protestantism (USA; English, Dutch and Danish islands of the Caribbean; Belize; Surinam; Guiana). The mixture of ethnic groups and cultures was already present in the embarcation ports of Africa and increased in the American diaspora. The slaves and later the free blacks, as a consequence of working in the cities, organized themselves as “nations.” Alternatively, in the context of the dominant Catholic religion they organized as cabildos (“brotherhoods”), or, drawing on their African religious heritage, in secret cultic societies. The general result was a → syncretism identifying the African deities with the saints of the Catholic Church. The features of African religiosity originating in different cultures were redistributed and assigned to the major African traditions: Fanti-Ashanti (Minas blacks) from the Gold Coast; Dahomean (Gon, Gege) from Dahomey; → Yoruba (Nago, Ketu, Ewe) from Nigeria; Muslim blacks (Hausa, Fulbe, Mande) from the fringe between black Africa and the Sahara; and → Bantu from the large territory extending from the Congo basin (Zaire) to Cabinda, Angola, and Mozambique on the Indian Ocean. On the African-American religious map, the FantiAshanti traditions are dominant among the Bosh of Guyana and the Anglo-Saxon Antilles; the Dahomean traditions appear in Haitian voodoo, in Cuba and the Dominican Republic, and in the Casa das Minas in Maranhão (Brazil); the Yoruba heritage appears in Cuban → Santería, the Shangó cult of Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, and Pernambuco (Brazil), the → Candomblé of Bahia (Brazil), and the Batuque of Porto Alegre (Brazil); African Islam manifests itself in the religion of the Alufas in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and the Malis in Bahia (Brazil). The latter practically vanished in Brazil after the slave revolts of the 19th century, which were followed by executions and deportations. On Cuba, the islamized Malinke, Wolof, and Fulani groups mingled with the Yoruba. The Bantu, used to cults of ancestors and nature spirits, joined with Indian cults in the caboclo Candomblés, with the Yoruba world in the Congo and Angola Candomblés, and with Christian beliefs, dancing their Congadas and Moçambiques for Our Lady of the Rosary of the Blacks (Nossa Senhora do Rosário dos Pretos) and for the (black) St. Benedict, as well as with Kardecist Spiritism by finding ties between reincarnation and their ancestor cult. The primary roots of the → Macumba of Rio de Janeiro are Bantu. The religious traditions of the Bantu are also represented in the most widespread new religion in the cities of Brazil, → Umbanda (cf. → Afro-Brazilian Movements). Socially, since the 1920s, the African American cults have emerged from the shadows and become part of

African-American Religion the national cultural identify of many countries of the continent. There were other contributing factors: the emergence of black sociopolitical, cultural, and religious movements; political developments that tended toward the separation of church and state and the guarantee of freedom and equality for all churches and religions; and the end of large-scale European immigration with its ideology of “whitening” and improving the race. But many African-American cults are still persecuted as dangers to public order, e.g. on account of night-time drumming or illegal medical practices. Among the political movements of the 1920s was the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), founded by the Jamaican Marcus Garvey. It campaigned for “Africa for Africans – at home and abroad” and called for a mass exodus to Africa and a struggle on the part of blacks, impoverished and discriminated against, for dignity and liberation in the countries of exile. The movement spread to the Caribbean, the USA, and South America, but also to Africa and even Australia. In the religious sphere, with Garvey as pioneer, there arose in the 1930s the → Rastafarian movement, with the following beliefs: the blacks are the reincarnation of the ancient Israelites, exiled to the East Indies; Jamaica is hell, Ethiopia paradise; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia is the living God, who will shortly lead the blacks out of exile and bring them back to their homeland; in the near future, the blacks will have their revenge and the whites will be forced to serve them. As a result of improved hygienic conditions and access to public institutions in the cities, infant mortality dropped after the Second World War, and the black population grew faster than the population of European origin. The blacks and mulattos soon predominated, especially in the popular movements. In the ’60s, the independence of the black countries and the civil rights movement in the USA led to the formation of similar movements in Brazil. Alongside a real explosion of African American cults, especially in the large cities, there arose a parallel movement within the Christian churches, which sought the African roots of black Christians and nurtured African-American features in pastoral care, liturgy, and theology. Today there is a significant African-American diaspora, thanks to the return of former North American slaves to Africa, where they founded Freetown in Sierra Leone (1787) and Liberia (1847), and the return of former Brazilian and Cuban slaves in the second half of the 19th century, forming retornado communities in the port cities of Togo, Ghana, Benin, and Nigeria. The Brazilian Quarter of Lagos in Nigeria is famous. As a consequence of political and economic changes, in the 20th century there developed an active emigration to Canada, the USA, and Europe. These emigrants brought their own customs with them, but especially their religious beliefs

African-American Religion and a multiplicity of African-Caribbean cults, alongside their inculturated Catholicism or Protestantism. 2. Theology. The classical concept of theology as an academic discipline is not applicable to AfricanAmerican religions. They are initiation religions, their tradition is oral, and religious knowledge is conscientiously preserved by the elders within their “houses,” to be handed on in stages only to those who have been initiated and proved. At present, however, books are being published that are written not only by anthropologists but also by fathers and mothers of the holy one (pais e mãis de santo); they deal with portions of the rites, myths, and African-American theology. Their theology is mixed with narratives and myths about the orisha or ancestors. It is linked to the language of worship, to music, dancing, the natural elements, the colors of costume and necklaces, and even to foods. It is revealed in the wisdom of its yalorisha (mothers of the holy one in Yoruba tradition) and babalorisha (fathers of the holy one), the old female and male blacks of the Bantu tradition. In many traditions, the female element, the mothers and daughters of the holy one, are the dominant leaders of the cult. The long process of ethnic and cultural mixing in the African-American world and in its relationships to Indian traditions of the continent, the cultures and religions of the colonizers, and the European and Eastern immigrants paints an ever-changing interactive religious picture. Two contrary attitudes appear side by side, sometimes in conflict: preservation of the African heritage on American soil and acceptance and incorporation of elements belonging to the new context. The first is dominant in the traditional Yoruba cults. The second, present to some degree in all African-American cults, is more emphasized in the cults of the Bantu tradition; in the case of a new urban religion like Umbanda, it becomes extreme. The character of this cultural exchange with its process of amalgamation and fusion is commonly referred to as “syncretism.” Many scholars reject the term for its derogatory connotation. Others understand it a descriptive and interpretive term for a process inherent in all religious traditions that are transplanted into a different cultural environment, especially when they are subject to a violent imposition of a dominant culture and religion, as in the relationship between Christianity as represented by the churches of the colonizers and slave owners and the African religions of the enslaved in the Americas. This approach to mutual cultural interpenetration, to conflict, to the survival and evolution of the African cultures in America makes use of other terminology (cultural resistance, interethnic and cultural friction, preservation, adaptation, assimilation, acculturation, counter-acculturation, inculturation); it also compares the variables of class, ethnicity, and gender with cultural variants.

96 Despite the great differences between the cultural and religious world of the Fon, Gege, and Nago in West Africa and the world of the Bantu in Central and southern Africa, they share common elements: the initiatory and enthusiastic nature of the cult; production of trances by means of rhythmic dancing accompanied by drums (atabaques); dramatization of the novice’s ritual death in a passage resembling burial; the initiate’s search for the ashé (vital force) present in water, stones, and forests; the depilation and body painting of the new convert; presentation of copious offerings during initiation; imposition of daily purification rites and an initiatory vow of silence and mystical norms under oath; dramatization of the initiate’s “resurrection” during a great festival; bestowal of a new name on the initiate; and a calendar based for the most part on the saints’ days of Catholicism. In addition, a supreme being is worshiped, though without a distinctive cult: Olorun by the Yoruba, Zambi by the Bantu, the “good God” in Haitian voodoo or the Avievodum of Maranhão. In the religion of the Yoruba in America, the cult of the deities is no longer associated with the ancestors, as in Nigeria, but with brotherhoods of initiates who enter into a trance when possessed by their orisha. This orisha is owed respect and commitment. Every orisha has its own day of the week, its own ritual dance, food, and clothing. The orisha receive sacrifices such as animals or fowl and offerings such as food, flowers, aromatics, candles, cigars, or beverages. Every individual has a tutelary orisha, although only a few will develop a mystical relationship with their orisha and thus become sons or daughters of the “holy one.” In addition, they must be initiated and “prepare a head,” through which the orisha enters to take possession of them while they are in a trance. Obtaining oracles from Ifa, the deity of fate and prophecy, by means of buzios (mussel shells) or magical rites for good or evil is an important part of this relationship to the world and the orisha. The foundation of Bantu religion is the ancestor cult, but slavery and exile have dispersed the generations and make it hard to practice. They have transformed it into a cult that is no longer the cult of the family but of the ancestors of the enslaved black race, invoked as Pai João (Papa John), Pai Joaquim (Papa Joachim), and Maria Congo. Bantu theology is dominated by the vision of a universe permeated by the divine and its vital force, ashé, without finding any antithesis between the sacred and the profane. It integrates and harmonizes diverse perspectives and contributions rather than finding them mutually exclusive. A new phenomenon of the most recent decades is the appearance of a black Christian theology based on the pioneering work of James Cone in the USA with his book God of the Oppressed; today this theology has spread through several countries in the Antilles and black America.

97 R. Bastide, Les religions africaines au Brésil, 1960 ◆ idem, Les Amériques noires, 1967 ◆ H. Fichte, Die afroamerikanischen Religionen. vol. I, 1976; vol. II, 1980 ◆ M. Moreno Fraginals, ed., África en América Latina, 1977 ◆ A. Ramos, As culturas negras no novo mundo, 31979 ◆ G.E. Simpson, Religious Cults of the Caribbean: Trinidad, Jamaica, and Haiti, 1980 ◆ E.L. Nascimento, Pan-Africanismo na América do Sul – Emergência de uma Rebelião Negra, 1981 ◆ Celam-Demis, Los Grupos afroamericanos: Fuentes documentales y bibliográficas, 1985 ◆ Q. Duncan et al., Cultura negra y teologia: Consulta Ecumenica sobre Cultura Negra y Teologia en América Latina, 1986 ◆ A. Pollack-Eltz, Trommel und Trance: Die afroamerikanischen Religionen, 1995 ◆ A.A. Silva, ed., Existe um pensar teológico negro?, 1998. José Oscar Beozzo

II. North America Religious movements among African-Americans in North America do not differ from other North American religions and schools of religious thought primarily in fundamental internal features that can be understood as being ethnically or racially conditioned. The differences derive instead from constructions of African-American group consciousness in response to the stigmatization of their ethnic and racial characteristics in the history of America. To identify and classify the African-American religious movements, one must therefore look for the configurations of African-Americanism represented by specific groups, both with regard to their origin as a reaction to racism and with regard to the religious ideas, symbols, and philosophies that they have produced or incorporated. The first major form of African-Americanism emerged from slavery. Religious movements representing this consciousness were motivated either by resistance or by accommodation to legally sanctioned bondage. As a rule resistance movements worked in secret. There were few public, religiously motivated revolts like the movement led by the slave preacher Nat Turner in 1831. Accommodation movements were public movements with a certain degree of institutionalization. Usually they were organized as “churches,” like the Silver Bluff Baptist Church, which came into being c. 1773 near Augusta, Georgia. But this label is to some extent misleading, since these movements were organized with the approval of the slave owners. Although the list of “African” churches from the 1750s down to the abolition of slavery is extensive, it must not be supposed that they possessed real independence. But it would also be wrong to overestimate the extent of their accommodation. One of these churches, the African Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina, was viewed as the breeding-ground of large-scale but unsuccessful rebellions like the Denmark Vesey revolt in 1822. The second form of African-Americanism arose from the efforts of free and emancipated AfricanAmericans to achieve social and political equality. The historical “black church” grew out of this mindset. The institutionalization of this consciousness – and hence

African-American Religion the predecessors of the black church – can be found in the mutual aid societies that formed in the large cities of the northeast in the second half of the 18th century, e.g. the African Union Society in Newport, Rhode Island, founded in 1780. From one of these self-help groups, the Free African Society of Philadelphia (founded in 1787), two of the first independent African-American churches emerged in 1794: St. Thomas African Episcopal Church (led by A. → Jones) and the Bethel Church (led by R. → Allen). As a movement, the black church is permeated with a subliminal sense of separatism, i.e. efforts to resist racist stigmatization by joining together to fight spiritual and social afflictions. Two forms of church order encouraged a separatist tendency in the black churches. The first, episcopal church constitution, has the longest history. Each of the African-American Methodist episcopates – the → African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME, 1816), the → African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AMEZ, 1820), and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (CME, 1870) – grew out of efforts to establish independent bishoprics with the concomitant authority to ordain and to administer the sacraments. The ecclesiastical bodies that emerged played a decisive role on account of their well-developed leadership structure. An equally influential group of episcopates grew out of → Pentecostalism. Its roots in the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles (1906–1909), which included people of various races, gave these churches a stronger tendency toward spiritual independence than toward social involvement. But the adjective “otherworldly” hardly describes the activity of the African-American Pentecostal churches or the related Holiness movements such as the → Church of God in Christ (1907) and the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God (1917). These churches represented the most rapidly growing Christian religious movements among AfricanAmericans, not least on account of their social work in the hotspots of urban society. The second form of church government was congregationalist (→ Congregationalism). Here the black church played a crucial role in emancipation. The authority granted the individual congregations in the congregational denominations enabled many of the sanctuaries for fugitive slaves to be turned into public churches. For this very reason, the African-Baptist churches represent the largest group among the denominations in the black church. Their national organizations, of which the National Baptist Convention USA Inc. (1895) and the National Primitive Baptist Convention (1907) are the largest, did more than any other AfricanAmerican institutions to coordinate the struggle of African-Americans for civil rights. From them emerged many political leaders, above all the pastors Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King Jr.

Afro-America The third form of African-Americanism accompanied the efforts of the African-Americans to define themselves as something other than “Negroes,” in the sense of implied inferiority as construed by the “scientific” racism of the 19th century. Religious movements that cultivated this form of African-American consciousness – like the → Nation of Islam in the 1930s and various African-Jewish groups (e.g. Beth B’nai Abraham [1924-]) – developed a confessional stance that totally rejects thinking of African-Americans as Negroes. The most radical movement to embrace this approach was the Divine Peace Mission Movement (c. 1919), which fundamentally rejects the racial perspective and stands for harmony among races. The fourth and most recent form of AfricanAmericanism grew out of the Black Consciousness movement at the end of the 1960s. It manifests itself in movements that stress a religious African identity, emphasizing the central importance of both the black experience and African origin in the intellectual and ritual dimensions of African-American religion. It is represented by such diverse expressions as “Black Theology,” first enunciated by James H. Cone (1969), and the Imani Temple, the home of the African-American Catholic Congregation (c. 1990), founded by the ex-bishop George Stallings. A.J. Raboteau, Slave Religion: The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South, 1979 ◆ C.E. Lincoln & L.H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience, 1990 ◆ H.A. Baer & M. Singer, African-American Religion in the Twentieth Century, 1992 ◆ L.G. Murphy, J.G. Melton & G.L. Ward, eds., Encyclopedia of African American Religions, 1993. Michael W. Harris

Afro-America. The time from the arrival of the first African slaves in the Antilles in 1502 to the abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888, witnessed the development – in addition to the Indo-America of Indian peoples and the Euro-America of the great immigrations of the 19th century – of an Afro-America of approx. 11 m. slaves abducted from Africa. Today’s 750 m. inhabitants in the Americas include approx. 150 m. Afro-Americans. The Afro-American cultures exercise a deep influence on linguistic, religious (Haitian [→ Voodoo], Cuban → Santería, Xango in Trinidad-Tobago and Colombia; → Candomblé, → Macumba , → Umbanda in Brazil, → Rastafari in Jamaica), and musical areas such as celebration and cultural expression. In almost the whole continent Afro-Americans suffer from poverty, social exclusion, discrimination, and racism; at the same time, however, black movements fight for civil rights, equality in law and opportunity, recovery of their cultural and religious identity, and an inculturated form of Christianity. R. Bastide, Les Améríques noires, 1967 ◆ H. Klein, The Middle Passage. Comparative Studies in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1978 ◆ E. Williams, Capitalism and Slavery, 1980. José Oscar Beozzo

98 Afro-Brazilian Movements I. Beliefs: The Orixás – II. Sacrifice and Trance – III. Innerworldly Religion – IV. Organization – V. The “Churchification” of Candomblé

I. Beliefs: The Orixás The Afro-Brazilian religions, such as represented by the best-known and normative variety, the → Candomblé, consist essentially in the worship of certain supernatural beings, the Orixás, of West African (mainly → Yoruba) origin. The believers are identified as the sons or daughters of their “santo” as the Orixás are also known under the influence of popular Catholicism. Once one’s saint has been ascertained through → divination performed by a qualified priest, one is obliged to give the saint food (“obrigação”) and to make efforts to be accepted into a religious community (“terreiro”). Afro-Brazilian theology comprises a symbolic mapping of personalities, attitudes, events and things according to the character of the Orixás. Exu, a male deity, must always be the first to be mentioned, greeted and given sacrifice on every ritual occasion. He is a trickster, the controller of both untoward accidents and of sudden strokes of luck. Other major deities are: Ogum, the protector of craftsmen, car drivers and soldiers. Oxóssi, the patron of hunters, is said to have a special relationship with American Indian spirits. Oxum is the female patron of beauty and love and helps in financial gain. She is worshiped in rivers, streams and waterfalls, where devotees go in procession on her festivals. Iemanjá is chaste and motherly, and despite her role as Great Mother, she is as unfathomable as the ocean – her element and her abode – in which she is fond of receiving sacrifices. Xangô is wild, lively, ebullient, unpredictable, and enrages his consort Iansã with his many love affairs. As king among the Orixás, he receives homage from the other saints, excepting Iemanjá and Oxalá, who, being his parents, are superior. The cult of the city Recife and environs bears his name. Iansã is proud, active, fearless, present in lightning and thunder, and the only one amongst the Orixás who drives away ghosts. Oxalá, male, fatherly and elderly, is Lord of Whiteness and the only one among the male saints of this list to be offered female animals. Two other deities with special functions in the cult are Ossanhe, the lord of vegetation, who owns the herbs and leaves and who plays a crucial role in the rites of initiation and healing; and Orumilá, also called Ifá, the lord of divination, through which he himself or other saints communicate with believers. The Afro-Brazilians believe in the existence of a supreme God (Deus or Olorum), but this belief has no ritual consequence, for their devotion is restricted to the Orixás, who are regarded not as mediators, but rather as independent powers. They are believed to interfere in matters of practical concern such as health, love, sex, employment and the like. The cult proposes no abstract

99 moral rules for believers. Abstract faith (such as expressed in creeds or dogmatic statements) is equally unimportant in the Afro-Brazilian context. Whether Orixás are African gods or heroes of olden times, or whether they are the translation of some Roman Catholic devotions to African language and life-style, or whether, as Frenchinfluenced Spiritualists are prone to suggest, they represent disembodied spirits of a given rank, are theoretical questions that can be answered in a number of ways, although, being matters of individual persuasion, they do not impinge on ritual practice. II. Sacrifice and Trance The essential ritual feature in Afro-Brazilian religion is the offer of sacrifices, especially of animals, which is still practiced today and which has even gained in importance in the last decades of the 20th century. The sacrifice is divided into “axé” – blood and certain organs that are only given to the gods – and “eran” – mainly red meat, which is eaten by the congregation, even outside the ritual context. The sacrifice has symbolic and religious functions on the one hand, and, on the other, economical and nutritional functions. Body, mind, movements and actions of the devotees are also part of the sacrifice. Candomblé is a religion that is danced and acted rather than thought in terms of theology, philosophy or social sciences. → Dance, enthusiasm, trance and sacrifice are of the same origin and follow the same logic in AfroBrazilian cult. The power and the very life of the gods depend on the flesh and blood of the sacrificial animals. Similarly, they need the bodies and the movements of their children, their dances and their trances, in order to manifest themselves, that is, in order to exist, just as the existence of the believers is only affirmed by their being perceived by the Orixás. Trance is the continuation of the sacrifice by other means. Trance, for the Afro-Brazilians, means far more than the presence of a new personality to replace the ordinary personality of the believers. It is an eminently ecstatic experience (→ Ecstasy), in which an excess of intuition and identity saturates the cognitive and affective faculties of devotees and, while it lasts, prevents them from functioning conventionally. Ecstatic rapture appears as a solution for the opposition between the apparently unlimited breadth of symbol and spiritual connection on the one hand and, on the other, the constraints of an individual’s ability to handle them. The believers are so full of, and overwhelmed by, their god and the enthusiasm they share with their religious community, that they are unable to express their emotions in a rational and easily comprehensive way. III. Inner-worldly Religion Candomblé is not an ascetic, but very much an innerworldly religion, essentially oriented toward the relief

Afro-Brazilian Movements in this world of the afflictions of this world. Holiness (“axé”) merges with health and wholesomeness. The Afro-Brazilians do not reject the contemporary world for religious reasons. According to the deep-seated beliefs of both the priests and the believers, the world and society will remain the same despite any change. Devotees admit that there will always be the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, but they believe that individuals, with the help of saints, can change their social and economic situation. Death appears to them as the ultimate form of loss and humiliation. Funeral rites are conceived by the Afro-Brazilians as an undoing of initiation. The holiness, the “axé,” which resided in the body, mainly the head, of the believer, must be withdrawn before burial. The gods are not gods of the dead, but of the living. Though cultists pay little attention to what may occur after death in terms of reward and punishment, they admit the survival of the “egun,” the ghost that haunts the places in which he used to live. “Eguns” receive sacrifices in the ritual of “axexê” about 30 days after the death of an initiate, and at the beginning of all major festivals. IV. Organization Candomblé is a strong priestly religion. The holy fathers and mothers are vested with religious authority, also affirmed with the liturgical Yoruba expressions “babaorixá” and “ialorixá.” They alone can practice divination and preside over sacrifices and other ceremonies. Devotees refer to them as “my father” and “my mother.” This is a personalized relationship, as devotees are not viewed as the children of all priests and priestesses but as the children of a concrete man and a concrete woman. The link between the devotee and his or her priest and/ or priestess is fundamental to the entire organizational structure of the cult. Candomblé follows a “congregational” model, as each cult house (“terreiro”) is, at least potentially, independent from outer hierarchical control, though there are still some loose federations and alliances. Priestesses preside over some terreiros (among them the best-known ones of Salvador da Bahia) while others (as is often the case in Rio de Janeiro and Recife) are led by priests and still others feature both a “father” and a “mother.” In this case, it is possible for the same priest to be responsible for many terreiros simultaneously, each of them entrusted to the daily care of a specific priestess. Initiation, whereby “the holy” is transferred from the heads of fathers and mothers to those of sons and daughters, is a complex, lengthy and expensive process, where the blood of both animals and neophytes is shed, as, through incisions in their heads, they are offered to their gods, whose characters, attitudes and behavior they are to adopt.

Aga Khan V. The “Churchification” of Candomblé The survival of the Afro-Brazilian religion in a historical context dominated by the Roman Catholic Church (→ Brazil) can be largely understood as a syncretistic fusion (→ Syncretism) whereby the African deities merge with Catholic saints according to some analogies in their characteristics or iconic presentation. The ceremonies of Candomblé and similar cults were seen both by their own believers and by the church itself as equivalents of the rites of popular Catholicism, centered on the cult of patron saints. For the last 50 years, in which the church has lost its religious monopoly over Brazilian society, the Afro-Brazilian religious movements have undergone a process of churchification. They passed from the status of mere brotherhoods, which, despite some peculiarities, regarded themselves as part of a larger church, whose authority and superiority they recognized, to the status of completely independent churches with standardized corpora of doctrine and ritual and with their own priesthood, appointed or ordained according to certain rules of transmission of charisma. Various conflicting tendencies can be observed in this process. Thus, in the 1940s and 1950s, the → Umbanda movement attempted to give legitimacy to the Africanderived cults by superimposing upon them a theology largely derived from European (mainly French) spiritism. An opposite tendency became increasingly strong in the last quarter of the 20th century, as a movement of African fundamentalism, stemming from the more traditional terreiros in Recife and Bahia. It gained ground throughout the whole country. Yet, this symbolic return to Africa is not in any way linked to Black movements of a more political character. Africanhood is relieved of its original ethnic context and is presented to an anonymous religious “market,” which is largely composed of Whites from the large cities of south-eastern Brazil. Without breaking its links with the priestly families of Salvador or Recife, Candomblé turns from a traditional into a universalistic religion, appealing to all Brazilians, mainly to all men. There are no precise figures for the membership in Afro-Brazilian congregations, as these, other than Catholicism and eventually Spiritism, have seldom been recognized as independent religions in Brazilian censuses. Researchers presume, however, that the total membership is at least 20 to 30 million. The religion, which was originally considered to be “primitive,” is paradoxically becoming a modern or “postmodern” religion. P. Verger, Notes sur Le Culte des Orisa et des Vodoun, 1957 ◆ R. Bastide, Le Candomblé de Bahia, 1958 ◆ S. Leacock & R. Leacock, Spirits of the Deep, 1972 ◆ J. Elbein dos Santos, Os Nagô e a Morte, 1976 ◆ V. da Costa Lima, A Familia de Santo nos Candomblés Jeje-Nagô da Bahia, 1977 ◆ R. Bastide, The African Religions of Brazil, 1978 ◆ R. Ortiz, A Morte Branca do Reiticeiro Negro, 1978 ◆ R. Ribeiro, Cultos Afro-Brasileiros do Recife, 1978

100 ◆ R. Prandi, Os Candomblés de São Paulo, 1991 ◆ R. Motta, “Ethnicité, Nationalité et Syncrétisme,” Social Compass 41, 1994, 67–78. Roberto Motta

Aga Khan, Turko-Persian title (“lord prince”). In 1848 the Shah of Persia bestowed the title on his son-in-law, the 46th imam of the Shi‘ite sect of the Isma‘ilites. The title has been borne ever since by the → imams of the sect, who are considered direct descendants and legitimate successors of the prophet → Mu˙ammad. The 48th imam, Sir Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, b. 1887 in Karachi and enthroned as imam in 1885 in Bombay, contributed greatly to the centralization and modernization of the Isma‘ilite communities, residing originally in India, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria, but dispersed throughout the world (esp. eastern Africa) by emigration. After 1932 he represented India in the League of Nations, of which he was president in 1937. He was one of the founding fathers of the state of Pakistan (1947). When he died in 1947 in Versoiz, near Geneva, his grandson Shah Karim Aga Khan IV (b. 1936 in Geneva), succeeded him as the 49th imam. H. Halm, Die Schia, 1987 ◆ F. Daftary, The Ismāaīlīs, Their History and Doctrines, 1990. Heinz Halm

Agape → Eros → Love, → Love-Feast Agape, Chione and Irene → Acts of the Martyrs Agatha, Saint, a Christian from a prominent family in Catania, where she is still venerated as the patron of the city. She suffered martyrdom, probably in the persecution under → Decius (251?). The Eparch Quintian wanted to alienate her from her faith and committed her for this purpose to a brothel-keeper named Aphrodisias; Agatha remained firm. After they cut off her breasts, Peter appeared to her in the night in the form of an old man and healed her. She died following further torture on the next day (including being placed on glowing coals and shards). An attempt to answer the question of historicity can only be made after first working through the rich hagiographical tradition in the Greek (it may be that an older version of the martyrdom should be sought here) and Latin transmission. Agatha is considered a helper in needs related to breast ailments and the dangers of fire, as well as being the patron saint of miners and smelters. Her feast day is Feb 5 in both West and East (where it is also sometimes observed on Feb 4). BHG 36–38 ◆ BHL 133–140 ◆ H. Dörrie, RAC I, 1950, 179–184. Jürgen Dummer

Agathangelos is the compiler of an Armenian biography of St. Gregory the Illuminator, written in

101 the second half of the 5th century, as well as of a legend about the conversion of → Armenia. This historical work emphasizes the independence of the Armenian Church over against the Byzantine Church; it points out both Syrian and Greek influence. Ēúmiacin is hailed as the center of Christian culture in Armenia. The Armenian text, cited as early as the late 5th century, was translated into Greek in the 6th century and then into Arabic. F. Tournebize, art. “Agathange,” DHGE I, 1912, 906–907 ◆ G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange, 1946 ◆ R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, 1995. Christian Hannick

Agathonice → Carpus, Papylus and Agathonice Agbebi, Mojola (Apr 10, 1860, Ilesha, Nigeria – May 17, 1917, Lagar, Nigeria) was born David Brown Vincent. His English name attests to the Western cultural influence which characterized his father’s generation of “Black Englishmen.” His adoption of an African name should be considered with regard to the upheavals within the African Church in the late 19th century. In the → Ethiopian Movement Agbebi stood with famous contemporaries such as J. → Johnson and E.W. → Blyden . When, in 1888, the Native Baptist Church seceded from Baptist Church that had been founded in South America, Agbebi came into the limelight as its founding father. Schisms rapidly led to an increasing number of African churches. This was caused by a growing African consciousness – also called for by Agbebi – that opposed white dominance in church and cultural policy. Agbebi engaged in an Africanization policy over names, clothing, education, church music, liturgy, and in research of African primal religion, ministerial formation, socio-economic revolution, legitimate trade, political engagement, rural evangelism and cultural policy (e.g. → Polygamy). He retained traditional church doctrine, theology and part of the liturgy and ethics. At the same time, though, he led vigorous campaigns for the black Christian cause, rejecting all Western support. He became a prolific writer and advocate of non-missionary Christianity in Africa. However, this total immersion in African culture and rejection of Western life-style was not acceptable to the majority of his generation. Works include: Africa and the Gospel, 1889 ◆ “Inaugural Sermon,” in: J.A. Langley, ed., Ideologies in Black Africa 1856–1970, 1979, 72–77 ◆ On Agbebi: A. Akiwowo, “The Place of Agbebi in the African Nationalist Movements 1890–1917,” Phylon 26, 1965, 122–139 ◆ E.A. Ayandele, Missionary Impact on Modern Nigeria 1842–1914, 1966 ◆ idem, A Visionary of the African Church, 1971 ◆ H. King, “Cooperation and Contextualization,” JRA 16, 1986, 2–21. Ogbu Kalu

Agendenstreit (Liturgical Dispute). The call for unity issued by king → Frederick William III of Prussia

Agendenstreit (Liturgical Dispute) in 1817 aimed at effecting a liturgical union between Lutherans and Reformed Protestants: Under the influence of Enlightenment (“a better spirit”), “inessentials” were to be set aside, as only “external differences” continued to divide the two confessions. This was a misevaluation, for the old doctrinal controversies awakened in opposition to the union. In the Agenda Dispute, the work of unity was put to its first test of endurance. The king had already ordered liturgical reforms: in 1818 the introduction of robes (1817 in the West), in 1816 an order for a memorial service for the fallen, in 1816 the introduction of the → Sunday in Commemoration of the Dead. In 1815/16, he issued a liturgy that still followed the form of the sermon-centered worship service and imposed it on the court and garrison congregations in Potsdam as well as on the garrison church in Berlin. He personally drafted the disputed Unity Agenda in 1821/22 and had it printed. In the meantime, however, he had adopted a new liturgical orientation. The model was now the Brandenburgian Church Order of 1540 that was interspersed with Catholic elements. The new “Berlin Agenda” exhibited high-church characteristics: the presence of a choir, a number of liturgical elements, the sermon only at the end of the service. The “liturgy” for the cathedral at Berlin (1821) was introduced despite the protest of the Reformed cathedral clergy; the Lutheran Petrus congregation that shared the cathedral accepted the liturgy. Initially, the acceptance of the Agenda was voluntary, though changes were prohibited. A survey in 1822 revealed that only a few pastors wanted to introduce it. The king attempted to push the agenda through by means of rewards and pressure: The placement of pastors became dependent on their acceptance of the Agenda, and it was forbidden to abandon it. In 1824, two-thirds of the pastors agreed, yet its rejection was common. In 1824, the Berlin Magistrate required the agreement of the congregation for acceptance of the Agenda, since Prussian law accorded the city a ius liturgicum passivum (a right of approval). The king replied that the order of the Reformation period was simply being reinstituted. Another thesis was that the king, as a ruler, had a ius liturgicum positivum if he acted in agreement with the “entire congregation of the country.” The Agenda Dispute intensified when F. → Schleiermacher published the essay “Concerning the Liturgical Rights of Protestant Princes” in 1824 under the pseudonym Pacificus Sincerus, in which he challenged this right. The king defended himself in 1827 with the anonymous, hardly convincing essay “Luther in Relation to the Prussian Church Agenda.” It ignited a literary dispute. Schleiermacher responded anonymously in 1827: “A Conversation between Two Self-Reflective Protestant Christians Concerning the Essay: Luther in Reference to the Prussian Agenda.” A change in the agenda policy led to the end of the

Aggada

102

Agenda Dispute. At first, Pomerania was permitted its own appendix to the Agenda; the other provinces followed (the last being Rheinland and Westphalia in 1834). The appearance of a unified agenda was preserved. Unquestionably, through the Berlin Agenda, the king effected a reorientation of liturgical thought and gave Lutheran congregations a unified order influenced by the mass. J. Kampmann, Die Einführung der Berliner Agende in Westfalen, BWFKG 8, 1991 ◆ W.H. Neuser, “Agende, Agendenstreit und Provinzialagenden,” in: J.F.G. Goeters & R. Mau, eds., Die Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche der Union, I, 1992, 134–159. Wilhelm H. Neuser

Aggada → Haggadah Aggiornamento (Ital.: “updating”) was used by Pope John XXIII. Closely associated with → Vatican II, the term means the recognition of the historicity of the church and the church’s adaptation to the modern world with a view to presenting its expressions and practices in a new way. This entailed adopting these formulations and practices in contemporary contexts. The process of aggiornamento had its greatest impact in the fields of liturgical practices, canon law, doctrinal formulations, as well as ecumenical dialogue. R. Marlé, Études 315, 1962, 21–29.

William Flynn

Aggression, since the 1960s a central social theme (violence against women, children, aliens, etc.), is as old as humankind (Cain and Abel, “conflict, the father of all things” in Heraclitus, the dualistic system of love and strife in Empedocles). Aggression is understood as purposefully destructive behavior that threatens harm or actually does harm to others, the delivery of noxious stimuli to an organism (Dollard); whether aggression necessarily entails intention is disputed. Aggression may be classified as affective (relieving tensions), hostile (resulting from hate), or instrumental (e.g. serving a criminal purpose). Aggressiveness is accordingly an ongoing disposition toward aggressive conduct. Usage of the term is often somewhat loose. Aggression can be overt or covert, realized or fantasized, physical or verbal. It is associated with force and violence. When the legitimacy of using force or the abuse of force is an issue, the ethical dimension of aggression comes to the fore. In this regard, some insist that aggression is inherently destructive; but there is also the commonly accepted theory of Konrad Lorenz, who considers aggression an important element in the repertoire of human behavior, with the positive function of balancing competing interests in a natural way. The extent to which aggression is genetic or a product of socialization is a controversial issue. The study of aggression distinguishes three major theoretical explanatory models: instinct, frustration, and learning.

1. → Ethology (Lorenz) considers aggression to be genetically determined by aggressive instincts, a constant flow of energy that must be diverted or sublimated if the pentup energy is not to lead to uncontrollable eruptions or self-destructive behavior, even suicide. A counterpoise is provided by repression mechanisms and rituals that permit controlled aggression to survive in appropriate activities or convert it into constructive actions. According to J.P. Scott, only the tendency toward aggression is innate; its realization is conditioned by the environment. For a brief time in the 1960s, Lorenz was extremely popular. There is no hard evidence to support his theory, however, and the existence of an independent physiological basis of aggression has not been confirmed by other studies. The ethological hypothesis that all drives follow the same pattern may not be tenable; it is preferable to follow W. Wickler in assuming that the element of aggression arose repeatedly and independently in the course of evolution. Closely related to behavioral psychology are the depth psychology theories of A. → Adler, S. → Freud, and A. Mitscherlich. In 1920, Freud described the aggression or destruction drive as a death drive (thanatos), the antagonist of eros, ascribing it to a similarly endogenous source. From the perspective of both ethological and instinctual theory, the purpose of civilization is to channel the energy of aggression into substitute acts and sublimations, in a search for rational solutions (as suggested by Dollard et al.), or into introjection, which leads to the development of conscience in the sense of Freud’s superego. Avoidance is impossible. Mitscherlich in particular espouses comprehensive social and affective education. 2. The Yale school (Dollard et al.) explains aggression as the product of frustration, the inhibition of a purposive activity (cf. aggressive driving). Aggression is not a necessary result, but depends on how the individual has learned to deal with frustrations. The likelihood of aggression is also conditioned by outward events and inward disposition. Avoidance of frustration provides a counterbalance. But exaggerated indulgence can also trigger aggressive behavior, as developmental psychology points out in the case of children who grow up without well-defined limits on their behavior. It is helpful to offer attractive alternatives and avoid rewarding aggression in any way. But the simple theory that all aggression is a product of frustration and that all frustration leads to aggression cannot be maintained. The notion that observation of aggression by itself mitigates aggressive tendencies in the observer (the catharsis hypothesis, which goes back to Aristotle and is used to justify media violence) may be considered empirically disproved. According to the frustration theory, avoidance of aggression requires avoidance of frustrations and is thus wishful thinking. Neo-Marxism (Herbert Marcuse et al.), appealing to both Freud and

103 Marx, considers aggression to be the result of repression, a social form of frustration Aggression is therefore overcome through social emancipation. 3. The social learning theory (Bandura) explains aggression as the product of imitation. It is based on learning by success (behaviorism) and learning by imitation. Aggression can be avoided by avoiding models (depiction of violence in visual media) and by refusing to reinforce aggressive behavior (success, reward); but this theory does not imply that there are no innate determinants of behavior. At present, there is no single conceptual theory. There is no monocausal explanation of aggression. It appears to arise from several different psychological and psychosocial mechanisms, so that it can be employed in various life situations. As a basis for discussion, Bandura’s socio-cognitive approach chimes best with the present state of our knowledge and offers the best hope for mitigating aggression. A. Adler, “Der Aggressions-Trieb im Leben und in der Neurose,” Fortschritte der Medizin 26, 1908, 577–584 ◆ S. Freud, Jenseits des Lustprinzips, Gesammelte Werke 13, 1920 ◆ idem, Civilisation and its Discontents, 1930 ◆ J. Dollard et al., Frustration and Aggression, 1939 ◆ K. Lorenz, Das sogenannte Böse, 1963; ET: On Agression, 1966 ◆ A. & M. Mitscherlich, Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern, 1967 ◆ A. Bandura, Aggression, 1973 ◆ H. Selg et al., Psychologie der Aggressivität, 1988 ◆ W. Wickler, Die Biologie der zehn Gebote, 1991. Hans-Jürgen Fraas

Aglipay, Gregorio (May 5, 1860, Batac, Philippines – Sep 1, 1940, Manila) studied theology, was consecrated to the priesthood in 1889, took part in the Filipino struggle for liberation (from 1896 against Spain, 1898–1901 against the USA), fought for the political independence of the country and at the same time for the indigenization of the Catholic Church. This led to the break with Rome in 1902 and to the founding of the → Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) or the “Aglipayan Church,” which Aglipay directed until his death. In the unsuccessful rebellion Aglipay was a member of the Congress and the commander of the guerrillas. From 1898 he called for religious emancipation and, following the withdrawal of the Spaniards, filled the vacant ecclesiastical offices with Filipinos. The rebels appointed him as vicar general of the military and the imprisoned Spanish bishop of the diocese of Nuera Segovia appointed him as their administrator; on these grounds Aglipay considered himself legitimated for these offices but was hoping for Papal ratification. In 1899 he was excommunicated. When new foreign clerics entered the country after 1900, native clergymen threatened with separation from Rome; they found their leader in Aglipay. On Aug 3, 1902, the labor union leader Isabelo de los Reyes proclaimed the IFI and nominated Aglipay as Obispo Máximo (highest bishop), which the latter accepted with some reluctance. 50 of the 825

Agnes, Sisters of priests and 25% of the Catholic constituency joined him. Nationalism, but also other teachings, formulated mostly by de los Reyes (e.g. rejection of celibacy, infallibility of the Pope, veneration of saints and the Trinity; science and reason as the only sources of truth), separated the IFI from Catholicism. Under Aglipay it turned to Unitarianism (→ Unitarians); after his death, however, the → Trinitarians asserted themselves. Aglipay continues to be surrounded by controversy today; however, his significance for the country’s recent history is uncontested. I.R. Rodríguez, Gregorio Aglipay y los Orígenes de la IFI, 2 vols., 1960 ◆ P.S. de Achútegui & M.A. Bernard, Religious Revolution in the Philippines, 2 vols., 1961/66 ◆ P.A. Rodell, “The Founding of the IFI,” Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 16, 1988, 210–234. Reinhard Wendt

Agnes, Saint, was a Roman martyr (western feast day Jan 21, eastern Jul 5). According to 4th-century tradition (Depositio Martyrum of 354), the Roman martyr – spared from the flames – was stabbed or beheaded under → Diocletian (or Valerian?). The name and legend of Agnes, who suffered dual martyrdom for the sake of decency and religion (Ambr., Virg. I 2.9), could have developed in Rome (as well as in Trier) from the Greek virtue ἁγνός (hagnos). Since late Constantinian times, her cult has been localized in the via Nomentana in the vicinity of the circular basilica (with mausoleum) erected by Constantine. Since the 8th century, this site has been joined by the inner city cult de cripta Agonis in the stadiumDomitiani, today Piazza Navona. Her attribute is the lamb (pallium). BHL 156 ◆ BHG 45f. ◆ E. Schäfer, RAC I, 1950, 184–186 ◆ A.P. Frutaz, Il complesso monumentale di S. Agnese, 1960 ◆ G. Emer, La fabricca di S. Agnese in Navona, 1970. Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Agnes, Sisters of. Communities of the order: 1. Augustinian Sisters, of Dordrecht. Founded according to tradition in 1326, they belonged from 1427 onward to the → Windesheim Congregation (regulated Augustinian choristers) and, from the end of the 15th century, called themselves “Sisters of St. Agnes” after their church, dedicated to St. → Agnes; they were disbanded in 1572. 2. Sisters of St. Agnes: The Sœurs de St. Agnès, founded in 1645 in Arras by Jeanne Biscot to rear and educate orphans, are spiritually influenced by Sts. → Vincent de Paul and → Francis de Sales; they joined with a larger Franciscan congregation in 1972; Sisters of St. Agnes (Agnesians) were founded in 1870 in the diocese of Milwaukee (USA) to do educational work and to care for the sick. 3. The Sisters of Mother Agnes of the Third Order of St. Dominicus were founded in 1634 in Le Puy by “Mother Agnes.”

Agnetenberg W. Kohl, et al., eds., Monasticon Windeshemense, III, 1980, 615– 621 ◆ Heimbucher I, 31987, 566; II, 51987 ◆ DIP VIII, 1988, 632–634 ◆ AnPont 1996, 1627. Manfred Heim

Agnetenberg (St. Agnietenberg, Mons S. Agnetis) is one of the most important and influential monasteries of the Windesheim → Canons Regular of St. Augustine, near Zwolle (Netherlands). In 1384, Brethren of the Common Life assembled there; they resettled on Nemelerberg; their founding document dates to 1395. Their house became a monastery in 1398; it was abolished in 1561 and disbanded in 1581. → Thomas à Kempis (d. 1471) was chronicler and occasional subprior of Agnetenberg; Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489) was closely linked to Agnetenberg. Jan Mombaer (d. 1501) entered c. 1480. W. Kohl, E. Persoons & A.G. Weiler, eds., Monasticon Windeshemense, Part 3: Niederlande, 1980, 15–49. Christoph Burger

Agnon (Czaczkes), Samuel Josef ( Jul 17, 1888, Buczacz, Poland – Feb 2, 1970, Jerusalem), the greatest novelist in modern Hebrew literature. Agnon immigrated to Jerusalem in 1907 and spent the years 1913–1924 in Germany, mostly in Berlin, where he was in touch with M. → Buber, Gershom Schocken and Zalman Schocken; he finally settled in Talpiot, Jerusalem in 1924. Agnon developed an original style, based on the homiletical Hebrew of the 17th and 18th centuries, which resonated in the entirety of literary Hebrew traditions. His narratives satirize all Jewish ideologies, from → Hasidism to → Zionism, while dealing in a delicate and subtle way with human relationships and the impact of history on individual lives. Agnon grew up in a strict orthodox community; during most of his life he lived as an orthodox and observant Jew; his writings, however, do not carry an explicitly religious message. Works: Collected Works, 1955 ◆ On Agnon: A. Band, Nostalgia and Nightmare, 1968 ◆ A.G. Hoffman, Between Exile and Return, 1991. Miri Kubovy

Agnosticism I. History of Religions – II. Philosophy of Religion – III. Practical Theology – IV. Missiology

I. History of Religions The term “agnosticism” originally referred to the impossibility of attaining certain metaphysical knowledge or, with reference to transcendent questions, to gain grounded judgments. The term stems from T.H. → Huxley (1869; see also II). While for Huxley, agnosticism was epistemologically justified, the use of the term today is usually motivated in a variety of ways. The Sophist → Protagoras of Abdera (On the Gods, DK 80B4), who bases the uncertainty of knowledge concern-

104 ing the gods not only epistemologically, but also on the brevity of life, provides a standard example of Western agnosticism. From the history of Indian religions, the → Buddha, who denied information concerning metaphysical questions (existence of a soul, continued existence of the redeemed after death) because of the danger of error, the unfathomability of objects, and their irrelevance for salvation, is usually adduced. From China, → Confucius is mentioned, who rejected engagement with metaphysical questions (death, souls of the ancestors) in favor of concentrating on the practical conduct of life. – Based on the various patterns of justification, agnosticism is used in the history of religions not only for the (epistemological) impossibility of transcendent knowledge (→ Skepticism: II), but also for the refusal to be concerned with such or to discuss it. For a few authors, agnosticism also refers generally to lack of faith (→ Positivism), but the term is also often restricted to the reservation of judgment on the God question (→ Indifference). L. de la Vallée Poussin, “Agnosticism: Buddhist,” ERE I, 1955, 220–225 ◆ W. Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos, 21975 ◆ J. Thrower, The Alternative Tradition, RS 18, 1980 ◆ G. Stein, ed., An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, 1980 ◆ L.C. Wu, Fundamentals of Chinese Philosophy, 1986. Gebhard Löhr

II. Philosophy of Religion The term agnosticism has both a general and a special sense in the philosophy of religion. In its general meaning, it refers to any notion according to which our knowledge of the divine being is subject to strict limitations. Philosophical theists and theologians in all the major religions represent agnosticism in this form. The doctrine that the divine nature is hidden from us appears in → Plato (Tim.), → Plotinus (Enneaden) and runs throughout → Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. Thinkers in this broad tradition consider agnosticism to be reconcilable with faith in a divine ἀρχή (arch¶, “beginning, origin”) since it defines the divine by means of negative or relational concepts. Thus, according to Aquinas, the primary meaning of “God” consists in referring to the fact that the source of all is, is above all, and is different from all (Summa Theologiae Ia 13, 8 ad 2). Thomas is convinced that such an ἀρχή exists. – In the late 19th century, a special meaning was attributed to the term. Agnosticism was now located between → theism (II) and → atheism (III) and defined by the claim that we neither could know that God exists nor that he does not exist. Huxley represented this notion; his agnosticism is a form of religious skepticism with an epistemological justification (developed under the primacy of the natural sciences and under the influence of D. → Hume and I. → Kant). Other important 19th and 20th-century thinkers such as H. → Spencer, Leslie Stephen and B. → Russell follow him.

105 T.H. Huxley, Collected Essays, vol. V, 1894, repr. 1970 ◆ L. Stephen, An Agnostic’s Apology, 1893, repr. 1991 ◆ B. Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 1927. Peter Byrne

III. Practical Theology For practical theology, agnosticism is relevant, not because of its epistemological, but its existential aspects, to the extent that it points to the widespread timerity or incapacity to give definitive answers to the fundamental questions of life. These questions that relate to the meaning of life, suffering, death, life after death, the existence of a transcendent reality, good and evil, determinism and freedom, freedom, guilt and fate have their roots in the tragic structure of human existence: aporetic agnosticism (Schlette). Religious agnosticism is to be seen against this background: cultural-religious agnosticism rejects the (certainty of the) traditional statements of faith concerning God based on an existential → doubt (Campiche). Structural-religious agnosticism rejects the claims of religious organizations leading to ecclesial nihilism (Tamney et al.). Agnosticism does not include the rejection of religious meaning. Rather, it is, itself, to be understood as an intention to offer such meaning. It can even be understood as a constitutive dimension of religious meaning to the extent that seeking and questioning characterize religious faith, too. H.R. Schlette, ed., Der moderne Agnostizismus, 1979 ◆ J.B. Tamney, et al., “Innovation Theory and Religious Nones,” JSSR 28, 1989, 216–229 ◆ R.J. Campiche, “Individualisation du croire et recomposition de la religion,” ASSR 81, 1993, 117–131 ◆ J.A. van der Ven, “Death,” JET 7, 1994, 35–57. Johannes van der Ven

IV. Missiology On its course through history, Christianity, especially in the non-Western world, has found ever new forms and thereby demonstrated dynamism and opennness. The concept of missionary agnosticism attempts to capture this experience. The insight into the theological and ecclesiological complexity of world Christianity and the conviction that God’s Spirit is present in Christian innovation stem from missionary work itself. The “World Studies of Churches in Mission” (ed. V.E.W. Hayward, 1958ff.) had the objective of finding ecumenical commonalities in church and theology in a post-hegemonial world. Instead, all 15 individual studies confirm major differences. Mackie summarizes this finding with the concept of agnosticism. The psychologist and evangelist Leslie D. Weatherhead (1893–1976) proposed: (1) that Christianity is not a doctrinal system but “a way of life” – response to the experience of God’s love, but not intellectual assent to a canon of theological knowledge, (2) that the understanding and form of Christian discipleship always rests on acknowledging culture and becomes “inauthentic” if it relates to foreign or past cultures. Price extrapolated this approach into the thesis

Agnus Dei that missionary agnosticism is one of the conditions for a new → contextuality of the gospel in western culture. S.G. Mackie, ed., Can Churches Be Compared?, 1970 ◆ L.D. Weatherhead, The Christian Agnostic, 1989 ◆ L. Price, Faithful Uncertainty, 1996. Werner Ustorf

Agnostos Theos. In Acts 17:23, Luke relates how Paul chose the altar inscription “to an unknown God” (ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ/agnØstō theØ) as the starting point for his → Areopagus Speech in Athens. This is the earliest testimony to a cult of “unknown gods” and the only testimony for the cult of an “unknown god” in the singular. Pagan and Christian authors from the 2nd to the 4th centuries (including Paus. I 1.4; V 14.8; Diog. Laert. I 110; Philostr. Vita ap. VI 3; Tert. Marc. I 9; Nat. II 9.4; Jer. Comm. Tit. I 12; Ep. 70) mentioned altars for unkown gods in Olympia, Athens, and elsewhere, and also the very sparse epigraphical material has, until now, only produced altar dedications in the plural. Consequently, it is not improbable that Luke altered the apostle’s original plural into the singular because only by this means could he attain the desired point of contact for his proclamation of the one God and his Son, as Jerome had already observed. The background for such cults lies in antiquity’s common fear of failing to call upon the proper divine helpers or to worship them with sacrifices and thus to forfeit the needed help. One endeavored to avoid this danger through the most comprehensive consideration of the deities possible, even those whose names one did not know. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 21923 ◆ O. Weinreich, “De dis ignotis observationes selectae,” ARW 18, 1915, 1–52 ◆ P.W. van der Horst, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cult of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” ANRW II 18/2, 1989, 1426–1456. Pieter W. van der Horst

Agnus Dei I. Liturgy – II. Music

I. Liturgy Already at an early stage the Eastern Church describes the Eucharistic → Bread as Amnos (Lamb) and signifies the breaking of bread as Christ’s sacrifice ( John 1:29; Rev 5:6f.). The Syrian pope Sergius I (died 701) introduced the Agnus Dei – known from the → Gloria and → Litany – as a frequently repeated chant for the breaking of bread. With the introduction of eucharistic wafers its use lapsed; the now three-fold acclamation changes to the Peace and closes with the petition “give us your peace.” J.A. Jungmann, Missarum sollemnia, vol. II, 51962, 413–422. Hans-Christoph Schmidt-Lauber

II. Music The changing of the liturgical function of the Agnus Dei between the 10th and 12th centuries can be traced

Agobard of Lyon in its earliest musical settings. Like other mass ordinary songs these appear in soloists’ books such as the cantatorium, or troper. All but three early settings include tropes which replace some or all of the text up to the words “miserere nobis” (ab, bb, cb, etc.) while the music for each repetition stays the same (ab, ab, ab, etc.). Such a structure is reminiscent of a litany, and need not imply a three-fold repetition of the melody. During the 11th century, the Agnus Dei becomes more strongly connected to other choral chants and begins to appear in the gradual (although generally in separate fascicles). Moreover, the musical form of the newer settings (a, b, a) strongly suggests a limit of three repetitions of the text. Later sources adapt earlier chants to this form, often by borrowing the melody of another setting for the ‘b’-section. During the same period, the third repetition often contains the words “dona nobis pacem” (or in the requiem mass until 1970 “dona eis requiem”) instead of the words “miserere nobis.” M. Schildbach, Das einstimmige Agnus Dei und seine handschriftliche Überlieferung vom 10. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, 1967 ◆ Corpus Troporum IV, Tropes de l’Agnus Dei, 1980. William Flynn

Agobard of Lyon (c. 769 – Jun 6, 840). A Visigoth from Septimania who belonged to the circle of → Benedict of Aniane. He became archbishop of Lyon in 816; he was deposed as archbishop in 835 after the restoration of Emperor → Louis I, the Pious whom Abogard had helped to depose in 833. A single manuscript preserves a series of tractates that show Abogard to be an original thinker and superior stylist who expressed himself concerning the heresy of adoptionism, questions of ecclesiology, superstition and divine judgment. Louis the Pious attacked his anti-Jewish writing because it allegedly favored the Jews. Works: L. van Acker, CChr.CM 52, 1981. On Agobard: E. Boshof, Erzbischof Abogard von Lyon, 1969. Wilfried Hartmann

Agon. Ἀγών (→ contest), (a) a gathering (etym. ἀγω), a gathering-place and arena (b) chiefly for contests held for a prize; (c) multi-faceted metaphorical usage. – 1. Originally local contests accompanying funerals, agons developed into pan-Hellenic feasts (Olympia, Nemea [Zeus]; Pythia [Apollo]; Isthmia [Poseidon]). Almost anything, physical exercise, beauty, crafts, art, theater, singing, poetry and speaking, can become an agon according to the aristocratic principle of αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων (“always be the best, superior to the others”; Homer, Iliad 6.208). The classical division into gymnastic, hippic and musical agons (Plato, Menexenos 249b; Nomoi 658a; 947e) is only a rough outline. – 2. In order to distinguish Greek sports from the

106 “ludus,” the Latin knows the loan-word “agon” in addition to its own “certamen.” Thus in the Latin NT: 2 Tim 4:7 [it]; 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 2:5 [vg]. – 3. It was in use as a common metaphor for the Christian’s struggle and victory since → Paul (1 Cor 9:25; etc., adopted in 1 Tim 4:8–10; 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7; Heb 12:1). Later, it designated the status of the baptized, the martyr or the monk, in particular. In the case of martyrdom, the agon metaphor was literally associated with the location of the event: S. Agnese in Agone, Rome (Piazza Navona, the site of the Domitian stadium, in which St. → Agnes died as a martyr in 259 or 304). – 4. It received an effective stimulus in J. → Burckhardt’s discussion of “agonal” people (Werke [Stähelin] VIII, 277f.; XI, 61ff.), in reference, among others, to F. → Nietzsche (KGW III/2, 277ff.; and already in II/1, 341ff.), Johan Huizinga, Homo ludens. V.C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif, 1967 ◆ R. Merkelbach, “Der griechische Wortschatz und die Christen,” ZPE 18, 1975, 101–148 ◆ A. Zumkeller, “(De) Agone christiano,” AugL 1, 1986/94, 221–227 ◆ M.B. Poliakoff, Kampfsport in der Antike, 1990. Günter Bader

Agrapha (Scattered Dominical Sayings). The Greek loanword (literally “unwritten,” pl.) is a term with only limited usefulness in modern Jesus research. In contrast to “written” and requiring specification by a noun (“logia” in the sense of “dominical sayings”), it does indeed allude to early church diction, but is now used as a collective term for dominical sayings not contained in the canonical Gospels. These are to be found in ancient literature of Christian, but also of Jewish and Islamic provenience, while the term does not presume a chronological limitation or an evaluation of the sources. Worthy of mention are sayings of Jesus cited by Paul (1 Cor 7:10f. or Acts 20:35), as well as secondary variant readings of canonical Gospels (Luke 6:4 D) or New Testament apocrypha, among which recently the Gospel of Thomas (→ Thomas, Gospel of ) has received the most attention. It is a collection of sayings of Jesus introduced in a thoroughly stereotypical manner and only rarely framed in brief scenes. Numerous additional freestanding sayings of Jesus, however, can also be found in the → Apostolic Fathers and in the later church fathers, and a few in the → Talmud. In individual cases, it is difficult to determine the path of transmission behind a version. Resch continues to offer the most comprehensive collection, and it will scarcely be possible to collect all of the new material that has become known in the meantime. Important material can be found in the available synopses as listed alongside the canonical parallels (to be accessed via the indexes). Jeremias, and following him Hofius, discussed the possible authenticity of the Agrapha and were able to draw positive conclusions with regard to a limited number of

107 them. For each of the form-critical classifications of the synoptic tradition proposed by R. → Bultmann, Stroker listed examples from the apocryphal tradition. In his Qsynopsis, Kloppenborg printed Agrapha parallel to the units of the Logia source. On the whole, more recent literature on Jesus displays only a limited interest in the Agrapha, while, on the other hand, the hope of “another Jesus” is always associated with them. The term itself is defined wholly negatively; but only written sources can be attained; oral traditions are no longer accessible. A. Resch, Agrapha 21906, repr. 1967 ◆ J. Jeremias, Unbekannte Jesusworte, 1948, 31963 (in collaboration with O. Hofius) ◆ H. Köster, Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern, 1957 ◆ idem, “Die außerkanonischen Herrenworte als Produkte der christlichen Gemeinde,” ZNW 48, 1957, 220–237 ◆ A.J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, 1967 ◆ O. Hofius, TRE II, 1978, 103–110 ◆ idem, “Versprengte Herrenworte,” NTApo I, 51987, 76–79 ◆ J.S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 1988 ◆ W.D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 1989. Dieter Lührmann

Agrarian Mission → Mission Societies/Mission Work Agricola, Johann (Schneyder, Sneider, Schnitter) (Apr 20, 1492 or 1494 or 1495, Eisleben – Sep 22, 1566, Berlin). He attended school in Braunschweig, matriculated in Leipzig in 1509, in Wittenberg in 1550; there, he attained his Magister on Feb 11, 1518, and Baccalaureus biblicus on Sep 19, 1519. Close personal relations with Luther in the years from 1516 were decisive in his turning to the Reformation. There were ties of friendship with Melanchthon. Between 1521 and 1523, Agricola practiced medicine. Additionally, he participated in academic lectures as well as in the instruction of children in the Wittenberg parish church. Between August 1525 and December 1536, with interruptions (among other things, attendance on the Elector of Saxony as court preacher), Agricola was active as director of the Latin school in Eisleben and preacher at St. Nicolai’s. In this period, theological tensions with Melanchthon arose over the doctrine of the law, which, after Agricola’s return to Wittenberg, also affected his relationship with Luther (→ Antinomian Controversy) and led, in the summer of 1540, to Agricola’s hasty departure from Wittenberg to the court of Kurbrandenburg. The roots of the differences with the Wittenbergians apparently lay in Agricola’s adherence to Luther’s early theological positions. Agricola was known among his contemporaries for his collaboration as adviser and translator on the → Augsburg Interim of 1548. His participation in the introduction of the interim aided Kurbrandenburg to overcome its isolation from the other Lutheran Imperial estates. Agricola belonged to the circle of those who led the country on the path to the Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord.

Agricola, Stephan J. Rogge, TRE II, 1978, 110–118 ◆ E. Koch, “Johann Agricola neben Martin Luther,” in: G. Hammer & K.-H. zur Mühlen, eds., Lutheriana, AWA 5, 1984, 131–150. Ernst Koch

Agricola, Michael, b. c. 1510 in Pernå (Pernaya) on the southern coast of Finland, d. 1557 returning from the Swedish-Russian peace conference in Moscow. After attending school in Wiborg, Agricola became secretary to bishop Martin Skytte, who was open to new theological ideas, in → Åbo (Turku). He studied in Wittenberg (1536–1539) and was active thereafter as Rector of the cathedral school in Åbo, as assistant to the already ageing bishop Skytte, and, after his death (1550), as bishop (from 1554). Agricola was a humanistically inclined Lutheran scholar. He had lasting significance as a reformer in → Finland and as the founder of the language of Scripture in Finnish (Finnish NT, 1548). J. Gummerus, Michael Agricola, SLAG 2, 1941 ◆ S. Heininen, Die finnischen Studenten in Wittenberg 1531–1552, SLAG A19, 1980 ◆ Mikael Agricolan teokset 1–3, 21987. Kaarlo Arffman

Agricola, Rudolf (Huisman) (Feb 17, 1444, Baflo – Oct 27, 1487, Heidelberg) was schooled in Groningen and undertook studies in Erfurt, Cologne, Louvain, Pavia and Ferrara (Huisman). He translated rhetorical and dialectical works from Greek. In 1480 he was a lawyer for the city of Groningen. In 1484 he taught in Heidelberg and maintained frequent contact with humanists and journeyed to Rome. His writings, published posthumously, have had enduring influence. Works include: Opuscula Orationes Epistolae, 1539, repr. 1975 ◆ De inventione dialectica libri tres, critical ed., translation and comments by L. Mundt, 1992 (bibl.) ◆ On Agricola: G.C. Huisman, R. Agricola. A Bibliography of Printed Works and Translations, BBN 20, 1985 ◆ W. Kühlmann, ed., R. Agricola, 1444–1485, Protagonist des nordeuropäischen Humanismus, zum 550. Geburtstag, 1994. Heinz Scheible

Agricola, Stephan (Kastenbauer) (1491?, Abensberg – Apr 10, 1547, Eisleben) studied in Vienna from 1513, became an Augustinian hermit here in 1515, was awarded a doctorate in theology in 1519 and then became a monastic lector in Regensburg and Rattenberg. In 1522 he was imprisoned in Mühldorf (Inn) on account of his evangelical doctrine and fled in May 1524. In 1525 he became a Lutheran minister in Augsburg, 1531 in Hof, 1543 in Sulzbach and 1545 in Eisleben. He was one of the signatories of the Marburg Article of 1529 (→ Disputations, Religious: I) and of the Schmalkaldic Article of 1537 (→ Schmalkaldic Articles). H. Wiedemann, Augsburger Pfarrerbuch, EKGB 38, 1962 ◆ VD 16, 1, 4, 1985, 72 C1485–1489 ◆ H.-J. Köhler, Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, vol. I, 1, 1991, 28f. Heinz Scheible

Agriculture and Stock-farming Agriculture and Stock-farming I. History of Religion – II. Palestine – III. In Literature

I. History of Religion 1. The forms of economy consisting of agriculture and stock-farming do not influence the formation of systems of religious symbols in such a way as to constitute a consistent pattern for specific historical religions. Nonetheless, systems of religious symbols in all societies not structured according to functional categories (thus, in all except modern Western societies) reflect economic circumstances. In traditional cultures (that do not distinguish religion as an independent communication system), these concerns play a constitutive role; in historical religions (“religions of revelation”), economic realities are more secondary (and appear then, for example, as an aspect of “popular religion,” as in the form of the blessing of the shepherds in the Alps). 2. From the perspective of cultural evolution, agriculture and stock-farming as productive forms of economic activity succeed foraging methods of hunting and gathering. The transition from foraging to productive techniques assumes many forms. In the Near East, where archaeology has been able to document this transition with a degree of clarity (the “Neolithic revolution,” a process of several thousand years), parallel developments in the systematic cultivation of plants and in the domestication of animals, as well as in technological innovations (ceramics, the plow, metallurgy, fortifications) are evident. Gradually, cultures developed with various chief forms of agriculture (cultivation dependent on rainfall, cultivation through irrigation, semi-nomadism with emphasis on small animal herding) and corresponding social structures (city centers with high concentrations of population and social stratification, marginal areas with fragmentary organization). The domestication of the camel led to a new type of animal husbandry and made possible the life-style of raiding nomads. All of these shifts will have left traces in the formation of the system of religious symbols, although to a great extent they can only be hypothesized (often, far-fetched conclusions are drawn from pre-historical artifacts such as female figurines). Clear data concerning specific religious realms (the religion of the elites in the urban centers) first becomes available for the historical period. The religion of the non-elites and of the non-sedentary can be reconstructed to an extent. In other religions, entirely different cultural developments can be discerned in which distinctions in the importance of the use of plants and domesticated animals, in the type of crop (grain, rice, maize, tubers, etc.), and in agricultural technology (digging stick, hoe, plow) play a great role. Insights into the religious use of these forms of agriculture are due, for the most part, to modern ethnographic observations.

108 3. One cannot speak of a law of religious, cultural, and social → evolution. Yet, more complex forms presuppose simpler ones, and the various spheres of society and their symbolic representation exert mutual influence. Agricultural concerns are incorporated in the system of religious symbols along with the realities of the natural environment (geography, climate) and social circumstances (kinship, solidarity arrangements, distribution of power), utilizing the various possibilities for encoding (linguistic, ritual, imagery, etc.) in different ways. 4. The cycle of the → seasons is a common theme in the formation of systems of religious symbols. The work and festival calendars correspond to one another. The course of the year structures the farmers’ work; the individual phases of the work (sowing or planting, cultivation of the field during growth, harvest) are marked ritually. A variety of key factors are involved: elements of the weather are represented (especially rain in arid regions); the growth of the harvest is attended, pests are warded off, often with a combination of “rational” and “magical” (or better: effect- and communication-oriented) measures. The gathering of the harvest was especially suited for seeking communication with the life-determining powers that were granted certain property rights: first and final produce was set aside (→ Firstlings) and left for these powers. The manner of this transmission ranges from free-form to elaborate sacrificial ritual. Keepers of livestock frequently mark the course of the year by seasonally-determined changes of pasture. The higher powers also have rights to animal produce; here, too, sacrifice of the firstling is common. As a rule, a portion of the year (usually the harvest) receives special emphasis at the New Year’s festival; the rhythm of the year begins anew then. Often, cosmological themes are included, in which case the renewal of the yearly cycle signifies a cosmic renewal on grand scale. The “interim” between end and beginning is characterized by the absence of order, which is often manifested in ritual practices (suspension of the social order, unregulated sexuality, etc.) and corresponding mythical themes. Important, then, is the “identification” of the basis of agriculture. Often, planting and farming are interpreted anthropomorphically (in mythic conception and ritual activity). The process involving the seed-pod is then conceived as an example of the process involving a person who, killed, dismembered, and buried, is thereby transformed into a plant (the “Hainuwele-theme” after the best-known ethnographic example; → Dema Deities). Another widespread concept applies a parental relationship to a cultivated plant and a higher being so that one can speak of “mother corn,” “father rice,” etc. The earth, too, can assume this maternal function. Finally, the process of planting and cultivating is seen in analogy to human sexuality. The most elemental human experiences (dying/

109 killing, parent-child relationship, sexuality) find expression in the work of cultivation. Herding cultures often conceive of “partnerships” of various forms between humans and domesticated animals. The (nutritionally necessary) consumption of meat is treated with extreme restrictions; the slaughter of a domesticated animal is virtually always a ritually regulated procedure. The sacrificial animal opens an exchange of gifts with a realm “beyond” and thus establishes communication between the sacrificial community and the higher beings. In addition, the idea occasionally surfaces that the sacrificial animal functions as a representative for human beings. The idea of communion is also realized through table fellowship between humans and gods, which is often linked with the sacrifice. 5. With increasing social stratification (→ Society) and in the realm of religions with a marked historical character, in the system of religious symbols agricultural themes give way to social, political, and historical themes. Often new explanations transform rituals that are at home in farming or herding (as, for example, in the Jewish feasts of Passover or Booths). A. Dieterich, Mutter Erde, 31925, repr. 1967 ◆ B. Malinowski, Korallengärten und ihre Magie, 1935, repr. 1981 ◆ M. Eliade, Kosmos und Geschichte, 1953, repr. 1994 ◆ H. Baumann, Das doppelte Geschlecht, 1955, repr. 1985 ◆ E. Evans-Pritchard, Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer, 1956, repr. 1990 ◆ T.H. Gaster, Thespis, 21961 ◆ A.E. Jensen, Die getötete Gottheit. Weltbild einer frühen Kultur, 31966 ◆ V. Lanternari, La grande festa, Bari, 21976 ◆ B. Lincoln, Priests, Warriors, and Cattle, 1981 ◆ A. LeroiGourhan, Hand und Wort, 1988. Fritz Stolz

II. Palestine In Palestine, agriculture-based subsistence has nearly always included a component of pastoralism. The agricultural village was well established on the basis of cultivating cereals and herding sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle by about 6000 bce. The Chalcolithic period (5000–3500 bce) witnessed the addition of fruit tree cultivation. The emergence of full-fledged Mediterranean agriculture and pastoralism coincided with the Early Bronze Age. The changed regime included increasingly productive grain fields, expanding investment in horticulture, intensified production of selected crops, local industry, and advancing trade: in sum, intensified agriculture yielding a greatly augmented product. The period also witnessed the first widespread appearance of the ox and its companion, the by-this-time thousand-year-old scratch plow (ard). The basic structure of this system rested on the region’s sharp climatic bi-seasonality. Five months of rainless summer preceded a concentrated wet season in which generally amply above the 200mm level necessary for dry farming but notoriously erratic precipitation fell intensely. This frustrating rainfall regime elicited a variety of coping strategies, especially risk-spreading by which farmers

Agriculture and Stock-farming attempted to diversify their productive base so as not to depend too greatly upon any one variable productive pursuit. Tree and vine crops (notably olive, grape, fig, and almond) joined pastoralism as the chief avenues of diversification. Pastoralism and horticulture both complemented rain-fed grain cultivation and offered storable, transportable, and dietetically essential products. Pastoralism focused primarily on combined herds of sheep and goats. Horses, asses, camels, cattle, and pigs were present, but none approached the ubiquity of sheep and goats. An average holding among nomads reached between fifty and a hundred animals; settled villagers possessed herds of ten to twenty. The herds produced milk, wool and hair, hides, bone and horn, meat, manure, and young animals for trade or sale, plus a voluminous catalog of secondary products: bone tools and implements, wool clothing, blankets and rugs, a huge assortment of dairy products (yoghurt, butter, and storable cheese), as well as the goat-hair black tent itself. Pastoralists adjusted the balance of sheep and goats in their herds with an eye to goals of production. The most telling characteristic of the sheep and goat herds is their potential for explosive growth and their susceptibility to precipitous decline, with concomitant fluctuations in pasturage requirements and labor needs. This underlying economic seesaw contrasts with agricultural productivity, which tends to be inelastic. These contrary productive tendencies create a pastoralagricultural continuum. Thus, settled cultivators turn to pastoral pursuits to add buoyancy to their subsistence. Pastoral nomadic households seek stability when making investments in arable land. One end of this spectrum is marked by periods of high-intensity agriculture and market-oriented pastoral pursuits, the classical Mediterranean mixed economy. At the other end, periods of diminished yield in cultivation produce lowintensity farming dominated by subsistence-oriented nomadic pastoralists. Many factors are involved in movement along this continuum. Agricultural intensification is propelled by growth of population, centralization, expanding markets and international trade, bureaucratic direction, and innovation. Abatement is connected to environmental degradation, decline of population, loss of trading opportunities, political disintegration, and military defeat. The building, dismantling, and rebuilding of the Mediterranean mixed economy has marked the ebb and flow of Levantine civilization from the Early Bronze Age to the modern industrial period. D.C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan, SWBAS 3, 1985 ◆ O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 1987 ◆ P. Halstead & J. O’Shea, Bad Year Economics, 1989 ◆ Ø.S. LaBianca, Sedentarization and Nomadization, 1990. David C. Hopkins

Agrippa I III. In Literature The literary heritage of the ancient Palestinian world related specifically to agriculture is astonishingly meager. Of course, the non-agricultural literature preserved from ancient Palestine is peppered with isolated references to agriculture and pastoralism, as one would expect of an agrarian society. This is especially prominent in poetic similes (e.g. Prov 24:30–34; Hos 10:11–12, 13; Ps 65:9– 13) and in “cases” and stipulations of the legal literature (e.g. Ex 22:5–6; 23:10–11; Deut 22:9–10; Lev 19:9–10, 23–25). A few places in the Hebrew Bible and in the OT develop agricultural metaphors in a more or less detailed way, though these passages are not intended to describe the agriculture of the time or reflect on its dynamics for their own sake. The most outstanding concentrations of agricultural and pastoral motifs occur in the familiar texts of Ruth (set at harvest time), Isa 5:1–7 (the Song of the Vineyard), Isa 28:23–29 (appropriate field operations), Ps 23 (the Lord as shepherd), and in the parables of the sower (Matt 13:3–9) and of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26–69). The Talmud preserves many helpful indicators of the conduct of agriculture in Roman times, but, again, these writings offer neither a practical handbook nor a systematic treatment of agricultural practice. None of this literature offers more than glimpses of rural life. Archaeologists have unearthed a strictly limited inventory of agriculture-related administrative, commercial and miscellaneous documents that do not fit readily under the rubric of “literary.” These derive mostly from the administration rather than the conduct of agriculture. Epigraphical finds include the famous → Gezer “calendar” (10th cent. bce), the → Nessana papyri (5th–7th cents. ce), the → Petra papyri (6th cent. ce), the ostraca and barley letter from Samaria (8th cent. bce), incised bowls from Tel Sera’ (12th cent. bce), and the → Arad ostraca (7th and 5th cents. bce). The Gezer “calendar” develops a brief, quasi-poetic list that charts the course of the agricultural year and manifests the diversity of endeavors characteristic of village agriculture by its allusion to activities involving olives, wheat, barley, grapes and summer fruit. It reads: “two months of [olive] harvest; two months of sowing; two months of late sowing; a month of hoeing weeds; a month of harvesting barley; a month of harvesting and [measure]ing; two months of cutting [grapes]; a month of [collecting] summer fruits.” The list probably served as a scribal writing exercise that sought to inculcate the agricultural year among those who administered the taxation of its produce. The images of the ideal vineyard in Isaiah’s “Song of the Vineyard” have been sharpened by archaeological research in the rural zone. Surveyors have documented terraced vineyards with walls, vats, towers, and rock-cut wine-presses, many of which date to Isaiah’s late 8thcentury context. Thus, it appears that Isaiah’s poem por-

110 trayed a realistic viticultural development. The poetic description of agricultural operations in Isa 28 also presents a portrait that would have been intelligible to an ancient audience. Yet, such meticulous care as the poem suggests is more appropriate to the home garden than the preponderance of grain and vegetable fields. Like most classical literature, Isaiah probably addressed an aristocratic audience that had minimal contact with the daily routines of farming. The Levant’s first truly literary presentation of the agricultural world is “Works and Days,” the 7th-century poem of → Hesiod. Though the poem offers a selective portrait (e.g. there is no mention of olive orchards, sheep and goats, and there is no discussion of the physical context of farming, i.e. the farm itself and its buildings), it was composed by a farmer who worked the land in eastern Greece and lamented the changing political circumstances of his endeavors. While other Greek literature of the era relied upon pastoral and agricultural images, e.g. facets of rural life that occur in the Homeric poems, Hesiod’s “Almanac,” in particular, is a singular work that stands alone for three centuries until → Xenophon’s “Oikonomikos” (domestic manager). Both Hesiod and Xenophon turn their sketches of rural life towards moral instruction. S. Isager & J.E. Skydsgaard, Ancient Greek Agriculture, 1992 ◆ D.W. Tandy & W.C. Neale, Hesiod’s Works and Days, 1996. David C. Hopkins

Agrippa I (c. 7 bce – 43/44 ce) and Agrippa II (27/28 ce – 100?), father and son, the last Herodian kings. The brief reign of Agrippa I, grandson of Herod, is a hiatus in the progressive Roman annexation of all of Palestine. He is best known for his persecution of the Church (Acts 12). After his death imperial governors again ruled Palestine. Small sections in the north and north-east were granted first to Agrippa I’s brother and then to Agrippa II, who eventually acquired some territories in Galilee and also Peraea, maintaining his position until the 90s. He attempted to dissuade the Jews of Jerusalem from rebellion ( Josephus, War II, 345–404) and cooperated with Rome in putting it down. Besides this, he is best known for his role in Paul’s trial (Acts 25–26) and for his sister Berenice’s affair with Titus. D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 1990.

Daniel R. Schwartz

Agrippa Castor → Heresy Agrippa of Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius (Sep 14, 1486, Cologne – Feb 18, 1535, Grenoble). Following his studies at the Faculty of Arts in Cologne (1499– 1502) and in Paris, Agrippa worked as a lecturer, physician, syndic and historiographer. At times he also served emperor → Maximilian I, among other places in Burgundy, Pavia, England, Metz, Geneva, Fribourg,

111 Lyon, Antwerp and Mecheln and had numerous conflicts with the Inquisition or with representatives of scholastic theology. In his principal work, De occulta philosophia (in printed form since 1531), under the influence of J. → Reuchlin and the → Kabbalah, Agrippa linked the Neoplatonic-Hermetic tradition with elements of numerology and astrology. The skepticism of his second major work, Declamatio de incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum (printed in 1530), warmly received especially by such critical philosophers as S. → Franck, was aimed at the uncertainty and triviality of human knowledge and cognition that is not focused on God and his Word. These and other writings of his were important for the epistemology of the Renaissance and were still used by G.W. → Leibniz and J.W. von → Goethe. Agrippa was in contact with such leading humanists and reformers as → Erasmus, P. → Melanchthon, and J. → Lefèvre d’Étaples, though he did not turn to the Reformation himself. Works: Opera omnia, 2 vols., repr. 1970 ◆ De occulta philosophia, ed. V. Perro ne Compagni, SHCT 48, 1992 ◆ On Agrippa: H.F.W. Kuhlow, Die Imitatio Christi und ihre kosmologische Überfremdung, 1967 (bibl.) ◆ P. Zambelli, “Magic and Radical Reformation in Agrippa,” JWCI 39, 1976, 69–103 ◆ K. Goldammer, TRE II, 1978, 118–123 (bibl.). Horst Pfefferl

Ahab (“the [divine] brother is the father”), in the OT the name of (1.) a king of Israel and (2.) an exile. 1. Working together with others, “Ahab, the Israelite” was temporarily able to stop the expansion of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III in 853 bce. In this context he is the first king of Israel named in an extra-biblical text, demonstrating his opponents’ recognition of his greatness (A.K. Grayson, 102, 2). Without mentioning him by name, Mescha of → Moab also recognized Ahab’s importance as the son and heir of → Omri (KAI 181: 4–9). The OT references to Ahab in 1 and 2 Kings (→ Deuteronomic History, cf. 2 Chr 18:21–22) are silent about Ahab’s successes; instead they paint a black picture of the king on account of his marriage to → Jezebel and the privileging of her god. 1 Kgs 17–19 and 21 are generally taken to be pre-Deuteronomic and to date fairly close to the events they recount. In the absence of further historical evidence, it is difficult to gain a clear historical image of the king. Even the earliest accounts of Ahab (1 Kgs 17–18) have been influenced by the → Elisha tradition; the texts include characteristically Deuteronomic formulations and post-Deuteronomic accounts have been introduced into the framework of the story of Ahab (1 Kgs 20; 22; for 1 Kgs 21* cf. Rofé). Ahab’s dispossession of Naboth receives several different mentions (1 Kgs 21:1–16, 17–20; 2 Kgs 6:21, 25–26) and may therefore be historical (→ Jezreel). Given the strong Phoenician influence on Israel and Judea in the first half of the 9th century bce (archaeologically and epigraphically docu-

Ahasuerus mented), the Deuteronomic note (1 Kgs 16:31–33) that Ahab married a daughter of Ethbaal, king of → Sidon (Timm, 229–231) and that he privileged and worshiped her god may also be taken to be historically credible. There is, however, no consensus as to the identity of Jezebel’s god (→ Baal). The situation is confused by the fact that both Jezebel’s followers and the worshipers of YHWH seem to have addressed their god as “Baal” (1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 10:19). If Ahab did indeed establish an altar in the “house of god” in → Samaria (1 Kgs 16:32 LXX; Timm, 32–33), this could indicate that at that time the capital city had a temple dedicated to YHWH in which both divinities were worshiped (cf. later Phoenician KAI 19.4; → Monotheism). → Jehu destroyed the temple in Samaria (2 Kgs 10:18–28) and, at the same time eliminated (cf. →Asherah, → Cult Sites) the symbol which, according to Hebrew Bible tradition, had shaped the religious politics of the house of Ahab (Mic 6:16) (→ Ahaziah, Jehoram). 2. Ahab (cf. → Zedekiah), Jewish deportee who incited unrest amongst the exiles and was put to the flames by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar ( Jer 29:21–23; shorter LXX). S. Timm, Die Dynastie Omri, FRLANT 124, 1982 ◆ G. Hentschel, “Elija und der Kult des Baal,” in: E. Haag, ed., Gott der einzige, QD 104, 1985, 54–90 ◆ R. Smend, “The Deuteronomistic Elijah,” OTE 4, 1986, 229–243 ◆ A. Rofé, “The Vineyard of Naboth,” VT 38, 1988, 89–104 ◆ E. Würthwein, “Tradition und theologische Redaktion in I Reg 17–18,” in: idem, Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, BZAW 227, 1994, 102–117 ◆ W. Thiel, “Zu Ursprung und Entfaltung der Elia-Tradition,” in: K. Grünwaldt & H. Schroeter, eds., Was suchst du hier Elia? Hermeneutica 4, 1995, 27–39 ◆ A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858– 745 BC), 1997. Stefan Timm

Ahad Ha’am → Ginsberg , Asher Ahasuerus. “Ahasuerus” is the standard equivalent in English versions of the Bible for the name of the Persian king Ahashverosh (Gk Xerxes). The Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is thus Xerxes I (486–465 bce). In character, the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther combines folly and cruelty. Esther is Ahasuerus’s second wife, who dissuades him from slaughtering all the Jews in his kingdom. In Judaism, Ahasuerus has always been viewed as evil. In the Baroque period, by contrast, “Ahasuerus” was used as a Christian baptismal name. In popular legend, “Ahasuerus” is the name of the “wandering Jew,” condemned to wander eternally, who is restored to the age of 30 every 100 years. The legend combines motifs from several sources, including the son of Elijah, the immortal John (cf. John 21:23), the slave Malchus (cf. John 18:4–10), and the officer who struck Jesus (cf. John 18:22). The legend first appears in writing in the 13th century: in the Ignoti Monachi

Ahaziah Cisterciensis Sanctae Mariae de Ferarria Chronica of 1223 and the Historia maior of Matthew Paris of 1240. In this account, the Gentile Cartaphilus strikes Christ as he is carrying his cross and spurs him on. Christ’s answer (“I will stop and rest, but you will go on until the last day”) condemns him to wander until Christ’s return. In the 16th century, this legend spread through the entire western Mediterranean region. Beginning in 1602, there appeared the Kurtze Beschreibung und Erzehlung von einem Juden mit Namen Ahasverus, with many fictitious imprints (Leyden, Bautzen, Reval, Danzig). The book purports to be based on an account of Paul of Eitzen concerning an encounter in Hamburg in 1542 with the wandering Jew. Ahasuerus, who later was baptized by Ananias, is thus a living witness to the facticity of Christ’s crucifixion. In the 17th century, this material was incorporated in an oft-reprinted booklet and in many popular tales; in the Sturm und Drang period (→ Sentimentalism), it became a common subject for poetry. The latest eyewitness account goes back to a Mormon named O’Grady (1868). The legendary figure of the wandering Jew symbolizes the damnation of the Jews for rejecting the Savior. It is an image of suffering and of acknowledged guilt, a symbol of Judaism, but also of world-weariness and, finally, of deliverance (from a Christian perspective). Dissertatio historica de Judaeo non mortali quam publ. argum fecit Schultz, 1689 ◆ Dissertatio, in qua lepidam fabulam de Judaeo immortali examinat Carolus Antonius, 1755 ◆ F. Helbig, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden, ihre poetische Wandlung und Fortbildung, 1874 ◆ L. Neubaur, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden, 1884, 31912 ◆ idem, “Bibliographie der Sage vom ewigen Juden,” ZfB 10, 1893, 250–267 ◆ J. Minor, Goethes Fragmente vom ewigen Juden und vom wiederkehrenden Heiland, 1904 ◆ J. Prost, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden in der neueren deutschen Literatur, 1905 ◆ A. Soergel, Ahasver-dichtungen seit Goethe, 1905 ◆ E. König, Ahasver “der ewige Jude”, 1907 ◆ W. Zirus, Ahasverus, der ewige Jude, 1930 ◆ J. Gaer, The Legend of the Wandering Jew, 1961 ◆ G.K. Anderson, The Legend of the Wandering Jew, 1965 ◆ M. Körte & R. Stockhammer, eds., Ahasvers Spur, 1995. Jörg-Ulrich Fechner

Ahaziah (“Yahweh has grasped [the child to protect it]”; 2 Kgs 1:2, 18 etc.), also with verb and subject transposed, Jehoahaz (2 Chr 21:16–17): 1. a king of Israel; 2. a king of Judah. 1. Ahaziah the son of → Ahab and grandson of → Omri reigned for just two years (1 Kgs 22:52; 2 Kgs 1:17aβ – |18). He was succeeded by his brother Jehoram. Noteworthy is Ahaziah’s inquiry of Baal-zebul whether he would recover from an injury, which was thwarted by → Elijah’s intervention (2 Kgs 1:2–17aα). The historical credibility of the account in its present form does not hinge on the name “Ahaziah” (MT vs. LXX; cf. Stipp) or its post-Deuteronomic origin (Rofé), but on whether it accurately reflects the religious situation of the period (→ monotheism). 2. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram reigned for one year. His

112 mother was Athaliah (2 Kgs 8:24, 25–26). The friendly relationship that Omri and Ahab had established with Judah was the basis of Ahaziah’s sojourn with his Israelite kinsman Jehoram. One tradition describes his presence there as a military alliance with the Samarian king (2 Kgs 8:28), another as a visit to his wounded royal colleague in → Jezreel (2 Kgs 8:29; 9,16), a third even as a campaign against Hazael, while → Jehu conspired against Jehoram (2 Kgs 10:36 LXX-Lucian; cf. Trebolle Barrera). In any event, Azariah also lost his life in Jehu’s revolution (2 Kgs 9:21–29). His son Joash became king after Athaliah. J.C. Trebolle Barrera, “Jehú y Joás,” EMISJ 17, 1984, 110–125, 185–189 ◆ H.-J. Stipp, Elischa – Propheten – Gottesmänner, ATSAT 24, 1987, 96–102 (bibl.) ◆ A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories, 1988, 13–26, 35–40 (bibl.) ◆ S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings, VT.S 42, 1991, 93–103 (bibl.). Stefan Timm

Ahiásā. The ethical requirement of ahiásā (fem.; lit. “noninjury [of living things]”) is common to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Based on an early Indian criticism of animal sacrifice and the idea of reincarnation, it began to emerge c. 500 bce, initially as an ideal of ascetic living, later as a general virtue of the upper castes. Above all, ahiásā forbids the killing of animals, especially cattle, for food (one result being widespread vegetarianism). M. → Gandhi transformed ahiásā into a commandment of political → non-violence and religious love for all living beings. L. Alsdorf, Beiträge zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien, 1962 ◆ H.-P. Schmidt, “The Origins of Ahimsa,” in: Mélanges d’Indianisme à la mémoire de Louis Renou, publ. Institut de Civilisation Indienne, 1968, 625–655 ◆ C. Chappel, Non-Violence to Animals. Earth and Self in Asian Traditions, 1993 ◆ A. Wezler, ed., Die indische Idee der gewaltlosen Beziehung zwischen Mensch und Natur, forthcoming. Axel Michaels

A˙madīya. Founded in 1889 in the Indian province of Punjāb by Ġulām A˙mad (1835–1908), A˙madīya became one of the most controversial movements in contemporary Islam (→ Islam: I, 3). Claiming for its founder messianic and prophetic status, the A˙madīya aroused fierce opposition from the Sunni Muslims and was accused of rejecting the Muslim dogma asserting the finality of → Mu˙ammad’s prophethood. Under British rule, the controversy was merely a doctrinal dispute. When in 1947 most A˙madīs moved to the professedly Islamic state of → Pakistan, the issue was transformed into a major constitutional problem. The Sunni Muslim mainstream (→ Islam: II, 1) demanded the formal exclusion of the A˙madīya. In 1974 the Pakistani parliament adopted a constitutional amendment declaring them non-Muslims. Ġulām A˙mad considered himself a mu
113

Ai

spoken to by God or his angels), the messiah of the end of days, and a → prophet. Following the Muslim mystic Ibn al-aArabī (d. 1240), he maintained that the Muslim dogma according to which prophecy ceased after Mu˙ammad’s mission applies only to legislative prophets; non-legislative prophets, engaged in reviving the religious laws promulgated in the → Qur’ān, can appear in the Muslim community without contradicting the dogma mentioned above. Reinterpreting the Muslim doctrine of jihād, Ġulām A˙mad argued that the only jihād (→ Holy War) sanctioned by Islam is spreading the faith by peaceful preaching. Y. Friedmann, Prophecy Continuous, 1989. Yohanan Friedmann

Ahn, Byung-Mu ( Jun 23, 1922, Pyungnam – Oct 19, 1996, Seoul), a cofounder of Korean → Minjung theology and a member of the political resistance in South Korea. During his studies (1956–1965), he worked with such teachers as G. → Bornkamm; he presented his dissertation in theology at Heidelberg in 1965. From 1971 to 1975 and in 1979 he taught as professor of NT at the Korean Theological Seminary in Seoul and served as its dean from 1984 to 1987. In 1973 he founded the Korean Institute for Theological Studies (1996: Aunae Foundation) and served for many years as its director. He was also an author and publisher. Beginning in 1955, a series of South Korean regimes in conjunction with large conglomerates pushed the economic growth of the developing nation by means of dictatorship and low wages, at the expense of human rights. In the resistance, Ahn rediscovered the marginalized mass of ordinary people, Korean minjung, in Mark the ὄχλος (ochlos, “crowd”) of peripheral Galilee, which played a central role for Jesus. The discovery that exegesis had ignored a political element here had far-reaching consequences for Markan studies (the messianic secret in Mark as a political precaution, possibly helping identify the Markan community; for German exegetical response, see Küster). In 1975 Ahn founded a support group for political prisoners, the Galilee Community. Under pressure from the regime, his permission to teach was withdrawn in 1975. In 1976 he was sentenced to several years’ imprisonment. International pressure led to his release after nine months. He established a theological training course for students who were not allowed to enrol for political reasons and founded a sisterhood called Diakonia. Ahn’s prison experience focused his attention on suffering, which he interpreted in the spirit of the servant of God in Deutero-Isaiah as the vicarious suffering of the marginalized (han being the Korean idea of cumulative suffering borne collectively over generations): in the suffering of the minjung, Jesus has liberated the world from injustice.

Works: Chonchip (collected works), 6 vols., 1993 (Korean) ◆ Trans.: J. Moltmann, ed., Minjung, 1984, 110–169 ◆ B.-M. Ahn, Draußen vor dem Tor, ed. W. Glüer, 1986 ◆ On Ahn: A. Hoffmann-Richter, Ahn Byung-Mu als Minjung-Theologe, 1990 ◆ S. Lee, Die Min-jung-Theologie Ahn Byungmus, 1991 ◆ V. Küster, Jesus und das Volk im Markusevangelium, 1996 ◆ J.C. England, et al., Asian Christian Theologies, vol. III, 2004, 557ff. Andreas Hoffmann-Richter

Ahura Mazdā, lit. “wise lord,” is the supreme god of ancient Iranian Mazdaism, familiar primarily as shaped by → Zarathustra (7th/6th cent. bce). The name appears in the → Avesta ; Old Persian inscriptions (6th–4th cents. bce) use the form “Auramazdā,” Middle Persian inscriptions (3rd cent. ce) and the Pahlavi literature (9th cent. ce) use “Ohrmazd,” the parallel Greek tradition uses “Ōromasdēs,” etc. An omniscient creator, he is a transcendent god, father of truth (arta) and orderer of the cosmos. He works through the Good Spirit, who is opposed by the Evil Spirit. In the dualistic Zoroastrian system, he both transcends these two spirits and identifies himself with the Good Spirit. Greek interpretations and the Pahlavi literature depict Ohrmazd as god of infinite light, in contrast to the infinite darkness where “Ahriman” reigns. In → Manichaeism, “Ohrmazd” is a name of the primordial human being. L.H. Gray, The Foundations of the Iranian Religions, 1929, 19–27 ◆ J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre, 1948, 104–108 ◆ H. Humbach, “Ahura Mazda und die Daēvas,” WZKSO 1, 1957, 81–94 ◆ F.B.J. Kuiper, “Ahura Mazda, ‘Lord Wisdom’?” IIJ 18, 1976, 25–42 ◆ M. Boyce, Eir 1.7, 1984, 684–687 ◆ J. Kellens, “Ahura Mazdā ou Mazdā Ahura?” MSS 43, 1984, 133–136. Gherardo Gnoli

Ai (“the ruins”), present-day et-Tell, 2 km southeast of → Bethel. It was originally a dominant site in the Early Bronze Age, 3200–2400 bce; at its apex 11 hectares with walls, four gates, temple, and acropolis. After an interruption in settlement from 2400 to 1200, an unfortified farming village arose (1 hectare) near the Early Bronze acropolis. There was a peaceful end to settlement c. 1050 bce. Isa 10:28 mentions the uninhabited site on the occasion of the Assyrian advance against Jerusalem. Returnees from the Exile settled near Ai (Neh 11:31). In the postexilic period, Ai became important as “ruins.” The older place name had long since been forgotten. Josh 7–8 depicts the conquest of Ai along the lines of the legendary conquest of Jericho ( Josh 6): thus, with local knowledge, but typical strategical elements (cf. Judg 20), there arose (in nearby Bethel?) an aetiology, apparently confirmed by the ruins, which aimed to justify by example possession of the territory as legitimized by right of conquest since “patriarchal times” (Gen 12:8; 13:3). J.A. Callaway, NEAEHL I, 1993, 39–45 ◆ V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua, HAT I 7, 1994, 76–93. Hermann Michael Niemann

Aidlingen Aidlingen is a diaconal mother-house, founded in 1927 by Christa von Viebahn (1873–1955) for diaconal-missionary work primarily in Germany. Aidlingen belongs in the tradition of → Communitarianism and is a member of the → Gnadau Association. The focal point of the work today are diaconal and evangelistic tasks; of the 358 sisters (1996), only a few are engaged outside Germany, mostly in cooperation with evangelicallyKlaus Schäfer oriented missionary societies. AIDS (Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a rare disease in that we are quite certain about the cause of the disease yet have not been able to develop an effective vaccine to protect against the spread of the disease or to cure it. And the spread of AIDS has reached pandemic proportions (more than 60 million infected worldwide according to many sources, with more than 25 million dead), and for many of those infected, AIDS means almost certain death, often in a short period of time. The disease is unique as well in that the virus is passed on in specific ways that allow us to adopt strategies to prevent further spread (by limiting or eliminating certain behaviors). Both of the latter factors (that AIDS is a death sentence for many and it is spread by particular behaviors) has meant that people with AIDS are easily stigmatized. On the one hand, they are alienated from the community because they are the dying in the midst of the healthy and they are often seen as a threat to the health of the community. On the other hand, many are alienated from the community because they have contracted the virus through behavior that is considered immoral. Thus, these people living with AIDS are perceived as responsible for their own suffering. Earl Shelp has provided a carefully constructed refutation of this kind of argument and concludes his discussion with the strong statement that “The notion that AIDS is God’s punishment on any person has no theological merit . . . ” (Shelp, 323) Religions have often participated, even if unintentionally, in the stigmatizing of those living with AIDS. In part, the tendency to blame the victims for their behavior has been reinforced by religious views about behavior. In addition, religions have contributed to the belief that if one is “pure,” then one is safe from the virus (a view, according to Susan Sontag, which easily stigmatizes even those who have AIDS but did not contract the virus through such behavior, e.g. children who are infected by their mothers). The challenge for religions, then, is to help in educating people fully about behaviors that will help control the spread of the virus and limit the stigmatizing of the victims. On the other hand, religions need to provide caring communities, which can help everyone to overcome the fears that create alienation for those living with AIDS. An additional

114 factor also emerges for those reflecting on religious responses to AIDS. So much energy is invested in saving lives and protecting the healthy that very little has been done to develop a way to help us face death and the dying. Elizabeth Stuart explores this concern especially with regard to recent Gay and Lesbian theologies (Stuart, 65–77). As threatening as this pandemic is, this is an occasion for judging the viability of the religious communities themselves. S. Sontag, Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors, 1989 ◆ E. Shelp, “AIDS, High Risk Behaviors and Moral Judgments,” in J. Nelson & S. Longfellow, eds., Sexuality and the Sacred, 1994, 314ff. ◆ A. Irwin & J. Millen, Global AIDS: Myths and Facts, Tools for Fighting the AIDS Pandemic, 2002 ◆ T. Barnett & A. Whiteside. AIDS in the Twenty-First Century: Disease and Globalization, 2003 ◆ E. Kalipeni, S. Craddock, J. Oppong & J. Ghosh, HIV & AIDS in Africa: Beyond Epidemiology, 2003 ◆ G. Stine, AIDS Update 2004, 2003 ◆ E. Stuart, Gay and Lesbian Theologies, 2003 ◆ A-C. D’Adesky, Moving Mountains: The Race to Treat Global AIDS, 2004 ◆ D. Messer, Breaking the Conspiracy of Silence: Christian Churches and the Global AIDS Crisis, 2004 ◆ T. Yamamori, The Church and the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Providing Leadership and Hope, 2004. James F. Moore, for RPP

Ailey, Alvin ( Jan 5, 1931, Rogers, TX – Dec 1, 1989, New York), American dancer and choreographer who symbolizes black presence in contemporary dance. Ailey studied dance with Lester Horton and directed his own company, the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater in New York until 1979. His works, choreographed in traditional modern dance style, address a range of black experience, from social inequality to religious awakening. His most famous work, Revelations (1960), evokes black history and religious heritage in three sections: travail, regeneration, and jubilation. Described by a German critic as “a triumph of sweeping, violent beauty,” the work received 61 curtain calls in Hamburg in 1965. Ailey’s numerous other works never received the same critical acclaim. However, in an era of intense civil rights activity, Ailey placed black dancers and themes on the agenda of serious culture. J. Mazo, Prime Movers, 1977 ◆ A. Long, The Black Tradition in American Dance, 1989. Sara B. Savage

Ailly, Pierre d’ (1351, Compiègne – Aug 9, 1420, Avignon). Peter studied in Paris, took the M.A. in 1368 and the Mag. theol. in 1381; in 1375, he became canon in Soissons, in 1381 in Noyon, later also in Meaux, Amiens, Cambrai, Compiègne, Rouen and Paris; he was rector of the Collège de Navarre from 1384 to 1389 and became father-confessor to Charles VI in 1389. From 1389 to 1395 he was chancellor of the university of Paris. In 1395, he became bishop of Le Puy, in 1397 of Noyon and Cambrai. He participated in the Council of → Pisa 1409. He became cardinal in 1411 and legate in Germany in 1413. He engaged vigorously in construc-

115 tion projects during his offices. Peter had good relations with his student and successor as rector of the university of Paris, J. → Gerson. From 1414 to 1418 he attended the Council of → Constance, where he participated in the proceedings against J. → Hus and supported the deposition of John XXII, who had previously promoted him. He advocated the superiority of the council to the pope and conducted church reform to overcome the Western Schism. His theology was shaped especially by William of → Occam, but also influenced by → Bernard of Clairvaux, → William of Auvergne and Nicolas Oresme. Sources: Catalogue of writings: P. Glorieux, “L’œuvre littéraire de P. d’Ailly,” MSR 22, 1965, 61–78 ◆ RFHMA 2, 1967, 153–156 ◆ Works: Tractatus et sermons (repr. of the Strasbourg edition of 1490), 1971 ◆ Le traité de P. d’Ailly sur la consolation de Boèce, Qu. 1, M. Chappuis, 1993 ◆ On Pierre d’Ailly: B. Meller, Studien zur Erkenntnislehre des Petrus von Ailly, 1954 ◆ L.A. Kennedy, Peter of Ailly and the Harvest of Fourteenth-Century Philosophy, 1986 ◆ O. Pluta, Die philosophische Psychologie des Petrus von Ailly, 1987 (with an edition of the Tractatus de anima in part II). Reinhold Rieger

Ainu. The Ainu (“human being”) are an ethnic minority in northern Japan, culturally and linguistically largely assimilated to the Japanese; today they number some 30,000. Well into the 20th century, their territory included the Kuril Islands and southern Sakhalin. The place of the Ainu in Japanese ethnogenesis is still disputed. Anthropologically, they represent a Paleomongolid type; their language is an isolate. Traditionally the Ainu were hunters, fishers, and gatherers. The basic social unit of the Ainu is the nuclear family; several families join together in a settlement under the leadership of a chief. On Hokkaido there are larger social units such as local groups and river groups, as well as separate descent groups of men and women with religious and political functions. Their view of the world is animistic (→ Animism). The human world is overarched by several heavens, in the highest of which dwells Kotan-kar-kamuy, the creator of the worlds. The netherworld, too, where departed ancestors dwell, is multilayered. The higher beings live like human beings in the “other world.” Sometimes they don disguises, appear in this world as inanimate objects or living beings (“sacral visit”), and wait until their power (kamuy) is released by use or killing, then they go back with gifts (= sacrifices). The cultic release of kamuy is known as the iomante ceremony, the most important form being the so-called → bear festival. Remains of the consumed object, animal, or plant are deposited on sacred “fences” behind the house, along with offerings and shaved sticks. Particularly among the Ainu of Sakhalin, a shaman functions as a special mediator between the human world and the divine, healing the sick and interpreting the future with the aid of spirits (ecstatic → shamanism).

Aion Religious knowledge was preserved and handed down in oral epics. The first Catholic missionary was Girolamo de Angelis, who visited in 1618 and 1621. Since the end of the 19th century, there have been Protestant missionaries (and researchers, e.g. John Batchelor), as well as Catholic and Russian Orthodox missions. Buddhist temples have been built since 1804. J. Batchelor, The Ainu and Their Folk-Lore, 1901 ◆ K. Kindaichi, “The Concepts behind the Ainu Bear Festival,” SWJA 5, 1949, 345–350 ◆ N.G. Munro, Ainu Creed and Cult, 1962 ◆ A. Slawik, Die Eigentumsmarken der Ainu, 1992. Josef Kreiner

Aion I. The God Aion – II. Philosophy

I. The God Aion Αἰών/Aiōn, the Greek god of eternity in the sense of immeasurable, unbounded return is attested from Hellenism onwards. Aion never had a uniform character; sometimes he appears as a (linearly) eternal, sometimes as a (cyclically) ever-renewing god. Origins in the Semitic or Egyptian realm are likely. Alexandrian coins (2nd cent. ce) portray Aion as a self-rejuvenating phoenix. According to the Greek “Alexander Novella” (I 30–33), Aion is the patron god who promises the endurance of → Alexandria. Various forms of the identification of Aion with Helios (→ sun) are attested. Epiph. Haer. 51.22 attests, for Alexandria, the → virgin birth (I) of Aion by Kore on the day of Epiphany ( Jan 5/6). In every case, Aion is an outstanding example of → theocracy (Damascius, Vita Isidori 174). Aion plays a marginal role in Rome. His function as the imperial god of the Greek East remains ephemeral and is disputed. M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 1988, 348, 498–505 ◆ G. Zuntz, Aion, 1989 ◆ idem, Aion im Römerreich, 1991 ◆ idem, Aion in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit, 1992. Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer

II. Philosophy The original meaning was probably “life-force” or “lifeliquid” (according to Onians: “cerebrospinal liquor”) since life ends when it is exhausted, later also “natural lifespan” (thus in expressions such as εἰς αἰῶνα/eis aiōna, “forever,” so still in → Empedocles). In → Heraclitus, Aion appears as an enigmatic subject: “αἰών is a child who plays, who plays a board game” (DK 22 B 52). → Parmenides attributes eternity to existence (DK 28 B 8.5), but never employs αἰών. The earliest example of the technical meaning (“eternity”) is in Plato (Tim. 37d): Time as the moving image of Aion. → Aristotle traces the etymology to αἰεὶ εἶναι (aiei einai, “to be eternally there”; Cael. I 9: 279 a 27): “the completeness encompassing the lifetime of one, beyond which, by nature, there is

Aja»†ā, Cave Paintings nothing, is called one’s αἰών” (a 23f.). As the totality of unending time, αἰών is the gods’ mode of existence (ibid., II 1.283 b 29). For people, in contrast, Aion is a yawning abyss (Marc Antony IV, 3.3; XII 32) or a raging stream (ibid., IV 43; cf. VI 15). → Numenius Apamensis saw Aion as the perpetually present time, as later → Augustine (Conf. XI 11) and → Boethius (Cons. V par. 6) would. → Plotinus was the first to define Aion in strictly non-temporal terms: “that which completes itself in being, in the being of life, which is simultaneously whole and complete and entirely unextended” (III 7 45.3, 36–38). Time is the soul’s mode of life; contrariwise, Aion is that of the intellect (νοῦς/nous) as the locus of ideas. The Gnostic deification of the aion and its incorporation into the Neoplatonic ontological schema aided one another, as in → Proclus (In Timaeum III 13.22; cf. already Plot., ibid., 5. 20). Olympiodorus Philosophus was the first to distinguish αἰώνιος (aiōnios, “supratemporal”) and ἀίδιος (aidios, “ever-enduring”). Against him, Johannes Philoponus emphasized that αἰών is not a point, but has extension (De mundi aeternitate, V 4.114.26f.). E. Degani, Aion da Omero ad Aristotele, 1961 ◆ W. O’Neill, “Time and Eternity in Proclus,” Phron. 7, 1962, 161–165 ◆ W. Beierwaltes, Plotin über Ewigkeit und Zeit, 1967 ◆ S. Sambursky & S. Pines, The Concept of Time in Late Neoplatonism, 1971 ◆ E. Sonderegger, Simplikios, 1982 ◆ R. Brague, Du temps chez Platon et Aristote, 1983 ◆ R. Sorabji, Time, Creation and the Continuum, 1983, ch. 8 ◆ R.B. Onians, The Origins of European Thought, 21988. Rémi Brague

Aja»†ā, Cave Paintings. The 31 Buddhist caves at Aja»†ā are carved into an almost perpendicular cliff of the western Ghāts in Māhāra߆ra, India. From c. 100 to c. 600 bce the façades and interiors of the caves were excavated in imitation of architecture and the forms, internal spaces and figures were sculpted into the rock, adorned, and painted. Different floor plans, as well as the sculpted and painted figures reflect changing emphases in modes of worship and in iconography in → Buddhism (I) as it evolved from non-representation of → Buddha (III) to a multiplicity of Buddha forms. Wall and ceiling paintings are limited and often difficult to discern. They are executed on a dry surface of clay or cow dung and straw covered with gypsum. The earliest are closely related to the carved reliefs on the crossbars of the gateways of Sañchī I → stūpa and limestone reliefs from Amarāvatī. The paintings depict principal incidents in the life of Śākyamuni as well as Jātaka tales, which tell of the previous lives of Buddha. G. Yazdani, Ajanta, 4 vols., 1931–1955 ◆ V.V. Mirashi, “Inscriptions of the Vākātakas,” CII 5, 1963, 82–130 ◆ W. Spink, “Ajanta’s Chronology,” ArsOr 10, 1975, 143–167 ◆ S.L. Weiner, Ajanta, 1977. Sheila L. Weiner

116 Ājīvika, is a heretical sect of → Vedic religion founded in the 6th century bce by Makhali Gosāla, a contemporary of Jina Mahāvīra and perhaps also of Buddha Gautama, in Sāvatthi (modern Maheth in eastern India). Their view of life, as known from the literature of their opponents (Buddhists, Jains, later also Śaivas), apparently regarded fate (Sanskrit niyati) as the driving force in the universe and denied causality, which brought them the animosity of the Buddhists, in particular. The name Ājīvika may mean “monk for a lifetime,” as many mendicants of indefinite religion already called themselves, before Gosāla formed a distinct order of naked and very strict ascetics with the name Ājīvikas after he had wandered seven years with Mahāvīra. There were also Ājīvika nuns, about whom we know nothing. The Ājīvikas found support from business people, in particular, and were sought-after soothsayers. Doctrine: All living beings are accidental products of nature who must experience good fortune and suffering for aeons before their redemption (Sanskrit nirvā»a) as Ājīvika monks. The Ājīvikas apparently conceived nirvā»a as a complete separation of the soul from the material world and from other souls. Human souls were divided into six color classes according to faith and profession. In the course of its cycle of rebirth, each soul must repeat the series in hundreds of thousands of iterations. Much of the cosmological thought of the Ājīvikas is unclear. History: The Ājīvikas flourished in the 4th–2nd centuries bce, especially under emperor → Aśoka (c. 250), in the Ganges valley. Later, they are mentioned almost exclusively by Tamil sources in the south. Divided into two schools, the Ājīvikas united with the Vaiß»ava → Bhakti movement or with the → Digambara Jains c. 1440. A.L. Basham, History and Doctrines of the Ājīvikas, 1951 ◆ P. Dundas, The Jains, 1992, 25f. Willem Bollée

Akathistos Hymn, Gk Ἀκάθιστος ῞Υμνος, “not sitting,” i.e. a song of praise and thanksgiving to the mother of God, sung standing, that lauds the mystery of the incarnation of God. The original Akathistos Hymn contained a proemium and 24 alphabetical strophes that ended alternately with the refrain χαῖρε, νύμϕη ἀνύμϕευτε (chaire, nýmphē anýmpheute) or hΑλληλούïα (Allēlouia). The Akathistos Hymn was apparently composed anonymously in the 5th/6th or 7th century in the Christian East as a kontakion. There is some dispute as to whether it should be attributed to Romanus the Melodist, Sergius of Constantinople, or some other poet. The Akathistos Hymn was originally assigned to the Annunciation of Mary (Mar 25), and also developed a broad influence in the West. In Orthodox churches, the Akathistos Hymn is sung on the morning of the 5th Saturday of Lent, which is devoted to it, by the can-

117 tor and the choir or the congregation. The Akathistos Hymn was portrayed pictorially quite early. It served as a model for additional Slavonic Akathistos hymns and is often sung today. H. Goltz, ed., Akathistos-Hymnus, 1988 ◆ A. Pätzold, Der Akathistos-Hymnus. Die Bilderzyklen in der byzantinischen Wandmalerei des 14. Jahrhunderts, 1989. Johann Schneider

Akbar (Abū l-Fat˙ Jalāl al-Dīn Mu˙ammad, 1542– 1605), the third and probably the most important emperor of the Mughals of southern Asia, expanded the empire and established the autonomy of the Mughal empire over against the Islamic courts. Far-reaching reforms were to produce a cultural and internal domestic integration. In the context of religion the body of teaching was reformed and intended to overcome Islamic orthodoxy and separatist currents. At the court discussions were held with → Jesuits, Hindus (→ Hinduism) and adherents of other religions and denominations on the issue of Islamic law (→ Islam: II, 4). From 1575, the debates led to the announcement of Akbar’s eclectic “divine religion”; in 1579, the enthroned philosopher declared himself the supreme religious authority. His reforms were accompanied by attempts at introducing a new calendar and a new historiography, while translations of Latin, Arabic and Sanskrit texts into Persian – the lingua franca of the Mughal empire – involved more nationals in public service. Thus, the monopoly of orthodox Islamic scholars could be weakened at times. Akbar’s system of patronage promoted rationalism and mysticism, art and architecture. This process of acculturation had its zenith in the Mughal art form, namely a mixture of Persian architecture and Indian elements. It is not clear whether the famous office of translation was an expression of the early enlightenment process of the time, nor why the → Qur’ān was not translated into Persian and why for his cultural policy Akbar did not utilize the printing technology introduced in India (→ Goa) by the Portuguese in 1556. I. Habib, The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1963 ◆ A. alQadir Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh, 1973 ◆ S.A.A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar’s Reign, 1975 ◆ A.R. Khan, Chieftains in the Mughal Empire during the Reign of Akbar, 1977 ◆ H. Mukhia, Historians and Historiography during Akbar’s Reign, 1977 ◆ A. Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, repr. 1978 ◆ A.A. Ali, “Towards an Interpretation of the Mughal Empire,” JRAS, 1978, 38–49 ◆ C.W. Troll, ed., Islam in India, 1982 ◆ A. Fazl, The Akbari Name, repr. 1989. Jamal Malik

Akeldama. Matt 27:1–10 and Acts 1:15–20 (death of → Judas Iscariot) presuppose the existence of an otherwise unattested field which according to Matthew served as a necropolis for foreigners and was called the “Field of Blood” (Aram. ˙aqēl damā; Graecized in Acts 1:19 as Ἁκελδαμάχ/hakeldamách; translated in Matt

Akiba ben Joseph 27:8 as ἀγρὸς αἵματος/agrós haímatos and in Acts 1:19 as χωρίον αἵματος/chōríon haímatos). Matthew and Acts, however, give the designation differing aetiological interpretations. Pilgrimage accounts from Late Antiquity (CChr.SL 175.167, 198) locate this site in the area of the Herodian necropolis in the Valley of Hinnom (Wādī alRabāba; → Jerusalem: VIII) and also mention the presence of a colony of monks and a cemetery for pilgrims. As a result of the contact between → Charlemagne and Hārūn al-Rašīd, a chapel, St. Mary’s, was erected shortly after 809 (destroyed after 1187, no longer extant today) and during the crusades a carnarium for pilgrims was erected over Hellenistic-Herodian tombs (in use until the 19th cent.; ruins still extant). M. Major, Aceldama secondo la tradizione e nella ricerca archeologica, 1979 ◆ K. Bieberstein & H. Bloedhorn, Jerusalem II, 1994, 323–24. Klaus Bieberstein

Akhmatova, Anna (Anna Andreyevna Gorenko, Anna achmatova; Jun 23, 1889 near Odessa, Ukraine – Mar 5, 1966, near Moscow) is generally ranked with the greatest Russian literary figures of the 20th century, alongside B. → Pasternak, Osip Mandelshtam, and Marina Tsvetayeva. She is also considered one of the most significant female lyric poets of world literature. A leading representative of acmeism, which rejected the mysticism and abstraction of symbolism, she was later persecuted by the Communist regime under Stalin. Reserve and clarity characterize her poetry, which focuses on a number of religious and psychological themes: love, religious engagement, loneliness, the poet’s vocation, and especially the nature of the Russian Orthodox faith in the context of personal and political distress. Especially significant are her “Requiem”, “Anno Domini MCMXXI”, and “Poem without a Hero” (“Poema bez Geroya”). Works include: Stichi, perepiska, vospominaniya, iconografiya, 1977 ◆ The Complete Poems of Anna Akhmatova, 1990 ◆ On Akhmatova: R. Reeder, Anna Akhmatova: Poet and Prophet, 1994. Deborah Haynes

Akiba ben Joseph was one of the most important Palestinian rabbinic scholars in the period between the destruction of the second temple (70 ce) and the → Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 ce). His person is surrounded by legends whose historicity can hardly be tested. He is said, for example, to have come from a simple background and turned to study only late in life. He then became the teacher of some of the most important tannaim, including Rabbi Meir. The tradition that he saw a reference to Bar Kokhba in Num 24:7 ( y. Tahan. 4.8.68d) suggests that he may have associated messianic hopes with the Bar Kokhba revolt. Other texts assume that Akiba was imprisoned and executed,

Akindynos, Gregorios possibly in conjunction with the revolt (b. Ber. 61b). He is said to have made a major contribution to the development and systematization of rabbinic → Halakhah, and his teaching traditions appear to have formed one of the foundations of the Mishnah. His name is associated with a hermeneutical method that is said to have differed from that of his contemporary. Rabbi lshmael, assigning an intended meaning to every letter and point of the Masoretic text. Several exegetical works on the Hebrew Bible (halakhic midrashim) are traditionally ascribed to the school of Akiba, but this attribution must be judged an oversimplification. Akiba’s name likewise plays a role in Jewish mystical tradition. L. Finkelstein, Akiba, Scholar, Saint and Martyr, 1936, 21970 ◆ P. Schäfer, “R. Aqiva und Bar Kokhba,’’ in: idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, 1978 ◆ A. Goldberg, “Das Martyrium des Rabbi Aqiva,” FJB 12, 1984, 1–82. Martin Jacobs

Akindynos, Gregorios (b. 1300, Prilep, d. before May, 1348, in exile). Akindynos studied in Pelagonia (Bitola) and → Thessalonica ; he was acquainted with → Palamas and Nicephorus → Gregoras. After meeting with → Barlaam the Calabrian, he mediated between Barlaam and Palamas (1336) with regard to the former’s anti-Latin writings concerning the indemonstrability of revelation. In 1337, after the start of the Palamite controversy, he engaged in another attempt at mediation; the final break came after the synod of 1341, which condemned Akindynos (RAPC 2212). He was ordained deacon and priest in 1344. Akindynos authored two major refutations of the theological theories of Gregory Palamas, with emphasis on the hermeneutics of Scripture and the Fathers. In methodological rigor, Akindynos and Barlaam prove superior to Palamas. Sources: J. Nadal-Cañellas, ed., Gregorii Acindyni Refutationes duae operis G. Palamae cui titulus Dialogus inter Orthodoxum et Barlaamitam, 1995 ◆ On Akindynos: A. Fyrigos, LTK3, IV, 1995, 997f. (bibl.). Gerhard Podskalsky

Akko, seaport in northern Israel. It was first settled in the Early Bronze I period and has been occupied almost continuously since Middle Bronze IIA. It is first mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts; since the time of Thutmoses III (→ Egypt: II) in the Late Bronze period it appears in Egyptian sources and the Amarna letters. At that time the city-state occupied most of the Akko plain. In the Iron I period it collapsed. From Iron II on, it once more became the center of the plain, probably under the control of → Tyre. Asher (→ Tribes of Israel), whose territory included Akko ( Josh 10:30), was unable to take it ( Judg 1:31). According to 1 Kgs 9:11–13, → Solomon gave to Tyre the land of Cabul, including Akko. Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal (→ Mesopotamia II)

118 removed Akko from Tyrian control; in the Achaemenid period, it belonged to Tyre once more. Under Ptolemy II it was renamed Ptolemais (→ Ptolemaic Dynasty). The → Maccabees considered Akko hostile to the Jews (1 Macc 5:15). Paul spent a day there (Acts 21:7). In the Byzantine and medieval period, Akko was a port and the most important coastal base of the crusaders. M. Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1970 ◆ M. Dothan et al., NEAEHL I, 1993, 16–31. Gunnar Lehmann

Akropong. Chief town of the eastern Akan state of Akwapem in southern → Ghana , 40 km north-east of Accra. The people speak Twi and are matrilineal. Akropong is one of the most important centers of mission and cultural history in the country and is an educational seat of Presbyterianism. The town had its first contact with Christianity in 1835, seven years after the arrival of the first Basel missionary (→ Basel Mission) at Christiansborg in the then Gold Coast in 1828. In that year, A. → Riis moved from Christiansborg to Akropong and opened a mission station there. He was also responsible, in 1843, for the arrival of 24 West Indians from Jamaica, who were to help boost the missionary effort. The earliest Basel Mission educational institutions at Akropong were opened between 1837 and 1856 and included the famous Presbyterian Training College and Seminary. The first School for the Blind in all West Africa was established in Akropong in 1943. Also located at Akropong is the Akrofi-Christaller Memorial Centre for Mission Research and Applied Theology. Though retaining its Presbyterian traditions, Akropong, like the rest of Ghanaian society, is confronted with change, diversity and pluralism. N. Smith, The Presbyterian Church of Ghana, 1835–1960, 1966 ◆ H.W. Debrunner, A History of Christianity in Ghana, 1967 ◆ C.K. Graham, The History of Education in Ghana, 1976 ◆ S.K. Odamtten, The Missionary Factor in Ghana’s Development up to the 1880s, 1978. Samuel Gyanfosu

Aksakov, Ivan Sergeyevich (Oct 8, 1823, Nadezhdino – Feb 8, 1886, Moscow), major representative of the “second wave” of Slavophilism. Besides his work as a writer, Aksakov was the editor of several leading Slavophile periodicals and newspapers. He turned against sociological nominalism and viewed the people as an integral organism. As the people’s self-awareness increases, society (intelligence) arises; its most important feature is intellectual creativity, esp. in literature. A.G. Dementyev & E.S. Kalmanovskii, “Vstutipel’naya stat’ya,” in: I.S. Aksakov, ed., Stichotvoreniya i poemy, 1960 ◆ N.I. Cimbaev, Slavyanofil’stvo, 1986. Vladimir Ivanov

Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeyevich (Apr 10, 1817, Novo-Aksakova – Dec 19, 1860, Zacynthus), one of the

119 founders of Slavophilism as a historical ideology, author of several works on Russian history and philology. He also worked as a dramatist, poet, and literary critic, and was especially drawn to the work of G.W.F. → Hegel. Aksakov made a major contribution to the ideology of the Slavophiles through his separation of the spheres of the “land” (people) from those of the state. The state is manifested as the vehicle of “outward justice,” while the “land” is defined by the principle of spiritual and ethical freedom, “inward truth.” H.C. Reichel, Studien zum slawophilen Weltbild, 1966 ◆ W. Goerdt, Russische Philosophie, 1984. Vladimir Ivanov

Alacoque, Marguerite Marie (Aug 22, 1647, Vérosvres, Burgundy – Oct 17, 1690, Paray-le-Monial). Following her father’s early death, her family suffered unjustly at the hands of a relative. In 1671 she joined the Salesian nuns at Paray-le-Monial; she was professed in 1672 and became novice mistress in 1685. Her vision of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, focused on expiation and self-sacrifice, was based on appearances of Christ, esp. between 1673 and 1675. At first this devotion had only a local following, but in the 19th century it was adopted officially by the Roman Catholic Church. She was the wellspring of the characteristic features of the modern cult, such as first Friday devotions to the Heart of Jesus and celebration of the feast of the Heart of Jesus. Besides outlines of her spiritual life, she left letters and an autobiography. She was declared blessed in 1864 and canonized in 1920. Vie et oeuvres de sainte Marguerite-Marie Alacoque, 5th ed., ed. R. Darricau, 3 vols., 1990–1991, 1993 ◆ Sainte Marguerite-Marie et le message de Paray-le-Monial, ed. R. Darricau & B. Peyrous, 1993. Barbara Henze

Aladura, a group of churches that emerged in → Yoruba (→ Nigeria) from the 1920s onwards. It includes the “Christian Apostolic Church” (CAC), “Cherubim and Seraphim” (C&S), “Church of the Lord (Aladura)” (CLA), “Celestial Church of Christ” (CCC), “Evangelical Church of Yahweh,” and their various sub-groups and splinter groups. “Aladura” is etymologically derived from the Yoruba “al adua” (“owners of prayer”). This terminology stems from the members’ proclivity towards prayer and healing activities. A characteristic of the Aladura worldview is the acquisition, retention, and manipulation of spiritual power to conquer the myriad of “evil” forces that populate the world around them. The Aladura churches seem to adapt and continue the traditional religious-cultural matrix under the surface of African Christianity, though they themselves do not locate their beliefs and practices within this realm. The compatibility of their worldview with that of the traditional culture is perhaps indicative of

Alain-Fournier, Henri why they have remained the most pervasive and spontaneous indigenous religious community in Nigeria. Aladura is characterized by both this-worldly and other-worldly orientation. Other common features are the emphasis placed on rituals and visions, charismatic manifestations, the significance of ritual space and time, as well as the use of concrete cult objects and the close orientation toward the charismatic personality of their leaders. In spite of these common features each group has its own religious dynamics. Differences are mainly found in the history of their emergence and in their specific doctrines and rituals. Two patterns of emergence can be distinguished. 1. Groups that started as “egbe adura” (“prayer groups”) within historic traditions soon severed relations with these and established themselves as “independent,” e.g. CAC, C&S, and CLA. 2. Groups that emerged independently following the initiative of a charismatic figure, e.g. the CCC. There has been a growing internationalization among some of these churches as they have used their methods of evangelism to reach out beyond their local networks, and as they have sought affiliation with ecumenical bodies such as the Christian Association of Nigeria, the Organization of African Indigenous Churches and the → World Council of Churches. H.W. Turner, African Independent Church, 1967 ◆ J.D.Y. Peel, Aladura, 1969 ◆ J.A. Omoyajowo, Cherubim & Seraphim, 1982 ◆ R.I.J. Hakket, ed., New Religious Movements in Nigeria, 1987 ◆ A. Adogame, “Celestial Church of Christ,” diss., 1998. Afe Adogame

Alain of Lille, Alanus ab Insulis (1116/30 near Lille – 1202/03 as a → Cistercian in Cîteaux). Alain probably studied in Paris and Chartres around 1140/50 with Gilbert of Poitiers, → Bernhard of Clairvaux, and → Thierry of Chartres. He then taught liberal arts and theology in Paris and Montpellier. On the one hand, he wrote poetical-philosophical pieces such as De planctu naturae and Anticlaudianus de Antirufino portraying his philosophy of nature and ethical views in allegorical form. On the other, his Regulae Theologicae or Regulae caelestis iuris initiated a new type of theology based on the axiomatic methods of geometry and designed to lend to theology itself the methodological rigor of a scientific discipline. G.R. Evans, Alan of Lille, 1983 ◆ M. Aliotta, La dottrina del peccato, 1986 ◆ F. Hudry, Introduction in Alain de Lille, Règles de Théologie, 1995. Reinhold Rieger

Alain-Fournier, Henri, actually Henri-Alban Fournier (Oct 3, 1886, La Chapelle-d’Angillon – Sep 22, 1914, Les Hauts-de-Meuse), French novelist. After two years of military service, he first became a literary columnist and then a private secretary. The theme of his only completed

Alalakh novel, Le Grand Meaulnes (1913), is that in losing one’s innocence one forfeits the right to perfect happiness. He had hardly begun his second novel, Colombe Blanchet, when he went to the front in 1914 and was soon killed in action. His correspondence and his newspaper articles record not only his literary and religious interests but also the cultural life of Paris of the time. Works: Le Grand Meaulnes, 1986 ◆ Chroniques et Critiques, 1991 ◆ Jacques Rivièra & Alain-Fournier: Correspondance 1904–1914, ed. P. de Gaulmyn, 2 vols., 1991 ◆ Lettres à sa famille et à quelques autres, 1991 ◆ On Alain-Fournier: Bulletin des Amis de Jacques Rivière et d’Alain-Fournier 1, 1975ff. ◆ R.D. Gibson, Critical Guide to “Le Grand Mealnes,” 1986. Robert D. Gibson

Alalakh was situated at the location of modern Açana, Arabic Tall al-A†šāne, approx. 20 miles east of Antakya (Turkey). Excavations by Sir Leonard Woolley in 1937–1939 and 1946–1949 uncovered two palaces with archives of clay tablets, among other things. The older one (18th/17th cent. bce) shows mural paintings with Cretan influence; the more recent one (15th cent. bce) has a portico supported by pillars. The settlement of Alalakh originated in the 4th millennium and was a secundogeniture of Jam¢ad/ → Aleppo in the 18th century. At the time of Jarim-Lim I and Ammitakum, Alalakh had extensive scattered farm holdings, administered in the framework of an oikos-economy. 15thcentury texts depict Alalakh as the seat of kings (Idrimi, Niqmepa) who ruled the land of Mukis and were subject to the king of the upper Mesopotamian country of Mitanni (→ Mesopotamia) by an oath of allegiance. After his escape from ›alab/Aleppo and his exile in Canaan, Idrimi of Alalakh was appointed by the king of Mitanni in Alalakh (cf. the cuneiform inscription on his statue discovered in Alalakh [now in the British Museum]). H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrhundert vor unserer Zeitrechnung, vol. I, 1965, 203–257 ◆ M. Dietrich et al., “Untersuchungen zu Statue und Inschrift des Königs Idrimi von Alalaĥ,” UF 13, 1981, 201–269. Horst Klengel

Aland, Kurt (Mar 28, 1915, Berlin – Apr 13, 1994, Münster). For his academic study (1933– 1938), for engagement in the life of the → Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche), editing of the “Junge Kirche”, and for entry to the world of scholarship, Berlin was the right place to be. From H. → Lietzmann, Aland learned the ideal of scholarship, as is documented in his edition of Lietzmann’s correspondence in 1979. He maintained this ideal in scholarly projects (e.g. TLZ, GCS, TU), resisting state control with imagination and integrity. After the Nazi period, Aland became professor of church history and New Testament introduction at Halle (1946) and then, after his official dismissal in 1958, in Münster (1960). He founded the

120 Institute for New Testament Textual Research in 1959 and prepared an improved version of Nestle’s Greek NT, now known as “Aland.” He also made major contributions in patristics, Luther studies, and the study of Pietism. Works: Spener-Studien, 1943 ◆ Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium, 1957, 31970 ◆ Die Säuglingstaufe im Neuen Testament und in der alten Kirche, 1961, 21913 ◆ On Aland: Kurt Aland in memoriam, 1995 (obituaries, bibl.) ◆ E. Mühlenberg, Gn 68, 1996, 92–94. Ekkehard Mühlenberg

Albania I. The predominant religion in Albania is Islam. From 1385 to 1479, the area that is now Albania was part of the Ottoman empire. After an initial period of resistance, large portions of the population converted to Islam, usually to escape the head tax imposed on all non-Muslim subjects and to make it possible to rise in the political and social world. Even after periods of forced Islamization in the 17th and 18th centuries, in many areas Christian beliefs and practices such as baptism, worship of saints, and pilgrimages survived, with the result that various forms of Christian-Islamic syncretism arose. In Albania, more than in other Ottoman provinces, mystical orders spread alongside Sunni Islam. In 1967, about 25% of Albanian Muslims belonged to the Bektashi order. The total prohibition of religion in 1967 included Islam. After 1991, the Islamic religious community was reconstituted. Some confiscated mosques and other property were returned. II. When the Roman Empire was divided in 395, the territory of present-day Albania was assigned to the Eastern Empire. Systematic Christianization of the coastal area began in the 4th century. Slavonic tribes destroyed the Church when they occupied the region around 600. In the centuries that followed, Rome carried on missionary activity in the north, Constantinople in the south. Northern Albania became primarily Catholic, southern Albania Orthodox. Albania was independent in 1913/ 14 and between 1919 and 1939; and again since 1944. In the period between the two World Wars, about 21% of the Albanian population was Orthodox and 11% Roman Catholic. In 1922, the Albanian Orthodox Church unilaterally declared itself autocephalous (→ Autocephaly). This status was not recognized by Constantinople until 1937. When Albania was transformed into a Socialist state in 1946, state and church were separated, religious and ecclesiastical property was nationalized, and the religious communites were subject to large-scale persecution, which culminated in 1967 with a total ban on religion. After the death of Enver Hoxha in 1985, the restrictions on religion were eased. Freedom of religion has been guaranteed since 1991. In 1991, the churches and religious communi-

121 ties had to start all over again. The Orthodox Church is divided into four eparchies: Tirana, Berat, Gjirokastra, and Korce; it is headed by Metropolitan Anastasios Yannoulatos. In 1991, a seminary was opened and the charitable organization Diakonia Agapes (“Service of Love”) was established. The Roman Catholic Church has four dioceses and a theological seminary. There are no statistics regarding religion. It is estimated that about 20% of the population are Orthodox, 13% Roman Catholic, and 65% Sunni Muslims; only some 2% have no religious affiliation. Before the prohibition of religion in 1967, Protestant churches were almost unrepresented in Albania. In 1991, 30 missionary societies began to work, sometimes very aggressively; their missionary activity is vigorously opposed by the traditional religious communities. At present, some 6,000 believers regularly attend the services of evangelical denominations, brought together under the umbrella of the Albanian Evangelical Alliance (VUSH). Institut Glaube in der 2. Welt, Albanien, 1978 ◆ G. Stadtmüller & B. Spuler, TRE II, 1978, 160–167 ◆ K.-D. Grothusen, ed., Albanien, 1993 ◆ P. Bartl, Albanien, 1995 ◆ W. FleischmannBisten, “Länderbericht Albanien,” MdKI 5, 1995, 94–97. Erich Bryner

Alber, Erasmus (c. 1500, Windecken [in modern Nidderau] or Bruchenbrücken [in modern Friedberg] – May 5, 1553, Neubrandenburg ). After attending school in Nidda and Weilburg, Alber studied at Wittenberg in 1520, then (1522–1528) taught in Büdingen, Oberursel, and Eisenach. From 1528 to 1540, he served as pastor in Sprendlingen (modern Dreieich); in 1537, he introduced the Reformation in Brandenburg-Küstrin. In 1541, he became pastor in Brandenburg-Neustadt, and in 1543 in Staden (in modern Florstadt); having received his doctorate in theology from Wittenberg, from 1544 to 1545 he served as pastor in Babenhausen. Afterwards he lived in Wittenberg without a cure. From 1548 to 1551, he was in Magdeburg, then in Lübeck and Hamburg. In 1552, he became superintendent in Neubrandenburg. Alber, a noteworthy stylist and satirist writing in both German and Latin, composed polemics against such figures as → Erasmus (1524), → Osiander (1551), and → Karlstadt (1556); he also wrote fables, hymns, textbooks, and a rhymed dictionary (1540, repr. 1975).

Albert of Brandenburg i.Br. in 1520. In 1521, he began to preach in Reutlingen; from the outset he espoused church reform. Hostility from outside (investigations by the bishop of Constance, interrogation before the imperial authorities at Esslingen early in 1525) solidified the city’s support of Alber (Reutlingen market-place oath around Pentecost, 1524), so that the way remained clear for reforms. In the → Peasants’ War, in the controversy with the → Anabaptists, and later in the controversy over images, Alber played a moderate and mediating role. In spite of the appeals of Zwingli, he supported Luther in the Eucharistic controversy. In 1548, when Reutlingen accepted the → Augsburg Interim , Alber took his leave; in 1549, he became a preacher at the Collegiate Church in Stuttgart and a member of the governing body of the church in the Duchy of Württemberg. In 1563, he became abbot of the reformed monastery at Blaubeuren, the director of its school, and a member of the Württemberg Landtag. Alber is one of the most noteworthy of the city reformers. The form of noneucharistic worship that he introduced was approved by Luther and became the standard order of worship for the Duchy of Württemberg. J. Hartmann, Matthäus Alber, 1863 ◆ J. Volk, “Das Verhör des Reutlinger Reformators Matthäus Alber vor dem Reichsregiment in Eßlingen,” BWKG 30, 1926, 198–249 ◆ H. Ströle, “Matthäus Alber,” SLB 5, 1950, 26–59 ◆ M. Brecht, “Matthäus Albers Theologie,” BWKG 62, 1962, 63–97 ◆ H.-C. Rublack & H. Scheible, “Matthäus Alber als Reformator Reutlingens,” Reutlinger Geschichtsblätter 14, 1976, 44–69 ◆ M. Brecht, “Eine unbekannte Schrift Matthäus Albers,” Reutlinger Geschichtsblätter 27, 1988, 27–30. Hermann Ehmer

Albert of Aachen (Aix). Some textual traditions of the Historia Hierosolymitanae expeditionis (probably contemporary with the events it describes) name an otherwise unknown canonicus Albertus Aquensis ecclesiae as its author. Books 1–6 describe the First → Crusade, including the preliminary People’s Crusade; books 7–11 recount the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem down to 1111. Book 12 briefly sketches events from 1111 to 1119. For his episodic account, the author drew on eyewitness reports and a lost chronicle of Lotharingia (→ Lorraine). Godrey of Bouillon is depicted as the dominating figure of the First Crusade. Of the 13 extant manuscripts, six date from the 12th century.

VD 16, 1, 1, 1983, 206–218 A1468–1565 ◆ H.-J. Köhler, Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, I, 1, 1991, 28f. ◆ E. Körner, Erasmus Alber, QDGR 15, 1910. Heinz Scheible

Edition: P. Meyer, Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens occidentaux IV, 1879, 265–713; Ger. trans.: H. Hefele, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, 2 vols., 1923 ◆ On Albert: P. Knoch, Studien zu Albert von Aachen, 1966. Wilfried Hartmann

Alber, Matthäus, (Dec 4, 1495, Reutlingen – Dec 1, 1570, Blaubeuren), the reformer of Reutlingen. Alber began his studies in 1513 in Tübingen, where Melanchthon was lecturing, and went on to Freiburg

Albert of Brandenburg (Albrecht of Mainz; Jun 28, 1490, Cölln a/d Spree – Sep 24, 1545, Mainz) was cardinal, archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, administrator of Halberstadt, Elector, Lord High Chancellor

Albert of Buxhöveden of the Empire; he was the son of Elector Johann Cicero of Brandenburg (Aug 2, 1455–Jan 4, 1499) and Margaretha of Saxony (d. 1501), and brother of Elector Joachim I Nestor (d. 1535). The Margrave of Brandenburg had no academic formation. He was educated in law and humanism under the influence of bishop Dietrich von Bulow in Lebus. After an Electoral co-regency from 1500 to 1503, he began his spiritual life c. 1505: 1506 tonsure, 1513 ordination as priest; from 1508 he was canon in → Mainz, → Magdeburg and probably also → Trier. In 1508/1509 he aspired to the bishopric of Utrecht. In 1513, he was elected archbishop of Magdeburg and administrator of → Halberstadt; in 1514 he was consecrated bishop, and made postulation for the archbishopric of Mainz, was issued a dispensation for a plurality of bishoprics, and received papal confirmation of the election to the position in Mainz; the necessary servitium and dispensation payments were made by means of a loan from the Fuggers; its repayment via a fifty percent portion of the → indulgence proclaimed in Albert’s area of influence to the benefit of St. Peter in Rome provoked Luther’s protest in 1517 that ignited the Reformation; Albert’s attitude toward the Reformation was ambiguous; by sending the indulgence theses to Rome, he set in motion the proceedings against Luther; influenced by U. von → Hutten, he promoted the vocation of W. → Capito and K. → Hedio as cathedral preachers in Mainz; in the sense of → Erasmus of Rotterdam, he wanted “to cry out” against Luther, expected public restraint of the reformer, did not agree to his request to marry, to connect the archbishopric of Mainz with the Reformation, and to surrender a sanctuary (“Abgott”) in Halle, reacted with restraint to Luther’s vigorous attacks and, until 1541, the year when he finally lost Halle along with the archdiocese of Magdeburg (the Treaty of Calb), he remained rather passive; he supported the Diet of Nuremberg in 1532. Albert sounded important reformational political accents in the archbishopric of Mainz; the Renaissance prince commissioned, as did few others, the great artists of the time, including A. → Dürer, M. → Grünewald, L. → Cranach, Peter Vischer the Elder, Nikolaus Glockendon, and Peter Schro; he did not live to see the opening of the Council of → Trent, on which, after the failure of religious dialogue in 1541, he placed all hopes. F. Jürgensmeier, ed., Das Bistum Mainz: Von der Römerzeit bis zum II. Vatikanischen Konzil, BMKG II, 21989, 174–191 (215– 217 bibl.) ◆ H. Reber, ed., Albert von Brandenburg: Kurfürst – Erzkanzler – Kardinal (1490–1545), 1990 ◆ F. Jürgensmeier, ed., Erzbischof Albert von Brandenburg (1490–1545), BMKG III, 1991. Friedhelm Jürgensmeier

Albert of Buxhöveden (Albert of Riga; 1165/70, Bremen – Jan 17, 1229, Riga), of the ministerial line of Buxhöveden. A Bremen canon and scholaster, he

122 was ordained the 3rd bishop of Livonia in 1199. In 1200 he was the first to sail with a crusader army to the Daugava estuary, where in 1201 he founded the city of → Riga, in which he set the bishop’s seat. The Order of the Brothers of the Sword, which was founded in 1202 as a security for mission work, was under his authority, but his independence soon began to slip. Although Albert achieved recognition as an imperial principality for his bishopric in 1207, and in 1214 → exemption from the archbishopric, and set up the bishopric of Leal in 1210 (moved in 1224 to Dorpat [→ Tartu]) and the bishopric of Ösel-Wiek in 1228, still promotion to archbishop was denied him. Germany’s “last great missionary bishop” (A. Hauck), he was, however, above all the “creator of the strange nature of German church and state rule in Livonia” (R. Wittram). G. Gnegel-Waitschies, Bischof Albrecht von Riga, 1958 ◆ H. v. zur Mühlen, in: G. Pistohlkors, ed., Baltische Länder, Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas 3, 1994, 38–61. Peter Hauptmann

Albert of Prussia (the Elder), Duke of Prussia (May 17, 1490, Ansbach – Mar 20, 1568, Tapiau), third son of Frederick of Brandenburg-Ansbach, of the Frankish line of the Hohenzollern. In 1511, he was chosen to be grand master of the → Teutonic Order. Since the principality had to be restructured, from the outset, Albert sought to free the order from Polish suzerainty. Albert began to support the Reformation and he became a friend of Luther, whose counsel he requested. In 1522, he met A. → Osiander in Nuremberg. In 1523, Luther published his tract An die Herren Deutschen Ordens, in which he urged that the order be secularized. Melanchthon took a similar position. Albert introduced the Reformation in 1525; at the same time, by skillful negotiations, he succeeded in transforming the principality of the Order into a secular duchy. The knights and the Prussian estates agreed, but the imperial order protested and succeeded in having Albert anathematized and (in 1533) banned by the Empire, but the ban was never put into effect. In 1526, Albert married for the first time. A second marriage produced the desired heir to the throne, Johann Albrecht, who, however, was feebleminded and incompetent to reign. During the Schmalkaldic War, Albert supported the → Schmalkaldic League but refrained from military action. In 1544, he founded the University of Königsberg. Prussia was later disrupted by internal Protestant conflicts, provoked by Osiander, who had been called to Königsberg in 1549. His orthodox doctrine of → justification involved him in bitter ecclesiastical politics. After Osiander’s death in 1552, the theological controversies continued, leading to riots that Albert could not bring under control. Georg Sabinus, Melanchthon’s son-in-law and rector of the University

123 of Königsberg, went to Brandenburg to escape strict Lutheran orthodoxy. The tensions were increased by the fact that Albert was influenced in his declining years by his stepson Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg, who sought to claim the throne. Representatives of the church were also in league with the stepson. When tax revenues were misapplied, the estates sought help from Poland, which intervened. The court preacher Johann Funck was executed in 1566. O. Hintze, Die Hohenzollern, 1915 ◆ W. Hubatsch, Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach, Studien zur Geschichte Preußens 8, 1960 ◆ S. Doelzel, Das preußisch-polnische Lehnsverhältnis unter Herzog Albrecht von Preußen, 1967. Gerlinde Strohmaier-Wiederanders

Albert of Saxony (1316, Helmstedt – Aug 8, 1390, Halberstadt), natural philosopher and logician. Albert studied at the University of Paris, where he became Master of Arts in 1351 and Rector in 1353. In 1362, he entered the service of Urban V; in 1365, he became the first rector of the University of Vienna and in 1366 bishop of Halberstadt. While in Paris, he wrote a commentary on the physical and logical works of → Aristotle and a compendium of logic, Perutilis Logica, influenced by William of → Occam, as well as the Sophismata. In natural philosophy and logic, his thought resembles that of Jean → Buridan, Thomas Bradwardine, and Nicholas Oresme. His commentary on Aristotle’s Physics influenced → Leonardo da Vinci, N. → Copernicus, and → Galileo. J. Sarnowsky, Die aristotelisch-scholastische Theorie der Bewegung, 1989 ◆ J. Biard, ed., Itinéraires d’Albert de Saxe, 1991 ◆ C. Kann, Die Eigenschaften der Termini: Eine Untersuchung zur Perutilis Logica, 1994 ◆ Bibl.: A. Muñoz García, BPhM 32, 1990, 161– 190. Reinhold Rieger

Alberti, Leon Battista (Feb 14, 1404, Genoa – Apr 25, 1472, Rome), humanist and architect. From 1432 to 1464, Alberti was a secretary in the papal chancery; he lived in Florence until his death. His reconstruction of the churches of S. Franceso in Rimini (1446–1455), S. Sebastiano in Mantua (1459–1463), and S. Andrea in Mantua (starting in 1472) provided concrete illustrations of his theoretical maxim that architecture must above all follow the canons of solidity ( firmitas), functionality (utilitas), and beauty (venustas). His treatise De re aedificatoria, begun in 1450, appeared posthumously in 1485. Following the model of Vitruvius’s On Architecture, it is a central document of the → Renaissance (III). F. Borsi, Leon Battista Alberti, L’opera completa, 1980 ◆ J. Rykwert & A. Engel, eds., Leon Battista Alberti (exhibition catalogue, Milan), 1994. Richard Hüttel

Albertus Magnus Alberti, Valentin (Dec 15, 1635, Lähn, Silesia – Sep 15, 1697, Leipzig), professor of theology at Leipzig, took a mediating position in the controversy concerning A.H. → Francke in 1689. His stance led to a revival of devotion without institutional changes in the church. He defended the biblical foundations of natural law against representatives of the Enlightenment such as H. → Grotius, S. → Pufendorf, and C. → Thomasius. M. Petzoldt, “Konfessionalisierung als Identitätssuche,” in: H. Baier, ed., Konfessionalisierung vom 16.–19. Jahrhundert: Kirche und Traditionspflege, 1989, 74–76 (bibl.). Martin Petzoldt

Albertini, Johann Baptist von (Feb 17, 1769, Neuwied – Dec 6, 1831, Berthelsdorf) was the descendant of a Graubünden family; in 1782, he attended the paedagogium of the → Bohemian Brethren in Niesky, where he became a friend of F. → Schleiermacher ; in 1785, both were transferred to the theological seminary in Barby. From 1788, he taught at the paedagogium in Niesky/Barby, from 1795 to 1810 at the theological seminary in Niesky, where he was also called to preach after 1804. In 1814, he was ordained bishop, and in 1821 he joined the leadership of the Bohemian Brethren. Albertini was a popular preacher, a diligent pastor, and a gifted hymnodist. He was the director of the Bunzlau Bible Society, and also published botanical studies. Conspectus fungorum in agro Niskyensi, 1805 ◆ E.R. Meyer, Schleiermachers und C.G. Brinkmanns Gang durch die Brüdergemeine, 1905 ◆ H. Renkewitz, RGG3 I, 1957, 216 (bibl.) ◆ F.W. Bautz, BBKL I, 1975, 86 ◆ F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, part 5, vols. I–III (correspondence), 1985–1992 ◆ H. Bintz, “Johann Baptist Albertini,” in: Lebensbilder aus der Brüdergemeinde, 1998. Dietrich Meyer

Albertus Magnus (Albertus Alemanus, Coloniensis, Teutonicus, de Lauing; c. 1200, Lauingen – Nov 15, 1280, Cologne) was from a knightly family (not from Bollstadt). After studies in Padua, where Jordan of Saxony induced him to enter the → Dominican Order in 1223, he spent his novitiate in theological studies in Cologne, took his vows in 1224, and was ordained as priest in 1228. From 1233 on, he taught as lecturer in the monasteries of Hildesheim, Freiburg i. Br., Regensburg, Strasbourg, and Cologne. Afterward, he went to Paris, was Baccalaureus Sententiarum under Master Guéric of St. Quentin in 1243/1244 and became Master of Theology in 1245/1246. In 1248 he returned to Cologne in order to establish the Studium generale of the German provincial order of the OP, in which he taught until 1254 (students: → Thomas Aquinas, → Ulrich of Strasbourg ). From 1254 to 1257, Albert was provincial prior of the German provincial order and found it necessary to take extensive journeys on foot, which also gave him the opportunity to observe

Albertz nature. In 1256, he defended, before the papal Curia in Anagni, the mendicant orders against attacks from theology professors of the clergy (→ Mendicants Dispute). He taught once again in Cologne from 1257 to 1260. In 1259, he became a member of the study commission at the general chapter of Valenciennes, which decided to accept philosophy and natural sciences. Against the wishes of the General of the Order, he became bishop of Regensburg in 1260. As early as 1261/1262, he journeyed to Rome in order to seek release from the office of bishop. Urban IV commissioned him thereafter as legate and Crusade preacher in Germany and Bohemia. After he had concluded this activity in 1264, Albertus resided in Würzburg, Cologne, and Strasbourg. At the Council of Lyon in 1274, he advocated the papal recognition of Rudolf of Habsburg as the German king. Albertus authored writings in almost all the fields of knowledge in his time. He probably wrote the earliest preserved work De natura boni before 1243. In Paris, he prepared primarily theological works in question form, such as De sacramentis, De incarnatione, De resurrectione, De IV coaequaevis, De homine, and De bono. Albertus completed the sentence commentary begun in Paris in Cologne in 1249. A commentary on the writings of Ps.-Dionysius, Areopagita, was likewise begun in Paris and completed in Cologne c. 1250. Then began Albertus’s critical literary treatment of → Aristotle, first in lectures on the Nicomachean Ethics, then in comprehensive paraphrases of all the Aristotelian works available at the time, beginning with the Physics, including the writings concerning cosmology, geology, zoology, botany, and the Metaphysics, and culminating in the pseudo-Aristotelian Liber de causis. Additionally, he wrote commentaries on the Aristotelian Organon, on → Porphyry and on → Boethius. The document, De unitate intellectus, was directed against → Averroes, the commentator. Presumably in the 1260s, Albertus authored commentaries on the biblical prophets, on Job, and on the four Evangelists. Although Albertus was also literarily active as a theologian, the focal point of his interests and his impact lay in his writings on philosophy and natural science. He attempted to communicate to his time a broad knowledge of the world, based on observation of nature, but shaped by literary traditions. He claimed the independence of philosophy from theology. His special contribution to philosophy lies in his comprehensive reception and transmission of the teaching of Aristotle, which he often read with neoplatonic eyes (under the influence of → Avicenna). For Albertus, the object of metaphysics was, accordingly, being as such, not God or the first cause. He explicated the concept of being essentially, so that being appears to be the act of essence. The first principle, God, creates being, whose further unfolding is less creation and more structuring of the created

124 being. Theology, for Albertus, was an affective-practical science, based on the volition of faith and piety. Together with his neoplatonically imprinted philosophy, Albertus thereby influenced German mysticism through Meister → Eckhart, but also → Berthold of Moosburg , → Dietrich of Freiberg , and → Nicholas of Cusa. Albertists gathered together in the 15th century in Cologne, Louvain, and Cracow. Editions: P. Jammy, 21 vols., 1651 ◆ A. Borgnet, 38 vols., 1890–1899 ◆ Critical edition published by the AlbertusMagnus-Institute of Cologne, from 1951 onwards ◆ On Albertus: G. Wieland, Untersuchungen zum Seinsbegriff im Metaphysikkommentar Albertus des Grossen, 1972 ◆ idem, “Albertus der Grosse und die Entwicklung der mittelalterlichen Philosophie,” ZPhF 34, 1980, 590–607 ◆ I. CraemerRuegenberg, Albertus Magnus, 1980 ◆ G. Meyer & A. Zimmermann, eds., Albertus Magnus: Doctor universalis, 1980 ◆ J.A. Weisheipl, ed., Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, 1980 ◆ A. Zimmermann, ed., Albertus der Grosse, seine Zeit, sein Werk, seine Wirkung, 1981 ◆ M. Entrich, ed., Albertus Magnus: Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung, 1982 ◆ B. Thomassen, Metaphysik als Lebensform, 1985 ◆ M.J.F.M. Hoenen & A. de Libera, eds., Albertus Magnus und der Albertismus, 1995. Reinhold Rieger

Albertz 1. Martin (May 7, 1883, Halle/S. – Dec 19, 1956, Berlin) became pastor in Stampen in 1910, director of studies for the Johannesstift in Berlin-Spandau in 1921, superintendent in Soldin in 1928 and in Spandau from 1931 to 1953; he became a member, then chairman of the second Provisional Church Administration (PCA) in 1936; he was imprisoned in 1941–42 and 1944–45; he became professor of reformed theology in Berlin and of NT in the Kirchliche Hochschule in Berlin in 1945; he was a member of the Church Administration in Berlin-Brandenburg; he became moderator of the → Reformed League in 1949. As a forerunner of formcritical investigation of the NT, Albertz sought to demonstrate the unity – despite the variety of form – of the NT message. In 1933, he joined the → Pastors’ Emergency League and assumed prominent offices in the forming → Confessing Church that brought him repeatedly into conflict with organs of the state. Albertz, co-signatory of the PCA’s 1936 memorandum to Hitler and of the 1938 liturgy of prayer in the face of “threatening danger of war,” intervened not least of all for persecuted JewishChristians (memorandum to M. → Meusel). Albertz saw a close relationship between academic work and community, and, consequently, always held a church office. Works include: Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, vols. I–IV, 1947ff. ◆ Die Kirche Jesu Christi und ihre Dienste nach dem Neuen Testament, 1949 ◆ On Albertz: K. Scharf, “Martin Albertz zum 70. Geburtstag, ThViat 5, 1953/1954, 9–20; cf. 434–437 ◆ G. Harder, “Gedenkrede auf D. Martin Albertz,” ThViat 6, 1954–1958, 113–122. Siegfried Hermle

125 2. Heinrich Ernst Friedrich ( Jan 22, 1915, Breslau – May 18, 1993, Bremen) was the half-brother of Martin. In 1937 he became a vicar/pastor in the → Confessing Church, in 1941 a soldier; 1945–1948 he was a refugee pastor in Celle, 1947–1955 Member of the Landestag (SPD) in Niedersachsen; in 1948 he became Minister for Refugees, 1951–1955 Minister for Social Affairs, in 1961 Senator for the Interior in Berlin, in 1996 governing mayor. He retired in 1967. From 1970 to 1979 he was a pastor in Berlin; in 1975 he flew with terrorists as “hostage” to Aden in order to obtain the release of Peter Lorenz; he moved to Bremen in 1986. After his time as “pastor with political responsibility,” Albertz gained a reputation, especially among the youth, as a difficult and uncompromising admonitor, because of his consistent intervention on behalf of the → Peace Movement and the disadvantaged. Whether as preacher, speaker of the “Word for Sunday” on national TV, or speaker at church congresses – Albertz consistently reflected straightforwardly and often with an almost uncompromising morality on the significance of the gospel against the background of the current social and political situation. Works include: Blumen für Stukenbrock: Biographisches, 1981 ◆ Bremer Predigten, 1991 ◆ Die Mauer wird ein grünes Gitter: In Erinnerung an Heinrich Albertz, R. Thoma, ed., 1993 ◆ Bibl.: J. Schuster, Heinrich Albertz: Der Mann, der mehrere Leben lebte, 1997. Siegfried Hermle

Albigenses. Since c. 1180, Albigenses has been an occasional special designation for the → Cathari who appeared in the city of Albi, then employed more generally for all the Cathari in the southern French duchy of Toulouse, esp. since the “Albigensian Crusade” of 1209–1249, which resulted in the reestablishment of the sovereignty of the French king over the Languedoc until 1229. Remnants of the Cathars continued to exist in the Pyrenees until c. 1320, although they were no longer called Albigenses.

Albornoz, Gil (Aegidius) eminentiae), and the immanence of ideas in the divine nous point forward to → Neoplatonism. Previously it was considered certain that this Albinus is identical to Galen, the teacher attested in Smyrna around 150 ce, but this is now disputed. Edition: Alcinoos. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, ed. J. Whittaker, 1990 ◆ Translation: J. Dillon, Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, 1993 ◆ Bibl.: W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, 21964 ◆ H. Dörrie, Platonica Minora, 1976 ◆ J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 1977 ◆ C. Zintzen, ed., Der Mittelplatonismus, 1980. Jens Halfwassen

Albo, Joseph (1360, Soria, Old Castile – c. 1444, Montreal), author of the Sefer ha-Iqqarim (“Book of Principles,” 1485), one of the last major rationalistic works in the Jewish philosophy of medieval Spain. He was a disciple of Hasdai → Crescas, the great philosopher at the turn of the 15th century, and was also influenced by Christian Scholasticism, especially → Thomas Aquinas, and Islamic philosophical works, which he read in Hebrew translation. Albo followed the teachings of Simon ben Zemach Duran (14th cent.). His aim was to supply Jews with answers to the criticisms of Christians, and he participated twice in disputations protecting Jewish beliefs. In response to systematic rationalism he developed, in his work, a philosophy to preserve Jewish commandments and ethics. According to this philosophy there are three principles of faith, namely the existence of God, divine revelation, and reward and punishment, as well as six “beliefs” and eight “roots.” Part of the book is a presentation of religious ethics and it gives an explanation of the rituals and the commandments. Albo’s style is easily accessible, and he was widely read. In the period in which he wrote the crisis of Spanish Judaism was reaching its peak. There were mass conversions, culminating in the expulsion order of 1492. Albo’s theology was to support his co-religionists in their confrontation of these hardships.

P. Belperron, La croisade contre les Albigeois et l’union du Languedoc à la France (1209–1249), 1942 ◆ A. Borst, Die Katharer, 1953. Kurt-Victor Selge

Sources: Buch Ikkarim, M. & L. Schlesinger, 1844 (Ger.) ◆ Sefer ha-’Ikkarim, I. Husik, 5 vols., 1928–1930 (ET) ◆ On Albo: J. Guttmann, MGWJ 52, 1908, 641–672 ◆ idem, MGWJ 53, 1909, 46–79, 199–228 ◆ I. Husik, HUCA 2, 1925, 381–417. Joseph Dan

Albinus (or Alkinoos, as in the mss.), author of the Didaskalikos, a summary of 2nd-century ce school Platonism from the imperial period in the form of a handbook, linking motives of → Platos, Xenocrates and → Aristotle. Central to it is the teaching of the following three principles. (1) The world comes into being by God ordering pre-existent matter according to the pattern of ideas. (2) The ideas are God’s thoughts, in which he conceives of himself as the highest spirit (nous). (3) The major emphasis on God’s transcendence, the methodology of knowing God (via negationis, analogiae,

Albornoz, Gil (Aegidius) Álvarez Carillo de Albornoz (c. 1302, Cuenca – 1367, near Viterbo) has been called the second founder of the Papal States. He was a cardinal, statesman, general, and professor of canon law at Toulouse; in 1338, he became archbishop of → Toledo and thus chancellor of Castile. Albornoz was the papal legate for the crusades against the Saracens, in which he took part personally, and he worked zealously on behalf of church reform. His career as a member of the Curia began when → Clement VI elevated him to cardinal at → Avignon. → Innocent VI appointed this

Albright, William Foxwell brilliant military leader and statesman to be papal legate in Italy. Albornoz accomplished many peaceful missions. In Bologna he founded the renowned Collegio di Spagna, intended to make it easier for Spanish students to study at the university. His law code Liber Constitutionum Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae (also known as the Constitutiones Aegidianae or Constitutions of Aegidius), published in 1357, gave the Papal States their constitution, which remained in force until 1826. It is the basis of his fame as a statesman and lawgiver. P. Sella, ed., Costituzione egidiane dell’anno 1357, 1912 ◆ F. Filippini, Il Cardenal Egidio Albornoz, 1933 ◆ G. Mollat, Les papes d’Avignon, 1949, 212–239 ◆ J. Glenisson & G. Mollat, Gil Albornoz et Androin de la Roche (1357–1367), 1970 ◆ A. Erler, Aegidius Albornoz als Gesetzgeber des Kirchenstaates, 1970 ◆ El cardenal Albornoz y el Colegio de España, ed. E. Verdera Tuells, 3 vols., StAlb 11–13, 1972–1973 ◆ J. Trenchs & C. Dáez, “Catalogo de los fondos del Archivio Albornociano Bologna,” StAlb 35, 1975, 317–340 ◆ Diplomatico del Cardenal Gil Albornoz, ed. E. Sáez et al., vol. I (1351–1353), vol. II (1354– 1356), vol. III (1357–1359), 1976–1995 ◆ J. Beneyto Pérez, El cardenal Albornoz hombre de Iglesia y de Estado en Castilla y en Italia, 1986. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues

Albright, William Foxwell (May 24, 1891, Coquimbo, Chile – Sep 19, 1971, Baltimore), an expert in Middle-Eastern studies and archaeologist, was the director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem in 1920–1935 (from 1959 the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research) and, in 1929–1958, professor of Middle-Eastern languages in Baltimore. Albright was considered the most significant American researcher of Palestine of the 20th century and the founder of biblical archaeology of the AmericanIsraeli orientation. His main interest was the interpretation of the biblical writings in the context of ancient cultures. Albright applied a positivist assumption that the historical reality underlying the biblical traditions needs to be ascertained by means of extra-biblical, i.e. archaeological or epigraphic, finds (“external evidence”). Among the excavations in Palestine led by Albright, that of Tel Bêt Mirsim (1926–1932), southwest of Hebron, was the most significant. Works include: The Archaeology of Palestine and in the Bible, 1932, 31935 ◆ From the Stone Age to Christianity, 1940, 21946 ◆ Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, 31953 ◆ The Archaeology of Palestine, 1949, 31956 ◆ The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment, 1966, 21969 ◆ D.N. Freedman et al., eds., The Published Works of W.F. Albright: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1975. Detlef Jericke

Alchemy I. Alchemy denotes a particular craft knowledge used first of all for transforming metals; however, its goal was not only the perfecting of the material but also of the human being (e.g. healing or immortality). The origins of Western alchemy are found in Antiquity; in the earli-

126 est literary sources (3rd cent. ce) Greek philosophy of nature played as much a part as Hellenistic → astrology, → Gnosis and mythology. Reciprocal contacts and influences between comparable manifestations in Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor, India and China are plausible but difficult to demonstrate in detail. Via Islam knowledge and practices of alchemy reached medieval Europe, as indicated by the etymology, which, however, is not uncontested: Latin alchemia, from Arabic al-kīmīya, which in turn likely goes back to the Greek term χημεία (chēmeía, “converting base metals into gold and silver”). In the current interpretations of alchemist writings various aspects are dominant. Technically, the detailed alchemist knowledge of properties and reactions of substances can be viewed as a precursor of chemistry. The philosophical content of alchemy is related to ways of systematizing reflection and meditation on the cosmos, nature, and the human being, as formulated in the cultural realms of Antiquity, but also of India and China; they have to be seen and understood in these contexts. A psychological interpretation of alchemy, as prescribed by C.J. → Jung, views the material processes as reflecting psychic occurrences. A comparative history-of-religions treatment of the phenomenon has to take all of these aspects into account. In various societies there is clear evidence of experiences with specific and reflected transformations of substances (especially in the realm of metallurgy) that, from the contemporary vantage point, always contain an aspect of “communication” in the framework of different systems of symbols, along with the “technical effect.” Thus, the processes of alchemy become important for economic, political and especially religious associations and developments, both in the external world of nature and society, as well as in the internal realm of emotional experience. Therefore, an interpretation of alchemist processes is wise to distinguish between the aspects of effect and of communication. II. The primary cultural precondition for alchemy is the specialized craftsmanship of metallurgy, as found in civilized cultures from the Fertile Crescent to China. In many places the mastery of metallurgy was of considerable political and economic importance and hence associated with prestige; consequently, the knowledge and skill of experts, which was kept secret (→ Secret Teaching), often resulted in a privileged status. Alchemy as a specific technology developed from the metallurgic practice in general. For the transformation of silver into gold a series of procedural steps were developed, comprising very diverse chemical reactions. Apart from sulfur and mercury, the common elements were various types of acid, arsenic, as well as a number of metals and salts (alum). Elements and processes in the realm of the craft, in keeping with pre-modern concepts of the world, are reflected in other realms of the cosmos. In Mesopotamia and elsewhere

127 associations were made between metals, deities, and planets, similar to those found in the interpretation of omens or in astrology: constellations of events in different realms are conceived in terms of the principle of analogy, and the transformation of metals corresponds with changes in the realms of the cosmos and the gods. Hence the controlled use of technology also implies control of those powers that determine life. Both the purely material processes and the relationships with human realms of life were subjected to systematic philosophical reflection. On the one hand, the classical questions of the philosophy of nature (→ Pre-Socratics, → Plato, and → Aristotle) concerning the elements, original matter and the possibility of changes were pursued further. On the other hand, Gnostic systems of interpretation emerged, adapting doctrines of redemption. Systematics frequently made use of parallels between different systems of classification (black/white/yellow, earth/water/fire, lead/silver/gold, Saturn/Moon/Sun, body/spirit/soul). Analogous processes also occur in Eastern cultures. Until early modernity both the effective and the communicative aspects of alchemy belonged together, even if in Roger Bacon’s reflection of praxis and speculation alchemia practica and alchemia speculativa were quite distinct. Only since the rise of modern chemistry is it appropriate to distinguish between esotericism and natural science. The relationship of practice and speculation assumed different forms and led to the shaping of different sub-cultures, milieus, and secret societies that concerned themselves with the processes of transformation. III. Since the 4th century bce various alchemist topics are attested in China: elixirs of immortality (archaeologically evident in the treatment of corpses) and the production of gold (a theme in literature since the 1st cent. ce) gradually merged with other life-improving concepts and came into the context of the search for cosmic balance. → Yin and yang were seen as powers of the work of alchemy and here, too, it was important to find the “way” (→ Tao). In the context of alchemy one sought to master what takes place in nature (though in much longer periods of time). IV. From early on, in India the skills of metallurgy were linked with techniques of physical control. The interpretation was presented in the framework of both monistic and dualistic philosophical systems; in any case – also in later Hindu and Buddhist concepts – the chemical process of producing “purer” substances corresponds to a process of “finding oneself ” (however this “self ” is conceived, if necessary also as non-self ). As interpretive patterns, sexual polarity and the succession of death and life are common. V. In Western Antiquity alchemy has its roots in such techniques as dyeing and alloying, which were practiced especially in the Hellenistic temple work-

Alchemy shops in Egypt and there probably came into the vortex of religious interpretation and speculation in the first centuries ce. → Hermes Trismegistus is the legendary founder. The tabula smaragdina attributed to him was commented on in numerous writings in Late Antiquity, the so-called Hermetic literature (2nd/3rd cent.), in which the commentators themselves most likely did not undertake any experiments. The basic idea was a process of transformation (opus magnum), the tracing back of the treated substances to the original matter (materia prima), which then was gradually to be enriched again with the respective qualities until they developed into silver and ultimately gold. The initiate attempted to accelerate the process of maturing, in analogy to the natural event, by applying alchemist recipes. According to the fundamental principle of interpretation of correspondence between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the material and cosmic changes can be paralleled with human perfection. Historical representatives of ancient alchemy are difficult to identify; the first relatively clear figure is Zosimos of Panopolis, who is referred to in neoplatonic contexts in the 4th century. VI. From Late Antiquity, alchemy moved into the cultural realm of Islam. Islamic alchemy is generally notable for promping new gains in of experimental knowledge. The reception of Aristotle led to innovative systematizations. The historically elusive Guābir ibn Óayyān was inspired by Islamic mysticism. He is credited with numerous highly effective writings; his sulfurmercury theory on the transformation of the metals was maintained until → Paracelsus. Equally influential was Abū Bakr ar Rāzī (Lat. Rhazes, 865–925) on account of his writings, relevant mostly for the medical realm. VII. From the 12th century on, Arab alchemist literature was translated into Latin and thus became relevant for the Christian Middle Ages. Initially, the experimental character was maintained. Alchemist connections with the craft were maintained mainly in the areas of coloring glass, stones, and clothes, as well as in coinage. In the medical context, alchemist collections of recipes and treatments played a major part. From the late medieval period and especially in the heyday of European alchemy during the Renaissance, mystical and symbolic literature, with speculations detached from the experimental realm, increased. On the other hand, alchemy became popular. From 1500 to 1600, the number of new alchemist publications showed a twenty-fold increase, only to diminish again to the level of 1500 by the year 1800. Now experiments were increasingly not only carried out in the monastery or at court (from the 16th cent.) but also by lay people, often by peasants, with the result that they often encountered financial ruin. These social consequences led to increased criticism of alchemy. Already

Alcimus among Islamic scholars the effectiveness of alchemy (→ Avicenna) was critiqued. Prohibitions of alchemy, however, issued on several occasions (e.g. by → John XXII, in 1317, but also by → Diocletian already in 296 ce), mainly targeted counterfeiting. Only on rare occasions did the church suspect alchemy of heresy. In popular religion harmonization with Christian teaching was predominant. Thus, in the Book of the Holy Trinity (c. 1415) an analogy was established between the alchemist process and the passion of Christ: “God himself has sent you all of these medicines which he himself has made by his holy suffering . . . Know, therefore, that this book is God’s new gift from heaven’s kingdom” (Ploss et al., 166). Under the influence of neoplatonic philosophy of the Renaissance the development of mystically inspired circles spread, together with the respective literature (V. → Weigel, J. → Böhme, J.V. → Andreae), which were organized outside the churches in secret societies of enigmatic character (e.g. → Rosicrucians). Arcane language techniques and forms of social isolation eventually led to marginalization. Scientific chemistry, which originated the 17th century, continued to make use of alchemist experimental experience for decades, whereas the aspects of natural philosophy and mysticism were curtailed. However, the process of differentiation was by no means as straight-forward as it appears from the modern perspective. Numerous natural scientists were acquainted with alchemy and on the whole did not oppose it (I. → Newton), and also for J.W. von → Goethe alchemy played an important part (Faust II). C.G. Jung, “Psychologie und Alchemie,” GW 12, 1944 ◆ M. Eliade, Schmiede und Alchemisten, 1960 ◆ E.E. Ploss, et al., Alchimia, 1970 ◆ H. Biedermann, Materia Prima, 1973 ◆ A. Prichard, Alchemy, 1980 (bibl.) ◆ C. Meinel, Die Alchemie in der europäischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 1986 ◆ C. Kren, Alchemy in Europe, 1990 ◆ Z.R.W.M. von Martels, ed., Alchemy Revisited, 1990 ◆ B.J.T. Dobbs, The Janus Faces of Genius, 1991 ◆ H. Gebelein, Alchemie, 1991 ◆ P. Rattansi & A. Clericuzio, ed., Alchemy and Chemistry in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 1994 ◆ art. “Alchemy I–V,” in W.J. Hanegraaff, ed., Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, I, 2005, 12–58. Ansgar Jödicke

Alcimus → High Priest Alcohol / Prohibition I. History of Religions – II. Practical Theology

I. History of Religions The word “alcohol,” from Arab. al-kuhl (“fine powder”), originally referred to eye makeup; later it came to mean “invisible substance in a beverage.” The process of making alcohol from sugar or starch has been known for thousands of years. Yeast and warmth trigger the process of fermentation. The first alcoholic beverages were probably beer (made from grain), mead (from honey),

128 and wine (from grapes). The earliest are found in the high civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt, where alcoholic beverages, as well as intoxication and drunkards, are mentioned 4000–5000 years ago. In most civilizations, religious rites have used alcoholic beverages as sacrificial offerings and libations. Wine often served as a life-giving symbol for blood. In the ancient Near East, wine also symbolized fellowship, success, and fertility. This provides the background for the use of wine in the Christian → Eucharist (I, II). In ancient Israel and Judaism, wine was a central element in the celebration of the Sabbath and Passover. The OT speaks of wine as a sign of blessing (but cf. Gen 9) and mentions three kinds of abstinence: temporary abstinence on the part of priests before offering sacrifice (Lev 10), the abstinence of the → Nazirites (Num 6), and the avoidance of wine by the Rechabites ( Jer 35). Wine was also used for medicinal purposes (Luke 10:34; 1 Tim 5:23). Christianity adopted Judaism’s generally positive attitude toward wine. The art of distillation, probably invented by the Chinese, was brought to Europe by the Muslims. Stronger liquors were produced, usually for medicinal purposes. The struggle for sobriety can be traced through Christian history. Pietistic → revival movements in particular counsel abstinence. The Qur’ān calls the drinking of wine reprehensible, along with games of chance (→ gambling ). But since wine also appears as a token of life’s blessings, especially in descriptions of paradise, → Mu˙ammad does not condemn intoxicating beverages totally. The hadiths, however, totally reject the use of alcohol, as do most present-day Muslims. Early Hinduism extols Soma, a beverage that can also be understood as a god. Soma (known to the Persians as Haoma), drunk primarily by priests, may have been a kind of mead or beer, or possibly a hallucinogen; it had sacramental significance. → Buddhism (I) and → Jainism display a reserved attitude. In China and Japan, at least, total abstinence was not promoted. K. Kircher, Die sakrale Bedeutung des Weines im Altertum, 1910, repr. 1970 ◆ R. Gelpke, Vom Rausch im Orient und Okzident, 1966 ◆ R.G. Wasson, Soma, 1968 ◆ M. Broshi, “Wine in Palestine,” The Israel Museum Journal 3, 1984 ◆ H. Rydving, Rus & rit, 1996. Nils G. Holm

II. Practical Theology The use of alcohol in modern industrial societies has been influenced substantially by three developments: the failure of prohibition in the USA, study and definition of alcoholism as a disease, and modern consumer society. As a result, today the use of alcohol is legal and commonly accepted. Hardly anyone feels vulnerable to alcohol addiction. Therefore, the former idea of the temperance associations (e.g. Blue Cross, Good Templars)

129 to provide a social model through abstinence and thus protect others from the dangers of alcohol is no longer persuasive. Today, prohibition of alcohol or restriction of alcohol consumption is based on objective needs such as traffic and occupational safety. The negative consequences of this liberalization include a tendency to minimize the dangers of alcohol as a drug, to justify many prejudices about “alcoholics,” and to relegate the problem to the appropriate specialists and organizations. Stimulated by → Alcoholics Anonymous, Elvin M. Jellinek studied various forms of alcoholism. Negative physiological effects potentiate in addictive illnesses characterized by loss of control; they become progressively more severe and, if their course is not interrupted, end in death. Alcoholism in this latter sense is a multifactorial disease; the factors are individual and social, physiological and psychological. Everyone is vulnerable, since there is no profile conclusively identifying someone who will become addicted. It has been estimated that 5% or more of the population is alcohol dependent. Alcohol dependency is an irreversible disease that demands a decision for lifelong abstinence. Echoing society as a whole, alcohol pervades the life of the Christian community. A proposal made by Howard J. Clinebell is therefore worth considering: to establish within every parish council a team of specialists (perhaps under the social outreach committee) responsible for framing a policy on the use of alcohol within the church community. Many believe that alcohol is required for celebration of the Eucharist. So as not to exclude people with alcohol problems, many parishes today offer grape juice as an alternative to wine. The spontaneous use of alcohol as a medium of communication plays a multifaceted role in the life of the Christian community: during pastoral visits or parish celebrations, as a birthday gift, after church, during meetings, etc. The use and prohibition of alcohol is a particularly sensitive question in → confirmation classes and → youth work. Therefore, Christian education, which teaches people how to live, must help them learn how to deal with alcohol and other drugs. Such instruction must include both theory and practice, for example celebrating festive occasions without alcoholic beverages. Close contact with self-help groups and counseling centers is also helpful. In recent years, a new understanding of the Lent fast has led many to abstain from alcohol during these weeks as a spiritual discipline and an act of Christian charity, but also to determine whether alcohol has taken on undue importance in their lives. H.J. Clinebell, Understanding and Counseling the Alcoholic, 1968 ◆ M. Josuttis & H.C. Leuner, eds., Religion und die Droge, 1972 ◆ H. Harsch, Hilfe für Alkoholiker und andere Drogenabhängige, 91993. Helmut Harsch

Aldhelm (Saint) Alcoholics Anonymous is “a community of men and women” encouraging one another and others to recover from alcoholism (→ Alcohol/Prohibition: II). It was founded in 1935 in Akron, OH, by William Griffith Wilson and Robert Holbrook Smith. Their basic principles are acknowledgment of helplessness on the part of an individual, the decision to surrender one’s life to “the care of God, however we understand him,” Edward H. McKinley and anonymity. (Blue Cross). Alcuin (Alchvine, Albinus; called Flaccus in the court of Charlemagne; 735/740, Northumbria – May 19, 804, Tours). Educated in the cathedral school in → York, he became its leader in 778. In 781, he met → Charlemagne in Italy. Until 796, Alcuin was his most important advisor on questions of theology and science. He formulated the Admonitio generalis of 789. Charlemagne transferred to Alcuin a whole series of important and wealthy monasteries, including St. Martin in Tours. Here, Alcuin spent the final years of his life. We know Alcuin’s personal interests and sometimes even his attitudes from his approx. 300 letters. His preserved poetic works are the most extensive from the Carolingian period; here, too, there are unusually personal statements concerning friends and students. Alcuin’s academic output is extensive and multi-faceted, even though, in recent years, his authorship of a few works has been rejected (e.g. a revision of the biblical text that exceeds the orthographic norm, or the authorship of the → Libri Carolini). There remain: dogmatic writings on the dispute concerning → adoptionism and Trinitarian theology (esp. the Libellus e fide trinitatis dedicated to Charlemagne in 802); Bible commentaries; liturgical texts; hagiographical works (esp. Vita Willibrordi); and didactic writings. They are mostly composed as dialogues and treat subjects of the trivium, grammar, orthography, rhetoric, and dialectics, as well as music (not preserved). As the numerous 9th and 10th-century manuscripts indicate, many of these works enjoyed great success. Even more important was Alcuin’s impact as a teacher: he brought a number of his students with him from England. His Frankish students include the important scholars → Einhard and → Rabanus Maurus. Works: PL 100–101 Letters: MGH.Ep. 4 Poems: MGH.PL 1, 160–351 ◆ On Alkuin: F. Brunhölzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 1975, 268–286 ◆ W. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, vol. III, 1991, 113–182. Wilfried Hartmann

Aldhelm (Saint) (c. 639–709). Aldhelm was of noble birth with family ties to the royal house of Wessex. He was educated initially at the abbey of Malmesbury by Iren Maíldub, later at → Canterbury by the Roman and Anglo-Saxon → Benedictines under → Theodore and

Aldrich, Henry

130

Hadrian. Aldhelm was a champion of Roman Catholic Christianity (672 letters to king Geraint and the bishops of Domnonia on such topics as the date of Easter). In 672 or 673, he became the abbot of Malmesbury. He built several churches in Wessex, and in 705 became the first bishop of the newly established diocese of Sherborne, the western portion of the old diocese of Wessex. Aldhelm’s Latin works include his Epistolae, Carmina ecclesiastica, Epistola ad Acircium, two treatises on metrics, a collection of 100 riddles in hexameters, and the treatise De virginitate. L. Bönhoff, Aldhelm von Malmesbury, 1894 ◆ Aldhelmi opera, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH.AA 15, 1919 ◆ J. Fowler, Saint Aldhelm, 1947 ◆ M. Winterbottom, “Aldhelm’s Prose Style and Its Origins,” Anglo-Saxon England 6, 1977, 39–76 ◆ A. Orchard, The Poetic Art of Aldhelm, 1994. Jörg O. Fichte

Aldrich, Henry (1647, Westminster – Dec 14, 1710, Oxford), Anglican theologian, educated at Christ Church College, Oxford. He became canon of Christ Church in 1682, where he also received the D.D. in 1682. In 1689, he was made dean of Christ Church, where he served until his death. In 1691 he was appointed to the ecclesiastical commission established to review the liturgy in view of reconciliation with the → Dissenters. He became vice-chancellor of Oxford in 1692. Author of a long-used textbook on logic (1691), he was also a noted architect. Among the buildings he designed are the Peckwater Quadrangle in Oxford, the chapel at Trinity College, Oxford, and All Saints Church, Oxford. A musician, he adapted a number of Italian anthems for use in England. W. Hiscock, Aldrich of Christ Church, 1960.

Robert Cornwall

Aleander, Girolamo (Feb 13, 1480, Motta di Livenza, Friaul – Feb 1, 1542, Rome), the son of a physician, was educated in Motta, Prodenone, Venice, and Padua; early on he learned Greek in addition to Latin; he also studied Aramaic and Syriac. In humanistic circles, Aleander was well-known and respected. → Erasmus paved the way to France for him in 1508. In 1514, he went to Liège, and in 1516 to Rome where he became the papal librarian in 1519. → Leo X sent him to Germany in 1520 to distribute the Bull threatening Luther with excommunication. At the Diet of Worms in 1520/1521, Aleander attempted to hinder the interrogation of Luther; on the commission of Emperor → Charles V, he drafted the Edict of Worms. Having returned to Rome, → Hadrian VI confirmed him as librarian. → Clement VII enlisted him once again for diplomatic duties: from 1524 to 1526 he was nuncio at the French court, in 1531/1532 in Germany, 1533– 1535 in Venice, and 1538/1539 once again in Germany. In 1524, he became archbishop of Brindisi, but he was

rarely present there. In 1538, he became cardinal and was regarded as an expert on councils and Germany. He spoke out against any accommodation with the Protestants. More important than a few humanistic works from his early life was his collection of contemporaneous sources, which, together with his reports as nuncio, are instructive for Reformation history. As a faithful servant of the pope, he was the executive organ of a policy he fully endorsed. T. Brieger, Aleander und Luther 1521, 1884 ◆ NBD I/3–4, 1893 ◆ NBD I/ 1 and 2 supp. vol., 1963 and 1969 ◆ G. Müller, “Aleandro, Girolamo,” TRE II, 1978, 227–231 (bibl.) ◆ idem, Causa Reformationis, 1989, 237–303 ◆ A. Godin, “Erasme, Aléandre: une étrange familiarité,” THR 239, 1990, 249–274. Gerhard Müller

Aleijadinho (Antônio Francisco Lisboa; 1730, Vila Rica, now Ouro Preto – 1814, Vila Rica), “little cripple,” was the nickname of the son of the Portuguese architect Manuel Francisco Lisboa and an African slave. Freed by his father at birth, he studied architecture and sculpture with him. Leprous since 1777, he still worked on the church of the pilgrimage site, Congonhas do Campo, Senhor do Bom Jesus de Matosinhos. He carved 66 figures of a way of the cross in rose cedar wood and twelve prophets in soapstone. Additional works in the province of Minas Gerais made Alejadinho the most important representative of Brazilian baroque. He died poor, alone, and abandoned. M.A.R. de Oliveira, Alejadinho, 1985 ◆ P.K.C. Mourão, As Igrejas Setecentistas de Minas, 21986 ◆ W. de A. Barbosa, O Alejadinho de Vila Rica, 1988 ◆ M. Jardim, O Alejadinho, 1995. Martin N. Dreher

Aleksei (1293, Moscow – Feb 12, 1378, Moscow), Metropolitan of Moscow, was a monk in the Epiphany monastery in Moscow at the age of 20 and was already involved in the administration of the Russian Metropolitanate at the age of 26. His appointment as “Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia” was by his Greek predecessor, Feognost, in 1353 in Constantinople, where he had to spend an entire year before assuming office in 1355. Although Vladimir was his official see, he nonetheless resided in Moscow in order to guide the affairs of state as advisor to the Grand Princes. For their sake, he also exercised his spiritual authority in relation to lesser princes. He was, indeed, unable to hinder Constantinople, under pressure from Lithuania, from instituting a Metropolitan with the same title but with its actual residence in Kiev. Nonetheless, he rendered it insignificant by means of the weight of his superior contributions in the ecclesio-cultural as well as political realms. S.A. Zenkovsky, “Alexis,” in: P.D. Steeves, ed., The Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union, vol. I, 1988, 146–151 (bibl.). Peter Hauptmann

131 Aleksei I (Simanski; Oct 27, 1877, Moscow – Apr 17, 1970, Moscow), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Born to an aristocratic family, Aleksei studied law and theology in Moscow. In 1913, he became bishop of Tikhvin, in 1926 archbishop of Chutyn (Novgorod), and in 1922 metropolitan of Leningrad (St. Petersburg ), where he also performed pastoral duties during the siege. Loyal to the Soviet state, he strengthened the Orthodox congregations after 1943 and tried to keep them alive despite the persecution that extended from 1958 to 1963 (against which he protested publicly in 1960). He promoted relationships with the Orthodox churches in the Near East (1945ff.), cooperation in the Panorthodox Conferences (1961ff.), membership in the → World Council of Churches (1961), and contacts with the Roman Catholic Church (1962ff.), despite the dissolution of the union of Brest in 1946 (→ Unions, Church). He made the Orthodox Church in America autocephalous (→ Autocephaly) in 1970. The so-called Arnoldshain conversations (1959ff.), involving the Evangelical Church in Germany, began under his leadership. Works include: Slova, rechi, poslaniia, obrashcheniia, doklady, stat’i, 1948–1954 ◆ SOrth, 1961– ◆ ZMP, 1931– ◆ On Aleksei I: M. Lemeshevskii, Die russsischen orthodoxen Bischöfe von 1893 bis 1965, 1979 ◆ D. Pospelovskii, Russkaiia pravoslavnaia tserkov’ v XX veke, 1995. Günther Schulz

Alemanni. When the Romans abandoned the Decumat region secured by the Upper German-Raetian Limes and withdrew behind the “wet” border of the Rhine, the Iller and the Danube in the 2nd half of the 3rd century, German bands whom the Romans called Alemanni – first attested with certainty in 289 – moved into the abandoned territory. The ethnogenesis of the Alemanni is disputed. For the time being, the dominant viewpoint, with some justification, is that the settlers, coming from central Germany and belonging to the Germanic culture of the Elbe region, first became Alemanni in the process described as an “occupation.” Toward the end of the 5th century, the Alemanni came into conflict with the → Franks. The Alemanni lost and their territory was incorporated into the → Merovingian Kingdom. Only now could the Alemanni borders drawn by the Franks develop gradually into tribal, cultural and linguistic boundaries. Large-scale Christianization began only in the 7th century. Initially, the Merovingian Alemanni seem to have been subject to a duke (dux). From the middle of the 7th century, these dukes seem to have been able to gain independent status. Around 700, they had a center of government in Cannstatt. The military campaigns of the → Carolingians ultimately led to the complete incorporation of Alemannia into the Franconian kingdom around 746. Around the turn from

Aleppo the 9th to the 10th centuries, the collapse of Carolingian rule led to the formation of the so-called “later tribal duchies” including Alemannia or Swabia (Schwaben). The Alemanni were absorbed into the German Empire that began to develop in the 10th century. Its developing territorial structures soon left no room for the names Alemanni and Alemannia. In their place appeared the name Swabia, which had already been employed synonymously in the 6th century, but which acquired a different meaning in the High Middle Ages. J.P. → Hebel first revived the name Alemanni, but with a new meaning. D. Geuenich, Geschichte der Alemanni, 1997 ◆ Die Alemanni, Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, 31998. Sönke Lorenz

Alemano, Yohanan ben Isaac (c. 1435, Florence – c. 1504), one of the most important kabbalists, philosophers, and educators in the Jewish community in Italy in the second half of the 15th century. He was an important source of → Kabbalah for his contemporary → Pico della Mirandola , thus having great influence on the development of the Christian kabbalah of that period. He was raised in Florence, where he spent most of his life, but also lived in Mantua and other cities. Part of his printed work is his commentary on the Song of Songs, Heshek Shlomo (“Solomon’s Desire”), published as Sha’ar ha-Heshek (“The Gate of Desire”), in Leghorn 1790 and Halberstadt c. 1862. His commentary on the Torah, Eyney ha-Eda (“The Eyes of the Congregation”), is found, in whole and in part, in several mss. Another work of his, Hai Olamim (“Eternally Alive”), is a quest for eternal truth, love and communion with God. Alemano linked neoplatonic Renaissance philosophy with kabbalistic traditions, magic, and esoteric science; his main ambition was to acquire the love of God. His works include a detailed presentation of the hierarchies within the sciences and disciplines, and suggestions concerning education. U. Cassuto, Gli Ebrei e Firenze, 1918 ◆ G. Scholem, “An Unknown Treatise by Yohanan Alemano,” QS 5, 1928, 273–277; Heb. ◆ M. Idel, “Alemano’s Order of Study,” Tarb. 48, 1978, 303–331; Heb. Joseph Dan

Aleppo, a city in northern Syria near Antioch. A Bishop Eustathios already took part in the Council of → Nicea when the bishopric was dependent on the Antiochene Patriarchate; Aleppo was later elevated to an autocephalous (→ Autocephaly) archbishopric and belonged to the church province of Syria prima. A Jacobite hierarchy, whose most famous representative was → Bar Hebraeus, can be identified from c. 543 onward. From the 12th century on, Armenians also lived there. Byzantine troups re-conquered Aleppo in 962. From the 18th century, a → Maronite and a united hierarchy existed in Aleppo.

Alesius, Alexander C. Karalevsky & F. Tournebize, “Alep,” DHGE II, 1914, 101– 128 ◆ G. Fedalto, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, vol. II, 1988, 693–699. Christian Hannick

Alesius, Alexander (Alane) (Apr 23, 1500, Edinburgh – Mar 17, 1565, Leipzig ) was canon in St. Andrews; imprisoned in 1529 for criticizing the church, he fled to the mainland; he became a lecturer in Wittenberg in 1533. In 1535, Alesius went to Reformation-friendly England, but had once again to flee in 1539 because he married. In 1540, he became professor of theology in Frankfurt/O. and participated in the religious dialogues at Worms on behalf of Kurbrandenburg. From 1542 onward, he taught theology in Leipzig. His Bible commentaries and textbooks reflect the tradition-boundedness of Reformation doctrine. VD 16, 1, 1, 1983, 241–244 A1721–1746 ◆ E. Siegmund-Schulze, TRE II, 1978, 231–235 ◆ G. Wartenberg, EncR I, 1996, 18f. Heinz Scheible

Alethophiles (“Friends of Truth”). In 1736, Ernst Christoph Graf von Manteuffel, sometime cabinet minister of Saxony, J.G. → Reinbeck, provost of Berlin, and Ambrosius Haude, a bookseller, founded the Societas Alethophilorum in Berlin. There were soon daughter societies, especially in the territory of Saxony (including Weissenfels, Leipzig, and Niederlausitz). The society’s goal was to popularize Wolffian philosophy. Its members pledged to recognize as true only what they had sufficient grounds to believe. Their medallion depicts a Janus-head of Leibniz and Wolff, surrounded by a motto from Horace: Sapere aude, “Dare to be wise.” The society sought its members primarily among theologians; Johann Christoph Gottsched was recruited in 1738 on account of his influence on homiletic theory. The Alethophiles are a typical example of an early 18th-century learned society and at the same time a mark of the heightened reputation of C. → Wolff after 1730 under Friedrich Wilhelm I. A. Harnack, Geschichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, vol. I, 1900 ◆ H. Reinalter, ed., Aufklärungsgesellschaften, 1993 (bibl.). Albrecht Beutel

Alexander III, Pope (Sep 7, 1159 – Aug 30, 1181). Born as Rolando Bandinelli c. 1105 in Siena, he received his Master of Theology in Bologna; summoned to Rome by → Eugenius III, he became cardinal in 1150 and chancellor of the Roman Church in 1153; in 1157, he was the legate of Hadrian IV to the Diet of Besançon where, against vigorous protest by the German princes, he characterized the Imperium as a papal fief. He was tumultuously chosen pope by a majority of cardinals in 1159, while the minority, partial to the emperor, elevated Victor IV, who was recognized by → Frederick I Barbarossa at the Council of Pavia in 1160. The strug-

132 gle between emperor and pope affected all of Europe; Sicily, England, and France – to which he withdrew in 1162 – sided with Alexander, as did the Lombardian League which opposed the imperial right to rule and founded the city of Alessandria, named after Alexander, in 1168. The conflict ended in 1177 with the Peace of Venice, which opened the way to Rome for Alexander. With broad participation, the Third → Lateran Council took place in 1179. It issued a Decretal Concerning the Election of the Pope, linking the election of the pope to a two-thirds majority, as well as canons for the establishment of cathedral schools and for combatting heretics. Alexander, the first important lawyer-pope, issued a flood of legal decisions (→ Decretals) in the Western church. Canonistic and theological writings are probably falsely attributed to him. J. Ehlers, TRE II, 1978, 237–241 ◆ L. Falkenstein, “Alexander et Henri de France,” in: L’Église de France et la papauté, 1993, 103–176 ◆ J. Laudage, Alexander und Friedrich Barbarossa, 1997. Tilmann Schmidt

Alexander VI, Pope (Aug 11, 1492 – Aug 18, 1503). Born as Rodrigo de Borja/Borgia in 1430/1432 near Valencia, he was appointed cardinal in 1456 by his uncle → Callistus III, and vice-chancellor of the Vatican in 1457. The adroit canon lawyer held this office for 35 years under five popes. Initially, his un-canonical lifestyle – while still a cardinal, he held an official celebration for the marriage of a daughter – was not considered particularly objectionable in the Rome of his time. He prevailed in the papal election of 1492 as a compromise candidate: he was politically neutral and had demonstrated administrative capabilities. His promise to distribute vast benefices among his electors tipped the scales. Although he was able, as pope, to support efforts to reform the church, he simultaneously conducted an extended policy of → nepotism in favor of his children, with whom he lived openly. He opposed, with a league, the campaign of conquest mounted by Charles VIII of France against Italy in 1494 in order to keep European powers out of unstable Italian affairs. Florence refused to participate in the league under the influence of → Savonarola, who was therefore, after a long delay, excommunicated and executed. In league with France, Alexander later subjugated the rebellious barons and cities of the church state in order to create duchies for his children from these territories, especially for Cesare Borgia. The pope, significant as a patron, who also had the newly-discovered lands at his disposal, was not, in fact, the monster of later legends; yet, the decline of the papacy is especially evident in him. S. Schüller-Piroli, Die Borgia-Päpste, 1980 ◆ M. HermannRöttgen, Die Familie Borgia, 1992 (bibl.). Joachim Weinhardt

133

Alexander Nevski

Alexander VII, Pope (Apr 7, 1655 – May 22, 1667). Born as Fabio Chigi on Feb 13, 1599 in Siena, he was, following philosophical, legal, and theological studies in Siena (1626 Dr. Theol.), in papal service from 1628 onward: 1629–1634, vice-legate in Ferrara; 1635– 1639, Inquisitor and Apostolic Legate in Malta (1634, ordination to the priesthood; 1635, bishop of Nardò); 1639–1651, Nuncio in Cologne; from 1643 also the Extraordinary Nuncio at the Peace Congress in Münster (Peace of → Westphalia). As cardinal and secretary of state from 1652, Alexander was elected pope as the compromise candidate after an 80-day conclave. Alexander proved to be inadequate for the political demands of his office. Humiliated by France, openly disavowed by Spain and the king of Portugal, even his efforts to form a league of the European powers to ward off the Turkish threat were unsuccessful. The official acceptance of the abdicated Queen → Christina of Sweden into the Catholic Church (Dec 24, 1655) occurred during his papacy; Alexander gave her an ostentatious reception.

Alexander, Archibald (Apr 17, 1772, Rockbridge County, VA – Oct 22, 1851, Princeton, NJ), Presbyterian pastor, educator, and theologian. After his post as president of Hampden-Sydney College (1796–1807) and pastor in Philadelphia (1807–1812) Alexander became the first professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (→ Princeton) in 1812, and laid the foundations for “Princeton Theology.”

S. Pallavicino, Vita di Alessandro VII Sommo Pontefice libri cinque, 2 vols., 1843 ◆ M. Albert, Nuntius Fabio Chigi und die Anfänge des Jansenismus 1639–1651, 1988. Manfred Weitlauff

Works include: ◆ Outlines of Moral Science, 1836 ◆ Practical Truth, 1857 ◆ On Alexander: M.A. Noll, ed., The Princeton Theology, 1812–1821, 1983. Theodore Dwight Bozeman

Alexander I, Tsar (Dec 12, 1777, St. Petersburg – Nov 11, 1825, Taganrog), Tsar of Russia (1801–1825). The oldest son of Paul I was reared under the guidance of his grandmother → Catherine II by the liberal Swiss F.C. de La Harpe in the spirit of the Enlightenment. After a palace revolt, Alexander acceded to rule in 1801 and began a comprehensively conceived, but only half-heartedly executed policy of reform. As leader of the coalition against Napoleon, Alexander saw himself as “the Savior of Europe” and, under the influence of mystical and pietistic trends (B.J.v. → Krüdener, F.X.v. → Baader, J.H. → Jung-Stilling ), developed a consciousness of religio-political mission that found expression in the foundation of the → Holy Alliance. A conservative domestic policy and a restorative foreign policy shaped the second half of his reign. Alexander promoted the Russian → Bible Society.

Alexander Jannaeus ( Jonathan, 103–76 bce), Hasmonean king of Judea and high priest, son of → Hyrcanus I. After successfully surviving Cleopatra III’s and Ptolemy IX Lathyrus’s invasions of Palestine at the outset of his reign, Alexander embarked on ambitious campaigns to expand the borders of the Hasmonean kingdom, since the kingdoms of the → Ptolemaic dynasty and the → Seleucids were weakened and Rome was still distant (Tacitus, Historiae 5.8.3). The 80s bce witnessed a long civil war, in which Alexander’s leaning toward the → Sadducees played a role. He pursued his enemies relentlessly. The Qumran Pesher Nahum calls him the “Lion of Wrath” and condemns him for crucifying his prisoners en masse, a fact also recorded by Josephus. Alexander died while campaigning in Transjordan, leaving his widow a kingdom as large as that of David.

A. Palmer, Alexander, 1994 ◆ H.-J. Krautheim, “Alexander,” in: H.-J. Torke, ed., Die russischen Zaren 1547–1917, 1995. Michael Hagemeister

E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. G. Vermes & F. Miller, 3 vols., 1973–1987. Daniel R. Schwartz

Alexander II, Tsar (Apr 17, 1818, Moscow – Mar 1, 1881, St. Petersburg), Tsar of Russia (1855–1881). In domestic policy, the epoch of the “reform tsar” is rightly considered a turning-point. As the core of the reforms, the law abolishing serfdom was issued on Feb 19, 1861, the reform of the justice system, among other things, in 1864. Cultural institutions received expanded rights of autonomy. In 1864, representatives of Orthodox Churches obtained the half authorization of “rules

Alexander Nevski (May 30, 1220, Jaroslav – Nov 14, 1263, Gorodok) was Prince of Novgorod from 1236 and Grand Prince of Vladimir from 1252; he defeated the Swedes on the Neva in 1240 (whence his nickname) and the Knights of the Teutonic Order on the ice of Lake Peipus; in contrast, he submitted to the Tatars whom he saw as less of a threat to Russian Orthodox identity than the Latin West. He died as a monk and has been venerated as a saint since as early as the 14th century. → Peter

for the institution of Orthodox brotherhoods” and a “constitution for congregational curates in Orthodox churches” to develop, among other things congregational schools and welfare institutions, esp. to care for farmers released from serfdom. A constitution drafted in 1880 remained unratified, since Alexander fell victim to assassination on Mar 1, 1881. S.S. Tatiščev, Imperator Aleksandr II, 1903 ◆ W.W. Mosse, Alexander and the Modernization of Russia, 1958 ◆ H.D. Löwe, “Alexander,” in: H.J. Torke, ed., Die russischen Zaren 1547–1917, 1995. Julia Oswalt

Alexander of Abunoteichos the Great transported his remains to the Lavra in St. Petersburg, which was named after Alexander in 1724. G.P. Majeska & A.I. Ponomarev, “Alexander Nevsky, in: P.D. Steeves, ed., The Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union, vol. I, 1988, 138–143 (bibl.). Peter Hauptmann

Alexander of Abunoteichos/Iōnopolis in Paphlagonia (2nd cent. ce) was the first prophet and hierophant of the god Glykōn. During the reign of → Antoninus Pius Abunoteichos himself introduced Glykōn as a new → Asclepius, in the form of a snake and with a human face. The way the cult was founded resembles that of other versions of Asclepius in the form of a snake. The cult of Glykōn of Abunoteichos was an oracular and healing cult but also a place of medical provision and philosophical instruction. Apparently the ἄθεοι (átheoi), i.e. Epicureans and Christians, were excluded from the mysteries (Lucian, Alex. 25, 38). Numismatic and statuary depictions of Glykōn, as well as the epigraphic references to this deity in the realm of the Black Sea and in Asia Minor, well into the third century provide documentary evidence for the supra-regional knowledge of the Glykōn-cult beyond the death of Abunoteichos. The pseudo-biographical satire of “Alexandros ēpseudomantis” (after 180), an Epicurean religious critique and at the same time Lucian’s personal revenge against Abunoteichos, who died in the meantime, accuses the latter of manipulation and deceit. Lucian uses Glykōn and his most prominent cult official for a distorted portrait of Greek cultic and oracular practice in the 2nd century. Thus, by means of the example of P. Mummius Rutilianus, the Roman governor of Asia in 160/61 and the son-in-law of Abunoteichos, he attacks traditional cultic piety and does limited justice to the phenomenon of Abunoteichos, the charismatic cult-founder and holy man. L. Robert, À travers de l’Asie mineure, 1980, 393–421 ◆ R.J. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 1986, 241–250 ◆ G. Bordenache Battaglia, “Glykon,” LIMC IV 1, 1988, 279–283. Andreas Bendlin

Alexander of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria from 312 or 313 until his death in 328. His date of birth is not recorded, but sources imply that he was an elderly man by the time of his election. During his episcopate he had to contend with the effects of the Melitian schism (→ Melitius of Lycopolis) as well as with another schism initiated by a local presbyter, Colluthus, who claimed the right to ordain. The major controversy of his episcopate, however, was that associated with → Arius. Arius came into open opposition with Alexander between 318 and 321. He was condemned by a local synod, and Alexander wrote a letter, addressed in the

134 first instance to the bishop of Byzantium, rebutting Arius’s theology and attacking his supporters among bishops outside Egypt. A further and larger synod of Egyptian and Libyan bishops repeated the condemnation, and a second letter was sent out. The Council of → Nicea not only confirmed the condemnation of Arius, it also proposed a reconciliation with Melitius and his following. This was moderately successful, but after Alexander’s death the hostilities resumed. The letters suggest that Alexander followed an essentially conventional → Alexandrian theology, mildly subordinationist, but committed, like → Origen, to the co-eternity of Father and Son, and emphasized the perfect likeness of the Son to the Father. CPG 2, 2000–2017 ◆ Thdt., Hist. Eccl. I 4 ◆ Socrates, Hist. Eccl. I 5ff. ◆ Sozomenus, Hist. Eccl. I 15 ◆ On Alexander: R. Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 1987 ◆ T. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantine, 1993. Rowan D. Williams

Alexander of Hales (c. 1185, Hales, England – Aug 21, 1245, Paris). After studying the arts and theology, Alexander taught in the Parisian theological faculty from the early 1220s, but maintained close relations with home. In 1229, he moved with the striking Parisian professors and students to Angers and brought forward their demands to the Roman Curia in 1230/1231. When he joined the Franciscan order in 1236, which had been present in Paris since 1219, he retained his professorship and, thereby, the new religious community created the first chair of theology. In the 20s, Alexander introduced lectures on the Sentences into the curriculum; the Glossa in IV libros Sententiarum (ed. 1951–1957) is the record of this new type of instruction. Additionally, of Alexander’s instructions, numerous, still only partially published Quaestiones are preserved. In his most famous work, the Summa theologica (ed. 1924–1948), which recent research has shown to be a group effort of earlier Franciscan theologians ( John of Rupella, Wilhelm of Melitona, etc.) composed sometime after 1235, Alexander’s participation is so significant that one could justifiably speak of a Summa fratris Alexandri. Although Alexander stood entirely in the Augustinian tradition, he already knew and utilized the newly translated Aristotle and his Arabic commentators. He understood theology to be a science, but in the manner of wisdom, in which truth is communicated through experience and affective appropriation. The Summa linked metaphysical and redemptive-historical viewpoints and was based on a strong interest in the religious subject and the personal appropriation of salvation. E. Gössmann, Metaphysik und Heilsgeschichte, 1964 (MGI special edition) ◆ I. Fornaro, La teologia dell’immagine nella Glossa di Alexander d’Hales, TDL.T NS 11, 1985. Ulrich Köpf

135 Alexander of Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina). Alexander, who came from Asia Minor, studied in Alexandria with → Pantaenus and → Clement of Alexandria (who dedicated one of his works to Alexander); initially he was a bishop in Cappadocia (later sources say bishop of Flavias in Cilicia). While in Jerusalem during a pilgrimage c. 212, he was elected coadjutor to assist the aged Narcissus, whom he succeeded c. 222. He suffered martyrdom in 250 during the Decian persecution (→ Persecutions of Christians: I). He was a par ticular admirer of → Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI, 14, 8f.). He was among the bishops who ordained Origen to the priesthood in Palestine, an act that brought him into conflict with the Alexandrian episcopate and led to the transfer of Origen’s school of Caesarea (231). He himself established a famous library in Jerusalem. Eusebius preserved four fragments from his letters. Sources: CPG 1, 1698–1701 ◆ Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI, passim ◆ Jerome, Vir. ill. 62 ◆ On Alexander: A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur I, 21958, 505–507; II.1, 21958, 221– 230; 2.2, 92f. ◆ O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, 2, 21914, repr. 1966, 271–273 ◆ P. Nautin, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des IIe et IIIe siècles, 1961, 85ff., 105–137. Wolfgang A. Bienert

Alexander of Lycopolis (Egypt; 2nd half of 3rd cent. ce) was a Platonic philosopher (not a Christian bishop, as many from Photius to Migne have claimed). Toward the end of the 3rd century, he composed the first Greek work against → Manichaeism (πρὸς τὰς Μανιχαῖου δόξας/prós tás Manichaíou dóxas) and is an important witness to the early Manichaean intellectual world and the reservations of Greek philosophers concerning this form of Gnostic dualism. Although Alexander considers Manichaeism a perverted variety of Christianity, his relatively restrained assessment of Christianity as “a simple philosophy” is striking. Works: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, ed. A. Brinkmann, 1895 ◆ Translations and commentaries: P.W. van der Horst & J. Mansfeld, An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism: Alexander of Lycopolis’ Treatise “Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus,” 1974 ◆ A. Villey, Alexandre de Lycopolis contre la doctrine de Mani, 1985. Pieter W. van der Horst

Alexander of Roes, Canon of the Mary Convent in the capitol in Cologne; the dates of his life are unknown if he is not to be identified with A. v. Leysberg (b. 1225; d. before 1300). Between 1281 and 1288, Alexander of Roes wrote in the vicinity of the curia in Viterbo: in 1281 the “Memoriale de prerogativa Romani imperii,” including a tractate by Jordanus of Osnabrück; in 1284/85 the parabolic poem “Pavo,” which describes how at a council of birds the peacock (the pope) deposes the eagle (the emperor) with the help of a

Alexander the Great rooster (the king of France); and in 1288 the “News of the Course of the World.” Alexander, who argued along prophetic-eschatological lines, advocated in all his works the legitimacy of German over the use of the French language within the “imperium,” while considering French appropriate for “studium” and Italian for “sacerdotium.” H. Grundmann, “Über die Schriften des Alexander von Roes,” DA 8, 1950, 154–237 ◆ M. Fuhrmann, Alexander von Roes: ein Wegbereiter Europas?, SHAW.PH, 1994, 4. Marie-Luise Ehrenschwendtner

Alexander the Great (356, Pella – Jun 323 bce, Babylon), “the Great” since Plautus c. 200 bce, son of Olympia of Epirus and Philip II, in 336 successor as king of Macedonia and head of the Corinthian League. In 334–326 he conquered the Persian empire under Darius III, in 331 founded → Alexandria and in 323 died in Babylon, the planned capital of his universal empire. Alexander’s silver coins show Zeus and Heracles, his ancestors (with Alexander’s profile?); the gold coins show Athena. Alexander donated the Parthenon in Athens, the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, and renovated the temples of Athena in Priene and Marduk in Babylon. In Tyre, he sacrificed Melkart to Heracles. Alexander regarded himself as son of Zeus, without denying Philip. In 324, he ordered the Greeks to honor him as the 13th god and maintained a cult in Athens and Sparta. The most important cultic shrine was his tomb in Alexandria. The proskynesis temporarily required by Alexander (Plut. Amat. 74) was not a sign of deification but a Persian court ceremonial; the Greeks rejected it. According to Alexandrian-Jewish legend, Alexander visited Jerusalem, confirmed the high priest Jaddus, offered sacrifice in the Temple, and guaranteed privileges to the Jews. In allegorical form the book of Daniel (8:21) mentions Alexander’s world empire; in 1 Macc he appears by name. The HellenisticRoman Alexander novel, circulating in many editions, reports, in addition to many miracles, Alexander’s ascent to heaven. The Qur’ān (18.82ff.) mentions his alleged battle against Gog and Magog. In Islamic tradition, “Iskender” is considered a hero and prophet; in Christianity, as one of the “nine heroes.” A negative picture of Alexander is seen in the Stoics (Seneca) and the medieval Parsis, whose holy writings he is supposed to have burned. Sources: Arrian, Anabasis ◆ Plut., Alexander ◆ On Alexander: F. Taeger, Charisma, 1957 ◆ W.W. Tarn, Alexander, 1968 ◆ L. Edmunds, The Religiosity of Alexander, GRBS 12, 1971, 363– 391 ◆ J. Seibert, Alexander, 1972 ◆ F. Pfister, Kleine Schriften zum Alexander roman, 1976 ◆ M.J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great, 1991 ◆ A. Stewart, Focus of Power, 1993 ◆ F. Memmo, Alessandro Magno, 1995 ◆ V.M. Schmidt, A Legend and Its Image, 1995. Alexander Demandt

Alexandria Alexandria I. Ptolemaic Period – II. Ancient Judaism – III. Early Church – IV. Patriarchate

I. Ptolemaic Period Egypt. Rhakotis, Arab. Iskandariya, on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, established 332/31 bce by → Alexander the Great west of the Canopic branch of the Nile between the sea and Lake Mareotis. Exact topography is uncertain because of later rebuilding, destruction, and changes in water level. Laid out on a rectangular grid by the Rhodian architect Dinocrates, Alexandria comprised five districts (with the Jewish quarter in the northeast); to the east and west, outside the city walls, were numerous suburbs and necropoleis. The offshore island of Pharos with its famous lighthouse, built under Ptolemy I and II (→ Ptolemaic Dynasty), was linked with the mainland by a causeway (the Heptastadion), forming two harbors. The city’s function as capital of the Ptolemaic empire (before 311 under Ptolemy I) and royal residence profoundly influenced its layout and development: besides palaces and parks, the palace district (Basileia) contained the tombs of Alexander and the Ptolemies as well as the Mouseion and its → Library. The Ptolemies’ establishment and support of both institutions enabled not only the textual and philological conservation of Egypt’s literary heritage (including the → Septuagint and new poetry [Callimachus, Theocritus, Apollonius of Rhodes]) but also the scientific study of mathematics (Euclid), medicine and anatomy (Herophilus), astronomy (Aristarchus of Samos), and geography (Eratosthenes). The temples of → Sarapis (with a smaller library), Pan (Kom el-Dikka), Poseidon, and → Isis deserve special mention. Under Cleopatra VII, other structures were built for or by Julius → Caesar and Mark Antony. Alexandria was an autonomous Greek polis and did not belong to Egypt (Alexandria ad Aegyptum); initially, at least, it had a boulé (city council). At the time of Diodorus (2nd half of the 1st cent. bce), it had 300,000 free citizens (and a total population of about half a million). The city’s outstanding economic importance rested on commerce, especially in grain and goods in transit from → India and Arabia. Also important were the manufacture of papyrus as well as metal, textile, and glass work, and not least the production of objects of art. Sources: Strab. XVII, 791–798 ◆ Diodorus, Bibliotheca XVII, 52 ◆ Bibl.: P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972 ◆ N. Hinske, ed., Alexandrien, 1981 ◆ C. Jacob & F. de Polignac, eds., Alexandrie au IIIe siècle, 1992. Gregor Weber

II. Ancient Judaism The founding of Alexandria in 331 bce marked the beginning of the era of Alexandrian → Judaism, the first

136 “golden age” in the history of western diaspora Judaism. Mortuary inscriptions from around 300 bce witness to the antiquity of the Jewish settlements. At the beginning of the empire, the Jews represented about a third of the urban population (approx. 180,000 inhabitants). Since they were not considered Alexandrian citizens, they had their own form of organization with elders and an → ethnarch. The institutional framework that permitted the Jews of Alexandria to maintain their own identity, adapted to Greek culture, was based on synagogue worship, which consisted in prayer and → Torah reading from the → Septuagint, translated at the beginning of the 3rd century bce. The fragments of this translation found among the Greek papyri of Egypt chime with the description of the great synagogue of Alexandria by rabbi Judah ben Ilai in the → Talmud (b. Suk. 51b). Study of the Greek papyri may also shed light on the debate of historians concerning the origins of the Alexandrian → Bible. The coincidence of the political interests of the Lagid kings with the needs of the Jewish community suggests the theory that the LXX may be considered an institutional document of the Lagid kings, providing a “national law” for the Egyptian Jews. The Torah of the LXX is the first and most important document of Judeo-Alexandrian literature, a Greek literature with Jewish content. This literature culminates in the first century ce in the work of → Philo of Alexandria, who sought by means of → allegory to demonstrate the concord between Torah and Greek thought. After the Roman conquest in 30 bce, the conflicts between Jews and Greeks culminated in a revolt (115–117 ce), which ended in the destruction of the Jewish communities of Alexandria and Egypt. The first Egyptian Christians were Jewish Christians, who perished in this revolt along with the milieu from which they sprang. Though this revolt represents the split between Judaism and Christianity, it also represents a bond of spiritual continuity: thanks to the Jewish Christians of Alexandria the major surviving documents associated with Alexandrian Judaism were saved from destruction. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 21987 ◆ D. Della, Alexandrian Citizenship during the Roman Principate, 1991 ◆ J. Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian, 21997. Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski

III. Early Church We may assume that by the middle of the first century, Alexandria, like → Egypt, was already a focus of ( Jewish) Christian missionary activity and that Paul therefore made a detour to visit it (Rom 15:18–33). There is still (almost) no evidence for a Christian community in Alexandria; until the time of → Demetrius, there is no tradition to accompany a list of Alexandrian bishops (possibly going back even as far as Mark; Eus. Hist. eccl. II, 16). But this lack of evidence does not

137

require the hypothesis of “heretical” Gnostic influence (→ Gnosis) from the very outset, concealed by a cloak of silence as soon as “orthodoxy” gained the upper hand in Alexandria (W. → Bauer). The assumption of JewishChristian origins is supported by the major role still played by → presbyters at Alexandria even at a time when the “monarchic episcopate” (→ Bishop: I) had long since carried the day. During the 2nd half of the 2nd century, nevertheless, Alexandrian Christianity must have experienced the “Gnostic crisis” – and not just peripherally (→ Basilides, possibly also → Valentinus). Evidence of nonGnostic Christianity (albeit influenced by Platonism) at Alexandria before → Clement and → Origen appears in the Authoritative Teaching (NHC VI, 3) and the → Sentences of Sextus, and possibly also in the Epistle of → Barnabas. The fierce anti-Jewish bias of the latter also reflects the final split between the Jews and Jewish Christians in Alexandria probably following the Jewish revolt in 115–117 (→ Judaism: I), if its Alexandrian origin can be considered assured. Toward the end of the 2nd century, the darkness begins to clear. It is almost certain that both → Pantaenus and his disciple Clement can be assigned to the “Catholic” (anti-Gnostic) line of development. It is absolutely clear where to place → Demetrius, the first definitely identifiable episcopal figure in Alexandria. Under his leadership, the “Catholic” community of the city must have taken shape and achieved a fully developed organization relatively quickly. After he entrusted leadership of the local “catechetical school” to Origen in 203/4 (→ Alexandrian

Alexandria

Theology), there were close ties between the school and the see of Alexandria, whose incumbent henceforth had to prove himself as head of the school before he could occupy the “throne of St. Mark” – clearly in the case of Heraclas (231–247) and → Dionysius of Alexandria (“the Great”), and probably also Achillas (Coptic: Archelaus, 311/12) and his predecessor → Peter of Alexandria. Already under Demetrius, the ecclesiastical structures in Alexandria appear to have been consolidated and unified (Egyptians and Greeks) to such an extent that the appointment of rural bishops (chorepiskopoi) was able to begin unifying Egyptian Christianity under Alexandrian leadership, so that the → persecutions of 202, 248, and 303–311 did not devastate the Christian congregations. The primacy of the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, → Libya, and the → Pentapolis, reinforced by the council of → Nicea in 325 (canon 6) – one of his duties being the annual proclamation of the date of → Easter –, allowed Alexandria to play a dominant theological and political role within the imperial Church. → Athanasius and → Cyril of Alexandria in particular were able to take advantage of this opportunity, probably in part because they could enlist the support – albeit not unanimous – of Egyptian → monasticism. Nevertheless, the Arian conflict (→ Arius and Arianism), which originated in Alexandria, and the Melitian schism (→ Melitius of Lycopolis; → Egypt: III) (rooted in the persecution of Diocletian) caused severe strain. The prestige of the Alexandrian see probably reached its apogee under Cyril (council of → Ephesus, 431), although decline

Alexandrian Theology and isolation followed soon after under his successor → Dioscurus of Alexandria (→ Chalcedon, 451). With the ensuing theological and ecclesiastical schism (→ Copts; → Christology: II), its prestige declined greatly. Today, most of the city’s churches, some of them converted pagan temples and Jewish synagogues, and its other Christian antiquities (e.g. necropoleis) are known only by name (e.g. the Baucalis church, the parish church of Arius). The city’s decline during the Arab period and extensive modern rebuilding have left few remains of ancient Alexandria. C. Andresen, “‘Siegreiche Kirche’ im Aufstieg des Christentums,” ANRW II 23.1, 1979, 387–459 ◆ A. Martin, “Les premiers siècles du christianisme à Alexandrie,” REAug 30, 1984, 211–225 ◆ M. Rodziewicz, Les habitations romaines tardives d’Alexandrie, 1984 ◆ B.A. Pearson, “Earliest Christianity in Egypt,” in idem & J.E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, 1986, 132–159 ◆ J. Pouilloux, ed., ΆΛΕΞΆΝΔΡΙΝΆ. FS C. Mondésert, 1987 ◆ A.M. Ritter, “Das frühchristliche Alexandrien im Spannungsfeld zwischen Judenchristentum, ‘Frühkatholizismus’ und Gnosis,” in idem, Charisma und Caritas, ed. A. Dörfler-Dierken et al., 1993, 117–136. Adolf Martin Ritter

IV. Patriarchate After the council of → Chalcedon in 451, there was a schism in the Patriarchate (→ Patriarch/Patriarchate) of Alexandria, which became final in the middle of the 6th century. The imperial Church never recognized the supporters of the deposed → Dioscurus. But the Chalcedonian patriarchs (“pope and patriarch”) found less and less support in Egypt; they were looked on as representatives of the Greek minority and castigated as “Melkites” (“king’s men”), whereas the so-called Monophysite Patriarchate (→ Monophysites) presented itself as an indigenous Egyptian (Coptic) institution. Under Justinian I, who erected churches and initiated missionary work in → Nubia, the Chalcedonian Patriarchate experienced a revival. The patriarchs of the imperial Church resided in Alexandria and enjoyed substantial revenues, while the non-Chalcedonians fled to the countryside or went into hiding. During the Persian occupation (619), the imperial patriarch Georgius was barred from Egypt; following the victory of the emperor Heraclius at Niniveh in 627, however, the Chalcedonian Patriarchate was restored and the Coptic patriarch Benjamin I had to go into hiding for eleven years. When the Byzantine patriarch and prefect Cyrus was forced to surrender Alexandria to the Arabs in 642, the new rulers recognized Benjamin, who was able to reorganize the Coptic patriarchate. The Greeks were barely able to survive. During the 9th century, the process of Islamization intensified. After the Fatimid conquest of Egypt in 969, both patriarchates were transferred to Cairo and generally enjoyed good relationships. A small Uniate Patriarchate was established in 1895. From the end of the 19th century until their

138 expulsion under Nasser, the Greeks were the dominant influence in Alexandria. The patriarchate was moved to Alexandria, and in 1926 the Greek jurisdiction was extended to “all Africa.” The Coptic patriarchs of the 20th century promoted monasticism, catechesis, and a sense of Coptic identity. In 1959, the → Ethiopian Orthodox Church became autonomous. Ecumenical dialogue between the two Alexandrian patriarchates is working hard to achieve reunion. T. Mosconas, “Das griechisch-orthodoxe Patriarchat von Alexandrien,” Kyrios 1, 1960, 129–135 ◆ B.J. Pheias, Σύντομος ‘Ίστορία τἣς ’Έκκλγσίας ’Άλεξανδρείας, 1967 ◆ K. Michalowski, Alexandrien, 1970 ◆ P. Verghese, ed., Koptisches Christentum, 1973 ◆ M. Phougias, “Alexandrien,” HCO 31, 1979, 114–118 ◆ C. Papadopoulos, ‘Ίστορία τἢς ’Έκκλγσίας ’Άλεξανδρείας, 21985. Martin Petzolt

Alexandrian Theology. The term “Alexandrian theology” refers to two different, yet related, theological tendencies, one older, represented especially by → Clement of Alexandria and → Origen (primarily oriented toward “apologetics”), and a younger one, shaped primarily by → Athanasius and → Cyril, which represents a “very self-conscious and high church-clerical orthodoxy” (Chadwick), but could be considered increasingly less “Alexandrian” in the strict geographical sense. The precondition for both, especially for the older Alexandrian theology, was the specifically “Alexandrian milieu.” Already in the pre-Christian era, the Egyptian metropolis (→ Alexandria: I) was a center of Greek culture and learning and a unique cultural-religious melting pot with important philosophical and philological school traditions. For the first time, the Jewish education of the city (→ Philo of Alexandria, → Alexandria: II) was fully perceived. Its influence on the beginnings of Christian theology and biblical exegesis in Alexandria – precursors here were the Christian-Gnostic teachers (→ Basilides, Isidor, perhaps also → Valentinus) – can hardly be overestimated. Clement’s teacher → Pantaenus was already associated in Antiquity (Eus. Hist. eccl. V, 10.1, 3), as was Clement himself together with his presumed student Origen (Hist. eccl. VI, 6), with a trend that has greatly puzzled research: the “Alexandrian Catechumen School.” The expression is unfortunate because it is confusing. At no time whatsoever did this trend serve in the preparation of baptismal candidates, especially not as Origen, on the church’s commission (→ Alexandria: III), exercised leadership and immediately placed the “study of scripture organized according to fixed rules with the assistance of the preparatory disciples of the quadrivium and philosophy” (Scholten) at the center of instruction. In terms of method, therefore, there was no essential difference from the manner in which Platonic exegesis was conducted in the schools of philosophy and a type of school dogmatics was

139 developed therefrom. The church’s commission was probably only meant to signal that the “mainstream church” Christianity of the city intended to meet the challenges of the time (esp. through philosophy and heresy), but did not yet make the institute into an “ecclesial institution of higher learning.” One can characterize what links Clement, Origen, and probably also Pantaenus in the teaching as a kind of “Catholic gnosis,” concerned with not alienating “faith” and “knowledge,” but also with not simply equating the two, rather with bringing them into relationship in the sense of a gradual perfection (from pistis to gnosis) on the basis, to be sure, of the “Catholic norms” (→ Bible: I; → Regula fidei ; → Confession (of Faith): III ; → Office: V ). To this end, Origen, in particular, developed a coherent doctrine concerning God and his relationship to the world as an exegesis of Scriptures in which he did not want to neglect the “Spirit” in the “letters.” – At the beginning of the 4th century, the presbyter → Arius and his local bishop, → Alexander, later also his successor Athanasius, were able to take this up in an entirely contrary manner. The most important representative of Origenist exegesis and theology in this century was, however, doubtlessly → Didymus, the last well-known head of the Alexandrian school. More fruitful for formation of later Alexandrian theology was meanwhile the course – in church policy and theology – set by Athanasius. Characteristic for his theology – even more intensely than for that of Alexander – was a fusion of Alexandrian-Origenist and Anatolian-Irenaean (→ Irenaeus) traditions resulting in a ( Johannine-Irenaean) soteriology according to which redemption is attained solely through the (real) incarnation of God and is mediated through the church and its sacraments. With this beginning, he not only contributed essentially to the eruption of the Arian Dispute, but also affected the Christological Dispute of the 5th century, which was an explicit theological dispute between the schools of the “Antioch (→ Antiochene theology)” and the “Alexandria.” One can trace this conflict to a fundamental difference in soteriology, as it “is, in the final analysis, caused by the divergence of the Gospel of John and the Synoptics” (Chadwick), or also find that the “Origenist tradition” (admittedly, not simply to be identified with Alexandrian theology) “adopted the allegorical procedures of the philosophy schools and that the Antiochene reaction represents the rhetorical protest against such treatment of the text” (Young), if, in so doing, one does not misunderstand and overlook the enormous importance of “grammatical” exegesis even and especially for Origen, and that, naturally, even Antiochene exegesis aimed, in the final analysis, at the discovery of divine “truth” in the inspired Scriptures, so that it also bore “philosophical” elements

Alexius, Saint from the outset; it was, nonetheless, characteristic of philosophical exegesis to measure textual statements against a given, indeed the objective truth. H. Chadwick, Alexandrian Chistianity, LCC 2, 1954; citation from: idem, RGG 3, I, 1957, 233f.) ◆ C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, Theoph. 23, 1974 ◆ B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 2 vols., 1987 ◆ F. Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis,” in: R. Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, FS H. Chadwick, 1989, 182–199 (citation, 188) ◆ C. Scholten, “Die alexandrinische Katechetenschule,” JbAC 38, 1995, 16–37 (citation: 37) ◆ A.M. Ritter, HDThG 2 I, 1998, 99–283, index. Adolf Martin Ritter

Alexians (Cellites), an order of lay brothers named after St. Alexios of Edessa, who care for the sick and bury the dead (Lat. cella, grave); they originated before the 14th century. The Alexians, who are also called the → Merciful (or Poor) Brothers, were active primarily in Flanders and the Lower Rhine; in 1472, they accepted the Augustinian Rule (→Augustine, Rule of ). Since 1462, the Alexians of Aachen (CFA) have constituted a separate and, since 1844, dispersed congregation that cared primarily for the mentally ill (they suffered very harsh repression under the National Socialist regime). Alexians, Cellites or Christensians are female communities of the same origin (→ Beguines/Beghards). Small communities are still active today in the care of the old and infirm. Heimbucher I, 51987, 590–592 ◆ E. Gatz, Kirche und Krankenpflege im 19.Jh., 1971 ◆ DIP II, 1975, 748–755 ◆ C.J. Kauffmann, Geschichte der Alexianerbrüder, 1982 ◆ AnPont 1996, 1464. Manfred Heim

Alexios Studites, patriarch of Constantinople from 1025 to 1042 and previously abbot of the monastery of Studios, was appointed by Emperor Basil II without a resolution by the Synod (Kedrenos, PG 122, 212C). The important edicts in terms of social history address canonical questions of marriage (although he accepted the 3rd marriage of Empress Zoe in 1042), as well as disputes with heretical groups and problems pertaining to ecclesiastical organization. The decisions by the Synod, declaring the rebellion against the Emperor anathema (RAPC, 830), show him as a representative of a close link between Church and Empire. Sources: PG 119, 826–850 ◆ RAPC 1, 2, 3, 21989 ◆ On Alexios: St. G. Ficker, Die Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, Alexios Studites, 1911 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantischen Reich, 21977. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Alexius, Saint. A 5th-century Syriac tradition tells of an anonymous Roman patrician who renounces marriage on his wedding day and flees to Edessa, where he lives as an ascetic hermit until his death. The somewhat altered and expanded Greek account (first identifiable

Al-Fārābī in the work of Joseph the Hymnographer, d. 883) calls him Alexius and has him desert his bride, flee to Edessa, and finally come to Rome. There, he spends his days, poor and unrecognized, in a corner of his family home, where he also dies. The extensive tradition of Alexius in Western art and literature reflects this version. The Syrian Monophysites observe his feast day on Mar 12; elsewhere in the East it falls on Mar 17 and in the West on Jul 17. W. Cramer, “Alexias von Edessa,” LThK 3, I, 1993, 381f. (bibl.). Jürgen Dummer

Al-Fārābī → Fārābī Alfasi, Isaac (1013, Qal’at Hammad, Algeria – 1103). After studying in a yeshiva in Kairouan, Alfasi lived in Fez until 1088, when he was forced to flee to Spain. After spending a short time in Cordoba he remained in Lucena until his death. In 1089, he was appointed head of the yeshiva in Lucena, after the death of Isaac ben Judah ibn Ghayyat. Alfasi wrote the most important halakhic code prior to → Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. He is considered by many to have closed the Geonic period. Alfasi dedicated his life to studying and teaching the → Talmud and is the author of many → responsa, hundreds of which survived and have been published, mostly in Arabic. Alfasi’s Sefer Ha-Halakhot was greatly praised by Jewish scholars in later generations, and many commentaries have been written on it. I. Ta-Shmah, “The Spread of the Writings of R. Isaac Alfasi and Rabbenu Hananel,” QS 55, 1980, 191–201. Kimmy Caplan

Alfonso de Spina OFM (2nd half of 15th cent.). A Spanish theologian of Jewish origin, he taught theology at Salamanca, where he was also rector. His major work, Fortalitium fidei contra Iudaeos, Saracenos et alios Christianae fidei inimicos (c. 1458–1462), drawing on such authors as → Ramón Martí and Abner of Burgos, provides a programmatic justification of the → Inquisition and demands expulsion of the Jews from Spain. H. Kamen, La inquisición española, 31988. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues

Alfonso X, the Wise (Nov 26, 1221, Toledo – Apr 4, 1284, Seville), king of Castile and Leon from 1252 to 1284. As the grandson of Philip of Swabia, he claimed the Hohenstaufen throne and embarked on an imperialistic policy embracing the entire Mediterranean region. His political ambitions came to nothing; he was more important as a lawgiver who sought to create a uniform code of law for Castile, historian (he wrote or directed the writing of a history of Spain, Estoria de España, and a universal history, Grande e general estoria), and pro-

140 moter of astronomy, music, and poetry (427 Cantigas de S. Maria in Galician). Alfonso assembled a circle of scholars and writers to survey the knowledge of the age – augmented by translations of Arabic works – and present it in Castilian Spanish. A. Ballesteros-Beretta, Alfonso X. el Sabio, 1963, new ed. 1985 ◆ Alfonso X of Castile: An International Symposium, 1990. Ulrich Köpf

Alford, Henry (Oct 7, 1810, London – Jan 12, 1871, Canterbury), NT scholar. Alford prepared himself early on for a religious vocation. During his studies at Cambridge, he developed a deep interest in the NT. He became fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1834, and was appointed Hulsean Lecturer at Cambridge in 1941. Ordained in November 1834 after a curacy at Ampton, he served as rector in Wyneswold from 1835 to 1853. From 1857 to 1871, he was dean of Canterbury. He distinguished himself mainly with his work The Greek New Testament, published in four volumes between 1850 and 1861 and revised many times. F. Alford, ed., Life, Journals and Letters of Henry Alford, 1874. Glenn Hinson

Alfred the Great (849 – 899). In 871, Alfred became king of Wessex, leading the → AngloSaxons in battle against the Danes. In 886, he signed a treaty with Guthrum, who recognized Alfred’s sovereignty over England south of the Humber (with the exception of Essex, East Anglia, and the east midlands). To carry out his extensive educational program, Alfred assembled a group of renowned scholars. He himself translated or saw to the translation of the following works, which he considered fundamental: The Regula [or: Cura] Pastoralis and Dialogi of → Gregory I, the Great, the De Consolatione Philosophiae of → Boethius , the Historia Adversus Paganos of → Orosius, the Soliloquia of → Augustine, and the Historia Ecclesiastica of the Venerable → Bede. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was also begun under his direction. These translations laid the foundation for the education of laity and clergy, so that in the following centuries England was able to develop an extensive vernacular literature. C. Plummer, The Life and Times of Alfred the Great, 1902 ◆ E.S. Duckett, Alfred the Great and His England, 1956. Jörg O. Fichte

Alfrink, Bernard Jan (Aug 5, 1900, Nijkerk – Dec 17, 1987, Nieuwegein/Utrecht), cardinal and archbishop of Utrecht. After ordination to the priesthood in 1924 in the archdiocese of Utrecht, Alfrink engaged in biblical studies at the Biblicum in Rome, where he received his degree in 1930. He taught as a lecturer in

141 the major seminary of his diocese and later as professor at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. In 1951, he was appointed coadjutor by Cardinal Jan de Jong, whom he succeeded as archbishop of Utrecht in 1944. In 1960, Pope → John XXIII elevated him to cardinal and shortly afterwards appointed him to the preparatory commission for the Second Vatican Council (→ Vatican II); he was a member of its Board of Presidency. During the Council, he became a prominent spokesman for episcopal collegiality “with and under Peter.” In his own province, he introduced democratic forms and structures only gradually. The discussion of clerical celibacy at the Pastoral Council of Noordwijkerhout in 1970 led to the appointment of conservative bishops in the Netherlands, a move that Alfrink had tried unsuccessfully to prevent. Early in 1976, he resigned the pastoral leadership of the archdiocese. T.H.M. van Schaik, Alfrink, 1997 (with documents and bibl.). Ton H.M. Schaik

Al-˝azzālī → ˝azzālī Alger of Liège (b. c. 1060, d. before 1145), canon and schoolmaster of the cathedral of → Liège ; retired to → Cluny as a monk in 1121. His De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini, directed against the sacramental teaching of → Berengar of Tours, maintains the validity of sacraments administered by Simoniacs (→ Simony). In canon law, his treatise De misericordia et iustitia was used in Gratian’s Decretum (→ Corpus iuris canonici). Not content simply to assemble texts bearing on questions of canon law, it seeks to interpret them using the new scholastic method. R. Kretzschmar, Alger von Lüttichs Traktat “De misericordia et iustitia,” 1985. Wilfried Hartmann

Algeria. The Arabic name for Algeria is Djazahir, “islands.” A country of Berber tribes, Algeria was settled along the coast quite early by Phoenicians. Eventually coming under the dominion of Carthage, it later flourished under Roman rule. In the 7th century, the Arabs conquered the Berbers, and a limited intermingling occurred, although today a clear distinction is no longer possible. The Berbers preserved their own language and culture most completely in the mountainous areas of Kabylia (deriving from Arab. qabahil, “tribes”), though most Berbers also speak Arabic. Algeria currently has a population of 28.6 million. The church probably emerged along the trade routes and through colonization and migration. The first martyr died under the rule of the Roman emperor Commodus (180–92), the most famous martyr being → Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258). At the death of → Augustine (430), Bishop of Hippo Regius (Bône Annaba in modern Algeria), approx. 700

Algeria bishops were serving in Romanized locales. The disappearance of this early form of Christianity in Maghreb is usually associated with internal divisions among the Christians themselves. Even more than → Donatism, however, it was the rule of the → Vandals and Arianism (→ Arius) that delivered the final blow. Algeria remained in Roman hands until the 5th century ce. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Algeria fell de iure under Byzantine sovereignty (533). In 695, the governor of Ifriqiya imposed taxes on Christians over the course of the Arabic Islamization of Numidia, which was inhabited by the Berbers. Even though Christianity did not disappear in the brutal fashion normally assumed, one can nonetheless observe how the light of the church was slowly extinguished between the 7th and 12th centuries. After the 12th century, the Christians of North Africa occupying positions of responsibility were recruited largely from Europeans who had been sent to Maghreb. Between the 12th and 19th century, the church was primarily a church of consuls, merchants, and (galley) slaves, the latter of whom also included priests. Spanish Christian enclaves begin appearing in the 16th century. During the period of Turkish rule, there was a Catholic church community with merchants and prisoners in Algeria. The colonial period resulted in a reestablishment of Christian presence. The appointment of the first bishop of Algeria was made during the period 1830–38. In 1882, C.M.A. → Lavigerie became Cardinal and Archbishop of → Carthage and in 1884 Primate of all Africa. In 1869 he founded the → White Fathers in Algeria and in 1869 the White Sisters, whom he charged with living among the Muslims, learning Arabic and the language of the Berbers, and becoming familiar with the customs and values of Algerian and Muslim society. The former soldier and explorer C. de → Foucauld later chose a contemplative life, desiring to follow the model of Jesus of Nazareth by living in the Algerian desert close to the local people. He was murdered in 1916 in Tamanrasset in Algeria. After his death, various lay groups inspired by his spirituality emerged, including the Petits Frères and Petites Soeurs de Jésus. On Nov 1, 1954, the Algerian Revolution broke out, bringing an abrupt end to the flourishing conditions enjoyed by the Church. The contemporary Catholic Church consists largely of Europeans and several thousand Algerians baptized by missionaries and occupies a clearly minority position. In December 1994, an estimated 21,000 Roman Catholics and 1500 Protestants were living in Algeria. A message from the bishops to Algerian Christians on Jan 2, 1994, mentions the declining number of laypersons among Catholic Christians. Whereas in 1995 there were still over 500 priests and nuns, today that number has shrunk to only 350. The

Alharizi, Judah Arab conquest came about by military means. Although the Berbers initially offered fierce resistance, at the beginning of the 8th century they converted in large numbers to Islam, developing an inclination for unorthodox sects and for the Kharajites, who practice a form of religious communism. Ibadism is one of the most important sectarian branches of Sunni Islam. The municipal grouping of Wadi Mzab emerged in the 11th century. In modern Algeria, the Mozabites constitute an influential class of business people and financiers. Shiaite Islam later spread among the Berbers. Around 1150, the Almohads (originally a military religious order) united Maghreb and Islamic Spain under their rule. In 1830, Algeria was the first Arab state that split off from the Ottoman Turkish Empire following the landing of the French. After the French occupation, Abd al Qadir (1808–83) declared Holy War, fighting from 1832 till 1847 against the French occupying power; he was viewed as the savior of Islam in all of North Africa. The state religion is Sunni Islam. The national charter (1976) states: “The people of Algeria are Muslim. Islam is the state religion and an integral part of our historical personality.” Algeria is Sunni according to the Malikite rite (Malik ibn Anas, died 795), one of the four recognized schools of the law. Muslims are subject to Islamic family and inheritance law (in Kabylia and among the Touareg in part as a universal law), the rest are subject to French-influenced law. Although there are various levels of IslamicChristian encounter in Maghreb (polyclinics, schools, kindergartens, universities), the key expression is not living together, but engaging in dialogue. As a result of the events surrounding the annulled elections of 1991/92, which would have given the majority to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS, Front islamique du salut), a wave of terror and counter-terror broke out in the country taking the lives of a large number of people. Alongside the FIS there is yet another extremist group, the so-called Groupe Islamique Armée (GIA), which is responsible for murdering a number of priests and nuns. The FIS condemned the kidnapping, during which seven priests were murdered on Mar 27, 1992, as “an act irreconcilable with Islamic praxis.” M. Colombe et al., EI2 I, 1960, 364–379 ◆ W. Spencer, Land and People of Algeria, 1969 ◆ H. Teissier, Église en islam, 1984 ◆ idem, ed., Histoire des Chrétiens d’Afrique du Nord, 1991 ◆ idem, “Kirche sein in einer vom Islam geprägten Gesellschaft,” Conc[D] 28, 1992, 27–34 ◆ M. Willis, Islamist Challenge in Algeria, 1996. Anton Wessels

Alharizi, Judah (1170, Toledo? – 1235), an important Jewish poet, philosopher, and translator in medieval Spain. He spent most of his life traveling through the Provence and, for many years, in the Near East, visiting Jerusalem, Damascus, Baghdad, and other places.

142 Alcharisi translated the narrative poems (Maqammas) of Al-Hariri from Arabic into Hebrew, and he wrote his best-known work, Tachkemoni (“Enlighten Me”), in a similar style. It is a comprehensive philosophical narrative-poetic work, consisting of 50 chapters, of which some are didactic and others humorous and satirical. The work had great influence, and his poetic genre found a following among later poets. Other poems were collected in his book Ha-Anaq (“The Necklace”). He translated M. → Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed into Hebrew. Though later generations preferred the more technically precise and literal translation of Samuel → Ibn Tibbon, this medieval Latin translation took Acharisi’s text as a basis. Alcharisi translated the Muserey ha-Philosophim, the Hebrew version of the Arabic Adab al-Falasifa by → Hunain ibn Ishaq, which helped to disseminate rationalistic ethics in Spanish Jewry. Three chapters in this work (18–20) are dedicated to music. J. Schirmann, Die hebräische Übersetzung der Maquamen des Aritri, 1930 ◆ V.E. Reichert, The Tahkemoni of Judah Alcharisi, 1965. Joseph Dan

aAlī ibn Abī ˇālaīb (c. 600–660), the cousin and sonin-law of → Mu˙ammad, belonged – like Mu˙ammad himself – to the banū hāšim clan of the Quraysh tribe. During the prophet’s lifetime, he did not play a major role; the later tradition that depicts him as one of the first to accept Islam is almost certainly wrong. After Mu˙ammad’s death, he became the leader of heterogeneous forces opposed to the regime of the prophet’s early companions. When he came to power in 656 after the murder of the caliph aUótmān, he was unable to hold these forces together. The followers, who remained true to him in the civil war that followed, constituted the nucleus of Shiaite Islam (→ Islam: II). His bitterest enemies were the Kharijites, former followers. He died as a vicitim of Kharijite assassination. L. Veccia-Vaglieri, EI2 I, 1960, 381–386 ◆ E.L. Petersen, aAlī and Muaāwiya in Early Arabic Tradition, 1964 ◆ I.K. Poonawala & E. Kohlberg, EIr I, 1985, 838–848 ◆ W. Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad, 1997. Tilman Nagel

aAlī ibn Rabban a†-ˇabarī (777, Merv – 855, Baghdad), philosopher and physician. Following a lifetime in the Church of the East (Nestorians, → Syria), after the age of seventy he converted to Islam at the behest of the caliph al-Mutawakkil. Thereupon he composed a refutation of Christianity in Arabic. Modern editors ascribe to Ali The Book of Religion and Empire, which refers to this refutation and argues that the Bible foretells the coming of Mu˙ammad. Although some scholars dispute this attribution, textual evidence appears to demonstrate clearly that the work itself was already in existence as early as the 10th century.

143

Alienation

A. Mingana, The Book of Religion and Empire, 1922–1923 ◆ A. Khalifé & W. Kutsch, “Ar-radd aalān-Naßārā de aAlī a†- ˇabarī,” MUSJ 36, 1959, 115–148 ◆ K. Samir, “La réponse d’al-Íafī ibn al-aAssāl à la réfutation des chrétiens de Ali,” ParOr 11, 1983, 281–328 ◆ D. Thomas, “ˇabarī’s Book of Religion and Empire,” BJRL 69, 1986, 1–7. Sydney H. Griffith

Alien → Stranger/Otherness Alienation I. Philosophy – II. Dogmatics – III. Ethics – IV. Practical Theology

I. Philosophy The term “alienation,” made particularly prominent through the influence of Marxist literature, takes its philosophical sense from the work of G.W.F. → Hegel. Etymologically, it derives from Lat. alienatio and Gk. ἀλλοτρίωσις/allotriōsis. Besides “estrangement” in general, it can also denote a legal transfer of title (Aristotle, Rhet. 1361 a 22). The term occurs in various contexts in Christian theology, denoting both separation from God and, positively, renunciation of earthly goods and pleasures. Hegel’s terminological specification of the concept goes back to its legal sense, which acquired a philosophical dimension in J.-J. → Rousseau’s expression aliénation totale, the renunciation of all individual freedom in the social contract (Du contrat social, I 6). The point of this usage is that individuals learn to experience their true freedom through alienation. Combined with Rousseau’s diagnosis of the fragmented modern individual, this usage entered into Hegel’s presentation of the development of consciousness expounded in the chapter on “The Self-Alienated Spirit; Culture,” in his Phänomenologie des Geistes (Werke in 20 Bänden, vol. III, 359– 441). Alienation is a motive force in the development of the spirit, in that self-consciousness becomes separated or alienated from the self, and in this alienation engenders a spiritual world. This world does not appear as the product of the self but confronts the subject in the form of wealth and the power of the state. This reality, therefore, appears as something alien, which self-consciousness endeavors to makes its own, not recognizing that it is a product of its own activity. Alienation appears initially as an inner conflict of self-consciousness. In fact, however, it proves to be the self-preservation of consciousness, for here it sublates its initial onesidedness and finds its self-realization in wealth and power. Another aspect of alienation is associated with religious belief (ibid., 391–398). This motif is addressed in L. → Feuerbach’s criticism of religion (→ Religious Criticism), who employs it to attack philosophical idealism on the basis of an anthropology based on the sensory experience of the human individual. For K. → Marx, this is also an outward aspect of alienation, the true nature of which may be seen in the capitalistic form

of → labor. In his Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte (written in 1844), Marx presents his analysis of alienated labor, degraded to a commodity, the products of which appear to the workers as alien objectivity and thus alienate them from themselves. In Marx’s late writings, the term loses its significance. Even in → Marxism, it took on renewed importance only in connection with an interest in Hegel and after the publication of the Ökonomischphilosophische Manuskripte in 1932 (G. → Lukács, H. → Marcuse, E. → Fromm). Georg Zenkert II. Dogmatics Modern usage blends the earlier economic and religious senses of the term with ethical and political concerns of the present day. Often with some lack of clarity, an ideal is assumed that justifies charging an experience of difference with being a form of “alienation”; such theological usage must test associated ambitions of identity. In Christianity, on the basis of Eph 2:2; 4:18; Col 1:21, alienation is often contrasted with the covenant relationship and life with God (and with the church); like “misery,” it is explained as the consequence and outcome of → sin. Conversely, alienation from everything earthly and sensual may be considered positive (→ Origen, → Augustine); it marks the beginning of the contemplative ascent to God. That “ecstasy” does not exclude but rather includes a self-relationship, becomes apparent in late medieval mysticism. Nevertheless, neither then nor in the Reformation does “alienation” take on an independent life. Alienation is conceptualized in modern historiography, where it seeks to justify the demand for human freedom amid the demands of socialization. Passive selfalienation (“sin”) and active self-estrangement (“labor”) overlap: alienation becomes a condition of authentic humanity. The materialist explanation of religious and economic alienation, by contrast, aims at producing immediate possession of the self. Nevertheless, the emphatic neo-Marxist concept of alienation, oriented toward the utopia of unalienated life, was theologically productive. If the concept of alienation is not to be otiose (T.W. → Adorno), the integration of alienation into the totally practical “definition of humanity,” already criticized by S. → Kierkegaard, must be modified by the insights into alienation and alterity provided by ecology, social psychology, and cultural anthropology. In practice, however, the theological concept of alienation performs its analytic task in dealing with the fragmentations and estrangements of the modern subject by virtue of its critical power in the face of abstractly postulated identity: its insight into the always mediated nature of the self in its relationship to God and its reconciling role in the path God takes to meet the sinner “in an alien

Alienation from the Church land.” This function has been analyzed christologically by K. → Barth (KD IV/1, 171–231*), anthropologically by P. → Tillich (Systematic Theology II, 52–68*) and Pannenberg. There has also been renewed discussion of the alienation (suffering) of God that goes beyond the kenosis of the Logos. J. Israel, Der Begriff der Entfremdung, 1972 ◆ E. Ritz, HWP II, 1972, 509–525 ◆ H.H. Schrey, ed., Entfremdung, 1975 ◆ H. Ottmann & H.G. Ulrich, TRE VIII, 1981, 657–680 (bibl.) ◆ W. Pannenberg, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983, 258–278; ET: Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1995. Walter Sparn

III. Ethics For theological ethics, the meaning of “alienation” rests on the assumption – implicit in the existential assurance of faith – that alienation is an appropriate interpretation of sin (Col 1:21; Tillich, see II above), which, limited by lawfully ordained authority, is overcome by God’s effectual reconciling will (2 Cor 5). On this basis, theological ethics draws critically on the history of the theory of alienation. Its criterion rests in its understanding of human beings as created beings, freely responsible as individuals for the course of their own lives and thus for establishing just and beneficial structural rules to govern social interaction. In the light of this criterion, theological ethics cannot recognize society as the subject of its norms and hence as the source of social and psychological deformations. It operates instead with the notion of an “asymmetrical” relationship between consensus concerning social order and the actual form taken by society, with the concomitant effect on the individual identity of its members (Herms). First, therefore, theological ethics will use the term “alienation” critically to characterize social systems whose structural rules interfere with or prevent the free exercise of individual responsibility on the part of its members, leading not only to anomic behavior (E. → Durkheim) but also to the evils of perverse obedience and indifference. Second, it will demonstrate constructively that the framing of rules that limit alienation is conditioned by processes of tradition in which God’s reconciling will is a matter of individual assurance. P. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., 1951–1963, esp. vol. II, 1957 ◆ E. Herms, Kirche für die Welt, 1995, esp. 231–317. Konrad Stock

IV. Practical Theology In the realm of practical theology, the meaning of this polyvalent interpretive category, which can be employed sociologically, ontologically, or anthropologically (Schrey, see II above) is disclosed in the relationships between the institutional church, the processes that are transforming modern society, and individuals (Rössler). If it is true that “liberation and alienation . . . are the two

144 sides of the same coin, which is called modernity” (Berger 36), then the church’s loss of influence in society that goes hand in hand with modern secularization can be understood as the alienation of contemporary individuals from the institutionalized form of the Christian religion; but this is not the same thing as alienation from Christianity per se (R. → Rothe). Conversely, practical theology has often reflected on the alienation of the institutional church, its normative theology, and above all the clergy who are its primary representatives from both the pluralistic and individual religion of contemporaries and their real situation. Realization of the problematic consequences of social change brought engagement with the → “social question” (O. → Baumgarten). But the church has also been understood as an antisecular space open to those who are alienated from themselves and from others, in which the objections to human alienation in its religious dimension (Tillich, see II, III above) can make themselves heard. Recently the “dysfunctionality” of the clerical office (E. → Lange) and the separateness of the clergy, who are “different” (M. Josuttis), has been opened to discussion. The pragmatic correlative to the perception of alienation in its sociological sense is to be found in the concept of mediation. Its criterion is found in the “religious potential of the national church” (V. Drehsen), which can guide a twofold educational process supporting church action in the context of altered social realities and the individuals who take responsibility for this action. The question of how to describe the experience of estrangement and otherness, how to integrate it into a “practical theology of the subject” (H. Luther) and relate it to the theory of religion must be open to a variety of answers. P.L. Berger, The Heretical Imperative, 1979 ◆ D. Rössler, Grundriß der Praktischen Theologie, 1986, 21994. Hans Martin Dober

Alienation from the Church In the global context, there is a typical difference between alienation from the church in the north and in the south. In the northern hemisphere, it normally takes the form of increasing → secularism, especially among the younger generation. In the southern hemisphere (excluding New Zealand, Australia, and all of Melanesia except the Malayan archipelago), it takes the form of a shift in membership, usually among the poor, from the established Churches to sects and → New Religious Movements. 1. In the cultures of the West, alienation from the church consists not only in a clear decrease in church membership and churchgoing in most European countries (as well as Canada and Australasia) during the past 30 years, but also in the existence of a growing segment of the population in each of these countries unaffiliated to any form of religion. In 1950, for example, 23% of a representative sample surveyed in Great Britain responded

145 negatively to the question “Would you describe yourself as belonging to a religion or denomination?” By 1977, the proportion of people with no religious affiliation had risen to 45%. Two thirds of those between the ages of 18 and 20 stated that they had no religious affiliation, also a new trend. The statistical studies conducted by the European Values Systems Study Group covering a shorter period, first after 1980 and then after 1990, showed a similar reduction in average weekly church attendance from 49% to 29%; among those between 18 and 24, an especially clear reduction from 43% to 18% was observed. Even in the USA, despite much evidence of a comparatively steady high level of religious commitment, there are hints of an increasing secularism. Gallup polls conducted over the last 50 years revealed comparatively strong regular churchgoing on the part of some 40% of the general population, down from a temporary high of 50%. Over the course of 50 years, in response to the direct question “What is your religious denomination?” an increasing number of persons claimed no religious affiliation (rising from 2% to 11%). The national census in Australia similarly documents an increase in the number of people claiming no religious affiliation, from 6.7% in 1971 to 16.6% in 1996. In addition, the proportion of those surveyed who claimed to attend church at least once a month, disregarding denominational boundaries, dropped from 47% in 1950 to 24% in 1993. Canadian surveys document an analogous reduction in the number of people who claimed to have attended church or synagogue during the previous seven days, from 65% in the 40s to 30% in the 90s; this reduction was as clear among Catholics (esp. in Quebec) as among Protestants. Even in the Catholic countries of Europe where church attendance remains high, such as Poland, Malta, and Ireland, there are reports of increasing alienation from the church among the younger generation. 2. It is difficult to present comparable statistical material from the southern countries for the second type of alienation from the church. Nevertheless, reports from both Protestant and Catholic churches of the southern hemisphere document a consistent pattern of movement to “sects.” In the islands of the Pacific, for instance, → Adventists and Pentecostalism movements as well as new religious movements represent a major challenge to the long-established Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant churches. In the Caribbean today the so-called Spiritual Baptists dominate a number of impoverished territories. A similar alienation from the established Churches has been observed in both South America and Africa; in South America there has been an especially striking conversion of Catholics to Pentecostal churches. 3. The two basic worldwide types of alienation from the church can sometimes appear together. In modern Russia, for example, a shift from the Orthodox Church

All Saints’ Day to new religious movements is presently taking place, together with an increasing secularization, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. R. Gill, Churchgoing and Christian Ethics, 1999 ◆ idem, “The Future of Religious Participation in Britain and Beyond,” in: R.K. Fenn, ed., Companion to the Sociology of Religion, 2001, 279–291. Robin Gill

Alivisatos, Hamilcar Spiridonus. (May 17, 1887, Lixurion – Aug 14, 1969, Athens) was professor of canon law and practical theology in Athens 1919–1956; academically, ecclessially and politically, he was one of the most important personalities in the Greek church in the 20th century. He authored almost 300 publications, co-authored the Church Constitution of 1923, organized the first Orthodox theological congress in Athens in 1936, was a pioneer in the → ecumenical movement beginning in 1920, and was a member of the executive committee of the WCC from 1948 to 1968. G.I. Konidares, TEE II, 1963, 160–164 ◆ “Un grand œcuméniste: le Prof. H.S.A.,” Irén. 42, 1969, 523–531. Heinz Ohme

Al-Kindī → Kindī All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC). The AACC was founded in 1963 in Kampala, Uganda. In 1996, its membership included 147 Churches and affiliated Christian councils in 39 African countries. The members are Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, and independent churches. The organization corresponds to the → World Council of Churches. The first general secretary was the South African Dr. Donald M’Timkulu. Since 1998, the general secretary is Clement H. Janda (Sudan), and the president is bishop Kwesi Dickson (Ghana). The office of the general secretary is in Nairobi, Kenya. Thus far, there have been seven general assemblies, the last in 1997 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The major emphases of the work of the AACC are: theological education, work with the youth, with women and refugees, peace negotiations – esp. in civil wars – literary and mass communication. Since its founding, the AACC has been supported by the WCC and Western Churches. Thus far, it has been a loose umbrella organization, but in the future it will have to assume a more binding form if it wants to have a greater influence on the religious, political, and social future of Africa. AACCB I, 1963, 64ff. ◆ W. Müller-Römheld, ÖL, 21987, 450f. ◆ Tam Tam 1, 1990ff. ◆ N. Idarous & J.S. Pobee, Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 1991, 14–15. Gerhard Grohs

All Saints’ Day unified feast for all → saints of a specific region, originally grew out of the need to incorporate the remembrance of the → martyrs in the

All Souls’ Day annual Easter celebration. The custom of associating the remembrance of the saints with the beginning of the Celtic year on Nov 1 spread from Ireland in the 8th/9th centuries. Promoted by Gregory IV (828–844) and → Louis I, the Pious (814–840), this date finally prevailed in the West and is often also adopted in the festival canon of Reformed church orders. A. Adam, Das Kirchenjahr mitfeiern, 1979; ET: The Liturgical Year, 2005. Karl-Heinrich Bieritz

All Souls’ Day, the annual remembrance of the deceased, has its roots in ancient commemoration of the dead. Originally related to the Easter celebration, the 2nd day of November (earliest witness, between 1015 and 1033) finally prevailed over other dates. First widespread in Gaul and England, All Souls’ Day became customary in the 14th century in Rome and in the 15th century among Spanish Dominicans. The new missal of 1970 employs the theme of the hope for perfection for those who are asleep in Christ. The Protestant → Remembrance Sunday before Advent offers a certain parallel. Eastern Orthodox Churches celebrate the memorial of the dead on the Saturday before Pentecost. P. Harnoncourt & H. auf der Maur, Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit, GDK 2, 1, 1994. Karl-Heinrich Bieritz

Allah I. Pre-Islamic Period – II. Qurhān

I. Pre-Islamic Period Even in the pre-Islamic period, the deity Allah (“God”) was worshiped at the Qaabah. In the course of the 6th century ce, this shrine achieved preeminence among comparable cultic sites in the → Arabian Peninsula. These sites were dedicated to one or several deities and were frequented by one or several tribes. The Qaabah was by no means recognized as a cultic center by all the tribes of the Arabian peninsula, but its influence extended as far as Yemen. Words uttered by pilgrims to signal their entrance into a consecrated state show that during the performance of these rites the Allah of the Qaabah was thought of as the one God; in everyday life, however, polytheism still ruled. As these utterances show, the promise to lead a moral life was also associated with the worship of Allah. The pre-Islamic God-seekers (Óanifs) emphasized this idea; they also enriched the notion of Allah as the highest God with teachings drawn from the high religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity, which had infiltrated the Arabian peninsula. For them, Allah became the creator God, who unceasingly governs his creation and will one day sit in judgment on all humanity. M.J. Kister, “Labbayka, Allāhumma, Labbayka . . . On a Monotheistic Aspect of Jāhiliyya Practice,” Jerusalem Studies in

146 Arabic and Islam 2, 1980, 33–57 ◆ T. Nagel, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, 1994, ch. 1. Tilman Nagel

II. Qurhān The concept of God in the → Qurhān represents a further development of the pre-Islamic notion. The highest divine being (sura 92:20) rapidly turns into Allah, the only God, beside whom all the deities worshiped by the pagan Arabs are nothing. This one God is thought of as the creator, whose governance ceaselessly pervades the world; God never rests – a notion that gained sharper definition in the dispute with the Jews in Medina. A portion of this understanding is identical with the revelation in which Allah had previously made himself known to other prophets even before → Mu˙ammad. Allah, who constantly cares for his creation, demands gratitude from human beings; to withhold this gratitude is tantamount to unbelief and puts salvation at risk, because God will one day bring his work to an end, destroy the world, raise the dead, and sit in judgment upon all. He will consign unbelievers to hell; believers will enter paradise. What distinguishes the Allah of the Qurhān from the pre-Islamic Allah – besides his uniqueness – is the strict requirement, incumbent in principle on all humanity, to order one’s life according to the divine law, as well as the belief that Allah has intervened repeatedly in human history by calling prophets and by imposing punishment, already on earth, on nations that reject their message. In the Medina period, because Mu˙ammad’s followers found themselves in an endangered situation, the idea of a strict works-righteousness was also added: sacrifices made “on the pathway of God” will be richly rewarded in the afterlife. L. Gardet, EI2, 1960, 406–409 ◆ T. Nagel, Der Koran, 21960, 406. Tilman Nagel

Allatius, Leo(n) (c. 1588, Chios – Jan 18, 1669, Rome), Catholic theologian and learned humanist of Greek origin, promoter of church union and the → Counter-Reformation. In 1618, he was appointed Scriptor graecus of the Vatican Library, of which he became custodian in 1660. In 1622/23, he was responsible for incorporating the Bibliotheca Palatina into the collection. He authored some 60 works; 236 autograph volumes remain unpublished. His major work, De ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione (1648), answers Orthodox charges of Roman innovations; in 1000 pages that draw on many unpublished manuscripts, it seeks to show that the two churches had always agreed in substance. The political consequences of his primary thesis and polemic against the use of the → Filioque and Palamism in (post-) Byzantine theology evoked Protestant and Orthodox rejoinders (→ Dositheos of Jerusalem).

147

Allegory

G. Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft 1453–1821, 1988 ◆ É. Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique . . ., 1895 ◆ C. Jacono, Bibliografia di Leone Allacci, 1962. Heinz Ohme

Allegory I. History of Religions – II. Classical Antiquity – III. Bible – IV. Church History – V. Systematics – VI. Practical Exegesis – VII. Religious Art

I. History of Religions Allegory (from Gk ἀλληγορέω/allēgoreō, “say something other [than the literal meaning]”), is a hermeneutical technique (→ Hermeneutics: I). The moment a religious message becomes fixed (especially in writing), a need for interpretation arises. One way to meet this need is to treat traditional elements (stories, divine names and genealogies, ritual acts, etc.) as vehicles conveying a new meaning. The traditional meanings then possess only “inauthentic” or “provisional” force. Historically, this way of dealing with → tradition (I) manifests itself primarily in SumeroAkkadian commentary literature, Indian religion, Greek philosophy (allegorical interpretation of → myths), and the Jewish and Christian treatment of Scripture. The allegorical approach is often systematized, a development that leads to the deliberate creation of allegories. H. Cancik-Lindemaier, HRWG I, 1988, 424–432.

Fritz Stolz

II. Classical Antiquity In Classical Antiquity, as always, allegory arises from the tension between a culturally authoritative text that can no longer be altered freely and the increasingly serious differences between that text on the one hand and intellectual and social reality on the other. In order both to salvage the authority of the text and do justice to the changed situation, allegorical interpretation attempts to conceal this tension by reinterpretation and adaptation – at the same time attesting unambiguously to the tension itself, so that despite its conservative devotion to the past, allegoresis becomes an unintentional witness to cultural change and a consciousness of modernity. By ascribing to the text an “underlying meaning” (Gk ὑπόνοια/hyponoia) or a “different sense” (Gk ἀλληγορία/ allēgoria) that represents its real intention, allegoresis reproduces in minute textual phenomena the larger cultural discrepancies that readers experience in their lives, for good or ill. Texts as early as the Homeric epics (→ Homer) display occasional traces of a familiarity with allegorical interpretation resulting from centuries of oral transmission of legendary material amenable only to limited modification. Not until the gradual process of literary fixation was complete, however, was the discrepancy between the text of the epics and the expectations of their recipients

so unmistakable that allegory could emerge as a separate and distinct literary praxis. Toward the end of the 6th century bce, the first allegorist known by name, Theagenes of Rhegium, responded to vigorous attacks on Homer’s truthfulness and morality by interpreting the Homeric theomachia as a conflict of physical phenomena or psychological faculties. Even after the close of the Classical age, allegorical interpretation remained the most effective means of defending the authority of Homer in schools against skeptical children (and parents) and claiming his philosophic prestige for one’s own teachings. Unfortunately, only scant remnants of school allegory have survived (scholia, handbooks, papyri, anecdotes). We are much better informed about the philosophical controversies over allegory. The debate reached its first climax in the late 5th century bce, when Sophists (→ Sophistry), philosophers, rhapsodes, rhetoricians (→ Rhetoric: I), poets, and religious conservatives clashed. Anaxagoras and his student Metrodorus of Lampsacus were considered the fathers of ethical and physical allegory (Diogenes Laertius, Lives II, 3, 11). In the so-called Derveni Papyrus (c. 400 bce), an erudite Orphic (→ Orphics) subjected the poetry of his revered master to allegorical interpretation. → Plato did not reject allegorical interpretation as wrong but only as insufficient to justify the work of poets (Pol. II, 378d–e); he himself composed vivid allegorical myths in several of his dialogues. So his student → Aristotle was able to justify some myths as remnants of archaic wisdom from the time preceding a natural catastrophe (Metaph. Λ 8, 1074 a38–b14; Cael. 284 a2–13; Frag. 13 Rose3), and the Neoplatonists were able to use Plato’s philosophy as the basis of a thoughtful and systematic allegorical approach not only to Homer’s poetry but ultimately to Plato’s own writings. The → Stoics were long considered extreme allegorists, and in fact two extant works on allegorical interpretation were composed by Stoics, → Cornutus and (Pseudo-) → Heraclitus; but most Stoics were more interested in isolated words, which they analyzed etymologically, and myths, which they understood as symbols of individual propositions, than in complete literary compositions, which they often considered to be compounds of original truth and the poet’s irrational doxa. Only the Epicureans (→ Epicureanism) and the Middle Academy were largely immune to allegorical interpretation, although → Lucretius himself was very receptive to it. But where there is hermeneutical tension, there is also an increase in understanding. At least as early as the Hellenistic period, allegorical interpretation served not only as a weapon in the Greek battle over legitimacy but also as a means of intercultural exchange; together with religious syncretism, it served to reveal unsuspected common ground shared with other traditions. → Alexandria

Allegory became the center of this lively cultural allegoresis. There, since the early Empire Jews, → Gnostics, Christians, and → Neoplatonists, arguing productively about everything else, were unanimous in their belief that allegorical interpretation was indispensable. The textual strategies of allegorical exegesis, originating in archaic reflection on Homer and perfected in imperial Alexandria by → Philo, → Clement of Alexandria, and → Origen, led especially in later Latin literature to the composition of many poetic texts intended as allegories. In the Middle Ages and the modern period, finally, these strategies provided an important instrument for reinterpreting and preserving the heritage of Antiquity as a whole. C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, 1936 ◆ F. Buffière, Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque, 1956 ◆ J. Pépin, Mythe et allégorie, 21976 ◆ R. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 1986 ◆ J. Whitman, Allegory, 1987 ◆ G.W. Most, “Cornutus and Stoic Allegoresis,” ANRW II, 36, 3, 1989, 2014–2065 ◆ idem, “Die früheste erhaltene griechische Dichterallegorie,” RMP 136, 1993, 209– 212 ◆ idem, “The Fire Next Time,” JHS 117, 1997, 117–135. Glenn W. Most

III. Bible 1. If the selective transferability of individual elements in a visual text, associated in part with extratextual references, may be considered the primary mark of literary allegory, several symbolic passages in the OT and NT exhibit allegorical features to varying degrees. Examples include the allegory of the shepherd in Ezek 34 (cf. also Ezek 16; 17; 19; 23; 31; Ps 80:9–17) and the shepherd discourse in John 10:1–18 (cf. John 15:1–17; Rom 11: 17–24), as well as the apocalyptic (→ Apocalypticism) vision of the animals (uninterpreted) in 1 Enoch 85– 90. The extent to which this holds for Jesus’ parables (→ Parable: II), which sometimes use stock → metaphors and address specific situations, remains controversial. Their allegorical content has undoubtedly increased over the course of their transmission through a process of secondary allegoresis, but this does not mean that in every case we can recover an initial stage totally free of allegory. 2. A relatively independent line of development takes dreams and their interpretation as its point of departure, since according to → Artemidorus Daldianus and S. → Freud dreams can be allegorical. The way in which dreams and their interpretation overlap in the Joseph story (Gen 40–41), for example, provides a model for the sequence of a vision with metaphorical or symbolic content followed by its allegorical interpretation, often by an angel, in prophetic and apocalyptic literature. This interpretive model crystallizes in the OT in the night visions of Zechariah (Zech 1–6; cf. earlier Amos 7:7–9; 8:1–3) and reaches a first climax in the book of Daniel (Dan 2; 4; 7; 8). Later it became established as a dominant genre within apocalyptic literature (2 Esd 9:38–

148 10:57; 11:1–12:35; 13:1–56; 1 Enoch 40:1–10; 2 Bar. 36:1–40:4; etc.). The Dead Sea scrolls apply this interpretive schema to scriptural texts (cf. Dan 9:2, 20–27 on Jer 25:11f.); it may be recognized by the formula “that is. . . .” Examples include the interpretation of the Song of the Well (Num 21:18) in CD 6.3–10 and the pesharim on the Psalms and Prophets. This model is also followed by the allegorical parable interpretation in Mark 4:10– 20 parr. and Matt 13:36–43, 49f. 3. Allegoresis as a hermeneutical approach appears in the biblical interpretation of Hellenistic diaspora Judaism, especially in the works of Philo of Alexandria (cf. also the reflection in Josephus Ant. I, 24). Allegoresis is not arbitrary; it is based on certain linguistic observations (word order, number, etymology, metaphorical connotations, etc.) but relates the text at hand to an alien system of thought so as to make the text topical. In rabbinic Judaism, it was an allegorical reading that made it possible to include the Song of Songs in the canon. Within the Bible, the root ἀλληγορ- occurs only as a verb in Gal 4:24, where Paul presents a polemical interpretation of → Hagar and → Sarah together with their sons. He employs a similar exegesis in 1 Cor 5:6–8; 9:9f.; 10:4. Structurally, the interpretation of Scripture in Hebrews (see esp. 7:2f.; 10:20) is also allegorical. Its characterization as → typology has more to do with the content of the book and is motivated in part by apologetic interests. W. Haug, ed., Formen und Funktionen der Allegorie, 1979 ◆ B. Willmes, Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ez 34, BET 19, 1984 ◆ H.-J. Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, NTA.NF 13, 21986, (bibl.) ◆ D. Dawson, Allegorial Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria, 1992. Hans-Josef Klauck

IV. Church History 1. Early Church. The allegorical interpretation of Scripture in the Early Church borrowed the methods of Hellenistic Judaism (→ Philo of Alexandria), used to elicit a deeper meaning (Gk hypónoia) from sacred texts and traditions in the setting of current philosophical and ethical debate (after the model of Stoic interpretation of myths) and give this meaning new influence. The interpretation of the OT in the light of the Christ event practically demanded such exegetical methods. Alongside typology – the interpretation of historical figures and events from the past as references to the present or future –, allegoresis played an important role in such interpretation. With the help of etymology, toponyms and personal names were given new interpretations. Numerals took on a deeper meaning. And the more Christian theology came to rely on biblical texts, the more important became historical and philological knowledge. Origen of Alexandria played an outstanding role in this development: he was the first Christian theologian to refer consistently to the biblical text. In

149 his view, Scripture as a whole was the work of the divine → Logos; in it every detail has a deeper meaning. When the literal sense caused problems, he believed, it was the task of the exegete to inquire into the spiritual sense, which revealed the truth of the Christian Gospel without inconsistencies. The emphasis of the Antiochene school on the historical sense of Scripture (→ Theodore of Mopsuestia) may be understood as a criticism of Origenian allegoresis, with its threefold (later fourfold) sense of Scripture, analogous to the human organism (body, soul, and mind). This way of reading Scripture, practiced by such exegetes as → Didymus the Blind and → Evagrius Ponticus, lived on in later Western theology. H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, 4 vols., 1959–1963 ◆ R. Gögler, Zur Theologie des biblischen Wortes bei Origenes, 1963 ◆ W.A. Bienert, “Allegoria” und “Anagoge” bei Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandrien, PTS 13, 1972 ◆ C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, Theoph. 23, 1974 ◆ J. Pépin, “Hermeneutik,” RAC XIV, 1988, 722–771 ◆ H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung, vol. I, 1990. Wolfgang A. Bienert

2. Middle Ages to Modern Times. According to → Isidore of Seville, allegory is a kind of “doublespeak” (alieniloquium), which says something other than its overt meaning (Etymologiae I, 37). Allegory is based on the principle that the things denoted by the conventional meanings of words reveal a meaning given them by God. According to → Hugo and → Richard of St. Victor, words have at most two or three meanings, but things can have as many meanings as they have attributes (Hugo, Didascalicon VI, 14; cf. also Bonaventura, Breviloquium, Prologue 4). The meanings of words are studied in the trivium, the meanings of things in the quadrivium (→ Artes liberales). Things acquire meaning through analogy, which uses the visible to represent the invisible. A distinction is made between rhetorical allegory as a trope and hermeneutical allegoresis as a method of interpretation (see → Bede, De schematibus et tropis, II, 12). Allegory was usually associated with the Bible, while in poetry and philosophy the method of the integumentum (“protective envelope”) was at work. → Abelard and → William of Conches interpreted Plato integumentally and thus related him to Christian doctrine. In his Commentarius in Martianum Capella, → Bernardus Silvestris treats allegory, which is based on narratio historica (“historical narrative”), and integumentum, which is found in narratio fabulosa (“fictional narrative”), as two kinds of involucrum (“sheath”). → Thomas Aquinas distinguishes the extended concept of allegory, which denotes any spiritual sense above and beyond the literal sense, from the narrower figurative/ typological concept, which denotes one of the three forms of spiritual sense, alongside the moral/tropological and the anagogical/eschatological. While the literal, historical sense is accessible to the human intellect,

Allegory the spiritual sense can only be communicated by God. Therefore, allegory is a specific of theology. Thomas emphasizes that the four → senses of Scripture are not equivocations: the other three build on the literal sense (Summa theologiae I, q. 1, a. 10). According to Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, the presence of allegory should be assumed only when the literal sense is incomprehensible, nonsensical, inconsistent, or unrelated to faith or morals. To protect Scripture from being reshaped by tradition, Luther was hostile to allegoresis, emphasizing the sufficiency of the literal sense, which for him possessed in itself spiritual and especially christological substance (see his sermon of Nov 13, 1524, on Exod 1 [WA 16, 67–80]). In the modern period, therefore, allegoresis became increasingly unimportant, until it experienced a revival within Pietism in the work of J.G. → Herder and then, in the context of German Idealism, F.C. → Baur (see also under → Biblical Criticism). H.J. Spitz, Die Metaphorik des geistigen Schriftsinns, 1972 ◆ F. Ohly, Schriften zur mittelalterlichen Bedeutungsforschung, 1977 ◆ U. Krewitt, “Allegorese außerchristlicher Texte II,” TRE II, 1978, 284–290 (sources) ◆ H. Brinkmann, Mittelalterliche Hermeneutik, 1980 ◆ H. Freytag, Die Theorie der allegorischen Schriftdeutung, 1982 ◆ G. Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung, 31991 ◆ W. Harms & K. Speckenbach, eds., Bildhafte Rede, 1992 ◆ C. Zerfaß, Die Allegorese zwischen Latinität und Volkssprache, 1995. Reinhold Rieger

V. Systematics Any theological assessment of the tradition of allegorical interpretation must first note that it presupposes certain fundamental insights into the nature of the biblical text. 1. Allegoresis recognizes that the meaning of a narrative text is not absolutely dependent on its historical veracity. Philo of Alexandria and Origen already pointed out that it is not critical to the meaning of the first chapters of Genesis as canonical Scripture that we believe that the world was actually created in six days and that the first human couple was tempted by a speaking serpent, that Cain married his sister, and that God regretted having created the world. Allegoresis frees the interpreter from the constraints of a “fundamentalist” approach to the text. 2. Allegoresis is grounded in the depth and richness of the biblical text. No text, however inconsequential it may seem, can be considered not worth the effort of interpretation, for every passage plays its role in the total witness of Scripture to “the breadth and length and height and depth” (Eph 3:18) of the work of the triune God in creation and redemption. These positive insights guarantee that the value of the biblical text is not lessened by the negative insight that it is sometimes historically unreliable. This knowledge instead enables the interpreter to see more precisely where the actual theological significance of the text resides. Modern scholarship may sometimes be inclined to ignore or at least leave open the theological question

Allegory of the truth claim intended by the text; when it does so, it abandons the text as normative canonical Scripture of the Christian community. Allegoresis, however, presupposes an understanding of the text in its normative canonical form. In contrast to the program of interpreting the Bible “just like any other book,” allegoresis takes as its starting point the uniqueness of a genuinely Christian interpretation of Scripture. Since the Reformation, allegoresis has fallen into disfavor, on the grounds that a distinction between what the text says and what it means can lead only to arbitrariness in interpretation. It is not hard to find patristic and medieval examples of such arbitrary interpretation. But the historical-critical method, too, has led to many interpretations that appear equally arbitrary and unlikely. If it is correct to assume that a genuinely Christian approach to biblical interpretation is justified, then the concerns and insights of allegoresis should not be rejected prematurely. A contemporary and theologically responsible approach to interpretation of the biblical text must take the “allegorical” dimension into consideration. This would not mean an arbitrary identification of entities that are inherently incompatible, but rather an obligation to interpret every passage of Scripture in such a way as to make clear its relationship to the normative witness to the work of God that constitutes its center. H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 41975, 68–77; ET: Truth and Method, 21989 ◆ M. Frank, Das individuelle Allgemeine, 1985, 212–289. Francis B. Watson

VI. Practical Exegesis In the reciprocal relationship in which the biblical text and the world of the interpreter illuminate each other, allegoresis in everyday scriptural interpretation has always drawn on ordinary experience. Its function and limits must be determined by reference to the history of its use. The Reformers’ break with the convention of a metaphysically defined sensus spiritualis marks a caesura. Since Luther, who conceded some place to the rhetorical function of the “flowery word” (WA 7, 651), the subjective character of allegorical expression, which defamiliarizes conventions, has been brought back to the norm of the sensus litteralis. Against the background of historical criticism’s focus on truth, where all that matters is what the author intended to say, modern allegoresis has been able to evolve in the setting of the ambivalence described by W. → Benjamin: on the one hand, giving meaning to what seems meaningless, it fills gaps in the text with the substance of experience and destroys the false appearance of self-evidence; on the other hand, it stands in constant danger of allowing arbitrary interpretation to dominate the texts. Thus, the “secret interpretation” of Pietism depicted personal experience in images or described it in terms of textual content (P.F. → Hiller)

150 and “modern theology” translated it into contemporary ideas (F. → Niebergall); the Herrnhut watchwords (→ “Losungen”) paved the way for ambiguous interpretation based on citation and collage; and contemporary homileticians suggest that preachers preparing their sermons “stage” their biblical texts (Henning Luther). H.J. Körtner, “Schrift und Geist,” NZST 36, 1994, 1–17 ◆ H. Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung, vol. II, 1994. Hans Martin Dober

VII. Religious Art An allegorical picture grows out of a literary referentiality; it serves to visualize abstract concepts or complex themes. In the process, significant details from ancient mythology and Christian tradition are set in new contexts, reflecting the contemporary “code” and shaping a new tradition. The favored form of representation in painting is personification: a human figure whose significance is indicated by added attributes, gestures, mimicry, clothing, and explanatory titles. In the course of this process, there also emerge theriomorphic images and fabulous figures (→ Physiologus). Popular subjects include the groups of virtues and vices and the seven artes liberales. It is possible to arrange the allegories according to iconographic or iconologic topoi, for which the 16th century provided corresponding emblem books or collections. Allegory performed different functions in different eras. In Late Antiquity, we find didactic visual allegories in the form of monumental paintings and sculptures as well as text illustrations. As the encyclopedic theology of the cathedral portals illustrates, the High Middle Ages witnessed a tendency toward more expansive compositions and greater complexity. In the late Middle Ages, we observe an increasing preference for moral themes (mortality, folly) and a tendency to create new allegorical subject matter that diverges increasingly from purely religious concerns (e.g. the well of life). In the → Renaissance (III), besides an erudite mystification of allegorical images, we find above all personifications of classical mythology, replacing the biblical figures. At the same time but in a different vein, there developed a popular moralizing form of allegory, sometimes satirical; since the beginning of the conflicts brought on by the Reformation, it served the purposes of confessional polemic in the form of woodcuts, broadsides, etc. Pictorial allegory reached its culmination in the → Baroque, when the combination of the → Counter Reformation and → absolutism brought the allegorical decoration of both sacral and secular architecture to extraordinary heights. The understanding of art espoused by → Classicism increasingly engendered criticism of allegory, which was felt to be facile and superficial. Greater simplicity and clarity were demanded

151

Alleluia

( J.J. → Winckelmann). Finally, the theoreticians of Romanticism sought to represent the parabolic dimension of art through allegory and symbolism. In the 20th century, allegory took on new importance in class conflicts and later in antifascist art (K. → Kollwitz, O. → Kokoschka). To the present day, allegory continues to demonstrate its ability to illuminate and interpret contemporary history and civilization. J.J. Winckelmann, Versuch einer Allegorie, besonders für die bildende Kunst, 1766 ◆ E. de Bruyne, Études d’esthétique mediévale, 3 vols., 1946 ◆ H. Dörries, “Spätantike Symbolik und Allegorese,” FMS 3, 1969, 1–12 ◆ G. Niklewski, Versuch über Symbol und Allegorie, 1979 ◆ G. Kurz, Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol, 1982 ◆ R. Wittkower, Allegorie und der Wandel der Symbole in Antike und Kunstwissenschaft, 1983 ◆ idem, Geschichte der Ästhetik und Kunsttheorie, 1986 ◆ M. Lurker, Wörterbuch der Symbolik, 1991 ◆ Der Physiologus, trans. O. Seel, 1992 ◆ H. Wenzel, Hören und Sehen, Schrift und Bild, 1995. Kirstin Faupel-Drevs

Alleine, Joseph (1634 – Nov 17, 1668), English Presbyterian → dissenter and Calvinist spiritual writer. After studying at Oxford (B.A. 1653) Alleine became assistant pastor at St. Mary Magdalene in Taunton, until he was ejected in 1662 for refusing to comply with the Act of Uniformity. He was imprisoned for illegal preaching in 1663–1664. His work, An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners, has been reprinted many times. Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals in the Seventeenth Century, vol. I, 1982, 7–8. Dewey D. Wallace Jr.

Alleluia I. Bible – II. Liturgy – III. Music

I. Bible Alleluia (Heb. “praise YHWH”) is the psalmists’ call to praise addressed to various groups and peoples which develops into a terminus technicus for liturgical songs of praise in the Psalter (→Psalms/Psalter) itself and in its reception, reflecting the Psalter’s dynamic of prayer → Prayer: II) from → lament to praise. Earlier individual songs of lament formulate the traditional promise to offer praise with the Hebrew verb

/hll (“I will praise”; e.g. Pss 22:23; 35:18; 56:5, 11; 69:31, 35); the supplicant in distress commends the public proclamation of thanksgiving for the deliverance requested. In younger so-called → hymns, one finds the plural call to praise combined with others (“proclaim, praise, thank”) both at the beginning (e.g. 96; 113; 135) and at the end (e.g. 100; 115; 135); as a theme, it shapes the entire corpus of Psalms (e.g. Pss 145; 148; 150). The exclusive use of 3/brk, “to bless, to praise” in the pilgrimage songs (Pss 120–134) and of

/hll, “to praise” at the conclusion of the Psalter (Pss 146–150) may indicate the difference between priestly praise and that of the levitical temple singers. In the last third of the Psalter, the alleluia assumes the function of a super- and sub-scription

for the redactional formation of groups of Psalms with hymnic content (Pss 104–106; 111–112; the so-called Egyptian Hallel Pss 113–117, 118; the so-called great Hallel Pss 135–136; the so-called final Hallel Pss 146– 150). LXX intensifies the trend of MT by leaving the alleluia untranslated, reduces its function to the superscription and, simultaneously, expands the Psalm groups (Pss 104–106; 110–118; 134–135; 145–150). Thereby, it establishes the alleluia as a terminus technicus for songs of praise, a circumstance evidenced in the diction of ancient Judaism (cf. Tob 13:18; 3 Macc 7:13; rabbinic usage) and the NT (cf. Rev 19). K. Koch, “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” in: K. Seybold & E. Zenger, eds., Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, HBS 1, 1994, 243–277 ◆ E. Zenger, “‘Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145:21),” BZ 41, 1997, 1–27. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld

II. Liturgy Liturgical use of the Alleluia is attested since the 3rd– 4th centuries ce in the sung psalmody of the divine office, esp. at → Easter. It was sung either as the congregation’s response to the Psalm or as an addition to other elements in order to lend them Easter character (e.g. as an addition to the “Ite, missa est,” the formula of dismissal). The alleluia was later used in the → mass before the Gospel reading in the form: acclamation of the congregation, strophe by cantor or choir, repetition of the alleluia. Later uses in the Gregorian order obscured this form. With time, the custom arose of refraining from the alleluia during Lent as a sign of contrition, and rites for the pre-Lenten period developed in the Middle Ages, in which one refrained from the alleluia. During Lent, a → tract, a solo-psalm composed for the purpose, replaced the alleluia before the Gospel reading in the mass. Today, in many liturgical traditions, an (often three-fold) alleluia serves as the congregation’s acclamation of the Gospel. The congregation stands and greets the Lord who speaks in the Gospel reading. Bibliography see III.

Anthony William Ruff

III. Music The musical settings of the alleluia in Gregorian chant (→ Gregorian Chant) extend from the simple syllabic settings of the antiphonal mass to the melismatic set- tings in the mass. These actual masses have a jubilus on the final syllable. The lines typically end with a jubilus in the same melody. Gregorian chant often employs the same melody for various alleluias. The alleluia is distinct in that, in the centuries following the “Golden Era” (probably the 8th cent.), many new melodies were composed. The current Roman Catholic order once again permits the use of the Gregorian alleluia repertoire, to be sure, but prefers the texts of the reformed alleluia cycle that

Allen, Horace Newton better suit the triennial → lectionary revised in accordance with → Vatican II. The alleluia is, thus, liturgically the least useful element of the Gregorian mass. Many composers have set this new cycle to music. K. Schlager, Thematischer Katalog der ältesten Alleluia-Melodien aus Handschriften des 10. und 11.Jh., 1965 ◆ A. Verheul, “La place et la signification de l’alléluia dans la célébration eucharistique,” Questions Liturgiques 73, 1992, 232–252 ◆ K. Schlager & C. Hannick, “Alleluia,” MGG 1, 1995, 445–462. Anthony William Ruff

Allen, Horace Newton (Apr 12, 1858, Delaware OH – Dec 11, 1932, Toledo, OH), American medical missionary in Korea. After a brief period with the Presbyterian mission in China (1883/84), Allen was transferred to → Korea as the first Protestant missionary resident in that country. Initially he worked in Seoul as a physician for the embassies. His successful treatment of a prince attracted the attention of the royal court. In 1885, he was appointed court physician and director of a government hospital, resigning from the mission. After a brief resumption of the relationship, Allen joined the American diplomatic service until he left it in 1905. Today it is still possible to honor his work without particularly emphasizing his missionary affiliation, above all because circumstances in Korea did not permit a public Christian witness. Allen’s personal Christian faith is beyond doubt, but he also deserves great credit for strengthening Korean national identity, which was threatened by both China and Japan. His books on Korea, esp. Korean Tales (1889) and Things Korean (1908), have enduring value. L.G. Paik, The History of Protestant Missions in Korea 1832–1910, 1929 ◆ Wi Jo Kang, “The Legacy of Horace Newton Allen,” IBMR 20, 1996, 125–128. Hans-Werner Gensichen

Allen, Richard (Feb 14, 1760, Philadelphia, PA – Mar 26, 1831, Philadelphia, PA), founder and first bishop of the → African Methodist Episcopal Church. Born to slave parents, Allen was sold c. 1776 to a Methodist family near Dover, DE. Converted to Methodism (→ Methodists: II) when he was 17, he purchased his freedom about 10 years later and became an itinerant preacher. In 1786, Allen went to Philadelphia, where he and A. → Jones helped establish the Free African Society. When this developed into Quakerism (→ Quakers: II), Allen sought to establish a black Methodist congregation free of discrimination. Bethel Chapel was dedicated in 1794, and in 1799 Allen was ordained by bishop F. → Asbury. Allen led the African Methodists into a separate denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1816 and became their first bishop. Works include: The Life, Experience, and Gospel Labors of the Right Reverend Richard Allen, 1833, repr. 1887, 1960, 1983 ◆ On Allen: C.H. Wesley, Richard Allen, 21969 ◆ C.V.R. George,

152 Segregate Sabbaths, 1973 ◆ M.C. Sernett, Black Religion and American Evangelism, 1975. Milton C. Sernett

Allen, Roland (Dec 29, 1868, Bristol – Jun 9, 1947, Nairobi). Ordained an Anglican priest in 1892, Allen went to China as a missionary in 1895, but returned and became a curate in the diocese of Oxford. He resigned this post because he objected to the paid ministry, and traveled through many parts of the world. He moved to Kenya in 1931, where he also died. Allen is best known for his prophetic writings, which began with the book Missionary Methods: St Paul’s or Ours? (1912). Later books were a development of this theme. The influence of Allen’s thinking is found in the Pentecostal movement, in Liberation Theology, and in the Three Self Movement (self-propagation, self-government, and selfsupport) in China. These insights helped to sustain life in the church throughout the Chinese cultural revolution. The use of voluntary clergy is developing in many places. The radical implications of Allen’s later thought (e.g. that the true celebrant of the Eucharist is the father in his own home) have yet to be assessed. D.M. Paton, ed., The Reform of the Ministry, 1968 (bibl.) ◆ G. Davies, ed., Setting Free the Ministry of the People of God, 1984. Robert Jeffery

Allen, William (1532, Rossall, Lancashire – Oct 16, 1594, Rome), cardinal. In 1547, Allen went to Oriel College, Oxford University, first as a student, then as a fellow, becoming principal of St Mary’s Hall in 1556. After the restoration of Protestantism under → Elizabeth I, he went to Louvain in 1562, where he lived among English Catholic exiles. After an interval in England for health reasons, he was ordained priest at Malines in 1565. In 1568, he founded an English College at Douai University for Catholic exiles, especially for the training of priests. The college remained there – apart from a brief interlude at Rheims – until 1793, and sent a stream of missionaries to England who helped to keep the Catholic faith alive. Allen became involved, together with the Jesuit Robert Parsons, in political schemes to overthrow Elizabeth and restore Catholicism. In 1587, he was made cardinal at the request of Philip II of Spain in preparation for becoming archbishop of Canterbury, should the Armada be successful. His activities, together with the excommunication of Elizabeth in 1570, laid the missionaries open to the undeserved charge of treason. He played an important part in the production of the “Rheims-Douai” version of the Bible (NT 1582, OT 1609), which remained in common use among English Catholics until the mid-20th century (→ Bible Translations: II). He also wrote a series of controversial theological works.

153

Allogenes

T.F. Knox, ed., Letters and Memorials, 1882 ◆ B. Camm, Cardinal William Allen, 1909 ◆ T. Cooper, DNB I, 1885, 314–322 ◆ E. Duffy, “William Cardinal Allen,” ReH 22, 1995, 265–290. Edward J. Yarnold

Allestree, Richard (Mar 1619, Uppington – Jan 28, 1681, London), Anglican theologian. He was educated at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A. in 1640, M.A. in 1643). Prior to his ordination Allestree was a soldier and fought as a royalist during the English Civil War. Expelled from Christ Church in 1648 for refusing to submit to parliament, Allestree became chaplain to Francis Newport. He served as a messenger for the exiled Charles II before his capture in 1659. Following the Restoration, Allestree became canon of Christ Church, and in 1660 he received the D.D. degree there. Appointed as chaplain to the king in 1663, he also served as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford from 1663 to 1679, and as provost of Eton College from 1665. Allestree is best known as the probable author of a devotional classic, The Whole Duty of Man (1658). Widely read well into the 18th century, the book encouraged the disciplined practice of Christian virtues. Works include: The Works of the Learned and Pious Author of the Whole Duty of Man, 1684 ◆ On Allestree: A.J. Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1991. Robert Cornwall

Alliance Israélite Universelle was founded in 1860 in Paris by a group of young, acculturated French Jews. Their representatives (Adolph Crémieux, Narcisse Leven, Silvain Levy, René Cassin, and others) used national parliaments and international congresses (Berlin, 1878; Versailles, 1919) to exert pressure upon countries in which Jews were persecuted, discriminated against and excluded from enjoying civil rights. N. Leven, Cinquante ans d’histoire, l’Alliance israélite universelle 1860–1910, 1911 ◆ M. Graetz, The Jews in Nineteenth-Century France, 1996. Michael Graetz

Alline, Henry ( Jan 14, 1748, Newport, RI – Feb 2, 1784, North Hampton, NH), leader of the “Great Awakening” in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Alline underwent a conversion experience in 1775 and began preaching the “new birth.” He influenced the Free Will Baptist movement in the USA (→ Baptists: II), though the Canadian “New Light” church he founded either disappeared or became Calvinistic Baptists. Works include: Two Mites Cast into the Offering of God . . ., 1781 ◆ On Alline: J.M. Bumsted, Henry Alline: 1748–1784, 1971. John G. Stackhouse Jr.

Allix, Pierre (1641, Alençon – 1717, London). After his studies Allix made his name as a scholar and

preacher and in 1671 became minister in the Huguenot community (→ Huguenots) in Charenton (Paris). After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes he fled to London, where James II granted him the privilege of founding a French community inside the Anglican Church. He later became canon in Salisbury and was granted an honorary doctorate by both Cambridge and Oxford – a testimony to his integration in the church and society of his host country. Allix wrote a large number of works on the historical fields of theology, all of them with polemical or apologetic emphases against both Catholicism and → Socinians and Deists (→ Deism). He attempted to prove against J.-B. → Bossuet that the → Cathari had not been dualists. M. Prevost, DBF I, 1923, 225–227 ◆ E. Haag & B. Haag, FrPr I, 1952, 46–59 ◆ R.D. Gwynn, Huguenot Heritage, 1985 ◆ G. Lottes, “England und der Exodus der Hugenotten,” in H. Duchardt, ed., Der Exodus der Hugenotten, 1985. Martin Ohst

Allmen, Jean-Jacques von (Aug 29, 1917, Lausanne – Dec 17, 1994, Neuchâtel). Following studies in Lausanne, Basel, and Neuchâtel, Allmen received his doctorate in theology in 1948. He served as a Reformed pastor, professor of practical theology at Neuchâtel, advisor to the Commission on Faith and Order of the → World Council of Churches, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem, and president of Societas Liturgica. He received honorary doctorates in theology from Strasbourg, Aberdeen, and Cluj (Romania). Teaching theology at Neuchâtel, Allmen shaped a whole generation of pastors; he received worldwide recognition for his books and articles on the ecumenical renewal of the church. He viewed baptism as a grace for both the individual and the ecclesiastical community, in the sense of the → koinonia-ecclesiology that has since become influential. His doctrine of the Eucharist paved the way for the Lima convergence text (→ Lima, Declaration of ). He also authored mediating texts on the ordained ministry. Works include: Ökumene im Herrenmahl, 1966 ◆ Une réforme dans l’Église, 1971 ◆ La primauté de l’Église de Pierre et de Paul, 1977 ◆ On Allmen: Communio Sanctorum. FS Jean-Jacques von Allmen, ed. B. Bobrinskoy, 1982. Bruno Bürki

Allogenes (NHC XI,3; Allog ), an apocalypse emanating from philosophically oriented Sethian Gnosticism (→ Sethianism ; → Gnosis/Gnosticism). It is extant only in a Coptic (Sahidic) translation. The Greek original, possibly dating from c. 200 ce, could be identical with the ἀποκάλυψις Ἀλλογενοῦς καὶ Μέσου (apokalypsis Allogenous kai Mesou), known only by title, from the library of the Gnostic opponents of → Plotinus in Rome (Porph. Vita Plot. 16). The actual author presents the document as having been written by

Allport, Gordon Willard a certain Allogenes (“[the] stranger,” an epithet of Seth) for someone named Messos, whom Allogenes calls “my son” (possibly an adaptation of the Moses figure), that the latter might disseminate its content among those who are worthy. The theme treated by the real author within the fictitious framework of revelations is very difficult: the metaphysics or ontology of the highest sphere of the divine world. The text unravels the philosophical implications of the pinnacle of the Sethian pantheon: Invisible Spirit, → Barbelo with its Aeon, and the three stages of emanation, καλυπτός (kalyptós), πρωτοϕανής, (protophan¶s), and αὐτογενής (autogen¶s). The Invisible Spirit is the true and absolutely transcendent being, the One. Barbelo and its Aeon is the realm, in many respects triune, of the divine Nous, the world of ideas. Text: J.D. Turner et al., eds., in: C.W. Hedrick, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII, NHS 28, 1990, 173–267 ◆ K.L. King, Revelation of the Unknowable God, with Text, Translation, and Notes to NHC XI, 3 Allogenes, 1995 ◆ H.-M. Schenke, “Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse des Allogenes (NHC XI, 3),” in: W. Godlewski, ed., Coptic Studies. Acts of the Third International Congress of Coptic Studies, 1990, 417–424. Hans-Martin Schenke

Allport, Gordon Willard (Nov 11, 1897, Montezuma, IN – Oct 9, 1967, Cambridge, MA), personality psychologist. Allport received his doctorate from Harvard in 1922 and taught at Dartmouth and Harvard. During a period in which the field of psychology was dominated by the study of → behaviorism on the one hand, and by → psychoanalysis on the other, Allport studied personality formation on the basis of stable, coherent units, the so-called “traits.” In his research, Allport made a distinction between nomothetic (universal) and idiographic (individual) studies of behavior. His distinction between → intrinsic and → extrinsic religion is of significance for theology and → pastoral psychology. Other foci of Allport’s studies are his research on The Nature of Prejudice (1954) and The Study of Values (31960). Works include: The Individual and His Religion, 1950 ◆ Becoming. Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality, 1955 ◆ Pattern and Growth in Personality, 1961 ◆ On Allport: S.R. Maudi, Personality Theories, a Comparative Analysis, 1968. James E. Loder

All-Union Council of Evangelical ChristianBaptists emerged in the Tsarist Russia of the 19th century from mainly three groups: 1. The “Molocans,” called “milk-drinkers,” because they drank milk on days of fasting; a spiritualist → Russian sect; Nikita Voronin was baptized in 1867 by the Latvian Baptist Martin K. Kalweit. The new Molocans, later called Evangelical Christians, were under the leadership of Ivan Prochanow. 2. The “Hours” movement (“hour-keepers,” German-Reformed colony in Odessa) of German immigrants. Vasilii Pavlov

154 of Tiflis studied with the German Baptist J.G. → Oncken and attempted to join the Evangelical Christians in 1879. 3. The aristocracy in St. Petersburg. The army officer Vasilii Pashkov was converted as a result of a sermon of the British Lord Radstock. “Pashkovism” united various Christian groups. Until 1905 and under communism there was serious persecution. The Evangelical Christians and Baptists united in 1944, followed by the Mennonites and followers of Pentecostalism; the latter left the Union again after the collapse of the USSR. At the Moscow Congress in 1992, all independent national societies were affirmed and the new cooperative body was renamed “Euro-Asiatic Federation of the Union of Evangelical Christian-Baptists.” G.K. Parker, Baptists in Europe, 1982 ◆ P.D. Steeves, “The Russian Baptist Union,” diss., 1976. G. Keith Parker

Almeida, João Ferreira d’ (1628, Torre de Tavares, Portugal – 1691, Batavia, Java), came to Lisbon to train as a priest after the early death of his parents and reached Batavia via Holland in 1641. There he encountered the Portuguese mission of the Reformed Church and joined in 1642. He was pastor in Galle, Sri Lanka, 1656–1658; in Tuticorin, Fisher Coast, 1658–1663; from 1663, he was a missionary to the Paravas in South India, then in Jaffna, Colombo, and Paleacate. At the same time he was a member of the consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church. Because of his activities amongst Portuguesespeakers, Almeida dedicated himself to → Bible translation from 1642. The first edition of his NT was published in 1681, and it is the first complete translation of the NT into Portuguese. At his death, Almeida had translated the Bible up to Ezekiel. Only in 1753 was the entire Bible printed. When the Brazilian → Bible Society was established (1948), Almeida’s translation became the most widely used Bible translation in Portuguese. B.P. Bittencourt, O Novo Testamento, Cânon, Língua, Texto, 1965. Martin Dreher

Alms → Poor, Care of the Alnakawa, Israel (d. 1391 in Toledo), leader of the Jewish community in Toledo in the 14th century, author of one of the most important ethical/theological works of the period, Menorat ha-Maor (“Candelabrum of Light”). Alnakawa was the son of an important family in Toledo and a disciple of the great halakhists (→ Halakhah), Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel and his son Jacob. In the preface to his book Alnakawa tells how he was ordered in a vision to write the treatise to uplift the spirits of his community in a difficult time. The work, which is mainly an extensive anthology of ethical instruction in social behavior and correct worship, contains quotations from many sources, some of them unknown midrashim (→ Midrash).

155 Alnakawa also translated (from the Aramaic) quotations from the → Zohar, a kabbalistic (→ Kabbalah) work written in the previous century, and may have translated large parts of this book. At the beginning of the 16th century, Isaac Aboab published an ethical work with the same title. It became very popular in the following centuries and can be regarded as a creative summary of Alnakawa’s extensive volumes. An elegy written in his memory describes his horrible death during the persecution of the Jews of Toledo in 1391. He was tortured because of his refusal to convert, was dragged through the streets of the city, and finally committed suicide. Several members of his family had a similar fate. His son Ephraim fled to North Africa and became a leader of the community in Tlemecen. H.G. Enelow, Menorat ha-Maor by Rabbi Alnakawa, 1929–1932. Joseph Dan

Alogi. “Alogi” is the name given by → Epiphanius to certain heretics who rejected John and Revelation on the grounds that they were written by the Gnostic → Cerinthus. The word is probably a collective term for groups from Asia Minor (origin?) and Rome (Gaius) – not necessarily considered heretical by their contemporaries (c. 200) – whose rejection of the Johannine literature was probably also motivated by anti-Montanist motives (against reliance on the promise of the Paraclete, John 14:16; → Montanism). A. Bludau, Die ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften, 1925 ◆ S.G. Hall, TRE II, 1978, 290–295 (bibl.) ◆ R.E. Heine, “The Role of the Gospel of John in the Montanist Controversy,” SecCen 6, 1987, 1–19. Georg Schöllgen

A-lo-pen (Pinyin-transcription: Aluoben). Alopen is the sinized name of the first Nestorian from “Da Qin,” i.e. the East-Roman Empire or → Syria, to be received by emperor Taizong (ruled 626–649) in the empire’s capital Chang’an, now Sian or Xi’an in 635 (→ Nestorian Mission). The stele of Sian or Sian-fu (781) inscribed in Chinese and Syriac reports that “the extremely virtuous Alopen” had given the emperor sacred books and images (or statues). After detailed research it was determined that they had “arisen from important truths” and should be propagated throughout the empire. A “Da-Qin monastery” was established in the capital, which became the departure point of extensive missionary activity. A.C. Moule, Christians in China before the Year 1550, 1930 ◆ P.A. Saeki, Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, 21951 ◆ C.H. Hsü, “Nestorianism and the Nestorian Monument in China,” Asian Culture Quarterly 14, 1986, 41–81 ◆ N. Standaert, ed., Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. I, 2001. Hans-Joachim Klimkeit

Alpha and Omega. Exegetical Findings: That God is the first and the last is affirmed in Isa 41:4; 44:6;

Alphabet Mysticism/Letter Mysticism 48:12. The rabbis found in the divine epithet “truth”  % the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (Mek. Ex. 23.13b; Gen. R. 81.2). Revelation offers Greek alphabetical symbolism: God, the Beginning and the End, as Alpha and Omega (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet) links every word and – since the letters also stand for numbers – every number to himself. He, the ruler of all and maintainer of all (pantokrator), lays claim to every statement and calculation until the end of the ages (Rev 1:8; 21:6; this temporal formula expands Ex 3:14 LXX). On transferal into Jesus’ self-declaration in Rev 22:13, the Alpha and Omega term entered Christology. History of Reception: The early church concentrated on Christology. In the Arian dispute (→ Arius and Arianism) the church illustrated the homousia of the Father and the Son with the Alpha and Omega (→ Trinity). A and Ω appeared with the cross in iconography in christological and cosmological scenes. It related scriptures and liturgy to Christ (in missals, etc.). Occasionally, it was broadened into a Trinitarian symbol (Baroque symbolism refers to the Trinity in the three lines of the A). F. Cabrol, “AΩ”, DACL 6, 1924, 1–25 ◆ G. Stuhlfauth, “A und O,” RDK 1, 1937, 1–5 ◆ P. Teilhard de Chardin, Die Entstehung des Menschen, 31963, 119–124 ◆ W.C. van Unnik, Het Godspredikaat “Het Begin en het einde” bij Flavius Josephus en in de Openbaring van Johannes, MNAW.L 39, 1, 1976 ◆ G. and T. Holtz, et al., “Buchstabensymbolik,” TRE VII, 1981, 304– 315 ◆ D. Forstner, Die Welt der christlichen Symbole, 41982 ◆ U. Ernst, Carmen figuratum, 1991. Martin Karrer

Alphabet is the sequence of letters of an alphabetic script established for mnemonic reasons, in particular to the Phoenician abgad (i.e. beginning with AlephBeth-Gimel-Dalet) that was adopted by the Greeks as Alpha-Beta and by the Romans as ABC. Letters have had numerical value (according to their sequence in the alphabet) only since Hellenistic times. J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, 1982 ◆ B. Sass, Studia Alphabetica, OBO 102, 1991 ◆ E.A. Knauf, Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments, NSK AT 29, 1994, 212–221. Ernst Axel Knauf

Alphabet Mysticism/Letter Mysticism I. History of Religion – II. Judaism

I. History of Religion It is an intriguing fact – and not easy to explain – that the map of the monotheistic or “book” religions largely coincides with the map of the languages that use an → alphabet. The reverence given to Scripture in these religions influenced the attitude of believers toward language and toward letters, its building blocks. The deeply rooted belief in the divine origin of language cultivated in Judaism and Islam as well as Hinduism lent the letters

Alphabet Mysticism/Letter Mysticism of the alphabet and written characters in general the aura of elements of divine revelation, reflecting infinite divine wisdom. A similar attitude prevailed with regard to numerals, which in many languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and to some extent Latin) were identical with the alphabet (→ Numerology). This divine origin gave the written characters – their forms, names, and sequence – a mystical significance drawn on by both magicians and mystics. Language embodied the very being of the phenomena it described, and therefore it had the power to bring things into existence or to alter the nature of their existence. The alphabet represented the non-semantic or meta-semantic stratum of language, which thus extended deeper into the nature of existing things than did its meaningful communicative layers. For the mystic, the esoteric meta-semantic nature of the alphabet provided access to God’s hidden nature, from which the characters of the alphabet had originally emanated. They represent layers of divine truth not expressed in communicative language and therefore reach deeper into the mysteries of the Godhead, which mystics seek to plumb. The alphabet serves as a means of expressing the parallelistic harmony of the created universe, uniting the human soul and body (microcosm) and the universe (macrocosm) with their origin in the divine realm. This harmony empowered mystics in their efforts to ascend from one plane to the next and gave magicians the power to draw on forces in parallel realms – angelic, divine, or even satanic – to overcome the limitations of human existence. The first and most important entity composed of letters arranged in a nonsemantic structure representing the divine mysteries is the name of God (often represented by the letters of the tetragrammaton → YHWH). Diverse religions ascribe supreme mystical significance to this name; it has been an object of speculation in numerous works of mysticism, from the treatise of Pseudo-Dionysius on the Divine Names and the Arabic list of the hundred names of Allah, to many Hebrew works such as the Book of the Name by R. → Eleazar of Worms (1225). Medieval Christian theologians and mystics like Peter Alfonsi, → Joachim of Fiore, and Raymond → Lull devoted extensive discussions to the tetragrammaton, for in their view it represented the internal structure of the deity. This tendency was reinforced by the renewed, intensive interest in exotic alphabets that developed under the influence of the Florentine Neoplatonists of the 15th and 16th centuries, who were founded by Marsilio → Ficino and built on by → Pico della Mirandola, J. → Reuchlin, and many others. Ethiopian, Coptic, Arabic, and Hebrew characters, and above all Egyptian hieroglyphs, represented the most mysterious strata of truth with respect to both earthly and divine reality. This tendency increased in the 17th and 18th centuries and exercised great influence

on the symbolism used by the → Rosicrucians and Freemasons, and down to Tarot cards. During this period, alphabetical symbolism was combined with the symbols used by pseudo-sciences like → alchemy and → astrology ; together they represented the esoteric symbols of a secret, non-semantic divine language that only the elect could decipher. G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, 1964 ◆ S. Katz, Mysticism and Language, 1992 ◆ M.A. Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, 1994. Joseph Dan

II. Judaism The conceptual basis for the alphabetical mysticism of Judaism is the distinction between human language, which is used for communication, and divine language, which preceded the creation of humanity and is an aspect of the infinite divine wisdom. This view considers the Hebrew alphabet a key element of divine revelation. Language is the divine tool through which the world was created; therefore, divine power indwells the letters of the alphabet, which constitute the foundation of language. Homiletically, the → Mishnah concludes from Gen 1 that “the world was created by ten utterances” (Avot 5, 1). Hence, the tradition of the → Midrash concluded that the power of creation was contained in the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Bezalel was able to construct the tabernacle because “he knew how to combine the letters by which the heavens and earth were created” (b. Ber. 55a). This is possible because the tabernacle is a microcosmic copy of the cosmos as a whole and its construction a repetition in miniature of the act of creation. According to Hebrew Enoch (3 Enoch, → Enoch, Books of: III), a mystical → hekhalot text, both God and Metatron, God’s greatest angel, wear crowns on which are engraved “the letters by which the universe was created.” The most influential work based on this premise was composed in Late Antiquity but did not attract attention until the Middle Ages: the Sefer → Yetzirah or Book of Creation, which describes in detail the creation and structure of the universe as the result of God’s using the “32 secret paths of wisdom,” i.e. the 10 numbers (→ sefirot) and the 22 letters of the alphabet. God “fastened a crown” on each letter and gave to each – and to each group of letters – dominion over a portion of the cosmos. The notion of language as a divine phenomenon independent of the features characterizing human communication (which are only a small portion of the infinite spectrum of language) makes the semantic aspect of language simply one of many uses of language to decipher the divine mysteries. Language as music and above all written language as a visual image are no less important than the semantic message. Speculation about the forms of the letters began in Late Antiquity. Much of this material was collected in the Alphabet of Rabbi → Akiba, an

157 esoteric collection of midrashim put together at the beginning of the geonic period. The first text of the → Kabbalah, the book → Bahir, contains several sections that discuss the forms of the letters and vowel points. In the second half of the 13th century, Rabbi Jacob ben Jacob ha-Cohen of Castile wrote a commentary on the forms of the letters, and his brother, Rabbi → Isaac haCohen, composed a commentary on the forms of the teaamim, the signs indicating the musical tones to be used in reciting Scripture. The → Zohar devotes an extensive discussion to this theme, and the Sefer ha-Temuna (Book of the Image), a 14th-century kabbalistic work, identifies the image of the alphabet with the image of God. Many later kabbalists followed the same path, often concentrating on the images of the letters making up the tetragrammaton (YHWH), which was viewed as the closest image to the nature of God that can be revealed in the created world. The Hebrew interest in the non-semantic elements of language and the characteristic features of the letters as developed by the kabbalists greatly influenced the various schools of Christian kabbalists from the end of the 15th century to the beginning of the 18th century. Reuchlin’s De arte cabbalistica focuses on the names of God, the esoteric names of 12, 42, and 72 letters, the methods of → gematria and temura, and the attributes of the letters. As a result, kabbalah came to be viewed as an art that uses language non-semantically. This image, which has its roots in Christian kabbalah, persists to this day. The letters of the tetragrammaton and other Hebrew letters occupy an important place in the writings of H.C. → Agrippa of Nettesheim, John Dee, Robert Fludd, G. → Bruno, J.B. van → Helmont, and many others. Traces of this interest still appear in the various texts of the Rosicrucians on the one hand, and the Freemasons on the other. G. Scholem, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbalah,” Diog (GB) 79, 1972, 59–80; 80, 1972, 164– 194 ◆ J. Dan, “The Language of Creation and Its Grammar,” in: Tradition and Translation. FS C. Colpe, 1994, 42–63 ◆ idem, “The Language of the Mystics in Medieval Germany,” in: K.E. Grözinger & J. Dan, eds., Mysticism, Magic, and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism: International Symposium, 1995, 6–27 ◆ idem, “The Name of God, the Name of the Rose and the Concept of Language in Jewish Mysticism,” Medieval Encounters 2, 1996, 228–248. Joseph Dan

Alpirsbach Music Program. In 1933, after initial efforts in Tübingen early in 1931, R. → Gölz organized the first Gregorian Choral Week (→ Gregorian chant: I) in the former Benedictine abbey of Alpirsbach. As a member of the → Kirchlich-theologische Sozietät, Gölz was able to gain the support of its representatives P. → Schempp, Richard Widmann, E. → Bizer, and Ernst → Fuchs for his program. With the church musicians Ferdinand Schmidt and Karl Rahner (Rhineland), and Wilhelm Gohl, Walter Kiefner, and

Alsace Hermann Stern (Württemberg), Gölz developed the program to its present form. F. → Buchholz from Dessau worked on Gregorian liturgical materials in German using Luther’s 1545 Bible translation. R.A. → Schröder in particular produced classic translations of the Latin → hymns for the growing Alpirsbach antiphonary. In collaboration with Urbanus Bomm (Maria Laach) and later with Godehard Joppich (Münsterschwarzach), Alpirsbach became involved in productive Gregorian research. The movement nevertheless always remained sensible of its theological debt to K. → Barth. During World War II, Gölz led choral weeks in his parish at Wankheim and sought unsuccessfully to gain official recognition by the regional Church. Toward the end of 1944, he was interned in the Welzheim concentration camp on account of his support for persecuted Jews. In 1945, Gölz, together with Nora Haller and Gertrud Ströhle, sought to establish a residential convent in Bebenhausen. When the Alpirsbach organization refused to support the plan, he resigned. Buchholz took over leadership as president; a seven-member board of trustees was also formed. Four regions were established: Württemberg with centers at Alpirsbach, Maulbronn, and Blaubeuren, Rhineland with St. Arnual near Saarbrücken, Westphalia with Soest and Lippstadt, and Thuringia with Erfurt. Despite close ties with J. → Beckmann, the organization was never integrated into the Church of the Rhineland. Following Buchholz’s death in 1967, the organization has been directed by a group of twelve theologians and church musicians. Presidents: 1946–1967, Friedrich Buchholz; 1967– 1983, Eberhard Weismann; 1983–1999, Diethelm Michel; 1999– Rüdiger Schloz. R. Gölz, “Die Kirchliche Arbeit in Alpirsbach,” MuK 12, 1940, 62–66, 87–92 ◆ E. Weismann, Hören wir, so leben wir: aus dem Nachlaß von Friedrich Buchholz, 1977 ◆ idem, “Alpirsbach,” TRE II, 1978, 295–299 ◆ J. Conrad, Richard Gölz: der Gottesdienst im Spiegel seines Lebens, 1995 ◆ idem, “Karl Rahner – Alpirsbacher Archicantor im Rheinland,” MEKGR 45/46, 1996/97, 569–587 ◆ H.J. Wensing, Die ökumenische Bedeutung des gregorianischen Singens: Untersuchungen zum Schaffen von Friedrich Buchholz, 1999. Joachim Conrad

Alsace I. General – II. Non-Christian Religions – III. Church History

I. General Known as Alsatia from the 7th century onward, from roughly 640 to 740 the region between the Vosges and the Rhine was a free duchy under the rule of the Etichonides. In the Carolingian period, Alsace was divided into Nordgau and Sundgau; integrated into the kingdom of Louis the German (Louis II) in 870, under the Hohenstaufens it was considered vis maxima regni. It was replaced c. 1135 by two landgraviates, Lower and Upper Alsace, while at the same time local

Alsace authorities emerged (the counts of Egisheim, Pfirt, and Habsburg; the bishop of Strassburg [Strasbourg], the abbot of Murbach; → Hohenstaufen cities). At the end of the Middle Ages, → Habsburg and the imperial city of Strassburg were the dominant powers. Between 1648 and 1681, the French king annexed most of Alsace and made it a French province. In 1789, the region was divided into the départements of Bas-Rhin (Strasbourg) and Haut-Rhin (Colmar). From 1871 to 1918, after annexation by the German empire, Alsace was joined with the Moselle département to form the state of ElsassLothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), and guaranteed autonomy by the constitution of 1911. Following its return to France, it was occupied by Germany in 1940, then liberated between November 1944 and February 1945. Today Alsace is an independent political entity comprising two départements and governed by a regional council. II. Non-Christian Religions The local Gallo-Roman deities and the religion of the Roman occupiers were swiftly supplanted by Christianity during the 4th and 5th centuries. Judaism, possibly already present in Antiquity, was a vital force in the cities and towns until the middle of the 14th century, especially in Strassburg. After persecutions (Weissenburg [Wissembourg] 1270), lawless attacks on Jews (“King Armleder” 1338), and pogroms (→ Anti-Semitism) in the aftermath of the plague (1349), Jewish congregations were reconstituted in the larger cities until new expulsions in 1388 and 1510. Under the protection of individual authorities, some Jews remained, especially in the smaller villages. In 1791, they were granted citizenship, and their religion was recognized officially by the state in 1831. While many Alsatian Jews emigrated during the 19th century, especially to Paris, the urban congregations received a new influx of Jews from the East after 1870. Alsatian Judaism welcomed modernism and took part in the rise of → Zionism after 1905, but suffered severe losses in the persecutions of the National Socialists. After 1962, the restored Jewish community of Alsace was bolstered by an influx of Sephardic Jews (→ Sephardim) from North Africa; today it is the third largest Jewish community in France (1999: approx. 20,000). The immigration of workers from the Maghrib and later from Turkey has led to a rapid increase in the number of Muslims (approx. 85,000). III. Church History The mention of the bishops Amandus of Strassburg and Justinian of Basel in 343 marks the beginning of the history of the two most important Alsatian dioceses. A second wave of Christianization took place c. 550– 575. Soon monasteries were established from the West (Münster [Munster], Weissenburg) and by the Etichonides (Murbach, Honau, Hohenburg [Hoenbourg],

158 Massevaux [Masevaux]). The Carolingian period (→ Carolingians) was marked by the further growth of these monasteries (introduction of the Benedictine Rule (→ Benedict, Rule of ) in 817 in Maursmünster [Marmouthier]; major schools and libraries: Otfrid von Weissenburg). Under the → Ottonians and → Salians, the bishops of Strassburg and Basel acquired considerable power. Alsace played a part in the → Investiture Controversy, not least because the reforming pope → Leo IX belonged to the house of Egisheim and the Hohenstaufens established themselves in the northern part of the region. Royal foundations (Andlau, Seltz) accompanied the monastic reform of the 10th century; → Cistercians settled in Lucelle, Pairis, and Neuburg. The cultural florescence of this period is embodied in the Hortus decliciarum of → Herrad of Landsberg. The parochial organization of the region attained its final form in the 13th century. The dioceses of Speyer and Metz touch on Alsace in the north, and the archdiocese of Besançon extends to the Romanesque Sundgau. The expansion of cities and trade quickly led to the appearance of the mendicant orders (→ Dominicans in Strassburg c. 1222 and in Basel 1233; → Franciscans in Strassburg c. 1230 and in Basel c. 1235). The → Knights of Malta, the → Teutonic Order, and the → Antonines (Isenheim toward the end of the 13th cent.) also settled in Alsace. In the late Middle Ages, Dominican convents (Strassburg, Colmar) became centers of Rhenish mysticism (Meister → Eckhart, J. → Tauler) and strict observance (→ Observants). The councils of → Constance (1414– 1418) and → Basel (1431–1449) demanded reforms on the part of the bishops and charismatic preachers (J. → Geiler von Kaysersberg ). New forms of active spirituality (rosary → confraternities: Colmar 1484; pilgrimages) arose in parallel with the triumph of the printed book (Strassburg: J. → Gutenberg , Johann Mentelin [c. 1410–1478], Johannes Grüninger [c. 1455–1532] et al.) and the progress of painting (Martin Schongauer) and scholarship (Latin school of Schlettstadt [Sélestat] 1441). The climate of humanism (S. → Brant, J. → Wimpfeling , T. → Murner) effectively paved the way for the Reformation. Luther’s preaching, introduced in 1518 and quickly broadcast by such followers as M. → Zell, M. → Bucer, W. → Capito in Strassburg, J. → Oecolampadius in Basel, and G. → Farel, led to initial reforms in Strassburg and Basel (1524) as well as Mülhausen (Mulhouse) (1529). But the movement was interrupted in 1525 by the → Peasants’ War. Notwithstanding the appearance of dissidents such as Baptists (M. → Hoffman 1530–1533) and the followers of K. von → Schwenckfeld (1533), Protestantism was limited to a handful of cities: Strassburg with the Confessio Tetrapolitana (→ Articles of Faith: I), later

159 coming under Lutheran influence, Mülhausen with the → Confessio Helvetica, Colmar, Münster, and a few estates (Fleckenstein, Hanau-Lichtenberg, Rappoltstein [Ribeaupierre]). In 1621, the Protestant gymnasium of Strassburg (1538) was elevated to the status of a university. French-speaking Protestants began seeking refuge in Alsace in 1538. The restoration of Catholicism began after the Council of → Trent, promoted by the bishop of Basel (with Porrentruy as his see city), the Habsburgs in the south (seated at Ensisheim; Capuchins and Jesuits), and the bishop of Strassburg. It led to violent conflicts for control of the diocese of → Strassburg and in 1607 to the intervention of archduke Leopold V. At the beginning of the → Thirty Years’ War, the king of France had guaranteed the existence of Protestantism in his Alsatian domains, but he supported the Roman Church (restoration of Strasbourg Cathedral in 1681; the → Simultaneum, permitting Catholics to use the sanctuaries of Protestant churches; clergy bound by oath to the king; etc.). Royal protection was particularly important for the episcopal see of Strasbourg, which was occupied from 1704 to 1790 by members of the great Rohan family. In the 18th century, with peace once more established, Catholicism developed a piety unchallenged by crises. Roman influence was stronger than in the rest of France (1701 transfer of the Catholic University of Molsheim to Strasbourg, Jesuit seminaries until 1765, popular missions and pilgrimages). Under the French monarchy, Protestants embraced new movements such as → Pietism (P.J. → Spener from Ribeauvillé), which made great inroads in the county of Hanau-Lichtenberg and, to a lesser extent, the Anabaptism of the → Mennonites (in the Vosges valleys and Ste Marie aux Mines). Highly competent clergy (such as J.F. → Oberlin, pastor in Steintal from 1767 to 1826) were influenced by the → Enlightenment (C.G. → Salzmann, J.-L. Blessig ). The → French Revolution profoundly affected the structure of the Catholic Church, whose dioceses henceforth coincided with the départements. After taking refuge in Ettenheim in 1790, cardinal Armand-Gaston de Rohan organized the resistance of the faithful laity and clergy in Bas-Rhin to the civil constitution and → secularization. German clergy attracted by the ideas of the Revolution also settled in Alsace. Antireligious persecutions remained limited; the Alsatian universities were abolished, but many Protestant institutions (College of St. Thomas) survived, thanks to the revolutionary commitment of many of their members. The Protestant estates (Nassau-Saarwerden) were annexed to the département of Bas-Rhin as Alsace Bossue. The concordat of 1801 restored the dismantled structures. From 1802 onward, the diocese of Strasbourg

Alsace encompassed two départements. The religious communities that had been abolished by the Revolution were once more permitted, but were slow to return to Alsace after 1802 (communities of men after 1820). The Protestant churches, whose organization was governed by the Organic Articles of 1802 (→ Napoleonic era) included Lutherans (with a general consistory and after 1905 a consistory for Alsace-Lorraine) and Reformed (four independent consistories). The Protestant academy established in 1802 became a theological faculty in 1818. After 1815 the Christian denominations regained their influence. Under Andreas Räss (1794–1887, made bishop in 1842), Catholicism enjoyed a resurgence. The development of sisterhoods with pedagogical and charitable duties allowed the creation of a durable infrastructure. The secular clergy profited from the reopening of a major seminary, which produced many active clergy who restored to life the pilgrimages and confraternities, created new forms of → devotion, and functioned as missionaries. Since 1823, Alsatian Catholicism has had a bilingual press, sometimes quite militant. The renewal of Protestantism involved primarily the social domain (deaconesses since 1842). The liberal bent of the theological faculties (e.g. E. → Reuß) set them at odds with the pietistic tradition of the rural congregations and Lutheran confessionalism (Friedrich Theodor Horning, 1809–1882). The annexation of Alsace by Germany in 1871 deeply divided the Protestant elite. Some remained faithful to France, some inclined toward the German Reich, which maintained a theological faculty at the new university (1872). The consistories were responsible for the entire realm. The influx of Germans, who dominated governmental administration and education, increased the percentage of Protestants, who were active in social and cultural affairs (e.g. Union chrétienne de jeunes gens, Librairie évangélique). Typical of the intellectual climate was the career of A. → Schweitzer (lecturer at Strasbourg 1902–1912). In the → Kulturkampf, the Catholic Church proved to be a power willing to oppose the program of O. von → Bismarck ( Jesuits and Redemptorists banned in 1872/73). First (1874) it organized an opposition party to defend the Church’s ancient rights and privileges; in coalition with the center after 1907, it constituted the strongest political force in the region (40% of the electorate). It developed robust social programs, especially in industrial cities. A powerful publishing house came into being (Alsatia, Colmar). The rapid growth in the number of clergy, for whom a Catholic theological faculty was established in 1903, enabled high quality and intensive missionary activity, especially in Africa. When the French concordat was annulled in 1905, Alsatian Catholicism was confronted with the

Alsted, Johann Heinrich accommodation policies of the French government on the eve of World War I. In the crisis that had reached its peak between 1924 and 1926, some of the clergy under Abbé Haegy fought for the region’s religious and cultural identity. Despite divisions, the Catholic party preserved its status, supported by an active Christian workers’ movement and a committed press. Pastoral work focused primarily on the industrial milieu and the large cities, finding expression in the success of Action catholique (→ Catholic Action) and church associations. Faced with new problems, Protestantism lost ground in the cities but maintained a strong position in the rural communities of the north. Thanks to its roots among the upper class, it retained its political influence. The Protestant theological faculty of Strasbourg entered into a renewal phase with the beginnings of an ecumenical involvement. The German occupation of Alsace led to a division within the Catholic Church, whose bishops with some of their colleagues lived in the Vichy state. The concordat, religious education, and religious associations were abolished, as well as the Organic Articles. Diocesan administration was disrupted, youth action was prohibited, and the faithful retreated to their congregations. The Protestants were divided: many of the Reformed (after 1905 Église réformée d’Alsace-Lorraine), with their French roots, went into exile, while many Lutherans vacillated between spiritual retreat and sympathy for the occupation. Post-1945 reconstruction has seen a strengthened political and social role for the Catholics. But although actively committed clergy have strengthened the network of parishes and associations and, in the spirit of → Vatican II, have promoted ecumenism and contacts with Judaism, the aging of the generation that grew up between the wars, traumatized by Nazism, has gone hand in hand with a general exhaustion of Catholicism. Nevertheless, despite the erosion of the clergy and the reduction of practicing Catholics to less than 10% of believers, the influence of the Catholic Church continues. The Protestant churches face a similar situation. The free churches have continued to grow: Mennonites, Église évangélique lutherienne (since 1869), Methodists (1882), Baptists (1891), Pentecostals, etc. Statistics (1990): the 1,600,000 inhabitants include 1,300,000 Catholics in 767 parishes with approx. 1000 (1992: 800; 2000: 500) priests, as well as (1986) approx. 3000 female and 500 male religious. Église de la Confession d’Augsbourg d’Alsace-Lorraine (ECAAL): less than 200,000 in 192 congregations, with 232 pastors; Église réformée d’Alsace-Lorraine (ERAL): approx. 33,000 in 52 parishes, with 52 pastors (1999). M. Barth, Handbuch der elsässischen Kirchen im Mittelalter, AEA, 27–29, 1960–1962, repr. 1980 ◆ F. Rapp, ed., Le diocèse

160 de Strasbourg, 1982 ◆ A. Acker, ed., Encyclopédie d’Alsace, 12 vols., 1982–1986 ◆ R. Epp, M. Lienhard & F. Raphael, Catholiques, protestants, juifs en Alsace, 1992 ◆ B. Vogler, Histoire des chrétiens de l’Alsace des origines à nos jours, 1994. Georges Bischoff

Alsted, Johann Heinrich (1588, Ballersbach, near Herborn – 1638, Karlsburg [Alba Iulia], Transylvania), Reformed theologian, philosopher, and polymath, studied at Herborn, Marburg, Basel, and Heidelberg. He began teaching at the Academy in Herborn in 1609 and at the Reformed University in Karlsburg in 1630. In 1618, he represented Nassau at the Synod of → Dort. His enormous literary output is represented by more than 50 monographs ranging over every domain of knowledge in the early modern period. It culminated in 1630 with the publication of a 7-volume encyclopedia conceived as a didactically organized summary of all the knowledge of his age. In many areas, Alsted’s methodology harks back to the logical system of P. → Ramus. The center of his enormous range of interests always remained his sense that he was systematically classifying all knowledge in the service of the Christian religion and Reformed orthodoxy. In the field of religion, his most significant works are his Theologia naturalis (1623) and above all his dispensationalist eschatological Diatribe de mille annis apocalypticis (1627). On the basis of his interpretation of Rev 20, he predicted that the year 1694 would mark the beginning of the millennial kingdom. J. Staedtke, TRE II, 1978, 299–303 (bibl.) ◆ W.P. Klein, “Johann Heinrich Alber,” in: idem & G. Hartung, Zwischen Narretei und Weisheit, 1997, 235–261. Wolf Peter Klein

Alt, Albrecht (Sep 20, 1883, Stüben – Apr 24, 1956, Leipzig); 1914–1921 professor at Basel, 1921 at Halle, 1921–1923 provost and director of the Deutsches Evangelisches Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes in Jerusalem, 1923–1956 professor at Leipzig. Alt laid the cornerstone for the scholarly integration of Palestine studies into the exegetical disciplines. He focused his attention on the history of Israel or Syro-Palestine from the 2nd millennium bce to the early Christian period. Alt introduced the analysis of territorial history into Palestine studies. It rests on the principle that settlement history based on written and archaeological evidence provides a clue to the course of historical events. Today Alt’s theories are considered either controversial, e.g. the theory that the Israelites’ → settlement of Palestine took place in the course of regular transhumance, or disproved, e.g. the theory of a nomadic religion of the patriarchs (→ Father Deities). Even so, many recent studies of Israel’s history still reflect the questions posed by Alt in his classic essays. Selected works: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 3 vols., 1953–1968 (includes all Alt’s major studies) ◆ K.H. Mann, “Bibliographie Albrecht Alts,” in: Geschichte und

161

Altar

Altes Testament. FS Albrecht Alt, BHT 16, 1953, 211–223 ◆ S. Herrmann, “Nachtrag zur Bibliographie Albrecht Alts,” TLZ 81, 1956, 574 ◆ R. Smend, “Albrecht Alt, 1883–1956,” in: idem, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten, 1989, 182–207. Detlef Jericke

Altaic Religions → Turkic Peoples Altaner, Berthold (Sep 10, 1885, St. Annaberg, Upper Silerice – Jan 30, 1964, Bad Kissingen). Ordained priest in 1910, Altaner began to teach medieval and early modern church history at → Breslau (II) in 1919. In 1925, he was appointed associate professor, and in 1929 professor of Early Church history, patristics, and Christian archaeology at Breslau. Deprived of his position in 1933, he remained active as curate of the cathedral in Breslau from 1934 to 1945. After fleeing in 1945, he became professor of patristics and history of liturgy in Würzburg in 1946. Retiring in 1950, Altaner first established himself as a historian of the → Dominicans before acquiring international renown as a patristics scholar, especially through his editing of Patrologie (1938, 81978), taken over from G. Rauschen and J. Wittig. B. Altaner, Verzeichnis meiner Veröffentlichungen, 1953 (continued in: HJ 77, 1958, 576–600) ◆ idem, Patrology, 1960 ◆ J. Spörl, HJ 77, 1958, xi–xx ◆ T. Freudenberger, HJ 84, 1964, 251–256 ◆ G. Glockmann, ed., Kleine patristische Schriften, TU 83, 1967 ◆ G. J. Ziebertz, Bernard Altaner (1885–1964), Leben und Werk, 1997. Josef Lößl

orated in relief (esp. scenes of sacrifice with human or divine figures). It can assume monumental proportions. One of the best examples is the → Ara Pacis Augustae in Rome. More rare are round or polygonal altars, while in later times there are altars made from lumps of earth, the arae graminacae or cespiticiae, which are connected with peasant culture. An altar type close to the hearth fire is the “focus” (Gk ἑστία/estía). The “mensa,” the sacrificial table, corresponds to the Gk τράπεζα/trápeza and other sacrificial tables (sometimes fixed, but more often movable and of smaller dimensions, of stone or marble, also wood or metal). The altar, mostly erected on the floor, is connected with the practice of blood sacrifice. Before

Fig. 1. The Altar in the Court of the Temple at Arad

Altar I. Religious Studies – II. Israel – III. Christianity

I. Religious Studies The term comes from the Lat. “altare,” which is derived from “adolere,” “burn” (thus already Sextus Pompeius Festus, De verborum significatione, v. 14: “altaria sunt in quibus igne adoletur”). In addition to “altare/altaria”, the common term “ara” (from “areo,” “burn”) has the same meaning. Accordingly, the Roman altar could be defined as “place of fire” or “sacrificial hearth.” In Greek, there are a number of alternating terms. Of these θυμέλη/thymélē and θυσιαστήριον/thysiast¶rion (from θύω/thúō, → “sacrifice,” esp. as the burning of an animal sacrifice and/or plant and aromatic material) are close to the Latin term in meaning. Related to this is the term βωμός/bōmós, connected with βᾶμα/bāma, βῆμα/ bēma “step” in the sense of “elevation, structure, pillar” and thus “exalted.” The terminological definitions form the starting point for the discussion of the history of religious typology. The typology of the Roman altar shows clear parallels with the Greek altar, by which it was surely influenced. It was of square or rectangular construction, crowned with ionic volutes, often with ornamental sides, and dec-

Fig. 2. Smoke altar of Megiddo (height 54.5 cm; Iron Age II)

Altar

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the Altar of Tell es Seba‘ (Drawings: Deutches Evangelisches Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes, Jerusalem)

the façade of the → Temple (I, II), placed on (or before) the stairway to the entrance, it bears a dedication to one or more divinities, which is often accompanied by the lex arae or lex dedicationis or consacrationis or by a reference to the circumstances of its erection. It is found in public places and at intersections, but also in private homes for the domestic Lar cult, as well as in the context of cemeteries. The typology of the Greek altar is much richer and more differentiated. We may distinguish 25 categories, which can be traced to eight different classes (Yavis). In the Archaic as well as the Classical period, its function is connected not only with the sacrificial cult in general, but also and especially with blood sacrifice. As early as the poems of Homer, the bōmos, as the site of the ritual killing of sacrificial animals inside the royal palace, is the focus of the communal ceremony of sacrifice. The ritual actions that make up the θυσία (thysia) are centered on the altar: processions around the altar; the sprinkling of the altar with water; the stacking of a pile of wood on a platform made for this purpose and its ignition; and finally the killing of the sacrificial animal on or beside the altar. In each case, the blood must cover the altar and spill over on the ground. Then follow the burning of a part of the sacrificial animal (the thigh) and the drink offering, which is poured on the meat. Especially prominent among the numerous religious meanings of the altar, in addition to its function for sacrifice, is its connection with jurisdiction. The altar

162 guarantees invulnerability to those who come to it or touch it with their hands. In connection with the shrine, the altar also marks all the main loci of sacral and socialpolitical topography of the city (house, agora, theater, gymnasium, stadium, etc.). In the Minoan-Mycenaean culture monumental altar structures can be found in the court of the palace of Knossos on Crete, in Tiryns, and in other places. A large number of objects of various materials (stone, clay) are identifiable as tables of sacrifice or libation and contain depressions hollowed out for the offering of food or liquids. Thus, while these “sacrificial tables” are typologically different from the altars of the archaic and classical periods, they can also be clearly differentiated from the altar functionally as a “table” for the “nourishment” of the divinity. Also, the altar carved or built from a single block of stone, e.g. the famous sarcophagus of Hagia Triada, does not seem to be connected with the sacrificial practice that entails a partial or complete burning of the sacrifice. In Phoenician and Canaanite areas one may assume that the altar was known for vegetable as well as for animal sacrifice burned as a “whole offering.” Babylonian culture, like the Sumerian and Akkadian cultures, developed, in connection with the daily offering of “food for the gods,” the type of the movable rather than stationary “table of sacrifice.” Vedic India, which developed a large number of sacrificial rituals, has no special altar structures. A quite unusual type is the so-called uttaravedi altar, which serves for the burnt offerings; its construction takes a whole year. C.G. Yavis, Greek Altars, 1949 ◆ W. Fauth, KP 1, 1964, 279–281 ◆ W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, 1977 ◆ J. Gonda, Die Religionen Indiens, vol. I, 1978 ◆ R. Hägg et al., eds., Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age, 1981 ◆ idem et al., eds., Early Greek Cult Practice, 1988 ◆ M. Detienne & J.-P. Vernant, The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks, 1989 ◆ C. Höcker & F. Prayon, DNP I, 1996, 550–556. Giulia Sfameni Gasparro

II. Israel In Hebrew '&  (mizbea˙, “altar”) is a formation from the root  (zb˙, “slaughter”). In the post-exilic period there is the smoking altar (mizba˙ hā-‘olāh), which served various sacrificial practices (→ Sacrifice). With burnt offerings, the entire animal is dedicated to God, whereas with smoking sacrifices fat and/or fragrances are burned. The various kinds of sacrifice are connected with certain forms of altar, which are distinctive in type and size of structure. The change in practice is attested for the → temple (II) of Jerusalem. According to 2 Kgs 16:10–16, Ahaz erected an altar of stones for burnt offerings in the temple of Jerusalem and moved to the north the previous bronze altar in the court of the temple. This bronze altar was erected when the temple

163 was built under → Solomon (1 Kgs 8:22, 31, 54, 64; 9:25) and is to be distinguished from yet another altar in the interior of the temple (1 Kgs 6:20f.; 7:48). Because of their construction, neither altar could have served for burnt offerings. Archeologically, two types of altar are to be distinguished: the altar built of stones, and the essentially smaller altar consisting of one block. Constructed altars stood in the court of the temple (Late Bronze Age: Hazor, Sichem). In the Iron Age II (royal period) a constructed altar has been found in the court of the only shrine thus far excavated on Tell aArād (photo Y. Aharoni, BA 31, 21, fig. 14). It measures 2.30 m square and is constructed of unhewn stones. The surface is a large flint stone surrounded by a channel made of clay. This altar (stratum X) existed with the temple in the 9th century, but it is built over an older altar of dressed limestone (stratum XI/10th cent.). Since the altar of stratum X shows no traces of fire, it cannot have served for burnt offerings. Another altar of this type can be assembled from the remnants of Tell es-Sebaa. The individual stones, which as dressed rectangles can be distinguished from the remaining building material, were found in walls or filler layers of stratum II (8th cent.); the altar is thus to be dated after stratum III in the 9th century. The original size of this altar can no longer be determined; the reconstruction assumes a square shape with 1.5 m sides. Also, the original location can no longer be made out, since the temple building was presumably torn down with the altar. Some blocks of this altar show traces of fire, which, however, are limited in area. The stones of an altar were also found in an iron-age settlement layer of Dan (Tell el-Qā∂í), but it cannot be reconstructed (photo A. Biran, Biblical Dan, 1994, 202, III, 161). None of the other constructions interpreted as altars represent cultic structures. The kind of sacrifice executed on these altars is not evident from the type of construction. It is doubtful, however, that they were sites of burnt offerings, for in the case of the one intact altar in → Arad, we may with certainty exclude the practice of burnt offerings. Before the introduction of burnt offerings in the Temple of Jerusalem under Ahaz (8th cent.), another form of sacrifice seems to have been practiced on these constructed altars. Possibly only a smoke sacrifice was made, using part of the sacrificial animal on the altar. To be distinguished from the constructed altars are those fashioned from a single block, which were used in both cultic and private areas. They have a square or round form and have a depression that may be flanked with four horns. Their prevalence stretches over the whole Iron Age from Dan to Tell es-Sebaa. In a few cases they come from a clear context, but the two altars on the steps of the niche in the temple of Arad attest to their

Altar placement in shrines. Their frequency on the ›irbet el-Muqannaa in the vicinity of houses in which olive oil was pressed shows their private cultic use. On the basis of the remnants and in view of their size, they could have served only as altars for smoke sacrifices. With their square outline, their form represents an imitation of the constructed sacrificial altar, which could likewise be equipped with horns. By contrast, the smoke boxes do not represent altars; rather, they came into Israel from the outside world and were used in the private realm for the offering of smoke sacrifices. Thus, for Israel only two types of altar are to be distinguished: the constructed altar for a sacrificial practice that requires closer definition, and the altar from one block for the presentation of smoke sacrifices. Y. Aharoni, “Arad,” BA 31, 1968, 2–32 ◆ idem, “The Horned Altar of Beer-Sheba,” BA 37, 1974, 2–6 ◆ Y. Yadin, “The High Palace Destroyed by King Josiah,” BASOR 222, 1976, 5–17 ◆ Z. Herzog et al., “The Stratigraphy at Beerseba and the Location of the Sanctuary,” BASOR 225, 1977, 49–58 ◆ N. Gadegaard, “On the So Called Burnt Offering Altar in the Old Testament,” PEQ 110, 1987, 35–45 ◆ S. Gitin, “Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah,” Erls 20, 1989, 52–67 ◆ W. Zwickel, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte, OBO 97, 1990 ◆ V. Fritz, “Bis an die Hörner des Altars,” in P. Mommer et al., eds., Gottes Recht als Lebensraum. FS H.J. Boecker, 1993, 61–70. Volkmar Fritz

III. Christianity 1. Liturgy a. Catholicism. In the language of the Church, the altar is the most important prerequisite for the celebration of the → Eucharist (II, IV); it is the table around which the community gathers, the common physical point of reference of the participants. The name is not used originally, since the Early Church avoided cultic designations. In the context of the kerygma and the community life discussed, the NT uses “altar” only in the figurative sense. The custom – widespread in Hellenistic surroundings and exercised by the churches without any problem – of gathering at the graves of the dead for a memorial meal (esp. on the anniversary of their death) and holding this as the Lord’s Supper, since the dead person, alive in Christ, is near as one celebrating “in the spirit,” gave rise to the characteristic connection of altars with saints’ graves and to the burying of → relics in (stone) altars, which was ultimately even prescribed by church law (until 1969). At the end of the 6th century, in the West this symbiosis replaced the mobile altar (table), set up only for ceremonial occasions. → Gregory I also rebuilt the burial complex in → St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome in a corresponding (and normative) way. A further step in the development abolished the old norm of a single altar in each church. By means of several (relic-bearing) altars, the shrines of the ideal local church in Rome (and Jerusalem) could be represented or “cited”: the

Altar “church family” of the city became the “church family” of the basilica. From the Carolingian period on (into the 20th cent.) the furnishings of a Catholic church have included a number of altars. Finally, the saints present in the relics are also made present in images (early evidence in the 8th cent.). Above all, the image of the cross is connected with the altar. In the → Gothic period, altar structures began to present in altar retables graphic images of the salvific action of Christ presently experienced in the celebration and its ongoing power in the saints. In → Renaissance (III), → Baroque (II, III), and the imitation styles of the 19th century, the altar remained the illustrative, often theatrical representation of the reality of salvation conveyed in the service above the increasingly nondescript box altar. Surviving in these epochs from the earlier centuries, however, was the allegorical interpretation of the altar as Christ himself. The altar table is, therefore, dressed with expensive textiles and its visible side often decorated with a (changeable) pictorial work (“antipendium”) in metal, stone, and textiles. Since the late Middle Ages, standard furnishings have included a cross and candlesticks. On festival days there are also flowers and special → reliquaries. Emphasized programmatically above all by the → Counter Reformation since the late 16th century, the altar gained a new importance as the place of preservation and display of the “altar sacrament” (of the Christ really present in the Eucharistic forms). In Baroque churches, the vanishing lines of the room go to the “thronus” (to the setting out of the Eucharistic → host in the → monstrance) above the → tabernacle (the closable shrine for the preservation of the consecrated Eucharistic bread) in the altar structure. The Church reform movements of the 20th century that paved the way for → Vatican II returned, in the period between the Wars, to the original and never “abolished” conditions: a (single) altar per church, also optically the center of the assembled congregation, and as free as possible from constructions that detract from the celebration itself. After World War II, the axiom “altar as center of the congregation” and the still effective theologoumenon of the “sacrifice” of the mass continued to produce large block altars that evoke associations with cultic sacrificial sites more than the table of the Lord’s Supper. The → liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II, however, also established liberating norms for the form and function of the altar: the one altar is no longer required to be the holder of relics or the place for preserving the sacrament (Missale Romanum 1969/70, Institutio nn. 259–67, also 276–77; Ordo dedicationis altaris, 1977, Praenotanda). Yet, neither the Council nor the post-conciliar reform decrees say anything about the unexpected worldwide change in giving up the previous celebration altar in favor of the simple altar table fac-

164 ing the congregation (misunderstood as “people’s altar” because of celebration “versus populum”). This change must be regarded as a striking sign of readiness to fulfill the requirement of the Council, namely that as bearer of the liturgy the Lord, who is at work in the whole congregation gathered around the altar, should be visible (as similarly after the Council of → Trent the removal of the medieval choir screen was the signal for practicing “pastoral care” in accordance with the Council). J. Braun, Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2 vols., 1924 ◆ A. Stuiber & P. Poschersky, TRE II, 1978, 308– 327 ◆ J. Emminghaus, GDK 2 III, 1991, 386–392. Angelus A. Häußling

b. Protestantism. For the Reformation the altar is not a place of sacrifice but, in reference to the table altar of the first millennium, “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor 10:21). Whereas the Reformed Churches (and the English Reformation after 1552) did away with altars and set up movable or fixed “communion tables” as close as possible to the middle of the nave, the Lutherans adopted the medieval altar and the term “altar” (cf. the catechism language of the “Sacrament of the altar”). In 1526, Luther approved the free-standing altar, for “in the proper mass the priest must always turn to the people, as Christ no doubt did in the last supper” (Deutsche Messe, WA 19, 80). In the only new construction consecrated by him, the Schloßkirche in Torgau (1544), celebration versus populum is also possible with its table altar, which is accessible from all sides (on which, however, the retable from the Dresden castle chapel was placed in 1662). Nonetheless, only in Württemberg did the table form and the position of the celebrant behind the altar become usual (also in isolated cases in Thüringen and Strasbourg). Paintings remain the rule beside the older Lutheran altar. Already in 1530, Luther recommended for this the Lord’s Supper motif (on Ps 111:4; WA 31 I,415), which was then often found in the → predella, whereas in the main section crucifixion, Gethsemane, Easter, and the Last Judgment, among other scenes, are represented. L. → Cranach created new wing altars, in 1547 for the town church in Wittenberg with a special design: predella, proclamation of the word (by Luther); center, Lord’s Supper (with the Reformers); and wings, baptism (by Melanchthon) and confession (by J. → Bugenhagen). As before, the altar offers nonverbal proclamation, now in Reformation doctrine. Soon there is the altar gallery with side communion benches for bread and cup and offering box behind the altar (Schloßkirche Stuttgart 1562), also following the Late Medieval pattern, the pulpit altar (Wilhelmsburg Schmalkalden 1590, here crowned by the organ), which in the 18th century becomes the widespread testimony to the unity of word and sacrament and to which baptism also can be subordinated. The Moravian Church (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren),

165 by contrast, uses a raised table, solemnly covered for the Lord’s Supper, with pulpit attachment for preaching. In the middle of the 17th century, the traditional multistage picture construction declined in favor of the central image (usually the crucifixion). The 19th century saw the spread of the little Prussian → retable altar of → Frederick William III, with cross, two candlesticks, and the open Bible. Common today is the altar of stone in block or box form, or the table made of wood, with changing antependium. The Rummelsberg Principles (1951) require (basically for Reformed Churches but acceptable for all Churches) unhindered congregational access to all sides and clerical celebration behind the altar. Beyond its function for Holy Communion, there is now new discussion of the altar’s significance as a focus point for the congregation and its symbolic function as “sacral object, as place of the real experience of transcendence” ( Josuttis 146), which was always connected with picture, cross, and Bible. P. Brunner, “Die Bedeutung des Altars für den Gottesdienst der christlichen Kirche,” KuD 20, 1974, 218–244 ◆ R. Volp, Liturgik, vol. I, 1992, esp. 421–434 ◆ M. Josuttis, Der Weg in das Leben, 21993, esp. 140–148. Hans-Christoph Schmidt-Lauber

c. Orthodox Church. In every orthodox House of God, in accordance with the unity of Eucharist and Church, stands a single altar (Gk ἁγία τράπεζα/hagia trapeza “holy table”; Slavonic prestol, throne of God), which is normally accessible from all sides and found in the center of the altar room, separated from the nave by the iconostasis, and which serves above all as the place where the Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine are offered. It is usually fashioned from wood, but occasionally from stone, with the square surface resting on four corner columns. In large churches it may be under a ciborium; in small chapels, where space is limited, it may be placed against the east wall or fitted into the → apse. On all sides it is covered with white linen and over that dressed with brocade, which in Russia since the 18th century is sometimes replaced with metal fittings. If the altar is consecrated by a bishop (as is usual), it accommodates a small box with relics under the surface (cf. canon 7 of the Second Council of Nicea). Lying on the altar, in any case, is the → antimension, a cloth consecrated by a bishop and designated by name, in which relics are always sewn and which until into the 18th century found use as a substitute only if an altar was lacking or contained no relics. It, in turn, is enclosed in the so-called iliton. Outside of the Eucharist, the antimension is folded to one ninth its size, and a closed evangelistary constantly rests on it. Also on the altar is the → artophorion, in which are preserved the holy gifts for the Communion of the sick and (during the pre-Easter fast) the performance of the “liturgy of the preconsecrated gifts.” Hand cross, holy lance for the

Altar dividing of the body of the Lord, and a spoon for the distribution of the holy gifts to the faithful likewise have their places on the altar, but not such items as pictures, flowers, and other books. A. v. Maltzew, Bitt-, Dank- u. Weihegottesdienste der OrthodoxKatholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, 1897, 864–949 ◆ G. Soteriu, “Τὰ λειτουργικὰ ἄμϕιατῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἑλληνικῆς ἐκκλησίας,” Theol[A] 20, 1949, 603–614 ◆ C. Delvoye, RBK I, 1966, 111–124 ◆ P. Speck, “Die ἐνδυτή,” JÖBG 14, 1966, 323– 375 ◆ J. Izzo, The Antimension in the Liturgical and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches, 1975 ◆ Nastol’naja kniga svjaščenoslužitelja, ed. Moskow Patriarchate, vol. IV, 1983, 39–49. Peter Plank

2. History of Art a. Overview. The form of the altar is determined by the requirements of the religious cult (function, tradition), aesthetics (style, power, sensibility, autonomy), space (number of participants, fixed/movable, size, style of construction, material), occasion (memorial, place), and requirements of duration and available or prescribed materials. Most altars of other religious cults (earth symbol, chaos boundary, table of the gods) follow general schemata of action which, transformed, also appear in Christianity. Here one may distinguish table, box, block, sarcophagus, retable, and pulpit altars (with blurred boundaries). α. The table form, as shape and concept, remains the starting point and is present in all periods as mensa domini (“Lord’s table,” 1 Cor 10:21): in the East still obligatory today (prescribed since 787), it was the rule in the West before the Carolingians, after the Reformation, and after Vatican II. There are monumental altars with valuable ornamentation on the one or 3–5 columns (stipes) that support the → mensa but also provisional, domestic, or portable altar (portatile: a portable slab fitted with a reliquary stone, 11th–13th cents.; portable altar as a small box for cup and host container). The size of the table altar is determined by its function and the proportions of the space. Shelves or consoles standing to the side can serve as supports (Italy, southern France). In the Reformation Church (Communion table instead of altar; see above III, 1b) tables are also lined up (across the nave) or permanently installed as a long table (Ardchattan, Scotland). β. The box altar is surrounded by four supporting shelves (often with small pillars or columns at the corners); originating in 5th and 6th-century Italy, it initially had a “confessio” (shaft to a grave in the earth or reliquary) through which, by means of an opening ( fenestella confessionis), visual contact or, by means of pieces of material on thread, contact with relics was achieved (→ Martyrs, Veneration of ). After separation of the altar from the earthen grave (esp. in the late Middle Ages) the understructure housed relics and liturgical containers;

Altar the front (with fenestella confessionis) was usually artistically shaped; half-columns recall the table altar. γ. With the block altar, the mensa extends only a little, if at all, beyond the understructure (stone block, massive masonry work); on the front one also finds paintings, ornamentation, reliefs, or a square niche for secondary relics (the reliquary itself was often in the upper part of the block). Favored since the High Middle Ages, the block altar remained popular in Protestant Churches of the Baroque and classical periods (chest altar). It is still found today. δ. The retable altar (retabulum, “back wall”) attested since the 11th century, characteristic of the 13th century, dominant into the 15th century, widespread in northern Europe into the 16th century – remains common until Classicism and experiences a restoration in the 19th century. The epergne rests first on the mensa; since the Renaissance, it stands separate on a base behind the altar. Not the epergne but the altar (only to be served from the front) is designated as the retable or winged altar. The latter is developed in the Gothic period and expanded by an altar shrine (wood, stone, attached wooden wings) with carvings (carved altar) or paintings (only those on outside wings). The changeable altar (with several wings) is adapted to changing liturgical requirements (church year). Since the 15th century, the retabulum stands on the predella, a platform one third of the shrine height, so that the wings can be moved without clearing off the mensa. Prevalent since the 16th century is the epitaph altar with fixed architectonic structure and Communion bench (taking back the altar walls in the Protestant realm from the choir steps into the altar surroundings), often with a painting in the middle, the altarpiece. ε. The sarcophagus altar with strongly curved contours of the front and side surfaces, descended from the block altar, is found in Roman Catholic churches of the 16th century and was popular during Rococo and Classicism (18th cent.). ζ. The pulpit altar, as a combination of altar and pulpit, comes from the placement of the pulpit above the uncovered altar table and developed from a joining together with the epergne. The pulpit sits on or hovers above the altar, and is also fixed upon pillars or sacristy or anchored in the wall or gallery. b. Antiquity. There is no reliable evidence regarding the appearance of the altar in the pre-Constantinian period. Yet, conclusions may be drawn from function, footprints, descriptions, pictures, and terminology. Presumably, residences first had a wooden table in the middle of a room. To its narrow or broad side stood the leader’s cathedra (→ Dura-Europos). In public spaces we may assume there were sundry kinds of wooden tables, movable and often richly appointed. For meals at graves

166 (Eucharistic or other memorial celebrations after the end of the 2nd cent.), tables were needed; only later were the covers of graves used as a mensa. The graves of martyrs lay nearby, under or behind the altar. Not until the 6th century did an independent architecture arise: ring crypts in St. Peter’s Basilica; Domitillan catacombs. Starting in the 4th century the mensa was rectangular, square, circular or semicircular in shape and hollowed out to protect the Eucharistic gifts. The decree of the Synod of Epaon (517) requiring that anointing should not be performed at altars that do not consist of stone influenced the choice of material. There were also altars of precious metal (gold and silver), with gold and silver plates, some with precious stones. In the Middle Ages, for anointing four crosses were engraved at the corners of the mensa and perhaps also one in the middle. Already before the 4th century the altar was covered with a linen cloth; further cloths and decorations (no candles) were added. For a church in Constantinople → Constantine donated “covers decorated with precious stones and interwoven with gold for the holy altars” (PG 92, 737; cf. mosaics of S. Vitale, Ravenna and S. Apollinare, Classe); Chrysostom warns against excess. The concept of the altar as the throne of Christ produced the → ciborium (altar superstructure, → baldachin), on whose columns closable curtains also hung. The barriers (cancelli) prevented unauthorized persons and the pressing masses from entering the altar area (also the place of the singers and deacons). The location of the altar was determined early on in the first independent solid structures (→ Church architecture: II), as a rule without elevation: sometimes at the entrance (Syria), often in the center of the nave (North Africa), very rarely in the apse (Numidia), yet mostly in the nave, but near the presbytery. The celebrant stands behind the altar facing the congregation. The altar in the middle (with surrounding barrier) in small churches meant that the congregation stood in the transept. In large churches the presbytery and altar area were sometimes raised (for visibility and audibility) (Syria). c. Middle Ages. The number of altars and thus the ordering of the places increases with the multiplication of saints, relics, and private masses around 800 (19 altars in St. Gallen in 820). The main altar moves more into the apse: expanded by the choir area, here instead of the presbytery, numerous clergy sit (with cathedra on the left – i.e. the Gospel-side), who want to direct prayer to the east and thus take the altar into the middle or place it toward the east (even to the wall console), so that structures may be built into the apse wall. West of the crossing (or the → jube) stands the “cross altar” (for general distribution of Communion); in the west we find altars dedicated to the archangels; in the double choir area also the altar of the Savior, with that of the monastery founder

167 in the east. The main axis of the whole (allegory of the heavenly Jerusalem) was reserved for the Christ, cross, and chief patron altars. From the High Middle Ages the number of altars (in double choir, side apses, transept, chapel circle) increased greatly (Marienkirche Danzig: 48), by virtue of growing fraternities, guilds, unions, and donor families. Every altar, the representative (Eastern Church: throne) of Christ, was named according to title, donor, or user; the title and relics did not have to be identical. The picture scheme relates, as a rule, to the liturgy, generally depicting events involving Christ and Mary, as well as lives of the saints. In the 9th century it became permissible also to place reliquaries on the altar (in Gaul behind the altar); the box altar was soon largely replaced by the block altar, in whose mensa relics were deposited (the so-called sepulcrum), the prerequisite for an altar consecration. The sometimes large relic shrines above were matched below by artistically fashioned textiles or metal objects. The stipes (with painting or relief ) could also receive changing antependia. Host (in pyxides, in part hanging as “Eucharistic dove”), candlesticks, and cross (both for the first time on the altar) form an impressive installation, which excludes a celebration versus populum, the beginning of a stage-oriented theatrum sacrum. The Romanesque retable, of relief-decorated stone, stucco, metal, or painted wood, closes straight, halfround, or excessively half-round in the middle. Relic shrines are now placed on the altar or in the lower zone of the retable. At first the individual picture of a main figure or icon frieze was displayed only at special festivals (as in the East). Then, analogous to the table cross, the number of figures multiplied (→ Mendicants) as a picture wall, in order to present the plan of salvation didactically in the modern medium as propaganda and reason to devalue the picture autonomy. Added to the framework (gable arrangement in harmony with church façade and pillar sarcophagus) were gable zone, side wings, and predella. The picture program of Gothic was developed by reading, altar title, or patronage. The many panels in the wing or changeable altar (with as many as three movable wing panels) form as a multifunctional “stage of public image” (Belting) the antithesis of the private devotional image. Altar images are not cultic images; they give form to the cultic vessels and can contain them (also temporary reliquaries). In the middle section (altar shrine in wood/stone) and in the predella the figures are often statues (portable for processions). The cult of saints was not a picture cult but a shrine cult (tower-like structure, transparent retable decoration, tabernacle form, use of occasional concealment: lenten cloth). In the 14th/15th centuries regulations guaranteed the immovability of the altar and the invulnerability of the mensa. d. Modern period. The altar of the modern period bears

Altar a confessional stamp. In the East the → iconostasis hides the altar; in Roman Catholic churches it is tied into the program of images; in Protestant churches it is emphasized by focusing on only one altar: the (old) main altar in the choir, the cross altar (people’s altar), or the new altar in the center of the nave (or under the pulpit). The altar (together with images) becomes – independent of artistic ideals – an aesthetic-ritual sign. The Italian and Spanish Renaissance negates the nature of actions in favor of a show culture through the pictorial revelation of absolute ideals: the picture conceals and reveals (→ Raphael, later G.L. → Bernini; → Leonardo da Vinci and Tiepolo paint only the holy meal). The artistic vision diminishes the signs of the religious rite. By comparison with the artistic and the architectural vision, the altar itself becomes unimportant (Rome, St. Maria Maggiore, altar of the Paolina chapel; D. Forment, altar of St. Mary in Zaragoza 1509–1515). Bernini optically degrades the altar to the framing plinth for a space vision; in 1633, over the reliquary of Peter, he monumentalizes with columns the portable papal baldachin (the altar appears small) through which one sees the papal throne as a reliquary in the distance over the (barely visible) choir altar under the dove (cf. in the 1645–1652 Cornaro chapel of S. Maria della Vittoria the vision of St. Theresa). The monstrance, integrated into the show wall, is the early Baroque point (Puebla, Mexico, S. Domingo, 1675–1690). The Renaissance in northern Europe means the regaining of the natura rerum, of action in accordance with the biblical meal drama (natura as divine law: Melanchthon, A. → Dürer). For Reformed Churches the table altar initiates its own aesthetic (wood, stone, marble), whether monumental (Bern), as table utilized for the sacrament (esp. Switzerland), space-forming (the Netherlands), or improvised: gravestone as mensa or new mensa on an old baptismal stone. Elaborate table altars (Gothic and Renaissance forms, evangelists and angels as supports) are found esp. in Lutheran areas (castle churches in Torgau and Schmalkalden, churches of Bückeburg, Tammendorf, etc. into the 18th cent.). Luther’s requirement of celebration versus populum was soon thwarted by many new retable altars (northern and middle Germany) with pictures first of important liturgical actions (including the OT typologies), then increasingly the topoi of the credo. From the end of the 16th century, the predella generally shows the Lord’s Supper. The assisting figures are biblical and historical (martyrs, church fathers) and increasingly also allegories of virtue; the crowning piece: topoi of the Last Judgment, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity. The grave art tradition (patron figures, coats-of-arms, Jonah, Elijah’s ascension, Jacob’s ladder, pelican, phoenix, seven virtues) and the epitaph (inscription: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?”) gave rise to the expression

Altar “epitaph altar”; thus, in Protestant churches these altars were also considered the “grave of Christ”; wing altars of the Middle Ages remained in use until the 17th century (e.g. Zittau). The Anglican Church created fixed retable altars with biblical scenes. German Baroque takes up both traditions: the fixed retable altar, the movement toward architectural representation and painted illusion, the reinforcement of the altar-piece, gold and marble (also imitation), and the like from Italy and Spain. The Baroque altar is indebted to German tradition for the light space, the human proportions, the encouragement to participate, the didactic joy of story-telling (Protestant: Bible; Catholic: saints – the point of paintings in the galleries and interior spaces). The altarpiece, in the form of an aedicula framed by sculpted ornamentation, as relief between pillars, crowned by the organ (Dresden, Frauenkirche), in its elevated position becomes increasingly the propaganda picture above the picture tabernacle (reliquary-like use of miracle pictures) and the Sacrament holder. With its stone stage-work, south German Rococo strives for unity with the overall architecture. In Protestant churches the illustrations tell the passion and resurrection of Christ and, to a lesser degree, Christmas. The pulpit altar is the heir of the people’s altar under the choir-screen pulpit (the pillars served at the same time as the altar ciboria: Magdeburg and Stendhal cathedrals) and the altar under the nave pulpit (in Italy). The position of the pulpit before the altar is not satisfying (visually, acoustically, or in terms of spatial dynamics). Thus, a solution was found in the unity of altar and pulpit. Where in Roman Catholic churches the tabernacle or sanctissimum niche appeared, in Protestant churches the altar melded with the pulpit, often crowned by organ and choir. In the interplay with balconies or congregation, the total artistic creation of the liturgical act was directed (dramaturgically, proxemically, visually, acoustically, and architecturally). The focus altar opened a cycle rising vertically toward the front. In spite of the reluctance of individual dogmaticians, this arrangement was generally felt to form an ideal unity of theology and aesthetics. The great variety of architectural direction followed the principle of axiality, symmetry, order, and the joy of combination: pulpits rest on the sacristry, on their own supports, or on the mensa, are built into the gallery, on a pyramid, or in the altar aedicula, integrated into the final or intermediate cornice or formed as a portico. As a rule, the mensa is free for vasa sacra, Bible, crucifix, and candlesticks. e. 19th and 20th centuries. Both are characterized by efforts to develop artistic and cultic claims independently. With his block altar in the middle of the nave, freed of all added ingredients, Karl Friedrich Schinkel achieved agreement between artistic and religious

168 autonomy (Berlin: St. Petri 1811, cathedral design 1815). The royal liturgical decree of 1822/29 requiring that cross and candles should be placed on the mensa forced the altar into the apse. With the altarpiece in the Tetschen altar, C.D. → Friedrich established new iconographic and aesthetic pictorial traditions; the frame responded to the ritual as a worship signal. The artistic scene and the altar furnishings distance themselves (exceptions: Eugène Delacroix, M. → Slevogt, → Beuron). The retable (as “pathos formula”) serves the individual credo (M. → Beckmann, E. → Nolde, F. → Bacon, et al.) without altars. The clergy, overtaxed aesthetically by the donation of altars but encouraged by the → Nazarenes and representing the “claim to universality of ecclesiastical historicism, which vehemently demanded the equal inclusion of all artistic genres in the overall work of art called the church” (Bernhard Prokisch, 1985), was satisfied with the reanimation of models from the Renaissance, Romanesque, Gothic, and neo-Late Baroque periods (remnants from demolished altars could become an altar-piece). This is reflected in vigorous craft or church art operations with markets for used ecclesiastical material, including impressive wing altars in America, Australia, South Africa, and Ceylon. Pulpit altars came into style again around the turn of the 20th century, in part in Jugendstil churches. Between 1920 and 1970, historic altars were often “cleared out.” In the 20th century, the altar form was simplified through the interplay of liturgical reform and architecture: altar as open block, Rudolf Schwarz; table in the middle, Theodor Fischer, E. Steffann, Eoro Saarinen; space-shaping form, A. → Aalto, → Le Corbusier, Aldo van Eyck, Josef Lackner, Friedhelm Grundmann; new aesthetic form, E. → Eiermann, Busso von Busse; round table, Helmut Striffler; sculptured, Walter Förderer. Many altars remain aesthetically pointless; others thwart the intention of Vatican II (versus populum in the communio) as the elevated secondary representational altars. With exceptions (H. → Matisse, George Braque, Fritz Hartlauer, et al.) it was not until the 1980s that the altar regained an autonomous artistic form (equal to the doxological dimension): the table altar of Ulrich Rückriem in Krefeld (archaic table altar of split dolomite) and Erwin Heerich in Münster and Mainz (geometric architectural cube of basalt), the block altar with wall crosses by Franz Bernhard (wood, iron) and Rolf Bodenseh (four basalt elements), the box altar of Gustav Troger (with holes cut in steel plates), and the block altar (Irish limestone) by Anish Kapoor in the crypt of the Frauenkirche in Dresden (with a hole from the mensa to the floor) as a memorial and Lord’s Supper table. J. Braun, Der christliche Altar, 2 vols., 1924 ◆ J. Braun & H. Eggert, RDK I, 1937, 412–602 ◆ W. Wegner, Der deutsche

169 Altar des späten Mittelalters, 1941 ◆ H.C. von Haebler, Das Bild in der evangelischen Kirche, 1957 ◆ W. Paatz, Süddt. Schnitzaltar der Spätgotik, 1963 ◆ E. Lehmann, Die Anordnung der Altare in der karolingischen Klosterkirche zu Centula, 1965, esp. 374–383 ◆ O. Nussbaum, Der Standort des Liturgen am christlichen Altar vor dem Jahre 1000, 2 vols., 1965 ◆ H. Mai, Der evangelische Kanzelaltar, 1969 ◆ J.H. Emminghaus, LMA I, 1978, 461– 464 ◆ B. Prokisch, “Die kirchliche Kunst des Historismus in der Diözese Linz,” in: Kirche in Oberösterreich, ed. Land Oberösterreich, 1985, 237–248 ◆ A. Reinle, Die Ausstattung deutscher Kirchen im Mittelalter, 1988 ◆ H. Belting, Bild und Kunst, 1990 ◆ B. Reymond, L’architecture religieuse des protestants, 1996. Rainer Volp

Altdorfer, Albrecht (c. 1480 – Feb 12, 1538, Regensburg), painter, copperplate engraver, etcher, draftsman (wood engraver), municipal architect. Head of the so-called “Danube School,” which viewed humanity in close communication with its surrounding countryside and plant world. Commissioned to do multi-part works of art for altars (1518: for St. Florian, Austria, c. 1520/25 a sequel) and altar tables (c. 1510: the two Johns as well as the crucifixion of Christ; c. 1520: the birth of Mary). Allegorical paintings (1507: Satyr Family; 1531: Hoffart and Bettel). Only a few portraits. Active also for emperor → Maximilian I (c. 1515: illustrations of triumph), for duke Wilhelm IV of Bavaria (1529: Alexander in battle). Copious graphic prints with religious and secular themes. Works: F. Winzinger, ed., Zeichnungen, Gesamtausgabe, 1952; Graphik, Gesamtausgabe, 1963; Die Gemälde, Gesamtausgabe, 1975 ◆ Albrecht Altdorfer, 1988. Gisela Goldberg

Altenstein, Karl Sigmund Franz vom Stein zum (Oct 1, 1770, Schalkhausen – May 14, 1840, Berlin) was from Frankish nobility. In 1782, he became page at the court of Margrave Alexander of Ansbach and studied law, natural sciences, mathematics, and philosophy; in 1793, he entered Prussian service as a law clerk in the military and district court in Ansbach. In 1800, he was the military council in the Franconian Department of the General Directorate in Berlin; from 1803 onward, he worked as the secret chief financial counsel of customs, roads, welfare, and medicine. He developed a cordial dialogue with J.G. → Fichte. Under the influence of political events (the Treaty of Schönbrun), he composed his memorandum of Dec 28 or 29, 1805, in which he called upon Prussia, in league with the Nordic states, to reestablish the system of political equilibrium destroyed by → Napoleon. After Prussia’s defeat on Oct 14, 1806, he moved with the court to Königsberg, and followed Karl August of Hardenberg to Riga in September 1807 in order to support him in the planning of the new order for the Prussian state. In a memorandum, he called for the repeal of the privileges of the nobility, of hereditary subjugation, for the abolishment of the guilds, the reconfiguration of the

Altenstein, Karl Sigmund Franz vom Stein zum army, representation of the people, self-administration of the communites, and, esp., a reform of the educational system. The poor financial situation should be no impediment. Altenstein was called to the newly-formed State Council on Mar 28, 1817, and became Minister for Intellectual, Educational, and Medical Affairs. In carefully crafted memoranda and position papers regarding the problems of the day, Altenstein considered the political path to be taken. Based on the reflections of Fichte, G.W.F. → Hegel and F.W. → Schelling , he favored the intellectual renewal movement. He pragmatically opposed the persecution of demagogues by often attaining a mitigation or even waivers of penalty by means of delays of all kinds. He always held the professors’ freedom to teach without censure in high regard. He personally advocated the appointment of Hegel as Fichte’s successor, but was also concerned with improving education in the natural sciences. The ascendancy of the University of Berlin and the foundation of the University of Bonn are essentially to his credit. Altenstein was instrumental in establishing the universal obligation to attend school throughout the state, the consideration of the new pedagogical principles of J.H. → Pestalozzi, Johann Ernst Plamann and F.A.W. → Diesterweg , and instruction for Jews. The gymnasium curriculum of 1834 and the Circular Decree of 1837 withstood all attacks against classical education, attained the reintroduction of French instruction, strengthened attention to the disciplines and history of the natural sciences, and newly regulated the final exams. As early as 1807, Altenstein had already emphasized the value of religion for the true happiness of persons and of the state. The religious freedom of the individual, however, should not be touched. As the responsible minister, he authored memoranda concerning the conditions of the churches. He viewed the desolate state of the Catholic Church with concern. The state was obligated “to care for the best possible state of the Catholic Church.” He expressed reservations concerning the planned Concordat and the Bull De Salute Animarum of Jul 16, 1821. On the question of mixed marriages (→ Marriage), he took a liberal position which, in the dispute concerning the archbishop of Cologne (C.A. → Droste-Vischering ) led him to brand the actions of the archbishop as “open rebellion against the authority of the state” and as a crime against the law of the land that must be opposed with a firm hand. He thought the Protestant church to be in a better state. Union had made progress, the use of the Agenda had become accepted (→ Agendenstreit). In a report from Nov 2, 1833, Altenstein proposed that the king, by virtue of the ius liturgicum, to which he was entitled, could prescribe the Agenda to all Lutheran and Reformed congregations, and that the complaints concerning violation of conscience were entirely unfounded and,

Alter ego

170

therefore, that all who wish to leave the state church because of the Agenda “must be treated and punished as dangerous sectarians.” He protected the heads of the rationalistic school in Halle, professors W. → Gesenius and J.A.L. → Wegscheider, against the attacks of E.E. → Hengstenberg . He responded successfully to the king’s question whether “no limits to the theologians’ freedom to teach” existed. It is not the task of institutions of higher learning to impart Christianity to the students, but “that they receive there an academic theological education such as the service of the church requires.” He saw dangers for the church only in the conduct of → Pietism and conventicles. In a memorandum concerning medicine ( June 1819), his third area of responsibility, he attributed a certain social obligation to the state and the communes. The lack of district physicians and surgeons should be remedied, the education of veterinarians and surgeons resumed, and the institutions of health (mental health asylums, hospitals) and welfare should be improved. The corresponding legislation was in preparation when, for health reasons, he left office in 1838. When Altenstein died, he left behind a life’s work that constituted the basis for an intellectual reorientation of the Prussian state. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, I. HA, Rep. 92 Nachlaß Altenstein ◆ W. Vogel, Karl Sigmund Franz von Altenstein, Berlinische Lebensbilder, 1987. Werner Vogel

Alter ego represents (in comparative religion) the concept that a “counterpart to the → self ” is assigned to a person in the extra-human sphere. Often, it is imagined that a kind of → soul parts from persons and takes form in animals, plants, etc., or else can seek a “dwelling” – temporarily or permanently. Other concepts grow out of the notion that an alter ego exists in the uncontrollable environment with which one is fatefully linked (nagualism). The concept can also be integrated into theistic systems (alter ego as guardian angel, etc.). Bibl.: → Soul.

Fritz Stolz

Alternatimpraxis is a practice developed from antiphonal singing (→ Antiphon), where different groups of performers sing and/or play in a sequence of alternation. In the late Middle Ages the alternation was between Gregorian chant and polyphony. In the Reformation era, alternatimpraxis included congregation, choir, and organ (→ Responsive singing ). Following the practice of the Wittenberg churches, the Lutheran Church developed alternatimpraxis for hymns sung in the liturgy, especially graduals (→ Gradual ) between the epistle and the Gospel reading. Organ chorale partitae and variations were created from alternatimpraxis where the organ alternated with the singing of the congregation.

The polychoralism of M. → Praetorius and H. → Schütz may be seen as a by-product of alternatimpraxis, especially as congregational participation was discontinued during the 17th century. In the 20th century, alternatimpraxis is found in responsorial → psalmody and hymns. F. Blume, Protestant Church Music: A History, 1974, 105–113. Robin A. Leaver

Alternative Service Book (ASB). The Alternative Service Book (1980) was authorized by the General Synod of the → Church of England in 1979 and was designed to supplement the → Book of Common Prayer. The Prayer Book Measure of 1965, by amending the 1662 Act of Uniformity, which committed clergy to the exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer, permitted the introduction of new and other services sanctioned by the Church Assembly (which existed until 1971) and subsequently the General Synod. The Church of England Measure of 1974 virtually repealed the Act of Uniformity and made it possible for the General Synod to make long-term provision for alternative services by canon. Additional rites were authorized as Series I which legalized the use of the Deposit Book of 1928, Series II, which endorsed the Liturgical Commission’s work, and Series III, which accepted modern English. The Alternative Service Book utilized recent liturgical scholarship. New names of saints were added to the calendar, Morning and Evening Prayer were modeled on the Book of Common Prayer, but with more canticles added, and two Eucharistic rites were provided. The Marriage Service incorporated the changed status of → women (IX). The distinction among clerical orders is stressed (→ Office: VII) and emphasis placed on the power of the priest to consecrate and to absolve (→ Absolution). Lent, Holy Week, Easter: Services and Prayers (1986), The Promise of His Glory: Services and Prayers for the Season from All Saints to Candlemas (1991), and Enriching the Christian Year (1993) offer supplemental texts. Alternative books to the Book of Common Prayer have been produced in Australia (1978), Ireland (1984), Canada (1985), southern Africa and New Zealand (1989). The Alternative Service Book, 1980: A Commentary by the Liturgical Commission, 1980 ◆ C.O. Buchanan, Latest Liturgical Revision in the Church of England, 1978–1984, 1984. Fredrick V. Mills Sr.

Althamer, Andreas (pseud. Palaeosphyra; before 1500, Brenz – 1539, Ansbach). Following studies at Leipzig and Tübingen from 1516, Althamer taught in Halle and Reutlingen from 1521 to 1523. In 1524, he was appointed curate in Schwäbisch Gmünd. After losing his position in 1525 because he had married, he studied at Wittenberg. In 1527, he became pastor in Eltersdorf near Nürnberg. As pastor in Ansbach from

171 1528, he played a decisive role in the reformation of the margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach. In 1537, he became a reformer in Brandenburg-Küstrin. T. Kolde, Andreas Althamer der Humanist und Reformator in Brandenburg-Ansbach: Mit einem Nachdruck seines Katechismus von 1528 und archivalischen Beilagen, 1895, repr. 1967 ◆ F. Cohrs, Die evangelischen Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion, vol. III, MGP 22, 1901, repr. 1978, 3–40 ◆ M. Simon, Nürnbergisches Pfarrerbuch, EKGB 41, 1965 ◆ VD 16, 1, 1983, 287–291, A2000–2039 ◆ H.-J. Köhler, Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, I, 1991, 40–42. Heinz Scheible

Althaus, Paul (Feb 4, 1888, Obershagen – May 18, 1966, Erlangen); professor of systematic theology and New Testament at Göttingen (PD), Rostock, and 1925–1946 at Erlangen; 1914/15 military hospital chaplain; 1915–1918 pastor in Łód´z under German administration. As one of the most widely read theologians of the Lutheran renaissance (1926–1964 president of the → Luther Society), Althaus taught that experiencing Germany’s national “hour” was a judgment and a call from the God who justifies (Kirche und Volkstum, 1927). Initially, Althaus assented politically to the dictatorship of the Nazi party (1933: Gutachten über die Zulassung von Christen jüdischer Herkunft [on admitting Christians of Jewish origin to ecclesiastical office]; 1934: Ansbacher Ratschlag, with W. → Elert), but sought to achieve a mediating position within the church. God’s divinity as justification, interpreted eschatologically, is the leitmotif of Althaus’s theology. God, who transcends history, establishes history, within which he labors to assert his sovereignty in order to realize his primal love towards all. In justification, God proves and promises to be Lord of all: by judging in order to pardon, he does not erase the past of the guilty but rather reconstitutes each individual as a new, hidden self of faith, who sees himself directed by the order of God’s creation and therefore called to the law of love, hoping for consummation in God’s judgment. God’s message of eternal communion in the gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes that it had previously been imparted to all, in order to include them through law and gospel (“primal revelation,” unfolded in history as commandment, law, gospel, commandment). Bibl. 1911–1957: Dank an Paul Althaus. FS Paul Althaus, ed. W. Künneth, 1958, 246–272; 1958–1966: NZST 8, 1966, 237–241 ◆ Works include: Die letzten Dinge, 1922, 101970 ◆ Kirche und Volkstum, 1928 ◆ Die deutsche Stunde der Kirche, 1933 ◆ Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6, 1932, 131978 ◆ Die christliche Wahrheit, 1947/48, 81969 ◆ Die Theologie Martin Luthers, 1962, 71994. Heinrich Assel

Altheim, Franz (Oct 6, 1898, Eschersheim – Oct 17, 1976, Münster). During his university studies, Altheim was greatly influenced by Leo Frobenius and W.F. → Otto. Having qualified as professor with a study of the Greek gods in ancient Rome, he was appointed

Althusius, Johannes associate professor at Halle in 1936. After World War II, he taught ancient history at the Free University of Berlin until his retirement; after 1965, he accepted a teaching position at Münster. Among his many scholarly works, his Römische Religionsgeschichte, first published 1931–1933, may be singled out; in it he argued for Greek influence on what had previously been considered indigenous Roman notions. Works include: Römische Religionsgeschichte, 4 vols., 1931–1933; 2nd rev. ed., 2 vols., 1956 ◆ Bibl. in: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. FS Franz Altheim, vol. II, 1970, 390–426 ◆ Obituary: G. Sanders, “In memoriam Prof. Dr. Franz Altheim,” JNAW 39, 1977, 387–399 (bibl.). Hans-Ulrich Berner

Althusius, Johannes (1557[?], Diedenshausen – Aug 12, 1638, Emden). Althusius studied law at Cologne, Basel, and Geneva, receiving his doctorate from the University of Alneva on Aug 1, 1586. In 1586, his first major work, Iuris romani libri II, was published in Basel, whereupon he was appointed to teach law at the Reformed University at Herborn in Nassau. From 1589 to 1594, Althusius served as a legal advisor in the chancellery of Dillenburg. In 1603, after returning to Herborn, he published his major work on political theory, Politica methodice digesta; its later editions (1610, 1614) attracted great attention as the first German work in its field. In 1604, Althusius became a syndic of Emden, where he defended the city’s rights, also in religious matters, against attempted infringement by the ruler. In 1617, he published his last major work, a complete revision of his Iuris Romani under the title Dicaeologica (“Law and Justice,” 21618). Within the context of north German Calvinism, Althusius’s political theory (distinct from pure legal theory) starts with the idea of human consociatio in a social hierarchy from the family to the state; it develops a model of popular sovereignty organized from below that anticipates the notion of the social contract ( J.J. → Rousseau). Contractual assurances, ephoral supervision, and the right of resistance prevent the sovereignty of the ruler from becoming absolute. Although this explicitly secular political theory borrows presbyterial structures from Calvinism, it contains almost no theocratic elements, despite the ideal coincidence of political and ecclesiastical structures. The frequent quotations from Scripture and biblical illustrations (along with total disregard of canon law) document a theory developed entirely rationally, following the methodology of P. → Ramus. Althusius-Bibliographie: Bibliographie zur politischen Ideengeschichte und Staatslehre, zum Staatsrecht und zur Verfassungsgeschichte des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. H.U. Scupin, U. Scheuner & D. Wyduckel, 1973 ◆ K.W. Dahm et al., eds., Politische Theorie des Johannes Althusius, 1988. Bernd Christian Schneider

Alting Alting 1. Menso (Nov 9, 1541, Eelde an der Drenthe near Groningen – Oct 7, 1612, Emden) studied in Cologne and, after converting to the Reformed Church in 1565, theology in Heidelberg. Active primarily as a preacher in the Netherlands and, from 1567 on, in the Rhineland, his chief activity from 1575 onward lay in Emden as preacher and Praeses of the Coetus of Reformed clergy in East Friesland. Together with his friends, → Althusius and Ubbo Emmius, he led the dispute with the counterReformation and the Lutheran counts, and thus contributed substantially to the establishment of Calvinism in Emden. His preserved correspondence reveals a strictly confessional standpoint, especially in distinction to Lutheranism. U. Emmius, Menso Altingii vita, ed. A.M. Ising, 1728 ◆ H. de Vries de Hekelingen, Genève, pépinière du calvinisme hollandais I, 1918 ◆ H. Klugkist Hesse, Menso Alting, 1928 ◆ Bibl. See also 2. below. Christoph Strohm

2. Heinrich (Feb 17, 1583, Emden – Aug 5, 1644, Groningen) was the son of Menso. From 1602, he studied theology with J. → Piscator in Herborn. From 1608, he directed the studies of the Prince-Elector of the Rhineland, the later Elector Friedrich V. From 1613 until his expulsion in 1622, Alting taught theology in Heidelberg, and then from in 1627 in Groningen. With A. → Scultetus and P. → Toussain he represented the Palatinate at the Synod of → Dort in 1618/19 and distinguished himself there as an adherent of a strict predestinationism. The most important of his writings, which appeared only posthumously and in which Reformed fundamentals are associated with Ramistic logic, are a history of doctrine and a portrayal of the history of the Reformation in the Rhineland. Works include: Scripta Theologica Heidelbergensia, 1646 ◆ Theologia historica, 1664 ◆ Historia ecclesiae Palatinae, 1701 ◆ Bibl: W. Gass, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, vol. I, 1854, 434f ◆ with L. van Langeraad, Het protestantsch vaderland, vol. I, 1907. Christoph Strohm

3. Jakob (Sep 27, 1618 – Aug 30, 1679), the son of Heinrich, became professor of oriental languages in Groningen in 1643, and of theology, as well, in 1667. As one of the most important Hebraists also to be a Cocceian ( J. → Cocceius), he fell into a dispute with his colleague, Samual Maresius, who accused him of Judaizing heresy. Fundamenta punctationis linguae sanctae sive grammatica ebraea, 1654, 61706 ◆ Opera, ed. Balthasar Bekker, 5 vols., 1686 ◆ P.H. Roessingh, Jakob Alting:, Een bijbels godgeleerde uit het midden der 17e eeuw, 1864. Christoph Strohm

Altmann of Passau (c. 1010 – Aug 8, 1091) was from a landed noble family in Saxony and Bavaria.

172 Altmann was cathedral scholar in Paderborn, diocesan provost in Aachen and court chaplain of Henry III and Empress Agnes; in 1065 he became bishop of → Passau. His interest in the reform of the secular clergy was evident in the foundation of the institute of regular canons at St. Nikola in Passau (c. 1067) and Göttweig (c. 1075) and in the struggle for the acceptance of → celibacy. Forced from his bishopric in 1078, Altmann was able to retain the eastern portion of his diocese with the aid of Margrave Liutpold. He worked as Papal Legate for → Gregory VII and → Urban II. In 1077, he was among the electors of the counter-king Rudolf of Rheinfelden. In 1085, he was formally deposed by → Henry IV. Circa 1140, a monk from Göttweig authored his vita. Der heilige Altmann: FS zur 900-Jahr-Feier, 1965 ◆ W. Hartmann, “Das Bistum Passau im Investiturstreit,” Ostbairische Grenzmarken 31, 1989, 46–60. Wilfried Hartmann

Alto of Altomünster. The migrant monk, first attested in 11th and 12th century sources (Vita of → Otloh of St. Emmeram, c. 1070; Historia Welforum), is supposed to have established a cell (later named after him) in Altomünster (upper Bavaria) c. 740. M. Huber, “Der heilige Alto und seine Klosterstiftung Altomünster,” in: Wissenschaftliche Festgabe zum 1200-jährigen Jubiläum des heiligen Korbinian, 1924, 209–244. Wilfried Hartmann

Altötting gained supra-regional importance in southern Germany in the Middle Ages as the location of a palace and also, from the 15th century, as the most significant pilgrimage site for Mary (→ Pilgrimage). From the 8th century, a ducal and royal palace can be identified in Altötting, whose chapel was incorporated into the later pilgrimage church. After the unsuccessful establishment of a monastery in the 9th century, the Bavarian Count Ludwig I settled a chapter of canons in Altötting to look after the Marian pilgrimage established at the end of the 15th century following two miracles. In the course of the Catholic reformation and the counterreformation, Altötting became the most important pilgrimage destination in southern Germany. Since Duke Albrecht V (1550–1579), the Dukes of Wittelsbach, the Electors, and the Kings of → Bavaria were the special patrons of the pilgrimage. With the → secularization and the dissolution of the canon chapter at the beginning of the 19th century, the pilgrimage collapsed. Yet, since 1826, through the efforts of the → Capuchins and sometimes also of the → Redemptorists, a revival began, reaching a new apex at the turn of the 20th century. Altötting became the destination of modern mass pilgrimages, now with more than 700,000 pilgrims per year. O. Wiebel-Fanderl, Die Wallfahrt Altöttings, 1982 ◆ G.P. Woeckel, Pietas Bavarica, 1992, 336–433 ◆ W. Störmer, “Die Bedeutung

173

Altruism

der früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Pfalz Altötting für das Herzogtum Bayern und das Königtum,” ZBLG 58, 1995, 191–207. Ferdinand Kramer

Altruism I. Science – II. Ethics

I. Science During the 1960s, evolutionary biologists such as Hamilton and Williams developed the first theories concerning the evolution of altruism. These theories define altruism as any type of behavior that (1) diminishes the Darwinian fitness of its bearer and (2) increases the fitness of other organisms; this fitness is defined as the success of an organism (or phenotype or genotype) in producing sexually mature descendants relative to the average success of the fertile population (→ Darwinism: I; → Evolution). This technical definition lends the term “altruism” a meaning different from its colloquial or theological sense, since it ignores both consciousness and intention. The theories of evolutionary biology seek to explain how altruistic features can develop despite the general tendency to favor Darwinian fitness. Four hypotheses have been proposed: group selection, kin selection, selection favoring reciprocal altruism, and selection favoring altruism induced by constraint or deception. Group selection is natural selection in the form of reproductive success that differs among populations. Kin selection is natural selection that favors altruism toward those who share genetic kinship. Reciprocal altruism consists in altruism toward organisms that are highly likely to reciprocate in the future. Evolutionary biologists (Alexander, Williams) have generally rejected the hypothesis of group selection. They assume that altruism will not develop if it is not favored on the level of the individual either by kin selection or selection expecting reciprocal altruism. Various theoreticians (Alexander, Frank, Hefner, Irons, Robert J. Richards, Ruse, Wilson) have recently extended the biological theory of altruism to explain human morality and even religion. So far these theories, still controversial, have not been thoroughly tested. W.D. Hamilton, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour, I/II,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1964, 1–16; 17–52 ◆ G.C. Williams, Adaptation and Natural Selection, 1966 ◆ R. Trivers, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 1971, 35–57 ◆ R.D. Alexander, “The Evolution of Social Behavior,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5, 1974, 325–383 ◆ E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature, 1978, repr. 2004 ◆ M. Ruse, Taking Darwin Seriously, 1986, repr. 1998 ◆ R.D. Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems, 1987 ◆ R. Frank, Passions within Reason, 1988 ◆ P. Hefner, “Theological Perspectives on Morality and Human Evolution,” in: Religion and Science, ed. W.M. Richardson & W.J. Wildman, 1996, 401– 423 ◆ W. Irons, “Morality, Religion and Human Evolution,” ibid., 375–399. William Irons

II. Ethics Coinage of the term “altruism” is usually ascribed to A. → Comte (1798–1857), who understood it as a human disposition to sociality and the normative center of a universal religion of humanity. The human race, according to Comte, is advancing from the age of theology through the age of metaphysics to the age of positivism, when people will no longer worship a god but humanity itself (le grand Être). The moral imperative of this “positive religion” is: Vivre pour autrui. É. → Durkheim stated Comte’s position more precisely: altruism does not mean sacrificing one’s own interests for another individual. It is not empirical individuality that establishes a bond with another person but the fact that the other person is a representative of humanity in general. The wellspring and beneficiary of altruism is society, not the other individual. H. → Spencer instead propounded an individualistic version of altruism, identifying altruism with feelings of sympathy, generosity, justice, beneficence, and mercy. In the ideal society of the future, altruism and → egotism would be reconciled. Everyone who gives may be altruistic to the extreme, everyone who receives, egotistic to the extreme. Critics have objected to the concept of altruism on the grounds that in it we are really dealing with evolutionistic → Utilitarianism (W. → Wundt), the phoniest form of egotism (F. → Nietzsche), self-avoidance and the duty of the individual to act as an ethical subject (M. → Scheler), masochism (Anna Freud), or a pseudoproblem (G.H. → Mead). Acceptance of the concept of altruism has been intimately connected with Darwinism. Darwinian sociobiology resolves the so-called altruism paradox, i.e. the contradiction between the observed prosocial behavior of individuals and the egotistic humanity of Darwinism by distinguishing between egotistic genes and their apparently altruistic bearers, living individuals. Altruism, in this view, exists only as kinship altruism or reciprocal altruism – ultimately genetic egotism. But it is possible to speak of an altruism paradox only if one believes that the biologistic reduction of human beings to mere instruments in the reproductive competition of the genes and the Darwinian principle of self-advancement are correct. One could speak instead of a polarity between altruism and egotism. The devaluation of individual responsibility and freedom coupled with the naturalistic identification of the ontic with the deontic and the unscrutinized acceptance of the cost-benefit paradigm inherent in the concept of altruism employed by sociobiology make it less than useful to ethical theory. Theological anthropology and ethics have had good reason to ignore the concept of altruism. Theology views the self-aware individual as more of an egotist than

Alumbrados (Illuminati) the theoreticians of altruism would like, for self-awareness, self-concern, and self-responsibility are implicit in any Christian anthropology. On the other hand, theology also views the individual as more altruistic, inasmuch as self-transcendence is vital to the process of hominization. A. Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, 6 vols., 1830–1842; ET (condensed): The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, 2 vols., 1853, repr. 1971, 2001 ◆ E. Durkheim, Sociologie et philosophie, 1924; ET Sociology and Philosophy, 1953, repr. with additions 1974 ◆ H. Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, 2 vols., 1966 ◆ A. Caplan, The Sociobiology Debate, 1978 ◆ Altruism and Helping Behavior, ed. J.P. Rushton & R.M. Sorrentino, 1981 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983; ET: Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1985, repr. 1999. Rolf Schieder

174 Rome in 1523 and 1526. In 1520, he published his Super apostolica sede, entering the controversy over the papal primacy and the nature of the church that had been unleashed by the Leipzig disputation. The work attracted attackers (including A. → Karlstadt) and defenders, but above all, when Alveldt published a German version, it gave Luther occasion to publish his first vernacular work about the church (Von dem Papsttum zu Rom, 1520). The crux was the conflict over using OT and NT typology to support or reject an earthly head of the church (after the type of → Aaron) under Christ. H. Smolinsky, Augustin von Alveldt und Hieronymus Emser, RGST 122, 1983 (bibl.) ◆ K. Hammann, Ecclesia spiritualis, FKDG 44, 1989. Kurt-Victor Selge

Alumbrados (Illuminati) (Iluminados, Enlightened Ones) are adherents of a mystical and paramystical movement (→ mysticism) that existed from the early 16th into the 17th century in Spain (primarily Toledo 1512–1532, Llerena 1570–1582, Seville 1623) and Portugal (Lisbon). The name Alumbrados was first applied in 1523 to the Franciscans Juan de Olmillos and Francisco de Ocaña. In conjunction with a sanctified life, the Alumbrados called for divine illumination and strove in spiritual assembly for mystical union with God. Honored by the people and initially tolerated by the church, they were persecuted in the Inquisition from 1525 on (Edict of Toledo: Condemnation of 48 Theses). Even → Ignatius of Loyola , St. → John of the Cross, → Theresa of Avila, and others were suspected of being Alumbrados.

Alvinczi, Péter (c. 1570–1634). Following studies at Wittenberg and Heidelberg (under D. → Pareus), in 1615 the Hungarian Reformed polemicist and political writer P. Alvinczi became preacher and counselor to the Transylvanian princes S. → Bocskay and Gábor Bethlen. From 1606, he was a leading pastor of the Hungarian Calvinists in the city of Kassa (Kosice), Upper Hungary, in what is now Slovakia, but he was conciliatory toward the German Lutherans. His sermons and polemics were written from the Reformed perspective, but his pamphlets display a resolve to subordinate confessional differences (at least among Protestants) to national unity. He censured the Catholic clergy and the → Jesuits for endangering the latter. Among his publications, the Querela Hungariae (Kassa 1619) deserves special mention.

B. Llorca, La Inquisición y los Alumbrados, 1936 ◆ M. Menéndez Pelayo, Los heterodoxos españoles, vol. IV, 1947 ◆ A. Huerga, Historia de los Alumbrados (1570– 1630), 5 vols., 1978–1994. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues

J. Heltai, Alvinczi Péter és a heidelbergi peregrinusok, 1994, esp. 191–194. Bálint Kesurü

Álvaro Pelayo (1275/1280 – 1349/1350). The Franciscan Álvaro Pelayo (or Alvarus Pelagius), a Spanish canonist, was bishop of Silves (Portugal) from 1333 to 1346. Although he took the side of the → Spirituals in the → poverty controversy, he defended the claims of the papacy in temporal matters also (De statu et planctu ecclesiase, 1330–1332, revised 1335–1340). He wrote a Speculum regum (1341–1344) for king Alfonso XI of Leon and Castile. A. Domingues de Sousa Costa, Estudos sobre Álvara Pais, 1966. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues

Alveldt, Augustine of (d. after 1535), an Observant Franciscan, was made lector of Scripture of their Leipzig monastery in 1520 and guardian of Halle in 1524. From 1529 to 1532, he served as provincial of the Saxon Province of the Holy Cross. He traveled to

Alypius (b. after 354 in Thagaste, Numidia, d. after 428) was → Augustine’s closest friend. In 376, bishop Alypius went to Carthage with Augustine, to study law in Rome in 383, prior to Augustine, and then to Milan with him in 384. Like him, he was a Manichaean (373–382), a skeptic (383–386), and followed him in conversion and baptism (386/387). He was Augustine’s companion at the founding of the monasteries of Thagaste (fall 388) and Hippo (391), and in 394/95 he became bishop of Thagaste. He actively fought → Donatism and Pelagianism (→ Pelagius). At the disputation of Carthage in 411, he was one of the Catholic spokesmen. In 419/420 and probably also in 421, 422/423 and 427/428, he traveled to Rome and Ravenna on ecclesiastical and political affairs. Among Augustine’s letters several (nos. 41, 45, 62, 69, 70, 170, 171, 186, 188) are “co-signed” by Alypius; no writings of his have been preserved. He possibly formulated the Augustinian monastic rule Ordo monasterii.

175

Amandus

Sources: Augustine, Conf., esp. VI, VIII, IX and ep. 28, 83, 125, 227, 9*, 10*, 22* ◆ Concerning Alypius: A. Mandouze, ed., Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire, I, 1982, 53–65 ◆ E. Feldmann, A. Schindler & W. Wermelinger, AugL 1, 1986, 245–267 (bibl.). Adolar Zumkeller

works written by his opponents. His teachings were condemned in 1210 by a synod in Paris, along with the teachings of → David of Dinant, and in 1215 by the 4th Lateran Council. His followers were persecuted as heretics.

Amalarius of Metz (775 in or near Metz – probably 850/853, Metz), a student of → Alcuin, was archbishop of Trier c. 809–815 (identical with Amalarius of Trier). Under → Louis I, the Pious, he taught at the palace school in Aachen. In 835, he became the administrator of the archdiocese of Lyon, but through the opposition of his predecessor → Agobard, and above all the deacon → Florus, he was deposed in 837 at a synod held at Quierzy, on the (unjustified) charge of neglecting tradition. His major work, the Liber officialis (823–832), applies allegoresis (→ Allegory), familiar as a means of interpreting Scripture, to the entire liturgy as interpreted symbolically. His work influenced many 9th– to 13th-century liturgists.

Sources: Prozeßakten von 1210, ChUP 1, 1889, no.12, 71f. ◆ Liber contra Amaurianos, ed. C. Baeumker, BGPhMA 24, 1926 ◆ On Amalric: M. dal Pra, Amalrico di Béne, 1951 ◆ K. Albert, “Amalrich von Bena und der mittelalterliche Pantheismus,” Madrider Mitteilungen 10, 1976, 193–212. Reinhold Rieger

Works: Amalarii episcopi Opera liturgica omnia, ed. J.M. Hanssens, 3 vols., 1948–1950, repr. 1967 (bibl.) ◆ A. Kolping, “Amalarius von Metz und Florus von Lyon,” ZKTh 73, 1951, 424–464 ◆ A. Cabaniss, Amalarius of Metz, 1954 ◆ A.A. Häussling, DSp 10, 1980, 1083–1090. Rudolf Suntrup

Amalekites, a nomadic Semitic tribe whose name remains unexplained and who lived in the Negev by virtue of their camels (Num 13:29; 1 Sam 15:7; 30:17). The OT traditions on the disputes with the Amalekites are most reliable for the period of David; for this reason the dating of the arch-enmity between Israel and the Amalekites may belong to his era (Ex 17:16; Num 24:20; Deut 25:17–19; 2 Sam 1:1–15). Later traditions move the enmity farther and farther back into the early history (→ Saul, 1 Sam 14:48; 15; → Gideon, Ehud, → Moses, Ex 17:8–16; Num 13:29; 14:25, 41–45; → Abraham, Gen 14:7, → Kadesh-Barnea) and thereby link the Amalekites with enemies east of the Jordan (→ Israel and its neighbors in Syria-Palestine). Ultimately, the name of the mythical king of the Amalekites, Agag (1 Sam 15:8ff.), becomes a new synonym for an archenemy (Num 24:7; Esth 3:1 [targum]). T. Nöldeke, Ueber einige Nachbarvölker der Israeliten, 1864, 11– 20, 25–42 ◆ M. Görg, “Ein Gott Amalek?,” BN 40, 1987, 14–15 ◆ I. Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, 1995, 103–126 (bibl.). Stefan Timm

Amalric of Bena (Amaury; b. Bène, near Chartres, d. 1206, Paris). Amalric studied and taught the → artes liberales in Paris. He also was engaged in theology and developed a pantheistic Gnostic interpretation of history, inspired by Neoplatonism, based on John Scotus → Eriugena and the natural philosophy of → Aristotle. Our knowledge of his system depends entirely on

Amama, Sixtinus (Oct 13, 1593, Franeker – Nov 9, 1629, Franeker). After studying Near Eastern languages at Franeker, Leiden, and Oxford, he succeeded his teacher Johannes Drusius as professor of Hebrew at Franeker. With W. → Ames, he strove to improve student morals. He worked successfully to promote the study of the basic biblical languages as a requirement for the preaching office. His writings pointed out the imperfections in the current Bible translations and helped lay the groundwork for the new Dutch translation commissioned by the Synod of → Dort in 1618–1619. Works include: Anti-barbarus biblicus, 1628 ◆ On Amama: J.E. Platt, “Sixtinus Amama Franeker Professor and Citizen of the Republic of Letters,” in: Universiteit te Franeker, ed. G.T. Jensma et al., 1985, 236–248 ◆ P.T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the 17th Century, 1989, 64–83. Aart de Groot

Amana Colony. The Amana Colony is the second American home of the True → Inspirationist Community in Iowa (taking its name from Song 4:8). Religious persecution in Germany and Switzerland prompted 800 believers under Christian Metz (1794–1867) to emigrate to North America in 1843, where they founded the Ebenezer Society near Buffalo, NY, a religiously motivated society of communal property. The society quickly grew and was ultimately moved to Iowa. Increasing problems led in 1932 to an abandonment of the communal society, though the church, businesses, and community itself remained and gradually became more open to modern life. D. Barthel, Amana: From Pietist Sect to American Community, 1984. Jonathan G. Andelson

Amandus (600, Aquitaine – 676, 679 or 684) went as a Franconian missionary to Flanders, a FranconianFrisian border area, where he founded the Abbey at Elno (St. Amand) in 639 (?). He was also involved in establishing the monasteries at Nivelles (640) and Barisis (663). He was part of the group of missionaries influenced by the monasticism of → Luxeuil, who saw their mission not so much in baptizing pagans as in establishing Franconian Christianity, which was

Amarna, Tell el-Amarna

176

threatened with decline. His cult (Oct. 26[?]) was essentially restricted to Belgium and northern France. J. Prinz, LMA I, 1980, 510–511.

Sönke Lorenz

Amarna, Tell el-Amarna I. City and Excavations – II. The Amarna Tablets

I. City and Excavations Tell el-Amarna is the site of Akhetaten, the capital founded by the religious reformer of → Egypt, → Amenophis IV/ Echnaton (1364–1347 or 1353–1336 bce). The area was delimited by 14 “boundary stelae.” A ceremonial avenue from the royal residences to the Aton temple and the “Great Palace” forms the axis of the city. Residential quarters include “villas” for high officials, houses for commoners and workmen’s villages. Necropoleis are located in the rock cliffs that border the valley. The city was founded in Echnaton’s 5th year and inhabited for around 15 years. It was abandoned under Tutanchamun, when the royal court went back to Thebes, following the dropping of the Aton religion (→ Egypt: II, III). Excavations began after the sensational discovery of the “Amarna tablets” in 1887: William M. Flinders Petrie concentrated on the administrative areas, looking for more tablets (1890–1891); Ludwig Borchardt executed a topographical survey and major excavations (1911–1914); John D.S. Pendlebury dug especially the public buildings; finally, Barry J. Kemp emphasized the reconstruction of the city planning, the ceremonial functions of state buildings, and everyday objects. II. The Amarna Tablets The Amarna tablets were discovered in 1887 by local peasants and sold to various museums (some 200 to Berlin, 100 to London, 50 to Cairo, etc.). A few tablets were found in subsequent digs. The tablets, now totaling 382, stem from the period from the later part of the reign of Amenophis III to the early years of Tutanchamun. They belonged to Echnaton’s foreign archive and consist mainly of letters from (rarely to) foreign correspondents in Asia, plus gift inventories, Babylonian literary texts (Adapa, Sargon’s “King of Battles”) and school texts. Around 40 letters came from the independent kings of Hatti, Arzawa, Mitanni, Assyria, → Babylonia, Alashiya ; the rest from the Egyptian vassals in Syria-Palestine (→ Byblos, Amurru, Qadesh, → Tyre, → Shechem, → Jerusalem, etc.). The language is Babylonian (apart from two letters in Hittite and one in Hurrian), but most letters are influenced by the mother tongue of local scribes: “Canaanite” (i.e. northwest Semitic) in Palestine and coastal Syria, Hurrian in inner Syria and Egypt. The “Canaanite glosses” and the morpho-syntactical peculiarities have been studied as the oldest remains of the local dialects.

The letters to and from the independent kings provide a detailed picture of international relations in the Amarna age. The “great kings” exchanged messages and gifts and negotiated for dynastic marriages. Though formally this exchange occurred on an equal footing, Egypt held a stronger position, both economically and ideologically (Pharaoh would always receive women but never provide them himself ). As regards military issues, Egypt was challenged by the Hittites, who subdued the Mitanni and part of Syria. However, the suggestion that the Egyptian empire collapsed in the Amarna period is an exaggeration. Smaller kingdoms claimed protection against enemies, demanded food and troops and lamented the disinterest of the Pharaoh. However, such claims do not demonstrate a crisis in Egyptian rule; rather, they display the opportunistic attempts of smaller rulers to gain Egyptian aid against their own enemies. The motives of the city defense and of the arrival of troops were part of the Egyptian administrative routine (seasonal expeditions of armed units to collect tribute and maintain order). A stable Egyptian presence was limited to Samura, Kumidi, Gaza and a few garrisons. Since their discovery the Amarna letters have been considered to provide a first-hand picture of Canaan on the eve of Israelite conquest. The Habiru people, mentioned frequently in the letters, were identified with the Hebrews, because of the name similarity, and because of the hostile attitude to the Canaanite cities and Egyptian rule in the reports. This is no longer accepted. The term Habiru does not refer to an ethnic group, but to an unfavorable social position (“displaced persons,” “outlaws”) or it may even be a pejorative term for any enemy. No movement of peoples or tribes can be detected by following the term Habiru in the Amarna letters. The value of the Amarna tablets for Biblical Studies lies in documenting the political organization of Palestine in the 14th century bce with invaluable data on topography, onomastics, religion, economics, etc. The concentration of the Canaanite city states in the coastal plain and the river valleys, the depopulated hills, the social unrest, the economic crisis, the local feuds, and the distant Egyptian authority form the historical background for the Israelite settlement two to three centuries later. Sources: J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, 2 vols., 1907– 1915 ◆ A.F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets, 1978, 359–379 ◆ W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, 1992 (ET) ◆ W.J. Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, 1995 ◆ Bibl.: W.M.F. Petrie, Tell el Amarna, 1894 ◆ N. de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of El-Amarna, 4 vols., 1903–1908 ◆ J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaton, 3 vols., 1923–1951 ◆ G.T. Martin, The Royal Tomb of El-Amarna, 2 vols., 1974–1989 ◆ L. Borchardt & H. Ricke, Die Wohnhäuser in Tell El-Amarna, 1980 ◆ B.J. Kemp, Amarna Reports, 6 vols., 1984–1995 ◆

177

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji

A.F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets, 1996 ◆ Bibliographies: J.G. Heintz, Index documentaire d’El-Amarna, 2 vols., 1982–1995 ◆ G.T. Martin, A Bibliography of the Amarna Period, 1991. Mario Liverani

Amaterasu Omikami, Japanese sun goddess, “great goddess who illuminates the heavens.” Amaterasu is one of the few female solar deities of world mythology, although this may be a modern development. The daughter of Izanagi and the sister of Susanoo, she is a major deity in Japanese mythology. After an altercation with Susanoo, she withdrew into a cave in protest and plunged the world into darkness. Only the dancing and merrymaking of the other deities was able to entice her to emerge and dispel the darkness. The royal family of Japan traces its descent to her. Her pre-eminence probably reflects the Yamato clan’s consolidation of power in the proto-historical period of → Japan (VI). The shrine at → Ise is dedicated to her and therefore plays an important role in the cult of the emperor. Her shintai (symbolic manifestation; → Shintoism), the mirror, is one of the three treasures of the Japanese nation, along with the sword and the necklace of jewels. Sun symbolism is thus of fundamental importance in Japanese history. J. Breen & M. Teeuwen, eds., Shinto History, 2000.

Ian Astley

Amazonia includes significant portions of Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela. It is not geographically homogeneous but comprises two ecosystems. The first, upland that is never flooded (terra firme), constitutes 98% of the area of Amazonia. The second, better known, is lowland, the so-called várzea; it consists of alluvial riverbeds and channels, igarapés, and smaller watercourses. Even today this complex network of waterways is – apart from the airplane – practically the only means of access to “historical” Amazonia. In some places the várzea is very narrow (Rio Negro); in others it is more than 60 miles wide. Since c. 1000 bce, there has been a substantial population concentration in the várzea, representing the Arawak, Tupí, and Carib language families; for the 16th century, the population of Brazilian Amazonia has been estimated at 2 million. What little evidence there is about the intervening 2,500 years suggests that the people of Amazonia mostly worshiped gods of the forest (mato), the waters, and the animal world, but not gods of the heavens. The modern festivals celebrating Jurupari support the same conclusion, as does Amazonian worship, which is markedly messianic. Notions of “redemption” are basically quite “mundane.” Amazonian Christianity has been shaped by the history of Portuguese Catholic colonization. In 1616, Portugal established a permanent base on the Guamá at Belém do Grão-Pará. Large-scale missionary activ-

ity had to wait for the period between 1686 and 1759, when the huge territory was divided up among the traditional Catholic orders. This missionary period was interrupted in 1759 by Pombal, who ejected the Jesuits and attempted to secularize the social structures, albeit with little success. The global Ultramontanism of Catholicism between 1840 and 1880 led in Amazonia to the dissolution of Lusitano-Brazilian institutions, such as the confraternities and exposure of the Church to a new wave of Europeanization. Even in this period – but especially after the beginning of the 20th century – Protestant churches began to appear in Amazonia, mostly coming from North America, primarily → Presbyterians, → Methodists, and → Baptists. It soon turned out, however, that the people were more receptive to freer and more emotional denominations, such as the Pentecostals (→ Pentecostalism). But even with the charismatic and Pentecostal movements, it has been difficult for the Christian churches to meet the special need for emotionalism in Amazonian worship. This problem was aggravated by the trauma of the long → Cabanagem Rebellion of blacks and Indians between 1832 and 1849, in which half the Indian population was killed in cities like Belém and many lives were also lost deep in the interior. Its memory is vividly expressed in the annual procession of Círio de Nazaré (Our Lady of Nazaré) in Belém, in which more than a million people participate. Even today the Christian churches have not succeeded in incorporating the particular values and images of the indigenous religion, which are still visible in the daily lives of the Amazonians and in the Círio embrace the entire territory from Urubamba (in Peru) to Belém. Here, Christian monotheism, with all that it entails, remains a religious perspective that is hard to communicate. E. Hoornaert, ed., História da Igreja na Amazônia, 1992 (bibl.). Eduardo Hoornaert

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (Apr 14, 1891, Mhow – Dec 6, 1956, Delhi) belonged to the Mahār group of castes, which is considered untouchable. He studied in New York and London, and in 1923 returned to India and organized the untouchables, working to attain equality with the upper castes. When this failed, Ambedkar publicly declared in 1935 that he no longer considered himself a Hindu. In the 1920s, there had been mass conversions of untouchables from southern India to Christianity but he rejected this solution. Jawaharlal Nehru appointed Ambedkar as minister of justice and he rendered great service in shaping the Indian constitution and the legislation on Hindu family law (monogamy, the wife’s right to divorce, etc.). He saw this as a first step towards a uniform Indian Civil code but Nehru shied away from encroaching upon Islamic

Ambivalence

178

law. Nehru also made compromises concerning Hindu law. For this reason Ambedkar stepped down and once again devoted himself to improving the condition of the untouchables. He resumed the idea of reaching this goal by means of a religious change within the Indian cultural orbit and thus turned to Buddhism. On Oct 14, 1956 he and a large number of his followers submitted themselves to the dīkßā ceremony and became Buddhists. Subsequently, the neo-Buddhists produced an extensive body of writings (in Marathi) and thereby also provided important stimuli for the new Dalit-literature. “Dalit” (the oppressed) is the self-designation of the untouchables who reject the label of “Harijan” (person of God), formulated by M. → Gandhi, because they consider it to be a patronizing term. The Dalits revere Ambedkar, whose statues are found widely in India. D. Keer, Dr. Ambekdar, 31971.

Dietmar Rothermund

Ambivalence, double value or dichotomy, introduced as a term to psychiatry by Bleuler in 1910, describes antagonistic feelings towards the same object or the same person at the same time (hate-love). As a relational being, the human stands in the dialectics of closeness and distance to the person opposite, where the necessary closeness can also be experienced as a risk of losing one’s own self, and the necessary distance can also be experienced as a risk of losing intimacy. According to Levin, this ambivalence conflict arises from the tension between striving to approach and striving to avoid. It can cause serious psychological disruptions. It has its source in early childhood, when the mother, in her attention and aversion, is perceived alternately by the child as an object of love or hate; the necessary ability to endure ambivalence develops from the integration of both aspects of experience. As an element of a relationship, ambivalence is also a phenomenon of the history of religion: According to R. → Otto, the numinous object contains the double quality of the tremendum and the fascinans, which is also embodied in taboo. Early divinities often have an ambivalent character. The God of the OT also has demonic traits at first, which, on the one hand, later become independent in a dualistic polarization (God-Satan) under outside influence – according to C.G. → Jung evil is the “shadow” of God, which can be integrated into the trinity and extended to a quaternity –, and, on the other hand, are taken up into personal dialectics: God’s wrath and goodness come together, he is both judge and savior. The ethical question as to the source of → “evil” (→ Theodicy) is connected with the problem of ambivalence. Where the tension between → deus absconditus and deus revelatus is lost and so the sacred is reduced to the good, there exists the danger of the image of God

becoming morally superficial. The response of the human to the ambivalence of the numinous is, on the one hand, fascination and, on the other, fear and terror: → possession, → intoxication, and → shamanism have an ambivalent, double meaning. The Sacred Meal is experienced as redeeming, but also as dangerous (Lev 22:3ff.; 1 Cor 11:27). Vocations incite responses of resistance ( Jer 1:6; 20:7; Luke 5:8; Mu˙ammad). In the sense of personal integration, the initially numinous shock turns into reverent awe; cf. fear and love in Luther’s commentary on the Ten Commandments. Phenomena of the world and history of culture in general have content of ambivalent experience (Baumann). That goes as much for the ambivalence of the modern culture of individuality as for opportunity and threat together, and the corresponding attitude between “desire and frustration.” It is the human challenge to live with ambivalence and learn to shape this tension constructively. E. Bleuler, Die Ambivalenz, 1914 ◆ R. Otto, Das Heilige, 1917; ET: The idea of the Holy 1958 ◆ K. Levin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1959 ◆ R. Schärf, “Die Gestalt des Satans im Alten Testament,” in: C.G. Jung, Die Symbolik des Geistes, 1972 ◆ E. Otscheret, Ambivalenz, 1988 ◆ Z. Baumann, Moderne und Ambivalenz, 1992. Hans-Jürgen Fraas

Ambo → Pulpit → Lectern Ambrose of Milan (Saint) (333/334, Trier – 397) was an important bishop and is regarded as one of the four teachers of the Western Church since the end of the 7th century. Ambrose was from a prominent family of Roman (city?) Christians; educated in Rome, he was the governor of Aemilia Liguria with a seat in Milan between 372 and 374. In 374, as the compromise candidate probably of the Nicene minority (→ Nicea) of the locality, he advanced to the bishopric in the imperial residence. In surprisingly purposeful and rapid fashion, he adopted a neo-Nicene course in Cappadocian form (→ Cappadocian theology) immediately after his election as a bishop, but retained the clergy of his homoean predecessor in office. With great energy, he completed his theological formation in the subsequent years by absorbing the works of Eastern authors; he fought against homoean theology (→ Homoeans) both in the imperial household and among his colleagues in office in northern Italy and Illyria (Synod of → Aquileia, 381). He brought Emperor Gratian to a neo-Nicene course (378–381) and thwarted the attempt of the pagan Senate to re-erect an important pagan symbol in the altar of victory (384). He related to the emperors, especially, with great authority: Efforts of the Empress-mother → Justina to justify a basilica for her homoean court congregation failed twice because of the passive resistance of the Milan congregation (385/386). Its bishop, however, hindered the punishment of an anti-Jewish pogrom in

179 Syria (388) by intervening with Emperor Theodosius and compelled the emperor to do penitence because of brutal riots on the part of his military (390). Despite his activities in church politics, Ambrose was primarily a pastor and preacher for his Milan congregation. Consequently, he occupied himself with social-diaconal activities and ethical questions, although he also propagated asceticism. His exegesis of the Song of Songs is a sign of his deep piety. He was also poetically gifted; he not only introduced hymn-singing on an Eastern model to Milan, but also composed hymns and “tituli.” As an exegete and theologian, he is often undervalued, although he shows a degree of independence in discussion of theological tradition (e.g. Alexandrian exegesis – → Alexandrian Theology – or neo-Nicene Trinitarian theology). His significance is clear, not least through the fact that → Augustine, who converted under the influence of his preaching, remained beholden to him for his entire life and commissioned a description of his vita.

Ambrosiaster in the antiphonies for services, in the less defined performance styles, and in the larger variety of cadences. E. Jammers, Musik in Byzanz, im päpstlichen Rom und im Frankenreich, 1962 ◆ B. Stäblein, “Die Gesänge des altrömischen Graduale,” MMMA 2, 1970, 3–164 ◆ O. Heiming, ed., “Corpus Ambrosiano liturgicum,” LWQF 49, 1968 ◆ J. Schmitz, Gottesdienst im altchristlichen Mailand, 1975. Don E. Saliers

Ambrosians. The Ambrosians are a religious community first mentioned in 1375 in a bull of Gregory XI; they are traced to three nobles from Milan. The monasteries they established lived independently according to the Augustinian rule (→ Augustine, Rule of ) and followed the Ambrosian rite in worship; they were united by Eugene IV with other groups as the Congregatio fratrum S. Ambrosii ad nemus Mediolanensis in 1441. After varying fortunes – especially in the schism of monasteries which adopted the Roman rite, which associated in 1496 with the Apostolic Brothers as the Congregatio S. Barnabae and, with them, rejoined the Ambrosians in 1589 – Innocent X abolished the order in 1645.

CPL 123–165 ◆ H. Freiherr von Campenhausen, Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker, 1929 ◆ N.B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 1995 ◆ C. Pasini, Ambrogio di Milano, 1996 ◆ C. Markschies, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie, 1995 ◆ idem, LACL, 1998, 13–22. Christoph Markschies

F. Repetto & G. Rocca, “Sant’Ambrogio ‘Ad nemus’,” DIP 8, 1988, 746f. Ulrich Köpf

Ambrosian Liturgy. The ordo (and its hymns), which is characteristic for the diocese of → Milan, usually attributed to → Ambrose of Milan, is one of the nonRoman western rites, which are collectively described as “Gallic family.” The influence of the Ambrosian liturgy spread to neighboring regions in Italy and to Bohemia. Nowadays it is only used in and around Milan in a version modified by → Vatican II. In Milan, the Ambrosian liturgy was subject to manifold influences; it was, however, conservative in maintaining its character throughout history. The shape of the Ambrosian liturgy at the end of the 4th century is known through Ambrose’s De Sacramentis. Subsequent developments show influences of Roman practices. The music of the Ambrosian liturgy and of its hymn repertoire retains the influences of earlier Gallic, Mozarabian (→ Spain: III), late Roman, and Eastern sources. Clearly distinct and yet parallel to Gregorian developments (→ Gregorian chant), the hymns of the Ambrosian liturgy are the oldest Western liturgical hymns to come from Eastern sources of the 5th century. → Antiphon, for example, is derived from the Jerusalem churches. The earliest hymn manuscripts are the antiphonies; they contain mass- and worship hymns and songs. The repertoire contains a variety of musical styles. Early developments of melodies and melisms were simplified in the 15th century. Most derived mass texts are of Roman origin; the melodies were revised according to local practice. The stylistic traits of the music are more defined than in the Gregorian parallels; this is clear

Ambrosiaster. The anonymous author of the earliest Latin commentary on the letters of Paul (not Heb) is designated Ambrosiaster (= Pseudo-Ambrose); the work was falsely attributed to → Ambrose in the Middle Ages. “Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti” and exegetical fragments on the Gospel of Matthew stem from the same author. In contrast, the attribution of “Mosaicarum et Romanorum legume collation” should probably be abandoned. The works, originally published anonymously, do not permit an assured identification of the author. Following indications in the work, he wrote at the time of pope → Damasus (366–384) in Rome and may have been a presbyter there. He came from the pagan upper classes and had command of legal and administrative knowledge. His exegesis was aimed at a historical and literal understanding of the text and entirely avoided allegory. Additionally, a strictly logical process of demonstration dominated that served apologetics and polemics, esp. against pagan cults, philosophy, and astrology. Theologically, he emphasized both the human need for redemption and the human freedom to believe. He was intensely occupied with the Pauline theme of the law. Notable is his interest in contemporaneous Judaism, from which, however, he differentiated himself on the perspective of salvation history. In ethical and social questions, he differentiated himself clearly from the typical ideas of the period. He viewed the rise of ascetic trends critically; his positive assessment of marriage was accompanied, nonetheless, by a particularly crassly emphasized subjugation of the woman to the

Ameln, Konrad man. Divorce because of adultery is permitted, yet only the man is permitted to remarry. → Jerome dealt critically with the works of his contemporary, without mentioning him by name. → Augustine cited his exegesis of Rom 5:12, according to which all have sinned “in Adam,” as a witness of tradition to the doctrine of inherited sin. Works: CPL 184–189 ◆ A. Souter, ed., Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, CSEL 50, 1908 ◆ A. Hamman, ed., In Matthaeum XXIV fragmenta, PLS 1, 1958, 655–670 ◆ H.J. Vogels, ed., Commentarius in XIII epistulas Paulinas, CSEL 81, 1–3, 1966–1969 ◆ Bibl.: A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, 1905 ◆ W. Mundle, Die Exegese der paulinischen Briefe im Kommentar des Ambrosiasters, 1919 ◆ A. Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, 1927 ◆ A. Pollastri, Commento alla Lettera ai Romani, 1977 ◆ A. Stuiber, TRE I, 1978, 356–362 (bibl.). Thomas Graumann

Ameln, Konrad ( Jul 6, 1899, Neuss – Sep 1, 1994, Lüdenscheid). Ameln studied musicology at Göttingen and Freiburg i. Br. Forced to retire in 1934 after a short period of teaching in Münster, Elbing, and Dortmund, he became a choirmaster and concert organizer in Lüdenscheid. From 1928 to 1930, Ameln was the editor of Das musikalische Schriftum; from 1925 to 1933, he edited Die Singgemeinde, published by the Finkensteiner Bund. In 1955, together with C. → Mahrenholz and Friedrich Müller, he founded the Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie (JLH). Ameln oversaw a large number of scholarly and practical publications devoted to Protestant church music, including Das Quempas-Heft (a collection of Christmas carols) and the Handbuch der evangelischen Kirchenmusik (first published 1930). With M. → Jenny and W. → Lipphardt, he initiated the publication of Das deutsche Kirchenlied. In 1957, he founded the Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Hymnologie (International Fellowship for Research in Hymnology) and served as its president until 1967. He was the preeminent scholarly hymnologist of the German-speaking world. Traditionen und Reformen in der Kirchenmusik. FS Konrad Ameln, ed. G. Schuhmacher, 1974. Andreas Marti

Amen I. Bible – II. Liturgy

I. Bible In the Old Testament, amen expresses a self-committing “yes” (1 Kgs 1:36; Jer 11:5). It occurs most frequently in Deut 27 and the Psalter. The people affirm the curse (Deut 27:15, etc.) with amen; thus, they express solidarity with the divine judge and commit themselves to obedience. In Ps 41:14, etc., amen has the literary function of “scroll-concluding doxology” (Seybold, 114), but is also an enthusiastic participation in the praise of God (cf. 1 Chr 16:36; Neh 5:13; 8:6). New Testament epistolary literature exhibits continuity with the OT: amen concludes → eulogies (Rom 1:25; 9:5) and → doxologies (Rom 11:36,

180 etc.); 1 Cor 14:16 and Acts 5:14 allude to liturgy. Usage following a wish (Rom 15:33; Gal 6:18) is probably an expansion of the OT usage, to which LXX, which usually translates amen with γένοιτο/génoito, probably contributed. Adapting Isa 65:16 (“the God of the Amen,” or, LXX “the true God”), 2 Cor 1:20 and Rev 3:14 emphasize the faithfulness and steadfastness of God or Christ, respectively. The range of attestation in the Gospels is noteworthy: simple amen (cf. doubled in John) occurs throughout the synoptic tradition; in the Q-materials, only Matthew attests it, although, based on the Lukan redaction of Mark (omission or translation with ναί/ nai or ἀληθῶς/alēthōs), Lukan revision should be postulated. Amen appears only in sayings of Jesus, always at the beginning and in connection with “I say . . .,” thus, to intensify his own statement. Jesus probably coined the introductory amen with which he referred to the authority of his preaching of judgment and salvation, and for which the category “prophetic” probably says too little. B. Chilton, ABD I, 1992, 184–186 ◆ K. Seybold, “Zur Vorgeschichte der liturgischen Formel ‘Amen’,” ThZ 48, 1992, 109–117 ◆ J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. II, 1994, 367–369. Jacques Schlosser

II. Liturgy Already common in the NT (1 Cor 14:16), this Hebrew formula of affirmation has a continuous history in Christian liturgy as the conclusion of prayers (Did. 10) and as a response to the reception of the Eucharist (→ Cyril of Jerusalem). → Justin translated the Hebrew amen for non-Christians with “so be it.” Amen has always been the conclusion to Christian prayers, in public as well as in the private realm, and expresses assent to what has been said and to the proclamation of faith in Christ. Amen acquired similar significance in creeds and songs. G. Dix, Shape of the Liturgy, 1945, 128–130.

James F. White

Amenophis IV (Echnaton), Egyptian king of the 18th dynasty, reigned 1352–1336 bce. In the Nile valley, this ruler, nicknamed “the heretic king,” introduced the first monotheistic religion in the history of mankind. The son of Amenophis III and queen Teje, he only acceded to the throne on the death of his elder brother Thutmosis. After a conventional start, in the 3rd year of his reign he began the construction of a huge temple in → Karnak, east of the great Amun sanctuary, decorated in a new, from then on determinative, expressionistic artistic style; it was dedicated to the god Aton. Aton originally stood for the disk of the sun, but in the 18th dynasty he was occasionally taken to be the form in which the sun god appeared. The creation of Aton’s divine form, however, remained the work solely of Amenophis. Aton manifested himself in the abstract image of the radiant

181 sun, the tips of the sun’s rays ending as human hands. Amenophis advanced his reforms in individual steps. First the imperial god → Amun was toppled and was replaced by Aton. In the 5th year the king founded a new capital city near → Amarna in Middle Egypt, which he called Achetaton (“Aton’s place of light”). At the same time he dropped the name he was given at birth, Amenophis, since it contained the name of Amun, calling himself from this point on Echnaton, or with the correct vocalization Achanyati (“Glory of Aton”). The god was given a dogmatic name, altered a number of times, which is inscribed on two royal rings. The existing absolutist royal ideology was thus transferred into a religious, cultic sphere. Aton was a king above all kings. He had no need of a goddess as escort like other Egyptian gods, and he had no enemy. He was the light that pervades the world, that creates and maintains all life. The god himself remained silent, but had his spokesman and prophet in Amenophis. After the 9th year Amenophis excluded all other deities of the land, closed their temples, and to obliterate all memory of them, sent columns of stone masons through the land to break up their images and names. Even the plural “gods” was eliminated in places. A programmatic →monotheism and a divine state developed, with Aton, god of universal light, and the king at its center. The “Song of Songs” of the new religion, the so-called Song of the Sun, composed by the king himself, memorably describes the nature of the god. Traces of this hymn are evident in Ps 104 of the Old Testament. The preeminent position of the king was that of a mediator deity between the now unfathomable god Aton and humanity. The royal family was also included in this special position. The king’s great escort, Nefertiti, asserted herself alongside Amenophis in the cult and the state, almost his equal; subjects performed their devotions before their house altars with an image of the royal family. Belief in the dead also changed fundamentally. There was no longer a hereafter: death was understood as the gentlest form of life in the here-andnow, guaranteed only by the favor and grace of the king. After the 12th year of his reign the historical sources break off. The king died in the 17th year of his reign. A return to the old faith occurred just a few years later. The monotheistic teaching of Amenophis was no more than an episode. D.B. Redford, Akhenaten, 1984 ◆ H.A. Schlögl, Echnaton, 41996 ◆ E. Hornung, Echnaton, 1995 ◆ J. Assmann, Ägypten, 1996. Hermann A. Schlögl

Amerbach Family. The Amerbach family is a prime example of the many scholar-dynasties that shaped the cultural face of Basel from the 16th century onward. Most of them migrated to the city but were rapidly integrated into its upper class by marriage. Johannes

America (Amerbach; b. 1441/42, Odenwald, d. 1513, Basel) was educated academically in Paris and studied typography in Venice; c. 1475 he founded the press that produced editions of the Church Fathers that were fundamental to the Reformation. His sons Bruno and Basilius I, after studies in Paris, worked in the print shop, which had been transferred to Johannes Froben in 1507; the youngest, Bonifacius (1495–1562), a close friend of Erasmus and executor of his estate, was a professor of law and civil magistrate. His only son, Basilius II (1533–1591), followed in his father’s professional footsteps and was noted for his art collection (the “Amerbach Cabinet”). His nephew and heir, the lawyer J.L. Iselin, and his descendants were called “Amerbachiads.” Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. A. Hartmann (1942–1967) & B.R. Jenny (1967–) ◆ M.E. Welti, “Amerbach,” in: P.E. Bietenholz, ed., ContEras 1, 1985, 42–48 ◆ Das Amerbachkabinett, 1991 (exhibition catalogue, Basel) ◆ Bonifacius Amerbach, 1995 (exhibition catalogue, Basel) ◆ H.R. Hagemann, Die Rechtsgutachten des Bonifacius Amerbach, 1997. Beat R. Jenny

Amerbach, Veit (Trolmann) (1503, Wemding – Sep 13, 1557, Ingolstadt). Amerbach studied at Ingolstadt in 1517, Freiburg in 1521, and Wittenberg in 1522. In 1526, he began teaching in Eisleben under J. → Agricola . In 1529, he received his Master’s degree and married. In 1530, he began teaching rhetoric and physics at Wittenberg, and in 1541 became a member of the consistory. After several years of criticizing Melanchthon and Luther philosophically and theologically, he became professor of rhetoric at Ingolstadt in 1543. In 1542, he published De anima, an attack on Melanchthon’s anthropology; he also published his own poetry, as well as commentaries on Cicero, Horace, and Ovid. At Ingolstadt, he did not take part in confessional controversy. VD 16, 1, 1983, 321–324, A2227–2254 ◆ G. Frank, “Veit Amerbach (1503–1557),” in: Melanchthon in seinen Schülern, ed. H. Scheible, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 73, 1997, 103–128. Heinz Scheible

America I. General – II. History of Religion

I. General Sometime after the Europeans became familiar with the New World, they gave it the name “America.” The German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, who was apparently unaware of the great deeds of Christopher Columbus, proposed in 1507 that the hemisphere be named “America” in honor of the voyages of discovery of Amerigo Vespuci. America’s geopolitical situation reflects its geography and social history. As an object of exploration and colonization, America’s most pressing geopolitical concern was not to become merely the

America bargaining chips in the conflicts of their colonizers, the West European sea powers Spain, Portugal, France, and England. The interests of the settlers soon deviated from those of their motherlands, and several wars of revolution produced independent states. The first and most successful of these wars led to the founding of the USA, whose tremendous growth in size, population, and industrial power soon made it the synonym for America. The American revolutions were followed by the Monroe Doctrine, which was written in 1832 as a warning against further interference by European powers in the internal affairs of the hemisphere, as well as an implicit declaration of intention by the USA to exercise hegemony in the region. It created the geopolitical foundation for the quasi-religious ideology of “Manifest Destiny” and provided the moral justification for the recurrent isolationist foreign policy of the USA. The revolutions that shaped America’s geopolitical situation were not simply political. In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, technological revolutions, esp. in global communication and travel, made it necessary to give up isolationism. The more or less reluctant engagement of the USA and other countries of the hemisphere in both World Wars proved that American security now required continuous involvement in the affairs of Europe and Asia, esp. in the post-war period, as symbolized by the policy of containment directed against the Soviet Union and its satellites. This was accompanied by obligations to the United Nations, NATO, SEATO, and other regional organizations. With the collapse of international Communism in 1989, the American geopolitical situation changed once again, and the search continues for new paradigms in its understanding and in appropriate reactions. R. Niebuhr, The Irony of American History, 1952 ◆ E. Dussel, A History of the Church in Latin America: Colonialism to Liberation, 1981 ◆ F. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, 1991 ◆ S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996. Dennis P. McCann

II. History of Religion See also → Native American Indians, religious history.

It is impossible to speak of a unified religious history comprising both continents. Rather, there is in this respect a large difference that can be explained, first, by the size of the land masses of the two Americas and, second, by the lengthy settlement period. Third, the extremely low population density led to independent cultural and religious-historical developments among the different ethnic groups, and, finally, the very different environmental and climatic conditions produced different economic forms and thus different forms of social organization. In addition to the variety of individual religious characteristics of the American cultural

182 areas, there are beliefs and ritual complexes that occur in all ethnic groups; these include above all the significance of → dreams as the medium of special acquisition of knowledge, faith in personal beings for help and protection, and healing from illnesses with their support. Other characteristics are typical of particular cultural areas, as the following selection demonstrates. The religious beliefs and behavior of the → Inuit (Eskimo) living in the Arctic are largely shaped by their predominant way of life as fishermen and hunters. In particular, the concepts of animal spirits and the taboo regulations connected with the hunt (→ Taboo) shape ritual and religious life. Circumpolar → shamanism is also closely connected with the hunt and the taboo regulations that govern it, in that it was the duty of the shaman to neutralize violations of taboos. For the journey of souls typical of shamanism, the shaman had at his disposal a large number of powerful protective spirits. Over the animal spirits were beings thought to be godlike and personal. Also shaped by the hunt are the religious beliefs of the Athabascan and Algonquin, who live in the Subarctic stretching across the whole breadth of North America. Protective and helping spirits are indispensable not only for the shaman but also for all persons who acquire their personal protective spirits with the help of dreams (evoked by long fasting). In addition to the religious form of a → Lord of the Animals watching over every kind of animal as personal property, one should note (among the Algonquin) the special significance of the bear, which was celebrated in a → bear festival in its honor. Beside the Lord of the Animals we find the characteristic (divine) concept of a “Great Spirit” as lord of humankind, whose various appellations (“our creator,” “our owner,” “great being”) refer to his divine characteristics and are sometimes used as a designation of the God of Christianity. The anthropogonic myths are in part marked by a pronounced dualism: in addition to the figure of the creator, numerous myths concern that of the culture bringer or → culture hero. Connected with the conceptual circle of the Lord of the Animals (parts of the captured animal must be given back, so that new animals can arise from them) is faith in the possibility of → reincarnation. The tribes on the northwest coast from Alaska to south of present-day Seattle (e.g. Tlingit, Tsimshian, Haida, Bellacoola, Kwakiutl, Nootka, and Chinook) developed an extraordinarily complex religious and ritual life. The rich fishing grounds of the fjords, skerries, and rivers, along with the giant cedars growing in the rainforest, gave rise to a culture that bears the traits of an advanced civilization. Likewise, exhibiting traits of an advanced civilization is the distinctive social hierarchy, which is rather untypical of tribes with adopted economic structures and which forms the background of the ritualized gift festival of the → Potlatch

183 (Chinook for “give”), which is widespread along the northwest coast and, through the ideas of the giving back of possessions to ancestors, appears to dramatize the concept of the connection of death and resurrection. While the central Algonquin show similarities in their religion and culture with the Subarctic tribes, the eastern inhabitants of the north-eastern forest (above all the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Creek), because of their sedentary lifestyle as farmers, developed an elaborate pantheon of gods in which a pair of divine antagonistic twins stand at the center of a cosmic and anthropogonic mythos, that reflects the dualism of good and evil (possibly under Christian influence). The further development of this mythos to a dualism of high god and “devil” (Haninscono, “he lives in the earth”) goes back to the reformer → Handsome Lake (1735–1815), who in a nativistic reaction to the increasingly overwhelming power of Christianity preached the religion of the “old way” as legitimized by a dream vision. At the midpoint of the ritual year stood the new year’s festival (among the Delaware), which was celebrated in a large building representing the cosmos and which at the same time, through prayers of thanksgiving to the creator and through remembrance of the original dream visions at the beginning of new year, assured the continuation of the world. Notable among the Indians of central California is the discrepancy between the simplest economy (gathering and processing above all of acorns) and a highly developed spirituality. Attested here is the North American belief in the giving of life or a soul to all of reality, which is discussed in numerous texts (e.g. with the Achomavi). Also the widespread dualistic creation mythos, with the antagonism of creator and his opponent – here the trickster figure of the coyote – found its most characteristic image among the central Californians. In stories about the constantly amoral, sexually undifferentiated trickster, who has the clear characteristics of a primeval being, the transformation of the initial chaos into a cosmos is given religious meaning. The lifestyle, culture, and religion of inhabitants of the prairies and plains, above all the tribes belonging to the linguistic family of the Sioux (e.g. Dakota/Lakota, Crow, Cheyenne), became the epitome of everything Indian, especially through European popular culture (particularly the writings of Karl May). Yet, in its best-known form with hunting on horseback, this Indian culture did not arise until after contact with Europeans (from about 1630 with the introduction and spread of the horse) and lasted only about 100 years. Especially well known is the Okipa ceremony of the Mandan (northern prairie region), an initiation ceremony for the consecration of warriors, the highpoint of which consists in the penetration of the back and breast of Okipa dancers with pegs, which is to be borne with equanimity. Celebrated with a different intention (grati-

America tude for supernatural help) was the equally well known → sun dance, which, through a trance induced by total exhaustion, served to make contact with supernatural powers. The inhabitants of the Southwest (pueblo Indians: e.g. Navajo, Hopi, Zuni) practiced agriculture in part with irrigation (canal building in central Arizona); they lived in villages (Spanish pueblo) and were known for their often multistory houses made of air-dried mud bricks (adobes). Their religion is characterized by a pronounced ritualism; at the center of most ceremonies is the intention of gaining life-giving water for agriculture, which (e.g. with the Zuni) is controlled by the ancestors (Kachinas), who must be put in a gracious mood in numerous rites. On religion and culture in Mesoamerica, cf. → Aztec religion, → Maya religion; on the advanced civilization of the central Andes → Inca religion. In the 19th century, there arose in North America trans-ethnic religious movements that are to be understood as nativistic reactions to white culture and Christianity and to the Indians’ own hopeless situation. The most important were the → Peyote cult → and the → Ghost Dance religion. The cultural areas of South America found outside advanced American civilizations comprise regions that in terms of religion and cultural history are more heterogeneous than in North America. One reason for this is that in South America the dominant culture and civilization of the Europeans was considerably earlier and more completely superimposed on indigenous cultures, suppressing and extinguishing them. Secondly, in regard to ethnicity, South America is fragmented to a greater degree. At the center of the religion of residents of the southern Andes and Patagonia (present-day states of Chile and Argentina) is a pronounced shamanism. During a shamanistic celebration the female shaman in a trance climbs a heavenly ladder into the beyond of the hermaphroditic highest deity Chau Dios (called “father god” or “old woman in heaven”), who is regarded as the creator of the world and of humankind (at times identified with the sun), in order to communicate with him/ her. A characteristic trait of this shamanistic complex is the idea of battles in which the shaman as leader of the good helpful spirits (mostly the souls of the dead) conquers the army of harmful spirits. European researchers found the abstract, impersonal ideas of higher beings in the Chaco region (presentday Paraguay) to be hardly understandable. These ideas include no personal gods or spirits, but rather abstract principles and essences that fill the whole world with life. The task of making contact with this inner energy of the world falls to the medicine man, who can venture into this reality in a light trance induced by → drugs (e.g. tobacco).

America

184

Greenland

Godthab

Edmonton Vancouver

Canada Montreal Ottawa Boston Detroit

San Francisco Salt Lake City

U. S . A . Los Angeles

New York Philadelphia Washington D.C.

Chicago Kansas St. Louis

Phoenix

Jacksonville

Houston New Orleans

Miami

Mexico

Havana

Cuba

Mexico City

America - Christianity North America

Catholic Church Protestant Churches Mormons The predominant religious community in each state is indicated by different shades of gray. If two groups are approximately equal in size, this is indicated by stripes.

Guatemala

Guatemala

San Salvador

Bahamas Dominican Republic

Belize City Jamaica Haiti Belize Honduras Tegucigalpa

E l S a l v a d o r Managua

Nicaragua San José

Panama

Costa Rica Panama

185

America

Nicaragua San José

Costa Rica

Panama

Caracas

Ve n e z u e l a

P a nama

Georgetown Paramaribo Guiana Cayenne

Bogota

Surinam

Colombia Ecuador

F r ench Guiana

Quito Belem

Pe r u

Brazil

Lima Salvador Brasilia

La Paz

Bolivia

Paraguay Asuncion

Chile Santiago Rosario Buenos Aires

Uruguay Montevideo

Argentina

Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Port Stanley

America – Christianity South America

Rio de Janeiro

American Baptist Churches in the USA The most striking feature of the religion of the socalled marginal Indians, groups east of the Chaco region (in the area of southern Brazil and Uruguay), is a belief in the birth cycle seldom seen with such consistency. These Indians, who today live in isolated remote areas, believe in an intimate connection between people and nature, which is established by means of the cycle of births. The souls of the dead are reincarnated in nature (plants and animals) before they are born again in human beings; this cycle is accompanied by ritual celebrations, such as rites of initiation, as dramatic realizations of the event of death and resurrection. Behind this belief in reincarnation is the general Indian healing complex. Dominant among the Indians of the eastern South American forest lands (eastern Bolivia and Brazil) is faith in a hierarchy of lords of the individual animal species under the highest authority of the jaguar lord, which in eastern Bolivia could be worshiped as the high god. Personally conceived gods are considered distant and far from human life. As in Mesoamerican high cultures, we find here also a kind of world age doctrine: before the present world there were others that were destroyed by catastrophes. Occasionally, this idea is also connected with the belief in the end of this world. In the eastern part of this region there were also messianic concepts that led to the religiously motivated migrations of the Tupí-Guaraní. In the course of history (the last time in 1912) groups repeatedly set out on a laborious journey in order to reach the seacoast and through continual dancing to enter the “land without evil,” the residence of their high god Ñanderuvuçu, and thereby to deliver themselves from the threatening end of the world and into safety. Among many Indians of this area the use of hallucinogenic drugs from the alkaloids ayahuasca (banisteriopsis) and datura (e.g. atropin) served to make contact with the world of the spirits, which was regarded as real. C. Nimuendajú (= C. Unkel), “Die Sagen der Erschaffung und Vernichtung der Welt als Grundlagen der Religion der Apopocuva-Guaraní” ZE 66, 1914, 284–404 ◆ A. Métraux, “Migrations historiques des Tupí-Guaraní” JSAm 1927, 1–45 ◆ M. Gusinde, Die Feuerland-Indianer, vol. I, 1931; vol. II, 1937 ◆ A. Métraux, Boys’ Initiation Rites. Religion and Shamanism, Handbook of South American Indians, vol. V, 1949 ◆ E. Schaden, “Der Paradiesesmythos im Leben der Guarani-Indianer,” in: 30th International Congress of Americanists, 1952, 179–186 ◆ Å. Hultkrantz, Conceptions of the Soul among North American Indians, 1953 ◆ P. Radin, K. Kerényi & C.G. Jung, Der Göttliche Schelm. Ein indianischer Mythenzyklus, 1954 ◆ W. Müller, Die Religion der Waldlandindianer Nordamerikas, 1956 ◆ Å. Hultkrantz, The North American Indian Orpheus Tradition, 1957 ◆ A.B. Rooth, “The Creation Myths of the North American Indians,” Anthr. 52, 1957, 497–508, 497–508 ◆ W. Müller, “Die Religion der Indianervölker Nordamerikas” RM 7, 1961, 171–268 ◆ O. Zerries, “Die Religion der Naturvölker Südamerikas und Westindiens” RM 7, 1961, 269–384 ◆ H. Codere, Fighting with Property: A Study of Kwakiutl Potlatching and Warfare 1792–1930, 21966 ◆ W. LaBarre, The Ghost Dance, 1970 ◆ W. Müller, Glauben und Denken der Sioux, 1970 ◆ W. LaBarre, The Peyote Cult, 41975 ◆ Å. Hultkrantz, “Amerikanische Religion” TRE II, 1978, 402–

186 450 ◆ W. Lindig & M. Münzel, Die Indianer, 2 vols., 41987 ◆ W. Haberland, Amerikanische Archäologie, 1991 ◆ F. Boas & G. Hunt, eds., Die fremde Welt der Kwakiutl, 1994. Hans Wißmann

American Baptist Churches in the USA, since 1973 the name for the unions previously known as the Northern Baptist Convention (1907–1950) and the American Baptist Convention (1950–1972) (→ Baptists: II). The first church was founded in Providence, RI, in 1638/1639. From 1670, meetings of churches with the goal of unification took place; in 1814, a national organization was created, the General Missionary (Triennial) Convention. Later, the American Baptists met annually as independent communities, though united for certain common goals, for services, and for clarifying organizational issues, until a new national union was formed in 1907, the Northern Baptist Convention. From 1950 to 1972, the term American Baptist Convention was used. With the Scriptures as their sole foundation, the members of the American Baptist Churches in the USA lay special emphasis on freedom of conscience, personal faith, baptism by immersion, autonomy, and interdependence of local churches, world-wide mission, freedom of religion, separation of state and church, equal rights for all races and gender equality, as well as comprehensive ecumenical relations. W.H. Brackney, Baptist Life and Thought, 1680–1980, 1983. William H. Brackney

American Bible Society. The American Bible Society was founded in 1816 and was initially driven by the missionary efforts of Samuel John Mills (1783– 1818). The sole aim of the society was that every person or family that did not possess a Bible should receive one “without doctrinal notes or comment.” This goal is still pursued, now with world-wide dissemination, and in international partnership in translation projects with the United Bible Societies. W.P. Strickland & N.L. Lewis, History of the American Bible Society, 1981. John von Rohr

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) was established on Jun 27, 1810, in Bradford, MA, by leading Congregationalist clergy and professors of the → Andover Theological Seminary at the insistence of four students of the seminary. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was the first missionary society in the USA, established for the promotion of foreign missions. Loyal to the principle that the communication of the gospel and not the expansion of a certain ecclesiastical form was the aim of the mission, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission supported the cooperation between all Christians active in mission. The society’s first mis-

187 sionaries went to India in 1812. The mission field expanded continually and eventually included the Near East, China, and Japan, the Pacific Islands, Africa, and the Native Indian territory west of the Mississippi. Under the successful leadership of R. → Anderson, the secretary for foreign affairs (1832–1866), the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission was the most influential American foreign mission society in the 19th century, with respect to its politics and administration. 725 missionaries in 1920 was the highest number attained; after that the number steadily declined. As a result of the union of the congregational churches with the Evangelical and Reformed Church as the United Church of Christ, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission became part of the United Church Board for World Ministries in 1961. W.E. Strong, The Story of the American Board, 1910 ◆ F.F. Goodsell, You Shall be My Witnesses: An Interpretation of the American Board 1810–1960, 1959. Wilbert R. Shenk

American Civil War. In the American Civil War, or War between the States (1861–65), the northern states (Union) fought for four years against the southern states (Confederates). By the end of the war, over 620,000 American soldiers had been killed and the face of the USA had changed forever. Although the American Civil War had many grievances, the question of → slavery was clearly the focal point of the conflict. The quick westward expansion of the USA after the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 repeatedly raised the question of whether a newly acquired territory would permit slavery; this question was answered differently depending on whether the North or the South controlled the federal government. The question of slavery was also hotly debated in churches; in 1844 and 1845, the two largest denominations in the USA, the Methodist Episcopal Church (→ Methodists: II) and the Baptists (→ Baptists: II; → Southern Baptist Convention), each split into two geographically separate, independent denominations. These divisions both anticipated and contributed to the national schism sixteen years later. Ultimately the Civil War began when several southern states seceded from the union after the election of A. → Lincoln as president in 1860, who in his own turn was prepared if necessary to use military means to preserve the political unity of the country. Churches on both sides were determined to interpret the war religiously both for soldiers and for the civilian population and dispatched pastors, missionaries, and religious tracts to the front from the outset. The North and the South equally saw God as on their side. Initial Confederate victories nourished southern optimism until things changed in mid-1863. Southern pastors began interpreting military defeats as signs of

American Home Mission Society God’s chastising love. In part as a result of these defeats, there was considerable religious awakening among Confederate soldiers. One of the most remarkable theological statements concerning the Civil War comes not from a cleric, but from President Lincoln. In his “Second Inaugural Address” (1864), he acknowledged the religious character of the conflict: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” Whereas many clerics claimed to be speaking for God, Lincoln questioned the human capacity for fathoming the divine will. He also demonstrated his understanding of Christian love for one’s neighbor in his treatment of enemies. Unfortunately, Lincoln’s views were the exception on both sides; the North’s victory left the South in ruins. Both sides interpreted the defeat as a divine act of cleansing: members of the clergy in the northern states viewed the resolution of the war as God’s judgment on slavery, while those in southern states viewed it as a judgment not on slavery, but on their own lack of trust in God. The victory of the northern states ultimately led to the liberation of more than four million slaves (emancipation in conquered areas having already taken place in 1863), and the 13th amendment to the American constitution in 1865 did away with slavery once and for all. C.C. Goen, Broken Churches, Broken Nation, Denominational Schisms and the Coming of the American Civil War, 1985 ◆ R. Miller, H. Stout & C. Wilson, Religion and the American Civil War, 1998 ◆ A.C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, 1999. Kurt O. Berends

American Colonization Society. The American Colonization Society, founded in 1817, was dedicated to the emancipation of the slaves and to their return to Africa. The American Colonization Society was promoted in many places, especially in New England and the upper South. Their most significant accomplishment was the founding of Monrovia (later Liberia) on the West coast of Africa in 1822. Until 1862, the society had settled nearly 12,000 African-Americans in this country; until its dissolution in 1912 it led the efforts to support this settlement. A.J. Beyan, The American Colonization Society and the Creation of the Liberian State, 1991. Edward L. Queen II

American Home Mission Society, founded in 1826 by → Presbyterians and Congregationalists (→ Congregationalism) from Connecticut to evangelize the West of America. It was the most important society of its kind before the Civil War. After the Presbyterians departed from the society in 1861, it was renamed Congregational Home Missionary Society in 1893. G.B. Goodykoontz, Home Missions on the American Frontier, 1933, repr. 1971. John Kloos

American Missions American Missions I. The Colonial Period – II. “The Great Century” – III. The Great Wars and Depression – IV. The Post-World War II Recovery

I. The Colonial Period Christian mission in → North America began, as did exploration of the continent, with the arrival of Christopher → Columbus in 1492. The first three stages of Spanish Catholic missionary work were: 1493–1522 in the → Caribbean; 1524–1560 missions centered in → Mexico; and 1551–1620 missions sent out from Mexico. French Catholics, led by Samuel de Champlain, began settling eastern → Canada after 1604 and evangelizing the indigenous peoples. Missionary policy was closely coordinated with political and economic objectives. Several missionary orders continued expanding and extending their missions to the west and south. In 1642 the Puritan Thomas Mayhew and his son established a mission to the Narragansett on Martha’s Vineyard and in 1646 John → Eliot began preaching to the Algonquin of Massachusetts. Though these were not the first attempts by Protestants to evangelize → Native Americans, this marks the start of long-term Protestant missions. Both France and Great Britain used the missions as instruments of national policy in the quest for dominance known as the French and Indian Wars (1689–1763). The British won. Moravian missions (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren: II) were launched from Herrnhut, Germany in 1732 by sending two missionaries to the West Indies. Moravian missions soon expanded to the North American continent, first in Georgia but finally establishing their center in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. The pioneering work of the Moravians inspired other Protestants. Pastor S. → Hopkins, protégé of J. → Edwards, proposed in 1776 that African American slaves be trained and appointed as missionaries to Africa. The start of the American Revolutionary War that year cut short this initiative. But the Second Great Awakening (→ Revival), starting in the 1790s, reinvigorated the churches and gave rise to the “missionary spirit.” Local and regional missionary societies were rapidly organized throughout the New England states. II. “The Great Century” For North American missions, what K.S. → Latourette called the “Great Century” started in 1810 with the founding of the → American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). The organization of other mission agencies soon followed. Typically, these agencies sent missionaries to Indigenous Americans as well as to other countries. By 1825 the idea was gener-

188 ally accepted that every denomination should have its missionary agency. By 1835 R. → Anderson, secretary of the ABCFM, emerged as the leading mission theorist in North America. He contributed to the theory of the “indigenous church” (→ Indigenization) and formulated missionary policies. Catholic missions followed the steady flow of Catholic immigrants into North America, spreading into the frontier areas. The founding of the Student Volunteer Movement in 1886, led by J.R. → Mott, R.E. → Speer and others, infused North American Protestant missions with fresh energy. The SVM recruited an estimated 20,000 new missionaries between 1886 and 1920. By 1907 North American missionaries outstripped the British, who had been the leaders. The rising tension between Liberal and Conservative Protestants after 1890 led to divisions. The nondenominational or faith missions emerged in reaction to Protestant liberalism. The North American Pentecostal movement (→ Pentecostalism) started around 1905 and immediately began sending missionaries to other continents. For American Roman Catholics there were two significant developments during this time. The Vatican reclassified the United States from a mission to Christian land; and in 1911 the Catholic Foreign Missionary Society of America (→ Maryknoll) was established. III. The Great Wars and Depression The period 1914–1945 was dominated by two world wars and intense theological controversy. It was also a period of growing → nationalism in the non-Western world. Missions suffered a loss of financial support. IV. The Post-World War II Recovery From 1945 a rapid build-up of missions occurred. The “closing” of → China (V) in 1949, with the consequent expulsion of missionaries, had a dampening effect. By the 1960s the older Protestant missions began to experience decline, from which they did not recover. Post- → Vatican II American Roman Catholics had to retrench. Conser vative Protestant missions continued to expand. In response to the Korean War (1950–52), relief and child welfare agencies were established. In the 1960s new missions such as Youth with a Mission (YWAM) and → Operation Mobilization were founded to appeal directly to young people. After 1970 all North American missions entered the discussion of contextualization (→ Contextual theology) (Protestant) and acculturation/ → inculturation (Roman Catholic). The older Protestant denominations closed most of their missionary training schools in the 1960s; conservative Protestants established

189 several new masters’ degree training programs. By century’s end the shift in the center of world Christianity from Europe and North American to Asia, Africa, and Latin America was fully evident. O.W. Elsbree, The Rise of the Missionary Spirit in America, 1790–1815, 1928 ◆ R.P. Beaver, “Missionary Motivation through Three Centuries,” in J.C. Brauer, ed., Reinterpretation in American Church History, 1968 ◆ J.A. Carpenter & W.R. Shenk, eds., Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880–1980, 1990 ◆ C.L. Chaney, The Birth of Missions in America, 1976 ◆ A. Dries, The Missionary Movement in American Catholic History, 1998. W. R. Shenk

American Revolution → North America American Sunday School Union, founded in Philadelphia in 1824 as the nationwide organization for the growing Sunday School Movement in America. Initially, all large Protestant churches, united by the pioneer tasks of mission, were involved in founding → Sunday Schools and in the publication of educational material for them. The Sunday school movement was later expanded through programs for inner mission, and the name was changed to the American Missionary John von Rohr Fellowship. American Theologies → Latin America, Theology in, → North America, Theology in Amerindia. Around the beginning of the 20th century, Charles Scott suggested to the ethnologist John Wesley Powell (1834–1902) that the indigenous inhabitants of America be called Amerindians, to distinguish them from the indigenous inhabitants of India. Since 1930, the Alianza Popular Revolucionária Americana (APRA) of → Peru has used “Amerindia” for their program of establishing the political and cultural unity of all countries with a majority Indian population. Today, “Abya Yala” often replaces “Amerindia”; in the language of the Kuna of → Panama, it means “matured land,” and like “Amerindia” it envisions the project of an alternative Paulo Günter Süss future. Améry, Jean (anagram for Mayer; Hans, Jewish given name Chaim; Oct 31, 1912, Vienna – Oct 17, 1978, Salzburg, suicide), writer and philosopher, influenced by the Vienna School and J.-P. → Sartre. In 1938, Améry emigrated to Belgium and joined a resistance group there. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943, and until 1945 was held in concentration camps (including Auschwitz). After his liberation Améry lived in Brussels. In autobiographical essays he analyzed the experiences of a Jewish intellectual under the violent measures of the National Socialists ( Jenseits von Schuld und Sühne [Beyond Guilt and Atonement], 1966) and pursued existential questions

Ameša Spenta such as Über das Altern [On Aging] (1968) and suicide (Hand an sich legen [Laying a Hand on Oneself ], 1976) from the viewpoint of a critical agnosticism. Améry demanded an unrestrained discussion of German guilt in 1933–1945. He was one of the most astute social critics of his time. Works include: Unmeisterliche Wanderjahre, 1971 ◆ Widersprüche, 1971 ◆ Lefeu oder der Abbruch, 1974 ◆ Charles Bovary: Landarzt, 1978 ◆ On Améry: F. Pfäfflin, Améry, Marbacher Magazin 24, 1982 ◆ I. Heidelberger-Leonard, Über Jean Améry, 1990. Daniela Dunkel

Ames, William (Amesius, Guilelmus; 1576, Ipswich, Suffolk – 1633, Rotterdam), the most important single theological figure for the early connection of English → Puritanism and the Dutch → “Nadere Reformatie”. In Cambridge Ames became familiar, through W. → Perkins, with deeply puritanical appropriation of the theology of Calvin. After a harsh sermon against student morals, Ames lost his academic position in 1609. Conflicts with the Anglican episcopacy led to flight to Holland (1610), where in Leiden he came into contact with separatist circles ( John Robinson; → Pilgrim Fathers). As a garrison preacher in The Hague, he spoke out against the Arminian predestination doctrine of Nikolaus Grevinghoven (1613–15). At the Synod of → Dort (1618–19), he worked as advisor to its leader Borgerman. Between 1622 and 1632, Ames’s really productive period (Medulla theologica, 1623 [numerous editions and translations]; De conscientia et eius iure vel Casibus, 1630; Bellarminus enervatus 1626), he worked as professor of theology in Franeker. In 1632, with the aim of resettling to New England, he became preacher to the English refugee congregation in Rotterdam, where he died in 1633. Ames represents a theology that integrates orthodox Reformation “doctrine” and pious ethical “life” and is centered on the “doctrina Deo vivendi”; it was to play an important role in Pietism. Works: Opera quae Latine scripsit in quinque volumina distributa, 1658 ◆ On Ames: D. Horton, ed., Three Works on Ames by M. Nethenus, H. Visscher, and K. Reuter, 1965 ◆ M. Schmidt, “Ames, William,” TRE II, 1978, 450–453 ◆ W. van ’t Spijker, “Guilelmus Amesius,” in: T. Brienen et al., De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Pietisme, 1989, 53–86. Thomas Kaufmann

Ameša Spenta, lit. “the wise immortals,” is the designation for beings closely connected with → Ahura Mazdā, according to the Zoroastrian tradition six (or seven, if one includes Ahura Mazdā or Spenta Mainyu, his “wise spirit”): “Vohu Manah,” “good thinking”; “Asa,” “truthfulness”; “Chsathra,” “power”; “Ārmaiti,” “obedience, devotion”; “Haurvatāt,” “wellness”; “Ameretāt,” “immortality.”

Amicabilis compositio Although abstract concepts, the Ameša Spenta have ontological worth as beings who, in their spiritual existence lead a spiritual life and influence material life as protectors and guardians of the various elements in which creation is formed. They appear as the animal world, fire, metals, earth, water, and the plant world (also as the human world, to which Ahura Mazdā himself corresponds). Traces of such relations are already found in → Zarathustra’s Gāthās, in explicit form in the Pahlevi books, as well as in the whole religious tradition of Zoroastrianism. An echo is also found in → Manichaeism, where Ameša Spenta (Amahraspandān) are the five shining elements: ether, wind, light, water, and fire. A number of scholars have stressed the similarities and possible connections between the concept of the Ameša Spenta and the “dynameis” of → Philo of Alexandria or the → “Sefirot” of the → Kabbalah. In the Gāthās the sequence of the Ameša Spenta is not given systematically, although Vohu Manah, Aša, Chšathra, and Ārmaiti have a special meaning, as shown by the frequency of their mention (esp. the first two). They are described with both divine and human characteristics and abilities. The relationship of the Ameša Spenta to natural elements is no doubt explained through the theory, typical for Zoroastrianism, of the two existences (the spiritual or ideal, and the bodily or material). A deep commonality binds the two stages of existence, and thus a reviling of fire, earth, or water, because of the close organic connection between all parts of the living universe, means a reviling of Aša, Ārmaiti, and Haurvatāt. According to Dumézil, the six Ameša Spenta reflect the Indo-European three-part division of social tasks: the first two reflect the magical and religious aspect of the royal, the third the bellicose, and the last two the twins typical of fruitfulness, whereas the fourth represents a feminine being connected to the others. The similarity with the Indian “Ādityas” is also emphasized. In the Zoroastrian calendar the days between the second and the seventh day of the month are consecrated to the six Ameša Spenta (the first is devoted to Ahura Mazdā); the second month of the year is consecrated to Aša, the third to Haurvatāt, the fifth to Haurvatāt, the sixth to Chšathra, the eleventh to Vohu Manah, and the twelfth to Ārmaiti. B. Geiger, Die Ameša Spenta: ihr Wesen und ihre ursprüngliche Bedeutung, 1916 ◆ G. Dumézil, Naissance d’Archanges, 1945 ◆ J. Duchesne-Guillemin, The Western Response to Zoroaster, 1958, 38–51 ◆ H. Lommel, “Die Elemente im Verhältnis zu den Ameša Spenta,” in: FS A.E. Jensen, 1964, vol. I, 365–377 ◆ G. Widengren, Die Religionen Irans, 1965, 11–20, 79–83 ◆ G. L. Windfuhr, → “Vohu Manah”: A Key to the Zoroastrian World-formula, 1976, 269–312 ◆ J. Narten, Die Ameša Spenta im Avesta, 1982 ◆ J. Kellens, Le panthéon de l’Avesta ancien, 1994 ◆ G.G. Stroumsa, A Zoroastrian Origin to the Sefirot?, in:

190 S. Shaked & A. Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica, vol. III, 1994, 17–33. Gherardo Gnoli

Amicabilis compositio. The Peace of → Augsburg from 1555 determined (§15.25) that the division of faith could only be overcome “through Christian, cordial, peaceful means and methods.” Since this union of faith had failed to materialize, the Peace of → Westphalia (Instrumenta Pacis Osnabrugense, Art. V §52) developed the amicabilis compositio as a technical legal figure: In religious matters, but also in all worldly affairs, in which, in order to preserve its confessional position, the minority declares the → itio in partes, the majority principle is excluded and replaced by the unification procedures established by treaty. Integration by process must make up for the lack, between the two religious parties, of a common material basis of legitimization. M. Heckel, Itio in partes, ZSRG.K 64, 1978, 180–308. Martin Heckel

Amida, city in → Syria, present-day Diyarbakir, on the left bank of the upper Tigris, capital of the 12th province of the diocese of Oriens, Mesopotamia. Its Christianization began from Edessa. Around 420, bishop Akakios promulgated Nestorian views. Under emperor → Justinian I the city gained fortifications. In 638 it was taken by the Arabs. A Jacobite, Monophysite hierarchy (→ Syria: V) came into being from 543 on, with the aid of the empress Theodora. From 1031 it was the seat of the Jacobite patriarch. In the 17th century a Syrian Catholic bishopric and a Chaldean bishopric came into being. An Armenian community is documented from the 8th century on; it is dependent on the Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople. F. Tournebize & C. Karalesky, art. “Amid ou Amida,” DHGE, II, 1914, 1237–1249 ◆ G. Fedalto, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, II, 1988, 822–828. Christian Hannick

Amish are a Christian group of Anabaptist origin, who settled in the USA and east Canada. In Europe, the Amish divided in 1693, under the leadership of J. → Ammann, from the Swiss Brethren, in a conflict on issues of the social avoidance of excommunicated members, the frequency of the Eucharist, and dress codes. Many emigrated to America at the beginning of the 18th century. Others remained in Europe, especially in Alsace, until the mid-19th century. The Amish of the old order refused the adaptations to the modern age that were planned in the last third of the 19th century. They convened in their houses for worship. As the Amish lead an alternative lifestyle, which retains many of the characteristics from the late 19th century, they are today paid great attention. J.A. Hostetler, A Society, 41993 ◆ L. Hege & C. Wiebe, ed., The Amish, 1996. Beulah Stauffer Hostetler

191

Amitābha Amitābha

I. History of Religion – II. Missiology

I. History of Religion Amitābha (Sanskrit), “(Buddha of ) infinite light,” or Amitāyus, “(Buddha of ) infinite life” (→ Buddha); Chinese O-mi-t’o, Japanese Amida (Buddha of the West) is associated with → Bodhisattva, → Avalokiteśvara, and Mahāsthāmaprāpta. These three figures are a frequent theme of Buddhist iconography. The cult of Amitābha seems to have begun in north-west India, possibly under the influence of the Zoroastrian cult of → Ahura Mazdā. By the 3rd century ce, the cult had spread to China via Central Asia. This cult became very popular in East Asia, although the goal of being reborn into Amitābha’s → Pure Land (Sanskrit Sukhāvatī, Chinese Ch’ing t’u, Japanese Jōdo; → Ch’ing t’u/Jōdo shū) did not necessarily presuppose participation in such a cult. Today, the cult of Amitābha is still one of the most important elements of → Buddhism (I) in China, Korea, and Japan. Chinese sources suggest a Sanskrit original text with the putative title Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra, which was probably translated into Chinese in the years after 421 ce. It is also possible that the text was initially composed in China. As described in this document, the Pure Land idea is based on the vows taken by the monk Dharmakāra, who resolved not to attain enlightenment until these vows were fulfilled. In this form, the Amitābha tradition does not seem to have had much influence in the Indian subcontinent. Amitābha as Buddha of the West and Akßobhya as Buddha of the East are the first Buddhas after Śākyamuni to be mentioned specifically by name, albeit in very different contexts (Amitābha as the object of a cult in north-western India, Akßobhya in the Prajñāpāramitā [wisdom] literature of eastern India as the Buddha of other world systems). Amitābha was a favored subject of meditation for remembering the Buddha (Sanskrit buddhānusm‰ti, Chinese nianfo, Japanese nenbutsu). Originally, the cult was based on the idea that the worshiper sought rebirth in the Pure (or Purifying) Land (buddhakßetra) of Amitābha, in order to receive there the sure possibility of attaining enlightenment. It was thus a kind of guarantee of progress toward enlightenment, the ultimate goal of Buddhism, not a goal in itself (a kind of paradise), as the later Japanese sources often present it. The literary sources contain, detailed descriptions of Amitābha coming to meet those who have just died and welcoming them to his paradise, and have provided inspiration for the graphic arts in the East Asian traditions. The cult of Amitābha is the focus of the Chinese Pure Land school, which has exercised decisive influence on East Asian Buddhism. Amitābha also came to play a

significant role in the → Vajrayāna (esoteric) Buddhism of East Asia and later in Tibetan Buddhism. Here, however, he is one element within an elaborate system of dogma and ritual that preserves the distinction between him and Amitāyus. G. Schopen, “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature,” IIJ 19, 1977, 177–210 ◆ K. Fujita, “Textual Origins of the Kuan Wuliang-shou Ching,” in: R.E. Buswell, ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, 1990, 149– 173 ◆ C. Kleine, Hōnens Buddhismus des Reinen Landes, 1996. Ian Astley

II. Missiology The historical question of the interplay between Mahāyāna Buddhism, Manichaean Gnosticism (→ Manichaeism), and Nestorian Christianity (→ Nestorianism) during their long period of coexistence (7th–14th cents.) in Central Asia must remain open. The evidence discovered at Turfan suggests that Christians were more influenced by Buddhism than the other way round, but without losing their identity. It is possible, however, that the individual piety and eschatological hope typical of the Amitābha cult derive in part from Christian sources. Since the arrival of Jesuit missionaries in Japan, the interaction between Amida Buddhism (“Pure Land,” Ch’ing T’u/Jōdo-shū; “True Pure Land,” Jōdo-shin-shū) and Catholic Christianity is well documented. The Jesuits used the Japanese terms, which they hardly understood, and had major problems in explaining the differences between Buddhism and Christianity; but they learned very quickly to distinguish between Shaka (Śākyamuni Buddha) and Amida (Amitābha/Amitāyus) as the two varieties of Japanese Buddhism and religiosity. When the Jesuits realized the extraordinary importance and intensity of nembutsu (the invocation of “Namu-amida-butsu,” formally an affirmation of faith in Amida’s power to save), they concluded that such a mockery of Christian prayer had to come either from the devil or from Luther. Modern Christian theology is still fascinated by the obvious similarity between the Japanese reformation of Buddhism by Hōnen and → Shinran, and the Christian Reformation initiated by Luther and Calvin. For K. → Barth, this similarity had no soteriological significance, because Amida Buddhism does not invoke the name of Jesus Christ. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, Pure Land Buddhism, especially as shaped by Shinran, is neither an aberration nor an accidental parallel to Protestantism, but a radical development of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The full meaning of the Japanese Amitābha tradition will be clear to Christians only when dialogue with Zen, probably the most transcendent form of Buddhism, is supplemented by a more intensive discussion with Shin Buddhism.

Amling, Wolfgang H. de Lubac, Aspects du Bouddhisme: Amida, 1955 ◆ J. Jennes, A History of the Catholic Church in Japan: From its Beginnings to the Early Meiji Era (1549–1873), 1973 ◆ J.J. Spae, BuddhistChristian Empathy, 1980, 85–109 ◆ K. Takizawa, Reflexionen über die universale Grundlage von Buddhismus und Christentum, 1980 ◆ H.-J. Klimkeit, “Christians, Buddhists and Manichaeans in Medieval Central Asia,” BCS 1, 1981, 46–50 ◆ Y. Takeuchi, The Heart of Buddhism, 1983 ◆ C. Langer-Kaneko, Das Reine Land, 1986 ◆ P. Schmidt-Leukel, Den Löwen brüllen hören, 1992, 85–109 (bibl.). John May

Amling, Wolfgang (1542, Münnerstadt – 1606, Zerbst). Appointed superintendent in Zerbst in 1578, Amling was the leading figure in the extension of the Reformation in → Anhalt along the lines proposed by Melanchthon and prince George III. Opposing strictly Lutheran theology (ubiquity of Christ’s glorified body), he labored on behalf of a biblical “orthodoxy” that adopted Calvin’s insights and the practice of the Palatinate for worship and doctrine (1590 elimination of exorcism; 1599 embryonic liturgy combining Luther’s catechism with the Heidelberg catechism). G. Plitt, RE3 I, 1896, 449 ◆ H. Wäschke, Anhaltische Geschichte, vol. II, 1913. Christoph Schröter

aAmmān → Rabbath-Ammon Ammann, Jakob (1644, Erlenbach im Simmertal, Bern – 1730, near Zellwiller, Alsace). Some time before 1680, Ammann joined the Anabaptist movement (→ Anabaptists). From his later residence near Thun, he served as an influential Anabaptist teacher and congregational leader. Persecution led him to leave the Bern region c. 1693. Until 1695 he lived in Heidolsheim in Alsace, undertaking pastoral journeys to his homeland and the rest of Alsace. In 1693, these journeys led to the formation of an independent Anabaptist group called the → Amish after him and his brother Ulrich. During Ammann’s lifetime, the movement gained adherents in Switzerland, Alsace, and the Palatinate. From 1695 to 1712, Ammann lived in Alsace in Ste Marie aux Mines, Haut-Rhin; evidence of his subsequent life in Bas-Rhin has not survived. Les Amish: origine et particularismes 1693–1993: Actes du colloque international de Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines, 1993, 1996 (bibl.). Hanspeter Jecker

aAmmār al-Baßrī, born in Baßra in Iraq. Little is known of his life. He was a member of the eastern church (Nestorians; → Syria). In the third decade of the 9th century, he wrote two apologies of Christianity in Arabic: the Book of Questions and Answers, and the Book of Evidence. His works attracted the attention of Islamic scholars. At least one of them, Abū l-Hūdail al-aAllāf (d. 840), wrote a refutation of aAmmār al-Baßrī’s doctrinal beliefs.

192 M. Hayek, Ammar al-Basri, apologie et controverses, 1986 ◆ B. Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Irak: attitudes nestoviennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam, 1994. Sydney H. Griffith

Ammersbach, Heinrich (1632, Halberstadt – Jul 17, 1691, Halberstadt). In 1658, after studying at Jena, Ammersbach was chosen to be pastor in Halberstadt. He held this office throughout his lifetime. Beginning in the early 1660s, he published – mostly at his own expense and often using the pseudonym Heinrich Hansen or Christian Warner – a steady stream of polemics attacking the unchristian life of the congregations and the orthodox pastors. His fight against “late repentance” marks him as a harbinger of the → Terministic Controversy. He edited and translated earlier texts criticizing the church, became a follower of J. → Tauler, defended the writings of S. → Praetorius and C. → Hoburg , and accepted the dispensationalist teachings of P. → Egard, G.L. Seidenbecher, and F. → Breckling – all of which set him beyond the pale of Lutheran orthodoxy. The protection of the Elector of Brandenburg was all that prevented his removal from office and banishment. Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Gesamtkatalog der preußischen Bibliotheken, vol. V, 1934 (bibl.) ◆ G. Arnold, Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, repr. 1967, part 3, ch. 14, §§14–20 ◆ J. Wallmann, “Zwischen Reformation und Pietismus,” in: FS G. Ebeling, ed. E. Jüngel et al., 1982, 187–205. Udo Sträter

Ammon, Christoph Friedrich von ( Jan 16, 1786, Bayreuth – May 21, 1850, Dresden). Ammon became professor of philosophy at Erlangen in 1789, and professor of theology in 1790. He moved to Göttingen in 1794 and returned to Erlangen in 1804 (where he also held ecclesiastical office). He served as chief court preacher in Dresden from 1813 to 1849. Apart from his general character, which many (e.g. F. → Schleiermacher) found unprincipled, in his theology, which drew on historical criticism of the Bible and the ethics of I. → Kant, he developed the principle that, with church doctrine taken into account, NT data should be used as material for positive theology only when they accord with God-given human reason. “Without deep intellectual research, a pure, firm, and living faith cannot blossom.” In Ammon’s case, this theology of accommodation deriving from Enlightenment neology avoided a total break with theological tradition but left room for the methodological claims of rationalism. Twenty years before his death, the birth of neo-Lutheranism marked a fundamentally new direction in Saxony. J.D. Schmidt, “Die theologischen Wandlungen des Christoph Friederich von Ammon,” diss., Erlangen, 1953. Martin Petzoldt

193

Ammonites Ammonites

I. Geography – II. History – III. Religion

I. Geography The name of the Ammonite tribe or people is derived from a legendary hero named Ammon. The name, used both by themselves and others, defines them as “the children of Ammon” (/04  &(/bnê aammôn). Their capital city, → Rabbath-Ammon, the citadel of today’s aAmmān, lay on the central Transjordan plateau. Ammon shared a border to the south or south-west with → Moab to the north-west and west with Gileadite areas of Israel, and to the north-east perhaps with Aramaic areas. In the east, towards the steppes or deserts of the Arabian peninsular, the border shifted according to climatic and political changes. To the south, Ammon was connected via the so-called “King’s Highway” to the Incense Road (→ Trade and traffic in the Mediterranean world) and via the Wādī Sir˙ān to the oasis of Duma. It had good connections to → Damascus to the north, and via the Jordan valley to → Jerusalem and → Samaria in the west. This advantageous situation allowed the Ammonites to profit particularly from trade with southern Arabia and with the Phoenicians (→ Phoenicia). Only a few Ammonite texts are so far known; they take the form of a few inscriptions on metal and stone, and around 100 inscriptions on seals. II. History The history of Ammon begins c. 1200 bce, when the economic system of the Canaanite city states of the Transjordanian plateau such as aAmmān or Sa˙āb, collapsed, together with that of the rest of the eastern Mediterranean. After the collapse of the Late Bronze Age city states, the Canaanite population developed a village society, the Proto-Ammonites, with whom Jephthah ( Judg 10:6–12:7), Saul (1 Sam 11:1–11) and David (see e.g. 2 Sam 10; 11:1; 12:26–31) later found themselves at war. The occupation and annexation of Ammon by Israel ended soon after the death of → Solomon. Thereafter, Ammon developed into a territorial state with a literate ruling class and a hierarchical administration and social structure. Monarchy established itself in Ammon, but later than in Israel. The smallest in geographical size of the Transjordanian Iron Age states and surrounded by larger and more powerful neighbors, Ammon was long able to survive on account of its advantageous situation and through clever diplomacy. In the 2nd half of the 8th century bce, Ammon became a vassal paying tribute to Assyria. Besides its duties as a vassal, Assyrian and Babylonian rule (→ Mesopotamia) offered Ammon a means of guarding its supremacy, stability in foreign relations, economic prosperity, and relative autonomy in determining its internal affairs. Under the influence

of Mesopotamian, Phoenician, and Aramaic cultures, an expression of the political hegemony of the larger states and of lucrative trade, Ammon’s culture and religion became more cosmopolitan. After a period of restrained politics towards the Assyrians, in the late 7th/early 6th century bce, a clearly anti-Babylonian politics was adopted by the Ammonite court ( Jer 27:3; Ezek 21:23–29). This resulted in Ammon’s becoming a vassal of Babylon and led eventually to the state’s demise: in 582/581 bce, Nebuchadnezzar II ended the existence of Ammon as a state ( Jos. Ant. X,181f.; Apion. I,132, 143) and incorporated it into his empire as a province. Ammon survived the loss of its status as an independent state for a long time, existing initially within the Achaemenid sub-province of the same name (Neh 2:10, 19) and latterly under the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasty as Ammonitis, until as a result of Aramaic, Arab, and Hellenistic influences it became subsumed into Roman regional culture. The Ammonites are known to later generations primarily through the literary legacy of their opponents, which offer a medley of truth, halftruth, error, and slander. Both Israelites and Judeans had an ambivalent image of their eastern neighbors; on the whole, they were portrayed negatively as enemies (see e.g. Judg 3:12–20; Gen 19:30–38; Ezek 25:6f.; Zeph 2: 8–11; Ps 83:7–9; 2 Chr 20:1–30; Dan 11:41; Jub 37:1–38; 1 Enoch 89:41–47): Ammonites were viewed as cruel, arrogant, gloating (Amos 1:13; Jer 49:1, 4; Ezek 21:33*; 25:3, 6), and given defamatory names (Neh 13:3; Ezra 9:1; 4Q174 III 4). All wars were put down to their aggression. Accounts of their religion were distorted by polemic. Marriages with them were forbidden (at least in the Persian era: Ezra 9:1ff.; Neh 13:23–27) or were forcibly divorced (Ezra 10:7–11). Neither Ammonites nor the children of mixed marriages were to be admitted to the Jewish “assembly of YHWH” (e.g. Deut 23:4–7; Neh 13:1f.; 4QFlor (= 4Q 174) III 4; 4QMMTa 8 III 9; b. Hor. 1); those who had already been admitted had to be excommunicated (Neh 13:3). III. Religion The religion of the Ammonites was a local variant of the type of religion found in other Palestinian cultures. This included a limited pantheon at whose head was a god named Milkom, who had a female companion, probably → Astarte. According to epigraphical and literary evidence (1 Kgs 11:5, 23; 2 Kgs 23:13; Jer 49:1, 3), Milkom was a multi-functional weather deity who appeared as god of the state and of war; he was later identified with Melqart and with → Heracles. → Israel and Mesopotamia (map). W.E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions, ANETS 4, 1989 ◆ U. Hübner, Die Ammoniter, ADPV 16, 1992 (bibl.) ◆ idem, ‘aAmman before the Hellenistic Period,” in: A.E.

Ammonius Sakkas Northedge, ed., Studies on Roman and Islamic aAmman, vol. I, British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 3, 1992, 23–25 ◆ idem, “Supplementa Ammonitica I,” BN 65, 1992, 19–28 ◆ idem, “Das ikonographische Repertoire der ammon. Siegel und seine Entwicklung,” in: B. Sass & C. Uehlinger, eds., The Iconography of the Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, OBO 125, 1993, 130–160 ◆ B. MacDonald & R.W. Younker, eds., Ancient Ammon, 1999 ◆ J. Eggler & O Keel, Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien, 2006. Ulrich Hübner

Ammonius Sakkas (the epithet Sakkas is dubious), teacher of → Plotinus, Longinos, the pagan Origen and the Christian → Origen, taught until c. 242 ce as a Platonic philosopher in → Alexandria ; the report that he was originally a Christian cannot be verified. Apparently very impressive as a teacher, he wrote nothing; his closest students, including Plotinus and the pagan Origen, agreed to keep his doctrine secret. It is not possible to infer Ammonius’s specific doctrinal opinions. Consequently, the nature and scope of his influence on Plotinus, in particular, is undetermined: whether, like Plotinus, but also like → Plato, Speusippus, et al., he considered the trans-ontological One to be an absolute principle; the pagan Origen denied such a henology and defined the highest principle as mind (nous). W. Theiler, “Ammonius der Lehrer des Origenes,” in: idem, ed., Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, 1966, 1–45 ◆ T.A. Szlezák, “Plotin und die geheimen Lehren des Ammonius,” in: H. Holzhey & W.C. Zimmerli, eds., Esoterik und Exoterik in der Philosophie, 1977, 52–69 ◆ H.R. Schwyzer, Ammonius Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins, 1983. Jens Halfwassen

Ammundsen, Ove Valdemar (Aug 19, 1875, Pjedsted, near Fredericia – Dec 2, 1936, Haderslev). Ammundsen was professor of church history at the University of Copenhagen from 1901 to 1923; from 1923 until his death, he was bishop of the diocese of Handerslev/Nordslesvig in Denmark. He devoted his work as a church historian primarily to patristics and contemporary church history. His deep involvement in the → Christian social movement brought him also into the → ecumenical movement. As a close friend of N. → Söderblom, he was active in the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches, founded in 1914, as well as the Universal Christian Council for Life and Work, founded in 1923. On several occasions he defended his involvement in the North Schleswig question against M. → Rade (in ChW 1909–1919). As a bishop in North Schleswig after the First World War, he sought to make his diocese a paradigm for other regions in Europe that also had to struggle with conflicts between national minorities. These efforts suffered a severe setback after 1933. In cooperation with the English bishop G.K.A. → Bell, he worked for ecumenical involvement in the German Kirchenkampf (→ National Socialism: I).

194 J.H. Schjørring, Ökumenische Perspektiven des deutschen Kirchenkampfes, 1985. Jens Holger Schjørring

Amnesty International (AI), founded in 1961, is a human rights organization that works worldwide esp. for the release of people imprisoned for philosophical, religious, or political reasons. The impetus for the founding was a newspaper article by the English lawyer Peter Benenson in the London Observer on 28 May 1961, which called the public’s attention to the fate of “forgotten prisoners.” AI serves exclusively so-called nonviolent political “prisoners of conscience” and other victims of human rights violations on the basis of the Universal Declaration of → Human Rights of Dec 10, 1948. At the same time, AI tries to enlighten the public on the background of political imprisonment in individual countries. In 1977, the organization received the Nobel Peace Prize. The organizational basis is formed by local groups with voluntary members who work together in regional action networks. The national sections send their representatives to the International Council, the highest decision-making body. In 2004, AI claimed more than 1.8 million members, supporters, and subscribers in over 150 countries. AI has adviser status with the UN, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe. In addition to serving prisoners, AI also seeks the abolition of torture and of the → death penalty, as well as protection for refugees (→ Refugee Aid) and the Ulrich H.J. Körtner right of asylum (→ Asylum: V ). Amor → Eros Amoraim. The → Talmud and → Midrash already use the term amoraim for “reciters” (from ’mr, “speak, recite”) associated with certain → rabbis ; their exact function is unknown. It is also used for rabbis of the talmudic period who are not → tannaim or saboraim. Abraham → Ibn Daud introduced the division of the Palestinian amoraim into five generations and of the Babylonian into seven. Neither the Palestinian nor the Babylonian amoraim expounded normative doctrine. Their major functions involved study of the Torah and instruction, as well as giving advice about religious law to those who turned to them with questions. They each had a small circle of disciples who waited on them and transmitted their instruction to later generations as well as to colleagues in other towns. Their authority over other Jews depended on their individual reputation and persuasiveness. At least in Palestine, only a few rabbis appear to have held official congregational office. The various pronouncements of the amoraim were never developed into a system; their words and the stories told about them are recorded in the two Talmuds and the amoraic Midrashim.

195

Amos/Book of Amos

D. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia, 1975 ◆ J. Neusner, Judaism in Society, 1983 ◆ L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 1989 ◆ R. Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Bablyonia, 1994 ◆ C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, 1997. Catherine Hezser

Amorites. In the 3rd millennium bce the Akkadian designation “Amurrû” denoted the inhabitants of the west, namely Syria. Their Old West Semitic language (→ Semitic languages) is preserved only in names of people. In broader terms, Amorite families of chieftains seized power in Babylon, Mari, and elsewhere. In the Middle Bronze period, however, the ethnic designation “Amorites” was limited to a small tribe associated with the Hanaeans. In the first century, “Amurru” is found in cuneiform texts, alongside such terms as “Hattu-land” and “Hurru-land” (→ Asia Minor) as archaic terms for “Syria-Palestine;” hence the (Deuteronomic) conception of the Amorites as a “pre-population” of Palestine. A. Haldar, Who Were the Amorites?, 1970.

Ernst Axel Knauf

Amos/Book of Amos I. Life and Times – II. Message – III. Book

Amos stands at the most important turning point in the history of Old Testament prophecy ( Jewish tradition: “former”/“latter prophets”; → Prophets and prophecy). The words of a prophet were for the first time systematically collected and transmitted in book form. For the first time, God’s people as a whole had their “end” announced to them (8:2). It is not by chance that Amos strongly influenced his followers with respect to establishing a tradition. I. Life and Times Amos appeared only briefly as a prophet (cf. “two years before the earthquake” in the oldest superscription), and certainly in the last part of the long reign of → Jeroboam II (787–747 bce), whom the later superscription mentions. Evidently, the Aramean wars were already past (1:3ff.; 6:13), while Amos does not yet mention the Assyrians. In the intervening time of peace Israel experienced a cultural floruit which the early → Hosea also presumes. Amos came from Judah (Tekoa, present-day ¢irbet teqūa), 15 km south of Jerusalem on the edge of the Judean wilderness, and had an agricultural occupation. According to 1:1, he was a sheepbreeder and presumably relatively well off. According to 7:14, he possessed cattle (perhaps also small livestock, if v. 15 is not to be understood as a proverb), and cultivated mulberry trees in the warm climate of the plain of Jordan. He appeared as a prophet only in the northern kingdom of Israel, especially in → Samaria (3:9ff.; 6:1ff.) and in → Bethel, where his activity obviously ended

abruptly (7:10ff.). His images largely originate from the agricultural world (Weippert). However, he also boldly takes up the language of teachers (6:12), priests (4:4f.), wailing women (5:2), etc., and provocatively changes it. Since he was a Judean, his words demonstrate closer parallels to → Isaiah of Jerusalem (e.g. Isa 1:10ff.; 5:1ff.; cf. Fey) than to the northern kingdom prophet Hosea. II. Message The earliest accounts of Amos’s prophecy can be found in the vision reports, which are in pairs (7:1–8; 8:1f.; 9:1–4). They describe a change in the understanding of the prophetic function that all the preceding words already presuppose, and thus are not a call report. Amos recognized Israel’s guilt from the outset. However, he first attempted to restrain the divine punishment by means of intercession (7:1–6), until he had to learn that there is a limit to God’s patience with his guilty people. Where the limit is reached, “the end” of Israel begins (7:7f.; 8:1f.). Any contact of Israel with God becomes impossible (9:1–4). Without being able to resist (3:8; 7:15), Amos must in future be a prophet of this God, who brings death to Israel on that “day” (5:18–20), whether in the form of the shaking of the earth (2:13; 9:1) or banishment to a distant land (4:3; 5:27). Amos sees the guilt of Israel embedded in the guilt of the neighboring peoples (1:3–2:3*). For him, however, this guilt is incomparably more horrific than even the most gruesome war crimes of the nations, because it is directed against the helpless among their own people and because Israel itself experienced God’s care for the weak (2:6–16*). Amos does not primarily denounce offences against the social order. Rather, he denounces abrogations of the debt and securities law (2:6, 8), of the taxation system (5:11), etc. In other words, he denounces what are in principle sensible institutions that have been distorted and corrupted. Amos seeks the chief culprits in the influential circles of the capital Samaria that were organized in religious associations (marzea˙, 6:7). For Amos, they enjoyed their privileged status at the expense of the poor (3:9–4:3; 6:1–11). However, since the regulatory authority of the law in the gate, established by God, has been “poisoned” by the bribery of the judges, thereby making “justice” as a restoration of order impossible (5:7, 10, 12; 6:12), it is no longer possible for Amos to make a distinction between guilty offenders and innocent victims. In two additional respects “law and justice” prove to be the central theme of Amos, which must be separated from his critique of society. (a) The meaninglessness, or even more pointedly, the sinfulness of all worship is explained by the lack of both entities (5:21–24). Pilgrimages to Bethel and Gilgal matter only to Israel, not to God. They suppress death and thus promote guilt (4:5f.; 5:4f.). (b) Where, however, this

Amphilochius of Iconium most uncompromising of all the prophets of judgment cautiously alludes to the possibility of “life” in the sense of individuals surviving (5:4f., 14f.; cf. 5:24; 6:12), the restitution of justice in the gate is still the necessary precondition; without justice, “good” is just as unthinkable as “life” (5:15). However, 5:14f. already derives from the tradents of Amos, to whom we owe the oldest book of Amos, and is formulated as an interpretation of 5:4f. (Wolff ). III. Book Whether the message of Amos is appropriately presented depends upon the plausibility of literary reconstructions. It its present form, the book of Amos stems from the late post-exilic period. The beginning (1:2) and end (9:11–14) in particular are intricately interwoven with the adjacent writings of the Book of the Twelve (Nogalski). However, the book got its definitive shaping in the exilic and early post-exilic period (still without 9:11–14 and 9:7–10, and perhaps 2:4; 3:13f.; 5:9, 13, 22aα; 8:11f., etc.). As such, it witnesses to the effective history of the words of Amos after the fall of Jerusalem. Its hymnic parts (1:2; 4:13; 5:8[f.]; 9:5f.), along with the broad penitential liturgy in 4:6–13, testify to the use of the book in exilic services (the so-called “judgment doxologies” acknowledge Yahweh’s judgment and contrast God with the god venerated in Bethel). At the same time, the hymns frame the book literarily (1:2f.; 9:5f.) and in 4:13 and 5:8 mark its center, the penitential liturgy (4:6–13) and a ring composition with a series of appeals to seek God (5:1–17). Reflections of Deuteronomic theology sharpen the charges of Amos theologically (Schmidt; Wolff ) and present the prophetic word as the most valuable possession of God’s people. 6:8ff., 7:9ff., and 8:3ff. already document the existence of an Amos book at the time of Jeremiah. The oldest book of Amos, composed after the fall of Samaria, artfully compiled and interpreted the sayings of Amos in two large compositions: the compositions of the oracles against the nations (1:3–2:16*) and the vision accounts (7:1–8; 8:1f.; 9:1–4*), formed as parallels in five strophes, frame the sayings of Amos in 3–6*. These sayings, are arranged in two parallel parts as the word of God (3:1) and, in turn, as a prophetic dirge (5:1). To place the accent entirely on Israel’s guilt, the vision accounts are noticeably subordinated. Since central texts like 3:2 (2:8; 5:25*; etc.) already allude to the (earlier) book of Hosea, it is possible that this book of Amos was united with Hosea on one scroll (Schart). There is seldom a direct path from the book to the oral sayings of Amos. Commentaries: K. Marti, KHC, 1904 ◆ E. Sellin, KAT, 2,3 1929/30 ◆ J.L. Mays, OTL, 1969 ◆ W. Rudolph, KAT, 1971 ◆ S. Amsler, CAT, 21982 ◆ H.W. Wolff, BK, 31985 ◆ J.H. Hayes, 1988 ◆ G.V. Smith, 1989 ◆ F.I. Andersen & D.N. Freedman,

196 AncB, 1989 ◆ S.M. Paul, Hermeneia, 1991 ◆ J. Jeremias, ATD, 1995 ◆ A. Weiser, Die Profetie des Amos, BZAW 53, 1929 ◆ E. Würthwein, “Amos-Studien,” 1950, in: H.G. Reventlow, ed., Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, FRLANT 80, 1962 ◆ R. Fey, Amos und Jesaja, WMANT 12, 1963 ◆ H.W. Wolff, Amos’ geistige Heimat, WMANT 18, 1964 ◆ W.H. Schmidt, “Die dtr. Redaktion des Amosbuches,” ZAW 77, 1965, 168–193 ◆ I. WilliPlein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments, BZAW 123, 1971 ◆ K. Koch et al., Amos, 3 vols., AOAT 30, 1976 ◆ L. Markert, Struktur und Bezeichnung des Scheltworts, BZAW 140, 1977 ◆ R.B. Coote, Amos among the Prophets, 1981 ◆ H. Gese, “Komposition bei Amos,” 1981, in: idem, Wort und Existenz, 1970, 68–110 ◆ H. Graf Reventlow, Alttestamentliche Studien, 1991, 94–115 ◆ H.M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos, VT.S 34, 1984 ◆ H. Weippert, Amos – seine Bilder und ihr Milieu, OBO 64, 1985, 1–29 ◆ G. Fleischer, Von Menschenverkäufern, Baschankühen und Rechtsverkehrern, BBB 74, 1989 (bibl.) ◆ H. Reimer, Richtet auf das Recht! Studien zur Botschaft des Amos, SBS 149, 1992 ◆ J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217, 1993 ◆ D.U. Rottzoll, Studien zur Redaktion und Komposition des Amosbuches, BZAW 243, 1996 (bibl.) ◆ J. Jeremias, Hosea und Amos, FAT 13, 1996 ◆ A. Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, BZAW 260, 1998 ◆ Bibl.: A. van der Wal, Amos, 31986. Jörg Jeremias

Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340/345–400). Amphilochius was the cousin of → Gregory of Nazianzus and a student of → Libanius. After practicing law in Constantinople c. 365–371, he became an ascetic. In the fall of 373, he became metropolitan of the new ecclesiastical province of Lycaonia, which he reorganized and strengthened (church discipline, new dioceses, conflict with pagans and heretics, etc.). As an ally of → Basil the Great, he contributed significantly to the victory of Basil’s doctrine of the Trinity (→ Neo-Niceanism) in Asia Minor – for example, by his Epistola synodica against the → Pneumatomachi in the name of a synod held at Lycaonia in 377 and upholding “normative episcopacy” following the Council of Constantinople in 381 (→ Constantinople/Byzantium: IV ). By his writings and enforcement of ecclesiastical law, he defended the monastic spirituality of the Catholic Church against radical enthusiasts and → Messalians on many occasions, including the Synod of Side (c. 390). His work contributed significantly to stabilizing the imperial church. CPG 2, 3230–3254 ◆ CCSG 3, 1978 ◆ Iambi ad Seleucum, PTS 9, 1969 ◆ On Amphilochius: K. Holl, Amphilochius in seinem Verhältnis zu den großen Kappadoziern, 1904, repr. 1969 ◆ H. Drobner, “Bibliographia Amphilochiana,” ThGl 77, 1987, 14–35, 179–196. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild

Ampulla (Gk εὐλογία/eulogía, blessing). In the early Christian era ampullas were well known as pilgrimagerelated mementos. They are small receptacles made of metal (alloyed lead-pewter), earthenware or glass, generally in the shape of a round, low canteen with two handles. At times they were used to carry water but mostly oil from sacred places in the Near East. Such oil had come into contact with → relics, had been spe-

197

Amsterdam, Universities of

cially blessed or even taken from hanging lamps. The depictions on the flat sides of earthen examples show a saint (e.g. → Menas; → Thecla ; Demetrius, an equestrian saint). Of significance are the lead ampullas originating from Palestine that are preserved in great numbers in the monasteries of Monza and → Bobbio (northern Italy) (“Monza ampullas”); other specimens are scattered in museums. They bear mostly depictions of the life and passion of Christ, as well as of the post-Easter period, and thus remind pilgrims of their visit to the holy sites. Presumably they were reproductions of large-format mural paintings or mosaics in the churches of the Holy Land, all of which are lost. The latter were likely based on models from → Constantinople (II, III), none of which are preserved. From the sequence of scenes on the ampullas it is possible to deduce that series of depictions from the life of Christ were already in existence in the 6th century. Thus, the small ampullas made of lead represent significant witnesses to Byzantine art prior to the iconographic controversy (→ Veneration of Images: VI). K. Wessel, RBK I, 1966, 137–142 ◆ idem, “Eulogia”, RBK II, 1971 427–433 ◆ E. Dassmann et al., eds., Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, 2 vols., SAC 52, 1995. Guntram Koch

Amraphel → Patriarchs/Patriarchal Tradition Amritsar, Golden Temple, the principal holy place of the Sikhs (→ Sikhism), also called “Harimandir Sahib” or “Darbar Sahib”. Amritsar owes its name to the pool which surrounds it, the “lake of amrit (nectar).” The first building on the site was begun by the third Guru, Ram Das, and completed by his son Guru Arjan, in 1601 ce. Following his compilation of the → Ādi-Granth in 1604 ce, Guru Arjan lodged the volume in the temple. The sixth Guru, Hargobind, was compelled by enemies to leave Amritsar, and not until the late 18th century was Harimandir Sahib securely in Sikh hands again. During the early 19th century, Mahārāja Ranjit Singh arranged for gold leaf to be beaten onto its upper storey and domed roof (hence the name “Golden Temple”). Although a comparatively small building, with its large central dome flanked by four golden turrets, the Temple is very beautiful. All four sides have doors, symbolizing that the Temple is open to all. Throughout its opening hours – daily from 3 a.m. to midnight – hymns are sung from the Ādi-Granth. M. Kaur, Golden Temple, 1983 ◆ P. Singh, The Golden Temple, 1988 ◆ P.S. Arshi, The Golden Temple, 1989. W. Hew McLeod

Amsdorf (Amsdorff ), Nikolaus von (Dec 3, 1483, Torgau – May 14, 1565, Eisenach). Amsdorf, a nephew of Johannes von Staupitz, began his studies at Leipzig in 1500 and moved to Wittenberg in 1502; in 1511, he received his licentiate in theology. His professorship

at the arts faculty of Leucorea was linked to a prebend at the palace church of All Saints in Wittenberg. His association with Luther began in 1516; he accompanied Luther to the Leipzig disputation in 1519 and to Worms in 1521. They enjoyed a lifelong close friendship. From 1524 on he also worked as a reformer in places beyond Wittenberg, including Magdeburg, Goslar, and Einbeck. The elector → John Frederick the Magnanimous appointed him the first Protestant bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, rejecting the choice of the cathedral chapter ( Julius Pflug); Luther ordained him in 1542. Jurisdictional disputes with the chapter, the cathedral aristocracy, the church advocate, and the Protestant clergy of Naumburg rendered him relatively ineffective; in the aftermath of the defeat of the → Schmalkaldic League, he vacated his office. He returned to Magdeburg in 1548, and he moved to Eisenach in 1552, where he was a major supporter of the so-called → Gnesio-Lutherans, an ecclesiastical advisor to the Ernestine dukes, a co-founder of the University of Jena, and a sponsor of the Jena edition of Luther’s works. An uncompromising advocate of Luther’s theology during Luther’s lifetime, his own theological contribution was minimal, but he played a major role in the Protestant doctrinal conflicts after Luther’s death. The variety of the functions, offices, and controversies in which he was involved reflects important facets of the Wittenberg Reformation. J. Rogge, TRE II, 1978, 487–497 (bibl.) ◆ R. Kolb, Nikolaus von Amsdorf (1483–1565), BHRef 24, 1978. Michael Beyer

Amsterdam, Universities of I. The University of Amsterdam – II. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU)

I. The University of Amsterdam In 1632, the Amsterdam city authorities opened an Athenaeum Illustre, intended as a preparation for university study. The first two professors, Gerardus Joannes Vossius for history, Caspar Barlaeus for philosophy, were removed from their posts in Leiden because of their Remonstrant inclinations. Mathematics, law and medicine were soon to follow. In 1686, van Leeuwen was appointed as the first professor of theology. The Remonstrants founded a seminary in 1634, and the Lutherans one in 1816. In 1735, the Doopsgezinden (Mennonites) gave this status to their training institute for preachers, established in 1692. In 1816, the three seminaries were linked with the theological professorship at the Athenaeum. The Remonstrants moved their seminary to Leiden in 1873. In 1877, it became possible to convert the Athenaeum into a city university. The Mennonite and Lutheran lecturers were given teaching positions at the

Amulet Faculty of Theology. In 1893, when the city administration once again cancelled the two chairs funded by the Hervormde Church since 1882, most of the hervormd students of theology left the University of Amsterdam. It was not until 1946 that these chairs were reinstated. In 1961, the determining influence on the University of Amsterdam moved from city to state administration. In 1997, the Faculty of Theology was made part of a newly formed Faculty of Humanities. Van Athenaeum tot universiteit: geschiedenis van het Athenaeum Illustre in de negentiende eeuw, ed. W. de Vlugt, 1927 ◆ Gedenkboek van het Athenaeum en de Universiteit van Amsterdam 1632–1932, ed. H. Brugmans, 1932. Christoph Burger

II. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) In a revision of state legislation in 1876, the Parliament removed dogmatics and practical theology from the curriculum of the theological faculties of the three state universities, but granted the Hervormde Church funds for two professorships in each of them. On Oct 20, 1880, A. → Kuyper then opened a university consisting of five professorships for theology (initially dominant), law and linguistics, which were to be free of church and state influence. Pastors faithful to their confession were to be trained at the Faculty of Theology. Faculties of Mathematics and Science, Social Sciences and Economics, and Medicine were added between 1930 and 1950. Although the VU has, since 1968, been financed entirely by the state, in 1998 its highest board is the Association for Christian Higher Education. J. Roelink, Vijfenzeventig jaar VU 1880/1955, 1956 ◆ Gegevens betreffende de VU in de periode 1955–1980, verzameld ter gelegenheid van haar honderdjarig bestaan op 20 oktober 1980, 1980 ◆ M. van Os & W.J. Wieringa, eds., Wetenschap en rekenschap 1880–1980. Een eeuw wetenschapsbeoefening en wetenschapsbeschouwing aan de VU, 1980 ◆ A.T. van Deursen, Een hoeksteen in het verzuild bestel. De Vrije Universiteit 1880–2005, 2005 ◆ M. Aalders, 125 jaar Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid aan de Vrije Universiteit, 2005. Christoph Burger

Amulet I. History of Religions – II. Archaeology

I. History of Religions Lat. amuletum (etymologically “giver of power”; Gk ϕυλακτήριον/phylakt¶rion) is a term borrowed by religious studies from Patristic usage (e.g. → Severus of Antioch, PO 29, 1, 79) to denote objects that people attach to their bodies, clothing, or dwellings to maintain harmony between themselves and the world around them. Therefore, amulets are thought to be endowed with aversive (apotropaic) or attractive (energetic or sacramental) powers. Used above all for (para)medicinal purposes – to protect a pregnant woman or fetus, to avert the evil eye, to act as a love charm, etc. – amulets

198 belong to the domain of “personal” religion on the fringes of → magic. Amulets depend on the animistic notion (→ Animism) that individuals are exposed to forces (→ Mana) against which they are not defenseless because they can rely on the power of an amulet. There is no religious community in which amulets are unknown. The reputation of → Egypt (III) as a major center of amulet use is based on the preservative properties of the land and its climate; other regions also preserve large numbers of artifacts. The same holds true for the monotheistic world religions. In Judaism, → mezuzah and tefillin (→ phylactery) are still recognizable as amulets, as are the symbols on Christian vestments. Compromises between religious theory (→ Theology) and dynamistic popular belief aim at transforming the meaning of amulets; such a transformation is still in process in the cult of relics. A → relic derives its power from the human individuals with whom it has been in contact, whereas an amulet has no power until it has been consecrated by ritual, symbol, or inscription. Even deities can wear amulets, as in the cases of the pregnant Isis (Plut. De Iside et Osiride 65) and the Coptic Jesus as a divine magician with the ΙΧΘΥΣ (ICHTHYS) monogram; cultic statues likewise can be bedecked with amulets. In material and coloration, amulets follow the canon of → alchemy : thin metal discs, precious stones, sections of bone, pearls, clay tablets, plants, animals, parts of animals. Depending on the site of the intended effect, an amulet may be worn as a circlet or headband, bracelet, ring, necklace, or anklet. There are also amulets for the primary and secondary sexual features. Cultic garments are decorated more elaborately with amulets than everyday garments, because performance of a sacred act exposes the human agent to danger. Amulets are employed in all kinds of situations. Particularly well preserved are the amulets used as burial objects. For the protection of homes, amulets are fixed to the entrance. → Blood (I) daubed on doorposts serves as a defense against → demons (I) (cf. Ex 12:7, 13, 22f.). Biblical quotations written on paper, papyrus, parchment, or fabric may be concealed on one’s person or in one’s clothing (sator arepo; → Paleography). There is also evidence of the use of salutations taken from letters, or lists of names of devout men. In Egypt, biblical texts were written on the walls of monastic cells. An amulet has a specific purpose; a talisman (→ Sacred objects) differs from an amulet in being intended to bring good luck in general and everywhere. Despite attempts by the Church to forbid their use, amulets (cross, chi-rho, ichthus symbol) are common among Christians. When they are interpreted as tokens of church membership, they have undergone a change of meaning.

199 W. Staerk, RAC I, 1950, 357–411 ◆ W. Beltz, “Die koptischen Zaubertexte der Papyrussammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin,” APF 29, 1983, 59–86 ◆ idem, “Zum Berliner Zaubertext P. 20982,” ByF 18, 1992, 167–170. Walter Beltz

II. Archaeology Objects and images: In the ancient Near East, amulets (shells, pearls) are found as early as the Stone Age. The most abundant finds date from the 2nd and 1st millennia bce: engraved → seals, scarabs, and scaraboids, figurines without engraving or writing whose function as amulets is clear from their form, color, and material. In Egypt, amulets represent objects, implements, and symbols (knots and bows, djed pillars, eye of Horus, etc.), body parts, plants, animals, or deities (from workshops owned by the state or a temple). In Palestine, amulets imported from Egypt appear primarily in the 14th–12th and 8th– 7th centuries bce. Floral motifs of the Late Bronze Age disappear almost totally in the Iron Age. Egyptian deities are common in both periods (Bes, Taweret, Patek, in the first millennium also Sekhmet, Bastet, → Isis); most numerous are representations of the eye of Horus (Egyp. w≈3.t). Palestinian types include engraved or punched disks of silver or gold, “crescents” (Isa 3:18; cf. Judg 8:21), bones (used also for divination), heads of Bes, and naked female figurines. From the Persian period on, we also find polychrome Phoenician glass head beads. Inscribed amulets: Assyrian tablet amulets for protection against Lamashtu (a female demon) usually bear a spell; other clay tablets in the form of amulets contain exorcisms. Egyptian amulets can bear oracles of blessing. The Egyptian practice of carrying encapsulated oracles was brought to Spain by the Phoenicians in the 7th/6th century. There also developed a new type of inscribed amulet in the form of small rolled-up metal lamellas (e.g. 6th-cent. silver lamellas from Jerusalem with blessings similar to Num 6:24–26 [HAE I/1, 447–456]). The “emblems” required by Deut 6:4–8; 11:13–21; Ex 13:1–10, 11–16 to be worn on hand and forehead are also inscribed amulets. Called 5* 6& (tefillāh, “prayer for protection”) from the Persian period onward, the → phylactery (Arist 138f., originals from Qumran) has been the predominant type of Jewish amulet since the 2nd century bce. Bible: Several items associated with the vestments of the high priest probably had the nature of amulets (→ ephod, breastpiece, etc.: Ex 28; 39); like phylacteries and entrance amulets, however, the amulet stones on the ephod and breastpiece (Ex 28:12, 29; 39:7) were reinterpreted as tokens of remembrance. Yahweh’s own amulet is the “bundle of the living” (1 Sam 25:29). Amulets of personal piety might be accepted favorably (“bundle of myrrh” and seal in Song 1:13; 8:6; body marking or tattooing in Gen 4:15; Ezek 9:4, 6; cf. Rev 7:3) or rejected polemically (Isa 3:18–21). Ezekiel inveighs against .  "5

Amun (gillûlîm, lit. “pieces of dung”) worn or placed upon the heart and used when seeking oracles (Ezek 14:3–4, 7). Ezek 20:7–8 calls them “idols” and associates them with Egypt. The word probably refers to amuletic figurines (actually cultic idols in Lev 26:30; Sir 30:18). The characterization of the Egyptians in Ezek 16:26; 23:20 reflects ithyphallic amulets of Bes and Patek. The “marks of whoredom” in Hos 2:4, 12, 14–15, the “foreign gods” in Gen 35:4, and the idols found under the tunics of fallen Jews in 2 Macc 12:39–40 bear witness to the survival of amuletic images into the period of Early Judaism. The admonition to write “love and faithfulness” on the tablet of one’s heart or bind them on one’s fingers (Prov 3:3; 7:3; cf. 3:22; metaphorically in 1:9; 6:21) presupposes Deut 6:6–9 and the use of phylacteries. C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, UMS.H 49, 1950 ◆ A. Delatte & P. Derchain, Les intailles magiques gréco-égyptiennes, 1964 ◆ T. Schrire, EJ 2, 1972, 906–915 ◆ P.E. McGovern, Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants in a Cosmopolitan Age, JSOT/ASOR 1, 1985 ◆ J. Naveh & S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 1985 ◆ C. Müller-Winkler, Die ägyptischen Objekt-Amulette, OBO. A 5, 1987 ◆ C.A. Faraone & D. Obbink, eds., Magika Hiera, 1991 ◆ G. Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem,” Tel Aviv 19, 1992, 139–194 ◆ C. Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, 1994 ◆ C. Herrmann, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, OBO 138, 1994 ◆ P. Schäfer & S. Shaked, eds., Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, 1994. Christoph Uehlinger

Amun (’mn, “hidden one”) belongs to the major deities of ancient Egypt. The prophets called him “Amon”( Jer 46:25; Nah 3:8) and the Greeks treated him as equal to Zeus. His name occurs first in the pyramid texts at the end of the 3rd millennium bce. Together with his female consort Amaunet, he belongs to the eight pre-existent gods of Hermopolis. Later he is the god of the breath of life who fills everything. In the early 2nd millennium, at → Thebes, he is revealed as the god of royals and the empire and is described as “Lord of the throne of both countries.” In the form of “Amun-Re” he claims the wealth of power of the sungod Re and bearing the epithet “king of the gods” he is at the head of the pantheon. As the outstanding form of deity he unites in himself all of the qualities of a creator and sustainer of the world. The most important cultic place in the country, the temple city of → Karnak, is dedicated to him. Here he forms a triad with the goddess Mut as his consort and the child god Khons as his son. The processional festivals of Amun were the country’s most important ones and his oracles and proclamations had absolute power. The fall of Amun resulted from the reforms of → Amenophis IV (Echnaton). Following the restoration of the ancient faith Amun never regained his former significance; now he shares power with the gods Re, Osiris (→ Isis) and Ptah. In images Amun appears in human form with a tall crown of feathers, sometimes in

Amvrosii, Starets of Optina the ithyphallic manifestation of the god Min, but also as a ram or a goose of the Nile. K. Sethe, Amun und die acht Urgötter, 1928 ◆ E. Otto & M. Hirmer, Osiris und Amun, 1966 ◆ J. Assmann, Re und Amun, 1983. Hermann A. Schlögl

Amvrosii, Starets of Optina (Aleksandr Grenkov; Nov 23, 1812, Bolshie Lipovicy near Lipeck – Oct 10, 1891, Shamordino near Kozelsk). Amvrosii was the son of a cantor. After seminary studies at Tambov, he became a tutor and then language teacher at the seminary in Lipeck. In 1839 he entered the Optina hermitage near Kozelsk, where he was clothed as a novice in 1842. In 1843 he was ordained to the diaconate and in 1845 to the priesthood. Initially a pupil of the great startsy Leonid and Makarius, he later succeeded them as a charismatic spiritual director, after resigning as head of the patristic translation program at Optina. In 1881 he founded a nunnery at Shamordino. His powerful personality provided F. → Dostoyevsky with the model for the starets Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov. In 1988, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized him at their millennial council. I. Smolitsch, Leben und Lehre der Starzen, rep. 1988 ◆ N. Ilicheva, “Starets Amvrosii Optinskii,” ŽMP 11, 1988, 62– 68 ◆ Ioann (Maslov), “Optinskii starets Prep. Amvrosii i ego épistolyarnoe nasledie,” BoTr 30, 1990, 117–151. Peter Hauptmann

Amyraut, Moïse (Sep 1596, Bourgueil, Touraine – Jan 8, 1664, Saumur) studied law at Poitiers and theology at Saumur (1618–1621). In 1626, after a brief stay in London and an initial pastorate at St. Aignan, he became pastor and in 1633 professor at Saumur. His doctrine of hypothetical universalism (Traité de la prédestination) provoked violent controversy. It is based on the principle that God wills the salvation of all, insofar as they have faith. God’s will, however, is frustrated by human depravity, the result of original sin, so that universal election remains only a hypothetical potentiality. Reality depends on God’s particular will, which from all eternity elects certain individuals or withdraws his grace from them. His teaching was attacked by several theologians, including P. → Jurieu and A. → Rivet, but without finding Amyraut guilty of heterodoxy. While the national synod at Loudun in 1659 declared his teaching unobjectionable, Dortian orthodoxy in Holland and Switzerland took a firm stand against “Amyraldism” (Helvetic Consensus, 1675). Other major emphases in Amyraut’s work were his outline of an ethics, based on the thought of P. → Ramus, that allowed a place for natural reason and his commitment to confessional rapprochement between Calvinism and Lutheranism.

200 Bibl.: R. Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography, 1981 ◆ Works: Traité de la Prédestination, 1634 ◆ La morale chrestienne, 1652– 1660 ◆ Εἰρηνικόν, 1662 ◆ On Amyraut: J. Moltmann, Gnadenbund und Gnadenwahl, 1951 ◆ idem, “Prädestination und Heilsgeschichte” ZKG 65, 1954, 270–303 ◆ D. Sabean, “The Theological Rationalism of Moïse Amyraut,” ARG 55, 1964, 204–216 ◆ F. Laplanche, Orthodoxie et prédication, 1965 ◆ H. Kretzer, Calvinismus und französiche Monarchie, 1975, 282– 363 ◆ B.G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 1969 (bibl.). Irene Dingel

Anabaptists I. General Considerations – II. Swiss Anabaptists – III. Middle and Upper German Anabaptists – IV. Lower German and Dutch Anabaptists

I. General Considerations The Anabaptist movements were a product of the Reformation awakening and the turmoil of the → Peasants’ War around 1525 in Germany. They adopted universal Reformation concepts such as sola scriptura, sola gratia, and the → universal priesthood, and concurred with the criticism of the Catholic understanding of communion (→ Eucharist/Communion: II). They refused to have children baptized (→ Baptism) and instead introduced confessional or adult baptism. Baptism was supposed to represent an act of individual responsibility marking the beginning of a new life in → discipleship to Christ. These positions called into question not only an ecclesiastical initiation rite, but also the basic political and social foundations of the Christian West. Catholic and Protestant contemporaries persecuted the adherents of these movements as “Anabaptist,” and huge numbers suffered a martyr’s death (→ Martyrs: III). The so-called Anabaptist mandate of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 stipulated that Anabaptists be punished by death for revolting against the secular authorities and disturbing the public peace (crimen publicum). This punishment was already carried out as early as 1527 in several territories, including that of Zurich (see II). The persecutions were particularly severe in Habsburg territories (the Tyrol, Moravia, the Netherlands). It was not until the second half of the 16th century that such persecutions gradually receded, though the Anabaptists continued to be reviled though tolerated until they acquired civil rights in the 19th century. The Anabaptists were not a homogeneous movement. They assembled differently motivated men and women marked by → biblicism, mystical spiritualism, or apocalypticism who were driven by the desire for renewal or by social needs. Although these people did strive to coalesce into associations or church communities (see IV), they initially exhibited the typical characteristics of social movements. Much about these groups was still of a provisional character, while various other issues prevented any overall agreement. The early

201 Anabaptists vacillated between militancy and pacifism, between → separatism and the goal of eliminating abuses in the existing Church. Although they all shared an advocacy of adult baptism, they put forth different arguments. A common form of general religiosity emerged that revivified early Christian nonconformism within the framework of a communal lifestyle oriented more toward practice than doctrine and occupying a position between the Middle Ages and modernity. This heterogeneity has prompted recent scholarship to focus on the socio-historical position of these religious reform impulses in postulating a more polygenetic origin for Anabaptism, suggesting that the movement developed not from a single root, but from several different roots in Switzerland, Middle and Upper Germany, Lower Germany, and the Netherlands. Everywhere, these movements developed in the anticlerical milieu of the early Reformation period, which offered a particular form and orientation for its religious notions, for the adoption of certain theological traditions, and for its reading of Scripture. The resolute clerical opposition also explains the laicism (→ Laity: II) that developed with particular consistency among the Anabaptists. II. Swiss Anabaptists Starting point was the reformatory activity of U. → Zwingli in → Zurich, an activity supported by clerics and laity alike and fueled by anti-clerical opposition. As early as 1523, however, the reformer and his followers broke up, because the latter did not agree to his concessions to the secular authorities who they thought were acting in an ungodly way. The dispute had been ignited by the harsh reaction of the city council to the Zurich rural communities’ refusal to pay the church tithe. This break deepened at the October dispute of 1523. Although a resolution was passed to do away with the mass and to remove images from the churches, the actual execution of this resolution was left to the council. When the dispute finally involved the refusal of baptism in rural areas, an agreement was no longer possible. It was inevitable that the first confessional (adult) baptism would be performed, and such was the case when the humanistically educated patrician’s son K. → Grebel performed such baptism on the defecting priest Georg Blaurock from Graubünden in January 1525 at a private location. With this baptism, rather than founding a new church, the intention of following the word of God within the experiential sphere of the “common human being” or of the Peasants’ War was expressed. In fact no specific concept of a church had yet emerged. Instead, Grebel and his followers vacillated – in modern terminology – between a free-church and a popular-church solution. However, B. → Hubmaier in Waldshut on the Upper Rhine had initiated a more centralized

Anabaptists Anabaptist Reformation and continued it in Nickolsburg, Moravia. More specific, independent ecclesiological contours did not emerge until the appearance of the “Brotherly Union of the Various Children of God” in Schleitheim in 1527, which can be traced back to M. → Sattler. The article concerning “separation from the world” was particularly important in the search for a common way out of the crisis which the persecutions following the Peasants’ War had created for many Anabaptists. They finally separated entirely from the official church as well as from the militant goals of the Peasants’ War. It was only now that communion and baptism, the refusal of oaths, and a non-violence became characteristics of a separatist, disciplined (Matt 18) church. III. Middle and Upper German Anabaptists The Anabaptists who emerged around T. → Müntzer took a different path: H. → Hut, H. → Denck, and M. → Rink. It was especially Hut who continued Müntzer’s mystical and apocalyptic inclinations. He assembled followers in Middle and Upper Germany, the Tyrol, and Moravia in order to purify them inwardly (mystically) and seal them with baptism for the Last Judgment (apocalyptic; → Millenarianism). For the time being, however, they were to resheathe the sword that Müntzer had drawn in the Peasants’ War and not draw it again until the Last Judgment, when they would take revenge on the wicked. The mystical → spiritualism that Denck introduced among the Anabaptists in southern Germany was more introverted, while Rink advocated a more ethically oriented understanding of faith in Hessia. Hans Römer reacted more impatiently and planned to take the spiritually significant city of Erfurt on New Year’s Day 1528 in order to proclaim the kingdom of God there. Finally, the Uttenreuth Dreamers may be mentioned, who placed little value on the witness of Scripture and instead entrusted themselves solely to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in dreams and visions. Although only loosely organized communities arose in Hut’s missionary area, a particularly impressive alternative developed in Moravia, where disputes concerning the character of the Reformation in Nikolsburg led to the founding of a new community in Austerlitz. It was constituted without the influence of the authorities as a → community of goods according to the biblical model (Acts 2 and 4). Only one group, however, actually survived, namely that of J. → Huter of the Tyrol, which developed in numerous Bruderhöfe (→ Bruderhof ) as a community of production and consumption, in which elements of Hut’s Anabaptism and the Swiss Anabaptists also exerted an influence. Because the needs of daily life were communally organized, the → Hutterites succeeded in providing more workers than the family of a craftsman or farmer was able. This arrangement increased

Anacletus economic efficiency and thus they became attractive for the rural nobility, which in turn generally protected them from persecution by the Habsburg court. Times of persecution, however, alternated with times of peace and economic boom (the “golden years” of 1565–95). A mixture of spiritual-contemplative and economically active lifestyles enabled this group to survive through the centuries. Finally, traces of Hut’s Anabaptism can also be discerned in a loosely connected circle that developed around P. → Marbeck, a respected municipal construction engineer in Strasbourg and Augsburg who tried to create an independent identity for Anabaptism between biblicist legality and a purely spiritual faith. Except for the Hutterites, Hut’s version of Anabaptism gradually dissipated after 1530 or was absorbed by the Swiss Anabaptists. IV. Lower German and Dutch Anabaptists Anabaptism in the Lower German language sphere goes back to the furrier and lay preacher M. → Hoffmann from Schwäbisch Hall. At the end of the 1620s, he met with other followers of Hut in Strasbourg and was so impressed by the prophetic gift of Ursula and Lienhard Jost that he began nurturing the idea of a new kind of apocalyptic and visionary Anabaptism. Instead of joining any single Anabaptist group, he assembled his own circle, leading his followers to inner purification and integrating them through baptism into the eschatological community of saints. The Melchiorite Anabaptists were characterized by a Monophysitic christology, in part oriented toward K. v. → Schwenckfeld’s doctrine of the “heavenly flesh” of Christ, corresponding to a rigorous ethics of sanctification. Even though Hoffmann anticipated an imminent apocalyptic end, he did not summon his followers to become militant. The great battle was to be fought by the imperial cities against the emperor, the pope, and false teachers, while the Anabaptists were chosen to prepare the heavenly Jerusalem (→ Jerusalem, The Heavenly) as a dominion of peace. Having been forced to leave Strasbourg, Hoffmann founded the first Anabaptist community in Emden in 1530, and his ideas soon spread to the → Netherlands, where in some areas his apocalyptic interpretation of the world and his ethical rigorism triggered a mass movement. This version of Anabaptism also had many faces. The most spectacular event was the invasion of Anabaptist messengers into the Westphalian city of → Münster, where the Reformation had already gained a foothold and where the followers of Anabaptism used the upcoming council elections in 1534 to take control of the city. A communally oriented Reformation quickly turned into an apocalyptic theocracy affecting all areas of life: the new Jerusalem. Under Jan of Leiden, it changed into the Kingdom of David at the

202 end of days. Under the conditions of the siege by episcopal and imperial-estate troops, communal property was introduced, along with polygamy to address the excess of women by incorporating them into families. In 1535, the city fell as a result of betrayal; its leaders were executed and their bodies put on public display in cages hanging from St. Lamberti. Afterwards many Anabaptists joined the spiritualistic, peaceable D. → Joris, who advocated the postponement of baptism already stipulated by Hoffmann in order to keep persecutions within certain limits. It was not until the 1540s, after revolts in Amsterdam and in the Olde Klooster near Bolsward, that the Anabaptist scene calmed down, when the former priest → Menno Simons from Witmarsum assembled the dispersed Anabaptists into peaceable, disciplined communities “without taint and wrinkle” in western Frisia, on the lower Rhine, and on the coasts of the North and the Baltic seas. Here communities had emerged whose members were called Doopsgezinden in the Netherlands and → Mennonites in Germany. Numerous dialogues were carried on between Reformation theologians and Anabaptists in an attempt to come to an understanding: in Zofingen (1532), Bern (1538), Pfeddersheim (1557), and Frankenthal (1571). None, however, was successful. The fronts had hardened during the age of → confessionalization, and the descendants of the Anabaptists had to accommodate themselves to a “conformist nonconformity.” Menno Simons, Dat Fundament des Christelycken leers (1539/40), ed. H.W. Meihuizen, 1967 ◆ Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–1533, ed. E. Egli, 1879 ◆ Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, 14 vols., 1933–1983 ◆ Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer in der Schweiz, vols. I, II, IV, 1952, 1973, 1974 ◆ Schriften von Bernhard Rothmann, ed. R. Stupperich, 1970 ◆ Documenta Anabaptistica Neerlandica, 8 vols., 1975–2002. Bibliography: J.H. Yoder, Täufertum und Reformation in der Schweiz, vol. I: 1523–1538, 1962 ◆ C.-P. Clasen, Anabaptism. A Social History, 1525–1648, 1972 ◆ J.M. Stayer, Anabaptists and the Sword, 1972, 21976 ◆ H.-J. Goertz ed., Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–1975. Neue Forschungen, 1975, 21977 ◆ W.O. Packull, Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement 1525–1531, 1977 ◆ H.-J. Goertz, Die Täufer. Geschichte und Deutung, 1980, 21988 ◆ G.K. Waite, David Joris and Dutch Anabaptism 1524–1543, 1990 ◆ J.M. Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods, 1991 ◆ R. Klötzer, Die Täuferherrschaft von Münster, 1992 ◆ H.-J. Goertz, Religiöse Bewegungen in der frühen Neuzeit, 1993 ◆ M. Kobelt-Groch, Aufsässige Töchter Gottes. Frauen im Bauernkrieg und in den Täuferbewegungen, 1993 ◆ W.O. Packull, Hutterite Beginnings, 1995 ◆ H.-J. Goertz, Konrad Grebel, Kritiker des frommen Scheins 1498–1526, 1998 ◆ S. Zijlstra, Om de ware gemeente en de oude gronden. Geschiedenis van de dopersen in de Nederlanden 1531–1675, 2000 ◆ A. Strübind, Eifriger als Zwingli. Die frühe Täuferbewegung in der Schweiz, 2003. Hans-Jürgen Goertz

Anacletus (Cletus), set the tone in one of the numerous Christian household churches in Rome in the 1st century. In the 2nd half of the 2nd century, when the mon-

203 episcopacy was forming in Rome, Anacletus’s name was still present in Roman local tradition and was employed as a building block in the Roman → bishop list (in Iren. Haer. III 3.3). At the end of the 170s, this list fictively retrojected the monepiscopacy into the past. In order to assure tradition, Linus, Anacletus and 10 others allegedly followed the Apostles in the Roman monepiscopacy (→ Eleutherius, → Anicetus). L. Abramowski, “Iren. haer. III 3,2: ecclesia romana and omnis ecclesia; 3,3: ‘Anacletus of Rome,’” JTS 28, 1977, 101–104 ◆ P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 21989, 334–343. Peter Lampe

Analogy I. Philosophy – II. Fundamental Theology – III. Philosophy of Religion

I. Philosophy According to philosophical and theological research on analogy in the 13th–15th centuries, there are two main kinds of analogy: analogy of attribution and analogy of proportion. In both cases names (linguistic expressions) are given analogously. One reason for this was that analogy was seen as a solution to the question whether one can make true positive statements about God (e.g. “God is good”); another was that reference to some linguistic text (the Bible) was important to both Christian philosophy (at least since → Clement of Alexandria) and theology. The names “good” in “a person is good” and “God is good” are not simply equivocal, but analogous. A third kind of analogy is the so-called analogy by alternatives proposed by → Cajetan (Thomas de Vio). But closer examination (cf. Bochenski 1948) shows that it cannot be applied to corresponding theological problems, as names or relations which should remain analogous become identical and synonymous. This kind of analogy by attribution, in which several terms are related differently to one (“plurium ad unum”) was already known to → Aristotle (he called it paronymy). Here things signified by the same name are related differently to one (as the first): healthy face color, food, medicine and walk are related differently (as sign, effect or cause) to health (or to the healthy body). Aristotle wished thereby to explain the different relations, in his view, of the meanings of “being” to “being” in the sense of substance. According to the analogy of proportion properties signified by the same names relate in a similar (analogous) way to different things (cf. → Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I. 13, 5, 6) as in the example with “good.” An analysis of the analogy of proportion (cf. Bochenski, 1948) shows that analogy can be explained as similarity between relationships, or as a relation of similarity between relations. This is already clearly proposed by Aquinas (see III). The analogy of attribution can then

Analogy be defined as a special case of the analogy of proportion (as the various relation-members in the subsequent areas are reduced to one; cf. Weingartner 1977 and 1979). Analogy can be extended, however, from linguistic expressions to any number of things. If we distinguish three kinds of objects, (a) natural ones, (b) concrete artifacts, and (c) conceptual entities, then there are analogy relations within each type and between the three groups. Particular linguistic “tokens” are then to be treated as concrete artifacts whereas “types” are conceptual objects. Examples: (a) electric current and liquid current, physical strength and emotional strength, shepherd and “Good Shepherd”; (b) floor-plan of a house and house, the tokens “wave” (applied to water and sound) or “good” (applied to a person or God); (c) plane geometry and analytical geometry, theory and (conceptual) model. Interrelated analogies are: map and land, picture and pictured object, automation theory and computer, growth in the laboratory and growth in reality. In theology, as well as in philosophy and other fields, there are a range of different analogy relations which have more complicated structures (e.g. analogy between theories) and which have so far been the object of relatively little detailed research (cf. Weingartner 1979). Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, 13 ◆ Cajetan, De Nominum Analogia, ed. P.N. Zammit & P.H. Hering, Rome 1952; ET: The Analogy of Names, trans. & ed. E.A. Buschinski & H.J. Koren, Pittsburgh 1959. ◆ J.M. Bochenski, “On Analogy,” The Thomist 11, 1948, 474–497 ◆ idem, “Über die Analogie,” in idem, Logisch philosophische Studien 1959, 107–129 ◆ P. Weingartner, Wissenschaftstheorie II. 1. Grundlagenprobleme der Logik und der Mathematik, ch. 3.64 (Analogy), 1976 ◆ idem, “Analogie. Ein Versuch, verschiedene Arten der Analogiebeziehung zu präzisieren”, in: G. Patzig, E. Scheibe & W. Wieland, eds., Logik, Ethik, Theorie der Geisteswissenschaften, 1977, 500–511 ◆ idem, “Analogy among Systems,” Dialectica 33, 1979, 355–378. Paul Weingartner

II. Fundamental Theology Analogy has long been used as a way of understanding Christian doctrine, on the assumption that even remote similarity can aid in grasping revealed truths which are unique and therefore have no fully adequate parallel (Penido). Thus analogies have been employed, for example, for the Trinity (e.g. the “psychological analogy” for the eternal procession of the Son from the Father) and the incarnation (e.g. the union of body and soul or of an integral part with its whole as an analogy for the union of the human and the divine in Christ). The chief theological use of analogy, however, focuses on the relationship between God and creation. One common approach is to regard our understanding of “created being” as an analogy which enables us to grasp, even if imperfectly, the “uncreated being” of God. We can then use our grasp of created perfections (goodness, wisdom, etc.) in order to reach some understanding

Analogy of analogous perfections in God, usually by “analogia proportionalitatis”: as created goodness is to created being, so divine goodness is to divine being. Whether the initial understanding of divine being itself requires an “analogia proportionalitatis” (Cajetan) or an “analogia attributionis” (F. → Suárez) is disputed, along with the question of which type of analogy is primary. Either way, analogy as a logical or linguistic matter (“analogia nominum”), according to this approach, depends on ontological analogy (“analogia entis”) and more specifically on the participation of created being and perfection in divine being and perfection. Thomas Aquinas is often regarded as the chief source of this approach to analogy, but its attribution to him is contested (see III). It originates more clearly with Cajetan, and with the debates over the interpretation of Aquinas in the 16th century. In more recent discussion E. → Przywara gives a highly dialectical account of the “analogia entis,” in which the being of creatures displays a dynamic resemblance to the infinite being of God, but this resemblance is overarched by the still greater dissimilarity between God and his creatures (following the teaching of the 4th Lateran Council; cf. DS 806). The “analogia entis” is, thus understood, the “form principle” which unites philosophy and theology and indeed all disparate elements in thought and being while preserving their differences. As such it is dialectically related to the “analogia fidei” (cf. Rom 12:6), which unites the diverse contents of revelation; in the incarnation, faith accepts the greatest possible resemblance between God and man, yet sees this very resemblance as overarched by a still greater dissimilarity. K. → Barth is highly critical of traditional understandings of analogy, and especially of the “analogia entis,” claiming that such views posit a similarity of creatures to God which, despite the “still greater dissimilarity” it involves, remains an → intrinsic possession of “creaturely being” rather than an always contingent gift of divine grace. Barth’s biggest concerns, however, are not so much ontological as epistemological. Were the “analogia entis” correct it would be possible to know God, at least in part, on the basis of our understanding of “creaturely being,” regardless of whether God had chosen to reveal himself. Barth rejects this possibility and with it the use of analogy as a basis for → natural theology. God can only be known at all in the full concreteness and particularity of his personal being, and so only in his personal actions in Jesus Christ. Our apprehension of any creaturely resemblance to God therefore depends on the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ and so only takes place in revelation and faith; Barth thus opposes “analogia fidei” to “analogia entis.” He develops his understanding of analogy by proposing an “analogia relationis” as a way of conceiving creaturely co-humanity as the image of God,

204 and an “analogia operationis” for conceiving the relation between divine and human action. Barth’s account of analogical language also reflects his primarily christological and epistemological interest. Human speech and thought has “in part . . . correspondence and agreement” with divine being and action, but not by virtue of any inherent human capacity. We cannot reach an appropriate conception of any divine attribute (e.g. life or love) by simply raising what we other wise mean by such notions to an infinite and absolute level. We must rather behold the particular being and act of God in Christ to which alone these notions apply perfectly and properly, and we must form a concept as the prime analogue which can be applied to this special thing. In this way God lays claim to being the proper object of our speech and thought. Influenced by both Przywara and Barth, G. → Söhngen and H.U. von → Balthasar essentially agree with Barth about the priority of “analogia fidei” over the “analogia entis,” but argue that Barth has misinterpreted the latter by taking it as a principle for a natural theology which bypasses revelation. Rather the “analogia entis” is necessary within the “analogia fidei” in order to preserve a sufficient distinction of the creature from God. Pannenberg argues that human talk of God is unavoidably analogical, but he rejects both the “analogia entis” and the Thomistic claim that analogical terms form a third type genuinely distinct from both univocal and equivocal ones; following Scotus, he maintains that analogical predication must have a univocal core (see III). Analogical talk of God rather has a doxological structure (as E. → Schlink emphasizes): in worship the speaker offers his human language to God, which frees him to learn from God how to attach new and more suitable meanings to his words. Developing the connection between analogy and metaphor, Jüngel argues that the necessarily metaphorical character of human talk of God creates an “aporia” which can only be overcome by God himself, when he allows himself to be talked about by human beings in the word of Jesus’ death and resurrection. III. Philosophy of Religion Recent discussions of analogy in the philosophy of religion focus especially on clarifying the differences between the linguistic, ontological and epistemological uses of analogy. In part this discussion involves new approaches to Aquinas’s teaching on analogy. Cajetan’s deeply influential interpretation of Aquinas is fundamentally flawed, McInerny argues, because for Aquinas analogy is a logical and linguistic matter rather than a metaphysical one; Aquinas’s teaching on analogy, like Aristotle’s teaching on what can be said in many ways (Metaphysics IV 2,

205 1003a 33ff.), is a doctrine of words rather than things. Terms are analogous for Aquinas when they are said primarily of one thing, and then of others in a way which includes reference to that to which they are first applied (cf. I). Thus “healthy” is said primarily of animals (making this the “ratio propria” of the term), and derivatively of urine, which is a sign of health in animals, and of medicine, which is a cause of health in animals. For Aquinas the analogy of names always follows this pattern, even when the analogized terms are themselves proportions. It makes no difference to the analogous character of a word whether what it signifies actually exists in all the things of which it is predicated (a point Cajetan entirely disregards in his interpretation of Aquinas’s key text, In I Sententiarum 19, 5, 2, ad 1). According to Aquinas an analogous term does have a common element (“ratio communis”), but this is a formula which specifies the analogous structure of the term (e.g. for “healthy,” “related in some way to health”) rather than giving the meaning or “ratio” of the term in any of its analogical applications. The “ratio communis” is therefore not a “univocal core” common to all analogues (contrary to the claim of → Duns Scotus, who is often cited in modern criticism of Aquinas on analogy). The distinction between linguistic analogy and metaphysical dependence or similarity is crucial to Aquinas’s teaching on the divine names, where the “ordo nominum” is the opposite of the “ordo rerum.” Our language applies first and properly to creatures and can be extended to God only derivatively and by analogy, but the perfections that our words signify exist first and properly in God and derivatively in creatures, to whom God freely imparts them (cf. Summa Theologiae 13, 3. 6). Burrell observes that Aquinas articulates his teaching on analogy by adapting a distinction from medieval philosophical grammar (Pinborg) between what a term signifies (“res significata”) and the way in which it signifies (“modus significandi”). Taking this as a clue, he extends Aquinas’s treatment of analogy in the direction of → Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language (Teuwsen), treating analogy not as a systematic theory, rather as a flexible and disciplined way of using the resources latent in one’s language. This applies particularly to talk about God, whom we can only know by using our own language, but whose transcendence permits to know not what he is, but only what he is not (cf. Summa Theologiae I 3, pro.). Some recent philosophical presentations of analogy aim not so much to reinterpret the classical tradition represented by Aquinas as to move beyond it. While attending to the classical sources on analogy, Ross attempts to overcome basic deficiencies in the traditional account by offering a systematic reconstruction of analogy theory in terms of analytic philosophy of language. Whereas classi-

Analysis/Synthesis cal accounts tended to devalue metaphor by comparison with analogy, the precise distinction between metaphor and analogy is now in dispute, especially in religious language, and metaphor is often viewed as a “description of reality” in its own right (Soskice). M.T.-L. Penido, Le rôle de l’analogie en théologie dogmatique, 1931 ◆ G. Söhngen, “Analogia entis oder analogia fidei?” in: Die Einheit in der Theologie, 1952, 235–247 ◆ R. McInerny, The Logic of Analogy, 1961 ◆ E. Przywara, Analogia entis (Schriften 3, 1962) ◆ W. Pannenberg, “Analogie und Doxologie”, in: Grundfragen Systematischer Theologie, vol. I, 1967, 181–201 ◆ J. Pinborg, Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter, 1972 ◆ D. Burrell, Analogy and Philosophical Language, 1973 ◆ H.U. von Balthasar, Karl Barth, 41976 ◆ J. Track, “Analogie”, TRE II, 1978, 625–650 (bibl.) ◆ D. Burrell, Aquinas: God and Action, 1979 ◆ E. Jüngel, “Metaphorische Wahrheit”, in: idem, “Entsprechungen,” BEvTh 88, 1980, 103–157 ◆ J.F. Ross, Portraying Analogy, 1981 ◆ J.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, 1984 ◆ R. Teuwsen, Familieähnlichkeit und Analogie: Zur Semantik genereller Termini bei Wittgenstein und Thomas von Aquin, 1988 ◆ R. McInerny, Aquinas and Analogy, 1996. Bruce D. Marshall

Analysis/Synthesis. “Analysis” (ἀνάλυσις, resolutio, resolution, dissection) generally designates the separation of a given into its parts, the determination of its conditions or the investigation of its consequences; “synthesis” (σύνθεσις, compositio), conversely, the connection of individual elements into a whole or the deduction of conclusions. Both terms have acquired specific meanings in mathematics, natural sciences and philosophy: In ancient geometry, analysis referred to the procedure of deriving the proof – itself synthetic – for a hypothetically assumed statement, in the Early Modern period, the use of symbols and equations to solve mathematical problems, still later that part of mathematics which deal with limiting values. In modern natural sciences, for G. → Zabarella and G. → Galilei, for I. → Newton and even for Ernst Mach, the first step in the method that leads from effects to causes or from observations to the principles underlying them or hypotheses to be proven is described as analytical or resolutive, the related transition from the causes to the effects or from the principles to the results is considered synthetic or demonstrative. In philosophy, analysis became a key term for R. → Descartes, G.W. → Leibniz and in the philosophy of the → Enlightenment. In his Regulae, Descartes wanted to separate all complex and intricate circumstances into simple, clear, and clearly perceptible elements; Leibniz developed his project of a scientia generalis, in which compound concepts would be divided in their components and, subsequent to the deduction of all possible concepts, systematically combined with one another; Enlightenment philosophy saw the central task of philosophy in the analysis and precise definition of terms and, thus, anticipated corresponding approaches in 20th-century analytical philosophy which saw its task

Analysis fidei either in the reconstruction of statements in a formal language or in the analysis of the meaning of everyday speech. The use of the terms “analytic” and “synthetic” to characterize judgments traces back to the terminology of the critical Kant: For him, judgments such as “bachelors are unmarried,” in which “the predicate B is contained (implicitly)” in the subject term A and the subject term is merely explicated are analytic. In contrast, judgments in which perception is expanded by combining the subject term with a predicate not already inherent in it are called synthetic. For a long time, 20th-century scientific theory regarded the distinction between analytical statements, which are logically justifiable, and synthetic statements, which depend on experience, to be self-evident until W.v.O. → Quine harshly criticized the distinction, as such. Finally, the importance of the term analytics has been shaped by → Aristotle, who used it to describe his examinations of logical form. The first analytic examines the form of concrete conclusions, the second traces true statements back to the premises or principles that justify them; both are supplemented by → dialectics. I. → Kant also used these two terms, although in an altered meaning, to arrange the criticism of pure reason; later M. → Heidegger described the clarification and exposure of the understanding of being inherent in existence as the “ontological analytics of existence” or as “existential analytics.” J. Hintikka & U. Remes, The Method of Analysis, 1974 ◆ W. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” in: idem, From a Logical Point of View, 1953, 20–47 ◆ H.J. Engfer, Philosophie als Analysis, 1982. Jürgen Engfer

Analysis fidei. Catholic theology has maintained consistently that the ultimate, immediate ground of faith is God himself in the authority of his own self-revelation. The inclusion of this principle in declarations at the highest level of the magisterium (Constitution Dei Filius of → Vatican I) has avoided a noetic Pelagianism (→ Pelagius), while at the same time emphasizing the inherent rationality of faith, a rationality that is also explicable and thus accessible to open discussion. This constellation, however, raises a problem: how to define the relationship of the grounds of faith, which are accessible to reason (the so-called grounds of credibility), to God, the immediate and ultimate ground of faith. Analysis fidei is the technical term used by modern Catholic theology in discussing this problem. Despite very thorough logical and conceptual differentiation and important insights, almost all the attempts of Baroque scholasticism and Neoscholasticism (F. → Suárez, J. de → Lugo, Louis Billot, Anton Straub, etc.) to deal with this problem ended in

206 aporia. The crucial first step toward clarifying the discussion was taken by Pierre Rousselot, whose approach, extended and deepened, continues to be influential (K. → Rahner, H.U. von → Balthasar, E. Kunz). The practical core of the problem lies in the mediation – which is both creaturely (and hence rational) and pneumatological (→ pneumatology) (lumen fidei: → Thomas Aquinas, Rousselot) – of the immediate, authoritative presence of God (in God’s historical and personal act of revelation) to the subject as the ground of faith. In Protestant theology, this problem is reflected, for example, in the debate between Eberhard Jüngel and Wolfhart Pannenberg. E. Kunz, “Glaubwürdigkeitserkenntnis und Glaube (Analysis Fidei),” HFT 4, 1988, 414–449 (bibl.). Martin Brüske

Analytic Philosophy. Its “greatgrandfather” was B. → Bolzano, its “grandfather” G. → Frege, and its “fathers” G.E. → Moore, B. → Russell, and L. → Wittgenstein : such is the lineage of one of the most influential philosophical movements of the 20th century. In its first phase, analytic philosophy can be described (to use Russell’s expression) as analytic realism. In his Wissenschaftslehre (1837), Bolzano strictly distinguished the contents of cognitive acts and linguistic utterances from all elements of the stream of consciousness, defining the former as the analysanda of philosophical analysis. His approach was followed first by Frege and then, at the beginning of the 20th century, by Moore and Russell. With the logical atomism developed by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus logico-philosophicus (1922), linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of logic became central to analytic philosophy. In his Grundlagen der Arithmetik (1884, §62), Frege had already laid the groundwork for this logico-linguistic turn in philosophy by transforming the question of the nature of numbers into the question of how statements containing numerals or figures are to be understood. For Frege, as for the early Wittgenstein, “to understand a proposition” means “to know what is the case if it is true” (Tract. 4.024). In the philosophy of the “middle” Wittgenstein and in Logical Positivism or Logical Empiricism, this principle was replaced by the verification principle: to understand a proposition means to know how to decide whether it is true. Logical empiricism was influential primarily as a philosophy of the natural sciences – after the emigration of several of its protagonists, especially in the USA. It was quickly seen that the verification principle in its original form is not tenable. The sharpest critic of logical empiricism was W. v.O. → Quine, who became the outstanding analytic philosopher of the last third of the 20th century. For the late Wittgenstein, to understand a proposition means to know what role it plays in our actual linguistic praxis. Failure to appreciate important features of this

207 praxis he viewed as the source of the “bewitchment” of human thought by language, and in his Philosophical Investigations (1953) he pursued the traces of this bewitchment in philosophical psychology and meaning theory. Not uninfluenced by Wittgenstein’s work in Cambridge, analytic philosophy developed along similar lines at Oxford: G. → Ryle studied category mistakes and systematically misleading expressions, and in The Concept of Mind (1949) attacked the myth of the “ghost in the machine”; the dominant theme of John L. Austin’s work was How to Do Things with Words (1962). What later came to be called “ordinary language philosophy” was essentially linguistic analysis with therapeutic intent. Ethics was carried out as the analysis of normative and axiological language, e.g. by Richard M. Hare in The Language of Morals (1952) and G.H. von Wright in The Varieties of Goodness (1963). The beginning of a new, constructive phase of analytic philosophy, freed from the dogmas of Logical Atomism and Logical Empiricism, was marked (in very different ways) by Strawson’s Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics (1959) and Quine’s Word and Object. Subsequently, the diversification of systematic positions within analytic philosophy and the spectrum of questions addressed have increased steadily. The claim that first philosophy is linguistic philosophy has long not gone unchallenged, even by analytic philosophers. The most influential advocates of this theoretical priority include Dummett (Truth and Other Enigmas, 1978) and Donald Davidson (Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 1984). Other analytic philosophers – influenced in part by developments in the cognitive sciences – concede primacy to the philosophy of mind ( Jerry A. Fodor, Gareth Evans) or a naturalistic ontology (David M. Armstrong), or else reject such attempts to establish a hierarchy (Strawson). And so at the beginning of the 21st century it is easier to record what analytic philosophy has been than to determine what it is today. A. Wedberg, A History of Philosophy, vol. III: From Bolzano to Wittgenstein, 1984 ◆ P. Hylton, Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy, 1989 ◆ D. Bell & N. Cooper, eds., The Analytic Tradition, 1990 ◆ P.F. Strawson, Analysis and Metaphysics, 1992 ◆ R. Haller, Neopositivismus, Die Philosophie des Wiener Kreises, 1993 ◆ M. Dummett, Origins of Analytical Philosophy, 1994 ◆ P. Hacker, Wittgenstein im Kontext der analytischen Philosophie, 1997. Wolfgang Künne

Anaphora (Gk ἀναϕορά, “offering”) is a term for the Eucharist as a whole, but more specifically the eucharistic prayer, usually addressed to the first hypostasis of the → Trinity, more rarely to the second; its basic structure goes back to Jewish table prayers. The earliest extant anaphora is found in the → Traditio Apostolica. Since the 4th century, fixed types have

Anarchism developed, each with a different sequence of basic elements (preface, → sanctus, anamnesis, words of institution, → epiclesis, intercession). The most important types are associated with the cities of → Alexandria, → Antioch, → Jerusalem, and → Constantinople. Most Eastern churches use several anaphoras (the Syrian Church about 70, the Ethiopian 20), each as a rule bearing the name of an apostle or church father. In the East Syrian type, the words of institution are absent. Originally the West also used a variety of anaphoras. I. Karabinov, Evkharisticheskaia molitva (anafora) opyt istorikoliturgicheskago analiza, 1908 ◆ A. Baumstark, RAC I, 1950, 418–427 ◆ A. Hänggi & I. Pahl, eds., Prex eucharistica, 1968 ◆ R.C.D. Jasper & G.J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, 31990 ◆ E. Mazza, L’anafora eucaristica, 1992. Karl Christian Felmy

Anarchism I. Anarchism – II. Anarchism and Socialism – III. Anarchism as a Social-Revolutionary Movement

I. Anarchism Anarchism as the utopia of a ruler-less society was typical of the → Enlightenment and the → French Revolution. It was a reaction to the development of the national state and to the transition of society from feudalism to bourgeois capitalism. Even towards the end of the 18th century, the term anarchy, which in classical Greek denotes a condition without a commander or magistrate, had a negative meaning. Greek theory on state systems considered anarchy to be a degenerate, unordered version of polity, which had a close connection to despotism. Considered to be the father of “classical” anarchism, William Godwin (1756–1836) described in his work An Enquiry concerning Political Justice, published in 1793, the ideal of a society in which people who live in small districts take public affairs into their own hands following the example of English self-government. Godwin stressed that the ideal of an egalitarian society free of governmental representation could only be realized if reason is used throughout the entire society; anarchy amongst a non-enlightened people could turn into despotism. As politically unsuccessful as Godwin’s radically enlightened vision was the book Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1845, written by Kasper Schmidt, pseudonym M. → Stirner), which is attributed to individualistic anarchy and advocates a radical individualism without moral principles. At the end of the 19th century John Henry Mackay (1864–1933) readopted Stirner’s ideas. In the USA Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939) propagated individualistic anarchism based on an anti-monopolistic free market economy. R. Nozick reflects, from a liberal perspective, the moments of truth in anarchistic tradition: state minimalism.

Anarchism II. Anarchism and Socialism Even before the February revolution of 1848, PierreJoseph Proudhon (1809–1865) made a connection between the utopia of a ruler-less society and socialism by attempting to give the autonomous socialism of the early → labor movement a theoretical foundation and a main idea in harking back to early socialist theories on society. Not the idea of Christian brotherhood, but the early labor movement’s practice of solidarity was to provide the ethical basis of future society, which Proudhon imagined as a network based on the mutualism of productive workplaces and production associations. His example was taken from the silk weavers in Lyon who exchanged their products according to the costs of production time and who spared workers in need from social degeneration by setting up sponsorship kitties. Proudhon wished to extend this alternative form of economy with a system of interest-free credit loans and the establishment of exchange banks. Michael Bakunin (1814–1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) like Proudhon propagated the liberation of humans from religious morals, which they rejected as crutches of bourgeois society because of their egotistic character, intent only on one’s own salvation. Bakunin opposed Christian caritas with the solidarity of the workers, on which he wished to build future society, since he had become acquainted with the world of the workers with the clockmakers of the Swiss Jura and in the first International Working Men’s Association in the 1860s. Kropotkin tried in his work of 1902 Gegenseitige Hilfe in der Tier- und Menschenwelt to prove scientifically that solidarity presents a societal development principle. His ideal of agricultural-industrial villages, in which the division of labor had been terminated and the communist principle of “each to his own” was lived by, was shaped by the romantically transfigured image of a pre-industrial society. Not only the capitalist state, but also state socialism and the social welfare state, which threatened to do workers out of their independence, was subjected to the criticism of the anarchists. Only in an autonomous commune and in a voluntary federation can people themselves determine the administration of public affairs. Bakunin and Kropotkin believed in the people’s spontaneous revolution. Besides the Parisian commune they also had the people’s protests and revolts in the pre-industrial societies of Italy, Spain, and Russia in mind. They rejected a dictatorship of the proletariat; just as the centralization of administration, this would lead to the “political and economic enslavement of the masses” by an intellectual minority. While K. → Marx considered bourgeois society a necessary transition phase towards socialism, the anarchists saw in the autonomous workers’ culture, which Marx judged to be reactionary, the nucleus of a future society of solidarity.

208 III. Anarchism as a Social-Revolutionary Movement The contradiction between anarchism and Marxism developed within the International Working Men’s Association, established in 1864, into an open conflict between Marx and Bakunin (1872, Bakunin was excluded from the association at Marx’s instigation). The Antiauthoritative International, which had been established in St. Imier in the same year, fell apart only five years later over the question whether local worker associations, should become centralistic political parties, such as demanded from the German side. Within the German workers’ movement anarchism had few adherents. The Socialist Union, which had been founded in 1908 by Gustav Landauer (1870–1919) together with M. → Buber (1878–1965) and Erich Mühsam (1878–1934) and which propagated the establishment of socialist settlers’ communities, never gained more than 300 members. With the Fédération des Bourses du Travail and the Confédération du Travail (CGT) in France, the “heroic” era of revolutionary syndicalism began in 1902, upon which the anarchists Fernand Pelloutier (1867–1901), Georges Yvetot (1868–1942), Emile Pouget (1860– 1931) and Paul Delesalle (1870–1948) were able to exercise a significant amount of influence. They linked the call to strike with the task of preparing the syndicate for the take-over of all production by future society. The cooperation with the syndicates encountered skepticism among some anarchists, e.g. the Italian Errico Malatesta (1853–1932), who had been influenced by Bakunin and who, together with Carlo Cafiero (1846– 1892) and Andrea Costa (1851–1910), had wished to incite the revolution through attempted revolts in Italy in the 70s. Only after the First World War were the Italian anarchists able to gain a basis among the masses within the revolutionary Unione Sindicale, which had recruited almost 400,000 members under the impact of the October Revolution in the years 1919–1922. In the October Revolution, the anarchists who had first supported the Bolshevik motto “all power to the councils” were quickly suppressed by the Bolsheviks. In the Ukraine there arose a spontaneous farmers’ revolt in 1917 (leader: Nestor Machno, 1889–1934, defending collective land possession against the returning German and Austrian landowners and the members of the White Guard). Besides in the Ukraine it was only in Spain that agrarian anarchism was able to develop into a political mass movement in the 1870s. During the Spanish Civil War a spontaneous collectivizing movement emerged, which was oriented according to the utopian-society goals of anarchism. The leader of the anti-fascist militia Buenaventura Durruti (1896–1936) admitted adherence to Bakunin. The Confederacion Nacional de Trabajo (CNT), which had an anarchic-syndicalist

209 orientation and which boasted half a million members, propagated a syndicalist economy structure, which however failed to progress beyond the first stages. The end of the Spanish Civil War also meant the end of anarchism as a social-revolutionary movement. J. Guillaume, L’Internationale, 4 vols., 1905 ◆ M. Nettlau, Geschichte der Anarchie, 5 vols., 1925–1984 ◆ J. Joll, Die Anarchisten, 1966 ◆ E. Oberländer, ed., Der Anarchismus, 1972 ◆ R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974 ◆ J. Maitron, Le Mouvement Anarchiste en France, 2 vols., 1975 ◆ P. Lösche, Der Anarchismus, 1977 ◆ M. Vuilleumier, Horlagers de l’Anarchisme, 1988 ◆ P. Weber, Sozialismus als Kulturbewegung, 1989 ◆ G. Crowder, Classical Anarchism, 1991 ◆ P. Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 1992 ◆ J. Préposiet, Histoire de l’Anarchie, 1993. Petra Weber

Anastasius (III), Anti-pope (Anastasius the Librarian; before 817 – c. 879). Anastasius was antipope from August to September, 855. He became cardinal priest of S. Marcello (Rome) in 848; between 850 and 853 he was excommunicated and deposed by → Leo IV and conciliar edicts. After c. 861 (with an interruption in 868), he was a close associate (and sometimes librarian) of popes → Nicholas I, Adrian II, and John VIII; he played a significant role during the 8th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (→ Constantinople/Byzantium: IV ) and translated its proceedings. He is known as an author of papal epistles and a translator of hagiographic texts. K. Herbers, Papst Leo IV. und das Papsttum in der Mitte des 9. Jahrhunderts, 1996, 214–224 ◆ J.F. Böhmer & K. Herbers, RI I, 4.2.2, 1998, nos. 339–349. Klaus Herbers

Anath, a Syrian goddess, known mainly through the texts of Ras Shamra/→ Ugarit, but who, already played a part among the Amurrite tribes (Mari, 18th cent. bce) and perhaps also in Meskene-Emar at the end of the Bronze Age. The name’s etymology is not at all certain. In Ugarit Anath is a warrior and hunter, sister and lover of → Baal, the city deity, at whose side she battles against the enemies of cosmic order. While Baal disappears in the Underworld, Anath finds his corpse, buries it ritually and then destroys Môt, the god of death. In this way she assists Baal in returning to life and personally battles against his mortal enemy. She is responsible for the death of Aqhat, the young hunter who may have violated a hunting or cultic taboo. Her prominent epithets include the following: “virgin,” “sister-in-law of the clan,” “mistress of the kingdom,” “mistress of high heaven.” At the time of the Asian invasion of the Egyptian delta her cult experienced some success. It is also attested in the Phoenician realm and in Cyprus, where she was assimilated with Athena. Although she may well have been known in the Hebrew area, attempts at demonstrating explicit references to her in biblical writings remain unsuccessful.

Anatolius of Constantinople N.H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth, 1992 ◆ P.L. Day, “Anath: Ugarit’s ‘Mistress of Animals’,” JNES 51, 1992, 181–190 ◆ I. Cornelius, “Anath and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals.’ Aspects of the Iconography of the Canaanite Goddesses,” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 1993, 21–45. Paolo Xella

Anathema. The word “anathema” originally meant an offering consecrated to a deity, or a curse (→ Blessing and Curse). Anathema as banishment or exclusion from the community was a common practice before Christianity, which adopted it as a disciplinary measure after the analogy of the OT ban and the practice of exclusion at → Qumran. In the penal code of the church, “anathema” referred to → excommunication, especially when solemnly imposed as provided in the Pontifcale Romanum (CIC 1917, c. 2257, §2). This form of excommunication was not included in CIC 1983. Neither does the formula anathema sit (cf. Gal 1:9), which had concluded conciliar edicts since the Council of → Elvira (c. 306), occur in the texts of Vatican II. A. Amanieù, DDC I, 1935, 512–516 ◆ K. Hofmann, RAC I, 1950, 427–430 ◆ A. Dordett, LMA I, 1980, 574 ◆ W. Beinert, LTK3 I, 1993, 604f. ◆ W. Rees, Die Strafgewalt der Kirche, 1993. Wilhelm Rees

Anatoli, Jacob ben Abba Mari (b. c. 1200), a rationalist philosopher from the school of → Maimonides, translator, exegete and homilist. He belonged (by marriage) to the family of → Ibn Tibbon, the famous school of translators of philosophical works from Arabic to Hebrew in the 12th/13th century. He spent many years as one of the international scholars who congregated in Naples in the court of → Frederick II. In his collection of sermons, Malemad ha-Talmidim (“teacher/encourager of students”), he quotes the emperor twice and mentions several times his conversations with → Michael Scotus, to whom he refers as “the scholar whom I befriended.” He translated into Hebrew some of → Averroes’s commentaries on → Aristotle. His Malemad ha-Talmidim is the first Hebrew collection of sermons arranged on the pattern of the 52 biblical segments which are read every week in the synagogue. His attitude is extremely allegoristic, interpreting most biblical narratives, events and figures as representing abstract philosophical concepts. This approach came under severe criticism in the controversy against Maimonidean rationalism in the 13th/14th century. I. Bettan, Studies in Jewish Preaching, 1939 ◆ H.A. Davidson, Jakob Anatoli’s Translations of Ibn Rushd’s Intermediate Commentary on Aristotle, 1969. Joseph Dan

Anatolius of Constantinople (episcopate 449– 458). Alexandrian apocrisiarius in Constantinople under Dioscorus, Anatolius succeeded → Flavian, who was deposed in 449. Soon afterwards he embraced the

Ancestors, Cult of “Tome of Leo” and was a leading figure at the Council of → Chalcedon (451), where he headed the commission that composed the definition. His efforts to persuade Pope → Leo I to approve c. 28 (Constantinople second after Rome, outranking Alexandria and Antioch) met with resistance; Leo also suspected him of favoring Eutychian clergy. In 457 Anatolius informed the pope about events in Egypt (consecration of Timothy Aelurus, murder of the patriarch Proterius) and played an active role in the imperial inquiry (so-called Codex Encyclius, 458). He died Aug 3, 458. Works: CPG 3, 5956–5961 ◆ Life: BHG 91 (historical value disputed) ◆ On Anatolius: M. Jugie, “Anatole,” DHGE II, 1914, 1497–1500 ◆ A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche II/1, 21991 ◆ A. de Halleux, “Le décret chalcédonien sur les prérogatives de la Nouvelle Rome,” ETL 64, 1988, 288– 323. Theresia Hainthaler

Ancestors, Cult of I. Religious Studies – II. Greco-Roman Antiquity – III. Old Testament – IV. China – V. India – VI. Missiology

I. Religious Studies All ancestors that are worshiped are dead, but not all dead people are ancestors, and not every mortuary ritual represents an ancestor cult. For an ancestor cult, there must be a consciousness of a familial and genealogical connection with the ancestors over one or more generations, and there must be a regular periodic cult that involves more than mortuary rituals. It unites in sacrifice, prayer, and communal meals at least the immediate family but more often the patrilineage, sometimes a clan, a village, or an entire people in the worship of their dead rulers, beginning with founder and patriarch. Constitutive is the belief that the ancestors influence the fate of the living, not simply – as in the cult of the dead (→ Dead, Cult of the) – that the dead are dependent on the ritual of the living to find rest in the realm of the dead. The two perspectives, through rooted in the same ideas, tend to be mutually exclusive or supersessive: societies with an elaborate construct of the journey of the dead and the beyond (Egypt, Greece, North American Indians) do not have a developed belief in the influence of the ancestors on the living, whereas societies with a highly developed ancestor cult in black Africa and in Asia rarely have a detailed doctrine concerning the fate of the soul after death; they are especially interested in the influence of the dead on their living descendants (Gluckmann). Recent anthropological attempts to demonstrate the universality of ancestor cults retract this distinction and – like the earlier theory of → animism – label all culticly worshiped spiritual beings, including the animal and plant totems of familial groups, as ancestors in the extended sense (Steadman, Palmer, Tilley).

210 This is correct in the sense that indigenous societies do not distinguish between natural and religious communities, and that family solidarity, justice, and succession always have a religious aspect that must be activated through divers rituals. In preliterate civilizations, the ancestors establish tradition, they maintain justice and morality. But there is no way to verify the conclusion that the ancestor cult is the root of all religions (H. → Spencer). The various social and religious contexts where ancestor worship is strong – black Africa and Melanesia on the one hand, Confucian, Buddhist, and Shinto communities in China and Japan on the other – suggest instead that it should be understood as a religious phenomenon within larger systems, not as an independent religious system in its own right (Fortes). This is true even in contexts like → Bantu Africa where it clearly serves as the focus of the cult and of religion, and other elements such as God and various deities are more peripheral. There are significant differences in the emotive ties of the living to the ancestors as well as their hierarchy. People ask the ancestors to look on them with favor but also fear their hostility and avarice. The sense of guilt, remorse, and justice felt by heirs, especially by sons toward their fathers or testators, has been explored by S. → Freud, Fortes, and Goody, but it is insufficient to explain the experience of blessing and harmony found in relationship to the ancestors. When the departed lose their individual human features is disputed – for Africa in general, Mbiti sets five generations as the boundary for the “living dead” –, as well as when and where individuals emerge from the class of ancestors to become cultural heroes, mythic and divine beings, as in Greece and China, but also among the → Yoruba. Their cult then ceases to be tied to kinship and ancestry but becomes public, like the cult of the gods of the pantheon. M. Gluckmann, “Mortuary Customs and the Belief in Survival after Death among the South-Eastern Bantu,” BanS, 1937, 117–136 ◆ J.R. Goody, Death, Property and the Ancestors, 1962 ◆ J.S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 1969, 21989 ◆ W.H. Newell, ed., Ancestors, 1976 (anthology with general studies by Newell and M. Fortes, regional studies on Asia and Africa, and bibl.) ◆ H. Balz, “Ndie: Village Ancestors and the ‘Church’ of Traditional Bakossi Religion,” in: idem, Where the Faith Has to Live: Studies in Bakossi Society and Religion, vol. II, 1995, 155–410 ◆ L.B. Steadman, C.T. Palmer & C.F. Tilley, “The Universality of Ancestor Worship,” Ethnology 35, 1996, 63–76. Heinrich Balz

II. Greco-Roman Antiquity In Greece, the familial social structure necessary for the institution of ancestors and their worship had already been destroyed before the 5th century bce. The loss of kinship solidarity led individuals to seek integration in a group that could substitute for the family group. Without regard for social origin, mysteries provided

211 even those without rights (women, aliens, slaves) a sense of belonging based not on bonds of kinship but on an expectation of salvation after death. There is no trace of a developed ancestor cult among the Greeks. It is subsumed under remembrance of the dead and is limited to the care of parents’ tombs, one of the civic duties. By Attic law, for example, slaves did not have patronymics and consequently had no ancestors. In Rome, ancestors played a leading role from time immemorial in the representation of the clan-based aristocracy, especially those who held curule office. Ancestor worship, manifested most eloquently in the pompa funebris, reveals the nature of the Roman idea of ancestors: it was addressed to the descendants, not the departed. In a funeral procession, the imagines maiorum of high dignitaries preceded the deceased, displaying the achievements of the family and making an adhortative impression on the descendants. The pompa funebris reflected the patrilinear structure of the family – women were never included among the ancestors – as well as the Roman understanding of nobilitas: a homo novus had no imagines. Only male offspring could guarantee the continuation of the ancestral line. The adoptive practice of leading families provides many examples of how ancestral lines were improved. The ius imaginum, probably based on customary law, also makes it clear that women and children were not numbered among the ancestors. Probably, however, women did bring with them the ancestral images of their gens when they were married. If someone lost his civil marriage rights, his ius imaginum was revoked. The way the imagines bearing the tituli of the ancestors were enshrined in the household atrium casts light on how worship of ancestors differs from worship of the dead: the small shrines were opened on festivals, not on days when the dead were remembered. In the Roman festal calendar, the Parentalia festival was devoted to the deified ancestors. The apotropaic aspect of this festival, keeping evil shades at bay, was a secondary phenomenon, probably borrowed from the Lemuria. In contrast to the individualizing representation of the ancestors through the imagines, the Parentalia conceived of the forbears of a family collectively, as the di or divi parentum. When the old system of gentes vanished, they became increasingly unimportant. In the late Republic, their place was taken by the di manes, without a festival of their own. The di manes appeared better able to meet the requirements of the lower social classes in their need to exalt the memoria of their forbears. F. Bömer, Ahnenkult und Ahnenglaube im alten Rom, 1943 ◆ B. Gladigow, “Naturae deus humanae mortalis,” in: G. Stephenson, Leben und Tod in den Religionen, 1985, 119–133 ◆ G. Lahusen, “Zur Funktion und Rezeption des römischen Ahnenbildes,” MDAIR 92, 1985, 261–289 ◆ F. Dupont, “Les morts et la mémoire,” in: F. Hinard, La mort, 1987, 167–172. Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer

Ancestors, Cult of III. Old Testament Within the ancient Near Eastern world, the first question that arises with regard to the OT and Israel’s religion is the definition of what “ancestor worship” means. If the term refers to institutionalized or public ceremonies, the response must be negative. The situation differs when we turn to cultic or ritual actions set in the context of family observance, for we can speak of ancestors in Israel only on the level of the nuclear family, the clan, and the “tribe” (2 Sam 2:32; 1 Kgs 22:40; Gen 25:8). The OT knows nothing of royal ancestors that function on behalf of the state, as in the Rephaim texts from → Ugarit. In the OT, a cultic or ritual context is suggested by the use of figurines representing ancestors, the so-called teraphim (→ God, representations and symbols of ) and by the mantic potential of → necromancy (→ divination), which addresses a request for a positive oracle to an ancestor of the inquirer. With the assistance of a ritual expert (the medium at Endor, 1 Sam 28), this inquiry is addressed to ancestors called up from the nether world. The intimate association of necromancy with ancestors is also illustrated by the etymology of hôb, the Hebrew word for “ancestor,” which derives from hāb, “father,” having the same two consonants (). The special status of ancestors is shown by the use of the word meaning “God” to refer to them: in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20, ancestors are referred to as helōhîm (. 7%). The situation with the teraphim is rather different. Semantically, the word is related to the general term for ancestors, Rephaim. Both words derive from the root rph (), “heal,” or as reinterpreted by the Masoretes from the root rph (), “grow slack.” Analogously to ideas from Nuzi and Meskene (Emar), the teraphim can be thought of as “household gods,” highly venerated family ancestors, which as figurines clearly belonged to the cultic inventory of every household. There is still no archaeological evidence of such ancestor figures: the pillar figurines also used in the domestic cult and the horseand-rider figurines found in tombs have no recognizable connection with ancestor worship but were associated with the personal devotion of the departed. It was a common practice to erect → stelae in memory of the departed (2 Sam 18:18), but it is unclear whether Ugaritic parallels point to ancestor worship, since such stelae are better explained in the larger context of mortuary rituals and burial customs. Under the influence of the Deuteronomic movement in the time of → Josiah and Deuteronomic thought after the fall of Judah, ancestor worship was subjected to radical criticism and came to be prohibited, along with all other forms of non-prophetic divination (Deut 18:9– 14). This process must be seen in the context of nascent biblical monotheism and also with the extension of Yahweh’s claim to exclusivity to the spheres of individual

Ancestors, Cult of and family devotion. The very need for the prohibition bears witness to the widespread practice of the ancestor cult and a certain competition with Yahweh’s demand to be worshiped as the only God in all spheres of life. G. Margoliouth, “Ancestor-Worship and Cult of the Dead,” ERE 1, 1908, 444–450 (Heb.) ◆ O. Loretz, “Vom kanaanäischen Totenkult zur jüdischen Patriarchen- und Elternverehrung,” JARG 3, 1978, 149–204 ◆ idem, “Überlegungen zum Totenkult im Alten Testament,” MTZ 33, 1982, 308–311 ◆ H. Hardacre, “Ancestors,” ER 1, 1987, 263–268 ◆ H. Rouillard & J. Tropper, “Vom kanaanäischen Ahnenkult zur Zauberei,” UF 19, 1987, 235–254 ◆ J. Tropper, Nekromantie, AOAT 223, 1989 ◆ E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, 1992 ◆ O. Loretz, “Das ‘Ahnen- und Götterstatuen-Verbot’ im Dekalog und die Einzigkeit Jahwes,” OBO 139, 1994, 491–527 ◆ J.C. de Moor, “Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship,” UF 27, 1995, 1–20 ◆ T. Podella, “Nekromantie,” TQ 177, 1997, 121–133 ◆ R. Wenning, “Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda,” TQ 177, 1997, 82–93. Thomas Podella

IV. China In China, ritual ancestor worship is a widespread practice, attested since time immemorial. It is not tied to any specific religious tradition but is found among Buddhists as well as Confucianists and Taoists. It was primarily the Confucianists, however, who laid an ethical foundation for ancestor worship as an essential element of filial piety toward parents and forebears. Sacrifices to ancestors are attested in written sources as early as the Shang dynasty (2nd millennium bce). The sacrifices were offered primarily to the royal ancestors, whose influence was viewed with ambivalence. The sacrifices served both to secure the goodwill of the ancestors and to avert their wrath. This ambivalence has remained in Chinese popular religion down to the present. Ancestors’ support of their living descendants presupposes that the latter fulfill their ritual obligations toward their ancestors. This also implies that ancestors can punish their descendants if they are ritually neglected. This popular notion is intimately associated with belief in the existence of departed spirits. Essentially, the spirits of the departed are considered dangerous if they are not appeased by sacrificial offerings. → Confucianism gave a new ethical interpretation to the observance of the ancestor cult, which was based on a popular belief in disembodied spirits. Ancestor worship is a moral obligation as an expression of filial piety, not necessarily associated with belief in the influence of ancestral spirits. The social significance of the ancestor cult grows out of its function as a ritual realization of the patrilineal kinship group. The kinship group defines itself through the cult of a common male ancestor, performed once or twice a year in a common ancestral temple led by the eldest male in the direct line of descent. In practice, the ancestor cult of the kinship group is limited to wealthy families. In addition, it is common for

212 individual households, as part of the domestic cult, to make regular offerings to their immediate forbears. J.J.M. de Groot, The Religious System of China, 6 vols., 1892 ◆ F.L.K. Hsu, Under the Ancestors’ Shadow, 1948 ◆ A. Ahern, The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese Village, 1973 ◆ A.P. Wolf, “Gods, Ghosts, and Ancestors,” in: idem, ed., Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society, 1974, 131–182. Hubert Seiwert

V. India Brahmanic-Sanskrit rituals performed for departed ancestors (Skt. śrāddha) are meant to pacify and deify the dead. During the first 10–13 days after death, an immense new body (yātanāśarīra) is created for the deceased (lit. “departed”) in a complex ritual (sapi»∂īkara»a) using balls of rice or barley (pi»∂a), to be used for nourishment in the beyond. If the deceased did not receive this offering to accompany them, they would be hungry, thirsty, and unpacified spirits (bhūta, piśāca) and torment the living, since the soul after death possesses only a mouthless body no bigger than a thumb (li«gaśarīra). After a year-long journey – during which many perils are encountered, including the crossing of Vaitara»ī, the river boundary of hell – the departed reach the world of the forefathers (pit‰loka), where they themselves become forefathers or ancestors (pitara˙, pl. of pit‰, “father”). But they keep this status for only three generations. At the death of each lineal descendant, they move a stage higher, until finally they lose their personal name and are received into a group of heavenly beings (viśve devā˙, lit. “all gods”). Patrilineal succession makes the firstborn son important for the funerary ritual: it is he who saves his father from hell. “Bound together by the offering of rice cakes” (sapi»∂a) is a kinship term on which the Hindu clan system ( gotra) is based; it is particularly important in rules governing exogamy, but also in the Bengali law of inheritance, by which anyone permitted to perform the ancestral rites also enjoyed the right of inheritance. Gods and ancestors (viśve devā˙) are considered deities (devatā); both have a heavenly body (divyadeha). Of course there are differences, as is clear in rites involving ancestors: when gods are venerated, the sacred cord of twice-born Hindus lies on the left shoulder, when ancestors are venerated it lies on the right shoulder; in certain rituals, gods receive grains of barley or rice, while ancestors receive sesame (cf. “open sesame”); when sacrifices are offered, gods receive an even number, ancestors an odd number; etc. Forbears and ancestors, but also departed spirits, are omnipresent. They are remembered in every domestic ritual. But ancestors can be more dangerous than gods: they are nearer home, they are dissatisfied, they are demanding. Only an ascetic who has paid his debts to gods, ancestors, and other human beings is freed from oppression by the deceased. In popular Hinduism, those who die an honorable, heroic death or commit religiously motivated suicide – includ-

213 ing the self-immolation of widows (satī) – circumvent the lengthy road to heaven of ancestors; they reach heaven directly as deified heroes. Many temples and local shrines are dedicated to those who have died a violent death. On the other hand, those who have died naturally are hardly remembered with votive offerings or images; no image, no tombstone recalls their memory – and yet they are always present as forbears and ancestors. S. Stevenson, The Rites of the Twice-Born, 1920, repr. 1971, 135– 192 ◆ E. Abegg, Der Pretakalpa des Garu∂a-Purā»a: Darstellung des hinduistischen Totenkultes und Jenseitsglaubens, 1921 ◆ S. Blackburn, “Death and Deification: Folk Cults in Hinduism,” HR 24, 1985, 253–273. Axel Michaels

VI. Missiology To date there has been no consensus about the implications of ancestor worship for mission. Today it is increasingly accepted that ancestor worship is rooted in a symbolic nexus that not only aims to obtain for the living the blessings of the dead but also imposes an obligation to the vision of a good life in common, inherited models of respect, schemes of reward and punishment, and traditional power relationships. Identity here is manifested in ties to the inherited ideology of familial reciprocity. The early church provides an important historical model for dealing with the question, as it puts an end to the ancient hero cult by transforming it into a martyr cult. This adaptive pragmatism survives today in proposals to treat the ancestors as mediators of sacrifice and prayer to the deity. Ancestor worship became a missiological problem of fundamental practical and theoretical importance in the Chinese Rites Controversy. The substantial latitude allowed by the Catholic magisterium for reshaping intercourse with the deceased by distinguishing between ancestor cult and ancestor veneration is now being employed liturgically and theologically, especially in local African churches. The attitude of Protestant missions, which traditionally has expressed grave reser vations, stresses the cultic aspect, which appears to challenge Christian monotheism. But the approach of pietistic rationalism, which plays down the element of mystery in other religions and assumes that remnants of “→ superstition” will vanish in the course of a few generations, leads to a spiritual dilemma and a theological vacuum. The churches that emerged from the 19th-century Protestant missions can no more maintain the discontinuities imposed by the missionaries than can the independent black churches of Africa and Oceania. The practice of the so-called mission churches has often revealed a duality, in which intercourse with the deceased is relegated to the milieu of everyday village religion, occasionally with the unofficial participation of the clergy.

Anchieta, José de Despite all social change, many people know they are mutually connected with their deceased. The job is to find liturgical and pastoral vehicles to give the dead an honorable place in people’s minds and deal with the guilt experienced by later generations without infringing the purity of the faith. In the process, it must be remembered that in the friction between cultural globalization and counter-acculturation the question “Who am I?” is asked and answered differently today than in premodern, segmentary societies. The fundamental trust in the moral order of the familial and tribal universe implicit in the rites of ancestor worship is being questioned. The expansion of traditional horizons, together with a multiplicity of new contacts and conflicts, contributes to a new self-awareness: “who do we want to be tomorrow?” The religious imagination is undergoing reconstruction. Today there is a shift of ground and emphasis, with a trend toward monotheism. The understanding of life is being transformed by the idea that God is not simply identical with life as it is, that in the gospel God seizes on the human yearning for life and – as the motif of the → incarnation emphasizes – becomes personally involved in its suffering. In the question of what truly impedes or fosters human life, ancestor worship and faith in Jesus intersect. In Jesus’ preaching and passion, sin and unfaith are laid bare in all their destructive power, and the Easter of justification of Jesus makes it clear that the incarnation took place in aid of life. The controversial question of what life is truly about is thus decided by faith in Jesus. The motif of the sending of the Paraclete suggests that those who entrust themselves to a life in the spirit of Jesus find in the communion of saints both time and place to remember the deceased with reconciled respect and love and to work with confidence toward reconciliation in the world. W. Crooke et al., “Ancestor-Worship and Cult of the Dead,” ERE 1, 1908, 425–467 ◆ M. Wilson, Religion and the Transformation of Society, 1971, 29–51 ◆ J.M. Ela, “Die Ahnen und der christliche Glaube,” Conc 13, 1977, 84–94 ◆ K. Schatz, “Inkulturationsprobleme im ostasiatischen Ritenstreit des 17./18. Jahrhunderts,” StZ 197, 1979, 593–608 ◆ G. Minamiki, The Chinese Rites, 1985. Theodor Ahrens

Anchieta, José de (Mar 19, 1534, São Cristóvão da Laguna, Tenerife – Jun 9, 1597, Reritiba/Espírito Santo, Brazil). In 1551 Anchieta joined the → Jesuits and studied at → Coimbra, Portugal. In 1553 he was sent to Brazil for health reasons. Anchieta landed in Bahia; sent on to São Vicente, he participated in the founding of the College of Piratininga ( Jan 25, 1554), the nucleus of the city of São Paulo. In 1562 he took part in the pacification of the Tamoio Indians and became their hostage. He engaged in intensive missionary work. A teacher, poet, grammarian, and historian, Anchieta can

Anchor in Christian Art be considered the first Brazilian dramatist. In addition to song, he used drama as a means of catechizing the Indians. In 1556 he began writing A arte da gramática da língua mais usada na costa do Brasil, published in Coimbra in 1595. His letters are important sources for his theology and piety, as well as the history of Brazil in the 16th century. In 1584/1585, he wrote A informação do Brasil e suas capitanias, a history of Portugese colonization of Brazil and the role of the Jesuits down to 1584. From 1578 to 1585, he served as provincial of his order in Brazil, but resigned for reasons for health. Q. Caxa, Vida e morte do Padre José de Anchieta, n.d. ◆ S. Leite, S.J., História da Companhia de Jesus no Brasil, 12 vols., 1938– 1949 ◆ idem, Cartas dos primeiros Jesuítas no Brasil (1553–1558), 1954. Beatriz Vasconcelos Franzen

Anchor in Christian Art. The anchor (Gk ἄγκυρα/ ankyra, “crooked hook”), the classical symbol for safety in navigation, was transformed into a Christian symbol for the soul, and for hope, adherence, and steadfastness. In his Christ the Educator (Paedagogus), → Clement of Alexandria identifies the anchor as appropriate for Christian seal rings, pendants, or intaglio. On early Christian sarcophagi and grave decorations as well as jewelry, the anchor combined with a cross or the Greek letter P (rho) connoted hope, while the anchor with a dolphin signified Christ on the cross. In medieval Christian art, the anchor became an attribute of the virtue, Hope (Heb 6:19) and of Clement of Alexandria, → Nicholas of Myra and John of → Nepomuk. See also → Christ, Symbols of (illustr.). M.A. Beckman, art. “Anchor,” NCE I, 1967, 486 ◆ P. & L. Murray, art. “Anchor,” The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996, 16 ◆ D. Apostolos-Cappadona, art. “Anchor,” Dictionary of Christian Art, 21997, 23. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Anchorites. In the Roman period, especially in → Egypt (III, 4, a), the Greek verb anachorein, “withdraw, retreat,” was used in the sense of “escape military service or taxes by retreating into the desert.” With this meaning, it became an important term in ascetic theology (→ Asceticism, → Monasticism), where at least as early as the life of Anthony by → Athanasius (Vita Antonii 7, 14) anachorein denotes an ascetic’s retreat into the desert. The Latin form anachoreta, coined by → Jerome in 380 (Epistulae 22, 24), became a general term for a hermit. Anchoress is the female equivalent. F.E. Morard, “Monachos, Moine,” FZPT 20, 1973, 332–411, 407–410. Susanna Elm

Ancient History/Classical Antiquity. The original dream of a unified science of Greco-Roman or classical → antiquity has given way to an awareness that the dif-

214 fering methodologies and approaches of the disciplines employed in the study of antiquity have given each its own unique profile. At the same time, the adjective “classical,” which originally expressed the exemplary and normative character of Greco-Roman antiquity, has become descriptive of a cultural era, distinguishing this particular study of antiquity from studies of other ancient civilizations (in Europe, Asia, and Africa). The core disciplines are classical philology, ancient history, and classical archaeology (including provincial archaeology and Christian archaeology). Along with the satellite disciplines of epigraphy, numismatics, and papyrology, which have developed into independent subjects through division of labor and specialization, these core subjects constitute the disciplines of classical studies in the narrower sense. Frequently connected only loosely with these subjects, sub-disciplines of other sciences have established their place in classical studies in the broader sense – Greek and Latin linguistics (as a branch of Indo-European linguistics), Roman legal history, patristics, etc. Each studies classical antiquity from its own perspective. Even today classical philology remains largely dominated by the theoretical and methodological reorientation it underwent between 1900 and 1930, even though the tradition of positivism with its atomization of objects of study has not been radically interrupted but continues to live on, above all in textual editing and commentary. The reorientation itself emerged from the definition of literature as an expression of the human spirit (W. → Dilthey) and the “discovery” of the literariness of literature. Ever since, concepts from the history of ideas have stood alongside or together with literary concepts. These concepts are hardly ever discussed or examined, but are frequently employed without any sense of their scope. Various form-analytic and morphological procedures are employed in the analysis of literature, for example “work-centered interpretation” in the New Critical tradition of the 1950s, in isolation from the work’s social environment, along with various form-analytic approaches (borrowing from such tools as Russian → formalism and Czech → structuralism). The theoretical and methodological advances of the humanities since the mid-1960s have been adopted only hesitantly by classical philology. The influence of structuralism has remained diffuse; in its dogmatic form (in France and the USA) it was doomed to failure, since by banishing the author it refused to recognize the linguistically formulated text as a basis for knowledge, searching instead for invariant deep structures. The same fate was in store for the overly rigid psychoanalytic approach to literature, which made the “gaps” in the text, what was not stated, the focus of interpretation. A similar assessment awaits theories and methodologies borrowed from

215 other areas such as → poststructuralism, → semiotics, critical theory, New Criticism, → sociology, and linguistics (→ language), whose contribution is overrated when they lose sight of literature as literature. Since the 1970s, classical philology has been greatly influenced by the aesthetics of reception (Hans Robert Jauss), which examines the relationship of literary texts to their environment as a functional history and can easily work hand in hand with “work-centered interpretation.” As this approach has been extended, the reception of ancient works and institutions in later periods has come to be studied by reception aesthetics, which has thus become a history of reception, renewing the old study of the (classical) heritage or Nachleben. Ancient history has extended proven methodologies of foundational studies from the era of positivism in the publication of inscriptions and coins. Besides their traditional use as sources for political and constitutional history, they have been examined for the light they shed on social history. Prosopography has similarly taken on new tasks. Questions of social structure and mobility have gained new importance. The rediscovery of literary texts from the perspective of function and mentality history lessens this impression only slightly. Although – at least in the work of individual scholars – the perspective of social history has introduced the concept of “structural history” into the study of antiquity, exceptional personalities such as → Alexander the Great and → Caesar remain a challenge for historiography, since they exemplify the fact that history is determined not simply by impersonal structures and processes but also by individual and fortuitous phenomena. With its embrace of social history, the study of antiquity has also adopted some of its theoretical concepts, which have found their way into historiography via structuralism (with its poststructuralist derivatives), → mentality history (the study of everyday life), and historical anthropology (with its various branches). In classical archaeology more than in any other field of ancient history, the study of sources shapes the discipline: fieldwork and excavation on the one hand, publication and “commentary” in the context of large-scale corpora on the other. The methods of excavation and fieldwork, unlike those of publication and “commentary,” have been radically altered by the introduction of new technological and scientific tools (archaeometry, geology, etc.). As a result, the objects and perspectives of study have been transformed. The individual piece as a work of art has been replaced by the total environment with all its material culture. Thus social history has also gained a foothold within archaeology. As in classical philology, a significant number of the concepts and methods employed by archaeology date from the 1920s. The reorientation that took place dur-

Ancillon, Johann Peter Friedrich ing that period challenged the historicism that saw in art nothing more than a “translation of life” into pictorial language. Now attention focused on the individual piece as a work of art. Influenced by Heinrich Wölfflin, archaeology has ever since – albeit decreasingly – been under the spell of an approach to art that employs phenomenological and morphological tools and is therefore concerned primarily with style (stylistic analysis and stylistic change) and → iconography. In the last 25 years or so, this approach has been complemented and extended with increasing intensity by the perspective of reception aesthetics, which sets the work of art in a functional relationship with its environment, thus enabling a political and social interpretation of pictorial works and programs (the power of images). A. Lamedica, ed., La filologia greca e latina nel secolo XX, 1989 ◆ H. Flashar, ed., Altertumswissenschaften in den 20er Jahren, 1995 ◆ E.-R. Schwinge, ed., Die Wissenschaften vom Altertum am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends n. Chr., 1995. Manfred Landfester

Ancillon, Johann Peter Friedrich (Apr 30, 1767, Berlin – Apr 19, 1837, Berlin). The descendant of a distinguished Prussian Huguenot clerical family, Ancillon completed his theological studies in Geneva and was appointed preacher to the French Reformed Community in Berlin. As a fashionable and rhetorically gifted preacher, Ancillon attracted the attention of court circles. In 1792, he was appointed professor of history at the War Academy; from 1803, he held the position of royal historiographer; in 1809, he was appointed to the ministry of cultural affairs. In 1810, Ancillon became tutor to the future king → Frederick William IV. Ancillon endeared himself to → Frederick William III by adopting an increasingly conservative position on constitutional issues, and acquired a reputation for expertise in foreign policy matters. In 1814, Ancillon was appointed Councillor in the Foreign Ministry; in 1817, he became a member of the Cabinet. After the death of Hardenberg’s successor, Otto v. Voß-Buch, in January 1823, he persuaded the king not to maintain the office of chancellor on the grounds that the concentration of so much responsibility in one pair of hands would threaten the autonomy of the monarch. In foreign policy, Ancillon took a pro-Austrian stance, partly because he had recognized the danger of France and Russia to Prussia, and partly because he saw in the political system of the Austrian Chancellor Klemens Fürst v. Metternich (→ Holy Alliance ; → Restoration) the best guarantee for peace in Europe and for stability at home. In 1832 Ancillon was appointed Foreign Minister after the resignation of his then superior, Graf Christian Günther v. Bersnstorff, who had pursued a more progressive and independent policy. Ancillon continued until his death to oppose political reform within the German state and, with Metternich,

Ancrene Riwle took steps against the spread of revolutionary ideas at the ministerial conference in Vienna in 1834. Ancillon has not met with much sympathy from historians. Nineteenth-century publications condemned his illiberalism, repudiated the pro-Austrian orientation of his foreign policy and denounced him as the servile organ of absolutist circles at court. These views have largely been reiterated in the most recent treatments. A more generous judge was L. v. → Ranke, sometime protégé of the foreign minister, who praised Ancillon for the consistency of his political objectives and the breadth of his knowledge. Indeed, it could be said that Ancillon’s most abiding intellectual legacy was the Rankean precept of the primacy of foreign policy, which drew inspiration from reflections on the relations between states in Ancillon’s Tableau des révolutions du système politique de l’Europe (4 vols., 1803–1805). Works include: Mélanges de politique et de philosophie morale, 1801 ◆ Über Souveränität und Staatsverfassungen, 1815 ◆ Essais philosophiques, 2 vols., 1817 ◆ Sermons prononcés dans l’église réfugiée de Berlin, 2 vols., 1818 ◆ Pensées sur l’homme, ses rapports et ses interêts, 1824 ◆ Über den Geist der Staatsverfassungen und dessen Einfluß auf die Gesetzgebung, 1825. On Ancillon: L.v. Ranke, Sämtliche Werke, vols. 51/52, 1878 ◆ L.v.d. Marwitz, ed., Vom Leben am preußischen Hofe 1815–52, 1908 ◆ P. Haake, Johann Peter Ancillon und Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm von Preußen, 1920 ◆ idem, Der preußische Verfassungskampf vor hundert Jahren, 1921 ◆ L.J. Baack, Christian Bernstorff and Prussia. Diplomacy and Reform Conservatism 1818–1832, 1980 ◆ T. Stamm-Kuhlmann, König in Preußens großer Zeit. Friedrich Wilhelm III. der Melancholiker auf dem Thron, 1992. Christopher Clark

Ancrene Riwle (Wisse), a Guide for Anchoresses, a Middle English text written by an Augustinian canon (→ Canons Regular of St. Augustine) probably from Wigmore Abbey in Herefordshire, c. 1220, for a small group of anchoresses living together nearby, possibly at Limbrook. It is a handbook of advice on practical and spiritual matters with directions about prayer, enclosure, and the inner life. The first and last sections concern the outward, practical details of the life of the anchoresses, and serve as an image of that life. Four main manuscripts survive which were produced in the 13th century, and there were at least nine other copies in circulation, which indicates the great popularity of this work. A critical text with translation was published by James Morton for the Camden Society in 1853. E.J. Dobson, The Origins of Ancrene Wisse, 1972 ◆ A. Savage & N. Watson, Anchoritic Spirituality. Ancrene Wisse and Associated Works (trans. and comm.), 1991. Benedicta Ward

Andechs was the ancestral castle of the dukes of Andechs-Merania from c. 1100; it was destroyed in the 13th century. In 1388, after the discovery of its “sacred treasure” of relics, it became a pilgrimage site; in the early 15th century, it came under the care of Augustinian can-

216 ons. In 1455 Duke Albert III transformed the collegiate foundation into a Benedictine abbey, which was secularized in 1803. King Louis II returned it to the church in 1846, and it was reestablished in 1850 as a priory affiliated with the Abbey of St. Boniface in Munich. R. Bauerreiss & H. Schnell, Der heilige Berg Andechs, 1955 ◆ K. Bosl et al., eds., Andechs, 1993. Rainer A. Müller

Anders, Günther (real name: Günther Stern; Jul 12, 1902, Breslau – Dec 17, 1992, Vienna); philosopher and cultural critic. Anders studied philosophy from 1919 to 1925; among his teachers were E. → Husserl and M. → Heidegger. His first marriage (1929–1937) was to H. → Arendt. In 1933 he emigrated to Paris, then in 1936 to the USA, where he maintained informal contact with the Institut für Sozialforschung in Frankfurt (M. → Horkheimer, T. → Adorno, H. → Marcuse). In 1950 he returned to Europe, working in Vienna as a freelance writer. Anders was a juror at the Bertrand → Russell War Crimes Tribunal and co-founder of the antinuclear movement. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima marked the decisive caesura in Anders’s life. From that moment on, he focused on analyzing and combating what he called the “atomic apocalypse.” In his most important philosophical work Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen Anders identifies an increasing dehumanization brought about by technology. Anders, who called himself an atheist, dealt repeatedly with questions of religious philosophy, especially the place of → theodicy in the 20th century. Works include: Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, vol. I, 1956; vol. II, 1980 ◆ Philosophische Stenogramme, 1965 ◆ Besuch im Hades, 1979 ◆ Die atomare Drohung, 1981 ◆ Hiroshima ist überall, 1982 ◆ Ketzereien, 1982 ◆ On Anders: W. Reimann, Verweigerte Versöhnung: Zur Philosophie von Günther Anders, 1990 ◆ E. Schubert, Günther Anders, 1992 ◆ K.P. Liessmann, Günther Anders: Zur Einführung, 1993 (bibl.). Konrad Paul Liessmann

Anderson , Rufus (Aug 17, 1796, North Yarmouth, ME – May 30, 1880, Boston, MA), preeminent American missions administrator and theorist in the 19th century. A Congregationalist (→ Congregational Christian Churches), Anderson was educated at Bowdoin College and Andover Theological Seminary. Upon graduation in 1822, Anderson was appointed – initially temporarily – to the staff of the → American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), but continued on the staff until retirement in 1866. In 1832, he became ABCFM’s influential foreign secretary. From this position, he introduced the concept of the “indigenous church,” defined as self-governing, self-propagating, and selffinancing. This quickly became the central idea guiding American missions. As foreign secretary, Anderson encouraged independence for the church in Hawaii.

217 Anderson insisted that evangelization, not “civilization,” was the central missionary task. After retirement, he lectured at various seminaries and wrote several books on mission history and practice. Works include: The Hawaiian Islands, 1864 ◆ Foreign Missions, 1869 ◆ R. Pierce Beaver, ed., To Advance the Gospel, 1967. Wilbert R. Shenk

Andlaw, Heinrich Bernhard von (Andlaw-Birseck) (Aug 20, 1802, Freiburg i. Br. – Mar 3, 1871, Gut Hugstetten). Following studies at Landshut (under J.M. → Sailer et al.) and Freiburg and educational travel in Europe, between 1835 and 1866 Andlaw was elected repeatedly to the lower house of the Baden legislature. In response to the Revolution of 1848, as a champion of → Ultramontanism, he joined with bishop H. v. → Vicari to organize the conservative Catholic elite. He promoted Catholic associations, charities, and institutions of higher education, as well as the Catholic press (→ Press: IV ). Three times he served as president of the → Katholikentag (1850/1861/1865). Andlaw was among the founders of the Katholische Volkspartei (→ Parties) at Bruchsal in 1869; he was a bellwether of the → Kulturkampf. Works include: Der Aufruhr und Umsturz in Baden, 4 pts., 1850/51 ◆ Priesterthum und christliches Leben mit Rücksicht auf die großen Fragen der Gegenwart, 1865 ◆ On Andlaw: BBKL I, 1970, 164 ◆ P. Weigand, “Das politische Engagement des Heinrich Bernhard von Andlaw,” FDA 100, 1980, 567–574 ◆ C. Rehm, “Heinrich von Andlaw – ‘ultramontan’ oder ‘modern’?” FDA 115, 1995, 315–335. Joachim Mehlhausen

Andorra, officially “Vallées et Suzerainetés d’Andorra,” is a semi-autonomous state in the eastern Pyrenees. From the 11th century on, the six valleys or parishes of Andorra joined together. But as early as the 9th century, there is evidence of tribute paid to both the counts and the bishops of Urgel. After 1278, Andorra was governed jointly as a coprincipality by the count of Foix and the bishop of Urgel. At least since the 14th century, a council elected by the Andorrans themselves has been a token of Andorran autonomy. Andorran common law has many Roman features, mingled with very ancient legal elements indigenous to the Pyrenees region. The population (1998: approx. 71,000) is primarily Catholic. F. de los Rius Urruti, Vida e instituciones del pueblo de Andorra, 1920 ◆ J. Corts Peyret, Geografia e historia de Andorra, 1945 ◆ J.M. Vidal y Guitart, Instituciones politicas y sociales de Andorra, 1949 ◆ J.M. Guilera, Una historia d’Andorra, 1960. Manuel Augusto Rodrigues

Andover Theological Seminary. Responding to the rise of Unitarianism (→ Unitarians), a coalition of traditional and moderate Calvinists founded America’s

Andreae oldest graduate school of theology near Boston on Aug 31, 1807. In its early years many of the Congregational clergy (→ Congregationalism) and overseas missionaries were trained here. The Seminary affiliated in 1930 with Newton Theological Institution to form Andover Newton Theological School. L. Woods, A History of Andover Theological Seminary, 1885. Gabriel Fackre

Andrae, Tor Julius Efraim ( Jul 9, 1885, Hvena, Sweden – Feb 25, 1947, Linköping). The scholarship of the Swedish Lutheran bishop Tor Andrae embraced Islam, the history of religions, and religious psychology. At Uppsala he studied philosophy, history, languages, and theology. He served as a pastor from 1912 to 1924 and as a bishop from 1937 to 1947; he became a lecturer in 1917 and professor of religious studies at Stockholm in 1927. In 1929 he was appointed to N. → Söderblom’s chair of theology and religious studies at Uppsala; in 1932 he was elected to the Swedish Academy. Besides his ecclesiastical ministry, he made significant contributions in religious studies, especially the study of Islam, a field in which he enjoyed an international reputation. Works include: Die Person Muhammeds in Lehre und Glauben seiner Gemeinde, 1917 ◆ Der Ursprung des Islams und das Christentum, 1926 ◆ Muhammed, hans liv och hans tro, 1930 ◆ Nathan Söderblom, 1931 ◆ I myrtenträdgården, 1947 ◆ On Andrae: Uppsala Universitet, Universitets Matrikel Höstterminen 1936, 1937 (bibl.) ◆ G. Widengren, Tor Andrae, 1947 ◆ O. Hassler & R. Murray, eds., Tor Andrae in memoriam, 1948. William A. Graham

Andreae 1. Jakob, (Mar 25, 1528, Waiblingen – Jan 7, 1590, Tübingen) in 1546 he married Johanna Entringer (d. 1583); they had 18 children. In 1541 he studied in Tübingen, became deacon in 1546 (Stuttgart), was dismissed in 1548 because of the → Augsburg Interim, and became a catechete in Tübingen. In 1553 he became pastor and (general) superintendent in Göppingen and received his Dr. theol.; in 1562 he became provost, chancellor, and professor at the University of → Tübingen. Initially adopting thoroughly independent theological positions (→ church discipline in the hands of the pastor; understanding with Calvin), Andreae developed into a strict Lutheran theologian, representing Württembergian theology (Eucharistic doctrine and Christology) and church order, and supporting the regulation of the church by the state sovereign who understood himself to be a student of Luther and Brenz. Andreae was a proponent of the continuation and stabilization of the Reformation: as visitor (1556 Hohenlohe, et al.), reformer (1555/56 Wiesensteig, 1565/66 Hagenau, et al.), or collaborator in the

Andreae new orders of churches (1556 Baden-Durlach, 1576 Kursachsen, et al.). He was often summoned for religious dialogues (Maulbronn) and to settle differences in the Protestant camp (Strassburg). Personal experiences (the Interim, the failure of the Colloquium of Worms, disputes with the convert F. → Staphylus, the counterreformation in the jurisdiction of Wiesensteig in 1567) led him to a pronounced anti-Catholic attitude. At first, he still sought an understanding among all Protestant groups – including the Calvinists – on a second attempt (1568–1570) only among Lutheran theologians. Five Latin articles of union in 1568, however, brought no more unity than did a more concise, substantively lessdefined article published in 1569 after he made contact with the Wittenberg Phillipists. With Andreae’s “Six Christian Sermons on the Schisms” in 1573 the third, ultimately successful phase began. Andreae revised these sermons as the “Swabian Concord,” which, via various intermediary steps and with definitive collaboration of the (lower) Saxon theologians (M. → Chemnitz), finally resulted in 1577 at the monastery of Berg in the Formula of → Concord. Andreae worked intensively for its acceptance and supported the completion of the Book of → Concord in 1580. Andrea was primarily a church practitioner and in his simple biblical exegesis and in the sermons dealing with controversial themes acted to strengthen and admonish congregations. Attempts at an understanding with the Patriarch of Constantinople and contacts with the Ethiopian Church remained fruitless. J.V. Andreae, Fama Andreana reflorescens, 1630 ◆ M. Brecht, TRE II, 1978, 672–680 (bibl.) ◆ H. Ehmer, ed., Leben des Jakob Andreae, 1991 ◆ S. Hermle, Reformation und Gegenreformation in der Herrschaft Wiesensteig unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Beitrags von Jakob Andreae, QFWKG 14, 1996. Siegfried Hermle

2. Johann Valentin (Aug 17, 1586, Herrenberg – Jun 27, 1654, Stuttgart), the grandson of 1. who stood consciously in the Lutheran tradition, stemmed from the middle-class leadership of the duchy of Württemberg. After the premature death of his father, he studied the arts and then theology in Tübingen, but, expelled because of a pamphlet about the family of the chancellor of Württemberg, brought his studies to a conclusion only in 1614. Andreae used the time to make contacts with academic outsiders and specialized craftsmen, gaining an encyclopedic, ideologically rather impartial, education, and for travels (including to Geneva and Rome). From 1614 to 1620, he was deacon (associate pastor) in Vaihingen a.d. Enz, where he also developed his significant activity as an author. As special superintendent in Calw (1620–1639), he developed his social-reform activities, and then charitable initiatives to meet warrelated needs. In 1639, Andreae assumed the office of court preacher and consistorial counselor in Stuttgart; in 1650, he became general superintendent in Bebenhausen

218 and, finally, also abbot of Adelberg in 1654. This curriculum vita should not be viewed without taking into account that, as theologian, churchman, and author, Andreae often burst the bounds customary in his time and yet was extraordinarily representative of his epoch. As far as can be determined, the student Andreae, probably supported by like-minded individuals, must have been the author of the authentic Rosicrucian documents, written before 1610 and anonymously published between 1614 and 1616 (→ Rosicrucians). They made known to the world the “fama” and the “confession” of a reformed brotherhood that mastered all disciplines and which soon met with a warm reception in the circles of the Paracelsians, alchemists, and dispensationalists that persists into the present. Andreae always denied belonging to the (fictive) brotherhood. Andreae’s own program appears in a series of literary outlines whose objective in relation to the orientation and education of Christians is an ideal existence pleasing to God, including, probably most famously, the utopia of the “Rei publicae christianopolitanae descriptio” (1619). In fact, Andreae was thereby a conscious agent of the new efforts at piety beyond the bounds of confessional Lutheran theology being made by Johann → Arndt. Through his desires for reform, Andreae became known to a broad circle of those with similar interests, including → August, Duke of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel and J.A. → Comenius. Admittedly, Andreae did not accomplish very much concretely. The reforms in the textile manufacturing city of Calw remained selective. The intensification of → church discipline through the establishment of the Church Conventicle of 1642 in the Württembergian congregations suffered distortion. The assembly of an elite Christian society remained on paper. The reconstruction of the Württembergian church after the war took shape laboriously and inconspicuously. An elusive figure, Andreae has actually always fascinated. Representatives of Pietism such as P.J. → Spener, A.H. → Francke, as well as P.M. → Hahn kept Andreae’s memory alive because of his critically analytical insight and because of his reform ideas. Andreae did not remain without literary influence on his younger contemporaries. J.G. → Herder rediscovered the poet and author. Despite increased interest in Andreae, there has as yet been no thorough assessment of his literary work. Works: Vita ab ispo conscripta, 1849 (German: Selbstbiographie 1799) ◆ Christianopolis; Theophilus; Fama Fraternitatis etc., R. van Dülmen, ed., QFWKG 4–6, 1972f. ◆ Gesammelte Schriften, vols. II and VII, 1994f. ◆ Bibl.: J.W. Montgomery, Cross and Crucible: Johann Valentin Andrea (1586–1654) Phoenix of the Theologians, 2 vols., AIHI 55, 1973 (bibl.) ◆ M. Brecht, “Johann Valentin Andreae,” in: idem, ed., Theologen und Theologie an der Universität Tübingen, Contubernium 15, 1977, 270–343 ◆ R. van Dülmen, Die Utopie einer christlichen Gesellschaft: Johann Valentin Andreáe, 1978 (bibl.) ◆ R. Edighoffer, Rose Croix et Société Idéale selon Johann Valentin Andreae, 2 vols., 1982, 1987 ◆ Die Manifeste

219 der Rosenkreuzerbruderschaft. Katalog einer Ausstellung in der Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica, 1986 ◆ Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz, 1988. Martin Brecht

Andrew (the Disciple) and his brother Simon → Peter (I) were the first two disciples called by Jesus (Mark 1:16–18 parr.). While Peter with the two sons of Zebedee (→ John, son of Zebedee; → James, son of Zebedee) was among Jesus’ three closest friends, the Synoptic Gospels do not present Andrew as a distinct individual. Apart from the lists of the disciples (Mark 3:13–19 parr.; Acts 1:13), he appears only in Mark 1:29; 13:4. The situation is different in John, which displays an interest in Andrew that goes beyond biographical detail (1:40, 44). Andrew was called even before Peter (1:41); with → Philip (the disciple), he appears in conversation with Jesus (6:1–5) and mediates between Jesus and certain “Greeks” (12:22). The latter incident suggests that the bilingual Andrew (as his Greek name suggests) was a pioneer of the Gentile mission. Early ecclesiastical tradition points in the same direction (Eusebius Hist. eccl. III, 1: mission in Scythia; → Acts of Andrew : martyred by crucifixion at Patras). P.M. Peterson, Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter, Nov.T.Sup. 1, 1958 ◆ H. Kraft, Die Entstehung des Christentums, 1982, 124f. Jürgen Roloff

Andrew of Caesarea, Archbishop of Caesarea (Cappadocia; 6th/7th cent.). The first extant commentary on the Apocalypse in Greek, after those of → Melito of Sardis (Eus. Hist. eccl. IV, 26.2) and → Origen (TU 38/3), was the work of Oecumenius, which Andrew attacked in his own anti-Origenistic and antidispensationalist commentary (between 563 and 614). At the same time, he defended the canonicity and inspiration of this prophetic revelation, which Eusebius had disputed. His work was translated into Georgian, Armenian, and Church Slavonic; it continued to influence many commentaries well into the Turkocracy (1453–1821). Also extant is a compilation of fragments concerning the resurrection. Sources: CPG 3, 7478f. ◆ F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica, 1938, 165–168 ◆ J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen ApkTextes, vol. I, 1955 ◆ On Andrew: G. Podskalsky, Byzantinische Reichseschatologie, 1972, 86–88 ◆ A. Argyriou, Les exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’époque turque, 1982 ◆ G. Kretschmar, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1985, 86–88 ◆ M. de Groote, “Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des Oecumenius-Kommentar zur Apokalypse,” SE 35, 1995, 5–43. Gerhard Podskalsky

Andrew of Crete, Saint (660, Damascus – Jul 4, 740); Orthodox saint, feast day Jul 4. Andrew became a monk in 678; later he became archbishop of Gortyna and Metropolitan of Crete. More than 40 of his homilies for feasts of the Lord, Mary, and many saints are extant.

Andrews, Charles Freer Georgian, Latin, Arabic, and Slavonic translations attest to their wide popularity. But his fame is due above all to the hymns he wrote in the kanon form. Andrew is considered the inventor of this second and final form of Byzantine liturgical poetry, alongside the → kontakion, now expanded to nine odes with three or more stanzas. Many of his kanons are still in use today; the most famous is the Great Penitential Kanon of 250 stanzas (troparia), sung during Lent. K. Onasch, Lexikon Liturgie und Kunst der Ostkirche, 1993, 184ff. (bibl.). Heinz Ohme

Andrewes , Lancelot (1555, London – Sep 25, 1626, London), scholar, polemicist, preacher, and devotional writer. Andrewes was educated at the Puritan Pembroke College in Cambridge. He was successively bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. His opposition to the Lambeth Articles (→ Lambeth Conferences) and his absence from the Synod of → Dort are indicative of his move away from contemporary Puritanism (→ Puritans), but his championing of the Anglican settlement against Cardinal → Bellarmini and his sermons on justification mark him as a devout advocate of the Reformation. Andrewes was skilled in 15 languages and was a major contributor to the Authorized Version of the Bible (1611). His role in granting an annulment to a favorite of → James I has been seen as a blemish of sycophancy in an otherwise non-political but substantial and lasting contribution. Works, ed. J. Bliss & J.P. Wilson, LACT, 2 vols., 1841–54; repr. 10 vols., 1967. Christopher FitzSimons Allison

Andrews, Charles Freer (Feb 12, 1871, Newcastle – Apr 5, 1940, Calcutta). After studies in Cambridge, Andrews became a teacher at the Anglican Cambridge Mission in Delhi in 1904. There, he promoted the role of the Church in higher education and the indigenizing of Christianity. He became increasingly sympathetic to the Indian nationalists, developing journalistic gifts in support of these causes. In 1914, he befriended M.K. → Gandhi and became a close collaborator of his, leaving his missionary appointment and making his home for the remainder of his life in the ashram (→ Āśrama) of the nationalist poet R. → Tagore in Bengal. His most distinctive contribution to the national movement was a successful campaign throughout the British Empire for the abolition of indentured labor, earning him the title Deenabandhu, “Friend of the Poor.” His deep friendships with Muslims and Hindus have come to be seen as a model basis for interreligious dialogue. Works include: What I Owe to Christ, 1932. On Andrews: M. Sykes & B. Chaturvedi, Charles Freer Andrews, 1949 ◆ H. Tinker, The Ordeal of Love, 1979 ◆ D. O’Connor, Gospel, Raj and Swaraj, 1990. Daniel O’Connor

Andriessen, Hendrik Andriessen, Hendrik (Franciscus; Sep 17, 1892, Haarlem, – Apr 12, 1981, Haarlem) was a member of an important Dutch family of musicians and studied organ and composition at the Amsterdam Conservatory. He was influenced by Alphons Diepenbrock, Claude Debussy, and André Caplet. He was active as an organist (Haarlem and Utrecht), a teacher of composition and organ (among others at the Roman Catholic School for Church Music, Utrecht) and professor of musicology (Catholic University of Nijmegen, 1954–1963). As a composer, Andriessen is one of the most remarkable renewers of Dutch Catholic Church music in the post-Romantic period, with a very personal, lucid style. In addition to his sacred choral music and organ works Andriessen composed orchestral works, chamber music, and two operas. T.J. Dox, “Hendrik Andriessen: His Life and Works,” diss., 1969 ◆ A. de Jager, Duizend kleuren van muziek. Leven en werk van Hendrik? Andriessen, 1992 ◆ F. Brouwer, Hendrik Andriessen en het tijdperk der ontluiking, 1993. Wim Kloppenburg

Androcentrism. Along with “patriarchy” and “sexism,” androcentrism (lit. “centering on the man [anēr/ andros]”) is one of the fundamental critical and heuristic categories of women’s studies, feminist studies (→ Feminism), and → gender studies, outgrowths of socalled second-wave feminism since the end of the 1960s. Objectively, androcentrism means (a) a prejudice and perspective that understands maleness as the norm or measure of being human and femaleness as a departure from this norm, and (b) a corresponding systemic structure: a male-dominated hierarchical or at least asymmetric placement of males and females in terms of both biological sex and socio-cultural sex role (gender). It is reflected in language, above all in religious and secular metaphors, and also in a gender-determined division of labor, a tendency that has been aggravated in the modern period. Gender also determines access to institutions of higher education, as well as civil and ecclesiastical office. Even statements about “human beings” that appear gender-neutral, uncontextual, and universal sometimes turn out to include androcentric elements. Although the term itself was not used, criticism of androcentrism was already implicit in “first-wave feminism” as well as in the modern criticism of culture and rationality that began with early Romanticism, extending to nonfeminist studies of matriarchy, the sexual philosophy and sociology of G. → Simmel, and the critiques of the Frankfurt School (→ Critical Theory). Conversely, the coming of the modern era was described early on by the programmatic title “The masculine birth of time or the great instauration of the dominion of man over the universe” (F. → Bacon of Verulam). The classical feminist S. de Beauvoir – although she too does not use the term –

220 formulated her criticism of androcentrism by pointing out a logic of exclusion and discrimination aimed at women as “the other” and the features of “otherness” associated with women at least in Western tradition (immanence, nature, sensuality, etc.); this logic also fundamentally infects Christianity. In these interrelated disciplines, including theology and the study and philosophy of religion, the explicit and often hermeneutically subtle analysis of topological and systemic androcentrism, along with its reconstruction and deconstruction, manifests itself not least as a critique of language, symbolic systems, scholarship, and categories (e.g. the concepts of work, autonomy, power, the subject, and even sin and God). It increasingly integrates other perspectives on theoretical “difference,” including critiques of racism, classism, Eurocentrism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism (cf. esp. ecofeminism) and feminist anti-Semitism – up to and including the constructivistic and postmodern critique of the traditional dichotomy of sex and gender itself, as well as the critique of universalism. Despite all efforts, the question of how to fill the gaps exposed by the deconstruction of androcentrism is as controversial as the verdict on the nature and extent of androcentrism in various eras, cultures, languages, institutions, and religions, including their various denominations, traditions, and canonical scriptures. The question manifests itself on two levels: (a) generally in the more recent feminist discussion of equality and difference, including the problem of gynocentric alternatives; and (b) specifically theologically in the distance between a neo-religious or non-religious farewell to the Jewish and Christian religion and the highly diverse forms of Jewish and Christian feminist theology. S. de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, ET 1953 ◆ B. Farrington, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon, 1970, 59–72 ◆ S. Bovenschen, Die imaginierte Weiblichkeit, 1979 ◆ L.F. Pusch, ed., Inspektion der Herrenkultur, 1983 ◆ E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 1983, esp. 71–103 ◆ G. Simmel, Schriften zur Philosophie und Soziologie der Geschlechter, 1985 ◆ K. Hausen & H. Novotny, eds., Wie männlich ist die Wissenschaft?, 1986 ◆ S. Harding, Sex and Scientific Inquiry, 1987 ◆ E. List & H. Studer, eds., Denkverhältnisse, 1989 ◆ L.J. Nicholson, ed., Feminism/ Postmodernism, 1990 ◆ C. Honegger, Die Ordnung der Geschlechter, 1991 ◆ Wörterbuch der feministischen Theologie, ed. E. Gössmann et al., 1991, esp. 14 ◆ I. Ostner & K. Lichtblau, eds., Feministische Vernunftkritik, 1992 ◆ S. Benhabib et al., Der Streit um Differenz, 1993 ◆ H. Bussmann & R. Hof, eds., Genus: zur Geschlechterdifferenz in den Kulturwissenschaft, 1995 ◆ B. Orland & E. Scheich, eds., Das Geschlecht der Natur, 1995 ◆ E. Kleinau & C. Opitz, eds., Geschichte der Mädchenbildung, 2 vols., 1996. J. Christine Janowski

Androgyny. In religious studies androgyny (bisexuality: Gk ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός/an¶r, andrós, “male,” and γυνή/ gyn¶, “female”) is a frequent phenomenon in religious studies. In the case of deities, it can highlight an ontological status; but it can also manifest itself in various

221 gradations in a dynamic process. In this case, we find cultic transsexualism and transvestism. Especially in → theogony, the beginning often involves a single deity who combines all differentiations, including sexual difference – for example Atum (Shu-Tefnut) in Egypt, where → Isis also plays both the male and the female role at the conception of Horus (→ Seth and Horus). The sky goddesses Neith and Isis are also sometimes described as being two-thirds male. Mesopotamian → Ishtar/Inanna has androgynous features (cf. the “bearded Venus” figures). We may also think of Yahweh, in whose image male and female were created (Gen 1:27). A complex myth in Plato’s Symposium (189e–191c) deplores the division of what was originally a single androgynous being, thus explaining the mutual desire of the two halves to be reunited. In India we find Dyaus/P‰thivī (heaven/ earth), separated at the beginning of the universe, as Prajāpati, Brahma, and → Śiva were later. Amerindian gods and their shaktis sometimes appear as androgynous figures, sometimes as pairs. Some North American Indians (→ Navajo, Zuni), certain African tribes (e.g. the → Dogon), and several Oceanian peoples are familiar with cosmogonic androgyny. Trickster figures, by nature “betwixt and between” are often androgynous; thus they can appear now as male, now as female, e.g. OgoYurugu among the Dogon. Initiations and inductions often include androgynous attendants and intermediaries, who by nature effectively promote transformation and rebirth. In these cases, as in the case of tricksters, androgyny is linked with other complex structures (divine, human, and theriomorphic features). H. Baumann, Das Doppelte Geschlecht, 1955 ◆ M. Delcourt, Hermaphrodite, 1958 ◆ M. Eliade, The Two and the One, 1965 ◆ W. Doniger O’Flaherty, Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts, 1980. Jan Bergman

Andronicus and Junia(s), pre-Pauline apostles in Rome, born Jewish, who had suffered imprisonment, perhaps for the gospel. They must have claimed to have seen the risen Christ and have been engaged in missionary work, in the course of which Paul met them (Rom 16:7). In the early church, Junia was praised as a female apostle (cf. Chrysostom), but later interpreters assumed that a woman could not have been an apostle and that the name must have been masculine, “Junias.” The hypothetical name “Junias” is, however, as yet unattested in ancient inscriptions, but the female Latin name “Junia” occurs over 250 times among the inscriptions found in ancient Rome alone. The Latin family name (nomen gentile) may indicate that Junia was a freedwoman or a descendant of a slave freed by a member of the Junian clan. B. Brooten, “ ‘Junia . . . Outstanding among the Apostles’ (Romans 16:7),” in: L. & A. Swidler, eds., Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, 1977, 141–

Angela of Foligno 144 ◆ V. Fàbrega, “War Junia(s), der hervorragende Apostel (Röm 16:7), eine Frau?” JbAC 27/28, 1984/1985, 47–64 ◆ J. Thorley, “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” NT 38, 1996, 18–29. Bernadette J. Brooten

Androutsos, Chrestos (1869, Kios – 1935, Athens), professor of theology and ethics at Chalki (1895–1911) and Athens (1911–1935). Androutsos was a preeminent figure in 20th-century Greek theology. His Dogmatics has been considered the first complete and authentic systematic exposition of Orthodox doctrine. To “neopatristic” theologians, Androutsos embodies a scholastic theology infiltrated by Western rationalism, unrooted in the life of Orthodoxy. Works (Greek and Romanian): Συμβολική ἐξ ἐπόϕεως ὀρθοδόξου, ◆ Δογματικὴ τῆς ’Ορθοδόξου ’Ανατολικῆς ‘Εκκλησίας, 21959 ◆ System der christlichen Ethik, 1925 ◆ On Androutsos: P.I. Bratsiotis, TEE II, 1963, 739–743 ◆ K.C. Felmy, Die Orthodoxe Theologie der Gegenwart, 1990. Heinz Ohme 21930

Angel Pope. In the prophecy literature of the later Middle Ages, there appears the figure – analogous to the eschatological emperor – of the holy pope who will purify the church and convert the unbelievers. Drawing on the eschatological speculations of → Joachim of Fiore and attacking the institutional church, → Roger Bacon and the pseudo-Joachimite literature used these papal prophecies to develop the figure of an angelic pope who would lead the church into the third age, that of the Holy Spirit and the spirituals. In → Gregory X and especially → Celestine V, spiritual circles believed they could discern this pope. Disappointed hopes for reform, especially on the part of the Spiritual Franciscans, turned the concept of a messianic angelic pope into the converse of the hierarchical papacy, a development that influenced penitential preaching and vaticinia prophecies and extended to the spiritualist literature of the modern period. P. Herde, Cölestin V. (Peter vom Morrone), der Engelpapst, 1981. Tilmann Schmidt

Angela of Foligno (1248/1249, Foligno – Jan 4, 1309, Foligno). Influenced by the Franciscans at an early age, as a wife and mother Angela experienced a conversion to a life of asceticism and charity during a pilgrimage to → Assisi in 1285. In 1291, after her immediate family had died, she joined the Franciscan Third Order. She lived with a female companion; a Franciscan who was related to her served as her confessor. At times a loose circle of disciples (including → Ubertino of Casale) gathered about the magistra theologorum. Her confessor translated her vernacular accounts of her religious experiences into Latin in a Memoriale, later included in a book with 36 Instructiones, mostly didactic. Her

Angelelli, Enrique devotion to the cross has continued to be influential, also among modern Protestants. Il libro della Beata Angela da Foligno, ed. L. Thier & A. Calufetti, 1987 ◆ U. Köpf, “Angela von Foligno, eine franziskanische Mystikerin,” in: Mystik in den franziskanischen Orden, ed. J.-B. Freyer, 1993, 69–95. Ulrich Köpf

Angelelli, Enrique (1923 Córdoba, Argentina – Aug 4, 1976), son of Italian immigrants, studied at Pio Latino College, and in 1949 was ordained priest in Rome. Pastoral activity in the 1950s as advisor of the Juventud Obrera y Universitaria Católica. In 1960 he was named auxiliary bishop of Córdoba, the second most important city of the land. Strikes, military coups, suppression, and political exile, in addition to a youthful and religious fermentation (→ Vatican II, Medellín 1968, and San Miguel 1969), form his background for fighting injustices, liberalism, and Marxism. In August 1968 he became bishop of one of the poorest provinces of Argentina: La Rioja. Angelelli organized labor cooperatives, fought against landowners who exploited rural workers, and founded Christian parishes among the poor. Difficulties soon arose with the political, cultural, and economic powers of the province. Angelelli was accused of being a “leftist and a communist” – first by the military governor, then by the major landowners of the area. On the basis of their influence and connections with the Vatican, the Menem family brought about an investigation of his activities by the Curia in 1974. The civil-military-religious putsch of March 1976 made matters worse. Thousands were arrested, disappeared, or were tortured, among them pastoral workers of his diocese. Angelelli received numerous threats and was advised to leave the country, yet he decided to stay with his people and the Christian congregation. He gave a reminder that “a shepherd cannot abandon his flock.” On Aug 4, 1976, as he was gathering documents to accuse the military of murdering the priests Gabriel Longueville and Carlos Murias, he was murdered. In this way Angelelli became the first martyrbishop of Argentina, although until this day the conference of bishops has remained silent about the incident. Reportajes a Mons. Angelelli. Córdoba, Tiempo Latinoamericano 1988 ◆ Dar la vida en la opción por los pobres. A los veinte años del asesinato de Mons. Angelelli, Buenos Aires, Centro Nueva Tierra, 1996. Fortunato Mallimaci

222 well, which included representatives of every confession. They deviated widely from the teachings of the churches, since the writings of J. → Böhme and Gichtel, as well as the decrees of Überfeld, were authoritative for them. J.H. Kindervater, Die neue Engelsbrüderschaft, 1719 ◆ J.B. Reinhard, Prüfung des Geistes der neuen Engelsbrüderschaft, 1720 ◆ Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, 1720; 1721 (index) ◆ G. Zaepernick, “Ein Separatist wider Willen,” PuN 21, 1995, 241–273, esp. 258–264. Gertraud Zaepernick

Angelico, Fra → Fra Angelico Angelo Clareno (Pietro da Fossombrone; mid-13th cent., Chiarino, Marches – Jun 15, 1337, S. Maria in Aspro, Calabria). Angelo joined the → Franciscans at a very early age. As an advocate of strict poverty, he was persecuted, locked up, and finally sent to Armenia as a missionary by the minister general Raimundo Gaufridi, along with some like-minded companions. In 1294, after returning to Italy, he received permission from Pope → Celestine V to form a community with his associates (the Pauperes hermitae domini Coelestini), so that they could faithfully follow the Franciscan rule under the protection of the reformed → Benedictines. → Boniface VIII dissolved the group the next year. At that point Pietro took the name Angelo (da) Clareno. The persecuted group took refuge in Greece, where they remained until 1304/1305. In the years that followed, Angelo along with → Ubertino da Casale unsuccessfully defended the ideas of the → Spirituals. When Pope → John XXII condemned the Spirituals, Angelo joined the Celestines and was able to spend several years in peace in the monastery of S. Scholastica in Subiaco. In these last years of his life he served as minister general of the Franciscan communities that had not put themselves under the direct authority of the pope. Persecuted once more in 1334, he fled to Calabria, where King Robert of Naples and his wife took him under their protection. Angelo’s works are among the most important sources for the history of the Spirituals; he also translated Greek texts (the most important being the Scala paradisi of → John Climacus). L. von Auw, Angelo Clareno et les spirituels italiens, 1979 ◆ G.L. Potestà, Angelo Clareno, 1990 ◆ F. Accrocca, “I miracula Beati Angeli e gli ultimi anni del Clareno in Basilicata,” AFH 89, 1996, 615–627. Giulia Barone

Angels Angelic Brotherhood. The Angelic Brothers were members of an 18th-century sect who strove to lead an angelically ascetic life from which all worldly pleasure was banished. The founder and leader of this sect was Johann Wilhelm Überfeld (1659–1732), who from 1684 worked closely with J.G. → Gichtel in the Netherlands. After Gichtel’s death, he united Gichtel’s followers in a sect that established secret brotherhoods in Germany as

I. Religious Studies – II. Old Testament – III. New Testament – IV. Church History – V. Philosophy of Religion – VI. Dogmatics – VII. Art History – VIII. Practical Theology – IX. Judaism – X. Islam

I. Religious Studies Religious conceptions include numinous intermediary beings of the most varied types and origins that mediate

223 between the divine sphere and humanity and also serve higher powers. These are sometimes seen as emanations of the divine, sometimes as personified good guardian forces of the human. The original source are experiences of the intervention of forces from the non-human realm or other forms of irrational experience of a mysterious power affecting people. According to E.B. → Tylor the “primitive” discovered the “soul” by reflecting on the cause of death, sleep, dreams as distinct from the body and as an outward projection (“external soul,” “souls outside” a personal guardian spirit). Zoroastrianism (→ Zarathustra), the origin of the angel-concept in the stricter sense, represents an example of this duality with its → Ameša Spentas, the canonical divine spirits and executors of the divine will of → Ahura Mazdā or Fravurti (→ Fravashi; avestic “confession,” → Avesta), the spiritual double of the person, one’s “guardian angel,” which unites with a person’s soul after death and makes the person immortal. Further, the sacral value of the messenger becomes the prototype for the heavenly messengers: e.g. Hermes, Iris, among the northern Germanic peoples the two ravens Hugin (“thought”) and Munin (“memory”) as companions of the god → Odin who whisper in his ear what they have observed. In contrast, in the speculations of → apocalypticism, angels communicate the secrets of nature, the heavenly world, and the end time. G. Dumézil, Naissance d’Archange, 1944 ◆ F. Sokolowski, “Sur le culte d’Angelos dans le paganisme grec et romain,” HTR 53, 1960, 225–229. Karl Matthäus Woschitz

II. Old Testament In contrast to the → demons and spirits with their variable terminology, in the Old Testament angels are generally designated by a noun (8- & /malhāk), the etymology of which already suggests a messenger function and which is attested both absolutely and in the construction angel plus divine name or appellative. The functional indicator simultaneously suggests a delimitation from the cherubim and seraphim (→ Composite Beings) which are not considered angels from an OT perspective since they are not sent with a message for human addressees. The term angel is likewise to be distinguished from expressions such as “YHWH’s host” or “heavenly host,” with which only more recent scholarship has associated an interpretation of the angels as the divine “household.” In contrast, those angels designated by the plural (.  &/ malhākîm) could be considered beings from God’s nearer proximity (cf. Gen 28:12; 32:2; Ps 104:148). The LXX is the first to interpret the “sons of God” of Gen 6:1–4; Job 1:6; 2:1 as angels. Finally, only two angelic names are known in the OT: Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21) and Michael (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1), in addition to Raphael (in the extra-canonical Tobit), names that also indicate the function of the bearer in context.

Angels The literary construction “angel of YHWH” or “angel of God” refers to the incarnation of God’s quality of leadership and deliverance in respect of the patriarchal period (cf. Gen 16:7–11; 22:11, 15), → Moses and the → Exodus (cf. Exod 3:2; 14:19; 23:20f.), and the → settlement (cf. Exod 33:2; Judg 2:1–5). Further, the angel of YHWH plays a role in the call of judges ( Judg 6:11–24) and deliverance from danger (Num 22:22–35; 1 Kgs 19:7; 2 Kgs 19:35). The name of the prophet → Malachi (Mal 1:1) can be understood as an expression of the formation of YHWH’s commissioned spokesperson and legate (cf. 3:1). The angel acquires a special function in the early post-exilic visions of the prophet → Zechariah, where it often appears as “interpretive angel” who, thus, stands between the setting and the recipients of the dream-vision (Zech 1:9–6:5). Here, the position of the angel manifests the tendency toward a cryptic, no longer obvious, concept of God, which in turn is to be understood as an element of the radicalization of faith in the one and only God. Simultaneously, this interpretation signifies a compression of the messenger function, since the interpretive authority and communicated message from God points to the invisible mystery. F. Stier, Gott und sein Engel im Alten Testament, 1934 ◆ V. Hirth, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament, 1975 ◆ H. Röttger, Mal’ak Jahwe – Bote von Gott, 1978 ◆ F. Guggisberg, Die Gestalt des Mal’ak Jahwe im Alten Testament, 1979 ◆ A. Rofé, The Belief in Angels in Ancient Israel, 1979 ◆ H.J. Fabry, “mal’ak,” ThWAT IV, 1984, 887–904 ◆ H. Röttger, “Engel (AT),” NBL I, 1991, 537 ◆ idem, “Engel Jahwes,”op. cit., 539–541 ◆ S.A. Meier, “Angel I,” DDD, 1999, 45–50 ◆ idem, “Angel of Yahweh,” op. cit., 53–59. Manfred Görg

III. New Testament New Testament references to angels, situated between cosmology and theology, take up OT and early Jewish concepts. The documents of the NT know no special doctrine of angels. All NT authors are familiar with angels. They play a certain role in the childhood and epiphany narratives (→ Infancy Gospels) of the Gospels and in Acts. Angels have a central function only in Revelation. The significance of NT statements concerning angels primarily discloses their functions, which are predominantly portrayed in narrative fashion. The heavenly angels are God’s household, his aids and messengers. Angelic groups participate in the heavenly liturgy, in the administration of the course of nature, and in the fates of communities (Rev) and of individual persons (protection: Matt 18:10). They will assist in the final events (Rev 12:7ff., etc.) and in the final judgment (Matt 13:39ff., etc.). They can be sent as God’s messengers to individual persons (Matt 1f., etc.). They serve Jesus (Mark 1:13, etc.) and aid the apostles (Acts 12:7, etc.). They were relevant for salvation history only in the mediation of the law according to Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2;

Angels Acts 7:35. In contrast, the fallen angels belong to Satan (→ Devil) and will fall subject to damnation in the final judgment (Matt 25:41, etc.). Angels are also understood as independent demonic powers in the structure of the cosmos (Rom 8:38, etc.). The status of the angels in relation to God is that of subordinate, servant spiritual beings. This is also true for the cosmic powers and the fallen angels (no dualism). The relationship between angels and Christ could be disputed. Heb 1:4f. places Christ clearly above the angels. The relationship between humans and angels stretches from angelolatry in Colossae (opposed in Col 2:18f.) to the concept of the judgment of the faithful on the angels (1 Cor 6:3). The tripartite formula “God, Jesus Christ, and the angels” (1Tim 5:21; cf. Rev 14:10) attests to great respect for angels on the part of some. The essential characteristics of the heavenly angels are invisibility, holiness, immortality, asexuality, and their own language. Angels appear to people in auditions, visions, dreams, and in dangerous situations; they are portrayed as youths, dressed in white clothing and light phenomena, eliciting fear. The theological significance of angels in the NT is limited to the narrative (Gospels, Acts) and visionary portions (Rev) of NT scriptures. Recourse to angels makes God’s activity vivid and relatable. Theologically, the Spirit replaces the angels. Soteriologically, they have no significance alongside Christ. This is considered critically in Eph, Col, and Heb. In the Johannine and Pauline letters, the finality of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the presence of the Spirit render superfluous any discussion of angels as God’s aids and messengers. H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum, WUNT 2, 1951 ◆ I. Broer, “ἄγγελος,” EWNT I, 1980, 32–37 ◆ J.E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, WUNT 36, 1985 ◆ L.T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, WUNT II, 70, 1995 ◆ A. Monaci Castagno, ed., Il diavolo ed i suoi angeli, BPat 28, 1996. Oda Wischmeyer

IV. Church History 1. → Apocalyptic visions already contain an angelic order in salvation history (→ Shepherd of Hermas). Increasingly, early-Jewish angelic speculation and gnostic concepts of divine intermediary beings were warded off (→ Aristides, → Irenaeus). Angels are messengers and instruments of God’s leadership for individuals and communities, even for nations. They cannot be worshiped, but are honored and called on for protection (→ Origen, → Hippolytus, → Ambrose of Milan, → Augustine). The adoration of the archangels Michael and Gabriel expressed in the consecration of churches, for example, remained controversial; angel-images (like those of the saints) may be greeted and honored with genuflection (→ Nicea, Council of 787, DH 605). Angels are more important by virtue of their ascetic and liturgical exemplariness. Their

224 assistance in the believer’s ascent to godlikeness and their presence in the liturgy, the image of heavenly worship, is the dual sense of discourse concerning angels in the Eastern church. Linking the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and neoplatonic metaphysics, Ps.- → Dionysius Areopagita developed a visionary “heavenly hierarchy” of three angelic orders of three types each that constitute an illuminating ladder of light between God and humanity. The angels radiate the divine “energies”; Mary, the Mother of God, has been elevated to the Queen of angels (→ Theodore of Studios, G. → Palamas). 2. In the Western church, Augustine corrected the metaphysics of angelic light through the category of the word. Thus, “angel” does not signify the “essence” (spirit), but is a “nomen officii”; the angel’s threefold recognition of things refers to the creation by the word (Gen. lit.; Civ.). → Gregory I and John Scotus → Eriugena also transmit the Dionysian tradition to the West (→ Bonaventura, → Hildegard of Bingen, Franciscan spirituality). → Peter Lombard and → Thomas Aquinas treated the doctrine of angels with Aristotelian means from soteriological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives. The rational interest of → Duns Scotus compared the human intellect favorably with the angelic and limited angelic service to apotropaic functions. According to the declarations of the church’s teaching office, the created angels, some of whom in exercise of their freedom have remained good while some have fallen, are immaterial individual substances (563, DH 455; Fourth → Lateran Council 1215, DH 800). 3. The rational interest was displaced in the Reformation by the solus Christus, which also excludes appeal to the angels. The prayer to God for protection through his “beloved angels” in temptation by the all-present devil and his angels remained above question. The dogmaticians, beginning with Calvin (Inst. I 14.3ff.), adapted the pre-Reformation doctrine in order to establish the angels’ qualifications for service as spiritual creatures, capable of perceptible appearance ( J. Gerhard, Angelologia sacra, 1636); the “pneumatology” of the special metaphysics explained the ontological implications. The significance of angels in Lutheran piety remained beyond dispute (including national angels); in the Reformed domain, belief in personal guardian angels diminished. While the theology of Trent linked the Thomist and Scotist doctrines of angels (F. Suárez, De Angelis, 1620), angels continued to remain important as objects of pious veneration and the artistic self-presentation of the church. In the Protestant churches, which shared the Enlightenment critique of superstition and the mechanization of the worldview, the significance of angels was largely limited to pious expressions and images (see below V.). Nonetheless, angel concepts remained alive in the awakened communities, and in the 20th century

225 also in the liturgical movements. The Roman teaching office continues to maintain a concept of substantial and personal angels (→ Vatican I, DH 3002, 3023–3025; DH 3891; → Vatican II, LG 49f.). The more clearly christological angel doctrine of CatCC (1993, 325–336, 391– 395) is due primarily to K. → Rahner. E. Peterson, Das Buch von den Engeln, 1935 ◆ P. Brunner, Leiturgia I, 1952, 83–361 ◆ W. Stählin, Begegnung mit Engeln, 1956 ◆ P.L. Berger, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural, 1970 ◆ G. Tavard, “Engel V,” TRE IX, 1982, 599–609 ◆ O. Hofius, “Gemeinschaft mit den Engeln im Gottesdienst der Kirche,” ZThK 89, 1992, 172–196 ◆ U. Wolff, Das große Buch der Engel, 1994. Walter Sparn

V. Philosophy of Religion The distinction between angels and demons in Greek philosophy signifies no substantial or moral distinction so that the concept “angel” cannot be defined. In Hellenism, under Iranian influence, the motion of the phenomena of the supra-lunar world was traced to inspiring “angels.” Neoplatonic cosmology added angelic hosts to the seven planetary deities; Gnostic speculation enriched the numbers of creator entities with many named angels. The Christian difference between creator and creature demanded that angels be understood as morally qualified creatures: their essence must be explained in accordance with their existence in the service of God. Available to this end were, on the one hand, a neoplatonically inspired metaphysics of light that replaced emanation concepts through the adaptation of Trinitarian analogies (Ps.-Dionysius; John Scotus, Bonaventura), and, on the other hand, an Aristotle-inspired metaphysics of being that avoided the Averroistic endangerment of the doctrine of creation (Thomas Aquinas, T. → Cajetan, D. → Báñez). Via “angels,” which had been considered entirely incorporeal since the 5th century, the Thomist option treated important ontological problems: form and substance, essence and existence, category and individual. The problem of discursive rational knowledge occupied the center of the angelology of Duns Scotus. The angelology of F. → Suárez, which was more firmly linked to Christology, also dealt with philosophical problems. Consideration of a philosophical angelology or of the acceptance of a mundus intelligibilis in special metaphysics up until C. → Wolff was brought to an end by the epistemological critique of I. → Kant; it began with the critique of E. → Swedenborg (1766). Outside of metaphorical discourse and the aesthetic imagination of the “good spirit,” “angels” have since appeared almost solely in theo- and anthroposophic worldviews that collapse the difference between creator and creature in an emanationist or spiritistic fashion. In contrast to art, angels scarcely continue to be a topic in contemporary philosophy.

Angels H.M. Nobis, “Engellehre,” HWP 2, 1972, 500–503 ◆ M. Cacciari, The Necessary Angel (ET from the Italian), 1994 ◆ A.Rosenberg, Engel und Dämonen, 1992 ◆ G. & M.C. Bateson, Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred, 1987. Walter Sparn

VI. Dogmatics 1. More recent Protestant dogmatics brings attention to the problematic nexus in which Christian motifs, especially those stressed in the Reformation, have worked along with religion-critical motifs of modern intellectual history. The extensive disappearance of the topic “angels” is the consequence of the unexplained superimposition of two critical impulses that in no way share the same objective. The Reformation discipline of the angel doctrine in its theoretical and cultic aspects carried through the distinction between creator and creature (doctrine of justification); the diminution of knowledge of angels was no more the intention than was the view that temptation by demonic powers is a mere illusion. The Enlightenment critique of the assumption of a spiritual world and the epistemological demonstration of the impossibility of a concept of immaterial substances were not aimed at the abolition of a relationship to God, but at a relationship purged of superstition and speculation. Yet, the conjunction of the two motifs deprived the term “angel” of independent meaning and of any claim to truth. Thus while, in idealistic transformation of the substantial into subjectivity, discussion of angels is permitted in the metaphorical, poetic, and plastic expressions of private and liturgical piety, the question of their reality is nonetheless suspended. It is only necessary to say that this question “may have no influence on our behavior and that revelations of their [angels’] existence are no longer to be expected” (F. → Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 1830, 42f. [43]); thus → liberal theology on into the 20th century, sometimes with ironic exaggeration (angels as “metaphysical bats,” K.A.v. → Hase). To be sure, speculative theology sought anew to justify a concept of angels as spirits or spiritual realm(s) (C. → Daub, R. → Rothe), but the dismissal of → idealism often gave in to the positivistic claim that, beside subjective-moral culture, only objective natural data are to be regarded as real. “Modern science” excludes the existence of angels as impossible; the angel concept is thereby “finished”; so D.F. → Strauß, also R. → Bultmann (→ Demythologization). On the other hand, it seems possible to others to base discourse concerning angels not on principles (“revelation,” “reality”) but on “conviction resting on matters of religious experience” and to understand the biblical angel narratives in this sense (K.F.A. → Kahnis, J.C.K. v. → Hofmann). 2. Insight into the heterogeneity of Christian faith and worldview in the 20th century signified an important step out of the linkage to “modern” natural scientific

Angels axioms. Not only the possibility for discourse about angels, but also the necessity of a doctrine of angels, i.e. the hermeneutical and the dogmatic questions, have since been posed again constantly, even with a view to “heaven” as the invisible locus of angels. The demarcation from the positivism of a fixed conception of reality (already A. → Schlatter) corresponds, conversely, to that of the theosophically renewed mythological angelology and demonology. The relativization of the exclusive human claim to “spirit” and the accentuation of the persistent surplus of divine possibility beyond the prevailing “reality” brings the category of “mystery” to bear once again in the doctrine of creation (W. → Elert §41; P. → Althaus §29). The role of angels also becomes a topic, however, in connection with the sustaining of the world or in the drama of salvation history. As a result, it is the (ever tempting) perverted angelic powers that make an angelology necessary (H. → Vogel ; K. → Heim, vol. II, ch. 3; vol. III, ch. 2; E. → Brunner, ch. 5). The renewal of the doctrine of angels by K. → Barth (KD III/3, 1950, 51) attempted, following Augustine, to transform the question of the essence of the angels entirely into that of their task (witnesses to God’s will in Jesus Christ; his servants, and thus also humanity’s; guardians against the powers of chaos). This directs (with Ps.-Dionysius or Calvin) the interest from the individual angel and his personality to the “heavenly collective” and the divine power effective in him and acknowledges the irreducibility of the divinatory, fantastical, and poetic linguistic forms (saga, legend). P. → Tillich voted in a similarly dynamistic fashion, but in opposition to the ontological claim: angels are not, in fact, existent beings, but structures participating in being and (surpassing Schleiermacher) “concrete-poetic symbols of ideas of powers of being” (300). 3. At present, the following impulses drive dogmatic reflection: (a) The (essential) Christological critique of practical experience of angels must ever be newly separated from prejudicial worldviews (“from myth to word,” etc.) in order to be able to pay attention to the manifold witnesses to angels and their forms of expression, from visions through to “popular piety.” Analysis from cultural perspectives, as well as from psychology of religion and social psychological perspectives, of experiences of angels (not absorbed by monotheism either) is theologically relevant. (b) Angelology cannot reduce the special speech acts that, as the case may be, report, narrate, shape, and portray angels – as “beautiful” and “horrible” – to propositional statements; the worship of the Eastern church, especially, teaches that cult never becomes merely history. (c) Contemporary discourse concerning “angels” (and “demons”) reminds us that the way out of syncretism (or out of the mixture of creature and creator) in Christian faith in the triune God is not quasi-objective

226 religious progress. The biblical evolution in the depiction of angels as “obedient” servants of God models this path, to be sure, but does not simply abolish it for later generations. (d) The passing of the deterministically and prognostically closed worldview of classic modernity permits a reformulation of the ontological aspects of angels as unforeseeable and limited (as event) cooperatores Dei (Luther) that appear in the world of experience. The dynamics of describing the living Spirit of the eternal God that fills temporal creation with the term “energy” (G. → Gloege, Moltmann) or “force field” (H.-G. Fritzsche, Pannenberg) could produce once again a cosmologically rich angel concept. It must, however, be subsumed under the Christian expectation that every phenomenon in the world that becomes a corporeal “angel” is encountered (“personally”) as an angelus interpres commissioned by God. C.E. Luthardt, Kompendium der Dogmatik, 101900, §36 ◆ W. Elert, Der christliche Glaube, 1940 ◆ P. Althaus, Die christliche Wahrheit, 1947/48 ◆ P. Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. I, 1951, 1995 ◆ J. Daniélou, Les Anges et leur mission, 1952; ET: Angels and their Mission: According to the Fathers of the Church, 1957 ◆ K. Rahner, MySal [Ger.] 1967, 1038–1064 ◆ U. Mann, “Das Wunderbare,” HST 17, 1979 ◆ idem, “Engel VI,” TRE IX, 1982, 609–612 ◆ J. Moltmann, Gott in der Schöpfung, 1985, ch. 7 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, vol. II, 1991, 125–131; ET: Systematic Theology, II, 1995 ◆ M. Plathow, “Die Engel – ein systematisch-theologisches Thema,” ThBeitr 24, 1993, 249–267. Walter Sparn

VII. Art History For millennia, visions, wishes, and imaginings associated with belief in angels have found expression in the graphic arts. Powerful messengers, guardians, champions, and companions of humanity from the supramundane realms can be found in many religions. The image of angels is shaped in each case by faith and the respective time of origin. The following discussion will trace the graphic tradition of angels as it developed out of the OT and NT. The image of Lucifer as an angel will not be taken into account. What is presumably the earliest Christian portrayal of angels is preserved in the catacombs of Priscilla in Rome from the mid-3rd century. In Byzantine, early Christian, Carolingian, and also Ottonian art, the angels as “angelus dei” and “maiestas Domini” represent the power and worth of Christian doctrine. They are to be found in immediate proximity to God. As mediators of God’s word, they function as inspirers of the evangelists and heavenly companions of God’s earthly representatives, the church fathers, saints, and priests. In indication of their astral bodies and spiritual being, the angels are often illuminated by light or a nimbus (Ravenna, San Vitale). They are garbed as dignitaries with tunic and two keys or with liturgical attire. The wings are a symbol for their membership in the heavenly realm that mark

227 them as God’s swift aides and messengers. In order to exclude confusion with ancient cupids, etc., the winged angel type first appeared in Rome at the beginning of the 5th century (Rome, Santa Pudenziana, after 402). In Byzantine Christianity, angels have always been winged. The attributes refer to their function and significance: scroll and staff stand for the angels as messengers, censors show them as preachers of God’s word through the liturgy, trumpeting heralds of the Last Judgment. From the 13th century, the relatively established scheme of signification began to expand. Especially in France, new typologies arose which, for instance, incorporated the angels into a chivalrous-courtly social system (Reims, Cathedral, c. 1255). The Renaissance enriched the variety of portrayal primarily through reference to ancient examples. The angels populate heaven no longer merely as powerful spiritual beings, rather they become human-like in that they mourn, pray (St. Lochner, “Presentation in the Temple,” 1447), or, in concert, surround Mary as Queen of heaven (M. → Grünewald, altar at Isenheim, c. 1515). A favored angelic type was the cherub, the angel in the form of a child. A large number of graphic examples of this form can be adduced on down to today. The type derives from ancient portrayals of Eros, geniuses, and cupids, to which Giotto (Padua, fresco cycle) and Pietro Lorenzetti (Assisi, San Francesco) already alluded in the 13th century. Of great influence were the portrayals by → Donatello (Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore, 1433–1440). Originally, the image of the “angeli minori” (Federico Borromeo), of young, small angels, was supposed to communicate innocence and purity. Supported by liturgical and other sources, the cherubs were so popular presumably because they corresponded to an altered folk belief (e.g. archers). A. → Dürer, Stefan Lochner, → Raphael, C. → Lorrain, P.P. → Rubens, → Rembrandt, G.L. → Bernini, Ignaz Günther and P.v. → Cornelius may be mentioned here as outstanding artists who lent the type human-childlike and individual character traits. In the 20th century, a classifiable angel type can no longer be assumed. Thus, in 1928 E.H. → Barlach created his monumental “spiritual warrior” (Kiel, Nicolai Church), the reference of which is still to the archangel Michael, but whose significance lies in its strong political statement. If belief in the heavenly power of angels seemed to have been lost with the Second World War, a new angelolatry began in Germany after the end of the war and with liberation from National Socialism. Alongside a large number of conformist images, artists such as G. → Meistermann and E. Mataré (Essen, Münster, 1956) followed their own paths of representation. On the basis of a freer and more expansive understanding of the Christian faith, H.A.P → Grieshaber

Angels developed in the 1960s his woodcut series on the “angels of history” in which, for example, he reinterpreted a biblical prototype ( Jacob’s dream), in part on the basis of the visionary ideas of M.L. → King (“I have a dream”), in a contemporary context. Especially since the 1970s, an intensive examination of angelic beings can be identified that has not yet necessarily found expression in an ecclesiastical sense. The spectrum reaches from selfreferential involvement with art and the modern artist’s self-understanding (A. Kiefer, Resumptio, 1974) via signs and invented images in the realm of the “extra-earthly” ( Jonathan Borofsky, Man in Space at 2.589.394, 1978) and the death angel, to be interpreted as civilization-critical, of Milan Kunc (Angel of Death, 1980, painting), to video works by Marie-Jo Lafonatain and Bill Viola and stage scenery by Richard Serra (Paris, Opéra Comique, Le Sacre du printemps, 1990). A. Rosenberg, Engel und Dämonen, 1986 ◆ H. Schwebel & A. Mertin, eds., Bilder und ihre Macht, 1989 ◆ M. Richter, ed., Engel ’89: Dokumentation zum 23. Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchentag 1989, 1990 ◆ Arbeitsausschuss des Evangelischen Kirchenbautages, ed., Engel, kuki 4/91, 1991. Gabriele Lohberg

VIII. Practical Theology As a theme in the Christian proclamation, angels were almost taboo until the beginning of the 1990s. If the question of angels is today once again acceptable in congregational practice, this is in no way due to an unbroken Christian tradition. For decades relegated to the margins of both theological endeavor and church praxis, at present, angels have found their “home” (Wolff ) in belletristic literature (Stubbe 1995, 16–28), poetry (Stubbe 1995, 30–42), the performing arts (Richter, Härtling/Rainer; Stubbe 1995, 42–49; see above VII), film (epochal: Wenders, Der Himmel über Berlin), and music. To the extent that practical theology attends to angels, it follows in the tracks of these conceptual realms and undertakes a hermeneutical task in that it attempts to understand why angels are once again important for people in the postmodern era. In this task, pastoral psychology can help to gain access to what people mean when they testify to angelic experiences. On the one hand, it helps to understand what constitutes the unifying element in the current plethora of angelic appearances and creations, and, on the other, to perceive why, in all their commonalities, they are of such individual forms. The conflict between demythologization and pious irrationality no longer stands at the center of practical theology’s approach to angels, but the question of angels’ particular kind of reality. Angels always bring us into contact with the God-question, they point to experiences with the very foundations of human existence. This occurs in an interfusion of internal and external experience as the experience of separation from God

Angels and connection to him in a kind of paradox. Sensible handling of pastoral liminal situations leads ever more frequently to a focus on angelic experiences (Lückel, 93–101), especially in relation to the pastoral care of the dying and of those in liminal situations. The fact that angelic experiences move between subjectivity and objectivity, reality and fantasy, makes this kind of experience in the “intermediary space” (D.W. → Winnicott) a theme of the psychology of religion and of pastoral psychology. A look at early psychology of the self assists the viewing of angels in analogy to the phenomenon of the so-called transitional space, the great importance of which for the separation and transformation process of growing children Winnicott has demonstrated (Stubbe 1995, 115–134). In analogy to this process, angels can be understood as God’s way of encountering people while remaining absent or distant. K. Lückel, Begegnung mit Sterbenden, 1981 ◆ H. Schwebel, “Engel VII,” TRE IX, 1982, 612–615 ◆ G. Adler, Erinnerung an die Engel, 1986 ◆ J. Ströter-Bender, Engel, 1988 ◆ S.M. Wittschier, Mein Engel halte mich wach, 1988 ◆ M. Richter, ed., Engel ’89: Zeitgenössische Malerei – Grafik – Objekte und Textbeiträge aus der BRD und der DDR, 1989 ◆ W. Wenders & P. Handke, Der Himmel über Berlin, 1989 ◆ A. Benning, Zeugen der Nähe Gottes, 1990 ◆ H. de Cuveland, Der Taufengel, 1991 ◆ H. Vorgrimler, Wiederkehr der Engel?, 1991 ◆ U. Wolff, Die Wiederkehr der Engel, Impulse 32, 1991 ◆ P. Härtling & A. Rainer, Engel – gibt’s die?, 1992 ◆ U. Wolff, Materialien: Die Botschaft der Engel, 1992 ◆ H. Hark, Mit den Engeln gehen, 1993 ◆ B. Dorst, “Engel als Urbilder der Seele,” WzM 46, 1994, 157–170 ◆ H.-G. Held, Engel: Geschichte eines Bildmotivs, 1995 ◆ E. Stubbe, Die Wirklichkeit der Engel in Literatur, Kunst und Religion, Hamburger Theologische Studien 10, 1995 ◆ E. Jürgensen, Engel. Unterrichtsmodelle, 1996 ◆ E. Stubbe, “Zur Gemeindearbeit über Engel,” in Arbeitsheft Weltmission 1996, Evangelisches Missionswerk in Deutschland, 1996, 38–45 ◆ H. Vinçon, Glauben Sie an Engel?, 1996. Ellen Stubbe

IX. Judaism 1. Antiquity. The literature of early Judaism is characterized by a clear expansion of the angel concept in which God’s acts and revelations are now increasingly transferred to angels the more God’s transcendence is emphasized. In this regard, it should be noted that early Judaism was divided into various, often competing, groups that exhibit various tendencies in their angel concepts. Apocalyptic literature associated with → Enoch, → Ezra or → Baruch attributes to the angels – now for the first time hierarchically arranged in various classes (seraphim, cherubim, ofannim, hayyot ha-Qodesh, guardians, saints, in rabbinic times angelic ministers) and a specifically designated group of four (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Phanuel/Uriel), six, or seven – a multitude of tasks: the angelus interpres (interpreting angel) initiates the biblical protagonist into the heavenly secrets; the angels communicate insight into the course of history and thus into the order and harmony of the stars that they direct, they determine the course of time, just as they appear gen-

228 erally as mediators of wisdom knowledge concerning the natural phenomena that they govern. They acquire particular significance in the (imminently) expected Last Judgment in which they function as prosecuting, punishing, judging, and death angels and in which the books concerning the deeds of individuals produced by the heavenly scribe will be opened. On the other hand, the righteous stand under the protection of the advocate angel (e.g. Michael for Israel). The tradition, with a tone of cultural pessimism, of the angelic fall responds to the question of evil in the world. According to it, the angels left their heavenly world because of the beautiful daughters of humanity, entered into an association with them that was contrary to nature, and, at the same time, communicated knowledge detrimental to humankind. The angelology of → Qumran mirrors the dualism characteristic of the community: in Israel’s eschatological war, the prince of light (Michael) with his host meets the prince of darkness (Belial) with his hordes. In addition to these futuristic-eschatological ideas, the Sabbath songs (Serekh Shirot Olot le-Shabbat) exhibit a present-eschatological aspect: here, the community sees itself already taken into the heavenly praise of the angelic world. Rabbinic literature builds on the earlier angelology; in it, the tendency toward an anthropocentrism based on Israel’s election becomes apparent. This particular accentuation is evident primarily in those texts that deal with the theme of the “rivalry between angels and people” (Schäfer) in which in relation to people, i.e. Israel, the angels always draw the short straw. Warnings are issued against an angel cult and angelolatry, as well as against further dualistic/gnostic speculations. In Merkavah mysticism (→ Hekhalot Literature) the Archons placed above the seven heavenly thrones oppose the mystics ascending to God’s throne: only on the basis of knowledge of the secret names and seals can the mystics – whom, moreover, the angelic princes put to the test at the entry to the sixth palace – advance to their true objective, the throne of God in the seventh heaven in order there “to see the king in his beauty” and to join in the heavenly praise. In the world of magic, angels are made use of with the aid of magical practices for various purposes (magic books such as Sefer ha-Razim, amulets, magical bowls, talismans). 2. Middle Ages and Modern Times. In medieval Judaism, the angel concept underwent reevaluation, especially in Jewish philosophy, wherein the traditional notion of angelic corporality was generally abandoned. The Jewish Aristotelian tradition now identified them with the incorporeal substances or “separate intelligences” (sekhalim nivdalim; Maimonides, More Nevukim, II, 6). Accordingly, M. → Maimonides understood the appearances of winged and flying angels portrayed in the biblical and rabbinic tradition as an expression of the

229 human imagination and thus interpreted them purely as images (op. cit., I, 49). Simultaneously, the angel concept represented for him any natural and psychic force so that, ultimately, the traditional angel concept was transformed into natural philosophy. In the circle of German piety (haside ashkenaz), the older angelology lived on in its cosmological, liturgical, and magico-theurgical orientation; in it, the idea developed by → Saadia Gaon as an explanation for biblical → anthropomorphism (III), that the glory of God, the Kabod, seen by the prophets was the first creation and highest angelic force, was interpreted speculatively in the sense of the neoplatonic emanation idea. In the → Kabbalah (→ Zohar), too, the fundamental concepts of the rabbinic tradition and Merkava mysticism were expanded and incorporated into Sefirot speculation (→ Sefirot). The Kabbalah in the mystical circle in → Safed in the 16th century attributed a decisive redemptive function to prayer in which the angels as bearers of the prayer are specifically invoked. For the 19th-century Reform movement, “the question of the existence of angels has moved from the realm of religious consciousness, of theology, into that of psychology” (Kohler). Correspondingly, mystical materials and angelological traditions are excluded (although in different ways) from Reformed prayerbooks. K. Kohler, Grundriss einer systematischen Theologie des Judentums auf geschichtlicher Grundlage, 1910 ◆ J. Dan, Torat ha-Sod shel Hasidut Ashkenaz, 1964 ◆ P. Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen, 1975 ◆ I. Tichby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. II, 1994, 623–673. Klaus Herrmann

X. Islam In the → Qur’ān, angels are among the indispensable tenets of faith (4:136, etc.). They appear on the Last Day (89:22, etc.), are guardians of Paradise and Hell (74:30, etc.), in God’s proximity (4:172), as his servants (43:19, etc.), who act on his command (21:27), bear his throne (69:17), prostrate themselves before him (16:49, etc.), praise him (21:20, etc.), and fear him (21:28, etc.). For people, they are guardians (82:10, etc.), advocates (42:5, etc.), escorts in Paradise or Hell (16:28ff.), executors of judgment (8:50), and emissaries of God (22:75, etc.). Angels fought at the side of → Mu˙ammad against his enemies (3:123f., etc.). In their (true) form, angels are only perceptible after death (ˇabarī on 6:8; 6:50). Normally, they appear in masculine form (cf. Qur’ān 6:9), usually in dreams. Only the prophet Mu˙ammad saw Gabriel twice in “his form,” i.e. in the form in which he was created, his heavenly and, at the same time, paradisiacal form (ˇabarī on 53:11–17). Angels do not reproduce, they are not female (cf. Qur’ān 37:150, etc.). They have no desires, although they were not created sinless in principle, but are instructed to remain

Angelus Silesius sinless. As the example of the angels Hārūt and Mārūt (Qur’ān 2:102) demonstrates, their sinlessness can be lost, especially through contact with this realm. In the disputed question concerning the important relative status of angels and people, the position has prevailed that people have the potential to surpass the angels. They share with the angels the gift of understanding, with the animals desire. According to the dominant characteristic, a person belongs to the level of the angels or of the animals. The angels are superior to sinful people. The – sinless – prophets, like the Sīaa immams (→ Islam), are higher in rank than the angels (on the whole issue, see Rāzī on 2:30–34). Sources: Mu˙. b. ]arīr a†-ˇabarī, ]āmia al-bayān 3, 1388/ 1968 ◆ Fa¢r ad-dīn ar-Rāzī, At-Tafsīr al-kabīr, 1411/1990 ◆ Bibliography: L. Ibrahim, “The Questions of the Superiority of Angels and Prophets between az-Zamakhsharī and alBay∂āwī,” Arabica 28, 1981, 65–75 ◆ D.B. Macdonald & W. Madelung, “Malāhika,” EI2 6, 1987, 216–219 (bibl.) ◆ S. Murata, “The Angels,” in: S.H. Nasr, ed., Islamic Spirituality: Foundations, World Spirituality 19, 1987, 324–344 ◆ C. Schöck, “Die Träger des Gottesthrones in Koranauslegung und islamische Überlieferung,” WO 27, 1996, 104–132 ◆ J. van Ess, “Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert,” Hidschra, vol. IV, 1997, 534–541 and Index. Cornelia Schöck

Angelus Silesius (original name Johannes Scheffler; Dec 25, 1624, Breslau [Wrocław] – Jul 9, 1677, Breslau). The epigrammatist, poet, and controversialist Angelus Silesius was the son of a Polish aristocrat. After attending the Elisabeth Gymnasium in Breslau from 1636 to 1643, he began his study of medicine and constitutional law at Strassburg (Strasbourg); in 1644 he moved to Leiden and in 1647 to Padua, where he received doctorates in philosophy and medicine in 1648. Appointed personal and court physician at the orthodox Lutheran ducal court of Oels (Lower Saxony) in 1649, in 1650 he came into contact with A. von → Franckenberg . After quarreling with the court preacher of Oels, he gave up his position and became a physician to the Catholic monastic foundation of St. Matthias in Breslau. In 1653 he converted publicly to Catholicism and took the name Johannes Angelus Silesius. Without challenge by the censors, in 1657 he published the religious poetry that was to bring him fame: Geistreiche Sinn- und Schlußreime (5 books, Vienna 1657; 2nd ed. with the addition of a 6th book under the title Cherubinischer Wandersmann, Glatz [Kłodzko] 1675), along with a collection of devotional hymns called Heilige Seelenlust oder geistliche Hirten-Lieder der in jhrem JESUM verliebten Psyche (Breslau 1657, with music by Georg Joseph). Angelus Silesius represents the two paths of the mystical approach to God: the speculative path via subtle reflections in epigrammatic form (Cherubinischer Wandersmann) and the affective path via the senses in the manner of F. → Spe von Langenfeld and Johann Khuen before him (Heilige Seelenlust). Here and in his Sinnliche Beschreibung

Angkor Wat der vier letzten Dinge (Schweidnitz [Świdnika] 1675) he employs the technique of imagination used in the Spiritual Exercises of → Ignatius of Loyola. The hymns of the Heilige Seelenlust are still used by both Catholics and Protestants. Consistently with his conversion, Angelus Silesius placed himself in the service of re-Catholicizing Silesia, a project he supported with 55 biting polemics, 39 of which he published as a collection in the year of his death (Ecclesiologia oder Kirche-Beschreibung, Neisse [Nysa] 1677). Other works include: Bonus consiliarius, 1643 ◆ Christliches Ehrengedächtniß des Herrn Abraham von Franckenberg, 1652 ◆ Köstliche Evangelische Perle, 1676 (trans.) ◆ Sämtliche poetische Werke, 3 vols., ed. H.L. Held, 31949–1952 ◆ Cherubinischer Wandersmann: Kritische Ausgabe der Edition von 1675, ed. L. Gnädiger, 1984 ◆ On Angelus: E.O. Reichert, Johannes Scheffler als Streittheologe, 1967 ◆ H. Föllmi, Czepko und Scheffler, 1968. Dieter Breuer

Angkor Wat, religious complex located in the ancient Khmer capital of Angkor, a city now in ruins in → Cambodia . Built by king Sūryavarman II in the early 12th century, Angkor Wat covers a total of 500 acres and reaches over 200 feet above the surrounding plain. Its central, square pyramid of elevated galleries is crowned by five stone spires analogous to Mount Meru (the center of the world in Indian cosmography) and its four surrounding continents. Two concentric stone walls enclose the space, which is known for its carved reliefs of scenes from Indian mythic literature. The original function of Angkor Wat is unknown; it was once dedicated to the Hindu god → Viß»u, but might also have been a royal mausoleum; it eventually became a Buddhist temple. B.G. Groslier & J. Arthaud, Angkor Wat, 21966 ◆ M. Freeman & R. Warner, Angkor Wat, 1990 ◆ E. Manikka, Angkor Wat, 1996. Deborah Sommer

Anglican Church I. History and Ecclesiology – II. Missions of the Anglican Church

I. History and Ecclesiology The word Anglican describes not a single church but a family of churches around the world, all of which trace their roots to the → Church of England. There are 38 national churches that are considered Anglican with a total membership of around 70 million, but only six have the word in their official name (Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and South America). 1. History. The historical development of the Church of England has formed a unique identity of these churches, which see themselves as catholic, reformed and evangelical at the same time. They are marked by a breadth and comprehensiveness in their theology that

230 allows many shades of opinion and often wide divergences of interpretation, which is seen by some as the great strength of Anglicanism but is more unsatisfactory to others who desire a clearer definition of where Anglicans stand. The catholic character of the Church of England is rooted in the unbroken continuity with its earliest Celtic communities (→ Ireland) of the 3rd and 4th centuries (bishops from Britain attended the Council of Arles in 314). This tradition was blended with Roman Catholicism from the arrival of → Augustine of Canterbury in 597 until the Reformation, when the English Church defied the authority of the Roman pontiff and continued as the Catholic Church of England While popular belief attributes a major role to → Henry VIII, he simply allowed the political opportunity for the break from Rome which reformers in England had been advocating since the time of J. → Wycliffe in the 14th century. The influences of continental reformers, notably Calvin and Luther, were significant and account for the Protestant and Reformed movements within Anglicanism. In anthropology and the doctrine of election influences from Zwingli and Bucer are evident. The understanding of communion is shaped more by Calvin, whereas in the doctrine of original sin a middle position between Roman Catholic semi-pelagianism (→ Pelagius) and Luther is held. It was → Elizabeth I and not Henry VIII, however, who achieved the settlement between Protestant and Catholic elements in the Church that prevented a division in the Church of England. Unlike the continental churches of the Reformation, the Church of England is not a confessional church. There is no defining document, or Confession, produced in the process of separation from Rome that states the position of a new church. In fact the English reformers never understood it as a new church but rather the continuation of the Christian Church in England. Between 1534, when the English Parliament declared Henry VIII the “supreme head on earth of the Church of England,” and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1563, “Articles of Religion,” similar to confessional documents (→ Articles of Faith) of the continental reformers, were formulated. These, however, never had the preeminent authority enjoyed by the Holy Scriptures, the Creeds and the first four General Councils. Of far greater significance throughout the entire history of Anglicanism was the → Book of Common Prayer, published in 1549 by T. → Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. This standard for the worship of the English people in their own language was available throughout the kingdom, thanks to the invention of the printing press. More than anything else it has been the consistent use of the Book of Common Prayer that formed and influenced the faith, life and witness of the Anglican Communion. The original Book of Common Prayer was

231 soon (1551) replaced by a more Protestant version and then, as Queen Mary tried to bring the Church back to Rome, by yet another. From 1559 the Elizabethan prayer book brought stability to the worship life of the English Church and nation. The king or queen of England exercises a unique role as Head of the Church within the Church of England only. This strong lay leadership with the power of appointments is not found anywhere else in the Anglican Communion, though laity are significantly involved in many ways. Anglican churches, which are conceived hierarchically, continue to show a strong lay element with a modern emphasis on the priesthood of all baptized people. 2. The Evangelical Movements and Catholicism. The Evangelical movement of the 17th and 18th centuries also left a mark on the Church of England. Unlike the Elizabethan Settlement of the previous century, evangelicalism succeeded in splitting the Church, as Methodism (→ Methodists) was born of the new fervor in the Church, led by Anglican priests J. and C. → Wesley and others. Some did indeed leave, but the Church of England was enriched by the Evangelical movement. It was the Oxford Movement of the 19th century, often called the Catholic Revival, that finally solidified both the diversity and the classic tensions within the Church of England. Some outstanding church leaders like J.H. → Newman left the Church of England in search of the Catholic tradition neglected in England since the 17th century and joined the Church of Rome. However, others, notably J. → Keble and E.B. → Pusey, led an AngloCatholic renewal within the Church of England. Party divisions between Evangelicals and Catholics, Low Church and High Church, were very intense during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There was, however, always a broad middle ground, a Broad Church, which sat between the extremes. This was also a period of great missionary activity, as the Church spread throughout the world. Many of the younger churches today reflect the extreme churchmanship of the missionary societies that first brought the gospel to them, being more monochrome in liturgical style than is the Church of England itself. However, all value the Anglican comprehensiveness that tolerates great diversity within the Anglican Communion to which they belong. The designations High Church, Low Church and Broad Church had lost much of their meaning by the end of the 20th century, as the tensions between the Liberals and Conservatives, both theologically and socially, have contributed towards a polarization within a comprehensive Church that struggles to maintain its unity. Between extremes, however, the Church is largely defined by the broad middle ground of the majority of church members.

Anglican Church 3. The Anglican Communion. The development of the Anglican Communion began as the various colonies declared their independence from England. The first were the Americans who founded the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (PECUSA). Each of these 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion is autonomous, with its own leadership, its own BCP and cultural adaptation to the people it represents. Other provinces of the Anglican Communion, besides the Church of England and PECUSA, include the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Anglican Church of Australia, the Episcopal Church in Brazil, the Church of the Province of Burundi, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of the Province of Central Africa, the Church of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, the Church of Ireland, the Holy Catholic Church of Japan (Nippon Sei Ko Kai), the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East, the Church of the Province of Melanesia, the Church of the Province of Mexico, the Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma), the Church of the Province of Nigeria, the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea, the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of the Province of South East Asia, the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América, the Episcopal Church of the Sudan, the Church of the Province of Tansania, the Church of the Province of Uganda, the Church in Wales, the Church of the Province of West Africa, the Church in the Province of the West Indies and the Anglican Church of Zaire. The unity of this widespread and diverse communion of churches is maintained by both external and internal factors. The simplest definition of an autonomous Anglican church is that it is Anglican because it is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The person who occupies the see of Canterbury is recognized throughout the Communion as a spiritual leader, although he has no ordinary jurisdiction outside his own diocese. He is understood to be the “first among equals” and exercises a ministry for the entire world communion as its personal center point. A second major unifying factor in the life of the Anglican Communion is the → Lambeth Conference. Every ten years all diocesan bishops of the Communion meet in England (originally at Lambeth palace, the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury). They gather for consultation on issues facing the Church, but no decision or recommendation has authority in a member church unless it is enacted through the synodical government of that Province (or Church). It is the Archbishop of Canterbury who convenes the bishops

Anglican Church in a Lambeth Conference, which has been a feature of Anglicanism since the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. – There are two other formal gatherings that represent the continuity of leadership throughout the Anglican world. The Anglican Consultative Council was established by a resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1968 and consists of a lay, clergy and episcopal member from every Province of the Communion. It meets every three years. In 1978 the Lambeth Conference recognized the need for more frequent contact between churches and called for regular meetings of the Primates (Archbishop or Presiding Bishop) of all Provinces. Both bodies are consultative only. Internal forces that work to unify the Anglican world are a normative use of the Book of Common Prayer, a common ministry and ecclesiology and the very intangible “bonds of affection” which all the unifying elements in the Anglican world have produced. In addition, all recognize that the bases for authority in the Church are Scripture, Tradition and Reason, often referred to as “the three-legged stool of Anglicanism.” This formulation from the Elizabethan period is generally attributed to the theologian R. → Hooker (1554–1600), whose “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” laid much of the foundation for the later development of the Church of England. 4. Characteristics. Certainly a distinguishing characteristic of all Anglican churches is the regular use of the Book of Common Prayer. In fact there is not one Book of Common Prayer, but 38 different books, all following a common pattern, but each reflecting the ethos and in the language(s) of the Province. The ancient rule “lex orandi, lex credendi” is clearly applicable in churches whose faith is molded by the regular use of the same worship formularies that reflect the faith of the worldwide (catholic) Church. In every Prayer Book the rites for Holy Baptism define the nature of the ecclesiastical community and Holy Communion is the central expression of its regular life. It also includes services for daily Morning and Evening Prayer, the entire book of Psalms, and services for Confirmation and Ordination (both episcopally administered), Marriage, Burial, and others. Common to most Prayer Books is the commemoration of biblical saints on specified days as well as other holy people of later years of particular importance to the individual Province that lists them. The threefold orders of ministry (→ Office) – bishops, priests and deacons – are to be found throughout the Communion, although their application will vary. The historic episcopate has been a sign to Anglicans over the years of the → Apostolic Succession of faith and life in the Church and of its unbroken continuity before and after Reformation. The basic unit of the Church is understood to be the diocese, the local community presided over by a bishop. The bishop in any diocese is

232 seen as the chief pastor, guardian of the faith, and symbol of unity. Priests, or presbyters, preside over local congregations, preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments. The ministry of deacons varies widely over the Anglican Communion. In some cases it is simply a transition to priestly ordination, while in others vocational deacons exercise very intentional servant ministries in the world or have specific liturgical functions. In every Province of the Communion authoritative decisions are made by some form of synodical government in which bishops, clergy and lay participate. 5. Ecumenicalism. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Anglicans, particularly during the last century, has been a high commitment to the → ecumenical movement. A concern for the lack of unity within the Body of Christ has engaged Anglicans at all levels of church life. The classic document that provides the basis for Church union is known as the “ChicagoLambeth Quadrilateral.” First proposed and adopted as a position of the House of Bishops in the American Episcopal Church in 1886, its basic four-point platform was endorsed by the Lambeth Conference of 1888: “Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution 11: That in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God’s blessing made towards Home Reunion: (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (b) The Apostles’ Creed as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself – Baptism and the Lord’s Supper – ministered with the unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.” Against the background of this four-way test the Church of England and all other Anglican Provinces have engaged in dialogues and multilateral talks with other Christian bodies in many parts of the world, looking towards the opportunity for a fuller witness to the unity of the Body of Christ on earth. The most significant success in this endeavor came in the late 1940s when first the Church of South India, then North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh together with other Protestant churches established in those countries as a result of missionary activity brought about United Churches. Bishops from these United Churches are included in the Lambeth Conference. In each of these cases it was the acceptance of the fourth point of the Quadrilateral, the historic episcopate, that made it possible for the Anglicans to become part of the United Church.

233 The historic episcopate was already an accepted part in the life of the Old Catholic Churches of Europe, the Philippine Independent Church and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar, when full communion was established with them. With other Protestant churches where a high degree of agreement is achieved on the first three points of the Quadrilateral, it is the insistence on the acceptance of the historic episcopate that has been the main obstacle. The agreement between the Anglican churches of the British Isles and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, known as the Porvoo Declaration, is considered a major step towards Christian unity by both Anglicans and Lutherans. – Following the Second Vatican Council (→ Vatican II), the Anglican Roman Catholic International Consultation worked for ten years to explore the possibility for mutual recognition and made significant progress in studies of common understandings of Eucharist and ministry but encountered serious problems on the third topic studied – the authority of the Church. The ecumenical commitment of Anglicans has similarly been recognized in the participation of Anglicans in the World Council of Churches and in most national and local church councils. S. Neill et al., Anglicanism, 31965 ◆ S. Sykes, Authority in the Anglican Communion, 1987 ◆ J. Rosenthal & N. Currie, The Study of Anglicanism, 1988 ◆ idem, ed., Being Anglican in the Third Millennium, 1997. David Reed

II. Missions of the Anglican Church The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 gives early evidence of a sense of responsibility by Anglicans for nonChristian peoples, by its inclusion of a rite of baptism for adults, suitable to be used “for the baptizing of natives in our plantations and others converted to the Faith” (Preface). In 1698 the oldest Anglican missionary society, the → Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), was founded by the Reverend T. → Bray. He was also founder of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG) in 1701. By Royal Charter of King William III, the SPG was to provide “learned and orthodox ministers” in the plantations, colonies and factories overseas: its main function was therefore towards the citizens of the Crown in its overseas territories. It was the SPCK, rather than the SPG, therefore, which was able to support missions and missionaries beyond the jurisdiction of the Crown: it did this in the cases of the Danish mission in Tranquebar, India and German Lutheran missionaries in other parts of India. Nevertheless, SPG accepted dual responsibility from the beginning. It sent chaplains to the colonies of North America (among whom was J. Wesley, sent to Georgia in 1736) and also began work among the Mohawk Indians in Albany, north of New York, in 1704. SPG’s work in North America came to an

Anglican Church end in 1781 with the capitulation of English forces in the American War of Independence. The SPG was a society founded by Royal Charter, but limited by its royal patronage. In the 1790s independent missionary societies were founded in England without such limitations. In 1795 the foundation of the interdenominational London Missionary Society (→ Council for World Mission) provided a model for Anglican Evangelicals to found a society which was missionary but also a church society. In 1799 a group, including Charles Simeon, vicar of Holy Trinity, Cambridge, John Venn, rector of Clapham, and the slave trade reformer W. → Wilberforce, decided to found the “Society for Missions to Africa and the East.” From 1812 it became know as the → Church Missionary Society (CMS), today the Church Mission Society. The same circle founded the “London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews” in 1809, later called the “Church Ministry among the Jews” (CMJ). Although Wilberforce pressed for missionaries to be authorized by Parliament for work in India, until 1813 the Anglican Evangelicals had to be content with filling East India Company chaplaincies: many of these were Cambridge men influenced by Simeon. The most outstanding among them was H. → Martyn, whose Indian assistant, Abdul Masih, converted and was ordained in 1825. Both CMS and SPG developed extensive missionary work in India in the 19th century. They were joined by the Cambridge Mission to Delhi (CMD, 1877) and the Church of England Zenana Missionary Society (CEZMS, 1880) which worked among Indian women. In time CMD merged with SPG and CEZMS with CMS. In Africa CMS began work in Sierra Leone in a colony formed of freed slaves. These were resettled in Christian communities like the villages of Kissy and Regent. One outstanding missionary was the German CMS worker, W.A.B. Johnson. The losses of Europeans in West Africa were very high: 16 of the first 26 CMS missionaries died soon after their arrival, between 1804 and 1824. One Yoruba captive, Adjai, was baptized as S. → Crowther in CMS, educated at the CMS college, Fourah Bay, ordained as missionary to the Yoruba in 1834, and consecrated as the first African bishop in the Anglican communion in 1864. CMS mounted successful missions among the Maori of New Zealand and the Inuits of the Arctic and also in East Africa, China and Canada. SPG worked in the West Indies (1712), West Africa (1752), Canada (1759), Australia (1793), India (1818), South Africa (1820), New Zealand (1841), and Borneo (1847). In the mid-19th century Ernest Hawkins (SPG secretary 1843–1864) and H. → Venn (CMS secretary 1841–1872) cooperated. Venn, the son of the founder of CMS, became the leading Anglican missionary strategist of his day. He tried to relate the

Anglicanism voluntary society to the Anglican structure of bishops overseas, and he initiated indigenous churches through “native pastorates,” which he encouraged to be “self-supporting, self-governing and self-extending.” For Venn the aim had to be the “euthanasia of mission,” whereby the indigenous church and ministry would develop free of European dominance. In 1844 a retired naval officer, Captain Allen Gardiner, sought to help the peoples of Tierra del Fuego. This led to the foundation of the South American Missionary Society (SAMS). Gardiner died of starvation in 1852 but his work developed in Paraguay (1888) and Chile (1895), Argentina (1911), and Peru (1974). The first Mapuche Indian was ordained in 1937 and a group of Mataco Indians in 1966. In Central Africa the pioneering explorations of D. → Livingstone and his appeal to the University of Cambridge in 1851 led to the foundation of the Universities’ Mission to Central Africa (UMCA, 1858). In 1965 UMCA merged with SPG to form USPG. By the mid-19th century other branches of the Anglican Communion had begun to enter the mission fields. W.J. Boone, a missionary of the American Episcopal Church, founded a mission in Shanghai in 1840. After 1860 American and Canadian Anglicans were active in Japan. Both CMS and SPG worked in China and Japan. One notable SPG missionary of the early 20th century was R. → Allen, a radical critic of contemporary missionary practice in a series of books, the first of which was Missionary Methods: St Paul’s or Ours? (1912). Biblical scholarship of the early 20th century led to a division in the CMS and to the formation of the Bible Churchmen’s Missionary Society (BCMS, now Crosslinks). It has developed work in Myanmar (Burma), China, Iran, India, Canada and the Arctic. Like the CMS it has sought to revive ancient churches rather than proselytize or divide. CMS had followed this policy with the Syrian Malabar Church in the 1920s and 1930s. BCMS now did the same with the ancient Coptic Church in the 1930s. In East Africa another branch of CMS, the Ruanda Mission (today Mid-Africa Ministry), participated in a revival in the 1930s, when the → Balakole (saved ones) became a major Christian influence in the area, with a doctor, J.E. Church, prominent in the movement. In order to serve the needs of all the churches that constitute the Anglican Communion, the Partnership for World Mission (PWM) was formed in 1978, which aimed to retain the strengths of the voluntary missionary societies while also enabling them to assist through a body which could respond to newer churches more corporately. Since 1986 the same building, Partnership House in London, has housed CMS, USPG, and PWM as a means of fulfilling this vision.

234 E. Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society, 4 vols., 1899–1916 ◆ H.P. Thompson, Into All Lands, 1951 ◆ H. Cnattinguis, Bishops and Societies. A Study of Anglican Colonial and Missionary Expansion 1698–1850, 1952 ◆ W.K. Lowther Clarke, A History of the SPCK, 1959 ◆ G. Hewitt, The Problems of Success. A History of the Church Missionary Society 1910–42, vol. I, 1971; vol. II, 1975 ◆ T.E. Yates, Venn and Victorian Bishops Abroad, 1978 ◆ J. Murray, Proclaim the Good News. A Short History of the Church Missionary Society, 1985 ◆ C.P. Williams, The Ideal of the Self-Governing Church, 1990 ◆ A.F. Walls, art. “Anglikanische Kirche IV,” LThK 3, I, 1993, 665–667 (bibl.). Timothy Yates

Anglicanism (etym.: anglia, Lat. England) is the conventional term for the Christian community whose roots lie in the → Church of England. This is the third largest body of Christians in the world, numbering over 70 million members. The word also applies to a religious outlook that separates these churches from the rest of the Christian world, by virtue of several characteristics which are the result of history, theological position and traditional practice. Central to this is the prescribed use of the → Book of Common Prayer in corporate worship. For bibliography see Anglican Church.

David Reed

Anglo-Catholicism is a movement within Anglicanism that has emphasized the Catholic nature of Anglicanism (→ Anglican Church), both in its worship and its doctrine. As a term, it appears to have been first used in 1838, but scholars differ on when to date the origin of the movement. An appeal to the Catholic nature of the English Reformation settlement surfaced occasionally in the 16th century, and was more common among 17th century → Caroline Divines. Hence, in one sense, Anglo-Catholicism can be seen in continuum with the larger “High Church” movement within Anglicanism. Like High Church proponents, Anglo-Catholics have emphasized the divine origin and nature of the visible church (→ Church : VIII), the importance of apostolic → succession through a historic episcopate, and the importance of an ordained ministry (→ Office: VI; → Ordination : III). But Anglo-Catholics have been far more insistent in both their claims concerning the essential Catholicity of Anglicanism, along with the fundamental continuity between the pre-Reformation and post-Reformation → Church of England, and of the importance of reviving Catholic forms and practices that had been largely jettisoned by 16th-century Anglicans. Foremost among them have been an advanced sacramentalism (with particular emphasis upon the Eucharist and confession), religious communities of monks and nuns, and an enriched public worship. Most scholars see Anglo-Catholicism as one of the fruits of the Tractarian or → Oxford Movement of the 1830s and 1840s. Led by J.H. → Newman, E.B. → Pusey

235 and others, Tractarians emphasized Anglicanism’s fundamental identity with the ancient Catholic Church and its spiritual independence from political forces. By the 1840s, some followers of the movement began carrying its themes away from Oxford, and incorporating them in the religious life of ordinary English men and women. In this transition the majority of scholars see the true emergence of Anglo-Catholicism. Anglo-Catholicism has had different emphases. The first was the liturgical renaissance associated with “Ritualism.” Ritualism at first entailed a strict fealty to the strictures of the → Book of Common Prayer and its required services, but soon moved beyond this. AngloCatholics interpreted the “ornament rubric” (found at the beginning of the service of Morning Prayer) as justifying the restoration of eucharistic vestments. By the 1860s, they began advocating (and practicing) advanced ceremonial as well. These ceremonies were summarized in 1875 by the English Church Union (a society established to defend the movement) as the “six points,” or the use of 1. eucharistic vestments (chasuble, dalmatic etc.), 2. an eastward position when celebrating the Eucharist (i.e. with the priest’s back to the congregation), 3. altar lights, 4. the mixed chalice, 5. wafer bread, and 6. incense. Finally, they began adding interpolations from other liturgical sources to the liturgy. These innovations provoked a great outcry, and rioting even occurred at times. A legal attempt was made to put down ritualism in the Public Worship Regulation Act (1874) which established secular courts for the trial of liturgical variations. This agenda had the unexpected result, among the general public, of making martyrs of individual ritualists by ostentatiously convicting and jailing them for their religious beliefs. These cases prompted a plea for toleration, further strengthened by the selfless work of many ritualist clergymen, such as Arthur Henry Stanton (1830–1918) and Charles Fuge Lowder (1820–1880), among the poor of London and other cities. Ritualists also renewed the practice of private confession and priestly → absolution and recreated religious communities for men and women. On this last point they were particularly successful. A new phase in the movement can be seen commencing in the 1890s, and involved a rapprochement between Anglo-Catholicism and the new intellectual trends of the 19th century. In 1889, a group of younger Anglo-Catholics, led by C. → Gore, published Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation. The contributors jettisoned the idea of plenary verbal biblical inspiration and asserted that particularly the OT was an example of developing religious consciousness. Further, by emphasizing the doctrine of the → Incarnation and the indwelling of the Logos in

Anglo-Catholicism the world, they showed that the principle of evolution was not antithetical to Catholic Christianity. Finally, although the church should be open to new knowledge, they argued that it must continue to maintain the fundamental correctness of the supernatural gospel. In this way, the contributors to Lux Mundi saw themselves as offering a middle path between biblical literalism and Protestant Modernism, then arising in Britain, which expressed doubts over miracles such as the → Virgin Birth. During the turn-of-the-century period, the AngloCatholic emphasis upon incarnation and the sacraments also contributed to a distinctive social vision. In organizations like the Christian Social Union and later in the Anglo-Catholic Summer School of Sociology, the modern industrial order was criticized as being both soulless and materialistic. Still another focus of Anglo-Catholicism has been a desire for church unity, particularly the reuniting of the historical Catholic traditions. Thus, the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom was established in 1857 to bring together Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Although its origins were in the Church of England, Anglo-Catholicism soon spread to other parts of the Anglican world. In the 1850s, it took root in the American Episcopal Church (→ Episcopalism) and soon began to flourish in large cities such as New York and in the upper Mid-West. Today it is found throughout the churches of the Anglican communion, but although it is strong in some areas (e.g. South Africa), in other places (like the Church of Ireland) it is very small. From the outset, however, Anglo-Catholicism has been a controversial movement within Anglicanism. In 19th-century Britain, defenders of the Erastian (T. → Erastus) nature of the English Church charged Anglo-Catholics with a clericalism that undermined the legal establishment of the church. In the 20th century, some have viewed it as merely a stalking horse for Roman Catholicism within Anglicanism, while others have chastised it for its (at times) lack of loyalty to the larger Anglican tradition. Finally, others have criticized the movement for its exclusive theology which has often stymied ecumenical outreach to non-episcopalians. Particularly in the early years of the 20th century, AngloCatholics were themselves divided over where to locate the Catholic tradition. With the rise of ritualism, at least three options emerged. Some advocated using the first Prayer Book of Edward VI (1549), which kept many more of the traditional practices than did subsequent Prayer Books. A second appeal related more broadly to medieval British practice. Percy Dearmer (1867–1936), in his influential The Parson’s Handbook (1899), made use of this “Sarum,” or medieval British liturgy, as a

Anglo-Saxons model. Still others argued that Anglicans, as members of a modern Catholic church, should freely adopt styles, practices, and devotions of Tridentine Roman Catholicism (→ Trent, Council of ). As an organized movement, Anglo-Catholicism reached its apex in the decades between the World Wars. In the years after the Second World War, AngloCatholicism experienced something of a decline. Demographic changes in both Britain and North America involving suburbanization inaugurated a gradual decline in the vitality of inner city life, where many of the strongest Anglo-Catholic congregations had been located. Ironically, Anglo-Catholics were also victims of their own success. The → liturgical movement of the postwar era, with its emphasis upon the centrality of the Eucharist, rendered Anglo-Catholic worship much less distinctive than it had been earlier. But three major factors have not only dealt a serious blow to the movement, but have also divided it. The transformation of Roman Catholic worship in the years after → Vatican II left AngloCatholics isolated in their liturgical emphases. They debated among themselves whether they should move in the direction of the new Roman Catholic practices, or maintain their older models of worship and devotion. A second factor was the issue of the ordination of women (→ Women: IV). Beginning in the late 1960s, churches of the Anglican communion began debating the validity of such ordinations, and Anglicans in Canada (1975), the USA (1976), and England (1992), as well as many other national churches, have approved them. Most, but not all, Anglo-Catholics opposed this change as a threat to the Catholicity of Anglican orders and a blow to the hoped-for reunion of Catholic Christianity. As a result, Anglo-Catholics found themselves bitterly divided and once again marginalized within Anglicanism. By the end of the century, the fiercely divisive issues in Anglicanism had moved away from Protestant/Catholic questions towards cultural ones, pitting conservatives or traditionalists against modernists or liberals. In the face of these challenges, some Anglo-Catholics have called for a new Anglo-Catholic revival able to respond to the challenges of the late 20th century. In 1990, an “Affirming Catholicism” movement (technically a charitable educational foundation) was inaugurated for such a renewal. The success of this agenda remains to be seen. C. Harris & N.P. Williams, eds., Northern Catholicism, 1933 ◆ W.A. Visser ’t Hooft, Anglo-Catholicism and Orthodoxy, 1933 ◆ G.H. Tavard, The Quest for Catholicity, 1963 ◆ G. Rowell, The Vision Glorious, 1983 ◆ W.S.F. Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism, 1989 ◆ J. John, ed., Living Tradition, 1992 ◆ J.S. Reed, Glorious Battle, 1996. Robert Bruce Mullin

Anglo-Saxons. From the 4th century, during the final phase of Roman rule, there was already controlled settlement of groups of continental Germans in the province

236 of Britannia. At the beginning of the 5th century, this peaceful colonization was replaced by a phase of conquest, in which the Germans shook off the rule of the RomanoBritons. There were several waves of invasions, made up of Jutes, Angles, and Old Saxons. The invaders probably also included → Frisians. They were already intermixed when they arrived in England. These people, who dominated southern, central, and eastern England until 1066, are called Anglo-Saxons. Some of the Romano-Britons took refuge in the western part of the island, others intermingled with the pagan invaders. During the 6th and 7th centuries, Anglo-Saxon rule became stabilized; an aristocracy arose and Christianity spread. According to Bede, kingdoms were established by the Jutes (Kent), Saxons (Essex, Sussex, Wessex), and Angles (East Anglia, Mercia and Middle Anglia, Northumbria). Today this heptarchy is viewed as one stage in a lengthy process of concentration, which began with many small local alliances in the period of the migrations and led to the establishment of larger units. The meaning of the “high king” spoken of by → Bede is disputed. In battling the Viking invaders, the kings of Wessex intermittently gained supremacy, so that Edward the Elder (899–924) is considered the first king of all the Anglo-Saxons. The political power of the Anglo-Saxons came to an abrupt end with the death without issue of Edward the Confessor and the Norman invasion in 1066. Alongside the ongoing Celtic Church and the Irish missionary movement in Scotland and northern Britain, Pope → Gregory I undertook the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons. Sent by Gregory, the Roman missionary → Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Kent in 597 with some 40 monks. With the support of the Frankish church, the conversion of Kent proceeded rapidly; the marriage of King Aethelberht (560–616) to Bertha, the daughter of the Frankish king, had already familiarized him with Christianity. The organization of the church was based on an archbishopric at → Canterbury ; as missionary work extended to the other kingdoms, a second archbishopric was established at → York. Pagan hostility and competition with the Irish mission hindered progress, until the Synod of → Whitby in 664 tipped the balance in favor of Roman usage. From then on, development of an ecclesiastical hierarchy and centralization of political power went hand in hand. The Christianization of England was completed by → Theodore of Canterbury (669–690). In the 7th and 8th centuries, the ideal of a national church tied to Rome was brought to the continent by Anglo-Saxon missionaries like → Willibrord and → Boniface, laying the groundwork for the ties between the Carolingians and the papacy. The high standard of the Anglo-Saxon monasteries contributed decisively to the cultural florescence of the Frankish kingdom (e.g.

237 → Alcuin). → Alfred (871–899) attempted to overcome the subsequent period of stagnation through his consciously Christian kingship. Following monastic reform in the 10th century, the late Anglo-Saxon period was dominated by the learned abbot → Aelfric (d. c. 1025) and Wulfstan, Archbishop of York (1002–1023). Both their efforts to Christianize the laity and their close ties with the continent recall the great age of Bede. F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 1943, 31971 ◆ H. MayrHarting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 1972, 31991 ◆ L. Webster et al., eds., The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture AD 600–900, 1991 ◆ R. McKitterick, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History, II, 1995 ◆ L.E. von Padberg, Mission und Christianisierung, 1995. Lutz E. von Padberg

Angola is the seventh largest country of Africa. It occupies a large area of the south-west along the Atlantic coast, stretching eastwards for some 1000 km across highlands to include the upper reaches of rivers flowing, via the Zambezi, into the Indian Ocean. As a continuous political entity, it began with a small Portuguese colony established around the port of Luanda in 1576, largely as a base for slave-trading, and its prosperity depended entirely upon the regular export of slaves to Brazil. The diocese of Luanda included → Jesuits, → Capuchins and local priests, mostly of mixed blood. By the early 19th century, the conditions of this colony and its church greatly deteriorated owing to the decline of Portuguese power, the Napoleonic War, and the suppression of the Jesuits, as, later, of all religious orders in Angola. In the late 19th century, Angola revived and was vastly expanded in the period of the “scramble” for Africa by a long series of small military campaigns, over 90 in all, between 1890 and 1922. Most of the old Kongo was now included, together with an immense area south of Luanda extending as far as the Kunene river. From then on, there was a considerable Portuguese settlement inland, which continued into the 1950s. The principal indigenous population groups were the Kongo in the north, the Mbundu inland from Luanda and the Ovimbundu in the Central Highlands more to the south. From the time of King Mvemba Nzinga (→ Afonso I) in the early 16th century, the Kongo Kingdom maintained a remarkable Catholic identity, assisted after 1645 by Italian Capuchin missionaries. These, however, ceased to reside in Kongo, in the late 18th century, and Kongo Catholicism, with no priests of its own, slowly faded away, leaving little more than legend and a veneration for the crucifix by the late 19th century. Rather more survived in Angola, where in 1854, on his trans-continental journey, → Livingstone encountered an indigenous church dignitary at Pungo Andongo. A new wave of Catholic missionary activity began with the arrival in 1865 of Holy Ghost Fathers (→ Hospitallers), mostly French; but the bishops

Angola and town clergy were Portuguese. Protestant missionary activity was also remarkably strong; in the 1880s, British → Baptists established an effective presence in the Kikongo-speaking north, American → Methodists among the Mbundu, and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (→ Congregationalism) among the Ovimbundu. Portuguese government policy in the early part of the 20th century was generally anti-clerical, but this changed with the coming of Salazar to power and, even more, after the Concordat and Missionary Agreement signed between Portugal and the Vatican in 1940, which greatly privileged Catholic missionary work, but ensured that it remained closely tied to government policy. The Protestant missions were always under suspicion of being implicitly opposed to a policy of “Portugalization” and encouraging the same kind of democratically related attitudes which many Protestant missions fostered elsewhere in Africa. While some African nationalist leaders had a Catholic background, most were Protestant, and when a serious anti-colonial revolt broke out in 1961, the Protestant churches were blamed and penalized. From then on until the recognition of the independence of Angola in 1975, following the 1974 anti-fascist coup in Portugal, there was almost continuous unrest and civil war in Angola. Three separate political movements emerged, increasingly hostile to one another. In the north, the FNLA was led by Holden Roberto, a Baptist; in and around Luanda, the more Marxist MPLA was led by Agostinho Neto, whose father was a Methodist minister. UNITA among the Ovimbundu, led by Jonas Savimbi, enjoyed North American (Congregationalist) sympathies as well as South African ones. But the MPLA, which actually gained power with Neto as Angola’s first president, claimed many Catholics of urban background among its early leadership, including priests like Joaquim Pinto de Andrade, formerly chancellor of Luanda diocese, who was detained in Portugal for many years. Independence in 1975 was followed by an exodus of white settlers and more than 20 years of almost incessant civil war, chiefly between MPLA and UNITA, in which Savimbi continually sought, but never quite obtained, control of the country. In consequence, Angola, a naturally rich country, has been ruined. Nowhere in the world have more people fallen victim to landmines. The revolution in South Africa, bringing Mandela to power, has, however, removed Savimbi’s principal external support and made peace in Angola more achievable. While disillusionment with politics has inevitably been profound, it is probable that the standing of the churches, both Catholic and Protestant, has grown steadily in these years, particularly as the Catholic Church has little by little recovered from its previous close alliance with the colonial power.

Anhalt W.G.L. Randles, L’Ancien Royaume du Congo, des origines à la fin du XIXe siècle, 1968 ◆ J. Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, 2 vols., 1969, 1978 ◆ D. Birmingham & P.M. Martin, eds., History of Central Africa, 2 vols., 1983 ◆ W. Clarence-Smith, The Third Portuguese Empire 1825–1975, 1985 ◆ S.H. Broadhead, Historical Dictionary of Angola, 21992 ◆ D. Péclard, “Religion and Politics in Angola,” JRA 23,2, 1998. Adrian Hastings

Anhalt I. History – II. The Current Situation of the Church

I. History An area of Germany situated between the Harz Mountains and the hill range of Fläming. Following the “great migration” (Völkerwanderung), it was settled by Germanic tribes to the west of the river Saale, while a Slavic population established itself in the east. Both settlement areas later united into a single dominion, forming a county under Gero (d. 965) and the Ascanian dynasty that succeeded him, and, following the death of Albert the Bear (d. 1170), an autonomous principality (1212). It remained unified despite several attempts to break it up into smaller units. Anhalt was a duchy from 1806 to 1918 and a free state until 1945, whereupon it was combined with parts of the Saxon territory to form the state (Land) of Sachsen-Anhalt (1947). From 1952 to 1989, the latter was divided into two districts, which were then reunited in 1990. The region now comprises the administrative districts of Magdeburg, Dessau and Halle, which no longer follow the historical boundaries of the territory of Anhalt, now only recognizable in the Evangelical Church of Anhalt. Missionary history led to the creation of the dioceses of Halberstadt, Magdeburg, Brandenburg and Meißen. The Slavs were finally defeated after a series of long and difficult military campaigns (1115 near Köthen), as a result of which they were driven back and assimilated to German culture, among others by Flemish immigrants. In addition to monasteries, princely residences and manor houses, market towns and cities (Zerbst, Dessau, Köthen, Bernburg) with representative churches came into existence. The Reformation was quick to reach Anhalt; the Evangelical-Protestant sermon and church order asserted itself after 1521 (Prince Wolfgang, Elisabeth of Weida and Stephan Molitor in Gernrode, followed by Prince George III after 1530). Wolfgang signed the Protestation of Speyer in 1529 and the Augsburg Confession in 1530; the theologians signed the Confession and its Apology in 1537. The Lutheran Bible was declared authoritative in 1541; the church order of 1545 followed the suggestions of Luther, Melanchthon and J. → Jonas, delegating the regional ecclesiastical authority to the princes (with four superintendents). The influence exerted by Melanchthon and George III remained dominant. During the theological

238 disputes of the second generation, the theologians of Anhalt, with the support of Protestant refugees, tried to reach a compromise together with Prince Joachim Ernst (rejection of the Formula of Concord because of the doctrine of ubiquity, abolition of exorcism during baptism). This provoked a fierce literary dispute with the theologians of other regions, causing Anhalt to break with Saxony and side with Brandenburg, Hesse, and the Palatinate (from 1578 ordinations only in Zerbst; founding of a gymnasium illustre there in 1582; Repetitio Anhaltina of 1579; Confession of the Holy Eucharist of 1585). The dispute over the issue of exorcism led to the dismissal of Johann → Arndt. Stronger opposition arose among the patrons, congregations, and clergy when the “papist” altars and images were removed by order of the prince in 1596. Taking place in the wake of a biblical-orthodox “Continuation of the Reformation,” this purge was above all due to the initiative of W. → Amling, who attempted to bring together the various reformist intentions (1599: drafting of an order for religious services combining Lutheran and → Heidelberg Catechisms). In 1606, the region was divided into four principalities with a reformist church order; the Prince of Zerbst was again won over to the Lutheran cause (Lutherans) in 1644, while the imperial recognition of the reformists in 1648 enforced the principle of tolerance (construction of Lutheran churches in Dessau, Köthen, and Zerbst). The major impulses in this direction came from Prince Ludwig (Wolfgang Ratke [Ratichius], “Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft” in Köthen), from pietistic circles (Leopold Franz Lehr, Johann Ludwig Allendorf, Köthen church hymns), and especially from the Dessau-Wörtlitz Culture Group (Prince Leopold Friedrich Franz, Philanthropinum [→ Philanthropy], educational establishment for educators, pastoral association, emancipation of Jews, foundation of Catholic congregations). The Napoleonic period brought about a growth of national identity beyond the scope of the small states. A unification of churches with retention of individual profiles was achieved in Bernburg (F.A. → Krummacher, 1820) and Dessau (Marius de Marées, 1827), though not until 1880 in Köthen. The industrialization led to far-reaching structural changes, and thus to confessional indifference, but also to the appearance of devout piety in conjunction with social engagement (Bible Society, missionary societies, Order of Protestant Ministrants in Dessau [1895], youth associations, women’s assistance, and the like). After the disappearance of the princely families of Zerbst (1793), Köthen (1847), and Bernburg (1863), the unified region was newly structured into five districts. The separation of church and school system was effected in 1875, the civil marriage introduced in 1875, and the church-congregation and synodal order

239 established in 1875/1878. Elements of the Lutheran tradition prevailed in the organization of worship and in religious education (candles, crucifix, oblates; Luther’s “Small Catechism” as a textbook since 1892). The ordination vow remained within the frame of the → Augsburg Confession and the Apology (→ Augsburg Confession, Apology). II. The Current Situation of the Church Following the First World War, efforts to draft a constitution and create a regional church council (Landeskirchenrat [LKR]) met with rapid success (1920). In 1926, an intermediary institution was interposed between the regional church conference (Landeskirchentag) and the LKR, out of which a church leadership emerged in the 1980s. In the struggle of the church during the period of National Socialism, the regional brotherhood council (Landesbruderrat) – which contested the authority of the LKR in spiritual issues, but respected it in administrative matters – attempted to hold together and provide leadership for the (approx. 30) pastors and congregations that sided with them. After 1945, the LKR initiated and promoted Christian doctrine, diakonia (Hilfswerk), regional church conferences, partnerships with the Palatine, Lippish, and Hussite churches, the organization of congregations and the restoration of buildings under the aggravating conditions of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The constitution was revised, though its structure was preserved: the regional church conference (now called “regional synod” [Landessynode]) is composed of 39 synodal members, including 13 theologians, and elects the LKR. The latter consists of three to five members of theological and non-theological background who do not belong to the synod, each holding office for a period of six years. Since 1958, its chairman carries the title of “church president”. In 1972, an appointment period of eight years was specified for the senior district pastors. The territorial size of the regional church was always modest in comparison to its neighbors. Attempts to integrate it into the → Old Prussian Union in 1932/1934 failed. Upon joining the Evangelical Church of the Union in 1960, the particular profile of the Anhalt tradition was respected. Its congregations, which numbered around 220 at the beginning of the 20th century, now amount to 196 as a result of regrouping. The 19th century was in a position to restore several old buildings. Following the destruction, during the Second World War, of many fine churches in Dessau and Zerbst, reconstruction was only partially possible. The preservation of the remaining buildings still necessitates considerable effort; several village churches had to be given up, the more so as the number of congregation members, who amounted to about 380,000 in 1900, now lies around 76,000 (20–30% of the population).

Anicetus The size of the staff (which includes women ministers since 1957) had to be adapted to the drastic financial changes that have taken place since 1990. About 80 pastoral offices and 40 other positions in the pastoral sector are to be kept. J.C. Beckmann, Historie des Fürstentums Anhalt, 1710 ◆ G. Allihn, Die reformierte Kirche in Anhalt, 1874 ◆ H. Duncker, Anhalts Bekenntnisstand 1570–1606, 1892 ◆ E. Siedersleben, Geschichte der Union in Anhalt, 1894 ◆ E. Teichmüller, Die Evangelische Landeskirche im Herzogtum Anhalt, 1905 ◆ H. Wäschke, Anhaltische Geschichte, 3 vols., 1913 ◆ C. Fey, Das Vordringen des Katholizismus in Anhalt, 1912 ◆ F. Lau, Georg III. von Anhalt, 1953 ◆ A. Boes, Die evangelische Landeskirche Anhalts, ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung in Bekenntnis und Verfassung, Amtsblatt der Evangelischen Landeskirche 1956, 6/7 ◆ H. Graf, Anhaltisches Pfarrerbuch, 1996. Christoph Schröter

Anhypostasis → Enhypostasis/Anhypostasis Anianus of Celeda (1st half of 5th cent.; place uncertain) Anianus defended → Pelagius at the Synod of Diosopolis (415) and wrote (before 419) a no longer extant polemic against → Jerome (cf. Jer. Ep. 143, 2 [to → Augustine and → Alypius]: Pseudodiaconus celedensis). He is to be identified with the only 5th-century translator of John → Chrysostom mentioned by name, although the extent of his contribution (presumably large) to the Latin Chrysostomica remains unclear, in the absence of a critical edition; besides the 25 Homiliae in Matthaeum (translated 419/420) and the 7 Homiliae de laudibus S. Pauli (c. 418 or after 421), which are faithful and elegant translations despite their Pelagian slant, he was undoubtedly responsible for other translations that cannot be identified precisely. CPL, 771f. ◆ Altaner, 81978, 376, 629 ◆ H. Marti, Übersetzer der Augustin-Zeit, 1974, 301–308. Michaela Zelzer

Anicetus. Probably from Syria, Anicetus was one of several presbyter-bishops in Rome who headed the various Christian house churches in the 150s and 160s. Like → Clement I before him in the 1st half of the 2nd century (Herm. 8.3 = Vis. II 4.3) and → Soter and → Eleutherus after him, he was responsible for the external relations of the city’s Christians. → Polycarp of Smyrna (Irenaeus Haer. III 3.4; Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 24.16f.; IV 14.5) and (c. 160) → Hegesippus (IV 22.3) were therefore his guests when they were in Rome. Polycarp and Anicetus differed over the observance of Easter but remained in communion. Hegesippus saw in Anicetus the authoritative preserver of the apostolic tradition in Rome. Although Anicetus himself was not yet a monarchic bishop, during the 2nd half of the 2nd century, the presbyter responsible for external relations increasingly took precedence over the others, so that a monarchic episcopate gradually developed in Rome. The Roman → bishop list

Aniconic dating from the end of the 170s (Irenaeus Haer. III 3.3), which fictively retrojects the monarchic episcopate into the past, names Anicetus as the tenth monarchic bishop of Rome. T. Klauser, “Die Anfänge der römischen Bischofsliste,” JACE 3, 1974, 121–137 ◆ P.J. Hofmann, “Die amtliche Stellung der in der ältesten römischen Bischofsliste überlieferten Männer in der Kirche von Rom,” HJ 109, 1989, 1–23 ◆ P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 21989, 128, 203, 253, 269, 329–330, 334–343 ◆ K.A. Strand, “Church Organization in First-Century Rome,” AUSS 29, 1991, 139– 160. Peter Lampe

Aniconic. The label “aniconic” applies to religions and their cults that make do without images – primarily anthropomorphic and theriomorphic images of deities; “natural” cultic objects such as (undressed) monumental stones, trees, etc. are not related to images but are associated with traditions of sacred places. In aniconic cults, the relationship with the deity otherwise conveyed by a cultic image is established by references (often visual) to the deity’s invisible presence (e.g. an empty throne, animal messengers, a delimited space) or by rituals in which the deity’s power and presence are realized. A special form of aniconic cult is the prohibition of images in the Israelite cult (Exod 30:4; Deut 5:8), which leads to → iconoclasm. This → prohibition of images originated in the strict monolatry of Israel; later → monotheism gave it great significance. C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot, 21987 ◆ T.N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image?, 1995. Christoph Dohmen

Animals I. Religious Studies – II. Old Testament and Ancient Israel – III. Christianity – IV. Attitudes toward Animals in Islam – V. Ethical Considerations

I. Religious Studies Especially in the religions of primitive peoples, though also in some advanced civilizations, certain animals are attributed a special, sacred significance on the basis of their unique characteristics (size, strength, dangerousness, fertility, etc.), their economic importance, their strangeness or their familiarity, and they are venerated as bearers, representatives, or mediators of numinous power (→ God, Representations and Symbols of ). This phenomenon, also known as “animal cults,” is especially apparent in hunting rites (→ Hunters/Hunting Rites), in the → totemism and → shamanism of hunters and gatherers, as well as in the veneration of theriomorphic deities in advanced civilizations. Other relevant aspects associated with the veneration of animals include animal → sacrifice, → magic, → oracles, as well as notions of purity (→ Clean and Unclean: I) and → taboo. There is still no universally accepted explanation of the veneration of animals.

240 For hunters-gatherers, animals are of economicexistential and thus also religious significance, whereas for sedentary farmers the focus is on the → fertility of the → earth and of plants (→ Trees/Plants). Hunting rites ensure a successful hunt and establish communication with the → Lord/Lady of the Animals as the creator, protector, or spirit (→ Demons and Spirits: I)/deity of the prey. The Lord of the Animals (who are conceived as having a soul), in the form of an animal, in a composite animal/human, or in a human form, guarantees the success of the hunt. On the other hand, the hunters are also obligated to adhere to certain behavioral rules, e.g. not to kill more animals than needed for survival, to distribute the prey in an organized fashion, and to offer sacrifices to reconcile and revivify the souls of slain animals. One particularly representative example is the bear cult (→ Bear Festival) in northern Asia and North America, which focuses on mourning and reconciliation rites as an apology for the death of the bear. Hunting rites may also constitute the ideological background to the rock drawings depicting animals that are found all over the world. Totemism, shamanism, and the mythology of primitive peoples hold the idea of a common origin and thus kinship between human beings and animals, and the idea of an animal as the → alter ego of human beings (tonalism, nagualism), or as the creator and progenitor of all human beings or of a particular people. The role of animals as creators or helpers at creation and as cultural heroes is especially evident in the figure of the trickster (→ Culture Hero). For shamanism, too, the notion of an animal as the alter ego of a shaman, of his close relationship to ancillary, usually theriomorphic spirits, and his ability to transform into the form of an animal, is characteristic. The veneration of animals in advanced civilizations manifests especially in the veneration of deities in the pure form of an animal or in a composite form with an animal’s head/human body, or a human head/animal’s body. Such forms are meant less to depict the actual appearance of the deity than to render some particular aspect of their nature and to evoke the deity’s presence. Animals also function as companions and as attributes of a deity, as signs of the zodiac, and as fabulous creatures. Finally, animal symbols (→ Symbols/Symbol Theory: XI), found in all religions, may be mentioned. The worship of the divine in a pure animal form or in a composite form (animal head/human body) is characteristic of ancient Egyptian religion (→ Egypt: III). Forms include the bull or cow (e.g. Hathor, Apis, Buchis), felids (e.g. Bastet, Sakhmet, Tefnut, Pakhet), canids (e.g. Anubis, Upuaut), birds (e.g. → Seth and Horus, Re, Har-akhti, Thoth), or some other animal (e.g. Thoeris as a hippopotamus, Sobek as a crocodile,

241 Heket as a frog, Khefre as a scarab). A deity can appear in several different animal forms simultaneously, or a single animal can represent the form in which numerous deities appear. One or several specimens of the animal associated with a certain deity were kept at the cultic site, and the embalming or interment of dead animals was also practiced. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the interplay of → karma and → saásāra has generated the notion that all living beings are related, that animals have souls, and that one ought not to kill (→ Ahiásā). In addition to the sacred cow, which has become a Hindu symbol, Hinduism also knows theriomorphic deities (e.g. the monkey god Hanuman or the elephant-headed Ganeßa), animals as the → avatāra of a deity (e.g. the incarnation of → Viß»u as the fish Matsya, the turtle Kūrma, the boar Varāha, the lion-man Narasiáha), and animals as the vahāna of a deity (the elephant Airvata as the mount of Indra, the bull Nandi as the mount of → Śiva, the rat as the animal associated with Ganeßa, the tiger as that associated with the goddess Durgā). One striking feature is that certain animals are attributed the same functions and the same characteristics worldwide. The canids (doglike creatures) are consistently viewed as animals associated with the hereafter/ death, but also with creation and culture; as such they play an important role as progenitors of human beings and as culture heroes. The felids (catlike creatures) symbolize especially power and dominion, though they are also often associated with the sun god or with night and the realm of death (nocturnal activity). The → snake/serpent and → dragon are associated with fertility, regeneration, immortality (the snake’s sloughing), and attributed a special role at creation and death. The owl and bat are animals of the night and of the underworld (nocturnal activity). Birds attributed to the heavenly realm symbolize especially the soul (→ Soul, Bird of the) or they function as messengers. In the ancient world, bulls were often associated with weather deities, in which capacity they symbolized characteristics such as strength, procreative power, fertility, vitality and dynamism. The horse was accorded a special position in the ancient world as the animal that accompanies the dead and the human souls, as the animal pulling the chariots of the sun god and of the war god, and as the mount of various deities. In addition, especially dogs, horses, and cattle occupied a special position as sacrificial animals that were ritually killed, consumed, or interred. These global parallels can be explained primarily on the basis of the characteristics normally associated with these animals, e.g. the dog and horse as animals that accompany human beings (also in death), the danger and strength of felids, the fertility of bulls, or the regeneration of snakes. The cult was to emphasize, invoke, or thwart such characteristics.

Animals H. Findeisen, Das Tier als Gott, Dämon und Ahne, 1956 ◆ P. Radin, The Trickster, 1956 ◆ J. Gonda, “Mensch und Tier im alten Indien,” in idem, Selected Studies, vol. IV, 1975, 484–96 ◆ R. Merz, Die numinose Mischgestalt, 1978 ◆ B. Hänsel et al., eds., Die Indogermanen und das Pferd, 1994 ◆ P. Münch, ed., Tier und Menschen, 1998, 21999 ◆ N.J. Saunders, Icons of Power. Feline Symbolism in the Americas, 1998 ◆ S. Westphal-Hellbusch et al., eds., Tier und Totem, 1998 ◆ P. Dinzelbacher, ed., Mensch und Tier in der Geschichte Europas, 2000 ◆ P. Germond, Das Tier im alten Ägypten, 2001 ◆ D. Goltschnigg et al., eds., Die Katze des Propheten, 2002 ◆ I. Keul, Hanuman, der Gott in Affengestalt, 2002 ◆ U. Peters, “Xolotl und Anubis,” in: M. Hutter et al., eds., Hairesis. FS K. Hoheisel, JbAC.E 34, 2002, 361–380 ◆ R.H. Wilkinson, Die Welt der Götter im alten Ägypten, 2003 (bibl.). Ulrike Peters

II. Old Testament and Ancient Israel Domestic animals (esp. cattle, sheep, goats) were indispensable for human survival and as such represented a person’s most important mobile property, to which one generally accorded special care (Prov 27:23–27; cf. 12:10; Sir 7:22). They provided important products (milk, meat, wool, fur, hides) and were also the most important sacrificial animals. In addition, cattle and asses assisted in agricultural work. Many wild animals (lions, bears, wolves, etc.) that could pose a threat either to people or to their livelihood populated the countryside. In oracles of disaster they often appear as instruments of God’s judgment (Exod 7:26ff.; 1 Kgs 13:24ff.; 2 Kgs 17:25; Ezek 5:17, passim). Animals, like → human beings (IV) are God’s creatures (Gen 1f.), recipients of God’s caring concern (Ps 36:7), and consequently certain spheres for living and certain times of the day are attributed to them (Ps 104:10–22, 25f.). Other texts, describing creation in the tradition of the struggle against → chaos (II), emphasize that in order to secure the cosmos God fights against the chaotic monsters of the sea such as → Leviathan, Rahab, and Tannin (Pss 74:13f.; 89:10f.; cf. Isa 27:1; 51:9f.; Job 26:12f. passim). Human beings, as the stewards of God according to the anthropology of the Priestly Document and bearing the predicate of the → image of God (I), are charged with dominion over the animal world (Gen 1:26–28; cf. Ps 8:6–9), albeit not in the sense of unrestricted rule, but rather of the maintenance and preservation (→ Creation: VI) of the living world common to all creatures. Some texts attribute to animals a special relationship with God (Pss 104:21; 147:9; Job 38:41; Joel 1:20) and represent them as joining in the praise of God (Isa 43:20; Ps 148:7–12). Legal texts in particular demonstrate that domestic animals were integrated into the community of human beings. Thus, Sabbath rest included working animals (Exod 23:12; Deut 5:14; Exod 20:10), which were also to receive a portion of the yield of that labor (Deut 25:4). Regulations governing sabbatical years also extended to wild animals (Exod 23:11; Lev 25:7).

Animals Human beings and animals live together in a community of fate. Both are affected by famine, drought, and the consequences of war ( Jer 14:2–6; Hos 4:3; Joel 1:18ff.; Hag 1:11). Even during the → Flood, human beings and animals perish together, but both are also included in the post-diluvian Noachic covenant (→ Covenant: II) (Gen 9:9–11, cf. Hos 2:20). Moreover, human beings and land animals are both created from the earth (Gen 2:19) or on the same day (Gen 1:24f.), they become living beings through the breath of life that God breathes into them (9*   /nepeš ˙ayyāh: Gen 2:7, 19), and both are subject to the fate of death (Ps 49:13, 21; Eccl 3:19–21) when God withdraws his breath of life from them (Ps 104:29). A particularly important issue is the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Lev 11; Deut 14 [→ Clean and Unclean: II]) which is based on cosmological, sociological, and cultural considerations. Unclean animals include all those not corresponding exactly to the criteria of pure land animals (cloven-hoofed ruminants) or not moving about commensurately with their respective spheres of life, but also those occupying hostile areas (wilderness, steppe, ruins) or which have unusual habits (carrion eaters, chthonian animals). The latter are often associated with demonic powers (→ Demons and Spirits: II) ( Jer 13:21f.; 34:14f., passim). Animals play important roles especially in metaphorical language (cf. Riede, Netz; idem, Spiegel). The lion, the king of land animals, represents strength and courage and as such symbolizes royalty (Prov 30:30; Ezek 19:2–9); the wild bull symbolizes strength (Deut 33:17); the eagle, the king of the air, impresses through its speed and elegant flight (2 Sam 1:23; Hab 1:8; Prov 30:19). In the language of love the ibex, gazelle, and young stag appear as images of the beloved, because of the charm and grace of these animals (Prov 5:19; Song 2:9, 17). The imprecatory and individual laments of the psalms (→ Lament: II) in particular frequently use animal imagery to characterize, on the one hand, the uncanny, aggressive, or chaotic power of human adversaries (Pss 17: 12; 22:13f., 21f.; 59 passim) and, on the other hand, the weakness and isolation of the petitioner (Pss 22:7; 55:7f.; → Psalms/Psalter: II). In → apocalypticism (II), composite-form animals symbolize forces hostile to God (Dan 7f.). Within the metaphorical language used to describe God, comparisons with predators (lions, bears, leopards) characterize YHWH’s own dangerous appearances (Hos 5:14; 13:7f.; Lam 3:10). A variety of animal imagery appears in connection with the Temple, e.g. the two images of calves that → Jeroboam I had erected in → Dan and → Bethel (1 Kgs 12:29) and that might be viewed as pedestals for the invisible God, or the images of bulls as bearers of the Brazen Sea (1 Kgs 7:25) and as decoration on the water

242 vessels (1 Kgs 7:29) of the Jerusalem → Temple (II), probably symbolizing power and fertility. YHWH is also associated with seraphim (→ Composite Beings), presumably winged serpents (Num 21:6; Deut 8:15) or griffins functioning as (tamed) throne guards (Isa 6), and with the cherubs serving as YHWH’s vehicle or as pedestals (Ps 18:11; 1 Kgs 6:23–28; → Throne). → Hezekiah removed the bronze serpent, which according to a cultic legend goes back to → Moses (Num 21:4–9), from the Jerusalem Temple (2 Kgs 18:4) because, among other things, people ascribed protective and healing powers to it. By contrast, → wisdom literature emphasizes especially the way animals can function as models for human beings (Prov 6:6–8; 30:24–28). The focus is not only on the provisions for survival, but also on adhering to the divine order ( Jer 8:7; Isa 1:3). Because their mere existence can attest to God’s power as Creator, they are also capable of becoming the bearers of a specific (natural) theology ( Job 12:7–11). Commensurately with the correlation between primal age and end time, the OT yearns for an eschatological peace with animals that might remove the antagonism between human beings and their domestic animals, on the one hand, and the more dangerous, even lethal predators, on the other (Isa 11:6–9; 65:25; cf. Hos 2:20). L. Lewysohn, Die Zoologie des Talmud, 1858 ◆ O. Keel, Vögel als Boten, OBO 14, 1977 ◆ idem, Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob, FRLANT 121, 1978 ◆ A.M. Singer, Animals in Rabbinic Teaching, 1979 ◆ O. Keel, Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandten, OBO 33, 1980 ◆ idem, Deine Blicke sind Tauben, SBS 114/115, 1984 ◆ OLB 1, 1984, 100–180 ◆ W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 1993 ◆ B. Janowski, U. NeumannGorsolke & U. Glessmer, Gefährten und Feinde des Menschen, 1993 ◆ F. Schmitz-Kahmen, Geschöpfe Gottes unter der Obhut des Menschen, 1997 ◆ O. Borowski, Every Living Thing, 1998 ◆ B. Janowski & P. Riede, eds., Die Zukunft der Tiere, 1999 ◆ P. Riede, Im Netz des Jägers, WMANT 85, 2000, 150–278 ◆ P. v Gemünden, “Tiersymbolik I.–III.,” TRE XXXIII, 2001, 534–542, 14 ◆ O. Keel & T. Staubli, Im Schatten deiner Flügel, 2001 ◆ P. Riede, Im Spiegel der Tiere, OBO 187, 2003. Peter Riede

III. Christianity Because the Christian religion is anthropocentric, it pays little attention to animals. Jesus did not make any fundamental statements about animals or about our dealings with them. In the NT, they serve primarily as a model for human beings, e.g. carefree birds (Matt 6:26), and as symbols, e.g. sheep symbolizing the community ( John 10). The Holy Spirit is compared to a → dove (Mark 1:10f.). The distinction between clean and unclean animals is no longer valid (Mark 7:15; Acts 10:15). Rescuing and taking care of animals takes precedence over the Sabbath commandment (Luke 13:15; 14:5). In Jesus’ sphere of influence, serpents and scorpions become harmless (Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19). Rom

243 8:19–22 alludes to the suffering of animals under the present dominion of sin and to their future redemption. However the interpretation of this passage has always been disputed. Traditionally, κτίσις/ktisis has been interpreted as referring to the world of human beings or of angels. Animals have been viewed as creatures under human dominion; only a few ( John Scotus → Eriugena, → Gertrude the Great of Helfta, → Mechthild of Hackeborn, → Nicholas of Cusa) taught that animals have a → soul (III) and hence will be redeemed. The peace with animals as envisioned by the OT (see II above) has been allegorically applied to human beings, and questions of animal ethics (see V below) have hardly been discussed. Animals have significance as → symbols (XI; → Evangelists, Symbols of the) in literature, sermons, and the visual arts. The → fish and the → lamb are symbols of Christ (→ Christ, Symbols of, illustrations), while other animals are symbols of martyrs and saints, e.g. the lion for Jerome (→ Jerome, Saint). Animals played an important role in connection with saints as early as the hermits → Antonius and → Paul of Thebes. Legends recount how animals become tame when they come into contact with saints, demonstrating the power of the sacred over evil and also of the sacred’s miraculous power; the biblical idea of the redemption of nature is also revivified in such tales (Isa 11:6–8; Rom 8:19–22; Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19). Redemption that also includes animals can be anticipated within the sphere of holy people. → Francis of Assisi viewed animals as his siblings, speaking and dealing with them accordingly. By applying Rom 8 to the entirety of creation, Luther and Calvin prepared the way for a new, biblical understanding of nature. Whereas Enlightenment thinkers such as R. → Descartes understood animals to be machines, Protestant theologians of the 17th century developed a new perspective. J.K. → Dannhauer, C. → Scriver, and P.J. → Spener viewed animals as our co-creatures who are also capable of feeling and suffering; on the basis of Prov 12:10 and Exod 20:13, these theologians commensurately inculcated compassion toward animals. Württemberg Pietists ( J.A. → Bengel, F.C. → Oetinger) anticipated that the → apocatastasis would include the participation of animals in salvation commensurate with Rom 8 and Isa 11. Toward the end of the 18th century, an increasing number of voices condemned cruelty toward animals, and associations opposing it appeared within the evangelical milieu of England in 1809 and 1824. In the 20th century, A.→ Schweitzer, drawing on Spener and Dann, demanded “reverence for life,” in which regard he enjoyed the concurrence of K. → Barth. The modern movement for animal rights forgot its Christian roots and integrated the demand for such rights into the conservation movement (→ Environmental protection).

Animals J. Bernhart, Heilige und Tiere, 1937 ◆ P. Michel, eds., Tiersymbolik, 1991 ◆ H. Feld, Beseelte Natur, 1993 ◆ idem, Franziskus von Assisi und seine Bewegung, 1994, 215–239 ◆ B. Janowski & P. Riede, eds., Die Zukunft der Tiere, 1999 ◆ E. Röhrig, Mitgeschöpflichkeit, 2000 (bibl.) ◆ C.A. Dann & A. Knapp, Wider die Tierquälerei, ed. M.H. Jung, KTP 7, 2002 (bibl.) ◆ M.H. Jung, “Die Anfänge der deutschen Tierschutzbewegung im 19. Jahrhundert,” in: idem, Nachfolger, Visionärinnen, Kirchenkritiker, 2003, 171–215 (bibl.). Martin H. Jung

IV. Attitudes toward Animals in Islam Islam pays considerable attention, relatively speaking, to animals, something also evident in the → Qur’ān, where many suras are named after animals. Moreover, the text frequently refers to animals as a living testimony to God’s wisdom, power, and caring concern. The early prophetic tradition (Óadīt; → Islam II) also attests to the understanding of animals in the initial centuries of Islam and simultaneously establishes the legal basis for their treatment. The fundamental legal positions are: 1. ritual purity: several animals, especially pigs and dogs, are viewed as being ritually unclean (→ Clean and Unclean: VI; → Purification: I); 2. permitted consumption: the various legal schools attest differing positions concerning which animals may be consumed (→ Dietary Laws: VI), especially as regards vermin, insects, and aquatic animals; 3. slaughter: only meat from ritually slaughtered animals may be consumed; slaughtering regulations stipulate that the knife must be sharp and the animal not be dragged to the place of slaughter; mass slaughters are condemned; 4. treatment: legal stipulations impose the obligation to care for one’s animals appropriately, otherwise the authorities may confiscate these animals. Differing theological opinions on the assessment of animals can also be discerned in Islam. Early Islam reflected on the fate of animals after death. The Qurhān (sura 6:38) suggests that animals, too, will be resurrected on the day of the Last Judgment. However, later theologians concluded that because animals possessed neither reason nor an immortal soul, they could neither be judged nor receive eternal reward or punishment. The position of several → Muatazilah such as aAbdal[abbārs (d. 1024) is remarkable: God’s righteousness demands that animals enter into paradise for a time sufficient to compensate them for unjust suffering during their lives. A.J. Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muhammedan Tradition, 1927 ◆ G.H. Bousquet, “Des animaux et de leur traitement selon le Judaisme, le Christianisme et l’Islam,” StIsl 9, 1958, 31–48 ◆ E. Gräf, Jagdbeute und Schlachttier im islamischen Recht, 1959 ◆ Damīrī, Hayāt al-˙ayawān al-kubrā, 1963/Islamic year 1383 ◆ M.T. Heemskerk, Suffering in the Mutazilite Theology, 2000 ◆ A. Giese, “‘Vier Tieren auch verheißen war, ins Paradies zu kommen’ – Betrachtungen zur Seele der Tiere im islamischen Mittelalter,” in: J.-L. Seban, ed., Die Seele der Tiere, Wolffenbütteler Forschungen 94, 2001, 11–31. Remke Kruk

Animals V. Ethics 1. Conduct toward Animals. Animal ethics focuses on human conduct toward animals in our → life world (see also → Environment/Ecology), in science, and in → technology and on its assessment according to ethicalmoral principles. Such ethics determines the limitations and allowances to be applied to our own → actions (III) toward animals in order to avoid entirely or at least mitigate the pain and suffering of animals and to enhance their well-being. Efforts in the area of animal ethics have a long and varied religious and philosophical tradition. During the 1970s, specialized animal ethics developed within praxis-oriented → bioethics in view of the industrialized mass use of animals (see 2 below), animal experimentation (see 3 below), and the increasing destruction of the habitat of animals. The center of this discussion is the conflict between human claims to the right to use and kill animals, on the one hand, and the animals’ need for and right to protection, on the other hand, the latter of which posits ethical limitations to the instrumental dealings with animals. Depending on context, reasoning, goals, and the kind of use to which animals are put, variously weighty questions emerge regarding the weighing of human against animal well-being and suffering that make it indispensable to engage in philosophical and anthropological reflection concerning the position of human beings in relationship to animals in consideration of the results of individual sciences. C.R. → Darwin’s theory of descent subsequently provided empirical underpinnings for J.G. → Herder’s notion that “animals are the elder siblings of human beings” (Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, 1785–1797, in: Werke, ed. M. Bollacher, vol. VI, 1989, 67). The consequences of this theory of evolution for animal ethics, however, still have to be worked out systematically. The broad consensus concerning the moral status of animals asserts that they are to be accorded not only instrumental value, but inherent or independent value as well. Animals can have not only certain interests, but in some instances also certain rights. The various arguments here, however, differ depending on the strictness and scope of animal protection as determined by applicable empirical and theoretical presuppositions. The improvement of animal rights legislation as well as its incorporation into the constitution [of Germany and other countries] have provided a legal basis for efforts in the sphere of animal ethics. Despite this progress, however, its rigorous application to concrete praxis has not yet come about, nor should the moral consideration of all other living beings be ignored. G.M. Teutsch, Mensch und Tier, Lexikon der Tierschutzethik, 1987 ◆ E.-M. Engels, ed., Biologie und Ethik, 1999 ◆ H. Baranzke, “Tierethik,” in: Handbuch Ethik, ed. M. Düwell

244 et al., 2002, 282–286, 22006, 288–292 ◆ J.C. Whorton et al., “Animal Research,” Encyclopedia of Bioethics, I, 32003, 142– 158. Eve-Marie Engels

2. Keeping and Breeding. Since domesticating animals during the Neolithic period, human beings have always kept animals for various purposes. Whereas natural → evolution operates blindly, the domestic breeding of animals consciously aims at selecting and increasing the number of animals with particular characteristics that are of particular use to human beings. Because it is human beings who breed such animals, human beings are also especially responsible for their well-being. Most of the animals used by human beings are vertebrates whose capacity for pain and suffering science has demonstrated to be beyond dispute. Because in this regard the neuronal makeup of human beings and animals is at least comparable, those who articulate the ethical demands for welfare-oriented animal husbandry are not committing a naturalistic fallacy. It would be inconsistent, however, if despite the comparable status of human beings and animals one were to deny to animals what human beings nonetheless claim for themselves. This position does not exclude the possibility of even additional far-reaching obligations on human beings with regard to the entirety of animated → nature, for example, in the sense of A. → Schweitzer ’s ethics of reverence for life. Even in situations where animals are being used by human beings and where their instrumental value is obviously the focus, their inherent value is always to be respected. This ethical principle, of course, is flagrantly violated by the practice – common in numerous industrialized countries since the 1960s – of mass (intensive) livestock farming, by the breeding of high-performance animals to the point of what may be called “tormentive breeding,” by cruel animal transport, and by feeding in ways inappropriate to a given species. All such practices derive from the desire to maximize profit and to accommodate the excessive consumption of animals and their products; as such, these practices contradict animal protection laws [in Germany and elsewhere] whose “purpose is to accept our responsibility for animals as our fellow creatures and hence to protect their lives and ensure their well-being; one may not cause any animal pain without reasonable grounds.” The reasonableness of such grounds must be subjected to the most rigorous ethical examination. A reevaluation of our attitudes toward animals is required not only out of respect for the inherent value of animals themselves, but also out of human self-respect. Animal breeding and animal keeping for research purposes raise special ethical challenges (see 3 below). H.H. Sambraus & A. Steiger, eds., Das Buch vom Tierschutz, 1997 ◆ M. Röhrs & H.H. Sambraus, “Tierhaltung,” LexBioeth 3, 1998, 539–546, 546–54 ◆ E.-M. Engels, “Orientierung an der

245 Natur? Zur Ethik der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung,” in: Den Tieren gerecht werden, ed. M. Schneider, 2001, 68–87. Eve-Marie Engels

3. The Use of Animals. Human beings use animals as food, as a source for raw materials, as energy sources, as a means of transport, as providers of various services, as pets and in connection with hobbies, as experimental animals, and as therapists (e.g. dolphins). Our attitudes toward animals are commensurately complex, extending from their acknowledgement as family members and companions for whose care no costs are too high, to their use as cheap “animal machines” in intensive farming (“factory farming,” Ruth Harrison, 1964). Moreover, → genetic engineering has expanded and enhanced the possibilities for using animals. Transgenetic animals are currently being discussed for farming (“gene farming”) and are being used in basic research in medicine, pharmacology, and toxicology. They serve as models for human beings in research into illnesses, as bioreactors for harvesting therapeutically useable proteins (“gene pharming”), as subjects for determining the functions of genes through the latter’s deactivation (“knock-out animals”), and as providers of tissue and organs for researching xenotransplantation (cross-species transplantation; → Transplantation Medicine). The cloning (→ Stem Cell Research) of mammals for creating more transgenetic animals is designed to enhance the efficacy of their use, though such procedures are ethically disputed or even insupportable. Not only must cloning make use of a high number of animals before it is possible to clone an animal genuinely capable of survival, it generally also results in animals with questionable health. The transgenetic alteration of animals raises not only the fundamental question of whether such alteration violates an animal’s integrity and after what point such violation occurs, but also the problem of injuring or damaging the animal and its offspring. The granting of patents for genetically altered animals (Harvard cancer-mouse) as human “inventions” constitutes a disregard for that animal’s inherent value as a living being and represents an extravagant overestimation of the attendant human accomplishment. All ethical evaluation of the use of animals must take its orientation from the fundamental notion of “trans-species humanity” (Gotthard M. Teutsch) in considering the specific nature of the goods that have to be weighed against each other, the priority of pursued goals, and the lack of alternatives for any given mode of use. F.P. Gruber & H. Spielmann, eds., Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten, 1996 ◆ L.F.M. van Zutphen & M. Balls, eds., Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics, 1997 ◆ L.F.M. van Zutphen & M. van der Meer, eds., Welfare Aspects of Transgenic Animals, 1997 ◆ C. Baumgartner & D. Mieth, eds., Patente am Leben?, 2003 ◆ Tierversuche in der Forschung, ed. Senatskommission für tierexperimentelle Forschung der DFG, 2004. Eve-Marie Engels

Animism Animism. In modern usage, the term “animism” – from Lat. anima, “soul” – is used in various senses. 1. In the most general sense, “animism” or “animistic religion” refers to the preliterate religions formerly called “nature religion,” “archaic religion,” or sometimes “primitive religion.” 2. In a somewhat more restricted sense, “animism” refers to belief in spirits and souls. 3. In the strict sense, however, it refers to the theory of religion propounded by E.B. → Tylor, first stated in his Primitive Culture in 1871. Tylor’s theory comprises two basic trains of thought: first, it attempts to use belief in souls and spirits to explain the origin of religion in general; second, it seeks to describe the evolution of religion from its simplest form to monotheism. Tylor attempts to explain the origin of religion “impartially,” using a purely causal methodology supported by extensive field observations. His starting point takes issue primarily with theologians who begin with the notion of a revealed religion. Tylor considers archaic man to be a rational being interested in discovering causes. The experience of dreams, trances, sickness, and death leads him to conclude that there must be something within him that can leave the body and return to the body, but can also exist quite independently of the body. This “something” Tylor calls anima, “soul.” In fact, the usage of many peoples contradicts this view: the word for “soul” in their language often means “breath” or “shadow.” Initially, the rationally identified soul was associated with human beings; then, however, souls were attributed to animals, plants, and inanimate objects as well. Even Tylor recognized that at this archaic stage souls could not be purely spiritual entities; he describes the personal soul as “a thin unsubstantial human image, in its nature a sort of vapour, film, or shadow, the cause of life and thought in the individual . . .; capable of leaving the body far behind, to flash swiftly from place to place; mostly impalpable and invisible, yet also manifesting physical power, and especially appearing to men waking or asleep as a phantasm separate from the body of which it bears the likeness . . .; able to enter into, possess, and act in the bodies of other men, of animals, and even of things” (vol. II, 13). Unlike the body, the soul is not subject to death; archaic man experiences this when dreaming of someone deceased, for to him dreams and reality are congruent. From the souls of the dead the evolutionary chain runs to spirits and finally gods. Thus Tylor can formulate his minimal definition of religion as “belief in spiritual beings.” In accord with the spirit of his age, Tylor – although a practicing Quaker – established a purely rational basis for religion, from its beginnings to monotheism. Experience with the spirits of the dead showed that these spirits affect human beings and their lives, so that sooner or later ceremonies of worship and propitiation had to come into existence – the

Annas innumerable rituals and offerings for ancestors, spirits, and fetishes. At several basic points in his theory, Tylor was influenced by the positivism of A. → Comte and by evolutionism (→ Evolution: II). Since his search for the origin of religion does not posit a starting point for the discovery of the soul, it is easy for speculation to go back even further. Robert R. Marett (1866–1943), for example, postulates an earlier stage in The Threshold of Religion (1909), envisioning a kind of protoreligion (pre-animism or animatism) involving a universal and impersonal force (dynamism). Tylor was one of the first ethnologists to employ field observations in his arguments, although he did not collect the material himself. Because of the wealth of evidence cited and Tylor’s precise methodology, his theory exerted great influence for many decades. But his theory also drew increasing criticism, and today it is consigned to the history of ethnology. Tylor believed that there was a strict analogy between the mentality of primitive man and that of the young child. But the primary error of his theory is its initial unproved assumption that primitive man was interested exclusively in finding causes. Modern students of religious ethnology find it more than strange that a supposedly strictly scientific methodology can make statements about “primitive man” as though early human beings were identical individuals. If the evolutionary chain runs from the simple to the complex, it is hard to explain why it is often the simplest ethnic groups, e.g. the Australians, that do not match Tylor’s criteria. Very often highly complex agricultural cultures believe more strongly in spirits and employ magical rites more intensively than do the Australians. And many Australians do recognize high creator beings. For most ethnic groups, the statement that animate creatures and inanimate objects have souls like those of human beings is an unproved assertion. Living creatures and inanimate objects are often endowed with forces, but whether these forces derive from the “anonymous army of souls” (N. → Söderblom) may be left an open question. Usually these impersonal forces are associated with a specific person or object, so that there is no amorphous mass from which a personal soul later emerges. In addition, Tylor’s concept of souls actually has little to do with the beliefs of archaic peoples, who always think in terms of two or more souls: a breath soul that perishes with the body and a free or shadow soul. Tylor was anxious to describe the origin and evolution of religion without presuppositions and with scientific precision. But he made numerous unproved assumptions: he posits, for example, an early man who is (still) religionless and concerned solely with rationality. He denies this early man any spiritual or eventful experiences. The observations of religious ethnology show, however, that Tylor’s purely rational man does not exist – and if he ever did, his existence cannot

246 be proved. The evolutionary schema that runs from a concept of souls to monotheism is also pure speculation: there is no evidence anywhere of such an evolutionary chain. Furthermore, it bespeaks a severely defective image of God. No one who experiences how human beings practice their religion and understands the existential side of religion – especially in the case of archaic people – can trace the concept of God exclusively to a concept of souls discovered by rational inquiry into causation. Tylor’s theory profoundly misconceives both early human beings and religion. E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 2 vols., 1871 ◆ H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, 1876–1896 ◆ R.R. Marett, The Threshold of Religion, 1909 ◆ A.E. Jensen, Mythos und Kult bei Naturvölkern, 21960 ◆ E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion, 1965 ◆ W.E. Mühlmann, Geschichte der Anthropologie, 21968. Josef F. Thiel

Annas → Hannas Annates are a common-law tax, collected since the 11th century by the grantor of a → benefice, which involved the first-year receipts of the benefice ( fructus, reditus et proventus primi anni) or half of the annual yield (media annata). In parallel with the increasing papal reservations of filling vacancies, the Curia reserved the annates for itself and expanded them – apart from the papal tithe and prerogatives to fill vacancies – into a central source of revenue in its system of taxation and dues. In 1376 annates received their final form under → Gregory XI. They were collected by agents and calculated in keeping with an estimate of the tithe. The clergy perceived annates as an oppressive burden; for this reason they were fought by the reform-orientated councils. The Council of → Trent (1545–1563) restricted its imposition. In the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 deductions from income, compensation and payments to be paid to the grantor, patron or other persons by a cleric when he is granted a benefice, were qualified as simony, while the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983 no longer mentions annates. H. Hoberg, Die Einnahmen der Apostolischen Kammer unter Innocenz VI., 2 vols., 1955–1972 ◆ W.M. Plöchl, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. II, 21962, 428–429; vol. V, 1969, 185–187. Herbert Kalb

Anne, Saint I. Church History – II. Art History

I. Church History The mother of → Mary, mother of Jesus, and spouse of Joachim. Her name (= Heb. “grace”) is given first in the Protevangelium. The text was read throughout the Middle Ages and at → Marian Feasts. After 1450, this birth legend was linked with the concept of a trinubium

247

Annihilation

of the saints. Characteristically, The Lives of the Saints supplied Anne with her own birth story and described her as a matron who bore each of her three husbands a daughter Mary, who in turn bore their husbands many of Jesus’ disciples and apostles. The Anne legends rate family life higher than the ascetic life in reference to Jesus’ family. Accordingly, the early modern bourgeoisie practiced the cult. Humanists published works praising Anne (R. → Agricola, Johannes Trithemius, → Erasmus). Anne brotherhoods, pilgrimages to Anne sanctuaries (Duren, Annaberg), and the use of Anne water made their appearance, so that Luther described the cult of Anne as the epitome of the artificial cult of a saint. It is doubtful whether Luther attributed his entry into the monastery in 1505 to the saint. The exegetical criticism of the trinubium of the saint led to the confirmation of Anne’s enduring monogamy at the Council of → Trent. St. Anne’s day is July 26. B. Kleinschmidt, Die heilige Anna, FVK 1–3, 1930 ◆ A. DörflerDierken, Die Bruderschaften der Heiligen Anna, 1992 ◆ idem, Die Verehrung der Heiligen Anna in Spät-Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, FKDG 50, 1992 ◆ idem, “Luther und die heilige Anna,” LuJ 64, 1997, 19–46. Angelika Dörfler-Dierken

II. Art History The portrayal of Anne in Christian art depends on apocryphal Mary legends (Gos. Mary, Ps.-Mt., Liber de Ortu Beatae Mariae et Infantia Salvatoris, Prot. Jas). Her long period of childlessness and the immaculate conception of the Virgin → Mary (Mother of Jesus) led to Anne’s veneration as the patroness of pregnant and birthing women. Although → Justinian I had already erected a church for her c. 550, Anne did not become a theme of Christian art like Mary and the infant Jesus before the 7th century. Statements in medieval works such as Speculum historiale by → Vincent of Beauvais and the Legenda aurea of → Jacobus de Voragine introduced a series of new motifs into Anne’s iconography, including the scenes, especially cherished since the Counter-Reformation, in which Anne teaches her daughter to sew or read. The motif of the “Anne triad” (seated Anne with Mary and the infant Jesus) developed into the “Holy family” (Anne with relatives and descendents). M. Lechner & J.H. Emminghaus, LCI V, 1973, 168–191 ◆ D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 1995, 26–28. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Annihilation I. Philosophy of Religion – II. Dogmatics

I. Philosophy of Religion The concept of annihilation has its roots in the scholastic theology of creation; it also belongs to the vocabulary of German → mysticism, which speaks of the soul as being “reduced to nothing” in its union with God. In the

first context, it addresses the problem of how a reversal of the → creation process leading from existence to nonexistence can be understood, and whether this can be ascribed to God alone (as the creator). Unlike mere corruptio, “annihilation” in scholastic theology denotes the “reduction to → nothing” (in nihilum redigere) through the withdrawal of the sustainment which is necessary for the continued existence of created beings; this act is the exclusive prerogative of the potentia Dei absoluta. In fact, however, the commitment of the creator to his creation implies that annihilation will never occur. Though it is indeed possible that that which was created out of nothing may again revert to nothingness (→ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1 q.75 a.6 ad 2), the idea that created beings should actually be annihilated at the → end of the world is flatly rejected by Thomas (cf. op. cit., 1 q. 104 a.4). Late scholasticism distinguishes between the annihilation of the form of an object by means of corruption, which is a possibility inherent to created beings, and its total annihilation in the sense of the dissolution of its matter (William of → Occam, Sent. II, q. 7, J). Even G.W. → Leibnitz’s monads, as the unities of that which exists, can begin only through creation, and end only through annihilation (Monadologie, 1714, §6), thus implying that the world cannot reduce itself to nothing (Discours de Métaphysique, 1686, §32). Every contingent event in the best of all possible worlds may thus only be understood as transformation and growth. The concept of annihilation developed by German Idealism is strongly marked by the mystical tradition of self-annihilation. In his late popular works, J.G. → Fichte called for the annihilation of selfishness, which is to be pursued “to the point of self-annihilation and of complete absorption into God” (Die Anweisung zum seligen Leben, 1806, in: R. Lauth (ed.), Gesammelte Ausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie, 1/9, 1991, 171). The dialectics of G.W.F. → Hegel view the annihilation of the radically opposed as the highest synthesis, while even defining the absolute as the realization of the unity of identity and non-identity. It is at any rate clear that annihilation can only be meaningfully understood as the movement from existence into non-existence, and that it thus always remains related to creation as its antithetical concept. K. Gloy, “Die paradoxale Verfassung des Nichts,” KantSt 74, 1993, 133–160. Dirk Evers

II. Dogmatics The dogmatic context for the idea of an annihilation carried out by God is the question of how God deals with sinful humanity and its world. The annihilation coming from God can apply to (1) an external or countervailing power threatening both God and humanity (→ Devil); or (2) the sinner (→ Sin); or (3) the → world or cosmos. It is above all the promise of a new heaven and a new earth

Anniversaries that makes it necessary to formulate a theological definition of the transition from the old to the new (→ Eschatology), in which even the notion of annihilation has its place. As long as dogmatic thinking remains within the framework of an → ontology of substance with its distinction between constant → substances and changing qualities (Thomas Aquinas, Calvin), every annihilation must be understood as a transformation. Luther rejected the model developed in the early church on the basis of 1 Cor 7:13 and further elaborated upon by scholasticism and reformed theology at large, whereby the world does not decay in terms of its essence or substance, but only in terms of its form and appearance. His concept of a radical annihilation however, is a consequence of his belief in the necessity and the promise of an utterly complete transformation of the cosmos (WA 10, 1/2, 116f.). In effect, Luther also believes that the materia of this world represents the substantia futurae vitae. This orientation to a salvific transformation was lost in those (mostly Lutheran) traditions which came to reject a transformatio mundi in favor of an annihilatio mundi that corresponds to the → creatio ex nihilo. For J. → Gerhard, the idea of an annihilatio mundi leads to an eschatological “worldlessness” of the human person, a position that exhibits clear symptoms of a nihilist view of creation. The specification of the concept of annihilation evidently depends on the extent to which → divine judgment is explicitly understood as an act of salvation, and whether it is also concieved of as deliverance from a hostile power. Two insights remain indispensable from a dogmatic perspective and serve as boundaries. (1) That which opposes God’s salvific and life-supporting intention, that which threatens creation, that which stands for chaos, will not extend into the eschaton, but will definitively be overcome. Hence, annihilation is one aspect of the liberation from sin and of the advent of the new world of God, which will no longer be threatened by → chaos. (2) Every conception of an annihilation carried out by God has its corrective in the clear understanding of God’s → faithfulness toward his entire creation. In the Bible, this constellation is found in the idea of a divine → regret in favor of humanity. This commitment is the basis of the → justification of the godless; it manifests itself in the event of → incarnation and leads to the promise of a future salvation as initiated by crucifixion and resurrection. K. Stock, Annihilatio mundi. Johann Gerhards Eschatologie der Welt, 1971. Günter Thomas

Anniversaries I. Religious Studies – II. Practical Theology

I. Religious Studies Annually recurring (anniversary is derived from annus and verto) → feasts play a central role in the chronological

248 organization of a society: they govern the social perception of the time unit “year”; weekly or monthly rhythms can influence the precise scheduling (→ Calendar; Roman birthday celebrations on the Kalends; Easter Festival). Thus, a usually limited number of anniversaries serves the collective memory of a society or religious group: a “canon” (subject to constant change) of events, persons, or themes can, without reference to systematic or chronological relationships, be ritually reenacted and memorialized; the construction of internal relationship through frequency or notable infrequency of anniversaries is, for the most part, overvalued. Repetitions at multi-year intervals are rare and limited to complex societies; repetitions at briefer intervals characterize closely interacting groups or religious specialists. E. Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms, 1981 ◆ J. Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis, 1992 ◆ J. Rüpke, Kalender und Öffentlichkeit, 1995. Jörg Rüpke

II. Practical Theology Anniversaries as annually (in contrast to the quartercentury commemorating [Silver] Jubilee) recurring commemorations owe their inception to the solemn celebration of a martyr’s death (dies natalicus), which was later transferred to the → saints. Since the early Middle Ages, the anniversary of the election, installation, or consecration of a pope or bishop, of the transfer of relics, as well as of the consecration of churches (Kir-mes) have been celebrated as anniversaries. In the practice of Roman Catholic piety, anniversaries as annual memorial celebrations of the death or burial of a deceased are widespread and celebrated in special masses (requiem, office of the dead). Annual memorial celebrations – such as → All Soul’s Day – dedicated to all the deceased members of the church are not considered true anniversaries. W. Jannasch, RGG 3, I, 1957, 395f. ◆ F. Zoeftl, “Nekrologien,” LTh2 VII, 1962, 873f. Volker Drehsen

Anno II of Cologne (c. 1010 – Dec 4, 1075). Scion of an influential Swabian family, Anno was educated in the cathedral school at Bamberg, where he later taught; in 1046 he became court chaplain to the emperor Henry III, who made him archbishop of Cologne (1056–1075). After Henry’s death, he sought to influence the policies of the regent, the empress Agnes. In 1062 he brought King → Henry IV, then 11 years old, under his sway. When the king came of age in 1065, Anno lost his influence on imperial politics. His position of power in the imperial church is clear from his appointment of several relatives to episcopal sees. His commitment to ecclesiastical reform is shown by a series of monastic foundations – especially Siegburg, which became a center of monastic reform for Fruttuaria in Upper Italy. In 1074 he brutally suppressed an uprising

249

Anointing

by the citizens of Cologne, which can be viewed as a sign of their increasing sense of identity. Siegburg saw the composition of a Vita as well as the Annolied (c. 1080), which sets Anno and his career in the context of world history. He was canonized in 1183. E. Nellmann, Das Annolied, 1975 (text with German trans.) ◆ G. Jenal, Erzbischof Anno, 2 vols., 1974–1975 ◆ D. Lück, RLB VII, 1977, 7–24. Wilfried Hartmann

Annoni, Hieronymus (Sep 12, 1697, Basel – Oct 10, 1770, Muttenz, near Basel). Following theological studies in Basel, Annoni forged relationships with leading Pietists in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. As pastor of Waldenburg (1739–1746) and Muttenz (1746–1770), he combined a pietistic ministry with themes of the Enlightenment. Since he also strictly rejected radicalism and separatism, he succeeded in securing → Pietism a lasting place in the established church of Basel. C.J. Riggenbach, Hieronymus Annoni, 1870.

Ulrich Gäbler

Annunciates. The order of the Annunciates takes its name from the Annunciation of Mary (Luke 1:26–28). A chivalric order established in 1364 as the Order of the Collar by Amadeus VI of Savoy, it was known after 1518 as the Order of the Collar and the Annunziata. Women’s orders of strict contemplatives include the Annunciates of Lombardy (founded in Pavia in 1408, following the Augustinian Rule since 1431); French (“Red”) Annunciates (Order of the Visitation, founded in 1500); Italian Annunciates (founded in Genoa in 1604). New congregations were established in the 19th and 20th centuries. Heimbucher I, 51987, 625–628 ◆ DIP I, 1974, 656–670. Manfred Heim

Annus normalis. The “standard year” of the Peace of → Westphalia established in 1624 as normative for religious observance. It drastically restricted the right of princes to determine the confessional allegiance (→ ius reformandi) of their lands guaranteed in the Peace of → Augsburg by ensuring that the religion practiced legally – publicly or privately – at any time during the year 1624 could continue in that form in the future (Instrumentum pacis osnabrugense art. V, §§32ff.). Church property was to remain in the hands of whoever held it on the “standard day” (dies normalis; art. V, §2), Jan 1, 1624. To meet the emperor’s objections, neither provision extended to the hereditary lands of the Habsburgs (art. V, §41), with the exception of Silesia (art. V, §§38ff.). For subjects who were not protected by the terms of the treaty, emigration (→ ius emigrandi) was made easier; those who were protected were assured limited civil equality (art. V, §§35f.). In art. VII, the

Protestant parties (Lutherans, Reformed) relinquished the ius reformandi within Protestantism. A. Buschmann, Kaiser und Reich, vol. II, 21994 (text of the Instrumentum) ◆ F. Dickmann, Der Westfälische Frieden, 61972 ◆ J.C. Majer, Teutsches Geistliches Staatsrecht, 1773, vol. I, 199–227; vol. II, 106–149 ◆ M. Heckel, Deutschland im konfessionellen Zeitalter, 1983, 200f. ◆ H.C. Hafke, “Normaljahr,” HDRG III, 1984, 1038f. (bibl.) ◆ K.O. von Aretin, Das Alte Reich 1648– 1806, vol. I, 1993, 44–56. Christoph Link

Anointing I. History of Religions – II. Old Testament – III. New Testament – IV. Church History – V. Practical Theology and Liturgy

I. History of Religions Many magical and religio-cultic rituals are associated with rubbing, spreading, sprinkling, or dousing persons and objects with fats, oils, or salves, but also with special waters. In addition to the cosmetic and medical uses of salves, the various cultures and religious traditions of the peoples link important stations on the path of life (→ Rites of Passage) with ritual anointing as a purifying, beautifying, and healing act and in order to avert dangers and adversities (“protection against evil spirits and powers”; → Apotropaic Rites). The rubbing of various body parts in the context of incantation rites (→ Incantation), births, illnesses (Egypt, ancient Near East, sub-Saharan Africa, India), and in burial ceremonies (→ Burial) the anointing of the corpse. The latter is especially prominent in the Egyptian ritual for the dead as the anointing of the body in the embalming ritual or generally in the use of ointments as sacrificial and burial offerings. In addition to the anointing of sacrificial offerings, cultic objects, parts of cultic structures, and especially cultic images and statues are anointed. In the daily temple ritual, special ointments for salving and makeup, stored in special containers, are utilized. The salving and makeup of divine images and statues has the purpose of endowing the image with life forces. The deities were thus venerated not only in the ancient Near East, in Antiquity, and among the Germanic peoples; this cultic practice occurs in Hinduism and also in Buddhism, where Buddha statues are anointed with paste from sandal or aloe wood. Anointing of cultic personnel (priests, soothsayers, and conjurers) is known not only in the ancient Near East, but priests and medicine men (→ Shamanism: II) are also anointed (e.g. rubbed with lion fat as a rite of power transfer) in sub-Saharan Africa. Anointing as → “purification” in the sense of liberation from obligations and legal claims occurs in the ancient Near East in the emancipation of a slave and in marriage ceremonies, for example. We know anointing in the context of a legal act to transfer holiness and power to office-holders, as, for example, in the form of anointing the king, among the

Anointing Hittites. It is disputed with regard to the Egyptians, unless one interprets the pouring of water over the king in the sense of the transfer of life force, dominion, and power. Anointing is unattested for the Babylonians and Assyrians. From India, we know the ritual of the consecration of a ruler (rājasūya), in the center of which stands a celebration of anointing (Abhißecana) with the waters of anointing (“grantor of the kingdom”). This rite was originally associated with → reincarnation and cosmic regeneration. Abhißeka (literally “sprinkling the head with water”) generally symbolizes in Buddhism the attainment of Buddha-hood. A.E. Crawley & M. Jastrow, “Anointing,” ERE I, 1908, 549– 557 ◆ J.C. Heesterman, The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration, 1957 ◆ E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, 1963 ◆ H.M. Kümmel, Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König, 1967 ◆ W. Farber, H.M. Kümmel & W.H.P. Römer, Rituale und Beschwörungen I, TUAT 2/2, 1987 ◆ S.E. Thompson, “A Lexicographic and Iconographic Analysis of Anointing in Ancient Egypt,” diss., 1991 ◆ L. Viganò, “Rituals at Ebla II, ì-giš sag. A Purification Ritual or Anointing of the Head?” JNES 59, 2000, 13–22. Karl Prenner

II. Old Testament 1. Anointing as a term for a ritual act which, by means of the application of a special substance or an ointment to living or lifeless objects places it in a new status, can have various underlying Hebrew words, primarily, however, the root /mš˙ with the habitual-passive verbal adjective denoting the status of the anointed one, */māšîa˙, → “Messiah” (II). Among procedures designated with mš˙, distinction is made according to the actor (subject), objects, purpose, and context. Ritual anointing stands alongside practical everyday procedures. The pouring of oil on a stone (Gen 28:18) to mark the numinous site (Gen 31:13) is called the anointing of masseboth and is thus placed in the context of the anointing of cultic inventory that serves to “sanctify” (→ Sanctification: I) according to Exod 30:29, for which e.g. Ezra 6:9 envisions a special ointment. According to P texts, this notion may also underlie the anointing of priests (→ Priesthood: II) described in Exod 29:7 and elsewhere as the pouring of ointment on the head (cf. Ps 133:2). 2. Applied to persons, anointing is a legal act (Kutsch). Although the priesthood is genealogically defined, the anointing along with the laying on of hands and investiture (Exod 29:29, etc.) mark the installation into the office. The regular passive participle qal designates the “installed” priest (Num 3:3). → Qumran still used the verbal adjective māšîa˙ (gerundival: 1 Sam 16:6) for the priest who can be legitimately installed. No unified concept of the anointing of the king is evident in the OT (→ Kingship in Israel). Anointing by an anointed superior authority (God/priest) as installation into (primarily hereditary) ruling office is authorization as the bearer of YHWH’s mandate, an authorization which,

250 according to Pss 45:8; 89:21, YHWH himself bestows. Anointing as care for the body in relation to the festal culture (Amos 6:6) may stand behind anointing as obeisance by those who are equal in principle, which is here (for the first time) granted to a dignitary. This anointing of obeisance probably reflects (northern) Israelite tradition. Between the two variants stands the Judean practice of anointing following dynastic disturbances (2 Sam 19:11; 1 Kgs 1:34, 39; 2 Kgs 11:12; 23:30). Anointing by prophets (→ Prophets and Prophecy: II) can be understood in part as prophetic symbolic action; in part the prophet, as YHWH’s messenger, takes his designated king into service, especially in the Deuteronomic reports concerning → Samuel’s anointing of → Saul and → David. The gift of the spirit mediated by anointing (1 Sam 16:13) can be transferred to the commissioning of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1). Accordingly, anointing is simultaneously a legal act and (once again?) inaugural transfer of power. E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient, BZAW 87, 1963 ◆ E.-J. Waschke, “Wurzeln und Ausprägung messianischer Vorstellungen im Alten Testament,” in: idem, Der Gesalbte, BZAW 306, 2001, 3–104 ◆ C. Eberhart, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament, WMANT 94, 2002, esp. 368f. (bibl.). Ina Willi-Plein

III. New Testament Archaeological finds illustrate (cf. Mark 14:3 par.; Luke 7:37) the anointing of the head (Matt 6:17; 26:7; Mark 14:3), feet (Luke 7:38, 46; John 12:3) and body (Matt 26:12) as personal hygiene in ( Judeo-)Roman (bathing) culture (cf. the insertion in Dan 17). The cleansing and skin-nourishing effect of olive oil made anointing a boon (cf. Matt 6:17 to mask → fasting [III]) that could be enhanced to luxurious cosmetics (cf. Philo, Somn. II 58) ennobled with plant essences (nard: Mark 14:3; John 12:3 or myrrh) or expensively traded perfumes (cf. Mark 14:5; John 12:3c, 5; Rev 18:13). Since, as a cultural product, ointment conserves lifeenhancing creation (cf. Jos. Asen. 8:5; 15:5; 16:19), early Christian metaphor interpreted → baptism (II) as God’s anointing with the power of the Spirit (2 Cor 1:21) in order to equate the anointing received by all Christians with true christological proclamation in the dispute with heretics (1 John 2:20, 27). If sacral anointing established divine closeness, then for Lukan christology, Jesus, in accordance with Isaianic (Luke 4:18f. = Isa 61:1f.) and Davidic prophecy (Acts 4:26 = Ps 2:2 LXX), is the Anointed One/Christ, anointed “with the Holy Spirit and with power” by God at his baptism (Acts 10:38) who fulfills his task by proclaiming the gospel and healing the sick (Heb 1:9: righteousness). The anointing of Jesus at a meal transmitted in various versions bestows upon Jesus the reverence appropriate for the guest (cf. Jos. Ant. XIX,239): 1. The

251 biographical → apophthegm in Mark 14:3–9 par.; John 12:1–8 defends against the Hellenistic-Roman criticism of anointing as extravagance (cf. Petronius, Satyrikon 60.3f.; 70.8; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia XIII 20. 22), with the response that spiritual costs cannot be reckoned against the costs of caring for the poor. 2. By its introduction into the Markan passion narrative, the honoring becomes an anticipatory anointing of the dead (Mark 14:8 par.; 16:1 par. cf. John 12:7) that gives Jesus’ corpse over to God in the realm of the dead (Hellenistic: Hom. Il. 16.670; 23.170, Jewish: m. Shab. 25.3). 3. The conversion story in Luke 7:36–50 deals with the relationship between forgiveness of sin and the intensity of love through the parable of two debtors. The anointing of the sick ( Jewish: Apoc. Mos. 9.3; 13.2) is related to oil as a medicine (cf. Luke 10:34; Rev 3:18), an anointing that attributes to the exorcistic prayer in the name of the Lord ( Jas 5:14f.; cf. Mark 6:13; Did. 10:8) healing from demons of illness (→ Sickness and Healing: III). J.-W. Taeger, Der Mensch und sein Heil, StNT 14, 1982 ◆ M. Fander, Die Stellung der Frau im Markus-Evangelium, MThA 8, 1989, 219–290 ◆ M. Karrer, Der Gesalbte, FRLANT 151, 1991 ◆ W. Zager, TRE XXIX, 1998, 711–714 (bibl.) Ulrich Mell

IV. Church History In the early churches, anointing is initially attested in a variety of symbolic meanings in relation to → baptism (III). The Roman Traditio Apostolica (3rd cent.) knows a pre-baptismal anointing as → exorcism and two postbaptismal anointings; in accordance with the ritual usage, exorcism oil (later: catechumen oil) and chrism (→ myron) have been distinguished since the early Middle Ages. Chrism, prepared from olives and balm, was used following water baptism for anointing the entire body, and from the 9th century for anointing the crown of the head. The chrisam anointing, known only in Rome, which was reserved for the bishop (→ Innocent I, DH 215), was propagated throughout the Western Church from the 8th century and in the form of anointing of the forehead become an independent rite, separate from baptism, of → confirmation; in the Eastern Church, the priest continued to perform the anointing with myron in the context of baptism. Traditions in culture and the history of religions, the practical significance of oil, and NT references offered various options for symbolic interpretations: protection against Satan and demons, thanksgiving and joy after water baptism, sealing or confirming of belonging to Christ and the church. The christological aspects, emphasized by → Isidore of Seville and the Venerable → Bede especially by reference to the title of Christ, were associated with the bestowal and effects of the Holy Spirit, which, not least because of the natural character of the oil, stood

Anointing at the center of early medieval allegorical (→ Amalarius of Metz) and typological interpretations and scholastic reflection in sacramental theology. The anointing of rulers (→ Coronation), first attested among the Visigoths (672) and from the 8th century among the Franks and Anglo-Saxons, represents a contemporizing adoption of OT prototypes; the earliest witnesses of anointing in the ordination of priests and bishops (→ Ordination: III) stem from the same time. The priest’s hands, the bishop’s head and later also his hands as well as the thumb used in confirmation, were anointed. The East practiced only the anointing of rulers from the 12th century on. In the early churches, all believers could use oil, which, according to Traditio Apostolica 32 was consecrated along with other offerings after the Eucharist, in various religious contexts. Innocent I attests the ecclesiastical rite of → anointing of the sick (DH 216), which, from the 9th century on, only priests performed and which, by the 12th century in the West, developed in association with penitence and the reception of the Eucharist (→ Viaticum) into the sacrament of the last rites. The churches of the East retained various rites of healing anointing. Both the West (until → Vatican II) and the East also anointed liturgical → implements, parts of buildings, altars, or bells. The Latin liturgical books of the early Middle Ages testify to the exclusive → blessing of the ointments by the bishop on Maundy Thursday; in the East, only the consecration of the myron was reserved for the ecumenical patriarch or bishop. Reformation theologians granted only the anointing of rulers a biblical origin and rejected other anointings, while the Catholic Church at the Council of → Trent confirmed the practice of the high Middle Ages and the sacramental character (→ Sacraments: I; II) of confirmation and the anointing of the sick. M. Dudley & G. Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness, 1993 ◆ R. Kaczynski & H.H. Anton, LMA VII, 1995, 1288–1292 ◆ M. Dudley, TRE XXIX, 1998, 714–717 ◆ B. Botte, “Le symbolisme de l’huile et de l’onction,” QuLi 80, 1999, 269–282. Ludger Köntgen

V. Practical Theology and Liturgy Anointing is one of the central liturgical-ecclesial symbolic acts. The Catholic Church understands anointing as part of the sacramental event; the Protestant Churches are rediscovering anointing as a spiritual symbolic act. Anointing expresses God’s personal attention and affection toward human beings; in it, the totality of the liturgy becomes visible. The Catholic liturgy provides for pre- and post-baptismal anointing for the initiation of adults or for infant baptism and for confirmation, for anointing of the sick, as a component of the ordination of priests, and in the consecration of → altars and churches (→ Consecration of Churches). The Orthodox and Old Eastern Churches practice various

Anointing of the Sick

252

anointings, including at initiation, in the anointing of the sick, and in the consecration of churches. Pre-baptismal anointing is sometimes an anointing of the entire body. According to a few new Protestant agendas, such as the baptismal manual of the EKU (2000), anointing can follow baptism. Anglican and Lutheran agendas in English and the Lutheran agenda in German, Dienst an Kranken (Ministry to the Sick, 1994), permit anointing the sick. A few Protestant churches also know anointing in services of blessing and of reconciliation, in the Thomas mass, etc. An association with the baptismal memorial (→ Baptism Renewal) is under discussion. In addition to christological-pneumatological interpretations one also encounters cathartic-exorcistic and therapeuticpoimenic (Schulz) interpretations, as can be inferred from the context and accompanying language. For Catholic liturgy, anointing, as a representational act, is among other things the invocation of Christ’s protecting power (pre-baptismal anointing at baptism), the baptized’s participation in Christ’s priesthood, prophethood, and kingship (post-baptismal anointing) with chrism, the giving of the Spirit (confirmation rite), strengthening and protection by Christ (ordination of priests), participation in Christ’s high priesthood, expression of efficacy in the power of the Spirit (consecration of bishops), and prayer for healing and the forgiveness of sins (Anointing of the Sick; see also → Healing and Anointing). The bishop consecrates the oil for anointing the sick and the catechumens, as well as the chrism, in the mass for the consecration of oils on Maundy Thursday or on another day near Easter (in exceptional cases, the first two oils may be consecrated by a priest in the respective celebration of the sacrament).

16:18) and anointing them with oil (Mark 6:13). Until sometime in the 8th century, the oil blessed by a bishop in accordance with Traditio Apostolica 5, Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus 382 and Sacramentarium Gregorianum Hadrianum 334 could “be used to anoint, not just by the priests, but by all believers in their own need or in the need of those close to them” (→ Innocent I, DH 216). Synods in the 9th century confronted the neglect of anointing the sick, requiring priests to anoint the sick at least when they were in danger of death; thereafter, it was only performed for those facing death and, since the 12th/13th century has been the “extreme unction,” understood as “anointing in the last moments of life,” until → Vatican II gave it back its “better” name, “anointing of the sick” (SC 73). According to the Apostolic Constitution of → Paul VI of Nov 30, 1972, “the sacrament of the anointing of the sick. . . is given to those whose health has been threatened by anointing them on the forehead and the hands with properly consecrated olive oil or, if circumstances require, with another properly consecrated vegetable oil while speaking the following words: “May the Lord in his rich mercy help you through this sacred anointing, may he assist you with the power of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord, who frees you from sins, deliver you, may he raise you up in his grace” (R. Kaczynski, ed., Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis liturgicae, vol. I, 1976, 2922). If need be, a single anointing on the forehead or, given the special condition of the sick, on another appropriate part of the body suffices. Bishops and priests offer this sacrament. The sacrament can be repeated, if, after receiving the anointing, the sick person recovers and thereafter becomes sick once again or if, in the course of the same illness, conditions worsen.

I.-H. Dalmais, “Die Mysterien (Sakramente) im orthodoxen und altorientalischen Christentum,” HOK II, 1989, 141–181 ◆ R. Berger, “Das Öl ,” GDK 3, 219, 269–273 ◆ M. Liechti-Genge, Die Guttat zu ölen: Von der Wiederentdeckung der Salbung als Segenshandlung in evangelisch-reformierten Gottesdiensten, 1996 ◆ F. Schulz, “Die Salbung als neu entdeckte Zeichenhandlung,” LJ 48, 1998, 183–189 ◆ R. Kaczynski, “Salbung III,” LThK 3 VIII, 1999, 1481 ◆ U. Heckel, “Segnung und Salbung,” KuD 47, 2001, 126–155 ◆ L. Larson-Miller, The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, 2005. Benedikt Kranemann

K. Rahner, The Anointing of the Sick, 1975 ◆ R. Kaczynski, “Feier der Krankensalbung,” GDK 7/2, 1992, 241–243 ◆ German Conference of Bishops, ed., Die Feier der Krankensakramente, 21994. Reiner Kaczynski

Anointing of the Sick I. Catholicism – II. Orthodox Church

I. Catholicism The practice of NT congregations attested in Jas 5:14f., that the elders of the congregation called upon the sick in their homes in order to pray over them and anoint them with oil (→ Anointing: III) so that the prayer could unfold its power to heal the body, to lift up the soul, and, if need be, to forgive sin (→ Sickness and Healing: III) traces back to the commission and authority given the disciples by Jesus to heal the sick (Luke 9:1) by laying hands on them (Mark

II. Orthodox Church Anointing of the sick is one of the seven fundamental mysteries of the church (→ mysterium: II). Its performance invokes the healing grace of God. Usually, seven priests perform it, while, on grounds of pastoral necessity, a smaller number of liturgists is permitted. The performance of anointing the sick consists of two parts: first, a prayer canon and the consecration of oil mixed with wine (Luke 10:34). The container of oil is placed in wheat as a symbol of the resurrection and of life ( John 12:24); around the oil in the wheat, seven sticks and seven candles are placed for the sevenfold anointing; they are used in the sevenfold reading of the gospel. Second, it consists of the mysterium itself that comprises the sevenfold repetition of the following procedures: epistle, gospel, prayer for the forgiveness of the sufferer’s

253 sins and for his healing, the anointing of the sick with the consecrated oil along with the reading of special prayers. At the end of the procedure, the priests stand around the sick person and lay the open gospel with the text down on his head which they then hold in their hands as the first priest lays hands on the sick person and speaks the prayer of absolution (→ Absolution). Church tradition reflects the conviction that the anointing of the sick expunges forgotten sins and prepares the person for transition into the state beyond the grave, although as the church understands it, it is not a mysterium to accompany death. In the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches, it is customary to perform the anointing of the sick in → Passion Week on healthy persons, as well. Symeon of Thessalonica, De sacro ritu sancti elei, PG 155, 515–536 ◆ S. Heitz, ed., Mysterium der Anbetung, vol. III: Die Mysterienhandlungen der Orthodoxen Kirche und das tägliche Gebet der orthodoxen Gläubigen, 1988. Vladimir Ivanov

Anonymous Christianity or “implicit Christianity” is a theological concept developed by K. → Rahner : through God’s universal act of salvation attested in the Bible, redemption and salvation are also open to those living outside the church who in all innocence have not yet heard the explicit message of the gospel. From the perspective of a christologically informed anthropology, Rahner uses this concept to interpret the spiritual vocation of non-Christians (atheists or followers of other religions) in whose lives God’s grace is also present, even if the individual is not conscious of its presence. The concept has often given rise to misunderstandings and discussions that have prompted Rahner to further clarifications. “Anonymous Christianity” is not intended as a programmatic concept for interreligious dialogue but as a concept of systematic theology that emphasizes within the Christian context the presence of the mystery of God’s grace in all human beings and calls in response for self-awareness on the part of the previously anonymous Christian on the basis of the incarnational and social manifestation of grace within Christianity. Rahner stresses that the term “anonymous Christians” refers only to those who do not consciously oppose their conscience and the opportunity for free human selfactualization bestowed by the creator and made explicit in Christ. In the context of Christian mission, therefore, “the express revelation of the word in Christ is not something which comes to us from without as entirely strange, but only the explication of what we already are by grace and what we experience at least incoherently in the limitlessness of our transcendence” (Theological Investigations, VI, 394). The concept of anonymous Christianity is important for pastoral practice, because it shows more clearly how God’s grace acts in everyday human life. It also serves as a criterion of ideological

Anselm of Canterbury criticism: according to Rahner, the church today should be viewed less as an exclusive community of candidates for salvation than as a historically identifiable advance guard, the concrete historical and social expression of the hidden reality that Christians hope to receive, even outside the visible body of the church. K. Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie, IX, 21972, 498–515; X, 1972, 531–546; ET: Theological Investigations, XII, 161–178; XVI, 280–294 ◆ N. Schwerdtfeger, Gnade und Welt, 1982. Werner G. Jeanrond

Anrich, Gustav Adolf (Dec 2, 1867, Runzenheim, Alsace – Nov 13, 1930, Tübingen), church historian. He was pastor in Lingolsheim, Alsace (1894–1901); he gained his habilitation and became professor of church history at Strasbourg in 1894, and became professor of church history in 1900, and university professor in 1914. He became professor in Bonn in 1919 and in Tübingen from 1924 onward. He was rector of Tübingen 1928– 1929. He became a member of the executive committee of the Wissenschaftliches Institut der Elsaβ-Lothringer im Reich at the University of Frankfurt am Main in 1920, and from 1924 onward was its chairman. Anrich’s academic interests included, first the early church, then the history of the Reformation in Strasbourg and Alsace. His history of the University of Strasbourg 1872–1918 was never completed. Works include: Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluß auf das Christentum, 1894 ◆ Hagios Nikolaos: Der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche, 1913–1917 ◆ Martin Bucer, 1914 ◆ Bibl.: M. Schlunk, K. Müller & G. Wolfram, “Gustav Anrich Nachrufe,” Elsaß-Lothringisches Jahrbuch 10, 1931, 1–11 (with bibl. of Anrich’s writings). Hermann Ehmer

Anselm of Canterbury (1033, Aosta – Apr 21, 1109, Canterbury) I. Life – II. Work – III. Influence

I. Life Born in Aosta, northern Italy, Anselm entered the monastery of Bec (Normandy) after an education in France. In 1063 he replaced → Lanfranc as principal teacher and prior. In 1078 he succeeded Herluin as Abbot at Bec. Against his inclination he was chosen in 1093 to be archbishop of Canterbury. King William II’s (Rufus) reluctance to recognize → Urban II as pope meant that Anselm was unable to receive his → pallium until 1095. The continuing disputes with the king led Anselm to seek aid in Rome and he remained away from England from 1098 until William’s death in 1100. William II’s successor, Henry I, invited Anselm to return. Anselm, however, left England again in the disputes about the investiture of bishops (→ Investiture Controversy). He returned only once Urban II’s successor, → Paschal II, had come to a compromise with Henry II.

Anselm of Havelberg II. Work Anselm is the author of 19 prayers and 3 meditations for private use. He wrote the first group of letters (Ep. 1– 147) in Bec, the second (Ep. 148–472) during his post as archbishop. Anselm’s Monologion (1076/77) explores the doctrine of the Trinity whilst owing a great deal to Augustine. The sequel Proslogion focuses on the ontological evidence for God’s existence (chs. 2–4, → Existence of God, Proofs of the). De grammatico is Anselm’s only purely philological work, and perhaps his earliest (possibly from before 1070). It discusses the question whether an adjective such as “white,” which in Latin is also a substantive (a “white thing”) signifies a quality (accidens) only, or a substance. De veritate, De libertate arbitrii, and De casu diaboli (1080–1086) include studies of one or two biblical texts. With De incarnatione verbi (1092/94) Anselm tries to meet → Roscelin of Compiègne’s accusation that he had been teaching heresy. It is possible that Anselm was prompted to write Cur Deus homo (1094– 1098) by conversations with his former pupil Gilbert Crispin from Bec, whose Disputatio ludei et Christiani discusses the necessity for incarnation. Anselm argues that even if nothing were known about Christ through revelation, it would be necessary to postulate that God became man in Christ in order to explain how the redemption of mankind could be possible. The related question whether the Virgin Mary was herself free of sin is the subject of De conceptu virginali (1100/01). At the pope’s behest Anselm spoke with the Greeks over the → Filioque at the Council of Bari (1089). In the work he wrote later on this theme, De processione Spiritus Sancti, (1102) he explained that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son to adhere to the symmetry in the relations of the Trinity, as required by the nature of God. In the ecumenically important Epistola de sacrificio azymi et fermentati (1106/07) Anselm argued that the bread of the Eucharist was “substantially” the same whether leavened or unleavened. In his last work De concordia (1107/08) Anselm sought to summarize and complete the various discussions in his early works on the relationship of divine predestination and foreknowledge with the work of grace and the operation of human freedom of choice. A collection of texts attributed to Anselm under the title De similitudinibus is mainly a collection of accounts of his conversations and addresses to monastic communities on his travels. III. Influence Although → Abelard had already seen that Anselm’s account of why God became man had to be considered seriously before it was set aside in favor of his own view, it was only in the 13th and 14th centuries that scholars began to regard him as a thinker of importance. Although → Thomas Aquinas did not regard Anselm’s

254 ontological proof of the existence of God as convincing, he perceived that the argumentation stood in a class of its own and treated it in his Summa Theologiae. In more recent studies, the argument has received much attention. It has not proved possible to finally disprove it. As regards christological issues, too, Anselm’s thought is of continuing importance. F.S. Schmitt, ed., Opera omnia, 6 vols., 1938–1968 ◆ R.W. Southern, ed., The Life of Anselm by Eadmer, 1962 ◆ F.S. Schmitt & R.W. Southern, Memorials of St. Anselm, 1969 ◆ K. Barth, Fides quaerens intellectum, 1931, 21968 ◆ J. McIntyre, St. Anselm and his Critics, 1954 ◆ R.W. Southern, St. Anselm and his Biographer, 1963 ◆ H.K. Kohlenberger, ed., Sola ratione. Anselm-Studien für F.S. Schmitt, 1970 ◆ J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm, 1973 (bibl.) ◆ G.R. Evans, Anselm and Talking about God, 1978 ◆ idem, St. Anselm and a New Generation, 1980 ◆ idem, Anselm, 1989 ◆ R.W. Southern, St. Anselm, 1990. Gillian R. Evans

Anselm of Havelberg (c. 1099 – Aug 12, 1158) was a Premonstratensian. He was from Lorraine and was in the diplomatic service of Emperors Lothar III, Conrad III and Frederick I. On their commission, Anselm was often in Constantinople. In 1129, → Norbert of Xanten consecrated him bishop of Havelberg. He stayed there only in 1149/50, however. Anselm died as archbishop of Ravenna. Major works: three books of Dialogi. In dialogue with → Benedictines and Augustinian Canons (→ Canons Regular of Saint Augustine), Anselm developed a new monastic ideal linking the vita activa and the vita passiva and thus grounded the pastoral care work of the → Premonstratensians especially in areas of colonization. Anselm’s liturgical ideas find expression, for instance, in the church buildings of the Havelberg tithe district, his doctrine of epochs in the programs of images in church buildings. GermSac 1/2, Das Bistum Havelberg, 1933 ◆ K. Fina, “Anselm von Havelberg,” APraem 32–34, 1956–1958 ◆ J.W. Braun, Studien zur Überlieferung der Werke Anselm von Havelbergs, I. Anticimenon, DA 28, 1972. Gerlinde Strohmaier-Wiederanders

Anselm of Laon (c. 1050 – Jul 15, 1117, Laon) was a student of → Anselm of Canterbury in Bec, then canon and dean in Laon. From c. 1080, he and his brother Radulph led the cathedral school of Laon, which also included → William of Champeaux . Under Anselm’s leadership, the Glossa ordinaria, as they were later called, originated on the whole Bible based on statements by the Fathers and more recent theologians. The glosses on the Psalms, John and the letters of Paul may derive from Anselm himself. In addition, his school produced a rich sentence literature. They followed a dogmatics of salvation history closely linked to the Bible (scheme of creation – fall – redemption), which continued to have effect in the school of St. Victor (especially in → Hugo).

255 Sources: Commentary on the Psalms, PL 116, 193–696 ◆ Glossa ordinaria, PL 113f. ◆ Sentences: F.P. Bliemetzrieder, ed., BGPhMA 18, 1919, 47–153 ◆ H. Weisweiler, ed., RThAM 5, 1933, 245–274 ◆ F. Stegmüller, ed., RThAM 11, 1939, 33–61 ◆ Bibl.: E. Bertola, “Le critiche di Abelardo ad Anselmo di Laon ed a Guglielmo di Champeaux,” RFNS 52, 1960, 495–522 ◆ idem, “La ‘glossa ordinaria’ biblica ed i suoi problemi,” RThAM 45, 1978, 34–78 ◆ V.J.I. Flint, “The ‘School of Laon’,” RThAM 43, 1976, 89–110. Reinhold Rieger

Ansgar (801 – Feb 3, 865). Educated in the monastery of Corbie, in 823 Ansgar came to → Corvey in Saxony, where he directed the monastic school. From 825 to 831, he served as a missionary in Denmark and Sweden; in 831 he became a missionary bishop with his see at → Hamburg (I). In 832 at Rome, along with Ebbo of Reims, he was named papal legate to the Scandinavian countries. After the destruction of Hammaburg by the Vikings (845), he became bishop of Bremen, which may have been combined with the see of Hamburg as early as 848. Ansgar traveled again as a missionary to Denmark (849) and Sweden (852/853), establishing churches in several important trade centers (Haithabu, Ripen, and possibly Birka). The merger of the sees of → Bremen and Hamburg was confirmed by Pope → Nicholas I in 864. The life of Ansgar written by his pupil and successor Rimbert (ed. G. Waitz, SRG 55, 1884) depicts Ansgar as a visionary. K. Reinecke, “Bischofsumsetzung und Bistumsvereinigung: Ansgar und Hamburg-Bremen 845–864,” ADipl 33, 1987, 1–53 ◆ B. Wawra, Salzburg und Hamburg: Erzbistumsgründung und Missionspolitik in karolingischer Zeit, 1991. Wilfried Hartmann

Anthem, term for a choral motet, derived from ἀντιϕωνή, antiphon; originally used for a polyphonic setting of the plainsong melody of an antiphon. At the Reformation the → antiphon became a distinctive genre of Anglican church music: a freely composed setting of a text, usually from the Psalms. By the 17th century an independent accompaniment, usually organ, became customary, and two basic forms developed: the “full” antiphon for the whole choir and the “verse” antiphon for solo voices alternating with the choir. Later, in both England and America, it became the general term for any choral composition used in worship, not necessarily with a biblical text. P. Le Huray, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, I, 1980, 454–463. Robin A. Leaver

Anthimus of Constantinople was Patriarch of Constantinople; the dates of his birth and death (the latter probably between 536 and 552) are unknown. As an adherent of → Monophysitism, he was transferred at the instigation of Empress Theodora from the Metropolitan see in Trapezus to Constantinople (after Jun

Anthony, Saint 5, 535). The historian → Theophanes Homologetes and the → Liber Pontificalis report his activity, which his own clergy opposed. Pope Agapet, who stayed in Constantinople in 535/36, obtained his deposition because of Monophysite teaching (before Mar 13, 536). A synod (May 2–Jun 4, 536) formally condemned him. The anathemas directed against him are preserved (still unedited) in the tenth book of the Θησαυρὸς τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας (Thēsauros tēs orthodoxias) of N. → Choniates. Of his own writings, only a letter to Emperor Justinian and synodal documents (translated into Syriac) have been transmitted. CPG 3, 7085–7088 ◆ V. Grumel, ed., Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, 1972 (repr.), 165–168 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, HAW 12,1,1, 1959, 392. Peter Schreiner

Anthimus of Nicomedia, bishop, was beheaded in 302/303 in the Diocletian persecution (Eus. Hist. eccl. VIII 6.6; 13.1). The fragments Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας/Peri tēs hagias ekklēsias circulating under his name probably stem from → Marcellus of Ancyra or from his circle of disciples. Procopius, De aedificiis I 6 documents the construction of an Anthimus church near Constantinople by → Justinian I. His feast day is Sep 3 in the East and Apr 27 in the West. CPG 2, 2802 ◆ M. Richard, “Une opuscule méconnu de Marcel évêque d’Ancyre,” MSR 6, 1949, 5–28. Jürgen Dummer

Anthony, Saint (“the Great”) (c. 251-356), an Egyptian saint and father of → monasticism. According to his biography, he was from a wealthy Christian family from the Arsinoe region in Upper Egypt. At the age of 20, he sold his estate and gradually withdrew into the desert between the Nile and the Red Sea whence he maintained contact with his disciples on the Nile and in the eastern desert. He is said to have twice visited Alexandria and to have had close relationships with → Athanasius, → Serapion of Thmuis and → Didymus. Athanasius’s Vita Antonii, probably one of the most read and influential biographies in Christian history, has fundamentally shaped the image of Anthony, even down to the present. His significance for the beginnings of monasticism is attested in all the early sources, especially in the → Apophthegmata patrum, the writings of → Pachomius, → Jerome, → Rufinus and → Palladius of Helenopolis. With the exception of seven letters (preserved in Georgian, Latin, and Arabic, as well as, partially, in Coptic and Syriac), and, probably, also the sayings transmitted in the Apophthegmata under his name, none of the Arabic texts based on Coptic originals attributed to him have any claim to authenticity. The authenticity of the seven letters, on the other hand, is well attested and acknowledged by most scholars. The letters addressed to

Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

256

his disciples were probably written in Coptic although they exhibit a rather good knowledge of the Greek philosophical and theological tradition and dependence on → Origen. The letters are one of the most important sources for the theology of early monasticism, its history and its philosophical relationship to Gnosticism (→ Gnosis/Gnosticism) and to → Alexandrian theology, as well as for the cultural and social environment of the beginnings of monasticism. F. Klejna, “Eine Untersuchung über Herkunft und Eigenart der ältesten Mönchsbriefe,” ZKTh 62,1938 ◆ H. Dörries, Die Vita Antonii als Geschichtsquelle, NGWG, 1949 ◆ idem, Wort und Stunde I, 1966. 145–224 ◆ G.J.M. Bartelink, ed., Vie d’Antoine SC 400, 1994 ◆ S. Rubenson, The Letters of St. Antony, 1995. Samuel Rubenson

Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (Antonij; Mar 17, 1863, Vatagino – Aug 10, 1936, Belgrade) was a towering figure both as theologian (rector of the Spiritual Academies of → Moscow [1890] and → Kazan’; harsh critic of the Western theology of satisfaction) and as hierarch (1900 bishop of Ufa; 1902 bishop of Zhytomyr; 1914 archbishop of Kharkov; 1981 Metropolitan of Kiev). At the election of the Moscow Patriarch in 1917 he assembled the most votes, but fate decided otherwise. Forced to flee in the civil war, after 1920 he led the Russian Orthodox Church in exile. Manuil (Lemeshevsky), Die Russisch-Orthodoxen Bischöfe von 1893 bis 1965, 1979, 313–330 (bibl.). Peter Hauptmann

Anthony (Vadkovsky) (Antonij; Aug 3, 1846, Širinguši Gouv. Tambov – Nov 2, 1912, St. Petersburg) became metropolitan of St. Petersburg in 1898 and chair of the Holy Synod in 1900. In 1870, Anthony became assistant professor of the history of homiletics at the Spiritual Academy in → Kazan’; in 1883, after the premature death of his wife and both children, he became a monk and then priest; and in 1887, as rector of the Spiritual Academy of St. Petersburg, he became bishop. A representative of the Russian state church, Anthony supported the church reform movement of 1905–06, which failed, however; the only significant success was the Tolerance Act of Apr 17, 1905, which was substantially influenced by Anthony and which permitted exit from the Orthodox Church and legalized → Old Believers such as the Stundists.

→ Franciscans. On his journey to Morocco, Anthony became severely ill. His return via Sicily permitted him to participate in the general chapter in Assisi in 1221. His talent for preaching was discovered in the hermitorium of Montepaolo near Forlí. He was a migrant preacher in upper Italy and southern France. In 1224, → Francis of Assisi named him the first teacher of theology for the order. From 1227 to 1230, he was the provincial of upper Italy. From 1227 onward, he was involved in editing his “Sermones dominicales et festivi” (1–3). His fasting sermons of 1231 in Padua led to a collapse in his health. → Gregory IX canonized him in 1232. → Pius XII declared him a Doctor of the Church in 1946. B. Costa, et al., eds., Sermones dominicales et festivi, 1979 ◆ B. Kleinschmidt, Antonius von Padua in Leben und Kunst, 1933 ◆ G. Sabatelli, DBI III, 1961, 561–566 ◆ BgF XIII–XX, 1964– 1996 ◆ CFr 67, 1997, 286–292 (bibl.). Oktavian Schmucki

Anthropic Principle I. Science – II. Philosophy of Religion

I. Science In 1973, Brandon Carter introduced the expression “anthropic principles” in order to emphasize that the earthly observer assumes a privileged position in the → universe in the sense that the development of life based on carbon requires very specific conditions. These conditions depend on certain characteristics of the universe, such as its age, the density of material, its rate of expansion, isotropy, entropy, spatial homogeneity, etc. Physical cosmology formulates the weak anthropic principle as follows: the observable physical and cosmological parameters assume values within a latitude that enables the origin of life based on carbon compounds. The controversial strong anthropic principle maintains that the universe must exhibit these characteristics that make the development of life in the course of cosmic evolution possible. Authors who do not accept this principle (e.g. Ernan McMullin) employ instead the formulation “restriction of the initial parameters” to characterize the highly specific initial conditions that were necessary for the origin of life based on carbon in the development of the cosmos.

Gerard Simon

M.S. Longair, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observation, 1974 ◆ J.D. Barrow & F.J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986 ◆ J. Demaret & D. Lambert, Le Principe anthropique, 1994. Józef Zycinski

Anthony of Padua OFM (before 1195, Lisbon – Jun 13, 1231, Arcella near Padua) was a famous popular preacher. He entered the Augustinian Canons (→ Canons Regular of Saint Augustine) in Lisbon circa 1210; in 1212 he transferred to the Abbey of Santa Cruz in → Coimbra. Contact with the Franciscan martyrs of Morocco in 1220 resulted in his transfer to the

II. Philosophy of Religion Although the term has its origins in the natural sciences, it continues the reflection concerning cosmological → teleology that began with the → pre-Socratics in Greece and with the traditional religions and philosophies of Asia. In the language of scientific cosmology,

G. Simon, “Antonij,” KO 12, 1969, 9–32.

257 the anthropic principles raise a series of questions discussed in the tradition in the context of the cosmological and teleological proofs of the → existence of God: purpose, first cause, cosmic intelligence or spirit, order, plan, meaning, the great chain of being and God. In the 20th century, reference is made to the conceptions of A.N. → Whitehead, P. → Teilhard de Chardin and → process theology as sources for the anthropic principles. The anthropic principles postulate the rational structure of the world not only as its perceptibility, but, reflexively, as its self-awareness based in the most fundamental elements of its constitution. Thus, it raises the question, very controversial with respect to whether it can be answered theologically, concerning the ground or author of this fine-tuning of the cosmic process that makes this awareness possible. A.R. Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science, 1978 ◆ J. Polkinghorne, Science and Creation, 1988. Philip Hefner

Anthropocentrism I. Fundamental Theology. – II. Dogmatics

I. Fundamental Theology The term anthropocentrism, which originated in theology and philosophy in the second half of the 19th century, designates first of all concentration on human experience as the way to reality in general, as opposed to the “geocentric” metaphysical cosmology of the modern period. In theology it means the comprehension and presentation of all theological matters from the human standpoint in distinction from “theocentric” thinking. It is also employed today in connection with the creationtheological treatment of ecological problems to characterize the restriction of the understanding of creation to human beings. In terms of fundamental theology, in present-day Protestant and Catholic theology, anthropocentrism is relevant esp. in regard to the God question, i.e. vis-à-vis the atheistic questioning of the reality of God. Anthropology is the field in which to show that the God relationship or the development of an idea of God is unavoidably a part of the free, self-transcending, meaningseeking nature of humankind, and that human beings are in this sense unavoidably “religious.” Hence the God question should also be brought into play in all other dimensions of the experience of living in the world and of scientific knowledge. Above all, the goal is to prove the harmony of Christian faith in God with the presentday scientific and experiential understanding of reality. II. Dogmatics Christian theology, as a whole can be understood from the viewpoint of anthropocentrism. For through the basic human relationship to God’s incarnation and salvific

Anthropogony action in Jesus Christ and in all the themes of that relationship, human beings stand at the center. Yet this anthropocentrism does not mean that God and divine action can be standardized from a human standpoint. Rather, any anthropocentrism must be excluded that makes human beings – that is, actual sinful human beings – the standard of assertions about God and divine action. Thus the problem of the distinction between an anthropocentrism based on the acts of God and an anthropocentrism arrogated by human beings permeates the whole history of theology. In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, it has acquired a particular importance. For, under the influence of the modern understanding of reality, statements about God and divine action still seem possible only as statements about human beings and their religious and ethical constitution. By contrast, the question arises as to whether such an anthropocentrism anthropomorphizes and secularizes God. Therefore, theological conceptions that are procedurally related to experience constantly face the task of emphasizing the difference between God and the world. If, however, following K. → Barth, theology has a Christocentric foundation, Jesus Christ is understood as a human being in whom God himself legitimizes the humanity of speech and thought. E. Schaeder, Theozentrische Theologie, I, 1909 ◆ J. Moltmann, ed., Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, parts 1 and 2, TB 17, 1963 ◆ G. Ebeling, Wort und Glaube III, 1975; ET: Word and Faith, 1963 ◆ E. Jüngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt, 1977, 61992; ET: God as Mystery of the World, 1983 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Anthropologie in theologischer Perspektive, 1983; ET: Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1995 ◆ H. Fries, Fundamentaltheologie, 1985; ET: Fundamental Theology, 1996. Wolf Krötke

Anthropogony. The question behind the story of the “origin of humankind” is not so much how the human species came into being as why we are not immortal and eternally healthy, why we must work and suffer, but also why we live in spite of impending doom: an anthropology in narrative form. The question “Where do human beings come from?” can be raised for each individual – the Sitz im Leben of many creation stories is indeed birth – but more often anthropogony initiates a thought experiment, “Must the reality of the present be as it is?” and answers with the story “Before things were as they are . . .” Thus in the middle stands the perception of humans as beings with shortcomings vis-à-vis animals and vis-à-vis God; inferiority is balanced through the institution of divine worship and human culture (such as language, cities, hunting). In contrast to modern discourse, the alternative, whether the world and humankind arose spontaneously (Lat. automatos, Gk. αὐτόματος) or was willed and created by God, was not an important category for the ancient Near East and antiquity. In connection with a number of essential parts of the living world – such as world, sun, water, plants, animals, and humans –

Anthropology the determination of order includes especially the subordination of human beings to God. The unity of humankind and the gods vis-à-vis the rest of nature forms the one chief model. “Subdue the earth!” derives dominion according to the model of royal dominion from God’s ordering power over chaos. This derivation is based on God’s creation of humankind in his own image. Their unity is captured even more pointedly by the (zoomorphic) metaphor that has humankind be a piece of God bound to him through procreation or through emanation of substance. Especially significant was the model that humankind arose from a murdered god, e.g. from the life-threatening dragon in The Enuma Elish or in the Orphic anthropology, where humans combine elements from Dionysos with those of his murderers, the Titans. The technomorphic image has God shape human beings as earthen vessels; the lifeless material does not gain life, however, until God breathes in his breath “hadama – hadam.” The Atrahasis Epic recounts that the gods created slaves for themselves, in order not to have to work, but when the “little gods” forced their admission into heaven, the gods created human beings as new slaves. One of the little ones betrayed to humankind the tricks of asserting themselves against the old gods, who planned their annihilation. The category between God and humankind leaves room for demonology or Lucifer, who fell because of his hubris. The alternative model places humankind opposite God as an adversary in a dualistic order. Especially when anthropogonic myths are integrated into a monotheistic system, there is a danger of interpreting human beings dualistically as the negative pole, whether created thus in the beginning by an evil demiurge or fallen after a good creation. For salvation, the negative anthropology then requires redemption from outside. Sources: La naissance du monde, sources orientales, vol. I, 1959; Ger. Die Schöpfungsmythen 1964 (1993) ◆ Atramhasis 1. 170–339, TUAT 3.4, 1994, 612–45 ◆ Hes. Erga 61–104 ◆ Ov. Met. 1. 1–88 ◆ Orphicorum Fragmenta F 220, ed., O. Kern, 1922 ◆ Bibl.: F. Lämmli, Vom Chaos zum Kosmos, 1962 ◆ C. Westermann, Genesis 1, BK 1, 1994, 197–229, 245–380 ◆ R. Albertz, Weltschöpfung und Menschenschöpfung, CTMA 3, 1974 ◆ J. Ebach, Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos, BWANT 108, 1979 ◆ B. Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung,” JBTh 5, 1990, 37–69 ◆ M. Luginbühl, Menschenschöpfungsmythen, 1992 ◆ J. Holzhausen, Der “Mythos vom Menschen” im hellenistischen Ägypten, Theoph. 33, 1994. Christoph Auffarth

Anthropology I. Philosophy – II. Scientific Anthropology

I. Philosophy The study of human beings, first of all, and from the 16th century a philosophical discipline that developed from rational psychology and moral philosophy; since

258 the 20th century anthropology has been a philosophical school of thought. Philosophical anthropology first flourished in the 18th and 19th centuries as a view of human beings that neither rests on the metaphorical and theological assumption of the → image of God nor sees human beings merely as natural beings, but rather interprets them on the basis of their actions in the world, their “life experience” and “human knowledge” (Marquard). Here philosophical anthropology has precursors in the French moralists. Not until I. → Kant did philosophical anthropology gain systematic meaning. Kant distinguished three perspectives on knowledge in human beings: (a) as a purely knowing being that constitutes the world as a system of knowable objects; (b) as a being that occurs in the world, and (c) as one that plays a role in the world. The second view of knowledge is that of physical anthropology; the third, that of pragmatic anthropology. The → pragmatism of C.S. → Peirce, W. → James, J. → Dewey, and F.C. Schiller generalized the third Kantian perspective on knowledge in human beings to an overall philosophical view of knowledge and developed an anthropological philosophy that was characterized not as philosophical anthropology but as humanism (Schiller). In the 19th century philosophical anthropology represented (according to Feuerbach) esp. a counter-movement to the → historical philosophy of G.W.F. → Hegel and thereby operated on the basis of natural philosophy (F.W.J. → Schelling ). This line was continued later by the medical anthropology of Viktor von Weizsäcker. The philosophical anthropology of the 20th century deals with a new foundation of philosophy. Of signal influence was Scheler’s work Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos (1930), which processes the material of empirical anthropological science yet defines humans as spiritual beings who, unlike “environmentally bound” animals, are “open to the world.” Also Plessner, in his Stufen des Organischen (1928), gives a special role to human beings on the basis of their self-consciousness and the resulting ability to distance themselves from their “bodily system.” Gehlen gives human beings a special role not on the basis of supernatural abilities but because of deficient naturalness (Der Mensch, 1940). The thesis already occurring in → Plato that humans are deficient beings, who in none of their natural abilities attain the achievements of animals, is developed by Gehlen into an assertion that human beings create culture and erect institutions in compensation for their natural deficiencies. All attempts to define human nature in such generality are criticized by M. → Buber in Das Problem des Menschen (1948). The totality of human beings is not to be grasped in the generalization of one aspect but only in an “act of self-contemplation” that fulfills the human “act of living.” In this critique of naturalistic anthropologies in Buber, parallels

259 to E. → Husserl (Lebenswelt), M. → Heidegger (Daseinsanalyse), and the French → existential philosophy are evident. Methodologically, Jürgen Habermas criticizes philosophical anthropology as merely reacting to science but no longer substantiating it. Directed against all attempts to define human beings in a substantialist way of thinking are the functionalist approaches of G.H. → Mead, which come from the pragmatism of Dewey. E. → Cassirer asserts in his Essay on Man (1944) that human beings are knowable only in their work; this is the work of an animal symbolicum: language, religion, myth, art, and science (cf. further S.K. → Langer). Mead emphasizes that only in the exchange of signs do human beings arise in community as moral beings capable of knowledge. In these conceptions human beings possess neither a firm natural nor social being, but rather develop in the symbolic interactions of various structured societies. II. Scientific Anthropology In the German-speaking world the term anthropology is used in the scientific sense above all for the biological human sciences and especially for palaeoanthropology, human genetics, and human ethology. In the Englishspeaking world scientific anthropology is primarily cultural and social science, namely, ethnology and social anthropology. 1. Palaeoanthropology, science of human evolution based on fossils. In 1857, two years before C. → Darwin’s Origin of Species, the first fossils of humanlike bones were found in the Neander valley (Neandertal, near Düsseldorf ); they were interpreted as either coming from an extinct “primitive” human race or as the skeleton of a modern human being that was deformed by disease (rickets). Since then there have been many discoveries that attest to the biological descent of modern humans from ape-like prehumans and attempts to reconstruct a family tree for humankind going back to human-like and ape like ancestors. From a common ancestor of anthropoids and human beings 10–25 million years ago in Africa, hominids, chimpanzees, and gorillas separated into their own kind. Considered the oldest hominid species is ramapithecus at 14 million years; australopithecus lived 8–5 million years ago; homo habilis 4 million years ago; homo erectus 1.5 million years ago; homo sapiens emerged 300,000 years ago, and homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) 20,000 years ago. The first stone tools are dated to 2.5 million years ago; cave paintings to 1.3 million years ago; the use of fire and large traps for hunting goes back to homo erectus 500,000 years ago, and burials with grave articles 70,000 years ago. Palaeontologically, human beings and wolves are the only polytypic mammals that have succeeded in adapting to practically all environments on the planet. 2. Human genetics, science of the human genome, its

Anthropology variability between the races and human genetic illnesses. Taxonomically, humankind belongs to the group of hominidiae that share common ancestors with the pongidae. Humans, chimpanzees (pan), gorillas, and orangutans (pongo) all have 46 chromosomes. Pan is genetically the closest to homo. Homo sapiens is divided into the recent races Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian (Bushmen and Australoids are smaller racial groups). There are no sharp genetic boundaries between the races. Genetic differences arose through spatial separation. The advent of intercultural populations of people of different races will in the long term effect their disappearance. 3. Human ethology, science of human behavior that, with methods of empirical behavioral research, determines innate individual and social modes of human behavior, in part in comparison with animal behavior. Numerous interculturally variable, innate forms of behavior, such as pacifying smiles, flirting with the eyes, and crying have been attested (Lorenz, Eibl-Eibesfeldt). 4. Ethnology and socioanthropology, science of illiterate cultures outside Europe; social anthropology (Great Britain), cultural anthropology (USA). The classical fields of investigation of social and cultural anthropology are kinship relations, cult practices, and religious concepts of foreign peoples, which in distinction to the comparative interpretations of magic and religious practices have been researched by I.G. Frazer et al. since 1920 in “participating observation” (Malinowski) on the basis of field studies. In Malinowski’s functionalism every custom, concept, and tenet of faith fulfills a function for general human needs and the reproduction of society, which is regarded as an organism. Whereas “empiricist” structural functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown) examines the functions of observable social relationships, the rationalistic structuralism of Lévi-Strauss begins with logical models that, analogous to the score that underlies an orchestral performance (Leach), make up an abstract reality that becomes clear in the social behavior of a society. Boas, Cluckhohn, and M. Mead further develop the American cultural anthropology formulated by A.L. Kroeber in part with the application of psychoanalytic theorems, whereas ethnomethodology treats the phenomenological distinction between the perspectives of the actors and the observer (Garfinkel), using deconstructivist and hermeneutical methods. On I.: M. Hundt, Anthropologium de hominis dignitate, natura et propirietatibus, 1501 ◆ O. Cassmann, Psychologia anthropologica sive animae humanae doctrina, 1594 ◆ J.G. Herder, Ideen zur Philosophic der Geschille der Menschheit, 1784 ◆ I. Kant, Anthropology in pragmatischer Hinsicht, 1798 ◆ F.C. Schiller, Studies in Humanism, 1907 ◆ J. Dewey, Human Nature and Conduct, 1922 ◆ H. Plessner, Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch, 1928 ◆ M. Scheler, Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos, 1930 ◆ G.H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society, 1934 ◆ A. Gehlen, Der Mensch: Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt, 1940 ◆ S.K. Langer, Philosophie auf neuem Wege, 1965 (Engl.

Anthropomorphism original 1942) ◆ E. Cassirer, Essay on Man, 1944 ◆ J. Habermas, s.v. “Anthropologie” Fischer-Lexikon der Philosophie, 1958 ◆ O. Marquard, “Zur Geschite des philosophischen Begriffs ‘Anthropologie’ seit dem Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in: Collegium Philosophicum, FS J. Ritter, 1965 ◆ H.-G. Gadamer & P. Vogler, eds., Neue Anthropology, 7 vols., 1972 ◆ V. v. Weizsäcker, “Über medizinische Anthropologie,” in: Gesammelte Schriften, vol. V, 1987 ◆ K. Lorenz, Einführung in die philosophische Anthropologie, 1990 ◆ On II., 1.: B.G. Campbell, Entwicklung zum Menschen, 1979 (Engl. original 1966) ◆ S.L. Washburn, Perspectives on Human Evolution, 1968 ◆ J. Reader, Missing Links: The Hunt for the Earliest Man, 1981 ◆ On II., 2.: F. Vogler & A. G. Motulsky, Human Genetics, 1979 ◆ On II., 3.: K. Lorenz, Über tierisches und menschliches Verhalten, 2 vols., 1965 ◆ I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens, 1984 ◆ On II., 4.: F. Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man, 1911 ◆ M. Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, 1935 ◆ B. Malinowski, “The Functional Theory”, in: idem, A Scientific Theory of Culture, 1944 ◆ C. Lévi-Strauss, Strukturale Anthropologie, 1967. Christoph Auffarth

Anthropomorphism I. Religious Studies – II. Bible – III. Judaism – IV. Islam – V. Philosophy of Religion – VI. Dogmatics – VII. Practical Theology

I. Religious Studies Anthropomorphism denotes the conception of God or gods in human form. It derives from the personification of spiritual events (animatism), the idea of attributing a soul to stones, trees or places (→ Animism) or the idea of a power indwelling objects or persons (dynamism). In recent times the personal view of the “great” gods is traced back to the ruler idea, in which the structure of society is reflected in the divine hierarchy (sociomorphism). The reference to anthropomorphism served to characterize conceptions of God that were either rejected or affirmed. This pattern is already evident in →Xenophanes’ critique of → Homer’s anthropomorphic deities, juxtaposed by an impersonal, philosophical concept of deity. In their critique of pagan anthropomorphism Christian → apologists took up the Greek philosophers’ critique of the gods. This resulted in reciprocal reproaches between Christians and pagans. In the 20th century anthropomorphism was classified as a former stage of religion. The biologist Julian Huxley, viewed religions in which anthropomorphic deities were accepted as an expression of an evolutionary stage of the human, the conquest of which he proclaimed. A. → Einstein postulated a development of religion from an original, anthropomorphic religion of fear to the cosmic religiosity of the natural scientist. Likewise in the history of religions outside of Europe the view of anthropomorphism as a preliminary, poorer stage of religion is found e.g. in → neo-Hinduism. Anthropomorphic deities correspond to certain religious needs, though not to the highest conception of the

260 divine. Thus even implied anthropomorphism of theistic advanced religions was relativized in favor of venerating an impersonal absolute. Conversely there are positive evaluations of anthropomorphism. According to Snell, the idea of the human is realized in the Homeric conception of God and contributed to the “awakening of the mind” in Greece. Anthropomorphism is viewed as being part of religion and its rejection as a sign of rationalistic decline (→ H. Gunkel, G. van der → Leeuw). From the Christian perspective the anthropomorphism of the Homeric gods appears to be positive because the deities in human form of Greek religion prepared the ground for the Christian idea of incarnation (Koch). The concept of anthropomorphism accordingly seems to have normative connotations, whereas for religious studies a purely descriptive type of technical term would be required. One wonders, therefore, whether the term anthropomorphism is useful as a concept in religious studies and should not rather be replaced with the more neutral category of → personality in the concept of God. M.D. de Visser, Die nicht menschengestaltigen Götter der Griechen, 1903 ◆ A. Einstein, The World as I See It, 1934 ◆ J. Irmscher, Götterzorn bei Homer, 1950 ◆ M.P. Nilsson, “Götter und Psychologie bei Homer,” in idem, Opuscula Selecta I, 355–391 ◆ S. Radhakrishnan, Indische Philosophie, 2 vols., 1956 ◆ A. Brelich, “Der Polytheismus,” Numen 7, 1960, 123–136 ◆ C. Koch, “Vom Wirkungsgeheimnis des menschengestaltigen Gottes,” in idem, Religio, 1960, 205–252 ◆ J. Huxley, Evolutionary Humanism, 1964 ◆ B. Snell, The Discovery of the Mind, 1960 ◆ R. Merz, Die numinose Mischgestalt, 1978 ◆ B. Gladigow, “Der Sinn der Götter,” in P. Eicher, ed., Gottesvorstellung und Gesellschaftsentwicklung, 1979, 41–62. P. Eicher, ed., Gottesvorstellung und Gesellschaftsentwicklung, 1979, 41–62. Gebhard Löhr

II. Bible In the OT the conception of a body-shaped form of God is assumed most clearly in Ezek 1:26. To an extent this is in tension with texts that challenge the humanity of God and thus also of God and thus also his corporeality (Hos 11:9). On the other hand, the idea in the anthropology of the Priestly Document that humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28; cf. Gen 9:6) can be viewed as a more indirect or better functioning anthropology. Biblical anthropology is less clear when texts speak of God’s “hand” (Exod 9:3; Deut 2:15; Ps 136.12) or of his “outstretched arm” (Exod 6:6; Isa 51:9; 52:10; Ps 71:18). G. Lanczkowski, “Gott” I, TRE XIII, 1984, 601–608 ◆ B. Ockinga, “Die Gottebenbild lichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament,” ÄAT 7, 1984 ◆ R.I.Z. Werblowsky, EncRel E I, 1987, 316–320 ◆ A. Schentzer, NBL I, 1991, 101–111 ◆ B. Janowski, “Herrschaft über die Tiere,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel, FS N. Lohfink, ed. G. Braulik et al., 1993, 183–198 ◆ J. Schreiner, LThK3 I, 1993, 734–735 ◆ T. Podella, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs, FAT 15, 1996. Thomas Podella

261 III. Judaism Both the LXX and the Targums (→ Bible translations) generally avoid anthropomorphic portrayals of God (→ Prohibition of images) in favor of using δόξα (doxa, “glory”) or  (mēmar, “word”) but without making a one-for-one substitution, which would be theologically or ethically questionable. → Aristobulus and → Philo of Alexandria use → allegory to water down the often apparently too human depiction of God. Rabbinic literature uses a series of circumlocutions to avoid anthropomorphism and explains the anthropomorphic biblical imagery and expressions as an educational aid: Scripture makes use of terms that humans can understand (b. Ber. 31b). Anthropomorphic actions and feelings are theologized or roundly disputed (b. Suk. 5a). The resolution of anthropomorphism in the Bible developed into the major task of medieval philosophy. For → Saadia Gaon the physical attributes of God point to non-physical qualities; according to → Maimonides the language of Torah has been adapted to that of humans. In contrast to the rationalistic view of God, in its description of the “form of the deity,” Jewish → mysticism (III) makes use of anthropomorphic expressions and symbols. A. Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87, 1994, 171–195 ◆ M. Klein, Anthropomorphismus und Anthropopathismus, 1982 ◆ M. Harl et al., La Bible grecque des Septante, 1988, 214 (bibl.) ◆ G. Scholem, EJ III, 1971, 50–58 ◆ D. Stern, Imitatio Hominis, Prooftexts 12, 1992, 151–174. Giuseppe Veltri

IV. Islam In contrast to Christianity, where the unity of the divine and human nature of the person of Jesus Christ is anchored dogmatically on account of the incarnation, anthropomorphism is a serious problem for both Islam and Judaism. Islam does not know anthropomorphism as a mythical concept, however, but instead as a verbal phenomenon in Scripture and in the prophetic tradition (Óadit; → Islam: II). For while the Qur’ān expressly emphasizes the transcendence of God, it by no means avoids anthropological formulations altogether. Initially this was not perceived as contradictory. Only in the prophetic tradition occasionally does an exegesis emerge that emphasizes anthropomorphism strongly. Alongside anthropomorphism in the narrower sense of referring to the form of God, here anthropomorphisms pointing to his activities or his feelings are taken up as well (descent from heaven, sitting on the throne; wrath, pleasure etc.); in addition there are passive anthropomorphisms (especially seeing God in the hereafter, the visio beatifica, the → visio Dei). Theologians placed these ideas in a systematic relationship and taught that God existed entirely of “flesh and blood” or, conversely, that he is very “solid,” in contrast to the human who is “hollow” or “porous”

Anthropomorphism (since he is made of clay). Provisional solutions were also proffered: God is “solid” in his lower part of the body, so that all of the vegetative functions, including sexuality, were ruled out; he is “hollow,” however, down to the beltline, since he speaks by means of a mouth and his wisdom arises from his heart which is situated in his chest cavity. These reflections were influenced by a prophetic dictum in terms of Gen 1:27, based on which the appearance of the human was projected back on God. Early tendencies of sublimation substitute the notion of “form” with “body”; in this case, however, God does not have a human form but he is a body, since only a body is able to undertake activities. As such he has an ideal geometrical form, such as a globe; besides this, he consists of light. The so-called Muatazila school construed anthropomorphism in purely metaphorical terms. In the course of time this school became “heretical” but whoever maintained anthropomorphism literally from this point on did so with the proviso that it did not express anything about the real constitution of God. The contemporary self-understanding of Islam has taken up anthropomorphism only in terms of understanding revelation as divine speech (sometimes in the sense of verbal inspiration) and generally of believing in a visio beatifica in the hereafter. Bibl.: EI 2, X, 341–344, s.v. Tashbīh wa-Tanzīh with further references (in preparation). Josef van Ess

V. Philosophy of Religion 1. Anthropomorphism as well as myth based on it have been evaluated quite differently in ancient philosophy. Xenophanes’ critique is most vehement: “If oxen and horses and lions had hands . . . like those of humans, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen, and they would make the bodies of their gods according to the form that each species itself possesses” (DK B 17). Just as little as Xenophanes’ critique of anthropomorphism, so → Plato’s moral and pedagogical critique of the anthropopathism of the myths does not mean a rejection of religion in principle. Yet the dialectic of → myth and → logos leads to a differentiation between the idea and the conception of God. While the anthropomorphic myth depicts the divine as an acting person, the conception of God which transcends all finite conceptions implies the unequivocal goodness, invariability and dispassionateness (→ Apathy) of God. Plato’s fundamental regulations for dealing critically with the myths are also found in → Aristotle and the → Stoics. 2. The dialectic of myth and logos determines not only Christian theology but also modern philosophy of religion. Influenced by → Platonism, → Augustine sharply criticized the sect of the Audians of → Edessa on account of their anthropomorphism. This tradition still continued

Anthropomorphism to affect F. → Bacon of Verulam, D. → Hume and G.W. → Leibniz. Rather than rejecting anthropomorphism as a whole, the realization that ideas without conceptions are blind, while conceptions without ideas are empty, led I. → Kant to distinguish between dogmatic and symbolic anthropomorphism. In contrast to dogmatic anthropomorphism, which renders God finite, symbolic anthropomorphism renders the differentiation between God and the human explicit by maintaining that anthropomorphism “concerns only the language and not the object itself ” (Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, AA 4, 1911, 357; ET: Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics). Both J.G. → Fichte and F. → Schleiermacher endorsed this view. G.W.F. → Hegel stresses the difference between the anthropomorphism of Greek mythology and that of Christianity. According to Hegel the view of the oneness of God and of the human forms the conceptual content of Christian anthropomorphism. Yet philosophy claims that it alone raises the idea of God to the adequate understanding that the goal of religion consists in its dialectical dissolution. Appealing to the doctrine of incarnation, S. → Kierkegaard emphasizes the necessity of a “strong and sanguine” anthropomorphism. 3. New perspectives for the issue of anthropomorphism arise from the “linguistic turn” in the philosophy of the 20th century. The notion that the idea of God is to be addressed only in the context of human speech and thought but that at the same time an anthropomorphic trait is suitable for all language, is taken into consideration in dialogical → personalism (M. → Buber, F. → Rosenzweig , F. → Ebner), in the linguistic philosophy of M. → Heideggers as well as in analytic philosophy of religion. E. Ehnmark, Anthropomorphism and Miracle, 1939 ◆ G. van der Leeuw, Phänomenologie der Religion, 21956; ET: Religion in Essence and Manifestation, 1938, 1986 ◆ S. Holm, Religionsphilosophie, 1960 ◆ N.S. Soe, Religionsphilosophie, 1964 S. Holm, Religionsphilosophie, 1964 ◆ W. Trillhaas, Religionsphilosophie, 1972 ◆ K. Heinrich, Dahlemer Vorlesungen, vol. II, 1986 ◆ G. Vollmer, Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie, 51990, 165– 170 ◆ S.E. Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds, 1993 ◆ C. Long, The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus, 1993. Ulrich H.J. Körtner

VI. Dogmatics 1. The problem of anthropomorphism marks the tension-filled locus of Christian theology as a reflection of faith between → myth and → metaphysics, between the biblical manner of speaking about God and the philosophical idea of God. In the Christian context the concept of anthropomorphism appears first in Augustine who described the Audians as “anthropomorphites,” accusing them of a sensuous conception of God in keeping with the image of a mortal human. This influenced discussion of the concept of anthropomorphism for a considerable time.

262 2. The problem of anthropomorphism does not concern biblical hermeneutics alone but also the basis of theology proper and anthropology. It comes to a head in the Christian confession of Jesus as the incarnate → logos of God. Conversely, however, it may be said that Christology is its only appropriate solution theologically. In light of this, anthropomorphism is not only to be seen as permissible but also as a proper form of speaking about God. It is substantiated by the biblical testimony about the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. This confession is also the criterion for distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate ways of speaking about God. In keeping with the doctrine of the two natures of the early church, → Christology serves as the central theme of the fundamental distinction between God and the human but at the same time also as their relational association. If the anthropological substantiation of anthropomorphism consists of the human being made in the → image of God (cf. Gen 1:27), its content is ultimately revealed in the likeness of God in Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:4), which is to be given a trinitarian interpretation. In terms of its objective content the doctrine of the → Trinity is iconoclastic, since it overcomes the immediate identification of God as an individual person without perceiving God as apersonal. 3. In terms of more recent theories of metaphorical language, symbolical anthropomorphism may also be construed as absolute metaphorics. Absolute metaphors are historically changeable, though not conceptually revocable (H. → Blumenberg). As an absolute metaphor the biblical language about God and his historical action is not apophantic but rather provides meaning. In every linguistic utterance the human always is spoken of as well and, conversely, the human is always addressed even before God communicates. Precisely in this way the human does not remain as he or she is but is directed beyond him or herself. Anthropomorphic language about God makes this explicit. H.M. Kuitert, Gott in Menschengestalt, BEvTh 45, 1967 ◆ I.U. Dalferth, ed., Sprachlogik des Glaubens, BEvTh 66, 1974 ◆ P. Ricoeur & E. Jüngel, Metapher, 1974 ◆ F. Christ, Menschlich von Gott reden, ÖTh 10, 1982 ◆ C.H. Ratschow, Von den Wandlungen Gottes, 1986 ◆ E. Jüngel, “Anthropomorphismus als Grundproblem neuzeitlicher Hermeneutik,” in idem, Wertlose Wahrheit, BEvTh 107, 1990, 110–131 ◆ M. Sarot, God, Passibility and Corporeality, 1992. Ulrich H.J. Körtner

VII. Practical Theology For most people the conception of God is part of the core of religious experience. For this reason theological discourse cannot ignore it. Practical theology seeks to understand the meaning of human elements for the formation of images of God, possibly to modify them but not to remove them. Case studies, especially those of Rizzuto, have shown that for people in the Western

263 world parental images shape the image of God and later also the images of other personalities, such as the teacher or minister. Images of God go back to the earliest months of life (Winnicott); if they are dulled by troubled parent-child relationships and they are not developed or adequately modified, they may trigger serious trouble in later life. However, if they are developed correctly in the interaction of the self internally, as well as with significant others externally, they are able to become a source of enduring faith and strength, although this can neither be experienced exclusively inwardly nor exclusively outwardly. Any attempt at changing the image of God needs to be undertaken with a great deal of sensitivity. Images of God by individuals and groups represent a challenge for practical theology, which may contribute theoretically to communicating about the concept of God by means of these sources. D.W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality, 1971 ◆ A.-M. Rizzuto, The Birth of the Living God, 1979 ◆ D.P. Pailin, The Anthropological Character of Theology, 1990 ◆ D.S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology, 1991. James N. Lapsley

Anthroposophy (human wisdom) is a worldview founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). It understands itself as a path of understanding that transcends what conventional disciplines can attain by employing its methods to gain access to the spiritual world behind the visible world and investigating it. Fundamental for anthroposophy’s understanding of humanity, the world and the cosmos is the concept of → evolution. Spiritual powers guide it, its goal is spiritualization, just as once everything material originated from the spiritual. This evolution takes place through reincarnation, which not only humans undergo, but also, for example, our globe. Thus, according to the anthroposophical viewpoint, each of the four essential components of the human being has arisen in the four incarnations of the globe so far: physical body, ethereal body, astral body, and the ego. The first three of these components developed in parallel to the corresponding systems in non-human nature, namely, to the mineral, plant, and animal realms. These views are fundamental to the wealth of anthroposophical activities, especially in the areas of medicine, the production of medicaments, pedagogy (Waldorf schools), and agriculture (organic farming). At the center of Steiner’s teaching stands a spiritual being whom he calls Christ. This figure must be fundamentally distinguished from the human, Jesus, of whom, according to Steiner, there were two. According to Steiner, the “Solomonic” Jesus of Matthew, assigned to Bethlehem, is someone other than the “Nathanic” Jesus of Luke, whose parents were from Nazareth. In the latter, the ego of the portion of Adam that remained innocent in the fall was incarnated, while in the former young Jesus,

Antichrist the ego of → Zarathustra was reincarnated. When the Solomonic Jesus was 12, he died, and the Zarathustraego entered into the body of the Nathanic Jesus and lived there until he was 30 years old; the → Buddha also shined impulses from the spiritual world into the astral body of this boy. In his 30th year of life, the ego of Zarathustra left Jesus to make room for the solar spirit Christ, who descended into the body of Jesus at his baptism. At the crucifixion on Golgotha, the blood flowed from Jesus’ body into the earth. Consequently, “The Christ is the spirit of the earth” (Steiner). Now, evolution proceeds again. For Steiner, Golgotha does not signify the act of redemption for individual human beings. According to his teaching, one must distinguish between the destructive effects of human acts of sin on the body of the earth, on the one side, and that for which the human being must answer personally, on the other. Only those “objective sins” have been taken away by the crucifixion, according to Steiner. Steiner had supernatural experiences already in childhood. Later, he concerned himself with philosophical questions. Of great importance to him were the philosophers of German idealism, as well as the evolutionary theoreticians C. → Darwin and E. → Haeckel, and especially, however, → Goethe. An unknown “master” initiated him into occult esoterics. From 1902 to 1913, he was the General Secretary of the German section of the “Theosophical Society” founded in 1875 by H.P. → Blavatsky. Breaking with this group, Steiner founded the Anthroposophical Society in 1913. In 1923, it was dissolved and the “Universal Anthroposophical Society” was founded. Now, it has approx. 60,000 members worldwide, of whom approx. 16,000 are in Germany. Its headquarters is in Dornach near Basel, Switzerland. R. Steiner, Gesamtausgabe, 1955ff. ◆ H. Ringgren, TRE III, 1978, 8–20 (bibl.) ◆ J. Badewien, Anthroposophie: Eine kritische Darstellung, 1985 ◆ G. Wehr, Rudolf Steiner: Leben, Erkenntnis, Kulturimpuls, 1987 ◆ K. Baral, Anthroposophie: Eine Orientierungshilfe, 21993 ◆ C. Leihenhorst, “Anthroposophy,” Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, ed. W.J. Hanegraaff, I, 2005, 82–90. Karl Baral

Antichrist I. New Testament – II. Church History – III. Theology

I. New Testament 1. The term ἀντίχριστος appears in Christian literature only in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7, and, dependent on these texts, Pol. Phil 7:1. There it refers to someone who turns against Christ and the confession of Christ, not – as would be linguistically possible – someone who seeks to take the place of Christ; in context, it refers to theological opponents collectively. The neologism introduced by the Johannine School already presupposes a developed Christology. The background tradition spoke

Antichrist of a figure that would better be referred to neutrally as an “eschatological antagonist.” 2. Such antagonists also appear elsewhere in the NT in a variety of guises. They appear as false prophets (cf. Deut 13:1–5) and false Christs in Mark 13:6, 22 par. In 2 Thess 2:1–12, the “parousia” is proclaimed by a figure called “the man of wickedness,” “the son of destruction,” and “the lawless one.” This figure, endowed with Satanic energy and miraculous power, seeks to take the place of God. Especially influential was the “antitrinity” (cf. Rev 16:13; 20:10) in Rev 12–13 and passim: the dragon, the beast from the sea, and the beast from the earth. The first beast in particular with its mortal wound that is healed (echoing the legend of Nero redivivus), its enthronement, and its blasphemous names (a counterpart to titles of majesty), and within limits the second beast as well with its appearance like a lamb, are transformed by distorted imitation into immediate adversaries of Christ. The “deceiver of the world” in Did. 16.4 (cf. also Barn. 4.4–5; Ascen. Isa. 4.2–13) combines almost all the elements of the later antichrist except the name. But the NT never identifies the antichrist explicitly with the Devil. 3. There is no undisputed evidence for an “anti-Messiah” in biblical Jewish sources; the mythological derivation of such a figure from the chaos dragon, the opponent of the Creator God (see also Isa 51:9f.; 27:1; Ps 74:13f.) has met increasing skepticism. More likely, later Judaism (e.g. Ass. Mos. 8.1–5; 2 Bar. 39.5–7) and Christianity found a starting point in the portrait of the tyrannical king of the eschaton in Dan 7–8 and 11, with its historical reflex in Antiochus IV Epiphanes. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, we may cite Belial/Beliar, the opponent of Michael (1QM 13.1–12; 4QTest 22–30 etc.); this constellation is repeated in the figures of Melchiresha and → Melchizedek in 11QMelch, 4Q543–548, and 4Q280. Most of the individual elements such as the climax of wickedness, false prophets, the eschatological tyrant, Beliar, the final assault of the Gentile nations, and the return of Nero appear together in the Jewish core of the Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or. III–V). Neither the Jewish nor the Christian traditions hint at any doubts concerning the final victory of God and the savior figure commissioned by God. O. Böcher, “Antichrist II,” TRE III, 1978, 21–24 ◆ G.C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, BZNW 59, 1991 ◆ J.M. Ford, “The Construction of the Other: The Antichrist,” AUSS 33, 1995, 203–230 ◆ L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist, JSJS 49, 1996 (bibl.). Hans-Josef Klauck

II. Church History 1. Early Church to the Reformation. Especially at the hands of → Hippolytus, who contrasted in detail the life of the antichrist and the life of Christ, the NT antichrist received an infusion of biographical elements. In the following period, the Tiburtine Sybil, Pseudo-Methodius,

264 and → Gregory the Great reinforced the place of the antichrist in apocalyptic scenarios. Going beyond this legendary tradition, → Augustine gave significant impetus to the further development of the concept by explaining the use of “antichrist” in both singular and plural in 1 John 2:18 to mean that heretics could already be called antichrists as individuals, but collectively constituted the body of the eschatological antichrist. It was → Adso in particular who assembled the biographical traditions of the early church to frame a consistent antithetical vita contrasting with the life of Christ: The antichrist comes from the tribe of Dan, is born in Babylon, goes to Jerusalem at the appointed time, where he constitutes a pseudo-Messianic kingdom in the restored temple. There all the rulers of the world pay him homage. After a reign of three and a half years, he is destroyed by the returning Christ. In the High and late Middle Ages, this eschatological antichrist legend took on great importance for popular devotion; it was represented in miracle plays and published in illustrated editions. In addition, Adso established the general criterion that whoever “lives contrary to righteousness . . . and vilifies what is good” is antichrist. Such criterial definitions later made it possible to identify any particular opponent as antichrist. The obvious discrepancy between this usage and the vita of the eschatological antichrist was resolved by the Augustinian notion of multiple antichrists preceding the actual antichrist. This approach was further developed by Franciscan Spirituals influenced by → Joachim of Fiore, who spoke of a mystical antichrist at work in the church even before the eschaton. Such notions were also applied to individual popes. But J. → Wycliffe made use of the antichrist concept to criticize the papacy in general, by applying its criterial version to the degenerate life and jurisdictional claims of the popes. Luther, too, drew on criterial notions of the antichrist in 1519/20 when he arrived at the conclusion that the papacy as an institution was the antichrist. But he also gave an eschatological twist to this criterial understanding of the antichrist by identifying the pope-antichrist himself as the eschatological antichrist. Thus for Luther the unbiblical antichrist legend was rendered systematically unnecessary. Luther believed that the pope was primarily the antichrist in the spiritual sense, whereas the Turkish Empire was the antichrist only inauthentically, in the bodily sense. His central biblical text supporting this view was 2 Thess 2, since he interpreted the appearance of the antichrist in the temple as referring to the church of Christ. In everything having to do with God and worship, the pope’s overbearing claims, manifested especially in the realm of ecclesiastical law, placed him in conflict with Scripture. Luther developed his antichrist theology in conjunction with his doctrine of the

265 three estates. The nature of the papacy as antichrist is revealed in the destruction of church, household, and state, ordained by God to uphold the world. L. → Cranach’s “Passional of Christ and Antichrist” (1521) helped popularize the identification of pope with antichrist. The notion of the antichrist quickly became a general vehicle for criticizing the papacy in the Reformation; it was also used by Melanchthon. That even he failed to distance himself from the papal church in the → Augsburg Interim was a central allegation of his opponents, which gave the conflict over the Interim its apocalyptic acrimony. Sources: GCS I 1 3–47 (Hippolytus) ◆ Augustine Civ. XX 19 ◆ CCCM 45 (Adso) ◆ Der Antichrist: Der staufische Ludus de Antichristo, ed. G. Günther, 1970 ◆ Der Antichrist: Faksimile der ersten typographischen Ausgabe, 1979 ◆ Iohannis Wyclif Opus Evangelicum, ed. J. Loserth, vols. III and IV, 1896 (=1966) ◆ John Wiclif ’s Polemical Works in Latin, ed. R. Buddensieg, II, 1883 (=1966), 633–692 ◆ M. Luther, WA 9, 701–715 and 54, 206–299 ◆ On the Antichrist: E. Wadstein, “Die eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist – Weltsabbat – Weltende und Weltgericht in den Hauptmomenten ihrer christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesamtentwicklung,” ZWTh 38, 1895, 538–616; 39, 1896, 79–157) ◆ H. Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik, 1906 ◆ H.D. Rauh, Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter, BGPhMA 9, 1973 ◆ D. Verhelst, “La préhistoire des conceptions d’Adson concernant l’Antichrist,” RThAM 40, 1973, 52–103 ◆ G.A. Benrath & G. Seebass, “Antichrist III, IV,” TRE III, 1978, 24–43 ◆ R.K. Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages, 1981 ◆ B. McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil, 1994 ◆ H.-D. Heimann, “Antichristvorstellungen im Wandel der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft,” ZRGG 47, 1995, 99–113 ◆ H.J. Hillerbrand, “Von Polemik zur Verflachung: Zur Problematik des AntichristMythos in Reformation und Gegenreformation,” ZRGG 47, 1995, 114–125 ◆ V. Leppin, “Zwischen der Offenbarung des Antichrist und dem jüngsten Tag,” Habilitation (typescript), 1997. Volker Leppin

2. Modern Period. As the bifurcation of the antichrist idea gained ground in interconfessional polemic, the influence of the medieval antichrist legend lessened. Throughout the Protestant world, the polyvalence of the antichrist (conceived within and without the church, individually and collectively) gave way to a concentration on the role of the antichrist within the church and Christianity. To this day, the antichrist has served as a vehicle for criticizing other churches. In the conflicts of the post-Reformation period, Protestants viewed their fellow Protestant opponents as antichrist. The idea was carried to the extreme: every institutional church is led by the antichrist (R. → Williams). The antichrist was seen to be at work in every church, especially in the persecution of the heterodox (G. → Arnold). The search for antichristianity and the “little antichrist” in one’s own church was widespread (P.J. → Spener). It was also common to look for the antichrist in the heart of every Christian and to find him in those who

Antichrist were Christians in name only ( J. → Böhme). The theologians of the Enlightenment rejected the antichrist along with the devil and the end of history. An antichrist as the ultimate human evil contradicts their notion of morality. Historical criticism restricted the figure of the antichrist to the last decade of the 1st century (Nero redivivus). In the 19th century, out of hostility to the French Revolution, only theologians associated with Pietism, the Awakening, and Neoconfessionalism continued to speak of a personal eschatological antichrist; in the 20th century, fundamentalist theologians maintained the same belief (Dallas Theological Seminary). The conservative German theologians of the 19th century commonly saw the antichrist at work in rationalism, materialism, and atheism, as well as democracy and socialism. The situation in Russia differed: alongside an anti-Semitic interpretation of the antichrist (Sergei Nilus, → Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion), there was also an anti-autocratic and anti-monarchistic interpretation (D. → Merezhkovsky). The medieval legend of the antichrist was developed creatively in the spirit of prophetic criticism by writers and philosophers who disagreed with the liberal portrait of Jesus dominant in their period. For F. → Dostoyevsky, the antichrist is the Grand Inquisitor, who represents the oppressive church, and the nihilist Ivan Karamazov, who recounts the antichrist legend. The antichrist rules by monopolizing the definition of what is true and good and reducing morality to law. Contrary to traditional usage, F. → Nietzsche called himself antichrist and superman, as the opponent of the morbidly inward religiosity of Jesus and all Christendom, which he equated with denial of life and a repressive moral order. According to V. → Solovyov, the essence of the antichrist is falsification of the good, turning it into a moral order that imposes duties but does not admit the free, sincere expression of love. The antichrist is a totalitarian regulator of the lives of Christians, but also shares features of Nietzsche’s superman. There are numerous prophetic elements in Roth: the antichrist is an anti-Semite, his mark the swastika. Writers and philosophers have continued the spirit of apocalyptic Christian self-examination, echoing Augustine’s insight: each must ask his conscience whether he is an antichrist. An antichrist is someone whose deeds deny Christ (Tract. ep. Jo. 3:4–10). F. Nietzsche, Der Antichrist, Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. G. Colli & M. Montinari, vol. VI/3, 1969 ◆ J. Salaquarda, “Antichrist V,” TRE III, 1978, 43–50 ◆ V. Solovyov, Kurze Erzählung vom Antichrist, Deutsche Gesamtausgabe, ed. W. Szylkarski, W. Lettenbauer & L. Müller, vol. VIII, 1979 ◆ F. Dostoyevsky, Der Großinquisitor, ed. L. Müller, 1985 ◆ M. George, “Die Fälschung der Wahrheit und des Guten,” ZKG 102, 1991, 76–103 ◆ J. Roth, Der Antichrist, Werke, ed. K. Westermann, vol. III, 1991, 563–665 ◆ M. Hagemeister, Sergej Nilus und die “Protokolle der Weisen von Zion,” 1996. Martin George

Antichrist III. Dogmatics Roman Catholic theology, especially when confronting the Reformers’ attack on the papacy as antichrist, has always maintained the idea of a future antichrist; the magisterium continues to maintain this belief in the form of a somewhat attenuated personification (Catechism of 1993, 675f.). In the churches of the Reformation, however, theological and devotional developments have largely dispensed with the concept of the antichrist. When recent theology does employ the term, it denotes the seductive antichristian appeal of individuals, structures, or ideologies. 1. A theological debate concerning the term and concept “antichrist” is nevertheless inevitable. We are dealing with a distinct element of canonical and confessional tradition. Its frequently very important role in church history, its eschatological content, and its orientational significance are plain (see I and II above). A biblically grounded use of the title “antichrist” in today’s situation presupposes, first, the present-day validity of the title “Christ.” Only when Jesus of Nazareth can be titled the Christ of God and only when this title is embodied in Christianity can something like an antichrist appear. Therefore the term “antichrist” cannot be applied at will to manifestations of evil. Only the powers or figures empowered by evil (Rev 13:1–10) to undermine God in Christ by seductively sowing confusion, setting themselves in Christ’s place (both senses of “anti-”), can be called “antichrist.” Second, only the eschatological use of “antichrist” has a biblical basis. To call something antichrist means to have seen in it a harbinger of Christ’s return. But the parousia is not an event of the distant future; it makes “eschatological” the history that falls “between” itself and God’s first coming into the world. Therefore the term “antichrist” is not bound to an apocalyptic chronology, but can be appropriate to any present moment of the Christian era. Third, only in a situation of extreme persecution can such a title be used at all. Such a situation is present when the outward threat to Christians reaches the point that it seeks to pervert their inward Christian identity and annihilate the church of Jesus Christ by replacing Jesus Christ with the antichrist. 2. Measured by these criteria, the verdict of “antichrist” reached by the confessions of the Reformation may be termed biblical, even if the actual application of this verdict to certain aspects of the papacy or the whole institution cannot be endorsed. The Reformers’ understanding of the Gospel is particularly hostile to powers and figures that set themselves in Christ’s place by refusing to allow his authority to be distinguished from theirs, above all by confusing the spiritual and secular realms and rejecting all appeal to any authority but their own. The classical Protestant application of the theological, literary, and iconographic verdict “antichrist” to the

266 double spiritual and secular “tyranny” of the papacy belongs to the past. The same is true of its renewed use in the confessionalism of the 19th century, reinforced by → Vatican I. This usage was abandoned not only because the Protestant churches revised their formally exclusive claims to be the only true church, but also because persecution declined and the state guaranteed religious freedom. Even more important is the application of the verdict within the Protestant churches themselves, based on 2 Thess 2:4 and Augustine: it answered the hostility to the spirit evidenced by the institution, which had once more assumed the trappings of power, but also the denial of Christ under the guise of the name “Christ.” The separation of the antichrist concept from the notion of an individual figure and its replacement by that of a power structure, possibly even within one’s own church or one’s own heart, relativizes the concept historically. Nothing can be labeled “antichrist” once and for all; only “antichristly” phenomena, which under Christian guise and name deny Jesus Christ, can and sometimes must be so labeled. 3. Although the potential use of the title “antichrist” is not tied to the apocalyptic form of universal eschatology, today – in contrast to the modern period with its belief in progress – fewer would probably want to rule out the possibility that the history of the world might come to a dramatic head in the appearance of a “great” antichrist destroyed by Jesus Christ, as theologians since J.A. → Bengel, R. → Rothe, and M. → Kähler have repeatedly assumed. Nonetheless, the victory of the spirit of truth must be prayed for at all times, and even today the battle against manifestations of the antichrist must be joined. Such manifestations have less to do with the presence of other high religions than with the appearance of new post-Christian religions that mock the authority of Christ through their own extravagant claims. This antichristianity is displayed above all by factions that appeal to religious authority for economic and political power and use the extreme certainty of their programs to seduce people into accepting bondage and constraint. But it is also present in non-Christian ideologies that seek to exalt their political power through religious authority: using the structures of Christian hope and expectation, they come forward claiming a truth that puts an end to history and a power that will save the world, then seek to implement this claim by totalitarian means, through physical and psychological violence. 4. The identification of an action or figure in the temporal setting of the Christian faith as antichrist is not a matter of historical observation, not even if contemporary or future observers agree. In accord with its eschatological presuppositions, i.e. its view of history as eschatology, this identification represents a prophetic declaration, with the risk of any such act that it may

267

Antimodernism

be wrong. As a word spoken exclusively in the name of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is an expression of spiritual authority that can only be asked for; in a situation of extreme and profound suffering, it distinguishes spirits, naming the presumptive usurpation of the title “Christ” for what it is and depriving it of its mystique. It trusts in the eschatological dethronement of evil by Jesus Christ and anticipates in hope the final unmasking of its “mystery” (2 Thess 2:7).

→ paten. It can also represent the → altar (III) and make it possible to perform the liturgy in any suitable place. Previously, from the 7th century, it was the designation in the Christian East for the portable wooden altar (Greco-Lat.: anti-mensa, “instead of the altar table”).

P. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge, 1922, 101970 ◆ M. Schmaus, Von den letzten Dingen, 1948 ◆ K. Löwith, Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen, 1953 etc. ◆ R. Prenter, Schöpfung und Erlösung, 1960 ◆ J. Ratzinger, Eschatologie, 51978 ◆ U. Körtner, Weltangst und Weltende, 1988 ◆ H. Schwarz, Jenseits von Utopie und Resignation, 1990. Walter Sparn

Antimission Movement. Anti-missionary movements are usually connected to hyper- → Calvinism, the belief that God predestined some to heaven and some to hell. When American Baptists organized the Triennial Convention in 1814 to support missions, the Frontier Baptists became caustic critics. Leaders included John Taylor, A. → Campbell, and Daniel Parker. The movement erupted in 1819 when Taylor published Thoughts on Mission. Missionary societies were attacked as not biblical, a threat to the autonomy of the local church and they assumed the necessity of educational standards for missionaries. Some frontier Baptist critics were completely antimission hyper-Calvinists; others allowed for “New Testament” local church only mission efforts. The Antimission movement peaked around 1840, but became institutionalized in so-called Primitive Baptist groups.

Anticlericalism → Laicism Anti-Defamation League. Founded on Oct 13, 1843, in New York City by twelve Jewish immigrants from parts of Germany under the leadership of Henry Jones (Heinrich Jonas, 1811–1866). As a secular Jewish order of brothers (“Sons of the Covenant”) they aimed to unify Jews in a modern brotherhood with secret rites, special insignia and daily meditations. The rules placed special emphasis on patriotism, philanthropy and honor. The “Sons of the Covenant” experienced strong growth in the 19th century and spread to other countries. D. Dash Moore, Bhnai Bhrith and the Challenge of Ethnic Leadership, 1981. Deborah Dash Moore

Antigonus (son of Aristobulus II), the last Hasmonean monarch. After Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem in 63 bce and appointed → Hyrcanus II as ethnarch and high priest, Antigonus was sent, along with his father and his family, to Rome. Over the next two decades he participated in his family’s incessant rebellions against Rome and Hyrcanus II. His hour finally came with the Parthian invasion of the Roman East. In 40 bce the Parthians conquered Palestine, took Hyrcanus II captive and installed Antigonus as king. Antigonus mutilated Hyrcanus so as to preclude his return to the high priesthood. However, the Roman victory over the Parthians in 38 bce meant the end for Antigonus as well. In 37 bce Roman troops captured Jerusalem. → Herod was Rome’s candidate for the Judaean throne. Either Herod or Mark Antony had Antigonus beheaded. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. G. Vermes & F. Miller, 3 vols., 1973–1987. Daniel R. Schwartz

Antimension is, in the Byzantine tradition since the 13th century, an altar cloth consecrated by a bishop and with relics sown to it, necessary for the performance of the divine liturgy, on which is placed the chalice and the

I.M. Izzo, The Antimension in the Liturgical and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Church, 1975 ◆ S. Pétridés, DACL I, 2, 1924, 2319–2326. Heinz Ohme

W. Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881.

Douglas Weaver

Antimodernism. Roman Catholic antimodernism finds its authentic expression in the authoritative condemnation of → modernism under → Pius X in the decree Lamentabili, the encyclical Pascendi of 1907 (DH 3401–3466, 3475–3500), and the antimodernist oath of 1910 (DH 3537–355), which was binding on all clergy until 1967. The polemic concept of a systematic “modernism,” defined on the basis of neoscholasticism, made it possible in principle to cast suspicion on all other theological approaches, above all those informed by historical criticism or anthropocentrism, as “agnosticism,” “immanentism,” or “evolutionism.” The oath and the often underestimated disciplinary regulations of the encyclical (Consilia a vigilantia in every diocese) guaranteed that antimodernism would have broad influence as an extension of the measures taken to combat “liberalism” and “Americanism” under → Leo XIII. The comprehensively antimodern character of the church’s antimodernism is clearly visible from the integralist circles within the Roman Curia that promoted it. Umberto Benigni and his secret organization Sodalitium pianum attacked not only theological innovators like A. → Loisy and G. → Tyrrell, but also such lay initiatives as Christian Democracy and the labor union movement. The spokesmen for antimodernism in Germany were Albert Maria Weiss and Paul W. Keppler, the bishop of Rottenburg, who – as a former “liberal” – espoused it

Antinomian Controversy on the grounds of a cultural pessimism inspired by Julius Langbehn. There, however, the bishops, theologians, and centrist politicians who were under attack successfully achieved immunity through the strategy of introducing a distinction between dogmatic modernism, which deserved condemnation, and → reform Catholicism, which was acceptable. The antimodernism of Pius X continued, albeit substantially moderated, during the pontificates that followed, and was reaffirmed by the encyclical Humani generis (DH 3875–3899) of → Pius XII. In this period, even progressive theologians like K. → Rahner battled modernism, at least nominally. The end of antimodernism coincided with the breakdown of neoscholasticism in the penumbra of Vatican II. The legitimate heirs of the antimodernist mentality today are the traditionalist supporters of Archbishop M. Lefebvre, who call Vatican II “modernist” and, after the withdrawal of the Vatican’s support, now clearly appear as fundamentalists. Hermeneutically, it must be noted that the notion of a “modern modernism” through inversion of antimodern antimodernism is no more legitimate than the construct of “Semitism” on the basis of “anti-Semitism.” E. Poulat, Intégrisme et catholicisme intégral, 1969 ◆ E. Weinzierl, ed., Der Modernismus, 1974 ◆ E. Poulat, Catholicisme, démocratie et socialisme, 1977 ◆ E. Herms, “Theologischer ‘Modernismus’ und lehramtlicher ‘Antimodernismus’ in der römischen Kirche am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in: H. Renz & F.W. Graf, eds., Umstrittene Moderne, Troeltsch-Studien 4, 1987, 13–66 ◆ D.G. Schultenover, A View from Rome, 1993 ◆ O. Weiss, Der Modernismus in Deutschland, 1995 ◆ H. Wolf, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche, 1998. Hubert Wolf

Antinomian Controversy. The umbrella term, “Antinomian Controversies,” encompasses disputes with a variety of motivations within Wittenbergian theology between 1527 and roughly 1567. They involved the denial of the importance of the law of God for a person’s path to salvation (→ Antinomism) and were associated with the names of J. → Agricola (the so-called first Antinomian Controversy), Andreas Fabricius, A. → Musculus, M. → Neander, Anton Otho and A. → Poach (the so-called second Antinomian Controversy). In addition to Wittenberg, Nordhausen and Frankfurt were centers of the disputes. The context of the second Antinomian Controversy was the dispute between Gnesio-Lutheranism and Philippism. The Formula of → Concord of 1577 offered a decision concerning the most significant points of dispute in its Articles 5 and 6. M. Richter, Gesetz und Heil: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte und zum Verlauf des sogenannten Zweiten Antinomistischen Streits, 1996. Ernst Koch

Antinomism. History of the term: The concrete German noun “Antinomer” (“antinomian”) was coined

268 by Luther in 1537 (from Gk anti, “against,” and nomos, “law”) and applied to J. → Agricola, who based penance entirely on the gospel. Moreover, in 1586 “Antinomistae” was used in the same sense as “Antinomi.” In 1558, we find “scold Antinomians” and “Antinomia” in a usage that “seeks to extend the word so far” that the liberty of the gospel from the law is interpreted as license. These “two major questions” (Baumgarten, 1745) are treated in FC V and VI and dominate the use of “antinomism” to this day. – The abstract noun “antinomism” was already used by Hoornbeeck in 1653 in describing “three periods”: the Early Church, the Reformation, and his own time, “especially in England.” Like him, Witsius (1696) also treats the conflict in England that began in 1690 between the “Antinomians” (“Libertines”) and the “Neonomians” (“terrible names”) with more understanding and sympathy for the “Antinomians”, since they teach “the free grace of God.” Later “antinomism” appears with some frequency in 18th-century historiography. – “Antinomism” also found wide use in systematic theology after 1804, when Karl Ludwig Nitzsch ascribed to Agricola “the moral and religious use of the law” in a post-Kantian sense. In 1846, K.I. → Nitzsch branded “the whole phenomenon of antinomism” a “philosophical sin” and once again extended the “concept of antinomism” – “a fairly recent term” – to the pre-Reformation period. Thus we arrive at the modern antithesis: “Christian nomism” (Kirchliches Handlexikon [C. Meusel] I, 1887, s.v. Antinomismus). Theology: Whether one considers the term “antinomism” (also: antinomianism) linguistically awkward, semantically problematic, or serendipitously invented, “this terminological tangle” (M. Schloemann, NZST 16, 1974, 221f.) always raises the fundamental question of the relationship between law and gospel. Two versions are possible. Antinomism 1: Denial of antinomism affirms that the law always precedes the gospel, historically and conceptually. Therefore the sequence “gospel and law” (K. → Barth 1935) is wrong; cf. already BSLK 956.42–957.3. – Antinomism 2: Affirmation of antinomism denies that the gospel itself is law or requires the law as a necessary complement. Therefore any attempt to blur the boundary – the former gives everything and demands nothing, the latter demands everything and gives nothing – is wrong; cf. already BSLK 961.17–19 etc. – Antinomism 1 and antinomism 2 are complementary, and antinomism 2 cannot degenerate into “the grosser form of antinomism” (Baumgarten, 1754/1755), i.e. libertinism, which is ruled out by the law impressed on the conscience in accordance with antinomism 1. J. Hoornbeeck, Summa controversiarum, 21658, 800–831 ◆ H. Witsius, Miscellaneae sacrae II, 21700, 753–849 ◆ C.M. Pfaff, Introductio in historiam theologiae literariam II, 1725, 254, 257– 263 ◆ S.J. Baumgarten, in: Antizinzendorfiana 4, 1981, 542; 3, 1982, 34f. ◆ idem, Geschichte der Religionsparteien (1754/55)

269

Antioch

1766, repr. 1966 (index) ◆ G.J. Planck, Geschichte der Entstehung, der Veränderungen und der Bildung unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs V/1, 1798, 53, 64; VI, 1800 (index) ◆ K.L. Nitzsch, “De antinomismo Ioannis Agricolae”, in: idem, De discrimine revelationis II, 1830, iii–viii, 3–67 ◆ K.I. Nitzsch, Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, 1871, 315–404 ◆ J. Seehawer, Zur Lehre vom Brauch des Gesetzes und zur Geschichte des späteren Antinomismus, 1887, 103, 104, 109, 113, 115. Theodor Mahlmann

A204–A215; ET: Critique of Practical Reason, 1929 ◆ O. Höffe, Kant, 1983 ◆ C. Thiel, Philososphie und Mathematik, ch. 15, 1995. Marcus Willaschek

Antinomy. An antinomy is a contradiction between two equally justified statements. This meaning of “antimony” in present-day philosophy and logic goes back to I. → Kant ; originally it denoted a conflict of laws. According to Kant, when human reason tries to explain the world metaphysically, it inevitably arrives at four antinomies or “conflicts.” These arise from four questions: (1) whether the world is of finite or infinite extent, (2) whether the number of its parts is finite or infinite, (3) whether or not there is a “causality born of freedom,” and (4) whether or not there exists a “necessary being.” (It should be noted that Kant’s claim to have proved all eight of the statements involved has often been disputed.) According to Kant, these antinomies can be resolved in the context of his “transcendental idealism.” In the process, he makes use of the two fundamental possibilities for “resolution”: (a) refutation of at least one of the two proofs (first and second antinomies) and (b) demonstration of the logical acceptability of the two apparently contradictory statements (third and fourth antinomies). – Besides these four, Kant also explores other antinomies, including the “antinomy of practical reason,” which has to do with the proportionality of virtue and happiness: according to Kant, this antinomy can be resolved only by accepting as “postulates” the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and human freedom of action. Antinomies (often called paradoxes) play an important role in modern logic. So-called semantic antinomies arise when a language L contains “semantic” predicates (e.g. “is true”) that are applied to expression of L itself (e.g. the so-called liar paradox: “This statement is false”). These antinomies can be resolved by distinguishing between L and its metalanguage ML and permitting semantic predicates that allow statements about L only in ML. Logical antinomies in the strict sense arise when an axiom system allows the derivation of both a proposition and its negation. Russell’s paradox is famous: let R be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as elements; then R is in fact an element of R if R is not an element of R. – While the antinomies discussed by Kant are meant primarily to indicate insurmountable limits of human knowledge, semantic and logical antinomies make an important contribution to the development and improvement of mathematical logic.

I. Antiquity Modern Antakya, Turkey, was initially founded in 307 bce as Antigoneia on the Orontes (c. 7km upstream). It was refounded on May 22, 300 by Seleucus I. Nicator (→ Seleucids) on the present site and renamed in honor of his father, Antiochus. It was well situated at a commercial junction of road networks from Asia Minor and the Orient, with a harbor in Seleukeia Piereia located to the southwest 25km downstream. It was the capital of the Seleucid Empire. After Pompey conquered it in 64 bce, it became the capital of the (after 27 bce imperial) province of Syria. Alongside → Rome, → Constantinople and → Alexandria, Antioch numbered among the “world cities” of the → Roman Empire. Along with the Olympian gods, Syrian deities (→ Adonis, Zeus Casios) were also worshiped. Its Jewish community was among the largest in the Diaspora. Antioch was the location of the first Gentile Christian community, the departure point for several of → Paul’s missionary journeys, and, in subsequent centuries, it became the theological center of the East. Despite a brief revival under → Justinian I, the numerous earthquakes as well as the conquest by the Sassanians and the → Arabs had devastating effects on Antioch, so that the city waned in significance. Hardly any monuments from the Hellenistic and Roman city have been preserved; only elements of the plan of the city in Late Antiquity are known. A few church structures (including St. Babylas, 380) and private homes are furnished with impressive mosaic floors.

I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, A405/B432–A567/B595; ET: Critique Pure Reason ◆ idem, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft,

Antioch I. Antiquity – II. Early Church – III. Patriarchate

IGLS 3/1, 3/2, 1950–1953 ◆ J. Lassus, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 1976, repr. 1979, 61–63 ◆ idem, ‘La ville d’Antioche à l’époque romaine d’après l’archéologie,’ ANRW II 8, 1977, 54–102 ◆ S.D. Campbell, The Mosaics of Antioch, SubMed 15, 1988 ◆ F. Kolb, “Antiochien in der frühen Kaiserzeit,” in: H. Cancik, et al., eds., Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: FS M. Hengel, vol. II, 1996, 91–121. Hanswulf Bloedhorn

II. Early Church Very soon after its inception, Christianity arrived in Antioch through the efforts of the → “Hellenists” (Acts 11:19–26). Here, the name “Christian” first appeared (Acts 11:26). Here, too, the dispute between Paul and → Peter concerning the obligation of converted Gentiles to obey the → Torah was played out (Acts 15: Gal 2:11–21), just as a substantial portion of early Christian theology had its focal point, quite possibly, in Antioch (Berger);

Antiochene Liturgy there are, however, no extra-NT, nor even archaeological witnesses to this. In post-apostolic times, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch (→ Ignatian Epistles), articulated a theology that was, in many respects, in advance of general developments – in the event that the letters attributed to him are essentially authentic. Within early Christian → apologetics (IV, 1), Antioch was influentially represented by its bishop → Theophilus. In Antioch, Christianity also became, for the first time, presentable at court when → Origen was able to appear before Empress Julia Mammaea. The reasons for which the synod removed bishop Paul of Samosata (→ Monarchianism) in 268 and the pagan Caesar Aurelius (!) expelled him from Antioch approx. two years later are just as puzzling as the origin of the theory of → Lucian of Antioch, who died a martyr’s death as “Arius before → Arius” (A. → Harnack), which has no support in the sources. In the Arian dispute, Antioch, the showplace of the “Church Dedication Synod” that convened on Jan 6, 341, generally supported imperial church policy – in contrast to Alexandria. In the final decades of the 4th century, → Antiochene theology gained in pedagogical force and intensified the contrast (based in church policy) to Alexandria. As the result of defeat in the conflict concerning → Nestorius, the rise of new church centers (Constantinople, → Jerusalem), and finally, its extreme geographical situation and inner turmoil (→ Christology : II), Antioch continued to lose importance, until the Arabs conquered it in 637/638. Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 5 vols., Department of Art and Architecture Princeton, 1934–1972 ◆ G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria, 21966 ◆ F.W. Norris & B. Drewery, TRE III, 1978, 99–113 (bibl.) ◆ K. Berger, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums, 21995, esp. chs. 5–11 ◆ A.M. Ritter, “Dogma und Lehre in der Alten Kirche,” HDThG 2 I, 1998, 99–283. Adolf Martin Ritter

III. Patriarchate The Rum (Arab. for “Byzantine/Rumanian”) Orthodox patriarchate (→ Patriarch/Patriarchate) follows the confession of → Chalcedon (in contrast to the “patriarchate of Antioch” of the Syriac Orthodox Church [→ Syria: V] from the 6th cent. and the → Maronites from the 7th). No longer a state church in the Islamic realm (from the 7th cent.), but with its existence protected while enjoying fewer rights, the patriarchate was able temporarily to expand as far as Baghdad and further to the East; in the 10th/11th centuries, portions (including Antioch) belonged once again to the Byzantine Empire. In the time of the → Crusades, the Rum Orthodox (from 1054 “schismatics,” but not “heretics”) were subjected to Rome under a Latin patriarch. The Orthodox patriarch remained in exile in Byzantium and resided in Damascus from the 16th century onward. Under the Ottomans (from 1516), there were language disputes with the

270 ecumenical patriarchs, who limited candidacy to the office of patriarch to Greeks in 1724, while clergy and people were predominantly Arabicized (the separation of the Melkite-Catholic Church; → Unions with Rome). There have been Arabic-speaking Rum Orthodox patriarchs once again only since 1899. In the 19th century, the patriarchate lost followers to Protestant activities, but experienced a new emergence (from 1941) through the “Orthodox youth movement.” – The “patriarch of Antioch, the city of God, Cilicia, Iberia (Georgia), Syria, Arabia and the whole Orient,” who still resides in Damascus, is the head of an autocephalic church (which understands itself as belonging entirely to the Arabic nation) in the Orthodox family of churches with approx. 1.5 million faithful (100,000 each in Syria and Lebanon, fewer elsewhere in the Orient, a growing number in the Diaspora, especially South America, congregations also in Germany). The church supports several medical and social institutions as well as a university with a theological faculty in Balamand (near Tripolis, → Lebanon); it is a founding member (1948) of the → World Council of Churches. R. Janin, Les églises orientales et les rites orientaux, 41955 ◆ D. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, II, 1961 ◆ B. Spuler, Gegenwartslage der Ostkirchen in ihrer nationalen und staatlichen Umwelt, 21968 ◆ F. Heiler, Die Ostkirchen, 1971 ◆ J.W.H.G. Liebeschuetz, Antiochien, 1972 ◆ W. Nyssen et al., eds., Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, I, 1984 ◆ H. Anschütz & P. Harb, Christen im Vorderen Orient, 1985 ◆ H.-D. Döpmann, Die orthodoxen Kirchen, 1991 ◆ A. Wessels, Arab and Christian?, 1995 ◆ Orthodoxia, Ostkirchliche Institut Regensburg, X, 1997. Wolfgang Hage

Antiochene Liturgy → Rites, Oriental Antiochene Theology. Unlike → Alexandrian theology, Antiochene theology is not associated with an ongoing academic institution or catechetical school but is defined primarily by a specific form of teaching and exegetical method employed by individual scholars. These include – after initial beginnings under → Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) – the 3rd-century Sophist Malchion and his opponent → Paul of Samosata. Toward the end of the 3rd century, → Lucian of Antioch (d. 312) founded a didaskaleion. By the 5th century at the latest, leading Eusebians and Homoeans were linked to Lucian, including → Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, and → Asterius the Sophist. The heyday of Antiochene theology began with → Diodore of Tarsus (d. c. 396) and continued with his pupils John → Chrysostom (d. 407) and → Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), who in turn trained → Nestorius. → Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. c. 460) and Andrew of Samosata sharply differentiated Antiochene Christology from that of → Cyril of Alexandria . But with the triumph of Cyrillian Christolog y and Mariolog y at the Council of

271 → Ephesus (431), the star of Antiochene theology began to decline and was almost totally eclipsed in the East as far as Persia. The fifth Ecumenical Council of → Constantinople finally anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrrhus posthumously (→ Three Chapters Controversy). Outside the Greek cultural sphere, the Antiochene spirit in exegesis and Christology lived on in a few Syriac authors (→ Isaac of Antioch); it decisively influenced the Persian school of Edessa (→ Ibas of Edessa) and, after it closed in 489, the school of → Nisibis . Through the Persian Paul of Nisibis, the Latin West in the person of Junilius Africanus (d. after 551) came into renewed contact with Antiochene theology and exegesis. Generally speaking, Antiochene theology and exegesis is distinguished by its rejection of Alexandrian allegoresis. It emphasizes the literal historical sense of scripture and discountenances interpretation in a higher sense (θεωρία/theōría) if it contradicts the historical sense (Diodorus). This approach, however, does not rule out christological interpretation of the OT (e.g. through typology). As a rule, Antiochene exegesis rests on a solid philological foundation (Schäublin) and is marked by a certain sobriety and austerity that is greatly interested in the historical facts. Theodore of Mopsuestia’s dualistic distinction of two eras (catastases) of sacred history led him to treat the two Testaments separately, deny the prophetic character of many verses, and reject the Christological and Trinitarian interpretation of many OT passages. In soteriology, the ethical concerns of the Antiochenes led to a voluntaristic doctrine of probation that may display a certain Pelagian tinge. Nevertheless, after 418 both Bishop Theodore of Antioch and Theodore of Mopsuestia had Pelagius condemned. In Christology, the Antiochenes exhibited great interest in the transcendence of the divine Logos, so that they strongly resisted the idea of a natural union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation along the lines of a body-soul synthesis or a natural “blending.” Much the same line of thought appears in their defense of Christ’s perfect humanity against → Apollinaris of Laodicea, → Eutyches, and other Monophysite authors. The soul of Christ as the active center of the redeemer’s human person receives corresponding attention and the integrity of the two natures is maintained. The Incarnation is understood primarily as the indwelling of the Logos in an assumed human individual; the “unconfused unity” of the two is expressed in the confession of a single → person. Even though the abstract conception of the unity in Christ was not always secured against a merely accidental or moral interpretation, in the union formula of 433 Antiochene theology deserves the credit for indirectly laying the groundwork for the Chalcedonian doctrine of two natures. The theological concerns of

Antiochus III Antiochene theology were adopted and extended by all the strict Chalcedonians of the following period. R. Nelz, Die theologischen Schulen der morgenländischen Kirchen, 1916 ◆ A. Vaccari, “La θεωρία esegetica,” Bib 15, 1934, 93–101 ◆ G. Bardy, Recherches sur Lucien d’Antioche et son école, 1936 ◆ A. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, 1940, 107–201 ◆ P. Ternant, “La theoria d’Antioche,” Bib 34, 1953, 135–158, 354–383, 456– 486 ◆ U. Wickert, Pauluskommentare des Theodor von Mopsuestia, 1962 ◆ C. Schäublin, Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, 1974 ◆ M. Simonetti, Lettera e/o allegoria, 1985, 124– 135, 156–201 ◆ H.J.W. Drijvers, “Early Forms of Antiochene Christology,” in: C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz & L. van Rompay, eds., After Chalcedon, 1985, 99–113 ◆ L. Fatica, I commenti a Giovanni, 1988 ◆ G. Ferraro, Lo spirito santo, 1995. Peter Bruns

Antiochus III (the Great; died 187 bce) and IV (Epiphanes; died 164 bce, Elymais), father and son, were Seleucid kings in Syria. Antiochus III reigned from 223 bce until his death and was able to enlarge the borders of his kingdom greatly: his “Anabasis” of the years 212–205, to Armenia, Iran, Bactria, India, and Arabia, won him the title “the Great.” In 200 bce he took Palestine from the Ptolemies (→ Ptolemaic Dynasty) in the Fifth Syrian War. In the 190s Antiochus entered Thrace and mainland Greece. He became involved in war with Rome, which had just recently finished its Second Punic War and was free to become involved in the eastern Mediterranean. This war culminated in Antiochus’s defeat at Magnesia (190 bce) and the Treaty of Apamaea (188 bce), which imposed humiliating terms upon Syria. Antiochus was first succeeded by his son Seleucus IV and then in 175 bce by Antiochus IV, who played a considerable role in religious history. Contravening the Hellenic tradition of non-intervention in Jewish religion, he authorized the removal and appointment of high priests and it was under his rule that Jerusalem saw the beginnings of institutionalized Hellenization: already in the 170s Antiochia-in-Jerusalem was founded in his honor with his permission (2 Macc 4). In the early 160s Antiochus became involved in conflict with the Jews; his activities ranged from plundering the temple of Jerusalem (and other temples) to the imposition of decrees against the practice of Judaism, thus engendering both martyrdom and rebellion. These decrees, a radical departure from the tolerance normally characteristic of → paganism, were possibly an ill-advised response to a Jewish rebellion, hinted at in 2 Macc 5. These events occurred around the same time as Antiochus’s humiliation in Alexandria at the hands of Rome, when he was thrown out at a moment’s notice, after successfully conquering Egypt. The patent reversal of Antiochus’s fortunes could have encouraged a Jewish revolt, and (cf. Dan 11.30) it may also have engendered a less than balanced response in Antiochus. Polybius claims, in the fragments of Book 26, that Antiochus was not the most balanced individual. Be that as it may, Antiochus’s attention was not

Antiochus of Ascalon riveted by his Judaean affairs, although the Jewish sources understandably give great prominence to them. After a magnificent military spectacle in Daphne in 166 bce, he set off for a new eastern campaign, like his father before him – and like him died in its course in Elymais, not before abrogating his decrees against Judaism. Several sources describe his death, at times with great relish, as illustrating the divine punishment of those characterized by hubris or those who persecuted the Jews; see esp. 2 Macc 9; 1 Macc 6; Jos. Ant. XII, 354–359. O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 1966 ◆ E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, 21982. Daniel R. Schwartz

Antiochus of Ascalon (c. 130 – c. 68 bce). Antiochus was a Platonist and a pupil of Philo of Larissa, with whom he broke in the year 87 at the latest. In 79/78, → Cicero heard him lecture in Athens; occasionally he traveled with Lucullus. The sources mention four of his works. It is unclear why he broke with Philo, whose Skepticism he had long supported, and took up Stoic ideas. He continued to consider himself a Platonist and tried to revive the old → Academy of → Plato. He also maintained that the three great philosophical schools of the Platonists, the Peripatetics, and the → Stoics had all expounded the philosophy of → Socrates equally and differed only in terminology. Firmly convinced that there was a single true philosophy, he combined incompatible elements and made clear through syncretism what he believed philosophy was all about. J. Glucker, Antiochus and the Late Academy, 1978 ◆ J. Barnes, “Antiochus of Ascalon,” in: Philosophia togata, ed. M. Griffin & J. Barnes, 1989, 51–96. Karlheinz Hülser

Antipas/Antipater → Herod/Herodian Dynasty Antipater of Bostra was bishop of Bostra and Metropolitan of the province of Arabia from 451, and as such, the addressee of Emperor Leon I’s inquiry in 457 concerning the decisions reached at → Chalcedon (ACO II/5, 23.7; the Codex encyclius contains no reference to him, however). Preserved are homilies concerning John the Baptist and Mary, fragments of a writing opposed to the Apology of → Eusebius of Caesarea for → Origen (e.g. in Dam. parallels); Anastasius Sinaita cites his work (sermon?) against → Apollinaris of Laodicaea. → Cyril of Scythopolis, Niketas of Heraklea and the Council of → Nicea (787) praise his orthodoxy; nothing can be ascertained with certainty concerning his position on the disputes over Chalcedon. CPG 3, 6680–6698 ◆ On Antipater: O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der alt-kirchlichen Literatur, vol. IV, 21924, repr. 1962, 304–307 ◆ M. van Esbroeck, “Le ‘De Fide’ géorgien attribué à Hippolyte et ses rapports avec la ‘Didascalie’ de Grégoire l’Illuminateur dans l’Agathange (BHO 330),” AnBoll 102, 1984, 321–328. Hanns Christof Brennecke

272 Antiphon (a Latin loan word from the Greek ἀντιϕωνή/antiphonē: “sounding with”) in western liturgical chant generally indicates: 1. a short chant to a prose text usually sung before and after a psalm or canticle, but sometimes interspersed with them; 2. a devotional chant in honor of Mary (Maria antiphon), generally associated with the office of Compline; and 3. a chant for processions on major feast days (processional antiphon). In eastern practice the term denotes parts of the liturgy that are sung antiphonally between two choirs: the psalms during the Liturgy of the Catechumens (Liturgy of the Word) and segments of Saturday evening Vespers and of festal Matins services. The earliest liturgical uses of the term likely describe antiphonal singing. → Philo of Alexandria (De vita contemplativa, 11) uses the term to describe the singing of the Jewish Therapeutae sect (→ Essenes and Therapeutae) in alternating male and female choirs. The use of the term to designate a separate chant sung in association with a psalm seems to stem from the 4th century. The western pilgrim → Egeria frequently reported hearing “psalmi et antiphonae” in her account of the Jerusalem liturgy (Itinerarium, 24–43). → Ambrose of Milan (d. 396) introduced the practice of singing non-psalmodic antiphons (antiphona = troparian) of the East to the West, but the evidence is inconclusive. The practice of singing antiphons to psalms that are themselves sung antiphonally is first recorded in the Carolingian era. The earliest complete list of Gregorian antiphons is found in the Carolingian Tonary of Metz (c. 870), and the Hartker Codex from St. Gall (c. 1000) contains the earliest Antiphoner with musical notation. J. von Gardner, Russian Church Singing, 1980 ◆M. Hugo & J. Halmo, “Antiphons” in : New Grove, 2001 ◆ Further bibl.: see → Liturgical Hymnbooks. William Flynn

Antiphonary (from Lat. antiphonale, antiphonarium [liber] antiphonarius). An antiphonary is a liturgical songbook of the Western Church containing choir chants for the prayer office (Matins-Compline). Early antiphonaries also contained choral chants for the mass, but eventually these were collected separately in the → gradual. Fragments of antiphonaries date from as early as the second half of the 8th century, one complete 9th-century antiphonary survives, and the earliest notated antiphonaries date from the late 10th century. Antiphonaries can be divided into two classifications depending on whether they were used by monastic or clerical institutions (Curus monasticus, Curus Romanus). The most significant differences between the two types occur in the night office (Matins). Clerical antiphonaries contain nine responsorials, while monastic antiphonaries contain twelve. Musically these office chants developed into

273

Antiquity

two distinct traditions: an eastern (German) tradition closely adhering to Carolingian practice and a western (Roman) tradition that incorporated older chant dialects from various regions. Two other liturgical books are essential for the development of the antiphonary: notated breviaries contain the songs of the antiphonary as well as the remaining prayers and readings of the mass, and tonaries classify the modes and differences of the contents of the antiphonaries, providing valuable musical information that dates from before the earliest pitch-secure exemplars were created. R.J. Hesbert, Corpus Antiphonalium Officii., 6 vols., 1963–1979 ◆ M. Huglo, Les Livres de chant liturgique, 1988. William Flynn

Antiquity I. Concept – II. Antiquity as Epoch – III. Religion and Antique Culture

I. Concept 1. English – Latin – French. a. The English word “antiquity”, like the German word Antike, borrowed from the French antique, denotes an epoch and a norm. “Classical” antiquity is the culture of the “ancient” Greeks and Romans; predecessors (Mycenaeans, Phoenicians, Lydians), neighbors (Celts, Thracians, Etruscans), and successors (Germanic peoples, Arabs, Slavs) are either included or excluded for pragmatic and theoretical reasons, according to school or linguistic practice (cf. “ancient Near East,” “Germanic Antiquity”). Certain parts of this culture are considered “classical,” as an accepted foundation and component of one’s own tradition or at least as an interesting paradigm and pleasant decoration. Both meanings of antiquity – epoch and norm – are contained in the Latin word antiquus. b. The Latin semantic field antiquus, antiquitas, in distinction to “past” (tempus praeteritum), is not related to the abstract period of time but to the “forebears,” the older members of the family (antiqui; cf. Ital. antenati, “ancestors”), the “elders,” the “fathers,” who in the march of time go before (ante) us. Therefore, the antithesis of antiquitas is not future (tempus futurum), but the descendants (posterity), who come after ( post) us, the generations that “follow after” (succedere). The boundary between predecessors and successors in this genealogical construction of history is not the present (tempus praesens) but the “new,” the “now” (novi; Gk οἱ νuÇν/hoi nyn), which is “just now” (modo; cf. modern). Accordingly, the word antiquus contains the positive nuance of long personal experience. “Antique” things are “examples” (exempla), the historical memory (memoria antiquitatis, Cic. Brutus 52.214) that as tradition (mos maiorum) places an obligation on posterity (Cic. Orator 50.169: habet ut in aetatibus auctoritatem senectus, sic in exemplis antiquitas; cf. Terence, Hecyra

(= V 4.20) Pacuvius in Cic. Orator 46.155: Cives antiqui, amici maiorum meum). The Roman state persists through its “ancient” customs and men (Ennius in Cic. De republica V 1: moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque; cf. the critique in Aug. Civ. II 21). The Christians are, accordingly, the newer ones; they confuse old laws and customs; also those of religion (Julian vs. Constantine in Ammianus XXI 10.8). c. The modern term antiquity is refined by contrast with modernity, as it is further developed – after precursors in the Italian Renaissance – in the “quarrel of the ancients and moderns” (querelle des anciens et modernes) in 18th-century France. “Models” can be “followed,” “imitated” (sequi, imitari), but also for the ancients there is always a competitive relationship (aemulari), the attempt to emulate or outdo the model. We today are only dwarves on the shoulders of giants: for this very reason, however, we are taller and see farther than they. Thus, in the ranking in the praise of rulers, Louis XIV (1638– 1715) exceeds Caesar → Augustus; the golden age of the Sun King perhaps exceeds – this was the quarrel – the aureum saeculum of the Romans: “Beautiful antiquity (la belle antiquité) was always worthy of veneration, but I never believed it had to be worshiped” (Perrault, Poème). The modern “exceeds” the ancients, at least in some areas: that is the starting point of a comparative literary and cultural history of antiquity and the present. The quarrel was widely taken up in Germany. Johann Joachim → Winckelmann, the founding hero of the new sciences of antiquity, put it like this, entirely in the spirit of the ancients: “The only way for us to become great, or if possible inimitable, is to imitate the ancients” (Winckelmann, 1). 2. Norm. In distinction from the mere epoch designation “ancient times,” which is followed in the series “Middle Ages to Modern Times,” “antiquity” also contains the attributes of worth and norm. Accordingly in myths, biographies, and collections of anecdotes, antiquity provides not only historical material but also graphic “roles” (personae) and typical situations that offer “paradigms” (models), tested ways to live, think, and act. Myths, works of art, and theater show, for example, impressive images of the ages of life – father → Zeus; Diana Virgo – and of human configurations: mother and daughter (Demeter – Kore), friends (Theseus and Peirithoos), unfulfillable love (Narcissus and Echo), the old married couple (Philemon and Baucis). As art and the history of literature show, the power of these images is very great. – The historically conditioned models are again further idealized, naturalized, and ontologized in later stages of reception when the immediate tradition, social formation, (partial) legitimation, and application by religion no longer apply. Myths are supposed to reveal “forms of being” (W.F. → Otto) or archetypes of the soul (C.G. → Jung; Károly Kerényi); in the (presumed) progress of Greek

Antiquity literature from poetry to prose, from (objective) epic to (subjective) lyricism, from cosmology to rational ethics, we see a necessary and rational development of the spirit in general. The various kinds of normativity that antiquity imposes on tradition are clearly indicated with such expressions as “heritage,” “foundations,” and “model.” It is more difficult to develop such concepts as “canon,” “classic,” and “humanism” in the context of the study of literature, education, and philosophy (Vosskamp). C. Perrault, Poème sur le siècle de Louis le Grand, 1687 ◆ idem, Parallèle des Anciens et Modernes, 1688, repr. 1964 ◆ J.J. Winckelmann, Gedancken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Wercke in der Malerey und Bildhauerkunst, 1755 ◆ H. Baron, “The Querelle of the Ancients and the Moderns as a Problem for Renaissance Scholarship,” JHI 20, 1959, 3–22 ◆ W. Krauss & H. Kortum, Antike und Moderne in der Literaturdiskussion des 18. Jahrhunderts, 1966 ◆ W. Vosskamp, “Normativität und Historizität europäischer Klassiker,” in: idem, ed., Klassik im Vergleich, 1993, 5–8 ◆ R. Herzog, “Antike,” ibid., 279-280. Hubert Cancik

II. Antiquity as Epoch 1. Modern constructions. G.W.F. → Hegel in his Philosophy of history (1837), which might be taken as an example of modern epoch construction – situates Greek and Roman culture in a necessary, reasonable position between the Orient (Asia) and the Christian, Germanic nations. The development of the spirit is a history of freedom; but among orientals, according to Hegel, no one is free, not even the despot. The Greeks were the first to become conscious of freedom, the first to develop individuals, and the first to unite morality with free individuality (Philosophy of History XII, 31, 137, 275ff., 293). Classical Greece is, therefore, according to Hegel, “the kingdom of beautiful freedom, for the idea is united with plastic form.” This is the “age of youth” in world history. Hence the youths Achilles and Alexander are also for Hegel the representatives of the Greek world (ibid. 275). Hegel is an important witness for the aestheticization of Greek culture, as it became dominant through Winckelmann. His historical-philosophical analysis is extremely close to the postulates of German Classicism, Philhellenism, and Humanism. Hegel sharply separates the Greek from the Roman world, the “manhood” of history (ibid. 138ff., 339ff.). A hard and abstract principle, the Roman state, subjugated to itself the no longer beautiful individuals and forced them to “bitter work.” For them “solace” comes from “personality,” which is constituted in “developed private law” and in a “concrete inwardness.” Christianity, in Hegel’s construction of the epochs, can be comprehended as an ancient Mediterranean religion only with difficulty, since it is down to the Germanic peoples to become “bearers of the Christian principle,” and not, say, as the course of history suggests, Byzantium or the eastern churches (ibid. 385ff., 406ff.,

274 413ff.). On the other hand, it was precisely Hegel’s “Roman principle” with its harshness, power, abstract quality, inwardness, and formal personality that cleansed the human spirit of Greek sparkle and all that was special about it and thus “prepared the ground for a higher spiritual world.” Thus the old economy of salvation had proved itself in the history of philosophy: God came into the world “in the fullness of time” (ibid. 391). 2. Ancient constructions. a. In the universal historical schemes of the Greeks and Romans (Castor of Rhodes, FGH no. 250; Varro, De gente populi Romani frag. 3 [Peter]; Censorin 21; Diodorus Siculus 1.4.6) their present culture is designated the “historical period” (ἱστορικόν/ historikon – spatium historicum). It begins with the Trojan War, which was set by the ancients in 1194/84 bce, or with the first Olympiad (776 bce). Before that lay “the uncertain period” (spatium incertum – ἄδηλον/adēlon), which ran from the Ogygian to the Deucalion flood, and the “mythic” period (spatium fabulosum – μυθικόn/ mythikon). In → Varro the intervals last seven generations (each 9x7 = 63 years), which makes about 440 years or four saecula of 110 years each. From this he derives – as it were, necessarily – the date for the founding of Rome, with which a new era begins: seven generations after the beginning of the Trojan War (1194/753 bce). Beside this chronographic and symbolic, arithmetical construction of epochs stands the model of the succession of kingdoms (Aemilius Sura, 2nd cent. bce; Pompeius Trogus, late 1st cent. bce; Sib. III and IV; Justin 1.3; Claudian; Orosius). The Assyrians (Babylon), the Medes and Persians, and Alexander and his Diadochi are followed finally by Rome. b. The ancients envisioned an end to their history in various ways. The Etruscan people were given ten epochs (saecula); at the middle of the 1st century bce it was in its eighth epoch. → Virgil (Ecl. 4; 40 bce) saw a “last age” (ultima aetas) coming: the ancient commentary says it is the tenth (Servius ad loc.). Others calculated the length of Roman rule at 1200 years; its end would therefore come in the 5th century ce. Against this was the promise of the Augustan Jupiter (Verg. Aen. 1.278f.): “I give these people (Romans) goals neither in space nor in time:/I gave them a rule without end.” Both the calculation of an end and its negation (denial, or resolution) by means of posteschatological promises teach that “antiquity” understood itself to a certain degree as an epoch. 3. The Divisions of the epochs. a. The various attempts to divide antiquity into periods were connected with old metaphors and value judgments: there are golden and silver authors (Augustan/Imperial period), youth and adulthood (Greece versus Rome), decline in late antiquity (3rd cent. ce), and rebirth in the 4th century or in the Carolingian Renaissance. Already for the ancients, the Athens of c. 500–300 was a high point (→ drama,

275 → Socrates, of → rhetoric, mature sculpture, → Herodotus, and Thucydides). The periods before and after were constituted as special epochs around the middle of the 19th century J.G. → Droysen (1808–1884) thought of → “Hellenism” as a “world epoch” from → Alexander the Great to the dawn of the successor kingdoms in the Roman Empire (2nd–1st cent.). In it oriental and Greek forces worked together, ultimately producing Christianity. Therefore, he (erroneously) named his epoch after the “Hellenists” in Acts 6:1. The period from Homer to the Persian Wars (8th to early 5th cent.) is, as “pre-classicism” (the “Archaic” period) separated from the classical period and presented as a heroic, undemocratic, and premoral alternative to classical, democratic, Socratic Athens (F. → Nietzsche). Through the westward radiation of the Minoan, Mycenaean, Phoenician, and finally the Greek cultures, Italy is included – with a certain delay – in this division of epochs. The (partial) integration of Italy under Etruscan, then Roman leadership, the subjugation of the western, then the eastern Mediterranean is the result of republican history. In the East, Rome took over the heritage of the Diadochi, as well as the hatred of the subject peoples, as comes to expression in the → Sibylline Oracles. The art historian Alois Riegl (1858–1905) construed “Late Antiquity” as a separate epoch. He assigned it the period from → Constantine to → Charlemagne. With various chronological modifications and geographic adaptations, Riegl’s division of the Roman Imperial period has been adopted by other disciplines in the study of antiquity, esp. the history of religions (R. → Reitzenstein, Joseph Bidez, F. → Cumont, F. → Altheim). The outer limits of the epoch “Antiquity” are formed, on the one hand, by the late Bronze Age in the Aegean (2nd millennium; → Aegean, Minoan, Mycenaean Religions) and, on the other, by the restoration of the imperium romanum through the crowning of Charlemagne (in the West) and the first European (“Carolingian”) renaissance. b. The epochs of the history of religion usually follow the sketched political or cultural divisions, although the particular rhythm of religious developments could certainly call for specific epoch formations. One must ask whether and to what extent “religion” in the cultures of antiquity – with all its relative dependence on social, political, and cultural developments – was an independent system of communication. G.W.F. Hegel, Werke, in 20 vols., 1971ff. ◆ J.G. Droysen, Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen, 1833 ◆ idem, Geschichte des Hellenismus, 1. Teil, Geschichte der Nachfolger Alexanders, 1836 ◆ A. Riegl, Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie, 1901 ◆ J.W. Swain, “The Theory of the Four Monarchies,” CP 35, 1940, 1–21 ◆ D. Flusser, “The Four Empires in the Fourth Sibyl and the Book of Daniel,” IOS 1972, 148–175 ◆ W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, 1977 ◆ A. Demandt, Metaphern für Geschichte, 1978 ◆ H. Cancik, “Li-

Antiquity bri fatales. Römische Offenbarungsliteratur und Geschichtstheologie,” in: D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, 1983, 549–576 ◆ R. Herzog & R. Kosellek, eds., Epochenschwellen und Epochenbewusstsein, 1987 ◆ G.W. Most, “Zur Archäologie der Archaik,” AuA 35, 1989, 1–23 ◆ C. Wagner, Die Entwicklung Johann Gustav Droysens als Althistoriker, 1991 ◆ W.M. Calder III & D.J. Kramer, An Introductory Bibliography of Classical Scholarship, 1992. Hubert Cancik

III. Religion and Antique Culture 1. The Greek and Roman cultures, even in their “archaic” periods, were already late and complex cultures that rested on a variety of traditions. On the edge of oriental cultures (Hittite, western Semitic, Egyptian) they developed cities and writing, a money economy, myths and speculation, and the basic elements of Mediterranean religion: altar, bloody and unbloody sacrifice, image of God and house of God, and forms of divination (liver divination, astrology); so many “foreign” gods with foreign names and rites were adopted into Greek religion – Apollo, Aphrodite, Artemis, Dionysus, Cybele – that the anxious question arises: What, then, is actually Greek? The growing complexity of these cultures changed the “conditionality” ( J. → Burckhardt) of religion through change of the great historical powers: economy, state, and culture. In the various epochs (Archaic to Late antiquity) and geographical regions (city, country, harbor; center – periphery) and social levels, the structure and wealth of the culture changed, along with the place and functions of religion. The gaining of independence by the realms of law, state, science, philosophy, education, art, and literature created “new” institutions (theater, academy, school), occupations, and roles, which developed “new” symbol systems (rhetoric, aesthetic) and forms and places of communication (forum with podium; art dialogue). Ever expanding art and literature created new “realms of consciousness” in which the collective and individual aims, norms, fears, wishes of a public were presented and discussed. 2. The symbol system of religion is enriched and limited by this differentiation of antique cultures. The comparison of religions – say, the Judeo-Christian with the Greco-Roman – must therefore observe that similar social tasks, emotional needs, and existential confirmation or threat can be embedded in various areas of culture or religion. Ethics and religion, for example, are loosely linked together in Greek and Roman religion, but “custom,” “discipline,” and “wisdom” (mos, disciplina, sapientia) are presented, practiced, and reflected upon in other places in the culture: in public and private praise and criticism (enkomion, vituperatio, nota censoria), in tragic or comic conflicts in the theater, with literary readings in school, and in philosophical reflection. Ancient religions are not as such critical of culture; only general criticism of luxury is applied also

Antiquity and Christianity to cultic structures, the pomp of liturgy, and funerary extravagance. The denial of culture is “cynically” – and thus philosophically – motivated. Despite philosophical critique of the contradictions of myth, the anthropomorphism of the gods, and the “superstition” found in all levels of ancient society (→ Xenophanes, → Heraclitus, → Plato; → Varro, → Seneca), there arises in principle no tension between culture and religion of the kind diagnosed by F. → Overbeck for parts of Christianity. This assertion, however, should not be allowed to lead to a simple reversal that asserts a “unity” – however defined – of culture and religion in non-Christian antiquity. The process in which ancient cultures differentiated themselves cannot be understood with the model of the theory of secularization. 3. Greeks and Romans call their religion “veneration” of the gods (θρησκεία/thrēskeia, seldom: λατρεία/latreia; cultus deorum), “sacred” (ἱερά/hiera; sacra, res divinae), religiones, religio (sing., collective plur., cf. Cicero, Nat. I 1; De legibus II: constitutio religionum). The parts of Roman religion are distinguished as ritus patrius, ritus Graecus, Etrusca disciplina (“teaching of the Etruscans”). The designations “polytheism, paganism, natural religion, idol worship” reflect the polemical situation of early Christianity; for a scholarly understanding, they are only usable up to a point. An authentic, if also provisional, insight into the structure of ancient religion is offered by the “tripartite theology” (theologia tripertita) that esp. M. Terentius Varro developed as the foundation of his antiquitates rerum divinarum. It distinguishes between natural (naturalis; φυσική/physikē), mythic ( fabularis; μυθική/mythikē), and civic (civilis; πολιτική/politikē). Natural theology is practiced by the philosophers, and mythic theology by the poets; it is visible esp. in the theater. Civic theology deals with the public institutions of the state, the priesthoods (in the sense of “cult functionaries and specialists,” not “pastors”), the calendar and feasts, cultic facilities, symbolic actions, and finally the recipients of these actions: the gods. A connection between political civil rights and religious affiliation is not made; Greeks and Jews could become Roman citizens, without having to change their religion. This circumstance also shows the (relative) differentiation of religion from other parts of Roman culture. M. Terentius Varro, Antiquitates rerum divinarum, ed. B. Cardauns, 1976 ◆ M. Tullius Cicero, De natura deorum, ed. A.S. Pease, 1955. ◆ F. Overbeck, “Christentum und Kultur,” in: B. v. Reibnitz, ed., Werke und Nachlass, VI/1, 1966 ◆ J. Burckhardt, Griechische Kulturgeschichte, Gesammelte Werke, V, 1898 ◆ idem, Über das Studium der Geschichte, Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen, 1851ff., ed. P. Ganz, 1982 ◆ G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, 21912, repr. 1971 ◆ F. Altheim, Griechische Götter im Alten Rom, 1930 ◆ F. Altheim et al., Abriss der Geschichte der antiken Randkulturen, 1961 ◆ M.L. West, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, 1971 ◆

276 H.G. Niemeyer, ed., Phönizier im Westen, 1982 ◆ W. Burkert, Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, 1984 ◆ A. Demandt, Die Spätantike, HKAW, 1989. ◆ H. Cancik & H. Cancik-Lindemaier, “patria – peregrina – universa,” in: C. Elsas et al., eds., Tradition und Translation, FS Carsten Cope, 1994, 64-74. Hubert Cancik

Antiquity and Christianity I. Terminology – II. New Testament – III. Early Church – IV. Byzantine Empire – V. Renaissance, Humanism, Reformation – VI. Enlightenment and Rationalism – VII. Neohumanism – VIII. 20th Century

I. Terminology Since F.J. → Dölger, “Antiquity and Christianity” (hereafter: A&C) has gained general acceptance in scholarly circles as a heuristic concept. It stands in close relation to the set of problems associated with Hellenism and designates the tense relationship between the culture of antiquity and the Christianity that arose in its midst; “antiquity” places the totality of the historical, cultural, and religious circumstances subsumed under this heading in relation to “Christianity” as a special case. As the sub-title of the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum indicates, it involves a comprehensive process of the “interchange of Christianity with the ancient world” that reaches back to the pre-history of Christianity, encompasses the whole environment with its political, social, economic, cultural, and religious phenomena, and continues after the end of antiquity into the present under altered conditions and in manifold expressions. In this process, A&C are not related to one another as an unalterable block, but as an interrelated entity located in historical evolution. They do not affect one another simply through the opposition or interaction of classical Greco-Roman ideals and Christianity, but simultaneously through interpenetration (“Ineinandersetzung,” Fontaine, Christentum, 9), as integration and innovation. Consequently, the conditions designated by A&C indicate, in the course of history, opposition and continuity, surpassing and preservation, adaptations and extension in ever-new configurations. In this variable history, phases with marked apexes of cultural renewal can be clearly distinguished. There is no comprehensive presentation of the problem with a summary of the numerous individual studies. II. New Testament The theme of A&C runs throughout early Christian literature from the beginning in all its aspects. Christianity originated within antiquity as a new phenomenon, at first in the course of the interaction of Judaism with Hellenism, then, since → Paul, in direct confrontation with polytheism. Although the beginnings of Christianity largely elude historical insight, it began with → John the Baptist and Jesus. As Jews, they were concerned

277 with the theological and practical integrity of obedience to the will of the God revealed in the → Torah, indeed, in the face of the external and internal challenges posed by Hellenism. Jesus’ teaching and deeds responded to the question of how the → Kingdom of God can be realized in the midst of pagan life and Roman dominion. The NT, however, associates the origins of Christianity with the → Epiphanies of the crucified Jesus to his disciples (1 Cor 15:3–8; Mark 16 par.). From these epiphanies, the disciples drew the conclusion that he had risen from the dead and was alive (→ Resurrection: II). The interpretation of these visions for Christian theology took place in interaction with contemporary religious conceptions. The commission to undertake the Gentile mission confronted the apostle Paul and his followers with the task of preserving the identity of the developing Gentile Christian church in doctrine and behavior in distinction from Judaism and polytheism. III. Early Church While the NT documents relate to incipient Christianity, from the 2nd century on, the church presupposes the existence of Christianity. The so-called “Apologists” extended the themes already largely initiated in the NT (→ Apologetics: III) under new headings. The problem that the patristic authors (→ Apologetics: IV ) fundamentally addressed was how to create the legitimate space for the church in the culture and society of antiquity. As a minority, Christianity initially found itself in a situation similar to that of Judaism (→ Apologetics: II). While apologies attempted to demonstrate the injustice of persecutions (→ Persecutions of Christians: I), explanatory documents were concerned with making the doctrines of the church comprehensible, especially for outsiders. The Apologists justified the rejection of pagan religions by adopting the Greco-Roman → religious criticism, proclaiming the novelty of Christian faith, and outlining it in contemporary terms and concepts. In the course of this process in the 2nd–4th centuries, universal theologies were developed and contrasted or fused with the doctrines of the philosophers. Here, middle Platonism proved to be very fruitful (→ Platonism: III). Christian Gnosticism (→ Gnosis/Gnosticism) followed another path already indicated in the NT. In a radically dualistic fashion, it rejected the ancient world in its entirety, including the greater church, as the kingdom of evil. Christian theologies then presented pagan thinkers with the task of developing their own new and decidedly non-Christian concepts (→ Hermeticism, → Neoplatonism). The apex and preliminary conclusion of the interaction with antiquity took place in the work of → Augustine (De civitate dei), which, at the same time, laid the foundations for the Middle Ages.

Antiquity and Christianity IV. Byzantine Empire After the victory of Christianity and the transfer of the capital city from Rome to Byzantium (→ Constantinople/Byzantium) in the eastern part of the Empire, the rich Byzantine culture developed and increasingly differentiated itself from the Latin West. With regard to A&C, a new, multiple symbiosis arose in Byzantium. On the one hand, people looked back on antiquity as the pagan past, while on the other, Greek heritage lived on in a new form. Especially in the Christological disputes, theology continued, despite the official battle against Neoplatonism (Council of Constantinople, 553), to stand under the influence of Greco-Christian adaptations of neoplatonic ideas. Scholars such as M. → Psellus, the Patriarch → Photius, → Barlaam of Calabria, and → Bessarion consciously nurtured the intellectual legacy of Hellenism. Shortly before the collapse of the Empire, G. Gemistus → Plethon established a state in Mistra based on Plato’s ideas, including the reintroduction of Greek religion. The activity and libraries of Byzantine humanists were of fundamental importance for the Italian Renaissance, especially the Platonic → Academy (I) in → Florence. V. Renaissance, Humanism, Reformation The tense relationship between A&C shaped Renaissance Humanism and the Reformation, resulting in profound cultural renewal. The decisive transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance was primarily associated, in the 14th century, with the names of F. → Petrarca, → Dante Alighieri and Giovanni Boccaccio. The rediscovery of Latin literary works resulted in the revival of the ideals of antiquity, followed by Greek literature, philosophy and language, and finally by Patristic literature. Indeed, these radical changes also took place within ecclesial institutions during the 15th century, and leading figures such as → Nicholas of Cusa, Marsilio → Ficino and G. → Pico della Mirandola were concerned with a new symbiosis of Christian faith and Platonism (= Neoplatonism). As Ficino’s masterwork Theologia Platonica (1469–1474) programmatically announced, however, Christian faith and Christian love are actually merged into Platonism in this process. Only a phenomenon such as L. → Valla pointed to fundamental alternatives between which one must choose. While Valla’s work concerning free will directed attention to the central problem, it was fully settled only in the 1524–1525 dispute, an important event in the history of the world, between → Erasmus (De libero arbitrio) and → Luther (De servo arbitrio). To be sure, the Reformers by no means abandoned the foundations of Renaissance and Humanism in which they were all deeply rooted, but, under Luther’s guidance, they experienced the rediscovery and revival of what is essentially Christian in Christianity, the gospel.

Antiquity and Christianity On the one hand, this change was nothing other than a further consequence of the Renaissance; on the other hand, however, it opened a new era with new expressions of A&C. Only the so-called radical wing understood the Reformation as an apocalyptic rejection of all previous history and culture and as a return to the NT with – so they assumed – its simple and unadulterated Christianity. VI. Enlightenment and Rationalism One result of the Reformation was that no more attempts to harmonize A&C were undertaken thereafter. The Enlightenment understood the relationship between the two in categories of historical development (H.S. → Reimarus; G.E. → Lessing ; J.G. → Herder). Instead of the simple juxtaposition of A&C, both were divided into epochs. Classical antiquity was separated, on the one hand, from the so-called primeval history and the ancient Near East, and on the other, from Hellenism, Rome, and the ethnic religions (Germanic, Celtic, Slavic). Within Christianity, one now distinguished the religion of the historical Jesus and of early Christianity from Jewish-Christianity and Pauline GentileChristianity. Juxtaposition was replaced by history-ofreligions comparison (S.J. → Baumgarten; J.S. → Semler; J.J. → Wettstein). This viewpoint led to the relativization of both antiquity and Christianity through the identification of both as late developments of a primitive “natural” religion of reason. Jesus and Socrates assumed special status by virtue of the fact that the “natural” religion of reason could be unified both with the philosophy of Socrates and also with the teachings of Jesus, in contrast to which post-Socratic philosophy as well as Christian dogma could be regarded as phenomena of decay. VII. Neohumanism This view of things soon provoked counter-movements. The debasement of Greco-Roman antiquity was the target of a fundamental reevaluation of Greek art and culture pursued chiefly by Johann Joachim → Winckelmann, J.W. → Goethe, F. → Schiller and F. → Hölderlin. Antiquities discovered primarily in Italy served as evidence that antiquity was by no means past, but vitally present, and could serve as the foundation for a revival of European culture. The idealization of classical antiquity in so-called Neohumanism (→ Humanism: IV) took place in conscious opposition to ecclesial Christianity. If Herder, as a general superintendent, was still a representative of Protestantism, Winckelmann and Goethe proudly declared themselves to be “pagans.” This neohumanistic paganism was popular primarily among “cultured” Protestants. These “cultured among the despisers” of Christianity were the addressees of F. → Schleiermacher, especially, in his Reden über die

278 Religion (1799). Such efforts on Schleiermacher’s part and, in another fashion, also on G.W.F. → Hegel’s did not, however, hinder the neohumanistic ideal of education, with its contempt for Christianity, from becoming decisive for the mentality of the 19th/20th centuries. This mentality was soon integrated in political ideologies, in the wake of which consequences for religion and educational policy were not long in forthcoming (K. → Marx, B. → Bauer, F. → Nietzsche ; F. → Overbeck). On the Christian side, A. v. → Harnack took up the challenge with his thesis of the “hellenization of Christianity” and his Berlin lecture (1900) concerning “the essence of Christianity.” He wanted to understand the simple and non-dogmatic gospel of Jesus as distinct from the negatively characterized hellenized Christianity. While Harnack decisively intervened against the efforts of the → history of religions school to retain the faculties of theology, his Berlin colleague, the influential classical philologist U. v. → Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, wanted to base the entire educational system on the neohumanists’ idealized values of Greek culture. In this, he was in agreement with Nietzsche, although Nietzsche hoped for a rebirth of the intellectual culture of antiquity in the sign of Dionysius and with the exclusion of Christianity. VIII. 20th Century These ideals and utopias were shattered in the catastrophes of the two World Wars with the resulting political and social revolutions in Europe and beyond. While the official churches survived the catastrophes and the anti-Christian campaigns of propaganda and oppression by the quasi-religious ideologies of → National Socialism and → Marxist-Leninism, leading Protestant theologians such as K. → Barth, R. → Bultmann, F. → Gogarten, D. → Bonhoeffer and P. → Tillich elaborated new systematic theological conceptions that made possible a renewed credibility for Christian faith. This no longer took place in interchange with antiquity and its neohumanistic interpretations, but with political ideologies and advances in science, medicine and technological civilization. After the end of World War II, the legacy of antiquity, so it seemed, was definitively lost. Attempts at a “third humanism” (→ Humanism: IV ) or the attempts of the philosophers J.P. → Sartre and M. → Heidegger to identify → existential philosophy as humanism enjoyed no lasting success. Antiquity seemed to have forfeited its attraction to a Marxist inspired ideological critique, but also in the face of the popular modernism of consumer society and the new directions in art and literature. The intellectual situation at the end of the 20th century, however, appears once again to have changed. On the one hand, a profound disillusionment characterizes it. The promises of political ideologies and progressive

279

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism

utopias have widely proven to be illusions. In contrast, the impoverishment of humanity, inner emptiness, the decline of ethical-social values, and cultural depravity have produced a pessimistic worldview. On the other hand, knowledge of the ancient world and access to it have been extended and deepened to a massive degree. The participation of broader layers of the population in archaeological discoveries, attendance at exhibits of ancient art, and tourist travels to ancient sites surpass everything previously known. The number of active researchers in antiquity, including theologians, and the scope of their scholarly production has never been greater than at present. Stimulated by the global pluralism of cultures and religions, the study of A&C has apparently entered into a new phase. From the togetherness and opposition of A&C, seen in their historical, social and cultural contexts, it is to be hoped that interpretive criteria and standards may develop for a world that threatens to be lost in meaninglessness and excess. L. Zscharnack, RGG2 I, 1927, 378–390 ◆ RAC Iff., 1950ff. ◆ JbAC Iff., 1958ff. ◆ C. Andresen, TRE III, 1978, 50–99 ◆ E.A. Judge, “ ‘Antiquity and Christianity’: Towards a Definition of the Field,” ANRW II, 23, 1, 1979, 3–58 ◆ T. Klauser, Franz Joseph Dölger (1879–1940), 1980 ◆ J. Fontaines, “Christentum ist auch Antike,” JbAC 25, 1982, 5–21 ◆ idem, ed., Patristique et Antiquité tardive en Allemagne et en France de 1870 à 1930, 1993 ◆ H.D. Betz, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vols. I–IV, 1990–1998 (bibl.) ◆ G. Strecker & U. Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein, vol. II/1–2, 1996 (bibl.) ◆ W. Burkert, Klassisches Altertum und antikes Christentum, HLV 1, 1996 ◆ H.D. Betz, “Antiquity and Christianity,” JBL 117, 1998, 3–22. Hans Dieter Betz

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism I. Definitions and Problems – II. Greco-Roman Antiquity – III. New Testament (Primitive and Early Christianity) – IV. Christian Antiquity to the Beginning of the Middle Ages – V. The Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period – VI. German Anti-Semitism in Recent History – VII. Systematic Theology

I. Definitions and Problems The term “anti-Semitism” in its narrowest sense relates to a racist ideology that emerged in France and Germany in the last decades of the 19th century and depicted Jews as a separate race which endangered European culture and life. It became the official ideology of various European political parties and in the 20th century it was translated into concrete policies in various dictatorships in Germany, Hungary, Romania and Poland. It was used to justify the → Holocaust. In the now customary broader sense, “anti-Semitism” refers to hatred of Jews known to us from the works of numerous Hellenistic and Roman authors in antiquity and which took a wide variety of forms in Christian and Islamic cultures in the Middle Ages and modern times. It brought about a lasting discrimination against Jews, excluding them, for instance, from positions of authority and forcing

them into restricted economic and social structures. → Ghettos formed; special Jewish clothing was required; there were often forced conversions, and the Jews were generally regarded as an inferior and dangerous group. Jews were driven out of almost all European countries and territories, often for centuries, and European history documents many massacres of thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Jews. In the 20th century the number of victims of anti-Semitism reached the millions. Since the history of anti-Semitism extends over more than two millennia in a large number of countries and in a wide variety of historical and cultural circumstances, it resists any religious, cultural or economic explanation. Attempts have been made in the past and the present to describe and explain the phenomenon of “anti-Semitism” on an economic, social and psychological as well as religious basis, but no comprehensive understanding that explains its widespread appearance and varied expressions in different circumstances has been achieved. Anti-Semitism flourishes even in places where the practice of religion is in decline. It survived Jewish assimilation and integration in society, in connection with which Jews relinquished all special social and economic features. Anti-Semitism was even sustained in places where almost all Jews had been annihilated, as in post-war Poland. The study and discussion of anti-Semitism has come to occupy a central position in academic research among scholars of history, sociology, psychology, religious studies, and philosophy in the countries and nations concerned. The catalogue of the Harvard University Library lists 3000 books on the subject, and scholarly periodicals and institutes are occupied with it in many countries and many languages. Increasingly it is being realized that this field holds important implications for all aspects of human thought Joseph Dan and belief. II. Greco-Roman Antiquity In antiquity, Greco-Roman authors were concerned primarily with the special features of Jewish belief in God and Jewish practices and rituals (aversion to pork, Sabbath, circumcision). Their statements reflect a broad spectrum of ethnographic traditions and ancient prejudices, which could be of quite different hues depending on the historical and geographical conditions and literary genres; purely negative attitudes, however, are by no means dominant. Widely influential was the tradition, first notable in → Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 300 bce) and then in its explicitly negative coloration in Manetho (early 3rd cent. bce), of the expulsion of leprous Egyptians from Egypt under their leader Moses, who then founded Jerusalem as the capital of their Jewish nation. This story is quite probably not a replica of the biblical

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism Exodus account, but originally belonged in the context of Egyptian reactions to foreign rulers (Hyksos, Persians). Enriched with intra-Egyptian anti-monotheistic tendencies (opposition to the religious reforms of Echnaton [→ Amenophis IV ]), it had already been applied to the Jews before Manetho, perhaps in the period of Persian domination over Egypt (5th cent. bce?). The roots of the animosity toward the Jews later called “anti-Semitism” thus lie in pre-Hellenistic Egypt; broad literary testimony of this motif follows from Manetho onward (Apollonius Molon, Diodorus Siculus, Lysimachus, Apion, → Chaeremon), until it entered Western “culture” in the pointedly anti-Jewish form given it by → Tacitus (early 2nd cent. ce). Diodorus Siculus (dependent on Posidonius of Apamea? 135–51 bce) places the tradition of the supposed Jewish ass-worship, first attested as an ironic story of martial guile by Mnaseas of Patara c. 200 bce, in an extreme anti-Jewish context: Jewish customs are by nature anti-human and anti-foreigner. This motif of misanthropy and misoxenia reached its harshest form in Apion (1st cent. ce) in the account of the annual fattening and subsequent sacrifice and consumption of a foreigner (Greek!) in the temple. The charge of Jewish animosity toward foreigners and humanity, aimed at the entire civilized world, seems to have been the specific Hellenistic contribution to ancient “anti-Semitism.” In the geographical and cultural realm of the Roman Empire, ancient animosity toward the Jews gained a new dimension: sparked by the success of Judaism in Roman society, the element of fear joined hatred and contempt, and the fear of the victory of the vanquished over the victors (→ Seneca). Among anti-Jewish acts in antiquity were the riots in Alexandria in 38 ce, presumably motivated by the question of civil rights and political exploitation; neither the so-called religious persecution under → Antiochus IV (167 bce) nor the two Roman wars (66–73 and 132– 135 ce) should be regarded as specifically anti-Jewish events. I. Heinemann, “Antisemitismus,” PRE.S V, 1931, 3–43 ◆ P. Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, 1997. Peter Schäfer

III. New Testament (Primitive and Early Christianity) Disputes with contemporary Jewish individuals and groups, and polemic against Jewish institutions and viewpoints, occupy considerable space in the writings of the New Testament. They are found in the Jesus traditions of the four Gospels (cf. Matt 23:13–33; Luke 11:42–52; Mark 12:1–12 par.; John 7:1–30; 8:12–59) as well as in the account of the post-Easter spread of the Christian message in Acts (cf. 28:17–28), in the Pauline

280 (cf. 1 Thess 2:14–16; Phil 3:2f.) and deutero-Pauline (cf. Tit 1:10f., 14) letters as well as in the theological tractates of Hebrews (cf. 7:18f.; 8:3–7, 13; 9:8ff.; 12:18–29) and Revelation (cf. 2:9; 3:9). Scattered motifs of pagan anti-Judaism have insinuated themselves (1 Thess 2:15c: accusation of misanthropy and godlessness; Gal 4:25: depiction as born slaves; Phil 3:2: verbal mockery of circumcision as “mutilation”). But this does not amount to a generally anti-Jewish attitude. Until the end of the 1st century, at least, primitive and early Christian communities were part of the Jewish realm in faith and lifestyle, not only from the point of view of outsiders, but also to a large extent in their own self-understanding. Their “antiJewish” statements and lapses generally reflect quarrels and boundary-disputes with a background within Judaism itself. They tend to have an anti-Pharisaic or anti-Sadducean coloring, and are sometimes also directed against competing Christian groups (“Judaizers”; cf. Gal 3), and they often have recourse to criticism of Israel from biblical prophecy (1 Thess 2:15b; Phil 3:3d; Matt 12:39; 16:4; 23:32; Acts 7:51ff.) and are no different either in form or content (accusation of hypocrisy: Matt 23:13 etc., greed: Luke 16:14, self-righteousness: Luke 16:15; 18,9, inner falsehood: Rom 2:21; Matt 23:3) from other disputes between Jewish groups (→ Essenes, → Pharisees, → Sadducees) (cf. e.g. PsSol 4.1–22; 8.10– 13; 14.6–9; 1QS 4.9–14). To speak of hatred of Jews, anti-Judaism or even anti-Semitism in these cases is, historically speaking, an anachronism. This is true even of statements in which Jewish contemporaries are branded as excluded from election (see Gal 4:21–31; Matt 22:1– 14; John 8:39), as “(children) of the Devil” ( John 8:44), or “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9). Here too it is certainly not necessary to see the reflection of a specifically anti-Jewish attitude (cf. 2 Chr 36:16; b. Yeb. 16a). The first steps in this direction are evident where – evidently for political reasons – Roman responsibility for the death of Jesus is minimalized and Jewish responsibility maximalized (cf. Luke 23:1–25), the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans is interpreted theologically as punishment for the rejection and killing of Jesus and linked to the threat of disinheritance of the entire people in the history of salvation (cf. Matt 21:33–44) or – presumably partly in response to attacks by the Jewish authorities – “the Jews” are cited without differentiation as opponents and as representatives of the unbelieving world (cf. John 5:10–18; 6:41–47; 8:45–59). But even in these cases it is not a matter of anti-Judaism as the expression of opposition to Judaism in principle. In the meantime NT texts have developed a potential for anti-Judaism in their reception history. The institutional and ideological separation of Christian communities from the Jewish environment in the last third of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century had the

281 consequence that the statements and polemic contained in the NT (and no less also in the OT), which in essence are in-house criticisms, were understood as directed against Judaism and Jewry and were used accordingly, structurally or according to contemporary situations. In this manner the pathway on which anti-Judaism and the cultivated hatred of Jews spread in the course of the further development of Christianity was opened up from the NT (in part also from the OT). General: J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, 1934, repr. 1974 ◆ W.P. Eckert, N.P. Levinson & M. Stöhr, eds., Antijudaismus im NT?, ACJD 2, 1967 ◆ R. Ruether, Nächstenliebe und Brudermord. Die theologischen Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, ACJD 7, 1978 ◆ J. Gager, The Origins of Antisemitism. Attitudes towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, 1983 ◆ M.R. Macina, “L’»Antijudaisme« Neótestamentaire entre doctrine et polemique,” NRTh 118, 1986, 410–418 ◆ P. Richardson, D. Granskou & S.G. Wilson, eds., Antijudaism in Early Christianity, 1986 ◆ L.T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108, 1989, 419–441 ◆ J.D.G. Dunn, “The Question of Anti-semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period,” in: idem, ed., Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70–135, WUNT 66, 1989, 179–211 ◆ C.A. Evans & D.A. Hagner, eds., AntiSemitism and Early Christianity, 1993 ◆ J.T. Sanders, “The First Decades of Jewish-Christian Relations: The Evidence of the New Testament (Gospels and Acts),” ANRW II, 26.3, 1996, 1937–1978. Berndt Schaller

IV. Christian Antiquity to the Beginning of the Middle Ages The Christian antagonism toward Judaism incipient in the NT became a recognizably constitutive element of Christian theology and piety from the 2nd century and produced profound effects in the churches of both East and West – especially within, but also beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. 1. In literature. Specifically anti-Jewish polemics and arguments are found in early Christian writings scattered in didactic treatises and edifying narratives, liturgical and administrative texts, acts of martyrs as well as increasingly in the form of treatises, sermons, dialogues and collections of testimonia relating to Jews and Judaism (“Adversus Judaeos”) (for prime examples see the bibl.). The anti-Judaism that comes to expression does not display a unified image but is marked in different ways according to regional political and social factors and theological presuppositions. The range runs from unemotional discussion, sometimes even conciliatory in tone, through to arrogantly dismissive criticism and enthusiastically triumphalistic polemics and excessively negative verdicts. Occasionally Jewish contemporaries are in view, sometimes with expression of acute conflicts (anti-Christian accusations, exclusion and persecution policies from the Jewish side). In most cases, however, there are no direct encounters or disputes with Jews and Judaism in the background. Missionary concerns do not

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism play much of a role either. In the main it is a matter of theoretical, didactic statements (“shadow-boxing with a shadow-opponent,” Schreckenberg 1982, 564), characterized by conventional stereotypes, which serve to draw boundaries and secure identity within Christianity and which, correspondingly, are frequently linked with anti-pagan and anti-heretical polemics. The concrete occasions are often “Judaizing” practices and efforts in the Christian communities themselves. Attacks against Judaism are resolutely concerned to demonstrate the church to be the “true Israel,” and Christians to be heirs of the biblical promises. The basis is the salvation-historical orientation of the Christian faith (“Where there is no salvation history, there is no problem with the Jews,” Conzelmann, 298; exception: → Marcion!), the central point being Jewish rejection of the messianism of Jesus. It is viewed, often reinforced with accusations of the murder of Christ or sometimes even deicide (first in → Melito of Sardis), as resistance to God’s plan of salvation and is seen as evidence of the falsity and godlessness of the Jews. The media of the polemics correspond to ancient “conventions”: aggressive radicalism goes hand in hand with argumentative antitheses. The Jews are presented – often adopting antiJewish models of prejudice from the pagan world – as amoral and criminal, sometimes branded as animals or devils. In the argumentation, proofs from scripture play a substantial role. The OT is employed under the scheme of promise and fulfillment as confirmation of the truth of Christian teaching and under the scheme of apostasy and rejection as evidence of the waywardness and inferiority of Judaism. The accounts of the disobedience of the people of God (e.g. rebellion during the Exodus, dancing around the Golden Calf ) are used, along with the prophetic woes, to underline the waywardness of the Jews; the cultic and ritual laws are allegorized in order to reveal the Jewish piety laid upon them as spiritless; a negative figure like Cain is related to Judaism, in order to emphasize its “murderous” character. In addition to appeal to Scripture there is also frequently an appeal to events in history. As already hinted in the NT (see above, III), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, the end of the Jewish state and life in the Diaspora are interpreted as divine acts of punishment for Jewish responsibility for the death of Christ and cited as evidence of the end of Judaism and the superiority of Christianity, and later also the failure of the attempted restoration of the temple under → Julian the Apostate. In the so-called → Chronicon Paschale, the first Byzantine chronicle (631/641), this aspect of anti-Jewish polemics became an integral part of the Christian account of world history. 2. In practice. As long as Judaism was in the ascendancy in social and political terms (recognition as a nation

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism and as religio licita by the state) and in numerical terms, Christian anti-Judaism remained primarily a phenomenon of theoretical debate. With the “Constantinian revolution” (→ Constantine), things changed fundamentally. In the shadow of Christianity, in the process of becoming the state religion, the Jewish population came increasingly under outside pressure. Theological anti-Judaism shows practical effects both in the form of populist excesses and acts of coercion and in the context of official announcements and decrees. a. The special rights of Jews that had hitherto been in place (protection of cultic institutions in the context of religious freedom; privileges of self-government) certainly remained intact under the Christian emperors for reasons of legal continuity and security, but in time, in particular from Theodosius I, they were repeatedly undermined and in some cases even rescinded. The number of the state laws relating to Jews grew considerably (approx. 50 laws in → Codex Theodosianus [CT] from the period 315–429, almost half of them from the 5th cent., with a further increase in → Codex Justinianus [CJust; Nov = Novellae]). They reflect a growing animosity to the Jews, often equated with heathens and heretics. In particular the anti-conversion laws that existed from the time of Antoninus Pius and Septimius were extended: order for the protection of Jews who converted to Christianity: CT XVI 8.1 (315/329); 8.5 (335); prohibition of the circumcision of slaves, coupled with reversal of their freedom in the case of non-compliance: CT XVI 9.1 (335); prohibition of the purchase or possession of Christian (and heathen) slaves: CT XVI 9.2 (339); 8.22 (415); 9.4 (417); 9.5 (423); confiscation of property and possessions of Christian converts: CT XVI 8.7 (353) = CJust I 7.1; CT XVI 7.4 (383); prohibition of mixed marriages between Jews and Christians (as stipulated already by the church in Canon 16 of the Synod of → Elvira in 306): CT IX 7.5 (388). There is a step-by-step exclusion of Jews from public and social life: exclusion from the secret police: CT XVI 8.16 (404), from general state service: CT XVI 8.24(418); prohibition of the profession of lawyer: Constitutiones Sirmonianae 6 (425); prohibition of the assumption of city administrative and honorary offices: NovT 3 (438). There was further deterioration with respect to civil and penal law: prohibition of settling disputes with Christians before Jewish courts: CT XVI 8.22 (425); limitation of the right to witnesses: CJust I 5.21 (531); NovT XLV, 1 (537); limitation of payments of compensation to Jews: CT XVI 10.24 (423); CJust I 11.6 (531). Even institutions of religious life were affected: prohibition of the erection of new synagogues: CT XVI 8.22 (415); 8.25, 27 (423) NovJust 37 (535); NovJust 131 (545); limitation of the extension or repair of existing synagogues: NovT 3 (438); prohibition of the use of

282 non-biblical sources of law (deuterosis = Mishnah?) in services: NovJust 146 (553). In general, among Christian emperors in the east Roman (Byzantine) and west Roman empire there was neither a uniform nor a thoroughly anti-Jewish line in legislation concerning “Jews,” but the general thrust of the regulations affecting Jews and Judaism (most of them decreed in the west, and initially applied only there) is unmistakably anti-Jewish. They owed their existence to church efforts to curtail the attraction and influence of Judaism. The first climax in this development is the removal of the status of religio licita for Judaism and the elevation of church canons to general legal obligation under Justinian (NovJust 131; CJust I 3.44). This had an effect on significant parts of the legal protection of the Jewish population. Attacks on them could now be more easily legitimated or sanctioned after the event. This set out the path traveled in particular in the satellite states of the western Roman empire (see below), to adjust state legislature to match, or be subordinate to that of the church. b. Violent attacks on Jews and Jewish installations by the Christian population began already in the 4th century. Often they were instigated by church officials, bishops and monks, and they reached such proportions that the state authorities saw themselves compelled to issue orders against the desecration, occupation and destruction of synagogues and other Jewish property (CT XVI 8.9 [393], 12 [397], 20 [412], 21 [418], 25, 26, 27 [423]), but these proved ineffective in preventing such acts or, in many cases, in punishing them (cf. Simeon Stylites vita [Syr.] 130f. [TU 32,4, 174f.]). One of the earliest examples, significant beyond the local event, is the burning-down of the synagogue of Kallinikon on the Euphrates (388), the reconstruction of which, initially ordered by Theodosius I, was not carried out because of objections by → Ambrose, bishop of Milan (Ep. 40.66ff. [PL 16, 1103ff.]). Similar cases of the devastation of synagogues, or their confiscation and conversion into churches, are documented in many other places: Rome 387 (Ambrose Ep. 40.23 [PL 16, 1109]). Edessa 411/12 (Edessa Chronicle 51), Alexandria 414 (Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica VII 13– 14 [PG 67, 759–768]), Minorca 418(?) (Severus of Minorca, Epistula ad omnem ecclesiam [PL 41, 821–832]); Antioch c. 380 (Sancta Macchabea); 489 ( Johannes Malalas, Chronographia XV 389f. [PG 97,578]); 507 (ibid., XVI 396 [PG 97,585]); Gerasa 530 (NEAEHL II, 1993, 477f.), Rome and Ravenna 6th century (MGH. AA IX, 1.326), Cyrenaika (Prokop De aedificiis 6.2, cf. NovJust 37 of 535), Clermont 576 (Greg. T. Hist. V 11 [MGH2 I, 1, Script. rer. Merov, 205f.]; Venantius Fortunatus, Carmen 5:5 [MGH.AA IV, 1,107–112]), Palermo 598 (Greg. M. Ep. 9, 38 [CChr.SL 140A, 597]) and Cagliari 599 (idem, Ep. 9, 196 [CChr.SL 140A, 750f.]).

283 The target of the attacks was also often the Jewish population itself, sometimes in the context of local political disputes: in 414, under Cyril, the Jewish inhabitants of Alexandria were driven out and their property looted (Socrates, see above); in 438 (?) riots by Syrian monks in Jerusalem under Barsauma, with resulting deaths (on the historicity of this story see Stemberger, 247ff.), serious persecutions of Jews with mass killings toward the end of the 5th century in Antioch ( John Malalas, Chronographia XV [PG 97, 577]). From the 6th century, both in the Byzantine empire and in the satellite states of the west Roman Empire (in particular in west Gothic Spain) there is evidence of efforts to apply forced conversion: local events in Cyrenaika under Justinian (Prokop, see above) and in southern France: Clermont (see above), Arles, Marseille (Greg. M. Ep. 1.45 [CChr.SL 140, 59]); a general order about this was first given by Emperor Herakleios in 634; it was not put into effect everywhere, but it had effects also in the west among west Goths and Franks (see Fredgar, Chronicon 65 [PL 71, 646]), and was taken up again in 721/772 by Leo III (Theophanis Chronographia I [ed. de Boor, 1883, 401]). On the part of the church, there were express objections to such forced baptisms (see above, Greg. M.; also by the 4th Council of Toledo in 633, c. 57 [Mansi 10, 633]; 1st Council of Nicea 787, c. 8 [Mansi 13, 427ff.]) (though not the 6th Council of Toledo in 638, c. 3 [Mansi 10, 663f.]), but in practice they were still tolerated. Details of the developments, contexts and proportions of the anti-Jewish excesses and coercions can be ascertained only to a limited extent. The severity of them was sometimes an internal Christian matter (struggle against “heretics,” esp. Arianism), but also often politically influenced, in the east in particular by the expansion of victorious Islam, in Spain by the Catholicization of the West Goths. In the west in particular, however, on into the 8th and 9th centuries the existing social contacts between the Christian and Jewish populations played a part in this. The attraction of Jewish piety felt by Christians and equally the economic competition between Christians and Jews contributed to a worsening of anti-Jewish acts. The forced baptisms sparked off a fundamental change in Christian attitudes to Judaism. The Christian world began to give up its hope in an eschatological, divinely caused conversion of the Jews and to dispute its hitherto legally and theologically acknowledged (Aug. Civ. XVIII 46: Jews as witnesses to the truth of Christianity, spread throughout the world) right of existence. Christian antagonism toward Judaism thus gained eliminatory features, a trend which was to become even stronger in later times and made its mark even in Christian iconography, esp. in representations of the relationship between church and synagogue.

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism Prime examples of 1.: 2nd cent.: Barn, SUC II, 2 ◆ Diognetus, SUC II, 4 ◆ Justin Dial., ed. Goodspeed, 1914 ◆ Melito of Sardis Passa Homilie, SC 123 ◆ 5 Ezra, New Testament Apocrypha II, 582–586 ◆ 3rd cent.: Tertullian Adversus Iudaeos, CChr. SL II, 3; Apologeticum, CChr. SL I, 3 ◆ Ps.Cyprian, De montibus Sina et Sion, CSEL 3, 3, 104–119; De judaica incredulitate, CSEL 3, 3, 119–132; Adversus Iudaeos, CChr. SL 4, 253–288 ◆ Novatian, De cibis Iudaicis, CChr. SL IV, 78–101 ◆ Martyrium Pionii, ed. Musurillo, 1972 ◆ Didaskalia 21, 26, TU 10,2 ◆ 4th cent.: Aphraat, Demonstratio 11–13, 15–19, 21 (PS 1,1) ◆ Ephraem the Syrian, De fide VI 62ff., CSCO 212/213 ◆ Chrysostom, Jud., PG 48,843–942; Adversus Judaeos et Gentiles, PG 48, 813–842 ◆ Cyril of Alexandria, De synagogae defectu (Frag.: PG 76, 1421– 1424); Passa Homilies, PG 77,402–482 ◆ Ambrosiaster, Adversus Judaeos, CSEL 50,71–81 ◆ 5th cent.: Basil of Seleucia, Contra Iudaeos, PG 85, 400–426 ◆ Evagrius, Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani, CSEL 45 ◆ Augustine, Adversus Iudaeos, PL 42, 51–64; Civ. XVI 16–XVIII 46 ◆ Isaac of Antioch, Homilia adversus Judaeos, ed. Kazan: OrChr 45, 1961, 30–53 ◆ Acts of Pilate/ Gospel of Nicodemus, New Testament Apocrypha II, 399–414 ◆ 6th cent.: Jacob of Sarug Adversus Iudaeos, OrSyr 7, 1962, 143–162 ◆ Maximinus Adversus Judaeos, PL 57, 793–806; JTS 20, 1919, 293–310; Contra Judaeos, Paganos et Arianos, PL 42, 1117–1130 ◆ 7th cent.: De Altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae Dialogus, PL 42, 1131–1140 ◆ Isidorus, De fide catholica contra Judaeos, PL 83, 449–538 ◆ Tropaea Damascena contra Judaeos, PO 15,2, 171–275 ◆ 8th cent.: Dam., De fide orthodoxa IV 23: adversus Judaeos de Sabbato, PG 94, 1201–1206 ◆ PsGreg. Nyss., Adversus Judaeos, PG 46, 194–234 ◆ Sergius Stylites, Disputatio contra Judaeum, CSCO 338/339 ◆ (see also Schreckenberg). Berndt Schaller

V. The Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period Most of the expressions of anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages are closely associated with religiously motivated hatred, though some racial elements can be discerned. These increased toward the end of the medieval period and became more and more prominent in the 15th century and later. Segregation, discrimination and humiliation of the Jews as a group and as individuals dominated all lands in which Christianity and Islam were the ruling religions. In Christian countries, almost without exception, this was accompanied by mass persecutions, forced conversions, and frequent massacres. The religious nature of anti-Semitism was most strongly pronounced during the persecutions which were related to the → Crusades, starting in 1096 and continuing throughout the 12th century. In this case – unlike the others to be described below – conversion of the Jews was, at least on the surface, the main concern, rather than their massacre. The attacks on Jewish communities in Germany, France and England were carried out by the Crusaders gathering to go overseas under the slogan that the infidel in our midst should be the first target; Jews could escape death by conversion. The hatred was justified with the old Christian accusations against the Jews expressed in the Gospels, but a new element was added, which carried with it racist implications: the identification of the Jews as the people of Satan. This concept, which is the most outstanding feature of anti-Semitism in this period, becoming increasingly persistent and

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism systematic, is expressed in early gnostic writings, which contrasted the NT as the revelation of the good God, with the OT, which according to them (esp. the Sethian Gnostics [→ Sethianism]) was the expression of the evil demiurge, the satanic Creator, who selected Israel as his people. The development of this concept in esoteric gnostic sects, in writings relatively unknown (found in that period only in the writings of church fathers, like Irenaeus, against the Gnostics), had no direct historical consequences; the notion could have penetrated Catholic Christianity from these sources or crystallized independently in mainstream popular Christianity. Many of the dominant features of popular anti-Semitism were connected with this concept: the belief that Jews have tails, that they are by nature witches and sorcerers, that they are endowed with super-human powers to wreak evil, that their eyes contain “evil eye” impact, and similar traits which denote the non-human, genetic and racial, nature of the Jews. The belief in the satanic origin of the Jews and their continuous worship of him, which often was in conflict with “official” theology, seems to have been on the increase through the centuries of the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. The identification of the Jews as Satan’s people need not have gnostic or any other theological sources. The dualistic picture of the struggle between Christ and Satan in the Gospels, combined with the accusation of deicide, made the conclusion that the Jews represent the satanic opponent of Christ almost inevitable. A meaningful result of this identification with Satan was the portrayal of Jews as dominated by super-human sexual desires, imitating Satan himself. Jewish girls were regarded as witches and sirens who successfully captivate the souls of Christian nobles, and Jewish men as governed by insatiable desires for non-Jewish women. This, coupled with religious hatred, resulted in the expulsion of Jews, at one time or another, from European countries. When not exiled, Jews were segregated economically from the general population, forced to concentrate on only a few occupations, and in many countries they had to wear special recognizable Jewish garments ( Jewishring, 4th → Lateran Council, 1215). This mythical, inhuman portrayal of the Jews contributed to the emergence and the ferocious nature of the blood-libel, which was a main expression of antiSemitism between the 12th and the 19th centuries (and is widely believed today). The accusation of malicious, ritualistic cannibalism was a standard one against religious opponents, esp. sectarian heretics (the Gnostics were accused of this in Late Antiquity). It had special power concerning the Jews, because it was combined with particular religious and superstitious elements. The Talmud was popularly regarded as a secret Jewish magical work directed against Christianity and Christians;

284 the accusation that it contained commands for usage of Christian blood was credible to the masses. It should be emphasized, however, that blood-libels were often coupled and paralleled by accusations of sacrilege: Jews were described as deliberately defiling the cross or statues in procession and other symbolic attacks on Christianity, rather than on Christians. The massacres which followed such ritualistic accusations were not different in any way from those which followed the blood-libel proper. Another aspect of this accusation was the belief that Jews plotted to murder whole gentile communities, by poisoning wells and causing plagues. The most ferocious expression of this belief was connected with the Black Death plague in the mid-14th century in Europe. The Jews were accused of being relatively immune to the plague and thus as its perpetrators, the result being persistent massacres, during which the accusation of wellpoisoning was often pronounced. The beginning of the emphasis on the racial-genetic nature of anti-Semitism is to be found in the persecution of Jews converted to Christianity in the Iberian peninsula in the 15th century, which continued for more than two centuries and spread to the Iberian settlements in the New World. Christians of Jewish descent were suspected of secretly continuing their adherence to Judaism even after several generations of Christian life, and the Inquisition was the main instrument of this persecution. This was based on the belief that Jewish rituals, and the Satanic characteristics of the Jews, were parts of the same complex, and they persisted in such families, regardless of their conversion. In the epidemic of local Jewish persecutions in the late 15th and early 16th century based on the accusation of desecration of the host, in which the abused Christ, in the shape of the host, resisted the attacks of his Jewish enemies, usually effectively, and thus created the occasion for miraculous pilgrimages, hatred of the Jews was reinforced, as well as demonstrative piety centered on the eucharistic cult and the fashion for creating lucrative miraculous sites. The legal position of Jews, in particular on the question whether they were to be considered citizens of the Roman Empire, was disputed. In the most important controversy in print before the Reformation, the dispute between the Jewish convert John Pfefferkorn and representatives of the University of Mainz on the one hand and the leading Hebraist of the time, the lawyer J. → Reuchlin and humanists seconding him (Dunkelmännerstreit; → Epistolae obscurorum virorum) on the other, different interpretations of the legal status of Jews in the Roman Empire play a key role. Reuchlin’s support for the maintenance of extra-canonical literature, esp. of the Talmud and kabbalistic texts, was characterized by the motive, influenced by G. → Pico della Mirandola, of being able apologetically to prove

285 the truth of the divine sonship of Jesus towards Jews on the basis of secret and supposedly ancient revelations. The imperial toleration of Jews, composed in line with the Kammerknechtschaft legal form, was given a time limit in each case and was usually linked with a high toll. In the late Middle Ages city and territorial rulers increasingly sought the privilege of raising tolls for the protection of Jews, a development which – parallel to the sovereign church rules before and after the time of the Reformation – was continued under the conditions of city or territorial Reformation processes. For Judaism the Reformation meant a change in relationships, as in his work, Dass Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sei (1523), Luther had first blamed the depraved teachings of the papal church for the fact that Jews denied the Gospel, and had disputed the charges of blood-guilt and sharply rejected acts of forced conversion. The sometimes euphoric acceptance that his message had met with in apocalyptically and chiliastically moved circles in contemporary Judaism, made way in the 1530s for a fundamental sobering. The christological interpretation of OT texts, which Luther had also used as exegetical arguments for the conversion of Jews, met largely with a clear rejection on the part of Judaism. A theological and exegetical polemic, spread anonymously by A. → Osiander, against the accusation of ritual murder, was denied any broad agreement in 16thcentury Protestantism, even though in reform-minded churches new trials for ritual murder or host-desecration had no part to play. Fear of Jewish blood magic was replaced by fear of Jewish abuse of the word. Luther’s conviction that the Jews abused Christ in their services and tried to damage the Christian (“Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” [On the Jews and their lies], 1543), a conviction reinforced by the works of Jewish converts who joined the Reformation (esp. Antonius Margaritha, 1530), contributed considerably to the elaboration of a specifically Reformed variant of enmity toward Jews and supported a mentality which feared a general destabilization of the well-being of the population as a result of the Jewish presence. The theological interpretation of the Jewish exile as a punishment for deicide, which built directly on the medieval tradition, established an important basis for social exclusion, occasional acts of violence (e.g. the Frankfurt “cream milk” revolt of 1612–1616) and envy as well as opposition to Jewish prosperity. In Protestant Hebrew studies in the Early Modern period, the assessment of the Talmud was disputed; indirectly, occupation with the literature, culture and rituals of postbiblical Judaism, carried out mainly with an apologetic orientation and in the service of the exposition of the OT, contributed to the expansion of knowledge of Jewish history ( Judentumsgeschichte) among Christians in the period ( J. → Buxtorf, 1524–1629).

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism In Early Modern times anti-Semitism was often associated with the emergence of national sentiments. The uprising of the Ukrainian farmers against their Polish masters in 1648–49 is a case in point: over 100,000 Jews perished in the massacres by the Ukrainians, being caught in the middle between the Eastern-Orthodox masses and the Catholic rulers. The hatred expressed in this event – the most bloody expression of anti-Semitism before the 20th century – was a combination of racial, religious, economic, political and national motives. In countries governed by Islam, the segregation of the Jews was directed by laws and norms directed against all non-Muslims, but the attitude towards the Jews acquired more vehement and persistent humiliations than against the Christians. Despite several instances of forced conversions and massacres, persecutions of the Jews in Islamic countries never equaled the bloody nature of anti-Semitism in Christian countries. The reasons for anti-Semitism were hardly regarded as a problem in Christian writings; Jewish guilt was self-evident and undisputed. In several cases, Jewish converts to Christianity led the accusations against the Jews in general and the Talmud in particular. In Judaism, however, the quest for reasons for anti-Semitism began early in the 16th century in Jewish writings, and tended to seek its roots in the Jews’ own behavior. This is one of the most striking paradoxes of anti-Semitism in Early Modern and modern times: the persistent belief of Jews that they themselves are to be blamed for this phenomenon, a belief that many non-Jews were happy to embrace. An early example is found in the book Shevet Yehuda, written by Shlomo Ibn Verga early in the 16th century. The book is mostly dedicated to a review of persecutions of Jews throughout the ages, and the author included in it a series of fictional discussions between Christian kings and theologians, in which sometimes Jewish scholars participated. The question of the reason for the hatred of Jews by Christian masses is raised as an example of an illogical belief, for which logical reasons have to be found. The author suggests – represented by Thomas, a fictional Christian theologian – that the real reason is not religious but economic: the Jews bring disaster on themselves by their usury and pride, their wearing of fine clothes and displaying their riches. According to this fiction, once the king decreed that the Jews were forbidden to lend money, and prohibited from wearing extravagant clothing, the hatred vanished and the masses admitted their being wrong. This concept, presented in a naive and elementary way in the Shevet Yehuda by an author who experienced the persecutions of Jews in Spain and Portugal at the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th, was developed and intensified in the next four centuries, and served as a basis for Jewish reform and behavior. If Jews

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism were to forsake their isolating customs, clothes and professions, and blend into the gentile society in all external matters, anti-Semitism would vanish. The slogan, “be a Jew in your tent and a person when you go out” was the result of this attitude (reflecting inadvertently the internalization of the separation between “Judaism” and “humanity”). The fact that modern anti-Semitism emerged exactly in those places in which this slogan was most thoroughly followed – in late 19th-century France and Germany – did not completely abolish the belief in its veracity. Orthodox Judaism regarded anti-Semitism as an element in the punishment of Jews for their sins by God, and it will perish when the time for messianic redemption will come. In several cases the hatred of Jews was regarded by religious thinkers as inherent in the nature of the gentiles, a persistent expression of “the hate of Esau to Jacob”; it was regarded as an unavoidable characteristic of the exilic existence. H.H. Ben-Sasson, “The Reformation in Contemporary Jewish Eyes,” PIASH 4, 1971, 239–326 ◆ H. Oberman, Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, 1981; ET: The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, 1984 ◆ I. Schacher, The Judensau. A Medieval Motif and its History, 1974 ◆ J. Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: the Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism, 1982 ◆ J. Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: the Medieval Conception of the Jew and its Relation to Modern Antisemitism, 1983 ◆ J. Wallmann, “The Reception of Luther’s Writing on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th Century,” LuthQ 1, 1987, 72–95 ◆ M. Friedrich, Zwischen Abwehr und Bekehrung. Die Stellung der deutschen evangelischen Theologie zum Judentum im 17. Jahrhundert, 1988 ◆ R. Po-Chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder. Jews and Magic in Reformation Germany, 1988 ◆ H.-M. Kirn, Das Bild vom Juden im Deutschland des frühen 16. Jahrhundert, 1989 ◆ G.I. Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, 1990 ◆ idem, History, Religion, and Antisemitism, 1990 ◆ A. Herzig et al., eds., Reuchlin und die Juden, 1993 ◆ H. Peterse, Jacobus Hoogstraeten gegen Johannes Reuchlin, 1995 ◆ S.G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the 17th Century, 1996 ◆ G. Knoch-Mund, Disputationsliteratur als Instrument antijüdischer Polemik. Leben und Werk des Marcus Lombardus, 1997 (bibl.) ◆ T. Kaufmann, “Das Judentum in der frühreformatorischen Flugschriftenpublizistik,” ZThK 95/4, 1998 (bibl.). Joseph Dan

VI. German Anti-Semitism in Recent History In the 1870s the two forms of Jew-hatred thus far – Christian or theological anti-Judaism, i.e. the rejection of Judaism on grounds of biblical theology, and general hatred of Jews, i.e. socially, politically or culturally grounded anti-Jewish xenophobia – were joined by antiSemitism based predominantly on racial and biological grounds. The concept is ascribed to the German writer Wilhelm Marr; it first appears as a political heading in 1879. In the course of the 19th century the terms Jude ( Jew) and Judentum ( Judaism) gained secular significance, with the fashionable synonym Semite for a negatively valued community heritage. 1. Developments between 1806 and 1871. Under the

286 influence of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and in the context of the emergence of modern society, scholars and publishers (e.g. Christian Wilhelm Dohm) called for the equality of Jews in society (→ Emancipation). Resistance to this grew in German nationalism, which was gaining ground following the wars of liberation. For J.G. → Herder the Jews were “a parasitic plant on the stems of other nations,” and E.M. → Arndt called for “the Germanic race to be kept pure from foreign components.” Jews were excluded from the gymnastics clubs of Friedrich Ludwig Jahn. Jews who had made their way into new professions were soon made scapegoats for the consequences of early capitalist development (Hep!-Hep! Movement – Karl Marx, Zur Judenfrage, 1843). Despite enlightenment, the stereotypical accusations raised by Christians did not die down: the Jews were God-murderers, they denied the messiahship of Jesus, and were rejected by God because of their stubbornness. Some individual Catholics even supported the accusation of well-poisoning (Reichenhall 1831) and ritual murder (Augsburg 1845, the Catholic priest Josef Deckert, Vienna 1893). 2. The Kaiserreich (1871–1918). With the Berlin antiSemitism dispute launched in 1879/80 by H. v. → Treitschke the defamation of the Jews had conquered the university (headlines in the Preussische Jahrbücher 1879: “The Jews are our Misery”). In the same year the Berlin court preacher A. → Stoecker gave his first speech of incitement against Jews, thus making anti-Semitism an acceptable topic in party politics. Stoecker saw in liberalism the reason for the dismemberment of the life of the nation. Behind that he saw modern Reform Judaism, which was intent on “deceiving [the German people] as to its loyalty to the king and its faith.” He warned against the excessive foreignization of the German people by the Jews. For Stoecker, there could only be a solution to the Judenfrage if the Jews converted to Christianity. Neither Treitschke nor Stoecker were radical racist antiSemites, which made their influence on bourgeois society all the stronger. Anti-Semitic attacks by the Center Party in the 1870s and also the anti-Semitic pamphlet Der Talmudjude by the Catholic theologian August Rohling (1871) have to be seen, similarly, as a reaction to liberalism. The anti-Semitism of the late 19th century was not due so much to political parties. A truly anti-Semitic party like the Deutsche Reformpartei, formed in 1893, even in its heyday attained no more than 16 seats in the Reichstag. Demands for the deportation and annihilation of all Jews in Germany, expressed by this party on its annual convention in 1899, were not taken seriously by the general public. – At the end of the Empire the radical anti-Semitic parties no longer existed; not so in Austria, where anti-Semitic parties played quite

287 a significant role in the Reichsrat, esp. the Christian Social Party who, under the Mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, campaigned with anti-Semitic slogans. – The anti-Semites gathered increasingly in sect-like groups, unattached to particular political parties. They combined the traditional prejudices against Jews with racist doctrine (e.g. by Eugen Dühring and Theodor Fritsch) based on pseudo-scientific biological determinism. Anti-Semitism became a comprehensive worldview which offered the explanation and solution to all the problems of the world. – Much more important for the spread of an anti-Semitic mood in Germany were associations with a German nationalist orientation, such as the “Deutscher Nationaler Handlungsgehilfenverein” [German national association for commercial assistants] (founded in 1893) and the “Verein deutscher Studenten” [Association of German Students] (founded in 1881), whose regulations excluded Jews from membership. Anti-Semitism was also aided by racial theories, which – as Arthur Graf de Gobineau argued in his Versuche über die Ungleichheit der menschlichen Rassen [Essays on the Inequality of Human Races] (1855) – postulated a range of different values for the races, placing the Jews at the bottom of the scale. In his Foundations of the 19th Century, H.S. → Chamberlain used the terms “bastard race” and “culture-pests” of the Jews. Cultural critics like Julius Langbehn and P.A. de → Lagarde combined their critique of modernity with anti-Semitic overtones. 3. Weimar Republic (1918–1933). The defeat in the First World War, revolution and inflation as well as the mass influx of “Ostjuden” (Eastern Jews) fleeing the pogroms rekindled anti-Semitism. Without looking into the possible causes, the over-representativeness of Jews in particular professions such as doctors and lawyers was styled as a danger to the nation. Right-wing parties such as the “Deutsche nationale Volkspartei” made use of anti-Semitic slogans in the election campaign. The “National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP; → National Socialism) (founded in 1920) presented itself as an anti-Semitic party from the start. Its leader Adolf Hitler argued in his Mein Kampf for a “scheduled antiSemitism,” not an “anti-Semitism for purely emotional reasons.” Scheduled in three respects: for Hitler the racial doctrine was the only basis for anti-Semitism; his goal was the ultimate “removal” of the Jews altogether, and he moved the Judenfrage into the center of his political campaign. The NSDAP and later the Nazi state were to be the instruments with which the Jewish question was to be solved. Among committed Protestants the number of racist anti-Semites was relatively small prior to 1933. They include the “Bund für deutsche Kirche” (founded in 1921) and esp. the → Deutsche Christen, who during the Prussian church elections of 1932 argued for a

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism prohibition of “marriage between Germans and Jews.” Particularly fateful was the influence of a political theology (P. → Althaus, E. → Hirsch) which maintained the divine status of the nation and warned against “the Jewish threat to our nation.” Similarly, the well-known Catholic theologian K. → Adam saw the suppression of Jewish influence in Germany by the new government in 1933 “as a dutiful act of Christian Germanic selfassertion.” In the line of Stoecker many Protestants, and the later regional bishops H. → Meiser and T. → Wurm complained of the “dismantling” influence of the Jews in art, the press and politics. The “Association for Defense against Anti-Semitism” of the liberal Stuttgart pastor E. → Lamparter was unable to make much of an im-pression against the dominant attitudes. 4. Third Reich (1933–1945). The National Socialists converted the racist anti-Semitism they propounded into practical policy during the twelve years of their rule, in four systematic phases: 1933–1935 individual steps against the Jews, 1935–1938 increased discrimination on the basis of the Nürnberg race laws, 1938–1941 pogroms and increasing exclusion of Jews, 1941–1945 mass murder by execution and gassing (→ Holocaust). Inflammatory Nazi leaflets such as Julius Streicher’s Stürmer and Flammenzeichen accompanied the campaign against Judaism with associated propaganda. Even the majority of church-going Christians greeted the suppression of Jewish influence in German society at the beginning of the Third Reich. On the Protestant side, the campaign against the “Arian clause” propagated by the “Deutsche Christen” was the point of departure for the → Confessing Church. Nonetheless practically all clergy with a Jewish origin lost their posts in the German Evangelical church. The lack of solidarity by Christians with the Jews and even with Jewish Christians can only be explained by the combined effect of general enmity towards Jews and anti-Judaism, obedience to the authorities and fear of possible reprisals. Some courageous individual helpers such as H. → Grüber, Gertrud Luckner and W. → Sylten paid for their efforts with incarceration or death. Steps towards overcoming the still prevalent anti-Judaism of their day are found in K. → Barth, D. → Bonhoeffer and Hermann Maas. 5. Developments after the Second World War. Hopes that horror at the murder of millions of Jews would render hatred against Jews, anti-Judaism and antiSemitism impossible, have not been realized. In extreme right-wing parties and circles anti-Semitism serves as an instrument for the revision of the recent German past (the “Auschwitz lie”). Desecrations of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues have occurred many times since 1945, increasingly so after German reunification in 1989. According to surveys undertaken in the (former) Federal Republic of Germany some 20% of the German

Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism population have marked anti-Semitic prejudices and among a further 30% a latent anti-Semitism can be discerned (Silbermann). The churches took a long time to explain publicly how much responsibility they share for the Shoah as a result of their theology and behavior. It was only with hesitation that they began to undertake a critical review of their anti-Judaic prejudices. A significant move was made by the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) synod of Berlin-Weissensee in 1950, in which the theory of substitution was rejected and the continuing election of Israel emphasized, with on the Catholic side the → Vatican II declaration “Nostra aetate” no. 4 (1965). E. Sterling, Judenhaß. Die Anfänge des politischen Antisemitismus in Deutschland (1815–1850), 1969 ◆ A. Silbermann, Sind wir Antisemiten? Ausmaß und Wirkung eines sozialen Vorurteils in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1982 ◆ H. Greive, Geschichte des modernen Antisemitismus in Deutschland, 1983 ◆ D. Claussen, Vom Judenhaß zum Antisemitismus, 1987 ◆ R. Rürup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus. Studien zur »Judenfrage« der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, 1987 ◆ J.-C. Kaiser & M. Greschat, eds., Der Holocaust und die Protestanten, 1988 ◆ L. Poliakow, Geschichte des Antisemitismus, 8 vols., 1988 ◆ R. Rendtorff & H.H. Henrix, Die Kirchen und das Judentum. Dokumente von 1945–1985, 1988 ◆ M. Smid, Protestantismus und Judentum 1932/33, 1989 ◆ W. Bergmann & R. Erb, eds., Antisemitismus in der politischen Kultur nach 1945, 1990 ◆ E. Röhm & J. Thierfelder, Juden – Christen – Deutsche, 1990ff. (5 vols. to date) ◆ G.B. Ginzel, ed., Antisemitismus. Erscheinungsformen der Judenfeindschaft gestern und heute, 1991 ◆ L. Siegele-Wenschkewitz, ed., Christlicher Antisemitismus. Theologische und kirchliche Programme Deutscher Christen, 1994. Jörg Thierfelder

VII. Systematic Theology Anti-Semitism cannot simply be explained historically. For a theological or ethical assessment, a social-psychological analysis of the multifaceted social and historical phenomenon is essential. Ideological criticism shows that religious or (pseudo-) theological motives generally are secondary to social projections and conflicts. Blame (anti-Judaic) for the murder of Christ cannot be viewed as the primary motive of anti-Judaism (contra Ruether). Theological offers of a reduction of christology (esp. in Jewish-Christian dialogue) thus miss the central problem of anti-Semitism – slowness to come to terms with the strangeness or otherness of the Jewish faith and way of life and their social stigmatization. The messianic expectation in the OT is multiple; so in primitive Christianity there must have been an accentuation or even a redetermination which did not always represent competition with Jewish messianic expectation, as for Christians the hope of the restoration of the Davidic empire did not apply. Social prejudice makes use of stereotypes. They are connected with the question of the social identity of the prejudiced and cannot simply be removed by dogmatic or religious statements. Christians must therefore subject themselves to a strict self-analysis as to how they represent the truth claim of the testimony

288 given to them and must learn to see through its possible misuse. The identification of God with the Crucified One, through which God makes suffering and death his concern on the cross, must not be charged up into a kind of retribution against the supposed culprits. Like historical anti-Judaism, modern anti-Semitism is not fed directly by Christian motives. These have played a role in reinforcing an anti-Judaism that flows in from other sources. Alongside social threat and the forming of a nationalistic identity, pseudo-scientific biological systems of race are a central anti-Semitic motif (see VI, above). An unbribable scientific theoretical limitation of the claim of modern science – esp. of biology – against the temptation of boundary transgressions is a task of public responsibility, for Christians too. The warning against “naturalistic non-sequiturs” – from naturalistic observations to moral imperatives – gains a humanistic significance. If agreement on the justification of the sinner is not to remain without consequences, it must be interpreted as to its significance for the problem of social identity. To affirm the new freedom only abstractly – without reference to social identity – distorts the Reformed discovery and neglects the Pauline turn of the aeons to being in Christ. True Christian faith has no need of exclusion and certainly not of projection. This applies in particular to a conservatism that sees itself as threatened and defends itself with the aid of projections (e.g. as in the case of Stoecker). Christianity bears only indirect responsibility for modern anti-Semitism. Christian repentance for the persistent, dark anti-Jewish tradition must mean a reasoned self-reflection, esp. so when it is a matter of also avoiding counter-stereotypes. Rather, it is a matter of clarifying and changing unconsciously destructive basic attitudes – whether these are due to narrow authoritarian channeling or a conventional lack of insight. Research into prejudice teaches, however, that cognitive and emotive patterns are often closely linked, so that cognitive elucidation alone is rather ineffective. It seems it is possible to overcome prejudices only if new perspectives on reality are opened up to their bearers. This means, above all, overcoming a dualistic view as is found precisely in moralism. A philo-Semitism, which merely reverses the stereotypical pattern, can be a hidden variant of antiSemitism. But historical analysis also shows that in view of its murderous history anti-Semitism cannot simply be subsumed under the social-scientific rubric of prejudice. The event termed “Auschwitz” does not push traditional answers to the question of theodicy completely ad absurdum but proves that the history of the poorly administered but abysmally evil annihilation of human beings ultimately resists explanatory classification. The historical recourse to structure (Hans Mommsen) or to

289

Anton, Paul

antisemitically poisoned mentalities (Goldhagen) cannot provide an alternative; it is no better able to provide an adequate explanation for why Germans (and their helpers) could act in such a way. The thesis of a natural conscience falls apart in this history; the conscience proved either to be pathologically dumb, or to be clearly subject to complete perversion. In view of this completely unparalleled event, doubts not only about the effects of Christianity as a social religion but also about the enlightening powers of reason are appropriate. Only a faith that understands itself aright can put the necessary self-criticism of the Christian religion in motion with the necessary thoroughness. In view of the logical understanding and bureaucratically organized aggression displayed in the annihilation of the Jews, however, the question also arises of the selfcritical faculties of practical reason under the dominance of bureaucratically administered rationality, its possible human integrity and its understanding of evil. T.W. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswick et al., The Authoritarian Personality, 1950 ◆ H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitaranism, 1955, 51996 ◆ M. Horkheimer & T.W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 1947 ◆ R. Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism, 1974 ◆ B. Schäfer & B. Six, Sozialpsychologie des Vorurteils, 1978 ◆ H. Oberman, Wurzeln des Antisemitismus, 21982; ET: The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, 1986 ◆ G. Brakelmann & G. Rosowski, eds., Antisemitismus, 1989 ◆ D.J. Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and Holocaust, 1996. Christofer Frey

Antistes (Lat. anti-/antestare, to be at the head of, to deserve priority), in pre- and post-Christian times indicates the head of a cultic community, later also bishops, abbots, and the pope. In the reformed state churches of Switzerland, Antistes was the title of the highest cleric in the city. “Antistes Urbanis” (prelate of the papal house) was eliminated in the reform of the papal house (Mar 28, 1968). Antistes occurs in the liturgy and in the CIC (c. 667 § 4: antistita). M. Gelzer, 725f.

RGG3

I, 1957, 459 ◆ D. v. Huebner, LMA I, 1980, Wilhelm Rees

Antitrinitarians. The Antitrinitarian doctrine, known by the name “Socinian,” of the absolute unity of the divine person, was first formulated by the Spaniard M. → Servet (De Trinitatibus erroribus libri septem, 1531). F. → Sozzini, however, denied dependence on Servet and also held a fundamentally different view of many aspects of Christology. According to Socinian tradition, the beginnings of the → Socinians lie in secret meetings in Vicenza and other cities of Venuto, which, from c. 1546, discussed the doctrine of the → Trinity and finally came to doubt the deity of Christ. The central historiographic problem consists in determining the reciprocal influences between Anabaptists and Antitrinitarians, since a

general Anabaptist undercurrent can be traced during the entire 16th century. The first Antitrinitarian church was established in 1567 in → Transylvania, initiated by G. → Biandrata and F. → David, who later quarreled over the question of the worship of Christ. In the end, Sozzini’s doctrine prevailed. His “Rakow Catechism” (published posthumously: Polish 1605, German 1608, Latin 1609) interprets the Scripture as the supreme authority from a rational perspective and conceives of religious problems as problems of human understanding. When the → Unitarians also adopted this doctrine, under the leadership of J. → Priestley → Socinianism and Unitarianism merged. In the Universalist Church of Philadelphia, Priestley, in the presence of Vice-President T. → Jefferson and numerous members of Congress, gave twelve “lectures” and a “sermon on unitarism” (1795). E.M. Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, Socinianism and its Antecedents, 1945 ◆ idem, A History of Unitarianism in Transylvania, England and America, 1952 ◆ G.H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, 1962 ◆ idem, The Polish Brethren, 1980 ◆ R. Dán & A. Pirnát, eds., Antitrinitarianism in the Second Half of the 16th Century, 1982 ◆ L. Szczucki, ed., Socinianism and its Role in the Culture of the XVIth to XVIIIth Century, 1983 ◆ A. Stella, Dall’anabattismo veneto al “Sozialevangelismus” dei Fratelli Hutteriti e all’illuminismo religioso sociniano, 1996. Aldo Stella

Anton I (Oct 17, 1720 – Mar 1, 1788, Tbilisi). Anton, the son of the Georgian king Iese, was installed as Catholicus of the Georgian church in 1744. He was deposed in 1755 for exhibiting Catholic sympathies; in 1757 he became Metropolitan of the Russian church in Vladimir. Under King Irakli II (→ Georgia), he was allowed to return to his homeland in 1763. There he reformed the church and the liturgy, promoted education, and wrote many theological, historical, and philosophical works. M. Tarchnišvili & J. Assfalg, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 1955, 274–288. Hubert Kaufhold

Anton, Paul (Feb 12, 1661, Hirschfelde – Oct 20, 1730, Halle). Anton began his studies in Leipzig in 1680; in 1681 he became acquainted with P.J. → Spener. In 1686, together with A.H. → Francke, he founded the Collegium Philobiblicum, the nucleus of the Pietist movement in Leipzig. In 1695 Anton was called to Halle as professor of theology and consistory councilor. With J.J. → Breithaupt and Franke, he shaped the Pietistic theology of the Halle faculty. At the same time, his appreciation of the confessional documents led even the orthodox opponents of Halle Pietism (V.E. → Löscher) to consider him a potential mediator. Anton began his teaching work in Halle with lectures on apologetics; his major writings are Concilii Tridentini adeoque et pontificiorum doctrina publica (1697, often reprinted) and Collegium antitheticum (1732). He also wrote pamphlets on the Pietism controversy of the 1690s as well as

Antonelli, Giacomo devotional literature; in 1700, he published Christliche Gesänge. H. Leube, “Die Geschichte der pietistischen Bewegung in Leipzig (1921),” in: idem, Orthodoxie und Pietismus, ed. D. Blaufuss, 1975, 153–267 ◆ J. Wallmann, Der Pietismus, KIG 1, 1990, 73f. ◆ M. Brecht, “August Hermann Francke und der Hallische Pietismus,” in: idem, ed., Der Pietismus vom 17. bis zum frühen 18. Jahrhundert, 1993, 333–335, 454. Udo Sträter

Antonelli, Giacomo (Apr 2, 1806, Sonnino, near Terracina – Nov 6, 1876, Rome). In 1830, after studying in Rome, Antonelli began a career in the administration of the Papal States. On Jun 11, 1847, he was created cardinal, although he had only been ordained deacon. From 1847 to 1848, he was President of the Council of State. Personally charming and versatile, in theological and philosophical matters he was considered unprincipled. As Cardinal Secretary of State (after 1850), Antonelli had great influence on → Pius IX and his policies. R. Aubert, Le Pontificat de Pie IX (1846–1878), 1952 ◆ C. Weber, Kardinäle und Prälaten in den letzten Jahrzehnten des Kirchenstaates, PuP 13, 1978 (bibl.) ◆ F.J. Coppa, Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli and Papal Politics in European Affairs, 1990. Rudolf Reinhardt

Antonians. The Antonians are Eastern followers of the so-called Rule of St. Anthony, compiled in the 17th century from the Life of → Anthony of Egypt, his genuine and apocryphal writings, and the → Apophthegmata patrum. Among the → Maronites, there are three orders that were converted into non-monastic congregations by Pope → Pius XII on Dec 16, 1955: 1. The Aleppines (monks of Aleppo) had their rule confirmed in 1700; they are based in Ghazir, Lebanon. 2. On Apr 1, 1758, the Baladites separated from the Aleppines; they are based in Louaizé, Lebanon, and have missionaries in Egypt, Ghana, and South America. 3. The Antonians of St. Isaiah were founded in 1700 at the monastery of Mar Isaya on the initiative of Gabriel Blouzawi, bishop of Aleppo; they are based in Beirut. In 1953 a branch for women was established. The Chaldean Antonians of St. Hormizdas were founded by Gabriel Dembo in 1908, when he rebuilt the ruined monastery of Rabban Hormizd at Alqosh in Iraq; Alqosh has remained their center. The Armenian Antonians were founded by four brothers in 1705 at a monastery near Beirut. In 1752 they adopted the Rule of St. Anthony. During the period of religious and political turmoil under Patriarch Anton Hassoun (1869–1880), they joined the Armenian Apostolic Church. There have never been Ethiopian Antonians in the strict sense. On Jan 15, 1731, Pope Clement XII transferred to a group of Coptic monks the care of San Stefano dei Mori in Rome, a pilgrims’ hostel founded by Sixtus VI in 1551; today it houses the Ethiopian College, run by → Capuchins.

290 NCE I, 1967, 644–646 ◆ Heimbucher I, 51987, 74–76 ◆ K.S. Frank, LTK3 I, 1993, 782f. Hans-Joachim Härtel

Antoninus of Florence (Pierozzi) (1389 – May 2, 1459), the son of a Florentine notary, was canonically educated. He was the prior of various Italian Dominican monasteries (e.g. San Marco in Florence), auditor rotae, vicar general of the Observant branch of the order in central and southern Italy; in 1446, he became archbishop of → Florence ; he was canonized in 1523. His works (confessional guide, summa theologica moralis, chronicle of world history) were also distributed beyond Italy in many editions. RAMi 1990, 221–451 (several contributions, bibl.). Joachim Weinhardt

Antoninus Pius (T. Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus), Roman emperor (138–161 ce). He was from a wealthy senatorial family from southern Gaul and was married to Annia Galeria Faustina (aunt of → Marcus Aurelius. Because of family connections and his success in administration (Asia, Italy), he became a close advisor to, the adoptive son of, and finally the successor of the childless emperor → Hadrian. He differed from his predecessor in remaining present in Rome and Italy while simultaneously pursuing an expansive border policy (Germany, Britain) and in maintaining a good relationship with the Senate. The advance of oriental cults (→ Cybele), Gnosticism, and the positive development of Christian congregations through a long period of civil tranquility do not contradict his emphatically restorative Roman religious policy (model → Augustus; motto pietas). Antoninus Pius was the addressee of apologetic writings (→ Aristides, → Justin). Under his reign, there were isolated matrydoms (→ Ptolemy, Lucius, → Polycarp of Smyrna). W. Hüttl, Antoninus Pius, 1933/36 ◆ P. Kereszetes, “Rome and the Christian Church I,” ANRW II, 23,1, 1979, 247–315 ◆ H. Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum, “Antoninus Pius,” in M. Clauss, ed., Die römischen Kaiser, 1997, 137–144. Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum

Antonites (Hospitallers), a lay brotherhood founded at the end of the 11th century in connection with the church of La-Motte-aux-Bois (since the 14th cent.: St.-Antoine-enViennois), which possessed the relics of the desert father Antonius. They cared for those ill with St. Anthony’s fire (holy fire, ergot). The Antonites spread rapidly and were transformed in 1247 into a centralized order under the Rule of Augustine (→ Augustine, Rule of ). A period of decline began in the 14th century which could not be stopped even by several attempts at reform (1367, 1420– 1422, and 1478). By decision of the General Chapter of 1774, the society united with the → Knights of Malta.

291

Anxiety and Fear

A. Mischlewski, Grundzüge der Geschichte des Antoniterordens bis zum Ausgang des 15.Jh., BoBKG 8, 1976. Ulrich Köpf

Anusim → Conversos

Stietencron, ed., Angst und Gewalt, 1979 ◆ R. Schlesier, HRWG I, 1988, 455–471 ◆ H. von Stietencron, ed., Angst und Religion, 1991 ◆ A. Michaels, “Religionen und der neurobiologische Primat von Angst,” in: F. Stolz, ed., Homo naturaliter religiosus?, 1997, 89–135. Axel Michaels

Anxiety and Fear I. Religious Studies – II. Philosophy – III. Philosophy of Religion – IV. Practical Theology

I. Religious Studies Anxiety (Angst) or fear (anxiety is the deeper but less harmful form of the feeling) – S. → Freud scarcely differentiates between the terms – is an alteration in feeling and behavior triggered by pain, actual or expected, loss, or expected punishment. Somatic responses triggered by a perceived threat – perspiration, increased pulse rate, a sense of confinement (cf. Lat. angustus, “narrow, constricted”) – are associated with complex reactions of the limbic brain. In religion, physical fear is less important than cognitive fear of leaving this world and being punished in the next – so much so that critics of religion from antiquity (Statius: primus in orbe deos fecit timor [Thebaid 3, 661]) to modern times (L. → Feuerbach, S. → Kierkegaard, S. Freud, K. → Marx) have asserted that there is no fear without religion. – In his book Das Heilige (1917; ET: The Idea of the Holy), R. → Otto considered fear – the term religio meaning fear of God or the gods – to be a fundamental religious experience and described a curious “harmony of opposites”: the → mysterium tremendum is at the same time mysterium fascinans. According to Otto, fear and terror befall those confronted by the numinous – beginning with a demonic dread that is the wellspring of all religious phenomena, augmented by feelings of exaltation (majestas), wonder (mirum), and “creatureliness,” a sense of one’s own nullity. In fact, religions seek a close relationship with fear in two ways: both fearlessness, or freedom from fear (cf. John 16:33), and the embrace of fear are viewed as paths to salvation. Fear of God and knowledge of God are often mutually dependent. Since Freud, we have learned to associate compulsive neurotic actions and ritualized behavior in everyday life with religious conduct. Whether rituals help alleviate fear and anxiety, as Freud and B. → Malinowski maintain, or are an expression of fear is disputed; the consequences are far-reaching, because they touch on the (neuro-)biological primacy of fear, to which religions usually attach little importance. Religions both mitigate and engender fear: they encourage fear of the gods (“fear the Lord!”), fear of punishment and temptation, fear of hell, Satan, the last judgment, the end of the world, the apocalypse. Belief in ancestors, spirits, the restless dead is often fraught with dread. The demographic prevalence of fear is probably independent of types of religion. R. Otto, Das Heilige, 1917; ET: The Idea of the Holy, 1923 ◆ O. Pfister, Das Christentum und die Angst, 1944, 21975 ◆ H. von

II. Philosophy G.W.F. → Hegel identified the “fear of death, the absolute Lord,” as the fundamental experience of negativity in the genesis of self-consciousness. With J. → Böhme (see III below) and J.G. → Hamann in the background, F.W.J. → Schelling then brought together fear and freedom to explain the origin of evil. The metaphysical conflict of the will between the universal and the particular is aggravated to become the clash of freedom with itself in its deep “desire for creaturely existence.” A sense of vertigo facing the abyss gives rise to evil: “The dread of life itself drives the individual from the center for which he was created.” Following Schelling, Kierkegaard sought to reconstruct the fall as described in Gen 3 “psychologically.” According to Begrebet angest (1844), anxiety or dread as the “vertigo of freedom” is a constitutive factor in freedom’s self-apprehension. A human being must realize himself individually as spirit. Initially, however, the spirit experiences its own reality as potentiality and hence experiences dread as a crisis in the story of its own origin. In contrast to fear, which relates to something specific, anxiety is fundamentally in itself an index of “nothingness” as the freedom that abandons itself to self-differentiation. M. → Heidegger therefore understood anxiety and fear ontologically. The existential modes of being of (human) “Dasein” include attunement, in which “the being of Dasein can break forth as naked ‘that it is and has to be’” (thrownness into Dasein). Fear is a concrete mode of such an existential orientation: phenomenologically, the object of fear encounters us as a phenomenon of threatening nature in the world. Variants of fear include terror, horror, dismay. But it is anxiety that constitutes the original possibility of finding “Dasein”. In an ontologically marked manner, this basic state of affairs produces “Dasein” as “care” for itself. It is anxiety that fundamentally and ontologically makes fear possible and comprehensible. For “the object of anxiety is being-in-the-world as such,” i.e. nothing that has being within the world. In anxiety, “Dasein” is not aware of a specific threat posed by this or that: its object is totally undefined, a worldly “nothing.” “Fear” is thus an inauthentic anxiety under the spell of the world and hidden from itself; it disguises, as it were, the primal “authentic” anxiety. K.→ Jaspers and J.-P.→ Sartre also describe anxiety in similar terms as an existential boundary experience (“absolute consciousness”). Sources and works: G.W.F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes 1806/07, ed. W. Bonsiepen & R. Heede, in: G.W.F. Hegel, Gesammelte Werke, pub. Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der

Anxiety and Fear Wissenschaften, vol. IX, 1980 ◆ F.W.J. Schelling, Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit und die damit zusammenhängenden Gegenstände, 1809, ed. T. Buckheim, 1997 ◆ S. Kierkegaard, Begrebet angest, 1844; ET The Concept of Anxiety, ed. and trans. R. Thompte, 1980 ◆ M. Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, 171993 ◆ K. Jaspers, Philosophie, vol. II: Existenzerhellung, 1932 ◆ M. Heidegger, Schelling: Vom Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit (1809), Vorlesung 1936, ed. I. Schüssler, Gesamtausgabe vol. XLII, 1988 ◆ J.-P. Sartre, L’être et le néant, 1943, 501957 ◆ M. Theunissen, Der Begriff Ernst bei S. Kierkegaard, 1958 ◆ G. Figal, Martin Heidegger, Phänomenologie der Freiheit, 1988. Joachim Ringleben

III. Philosophy of Religion To categorize anxiety and fear as phenomena relevant to the philosophy of religion is to recognize their heuristic function with respect to the concept and truth of religion itself. In the context of Christian thought, such an assessment hardly antedates the discipline of the philosophy of religion from which it arises: it is essentially a product of the 19th and 20th centuries. An exception is Böhme, who maintained that anxiety plays a central role specific to creation and revelation, indeed that it must be considered a universal principle of vitality itself. Although Böhme expounds this thesis anthropologically (e.g. Werke, vol. VI, 254), he focuses his attention on its theosophical dimension. Kierkegaard, too, initially addresses his theme anthropologically: anxiety (“dread” in some ETs) represents a fundamental human disposition that discloses the nature of being; it marks the individual as a synthesis of body and psyche (or time and eternity), sustained by freedom or spirit (The Concept of Anxiety, 48, 88). Its peculiar vulnerability to perversion is religio-philosophically noteworthy: it is not real freedom that is anxious of itself (in fact it countermands the real possibility that is the source of anxiety), but only unfree freedom, bound or “entangled” by anxiety (ibid., 49). Kierkegaard shows how the attempt to transform the frightening, undefined “nothing” that is its object into an even more frightening “something” inevitably distorts the conception of God and of self. Conversely, the realization of freedom, which abolishes anxiety, coincides with consciousness of sin – that is, with the truth about its opposite. In the context of certain 20thcentury theories of anxiety, Kierkegaard’s analysis finds a congenial complement or extension in R. Otto (see I above) and P. → Tillich. Tillich’s late work The Courage to Be (1952) takes as its starting point a dynamic concept of being that owes much to Böhme and Schelling, defining being as a creative process, the power of being even in the grip of non-being, or the “negation of the negation of being” (ibid., 176). In humans, this power of being takes on the character of conscious self-affirmation, which as such takes place in the medium of courage. Anxiety is thus the specifically human aspect of the negation of being. It can be countered only by the form

292 of religious courage that, accepting total meaninglessness, gives birth to the courage of “absolute faith” (ibid.) in the power of being of a transtheistic “God above God” (ibid., 186). Sources and works: S. Kierkegaard, Begrebet angest, 1844; ET The Concept of Anxiety, ed. and trans. R. Thompte, 1980 ◆ J. Böhme, Sämtliche Werke, vols. I–VII, ed. K.W. Schiebler, 21922 ◆ P. Tillich, The Courage to Be, 1952 ◆ E. Benz, “Die Angst in der Religion,” in: G. Benedetti et al., Die Angst, 1959, 189–221 ◆ G. Wehr, Jacob Böhme, 1971 ◆ H. von Ditfurth, ed., Aspekte der Angst, 21977 ◆ K. Nordentoft, Kierkegaard’s Psychology, 21981 ◆ P. Steinacker, “Der Mut zum Sein,” in: J. Speck, ed., Grundprobleme der großen Philosophen: Philosopie der Gegenwart, vol. VI, 1984, 157–188 ◆ B. Görlich, “Angst”, in: C. Wulf, ed., Historische Anthropologie, 1997, 874–884. Heiko Schulz

IV. Practical Theology Considerations of practical theology arise from similarities and differences with regard to the ways the social sciences and humanities deal with anxiety and fear. From a psychoanalytic perspective, anxiety is a sign of expected loss, punishment, or self-destructive behavior, while the specific object, event, or memory that provokes anxiety has been lost to consciousness. The mystery emerges from the subconscious and is perceived as anxiety. Conscious efforts to counteract this anxiety without identifying its hidden and buried source produce defense mechanisms and neurotic symptoms. Psychoanalysis and medicine believe that the appropriate way to reduce anxiety is to re-associate it with the original threat or the source of the individual’s sense of helplessness. This process transforms anxiety into the original fear, so that the individual can address the object of anxiety and decide against it. The therapeutic process employs language and symbols to bring the hidden object to light and achieve what S. Freud identified as the goal of all therapy, namely “giving the patient the freedom to decide for or against his neurosis.” What the analyst does through accurate and appropriate language, society and culture attempt to accomplish by institutional means. Social and cultural forms of expression, from modern art through political ideology to psychoanalytic theory and practice can also ossify and display the compulsive behavior of neurotic systems. Even when such institutions successfully free individuals or groups from their neurotic symptoms and enable them to look the real fear that accompanies everyday life in the eye, existential anxiety remains. At every level of human activity (personal, social, and cultural), efforts to reduce anxiety by purely conscious and programmatic means succeed only in producing or intensifying neurotic behavior. On the other hand, being set free from a socially produced neurosis can produce an intensified existential anxiety. In the view of (practical) theology, the inescapable anxiety bound up with the structure of human existence is evidence of “original sin,” here simply understood as separation from God, the source and ground of human

293

Apartheid

existence. Achievement of reunion with God – “possessed by the ground of being” (Tillich) or “grounded transparently in the power that established the self ” (Kierkegaard) or “born of the spirit” ( John) – immediately alters the fundamental structure of human existence. One can then with one’s entire being achieve the courage of faith, which conquers the fundamental anxiety caused by the separation of the individual from God. See the references in I–III above.

James E. Loder

Apache. Athapaskan-speaking peoples came from northeastern Asia to North America, perhaps as early as 10,000 years ago. Some of their descendants, the Apache and → Navajo, migrated south between 1100 and 1500 ce and occupied territory in the American southwest. There are six Apache tribes: the Jicarilla, Lipan, Kiowa Apache, the Mescalero, Chiricahua, and the Western Apache. Religion, like all aspects of their social life, is based on kin relations. Social divisions are based on age, gender, and descent. The egalitarian nature of the society is reflected in religion. There are no religious institutions or groups, no hierarchy of supernatural beings, nor sharp separations of animate and inanimate, of natural and supernatural, of secular and sacred, or of priest and shaman. The world is full of spirits and powerful forces: atmospheric spirits (whirlwinds and lightning), animal spirits (bears [→ Bear Festival ] and snakes), and ghosts of deceased kinsmen. According to origin narratives, the Apache were brought from the Underworld by supernatural forces or beings after the Earth and Sky were created and populated with plants and animals. People do not stand above or apart from nature, but are an integral part of all things in their environment. Many things in nature are personified, like “Dawn Boy” and Coyote, and have holy powers attributed to them. The four cardinal directions have special meaning and the number four occurs repeatedly in most religious events. Minor ceremonies of songs and prayers, such as for success in hunting or finding lost objects, may last from a few minutes to several hours. Major ceremonies, such as the girl’s puberty rite or curing rites, usually last four days. These major ceremonies require elaborate preparations and materials, and only few individuals have the knowledge to conduct them. All adults know what causes harm or wards off danger. However, some individuals seek special supernatural power. Some attain this through visions, or through a sign, such as being struck by lightning, while others acquire power through apprenticeships, or power may come from a combination of these sources. Irrespective of the source of knowledge, the message is the same: man is part of a seamless web with the underworld, the sky, plants, animals, geographical and atmospheric features united in a harmonious universe.

G. Goodwin, “White Mountain Apache Religion,” AmA 40, 1938, 24–37 ◆ M.E. Opler, An Apache Life-Way, 1941 ◆ idem, The Character and Derivation of the Jicarila Holiness Rite, 1943 ◆ idem, “The Jicarila Apache Ceremonial Relay Race,” AmA 46, 1944, 75–97 ◆ K.H. Basso, The Gift of Changing Women, 1966 ◆ idem, Western Apache Witchcraft, 1969. H. Clyde Wilson

Apáczai Csere, János (1625, Apáca – 1659, Klausenburg), Hungarian reformed teacher and scholar. After university studies in the Netherlands, Apáczai became professor in 1653 at the college of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Julia), where his inaugural lecture harshly criticizing the educational situation in Transylvania caused strong displeasure, also on the part of the prince. Because of alleged insubordination, Apáczai was transferred to the reformed Latin school in Klausenburg, where he died prematurely. His culturo-political programmatic writings (e.g. De summa scholarum necessitate, 1656), which exhibit kinship with the suggestions for pedagogical reform by Johann Henrich Bisterfield and J.A. → Comenius, survive only in manuscript. His major work, Magyar Encyclopaedia, appeared, however, in 1655 in Utrecht and broke new ground in terms of content (in the reduced logic of P. → Ramus, following the epistemology of R. → Descartes) and with thoroughly new Hungarian terms for the exact sciences. Concerning state, society, and morals, Apáczai expressed his decided Presbyterianism; on matters of theology, his main influence was W. → Amesius. I. Bán, Apáczai Csere, Johann, 1958.

Bálint Keserü

Aparecida is the most important site for pilgrimages to Mary in→ Brazil (with approx. 6 million pilgrims annually) on the Paraíba River in São Paulo. In 1717, fishermen drew a clay figurine, “Our Lady of the Conception,” from the water. Venerated by the people, the church recognized it in 1743. Emperor Don Pedro I placed independent Brazil under her protection in 1822. The first organized pilgrimage took place in 1873. The first basilica was built in 1888; she was proclaimed patroness of Brazil in 1931. In 1958, Aparecida was elevated to an archdiocese with three suffragan bishoprics. Since Sep 7, 1995, it has been the starting point of the annual campaign, “Cry of the Excluded” (→ Pilgrimage/ Places of Pilgrimage: III). J. Brustoloni, A Senhora da Conceição Aparecida, 1984. Osmar Gogolok

Apartheid I. Definition – II. History – III. Theology of Apartheid

I. Definition “Apartheid” (Afrikaans for “apartness,” “separateness”) refers to the official political system in South Africa between 1948 and 1994. Called “separate development”

Apartheid since the 1960s, it sanctioned a strict racial segregation (→ Racism) and the political and economic discrimination against all people legally classified as “non-white.” II. History The history of racial conflict, segregation, and discrimination reaches back to the beginning of colonization. It intensified particularly after the British occupation of 1806. A variety of laws limited black land ownership and forced black people to sell their labor. After the discovery of diamonds (1867) and gold (1886) laws further restricted the movement of black people, requiring them to carry passes, introducing job reservation, and controlling social practices in a variety of ways. Racial segregation and discrimination were therefore widely practiced during the first half of the 20th century. Laws included the dispossession of land from the black majority (Natives Land Act, 1913; Location Act 1923), the denial of the vote, and migratory labor control. In 1948 the National Party gained office, extended the policy further and called it “Apartheid.” Segregation was now comprehensively enforced on the basis of the Population Registration Act of 1950, classifying people according to race. The Group Areas Act (1950, 1957, 1961) enforced separated residential and business areas. Other laws forbade most forms of social contact, established segregated public institutions and educational systems, enforced job restrictions, and denied black people participation in the government. During the era of H.F. Verwoerd (Prime Minister, 1958–1966) ideological Apartheid found full political expression. The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act (1970) classified every black person, irrespective of their actual residence, as a citizen of one of the ten newly created African homelands. During the 1950s blacks mobilized themselves increasingly against white domination in the Defiance Campaign. After the Sharpeville Massacre (1960) the African Nationalist Congress and the Pan African Congress were banned. Organized black opposition was oppressed and many leaders imprisoned. The uprising in Soweto (1976) intensified the resistance and the oppression all over the country. Prisoners, like Steve Biko, died in detention. Several moderate reforms were made in an attempt to withstand the increasing external pressures, but without success. The Constitution was changed, and Coloreds and Indians were offered participation in a three-chamber Parliament, with black people still excluded. In 1985 a State of Emergency was declared. The country gradually became ungovernable and the economy was in danger of collapse. In February 1990 Frederik Willem de Klerk lifted the bans on restricted organizations and released Nelson Mandela from prison. Officially the Apartheid era ended with democratic

294 elections in April 1994 and with the implementation of a new democratic Constitution in February 1997. III. Theology of Apartheid Official Apartheid was legitimated by an ideology and even a “theology of Apartheid.” In 1857 the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC), revoking an earlier decision, declared that “due to the ‘weakness’ of some,” blacks and whites could worship separately. What started as an exception gradually became the order of the church. In 1881 a separate Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC) was founded for “colored” people, to be followed by other ethnic churches. The church policy of separate churches became one of the major religious roots of the ideology and political policy of Apartheid. Between the 1920s and 1940s strong nationalistic ideas became widespread among the white Afrikaner people. The origins of these ideas lay in 19th and early 20thcentury Europe, but local conditions as well as political and economic realities and interests caused their growing popularity. Local Afrikaner theologians supported these nationalistic notions. Particularly important was neo-Calvinism with its emphasis on pluriformity in creation. During the 1930s and 1940s representatives of the white Afrikaner churches increasingly appealed to government for laws to protect their rights to cultural, ethnic and national survival and self-determination, to prohibit racially mixed marriages, and to establish separate schools and residential areas. Increasingly, “scriptural proofs” were provided. The Sharpeville Massacre brought a turning-point. An ecumenical consultation was held in Cottesloe. Moderate resolutions were taken, emphasizing the unity of the church and denying biblical support for Apartheid. A public storm erupted. The different synods of the DRC rejected the Cottesloe decisions and repudiated their own leadership. The DRC adopted documents such as “Human Relations and the South African scene in the light of Scripture” in 1974. More important was the fact that the social, economic, cultural, political, and religious practices of Apartheid were by now accepted by most members of these churches as the divine will and as ethical imperatives. Church leaders critical of Apartheid were rejected. Nevertheless, opposition in church circles against Apartheid increased. The Christian Institute was formed by Beyers Naudé and others. In 1968 the South African Council of Churches published the Message to the People of South Africa, condemning Apartheid as a “pseudo-gospel.” Archbishop Desmond → Tutu became well known through his leadership against Apartheid and in 1984 he received the Nobel peace prize. In 1970 the → World Council of Churches established the “Programme to Combat Racism.” Many Christian churches worldwide rejected Apartheid as a sin and its theological

295

Aphek

justification as heresy. Of particular importance was the criticism from within the Dutch Reformed Church-family itself. In 1978 the (colored) DRMC rejected the ideology of Apartheid as being in conflict with the gospel’s message of reconciliation. In 1982 the DRMC declared a status confessionis and drafted the “Belhar Confession,” confessing God as the God of one church, of reconciliation and of justice, and thereby rejecting the theology of Apartheid. The Kairos Document (1985) and the Road to Damascus (1989) offered more radical statements. Documents of evangelical and Pentecostal circles followed. Church and Society (1986, revised 1990) retracted the biblical justification of Apartheid; although it was ambiguous in many respects, it caused a split in the DRC. In November 1990 the most representative meeting ever of South African churches met at Rustenburg. Members of the DRC made a public confession of guilt. The full meeting issued a Declaration, confessing guilt in supporting Apartheid, rejecting its theological support as heresy and sin, and calling for concrete forms of restitution. W.A. de Klerk, The Puritans in Africa, 1976 ◆ J.H.P. Serfontein, Apartheid, Change and the NG Kerk, 1982 ◆ G.D. Cloete & D.J. Smit, A Moment of Truth, 1984 ◆ J.W. de Gruchy, The Church Struggle in South Africa, 21986 ◆ J. Cochrane, Servants of Power, 1987 ◆ J.A. Loubser, The Apartheid Bible, 1987 ◆ Z. Mbali, The Churches and Racism, 1987 ◆ C. Villa-Vicencio, Trapped in Apartheid, 1988 ◆ L. Alberts & F. Chikane, eds., The Road to Rustenburg, 1991 ◆ J.W. de Gruchy, Liberating Reformed Theology, 1991. Dirk J. Smit

Apathy I. Philosophy – II. Dogma

I. Philosophy ἀπάθεια/apatheia, “freedom from affects,” is a central concept in Stoic ethics. As did the competing Epicureans (→ Epicureanism) and Pyrrhoneans (→ Skepticism: I), the → Stoics saw happiness, regarded as the telos (goal), in inner peace, in the calm and balance of the soul. In their view, the → affect, an “overdeveloped urge,” escaped from the control of reason, threatened these qualities (SVF 3,378). It results when reason falsely evaluates something unavailable as a good. The danger of failure to attain produces an inner excitement that grows into the affect. It is important, therefore, that reason should make no false value judgments. Since this lies in our power, the Stoics, in contrast to the Peripatetics (→ Aristotle), considered perfect apathy attainable. To this end, reason must achieve the insight that, in the end, all things are unavailable and are, therefore, not goods, but → adiaphora, matters of indifference. This insight, itself, is the only truly available objective. It constitutes virtue (ἀρετή /aretē), the only true good. It alone is sufficient to guarantee apathy, for insight into the indifference of all things hinders the development of any affect whatsoever (ibid., 201). The Stoics compared apathy to a smoothly

flowing stream, defining happiness as “the smooth flow of life” (εὔροια βίου/euroia biou, ibid. 16; 144). M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 41970 ◆ M. Hossenfelder, Stoa, Epikureismus und Skepsis, 21995. Malte Hossenfelder

II. Dogmatics The Church Fathers formulated the doctrine of God’s apathy (Lat. impassibilitas): God is free of → emotions (II) as the varying affective circumstances characteristic of human beings. They argued that (a) the passive character of emotions is irreconcilable with God’s → perfection and especially with God’s → aseity and that (b) any change in God’s affect would necessarily abrogate God’s eternal bliss. For the most part, contemporary theology no longer accepts this doctrine and seeks to take its bearings from the biblical image of a feeling and emotionally involved God. Theology argues that (a) any → theodicy that takes seriously the suffering of sacrifices requires the notion of a suffering God; (b) the God we encounter in Christ is a suffering God; (c) God cannot be incapable of suffering if God is love. Thus, the discussion shifts from the debate for or against God’s ability to suffer to the implications of the idea that God is capable of emotions. Various trinitarian models of God’s ability to suffer have been developed ( Jürgen Moltmann, H.U. v. → Balthasar, Amuluche Gregory Nnamani), and the question of whether the assumption of God’s ability to suffer impinges on the traditional doctrine of the incorporeality of God has been examined (Marcel Sarot). J. Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 1973; ET: The Crucified God, 1994 ◆ R.E. Creel, Divine Impassibility, 1986 ◆ H. Frohnhofen, Apatheia tou Theou, 1987 ◆ P. Fiddes, The Creative Suffering of God, 1988 ◆ T.R. Krenski, Passio Caritatis, 1990 ◆ M. Sarot, God, Passibility and Corporeality, 1992 ◆ A.G. Nnamani, The Paradox of a Suffering God, 1995. Marcel Sarot

Apelles (d. after 180), the most important disciple of → Marcion, was a Christian teacher in Alexandria and Rome. He moderated his master’s dualism: below the highest, good God there are two angelic deities, namely the creator of the world and the “fiery” God of the OT. Christ forms his body from the matter of the heavenly bodies. Apelles applied rationalist criticism to the OT. His norms were Marcion’s “NT” canon (and a gospel of his own?), as well as the Revelations (phaneroseis) of the prophetess Philumene. The latter are no longer extant, nor are his Syllogisms. CPG 1, 1150 ◆ A. von Harnack, Marcion, 21924, 177–196, 404– 420 ◆ É. Junod, “Les attitudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, à l’égard de l’Ancien Testament,” Aug 12, 1982, 113–133. Gerhard May

Aphek (Sharon). Aphek, in the plain of Sharon (Heb.  $ , Akkad. uruAp-qu, Aram. hpq, Gk Ἀϕεκ

Aphrodisias [also Aphekos, Pēgai, Antipatris], Arab. Rās al-aAyn, crusader Mirabel), is situated 12 km east of Tel Aviv, near the source of the river Jarkon, to which Aphek owes its name, “Source”. It is located on one of the main highways of Canaan and appears already in Egyptian execration texts (19th cent. bce) and in topographical lists. In the MBA and LBA periods it was a city-state but in the 13th century probably became an Egyptian fortress, which was destroyed in the 12th century. This was followed by a fortress of the → Philistines (1 Sam 4:1; 29:1). The apparent Israelite settlement referred to in Josh 12:18 originated in the 10th century. The Hellenistic city of Pegae had been situated on the original mound. It was expanded by → Herod the Great and its name changed to “Antipatris.” Subsequently Aphek became the location of a Byzantine military settlement and of an Umayyad palace, followed by a crusader fortress and an Ottoman fortress. A. Eitan, P. Beck & M. Kochavi, NEAEHL I, 1993, 62–72. Edward Lipiński

Aphrodisias is a Greek town in Caria (Asia Minor), approx. 90 km east of Miletus. From time immemorial it was a shrine of the mother goddess of Asia Minor. The town flourished during the Imperial era and developed into one of the most important cultural centers of Anatolia. There is no evidence of Christianity in Aphrodisias prior to the 4th century but there had been an influential Jewish community there for a considerable period of time. In 1976 a major Greek inscription was found with a listing of 125 benefactors of the Jewish community: 68 Jews, 54 → God-fearers and three → proselytes. The significance of this inscription, among other things, is that it settles once for all the argument against the existence of a distinct group of God-fearers. K.T. Erim, Aphrodisias, 1986 ◆ J. Reynolds & R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias, 1987 ◆ C.M. Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, 1989. Pieter W. van der Horst

Aphrodite (᾽Αϕροδίτη; Lat. Venus). Most of the Greek cities dedicated shrines to the Greek goddess Aphrodite; she is rarely found as the city deity, as in Aphrodisias in Asia Minor; Corinth is considered her city. Within the internal social structure of the polis Aphrodite was chosen as goddess in the following contexts: 1. By young women on the day before the wedding; women asked her for sexual desire, the art of seduction, sexual ability if the marriage proved to be barren. Her companions were Himeros (“desire”), → Eros, Peitho (“persuasion”) and Harmonia. Marriage itself was protected by Hera. 2. The women’s festival of Adonia, in which women sowed Adonis seed in shallow soil, was widely observed. When they discarded it again shortly after sprouting, they were lamenting → Adonis in death.

296 The practical function of testing the seed’s ability to germinate, as well as female self-confidence were associated with this practice. 3. Aphrodite was also venerated by men, especially seafarers, or when they safely returned from war. The funny song (Hom. Od. 8, 266–366), recounting how Aphrodite is caught in her infidelity with Ares by her husband Hephaistos, shows the two adventurers somewhat on the fringe of the Olympian gods, subject to their scorn (similarly Hom., Il. 5, 426ff., 830ff.). By means of Aphrodite’s magic belt Hera succeeds in beguiling her husband Zeus. Aphrodite, however, is not the offspring of Zeus but is said to have been conceived by her grandfather Uranos, when Cronus emasculated him and his genitals still produced aphros (“foam”) in the sea. Iconographic depictions repeatedly point to an eastern origin, e.g. the armed Aphrodite pointing to → Ishtar and → Astarte, bisexuality, and her nudity, though Greek art certainly avoided the latter for a long time. The association with the planet Venus, as the epiclesis Urania (“heavenly”) suggests, remains vague and is suppressed in favor of the origin related to Uranos. In the pantheon of → Aegean religion during the Bronze Age Aphrodite’s name is not found. The Greeks called her Kypris, “the one from Cyprus,” where she dominated important shrines in Paphos and Amathous; both originated in the Mycenaean period. Other shrines are clearly of Phoenician origin, such as the one on the Eryx in Sicily and on the island of Kythera, with Venus being armed, which was widely known in the nearby Peloponnese. In Asia Minor Aphrodite is identified as Cybele, as in Caria (Aphrodisias), for instance. As the mother of Aeneas she is propagated in the late Republican period as the tutelary goddess of the Romans and especially of the family of Julius → Caesar. During the Imperial period, with its inclination against sexuality, Aphrodite was polemicized against, especially vigorously by the Early Church. Conversely, the neoplatonic Renaissance chose Aphrodite as its goddess. Sources: Hom. II.5 (Origin of Zeus, 370) ◆ Hes. Theog., 188–206 ◆ Hom. Hymn. 5 ◆ Pindar Frgm., 122 ◆ Herodotus Hist. 1. 105 ◆ Plato, Symp. 180f. ◆ Virgil Aen. 1. 305–409. On Aphrodite: M. Nilsson, Minoan-Myceanaean Religion, 21950, 336–339 ◆ E. Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, 1967, 141–151 ◆ W. Burkert, “Griechische Religion,” RM 15, 1977, 238–243 ◆ F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte, 1985, 64–67, 260–264 ◆ G.J. Baudy, Adonisgärten, 1986 ◆ S. Böhm, Die “Nackte Göttin,” 1990 ◆ J. Flemberg, Venus armata, 1991 ◆ G. Colbow, Die kriegerische Ištar, 1991 ◆ V. Pirenne-Delforge, L’Aphrodite grecque, 1994. Christoph Auffarth

Aphthartodocetism, from Gk ἀ (negation), ϕθείρω/ ptheirō, “perish, decay” and δοκέω/dokeō, “appear.” From c. 518 onwards, the Aphthartodocetae (Lat. incorrupticolae) differed from the → Monophysites in asserting that Christ’s body was eternally incorruptible. Until

297 the end of the 6th century, their sphere of influence embraced Syria and Egypt, as well as Armenia until the Council of Manzikert in 726. Aphthartodocetism arose as an internal division within Monophysitism, which maintained that even after the incarnation Jesus Christ had but a single divine nature – in contrast to the definition of → Chalcedon, which maintained the doctrine of (→ Two Natures Doctrine). The protagonists of the dispute were → Severus of Antioch and → Julian of Halicarnassus. In Egypt, the followers of → Gaianus refined aphthartodocetism by teaching that Christ had assumed only the form of a body. This assertion was condemned by Komitas in Armenia around 618. Until 627, Armenian documents condemned Severus and cited Julian as a saint. The Armenian Catholicus Johannes Odznetsi supported aphthartodocetism to maintain unity with the Syrian followers of Severus. G. Garitte, La Narratio de rebus Armeniae, 1956, 108–278 ◆ M. van Esbroeck, “Un court traité pseudo-basilien de mouvance aaronite,” Muséon 100, 1987, 385–395 ◆ idem, “Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III et quelques documents annexes au Quinisexte,” in: G. Nedungatt, ed., The Council in Trullo Revisited, 1995, 338–363 ◆ On Komitas see Samuel d’Ani, ed. A. Ter-Mikelian, 1893, 289–291. Michel van Esbroeck

Apocalypse I. Form and Genre – II. Literature (in Antiquity)

I. Form and Genre 1. Genre. Apocalypse as a literary genre represents a genre of revelatory literature found predominantly in early Jewish and early Christian literature, although it is also attested in Middle Persian, Greco-Roman, and Gnostic literature. Apocalypses can appear as independent texts or compilations as parts of larger documents or other genres. In contrast to Judeo-Christian marginal groups (→ Mysticism: III, → Gnosis/Gnosticism: III, IV) of later times, rabbinic Judaism and the main churches (Revelation notwithstanding) have not adopted or canonized this literary genre. 2. Terminology. The generic designation “apocalypse” from the Greek ἀποκάλυψις (“disclosure”) was decisively influenced by the self-reference in the prologue of Revelation (1:1), even though there are indications of extraChristian origins. It should not be understood only as part of a title, but also as reference to a genre. “Apocalypse,” however, does not represent a comprehensive term for revelatory literature in general. 3. Definition, Method: The hierarchy of abstraction leads from (a) style via (b) textual type to (c) genre and sub-genre (see below). Synthesis: (a) An account is concerned with a series of real or fictive events that occurs, relative to the time of the narrator, in the past (res historia; following Johannes de Garlandia, Poetria – 13th cent.) or in the future (res

Apocalypse futura) and that contains a change. (b) A revelatory document is concerned with events of world history, of a people, or of an individual that occur in the past (res historia) and lead to consequences for the future (res futura). (c) An apocalypse is concerned with a series of events in the universal history of humanity or the universe (res historia) and represents a genre of relevatory literature within a narrative framework. It reveals knowledge of a transcendent reality, which is both temporal (the present versus the coming era), to the extent that it promises cosmic and universal eschatological salvation or disaster (res futura), and spatial (this world versus the world beyond), to the extent that it involves a supernatural world (res supra-naturalia). Analysis: A paradigmatic perspective yields a specific combination of characteristics for apocalypse. The textual-syntactic-structural characteristics are: (a) for apocalypses with heavenly journeys, literary forms or sub-genres such as reports of journeys to heaven or the underworld (differentia specifica); dream visions; ecstatic visions; throne visions; judgment scenes; revelation monologues; revelation dialogues; interpretation discussions (the Jewish and Christian apocalypses of this sub-genre have their closest models as regards structure in Iranian and Greco-Roman literature); (b) for apocalypses with vision reports, literary forms or sub-genres such as reports of visions (differentia specifica); symbolic dream visions; epiphanies; revelation monologues; revelation dialogues; interpretation discussions; prayers (the Jewish and Christian apocalypses of this sub-genre have their closest models in Babylonian-Mesopotamian and OT literature); (c) for apocalypses with vision reports and heavenly journeys, roughly the same characteristics apply as above. All apocalypses possess a narrative framework and are composed in a broad, metaphorical or mythological-symbolic style. The textual-semantic characteristics are: (a) a revelatory hierarchy of agents: divine figures or angels as supernatural mediators of revelation; earthly (mostly pseudonymous) figures from the past as conveyors and authors of the textual record of the revelations, (b) revelations of a temporal nature: periodization of history into ages with the foundation of the res futura in the res historia; ex eventu prophecies; universalistic eschatology with final judgment and resurrection of the dead, judgment and destruction of the world together with the redemption and renewal of the world through the appearance of a redeemer; historical overviews in future form relative to the whole of world history or developments within history, (c) revelations of a spatial nature: the dualism between this world and the world beyond; the parallelism between martial decisions on the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels; natural events and social disorder in this world. In later Jewish and Christian apocalypses, the center of gravity

Apocalypse shifts increasingly from cosmic complications to complications within the religious community. The textualpragmatic characteristics apply to all apocalypses and are, in part, generative, and in part, final in nature. Apocalypses are composed in response to external stimuli. (a) Generative setting in life: various crises or problem situations such as misfortunes, threats, and controversies of political, social, and religious nature produce conditions for the development of the apocalyptic genre; educated classes may have exercised definitive influence on the process. (b) Final function in tripartite form: introduction of solutions to earthly or cosmic problems in relation to the meaning and purpose of history, encouragement and comfort for the righteous, call to repentance or warning. A syntagmatic perspective yields the following textual structure: (a) Orientation. This element appears at the beginning of the narrative. It accomplishes temporal disassociation from the current communication situation. The asymmetry in the relationship between the world beyond and this world is constitutive for the apocalypse genre. (b) Complication. A story only becomes worthy of telling and an apocalypse necessary to tell if unusual crises or problems complicate the initial situation. This part of an apocalypse can consist of one or several textual sequences that sometimes encompass varied, sometimes parallel complication cycles. (c) Evaluation. In order to make evident the current significance of the complication and its solution for the reader/hearer, evaluative statements on both the objective as well as the metalevels are necessary. Important in this respect is the distinction between internal and external evaluations and their respective asymmetrical status; the internal by the angeli interpretes or other figures from beyond have priority over the external by the narrator i.e. the conveyor/author from this world. (d) Resolution. The resolution of the complication occurs in narratives chiefly in a brief portion of the text, in apocalypses, on the other hand, often in a very long portion that follows the complication and evaluation. The ways and means by which resolutions are incorporated into the communication process are especially informative; that is, they often find their place in revelation dialogues and monologues (i.e. in speeches by characters of higher rank). In this manner, the final function of legitimization from beyond and, closely related, that of comfort, warning, or call to the addressees come to full expression toward the end of the apocalypse. (e) Coda/moral. In this section, the narrative returns to the initial condition. The dissociation from the interior narrative (orientation) is set aside and the current situation external to the text steps once again into the foreground. This signal of the end links the time of narration with the time narrated. The concluding perspective can therefore be: Through

298 supra-natural revelations by means of heavenly journeys, visions and/or auditions, the addressees are informed – as a divinely authorized message with the assistance of texts of the apocalypse genre – that, despite the experience of evil, divine power will prevail in the end. J.J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14, 1979 ◆ P.R. Davies, “The Social World of Apocalyptic Writings,” in: R.E. Clements, ed., The World of Ancient Israel, 1989, 251–271 ◆ D. Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, 21989 (bibl.) ◆ idem, “The Visions He Saw,” in: T.W. Jennings, ed., Text and Logos, 1990, 109–146 ◆ J.J. Collins & J.H. Charlesworth, eds., Mysteries and Revelations, 1991 ◆ M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 1993 ◆ M. Frenschkowski, Offenbarung und Epiphanie, 2 vols., 1995–1996 ◆ K. Koch, Vor der Wende der Zeiten, 1996. David Hellholm

II. Literature (in Antiquity) The widespread appearance of texts that can be classified as apocalypses must be attributed to the fascination with books that developed from the beginning of Hellenism onward. In the Hellenistic period, growing fascination started with old revelations, cultic heroes, and prophets who, in various cultures of antiquity, had long since been elevated as religious founding figures. Various Egyptian texts from the Greco-Roman period – such as, for example, the Demotic Chronicle, the Lamb oracle, and the Potter oracle – document this interest in the authority of ancient revelations as a possibility for interpreting circumstances and events of later periods. These texts enjoy an authority that endured into the 3rd century ce. The Hermetic texts from the Roman period (teachings of the god Thot-Hermes) consist largely of spiritual instructions; but one tractate, the Asclepius tractate, offers an extensive description of the destruction of the cosmos and its final restoration. This rich Egyptian tradition exercised profound influence on the Egyptian Jews, who were responsible for a great portion of the preserved → Sibylline Oracles, although Christians gave the corpus its final form. Jews and Christians alike retained the Sibylline interest in cosmic omens and political events and arranged the revelations of the Sibyl in such a way that they also included the true God, his angels, and his holy people. Apocalypses in the Judeo-biblical tradition begin with Daniel and the early parts of 1 Enoch, texts that present an other-worldly understanding of the essence of the cosmos and of its designation as an attainable objective for the righteous and pure. The book of Ezekiel was an important precursor from the pre-Hellenistic era; but it lacks the literary gesture of ancient pseudepigraphical literature self-presentation as the writing of a seer from prehistoric times. Definitive for the genre of Jewish apocalypses (4 Ezra, 2 Bar., 3 Bar., 1–2 En., Apoc. Ab., Jub, and Apoc. Zeph., as well as the presumed Jewish prototypes of 3 Bar., T.12 Patr. and Asenc.Isa.) is the traditional author-

299 ity of the seer as a cultic hero and the concept of an ancient treasury of wisdom on which he depends. In particular, the Jewish apocalypses reflect the conviction that the biblical texts could only portray the surface of the original divine message. Thus, Jub. and parts of 1 Enoch narrate the biblical story once again in order to reveal the forces beneath its surface. 2 Enoch, Apoc. Zeph., and 3 Bar. disclose the true nature of the cosmos, the supernatural actors that determine it, and its state after the coming of the Messiah. Most apocalypses, but especially 4 Ezra and 2 Bar, which were composed after the destruction of the temple in 70 ce, deal with questions of → theodicy. Apoc. Ab., T. Ab., T.12 Patr. and 3 Bar. expand the legends of certain biblical heroes and transform them into clairvoyant saints, into models of purity and righteousness. Gnostic apocalypses (→ Gnosis/Gnosticism: III) depend closely on Jewish and Hermetic concepts (→ Hermeticism) of a venerable seer, his venerable tradition, and his supernatural knowledge. Gnostic apocalypses, such as are extant in the corpus of documents from → Nag Hammadi (including the Pist. Soph.), are characterized especially by the fact that they employ the story of the revelation only as a bare framework for the (often extensive) discussion concerning the cosmic ascent, other-worldly liturgies, and the structure of the worlds above: e.g. Apoc. Paul, 1–2 Apoc. Jas, Apoc. Adam, Melchizedek, Ap. John, Zost., Mar, and Allog. Gnostic apocalypses make use of a great variety of authoritative pseudonyms, as though they wanted to mirror the entire range of traditions of the “old book” represented in the Mediterranean region. Gnostic apocalypses exhibit a certain competitive behavior: the traditional Jewish cosmos is only the lower heaven of a deceitful demiurge; the cultic heroes of Jewish covenant identity (→ Abraham, Levi, → Ezra, etc.) were replaced by primeval figures of more universal significance (Adam, Seth) or by various Christian heroes. The very multiplicity of apostolic authorities adjured already suggests a rivalry with other Christian attempts to limit the circle of legitimate apostles and their literary authority. The same rivalry seems also to have motivated many early Christian apocalypses outside the Gnostic spectrum. Rev, Apoc. Pet., Asc. Isa., Apoc. Elijah, and 5–6 Ezra represent a kind of revelatory authority based, not on the old book, but more on the living prophets. In this manner, they fostered a widespread Christian prophecy that worked with glowing eschatological scenarios. J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Les mages hellénisés, 2 vols., 1938 ◆ L. Koenen, “The Prophecies of a Potter,” IKP 12, 1970, 249–254 ◆ F. Fallon, “Gnostic Apocalypses,” Semeia 14, 1979, 123–158 ◆ M. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions, 1980 ◆ C. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 1982 ◆ J. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., 1983–1985 ◆ J. Johnson, “Is the Demotic Chronicle an Anti-Greek Tract?” in: H.-J. Thissen, ed., Grammata Demotika: FS E. Lüddeckens, 1984, 107–124 ◆

Apocalypse of Elijah G. Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes, 1986 ◆ NTApo, 51987–1989 ◆ J. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, 1988 ◆ D. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire, 1990 ◆ D. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt, 1993 ◆ W.G. Kümmel & H. Lichtenberger, eds., JSHRZ, I/1–V/7, 1973–1995. David Frankfurter

Apocalypse of Adam (NHC V, 5; Apoc. Adam) → Adam, Books of, → Sethianism Apocalypse of Elijah. There have been several texts bearing the name “Apocalypse of Elijah”. 1. Completely preserved and existing in both Coptic dialects is the “Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah,” dated 1st–4th century ce, with a Jewish original. The only definitely Christian part of this text is the sign of the cross in 32:1, accompanying the coming of the messiah. Central to the representation of the end times is the battle against the Antichrist, the resulting martyrdoms of Tabitha, → Enoch and → Elijah as well as their resurrection, ascension and final return to defeat the Antichrist. Widely found throughout apocalypses, this myth is almost certainly represented here in its oldest form (Schrage) and is not dependent on Rev 11:4–13. The figure of Tabitha appears only here. Is she to be identified with the Christian woman found in Acts 9:36–40? Or did her particular righteousness and the tradition about her resurrection lead the author to add the myth to her story? 2. The Hebrew book of Elijah is also an apocalypse, and is dated to the third century ce. The structure, widely paralleling that of Revelation, suggests a joint reception of the book of Ezekiel. 3. The Latin apocrypha quotes a segment from a text called the Apocalypse of Elijah, describing various punishments in hell. It is possibly an equivalent and therefore from the same context as the following. 4. In 1 Cor 2:9 Paul cites an anonymous quotation. Many authors, among them → Origen and → Jerome, believe the quotation comes from an Apocalypse of Elijah. However, it certainly comes from a general apocryphal tradition (also evidenced in rabbinic literature) appearing in numerous apocryphal texts as a nameless element. 5. A description of the appearance of the Antichrist is handed down as a quotation from an Apocalypse of Elijah. Given that the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah in 1. contains something similar, there may be a connection. 6. The attribution of Eph 5:14 to an Apocalypse of Elijah is weakly attested. For 1.: German translation, W. Schrage, Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, JSHRZ V3 ◆ J.-M. Rosenstiehl, ed., 1972 ◆ For 2.: German in P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum, 234–240 ◆ M. Buttenwieser, Die hebräische Elia-Apokalypse und ihre Stellung in der apokalyptischen Literatur des rabbinischen Schrifttums und der Kirche, 1897 ◆ Edition and English translation of fragments mentioned in 3.–6.: M.F. Stone & J. Strugnell, The Book of Elijah, Parts 1–2, SBL.TT 19; SBL.PS 8, 1979. Klaus Berger

Apocalypse of James (First) Apocalypse of James (First) (NHC V,3; 1 Apoc. Jas.) is a Gnostic Christian – more specifically Valentinian (→ Valentinianism) – revelation dialogue between Jesus and → James, the brother of the Lord, supposedly recorded by the apostle Addai/Thaddaeus. It is extant only in a Coptic (Sahidic) translation. A second Coptic version in a 4th-century papyrus codex is still being offered for sale. The Greek original probably dates from the end of the 2nd century. Overview: (1) Holy Week dialogue with prediction of the passion; (2) appearance of the risen Lord, including Easter dialogue with interpretation of the passion and a great revelatory discourse; (3) concluding Easter dialogue and martyrdom of James. The theme is departure from the world, which means deliverance: Jesus leads the way, James, the prototypical Gnostic, is to follow. The climax is the imparting of the “passwords” found also in Iren. Haer. I, 21, 5. Text edition: see Abbreviations s.v. Nag Hammadi ◆ See also: W.-P. Funk in: New Testament Apocrypha I, 61990, 253–264 ◆ W.R. Schoedel, “A Gnostic Interpretation of the Fall of Jerusalem: The First Apocalypse of James,” NovT 33, 1991, 153–178. Hans-Martin Schenke

Apocalypse of James (Second) (NHC V,4; 2 Apoc. Jas.) presents itself as an account by a priest to James’s father, describing a temple sermon delivered by James in which, using Jesus’ sayings, he speaks of Jesus from the Gnostic (→ Gnosis) perspective and in particular describes his own Easter vision along with the revelation that has been imparted to him. There follows a description of the martyrdom of James, related to → Hegesippus’s account, into which a Gnostic psalm of ascent has been interpolated as the martyr’s dying prayer. Only a Coptic (Sahidic) translation is extant. The Greek original could date from the middle of the 2nd century. The text displays no features of a particular Gnostic system. It is similar in many respects to the Gospel of John and the Antitheses of → Marcion and includes a wealth of traditions formed at an earlier date. Text edition: see Abbreviations s.v. Nag Hammadi ◆ See also W.-P. Funk in: New Testament Apocrypha I, 61990, 264–275 ◆ idem, “Notizen zur weiteren Textkonstitution der zweiten Apokalype des Jakobus,” in: P.O. Scholz & R. Stempel, eds., Nubia et Oriens Christianus, FS C.D.G. Müller, Bibliotheca Nubica 1, 1988, 107–114. Hans-Martin Schenke

Apocalypse of Paul (Apoc. Paul [Greek]). Although originally in Greek, the Apoc. Paul is best transmitted in its Latin version. A few manuscripts contain a preface dated to 388 ce, apparently the year the text originated. → Augustine’s Tractate on the Gospel of John (Tract. Ev. Jo. XCVIII 8) and the church histories of → Sozomen (VII 19) and of Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286: Nomokanon VII 8) cite Apoc. Paul (Greek). The → Decretum Gelasianum and the catalogue of the 60 canonical works (c. 650 ce

300 [NTApo, I], → Canonical Lists) reject it. The text renders the content of Egyptian apocrypha, especially T.Ab., Apoc. Elijah and Apoc. Zeph. Apoc. Paul (Greek) must not be confused with the Apoc. Paul from → Nag Hammadi. Following 2 Cor 12:2–4, the text describes Paul’s ascension to heaven and his return to the ends of the earth. On his way, Paul encounters the souls of individuals who already receive rewards and punishment before the Last Judgment. P. Piovanelli, “ ‘Les origines de l’Apocalypse de Paul reconsidérées,’ ” Apocrypha IV, 1993, 25–64 ◆ T. Silverstein & A. Hilhorst, The Apocalypse of Paul, 1997. Kirsti Copeland

Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2; Apoc. Paul) → Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha: IV Apocalypse of Peter (Greek; Apoc. Pet. [Greek]). The Apoc. Pet. (Greek) is an early Christian apocalypse in which Jesus, after his resurrection, reveals the eschatological future to his disciples. Themes include the Antichrist, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, the punishment of the ungodly in hell and the rewarding of the righteous in paradise. The work ends with an account of the ascension of Christ. The material often resembles that of other Christian and Jewish → apocalypses which describe the eternal destiny of the ungodly and the righteous. Particularly remarkable is the long report on the 21 different categories of sinners and the penalty appropriate for each sin; it is an example of the apocalyptic genre of the “descent into hell.” The original Greek text of Apoc. Pet. (Greek) is preserved only in a few fragments in quotations by the church fathers. The entire work, however, is transmitted in an Ethiopic version. It has been demonstrated that the Apoc. Pet. (Greek) is a Jewish-Christian work composed in Palestine during the → Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 ce). Nevertheless, in the 2nd to the 4th centuries it became a very popular work throughout the church and was sometimes even treated like a biblical book. It became popular because it offered a comprehensive depiction of the human fate after death. With regard to its function, it was later replaced by the → Apocalypse of Paul (Apoc. Paul; Greek, Coptic, Latin), among other texts. R. Bauckham, ANRW II 25.6, 1988, 4712–4750 ◆ D.D. Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter, 1988 ◆ R. Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, NovTSup 93, 1998. Richard Bauckham

Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII,3; Apoc. Pet.) → Docetism, → Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha: IV Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius, composed c. 691 in northern Mesopotamia (Syria), recounts the history of

301 the world from Adam to the Islamic conquests in the author’s own day, which signal the beginning of the eschaton. The text focuses on the last Roman emperor, the → Antichrist, and victory over the Antichrist with the ascendancy of cross and crown. The Apocalypse is ascribed to Bishop → Methodius of Olympus. It draws on Syriac sources such as the Treasure Cave, the Julian Romance, and the History of Alexander. At a very early date, it was translated into Greek and Latin, then into Slavonic. Its multifaceted influence on European literature has not been investigated thoroughly; well into the Early Modern period, it significantly shaped the figure of the eschatological emperor and the eschatological conflict with Islam. In the East, the Apocalypse influenced not only Syriac but also Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Coptic, and Ethiopic literature. Text: Die Syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius, ed. and trans. G.J. Reinink, CSCO 540f., 1993 ◆ Die Apokalypse des PseudoMethodius: Die ältesten griechischen und lateinischen Übersetzungen, ed. W.J. Aerts & G.A.A. Kortekaas, CSCO 569f., 1998. On the Apocalypse: F.J. Martinez, Eastern Christian Apocalyptic in the Early Muslim Period, 1985 ◆ H. Suermann, Die geschichtstheologische Reaktion auf den einfallenden Islam in der Edessenischen Apokalyptik des 7. Jahrhunderts, 1985 ◆ O. Prinz, “Eine frühe abendländische Aktualisierung der lateinischen Übersetzung des Pseudo-Methodios,” DA 41, 1985, 1–23 ◆ M. Laureys & D. Verhelst, “Pseudo Methodius, Revelationes,” in: W. Verbeke, D. Verhelst, & A. Welkenhuysen, eds., The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages, 1988, 112–136 ◆ H. Möhring, Der Weltkaiser der Endzeit, 2000. Harald Suermann

Apocalypticism I. Definition of the Term as a Problem for the History of Religions – II. Old Testament – III. Jewish Apocalypticism – IV. New Testament – V. Church History – VI. Dogmatics – VII. Islam – VIII. Art History

I. Definition of the Term as a Problem for the History of Religions As a phenomenon in the history of religions, apocalypticism represents a form of revealed communication distinct from other types such as prophecy (→ Prophet: I), → oracle, manticism (→ Divination), wisdom (→ Wisdom Literature) and → gnosis. It occurs in IndoIrano-European, Greco-Roman, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Jewish-Christian, Gnostic, Islamic and in Mayan and → Aztec religions. The modes of revelation both within and beyond the literary genre of → apocalypse are: journeys to heaven, dream visions, visionary ecstasy in a conscious state. Apocalyptic concepts include: agents, that is, the supreme deity or the creator as author of the revelation, divine figures or angels as mediators of revelation, as well as a (pseudonymous) earthly figure as conveyor; disclosures, in which the prophecies (in part as vaticinia ex eventu) include (1) the periodization of history in four or seven eras and their decline (cyclically or linearly); (2) the eschatological end-

Apocalypticism times with the destruction and renewal of the world by an eschatological deliverer and with → resurrection of the dead ; (3) the final military struggle between good and evil on both the cosmic and earthly planes; (4) natural occurrences along with cosmic disruptions such as a worldwide conflagration, floods, earthquakes; (5) social disorder in the ruling class impacting society, family, and religious community; social situation and function: In times of crisis (need, oppression, controversies), apocalyptic proclaims to sufferers hierarchically authorized, supernatural disclosures of eschatological events revealing the comforting message of the divine conquest of evil and the restoration of good. J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1984 ◆ H. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic, 1987 ◆ P. Vielhauer & G. Strecker, “Apokalypsen und Verwandtes,” NTApo II, 51989, 491–515. David Hellholm

II. Old Testament Apocalypticism occurs only on the margins of the OT. The only evidence is the second, Hebrew portion of the book of → Daniel, Dan 8–12, along with the Aramaic expansions in Dan 2 (vv. 41–43) and 7 (vv. 1b, 7bβ, 8, 11a, 20–22, 24–25, 28). At the center of this apocalypse stands the question of the “when” of the desired end. The question has roots in the history of the period. It confronted those who regarded the cultic reform carried out by hellenized Jews under → Antiochus IV in 169–167 bce as an outrage and the rebellion of the → Maccabees in response, which later culminated in the kingdom of the Hasmoneans, only a “little help” (Dan 11:34). In their view, the end had been attained, at which point God should punish the guilty and deliver the persecuted innocent. The delay of this outcome became a problem for them. So they set about seeking the signs of the end in the course of contemporary history. The problem acquired theological weight because the circumstances of the period were unfavorable to the transmission of the Jewish faith, law, and prophets. Not only did the decree of the Seleucid king (1 Macc 1:43–56) set aside the tradition, but they themselves also seemed to have lost status, and along with them, God was called into question. This was the actual threat for the circle of the “pious” (1 Macc 2:31–38, 42; 2 Macc 14:6). Therefore, apocalypticism reinterpreted the tradition. The old faith is revealed anew, and thus also in new garments. This revision occurs in the book of Daniel in the literary appendix to Dan (1)2–7*. The Aramaic Daniel is not an apocalypse, but an eschatological document (→ Eschatology: II, VIII) from the period after Alexander the Great in which additions in Dan 2 and 7* expanded the older collection’s (Dan 1–6*) doctrine of three empires into a doctrine of four empires and distinguished the world empire from the coming kingdom of God, and in which the Daniel of the narratives

Apocalypticism (presumably by way of Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3) has become the pseudonym of the author. First Dan 8 and 9 (along with expansions in Dan 7) and somewhat later Dan 10–12 (along with expansions in Dan 2) joined this core. Thereafter, the world empires doctrine and the Son of Man from Dan 1–7 belong to the repertoire of apocalypticism; cf. 1QpsDan, for example. The chief interest of apocalypticism, however, focuses on the “end of days” (2:28) and the final judgment (7:11f.). Based on experience under Antiochus IV, who took on the role of the Fourth Empire (compare 7:24 with vv. 7b, 19, 23), and who, like it, determined the perspective on the course of history, prophecy as such became an interpretive problem. As a result, the responsible expert questioned the prophetic tradition (9:2). From the exilic standpoint of the pseudonymous author, the time period in question extends into the hellenistic present and is precisely fixed. At the same time, in contrast to the world empires doctrine in Dan 1–7, the author characterized history in the deuteronomic sense as a time of wickedness in Israel and of wrath on Israel and Jerusalem, wrath that divides life from death even beyond the grave. The history of the world concerns Israel and its God. This substantive correction, too, involves multiple allusions to scripture. Foreign materials, like all external characteristics (pseudonymity, visions, imagery, interpreting angels, angels with responsibility for the nations, resurrection, etc.) are only subservient. The process of interpretation and systematization of the tradition that constitutes the essence of apocalypticism is not new. It shaped the entire OT, especially later literature such as Chronicles (cf. also Sir 38:34–39:11). The apocalyptic book of Daniel moves in close proximity to this type of scriptural exegesis, but concentrates on the wisdom problem of ordering time (cf. Eccl 3:1–8; Tob 14), here time as it pertains to Israel. Daniel bases its ordering on a particular heavenly revelation, reminiscent of prophecy but superseding it. Data concerning the “when” and “for whom” returns to prophecy its now dubious revelatory character for the present as end time. A similar situation pertains to the law and its cultic and paraenetic importance. Apocalypticism did not begin in the OT. Similarities in Ezek, Isa 40–55, Zech 1–6 or in late prophetic expansions such as Isa 24–27, Isa 56–66 and Zech 9–14 depend on the reception of the material in later apocalypticism (e.g. the battle of the nations and the pilgrimage of the nations) and are not yet familiar with the specific problem of revelation prompted by external factors. The beginnings and the most significant representatives, especially the → Enoch literature, occur outside the OT. In addition to Dan, only Tob 13f. entered the Greek OT, and 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) the Latin. R. Smend, “Über jüdische Apokalyptik,” ZAW 5, 1885, 222–251 ◆ J. Wellhausen, “Zur apokalyptischen Literatur,”

302 in: idem, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten VI, 1899, 215–249 ◆ O.H. Steck, “Überlegungen zur Eigenart der spätisraelitischen Apokalyptik,” in: Die Botschaft und die Boten, FS H.W. Wolff, J. Jeremias & L. Perlitt, eds., 1981, 301–315 (bibl.) ◆ R.G. Kratz, Translatio imperii, WMANT 63, 1991 ◆ K. Müller, Studien zur frühjüdischen Apokalyptik, SBAB 11, 1991 ◆ S. Beyerle, “Die Wiederentdeckung der Apokalyptik in den Schriften Altisraels und des Frühjudentums,” VF 43, 1998/2, 34–59. Reinhard Gregor Kratz

III. Jewish Apocalypticism 1. Antiquity. Apocalypticism in early Judaism may be understood as the search for knowledge of the beyond, a search based on the conviction that various ideal figures of Jewish tradition attained such knowledge and transmitted it in books for the enlightenment of subsequent wise men. A particular engagement with → theodicy in early Judaism resulted in apocalyptic material being concerned largely with esoteric reasons for the current crisis and the divine plan for overcoming it: punishment of the unrighteous, cleansing of the world, acknowledgment of the righteous, and the beginning of the eternal rule of God (compare Wis 4:16–5:23). In the history of scholarship, this eschatological component is often regarded as fundamental for Jewish apocalypticism. More recent study of the chief texts of apocalypticism (1 Enoch 1–36; Dan; Jub; 4 Ezra; 2 Bar) in the light of Qumran, a typical apocalyptic community, has shown, however, that wisdom traditions and even priestly interests were much more determinative for the composition of the apocalyptic texts than was the prophetic tradition. The most important seers of apocalypses in the second temple period are → scribes and priests (→ Ezra, Baruch, → Levi and even Enoch), although reference was also occasionally made to a few prophets. Furthermore, these revelation texts seem oriented more toward the elevation of the scribe or seer as a representative person and not so much toward the eschatological → theophany of a deus otiosus. Thus, early Jewish apocalypticism is a product of post-exilic scribal culture. It served the interpretation and contemporization of authoritative texts. The true roots of Jewish apocalypticism cannot, therefore, be found in prophetic panoramas of cosmic destruction (such as Isa 24–27), but in the reception of texts such as Ezekiel or the priestly document (→ Pentateuch), which outlines the image of the ideal temple, crystallizations of the private traditions of a few priestly circles projected into mythical times and spaces (Exod 25–40; Ezek 40–48). Jewish apocalypticism also described the ways by which the ideal figures of the past received the revelations that they transmitted; ways that apparently corresponded to the mythical practices appearing in post-exilic Judaism: special prayers, fasts, weeping, hydromancy and, quite generally, the cultivation of dreams and visions (→ Mysticism: III).

303 In an expansion of wisdom concerns, apocalypticism fed on the conviction that righteous people could perceive heavenly secrets that are not to be understood as a protected realm beyond all human perception (as e.g. Job 38–41 argues). Through purification and subjection to the direction of God or of the angel, a righteous person can attain a degree of comprehension approximating that of the angel. The lists of things that can be learned, widely distributed in apocalyptic literature, relate not only to intellectual knowledge but also to cosmic mysteries and skills associated with spiritual perception. The Qumran texts reflect a community for whom such claims to perception or transcendent knowledge occupy the center of their self-definition. Even in Daniel, the “wise among the people,” as they apparently characterized themselves, who “bring insight to many” concerning the true character of the Maccabean wars (11:33; compare 12:1–4, 10), have a share in the blessings of the angels (7:18, 27). The equation of the righteous and angels finds ritual expression in many apocalyptic texts: 1 En. 1–36, Apoc.Abr., and 3 En. elevate the righteous seer to supernatural status through participation in the angelic liturgy. The document “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” from Qumran (11QShirShabb) represents a literary form that developed from this aspect of Jewish apocalypticism, although it is not itself an apocalypse. Both early Jewish mysticism (Merkavah mysticism/→ Hekhalot literature) and Gnosticism have been linked to the apocalyptic tradition. Finally, one should consider the syncretistic aspects of Jewish apocalypticism. Even those authors and circles who openly opposed the more explicit forms of Hellenization utilized the traditions of other cultures (Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Egypt, Mediterranean) in order to give expression to a Jewish doctrine of angels and demons, to a Jewish cosmogony and eschatology. Such synthesizing tendencies should not be interpreted as opposed to traditional interests of Jewish scribes or priests, but as an indication of the intellectual ecumenicism produced by the idea of an apocalyptic sensibility. P. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 1975 ◆ I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 1980 ◆ P. Schäfer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, TSAJ 2, 1981 ◆ C. Rowland, The Open Heaven, 1982 ◆ J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1984 ◆ C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 1985 ◆ M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 31988 ◆ M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 1993. David Frankfurter

2. Middle Ages and Modern Times. The rich apocalyptic literature found no continuation in the → Talmud and in classic → Midrash collections. A renaissance of apocalyptic literature in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, however, exercised broad influence on

Apocalypticism medieval Jewish culture. The most important text for medieval Jewish treatments of this subject was the “Sefer → Zerubbabel”, apparently written between the 4th and 6th centuries. It presents a new satanic figure, Armilus (= Romulus), who, in many respects, resembles the figure of the → Antichrist. Born of the devil’s union with the statue of a beautiful woman in Rome, he conquered the entire world, finally suffering defeat at the gates of Jerusalem at the hands of a messianic triad: Hephzibah, the mother of the Messiah, the Messiah, son of Joseph, and the Messiah, son of David. The first kabbalistic treatment of apocalypticism appears in Rabbi → Isaac haKohen’s Treatise Concerning the Emanations of the Left, composed around 1265 in Castile. Armed with a heavenly sword, the Messiah will conquer all satanic powers in heaven and on earth and reestablish the kingdom of David. This apocalypse greatly influenced Rabbi Moses → de Leon, the author of the → Zohar (end of the 13th cent.). He unfolded a detailed apocalyptic vision that became an integral portion of Kabbalah in the final century of the Middle Ages. A new impulse for apocalyptic creativity developed in the decades before and after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which was experienced as a radical upheaval. These and other apocalyptic works have one element in common: they distinguish between the eschatological drama and the individual’s everyday religious life. For the first time in the 16th century, the Kabbalah developed in → Safed the concept of the participation of every individual in the messianic drama and attributed to every ritual, every prayer, and every ethical act its own significance (Isaac → Luria). This mystical theology served as the basis for the eruption of the messianic movement of → Sabbatai Zevi (1666). Many authors in this movement composed apocalyptic treatises. Experience with the heresy of Sabbatianism established in Judaism a markedly anti-apocalyptic attitude that may account for the scarcity of this genre in the modern era. Y. Even & S. Kaufmann, Midreshey Geula, 1954 ◆ G. Scholem, “The Messianic Idea in Judaism,” in: idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays, 1971, 3–32 ◆ R. Patai, The Messiah Papers, 1979 ◆ M. Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubavel,” in: D. Stern & M.J. Mirsky, eds., Rabbinic Fantasies, 1990, 67–90 ◆ J. Dan, “Armilus,” in P. Schäfer, ed., Jewish Messianism, 1998. Joseph Dan

IV. New Testament The phenomenon of apocalypticism appears in two forms in the NT: in the genre “Apocalypse” and as “apocalyptic eschatology.” While the first occurs only in Revelation, the second also appears in Mark and the Pauline letters. Apart from the foreword (1:1–3), Revelation takes the form of a letter with an epistolary introduction (1:4–6) and conclusion (22:21). The body of the document consists of a report concerning a series of visions and

Apocalypticism auditions (1:9–22:5) to which are appended additional sayings (22:6–20). Three major themes are treated. On the one hand, heavenly phenomena are revealed: God on his throne as ruler and creator (ch. 4), the acclamation of the lamb (ch. 5), the woman clothed with the sun, the dragon or Satan (ch. 12), and the temple (6:9; 15:5–8). Further, the true nature of earthly, political, and societal circumstances is revealed: the animal from the sea (the Roman Empire) receives its power and authority from the dragon (13:1–10); the elite of the Roman province of Asia serves Satan (13:11–18; 16:13–14); because of the second destruction of Jerusalem, the city of Rome is a new Babylon (14:8; 17:1–18:24) personified as a prostitute (17:1–18:24). Finally, the destruction of the cosmos (6:12–17; 21:1), the new creation (21:1), and eternal life (21:4; 22:5) are predicted. The objective of the report is to influence the thought and behavior of the audience to live in accord with the revelation (1:3; 2:1–3:22). The message of Jesus has apocalyptic character in Mark: the kingdom of God is about to be manifest on earth (1:15). Jesus is the Messiah, who will return as the heavenly → Son of Man (8:27–9:1). The Jewish war with Rome (66– 73 ce) is portrayed as the crisis of history (ch. 13). The Letters of Paul also express an apocalyptic perspective. Paul teaches converts in → Thessalonica to expect Jesus’ return from heaven and their own bodily rapture (1Thess 1:10; 4:13–18). He describes the final conflict between Jesus, the Messiah, and the powers that oppose God (1 Cor 15:23–28). Even in his final letters, Paul continues to expect Jesus’ return from heaven, the renewal of creation, and bodily resurrection (Phil 3:20–21; Rom 8:18–25). A. Yarbro Collins, “Apocalypses and Apocalypticism, Early Christian,” ABD I, 1992, 288–292 (bibl.). Adela Yarbro Collins

V. Church History Apocalyptic movements arise primarily in times of crisis (but not only then), usually associated with a specific form of apocalypticism, → millenarianism/chiliasm. In Late Antiquity – after → Montanism – esp. in → Donatism apocalypticism appeared as an important element influencing practical life. Otherwise, it is apparent in theological concepts and in a few interpreters of Revelation. The apocalyptic doctrine of the world monarchies and its interpretation of the Final Empire continued to exercise fundamental influence. Related were contemporizing identifications of the Antichrist (e.g. by → Adso). The → Crusade movement (1095–1099) was in essence related to a general outbreak of apocalypticism. The apocalyptic interpretation of history offered by → Joachim of Fiore with its announcement of a Spiritual Era, achieved epochal effect. It was a point of orientation for ascetic criticism of the church and social reform programs, especially in the radical wing of the → Franciscans.

304 Elements of the Reformation were influenced by apocalypticism, conditioned by historical events such as economic crises, the division of the church, and the threat posed by the Turks (→ Turkic Peoples; the foreign nations motif as in Ezek 38–39; Rev 20:8). The expectation of the imminent end of the world influenced Luther’s work and person; as the eschatology of the “dear day of Judgment,” it remained authoritative into the 17th century (orthodoxy). T. → Müntzer’s concept of change in the church was thoroughly determined by apocalypticism. The revolutionary millennialism of M. → Hoffman and the “Melchiorites” produced radical realization in the Anabaptist kingdom of Münster (1534/35). A more peaceful dispensationalism survived among the nonconformists (→ Dissenters) of the 16th/ 17th century. Through P.J. → Spener it found entry into → Pietism and was transformed, especially by J.A. → Bengel, into a chronology of salvation that stimulated specific end-time expectations on into the 19th/20th century (stirred, among other things, by catastrophes such as the Napoleonic wars and World War I). L. Atzberger, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicänischen Zeit, 1896, repr. 1970 ◆ E. Staehelin, Die Verkündigung des Reiches Gottes in der Kirche Jesu Christi, 7 vols., 1952–1965 ◆ N. Cohn, Das Ringen um das Tausendjährige Reich, 21970 ◆ B. McGinn, ed., Apocalyptic Spirituality, 1979 ◆ K.H. Schwarte, R. Konrad & G. Seebass, “Apokalyptik,” V–VII, TRE V, 1978, 257–289 (bibl.) ◆ G. Kretschmar, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1985. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild

VI. Dogmatics K.I. → Nitzsch introduced the term in this sense in 1820. God and world stand in a spatial-temporal relationship: When God enters the world, its time is ended; this end is imminent. Three types can be distinguished formally: 1. God is the Lord of all that occurs, even if the world seems to be god-forsaken; in the end, he will deliver his own and destroy his adversaries. This viewpoint gives rise to the warning: Do not let yourselves be seduced by “this world,” so that you may not be destroyed with it and miss “the other world”! This outlook can lead to a division of reality into realms allied with or hostile to God. 2. God has established a goal for all that occurs by which “world” and “history” may be measured as a whole. This notion gave rise to the division of history into periods, which allows one to determine one’s own standpoint and even to calculate the end of the world. It also makes possible the evaluation of individual events in relation to their common, divinely established objective. Thus, one can claim apocalypticism as the source for the idea of universal history (Wolfhart Pannenberg). 3. With the horrors of the world in view, “apocalyptic” becomes the essence of a future that seems irredeemably threatened; “apocalyptic” has entered everyday speech primarily in this sense. The idea that human beings can

305 structure a healthy world collapses under the weight of imminent catastrophes. Consequently, “apocalypticism” sees human beings as subject to supramundane powers. One can draw a variety of conclusions. The apocalyptic worldview can be brought to bear against the notion that people are the subjects of history, whereas, in truth, they are thrown like playthings into the final struggle between the powers of good and evil; in this context, the important thing is to be on God’s side (E. → Käsemann ; Jürgen Moltmann). The strength to oppose the destructive powers may, however, grow out of the awareness that the irredeemable world is coming to an end. Apocalypticism is often contrasted with eschatology (G. → Ebeling; K. → Rahner). Apocalypticism is accused of dramatizing a view of the end time and with giving rise, via its flood of imagery, to false hopes. This criticism can also view apocalypticism as a precursor to Christian eschatology tinged by Judaism. Can hope prosper, however, with no vision whatsoever? Apocalypticism is also held in suspicion because it views the present from the perspective of the end instead of trusting in God’s promise and his unfathomable activity. Finally, the character of apocalypticism is criticized as an imminent hope that cannot be sustained indefinitely. When, however, apocalypticism speaks of the nearness of God it sets forth a naïve understanding of time. A delayed hope would be inherently contradictory. U.H.J. Körtner, Weltangst und Weltende, 1988 (bibl.) ◆ E. Lubahn & O. Rodenberg, eds., Lebendige Hoffnung, 1989, 41996 ◆ G. Sauter, Einführung in die Eschatologie, 1995. Gerhard Sauter

VII. Islam The majority of the rich apocalyptic literature from the early centuries of Islam does not consist of extensive texts of the kind known in Judaism and Christianity, but of brief “traditions” (ÓadīΔ); often only a few lines long, each of them is usually accompanied by a chain of tradition tracing back to the prophet → Mu˙ammad or a similar early Muslim figure. By far the richest collection of such traditions is a work by Nuaaim ibn Óammād (d. 843), “Kitāb al-Fitan”; the greatest portion of his material stems from Iraq and Syria. General collections often contain brief sections devoted to apocalyptic traditions. In contrast, theological works ignore this theme. The picture of the future painted by these traditions is by no means unified, but the elements can be summarized as follows. The future is, for the most part, unpleasant. One catastrophe follows another while ethical and material conditions deteriorate. Dramatic, if only brief, reversals of these tendencies are associated, however, with the figure of the Mahdī (→ Millenarianism/chiliasm: VI) and the person of Jesus. Both will be sent (at different

Apocalypticism times) to free the Muslim community from its distress. The figure of the Mahdī (“the one led by right”) represents a specifically Islamic concept, regardless of its indirect relationship to pre-Islamic religion. He will appear in → Mecca and move thence to Jerusalem where he will rule benevolently for a number of years (usually seven or 40). In contrast, the idea of Jesus’ return clearly stems from Christian doctrine. He will come down to earth at a time when Islam has almost become extinct, gather the remnant of the faithful, and destroy the Antichrist (the Da<<āl). Then he will rule for a comparable time period. Finally, a series of plagues will herald the end of the world, the resurrection, and the Last Day. Such concepts appear primarily in Sunni → Islam (II), in which apocalyptic ideas do not normally play a central role. As a rule, they receive greater emphasis in Shiite Islam, for example, in the identification of the hidden twelfth → Imam with the Mahdī (or Qāaim), a characteristic of the Twelve Šīaa. Sources: Nuaaim Ibn-Óammād al-›uzāaī, Kitāb al-Fitan, S. Zakkār, ed., Mecca 1992 (Arab.) ◆ Bibl.: W. Madelung, “Mahdī,” EI2 V, 1986, 1230–1238 ◆ U. Rubin, “Sāaa,” EI2 8, 1995, 656–657. Michael Cook

VIII. Art History 1. Apocalyptic literature. Western culture defines the “apocalyptic” in apocalyptic literature primarily on the model of the ancient apocalyptic documents, esp. Revelation. Alongside immediate allusions to images and symbols, there are also independent developments. Disregarding the aesthetic fascination that apocalyptic visions have held for authors, the aesthetics of Revelation cannot be separated from its content: the prophecy of destruction and redemption. This tension is the central content of its literary transformations. From the Middle Ages to the end of the 18th century, literary adaptations of apocalyptic motifs were to be found in the religious realm. The early compositions, “Muspilli” (OHG, early 9th cent.) and “V¸olospá” (c. 1000), represent exceptions whose descriptions of the conflagration of the world reflect both Germanic myths and Christian apocalyptic sources. Extra-theological interest in apocalypticism grew with the increasingly frequent crisis events in Europe from the late 12th century on. Vernacular Revelation commentaries prepared the way for literary adaptations: apocalyptic commentaries in poetic form, antichrist plays, visionary literature (highpoint: → Dante’s Divine Comedy); from the late Middle Ages, other genres as well. The cause was end-time expectations prompted, for example, by the Thirty-Years’ War. Around 1800, apocalyptic gained a new profile in literature by breaking free of the context of religious significance. The basic structural pattern, the tension between destruction and redemption, is retained, as well

Apocalypticism

306 as a significant proportion of the dualistic world view (darkness/light, impurity/purity, etc.). Yet, one now had free rein concerning the instrumentality of apocalyptic signification. Two major forms may be distinguished: 1. The apocalyptic interpretation of historical situations is linked with political intentions and visions of redemption within history (compare war poems during World War I, works of so-called messianic → expressionism). 2. → Romanticism (I, 1) begins a tradition in which both Christian hopes for redemption as well as confidence in a meaningful course of history are lost. The “cosmic horror” of a non-transcendent world and meaningless history permits the development of “truncated” apocalypses. The new worldview of cold death was open to the aesthetically anticipated end. The catastrophes of the 20th century (world wars, → Holocaust, Hiroshima) and the threatening self-destruction of humanity made truncated apocalypses the dominant form of apocalyptic literature. While the theme of destruction was treated primarily as a psychological and social problem in the period between the wars, authors in the second half of the 20th century have increasingly sought freedom from the burden of the threat of destruction through satirical, grotesque, and carnivalesque techniques of alienation.

Fig. 1. Albrecht Dürer, Apocalypse, woodcut 1498. (Photo: Photo Archive Marburg)

Fig 2. William Blake, Death on a Pale Horse, c. 1800 (Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge)

G.E. Grimm, et al., eds., Apokalypse, 1986 ◆ K. Vondung, Die Apokalypse in Deutschland, 1988; ET: The Apocalypse in Germany, 2000 ◆ L.P. Zamora, Writing the Apocalypse, 1989 ◆ G.R. Kaiser, ed., Poesie der Apokalypse, 1991. Klaus Vondung

2. Apocalyptic themes in art and religion. The imagery of apocalypticism invites one to enter into its rich conceptuality. It requires a readiness to see things from another, possibly unusual, standpoint. In order to do it justice, an exegetical commentary on a biblical text such as Revelation requires supplementation through an artistic portrayal of the text. Thus, apocalypticism opens horizons in interpretation: it provokes, expands the conceptual world, and inspires new ways of thinking and behaving. Various artistic adaptations of Revelation occur, from the iconography of medieval church architecture to the illustrations accompanying the text itself. Revelation also gave rise to a plethora of illustrations, as attested for the Renaissance in the portrayals of A. → Dürer (1497/98) and in the illuminations of the 1534 Luther Bible. Although eschatological themes predominate, since the Middle Ages, occasional contemporizing interpretations that refer to contemporary social and religious movements also occur. Above all, W. → Blake offers a significant example of an apocalyptic aesthetic in his artistic appropriation of Revelation. The vision of John is a central component of many aspects of his visionary worldview and shapes his understanding of his own political situation; yet, Blake used Revelation primarily as a source of inspiration. His relationship to

307 the text is that of a visionary who finds himself in continuity with the text, not in that he revisualizes the images of Revelation, but in that he utilizes Revelation as the means to true insight into the essence of the vision and, by means of the ancient apocalyptic text, learns to see himself more clearly. In contrast to his medieval predecessors, he does not elucidate the text of Revelation, for his work stands alongside it, not as exegesis, but as a further development of the prophetic tradition. In our secular world, dependence on the inspiration of Revelation is less direct and more subliminal. Nonetheless, the confirmation of a cosmic upheaval, which often appears tasteless or even banal in the written word, is effective in the visual arts on a generation overwhelmed by images, not least of such human and cosmic catastrophes. It has gained deep-reaching influence over art of a century that has experienced the worst evil of humanity. M.R. James, The Apocalypse in Art, 1931 ◆ F. van der Meer, Apocalypse, 1978 ◆ W. Blake’s Illuminated Books, 6 vols., ed. D. Bindmann, 1991–1995 ◆ R.K. Emmerson & B. McGinn The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, 1992. Christopher Rowland

Apocatastasis (Gk ἀποκατάστασις πάντων) or the redemption/restoration of all is the eschatological notion that all human beings (things, creatures) without exception will be received into eschatological salvation (the kingdom of God). One the one hand, apocatastasis conflicts with the more common eschatological notion of a “double outcome,” which envisions an eschatological division between the redeemed and the damned, salvation and perdition (cf. Matt 25:31–46). It also conflicts with the less common notion of an eschatological → annihilation of all the wicked (cf. Rev 21:1–8). Although apocatastasis appears in the NT (esp. Col 1:20; Eph 1:10; Rom 11:32), for various reasons the notion failed to gain acceptance; it could not establish itself as an “official” dogma, although it was repeatedly espoused or at least considered by well-known theologians (e.g. → Origen, John Scotus → Eriugena, F. → Schleiermacher, and – possibly – K. → Barth). There are also weighty theological, christological, anthropological, and pastoral arguments in its favor. It is not entangled in the aporias of eschatological dualism; it emphasizes God’s loving nature and the universal efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection. It can accordingly express consistently the soteriological impotence of human beings, who must rely totally on God’s grace. On the other hand, theologians of all schools have repeatedly raised grave objections to apocatastasis – to the point that certain developments of the notion were anathematized (e.g. in the edict of Justinian against Origen and Origenism in 543 ce and article 17 of the

Apocrypha / Pseudepigrapha Augsburg Confession against “anabaptists”). Ethical, pastoral, and missionary considerations aside, these objections aim to defend the mystery and sovereignty of God’s will as well as the freedom and accountability of human beings responding to God’s offer of salvation. Not least, such counterarguments encourage methodological consensus on the hermeneutics of eschatological statements in particular, as well as more general consideration of the theological context of the notion of apocatastasis, since this context involves almost all the topics of systematic theology. A methodological analysis that traces the notion of apocatastasis back to a fundamental anthropological principle of soteriological impotence (Rosenau) must consider how to reconcile universal salvation as grace with human personhood and its attendant accountability. It must also consider responses to ethical, pastoral, and missiological objections within the framework of apocatastasis. In addition, if apocatastasis is accepted, the authentic insights associated with the notion of distinct “double outcomes” must be integrated in such a way that it is still possible to distinguish what has been “redeemed” from what is simply alien to God, without reverting to a universal intellectual structure of strict dualism ( Janowski). If these pressing problems can be solved, the notion of apocatastasis might emerge with its own claim to theological acceptance, not only as an expression of hope but also as a well-grounded alternative to the eschatological notion of the “double outcome.” G. Müller, Apokatastasis Panton: A Bibliography, 1969 ◆ J.C. Janowski, Apokatastasis Panton – Allerlösung, 1992 ◆ H. Rosenau, Apokatastasis, 1993. Hartmut Rosenau

Apocrypha / Pseudepigrapha I. Terminology – II. Old Testament – III. New Testament – IV. New Testament Apocrypha from Nag Hammadi

I. Terminology Etymologically, “apocryphal” means “hidden, secret,” while “pseudepigraphal” indicates that a document has been falsely attributed to an author. In the modern period, the usage of both terms has been burdened by confessional preconceptions, since the extent of the canon (→ Bible : II, III) determines what will be called “apocryphal.” Texts like → Tobit or 1 Maccabees (→ Maccabees, Books of the), which appear only in the → Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible, have “deuterocanonical” status for the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, while the Reformers called them “apocryphal.” Extrabiblical documents of early Judaism such as Aristeas or 4 Ezra, by contrast, are called “pseudepigrapha” (a term that does not apply to writings like Jubilees or the Sibyllines!), while other churches consider them “Apocrypha.” For the writings of the NT and early Christianity, “pseudepigraphal” retains its more

Apocrypha / Pseudepigrapha technical sense. The term “apocryphal,” by contrast, describes extracanonical texts that at least resemble NT genres. NTApo ◆ OTP ◆ J.D. Kaestli & O. Wermelinger, eds., Le canon de l’Ancien Testament, 1984. Hans-Josef Klauck

II. Old Testament “Apocrypha” denotes the corpus of extrabiblical literature, probably of Jewish provenance, that dates from the period of the second → temple and the following decades. This category includes those works that (1) obviously represent an expansion or revision of biblical texts, (2) clearly continue the literary genres found in the Hebrew Bible, or (3) exhibit a close connection with figures appearing in the canonical writings. This literary corpus is generally ranked alongside the three other major groups of documents that bear witness to the thought and history of pre-Rabbinic → Judaism: the works of → Philo of Alexandria and → Josephus together with the recently discovered documents from → Qumran. The present-day use of the term “Apocrypha” derives from the controversies of the Reformation: the Protestant churches used this term for books outside the Hebrew canon, while the Roman Catholic Church instead called these same works deuterocanonical. The category “Apocrypha” thus denotes those documents that are not in the Hebrew Bible but over the centuries have been transmitted alongside the canonical books in collections of Greek and Latin biblical literature. The following works constitute a common core: Tobit, Judith, Additions to → Esther, Wisdom of Solomon (→ Solomonic Writings: I), → Sirach, Baruch (→ Baruch, Books of: I), Epistle of Jeremiah (→ Jeremiah Writings: I), Additions to Daniel, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. In addition, the Greek tradition often includes 3 Ezra (→ Ezra: III), the Prayer of Manasseh (→ Manasseh, Prayer of ), Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees; the Latin Vulgate (→ Bible translations: I) includes in an appendix the first three works together with the Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra). The term “Pseudepigrapha” denotes a modern category used to describe a great number of writings dating from the same period as the Apocrypha but not associated with the Western canonical tradition; they are often preserved in languages other than Greek and Latin. The more important include apocalyptic writings (e.g. the various works associated with biblical figures such as → Enoch, → Abraham, Baruch, and Ezra) and the “testament” genre. The term itself is problematic, since many books of the Apocrypha and even some of the biblical writings are also pseudepigraphal. Present-day scholarship is less interested in the canonical or confessional status of these works, emphasizing instead their importance for our understanding of religious movements in early Judaism and Christianity. While the Apocrypha are

308 undoubtedly Jewish works, many of the Pseudepigrapha raise complex questions as to the preservation and redaction of Jewish sources in early Christian literature and in historical contexts. Sources: APAT ◆ APOT ◆ P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel, 1928 ◆ JSHRZ ◆ H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament, 1984 ◆ M.E. Stone, ed., CRINT II, 1988ff. ◆ On OT Apocrypha: A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudepigraphes de l’Ancien Testament, 1970 ◆ E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. G. Vermes & F. Millar, 3 vols., 1973–1987 ◆ G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, 1981 ◆ R.A. Kraft, “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,” in: J.C. Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads, 1994, 55–86. David Satran

III. New Testament The conventional expression “New Testament Apocrypha” is unfortunate, since several of these texts were composed before there was a New Testament. Furthermore, the two meanings of “apocryphal,” positively “hidden” or “secret” and negatively “inauthentic” or “condemned,” are frequently inappropriate. For example, the Gospel of Thomas (→ Thomas, Gospel of ) is a secret document that was rejected (see the so-called → Decretum Gelasianum), whereas the Protevangelium of James (→ Infancy Gospels) never claims to contain esoteric teaching and was never condemned by the Eastern Orthodox churches. It is therefore better to call these writings early Christian apocrypha or noncanonical texts. Furthermore, the categorization of these apocrypha as gospels, letters, acts, and revelations, inspired by the NT, is misleading, since the genres are not used in their pure form. The Gospel of Bartholomew, for example, belongs to two genres: conversations with the risen Christ and gospels. It even contains a description of the nether world. The OT pseudepigrapha are closely related to the Christian apocrypha, since they passed through Christian hands and were often circulated with radical Christian revisions. From patristic evidence and the discovery of papyri we know that there were more than four gospels. The canonization of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly saved venerable early documents. Their selection, however, was not based on the criterion of antiquity or historical accuracy, but on their acceptance by the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Other Christian groups used other gospels, as we see in the case of the Gospel of Peter (→ Peter, Gospel of ) or the Jewish Christian gospels (the Gospel of the Nazoreans (→ Nazoreans, Gospel of the), the Gospel of the Ebionites (→ Ebionites, Gospel of the), and the Gospel of the Hebrews (→ Hebrews, Gospel of the). On the basis of content, there is no reason to reject these gospels absolutely. They merely reflected the theological biases of their authors and the world view of the communities in which they originated. Various needs led to the composition of new texts about Jesus, his mother,

309 and the apostles. Polemic against the attacks of Jews or pagans largely accounts for the development of such a text as the Protevangelium of James, which defends the virginity of Mary. Internal problems of the Christian communities in areas like ethics, asceticism, liturgy, and the afterlife also motivated the writing of such revelations, letters, and dialogues. So-called 3 Corinthians attempts to provide a correct definition of the resurrection. The apocryphal Epistle of Titus promotes rigorous sexual ethics. The Vision of Paul inculcates the reality of life after death by describing paradise. Gaps in the canonical Gospels also created difficulties for Christians or aroused their curiosity. They responded with legends about Jesus’ parents, especially the Virgin Mary – her birth and childhood, her last years, and her death. Strangely, there is no ancient apocryphal text with a continuous account of Jesus’ youth between his twelfth year (Luke 2:42–52) and the sermon he preached at the age of thirty (Luke 3:23). But → apophthegms concerning his childhood have been preserved either in isolation or as part of narrative complexes like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The longing for authoritative apostolic tradition explains why at the end of the 2nd century and in the 3rd so many Acts of the apostles were written (see → Acts of Andrew, Acts of John (→ John, Acts of ), → Acts of Paul, → Acts of Peter, → Acts of Thomas, → Acts of Philip, etc.). The earliest of these describe the life of an individual apostle; they are not the direct descendants of the canonical Acts of the Apostles, but recount the life, preaching, miracles, journeys, and martyrdom of their hero in imitation of the canonical Gospels, especially John. The production of apocryphal literature has never really come to an end. Apocryphal texts were being written as late as the 20th century. Even today, at the end of the liturgy a member of the Orthodox Church in Greece can be handed a copy of the so-called Letter from Jesus, fallen from heaven. Sources: CCSA, 1983ff. ◆ F. Bovon & P. Geoltrain, ed., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. I, 1997 ◆ R.McL. Wilson, “Apokryphen II,” TRE III, 1978, 316–362 ◆ E. Junod, “Eusèbe de Césarée, Sérapion d’Antioche et l’Évangile de Pierre,” RSLR 24, 1988, 3–16 ◆ J.K. Elliot, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, 1993 ◆ M. Geerard, Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, CC 14, 1992. François Bovon

IV. New Testament Apocrypha from Nag Hammadi The Coptic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 include several documents concerning Jesus or his disciples. Some titles analogous to the titles of NT material are misleading. The → Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3; XII,2) is a meditative sermon, the Gospel of Philip (→ Philip, Gospel of; NHC II,3) an anthology, the Gospel of the Egyptians ((→ Egyptians, Gospel of the: II;

Apocrypha / Pseudepigrapha NHC III,2; IV,2) an esoteric treatise. Important texts comprise collections of sayings, conversations with the Risen Revealer, “acts” of the apostles, and apocalypses. 1. Sayings. The Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2) comprises 114 sayings of Jesus recorded by Judas Didymus Thomas. Three Greek fragments have been preserved (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655; see Layton), the earliest dating from 200 ce. Seventy-five sayings have parallels in the Synoptics. The text is imbued with Gnostic religiosity. Jesus, from the realm of light (13, 61, 77), reveals knowledge (2) to the “sons of the living Father” (4, 50), who are lost in drunken blindness (29). Knowledge is consciousness of one’s own true self (67), which formerly dwelt (19) in the light (49, 50), where it also will finally dwell forever (18, 60). 2. Dialogues. Dialogues between Jesus and his disciples constitute the framework for a variety of content, often related to the gospel tradition. The → Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2) begins as a letter in which James speaks of two “secret books” and describes the content of one. The book describes Jesus’ appearance to the apostles 550 days after his resurrection. In the setting of the fragmentary → Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III,5), Jesus speaks of his own mission, teaches a prayer, exhorts his disciples to have no fear, and instructs them concerning the ascent to heaven. In some texts, the narrative framework is all that connects the content with the NT. The → Apocryphon of John, extant in a longer (NHC II,1; IV,1) and a shorter (III,1; BG 2) recension, contains a polished theology and cosmogony, an interpretation of Genesis, a catechism on soteriology, and a hymn to the coming “providence.” The setting for the Gnostic instruction is provided by the story of an encounter between John the son of Zebedee and a Pharisee who denies Jesus. Hard pressed, John has a vision of a polymorphic savior, who instructs him. The Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7) consists of a dialogue between Jesus and his twin brother Thomas, recorded by a disciple named Matthias. In this dialogue, Jesus describes the destructive power of sexual passion and preaches strict sexual abstinence. The Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4; BG 3) consists of a Gnostic theology and cosmology, which derive from Eugnostos (NHC III,3; V,1). The narrative framework tells of twelve male disciples and seven women; in perplexity after the resurrection, they go to the “Mount of Olives” (in Galilee!), where the Savior instructs and enlightens them. The first → Apocalypse of James (NHC V,3) describes two dialogues between James and Jesus. The first (24:10–30:14) foretells the martyrdom of James; the second (32:23–34:20) prescribes what to say to hostile supernatural powers.

Apocryphal Acts

310

The fragmentary Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1) likewise consists of two dialogues. In the first, the risen Jesus instructs his disciples; then Mary recounts a vision of Jesus in which he describes the ascent of the soul. 3. Texts concerning the Apostles. Some of the Nag Hammadi texts focus more on the apostles. The Second Apocalypse of James (NHC V,4) describes the martyrdom of James, recounted by Mareim, a priest related to Theuda, the father of James. The Acts of Peter (NHC VI,1) is an allegorical account of a missionary journey in the course of which Peter and his companions encounter Christ as a heavenly being, Lithargoel. The → Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII,2) begins with a short letter from Peter, who invites Philip to Jerusalem. There the apostles meet the risen Lord. The Coptic Acts of Peter (BG 8502,4) describes Peter as a healer, who first heals his crippled virgin daughter and then returns her to her previous state to preserve her virginity. 4. Apocalypses. The Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2) describes the ascent of Paul through ten heavens, led by a child. The story is inspired by 2 Cor 12:2–4. The Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII,3) consists of three visions of Peter, interpreted by Jesus.

were likely not written at the place of martyrdom (hence the → Acts of Paul and the → Acts of Peter [→ Apocrypha/ Pseudepigrapha: IV] did not originate in Rome). Their ultimate purpose is not to entertain, however, but to communicate religious content which, in most instances, is associated with a spiritualistic, unworldly wisdom orientation. Here the person of Christ is hardly separated from God himself. Of special importance is the specificity of the individual texts which the Manichaeans (→ Manichaeism) secondarily accepted as a corpus. The church fathers later condemned this entire corpus. Early on, at the time of → Origen, however, these writings were rightly evaluated individually. Some AA are very plain and popular (e.g. Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter), while from a literary perspective others prove to be complex (e.g. Acts of Andrew). Given the description of the respective hero’s life these novels bear the marks of a biography, albeit not on the level of ancient literary works like Plutarch’s Vitae. Apart from their length, they have the so-called episodic style in common with the Gospels. In the → Acts of Thomas and the → Acts of Philip the individual stories are counted and are enumerated in the mss. The content of these stories consists of sometimes wildly exaggerated miracles, conversations, dangerous journeys and martyrdoms.

Sources: D.M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI, NHS 11, 1979 ◆ A. Pasquier, L’Évangile selon Marie (BG 1), BCNH.T 10, 1983 ◆ S. Emmel, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex III,5, NHS 26, 1984 ◆ J.M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 31988 ◆ B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, NHS 20–21, 1989 ◆ H.M. Schenke, Das Thomas-Buch, TU 138, 1989 ◆ D.M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1, NHS 27, 1991 ◆ M. Waldstein & F. Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John, NHMS 33, 1995 ◆ M. Desjardins & J. Brashler, “NHC VII,3, the Apocalypse of Peter,” in: B.A. Pearson, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex VII, NHMS 30, 1996, 201– 47 ◆ Bibl.: P. Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue, 1980 ◆ R. Cameron, Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James, HTS 34, 1984 ◆ S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 1993 ◆ M.L. Turner, The Gospel according to Philip, NHMS 38, 1996. Harold W. Attridge

J.N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, 1966 ◆ E. Plümacher, “Apokryphe Akten,” PRE.S 15, 1978, 11–70 ◆ R.McL. Wilson, “Apokryphen II”, TRE III, 1978, 316–362, esp. 341–348 ◆ F. Bovon, ed., Les Actes apocryphes des Apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen, 1981 ◆ D. MacDonald, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Semeia 38, 1986 ◆ L. van Kampen, Apostelverhalen. Doel en compositie van de oudste apokriefe Handelingen der apostelen, 1990 (with English summary). François Bovon

Apocryphal Acts I. Form and Genre – II. Literature

I. Form and Genre In terms of form the Apocryphal Acts (AA) resemble the canonical Gospels, especially John, rather than the Acts of the Apostles. Like Jesus in the Gospels, the respective apostle introduces himself as a mediator of divine revelation. At the end of his ministry, like Jesus, he endures martyrdom (crucifixion for Andrew, Peter and Philip, beheading for Paul, piercing for Thomas; the exception is John, who dies in his sleep). These works are to be viewed as historical novels (like the book of → Judith in the Jewish context, for instance, or the Novel of Alexander in the Greek context). The earliest AA

II. Literature We may speak of two waves in the production of the AA. The initial one is associated with a period before the fixing of the NT canon (→ Bible: III) and hence the Acts of the Apostles was not yet a deterrent in writing them. The story of a particular apostle (Andrew, Peter, John, Paul, Thomas) is narrated. These AA intend to communicate religious, sometimes esoteric, i.e. positively “apocryphal” teaching. By its own assertion the Acts of Andrew, for instance, is intended to be understood as some sort of revelatory writing or as an invitation to initiation. The second wave characteristically deals with the activities of two apostles (cf. the Gospels criterion of “in pairs,” Luke 10:1). Now the adventurers become more important than the message. The teaching manifested in the speeches increasingly adheres to orthodoxy which is becoming established. Allusions to Scripture (OT and NT) are becoming more frequent. The association with the apostle’s tomb has a more organic effect than in the earliest Acts: the text might even be deemed a cultic leg-

311 end. This literature, which developed from the late 2nd century to the 6th century, ultimately merged with the hagiographic literature. Whereas the Alexandrian school of theology (→ Alexandrian Theology), from → Clement to → Didymus, took a more favorable view of literature, others, e.g. → Eusebius of Caesarea, → Epiphanius of Salamis, the → Decretum Gelasianum and → Photius, show a more negative stance. In part this also explains the poor transmission of the AA in the mss. Fortunately official condemnation was counterbalanced by a desire to know something about the apostles and the need to communicate something about them on their respective commemoration days. The result of this tension was the continued production of revised versions that salvaged the narrative but truncated, excised or reformulated the heterodox speeches. It is possible to consider the Acts of Philip as a transition from the earliest AA (Andrew, Peter, John, Paul, Thomas) to the more recent ones (Matthew, Bartholomew, Barnabas, Titus, Timothy, Mark, Luke, etc.). Distinct from all of these longer AA are the briefer notes found in the lists of apostles, the → synaxaria and the → martyrologies. Also to be noted are the numerous translations (into Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Ethiopic etc., through to the European languages), which have almost always been made for liturgical purposes.

Apocryphon of John Jakobus, NTApo I, 61990, 253–264 ◆ D. Rouleau, L’Epître apocryphe de Jacques (NH I,2), BCNH.T 18, 1987, 1–169 ◆ Bibl.: R. Cameron, Sayings Tradition in the Apocryphon of James, 1984 ◆ B. Dehandschutter, “L’Epistula Jacobi apocrypha,” ANRW II 25.6, 1988, 4529–4550 ◆ J. Hartenstein, Die zweite Lehre, 1997. Hans-Gebhard Bethge

Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2; Ap.Jas.), Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha, attested only in Coptic translation, is an untitled Gnostic writing, attributable with certainty to no known movement, but belonging to the dialogue gospels or conversations of the Risen Jesus, ostensibly a letter (sender recontructable as James [p. 1.1], addressee as [Kerin]thos? [p. 1.2.]). Ap.Jas. understands itself as secret doctrine (p. 1.10). The time of composition of the Greek original is difficult to determine: early 2nd century or late 2nd/early 3rd century. It is unclear whether the heterogeneous Jesus tradition offered in Ap.Jas. traces back to tradition independent of the canonical Gospels. The document suggests, on one side, an internal Christian confrontation (p. 3.17f., 27–29), and on the other, a state persecution (p. 5.9–20).

Apocryphon of John. A Greek Gnostic apocalyptic writing, extant in two independent Coptic translations of a shorter Greek original of the Apocryphon of John in NHC III and BG 8502, as well as two additional copies, with slight variations in their dialect, of the Coptic translation of a longer Greek original in NHC II and IV. The long version is likely a revision of the short version. Around 180 Irenaeus (Haer. I 29) summarized a work with significant similarities to one half of the Apocryphon of John (NHC II 4,34–14,13). He probably remembered a source of the Apocryphon of John without the Johannine narrative frame. In the narrative frame Jesus appears to John, son of Zebedee, after his ascension, in order to entrust to him a revelation which is to be kept secret (NHC II 1,1–2,26; 31,25–32,5). Part 1 of the revelation (theogony and cosmogony) is formed as a monologue and prefaces the “beginning” mentioned in Gen 1:1. It provides an account of the self-unfolding of a divine reason based on a middle-Platonic concept and of the creation of a cosmos of light and, on a lower level, of the origin of Yaldabaoth, a false god, and the creation of his dark world ruled by demons (NHC II 2,26–13,13). Part 2 (soteriology and anthropogony) is partly structured as a dialogue between Jesus and John and chronologically placed in parallel to Gen 1:7. It deals with the rescue of the divine power which had been lost to Yaldabaoth, especially with the creation and prehistory of the human being associated with that rescue (NHC II 13,13–30,11). The long version (NHC II and IV) ends with a poetic monologue of Providence ( pronoia), identified with Jesus (NHC II 30,11–31,25). The Apocryphon of John attests to an intense debate within the Hellenistic-Jewish tradition in which the essential claim of the God of Israel, “I am a jealous God; there is no other God beside me” (NHC II 13,8-9), is rejected as envy towards the divinity of the human being (in keeping with middle-Platonic anthropology). This explains the curious chiastic structure, in which the Apocryphon of John separates the Hellenistic-Jewish concept of God into two parts, namely into a higher God who is personally identified with the middle-Platonic source and yet retains essential features of the God of Israel, and the lower god Yaldabaoth, who personally is identified with the God of Israel (and with the Devil) but who nevertheless retains basic features of the Platonic demiurge.

Text: F.E. Williams, in: H.W. Attridge, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex), NHS 22, 1985, 13–53 ◆ D. Kirchner, Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha, TU 136, 1989 ◆ idem, Brief des

M. Waldstein & F. Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2, NHMS 33, 1995 (bibl.). Michael Waldstein

NTApo II, 51989 ◆ R.A. Lipsius & M. Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 3 vols., 1891–1903, repr. 1959 ◆ C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger kopt. Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1, 21905, repr. 1965 ◆ L. Vouaux, Les Actes de Paul et ses lettres apocryphes, 1913 ◆ idem, Les Actes de Pierre. Introduction, traduction et commentaire, 1922 ◆ C. Schmidt, ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΠΑΥΛΟΥ – Acta Pauli . . ., 1936 ◆ E. Junod & J.D. Kaestli, Acta Johannis, CChr. SA 1–2, 1983 ◆ F. Amsler, F. Bovon, B. Bouvier, Actes de l’apôtre Philippe, Apocryphes 8, 1996 ◆ F. Bovon, B. Bouvier & P. Geotrain, Écrits apocryphes, vol. I, ed. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 442, 1997. François Bovon

Apollinarian Controversies Apollinarian Controversies → Apollinarius of Laodicea and Apollinarianism Apollinaris of Ravenna (Saint) (feast day Jul 23). According to Peter Chrysologus (Sermo 128), Apollinaris was the first bishop of Ravenna and a martyr; his translation inscription (CIL 11/1, 295) calls him confessor. In the Ravenna episcopal list, Severus, the first bishop for whom there is clear evidence (343 in Serdica), appears in eleventh place after Apollinaris. As an expression of the exarchate’s desire for → autocephaly, the Passio (BHL, 623) describes Apollinaris as being already a disciple of Peter in Antioch. The vitality of his cult among the Lombards and later is attested by its transfer from the suburban basilica of S. Apollinare in Classe to Theoderic’s palatinate church, known thereafter as S. Apollinare Nuovo. BHL, 623–632 ◆ C. Nauerth, ed., Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis, FChr 21/1, 1996, 97–101 ◆ E. Dinkler, “Das Apsismosaik von San Apollinare in Classe,” WAAFLNW 29, 1964, 11–18 ◆ F.W. Deichmann, Ravenna, 1969 ◆ R. Budriesi, Le origini del cristianesimo a Ravenna, 1970. Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Claudius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (c. 175). Claudius Apollinarius or Apollinaris (Latin form; the preferred Greek form is “Apolinarios”; cf. Zahn) was a bishop in Phrygia during the reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (161–180, sole reign 169–176; cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 21 with IV 19; IV 26.1; idem, Chron. ad ann. Abr. 2187; idem, Chron. paschale ad Olymp. ann. 237, 1 = ann. Christ. 167; Photius Bibl., cod. 14). According to → Theodoret, he was versed in scripture and also familiar with pagan learning (Haer. fab. III, 2). Photius praises his literary style (loc. cit.). Nothing more is known of his life. Apollinarius is said to have presided over an antiMontanist synod of 26 bishops at Hierapolis that also condemned the Monarchianist → Theodotus the Tanner (Libell. synod. in Mansi, I, 723); but this could be an extrapolation based on the fragments in Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 16f.; see below). Jerome Vir. ill. 26 (cf. also Ep. 70, 4) is based on Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 27. Apart from a few fragments, all of Apollinarius’s many works have been lost. The following titles are known: (1) An Apology for Christianity addressed to Marcus Aurelius (hypér tēs písteōs apología; cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 26.1; IV 27). This work was clearly a petition urging that Christianity enjoy the same legal status as the other cults (cf. Kinzig). (2) Five books To (or: Against) the Hellenes (pros Héllēnas; cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 27; Photius loc. cit.; Nicephorus Hist. eccl. IV 11). (3) Two books On Truth (perì alētheias; cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 27; Photius ibid.). (4) Possibly two books To (or: Against) the Jews (pros Ioudaíous;

312 cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV 27). The title is textually uncertain and may be a later interpolation. (5) Writings (grammata) against Montanism (Serapion in Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 19, 2); probably identical with the work kata tēs tØn Phrygōn hairéseōs; cf. also Hist. eccl. V 16, 1; Theodoret ibid.). It is hardly likely that the anonymous fragments of an anti-Montanist work recorded in Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 16f. are by Apollinarius (cf. already the Syriac translation of Hist. eccl. V on 16.11); we should think instead of a work by one of the “learned men” mentioned in V 16.1, obviously with a mutilated beginning. (6) A work On Piety (perì eusebeías; cf. Photius ibid.), possibly identical with (1). (7) Two fragments of a work On the Passover (perì tou pascha) preserved in the Chronicon paschale (for editions see CPG, 1103). In this work, Apollinarius supports the 14th of Nisan as the day of Jesus’ death, following the Johannine chronology, contrary to supporters of the Matthean chronology. (8) Theodoret asserts that Apollinarius wrote against the Severians (Haer. fab. I, 21), but it is uncertain whether this statement refers to an independent work. In one of his works, possibly the Apology, Apollinarius recounted the miracle of lightning and rain (also recorded in other sources) reputed to have taken place in answer to the prayers of Christian legionnaires in 172 or 174, during a battle of the Romans against the Germans and Sarmatians; he also (erroneously) ascribed the epithet Fulminata of the 12th (Melitenian) legion to this event (cf. Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 5.5; see Berwig). Elsewhere Apollinarius expressed the view that the incarnate Christ had been ἔμψυχος/empsychos (“animated, ensouled”) (→ Socrates Scholasticus Hist. eccl. III, 7, 5). T. Zahn, “Apollinaris, Apollinarius, Apolinarius,” in idem, ed., Paralipomena, FGNK V, 1893, 99–109 ◆ C. Schmidt, Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung, TU 43, 1919, 623–628 ◆ A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, vol. I, 21958, 243–246; II/1, 21958, 358–361 ◆ O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, vol. I, 21913, repr. 1966, 286–289 ◆ D. Berwig, “Mark Aurel und die Christen,” diss. Munich, 1970, 106–110 ◆ R.M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, 1988, 83–90 ◆ W. Kinzig, “Der ‘Sitz im Leben’ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche,” ZKG 100, 1989, 291–317 ◆ V. Zangara, “Apol linaris of Hierapolis,” EEC 1, 1992, 58. Wolfram Kinzig

Apollinarius of Laodicea (b. c. 315, d. before 392) and Apollinarianism. Apollinarius (or Apollinaris) was the son of a grammar teacher and presbyter of the same name in Syrian Laodicea and became a lector there before 335. He served from 360/61 as bishop in his home town, taught, and worked above all in → Antioch. There he was initially regarded as a recognized teacher; shortly after the Synod of Seleucia (c. 360), an irritated → Basil the Great requested from Apollinarius a written explanation of the Nicean ὁμοούσιος (homooúsios;

313 → Nicea). Apollinarius also treated this theme in several writings; his Nicean orthodoxy was never doubted. In 377 → Jerome heard his lectures in Antioch, without taking offense at the christological intensification of the Apollinarian exegesis. After 346 there was a close connection between Apollinarius and → Athanasius; Apollinarius attempted to deepen the latter’s soteriology by determining with logical precision the manner of the union of divine and human in the incarnation. He understood this union as the actual substance of Christ: μία ϕύσις σεσαρκωμένη (mía physis sesarkōmenē, sole nature of the incarnate God-Logos). In this he apparently denied that Christ was a human subject with his own understanding and his own capacity to decide. In agreement and contradiction, this conception defined the christological controversy (→ Christology: II); → Cyril of Alexandria adopted, for example, the formula of the one nature but not the concept of an imperfect human nature in Christ. Out of a large number of attested Bible commentaries, only fragments survive in the → Catena tradition, along with theological writings and letters, including some texts that soon circulated pseudonymously under the names of orthodox theologians like Athanasius. While individual theologians (e.g. Cyril in his battle against → Nestorius) were taken in by the false information regarding authorship, some pseudonyms were already uncovered during antiquity by students of Apollinarius, but others not until recent times: Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos (R.M. Hübner, 1989); Pseudo-Basilicus, Adversus Eunomium IV–V (F.X. Risch, 1992), and PseudoAthanasius, Contra Arianos IV (M. Vinzent, 1996). It is also possible that a Homeric psalm paraphrase came from Apollinarius and was written by him in 361. The 30 books against the Neoplatonist → Porphyry are lost. Apparently the beginning of the Apollinarian controversies was not connected with the christology of Apollinarius but ultimately with his siding with → Melitius in the schism of Antiochene christendom. In 376 Apollinarius, who saw himself as spokesman for Athanasius, consecrated → Vitalis, an elder in the Melitian church, as bishop of Antioch. The consequence of the subsequent break with Basil the Great was that the latter demanded the condemnation of Apollinarius by Rome and was successful in 377. After that came condemnations in Antioch (379) and Constantinople (381). It was not until 385 that → Gregory of Nyssa refuted Apollinarian christology. The first express laws against Apollinarianism did not come before 388, but Vitalis retained his office, and the Apollinarian church survived in Antioch until 425. After Apollinarius’s death, his students split into three parties. The teaching of the school’s head was influential (as a result of his pseudonyms) not only with

Apollo Cyril and the Monophysites, but also with Luther and in modern christological discussions. CPG 2, 3645–3700 ◆ H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicaea und seine Schule, vol. I, 1904 ◆ K. Staab, ed., Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, 1933 (repr. 1984) ◆ E. Mühlenberg, ed., Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, vol. I, PTS 15, 1975 ◆ On Apollinarius: E. Mühlenberg, ed., TRE III, 1978, 362–371 (bibl.) ◆ idem, Zur exegetischen Methode des Apollinaris von Laodicaea: Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon, ed. J. Van Oort & U. Wickert, 1992. Charles Kannengießer

Apollo (Ἀπόλλων/Apollōn; Dorian Apellon). The Greek god Apollo was worshiped in all the cities of Greece, but was recognized as the city deity above all by Argos, Sparta, and Miletus (together with its colonies). Panhellenic sanctuaries of Apollo, visited by pilgrims from afar, included → Delphi with its oracle and → Delos. Social analysis indicates that Apollo was apt to be chosen as “their” god particularly by young men between the end of their maternal care at home and their inclusion among the adult citizens, the time when they were ephebes. They wanted to be “wolfish” like Apollo Lyceius, whose image as a strong and handsome young man was a model for any youth (kouros). Young women had an analogous model in Apollo’s twin sister → Artemis. Music and dance were particularly important during these years – accompanied by Apollo’s lyre, surrounded by the Muses. The purpose of the ephebeia also made Apollo the god of the assembly of citizens (Dorian apella). In addition, the Greeks sought his help during plagues, which he could send or avert, purifying themselves through him (→ Asclepius was later associated with him as his “son”); he could also purify blood guilt. The Greeks turned to Apollo Pythius as the god of prophecy; besides his sanctuary at Delphi, he often had his own sanctuary in the poleis. Shepherds relied on him to protect and multiply their flocks. The chief festivals of Apollo included the Thargelia, involving purification through a scapegoat, and the Carneia, with athletic competitions; generally the induction of the ephebes into full citizenship was the focus of the latter. Apollo’s name has not been found in the Mycenaean pantheon. Theories that trace his origin and nature to Lycia and the Hittites or suggest that he was originally a solar deity have not been confirmed. Thus his name most likely derives from his function in the archaic popular assemblies of the Dorians. But the figure of this god has also incorporated several earlier deities such as the ancient Near Eastern plague god Resheph with his bow. His central importance in the early Hellenic period decreased somewhat over time. Since the 5th century, Apollo incorporated aspects of a solar deity as Phoebus Apollo. At about the same time, we find the first evidence of an Apollo cult in Rome, specifically Apollo Medicus,

Apollonia of Alexandria, Saint

314

the god of healing. Apollo became more important in Rome when Augustus chose him as his personal god, in contrast to the Near Eastern Dionysus of his opponent Antony. With its emphasis on the dark side of Greek civilization, the “Apollonian-Dionysian” distinction (Nietzsche) put an end to the one-dimensional perspective of Classicism and the Enlightenment, but it really belongs to the history of religion in the 20th century. Homer Il. 1 ◆ Homer Hym. 3 (to Apollo); 4 (to Hermes), 387–573 ◆ Hesiod Theog. 94f.; 918–920 ◆ Virgil Aen. 8, 740f. ◆ P. Demargne, LIMC II/1, 1984, 183–327 ◆ F. Graf & A. Ley, DNP I, 1996, 863–870 ◆ C. Auffarth, “Der drohende Untergang,” RGVV 39, 1991, 411–460, 506f. ◆ W. Burkert, Griechische Religion, RM 15, 1977, 225–233, 354–358 ◆ R. Parker, Miasma, 1983 ◆ F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte, 1985, 50–58; 218–227 ◆ M. Pettersson, Cults of Apollo at Sparta, 1992 ◆ H.S. Versnel, “Apollo and Mars One Hundred Years after Roscher,” in idem, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion, vol. II, SGRR 6, 1993, 290–334 ◆ J. Solomon, Apollo: Origins and Influences, 1994. Christoph Auffarth

Apollonia of Alexandria, Saint (feast day Feb 9). A letter of → Dionysius of Alexandria concerning Alexandrian martyrs (Eusebius Hist. eccl. VI 41.7) describes Apollonia as “an elderly woman of high standing who had remained a virgin”; during the uprising against Christians in 248, after abuse that broke off her teeth, she voluntarily leapt into the fire. Later legend speaks of a Roman princess under Julian or a sister, who had moved to Egypt, of the Roman deacon Laurence. She is invoked by people suffering from toothache or other diseases of the mouth and is the patron saint of dentists. She is represented with pincers and a tooth (more rarely a book). E. Weis, LCI V, 1973–1990, 232–236.

Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Apollonian and Dionysian are terms first attested in F.W.J.→ Schelling (Philosophy of Revelation, posthum. 1858) for the nature of the Greek gods → Apollo and → Dionysus. The comparison of the two gods and the arts ascribed to them plays a role already in → Plato (Polit. 398c–400c; Nomoi 652a–674c) and is taken up in a manner suited to modern times in F. → Nietzsche. According to the explanations in his book on the Geburt der Tragödie (1872; ET: The Birth of Tragedy, 1927), apollonian stands for the limiting, individuating principle of graphic art, while dionysian designates the rapturous dissolution of the individual in a unifying event and comes to aesthetic expression in music. M.L. Baeumer, Das moderne Phänomen des Dionysischen und seine ‘Entdeckung’ durch Nietzsche, Nietzsche-Studien 6, 1977, 123–153. Günter Figal

Apollonius of Tyana. According to Philostratus, Apollonius was born at Tyana in Cappadocia about the

beginning of the Christian era and lived until the reign of Nerva (96–98 ce). He had a miraculous conception and birth. After finishing his studies, he became an ascetic philosopher in the tradition of → Pythagoras. He foretold the future and performed other miraculous deeds. He traveled to Mesopotamia, Persia, India, and Egypt. Although he opposed animal sacrifice, he restored the neglected rites of many temples. He admonished emperors (→ Nero and → Domitian). After he died (or withdrew from human contact), he was worshiped as a divine being. Philostratus wrote about him over 100 years (c. 200 ce) after Apollonius’s death. His work is certainly not historically reliable in all its details. → Lucian of Samosata (Alexander 5; cf. Dio Cassius 77.18) implies that Apollonius was an imposter and a magician. A collection of 77 Letters that are attributed to Apollonius have survived, as well as an additional 20 citations of similar Letters. These are all of doubtful authenticity. A fragment of a work by Apollonius, On Sacrifices, has been preserved by → Eusebius (praeparatio evangelica 4.13.1). Hierocles, a provincial governor in the time of Diocletian, wrote a work in which he claimed that Apollonius was as great a teacher and miracle-worker as Jesus. Although Hierocles’s work has been lost, the response by Eusebius has survived. Apollonius’s and Philostratus’s accounts of him have played an important role in the study of the NT. F.C. → Baur argued that Philostratus was dependent on the Gospels, but most later NT scholars have argued that his work provides important literary and historical information about the context in which the tradition about Jesus took shape. The latter point of view had a great impact on form criticism and on the interpretation of Jesus as θεῖος ἀνήρ/theios anēr (“divine man”). F.C. Conybeare, ed. and trans., Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 1912, repr. 1989 ◆ E. Meyer, “Apollonius und die Biographie des Philostratos,” Hermes 52, 1917, 370–424 ◆ F. Solmsen, “Some Works of Philostratus the Elder,” TAPhA 1940, 556–572 ◆ idem, “Philostratus,” PRE XX, 1941, 124–177 ◆ R.J. Penella, ed., The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana, 1979 ◆ V. Mumprecht, ed. and trans., Philostratos: Das Leben des Apollonius, 1983 ◆ M. Dzielska, Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History, 1986 ◆ E. Koskenniemi, Apollonius in der neutestamentlichen Exegese, 1994. Adela Yarbro Collins

Apollonius, Roman martyr (feast day Apr 18). At the end of Eusebius’s brief account of the martyrdom of Apollonius, “a man who stood in high esteem among the faithful of that time on account of his culture and erudition” (Hist. eccl. V 21.2–5), he refers to a text that he had “in his collection of the early acts of the martyrs.” These acts may be identical with the so-called Acts of Apollonius, a largely apologetic work surviving in Greek and Armenian; its literary quality and fictional style led

315

Apologetics

Jerome (Vir. ill. 42) to identify Apollonius as a Roman senator. BHG, 149 ◆ BHO, 79 ◆ R. Knopf et al., Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten,

41965, SQS.NF 3, 30–35 ◆ H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian

Martyrs, 1972, 90–105.

Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Apollonius the Antimontanist, an early Antimontanist from Asia Minor, composed c. 200 (?) a lost polemic against → Montanism. It is said to have refuted the prophecies of the Montanists (Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 18.1); ibid. 2–11 preserves 6 fragments criticizing the teaching of Montanus and the lifestyle of well-known Montanists, especially their greed, extravagance, and arrogance. According to Jerome Vir. ill. 40, → Tertullian dedicated the 7th book of his lost De ecstasi to refuting Apollonius. CPG 1, 1328 ◆ A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur I/1, 1893, 241 ◆ P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste, 1913 ◆ C. Trevett, Montanism, 1996. Georg Schöllgen

Apollos (contracted from “Apollonios”), a Jew from → Alexandria versed in the Scriptures and trained in rhetoric, appeared as a Christian apostle independent of → Paul in → Ephesus and → Corinth (Acts 18:24–19:1; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4ff.; 4:6; 16:12). The partisan dispute at Corinth (1 Cor 1:12) was probably triggered by his pneumatic wisdom preaching, which Paul attacks in 1 Cor 1–4. Luke represents him as an incompletely Christianized disciple of John, thus papering over the Corinthian conflict and Apollos’s rivalry with Paul. The mention of Apollos in Tit 3:13 supports his subordination to Paul. W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, WMANT 50, 1979, 37–41, 215–219 ◆ G. Sellin, “Das ‘Geheimnis’ der Weisheit und das Rätsel der ‘Christuspartei,’ ” ZNW 73, 1982, 69–96 ◆ M. Wolter, “Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannesjünger,” ZNW 78, 1987, 49–73 ◆ H. Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, ÖTBK 7.1, 1992, 134–147. Gerhard Sellin

Apologetics I. Concept – II. Judaism – III. New Testament – IV. Church History – V. Islam – VI. Fundamental Theology – VII. Practical Theology – VIII. Missiology

I. Concept The necessity – felt with varying intensity by different communities of faith – to lend credibility to one’s own convictions, ways of behaving, etc. in the face of other, perhaps dominant worldviews, using appropriate means, is an essential element of the history of religion. When the term apologetics is used in this context there is a certain conformity in content which is rooted in the history of Christianity. This is indicated by the etymologically relevant references, esp. Gk ἀπολογία/apologia in the sense of the justification that originally took place

in court. In the present context this implies the initial institutional accusation against a persecuted religious minority and the compulsion of the members to defend themselves publicly (Gk ἀπολογεῖν/apologein). The fact that moreover a theological subdiscipline became established with the designation apologetics underscores the importance within Christianity of a cognitive selfreassurance. A general use of the term then also presupposes an awareness that in the case, for instance, of rather syncretistic religions that are inclined toward tolerance, mainly mystic in orientation, and limited in their claims to validity, there are other system-immanent conditions for an apologetics and its expression in specific situations. Terminologically, apologetics must be distinguished from the technical term “polemics” (Fr. polémique, pugnacious, aggressive; from Gk πολεμικός/polemikos, bellicose, hostile). The latter refers to internal church debates that were held for the purpose of strengthening or implementing favored religious views vis-à-vis heretical tendencies. H. Cancik, art. “Apologetik/Polemik,” HRWG I, 1988, 29–37 (bibl.). Frank Usarski

II. Judaism 1. Hellenistic. In the history of the Jewish people, apologetics as an interaction with the religious environment first experienced a great upswing in Hellenistic diaspora Judaism. An important factor here was the development of pagan anti-Jewish literature, esp. in → Alexandria. There from the 3rd century bce through the 1st century ce Hellenistic Egyptians published, for instance, anti-Jewish versions of the biblical exodus story in which Moses was portrayed as annihilator of culture (Manetho, → Chaeremon, Apion) and which demanded a refutation (→ Anti-Semitism/AntiJudaism). Later on, themes of this kind, including negative interpretations of Jewish customs and feasts (e.g. keeping the Sabbath as laziness, monotheism as atheism) spread to Rome, where they were well received in literary circles (e.g. by → Tacitus). Apologists like → Artapanus (2nd cent. bce) reacted to this with the haggadic retelling of biblical stories that strongly emphasized the superior character of Moses as culture founder and as inventor of good things beneficial to all humankind, such as writing and all kinds of technology (and even the Egyptian adoration of animals!). In a quite different way the contemporary Jewish philosopher of religion → Aristobulus defended himself against defamation of the Jewish religion as philosophically inferior. By using the method of allegorical interpretation developed by the → Stoics he attempted to demonstrate that with the proper interpretation the Jewish holy Scripture in its Greek form (LXX) exhibited the

Apologetics deepest harmonic agreement with the Greek spirit even in utterances that seemed to contradict that spirit. The great apologists of ancient Judaism, however, are → Philo of Alexandria and Flavius → Josephus (both 1st cent. ce). Philo not only followed Aristobulus in his harmonizing (allegorical) interpretation of scripture; he also wrote a now unfortunately lost “Apologia pro Iudaeis,” which, however, may be identical with his work “Hypothetica,” which is contained in part in → Eusebius of Caesarea’s Praeparatio evangelica VIII and in which he sought to demonstrate the rationality of the Jewish laws. The most important surviving work, however, is Josephus’s Contra Apionem, which, incidentally, shows many striking points of contact and overlappings with Philo’s Hypothetica. His main purpose was not only to demonstrate the priority and thus superiority and greater venerability of the Jewish tradition, but also to present in this way the great achievements of Greek culture as ultimately Mosaic creations. This proof of age (of limited success in modern eyes) exercised a great influence on early Christian apologists. In addition to this literature directed toward outsiders, there were also HellenisticJewish apologetic writings whose aim was to strengthen the self-confidence of Jews in a pagan environment, so that they might remain true to their own tradition. V.A. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48, 1956, 169–193 ◆ M. Goodman, “Jewish Apologetics,” in: E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III.1, 1986, 609–616 ◆ P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte WUNT II/39, 1990 ◆ G.E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, 1992. Pieter W. van der Horst

2. Middle Ages to the Modern Period. The encounter of Judaism with Islam after the conquests of the Arabs in the 7th and 8th centuries led to the formation of a medieval apologetics that defended Judaism against the criticism of the new religion and demonstrated its uniqueness in comparison with other religions Rabbi → Saadia Gaon in 9th-century Babylonia was the first to present Judaism in this way. “The Book of the Covenant” by Joseph → Kimchi is a further example. The most important, however, was the Kuzari by → Yehuda ben Samuel ha-Levi (Spain, early 12th cent.). Then came Abraham → Ibn Daud’s ha-Emuna ha-Rama, “The Solemn Faith.” In the 13th century this genre expanded and joined with the even more intensive religious debate with Christianity. The necessity of taking a position vis-à-vis the → disputations held by the church in various countries brought forth a literary genre of polemical and apologetic writings like the “nizachon” (“polemics”) books. These and similar works were supposed to provide especially the Jewish scholar with the necessary tools for confronting Christian arguments and at the same time strengthening the faith of Jews in their own religion. The prevailing ignorance

316 of Jews about the nature of Christianity, which was matched by the ignorance of Christians about the nature of Judaism, made these discussions irrelevant from the intra-Jewish perspective. Thus the Christian insistence on the true meaning of certain Bible verses (e.g. the prophecies of Isaiah) was meaningless to Jews, since they were accustomed to presupposing an infinite multiplicity of meanings in verses, of which no single one was obligatory, as long as it was not expressly required by tradition. Many works of this kind were written in the 14th and 15th centuries (e.g. Eser ha-Dat by Isaac Polkar in the 14th cent. and Sefer ha-Iqqarim by Joseph → Albo in the 15th). Not until the 16th century did Jewish writers begin to feel the need to explain Judaism both to fellow believers and to non-Jewish and esp. Christian readers; they include Abraham Farrisol and Isaac ben Abraham Troki in the 16th century, Isaac Cardoso, Menasseh → Ben Israel, Orobio de Castro, and Saul Levi Mortara in the 17th century. This was often connected with political strivings, for instance, the abolition of the settlement prohibition for Jews in certain lands, and with the battle for certain social and economic rights. In the late 18th and 19th centuries modern Jewish apologetics gained importance with the prominence of the struggle for the → emancipation (III) of Jews and their integration as full citizens in European states. Under the influence of the → Enlightenment, sometimes also in the context of religious reforms, there arose a strong impulse to present Judaism as a rational and ethically oriented religion that in no way clashed with civil rights and duties in a national state; to a certain degree this continued in the 20th century. The apologetic motif moved to the center of Jewish writings, especially those published in European languages. In addition, especially between 1880 and 1940, it became necessary to defend Judaism against the attacks of modern → Anti-Semitism. Cf. → Philosophy, Jewish: II. A. Jellinek, Die Apologetik des Judentums, 1877 ◆ M. Friedlander, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christenthums, 1903 ◆ W.E. Mühlmann, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1984. ◆ H.J. Schoeps, Der moderne Mensch und die Verkündigung der Religion, 1939 ◆ O.S. Shaw, Jewish Religious Polemic of Early and Later Centuries, 1970 ◆ Y.H. Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto: Isaac Cardoso, a Study in 17th-century Marranism and Jewish Apologetics, 1971 ◆ M. Guedemann, Jüdische Apologetik, 1980 ◆ G. Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary, 1981 ◆ Y. Kaplan, From Christianity to Judaism: The Story of Isaac Orobio de Castro, 1980. Joseph Dan

III. New Testament 1. Apologetics vis-à-vis non-Christian Jews a. In connection with the controversy over the → resurrection (II) of Jesus one may distinguish three stages of apologetic argumentation: When the appearances of the resurrected one, to which the early church initially referred exclusively (1 Cor 15:5–8), were interpreted

317 by the Jews as appearances of a bodyless dead spirit, Christians felt called upon to present the resurrected one in as real a way as possible. He now speaks with his own people, eats in their presence, and even lets them touch him (Luke 24:36–49). The question then raised by the Jews against the reality of the resurrection regarding the location of Jesus’ body is met with the information that the grave was actually found empty (Mark 16:1–8). The objection then raised by the Jews that the empty grave is explained by the theft of the body by one of the disciples is finally banished by Matthew with the story of the grave guards (Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–15: a Roman guard placed at Jesus’ grave was bribed by the Jewish authorities to keep quiet about the resurrection, which they had witnessed, and instead to spread the rumor of the theft of the body). b. Matthew employs the idea, formed by Hellenistic Christianity, of conception by the Holy Spirit and the → Virgin Birth in his concern to respond to Jewish criticism of Jesus’ illegitimate birth (Matt 1). This critique itself was possibly one reason for the formulation of those theologoumena. c. Many of the synoptic debates go back to a Christianity that was liberating itself from the Jewish mother religion with recourse to Jesus. Everywhere that Jesus legitimizes an action of the disciples, the church is defending its own practice, for example, with regard to fasting (Mark 2:18–20), the Sabbath commandment (Mark 2:23–28), and the purity laws (Mark 7:1ff.). The bearers of these traditions may be Hellenistic Jewish Christians from Damascus and Antioch who were persecuted by Paul (Saul) and to whom he ultimately owes his own emancipation from the law and his law-free mission to the Gentiles. d. The fundamental difference from Judaism and consequently also one of the main objects of apologetic discussion was faith in the messiahship of Jesus. Its demonstration was served by scriptural proof, which made the history of Jesus appear as the fulfillment of OT prophecies, and by presentation of messianic signs (Matt 11:4–6/Luke 7:22–23; Luke 4:18–19). 2. Apologetics vis-à-vis the Gentiles a. Paul’s apologetic thrust vis-à-vis the Gentiles becomes clear esp. in his interaction with the Corinthian church. The “message of the cross” stands as an attack against human pride in contradiction not only to the Jewish demand for a sign but also to the Greek desire for wisdom. Here Paul is less interested in the content of σοϕία/ sophía than in its dynamics. Because it, as a human effort, belongs in the aeon that is hostile to God, Paul rejects the idea of demonstrating the Christian message with its help (1 Cor 1–3). In Rom 1–3, by speaking of the “natural” knowledge of God (1:19–20) and the law that is written in

Apologetics the hearts of the Gentiles (2:14–15), Paul connects with traditional Hellenistic Jewish apologetics (Wis 12–15) but modifies its intention in a characteristic way by changing to function to point out the foolishness of the Gentile worship of idols and their general enslavement to sin. The aim of traditional apologetics, to awaken knowledge of God by looking at the world and thus to overcome ἀγνωσία (agnōsía, “ignorance”), is not pursued at all by Paul. According to him the “natural” knowledge of God, as an in fact already wasted opportunity, is rather the reason for the inexcusability of the Gentiles. b. Luke endeavors to portray Christianity as an event in world history (Acts 26:26: “this was not done in a corner”) that corresponds to all the demands of Hellenistic education. In Lystra Paul and Barnabas deal with false ideas of the gods and prove the existence of the living Creator-God through his good deeds (Acts 14:8–18). In Athens the Lukan Paul is expressly confronted with the Greek conceptual world, represented by Epicureans and Stoics (Acts 17:16–34). To emphasize their commonality, in v. 28a Luke places on Paul’s lips a statement coined by Stoic “pantheism,” which in v. 28b is clarified by a quotation from the Phenomena of Aratus (5): “For we too are his offspring.” 3. Apologetics vis-à-vis the Roman state a. The pre-Markan passion report is borne by the intention to absolve Pilate from responsibility for Jesus’ death and passing all guilt on to the Jews. The evangelists Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John pick up this tendency and take it further (esp. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34; Matt 27:4–5, 24–25; Luke 23:4, 13–16; John 18:28–19:16). Since this apologetic feature is already one characteristic of the tradition adopted by Paul (1 Thess 2:14–16) and also finds use in the speeches of Acts (2:23; 3:13–15; 4:10; 5:30; 7:52), we may assume that it goes back to the time immediately after the death of Jesus (cf. also Mark 12:1–12). b. It is not coincidental that apologetics toward the secular state is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans (12:1–7). Here the apostle adopts statements that were already formulated in Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Sir 17:17; Wis 6:3–4; cf. Prov 8:15–16). The requirement to subject oneself to the state authorities instituted by God stands in contrast to the anti-Rome statements in Acts (14:8; 18:2, 21), as well as to Paul’s own statements about seeking and forgoing justice (1 Cor 6:1–6). c. Within the NT, apologetics vis-à-vis the Roman state is strongest in Luke. This is already seen in the fact that to his Gospel he adds Acts, which describes the path of the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Rome, and that he anchors the dates of the sacred history by naming the Roman emperor in secular history (Luke 2:1; 3:1; Acts 11:28; 18:2). In terms of content, the Rome-friendly

Apologetics apologetics becomes clear above all in the author’s efforts to show the political harmlessness or loyalty of Christianity: even Jesus’ parents follow the requirements of the census and thereby demonstrate loyalty to the Roman state (Luke 2:1–5); a Roman centurion is the first convert (Acts 10); Paul’s Roman citizenship is emphasized (Acts 22:25–29); his conflicts with authorities are the consequences of Jewish slander (Acts 17:6– 7; 24:5); all the more exemplary, already in Jesus’ trial, is the behavior of the Roman authorities (Acts 18:14–15; 21–26). Similarly, Acts ends not with the death of Paul but with the statement that he preached the gospel unhindered in Rome. P. Wernle, “Altchristliche Apologetik im NT,” ZNW 1, 1900, 42–65 ◆ W. Baldensperger, Urchristliche Apologie. Die älteste Auferstehungskontroverse, 1909 ◆ R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, FRLANT 29, 21931, 101995 ET: History of the Synoptic Tradition ◆ W. Nestle, “Zur altchristlichen Apologetik im Neuen Testament,” ZRGG 4, 1952, 115–23 ◆ G. Bornkamm, “Die Offenbarung des Zornes Gottes,” in: Das Ende des Gesetzes, BEvTh 16, 51966, 9–33 ◆ P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, SJ 1, 21974 ◆ H. Conzelmann, Heiden – Juden – Christen, BHTh 62, 1981 ◆ G.N. Stanton, “Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic,” NTS 31, 1985, 377–92. Gerd Lüdemann

IV. Church History 1. Early Church a. The classical apologetics of the 2nd century. In this early phase Christian apologetics had two main aims: to show that Christianity is a legal religion that is not connected with criminal activities and does not undermine Roman society; further, that it is reasonable. The proof of the latter assertion was increasingly regarded as the best proof of the former. In this effort Christian apologists had to relate themselves to reason (λόγος/logos) as the highest criterion of truth. In classical Greek thought, πάθος/páthos, passion, was the opposite of reason and truth. The Christian apologetics of the 2nd century can be briefly summarized by showing that all of Greco-Roman religion and the greater part of Greco-Roman philosophy are contrary to reason and products of demonic passions, whereas some philosophers have clearly seen and unmasked this demonic deception by having brief glimpses of the true Logos, which was always there to be sought by lovers of truth, and which became incarnate in the last times as Jesus Christ. In the identification of the pantheon of GrecoRoman religion with its demons and their evaluation as without exception evil and contrary to reason, early Christianity was clearly distinct from its Jewish predecessors and in contrast to the more differentiated and more ambivalent attitude to the demonic in the prevailing philosophy of this period, → Stoicism and middle Platonism. The Christians would not let themselves be

318 influenced by the compromise of contemporary philosophy with the “gods of the city.” Rather, they applauded the founders of philosophy and their uncompromising position, first and above all, Socrates and Plato. These men had anticipated the radical Christian position, and → Socrates in particular had to pay the same price that Christians now also paid: martyrdom. Thus Christian apologetics not only adopted the criterion of reason but in the process also gradually changed it considerably. The basic model of Christian apologetics is applied to various areas, first and foremost to the realm of politics and second, on a broader level, to interaction with pagan religion. In the classical apologies of the 2nd century (→ Aristides, → Justin, → Melito, → Athenagoras, → Tertullian) the appeal to reason is addressed to the Roman emperor or the senate. In particular in the apologies that were written in the time of the (co)regency of → Marcus Aurelius this appeal to reason was reinforced by making use of the emperor’s own philosophical concerns (e.g. Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 11.3). Demons are responsible for the irrational slandering of Christians, who supposedly made themselves guilty of “atheism, Thyestean banquets, and oedipal unions” (Legatio 3.1). If one gives credence to these slanders, then even mere designation as a Christian is sufficient for the imposition of the death penalty. But the emperor, as a true philosopher, could not accept the tradition and prejudices of the people as true. He had to initiate closer investigations of how Christians lived their lives and practiced their religion. In fact, Christians corresponded more than anyone else to the highest philosophical ideals ( Justin, Athenagoras). Therefore the rise of Christianity coincided with the establishment of the pax romana (Melito). Yet this was not sufficient for political apologetics. By refusing to present sacrifices before the statue of the emperor and worship the Roman gods, the Christians were committing a crime. Hence political apologetics also had to contain a justification for this refusal. This justification could only consist in proof that the Roman gods were in reality no gods at all, and that the religious adoration of a human being went against true piety. In this way political apologetics was transformed into religious apologetics. The task of convincing the emperor and the educated public in general that the Roman (and all other) gods were not gods at all but secret demons, and that therefore traditional religion in its entirety was irrational and deceptive represented a tremendous challenge. The only possible ally in this undertaking was philosophy or rather certain philosophical schools: the philosophical atheists, Stoics, and the Platonic tradition (esp. Socrates). At most the apologists could willingly confess the similarity of their position to that of the → Stoics (Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic) and that of → Plato. Socrates’s critique of the gods of Homer

319 in particular was often gratefully acknowledged. Indeed, Socrates and others like him were claimed as “Christians before Christ” ( Justin). Even Tertullian was ready to concede that Socrates had seen a “certain part of the truth” when he criticized the gods (Apol. 46.5), and that his martyrdom could be traced back to the fact that the “truth was hated in all ages” (Apol. 14.8). In → Clement of Alexandria one finds basically the same admission, that Plato’s antimythological theology contains much truth; here, however, it seems even more generous. Only → Tatian rejects all Greek culture, including all philosophy. The identification of philosophical reason with Christ as Logos rests on two theological presuppositions: Christ’s redemptive work is understood first of all as redemption from enslavement to demons, and Christ as Logos is seen as the Mediator of the creation of human beings: By letting all people share in reason (λόγος), Christ as sowing Logos (λόγος σπερματικός/ lógos spermatikós) shares with all human beings something of himself: seed of the Logos (σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου/spérma toú lógou, Justin). In all its manifestations this Logos effects the same thing: the liberation of human beings from demonic-satanic servitude, from enslavement to irrational passions, and the reestablishment of human beings in their true rationality, which is expressed in prayer and obedience to the only truly existing God ( Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others). In this way the goal of philosophy was reached and, indeed, not by the majority of philosophers but by simple, (mostly) uneducated Christians. In order to explain this, Christian apologists appealed to divine revelation as one means of conveying the truth that proved to be more effective than philosophical investigation. This raises the whole question of the rational credibility of presumed divine revelation. To this Christian apologists had manifold answers. First they referred to the sheer efficacy of Christian liberation from demons (as in Christian exorcism or readiness for martyrdom) as convincing empirical proof. When uneducated Christians surpass the philosophers in acting truly philosophically, then that is proof that the incarnate Logos was stronger than the fragments of Logos that were revealed by philosophical research. Second, the OT prophets enjoyed the highest credibility because of the simple fact that their prophecies had been fulfilled. Thus “prophetic proof ” – originally developed in anti-Jewish polemics – was now adopted into apologetics vis-à-vis the Gentiles (esp. Justin, Ps.-Justin and → Theophilus). In this way Christianity also received a “proof of age” that it otherwise still lacked. b. Later apologetics in the 3rd to 5th century. In the Greek church the work Contra Celsum of → Origen presents a new type of apologetics. It was not occasioned by

Apologetics any current persecution nor by a current literary attack, but by an already 70-year-old book, and it was motivated only by the pure intellectual unease of fellow Christians who were concerned that this book had never been given an appropriate answer. The complexity of Origen’s answer reflects the complexity of Celsus’s attack. It contains detailed discussions of the historical reliability of NT reports, about the credibility of a messiah rejected by his own people, etc. The most burning questions, however, were the same as those of the apologetics of the 2nd century: Could Christianity really justifiably call on the support of philosophy if it rejected popular religion, which is defended by → Celsus, or is Christianity a politically and socially subversive force which, if it prevails, will destroy society? The intensity of the debate was increased by the fact that Celsus and Origen shared so many basic philosophical convictions. Even more erudite than Origen’s answer is the detailed apologetics of Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica. Eusebius responds to two objections that were brought forth by Celsus and → Porphyry : that Christians held their convictions only out of blind faith and could produce no rational arguments for it, and that Christians were socially and politically subversive in that they destroyed popular religion. As a reaction to this, Eusebius brings into play the whole arsenal of apologetic arguments of the 2nd century, but he supports the old arguments with the help of many excerpts from the works of classical and more recent authors, many of which survive only in these excerpts. The whole enterprise is apparently connected with Constantine’s bold program to rebuild the empire on the provocative new foundation of Christianity. Less academic and less astute – but all the more filled with the desire to convince and convert the reader – are the works of Athanasius, Contra gentes and De incarnatione verbi. In terms of content they bring little that is new, compared with the classical apologies, apart from the fact that Athanasius brings into play a more profound and more complete Christology than his predecessors in the 2nd century. Here apologetics is transformed into missionary preaching. The mature, educated, and rather academic summary of Greek apologetics is found, however, in the twelve books of → Theodoret of Cyrrhus on the “Healing of Heathen Diseases” (c. 440?). The great collector of older apologies in the Latin church is → Lactantius, who at the same time gave them a stylistically and rhetorically unified format. His Divinae Institutiones, which in form emulated the great handbooks of jurisprudence and rhetoric, was intended for a pagan but educated readership. Lactantius is less obligated to the dialogue with Greek philosophy than the apologetes of the 2nd century. He is a theologian of divine revelation, not of rational research. The truth is revealed by God, not

Apologetics sought and found by human beings. Even Socrates finally came to the desperate confession that the only thing he knew about divine things was his own ignorance (Inst. 3.28). For Lactantius philosophy is no longer an ally in the rejection of idolatry and mythology but rather a rival that through internal strife and inconsistency destroyed itself. It was → Augustine who gave Latin apologetics its final and complete form. At the same time he created a complete new synthesis out of neoplatonic metaphysics on the one hand, and on the other, Christian salvation history of creation, fall, incarnation, redemption, and perfection, for which there was no previous model in the Western church. In various areas of philosophy and rational apologetics Augustine produced intelligent contributions. Against the total empirical skepticism of the academics (Contra Academicos), as well as against astrology and the mythological dualism of → Manichaeism (e.g. Conf. 6.6–7; Contra Faustum), he tried his hand even in historical criticism against the well-informed and competent attacks that Porphyry directed toward the biblical documents (e.g. De consensus evangelistarum). Yet above all in the profound and very personal disagreement with → Neoplatonism, Augustine was in his element, as attested esp. by his Confessions and De civitate Dei. Through the Latin translation of neoplatonic writings – first of all by → Plotinus and Porphyry – Augustine found a conception of God and of being that for him was intellectually as well as emotionally satisfying. He would never again relinquish his Platonic image of God. In Civ. VIII he borrows from the terminology of → Varro and calls the true theology of philosophy “natural theology,” by which he means the agreement between theology and reality, that is, God’s true nature. The antithesis of this would be a “mythical” theology, as is contained in the myths of poets. But while he gave recognition to Platonic theology, Augustine still saw serious weaknesses in the understanding of human beings in → Platonism, which knew nothing of the deep chasm between humankind and God. For Augustine this chasm could be bridged only through God’s action, and the appropriate answer to the hopeless situation of human beings could only lie in the story of the divine act of redemption. In the Confessions this story is recounted on the small scale of an individual human life (even if it is fitted into the framework of the great story of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation). In De civitate the historical framework itself stands at the midpoint. Triggered by the conquest of Rome (410) and the apparently critical situation of the empire, Augustine develops here an all-encompassing theory as to how God in the course of world history builds the complete human society: the heavenly Jerusalem. Since this is the goal and ideal image, all political authorities of the present age and the societies constructed by human beings are “secu-

320 larized” as merely means to an end outside themselves, which, unlike the ideal society, can have no permanency. They cannot heal the basic human weakness, self-interest, but at most keep it under control by balancing conflicting self-interests against each other. In this way human society and political power can be tools of God’s protective care for the world, and Christians are obligated to work and look after the welfare and health of the nation or empire in which they reside as citizens. L.W. Barnard, art. “Apologetik I,” TRE III, 1978, 371– 411 (bibl.) ◆ H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, 1966 ◆ R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History of the Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, 1970, 21988 ◆ R.M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, 1988 (bibl.). Oskar Skarsaune

2. Middle Ages to the Modern Period As the effort to work out or defend Christian truth in opposition to other religions or worldviews, apologetics has its source in a differentiation and reflects this systematically. From the increase in apologetic work in the modern period, it is clear that there is not (or no longer) a unified Christian culture; Christianity and theology find themselves in tension and in competition with other understandings of reality. They no longer define their environment but are themselves limited by other kinds of things and must expressly relate to each other. Even where the term is avoided, a kind of de facto apologia or apologetics can be pursued. The history of apologetics is therefore an aspect of the history of theology (→ Theology, History of ) in general. Apologetic concepts that emphasize differences regularly alternate with work that is interested in integration. Even where the difference is strong, this happens through the means of the time. The reception of Aristotle in the 12th/13th century raises the question of the relationship of church tradition and philosophical knowledge. Whereas → Thomas Aquinas overcame the tensions in one system, the nominalists (→ Nominalism, → Universals Controversy) disputed the harmony of natural and supernatural truth: the authority of the church is based on the truth of faith. It is this foundation that in the modern period, even with the Reformation, no longer proves effective. Beginning in the late 16th and 17th century theologians increasingly feel themselves challenged to refute → atheism. As soon as natural reason became the measure of all things in the Enlightenment, even philosophers committed to Christianity endeavored to explain revelation, miracles, and evil in the world on the basis of reason ( J. → Locke ; J. → Toland ; G.W. → Leibniz). Through harmonizations they in part fell victim to the danger of losing the special character of faith and its object. B. → Pascal correctly feels the tension between Christianity and modern reason, between the God of philosophers and the God of

321 Abraham; nonetheless, through the analysis of human greatness and misery he attempts to make Christianity plausible to unbelievers. In Germany J.G. → Hamann in the 18th century expounded the opposition between reason and faith. F. → Schleiermacher in his Reden über die Religion: An die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern (ET: On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers), defined religion as the independent area of opinion and feeling vis-à-vis philosophy and morality. With Schleiermacher, apologetics, as a part of philosophical theology, does not aim to prove the truth of a religion but to “discover what is characteristic of a way of belief ” that is lacking in other communions (Der christliche Glaube §§11–14). In the 19th century the concept of apologetics was in vogue. It is quite normal for dogmatics to be preceded by an apologetic foundation. Practical apologetics attempts, in interaction with → historicism, → materialism, and → Darwinism, to keep Christianity and science free from contradiction ( J.H.A. → Ebrard ; Christian E. Baumstark); in addition, Schleiermacher and I. → Kant’s separation of faith and knowledge define the apologetic work of the 19th century: independent from rational proof and counterproof, religion is a matter of experience (F.A.G. → Tholuck, C.E. → Luthardt). The integration of faith into a purely rational worldview is abandoned, but not its positive relationship to ethos, practical reason, and culture. Apologetics works out the essence of Christianity. Christianity fulfills human longing for the absolute and for the relativization of the earthly (A. → Ritschl, E. → Troeltsch, etc.). In the period after World War I, K. → Barth and → dialectical theology fight all attempts at a synthesis of divine revelation on the one hand and human reason and religion on the other. The concept of apologetics becomes disreputable. Already in 1929 E. → Brunner discusses again the “other task of theology,” “to teach people to understand their own quest for God” (theological → eristics). K. → Heim is one of the few theologians of this century who strive for a productive dialogue with natural-scientific thought. P. → Tillich understands his “Systematic Theology” as apologetics in that he tries to answer human questions. K. → Rahner and Pannenberg define human beings as open beings; they go beyond themselves and ask about the whole, about a meaningful totality, and are thus ultimately “open to God.” In addition to these examples of apologetic orientation in the 20th century, the concept of apologetics itself is also filled with various nuances. Herms understands the task of apologetics as giving a public accounting of the “good and powerful reasons” for the Christian understanding of reality; among these the power of ethical orientation stands out. For Sparn apologetics is “a form of self-enlightenment of the Christian church in view of its concrete context of cultures and esp. of worldviews and its interaction with

Apologetics that context.” Behind both concepts is the experience of a pluralism of religions and worldviews. Apologetics, as the task of theology and the obligation of the church, cannot be argued only under the influence of a nondialogical Christian claim of exclusivity, but also in the name of syncretistic dialogue theology. Here the experience of difference from other religions and understandings of reality changes into a desire to merge, so that peculiarity and profile are no longer interesting. K.G. Steck, art. “Apologetik II,” TRE III, 1978, 411–24 (bibl.) ◆ W. Elert, Der Kampf um das Christentum seit Schleiermacher und Hegel, 1921 ◆ K. Aland, Apologie der Apologetik, 1948 ◆ H.M. Barth, Atheismus und Orthodoxie, 1971 ◆ W. Pannenberg, G. Sauter et al., Grundlagen der Theology – ein Diskurs, 1974 ◆ K. Rahner, Grundkurs des Glaubens, 1976 ◆ E. Herms, “Mit dem Rücken zur Wand? Apologetik heute,” in: idem, Offenbarung und Glaube, 1992, 484–516 ◆ W. Sparn, “Religiöse Aufklärung,” Glaube und Denken 5, 1992, 77–105. 155–64 ◆ R. Hummel et al., Begegnung und Auseinandersetzung: Apologetik in der Arbeit der EZW, 1994 ◆ H. Ott, Apologetik des Glaubens, 1994 ◆ R. Slenczka, “Apologetik als Auftrag der Kirche in öffentlicher Verantwortung,” KuD 41, 1995, 13–33 ◆ M. Pöhlmann, “Publizistische Apologetik. Die Auseinandersetzung der ‘Apologetischen Centrale’ mit religiösen und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen in der Weimarer Republik und im Dritten Reich,” diss., 1997. Michael Nüchtern

V. Islam 1. General. The oldest book of Islamic apologetics is the → Quhrān, which already contains argumentation structures that are rooted in the debate. Interaction with non-Muslims later also became the area in which Islamic dialectical theologians (mutakallimūn, orig. “speakers”) mostly proved themselves; thus Islamic dialectical theology (kalām, “speech” and/or “disputatio”) is apologetically and defensively oriented (van Ess, I, 48–56). The structure of the theological treatises varied considerably at times, but the sequence of main themes shows a certain constancy, for instance, in the al-Asaarī (d. 935) or in al-Māturīdī (d. 994): The world is not eternal but created. It can only be the work of a single Creator. → Mu˙ammad is God’s ambassador. The message conveyed by Mu˙ammad about faith and religious duties is to be obeyed (Gardet-Anawati 136–186; Rudolph 221–254). 2. Islam and Judaism. The Quhrān reproaches the possessors of scripture ( Jews and Christians) for changing and distorting their books of revelation. The Muslim apologists also accuse them of having explained away or removed from their writings references to Mu˙ammad. In contrast, there has gradually arisen a dogma of the sinlessness and infallibility of the prophet, who needs the “protection” of God, so that his revelation would come into the world undistorted (van Ess, IV, 591–604). The teaching of the inimitability of the Quhrān, which is rooted in the Quhrān text in the form of a polemic against the heathens, is also developed in the theology,

Apologetics especially in the Muatazilites, through the controversy against Jews and Christians (van Ess IV, 604ff.). 3. Islam and Christianity. The heart of the opposition between Christianity and Islam lay from the beginning in Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity. Even if the theology of the unity of God and the divine attributes developed within Islam, it also, nonetheless, always had apologetic aims vis-à-vis Christianity, not only in the rejection of the divinity of Christ but also perhaps in the teaching of the eternal and uncreated nature of the Qu’rān, which for many scholars of Islam is the opposite of the Christian Logos issue (Sweetman). 4. Islam and dualism. The attacks of Islamic theologians against dualists (Mazdakites/Zoroastrians [→ Zarathustra], → Bardesanes, also → Marcion/Marcionites), and esp. Manicheans (→ Manichaeism) concentrate on the following teachings: the two eternal principles, the eternity of the world, the merging, and the dividing (LRS I, 655ff.). Islamic theology exhibits an antidualist character because it must assert itself in a dualistically shaped environment. It defends Islam against a fundamental challenge and fights to see that faith in one God retains the upper hand (Nagel 101– 102 and index; Rudolph 188–191, 193–198, 225–228; van Ess IV, index). J.W. Sweetman, Islam and Christian Theology, I/1–II/2, 1945– 67 ◆ L. Gardet & M.M. Anawati, Introduction à la théologie musulmane, 1948, 31981 ◆ W.M. Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, 1962, 51985 ◆ M. Cook, Early Islamic Dogma, 1981 ◆ Shahrastani, Livre des religions et des sectes, vol. I, revised by D. Gimaret & G. Monnot, 1986 (LRS) ◆ J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jh. Hidschra, vols. I–IV, 1991–97 ◆ T. Nagel, Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, 1994 ◆ U. Rudolph, Al-Māturīdī und die sunnitische Theologie in Samarkand, 1997. Claude Gilliot

VI. Fundamental Theology Basically apologetic means the “art of the answer” (Tillich, Systematic Theology, III, 226–227* [1966]), in particular, to the question of the meaning and truth of the Christian life and its supporting and guiding existential certainty (Daseins = gewissheit). The NT (1 Pet 3:15) sees already that the development of this art is essential for the Christian life. The reason is the origin of the Christian life in the opening up (revelation) of the meaning and truth of the gospel: God is not far but near; the present itself is the arrival of his sovereign rule, the self-realization of his creative will to salvation, that is, his will for fellowship, reconciliation, and perfection. Thus this certainty of existence comes from a revelatory event that is not at our disposal, that seizes individuals in their individuality, that changes their feeling of self and their life force. In addition, it has power, because what is thereby revealed and made certain is the truth, set out in the gospel, of the understanding of world events

322 and of human origins, the original constitution and original purpose of human life. The essential traits of Christian existential certainty that are based on such an origin in revelation are that it is not at any individual’s disposal but that, at the same time, its content is valid for everyone. Apologetics is unavoidable in Christian life, because in the light of its own existential certainty, it sees itself placed in the overall context of human experience and communication of truth, and of the questioning and answering essential for that communication. Because the Christian view of the general constitutive conditions of human certainty is a specific one, the Christian life becomes unavoidably the object of amazement and questioning. But because that view concerns the general constitutive conditions of human certainty, the Christian life knows that the special nature and inaccessibility of the origin of its certainty of existence, nonetheless, does not remove it from the general sphere of human experience and communication of truth. For the Christian life it is certain that all questions and answers concerning it and its existential certainty come under the – in its view – universally valid conditions of reasonable questioning and answering. Under these conditions and within their boundaries, all questions can be understood and all answers made understandable. The task of apologetics is to answer all questions understandably that relate to the understanding of the Christian life and its existential certainty, its content, and its ground. Such questions can come from the environment of the Christian life or from its own context. The latter are regularly stimulated by impressions from non-Christian surroundings, whether they throw the Christian life into confusion and unclarity, or in other ways stimulate deeper self-reflection. Conversely, questions from outside are stimulated by encounters with the Christian life. This is necessarily provoked by the Christian life, because on the basis of the origin and content of its existential certainty, it can do no other than claim universal validity and expect its recognition by the surrounding world. Christianity lives only in awareness of its mission. That includes the possibility of collision with other universal life-orientations and their mission. Questions directed toward the Christian life from its environment, therefore, can be dictated by inclination, indifference, or opposition. They are necessarily aimed at the essence of the Christian life and its principle: its inspiring and orienting existential certainty, its points, and their basis. The primary and basic task of apologetics is thus to make the nature of Christianity understandable. This was elaborated by Schleiermacher. Vis-à-vis hostile questions or disputes of the Christian existential certainty, in addition, the task of the defense, the protection of the Christian life and its foundations can arise.

323 At the same time, apologetics is tied to the conditions of the generation of certainty and communication that are valid for the whole realm of creation, as they are viewed and understood in Christian existential certainty. From this come the systematic difficulties of apologetics: it must maintain its own understanding of the conditions of the experience and communication of truth vis-à-vis others and itself proceed according to these conditions. Faith knows that like itself, all other possible understandings of existence come from disclosure events (revelations) that are not at our disposal. All are individual and depend on perspective. Therefore it is inappropriate to want to make understandable or even to “prove” the truth of the Christian undertanding of existence on the level of a supposedly superpositional, aperspectival understanding of existence – pure reason or “science.” This critique also applies to the classical attempts of early Protestant orthodoxy and Roman Catholic scholasticism, to prove the truth of Scripture or church teaching on purely rational grounds (demonstratio religiosa, christiana and catholica). Apologetics is robbed of all means of logical proof and the production of empirical evidence in order to compel agreement. It is interested only in dialogue that makes possible opportunities for lighting up the truth of the Christian understanding of existence. Apologetics aims at the freedom of faith, whose expression it is. P. → Tillich rediscovered that apologetics as the art of answering is an essential function of the Christian life and therefore also of the church as a whole. It must be practiced in all its dimensions and realms and in word and deed. But changing situations demand differing intensifications: D. → Bonhoeffer wondered whether the Christian answer was not to be given today only through silent action. The forms of expression of → glossolalia seem again suitable too. Yet the old insight remains: in the discussion of understandings of existence (worldviews) apologetics cannot forgo the word and discursive exposition in the medium of language, of interpretation, of arguments that enhance plausibility, that is, in the medium of doctrine (cf. 1 Cor 14:2–5). Then apologetics forms at first a basic trait of all Christian doctrine. Apologetics is understood either as a task of theology as a whole, of all its disciplines, or as a task for which, point by point, a subdiscipline is responsible: systematic theology. It too can understand apologetics again as the task of its overall work or as the task of one of its subdisciplines. → Thomas Aquinas saw that apologetics requires the overall presentation of the Christian understanding of existence but for this wrote a special presentation of this whole (Summe contra gentiles). In the interaction of Roman Catholic school theology with the Enlightenment the movement of apologetics toward

Apologetics independence progressed to a subdiscipline, specifically within the framework of the “fundamental theology” subdiscipline in systematics (Seckler). Only with the resurgence of Roman Catholic theology in the middle of the 20th century was there a tendency, fed by prominent stimuli (K. → Rahner, B. → Lonergan), toward the inclusion of the whole of systematic theology, or dogmatics, in apologetics and a corresponding broadening of the apologetic task to the whole of dogmatics. The similar development in the Protestant realm proceeded even more clearly. Prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries was a tendency toward the gaining of independence of apologetics in its own discipline with its own writings. It was maintained into the beginning of the 20th century with prominent examples (Lemme). The discussion is carried out above all as a battle of the Christian worldview with other “worldviews.” It continues to live, say, in the extensive monographic literature on the relationship between the natural scientific image of the world and human beings and the Christian understanding of the world and humankind – with a shift of emphasis from outward defense to inward reassurance. This turning point goes back to K. → Barth’s critique of “bad apologetics,” the hybrid and disastrous attempt to prove to unbelief, on the basis of its understanding of existence, the truth of the Christian understanding of existence. Instead of winning over the nonbeliever, the effect of this procedure can be only the dissolving of the Christian into the non-Christian understanding of existence. This criticism, however, does not exclude work on the true tasks of apologetics. K.G. → Steck sees it correctly: after 1918 and after 1945, all systematic theological work in Germany de facto pursued the task of apologetics. Now, to be sure, this is supposed to be done by the overall presentation of dogmatics, or systematics. This program totally predominates, explicitly (Horst Stephan, K. → Heim, E. → Hirsch, P. Tillich, W. → Trillhaas, Gerhard Ebeling, W. Pannenberg) or implicitly (K. Barth, R. Bultmann, Wilfried Joest). Apologetics as an independent discipline is disappearing. One can welcome this as a step toward regaining apologetics as a basic task of all Christian teaching and Christian life in general. In any case, apologetics presupposes that the Christian life has a place in public. In the hypercomplex Western societies of the waning 20th century, this place was endangered; Christian life (including its theology) tends to become a phenomenon of the private world, beneath the public world in which life’s social questions are discussed and decided in an obligatory way, dependent on it (colonialized), but without influence on it. Hence it becomes an urgent task for Christian life and its theology to assure its participation in this obligatory public discourse and thus the opportunity for apologetics. This is the reason for the program of a “public theology”

Apologetics that in the USA was initiated from the Roman Catholic side (Tracy) but discussed interconfessionally and also taken up in Germany. Questions of the institutional relationship of church and theology to political, scientific, economic organizations, and above all to the media in practice take precedence over all apologetic endeavors concerned with matters of content. Protestantism: K. Barth, KD I/2, 5; II/2, 577ff. ◆ K.H. Sack, Christliche Apologetik, 1829 ◆ F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung, 1830, 43–53 ◆ idem, Glaubenslehre, 21830, 11–14 ◆ L. Lemme, “Apologetik, Apologie,” RE III, 1, 1896, 679–698 ◆ W. Zöckler, Geschichte der Apologie des Christentums, 1907 ◆ P. Tillich, “Kirchliche Apologetik,” 1912, in: Gesammelte Werke vol. XIII, 34–63 ◆ E. Brunner, “Die andere Aufgabe der Theologie,” ZZ, 1929, 255–276 ◆ H. Thielicke, Fragen des Christentums an die moderne Welt, 1943, 21948 ◆ M. Doerne, “Das unbewältigte Problem der Apologetik,” ThLZ 75, 1950, 259–264 ◆ D. Bonhoeffer, Widerstand und Ergebung, 1951 ◆ R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen, vols. I, 1933 and II, 1952 ◆ W. Lohff, “Apologetik nach prot. Glaubensverständnis” LThK XXI, 1957, 728–731 ◆ H.-H. Schrey, RGG3 I, 1957, 485–489 (bibl.) ◆ vols. I, 1956 and III, 1966 (index) ◆ G. Müller, Botschaft und Situation, 1970, 129–137 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, vol. I, 1988 (index) ◆ R.F. Thiemann, Constructing a Public Theology: The Church in a Pluralistic Society, 1991 ◆ E. Herms, “Mit dem Rücken zur Wand? Apologetik heute,” in: idem, Offenbarung und Glaube, 1992, 484–516 ◆ O.C. Thomas, “Public Theology and Counter-Public Spheres,” HThR 85, 1992, 453–466 ◆ E. Herms, “Pluralismus aus Prinzip,” in: idem, Kirche für die Welt, 1995, 467–485 ◆ W. Welsch, Vernunft. Die zeitgenössische Vernunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft, 1996. ◆ Catholicism: J.S. Drey, Die Apologetik als wissenschaftliche Nachweisung der Göttlichkeit des Christentums in seiner Erscheinung, 3 vols., 1838–1847 ◆ K. Rahner, Hörer des Worts, 1940 ◆ E. Seiterich, Die Glaubwürdigkeitserkenntnis. Eine theologische Untersuchung zur Grundlegung der Apologetik, 1948 ◆ H. Lais, Probleme einer zeitgemäßen Apologetik ◆ idem, “Apologetik im katholischen Glaubensverständnis,” LThK 2 I, 1957, 723–789 (bibl.) ◆ B. Lonergan, Insight, 1957 ◆ H. Bouillard, “De l’Apologétique à la Théologie fondamentale,” Les quatre fleuves 1, 1973, 57–70 ◆ B. Lonergan, Theologie im Pluralismus heutiger Kulturen, 1975 ◆ D. Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order, 1975 ◆ idem, “Theology as Public Discourse,” CCen 92, 1975, 280–284 ◆ idem, “Defending the Public Character of Theology,” CCen 98, 1981 ◆ idem, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology in the Culture of Pluralism, 1981 ◆ idem, “Afterword: Theology, Public Discourse, and the American Tradition,” in: M.J. Lacey ed., Religion and Twentieth-Century American Intellectual Life, 1989, 193–203 ◆ M. Seckler, “Apologetik IV,” LThK3 I, 1993, 839–889 (bibl.) ◆ R. Schaeffler, Theologie unter den Bedingungen der Moderne, in: M. Liebmann et al., eds., Metamorphosen des Eingedenkens, 1995, 93–104. Eilert Herms

VII. Practical Theology The idea of practical theology as an apologetic or critical theological discipline cannot look back on a long or evident history. In the course of the development of the Protestant encyclopedias of the 19th century that dealt with the relationship of the theological disciplines, the scientific nature of practical theology was always understood in the sense that it had at its disposal its own sources and areas of knowledge. In general, however, it was not presented as an apologetic undertak-

324 ing. Only rarely was it asserted that practical theology, as a subdiscipline of theology, had to justify its assertions against the objections of a secular and unbelieving society or defend them argumentatively. F. Schleiermacher’s significant work, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums [Brief Presentation of Theological Study] (1811), can be regarded as an exception. Many may argue that Schleiermacher represents an apologetic view of theology. Thus he justifies, for example, Christian theology as the description of a universally sensed feeling of absolute dependence and then offers a description of this consciousness to be located historically in German Protestantism. Yet for Schleiermacher the task of apologetics remained more with “philosophical” than with practical theology, even if he was ready to call the latter the “crown of theological study.” Only in recent decades has there arisen in practical theology a broad movement that understands itself as an apologetic discipline. The trend toward an apologetic practical theology is connected with a general intellectual turn to a “practical philosophy.” It also results, however, from the recent rebirth of apologetic interests in systematic theology. The movement toward practical philosophy is marked by a broad interest in the category of praxis in Marxism, in the hermeneutical theory (→ Hermeneutics) of Gadamer, the → critical theory of Habermas, the critical hermeneutics of Paul → Ricoeur, and the synthesis of hermeneutics and pragmatism in the thought of Bernstein, to name only a few of the leading thinkers. What these perspectives have in common is the high evaluation of practical reason, whose relevance for the human effort to live and live well is valued higher than both theoretical and technical reason. Present-day practical philosophies present theoretical and technical reason as abstractions of a comprehensive practical reason. They reject the traditional views which regard practical reason as merely an application of theoretical reason or as virtually congruent with technical reason. Some practical philosophers, e.g. Gadamer, are regarded as relatively disinterested in an argumentative justification of the demands of practical reason. Other practical philosophers, like Habermas, Bernstein, and Ricoeur, give a central position in their systems to the argumentative justification of practical demands. Moreover, the trend toward practical philosophy foresees a philosophy that is interested in social change and a reconstruction of social experiences. These two features of practical philosophy – participation in the reconstruction of social experience and the justification of practical demands – had an influence on the notion of practical theology as an apologetic enterprise. Earlier models of practical theology in the Protestant encyclopedias tended to define themselves as theological reflection on the – educational, homileti-

325 cal, liturgical and pastoral – duties of ordained clergy. Edward Farley called this the “clerical paradigm” of practical theology. In past years a number of authors have extended practical theology so that it also takes account of the laity in the testifying and confessing church, which is sometimes referred to as the “church paradigm.” A further extension of practical theology led into the domain of apologetics. According to this development, practical theology includes the clerical and ecclesiastical paradigms but subsumes them under the much more broadly conceived assignment of reflecting the whole breadth of activities of service of the church in the world. This is called the “public paradigm.” Within the framework of the public paradigm, practical theology brings theology into dialogue with competing interpretations of common experiences and common goods. These competing interpretations can be psychoanalytical, Marxist, deconstructivist, rational-choice economic, evolutionary biological, secular feminist, or liberal democratic – each presents one of the large number of ideologies that offer competing interpretations and practical programs for modern societies. When practical theologians bring these viewpoints to a discussion of concrete themes – be they of an economic, sexual, ecological, pedagogical, or political nature – and in the process envision a social change, then they must be ready to present reasoned justifications of their own interpretations and recommendations. A public practical theology of this kind is often connected with the turn toward the critical or revisionist correlation movement in systematic theology. The thought of Paul Tillich is known for understanding theology as the correlation of existential questions with answers from Christian revelation. The revised correlation theology of David Tracy understands theology as the critical correlation of questions and answers that result from the “interpretations” of common human experiences and the questions and answers that result from the “interpretations” of the Christian faith. Theology must not only take seriously the questions that result from various interpretations of common experience but also react critically to the answers that come forth from these interpretation perspectives. Theology cannot limit itself to witness and confession. It cannot simply assume that its “answers” require no further justification. If theology addresses the public, then it must get involved and go into questions about the truth of its assertions. Tracy’s theology was criticized for giving too much weight to transcendent substantiations, for instance, metaphysical arguments for the possibility of making statements about God. The turn to apologetic practical theology includes transcendent arguments but expands the number of arguments needed for this purpose. Also included here are reasons for moral and premoral judg-

Apologetics ments; careful methodological considerations about how the Scripture and common human experience can be interpreted; arguments about transformation models that can be applied in religious education, pastoral care, or preaching; critical watchfulness about the choice of theological rhetoric and communication. Such an apologetic practical theology expands the horizon of the practical theological disciplines enormously, but it also promises to subject these disciplines better to defensive theological substantiation. H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 1965 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, 1973 ◆ D. Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order, 1975 ◆ P. Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 1981 ◆ R. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, 1983 ◆ J. Habermas, Moral, Moralbewußtsein und Kommunikatives Handeln, 1983 ◆ E. Farley, Theologia, 1983 ◆ D. Tracy, “Foundations of Practical Theology,” in: D. Browning, ed., Practical Theology, 1983 ◆ D. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology, 1991. Don S. Browning

VIII. Missiology The terms mission apologetics and missionary apologetics were introduced to describe the discipline that is concerned with mission or missionary apologia. Zöckler and G. → Warneck contradicted Schleiermacher, who no longer treated apologetics as a discipline that defends Christianity against attacks and proves its truth to nonChristians. They connected this discipline with mission. In 1892 Warneck recommended the following threefold structure of missiology (Missionswissenschaft) as a discipline: mission history, mission theory, and mission apologetics. F.E. → Daubanton disagreed (1911): mission apologetics does not belong to missiology but to the apologetics defined by A.L → Richter in 1913 as the branch of theology that demonstrates that Christianity, unlike the non-Christian religions, is the true way. In 1927 he added that this discipline must be quickly built up, because Christianity is being increasingly relativized by the science of religion, which insists that all religions are of equal worth. He saw it as the task of this discipline to justify and defend the absolute and unique nature of Christianity among the “lower” and “higher” religions. Sometimes he used the term “missionary polemics”: mission as “battle” with non-Christian religions. After World War II the popularity of missionary apologetics as a discipline faded in ecumenical circles. Nonetheless, in 1952 A. → Seumois proposed a distinction between “apologetics in missions” (Fr.: “apologétique dans la mission”) and “apologetics through missions” (Fr.: “apologétique de/par la mission”). → Evangelicalism, by contrast, maintained that apologetics is an integral component of the biblical understanding of mission and is indispensable in an effective witness in the modern world (Manila Document 1989).

Apologies In 1960 A. → Kuyper’s concept of “elenchtics” was given new life by Bavinck. He described it as the part of theology that has the task of attacking non-Christian religions, convincing their followers of their sinfulness (cf. John 16:8), and moving them to repentance and conversion. In 1986 John R.W. Stott adopted Bavinck’s terminology, whereas Dirk C. Mulder rejected it. The latter regards “dialogue” as a substitute for the concept of “elenchtics.” Since the fourth assembly of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala in 1968 (→ Ecumenical movement) the term “dialogue” is more frequently used than the term “apologetics”. Nevertheless, the term “missionary dialogue” (Horst Bürkle 1974, Norman L. Geisley 1978) was coined, but never became as popular as the term “missionary apologetics” was before World War II. As a discipline missionary apologetics continues to deal with both the claims and challenges of Christianity (including Christian missions) and the objections and criticisms of non-Christians. O. Zöckler, “Beiträge zur Missionsapologetik,” BGl IV, 1868, 33–69 ◆ G. Warneck, Evangelische Missionslehre, 1892 ◆ J. Richter, Evangelische Missionskunde, vol. II, 1927 ◆ E. Brunner, Dogmatik, vol. I, 1946 ◆ A.V. Seumois, Introduction à la missiologie, 1952 ◆ J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, 1960 ◆ J.A.B. Jongeneel, Philosophy, Science and Theology of Mission in the 19th and 20th Centuries: A Missiological Encyclopedia, vol. II, 1997. Jan A.B. Jongeneel

Apologies I. Form and Genre – II. Writings

I. Form and Genre In his Ecclesiastical History → Eusebius of Caesarea singled out a group of early Christian writings by calling them “Apologies.” The common denominator of these writings by → Quadratus, → Aristides, → Justin, → Melito, → Apollinarius of Hierapolis, → Miltiades, and → Tertullian was that they were addressed to the Roman emperor and/or the Senate. Books “against the Greeks/ Jews” by the some of the same authors, and by → Tatian, are mentioned by Eusebius but are not called apologies. Some of these apologies resemble the literary format of the petition (libellus; enteuxis) to the Roman emperors, as they address them with explicit requests. The ordinary petition had four characteristic elements (cf. Hauken): 1. the address; 2. the “exordium” or “prooimion” which are to capture the attention and benevolence of the emperor by praising his time and rule, and by presenting the sender’s present plight as all the more intolerable; 3. the “narratio” or “diegesis,” presenting the situation that gave rise to 4. the formal request or petition. Petitions would often appeal to a previous imperial legislation (decrees) as the legal foundation upon which the emperor was urged to act. From the time of Hadrian

326 there was an office “a libelli” in the imperial chancellery, which provided successful petitions with the imperial answer, the “subscription.” No Christian apology is known to have received such an answer. Probably they were not intended nor expected to be treated formally as petitions by the imperial chancellery. They should rather be seen as attempts to turn a documentary form into a literary genre, the great classical model of which was the Apology of → Socrates. This corresponds to a striking characteristic of most apologies: the Christian author casts himself in the role of a philosopher persecuted because of his philosophy, and he addresses the emperors in their capacity as philosophers. With Hadrian and the Antonines, Christian authors may have hoped to get the emperors’ attention rather through writing interesting literature than through formal petitions to be processed by the imperial bureaucracy. After the death of → Marcus Aurelius, the literary fiction of the imperial petition (but cf. Tertullian’s Apologeticum) was abandoned, and other literary formats were used to present protreptic or deliberative defenses or commendations of Christian doctrine: the protreptic epistle, as in the Letter of → Diognetus, or the protreptic book, as in → Clement of Alexandria’s Protrepticus ad Graecos, or the deliberative oration as in Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos, or the platonic dialogue, as in → Minucius Felix’s Octavius. Increasingly, the focus shifted from the political defense vis-à-vis the Empire to more literary apologetics against literary attacks, as exemplified in → Josephus’s Contra Apionem. In this genre we find → Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum, and, above all, → Origen’s Contra Celsum. In the later, learned treatises of the 3rd to 5th centuries the formal characteristics of the early apologies were mostly lost, and replaced by the display of learning through extensive quotations, as in Adversus nationes by → Arnobius (the Elder), in → Lactantius’s → Divine Institutions, Eusebius’s Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica, and → Theodoret of Cyrrhus’s Graecarum affectionum curatio. The powerful protreptic rhetoric or early apologetics breaks through once more, however, in → Athanasius’s two twin books Contra gentes and De incarnatione. In → Augustine’s De civitate Dei Latin apologetics finds a new depth of expression and an unprecedented literary format. H.H. Holfelder, “Eusebia kai philosophia. Literarische Einheit und politischer Kontext von Justins Apologie 1–2,” ZNW 68, 1977, 48–66, 231–251 (older bibl.) ◆ T. Hauken, Petition and Response. An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors 181– 249, 1994 ◆ P.L. Buck, “Athenagoras’s Embassy: A Literary Fiction,” HTR 89, 1996, 209–226. Oskar Skarsaune

II. Writings According to Eusebius’s concept of apologies, the first specimens of this genre were Quadratus’s and Aristides’s apologies, delivered to Hadrian (Eus. Hist. Eccl. IV

327 3.1.3). Of Quadratus’s apology, probably written in 125 ce, only the fragment quoted by Eusebius is extant. Aristides’ apology has been recovered in a complete Syriac version and fragmentary Armenian and Greek versions. According to the address of the Syriac version, the apology was addressed to → Antoninus Pius (around 140). Eusebius mentions two apologies by Justin, the first addressed to Antoninus Pius, his adoptive sons and the Roman senate (Hist. eccl. IV 8.3; 11.8–12; 18.2) and the second to Marcus Aurelius (IV 18.2). In the only manuscript preserving Justin’s apologies (codex Parisinus Graecus 450 from 1364), the second, larger apology has the same address as the “First Apology” described by Eusebius, and is therefore called First Apology in all modern editions. The smaller apology of the manuscript has the address “to the Roman Senate,” though the text itself begins abruptly without any address. Eusebius seems to quote it as identical with the First Apology. This has led to speculations that the smaller Apology of the manuscript could be an addition to the larger, or part of the same work. The First Apology can be dated with some confidence to 155 ce, whereas the date of the smaller apology, often called the Second, depends on its literary relationship with the First. According to Eusebius Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, and Miltiades addressed apologies to Marcus Aurelius (IV 26.1; V 17.5). It is assumed that they were all written during Marcus Aurelius’s tour of the eastern provinces in 175/176 (Grant 1988). Athenagoras of Athens, not mentioned by Eusebius, may have published his Legatio for the same occasion. Of these, only → Athenagoras is completely preserved, of Melito only fragments in Eusebius. The last apology, mentioned as such by Eusebius (V 5.5), is Tertullian’s Apologeticum, written in 197 ce. Through their contents, these apologies are closely related to works of a protreptic or deliberative kind from the same period and later: the → Kerygma Petri (c. 125; fragments in Clement of Alexandria) is related to the apology of Aristides. Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum may both be roughly contemporary with Athenagoras; Clement of Alexandria’s Protreptikos was probably published around 190 ce. The anonymous letter Ad Diognetum is difficult to date, probably around the middle of the 2nd century. The dialogue Octavius by Minucius Felix has a close relationship to Tertullian’s Apologeticum; probably Minucius depends on Tertullian. The most important of the pseudo-Justinian protreptic works, Cohortatio ad gentiles, is of uncertain date (3rd cent. ce?). For later works of an apologetic character, cf. Apologies I. I.C.T. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi I–IX, 1857–1880, 31969 ◆ E.J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten, 1914, repr. 1984 ◆ See also → Apologetics: IV. Oskar Skarsaune

Apophatic Theology Apologists. Some 2nd-century Christian writers were called “Apologists” and they were edited as a group for the first time by F. Morel (Paris 1615). This work comprised genuine, dubious, and spurious works by → Justin Martyr and subsequent works by → Athenagoras, → Theophilus of Antioch, → Tatian, and → Hermias. In J.C.T. von Otto’s still classic edition (1842ff.), fragments of → Quadratus, → Aristides, → Aristo, → Miltiades, → Melito, and → Apollinaris of Hierapolis were also included. This has since been the conventional definition. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur I, 21913, repr. 1966, 181–183 (bibl.). Oskar Skarsaune

Apology of Kindī. Christian document with apologetic and polemic content composed in the 1st half of the 9th century in the Arabic language. The author, called al-Kindī in the text, was, in all likelihood, a Nestorian (→ Syria). In the original version, the text is accompanied by a letter that supposedly stemmed from a Muslim by the name of al-Hāsimī that recommended Islam, rejected Christian faith, and cited the Apology of Kindī. An introduction described the theater of this exchange of ideas as the court of Caliph al-Mahmūn (813–833). The names al-Kindī and al-Hāsimī, to which the manuscripts tradition add other elements such as aAbdallāh ibn Ismāaīl or aAbdalmasī˙ ibn Is˙āq, respectively, are symbolic and fictive. The work enjoyed significant distribution in all three Christian communities in the medieval world of Islam: → Melkites, Jakobites (→ Syria: V) and churches in the East (Nestorians). In the 12th century, the text was translated into Latin and, furthermore, significantly influenced the medieval and early modern view of Islam in the western world. The work is polemical to the greatest degree and criticizes Mu˙ammad and the → Quhrān in particular. A. Tien, ed., Risālat aAbdallāh b. Ismāaīl al-Hāšimī ilā aAbdalmasī˙ ibn al-Kindī yadaūhu bihā ilā l-Islām wa-risālat aAbdalmasī˙ ilā l-Hāšimī yaruddu bihā aalaihi wa-yadaūhu ilā n-Naßrānīya, 1885 ◆ G. Tartar, Dialogue islamo-chrétien sous le calife al-Mahmūn (813–834), 1982 ◆ idem, Les épîtres d’al-Hashimî et d’al-Kindî, 1982 ◆ N.A. Newman, ed., The Early ChristianMuslim Dialogue, 1993 ◆ B. Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Iraq, 1994. Sydney H. Griffith

Apophatic Theology. In the “Mystical Theology” of → Dionysius the Areopagite apophasis or negation (Gk ἀπό + ϕάναι [apó + phánai]: lit. “speaking away”) is coordinated with kataphasis or affirmation in setting out the twin methods of theology. Since God is the cause of all beings, we may ascribe to God “all the affirmations we make in regard to beings.” But “more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations,” since God surpasses all being. Indeed we must negate our affirmations and denials alike if we do not wish to be deceived by

Apophthegm/Chreia our own theological labors. True theology seeks to transcend both the sensible and the intelligible by striving upward as far as possible “toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge.” Apophatic or → negative theology usually serves but is not identical to mystical experience. To some extent it may be regarded as a common possession of the major religions – hence as a basis for inter-faith dialogue – since each on some level wrestles with the problem of talking about the transcendent. Despite common features, however, apophatic theology has a distinct history in Christianity. Although early roots of apophatic theology can be found in Plato’s Parmenides (142a), in Philo, in the Corpus Hermeticum (→ Hermeticism), in Gnosticism, and in Christian theology in → Clement of Alexandria, the main root is provided by → Plotinus, for whom the ineffable, unnamable, unknowable One is absolutely beyond all thought. The soul’s return to the One involves stripping away what belongs to world reality, rediscovering its native likeness to the One through a process of aphairesis or abstraction, leading eventually to an ecstatic union with the One. The Cappadocians, notably → Gregory of Nyssa, appear to have drawn on Plotinus as well as Philo in rebuking the heretic → Eunomius, who taught that God was fully knowable. They distinguished between the essence and energies of God, claiming that God is made known to the mind through the economy of his creative and redemptive acts; but the highest kind of knowledge is “pure prayer,” an unmediated mystical union with the One, who even in those acts transcends all that is merely rational. The classical synthesis of Dionysius owes much to the Cappadocians but even more to → Proclus, who represents the zenith of neoplatonist (→ Neoplatonism) apophatic theology. Proclus brought the term itself into prominence and was the first to work out a concise procedure for affirmation and negation (including the negatio negationis) such as Dionysius employs. The complex gradations of Proclean cosmology were also wedded by Dionysius to the notion of divine energies to produce the theurgic “hierarchies,” ecclesiastical and celestial, which are said to provide a ladder for the soul’s ascent towards that holy unknowing (agnosia) which leads to union with God (henosis) and so to divinization (theosis). This synthesis entered the Latin church in the 9th century through the translations and commentaries of John Scotus → Eriugena. Eriugena’s Periphyseon and later Meister → Eckhart’s writings, the anonymous → Cloud of Unknowing and the De docta ignorantia of → Nicholas of Cusa, all take inspiration from it. While → Thomas Aquinas refers to Dionysius some 1700 times, neither he nor the Latin church as a whole embraced the apophatic way with the enthusiasm of the Greeks.

328 In the 20th century Russian Orthodox theologians of the French disapora, in particular V. → Lossky, have raised the subject to new prominence. Lossky tried to differentiate Christian apophaticism from its neoplatonist counterpart not only by denying the inherent divinity of the soul but by interpreting apophasis as metanoia (repentance), and by stressing its ecclesial dimensions. In ekstasis the human subject is not annihilated but fully personalized through conscious experience of the presence of the Holy Trinity, whose own life is one of mutual self-emptying and indwelling. Within the Christian tradition it is often asked of apophaticism whether it does justice to the grace of the incarnation. The question is not concerned simply with the relationship between affirmation and denial but with understanding the nature of divine transcendence. It may be asked whether at the root of negative theology there is not too much transcendence but too little; i.e. a transcendence based not on God’s freedom to invest God’s own being in the person of Jesus, but on the logical gulf between the finite and the infinite, which must be bridged by the apophatic labors of the individual soul. V. Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 1957 ◆ R. Mortley, From Word to Silence, 2 vols., 1986 ◆ B. McGinn, The Presence of God, 4 vols., 1991 ◆ M.A. Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, 1994 ◆ R. Gawronski, Word and Silence, 1995. Douglas B. Farrow

Apophthegm/Chreia. The chreia is a well-known Gattung in Greek literature, rarer in Jewish literature, and is similar to many of the individual stories about Jesus (“pericopes”), which occur in the NT Gospels, especially the synoptic Gospels (e.g. Mark 2:15–17; 2:18–22; 10:13–16; 12:13–17). It is then a basic category for form-critical analysis (→ Biblical Criticism; → Forms/Genres: III ) of the synoptic tradition (→ Synoptic Question). A chreia may be defined as a “saying or action that is expressed concisely, attributed to a character, and regarded as useful for living” (R.F. Hock, in: Hock & O’Neill, 26). Essential to the chreia are its conciseness and its attribution to an individual. The form was widely used for exercises (προγυμνάσματα/ progymnásmata) in elementary rhetorical education (→ Rhetoric: I). An apophthegm may be regarded as a sub-category of the chreia, focusing especially on a particular saying of the person concerned. However, it is now realized that the chreia is more wide-ranging than the apophthegm, including short stories focusing on actions as well as sayings. Chreiai provide building blocks for the presentation of Jesus’ activity in the Gospels in a form close to that of an ancient “biography.” R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 1921, 101995; ET: History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1976 ◆ M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 21933, 149–164; ET: From

329 Tradition to Gospel, 1965 ◆ K. Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 1984, 80–93 ◆ R.F. Hock & E.N. O’Neill, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, vol. I, 1986. Christopher M. Tuckett

Apophthegmata Patrum, lit. “sayings” or “aphorisms of the Fathers,” derived from the verb ἀπό + ϕθέγγω (apó + phthéngō) “making a sound.” The collections of these sayings belong to a literary genre that grew out of the experiences of eremitic existence in the desert. They flourished first in the Greek and Latin-speaking areas of the 4th century and then in all languages of the Christian Orient as far as Sogdiana in central Asia. The collections, which originally were close to the lived experiences and were full of proper names, became more didactic in the course of time and lost their historicity. The proper names disappeared, and the statements were arranged according to virtues and vices. These systematized collections were again taken up in series arranged according to name. In the 7th century the genre became a literarily fixed entity, with John → Moschus as the last creative representative. Many hagiographic stories are nothing more than expanded apophthegmata that became ψυχωϕέλεις ἱστορίαι (psychōphéleis historíai), stories useful for the soul. The history of research in this area is long and varied. In 1615, H. Rosweyde published the six best-known Latin collections in Vitae Patrum. His lists are still useful today. Most of these collections have been edited in the meantime, and indeed in all the ancient languages of the Christian Orient. Nevertheless, some still remain unpublished, among them especially the oldest Greek and Syrian collections. They are not arranged alphabetically or according to particular points of view, and the proper names there are still quite numerous. C. Faraggiana is working with the Greek edition in Göttingen and Bologna, and M. van Esbroeck with the oldest Syrian collections in Munich. Sources: J.C. Guy, ed., SC 387, 1993 ◆ Bibl.: L. Leloir, Paterica armeniaca a P.P. Mechitaristis edita (1855) nunc latine reddita, 1974, XIII–XVIII ◆ V. Arras, Geronticon, 1986, VI–VII. Michel van Esbroeck

Aporia (Gk ἀπορία), originally hopelessness, or in philosophy the embarrassing situation into which one can fall when the solution of a problem seems to be currently or ultimately impossible. The oldest aporias of philosophy go back to Zenon of Elea. From the assumption of the reality of movement, Zenon developed contradictory consequences. A flying arrow rests at every point along its path; in competition Achilles can never catch up with a turtle. The name “aporia” is first found in → Plato. It designates a condition in which Socrates brings a dialogue partner to the point of being aware of his own ignorance in regard

Apostasy to things with which he believed himself to be familiar. In this way a personal experience is brought about that shows him what was in truth mere opinion and apparent knowledge. At the same time this experience forms an intermediate stage on the way to substantiated knowledge. → Aristotle raised the seeking of aporias and dealing with them to a problem-oriented philosophical method of research. Aristotle also used this himself in his writings; in his Metaphysics a whole book is devoted to the development of aporias (Metaph. III). The Skeptics, also sometimes called Aporetics in antiquity, hold to the aporetic method when they take the difficulties connected with the substantiation of a thesis as a reason to suspend judgment (ἐποχή, → Epoch). In the wake of the reception of Aristotelian philosophy, the aporetic way of thinking became fruitful in the Middle Ages. Elements of aporetic thinking are found in the modern period esp. in I. → Kant in the teaching of the antinomy of pure reason wherever contradictions are developed with the help of dialectical methods (→ Dialectics) and made fruitful for knowledge. N. → Hartmann goes back expressly to the name “aporia” when he sees the center of philosophical thinking not in systems but in problems developed into aporias and perhaps never finally solvable. K.-H. Ilting, HPhG I, 1973, 110–18 (bibl.) ◆ P. Aubenque, Le problème de l’être chez Aristote, BPhC, 1962, 51984 ◆ M. Erler, Der Sinn der Aporien in den Dialogen Platons, UALG 25, 1987 ◆ W. Wieland, Aporien der praktischen Vernunft, WuG, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe 65, 1989. Wolfgang Wieland

Apostasy I. Concept – II. New T.estament – III. Practical Theology

I. Concept The term “apostasy” – like → faith a specific of the JudeoChristian tradition – is rarely used today, although it has greater significance in Catholic sacramental practice and communion (→ Excommunication: I). Apostasy indicates the departure from the teaching and life of the faith community; → heresy refers to the rejection of binding doctrine without renouncing the faith entirely. → Idolatry, historically the veneration of other gods, can also refer to secular forms of de facto adherence. While these terms reflect the internal perspective of a faith community, conversion describes the external perspective; breaking with tradition does not indicate a conscious apostasy from the faith, but the loss of its lifestyle. Because the identity of a faith community is linked to the observance of certain teachings, the term can be relinquished only if a more precise term can be produced that does not suppress the fact that a capacity for criticism also belongs to Ingrid Schoberth faith.

Apostate II. New Testament Early Christianity, for which faith was an identity concept, was aware of the endangerment of Christian existence to the point of apostasy in the period before the awaited final fulfillment (cf. Matt 6:13 par.; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 Thess 3:5; Rev 3:10; Did. 16:5). Luke 8:13 and Heb 3:12 warn Christians against failing to sustain their initial faith and ending in unbelief if they “fall away” (from God). This language for religious apostasy (rebellion) has OT-Jewish precedents (cf. Deut 32:15; Jer 3:14; Wis 3:10; Sir 10:12; etc. 1QS 1.17) and culminates in the concept of “apostasy” (LXX: Josh 22:22; Jer 2:19; 2 Chr 29:19). In intra-Jewish conflict with Hellenistic modernism, early Judaism understands it to include the renunciation of the Mosaic Torah of God (1 Macc 2:15; cf. 1:15; 2:19; 1 En. 91:7; 93:9; Acts 21:21). PostPauline scripture has Paul make two prophecies for the eschaton: (1) within the church, that Christians, because of false teachings at odds with creation (→ Heresy: II) “will fall from the faith” (1 Tim 4:1) by living in → asceticism, and (2) universally, that, before the → parousia of Christ, there will be a final evil “falling away” (2 Thess 2:3) of humanity from God (→ Antichrist: I). W. Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKK 14, 1980, 68–87 ◆ J. Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, EKK 15, 1988, 217–239 ◆ M. Gielen, “Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung,” ZNW 89, 1998, 201–216. Ulrich Mell

III. Practical Theology Today, apostasy from faith is usually less a sudden event and more a hidden process that can be explained religiously and theologically, but also psychologically and sociologically, and, additionally, not infrequently, even economically and politically. Several factors play a role. Under the conditions of modern → pluralism the boundaries between belief and → unbelief are increasingly fluid and difficult to determine, if one does not appeal to fundamentalist, that is culturally unmediated (and thus problematical for a Protestant understanding of faith), criteria. In the Western world, apostasy from faith takes more the form of a change in orientation toward areligious secularism (→ secularization) or to syncretistic sampling of individual elements from various religious systems (→ syncretism) than as an abrupt renunciation of religion or a decisive turn to → atheism. Events in the course of life such as serious illness or the death of someone close, but also a social upheaval linked to a move as a consequence of the commencement of a course of study or a change of jobs can often provoke an almost imperceptible departure from faith. On the whole, the important task for pastoral activity is to accompany people in a gray zone between belief and unbelief and to interpret the offer of the gospel comprehensibly in the specific life situation. As corresponding conflicts in practical cases –

330 for example, regarding the question of church burials for those who have left the church – demonstrate, → church membership (or, inversely, non-membership in the church) begins to lose meaningfulness. Additionally, however, one must call attention to state-directed efforts, based in Marxist-Leninism, to achieve the apostasy of an entire nation through atheistic propaganda, repression of practitioners of religion, and state-sponsored anti-religious instruction. An impressive example of this in the 20th century in the Christian cultural realm are developments in the (40-year) history of the GDR. With the adoption of the Western democratic system and pluralism, still largely unresolved problems continue to present themselves to church work, namely, the clash with a determined atheism, now, however, in the context of pluralistic modernity. F.-X. Kaufmann, Religion und Modernität, 1989 ◆ H. Lehmann, ed., Säkularisierung, Dechristianisierung, Rechristianisierung im neuzeitlichen Europa, 1997. Andrew Wingate

Apostate. According to Catholic canon law, an apostate is one who totally renounces the Christian faith (CIC c. 751), thereby committing the most serious ecclesiastical offense, punishable by automatic → excommunication (c. 1364 §1); if the offense is notorious, the offender may be forbidden church burial (c. 1184 §1, n. 1). Even after returning to the faith, an apostate is considered irregular and is therefore impeded from → blessings (c. 1041, n. 2). Apostasy from the Christian faith invariably means apostasy from the Catholic faith as well (cc. 194 §1, n. 2; 694 §1, n. 1). J. Listl, HKKR, 1983, 535, 567, 727, 941.

Georg May

Apostles I. New Testament – II. Representations of the Apostles

I. New Testament 1. The term. The verbal adjective ἀπόστολος/apóstolos (from apostéllein), as a term for being sent was also used in Greek substantivally, but was not a terminus technicus. Outside political contexts, it occurs rarely in philosophical texts. The roots of the NT concept lie in the OT and Judaism, where the verb /šala˙ plays an important role; the participle is rare, the noun is late and may not yet be presumed as a precursor to NT usage. The substantival use corresponds to Greek linguistic tradition. 2. Backgrounds. OT-Jewish tradition had a legal concept according to which a person’s emissary represented the person in every respect (cf. m. Ber. 5.5). This is true also of statements concerning the sending of the disciples in Luke 10:16, etc. (cf. 2 Cor 5:20). While, as a rule, authorization is limited in time and in substance,

331  is understood in prophetic callings as a lifelong commission (Isa 6:8, etc.). Correspondingly, the NT speaks of the sending of the prophets (e.g. Luke 4:26) or of John the Baptist (e.g. Mark 1:2). Jesus, too, is assumed to have been so sent (Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3; John 3:17, etc.; cf. the designation “apostle” in Heb 3:1). Isa 61:1f. foreshadows and Luke 4:16–21 (cf. Luke 1:19) explicitly appropriates the association of durable authority and the preaching of the gospel that is constitutive of the early Christian apostle concept. 3. The Apostolate in Early Christianity. a. Several usages of the apostle concept occur in the NT. Paul mentions apóstoloi ekklesiØn, commissioned by congregations for only a limited task (2 Cor 8:23), apóstoloi Iesoú Christoú (passim) commissioned by Christ, and the hyperlían apóstoloi, whom he regarded as pseudo-apostles (2 Cor 11:5, 13). – In addition, there are secondary comparisons: Mark distinguishes between “disciples” and “the twelve,” as does Luke, although he equates “the twelve” with the “apostles” (6:13, etc.). For Matthew, “the twelve disciples” are, at the same time, “apostles” (10:2). Despite some overlap with reference to individuals, one can assume the original independence of the circle of the “apostles” from the “twelve” (cf. 1 Cor 15:5, 7). b. Paul distinguishes the “apostles before me” (Gal 1:17), as a closed circle (1 Cor 15:7: “all apostles”), from his own apostolic commission which, according to Gal 1:15f., coincided with his conversion. Definitive of the “apostles of Jesus Christ” are the appearances of the Risen One and the commissioning to proclaim the gospel (for Paul: among the Gentiles); this accounts for the limited number, among which Paul represents an “untimely birth” (1 Cor 15:5–10). This apostolic office is not granted (on the commission) “of human beings,” nor (charismatically mediated) “by human beings,” but “by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal 1:1). Consequently, Paul did not “adopt” or “learn” the gospel (from the tradition), but “received” it through a “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12). In contrast, Acts 1:21f. presumes as a condition for the selection of Matthias (to the “twelve apostles”) that he witnessed both the life and the resurrection of Jesus. c. According to Did. 11.3–6, in addition to the congregational apostles and the apostles of Christ, there was a larger circle of apostles comparable to the prophets (cf. 11.7–13.7) who derived their authority, therefore, from authorization by the Spirit. The “super” or “false apostles” attacked in 2 Cor 11f. belonged to this circle, and probably also → Andronicus and Junia ( Junias?) in Rom 16:7. d. Apart form the twelve, only Peter and Paul are known to us by name as apostles (cf. Gal 2:6–9). It is unclear whether James, the brother of the Lord, was an apostle (Gal 1:19). It is unlikely for Barnabas, since Acts 14:4, 14 contradict the Lukan concept of apostle and must, therefore, refer only to the commission by the

Apostles congregation in Antioch (13:2f.). e. The question of the pre-Easter origin of the apostolate should be answered negatively. The installation of the Twelve had nothing to do with the apostolate. The sending of the disciples represents an analogy, but was limited in time and space. The office of “apostle of Jesus Christ” is based in the Easter event; the charismatic concept of apostle is postEaster. f. The “apostle of Jesus Christ” stands as a “witness of the resurrection” in the transition from Jesus’ earthly community of disciples to the incipient church. According to Paul, his office entails the basic structure of every commission to proclaim the gospel (2 Cor 3:4–11; 5:14–6:2; Rom 10:14–17). K.H. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” TWNT I, 1933, 397–448 ◆ G. Klein, Die Zwölf Apostel, 1961 ◆ W. Schmithals, Das kirchliche Apostelamt, 1961 ◆ F. Hahn, “Der Apostolat im Urchristentum,” KD 20, 1974, 54–77 ◆ H. von Campenhausen, “Der urchristliche Apostelbegriff,” in K. Kertelge, ed., Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, WdF 439, 1977, 237–278 ◆ J. Roloff, “Apostel/Apostolat/Apostolizität,” TRE III, 1978, 430–445 (bibl.) ◆ J.-A. Bühner, “ἀπόστολος,” EWNT I, 1980, 342–351 ◆ B. Brooten, “ ‘Junia – hervorragend unter den Aposteln’ (Röm 16,7),” in E. Moltmann-Wendel, Frauenbefreiung, 31982, 148– 151 ◆ F.H. Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research,” JBL 105, 1986, 75–96 (bibl.). Ferdinand Hahn

II. Representations of the Apostles Christian art portrays the apostles as twelve doves, twelve lambs, or twelve men each holding a lamb, or as a procession of twelve men joining the twelve most important OT prophets. Furthermore, they are depicted as a group of twelve, but sometimes only three, men in the respective scenes from the life of Jesus, such as Jesus calling the apostles, the Sermon on the Mount, the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the anointing in → Bethany, the Transfiguration and the miracles and healings that Jesus performed. The earliest narrative theme with the apostles as subject was the Last Supper, which was originally rendered as a heavenly banquet as in the catacombs of St. Callisto (Rome, 3rd/4th cent.); the subject was then stylized in western Christian art in the mosaics of San Appolinare Nuovo (Ravenna, 5th/6th cent.) and in the East as the communion of the apostles in the illustrations of Codex Rossanensis. Additional topoi for the apostles occur in relation to the teaching Christ, the Traditio Legis and the Maiestas Domini (return of Christ), that fuse with the last judgment and the apocalypse. The apostles are portrayed as individuals with specific missions and characterized by symbols and attributes related to their martyrdom. The oblique cross or cross of Andrew refers to → Andrew, who was crucified upside down. Knife and skin characterize Bartholomew (→ Twelve, The), who was skinned alive. The scallop shell, the pilgrim’s staff, and the water flask adorned James the elder, son of Zebedee, the patron

Apostles’ Creed

332

Fig. 1. Cefalu Cathedral, Sicily, 1148. (Photo: Photo Archive Marburg)

saint of pilgrims; the fuller’s staff and the saw adorned James the younger, son of Alphaeus, who was stoned.

Iscariot, the betrayer and suicide, a cudgel and ship to Judas Thaddaeus, son of James, who was beaten to death. Matthew, the former tax collector, who died in Ethiopia, was portrayed with a hatchet or an axe, and Matthias (Acts 1:21–26), who was beheaded, with an axe and an open book. The sword belonged to → Paul, who was also beheaded. Keys or crossed keys and the rooster referred to Peter, who obtained the keys to heaven, although he denied Christ. A staff crowned with a cross and loaves of bread with fish symbols referred to → Philip, who was tortured to death in Hierapolis. A saw and a book with a fish stand for Simon Canaanaeus (the Zealot) who brought the gospel to the desert peoples. Lance and carpenter’s square referred to doubting → Thomas Didymus, who was tortured to death when he preached the gospel in India. The four Evangelists, i.e. Mark and Luke as well as the apostles Matthew and John, were portrayed with a book and symbolized by an animal or human figure: the winged lion, the winged bull, the winged youth, and the eagle (→ Evangelists, Symbols of the). Portrayals of the four evangelists, often as a tetramorph, were especially popular in medieval Christian art (Last Judgment, Maiestas Domini, Apocalypse). P. Verdier, “Iconography of the Apostles,” NCE 1, 1967, 682–687 ◆ P. and L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996, 29f. ◆ D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 21997, 36f. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Fig. 2. Albrecht Dürer, The Four Apostles, 1526; Munich, Alte Pinakothek. (Photo: Photo Archive Marburg)

The chalice with the serpent refers to → John, son of Zebedee, who was miraculously spared the poisoned chalice. A purse with money and a rope refers to → Judas

Apostles’ Creed. The received text (T, first attested by Pirmin, Scarapsus §§10/12/28) of the creed known in the modern period as the Symbolum apostolicum or Symbolum Apostolorum goes back to the so-called Old Roman creed (R). The great majority of scholars accept

333 the hypothesis of J. → Ussher, archbishop of Armagh (1647), that R is first attested in Greek in → Marcellus of Ancyra (Epiphanius, Haer. 72.3.1 = BSGR §17) or in the Psalter of Aethelstan (§18); the Latin text can be reconstructed from → Rufinus’s Explanatio symboli (§19). From 1910–1916 onward, the baptismal questions in the reconstructed → Traditio apostolica, which scholars consider a Roman text from the beginning of the 3rd century, have played an important role in the argumentation, since they are closely related to R. According to Ussher, R is the creed of the 4th-century Roman church. It was known as “apostolic” already in this period, since its composition was attributed to the apostles (an affirmation first found in Rufinus, Explanatio symboli §2). At an early date, individual parts of the creed were attributed to specific apostles (Ps.-Ambrose, Explanatio symboli; cf. → Apostolic Constitutions VI, 14.1f.). The history of research into the Apostles’ Creed can be roughly divided into three phases. Classic research into the creeds (Symbolforschung) (Caspari, Zahn, Kattenbusch, Harnack) attempted to “analyze backwards” from the classical credal formulae of the 4th and 5th centuries and thus distill a “primal Apostolic creed” which they considered the origin of all the western creeds; they held that this was a baptismal creed, and identified it with the so-called → regula fidei. This creed was given a very early dating: 120 (Zahn) or 130 (Harnack). Reformed classic research into the creeds (Lietzmann, Holl) demonstrated that classic research had erroneously supposed the unity of R. These scholars reconstructed the original triadic form of R on the basis of the Lord’s charge to baptize (Matt 28) and of a separate christological confession of faith. New research into the creeds (Kelly, Campenhausen) made a strict distinction between early “formulae of faith,” the “rule of faith,” and “creeds” (→ Confession [of Faith]). They held that R originated, not as an official formula, but as one creed among others in Rome c. 170–180. It goes back to a trinitarian profession of faith in the form of questions, which was joined to a christological confession (Kelly). Research in recent years has shown that it is not possible to construct the text of R completely from Rufinus, and that it is extremely difficult to determine the age of the baptismal questions in the complicated transmission of the Traditio Apostolica. This in turn has made it clearer that the customary dating of R in contemporary scholarship is hypothetical – although this fact does not lend any additional probability to the extremely late dating of R to the 4th century (Badcock). The best explanation of the large number of very similar western formulae in the 4th century (BSGR

Apostolic Canons §§36–126) and their relatedness to eastern formulae is the hypothesis that R emerged in the course of the 3rd century (or even earlier – the lack of sources makes it impossible to be more precise), as the fusion of a trinitarian and a christological text. R’s exceptionally elaborate structure argues against the hypothesis that its basic trinitarian structure emerged only in stages. Cf. → Symbols/ Symbol Theory. F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, 2 vols., 1894, 21900, repr. 1962 ◆ A. & G.L. Hahn, BSGR, 1897 = 1962 ◆ J.N.D. Kelly, Altchristliche Glaubensbekenntnisse, 21993 ◆ W. Kinzig, C. Markschies & M. Vinzent, Tauffragen und Bekenntnis. Studien zur sogenannten Traditio Apostolica, zu den Interrogationes de fide und zum Römischen Glaubensbekenntnis, AKG 74, 1998. Christoph Markschies

Apostles, Feasts of the. Initially liturgical commemoration of the → apostles, like that of the → martyrs, was only local. The earliest commemorations at Rome were on Jun 29 (Peter and Paul) and Feb 22 (death of Peter?). Because these feasts were biblical, the Lutheran churches continued to observe most of them; when one fell on a workday, it was often observed as a “semi-holiday.” The new Roman Calendar of 1969 lists the following feasts of the apostles, which – with the exception of the Chair of Peter on Feb 22 – also appear in Protestant worship books: Conversion of Paul ( Jan 25), Philip and James (May 3), Matthias (May 14; Feb 24 in German-speaking countries), Peter and Paul ( Jun 29), Thomas ( Jul 3; Protestants Dec 21), James the Greater ( Jul 25), Bartholomew (Aug 24), Matthew (Sep 21), Simon and Jude (Oct 28), Andrew (Nov 30), John (Dec 27). The commemorations of the evangelists Mark (Apr 25) and Luke (Oct 18), the apostles’ disciples Timothy and Titus ( Jan 26), Barnabas ( Jun 11), and Clement (Nov 23), and Mary Magdalene ( Jul 22) can also be included in this category. F. Schulz, “Die Ordnung der liturgischen Zeit in den Kirchen der Reformation,” LJ 32, 1982, 1–24 ◆ A. Adam, The Liturgical Year, 2005. Karl-Heinrich Bieritz

Apostolate, Theology of → Hoekendijk, Johannes Christiaan Apostolic Canons. The → Apostolic Constitutions include a collection of → canons (AC VIII, 47) comprising in part earlier synodical canons, especially those of the synods of Antioch (c. 340) and Laodicea (c. 360). The division into 85 canons came to be generally accepted. The Apostolic Canons contain instructions for the selection of church officials and duties within the community, as well as a list of the biblical books (with 1 and 2 Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions). Separated from the Apostolic Constitutions, the 85 canons constitute the earliest source of ecclesiastical law

Apostolic Church of the East in the East. They also came to be included in Latin collections of canons, especially canons 1–50. CPG 1, 1740 ◆ Text and bibliography see → Apostolic Constitutions ◆ B. Steimer, Vertex traditionis, BZNW 63, 1992, 87–94. Marcel Metzger

Apostolic Church of the East. The Apostolic Church of the East came into being as an autocephalous church (→ Autocephaly) of the East Syrians in the Persian Empire during the first half of the 5th century; at the end of the same century it embraced Antiochene Christology (→ Antiochene Theology). Since that time it has been known as the Nestorian Church or, in the modern period, the Assyrian Church. Its metropolies (with suffragan sees) have been under the authority of the catholicos-patriarch in Seleucia-Ctesiphon or, from the 8th century, Baghdad. Under Islamic rule from the 7th century, the church developed a flourishing intellectual life; its scholars taught classical philosophy and medicine to the Islamic Arabs, who in turn passed this knowledge on to the West – by this circuitous route, scholasticism came to know the whole Aristotelian corpus. The church reached its height in the 13th and early 14th centuries, with some 30 metropolies stretching from Jerusalem to South India and Beijing, as well as sees on Cyprus and Socotra. In Central and East Asia (first missionary to China in 635), the church was most successful under Mongolian rule. In the political chaos of the 14th and 15th centuries, the mission in the Far East came to an end, South India became isolated (→ Thomas Christians), and in the Near East the church was reduced to a tribal church of the “Mountain Nestorians” in northern Mesopotamia. After the 16th century, internal dissension led to the separation of the Uniate Chaldean Church (→ Unions with Rome); Protestant and Russian Orthodox missionary activity in the 19th century further reduced the number of the faithful. What was left of the church was decimated during the Second World War, after which its members were scattered throughout the world. The church, numbering some 150,000 to 200,000 faithful, has been a member of the → World Council of Churches since 1950. A schism has divided it since 1968; today a catholicos-patriarch in Chicago and another in Baghdad head approximately equal groups. DTC XI, 1931, 157–323 (bibl.) ◆ R. Janin, Les églises orientales et les rites orientaux, 41955 ◆ P. Kawerau, Amerika und die orientalischen Kirchen, 1958 ◆ B. Spuler, Die morgenländischen Kirchen, 1964 ◆ F. Heiler, Die Ostkirchen, 1971 ◆ F. Heyer, ed., Konfessionskunde, 1977 ◆ W. Hage, Der Weg nach Asien, KGMG 2/1, 1978 ◆ A.S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity, 21980 ◆ C.D.G. Müller, Geschichte der orientalischen Nationalkirchen, 1981 ◆ Ostkirchliches Institut, ed., Orthodoxia, 1982– ◆ P. Kawerau, Ostkirchengeschichte, vol. I, 1983 ◆ H. Anschütz & P. Harb, Christen im Vorderen Orient, 1985 ◆ S.H. Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. I, 1992 ◆ W. Hage,

334 “Nestorianische (bibl.).

Kirche,”

TRE

XXIV,

1994, 264–276 Wolfgang Hage

Apostolic Church Order. A fictive assembly of apostles (including a list of the apostles) opens this short church order. An adaptation of the teaching concerning the two ways (cf. Did. 1–4) constitutes the first section (4–14). The second section (15–29) contains legal norms governing the selection and duties of bishops, priests, lectors, deacons, and widows together with instructions for the laity and the ministry of women. The regulations are dictated by the individual apostles. The document appears to have originated in Egypt (or Syria?) at the beginning of the 4th century. CPG 1, 1739 ◆ T. Schermann, Die allgemeine Kirchenordnung, frühchristliche Liturgien und kirchliche Überlieferung, vol. I, 1914 ◆ A. von Harnack, “Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel,” TU 2.2, 1884, 225–237 ◆ B. Steimer, Vertex traditionis, BZNW 63, 1992, 60–71 (bibl.). Marcel Metzger

Apostolic Constitutions. The Apostolic Constitutions of → Clement I, a collection in 8 books, are a reworking of three major sources: the Didascalia (I–VI), the Didache (VII, 1–22), and the so-called Apostolic Tradition (VIII; → Traditio apostolica). They contain pastoral instructions on Christian ethics, congregational leadership, worship, ecclesiastical offices, the reconciliation of sinners, the gifts of the Spirit, alms, etc. Their theology bears the stamp of liturgical subordinationism, but it is hard to assign the work to any of the so-called church parties of the 4th century (→ Homoeans). It originated near Antioch c. 380. CPG 1, 1730 ◆ F.X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum, 2 vols., 1905 (text) ◆ M. Metzger, SC 320, 329, 336, 1985, 1986, 1987 (text and bibl.) ◆ B. Steimer, Vertex traditionis, BZNW 63, 1992, 114–133. Marcel Metzger

Apostolic Council (Council of Jerusalem) . The term “Apostolic Council” refers to the meeting between representatives of primarily Gentile Christian communities (→ Paul [I], → Barnabas) with the leaders of the original Palestinian community (the so-called “pillars” – → James, the brother of Jesus, → Peter, and → John, the son of Zebedee) in Jerusalem c. 48, as described in Gal 2 and Acts 15. They discussed the demand of → Jewish Christians that → Gentile Christians be circumcised and thus be obliged to accept the requirements of the Torah. Three decisions were reached: (a) The Jerusalem pillars would recognize the Gentile mission without circumcision. (b) The Gentile mission would henceforth be entrusted solely to Paul and Barnabas, and the → Jewish mission to the Jerusalem apostles. (c) Paul and Barnabas would undertake a collection on behalf of the Jerusalem community. Whether the Apostolic Council also issued

335

Apostolic Succession

the so-called → Apostolic Decree as stated by Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25 is disputed.

is an apocalyptic penitential work; (g) the fragments of Quadratus and Diognetus are apologetic texts.

J. Wehnert, Die Reinheit des “christlichen Gottesvolkes” aus Juden und Heiden, FRLANT 173, 1997 (bibl.). Gerd Lüdemann

Edition with German translation: Schriften des Urchristentums: vol. I ed. J.A. Fischer, 1956; vol. II ed. K. Wengst, 1984; vol. III ed. U. Körtner & M. Lentzsch, 1998 ◆ Die Apostolischen Väter, ed. A. Lindemann & H. Paulsen, 1992 (Greek text based on F.X. Funk & K. Bihlmeyer and M. Whittaker) ◆ edition with English translation: The Apostolic Fathers, ed. B.D. Ehrman, 2 vols., LCL 24–25, 2003 ◆ Concordance: H. Kraft, Clavis patrum apostolicorum, 1963 ◆ Commentaries in the HNT, KAV, and Hermeneia series. Andreas Lindemann

Apostolic Decree. The Apostolic Decree is mentioned three times in → Acts (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) with variation in the wording and order of the four prohibitions. Ostensibly it was a decision reached between the churches in → Jerusalem and → Antioch, including Paul (despite his silence about it in his letters) (→ Apostolic Council), but it is possibly a separate, later agreement for churches in the direct sphere of influence of the Jerusalem church. It can be interpreted either ritually (“blood” as non-kosher food) or ethically (“blood” as bloodshed), but the express mention of “things strangled” remains problematic. The four prohibitions are usually explained as a summary of the rules binding also “aliens” in Lev 17f., but may be better seen as excluding various idolatrous practices.

Apostolic See. According to the legal definition in canon 361 of CIC (1983), the term “Apostolic See” or “Holy See” denotes the pope personally as well as officials and institutes of the Roman curia acting in his name. According to canon 113, §1 of CIC (1983), the Apostolic See has the legal status of a person because by divine disposition it possesses the quality of a persona moralis. International law recognizes the Apostolic See as a juristic person (distinct from the Vatican state).

M. Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, WUNT 2/32, 1988, esp. 156–224 ◆ A.J.M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Apostolic Decree’,” NT 35, 1993, 362–389. Alexander J.M. Wedderburn

H. Schnizer, LTK3 I, 1993, 877 (bibl.).

Apostolic Fathers. The term “Apostolic Fathers” goes back to J.-B. Cotelier, who in 1672 published the works of “the holy fathers who flourished in the apostolic age.” His edition contained the Epistle of Barnabas (→ Barnabas, Epistle of ) and the two letters of Clement (→ Clement, Letters of ) , the letters of Ignatius (→ Ignatian Epistles) and the letters of → Polycarp of Smyrna along with the account of his martyrdom, and also the → Shepherd of Hermas. The term “Apostolic Fathers” – now including the → Didache, → Diognetus, and the fragments of → Papias and → Quadratus – has become established. It is also meaningful, since the works exhibit certain common features: they date from the period c. 90–170; they differ from the writings of the apologists in both form and theological structure; unlike the pseudepigraphal works of the NT and the → Apocrypha , they do not pretend to authorship by primitive Christian figures but are either orthonymous (Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Hermas) or anonymous (Didache, Barnabas, Diognetus, 2 Clement); the letter of the Roman community to the Corinthian church (1 Clement; the reference to Clement is a later fiction) and the letter of the church at Smyrna to the church at Philomelium (Martyrdom of Polycarp) are special cases. Several genres are represented: (a) 1 Clement, the 7 letters of Ignatius, the letter of Polycarp, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp are true letters; (b) the Didache is a church order; (c) Barnabas is a didactic treatise; (d) 2 Clement is a written sermon; (e) the fragments of Papias are from an extensive account of Jesus; (f ) the Shepherd of Hermas

I. Terminology Ecumenical discussion (→ Ecumenicalism), in particular, assumes that the term “apostolic succession” refers to an original and clearly defined characteristic of the church → office. However, the notion that the → notae ecclesiae indicate an unbroken chain, going back to the apostles, of officeholders who have each come into office through the → laying-on of hands by another legitimate officeholder, appeared only relatively late and is not the original meaning of the underlying Greek and Latin semantic field. The Greek and Latin terms διαδοχή/diadoch¶/successio, διάδοχος/diádochos/successor and διαδέχεσϑαι/diadéchesthai/succedo initially described the most varied forms of continuity: “succession,” “successor” and “to succeed.” In secular usage, the semantic field indicates relationship (Arist. Pol. 1334 b 39), the succession of time or actions (Thuc. VII 27f.), or the assumption of an activity or office (Plato Rep. 576 b; Leges 758 b; Arist. Pol. 1293 a 29). The semantic field became a terminus technicus in Hellenistic Greek philosophy; διαδοχαί/diadochaí referred to continuous series of names of teacherstudent chains, which, however, divided into various schools. The example of the Platonic Diadoch¶ demonstrates that person-to-person continuity by no means meant doctrinal continuity. Consequently, it is important to differentiate consistently between three different meanings of the term: 1. personal continuity with the apostles evident in the laying-on of hands; 2. doctrinal continuity with apostolic teaching (→ Tradition); 3. doctrinal continuity

Heribert Schmitz

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession grounded in personal continuity as an expression of the apostolicity of the church, with personal continuity as a particular sign of apostolicity. Sources: C.H. Turner, “Apostolic Succession,” in H.B. Swete, ed., Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, 1918, 93–214, esp. 199–206 ◆ Bibl.: W. v. Kienle, 1961. Christoph Markschies

II. History 1. Early Church. In the course of the professionalization of theological reflection in the 2nd century, theologians both in the Gnostic and the majority church adopted the principle of justifying the authority of their doctrine or a specific form of the church by the evidence of personal (and, thus, implicitly substantive) chains of continuity. Not only the contemporary philosophical tradition but also early Judaism inspired this legitimization strategy (Bacher, Burrus). The first witnesses occur in the 2nd century (letter of → Ptolemy in Epiph. Haer. 33.7.9, cf. → Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII 106.4; 108.1), in → Hegesippus and in → Irenaeus of Lyon, but not in 1 Clem. 42.1–5 (Lona 458f.). Hegesippus speaks of the fact that the church was “assumed (διαδέχεται) by the Apostles” (Eus. Hist. eccl. II 23.4, cf. Abramowski), and claims to have established a διαδοχή of bishops in Rome (Hist. eccl. IV 22.3). Irenaeus adduces against → Gnosis (II) the church’s (doctrinal) tradition “that goes back to the Apostles and is preserved through the successio of presbyters” (Haer. III 2.2; cf. 3.1); that is, he distinguishes precisely between personal and material continuity. The successio transmits traditio (παράδοσις/parádosis) as true Gnosis (III 3.3; IV 33.8) because officeholders standing in the succession of the Apostles obtain, at the same time “the reliable charisma of truth” (the true doctrine) if their lives correspond to their doctrine (IV 26.2; 33.8). An interesting parallel is the notion of a prophetic succession in prophetic circles in Asia Minor (Eus. Hist. eccl. V 17.4 and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus I 5, cf. Paulsen). For most 3rd-century authors, the notion of an Apostolic Succession played a more marginal role: → Tertullian mentions it as an element that assures correct doctrine (Praesc. 32.6; cf. Marc. IV 5.1f.); → Origen associates it with the correct exegesis of the Old Testament (Princ. I Praefatio 2, cf. IV 2.2); → Cyprian of Carthage concentrates it in the episcopal office (Ep. 33.1; 45.3; 66.4; 69.3, 5); → Hippolytus, in contrast, concentrates it generally in holy persons (Haer. I Praefatio 8, cf. also, however, Praefatio 6) and heretics (VI 55.3; IX 7.3 or 8.1, resp.). The picture changes only in the 4th century. For → Eusebius of Caesarea, Apostolic Succession is the architecture of his church history. Reports concerning the “successors (διαδοχαί) of the holy Apostles” (Hist.

336 eccl. I 1.1) are central to its theme. He reconstructs a chain from the twelve apostles whom Christ called via the 70 disciples (Hist. eccl. I 10.7) and the first deacons (II 1.1) to the first bishops and → bishop lists of the most important metropolitans (Turner [bibl. see above I.], 203f.). Admittedly, he was more interested in personal continuity than in a communication of proper doctrine produced thereby (Turner, Robert M. Grant). While the euchologium of → Serapion of Thmuis demonstrates that laying-on of hands and Apostolic Succession were directly associated with the installation of a new bishop (§ 14=28), the notion plays no (cf. e.g. for → Gregory of Nyssa: F. Mann, Lexicon Gregorianum, vol. II, 2000, s.v.) or only a marginal role (G. Müller, Lexicon Athanasianum, 1952, s.v.). The question of Apostolic Succession became significant once again in → Augustine’s defense against → Donatism and → Manichaeism (Ep. 38.2; 53.1–4, 6; 83.5; 232.3; Contra Cresconium Donatistam III 21; Gesta collationis Carthaginensis anno 411 I 187 [SC 195, 830 Lancel]; Contra Faustum XI 2, 5; XIII 5 and XXVIII 2; Retractationes II 17). This evidence demonstrates that one cannot proceed from the notion of a general dispersion of the theologumena developed by Irenaeus, Hegesippus, Eusebius, etc., and that Apostolic Succession in antiquity was not consistently numbered among the necessary signs of the true church. In any case, it had its place in a comprehensive list of justifications for the church office and was important primarily for the liturgy of the → consecration of bishops. E. Caspar, Die älteste römische Bischofsliste, SKG.G 4, 1926 ◆ H. Frhr. v. Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt und geistliches: Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, BHTh 14, 1953, 21963 ◆ A.M. Javierre, El tema literario de la sucesion en el judismo, helenismo y cristianismo primitive, BThS.F 1, 1963 ◆ W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, vol. II, 1965 ◆ L. Abramowski, “Διαδοχή und ὀρϑὸς λόγος bei Hegesipp,” ZKG 87, 1976, 321–327 ◆ V. Burrus, “Hierarchalization and Generization of Leadership in the Writings of Irenaeus," StPatr 21, 1989, 42–48 ◆ J. Zizioulas, “Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession in the First Five Centuries,” LouvSt 21, 1996, 153–168 ◆ H. Paulsen, “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus I.5 und die διαδοχὴ τωˆν προϕητωˆν,” in Frank, Zur Literatur und Geschichte des frühen Christentums, WUNT 99, 1997, 162–172 ◆ H.E. Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief, KAV, 1998. Christoph Markschies

2. Catholicism. In the Catholic understanding, apostolic succession in (the episcopal) office is an essential sign of the apostolicity of the church at large. Succession is not apostolicity itself, and it does not guarantee fidelity to origins and the orthodoxy of doctrine, but is a sign of apostolicity – not the only sign, perhaps not even the most important, but nonetheless, in the Catholic understanding, an effectual and essential sign that may not be surrendered for the full form of the church. Despite this ecclesial integration of succession, the apostolicity

337 of the church was identified, esp. in the anti-Reformation controversial theology of the church at large, with succession in the episcopal office. With appeal to the Council of → Trent (DH 1768) and Vatican I (DH 3061), → Vatican II taught “that the bishops represent the apostles as the shepherds of the church by divine institution (ex divina institutione)” (LG 20). LG 22 calls the bishop of Rome the “successor of Peter” and the bishops “successors of the Apostles” (cf. c. 330 CIC/330 CIC/1983 and cc. 331–334). As successors of the apostles, the bishops are commissioned as shepherds of the church through the reception of the Holy Spirit and hold the → teaching office (IV), the healing office and the administrative office (→ Church governance; cf. c. 375 § 1 CIC/1983). LG 21 teaches “that the consecration of the bishop conveys the fullness of the sacrament of ordination” (→ Blessing: I). The primary assignment of the sacerdotium (of priests and bishops) to the Eucharist proposed by → Thomas Aquinas (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3 q.82 a.1) continued to be effective at Trent. Vatican II distinguishes the presbyters from the episcopal ordo, but gives them, by virtue of their → ordination (V), a share in proclamation, healing and administration (LG 28). Through the priority of proclamation (cf. cc. 762, 764 CIC/1983), the Early Church’s justification of authority as viva vox evangelii is once again accorded greater significance by comparison with the jurisdictional power ( potestas) of (late) medieval theology in the contemporary church’s understanding of the office. More recent theological developments indicate that, after the formation of the biblical canon, to which the auctoritas apostolica of certain persons contributed, the Bible itself became an authority in which the apostolic beginnings continually stand as norma normans for the later church. The confession of the ecclesia apostolica points, thus, to an unalterable element of the church’s constitution. It leaves sufficient space to relate and subject the charismas, and also the offices that appeal to apostolic succession, to the canonical requirements. In this regard, it is important to avoid projecting current church structure back to the New Testament beginnings without differentiation. It may also be possible for Catholics to define succession in office not merely in terms of primacy and episcopacy, but also to assign it a presbyterial dimension. The still widespread notion that succession is an uninterrupted historical chain of episcopal succession in office can claim neither historical nor theological exclusivity. Finally, within the framework of the ecclesia apostolica it should not be forgotten that apostolic succession – acknowledging the benefits of salvation that Paul continues to promise to Judaism (cf. Rom 9:4) – always presupposes Moses and all the prophets (cf. Luke 24:27).

Apostolic Succession J. Ratzinger, “Primat, Episkopat und Sukzession,” in K. Rahner & J. Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, 1961, 37–59 ◆ H. Müller, Die Teilkirche, HKKR, 1983, 329–335 ◆ J. Freitag, Sacramentum ordinis auf dem Konzil von Trient, 1991. Josef Wohlmuth

3. Orthodox Church. For Orthodox theology, too, apostolic succession is primarily a matter of remaining within the tradition of the faith and witness of the Apostles. The spiritual → office (VI) appears in this context, not as a guarantor of, but more as a means of preserving, the apostolic tradition of doctrine and faith. Since, however, Orthodox theology understands the spiritual office only in terms of the episcopal office (→ Bishop: III) and never – as was the case in the Catholic Middle Ages – in terms of the priestly office, the apostolic succession of the episcopal office is an efficient sign of the authenticity of the apostolic tradition. A church without this sign seems to Orthodox theology not to be a church in the full sense. In the Trinitarian-Christological dispute of the 4th century (→ Christology: II) and in the struggle against → Union with Rome in the 16th/17th century, however, the Orthodox Church itself painfully experienced the fact that the spiritual office in the apostolic succession, with the laying-on of hands by the bishop, cannot guarantee persistence in the apostolic faith. Since episcopal → consecration (II), like all sacramental acts, is essentially valid only in the church and can only be effectively performed within the church, apostolic succession exists, strictly speaking, only within the canonically valid hierarchy. The Roman Catholic principles of a valid but prohibited consecration is unknown in the Orthodox Church. While most important Orthodox theologians understand the apostolic succession as the transmission of gifts of grace that equip for the episcopacy or priesthood, Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas points out that consecration places the consecrated person in a special relationship with the church and that divine grace is never mediated horizontally in a chain, no matter how apostolic succession is understood, but is always sought anew from above. The structure corresponding to the apostolic tradition is more important to it than the historical continuity of the chain of succession, which is also occasionally called into question historically and critically. D. → Staniloae emphasizes that, through the succession of the bishops, the entire people of God, including the laity, stands in the apostolic succession. To the extent that Orthodox theology regards sacramental acts in other churches as effective, apostolic succession is also largely recognized in Eastern churches, the Roman Catholic, the Old Catholic and usually the Anglican Churches. J.D. Zizioulas, “Priesteramt und Priesterweihe im Licht der östlich-orthodoxen Theologie,” QD 50, 1973, 72–113 ◆ K.C. Felmy, Die orthodoxe Theologie der Gegenwart, 1990 ◆ D. Staniloae, Orthodoxe Dogmatik, vol. III, 1995. Karl Christian Felmy

Apostolic Succession 4. Protestantism. Apostolic succession was not a theme of the Reformation. The churches of the Reformation stood self-evidently in the apostolic succession from the outset without, however, reflecting on this situation theologically. A difficulty specific to Germany consisted in the fact that the title “bishop” and the historical episcopal sees were not available as a consequence of the clerical caveat (art. 28 of the Peace of → Augsburg 1555). Consequently, the incumbents of the church’s supervisory offices were not called bishops and a Latin translation of the term had to suffice. They were called → superintendents. The Reformation brought a profound change in the understanding and execution of the episcopal office (→ Bishop: III). A new conception of the so-called apostolic succession arose according to which the apostolicity of the church was practically identified with succession in the historical episcopacy. The Reformers rejected this succession in the fashion of secular dynasties and followed earlier theories (→ Jerome) according to which the fullness of the office exists in the presbytery. The notion, widespread in the Roman Church today, of an apostolic succession mediated only in the episcopal office, associated with a higher degree of consecration (see above 2), did not play a role in the Reformation. The issues were fidelity in the transmission of the gospel message and doctrinal succession (→ Teaching office of the church). Outside Germany, the church’s supervisory office could be continued in the form of the historical episcopacy. There are agreements between Lutheran and Anglican churches that spiritual oversight (episkope) in a number of episcopal and non-episcopal forms embodies a visible sign of the → Church unity and of the continuity of the apostolic life, the apostolic mission and the apostolic office. Consequently, these churches were able to enter into communion (→ Communion of Churches). The recognition of the offices and the acceptance of religious community do not depend on entry into the historical episcopacy. Determinative is fidelity to the doctrine and faith of the Apostles. This succession finds visible expression in → ordination through the laying-on of hands. Sources: The Niagara Report, Anglican-Lutheran International Continuation Committee, 1988 ◆ Westminster-Erklärung 1991/ Meißener Erklärung von 1991: Die Meissener Erklärung, ABIEKD 45, 1991, 145ff. = Die Meissener Erklärung, K. Kremkau, rev., EKD-Texte 47, 1993, 46–63 ◆ “The Porvoo Common Statement,” in Together in Mission and Ministry, 21994 ◆ Bibl.: A. v. Campenhausen, “Entstehung und Funktionen des bischöflichen Amtes in der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland,” ÖAKR 26, 1975, 3–22, = in idem, Gesammelte Studien, 1995, 8–26 ◆ G. Kretschmar, “Die Wiederentdeckung des Konzeptes der ‘Apostolic Sukzession’ im Umkreis der Reformation,” in Kirche in der Schule Luthers: FS J. Heubach, 1995, 231–279 = in idem, Das bischöfliche Amt, 1999, 300–344 ◆ A. v. Campenhausen, “Evangelisches Bischofsamt und apostolische Sukzession in Deutschland,” in FS M. Heckel, ed. K.-H. Kästner, 1999, 37–

338 52=ZEvKR 45, 2000, 39–55 ◆ D. Wendebourg, “Das Amt und die Ämter,” ZEvKR 45, 2000, 5–38. Axel Frhr. v. Campenhausen

III. Ecumenism The Reformers took pains to retain the episcopal office in early church terms as a sign of the apostolicity of the church as a whole and of its message (CA 28; Calvin, Inst. IV 7.23). When, however, no bishop joined the Reformation, ordained persons who were not bishops performed ordinations based on the practice of the Early Church and with an appeal to the urgency of the situation. The Roman Church saw this as a breach of succession in the episcopal office and thus of apostolicity as a characteristic of the church. On the basis of the criterion of succession in the episcopal office, a distinction can be made between episcopal (Orthodox, Catholic, Old Catholic [→ Old Catholics]) and non-episcopal (Protestant) churches. In the Scandinavian and Baltic region (Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Estonia), the sequence of episcopal ordinations was not interrupted in the Reformation, nor was it in the → Anglican Church. In 1896, however, Rome declared Anglican consecration “absolutely null and void,” specifically because of the lack of intention in the Reformation to consecrate and receive bishops as did the Early Church (DH 3319). This evaluation also applies to Lutheran episcopal sees and to occasional efforts of Protestant pastors to render their office valid or ecumenically acknowledgeable through ordination by bishops in apostolic succession. In the Anglican tradition, the historical episcopacy is reckoned among the constitutiva that make the church the church (cf. Lambeth Quadrilateral [→ Lambeth Conferences]). In this regard, it is disputed within Anglicanism whether it belongs to the esse, the bene esse, or the plene esse of the church. In the “Appeal to all Christian People” (1920), Anglican churches appealed to the churches of the Reformation to open themselves to the office of bishop. This bore fruit. Meanwhile, there are bishops in many Protestant churches. Apostolic succession, however, has been associated here, as a rule, not with the office of bishop, but with the church as a whole and its scriptural message (sola scriptura) and, within this framework, with the one, undivided → (pastoral) office. The → Lima Declaration of the WCC on the office observes that many churches are prepared “to accept episcopal succession as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole church” (DWÜ I, no. 38, p. 580). The Porvoo Common Declaration between the Anglican and the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran churches (1992) states: “Continuity in the apostolic succession finds its symbolic expression in the ordination or consecration of a bishop” (no. 47). Lutheran churches are nonetheless still free “to recognize an authentic episco-

339 pal ministry in a church which, at the time of the Reformation, at times preserved continuity in the episcopal office through a succession of priests or presbyters” (no. 52). The unity of the Lutheran Church and fellowship with the churches of the → Leuenberg Concord is, thus, not called into question. Sources: DWÜ ◆ A. Burgsmüller & R. Frieling, Amt und Ordination im Verständnis evangelischer Kirchen und ökumenischer Gespräche, 1974 ◆ Bibl.: E. Schlink, Der kommende Christus und die kirchliche Traditionen, 1961, 160–195 ◆ G.H. Vischer, Apostolischer Dienst, 1982 ◆ P. Neuner, Ökumenische Theologie, 1997 ◆ W. Führer, Das Amt in der Kirche, 2001 ◆ R. Frieling, Amt, 2002 ◆ O. Tjorhom, ed., Apostolicity and Unity, 2002. Peter Neuner

Apostolic Tradition → Traditio apostolica Apostolicity. The term “apostolicity,” which derives from the title “apostle” via the adjective “apostolic,” denotes accord with the apostles or origination with the apostles. These differing interpretations are related to confessional differences. The debate is focused on the church’s apostolicity, which since the end of the 4th century (along with its unity, sanctity, and catholicity) – through the influence of the → NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed (BSLK 27, DH 150) – came to be a standard element of Christian creeds (DH 42, 44, 46, 48, 60), to which the differing interpretations refer. Orthodoxy understands apostolicity primarily as the continuity of the church’s tradition from the apostles onward. The Roman Catholic Church – including the documents of → Vatican II (DH 4119, 4144, 4207– 4211) – emphasizes apostolicity in the sense of legitimate succession in episcopal office (successio apostolica) going back to the apostles. The churches of the Reformation, however, view apostolicity as the church’s substantial accord with the gospel of Jesus Christ as witnessed to by the apostles. The different understandings of apostolicity enshrine a wealth of confessionally disputed questions and issues: for example the church’s teaching and God’s revelation, → scripture and tradition, the visible and invisible church, → universal priesthood and ordination to priestly → office, as well as fundamental questions of biblical authority and interpretation. This shows that “apostolicity is the critical point at issue in interconfessional controversy” (Karrer). Any interpretation of apostolicity that attempts to arrive at an understanding by combining the different confessional interpretations must decide which interpretation will be determinative in cases of conflict. The starting point for the Protestant doctrine of the church’s apostolicity is the agonizing history of conflict between legitimate succession in office and accord with the biblically attested gospel. This became for Luther the starting point for a fundamental (re)definition of apostolicity that looks beyond a formal understanding of scriptural authority to ask “what pro-

Apostolicum Controversy motes work of Christ” (WA. DB 7, 284; also WA 39, I, 476; cf. Calvin Inst. 4. 1. 5). Here Protestant theology follows what the Bible itself says about the basis of apostolicity: 1 Cor 3:11 in conjunction with Eph 2:20. This means that apostolicity must be understood as the fundamental note of the (invisible) church, meaning that it is founded upon the gospel of Jesus Christ, witnessed to by the apostles and authenticated by the Holy Spirit. In the case of every visible church, therefore, it is a signum ecclesiae verae that it preach this gospel purely and administer the sacraments rightly and duly in accordance with the gospel (CA 7). As marks of the churches, these notae externae derive from the apostolicity of the church but are not identical with it. And so it is apostolicity that teaches us to be careful both to distinguish and to connect the notes of the church and the outward marks of true visible churches. O. Karrer, “Apostolizität der Kirche,” LTK2 I, 1957, 765f.; LTK3 I, 1993, 881f. ◆ W. Beinert, “Die Apostolizität der Kirche als Kategorie der Theologie,” ThPh 52, 1977, 161–181 ◆ J. Roloff & F. Mildenberger, “Apostel/Apostolat/Apostolizität,” I, III, TRE III, 1978, 430–445, 466–477 ◆ E. Herms, Einheit der Christen in der Gemeinschaft der Kirchen, 1984 ◆ E.-H. Amberg et al., Apostolizität und Ökumene, Bekenntnis 30, 1987 ◆ W. Härle, “Kirche” VIII, TRE XVIII, 1989, 277–317 ◆ G. Neebe, Apostolische Kirche, 1997. Wilfried Härle

Apostolics. The Apostolics of the early church criticized the church hierarchy and rejected property and marriage. In the Middle Ages, the name “Apostolics” (also Minimi, Pauperes Christi, or Pseudo-apostoli) was given to lay people who gathered around Gerard Segarelli after 1260, preaching without ecclesiastical permission and supporting themselves by begging. Disbanded by the Council of → Lyon, the Apostolics were condemned by Honorius IV (1286) and Nicholas IV. In 1300 Segarelli was condemned to death and burned at the stake. In the same summer, appealing to the teaching of Segarelli, Dolcino of Novara began to criticize the church, prophesy the coming of an emperor who would destroy the church hierarchy, pope, and cardinals, and predict the coming of a pope who would be a Papa sanctus. In 1306 → Clement V proclaimed a crusade against the movement. In 1307 Dolcino and his armed followers suffered a bloody defeat in the Valsesia; he was tortured and burned at the stake. R. Orioli, Venit perfidus heresiarca, 1988.

Giulia Barone

Apostolicum Controversy. The term refers to disputes in the Protestant state churches in the 19th and 20th centuries concerning the use of the Apostolicum (→ Apostles’ Creed), especially at baptism, confirmation, and ordination. The Apostolicum Controversy exemplified the dispute between liberal and conservative theology in that its central focus was the modernization of

Apotactites Protestant churches. An initial crisis in the Apostolicum Controversy was sparked by the 1871/72 lectures of E. → Lisco and K.L.A. → Sydow in the Berlin Union. The lecturers criticized statements in the Apostles’ Creed (esp. the → Virgin Birth and Christ’s → descent into Hell ). The Consistorium in Berlin reprimanded Lisco and ordered Sydow’s removal from office. The Evangelical Superior Church Council (Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat, EOK) under the liberal president E. → Herrmann revoked this judgment. Sydow remained in office. This mitigation agitated the representatives of the confessional and “positive” church parties. A further intensification occurred in 1877 when a motion to abolish the Apostolicum was made in the regional synod of Berlin-Kölln. In this situation, J.T.R. → Kögel was able to move Wilhelm I to adopt a harsh stance over against the liberal EOK (“Benrath Speech” of Wilhelm I, 1877). As a result, Herrmann stepped down. His successor, Ottomar Hermes (1826–1893), guaranteed a “positive” course for the EOK. The third phase of the Apostolicum Controversy was sparked by Württemberg pastor, C. → Schrempf, who refused in 1891 to say the Apostolicum at baptisms. His subsequent dismissal was discussed vigorously throughout Germany. A. → Harnack published a statement in the → Christliche Welt (CW). The starting point was that “an educated Christian” must take offense at several clauses in the Apostolicum (esp. the Virgin birth). He spoke against the abolition of the Apostolicum, but recommended, nonetheless, that its liturgical use be suspended sending the formulation of a new, time-appropriate confession. Harnack’s observations generated a wave of protests. In a declaration (Sep 1892), the “Protestant-Lutheran Conference” called the statements in the Apostolicum concerning the Virgin birth “the foundation of Christianity.” The “Friends of the CW” backed Harnack. In a “circular declaration,” the EOK in Berlin sought to appease and emphasized that they did not want to make “of every individual passage” of the Apostolicum a “fixed doctrine”; but it maintained, nonetheless, the normative character of the Apostolicum. The Apostolicum Controversy made it necessary to rethink the relationship between academic freedom and confessional loyalty. Instead of the disciplinary procedures opened in such cases in several state churches, the Prussian “heresy law” (1910), authored by W. → Kahl, made it possible to carry out disciplinary procedures with respect to doctrine. This law, however, was only applied in 1911 in the case of K. → Jatho, who had developed his own confirmation confession. G. → Traub, who together with O. → Baumgarten had undertaken Jatho’s defense, was himself removed from office following a disciplinary procedure in 1912. In response, Harnack demanded anew the suspension of the liturgical require-

340 ment of utilizing the Apostolicum. The requirement was relaxed in Württemberg and Baden; in Bavaria a pastor was forced to retire as late as 1924 because of his refusal to say the Apostolicum. A. Zahn-Harnack, Der Apostolikumstreit des Jahres 1892, 1950 ◆ E.R. and W. Huber, Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20.Jh., vol. III, 1983, 645–690, 759–799 ◆ J.F.G. Goeters & J. Rogge, eds., Die Geschichte der EKU, vol. II, 1994, 318–325 ◆ H. Kasparick, Lehrgesetz oder Glaubenszeugnis?, 1996 (bibl.). Daniela Dunkel

Apotactites. The Greek word apotaktikós (ἀποτακτικός) is a military term meaning “set apart, deserted.” From its use in Luke 14:33, the verb took on the meaning “renounce the world” in Christian asceticism. By the end of the 4th century, the word appears in papyri as a title for male and female ascetics who renounced marriage and possessions but did not necessarily live as solitaries. For example, the abbots of the communities founded by → Pachomius were called apotactites. When rigorously ascetic groups in Asia Minor used the word to describe themselves, → Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. 61, c. 374–376) labeled them heretics, on the grounds that they wanted to make the apostolic practice of poverty and renunciation of the world mandatory for all Christians. A. Lambert, “Apotactites et Apotaxamènes,” DACL I, 1906, 2604–2626 ◆ E.A. Judge, “The Earliest Use of Monachos for ‘Monk’ (P. Coll. Youtie) and the Origins of Monasticism,” JAC 20, 1977, 47–71. Susanna Elm

Apotheosis. The term “apotheosis” (ἀποθέωσις/ apothéōsis) is a coinage of the Hellenistic period. Important individuals like → Alexander the Great were said to have been elevated to divine status (Polybius). Apotheosis belongs to the extensive semantic field that associates deities with human beings (Gen 6:1–4). Divine kingship, the Egyptian pharaoh, and the Greek hero cult are the closest analogies. The beginnings of apotheosis in the narrow sense appear in the 6th and 5th centuries bce. The heroization of Greek figures like Homer and Hesiod developed into the deification or heroization of actual historical individuals (military leaders, city rulers, priests, poets, seers, sages, artists, and athletes). At the turn of the 4th century bce, local heroization came to include living benefactors. Around 404 bce, the island of Samos bestowed divine honors on Lysander of Sparta for his victory in the Peloponnesian War (Plutarch, Lys. 18, 3f.). Philip II of Macedonia (Pausanias 5, 20, 110) and Dion of Syracuse (Diodorus Siculus 16, 20, 6) were similarly honored during the 4th century. Alexander the Great (356–323 bce) was anxious to standardize the initiation of local and regional heroization (deification oracle in the temple of Amon at Siwa in Egypt). The → Ptolemies (→ Ptolemaic Dynasty) and → Seleucids con-

341 tinued this trend; as an extension of the Egyptian royal cult, Ptolemy II (285–246 bce) had himself deified during his own lifetime. The Roman ritual of consecratio referred originally to the apotheosis of someone deceased; in the narrow sense, it was limited to the family of the ruler. After the death of → Caesar, the Senate voted “to grant Caesar all divine and human honors” (Suetonius, Jul. 84). Octavian, on whom the Senate had bestowed the title of → Augustus, rejected the offers of deification made during his lifetime; but he promoted the cult of the new goddess Dea Roma and was worshiped alongside her as genius. When he died, the consecratio ritual was expanded substantially. While the emperor’s body was being cremated, an eagle was released as a symbol of ascent to the heaven of the gods; at the same time, a witness was produced to declare that “he had seen the form [effigies] of the cremated emperor rising up to heaven” (Suetonius Aug. 100). During the 1st century, despite the unsuccessful attempts of Caligula (37–41), → Nero (54–68), and → Domitian (81–96) to manage their own deification, apotheosis remained strictly limited to the ritual associated with the cremation of the dead emperor. In the 2nd century, however, starting with → Hadrian (117–138), the living emperor was deified, although sacrifice was offered primarily for the well-being of the emperor rather than directly to him as a god. After his death, the consecratio ritual still had to be performed. Thus from the outset the living emperor occupied an intermediate position between mortality and divinity; his divinity grew in importance from the 2nd century on, but remained vulnerable to philosophical criticism. Although the OT and NT do not mention apotheosis, the OT myths of the giants’ conception (Gen 6:1–4), the translation of → Enoch in the primeval history (Gen 5:21–24), and the ascension of the prophet → Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–18) have elements comparable to Hellenistic and Roman apotheosis. “Apotheosis,” PRE I, 1894, 184–188 ◆ “Apotheosis,” KP I, 1979, 458–460 ◆ H.D. Betz, “Gottmensch II (Griech.-röm. Antike und Urchristentum),” RAC XII, 1983, 234–312 ◆ E. Bickermann, “Die römische Kaiserapotheose,” ARW 27, 1929, 1–34 ◆ C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, Zet. 2, 1970 ◆ H.J. Klauck, Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums, vol. II: Herrscher- und Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis, 1996. Detlev Dormeyer

Apotropaic Rites. The concept of the apotropaic (Gk ἀπότροπος/apótropos, ἀποτρόπαιος/apotrópaios; derived from the verb ἀποτρέπειν/apotrépein, turn away) designated, in Greek antiquity, the divine power that both warded off disaster and caused misfortune, and as such was to be repulsed. Yet, within the semantic spectrum, the meaning of defense was dominant: although every god could in principle also effect disaster, over the

Apotropaic Rites powers that caused harm the Greeks set their own “apotropaic” protector-gods, esp. Zeus, Apollo, Heracles, and Athena, who therefore at times received the cultic epithet apotrópaios. Accordingly, from the 19th century, apotropaic rites were subsumed under religious (or “magical”) rites that were supposed to protect individuals, groups, states, individual homes, or collective territories of various sizes from various kinds of disaster – such as sickness, drought, crop failure, and unforeseeable misfortunes – that escape secular defense strategies. The feeling of being threatened, to which the apotropaic rites respond, is interpreted variously within religous systems, whether as diffuse impurity, which is to be eliminated through cathartic measures (e.g. washing, driving out a “scapegoat”), or as the perception of invisible hostile attacks from outside, which one must ward off in a way analogous to repulsing human enemies or enemies of one’s kind. The agents of the present or feared disaster could be living or deceased people, demons, or gods. Possible defense mechanisms include, first of all, the aggressive exclusion of the particular bringers of disaster, their isolation, banishment, or annihilation. Circumambulation demonstrates one’s control over a territory; fear-inducing masks express readiness to attack; ithyphallic guardian figures take up the biological program of phallic impression; eyes (in pairs) represent hostile observation, which often takes the form of the “evil eye.” For protection against evil spells, individuals wear on their bodies small objects credited with magical powers of defense (→ Amulet). For the psycho-hygienic relief of the group, bearers of disaster are defined. Corresponding to the Israelite scapegoat, which was driven into the wilderness (Lev 16:10), one finds in the Greek cultural realm a human pharmakós that is driven out of the city. In the rite of apopompé (“sending away”), invisible powers were removed from the living space. In the individual realm, the counterpart is → exorcism. The exclusion of bearers of disaster can be supplemented with their real, symbolic, or imaginary annihilation (execution of the sorcerer, therapeutic ritual, etc.). Frequently, the invisible bearer of disaster is also fixed and confined (banishment into a space or object). A rather different kind of treatment of the hostile force consists in pacification by means of sacrifice, which of course does not bring about communion but only creates distance; the invisible pursuers are supposed to be compensated through voluntary gifts. W. Burkert, Creation of the Sacred, 1996 ◆ I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt & C. Sütterlin, Im Banne der Angst, 1992 ◆ C. Faraone, Talismans and Trojan Horses, 1992 ◆ B. Gladigow, “Schutz durch Bilder,” in: K. Hauck, ed., Der historische Horizont der GötterbildAmulette aus der Übergangsepoche von der Spätantike zum Früh-Mittelalter, 1992, 13–31 ◆ R. Parker, Miasma, 1983. Gerhard Baudy

Appasamy, Aiyadurai Jesudasen Appasamy, Aiyadurai Jesudasen (Sep 3, 1891, Tinnevelly, India – May 2, 1976, Coimbatore), south Indian Protestant theologian and church leader; after schooling in his homeland, he studied theology and religious studies in the USA, earned his doctorate in Oxford in → bhakti mysticism and the Gospel of John (in effect his topic for life) and spent six months with R. → Otto in Marburg. After his return he became a coworker of the Christian Literature Society in Madras, then lecturer in theology in Calcutta, and bishop of the Church of South India in Coimbatore 1950–59. In England he met Sadhu Sundar → Singh, to whom his first and last publications were also dedicated. Among his Indian colleagues, he was the one who worked most intensively with the reciprocal interpretation of Indian bhakti and Johannine mysticism. Beginning with the “qualified → monism” of the → Rāmānuja (viśi߆ādvaita), but going beyond this, he understood the experience of oneness with God not exclusively metaphysically but also as an expression of personal obedience that emerges from participation in Christ as the incarnate Logos. Works include: The Sadhu (with B.H. Streeter), 1921 ◆ Christianity as Bhakti Marga, 1928 ◆ Temple Bells, 1930 ◆ What is Moksha?, 1931 ◆ The Gospel and India’s Heritage, 1942 ◆ My Theological Quest, 1964 ◆ A Bishop’s Story, 1969 ◆ On Appasamy: ◆ R.H.S. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, 21975, 110–143 ◆ M.M. Thomas & P.T. Thomas, Towards an Indian Christian Theology, 1992 Hans-Werner Gensichen

Appearance. The concept of appearance presupposes a distinction between appearance (→ Phenomenon) and that which appears. Depending on how this distinction is interpreted – i.e. whether that which appears is visible in the phenomenon, or not –, the appearance is either revelatory or deceptive. These two concepts of “appearance” have left their mark on the history of philosophy. In → Plato, appearance is already marked by a measure of ambiguity. In the Dialogues of his middle period, especially in the parable of the cave in the Republic, he ascribes a lesser ontological rank to the phenomena (ta phainomena) than to the archetypes. The appearances are merely the shadows of the archetypes, not the archetypes themselves (cf. Republic 7.2; 514a1–516a8). Here, accordingly, the phenomena present a deceptive appearance to the one who sees them. In Plato’s late Dialogues, however, the → idea (eidos, idea) manifests itself in the phenomena (cf. Philebus 16c5–e4). Here, the phenomena have the function of a revelatory appearance. Owing to this ambiguity of the concept of appearance, mimēsis (“representation” → Mimesis) also bears connotations of truth as well as deception. In the 18th century, Johann Heinrich Lambert developed a theory of appearance in his Neues Organon. His goal was to enable a cognitive distinction between that

342 which is true and that which merely represents a deceptive appearance. Depending on the various sources of cognition, Lambert proposed the following classification of the various types of appearances: the sensory appearance perceived by the senses, the psychological appearance conjured up by the power of imagination and consciousness, the moral appearance caused by intense emotions, and the appearance of that which is probable according to the conclusions drawn by reason. He also mentions various forms of aesthetic appearance. I. → Kant warns against the transcendental appearance, which may deceive reason if the latter mistakes a regulative principle for a constitutive principle, thereby conferring objective reality on the former. – G.W.F. → Hegel and M. → Heidegger take up the concept of appearance in the elaboration of their philosophical methodology, viz. → phenomenology, the purpose of which is to provide guidance (in the different ways proposed by the two philosophers) through the phenomena in order to attain true knowledge. J.H. Lambert, Neues Organon, 1764, ed. H.-W. Arndt, vol. II, 1965, 217–435 ◆ I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1973, A62/ B86–A64/B88, A293/B350–A298/B355, A615/B643–A629/ B648, A642/B670–A648/B677, in: Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. Königlich Preussiche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1, vol. VI, 1907, 1–202; ET: Critique of Pure Reason ◆ G.W.F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes, 1807, in: Werke, vol. III, 1986, 68–81 ◆ M. Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, 171993, 28–31; ET: Being and Time. Friederike Rese

Appenzeller, Henry Gerhart (Feb 6, 1858, Souderton, PA – Jun 11, 1902), from a Swiss Reformed family in Pennsylvania, became a Methodist minister in 1882. As a contemporary of H.N. → Allen he was stationed as a missionary in Seoul in 1885, under difficult political conditions. By establishing a school for boys he gained the favor of the authorities and of the king and later was able to build a large church in the vicinity of the palace. He cooperated with the → Presbyterians (III) in the establishment of a Christian hospital (today part of Yonsei University). His literary work was multifaceted, especially in translating parts of the Bible, publishing the Methodist magazine Christian Advocate and the interdenominational paper Korea Reporter. Appenzeller was the first to set up a bookbindery and also became the librarian of the Asia Society (later the Royal Asiatic Society). He lost his life in a collision of ships off the Korean coast. His work in → Korea was continued by some of his descendants. W.E. Griffis, A Modern Pioneer in Korea, 1912. Hans-Werner Gensichen

Apperception → Self-conciousness Appian Way → Via Appia

343

Appropriation/Incorporation

Approbation. In the usage of the Catholic Church, “approbation” (Lat. approbatio, approbare) means acceptance, approval, recognition, affirmation, or authorization by the competent authority. Approbation provides legal justification or approval; it is required for admission to certain positions and offices, for hearing confessions, and for proclamation of the word (missio canonica; imprimatur). G. May, “Verschiedene Arten des Partikularrechtes,” AKathKR 152, 1983, 31–45 ◆ W. Aymans & K. Mörsdorf, Kanonisches Recht 1, 131991, 375–381. Wilhelm Rees

Appropriation I. 1. Appropriation, the acquisition of a certain characteristic or capacity (Lat.: appropriatio), is a concept from the scholastic doctrine of the → Trinity (cf. → Thomas Aquinas, De veritate 7.3; Summa Theologiae I, 30,45.6f.); early Protestant → orthodoxy (cf. J. → Gerhard, Loci theologici I, 203f.) and Catholic neoscholasticism (cf. B. Bartmanni, Dogmatik I, 57) also treated appropriation under the concept of, or distinguished from, the proprietates personales or the opera dei ad extra/ad intra. 2. The tradition distinguished between: (a) an appropriation of names, e.g. the Father appropriates the name God, the Son the name Lord, the Holy Spirit the name Spirit; (b) an appropriation of characteristics, e.g. the Father appropriates the characteristic power, the Son the characteristic obedience, the Spirit the characteristic love; (c) an appropriation of activities, e.g. the Father appropriates creation, the Son redemption, the Spirit completion. On the basis of Rom 11:36, the unity of God’s works in their pertinent personal specification is summarized as follows: the Father accomplishes everything through the Son in the Holy Spirit (→ Trinity). 3. The rules for appropriations are that they: (a) must not be undertaken arbitrarily, but must correspond to Scripture and the declarations of the trinitarian → confessions; (b) must not be exclusive, i.e. appropriations must not apply to only one person of the Trinity, but must satisfy the ordo trinitatis (→ Perichoresis). The objective of appropriation is to make the individual persons of the Trinity clear in their specific profiles without endangering God’s unity. II. The traditional doctrine of appropriation was already an attempt to appreciate both the unity and the differentiation of the persons of the Trinity as a vital working principle of divine activity through the Augustinian distinction between the economic and the immament trinity (→ Augustine). Contemporary trinitarian attempts to center God’s activity in God’s unity and personal or relational distinctions and to explicate it anew in terms of the philosophy of language must treat the traditional appropriation-doctrine at least from the following perspectives: 1. What theological

functions or soteriological interests do appropriations assume and bring to bear? 2. Does not the metaphorical usage of appropriations blow apart traditional discourse concerning the original relations in the Trinity? In any case, a serious doctrine of appropriations must result in a differentiated discourse concerning God’s trinitarian activity. K. Barth, KD I/1, 1932, 392–395 ◆ W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, 1982, 344f. ◆ W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, vol. I, 335–347. Werner Brändle

Appropriation/Incorporation . Appropriation (Lat. annexio, appropriatio, incorporatio, unio; Ger. Inkorporation; Fr. incorporation; Ital. incorporazione) in canon law (→ Canon law/Church law) means a legal relationship created by the relevant diocesan bishop or the pope, according to which a → juridical person in the church (monastery, seminary, or university) functions as a non-resident (→ Residence obligation) person of a patronage church (→ Patronage). The benefiting institution received thereby the right to permanent use of the parish benefices (→ Benefice) of the church incorporated in it. → Pastoral care (“care of souls,” cura animarum) in the appropriated churches provided for a → curate to be presented by the appropriation manager to the relevant diocesan bishop; a portion of the parish benefices was set aside for the maintenance of this curate. According to the regulations set out for this in the late 12th century, this portion was not allowed to be under a certain level (sustentatio congrua), and the bishops had to take this into account when appointing the curates. Although appropriation relationships were described already in 11th-century northern French documents and episcopal appropriation documents were drawn up, besides France in England in particular from the last third of the 12th century, in large numbers, it was not until the 13th century that appropriation was included in canon law (decretal apparatus of → Innocence IV, c. 1245). In the late Middle Ages various forms of appropriation developed corresponding to gradated rights of access by the appropriation manager to the appropriated churches, both materially and spiritually. In Catholic countries the appropriation circumstances persisted until the → secularizations of the early 19th century and where these did not take place (esp. in Austria), they are still in force. X.-A. Baraniak, “Curé religieux,” DDC IV, 1949, 941–961 ◆ D. Lindner, Die Lehre von der Inkorporation in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 1951 ◆ P. Landau, TRE XVI, 1987, 163–166 ◆ W. Petke, “Von der klösterlichen Eigenkirche zur Inkorporation in Lothringen und Nordfrankreich im 11. und 12.Jh.,” RHE 87, 1992, 34–72, 375–404 ◆ H. Schmitz, LThK V, 1996, 503–504 ◆ H.J. Mierau, “Vita communis und Pfarrseelsorge. Niederkirchenbesitz und cura animarum der geistlichen Gemeinschaften in den Diözesen Salzburg und Passau im Hoch- und Spät-Mittelalter,” FKRG 21, 1997, 176–204 ◆ U. Rasche, “The

Apringius of Beja

344

Early Phase of Appropriation of Parish Churches in Medieval England,” Journal of Medieval History 26, 2000, 213–237. Ulrich Rasche

edge (in contrast to mere opinion) is a priori; the latter maintains only that, in addition to empirical knowledge, there is also a priori (non-analytical) knowledge.

Apringius of Beja. Apringius, bishop of Beja (Portugal), wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse between 531 and 548. For Rev 5:7–18:5, he borrowed a revised text of Jerome’s version of a commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus of Pettau. He also copied the rest of the commentary by Pseudo-Victorinus (on 19:11 and 20:1–10), even though he was to discuss the last five chapters (18:6–22:21) himself. Surprisingly, Apringius does not seem to have been familiar with either Tyconius (Dulaey, 225) or Primasius (Campo, 26). Probably occasioned by the reading of the Apocalypse between Easter and Pentecost in the → Mozarabic liturgy, the commentary is a terse theological work of great depth. It repeatedly disputes Arian doctrines (→ Arius). → Millenarianism/Chiliasm is generally rejected; the author explains chiliastic passages in the Apocalypse allegorically, although for the most part he interprets the text literally. When dealing with names and numbers (cf. Banning, 431–434), he presents an allegorical exegesis that is sometimes bizarre.

I. Forms Past and Present 1. Antiquity and Middle Ages. → Plato was the first explicitly to propose apriorism. As had → Parmenides already, Plato regarded timeless truth as the requirement of true knowledge so that there can be no empirical knowledge of the transitory objects of sensory perception. True knowledge exists only of ideas, whose representations are objects of perception. (Plato’s was, thus, a radical apriorism.) → Aristotle also represented an apriorism, although it was moderate. According to it, reason (the “nous”) is a source of a priori knowledge. As a result, for Aristotle, reason is not only independent of experience, but is also equal to it in the dignity of the objects of perception and superior in the certainty of knowledge. Throughout antiquity, apriorism remained the dominant conception. (The Epicureans and the Skeptics number among the few exceptions.) The dominance of apriorism in medieval Europe was even more pronounced. In this respect, it was oriented towards Plato, and especially toward Aristotle, although it traced reason, as the source of a priori perception, to a creative act of God. In addition, Christian tradition knew in the concept of → revelation a form of perception that could not simply be integrated into the “a priori/a posteriori” schema. 2. Modernity and the Present. The development of experimental natural science at the beginning of the modern era first represented a challenge to the old and an impulse for the development of new forms of apriorism. Rationalism, beginning with R. → Descartes, regarded a priori knowledge as a foundation on which even empirical knowledge ultimately rests. Its sources are “innate ideas” such as, for instance, the concepts of God and the basic ideas of metaphysics and mathematics with which the Creator endows the human soul. The discussion between rationalistic apriorism and empiricism reached a new level with I. → Kant, according to whom, all knowledge indeed “begins with experience,” but does not therefore “originate from experience.” While there can only be knowledge of empirical objects in space and time, this knowledge itself has a priori conditions which Kant unfolds in the context of his transcendental philosophy. With recourse to the “conditions of the possibility of experience,” Kant sought to justify a priori knowledge for the realm of mathematics and as the basis of natural science. This knowledge has its source in human “nature,” without, however, being innate. Metaphysics and theology certainly fall outside the realm of a priori knowledge (and thus entirely outside the realm of the knowable).

Works: CPL 1093 ◆ Apringius de Béja, son commentaire de l’Apocalypse, ed. M. Férotin, 1900 ◆ Commentary on Rev 1:1–5:7 also in PLS 1, 1958, 1222–1248 ◆ On Apringius: A.C. Vega, ed., Apringii pacensis episcopi tractatus in Apocalypsin, 1941 ◆ A. del Campo Hernández, Comentario al Apocalipsis de Apringio de Beja, 1991 ◆ M. Dulaey, “Jérôme, ‘éditeur’ du Commentaire sur l’Apocalypse de Victorin de Poetovio,” REAug 37, 1991, 199–236 ◆ J. v. Banning, “Systematische Überlegungen zur allegorischen Schriftauslegung,” ZKT 117, 1995, 265–295, 416–446. Joop H.A. van Banning

Apriorism I. Forms Past and Present – II. Arguments for and against Apriorism

As a collective term for all philosophical conceptions that admit a priori the possibility of non-analytical knowledge (→ a priori/a posteriori), “apriorism” stands for the opposite of → empiricism. Just as the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge can be drawn in various ways, so can that between apriorism and empiricism. Furthermore, a plethora of conceptions, highly differentiated in detail, fall under the heading “apriorism.” They all share only the thesis that alongside linguistic analysis, there is (at least) one other source of non-empirical knowledge. The question of which source may be involved (e.g. reminiscence, innate ideas, a transcendental or dialectic method) is as disputed among the various forms of apriorism as is the subject matter and scope of the knowledge to be gained. In addition, one must distinguish between a radical and a moderate apriorism: the former claims that all authentic knowl-

345 While Kant still allowed space for genuinely empirical knowledge with the concept of experience (based on an affection by the “thing in itself ”), the development of Kant’s ideas by J.G. → Fichte, F.W.J. → Schelling and G.W.F. → Hegel led to an → idealism which, on the one hand, certainly bears elements of apriorism, but, on the other, aims to overcome the juxtaposition of apriorism and empiricism. Further independent forms of apriorism include, among others, E. → Husserl’s phenomenology, which explores the aprioristic structures of perception and intentionality by returning to the phenomenon of “pure consciousness”; the constructivism of the → Erlangen school, which traces the aprioristic bases of the exact sciences back to order of behavior and construction; the transcendental pragmatism of Apel, according to which, the general conditions of communication constitute a so-called “linguistic a priori”; as well as the theory of evolutionary knowledge (e.g. Lorenz, Vollmer), which understands the a priori knowledge of individuals as the result of the historical “experience” of a species. II. Arguments for and against Apriorism In essence, two strategies on which to base apriorism may be distinguished: 1. Direct grounds for apriorism follow the schema: (a) statements of type A (e.g. mathematical equations, natural laws, metaphysical principles) have the characteristic M (e.g. are necessarily valid, are strictly universal, concern non-empirical objects); (b) statements with the characteristic M cannot be verified either empirically or analytically; (c) accordingly, statements of type A give expression to knowledge; (d) therefore, there is a priori non-analytical knowledge; 2. Indirect-reflexive grounds for apriorism follow the schema: (a) there is a knowledge (e.g. in self-consciousness or of the rules of sensible communication), that (α) is a necessary condition of (all) other knowledge, (β) cannot be verified either empirically or analytically, and (γ) must itself therefore be assumed even when one seeks to dispute it; (b) therefore, there is a priori nonanalytical knowledge. 3. Above all, the experience that supposed a priori knowledge has often already proven to be false is adduced against apriorism, in addition to the criticism of individual versions of apriorism and its grounds. The concept, represented, among others, by K. → Popper, that all human knowledge is in principle fallible and reversible, is designated fallibilism. Another form of criticism of apriorism is traceable to W.v.O. → Quine. According to Quine’s (foundational) holism a system of convictions can only be empirically tested as a whole, but on the other hand no individual conviction is exempt from possible revision. Plato, Phaid., Theaitet, Politeia V, VI, VII ◆ Aristotle, Metaph. ◆ R. Descartes, Discours de la méthode ◆ G.W. Leibniz, Nouveaux

Apuleius of Madaura Essais ◆ I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft: Einleitung; ET: Critique of Pure Reason ◆ E. Husserl, Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie ◆ W. Kamlah & P. Lorenzen, Logische Propädeutik, 1967, ch. 6 ◆ K.-O. Apel, Transformation der Philosophie, vol. II, 1973 ◆ G. Vollmer, Was können wir wissen?, 1988 ◆ K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: Introduction, 1963 ◆ W.v.O. Quine, Pursuit of Truth, 1990. Marcus Willaschek

Apse (Gk ἄψις, “rounding”), niche-like, mostly vaulted area with a semicircular or polygonal outline. Common in Roman sacred and profane architecture as the place of the tribunal, throne, imperial or cultic image; in early Christian church architecture (→ Basilica), of the bishop’s throne (cathedra; → Church architecture : II). Preferred place for Christian images. Rectangular or polygonal in the 5th–6th century, the apse developed in the Carolingian period a large variety of forms (also secondary apses, apsidioles). Through the formation of the → choir it has had less independence since the Gothic period. For the → Renaissance, → Baroque, and → historicism, the apse remains an important architectural element. L. Giese, RDK I, 1937, 858–81 ◆ A.M. Schneider, RAC I, 1950, 571–73 ◆ C. Delvoye, RBK I, 1963, 246–68 ◆ A. Reinle, Zeichensprache der Architektur, 1976 ◆ G. Binding, Architektonische Formenlehre, 1980. Conrad Lienhardt

Apuleius of Madaura (c. 125 ce – c. 180 ce, Africa) was a Platonist and orator. He was reared in Carthage, studied in Athens, after which he traveled in the East where he was initiated in several mystery cults. He practiced law in Rome whence he returned to Africa. After he married the wealthy widow Aemilia Pudentilla, her relatives accused him of sorcery in 158 ce, but he was acquitted. Apuleius delivered prize declamations in various cities, including Carthage, where he was also imperial priest and was honored with a public statue. Works: (1) Metamorphoses, an (allegorical) novel concerning the adventures of a Lucius who had been transformed into a donkey and his conversion to Isis after his retransformation. Its structure and themes (conversion, demonology) exhibit relations to → Plutarch and → Augustine’s Confessions. (2) Apologia, an apology against charges of sorcery. (3) Florida, excerpts from prize declamations. (4) De deo Socratis, concerning Platonic doctrine and demonology. (5) De Platone et eius dogmate (2 books of natural philosophy and ethics, a 3rd book dealing with logic [inauthentic]). (6) De mundo (cosmology); along with inauthentic writings. Apuleius’s interests (rhetoric, philosophy, religion) characterize him as a typical representative of the second sophistry and of his century, → Lactantius (Inst. 5.3.7) praised Apuleius along with → Apollonius of Tyana as wonderworkers. Editions: R. Helm & P. Thomas, 1907/08, repr. vols. I–II/1 1955, vol. II/2 1959 ◆ C. Moreschini, Apuleio, 1991 ◆ Bibl.:

Aquarians B.L. Hijmans Jr., Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus, ANRW II 36.1, 1992, 395–475 ◆ R. Merkelbach, Isis regina – Zeus Sarapis: Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt, 1995 ◆ N. Shumate, Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, 1996. Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser

Aquarians. The use of water instead of wine in the Lord’s Supper is attested esp. in the so-called NT → Apocrypha (Acts Pet. II 2; Acts Paul 7; Acts Thom. 120–21/152/158[?]), but it seems also to have been customary occasionally when wine was unavailable in the mainstream church (Martyrdom of Pionius 3.1); → Irenaeus ascribed a corresponding practice to Jewish Christians (Haer. V 1.3); → Clement of Alexandria to Encratites (Paedagogus II 32.3–4; Stromata I 96.1); → Epiphanius to → Marcion (Haer. 42.3.3); → Theodoret to students of Tatian called Ὑδροπαραστάται/Hydroparastátai (Thdt. Haer. I 20), Pope → Leo I to the Manichaeans (Serm. 42.4); → Manichaeism. → Philastrius first called one group the “Aquarii” (Haer. 77[49]); finally legal action was taken against them: Codex Theodosianus XVI 5.7,9,11,65. A. von Harnack, “Brot und Wasser: die eucharistischen Elemente bei Justin,” TU 7/2, 1891, 115–44 ◆ T. Zahn, Brot und Wein im Abendmahl der alten Kirche, 1892. Christoph Markschies

Aquaviva, Claudius (Claudio; Sep 9, 1543, Atri – Jan 31, 1615, Rome). After law studies at Perugia and curial service in Rome, Aquaviva joined the Jesuit order in 1567 (ordained priest in 1574). He taught at the Collegium Romanum and in 1580 became head of the Roman province; in 1581 he was elected Superior General of the → Jesuits. With great skill, Aquaviva led the order until 1615, a time of many difficulties: separatist tendencies among the Jesuit provinces in Spain, the controversy with the Dominicans over grace, political difficulties in France, England, and Venice. Under his leadership the educational code achieved its final form (Ratio studiorum, 1599), the order’s structure and missions were expanded, and formation was standardized with the 1599 Directory of the Exercises. BCJ 1, 31960, 480–491 ◆ M. Rosa DBI I, 1960, 168–178 ◆ VD16 1, 1983, 29–31 ◆ J.P. Donnelly, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation I, 1996, 1f. ◆ L. Giard & L. de Vaucelles, eds., Les jésuites à l’âge baroque (1540–1640), 1996. Heribert Smolinsky

Aquila (Adler), Caspar (Aug 7, 1488, Augsburg – Nov 12, 1560, Saalfeld). Aquila traveled as far as Italy on extended educational journeys. In 1510 he studied at Leipzig, in 1513 at Wittenberg ; in 1514 he was ordained priest and took a pulpit in Bern. In 1515 he became a military chaplain under F. von → Sickingen. In 1516 he became pastor of Jengen and married; his son Malachias was born in 1517. In 1520 he was arrested and removed from office. In 1521 he received

346 the degree of Magister at Wittenberg. From 1521 to 1523 he was in Sickingen’s service; then he returned to Wittenberg. In 1527 he became a preacher at Saalfeld, where he became pastor and superintendent in 1528. He wrote a catechism. In 1548, at risk because of his polemic against the → Interim, he fled to Rudolstadt but shortly thereafter became pastor at Untermassfeld (Henneberg ) and in 1550 pastor at Schmalkalden. In 1552 he returned to Saalfeld. Aquila represents the ordinary pastors who, though lacking theological originality, contributed greatly to the success of the Reformation. J.M. Reu, Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrichts I/2/2, 1911, 173–207 ◆ VD16, I, 1, 1983, 51–54, nn. 250–281 ◆ J. Köhler, Bibliographie der Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts, I, 1, 1991, 15–17 ◆ G. Biundo, Kaspar Aquila, 1963 ◆ H. Scheible, Melanchthon und die Reformation, 1996, 333–351. Heinz Scheible

Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla). Aquila and Prisca were a 1st-century Jewish Christian missionary couple. Aquila was born in Pontus; he and his wife earned their living as tentmakers. Such independent tradespeople belonged to the lower classes; there is no evidence that they had a house or a substantial business. The fact that Prisca is sometimes named before Aquila shows that she was considered the more active of the two in the eyes of the church. The two of them were among the first Christians in Rome, preaching Christianity in the local synagogues – an activity that led to tumultuous controversies in the year 49. The leading agitators were banished from the city by the emperor → Claudius (Suetonius Cl. 25, 4; Orosius, Historiae adversus paganos VII, 6, 15f.). They moved first to Corinth (Acts 18:2–3), then to Ephesus, where they once again worked with Paul and hosted a house church (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:4). Around 55/56 they returned to Rome (Rom 16:3–5). P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 21989 ◆ idem, “Aquila,” ABD I, 1992, 319f. ◆ idem, “Prisca,” ABD V, 1992, 467f. ◆ I. Richter Reimer, Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, 1992, 202–230. Peter Lampe

Aquileia was founded as a Roman colony in 181 bce. An episcopal see was established probably around the middle of the 3rd century. According to legend, the evangelist Mark founded the Christian community and Hermagoras was its first bishop. Soon after → Constantine’s edict of toleration, a Bishop Theodorus of Aquileia was present at the Council of Arles. He was responsible for building an early Christian church in Aquileia. Bishop → Fortunatianus built a larger church with three naves (c. 345). The Synod of Aquileia in 381 opposed Arian trends. Around 400 a basilica (possibly a monastery church) was built at Monastero, northwest of the city. After the city was destroyed by Attila

347 (452), a structure with an atrium and a baptistery was built, which has dominated the ecclesiastical complex of Aquileia ever since. From the 5th century, Aquileia exercised metropolitan authority over the Roman provinces of Venetia and Histria, Western Illyricum (Upper Pannonia), Noricum, and Raetia. A letter written by Pope Pelagius I in 559 is the first evidence that the metropolitan of Aquileia was styled “patriarch.” In 568, the Lombard invasion led Patriarch Paulinus I to flee with the church’s treasure to the castrum of Grado, an island off the coast. In 606/607, the schism resulting from the → Three Chapters Controversy led to the division of the ecclesiastical province of Aquileia into two patriarchates, Aquileia and Grado, which continued even after the conflict was resolved in 699. At the end of the 6th century, the advance of the Avars and Slavs put an end to the ecclesiastical organization of Aquileia in Noricum mediterraneum. Patriarch Paulinus II (787–802) undertook new political initiatives. In 811 Charlemagne established the Drava River as the boundary between the metropolitanates of Aquileia and Salzburg. During the 9th century, the church of Aquileia also sent missionaries into the territory of Dalmatia. Enjoying the favor of Carolingian, Ottonian, and Salian rulers, the patriarchs established an independent patriarchal principality. Patriarch Poppo (1019–1042) built the present church building, consecrated on Jul 7, 1031. In 1077, during a critical phase of the → Investiture Controversy, Patriarch Sigehard gained secular authority over the county of Friuli and the marches of Carniola and Istria. In 1180 Pope → Alexander III recognized the patriarchates of Aquileia and Grado. The political position of Aquileia was strengthened in the 13th century, but after the death of Marquard von Randeck (1365–1381), the patriarchal state collapsed. Between 1418 and 1420, the Venetians seized the temporalities of Aquileia, which Patriarch Ludovico Trevisan formally renounced in 1445. The efforts of the Habsburgs to remove their territory from the spiritual jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Aquileia led in 1461/62 to the establishment of the see of → Ljubljana. After the patriarchate of Aquileia was dissolved in 1751, two archdioceses were set up: Gorizia in 1752 (for the Habsburg territory and Inner Austria) and Udine in 1753 (for the Venetian territory of the former patriarchate). H. Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr, 1954 ◆ S. Tavano, Aquileia e Grado: Storia – arte – cultura, 1986 ◆ H. Krahwinkler, Friaul im Frühmittelalter, VIÖG 30, 1992 ◆ Storia e arte del patriarcato di Aquileia, AnAl 38, 1992 ◆ Poppone: L’età d’oro del patriarcato di Aquileia, 1997 ◆ K.H. Frankl, “Patriarchat Aquileia (ecclesia Aquileiensis), ” in: E. Gatz, ed., Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches von ihren Anfängen bis zur Säkularisation, 2003, 37–51. Harald Krahwinkler

Ara Pacis Augustae Aquileia, Synod of (381). The oldest extant council protocol (SC 267, 330–82): this synod was called as the Western counterpart of the imperial synod of → Constantinople by Emperor Gratian, attended mainly by northern Italian bishops, and presided over by → Ambrose of Milan; it condemned the two homoeans Paladius of Ratiaria and Secundianus of Singidunum. The legal foundation of the procedure, which was oriented toward the imperial cognition trial, was, at least indirectly, the fides Niceana, made imperial law on Feb 28, 380 (→ Nicea, → Niceno-Constantinopolitanum). Text edition: R. Gryson, ed., SC 267, 1980 ◆ Bibl.: G. Gottlieb, Das Konzil von Aquileia (381), AHC 11, 1979, 287–306 ◆ C. Markschies, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie, 1995, 124–127. Hermann Josef Sieben

Ara Pacis Augustae. The Ara Pacis (Altar of Augustan Peace) was voted by the senate on Jul 4, 13 bce, on the occasion of → Augustus’s victorious return from the west; it was consecrated on Campus Martius in → Rome on Jan 30, 9 bce, the same year as the giant sundial constructed in conjunction with it: on Augustus’s birthday, the shadow of the gnomon pointed to the front of the → altar. Fragments were first discovered in 1568 near the Via Flaminia; excavations took place in 1903 and 1937/38. Today the altar has been rebuilt near the mausoleum of Augustus. The altar is surrounded by an almost square (approx. 11.5 × 10.5m) precinct wall approx. 6m high; doors at the front and rear give access to the altar (see ill.), which is decorated with a processional frieze. The inside of the precinct wall is carved with vertical strips imitating a wooden fence; above are garlands, bucrania, and paterae. The lower register of the exterior is decorated with a repeating frieze of acanthus. The north and south sides depict Augustus, members

Fig. 1. Ara Pacis, Reconstruction. View of the main entrance. Relief of Aeneas (right) und relief of Mars (left), originally west side. 13–9 bce. (Fototeca Unione/Accademia Americana, Rome)

Arab

Fig. 2. Ara Pacis, Reconstruction. Originally east side with relief of Italia. 13–9 bce. (Fototeca Unione/Accademia Americana, Rome)

of his family, and priests moving in procession toward the front, where the figure of Aeneas offering sacrifice (symbol of pietas) stands on the right, facing on the left the twins Romulus and Remus suckled by the she-wolf (symbol of virtus). On the back wall, these mythological exemplars are joined on the right by a victorious Roma enthroned upon weapons and on the left by an allegorical figure represening a mother goddess (embodying peace, plenty, and fertility). G.M. Koeppel, Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, vol. V, BoJ 187, 1987, 101–157 ◆ S. Settis, “Die Ara Pacis,” in: Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (exhibition catalogue, Berlin 1988), 400–425 ◆ D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art, 1995. Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser

Arab. The term “Arab” (Arab. coll. al-aarab, also alaurbān [sing.] and adj. aarabī) can be traced as far back as the first millennium bce; it also appears in the OT. Over the centuries, it has been used in many different senses, both inclusively and exclusively, but rarely as an ethnic or racial classification (as a reality, though not as an idea!). The earliest occurrences clearly refer to “steppe or desert dwellers” in contrast to people living in settled villages and cities. But throughout ArabicIslamic tradition as well as in present-day Arabic usage, this sense, often with negative overtones, is only one of the semantic variants of the word. With the coming of Islam in the tribal milieu of the Arabian Peninsula, the revelation of the → Quhrān in the Arabic language, and Muslim expansion primarily through the agency of Arab tribal groups, a second meaning of the word came into play, which was to influence the course of history: “Arab” became closely associated in people’s minds with the religion of Islam. But the two could never coincide completely, since there were Arabs who continued to adhere to other religions (primarily variants of Chris-

348 tianity), and many non-Arab ethnic groups adopted Islam. Thus new distinctions arose within the broad tent of the Muslim world, the most important being “Arabs versus Iranians,” “Arabs versus Berber,” “Arabs versus Africans,” and “Arabs versus Turks.” Often the members of each group considered themselves superior (or better Muslims). These inclusivities and exclusivities are still virulent and dangerous today. The clearest semantic variant of “Arab” uses the term to include all who use Arabic as their native language (approx. 150–170 million people). The cultural and linguistic area covered by this definition comprises basically North Africa, Egypt, northern Sudan, the entire Arabian Peninsula, Syria/Palestine/Lebanon, and Iraq. “Arab nationalists” at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th dreamed of this region (possibly excluding North Africa) as a single nation, while Christian Arabs from Syria and Lebanon, vigorously resisting the “foreign domination” of the Ottoman Turks, were committed to the idea of a single Arab civilization transcending religion but also requiring the establishment of a comprehensive political framework. During the beginnings of Islam, Christian Arabs, “exempted” from tribute (particularly in the exercise of their religion), long remained the vast majority in Muslim societies; “opportunistic” conversions constantly reduced their number. Today they are represented disproportionately in Syria, Jordan, and Palestine, as well in Egypt and Lebanon – to the extent that the → Copts und → Maronites also identify themselves as Arabs. A. Grohmann et al., “aArab”, El2 I, 1960, 524–533 ◆ R.V. Weekes, ed., Muslim Peoples, 21984 (bibl.). Albrecht Noth

Arabian Peninsula I. Christianity – II. Islam

I. Christianity 1. Southern Arabia. It is impossible to tell when the gospel was first preached in southern Arabia; probably Arabs from the region came into contact with Christianity in the course of their commercial travels or else Christians arrived in southern Arabia. Jewish and Christian missionaries probably paved the way for Southern Arabian monotheism, attested in inscriptions dating from 378 ce onward, which replaced the cult of astral deities with a single God. Around 342, the emperor → Constantius II sent an embassy under Theophilus the Indian to the Homerites (Himyarites); its success is shown by the building of churches in the capital ¸afār, in the trade center aAdan, and in a market town further east. In the history of Christianity in southern Arabia, the oasis city of → Najrān in the northwest of ancient → Yemen played the most significant role. Among other tra-

349 ditions, it is said that at the beginning of the 5th century a merchant from Najrān received baptism at al-Óīrah and converted many inhabitants to Christianity after his return. The Ethiopic Martyrdom of Azqir (2nd half of the 5th cent.) provides evidence that a Christian community had come into being in Najrān. In 517, the Jewish king Joseph (Sabean Yūsuf Ashar YaΔhar, in Arabic tradition ˛ū Nuwās) came to the throne and campaigned against the Abyssinians in southern Arabia. There followed persecutions of Christians, and the churches in ¸afār and the port city of Mokha (al-Mu¢āh) were burned. The city of Najrān was forced to give hostages, and its access routes were cut off. In the fall of 518 – or 523, the date given in the hagiographic sources – the besieged city was taken and many Christians suffered various forms of martyrdom, including Arethas (Óārit), the chief of the city, whose festival is observed by Arabian Christians on Oct 24. The persecution of the Christians of Najrān and under the Himyarites is recorded in two Syriac letters, the Martyrdom of St. Arethas and his Companions, extant in several versions, and an untitled Syriac fragment containing the acts of the Himyarite martyrs. The martyrdom of the southern Arabian Christians evoked consternation and sympathy throughout eastern Christendom and induced the Abyssinians under King Kaleb Ella Aßbe˙ā to undertake an invasion in 525, with the support of Byzantium. Southern Arabia was conquered and King Joseph killed, the Christian congregations were revived, and many new churches were built. In Najran alone three churches were erected, including one in memory of the holy martyrs. A southern Arabian Christian named Simyafaa (Esimiphaios) became a vassal of the Ethiopian king; his successor Abrehā, mentioned in inscriptions dating between 543 and 553, later assumed the title of king. Under him, Gregentius was appointed the Orthodox archbishop of ¸afār; his Life contains valuable information about the life of the church in Southern Arabia, but the Laws of the Himyarites (PG 86, 567–620) ascribed to him were probably composed in the 7th century by an unidentified author outside southern Arabia. Abrehā had a cathedral built in Sanaha, described in Arabic sources. Around 575, the Abyssinians were driven out of southern Arabia and Yemen became a province of the Sasanian Empire until 628, when the Persian governor accepted Islam. The Christian community of Najrān sent a delegation including the bishop to the prophet → Mu˙ammad, who initially gave them assurances that they could continue to practice their religion, subject to certain conditions. Under aUmar, the second Caliph (633–644), however, Christian religious organizations were banished from the Arabian Peninsula. There are bits of information about the survival of Christian communities in southern Arabia, especially in Nestorian documents (→ Nestorius,

Arabian Peninsula → Syria); the East Syrian author → Thomas of Marga mentions a certain Peter who was bishop of the land of Yemen and of Íanaāh between 837 and 950, probably evidence that an organized church still existed in that period. In the time of the Zaidite Imam al-Hādī (898–911), the religious minorities enjoying protection included Christians from Najrān as well as Jews. For the year 520, → Cosmas Indicopleustes records that the population of the island of Socotra, off the coast of southern Arabia, included many Christians, whose clergy were ordained in Persia. From 880 to 1282, Near Eastern sources repeatedly mention Nestorian bishops resident on the same island. There is evidence that vestiges of Christian customs and rudimentary knowledge of the Christian faith survived on Socotra as late as the 16th century. When the Portuguese began expanding into the Indian Ocean in 1498, their activity included missionary work on the coast of southern Arabia and the island of Socotra, which ended in total failure in 1576. When the British occupied Aden in 1839, missionary work began once more. On the Catholic side, Capuchin Fathers and sisters of the Congregation of the Good Shepherd were active, and 1859 saw the erection of an Apostolic Prefecture, which was merged with the Galla mission in 1872 and transformed into an Apostolic Vicariate in 1888. The Vicariate had to be relocated to Abu Dhabi in 1973. On the Protestant side, the British → Church Missionary Society began its work in Aden in 1885; this work was continued after 1888 by the → Church of Scotland, which operated the Keith Falconer Medical Mission in Sheikh Othman, a district of Aden. Since there were hardly any conversions from Islam to Christianity, the Christian congregations consisted primarily of Europeans and Indians, and the primary work of the missions was limited to medical care and education. After the British withdrew from Aden in 1967, all activities of the Christian churches were also prohibited in 1972 in what was then South Yemen. In the Republic of Yemen, Islam is the official religion; Christian missionary work among Muslims is forbidden, and the practice of the Christian religion is severely restricted. A. Moberg, The Book of the Himyarites, 1924 ◆ J. Ryckmans, “Le christianisme en Arabie du Sud pré-islamique,” in: L’Oriente cristiano nella storia della civiltà, 1964, 413–453 ◆ I. Shahîd, The Martyrs of Najrān, 1971 ◆ J. Beaucamp & C. Robin, “Le christianisme dans la péninsule arabique d’après l’épigraphie et l’archéologie,” TMCB 8, 1981, 45–61 ◆ W.W. Müller, “Himyar,” RAC XV, 1989/90, 303–331. Walter W. Müller

2. Northern and Central Arabia. The first written evidence of Christian contact with the inhabitants of northern Arabia beyond the limits of the eastern Roman Empire is relatively late and scant. The influence of the hermits of the Syrian desert on the nomadic

Arabian Peninsula Arabs undoubtedly played a major role. Toward the end of the 4th century, an Arab sheikh named Zokomos, who had been longing for male offspring, was granted his wish through the efficacious prayers of an anonymous hermit; this led his entire tribe (the Salī˙ids?) to embrace Christianity. Similarly the nomadic Arabs were greatly impressed by the miraculous powers of the stylite → Simeon Stylites the Elder in northern Syria (5th cent.), the monastic founder → Euthymius in Palestine (5th cent.), and the ascetic episcopus vagans A˙udemmeh in northern Mesopotamia (6th cent.). Somewhat earlier (4th cent.), Queen Māwiyya of the Tanukh tribe in northern Arabia, in the face of some opposition, used political and military means to appoint a hermit by the name of Moses to episcopal office; this Moses is said not only to have been a vigorous opponent of the Arians (→ Arius) but also to have been of Arab origin himself. There is scattered evidence that at about this time a number of north Arabian tribes (including the Judham, the aĀmila, the Bahrāh, and the aUdhra) were at least partially converted to Christianity. At any rate, the signatory lists of various synods include the names of several bishops who to all appearances represented nomadic Arabian tribes. In the period of the christological controversies, many Arabian tribes (e.g. the Bakr, the Iyād, and the Tamīm) gravitated toward Nestorianism (→ Syria), which was accepted by the majority of Christians in the Persian Empire; other tribes (including the Ta©lib and the Kinda) became adherents of so-called → Monophysitism. Deserving of special mention are the Banū Ghassān – the famed and storied Ghassanids – who migrated from southern Arabia and were probably Christianized as early as the 4th century; in the late 5th and 6th centuries they became powerful protectors of the Monophysite church in Syria. In the western part of central Arabia, especially in → Mecca and → Medina, Christianity was represented only by individual figures; there was no organized Christian community of any sort. In the eastern part of central Arabia, however, i.e. in the Gulf region, there is evidence of several bishoprics as early as the 4th century, whose incumbents are mentioned by name in the pertinent documents; in 676, the bishops of the former Sasanian Empire in this region even held a synod. In northern and central Arabia, organized Christianity vanished very early, during the Middle Ages – a development promoted by conversions in the name of Arab solidarity and hastened by forced resettlement. In the modern period, despite the efforts of outstanding figures such as H. → Martyn and S. → Zwemer, the Christian mission was unable to gain any foothold in the extremely conservative Islamic society of Arabia. Even today, most countries of the Peninsula, and espe-

350 cially Saudi Arabia, have very restrictive religious policies; Christianity is no longer represented among the native Arab population. C.D.G. Müller, Kirche und Mission unter den Arabern in vorislamischer Zeit, 1967 ◆ J.S. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, 1979 ◆ I. Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century, 1984 ◆ idem, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century, 1989 ◆ N.A. Horner, A Guide to Christian Churches in the Middle East: Present-day Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa, 1989 ◆ I. Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. I, 1995. Stephen Gerö

II. Islam Mu˙ammad’s rise is connected with the efforts of his tribe, the Quraysh of Mecca, to dominate the Arabian Peninsula. Even before 630, when he had put down his internal enemies, he began to extend his influence over sizable territories; he received delegations from other tribes that assured him of their loyalty and pledged to accept Islam. After his death in 632, however, many tribes forsook Islam, which they mistrusted as an instrument of Quraysh domination. It did not take long, however, to restore the Prophet’s successors in Medina to power by force of arms. After c. 635, the wars against the so-called apostates developed into campaigns extending beyond the Arabian Peninsula. Thus the political center of gravity of the nascent Islamic Empire shifted from the Arabian Peninsula to the substantially richer regions of → Syria and → Iraq. The First Civil War (656–660) discharged the tensions between the old companions of Mu˙ammad, who were losing their influence, the superficially Islamized old Quraysh elite, and the forces bearing the brunt of the conquest, mostly of Bedouin origin, bringing this phase to a close. After that, the Arabian Peninsula ceased to be a center of Islamic power. It nevertheless continued to play an important role in the conflicts between Islamic rulers or states, since it harbors the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Every year, Mecca is the goal of countless pilgrims; Medina, the city where the Prophet laid the foundations of the Islamic community, as early as the 7th century became a center of scholarship that sought to collect and sift all the information concerning his life, so as to shed light on the kinds of conduct required of all Muslims. Many Muslims were not content with this tradition but went in person to live for extended periods in the holy cities, to share in the blessings conveyed by the places where Mu˙ammad had carried out his ministry. This explains why Islamic great powers have sought to enhance their prestige by establishing formal sovereignty over this part of the Arabian Peninsula. Preparing the annual caravan of pilgrims was therefore an extremely important issue for the Mamluks and Osmans (Ottomans); today the prestige of the Saudi ruler is due primarily to his role as “Custodian of

351 the Two Holy Places.” From about 1200 until 1924, de facto sovereignty over this part of the Arabian Peninsula was exercised by the Sharifs, descendants of al-Óasan ibn aAlī, a grandson of Mu˙ammad. The other regions of the Arabian Peninsula, which attracted less interest on the part of the Islamic great powers, enjoyed political autonomy from the 9th century on at the latest; among other things, they became refuges for Islamic minorities such as the Kharijites in Oman and the Zaidite Šīaa in Yemen. The Qarmates, a sect of the Ishmaelite Šīaa, ventured to challenge the Abbasid caliphate by stealing the black stone of the Kaaba in 930. They did not return it until 20 years later, when the Shiaite caliphate of the Fatimids came into power in North Africa – an example of the oft-noted cooperation between an Islamic minority and an Islamic great power. From the 11th century on, the south, especially Yemen, took on increased importance, since it served as an important stop for the sea trade between India and Egypt that was beginning to flourish. As a result, beginning in the 16th century the coastlands of the Arabian Peninsula were drawn into the geopolitical conflicts between the Mamluk Empire, later the Ottoman Empire, on the one hand and Portugal, later France and Great Britain, on the other. The religious movement founded in the 18th century by Mu˙ammad ibn aAbd al-Wahhāb (Wahhabites, → Islam: I) stirred the interest of the world powers in the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the 19th century, when they succeeded briefly in abolishing Ottoman sovereignty over the Hejaz. Nevertheless, the Wahhabites were primarily concerned not with extending their power beyond the Arabian peninsula but rather with enforcing strict Islamic practice locally and controlling the Bedouin, whose way of life bore little relationship to Islamic norms. This internal Islamization was also an important political goal for aAbd al-aAzīz ibn Saaūd (1880–1953). He had to restrain the zeal of his supporters after 1924, when the Hejaz was incorporated into his empire and – after the end of the Caliphate, abolished by → Atatürk in 1924 – Mecca became the seat of the “League of Islamic States” and had to open itself to the influence of highly diverse interpretations of Islam. Since then, the kingdom of → Saudi Arabia , being by far the most important power of the Arabian peninsula, has tried to achieve a balance between domestic Wahhabism and cosmopolitan Islam, as demanded by its role as custodian of the holy cities of Islam. G. Rentz, “Mu˙ammad and the Rise of Islam,” EI 2 I, 1960, 549–556 (bibl.). Tilman Nagel

Arabic, Christian Literature in Arabic, Christian Literature in. Christian Literature in Arabic first appeared in the 8th century in → Palestine (in the environs of Jerusalem and the monastic communities of the Judean desert), where the scriptures were first translated into Arabic for liturgical use, along with patristic and monastic texts originally composed in Greek and Syriac. The oldest known original work of Christian theology in Arabic also appeared in this → Melkite milieu, the now anonymous treatise, written c. 755 ce, and entitled by its first modern editor On the Triune Nature of God. There is no reliable documentary evidence for the existence of a pre-Islamic Arabic version of any portion of the scriptures, nor for any significant amount of pre-Islamic Christian poetry in Arabic. The first works of Arabic Christian literature were a product of the inculturation of several Christian communities in the Middle East into the Arabic-speaking world of Islam, beginning in the early Abbasid period. By the first half of the 9th century, Christian writers in the → Melkite, Jacobite, and Nestorian (→ Syria) communities were producing a steady stream of translations of the scriptures and of Greek philosophical texts, as well as composing theological, historical, and apologetic treatises in Arabic. By the 10th century, writers and translators in the Coptic community (→ Copts) were similarly producing narratives, theological treatises, and translations of the classical texts of their church. Some Christian authors and scholars gained a wide reputation in the Arab world and beyond. These were such men as the Melkite Theodor Abū Qurra (c. 755–c. 830), the Nestorian Óunain ibn Is˙āq (808– 877), the Jacobite Ya˙yā ibn aAdī (893–974) and the Copt Severus ibn al-Muqaffaa (905–987), to mention only a few, whose names may be recognized in the west. The apogee of Arabic Christian literature came in the 13th century with the work of a remarkable Coptic family in Cairo, collectively known as the “aulād alaAssāl,” the “sons of al-aAssāl,” who produced a formidable collection of ecclesiastical literature in Arabic between 1230 and 1260. In fact, from the 11th century onward the Copts produced the greater part of the Christian Arabic literature that has survived, far surpassing the output of the other Arabophone churches taken together. Throughout the centuries the most popular works of historical and religious controversy, particularly in the area of Muslim/Christian dialogue, have been copied over and over again. In modern times Christian writers have been in the forefront of the secular, Arab nationalist movement; poets, novelists, and political philosophers have made major contributions to Arabic literature. G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 1944– 1953 ◆ J. Nasrallah, Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’église melchite du Ve au XXe siècle, 1981–1989. Sydney H. Griffith

Arad Arad. Located on the northern edge of the → BeerSheba valley, Arad was a fortified city with far-reaching trade connections during Early Bronze II; after a gap of 1400 years it was resettled in the 11th century as a small enclosed settlement (stratum XII). In the 10th century (or later?) a fortress (approx. 50 × 50m) was erected but destroyed and rebuilt six times in Iron Age II (strata XI to VI). The location was subsequently used as a small fort or road station from the Persian through to the Early Arabic period (strata V–II). A Kenite population ( Judg 1:16) went and settled in Judah. In the Iron Age the site of ruins from the Early Bronze period was interpreted as a city conquered by the ancestors at the end of the Late Bronze period (Num 21:1; 33:40; Josh 12:41). Arad became an important Jewish-state functional location. Over 100 Hebrew inscriptions are administrative in character, concerned with the supply of flour or bread, wine, and oil to military units. Other letters contain historical hints: inauguration of a new king, a temple of YHWH (in Jerusalem?), and the threat of → Edom. An Iron Age sanctuary consists of a wide main hall and a small compartment. A large open court was attached to the main hall on the east. In the compartment a stone stela with rounded edges was found on the floor; two carefully cut altars were erected on the entrance stairs. A large field stone sacrificial → altar (2.4 × 2.2 × 1.5m) was erected in the courtyard. The temple was constructed in stratum X (10th or 9th cent.), reused in stratum IX (8th cent.), and dismantled when the fortress of stratum VIII was rebuilt. The abolition of the temple fits well with the cultic reform carried out by → Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:22). According to Ussishkin the temple was built in the 8th century and destroyed at the start of the 6th century. O. Keel & M. Kuechler, OLB II, 1982, 209–233 ◆ D. Ussishkin, “The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad,” IEJ 38, 1988, 142– 157 ◆ Y. Aharoni et al., NEAEHL I, 1993, 75–87 ◆ Z. Herzog, “The Beer-Sheba Valley,” in: From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. I. Finkelstein & N. Na’aman, 1994, 122–149. Ze’ev Herzog

Arama, Isaac ben Moses (c. 1420 Aragon – 1494), one of the leading thinkers of Spanish Jewry in the 15th century and the author of Aqedat Yitzhaq (The Binding of Isaac), a major, influential, homileticalphilosophical work. Arama taught in several towns and was appointed the rabbi of Calatayud; after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (1492) he settled with his family in Naples. Aqedat Yitzhaq is comprised of 105 homiletical expositions, which deal with the problems of religion and reason: creation, revelation, miracles, divine omniscience, methodologies of exegesis, free will, the authority of the commandments, and ethical behavior. Arama’s scriptural → hermeneutics are often allegorical (→ Allegory), and he often uses rationalistic

352 terminologies; the main thrust of his attitude, however, is to place tradition and faith above logic. This work was very influential in the 16th century; Rabbi Isaac → Abrabanel and others used it frequently. It was first printed in Salonica (1522) and many times since. Anton Julius van der Hardt translated the 62nd chapter into Latin. Another important work by Arama is Hazut Kasha (A Tragic Vision), printed in Sabbionetta in 1552 and dedicated to anti-rationalistic polemics. Arama’s exegetical works were continued by his son, Meir, who settled in Salonica. I. Bettan, Studies in Jewish Preaching, 1939, 130–191 ◆ S. HellerWilensky, Rabbi Isaac Arama and his Philosophical Teachings, 1956 (Heb.). Joseph Dan

Aramaic → Bible Translation → Semitic Languages Aramaic, Biblical I. Old Testament – II. Aramaic Forms and Formulae in the New Testament

I. Old Testament 1. Texts. a. In Gen 31:47 the Aramean Laban calls Jacob’s “stone-heap of a witness,” Heb. gal’ed, or more aptly “stone-heap (or monument) of testimony,” y egar śāhadûtāh. Biblical authors and their public can be assumed to have known at least this much Aramaic from the end of the 8th century bce onward, at the latest since the 7th century; although, to judge from its status in the LXX, the verse may be a gloss. b. Jer 10:11 is a marginal gloss on 10:12 that has found its way into the text. It draws the conclusion from 10:1b–8 that the reader should communicate the non-existence of the gods represented by images in contrast to the Creator God in Aramaic, the international language. The coexistence of two forms of the word for “the earth,” ‘arqā’; as in Old Aramaic and ‘araā’ as in Middle Aramaic, characterizes the Imperial Aramaic of the Persian period. c. In Dan 2:4b–7:28, the Aramaic text begins with a speech by the “Chaldeans” (→ Chaldea; cf. Gen 31:47). From a redaction-critical perspective, Dan 2–6 represents a collection of “Diaspora novellas,” the core of which may have originated sometime in the late Achaemenid to the Ptolemaic periods. An Aramaic prototype of Dan 4 has turned up at Qumran, 1QOrNab. d. In Ezra 4:8–6, 18; 7:12–26, the Aramaic text also begins with a citation of official correspondence between Samaria and the Emperor, or with an attempt to imitate such language. The authentic edict of Cyrus may be at hand in 6:3–5; or, as the wellconsidered chronological differences in the composition may suggest, a redactionally revised version. 2. Aramaisms. In addition to those from the other ANE languages, biblical Hebrew also contains loan words from Aramaic. They can be recognized on the basis of phonological or morphological characteristics.

353 Phonologically: t instead of Heb. š; d instead of z; † instead of ß; s instead of ś; q (also Israelite?) or a instead of ß; ā instead of ô. Morphologically: the nominal forms qa††ālā (infinitive Pehal) and h/ h aq†ālā (inf. ha/af hel), as well as the masc. pl. ending -în (also Arabic and Moabite, as well as Israelite?). Syntactically, Aramaic influence can be demonstrated in middle Hebrew, in the OT, especially in Chr, Qoh, Song, and Esth. From the 7th century bce, Aramaic was the language of education, diplomacy, and commerce, knowledge of which can be assumed for the literate segment of the populace. Aramaic totally replaced (middle) Hebrew as the everyday language in Judea from the 2nd century ce. E.Y. Kutscher, “Aramaic,” Current Trends in Linguistics 6, 1971, 347–412 ◆ R. Degen, “Aramaismen im Hebr. des AT I,” TRE III, 1978, 600–602 ◆ R. Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel, SBS 131, 1988 ◆ I. Kottsieper, “Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63. I: 12,11–19 – Eine aramäische Version von Ps 20,” ZAW 100, 1988, 125–133. Ernst Axel Knauf

II. Aramaic Forms and Formulae in the New Testament Various Aramaic expressions occur in the NT. The NT, however, does not distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic, for clearly Aramaic designations for localities such as “Gabbatha” and “Golgotha” are characterized as Hebrew in John 19:13, 17; “Akeldamah” (haqel/field, dam/blood or damak/graveyard); seven masculine personal names formed with bar/son (Heb.: ben) + father’s name, also “Silas” (she’il + determinative: the one asked for), as well as feminine names such as “Martha” (the mistress), “Sapphira” (shappîr = beautiful), “Tabitha” (tabi/ gazelle, with Aram. determinate fem. ending); nicknames such as “Cephas” (Aram. Kepa), “Boanerges” (banê regesh); titles such as “Messiah” (meshi˙ah, with Aram. determinate) and “Rabbuní” (my lord, master); the festival term “Passa” (Heb. ha-pessa˙) and other words such as abba (the, my father, Father!); terms with Aramaic determinatives such as “Satanas” (Heb.: hasa†an), etc., as well as brief clauses (in Mark 5:41; 7:3; 15:34; 1 Cor 16:22) attest to the roots of the tradition in the original Aramaic communities in Palestine and, as phonetic transcriptions, offer keys to the pronunciation of western middle Aramaic as well as evidence of dialectical distinctions (cf. Matt 26:73). R. Degen, “Aramaismen im Hebr. des AT I,” TRE III, 1978, 602–610 ◆ J.A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s Name in the NT,” in To Advance the Gospel, 1981, 112–124; “New Testament Kyrios and Maranatha and their Aramaic Background,” idem, 218–235 ◆ R. Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramaisch, 1982, 60–66 ◆ K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 1984, Supp. 1994 (dictionary with references to explanations in the introduction and grammar) ◆ G. Mussies, “The Use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek New Testament,” NTS 30, 1984, 416–432. Georg Schelbert

Arbela Arameans were a tribal group that appeared in the waning Late Bronze Age and spread out from northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Tenaciously embattled by Tiglath-pileser I, Arameans attained power in the cities of Syria in the 10th and 9th centuries and formed tribal states. They were the first victims of the Neo-Assyrian expansion and deportation policies; thus, an Aramaic common language developed in the Assyrian Empire up through the 7th century bce which also became the language of international commerce (→ Semitic languages). With the conquest of → Damascus in 732 bce, the last independent Arameans became (As-)Syrian. The theory of an Aramean origin for the Israelites (Deut 26:5) may be rooted in the memory of the roughly contemporaneous ethnogenesis and state-formation of the Arameans and the Israelites (cf. Amos 9:7); both were also victims of the Assyrians. Linguistically and geographically, the proto-Israelites were not Aramean. E. Lipi…ski, “Aramäer und Israel,” TRE III, 1978, 590–599 ◆ E.A. Knauf, Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments, 1994, 111–121, 132–136 ◆ P.-E. Dion, Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Histoire politique et structures socials, EtB NS 34, 1997. Ernst Axel Knauf

Arator. A 6th-century Christian Latin poet from Liguria; studied rhetoric in Milan and Ravenna under the sponsorship of bishops Laurentius (Milan) and → Ennodius. He owed his call from Athalaric to be “comes domesticorum” (“Commandant of the Imperial Bodyguard”) to the representative of a Dalmatian delegation to → Theodoric (c. 526), probably through the intercession of → Cassiodorus. Presumably having moved there before the siege of Rome by the Goths in 537–538, now sub-deacon under Pope → Vigilius, he dedicated to the pope his epic “de actibus apostolorum” (title uncertain), which he performed in April/May 544 in St. Petri ad Vincula to great acclaim. In a paraenetic-didactic commentary on 43 select passages from Acts, presuming precise knowledge of them, he linked Trinitarian/anti-Arian and ecclesiologically oriented exegesis with Petrine panegyric and Christian Roman ideology in order to support the pope’s claim to primacy. In addition to the dedicatory letter to Vigilius, two letters to patrons composed in distichs are appended to the poem. CPL 1504 ◆ K. Thraede, RAC Suppl. IV, 1986, 553–573 ◆ J. Schwind, Arator-Studien, 1990. Manfred Wacht

Arbela (Erbil, present-day Irbil) is the chief city in the region of Adiabene, situated east of the Tigris between the lesser and greater Zab in modern Iraq. In the 1st century ce, the royal house resident there, Queen Helena and her son Izates, converted to Judaism ( Jos. Ant. XX, 2–4). The Chronicle of Arbela first published by A. Mingana, which offers purportedly precise

Archaeology information concerning its Christianization, is a late forgery, apparently prepared by Mingana himself, and is entirely unreliable. The Christianization of Arbela originated in → Edessa, as the records of Mari, the apostle of the Eastern Church, confirm. During the reign of the Sasanian prince, Shapur II (309–379), Christians in Arbela and the Adiabene were persecuted. The → Acts of the Martyrs written in Syriac comprise a literarily cohesive group with historically reliable information. In 410, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Arbela became a metropolitan see. That synod marked the political and confessional schism between the Eastern Church and the Imperial Byzantine Church. Afterwards, the Eastern Church was Nestorian. Arbela had a theological school that was very closely related to the Nestorian Academy of → Nisibis. → Óenana of Adiabene (d. 610) was an influential theologian and sometime chief of the Nisibene Academy. In 637, Arbela was conquered by the Muslims. The Christian community of Arbela fell into decay until it was rebuilt in 1167. The Patriarch Den˙a (1265–1281), a friend of → Bar Hebraeus, promoted the Jacobite cause in Arbela (→ Syria : V). Nowadays, there are no longer Christians in predominantly Kurdic Irbil. J.M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. I, 1965, 37–97 ◆ G. Wiesner, Zur Märtyrerüberlieferung aus der Christenverfolgung Schapurs II., AAWG.PH 3, 67, 1967. Han J.W. Drijvers

Archaeology I. General – II. Biblical Archaeology – III. Christian Archaeology

I. General In an earlier period, the term “archaeology” referred primarily to Greco-Roman antiquity, above all to works of art. Today, archaeology embraces all scientific efforts to derive information from the material remains of ancient civilizations in an attempt to understand them. For periods with written records, archaeology supplements the content of these records; it often provides more objective evidence, since texts are usually composed for a particular purpose. In addition, archaeology can contribute information about areas not covered by written tradition, such as settlement history, technology, art, and architecture, as well as most aspects of daily life. For preliterate and nonliterate periods, archaeology also has the task of contributing in its own right information about economic, social, and political circumstances that for literate periods would be addressed by a combination of archaeology and textual analysis. This function of archaeology is particularly important, because it is increasingly clear that, by the time writing appears, socio-economic and political conditions usually have advanced far beyond their formative stage. Usually only

354 archaeology can provide information about this formative phase. U. Hausmann, Grundlagen der Archäologie, 1969 ◆ H.J. Eggers, Einführung in die Vorgeschichte, 21974 ◆ F.A. Hole, “Assessing the Past through Anthropological Archaeology,” in J. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1995, 2715–2727. Hans Jörg Nissen

II. Biblical Archaeology 1. Self-understanding and Goals. Historically, the traditional term “biblical archaeology” has been burdened by too close a relationship with biblical piety and biblical studies. This situation is due to two factors: first, biblical archaeology has been carried out primarily by biblical scholars (→ Biblical Studies), usually with archaeological training; second, even today archaeologists unversed in biblical studies frequently interpret their archaeological results biblically. There are more than enough examples of the biblicistic misuse of the Old and New Testaments on both sides. Reflecting the Greco-Latin toponym Palaestina, biblical archaeology is usually understood as the branch of archaeology that deals with the material evidence from the biblical (heart)lands. Where to draw the geographical boundary, however, is disputed; chronologically, there is often no lower limit, while the upper limit is usually defined as the “close of antiquity” in the Romano-Byzantine period. In this sense, biblical archaeology is identical with the archaeology of Palestine, Syria-Palestine, or the southern Levant. It studies the history of settlement and culture in → Palestine and the adjacent areas by means of surface surveys and → excavations, analyzing material remains typologically and functionally, and interpreting the evidence from the viewpoint of secular, cultural, and religious history. Besides the Stone Age (c. 700,000–3800 bce), the cultural periods studied include primarily the Chalcolithic period (c. 3800– 3200 bce), the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze Ages (c. 3200–2200, 2200–1550, 1550–1200 bce), Iron Ages I and II (1200–1000, 1000–586 bce), the Babylonian and Persian period (586–332 bce), the Hellenistic period (332–37 bce), the Roman period (37 bce–324 ce), the Byzantine period (324–635 ce), and under certain circumstances the Islamic era (from c. 635 ce) and the period of the Crusades (1099–1291 ce). The geographical and chronological setting of biblical archaeology links it closely with Near Eastern archaeology, Classical archaeology (esp. that of the Roman provinces), early Christian and Byzantine archaeology, and Jewish studies, as well as medieval and Islamic archaeology. The early cultural periods have to be dealt with almost entirely without the aid of historical sources. Subdisciplines of biblical archaeology include → epigraphy, → iconology, and → numismatics. Biblical archaeology is always the archaeology of Palestine, but the archaeology of Palestine is not always

355 biblical archaeology. If the term is used precisely, it should be limited to the time from the Late Bronze Age to the Roman and early Christian period and to the historical region of Palestine. Its focus is therefore on the study of Palestinian cultures, especially those of the → Ammonites, → Arabs (e.g. Ishmaelites [→ Ishmael], → Midianites, or → Nabateans), → Arameans, Edomites (→ Edom), Israelites (→ Israel), Judeans, “Canaanites,” Moabites (→ Moab), → Philistines, and Phoenicians (→ Phoenicia), as well as the pagan, Jewish, and Christian cultures of the Hellenistic and Romano-Byzantine periods. Undoubtedly the most important sources from the viewpoint of reception history are still the OT and NT, even though there are also a number of other literary and epigraphic sources that do not enjoy canonical status. Palestinian archaeology thus becomes biblical archaeology only when the results of archaeology and exegesis are considered together. Its task is very difficult to accomplish without experts trained in both archaeology and biblical studies. Its central focus is neither on the Bible nor on Israel; it is an independent discipline sensitive to all the cultures of Palestine – their individuality, their common features, and their value. Therefore it attaches great importance to cooperation with biblical studies, Jewish studies, Egyptology, and Near Eastern, Classical, and early Christian archaeology. Its investigations utilize all the requisite scientific disciplines (e.g. anthropology, paleobotany, paleozoology) and methods (e.g. geophysical prospection, carbon-14 dating, photogrammetry, x-ray fluorescence analysis, neutron activation analysis). The methodology of excavation has generally reached a compromise between vertical excavations yielding stratigraphic profiles in the tradition of the Kenyon-Wheeler method and more horizontally oriented surface excavations, which give access to larger architectonic and archaeological ensembles. Since excavations always entail the destruction of historical constellations, methodically controlled and supervised excavation and meticulous documentation are the necessary foundation for all later scientific work. The ethics of archaeology also requires that the excavations be published within a reasonable period of time. On this point, there have been significant abuses for decades. On-site conservation and restoration have also been neglected. OLB 1–2, 1982–1984 ◆ D. Homès-Fredericq & J.B. Hennessy, eds., Archaeology of Jordan, vols. I/1–II/2, 1986, 1989, 1998 ◆ H. Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie/Vorderasien II/2, 1988 ◆ H.P. Kuhnen, Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie/ Vorderasien II/2, 1990 ◆ J. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 1991 ◆ J. Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, 21992 ◆ A. Ben-Tor, ed., The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 1992 ◆ V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, JSOTS 172, 1992 ◆ A. Biran & J. Aviram, Biblical Archaeology Today: 1990, vol. I, 1993 ◆ NEAEHL I–IV, 1993 ◆ D. Conrad, ‘Biblische Archäologie heute,’ VF 40, 1995, 51–74 ◆

Archaeology E.M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, I–V, 1997. Ulrich Hübner

2. Survey of Research (Interpretation Models). Biblical archaeology in the strict sense is defined by the relationship between archaeology and the exegesis of literary sources, specifically the OT and NT. Utilization of both disciplines, based on careful hermeneutical consideration, is critical. They are autonomous scientific disciplines, which must reach their conclusions independently (“differentiation model”). At the same time, they are mutually related. Therefore biblical scholars must make hermeneutically attentive use of the archaeological evidence, and archaeologists likewise must make hermeneutically attentive use of biblical texts (with special consideration of their date, programmatic bias, and historical plausibility). The goal of biblical archaeology is not to refute the historicity of biblical texts on the grounds of archaeological evidence or to confirm it; neither is it the task of biblical archaeology to interpret archaeological evidence in the sense of biblicistic fundamentalism (“affirmation model”), to harmonize the differences and inconsistencies between the two kinds of source material, or to overemphasize the agreements for apologetic purposes. Apologetic misuse of biblical archaeology is not permissible, but equally illegitimate is its growing political and ethnocentric misuse as a kind of archaeological fundamentalism in the service of territorial nationalism. Where the evidence of archaeology and literary texts overlaps, the task of biblical archaeology is to define and analyze critically the complex interrelationship of both – insofar as both kinds of evidence are truly correlated geographically, chronologically, and factually. The result – with differing degrees of probability – may be to disprove, modify, or confirm what is said in particular biblical texts or to leave the question unresolved. From the perspective of biblical studies, biblical archaeology is an auxiliary discipline; from the perspective of biblical archaeology, the study of the biblical text is an auxiliary discipline (“handmaid of theology model”). Both operate independently within their own possibilities and limits; they also enjoy a constructive interdisciplinary relationship (“cooperation model”). Both are hermeneutical sciences: neither texts nor archaeological finds speak by themselves; both require interpretation in equal measure. Both disciplines play a role in the study of antiquity and contribute to historical and hence theological judgment. In the last two decades, the so-called “new archaeology” – which is actually not as new as it claims (consider the work of G. → Dalman et al. in ethnoarchaeology at the beginning of the 20th cent.) – has expanded the spectrum of biblical archaeology to include the social and cultural anthropology of the region. R. de Vaux, “On Right and Wrong Use of Archaeology,” in J.A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century,

Archaeology FS N. Glueck, 1970, 64–80 ◆ M. Noth, Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I, 1971, 3–16, 17–33, 34–51 ◆ E. Noort, Biblisch-archäologische Hermeneutik und alttestamentliche Exegese, 1979 ◆ W.G. Dever, “The Impact of the ‘New Archaeology’ on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology,” BASOR 242, 1981, 15–29 ◆ W. Klaiber, “Archäologie und Neues Testament,” ZNW 72, 1981, 195–215 ◆ J. Oesch, “Fundamentalismus und fundamentalistische Versuchung im Spannungsfeld von Archäologie und Bibel,” in J. Niewiadomski, ed., Eindeutige Antworten, 1988, 111–124 ◆ C. Frevel, “‘Dies ist der Ort, von dem geschrieben steht . . .’,” BN 47, 1989, 35–89 ◆ A. Kempinski, “Die Archäologie als bestimmender Faktor in der israelischen Gesellschaft und Kultur,” Judaica 45, 1989, 2–20 ◆ N.A. Silberman, Between Past and Present, 1990 ◆ A.E. Glock, “Archaeology as Cultural Survival,” JPS 23, 1994, 20–84. Ulrich Hübner

III. Christian Archaeology 1. Self-understanding and Goals. Christian archaeology deals with the monuments or material remains of the early Christian period, in contrast to history and church history, which are based primarily on written sources. In the narrower sense, Christian archaeology deals only with antiquities whose character indicates that they are Christian. Recently, however, the view has prevailed that such a restriction is inappropriate to the material and that it would be better to speak neutrally of “the archaeology of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages.” The same artists, for example, worked for adherents of the pagan religions as well as for Christians and Jews, in each case choosing appropriate forms (e.g. lead sarcophagi in Syria, marble sarcophagi in Rome). Christian archaeology must therefore consider all the monuments of Late Antiquity; accordingly, work in the field is carried out by Christians of various denominations, Muslims, Jews, adherents of other religions, and atheists, from many different countries. “Monuments” include the widest possible range of materials: buildings both sacral (churches, → baptisteries, monasteries) and secular (houses, palaces, baths, cisterns, fortifications, bridges, etc.), tombs, wall paintings and mosaics, floor mosaics (→ Mosaic art), illumination (→ Bible illustrations), icons, sculpture (statues, portraits, reliefs, → sarcophagi, architectural sculpture), as well as the decorative arts in all their variety. Of course scholars must draw on written sources to interpret the monuments: inscriptions, the OT and NT, apocryphal materials, and the literature of late antiquity. Christian archaeology constitutes the link between classical archaeology and art history. Its chronological limits are not clearly defined but are usually determined by local university tradition or scholarly specialty. The period studied extends roughly from 200 ce to 600 or 800. Scholars examine material from the entire Roman Empire as well as Christianized regions beyond the Empire (e.g. → Ukraine, → Georgia and → Armenia, → Iraq, → Yemen, → Ethiopia, and → Sudan).

356 Thus Christian archaeology encompasses a substantial period of time (at least from 200 to 600 or 800) and a huge geographical area; it deals with an important and fascinating phase, the transition from GrecoRoman antiquity to the Christian Middle Ages. It must therefore be considered a subject in its own right. But every subject is also an ancillary discipline for others. Christian archaeology is an ancillary discipline for classical archaeology, early history, and art history, as well as for ancient and medieval history, classical philology, Jewish and Byzantine studies, and finally and particularly for theology, above all ecclesiastical and liturgical history or “historical theology.” B. Brenk, Spätantike und frühes Christentum, 1977 ◆ F.W. Deichmann, Einführung in die christliche Archäologie, 1983 ◆ A. Effenberger, Frühchristliche Kunst und Kultur, 1986 ◆ R.L. Milburn, Early Christian Art and Architecture, 1988 ◆ F.W. Deichmann, Archeologia Cristiana, 1993 ◆ G. Koch, Frühchristliche Kunst, 1995 ◆ Encyclopedia of Early Christian Art and Archaeology, ed. P.C. Finney, 1998. Guntram Koch

2. Survey of Research (Interpretation Models). Extensive interest in the monuments of Late Antiquity first emerged in the middle of the 16th century. It was not artists who considered these works exemplary – unlike the monuments of Greco-Roman antiquity. Instead, supporters of the Counter-Reformation and the successors of the Reformers sought to use the monuments of the early Christian period, especially in → Rome, as evidence for the truth of their faith. This was the approach of Andrea Fulvio and Onofrio Panvinio. The 17th century saw the first systematic surveys, which are still of great importance on account of their illustrations. Especially important are: A. Bosio, Roma sotterranea (1632), with plans and engravings of catacomb frescoes, inscriptions, and sarcophagi, many of which have since been lost; Giovanni G. Ciamapini, Vetera monimenta (1690–1699); idem, De sacris aedificiis a Constantino Magno constructis (1693), including mosaics and paintings in → Ravenna and Rome that have since been destroyed. From the 18th century, there are books by Filippo Buonarotti and Marco Antonio Boldetti, likewise dealing with monuments in Rome. As historical development, the political situation, and theological interests would suggest, the 19th century also concentrated its attention on Rome (Christian von Bunsen, with his work on the churches of Rome; Giuseppe Marchi, with the first precise measurements of the catacombs; Théophile Roller, with the earliest photographs of paintings and sarcophagi). Particularly important were Giovanni Battista de Rossi, who may be called the founder of Christian archaeology as a science (La Roma sotterranea cristiana, 3 vols., 1864–1877; Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae, 2 vols., 1869–1888), and Raffaele Garrucci, who published illustrations of all the early Christian monuments then known (Storia dell’arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli della chiesa, 4 vols., 1872–1880).

357 Also in the 19th century scholars began to explore the rich treasures of the East and the provincial West, e.g. in → Constantinople (W. Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel, 1857; C. Texier & R. Popplewell Pullan, L’architecture byzantine, 1864), Palestine and Syria (M. de Vogüé, Les églises de la Terre Sainte, 1860; Syrie centrale, 2 vols., 1865–1877), Asia Minor ( J. Strzygowksi, Kleinasien, 1903), Gaul (E. Le Blant, Étude sur les sarcophages chrétiens antiques de la ville d’Arles, 1878; idem, Les sarcophages chrétiens de la Gaule, 1886), as well as North Africa and other regions. In the 20th century, → excavations have explored monuments throughout the whole world of Christian antiquity; in addition, comprehensive corpora of particular groups of monuments have been published ( J. Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms, 1903; idem, Die römischen Mosaiken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom 4. bis 13. Jahrhundert, 1916; idem, I sarcofagi cristiani antichi, 5 vols., 1929–1936; R. Krautheimer, Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae, 5 vols. 1937–1977). W. Wischmeyer, “Die Entstehung der christlichen Archäologie im Rom der Gegenreformation,” ZKG 89, 1978, 136–149 ◆ M. Schmauder, ed., Spiegel einer Wissenschaft. Zur Geschichte der christlichen Archäologie vom 16. bis 19. Jh., 1991 (exhibition catalogue, Bonn) ◆ H.R. Seeliger, RQ 87, 1992, 110–115 (review). Guntram Koch

Archaic Religion → Primitive Religion, → Traditional Religion, → Evolution Archaism (Gk ἀρχή/archē, “origin”) is a term referring to a style and then a period developed in the 2nd half of the 19th century in art history and archaeology by which Greek art of an earlier period can be distinguished from the so-called “severe style” of the early classical period. As a term for a historical epoch, archaism denotes the period from c. 700 to 479 bce, the year of the Greek victory over the Persians at Plataia. Archaism primarily denotes reversion to speech forms no longer in use. ᾽Αρχαϊσμός/archaismós was utilized by the ancient grammarians (Dionysius Halicarnassensis, De compositione verborum 22; Servius Aen. I.3). More common in antiquity, however, are collocations such as verba prisca, “antique words” (Hor. Ep. II 2.115–118). Archaism also denotes the reuse of the archaic style of art in a later period. The self-evident manner in which both terms are employed conflicts with the problematic history of the concepts. The periodization of historical processes developed in the 19th and 20th centuries emphasized the discontinuity between an archaic and a classical Greek epoch. An evolutionary three-phase model postulates a development from a creative, but immature early period, to the creativity and unifying form of classicism that became fixed in

Archbishop the formalism of the Hellenistic period. An anti-classicist tradition of thought has radically questioned this teleological epoch model: according to this view, the original vitality and immorality of a Dionysian, civilization-free archaism degenerated already in the Apollonian, civilized classicism of the 5th century bce (F. → Nietzsche). Both positions postulate an archaic primal culture, within which one reconstructs a mentality of the “archaic person” incompatible with modern rationality. Archaic and archaism thus acquire the connotation of an early social situation at the beginning of a religious, as well as cultural, evolution. Archaization, the appropriation of an idealized archaism, becomes an outlet for criticism of contemporary culture, whether in the archaism of the ancient antiquarians or the cultural pessimism of moderns. More recent research, in contrast, emphasizes the “modernity” of Greek archaism: its social innovations, the differentiation of cultic and religio-ethical options, as well as the architectonic monumentalization of cultic sites and objects. It rejects the myth of a primal culture in the 7th and 6th centuries and emphasizes the continuity between the Archaic and the Classical periods. A lex sacra from Selinous in the middle of the 5th century bce deals with profanation and ritual cleansing, as well as the cultic appeasement of dangerous δαίμονες/daímones. This rite is not, as one would expect according to the scheme of religious evolution, the “survival” of an irrational and magical, even archaic religiousness, but an indication of a differentiation of systems of religious meaning and part of the religion of both archaic and classical periods. W.D. Lebek, Verba prisca, 1970 ◆ G.W. Most, “Zur Archäologie der Archaik,” AuA 35, 1989, 1–23 ◆ R. Faber, “Archaisch/ Archaismus,” HRWG II, 1990, 51–56 ◆ M.H. Jameson, et al., eds., A lex sacra from Selinous, 1993 ◆ H. Cancik, Nietzsches Antike, 1995 ◆ R. Osborne, Greece in the Making: 1200–479 BC, 1996. Andreas Bendlin

Archbishop I. Catholicism – II. Orthodox Church – III. Protestantism – IV. Anglican Church

I. Catholicism In the Roman Catholic Church, archbishop is the title of the → metropolitan (c. 435) or of the → bishop of an → archbishopric that belongs to no church province (e.g. Luxembourg, Vaduz); a titular archbishop is a bishop consecrated or designated to the title of a defunct archbishopric (e.g. high officials in the Roman Curia and in the papal diplomatic corps); occasionally the title is bestowed on a meritorious bishop as a mere honorific. W. Aymans & K. Mörsdorf, KanR II, 1997, 314 ◆ H. Mussinghoff, LThK 3 III, 1995, 849f. Karl-Theodor Geringer

Archbishopric

358

II. Orthodox Church In the Orthodox churches, archbishop is primarily the title of the supreme hierarch of independent churches that are not → patriarchates: the autocephalic churches of Cyprus, Greece, and Albania as well as the autonomous churches of Finland, Japan, and the Sinai. The pertinent church chooses these leaders in a synod. They head the churches, lead the synods, and represent the churches before the state, in all of Orthodoxy, and in ecumenical matters. Further, the large churches of the Constantinopolitan diaspora in America, Australia, and England have archbishops installed by the patriarch. In the Russian, Georgian, and similarly in the Romanian churches, meritorious bishops are elevated as archbishops who, in contrast to the other churches, however, rank beneath the → metropolitans (II). The other Orthodox patriachates have no archbishop (excluding exarches). The important bishops of the Armenian Church (→ Armenia) are all archbishops; the → Copts, in contrast to the Syrians and Ethopians, do not have this title. Ostkirchliches Institut Regensburg, ed., Orthodoxia (an annually updated list of bishops). Martin Petzolt

III. Protestantism The churches of the Reformation have not established archbishops in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican sense. Nor is the relationship between the national bishop and the “regional bishop” (General or National Superintendent, Provosts, Prelates or Regional Deans), such as one finds in many German state churches (→ Bishops: III), comparable to that of the Roman Catholic archbishop to his subordinates since the national bishop has neither a parish beside the regional bishop’s nor does his jurisdiction have wide-reaching independence in relation to the national church as is characteristic of the Roman Catholic diocese. Nonetheless, the respective honorary heads of the Lutheran Churches in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia carry the title of archbishop – as do the heads of the expatriate Estonian and Latvian Lutheran churches. Bibl. Bishop: III, 3.

Heinrich de Wall

IV. Anglican Church Along with the historic office of bishop, the English Reformation also preserved the special jurisdictional authority of the archbishop as primate of an ecclesial province. His office can be tied to a specific archbishopric (England, Ireland) or can be determined by election (Wales). Some churches in the Anglican Communion, however, do not employ the title archbishop at all (Scotland, USA, Japan). The Archbishop of → Canterbury is extraordinarily important. His office

encompasses three functions: diocesan bishop, Primate of the → Church of England, and head of the Anglican Communion. Although, according to church law, all provinces are independent, he enjoys a special place of honor as the visible guarantor of the unity of worldwide → Anglicanism. Loyalty to the sitting Archbishop of Canterbury is an essential mark of Anglican identity. E. Carpenter, Cantuar: The Archbishops in their Office, 1971, 31997 ◆ The Church of England Year Book 1998. Jörg Mosig

Archbishopric, a → bishopric headed by an → archbishop, who as a rule, is the metropolitan of a → province of the church. There are also archbishoprics, however, that do not belong to a province of the church; their bishops are, indeed, archbishops, but not metropolitans. Metropolitan sees are permanently associated with an episcopal see determined by the pope. W. Aymans & K. Mörsdorf, KanR II, 1997, 309–312 ◆ H. Mussinghoff, LThK 3 III, 1995, 850. Karl-Theodor Geringer

Archdeacon, from the Greek ἀρχιδιάκονος, is the leader of the deacons in an episcopal see. The archdeacon is attested in East and West from the 4th and 5th centuries on. He is appointed by the bishop and serves as his assistant in the liturgy, in the administration of the diocese, in questions of church discipline, and in care for the poor. The archdeacon represents the bishop in his absence in the diocese and at councils. In the Middle Ages in the Latin West, the archdeacon stood independently alongside and often against the bishop. Today, except in the Anglican Church, archdeacon is only an honorific title. A. Amanien, DDC I, 1935, 948–1004 ◆ J. Kollaparambil, The Archdeacon of All-India, 1972. Johann Schneider

Archelaeus → Herod/Herodian Dynasty Archetype is a central concept of the complexes or analytical psychology of C.G. → Jung . Archetypes (in antithesis to complexes as the contents of the personal → unconscious) are the organizational structures of the collective unconscious, mesh of ideas, and model of behavior, invisible, without history, that become concrete in socio-culturally conditioned forms, myths, symbols, dreams, fairy tales, etc. They condition personal experience as the correlate of instincts. In the epistemological sense they are transcendental like time and space (→ transcendentals), ethically or emotionally ambivalent, and limited in number (corresponding to the basic possibilities of typical forms of experience). Some archetypes serve the individuation process (persona, anima, animus, magna mater, old wise one, divine child, self ). The experience of the archetypical image of God, according to Jung, corresponds to a religious

359

Architecture and Religion

experience. It is a subject of theological dispute whether “God” is totally absorbed in the archetype or whether he has a separate reality vis-à-vis the archetype. Jung points out that the concept of the archetype presupposes something that is made, which, however, asserts nothing either positive or negative about the possible existence of God. C.G. Jung, Über die Archetypen des kollektiven Unbewußten, 1935 ◆ J. Jacobi, Komplex-Archetypus-Symbol in der Psychologie C.G. Jungs, 1957 ◆ A. Hotz, “Gott als Archetypus?,” ZW 46, 1975, 205–212. Hans-Jürgen Fraas

Archimandrite from the Greek ἀρχιμανδρίτης, literally, leader of a flock, is translated from the Syriac Riš-dayra. Originally (4th cent.) a designation for the abbot of a Syrian monastery, the Greek term Archimandrite spread throughout the entire Christian East. From the 6th century, the Archimandrite was the leader of an important monastery, and from the 11th century of an association of monasteries. Since 1823, the Russian church has bestowed the title Archimandrite on outstanding monks, and the Greek church has also bestowed it on educated, single priests in the parish. The leader of a convent is called an Archimandritissa. J. Pargoire, “Archimandrit,” DTC I, 1903, 2739–2761 ◆ V. Pospishil, “The Archimandrite,” Diak [US] 13, 1978, 214– 231. Johann Schneider

Architecture and Religion I. In Principle – II. History – III. Present Heritage

I. In Principle 1. Architecture, an esp. complex system of signs, has the task – in regard to religion, the most difficult task – of creating spatially optimal circumstances for future situations. Since the significance of a construction component results from its situational/epochal function (utilitas) in relation to construction and material, special attention has to be paid to rites and atmosphere. Serious theories of architecture always reflect religious aesthetic, technical, economic, social, and psychological functions, as well as questions of representation. 2. Religion, which influences the ethos of a culture in its own right, characteristically shapes the whole of world architecture (structure, tectonics, proportion, light, color, space, body, haptics, proxemics, etc.). Specific to it are space fragility and inhomogeneity, human and natural images, individual and universal systems, mythical desire for order and ritual presentation, taboo and asylum zones. Religious determinants come into play when → space (IV) is formed as the transcending super-sign of power and remembrance, of care and protection, or when problems of the genius loci (author mythos, collective history, etiology), aesthetics (poiesis/mimesis),

and transcending function (to “the wholly other”) command attention. 3. Holy places (mountain, grotto), structures (house, stele), and architectural elements (hearth, threshold, door, throne, storeroom) are perceived as the memorial (of a revelation) and as self-evident (“powerful,” e.g. temple pillars as “heavenly supports”). Whether places are holy or profane can change: chaos produced by the holy becomes profane through homogeneity and relativity. Nonetheless, the holy needs its place (continuity and recurrence). The cultic place (grove, Zen garden/teahouse), sacral landscape (→ Jerusalem [II], → Mecca [II], Places of → Pilgrimage), and sacral structure (→ Temple, → Synagogue, → Church, → Mosque) are regarded as paradigms of all architecture: Temples model the world in mood and gesture as catalysts of all situations and actions through “inauguration” with the cosmos (heaven; perfect symmetry); hence the right of asylum for the desperate. II. History 1. General In all cultures there are architectonic traces of religious festivals (→ Feasts and Festivals). In the Palaeolithic period burial cults are indicated by holes (stone plates, piles of balls, traces of ochre), later by cave and hill graves, tholoi, dolmens, → menhirs (→ Megaliths) , tents, → pyramids (“houses of the dead,” according to the measures of their world), grave towers (Inca: head models), shrines or temples (ancestral spirits), graves in a cube, circle, or under a dome (cosmos protected from chaos), under the → altar (memorial to victims), and by bridges and highways (symbols of the way) (→ burial). Places of holy marriage (→ Hieros Gamos) and birth produced seminal construction ideas (cave, dwelling, and inn touching the sky, or temple, → ziggurat and sun pyramids with planet spheres). Places of rest, eating, and housing occasioned municipal construction rites (religion: weather, earth, sun, and totem animal figures), founding rites (in religion: cosmic door or cornerstone; church consecration), and the cult of places of celebration (grove, tabernacle, shaman tent). The cult of the pilgrim way and way of the cross (scala mystica) influenced the architecture of roads and itineraries, as well as of short-term accommodation (holy tent, tourism). In religious structures (temple, church, cultic structures, mosques) forces of the universe (relationships of microcosm – macrocosm, freedom – order, ad hoc architecture – permanent manifestation, innovation – tradition) were venerated, the design was ethically differentiated, and thus architecture was valued as representing the entirety of an unattainable meaning (cult as catalyst and structuring foundation of general architecture). 2. Jewish-Christian building culture, as a consequence of its religious critique, was strongly innovative

Architecture and Religion for the general development of architecture. Alongside the cult of the temple there arose the synagogue and → house church; alongside the cella structure of the temple, complicated arrangements of space; alongside the Roman central structure, polygonal central spaces (round, octagonal, and cruciform structures); alongside the → atrium, also inner passageways, galleries, and roomdividing penetrations; alongside stage architecture, new, communicatively extending domed halls with niche spaces and → baptisteries for individual rites; alongside Roman municipal representation, primary inside architecture (→ Catacombs); and alongside Roman/Roman Catholic monumentalism: fragile basilicas, auditorium churches (Franconia/Reformed/Lutheran), and Calvinist residential culture. In the early Middle Ages ancient architectural forms (pillars, columns, vaults, domes) served as formation principles of political representation and religious presence: numinous “emptiness” (→ Mysticism: III), open assembly (synagogues, oratories), open contemplation (monasteries, pastoral centers and houses), social projects (hospitals, homes for the elderly), and elementary rites (baptisteries). After → Constantine and with the Renaissance, dome structures and towers became symbols of political power. Synagogues, with one nave and no tower, followed the style. The interaction between synagogue, domestic rituals (e.g. seder), and the Diaspora left Judaism with a feeling for the humanity necessary for all forms of architecture (empty spaces, threshold, path). 3. Christian architecture is based on regional and ancient traditions (Vitruv), but early on (from the 4th cent. on) began to shape general architectural forms: in the East through dome structures (esp. from the 6th cent. on) and wealth of types, in the West through transformation of Roman architecture and its own innovations. The → Gothic period is indebted to the modus operandi of the time (not to Scholasticism). The interest of the builder (constructor/aedificator) was in conveying the significance intended by the architect, that is, the independent manifestatio as first ordering principle and form-shaping power in the search for truth in art. This blossoms in the effort to represent the similitudes of the mysteries (public liturgy) (Villard de Honnecourt) and makes possible a relatively open reception of antiquity and a high self-reference of symbolism. Building systematics (tectonics, skeleton constructions) and space formation through light come into being for the first time. The Renaissance harks back to the ancient model of the cosmos (totality effect between parts and whole). The architecture of the → Baroque is indebted to the confessionally different emphasis of liturgical movement (central building idea and long house tradition: G.L. Bernini, Josef Furttenbach the Younger, Georg Bähr, Johann Balthasar Neumann).

360 Religious architecture in the USA (Georgian: e.g. Christ Church, Philadelphia; Benjamin Latrobe’s classical 1804 cathedral in Baltimore) strongly influenced general architecture. Neogothic churches segmented the style repertoire. Protestant baroque architecture brought in new Reformed and democratic tendencies in response to absolutism in religious garb (Huguenot architecture: Furttenbach, Leonhard Christoph Sturm, Bähr). Friedrich Schinkel’s epoch-making central building idea (Petrikirche Berlin 1811, cathedral design 1815) departed from the ideal of Gothic and the Renaissance. 4. Islamic culture shaped the architecture of halls and pillars, as well as the building of domes. The mosque as house of prayer needs a unified court structure, in the → Mihrab (prayer niche) oriented toward the “navel of the world” Kaaba in Mecca (stone tower bordered by pillared passageways). The city consisting of and fortified by semiautonomous living quarters characterizes the threefold focus of metaphysics, power, and market: mosque (with minaret), palace (with park), and bazaar (or caravanserai). The priority of politics (Kemal → Atatürk; Shah) suppressed the influence of religions on architecture in general. 5. → Zen Buddhism and smaller religions (→ Shakers, → Native American Indians, Aborigines [→ Australia : I]) still today influence urban, village, and private architecture. The work of Frank Lloyd Wright (Unitarian churches 1906/1947–50) is indebted to, among other things, Protestant principles (holy place in the residential district: “Prairie House”; Florida Southern College chapel 1940). Courtyards and gardens in Japan are rooted in the religions contemplation of everyday activities (niche, path, tea ceremony). Many religions battle despairingly for the mere respect of holy places threatened by economic and political priorities. III. Present Heritage 1. The cult of progress (technical reproduction effectiveness since the French Revolution) requires a representative mythicization of demonstrative projects ( Johann Heinrich Strack’s Borsig Factory, Berlin 1858/60; Charles Garnier’s Paris Opera 1862/74; Festspielhaus, Bayreuth 1872/76; Joseph Paxton’s Crystal Palace 1851; Gustave Eiffel’s Tower 1887/89). Schinkel, who hoped for religious influence in the public consciousness, had already designed a cathedral as a memorial to freedom and built a temple of the muses (Berlin: Schauspielhaus, Altes Museum). Politics used the finishing of Cologne cathedral restauratively, representatively, and memorially (Gedächtniskirchen in Berlin and Speyer; churches at the end of an avenue), and religion followed suit.

361 2. The movement toward religious autonomy awakened the religious will to build ( Jugendstil: Antonio Gaudi; Martin Wagner; R. Steiner), reinforced and alternated by the Bauhaus influence (O. → Bartning , Rudolf Schwarz, E. → Eiermann), as well as models from the USA (in A. → Aalto, C.E. → Le Corbusier). In the whole of architecture that set accents and to some extent leitmotifs. Hans Poelzig and others see the high religious value of all architecture, yet the mystical aura in sports, politics, economics, traffic, and cultural disciplines (Mies van der Rohe: National Gallery, Berlin) led to the covert monopolization of religious functions (mythical, ritual, auratic, contemplative) by style principles such as symmetry, use of light, grandeur for narcissistic purposes. One goal, the annihilation of the religious architectural ethos, realized in the synagogue burning of 1938, is the destruction of all European churches (USSR and Germany: Königsplatz Munich, party ground in Nürnberg, Olympic stadiums since 1936 as temples of a Darwinist religion). 3. Since 1945 and 1990 power has shifted from politics to economics. Without its patronage even outstanding synagogues, churches, and mosques remain marginal or dilapidated. At the same time large banks and department stores seek success through religious pathos. F. Schumacher, Lesebuch für Baumeister, 1947, repr. 1977 ◆ E. Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, 1951 ◆ A. Leroi Gourhan, Les religions de la préhistoire, 1964 ◆ G. Widengren, Religionsphänomenologie, 1969 ◆ O. Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art, 1973 ◆ G. Binding, T. v. Bogyay et al., s.v. Baukunst, LMA I, 1987, 1631–1665 (bibl.) ◆ C.H. Krinsky, Europas Synagogen, 1988 ◆ B. Reymond, L’architecture religieuse des protestants, 1996 ◆ R. Volp, ed., Denkmal Kirche?, 1998. Rainer Volp

Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 1898–1942. The journal Archiv für Religionswissenschaft founded in 1898 by T. Achelis and renewed by A. Dieterich in 1904 was to become the “central organ” of Religious History. Dieterich claimed to show the development of Christian religion on the basis of ancient religions and European folk life. As a key he used H. Usener’s philological-historical method including comparison with early non-European culture. After 1918 the international character was guaranteed especially by the Swedish co-editor M.P. Nilsson. The new editor-inchief, O. Weinreich, however, failed to attract innovative research. The term “mana,” for instance, was the subject of several studies in the 1920s, but the Archiv für Religionswissenschaft did not serve as a focus of the debates. In 1936 F. Pfister took over as editor, announcing an intention to focus on Teutonic culture and religion using Usener’s method, before H. Harmjanz and W. Wüst, collaborators of the SS “Ahnenerbe”, opened

Archives, Ecclesiastical the journal to Nazi ideology. In 1999, Teubner, the former publisher, founded a successor called Archiv für Religionsgeschichte. H. Kater, Das “Ahnenerbe” der SS, 1974 ◆ H. Cancik, “Antike Volkskunde 1936,” Der altsprachliche Unterricht 25, 1982, 80–99: Dieterich, Weinreich, Hauer ◆ F. Bömer, “The Slave had no Mana at all” – ? Gymnasium 97, 1990, 7f. ◆ R. Schlesier, “Arbeiter in Useners Weinberg,” in: H. Flashar, ed., Altertumswissenschaft in den 20er Jahren, 1995, 329–380 ◆ M. Dürkop, “Wissenschaftlicher und wirtschaftlicher Existenzkampf des ARW 1919–1939,” A RelG 1, 1999, 107–126 ◆ H. Junginger, Von der philologischen zur völkischen Religionswissenschaft. Das Fach Religionswissenschaft an der Universität Tübingen von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende des Dritten Reiches, 1999. Martina Dürkop

Archives, Ecclesiastical. The oldest two witnesses for the existence of a papal archive reach back into the 3rd century. Monastic and episcopal archives are attested since the early Middle Ages and have been the object of regulation by church law from the beginning. Since the 5th century, the Roman curia has systematically gathered the legal documents constitutive for its society. In the early Middle Ages, monasteries and other religious institutions, as administrative and economic centers, had to be able to defend their rights at all times by their ability to produce the documents demonstrating those rights. The bishops as bearers of ecclesial jurisdiction were responsible for continuity in the administration of justice. For these reasons, ecclesial archives came into being with the task of safely preserving and making available documents that record important legal matters. In Germany, the bulk of diocesan and monastery archives were assumed into the state archives either in the Reformation or in the course of the → secularization at the beginning of the 19th century. Legal regulations concerning the archives of the Catholic Church have existed since the council of → Trent (1554–1563). Archives were first regulated by individual decrees and ordinances. In the → Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, one finds fundamental rules for the archives; these rules were largely adopted in the Codex of Jan 25, 1983. The Protestant church developed its own archive law only in the 20th century. The reason for this late concern with ecclesial archives and their legal regulation can be seen in the fact that the Evangelical Church in Germany was the state church until the year 1918; their consistories were national, and later state authorities. In this way and for many years, its documents found their way into the state archive. All of the larger regional churches and the associations of regional churches (EKD, EKU, VELKD) have established archives after separating from the state. Even today, small regional churches deposit their documents primarily or in great part in the appropriate regional state archives.

Arctic Religion On the basis of the churches’ right to self-determination guaranteed in Art. 140 in connection with Art. 137, par. 3, sect. 1 of the Weimar Constitution, the churches are also authorized to regulate their archives independently. On the basis of the churches’ right to self-determination, there is no subjective public right for third-party access to church archives enforceable by law. Even the fundamental right of academic freedom (Art. 5, par. 3 of the constitution) gives no right of access contrary to the will of the church. However, there is a duty to provide information and authentication for entries in church books made before the law of personal status took effect (i.e. before Jan 1, 1876), which entries equate to “documents of domestic status.” H. Krüger, “Kirchliches Archivwesen,” HSKR2 I, 1994, 743–753 (with comprehensive indices) ◆ G. Schäfer, “Archivwesen, kirchliches,” TRE III, 1978, 687. Hartmut Krüger

Arctic Religion is the common term for the religions closest to the Polar circle (also called circumpolar religions). Some scholars also speak of northern religion in the same sense. The term Arctic religion implies that the religion in question is more or less determined by the ecological conditions to which it is subject: tundra or the permafrost limits cultic possibilities and promotes particular forms of monoideism, and the Taiga, the pine forest, makes religious contacts difficult but facilitates the creation of cultic objects such as sculptures of supernatural symbols and buildings for the performance of prayer and religious activities. According to many witnesses the widespread “Arctic hysteria” has had an influence on such things as the complex phenomenon of → shamanism (see below). Older ideas, according to which it was the landscape and climate that produced Arctic religion, prove untenable on close inspection. Religion is part of the general human spiritual heritage and is altered only secondarily by the external pressure of environmental influences. 1. Cultural relations: Arctic Religion correlates with general human religious history. Besides the common religious heritage, often structured in fixed form, there are influences from other groups both in a westerneastern diffusion process and as a stream of impulses from the south: Iranian towards the Khanty, Mongolian towards the → Evenks and Yakuts, Buddhistic from India towards northern Asia, and lastly Christianity in the same direction. 2. Ethnic groups: The main peoples affected by the Arctic conditions are (with older names in parenthesis): the Saami (Lapps, → Finno-Ugric Religion), Komi (Zyrians), Samoyeds, Khanty and Mansi (Ostyaks, Voguls), all belonging to the Uralic language family; the Evenks and their eastern-most representatives, the Lamuts; the Yakuts and Dolgans of the Turkic language family; the

362 Yukagirs; the Paleosiberians, including the Chukchi, Koryaks and Itelmen (Kamchadales). The → Inuit who spread from the Chukchi Peninsular over Alaska and Canada to Greenland make up the last set of peoples in the chain. 3. Cultural survey: In the Old World the economy of the Arctic peoples was based on reindeer breeding, hunting and fishing, whereas in the New World it was based only on hunting and fishing. In the western parts of the Arctic realm, hunting was carried out on skis, but snowshoes were used in eastern Siberia and among the woodland Indians of Canada. Transportation in winter was by sledge, whereas in summer animal-skin boats and occasionally bark canoes were used. Clothing was made from animal skins and moccasins of fur. Dwellings were mostly conical skin tents; more southerly groups used bark tents in the summer. Peoples who lived along the rivers and coasts dwelt in round or rectangular semisubterranean houses, often sod-covered. In the north, the social organization was simple with small, usually bilateral groups, whereas in the south, clan systems tending toward → totemism and more complicated political structures prevailed. 4. Religious survey: Robert H. Lowie’s observation is borne out by the available data, namely that the whole Arctic area constitutes one enormous entity when it comes to forms of religious belief. An exception to this are the Inuit, who, as archaeological and ethnological research shows, lack several circumpolar traits, also with regard to their religion. The special relationships of people to animals and the development of shamanism form the main traits in Arctic religion. It is possible that the difficult Arctic climate has indeed caused the psychological reactions known as Arctic hysteria, stimulating strong religious responses. Such an explanation cannot, however, go for the hypertrophic preference for animal ceremonies. Their roots lie more in the ancient Eurasian hunting rituals; their manifold occurrence in the Arctic also has mainly to do with forced dependency on a carnivorous diet. 5. Worldview and cosmology: The worldview of the Arctic region of the Old World is defined by the belief in several strata of heaven and several strata of the underworld. The Ugric peoples usually believe in seven, the Altai peoples, e.g. the Yakuts, even in nine heavens. Heaven is usually regarded as a tent, through the holes (→ stars) of which heavenly light shines; the Milky Way is considered to be the spine of heaven (a view also held by the North American Indians) or a river into the heavenly landscape. The Evenks imagine the → world tree or world pillar as reaching from the underworld to heaven. The three-fold layering of the world – heaven, earth and underworld – is a typical aspect of Arctic beliefs. In the religious faith of the Arctic peoples, the entire world is

363 overrun by spirits: trees, mountain ranges, and other topographical features all have their spirits, and animals have their spirit masters. The shaman finds his supernatural helpers and guardians among all these spirits. Other, ordinary people can also have such human-spirit relationships. There is evidence of this among the Saami and the North American Indians; among the Chukchi there are obvious tendencies in the same direction as their “general shamanizing” testifies, e.g. when everybody tries to use the shamanic drum and then falls into → ecstasy. 6. Supreme Power: The tendency to regard the highest supernatural being or beings more as non-personal power rather than personal figure or figures, is a fundamental part of the Arctic religions. This is particularly true of the Samoyeds, the Paleosiberian tribes, and the Inuit. The high-god belief of the Saami, however, has been heavily influenced by Scandinavian and Finnish as well as Christian religious concepts. Num is the name for the distinct or rather impersonal power concept of the Samoyeds. Num means both a deity and the sky. It is an inclusive concept because it can mean both the highest spirit (chief spirit or high god) and spirits through which the high god expresses his being, e.g. spirits of the rainbow or thunder. In the same way, Num-Turem, the Khanty’s semi-personal highest power, shows himself to man by speaking in the thunder or the storm. The Inuit believe in an indistinct supreme being called Sila (or Silap Inua, Hila etc.), rendered in English as “the lord of the air” (or the weather or the world). Sila is only partly thought of in a personal way, and among the central Inuit it takes on an undetermined sexual affiliation. It appears that the personal traits of the supreme being are clearer among the northern Evenks and Yakuts, while the highest power of the Evenki, sometimes represented by the sun, is obviously anthropomorphic. 7. Spirits: After the supreme being come the sun, the moon, and the thunder spirits. The sun is often related to the high god (as among the Evenks). Among the eastSiberian peoples, the Inuit, and the North American Indians, the thunder spirits are portrayed as birds. Thunder among the Samoyeds, however, is supposed to be caused by ducks or by figures resembling human beings, unless it is the voice of the supreme being. The “Lords of the Animals” play a very important role. They are the guardians of the species, usually portrayed in the guise of the animals they protect. Besides this there is the general Lord of the Animals, who mostly appears in the guise of the most prominent animal. For the Chukchi this is the walrus; for the Khanty the pike; for the Nentsy the reindeer. The female seal and other females of water animals, called Sedna or Nuliayuk, is the most important deity of the Inuit. The female walrus of the Chukchi is very probably related to her. It is considered that these spirits reflect a social order. Since, however, there are similar

Arctic Religion “Lords of the Animals” in North America, where such social systems do not exist, scholars have assumed that they present a very old heritage. The ancient Paleolithic mother deity of birth and fertility still reigns among these northern peoples, sometimes as the goddess of the hunt, sometimes as the goddess of birth. To the Samoyeds and the Ugric peoples she appears as Mother Earth and as the goddess of Birth, to the Tungus as the Mother of the reindeer and guardian of home and family. 8. Sacrifices and offerings: Throughout the entire Arctic, sacrifices of various kinds are brought to the supernatural powers. In Eurasia sacrifices are more important than for the Inuit. The Inuit only bring offerings of train-oil or pieces of meat to the powers dwelling in particularly dangerous places. In Eurasia tobacco or meat is usually offered; at special occasions a whole reindeer may be sacrificed. When sailing past rocks the Saami offer tobacco, in order to secure the success of their catch. If they consider it necessary, they will also sacrifice reindeer. At larger sacrificial ceremonies, especially when the shaman’s specialist knowledge of the spirits is required for the correct procedure, he will lead the ceremony. 9. Cultic images: The stone cult is found everywhere. Among the Saami, strangely formed stones, called “seite,” are connected with spirits who exercise control over the animals in the area or over the fish in the waters in which the stone is found. Samoyeds, Khanty, Mansi, Evenks and Inuit also bring similar offerings to stones. According to some witnesses, the stones are identical to the spirits; the main idea, however, appears to be that the stone represents the spirit or serves as its dwelling place. The stone cult is extremely important to the Saami religion. As do the Khanty and the Mansi, the Saami smear the sacrificed reindeer blood over the mouths of the stone idols. Most common, however, was creating sculptures of the spirits from wood. These figures are found from Lapland to Alaska. They are surprisingly similar throughout northern Eurasia, having a pointed top, most frequently lacking limbs, and are sometimes decorated with cross marks on the body. 10. Animal ceremonialism: Rituals performed for the slain game are the focal point of the cultic life among these peoples. Various animal species are shown ceremonial courtesy after hunting; for instance, their bones are buried in anatomical order. Throughout the Arctic area a particular complex of rites is accorded to the dead bear. Special attention is given to the way in which the bear’s body is carried home. It is carried in procession, often with its eyes covered to prevent it seeing its hunters and taking vengeance on them. The bearers carry it into the tent through a sacred entrance at the back. These sacred entrances appear in dwellings throughout northern Eurasia. A festive meal is arranged and the hunters who killed the bear assure it of their innocence and blame

Arctic Religion

364

Arctic Religion Ethnic Groups, Regional Dissemination Ainu Ma

an

an

rya

Ni vch

uri

goli

Bu

nch

Mon

t

Itelmen

Yak

Even

Dolgan

Ak

n aka

up

Ket Enets S e l k u p

Yur a S i a g m w oyed k-Sa Ta

ui

as Tata

r

mo

Cheremis yak Vot u l rian o g -Zy Khanty ak Osty ets ts N e n yed e n e N

san Ngana

lk

rag

Altai T ar at Tatar

ir

Mansi Zyr ian V /Ko mi

er e nzi C o p p cke Ma Inuit

North Pole

am

Sa

i

u

Vep

elia

s

n Ingr i Est a on i La

a n ian tv

nd Inuit

L

enland Inuit West Ge

finla Baf Ig l u l i k In ui

Netsi li Ca rib Inuit k o u Inu it

Kar

n

In

P o lar I ( T h u n u it le)

it

t

fic Inuit

Colv i Inu lle it

i

Pt. Barrow Inuit t

Paci

In

gh

Ch

ch uk

Se

ka

Bering S ea

yak

Ev e nk

Yu

Kor

Ka

ut

li gssa a m g n A Inuit

k

ab ra do t nui rI

365 other hunters. They ask the bear to note the respect and kindness with which it is treated and that it should inform the other bears in the spirit world about this kind treatment so that more bears will allow themselves to be slain. Then the bear’s bones are carefully buried and the skull is placed on a pole or in a tree. The ceremony is thus an admonition and an encouragement to other bears to allow themselves to be killed. This traditionally special treatment was probably induced by the size and ferocity of the bear. 11. Shamans: The shaman ritual is well developed in the south of Siberia, but slightly less well in the northern Arctic. However, the shaman’s ecstatic trance in the Arctic is more intense and stronger than in Siberia. The notion that the shaman is possessed during the trance is well developed in southern Siberia and the American northwest coast, but less so among the Arctic peoples. In the Shaking Tent ceremonies, the shaman is tied up and covered with blankets. He calls upon his spirits for information and then eventually frees himself. Such ceremonies can be found among the Samoyeds, the Yakuts, Inuit and northern Algonquians in North America. Iconographic representations of double-headed assistant spirits occur all over the Arctic. 12. Life after death: Differing from most other hunting peoples, the peoples in the north generally believe that the realm of the dead is situated in the underworld. The Khanty believe that the world of shades exists close to the estuary of the Ob river; there cold, eternal darkness, hunger, and silence reign. The Evenks have a more cheerful view of the underworld. There the people live in birch bark tents; they hunt and fish and tend their reindeer in the forests. 13. Mythical traditions: The “bear’s wife” and the “resuscitation of the animal with the missing limb” myths have a remarkable distribution along the Arctic coast. Many myths originating in the south have been integrated with local mythological patterns, such as the myths of the “earth diver” and the Flood. There are astral myths, legends of the first shamans, and narratives of supernatural animals. A myth that is widely distributed is that of the cosmic stag, or elk, represented in the night sky as the Great Bear. 14. Historical reflections: The cultures of the Arctic area are fragments of a Palaeolithic hunting culture at the northern fringe of three continents. Hunting customs and religious conceptions have been preserved in the above-mentioned areas, whereas they have either changed or disappeared completely in the southern pastoral or agricultural societies. The archaic heritage has been best maintained by the Finno-Ugric peoples and the Paleosiberian peoples. The Inuit peoples represent a later cultural period, with roots in the circum-Pacific fishing cultures.

Areopagus Speech A.I. Hallowell, “Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere,” AmA 28, 1926, 1–175 ◆ I. Paulson, Schutzgeister und Gottheiten des Wildes, der Jagdtiere und Fische in Nordeurasien, 1961 ◆ idem, “Die Hausgeister und ihre Idole in Nordeurasien,” Tribus 12, 1963, 123–158 ◆ Å. Hultkrantz, “Type of Religion in the Arctic Hunting Cultures,” in: H. Hvarfner, ed., Hunting and Fishing, 1965, 265–318 ◆ H.J. Paproth, Studien über das Bärenzeremoniell, vol. I, 1976 ◆ T. Irimoto & T. Yamada, eds., Circumpolar Religion and Ecology, 1994 ◆ J. Pentikäinen, “The Revival of Shamanism in the Contemporary North,” in: T. Kim & M. Hoppál, eds., Shamanism in Performing Arts, 1995, 263– 272 ◆ Å. Hultkrantz, “Introduction to Arctic Religion,” in: J. Pentikäinen, ed., Religion, Global and Arctic Perspectives, 1996, 37–50 ◆ J. Pentikäinen, “The Values of Nature in the Mind of Northern Man,” in: idem, ed., Religion, Global and Arctic Perspectives, 1996, 51–70. Å. Hultkrantz

Arendt, Hannah (Oct 14, 1906, Linden/Hannover – Dec 4, 1975, New York). Arendt was a German-American philosopher and political thinker who at times exercised considerable public influence. From an assimilated Jewish family from Königsberg, she studied under, among others, M.→ Heidegger, K. → Jaspers, and R.→ Bultmann. After emigrating, she lived initially in France, then from 1941 in the USA, where she taught at various universities and from 1968 was a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York. – The central focus of Arendt’s work was the nature of politics, which she addressed while drawing critically from Heidegger’s analysis of existence. Here she diagnosed the radical threat to the political sphere in modernity deriving in part from the suppression or replacement of political action by economic and bureaucratic institutions and by the “breach of civilization” effected by totalitarian systems. Taking her orientation from the Greek polis and the American Revolution, she understood politics especially as the free and universally articulated action representing the “space of appearance,” the public realm. Her emphasis on the spontaneous and individual element within politics is matched by a marked skepticism toward political institutions articulated, for instance, in a criticism of the tradition of political philosophy. Works include: Love and St. Augustine, 1996 (1929) ◆ The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951 ◆ The Human Condition, 1958 ◆ Rahel Varnhagen, 1957 ◆ On Revolution, 1963 ◆ Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963 ◆ The Life of the Mind, 2 vols., 1977–78 ◆ Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, 1982 ◆ On Arendt: A. Reif, Hannah Arendt. Materialien zu ihrem Werk, 1979 ◆ E. Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World, 1982 ◆ P. Kemper, ed., Die Zukunft des Politischen. Ausblicke auf Hannah Arendt, 1993 ◆ W. Heuer, Citizen, Persönliche Integrität und politisches Handeln, 1993 ◆ G. Figal, “Öffentliche Freiheit. Zum Begriff des Politischen bei Hannah Arendt,” in: Politisches Denken, Jahrbuch 1994 ◆ Bibl.: U. Ludz, Hannah Arendt. Ich will verstehen, 1996, 255–332. Günter Figal

Areopagus Speech. The speech which Luke in Acts 17:22–31 has Paul deliver on the Areopagus (i.e. the

Aretalogy “Ares Hill,” formerly the highest court site, but also the name for a committee), is rightly called the most Hellenistic portion of the most Hellenistic book in the NT. By utilizing a citation from Aratus, Stoic ideas (→ Stoics), and common Hellenistic-philosophical terminology (cf. e.g. vv. 25 and 28), Luke aims to convey to his readers an impression of how much effort the apostle has taken to proclaim the gospel in the center of Hellenistic culture in the language of the welleducated. It may be viewed as certain that the speech, which can be read as a textbook example of the rhetorical “genus deliberativum” (proemium with captatio benevolentae – vv. 22–23, narratio vv. 24–29, peroratio vv. 30–31), is not the creation of the apostle but of the author of Acts. The contextualization takes the reader into an ideal Athens of the classical era. Thus, for instance, reminiscences of Socrates are evoked, e.g. in that Paul addresses passers-by in the agora and interested Athenians ask themselves whether Paul may be a herald of strange gods (v. 18, cf. Plato Apol. 24B). It is no accident that Paul also encounters Epicureans and Stoics, representatives of the leading philosophical schools. In the introduction, the speaker refers to an altar inscription: “To an unknown God” (→ Agnostos Theos). Paul gives this dedication a new meaning by attempting to make it clear to his hearers that this unknown God is none other than the God of the Jews and Christians. In actuality, the worship of unknown gods had a specific background: Motivated by fear of arousing the displeasure of some deity of whose existence one was unaware, altars were also dedicated to “unknown gods” in the Hellenistic-Roman period. At any rate, Luke here emphasizes intellectual connections to the religious environment as a legitimate procedure in the early Christian Mission, just as he also did in v. 28 through a citation from Aratus’s “Phainomena” and the allusion to Cleanthes. Thereby, he set the tone for later Christian → apologists. In addition, the whole speech is strongly influenced by OT thought: God as Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, who establishes the boundaries of the nations and is far superior to idols, etc. In part, they establish counterweights to comparable Stoic concepts and lend the whole speech a certain ambiguity. Only at the very end does the speech take a specifically Christian turn when Paul speaks of the resurrection and judgment (v. 31). It is precisely at this point that the hearers take offense and mock Paul so that his missionary work remains without noteworthy success. Yet, he was able to win over → Dionysius Areopagita , who was subsequently to gain a large following, and a woman named Damaris (v. 34). E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 21923 ◆ B. Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech und Natural Revelation, 1955 ◆ G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. II, HThK 5, 2, 1982, 227–244 ◆ A. Weiser,

366 Die Apostelgeschichte, Kapitel 13–28, ÖTKNT 5, 2, 1982, 452– 480 ◆ R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, vol. II, EKK 5, 2, 1986, 127–145 ◆ P.W. van der Horst, “The Altar of the ‘Unknown God’ in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the Cults of ‘Unknown Gods’ in the Graeco-Roman World,” in: idem, ed., Hellenism – Judaism – Christianity, 1994, 165–202 (ANRW II, 18.2, 1989, 1426–1456). Pieter W. van der Horst

Aretalogy. The term “aretalogy” is used by some NT scholars to designate a literary genre. The word is based on the Greek ἀρετή/aret¶, meaning “goodness,” “excellence” of any kind and “marvelous deed.” The word “aretalogy” first occurred in the article “Aretalogoi” by Crusius, published in 1896. It was taken up by R. → Reitzenstein, who claimed that → Lucian of Samosata wrote True Stories and The Lover of Lies (Philopseudes) as parodies of a literary genre that could be called “aretalogy.” He understood this genre as a collection of (false) miracle stories. He found evidence that ἀρετὰς λέγειν/aretás légein, was a technical term in antiquity that originated in religious cults. It originally meant “to proclaim the mighty deeds of a deity” (cf. Sir 36:13; Strabo, Geography 17.1.17). Juvenal used the term “aretalogus” to mean a person who told far-fetched stories to an uncritical audience (Sat. 15.13–15). In 1965 Hadas and Smith argued that aretalogy was an ancient genre that was used to honor “divine men.” The pre-history of the genre was to be found in reminiscences about → Socrates . They classified Philo’s Life of Moses, the Gospel according to Luke, Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius, and Iamblichus’s On the Pythagorean Way of Life as aretalogies. Nilsson, however, had already argued that one should not speak of aretalogies as a literary genre, because the works that praise the mighty deeds of gods take a variety of literary forms. Vielhauer argued in 1975 that aretalogy is not a literary genre, but describes rather the content and purpose of a variety of genres. Koester, however, argued in a series of studies that aretalogy was a definite literary genre. The arguments of Nilsson and Vielhauer, however, are compelling. S. Reinach, “Les aretalogues dans l’antiquité,” BCH 9, 1885 ◆ O. Crusius, “Aretalogoi,” PRE II, 1896, 670–672 ◆ R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, 1906 ◆ M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. II, 21961, 228–229 ◆ M. Hadas & M. Smith, Heroes and Gods, 1965 ◆ V. Longo, Aretalogie nel Mondo Greco, 1969 ◆ H. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” in: J.M. Robinson & H. Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity, 1971, 187–193 ◆ R. Merkelbach, ZPE 10, 1973, 45–54 ◆ P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 1975 ◆ H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1982 ◆ K. Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” ANRW II 25.2, 1984, 1219–1220 ◆ E. Koskenniemi, Apollonius in der neutestamentlichen Exegese, 1994. Adela Yarbro Collins

Arethas of Caesarea (mid-9th cent. Patrai – 944/45 Caesarea, Cappadocia) represented an encyclopedic,

367 philologically schooled theology in the tradition of → Photius. He can be located in 895 in → Constantinople (III) as a deacon, in 901/02 as the Metropolitan of Caesarea (→ Cappadocia), as which he was active in disputes over church policy, being especially entangled in the dispute concerning the fourth marriage of Emperor Leon VI. Arethas worked for the preservation and rejuvenation of the classical tradition by commissioning the preparation of numerous manuscripts (→ Homer, → Plato, church fathers), which he also edited textcritically and commented upon in scholia (esp. important is Codex Parisinus Graecus 451, as the only preserved manuscript with a text of the → Apologists). Letters, tractates, homilies, exegetical studies, and a commentary on Revelation have been preserved. Sources: PG 106, 486–806 ◆ F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica, OCA 117, 1938 ◆ Arethae Scripta minora, ed. L.G. Westerink, 2 vols., 1968–1972 Bibl.: P. Lemerle, Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin, 1971 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, HAW 12.2.1, 21977 ◆ N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, 1983. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Aretino, Pietro (Apr 20, 1492, Arezzo, – Oct 21, 1556, Venice) was the most important representative of the anti-Classicist trend in the Italian → Renaissance, prototype of the early professional writer, and forerunner of literary journalism. Ariosto’s designation, “Scourge of Princes, the amicable Pietro Aretino” (in Orlando Furioso, XLVI, 14) made him a legend already during his lifetime, a reputation he actively promoted. His writings combine political, ecclestiastical, social, and moral satire with erotic libertinism, but to the exclusion of traditional encomiasticism (e.g. his praise for → Clement VII) or of conformist religious prose (esp. Sette Salmi, 1534; Passione di Giesú, 1534; Tre libri de la Humanitá di Christo, 1539; Vita di San Tomaso signore d’Aquino, 1551/52). He is renowned for his Sonetti del Conclave, in which he satirized the election of → Hadrian VI to the papacy, 1521. However, only after 1527, when he moved to Venice, could he fully develop his productivity. Among his writings are Ragionamenti (Dialogues), six volumes of Lettere, comedies (esp. La Cortigiana, La Talanta, Il Filosofo), the tragedy Orazia, burlesque octets (Orlandino, Astolfeida) and permissive erotic lyricism (Sonetti lussuriosi). M. Baratto, Dizionario critico della letteratura italiana I, 1986, 101–107 (bibl.). Gerhard Regn

Aretius, Benedictus (Grecized from Marti, Lat. Mars; 1522 not 1505, Bätterkinden? – 1574, Bern), the son of the priest in Bätterkinden, studied in Bern, Strassburg and Marburg. In Marburg, he worked as professor of logic and dialectic in 1548. In 1549, he began

Argentina activities in Bern, first as rector of the Latin school, then from 1553 at the Academy (from 1563 for “theology”). The comprehensively educated Aretius (mathematics, astronomy, philology) was an internationally known botanist and may have been the first to introduce the tobacco plant to Europe. Among his numerous works (including several biblical commentaries, tractates concerning comets, a polemic against Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity), the best-known are the “Theologiae problemata,” which appeared in several editions. In them, Aretius, who was an adherent of the covenant theology of Zwingli and Bullinger (→ Covenant), dealt rather unsystematically with not only theological problems but also “de terrae motu,” medicine, and much else. This overview of the sciences constitutes Aretius’s most important contribution to theology. A. Haller, Benedikt Marti (Aretius), Neujahrsblatt 1902, ed. Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1901 (bibl.) ◆ G. Jüttner, Wilhelm Gratarolus, Benedikt Aretius, 1969. Hans-Peter Mathys

Argentina 1. Name: The 16th-century Spanish conquistadors, searching for areas rich in silver, gave the name “Río de la Plata” (Silver River) to the broad estuary where the Paraná and Uruguay rivers meet the Atlantic. After a series of revolutionary battles that began in 1810, Spanish colonial rule over the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata – the area between the Andes and the Atlantic from the 22nd to the 55th parallel south latitude – ended in 1816 when the Provincias Unidas de América del Sur (United Provinces of South America) declared their independence. Temporarily renamed “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata” in 1825, the federal republic adopted the name “Nación Argentina” in its second constitution (1826) and “República Argentina” in its third (1853). The national language is Spanish. 2. Geography: The second largest country in South America (continental area: 2,791,810 km2; 23 provinces) extends 3,694 km from the subtropics into the subantarctic zone. Argentina claims a sector of Antarctica as well as the island groups on its oceanic shelf in the South Atlantic. The country comprises five major geographical regions: the great Plata Plain, Patagonia, the sub-Andean mountains of the Puna, the central mountains of the Pampas sierras (beyond which lie the various sierras of the Cuyo region, culminating in the main cordillera), and south of the 34th parallel the southern Andean cordillera, which continues on through Tierra del Fuego. Only about a third of the continental land area receives enough precipitation to be exploitable; 30% of this is forested. Therefore 70% of the population (34,900,000 in 1998), 80% of agricultural production, and 85% of industry are concentrated in the roughly

Argentina 600,000 km2 of the Pampas, part of the Plata Plain. The port of Buenos Aires, the capital, has an area of 200 km2 and a population of approx. 3,000,000; its metropolitan region has an area of 3,680 km2 and a population of 12,600,000. Large regions are almost unsettled; 12% of the population is rural, 88% urban. 3. Ethnography: At the beginning of the Spanish conquest, approx. 900,000 indigenous Indians speaking seven different languages lived in the various regions of Argentina, primarily in the Andes of the northwest and along the rivers of the Plata Plain. By the beginning of the 18th century, a numerically small but aggressive Spanish colonizing effort in the northeast and northwest, which had been more densely settled in the pre-Columbian period, had led to a 30% reduction of the indigenous people, who retreated to the poorer marginal regions that had not been conquered (Puna, Chaco, southern Pampas, Patagonia). In 1879 the Minister of War, Julio A. Roca, led a campaign against the Indians in the southern Pampas and Patagonia, sharply reducing their numbers. Today some 35,000 unassimilated people of Indian descent still live in poverty in marginal areas. The majority of the population (only 1,900,000 in 1869) are the product of several waves of immigration that began in the last third of the 19th century, primarily from Europe (esp. Italy and Spain). At the beginning of the 20th century, 30% of the population was foreign-born (1914: 2,400,000 out of 7,900,000), in 1970 approx. 10%, and by 1991 5%. 4. Non-Christian Religions: Of the Indian population, only the Mapuche (southern Pampas and Patagonia) and Mbayá-Guaraní (Misiones province) still adhere to their own religion. There is, however, an elaborate popular piety with a multiplicity of pilgrimage sites and figures who are worshiped (Difunta Correa, Telesita, Ceferino Namuncurá, etc.), in which elements of indigenous religion survive, in part in Christian dress. There is a large Jewish community (approx. 350,000), mostly in Buenos Aires, the capital. There are also some 57,000 Muslims. 5. Christianity: During the Spanish conquest (after 1553) and under colonial rule, Argentina was assimilated into Roman Catholicism. The Independence Revolution (1810–1816) left Roman Catholicism unchanged as the official religion. The liberal constitution of 1853 tolerated other religious confessions but required the state to support the Roman Catholic Church and the president to be a Roman Catholic (the latter requirement being abolished in the constitution of 1994). Between 1820 and 1850, Protestantism gained a foothold through the settlement of foreign trade representatives, especially in the port and capital of Buenos Aires (Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Union, and Old Prussian congregations). Spanish-lan-

368 guage Protestant worship and evangelism were prohibited until 1867. After the first immigrant colonies were established in 1856, in Mesopotamia (between the Paraná and the Uruguay) and the southern Pampas there sprang up Reformed and Lutheran congregations (Swiss, Dutch, Danes, Russian Germans) and also Waldensian congregations (Piedmontese). In Patagonia (1865) there were Welsh congregations. Since the 1870s, in response to modernizing trends, Protestants have evangelized increasingly among the lower and middle classes: Methodists, Baptists (1881), → Plymouth Brethren (1882), → Salvation Army (1890), → Adventists (1891), and → Nazarenes (1919). The 1930s saw the beginnings of intensive evangelization, especially among the lower classes (including the Toba in the Chaco), by Pentecostals (→ Pentecostalism : III, IV), mostly from North America, and fundamentalistic “Faith Missions.” This multiplicity of Protestant churches has led (since 1940) to ecumenical cooperation in defending freedom of religion, theological education, and protection of human rights. But the tendency of Protestantism to fragment, triggered by the momentum of class-oriented church growth and the process of indigenization, has continued apace, so that today it is characterized by a theological as well as social heterogeneity. From 1970 on, the official census no longer included religious affiliation; hence after the census of 1960 (Protestants: 2.6%) we must rely on estimates, which suggest approx. 30,000,000 baptized Catholics and approx. 1,500,000 Protestants. 6. Recent History: The oil crisis of 1973 and the drop in prices of agricultural exports have damaged the economy, which is dependent on imports (inflation: 8% in 1973, 40% in 1974). The attempt of the Peronist Party to establish democracy (following military governments from 1966 to 1973) collapsed in 1974/75 in the midst of a social and political crisis (guerilla movements, paramilitary repression). Between 1976 and 1983, after a coup, Argentina was ruled with extreme violence by military governments (approx. 20,000 “vanished”); in 1982, they brought about Argentina’s defeat in a conflict with Great Britain (Falkland Islands War). When the government was taken over by the Unión Civica Radical, a foreign debt of $32 billion hindered democratic reconstruction. In 1985, the military juntas of the last dictatorship were condemned. In 1986, however, the prosecution of all crimes committed under the dictatorship was dropped. In a situation of extreme instability, the Peronist party came to power in 1989; it was reelected in 1995. The use of the neoliberal model to reform financial policy stabilized the inflation rate at less than 4%, but the sale of state-owned enterprises, the elimination of social programs, and the disempowerment of trade unions have created a new situation

369 with major effects on the traditional social structure. Unemployment rose to 18.1% in 1996 – 28% among the poorest 40% of the population. Social differences are growing more extreme. In 1992 the richest 20% of the population enjoyed more than 50% of the country’s economic wealth, in 1996 more than 53%. C. Lalive D’Epinay, Religion, dynamique sociale et dépendance, 1975 ◆ H.-J. Prien, Die Geschichte des Christentums in Lateinamerika, 1978 ◆ T. Halperín Dhongi, Geschichte Lateinamerikas von der Unabhängigkeit bis zur Gegenwart, 1991 ◆ M.C. Liboreiro et al., 500 años de Cristianismo en Argentina, 1992 ◆ J.-P. Bastian, Geschichte des Protestantismus in Lateinamerika, 1995 ◆ F. Coluccio, Las devociones populares argentinas, 1995 ◆ M. Alonso, R. Elisalde & E. Vázquez, Historia: La Argentina del siglo XX, 1997. Alejandro Zorzin

Argument I. Philosophy – II. Philosophy of Religion – III. Fundamental Theology

I. Philosophy After roughly two and a half thousand years of the varied history of argumentative speech (Wohlrapp, Introduction), the concept of argumentation has acquired new relevance for philosophy and science in the last 40 years. Currently, the concept of argumentative reasoning is in the process of superseding or reinterpreting the concept of → truth (esp. in the normative sense). An argument is a preserved specimen of human speech suited for demonstrating or at least contributing to the demonstration of the validity or invalidity of a thesis (which has been in doubt up to this point). According to the common understanding, the ideal argument is a premise (sometimes together with others) from which the thesis follows logically. This logical tradition has been increasingly abandoned because (a) it raises the problem of differentiating argumentation from explanation, from evidence, and from the manipulation of acceptance and (b) logical structures comprehend only a (sometimes not even central) partial component of argumentative speech. Meanwhile, the concept of the argument has become a topic in numerous disciplines (such as linguistics, psychology, education theory, literary criticism, legal theory, etc. and esp. in inter- and pre-disciplinary projects such as philosophy, communications theory, etc.) and from many points of view, sometimes as the object of investigation, sometimes as the framework for clarifying problems of method (Eemeren, 1996). Following ancient divisions (logic, dialectics, rhetoric), the distinction is made according to perspective between arguments as product, procedure, and process. From the perspective of product, the transition from premise to conclusion is fundamental. In addition to classical logic, new systems of logic, especially of dialogi-

Argument cal logic (Lorenzen/Lorenz) and diverse semi-formal initiatives (Woods/Walton) are employed here. For practical purposes, Toulmin’s schema dominates. The fact that argument is always addressed to someone (with self-address as a borderline case), so that argumentative speech is linguistic communication, is a fundamental insight for procedural theories. The results of linguistic pragmatism concerning the dependence of the understanding of language on common rules are incorporated in various normative approaches, especially pragma-dialectics (Eemeren, 1992) and discourse theory (Habermas, Apel). Finally, more recent argument theory has led to interest in the actual process of argumentative speech and thus to a broad rehabilitation of rhetoric (Kopperschmidt). Starting from Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, theoretical and empirical features relevant to acceptance have been studied. The chief tasks of the theory of argument are: (a) containing rampant relativism or mediating between generality in claims to validity and the special nature of individual insight manifest in the heterogeneity of presuppositions and languages; (b) bridging the divide between the theory and reality of argument or avoiding normative or instrumentalist short-circuits; and (c) defining an open concept of argument that can accommodate big discrepancies (validity/fact, structures/ dynamics) and can be the point of crystallization for efforts toward rational autonomy in the 21st century. C. Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, La nouvelle rhétorique, 1958 ◆ S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 1958 ◆ P. Lorenzen & K. Lorenz, Dialogische Logik, 1978 ◆ J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, vol. I, 1981 ◆ K.O. Apel, Diskurs und Verantwortung, 1988 ◆ J. Woods & D. Walton, Fallacies, 1989 ◆ J. Kopperschmidt, ed., Rhetorik, 2 vols., 1990 ◆ F.H. van Eemeren, et al., Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, 1992 ◆ H. Wohlrapp, ed., Wege der Argumentationsforschung, 1995 ◆ F.H. van Eemeren, et al., Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 1996. Harald Wohlrapp

II. Philosophy of Religion The now central distinction, following K.R. → Popper’s critique of R. → Carnap, between → induction and → deduction or between synthetic and analytical arguments, recurs in the philosophy of religion in the proofs of God (→ Existence of God, Proofs of the). The inductivesynthetic arguments include the cosmological proofs, to the extent that conclusions are drawn from the (contingent) realities of the world as to their (necessary) cause (→ Thomas Aquinas, G.W. → Leibniz), as well as the teleological proofs, to the extent that conclusions are drawn from the nature of the world, its teleological orderliness (W. → Paley) etc., with regard to a master builder. In contrast, the argumentation of the ontological proof is analytical, to the extent that the postulate of the (necessary) existence of God is reconstructed as already contained in the

Aria concept of God (→ Anselm of Canterbury). The inductive-synthetic proofs are subject to the known problems of induction: Synthetic conclusions (e.g. the postulate of a final ground for all things) cannot be drawn solely from the initial premises (e.g. the existence of a world), but require additional (synthetic) principles of induction (e.g. Leibniz’s principium rationis sufficientis), whose legitimation involves additional problems under certain circumstances (which are mitigated, however, in probabilistic reconstructions of the proofs mentioned, as in Richard Swinburne’s reconstruction of the cosmological proof as inductive argument). The argumentation of the ontological proof is subject to the critique of analytical arguments (Toulmin; see above I): If in analytical conclusions the information content of the conclusion does not exceed the initial premises, i.e. is always already “inherent” in them, then this proof is subject to the suspicion that substantive problems are “solved” here by definition (the problem of the existence of God is resolved by the definition of the God concept). Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I ◆ Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion ◆ G.W. Leibniz, De rerum originatione radicali, 41697 ◆ W. Paley, Natural Theology, 1802 ◆ K.R. Popper, Logik der Forschung, 1936 ◆ R. Carnap, Der logische Aufbau der Welt, 21966 ◆ R. Swinburne, The Existence of God, 1979. Dirk-M. Grube

III. Fundamental Theology The question of whether theological discourse contains “arguments” in the proper sense of the word, that is non-arbitrary, logically pursuable processes of deduction, constitutes the background for at least two lines of discussion, namely the discussion concerning a theologically argued adequate form of rationality ( Jeffner), which is sometimes conducted under the influence of the relativization of claims to rationality previously understood as universal (e.g. the claims of the neopositivist ideal of a unified science; Schwöbel), and the discussion concerning the scientific nature of theology (in which, in addition to the question of the legitimacy of theology in the canon of academic disciplines, that of the rationality of theology at all is primarily at issue). In earlier discussion, Scholz established methodical criteria that a theology claiming to be scientific must satisfy, while, for his part, K. → Barth established a criterion of content (substantiality or appropriateness) according to which the questions of method are not answered a priori, but with a view to the inherent ontological specifics of the sphere of knowledge in question. In more recent German-speaking discussion, Pannenberg proposed the thesis, based on the logic of language, of the hypothetical character of all statements that make claims so that no realm of theology (not even that of the origin of faith as asserted by Sauter) is beyond scrutiny. Albert’s massive denial of the scientific nature of (existentialist)

370 theology that “immunizes” its claims against any possibility of falsification by means of a “strategy of cognitive evacuation” has been relativized by the more recent development of scientific theory by Kuhn (in light of which Albert’s falsificationism seems “naïve” and his form of realism overdrawn). H. Scholz, “Wie ist eine evangelische Theologie als Wissenschaft möglich?” ZZ 9, 1931, 8–53 ◆ K. Barth, KD I/1, 1932 ◆ T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 21970 ◆ G. Sauter, Wissenschaftstheoretische Kritik der Theologie, 1973 ◆ D. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology, 1975 ◆ A. Jeffner, Kriterien christlicher Glaubenslehre, 1977 ◆ W. Pannenberg, Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie, 1977 ◆ H. Albert, Traktat über kritische Vernunft, 41980 ◆ C. Schwöbel, God: Action and Revelation, 1992 ◆ D.Z. Phillips, Faith after Foundationalism, 1995. Dirk-M. Grube

Aria. The term is derived from the Italian “aria,” “air,” usually designating an independent composition for a single voice, but sometimes applied to a vocal duet, trio, etc. An aria is normally accompanied by one or more instruments. The earliest use of the term appeared at the end of the 14th century and indicated a style or manner of singing or playing. In the 17th century the aria was frequently a movement within a larger work, such as an → opera, → oratorio or cantata, but the term was also used to define an independent lyrical composition. In this regard, by the 18th century, it was used for a freer form of hymn melody of the type commonly used by the Pietists. The Da capo aria, with its A-B-A structure, was a development of 17thcentury opera that was taken over into the Lutheran sacred → cantata in the early 18th century. This form of aria was advocated by the Hamburg theologian E. → Neumeister and epitomized in the church cantatas of J.S. → Bach. F. Della Seta, ed., In cantu et in Sermone, FS N. Pirrotta, 1989. Robin A. Leaver

Arianism → Arius and Arianism Aribo of Mainz (c. 990 – Apr 6, 1031). The son of the count palatine of Bavaria, Aribo was also related to Emperor Henry II. As archbishop of Mainz (1021– 1032), he convened several imperial and provincial synods (1023 Mainz and Seligenstadt, 1024 Höchst, 1025 Grone, 1026 Seligenstadt, 1027 Frankfurt, 1028 Geisleden and Pöhlde), at which he attempted to overturn the rulings of ecclesiastical law. His unyielding attitude brought him into conflict with Conrad II (he refused to crown Gisela, since he rejected her marriage to the king as uncanonical), Godehard of Hildesheim (jurisdiction over the Stift of Gandersheim), and even the pope over the marriage of Irmgard and Otto von Hammerstein (Benedict VIII forbade him to wear the → pallium).

371 S. Reicke, “Der Hammersteiner Ehehandel im Lichte der mittelalterlichen Herrschaftsordnung,” RhV 38, 1974, 203–224 ◆ H. Wolter, Die Synoden im Reichsgebiet und in Reichsitalien von 916 bis 1056, 1988 (index). Wilfried Hartmann

Aristeas the Exegete was an otherwise unknown Jewish author, presumably from the 2nd century bce, of whose work only a small fragment concerning Alexander Polyhistor is preserved as a citation in Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica 9.25). In it, he says, among other things, that Job was a son of Esau and an Edomite, that he was originally called Jobab (in Gen 36:33, Jobab is Esau’s great-grandson!), and that, after harsh affliction, God made him “lord over many possessions.” He refers to Job’s four friends as kings. The significance of the fragment lies, in part, in the fact that it is the earliest witness to Job haggadah (→ Haggadah), otherwise known only from later sources. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic-Jewish Authors, vol. I, 1983, 261–275 ◆ N. Walter, “Aristeas,” JSHRZ III 2, 1975, 293–296. Pieter W. van der Horst

Aristeas, Letter of. We know Aristeas only through a “precise report” (di¶gēsis) concerning the causes and circumstances of the translation of the LXX for the (fictive) Philokrates. Though the description of events forms the framework of the letter (occasion for the translation: 1ff.; Philadelphos’s request to the high priest Eleazar and positive response: 9–11; 28–51; the translators: 102–127; reception by the king: 172–181; translation: 301–302), but the content is shaped by Jewish (Alexandrian?) apologetics. Several “additions” exhibit no direct connection to the translation: the reference to the liberation of the prisoners of war (12–27), the description of the king’s gifts (51–72), the detailed report of the journey to Palestine, of the temple, and of the land (83–128), Eleazar’s speech (128–171), and the depiction of a symposium (182–300). The “symposium” provides the key to understanding the Letter of Aristeas and justifies the anachronistic introduction of Demeterios of Phaleros (according to independent sources, Philadelphos had already exiled him to the countryside by this time). According to Plutarch, Demetrios advised the Egyptian king (Ptolemy I) to assemble books “on the art of governing,” for what his friends dared not advise him regarding matters of governance, he could find in these books. Aristeas recommended not only the phíloi (294, i.e. the 72 Jews) to the king, but also the sources of their wisdom, their Torah (313, nomothesía). Hence, the written (Greek) Torah represented the summary of “divine wisdom” that the king would respectfully “preserve” in his library. Yet, the translation is not the main subject of the account in the Letter of Aristeas, but rather the “doctrine” mediated to him by the translators at the sympo-

Aristides sium. The Letter of Aristeas must have been composed before → Philo (2nd cent. bce?) because Philo adopts the major themes of the account in VitMos 2.25–44. → Josephus used long excerpts of the text in Ant XII, 12–118. In Christianity and in Judaism, the Letter of Aristeas has had a lively afterlife (criticism of its historical reliability already appeared with J.L. → Vives and J.J. → Scaliger). P. Wendland, Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula, 1900 ◆ H.St.J. Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas, 1917 ◆ M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 1951 ◆ A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée, 1962 ◆ G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai, 1994 (bibl.). Giuseppe Veltri

Aristides (“the philosopher,” 2nd cent. ce, from Athens) was the author of a Christian apology, reckoned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. IV 3.3) to be among the oldest. The structure and contents of the work must be reconstructed from a Syriac translation (S; 4th cent.), two Greek papyrus fragments (4th cent.), Greek excerpts in chs. 26f. of the early-Byzantine novella “Barlaam and Ioasaph ( Josaphat)” (GBarl), and an Armenian translation of chs. 1f. (A; 4th cent.?). The fact that the apology was still being discussed in the 4th century was the consequence of the fact that the confession of Christ in chs. 2 and 8 is related to the homoiousian confessions of Sirmium, Nice (359), and Constantinople (360) (→ Homoiousians). The dispute concerning to which Caesar the author addressed his apology continues. According to Eusebius, A and the first prescript of S, he dedicated his work to Hadrian (117–138), while according to the second (corrected) Syriac prescript, it was addressed to Antoninus Pius (138–161). The apology begins with a (markedly middle-Platonic) doctrine of God (ch. 1) and the thesis of four (Greek three) races of humanity (ch. 2), whose concepts of God are then discussed: barbarians (3–6), Greeks (7–13, with an insertion concerning the Egyptians, 12), Jews (14), and Christians (15–17). The Jews are favorably assessed: they have the proper reverence for God and love for humanity; in their religious observances (Sabbath celebration, circumcision, etc.), however, they have gone astray and served angels. Only the Christians have true reverence for God; their ethical behavior is described and praised; the world exists because of the supplication of Christians. The author adapted traditional materials in an often awkward manner. In view of the positive assessment of the Jewish religion, it seems possible that he Christianized a Jewish apology. The influence of the Apology of Aristides has been limited; it seems to have found distribution only in Syria and Armenia. Reconstructions, translations, and commentaries: E. Hennecke, ed., TU 4, 31893 ◆ R. Seeberg, ed., FGNK 5, 21893, 141– 414 ◆ J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, 1907, repr. 1970 ◆ C. Vona, 1950 ◆ C. Alpigiano, BPat 11, 1988 ◆ On Aristides: G.C. O’Ceallaigh, “‘Marcianus’ Aristides on the Worship of

Aristo of Pella God,” HTR 51, 1958, 227–254 ◆ K.-G. Essig, “Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Ort der Apologie des Aristides,” ZKG 97, 1986, 163–188 ◆ R. van den Broek, “Eugnostus and Aristides on the Ineffable God (1986),” in idem, Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christanity, 1996, 22–41. Roelof van den Broek

Aristo of Pella. Around 140 ce, Aristo of Pella ( Jordan) composed a debate between Jason, a Jewish Christian, and Papiscus, an Alexandrian Jew, which convinced the latter of Jesus’ messianic role. Although no longer extant, the work was known to such figures as Celsus, Origen, and Maximus the Confessor. The foreword from a Latin translation made by a different Celsus (3rd or 4th cent.) has been preserved, with the content summarized in ch. 8 (Pseudo-Cyprian, De iudaica incredulitate, CSEL 3/3, 119–132). The evidence shows that Aristo interpreted the OT allegorically as foreshadowing Christ; he may also have placed an anti-Jewish interpretation on historical events (Hadrian’s edict concerning Jerusalem and possibly the flight of Christians from Jerusalem to Pella; Eusebius Hist. eccl. IV, 6, 3; III, 5, 3). The debate form became a model for later apologetic “dialogues”; it is impossible to determine whether Aristo influenced this development. A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I,1, 1893, 92–95 (frag.); II,1, 1897, 268f. ◆ O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 21913, repr. 1966, 202–206 ◆ E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I, 51920, 63–65 ◆ J. Wehnert, “Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen,” ZKG 102, 1991, 231–255, esp. 254f. Jürgen Wehnert

Aristobulus (mid-2nd cent. bce) was a Jewish exegete from Alexandria. He wrote a collection of philosophical observations on exegetical problems of the Bible in the form of discussions with the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 bce). He is the first known Jewish thinker to apply to the Bible the method of allegorical interpretation (→ Allegory, → Hermeneutics) developed by the → Stoics. By this means he was able, for example, to deal with offensive → anthropomorphisms in the biblical text. Here he paved the way for → Philo, who perfected this exegetical method. Of his writings, unfortunately, only five small fragments survive as quotations in the church fathers. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic-Jewish Authors 3, Aristobulus, 1995 ◆ N.A. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos, 1964 ◆ On Aristobulus: N.A. Walter, “Aristobulos,” JSHRZ III, 2, 1975, 261–279. Pieter W. van der Horst

Aristobulus (Hasmonean Dynasty) → Maccabees Aristotelianism. The term “Aristotelianism” (also “Peripateticism,” from “Peripatetics,” the name given to the school of → Aristotle) denotes the philosophy of Aristotle as well as the way it was preserved and its his-

372 torical influence. The distance between Aristotle’s own teaching and later interpretation is especially great, both because of the problematic transmission of Aristotelian texts and because of the nature of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy, which Aristotle called “aporetical” or “diaporetical”: with reference to each problem, the methodology requires collecting different possible solutions, including the opinions of predecessors, and confronting them with each other until the correct pathway emerges from the original aporia. But since these thought experiments do not always lead to a plausible conclusion, many propositions traditionally attributed to Aristotle in fact represent preliminary positions that should be understood as nothing more than tentative ideas. All forms of dogmatism are alien to true Aristotelianism. For Aristotle, philosophical reflection is subject to dialectic, i.e. a logic that starts from probable premises and leads to probable premises, which are open to contradiction by better arguments. This aspect did not escape the first Aristotelians. Cicero, influenced by the Academics, still borrows from Aristotle “the practice of debating all problems in contrary directions,” an ability common to both dialectic and rhetoric (Tusc. II, 3, 8). This aspect of Aristotelianism was not rediscovered and appreciated until the Renaissance, first by P. → Ramus et al. and later by G. → Vico. Meanwhile, however, the history of Aristotelianism had taken a totally different course. Authentic Aristotelian thought experiments were turned into dogmas. In the realm of logic, from → Boethius (4th–5th cent.) to the early Middle Ages, attention focused primarily on the Analytics, i.e. the theory of syllogisms and especially the demonstrative (“apodictic”) syllogisms, while neglecting the Topics, the theory of the dialectical syllogisms. Aristotelian cosmology was presented as a system of concentric spheres revolving about the earth as a center; to these spheres, alone or in combination, are affixed the heavenly bodies – moon, sun, planets, and fixed stars. The entire system is subject to a hierarchical mathematical order. Characteristic of Aristotelian cosmology is the distinction between the higher “supralunary” realm and the lower “sublunary” realm. Given this division, only astronomy could be constituted as an exact science; physics could not, since it deals only with contingent phenomena. This Aristotelianism dominated physics and cosmology into the 14th century; only the success of the so-called Copernican revolution (→ Copernicus) allowed the rise of modern natural science, which from the time of → Galileo has considered heavenly and earthly phenomena to be subject to the same mathematical laws. But it was primarily in the realm of → metaphysics and theology that a largely standardized Aristotelianism took hold in late antiquity; from the 10th century in the

373 Islamic world and from the 13th century in the West, this Aristotelianism played a crucial role in philosophical and theological discussion. For Aristotle, ontology, which deals with being in general, and theology, which deals with the supreme being, were distinct branches of study. Andronicus’s edition, however (→ Aristotle: II), placed both under the heading “Metaphysics,” originally only for bibliothecarial convenience. As a result they soon came to be identified. In his ontology, Aristotle limited himself to a dual principle: “being” is an ambiguous term; but its manifold meanings all relate to a single primary meaning, ousía (lit. “beingness,” translated in the Latin tradition as essentia or substantia). This relationship to a fundamental meaning secures for being a certain unity, which is able to overcome the appearance of pure ambiguity (equivocity) without reduction to a simple unambiguity (univocity). Aristotle’s Greek commentators (starting with Asclepius or possibly even Dexippus) called this structure “analogy,” in the sense of “proportionality.” Thus in Late Antiquity there arose the theory of the analogy of being, a theory attributed to Aristotle but not, however, authentically Aristotelian. The introduction of proportionality implies that the multiplicity of modes of being did not originate with being itself but is distributed among beings according to an ordered principle. Starting with → Thomas Aquinas, Christian theology appropriated this theory: God does not create the world in its multiplicity arbitrarily but gives to each creature the degree of existence proportional to its own degree of perfection, determined by its essence. Since theology as the science of the supreme being indirectly determines and grounds the existential structure of beings collectively, theology as first philosophy can also be considered universal ontology (theory of the whole). Thus metaphysics comes to have an internal articulation which M. → Heidegger called the “ontotheological constitution of metaphysics.” This common Aristotelian background is responsible for the continuity and relative unity that characterize the metaphysical tradition from Aristotle’s Greek commentators to and including G.W.F. → Hegel. But medieval Aristotelianism could never entirely conceal the variety inherent in its Aristotelian origin. Alongside the dominant Christianized interpretation of Aristotle, despite objections and condemnations by the church, a more rationalistic Aristotelianism was able to develop, which in the 14th and 15th centuries helped lay the groundwork for the Renaissance and the modern era. We are speaking here of ideas that entered the Christian West through the Latin translations of the Arabic commentaries of → Averroes (12th cent.): that the world is eternal and thus not the result of an act of creation; that the soul is the form of an

Aristotelianism organism and hence as mortal as the organism itself; that there is, however, an active intellect that is not individualized but is one and the same for the whole human race, a prefiguration of the modern Cartesian notion of universal reason distributed equally among humankind; and that this intellect is also at work throughout the entire natural realm – an idea that could invite the charge of pantheism. This form of Aristotelianism, represented in Paris by → Siger de Brabant, is often called Latin Averroism. Half a century later, it reached its zenith in the so-called School of Padua, which increasingly interpreted Aristotle’s Physics empirically and even experimentally while also deriving laicistic conclusions from Aristotle’s Politics. → Marsilius of Padua in his Defensor pacis (1324), written in response to the conflict between the emperor and the pope, espoused a separation of papal and ecclesiastical power from civil power, thus helping shape the modern idea of the state. During the Renaissance and Reformation, nevertheless, Aristotelianism remained on the whole an obstacle to renewal efforts, in theology as well as in cosmology and physics. Luther sharply condemned what he felt to be the inappropriate esteem enjoyed by “that damned pagan” Aristotle in the church’s instruction. For him, return to Holy Scripture meant renunciation of pervasively Aristotelian Scholasticism. In the spirit of humanism, however, Melanchthon turned his attention to Aristotle’s own works, especially his Logic and Ethics. While → Cartesianism replaced Scholastic Aristotelianism in France and Holland, and later in England, Aristotelianism was able to hold its ground and bear new fruit in Germany. Through the Disputationes metaphysicae (1586–1597) of the Spanish Jesuit F. → Suarez, an Aristotelianism systematized on the principles of ontotheology took root in German philosophy. Following Suarez and under the direct influence of G.W. → Leibniz, who was well versed in Aristotle and valued him highly, there came into being so-called German Scholasticism, which set the tone in metaphysics during the Enlightenment and exercised major influence on such philosophers as I. → Kant, F.W.J. → Schelling , and G.W.F. Hegel. In Catholic countries, primarily because it was obligatory in ecclesiastical instruction, Aristotelianism continued to lead a somewhat ossified existence in the form of Thomism, then after a modest renaissance in the 19th century in the form of neo-Thomism or neoscholasticism; in Germany, however, it remained a living aspect of philosophical reflection even among nonCatholic thinkers. For the 19th century, two influential Aristotelians stand out: F.A. → Trendelenburg , the most famous and most coherent of the opponents of Hegelian → idealism, and F. → Brentano, who initially had been influenced by Scholasticism and whose work

Aristotle provided the initial impetus for the Phenomenology of E. → Husserl. Today Aristotelianism is experiencing a revival in the field of practical philosophy, where one might speak of a neo-Aristotelianism. The starting point was the rehabilitation of a practical philosophy intended to be not just a corollary of theory, more particularly a deduction from scientific propositions, but a branch of philosophy employing its own principles and following its own deliberative form of rationality. Here the Aristotelian concept of praxis as immanent action, embodying its own purpose, and the Aristotelian virtue of phrónesis (“prudence”) as an intellectual criterion of proper decisionmaking play a central role. Since a correct decision is not based on the application of principles but presupposes a proleptic interpretation of the context it will affect, the analyses of the Nicomachean Ethics can serve as a model for a general hermeneutics. This neo-Aristotelianism, inspired in part by the early M. Heidegger, includes such authors as L. → Strauss, H. → Arendt (Vita activa, 1960), J. → Ritter, and H. G. → Gadamer (see the chapter on the hermeneutical relevance of Aristotle in Wahrheit und Methode, 1960; ET: Truth and Method, 21989). P. Petersen, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutschland, 1921, repr. 1964 ◆ M. Wundt, Die deutsche Schulphilosophie im Zeitalter der Aufklärung, 1945, repr. 1964 ◆ F. van Steenberghen, Aristote en Occident, 1946 ◆ M. Heidegger, “Die onto-theologische Verfassung der Metaphysik,” in: idem, Identität und Differenz, 1957 ◆ G.E.L. Owen, “Logic und Metaphysics in Some Earlier Works of Aristotle,” in: Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-fourth Century (Proceedings of the 1st Symposium Aristotelicum, Oxford 1957), 1960 (also in: idem, Logic, Science, and Dialectic, 1986) ◆ A. Poppi, Introduzione al’aristotelismo padovano, 1970 ◆ M. Riedel, ed., Rehabilitierung der praktischen Philosophie, 2 vols., 1972–1974 ◆ P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vols. I & II, 1973/1984 ◆ P. Aubenque, “Zur Entstehung der pseudo-aristotelischen Lehre von der Analogie des Seins,” in: Aristoteles: Werk und Wirkung, FS P. Moraux, vol. II, 1987, 233–248 ◆ R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, 1990. Pierre Aubenque

Aristotle I. Life – II. Works

I. Life (385, Stageira – 322 bce, Chalcis) Aristotle was born in Stageira (Macedonia). His father was the physician of King Amyntas III, the father of Philip, so that Aristotle was able from childhood to cultivate close relations with the royal court of Macedonia in Pella. In 367 he left Pella in order to study with → Plato in Athens. He spent 19 years in Plato’s Academy until Plato’s death in 348, first as a student, but soon as an assistant whose industry and extensive reading did not preclude an increasingly critical distance from his master. Plato had not chosen Aristotle, but Speusippos, as his successor. Disappointed, but perhaps also because

374 of Plato’s prior recommendation, Aristotle left Athens in 348 in order to assume duties as philosopher at the court of the tyrant, Hermias of Atarneus, in Assos (Asia minor). In 345, however, Hermias was murdered, forcing Aristotle into his first exile in Mytilene. In 343 or 342 he was summoned back to Macedonia, where Philip named Aristotle tutor of his son Alexander. In 335 or 334, Aristotle returned to Athens; he founded his own school, the Lyceum, which could soon claim to be a successful competitor to the Platonic → Academy. The Lyceum was not only a locus of philosophical activity, but also a center of scientific research. This period of intensive teaching and research, in which most of Aristotle’s philosophical works were written, was broken off prematurely, however. In 323, Alexander died during a campaign in Asia. The death of the ruler occasioned an anti-Macedonian reaction in Athens which could have claimed Aristotle, a friend of the Macedonian court, as victim. Officially accused of blasphemy, he preferred to leave Athens. He settled in Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he died only a year later. II. Works 1. Structure. Aristotle’s works consist of two groups of writings: one was published by Aristotle himself, but was lost at the close of antiquity and is known to us only fragmentarily via later citations or paraphrases. These writings seem to have been addressed to a broad public. One portion consisted of general introductions to philosophy (Peri Philosophias, Protreptikos), others presented in literary fashion chief themes of a philosophy inspired by Plato: Eudemos (concerning the bodysoul dichotomy), Gryllos (concerning the necessary subordination of → rhetoric to philosophy), Concerning Righteousness, Concerning Noble Birth, a Symposium (banquet), etc. The second group consists of scientific tractates, often described as “acroamatic,” because they arose from the oral instruction (ἀκρόαμα/akróama) in the Lyceum. Andronicos of Rhodes, the leader of the school at the time, first rediscovered this instructional material, gradually neglected because of the demise of the school, in the 1st century bce (c. 60 bce), assembled, arranged, sometimes re-titled, and made it accessible for a broader public. The whole comprises the so-called Corpus aristotelicum. The following tractates occur in sequence: logical (later collected under the title Organon), including the writings on categories, on analysis (doctrine of syllogisms), and on topics; physical-cosmological (physics, on heaven, on the origins and demise); psychological (on the soul and the so-called Parva Naturalia); biological (including on the parts of animals, on the origin of animals); metaphysics; ethico-political (ethics, politics, economics); and finally, “poietic” tractates (rhetoric and poetics).

375 2. History of Development. Since Aristotle did not publish the acroamatic tractates himself and their subsequent publication was produced on the basis of undated materials, there is no external reference point for a relative chronology. Only in 1912 and 1923 did Jaeger attempt to interpret Aristotle’s work “developmentally” on the basis of immanent criteria. Jaeger reconstructed a development characterized by a gradual demarcation and distancing in relation to → Platonism. Popularized by Jaeger and his students, the picture of Aristotle as an enlightened philosopher gradually turning away from theology and increasingly leaning toward empiricism is considered too simplistic today. The tension between speculation and empiricism runs throughout all of Aristotle’s work and can be interpreted as a unity. 3. Major Teachings. Aristotle’s attitude toward the religion of his time is bi-partite. The myths do not proceed rationally and do not examine the causes of phenomena. Therefore, they do not deserve serious discussion (Metaph. B4, 1000 a 19). Aristotle even employs the terms θεολογία/theología, θεολόγος/ theológos, as they refer to the mythologies of poets such as → Hesiod, disparagingly. Aristotle is the true discoverer of what, as the “god of the philosophers,” western tradition distinguishes from the God of revealed religion. This God has little to do with the religious concepts of Greek polytheism. He is the object of the highest theoretical knowledge, theology, which Aristotle called θεολογικὴ ἐπιστήμη/theologik¶ epist¶mē, in order to distinguish it from the popular “theologia” of his predecessors. The highest form of knowledge is knowledge of the highest being, which, in contrast to the beings encountered through sense perception, should be an unmovable being separate from the material world. How can we be certain, however, that such a being beyond perception even exists? The contrary thesis, according to which everything in the world is perceptible to the senses, material, and moved, is not absurd: in this case, physics would be the first, all-encompassing discipline. In fact, however, physics is only a “second philosophy,” subordinate to a higher “first philosophy.” The existence of a higher being is documented in two ways. First, the divine in the higher spheres of the cosmos is directly visible even to visual perception. The doctrine of so-called astral theology (expressed esp. in the pseudo-Platonic Epinomis) exercised powerful influence on Aristotle in his youth. This doctrine differs from cosmos theology in that it does not deify the entire cosmos, but only its higher elements, the heavenly bodies. In contrast, the regions which, according to the geocentric notions dominant at the time, are situated beneath the course of the moon, the so-called “sub-lunar world,” were considered devoid of any mathematical regularity and abandoned to chance. In the tractate Concerning

Aristotle the Heavens, Aristotle attributes divine nature not only to the movement of the heavenly bodies, but also to the inner structure of these bodies: it consists of the socalled ether, which, as the “first body” or “fifth element” (the “quinta essentia” of → scholasticism) remains pure of any mixture with the four physical elements (water, air, fire, earth) and can be viewed as a kind of “intelligible material,” which is immutable. Aristotle’s theology, however, is not limited to the somewhat empirically based description of the higher spheres of the cosmos. For the motion of the heavenly bodies attests to their dependence on a higher, unmoved being, which is the source of their regular movement and which, through their mediation, also affects the irregular movements of the sub-lunar world. This is the first form of a rational proof of God (→ Existence of God, Proof of the) whose first premise maintains: “Anything moved is moved by another.” This other must itself be moved. Since, however, “it is necessary to stop,” the sequence of moved movers cannot be continued into infinity and one must posit a first mover which is, itself, unmoved. This first → unmoved mover is God, who, as unmoved, is supramundane and transcendent, but who, as mover, must manifest a causal relationship, if not to existence, at least to the mobility of the world. In book A of the Metaphysics, the transcendent God is the true object of an ontologically assured theology. The being of God is identical with his essence (οὐσία/ousía), which implies that the other categories of being (e.g. quantity, quality, relation, place, time) are unsuited for expressing God’s superiority. This special ontological status of God leads Aristotle to an aporia in reference to the relationship of theology to a general ontology (which Aristotle called the “study of being as such”). Is theology, as the study of the highest being, a part, if the most eminent, of a general study of being? Or, is theology, because of its supremacy, itself the universal discipline (“universal, because first rank,” as Aristotle says once in Metaph. E 1, 1026 a 30–31), and thus the only true ontology? This second interpretation, preferred by the commentators, implies that being as a whole can be derived from the first being, which, on the other hand, contradicts the Aristotelian thesis of the separation of God and world. Since the title “Metaphysics” (literally what comes “after” physics or stands “above” physics) does not stem from Aristotle but from his editors and is, itself, ambiguous (does meta signify only a chronological sequence or the transition to a higher level?), the dispute between ontology and theology concerning the status of a “first philosophy” remains unresolved for Aristotle himself (→ Metaphysics). In the biological writings, the theological dimension remains more implicit. At the beginning of the tractate “Concerning the Parts of Animals,” Aristotle

Aristotle, Reception of praises → Heraclitus for his statement: “Here, too (that is, in the lowlands of our world) there are gods.” The divine manifests itself in the inner suitability that animates living organisms and leads to self-development and reproduction: life, thanks to the circularity and repetition of its processes (“the person begets the person”) is an imitation of eternity within time. Every living being has a soul which is the principle of its own life. Various hierarchical types of souls correspond to the various levels of life: the vegetative for plants, the sensitive for animals, the intellective for people. The higher forms of life integrate and complete the lower: thus, the human being has access to a soul that is intellective as well as vegetative and sensitive. The intellect, however, is more than the result of a continuous evolutionary process: it is not rooted in biology, but, at a certain point in the development of the embryo, comes “from the outside” as though “through the door” (Concerning the Development of Animals, 736 b 28); this process preserves the transcendence of its divine origin and nature. Aristotle does not go so far, however, as to maintain the personal immortality of the human soul. The active intellect, which induces the passive intellect in us to actualize its potential, is the efficient cause of every individual thought: “Without intellect, no thought” (Concerning the Soul, III, 430 a 22). On the other hand, however, the intellect requires the mediation of sensory perception or the power of imagination in order to become active. Similarly, Aristotelian ethics moves between two poles. The goal of human life is happiness (εὐδαιμονία/ eudaimonía), which consists in one completing one’s work (ἔργον/érgon), that is, in best actualizing one’s unique possibilities. Since reason (λόγος/logos) is the most real aspect of humanity, rational life, consisting in the exercise of various perfections or → virtues is the objective. While most portions of the ethical tractates describe this ideal of perfection in its scope and integrity and outline, above all else, the possibility of a rational regulation of the passions and morals, Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics emphasizes the precedence of the intellect as the highest, even the “superhuman” capacity of a person, so that the highest good is now to be sought in the exercise of contemplation, theoria. The Politics deals with a partially descriptive, partially normative analysis of the forms of the organization of communal living, which comprise the various types of political constitutions. The human being is by nature a political being; in contrast to most animals that are not capable of political life, and to the gods, who do not need political life, the human being only attains completion in the polis. This completion includes the security and stability of the simple “life,” but also the unfolding of a “good life” that incorporates the

376 enjoyment of intellectual exchange with fellow human beings and, for the most talented, the possibility of devoting themselves without restriction to science and philosophy. Works: Aristotelis Opera, ed. I. Bekker, on behalf of the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, vols. I and II, 1831/33, vols. III and IV are outdated. The fifth volume contains the Index aristotelicus by H. Bonitz, 1870, repr. 1961– 1962 ◆ Most works are also published by Teubner, 1880ff. and Oxford University Press 1890ff. ◆ Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. E. Grumach & H. Flashar, 20 vols., 1951ff. (still incomplete) ◆ Philososphische Schriften, H. Bonitz, trans., 6 vols., 1996 ◆ Aristotle’s Select Fragments, ed. W.D. Ross, 1952 ◆ Bibl.: W. Jaeger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles, 1912 ◆ W. Jaeger, Aristoteles: Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, 1923, 21955 ◆ P. Aubenque, Le problème de l’être chez Aristote, 1962, 71996 ◆ W. Wieland, Die aristotelische Physik, 1962 ◆ I. Düring, Aristoteles, 1966 ◆ J. Vuillemin, De la logique à la théologie: Cinq études sur Aristote, 1967 ◆ F.-P. Hager, ed., Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles, 1969 ◆ O. Höffe, Praktische Philosophie: Das Modell des Aristoteles, 1971 ◆ W. Kullmann, Wissenschaft und Methode: Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Theorie der Naturwissenschaft, 1974 ◆ A. Kenny, The Aristotelian Ethics, 1978 ◆ H. Flashar, “Aristoteles,” in Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. III, 1983, 175–457 ◆ J. Barnes, ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols., 1984 ◆ T. Irwin, Aristotle’s First Principles, 1988 ◆ R. Sorabji, Aristotle: A Bibliography, 1981. Pierre Aubenque

Aristotle, Reception of I. General – II. Islam

I. General External circumstances hindered the reception of Aristotelian thought after the death of → Aristotle. For the Greek situation, the most suitable site for reception and further consideration would have been the Aristotelian school, the so-called Lyceum or Peripatos. With the exception of Aristotle’s immediate successor, → Theophrastus, however, this school was not up to the task. The difficulty lay in the complexity and multiplicity of the didactic materials the school inherited, as well as in the extreme abstraction of some portions of it, such as the metaphysical writings. Beyond the school, Aristotle’s influence and even interaction with his teachings were very limited during the entire Hellenistic period. Only in discussions concerning ethics, on which → Cicero, especially in De finibus, gave a careful report, did peripatetism appear as an independent position: he opposed a morality of the just means which, in a crude contrast to Stoic ethics, reckoned with external goods, in addition to virtue, as a necessary component of happiness. Interest in Aristotle’s theoretical philosophy grew only from the moment (c. 60 bce) when Andronicus of Rhodes published Aristotle’s lectures. Shortly thereafter, Nicholas of Damascus wrote a summary of Aristotle’s complete works, a summary which, for the first time, afforded the metaphysical doctrines their due place; otherwise, Nicholas seems to have been the inventor

377 of the title “Metaphysics.” The first commentators of the 1st–3rd centuries (Aspasios, Adrastes, Alexander of Aphrodisias) strove to clarify and, if possible, complete Aristotle’s teachings: thus, the latter wrote a tractate concerning fate which treated the theme, discussed at the time in all the schools, as Aristotle would have treated it, namely in the sense of a theory of contingency and the denial of divine providence. On the other hand, Alexander identified Aristotle’s active intellect with God, who becomes, to an extent, the active principle of all cognition, but not of human acts or of events in the sub-lunar world. From the 3rd century, under the influence of the Neoplatonist → Porphyry (→ Neoplatonism), who distanced himself from the anti-Aristotelianism of his teacher → Plotinus and was, himself, the author of an influential introduction (Isagoge) to Aristotle’s categorical writings, the commentators endeavored to demonstrate the secret agreement of the philosophies of → Plato and Aristotle. The wittiest and most learned among the commentators was Simplicius (6th cent.), whom we have to thank for, among others, valuable commentaries on the Categories, the Physics, and the tractate on the heavens. By the end of the commentary writing of antiquity, Christian commentators such as John Philoponus (6th cent.) had already assumed a more critical stance toward Aristotle by rejecting, for example, the Aristotelian thesis of the eternity of the world. Thus, already at the end of antiquity, the commentators had produced an apparently Platonic systematization of Aristotelian thought, as well as the first signs of the great dispute between Aristotelianism and monotheistic theologians which would unfold in later centuries. Medieval Jewish and Christian thinkers conducted this dispute on the foundation of the Arabic commentary tradition. In this dispute, the identification of God and nature suggested by Aristotle, himself, played an important role in Jewish Aristotelianism, while for Christian reception, teleology and the accompanying idea of a world ordered by God according to degrees of perfection had particular significance. In the post-medieval era, the dispute with Aristotle diminished, to become systematically central once again for Hegel and Heidegger in the modern era. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaft, 23 vols., 2 suppl. vols., 1883–1909 ◆ Die Schule des Aristoteles, ed. F. Wehrli, 10 vols., 2 suppl. vols., 1967–1978 ◆ R. Sorabji, The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook, 3 vols., 2005 ◆ C.H. Lohr, “The Medieval Interpretation of Aristotle,” in: N. Kretzmann et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, 1982, 80–98. Pierre Aubenque

II. Islam The reception of Aristotelian teaching accompanied the development of Islamic sciences, philosophy, and theol-

Aristotle, Reception of ogy. In contact with the culture of → Hellenism, Islam’s developing doctrinal tradition adopted Greek concepts and methods in the disciplines of law and theology. The reception of the practical knowledge and the progressive Arabization of the Near East led to the translation of Greek, Aramaic, and Persian sources. After the initial dominance of Iranian tradition, the triumphal advance of Greek authorities began in the 9th century – especially in astronomy, astrology, and medicine. Aristotle accompanied the professional disciplines as the teacher of the universal encyclopedia of knowledge, the principles of rational deduction and of the scientific worldview. Initially, the writings dealing with natural sciences, the systematic depiction of natural phenomena, but especially the doctrine of the principles of cosmic movement in physics and metaphysics, stood at the center of interest. The authentic writings of Aristotle, transmitted by the neoplatonic schools of Athens and Alexandria and their Christian successors, were accompanied by neoplatonic texts (Plotinus, → Proclus) under Aristotle’s name, which link the doctrine of the unmoved first mover with the model of → emanation: creation is an eternal radiation from the one, mediated by the intelligences of the spheres. Aristotle, so understood, determined the system and worldview of the applied sciences and served to legitimate their teachers; the multi-faceted al-Kindī (→ Kindī, d. after 868) demonstrated in this fashion the identity between Islamic monotheism and the philosophical doctrine of principles. – In a further phase of reception, Aristotle became the authority of an independent philosophy as a science of evidence, oriented toward the Organon of logic, which had been completely accessible and translated since the end of the 9th century, as well as toward all available commentaries on the Corpus Aristotelicum from the Alexandrian School. On this basis, al-Fārābī (→ Fārābī, d. 950) founded Islamic philosophy by incorporating revelation and prophecy into the Aristotelian theory of the cosmos and perception – the active intellect, a cosmic entity according to the neoplatonic model, serves as mediator – and by setting the absolute perception of reason in relation to the true symbol of revelation. As guarantor of truth perception for the religious community, too, Aristotle was considered henceforth as the First Teacher, so named by Ibn Sīnā (→ Avicenna, d. 1037), the perfecter of the Islamic philosophical worldview. Avicenna rewrote the old encyclopedia according to the arrangement of the Aristotelian canon of disciplines, logic, physics, and metaphysics, supplemented by the mathematical quadrivium. He interpreted quranic revelation as an allegory of the universal truth in Aristotelian terms, resolved the antimony between God’s eternity and the contingency of creation, and

Arius and Arianism sharpened the proof of God’s existence in accord with the needs of theology. For religious thought, however, Aristotelian cosmology – the eternity of the world – remained a stumbling stone. The philosophically trained theologian, al-˝azzālī (→ ˝azzālī, 1058–1111), wrote the definitive refutation, although he employed Aristotelian logic and hermeneutics in the service of religious discipline. Thus, Avicenna’s reinterpretation of Aristotelianism also shaped the scholasticism of later Islamic theology. Meanwhile, the Aristotelianism of the Islamic West took up the challenge of al-˝azzālī: Ibn Bā[[a (d. 1139), following al-Fārābī, → Ibn ˇufail (d. 1185) with the attempt to find a compromise between Avicenna ∏ and al-Gazzālī, and finally Ibn Rušd (→ Averroes, 1126– 1998), with a wideranging defense of the authentic Aristotle, based on comprehensive commentaries which, in translation, became the chief sources for Jewish and Christian Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages. G. Endreß, “Die wissenschaftliche Literatur,” Grundriß der arabischen Philologie, vol. II, 1987, 400–506; vol. III, 1991, 3–152 (bibl.). Gerhard Endreß

Arius and Arianism I. Definition – II. Background – III. Arius of Alexandria – IV. The Controversy to the Death of Constantine (337) – V. The Reigns of Constantine’s Sons (337–361) – VI. The Homoean Imperial Church and Neo-Nicenism (361–378) – VII. NeoNicene Orthodoxy and So-called Germanic Arianism

I. Definition The term Arianism, which is actually polemical (first used by Greg. Naz. Or. 21.22), first denoted the doctrine of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and those who (even only allegedly) shared his opinions in the 4th century Trinitarian dispute, and was immediately expanded to refer polemically to all proponents of a Trinitarian subordinationism (→ Origen). Consequently the dispute concerning the doctrine of the → Trinity came to be designated, somewhat unjustly, the “Arian Controversy.” Arius can only be considered the trigger of this controversy caused by the incompatibility of 3rd-century Trinitarian models, since he soon became marginal. The phenomenon of Arianism, thus, can only be understood in terms of the history of the theological clarification of the Trinitarian question through 381/382. The discussion concerning the precise theological category of the controversy (→ Christology or soteriology [→ Redemption/Soteriology]) seems less relevant. The issue is how, in view of Christian monotheism Christ can be called Savior and Redeemer. Only the soteriological dimension, always present for the contemporaries in the debate, explains the ferocity of the dispute. Consequently it does not make sense to view this debate, in the first instance, from the perspective of the “Hellenization of Christianity” (→ Hellenism: II).

378 II. Background The 3rd century had formulated mutually exclusive alternatives regarding the relationship between God and Christ, concerning which research continues to be unclear. “Adoptionistic Monarchianism,” although spread without Jewish-Christian influence, originally had Jewish-Christian roots (→ Ebionites). It regarded Christ as a mere human (psilós ánthropos), on whom the Spirit of God was bestowed (e.g. at baptism; Theodotus; → Adoptionism). The contrary position, so-called “Modalistic Monarchianism” (better: identification theology; → modalism) essentially dissolved any distinction between God and Christ by identifying God with Christ in the history of salvation (→ Noetus, → Praxeas). The customary but misleading association of the mutually exclusive models by calling both → “Monarchianism” points to the fact that both involve the unity of God. Logos theology, employed since the Apologists (→ Justin), points in another direction. It assures the separate existence of the → Logos and his divinity, but subordinates him. In disputing identification theology, → Tertullian made the first attempts at a systematic explanation of the relationship between oneness and threeness in the Trinity, and Origen further developed Logos theology through the concept of eternal generation on a Middle Platonic basis. These efforts left the relationship between oneness and threeness and permitted various interpretive possibilities. The 3rd-century disputes between the Logos and identification theologies also constituted the likely background for the “Dionysian Dispute” and the deposition of the Antiochene bishop → Paul of Samosata, into which, presumably, 4th century tradition retrojected the terminology of the Trinitarian controversies (homooúsios). Consequently, they are irrelevant to the background of Arianism. III. Arius of Alexandria The are few reliable sources concerning the theology of Arius and his conflict with his bishop → Alexander, which must be viewed against the background of the schism in the Egyptian church (Melitian Schism, → Melitius of Lycopolis). According to Epiphanius (Haer. 69.1), Arius was a Libyan of advanced age when the dispute erupted. He is supposed to have been presbyter of the church in Baucalis and an ascetic and preacher esteemed in Alexandria. His theological background is unclear, although it can be derived from the Alexandrian-Origenian tradition evidenced in → Dionysius of Alexandria. His self-designation as “conlucianista” (Urkunden 1.5) need not be understood as a reference to theological studies with Lucian of Antioch. It is rather unlikely that Arius was a partisan of Melitius during his persecution, as Sozomen claimed. The few transmitted letters (Urkunden 1.6

379 = CPG 2025f.) and fragments of a document entitled Thaleia (CPG 2028; only transmitted in a citation by Athanasius!) make it clear that Arius wanted, with the assistance of the Middle Platonic concept of God (→ Negative Theology), to emphasize the absolute transcendence and → aseity of God, who alone is nonbecoming, without beginning, etc. This requires a strict subordination of the Logos/Son, who is indeed divine and born of God before all time, but is not co-eternal with the Father, having instead a beginning before all time. God is, above all, Creator, so that, following Prov 8:22–25, Arius can characterize the Son, too, as “creature,” eternally different from all other creatures. The actual theological concern here is to preserve the deity and absolute transcendence of God. IV. The Controversy to the Death of Constantine (337) The actual cause and date of the beginning of the conflict is unclear, as is the chronology of the extant texts. Constantine’s letter to Alexander and Arius can be dated with some certainty toward the end of 324 (Urkunden 17; since Opitz, usually employed to deduce a beginning in 318). It concerns an essentially theological dispute between Arius and Alexander – who also emphasized in the Origenistic tradition the co-eternity of the Son and his complete likeness with God the Father – a debate concerning the theological imprecision of Origen’s Trinitarian terminology, which, as the rebellion of a presbyter against his bishop, had legal consequences. Along with a group of sympathizers, Arius was excommunicated at a synod in Alexandria. He returned to Palestine, where he found support from → Eusebius of Caesarea and in Syria and Bithynia, where synods convened for the purpose of rehabilitating Arius (Urkunden 5), → Eusebius of Nicomedia intervened on his behalf in a manner not unproblematic in terms of church law. The Sophist → Asterius, ecclesially disqualified because of a sacrifice performed during the persecution, became the true theologian of Arianism (his authorship of the commentary on the Psalter, CPG 2815, is disputed). → Eustathius of Antioch and → Marcellus of Ancyra became the most harsh theological critics of Arianism with their anti-Origenistic theology of one hypostasis directed against any subordination of the Son. Thus the Greek-speaking East was divided into two theological camps when → Constantine, for whom Christianity was supposed to be the religious lynchpin of the Imperium, became emperor. In another letter from 324 addressed to Alexander and Arius (Urkunden 17), which his theological adviser → Hosius of Cordoba brought to Alexandria, he showed himself astonishingly well informed concerning the dispute. He criticized Arius and Alexander (i.e. he ignored the syn-

Arius and Arianism odal excommunication) because of the dispute, which he incorrectly considered insignificant. The emperor was concerned primarily with preserving homonoia in the church. Hosius’s mission was unsuccessful; on a return trip, he presided over a synod in Antioch in early 325 that made the anti-Arian Eustathius bishop of the chief city in the oriental diocese. The synod condemned Arius, using Alexander’s formulations (CPG 8509). Because of his support for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea was also temporarily condemned. This curiosity of church law can be explained by the fact that a final decision was reserved for the “great” synod in Ancyra already planned by the emperor, which then convened with around 250 almost exclusively Eastern participants (the later canonical number of 318 participants reflects Gen 14:14) in the imperial palace in → Nicea in June of 325 (CPG 8511–8527; on the change of venue, see Urkunden 20); it was already described by contemporaries as “ecumenical” (= empire-wide). Eusebius’s report of the opening as adventus Augusti (vita Const. 3.10) clarifies the new role in the church of the Christian emperor, who, indeed, formally chaired the synod during the theological debates; Hosius probably presided. No records are preserved, but only a few letters (Urkunden 21–26) and the historians’ reports. The synod had not only to deal with the dogmatic question but also to address a plethora of problems in view of the new political situation (the Melitian problem, the date of Easter, structural questions). Although the majority of the bishops thought of the Trinity in terms of subordination in the sense of, for instance, Eusebius, Arius, along with any Trinitarian subordinationism in the Origenistic tradition, was judged from the perspective of a theology of one hypostasis as represented by Eusthatius and Marcellus. This theology gained the support of the emperor, presumably with the assistance of Hosius, whose training in the Latin tradition made him think in similar ways (the creed, Urkunden 24). Thus, the synod’s condemnation of Arius does not stand in theological continuity with the condemnation by Alexander and the Antioch synod. The origin of the term ὁμοούσιος/homooúsios (of one substance) to describe the relationship of Father and Son in the Trinity remains unclear. Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia employed this term, previously unattested in discussions of the Trinity, to demonstrate the impossibility and heresy of non-subordinationist Trinitarian discourse. Its insertion in the creed was, therefore, emphatically directed against Arius. Since it was not (yet) positively useful, it disappeared from the discussion for 30 years after Nicea. Because they refused to sign the creed, Arius, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica were exiled, as were later Theognis of Nicea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who refused to condemn

Arius and Arianism Arius (there were also political reasons for Eusebius’s expulsion). V. The Reigns of Constantine’s Sons (337–361) After Nicea, the Trinitarian debate shifted to the opposition between a non-subordinationist theology of one hypostasis and a subordinationist theology of three hypostases. The person and theology of Arius played hardly any role. After 328 the new Alexandrian bishop, → Athanasius, became leader of the theologians who rejected any subordination (“Nicenes”). From this point on, both groups attempted to gain influence with the emperor and to use it in turn in church politics, a circumstance that repeatedly resulted in purges with depositions and expulsions of bishops. Constantine was interested in the broadest possible integration, including those condemned by Nicea. From 326 on, Eustathius and Marcellus, who represented a theological minority, lost influence (Hosius was no longer the emperor’s adviser) in favor of the “Eusebian” majority in the East, where Nicea remained in force (it is therefore wrong to speak of a “change” in Constantine’s ecclesiastical policy). Because of his radical position, Eustathius had already been deposed c. 326 (d. before 337). A second Nicene synod at Nicea in 327, which de facto recalled (Urkunden 29f.) and rehabilitated Arius, manifested the emperor’s concern for integration. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis were also permitted to return. Nonetheless Alexander and then Athanasius once again refused to accept Arius in Alexandria. From 328, Athanasius became the chief opponent of the imperial policy of appeasement, with regard to both the reintegration of Arius and the Melitians. Hence the inscrutable confusion of the two problems in the sources, as well as the theologically unnatural coalitions in church politics of the “Eusebians” and the Melitians against Athanasius. After several unsuccessful attempts, at a synod in Tyre in 335 this coalition gained the deposition and exile of Athanasius (to Trier) and in 336 that of Marcellus. After Constantine’s death (May 22, 337), the political conflict intensified. In Trier, Athanasius was able to win over bishop Maximinus and Constantine II, who permitted Athanasius and others exiled to the West to return without consulting → Constantius II, who governed the East, a circumstance that caused unrest in the cities involved. Deposed once more, Athanasius and Marcellus found support in Rome from bishop Julius, who – with the backing of Constans, who had meanwhile risen to power in the West – lifted the Eastern synodal condemnations of Athanasius and Marcellus. In 341 the council of Antioch protested, defining its faith in its Ekthesis against Arius’s accusation as anti-Arian on the basis of the subordinationist theology of three hypostases (second Antiochene formula, CPG 2128.8).

380 The Council of Sardica, planned by both emperors as an exercise in unification (342; CPG 8560–8574), failed, resulting in a schism between East and West that escalated into a political crisis with the threat of war between the two emperors. Each emperor identified with a different theological-political camp. The usual classification “Eastern-Western” oversimplifies the situation. Just as there were Eastern (Greek) theologians who held to one hypostasis, so there were subordinationist Western (Latin) theologians, such as → Ursacius and Valens, who held to three hypostases. The sole rule of Constantius II (353–361) was marked by the attempt to achieve a unified church on the basis of the Eastern theology of a hierarchy of three hypostases, with the possibility of theological variation. The forced condemnation of Athanasius and his followers in the West, also (Council of Arles in 353, Council of Milan in 355, etc.) served this goal, as did various attempts to replace the little-known Nicean Symbol, which was just beginning to become a binding creed for the opponents of any subordinationist theology of three hypostases, with another (second formula of Sirmium, 357, CPG 8578). The appearance of → Photinus, a radical disciple of Marcellus, and the “Neo-Arianism” of → Aetius and → Eunomius, who, on the basis of philosophical distinctions and a unique linguistic theology, drew a Trinitarian conclusion concerning the ontological opposites “begotten-unbegotten” ( gennētós/agénnētos) and the inequality of the Father and the Son (anómoios tØ patrí; hence the name “Anhomoeans” [→ Neo-Arianism]), led to new theological differentiations and groupings. In 358, on the occasion of a synod in Ancyra (CPG 8579), the → Homoiousians formed around → Basil of Ancyra and → George of Laodicea; they were able, at first, to gain the support of the emperor. VI. The Homoean Imperial Church and NeoNicenism (361–378) The dual Council of Rimini/Seleucia in 359 (CPG 8582–8592), planned by the Emperor as a unifying synod to formulate a new common creed, was a great victory in church politics for the Homoeans, who emerged from the same theological milieu, achieved with the aid of the emperor’s personal political support (Council of Constantinople, CPG 8591). Because of Julian’s usurpation in the West, this council had no consequence in the West, where the Creed of Nicea slowly gained acceptance. During his rule, the Anomoeans formed their own church. The East saw the first attempts to overcome the contradiction between theologies of one hypostasis and of three hypostases by means of the linguistic differentiation between ousia and hypostasis and to express the unity of the Trinity with “ousia” and its threefold nature with “hypostasis” (mía ousía – treís

381 hypostáseis). Emphasis on the independence of the three hypostases, avoids the subordination associated with the older Logos theology. Despite the Homoean turn under Emperor Valens, this Neo-Nicene solution was able to gain wide acceptance primarily through the efforts of the Cappadocian Fathers. The equality of the persons of the Trinity raised the question of the position of the Holy Spirit, whose subordination was especially important to Homoousian circles (→ Pneumatomachi). VII. Neo-Nicene Orthodoxy and So-called Germanic Arianism The political change in 378 brought massive support, first to the “Nicenes” (Cod. Theod. 16.1.2), then to the proponents of → Neo-Nicenism around → Meletius of Antioch, as is clear in the Neo-Nicene (Meletian) Council of Constantinople in 381 (CPG 8598–8601). Neo-Nicenism became orthodoxy. The creed (CPG 8599) and the concluding Tome (CPG 8602) display a clearly pneumatological accent. As a consequence of the council’s decisions, the Homoeans and the Homoiousians now illegally formed their own churches (Cod. Theod. XVI. 1.3, XVI. 5.8). In the West, the theological success of a Western form of Neo-Nicenism was the contribution of → Ambrose of Milan, who also acted ruthlessly against Homoeans in upper Italy and Illyria (Synod of → Aquileia, 381). Only the German tribes which immigrated into the empire with and after Ulfilas and which as confederates were not subject to the laws on religion preserved the Homoean form of Christianity accepted in the East or received from the Goths, the first Germanic Christians. Even after the founding of their states, it was virtually constitutive of their identity until they converted to Nicene orthodoxy in the course of the 6th/7th centuries. For sources and bibliography for individual persons see the corresponding article. For the synodal documents not in the collection by Opitz, the CPG nos. are indicated in the text. Sources: Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streits, ed. H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 3/1, 1934 ◆ Sokrates Scholasticus, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G.C. Hansen, GCS.NF 1, 1995 ◆ Sozomen, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez & G.C. Hansen, GCS.NF 4, 21995 ◆ Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez & F. Winkelmann, GCS, 31981 ◆ Theodoret of Cyrhus, Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier & G.C. Hansen, GCS.NF 5, 31998 ◆ A.M. Ritter, Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol, FKDG 15, 1965 ◆ M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, SEAug 11, 1975 ◆ F. Dinsen, Homoousios, 1976 ◆ T.A. Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism, 2 vols., PatMS 8, 1979 ◆ R. Lorenz, Arius judaizans? FKDG 31, 1979 ◆ R.C. Gregg & D.E. Groh, Early Arianism: a View of Salvation, 1981 ◆ L.W. Barnard, The Council of Serdica A.D. 343, 1983 ◆ R.C. Gregg, ed., Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, PatMS 11, 1985 ◆ W.A. Löhr, Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenparteien, BBKT 2, 1986 ◆ R.D. Williams, Arius, 1987 ◆ H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer, BHTh 73, 1988 ◆ R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988 ◆ A.M. Ritter, “Arius redivivus?” ThR 55, 1990, 153–187 ◆ T. Böhm, Die Christologie des Arius, STG 7, 1991 ◆ M.R. Barnes & D.H. Williams, eds., Arianism after Arius, 1993 ◆

Ark of YHWH G.C. Stead, “Homousios,” RAC XVI, 1994, 364–433 ◆ J. Ulrich, Die Anfänge der abendländischen Rezeption des Nizänums, PTS 39, 1994. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Ark of YHWH. /2  : /harôn, “ark” (in current English usage, more properly, “chest”) designates in Gen 50:26 the casket of → Joseph and in 2 Kgs 12:10f./2 Chr 24:8, 10f. a collection box with lid. In all the remaining 200 or so passages in the OT, it is a cultic object constructed at Sinai according to Exod 25:10–22; 37:1–9 (P), which was brought along during the wandering in the wilderness (Num 10:35f.) and the → settlement ( Josh 3; 6), then set up in → Shiloh (1 Sam 3; 4), and finally in → Jerusalem (2 Sam 6; 1 Kgs 8; → Cult: IV, → Cultic Objects in Palestine). The dimensions of 2.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 cubits (1.25 × 0.75 × 0.75m) given by P are roughly accurate. The rings and wooden pole on each long side indicate that the ark was a mobile sanctuary. Presumably, the ark was not without adornment. The decoration of the lid as a gold-plated panel with cherubim (→ Composite Beings) on it and the description of the ark as plated with gold on the inside and the outside are ideas introduced by source P of the → Pentateuch. Protected storage in a special tent (cf. 2 Sam 6:17; 7:6; 11:11) seems appropriate for a mobile sanctuary. Whether this tent for the ark was the tent of Exod 33:7–11 remains, however, doubtful. The origin of the ark is disputed. Reference is made to the qubba in the nomadic realm, a (pre-Israelite) Arabic mobile sanctuary, also with leadership and martial functions (e.g. the depiction at the temple of Bel in → Palmyra, although it is as late as the 1st cent. ce; Stolz). Objects similar in form and size also appear, however, in the Egyptian realm. These portable chests are associated with the symbolism of protective divine beings on the lid or are utilized as a throne for deities in processions (Metzger, 361f.). Familiarity with Egyptian temples and cults both in the cultivated land (e.g. → Beth-Shean) and in the Sinai and the Negeb (e.g. → Timna’) is not enough to locate the adaptation of Egyptian impulses either geographically or chronologically. The neutral designation ark or chest could point to origins as a container for sacred objects (Masseba), whose significance only becomes clear through mention of the owner (“Ark of YHWH”) or the religious context (“Ark of God”). There remains the observation that the ark represented a mobile symbol of divine power and presence which, because of its original foreignness to the Jerusalem → temple (II.4; cherubs in 1 Kgs 8), but also to the sanctuary in → Shiloh (martial function and failure in 1 Sam 4) probably traces back (as a tribal sanctuary?) to the early pre-state period of → Israel (II). Concepts surrounding the ark varied in the course of time. The ark sayings in Num 10:35f. conceive of

Arles YHWH as present with the ark, from which he arises in order to lead Israel, especially into battle against enemies. While the ark sayings presume a repeated event, the fetching of the ark from Shiloh (1 Sam 4) is a last resort that leads to the loss of the ark to the → Philistines. The leadership and martial functions of the ark that predominate in these texts are overcome in the accounts of the crossing of the → Jordan and the conquest of → Jericho ( Josh 3 and 6) by the procession concept. On the other hand the narrative of the return of the ark (1 Sam 6) is defined by the motif of the divine direction of the draft animals. The fact that → David later brought the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6) not only strengthened the Israelite-Yahwistic presence in the capital, but also renewed and expanded the significance of the ark. With the transfer of the ark to the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 8:1–9) and its setting up among the cherubs in the holy of holies (8:6f.), the ark receded behind the substantially larger cherubs. It is unclear how long the ark existed. The wish for its reestablishment, perceptible in Jer 3:16f., as well as the central role of the ark in P, give rise to the assumption that it was significant for quite some time and that it was lost or destroyed only toward the end of the monarchial period. This significance will have been most evident in the context of processions. Admittedly, processions (with the appropriate cultic object) are not explicitly attested in Jerusalem, but on the basis of texts such as Ps 24:7–10, as well as the portrayals in Josh 3 and 6, and on history-of-religion grounds, they are likely (Metzger 361–364). It is no longer possible to deduce how the presence of YHWH with the ark was symbolized and understood in the early period. For the sanctuary in Shiloh, a throne idea, perhaps in connection with the Sebaoth title (→ God: II), is likely. The title “throne of the cherubs” probably first originated, in contrast, in Jerusalem because of the cherubs of the Solomonic temple ( Janowski). The relationship between these two throne concepts probably varied. In contrast, P integrated the cherub tradition of the ark by diminishing the cherubs to guardian figures on and for the ark (Exod 25:18–20; 37:7–9). In accordance with God’s “greatness,” the ark was designated in the post-exilic period (as was the temple) as, among other things, his footstool (1 Chr 28:2; Ps 132:7; Ps 99:5.). Usually epithets further specify the ark. In the older narratives, the designations “ark of YHWH” (esp. 1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6:9ff.) and “ark of God” (1 Sam 3:3; 4:18; 2 Sam 6:2–7; 7:2) alternate depending upon whether the Israelites speak of the ark of God or the Philistines, for example, to express YHWH’s ownership of the ark (2 Sam 6:2 also indicates ownership and not renaming). Through the designation “ark of the Covenant” (of God/YHWH; Josh 3; 6; 1 Kgs 3:15; 6:19; 8:1–7,

382 etc.), the deuteronomic tradition strips the ark of its dynamic character. At the same time, as a symbol of the → covenant (II) of YHWH with Israel, it attains new importance in that, according to Deut 10:1–5 and 1 Kgs 8:9, the tablets of the Decalogue as the founding covenant document and, according to Deut 31:26, then “the whole book of the Torah” (cf. CD V 3) are stored in the ark. (Similarly, the storage of the jar of manna [Exod 16:33] and Aaron’s staff [Num 17:23–25] before the ark later became storage in the ark [Heb 9:4].) P adopts deuteronomic concepts, but speaks of the “tablets of testimony” (Exod 31:18) and, consequently, of the “ark of testimony” (25:22; 26:33f., etc.; see also 4Q375 1 II 7) because P shifts the covenant idea away from Sinai and the commandments to → Abraham (Gen 17). The disappearance of the ark without a trace permits the development of the legend that → Jeremiah had hidden it in a cave (2 Macc 2:5). This and the concept of the heavenly sanctuary made possible the eschatological revelation of the ark (Rev 11:19). The lid, associated with the cherubs by P, became especially significant. Its name, kapporet ( ;) (/kapporet) is probably originally from ) ( /kipper, “to cover,” but was, from P onward, increasingly understood as being from kipper, “to atone,” as the site of atonement/reconciliation between YHWH and Israel (cf. the redundant translation hilasterion epithema in Exod 25:17 LXX). The association of the kapporet with the atonement (kipper) is also evident in diction, especially in Lev 16. Since the reconciling presence of YHWH and the sacrificial blood of atonement sprinkled on the kapporet meet there, it became the central location of atonement, and hilasterion (a neologism analogous to thysiasterion?) became the synonym for atonement in a word. Thus it is conceivable that, in the early Christian tradition, the atonement on the kapporet could be viewed as the cognate to the → expiation through Jesus’ sacrificial death; a tradition that, in particular ways, became the center of the soteriological argumentation of Paul (Rom 3:25) as well as of → Hebrews (9:1ff.). R. Schmitt, Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft, 1972 (bibl.) ◆ F. Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, AThANT 60, 1972 ◆ J. Jeremias, “Lade und Zion,” in: H.W. Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie: FS G.v. Rad, 1981, 183– 198 ◆ B. Janowski, Sūhne als Heilsgeschehen, WMANT 55, 1982, 22000 ◆ M. Metzger, Königsthron und Gottesthron, AOAT 15/1,2, 1985 ◆ K. Koch, “Some Considerations on the Translation of kapporet in the Septuagint,” in: D.P. Wright, ed., Pomegranates and Golden Bells: FS J. Milgrom, 1995, 65–75 ◆ C. SchäferLichtenberger, “Sie wird nicht wieder hergestellt werden”, in: E. Blum, ed., Mincha: FS R. Rendtorff, 2000, 229–241 ◆ B.D. Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle,” BibInt 9, 2001, 41–63 ◆ S. Kreuzer, “Zebaoth – Der Thronende,” VT 56, 2006. Siegfried Kreuzer

Arles. The Roman Colonia Arelate was established in 46 bce on the Rhône in southern France. Although

383

Armenia

its episcopal list begins c. 240 with Trophimus, the first bishop for whom we have clear evidence is Marcianus, a follower of Novatian, in 254. Arles served repeatedly as a meeting place for synods, including one in 314 (dealing among other issues with → Donatism) and another in 353 (→ Homoeans). From the 4th century on, the city had to compete with Vienne. When Arles became the seat of the prefecture of Gaul in 395, this competition led to a partition of Provincia Viennensis. In the 5th century, the monastery Lerinum (→ Lérins) came to control appointments to the bishopric of Arles. The episcopate of → Caesarius of Arles, who was appointed vicar apostolic in 513, receiving the pallium and the title “Primas Galliae,” was a high point in the history of Arles. The see’s metropolitan jurisdiction, which had become much reduced, was dissolved in 1802 and Arles was joined to the archdiocese of Aix-en-Provence. The city, which served repeatedly as an imperial residence from the 4th century on, is home to a rich artistic heritage, ancient, early Christian, and medieval (esp. sarcophagus sculpture). The synods of the 13th century point to → Albigenses. In the 16th century, bishop Jean de Broullat resigned after his conversion to Protestantism. The canon collections of the synods of 4th–6th centuries are of great significance for the development of Western canon law. P. Benoît, Sarcophages paléochrétiens d’Arles et de Marseille, 1954 ◆ P. Palanque, La diocèse d’Aix-en-Provence, Paris 1975 ◆ R.H. Bautier, LMA I, 1980, 953–958 ◆ Centre de Recherches sur l’Antiquité Tardive et le Haut Moyen Age, pub., La topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines à la fin du VIIe siècle, 1974 ◆ W.E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles, 21995. Wolfgang Wischmeyer

Armagh, a site in northeastern Ireland (Irish: Ard Macha, Macha’s height, after the goddess Macha). It was chosen by St. → Patrick as the site of his principal church in around 544/545(?). Armagh claimed primacy over all Ireland from the 8th century onwards. From c. 1560 there were distinct Catholic and Protestant successions to the see. On the site of the ancient hill fort is a cathedral of the Church of Ireland, restored 1834–1839. A Roman Catholic cathedral was completed in 1873. A. Gwynn, Medieval Province of Armagh, 1946 ◆ P. Harbison, Guide to the National Monuments of Ireland, 1992. John McCafferty

Armenia I. Antiquity – II. Armenian Apostolic Church

I. Antiquity 1. Armenia encompasses the plateau around Mt. Ararat (5165 m), the Lakes of Van and Sevan, and the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris, thus the land in which the

kingdom of the Urarteans (Ass. Urar†u, cf. Hebr. ‘rr† Jer 51:27; Gen 8:4) existed in the period before the appearance of the Armenians, perhaps in the 7th century bce, and which was conquered by the Iranian Medes in 590 bce. The actual Armenian core territory is to be identified with the region between the Aráxēs (now Aras) and the Kentrítēs (now Bühtan deresi), while the remaining portions may have only been partially Armenianized. The evidence of their language suggests that the Armenians belong to the Indo-European language family. The name for Armenia and Armenians common in Europe was first attested in an early Persian inscription from 519 bce; thence, the Greeks adopted it. The Armenians describe themselves as Hay, and their country as Hayastan. 2. Along with the Median kingdom, Armenia, too, became part of the Persian Empire under Cyrus II (559– 530 bce). Attempts to gain independence after Darius the Great (522 bce) came to the throne remained unsuccessful. Little is known concerning the fate of the satrapy of Armenia (through which → Xenophon also traveled in the winter of 401/400 with the 10,000 Greeks) and its borders. → Alexander the Great did not formally subject Armenia and, in the early Hellenistic period, individual local dynasts, loosely dependent, stood as vassals under Seleucid dominion. One of the leading families in this period were the Orontides, whose eponymous Oróntēs (Armenian [Arm.] Eruand) cannot be identified with certainty since there were several satraps by this name in the Achemenid and Seleucid era. 3. After the defeat of Antiochus III at Magnesia in battle with the Romans (190 bce), Armenia under Artaxíās (Arm. Artašēs) and the Sōphēn¶ (Arm.+Coø˚) under Zariádrēs (Arm. Zareh) were able to free themselves, with Roman assistance, from the Seleucid Empire and substantially expand their territory toward Iberia and the Atropatene Medes, but also via the Euphrates also toward the West. Artaxias established Artaxáta (Arm. Artašat) on the Araxes as the capital city. Armenia gained the apex of its independence after it conquered significant portions of the Parthian Empire and the final remains of the Seleucid Empire, then a major empire stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, under Tigránēs the Great (Arm. Tigran; c. 95–55 bce). In the face of his “philhellenism,” this “king of kings” apparently adopted Persian court ceremony from the Parthians and established a new, larger (not yet located with certainty) residence city named for him Tigranókerta (Arm. Tigranakert). The siege of Tigranokertas and Tigranes’s defeat by Lucullus in the spring of 69 bce introduced a long period of decline. The area west of the Euphrates, Armenia minor, became part of the Roman province of Cappadocia. Armenia major, east of the Euphrates, became a client state disputed between Romans and

Armenia Parthians, dependent on Rome. Trajan’s conquest of Armenia remained an episode since only three years later → Hadrian abandoned all claims to Armenia, whose throne was occupied by Vologeses (Arm. Va∑arš) I (117–140), the founder of Va∑aršapat, later the captial city (which seems to have been renamed Ēúmiacin [“the only begotten came down”; → Echmiadzin] in the Middle Ages as the seat of the Armenian Catholicos). The Arsacids, who continued to rule Armenia in the Sassanid period also (from 224 ce) inclined more to the Romans, until the victories of Sābuhr I (240–272) over Gordian III changed the situation entirely and ultimately resulted in Armenia becoming a province of the Sassanid Empire. The king of Armenia, Tiridates/ Trdat III, at the time still a child, found refuge in Roman Cappadocia and obtained a Roman education there, but regained his throne approx. 286, though under Persian supremacy. Only after Galerius’s victory over Narseh were the Arsacids actually reinstalled in Armenia through the Treaty of Nisibis (297). 4. The decisive event in the reign of Tiridates III (d. c. 330) was the Christianization of Armenia. The first missionary efforts in Armenia, originating from Syria and Greece, were probably made as early as the end of the 1st century ce; legend even makes a link with the apostles Judas Thaddaeus and Bartholomew. The mission had substantial success with Gregory the Enlightener, who, contrary to Armenian tradition (which has him stem from the Parthian noble family of the Surēn), was probably a Cappadocian Greek (from Caesarea). Gregory converted Tiridates to the Christian faith and, thus, became the founder of the Armenian Church. The now widely accepted date of the consecration of Gregory as the bishop of Armenia by the Cappadocian archbishop Leontios of Caesarea, soon after the actual conversion of the king, in the year 314 (not, as often assumed, c. 301), is based decisively on a Greek Vita of Gregory first published by G. Garitte. As the first see of the Armenian Church, Gregory chose Aštišat, located in the region of Tarōn; but by the end of the 4th century, Va∑aršapat (later Ēúmiacin) was the spiritual center of the country. The suppression of various pagan doctrines went hand in hand with the prevalence of Christianity throughout the land, at the king’s behest. The polytheism widespread in Armenia exhibited some native elements, especially, however, the strong influence of early Persian religions, which led to the fact that the same gods were venerated by the Armenians as by the Persians and Medes. This does not mean, however, that orthodox Zoroastrianism (→ Zarathustra) played a role, because the Avesta, the holy writings of Mazdaist religion, was apparently unknown there. Some pre-Christian (Zoroastrian) traditions, e.g. certain feasts along with the associated practices, survived, some even to our times.

384 5. Since the Sassanid Sābuhr III (383–388) wanted at last to achieve agreement with the Roman emperor on all matters of dispute, in c. 387 there was a division of Armenia along a line roughly from Karin (now Erzurum) to Amid (now Diyarbakir). Thus, the four-fifths of the country that came to the Persian Empire, the socalled Persian Armenia, could retain a certain independence for a few decades under Arsacid rulers, of whom Vfiamšapuh (392–414), who promoted the creation of the Armenian alphabet, deserves particular mention. The Persian king Vahrām V Gōr (421–439) finally and completely incorporated Armenia into the Sassanid Kingdom. The roughly one millennium of Armenian political dependence on Iran had intensive influence on Armenian culture in all realms, resulting in particular in a marked Iranization of Armenian words and names. 6. Armenian sources illuminate the history of Armenia only after the invention of the Armenian alphabet by St. Mesrop (called Maštoç). Following the translation of the Bible (which, owing to its elegance and high standards, is considered the “queen” among translations of the Bible), an independent Armenian literature developed, including a significant Armenian historiography. Moses of Choren, who also preserves sparse remnants of the songs with old popular sagas and myths that belonged to the repertoire of itinerant singers, provides a description of the History of the Armenians (Patmu†iwn Hayoç) from the legendary primal era to the fall of the Armenian Arsacids. The History of an author who calls himself → Agathangelos offers the most extensive information concerning the conversion of Armenia, and the so-called History of Armenia, purportedly by → Faustus of Byzantium, reports events of the 4th century ce in the greatest detail. The latter is now more appropriately described as the Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmu†iwn˚) of an anonymous late 5th-century author. Sources: G. Garitte, Documents pour l’étude du Livre d’Agathange, StT 127, 1946 ◆ L. Mariès-C. Mercier, Eznik de Kołb: De Deo, vol. I: Édition critique du texte arménien; vol. II: Traduction française, notes et tables, PO 28, 3–4, 1959 ◆ Agathangelos, History of the Armenians: R.W. Thomson, trans. and comm., 1976 ◆ Moses Khorenats‘i, History of the Armenians, R.W. Thomson, trans. and comm., HATS 4, 1978 ◆ The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), N.G. Garsoïan trans. and comm., HATS 8, 1989 ◆ Bibl.: P. Vetter, “Die nationalen Gesänge der alten Armenier,” ThQ 76, 1894, 48–76 ◆ H. Hübschmann, “Die altarmenischen Ortsnamen,” IGF 16, 1904, 197–490, independently in 1904, repr. 1969 ◆ C.F. Lehmann-Haupt, Armenia einst und jetzt: Reisen und Forschungen, I; II, 1–2, 1910–1931 ◆ R. Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origines à 1071, 1947, repr. 1973 ◆ P. Ananian, “La data e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore,” Muséon 74, 1961, 43–73, 317–360 ◆ M.-L. Chaumont, Recherches sur l’histoire d’Arménie de l’avènement des Sassanides à la conversion du royaume, 1969 ◆ C. Burney & D.M. Lang, Die Bergvölker Vorderasiens: Armenien und der Kaukasus von der Vorzeit bis zum Mongolensturm, 1973 ◆ D.M. Lang, Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, 31980 ◆ R. Schmitt, “Die Ostgrenze von Armenia über Mesopotamien, Syrien bis Arabien,” in: Die Sprachen

385

Armenia

Caspian Sea

Black Sea

es

P un aluni ik k A r Ma

n

0

at

Ku

ik un

Buz

Apa

Ba

da li

M ar

Bzn

hr

Dvin

ra ltn Siunik Amatunik Go Manazkert Mehnunik a The Armenian Church until dp Turuberan eta k i k n k an 607 CE n i cru astaArnay u Ta r o n Patriarchal Seat rd Rsht rchavan unik Dioceses Za Ake Taik attested for the period of the Second Synod n ik M o k k nu k Ayli i Amatunik attested before and after 554 CE h ats Tig Antzev Tmorik attested only before 554 CE ris Tmorik Arnay first attested 604/607 CE

G

p Eu

nd

M

n ik

eva gr

Valarschapat

ik r un

u Pal

n

nd

A rs h a

Base

Van a

Ta i k

50 100 150 200 km

im Römischen Reich der Kaiserzeit, BoJ.B 40, 1980, 187–214 ◆ G. Dédéyan, Histoire des Arméniens, 1982 ◆ R. Schmitt, “Iranisches Lehngut im Armenischen,” REArm NS 17, 1983, 73–112 ◆ R.H. Hewsen, “In Search of Tiridates the Great,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 2, 1985–1986, 11–49 ◆ M. Chahin, The Kingdom of Armenia, 1987 ◆ J.R. Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, Harvard Iranian Series 5, 1987 ◆ R. Schmitt, “Das Armenische in alter Zeit,” in: Lingua restituta orientalis: Festgabe für Julius Aßfalg, ÄAT 20, 1990, 303–310. Rüdiger Schmitt

II. Armenian Apostolic Church Christian penetration into the Armenian-speaking portion of eastern Asia Minor and into the Arsacid Kingdom of Armenia proceeded from Caesarea in Cappadocia, from Edessa, and from the Parthian region of Persia in the late 3rd century, while an earlier expansion of Christian doctrine in parts of the region mentioned cannot be ruled out. This early phase of Christian expansion is the time of the virgins Gayane and Hripsime, later celebrated as martyrs, and their followers. The Armenian Apostolic Church traces its origins to the Apostles Thaddaeus and Bartholomew. In 301, Gregory, a missionary from Cappadocia, baptized the first ruler, King Tiridates III (c. 250–330), who declared Christianity the official religion of the state. Gregory, with the sobriquet “the Enlightener” (lusaworiåç) was apparently consecrated bishop in Caesarea in 314. The Cappadocian thread finds expression primarily in the jurisdictional ties of Armenian dioceses in the epoch before autocephaly, the Syrian thread is more evident in monasticism, while the Persian-Parthian compo-

Source: Atlas der Kirchengeschichte, ed. H. Jedin, K.S. Latourette & J. Martin; Freiburg: Herder, 1988.

nents can be inferred from the older religious vocabulary in Armenian. The historical sources anachronistically mention the Catholicate at the head of the Armenian Church beginning in the 4th century, e.g. in reference to Sahak I (373–377). Yet, the Armenian bishops stood under the jurisdiction of Caesarea until the middle of the 5th century. The Greek term “katholikos” originated in the practice of the church in the Persian Empire. In the early phase of the development of the Christian church in Armenia, the king and nobility proposed candidates who were consecrated in Caesarea. Bishops were married in accordance with apostolic canon 5. It seems that some bishoprics had hereditary succession without regard for the canonical age of the office-holder. The emancipation of the Armenian Church from the Metropolitan see of Caesarea began with the creation of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop-Maštoç and the Catholicos → Isaac the Great (348–439) at the beginning of the 5th century. Though Sahak installed bishops in 429 without the participation of the Metropolitan of Caesarea, this does not signify a breach with the imperial church. Later, Sahak turned to Patriarch → Produs of Constantinople (434–446), and in the late 5th century, Armenian scholars were occupied with translations, vast in scope, from the Greek in the spirit of the so-called Hellenophile School. The Armenian national synod of Sahapivan (444) dealt with church discipline and the struggle against Mazdāism (→ Ahura Mazdā). From 471, the Catholicos resided in Dvin, capital city of Sasanian Armenia. A synod held in Dvin in 506, in which the heads

Armenia

386 Varna

Georgia

Philippopolis Trapezus Constantinople

nti

Byza

Erzerum

Sebaste

( )

Caesarea

s

i

M

en

a

m

Ar

Seleucia

Tarsus

Sis

of Antioch

of the Georgian and Caucasian-Albanian Churches participated, condemned Nestorian doctrine (→ Nestorius). Only in 551 did the Synod of Dvin, under Catholicos Nerses II (548–557) with participation from Syria, abandon communion with the churches of Jerusalem and Constantinople and reject the dogma of Chalcedon (→ Chalcedonian Definition) under the influence of → Julian of Halicarnassus (1st half of the 6th cent.). To reinforce this, the Armenian era was introduced on Jul 11, 552. Contrary to the decisions of the Second Synod of Dvin, there arose a strong opposition, especially in the east, in Siunik, and in the sister church of Caucasian Albania, which rejected the break with the imperial church. From this time onward, both in the east and in the region bordering western Georgia (Tai˚), there was a varying number of bishoprics in the Armenian Church, that stood in communion with the Byzantine Church and were called Chalcedonites or Tzates. Their liturgy did not differ from that of the Armenian Apostolic Church; attempts by a monk, Simeon of P∑ndzahan˚, in northwestern Armenia around the middle of the 13th century to translate Byzantine liturgical books from Georgian into Armenian were unsuccessful. Under Emperor Maurikios (582–602), Byzantium attempted to regain the eastern regions for the Orthodox faith. This attempt led to the recognition of the Chalcedonian dogma by the Georgian Catholicos Kiwrion and to a breach with the Armenian Church. Emperor Herakleios

rs

ia

Salamas

M

Mardin

os

ul

leppo

Euphrates

Tig ri

s

Laodicea

County of Tripolis

( )

Cyprus

Source: Atlas der Kirchengeschichte, ed. H. Jedin, K.S. Latourette, J. Martin; Freiburg: Herder, 1988.

Apamea Edessa

Anabarza Corycus Mamestia A Princedom Antiochia

Marazgirt

nate Sulta at il of Kh

Samosata

Zovk Rom-Gla

Pe

Zarevand

Martyropolis

r ino

Siunik

Nachitshevan

Taron

( )

Arsamosata

( )

Dvin

Sultanate of Iconium

Mendere

Seat of the Armenian Catholicate Dioceses and Monasteries (between parenthesis, when its city centre remains unknown) Major Armenian Communities Political subdivision

Ani

Theodosiopolis

Kiz

The Armenian Church toward the end of the 12th century CE

Haghbat Sanahin

Kars

Emirate of

Neocaesarea

ak il Irm

um

Mogleana Thessalonica

A l a( ) nia

Tiflis

Kingdom of Jerusalem

Jerusalem

(610–641) wanted to continue the work of union after an Armeno-Syrian Synod in Persian Ktesiphon had joined the → Monophysite party in 613. Patriarch → Photius of Constantinople undertook a further attempt at union with the Armenian Church in 872, whereupon Catholicos Zacharias I (855–876) responded with the Synod of Sirakawan in 862, in which the emissary of Photius, Johannes, archbishop of Nicea, participated. The tolerance toward Monophysites proclaimed there was not convincing, however. The expansion of the Seldjuks in Asia Minor after the fall of Ani, the capital city of the Armenian Kingdom of the Bagratides, in 1045, forced part of the Armenian population to abandon the annexed territory around Lake Van and to move to Cilicia, where they founded a new state which existed until the capitulation of King Leon V to the Mamelukes in 1375, opening an epoch of rapprochement to the West and the Crusader states, and thus to Catholic theology. Jurisdictional divisions in the church accompanied the political division of the state. The Catholicos joined the emigration and, after several changes, finally took up residence in Sis in the Taurus. In the course of the flourishing of an Armenian part of the state in Vaspurakan, bishop Davit established himself in the region between Lakes Van and Urmia after the death of Catholicos Basilius I Aneçi (1105–1113) as a rival of Catholicos Gregor III Pahlavuni (1113–1166) in A∑†amar and claimed the office of Catholicos. The schism

387 endured even after the return of Catholicos Kirakos I Virapeçi (1441–1443) in 1441 from Sis to Ēúmiacin. Many attempts to reconcile the dual offices remained without success until the death of Catholicos Xaåçatur II Siroyan (1864–1895) of A∑†amar. After the return of the Armenian emissaries to the Council of Florence, the anti-unionist circles in eastern Armenia placed all their hopes on regaining the head of the Armenian Church in the ancestral see of Ēúmiacin on the plane of Arafat. In 1446, the Armenians in Cilicia founded the Catholicate of the “Great House of Cilicia,” in the person of Karapet I Evdogaçi (1446–1477), which, from a dogmatic perspective, is at one with the Catholicate of Ēúmiacin. The Armenian presence in Jerusalem can be traced back into the 5th century. After the Second Synod of Dvin in 506, the Armenian colony in Jerusalem remained in the lap of Orthodoxy. Only the persecutions of the Monophysites under Justinian I (527–567) caused the Armenian colony in the Holy Land to break off its ties to the Greek patriarchate. According to tradition, a declaration by Khalif aUmar in 638 installed bishop Abraham, the head of the Armenian community in Jerusalem, as the spiritual leader of the Armenian community and the other Monophysite groups and named him patriarch. The Armenian hierarchy in Jerusalem before Abraham remains obscure; the declaration of aUmar is considered apocryphal, especially since Abraham’s successors did not use the title patriarch. Nonetheless, the position of the Armenian leader in Jerusalem paralleled that of the Greek patriarch. In the time of the Cilician Kingdom, the Armenian see of Jerusalem remained firm in the ancestral faith with no approach to Latin notions. The jurisdictional release of the Armenian parish in Jerusalem from the contemporary Catholicate in Sis occurred in 1311 under bishop Sargis, who, along with his clergy, did not recognize the decisions of the Latinophile Synod of Sis in 1307. Catholicos Constantine III Kesaraçi (1307–1322) did not break with Jerusalem, but agreed to an autonomy of the Jerusalem see supported by civil rulers. From this point onward, the Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem confirmed by Khalif or Sultan was the spiritual leader of the Monophysites within the borders of the Sultanate of Egypt. In the Ottoman era, his jurisdiction was extended further. When Sultan Mehmed II established an Armenian patriarchate in Constantinople in 1461 and entrusted bishop Hovakim of Brussa with this office, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire acquired a leader in accordance with the → millet system, who functioned, in addition, as the representative of the see of Ēúmiacin and thus ranked above the patriarch of Jerusalem in importance. The academic institutions of the various jurisdictions should also be emphasized. The Gēorgean

Armenian Monasteries Academy in Ēúmiacin, founded in 1869 by Catholicos George IV Mecagorc, existed until 1919. The Catholicate of Cilicia had a seminary in Antelias at its disposal. The patriarchate of Constantinople opened the church Academy of Armaš in Nicomedia in 1889. In Jerusalem, clergy are trained in the monastery of St. James. S. Weber, Die katholische Kirche in Armenien, 1903 ◆ J. Mécérian, Histoire et institutions de l’église arménienne, 1965 ◆ M. Krikorian, “Die Geschichte der Armenisch-Apostolischen Kirche,” in: F. Heyer, ed., Die Kirche Armeniens, KW 18, 1978, 29–58 ◆ M. van Esbroek, “La naissance du culte de saint Barthélemy en Arménie,” REArm 17, 1983, 171–205 ◆ K. Beledian, Les Arméniens, Fils d’Abraham, 1994 ◆ J.P. Mahé, “Die armenische Kirche von 611–1066,” in: Bischöfe, Mönche und Kaiser (642– 1054), ed. G. Dagron, P. Riché & A. Vauchez, Die Geschichte des Christentums 4, 1994, 473–542 ◆ A.A. Bozoyan, Hay-byuzandakan ekełeçakan banakçu†yunneri vaveragrerə (1165–1178 ††), 1995 ◆ C. de Lamberterie, “Le nom de l’évangile en arménien,” in: Il Caucaso: cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (secoli IV–XI), Settimane di studia del Centro italiano di studi sull’ alto Medioevo 43, 1996, 779–828 ◆ H.R. Gazer, Die Reformbestrebungen in der Armenisch-Apostolischen Kirche im ausgehenden 19. und im ersten Drittel des 20.Jh., 1996. Christian Hannick

Armenian Monasteries . Some 1000 Armenian Monasteries are known from various sources, especially in the territory of modern Armenia, in eastern Turkey, in the Karabach Mountains, in the autonomous region of Naxicevan, in Georgia and Azerbaijan, in northern Iran, in the Crimea, in southern Russia (Rostov), on Cyprus, in Jerusalem, in Galicia, in Venice, and in Vienna. Today the monastic life is practiced in a dozen monasteries at most. The oldest establishments go back to the 4th century. Armenian monasticism blossomed in the 12th–14th centuries. Monastic establishments of Syrian and Byzantine origin can be identified in the epoch before the independence of the Armenian Church after the Councils of Dvin in 506 and 555. The circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Byzantine monastery of the Mother of God in Colonia near Giresun are more tangible historically than those associated with the monastery of St. Jacob of K’esun near Adiyaman (Turkey) and the monastery of the Forty Martyrs of Karin near Erzurum. The Mother of God monastery originated c. 490, was occupied by Greek monks until the 10th century, was subject to the Armenian Church from about the 11th to the 17th century, perhaps under the Chalcedonians (→ Chalcedon), and then, until its dissolution in the 20th century, was once again in Greek hands. The monastery of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste near Sivas traces back to Byzantine establishment in the 11th century. Until the 14th century, it was also the center of Armenian monasticism. In the border region of Georgia, near Tumanyan, the Armenian-Georgian

Armenian Script/Armenian Literature

388

monastery of the Mother of God of Axt’ala has existed since the 13th century. The monastery of St. Gregorios of Amaras near Martuni in the Karabach Mountains is among the oldest establishments. The famed monasteries of St. Hfiip’simē and St. Gayanē in Ēúmiacin (→ Echmiadzin) date from 618 and 630, respectively; the Holy Cross monastery on the island of A∑t’amar in Lake Van, for a time the seat of the catholicosates, was established in the years 915–921. The ArmenianCatholic congregation of the → Mechitarists, founded in 1701, played a definitive role in the renaissance of Armenian culture beginning in the 18th century.

Literatur,” HO I, 7, 1963, 156–272 ◆ M. Abegjan, Istorija drevnearmjanskoj literatury, 1975 ◆ M.Nichanian, Ages et usages de la langue arménienne, 1989 ◆ L. Burgmann & H. Kaufhold, Bibliographie zur Rezeption des byzantinischen Rechtes im alten Rußland sowie zur Geschichte des armenischen und georgischen Rechtes, 1992 ◆ C. Renoux, “Langue et littérature arménienne,” in M. Albert, ed., Christianismes orientaux, 1993 ◆ R.W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 AD, 1995 ◆ C. Zuckermann & M.E. Stone, A Repertory of Published Armenian Translations of Classical Texts, 1995 ◆ N. Trunte, “Ex Armenia lux,” Palaeoslavica 5, 1997, 31–57. Christian Hannick

G. Amaduni, Disciplina armena, vol. II, 1940 ◆ V. Inglisian, Hundertfünzig Jahre Mechitharisten in Wien (1811–1961), 1961 ◆ J. Mécérian, Histoire et institutions de l’église arménienne, 1965 ◆ V.G. Matfunian, “Der Orden der Mechitharisten,” in F. Heyer, ed., Die Kirche Armeniens, 1978 ◆ I. Havener, “The Prologue to the Rule of Benedict,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 3, 1987, 35–62 ◆ M. Thierry, Répertoires des monastères arméniens, 1993. Christian Hannick

I. Origins and Spread – II. Great Britain – III. North America

Armenian Script/Armenian Literature. According to Armenian tradition, Mesrop-Maštoc. invented the Armenian script around 407. The Armenian alphabet consists of 36 letters, arranged in analogy to the Greek alphabet, although the form of the Armenian letters is unique. Inscriptions from the 5th century attest the majuscule script (Erkat‘agir, “iron script”). In accord with developments in the Greek realm, a minuscule form (Bolorgir, “round script”) was instituted in the 11th century. Armenian literature was born with the Armenian translation of the Bible in the first half of the 5th century. This early period was the origin of the treatise “Against the Sects” by → Eznik of Ko∑b, who also participated in the translation of the Bible as well as the first attempts at Armenian historiography. In the time of the Hellenophile School (c. 570–610), activity in translating from Greek and Syriac attained significant levels. Almost the entirety of patristic Greek and Syriac literature before the Council of → Chalcedon, as well as all the ancient authors such as → Aristotle, Dionysius Thrax, Galen and Jewish authors such as → Philo of Alexandria were translated. In the period of the Cilician kingdom, the Fratres Unitores, primarily → Dominicans, produced copious translations from the Latin (e.g. → Thomas Aquinas). Literature originally in Armenian encompassed all branches of theological inquiry, church law, hagiography, liturgical poetry, and religious lyrics, but also, in relatively significant scope, profane disciplines such as historiography (to the 17th century), geography, philosophy, medicine, and poetry. The → Mechitarist Congregation inaugurated a renaissance of Armenian literature at the beginning of the 18th century, first in Venice, then also in Vienna. M.A. van den Oudenrijn, Linguae haicanae scriptores Ordinis praedicatorum, 1960 ◆ V. Inglisian, “Die Armenische

Arminians

I. Origins and Dissemination The public criticism of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (→ Predestination: II, III) by J. → Arminius was increasingly associated after his death (1609) with church-political and general political motives and opened up a dynamic which created a deep split in the Reformed churches of the Dutch General States for around a decade. The orthodox Calvinist opponents of the Arminians, led theologically by F. → Gomarus, fought against the Arminians’ thoroughly “modernizing” tendency, esp. with regard to their allowing the possibility that a person could resist grace and fall away from the faith, which could not be reconciled with strict predestinationism, viewing this as Semipelagianism (→ Pelagius) and Libertinism. The term “Remonstrants,” the customary term for Dutch Arminians, goes back to a definitive Remonstratie authored in 1610 by the court preacher Moritz van Oranien and Arminius’s friend J. → Uytenbogaert. The district advocate of the Province of Holland, J. van → Oldenbarnevelt, presented this 5-article document, signed by 44 pastors and demanding a revision of the applicable confession (Confessio Belgica [→ Confession: I], → Heidelberg Catechism), to the Federation of Dutch States. The Remonstrants, supported by the theologian S. → Episcopius and the lawyer H. → Grotius, distinguished between an eternal election ad salutem and an election ad fidem. The concern was to maintain the universal saving significance of Christ’s death for all people while at the same time providing a theological basis for the possibility of apostasy by believers. The dispute was extended on the appearance in 1611 of the Contraremonstratie penned by Gomarus. The contraRemonstrant Supralapsarianism, which became an article of faith at the Synod of → Dort in 1618/19, insisted on the independence of the divine decree of election from faith, the exclusive saving significance of the death of Christ for the elect only and the irrestible power of grace. The escalation of the conflict came at the time of the 12-year armistice between the United Provinces and

389 Spain (1609–1621). On the home front, the Arminians/ Remonstrants led by von Oldenbarnevelt stood for the autonomy of the provinces, esp. of Holland, against centralization tendencies of the governor and commanderin-chief of the armed forces of the United States General, Count Moritz of Nassau-Orange (1567–1625). In foreign policy, the Arminians aimed at an alliance with France and a peace with Spain, present in the southern Low Countries, while the contra-Remonstrants, led from 1617 by Moritz of Orange, sought a tie with the English king → James I, who despite Grotius’s attempts at mediation was fixed on an anti-Arminian course, and to continue the war against Spain. The convening of a national synod, which for years Oldenbarnevelt had been able to prevent, came about after Moritz’s intervention in the Assembly of the States General in 1618 in Dordrecht. Oldenbarnevelt was arrested and executed for treason in 1619; other leading Remonstrants, among them Grotius, were arrested, and the teachings of the Arminians were condemned. Approximately 200 Remonstrant pastors were banished, being permitted to return only ten years later. In the “Remonstrant Brotherhood” founded in Antwerp in 1619 and consolidated by a confession authored by Episcopius in 1622, a Reformed-Remonstrant church was formed, which is still extant today, since 1634 with its own theological seminary in Amsterdam. A key role was evidently played in the international spread of Arminians by the Remonstrant exiled community in Friedrichstadt an der Eider, in SchleswigHolstein, where dissidents from the whole of Europe found refuge and lived together according to the principles of tolerance. The theological teaching of the Arminians, largely free of confession-theological positionalism, exposed the leading theologians of the Amsterdam seminary (S. → Curcellaeus, P. van → Limborch, J. → Clericus) to suspicions of → Socinianism. In their intensive regard for biblical-humanistic traditions in the Erasmian tradition ( J.J. → Wettstein, D. → Wyttenbach) we may see a specific Arminian contribution to a Protestant religious culture which transcends denominational boundaries and affirms dialogue with contemporary thought. Sources: Acta Synodi Nationalis, 1620 ◆ Acta et Scripta Synodalia Dordracena, 1620 ◆ A.A. Cattenburgh, Bibliotheca scriptorum Remonstrantium, 1728 ◆ J. Reitsma & S.D. van Veen, eds., Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden gehouden in de Noordelijke Nederlanden gedurende de jaren 1572–1620, 1892/99 ◆ J.N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, ed., De Nederlandse Belijdenisgeschriften in authenticke teksten met inleiding en tekstenvergelijkingen, 21976 ◆ Bibl.: O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, vol. III: Die reformierte Theologie, 1926, 339–372 ◆ P. Geyl, The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century, vol. I: 1609–1648, 1961 ◆ G.J. Hoenderdael, “Remonstratie en Contra-remonstratie,” NAKG NS 51, 1970, 49–92 ◆ A.T. van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen. Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt, 1974 ◆ G.J. Hoenderdaal,

Arminians “Arminius/Arminanismus,” TRE IV, 1979, 63–69 ◆ F. Petri, Kirche und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in deutschen und niederländischen Städten der werdenden Neuzeit, 1980 ◆ A.P.F. Sell, The Great Debate. Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, 1982 ◆ R.A. Muller, “The Federal Motif in 17th Century Arminian Theology,” NAKG NS 62, 1982, 102–122 ◆ A.E.M. Jansen & P.J.A. Nissen, “Niederlande, Lüttich,” in: A. Schindling & W. Ziegler, eds., Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung, vol. III, KLK 51, 1991, 200–235 (bibl.). Thomas Kaufmann

II. Great Britain The English Reformation began under strong Calvinist influence. It could be assumed that the → Church of England would be a Reformed Church, Swiss style. The 17th article of both the Forty-two Articles (1553) and the Thirty-nine Articles (1563), “Of Predestination and Election,” made this explicit. As early as 1546, however, a vigorous Arminian-like alternative to Calvinist soteriology was being taught in separatist conventicles by a group known as Freewillers. The doctrine of predestination, one of them said, was more fit for devils than for Christians. The Freewillers denied the doctrine of → original sin and held that → predestination is conditional. Upon the succession of → Mary I of England, the Freewillers along with the Calvinists, whom they had attacked, were among the Protestants put in prison. From prison they continued their writing, opposed by Calvinists who were also in prison. Before their controversy could be resolved, both parties were put to death in the Marian persecution. With the return to Protestantism under → Elizabeth I, the issue of predestination was lost amid other issues that divided the church. The Elizabethan church was unsure of its own identity. The Thirty-nine Articles, broadly Calvinist, also set forth Catholic elements, including a continuity of bishops, priests, and deacons and a view of sacraments with Catholic overtones. The → Book of Common Prayer, on the other hand, was more Catholic, with a liturgy based on the Mass, a high view of (two) sacraments, and, by implication, vestments and ceremonies not far removed from pre-Reformation Catholicism. It was nevertheless Protestant in its elimination of veneration and invocation of saints and observance of non-biblical holy days. By the end of the 16th century, the English Church was polarized between Calvinists, now called → Puritans, and a High Church party (→ High Church Movement). The Puritans sought to make the Church of England into a national Presbyterian church with a Calvinist theology. The High Church party supported the Elizabethan settlement with its episcopal polity, liturgy, vestments, and alliance with the Crown. Until late in Elizabeth’s reign they made no overt challenge to the Calvinist doctrine of Article 17. The dissent of the Freewillers over predestination was apparently forgotten. In the 1590s,

Arminians however, the predestinarian controversy broke out again, this time at Cambridge. A Calvinist soteriology was expounded by W. → Perkins. Challenging Perkins was the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, the Frenchborn Peter Baro (1534–1599). The views of Baro, similar to what Jacobus Arminius would be teaching in Holland later, found favor with the bishop of London, R. → Bancroft. The turning of the tide from an assumed Puritan Calvinism to non-predestinarian High Church views alarmed the Puritans. In Apr 1603, as James I made his way to London, he was presented the Millenary Petition, presumably by a thousand clergy, intended to add the nine Lambeth Articles to the Thirty-nine Articles (→ Lambeth Conference). It was an unsuccessful attempt to counteract the late Baro’s influence with a high (supralapsarian) Calvinism. In the meantime there was a growing awareness of Arminius in England. As a Reformed pastor in Amsterdam from 1588 to 1603, Arminius had been following the course of English Reformed theology, and his preaching was attracting favorable attention from English visitors. His professorship at Leiden from 1603 until his death in 1609 established the precedent that a critic of Calvinist predestination theory could hold a chair in a Reformed university. Until Arminius’s death, however, very little of his writings had been published, not even his most definitive essay, A Modest Examination of [William] Perkins’s Pamphlet. Thanks to a strange action of James I, all that would change. In the Netherlands, Arminius’s supporters, now called the Remonstrants, sought the appointment of an Arminian to be his successor as professor. Their choice was C. → Vorstius. Vorstius had just issued a treatise that could be accused of Socinianism. The Calvinists in Holland and England seized on this to enlist James I in the effort to block the appointment of the alleged heretic, Vorstius. This spectacle of the British Crown attempting to control a professorial appointment in a foreign university stimulated a decade of pamphlet warfare in both Holland and England. In Holland, Contra-Remonstrants wrote against the Arminian Remonstrants. In England, Puritans attacked the High Church party, now coming to be called “Arminians.” The controversy led to the rapid posthumous publication of Arminius’s manuscripts. Arminius was becoming well known and Arminianism was soon in the ascendancy in both the Netherlands and England. While James I had apparently taken an anti-Arminian stand, L. → Andrewes (1555–1626) and others helped him see that the Trinity was not the central issue. On the doctrines of grace, James came to favor the Arminians. Upon the accession of → Charles I in 1625, and esp. the appointment of W. → Laud (1572–1645) as Archbishop

390 of Canterbury in 1633, the Arminians had come to dominate the English Church. Although Arminianism had been proscribed by Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1619 and the Dutch Arminians deposed, the authority of that Synod was a moot point in England. The ascendancy of Arminianism continued, and the Puritans found themselves beleaguered. Some fled to Holland; many more to New England. The arbitrary measures of the Laudians in England, however, led to the Civil War and the ascendancy again of Puritanism. During the Protectorate, the Arminians were not inactive. The first publication of Arminius in English, in 1657, was addressed to Oliver → Cromwell, who, it was reported, was favorably impressed. The controversialist Peter Heylyn (1600–1662) published a defense of the Dutch Arminians in 1660. The Cambridge High Church → Caroline Divines, to be numbered among the Arminians broadly understood, included L. Andrewes, G. → Herbert (1593–1633), J. Cosin (1594–1672), J.H. → Taylor (1613–1667), and N. → Ferrar (1593– 1637), whose family commune was derided as the “Arminian Nunnery.” Closer to the Enlightenment were the → Cambridge Platonists. Influenced by Cartesianism and in contact with Remonstrants and continental rationalism in general, they promoted toleration and reason tinged with an almost mystical → Neoplatonism. Among them were their primary leaders, B. → Whichcote (1609–1683), J. (1618–1652), R. Cudworth (1617–1688), and H. More (1614–1687). The Restoration in 1660 brought Arminians to power but raised the question of reuniting the church. The bishop of Salisbury, G. → Burnet, in a 1699 treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles, attempted to show that the articles, even the 17th, could be interpreted in both Calvinist and Arminian fashion. This → “Latitudinarianism” did not satisfy either party, and the Latitudinarians were regarded as Arminian. By the 18th century a new wave of Dutch Arminianism was informing the English Arminians. The Theologia Christiana of the Remonstrant P. van → Limborch (1633–1712) appeared in English translation, with supplements from English theologians, as A Compleat Body of Divinity in 1713. It became a standard theological textbook for Anglican ordinands. A few years later, beginning in 1720, there was published an English translation of the Remonstrant Gerard Brandt’s 4-volume History of the Reformation in the Low Countries, an Arminian manifesto in the style of a history. It set forth Arminianism’s soteriology, its distrust of Geneva, its preference for the Greek Christian writers over Augustine and the Latins, and its acceptance of the catholic and episcopal concept of the church. The

391 translation had been recommended by five members of the royal family, two archbishops, many other bishops, fellows of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, and by I. → Newton, among others. By drawing on van Limborch and Brandt, English Arminianism was open to a range of continental rationalism in the tradition of H. → Grotius and R. → Descartes. Grotius, Brandt reported, had proposed that the Dutch Remonstrants seek Anglican orders and become the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Netherlands. J. → Locke, also an apostle of toleration, had corresponded with van Limborch. English Arminianism stood squarely with the Enlightenment in its openness to reason and, in the name of toleration, in its rejection of enforced Calvinist doctrines. Later in the 18th century, Arminianism took a surprising turn under John → Wesley (1703–1781) and his brother Charles (1707–1788). Raised in the English High Church tradition and educated at Oxford, and ordained priests in the Church of England, the brothers set out to promote a Catholic-sacramental spirituality intent on doing good works “methodically.” When, in 1738, they both experienced evangelical conversions under the aegis of Pietism and the Great Awakening (→ Revival), they themselves became leaders of the 18thcentury revival. It was assumed by friends such as G. → Whitefield, a Calvinist, that these → “Methodists” would find Arminianism incompatible with the evangelical message of personal salvation. To everyone’s surprise, the Wesleys remained staunch Arminians, retaining not only its doctrine of universal atonement and gracious free will but also its sacramentarianism and loyalty to the episcopal polity of the Church of England. Their extra-ecclesial “Societies” were reminiscent of Puritan conventicles, but when John Wesley realized that in America the Methodist societies would become a church, he prepared for them a threefold ordination of “superintendents, elders, and deacons,” an abridged Book of Common Prayer called the Sunday Service, and Articles of Religion, reduced from 39 to 25, pointedly omitting the 17th “On Predestination.” This “evangelical Arminianism,” unprecedented in either the Low Countries or Britain, had large popular success in Britain and its colonies. Charles Wesley taught its Arminianism in a vast store of hymnody now used by most Englishspeaking Protestants, and both Wesleys defended their Arminianism in an outpouring of books and tracts. John Wesley launched a magazine for the movement, called it The Arminian Magazine, and immediately began publishing a serialized life of Arminius abstracted from Brandt’s History. The main corpus of Arminius’s writings did not appear in English until 1825 and 1828, with a further volume in 1875. By then, both Anglicans and

Arminius, Jacobus Methodists were losing interest in Arminian dogmatics. British Arminianism remained largely a substratum covered over with new challenges from → Kant and → Hegel, from Anglo-Catholic Romanticism, and from the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the middle class. A.W. Harrison, Arminianism, 1937 ◆ A.C. Outler, ed., John Wesley, 1964 ◆ N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinism: The Rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640, 1987. Carl Bangs

III. North America “Arminianism” has had two principal meanings in North America. First, it was applied in 18th-century New England to dissenters from Calvinist doctrines of original sin, imputation, predestination and free will. Second, it could refer to Anglicans, and, later, Methodists, who held to episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. In Canada, Arminianism was known primarily among Anglicans and American and British Methodists who had settled there. The New England Arminians came out of Puritan Calvinism itself rather than from Dutch or English Arminianism. As their numbers grew and their dissent took many forms, the term was used to designate various factions in the Great Awakening but especially to critics of J. → Edwards. More broadly, it came to refer to those accused of being “Arians, Deists, and rationalists.” Somewhat more precisely it was applied to Unitarians and Universalists, but pejoratively to Baptists and Quakers. The effective advocates of Arminianism in both the United States and Canada were the Methodists, from their arrival in the late 17th century until the present. Their bishops directed itinerant revivalist preaching of the Wesleys’ doctrine of universal atonement to win converts as the nation moved westward. G.L. Curtiss, Arminianism in History, Or the Revolt from Predestination, 1894 ◆ C. Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, 1955. Carl Bangs

Arminius, Jacobus ( Jacob Hermansz/Harmensen/ Hermanszoon; Oct 10, 1560, Oudewater aan de IJssel, Holland – Oct 19, 1609, Leiden). The significance of Arminius lies especially in his denial of the doctrine of supralapsarian → predestination (→ Infralapsarianism) of nascent orthodox Calvinism, which had become systematized as a specific point of doctrine in confessional theology in the final third of the 16th century. This earned him esteem as an advocate of Christianity free from confessional constraint. The Synod of → Dort in 1618/1619 condemned his teaching and that of his followers (→ Arminians). Arminius’ life was shaped by the Netherlands’ struggle for liberation from Spain. Following his education in Utrecht, he moved to Marburg, where he became acquainted with the philosophy of P. → Ramus. From 1576,

Arnaud, Henri Arminius studied at the newly established University of Leiden; a stipend from the guild of merchants of Amsterdam enabled him to study in Geneva (T. → Beza) from 1582, in Basel ( J.J. → Grynaeus), and in Padua (G. → Zabarella). In 1588 he became a minister in Amsterdam. Beginning in 1590, when he was expected to refute universal salvation, especially as taught by the publisher D.V. → Coornhert, Arminius gravitated noticeably towards a critical position on predestinarian particularism; his view was published first in 1591, on the occasion of a sermon on Romans 7, and immediately prompted controversy. In 1603 Arminius became doctor and professor of theology at Leiden. Beginning in 1604, he was embroiled in a controversy with his faculty colleague F. → Gomarus. Arminius, who appealed to Erasmus and Castellio and others, died in the middle of the dispute. At Dort, Reformed orthodoxy decided upon a doctrinal position directed against Arminius’s anti-speculative draft of a doctrine of predestination conceived as the redemptive will of God testified to by Christ and directed to all humans, and rejected his conviction that God affords all humanity the possibility of accepting grace or turning it down. Works: Jacobi Arminii Disputationes publicae et privatae, 2 vols., 1610 ◆ J. Arminius, Opera Theologica, 1629, 31635 ◆ The Works of Arminius, trans. J. Nichols, 2 vols., 1825–1857, repr. 1991 ◆ On Arminius: C. Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 1971, 21985 ◆ G.J. Hoenderdaal, “Arminius/Arminianer,” TRE IV, 1979, 63–69 ◆ A.P.F. Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, 1982 ◆ J.M. Hicks, The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch, 1990 ◆ E. Dekker, Rijker dan Midas: vrijheid, genade en predestinatie in de theologie van Jacobus Arminius, 1993. Thomas Kaufmann

Arnaud, Henri ( Jul 15, 1643, Embrun, Dauphiné – Dec 5, 1721, Schönenberg, Württemberg). Arnaud was a Waldensian pastor and military leader (→ Waldensians ). He studied at Basel (1662–1666), Leiden (1667/68), and Geneva (1666/67, 1668–1670). From 1670 he served as pastor of several Waldensians congregations, the last in Pinache. In January 1686, when the Savoyard Protestants faced the choice of conversion or exile, Arnaud attempted to persuade his fellow Waldensians to hold out, but soon he was forced to flee to Switzerland. During the War of the Grand Alliance, with the support of the great powers seeking to create a diversion on the strategic flank of France, Arnaud was able to lead the Waldensians back in the glorieuse rentrée of August 1689. In 1689, however, the French Waldensians were ejected once more. In the fall of 1689, Arnaud succeeded in finding a refuge for the Waldensians in Württemberg and parts of Hesse; he became the pastor of the Waldensian colony in Dürrmenz-Schönenberg. H.A. & V. Minutoli, Histoire de la Glorieuse Rentrée, 1710 ◆ T.

392 Kiefner, Henri Arnaud, Pfarrer und Oberst bei den Waldensern, 1989. Thomas Klingebiel

Arnauld, a family from the Auvergne (?) living in Paris after 1547; originally Huguenot, they converted to the Catholic Church after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572. 1. Antoine “the lawyer” (Aug 6, 1560, Paris – Dec 12, 1619, Paris), son of the lawyer and procurator general Antoine Arnauld de la Mothe et de Villeneuve (d. 1585). After the abortive attempted assassination of Henry IV, he became a passionate enemy of the Jesuits. He had 20 children by his wife Catherine Marion, some of whom became leaders of the Jansenist cause: 2. Robert (1588, Paris – Sep 17, 1674, Paris), the oldest child, called “d’Andilly.” As a privy counselor and member of the royal conseil des finances, he used his influential position to support → Jansenism. When his wife, who had borne him 15 children, died in 1637, he withdrew as a solitaire to Port-Royal-des-Champs, the spiritual center of French Jansensim. Collected works, 8 vols., 1675–1681 ◆ On Robert Arnauld: P. Jansen, Arnauld d’Andilly, défenseur de Port-Royal (1654–1659), 1973.

3. Jacqueline-Marie (Sep 8, 1591, Paris – Aug 6, 1661, Paris), called Angélique. She became abbess of Port-Royal, a Cistercian convent near Versailles, on Jul 5, 1602. In 1609, influenced by the preaching of a Capuchin, she turned to a life of strict asceticism and led her abbey back to strict Cistercian observance. Four of her sisters joined her convent, including Agnès ( Jeanne-Cathérine) (b. Paris, Dec 31, 1593, d. 1671), who assisted Angélique in her office after 1620 and served as abbess of Port-Royal-des-Champs 1632–1642 and 1658–1661. After 1619, she was associated with → Francis de Sales (→ Salesian Sisters), whom she chose as her spiritual director, as well as with J.F.F. de → Chantal. In 1625 she founded a daughter house, Port-Royal-deParis, in Saint-Jacques, a suburb of Paris. In Paris after 1635, she took Duvergier de Hauranne, the abbot of Saint-Cyran, as her confessor; under his influence, PortRoyal became the primary center of French Jansenism. At his initiative, Port-Royal-des-Champs served to house the cells of the solitaires (hermits). When Innocent X condemned the five propositions of Jansenism in 1653, “Mère Angélique” and the nuns of Port-Royal, with the support above all of Antoine Arnauld, refused to submit. Works: Relation écrite par la Mère Agnès Arnauld sur Port-Royal, ed. L. Cognet, 1949 ◆ Lettres de la Mère Agnès Arnauld, publiées sur les textes authentiques par P. Faugère, 2 vols., 1858 ◆ On Jacqueline-Marie Arnauld: P. Bugnion-Secretan, La mère Angélique Arnauld 1591–1661, d’après ses écrits, 1991.

393 4. Henry (1597, Paris – Jun 6, 1692, Angers). Studied law and theology; titular abbot of Angers 1622, ordained priest (in Rome) 1624, canon (1633) and dean (1636) of the cathedral of Toul, appointed bishop of Angers 1649, consecrated Jun 29, 1650. C. Cochin, Henry Arnauld, 1921.

5. Antoine “the great Arnauld” (Feb 6, 1612, Paris – Aug 8, 1694, Brussels), the youngest of the Arnauld children, was a leading theologian of → Jansenism, influenced by Duvergier de Hauranne, the abbot of Saint-Cyran. He was ordained priest in 1641; in 1643 he received his doctorate and became a member of the Sorbonne. In his polemical works, including De la fréquente communion, he attacked the sacramental teaching and (lax) moral theology of the Jesuits, but defended no less vigorously the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist against Protestant attacks. After the papal censure of the five propositions of C. Jansens in 1653, which he believed misrepresented Jansens’ text and views, he defended the distinction between quaestio facti and quaestio iuris made by the supporters of Jansens. Expelled from the Sorbonne and stripped of his doctorate in 1655, Arnauld withdrew to join the solitaires of Port-Royaldes-Champs to escape persecution. As one of the solitaires, in 1656 he gained B. → Pascal as an ally; the latter’s satirical Lettres provinciales (1656/1657) brought the Society of Jesus into severe disrepute. In 1679, Arnauld fled to the Netherlands, where he continued to engage in wide-ranging literary activity. Works: Œuvres de Messire Antoine Arnauld, docteur de la Maison et société de Sorbonne, ed. G. Dupac de Bellegarde & J. Hautefage, 43 parts in 38 vols., 1775–1783, repr. 1967 (part 43 includes list of works and biography) ◆ On Antoine Arnauld: L. Verga, Il pensiero filosofico e scientifico di Antoine Arnauld, 2 vols., 1972. Manfred Weitlauff

Arndt, Ernst Moritz (Dec 26, 1769, Schoritz, Isle of Rügen – Jan 29, 1860, Bonn). The son of a serf (under Swedish overlordship), he grew up in a well-established patriarchal rural family. Between 1791 and 1794 he studied theology, history, and classical philology at Greifswald and Jena. After serving as a tutor for Ludwig Gotthard Kosegarten and traveling through Europe, he taught at Greifswald as Privatdozent in history and philosophy. His awakened national consciousness led him to publish works attacking Napoleon; in 1806, he was forced into exile in Sweden but returned to Greifswald in 1801. After 1812 he accompanied Reichsherr vom → Stein on his travels; in 1818, following the defeat of Napoleon, he was appointed professor of history at the newly established Prussian University of Bonn. He was suspended in 1820 for alleged subversive activities; although never brought to trial, he was not allowed to teach until he was reinstated by Frederick William IV

Arndt, Johann in 1840. In the revolution of 1848, he was elected as a deputy in the Frankfurt national assembly and was a member of the circle that offered the Prussian king the imperial crown in 1849. Arndt’s importance lies in his discovery and promotion of German national consciousness, manifested in his passionate hostility to Napoleon. His Geist der Zeit (4 vols., 1806–1818) develops his view of history and calls all Germans to a public-spirited love of their fatherland. His ideal was a self-confident German nation of upright, happy, hardworking citizens (Gundolf ). His vision of a united Christian Germany contrasting with the degenerate French spirit and its brilliant but demonic conqueror made him a resolute advocate of German unity. In polemic, poetry, and song (Katechismus für den deutschen Kriegs- und Wehrmann, 1812; Der Rhein, Teutschlands Strom, nicht Teutschlands Gränze, 1813; Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland? 1813; Der Gott, der Eisen wachsen ließ, 1812), he awakened a political nationalism that was appropriate in its own time (the wars of liberation) but was calamitous for subsequent German history. With this nationalistic stance Arndt combined a strong religious faith (God as creator and preserver of all things) which in the course of his lifetime (under the influence of his brother-in-law F. → Schleiermacher) developed more and more into a faith in Christ with personal assurance of salvation (but without dogmatic and confessional ties). Arndt made significant contributions to the reform of church hymnody (attacking the influence of the Enlightenment and recovering earlier material) and advocated a hymnal comprising hymns of a Christian Germany. His Von dem Wort und dem Kirchenliede nebst geistlichen Liedern (1819) promoted a nondenominational hymnal in the interests of German unity. The common section of the Evangelisches Gesangbuch (1993) includes two of his hymns (213, 357). Works include: Ausgewählte Werke, 16 vols., ed. H. Meisner, 1908

◆ Erinnerungen aus dem äußeren Leben, 1840 ◆ Märchen, 1843 ◆ Gedichte, 1850 ◆ G. Erdmann, Ernst Morits Arndt, Ausgewählte Gedichte und Schriften, 1969 ◆ On Arndt: E. Müsebeck, Ernst Moritz Arndt, 1914 ◆ F. Gundolf, Hutten, Klopstock, Arndt, 1924 ◆ W. von Eichhorn, Ernst Moritz Arndt und das deutsche Nationalbewußtsein, 1932 ◆ J. Paul, Ernst Moritz Arndt: Das ganze Teutschland soll es sein, 1971.

Heinrich Riehm

Arndt, Johann (Dec 27, 1555, Ballenstedt or Edderitz, Anhalt – May 11, 1621, Celle). From 1575 to 1581 (?), this pastor’s son studied in Helmstedt, Wittenberg (?), and in Basel and Strasbourg (without earning an academic degree) → artes liberalis and medicine (influenced by Paracelsism, → Paracelsus), but he did not complete a regular theological curriculum; after his ordination in 1583, he began pastoring in → Anhalt (Ballenstedt, 1584 Badeborn). When a “second

Arnobius the Elder Reformation” among the reformed began with the abolition of → exorcism at baptism, Arndt, who opposed the change, was dismissed. From 1590 to 1599, he worked as a pastor in Quedlinburg, 1599–1609 in Braunschweig, 1609–1611 in Eisleben, and as general superintendent of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, 1611–1621 in Celle. In Quedlinburg, under the impact of the newly inflamed Turkish war in the Balkans, he composed his “Sermons on the” eschatologically interpreted “Egyptian Plagues” (1595/96, pub. 1657), and in opposition to the iconoclasm in his homeland, his “Iconography” (1597). Already absorbed in post-Reformation → Spiritualism, Arndt published writings of late medieval → mysticism (→ Theologia deutsch, 1597, → Thomas à Kempis, Johann von → Staupitz, 1605, J. → Tauler, 1621). From these and other mystical (→ Angela of Foligno) and spiritualist works (Paracelsus; V. → Weigel ), Arndt compiled the “Four Books of True Christianity” (1605–1610), the first of which was revised three times between 1606 and 1607 in response to attacks. Toward the end of the 17th century, it was expanded with the addition of smaller works into “Five” or “Six Books.” The prayerbook Paradies-Gärtlein (1612), volumes of sermons on the Gospels, the catechism (1616), the Psalter (1617), and smaller works including De unione credentium cum Christo; Repetitio apologetica (1620), stem from his time in Celle. Arndt is among the most influential figures of post-Reformation Protestantism. His “Books of True Christianity” and the Paradies-Gärtlein (→ Edification Literature: II) number among the “bestsellers” of Christian literature worldwide (translation into many European, as well as a few non-European, languages). The history of Arndt’s influence on subsequent generations displays an ambivalent image: On one hand, after vigorous conflicts (L. → Osiander, P. → Egard ), a broad movement of church piety and reform, which grew to become Lutheran → Pietism, looked to Arndt; on the other hand, spiritualists (C. → Hoburg ) and radical Pietists reclaimed him as their spiritual ancestor. In recent research, Arndt’s place in the history of the church and theology finds a controversial assessment: Does Lutheranism constitute the roots of his viewpoints or is his theological position more appropriately to be understood in the context of mystical spiritualism? Did he strive for an interiorization of piety as a supplement (“change doctrine into life”; a sacred life in renunciation of the world and self ) to orthodox theology or did he not rather represent the alternative concept of a mystical-spiritualist theology of experience (spirit-produced divine speech as inner “dialogue”; “theosophy”)? Works include: Geistreiche Schriften und Werke, ed. J.J. Rambach, 3 vols., 1734–1736 ◆ Bibl.: J. Wallmann, “Der Pietismus,” KIG

394 4/O1, 1990, 13–24 (bibl.) ◆ M. Brecht, “Das Aufkommen der neuen Frömmigkeitsbewegung in Deutschland,” in; idem, ed., Geschichte des Pietismus, vol. I, 1993, 130–151 ◆ H. Schneider, Arndt-Studien (forthcoming) (bibl.). Hans Schneider

Arnobius the Elder (of Sicca, Numidia Proconsularis). Arnobius, a teacher of rhetoric (one of whose students was → Lactantius), converted to Christianity late in life. Between c. 303 and 310, in defense of Christianity he wrote the apology Adversus nationes in seven books, the last left incomplete. In it he attacks a variety of opponents of the Christians, especially the adherents of pagan religion; the work is dominated by elaborate rhetorical polemic designed to “fling back” (retorsio) the charge of impiety leveled by the enemies of Christianity, but it does not contain a systematic presentation of Christian views. It is generally characterized by copious use of material concerning pagan myths, cults, and ideas of God, as well as an imprecise knowledge of the Christian notion of God and Christian anthropology, tinged with Gnosticism. Book 1 defends Christianity against the charge of being responsible for the misery of the present. Book 2 disputes philosophical soteriology, taking the position that the human soul is not immortal by nature but can become immortal through the grace of the Christian God. Books 3–5 critique pagan religion, whose immoral myths cannot be interpreted allegorically. Books 6 and 7 impugn cultic practices rejected by Christians: temple, images, and sacrifice. The theological inaccuracies of Arnobius have led critics to underestimate his other qualities. Works: CPL 93 ◆ A. Reifferscheid, ed., CSEL 4, 1875 ◆ C. Marchesi, ed., Arnobii Adversus nationes libri VIII, 21953 ◆ R. Laurenti, ed., I sette libri contro i pagani / Arnobio, 1962 (text, trans., comm.) ◆ H. Le Bonniec, Arnobe contre les gentils, livre I, 1982 (text, trans., notes on book 1) ◆ On Arnobius: A. Wlosok, “Arnobius,” Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur V, 1989, 365– 375 (fundamental). Karla Pollmann

Arnobius the Younger (d. after 455). Arnobius, a monk who probably fled from the Vandals invading Africa, lived in Rome after c. 432; he was an opponent of Augustine’s doctrine of grace (→ Augustine). He has been little studied. Two manuscripts are attributed to him: Commentarii in Psalmos (possibly written in Africa before 428), which uses typological interpretation to relate the text, especially messianic prophecies, to NT events, and Conflictus Arnobii et Serapionis, an anti-Monophysite disputation written between 449 and 451 (→ Monophysites). Other works attributed to Arnobius include Liber ad Gregoriam, a message of consolation to an aristocratic Roman woman (ascribed to John → Chrysostom by Isidore, Viri illus. 19), and Expositiunculae, paraphrastic allegorical interpretations of parts of John, Matthew, and Luke. Other works such as Praedestinatus (in 3 books, attacking → Augustine’s

395 doctrine of predestination) cannot be ascribed with certainty to Arnobius. Sources: CPL 393–396 ◆ CCSL 25, 1990 (Commentarii) ◆ CCSL 25A, 1992 (Opera minora; bibl.) ◆ F. Gori, Disputa tra Arnobio e Serapione, 1993 (Conflictus, with a new division into 4 books instead of the usual 2). Karla Pollmann

Arnold, Eberhard ( Jul 26, 1883, Hufen near Königsberg [Kaliningrad] – Nov 22, 1935, Darmstadt), studied theology, philosophy, and education, receiving his doctorate in 1909. Inspired by H. → Kutter, he joined the Religious Socialist movement (→ Religious Socialists). In 1915 he became general secretary of the Student Christian Movement in Germany and in 1916 literary director of the Furche Verlag. As a member of the → Youth Movement, Arnold espoused a radical pacificism and left the established church. From the beginning (1920), he played a major role in the → Neuwerk Movement. At Sannerz he established a settlement modeled after the early Christian communities; in 1926 he established the Rhön Bruderhof near Neuhof-Fulda. When the Gestapo shut down the Bruderhof in Nov 1933, Arnold moved to Liechtenstein. After his death, the work of the → Bruderhof continued in several countries, including Paraguay. Works include: Die Religiosität der heutigen Jugend, 1919 ◆ On Arnold: Eberhard Arnold: Aus seinem Leben und Schrifttum, 1953 ◆ S. Wehowsky, Religiöse Interpretation politischer Erfahrung: Eberhard Arnold und die Neuwerkbewegung als Exponenten des religiösen Sozialismus zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik, 1980 (bibl.). Daniela Dunkel

Arnold, Gottfried (Sep 5, 1666, Annaberg , Saxony – May 30, 1714, Perleberg, Altmark), the son of a Latin teacher, studied at → Wittenberg from 1685 to 1689; there he came under influence of the polyhistor Conrad Samuel Schurtzfleisch (1641–1708). He turned from orthodox scholastic theolog y to → Pietism under the influence of the writings of P.J. → Spener. Through Spener’s influence, he was appointed as a tutor at Dresden (1689–1693) and Quedlinburg (1693–1696), where he devoted himself to the study of church history. As an alternative to William Cave’s presentation of early Christianity, Arnold wrote Die erste Liebe, Das ist, Wahre Abbildung der ersten Christen (1696), in which he envisaged primitive Christianity as the normative ideal in contrast to the corrupted church of his own day. He taught briefly (Sep 1697–Mar 1698) as professor of history at the Pietist University of → Giessen but caused a stir by giving up his position, repelled by the “worldliness” of academic life and influenced by radical associates (Offenhertzige Bekäntniß, 1698). At Giessen he composed his Göttliche LiebesFuncken (1698), a major work of Pietist → lyricism. In De corrupto historiarum studio, his inaugural lecture at

Arnold, Matthew Giessen, he had criticized previous church historiography (→ Church History/Church Historiography); his Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie (1699– 1700, new ed. 1729, repr. 1967) represented an epochmaking new conception in church historiography. In this work, which provoked vigorous attacks (e.g. by E.S. → Cyprian), Arnold sought to present church history no longer from a confessional standpoint but “impartially.” From a spiritualist perspective (→ Spiritualism), he reprehended all forms of objectivization and institutionalization in Christianity (forms of governance, dogmatic systems, ecclesiastical law, formal worship) as signs of the corruption that overtook the church in the → Constantinian era . By taking subjective piety rather than confessional orthodoxy as his standard of judgment, he focused attention on the individuality, motives, and character of historical figures, paving the way for modern historical thought. Returning to Quedlinburg (1698–1701), a center of mystical spiritualism focused on the court preacher J.H. → Sprögel and his wife Susanne Margarethe, Arnold engaged more deeply in the study of medieval and early modern → mysticism. In particular, J. → Böhme, J.G. → Gichtel, F. → Breckling , and the → Philadelphians did much to shape his thought (Das Geheimnis der göttlichen Sophia, 1700, repr. 1963). His → separatism (Erklärung vom gemeinen Sectenwesen, Kirchen- und Abendmahlgehen, 1700) entangled him in the conflicts of church politics. Although hitherto disinclined toward any “fleshly marriage,” in 1701 Arnold married Anna Maria Sprögel and accepted ecclesiastical office as court chaplain in Allstedt (1702–1705); but he did not forsake his fundamental religious principles. As pastor and inspector (superintendent) in Werben/Altmark (1705–1707) and Perleberg (1707–1714), Arnold continued his writing unabated: he edited works of mystical theologians and published his own Historia et descriptio theologiae mysticae (1702, Ger. trans. 1703), collections of interconfessional biographies, a Pietist → pastoral theology (Die geistliche Gestalt eines evangelischen Lehrers, 1704), and several volumes of sermons (posthumously: Theologia experimentalis, 1714). G. Dünnhaupt, Personalbibliographie zu den Drucken des Barock, vol. I, 21990, 314–352 (bibl.) ◆ H. Schneider, “ArnoldLiteratur 1714–1993,” in: D. Blaufuss & F. Niewöhner, eds., Gottfried Arnold, 415–424 (bibl.) ◆ H. Schneider, “Der radikale Pietismus im 17. Jahrhundert,” in: M. Brecht, ed., Geschichte des Pietismus, vol. I, 1993, 410–416 ◆ idem, “Der radikale Pietismus im 18. Jahrhundert,” ibid., vol. II, 1995, 116–119 ◆ D. Blaufuss & F. Niewöhner, eds., Gottfried Arnold, 1995. Hans Schneider

Arnold, Matthew (Dec 24, 1822, Laleham near Staines – Apr 15, 1888, Liverpool), poet and critic. Arnold was educated at Winchester, Rugby, and Balliol

Arnold of Brescia

396

College, Oxford (B.A. 1844). He was elected Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. He served as private secretary to the Marquis of Lansdowne from 1847 to 1851. From 1851 to 1866 he was Inspector of Schools. From 1857 to 1867 he was also professor of poetry at Oxford University, from which he received a LL.D. in 1870. As poet and critic of culture, he satirized the “unrestricted Hebraistic ideal” of his British (Puritan) contemporaries and lamented their failure to take the Greek ideal of beauty and intellect with equal seriousness. For Arnold the aim of culture was perfection of the ideal and criticism the way to attain that. R. Garnet DNB, Suppl. I, 1901, 70–75.

Glenn Hinson

Arnold of Brescia (c. 1100, Brescia – 1155, Rome). Arnold, who may have been a pupil of → Abelard in Paris 1115–1120, was an Augustinian Canon and possibly provost of the monastery of San Pietro a Ripa in Brescia. There, in contact with → Cathari and → Waldensians, he supported the reform program of the → Patarines, opposing → simony and encouraging apostolic poverty. Accused by Innocent II and condemned by the second Lateran Council in 1139, he fled to Paris, where he succeeded to the chair that Abelard had occupied. In 1141 he defended Abelard at the Council of Sens. When → Bernard of Clairvaux attacked him, he fled to Zürich, where he was able to teach publicly, and to Bohemia. Following a reconciliation with → Eugenius III, he went to Rome in 1145. There he joined the revolt against papal supremacy; with his criticism of the Donation of Constantine (→ Constantine, Donation of ) and his demand for reform of the papacy, he soon became a spokesman for the republican movement. He attacked the secularization of the church and the abuse of ecclesiastical authority, and urged the church to adopt evangelical poverty. In 1148 he was excommunicated; in 1155, after the alliance between → Hadrian IV and → Frederick I, he was arrested and executed. Arnold’s disciples, the Arnoldists (condemned by the Synod of Verona on Dec 4, 1184), rejected the administration of the sacraments by unworthy priests and demanded clerical poverty. Arnold and the Arnoldists were among the religious movements of the 12th century that did not espouse heresies but came into conflict with the larger church because they insisted on the radical implications of Christian teaching. Sources: Otto of Freising , Gesta Friderici, MGH, ed. G. Waitz, 1912 ◆ John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, ed. P.L. Poole, 1927 ◆ Gerhoch von Reichersberg , De investigatione Antichristi, MGHLL 3, 1907, 347f. ◆ Walter Map, De nugis curialium, ed. T. Wright, 1850 ◆ On Arnold: G.W. Greenaway, Arnold of Brescia, 1931 ◆ A. Ragazzoni, Arnaldo da Brescia nella tradizione storica, 1937 ◆ A. Suraci, Arnaldo da Brescia, un agitatore del secolo XII, 1952 ◆ A. Frugoni, Arnaldo da Brescia nelle fonti del secolo XII, 1989. Reinhold Rieger

Arnold, Thomas ( Jun 13, 1795, East Cowes, Isle of Wight – Jun 12, 1842, Oxford), headmaster of Rugby College, was educated at Warminster, Winchester and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, entering at age 16. On obtaining his B.A. in classics in 1814, he was elected Fellow of Oriel College. Ordained a deacon in the Church of England in 1818, he moved to Laleham to tutor students privately and to assist in the parish. He received both a B.D. and a D.D. from Oxford in 1828. As headmaster of Rugby College (1828–1842), he continued to emphasize classics but added mathematics, modern history, and modern languages. He was appointed Regius Professor of History at Oxford in 1841 and gave lectures there in modern history. Major writings include an edition of Thucydides, History of Rome (3 vols.), and History of the Later Roman Commonwealth. He died of heart failure in 1842. A.P. Stanley, Life and Correspondence, 1844 ◆ T. Walrond, DNB I, 1912, 585–589. Glenn Hinson

Arnoldi, Bartholomäus, of Usingen (c. 1464, Usingen – Sep 9, 1532, Würzburg). Arnoldi began his studies at Erfurt in 1484, became magister in 1491, and taught philosophy there for 24 years. He received his doctorate in theology in 1514, having entered the order of Augustinian Hermits in 1512. He was preacher in the Augustinian church until 1521 and became cathedral preacher in 1522. In 1525 he was ejected from Erfurt and entered the Augustinian monastery at Würzburg, where he became an adviser to bishop Konrad von Thüngen and participated in visitations to monasteries in the diocese of Würzburg. During the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 he preached in Augsburg cathedral, took part in the → Confutatio of the Augsburg Confession, and wrote against Melanchthon’s Apology (→ Augsburg Confession, Apology). He published important textbooks in natural philosophy and logic as well as commentaries on the physics and psychology of → Aristotle. From 1501 to 1505, he was one of Luther’s teachers in philosophy. In 1516 he turned his back on Aristotle and → scholasticism, devoting his energy to patristics, criticism of immorality in the church, and contacts with humanists. At Heidelberg in 1518, he was not persuaded by Luther’s theology and rejected the Protestant doctrine of justification; he was an opponent of J. → Lang in Erfurt. He believed that a Christian life had to include good works as well as faith and God’s grace. A. Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner-Eremiten, vol. V, 1974, 477, 518f. ◆ R. Bäumer, “Bartholomäus von Usingen OESA (ca. 1464–1532),” in Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, ed. E. Iserloh, vol. II, 1985, 27–37 (bibl.) ◆ A. Zumkeller, “Ein Manuskript des Bartholomäus von Usingen OSA,” AAug 58, 1995, 5–43 ◆ Luther on Arnoldi: WA 63, 50a; WA.B 15, 267b; WA.TR 6, 523b. Christoph Burger

397 Arnoldi, Wilhelm ( Jan 4, 1798, Badem i.d. Eifel – Jan 7, 1864, Trier). After ordination to the priesthood, Arnoldi served initially as a professor at the seminary in Trier, then as a pastor. The Prussian government refused to approve his election as bishop of Trier (1839); not until 1842 was he able to take office. The exposition of the Holy Coat that he organized in 1844 attracted many pilgrims from all over Germany. The pilgrimage to Trier was the greatest mass demonstration of German Catholicism in the early 19th century (→ Vormärz), but it also produced → German Catholicism and significantly impaired interdenominational relationships. In the question of mixed marriages (→ Marriage), Arnoldi supported greater freedom of the church from state control. Arnoldi promoted the establishment of monastic houses and domestic missions in his diocese. He is one of the most important representatives of Catholic renewal in Germany. B. Schneider, “Wilhelm Arnoldi (1842–1864),” in: M. Persch & M. Embach, eds., Die Bischöfe von Trier seit 1802, FS H.J. Spital, 1996, 75–97 (bibl.). Thomas Sauer

Aroer (Negeb), a village in Judah (1 Sam 30:28), is mentioned as one of the locations whose loyalty → David (I) secured by sending them a share of the plunder. In the list of cities of Judah in Josh 15:22 Aroer appears in a distorted form; only the LXX has preserved a reminiscence of the original name by rendering it ᾽Αρονηλ (Aronēl). The extant parts of the Shishak list do not mention Aroer, a conspicuous omission given that most of the cities mentioned are located in the Negeb. The identification of Aroer with ›irbet ‘Ar‘āra in the Negeb is to be discounted, since architectural strata there date back only to the 7th century bce (established by → Hezekiah?). At best 1 Sam 30:28 designates an encampment without buildings. The location must remain open for the time being, although A. Biran and R. Cohen propose to identify Aroer with the adjacent Tel Esdar, which was inhabited at that time but has been deserted since the 9th century. It is possible, however, that the city of ›irbet ‘Ar‘āra, established in the 7th century, adopted the name. O. Keel & M. Küchler, OLB II, 1982, 337–341 ◆ A. Biran, NEAEHL I, 1993, 89–92. Volkmar Fritz

Aroer (Transjordan) (“Phoenician juniper”), situated on the Arnon, is modern ›irbet ‘Arā‘ir, approx. 4 km southeast of Dibon. It was an Early Bronze Age settlement, then a Gadite settlement (Num 32:34) of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age; no later than the time of the Omride annexation (→ Omri) it was destroyed or abandoned by Gad (→ Tribes of Israel). In the second half of the 9th century, it was built up as a fortress by Mesha in order to secure the “road at

Ars moriendi the Arnon,” linking the north and south of → Moab (Mesha inscription KAI 181, 26). It is questionable whether Aroer came under Damascene rule at the end of the 9th century, since 2 Kgs 10:33 might reflect a (postexilic) theological, geographic convention on the expansion of “Reuben, Gad, and (half of ) Manasseh.” Jer 48:19 still refers to Aroer as a Moabite city. The supposed Aroer near Amman ( Josh 13:25; Judg 11:33) is a product of historical-geographic speculation by late biblical redactors (Mittmann, Wüst). Isa 17:1 does not refer to a city called Aroer but to the “cities of the (land of the) juniper.” S. Mittmann, “Aroer, Minnith und Abel Keramim (Jdc. 11,33),” ZDPV 85, 1969, 63–75 ◆ M. Wüst, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments, vol. I, BTAVO.B 9, 1975, 170–174 ◆ idem, “Die Einschaltung in die Jiftach-Geschichte Ri 11,13–26,” Bib 56, 1975, 464–479 ◆ H. Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenischer Zeit, 1988, 619 ◆ W. Zwickel, Eisenzeitliche Ortslagen im Ostjordanland, BTAVO.B 81, 1990, 144 ◆ E.A. Knauf, “Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments,” NSK. AT 29, 1994, 128–132. Ernst Axel Knauf

Arrupe, Pedro (Nov 14, 1907, Bilbao – Feb 15, 1991, Rome). Arrupe entered the Jesuit order (→ Jesuits) in 1927 and was ordained priest in 1936; in 1938 he went to Japan as a pastor. In 1942 he became master of novices and in 1958 provincial of the Japanese province. He became superior general of the order in 1965 and retired in 1983. His openness to the problems of the day and his dialogic leadership style made it possible to improve the order’s image in a time of radical change within the church and society. His primary concerns were integrating spirituality with apostolic ministry, promoting justice, and fighting poverty and racism. Works: Als Missionar in Japan, 1967 ◆ Unser Zeugnis muß glaubwürdig sein, 1981 ◆ One Jesuit’s Spiritual Journey, 1986 ◆ Im Dienst des Evangeliums: Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. H. Zwiefelhofer, 1987, Pedro Arrupe: Selected Writings, ed. K.F. Burke, 2004 ◆ On Arrupe: S. Bamberger, ed., Offen für die Zeichen der Zeit, 1986. Wolfgang Seibel

Ars moriendi I. History – II. Practical Theology

I. History The literature on the “art of dying” arose in the late Middle Ages out of the need for lay catechesis: clerics and lay people assisting the dying needed handbooks to guide a meritorious death that would guarantee the salvation of the dying person’s soul ( J. → Gerson, De arte moriendi, 1403). The ars moriendi coalesced with other literary forms (legends, memento mori, imitatio Christi, etc.) and graphic representations (“Ars in pictures,” c. 1450) to produce edifying readings that often

Arsames included a good life as a prerequisite for a good death, and came to be included in many late medieval devotional manuals. In his “Sermon on Preparing to Die” (1519), Luther reinterpreted the genre from the perspective of Reformation theology. Now the focus was on the sacrament as a witness to Christ’s victory over sin and death, strengthening faith against despair. – Protestant treatments of a good death take the concern for a “blessed end” further, employing new genres to reinforce assurance of salvation: hymns on dying and eternity, funeral sermons ( J. → Heermann, Güldene Sterbekunst, 1628), and biographies. The optimism of Pietism concerning the future and the emphasis of the Enlightenment on immortality spelled the end of the traditional ars moriendi. M.C. O’Connor, The Art of Dying Well: The Development of the Ars Moriendi, 1942, (repr.) 1966 ◆ T.S.R. Boase, Death in the Middle Ages: Mortality, Judgment and Remembrance, 1972 ◆ R. Rudolf & R. Mohr, TRE IV, 1979, 143–154 (bibl. and sources) ◆ U. Mennecke-Haustein, “Luthers Trostbriefe,” QFRG 56, 1988, 33–52 ◆ F.S. Paxton, Christianizing Death: The Creation of a Ritual Process in Early Medieval Europe, 1990 ◆ D.W. Atkinson, The English Ars Moriendi, 1992 ◆ K. Schreiner, “Der Tod Marias als Inbegriff christlichen Sterbens,” in: A. Borst et al., eds., Tod im Mittelalter, 1993, 261–312. Ute Mennecke-Haustein

II. Practical Theology Ars moriendi, the artful and methodical consideration of human finitude in the interests of dealing thoughtfully with life and its end, has been institutionalized since the 1960s in the practice of care of the dying (→ Dying, Care of the) and especially in the → hospice movement. The advances of medical technology have increased life expectancy in industrialized countries but have also drawn out suffering and death and furthered the desire for meaningful management of life when facing death, both in the anonymity of hospitals and in the nuclear family with its domestic burdens. “The disappearance of the religious and familial traditions of the ars moriendi made it appear necessary to develop a ‘thanatogogics’” (Petzold, 504), which – analogously to psychotherapy – is intended to enable the experience of death as a meaningful phase of life. At the same time, intensive medical care has called into question the art of managing death, the goal of which has been conscious acceptance of the finitude of life, because the technological extension of life virtually rules out any thoughtful encounter with death. Physicians, patients, and their families engage in controversial discussions of palliative therapies and assisted dying. Philosophical and theological reflections on death and dying attempt to illuminate the dilemma posed by the progress of modern medicine. Christian → pastoral care for the dying and their next of kin offers comfort with the assurance of God’s presence in all forms of suffering and proclaims

398 as hope Christ’s victory over death, thus encouraging a realistic assessment of life expectancy and patience in suffering. E. Kübler-Ross, On Death and Dying, 1969 ◆ E. Jüngel, Tod, 1971, 21983; ET: Death, the Riddle and the Mystery, 1974 ◆ I. Byock, Dying Well: the Prospect for Growth at the End of Life, 1977 ◆ T.A. Rando, Grief, Dying, and Death: Clinical Interventions for Caregivers, 1984 ◆ H.M. Spiro, et al., eds., Facing Death: Where Culture, Religion and Medicine Meet, 1996 ◆ W. Oates, Grief, Transition, and Loss: A Pastor’s Practical Guide, 1997. Reinhard Schmidt-Rost

Arsames → Israel and Persia Arsenius (Egyptian anchorite; 4th–5th cent.). The figure of Arsenius is known primarily from the → Apophthegmata patrum. Later material such as the Greek liturgical sources associated with July 19 and the Byzantine historians merely expand what is said in the Apophthegmata. Toward the end of the 4th century, after holding high office in the imperial court, Arsenius, a Roman senator, withdrew to Scete, where he was a contemporary of → Evagrius Ponticus. Around 410, following raids by Libyan tribesmen, he left Scete and went to Canope, near Alexandria. There he refused to see a Roman woman who wanted to hear one of his wise sayings. Toward the end of his life, Arsenius had two disciples who passed on his sayings to Daniel the Pharanite, who in turn composed a hagiographic outline of Arsenius’s life, recording that Arsenius spent 40 years at Theodosius’s court, then lived 40 years at Scete and 15 in Canope and Troe, where he died at the age of 95. His service as tutor of Theodosius’s sons Arcadius and Honorius is also legendary. He must have died shortly before → Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412/413). Sources: CPG 3, 5545–5554 ◆ Apophthegmata patrum, PG 65, 71–440 ◆ French trans. L. Regnault, Les sentences des Pères du Désert, 3 vols., 1966–1977 ◆ ET: B. Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, 1975. Susanna Elm

Art and Religion I. Religious Studies, Systematics – II. Academic Research Disciplines – III. History – IV. Christian Theology

I. Religious Studies, Systematics 1. Methodology. In defining the relationship between art and religion from the perspective of religious studies, one cannot speak of a universal concept of art and religion on the phenomenal level. To do comparative work, however, sufficient abstract characteristics must be established as a tertium comparationis to enable a systematic examination of the relationship between art and religion. This is possible through a moderately functional perspective that determines the pertinent func-

399 tion of art and religion as well as their contributions to each another apart from their historically and culturally varying manifestations, without ignoring these entirely (on the functional definition of art and religion cf. → Culture: VI). → Cultural history can no longer assume a “pansacrality,” according to which art only began to free itself from religion with increasing social differentiation (on the history of the discipline, cf. Krech). Instead, one must assume that in every cultural stage, but at the latest since early high cultures, religion has shaped only part of the pertinent culture and society and that art, like other realms, has thus enjoyed a certain independence. From this starting point, various constellations in the relationship between art and religion have occurred in the course of cultural development. 2. Religio-historical constellations. In the absence of sources, reconstruction of the relationship between art and religion in the period before the high cultures is possible only by drawing (not unproblematic) conclusions from analogies with current nonliterate “tribal societies.” The example of tribal cultures demonstrates that art and religion can endow crafted objects with a magical function, enabling them to convey knowledge and enhance ritual actions. The cultic use of such objects makes it possible to control the supernatural being present within them. Conversely, individuals are enabled to leave their everyday world behind and transform themselves into divine beings by donning a mask in a cultic → dance, for example, or receiving → visions and → auditory hallucinations while listening to or making music. Art objects (such as divine figurines or → masks) serve in a cultic context to materialize powers invisibly at work in the everyday world, and artistic performance (such as music and dance) serves to activate them. In the ANE, contrary to long-held opinion, we can, because of the occurrence of art in both sacral and profane contexts (jewelry, decoration, etc.), readily speak of the beginnings of an independent realm that is now called art (cf. Cancik-Kirschbaum). The king nullified the difference between profane and sacral art by being simultaneously a priest and a deity venerated in the cult. Those religions that culminate in → Hinduism do not distinguish ontologically between “reality” and “fiction,” but only with respect to hierarchy and “degree of freedom.” Art and religion are also incorporated into this cosmology. The Indian cultic image (arcā) rests on the notion that the deity descends into the world (→ Avatāra) and assumes visible form in order to restore cosmic order. The cultic image accordingly represents the deity or a medium through which the viewer transfers his or her veneration to the deity. Specific rituals on the occasion of the pūjā cause the deity to manifest himself in the image and to perform his protective function.

Art and Religion In Eastern Asia (China, Japan), the viewer ritually establishes the relationship between art objects and religion. Through pyschological excercises such as concentration, posture, facial expression and gesture, the viewer venerates the artwork and what it symbolizes. In classical antiquity, téchnē/ars denoted the skilled creation of objects, and besides artistic production in its more limited sense, also crafts and sciences. Nevertheless, an aesthetic discourse began to develop in ancient Greece that oriented itself toward its own ideals. The statues of the gods were (now) not (any longer) esteemed for their cultic value but for their beauty. The Romans put art in the service of religious policy. After the emperor was elevated to deity, his bust and the sacral architecture of the political buildings represented the → Roman Empire. The distinction between “profane” and Christian art was sharply drawn in Late Antiquity. Out of missionary necessity, for example, → Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 3.11.55–60) and → Tertullian (Idol. 8) accepted pagan art to a certain degree. Non-Christian cultic art, however, was rejected. Despite theological objections, Christian art developed from pagan art in the course of the 3rd century, initially in the form of → catacomb paintings and figures on → sarcophagi. Post-Constantine delight in art, however, did not result in tolerance for pagan art. The distinction between eídōlon and eikØn that emerged in the 4th century was central in this matter. In the 6th and early 7th centuries, images in the Eastern Church became → icons. The veneration of images, based on a Platonic model, sparked the so-called iconoclastic controversy (see III, 2, h below; → Veneration of Images: VI). The iconoclasts (→ Iconoclasm) did not oppose art as such, but only the veneration of representational portraits of Christ and the saints. To a certain degree, they promoted artistic autonomy, while the Byzantine Church fused art and religion in the veneration of icons. In Christianity, the relationship between religion and art long remained linked to politics. Medieval Christianity was largely familiar only with sacral art that depicted the might of the church and the Christian Imperium. Art experienced a thrust toward autonomy in the Renaissance and the early modern period, thanks on the one hand to internal religious processes (e.g. the iconoclasm of the Reformation churches). In addition, criteria independent of religion developed with the discovery of perspective and individuality and with the accentuation of accidentals. The modern concept of autonomous art, independent of other social spheres, emerged in the course of the 18th century (e.g. the veritas aesthetica of A.G. → Baumgarten). The competition between religion and art as a “substitute religion” that developed especially in the 19th century (e.g. the Romantic religion of art

Art and Religion [→ Romanticism], → Nazarenes [IV], → Pre-Raphaelites), is unique to (Western) European cultural history. 3. Possibilities and Problems in Diachronic and Synchronic Comparisons. No religion relates indifferently to art; art, in contrast, is not dependent on a relationship with religion. This asymmetry arises because religious communication (→ Communication theory) is dependent in a particular way on sensory perception in order to render visible what is absent. The polar extremes in the relationship of religion to art are marked by the terms idolatry and iconoclasm. As the history of mentality (→ Mentality, History of ) concerning art and religion well knows, however, art has constantly inspired popular piety. The religions of Egypt (→ Egypt: III), → Mesopotamia (IV, V), the Greeks (→ Greece: I) and Indian Central America in the pre-Columbian era were extremely receptive to imagery; Hinduism, → Jainism, → Buddhism, and Catholicism still are. A marked inclination toward aniconism and the prohibition of sculpture and relief characterizes the theological programs of Judaism and Islam. There the artistic emphasis is on poetry, music, architecture, → calligraphy, manuscript illumination, sepulchral art, and the applied arts. The varying semantic content of → transcendence, e.g. the differing concepts of → incarnation (descent, manifestation, → epiphany, etc.) constitutes a possible point of comparison in the relationship of art and religion. Some semantic systems presume a more or less well-developed cosmological → dualism (e.g. early and medieval Christianity, as well as → Islam). “To take form” can, however, refer to an immanent process of concretion/materialization of otherwise invisible but immanently effective powers (e.g. in Asiatic religions and in so-called primitive cultures). The epiphany of the gods in their cultic images or “indwelling” as a particular form of presence are concepts that seek to assure the authenticity of venerating cultic images (Gladigow 13). A different reference structure is also linked with this difference: a reference to a transcendent world beyond or to something absent (not visible) in the immanent world. The reference structure determines whether art objects can be cultic objects that are venerated or whether they are symbolic or emblematic representations of transcendence, or are entirely rejected from a religious viewpoint. The assumption of pansacrality not only affects discourse concerning cultural history, but also partially determines discourse concerning modern interferences between art and religion. The description of art objects or the process of producing them as religious is, however, predominantly a phenomenon of reception within religious communication and not part of art itself. Genuine fusions appear in the intra-artistic imbuing and surrounding of art objects and processes with religious con-

400 tent (art-as-religion, Kuntreligion) and in the internal aestheticization of religious content (sacral art, aesthetic religion). H. Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte: Bilderkämpfe von der Spätantike bis zur Hussitenrevolution, 1975 ◆ H. Belting, Bild und Kult: eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst, 1990; ET: Likeness and Presence, 1994 ◆ H. Feld, Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens, 1990 ◆ B. Gladigow, “Kultbild,” HRWG IV, 1998, 9–14 ◆ E.C. Cancik-Kirschbaum, “Religionsgeschichte oder Kulturgeschichte? Über das Verhältnis von Religion und Kunst im Alten Orient,” in R. Faber & V. Krech, eds., Kunst und Religion: Studien zur Kultursoziologie und Kulturgeschichte, 1999, 101–118 ◆ V. Krech, “Die Geburt der Kunst aus dem Geist der Religion? Verhältnisbestimmungen von Kunst und Religion um 1900,” ibid., 21–49. Volkhard Krech

II. Academic Disciplines The relationship between art and religion cannot be assigned to a single discipline. Even today, with the exception of Christian → archaeology ( III), there are no university chairs devoted explicitly to this relationship. The topic of art and religion appears as a component of the study of art and the humanities, as well as theology and religious studies, and is treated primarily historically. Within theology, liturgics, church history, and pastoral theology, in particular, deal with art and religion. A priori, cross-disciplinary approaches are desirable, linking both religio-theological and art historical/historical subjects and questions. Depending on how the term “art” is understood, philology, architecture, theater, and music, as well as philosophical and theological → aesthetics should also be involved. In what follows, art refers only to art that creates forms (painting, illustration, sculpture, architecture, photography, cinema, etc.). The performing arts (theater, music, dance), poetry, and literature will not be treated here, nor will philosophical and theological aesthetics except as they explicitly confront works of art with religion, artistic production, and its (religious) reception. The subject area, questions, methodology and methods for the relationship between art and religion depend on the individual disciplines and their heuristics. Art history is thus required to address functional and contextual questions (graphic praxis, reception, the artist’s self-understanding, patrons, exhibition, interactions between form and content, form and viewer’s expectations, etc.), whereas theology and religious studies are required to address an educated approach to works of art and their use as well as a preliminary determination of their religious and theological relevance. In the context of Christian theology, various preliminary determinations can be cited – for example, whether works of art are assigned a purely catechetical-pedagogical role or whether they possess a systematic potential that can have an epistemological function. Fundamentally, this

401 depends on whether precedence is given to the biblical → prohibition of images or to other biblical concepts and notions concerning images ( John 14:9; Col 1:15). Finally, we may distinguish between approaches that seek agreement in content between art and religion and pay attention to → iconography (themes and their history, graphic expression of theological formulas), image theory (legitimacy of art, relationship between theologumena and forms of artistic expression), and use (in ritual, instruction, and devotion; interaction between visual, aesthetic, and religious experience) or start from a fundamental structural analogy between art and religion. The latter approach describes art and religion as two cultural symbol systems sui generis, both ultimately shaped by a tension: each in its own way and in differing degree (historically as well) requires mediality and materiality to bring to bear or at least bring into view the invisible and ineffable without becoming totally absorbed in it. Apart from the question concerning the relationship between art and religion in terms of content, such a cross-disciplinary approach makes it possible to contour the unique characteristics of religion and art (Lentes). While theology has long restricted itself to iconography, the relationship between church and art, current liturgical usage, and normative discourse, at present there is a nascent independent “theology of imagery,” concerned with art for genuinely theological reasons (revelation, sacramental theology, communication of faith; Stock, Lange, Hoeps). New paths are also being explored by aesthetics. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Christian art still used its own Christian language to mark its Christian identity. More recent approaches start from the idea that the graphic arts reveal the “religious awareness of structure” and should be considered an “organon of religious culture” as an essential element in the unfolding of Christianity (Kemp). In addition, art history’s treatment of images in the context of the cult has become central. It distinguishes between an “era of the image” and an “era of art,” dating the transition roughly to the → Reformation. This approach challenges any separation of art and religion, and even any autonomous concept of art, in cultures shaped by religion. The Reformation’s rejection of art for cultic use marked the emergence of art as an independent symbol system distinct from religion, and provided a new model for cultural history’s consideration of the relationship between art and religion (Belting). The increasing openness of aesthetics to a Bildwissenschaft (image studies) (Boehm, Belting) emphasizes anthropological, medial and functional questions, thus allowing a description of the relationship between art and religion based on the mediality and materiality of works of art

Art and Religion as well as the visual models specific to each period and the religio-aesthetic expectations of the viewer. Such an approach permits scholars to interpret works of art in terms of their religious significance and their value for fundamental theologumena (revelation, incarnation, sacrament, corporeality, knowledge of God, vision and reality) and to introduce them into the discourse of cultural studies (Lentes). H. Belting, Bild und Kult, 1990; ET: Likeness and Presence, 1994 ◆ A. Stock, ed., Wozu Bilder im Christentum? 1990 ◆ W. Kemp, Christliche Kunst, 1994 ◆ G. Boehm, ed., Was ist ein Bild?, 1995 ◆ R. Hoeps, “Gebirgslandschaft mit Bilderstreit,” ThRv 96, 2000, 355–366 ◆ T. Lentes, “Auf der Suche nach dem Ort des Gedächtnisses,” in K. Krüger & A. Nova, eds., Imagination und Wirklichkeit, 2000, 21–46 ◆ H. Belting, Bild-Anthropologie, 2001 ◆ G. Lange, “Bild, Bilddidaktik,” LexRP 1, 2001, 186–192. Thomas Lentes

III. History 1. Jewish Art. The existence of a specifically Jewish art and especially of a characteristic style was long a subject of controversy. The spectacular archaeological discoveries and extensive theoretical research of recent decades, however, laid the groundwork for demonstrating the originality of certain works of art from Jewish cultural history. The identifying criterion of an art arising from a religious tradition that developed over four millennia cannot be defined on the basis of a homogenous style. Rather, its identity manifests itself totally in its capacity to translate its particular message into the language of forms. From this perspective, Jewish art appears rich in original creations, a few of which served as models for the art of other religions in its cultural environment. Over the course of history, Judaism has interpreted the biblical prohibition of images in various ways. While originally only the production of idols was prohibited, according to → Josephus (Ant. XVII, 6) the prohibition was also extended to other works of art. The Talmud, however, relaxed the prohibition once again by permitting, for example, images made for scholarly purposes as well as depictions of animals and plants and by prohibiting other depictions only if they were carved in three dimensions, but not if they were, for instance, drawn, painted, or embroidered. a. Jewish Art to the Second Temple Period. The exodus from Egypt and the sojourn in the wilderness put their special impress on the origin of the fundamental notion that would forever define the fate of the new religion: the transcendence of God, whose being lies beyond the world of forms. Based on this idea, a new form of sanctuary was conceived, whose → holy of holies (inner sanctuary), reserved for the deity, had to remain vacant. The → “tabernacle” erected in the wilderness – also called the “tent of meeting” – was a temple that could be dismantled, common among early and modern

Art and Religion nomadic tribes. It consisted of a composite wooden frame that formed three spaces: the holy of holies, where the ark of the covenant (→ Ark of YHWH), containing the tables of the law that Moses received on Sinai was placed; the holy place, in which the seven-branch candelabra (→ Menorah) and the table for the bread of the Presence were located; the altar of burnt offering and the basin for ritual ablutions stood before the entrance to the tabernacle. This first sanctuary, crafted by Bezalel and Oholiav, is known to us only from detailed descriptions in the Bible (Exod 25–30), which have inspired artists to create many graphic portrayals (→ Iconography: V ). Solomon (c. 970–931 bce) built the second sanctuary based on this pattern after the Israelite tribes entered Canaan, the promised land. Solomon’s temple consists of three sections: the vestibule (hûlām), the holy place (hêkāl) and the holy of holies (d^vîr). Two columns, Jachin and Boaz, the meaning of whose names is unclear, supported an architrave in front of the vestibule. Despite its symbolic power, the image of the first temple does not appear in Jewish art. After a time of political unrest that included the expansion of the Greek empire, the period of the Hasmonaean monarchy (166–63 bce; → Maccabees) marked the beginning of a new heyday for the Israelite people. The advance of the Roman army eastward and Pompey’s entry into Jerusalem in 63 bce marked its end. In 37 bce, → Herod, an Idumaean installed as king by the Roman Senate, commissioned the erection of magnificent structures, and in particular the glorious restoration of the temple. Until a few decades ago, Herod’s temple was known only from the enthusiastic descriptions of the historian Flavius Josephus (Bell. V; Ant. XV), which have been impressively confirmed by the most recent excavations. The sanctuary rose above a series of terraces surrounded by circular walls. The first forecourt, open to visitors, was bounded by a barrier with steles on which was written a prohibition against entering the interior of the temple. The second forecourt was the “women’s court,” which men in a state of purity could cross in order, finally, to reach the “great gate” (Nicanor Gate) that permitted access to the “court of the Israelites.” The temple rose at the extreme western end of this court. Archaeologists compare this arrangement to a large nave containing the holy place. This, in turn, was separated from the holy of holies, where God was present, by a curtain. The high entrance to the holy place was crowned with a magnificent golden vine presumably hanging from a triangular tympanum. The decoration of the interior consisted of stylized floral patterns and geometric motifs in the style of the period. Herod had magnificent palaces built in → Jerusalem (I, II, VIII), northwest of the Temple Mount, in →

402 Herodion, where, according to Josephus, the king’s grave was located, and in → Masada. The elegant mosaic floors there (white on a black background) are partially preserved. During the Second Temple period, Jerusalem was surrounded by an extensive necropolis to the south, east, and north, containing the tombs of the Bene Hezir, Absalom, Zechariah, and the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene, whom an Aramaic inscription calls “Queen Saddan.” Typical burial objects in Herod’s time were ossuaries for the ritual of ossilegium and clay lamps whose Oriental ornamentation signifies in the language of forms rejection of Hellenistic culture and return to the values of the ancient Near East. The Second Temple period came to an end in 70 ce when the army of Titus destroyed the sanctuary (→ Jewish Revolt). The cultic objects in the temple, which were plundered, are represented on the interior of the Arch of Titus in the bas-relief that depicts his triumph. The issue of a memorial coin also commemorated this event. It bore the impression of a palm as a symbol of Judaism, flanked on one side by a mourning female figure, an allegory of the Jewish people, on the other by Titus in military uniform. The inscription Judea Capta surrounds this image. The fall of the temple simultaneously marked the end of a glorious era and the beginning of a profound change. b. Synagogues. In the area of art, the zenith of rabbinic Judaism manifested itself in two forms: the construction of → synagogues and the spread of Jewish → symbols (XII) via everyday objects. Menorah, lulab, and etrog became symbols of adherence to Judaism. The most important creation of rabbinic Judaism was the synagogue, a new type of religious building corresponding to the new form of religion based on prayer. This “house of prayer” became the location for regular worship and a → liturgy (VII) that took place in the presence of the faithful. This was a revolutionary innovation in the religious life of antiquity, where such a concept was entirely unknown at the time. This type of cultic building, in which people gather and pray in a certain direction (e.g. toward Jerusalem), can also be found in early Christianity and later in Islam. Once again, the originality of Jewish artistic creativity was manifest in its conception. Stylistically, Jews everywhere, as a minority, were forced to adopt the locally dominant style. In the East, in late antiquity, this was the program of the Byzantine → basilica with mosaic floors as its most important decorative element. They depicted either the tripartite universe (earthly world, cosmos, symbolically represented divine world [Hammat Tiberias, 4th cent.; Bet Alpha, 6th cent.]) or fountains of life (?), supplemented with the tabernacle as an identity-establishing symbol (Ma‘on, 6th cent.) or

403 King David with a harp. The frescoes at → Dura-Europos (II ; 3rd cent.) are the sole evidence for biblical murals. In the European → Diaspora (II), synagogue architecture gradually ran the gamut of every style: e.g. Moorish style on the Iberian Peninsula (Toledo 1200, Córdoba 1315), Romanesque (Rouen 1100, Worms 1175), Gothic (Prague, Altneuschuhl, Sopron 13th cent.) and Baroque (in Italy: Mantua 1543, Venice). Beginning in the 18th and above all in the 19th century, we note an expansion of synagogues and, simultaneously, the search for an independent style. Following structures in Romanesque-Byzantine style (Paris, Manchester), then Neo-Romanesque (Nürnberg, Munich) and neoclassical (Bordeaux, Karlsruhe, Copenhagen), this “experimental phase” resulted in the development of an oriental style intended to embody both the oriental origins of the Jewish tradition as well as its specific uniqueness (Budapest 1859, Besançon 1869, New York [Central Synagogue] 1872, Saint Petersburg 1879, Florence 1882). Even in the 20th century, contemporary architecture had its adherents, as attested by the synagogues built by Frank Lloyd Wright (Elkins Park, PA, 1956), Claude Meyer Lévy (Strasbourg 1958) and Norman Jaffé (East Hampton, NY, 1989). In all periods, the interiors of synagogues were decorated with furniture and cultic objects in the style of the structure. c. Manuscripts. In the face of the profound changes brougt about by the Arab invasion (capture of Jerusalem, 638), the intellectual life of the oriental Jews found refuge in the study of Scripture, which was also the preferred medium for artists. In the oriental Bibles of the 10th and 11th centuries, a double-page illumination preceding the text portrayed the interior of the tabernacle in various arrangements (see also → Bible Illustrations: 1, 2). The only color used was gold. Migrations brought this tradition to the West. There the double-page illumination appeared in Bibles from Burgos (1260), Toledo (1277), and Perpignan (1299). The centers of manuscript production multiplied very quickly in the West and offered great variety in genre and style. Typical of Spain are the ritual manuscripts for Passover (→ Haggadah), whose text was preceded by a series of biblical scenes, apparently copied from ancient originals. Another genre, the mahzor, was developed in German countries (Worms, Speyer, Mainz) and contained liturgical texts for important holidays accompanied by illustrations in Gothic style. The names of the artists are rarely known. The few artists known by name were usually Jewish, as their perfect mastery of the script would suggest. A few manuscripts, however, can be shown to have been prepared by Christian artists, e.g. in France (Mishneh Torah, Budapest, Kaufmann Collection, 1296; British Library, Add. Ms. 11639, 13th cent.) and in Italy (Israel Museum, Ms. 180/51,

Art and Religion Leonardo Bellini, c. 1470). These manuscripts attest to continued contact among artists even in times of political unrest. d. Modern and Contemporary Jewish Artists. After Jewish → emancipation (III) (from the end of the 18th cent. in the USA and Western Europe, only in the 20th cent. in Eastern Europe), Jewish artists, including M.D. → Oppenheim, Mark Antokolsky (1843–1902), Maurycy Gottlieb (1856–1879), and M. → Liebermann, endeavored to integrate universal and secular art. They themselves often belonged to the avant-garde of their time. At the end of the 19th century, a few important Jewish artists such as Nathan Altmann (1889–1970), El Lissitzky (1890– 1941) and, especially, M. → Chagall joined the movement of “Jewish renewal” in Russia. A few artists belong to the Cubist group, including Jacques Lipchitz (1891– 1973), Sonia Delaunay (1885–1943), Sophie TaeuberArp (1889–1943), and Man Ray (1890–1976). Others belonged to the Dadaists in Zürich, including Tristan Tzara (1896–1963) and Marcel Janco (1895–1984). Lipchitz expressed his reaction to dawning → National Socialism in his work David and Goliath (1933). It reveals his hope for the coming of a new David who would deliver the Jews from danger. After the war, the trauma of the Sho’ah (→ Holocaust) stamped some of Chagall’s works. He endeavored to strengthen relations between Jews and Christians and saw the founding of the state of Israel as the only justified response to the Sho’ah. Other artists such as Avigdor Arikha (b. 1929) attempted to find an international artistic language by turning to abstract art. Despite their wish for international recognition, many Jewish and Israeli artists connected with their roots once again at some point in their careers by attempting to express their Jewish identity in their art. A few artists in the École de Paris publicly confessed their Jewish faith, among them Chagall and Mané-Katz (1894– 1962), whereas others, such as Amadeo Modigliani (1884–1920) and Chaim Soutine (1893– 1943) chose assimilation. Among American artists, Ben Shahn (1898–1969), Mark Rothko (1903–1970), and Barnett Newman (1905– 1970) did not acknowledge their Jewish identity. In Europe, some 19th-century Jewish artists attempted to assimilate entirely to modern art without regard for their original identity. They included Camille Pissarro (1830–1903) in France, Joseph Israels (1824–1911) in Holland, and Liebermann in Berlin, who changed his attitude after 1933, however. Boris Schatz attempted to bring into being a Jewish art in Israel by founding a national school for Jewish art and crafts in 1906, which he named the Bezalel Academy after the biblical artist Bezalel. In 1920 the artists of the younger generation rebelled against the anti-modernist ideas of Schatz and attempted to create a Jewish national

Art and Religion art that united Eastern and Western schools while also exibiting an admixture of naive art. The proponents of this trend include Reuven Rubin (1893–1974), Moshe Castel (1909–1991), and Mordecai Ardon (1896–1992). The Arab-Israeli wars motivated Jacob Steinhardt to hark back to biblical themes – the stories of → Cain and Abel, → Jacob and Esau and, especially, the sacrifice of → Isaac – to characterize the fratricidal conflict. Thus he wished to demonstrate that Israeli artists should be less concerned with developing a national style than with expressing the particular local context. In no way can these artists be regarded as bearers of an official message. Nonetheless, their art reflects accurately the spiritual world of an entire society. J. Gutmann, Jewish Ceremonial Art, 1964 ◆ A. Kampf, Contemporary Synagogue Art, 1966 ◆ B. Tammuz, et al., eds., Art in Israel, 1967 ◆ C. Roth, Jewish Art: an Illustrated History, 1971 ◆ J. Gutmann, ed., No Graven Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible, 1971 ◆ H. Künzl, Jüdische Kunst von der biblischen Zeit bis in die Gegenwart, 1992 ◆ G. Sed-Rajna, et al., L’art juif, 1995 (bibl.); ET: Jewish Art, 1997. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna

2. Art and Christianity a. Early Church. The early church’s relationship to art fed on the relative use of imagery in early Judaism (see 1 above) and on having to deal with the images of the emperor and the gods in Late Antiquity. Even though recent research maintained that Christianity initially followed the Jewish mother-religion in rejecting images, current thought holds that the Judaism of Palestine, which welcomed images, was one of the roots of the Christian use of images: Galilean synagogues, for example, have narrative image cycles as well as anthropomorphous figures, and the Jewish use of amulets points to an image cult. The rejection of autonomous portrayals of persons, in contrast, was aimed at the pagan image cult (→ God, Representations and Symbols of: III, → Veneration of Images) and was considered a sign of paganism and heresy. This rejection was a response to the ancient understanding of images of the gods and of the emperor, which identified the sculpture with the depicted. Citing the biblical → prohibition of images, early Christianity initially rejected the potrayal of God and Christ (even as a human person), arguing that the deity was fundamentally incapable of being depicted. The suspicion that all art was related to idolatry led not only to refusal to venerate artistic creations but also to rejection of all artistic activity (→ Tertullian). → Clement of Alexandria, → Origen, and others rejected art on moral grounds; they maintained furthermore that works of art, made from inert matter, were incapable of depicting divine and spiritual truths. In the course of the 4th century, especially after the Constantinian revolution, positions shifted. The great

404 Cappadocians (→ Basil the Great, → Gregory of Nyssa, → Gregory of Nazianzus, → Cappadocian theology) even advocated painting cycles and the decoration of churches. Legends telling of images not made by human hands (acheiropoieta) legitimized – in the face of continuing theological criticism – images of Christ and their veneration. Now the conception of an image as a copy of an archetype, based on neoplatonic ideas about images, began to take root (→ Neoplatonism). Attempts to endow the everyday use of seal images with religious meaning and thus Christianize them demonstrate the extent to which Christians felt constrained to come to terms with ancient popular art (e.g. Clement of Alexandria). In all, reservations regarding the cult of images continued to exist, since the true imago, the imago Dei (→ Image of God) is humanity itself. Advocates of images legitimated portrayals of Christ (→ Christ, Representations of ) by appealing to the → incarnation. Furthermore, the pictorial representation of Christ and the martyrs would lead via the eyes to imitation (Basil the Great). The beginnings of a Christian art can first be identified in sepulchral art (sarcophagi; catacombs) and the furnishing of sacral space (→ Dura-Europos: III). From the 4th century on, the martyr cult stimulated the image cult (→ Martyrs, Veneration of ). The rise of monumental image cycles in prominent places (e.g. old St. Peter’s) demonstrates the increasing acceptance of religious art. Statues, on the other hand, were rejected occasioning its characterization as a process leading “from tolerance to demonization” (Gramaccini). Iconographically, a change from portrayals that were primarily symbolic and decorative to primarily anthropomorphic representations took place; it reached its zenith in the images of martyrs and influenced the image of Christ. Objections to the image cult that even led to the destruction of images can be identified throughout the entire period (→ Eusebius of Caesarea [d. 339] against Christ icons; → Epiphanius of Salamis [d. 503]). The position of → Gregory I (d. 604) was momentous: he vindicated the use of images against the iconomachal bishop Serenus of Marseille. His argument that images are the Bible of the laity and the threefold justification for their use (instruction, refreshing the memory, and stimulating the emotions) falsely attributed to him were repeated in this context well into the modern era. The assessment of images as → adiaphora became a central idea in the theory of art. As a result, not art per se but primarily its (mis)use was subject to theological criticism. The aesthetics of → Augustine (d. 430), although it did not consider beauty autonomous, was subsequently to link aesthetic experience with the possibility of encounter with the transcendent. J. Kollwitz, “Bild I (christliches),” RAC II, 1954, 318–341 ◆ H.G. Thümmel, “Bilder IV. Alte Kirche,” TRE VI, 1980,

405 525–531 ◆ H. Belting, Bild und Kult, 1990, 9–134; ET: Image and Presence, 1994 ◆ G. May, “Kunst und Religion IV., Urchristentum und Alte Kirche,” TRE XX, 1990, 261–267 ◆ G. Wolf, Salus populi Romani, 1990 ◆ W. Kemp, Christliche Kunst, 1994 ◆ N. Gramaccini, Mirabilia, 1996. Thomas Lentes

b. Middle Ages. The production and use of art, concepts of imagery, and aesthetics cannot be separated from Christianity throughout the entire Middle Ages. Theological dispute and legitimization, artistic innovations, liturgical use, and religious needs (sacrificial cult, → devotion, → indulgence) are the coordinates within which their relationship was renegotiated time and again, almost always in periods of reform (Carolingian renaissance [→ Carolingians]; 12th cent.; 15th cent.). On the whole, a theoretical theological restriction on the scope of art was at odds with its central role in the furnishing of churches, in liturgy, and in religious praxis (→ processions, → pilgrimage, private devotion), so that it was even possible to speak of the “power of images” and the “powerlessness of the theologians” (Belting). Where art and its use were contested, the issue was less their absolute rejection than the question of the presence of the holy in works of art and consequently a prohibition against their cultic use. As a legitimating topos, the doctrine of a triplex ratio of images, attributed to Gregory I (see above), was repeatedly invoked: instruction, refreshment of the memory, simulation of the emotions). As a further topos, the doctrine of the presence of the invisible in the visible pervaded the discussion, requiring in each case a determination whether it was to be understood as a material presence in the object or as an epistemological act on the part of the observing subject. Central to the practical legitimation of images were the cult of → relics and the many legends concerning so-called acheiropoeieta, images not made by human hands, which were either revealed directly by God (e.g. the image of Abgar) or came into being through direct bodily contact with Christ, like the Vera icon, or through the artist’s eyewitness experience, like the so-called St. Luke Madonna. A first theoretical clarification in the Western reactions to the Byzantine controversy (→ Veneration of Images: VI) was reached by Carolingian theologians, especially in the → Libri Carolini (791) and at the synods of Frankfurt (791) and Paris (825). They decisively rejected the worship (adoratio) of images, and the Caroline Books even disallowed their veneration (veneratio). In the course of the Middle Ages, however, the veneration of images came to be permitted (e.g. → Thomas Aquinas). The actual theoretical contribution of the Frankish theologians consisted in the inclusion of works of art, for the first time, in the hierarchy of the material presence of the holy: only the altar sacrament, the ark of the covenant, and relics bestowed salvation, and to a lesser degree the crucifix, but definitely

Art and Religion not images. In this sense, it was also true in the West that the controversy over images was not simply a dispute concerning their cult but primarily a “dispute concerning the presence of the holy” (Brown on the Eastern Iconoclastic controversy). Wherever a theory of images was debated in the West, the discussion was analogous to the controversies over the Lord’s Supper (→ Eucharist/ Communion: II). From the perspective of practical use, in the course of the Middle Ages images were increasingly equated with the altar sacrament and could, therefore, be understood as a sacrament of the devout. A fundamental change in the use of images began when statuary images (e.g. the statue of Sainte-Foy at Conques) combined corporeal portrayal with the implantation of relics, thus establishing an “alliance of relic and image” that could be transferred in the High and late Middle Ages to the altarpiece and to autonomous pictures (Belting). As vigorously as the 12th-century → Cistercians (→ Bernard of Clairvaux) sought to maintain the traditional prohibition against sculpture, both statuary images and later also paintings depicting persons realistically, the subsequent debate was foreshadowed: now the dispute involved primarily the relationship between image and person. High Scholasticism distinguished between the image in its materiality as a res quaedam (wood, stone, etc.), which had no religious dignity, and its character as an imago alterius (of Christ or of saints), which deserved veneration but not worship (Thomas Aquinas). Nevertheless a vis spiritualis was attributed to images that also allowed them to become material vehicles of the sacred presence. In the subsequent period down to the Reformation, virtus and persona were distinguished, so that miraculous power could be attributed to images but not a personal identity (Lentes). In the course of the later Middle Ages, devotional practice witnessed a growth in the use of images and confidence in their efficacy unparallelled in the history of Christianity. New vehicles for images (e.g. altarpieces), new purposes (e.g. → Pietà), new content (man of sorrows, imago pietatis, Jesus-John groupings, Mass of St. Gregory), and new techniques of reproduction (paper and printing) shaped the whole culture of images in the later Middle Ages. The → Mendicants did more than propagate new images (e.g. stigmatization). The Franciscan movement (→ Franciscans) also introduced new forms of imagery and the establishment of the altarpiece (Krüger); the → Dominicans were the first order to permit each member an image in his cell. In a religious climate of mysticism, devotion, and contemplation, images became preferred sites of prayer, especially in nunneries on the upper Rhine. By the 14th century at the latest, an “alliance of indulgence and image” appeared, whose importance for the increased use and production of images can hardly be exaggerated.

Art and Religion As the image cult grew in the 15th century, so did criticism and attempts to change the use of images and to reflect on it in strictly artistic terms. Flemish painting underscored the contribution of the viewer’s imagination by incorporating portrayals of patrons in formulaic religious images: viewing an image was to bridge the time between the saving event in the past and the observer’s present. Reformers emphasized the moralizing contribution of images and were already adducing all the arguments that scholarship usually attributes to the Reformation. Theologians like → Nicholas of Cusa could employ the potential of images for catechesis, while on the other underscoring their theological and gnoseological contribution to mystical ascent and the knowledge of God. The changed conditions of production and the increased demand for images, in any case, made the period between 1480 and 1520 the most creative and productive phase of medieval art (Moeller). P. Brown, “A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy,” English Historical Review 88, 1973, 1–34 ◆ H. Belting, Das Bild und sein Publikum im Mittelalter, 1981; ET: The Image and its Public in the Middle Ages, 1990 ◆ idem, Bild und Kult, 1990; ET Likeness and Presence, 1994 ◆ H. Feld, Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens, 1990 ◆ G. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, 1990 ◆ B. Moeller, “Probleme des kirchlichen Lebens,” in idem, Die Reformation und das Mittelalter, 1991, 86–97 ◆ K. Krüger, Der frühe Bildkult des Franziskus in Italien, 1992 ◆ J. Hamburger, Nuns as Artists, 1997 ◆ H.L. Kessler & G. Wolf, eds., The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, 1998 ◆ T. Lentes, “Auf der Suche nach dem Ort des Gedächtnisses,” in K. Krüger & A. Nova, eds., Imagination und Wirklichkeit, 2000, 21–46 ◆ idem, Gebetbuch und Gebärde, in preparation. Thomas Lentes

c. Renaissance. Recent scholarship has spoken of a “paganization of the Renaissance” by art history, arguing instead that the Renaissance bore a decidedly Catholic, i.e. religious, imprint (Träger). Although this theory has rightly been challenged, it must be said that scholarship has long underestimated or intentionally overlooked the relationship between art and religion, or between art and the economy of salvation, in the → Renaissance (III). It is true that Renaissance art, especially sculpture, initially had recourse to → antiquity to help it carry out certain tasks (free-standing sculpture, portrait busts); it did not copy ancient models but adapted them, justifying its artistic approach by the claim to outdo antiquity. But the production of art c. 1400 likewise cannot be separated from religious rituals and communal events; it arose predominantly from a complex interaction of religious life intimately intermeshed with political life, an interaction of which social history has long since been cognizant (Burke; Trexler). → Donatello’s bronze David, the first free-standing statue since antiquity (c. 1444/1446, according to Poeschke) and also his Judith and Holofernes (c. 1446–1450) intentionally place religious themes in new expressive contexts (McHam). The works depart from the more restricted church setting in

406 order to activate public space ritually after the model of antiquity. Their religious message is still clear; what is new is that they take on the task of private and communal-public representation. Not until the political upheavals in Florence (1494; 1527) was it clear how closely religious images in public space are linked with political intentions. Thus Donatello’s Judith was removed from the family palace after the expulsion of the Medici and placed on the ringhiera before the Palazzo Vecchio as a republican monument until → Michelangelo’s David replaced it in 1504. The new location also gave his David, originally intended for one of the buttresses of the cathedral, a new republican (i.e. anti-Medici) significance, which was not challenged – or rather turned on its head – until the addition of the pagan Hercules and Cacus group by Baccio Bandinelli (1525–1534). Despite this increasingly independent use of religious themes in public space, however, it must still be noted that the relationship of sculptural art to religion in the context of the church always remained auxiliary. The traditions of popular religious art have continued unbroken, for instance in the sacre rappresentazioni, which (sometimes even today) employ sculptures as “sculptured actors” to represent the mysteries of the faith (such as the → resurrection and → ascension of Christ) in visible form (Tripp). Well into the Baroque period, effigies (Warburg) and the important genre of cemetery statuary also bear unchanging and continuous witness to patrons of religious art who embraced art as the monumental element of a personal assurance of salvation and as the guarantor of a personal earthly memoria (Borgolte). A. Warburg, “Bildniskunst und Florentinisches Bürgertum” (1902), in his, Gesammelte Studien I, 1932, 89–126. 340–352 ◆ J. Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Sculpture, 1958 ◆ idem, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria & Albert Museum, 3 vols., 1964 ◆ R.C. Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence, 1980 ◆ idem, Church and Community, 1200–1600, 1987 ◆ M. Borgolte, Petrusnachfolge und Kaiserimitation: die Grablegen der Päpste, ihre Genese und Traditionsbildung, 1989 ◆ J. Poeschke, Die Skulptur der Renaissance in Italien, 2 vols., 1990–1992 ◆ J. Traeger, Renaissance und Religion, 1997 ◆ S.B. McHam, “Public Sculpture in Renaissance Florence,” in idem, ed., Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, 1998, 149–188 ◆ J. Tripps, Das handelnde Bildwerk in der Gotik, 1998. Joseph Imorde

d. Baroque. For a long time, scholarship accepted the formula → “Baroque as the art of the CounterReformation” (Weisbach). Today it seems more appropriate to place the relationship of Baroque art to religion under the heading of → “confessionalization,” making it possible to consider general tendencies affecting both Catholic and Protestant regions. Transcending confessions, Baroque art was marked by an increasingly established collectors’ movement: art was traded

407

Art and Religion the devout (e.g. P.P. → Rubens and Pietro da Cortona, Chiesa Nuova, Rome). This institutional type of religious art, initially represented primarily in the capital city of the Catholic Church, produced a rich heritage in the late Baroque and Rococo churches of southern Germany (Wies, Zwiefalten, Birnau). W. Weisbach, Der Barock als Kunst der Gegenreformation, 1921 ◆ W. Kemp, “Kunst wird gesammelt,” in W. Busch, ed., Funkkolleg Kunst, 1997 ◆ C. Hecht, Katholische Bildertheologie im Zeitalter von Gegenreformation und Barock, 1997 ◆ V. Stoichita, Das mystische Auge: Vision und Malerei im Spanien des Goldenen Zeitalters, 1997 ◆ D. Ganz, Barocke Bilderbauten: Erzählung, Illusion und Institution in römischen Kirchen 1580–1700, 2003. David Ganz

Fig. 1: Rembrandt, Holy Family with a Curtain, 1646. (State Art Collection, Kassel)

internationally and exhibited in collections; the easel painting (Fr. tableau) became the most sought-after picture medium. This “instauration du tableau” (Stoichita) had profound consequences for the status of religious subjects in Baroque art: the mixture of genres within the collections supported the connoisseur’s appreciation of artistic qualities, even in response to religious images, as the definitive form of reception, a parade example being → Rembrandt’s, Holy Family with a Curtain (Fig. 1:). While the emergence of the → confessional age throughout Europe will be outlined here, a more nuanced variety of religious art can be noted in Catholic areas. Essential for this distinctive path was the decision of the Catholic Church to continue to use a full range of imagery in sacred space. In tractates on imagery, church authorities (such as G.W. → Molanus and Paleotti) sought to defend this position against criticism on the part of the Reformers (Hecht). But it was artistic practice itself that filled the newly-opened spaces with life. On the one hand, private patronage was retained. Painted or sculpted altarpieces, as well as complete orchestrated chapel ensembles, often using several media (stucco, fresco, mural) were typical genres of such sacred art of private design. A paradigmatic theme is the portrayal of a solitary visionary experience placed in tension with the subjective experience of the viewer (G.L. → Bernini, Ecstasy of St. Teresa). Beginning in the late 16th century, on the other hand, there developed a new type of multimedia ensemble within the institutional zone of the church, in the central space. Such space-filling complexes generally depict the lives of the martyrs or other founder figures of the church, framing and affirming their deeds with illusionistic representations of the hosts of heaven within the dome (e.g. Domenichino and Lanfranco, Sant’ Andrea della Valle in Rome). But even the “artless” cultic images firmly rooted in popular piety, the veneration of which underwent an upswing in the Baroque period, could be placed at the center of such a display and thus be rendered inaccessible to

e. Neoclassicism and Romanticism. As a chronological term, “Neoclassicism” – German → “Classicism” – encompasses the period from c. 1760 to c. 1830; it stands for a return to the ideal of Greco-Roman antiquity. At times it was associated with sentimentalism (garden landscapes), “Sturm und Drang” (→ genius cult; → sentimentalism), → Idealism (the idea of an aesthetic education), and → historicism. In a departure from Baroque composition, it pursued the idea of a normative art that can be taught, free of historical and religious constraints. After c. 1780/1790, → Romanticism developed as an intellectual and cultural countermovement, contrasting the rationalism of the Enlightenment to the world of the irrational, fantastic, of feelings, desire, and melancholy. It followed transcendental, individualistic, and historical perspectives. A major exponent of Neoclassicism such as Antonio Canova (1757–1822) acknowledged religion, the church, and the pope, but avoided Christian allegories in his tomb paintings. Other Neoclassical artists employed iconographic model on behalf of the Christian church political ideology ( Jacques-Louis David’s [1748–1825] Marat, 1793). After the fall of → Napoleon I, J.A.D. Ingres (1780–1867) had conscious recourse to religious themes. B. → Thorvaldsen based his statue of Christ on the classical ideal of universal humanity. The artists of Romanticism, however, who regarded faith as the wellspring of their creativity, objected to traditional Christian → iconography (IV), and theoreticians such as W.H. → Wackenroder, Ludwig Tieck (1773–1853), and F. → Schlegel demanded the renewal of religious painting by orienting it to the art of 15th- and 16th-century Germany and Italy. Protestant landscape painters of early Romanticism such as P.O. → Runge and C.D. → Friedrich saw in nature the religious realm in which the individual encounters divine revelation. The → Nazarenes (IV; J.F. → Overbeck, P. von → Cornelius, J. → Schnorr von Carolsfeld), who sometimes worked in Rome, wanted to revive Christian art according to traditional forms (→ Raphael) through an ethically pure life in community; they inclined toward Catholicism and also influenced

Art and Religion religious popular culture (devotional images, creches, → passion plays in Oberammergau). Retrospective tendencies undergirded the Biedermeier style of Moritz von Schwind (1804–1871), L. → Richter and finally Carl Spitzweg’s (1808–1885) “ironic idylls.” In French and English Romanticism, “history” no longer refers only to epic episodes of a mythical history of nation, culture, or religion, but an emotional spectacle. The population explosion led to a great increase in church construction (→ Church Architecture: II), which was also encouraged by social motives (“Commissioners’ Churches” in England). Their sacral effect was supposed to be increased by an adherence to historical models, often with nationalistic connotations (Neo-Romanic, Neo-Gothic, early Christian basilicas, Protestant longitudinal rather than central-plan churches). G. Eimer, Zur Dialektik des Glaubens bei Caspar David Friedrich, 1982 ◆ W. Busch, “Klassizismus: Bildende Kunst,” HWR IV, 1998, 1070–1081 ◆ H. Schanze, ed., Romantik-Handbuch, 2003. Yvonne Dohna

f. Modern Period. The relationship between the Christian religion and the graphic arts in the modern era is marked by a profound alienation. The art of the Nazarenes in the 19th century developed a universal program for imagery in churches as well as private spaces remained successful within the church until the middle of the 20th century, when pioneering artistic trends no longer felt obliged to the represent statements of the Christian faith. Artists adopt the Enlighted positions of criticism of Christian religion and institutions, but also seek their own unconstrained forms of religiosity. The church’s interest in such art has diminished; the distinction between free art and ecclesiastical craft, which continues the tradition of religious folk art as a matter of bourgeois taste, has become fundamental. Only superficially does this alienation manifest itself as a turning away from Christian iconography. Also lamented are the loss of sacrality, of normativity of the human standard, and finally of objectively guaranteed order, which seems to have been sacrificed to subjectivity. Sporadic artistic and theological attempts to bridge the chasm between art and religion (e.g. → Beuron) have not been successful, despite high ambitions. Sedlmayr’s culture-critical observation concerning the “lost center,” itself theologically based, became the theological verdict on the art of the 19th/20th centuries. The focal point of this verdict is the systematically emerging autonomy of art in which the major artistic developments of the modern era culminate. Modern paintings and sculptures evade the dictates of preexisting ideologies and aesthetic criteria. They demonstrate their independence through genuine conceptions of graphic forms of expression that open unimagined possibilities of perception. This

408 modern art cannot be identified with the conceptual world of a particular religion. Schöne saw in it the end of the portrayal of God in the West. If we are nevertheless to determine the linkages between autonomous art and Christian religion, we must expand the concept of religion. Significant moves in this direction derive from F.D.E. → Schleiermacher and P. → Tillich. On the other hand, the liberation of art from religious regimentation has been traced back to Luther’s theology of the image (Hofmann). Isolated projects involving individual artists and theologians (→ Ronchamp, → Vence, etc.) have tested the religious potential of modern art. Broadly conceived exhibitions (e.g. Schmied) called attention to spiritual dimensions of autonomous art and created some interest in theology and the church despite general lack of interest. Besides this interpretive perspective with its often sweeping judgment concerning the convergence of art and religion even in the modern period, autonomous art points theology to the specific significance of aesthetic perception and to the genuine power of imagery, as it is remembered in the JudeoChristian tradition of the prohibition of images, as well as in many forms of imagery in the popular religious art of the past (miraculous and devotional images, etc.), cautioning against trite liberal attempts to make them seem harmless. H. Sedlmayr, Verlust der Mitte, 1948; ET: Art in Crisis, The Lost Center, 1957 ◆ W. Schöne, J. Kollwitz & H. von Campenhausen, Das Gottesbild im Abendland, 1959 ◆ W. Schmied, ed., Zeichen des Glaubens – Geist der Avantgarde, 1980 ◆ W. Hofmann, Luther und die Folgen für die Kunst, 1983 ◆ R. Beck, R. Volp & R. Schmirber, eds., Die Kunst und die Kirchen, 1984 ◆ R. Hoeps, Bildsinn und religiöse Erfahrung, 1984 ◆ G. Rombold, Der Streit um das Bild, 1988 ◆ W. Schmied, ed., Gegenwart Ewigkeit: Spuren des Transzendenten in der Kunst unserer Zeit, 1990 ◆ R. Volp, “Kunst und Religion: VII/VIII,” TRE XX, 1990, 292– 329 (bibl.) ◆ A. Stock, Zwischen Tempel und Museum: theologische Kunstkritik: Positionen der Moderne, 1991 (bibl.) ◆ W.E. Müller & J. Heumann, ed., Kunst Positionen, 1998. Reinhard Hoeps

g. Contemporary Period. Contemporary art is characterized by the breakdown and recombination of traditional genres (crossover) and by the expanded use of a variety of materials and media (multimedia). The distinction between high and popular culture no longer applies: painting and sculpture lay the same claim to artistic status as sound installations in industrial spaces, music videos, and design objects. As a result, general statements concerning contemporary art must remain rudementary. There is a tendency toward contextual works that engage specific locations and situations (e.g. Münster Sculpture Project, 1997). The search for subjective self-assurance in the (post-)modern era (→ Postmodernism) is often a theme of contemporary art (e.g. Nan Goldin [born 1953], Tracey Emin [born 1963]). The development of new media is ultimately

409 leading to an increased involvement with questions of virtuality and reality and with the dissolution of the (material) work of art as it enters the virtual realm (e.g. Jeffrey Shaw [born 1944], Tony Oursler [born 1957]). Explicit involvement with Christianity occurs only sporadically. Consequently dialogue between art and Christianity must be sought on a broader basis, transcending themes internal to the church. Despite the distance between art and Christianity, themes that occupied Christianity and its artistic creations for centuries (death, suffering, love, etc.) have been continued in autonomous art. Engagement with these traditions and “transformations” occurs now and again in thematic exhibitions that juxtapose traditional Christian and contemporary art (e.g. Geissmar-Brandi) or seek a systematic overview of contemporary artistic positions concerning topoi that formerly were explicitly Christian (e.g. Heaven, Düsseldorf 1999). Artistic interventions in sacral spaces constitute an additional form of the dialogue between contemporary art and Christianity, in which art engages the Christian tradition and formal language of these spaces and, when successful, gives them new relevance (e.g. Kölbl). Theological reflection on contemporary art has two starting points: First, it compares aesthetic and religious experience, thus identifying relevant structural analogies, in which it discovers the specific value of artistic articulation, including that of its own tradition. Philosophical proposals by W. → Benjamin, E. → Lévinas, T.W. → Adorno, and Jean-François Lyotard (born 1924) serve as prominent points of reference in this respect. Second, contemporary art is considered as a locus of theological knowledge, a locus theologicus. It can give information about the contemporary situation and forms of articulation and thus contribute to a proclamation of the gospel appropriate to our time. In addition, despite its distance from explicitly Christian themes, contemporary art deals with relevant subjects (transcendence, [im]materiality, sacramentality, presence, [in]visibility, time, death, suffering, bodies, etc.) in specifically aesthetic, yet non-conceptual, ways. It therefore possesses an aesthetic potential that in the context of theological discourse may reveal important truths. C. Geissmar-Brandi et al., eds., Glaube – Hoffnung – Liebe – Tod, 1995 ◆ A. Kölbl et al., eds., Entgegen. ReligionGedächtnisKörper in Gegenwartskunst, 1997 ◆ J. Herrmann et al., eds., Gegenwart der Kunst, 1998 ◆ J. Metzinger et al., eds., Galerien des Herrn, KuKi 2, 1998 ◆ J. Rauchenberger, Biblische Bildlichkeit: Kunst, Raum theologischer Erkenntnis, 1999. Claudia Gärtner

h. Orthodox Churches. The East initially seems to have been more cautious than the West regarding the emergence of a Christian figural art, although a few items of church decoration, figurally decorated liturgical objects, sepulchral art, etc. from the 4th century and later are

Art and Religion extant or attested. A few early manuscript illuminations date from the 6th century. From the 6th century, images acquired a new quality as → icons. The image was the place that received the veneration and prayer addressed to a holy figure and from which help was expected. Legends (e.g. the miracles of Saints → Cosmas and Damian) reported miracles of deliverance and healing wrought by icons, but also miraculous behavior of the icons themselves. Theological literature also offered – hesitantly at first – defenses of images. Anti-Jewish literature (esp. Leontius of Naples; see Thümmel, Frühgeschichte, no. 70) laid out most extensively the reasons why Christians had images despite the biblical prohibition (Exod 20:4 etc.). The standard example justifying (two-dimensional) images was the (three-dimensional) cherubim on the ark of the covenant (Exod 25:8–20). Most of the earliest panel paintings are preserved in St. Catharine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. The new function is shown by an increase in representative images. The phenomenon appears to have spread gradually. Churches were also decorated with images, although the most important church of the empire, the → Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, had only ornamental decoration until the 9th century. After c. 726, the emperor, who understood himself as the guardian of the tradition, took up the battle against Christian images. In 754 a council, styling itself the seventh Ecumenical Council, took place that prohibited images. The primary proponent of images, → John of Damascus, expressed his views in three logoi, but their text, written in the Arabic sphere of influence, seems hardly to have reached Byzantium. In 787, with the assistance of the newly named patriarch Tarasius, the empress Irene was able to see the veneration of images restored by a new council, which declared itself the true seventh Ecumenical Council (→ Veneration of Images: VI). The first attempt of the council in 786 failed because of a putsch mounted by the iconoclasts. The conciliar fathers had difficulties documenting the alleged rampages of the iconoclasts. The legends of such behavior are of later date. Neither in 754 nor in 787 was there an opposition party that refused to submit. In 815 the rejection of images was renewed (based on the council of 754). In contrast to the first period of the iconoclastic controversy, there was now a party of iconodules that would mount opposition. The most outstanding theologians in favor of images were patriarch → Nicephorus and → Theodore of Studios. Several measures against those in favor of images are attested. The attitude of the iconoclasts had altered. If they had formerly been interested in abolishing all Christian images, now they were interested only in abolishing the veneration of images, for which reason they prohibited

Art and Religion only those hung low enough to be accessible for veneration. Thus the Eastern attitude came to approximate that of the Carolingian West. In 843, under Empress → Theodora II, the veneration of images, still recognized today, was reinstituted. The official decision seems to have led only haltingly to a new wave of Christian art. John of Damascus first attempted a more profound theoretical justification for Christian imagery through a schema by which worship is accorded to the deity and veneration to the deity’s effectual presence in the icon. The second Council of → Nicea codified this distinction without adopting the concept of the icon as an instrument of grace. The theologians of the second period of the iconoclastic controversy, patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore of Studios, insisted instead on the unity of veneration and gave full weight to the statement of → Basil the Great, “The veneration of the image passes on to its prototype” (Spir. [SC 17, 106, 19f.]). In any case, portrayal of the divine in an image was considered impossible. Devotional practice was little concerned with such definitions and associated divine assistance directly with the image. Judging from the archaeological remains, icons were initially reserved for central sanctuaries, while private possession was limited to prominent persons. Icons could be executed in ivory, enamel, and other materials, but also as paintings. Since the 13th century, painting has dominated. The Balkans and (since the 11th cent.) Russia have also been important centers of ecclesiastical art. Although works of sculpture were never forbidden, their role still remains modest. In the middle Byzantine period, there evolved a decorative scheme for the domed cruciform church based on elements going back to the pre-Iconoclastic period, with Christ depicted in the dome and Mary in the apse (11th cent.: monastery of Hosios Loukas, St. Sophia cathedral in Kiev, Daphni). The desire to secure the helping power of the image, and also to continue the tradition, led to the development of an → iconography defined according to types. This is especially clear in the images of the Mother of God, whose various types can be regarded as distinct subjects. Usually these were copies of an icon that had particularly miraculous (hodegetria, blacherniotissa, vladimirskaya, etc.). Not until much later (14th cent.?) were icons consecrated, probably because their aura of holiness had diminished: now it had to be conveyed by a specific action. Christian imagery participated in the general development of art which, with brief contrary tendencies, moved toward an ever-increasing naturalism, even in the Byzantine Empire. The new trend is clearly evident, for example, in the Balkan murals of the 13th/14th centuries (Mileševa, Sopoćani, Bojana, Dečani). The Islamic

410 conquest of the Middle East and the Balkans hardly caused problems. In Russia, in contrast, the insistence on the traditional style and iconography on the one hand and the advance of general cultural development, on the other created a problem still unresolved today. In theory the desire not to change anything was generally asserted, while some artists accused each other of adopting novelties from the West. The artifacts exhibit various types of innovation. Stylistically, for example, the Stroganov school (e.g. Prokopy Čirin) created Baroqueinspired repristinations with naturalistic details, while the Armory school (e.g. Simon Ushakov) expanded the old iconographic models in modern style. Since the 16th century, the advance of new themes has been aggressive. Besides holy figures and the events of salvation, didactic themes and illustrations of → hymns have become prominent. The protest of the dean Ivan Viskovaty against this trend was rejected in 1554. With the schism of the → Old Believers, these became the guardians of traditional icon painting. In the 19th century, despite their mass production, icons were a disesteemed branch of popular religious art; educated persons were much more attracted to paintings based on Western models, as exemplified by St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg, the church of the tsars (1848). Since the late 19th century, Russian philosophy of religion has rediscovered and reinterpreted early Russian icons (E. → Trubetskoy, P.A. → Florensky, S.N. → Bulgakov). There have also been attempts to equate the nature of the icon with that of the church: both make the invisible heavenly world visible in this world, and an early “icon style” has also been theologically interpreted in this sense. This rediscovery has also led to an enthusiasm for icons in the West that, admittedly, generally disregards the concrete phenomenon of the icon in the Eastern Church. There are also several new and idiosyncratic Eastern interpretations of the theology of icons (e.g. Ambrosios Giakalis). Even today, Russian icon painting vacillates between an ideal based on Andrei Rublev (c. 1400) and that of the 19th century. This multiplicity hardly differs in other countries. Romanian icons use the technique of verre églomisé. Sources: E. von Dobschütz, Christusbilder, TU 18, 1899 ◆ H.-J. Geischer, ed., Der byzantinische Bilderstreit, TKTG IX, 1968 ◆ H. Hennephof, ed., Textus byzantini ad iconomachiam pertinentes, ByN.T I, 1969 ◆ H.G. Thümmel, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre, TU CIXL, 1992 ◆ Bibl.: K. Schwarzlose, Der Bilderstreit, ein Kampf der griechischen Kirche um ihre Eigenart und um ihre Freiheit, 1890, 21970 ◆ E.N. Trubetzkoy, Die religiöse Weltanschauung der russischen Ikonenmalerei, 1927 ◆ A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin, 1957, 21984 ◆ K. Onasch, Ikonen, 1961; ET: Icons, 1963 ◆ S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Leo III., CSCO. Sub 42, 1973 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Von der Fragwürdigkeit der Ikone, SBAW.PH 7, 1975 ◆ K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, vol. I, 1976 ◆ S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, CSCO.Sub 52, 1977 ◆ A. Bryer,

411 ed., Iconoclasm, 1977 ◆ P. Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, 1978 ◆ N. Thon, Ikone und Liturgie, Sophia 19, 1979 ◆ K. Weitzmann, et al., Die Ikonen, 1979, 31993 ◆ H.G. Thümmel, “Bilder V/1,” TRE VI, 1980, 532–540 (bibl.); ET: Icons, 1993 ◆ J. Irmscher, ed., Der byzantinische Bilderstreit, 1980 ◆ C. von Schönborn, Die Christus-Ikone, 1984 ◆ G. Dumeige, Nizäa II, GöK 4, 1985 ◆ F. Boespflug & N. Lossky, eds., Nicée II, 787–1987, 1987 ◆ P. Schreiner, “Der byzantinische Bilderstreit,” in: Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’alto medioevo, I, 1988, 319–407 ◆ J. Wohlmuth, ed., Streit um das Bild: das zweite Konzil von Nizäa (787) in ökumenischer Perspektive, 1989 ◆ E. Haustein-Bartsch, ed., Russsiche Ikonen – neue Forschungen, 1991 ◆ H.G. Thümmel, “Die Theorie der Ikone,” ThLZ 116, 1991, 641–650 ◆ idem, Bilderlehre und Bilderstreit, ÖC, NF 40, 1991 ◆ idem, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlkichen Bilderlehre, TU CIXL, 1992 ◆ idem, “Die Ikone in der Ruś,” in: Byzantium and its Neighbours from the Mid-9th till the 12th Centuries, ed. V. Vavřínek, 1993 (= BySl 54, 1993, 232–241) ◆ A. Giakalis, Images of the Divine: the Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, SHCT, 54, 1994 ◆ H. G. Thümmel, Das Schreiben der drei Patriarchen, der Brief an Theophilos und die Synode von 836, AHC 27/28, 1995/96, 109– 127 ◆ idem, “Phänomene der Ikone,” in Ab oriente et occidente (Mt 8:11): Kirche aus Ost und West, ed. W. Nyssen, M. Schneider & W. Berschin, 1996, 487–497 ◆ K. Parry, Depicting the Word. Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, The Medieval Mediterranean 12, 1996 ◆ H. Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium, 1996 ◆ R.-J. Lilie, Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit, BBS 5, 1999 ◆ G. Lange, Bild und Wort: die katechetischen Funktionen des Bildes in der griechischen Theologie des 6. bis 9. Jahrhunderts, 21999 ◆ K.-C. Felmy & E. Haustein-Bartsch, eds., “Die Weisheit baute ihr Haus”: Untersuchungen zu hymnischen und didaktischen Ikonen, 1999 ◆ H.G. Thümmel, “Sergej Nikolaevič Bulgakov über die Ikone,” in: Spuren in der Vergangenheit – Begegnungen in der Gegenwart, ed. H.-D. Döpmann & K. Gaede, 1999, 167–173 ◆ H. Ohme, “Ikonen: historische Kritik und Tradition,” ZKG 110, 1999, 1–24. Hans Georg Thümmel

i. Asia, Africa, Latin America. Whether one can speak of Christian art at all is highly controversial in the discourse of Western art history. With reference to Africa, Asia, and Latin America, however, the second element of the phrase also comes under question. Western conceptions of art are not directly transferable to creative activity in the context of other cultures and religions. Art can be called Christian in the more restricted sense because of its intended use and its subject. This observation does not exclude the notion that every work of art has a religious dimension and is open to transcendence. As to whether something is a work of art, one must not only take into account the nonconcurrence of things that are concurrent in other contexts, but also recognize the self-conception of the cultural and religious tradition involved. The artist (mostly male) may be divided into three groups. First, there are those who accept commissions and have often been converted to the Christian faith through their engagement with biblical themes and with their patrons. Second, there are those, Christian or not, who engage with Christian subjects on their own initiative. The exponents of the third group, finally, understand themselves as distinctly Christian artists who wish to contribute through their works to the spread of the

Art and Religion gospel in their countries. Patrons, as a rule, are missionaries and missions. Even artistic overproduction finds customers here. In their own churches, by contrast, this art is mostly absent. Patronage is indispensable, however, for any art. Among the motifs, portrayals of Christ and Mary (→ Mary, Mother of Jesus, Representations of ) predominate, followed by scenes from the life of Jesus and parable illustrations (prodigal son, good Samaritan, etc.); OT themes and images of saints are rare. Occasionally one finds scenes from the history of missions. In addition to Western prototypes, the artists utilize the iconography of their own cultures and religions. There is a rough distinction between religious art, as in → Hinduism (III) and → Buddhism (I), and court art that portrays and embellishes the life of the ruling class. Popular art combines religious and genre motifs. In the art of tribal cultures, this differentiation between religious and secular does not apply. If Christian content and cultural form are to be clearly distinguished, missiology speaks of → accommodation. In contrast, if a new iconology emerges from the cultural contact between Christian and indigenous iconography, → inculturation is involved. An expressionism that could appropriately be called contextual art (→ Contextual Theology), more concerned with socioeconomic and political problems, is associated with the liberation movements and theologies (→ Liberation Theology) of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We may distinguish four historical phases that coincide with the various waves of expansion of the Christian faith. Only scanty witnesses survive from the first phase, representing in Asia the → Nestorian mission along the Silk Road and the → Thomas Christians in India, and in Africa the Christian presence in Ethiopia; about the beginnings we can only speculate. In the Middle Ages and the early modern period, missions followed the great journeys of discovery and colonial expansion (second phase). The missionaries carried in their baggage Western art to illustrate their preaching, art which, because of the increasing demand, they soon had copied or imitated by native artists. The countermovement against this accommodation culminated in the disputes over rites (→ Rites Controversies). The renaissance of the Christian mission in the 19th century was stamped by Europeanism or Americanism. In the Protestant realm, → Calvinism’s animosity toward images also played a role. It remains to the credit of individual connoisseurs among the missionaries of this third phase that they inspired the creation of a Christian art. The fourth phase coincides with the independence of the young churches. In this phase, art often anticipated the development of a contextual theology (Sundermeier). The origins of Christian art in China lie in the Nestorian portrayal of the cross rising from the lotus blossom, the central symbol of Buddhism. In this con-

Art and Religion text, the cross stands for the risen Lord rather than Christ’s passion. Early artifacts include gravestones along the Silk Road and the famed Nestorian stele of Hsi-an (6th/7th cent.). Likewise only few artifacts survive from the second phase, the Jesuit mission (→ Jesuits). The establishment of the art department in Fu-Jen University in Beijing marked a new beginning (third phase). Celso Constantini (1876–1958), the apostolic delegate in China and later the secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, was a major influence in this regard. This art lover was able to win a congenial artist in Luke Chen. By portraying Christian motifs in the traditional style of painting with water colors on silk, Chen sought to introduce the Christian faith to his compatriots and Chinese culture to his Western viewers. Today the broad palette of Christian art in China and Taiwan extends from folk art such as paper cuttings and knotted embroidery through portrayals of nature in the traditional style to the adaptations of Socialist Realism. In Japan, artistic production began with the second phase. Once again, the Jesuits were involved. After a period when Christians were persecuted, a new beginning came about through the influence of developments in China; it was marked by the founding of a Japanese artists’ association (third phase). Modern Christian art in Japan exhibits a great variety that extends, once again, from folk art through ikehana to expressions of stylistic individualism. Because missionaries were late in reaching Korea, Christian art did not begin there until the third phase. Today there is a vibrant Christian art scene. Among the few Christian motifs of expressionist Minjung art (→ Minjung Theology), there is a successful portrayal of the cross that makes the suffering of Christ present in the suffering of the people. India, like China, is an Asian country that experienced all four phases. Once again the symbol of the cross stands at the beginning of Indian Christian art. The Syrian Mar Thomas Christians in Malabar early on adopted Hindu architecture for the construction of their churches. The plethora of images in Hindu temples contrasted, however, with the undecorated churches, where everything focused on the altar cross. In the tradition of the Syrian church, the cross once again represented the glory of the risen Lord. The second phase produced two very different stylistic schools: Portuguese-Indian art in Goa and Mughal art. In the epoch of Golden Goa, the materials used and the climatic conditions produced a local style of Western Christian architecture with hardly any indigenous elements. By decree, the Hindu painters’ guilds were permitted to portray only Christian motifs if the artists had converted to the Christian faith. At the court of the Mughal ruler Akbar (1556–1605) and his son Jahangir, engagement with Christian art resulted in stylistic changes, especially in miniature painting. Christian min-

412 iatures represented a form of accommodation in an environment stamped by Islam. Much as in China and Japan, the impulse for the third phase in India came essentially from a school of painting. The Bengal school, however, was a direct outgrowth of the Hindu renaissance and thus an Indian initiative. Like the Hindu intellectuals who grappled intensively with the figure of Jesus Christ, the pioneering artists never converted to Christianity. Because of this particular constellation, transitions to the fourth phase have been blurred in India. Examples of Christian art can also be found in other Southeast Asian countries. The following discussion of Christian art in Africa is limited to the sub-Saharan region. North Africa constitutes its own cultural realm, from which Christianity was expelled in the course of 7th-century Islamicization, except for the → Copts in Egypt. Ethiopia is a borderline case. The earliest Christianity in Black Africa (since the 4th cent.) has traditional associations with the Coptic Church. Besides liturgical crosses in a wealth of forms, there are murals, icons, and illustrated manuscripts (→ Magical Papyri). The earliest articrafts, however, date, from the Middle Ages, probably for climatic reasons. In the second phase, Jesuit influence again made itself felt. In Ethopia, as in the Christian art of Asia, painting is the preferred medium, whereas sculpture dominates elsewhere in Black Africa. There are also significant differences with regard to architecture. In contrast to the Hindu, Buddhist, and (sometimes) Islamic sacral structures in Asia, in Africa, again with the exception of Ethiopia, there was no large-scale architecture that could serve as the model for African churches. Examples of Christian African sculpture date predominantly from the third and fourth phases, i.e. the 20th century. As a rule, stylistic features clearly identify the ethnic group of the artist who carved them. The art centers or schools founded by the missionaries played an important role in their development. Examples from the second phase have survived only from the former → Kongo Kingdom. Among a large number of crucifixes, there are also a few hermaphroditic portrayals of the crucified Christ. They express the African conviction that perfection is simultaneously male and female. After the collapse of Christianity in the kingdom of Kongo, these crucifixes became cultic objects in the tribal religion, as as is shown by late hybrid forms. Figural sculptures and paintings have their Sitz in Leben in the ancestor cult. An example of successful inculturation is a cement crucifix that portrays the Christ in the form of a mask hanging on the cross. In the → mask, God is conceived as present in Jesus Christ. In southern Africa, an expressionist style also developed in the context of opposition to → apartheid, finding expression in valuable woodcuts and linocuts. Latin America is still terra incognita with respect

413 to research of Christian art. There are no overviews. Development began with the second phase. From Mexico, there are 16th-century picture catechisms in pottery form and feather mosaics. Much as in India, a local style of Portuguese and Spanish sacral architecture developed. The fourth phase encompasses expressionism connected with liberation theology and naïve painting in the style of popular art. A. Lehmann, Afroasiatische christliche Kunst, 1966 ◆ Image: Christ and Art in Asia 1–, 1979– ◆ J.F. Thiel & H. Helf, Christliche Kunst in Afrika, 1984 ◆ T. Sundermeier & V. Küster, eds., Die Bilder und das Wort: zum Verstehen christlicher Kunst in Afrika und Asien, 1999. Volker Küster

3. Islamic Art. The term islᾱm (“submission,” i.e. submission to God) has a religious meaning; the expression “Islamic art” is used for creations both with and without religious connotation; therefore the usage is a misleading generalization. It can nevertheless be justified by many common elements in the artistic activity of countries where Islam is or was the predominant religion. This region has extended over three continents, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Bay of Bengal, almost from the 7th century until today. The complicating factors are self-evident, for works that originate in such an area and over such a period cannot be given a common denominator. In purely religious art, however, its function enforces certain constant formal characteristics that have a unifying effect. For secular structures – houses and palaces, caravanserais, cities, royal cities and fortresses, bridges, and city walls – and for objects of daily use – in clay, metal, glass, rock crystal, textiles – and also for books, the forms of expression developed are manifold and often seem to have arisen from the encounter of authentic local traditions with a fund of rules laid down in often remote centers of power and prestige that were taken as a model. Similarly, the influence of religious art acted as a unifying element for all artistic activity. Architecture, architectural decoration, book illustration, and refined handicrafts are the chief areas of artistic activity in the traditional Islamic world, which knew neither monumental sculpture nor panel painting; mural painting is represented, but it ranks behind glazed ceramics, molded stucco, and stone facing (cf. Islam: IV). The similarities, apart from the purely religious element, are real; major similarity seems to lie in the central role of the ruler: in the early centuries, the court of the caliph, as model and focus of cultural patronage, shaped artistic activity over vast areas. Thus stucco patterns developed in Ar-Raqqah at the beginning of the 19th century appear almost simultaneously in Samarkand. Later the countless regional princely courts played a

Art and Religion similar role. The anonymity of the artists, often adduced as typical for Islamic art, does not stand up to closer observation; signatures of architects, decorators, and craftsmen are often found. Even more often, however, the names of royal patrons appear, often with extensive additional information. If the signature of a craftsman includes no further information, we are mostly unable to identity the creator. The widespread notion that the → Qurhān prohibits the depiction of living beings is equally false. A certain iconophobia in the Islamic world, specifically the religious realm, however, cannot be denied. Since power derives its legitimacy from religion, the prince obviously cannot use portrayals of his person for propaganda. Neither can religion employ picture stories to communicate its teaching. In architecture and handicrafts, we find mostly abstract ornaments that endlessly intertwine epigraphic, geometric, and botanical motifs and configure them in visual inventions based on strictly mathematical rules, in which mystics hope to recognize the reflection of the cosmic harmonies, of the work of God, the sole true creator. A brief historical survey of Islamic art underscores the importance of the artistic and cultural centers that determined artistic activity in extensive peripheral regions. The succession of Near Eastern capitals under the Umayyads and the first aAbbasids (7th–9th cents.) saw the rise of an art displaying its Roman, Byzantine, and Sasanian heritage, but having its own specific requirements and functions, so that a new artistic language rapidly arose, establishing the criteria for all later Islamic civilization. In the 10th century, certain regions with strong pre-Islamic artistic traditions succeeded in renewing the forms that had developed in the former Syrian and Mesopotamian caliphate capitals. These creative centers crystallized in Al-Andalus, the Maghrib, and Egypt as well as in Iran and Central Asia. Between the 11th and 13th centuries, regional centers developed that exhibited such vitality that they burst the bounds established in the original caliphate structures; the massive influx of Turkic peoples from central Asia onto the Islamic stage led to the formation of a number of Turkic centers of power and creativity between eastern Iran, Anatolia, and the Mediterranean. The cultural gradient in Islamic Asia now clearly ran from East to West. The Maghrib experienced its own parallel development in the rhythm of the contribution of the Berbers. The Mongolian influx in the East and the → Reconquista in the West stamped the Islamic world of the 13th and 14th centuries. Now the creative forces accumulated in the Iran of the Il-khanids, then of the Timurids, and led to an artistic unification between the Punjab and the Near East. There emerged a magnificent archi-

Art and Religion tecture with polychrome facing, whose key elements are domes atop tall drums, impressive minarets (→ Mosque), majestic arcades, and monumental gates. In the Mamluk period (mid-13th cent. to the early 16th cent.), these traditions continued to survive in the Near East; the architecture is more massive and less resplendent, but equally impressive and often of the highest quality. Mehmed Fatih’s conquest of Constantinople in 1453 marked the beginning of the political and cultural dominance of the Ottoman Empire over the entire Near East and part of the Maghrib: spacious domed halls flanked by towering minarets, often of stone, sprang up everywhere. In the 16th century, three empires divided the Islamic world and stamped their aesthetic rules on their regions: the Mughal Empire in India, the Safavids in Iran, and the Ottomans in the Near East and the Maghrib (excepting Morocco). These three different artistic entities were closely intertwined: the requirements of religion, the power structures, and the mixture of peoples attributable to the duty to make a → pilgrimage (IV) to → Mecca lent them an unmistakable unity that proved especially splendid the closer the patrons and ateliers of these states were to each other. Islamic art is certainly not homogeneous, but it can be understand as a unity with numerous facets: its unity rests ultimately on the religious and social foundation underlying this civilization and its artistic creativity. J. Sourdel-Thomine & B. Spuler, Die Kunst des Islam, PKG IV, 1973 ◆ R. Ettinghausen & O. Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650–1250, The Pelican History of Art, 1987 ◆ S.S. Blair & J.M. Bloom, The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250–1800, The Pelican History of Art, 1994. Marianne Barrucand

IV. Christian Theology 1. Fundamental Theology. A history of necessary tension characterizes the relationship between Christian faith and art. This tension rests on the unique power of art to manifest those dimensions of reality that remain hidden in everyday as well as in scientific experience. Works of art, therefore, can be endowed with the capacity to manifest the transcendent; in the realm of religion, consequently, art becomes either an ally or a competitor and opponent. This situation obtains even for epochs and cultures that do not know the concept of art as it has developed since the Renaissance and also determines the contemporary understanding of art. Given a religious environment full of images representing the sensible presence of the invisible and powerful, an overthrow of images of the gods was associated by biblical faith with disempowerment of the gods. Where this understanding did not lead to a prohibition of images, it became necessary to understand images and artistic praxis in a way that did not view images as an

414 immediate presentation of the divine, but rather understood them functionally, as ornamentation, as a medium of instruction, but also as an indication of the transcendent. After the iconoclastic controversies were decided in favor of images, a critical balance was required that would allow images a religious dimension but simultaneously emphasize their auxiliary function. Devotional images (→ Pietà) and icons have a mediating function. They are not in themselves divine; images are intended to focus the thoughts and feelings and direct them to the proper object of worship. In the modern era, this balance initially shifted to a religious overestimation of art. The work of art itself was understood as a manifestation of the → absolute, thus claiming the heritage of religion. Such an extreme burden is not only theologically objectionable but also aporetic, because art, now subjective, cannot take on or produce a binding collective model of interpretation. Art loses its way when it seeks to generate identity affirmatively; its power resides in opposition to what is apparently certain, customary, and accepted. By challenging the claims of what goes unquestioned as well as by the self-absorption of the profane world (→ Profaneness), art opens new religious perspectives without itself becoming an ersatz religion. Autonomous art thus becomes an important opponent of faith as well as a form of expression of faith; its theological significance does not reside directly in religious subject matter, yet the aesthetic treatment of religious ideas and concepts can contribute to their critical examination and clarification. It is rather the work of artistic creation itself that, in its search for aesthetic coherence, even in articulating the negative, evokes sensible forms of unbroken life. As is especially clear in the abnegation of the object in abstract and absolute art, the phenomenality of phenomena themselves becomes perceptible in works of art; this points in turn to the experience of → creatureliness in its vulnerability and its promise. T.W. Adorno, Ästhetische Theorie, 1970; ET: Aesthetic Theory, 1997 ◆ G. Rombold, Der Streit um das Bild, 1988 ◆ H. Schwebel & A. Mertin, eds., Bilder und ihre Macht, 1989 ◆ H. Belting, Bild und Kult, 1990; ET: Likeness and Presence, 1994 ◆ A. Stock, Keine Kunst, 1996 ◆ P. Biehl, ed., Kunst und Religion, JRP 13, 1997. Wolfgang Schoberth

2. Ethics. Closely as religion and art have been linked since their historical beginnings, they nonetheless stand in a relationship of tension. In the course of the history of theology, an exclusive antithesis between → aesthetics (II) and ethics has been proclaimed, most radically by S. → Kierkegaard. In a similar vein, theological reservations have been expressed about art, especially the graphic arts. There has been fear that theological truth would be destroyed by artistic interests. The biblical prohibi-

415 tion of images and the iconoclasm that has appeared sporadically throughout church history are based on this fear. The element of truth in these theological reservations and religious movements reflects the fact that the spheres of religion and aesthetics do indeed overlap, although each displays its own dynamic, which cannot be transferred seamlessly to the other. To this extent, ethical reservations regarding to art should not be rejected a limine. That said, however, theology cannot address art exclusively with an ethic of negation and reservation. A Christian ethic must assess art from the perspective of creation theology as the result of the human joy of aesthetic creation. Furthermore, aesthetic and religious experience are closely related (Gräb) and, thus approach justify an ethical stance. Currently the relationships between aesthetics and ethics are more likely to be emphasized than their differences and antagonisms. Questions concerning the Christian conduct of life (→ lifestyle) are articulated as questions concerning lifestyle (Korsch). Finally, among the theorists of postmodernity, the boundaries between art and ethics, aesthetics and theological truth have become blurred. Precisely because the relationship between art and religion can never be made unequivocal but remains persistently ambivalent, theology needs an “ethics of art” that protects aesthetic and theological interests equally. Such an “ethics of art” presupposes a careful appreciation of the uncompromising historical variety of works of art as well as an interdisciplinary discussion between philosophical and theological aesthetics and ethics. S. Kierkegaard, Enten-Eller, 1843; ET: Either/Or, 1959, 1987 ◆ W. Welsch, ed., Die Aktualität des Ästhetischen, 1993 ◆ W. Gräb, “Der inszenierte Text: Erwägungen zum Aufbau ästhetischer und religiöser Erfahrung in Gottesdienst und Predigt,” IJPT I, 1997, 209–226 ◆ D. Korsch, Religion mit Stil: Protestantismus in der Kulturwende, 1997 ◆ J. Herrmann, A. Mertin & E. Valtink, eds., Die Gegenwart der Kunst: ästhetische und religiöse Erfahrung heute, 1998 ◆ W.E. Müller & J. Heumann, eds., Kunst-Positionen: Kunst als Thema gegenwärtiger evangelischer und katholischer Theologie, 1998. Albrecht Grözinger

3. Sociology. The thesis formulated by J. → Burckhardt in his Weltgeschichtliche Betrachtungen (Gesammelte Werke, 41970, 77), that all art was “once in the service of the holy and passed through the temple,” can be proven sociologically. In this regard, the institutional and personal interweaving of art and religion underwent many changes in the course of history. In antiquity, many artists were in the direct service of temple hierarchies; in the Middle Ages, artists organized in craft guilds lived in the construction huts as cathedrals were built. Religious institutions very soon came into competition with the nobility and the bourgeoisie as the latter became increasingly important as patrons of the arts. By the Renaissance, at the latest, the relationship of

Art and Religion the arts to religious institutions had changed decisively. On the one hand, urban patricians and the emerging middle class exceeded the church in economic power and thus in the capacity to patronize the arts. On the other, the growing modern self-consciousness of the autonomy of art placed artists in an increasingly critical relationship to the church. With a few exceptions, art commissioned by the church came generally to be regarded as artistically second-rate. In today’s pluralistic societies, the relationship between art and religion seems itself to be increasingly pluralistic. The church and theology are rediscovering the importance of art and aesthetics for religious experience and church practice, while many artists, for their part, are giving new weight to the religious dimension of art and letting it shape their aesthetic practice. From an institutional perspective, churches are responding in diverse ways to the newly developed mutual interests of art and religion. Aesthetic themes appear in → education of adults, especially in the academies. Exhibitions of contemporary art take place in churches and other ecclesiastical spaces. For its part, the church is often present in exhibitions, especially in the Documenta (Kassel, Germany), or accompanies them thematically. Experiences from the theater have enriched liturgical education and directors help train future pastors. Last but not least the tectonic shifts in the relationship of religion, the church, and society demand a new relationship between art and religion: the church’s presence in the → media requires aesthetic competence; churches in the old city centers survive in large part on their artistic offerings; → church concerts reach more people than the traditional worship services, which themselves are configured with a greater liturgical-artistic sensibility. In → postmodernism, a new, more relaxed, relationship between art and religion is in progress. A. Hauser, Soziologie der Kunst, 1974; ET: Sociology of Art, 1982 ◆ G. Duby, Le temps des cathédrales, 1976; ET: The age of the Cathedrals: Art and Society 980–1420, 1981 ◆ R. Beck, R. Volp & G. Schmirber, eds., Die Kunst und die Kirchen: der Streit um die Bilder heute, 1984 ◆ A. Mertin & H. Schwebel, eds., Kirche und moderne Kunst, 1988 ◆ H. Belting, Bild und Kult, 1990; ET: Likeness and Presence, 1994 ◆ I. Möller, ed., Anstöße – Theologie im Schnittpunkt von Kunst, Kultur und Kommunikation, 1991. Albrecht Grözinger

4. Missiology. With respect to the historical development of Christian art in missionary regions, we can distinguish three phases. The first was the foreign mission phase, in which the influence of Western art dominated. In the Roman Catholic missions, missionaries and traders introduced various works of art such as sculptures, paintings, and art prints. Many of these works of art were used in the worship space and attracted people. In the Orthodox Church, icons served to inspire people

Art and Religion

416 president of the China Christian Council, described the attempt to portray Christ in the framework of one’s own cultural identity in the following words: “In the last 40 years, Chinese Christianity has endeavored to lay aside its Western dress and to replace it with an Eastern, Chinese identity, and has thus become an integral part of Chinese culture” (Christian Art in China [catalogue], China Christian Council, 1995, 1). This endeavor is defined by its objective of bringing the gospel to indigenous people and thus simultaneously enriching the universal church. While a few of these attempts attracted significant attention in the beginning, this program has been increasingly perceived as a demand for artistic conformity and as a restriction of creative freedom. Furthermore, this approach tends to address the question of indigenization to the past and not to the present and future. In the third phase, not always clearly distinct from the second, the key question asks: Who is Jesus Christ here and now? Christian artists struggle with the task of responding to the presence of God in their own cultural and social contexts through creative works of art. Furthermore, no socio-cultural context stands in isolation; each is related to others in global, mutual interdependence. Bagong Kussudiardja (b. 1928), the leading proponent of dance, art, and theatre in Indonesia, has

Fig. 1. Bagong Kussudiardja, Dancing Madonna, batik. (Masso Takenaka Collection)

in the church. Most Protestant missionaries exercised restraint toward religious graphic art for theological reasons (prohibition of images) and concentrated their efforts on the translation of the Bible. Through contact with Western culture, many works of art with biblical themes by artists such as → Rembrandt, V. van → Gogh, and G.H. → Rouault were introduced later and gained extraordinarily far-reaching influence. The second phase, characterized by efforts at → indigenization, began after WWII through the efforts of mission churches to establish independence, as demanded in the context of the establishment of national independence. In Asia, many Christian artists, who had been relatively isolated, joined together in national associations for Christian art. In 1978 the Asian Christian Art Association was established for all of Asia. It has since published a quarterly with the title IMAGE which functions as an information organ and a forum for theological reflection on Christian art. One of the critical theological questions is that of Christology: Who is Jesus Christ? How should Jesus Christ be given expression in one’s own cultural context? A few artists have attempted to portray Christ in the style of traditional religious leaders, in India for example as a Hindu guru or in China in the figure of a Confucian sage. K.H. Ting (Ting Kuang-hsun, Din Guangxun), the

Fig. 2. K.C. Shankara Paniker, Sorrow of Christ. (Masao Takenaka Collection)

417 repeatedly attempted to give expression to the biblical drama in contemporary contexts, as in his Dancing Madonna or his portrayal of Jesus with sunglasses and fishermen. At the plenary assembly of the World Council of Churches in Nairobi in 1975, many took note of a provocative work of art: The Tortured Christ by the Brazilian sculptor Guido Rochan gave pointed expression to the agonized cries of the oppressed. Ang Ku Kob (b. 1931) similarly configured the agony of the crucifixion through the stylistic means of cubism. The works of Tadao Tanaka (1903–1995), one of Japan’s leading artists, represented repeated attempts to give new expression to the biblical drama in contemporary historical and social contexts, as in his painting Exodus (1966). The biblical drama has also proven to be a source of inspiration for artists in other religions and has challenged them to produce their own artistic response. Thus K.C. Shankara Panker, a Hindu artist, portrayed the face of Christ in his Sorrow of Christ as that of a leper. The play Wings of Love, written and produced by Yuko Yuasa (b. 1939) in 2000, elaborates the reciprocal resonance between the person and work of → Francis of Assisi (1181–1226) and the Buddhist hermit Ryokan (1758–1831) through the traditional forms of Noh theatre. Works like this indicate the possibility of interreligious cooperation in which shared concern for the common good, justice, and peace of the one world replace conflict and competition. Journal: IMAGE, publ. Asian Christian Art Association, 1–, 1979–1984, 2000 ◆ Bibl.: J. Jobe, Ecce Homo, 1962 ◆ A. Lehmann, Afroasiatische christliche Kunst, 1966; ET: Christian Art in Africa and Asia, 1969 ◆ M. Takenaka, Christian Art in Asia, 1973 ◆ R.H. Bainton, Behold the Christ: A Portrayal of Christ in Words and Pictures, 1974 ◆ J. Sahi, Stepping Stones: Reflection on the Theology of Indian Culture, 1986 ◆ M. Takenaka & R. O’Grady, The Bible through Asian Eyes, 1991 ◆ Y. Yuasa, Wings of Love: A Story of Ryokan and St. Francis of Assissi Told of Teishinni and St. Chiara, 2000. Masao Takenaka

5. Practical Theology. Since the mid-1960s, German practical theology has turned its attention to the relationship between art and religion (Hans-Eckehard Bahr, Schwebel, Volp), examined the theological implications of modern art, engaged in dialogue with artists and works of art, given critical attention to the church’s treatment of art, especially, contemporary art, and undergone a change in its understanding of the visual arts based on a methodologically differentiated procedure involving art studies as a partner discipline. This new understanding no longer focuses on how to use for the exclusive purpose of proclaiming the gospel; it accepts the autonomy of art and frees it “from the spell of specialized application” (Volp, 324) in the sense of illustrating religious experience and biblical history. This understanding

Art and Religion acknowledges that contemporary art has indeed emancipated itself from its function as an instrument for the self-interpretation of Christian tradition but without severing all relationship to the Christian religion. We must largely refrain from understanding the religious aspect of art solely thematically, since this aspect always involves an aspect of form as well. Thus the dialogue with art leads to a shift of interest that may even extend to a fundamental aesthetic grounding of practical theology as a discipline at the interface between science and art (Grözinger), which understands art as a practical dimension of how the church acts (Volp). Art thus becomes an autonomous medium of expression and experience for religion, not subject in its rules and conditions of production to the needs of the church, which opens access to a new religiosity, as a rule no longer linked to the church and contains traces of the practice of Christian faith. With attention to this character, contemporary art can be responsibly incorporated in proclamation, worship, and instruction. It discloses – independently of the personal beliefs of the artist – spiritual experiences in the process of reception. Art is available to practical theology as a sensitive instrument for recording experiences that cannot be expressed appropriately in written form. Practical theology allows art its own approach to religion, which makes contemporary religious experience and interpretation of the world accessible, with particular attention to the dimension of corporeality. Works of art present complex models for the experience of faith. Where their impact is accepted, they create a transitional space for experience. Art also confronts the Christian faith wih a difficult demand, because it forces the viewer to appreciate religious experience linked to the artist’s possibly objectionable life story. Works of art produce their own ongoing effect in the viewer and set in motion a vital communication into which God can enter with the Holy Spirit. A lack of discernment in church circles often remains a problem, leading to confusion of artistic handicraft that merely puts a modernistic cast on the traditional motifs of Christian iconography with authentic and creative contemporary art. R. Volp, “Imagines Dei,” ThLZ 108, 1983, 324–334 ◆ A. Mertin & H. Schwebel, eds., Kirche und moderne Kunst, 1988 ◆ H. Schwebel & A. Mertin, eds., Bilder und ihre Macht, 1989 ◆ I. Möller, ed., Anstöße; FS R. Volp, 1991 ◆ A. Stock, Zwischen Tempel und Museum, 1991 ◆ K. Raschzok, “Das Bild als Erlebnisraum für die Gottesbegegnung,” KuK 70, 1992, 10–17 ◆ idem, “Mit Bildern verkündigen,” ibid. 42–48 ◆ P. Gräb, “Kunst und Kirche,” in: P. Gräb & K.-C. Epting, eds., 1993, 208–227 ◆ A. Grözinger, Praktische Theologie als Kunst der Wahrnehmung, 1995 ◆ J. Heumann & W.E. Müller, Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit, 1996 ◆ I. Mädler, Kirche und bildende Kunst der Moderne, 1997 ◆ D.M. Meiering, Kunst im Dienst (an) der Kirche?, 1997 ◆ S. Natrup, “Das postmoderne Kunstmuseum,” in A. Grözinger & J. Lott, eds., Gelebte Religion, FS G. Otto,

Art and Religion in Buddhism

418

1997, 50–62 ◆ W. Gräb, “Kunst und Religion in der Moderne,” in J. Herrmann et al., eds., Die Gegenwart der Kunst, 1998, 57–72 ◆ W.E. Müller & J. Heumann, eds., Kunst-Positionen, 1998 ◆ M. Zink, ed., Kreuz+Quer, 1998 ◆ K. Raschzok, Christuserfahrung und künstlerische Existenz, 1999 ◆ A. Kraetzschmer, Künstlerische und wirtschaftliche Spezifika der temporären Präsentation zeitgenössischer Kunst in evangelischen Kirchen, 1999 ◆ M. Künne, Bildbetrachtung im Wandel, 1999 ◆ J. Doppelstein, ed., Lost Paradise Lost, 2000 ◆ K. Raschzok, “’Methode der Predigt’: vom homiletischen Nutzen einer zeitgenössischen Künstlertheorie,” ZThK 97, 2000, 110–127. Klaus Raschzok

Art and Religion in Buddhism → Buddhism Art and Religion in Hinduism → Hinduism Art and Religion in Taoism → Taoism Artapanus was a Jewish-Hellinistic “historian” who around the middle of the 2nd century bce wrote a sort of biblical tale in which he dressed up the stories of Abraham and Joseph, but esp. those of Moses, with motifs from Egyptian and Greek literature. On apologetic grounds he made Moses (whom he identified with Musaeus) the great inventor (e.g. of writing and weapons technology) and founder of not only Jewish but also every other culture (including Egyptian animal worship and Greek philosophy). Unfortunately only three fragments of this remarkable work have survived as quotations in later authors. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic-Jewish Authors, vol. I, 1983, 189–243 ◆ N. Walter, Artapanus JSHRZ I 2, 1976, 121–36 ◆ G.E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 1992, 167–187. Pieter W. van der Horst

Artaud, Antonin (Sep 4, 1896, Marseille – Mar 4, 1948, Ivry-sur-Seine), French writer, graphic artist, director, and actor. In 1924 he became director of the Bureau des recherches surréalistes in Paris. A theater director in 1926, he founded the “Théâtre Alfred Jarry” (1927–30). In 1936/37 he made trips to Mexico and Ireland. He spent several years in psychiatric institutions (until 1946). Poems, dramas (Les Cenci, première 1935), and esp. texts in theater theory (Le théâtre et son double, 1938). Until 1926 Artaud belonged to the circle of surrealists (→ Surrealism) and was regarded as an important stimulator of the “theater of the absurd,” to which he provided decisive impetus in the form of his Théâtre de la cruauté (1935; Le manifeste du théâtre de la cruauté, 1932). His views of a “metaphysical” cruelty and a “hieratic” theater ( Jacques Derrida) are based on → Plato, F. → Nietzsche and East Asian theater, among other influences. Works: Œuvres complétes, 26 vols., 1956–94 ◆ On Artaud: E. Kapralik, Antonin Artaud, 1977 ◆ J. Derrida, Die Schrift und die Differenz, 61994.

Johannes Endres

Artemidorus Daldianus, of Ephesus (2nd cent. bce), the most important dream researcher and dream interpreter of Greek antiquity; defender of a secularized manticism (→ Divination/Manticism) with scientific claim. In his five books of oneiro-critica, a textbook of dream interpretation, Artemidorus presented encyclopedically and systematically the assembled knowledge of dreams of his time. As a standard work, it was not replaced until S. → Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams (1900). Artemidorus’s importance lies in the fact that he conceived of the → dream and dream interpretation, in distinction to Freud, as both culturally and linguistically independent and supraindividual phenomena. In spite of Artemidorus’s immense influence in Europe and Arabia and his high theoretical level, he is generally underestimated by modern scholars, although the commonalities with the modern practice of dream interpretation are great (esp. the art of dialogue, materials and mechanisms of dream formation, inclusion in the living world of clients). Freud owed more to Artemidorus than he was ready to admit. Text edition: Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon Libri V, ed. R.A. Pack, 1963 ◆ On Artemidorus: C. Walde, “Dream-interpretation in a Prosperous Age?” in G. Stroumsa & D. Shulman, eds., Dream Cultures: Toward a Comparative History of Dreaming, 1999. Christine Walde

Artemis (῎Αρτεμις, Doric Artamis, Latin Diana). The cult of the Greek goddess Artemis was probably the most popular in all the Greek poleis; even though she was rarely chosen the city goddess, as she was in Ephesus, Sparta, and Kalydon-Patrai. Artemis’s limited significance in the (male) polis rests in the fact that primarily the women chose the virgin Artemis, who was averse to male desire, as their goddess: the maidens, such as the Athenians in Brauron, learned female lore and selfconsciousness as “female bears” before their (very early) marriages, as in the myth of Nausicaa in Od. VI, 102–109 or like the Amazons who founded Artemis’s sanctuary in Ephesus. After marriage, she assisted in the distress of childbirth. Men called upon her aid when they went hunting; before a battle, one offered her a goat. Homer’s sobriquet for Artemis, “Lady of the Animals” (Iliad XXI, 470f.) may transmit a cultic title which may be associated in the iconography, also in the pre-Greek Orient and Aegean, with a “great goddess” who leads docile wild animals such as lionesses, stags and griffins. Artemis and her younger twin-brother, Apollo, as children of Zeus and Leto, were born near Ephesus. Implacably, she demanded the sacrifice of Iphigenia, but delivered the maiden; the converse was true of Hippolytus. She is depicted as a huntress with a short skirt and bow. In contrast, the statue of Artemis of Ephesus has a

419 mesh skirt, bees and leather pouches (not breasts) of the hecatomb, which portray her importance. Her name and incorporation in a differentiated pantheon are already evident in the → Aegean religions. Artemis can be equated with Cybele and Artemis Ephesia, although they differ considerably in cult and image. The situation is similar with respect to Hecate, also associated with Asia Minor, who resisted incorporation in the Olympic pantheon with a nocturnal cult of extraordinary sacrificial animals for a goddess in three forms. The Romans identified her as the goddess Diana. The image of Artemis as the goddess who would not allow herself to be incorporated into the order of the polis, as the “goddess beyond,” becomes the basis later for why Artemis-Diana was regarded in late and post-antiquity as the goddess of village cults (as with the Benandanti in Friaul, 16th/17th cents.) and, from the perspective of city religion, as the goddess of witches. Iliad XXI, 470–514 ◆ Homeric Hymns 27 ◆ Hesiod, Theogony 404–452 ◆ Aeschylus, Artemis, 228–236 ◆ Callimachos, Hymni 3 ◆ Acts 19 ◆ L. Kahil & R. Fleischer, “Artemis,” LIMC II/1, 618–733; 755–763 ◆ M. Nilsson, Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, 21950, 503–516 ◆ M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. I, 31967, 483–500; vol. II, 31974, 368–369 ◆ C. Ginzburg, Die Benandanti: Feldkulte und Hexenwesen im 16. und 17.Jh., 1980 ◆ J.P. Vernant, La mort dans les yeux, 1985 ◆ E. Simon, Die Götter der Griechen, 31985, 147–178 ◆ J.N. Bremmer, Götter, Mythen und Heiligtümer im antiken Griechenland, 1996. Christoph Auffarth

Artemy, Starets (c. 1510 near Pskov? – before 1570 Lithuania), last important theologian of the movement of the propertyless; 1550/51 adviser of Tsar → Ivan IV, abbot of Trinity Abbey in Moscow; he attempted (in vain) a reform within Orthodoxy based on the NT commandment of love and a certain critique of the church fathers and church law. After condemnation (1554) and flight he worked in Lithuania for Orthodox interests (Bible translation, polemics against Reformed and Lutherans). G. Schulz, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Starzen Artemij innerhalb der Bewegung der Besitzlosen im Rußland der 1. Hälfte des 16. Jh., 1980. Günther Schulz

Artes liberales. In contrast to the artes mechanicae, in the ancient world the artes liberales constituted the subjects in which a free man should be educated. The early attempts of Sophists to define them were elaborated by →Plato ; they were systematized by Varro in the 1st century bce. In Late Antiquity, the list of seven and its division into the trivium (linguistic disciplines: grammar, rhetoric, dialectic) and quadrivium (mathematical disciplines: arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy) became canonical. While → Augustine of Hippo organized the artes liberales around the interpretation of scripture, → Martianus Capella composed an allegorical presentation of their universal pedagogical role. Included

Articles of Faith in the curriculum of the monastic schools since the time of → Cassiodorus, the artes liberales were further promoted by the Carolingian renaissance and the school of Chartres. Their use in theology was criticized by (→ Peter Damian and → Bernard of Clairvaux). From the 13th century on, in the arts faculties of the universities, the artes liberales constituted the prerequisite for the study of theology, law, and medicine. Works of antiquity furnished the textbooks for the artes liberales. Grammar was based on Priscian and Donatus, rhetoric on → Quintilian and → Cicero, dialectics on → Aristotle and Boethius, arithmetic and music on → Boethius, geometry on Euclid, and astronomy on Ptolemy and Almagest. J. Koch, ed., Artes liberales von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mittelalters, 1959 ◆ Arts libéraux et philosophie au Moyen Age, 1969 ◆ O. Mazal, Wissenschaft im Mittelalter, 1975 ◆ I. Hadot, Arts libéraux et philosophie dans la pensée antique, 1984 ◆ D.L. Wagner, ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, 1986 ◆ U. Lindgren, Die Artes liberales in Antike und Mittelalter, 1992. Reinhold Rieger

Articles of Faith I. Western Church – II. Eastern Church

I. Western Church CD=Corpus (Corpora) doctrinae, CO=Church Order

1. Concept and Content. Articles of faith are officially authorized, textually authenticated doctrinal statements (→ Confessions (of Faith), confession collections, CD) through which a constitutionally organized (→ Church Orders) Christian church articulates its own confessional insights, formulates a normative definition of its proclamation and → doctrine, and thus simultaneously distances itself from other forms of proclamation and doctrine. As collections of binding confessions and doctrinal norms, articles of faith are typical phenomena of the Reformation era and of its heir, early → orthodoxy. The idea is based on the Lutheran concept of church developed by Melanchthon (the church as coetus scholasticus, the requirement of a consensus de doctrina, the exclusion of → heresy) and constitutes an important precondition for the development of territorial churches. The Lutheranism (→ Lutherans) of the 19th century primarily emphasized the legal character of the articles of faith (“confessional status,” denomination). The Lutheran → confessionalism of the 20th century further expanded this position (thesis of the “church founding confession”). Already in the 16th and, esp., in the 17th centuries, the conception of the articles of faith (“symbolic books”) was applied to a number of non-Lutheran particular churches that were regarded as “Catholic” (→ Orthodox Churches). Here, once again following Melanchthon, the three early church confessions served as basic models (→ Apostles’ Creed,

Articles of Faith → Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Athanasian Creed [→ Symbolum Quicumque]). These were held to be an originally (and still) common ecumenical basis. Following the Formula of → Concord of 1577 (FC), the articles of faith were henceforth regarded as the “norma normata.” Though considered subordinate to the Holy Scriptures, which represent the “norma normans,” they actually furnished the decisive key for understanding Scripture. This prompted the establishment of a new theological discipline, that of symbolics (→ Denominations, Study of ). 2. Lutheran Articles of Faith. The first document to mention here is the Book of → Concord (1580/1584). The complete Book of Concord, however, was not (and still is not) recognized in all (regional) churches. Neither does it represent the only Lutheran collection of articles of faith. Other articles of faith preceded and existed next to it (sometimes in association with more comprehensive church orders) and were (or still are) likewise regarded as articles of faith. The concept of the CD does not go back solely to Melanchthon, though it owes its unique focus to him. He meant it to be understood as “the totality of documents in which the incorrupta Evangelii doctrina is normatively proclaimed” (Wolf, 1012). The original starting point for the development of CD was the insertion of confessional formulae or doctrinal texts (so-called credenda) in the CO of a territory or city. Such credenda, which were also sometimes included in the CD, are, e.g.: (a) Melanchthon’s Instructions for visitors from 1528 (influenced the BrandenburgNuremberg CO of 1533 and, through it, many others); (b) the Preaching Guidelines of Count Ernst of Braunschweig-Lüneburg from 1529 (the prototype for the Formula Caute Loquendi of U. → Rhegius from 1535): (c) the 1536 CO of the city of Hanover and the 1538 Lippic CO; (d) the 1541 CO of the city of Halle; (e) the 1552 Mecklenburg CO with Melanchthon’s Examen ordinandorum; (f ) the 1557 Saxon General articles with the 1551 Confessio Saxonia (Melanchthon); (g) the so-called great Württemberg CO of 1559 with the 1551 Confessio Virtembergica ( J. → Brenz); (h) the so-called Calenberg CO (BraunschweigLüneburg) of 1569 with a doctrinal section by M. → Chemnitz and (i) the 1573 Oldenburg CO with a reconfiguration of the Examen ordinandorum into a Lutheran scholastic dogmatics by N. → Selnecker and H. → Hamelmann. Systematically prepared doctrinal orders appear (sporadically) already during the 1530s, e.g.: (a) in the Pommeranian CO of 1535 ( J. → Bugenhagen); (b) the Hamburg Articles of 1535 ( J. → Aepinus); (c) the 1541 CO of the city of Halle ( J. → Jonas), and (d) the 1543 Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel CO (Bugenhagen). Here,

420 the influence of the Wittenberg doctoral oath (date disputed: 1533?) becomes noticeable (via the authoritative theologians). Common to all mentioned doctrinal orders was the tendency to bind the proclamation to fixed books of norms. The → Augsburg Confession of 1530 (CA) served as their nucleus. It was the authentic CD. The other documents (e.g.: Melanchthon’s Apology (→ Augsburg Confession, Apology) or his Loci, Luther’s catechisms, postils or his commentary on Galatians, but also documents by Bugenhagen or Rhegius) were variable. They were only valid as (nonetheless authentic) interpretations of the CA. The death of Martin Luther (1546) and the imperial Interim (1548) constituted a first clear break (doctrinal rigidity in opposition to Roman Catholicism). The following inner-Protestant doctrinal disputes shook the foundations of Lutheran doctrinal norms. In the 1550s, Melanchthon, in particular, defended the basic approach of the Wittenberg doctoral oath (thus, e.g., in 1552/1553 against A. → Osiander) and further expanded it (CD as a collection of authoritative documents). This eventually led (after preparatory work: Mecklenburg CO of 1552; Frankfurt Recess of 1558) to his CD Christianae of 1560. This CD, with a preface by Melanchthon himself (German Sep 29, 1559), hardly owes its publication to the private initiative of the Leipzig publisher Ernst Vögelin alone. The initial impulse came from a request by the consistorium of Leipzig asking Melanchthon for an authentic compilation of his doctrinal statements. Later usually referred to as CD Philippicum, it contains, along with the three early church confessions, exclusively writings by Melanchthon: the CA variata, the Apology, the Confessio Saxonica (1551) written for the Council of → Trent, the Loci Theologici (1559), the Examen ordinandorum (1552), and the Bavarian Articles of Inquisition (1559). Melanchthon understood his CD apologetically: he wrote it as a refutation of the attacks from the → Gnesio-Lutherans and to provide evidence of his conformity with the CA. This was not enough for Vögelin. Consequently, Melanchton appended a “Reminder to the Reader” that declared his church order to be a binding doctrinal norm (a summary of the confessional position of Electoral Saxony). The CD Philippicum underwent numerous editions until 1580. It was also often endorsed by the authorities (as in Pomerania, Electoral Saxony [CD Misnicum], Bremen, and Silesia; in Anhalt and Denmark, it was considered a reiteration of their own doctrinal topoi). After the demise of crypto-Calvinism in Electoral Saxony (1574), however, it quickly lost significance. Melanchthon’s CD elicited a plethora of “antiPhilippistic” CD, e.g.: (a) the 1560 Hamburg Confession Book; (b) the Lübecker Formula of Consensus de Doctrina Evangelii of 1560; (c) the 1561 Lüneburg

421 Articles ( J. → Mörlin); (d) the 1563 Braunschweig CD (Mörlin); (e) the 1564 CD Pomeranicum (= lower German CD Philippicum + 6 writings of Luther); (f ) the 1567 CD Prutenicum (Mörlin, Chemnitz); (g) the 1568 Göttingen CD; (h) the 1570 CD Thuringicum (Duchy of Saxony); (i) the 1572 CD Brandenburgicum (A. → Musculus); (j) the 1576 CD Wilhelminum (Braunschweig-Lüneburg; Rhegius, Chemnitz), and (k) the 1576 CD Julium (Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel). All of these church orders lost significance with the appearance of the Book of Concord (1580/1584). Where it was rejected, one firmly held on to one’s own CD (thus, e.g., in Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) or developed a new one, as e.g. in: (a) Holstein (Book of Concord minus FC); (b) Pomerania (CD Pomeranicum + parts of the FC); (c) Hessen-Darmstadt (CD Julium + → Wittenberg Concord [= CD Hassiacum of 1617/1626]); (d) Nuremberg (return to the “Normal bücher” established in 1573 as a supplement to the CD Philippicum) and (e) Electoral Saxony (radicalization of the Book of Concord by means of the Articles of Visitation of A. → Hunn in 1592). Regionally significant are also the following Lutheran articles of faith that did not make it into the Book of Concord: (a) the Wittenberg Concord of 1536; (b) the Confessio Saxonica of 1551; (c) the Confessio Virtembergica of 1551; (d) the Confessio et ordinatio ecclesiarum Danicarum of 1561 (N. → Hemmingsen), and (e) the Swedish CO written by L. → Petri (CD Svecanum of 1594). Even beyond the Book of Concord, a rich plurality of confessions has thus been preserved. Only one of the confessional texts contained in the Book of Concord also found imperial recognition: the Lutheran “proto-CD,” the CA in the Religious Peace of Augsburg (→ Augsburg, Peace of ) of 1555 and in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 (→ Westphalia, Peace of ). 3. Reformed Articles of Faith. The Reformed churches also have numerous regional articles of faith. Here, however, there is no fixed confessional canon and, consequently, no authoritative collection of symbolic books comparable to the Book of Concord. All collections of confessional texts have, in effect, private character. This was already true of the early period (thus, e.g., the Harmonia confessionum of 1581 or the Corpus et syntagma confessionum fidei of 1621/1654), and remains so for the modern collections (thus, e.g., BSRK, BSKORK and Collectio). In contrast to Lutheranism, the link between articles of faith and church orders tends to be less prominent. The notion of (relatively) definitive articles of faith is also lacking. Each such collection is valid only as the testimony of a faith formulated by erring human beings for a specific situation, and is thus inevitably improvable and replaceable. Furthermore, the ecclesia catholica confessed in the Credo does not

Articles of Faith articulate itself in it, but only a coetus particularis defined within the limits of its cognizance of Scripture and faith, i.e.: a local or national “particular” church. The freedom granted by the Reformed CO to revise older or formulate new articles of faith is accordingly large. As a result, texts that were not originally meant to be “public” articles of faith could attain symbolic status (thus, e.g., Calvin’s Institutio) and new compositions from the 19th and 20th centuries could be adopted (thus, e.g., the 1818 doctrinal articles of the Pfalzian Union; the Düsseldorf Theses of 1933; the Barmen Theological Declaration of 1934 [→ Barmen Declaration: II] or the 1951 CO of the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk). This could also lead to the abrogation or the historical relativization of a confession, sometimes even resulting in the complete dissolution of the confession’s binding authority (thus, e.g., in the Evangelical-Reformed churches of Switzerland, Basel 1872/Graubünden 1873). Of the 58 texts collected by Müller (BSRK), the following deserve particular notice: (a) the upper German-Swiss confessions prior to Calvin (1509–1564): the Zürich Introduction of 1523; the Bern Theses of 1528; the Fidei raio of 1530 (U. → Zwingli); the Confessio Tetrapolitana of 1530 (M. → Bucer, W. → Capito); the doctrinal articles of the → Bern Synod of 1532; the Confessio Basilensis prior (= Muelhusana) of 1534, and the Confessio Helvetica prior (= Basilensis posterior) of 1536. (b) Swiss confessions since Calvin: the Confession de la Foy of 1536 ( J. → Calvin); the Catechismus Genevensis of 1545 (Calvin) and the Consensus Tigurinus (H. → Bullinger) of 1549. (c) Western European confessions: the Confessio Gallicana of 1559; the Confessio Belgica of 1561 (de → Brès); the Confessio Scotica of 1560 and the Confessio fidei puritanae (= → Westminster Confession) of 1647. (d) East-central European confessions: the Confession Hungarica of 1562; the Consensus Sendomiriensis of 1570 and the Confessio Bohemica of 1575. (e) German-Reformed confessions: the Emden Catechism of 1554; the → Heidelberg Catechism of 1563; the Consensus Bremensis of 1595; the → Staffort Book of 1599 and the Confessio Sigismundi (= Brandenburgica = Marchica) of 1614. (f ) Confessions that are important in the history of doctrine: the Confessio Helvetica posterior of 1561 (Bullinger); the Dordrecht Canones (Synod of → Dort) of 1619, and the Formula Consensus Helvetia of 1675. 4. Anglican Church. The central confessional document here is the → Book of Common Prayer from 1549 (T. → Cranmer, revised in 1552 from a Calvinist perspective, and in 1559 and 1662 from a Roman Catholic one). In addition to an agenda section, the Psalter, and a catechism, it contains the 39 articles of 1552/1562 (CA variata, Confessio Virtembergica), which were also recognized by parliament as the Confessio Anglicana (with numerous attempts to revise it).

Articles of Faith 5. Protestant Denominations. The Protestant denominations that arose from Reformed Protestantism or from the → Anglican Church (→ Congregationalism, → Methodists, → Baptists) also have many doctrinal documents that are similar to articles of faith. Their binding authority within the church, however, is only marginal (numerous secessions and reunions). Where (as esp. in recent times) church → unions are aspired to, however, renewed reflection on the confession and its history may set it. The fundamental articles of faith of European-English Congregationalism is the Savoy Declaration of 1658 (= a slightly modified Westminster Confession + Platform of Policy). American Congregationalism invokes the Cambridge Platform of 1648 (= Westminster Confession + an independentalist church polity), which is its “Magna Carta” (Wolf 1015). Other recent confessional texts such as the 1883 Statement of Doctrine and the 1944 Statement of Faith of Grand Rapids may be added. The Congregationalism of the United Church of Christ in the USA (UCC, issued from the Evangelical-Reformed and the Christian Congregationalist churches) adopted the Statement of Faith in 1961. The Congregationalist Churches of England and Wales also published their own declaration of faith in 1967 (which mentions the three early church confessions and the confessions of the Reformation period). The Methodist Episcopal Church professes 25 statements of faith (as of 1924: Doctrines and Discipline). Baptist articles of faith include, e.g.: the Baptist Confession of 1688; the Philadelphia Confession of 1742; the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 (revised 1853) and the Confession of Faith of the Union of Evangelical-Free Church Congregations of 1944 (Confession of the German Baptists). The United Presbyterian Church (USA) also published its own articles of faith in 1967 (three early church confessions + Reformed confessions up to the Westminster Confession + the Barmen Theological Declaration). 6. Roman Catholic Church. As in the Orthodox Churches (see below II), articles of faith play only a minor role in the Roman Catholic Church. The “Symbolism” (Symbolik) published by J.A. → Möhler in 1832 followed Protestant models, but has remained an unauthorized private work. Nonetheless, notably in more recent times, it has been pointed out that it would also be useful for Roman Catholics to “conceptually single out the particular statements of faith within the scriptural testimonies of faith in general” and to regard the resulting compilations as “symbolic books” (Zeller, 147). Articles of faith are thus “declared to be authentic in their own right by the church and made binding . . . so that membership in the church could be determined by their acceptance or rejection” (ibid.). Such articles of faith would, e.g., include: (a) Symbols: the three early church

422 Symbols; the Symbolum Toletanum of 657; the Symbolum Leonis IX of 1053; the Professio Valdesii of 1208; the Firmiter credimus of the Fourth → Lateran Council of 1215; the Professio fidei of the Second Council of Lyon (→ Lyon, Councils of ) of 1274 (→ Michael VIII Palaeologos); the Decretals of Florence from 1439 and 1442; the Professio fidei Tridentinae of 1564 (followed by Vatican I and expanded as the Professio catholicae fidei of 1877 and prefaced to the → Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917); the Professio fidei of 1575, and the so-called Anti-Modernist Oath (→ Antimodernism) of 1910 (rescinded in 1967). (b) Doctrinal decisions: decretals of faith and the Canons of the ecumenical councils of the early church up to → Vatican II, as well as the ex cathedra papal decisions de fide vel moribus published in bullae, encyclicals, and constitutions. On 1.: P. Tschackert, Die Entstehung der lutheranischen und der reformierten Kirchenlehre, 1910 ◆ J. Wirsching, TRE V, 1980, 487–511 ◆ On 2.: Sources: J.T. Müller, Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutheranischen Kirche, 1848, 121928 ◆ BSLK ◆ W.F. Schmidt & K. Schornbaum, Die fränkischen Bekenntnisse, 1930 ◆ Doctrinal Declarations (USA), 1957 ◆ W.H. Neuser, Bibliographie der Confessio und Apologie, 1987 ◆ Bibl: E. Wolf, RGG3 I, 1957, 1012–1017 ◆ M. Brecht & R. Schwarz, Bekenntnis und Einheit der Kirche, 1980 ◆ B. Lohse, “Dogma und Bekenntnis in der Reformation: Von Luther bis zum Konkordienbuch,” HDThG II, 1980, 1–164 ◆ G. Wenz, Theologie der Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutheranischen Kirche, 2 vols., 1996–1998 ◆ On 3.: H.A. Niemeyer, Collectio confessionum, 1840 ◆ BSRK ◆ BSKORK ◆ P. Jacobs, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen in deutscher Übersetzung, 1949 ◆ Bibl. K. Barth, Das Bekenntnis der Reformation und unser Bekennen, 1935 ◆ W.H. Neuser, “Dogma und Bekenntnis in der Reformation: Von Zwingli und Calvin bis zur Synode von Westminster,” HDThG 2, 1980, 165–352 ◆ J. Rohls, Theologie reformierter Bekenntnisschriften, 1987 ◆ On 4.: Sources: CConf 17/1, 1937 (Church of England) ◆ Bibl.: E.J. Bicknell, Theological Introduction to the 39 Articles, 1919, 31955 ◆ G. Gassmann, “Die Lehrentwicklung im Anglikanismus: Von Heinrich VIII. bis zu William Temple,” HDThG II, 1980, 353–409 ◆ On 5.: Sources: CConf 20/1, 1931 (Methodist Episcopaleans) ◆ The Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church (USA) I, 1967 ◆ Bibl.: W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, 1893, 21960 ◆ On 6.: Sources: DS ◆ F. Cavallera, TDC, 1920, 21936 ◆ J. Neuner & H. Roos, Glaube der Kirche in den Urkunden der Lehrverkündigung, 1938 (revised by K. Rahner & K.-H. Weger, 81971) ◆ A. Rohrbasser, Heilslehre der Kirche, 1953 ◆ Bibl.: H. Zeller, LThK 2II, 1958, 146–148 ◆ W. Dantine, “Das Dogma im tridentinischen Katholizismus,” HDThG 2, 1980, 411–498 ◆ General: A Hahn, Bibliographie der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, 1842, 31897 ◆ P. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., 1878, 51977–1978 ◆ H. Lietzmann, Symbole der Alten Kirche, 1906, 61968 ◆ H. Steubing, Bekenntnisse der Kirche, 1970. Christian Peters

II. Eastern Church Articles of faith in the sense established by Lutheranism have remained foreign to the Orthodox Church. The confession of Gennadios Scholarios in 1456 commissioned by Sultan Mehmed II or those of Metrophanes Kritopoulos from 1625 and of Kyrillos Loukaris from 1629 prompted by Lutheran or Calvinist theologians,

423 have strictly private character; indeed, the latter was even explicitly rejected by a synod as early as 1638. Even if the Confessio Orthodoxa of Petrus Mogilas, in contrast, gained synodal approval in Constantinople in 1643 and → Dositheos of Jerusalem actually composed his Confession of 1672 specifically for a synod, both confessions, which were concerned with demarcating Orthodox doctrinal tradition from Protestantism and Catholicism by using western scholastic forms of thought, had only a temporary and geographically limited impact. The authoritative texts containing the doctrinal norms of Orthodoxy originate from conciliar acts, liturgical formularies, and the writings of the church fathers and remain diffuse in their delimitation and gradation, while the → Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed alone has an entirely unique status as an unalterable and absolutely binding norm of faith. Even though the Panorthodox Conference of Rhodes specified the formulation and publication of a unified Orthodox compilation of articles of faith as the task of a future Panorthodox Prosynod, it seems doubtful whether the effort will ever succeed. The nature of Orthodoxy is simply more difficult to sum up in doctrinal documents than in other denominations. I.N. Karmiris, Repertorium der Symbole und Bekenntnisschriften der Griechisch-Orthodoxen Kirche, 1969 ◆ Vasilij (Krivosein), “Simvoličeskie teksty v Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi,” BoTr 4, 1968, 5–36 ◆ G. Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft, 1988 ◆ J.J. Pelikan & V.R. Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confession of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 2003. Peter Hauptmann

Articulus stantis et (vel) cadentis ecclesiae is a widely used expression for the doctrine of → justification in Reformation thinking, and is attested a number of times in this form, beginning in 1615 with B. → Meisner (Anthropologia sacra XXIV, 3), then used in 1649 and 1677 by A. → Calovius, in 1653 by J. → Hülsemann, in 1673 and 1680 by J.H. → Heidegger, in 1682 by F. → Turrettini, in 1686 by J. Marckius, and in 1701 by F. Bechmann. Finally, after frequent polemical use by J.K. → Dippel from 1698, and in 1712 and 1718 by V.E. → Löscher, J.F. Benner was able, on the basis of numerous repetitions, including in 1738 by J.F. → Burg and in 1765 by J. → Wesley, to observe, “hic articulus solet vocari (is accustomed to be called) stantis & cadentis ecclesiae” (Notitia salutis, 1765, 980). An earlier form (articulus, quo stante stat, cadente cadit ecclesia), which was still remembered in 1766, can, with variations, be traced via J.F. → Stapfer (1743), J.J. Hottinger (1727), J. → Meisner (1667) and other theologians, esp. H. → Kromayer (1662, 1668, 1679), J. → Gerhard (1629), J. Himmel (1621), W. → Amling (1603), G. → Sohn (1584) and T. Heshusius (1587), to Simon Pauli: “stante articulo iustificationis stare Ecclesiam . . ., convulso autem & labefactato . . . simul collabi & ruere Ecclesiam” (1569).

Artificial Intelligence Wrong, but made on factual grounds (WA 40 III, 351, 34f.; 352, 3) is the ascription of the formula (often based on WA 40 I, 441, 29), always as only an oral tradition, to Luther. In 1917 F.A. → Loofs contributed very much to its dissemination with his first ever, but flawed investigation of its origin. T. Mahlmann, “Die Rechtfertigung ist der Artikel, mit dem die Kirche steht und fällt,” in: Zur Rechtfertigungslehre in der Lutherischen Orthodoxie, ed. U. Sträter, 2003, 167–271. Theodor Mahlmann

Artificial Intelligence I. Science – II. Philosophy – III. Ethics

I. Science Artificial intelligence is a field of study within engineering, esp. information technology. Researchers in this field are attempting to develop machines capable of performing tasks that require → intelligence. At present, the Turing test, named after Alan Turing, is the recognized intelligence test for computers: if a human being communicating with another human being and a computer by means of a keyboard cannot decide unambiguously, even after a long time, which of his dialogue partners is human and which is a machine, the computer has passed the intelligence test. Since the choice of subjects for the dialogue is not limited, the artificial intelligence system must possess abilities and experiences that are not purely analytic (humor, physical experiences, social behavior, etc.). Artificial intelligence can be defined in terms of its goal. The engineering goal of artificial intelligence is the construction of machines so flexible and adaptive that they can be employed in more areas than at present. Classical areas of research include cognition, intelligent searching, robot navigation, computer learning, and other general and abstract problem-solving strategies such as constructing mathematical proofs and playing chess. Artificial intelligence systems are employed in the field of language recognition and translation; they serve as expert systems and well as autonomous robots and web agents. The scientific goal of artificial intelligence is to learn more about the mechanisms and functions of the human system by constructing intelligent machines. In the pragmatically oriented engineering approach, so-called brute force methods that use the sheer computing power and speed of modern microprocessors are combined with algorithms that can solve specific problems intelligently and efficiently. Knowledge of how human beings function intelligently often inspires the development of algorithms, but these are not the real focus of research. In the scientific approach, by contrast, models of intelligence are developed that are inspired by insights of philosophy,

Artificial Intelligence psychology, and biology. Here, researchers normally choose models that correspond most closely to their own understanding of human beings (see III below). At present, artificial intelligence employs two models of intelligence: Classical artificial intelligence bases its research on models in the tradition of analytic philosophy. Intelligence is understood metaphorically as software that can be implemented either on the hardware of a computer or the “wetware” of the human brain. Research concentrates on abstract problem-solving strategies, language, intelligent searching, and the representation of knowledge. Embodied artificial intelligence understands intelligence as the ability to survive in the context of evolutionary development. All living beings are intelligent in their specific habitats and have specific capabilities. For artificial intelligence systems to be employed in specific situations, research looks for biological systems that survive under similar conditions and attempts to mimic them. Intelligence is understood as a byproduct of the ontogenesis and phylogenesis of a species and its struggle to survive – human beings are not qualitatively “more intelligent” than other animals, but are simply much more independent of their environment. Like biological systems, artificial intelligence systems are “distributed,” i.e. they do not make use of a central processor or control mechanism. Instead, all actuators and sensors are independent and interact with their immediate surroundings, which consist of other parts of the system and the natural environment. The overall behavior of such systems is emergent, i.e. it results from the complex interaction of interactive subsystems. Applications of this approach include autonomous robots as well as genetic algorithms, socially interactive agents (including the World Wide Web [→ Internet]) and cognitive systems. A.M. Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” in: J. Feldman & E.A. Feigenbaum, eds., Computers and Thought, 1963, 11–35 ◆ A. Newell & H.A. Simon, eds., Human Problem Solving, 1972 ◆ P. Winston, Artificial Intelligence, 1977, 21984 ◆ R. Kurzweil, The Age of Intelligent Machines, 1990 ◆ F. Varela, Kognitionswissenschaft-Kognitionstechnik, Eine Skizze aktueller Perspektiven, 1990, 31993 ◆ R. Brooks, Cambrian Intelligence, 1999 ◆ R. Pfeifer, Understanding Intelligence, 1999. Anne Foerst

II. Philosophy The “Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence,” organized by John McCarthy in 1956, is generally seen as the birth of the discipline of artificial intelligence. According to Marvin Minsky, it can be characterized as the science that studies how to build machines capable of doing things that would require intelligence if human beings did them. But the first attempts to build “intelligent” machines go fur-

424 ther back in time. As early as 1833, Charles Babbage devised a programmable calculating engine possessing all the features of a modern computer’s CPU (arithmetic unit, control unit, central memory, input and output), though its primitive technology prevented it from functioning. It was to take more than a century before Konrad Zuse and Turing succeeded in realizing Babbage’s ideas in the form of modern calculators. It was also Turing who began formulating metaphysical and epistemological questions regarding machine intelligence as early as the 1940s: Can machines think? How can we determine that they do so if they actually do? He himself was convinced that machines would soon be capable of adequately simulating the behavior of the human mind. The Turing test, named after him, is widely known: a game of imitation is used to determine whether a machine has the ability to reason (see I above). However, there are various reservations with respect to this approach, which takes only behavioral output (→ Behaviorism) into consideration. The best-known example is probably the thought experiment of the “Chinese room,” devised by John Searle, in which he argues against what he calls “strong” artificial intelligence, which claims that the human brain can be equated with a digital computer and our “mind” with a computer program. According to “weak” artificial intelligence, “mindless” computers can at best simulate the behavior of minds. Adapting Turing, Searle imagines a physically isolated person communicating with Chinese in Chinese solely by means of written messages. This person does not understand a single word of the messages, but possesses an extensive set of rules that indicate, for every sequence of Chinese characters, what characters would represent an acceptable response. The subject of the experiment selects these characters and transmits them to the Chinese. The Chinese room (the person with the set of rules) therefore has a good chance of passing the Turing test: it creates the illusion that Chinese is thought and understood “within it”. But in fact – and this is the crucial point for Searle – no one actually understands Chinese. Since a computer functions like the Chinese room – instead of the person we have the central processor, and instead of the set of rules a program –, Searle argues that the computer cannot be said to understand anything: it has no “mind” in the strict sense of the word. A further problem for artificial intelligence has to do with the more general question of what may be considered intelligent (human) behavior. In the forefront of research stand the very successful attempts to simulate our so-called rational competencies (e.g. the ability to solve problems, master strategic games, or prove mathematical theorems). Meanwhile, however, it turns out that the supposedly “higher” functions are much easier

425 for a machine to accomplish than the “simpler” tasks that we master as we go through life and which seem to require no intelligence at all, such as recognizing strange faces, finding our way through a crowd without bumping into anyone, or catching a ball in flight. Strictly ruleoriented programs have enormous difficulty with these latter tasks, which require pattern recognition and the generation of (new) rules; neural networks perform substantially better (→ Connectionism). But the successes and difficulties of artificial intelligence research do cast a new light on the question of what constitutes the human mind: Do computers (or robots) that simulate our cognitive abilities behaviorally already provide a (fine-grained) model of how the human brain or mind functions? Even if this question might be secondary for many researchers in the field of artificial intelligence, contemporary anthropology cannot ignore it. J. Searle, Minds, Brains, and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures, 1984, 21989 ◆ B.J. Copeland, Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction, 1993 ◆ S. Franklin, Artificial Minds, 1995. Achim Stephan

III. Ethics The ethical problems of artificial intelligence can be assigned to three categories. 1. The motivation of artificial intelligence research is often considered presumptuous. The dangers of such behavior have been portrayed in myths from Antiquity down to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein und modern science fiction. An alternative to this perspective is found in the → Kabbalah, where the construction of → golems, artificial persons of clay, involves the danger of losing control, but also represents a form of prayer. The imago Dei symbolizes the divine → creativity within us, so that every creative act can be understood as prayer. Many pioneers of artificial intelligence come from this tradition and understand their work in this sense. 2. The anthropology of classical artificial intelligence (see I above) presupposes that all human thought can be replicated in a computer. Thought is identified with information processing, representation of knowledge, intelligent searching and learning. Metaphorically, the neurons of the human brain are identified with the bits and bytes of the computer processor (hardware-wetware-software metaphors). Intelligence is understood dualistically. This hypothesis has led to many good technical results. Ethically, however, it must be pointed out that the scientific community often does not question its basic presuppositions and assumptions. Researchers often interpret the anthropology underlying classical artificial intelligence ontologically, presenting it as a scientific and objective description of human beings.

Artificial Intelligence 3. Embodied artificial intelligence (see I above) views the body interacting with its natural and social environment as the way that humans and animals function, resulting in intelligence. Intelligence is not the same thing as → rationality. Instead, advanced mammals and embodied artificial intelligence systems have only a few inherent basic functions and learn through social interaction with their constructors and their environment. This connection of biology with developmental psychology in embodied artificial intelligence leads to a comprehensive concept of intelligence that includes social behavior, emotions, and physical coordination within the notion of intelligence. This responds to the frequently expressed criticism that analytical philosophy reduces intelligence to essential logocentric and rational capabilities. Nevertheless, the possible creation of autonomous systems (esp. robots) raises other ethical problems. Because of the way they are built and programmed, embodied systems with a certain degree of complexity can no longer be analyzed completely. As in the case of complex animals, the interactions between behaviors and functions within the system and its subsystems and their environment cannot be fully grasped and controlled. After a certain “learning phase,” every embodied system differs from other systems and is distinctive (→ Artificial Life). When such systems construct social relationships with human beings, and indeed cannot become intelligent without human interaction – like a baby growing up in isolation without any social ties or language –, we must ask whether such systems should not be assigned a worth (→ Value) that goes beyond mere machine status. Many critics of artificial intelligence insist that there is a qualitative difference between humans and all other animals and machines. They assume a priori that a machine cannot become like a human. Their arguments usually cite things that robots cannot do at present. These include bodily functions such as the sense of smell or touch and procreation. The counter-argument runs: although these things have not yet been developed, they could soon become possible. A qualitative difference cannot be construed on the basis of differing physical capabilities. A further barrier to embodied systems is often seen in their lack of cognitive capabilities such as language and self-consciousness. In this case, the argument of constant progress in technological development is insufficient. Instead, a precise analysis shows that on this point the separation of cultural, theological, and scientific notions of what it means to be human would be highly detrimental. In the question of the worth of robots, it is first necessary to distinguish clearly between being human and being a → person. Robots and animals cannot be or become human beings. But what are the criteria by which they may be ascribed personhood? Language and self-consciousness cannot serve as criteria here, because

Artificial Life newborn children are ascribed personhood from the beginning, although they do not yet have these capabilities but learn them through social interaction with their parents. The developmental cycle of early childhood can also be applied to robots, with good results. Any empirical criterion that denies the personhood of future robots also excludes certain human beings from personhood because they are too young, mentally retarded, sick, or lying in a coma, because they have been brought up in a different culture, or have been shaped differently in their early childhood development. Every form of racism or oppression of other human beings is ultimately the product of an empirical understanding of personhood that assigns value only on the basis of clearly demonstrable capabilities. The question of whether robots are to be valued is still only theoretical, but brings us back to the question of what gives us dignity and worth as human beings. Artificial intelligence may never become possible, but discussing it revitalizes ancient theological questions. It is therefore highly important as dialogue partner for theology. J. Weizenbaum, Die Macht der Computer und die Ohnmacht der Vernunft, 1978 ◆ P. McCorduck, Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence, 1979 ◆ G. Scholem, “Der Golem von Prag und der Golem von Rekovot,” in: idem, Judaica, vol. II, 1987, 77–86 ◆ J. Searle, “Minds, Brains and Programs,” in: R. Born, ed., Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against, 1987, 18–40 ◆ E. Herms, “Künstliche Intelligenz: Wesen und soziale ethische Probleme,” in: idem, Gesellschaft gestalten, 1991, 284–295 ◆ A. Clark, Being There: Putting Mind, Body and World Together Again, 1998 ◆ A. Foerst, “Artificial Sociability,” Technology and Society 21, 1999, 373–386. Anne Foerst

Artificial Life. The field of research known as “artificial life” (“a-life”) was introduced by Langton in 1987 at a conference in Los Alamos. It embraces all attempts to construct living systems without the help of biological structures. John von Neumann (1903–1957), one of the pioneers of computer science, defined life as a self-reproducing cellular automaton thereby drawing on G.W. → Leibniz, who described life as a complex automaton. Inspired by biological systems, artificial life researchers have, in recent years, created simulations and analytic models that mimic aspects of biological reproduction and the collective behavior of biological organisms. Today, a distinction is made between a-life and e-life. A-life refers to all biologically-inspired ecologies within a computer, in which “creatures” must compete for survival in artificial worlds. Probably the best-known example of such a world is Ray’s Tierra. E-life refers to quasi-living creatures such as the robots described in embodied → artificial intelligence (I) as well as toy creatures such as, e.g., Furbies. A-life is theologically relevant because it alludes to the concept of life. Initially this concept was employed

426 functionally. A-life creatures are alive if they can improve and specialize by interacting with their (usually programmed) environment. But this also means that they have to be able to “reproduce” through the use of genetic algorithms. In this way, a program or a creature can be optimized on the basis of previously defined fitness functions. The most recent and probably most impressive example of this kind is Pollack’s GOLEM project: first, a number of building blocks (joints, tubes, motors, etc.) are assembled within a computer by means of genetic algorithms in order to carry out previously defined functions (e.g. movement); in the next stage, they are actually constructed by engineering robot and tested in the real world. Feedback loops between the creatures and the construction robot allow progress in the sense of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Here, however, the ambiguity of the concept of life on which the project rests becomes apparent. In his much-quoted article, Joy maintains that machines which can “reproduce” and improve themselves are dangerous, because they will eventually make human beings superfluous. In this case, the term “life” has undergone a shift of meaning: a functional aspect of living organisms (reproduction) has become a qualitative criterion that could override the machine status of a-life creatures. Discussions of the GOLEM project and similar programs have repeatedly shown that the attribution of “life” also serves to assign or deny a creature’s worth. In contrast to cellular biology, where life is still defined functionally on the basis of information exchange through DNA, a-life regards a “living” creature as one that can no longer simply be dismantled or destroyed, and can even engage in competition with human beings or animals. In a-life, the attribute “living” becomes a value judgment about the electronic creature in question. C.G. Langton, ed., Artificial Life, 1989 ◆ T.S. Ray, “Tierra,” in: C.G. Langton, ed., Artificial Life II, 1991 ◆ B. Joy, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired, Apr 8, 2000 ◆ J.B. Pollack, “Automatic Design and Manufacture of Robotic Lifeforms,” Nature 406, 2000, 974–978. Anne Foerst

Artigas, José Gervasio ( Jun 19, 1764, Montevideo – Sep 23, 1850, Ibiray, near Asunción). After being educated by the Franciscans, Arigas joined the Spanish militia 1797. At the beginning of 1811, he joined the struggle for liberation from the Spanish colonial regime that began in Buenos Aires. After conquering the heartland of → Uruguay and defeating the Spanish army before Montevideo (1811), Portuguese troops forced his army to retreat, together with the local population. After peace negotiations between Buenos Aires and the colonial authorities, he distanced himself from the monarchically inclined junta in Buenos Aires. Having retaken the territory east of the Uruguay River, he spent the years 1813 to 1815 trying to build a confed-

427

Asbury, Francis

eration of the provinces of Uruguay, Corrientes, Santa Fe, and Córdoba, and even attempted to write a constitution modeled in part on the USA (land distribution to indigenous farm workers, former African slaves, and the native Indians). This radical direction taken by the South American revolution was crushed by the Portuguese. In 1820 Artigas went into exile in Paraguay, where he remained until his death. E.M. Narancio, ed., Artigas, 1960.

Alejandro Zorzin

Artophorion. In the Orthodox Church, the artophorion is a vessel in which the Eucharist is kept for the communion of the sick and the liturgy of the presanctified. It has the form of a church resting on the altar, or less commonly that of a dove hanging above the altar. Smaller artophoria are used to bring communion to the sick. Although the reservation of the Eucharist is attested as early as the 3rd century, pyxes made especially for that purpose do not appear until after the turn of the millennium. G. Sotiriou, “᾽Αρτοϕόριον,” TEE I, 1962, 296f. ◆ K. Nikol’skii, Posobie k izucheniyu ustava bogosluzheniya, 1900, 10–12, 695f. ◆ J. Braun, Der christliche Altar, vol. II, 1924, 574–647. Karl Christian Felmy

Arundel, Thomas → Wycliffe, John Ārya Samāj (“Society of the Noble”), religious and socially oriented reform movements of India that arose in the 19th century in the process of the interaction of young Indian intellectuals with the West and that through rational critique of its own culture (caste system, untouchables, idolatry, child marriage, etc.) and appeal to an ideal past, sought orientation for a new identity. Founded in 1875 in Bombay by Dayānand Sarasvati (1824–83) for the reform of Hinduism, which he regarded as the degeneration of the original, pure religion of the Ārya (→ Aryans) revealed in the → Vedas. The key points of his Ārya → Dharma, formulated in “Satyārth Prakāsh” (1877, 1883), are: faith in an impersonal God; recognition of the Vedas as the sole, infallible source of all past, present, and future knowledge (even of technical natural science) that can be concluded again through the interpretation of modern formulations of questions; education as the sole way to recognition of this knowledge and the only basis for the status of a human being; equality of birth; duty of love, truth, and social service. The Ārya Dharma is universally valid. Anyone who accepts its principles can become an Ārya by undergoing a purification (śuddhi). The bearer of the Ārya Samāj was first of all the English educated middle class in the cities. A broader basis was provided by missions and the founding of special schools for all educational levels.

Through a split into moderates and militants, the Ārya Samāj gradually changed to a community of faith with stronger emphasis on elements of Hinduism (veneration of the cow, vegetarianism) and moved toward inclusion in the independence movement (Lāla Lajpat Rai, 1856– 1928) in its political aims of Hindu orthodoxy (Hindi as national language, an independent India as a Hindu nation). With the redefinition of the term “Hindu community” as cultural communion of religions based on the same tradition (Hindus, Āryas, Sikhs, Buddhists), it provided an essential spiritual foundation for present-day Hindu fundamentalism. Today the Ārya Samāj has centers in South and Southeast Asia, Africa, North and South America, Fiji, Mauritius, England, and the Netherlands. It consists of juristically independent societies with regional representation and a central council in Delhi. Regular central conferences constitute the highest authority. G.A. Oddie, ed., Religion in South Asia, 1977 ◆ K.W. Jones, Arya Dharm: Hindu Consciousness in 19th Century Punjab, 1989 ◆ J.E. Llewellyn, The Arya Samaj as a Fundamentalist Movement, 1993. Maria Schetelich

Aryan. The term “Aryan” derives from ārya (“good, noble, member of one’s own tribe”), the Indo-Iranians’ name for themselves. These seminomadic people entered Iran and → India (II) from the Eurasian steppes c. 1200 bce. In India their language and religion became the basis of several high civilizations. At the beginning of the 19th century, the discovery that the languages, mythology, deities, and cult of the Aryans were related to those of the Slavs, Romanians, and Germans led to the hypothesis of an Indo-Germanic race and the notion (no longer scientifically tenable) of their function as bringers of civilization to their modern territories. Since the R ̣gveda (a collection of Indo-Aryan cultic poetry compiled c. 1000 bce; → Vedas) was thought to enshrine the earliest form of Indo-Germanic civilization and spirituality, “Aryan” became synonymous with “Indo-German”/“Indo-European” and took on ethnic and racial significance. H.W. Bailey, “Arya,” EIr II, 1987, 681–683 (bibl.). Maria Schetelich

Asbury, Francis (Aug 20, 1745, Handsworth near Birmingham – Mar 31, 1816, Spotsylvania, VA), was largely self-educated. He served for six years as an apprentice to a craftsman and then became apprenticed to J. → Wesley, joining the → Methodists as a local preacher in 1766. In 1771 Wesley sought volunteers for the American colonies. Asbury responded, never to return to England. Wesley named him “assistant in America” in 1772 but then replaced him by T. Rankin. When during

Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah the Revolution Rankin and the other English preachers returned home, Asbury cast his lot with the Americans and was thereafter the leader of American Methodism. In 1784, Wesley faced the reality of American independence and sent over T. → Coke, ordained as superintendent for America, with instructions to ordain Asbury as well. Asbury adroitly engineered the convening of a special “Christmas Conference,” accepting the nomination only when elected by the American preachers. Though he shared the superintendency (quickly renamed “episcopacy”) with Coke and later with R. Whatcoat and then W. McKendree, Asbury presided over American Methodism. Works include: The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury, ed. E.T. Clark, 1959 ◆ On Asbury: E. Cooper, The Substance of a Funeral Discourse, 1819 ◆ W.P. Strickland, The Pioneer Bishop, 1858 ◆ L.C. Rudolph, Francis Asbury, 1966 ◆ F. Baker, From Wesley to Asbury, 1976. Russell E. Richey

Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah. The apocryphal → apocalypse “Ascension of Isaiah” consists of two distinct parts: the “Martyrdom of Isaiah” (1–5) and the “Vision of Isaiah” (6–11). The Martyrdom of Isaiah was very likely written in Hebrew in Palestine. The original language of the Vision of Isaiah is Greek; however, where it first originated and the location of the final editing process (3rd–4th cent. ce) are unknown. A complete version of the Vision of Isaiah is only available in an Egyptian translation (4th–6th cent. ce); additionally, some Greek and Latin fragments exist, and the Vision also exists in another version (Latin and Old Slavonic). The Martyrdom of Isaiah is a Jewish martyr legend with the exception of a Christian insertion (the so-called Testament of Hezekiah; 3:13–4:22; end of the 1st cent. ce), dating back to the religious persecution under → Antiochus IV Epiphanes (composition in the 2nd–1st cent. bce). It is comparable to the story of Eleazar and the mother with the seven sons (2 Macc 6:18–7:42). It describes → Isaiah’s prophecy about Manasseh’s breaking the covenant with → Hezekiah, Isaiah’s escape into the desert (a connection to the community of Qumran has been suggested) and his murder by Manasseh (motif of sawing; cf. y. Sanh. 10.2). The Christian expansion (Vision of Isaiah; 2nd cent. ce) describes Isaiah’s ascension and his vision of the incarnation, crucifixion and → resurrection (II) and → ascension of Jesus Christ. The justification given for connecting the Martyrdom of Isaiah and Vision of Isaiah is that Isaiah was executed because of this vision as reported to Hezekiah. Especially interesting from a theological point of view are the demonology in the Martyrdom and, in the Vision of Isaiah, the probable influence of Gnosticism shown in the report of the heavenly journey (6.1–10.6), the description of Jesus’ incarnation and the hidden charac-

428 ter of his true nature (10.7–11.33; cf. Phil 2:6ff.; 1 Cor 2:8ff.), the portrayal of the Trinity (9.27–42) as well as the report about the party conflicts in the early church in the Testament of Hezekiah (3.13–4.22). E. Hammershaimb, Das Martyrium Jesajas, JSHRZ 2, 1973, 15–34 ◆ A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, JSHRZ 6, 1999, 167–172. Irina Wandrey

Ascension, Feast of the. The liturgical celebration of the → Ascension of Jesus Christ is one of the major feasts in the calendars of the liturgical churches. Biblical background: The NT texts relating to the ascension of Jesus are the Gospel accounts (Luke 24:50– 51 and the longer ending of Mark), according to which Jesus’ ascension took place on the day of his → resurrection, and Acts 1:1–11, which says that it took place on the 40th day after the resurrection. Both traditions associate Jesus’ ascension with the descent of the Holy Spirit, a dynamic of ascent and descent that shaped the earliest liturgical celebrations. Historical development: 1. The pre-Nicene understanding of the ascension: The earliest mention of a Christian → Pentecost on the 50th day after the resurrection appears in → Tertullian, who describes the significance of this joyful period (spatium). For him, the whole period was a combined celebration of the resurrection, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the ascension; it was also associated with the eschatological hope of Christ’s return. In the further course of the 3rd century, however, the 50th day received greater emphasis with a feast commemorating both the ascension of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Kretschmar has argued persuasively for a Syro-Palestinian origin of this tradition, which celebrated the gift of the Spirit as an element of Christ’s glorification at the ascension, a liturgical seal for Pentecost. Christ’s ascent in glory was also typologically associated with Moses’ ascent on Sinai and the giving of the law on the 50th day. 2. Post-Nicene development: During the 4th and 5th centuries, the celebration of the ascension underwent lasting changes. In the two last decades of the 4th century, we observe a shift of the commemoration of the ascension from the 50th day to the 40th, following the chronology of Acts. This shift eventually led to a preparatory → fasting (III), which isolated the feast of the Ascension. Taken as a whole, the sources of the first five centuries bear witness to a movement away from the commemoration of the whole 50 days as a combined celebration to a double celebration on the 50th day itself, and finally to a distinction between the commemoration of Christ’s ascension and the sending of the Spirit. Undoubtedly, the emphasis on the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the late 4th century influenced this change, as did the importance of fasting in preparation for the li-

429 turgical festivals and a general fondness for 40-day periods (→ Numerology). Celebration of the ascension on the 40th day after the resurrection, as it developed in the 5th century, became obligatory; it still falls on this day of the → church year in the liturgical churches of both the East and the West. But the renewed emphasis on the integrity of the 50 days of Easter has increasingly drawn the feast of the Ascension into the paschal context, causing it to be seen once again as part of the paschal season. The recent attempt (especially in the Catholic Church) to shift the feast of the Ascension to the seventh Sunday of Easter (Exaudi) is due to pastoral considerations and accommodation to the cultural environment; theologically and historically, the day of Pentecost would make more sense with regard to the unity of the paschal cycle and the relationship between pneumatology and Christology. G. Kretschmar, “Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten,” ZKG 66, 1954/1956, 209–253 ◆ C. Cabié, La Pentecôte, 1965 ◆ H.C. Schmidt-Lauber, TRE XV, 1986, 341–344 ◆ H.R. Werner, Die Umsetzung der Himmelfahrt Christi in die zeichenhafte Liturgie, EHS.T 76, 1987 ◆ T. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 1989. Lizette Larson-Miller

Ascension of Christ I. Religious Studies – II. Old Testament – III. New Testament – IV. History of Dogma and Dogmatics – V. Art History – VI. Judaism

I. Religious Studies The attempt to ascend to the abode of the gods is associated with myths and expressions of the impossible (Deut 30:12; Prov 30:4) and of presumption (Isa 14:13f.; the Aloads, Bellerophon). Nevertheless divine help empowers (→ wind, cloud, wings, → angels) guarantors of knowledge (the oldest example is king Enmeduranki of Sumer) for a temporary ascension. In Jewish apocalypses OT figures are assimilated to a heavenly milieu and introduced to cosmic and other-worldly mysteries. Journeys to the next world are related in → Plato and → Plutarch, for instance. The → Hekhalot literature attributes such ascensions to rabbis and offers practical advice for comprehension; similarly the so-called liturgy of Mithra (PGM IV 475–829), in which the magician penetrates the sun, in order to consult with the greatest god. The Islamic tradition interprets sura 17:1 of the Qurhān as → Mu˙ammad’s translation to Jerusalem where he scouts paradise and hell from a ladder or a winged horse (Mi[a]rā[). Since such ascensions often occur in visions or “outside the body,” the ecstasy of shamans (→ Shamanism) has been used as a comparison. While being in transit (seven heavens etc.) and the return to earth are important, in the final → rapture → heaven is the ultimate place of the elect, as in the case of the transfigured king in the Egyptian texts of the pyramids,

Ascension of Christ for instance, and of → Heracles in Greek mythology. By entering Olympus the → hero becomes a god. Similarly Jesus is appointed as Lord and Messiah through the ascension (Acts 2:36). Its occurrence after his death and resurrection in Luke points to a secondary combination of motifs; the scenic arrangement may be indebted either to Jewish or Greco-Roman models. Ultimately the ascension of the soul in the framework of a dualistic concept of man becomes a soteriological schema in antiquity. After death the spirit attains its heavenly origin. This may be construed in terms of a cultic (mysteries of Mithra [→ Mithra religion]) or mystical anticipation (cf. CH I, 24–26). G. Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book, 1950 ◆ idem, Mu˙ammad, the Apostle of God, and His Ascension, 1955 ◆ C. Colpe, “Die ‘Himmelsreise der Seele’ als philosophie- und religionsgeschichtliches Problem,” in E. Fries, ed., FS J. Klein, 1967, 85–104 ◆ J. Assmann, LÄ II, 1977, 1206–1211 ◆ A.F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment,” ANRW II 23, 2, 1980, 1333–1394 ◆ A. Portmann & R. Ritsema, eds. Aufstieg und Abstieg, Eranos 50, 1982 ◆ I.P. Culianu, Psychanodia, 1983 ◆ idem, ER [E]I, 1987, 435–441 ◆ idem, Out of This World, 1991 ◆ C. Colpe, RAC XV, 1991, 212–219 ◆ B. Schrieke et al., EI 2 VII, 1993, 97–105 ◆ J.J. Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Otherworldly Journeys, 1995 ◆ C. Colpe et al., RAC XVII, 1996, 407–466, 490–543. Dieter Zeller

II. Old Testament Nowhere in the OT is the issue of ascension one of a “journey” to heaven but always an “ascent.” According to the Priestly document (Gen 17:22; 35:13) Elohim “goes up”; in this case a terminus ad quem is missing (cf. Pss 47:6; 68:19). The messengers of Yahweh ascend to heaven ( Judg 13:9; Tob 12:20). The → rapture of → Elijah is also described as an ascent to heaven (2 Kgs 2:1, 11; Sir 48:9, 12; 1 Macc 2:58; Josephus, Ant. IX 28; 1 En. 89.52; 93.8). Yahweh rides on the heavens by means of storms or clouds (Deut 33:26; Pss 18:11; 68:5, 34; Isa 19:1). A. Schmitt, Entrückung – Aufnahme – Himmelfahrt. Untersuchungen zu einem Vorstellungsbereich im Alten Testament, FzB 10, 21976 ◆ idem, “Zum Thema Entrückung im Alten Testament,” BZ 26, 1982, 34–49 ◆ idem, “Übersetzung als Interpretation. Die Henochüberlieferung der Septuaginta (Gen 5:21–24) im Licht der hellenistischen Epoche,” in J. Krasovec, ed., Interpretation of the Bible, 1998, 181–200. Armin Schmitt

III. New Testament All of the NT texts presuppose that after the death of Jesus God resurrected him into the heavenly world where he reigns as Lord and Christ. Only Acts (and the secondary ending of Mark [16:19], which is dependent upon Luke) considers the ascension explicitly as a later event that is differentiated from the → resurrection (II). The Lukan schema of death/resurrection/

Ascension of Christ ascension/descent of the Spirit was added later into the framework of other early Christian confessions (→ Confession [of Faith]: III) and represented the basic structure for the subsequent ecclesiastical year and the classical confessions of faith. However, this conception should not be read into the numerous NT references to Jesus’ → exaltation, depicting Jesus as being translated directly from death into the heavenly world (e.g. Phil 2:9; Eph 4:8; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:14; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 12:5). Occasionally the Gospel of John seems to refer to the ascension as a separate event (3:13; 6:62; 20:17); yet John does indeed allow for the resurrection, the ascension and the gift of the Spirit to merge into one event, namely → Easter (20:1–29). Based on biblical and Hellenistic parallels Luke probably developed the concept himself from earlier Christian tradition. This concept is important for his theology because it depicts the tangible reality of the redemptive event and forms the transitional scene in his narrative from the “time of Jesus” to the “time of the Church” (Conzelmann). H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit. Studien zur Theologie des Lukas, BHT 17, 1954, 61977; ET: The Theology of St. Luke ◆ G. Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu, SANT 25, 1971 ◆ M.C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts, 1987 ◆ C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. I, 1994. M. Eugene Boring

IV. History of Dogma and Dogmatics 1. Catholicism. The catechism develops three aspects of the ascension: Christ’s entrance into the heavenly glory as a human; his perpetual intercession for the church, and the promise that his destiny is also our destiny (Where the head leads the members follow, as the Fathers used to say; → Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3 q.57 a.6). Thus the goal of salvation, the foundation of the ecclesiastical life and the ground of the Christian hope are linked together in this doctrine. However, there has always been a tension between the objective and the subjective pole of this dogma; Irenaeus and → Origen, for instance, evaluated them differently. The latter emphasized the “ascent of the mind, rather than of the body” (Or. 23.2) and made Jesus a model of Christian spirituality. → Augustine insisted on the ascension of the body, as well as of the mind, but he interpreted the ascension as a removal of Jesus’ humanity, whereby his deity became more prominent (Serm. 264). This reinforced a certain tendency to marginalize the human Jesus. Just as Elijah left his mantle to → Elisha, so the ascending Lord bequeathed his sacraments to the Church, according to the Venerable → Bede. Since the outbreak of the Corbie controversy a good part of the further development of the doctrine consisted of disputes about the sacraments, especially about the → real

430 presence, but also about the ascension’s political implications, of course. Likewise modern scholarship has generated controversy about this doctrine which at times has been too closely bound up with a Ptolemaic cosmology. To interpret the ascension afresh in evolutionary terms (e.g. P. → Teilhard de Chardin), however, is to repeat the same error. The ascension is an eschatological mystery which creates its own frame of reference. J.G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven, 1958 ◆ W. Marevee, The Ascension of Christ in the Works of St. Augustine, 1967 ◆ D. Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia, 1999. Douglas B. Farrow

2. Protestantism. The history of the problem of the Protestant understanding of the ascension assumes preReformation ideas. Whereas → Athanasius, in the Early Church, associated the ascension primarily with the sessio ad dextram, Jesus Christ sitting at the right hand of God, in order to express the identity of nature with God the Father (Athanasius, C. Ar. 1,61), in the Middle Ages the ascension was interpreted mainly in the framework of the Ptolemaic conception of the world. Heaven was construed as the farthest sphere of the world, from which God is equidistant to all places on earth. Thomas Aquinas understood heaven as the place beyond the corporeal and intellectual creation, to which the human nature of Christ disappeared by changing locations, while the divine nature cannot be localized (Summa Theologiae, 3 q.57 a.2). Such conceptions are only occasionally overcome, such as in → Albertus Magnus, for instance, who construed heaven not as a location but as the Trinity itself. For the Reformers the ascension was closely linked with the different christological conceptions, as expressed in the disputes concerning the Lord’s Supper. In the Reformed tradition Zwingli and Calvin adopted the medieval conception of the ascension of the human nature of Jesus Christ, including his body, which in different ways led to the rejection of the real presence, the presence in the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper (→ Eucharist/Communion: III; Calvin, Institutes, 31959, IV, 17.12,26). While this Reformed conception poses problems in preserving the unity of the person of Christ, by dissociating his divine and human nature, Luther, the Swabian reformer J. → Brenz, and large parts of Lutheran orthodoxy substantiated the unity of the person of Jesus Christ in such a manner that the entire person, including its human nature, participates in the divine omnipresence. This abandons any special conception of the ascension. Similar to Athanasius, the ascension is interpreted by means of the sessio ad dextram to say that the right hand of God is not a location but God’s power, “which at once can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere” (WA 23,

431 133). Because of the ascension Christ is within and outside of all creatures (WA 19, 491). Thus the ascension is Christ’s means not to be far from us but rather near us (WA 12, 562). This “concept of ubiquity” (→ Omnipresence), as it subsequently came to be known, made it possible to assert the real presence in the Lord’s Supper. While the Reformed conception of the ascension conflicted with the turn to the Copernican conception of the world and the development of modern natural sciences, the Lutheran view was compatible with the new conception of the world. Since the Enlightenment the doctrine of the ascension was increasingly ruled out as a mythological statement; this was also true of F. → Schleiermacher in the 19th century and of R. → Bultmann in the 20th century. In → NeoLutheranism in the 19th century and generally in Protestant theology in the 20th century the ascension in many ways was interpreted positively again. The ascension is the “conclusion” of the history of revelation (Barth, KD IV/2, 171), “the participation of the new being in the divine creation” (Tillich, 175) or, by means of the methodological principle of the resultant nature of God in → process theology, is interpreted as presence in that part of the creation which for us is spatially and temporally less certain and less available (Welker, 224–228). Following Jenson critically, the truth-content of the language of the ascension can be reinterpreted non-spatially in systematics. The spatial distance between two places makes personal transcendence possible; here different persons can be separated from one another and thus refer to one another, so as to be mutually available communicatively. Constitutively, however, this availability is not tied to spatiality, just as the divine persons in the trinitarian relationships in a non-spatial manner are bound up with one another while being communicatively distinct. By means of the ascension Jesus Christ, as a person, including his humanity, is part of the → Trinity. The trinitarian God in his entirety can only be understood as relating to the created, spatial world in the person of Christ. In this case “heaven” denotes precisely this mutual, yet asymmetric possibility of God relating to his creation and his individual creatures in every place. “Heaven,” then, means that this possibility of relationship is mediated in the person of Jesus Christ, who alone became human. Because Christ is in heaven, he is near to us. Albertus Magnus, “De Resurrectione,” in B. Geyer, ed., Opera Omnia, vol. XXVI, 1958, tractatus 2 q.9 a.3, 286–287 ◆ J. Brenz, “De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo,” in idem, Die christologischen Schriften, part I, ed. T. Mahlmann, 1981, 1–107 ◆ idem, “De maiestate,” idem, 190–525, De maiestate, ibid., 190–525 ◆ F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, vol. II, ed. M. Redeker, 7th ed. based on the 2nd ed., 1960, 99, 82–89; ET: The Christian Faith, 21999 ◆ K. Barth, KD IV/2, 1955; ET: Church Dogmatics IV, 2, 1958 ◆ R. Bultmann,

Ascension of Christ “Neues Testament und Mythologie,” in H.W. Bartsch, ed., Kerygma und Mythos, vol. I, 1948, 41960, 15–48, esp. 17 ◆ P. Tillich, Systematische Theologie, vol. II, 1955, 81987 ◆ T.F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection, 1976 ◆ M. Welker, Universalität Gottes und Relativität der Welt, 1981, 21988, 224– 228 ◆ W. Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord, 1982 ◆ H.G. Pöhlmann, art. “Himmelfahrt Christi” II, TRE XV, 1986, 334–341 (bibl.) ◆ R.W. Jenson, “You Wonder Where the Body Went,” in idem, Essays in Theology of Culture, 1995, 216–224 ◆ idem, Systematic Theology, vol. I, 1997, 201– 206. Markus Mühling-Schlapkohl

V. Art History The Eastern type (oldest examples are the ampullas of Monza and Bobbio, Rabbula-Codex, 6th cent.) shows Christ sitting or standing in an aureole borne by angels. It integrated biblical theophany motifs (and thus the relationship between ascension and return, Acts 1:11) which were developed from the topos of the → apotheosis of Late Antiquity. The structure of this image, though reshaped in part, has also left its mark on Western art, especially in Italy. The basic Western type (the oldest example is the ivory plate, c. 400 ce, Munich) depicts Christ marching into heaven, grasping God’s hand stretched out to him. In different variations Western art develops the kinetic element found in the concept of the “ascensio” as a run (cf. Ps 18:6), leap (Song 2:8; Franconian ivory relief, c. 1100), flight (Utrecht Psalter, c. 830; Giotto, arena chapel) and soaring (Stammheim missal, Hildesheim,

Fig. 1. The Ascension of Christ, Rabula Codex, evangeliary, dated to 586. (fol. C 13 v., Florence)

Ascension of Christ

Fig. 2. Giotto di Bondone, The Ascension, 1303–1310, fresco. (With kind permission of Commune di Padova – Assesorato alla Cultura – Museo Civici)

432 (VII) or the blessing, that is the promise of Christ, but also in every other respect they belong to the scenario of paintings of the ascension. Angels also appear as angeli interpretes (Acts 1:10f.) and as heavenly assistants of the ascending Christ. The ascension of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11) and the rapture of → Enoch (Gen 5:24) are symbolically referred to typologically and ornithological examples (Bible of Floreffe, c. 1160). The pictures of the ascension in Christian history have developed the literary exemplars of the Bible with a variety of phantom-like additions. Only in the multiplicity of the transitory figurations which the Christian power of imagination has invented for this transition of Christ from earth to heaven, and in its irreducible interplay it is possible to discern what can be imagined of the ascension. When the production of pictures of the ascension theme comes to a stop at the end of the → Baroque, this can also be understood as the exhaustion of the theme, in the sense that nothing essentially new could be said through the available means of figured art. The themes integrated in the subject of Christ’s ascension (exaltation, appearance, flight, weightlessness, transition into the invisible, withdrawal, removal etc.), however, continue to elicit interest in modern art without iconographic relationship to the figure of Christ. H. Schrade, Zur Ikonographie der Himmelfahrt Christi, 1929 ◆ H. Guthberlet, Die Himmelfahrt Christi in der bildenden Kunst, 21935 ◆ A. Schmidt, LCI II, 1970, 268–276 ◆ G. Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. III, 1971, 144–164 (reproductions 447–521) ◆ A. Stock, Poetische Dogmatik, vol. III, 1998, 257–303. Alex Stock

Fig. 3. Anonymous, The Ascension (“Steps of the Lord God”) c. 14th cent.

c. 1160). The frontal soaring with outstretched arms can be understood as a gesture of blessing (Luke 24:50) or as devotion to the Father and request for the Spirit ( John 14–17; Rembrandt, 1636, Munich). From the type of soaring develops the type of disappearing which predominated in the 13th to 15th century. Here only the lower half of Christ’s body can be seen as he disappears in a cloud (Acts 1:9); footprints on the mountain (“steps of the Lord God”) mark the earthly location. In this type of picture the apostles who are looking toward heaven, in whose circle, analogous to the account of Pentecost, in which Mary had been included very early on already, play a particularly important role. As eyewitnesses and those who receive the message of the → angels

VI. Judaism In post-biblical Judaism the ascension had an important role; it linked both biblical (Gen 5:24 – Enoch; 2 Kgs 2:11–Elijah; Dan, Ezek) and Hellenistic traditions. It was especially the literary genres of the → apocalypse, more specifically the “ascent apocalypses” (Himmelfarb) and the esoteric Hekhalot literature (esp. Hekhalot Rabbati, 3 En.) that were characterized by this motif. In apocalyptic literature (1 En., T. Levi, 2 En., Apoc. Zeph., Apoc. Ab., Ascen. Isa., 3 Bar.) the goal of the ascension attributed to the biblical heroes is the revelation of divine and cosmological mysteries. In Hekhalot literature, however, the view of God’s throne (merkavah and participation in the heavenly → liturgy (VII) are central. In the biblical tradition the conception of ascension follows or is found in place of death (T. Isaac; → As. Mos.). In terms of the history of religions the ascension of Jesus is to be classified in the context of Jewish, Hellenistic and Gnostic conceptions of the ascension of individual humans who become angels (e.g. the writings of Enoch) or are deified. In polemical Jewish literature of antiquity (e.g. Mekhilta Jethro BaChodesh), as well

433 as of the Middle Ages (philosophy; Toledot Yeshu), the theme of Jesus’ ascension fades over against the critique of the dogmas of the Trinity, messianism, the incarnation, as well as the virgin birth and is scarcely addressed (Maier, Auseinandersetzung, 198; Lasker). S. Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, 1902, 1977 ◆ G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 21965, 14–19 ◆ D. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages, 1977 ◆ J. Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung, 1978 ◆ A.F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and their Environment,” ANRW II 23, 2, 1980, 1333–1394 ◆ J. Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike, 1982 ◆ P. Schäfer, “New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism,” JJS 35, 1984, 19–35 ◆ M. Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa,” in L.H. Schiffman, ed., Archaeology and History. In Memory of Yigael Yadin, 1990, 181–188 ◆ P. Schäfer, Der verborgene und offenbare Gott, 1991; ET: The Hidden and Manifest God, 1992 ◆ M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 1993. Irina Wandrey

Ascension of Mary: → Mary, Assumption of, → Mariology Ascension of Moses. Other than a few quotations from the church fathers (e.g. Or. Princ. III 2.1), the only known version of the “Ascension of → Moses” (As.Mos. or T.Mos.) is an incomplete Latin manuscript from the 6th century (palimpsest; 1st ed. 1861 by Ceriani). This Latin translation (5th cent.) of a Greek translation probably goes back to a Hebrew or Aramaic original (Tromp favors a Greek original) written in Judea before the destruction of the temple (original version probably 2nd–1st cent. bce; final version early 1st cent. ce, because Herod the Great is identifiable; ch. 6). Composed as a last will, the text contains an apocalyptic revelation of Israel’s settlement in the Promised Land down to the post-Herodian period (chs. 2–6) and of the eschatological future of Israel (chs. 7–10). The description of the End of Days culminates in the confrontation between an evil world ruler and a Levite named Taxo (presumably from Gk táxōn as a translation of the Hebrew meh$ oqeq = “lawgiver”), who is prepared to sacrifice himself and his seven sons (cf. 2 Macc 7:14). A vision of the punishing Last Judgment of God and of the exaltation of Israel at the end of time is placed on his lips. In the framework narrative (chs. 1; 11f.), Moses passes on his prophecy to his chosen successor Joshua with the exhortation to keep it secret. The text breaks off before the presumed end (the death and ascension of Moses). The theological significance of As.Mos. lies in its emphasis on the covenant of salvation, the prevalence of Deuteronomy, as well as its proximity to the Qumran texts (among other things, in its criticism of the Jerusalem temple cult and the Hasmonean → high priests; → Qumran).

Asceticism E. Brandenburger, Die Himmelfahrt Moses, JSHRZ, 1976, 59–84 ◆ A. Lehnardt, Bibliographie zu den jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, JSHRZ 6, 1999, 387–392. Irina Wandrey

Ascension of Mu˙ammad. The widely-held belief in the ascension of Mu˙ammad is based on the Qurhàn verse, sura 17:1, the interpretation of which is not clear, however: “Glory be to him, who traveled with his servant by night from the holy place of worship to the remote place of worship, whose surroundings we have blessed, to show him some of our signs”. In the → Qurhàn the Arabic word for ascent, ascension (originally ladder), miarāj, is not used, but rather the term isrāh, night journey. Strictly speaking, the ascension is therefore not in the Qurhàn. Already in the 9th century, however, the expression “remote place of worship” was considered to be heaven, and this sentence was used as proof that the prophet had been taken at night by the angel Gabriel on the winged horse al-Buraq to the throne of God in the seventh heaven. There, he encountered earlier OT → prophets and also → Jesus, and spoke and prayed with them. Another interpretation claims that the “remote place of worship” is → Jerusalem, and yet another that the sentence does refer to an ascension, but that it should be understood as a vision. Other stories connect the theme of the night journey from → Mecca to Jerusalem with that of the ascension, which is supposed to have begun in Jerusalem. The story was richly embellished in later times and, as of the 15th century, became one of the most popular themes in Islamic, and especially in Persian book art. One may indeed regard these representations, which are certainly not cultic images, as evidence for the existence of pictorial art in Islam. B. Schrieke, J. Horovitz, J.E. Bencheikh & B.W. Robinson, “Miarādj,” EI 2, VII, 1993, 97–105 ◆ M.A. Amir-Moezzi, ed., Le voyage initiatique en terre d’Islam, 1996. Marianne Barrucand

Asceticism I. Religious Studies – II. Old Testament – III. New Testament – IV. Church History – V. Ethics – VI. Judaism – VII. Indian Religions

I. Religious Studies 1. Greece and Rome. The term “asceticism,” the Western meaning of which was shaped by Christianity, derives from Gk ἄσκησις/áskēsis, a noun denoting activity; ἄσκεῖν/askeîn originally meant “to craft/to decorate.” In the 5th century bce, the primary meaning became “to train/to exercise.” The exercise was mostly physical (gymnastics, military training). The soul/body dualism (→ Body and Soul ) that shaped philosophical anthropology since the Socratic revolution led to the appearance of the care of the soul next to the care of the body

Asceticism (Xenophon Mem. 1.2, 19). This hierarchical dichotomy did not bring about a depreciation of the body as an aesthetic object. Neither → Plato nor → Aristotle were interested in asceticism. The → Cynics have often been wrongly associated with asceticism. While they did use certain elements that we assign to asceticism, they started out from different premises and pursued different intentions. True to their principle of overcoming nature, they speak of poverty and of efforts to control the natural drives, though these austerities (e.g. homelessness) were sometimes advocated as ways to increase pleasure. The actionism of the Cynics, finding expression in austerities, was not meant to gain increased power, as is usually true of ascetic exercises; its goal was to deconstruct hegemonic structures. Neither do the rules governing the conduct of life of the → Pythagoreans, which go back to archaic forms of community, fit the definition of asceticism. For the Pythagoreans, dietary rules were a matter of dietetics; initiation into the community included a period during which the neophyte was forbidden to speak. In the 1st century bce, the concept of asceticism changed significantly: the element of self-denial became dominant. Recent scholarship has rejected the theory that this change was encouraged by → Philo of Alexandria (but see VI below). Characteristic features of asceticism (radical depreciation of the body, flight from the world) are found in Gnosticism (see 2 below) and → Neoplatonism. But even the efforts of the Neoplatonists were primarily an individualistic, elitist exercise of the intellect for the purpose of returning to an intelligible mode of being and of effecting a mystical union with the divine. Beginning with → Porphyry and the neoPythagoreans, however, greater emphasis was placed on the relationship between physical abstinence and soteriology. The Neoplatonists occasionally expressed contempt for forms of Christian asceticism (Synesius, Dion 251f.). Latin does not have a direct equivalent for áskēsis that would integrate both the “positive” and the “negative” aspects of the term. The commonest paraphrases are exercitatio, cura, continentia, and abstinentia. The Romans often derived the determination to renounce the full enjoyment of the pleasures of life from philosophy. The Stoic principle of being guided by nature led to a focus on the cultivation of a healthy body (Sen. Ep. 119, 15) and on the proper balance between body and soul (Musonius, Fragmenta 6.25. 8f.). The requirement of abstinence so frequently discussed by the (later) Roman → Stoics derives from the principle of indifferentia toward worldly goods that aimed at overcoming suffering. The cultic observances of the Greeks and Romans included forms of temporary abnegation (fasting, absti-

434 nence from sexual intercourse) as part of the ritual, which was intended to enable immediate contact with the deity, keep evil spirits away from the cultic precincts, or to induce mantic capabilities. The demands imposed by such observances as the Attic Thesmophoria and the Eleusinian (→ Eleusis) Mysteries (fasting) or the Roman cult of Vesta (30 years of virginity for its priestesses) should be seen in this context. A.C. van Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe, 1963, 98–123 ◆ M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, L’ascèse cynique: un commentaire de Diogène Laerce VI 70–71, 1986. Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer

2. Gnosticism. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries ce, Gnosticism (→ Gnosis/Gnosticism), based on a dualism of light and darkness, used asceticism as an instrument of world rejection. → Mani, for example, imposed on his disciples the asceticism of the “three seals”: the seal of the mouth, which required strict fasting and total avoidance of meat, seafood, wine, and alcoholic beverages; the seal of the hands, which forbade agricultural labor, the felling of trees, and the harvesting of fruit and vegetables except for the nourishment of the chosen ones; and the seal of the body, inhibiting procreation so that enlightened souls would no longer be imprisoned in bodies of darkness. This asceticism, which totally rejected the body because it considered the whole of creation to be under the protection of the archons, went hand in hand with the duty of constant missionary activity. L. Cirillo & A. Roselli, eds., Codex Manichaicus Colonensis: atti del symposio internazionale Rende-Amantea 3–7 settembre 1984, 1986. Julien Ries

II. Old Testament The phenomenon of asceticism in the modern sense of the word, as a deliberate abstinence from the habits of customary life and nourishment for medical, psychological, or devotional reasons, is not found in the OT. Possible precursors are the so-called rituals of selfhumiliation, which may be understood as a temporary suspension or diminution of ordinary life. Their causes – grief or need – suggest that they were not so much acts of voluntary asceticism on the part of an individual as conventional responses to specific situations of distress. The best-known practices of this sort are individual fasting during a period of mourning and collective fasting in a time of crisis or in the context of a collective remembrance of a desperate situation in the past. The great fasting ritual combines several rites of self-humiliation such as tearing one’s clothing, shaving one’s head, rolling in the dust, and abstaining from nourishment during the day (cf. Jonah 3) into a symbolic relationship structure that interrupts life for a certain period, thus symbolically leading to the edge of death. The mythological

435 and ritual occurrences of such rites of self-humiliation in Mesopotamian and Syrian texts show that they originally served to ward off the divine and demonic powers of death and of the underworld. As symbolic representations of death, they afforded protection against the lifethreatening powers of death. It is in this sense that the fasting ritual in the Nineveh episode of Jonah 3:10 brings about the “regret of YHWH” concerning the predicted calamity. In this text from a later period in Israel’s religious history, the notions of “turnabout” and finally of “repentance” (Neh 9) enable a theological interpretation of the fasting ritual. Thus, the symbolic anticipation of death, initially a purely ritual act, is expanded by a verbal confession of misconduct and a commitment to God, whose righteousness is demonstrated by the impending calamity. This marks a decisive milestone in the religio-historical development of asceticism, inasmuch as ritual elements of self-humiliation are now intentionally associated with a change of consciousness and become explicit on the narrative level of the text. T.C. Hall et al., “Asceticism,” ERE II, 1909, 63–111 ◆ T. Hopfner, PRE.S 7, 1940, 50–64 ◆ H. Strathmann, “Askese I,” RAC I, 1950, 749–758 ◆ W.C. Robinson, BHH 1, 1962, 140 ◆ P. Gerlitz, “Fasten als Reinigungsritus,” ZRGG 20, 1968, 212–222 ◆ J. Bergmann, L. Markert & J. Maier, “Askese I–III,” TRE IV, 1979, 195–204 ◆ P. Gerlitz, H. Mantel & S.G. Hall, “Fasten/Fastentage,” TRE XI, 1983, 42–59 ◆ W.O. Kaelber, “Asceticism,” EncRel(E) I, 1987, 441–445 ◆ T. Podella, ÍômFasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament, AOAT 224, 1989. Thomas Podella

III. New Testament The beginnings of Christianity were preceded by the ascetic movement of John the Baptist, who lived as an ascetic hermit in the desert (Mark 1:6 parr.; Matt 11:18 par. Q). His eremitic way of life was due to his calling to become a prophet in the last days. Mark 2:18 shows that John’s disciples followed specific fasting rules. Jesus clearly distinguished himself from John’s movement by not imposing specific rules of fasting on his followers. The logion in Matt 11:18f. par. Q presupposes that Jesus did not present himself as an advocate of special penitential fasting. We may also cite the traditions that depict the earthly Jesus enjoying table fellowship (e.g. Mark 2:15; Luke 14:1; John 2:1ff.). But Jesus’ preparatory fasting in the desert (Matt 4:1ff. par.) shows that he did not reject fasting in principle. Matt 6:16ff. presupposes that his followers practiced ordinary fasting; it merely forbids hypocritical boasting. On the other hand, Jesus’ entire message can be seen under the heading of asceticism, inasmuch as it calls (in view of the imminence of the kingdom of God) for absolute obedience to God’s demands. The gift of God’s kingdom makes all the gifts of the created world irrelevant, opening the heart to the undivided love of

Asceticism God (Matt 13:44ff.). This is the wellspring of Christian asceticism. Highly significant was the discipleship movement of the earthly Jesus. Jesus did not invite all his followers to become outright disciples, but only a small circle destined to share his life (Mark 1:16–20 parr.; 2:14 parr.). What was demanded was an eschatological anticipation of the coming kingdom of God paired with undivided allegiance, with no reservations (Luke 9:62; Matt 8:22 par. Q; Luke 14:26 par. Q). Those who are called to discipleship must forsake the protective conditions of social environment, renounce the guarantee of livelihood, renounce possessions (Mark 10:17ff. parr.) and domestic life (cf. e.g. Luke 14:26 par. Q; Mark 10:28ff. parr.), and become homeless (Matt 8:19f. par. Q). They must enter into the openness of radical trust in God (Luke 12:31 par. Q). Finally, discipleship requires a readiness to suffer (Matt 10:38/Luke 14:27 Q; Mark 8:34 parr. – pre-Easter origins of the logion?). None of this has to do with a dualistic rejection of the world, but with a “radical freedom of the heart” (Rahner, 449). There is only fragmentary evidence about the beginnings of asceticism in the post-Easter period. Mark 2:20 par. suggests a special form of fasting which is characteristic of the new group, possibly on the day of Jesus’ death. The motivation and particular nature of early Christian asceticism are clearer in Paul. The relevant instructions are explained with the radical break that takes place upon joining the church. Through faith and baptism, the Christian has died in his former humanity (Rom 14:7ff.; 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 5:15; Gal 2:20) – with the consequent imperative to actually fulfill what he has become ontologically, to kill off whatever sins and temptations have remained alive in him (Gal 5:16f.; Rom 8:13; 13:14; cf. Col 3:5). It is important to keep the body under control (1 Cor 9:26f.; cf. Gal 5:23; Tit 1:8; 2 Pet 1:6). Christians must remain alert and sober (1 Thess 5:5ff.; cf. Eph 6:18; Rom 13:11ff.). Eph 6:10ff. calls out the militia of Christ against the demonic powers. But faith and baptism have also freed the Christians from the shackles that bound them to the values of the world that is passing away, from which they feel a profound inner distance (1 Cor 7:29ff.; Rom 12:1). Between them and the world stands the cross (Gal 6:14). Within all this, Christian life has an ascetic component, motivated by the new eschatological being (“eschatological asceticism”). The issue of sexual asceticism constitutes a theme of its own. The apostle’s reply to the Corinthians’ questions (1 Cor 7) rejects the notion of an obligatory association of baptism with → celibacy; marriage is treated quite soberly as the “normal state” of Christian life. Voluntary (!) celibacy is only for those who are

Asceticism unmarried or have a special vocation; temporary continence on the part of a married couple is provisionally permitted. But Paul (who was unmarried) does not deny that voluntary celibacy is in fact preferable. He supports this view on mere pragmatic grounds in 7:28; in 7:32ff. he explicitely bases it on faith in Christ: renunciation of marriage allows greater freedom for the affairs of the Lord. (At this stage of reflection, marriage is not yet directly founded on faith in Christ; this step is not taken until Eph 5:22ff.). Scholars disagree as to whether 1 Cor 7:36ff. already presupposes matrimonium spirituale. The entire chapter is characterized by careful discretion: the apostle distinguishes what is desirable, what is generally necessary, and what must be avoided by all means. Christian asceticism is beginning to acquire a concrete shape. The post-Pauline period witnessed a stronger rejection of false asceticism (Col 2:16ff.); in 1 Tim 4:3f., it takes on the character of a conflict with Gnostic dualism, which was to be determining for the future. Now the church had to distinguish its position from extrinsic dualistic ideas that were hostile to the created world. The Johannine literature represents a distinct corpus. Here as well, the rejection of the world is not dualistic but eschatological, based on the experiencing of truth in Christ and the Paraclete. Those who know the truth can see through the delusions of the (fallen) world and free themselves inwardly from their hold (1 John 2:15–17). K. Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie, vol. VII/2, 1971; ET: Theological Investigations, vol. VII/2 ◆ K. Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium, FRLANT 113, 1975 ◆ G. Kretschmar, “Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung frühchristlicher Askese,” in: Askese und Mönchtum in der Alten Kirche, ed. K.S. Frank., WdF 409, 1975, 129–180 ◆ G. Theissen, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums, 1979, 31989; ET: The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 1982. ◆ J. Gribomont, “Askese IV,” TRE IV, 1979, 204–225 ◆ R. Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., HThK.S 1–2, 31986–1988; ET (of the 2nd ed.): The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965 ◆ V.L. Wimbush, Paul, the Worldly Ascetic, 1987 ◆ W. Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, GNT 4, 51989; ET (of the 4th ed.): The Ethics of the New Testament, 1988 ◆ W. Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, MSSNTS 83, 1995. Kurt Niederwimmer

IV. Church History Early Christianity already practiced asceticism by renouncing the satisfaction of certain natural propensities and the fulfillment of various needs and behaviors considered desirable in the social and cultural milieu of the ascetic. It is only correct to speak of asceticism when the motives for renouncing these things are not functional (e.g. dietary) but religious (“for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 19:2]; experiencing Christ’s suffering). Ascetic renunciation nevertheless often unleashes forces that may have social and cultural effects. Asceticism may be directed against (1) one’s own body in the form of (a) dietary asceticism (→ Fasting

436 [III], abstinence, or a combination of both), (b) sexual continence (→ chastity, always understood absolutely), (c) neglect of personal hygiene (bathing, trimming hair and nails), (d) renunciation of other basic physical needs such as warmth, rest, and sleep. In the course of church history, especially in the Middle Ages, radical asceticism repeatedly became deliberate self-torture (e.g. consuming disgusting foodstuffs, self-inflicted physical pain, self-mutilation). It may also deny (2) the external circumstances of life, especially by renunciation of all possessions (→ Poverty: IV), or (3) one’s own personality, by renunciation of (a) human society: (α) communication within the group, as in a vow of silence; (β) of physical proximity, through physical seclusion (→ enclosure ; solitary monastic cells [hermit colonies, → Carthusians]; elevated seat [→ Stylites]), through confinement (→ Recluses, Dendrites), or through retreat to an inhospitable habitation (cave, desert, forest, island); (γ) of a fixed abode (homelessness, peregrinatio); (b) of self-determination, through renunciation of (α) one’s own will (obedience) or (β) mobility, through attachment to a particular place or community (stabilitas). Asceticism is not a characteristically Christian form of behavior; it derives from the Jewish and Hellenistic environment of Christianity. But it can draw on certain elements of the Jesus tradition; ascetics and ascetical theologians repeatedly cite the words and example of Jesus and the way of life of the apostles. From the start, the primary ascetic requirement has been → celibacy (cf. 1 Cor 7; 1 Tim 4:1f.). Not only was it required by Gnosticism (→ Gnosis/Gnosticism) and → Marcion out of a hostility to sexuality rooted in ontological and ethical → dualism, but it was also esteemed by the mainstream church. Until well into the 4th century, second marriages were condemned and threatened with special punishment in many communities. While the early forms of ascetic life were unregulated (e.g. domestic or family asceticism practiced by virgins and widows within the community; itinerant ascetics in Syro-Palestine), → Tertullian was already formulating the outlines of an ascetical theology in the early 3rd century, for example by calling a dedicated virgin a “bride of Christ” and by laying the groundwork for the understanding virginity as a lifelong quasi-marital relationship with the Lord. Later years and especially the 4th century witnessed the appearance of numerous letters and other writings entitled Ad virgines, De virginitate, etc. Citing 1 Cor 7:25, Tertullian was also the first to distinguish between the commandment ( praeceptum) and the counsel (consilium) of the Lord. From this distinction rapidly evolved the notion of binding commandments for all Christians supplemented by the → “counsels of perfection” for a select circle of ascetics, considered both as a gracious gift of God and a source of

437 merit. These counsels initially involved chastity (based on Matt 19:12) and poverty (based on Mark 10:17–22); they were later expanded by the counsel of obedience, a characteristic of cenobitic monasticism (→ Cenobites). It remained for → Origen to provide a more fundamental justification for asceticism by identifying it with the first of the two or three stages of an individual’s spiritual journey, for which there was as yet no agreed terminology: vita activa as the prerequisite for the vita contemplativa, which can be divided in turn into two phases: provisional knowledge or enlightenment, and the perfect achieving of the mystical vision. The permanent basis and framework of this spiritual ascent is asceticism, conceived as a purification from evil and human passions, as penance and perseverance in virtue. Ascetic practices became a permanent feature of the Christian way of life with the emergence of monasticism in its various forms (→ Anchorites, cenobites, and mixed types). Theorizers of the monastic life such as → Evagrius Ponticus and John → Cassian stabilized it, as did the rules set up by → Pachomius: in the East, the rule of → Basil the Great became predominant; in the West, the rule of Benedict (for monks; → Benedict, Rule of ) and the guidelines of Augustine for a vita communis of clerics, later codified in the Augustinian rule (→ Augustine, Rule of ). The extensive literature (lives, tales, apophthegms) associated with monks that began to appear in the 4th century promoted the ascetic ideal. As a consequence of the ascetic attitude, and at the latest since the distinction between “commandments” and “counsels” and its concomitant doctrine of merit, there developed a two-level Christian ethics that distinguished between ordinary Christians, who did only the minimum necessary, from the more religious, who answered to a higher calling and were rewarded accordingly. With time, the basic catalogue of ascetical practices was augmented by more specific manifestations of asceticism that were characteristic of particular (often regional) forms of monasticism, such as the stylitism of Syria, the peregrinatio propter Christum of the IroScottish monks, and the stabilitas of the Benedictines. While Eastern monasticism based on the Basilian rule has remained relatively homogeneous down to the present, in the West many diverse varieties of monastic life and manifestations of the ascetic ideal were developed. Throughout the history of monasticism, perfunctory observance and neglect of the demands of asceticism have alternated with renewal and enforcement of the ideal. On → Athos, for example, the idiorrhythmic monasticism introduced in the 14th century, which discarded individual poverty, has been declining since the 19th century. Unlike the stringently ascetic Irish rules, the Benedictine rule, which shaped Western monasti-

Asceticism cism until the High Middle Ages, imposed only moderate ascetic demands; even these were undermined repeatedly, primarily through the opportunity for communal ownership of property. In the West, the appeal of asceticism increased during the 11th century, leading to the rediscovery of the anchoritic ideal (→ Camaldolese, → Vallombrosans, Carthusians). Protesting against developments within Cluniac monasticism (→ Cluny) and influenced by the rediscovered Desert Fathers, the rigorous → Cistercians emerged from the reform monastery of Cîteaux in Burgundy. Radical asceticism espoused by lay movements in the 12th century (the → Cathari and → Waldensians placed special emphasis on poverty; the Cathari with their dualistic worldview also preached radical neglect of bodily needs) brought forth the → Mendicants, → Franciscans and → Dominicans, as an officially sanctioned countermovement. In the life of → Francis of Assisi, an ascetic penitent disposition coupled with a desire to share the sufferings of Christ culminated in stigmatization (→ Stigma). Since the 13th century, female believers have also often embraced rigorous asceticism as the basis of a mystical piety based on suffering; the selfinflicted torture of the Dominican nun Elsbeth of Oye (c. 1290–1340) is a notable example. On the other hand, the High Middle Ages witnessed the appearance of religious communities in which asceticism became secondary to a positive ministry, usually of charitable nature (hospital orders [→ Knights, Orders of ], → Bridge Brotherhoods). In modern Catholicism, this tendency characterizes many orders and congregations in which the ascetic ideal is increasingly supplemented or replaced by social service. The remaining ascetic requirements (at least celibacy, poverty, and obedience) are esteemed for their functional value. Even in the older religious communities, the advance of medical and hygienic knowledge has moderated the traditional ascetic rigor. It survives primarily in contemplative communities, especially in strictly secluded convents. In addition, the modern period down to the present day has witnessed frequent returns to the ascetic ideal (the → Trappists, for example, among the Cistercians). The Reformation rejected the traditional understanding of asceticism, primarily on account of its tendency toward legalism, its association with the doctrine of merit, and its irreconcilability with Christian freedom. Instead, certain ascetic ideals such as a penitent heart and the conduct attached to it were extended to all the faithful, a notion already set forth in Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, 1517. The ascetic ideal influenced the forms of church life, at first mostly within the sphere of influence of the radical Reformation and the Swiss Reformers (→ Church Discipline), but later throughout post-Reformation Protestantism; it was to surface repeatedly, especially

Asceticism in Puritanism (→ Puritans and Puritanism), → Pietism, → Methodism, and among the heirs of the → Anabaptists (called by Max → Weber a “worldly asceticism”). But the original acosmic asceticism also underwent renewal, especially in anachoresis (desert spirituality in the “Protestant Thebes” of North America) and celibacy (G. → Tersteegen, J.M. → Hahn). By contrast, the celibacy of Protestant deaconesses (→ Diaconate) is functional rather than ascetic. Ascetic tendencies have appeared repeatedly in the new Protestant communities established in the 20th century, as well as in contemporary communal organizations outside the churches. M. Viller & K. Rahner, Askese und Mystik in der Väterzeit, 1939, repr. 1989 ◆ B. Lohse, Askese und Mönchtum in der Antike und in der alten Kirche, RKAM 1, 1969 ◆ F. Prinz, Askese und Kultur, 1980 ◆ Cf. → Monasticism. Ulrich Köpf

V. Ethics 1. The Theological Locus of Asceticism. From the perspective of systematic theology, asceticism is fraught with contradictions. There is not just disagreement as to its place within Christianity; there is a much more fundamental disagreement as to whether it should in fact be assigned a place outside Christianity, as a topic of general ethics. The two questions are closely related. The decision to consign the systematic examination of asceticism – as we do here – within the context of ethics implies a double distinction from competing perspectives. On the one hand, asceticism could be consigned to dogmatic theology; it would then be part of the doctrine of the Christian faith. But if we are to avoid the slightest suggestion that asceticism might contribute in any way to faith – and nothing dispenses us from doing so –, it should not be doctrinally associated with faith but rather with the consequences of faith. If faith is by nature nonascetic (since the bridegroom is present: Matt 9:15), then asceticism can only constitute a topic of general ethics. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that asceticism should be treated as a topic of practical theology; the consequence would be to limit it to those who have an official ecclesiastical function. In this case, asceticism would be a matter of special ethics for ordained ministers, who would be ranked hierarchically on the basis of their ascetic efforts and accomplishments. This would tend to ignore non-Christian asceticism and completely subordinate asceticism to the process of Christianization. Obviously, the treatment of asceticism under the rubric of ethics is, in the first instance, simply a way to escape these two approaches, either of which would result in the loss of asceticism. 2. Positive and Negative Asceticism. These two conflicts arise because asceticism has two roots. These are not simply Christian and non-Christian; there is an element of both in both of them. These two roots could

438 be called positive and negative asceticism. Negative asceticism involves austerities of mind and body such as privation, abstention, fasting, self-denial, renunciation – in short everything that effects the mortification of the flesh, of the senses and of → affect. Critics of Christian asceticism tend to identify it with these practices, especially when they are performed professionally – for which monasticism must take the blame. This criticism is clearly unjust: there is no profession without asceticism. Nor does all asceticism involve renunciation. Etymologically, “asceticism” simply means training. The purpose of training is to store up and encode for recall certain forms of behavior (→ Virtue). This is impossible without paying careful attention to (residual) materialities. This requires the body, the senses and affects, which were previously only recognized as objects of active neglect. In this context, the ascetic spirit does not assault the senses but rather communicates with them. When this is the basis of attention to the body, we have positive asceticism. 3. Christian and Non-Christian Asceticism. The distinction between negative and positive asceticism must not be confused either historically or substantially with the distinction between Christian and non-Christian asceticism. In his Metaphysics of Morals (A 176ff.*), I. → Kant distinguishes “ethical asceticism” as the “cultivation of virtue” from “monastic asceticism” – the latter “joyless, gloomy, and dour,” the former seeking a “happy heart.” It cannot escape notice, however, that monastic asceticism has always engaged in the cultivation of the senses, as has been evident at least since the Exercitia spiritualia of → Ignatius of Loyola. Conversely, A. → Schopenhauer’s understanding of asceticism as a negation of the will is motivated primarily by criticism of Christianity (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung §§68f.). F. → Nietzsche also attacks “ascetic ideals” (Werke und Briefe, Gesamtausgabe VI/2, 355ff.), though the Dionysian “yes” itself requires renunciation (V/2, 208). On the other hand, Max Weber’s inner and outer-worldly asceticisms may both be categorized as “world-denying” (Gesamtausgabe I/19, 479ff.), so that a religion – of the salvation type – that does not deny the world becomes inconceivable. – The locus classicus for Christian asceticism, 1 Tim 4:7f. (“train yourself in godliness”), could be read as meaning that physical training is only a means to the end of achieving godliness. But since the text goes on to say that godliness is valuable in every way, so that end itself is defined as an unlimited choice of means and hence as the promise of life, even physical training, though clearly a limited means, is not without promise. Only an ethics that has lost its charm by focusing on petty details and residual materialities could reject the issue of asceticism. Furthermore, 1 Tim 4:3 rules out an asceticism that consists only of renunciatory celibacy and fasting.

439 4. Asceticism of Action – Asceticism of Speech. From the perspective of ethics, asceticism is divided into an asceticism of action and an asceticism of speech. Only superficially does asceticism of action appear to be abstention from all action. Since a moment in which no action whatsoever takes place is inconceivable, asceticism of action is simply a limitation of the possibilities of action with the aim of being able to act more precisely. In this sense, asceticism of action is a precondition of all action. But action requires asceticism not simply in a negative sense. Training (virtue) provides the advantage of avoiding the need to always begin anew. The critics of growth through training like to emphasize that one must always start over again. That the ultimate goal of perfection is still far off is indisputable, but where should the concept of the “new” be localized? It is not just everything new that is new: training opens new fields of action for consideration. Asceticism of speech would at first appear to be a simple diminution of our store of words. Theologically, abstention from words is interpreted as immersion in the unutterable mystery. But this view must compete with the skeptical interpretation that would see verbal asceticism as the elimination of words through their opposite equivalent. The simple process of forming concepts is itself already a diminution of the store of words; concepts increase proportionally as words decrease. But the negative approach is not sufficient to constitute an asceticism of speech. The rhetorical tradition teaches asceticism not as the art of eliminating words but of preserving them. Here, asceticism of speech becomes an element of the art of memory. M. Lechner, Die Theologie des Maßes: Studien zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Askese bei Romano Guardini, 1991 ◆ V.L. Wimbush, ed., Asceticism, 1995 ◆ W. Schneider, “Wissenschaftliche Askese und latente Wertepräferenz bei Hans Kelsen,” diss., Freiburg, 1996. Günter Bader

VI. Judaism 1. Early Period. Early Judaism was long described as explicitly non-ascetic, in clear contrast to the GrecoRoman and early Christian cultures of the same period. The explanation was seen in the non-dualistic worldview of the Bible, of Judaism in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. The basic postulate of this worldview that the material creation is good appears clearly incompatible with hostility toward the human body. Nevertheless, a broad spectrum of ascetic practices and related manifestations is attested in early Jewish literature, whereby asceticism is understood as abstention from pleasure and restraint with regard to the physical needs of the body, a kind of training for the purpose of achieving spiritual progress and perfection. The book of Daniel and the extracanonical apocalypses display an

Asceticism increasing linkage of complex practices (fasting, special dietary restrictions, self-humiliation, sexual continence) that were originally associated with mourning or penance, but were now intended to prepare the seer for a visionary experience. This phenomenon appears most clearly in Hellenistic Jewish literature, especially in → Philo of Alexandria’s description of Jacob as an exemplary ascetic, and in the spiritually motivated asceticism of the Therapeutae (Philo Cont.). Both Philo and → Josephus show a strong interest in the way of life of the Essenes; they consciously drew on Greco-Roman models in describing the Essenes’ regulations governing seclusion and abstinence. Today, extensive evidence from Qumran makes it clear that these accounts paint a generally accurate picture of these groups – their restrictions on ownership of material goods, strict dietary regulations, restriction of speech, and hierarchical community structure. A central aim of modern scholarship has been to reevaluate ascetic tensions – the contradictory attitudes within rabbinic society and literature regarding separation from the community and those who set themselves apart through particular religious practices, such as the Nazirites. E. Urbach, “Ascesis and Suffering in Talmudic and Midrashic Sources,” in: Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume, 1960, 46–68 ◆ D. Satran, “Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy Man,” in: J. Collins & G. Nickelsburg, eds., Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, 1980, 33–48 ◆ D. Winston, “Philo’s Ethical Theory,” ANRW II 21.2, 1984, 372–416 ◆ S. Frade, “Ascetical Judaism,” in: A. Green, ed., Jewish Spirituality, vol. I, 1986, 253–288 ◆ V. Wimbush, ed., Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: a Sourcebook, 1990. David Satran

2. Middle Ages and Modern Period. A central concept in the works of 10th- through 12th-century Jewish philosophers influenced by Arabic thought and philosophy was perishut (, “abstinence”), the negation of pleasure and renunciation of earthly delights. → Saadia Gaon praised hermits who forsake society to dwell in deserts and caves, but did not recommend their way of life, because it negates social religious rituals and ethical norms and can lead to sickness and early death. The same conflict appears in the detailed treatment of this theme in the Duties of the Heart by → Bahya ibn Pakudah, who devotes a chapter to describing the right and wrong types of perishut. He, too, praises hermits, but states clearly that their way of life is suitable only for a small number of select spirituals. For the faithful in general, he describes the way of inner abstinence: live, eat, and drink in the world and in society and act like all others; austerity should be inward and spiritual. Free yourself emotionally from all earthly delights and immunize yourself against enjoyment of the world even while behaving normally. These and similar recommendations of

Asceticism, Islamic Jewish thinkers writing in Arabic clearly reveal the influence of Sufi practices (→ Islam: II), since they are based more on Arabic ideas, aphorisms, and parables than on traditions of the Talmud and Midrash. M. → Maimonides opposed these ideas, maintaining that reflection on God requires the preservation of a healthy mind and body. The body should be treated like a faithful servant, be heeded and cared for, lest it interfere with the mind’s concentration on philosophical studies. This balanced position was espoused by other 13th-century thinkers, especially Rabbi → Yehiel ben Yekutiel of Rome. As a group, the ethical writers of southern Europe hesitated between moderate forms of abstention and its total rejection. Independently of Arabic influence, in Christian Europe, the school of → Kalonymus developed a different attitude toward abstinence, especially in the writings of its three leaders: Rabbi Samuel ben Kalonymus the Pious (c. 1110–1170), his son Rabbi → Yehuda heChasid of Regensburg (d. 1217), and Rabbi Yehuda’s pupil Rabbi → Eleazar ben Judah of Worms (d. c. 1230). Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid wrote the pietistic ethical treatise Sefer Chassidim (“Book of the Pious”), which contains detailed instructions on every aspect of daily life, focusing on the idea of abstinence from all earthly delights. The numerous ascetic elements in this work are often associated with the ideal of self-sacrifice for the holy name of God. Many schools of contemporary Judaism do not embrace an ideal of abstinence. They strongly reject hedonism, but their ideal is more moderation than austerity. J. Dan, <  , 1975 ◆ idem, Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics, 1987. Joseph Dan

VII. Indian Religions By the 6th century at the latest, Indian asceticism (saányāsa, tapas) in the form of life-long chastity, physical mortification, peregrination, and begging, with the spiritual goal of deliverance from rebirth (→ Mokßa, → Nirvā»a) or of attaining “magical” powers (siddhi), had arisen in ancient India, the classic land of otherworldly asceticism (Max Weber) seeking escape from the world. It probably developed through the encounter of immigrant “Aryan” tribes with the indigenous population – the early Vedic period knew nothing of ascetics – and in the context of an incipient economy of surplus. The early ascetic movements – including the historical → Buddha (I) •ākyamuni with his disciples and Mahāvīra, the founder of → Jainism, a religion of extreme asceticism – were hostile to the → Brahmins and their sacrificial ritual, and hence also to the Veda (→ Vedas) and the housefire. The variety of Indian ascetics is enormous (Sanskrit saányāsin, yogī; Hindī: baba, sādhu; cf. → Āśrama). Practitioners of more mystical and spiritual renunciation

440 compete with ascetics who severely mortify the flesh; after trying and rejecting the latter, the historical Buddha himself proclaimed the Middle Way instead. Both groups compete with the Brahmins and other priests for supreme religious authority. There are self-sufficient hermits who have severed almost all ties with society, teachers living ascetic lives (guru, svāmī), sects of monks and nuns in their abodes (ma†ha, āśrama), priestly ascetics in charge of temples, armed militant ascetics (nāgas), beggars who publicly torture themselves, and many more. Only martyrs are rare. In most cases initiation (dīkßā) by a master is necessary, sometimes conceived as a ritual death. A cult of gurus and founders is widespread. Ascetic practices include celibacy, peregrination, monodiets (nothing but milk or fruit), votive fasting, votive silence, extreme bodily mortification, and yoga exercises. Special significance is ascribed to fire, the focus of life for ascetic sects: tapas means both “heat” and “asceticism”; the ashes (vibhūti) that many ascetics rub over their bodies are considered holy and medicinal. Since the 10th or 11th century, groups of ascetics have increasingly joined together in communities ( pantha, san˙gha, sampradhāya), distinguished spiritually by their founders and teachings, and outwardly by marks of membership painted on their foreheads: Śaivas usually use horizontal lines, Vaiß»avas vertical ones. The two best-known groups are: (a) the Śaiva Daśanāmīs, usually clad in orange robes, who trace their origin to Śan˙kara (c. 8th cent.) as their founder and espouse a non-dualism, according to which the world is an illusion (māyā; → Hinduism), the supreme being (→ Brahman) without attributes, and deliverance is only attainable through knowledge ( jñāna); and (b) the Vaiß»ava Rāmānandīs, who still wear the sacred cord; probably the largest sect in northern India, they trace their origin to their founder Rāmānanda (13th/14th cent.) and ascribe deliverance not just to their own endeavors but to a god (e.g. Rāma = Íśvara or Brahman) with whom they strive to achieve mystical union and for whose act of mercy they hope. L. Dumont, “World Renunciation in Indian Religions,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 4, 1960, 33–62 ◆ J. Heesterman, “Brahmin, Ritual and Renouncer,” WZKSO 8, 1964, 1–31 ◆ R. Gross, Hindu Asceticism: a Study of the Sadhus of North India, 1979 ◆ K. Rüping, “Zur Askese in indischen Religionen,” ZMR 61/2, 1977, 81–98 ◆ P. Olivelle, Samnyāsa Upanißads: Hindu Scriptures on Asceticism and Renunciation, 1992 ◆ J. Bronkhorst, The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism, 1993. Axel Michaels

Asceticism, Islamic → Islam: II, 5 Asclepius (Gk ᾽Ασκληπιός/Asklēpiós). The religiophilosophical text called Asclepius is ascribed to the Platonist → Apuleius but displays affinities with Hermeticism. It is a Latin translation and revision of a Greek

441 original from Egypt, first cited in the 4th century by → Lactantius under the title λόγος τέλειος (lógos téleios, sermo perfectus). The concluding prayer of the Greek original of Asclepius 41 is cited in Papyrus Mimaut (PGM III, 591–609); Coptic fragments are preserved among the → Nag Hammadi texts (Asclepius 41 in Pr. Thanks., NHC VI,7; Asclepius 21–29 in Asclepius, NHC VI,8). The text is written in the form of a pedagogical dialogue in which → Hermes Trismegistus systematically expounds Hermetic teaching to his pupils Asclepius, Tat, and Hammon. The unique statements in chs. 24–26 concerning the demise of Egyptian religion are significant for → apocalypticism. Text, trans., comm.: W. Scott & A.S. Ferguson, Hermetica, vols. I–IV, 1924–1936 ◆ A.D. Nock & A.-J. Festugière, Corpus Hermeticum, vol. II, 1945 ◆ D.M. Parrott, ed., NHC V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4, 1979 ◆ J.-P. Mahé, Hermès en Haute-Égypte, vols. I–II, 1978, 1982 ◆ C. Moreschini, Studi sull’Ermetismo tardo-antico e rinascimentale, 1985 ◆ B. Copenhaver, Hermetica, 1992 (bibl.). Hans Dieter Betz

Asclepius (Greek God). The figure of Asclepius – divine healer and healing god – reveals a specific transitional potential in Mediterranean polytheism (→ Monotheism). As the son of → Apollo and of a mortal woman, Asclepius is himself mortal, and is indeed faced with death; because Asclepius raises a dead man to life through his skill as a → physician, → Zeus finally kills him with a bolt of lightning. As a hero, he is venerated like a god, while at the same time being closer to human existence than the Olympian gods. The extraordinary diffusion of his cult in the Mediterranean area – almost 500 cultic sites of Asclepius can be identified – reflects the ability of his cult to cater to constant human expectations in a variety of cultural contexts. The basic elements of this healing cult (→ Salvation), viz. sacrifices and votive gifts, correspond to the classical structures of the veneration of gods and heroes; it centers on the method of → incubation. After ritual preparation, the one who seeks healing lies down in the sanctuary and awaits a → dream which will impart the god’s instructions for healing, or even immediately heal him while he sleeps. A complex staging of the ritual, long-term care given by the priests, and an active cultic propaganda made the sanctuaries of Asclepius one of the most successful institutions of classical religion in the period between the 5th century bce and the end of Antiquity. Epidaurus was not only the model of a “cultic and therapeutic center” in terms of architecture and urban buildings and not only had considerable economic success, but also quickly developed into a kind of “cult center”; the only exception to this traditional line of development was the school of Asclepius followers on the island of Cos. The Sibylline Books demanded that the cult of Asclepius be adopted in Rome, whereupon it was imported from Epidauros,

Aseity of God although his cult was certainly already known in southern Italy. In the adoption of this cult in Rome (as in the adoption of other cults), the god’s serpent played an important role as the characteristic animal, helper, and “trademark” of the god. In a manner similar to the adoption of the cult of Asclepius (Latin Aesculapius) in Rome, it was introduced in → Ephesus, Miletus, and → Pergamon in the 3rd century bce. In the sanctuaries of Asclepius and their dependencies, the presentation of “miracles of healing,” in the form of votive gifts or inscriptions, played a special role. We also find many votive reliefs which depict the god and his helper Hygieia together with the sick person and his family in a kind of generic scene. This form of personal piety, with its intimate relationship between the sick person and the god, is very different from the mainstream of classical worship. Until well into the 4th century ce, Asclepius as healer and savior (theos sôtêr) competed with Christ as healer of the sick and “savior of the world.” The growth of the cult of Asclepius in the imperial period was part of a religious trend to turn to the heavenly world in order to seek personal favor and lasting protection. R. Herzog, Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros, 1931 ◆ E.J. Edelstein, ed., Asclepius, 2 vols., 1945, repr. 1975 ◆ U. Hausmann, Kunst und Heiltum, 1948 ◆ K.H. Rengstorf, Die Anfänge der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christusglaube und Asklepiosfrömmigkeit, 1953 ◆ K. Kerényi, Der göttliche Arzt, 31975 ◆ G. Lorenz, “Apollon – Asklepios – Hygieia,” Saec. 39, 1988, 1–11 ◆ M. Herzog, “Christus medicus, apothecarius, samaritanus, balneator,” GeLe 6, 1994, 414–434. Burkhard Gladigow

Aseity of God I. Philosophy of Religion – II. Theology

I. Philosophy of Religion Aseity (Lat. aseitas) means God’s existence of and from himself (esse a se). The artificial term was coined by Baroque scholasticism, but the notion behind it has ancient roots in speculative theology. The first in-depth examination of the question is that of → Anselm of Canterbury, who concluded that the supreme entity must be whatever it is through itself and from itself alone (per seipsam et ex seipsa est quidquid est: Monologion VI). The logic of this determination assumes that God can neither exist through something else (per aliud) nor through nothing ( per nihil ) (3), though he cannot be nothing (6), and therefore must exist “through himself and from himself ” (5). The prepositions must not be understood in the sense of an efficient agent (6), but are interchangeable. By identifying God’s nature with God’s being, → Thomas Aquinas arrives at the statement: “Deus in

Ash Wednesday seipso subsistit” (Summa contra Gentiles [ScG] I 12). God is ens per se (ScG I 25). Thomas can even say: “God has no cause of his being except himself [non habeat aliam causam sui esse praeter seipsum])” (ScG I 43). It follows that God’s will is free, because that is free quod est per se (ScG I 72). God’s aseity is associated with other attributes, such as God’s unity, simplicity, immutability, unoriginatedness, eternity, necessity, independence, and self-sufficiency. To arrive at aseity, J. → Duns Scotus assumes: If not from something other (non ab alio), then from itself (a se). He concludes: potest esse a se, et ita est a se (Tractatus de primo principio III, 4 conclusio). This argument raises the question as to whether negation of esse ab alio is a logical precondition for the positive conclusion of esse a se, so that aseity is derived from the negation of its opposite – in analogy to independence (in-dependentia). Since aseity can be conceived only as that which constitutes itself by rejecting everything that it is not, non ab alio esse is a constitutive negative condition of the positive concept. Faced with this dialectic, tradition either emphasizes the purely negative character of aseity or gives precedence to its positive inward meaning. The first option is associated with the postulates of → negative theology. The second option raises the question as to whether aseity can be interpreted positively as causa sui → (causa). This concept has been rejected repeatedly on principle and specifically with respect to God by Augustine, Anselm, Thomas, Duns Scotus, and later theologians. Aside from logical objections, this rejection reflects such traditional assertions as the claim that God has no beginning and is uncreated. On the other hand, precisely because of God’s aseity, → Jerome says, “Ipse sui origo est suaeque causa substantiae” (Comm. Eph. II, 3; XIV; PL 26, 520b). The tradition that gives causa sui a positive evaluation extends from → Plotinus through R. → Descartes, F. → Schelling , G.W.F. → Hegel, and → speculative theology to Wolfhart Pannenberg. This concept seeks to geneticize esse a se from within, answering the old cryptic question “Deus autem ex quo” by both positing and denying causality within God. The concept of aseity was also employed by J.G. → Fichte, A. → Schopenhauer, and E. von → Hartmann. II. Theology The Reformers do not use the word at all, and even the idea of aseity appears only rarely and incidentally. In Luther, we occasionally find affirmations of the aseity of the persons of the Trinity: existit a se ipso ab aeterno (WA 39/II, 398, 9–12; 320, 18). More typical is the criticism of the Aristotelian concept of God (WA 18, 785, 7f.). In Melanchthon, we find only the definition οὐσία per se subsistens (Loci 1535: CR 21, 352f.). Calvin, too, occasionally defines aeternitas and αὐτουσία/autousía as se ipso

442 existentia (Institutio I, 14.3; 10.2). The notion of aseity appears more often in Protestant → Orthodoxy : solus sit a se ipso, per se ipsum et ipsum suum esse ( J. Gerhard, Loci communes theologici, 1764, III, 121; 169). Similar aseity formulas are repeated in the definition of the divine attributes. Patristic expressions appear repeatedly, such as αὐτοϕυής/autophy¶s, αὐτοτελής/autotel¶s, αὐτόθεος/ autótheos, and αὐτουσία/autousía (in a Trinitarian context). Particularly important is αὐτόζωος/autózōos, which, with John 5:26, defines aseity as God’s particular mode of living. In more recent dogmatics, there are two approaches: one works more (sometimes exclusively) with the negative sense of aseity, the other is characterized by an attempt to provide a positive articulation of the concept. For the former, which draws on the Enlightenment tradition, aseity stands for God’s independence simply as a denial of all dependence ( J.A. → Wegscheider, F. → Schleiermacher, G. → Ebeling). For the speculative approach, which seeks to develop the substantial meaning of aseity, its interpretation as causa sui is central. These theologians understand aseity as God’s absoluteness (R. → Rothe, J. → Müller, I.A. → Dorner). Among more recent theologians, P. → Althaus (Die christliche Wahrheit, 264) and P. → Tillich (Systematic Theology, I, 291*) have supported this notion of God’s self-substantiation. The speculative motifs reappear transformed in the theology of K. → Barth, who prefers to understand aseity as God’s independence (KD III/4, 370) but not as self-generation (KD II/1, 344). Barth thinks instead of aseity as the quintessence of God’s freedom (ibid., 340). More concretely, Pannenberg takes causa sui as God’s self-realization (Systematic Theology, I, 423f.*), which, as the living nexus of the immanent and economic Trinity, brings “becoming in God” within the horizon of eschatology (cf. ibid., 359*). Joachim Ringleben

Ash Wednesday is the beginning of the pre-Easter penitential season (Lent). Ash Wednesday owes its name to the institution of public penitence: the penitent receives penitential clothing and is sprinkled with ashes. According to the missal of 1970, blessing and application of the ashes – in the form of a cross on the forehead – are performed following the Gospel and the homily. In Protestant congregations, Ash Wednesday is considered the beginning of the passion season; it is recommended that it be performed in a penitential service or the celebration of congregational confession. A. Adam, Das Kirchenjahr mitfeiern, 1979; ET: The Liturgical Year, 2005. Karl-Heinrich Bieritz

Ashdod is situated approx. 9 miles northeast of → Ashkelon, 2.5 miles from the Mediterranean with

443 a separate harbor on the coast. Its Canaanite name ha†dādu, “trade fair,” suggests its importance as a commercial center. The site has been settled since the Middle Bronze; in the Late Bronze it traded with → Ugarit and Enkomi. Sub-Mycenaean (“Philistine”) pottery appears at the transition to the Iron Age. Ashdod was one of the city-states of the → Philistine pentapolis ( Josh 11:22; 13:3); the proximity of its harbor to Judah explains both contacts and conflicts (Amos 1:8; 2 Chr 26:2; 1 Sam 5). In 734 bce Ashdod surrendered to Assyria (→ Israel and Mesopotamia). In 713 it became involved in an uprising under Yamani, and in 712 it was captured by Sargon II and made an Assyrian province (victory stela; cf. Isa 20:1). Herodotus (II, 157) states that Ashdod was besieged for 29 years by Psamtik I in the 7th century; a “remnant of Ashdod” fell to the Babylonians in 604 ( Jer 25:20; cf. Zeph 2:4; Jdt 2:28). Ashdod was a Persian province (coinage); it maintained ties with the inhabitants of Judah (Neh 13:23f.; Zech 9:6–8) but was opposed to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls under → Nehemiah (Neh 4:1f., 7; 1 Sam 5). The temple of Dagon remained standing until 150 (1 Macc 10:83f.; cf. 5:68; 16:10; Zech 9:6–8; Josephus Ant. XIII, 395). Reestablished as a free city in 63 bce, Ashdod came under Herod’s control in 30. In the First Jewish War, Vespasian stationed a garrison in Ashdod ( Jos. Bell. IV, 130). The evangelist → Philip preached in Ashdod (Acts 8:4). In 325 ce, the harbor city was represented at → Nicea as an episcopal see; all that was left inland was a πολίχνη ἐπίσμος/políchnē epísmos (Eusebius Onom. 20, 19) or insigne oppidum ( Jerome Onom. 21, 23). A Crusader castle stands north of the harbor. M. Dothan et al., “Ashdod I–V,” ‘Atiqot 7, 9–10, 15, 23, 1967–1993 ◆ O. Keel & M. Küchler, OLB II, 1982, 38–48 ◆ A. Lemaire, “Le trésor d’Abu Shusheh et le monnayage d’Ashdod avant Alexandre,” RNum 32, 1990, 257–263 ◆ M. Dothan, ABD I, 1992, 477–482 ◆ M. & T. Dothan, People of the Sea, 1992, esp. 127–188 ◆ M. Dothan, NEAEHL I, 1993, 93–103. Christoph Uehlinger

Asherah is a Syro-Palestinian goddess attested already in the 18th century bce in Mesopotamian sources but well known because of the Ras-Shamra/Ugarit texts and the OT polemic against her. Traces of her cult can also be found in Egypt, Anatolia and southern Arabia. The etymology of the name of the goddess is uncertain. The Semitic origin of the goddess is confirmed by the Mesopotamian tradition, recognizing her as the wife of the western god Amurru (eponym of the Amurrites; → Amorites). In Ugarit Asherah is the wife of El and the mother of the divine group of the “seventy sons of Asherah”; furthermore she bears the title “mistress” and “Asherah of the sea.” The OT acknowledges the singular and plural forms of the name of the goddess and uses it

Ashkelon as the proper name for a goddess, as well as the name of a cult symbol in association with the goddess, or as an aniconic representation (a tree or a sacral tree stump, a fertility symbol). Hebrew inscriptions show that in Israel Asherah at times was the wife of Yahweh and thus the formation of the personality of Yahweh may have been affected by Canaanite traditions about El. Sources: C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeits-Anspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, BBB 94, 1995 ◆ Bibl.: S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, 1988 ◆ M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Yahwe und seine Aschera, UBL 9, 1992 ◆ S. Wiggins, A Reassessment of Ashera, AOAT 235, 1993 ◆ P. Merlo, “L’Asherah di Yhwh a Kuntillet aAjrud. Rassegna critica degli studi e delle interpretazioni,” SEL 11, 1994, 21–54. Paolo Xella

Ashkelon (Ascalon) is a port city about 20 km northnortheast of → Gaza; since the 2nd millennium bce its area has encompassed over 60 hectares, according to text witnesses spanning four millennia. Settled since the 4th millennium bce, it is cited first in the execration texts of the 19th and 18th century bce as “*’i/asqaluna” (“trading place” or similar). From the Middle Bronze Age fortifications and cult relics (bonze statuette of a young steer), among other things, have been found. In the Late Bronze Age Ashkelon probably was not fortified. According to the El-Amarna letters (→ Amarna) the ruler of the city provided for Egyptian troops in the 14th century and supplied glass ingots. The conquest by Merneptah (→ Egypt: II), assumed in the Israel stele (c. 1208 bce), is presented pictorially (ANEP 334). During the Iron Age Ashkelon was one of the most important Philistine cities (Amos 1:8; Jer 25:20; Zeph 2:4; Zech 9:5f.). Judah never ruled over Ashkelon ( Josh 13:3, contra Judg 1:18) and only found access to foreign trade indirectly via Ashkelon and → Ashdod (cf. 2 Sam 1:20). Following the Assyrian conquests by Tiglath-pileser III (734) and Sennacherib (701) Ashkelon was destroyed by → Nebuchadnezzar in 604 (Zeph 2:7; cf. Jdt 2:28). Around 500 it was reestablished as a colony of Tyre (minting of coins in the 4th cent.). It was home to the temple of → Atargatis/Derketo (Herodotus, Hist. I 105; Pausanias, Perihegesis I 14,7; Diodorus Siculus II 4,2–6). With regards to the Maccabees the Hellenistic city (Arist 115) remained independent (1 Macc 10:86; 11:60; 12:33; Jos. Ant. XIII 101, 149) and a center of Hellenism. In 104 it was a free state with its own calendar; coins of the Roman period depict the temple and the goddess of the city. → Herod I donated buildings to his place of birth (?). In 64 ce it was the site of a mass slaughter of Jews ( Jos, Bell. II 477). During the Roman-Byzantine period Ashkelon remained a trading place with connections throughout the Mediterranean realm. Contested between Fatimides, Crusaders and

Ashkenazi Mamelukes, the city was destroyed by Saladin in 1191 and the castle in 1270 by Baibars. O. Keel & M. Küchler, OLB II, 1982, 49–75 ◆ F.J. Yurco, “Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” JARce 23, 1986, 189–215 ◆ L.E. Stager, Ashkelon Discovered, 1991 ◆ ABD I, 1992, 487– 490 idem, NEAEHL I, 1993, 103–112 ◆ idem, “The Fury of Babylon,” BAR 22, 1, 1996, 56–69, 76–77 ◆ idem, “Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction,” ErIsr 25, 1996, 61*-74* ◆ H. Gitler, “New Fourth-century BC Coins from Ashkelon,” NumC 156, 1996, 1–9. Christoph Uehlinger

Ashkenazi → Hasidism, → Judaism Ashrams, Christian. (Cf. → Āśrama) Christian ashrams are found in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. They are places for religious observance, reflection, and a spiritual life deepened by prayer and meditation. They involve small groups of men and/or women who give concrete shape to the Christian faith in the context of their own culture and social environment. They practice an undemanding simplicity in clothing, shelter, and food (usually vegetarian), observing a communal lifestyle supported by a regular daily routine with periods devoted to prayer, meditation, worship, and work. They thereby honor Christ as a true spiritual leader (sadguru). Leaders of Christian ashrams understand their function to be partly similar to that of a Hindu guru; in the Protestant ashrams, they subordinate their role to the ideal of communal decision making. The need for Christian ashrams was put forward as early as the Bengal Christian Conference in 1910. The initiators of the Christian ashrams established in the following years were primarily Protestants who were closely associated with the Indian independence movement, having close ties with M. → Gandhi and R. → Tagore’s Forest Academy at Śantiniketān. The study of the “forest asceticism” (→ Āśrama) in Hindu literature taught them the ideal of life in harmony with nature, a search for truth unhindered by dogma, and an open communality shaped by personal relationships and free of institutional concerns. The foundation of ashrams was sponsored by unmarried men (e.g. the Christu Kula Ashram near Tirupattur, founded in 1921), by sisters (e.g. the Bethel Ashram near Tiruvalla, founded in 1922), and by families (e.g. the Christavashram in Manganam, founded in 1934). As a rule, these and later Protestant ashrams are autonomous and interdenominational; in them, religious practice is considered the basis and motivation for social engagement through many kinds of service. As a rule, the ashrams established by Syrian Orthodox Christians (including the Bethany Ashram in Ranni-Perunad, founded in 1919) are celibate communities. The ashrams of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, established after 1929, assist in missionary work outside of Kerala. The Catholic ashrams, the first of which was founded in

444 1950, are primarily centers for spiritual orientation and an intensive search for God. The goal of the initiators of these ashrams was the → inculturation of the contemplative monastic tradition of the West and the integration of the Hindu religious heritage. Borrowing from Hindu symbols, rituals, and forms of worship, the Catholic ashrams have been pioneers in Indian liturgical renewal. The Christian ashrams have significantly influenced Indian theology, liturgy, and art, as well as ecumenical and interreligious dialogue and village development. P. Chenchiah, V. Chakkarai, & A.N. Sudarisanam, Asramas Past and Present, 1941 ◆ F. Melzer, Christliche Ashrams in Südindien, 1976 ◆ R.W. Taylor, “From Khadi to Kavi,” RelSoc 24, 1977, 19–37 ◆ idem, “Christian Ashrams as a Style of Mission in India,” IRM 68, 1979, 281–293 ◆ H. Ralston, Christian Ashrams, 1987 ◆ E. Pulsfort, Christliche Ashrams in Indien, 1989, 21991 ◆ P. Pattathu, The Contemporary Christian Āśram Movement, 1990 ◆ Vandana, ed., Christian Ashrams, 1993. Hans-Peter Müller

Ashur (cuneiform Ashshur), political and religious center of Assyria (→ Mesopotamia), on the west bank of the Tigris River, north of the confluence of the Little Zab with the Tigris. The city and its god bore the name of Ashur, also applied to the area controlled by the city and to the entire Assyrian empire. As early as the end of the 3rd millennium bce, this north Mesopotamian citystate gained importance when merchants from Ashur founded trading colonies in Anatolia and brought great wealth to the city. In the 18th century bce, ShamshiAdad I. led the city of Ashur to a brief time of prosperity as the cultic center of his Upper Mesopotamian empire. After the city rulers of Ashur conquered Upper Mesopotamia and large parts of Syria in the 14th century bce (Middle Assyrian empire), Ashur was lavishly built up as the capital. In the world empire of the NeoAssyrian Period (9th cent.–612 bce) Ashur was abandoned as the king’s residence for geo-political reasons in favor of Kalakh and → Nineveh. However, the city remained the sole residence of the empire’s god Ashur and thus the religious and cultic center of Assyria. Ashur continued to be maintained and developed at great cost. The Assyrian kings believed themselves to be the earthly representatives and high priests of the god Ashur, who was considered to be the real king of Assyria and king over all the gods in the world. Even in the Neo-Assyrian period, Assyrian kings fulfilled their priestly duties in Ashur. They gave an account of their military campaigns to their god, stayed in Ashur for several weeks in spring to carry out the New Year festival, and were also buried in the city. In 614 bce, Ashur was captured and destroyed by the Medes. In the Parthian era (1st cent. bce – 3rd cent. ce), the city once again gained prominence, and the cult of the god Ashur was revived. Thanks to excavations by the German Oriental Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft) under W. Andrae (1903–

445

Asia

1914), Ashur is one of the best-explored cities of the ancient Near East. Among the objects uncovered there were: enormous fortresses, the acropolis with the → Ashur temple and the associated ziggurat as well as the temple of the imperial gods (the double temples of the moon and sun gods, of the weather and sky gods; the Ishtar temple), royal palaces, residential districts, and the New Year’s festival house outside the city. Important finds from the temple and priestly libraries as well as private archives provide information about the Assyrians’ religious, intellectual, and everyday lives. W. Andrae, Das wiedererstandene Assur, 21977. Stefan M. Maul

Asia I. Geopolitical Considerations, Concept – II. History of Religions – III. Modern Asian Religions outside Asia – IV. Christianity

I. Geopolitical Considerations, Concept Culturally, economically, and politically, Asia is extraordinarily heterogeneous. The Islamic states of the Near East with their oil wealth are part of this continent, as are the multireligious societies of South and Southeast Asia, relatively poor in resources, and the countries of East Asia with their extraordinarily dynamic economies (at least through the mid 70s). Equally diverse are the geopolitical forces at work on this continent. Examples include: the competition of Near Eastern states for scarce water; the struggle between → Iran and → Iraq for regional dominance; competing territorial claims of individual states, such as the conflict between → India and → Pakistan over Kashmir; and the striving of economically successful states (esp. → Japan and South → Korea) to expand their spheres of influence. In comparison with other continents, the importance of Asia is due primarily to demographic and economic factors. The majority of the world’s population (61% in 2003) lives between the Bosporus and the Pacific. After the USA, → China has the largest gross national product in the world (in terms of real purchasing power). Until the middle of the 1980s, nowhere else have markets expanded so rapidly. Domestically, economic progress has reduced mass poverty in many countries. Examples include → Taiwan, South Korea, → Hong Kong , → Singapore, → Thailand, → Indonesia, and China. But most of the absolutely poor people of the world still live in South Asia. Their disposable income hardly suffices to provide for their basic needs, even by local standards (→ Poverty, → Poor, Care of the: VII). Political as well as cultural factors in individual states have led to varying degrees of success in devel-

opment. The two factors can hardly be separated. The Islamic revolution in Iran, for example, brought about an economic recession. In India, a cumbersome bureaucracy has blocked private industry for decades, and many hindrances to economic development rooted in traditional Hinduism have aggravated the effects. In East Asia, by contrast, pragmatic economic policies coupled with a loyalty toward the government fostered by → Confucianism have contributed significantly to an economic boom. In the mid 90s, the severe economic crisis in East Asia cast a shadow over the future of the continent. It turned out that the evolution of legal and political institutions could not keep pace with the astonishing economic growth of the 70s and 80s. Whether or not the necessary institutional reforms will succeed will determine whether East Asia – as many expect – will actually be the economic center of gravity of the 21st century. Asian Development Bank, Asia: Development Experience and Agenda, ADB Theme Paper 3, 1995 ◆ J.E. Campos & H.L. Root, The Key to the Asian Miracle: Making Shared Growth Credible, 1996 ◆ D. Rumley et al., eds., Global Geopolitical Change and the Asia-Pacific: A Regional Perspective, 1996. Hermann Sautter

II. History of Religions Asia is not only the largest and most populous continent, but also the most religiously diverse. All religions that achieved universal significance originated in Asia: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in West Asia, → Buddhism and → Hinduism in India, Confucianism in China. In addition to these great traditions, all of which have influenced Asian cultures beyond the regions where they originated, to the present day there still exist religious traditions restricted to certain regions or ethnic groups. We may mention, particularly, the shamanic traditions (→ Shamanism) of Central and Northern Asia. But even in the heartlands of the universal religions the religious life of the people is often strongly influenced by regional traditions originating outside the great traditions (“popular religion”). The extreme diversity of Asia’s religious traditions can be described chronologically and geographically. Advanced urban civilizations arose from Neolithic agricultural civilizations in three regions: → Mesopotamia (c. 3000 bce), the Indus Valley (c. 2300 bce), and Northern China (c. 1600 bce). Their rise already defines the three cultural centers that the history of religions identifies to this day: West Asia, where most of the societies bear the impress of Islam; South Asia, where Hinduism and Theravāda Buddhism (Hīnayāna) are the dominant forms of religion; and East Asia, where Confucianism and Mahāyāna Buddhism shape the culture. At times there have been intensive contacts between these three cultural centers, especially via the great trade

Asia routes in Central Asia (→ Silk Road and the sea routes between Arabia and East Asia). In West Asia, besides Mesopotamia, other complex civilizations with a state organization arose in → Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine (→ Ugarit, → Israel). A feature common to the religions of most of these peoples is a king with a high religious status and a priesthood engaged in the temple cult. The monotheistic cult of Yahweh in Israel occupies a special and significant place in the history of religions; from its roots evolved Judaism and Christianity. Here, a fundamental shift of emphasis came about when ritual and temple cult was subordinated to ethical obligations of the people vis-à-vis the deity. A similar ethicization of the idea of God took place in Iran, where → Zarasthustra established the worship of Ahura Mazdā. In India, there was no unbroken continuity between the religions of the archaic urban cultures of the Indus Valley and the religion of the migrating Indo-Europeans, who invaded India in several waves beginning in the middle of the 2nd millennium bce. Early evidence concerning the religion of the Indo-European population is recorded in the → Vedas. A characteristic feature of this religion is the central importance of the sacrificial cult performed by the → Brahmins. Around the middle of the 1st millennium bce, religious innovations came about that reduced the importance of the sacrificial ritual, emphasizing instead the individual search for salvation. Buddhism and → Jainism developed into separate and independent religious traditions, while the teachings of the Upanishads exerted a lasting influence on the development of Hinduism. In China, too, profound religious and intellectual changes began in the middle of the 1st millennium bce, leaving only scattered relics of the archaic religion. → Confucius preached an ethically based social philosophy, while the natural philosophy associated with the name → Lao-Tsu is characterized by a marked individualism (→ Taoism). The spread of Buddhism in China after the 1st century bce brought further religious innovations, which prefigured the search for individual salvation. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity in particular spread far beyond the regions from which they originated. From India, Buddhism spread to China via Central Asia and south to Sri Lanka, and finally to Southeast Asia. From China, Buddhism was brought to Korea and, around the middle of the first millennium ce, to Japan. At the same time, Confucianism traveled to Korea and Japan, so that all of East Asia now stands under the double influence of Mahāyāna Buddhism (via China) and Confucianism. Christianity spread not only in the European and North African portions of the Roman Empire, but also in its Asian territories. With the coming of Islam in the 7th century, how-

446 ever, the influence of Christianity became increasingly weaker. West Asia, Central Asia, and finally even parts of India came under Islamic rule and, consequently, were extensively islamicized. Seafaring Arab traders brought Islam as far as South China and promoted the spread of Islam in parts of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia). → Manichaeism deserves special mention: from Iran, it spread not only west but also east as far as China, where it is attested as late as the early 16th century. Despite the temporary ascendancy of individual religions, there was always a high degree of religious diversity in all the regions of Asia. In West Asia, though Islam was dominant, Christianity and Judaism continued to exist; in East Asia, Taoism (China) and Shintoism ( Japan) developed alongside Buddhism and Confucianism. Religious pluralism is especially conspicuous in India, where Buddhism and Jainism existed alongside numerous religions that can be called Hinduistic (esp. → Vais ̣n ̣avism and → Śaivism). The advance of Islam to India parallelled the decline of Buddhism, which largely vanished in India after the 12th century. The advance of the European powers into Asia in the modern period, especially from the 19th century on, resulted in the appearance of Christian missionaries in almost every region. Contact with Western civilization, which was militarily and economically superior, as well as with Christianity, helped contribute to a cultural crisis in many Asian lands during the 19th and 20th centuries. This crisis affected the traditional religions as well. At the end of the 20th century, however, postcolonial cultural renewal often led to an increased appreciation of religious traditions, sometimes with political support. This is especially true of Islam, but also of Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. T. Ling, A History of Religion East and West, 1968 ◆ E.L. Farmer, G.R.G. Hambly, D. Kopf, et al., eds., Comparative History of Civilizations in Asia, 2 vols., 1977. Hubert Seiwert

III. Modern Asian Religions outside Asia In modern times, some Asian religions spread beyond their countries of origin, primarily through the migration of ethnic groups to new territories; they have remained more or less limited to these groups (e.g. → Sikhism, → Yazidis). Others spread into new lands from the outset without ties to any ethnic community (e.g. Theravāda Buddhism and the Rāmakrishna mission in the West) or through the dissolution of the original bond between ethnicity and religion (e.g. → Shin Buddhism in the USA). The development of new religions is due in part to Asian influences (e.g. → Theosophy, founded in the USA in 1875, but also the → Unification Church, which has been conducting missionary work in the USA since 1958).

447 Major areas where religions were able to free themselves from their original ethnic roots and spread abroad include India (→ Neo-Hinduism), Southeast Asia (Theravāda Buddhism), Japan (Mahāyāna Buddhism), and Tibet (→ Vajrayāna Buddhism), as well as Iran (Bahāhi). The World Parliament of Religions in Chicago (1893) became an important forum for promoting Hindu (Swami → Vivekānanda, 1863–1902) and Buddhist (→ Dharmapāla, 1864–1933; Soen Shaku, 1859– 1919) spirituality. Its favorable reception was furthered by the work of individuals like A. → Schopenhauer (1788–1860) and Edwin Arnold (1832–1904: The Light of Asia). A new phase began in Europe when the first Theravada Buddhist community was established in Leipzig (1903: Buddhistischer Missionsverein in Deutschland). Initially, the Buddhist mission promoted Theravada Buddhism; the 1920s saw the beginning of → Zen influence in Germany (it had been in the USA since 1903). Besides these Buddhist influences, the Vedānta movement (i.e. the Rāmakrishna mission) became increasingly influential in Europe and North America after 1895. In Germany, “Eastern” spirituality suffered severe setbacks in the period of National Socialism, from which it has found it hard to recover. Not until the mid 1960s was there a renewed flowering of Eastern spirituality, which reached Europe primarily via the USA. In the USA, the new immigration laws played an important role in this development. Affinities with the youth protest movement had a major impact. Among the (Neo-)Hindu groups, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON, since 1966, in Europe since 1968) deserves special mention. The “Beat Zen” movement was influential in intellectual circles. Other groups deserve mention as well. From the (Neo-)Hindu tradition: → transcendental meditation (brought to the West in 1959 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi); the Divine Light Mission (since 1971); Rajneesh International (1985 in Oregon), continuing (with major changes) as the Osho movement; Sathya Sai Baba (beginning in the 80s and increasingly important). In the Buddhist tradition, Zen groups and Tibetan schools have gained influence. In North America there is the rapidly expanding → Sōka Gakkai (since 1963; → Nichiren Shōshū of America since 1967). K. Hutten & S. von Kortzfleisch, Asien missioniert im Abendland, 1962 ◆ H. Bürkle, Dialog mit dem Osten, 1965 ◆ E. Weber, ed., Krishna im Westen, StIren 30, 1985 ◆ R.S. Ellwood, Eastern Spirituality in America, 1987 ◆ J.G. Melton, ed., The Encyclopedia of American Religions, vol. III, 31989 ◆ C.T. Jackson, Vedānta for the West, 1994 ◆ M. Baumann, Deutsche Buddhisten, RWR 5, 21995. Heinz Mürmel

Asia IV. Christianity 1. Before 1500. When the Portuguese rediscovered the sea route to India in 1498, they found the indigenous → Thomas Christians there. This was no surprise to the Portuguese, who had come seeking “Christians and spices.” Medieval Europe still had some knowledge about remnants of Oriental Christianity, albeit mostly transfigured into legendary form. The beginnings of Christianity in Asia beyond the Roman Empire reach back to the NT period. As early as the 2nd century, it had found its way into Mesopotamia and from there into Persia in the 3rd century. In → Armenia, the king (Tiridates III) was converted to Christianity between 278 and 302 (well before → Constantine). Shortly afterwards, Christianity also became the religion of the ruling house in → Georgia. Long before the 4th century – and more likely in the 2nd century than in the 3rd, in the context of trade between the Mediterranean region and India – Christianity came to India. Its arrival found legendary expression in the tradition of Bartholomew and Thomas. When “Theophilus the Indian” traveled to India c. 354 at the request of the Roman emperor, it was not to establish Christian congregations there. His purpose was instead to reform the existing congregations so that they would follow the practice of the Imperial church. There is also evidence of a sporadic Christian presence in South Arabia as early as the 4th century. At the same time, the situation of the Christians in Persia (the major rival of the Roman Empire, now officially Christian) deteriorated, so that the 5th century witnessed not only an organizational breach with the church of the Roman Empire but also a theological schism, when the Persian church accepted the Nestorian position in 486. The breach became final in 612. The Nestorian “Church of the East” (→ Syria V ) in turn became the starting point of a missionary movement that extended as far as Central Asia. At the same time, it strengthened its ties with the earlier outposts of Eastern Christendom, including the Christian churches in Ceylon and South India (→ Cosmas Indicopleustes). They were incorporated into the Nestorian ambit and thereafter obtained their bishops from Persia or Mesopotamia. The advent of → Islam in the 7th century, which led to the loss of the Christian heartlands in the southern Mediterranean region, represents one of the most important factors leading to the rise of the “Christian West.” For the Eastern churches, this made contact with the Western centers of Christendom enormously difficult if not impossible. In this period, too, the Nestorian mission, in the hands of merchants and monks traveling along the → Silk Road in Central Asia, reached China for the first time. In 635, the East Syrian monk Alopen reached Sian, the capital of the Tang Dynasty. There is evidence of Nestorian communities in various parts of

Asia China in the years that followed. The period of imperial toleration for the Nestorian Christians ended abruptly in 845. Emissaries of the Nestorian Catholicos-Patriarch found no surviving Christian communities in China at the end of the 10th century. There is evidence for a second phase of Nestorian presence in Central and East Asia during the period of Mongol rule and in China during the Yüan Dynasty (1279–1368). The restoration of political stability helped promote trade between China and the West. From Persia to the coast of the Chinese Sea stretched a network of East Syrian ecclesiastical provinces, which reached its maximum extent in the 13th and 14th centuries, making the Nestorian Church the “most successful missionary church in contemporary Christendom” (Hage). But the Nestorians were by no means the only representatives of pre-Portuguese Christianity in Central, East, Southeast, and South Asia. The picture also includes Armenians, Georgians, Alani, and a few Latins such as Giovanni da Montecorvino in Peking (1294). The expulsion of the Mongols from China in 1368 also spelled the end of the Nestorian churches there. By the 16th century, apart from West Asia, significant numbers of Nestorians appear only in India. 2. Sixteenth Century. The arrival of the Portuguese in Asia (1498 in India, 1505 in Ceylon, 1511 in Malacca, 1517 first official contacts with China) also marks a new stage in the history of Christendom. In the territories controlled by the Portugese, Roman Catholicism found immediate entry under the terms of the Padroado, which obligated the Portuguese crown to promote missionary work and establish an ecclesiastical organization, with extensive rights to monitor the resulting colonial church. Of course, the “outpost colonialism” of the Portuguese clearly differed from the principle of territorial rule practiced by the Spaniards in America and (after 1565) in the Philippines. Only in a few places did the Portuguese establish territorial rule, above all in Goa; captured in 1510 and made a metropolitan see in 1558, it functioned as the political and ecclesiastical center of their mercantile empire from the Cape of Good Hope to Japan. Hindu temples were destroyed, and in 1560 the Inquisition was introduced. Non-Christian subjects were not physically coerced, but were pressed to convert through discriminatory measures. From the outset, however, people outside the Portuguese possessions accepted Christianity independently. In South India, for example, the Paravas, a fisher caste, collectively accepted Catholicism on their own initiative in 1537. Nor was missionary activity by any means limited to the areas under Portuguese control, as is illustrated by the work of → Francis Xavier (1506–1552). Having arrived in Goa in 1542, his mission took him on to South India, Malacca, the Moluccas, and Japan (1549), until he finally died in

448 1552 off the coast of China, his real goal. Despite the insufficiency of his missionary methods, his work was to have enormous consequences. In Japan, for example – whose inhabitants he judged to be “by far the best people” ever discovered –, his mission led to the founding and rapid growth of a church which temporarily (c. 1600) numbered more than 750,000 members (10% of the total population), until the massive persecutions that began in 1614 put an end to “Japan’s Christian century” (Boxer). The situation was different in China, where the Jesuits could not establish residence until 1583. In the same period (after 1580), Jesuit missionaries also appeared at the court of the Mughal emperor Akbar in Fatehpur Sikri and Lahore. Several orders were active in the Philippines. On the Malabar Coast of India (modern Kerala), meanwhile, the originally cordial relationship between Portuguese Catholics and native Thomas Christians had increasingly soured, until at the Synod of → Diamper in 1599 the latter were more or less forcibly incorporated into the Portuguese colonial church. Not until 1653 were at least some of the Thomas Christians able to withdraw from this involuntary union. 3. Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. The development of Asian Christianity in the 17th and 18th centuries is marked by divergent tendencies. In Portuguese territories and the Philippines, colonial church structures continued to develop. The mission under Portuguese patronage faced internal Catholic competition in the activities of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, which extended as far as Indochina (after 1622). In addition, rival European powers were advancing into Asia – especially the Dutch, who drove the Portuguese out of South India, Ceylon, Malacca, and most of their Indonesian possessions, where they also strove to put an end to “popery.” The latter project had only limited success; Dutch Ceylon, for example, saw a revival of the Catholicism that had been driven underground. In Japan, too, Catholic congregations continued to lead an underground existence. To an extent that scholars are only beginning to realize, this period also marks the beginning of a Christian literature by Asian authors, written in a variety of languages and genres and exhibiting multiform cultural expression. Of more than regional significance was the conflict over the accommodation strategy of the Jesuits, which has gone down in history as the “dispute over rites” (→ Rites Controversies). Some objected to the view that certain Confucian rites were civil rather than religious ceremonies, as maintained in China by M. Ricci (and similarly in India with respect to the caste system by R. de → Nobili), and the conflict expanded to become a fundamental crisis of the Catholic missionary program.

449 Eventually, the Roman Curia definitively prohibited the disputed rites in 1742 and 1744. This outcome also put an end to the Jesuit experiment of cultural contact on a high intellectual plane, which Reinhard has described as being of “historic” importance as an “alternative to blind European ethnocentrism.” For the China mission in particular, the results were fatal: the papal decrees were viewed as interference and led to the banishment of all Catholic missionaries in 1724, except for the court astronomers. In the territories of the Dutch East India Company, a Reformed church organization was initiated. Despite a few noteworthy experiments in the churches of Ceylon, Indonesia, and Formosa, however, this missionary effort ultimately proved sterile. Protestant missionary activity in the strict sense did not begin until the → Danish-Halle Mission at → Tranquebar in southeast India in 1706 (B. → Ziegenbalg ). From the beginning, it aimed to establish an indigenous church. The beginnings of the Catholic Church in hermetically sealed Korea in 1784 are singular, going back to an initiative on the part of indigenous Christians and Confucian scholars whom Jesuit tracts in Chinese had made aware of the “Western teaching.” To get further information, they sent a member of their circle to Peking; he returned baptized. Persecution soon began, though the resulting Christian community proved not only durable but also theologically productive (A.C. Yak-Jong). 4. 1800–1890. The situation around 1800 represented the low-point of Catholic missionary work, brought about by both internal and external factors. Subsequent developments stood under the sign of the Protestant Bible and missionary movement, which was to experience an enormous upsurge, especially in the British territories. Initially, these efforts faced massive resistance on the part of the British East India Company; therefore, the pioneer Baptist missionaries working with W. → Carey (1761–1834) – the initiators of this new phase of Protestantism on the Indian subcontinent – settled in 1800 in the Danish enclave at Serampore instead of Calcutta, which was under British control. Only gradually were the territories of the Society opened to missionaries – first to British (1813), then to (from 1833) other nationalities. Thus, the broad denominational spectrum of Western missionary Protestantism gained a foothold. With its network of schools, hospitals, and presses, the distribution of Bible translations in numerous languages, as well as the struggle against the social evils of Hindu society, it functioned as a modernizing factor far beyond the circle of baptized members. At the same time, it stimulated reform movements within Hinduism (R.R. → Roy). Elsewhere, the Christian missions were long forbidden to carry on any official activities. This was especially true in Japan (which did not open itself to the outside world until 1853/1854, under American

Asia pressure, and did not formally rescind the prohibition of Christianity until 1873) and in China, where the gradual opening to Western missionary organizations came under the fatal protection of the Western powers after the Opium War of 1840–1842. In Korea, American missionaries became active for the first time in 1884/1885. In conjunction with the initiative of Christian Koreans outside Koreas, their work led to the establishment of rapidly growing Protestant congregations. In Vietnam, there were persecutions of the Catholic minority, which had been present since the 17th century, in 1832–1841 and 1856–1862. These gave the French the pretext they sought for intervention. In the Philippines, the Spanish were able to maintain control (until 1898) after the loss of their American colonies. Philippine clergy increasingly protested the dominance of clergy belonging to the Spanish religious orders. In Indonesia, Dutch rule was restored in 1815 after temporary displacement by the British. Although the Reformed Church was now an established colonial church, the restoration of a Protestant church organization proceeded slowly. Especially in Sumatra and Nias, the work of German missionaries led to mass conversions (L.I. → Nommensen, Batak Church). Because contacts with the Western missionary movement were often indirect, independent varieties of Christianity sprang up in many places. The Chinese → Taiping Rebellion (1850–1863) was particularly important. This movement was one of the greatest rebellions in Chinese history; in the late 1840s and 1850s, it brought the ruling Manchu Dynasty to the brink of collapse. Its leaders certainly felt the movement to be Christian, and – despite a variety of syncretistic elements – preached the message of the Bible to the exclusion of all other teachings, seeking friendly contact with missionaries and other representatives of Christian nations; but they remained independent in theology and action. The suppression of the rebellion (finally with the aid of the Western powers) cost millions of lives. 5. 1890–1945. Toward the end of the 19th century, various developments increasingly confronted the churches of Asia – hitherto isolated from each other confessionally, culturally, and geographically – with a single common challenge. After the turn of the century, increasingly virulent colonialism led, in many lands, to the rise of nationalist movements that – stimulated by the victory of Eastern Japan over Western “Christian” Russia in 1904/1905 – began to unite all Asia (“Asia is one”). In many places, this political nationalism was accompanied by a revival of traditional religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism; national identity was equated with religious identity, and the Christian mission was increasingly criticized as “denationalizing.” All the more urgent was the search of Asian Christianity for “indigenous”

Asia

450

R u s s i a

Moscow

Kazakhstan

Caspian Sea

Georgia Armenia Ankara

Lebanon

Tajikistan

C h i n

Syria

Tehran Baghdad

Israel

Biskek

Ashgabat

Azerbaijan

Urumchi

Kyrgyzstan

Taskent

Turkmenistan

Jerevan

Turkey

Jerusalem

Alma-Ata

Uzbekistan

Mashhad

Qom

Kabul

Afghanistan Islãmãbad

Irak

Iran

Jordan

Amritsar

Kuwait

P

Saudi-

st aki

an

Delhi

Bhuta

Katmandu

Gang

es

Riyadh

Varanas

Arabia

Muscat

Dhaka

India

Sana

Ye m

en

an

United Arab Emirates

Mumbai

ngl

Om

ades

h

Mecca

Ba

Medina

Lhasa

Nepal

Chennai

Asian Religions Judaism Christianity Catholic Churches Protestant Churches Orthodox and Eastern Churches Islam Sunnis Shiites

Hinduism Buddhism Confucianism/Taoism

Shintoism Indigenous/Traditional Religion

LEGEND: The hatchures indicate which religious community is the largest in each respective country. If two groups are equally large, this is indicated by half a hatchure.

Colombo

Sri Lanka

451

Asia

R u s s i a

Ulaanbaatar

Mongolia

Beijing

North Korea Seoul

aC h i n a

South Korea

Kyoto Tokyo

Japan

an

Taiwan La

os

V

Vientiane

Thailand

Bangkok

a m tn ie

Manila

Phnompenh

ia

Rangoon

Hanoi

od

Myanmar (Burma)

Ca

Philippines

mb

Brunei Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia Singapore

Jakarta

I n d o n e s i a

Borobodur

PapuaNew Guinea Port Moresby

Asia forms of expression and a “national character.” These efforts of native Christians to indigenize their faith went beyond distinctive cultural forms of ecclesiastical life. They were also articulated as a demand for ecclesiastical independence and as a critique of the imported denominationalism of the Western missions. Beyond regional missionary conferences (e.g. Madras 1902), this critique influenced the 1910 World Missionary Conference in → Edinburgh, which in turn became the starting point for the ecumenical movement within Western Protestantism. At the same time, in the so-called Edinburgh continuation conferences in 1912/1913, it had an effect on Asia, where many countries witnessed the beginnings of national (instead of denominational) church structures. In the mid 1920s, national councils of churches were founded among the Protestant churches of Asia as organs of prospective self-government. During this same period, the Catholic Church also made major efforts to indigenize positions of church leadership. The consecration of the first native bishops of China (1926) and Japan (1927) marked a turning point. In India, resolution of the → Padroado Propaganda Conflict in 1886 led to the formation of an independent national hierarchy; as a result, the public Catholic presence increased markedly. But there was a massive setback in the Philippines: continuing discrimination against Philippine clergy was one of the factors that led, in 1902 (well after the end of the old colonial church), to the schism of the → Iglesia Filipina Independiente under G. → Aglipay, to which for a while some 16% of the inhabitants of the islands belonged. While World War I was perceived by the Asian public primarily as a moral defeat for Christianity, the effects of World War II on the Asian churches were much more direct. In territories occupied by Japan, they were subjected to severe repression. In Japan itself, more than 30 Protestant denominations were forcibly merged to form the Nippon Kirisuto Kyodan. Japan annexed Korea in 1910; from 1919 onward, Christians played leading roles in the national resistance movement. In the 1940s, refusal to participate in the Shinto ceremonies led to many martyrdoms. Elsewhere, the end of Western colonial rule, now clearly in sight, also gave new impetus to emancipation efforts within the churches. Thus, 1947 – the year India gained political independence – was also the date when the Indian church union movement achieved its first major success with the establishment of the → Church of South India. The ecumenical movement, both worldwide and Asian, viewed this development with the greatest interest. 6. Since 1945. The wave of independence movements in Asia after the war confronted the churches of the continent with the need to redefine their role as minorities in the process of nation building. In

452 Indonesia, the state philosophy of → Pancasila with its principle of monotheism secured the possibility of a Christian voice in national affairs, and the 1950 constitution of secular India guaranteed freedom of religion; the churches nevertheless felt themselves to be largely on the defensive – especially since the upsurge of nationalism was often accompanied by a politicization of the national majority religion. In China, where the Communists had seized power in 1949, the churches were forced to break off all international contacts (→ Three-Self-Movement) and were increasingly subject to persecution. While the “Christian boom” in Japan was short-lived, in Korea it became the starting point for a long-lasting process of growth. As a result, Korea (next after the Philippines, approx. 93% Christian) is the Asian country with the largest Christian presence (approx. 27% in 1995, compared to an estimated 3.2% to 5.0% for the Christian population of Asia as a whole). The growing influence of the Asian churches in the worldwide ecumenical movement is illustrated by the choice of Delhi as the meeting place for the 3rd Assembly of the → World Council of Churches in 1961; increased cooperation within Asia has been marked by the establishment of the Catholic Federation of Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) in 1970 and the → Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) in 1973 (with its predecessors). In Catholic Asia, → Vatican II gave rise to a strong impetus to ecumenical dialogue as well as a new openness to the social and religious realities of the continent. Underdevelopment, poverty, industrialization, the struggle for social justice and human rights are problems that the Asian churches are increasingly seeking to address with a shared sense of responsibility. The search for culturally authentic forms of expression for the Christian faith has become an urgent theme. Asian theological models – such as → Minjung theology in Korea and the Philippine variants of → liberation theology (I) – are meeting with increasingly positive response. Changing constellations in the 1980s and 1990s bring new challenges. Liberalizing tendencies in the communist (and formerly communist) countries of Asia are expanding the areas where the churches can play a role. The churches of China, for example, not only survived the storms of the Cultural Revolution but have experienced disproportionate growth despite continuing repression. Countries with authoritarian regimes like South Korea and the Philippines, where the opposition has received major support from Christian base communities, have witnessed a process of democratization, also with critical Christian support (as in the Philippine “rosary revolution” of 1986). In addition, the Asian churches are in many places confronted with fundamentalist trends, such as heightened Islam and Hindu intolerance toward religious minorities.

453 Nevertheless – and also because of this – the theme of “interreligious dialogue” has become an increasingly urgent agenda item for the Asian churches. Unlike the churches of the West, which have only very recently had to face the challenges of an increasingly multireligious society, they dispose of a wealth of experience in this area with deep historical roots. As a “creative minority” (M.M. Thomas), they have an indispensable contribution to make to the dialogue taking place on the threshold of the 21st century in one of the most rapidly expanding regions of the world – and for this very reason to universal ecumenical discussion as well. General: K.S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 vols., 1937–1945 ◆ G. Anderson, ed., Studies in Philippine Church History, 1969 ◆ A.D. Clark, A History of the Church in Korea, 1971 ◆ R.H. Drummond, A History of Christianity in Japan, 1971 ◆ D.E. Hoke, ed., The Church in Asia, 1975 ◆ H.-W. Gensichen, “Asien, Christliche Kirchen in,” TRE I, 1979, 173–195 ◆ T.K. Thomas, ed., Christianity in Asia: North-East Asia, 1979 ◆ W. Reinhard, Geschichte der europäischen Expansion, vols. I & III, 1983/1988 ◆ S. Neill, A History of Christianity in India, 2 vols., 1984f. ◆ M.D. David, ed., Asia and Christianity, 1985 ◆ E. Schmitt, ed., Dokumente zur Geschichte der europäischen Expansion, vols. Iff., 1986ff. ◆ F. Clark, An Introduction to the Catholic Church of Asia, 1987 ◆ M.D. David, ed., Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity, 1988 ◆ S.H. Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia vol. I: Beginnings to 1500, vol. II: 1500–1900, 1992/2005 ◆ D.H. Bays, ed., Christianity in China, 1996 ◆ K. Koschorke, ed., “Christen und Gewürze,” 1998 ◆ J.C. England, et al., eds., Asian Christian Theologies. vols. I–III, 2002–2004 ◆ S.C. Sunquist et al., eds., A Dictionary of Asian Christianity, 2001 ◆ K. Koschorke, F. Ludwig & M. Delgado, eds., History of Christianity in Asia, Africa & Latin America 1450–1980, forthcoming 2007 ◆ On 1.: W. Barthold, Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittelasien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung, 1901 ◆ E. Sachau, Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien, 1919 ◆ Y. Saeki, ed., The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, 1951 ◆ J.C. England, The Hidden History of Christianity in Asia, 1996 ◆ I. Gillman & H.-J. Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500, 1998 ◆ C. Baumer, Frühes Christentum zwischen Euphrat und Yangtze, 2005 ◆ N. Standaert, ed., Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. I: 635–1800, 2001 ◆ On 2. & 3.: C.R. Boxer, The Christian Century in Japan 1549–1650, 1951 ◆ G. Schurhammer, Franz Xaver, 3 vols., 1955–1973 ◆ P.R. Bachmann, Roberto Nobili, 1972 ◆ J. van Goor, Jan Kompenie as Schoolmaster, 1978 ◆ G. Gernet, Christus kam bis nach China, 1984 ◆ H. Diaz, ed., A Korean Theology: Chu-Gyo Yo-Ji, 1986 ◆ D.E. Mungello, ed., The Chinese Rites Controversy, 1994 ◆ A.C. Ross, A Vision Betrayed: The Jesuits in Japan and China 1542– 1742, 1994 ◆ D. Jeyaraj, Inculturation in Tranquebar, 1995 ◆ On 4. & 5.: R. Weber, Asia and the Ecumenical Movement 1895–1961, 1966 ◆ E.D. Potts, British Baptist Missionaries in India 1793–1837, 1967 ◆ T. Müller-Krüger, Der Protestantismus in Indonesien, 1968 ◆ K. Baago, Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, 1969 ◆ G.A. Oddie, Social Protest in India, 1978 ◆ J.N. Schumacher, Revolutionary Clergy, 1981 ◆ R.G. Wagner, Reenacting the Heavenly Vision, 1982 ◆ Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, Tokyo, ed., Comparative Chronology of Protestantism in Asia, 1984 ◆ J. Spence, God’s Chinese Son, 1996 ◆ On 6.: M.M. Thomas, The Christian Response to the Asian Revolution, 1966 ◆ D. Liao, ed., World Christianity, II: Eastern Asia, 1980 ◆ R. Hedlund, ed., World Christianity, III: South Asia, 1980 ◆ J.C. England, ed., Living Theology in Asia, 1981 ◆ P. Digan, Churches in Contestation, Asian Christian Social Protest, 1984 ◆ G. Collet, ed., Theologien der Dritten Welt, 1990 ◆ K. Yoshinobu & D.L. Swain, eds., Christianity in Japan 1971–

Asia Minor 1990, 1991 ◆ C. Lienemann-Perrin, Die politische Verantwortung der Kirche in Südkorea, 1992 ◆ J.C. England & A.C.C. Lee, eds., Doing Theology with Asian Resources, 1993. Klaus Koschorke

Asia Minor I. Geography – II. History – III. Society – IV. Religions – V. Literature

I. Geography “Asia Minor” serves as the historical designation of the peninsula between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea; its eastern boundary is marked by the Amanus, the Anti-Taurus, and the upper reaches of the Euphrates (→ Turkey). To the north and south, coastal mountain ranges (the Pontic Range and the Taurus), originally heavily forested, border the high central plateau, which descends gradually toward the Aegean with several mountain ranges and river valleys running east to west; bays at the river mouths form natural harbors. The central plateau is a steppe surrounding Lake Tuz (Salt Lake), bordered in turn by a broad belt extending into the now degraded dry forests of the foothills. The ancient population centers are located in this region, formerly very fertile. The amount of precipitation in the interior permits dry farming, but is so little that without irrigation brief periods of drought can lead to crop failure. In prehistoric times the climate was moister. H. Louis, Landeskunde der Türkei, 1985.

Daniel Schwemer

II. History 1. Prehistory. The earliest traces of human habitation date from the Early Palaeolithic (esp. the caves of Yarimburgaz near Istanbul and Karain near Antalya). Open settlements of Late Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, protected by rocks, are found not far from Karain (e.g. Beldibi and Belbaşi). The village settlements of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Aşikli Hüyük, etc.), by contrast, were located not on the slopes of the Taurus, which were unsuited for agriculture, but in the foothills. Developments down to the Late Neolithic (7th/6th millennium) are illustrated at Çatalhüyük, in the Konya plain (coordinated house-building, irrigation, animal husbandry, ceramics, trade). The Early Chalcolithic is particularly well represented at Hacilar V–II (painted ceramics, clay figurines, 6th/5th millennium) and Can Hasan; in Cilicia (Mersin) and along the Euphrates, Mesopotamian influence appears (Halafian [Óalaf ], aUbaid, and → Uruk cultures, 6th–4th millennium), while in the west (Beycesultan) and north (Ikiztepe), local traditions were formative. The Early Bronze period that followed is characterized by fortified cities, centers of local principalities (e.g. Kültepe, Alişar Hüyük, in the west → Troy), whose power is vividly illustrated by the

Asia Minor tomb finds at Alaca Hüyük and Horoztepe. The exploitation of metal deposits in the mountains of Asia Minor brought trade contacts with → Syria and → Mesopotamia ; military campaigns of the rulers of Akkad into Asia Minor, however, are only a legendary tradition. 2. Historical Periods. The scarcity of natural mineral resources in Mesopotamia made Asia Minor the goal of Old Assyrian merchants, who imported textiles and tin to Asia Minor, in trade mostly for gold and silver. Information about this long-distance trade appears in the archives of commercial firms uncovered by excavations of Asyrian colonial sites (above all Kanish [Kaniš]/Nesha [Nēša] [Kültepe]). They also provide information about the indigenous population, whose names resemble the onomasticon of the later Hittite sources; they also include Hittite words in Assyrian contexts, and bear witness to Anatolian rulers – including Anittas (Anitta), whose dynasty ruled first from Kushara (Kuššara; near Sivas?) but later from Nesha. Anittas is a well-attested figure in the later historical tradition of the Hittites and may possibly already be called a Hittite prince, while north-central Anatolia, which was dominated by a house resident in Zalpa and competing with Nesha, bore the stamp of the Hatti, a population group that had probably already settled in central Anatolia before the Hittites immigrated from the east (?), possibly introducing Early Bronze culture in this region. The first Hittite king of whom we have first-hand accounts was Hattusilis (›attušili) I (16th cent.); little is known about his predecessor Labarnas. Hattusilis transferred his capital from Kussara to → ›attuša (Bo[azköy), thus establishing Hittite hegemony within the bend of the Halys, and undertook military campaigns as far as northern Syria. His successor Mursilis (Muršili) I captured and plundered Babylon (1531). In upper Mesopotamia, the Hittite kings met resistance from Hurrian principalities, harbingers of the later Mitanni kingdom. The following period was characterized by struggles for succession within the royal family. Our primary source of knowledge is the historical introduction to the Edict of Telipinus, whose stabilizing rule brought the Old Hittite Kingdom to a close. While little is known about the first rulers of the “Middle Kingdom,” we do know that Tudhaliyas (Tut¢aliya) I was able to consolidate his rule in central Anatolia and undertook campaigns in Syria and western Asia Minor. During the time of his successors, however, even Hattusa itself fell victim to incursions by the Kaskans (Kaškans), who lived to the north of the Hittite heartland. Suppiluliumas (Suppiluliuma) I, who came to the throne after murdering his brother, was finally able to free the Hittite heartland from the clutches of the surrounding powers. After defeating Mitanni, he was able in turn to bring northern Syria permanently under Hittite control (c. 1330, the period of the “Great Kingdom”).

454 Vassal treaties and the institution of secundogenitures in Halab (›alab) and → Carchemish were intended to secure the kingdom, but the death of the Great King or one of the secondary kings often led to revolts (e.g. in the 1st and 9th years of Mursilis II). Hegemony over Syria was also claimed by the Middle Assyrian rulers to the east and by Egypt to the south (Battle of Kadesh [Qadeš; Muwatallis II, 1274], peace treaty, [Hattusilis III, 1258]). Muwatallis (Muwatalli) II moved his capital to Tarhuntassa (Tar¢untašša), while the northern portion of the kingdom was administered by his brother, Hattusilis III. Hattusilis deposed Mursilis III, the son and successor of Muwatallis, who had returned the capital to Hattusa, and installed Kurunta, another son of Muwatallis, as king in Tarhuntassa, so as to reserve the title of Great King for his own son Tudhaliyas IV. – The end of the Hittite empire, whose last king was Suppiluliumas II, the son of Tudhaliyas IV, was brought about by internal collapse as well as external enemies; this was just one element of the general crisis afflicting the Near East at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Hittite traditions and collateral lines of the royal house survived in the region of the kingdoms of Tarhuntassa and Carchemish, which had already been functioning with appreciable autonomy. In northern Syria (→ Israel and Asia Minor), there developed a Late Hittite-Aramean-Phoenician culture (12th–8th cent.). In central Anatolia, the kingdom of the Phrygians, who had migrated from southeast Europe, established itself (possibly as early as the 12th cent. through the 7th, flourished under Midas, 8th cent.). After the invasion of the Cimmerians, the Phrygians had to cede hegemony to the adjacent kingdom of Lydia (8th–6th cent., height of power under Croesus, 6th cent.). Like the kingdoms of Lycia and Caria to the Southwest, the population of Lydia spoke an Old Anatolian/Indo-European language. The use of scripts related to the Greek alphabet to write this language is major evidence of close contact with the Greeks who settled on the west coast of Asia Minor. With the victory of Cyrus (→ Israel and Persia) over Croesus, Asia Minor became part of the Persian Empire until it was conquered by → Alexander the Great. Seleucid rule (→ Seleucids) in Asia Minor did not extend to the north (→ Pergamon, Bithynia, Pontus) and was endangered by incursions of Celtic tribes, who settled in Galatia; in the Southeast, the kingdom of → Cappadocia came into existence. Roman expansion was opposed particularly by Mithridates VI of Pontus, who for a time was able to extend his influence over large portions of Asia Minor; but he died in exile in 63 bce, so that he was not able to confront Pompey a second time, and Pompey established Roman hegemony over Asia Minor. N. Balkan-Atli, La Néolithisation de l’Anatolie, VarAnat 7, 1994 ◆ A.M. Jasink, Gli stati neo-ittiti, StudMed 10, 1995 ◆ J.M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. II, 1995,

455 1085–1194 ◆ T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 1998 ◆ H. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, HO 1/34, 1999 ◆ J.D. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. I, UIGSK 8, 2000. For additional bibl. see → Byzantine Empire, → Turkey. Daniel Schwemer

III. Society Neolithic domestic architecture indicates that multiple nuclear families lived in constant close proximity within settlements whose continuity could be ensured only by planning and coordinated action. The size and furnishings of certain individual architectural units point to special uses and social differences. In the Early Bronze Age, small fortified villages alongside rapidly expanding centers suggest hierarchical settlement structures within territorial domains controlled by individual tribal leagues. Local principalities were the trading partners of the Old Assyrian merchants who settled in Asia Minor and whose colonies do not differ much in their material culture from indigenous settlements. Later Hittite sources show that the Hattians were the primary inhabitants of central Anatolia, from which they were displaced by the invading Hittites. Other IndoEuropean population groups settled in the South and Southwest (Luwians); the Palaians living in the North and Northwest apparently soon displaced the Kaska tribes, which remained a constant threat to the Hittite kingdom within the bend of the Halys. Rule of the Hittite state was in the hands of the king and the royal clan, whose members held all the important military, administrative, and cultic offices. The absence of private archives precludes any detailed insight into Hittite society, but the laws reveal a distinction between slaves and free persons with various obligations to perform public service. Individuals called arnuwala have generally been considered deportees; recently, however, they have been identified with segments of the population leading a seminomadic life (→ nomads). Besides the abandonment of settlements in favor of typical retreat strongholds, the end of the Hittite kingdom led to a renewed fragmentation of political authority, which was not countered until the establishment of the Phrygian and Lydian kingdoms. They were finally replaced by the Persian conquest and the institution of satrapies. Seleucid rule, especially in the west, provided an impetus toward urbanization based on the polis, which in the Roman period, with improvements in the infrastructure, came to include rural areas. J. Yakar, Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages, TAMS 17, 2000. Daniel Schwemer

IV. Religions 1. Prehistory. The Neolithic establishment of local agricultural settlements in Mesopotamia went hand in hand with the construction of buildings dedicated exclusively to sacral functions: pillar reliefs and large

Asia Minor three-dimensional sculptures depict animals, human beings, and phalluses (Nevali Cori, Gobekli Tepe). The motif inventory of religious sculpture and painting in Neolithic Asia Minor also includes theriomorphic and anthropomorphic elements: besides hunting scenes, we find female figurines that can be assigned to the thematic domain of “regenerativity,” while bull motifs symbolized supernatural strength. The dead were buried under domestic dwellings; skulls and bones preserved with plaster and paint suggest ancestor worship (→ Ancestors, Cult of: I) (Çatalhüyük, Kö{k Hüyük, etc.). A clear relationship with the inventory of forms associated with the historical period first appears in the three-dimensional animal statuettes from Early Bronze tombs at Alaca Hüyük and Horoztepe. Besides excavated temples and sacral areas (Bogazköy, Yazilikaya, Ku{akli, etc.), certain texts are particularly informative about the religious ideas and practices of the Hittites: myths, hymns and prayers, vows, instructions for festivals, burial rites for dead kings, various magical rituals, temple inventories, and omen collections and protocols (→ Omen: I, II). Hittite texts containing Hattic, Luwian, Hurrian, and Akkadian passages and proper names bear witness to the continual integration of foreign elements into Hittite religion, within which scholars therefore identify various “cultic strata.” The → pantheon (I) was headed by the weather god Tar¢un(ta) (Hattic Taru, Hurrian Tessob), the sun goddess of the netherworld Istanu (Hattic Estan), and the sun god of the heavens (Siu [?], Luwian Tiwat, Hurrian Shimegi [Simige]); from the Middle Hittite period on, the cult of the Hurrian (Ishtar-) Shawushka (Sawuska) was prominent (→ Ishtar). Various local forms of the great deities together with numerous additional deities and nature numina existed around the great deities and contributed to the variety of the Hittite pantheon. Besides the daily care and provisioning of the statues of the gods in their temples, several annual royal festival in various places, which might include → processions (I) to minor shrines (stones, pools), guaranteed the favor of the gods. The king himself was considered the steward of the weather god and the sun goddess; his death (Hitt. “becoming divine”) was considered a “great calamity” and was solemnized in a fourteen-day ritual that included the cremation of the corpse. The removal of all kinds of impurity was accomplished by various “conjurations,” which functioned primarily on the principles of contact and analogy magic. Various mantic techniques (→ Divination) – e.g. ornithomancy – were used to safeguard future actions and reveal past misconduct. If the reason for a deity’s anger was known, the deity could be invoked in prayer with propitiatory acts and offerings. J. Yakar, Prehistoric Anatolia: The Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period, TAMS 9, 1991; Suppl. 1, TAMS 9a,

H

RA

CI

A

I T

E

DI

A

YL I

Lo

wla

IA

nd

ALAS

IYA

IA

P (CY

RU

S)

KI LIK IA

CAPPADOCIA

GALATIA

I S AURIA

G R Y P H

PAMPH

R R A N E A N

IA

ON

High

land

T H N O R

D

L Y KIA

I A

A R I S Y

A

te

O

O

Map design: Daniel Schwemer

Ancient oriental topographical names

P

Halab*

ra

S

s) Present-day topographical names; common historical topographical names

ph

E

I A

Aleppo

Asia Minor

(Eu

M

M

E

RIA

D

YN

AG PAPHL

S E A

T A

M

KA

LY

IN SEHA*-RIVER BAS

M YSIA

B

H IT

I PIS

K B L A C

Asia Minor 456

T

457 1994 ◆ V. Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, HO 1/15, 1994 ◆ M. Popko, Religions of Asia Minor, 1995 ◆ J. Klinger, Untersuchungen zur Rekonstruktion der hattischen Kultschicht, 1996 ◆ K. Schmidt, “Frühneolithische Tempel,” MDOG 130, 1998, 17–49. Daniel Schwemer

2. Greco-Roman Period. The religious history of ancient Asia Minor is intimately associated with the region’s ever-shifting population and changes in the political environment. Immigrants, invaders, and colonists (Greeks, Persians, Macedonians) bringing their own cults with them encountered a rich variety of indigenous substrates. Against the background of an ongoing Hellenization of indigenous cultures, processes of displacement, borrowing, and syncretism led to complex cultic landscapes that were constantly evolving. Indigenous cults remained prominent, as illustrated by the widespread → mother goddesses (→ Cybele, Mētēr Megalē, Mētēr Theōn, → Artemis). Behind Greek names (especially common are → Zeus and → Apollo) stand broad and varied spectra of cults whose wealth of variants and Anatolian roots are reflected in a multitude of local epithets and iconographic mutations. On the institutional level, we must distinguish cults associated with poleis and other public bodies (rural communes, public associations), private cultic sodalities, and individual worship. Even when the poleis lost their autonomy, the traditional public cults (especially the festivals) continued to flourish as expressions of collective identity. At the same time, cults with universal claims and promises of salvation (→ Isis, Sabazius), monotheistic movements (Theos Hypsistos), and manifestations of individual piety were on the rise in the period of the Empire. From this period come the so-called confession inscriptions, which interpret human misfortune as a divine punishment for transgressions and, after atonement, praise the power of the gods; probably an outgrowth of indigenous ritual traditions, they are peculiar to Asia Minor. Oracles (esp. at → Claros and → Didyma) also experienced renewed popularity. All in all, priests still exerted considerable influence over everyday life. Politically motivated worship of the Hellenistic kings, dynastic deities, and Dea Roma culminated in the Roman emperor cult, which expanded to become an omnipresent means of expressing loyalty and a platform enhancing the prestige of cities and social elites (→ Ruler cult). The most important sources for our knowledge of this period are inscriptions, mostly in Greek; they are supplemented by reliefs, excavated shrines, and numismatic images. The bulk of this extensive material, which is continually expanding, comes from the period of the Empire. Besides continued collection and interpretation of regional sources, scholars face several tasks: tracing general lines of devel-

Asia Minor opment, distinguishing more clearly between Greek and Anatolian elements, and achieving a deeper understanding of syncretistic phenomena in the religions of Asia Minor. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure, 1955 ◆ R. Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien, EPRO 35, 1973 ◆ P. Debord, Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie gréco-romaine, EPRO 88, 1982 ◆ S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 1984 ◆ M. Wörrle, Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien, Vestigia 39, 1988 ◆ H. Temporini & W. Haase, eds., ANRW II 18.3, 1990 ◆ G. Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, EpigrAnat 22, 1994 ◆ M. Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte im Lichte der griechischen Inschriften, Asia Minor Studien 36, 1999. Christof Schuler

3. Ancient Judaism. There is evidence of Jewish communities at various sites in Asia Minor from the early Hellenistic period on, not only in the major urban centers of the western coast, where there had been a Jewish presence since early times, but also in Phrygia and Lydia, where numerous Jewish families from Mesopotamia were settled under → Antiochus III (223–187 bce) (→ Diaspora: I). Archaeological and epigraphic evidence points to a further increase of Jewish communities during the Roman period as well as extensive social integration of the Jews in Asia Minor. It is noteworthy that in many places this integration continued unchanged well into Late Antiquity. The synagogue of Sardis in Lydia (3rd–6th cent. ce), discovered in 1962, can serve as a symbol of this integration. It could accommodate some 1000 people; built into a → gymnasium complex, it occupied a prominent position on one of the main streets of the city for centuries. No less informative with regard to the relationship of Jews in Asia Minor to their environment is an inscription discovered during excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria. Its exact function is still unclear, but it points clearly to the presence of a substantial group of godfearers, i.e. non-Jewish sympathizers, who gained immortality by donating to support a Jewish establishment, possibly a cook-shop. Thus, recent archaeological discoveries confirm the picture that emerges from the writings of the apostle → Paul, born a Jew in Asia Minor. This picture is further supported by the early Christian literature of the 2nd through 4th centuries ce: a self-confident Judaism that long offered vigorous competition, both theological and ideological, to the Christian mission. That the self-assurance of the Jews of Asia Minor did not leave their Gentile contemporaries unmoved is clear from the curse inscriptions, especially those in the name of Theos Hypsistos, where Jewish notions appear side by side with pagan formulas and traditions, from which they are often inseparable. A.T. Kraabel, “Impact of the Discovery of the Sardis Synagogue,” in: G.M.A. Hanfmann, ed., Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times, 1983, 178–190 ◆ J.M. Reynolds &

Asia Minor R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias, 1987 ◆ P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, 1991 ◆ J. Lieu, Image and Reality, 1996 ◆ B. Wander, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten, 1998. Leonard Victor Rutgers

4. The Beginnings of Christianity and the Christian Church. Some three years after his call to become an apostle to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christian Paul began preaching the gospel in his home town of → Tarsus in the coastal plain of Cilicia, in the province of Syria-Cilicia. A few years later, → Aquila and Prisca, Jewish Christians from Rome (originally from Pontus) and → Apollos from Alexandria began to spread the gospel in → Ephesus (II) in the province of Asia (Acts 18:19–21, 24–26). A congregation was established (cf. Acts 18:27). Thus, Christianity came to Asia Minor, brought by Jewish Christian missionaries, from East and West, but also from the South. By 48 ce, Paul and the Jewish Christian → Barnabas, with Antioch on the Orontes as their base, had preached the gospel on the island of Cyprus, Barnabas’s home. They next went by sea to Perga, on the coast of Pamphylia in southern Asia Minor. From Pamphylia, Barnabas and Paul crossed the Taurus. Finally, they founded congregations in the Roman colonies of → Antioch on the Pisidian border, Iconium, and Lystra, as well as in the village of Derbe. It is disputed but likely that the Letter to the → Galatians is addressed to the congregations in these localities on the Anatolian plateau, in the southern part of the province of Galatia. This Christianity in the sphere of influence of the Roman colonies was the home of → Timothy of Lystra, Gaius of Derbe, and probably → Titus. Latin crosses dating to the 3rd century from cemeteries in the valley of the Sarsamba River on the border between Lycia and Isauria, along with 3rd/4th century church ruins in Antioch, bear witness to the later presence of Christian congregations. The Jewish origin of the missionaries explains why they initially founded congregations in cities where there was a Jewish population. There were synagogues in the more accessible Greek settlements, where the local population was already Hellenized. Christianity spread in the footsteps of Greek-speaking Judaism in the Asia Minor Diaspora (cf. TAVO B VI 18). The geographical setting also influenced the course of Christianity’s expansion. Seen from the East, from Tarsus, central Anatolia is screened by the Taurus range. Anyone coming from the Mediterranean coast in the south to Perga and Attalia in the Pamphylian plain would likewise be confronted by the Taurus range, reaching an altitude of almost 10,000 feet; in rugged Cilicia and in Lycia, these mountains rise almost vertically from the sea, ruling out any possibility of travel on a coastal road. The Ionian flatland and the

458 coastal plains of Pamphyilia and Cilicia were formed by the great rivers that over thousands of years had carved gorges through the mountains (cf. TAVO I A 2). Along the valleys of the Hermus, the Cayster, and the Maeander, travelers from the west could go from Ionian cities like Ephesus and Smyrna to the Cilician plains, which joined East and West via the bridge of the Anatolian highlands. Travelers from the East had to reach the same route by traveling from Tarsus through the Cilician Gates. From Pamphylia, one had to follow the valley of the Crestus or go northwest to Antioch in the northern interior on the “Via Sebaste” through the Roman colony of Komana and then go on the Cilician road to Iconium. In other words, even though Christianity in Asia Minor had its beginnings in the coastal plain, Antioch and Iconium in the province of Galatia lay on the same land route that linked Tarsus with Ephesus. In Pamphylia, Christianity expanded along the coast as far as Side. In → Cilicia, the congregations also expanded along the coast from Tarsus, but a new tendency also appeared: until 325 ce, Christianity advanced up the valleys of the Sarus and Pyramus. Christianity spread similarly from the Ionian coast, starting from the east-west axis between Ephesus and Tarsus and extending first into the tributary valleys of the Maeander and Hermus and finally reaching the Phrygian, Lycian, and Isaurian territories of the Anatolian plateau. To what extent Isaurian and Phrygian Christianity go back to the missionary work of Barnabas and Paul is unclear. Nevertheless, the location of the sites where the congregations sprang up is noteworthy. Towns along the Cilician road included Apamea, Philomelium, Iconium, and Laranda, as well as Derbe in Isauria. There is evidence of new congregations in Laranda and in Apamea and Eumenea on the upper reaches of the Maeander before the end of the 2nd century ce. (A bishop named Aberkios [→ Abercius, Inscription of ] appears at Hierapolis at the beginning of the 2nd cent.; in the 3rd cent. there is also epigraphic evidence of Christian congregations in Dionysopolis and Sebaste.) In eastern Phrygia, there is early evidence of Christianity at Philomelium and Iconium. In the immediate vicinity, near the destroyed city of Laodicea, followers of → Novatian were in the majority from the 4th century onward. From the great road in the Maeander valley and from the Hermus valley, the Christian movement appears to have spread northward into the tributary valleys of the two rivers. In central Phrygia, crosses in mid 2nd century inscriptions on kadoi near the source of the Hermus indicate the presence of Christians. Here and a little to the north there was a group of “Christians for Christians,” as we know from funerary inscriptions from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This group also appears in inscriptions from the 3rd century on at Appia in the valley of the upper Tembis, beyond

459 the watershed, on the border with Galatia. Temenothyrai in western Phrygia became a stronghold of Montanistic groups (→ Montanism) in the 3rd century. By the 5th/6th century, Christians had expanded in Phrygia as far as Hierapolis and Sebaste, and beyond Phrygia west into Lydia and east into Galatia (c. 170 ce in Ancyra). Paul and Timothy were active in Ephesus from 52 to 55 ce. Disciples of → John the Baptist were among those incorporated by Paul into the congregation. Besides the household congregation of Philemon, there were already other congregations in the province of Asia before Pentecost 54 ce (cf. 1 Cor 16:19). From Ephesus, Christianity spread along the coastal road. Already in Paul’s day there is evidence of congregations as far away as Miletus (Acts 20:15, 17); by the end of the 1st century, there were congregations further north in → Smyrna and → Pergamon (Rev 1:11; 2:8, 12). The absence of any epigraphic evidence for Christianity in Smyrna is offset somewhat by the Epistles of Ignatius (→ Ignatian Epistles) to Polycarp and the account of his martyrdom. There is one Christian inscription from Sardis and three from Thyatira and its territory. For the other Christian congregations in the Lydian Hermus valley at Philadelphia in the early period we must depend on the letters in the Apocalypse of John (→ John, Apocalypse of ) and the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. Starting in the 4th century, Phrygian Montanism spread to Thyatira, and Montanist inscriptions from the 5th and 6th centuries have been found in the territories of Philadelphia and Bagis. From Ephesus, Christianity also spread along the valley of the Maeander into the province of Asia. In Paul’s day there were already congregations in the cities of Colossae and Laodicea, and there is evidence of congregations in Talleis and Magnesia at the beginning of the 2nd century. In the middle of the 1st century, Paul had already preached the gospel successfully in Troas (2 Cor 2:12); in the second half of the 2nd century, Christianity spread in the north as far as the coast of the Propontis, into Bithynia with a center at Nicomedia, and as far as Amastris, Ionopolis, and Sinope on the Black Sea. In → Cappadocia, there were congregations at Caesarea in the 2nd century, and at Nazianzus and Andabilis in the 3rd. In the south, probably by sea routes, Christianity reached the coast of Lycia; from Isauria it spread down the valley of the Calycadnus as far as Seleucia. As soon as Christianity left the coastal plain and the towns along the great connecting routes, it found itself in remote regions where local populations were still heavily influenced by their old religions. The rural Christianity that arose in these regions exhibited local idiosyncrasies, as the epigraphic remains attest. A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, vol. II, 41924 ◆ E. Gibson, The “Christians for Christians” Inscriptions of Phrygia, 1978 ◆

Asia Minor C.J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting, JSNTSup 11, 1986 ◆ P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, SNTSMS 69, 1991 ◆ S. Mitchell, Anatolia, vol. II: The Rise of the Church, 1993 ◆ H. Koester, ed., Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, HTS 41, 1995 ◆ C. Breytenbach, Paulus und Barnabas in Galatien, AGJU 38, 1996 ◆ Maps: TAVO A I 2 and B VI 2 and 18. Cilliers Breytenbach

5. Islam. Even after Syria, Iran, and Armenia became provinces or vassals of the Caliphate, Anatolia remained under Byzantine rule (→ Byzantine Empire) for more than three centuries. Along the line defined by the Taurus and the upper Euphrates in the eastern region of Asia Minor, this led to a contested borderland between the worlds of Islam and Orthodox Christianity, largely depopulated but regularly scouted by “holy warriors” of both sides. Only after the Grand Seljuq defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 was the Anatolian plateau occupied by (semi)nomadic groups that spoke Turkic languages and – at least outwardly – adhered to Islam (“Turkmen”). Thus the process of Turkization and Islamization began. Beginning in the cities, Islam experienced a first flowering in the 12th/ 13th century under the Rum Seljuqs. In Iconium/ Konya, the capital, where orthodox Islamic scholarship and mysticism were mutually complementary, Jalal al-Din ar-Rumi, from Bukhara, founded the Sufi order of the Dancing Dervishes (Islam: II). Outside the cities, especially on the fringes of Asia Minor, the subject population long remained Christian; in the regions facing the Byzantines, however, where the (Sunni) Osmanic Empire was to have its beginning, the tradition of border warfare and syncretistic forms of belief continued. Around 1500, with the rise of the Sufic order of the Safavids – originally Sunnite (→ Sunna) but later adherents of “popular” Shiaism (→ Sìaa) – to (Twelve Shiaite) political power in Iran, eastern Asia Minor, where the Safavids had many supporters (called Kizilbash, “Red Heads”), became once again the scene of rivalry between two great empires with opposing political ideologies. In Turkey today, officially, more than 99% of all the population is Muslim; at least 15% of these are aAlawites (“followers of aAli”; also referred to derogatorily as Kizilbash), whose syncretistic doctrine is recognized by neither Sunnites nor (Twelve) Shiaites. The Bektashi order, especially prominent in the Ottoman period, shares many doctrines with the aAlawites; the order was disbanded with the abolition of the Janissaries in 1826; the remaining dervish orders were disbanded in 1925. Many orders have nevertheless remained active to this day. C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 1968 ◆ S. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, 1971 ◆ A. Allouche, The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid

Asian Theologies Conflict, 1983 ◆ W. Ende & U. Steinbach, eds., Der Islam in der Gegenwart, 1984, 41996. Michael Ursinus

V. Literature 1. Hittite Literature. The earliest literary texts from Asia Minor were recorded by Hittite scribes, who used an adaptation of Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform borrowed from northern Syria. With the script, the Hittites also borrowed elements of traditional Babylonian literature, some of which were translated into Hittite, and were able to put their stamp on genuinely Hittite compositions, for example hymns and prayers. Foreign material also appears in mythology: from the 15th century onward, North Syrian/Hurrian myths were appropriated and translated (the Kumarbi cycle, the myth recorded in the Hurrian-Hittite bilingual, etc.), as were a few West Semitic myths (Elkunirsa); even earlier, Hattian myths from Asia Minor itself had been similarly appropriated (Illuyankas, Telipinu, etc.). Mythological passages, some of Luwian provenance, often appear in ritual contexts. From the Old Hittite period on, → historiography (I) was a constant element of Hittite literature. This material includes accounts of royal exploits and later genuine annals, as well as legends concerning the dawn of Hittite rule and the legendary exploits of the king; it also embraces historical retrospects in royal decrees and treaties, which, like the anecdotes of the “palace chronicles,” primarily served paraenetic purposes. Besides the parables of the Hurrian-Hittite bilinguals, wisdom literature included such material as the tale of Appu and his two sons “Just” and “Unjust,” influenced by various traditions. To date, no literary texts have been found among the inscriptions in the later languages of ancient Asia Minor.

460 whole series of names, most of them relatively obscure: poets (Panyassis of Halicarnassus, 5th cent. bce), philosophers (Antipater and Athenodorus, Stoics from Tarsus, 2nd/1st cent. bce), historians (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1st cent. bce), The inscriptions from Ancyra (Res gestae divi Augusti [→ Augustus]) and Oenoanda (extracts from Epicurean writings) are virtually literary in nature. Judaism, present in Asia Minor after the resettlement of 2,000 families by Antiochus III between 212 and 205 bce (see IV, 3 above), may have left literary traces in 4 Maccabees (interpretation of the dietary laws in the Diaspora) and Sib I/II (location of the biblical Ararat in Phrygia). G.S. Kirk et al., eds., Die vorsokratischen Philosophen, 1994 ◆ R. Wittern & P. Pellegrin, eds., Hippokratische Medizin und antike Philosophie, 1996 ◆ H.-J. Klauck, ed., Dion von Prusa: Olympische Rede, 2000 (bibl.). Martin Ebner

Asian Theologies I. Introduction – II. Main Trends of Asian Theologies – III. Current Discussions and Future Perspectives

H.G. Güterbock, “Hethitische Literatur,” in: W. Röllig, ed., Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, vol. I, 1978, 211–225 ◆ H.A. Hoffner, Hittite Myths, ed. G.M. Beckman, 1990, 21998 ◆ J.M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. IV, 1995, 2367–2377 ◆ G. Wilhelm, “Das hurritisch-hethitische ‘Lied der Freilassung,’ ” TUAT, supplement, 2001, 82–91. Daniel Schwemer

I. Introduction The term “Asian Theologies” denotes the theologies shaped in and by the contexts of Asia (South, Northeast, and Southeast Asia). The Asian theological scene is as pluralistic as its geopolitical context. Asia is the largest and most populated continent. Asia as a whole, with some notable exceptions, is characterized by the following features: religious plurality; colonial experience and debilitating structures of domination; repressive regimes and increasing struggle for social justice; inferior and oppressed status of women; marginalization of ethnic and economic minorities; traditional cultures challenged by radical social change; a fragile environment endangered by modern technology. The development of Asian theologies is characterized not only by the pastoral and missionary issues that arise from these features of the Asian situation, but also by the theological developments outside of Asia.

2. Hellenistic and Roman Literature. Apart from → Homer (8th cent. bce), the legendary author of the Iliad and Odyssey, literary history begins with the fragments of the Ionic natural philosophers (7th/6th cent. bce), who propounded the notion of causality and raised the question of the principle lying behind all things in contrast to the mythical interpretation of the world (Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes of Miletus, → Xenophanes of Colophon, → Heraclitus). Closely related is the birth of Hippocratic medicine (5th cent. bce; → Hippocrates); its earliest documents, now collected in the Corpus Hippocraticum, derive from the schools of Cos and Cnidus. As examples, we may cite a

II. Main Trends of Asian Theologies 1. Owing to the Western origin of the major forms of Christianity in Asia, the relationship between Christianity and indigenous cultures and religions has played an important role from the start. Many Asian theologians attempted to indigenize Christian theology by incorporating the terms and concepts of Asian philosophies and religions into their theology. This task of → indigenization assumes that Asian cultures are merely convenient vehicles for the Christian gospel, which is immutable and universally valid. The ultimate aim is to convert Asians to Christianity. Some Asian theologians, e.g. → Keshab Candra Sen (1838–1884), Byung-hon Choi

461 (1858–1927), and Tzu-chen Chao (1888–1979) were more of the opinion that Christ is the fulfillment of the Asian cultures and religions. In recent years, some Asian theologians, e.g. Raimundo Panikkar (b. 1918) have expressed a more pluralistic understanding of the relationship between Christianity and the Asian religions. 2. Without being neglected entirely, indigenization lost its prominent place gradually to contextualization, which emphasizes the relevance of Christianity to the present socio-political context rather than its compatibility with the inherited tradition culture. Owing to the emphasis of the socio-political context, the topics of political liberation, social justice, and economic development acquired a prominent place in Asian theologies. The affinities between Latin-American → liberation theology (→ Latin America, Theology in) and Asian theologies, particularly the theologies in the Philippines, became very apparent. Unlike the relatively homogeneous context of Latin America, the Asian contexts are so diversified that Asian theologies differ very much from place to place in terms of style and concern. Each Asian theology usually addresses a very particular and localized context. To give a few examples, “homeland theologies” are shaped by the Taiwanese’s struggle for self-determination in their own land. K. → Kitamori developed a “theology of the pain of God” in order to address the people of post-war Japan with the message of God’s solidarity with the Asian people in their suffering. This motif of God’s presence in Asia’s cultural and religious history, particularly in the suffering of the Asian people, is very popular in Asian theologies and can be found in the writings of eminent Asian theologians such as Kosuke Koyama and C.-S. → Song. → Minjung theology in Korea stresses that God is on the side of “minjung” – the oppressed, powerless, and marginalized. The theologian has to identify with the minjung and share their “han” – an inward feeling of anger. 3. After 1980, Asian theologies moved beyond the method of contextualization and distinguished themselves from liberation theology. Three new foci of discussion emerged: women’s liberation, environmental issues, and the economic and ethnic minorities that had hitherto been neglected, e.g. the Indian Dalits (the “Untouchables”; → India) and Japanese Burakumin (the indigenous tribal group; → Japan). A new method of “cross-textual hermeneutics” also took shape in the 1980s. Unlike the liberation hermeneutics, which stresses the interplay between (biblical) text and (political) context, cross-textual hermeneutics aims at illuminating the meanings of the biblical texts and the Asian sacred texts by engaging them in dialogue. Underlying the daring use of the Asian sources is the belief that the Asian cultural and religious sources have something theologically significant to contribute, and that the Bible is just as much

Asian-American Music in Christian Worship a product of a specific culture and therefore cannot be attributed transcultural significance from the outset. The cultural, religious, ethnic, and gender biases within the Bible must be exposed and criticized. The question is no longer how to “translate” the gospel into Asian style, but how to “reformulate” the gospel in the light of the Asian texts and contexts. III. Current Discussions and Future Perspectives 1. The most crucial issue for Asian theologies is not whether but how the Asian sources are to be used. The exact role of the Asian cultural and religious heritage in theology has to be clarified, particularly in cross-textual hermeneutics. The question of → syncretism has to be reconsidered too. 2. The tendencies of making relevancy the supreme norm for theology and of identifying completely with the political interests of a particular social group may present the danger of subordinating theology to the political ideology of that group. 3. Asian theology has become a subject of academic theological interest for only a few decades. Studies on Asian theologies by Western scholars are few in comparison with those on Latin America. Asian theologians tend to reject the Western theological tradition as irrelevant to the Asian contexts. To have a mutually beneficial dialogue between the two theological circles remains an important future task for both sides. G.H. Anderson, ed., Asian Voices in Christian Theology, 1976 ◆ D.J. Elwood, ed., Asian Christian Theology, 1980 ◆ J. England, ed., Living Theology in Asia, 1981 (bibl.) ◆ R.S. Sugirtharajah, ed., Frontiers in Asian Christian Theology, 1994 ◆ C.L. Yeow, ed., Doing Theology with Asian Resources, vols. I–II, 1993–1995 (vols. 3–5 in press). Pan-Chiu Lai

Asian-American Music in Christian Worship. Asian-American church music results from the exchange with Asian Christians from missionary churches who have been emigrating to the United States since the beginning of the late 19th century. Asian Christians represent a wide range of languages and cultures. Their church music reflects these differences in musical form, melodic line, and text, both in translation and when composed in English. Until the mid-20th century, music for worship among these churches was borrowed from Euro-American missionary sources. Indigenous texts and melodies emerged in published form in the 1960s, beginning with the East Asian Christian Conference Hymnal (ed. D.T. Niles, 1963). New compositions were added in the editions of 1981, 1985, and 1988. The Christian Conference of Asia produced a more inclusive ecumenical hymnal, Sound the Bamboo (1990). The Asian Institute for Liturgy and Music is responsible for the collection, study, and composition of this music. Distinctive contributions from churches

Asmodi in China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the Philippines are contained in that hymnal. An important Korean collection of new hymns was published by the Korean Hymnal Committee in 1984. One of the earliest collections to appear in the USA was Hymns from the Four Winds (ed. I-to Loh, 1983). While the majority of these hymns and songs reflect a more evangelical and pietist theology, the newer hymns show liberationist themes and draw upon folk melodies and a more indigenous harmonic vocabulary. Asian-American hymnody now appears in most American hymnals published since 1988. Sound the Bamboo, “Preface,” 1990, 10–18 ◆ C.R. Young, Companion to the United Methodist Hymnal, 1993, 33–36. Don E. Saliers

Asmodi → Israel and Persia Asmussen, Hans Christian (Aug 21, 1898, Flensburg – Dec 30, 1968, Speyer). He was a frontline soldier in 1917, pastor in Altona in 1932, but was removed from office in 1934. He became a member of the Reich’s Brotherhood Council in 1934 and the founding rector of the divinity school in Berlin. In the years 1936 to 1938 he was subjected to the Third Reich’s ban against public speaking, and was imprisoned several times. In 1943 he became pastor in Württemberg, a member of the Council of the EKD in 1945 and president of the church chancellery, and was provost in Kiel 1948–1955. Asmussen, rooted in firmly confessional Lutheranism, became famous in January 1933 through the “Altona Confession” and advanced to become one of the most important theologians of the → Confessing Church (CC). As one of the pioneers of the → “Stuttgart Confession of Guilt,” Asmussen fell into increasing isolation because of his distinctive concepts of the church and ministry, his increasing esteem for Catholicism, and his often sharp warnings against politicization in the church. Differences concerning the institution of the VELKD finally led to a complete breach with his comrades in the CC and, in 1948, to his deposition as president of the church chancellery. Ich glaube eine heilige Kirche: FS für Hans Asmussen, 1963 (227– 240 partial bibl.) ◆ H. Goltzen, J. Schmidt & H. Schröer, TRE IV, 1984, 259–265 (bibl.) ◆ E. Konukiewitz, “Leben und Werk von Hans Asmussen,” BThZ 5, 1988, 85–102 ◆ W. Lehmann, Hans Asmussen, 1988. Siegfried Hermle

Aśoka was the third ruler of the Indian Maurya dynasty and ruled approximately 270–230 bce. A bloody campaign against Kāli«ga is claimed to have contributed to the change in his disposition. Subsequently, he promoted → Buddhism, according to Buddhist sources. That he himself became a Buddhist

462 is not undisputed. Apart from the Buddhist Saágha he supported other religious groups ( Jainas [→ Jainism], → Ājīvikas, → Brahmins). A vigorous Buddhist expansion occurred during his reign. According to Singhalese tradition, his son(?) Mahendra did missionary work in → Śri La«ka. The mission work in Myanmar, Kashmir, and other territories is also associated with Aśoka. The spread of Buddhist centers of pilgrimage and monasteries is allegedly the result of his work (in legendary form, the new dissemination of Buddha relics). Measures such as the restriction of sacrifices (animal sacrifice) or the slaughter and hunting of animals promoted Buddhist tendencies (→ Ahimsā). While Aśoka cannot be considered a “Buddhist” ruler, Glasenapp’s statement, “under Aśoka Buddhism developed from an Indian sect to a world religion” (47), is nevertheless valid. Aśoka became a model for many Buddhist rulers of Śri La«ka and Southeast Asia. H. von Glasenapp, Der Buddhismus, 1936 ◆ E. Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme Indien, 1958 ◆ H.G.A. van Zeyst & S. Dutt, “Asoka,” EncBud 2, 1967, 178–193 ◆ A.L. Basham, “Asoka,” EncRel (E) I, 1987, 466–469. Heinz Mürmel

Āśrama (Sanskrit, masc. & neut., lit. “spiritual abode, stage of life”). Since roughly the 6th–4th century bce, “ā≤rama” has referred to the classic Hindu doctrine of stages of life, usually four. A common compound with var»a, “caste,” is var»à≤ramadharma, “the law (→ Dharma) governing the four castes and four stages of life,” which comprises the moral and legal norms of those Hindus with whom Brahmin priests are concerned, above all the three upper castes (brahmins, kßatriyas, vai≤yas) (→ Caste: I). The four stages in the classical à≤rama system and their primary duties are: 1. brahmacarya (“way of life of → Brahman”): studying the →Veda with a teacher; 2. g‰ hastha (“householder”): establishing a family and beginning a son; 3. vānaprastha (“hermit”): chaste withdrawal to a forest, with or without a wife; 4. sannyāsa (“renunciation” [→ Asceticism: VIII]): life without a wife, e.g. as a beggar or wandering ascetic. The àśrama system also classifies people by age: the period of the g‰hastha is central, while the first à≤rama is appropriate to youth and the last two à≤ramas to old age. In this latter sense, it can be seen as an attempt to normalize withdrawal from a life of active labor – whether as a voluntary ascetic choice or as the necessary consequence of aging – and place it in a ritual framework. M. Winternitz, “Zur Lehre von den Āśramas,” in: W. Kirfel, ed., Beiträge zur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte Indiens, FS Jacobi, 1926 ◆ J.-F. Sprockhoff, “Die Alten im alten Indien,” Saec. 30, 1979, 347–433 ◆ idem, “Āra»yaka und Vānaprastha in der vedischen Literatur,” WZKSO 25, 1981, 19–90; 28, 1984, 5–43 ◆ P. Olivelle, The Asrama System, 1993. Axel Michaels

463 Assassins, Latin “Assissini” or “Heysessini,” from Arabic “al-˙ašīšīya” (“the hashish-eaters”), is the contemptuous designation for the extremist branch of the Shiite sect of Ishmaelites active in the Syrian coastal mountains during the Crusades. Founded in 1094 by the Ishmaelite missionary Óasan-i Íabbā˙ (d. 1124) in Castle Alamut in Elburs south of the Caspian Sea, the sect sought to destroy the established power structures through attacks on the high officials of the Sunni Caliphate, less often on prominent crusaders, in order to prepare the way for the kingdom of a promised messiah-like savior, the “Mahdi” (Arabic: the one accompanied by right; → Millenarianism: VI). The assassins were based in castles in northern and eastern Iran, from 1133 also in Syria. Crusaders called their leader “the old one of the mountains.” Hülägü, Khan of the Mongols, conquered the castles of the assassins in Iran in 1256– 1270, Baibars, the Egyptian Sultan of the Mamlukes, those in Syria in 1271–1273. The use of the word “assassini” or “assessini” in the meaning “hired assassin” is attested since the beginning of the 14th century. B. Lewis, Die Assassinen, 1989 ◆ F. Daftary, The Ismāaīlīs, Their History and Doctrines, 1990. Heinz Halm

Asseburg, Rosamunde Juliane von der (Nov 1672, Eggenstedt near Oschersleben – Nov 8, 1712, Johannishausen [ Jahnishausen] near Dresden), experienced various types of visions and auditions from early childhood. Her case caused J.W. and J.E. → Petersen, who had provided a home for her since 1691, to raise the critical question for → Pietism as to whether God is still revealing himself directly, regardless of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. After the dismissal of the Petersens (1692), Asseburg lived at various courts of nobility in central and eastern Germany. M. Matthias, “J.W. und J.E. Petersen,” AGP 30, 1939, 254– 301. Markus Matthias

Assemani is the italianized name of the Maronite family as-Simani. 1. Joseph Simonius (Aug 27, 1687, Óaßrun – Jan 13, 1768, Rome) studied in Rome, where he received his Dr. theol. in 1710. He was Scrittore of the Syriac and Arabic manuscripts and for 29 years the senior curator of the Vatican Library. In 1766 he became titular bishop of Tyre. His most significant work is the Bibliotheca orientalis. 2. His nephew, Josephus Aloysius (c. 1710, Tripoli – 1782, Rome), was professor of Syriac at the Collegium Sapientiae, then of liturgy at the Papal Academy. His works deal with liturgy and the history of the Eastern Church. 3. Their nephew and cousin, Stephen Evodius (Apr 19, 1704, Tripoli – Nov 24, 1782, Rome), was titular bishop

Assimilation of Apameia and curator of the Vatican Library; he provided a description of the Eastern manuscripts in Florence and edited the works of St. → Ephraem Syrus. 4. Simon (Feb 20, 1752/Mar 14, 1749, Tripoli – Apr 7, 1811, Padua), initially a missionary in Syria for twelve years and professor of Eastern languages in Padua from 1807, described the Eastern manuscripts and the coin collection of the Naniana Library in Venice. G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. III, 1949 ◆ A. Schall, LThk2 1, 1957, 942–944 ◆ F.W. Bank, BBKL I, 1975, 255–256. Hans-Joachim Härtel

Assemblies of God formed in Hot Springs, AR, in 1914 as an association of Pentecostal pastors, evangelists and missionaries, whose concern was to provide structures through which the Pentecostal movement (→ Pentecostalism) could be fostered and expanded. The spread of an unorthodox Christology among American Pentecostals prompted the Assemblies of God to adopt a doctrinal statement. Enlarged over the years, this Statement of Fundamental Truths is essentially evangelical, with the addition of an affirmation of divine healing and of the baptism with the Holy Spirit manifested through speaking in tongues. Early Pentecostals were wary of too much formal organization, and the Assemblies of God did not adopt a constitution and by-laws until 1927. By then, the headquarters (located in Springfield, MO from 1918) was a thriving center of operations, including a publishing house and a Bible institute. In 1996, the denomination endorsed 18 colleges and Bible institutes throughout the country. The new denomination pursued an aggressive missionary policy. In 1996, 1,775 Assemblies of God missionaries were active in 148 countries. Assisted by nearly 160,000 foreign nationals, they served over 146,000 congregations around the world. Brazil accounts for more than 14.5 million members and adherents of a total of nearly 24 million outside the USA. Overseas communities are completely autonomous. At the end of 1996, US membership stood at 1.4 million. Some 23% worship in ethnic congregations, primarily Latino. Aggressive denominational evangelizing programs as well as a growing cultural fascination for spiritual experience suggest that the Assemblies of God will continue to grow. E. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith, 1993.

Edith Blumhofer

Assimilation I. Religious Studies/Sociology – II. Jewish Assimilation

I. Religious Studies/Sociology Assimilation denotes a process of becoming similar, by individuals and groups adapting or conforming to a

Assimilation culture, religion, and society which is foreign to them. In its metaphorical use beyond the biological sense, the term appeared for the first time in the first half of the 19th century. This conceptual understanding of assimilation, via G. → Simmel’s analysis of otherness, entered the sociology of the → Chicago School and subsequently gained a prominent position in the American social sciences. In an analytical approach, five dimensions of the concept may be distinguished: 1. Adapting in the sphere of knowledge, skills, and mastery of methods; 2. Adaptation to the prevailing cultural pattern of a group or society; 3. Conforming to value systems and religious patterns of interpretation; 4. Integration in social systems of interaction and networks of contact; 5. Penetration into the system of status and institutions of a society. The criticism of the sociological-functional understanding of the concept of assimilation points to the implied asymmetry and one-sidedness of the process and to the neglect of the dimension of power. On the other hand, the older research in ethnology and religious studies points out that assimilation is a reciprocal process, which may also lead to the rulers adapting to those being ruled. In a perspective which is critical of modernity, the ambivalence of the contemporary discourse of assimilation becomes apparent. In the practice and ideology of the modern nationstate, the notion of assimilation is associated with cultural unification and intolerance, which strives for the removal of all minority social obligations, ties, and orientations. Today, worldwide processes of assimilation draw attention to a technologically and economically dominated global culture, processes that are simultaneously accompanied by increasingly strong patterns of reaction – cultural and religious differentiations emphasizing what is particular to minority groups, sometimes leading to fundamentalist movements. Following A. → Schütz, it is possible to gain an understanding of assimilation in which the reconstruction of the patterns of interpretation of the world is central. That which stands outside the current order of knowledge, namely that which is strange and unknown, must be defined and placed in a meaningful context. This requires a process of gradual transformation in the present interpretative patterns of the world, in order to achieve a compatibility of the foreign and the familiar. If the process of assimilation is successful, it will lead to an increased supply of secured knowledge and experience. A. Schütz, “Der Fremde,” in: idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. II, 1972, 53–69 ◆ W.E. Mühlmann, Rassen, Ethnien, Kulturen, 1964 ◆ H. Esser, Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie: Assimilation und Integration von Wanderern, ethnischen Gruppen und Minderheiten, 1980 ◆ Z. Baumann, Moderne und Ambivalenz, 1992. Karl Gabriel

464 II. Jewish Assimilation In Jewish history and historiography the concept of assimilation is intimately linked with the history of → emancipation. In the controversies over the manner and extent of the “civil betterment” of Jews, which began in Western Europe in the context of the → Enlightenment, → absolutism, and early capitalism of the second half of the 18th century, emancipation and assimilation were negotiated quid pro quo, even though neither of these two terms themselves had yet emerged. The focal point was the question of whether the Jews should first be granted legal equality, on the basis of which they would then also comply with the requirement of economic, social, and cultural “integration” or, conversely, whether “adjustment” should be imposed as a condition under which equal rights would then be granted. While France opted for the former policy in the wake of the revolution, the authorities in Germany mostly pursued the latter. The concept of assimilation emerged only when the process of emancipation reached its conclusion with the almost complete legal equality of the Jews in Germany in 1870. The term only acquired its specific meanings when liberal Jews had to defend their aspiration for political, social, and cultural integration as well as the exclusion of the national element from religion against the attacks of political → antisemitism on the one hand and against the criticism of the Zionist movement (→ Zionism) on the other. Hence, from the beginning, the term was used with at least two mutually exclusive meanings and with a polemical undertone. Liberal Jews explained that assimilation describes a limited process of adaptation, since it neither affects their history and religion as foundations of unmistakably Jewish identity, nor the relationships among themselves as a special community. The opponents of this view, however, construed assimilation as a process that complies with the demands of the nonJewish majority, which recognizes no other boundary than the complete dissolution of Jewish identity. It was largely the critical view of the history of “assimilation” and the negative connotations of the term that prevailed after the shoah (→ Holocaust) and the establishment of the state of Israel. However, a new and productive reflection on the concept and its history has been taking place since the 1960s. In agreement with the general criticism of the concept of assimilation (cf. I. above), the pattern defining emancipation as the political action of the majority and assimilation as the cultural reaction of the minority was rejected. The inner dimension of Jewish history and the association of cultural, social, economic, and political processes were given priority. Citing theories of modernization, it was pointed out that Jews as well as non-Jews, were shaping the conditions of modernity (industrialization, seculariza-

465

Astarte

tion, nationalism, etc.), both actively and interactively. The emphasis on the different roles of Jewish women and men, in urban or rural surroundings, from Eastern or Western Europe, as well as the research into their multifaceted, including contradictory and ambivalent, relation to the non-Jewish environment, could scarcely be compatible with the concept of assimilation, so that an intensive search has begun for concepts that could replace assimilation. Especially concepts of acculturation (→ inculturation) and, in the Anglo-Saxon context, of “subculture” were adduced to describe the conscious and unconscious strategies which seek to mediate in language, customs and traditions, upbringing and education, family, community, and the general public in an intensive process of circumscribing and reinterpreting tradition and current experience. A. Kaplan, “Tradition and Transition, The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperial Germany,” YLBI 27, 1982, 3–35 ◆ D. Sorkin, “Emancipation and Assimilation,” YLBI 35, 1990, 17–33 ◆ M. Mor, ed., Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accommodation, 1992 ◆ S. Volkov, ed., Deutsche Juden und die Moderne, 1994. Andrea Schatz

Assisi is an Umbrian city on the western foothills of Monte Subasio. It was a Roman municipium and the home of the poet Propertius. Since the early 4th century it has been the seat of a bishopric (city patron: the martyred bishop Rufinus). In the early Middle Ages it belonged to the Lombard Duchy of Spoleto, was under Hohenstaufen dominion from 1172/1173, and became a papal possession under Innocent III. It experienced tensions and struggles with nearby Perugia. Under Francis and → Clara it became the birthplace of the → Franciscans. On account of the burial churches of San Francesco (begun in 1228), Santa Chiara (begun in 1257), Santa Maria degli Angeli (Porziuncola) in the valley, as well as other Franciscan memorial sites in the city and its environs (esp. San Damiano, Carceri), Assisi became one of the most significant pilgrimage centers in Christianity and the seat of many religious societies. Artists from Siena, Rome, and Florence (esp. Cimabue, Giotto, Lorenzetti) made San Francesco into a center of Italian painting in the 13th and 14th centuries. A. Grohmann, Assisi, 1989.

Ulrich Köpf

Assumption of Mary → Mary, Assumption of, → Mariology Assumption of Moses → Ascension of Moses

in Nîmes, the first chapter, was founded in 1845 by Émanuel d’Alzon, and approved by the pope in 1864. In the spirit of the founder, the community, which includes priests and laypersons, developed intensive pastoral and social programs, was active in education (especially for spiritual vocations), in missions, in scientific endeavors, in the area of the press (“the work of the good press”), and in the sponsoring of pilgrimages. Since 1863, the Assumptionists have also been active in the Near East, and since the beginning of the 20th century, worldwide. Female societies of the Assumptionists: 1. Sisters of Mary’s Assumption, founded in 1839 by Anna Eugénie Milleret de Brou with the assistance of É. d’Alzon for the religious training of young women from the upper classes, active today in Africa, South and Central America; 2. Oblates of the Assumption, founded in 1865 by É. d’Alzon and Marie Corenson to assist in the oriental mission of the Assumptionists; 3. Little Sisters of the Assumption, founded in 1865 by C.E. Pernet and Antoinette Fage for social-charitable work; 4. Praying Sisters of the Assumption, founded in 1896 by IsabelleMarie de Clermont-Tonnerre and F. Picard. Heimbucher 2, 51987, 384–386 ◆ J. Monval, Les Réligieux de l’Assomption, 21963 ◆ DIP I, 1974, 381–383, 955–957; IV, 1977, 1630f., VI, 1980, 563f., 763f., ◆ AnPont 1996, 1442. Manfred Heim

Assy, Church of (France, Haute Savoie, community of Passy), Notre-Dame-de-Toute-Grâce church. Designed by Maurice Novarina on the commission of Father Devémy, it was begun in 1937 and consecrated in 1950. The structure is the first French church decorated by renowned artists under the influence of the Dominican Père Couturier. Fernand Léger contributed the façade mosaic with Marian symbols (1946–1949); M. → Chagall the mosaics and stained-glasses in the baptismal chapel; G. → Rouault (1948), Jean Bazaine (1944–1946), and others the windows in the aisles; Georges Bracque the tabernacle gate; Pierre Bonnard and H. → Matisse images for the side altars. Jean Lurçat designed the Apocalypse-tapestry for the choir space, and Germaine Richier created the bronze crucifix, which provoked a scandal. The decoration of the church sparked off a debate, especially because not all of the commissioned artists were believing Christians. P. Régamey, Art sacré au XXe siècle?, 1952 ◆ M. Ochsé, La nouvelle querelle des images, 1953. Katharina Winnekes

Assyria → Israel and Mesopotamia; → Mesopotamia Assumptionists. Augustinians of the Assumption (Lat. assumptio) of Mary (→ Mariology) into the heavens (Congrégation des Augustins de l’Assomption). The congregation named after the Congrégation de l’Assomption

Astarte. Syrian goddess, already widely known in the Bronze Age (Ebla, Mari, Emar, Ugarit; unclear relationship to Mesopotamian Inanna/ → Ishtar). The

Asterius of Amasea cult spread from the Phoenician coastal cities into the Mediterranean area: Egypt (from the middle of the 2nd millennium bce onward), Israel (polemical references to the cult in the OT), Cyprus and Greece (possible influence on the genesis of → Aphrodite, regarded by the Greeks themselves as a goddess from the Near East), Carthage and North Africa, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy and Spain. In these areas she is often assimilated to various local deities: Aphrodite/Venus, Hera/ Juno, Uni, Leucothea, etc. Goddess of love and fertility, of war and hunting, kingship and the stars. Her cult was often associated with temple prostitution. Her iconography contains a series of typologies (showing a goddess who is naked, pregnant, nursing, or sitting on her throne) and attributes (such as doves, lions, horses, musical instruments, etc.). Sources: F. Mazza, S. Ribichini & P. Xella, Fonti classiche per la civiltà fenicia e punica, 1988 ◆ C. Bonnet, Astarte dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques, 1996, esp. 155ff. ◆ On Astarte: W. Röllig, Dictionnaire de la Civilisation phénicienne et punique, 1992, 46–48 ◆ C. Bonnet, ibid. Paolo Xella

Asterius of Amasea (born before mid-4th cent.), student of a Scythian educated in legal matters. Asterius was active from c. 380/390 until the beginning of the 5th century in Amasea, the capital of Helenopontus on the Black Sea. He wrote 14 homilies and encomiums of martyrs; at the Council of → Nicea in 787 he was cited as a witness to the positive regard for icons (homily 11 = Mansi 13, 16f. 305–309). Asterius preached sermons for Christians, Jews and pagans that were biblical, historically concrete and apologetic; ethical parenesis dominated. He was influenced by Platonic as well as Cynic-Stoic philosophies, but his sermons were rarely oriented along the lines of systematic theology. In his sermons he impressed upon the noblest circles that, among other things, God is the absolute owner of property, whereas they have social obligations (cf. homily 2). Works: CPG 2, 3260–3265 ◆ Patrologiae cursus completus 40, 1863, 155–480 (not all the homilies belong to this Asterius!) ◆ C. Datema, ed., Asterius of Amasea, Homilies I–XIV, 1970 ◆ Trans.: Die Homilien des Asterius, ed. J.G.V. Engelhardt, 3 vols. 1830, 1832, 1833 ◆ Zestien Preken van Asterius, Bisschop van Amaseia, F. van der Meer & G. Bartelink, 1976 ◆ On Asterius: W. Speyer, “Asterios von Amaseia,” RAC Suppl. I, 1986, 626–639 Markus Vinzent

Asterius the Preacher. Contrary to the earlier theories of M. Richard and E. Skar, the research by W. Kinzig has shown that Asterius cannot be identified with the Cappadocian Sophist of the same name. The homilies on Pss 1–15 and 18 written by Asterius (including several for Easter) and his catena fragments date from the period between 385 and 410. The texts

466 were probably written in or near Antioch. Anti-Arian (→ Arius ) and anti-Eunomian (→ Eunomius ) in tenor, the homilies are christological and paraenetic. They often employ juristic metaphors, rarely using controversial theological terms: the one Christ is Nomos and Logos, undivided from the Father (Hom. 1, 4f.; 21, 21), ὁ τοË πατρὸς υἱὸς ὁμοούσιος/ho toú patrós huiós homooúsios (Hom. 18:14), and God in flesh (Hom. 22:3). Texts edited (under the name of Asterius the Cappadocian Sophist) by M. Richard, 1956 ◆ Index with important corrigenda and addenda by E. Skard, 1962 ◆ W. Kinzig, “Asterius, Homilie 31 (Richard): Neuedition, Übersetzung, Kommentar,” VigChr 50, 1996, 401–415 ◆ On Asterius: W. Kinzig, In Search of Asterius, FKDG 47, 1990. Markus Vinzent

Asterius the Sophist (between 260 and 280, Cappadocia – after 341). Asterius became a Christian before 303 but recanted during the persecution under Maximian. Later, he vainly sought episcopal office. He was a pupil of Paulinus of Tyre, a follower of Origen. Before and after → Nicea (325), he was influenced by the writings and preaching missions of the Eusebians. Extant are fragments of his συνταγμάτιον/syntagmátion and a defense of a letter of → Eusebius of Nicomedia. → Arius, too, learned from Asterius. As an innovative thinker and systematizer, Asterius provoked the first apologies by the supporters of Nicea (including the attack on him by → Marcellus of Ancyra between 330 and 335). → Eusebius of Caesarea gives him qualified support. Asterius argues for a subordination of the Father and the Son; the distinction he makes between communicable and noncommunicable attributes of God, despite his acceptance of the creatureliness of the Son, enables him to avoid the consequences of a radical distinction between God and Christ. Works: CPG 2, 2815–2819 ◆ Asterius von Kappadokien, Die theologischen Fragmente: Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. M. Vinzent, SVC 20, 1993 ◆ On Asterius: W. Kinzig, In Search of Asterius, FKDG 47, 1990. Markus Vinzent

Astral Religion (from Gk ἄστρα/ástra, “stars”) refers to the cultic worship of heavenly bodies or deities associated with them. The relationship between a heavenly body and a deity may range from identification to mere association – the boundaries are fluid. There is no astral religion per se, but elements of astral religion appear within particular religious systems. Some scholars have attempted to trace the whole of mythology to astral religion or astral mythology, but such theories are now obsolete. It is important to distinguish astral religion from → astrology, which studies the influence of the constellations or the course of the stars and planets on the fate of individuals.

467 The starting point of astral religion is the visible but inexplicable motion of the stars and planets, which is perceived as an expression of divine power and gives rise to mythological reflection. Therefore, astral religion pays considerable attention to clearly observable heavenly phenomena: above all the polar star, which remains relatively motionless as the other stars move; the constellation of the Pleiades; Venus, the morning and evening star; the → sun and → moon. The Venus deity, for example, plays a major role in Semitic religions; the deity’s gender was not fixed, although secondarily a female goddess became dominant (cf. Babylonian → Ishtar, West Semitic → Astarte, and Greek → Aphrodite, but also the pre-Islamic Arabian Ashtar). Sun worship is universal – for example in the solar theology of Egypt originating from the theology of Heliopolis, along with its variant of exclusive worship of the sun-disc (Aton) promoted by Echnaton (→ Amenophis IV ); also the sun worship of the Aztecs and Inca. The sun is considered a god; but the male gender of the sun-god is not essential, as the sun-goddess Ameterasu of Shintoism demonstrates. When there is sexual differentiation, the moon is often female; there is some symbolic association of the phases of the moon with the goddess of growth and fertility. In the Middle East and the Mediterranean region, the marked astralization of Assyro-Babylonian religion in the first half of the first millennium bce, which then spread to the sphere of Greco-Hellenistic culture, deserves special mention. The mystery religions exhibit elements of astral religion, whereas Gnosticism takes a negative view of astral gods as powers of darkness. Some consequences of astral religion: the AssyroBabylonian association of heavenly bodies with deities was probably introduced to the Greek world by Eudoxus of Cnidus (4th cent. bce); through the association of the days of the week with planetary gods and the identification of German deities with Greco-Roman deities, these interrelations still persist in the present. Symbolically, the alignment of cultic edifices with heavenly bodies (or deities) is still observed, for example, in the orientation of churches. Astrology still preserves elements of catasterism (the transformation of a deified hero into a constellation, widespread in classical antiquity), found among Indo-European peoples but known also to Eskimos and Australian ethnic groups, as well as the Hellenistic astral mysticism that associates every soul with a star. A. Scherer, Gestirnnamen bei den indogermanischen Völkern, 1953 ◆ F. Boll, C. Bezold & W. Gundel, Sternglaube und Sterndeutung, 51966 ◆ R. Müller, Der Himmel über dem Menschen der Steinzeit, 1970 ◆ M. Singh, Die Sonne: Das Gestirn in der Kulturgeschichte, 1994. Manfred Hutter

Astrology Astrology I. History of Religions – II. Biblical – III. Greco-Roman Antiquity – IV. Judaism – V. Practical theology

I. History of Religions 1. Term. Astrology is the functional use of quantitative astronomical observations and calculations in the service of a qualitative cosmic and anthropological interpretation of the heavens. Inasmuch as the first of these two elements has not yet been, or is minimally, developed, it is better to speak of astral mythology (there has never been a formal → “astral religion”). Astral mythology is the origin, which cannot be located chronologically or geographically, and the common factor of all astrologies down even to the present, in which various remythologizing tendencies are at work. It proceeds from the interconnection of all things and from a related way of thinking based on analogy, which is also favorable to magical concepts. From time immemorial, heavenly phenomena, including meteorological and astral ones, have captivated humans as fascinosum and tremendum, interacted with religion, and influenced practical life. The early development of astrology is primarily characterized by attempts, on behalf of the social organism and its highest representatives, to observe the heavens as manifestations of the gods or of the deified dead, and potentially to manipulate them (e.g. through sacrifice and prayer). Under increasing systematization, astrology only developed into a mantic art (→ divination/manticism) in the middle of the first millennium bce, predominantly for the purpose of ascertaining the fate of individuals by means of birth horoscopes. 2. Mesopotamia. The early historical roots of astrology include, in the first place, the astral cult in → Mesopotamia. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium bce, the Sumerians were already familiar with astronomical observations. The oldest discovered records of planetary movements point to the 2nd millennium. Seven-storied temple towers in the cities → Ur, Kish, and → Uruk symbolized the seven “stars” with their colors: moon (green or silver), sun (golden), Venus (white), Mercury (blue), Mars (red), Jupiter (brown), and Saturn (black). Such a → ziggurat, which also served as an administrative building, was meant, with the priests on its roof, to promote the bond with heaven and with the gods venerated on the astral pathway. The first constellations were given names. In the later Akkadian Empire, the method of divination using the liver of a slaughtered sacrificial animal arose, which, as the seat of the emotions, symbolized both the macro and the microcosmos. The form of this organ, with its suggestive compartmentalization, promoted the development of a more complex astrology. As the “Mul-Apin Tablets” (700 bce) from → Babylon demonstrate, the heavens

Astrology consisted of three parts; a sidereal lunar zodiac was also known. Late Babylonian astrology still operated on the assumption that the stars move, not mechanically, but as the result of decisions of the gods. The → Chaldeans – this name for the Babylonians became synonymous with “astrologers” around the time of Christ – finally carried their knowledge to Rome, Greece, and Egypt. 3. Egypt. Quite early on, the Nile floods necessitated the monitoring of the seasons. In → Egypt, the first → calendar, introduced in 2778 bce, became the most precise of all the cultures of Antiquity. Temples along the Nile served as astronomical instruments. They facilitated the observation that the heliacal ascension of Sirius, the brightest fixed star, announced the simultaneous rise of the Nile. On this basis, many prognoses concerning the Pharaoh and his land were associated with the position of Sirius in the heavens. The Pharaoh received his throne from the goddess Sothis, who resided in Sirius. The pyramids in Gizeh, the city of the dead, which were precisely oriented to the four cardinal points, signified through their form, which was identical with the symbol for the sun god Re, a ramp for the ascension of the heavenly-royal light soul (Akh) to the fixed stars. Scholarly discussion confirms indications that these massive structures served as observatories. In this regard, it should be taken into account that the priests believed it possible to observe the deceased Pharaoh as the bright star at the astronomical North Pole. The division of the ecliptic into 36 sections, specifically into segments of ten degrees each, resulted as early as the end of the 3rd millennium in the interpretive system involving the so-called decans (and thus the oldest form of a fixed zodiac), significant for divine and especially for postmortem existence. In addition, a twelve-part zodiac also came into use. Especially from the 7th century bce, Babylonian and later Greek astrology exercised influence on Egypt. 4. America. The Aztecs (→ Aztec Religion) and → Mayas developed, with reference to a few fixed stars, a lunar calendar encompassing 13 × 20 = 260 days in order to determine the proper times for their religious rituals. Their heavenly world consisted of thirteen regions (corresponding to the thirteen hours of the day), the underworld of nine regions (and nine hours of night). They documented planetary motion and constellations. The Inca city Cuzco represented a giant zodiac monument: twelve precincts with twelve streets running toward the center were grouped around the mighty solar temple. Human sacrifice associated with astral religion occurred with particular frequency on this continent. Thus, the Sioux Indians offered human sacrifice to Venus in the Spring. The blood was sprinkled on the seedlings. 5. China. When, toward the end of the 3rd millennium, the Chinese worshiped the sky as a God and sought to document its movements, they had long since

468 developed a calendar. The emperor was regarded as a representative of heaven and, along with his ancestors, was placed in relationship to the cosmos; he alone could sacrifice to heaven on the altar. → China viewed itself as an “empire of the middle” in correspondence to the circumpolar region of the heavens where the stars never set. Chinese astrology developed 28 divisions of the moon’s cycle, symbolized by animal figures, which were associated with the four imperial palaces orientated according to the seasons and cardinal points. In addition, there was also a zodiac with twelve elements. Chinese astrologers were the first to sight Halley’s comet (240 bce) and, since 28 bce, to regularly observe sunspots. 6. India. From the middle of the 2nd millennium, the → Vedas offered astronomical data related to religious life. Based on the observation that the moon always visits the same constellations on its way, 28 lunar houses were introduced at the beginning of the first millennium. Astrology functioned as an interpretive aid for Vedic texts. Almost all Hindu astrologers came from the highest class of priests, so that their art was regarded as “divine.” Since the foundation of Alexandria, structural elements from Greek astrology seeped into India, where they were adapted to the belief in reincarnation, which in turn shaped astrological thought. The notion that a human being had to be successively reincarnated in the signs of the zodiac had already been a concept held by Greek → Orphism. W. Gundel, Sternglaube, Sternreligion und Sternorakel, 21959, repr. 1981 with a supplement by H.G. Gundel ◆ H.W. Geissler, Astrologie – Geschichte, Entwicklung, Deutung, 1982 ◆ W. Knappich, Geschichte der Astrologie, 21988 ◆ J. & D. Parker, Astrologie – Ursprung, Geschichte, Symbolik, 1988 ◆ K. Koch, Geschichte der ägyptischen Religion 1993 ◆ T. Schäfer, Vom Sternenkult zur Astrologie, 1993 ◆ R. Bauval & A. Gilbert, Das Geheimnis des Orion, 1994. Werner Thiede

II. Biblical 1. Old Testament. Based on centuries-old observations of the stars and astronomical theories developed from these observations, the mantic prognostication of the Babylonians and Assyrians in the 1st millennium concentrated on astral omens. Since the discovery of a zodiac in twelve segments incorporating the courses of the (then known) planets (including sun and moon), wordly and individual fate seemed basically calculable and no longer dependent on the decisions of individual deities, but at the disposition of an all-powerful lord of heaven. Subsequently, this astrology, with its religious implications, exercised strong influence on the culture of antiquity (Syria, Iran, Egypt, Greece). Little wonder, then, that it influenced Israelite circles again and again. For early OT writings, the stars constitute a populated host of heaven which YHWH created in a fixed order and over which he now presides. There is no mention of a prognostic sig-

469 nificance. Even for the prophets, eclipses of the moon and sun are part of a coming catastrophe, but not its omen (Isa 13:10; 24:23; Ezek 32:7f.; Joel 2:2, etc.). Evidence of astral influence on the YHWH cult appears first in Neo-Assyrian times. Astral symbols multiply in the iconography. Amos 5:25–27 rebuffs people who carry an image of Saturn before themselves in the cult as a guarantee of “righteousness.” In 622/621, the cultic reform of king → Josiah removed from the Jerusalem temple (and other cult sites?) cultic implements and special priests who, since the days of → Manasseh, had worshiped YHWH under the name → Baal (Shamem) along with an → Asherah, sun, moon, and zodiacal emblems, and the whole host of heaven (2 Kgs 23:4–6; cf. 21:3– 6). In the Neo-Babylonian period such cultic practices resurfaced in Judah, as evidenced by Jeremiah’s polemic against service to the Queen of Heaven ( Jer 7:18; 44:17; cf. 19:13; Zeph 1:4f.). During the exilic period, Deutero-Isaiah (44:25; 47:13–15) told Babylonian soothsayers and astrologers that they would fail in their predictions ( Jer 10:2). Other documents are more reticent. According to Deut 4:19, YHWH had freed his people from any influence by the host of heaven, but had assigned the heavenly host for veneration to the pagan nations and probably to provide them divine leadership. According to Gen 1:14 (P), God created the stars not only to govern the seasons, but also as potential omens. From 200 bce onward there was an increasing acceptance of astrology. It attained its high point in the equation of YHWH with the Syrian Zeus Olympus = Baal Shamem, as effected in the Jerusalem temple by the→ high priests under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The opponents of hellenization denounced an object, presumably an astral symbol that was mounted on the great altar for burnt sacrifice, as an “abomination of desolation” (1 Macc 1:54; Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; cf. 2 Macc 6:2–5). The literature of the Greek-speaking Diaspora attributed to the great men of the Bible not only knowledge of astrology, but also its distribution, if not even its discovery (Solomon: Wis 7:15–21; Abraham: Artap., Ps-Eup., Ps-Hec. [ JSHRZ I/2, 127, 144, 159]; denied in Jub. 12:16–18!). The astronomical section of the book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72–82; 3rd/4th cent. bce; → Enoch, Books of: I) was the first work, with reference to the Babylonian Mul-Apin, to attempt to refute the claim of special powers for the zodiac by explaining the annual courses of the sun and moon by means of twelve gates of heaven instead of a zodiacal belt. Furthermore, the heavenly bodies had no life of their own, but were guided by invisible angels arranged according to their responsibilities into groups for quarters, months, and days. The actual driving force for the heavenly journeys was provided by the spirit-wind

Astrology " (rua˙), which was embodied in twelve winds responsible ultimately for guiding everyday fate. The Creator structured astral occurrences in such a way that the course of a year is guaranteed within 364 = 7 × 52 days, corresponding to the general Sabbatical structure of time (→ Sabbath). To incorporate oneself into it cultically is the most important of all God’s commandments to humanity (82:4–8). The observance of this 364-day calendar becomes evidence of belonging to the true Israel, as in Jubilees and in the Qumran literature, perhaps also in the book of Daniel (7:25). The constitutive role of the numbers seven and twelve was adopted from the astrological systems of Israel’s neighbors, but their linkage to empirically observable phenomena was dissolved. As in those systems, interest was directed not only to the course of the year, but equally to larger units of time. The Israelites were particularly interested in the 7 × 7 year (→ Jubilee Year) and in its multiple of ten, 490 years (Dan 9:24–27), but also in the all-time-encompassing unit ‘olam-’alam (1 En. 72:1; 91–93). Israel seems to have been aware of the difference between the 364-day year and the observable solar year of 365 1/4 days. It was probably explained by a myth of seven fallen angels (and their followers) patterned on Gen 6:1–4 (1 En. 18: 12–16; 21). This discrepancy also accounts for the rare discussion of a prognostic role for the stars (exception: the Brontologion and the horoscopes from Qumran). Daniel 8 relies on astrological geography by representing the Persian Empire with the (zodiacal) goat figure and the Greek with the ibex. (The same theory may underlie Acts 2:9–11.) Daniel 8 does not consider the veneration of, but the assault on the stars as the height of human hubris (vv. 10f.). 2. New Testament. In early Christian imagery, sun and moon play a role of equal importance to that of the symbolic numbers four, seven, and twelve. This resembles the terminology of contemporary astrology, without, however, adopting its prognostication. Warnings against γενεαλογίαι (genealogíai, 1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9) may be expressly directed against the heeding of horoscopes. Only the account of the Magi from the East (Matt 2) manifests a positive attitude toward astrology. Because they observed the signs of the zodiac, they were able to clearly recognize the significance of Jesus’ birth earlier than the scholars in Jerusalem. The position of the book of Revelation with respect to astrology is disputed. As Boll, in particular, has demonstrated, numerous astrological motifs appear in its visions. It remains unclear to what degree their original context has been maintained. Seven stars accompany the exalted Christ (1:4–20; 2:1; 3:1) – planets or Pleiades? Four creatures in the forms of a lion, a bull, a human, and an eagle carry God’s throne (4:6–8; 5:6–8; following Ezek 1:1; 10:12–14) – the zodiac signs representing the four quarters of the year? During the final drama, calamity-bringing stars fall

Astrology frequently from the heavens (6:13; 8:10f.; 9:1–11; 12:4; cf. Judith 13f.). In Galatians, Paul disputes the fundamental principles of astrology. In view of tendencies in the community to scrupulously observe special days, months, certain years and seasons, the apostle declares that, since time is fulfilled and Christ has appeared, Christians as children of God are freed from the dominion of elemental powers (4:1–11; cf. Col 2:8–23). These στοιχε›α (stoicheía) surely include – if, indeed, they do not consist solely of – astral powers. Paul takes up a tradition initiated by Deut 4:19, which then led to the notion of talmudic Judaism that the Gentiles are subject to the astral powers but that the Israelites are the only people freed from them (b. Šabb. 156a, etc.). This simplistic anthropological division resonated with Christians and Jews in subsequent centuries and restrained fatalism, but could not be sustained over time. G. Schiaparelli & W. Lüdke, Die Astrologie im Alten Testament, 1904 ◆ F. Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johanni, 1914 = 1967 ◆ M. Hengel & H. Merkel, “Die Magier aus dem Osten und die Flucht nach Ägypten (Mt 2) im Rahmen der antiken Religionsgeschichte und der Theologie desMatthäusevangeliums,” in: P. Hoffmann, ed., Orientierung an Jesus, FS J. Schmid, 1973, 139–169 ◆ O. Böcker, “Astrologie III,” TRE IV, 1979, 299–308 ◆ M. Albani, Astrologie und Schöpfungsglaube, WMANT 68, 1994 ◆ K. Koch, “Die Anfänge der Apokalyptik in Israel und die Rolle des astronomischen Henochbuchs,” in: Vor der Wende der Zeiten, Gesammelte Aufsätze III, 1996, 3–44. Klaus Koch

III. Greco-Roman Antiquity The terms ἀστρολογία/astrología and ἀστρονομία/ astronomía were not strictly distinguished until well into Late Antiquity. ἀστρολογία is the natural and original word used by the → pre-Socratics; in contrast, the Platonists (→ Platonism), probably following the → Pythagoreans, employed the eccentric term ἀστρονομία. The earliest terminological distinction stems from Simplikios, from a time when the Neoplatonists (→ Neoplatonism) were also commenting on the Aristotelian literature. The Greeks adopted from the Babylonians the practice of naming planets after gods. While the Babylonians took their bearings from the lunar cycle, the Greeks chose the sun. From the 5th century, the zodiac appears as a reference scheme in Callippos, Euktemon, and Eudoxos. Skeptics (→ Skepticism: I) and Epicureans (→ Epicureanism) rejected astrology. Astrologers are known to have been convicted and expelled as early as 139 bce. The emperors, in particular, sought to protect their privacy from astrology. On the other hand, astrology entered into a close relationship with Stoic cosmology (→ Stoics; εἱμαρμένη, συμπάθεια, μικροκόσμος/ heimarménē, sympátheia, mikrokósmos) and was described in both topical (Dorotheos, Manethon) as well as pantheistic-universalistic didactic poems (Manilius). It also became associated with the healing arts and → alchemy

470 (planets and metals), with → Gnosis and → Manichaenism, also with Neoplatonism and Christianity, whose typological mode of thinking in analogies was open to the mythical rationale of astrology: Christianization of the zodiac is attested since the Valentinian Theodotos, → Zeno of Verona, and the Priscillianists (→ Priscillianus). The Greek East continued the tradition into the 13th century with horoscopes, didactic poems, and monthly prognoses adapted to Christianity. The medieval Latin West also knew Christian adaptations before Arabic astrology in Latin translation became known via Sicily and Spain in the 12th century. In contrast, the Renaissance fell back once again on the Hellenistic form of astrology and transmitted it into the modern period. The original γένος καθολικόν (génos katholikón, universal system) dealt with nations, cities, countries (or their rulers as representatives; planets and ages of the world) or even the whole world (thema mundi), the γένος γενεθλια(λογι)κόν (génos genethlia[logi]kón, birth horoscope), increasingly popular, from Hellenism onward, with individual persons. Birth or (less commonly) conception horoscopes dealt with one’s entire fate, and καταρχαί (katarchaí, predictions) with the most favorable time to undertake a public or private action. A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque, 1899=1963=1979 ◆ F. Boll, Sphaera, 1903=1967 ◆ F.H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, 1954 ◆ F. Gössmann, Planetarium Babylonicum oder die sumerisch-babylonischen Stern-Namen, 1950 ◆ W. & H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena, 1966 ◆ W. Hübner, “Das Horoskop der Christen,” VigChr 29, 1975, 120–137 ◆ idem, Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike, 1982 ◆ idem, Zodiacus Christianus, 1983 ◆ idem, Die Begriffe “Astrologie” und “Astronomie” in der Antike, 1990. Wolfgang Hübner

IV. Judaism 1. Antiquity. Rabbinic Judaism reflects the biblical ambivalence toward astrology. According to Deut 4:19, the stars are only “allotted to the other nations,” which served as the foundation for the rabbinical principle, “there is no star for Israel” (b. Šabb. 156a). According to Deut 17:3, God denies that he had given the heavenly bodies to the idolaters for worship. Consequently, MAg wa-et˙annan corrects Deut 4:19. God installed the stars only as luminaries. Nonetheless, the zodiac played a role in Israel’s life, as evidenced by the mosaic floors of synagogues from Late Antiquity and by Exod. R. 15.6: “You find that there are twelve symbols of the zodiac in the firmament. Likewise, just as the heavens cannot exist except on the twelve symbols of the zodiac, thus, too, the world cannot exist except on the twelve tribes.” The influence of the stars extends from birth onward regarding every activity of life (b. Mo’ed Qat. 28a): “Rabba said: Life, children, and nourishment do not depend on human merit, but on the lucky star.” Despite the generally positive assessment of astrology, an irony and subtle

471 criticism can often be discerned in the Talmudic texts (b. Šabb. 156): “Rabbi Ashi said ‘Dimi bar Qaquzita and I were born on a Sunday; I became the master of a school and he became a captain of thieves. Everything can bring luck or misfortune.’” L. Wächter, “Rabbinische Vorsehungs- und Schicksalsglaube,” diss., 1958 ◆ G. Stemberger, “Die Bedeutung des Tierkreises,” Kairos 17, 1975, 23–56 ◆ G. Foerster, “The Zodiac,” ErIs 19, 1987, 225–234 ◆ L.J. Ness, “Astrology,” diss., 1990 ◆ G. Veltri, Magie und Halakha, 1997, 168–176; 205–211. ◆ R. Leicht, Astrologoumena Judaica, Tübíngen, 2006. Giuseppe Veltri

2. Middle Ages and Modern Times. The study and diffusion of astrological knowledge remained a vital, if not always accepted element of Jewish culture in the Middle Ages. In the modern era, astrology enjoys no special significance in Judaism. In Christian Europe and the Islamic areas, Jewish involvement with astrology was conditioned by time and place. Three different modes of dealing with astrology grew out of medieval experience. First, it could be simply and decisively rejected, as it was, above all, by M. → Maimonides (1135–1204). His widely distributed “Letter concerning Astrology” categorically rejects the integration of astrology into the Jewish religion that was frequently undertaken at the time. In the two other treatments, astrology and Jewish religion stand in a mutually positive relationship. On the one hand, there are reports of Jewish astrologers who are only loosely related to the Jewish religion. One of them is Mashalah bin Athan (754–815), who served the Abbasid caliphs as court astrologer in Baghdad. On the other hand, some Jews incorporated astrology into their Jewish faith and regarded it as an additional sphere in which one could perceive God’s dominion. The most famous members of this group of astrologers includes Shabbatai → Donnolo (913–sometime after 982), Abraham → Ibn Esra (1089– 1164), and Yehudah ben Barzilai (12th cent.). During the Renaissance, astrology remained, especially in Italy, a focal point for Jewish thinkers, including, for example, J. → Alemano (1435–sometime after 1504). Through the Renaissance, Jewish astrology reached modern western occult circles, in which it is more prominent even today than in any other Jewish group. C. Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, 1985, 93–112 ◆ R. Kiener, “The Status of Astrology in the Early Kabbalah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6, 1987, 1–42. Ronald C. Kiener

V. Practical theology Astrology enjoys increasing popularity. Roughly one third of the Germans, for instance, consider astrology possible or its pronouncements plausible. A distinction must be made, however, between the so-called “vulgar astrology” and the astrology that takes itself seriously.

Astrophysics “Vulgar astrology” holds approximately eighty percent of the entire astrological market. It includes newspaper horoscopes, computer and telephone horoscopes, as well as a broad magazine market. The worthlessness of this popular astrology has been definitively demonstrated. The so-called “serious astrology” or the “revised astrology” is more distinguished. It refrains from prognoses in the broader sense and understands itself, rather, as a means of diagnosis or as a path to (improved) understanding of the individual. In this sense, it seeks to call attention to structures and tendencies and thus to identity the “typical” in individuals (e.g. Ring). This astrology has increasingly come to think of itself as “astrological anthropology.” It incorporates concepts from the analytical psychology of C.G. → Jung as well as from depth psychology. The modern turn to astrology expresses an “intellectual regression” (T.W. → Adorno) or a search: Modern human beings also seek order and support for life in a cosmic view of totality that can lend meaning to individual – often experienced as broken – existence. The same is also true of so-called “revised astrology,” even if its language of signs and images can lead people to be concerned increasingly and more intensively with themselves. From a theological perspective, one can assert that the worldview of astrology often exhibits religious or quasi-religious elements. A biblical Christian understanding refers individuals to the personal God who leads them into freedom and personal responsibility. Astrology sees here impersonal, trans-cosmic powers. The life of individuals supposedly depends on, or is at least shaped by, their constellations. One can assume that in the coming years astrology will gain in importance. In a few western European countries (e.g. France and Great Britain) as well as in Asia (e.g. India), astrology already plays a substantially greater role than in Germany. T. Ring, Astrologische Menschenkunde, 4 vols., 1956–1973 ◆ idem, Astrologie ohne Aberglaube, 1972 ◆ F. Riemann, Lebenshilfe Astrologie, 1976 ◆ G. Voss, Astrologie christlich, 1980 ◆ S. Böhringer, Astrologie, Kosmos und Schicksal, 1990 ◆ C. Schubert-Weller, Spricht Gott durch die Sterne?, 1993. Andreas Fincke

Astronomy is the study of the → universe. → Calendars have been based on the apparent motions of the sun and the moon. The more intuitive geocentric view was replaced by a heliocentric system (N. → Copernicus, J. → Kepler, G. → Galilei, I. → Newton). Astronomy has now enlarged its domain to include space and time and has been integrated with physics (→ Astrophysics). It is quite distinct from → astrology, which attempts to relate astronomical phenomena to human characters and events. Willem B. Drees

Astrophysics is physics under the wide range of circumstances which occur in the → universe. Its main

Astruc, Jean data come from spectroscopy (light, radio wave, X-rays, etc.), cosmic rays and neutrinos. It explains successfully, for instance, the formation of stars and of clusters of stars by gravity, and with the help of nuclear physics, it explains the evolution of stars and the origin of chemical elements. To understand the very early universe, theories of matter and space-time need to be Willem B. Drees integrated. Astruc, Jean (Mar 19, 1684, Sauve, Languedoc – Mar 5, 1766, Paris). Astruc belonged to the Christian branch of a Jewish family that had lived for centuries in southern France. He was the son of a Huguenot pastor who converted to Catholicism when the Edict of Nantes was revoked (1685) but became a Protestant again before his death. Originally trained as a physician (professor of medicine at Toulouse, Montpellier, and Paris; appointed physician to the Polish king August II in 1728 and personal physician to Louis XV in 1730), he wrote medical works of importance for their time as well as theological treatises. His Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de Genèse, published anonymously in Brussels in 1753 (published in German in 1783) is of great significance for OT studies. Doublets of individual narratives and the alternation of different names for God (“Elohim” and the tetragrammaton → YHWH, at that time pronounced “Jehovah”) in Genesis and Exodus 1–2 led Astruc to conclude that the origin of this portion of the → Pentateuch could best be explained by a documentary hypothesis: → Moses could not possibly have experienced personally the events of the period from the creation of the world to his own public appearance, nor could he have learned of them through revelation; instead, he drew on an existing Elohistic document and a Jehovistic (Yahwistic) document as well as ten other fragmentary sources, all of which he assembled into four columns. A later redaction, however, combined these columns, giving rise to the wellknown inconsistencies in the chronology of Genesis (antichronisms). Initially Astruc’s theory met with a hesitant response (cf. the review by J.D. → Michaelis in GAGS 1754, 973ff ), but it was adopted and further developed by other scholars, above all J.G. → Eichhorn. Methodologically, despite its apologetic attempt to defend the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch against authors like T. → Hobbes, B. → Spinoza, und J. → Clericus, Astruc’s work marked the beginning of the modern literary approach to Pentateuchal criticism. E. Böhmer, RE II, 1897, 162–170 ◆ P. Alphandéry, “Jean Astruc (1684–1766),” RHPR 4, 1924, 54–72 ◆ A. Lods, “Astruc et la critique biblique de son temps,” RHPR 4, 1924, 109–139, 201– 227 ◆ R. de Vaux, “A propos du second centenaire d’Astruc,” VTSup 1, 1953, 182–198 ◆ E.O. Doharty, “The Conjectures of Jean Astruc 1753,” CBQ 15, 1953, 300–304 ◆ J. de Savignac,

472 “L’œuvre et la personnalité de Jean Astruc,” NC 5, 1953, 138– 147 ◆ C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch, 1994, §§28–30. Jan Christian Gertz

Asylum I. History of Religions – II. Greco-Roman Antiquity – III. Biblical – IV. Law – V. Ethics

I. History of Religions It was not until after the Second World War, in the course of which whole peoples had been murdered and critics persecuted, that in 1948 the UN proclaimed asylum to be a → human right; not however in terms of the right of every persecuted human being to seek protection from others, but in terms of the right of states to offer asylum. It has not yet proved possible to extend the “privilege of politicians” to a universal human right. Flight on religious grounds, for instance, does not give a refugee the right to asylum. However, asylum is older than any “legislated” right. Seen in terms of flight into the legal sphere of another (person or territory) offering protection against the persecutor, it may be viewed as an extension of the privilege of the guest (→ Hospitality) as was already to be found in primitive societies. Like others in society who do not have the power to claim or stand up for their rights (e.g. widows and orphans), those in search of asylum are viewed as being under God’s protection; indeed in some cases they may themselves be gods. Ritually they show their request for asylum or refuge by grasping the knee (of a powerful person, of the statue of a god) or by touching the altar or the house of the god. However, no “power” is transferred to the person who seeks asylum in this way. The touching is simply a sign indicating an advantage in credibility as against the superior might of the persecutor. The sacredness of asylum must continually be reasserted. A. Hellwig, Das Asylrecht der Naturvölker, 1903 ◆ O. Henssler, Formen des Asylrechts und ihre Verbreitung bei den Germanen, 1954 ◆ J. Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem, 1977 ◆ H. Wissmann, “Asylrecht I,” TRE IV, 1979, 315–318 ◆ D. FlückigerGuggenheim, Göttliche Gäste, 1984 ◆ C. Auffarth, “Protecting Strangers: Establishing a Fundamental Value in the Religions of the Ancient Near East and Ancient Greece,” Numen 39, 1992, 193–216. Christoph Auffarth

II. Greco-Roman Antiquity Terminology: Greek adjective ἄσυλος/ásylos, noun ἀσυλία/asylía: “status of immunity,” “prohibition to support oneself,” from α-privativum and σύλον, σύλη/súlon, súlē, verb συλçν/sylán: “booty in war or robbery” (cf. Hom. Il. 4, 105), “security in legally permitted self-support.” As a loanword in Latin, asylum first appears in relation to Greek asylum sanctuaries (Cic., In Verrem 2.1.34; Liv. 35.51.2; Verg. Aen. 2.761). In Late Antiquity

473 it is used metaphorically to mean “unruly gatherings of people” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.5: Rome as “asylum totius mundi”). The tradition that the asylum of Romulus sowed the seed of Rome became current in the Augustan age and remained popular into late antiquity. → Augustine of Hippo uses it as a metaphor for the kingdom of God (Civ. 5.17). Through the ritual of begging for protection (Greek: ἱκεσία/hikesía) at the city sanctuaries, also familiar from codes of hospitality, temporary asylum in a foreign state and in some cases long-term residence (μετοικία/κατοικία, metoikía/katoikía) could be gained (Eurip., Heraclidae; Aesch., Hiketides [Supplices]). From the Hellenistic period onwards, economic growth and mobility led to the development of an institution of asylía anchored in the state’s public or constitutional law, a predecessor of → international law. This right was guaranteed in bilateral treaties for the city or sanctuaries, and for guests and friends of the state (πρόξενοι/próxenoi) and could be legally enforced, so that actions of self-assertion would not endanger the life and property of foreigners at international trade and cultural festivals (SIG3 601: Roman Decree for Teos). The Greek sanctuaries could respond to ritual requests for refuge from people of all backgrounds: escaped slaves, debtors of the state, criminals. The infrastructure of many cultic places made possible a longer period of refuge (e.g. Ephesus: the Artemision; Perachora, near Corinth: Heraion). This norm was criticized (Thuc. 4.98.6; Philostr., Epistulae Apollonii 65), and was not always accepted by the Romans in particular cases, but the fundamental right was not challenged. In 22 ce, the Roman senate confirmed the right of only fourteen sanctuaries to offer asylum; most of these were in Asia Minor (Tacitus, Annales 3.60–63 and 4.14.1). This ruling remained in force until the banning of all non-Christian cults in the late 4th century ce. The churches’ right to offer asylum had to be newly codified (see III below). The shrine of Diana on the Aventine was recognized as the place of refuge for Roman plebeians. Even in the 2nd century ce, the priest of the Latin shrine of Diana on Lake Nemi was an escaped slave who had killed his predecessor (Pausanias 2.27.4; Strab. 5.12). However, in general Roman law did not integrate asylum or protection by shrines, temples, and emperors’ statues into the legal system. The protection of asylum ranks behind the claims of third parties and is allowed only in emergencies (unjust persecution by the “more powerful”: Digesta 48.19.28.7, around 200 ce). E. Schlesinger, “Die griechische Asylie,” diss. 1933 ◆ P. Gauthier, Symbola, 1972 ◆ A. Wacke, “Die Potentiores in den Rechtsquellen,” ANRW II 13, 1980, 562–607 ◆ P. Herrmann, “Rom und die Asylie griechische Heiligtümer,” Chiron 19, 1989, 127–164 ◆ U. Sinn, “Das Heiligtum von Perachora,” MDAI.A 105, 1990, 53–116 ◆ G. Freyburger, “Le droit d’asile à Rome,” EtCl 60, 1992, 139–151. Jochen Derlien

Asylum III. Biblical The OT knows of asylum for those who kill unintentionally. In the OT asylum may have developed, as elsewhere, as the suspension of the profane sphere (the law of → Blood Revenge) in holy space, and not as sanctification of the seeker of asylum (thus Milgrom); it therefore included the forbidding of profane actions (e.g. killing) in a sacral space. The OT allows asylum only in the case of unintentional killing, which implies a distinction between deliberate and inadvertent (Exod 21:12–14; Num 35:15–29; Deut 19:4–13; Josh 20:3–5; 1 Kgs 2:32) and an appropriate legal process for establishing intention (Deut 19:12; Josh 20:4; presupposed also in Exod 21:13–14). In cases where guilt is established, the right to asylum is lost (Deut 19:11–13; 1 Kgs 2:29–31). Sacred and profane law are inextricably bound together in the right of asylum. The cities of refuge (→ Shechem) probably harboured ancient temples with a right of asylum. Exodus 21:12–14; 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28–30 show that the altar was of particular significance as a place of asylum. Although some of the rules about asylum and refuge appear utopian, a right of asylum was probably practiced in reality. Its aim was to control blood revenge and to create a place of exile within the homeland which could replace a flight into another country. Num 35:25 states that the right of blood revenge ends with the death of the → high priest, by which the compulsory period in asylum was limited. Num 35; Deut 4; 19; Josh 20f.; 1 Chr 6 know only of cities which can offer asylum, and not sanctuaries. This can probably be explained by the deuteronomic centralizing of the cult (late 7th cent.) which eliminated the sanctuaries of Judah, thus making profane places of refuge necessary (Deut 19:6). Asylum is discussed in the laws (Exod 21:12–14; Num 35:9–34; Deut 19:1–13), histories (1 Kgs 1:50–53; 2:28–34), and lists of cities of refuge (Deut 4:41–43; Josh 20–21; 1 Chr 6:39–66). Num 35:1–8; Josh 21; 1 Chr 6 relate the cities of refuge to the (48) Levitical cities. 1 Chr 6:42, 52 seems to see all Levitical cities as cities of refuge; otherwise there are six of them (Deut 4:41–43; Num 35:13–15; Josh 20:7f.; 21 [with vv. 36f. according to the LXX]): east of the Jordan, Golan (Baschan), Ramot (Gilead), Bezer (Ruben); to the west, Kadesh (Naphtali), Shechem, Hebron. Jerusalem is not included in this list, although it is probably to be understood as an asylum (1 Kgs 1f.; Pss 15:1; 57:2; 59:17f. etc.; 1 Macc 10:43). The NT recognizes no right of asylum, because the congregations did not practice blood revenge and had no autonomous law for dealing with manslaughter; instead they were subject to state law. M. Löhr, Das Asylwesen im Alten Testament, SKG 7.3, 1930 ◆ N.M. Nicolsky, “Das Asylrecht in Israel,” ZAW 48, 1930, 146–175 ◆ L. Delekat, Asylie und Schutzorakel am Zionheiligtum, 1967, 270–342 ◆ A.G. Auld, “Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition,” JSOT 10,

Atahualpa 1978, 26–40 ◆ J. de Vaulx, “Refuge,” DBS IV, 1979, 1480–1510 ◆ J. Milgrom, “Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum,” VT.S 32, 1981, 278–310 ◆ A. Rofé, “The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law,” ScrHie 31, 1986, 205–223 ◆ V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua, HAT I/7, 1994, 201–216. Adrian Schenker

IV. Law The right of states to offer asylum is protected by international law. The right of an individual to claim asylum is, however, recognized neither by international law nor – with very few exceptions – by the legal codes of individual states. Even in countries which do recognize the right of asylum to victims of political persecution, this right is often restricted if either the country of origin or the country through which the asylum seeker passed on his way to his final destination (and where he applies for asylum) is considered “safe.” In the face of worldwide political persecution, many church congregations in several countries have offered church buildings as “asylum” for refugees threatened with extradition. This practice is not governed by canon law. The right to asylum which was anchored in Canon 1179 CIC/1917 of the Roman Catholic Church is no longer found in the CIC of 1983. This change takes account of the fact that church asylum is no longer recognized in the legal system of any state. Church buildings have no special legal status and can be entered by the organs of the state in just the same way as all other buildings. Those who offer “church asylum” must therefore reckon with the legal consequences, which may include prosecution. H.-R. Reuter, “Kirchenasyl und staatliches Asylrecht,” H. Ehnes, “Asyl und kirchliches Handeln,” both in: G. Rau, H.-R. Reuter & K. Schlaich, eds., Das Recht der Kirche, III, 1994, 574–632. Heinrich de Wall

V. Ethics Asylum must be considered in terms of both human rights and international law; ethically it must be viewed in the context of world-wide → righteousness and justice. A liberal right of asylum recognizes the “right” of every person to basic rights, even if these are claimed against the government of that person’s own country (following the teaching of H. → Arendt): subjective or individual rights to which every person is entitled above any duty. The country which offers asylum thus anticipates the universal realization of human rights and offers human rights in behalf of the other country, which has failed to do so, and of the whole of humankind. Related to the problem of asylum are the problems of global → migration in response to civil war or economic or ecological problems, which have to be controlled by refugee status or by immigration law. As the right to asylum in several countries is becoming more restricted, difficult questions of justice must

474 again be asked. If asylum is to be accepted worldwide and be applied equitably, it remains undesirable that asylum status toleration of residence in another country can be granted only to those who have managed to complete their journey, while the same rights are refused to many others. This fact could be used to justify intervention in countries which deny human rights. This possibility would lose legitimacy if Walzer’s theory that different concepts of justice are valid in different spheres were allowed to weaken the universal validity of principles of justice. In that case, it would have to be clarified whether, and under what conditions, asylum-seekers could be understood to belong to the sphere which grants a right of asylum. This could result in different rules for different refugees. Western philosophy and Christianity teach that comprehensive rules of justice can be valid only if they are accompanied by an awareness of equity (the justice of particular cases as → epiky (epikeia)). So it is essential that each case be treated on its own merits; alongside asylum there must exist the possibility of a regulated (!) toleration of residence. Even then, the problem remains that millions of people might legitimately put forward a similar claim, but not be able to have it recognized. The law of asylum thus confronts religions with the question whether they wish to recognize or establish norms which apply to all people, like → natural law. Such arguments assume a viewpoint from outside the particular religious situation. They demand that the concepts of religion and reason offer perspectives on universal human rights. Parallel to this orientation, supra-national institutions must develop, with the task of ensuring human rights for those persecuted (and for refugees) in the political and legal systems of their home countries. H. Arendt, Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft, 1955, 31993 ◆ O. Kimminich, Grundprobleme des Asylrechts, 1983 ◆ Kommission der EKD für Ausländerfragen und ethnische Minderheiten, Flüchtlinge und Asylsuchende in unserem Lande, 1986 ◆ A. Hartmann & I. Nordmann et al., eds., Deutschsprachige Literatur zu Flucht und Asyl, 1992 ◆ C. Tomuschat, ed., Menschenrechte, 1992 ◆ M. Walzer, Sphären der Gerechtigkeit, 1992, repr. 1998 ◆ W.-D. Just, ed., Asyl von unten, 1993 ◆ R. Rorty, Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, 1993 ◆ C. Taylor, Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”, 1992 ◆ W. Huber, Gerechtigkeit und Recht, 1996 ◆ H.-R. Reuter, Rechtsethik in theologischer Perspektive, 1996. Christofer Frey

Atahualpa (c. 1503, probably Quito – Jul 26, 1533, Cajamarca) was the last free ruler of the Inca. At the time of the Spanish conquest of the Inca empire, he had just emerged victorious from a war (1527–1532) with his half brother Huáscar over the succession to the throne. The conquistadors derived a strategic advantage from the disunity of the → Inca as well as from the tenuous loyalty of the rural population. On Nov 16, 1532, F. → Pizarro took Atahualpa captive in Cajamarca, after the latter had responded with dislike and incomprehen-

475 sion to the tokens of fealty (conquistadors’ proclamation, cross, Bible) presented to him by Fray Vicente de Valverde (c. 1500–1541). Atahualpa was promised his freedom in exchange for a great quantity of gold. Once the gold was in the hands of the Spanish, he was condemned to death for fomenting an alleged conspiracy. He accepted baptism, because it meant that he would be strangled rather than being burned to death. F. de Xérez, Verdadera relación de la conquista del Perú, 1534, repr. 1985. Paulo Günter Süss

Atargatis, goddess of heaven and fertility, whose cult is attested from the end of the 4th century bce and was spread through Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Thence, under the name “Dea Syria,” the goddess spread westward, assimilated to Hera, → Aphrodite, → Athena, → Artemis, and other goddesses, and successfully advanced into the Roman Empire. The divine name derives from the fusion of → Anath and → Astarte. Her chief sanctuary was in the northern Syrian → Hierapolis (Mabbug), where the goddess was venerated alongside the weather god Zeus-Hadad. The sanctuary (of the asylum type) was associated with a fishpond (carp, which were sacred to the goddess). Sources concerning Atargatis include inscriptions and literary texts (esp. → Lucian of Samosata, 2nd cent. ce, De Syria Dea). We know the iconography (often similar to that of Cybele) through coins, terracotta figurines, and sculptures. She appears as mother goddess, giver and protectress of life, wealth, and fertility, Lady of the Animals, city patroness (Tyche) of Hierapolis and other Syro-Mesopotamian centers. Purification rites and special prohibitions (such as the prohibition against killing living beings or against consumption of certain foods) characterized her cult, and her worshipers practiced ritual castration. Sources: P.-L. van Berg, Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae 1. Les sources littéraires, I–II, EPRO 28, 1972 ◆ On Atargatis: R.A. Oden, Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea, HSM 15, 1977 ◆ M. Hörig, Dea Syria: Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien, AOAT 208, 1979 ◆ H.J.W. Drijvers, “Dea Syria,” LIMC III, 1983, 355–358. Paolo Xella

Atatürk, Mustafa Kemâl (1881, Saloniki – Nov 10, 1938, Istanbul), “father of the Turks.” The prestige he won in the battles of the Dardanelles (1915) permitted him to take the leadership of the Anatolian resistance (the National Congresses of Erzurum and Sivas in 1919) after the cease-fire and to reestablish the sovereignty of his country (Treaty of Lausanne, 1923). Some of Atatürk’s cultural reforms continued projects from the Young Turks, but went significantly beyond them: adoption of the Swiss civil code in 1926, withering of Islamic institutions. An amendment in 1928 struck the sentence, “The religion of the Turkish state is Islam,” from the text of the constitution of 1924. Religious

Athanasius instruction in public schools was not prohibited after 1930, but was de facto eliminated. Additional reform measures dealt with the abolition of the Arabic script (1928) and the Turkization of the Islamic cult (call to prayer, Friday sermon). J.M. Landau, Atatürk and the Modernization of Turkey, 1984. ◆ A. Mango, ed., Atatürk, 1999 Klaus Kreiser

Athanasian Symbol → Symbolum Quicumque Athanasius Athanasius (299?, Alexandria – May 2, 373, Alexandria) I. Life – II. Works – III. Influence

I. Life Athanasius was one of the most influential figures in the 4th-century Christian church. It is likely that he came from a relatively humble background, as he shows few signs of classical education. He seems to have been taken into the episcopal household at Alexandria at a young age, and he first emerged as assistant and deacon to Bishop → Alexander of Alexandria at the start of the controversy around the teachings of → Arius. The encyclical letter, the “Henós s\ōmatos” (ἑνὸς σώματος, named after its opening words), sent out under the name of Bishop Alexander shortly before the Council of Nicea, is almost certainly the work of Athanasius, who accompanied Alexander to the Council in 325. The condemnation of Arius’s theology at → Nicea gave him the basis for his entire later career as a theologian and polemicist. He never wavered in his support for the Council’s decrees, though in later life he was more prepared to be flexible about the exact interpretation of its terminology. In 328 he succeeded Alexander in the see of Alexandria. His election was opposed by powerful circles in the Egyptian church, on the grounds that he had not yet reached the canonical age (30) for office as a bishop. More probably, though, he was already recognized as an intransigent personality, and was the cause of anxiety to those in Egypt who had been at odds with the episcopal administration in earlier years. This was especially the case for the “separatists” led by Bishop → Melitius of Lycopolis. The Melitians appear to have elected a rival bishop, and the continuing schism caused Athanasius many severe problems. In his early years in office, he traveled widely in Egypt and Libya to consolidate his authority. He was subsequently accused of using violence and intimidation to silence opponents. Accusations of this sort, combined with Athanasius’s rigorous refusal to readmit Arius to communion and so compromise his commitment to the Nicene formularies, led to an increasingly widespread campaign for his censure and deposition. In 335 a council at Tyre accepted the charges against him, on the basis

Athanasius of evidence from a commission of enquiry dominated by Athanasius’s opponents, and had him deposed. The emperor later ratified this decision by exiling him to Gaul, though he declined to permit the appointment of a successor. On Constantine’s death in 337, Athanasius returned to his see, and a council in Alexandria issued a full rebuttal of the accusations made earlier. However, his enemies were still strong, and the new emperor, → Constantius II, became increasingly hostile to him. In 339 he was again deposed and exiled, and replaced by Gregory of Cappadocia. This period of exile was spent in Rome, where Athanasius successfully won the lasting support and friendship of Pope Julius. A council at Serdica (→ Homoeans), convened by Constans, the emperor of the West, restored him, and he returned to Alexandria. The death of Constans in 350 removed Athanasius’s most powerful protector. Although his position in Egypt was stronger than ever, the influence of anti-Nicene bishops on Constantius made him vulnerable. In 356 he fled from Alexandria to escape arrest, and spent nearly five years in hiding – mostly among the monastic communities of Upper Egypt, which were consistently loyal to him. He was replaced in Alexandria by another Cappadocian, George. Many of Athanasius’s important polemical works date from this period. During these years, he began to work toward a new consensus on doctrinal matters, seeking to isolate the most extreme opponents of Nicea and to persuade the bulk of conservative bishops that only the Nicene formula offered adequate protection against a theology that radically separated God the Father from God the Son. At the same time he was prepared more than ever to countenance an interpretation of Nicea that stressed the distinctness of the divine persons – i.e. to allow a somewhat “pluralistic” interpretation of the Nicene doctrine of identity of substance between Father and Son. He also composed an important series of letters (to Bishop → Serapion of Thmuis) on the divine status of the Holy Spirit, in response to assertions of the creaturely nature of the Spirit. When Constantius died in 361, to be succeeded by the pagan Julian, Athanasius returned to Alexandria (the intruder George had been murdered by the Alexandrian mob) and held a synod which provided the base for a wider coalition in support of Nicea. Although Julian issued a fresh order of banishment against him, he did not have to leave the city for long; Julian’s death in 363 gave him occasion to return, and, apart from a brief period from October 365 to February 366, when the Eastern emperor Valens attempted to implement afresh the sentences of exile issued under Constantius, Athanasius remained in office in his native city until his death in 373.

476 II. Works Scholars remain divided over the date of the two treatises Against the Pagans and On the Incarnation. Since they do not mention the Arian dispute and reflect a fairly conventional apologetic theology, they are often dated very early, before 320. Others have placed them in the period of Athanasius’s first exile, or even in the years immediately after Nicea. The Discourses against the Arians were probably composed in the 340s in Rome. Several of his works – the Apology against the Arians, On the Opinion of Dionysius, On the Decrees of Nicaea, and On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, all from the late 340s and 50s – preserve documentation of the history of the doctrinal disputes of the age. The Apology to Constantius and the History of the Arians (late 350s) represent his controversial style at its most powerful and satirical. The Letters to Serapion (late 350s), the Epistula Catholica, and the Pamphlet for the Antiochenes summarize his most mature doctrinal thinking. The Festal Letters, the bishop’s Easter discourses for the faithful, distributed throughout his entire diocese, are important sources for chronology as well as theology. Apart from several other letters to individuals and groups, the Life of Antonius (→ Anthony, Saint) was attributed early on to Athanasius. III. Influence Athanasius’s defense of Nicea prompted him to develop a more profound explanation of the church’s confession of the one God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the crucial Nicene term “homooúsios” (ὁμοούσιος) is surprisingly seldom discussed or defended, especially in his earlier works, his theology in, for example, the Discourses against the Arians, takes for granted a strong doctrine of the unity of the divine action as performed by three interdependent agents. If an action – like the re-creation of the human world by the saving work of Christ – is divine in its scope and freedom, the agent – the Son or Word of God – must also be divine. The same argument is applied to the Spirit in the Letters to Serapion. The co-eternity of Father and Son is established by an argument often used by earlier Alexandrian theologians (→ Alexandrian theology): if God is truly Father, and if what we say of God is eternally true, there must be an eternal Son. All later Christian theology of God as Trinity takes up Athanasius’s argumentation. He may even be said to have a more nuanced account of the divine unity in diversity than some later Greek theologians such as the Cappadocian Fathers (→ Cappadocian theology), and to anticipate → Augustine of Hippo. Athanasius’s other most lasting achievement was to link the authority of the episcopal office with the spiritual authority of the monastic movement. This had a dual effect. It strengthened the standing of the episco-

477

Atheism

pate over secular (imperial) authority by appealing to a direct divine validation of church order, an order not answerable even to a Christian monarch. It also prevented the monastic movement from becoming an elite, that separated itself from the Christian laity and their pastors. The alliance he developed with the see of Rome was also to have a considerable impact upon the history of the Egyptian church and its neighbors in the century after his death.

P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athos-Klöster, 1894, repr. 1965 ◆ J. Noret, ed., Vitae duae antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, 1982 ◆ idem, “La vie la plus ancienne d’Athanase l’Athonite confrontée à d’autres vies de saints,” AnBoll 103, 1985, 243–252. Heinz Ohme

Works: CPG 2, 2090–2228, 2230–2309 ◆ PG 25–28 ◆ H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius’ Werke, II.1, III.1, 1934, 1941 ◆ On Athanasius: W. Schneemelcher, “Athanasius von Alexandrien als Theologe und als Kirchenpolitiker,” ZNW 43, 1950–1951, 242–256 ◆ E. Schwarz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. III, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, 1959 ◆ T.D. Barnes, Athanasius und Constantius, 1993 ◆ D. Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, 1995 ◆ C. Butterweck, ed., Athanasius von Alexandrien: Bibliographie, 1995 ◆ A. Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’église d’Egypte au IV ème siècle, 1996, 328–373. Rowan D. Williams

I. Religious Studies 1. Preliminary Considerations. “Atheism” is a Latinized term, current since the end of the 16th century, meaning disbelief in God. It derives from Gk ἄθεός/ átheós (alpha privative), literally “without God.” This historical background with its specifically European connotation must be kept in mind in any investigation of analogous tendencies in non-European cultures to avoid overhasty identification with modern atheism. Atheism as an object of religious scholarship surfaces primarily as a question concerning atheistic elements in the history of religions; it is therefore necessary to begin with a concept of religion that includes non-theistic religions. In practice students of religion encounter forms of atheism (or a-theism) that partially overlap: (a) atheism in the sense of a purely secular (often materialistic) worldview (practical atheism); (b) atheism as denial of the existence of a supreme god, often supported by rationalistic or religious arguments (atheism or religious atheism); and (c) criticism of specific forms taken by the idea of gods or God (antitheism or relative atheism). Absolute atheism, a blanket denial of the numinous, does not fall within the domain of religion. 2. Archaic Civilizations. Today it is clear that there is no reason to postulate a period without religion at the dawn of human history. We note that modern tribal religions also invariably assume the existence of higher beings. From the beginnings of written tradition (texts since c. 2200 bce), the history of religions has displayed a not insignificant bent toward pessimism and skepticism (see M. → Eliade and Ley). In the context of a worldview fundamentally dominated by deities, this religious doubt, albeit sometimes powerful, could never lead to non-theism, but it does view the power of the particular gods in question or even the supreme god as limited. 3. Atheism and A-theism in Religions and Religious Philosophies. Skepticism regarding the gods themselves is a possibility that surfaced in the cultures of India, China, and Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries bce. a. India. (α) Orthodox schools. Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, → Sāákhya is explicitly atheistic: it traces the universe dualistically to the eternal principles of matter ( prak‰ti) and soul or spirit (purußa) without a need for any god. The ritualistic → Mīmāásā school explicitly argues against theism.

Athanasius of Antioch. Athanasius was the “Jacobite” patriarch of Antioch from 594 to 631 (→ Syria V ). In 615/16 he ended a schism with the Coptic church that had lasted for decades. In 629, after the victory of the Byzantine emperor → Heraclius over the Persians, he achieved union with the → Monophysites in the Persian Empire; the “(Great) Metropolitan” of Tagrit became the head of their church and the representative of the patriarch. Negotiations with Emperor Heraclius at Hierapolis-Mabbug concerning union with the church of the Byzantine Empire (630), however, broke down because the Syrians refused to accept his monenergetic and monotheletic (→ Monergism, → Monotheletism) theology. Athanasius wrote a biography of → Severus of Antioch. A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 1922, 185f. ◆ W. Hage, Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche, 1966, 24f., 65, 78f., etc. ◆ A. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, vol. II, 1976, 187–208 ◆ T. Orlandi, “Athanasius of Antioch,” in: A.S. Atiya, ed., The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. I, 1991, 304 ◆ J.M. Fiey, “Syriaques occidentaux du ‘Pays des Perses,’” ParOr 17, 1992, 113–126. Hubert Kaufhold

Athanasius the Athonite (c. 925, Trebizond – c. 1001, Athos; Orthodox saint, feast day Jul 5). Athanasius was the founder of cenobitic → monasticism on Mount → Athos. After studying and teaching in Constantinople, he became a monk at Mount Kymina in Bithynia in c. 952. Critically important was his acquaintance with the later emperor Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969), himself an ascetic. Athanasius became his spiritual advisor. With the emperor’s patronage and financial support, Athanasius broke with the tradition of solitary monasticism on Mount Athos and built the first cenobitic monastery there (Megiste Laura) in 962/963. His rules (Typicon, Hypotyposis, Diatyposis) reflect the ideals of → Basil the Great and → Theodore of Studios.

Atheism I. Religious Studies – II. Church History – III. Philosophy of Religion – IV. Practical Theology – V. Missiology

Atheism For → Vedānta, its sister school, → Brahman ultimately grounds the unity of all that exists, making all differences less crucial and the notion of a personal god superfluous. (β) Heterodox philosophical movements. The most important unorthodox school of nonreligious philosophy was that of the Cārvākas (followers of Cārvāka), later synonymous with the system of materialism or Lokāyata, which focused on the material world (loka); this school taught that all knowledge and pleasure comes through the direct sensory perception. A doctrinal treatise (Lokāyataśāstra) setting forth these beliefs, probably published c. 300 bce, is no longer extant. This movement combined theoretical materialism with an approach to life resembling practical atheism. (γ) A-theistic religions. The situation differs in the case of religions originating in the ascetic movements of the 6th century bce and opposed to the cult of the → Brahmins, in particular → Jainism and → Buddhism. The Jains teach that the world is eternal and imperishable; they reject the existence of a supreme being on the basis of many arguments, some of which attempt with particular vigor to point out logical difficulties entailed by the theistic belief in creation, including the problem of theodicy. The existence of gods is conceded, but they, too, are subject to → karma, so that their power is limited. Buddhism takes a comparable position. The assumption of a creator god is everywhere denied, even in the theistic schools of → Mahāyāna Buddhism (e.g. Buddha → Amitābha). This specifically atheistic position is often emphasized by representatives of Zen (e.g. Hisamatsu) in dialogue with the West. b. China. For → Confucius the veneration of Heaven (T’ien) as the supreme power remained central, despite skeptical reserve in making concrete statements concerning the gods (Lun yü 6.20; 11.11). → Lao Tsu takes as given the ineffability of the → Tao, the primal reality that permeates all being; as “mother of the world” it precedes heaven and earth and stands above the gods (→ Tao te Ching 1; 4; 25). This non-theistic or meta-theistic mode of thought understands all that has taken place without recourse to a personal god. Yang Chu (4th cent. bce) taught a practical nonreligious worldview. Though starting with the Tao as a fundamental cosmological principle, he arrived at a purely secular understanding of life, focused on sensory pleasure; survival after death, like all otherworldly realities, he considered illusory. c. Ancient Greece. In Greece at about the same time, there were philosophical critics of theism (e.g. → Socrates and → Protagoras), who were attacked for atheism. Criticism of religion was sometimes expressed in poetry (e.g. Critias). There were also explicitly materialistic philosophers (Leucippus, → Democritus). 4. Intercultural Comparison and Broader Perspectives. In contrast to India and China, the response

478 of popular religion in the Greek polis and later of the official Roman religion to a-theistic critics was often violent suppression, banishment, and even execution. This politicized conflict came to shape Western religious history and led ultimately to the present polarization of theistic religion on the one hand and atheistic nonreligiosity on the other. But the history of Eastern religions in particular demonstrates that religiosity and a-theism or non-theism need not be mutually exclusive. Encounter with such religions could bring a new perspective to the theological debate with modern atheism, which – unlike religious atheism – seeks simply to deny the numinous. J.F. Reimann, Historia universalis atheismi et atheorum falso et merito suspectorum, 1725, ed. W. Schröder, 1992 ◆ P. Riepe, The Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought, 1961 ◆ H. von Glasenapp, Der Buddhismus: eine atheistische Religion, 1966; ET: Buddhism: a Non-theistic Religion, 1966 ◆ T. Vetter, “Atheistic and Theistic Tendencies in Buddhism,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 6, 1966, 76–85 ◆ H. Ley, Geschichte der Aufklärung und des Atheismus, 3 vols. in 4, 1966–1978 ◆ W. Burkert, Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche, 1977; ET: Greek Religion, 1985 ◆ M. Eliade, Geschichte der religiösen Ideen, 1981, 418–442 ◆ J. Figl, StL 1, 1985, 380–389 ◆ A. Leroi-Gourhan, Les religions de la préhistoire, 51986 ◆ G.A. James, EncRel(E) I, 1987, 479–490 ◆ H. Zinser, “Religionskritik,” HRWG I, 1988, 310–318 ◆ G. Stein, God Pro and Con: a Bibliography of Atheism, 1990 ◆ S. Hisamatsu, Philosophie des Erwachens: Satori und Atheismus, 1990. Johann Figl

II. Church History 1. Ancient and Medieval Period. In the Roman world, all who refused to participate in the official cult of the gods were called átheoi; in the Middle Ages, the term was applied to everyone who denied the Trinitarian God (e.g. Muslims). 2. Post-Reformation Period. R. → Descartes made doubt a methodological principle, but restored the notion of God to absolute certainty within the framework of his cogito. Because of his principle of doubt, Descartes was viewed as an implicit atheist by G. → Voetius and T. → Spizel. B. → Spinoza developed an objectivism that ruled out the idea of a personal god distinct from the world (pantheism). P. → Poiret concluded succinctly: the God of Spinoza is insufficiens & ita Spinoza Atheus est (277f.). Taken as a whole, early Protestant → apologetics is largely devoted to outraged polemic against atheism, especially in the case of Johann → Müller, who brands agnostics as atheists, as well as all who deny God’s providence (especially deists) or do not acknowledge the true God, those who deny Christ (and hence the Trinitarian God), immortality, judgment, and hell, and those who mock the Word of God (satirical atheism). The antidote is primarily an appeal to Scripture. G. → Arnold categorizes “naturalists, deists and latitudinarians” as “atheists.” J.F. Buddeus distinguishes four main (philosophical) types of atheism: (a) the Aristotelian position that the

479 world is eternal, (b) the Epicurean denial of providence and freedom, (c) Stoic determinism, and (d) Spinozistic pantheism. 3. Modern Period. a. Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians. Subsequent developments were greatly influenced by I. → Kant’s critique of the proofs of God’s existence (Critique of Pure Reason, 1781/1787) and Schleiermacher’s anti-rationalist reformulation of the nature of religion (Reden, 1799; ET: On Religion, 1988). In France atheism became socially acceptable (used as early as 1770 by P.H.D. von → Holbach as a positive term for his own position). The work of L. → Feuerbach gave it an anthropological foundation; he believed that the intention of his critique of theological dogma conformed to the essence of religion. He wanted his atheism to be understood as a “restoration of authentic Christianity” (to wit as humanism). He criticized G.W.F. → Hegel’s theory of the → absolute, which interpreted atheism as a necessary stage in its self-development. In his major work The Essence of Christianity (1841), Feuerbach was concerned to demonstrate that anthropology is the true essence of theology. Thus he attempted to challenge the notion of God through argumentation, not contesting the reasonableness of the religious interpretation of the world in principle. He argued, however, that this interpretation suffered from a fundamental error: it did not recognize its own projective and illusory nature (cf. S. → Freud ; already in 1798 J.G. → Fichte had criticized the notion of a personal God as a projection). For Feuerbach, God’s nonexistence was a consequence of the demonstration that theological statements are meaningful only immanently and anthropologically. What made his critique of religion possible was on the one hand the advent of subjectivism, which philosophically reflects the entire content of religious faith in the mirror of religious self-awareness, and on the other the reversal of the absolute in the sense of Hegel, so that the finite comprehends itself in the context of its own infinitude (as a generic being). Feuerbach’s “pious atheism” (M. → Stirner) does not destroy the meaningfulness of religion in toto but declares instead that mankind is now the “criterion” and “essence of God.” God does not exist, since God is only the hypostatization (Vergegenständlichung) of the human essence. Stirner criticized Feuerbach’s atheism because it leads humanity to be whelmed by theology and the individual to be dissolved in a notionally infinite generic being. The “forced evacuation of Heaven” imposes a theological overload on the human individual (Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum, 35). K. → Marx also criticized Feuerbach (Theses on Feuerbach, 1845), but for failing to analyze the religious disposition in the context of its socio-economic setting (as an ensemble of social settings); his critique of religion therefore necessarily remained an abstract philosophy of

Atheism the individual instead of advancing to an ideological critique of society. Marx assumed, wrongly, that criticism of religion (in Germany) had essentially come to an end with Feuerbach (Kritik, Introduction). Nietzsche’s atheism, with its radical critique of religion, had not yet appeared on the horizon; seen in its light, Marx himself was still mired in Judeo-Christian theology (secularized eschatology, the leitmotiv of eschatological reconciliation in the kingdom of freedom). b. Jean Paul and Nietzsche. It remained for F. → Nietzsche to conceive a radical atheism in which the self-determined individual makes the death of God the basis of his self-conception. Even before Nietzsche, the notion of the death of God had already led to a radicalization in the mood of atheism in → Jean Paul’s “Speech of the Dead Christ from the Top of the Universe” (Siebenkäs, 1796). Christ himself stands as witness and surety for atheism: as a dead man, he proclaims to his peers (in a dream) the nonexistence of God. Here atheism does not reflect the aporia of God’s conceivableness (consistency of the notion of God) but the experience of God’s absence against the background of mortality. It remained for Nietzsche to radicalize atheism in a way that has not been outdone since, by refusing to understand the notion of God as a meaningful projection. The basis of the new freedom is the “second innocence” (Genealogie II 20) achieved by the death of God. But the message of the death of God has gone largely unheard and (especially with respect to its implications) uncomprehended. God has been slain completely, but “we must still defeat his shadow” (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, III 108). Atheism is not fully achieved until the “putrefying remains” of the corpse have been removed (ibid. 125) – i.e. until the roots of the notion of God have been totally eradicated from our understanding of ourselves and the world. G. Voet (Voetius), Disputationum theologicarum ex posteriori parte theologiae, vigesimae-primae, de atheismo, 4 vols., 1639 ◆ T. Grossgessbauer, Praeservatif wider die Pest der heutigen Atheisten, 1661 ◆ J. Müller, Atheismus devictus, 1672 ◆ P. Poiret, Petri Poiret Cogitationum rationalium de deo, anima, et malo libri quatuor, 4 vols., 1677 ◆ C. Kortholt, Christiani Kortholti De tribus impostoribus magnis liber, 1680 ◆ G. Arnold, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, 2 vols., 1699, 31729, repr. 1967, 1071–1088 ◆ V.E. Löscher, Val. Ernesti Loescheri . . . Praenotiones theologicae contra naturalistarum et fanaticorum omne genus, atheos, deistas, indifferentistas, anti-scripturarios, & c., 1708 ◆ J.F. Buddeus, Ioan. Francisco Budddei . . . Theses theologicae de atheismo et superstitione variis observationibus illustratae et in usum recitationum academicarum editae, 1717 ◆ K. Marx, Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, 1844; ET: Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right”, 1970 ◆ M. Stirner, Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum, 1845, repr. 1972; ET: The Ego and Its Own, 1995 ◆ F. Nietzsche, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, 1882; ET: The Gay Science, 2001 ◆ idem, Zur Genealogie der Moral, 1887; ET: On the Genealogy of Morals, 1997 ◆ F. Mauthner, Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte im Abendlande, 4 vols, 1920–1923, repr. 1963 ◆ K. Löwith, Von Hegel zu Nietzsche, 1941, repr. 1995; ET: From Hegel to Nietzsche, 1964, repr. 1991 ◆ W. Pannenberg, “Typen

Atheism des Atheismus und ihre theologische Bedeutung” (1963), in his: Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, vol. I, 1967, 347–360; ET: “Types of Atheism and Their Theological Significance,” in his: Basic Questions in Theology, vol. II, 1971, 184–200 ◆ H. Gollwitzer, Die marxistische Religionskritik und der christliche Glaube, 1965, 71981; ET: The Christian Faith and the Marxist Criticism of Religion, 1970 ◆ C.H. Ratschow, Gott existiert, 1966 ◆ W. Trutwin, ed., Gespräch mit dem Atheismus, 1970, 161988 ◆ H.-M. Barth, Atheismus und Orthodoxie, 1971 ◆ F.W. Kantzenbach, Religionskritik der Neuzeit, 1972 ◆ H.-M. Barth, Atheismus: Geschichte und Begriff, 1973 ◆ H. Küng, Existiert Gott? 1978, 22001, 221–380; ET: Does God Exist? 1980, repr. 1991 ◆ R.H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, 1979 ◆ M. Weinrich, ed., Religionskritik in der Neuzeit, 1985 ◆ H. & I. Pepperle, eds., Die Hegelsche Linke, 1985 ◆ M. Winiarczyk, Bibliographie zum antiken Atheismus, 17. Jahrhundert– 1990, 1994. Walter R. Dietz

III. Philosophy of Religion From the perspective of the philosophy of religion, it is helpful to distinguish between speculative and therapeutic atheism. Speculative atheism can cite the weaknesses of the grounds for belief in God (such as the proofs of God’s existence) or posit non-theistic explanations for the existence of the world or the origin of life from matter. Speculative atheism can also accept existentially that there is no explanation of why things are as they are and not otherwise. Therapeutic atheism seeks to explain the genetic, psychological, or sociological mechanisms that lead to a belief in God and to obviate the need for such a belief by treating its causes. Highly diverse arguments have been put forward in support of atheism: belief in God has no rational justification; it is incompatible with the actual state of the world, morally objectionable, unnecessary in the light of scientific progress, linguistically incoherent; it can be understood as a projection of human fears and desires, as a tool to legitimate political claims to power; or it is nothing more than a pitiful protest against human misery, pain, and injustice. Each of these grounds for rejection is parasitical on the understanding of the God whose existence is challenged. In other words: there are as many varieties of atheism as there are understandings of God to be contested. Defenders of belief in God have tried various ways to rebut speculative and therapeutic atheism: by increasing the rigor of the traditional proofs of the → existence of God, by criticizing the reductionist foundations of therapeutic atheism, or by challenging the foundationalism of speculative atheism. Some 20th-century theologies consider atheism a justified protest against traditional understandings of God, a view more recently extended and amplified by the perspective of feminism. In the 1960s, a small group of so-called “radical theologians” propagated the concept of a → God-is-Dead Theology or “Christian atheism.” Their postmodern successors include Mark C. Taylor and Don Cupitt. Polemic presentations of the history of atheism

480 for the purpose of exposing and correcting its errors first appeared at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th. A favorable account of the history of atheism was introduced in the 19th century by → Positivism, which assumed that traditional (i.e. theistic) myths would be progressively overcome and replaced throughout the world by scientific (i.e. atheistic) explanations. Most recent scholarly presentations of atheism are still extensively influenced by this viewpoint. From the perspective of most 20th-century historiography, which celebrates the triumph of modernity, atheism is a natural result of the recovery of Classical learning and a world-affirming attitude during the Renaissance, the freedom of the individual conscience exalted by the Reformation, and the practice of rational acquisition of knowledge through experimental methods and mathematical formulation of its results in the scientific revolution. According to this account, the cumulative effect of these elements during the Enlightenment cut the ground from under traditional theism with its belief in miracles and providence, revealed moral authority, divine judgment, and immortality, laying the foundations for a new approach to explaining natural phenomena and organizing human society without recourse to the intervention of God. Recent studies in social and cultural history as well as the history of science have extensively undermined the presentation offered by earlier histories of atheism. New evidence indicates that the skeptical attitude of the Renaissance was based more on a piety critical of the power of reason than on an attitude of hostility or indifference toward religion. The liberty of conscience that the Reformers espoused went hand in hand with faith. The origins of the “modern” natural sciences are being traced back increasingly to the Middle Ages, and their motivation is seen in a profound religious endeavor to understand the work and will of God, who created and governs this world. In this reconstruction of the Early Modern period, atheism has scarcely any place (Febvre). Paradoxically, the possibility of a rational atheism appears to be rooted in the efforts of religious teachers and apologists seeking to defend the truth of orthodox belief (Brooke, Buckley, Kors, Hunter, Wootton). Missionary reports of atheists in distant lands shocked Europe, undermining the foundations of traditional belief in God and contributing to the collapse of arguments that presupposed a general assent to God’s existence. In Catholic France, bitter disputes between Thomists (→ Thomas Aquinas) and Cartesians (R. → Descartes) over the most appropriate form of proving the existence of God, coupled with the doubts of the Jansenists (→ Jansenism) concerning the epistemological claims of human reason, contributed to a growing skepticism regarding the foundations of theism in a cul-

481 ture that had come to the conclusion that clear proofs were necessary to justify belief in God. In Protestant cultures, where natural theology carried less weight, the result was that its ostensible collapse was far less significant for the public acceptance of belief in God. But their greater emphasis on the authority of Scripture and personal religious experience made Protestant cultures vulnerable to the corrosive effects of radical biblical criticism (H.S. → Reimarus) and the projection theory of belief in God (Feuerbach). In Great Britain, public confidence in the validity of cosmological proofs of God’s existence survived the skepticism of D. → Hume without difficulty. It was shaken, however, by the discoveries of C. → Darwin, which very recently have produced an especially self-confident form of atheism (Richard Dawkins). Any future presentation of atheism must be more nuanced conceptually and devote more attention to local contexts than has been customary in its philosophical treatment. L. Febvre, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, 1982 ◆ J.W. Yolton, Thinking Matter: Materialism in EighteenthCentury Britain, 1984 ◆ J.M. Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism, 1987 ◆ A.C. Kors & P.J. Korshin, eds., Anticipations of the Enlightenment in England, France, and Germany, 1987 ◆ D. Berman, The History of Atheism in Britain from Hobbes to Russell, 1988, 21990 ◆ J.E. Force, “The Origins of Modern Atheism,” JHI 50, 1989, 153–162 ◆ M. Martin, Atheism: a Philosophical Justification, 1990 ◆ A.C. Kors, Atheism in France, 1650–1729, 2 vols., 1990–1998 ◆ J.H. Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991 ◆ M. Hunter & D. Wootton, eds., Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, 1992 ◆ R.H. Popkin, The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thought, 1992 ◆ R.H. Popkin & A. Vanderjagt, eds., Scepticism and Irreligion in the 17th and 18th Centuries, 1993 ◆ V.A. Harvey, Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion, 1995 ◆ R.D. Lund, The Margins of Orthodoxy: Heterodox Writing and Cultural Response, 1660–1750, 1995. John Clayton

IV. Practical Theology 1. Atheism can be a theme of practical theology only in a specific context. As an example, the following discussion will use the situation in East Germany after the end of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1990. Practical theology reflects on the relationship of Christians and churches to people who call themselves atheists. The conceptual fuzziness of this atheism in comparison to → agnosticism, → indifference, free thought, and undenominationalism must be accepted for now; the form it takes in particular cases will be addressed later. 2. Propagated by ideological and administrative pressure on the part of the SED regime as well a long history of alienation from religion, by 1990 atheism had led to an unparallelled drop in church membership. Afterwards this divorce from the church was felt by many to be an “internalized forced conversion” (Neubert): atheism without its Marxist basis was now justified as an element of a scientific worldview; in contrast to common experi-

Atheism ence in West Germany, however, it was not part of the biography of emancipation of individuals. 3. The socio-religious interpretation of this type of atheism guides the Church’s action in the direction of social transformation: a new option for religion, the argument goes, depends on counterbalancing the deficient individualization typical of the East. Therefore the church must encourage the Western thrust toward individualization and emancipation (Neubert). But there is a contrary theological interpretation: Krötke views the atheism inherited from the GDR as going hand in hand with today’s general alienation from religion and speaks with F. → Schleiermacher of an (epochal) “oblivion of God.” The accompanying resignation exhibited by individuals in view of the impossibility of losing their own humanity, he maintains, can be overcome only by “living in the presence of God’s eternity.” The road to encounter with God does not lead through arbitrary (and rather unlikely) religious options chosen by socially liberated individuals but rather through an invitation to a resolute Christian life, extended by a community that worships God, which though a minority is even more important to society as a whole than the majority persisting in a vague accustomed atheism. 4. Given the prevalence of atheism, overt or covert, the church’s work in all its forms (communicative, argumentative, meditative) must counter the misapprehension that God is unworldly and the world ungodly. In numerous publications, Nipkow has discussed in exemplary fashion the importance of the question of God for education toward maturity. For preaching and pastoral care, we note Jenssen’s concern for the ministry of “intellectual service.” For pastoral sociology and congregational development, Jörns’ “virtualizations of God” can open new vistas. For worship it will be important to recover the ability to lament and to persist in specific and plausible intercession. For the pastoral offices, the critical point is not to maintain the church’s old monopoly but to make sure that they present the truth of human life under God’s guidance. H.-H. Jenssen, “Seelsorge an Zweifelnden,” HbSS, 1983, 495– 520 ◆ W. Krötke, Gottes Kommen und menschliches Verhalten, AVTRW 80, 1984 ◆ K.E. Nipkow, Erwachsenwerden ohne Gott? 1987 ◆ E. Neubert, “Gründlich ausgetrieben”: eine Studie zum Profil und zur psychosozialen, kulturellen und religiösen Situation von Konfessionslosigkeit in Ostdeutschland und den Voraussetzungen kirchlicher Arbeit (Mission), 1996 ◆ K.-P. Jörns, Die neuen Gesichter Gottes, 1997 ◆ W. Krötke, “Die christlichen Kirchen und der Atheismus,” in: M. Beintker et al., eds., Wege zum Einverständnis, FS Christoph Demke, 1997, 159–171 ◆ J. Henkys & F. Schweitzer, “Atheism, Religion and Indifference in the Two Parts of Germany,” Religion and the Social Order 7, 1997, 117–137. Jürgen Henkys

V. Missiology It is no longer generally assumed that the self-conception of the Christian faith and the apologetic presentation of

Atheism Controversy a (philosophical) theistic position are necessarily related. Therefore yesterday’s missiological interest in exposing “deficient” ideas of God is no longer prevalent. Today missiology reflects instead on specific profiles of atheistic thought and belief that challenge the Christian self-conception in order to lay the groundwork for fruitful missionary encounters. In the case of dialogue with Buddhism, interest in discussing that religion’s ostensibly “atheistic” constitution as a separate problem has abated. New approaches deal with such questions as whether a personal “absolute” is conceivable on the basis of Buddhist assumptions (K. → Takizawa, De Silva) or with identifying lessons that the Christian faith might derive from emphasis on the “emptiness” or “inability” of the absolute (Pieris). In the 1950s and 60s, when dialogue between Christianity and Marxism was a focus of missiological attention, it was emphasized repeatedly that Communist atheism, unlike traditional forms of atheism, confronted Christianity with a radical humanism that aimed not to repudiate the Christian faith as such but to free it from the dichotomy between atheism and theism that arose within the context of a bourgeois rationalist ideology ( J. → Hromádka, Gardavsky). In modern Western cultures, the many forms of culturally disseminated atheism, which might better be characterized as a “lack of God” (Waldenfels) than as a militant ideology, tolerate religion as long as it does not retreat to traditional theistic positions. Missiology can either reject this atheistic stance from the standpoint of the alternative rationality of the Christian message ( J.E.L. → Newbigin) or welcome it as an opportunity to reframe the “God question” beyond the traditional alternatives (e.g. Küng). A more fruitful focus for the missiological exploration of atheism is the question of the extent to which “religion” can “interrupt” the global discourse of atheistic rationality and what special role Christian “history” might play here in critical alliance with other religions. Viewed from this perspective, even a “Christian atheism” (Altizer, Cupitt) might have missiological significance. J. Hromadka, Evangelium für Atheisten, 1960, new ed. 1969 ◆ T.J.J. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism, 1966; rev. ed. The New Gospel of Christian Atheism, 2002 ◆ V. Gardavsky, Buh není zcela mrtev, 1967; ET: God Is Not Yet Dead, 1973 ◆ H. Küng, Existiert Gott? 1978; ET: Does God Exist? 1980, repr. 1991 ◆ L. De Silva, The Problem of Self in Buddhism and Christianity, 1979 ◆ D. Cupitt, Taking Leave of God, 1980, new ed. 2001 ◆ H. Waldenfels, Kontextuelle Fundamentaltheologie, 1985, 21988 ◆ L. Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: the Gospel and Western Culture, 1986 ◆ K. Takizawa, Das Heil im Heute, 1987 ◆ A. Pieris, Love Meets Wisdom: a Christian Experience of Buddhism, 1988. Bert Hoedemaker

Atheism Controversy. The atheism dispute was one of several religio-philosophical controversies in the early

482 phase of German → idealism – a dispute significant less for the actual issues involved than for its political repercussions. The immediate occasion of the controversy, set at the University of Jena in 1798–1799, was Friedrich Karl Forberg’s article “Entwicklung des Begriffs der Religion” [“Development of the concept of religion”], which J.G. → Fichte published in the Philosophisches Journal (edited jointly with F.J. → Niethammer), flanked by his own article “Über den Grund unseres Glaubens an eine göttliche Weltordnung” [“On the basis of our belief in a divine world order”]. The stigmatization of the articles as atheistic, led by the regimes of Electoral Saxony and Weimar, went hand in hand with a series of civil sanctions that escalated until Forberg and Niethammer were reprimanded and Fichte was dismissed from his Jena professorship in March of 1799. The bone of contention was Forberg’s attempt to argue on the basis of I. → Kant’s demonstration of God’s unknowableness that belief in God was a private matter and religion was identical with ethical conduct. According to Forberg, to have religion means to act “as if ” God’s existence were assured and proven. Opponents and supporters split over the Jena philosopher’s radical criticism of theism; from the knowledge that God is inaccessible to reason, Fichte’s philosophical adversaries argued that God could nevertheless be experienced in emotion and faith. Fichte, however, maintained the transcendence of God as an idea incompatible with → theism, which ascribes to God consciousness and personality. W. Röhr, ed., Appellation an das Publikum: Dokumente zum Atheismustreit um Fichte, Forberg, Niethammer, Jena 1798/99, 1987 ◆ idem, “Von der Offenbarungskritik zum Atheismusstreit,” in: Evolution des Geistes: Jena um 1800, ed. F. Strack, 1994, 460– 483. Lore Hühn

Athena (’Aθήνη/Ath¶nē, Athenaía). Many Greek poleis chose the goddess Athena (with the epiclesis Poliás) as their patron deity. Several cities, including Rome (where Athena was identified with Minerva), claimed to have secured her protection in the form of a portable statue ( palladion) at the time of their founding. In the internal social structure of the polis, Athena was chosen as goddess by different groups. (1) The armed Pállas was chosen by the male citizens as decisive force in ordered battle and as patron of the horse (a status symbol), but also by shipwrights and artisans. (2) The maiden Parthénos was chosen by girls before their (early) marriage. In the society of the gods, her association with Zeus is emphasized: he gives birth to her autarkically without sexual union with a woman, since she sprang from his forehead. Thus she also embodies intellect (m¶tis) in contrast to physical superiority. Her antagonist Poseidon usually loses his mythological contest with her for the worship of a polis. Her name and position in a complex

483 pantheon are already present in the Aegean religions (→ Aegean/Minoan/Mycenaean Religions). Her name appears in the archives of Knossos (Crete) as “Lady of Athana [toponym].” The Near Eastern armed goddess → Anath or → Ishtar probably provided the iconographic model for Athena. Homer, Od. I, 22, 205–494 ◆ Hesiod, Theog. 886–926 ◆ Livy V, 52, 7 ◆ P. Demargne, LIMC II/1, 1984, s.v. ◆ M. Detienne & J.P. Vernant, Les ruses d’intelligence: La métis des grecs, 1974 ◆ W. Burkert, Griechische Religion, RM 15, 1977, 220–225, 346–354 ◆ F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte, 1985, 44–49, 209–217 ◆ C. Auffarth, Der drohende Untergang, RVV 39, 1991, 493–501 ◆ G. Colbow, Die kriegerische Ištar, 1991. Christoph Auffarth

Athenagoras, Greek apologist (2nd half of 2nd cent.), is mentioned briefly only by → Methodius of Olympus (De resurrectione mortuorum I, 37, 1–3, with a fragment from Athenagoras’s Supplicatio) and → Philip of Side (in a confused passage copied by Theodorus Lector, GCS 54, 1971, 160). He describes himself as a Christian philosopher from Athens (Supplicatio, titulus, if authentic; he was clearly not the “head” of the Academy, as Philip claims). Whether this description indicates a philosophical education before his conversion is as uncertain as Philip’s claim that Athenagoras was the head of the Christian Didaskaleion of Alexandria. In the year 177 Athenagoras composed a Πρεσβεία περὶ χριστιαν«ν (Presbeía perí ChristianØn, supplicatio Legatio pro Christianis) addressed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. In form, it is an address to the emperor requesting that Christianity enjoy the same legal status as other cults (so that πρεσβεία probably means “petition” rather than “embassy”). In this well-constructed and rhetorically polished work, Athenagoras refutes successively charges of atheism, “Thyestean feasts” (cannibalism), and “Oedipodean intercourse” (incest). Tradition also ascribes to Athenagoras a work on the resurrection of the dead (Περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρ«ν, Perí anastáseōs nekr[ōn). Its authenticity is uncertain. It is a treatise in the form of a lecture, serving to demonstrate that the doctrine of the resurrection is reasonable (against polemic from philosophers and Gnostics). Athenagoras endeavors to harmonize philosophy and Christian theology. Philosophically he is an eclectic, drawing especially on the ideas of Stoicism and Middle Platonism, taken from handbooks. His interest in Christian theology appears in his reliance on both OT and NT, his doctrine of the Logos, the Trinity, and the resurrection, and his ethics. Works: CPG 1, 1070–1071 ◆ M. Marcovich, ed., PTS 31, 1990: Supplicatio ◆ B. Pouderon, ed., SC 379, 1992: Supplicatio, De resurrectione (text, French trans., notes); the editions of the Supplicatio differ in their paragraph numbering ◆ On Athenagoras: B. Pouderon, Athénagore d’Athènes, ThH 82, 1989 (bibl.) ◆ B.F. Harris, “The Defence of Christianity in Athenagoras’ Embassy,” JRH 15, 1989, 413–424 ◆ W. Kinzig,

Athens “Der ‘Sitz im Leben’ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche,” ZKG 100, 1989, 291–317 ◆ W.R. Schoedel, “Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities,” HTR 82, 1989, 55–78 ◆ B. Pouderon, “Apologetica: Encore sur l’authenticité du De resurrectione d’Athénagore,” RevScRel 67, 1993, 23–40; 68, 1994, 19–38; 69, 1995, 194–201; 70, 1996, 224–239 ◆ idem, “Athénagore chef d’école: À propos du témoignage de Philippe de Sidè,” StPatr 26, 1993, 167–176 ◆ idem, “Le De resurrectione d’Athénagore face à la gnose valentinienne,” RechAug 28, 1995, 145–183 ◆ N. Zeegers-Van der Vorst, “Adversaires et destinataires du De resurrectione attribué à Athénagore d’Athènes,” Sal. 57, 1995, 75–122, 199–250, 415–442 (bibl.). Wolfram Kinzig

Athenagoras I, Patriarch (Mar 25, 1886, Vasilikon, Epirus – Jul 7, 1972, Istanbul). The ecumenical patriarch Athenagoras I (born Aristokles Spyrou) was the son of a physician. After completing his theological studies at the seminary on Halki (1910), he was ordained hierodeacon and assigned administrative duties in the metropoly of Pelagonia. In 1919, after half a year on Athos, he became First Secretary of the Holy Synod in Athens. Ordained priest in 1922 and bishop shortly afterwards, he proved himself as metropolitan of Kerkyra (Corfu) and Paxoi (1923–1930) and archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (1931–1948), which he made a pillar of support for the ecumenical patriarchate. When he himself became ecumenical patriarch in 1949, he worked successfully at improving relations among the Orthodox churches (Panorthodox Conferences, from 1961 on) as well as with Rome (meeting with Paul VI in Jerusalem in 1964) and Protestantism (dialogue with the Evangelical Church in Germany from 1969 on). He impressively combined statesmanlike subtleness with monastic simplicity. P. Hauptmann, “Athenagoras I,” GK 10.2, 1986, 150–162 (bibl.). Peter Hauptmann

Athens I. Ancient Athens – II. Church History – III. University

I. Ancient Athens The name ᾽Aθ∞ναι, found already as “Atana” in a Mycenaean text, is inseparable from the wise and warlike Athena, the virgin goddess of the city. Mythology claims that she sprang from the head of Zeus and won Attica in a contest with Poseidon. Her attributes are the owl and a shield (Aegis) with the head of Medusa, set with snakes. 1. History. Athens was largely untouched by the catastrophe that befell Greece in the 11th/10th century bce; its pottery dominates the region of Greek settlement in the years that followed. The unification of Attica (synoikismos), mythologically ascribed to Theseus, expanded the area of the polis to 2550 km2; as a result, Athens did not have to participate in the colonization movement of the 8th and 7th centuries bce and thus

Athens

484

485 lost its cultural preeminence. In 754/753 bce the king was replaced by archons elected for ten years (annually after 683/682); when they left office, they became members of the aristocratic Areopagite Council. Around 630 Cylon tried but failed to introduce a tyranny. The codification of Athens’ laws c. 624 under Dracon provided legal certainty for the first time. In 594 Solon abolished enslavement for debt (seisachtheia), created a timocratic constitution with four economic classes along with a popular law court (the heliaia), and codified family law. The tyranny of Peisistratus and his sons (561–510 bce) and the economic prosperity they promoted resulted in social leveling. In 507 Cleisthenes replaced the old clan-based structure and organized Attica into ten military and political units ( phylai); he strengthened the popular assembly (ekklesia) and created the “Council of five hundred” (boulē) in which all the precincts or demes had equal representation, thus initiating what was to become democracy. Selection of officials by lot – only the ten generals (stratēgoi) were still elected directly – and the institution of ostracism protected the new system. Athens’ leading role in the Greco-Persian wars – in 490 it defeated the Persian expeditionary army at Marathon, and in 480 the fleet built up by Themistocles was decisive at Salamis – and the maritime league established in 478 under its leadership made it a hegemonic power alongside Sparta. Naval service enhanced the status of the thetes, the lowest economic class. Thus in 462 Ephialtes was able to strip the Areopagite Council of its power, and Pericles, by instituting allowances for judges and officials, opened the civil service to all citizens. Under Pericles, Athens experienced its cultural zenith with the rebuilding of the acropolis as well as the development of drama by → Sophocles and → Euripides and of the visual arts by painters like Polygnotus and sculptors like Phidias and Polyclitus. The terrible loss of life in the Peloponnesian War against Sparta and its allies (431–404 bce) entailed a social breakdown. After an oligarchic putsch in 411 and a series of regents installed by the victorious Spartans, in 403 Thrasybulus restored democracy, although it did not reach full development until the 4th century bce. The following period was marked by various coalitions, also with the Persians, for whom Conon won a naval victory against Sparta in 394. With the second maritime league (377–355 bce) Athens was still unable to recover its earlier importance. At the instigation of Demosthenes, it opposed the emerging power of Macedon under Philip II and was defeated at Chaeronea in 388. After the death of → Alexander the Great, Athens struggled with mixed success until 229 to maintain its autonomy; at times it had to put up with occupation and even a regent (Demetrius of Phaleron, 317–307 bce). After 229 it was Rome’s ally

Athens in the Macedonian Wars. When Athens took the side of Mithradates VI of Pontus against Rome, it was destroyed by Sulla in 86. During the period of the Roman emperors, Athens owed its importance to its philosophical schools, art, and literature. The “philosopher emperor” → Hadrian (117–138 ce) made Athens the base of the Panhellenic League, expanded the city, completed the dipteros in the temple of Olympian Zeus, begun in 174 bce, and built the great library and an aqueduct. Herodes Atticus (103–179), a financier and one of the major representatives of the Second Sophistic, built an odeum at his own expense and rebuilt the Panathenaic Stadium in marble. During the barbarian invasions, Athens was ravaged by the Heruli in 267 and by Alaric in 395, but classical culture and religion maintained a firm foothold there until 529, when → Justinian I closed the → Academy. 2. Topography. Athens is set in a plain cut off by mountains and open to the Saronic Gulf. Within the ancient city rise the Acropolis, the Areopagus, the Hill of the Nymphs, the Pnyx, and the Hill of the Muses; to the northeast lies Mount Lycabettus, an extension of the Turkovunia, to the east Mount Ardettus with the Panathenaic Stadium, which was restored in 1896 for the first modern Olympiad. Through Athens flows the Eridanus River, already mostly covered over in ancient times. The Ilissos, south of the city, was lined with sanctuaries, the most important being the temple of Olympian Zeus. The course of the archaic city wall is unknown. A new ring-wall was built at the instigation of Themistocles after the destruction of the city by the Persians in 479 bce, and was rebuilt repeatedly as late as the 6th century. The Valerian phase (253–260) brought the suburb marked by Hadrian’s Arch (131/132) into the city. The names and locations of many gates are known. The Dipylon Gate, called the main gate in many sources, and the Holy Gate have been excavated in the Kerameikos deme. Here there were also many gravesites, for burials were prohibited with the walls. The state cemetery, where the city buried its war dead and notables, was located at a square on the street leading from the Dipylon to the Academy, whose location is secured by a boundary marker. Athens’ port was originally three miles away at Phaleron; it was moved by Themistocles to Piraeus, five miles away; until the middle of the 5th century bce, it was connected to the city by the Long Walls, making a double fortress. 3. The Acropolis. The Acropolis, a 156m-high limestone hill, was first settled c. 3000 bce. In the Mycenaean period it served as the royal residence and was fortified c. 1200 bce. In the Archaic period it became a temple hill as well. After the destruction of the city in 480/479 bce, the plateau was extended by means of retaining walls. Between 447 and 432, under the aegis of Pericles, the

Athens → Parthenon arose on the foundations of the unfinished and destroyed Pre-Parthenon. Between 437 and 432, the architect Mnesicles built the Propylaea. South of the ascent, the small amphiprostyle temple for Athena Nike was built between 427 and 424. The richly decorated Erechtheum (421–406 bce) housed the cults of Athena Polias, Poseidon, and diverse heroes. Shortly after 27 bce a round temple for Roma and Augustus was built east of the Parthenon. After the invasion of the Heruli in 267 ce, the Acropolis was brought within the city wall and secured by the Beul\ē Gate, built from recycled materials. At the southern edge of the Acropolis stands the sanctuary of Asclepius, built toward the end of the 5th century bce, and the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleutherius, whose theater attained its prototypical form in the 4th century bce. Adjoining the theater to the west are the stoa of Eumenes II of Pergamum (197–159 bce) and the odeum of Herodes Atticus, originally roofed, built after 161 ce. On the northern edge of the Acropolis, numerous ancient sanctuaries are reached by a circular walkway ( peripatos). 4. Agora. In the 6th century bce the gentle northern slope of the Areopagus, previously used as a cemetery, became the political center of Athens and was supplied with a drainage system, a fountain house, and an assembly room, possibly for the heliaia (people’s court). Distances in Attica were measured from the Altar of the Twelve Gods. To the middle of the 5th century bce, official structures were built at the foot of the Kolonos Agoraios – the council building (Bouleuterion), the archive, and the round tholos as the office of the council’s standing committee; on the hill itself, a temple for Hephaestus and Athena was built, called the Theseum on account of its reliefs representing the exploits of Theseus. The Agora was bordered by colonnades, including the Stoa Poikile with its famous paintings. Sizeable craft and residential quarters extended southwest toward the Pnyx, where in the 5th century bce the people created its assembly space, expanded in three phases until it could accommodate approx. 20,000. In the Hellenistic period, the Middle Stoa and the Stoa of Attalus II of Pergamum (159–138 bce), now restored as a museum, completed the architectural frame of the Agora. During the early Empire, the open space came to be filled with cultic structures like the temple of Ares, brought from their original sites; about 15 bce the center was occupied by the odeum of Agrippa, as a place for concerts and lectures. In the same period, a commercial center (the “Roman Agora”) was built between the Agora and the Tower of the Winds, a sundial and water clock constructed by Andronicus of Cyrrhus in the 2nd century bce. In addition, the emperor Hadrian founded a great library. After the Heruli invasion in 267, the Agora was deserted; portions of the buildings were brought inside

486 the citadel. Around 400 an extensive villa complex was built there, whose façade, constructed out of remnants of the odeum of Agrippa, could still be seen as the Stoa of the Giants well into the modern period. Other architectural complexes on the north slope of the Areopagus are taken to be philosophical schools. History: D.J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, 1967 ◆ R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, 1972 ◆ C. Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, 1982 ◆ M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes, 1991 ◆ K.-W. Welwei, Athen: vom neolithischen Siedlungsplatz zur archaischen Großpolis, 1992 ◆ C. Meier Athen, 1993 ◆ J. Bleicken, Die athenische Demokratie, 21994 ◆ P. Castrén, ed., Post-Herulian Athens, 1994 ◆ C. Habicht, Athen: Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit, 1995 ◆ Topography: J. Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athens, 1971 ◆ J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora, 1986 ◆ J. Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, 1988 ◆ L. Schneider & C. Höcker, Die Akropolis von Athen, 1990. Stefan Brenne

II. Church History The church in Athens traces its origin to the mission of Paul (Acts 17:16–34) c. 52 ce. In the 2nd century, Athens is associated with the work of the apologists Quadratus, → Aristides, and → Athenagoras. → Clement of Alexandria probably also came from Athens. The number of martyrs during the → persecutions remained small because there were not many Christians in Athens in the first centuries. Bishops of Athens participated in the Council of → Nicea (325) and later councils. When the Roman Empire was divided, Athens belonged politically to the Eastern Empire, but ecclesiastically it belonged to Western Rome until 732. The devastation of Athens by the Heruli (267) and above all its capture by Alaric I, the prohibition of pagan cults by Emperor Theodosius II (429), and the closing of the philosophical Academy by Emperor Justinian I (529), together with the advance of the Slavs and pirate raids, caused the city to decline into relative insignificance. In the 6th century, the Parthenon became a cathedral dedicated to the Mother of God, and the Propylaea were turned in an episcopal residence. There is little documentation for the period from the 7th through the 11th century. Between 819 and 841, the diocese of Athens became an archdiocese and before 870 a metropole (ranked 28th in the church of the Eastern Roman Empire), comprising first ten and, after 1143, eleven dioceses. For the metropole of Athens, the incumbency of Metropolitan Michael Choniates, beginning in 1182, was of great importance. His historical letters and occasional speeches preserve valuable information. He left the city shortly before it was taken by the Franks toward the end of 1204. From 1204 to 1311, Athens was ruled by the dynasty of De la Roche. By 1205 the city was already the seat of a Latin archbishop (until 1428; the Latin archdiocese was restored in 1875). From 1311

487 to 1386, the Catalans ruled in Athens, followed by the Florentine Acciajuoli. During this time the Ecumenical Patriarchate chose a metropolitan of Athens, but he was never allowed to take up residence in the city. The period of Latin rule was difficult for the church of Athens, and the difficulties continued after the city was taken by the Turks in 1456. The Parthenon was turned into a mosque. During the first phase of Turkish rule (until 1687), the metropole of Athens had six dioceses; in the following period, the archbishop’s usual title became “Metropolitan of Athens and Levadeia.” After liberation from the Turks, an “independent Greek Church (→ Autocephaly)” was proclaimed, but it was not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1850. In 1834 the capital of the new state was transferred from Nauplion to Athens. In 1852 the bishop of Athens once more received the abolished title of metropolitan and presided over the synod. Since 1923 he bears the title “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece,” while the other bishops (except in → Thessalonica) have been styled metropolitans since 1922. The archdiocese of Athens has become noticeably smaller as parts of its territory have become new metropoles (for the first time in 1936); it now comprises only an urban nucleus. But the archbishop plays an important role in church affairs, for he is the honorary primate and always presides over the Standing Synod and the Synod of the Hierarchy (all the bishops of the Church of Greece). F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, 21889 ◆ W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant, 1908, repr. 1964 ◆ K.M. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens 1311–1388, 1948 ◆ R.-J. Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras: Registre et documents pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des duchés catalans (133–1395),” AFP 28, 1958, 5–91 ◆ K.D. Georgulis et al., “᾽Aθ∞ναι,” in: TEE I, 1962, 608–842 ◆ E. Kirsten & W. Kraiker, Griechenlandkunde, 51967 ◆ K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, 1975. Theodor Nikolaou

III. University By decrees of May 1835 and December 1836, but above all Apr 14, 1837, King Otto and the regents established the “Greek Otto University” of Athens, based on German models; it was dedicated May 15. Initially the university comprised four faculties: theology, law, medicine, and “general studies”; 33 professors were appointed (full, associate, and honorary). The enrollment included 52 students and 75 regular auditors. By 1863 the university library had been established, as well as a botanical garden and various laboratories; by the end of the 19th century, other buildings had been completed, including laboratories for chemistry and physics. After the deposition of King Otto in 1862, the university was renamed the National University. On Jul 7, 1911, the single university split into the “Kapodistrian University” with three faculties (theology, law, and phi-

Athos losophy) and the “National University” with two (medicine and science). The two universities shared a single administration, and in 1932 they were reunited to form the “National and Kapodistrian University” of Athens. Since 1982 the university has comprised six faculties (theology, law, economics and political sciences, health sciences, philosophy, and sciences). While most of the faculties are housed in several buildings, the theological faculty, divided into theology and pastoral theology, has a building of its own in the new University City in the Zographou section of Athens. Many other universities have since been established in Athens and other cities of Greece, but the University of Athens is the largest and remains the country’s prime university. D. Moraitis, “Θεολογικὴ Σχολὴ Πανεπιστημίου ᾽Aθην«ν,” in: TEE VI, 267–269 ◆ G. Metallinos, “Das Problem der deutschen Einflüsse auf die griechische akademische Theologie in der Gründungsphase der Athener Universität,” OrthFor 3, 1989, 83–91. Theodor Nikolaou

Athos, the eastern extension of the Chalcidian Peninsula, is known as Ἅγιον Ὄρος (Hágion Óros, “Holy Mountain”); to the present day it has been the center of Orthodox monasticism. In the 9th century, monks fleeing iconoclasm (→ Veneration of Images: VI) or arriving as refugees from areas conquered by Islam swelled the number of those already living on Athos as hermits. Anchoritic eremitism, the earliest of the four forms of monasticism practiced in Athos (→ Monasticism), was put by an imperial edict of 872 under the authority of a Protos. → Athanasius the Athonite established the first monastic community, the Great Laura, in 963, and soon cenobitic monasticism became the dominant form. In the 12th century, Russian, Serbian, and Bulgarian monasteries were established alongside those of the Greeks, Georgians, and Amalfitani already present. Between 971/972 and 1406 the Byzantine emperors gave Athos four constitutions (typica) and granted the monasteries extraordinary privileges. Since 1312 they have been under the authority of the ecumenical patriarchate (→ Patriarch/Patriarchate). In the 14th century, → Hesychasm/Palamism reinvigorated the monasteries. In the 16th century, the idiorhythmism that limited the common life of the monasteries to the liturgy brought about a weakening of the cenobitic ideal; the sketes (hermitages sharing a common church), each associated with one of the 20 major monasteries, were intended to combat this trend. In 1743 Patriarch → Cyril V founded an “academy” under the leadership of Evgenios → Voulgaris, which the monks soon destroyed. Under Ottoman rule (after 1430), the imperial privileges were confirmed and there were significant donations of property (metochia), including lands owned by the princes of Moldavia and Walachia and the Russian tsar. In the political upheavals

Atkinson, Henry Avery

488

after 1917 the monasteries lost almost all their lands. Since 1912 Athos has been under the political sovereignty of the Greek state. Athos, where women and female animals have never been permitted, has been an important center of spiritual, theological, and cultural influence in the world of Orthodoxy through the ages. Artistically, it is famous for its triconchal domed churches, frescoes, and icon painting, as well as its unique store of manuscripts, primarily liturgical. Today some 1,500 monks live on Athos, often at odds with the ecumenical patriarchate because of the latter’s ecumenical posture.

→ Vedānta), it is purely spiritual, as an individual soul ( jīvātman) identical with the all-soul. In Viśi߆ādvaita (qualified dualism), however, the individual soul is an attribute of the all-soul. In Dvaita (dualism), both have distinct characteristics. In certain theistic schools, it is identical in essence with God. → Hīnayāna Buddhism expressly denies the existence of the ātman (the so-called anātman or “no-self ” doctrine). Various schools consider the ātman immortal and in part happily perceptible – in deep, dreamless sleep, through mere intellectual knowledge, through a special inner sense, through spiritual practice, or through the grace of God.

H.M. Biedermann, TRE IV, 1979, 436–441 (bibl.).

E. Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, 2 vols., 1953–1956 ◆ P. Hacker, “Die Idee der Person im Denken von Vedānta-Philosophen,” StMiss 13, 1963, 30–52 ◆ L. Schmithausen, “Ich und Erlösung im Buddhismus,” ZMR 53, 1969, 157–170. Axel Michaels

Heinz Ohme

Atkinson, Henry Avery (Aug 26, 1877, Merced, Calif – 1960, New York), as a Congregationalist theologian in the USA was one of the initiators and organizers of the → ecumenical movement. Atkinson was secretary of the American branch of the World Union for Church Reconciliation and from 1922 was the general secretary of the → Life and Work Movement. He organized the first world conference in Stockholm in 1925 and the subsequent standing committee. Tensions arose in the 1920s when, primarily through European influence, the standing committee was restructured into an “Ecumenical Council for Practical Christianity” (1930) and the study section was dominated by considerations of fundamental theological and ethical questions. Atkinson wanted to promote the practical collaboration of the churches and experienced the “European theoreticians” as too cautious. After disputes with Adolf Keller, Atkinson stepped down as general secretary in 1932. The early ecumenical movement owes much to his enerReinhard Frieling getic talent for organization. Ātman is a Sanskrit masculine reflexive pronoun and noun meaning “self, soul, true personality.” It is cognate with German Atem, “breath.” Since the early → Upanißads, it has been the Indian term representing various notions of the soul or self. “Ātman” denotes oneself in contrast to someone else; it can mean the breath-soul (cf. Gk πνεῦμα/pneúma), a homunculus, the individual soul (sometimes in transmigration), the immortal spirit in a mortal body, or mind and consciousness. Already in the Upanißads (B‰hadāra»yaka Upanißad 3, 7, 3ff.) the identity of the individual soul with the world soul or the absolute (→ Brahman) is posited. This doctrine was incorporated into the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta, where it was extended to a comprehensive nondualism. Various notions have evolved concerning the form of the ātman. The classical Nyāya-Vaiśeßika system distinguishes an ātman substance from its attributes; it is thus almost material. In Advaita Vedānta (nondualism;

Atomism I. Philosophy – II. Islamic Theology

I. Philosophy Atomism is the epistemological → paradigm maintaining that all things (including living creatures) are composed of tiny indivisible units, which account for their qualities (Gk ἄτομον/átomon, “indivisible”). Atomism contrasts with holism, which understands all objects and phenomena not as composites but as divisible wholes. Both theories seek to explain the nature of things. This antithesis has shaped Western thought from → Democritus to modern economic individualism and genetic engineering. In the history of Western thought, atomism first appears in the tradition of the pre-Socratic theory of elements. Its primary exponent was Democritus (c. 460–372 bce), the pupil of Leucippus; he described all things as consisting of “atoms and void” (Diels & Kranz, B 125, 168). The atoms are thought of as small material particles; their movement in the void gives rise to sensory phenomena, which however conceal the reality of the atoms. Politically, the theory was associated with the notion that the stronger are destined by nature to rule (ibid. B 267). → Plato rejected materialistic atomism, arguing instead that physical bodies consist ultimately not of particles but of immaterial mathematical structures (Tim. 53c–56c). Tracing sensory phenomena back to the materiality of objects is thus not the final word. The law of the stronger is therefore not naturally right, as Plato added in Laws 10, but rather legislation based on reason. It was primarily through → Epicurus, → Lucretius, and → Gassendi that atomism influenced modern thought, where it shaped the political philosophy of T. → Hobbes and J. → Locke. The basic notion is that societies consist of individuals, who have banded together to achieve security. Today this image of society still shapes such disciplines as economic liberalism and modern

489 medicine, despite the caveats of Viktor von Weizsäcker. In the 18th and 19th centuries, atomism bore fruit in the natural sciences, first in the optics of I. → Newton, later above all in the kinetic theory of gases and John Dalton’s atomic theory in chemistry. But almost at the same time as atomism’s renewed success in chemistry, J.W. von → Goethe began to undercut this new atomism. In his theory of color, light can take on various colors but is not composed of them. Quantum theory spelled the end of classical atomism, because, although the atom proved to be divisible into elementary particles, it was not made up of them (Bohr, Heisenberg). In particle physics, the smallest units are simply forms of divisibility and thus “figments” of human action, not simply “objective” entities. In the domain of present-day science, atomism survives primarily in the genetic paradigm, which seeks to trace organic characteristics back to the smallest hereditary units and their combinations. Lucretius, De rerum natura ◆ H. Diels & W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 61951 (Democritus, Leucippus) ◆ K. Lasswitz, Geschichte der Atomistik vom Mittelalter bis Newton, 2 vols., 1890 ◆ W. Heisenberg, Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik, 1955 ◆ A.G.M. van Melsen, Atom gestern und heute, 1957 ◆ N. Bohr, “Diskussion mit Einstein über erkenntnistheoretische Probleme der Atomphysik,” in: idem, Atomphysik und menschliche Erkenntnis, 1958, 32–67 ◆ A.J. Rocke, Chemical Atomism in the Nineteenth Century, 1984 ◆ A. Pyle, Atomism and Critics, 1995. Klaus Michael Meyer-Abich

II. Islamic Theology Atomism is the primary scientific paradigm of early Islamic theology. It appears toward the end of the 8th century and does not lose its dominant position until three centuries later, primarily through the influence of → Avicenna ; traces of it survived as late as the Mongol period (13th–14th cents.). In contrast to classical atomism, however, it does not appear primarily in cosmological contexts but serves to demonstrate God’s omnipotence. Atoms are “individual substances,” supplemented by “accidents.” The first of these accidents is “cohesion,” through which two or more atoms are joined; in this fashion the dimensions of length, breadth, and depth come into being, and hence finally corporeality. The atoms themselves are incorporeal; material bodies come about when God adds the accident of “cohesion” to the atoms. When God takes away this accident, the atoms separate once more. We call this decay, or, in the case of human beings, death. At a later time, however, God can add this accident once more, the result being resurrection (called “repetition” in Quranic usage). The origin of this theory has never been satisfactorily explained. The influence of classical atomism, especially in its Epicurean form, is apparent; but it probably passed through a Middle Iranian medium where it may have been combined with Indian ideas. There were

Atrium no Arabic translations of the Greek atomists; only scattered doxographic accounts (e.g. the Placita philosophorum) were available, and even these are quite late. There was probably a confrontation in the Iranian region with the second cosmological model borrowed by Islam, the Stoic theory of mixture. The incompatibility of the two systems led to a debate within Islam over finite versus infinite divisibility. The paradoxes of Zeno also resurfaced in altered and much enriched form. But apart from the exogenous explanation, there is also an endogenous explanation for Islamic atomism: it was a response to an early theological system (that of Îirār ibn aAmr) according to which the “accidents” subsisted without any atoms; they were the phenomena through which a human being perceives a material body, and were aggregated in this epistemic process to form a corporeal entity. It is surprising that when this basically sensualist theory was transformed into a physical theory by atomism, the notion of a vacuum was initially absent. Atoms fill space densely; therefore they cannot be spherical but are best pictured as cubes. Movement takes place as progress along a surface divided into atom-sized fields; empty spaces are occupied by air. Atomism reached its limit when whole structures or continuities had to be explained, as in the case of movement or the human person. Initially, the soul was viewed as a mere atom, life as an accident. But this approach was incapable of explaining the functioning of the (material) human body and personal individuality. Also problematic was the tendency to ascribe no existence to the accidents beyond the moment. This was only consistent inasmuch as atomism was extended to include time as well; but it led to an → occasionalism that over time totally nullified the notion of nature working independently (through natural “laws”). J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jh. Hidschra, vol. IV, 1997, 459–477 (bibl.). Josef van Ess

Atonement → Sin, Guilt and Forgiveness, → Expiation Atonement, Day of (Yom Kippur) → Feasts and Festivals Atonement, Doctrine of → Reconciliation Atrium. An atrium is an open courtyard associated with big churches from the time of Constantine until the 6th century. Temples of the Imperial Period furnish prototypes. As a rule, the atrium is located at the narrow end before the main entrance – usually at the western, rarely at the eastern end (e.g. St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem); exceptionally it appears on one of the long sides. It is usually rectangular, with colonnades along the four

Atterbury, Francis (more rarely three) sides. It contains a font for ablutions (kantharos, phiale), usually in the center, rarely along one of the walls. In addition, the atrium serves as a place for the faithful to collect their thoughts before entering the church. Harking back to the early Christian period, medieval churches occasionally provided an atrium, also called a “parvis” or “paradise” (e.g. the Palatine Chapel in Aachen, Fulda Cathedral, Maria Laach, San Clemente in Rome). C. Delvoye, RBK I, 1966, 421–440 ◆ G. Binding, Architektonische Formenlehre, 21987, 64. Guntram Koch

Atterbury, Francis (Mar 6, 1662, Milton Keynes – Mar 4, 1732, Paris). After entering Christ Church College in 1680 Atterbury resided in Oxford. He opposed James II’s attempt to impose Roman Catholicism on the university. Famous for his eloquence, he became chaplain to William III and Mary II. In polemics culminating in Rights and Privileges of an English Convocation (1700) he upheld the rights of the clergy against the future Archbishop Wake. As bishop of Rochester (from 1713), he refused after the Jacobite uprising of 1715 to endorse a declaration of confidence in the Hanoverian government, and in 1720 was imprisoned in the Tower of London on suspicion of abetting a Jacobite conspiracy formed after the birth of a child to “James III.” Condemned by the Lords, he left England in 1723, and he acted as James’s minister from 1725 to 1728. F. Williams, ed., Memoirs and Correspondence, 1869 ◆ G. Bennet, The Tory Crisis in Church and State 1688–1730, 1975. Mark Edwards

Atticus, 2nd-century Platonist. He wrote a work (excerpts of which were preserved by → Eusebius of Caesarea) On the Conflict between Plato and Aristotle, in which he vigorously attacks the ethics, physics, and theology of → Aristotle. He points out in particular that virtue by itself cannot bring eudaimonia; he also criticizes Aristotle’s failure to mention divine providence, the theory of a fifth element, and the separation of the mind (nous) from the soul. Atticus interprets literally the mythological creation of the world in Plato’s Timaeus, thus positing a temporal beginning for the world, which comes into being when God imposes order on preexisting material. He identifies the divine creator of the world (demiurge) with the ultimate principle, the idea of the good. For Atticus, ideas, which alone have true and aboriginal being, are the thoughts of God; he does not appear to distinguish between archetypal ideas in the divine mind and universal concepts in the soul. Editions: Fragments, ed. E. des Places, 1977 ◆ On Atticus: M. Baltes, Die Weltentstehung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten I, 1976 ◆ idem, “Zur Philosophie des Mittelplatonikers Attikus,” JACE 10, 1983, 38–57. Jens Halfwassen

490 Attis → Cybele and Attis Attitudes (German: “Einstellungen”) are persons’ learned dispositions of behavior and reaction in reference to objects, circumstances, etc. Research employs primarily two models: The one-component model understands attitudes as positive or negative dispositions in relation to an object. In contrast, in the three-component model attitudes exhibit not only an affectiveevaluative, but also a cognitive/perception-forming and a conative/behavior-guiding dimension. Experimental → social psychology primarily investigates the conditions under which attitudes change as well as the relationship of attitude to behavior. → Sociology, working with surveys, examines attitudes in order to establish the opinion of the group under investigation or to explain attitudes in terms of social-structural variables (membership in a particular class, age group, etc.). Both social-psychological and sociological procedures are useful in religious studies. One can investigate, for example, the social and psychological conditions of religious attitudes (e.g. the attitude toward modernization or toward the political stance of the church), or one can also investigate the influence of religious affiliation (confession, denomination) on religious or non-religious attitudes (e.g. the preference for certain political parties). M.J. Rosenberg & C.I. Hovland, “Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes,” in: Attitude Organization and Change, ed. C.I. Hovland & M.J. Rosenberg, 1960, 1–14 ◆ I. Ajzen & M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, 1980 ◆ I. Lukatis, “Empirische Forschung zum Thema Religion in Westdeutschland, Österreich und der deutschsprachigen Schweiz,” in: Religion in den Gegenwartsströmungen der deutschen Soziologie, ed., K.-F. Daiber & T. Luckmann, 1983, 199–220. Jörg Stolz

Attributes of God → Divine Attributes Auberlen, Carl August (Nov 19, 1824, Fellbach – May 2, 1864, Basel). Auberlen grew up in the setting of Württemberg → Pietism and was inspired by the “humanism of Goethe and Hegel.” In his studies he was influenced especially by J.T. → Beck . He served as curate to W. → Hofacker, tutored at Tübingen, and was appointed professor at Basel. He based his theology on the “kingdom of God” theology of J.A. → Bengel and his school, with its biblicistic emphasis on God’s saving acts in history from the perspective of “biblical realism.” He combined the “eschatological realism” of Beck with the “historical realism” of J.C.K. von → Hofmann to frame a universal philosophy of history oriented toward the philosophia sacra of F.C. → Oetinger (and R. → Rothe), which culminates in a spiritual-bodily recreation of the world through the cosmic work of Christ (after a millennial kingdom). Auberlen influenced the → Evangeli-

491 cal Alliance and the Gemeinschaftsbewegung (→ Community Movements). Works: Die Theosophie Friedrich Christoph Oetinger’s, 1847 (foreword by R. Rothe; 21859) ◆ Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, 1854, 31874, repr. 1986 ◆ Die göttliche Offenbarung, 2 vols., 1861–1864 (incomplete; biogr. outline) ◆ On Auberlen: F. Fabri, RE3 II, 1897, 215–217 ◆ G. Weth, Die Heilsgeschichte, 1931, esp. 94–103. Werner Raupp

Auden, Wystan Hugh (Feb 21, 1907, York – Sep 29, 1973, Vienna), one of the two great religious poets in 20th-century writing in English, Auden is more dialectical, more Protestant than T.S. → Eliot. Auden early seized on poetry as a rich tradition of “making” in which to forge a career in the “criticism of life.” He followed Eliot’s elevated Modernism with a searching playfulness which anticipates the radical Postmodernisms of more recent generations. Married with Erika Mann since 1935 and settling in New York in 1939, he produced a body of incisive literary criticism as well as a corpus of heavily allusive, meditative “light” verses often daunting for readers not as widely read. No other 20th-century poet was more concerned with the modern problem of belief or exhibited more range and brilliance in mastering the major secular approaches to it. The intellectual path toward his reconversion to a faith discarded in youth is traced with subtlety in New Year Letter (1941), where influence by S.A. → Kierkegaard, K.P.R. → Niebuhr and C. → Williams appears decisive. The path had led through S. → Freud, D.H. → Lawrence and K. → Marx, and others digested during his formative years in the 1930s. Influenced indirectly by Calvin’s analysis of the mind as a continuous idol-making factory and by Kierkegaard’s strategy of “indirect communication,” Auden regarded poetic art as the Devil’s territory, a medium in which by sophisticated sleight of hand the poet contends with the Prince of Lies at his own game. Works include: Collected Poems, ed. E. Mendelson, 1991 ◆ On Auden: A. Hecht, The Hidden Law, 1993. Kevin Lewis

Audientia episcopalis. In Catholic ecclesiastical law, audientia episcopalis (Cod. Just. I, 4) denotes the jurisdiction exercised by bishops. The authority of bishops to arbitrate in secular disputes (cf. 1 Cor 6:1–7) even if one party objects, recognized by → Constantine the Great, was soon limited to cases involving compromise. Audientia episcopalis remained in force for internal ecclesiastical matters and for clergy (jurisdictional immunity; criminous clerics). G. Vismara, Episcopalis audientia, 1937 ◆ A. Steinwenter, RAC I, 1950, 915–917 ◆ DDC VI, 1957, 203–290 ◆ W. Waldstein, “Zur Stellung der Audientia Episcoporum im spätrömischen Prozeß,” in: FS M. Kaser, 1976, 532–556. Wilhelm Rees

Augsburg Auditory Hallucination (Lat. auditio, hearing ) denotes an experience in which someone hears something although there is no real speaker. Therefore, from a psychological point of view this experience is, like a → vision, regarded as a hallucination. Both events occur in a waking state and are different from dreams. Auditory hallucination becomes an important phenomenon for religious studies because of its specific religious interpretation as → revelation, the calling of a prophet, or an → oracle, etc. Through its religious interpretation and acceptance within a social community, auditory hallucination receives collective authority. In the history of religion, prophets, reformers and other specialists have claimed experiences of auditory hallucination and visions as specific, extraordinary experiences of calling, or these experiences were later ascribed to them. Continual new revelations are hard to harmonize with the authoritative doctrines and rituals of organized religion. For this reason, audition is either recognized only in the case of the founders, or its recognition is subject to strict limitations. Bibl. → Vision

Hartmut Zinser

Auerbach, Erich (Nov 9, 1892, Berlin – Oct 13, 1957, New Haven, CT). Auerbach taught as philologist and historian at Marburg until dismissed in 1935, owing to his being a Jew. He emigrated to Istanbul and later to America, eventually to teach at Yale. Auerbach attributed to Western literature a democratic fusion of high and low styles, rooted in how reality is represented in biblical narrative. There, mystery intersects ordinary lives, which possess unseen “depths.” In → Dante, characters and circumstances become so intrinsically interesting, apart from their “figural” meanings, as to anticipate realistic, secular fiction. Auerbach’s theory of literature forms the background of that of Hans Frei, that the identity and resurrection of Christ can only be expressed in discourse of a kind shared by historical narrative and realistic fiction. Others have elaborated upon his view that the reader responds to the silences and omissions inherent in realistic stories. Works include: Mimesis: dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur, 1946, 51971; ET: Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, 1953 ◆ Typologische Motive in der mittelalterlichen Literatur, 1953 ◆ Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike und im Mittelalter, 1958. Larry D. Bouchard

Augsburg (cf. → Augsburg Confession, → Augsburg Confession, Apology, → Augsburg Interim, → Augsburg, Peace of ). For a Christian community in the Roman colony Augusta Vindelicorum there is no certain evidence; not until 565 is the characteristic local cult of the martyr → Afra attested. Augsburg was certainly an episcopal see from the 8th century. The close

Augsburg Confession connection between bishop and kingdom formed the foundation for Augsburg’s rise as one of the most important German cities of the Middle Ages and the early modern period; Bishop → Ulrich (923–73) became the city patron. In the 12th century the city of Augsburg began to develop; as an imperial city it emancipated itself from episcopal dominance and advanced in the 15th century to being the most prosperous commercial city in the empire. Connected with material strength in the citizenry was an active religious interest that resulted in numerous preaching foundations. In German Reformation history, Augsburg gained special importance as the site of the diets of 1518, 1530, 1547/48, and 1555. The city was one of the most important printing centers for Reformation writings. In the 1520s in Augsburg an early confessional pluralism developed, to which a strong Baptist congregation also contributed. Not until 1534 was there a political decision for Reformation of the Upper German kind (Kirchenordnung [church order], 1537); after the → Augsburg Interim and → Augsburg Peace, came the connection with Lutheranism. Augsburg remained a biconfessional city in which the Counter Reformation, thanks to the work of P. → Canisius, was able to consolidate the Roman position; in the 18th century Catholicism became the majority confession. The Peace of → Westphalia in 1648 resolved confessional conflicts through the legal form of religious equality. Since 1650 Augsburg Protestants have celebrated a Peace Festival on 8 August, the day of the confiscation of Protestant churches by the emperor in 1629. In Augsburg, equally divided between Protestants and Catholics and marked by the tension of religious tolerance and prominent confessional identity, the pietism represented by T. → Spizel (1639–91) and S. → Urlsperger (1685–1772) combined with the traditional structures of ecclesiastical power. With the annexation by Bavaria in 1806, the imperial freedom of the city came to an end. In 1935 the third confessional synod of the Confessing Church met in Augsburg. In 1971 the city was the showplace of the Ecumenical Pentecostal Meeting, a thus far unique supra-confessional assembly after the manner of the Kirchentag and Katholikentag. Since 1970 Augsburg has had a university with a Catholic school of theology and chairs for Protestant theology. G. Grundsteudel, ed., Augsburger Stadtlexikon, 21998 ◆ G. Gottlieb et al. eds., Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg, 1985 (bibl.) ◆ E. François, Die unsichtbare Grenze: Protestanten und Katholiken in Augsburg 1648–1806, 1991 ◆ J. Kirmeier et al. eds., “. . . wider Laster und Sünde”. Augsburgs Weg in der Reformation (exhibition catalogue), 1997 (bibl.) ◆ H. Gier, ed., 350 Jahre Augsburger Hohes Friedensfest, 2000. Hellmut Zschoch

492 Augsburg Confession I. Origin – II. Content – III. Further history

The Augsburg Confession of 1530 is the most important confessional document (→ Articles of Faith) of Protestantism. I. Origin In early 1530 conditions seemed unexpectedly favorable for a settlement of the religious quarrels that had broken out in the empire. After peace agreements with Pope → Clement VII (1523–34) and Francis I of France (1515–47) Emperor → Charles V (1519–56) could for the first time since 1521 turn his attention again to German affairs. Nonetheless, since there was again already a threat of Turkish invasion in the East, the emperor was pressing for a quick solution of the conflict. He was ready to make tactical concessions to the protesters (→ Protestation at Speyer, 1529). Accordingly, the Imperial Diet’s announcement ( Jan 21, 1530) was also formulated in a friendly way. It set three goals: “to hear every good thought, opinion, and view . . . in love and amicability”; on both sides “to do away with whatever is not properly interpreted or treated”; and “to assume by us all a single and true religion.” That sounded promising but by no means meant that the emperor had thoughts of revising his (traditional) policy on religion. When the announcement arrived in Torgau in the middle of March, preparations began there immediately for the visit of the Imperial Diet. Elector → John the Constant of Saxony (1525–32) instructed his theologians to work out a justification of his actions as ruler (putting down ecclesiastical abuses), later called the “Articles of Torgau” (textually disputed). On doctrinal questions one could already at that time refer back to the “Articles of Schwabach” (summer 1529). These were directed against the Zwinglians and contained the theological conditions for Kursachsen to enter the Protestant defense alliance, already conceived at the beginning of 1529 (→ Schmalkaldic League). The attempt to present this text to the emperor as well before the beginning of the Imperial Diet (delegation to Innsbruck) led to its rejection by Charles V. (beginning of May). While still on its way to the Imperial Diet, the electoral defense document (“apologia”) acquired a first preface in Coburg, where Luther as an outlaw had to remain behind. On 2 May the meeting took place in Augsburg. Here Melanchthon, the most important Protestant theologian at the Imperial Diet, quickly recognized the necessity of expanding the “apologia” with doctrinal articles (defense against the accusation of heresy raised by J. → Eck in his “404 Articles”; delineation vis-à-vis M. → Bucer and the theologians from Upper Germany). Melanchthon wrote a second preface and a closing sec-

493 tion for the developing confession. The text approved by Luther on 15 May probably already contained doctrinal articles. These were based on the “Articles of Schwabach” and the “Marburg Articles” (Colloquy of Marburg, 1529; → Disputatious, Religious) but also go back to Melanchthon’s “Unterricht der Visitatoren” (1528) and the confession offered at the close of Luther’s “Vom Abendmahl Christi” (1528). Since Charles V did not arrive in Augsburg until 15 June, Melanchthon had more than a month to polish the confession (numerous intermediate drafts; a third preface). He wanted to formulate it as carefully as possible. Covered by the court of Electoral Saxony, he also negotiated with the old believers. He offered them the maintenance or reestablishment of episcopal ecclesiastical power but in return demanded the concession of the cup for the laity, marriage of priests, and the Protestant mass (letter to archbishop → Albert of Brandenburg [1514–1545]). Melanchthon supported (unsuccessfully) a joint action of the Lutherans and the Old Believers against Strasbourg and the Zwinglians. What led him to that was the fear of a religious war. The unexpectedly sudden appearance of Charles V in Augsburg, however (with the prohibition of Protestant preaching and an attempt to force Protestants to participate in a Corpus Christi procession), then created a totally new situation. Against his will, Elector John now allowed the other imperial estates also to sign the reformulated Electoral Saxon text. Especially momentous was the appearance of Landgrave → Philip of Hessen, for he successfully achieved a weakening of the Lord’s Supper article directed against Zwingli (art. 10, Lat. Text; → Eucharist/Communion: II, III). Moreover, Melanchthon’s preface appealing to the good will of the emperor was replaced by a new one – as self-confident as it was politically brilliant – from the pen of the retired chancellor G. → Brück: while it referred to the imperial announcement, it made clear, nonetheless, that in the case of a failed consensus, an appeal to the general council (which, indeed, the emperor himself also sought) would again be made (no acceptance of a forced judgment). With this the character of the text had fundamentally changed: The “apologia” of the Saxon Elector had become a comprehensive Protestant creed, a “confessio.” It bore the signatures of Elector John of Saxony, his son Duke → John Frederick the Magnanimous, the margrave George of Brandenburg-Ansbach, the dukes Ernst and Franz of Lüneburg, Landgrave Philip of Hessen, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, as well as the imperial cities of Nuremberg and Reutlingen. In the middle of July they were also joined by Windsheim, Heilbronn, Kempten, and Weißenburg (Nordgau). The southern German cities which differed from the Lord’s Supper teaching of the Augsburg Confession, Strasbourg, Konstanz,

Augsburg Confession Memmingen, and Lindau, produced their own confessional statement, the “Confessio tetrapolitana” (→ Articles of Faith: I). Zwingli sent over his “Fidei ratio.” On Jun 25, 1530, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the German text of the Confession was read aloud by the Electoral Saxon chancellor Christian Beyer (1482– 1535) in the chapter hall of the episcopal palace before emperor and empire and then, together with the Latin version of the text, turned over to Charles V. Copies are no longer extant. The original text has to be reconstructed from a wealth of copies. The German Book of → Concord (1580) offers the Augsburg Confession according to a copy from the Mainz Lord Chancellor’s archive now preserved in Vienna. Its Latin counterpart (1584) follows the text of the first Wittenberg printing (the so-called “Quartausgabe” of Apr/May 1531). II. Content Reflecting its history of origin, the Augsburg Confession is divided clearly into two parts. First the “Main Articles of Faith” are presented (1–21): Arts. 1–3 (doctrine of the Trinity, original sin, Christology) are supported by agreements with the creeds of the → Early Church. Arts. 4–6 (justification, preaching office [more precisely, dedication of the Holy Spirit through word and sacrament], new obedience) and 18–20 (free will, cause of sin, faith and works) clarify the Reformation understanding of the gospel. The remaining articles deal with the church (7–8), the sacraments (9–13, including confession and penance), orders in the church and the world (14–16), the return of Christ in judgment (17), as well as the veneration of saints (21). Then follow “articles in which the modified abuses are enumerated” (22–28): the sacrament in both forms (22), marriage of priests (23), the Mass (24), confession (25), differentiation of foods (26; ecclesiastical ceremonies), monastic vows (27), the power of bishops (28; power of the keys, secular and spiritual governance). Finally, further abuses are summarily addressed (indulgences, pilgrimages, misuse of excommunication, etc.). The heart of the Augsburg Confession is the doctrine of justification (4–6 and 20). Justification occurs “for Christ’s sake through faith,” which is a work of the Holy Spirit that is given through word and sacrament (antienthusiast accent). This not only provides a norm for the understanding of church and sacrament; it is also the basis of all church and secular order. The Augsburg Confession asserts that the disagreement between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches is limited to “a few abuses” (BSLK 83c). Here Melanchthon played down (cf. later also the Old Believers’ → Confutatio of the Augsburg Confession). He sought unity with Rome (exclusion of the issue of the pope; first treated by him in 1537 in “Tractatus de potestate et primatu papae”).

Augsburg Confession III. Further History The Augsburg Confession quickly became an important intra-Protestant doctrinal norm (“foundation document” of the Schmalkaldic League). After the Peace of → Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of → Westphalia (1648), it became the foundation for the recognition of Protestants in the empire and, as a consequence, the central confessional document of Lutheranism (→ Lutherans). Although the Augsburg Confession soon developed into an official document, sometime later Melanchthon was still finetuning his text (variations in printed texts). A translation into Greek was requested for dialogue with the Eastern Church. The → Wittenberg Concord (1536), concluded with the southern Germans who were isolated since Zwingli’s death (1531), appealed expressly to the Augsburg Confession. In December 1539 the Wittenberg theologians were asked by Elector John Fredrick of Saxony to write a short summary of the Augsburg Confession. That led ultimately to the later so-called “Confessio Augustana Variata” (i.e. the Latin version of the Confession of 1540). The new text, a work of Melanchthon, was intended for the imminent Religious disputations (→ Disputations, religious) with the Old Believers (Religionsgespräche of Hagenau/Worms 1540/41 and Regensburg 1541) (“table presentation”) and took into account the accommodations to the southern Germans reached in the Concord of Wittenberg (changes the Lord’s Supper article). After Luther’s death (1546) there were strong disagreements over the official text of the Augsburg Confession. The Formula of → Concord (1577) ultimately returned to the “invariata.” The Ecumenical dialogue in the time since → Vatican II has taught the understanding of the Confession as a universal church text (“confession of the one faith”). A mutual recognition of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches on the basis of the Augsburg Confession, however, has yet to happen. Sources: BSLK XV–XXI, 31–137 ◆ H. Bornkamm, Der authentische lateinische Text der Confessio Augustana (1530), 1956 ◆ K.E. Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530, 2 vols., 1833–35 (repr. 1966) ◆ R. Stupperich, Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl VI, 1955, 12–79 (Variata) ◆ W.H. Neuser, Bibliographie der Confessio Augustana und Apologie 1530–1580, 1987 ◆ Bibl.: P. Tschackert, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirchenlehre samt ihren innerprotestantischen Gegensätzen, 1910 ◆ V. Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 1970 ◆ W. Maurer, Historischer Kommentar zur Confessio Augustana, 2 vols., 1976, 1978 (bibl.) ◆ E. Iserloh, Confessio Augustana und Confutatio, 1980 ◆ H. Meyer & H. Schütte, Confessio Augustana Bekenntnis des einen Glaubens, 1980 ◆ G. Müller, Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit, 1980 ◆ E. Koch, Aufbruch und Weg. Studien zur Lutherischen Bekenntnisbildung im 16. Jahrhundert, 1983 ◆ L. Grane, Die Confessio Augustana, 41990 ◆ H. Immenkötter & G. Wenz, Im Schatten der Confessio Augustana, 1997. Christian Peters

Augsburg Confession, Apology of the. Following delivery of the → Augsburg Confession by the Prot-

494 estant estates of the empire on Jun 25, 1530 and the start of work by Roman Catholic theologians on the → Confutatio, by mid-July Electoral Saxony had already taken the decision to defend the Protestant Confession with a further document, should this prove necessary. On Aug 3, 1530, the Confutatio was read out but not handed out to the Protestants. So for their work on the Apology, which began immediately, Melanchthon and his colleagues were dependent on the assistance of third parties. By mid-August the basic version of the Apology (→ Spalatin’s Grundschrift) was ready. It was later expanded considerably by Melanchthon (in reaction to the committee deliberations). On Sep 22, 1530 there was an attempt to present the Apology to the emperor, but he refused to accept it. After his return to Wittenberg (mid-October), Melanchthon then unexpectedly received a copy of the Confutatio text, which prompted him to reshape the Apology completely. The first Latin printed text of the Apology (“Quarttext”) appeared in April/May 1531, but Melanchthon deemed it inadequate (article on justification) and so gave it a further thorough revision (“Oktavtext”; Sep 1531). Shortly afterwards a German text of the Apology at last appeared ( J. → Jonas; revised by Melanchthon in 1533). The Apology only became the official confessional document at the Diet of Schmalkalden in 1537. The Latin Book of → Concord initially (1580) still presented the “Oktavtext” (which was the standard text for the Reformation period), but then returned in 1584 to the “Quarttext.” The Apology is clearly marked by the difficult situation after the failure of the Diet of Augsburg (war of religion looming; emergence of the → Schmalkaldic League). It follows the structure of the Augsburg Confession and argues sharply against the Confutatio and the theses of the Catholic theologians expressed in the Augsburg deliberations. Especially significant from a historical point of view are its statements on the doctrine of → justification and on the essence and mission of the church. It is precisely on these points, however, that criticism of Melanchthon has focused (accused of a onesidedly “forensic” understanding of justification, i.e. reduction of the forgiving and renewing word of God [so Luther] to a mere verdict). Augsburg Apology: CR 27, (245–)275–316 (Latin), (315–) 321–378 ◆ (German) “Quarttext”/“Oktavtext”: CR 27, (379–) 419–646 ◆ BSLK XXIIf., 139–404 (“Quarttext”) German Apology, 1531/1533: CR 28, (1–)37–326 ◆ BSLK XXIIf., 139–404 (1531) Bibl.: C. Peters, Apologia Confessionis Augustanae, 1997 (bibl.). Christian Peters

Augsburg Interim is the designation for a decree by → Charles V of Germany that provided a preliminary solution to the religion issue in Germany between (“interim”) the Augsburg → Reichstag (Imperial Diet) of 1547/48 and the Council of → Trent. Despite his vic-

495 tory over the → Schmalkaldic League, the Emperor was not able to prevail, however. Not only did his Protestant allies (esp. → Moritz, Elector of Saxony) refuse, but so did the old church estates. The Interim was declared binding, consequently, only for the Protestant territories and imperial cities and was included in the final declaration of the Reichstag ( Jun 30, 1548). Its 26 articles treat: the original state of humanity and its state after the Fall (Art.1–2), redemption and justification (Art. 3–6), good works and the forgiveness of sin (Art. 7–8), ecclesiology (Art. 9–13), the sacraments (Art.14–21), the mass and the veneration of saints (Art. 22–23), requiems (Art. 24), communion (Art. 25) and “ceremonies and use of the sacraments” (Art. 26). While the articles concerning justification strive for a mediating position between Roman and Reformation doctrine, the doctrine of the church is purely Roman. For example, the papal office was “established” by divine law “with full authority . . . to guard against schisms and division.” The seven sacraments are represented as are the ceremonies common in the late Middle Ages. Only the lay chalice was retained at first and existing marriages involving priests were permitted to continue (Art. 26). The execution of the Interim succeeded in the realm of imperial authority. → Württemberg and southern German imperial cities suffered in particular. Because it obdurately refused the introduction of the Interim, imperial troops conquered Constance, and it lost its imperial freedom. Straßburg achieved a compromise with its bishop resulting in the expulsion of M. → Bucer from the city. In protest against Nuremberg’s policy, A. → Osiander went to Prussia. Similar events played out in Regensburg (N. → Gallus). Ulm and → Augsburg had to submit entirely to the pressure of the imperial court. In Hessen, only some uncontroversial regulations were issued, although Landgrave → Philip of Hessen ordered the acceptance of the Interim. Electoral Palatinate and Electoral Brandenburg accepted it while the Hanseatic cities and Mecklenburg and Magdeburg rejected it. Electoral Saxony took its own path: In December 1548, its parliament issued a regulation that maintained the Protestant doctrine of justification, but prescribed concession in insignificant matters (“adiaphora”) that do not contradict Holy Scriptures. M. → Flacius attacked Melanchthon who had decisively influenced these Saxon decrees and declared that in the matter of confession there are no insignificant ceremonies. This → adiaphorist controversy robbed Melanchthon of his previous role as the leading theologian in Germany – a more profound turning-point than the Interim itself, since the legal validity of the Interim was annulled in the Passau Treaty of August 1552 and in the religious Peace of → Augsburg. It had also become obsolete because the Council of Trent (1551/52) contributed

Augsburg, Peace of nothing to bring the religious parties in Germany together, but rather, complicated it. Sources: Das Augsburger Interim von 1548, J. Mehlhausen, ed., 1970, 21996 ◆ Politische Korrespondenz des Herzogs und Kurfürsten Moritz von Sachsen, J. Herrmann & G. Wartenberg, eds., III, 1978, IV, 1992 ◆ DRTA.JR 18 forthcoming (2003) ◆ Bibl.: H. Rabe, Reichsbund und Interim, 1971 ◆ J. Mehlhausen, TRE XVI, 1987, 230–237 ◆ H.Scheible, “Das Augsburger Interim und die evangelischen Kirchen,” Heimatkundliche Blätter für den Kreis Biberach 21, 1998, 3–13. Gerhard Müller

Augsburg, Peace of I. With the Peace of Augsburg of Sep 25, 1555, the constitutional confusion that had broken out since the Edict of Worms of 1521 over the Catholic prohibition and the resistance of the Protestant movement came to an end through King Ferdinand’s unification of the Protestant and Roman Catholic imperial estates (Reichsstände). It formed the most important basic law of the empire in the confessional age, which confirmed as modified by the Peace of → Westphalia – established a church constitution for the empire (Reichskirchenverfassung) which did not favor the one religion over the other, and the claim of the sovereign of a state to determine its religious outlook until 1806. It bore the character of a double agreement: between imperial estates and between confessions; it reflected the overlapping of the dualism between emperor and imperial estates on the one hand and the confessional dualism between the two religious parties on the other, which determined the constitutional structure of the empire until 1806. Originally regarded as only an interim political solution until the reestablishment of the unity of faith, church, and kingdom, it became a fundamental constitutional transition to the permanent arrangement of the separation of confessions and a system of secular peace, freedom, and equality. II. In terms of content, it created a political arrangement of coexistence that guaranteed the followers of the → Augsburg Confession (CA) and the “old religion” – but not sects – the external assurance of legal existence and the freedom of spiritual development: 1. The general peace of the empire was extended to the religious realm, which effectively abolished the persecution of heretics. 2. The secular imperial estates were guaranteed protection of their institutional church and their church order, their personal legal position and sovereign rights, from which doctrine and practice derived the sovereign’s right to dictate the religion (cuius regio, eius religio) and the ecclesiastical rule of the sovereign prince in the Protestant church. 3. The spiritual jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchy over the followers of the CA was ended (“suspended”). 4. The ecclesiastical imperial estates – according to the decree of King Ferdinand (not recognized by the Protestants) – were to lose their church office and

Augural Law princedom upon changing their faith to the CA. 5. Nonimperial (local) church property remained at the disposal of the Protestant imperial estates provided that it was withdrawn from the Catholic Church before the Passau Contract of 1552 “or since then.” 6. Subjects received the right of religious emigration; they were denied further → freedom of religion (“release”). (7) The imperial knights were guaranteed freedom of confession; (8) confessionally mixed imperial cities were guaranteed the status quo. (9) Lasting peace was concluded pending religious unity in the future and (10) provided with constitutional priority; (11) its implementation was subject to impartial legal process through the imperial court. III. The Peace of Augsburg contained numerous gaps and ambiguities, some consciously created, but it was unable to bring about full agreement, because the division of faith in consequence of the ties between law and faith had led to a deep division in the understanding of church and law, and the two confessions interpreted the articles of the Peace largely in opposite ways, in line with their own confession. IV. The historical significance of the Peace of Augsburg lies (1) in the loss of the medieval unity of the church, as well as the unity of church and empire; (2) the partial secularization of the concepts of peace and freedom, which from then on also protected heretics; (3) the separation of church law into the two strata of egalitarian/neutral imperial church law and confessionally unified territorial church law; (4) the strengthening of confessional federalism; (5) the promotion of the idea of a constitution and the prevention of absolutism in the empire through imperial basic laws; (6) the formation of modern regional states as a result of confessional unity and the disempowerment of intermediate forces through the ius reformandi; (7) the loss of the Catholic claim to absolutism and of substantial parts of the Catholic church organization and church property; (8) the political security and legal recognition of the Protestant confession and church institution, though (9) at the price of its territorial splintering, politicization, and un-Reformational alienation in the princely rule of the church and right to determine the confession. Text: K. Brandi, Augsburger Religionsfriede, 21927 ◆ Bibl.: M. Ritter, Der Augsburger Religionsfriede, 1882 ◆ M. Heckel, “Autonomia und pacis compositio, Der Augsburger Religionsfriede in der Deutung der Gegenreformation,” ZSRG 76, 1959, Kan. Abt. 45, 141–248. Martin Heckel

Augural Law. The institution of the “auspicia populi Romani,” which played a central role in the public life of Rome, was strictly regulated. The modalities and various types of auspicatio stood under the control of the augurs, who set up the templa required for the practice of divination according to a complex structuring of of the

496 inner and outer areas of Rome (Var. Ling. lat V, 33). Following the taking of the auspices, the augurs then advised the querying magistrates on the proper course of action. If a problem or conflict arose, the augurs were called upon to assess the legitimacy of the auspices and of the actions involved. The Senate also consulted the augurs in matters concerning the reorganization of the auspicial system. These counsels and decisions were regularly recorded by the augurs in the protocols of their meetings. Towards the end of the Republic, the decrees and edicts contained in these documents of jurisprudence, together with the specific prayers of the augurs, became the core of Augural Law (also known as ars, scientia, or ius augurale). Our knowledge of the basic rules of Augural Law is only fragmentary. As far as we can tell from the quotations of Roman antiquarians, it consisted of specifications for the construction of the temple and of rules for public activities. According to Servius, the auspices were classified as auspicia impetrativa (solicited auspices) and auspicia oblativa (unsolicited auspices); according to Paulus ex Festo, the omens themselves were divided into categories (signa ex caelo, ex avibus, ex tripudis, ex quadripedibus, ex diris). To what extent this might correspond to the structure of Augural Law cannot be ascertained with certainty, as this systematic classification of the disciplina and of the auspices is based on the testimony of antiquarians who were in some cases augurs themselves. Cited among them in our sources are the books of M. Valerius Messalla (De auspiciis) and of L. Caesar (Augurales libri); in his Auguralis disciplinae libri, App. Claudius Pulcher propounded alternative theories that were rejected by Cicero. P. Catalano, Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale, 1960 ◆ M. Beard, “Cicero and Divination,” JRS 76, 1986, 33–46 ◆ J. Linderski, “The Augural Law,” in: H. Temporini, ed., ANRW II 16.3, 1986, 2146–2312. John Scheid

August, Duke of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (Apr 10, 1579, Dannenberg – Sep 17, 1666, Wolfenbüttel). After studying in Rostock, Tübingen, and Strasbourg, and journeying to Italy, France, and England, August led a withdrawn, scholar’s life from 1604 to 1634 in Hitzacker, where he collected books and art treasures, and corresponded with, e.g., J.V. → Andreae. His court preacher Heinrich Varenius lent his literary support to J. → Arndt. From 1635 duke of the Lüneburgian sub-duchy of Wolfenbüttel, which devolved upon him through an inheritance contract – though he was not able to take possession of its residence until 1643 –, he devoted himself to the restoration of its derelict church order and school system through the issuing of regulations (school order, 1651; monastery order, 1655; church order, 1657) and distinguished himself with works concerning biblical translation and paraphrase. His name lives on in the Wolfenbüttel library.

497 Sammler, Fürst, Gelehrter: Herzog August zu Braunschweig-Lüneburg 1579–1666, 1979 (exhibition catalogue with bibl.) ◆ J. Wallmann, “Herzog August zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg als Gestalt der Kirchengeschichte”, in: idem, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, 1995, 20–45. Johannes Wallmann

Augusti, Johann Christian Wilhelm (Oct 27, 1771, Eschenbergen, Gotha – Apr 28, 1841, Koblenz). In 1798 Ph.D. and private lecturer for oriental studies in Jena. In 1800 associate professor, 1803 full professor, 1812 professor of theology in Breslau, 1819 in Bonn. In 1828 senior councilor of the consistory, 1833 director of the consistory in Koblenz. Augusti was one of the most versatile Protestant theologians of the 19th century In addition to works on the history of dogmatics, Augusti is the author of studies on introductory questions, exegetical issues, and, in cooperation with W.M.L. de → Wette, of a new translation of the OT. His loyalty to the dogmas of the church did not prevent him from adopting a critical view of biblical tradition. Augusti did pioneering work in the field of Christian archaeology. As a member of the consistory, he was skeptical of the Rhenish presbyterial-synodal tradition and an advocate of the regional prince’s right to issue liturgical laws. Works: Grundriß einer historisch-kristischen Einleitung in’s Alte Testament, 1806 ◆ Dogmengeschichte, 41835 ◆ Handbuch der christlichen Archäologie, 1836/1837 ◆ On Augusti: H. Faulenbach, Album Professorum, 1995, 25f. Andreas Mühling

Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604/605? 609?), prior of the monastery of St. Andrew in Rome, sent to England in 595 by → Gregory I (the Great) with a group of monks, in order to carry out missionary work. While still in the kingdom of the Franks, Augustine became disheartened and returned, but was commissioned anew by Gregory and appointed abbot. While underway in Gaul, he was consecrated bishop and landed in Kent with his companions in 597. King Ethelbert (562/565–618) gave his approval to the mission and to the founding of a monastery in → Canterbury. The king and numerous Kentish natives were baptized in late 597. In 601, Gregory appointed Augustine archbishop, with the commission to establish a church province covering all England, with inclusion of the Early British church (→ Britain, Early Church). However, the integration of the latter failed, while efforts to expand missionary work beyond Kent toward Essex only met with temporary success. In Kent itself, Augustine established the archdiocese of Canterbury and the diocese of Rochester. K. Schäferdiek, Die Grundlegung der angelsächsischen Kirche, KGMG 2, 1, 1978, 149–91 ◆ H. Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 31991. Knut Schäferdiek

Augustine of Hippo Augustine of Hippo (Nov 13, 354, Thagaste – Apr 28, 430, Hippo Regius) I. Life – II. Works – III. Influence

I. Life 1. Youth. Augustine himself has supplied a wealth of information with a relative chronology (esp. in his Confessiones, Retractationes, and Epistulae); the biography of his younger friend → Possidius is also important. Augustine was born in the city of Thagaste in Roman North Africa (Souk Ahras, Algeria). His mother, → Monica, was a Catholic Christian, and his father, Patricius, belonged to one of the curial families in the city and became a catechumen shortly before his death (370/71). Through the sign of the cross and the salt rite, his mother expressed her wish that the infant should belong to the Christian community, later instructing the boy in Christian teachings. After his parents had sent him away to school, Augustine went to Madauros for higher education, including Greek. To save money for his further studies, Augustine spent a year at Thagaste (269/70); later, in Book II of his Confessions, he used the transgressions of his youth to illustrate the deep-seated depravity of human nature. In Carthage he studied rhetoric, i.e. the classical field of Latin literature (Cicero and Virgil as well as Sallust and Terentius), including philosophy. Probably in his first year of study he took up a permanent relationship (concubinate) with a woman, probably of lower social station, whose name is nowhere mentioned in his writings; c. 372 his son, not expected but received as a gift of God, Adeodatus, was born. Augustine went to Catholic services. He was a zealous student. At the age of 19 (in 373) he came upon Cicero’s Hortensius, as part of the assigned reading in his studies; through this exhortation (Protrepticus) to philosophy, Augustine was led to a quest for wisdom, and he describes the result of his reading in terms of a religious conversion. He turned to the Bible, he says (Conf. III 4.8), but to a hearing refined by the language of Cicero it could only be unpalatable; and while renouncing wealth, he neither vowed chastity nor relinquished his professional aspirations (Beata Vita 1.4; Soliloquia 10.17). The Hortensius also led him to turn to the Manichaeans (→ Manichaeism), who promised rational truth and rational knowledge as to the origin of evil; they rejected the OT and everything Jewish in Christianity, and criticized the religion of the church of the masses as authoritarian superstition; the elitism, erudition and asceticism of their elect members (electi) made them attractive. Augustine joined them as an auditor and he claims to have been a member with this minor, ascetical status for nine years, during which he continued with his assiduous studies and participated in rhetorical contests. He then taught as a grammaticus in a secondary school in

Augustine of Hippo Thagaste (375/6). With the support of the wealthy Romanius of Thagaste, his supporter already during his studies, he became established as a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage. A meeting with the Manichaean bishop → Faustus of Mileve, attended with high expectations, proved a disappointment (383). 2. Conversion. Disagreements with students and his own ambition led Augustine to move to Rome (383). There he lived in the house of a Manichaean, and Manichaean friends helped him to obtain a position as public teacher of rhetoric in Milan, one of the imperial cities (384). Through his personal intellectual curiosity as well as that of the rhetorician, Augustine came to hear the sermons of Bishop Ambrose. Augustine was impressed by the bishop’s intellect, as expressed, for instance, in his exegesis of the OT, and by his asceticism. Augustine entered the catechumenate, where he became acquainted with educated Christians reading Plotinus. At around the same time, his mother, Monica, made plans for her son for a marriage that would help him in his career; the concubine had to go. After extended reading and gaining a deeper understanding in neoplatonic literature and thought, Augustine discovered that there were ideas related to those in the Bible, esp. in St. Paul, with, however, another road to certainty being offered. Augustine saw his decision to renounce the world, including the joys of sexuality and social standing, as caused by divine intervention; later (Confessions, Book VIII) he mentions that conversions he had heard of, such as that of the Roman rhetorician Marius Victorinus or Antonius the hermit, were an inspiration to him, and he relates the story of hearing a child, in the garden of his house in Milan, calling, “Tolle lege, tolle lege (take, read!),” whereupon he takes up the Bible and opens it to Paul’s words in Rom 13:13f. After his conversion, which he dates to around Aug 1, 386, he went into seclusion at a country residence in Cassiciacum, to work out his conversion philosophically; he then applied for baptism, which he received from Ambrose at Easter 387. His mother Monica died in the fall of 387 in Ostia, secure in the knowledge that her prayers for her son’s salvation had finally been answered. 3. Augustine as bishop. Augustine returned via Carthage to Thagaste (388) gathering with friends in a monastic community, a Christian variant of the philosopher’s ideal for life. While Augustine was spending time in the harbor city Hippo Regius (Annaba, Algeria) on a pastoral call, he was ordained, against his will, to the priesthood (early 391). After a few weeks of preparation through intensive Bible study, he assisted the venerable Bishop Valerius in all his duties until he himself was consecrated bishop (coadjutor 395/396, sole bishop sometime before Aug 397). His letters and sermons, the Vita by Possidius, and the modern portrayal by Van der

498 Meer (cf. Perler & Maier) convey a vivid picture of his episcopal activities. In Hippo, Augustine transformed the bishop’s residence into a monastery in which all clerics took vows of chastity and renunciation of property and were obliged to live with their bishop. Meals could only be eaten in this household community; the Bible was read at table, Augustine offered his observations, there was discussion, and there were lively discussions with guests. Augustine made the bishop’s residence the center for administering the church’s property and treasury, for organizing construction projects and care for the poor, and even for redeeming kidnapped people from slave traders (cf. Ep. 10*; 24* Divjak). Opening his reception room in the mornings, he dealt with petitions for legal assistance and held the episcopal court. Augustine possessed the only library in the city; he complained constantly that he was able to withdraw from the “bishop’s burden,” the necessitas caritatis, only at night in order to recuperate through his studies (amor veritatis). Augustine’s household community produced many ecclesial offspring; it became an imitated model. Augustine visited anyone who had fallen into extreme distress; the sick could call upon him at any time for prayer and the laying-on of hands. On visits to women, a cleric always accompanied him. 4. Augustine as Teacher of the Church. The experienced orator was convinced that the oral word had as much persuasive power as the written. In his sermons, he interpreted biblical texts for the community, but he also identified their moral weaknesses and pagan practices, exposed for them the conversion practices of the Manichaeans and the Donatists, and instructed them concerning the reasonable doctrine of the Catholic Church. He highlighted the worthlessness of earthly goods and preached hope of eternal bliss after this life to those who believe the teachings of the Church and love God. He was twice victorious over the Manichaeans, who insisted on rational argument, in public debates (→ Fortunatus, the Manichaean, in Hippo in 392 and Felix in 404). The Donatists (→ Donatism), present almost everywhere in North Africa, avoided discussions with bishops and public debates concerning their separate existence, which they justified by the unblemished succession of the consecration of their bishops and from which they derived the sole validity of their baptismal sacrament, persuading people to be rebaptized. Although Augustine had long relied on persuasion, he agreed to the prohibition and the harsh penalty established by imperial decree (405); at the 411 discussion in Carthage arranged by the Emperor, Augustine was able to debate against them, and once more later against their Bishop Emeritus in Mauretanian Caesarea (418). Augustine also opposed the Arian bishop → Maximinus (Hippo 427/28). Augustine was convinced that the authority

499 of the Catholic Church rested on its unity (discipline, doctrine, cult). This linked him with → Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage (391–430); in the African General Synods, which took place, in principle, annually in Carthage (393 and 427 in Hippo), they cooperated cordially. As bishop, Augustine was in Carthage for several weeks on approximately twenty occasions. He preached and spoke against the Pelagians (→ Pelagius) to his fellow bishops at Synods (416–418). Augustine saw to it that the most important decisions were taken in the name of the entire church by the apostolic seat in Rome. 5. Old Age and Death. The aging bishop spent a great deal of time in his library. In the Confessiones (397– 401), he described his path to conversion to the Catholic Church; in the Retractationes (probably 427), he represented the progression of his thought in a chronological review of his theological books; he did not get around to a review of his letters and preaching. In 429, the Vandals pressed via Gibraltar toward North Africa; Hippo was besieged as Augustine was terminally ill. His last statement, recorded by his biographer Possidisu (Vita 28.11), is a quotation from Plotinus. He died, however, on Aug 28, 430, looking at four penitential psalms that he had had copied and mounted on the wall. II. Work 1. The Question of Augustine’s Theology. Augustine left his theology behind as a library. He considered all of his writings useful, but he did not designate any of his works as his legacy. For the questions that he considered resulted from disputes to which he saw himself provoked as a figure of Late Antiquity, as a Catholic Christian, and as a bishop of the Church. Augustine, himself, proposed this biographical viewpoint; it restricts the dogmatic systematization of his work and hinders its summary into a philosophy, although his successors consulted Augustine on all theological questions and found in Augustine fundamental philosophical ideas. In modern literature, the theme of “the young Augustine and his intellectual development” has attracted excessive interest, and every portrayal has sparked lively debate among scholars. Augustine gave impetus to this approach through his autobiography, Confessiones, because he portrayed his conversion to the Catholic Church as God’s gracious guidance. From a retrospective distance, Augustine saw in his conversion the goal of an intellectual path that he described as the combination of certain streams in the intellectual history of Late Antiquity. It would be insufficient to see this only as Augustine’s cultural horizon in 386, the year of his conversion. The following overview of his theology is arranged according to the major issues that occupied Augustine; biographical markers are provided by the disputes in which Augustine was engaged.

Augustine of Hippo 2. Theological Beginnings. In his first writings, the Cassiciacum-Dialogues, Augustine uses Cicero as a background against which to formulate, to justify, and to promote his convictions concerning Catholic Christianity. Although Augustine claims to have read the Apostle Paul, he nowhere appeals to him, but makes use of skeptical terminology in order to express his assurance that he is able to perceive the truth. He suggests his differences from Manichaean dogmatism; he classifies Platonic philosophers as an exception. The philosophy that Augustine refers to as such is the → Neoplatonism associated with the name of → Plotinus. Since Augustine nowhere cites Plotinus, scholarship is not agreed concerning the identification of the tractates of Plotinus that Augustine had read (cf. Mandouze), and is divided concerning the influence of → Porphyry, whom Augustine first mentioned thirty years later. The Platonic system of doctrine, as represented by Plotinus, is also knowledge of the truth, its intellectual appropriation (ratio). Later, Augustine limited his hope that he could gain knowledge from the Platonists, expecting it rather from God, in the exegesis of the Bible, and did not notice that his doctrine of creation contained ontology and metaphysics adapted from the Platonists (hierarchy of being). Augustine borrowed from Cicero’s “Hortensius” the idea that all persons want to be happy. He always held this idea, as he did Cicero’s observation that only knowledge of the truth brings happiness. Similarly, he borrowed from Cicero the dialectic of rational knowledge (ratio) and authority (auctoritas); he did not, however, acknowledge this source. Augustine always considered the priority of authority to be given in the incarnation of God in Christ; in addition to the manifestation in his life-story, he first offered all manner of reasons (natural order, quantitative universality of the ecclesia catholica, avoidance of error or credulity, reliance on the communication of knowledge by others), later expounding the salvation-historical dimension, and then supplementing it anthropologically with the observation that God’s humiliation corresponds to the humility of the believer. 3. The Catholicity of the Church against (a) Manichaeans and (b) Donatists. In the dispute with the Manichaeans and the Donatists, Augustine formulated his doctrine of the catholicity of the Church. a. In → Manichaeism, he confronted an intelligent and complex opponent. Augustine’s Manichaean opponents posed the question of the origin of evil and answered it by means of the dualism of two powers, understood as the substance of good and as the substance of evil. They conducted missions with the message that the current sorrowful human condition can be explained by the fact that souls are particles of the divine light substance that

Augustine of Hippo have been sent by necessity into the realm of darkness and evil and that can be freed from the substance foreign to them by instructive enlightenment, asceticism, and rites analogous to the Eucharist. Augustine’s counter-thesis rests on the contradictoriness of a metaphysical dualism and is condensed in the argument that God, the highest good, were subject to injury and alteration if God must send souls as particles of his own substance into the corporeal substance of darkness in order to battle evil. Neoplatonic ontology is Augustine’s rational basis, so that he is able to explain evil as the diminution of being within the one hierarchy of being and to deny it substantiality. The cause of evil, for Augustine, is a decision of the will (liberum arbitrium), therefore, sin; he understands entanglement in evil as the consequence of willful decision. The more deeply Augustine read in the Apostle Paul, the more clearly he distanced himself form the anthropology of the neoplatonic system. He shifted evil entirely to the will; the consequences of sin became the evil will that the judging God punishes with the inescapable loss of happiness. He had subscribed to the Catholic dogma of the Fall, punishment for sin, and human responsibility, evident in his adoption of the positions of → Origen, which were transmitted to Augustine through → Basil the Great via Ambrose. Consequentially, Augustine found it necessary to ask the question anew concerning the power that frees individual persons from the penalty for sin. Augustine had to defend the facticity of the Catholic Church with its doctrinal tradition. This included the fact that authority has precedence over insight and faithful submission over knowledge. Augustine had, therefore, to expound the credibility of the tradition. He did not refer to the institutionality of the church (i.e. episcopal succession), but it may be that the historical restriction of tradition should be appreciated as a theological argument. Furthermore, Augustine found it necessary against the Manichaeans to defend the OT as part of the Christian Bible that does not contradict the gospel. For this purpose, he employed the allegorical method of exegesis, refined it as the fourfold meaning of scripture, and developed far beyond this a hermeneutic of signum and res (cf. De doctrina Christiana). b. The Donatists taught that the efficacy of the sacraments depended on the holiness of the officeholder in unblemished succession, and, consequently, practiced the re-baptism of Catholic deserters. Augustine’s response consisted in the extension of the ecclesiology of → Cyprian of Carthage and in the correction of Cyprian’s doctrine of the sacraments. The catholicity of the church consists first in its universality and, thus, its unity. Its unity is effective in the openness of the love that stretches out the hand of peace; its unity should be perceptible in the community of those who love God. Since the love of

500 God is not visible, it establishes a worldwide community and is not tied to a place, nor can it be identified with persons. Unequivocally and specifically, membership in the Catholic church comes through the sacraments of the consecration of bishops and baptism. Augustine argued that these two sacraments, as sacramental signs (signum), possess in themselves a similarity to the things (res) to which they point. They become sacramental signs through the word (“accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum” [in Ev. Joh. Tractatus 80.3]. If the external act is correctly executed, it points effectively to the one who acts invisibly, to Christ, and is valid independently of the worthiness of the donor (or of the receiver). Augustine distinguished validity from usefulness, which is externally bound to the catholicity of the church, which is based on love, but which internally presumes even more effects of grace. 4. Theological Understanding. Augustine’s principle that everyone wants to be happy is applied under Platonic influence to the knowledge of God. The paths to the knowledge of God are faith and reason, beginning with faith, guarded by reason, and culminating in the beyond in all-seeing clarity of knowledge. Reason must rely on signs which authority (the Bible and church tradition) gives it in order to move from the visible signs to the invisible realities. The signs also include the world since it is the creation of the invisible God. Illumination is necessary to achieve this; because the Platonists already knew this, it is no wonder that Augustine’s doctrine of illumination speaks ambiguously both of the role of natural light in the act of perception as well as of special divine influence. The question of how the incarnate Christ shapes the content of the knowledge of God also remains unresolved. De Trinitate, on which Augustine worked for more than twenty years beginning in 399, offers (along with De Genesi ad litteram) the deepest insight into Augustine’s theological thought. For God as → Trinity resists efforts to understand. Augustine attempted to comprehend the extant formula “una substantia tres personae” by introducing, following the Aristotelian doctrine of categories, the concept of relation in order to distinguish within the Trinity. Insofar as Augustine specified the intratrinitarian relations and designated the Holy Spirit along with Father and Son as a gift, he could no longer disregard the role of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation; thus, there resulted an unresolved tension with the monotheistic principle that the behavior of the Trinity in time is inseparably one. Seeking traces of the Trinity in the divine image in humanity, he discovered the vital differentiation of the intellect into several trios, of which “memory, reason, will” is the most convincing.

501 5. Theology of History. Pagan objections in view of the plundering of Rome by the Visigoths (410) prompted Augustine to produce a monumental historico-theological apology (De civitate dei, in 22 books, written from 412 to 426/27). First, he disputes that the pagan gods have the ability to grant happiness in this world (Books II–V); then he discusses why the pagan paths to eternal happiness in religion and philosophy cannot reach their goal (Books VI–X). Augustine sees the reason for aberration and error in the self-centered arrogance of human beings who do not seek blissful knowledge through faith in authority and who reject Christ, the mediator. But it is not belief and unbelief that interpret the ambivalent history of humanity and clarify the meaning of the fate of humanity, but interpretive categories which include ontology and metaphysics. Love for God (amor dei) and its perversion in self-love (amor sui) are the bases of two communities, the city of God (civitas dei) and the city of the devil (civitas diaboli). In the pre-historical realm of ideal abstraction, Augustine describes the origin of the two states in two contrary wills (Books XI–XIV). Their history in time would have been the history of the sinful person who has fallen into self-love, if God’s ineffable grace had not determined a few to be citizens of the divine city. In the historical period, the two cities remained “intermingled” (Books XV–XVIII), they will be separated only at the end of history, when they wil experience either bliss (beatitudo) in Paradise or its loss in hell (Books XIX–XXII). The earthly city (civitas terrena) is a historical entity as self-love tends to the visible; Augustine elucidates the “pilgrim” existence of the citizens of the divine city by presenting the institutional character of the church only in eschatological prospective (XX 9). Augustine’s theology of history is dualistic. Nonetheless, Augustine avoids metaphysical dualism; for he shifts the origin of the evil will into the realm of the created (the Fall); furthermore, his subdivision as well as his existential categories are intended to prevent history from appearing to be a battleground between two powers. 6. Doctrine of Grace. Augustine’s doctrine of grace is uniform and consistently formulated in the phases of the dispute with the Pelagians. Chronologically, its basis is his first writing as bishop (Simpl. I q. 2) and in substance, it is the recognition that God grants faith. God’s grace creates the good will; the human decision for good is the effect of grace, based in God’s ineffable will, with disregard for any human merit. Augustine appeals to the election of Jacob in the womb (Rom 9:10–16) and considers himself obliged by Paul to attribute the “desire” and not just the “accomplishment” to divine activity (Phil 2:13). His argument is like a refrain: “What do you have that you have not been given?” (1 Cor 4:17). Augustine accepts the doctrine of original sin (pec-

Augustine of Hippo catum originale) and expands it in opposition to → Pelagius. Adam’s Fall altered, damaged, and perverted the nature created by God. Every person is ruled from birth by self-love (amor sui). Augustine sees the decisive example for egoism (concupiscentia) in sexual lust so that he can very simply elucidate the universality of sin because no Christian is sin-free, not even in marriage restricted to rearing children. Naturally, for Augustine, sexual concupiscence is not the cause of sin, but it was disastrous that he made it paradigmatic. Augustine supports a monastic ethic. Questions concerning the freedom of the good will motivated by God’s grace in “inexpressible gentleness,” and concerning the beginning and endurance of faith finally forces Augustine to make the doctrine of predestination a criterion and to incorporate the doctrine of grace into it. In theory this is logical because Augustine says, “God in predestination foresees what he will himself do” (“praedestinatione . . . deus ea praescivit quae fuerat ipse facturus,” De praedestinatione sanctorum 10.19). God chooses a few sinners for salvation (particular salvation), while the mass of sinners await his judgment. Augustine’s conclusion is onesided, however, because it disregards Christology and makes Jesus the prototype only of the predestined person; it is ambiguous because the predestination of perseverantia, that is, the effective call and the inability to sin, is conceived in infralapsarian terms (→ Infralapsarianism). Augustine considers predestination one of the dogmas of the church because it teaches humility. III. Influence In the Latin West, Augustine’s impact up until the beginning of the Reformation period was such that no one wanted to be accused of differing with him. In fact, however, → Augustinianism is a complex construct in relation to which distinctions should be made between Augustinian principles and their interpretation, on the one hand, and rediscoveries of his theological insights, on the other hand. No one has ever succeeded in unifying Augustine’s theology into a dogmatic system. Some of the most important and decisive moments in his reception are mentioned here. → Leo I fused Augustinian elements into a dogmatic Christology and transformed Augustine’s ecclesiology into the papacy. Augustine’s doctrine of grace was preserved through the after-pains of the Pelagian dispute by means of the suppression of the doctrine of predestination and by speaking, instead, of divine illumination (Synod of Orange 529; → Orange, Synod of ). In vain, the monk → Gottschalk of Orbais insisted on the thorn of predestination, as did later also Thomas → Bradwardine or John → Wycliffe. Contrary positions concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist could claim Augustine as their authority, as did Radbert against

Augustine, Rule of Saint → Ratramnus, → Lanfranc against → Berengar of Tours, Luther against → Karlstadt and Zwingli; it attained clarity for the church by means of the supporting argument of → transsubstantiation. → Anselm of Canterbury opened the horizon for Scholasticism and its distinction between philosophy and theology in which Augustine’s categories of faith and reason could be separated. Under Augustine’s protection, → Aristotelianism as the “handmaiden of theology” entered into Thomism (→ Thomas Aquinas). With appeal to Augustine, Platonism was absorbed into the Franciscan theologians’ doctrine of illumination and the attempt was made to limit it by emphasizing the will over against the intellect. Theologians of the “via moderna,” following William of → Occam, extended the doctrine of predestination in contexts that did not, in fact, correspond to Augustine’s anti-Pelagian postion, but remained, nonetheless, obligated to the Augustinian consensus in the Sentences of → Peter Lombard. Augustine’s distinction between two cities had political consequences when it was equated with the historical entities of the church and the worldly realm. In the → Investiture Controversy one hears echoes of Augustine’s contention that the Roman Empire was perverted by false religion; this led to the conclusion that true religion sanctifies the earthly state (potestas), and from this derived the papal claim that this sanctification is accomplished in subjection to the representative of Christ (auctoritas). The beginnings of the Reformation were accompanied by intensive reading of Augustine, accessible in the printed edition of his works by → Amerbach (Basel 1506). “Evangelical exegesis of the Gospel,” however, goes beyond Augustine, while the Catholicism of Trent condemned Augustine’s strict doctrine of grace along with → Baius and → Jansenism. Augustine’s modern attraction lies in themes such as ecclesiology, Christian philosophy, time concept, theory of subjectivity, church doctrine, personal piety, and autobiography. Works: CPL 3, 250–357 ◆ Mauriner edition, 11 vols., 1679– 1700 (= with revisions PL 32–46, 1841–1842, supplements PLS 1+2, 1958–1960) ◆ Individual critical editions CSEL and CChr.SL ◆ Epistolae ex duobus codicibus nuper in lucem prolatae, ed. J. Divjak, CSEL 88, 1981 ◆ Alphabetically: AugL, 1986ff. ◆ Schindler, TRE IV, 1979, 690–692 (with datings) ◆ Chronologically: A. Mutzenbecher, CChr.SL 57, 1984, XVII– XXI ◆ A list of sermons in P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de s. Augustin, IP 12, 1976 ◆ F. Dolbeau, ed., Augstin d’Hippone: Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, 1996 ◆ Aids: CPL 3, 250–359 ◆ BAug 1ff., 1936ff. ◆ AugL, 1986ff. ◆ Specimina eines Lexicon Augustinianum, ed. W. Hensellek & P. Schilling, 1987ff. ◆ C. Mayer, ed., Corpus Augustinianum Gissene (CD-ROM), 1996 ◆ Bibliographies: C. Andresen, ed., Bibliographia Augustiniana, 21973 ◆ REAug 1955ff. Bibl.: H. Reuter, Augustinische Studien, 1887 ◆ O. Rottmanner, Der Augustinismus, 1892 ◆ K. Holl, “Augustins innere Entwicklung,” in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte III, 1928, 54–116 ◆ E. Gilson, Introduction à l’étude de s. Augustin, 1929 ◆ H.-J. Marrou, S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, 1938

502 (41958) ◆ F. Van der Meer, Augustinus de zielzorger, 1946 ◆ P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de s. Augustin, 1950 ◆ C. Andresen, ed., Augustinus-Gespräch der Gegenwart, vol. I, 1962, vol. II, 1981 ◆ P. Courcelle, Les Confessions de s. Augustin dans la tradition littéraire, 1963 ◆ R. Lorenz, “Gnade und Erkenntnis bei Augustin,” ZKG 75, 1964, 21–78 ◆ P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 1967 ◆ H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics, 2 vols., 1967 ◆ A. Mandouze, S. Augustin L’aventure de la raison et de la grâce, 1968 ◆ O. Perler, Les voyages de s. Augustin, 1969 ◆ R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, 1970 ◆ A. Schindler, “Augustinus/Augustinismus I,” TRE IV, 1979, 646–698 ◆ E. Mühlenberg, “Von Augustin bis Anselm von Canterbury,” HDThG I, 1982, 406–566 ◆ G. Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo, 1986 ◆ H. Chadwick, Augustine, 1986 ◆ E. Dassmann, Augustinus: Heiliger und Kirchenlehrer, 1993 ◆ K. Flasch, Augustin: Einführung in sein Denken, 21994 ◆ G. Madec, Petites études augustiniennes, 1994 ◆ J.M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, 1994 Ekkehard Mühlenberg

Augustine, Rule of Saint. The first Western monastic rules originated in the circle around → Augustine ; the influence of Eastern examples (→ Pachomius, → Basil the Great) is evident. Transmitted as Augustinian texts are: (1) the “Praeceptum,” consisting of 12 chapters, which may have been written by Augustine himself c. 397, (2) the “Regularis informatio,” an addendum to (Pseudo?-) Augustine’s Ep. 211, an adaptation for women’s convents first attested in the 6th century, and (3) the “Ordo monasterii,” a brief order for external cloistered life from the 5th/6th century. From the 11th century, the Augustinian rule (in the form of the Praeceptum with the first sentence of the Ordo monasterii preposited) was received, in the movement of reform, unification, and reestablishment, by clergy communities (→ Canons Regular of St. Augustine, → Premonstratensians), in the 13th century by parts of the mendicant order movement (→ Dominicans, → Augustinian Hermits). Numerous modern orders also observe the Augustinian rule, e.g. the → Ursulines and the → Salesians. The reception of the Augustinian rule by widely varying monastic communities is made possible by its open character. It contains forceful spiritual interpretations of the monastic lifestyle but only a few, broad, individual regulations for communal life. The emphasis lies on the idea of spiritual brotherhood as the revival of the first congregation according to Acts 4:32, with great emphasis on the proper attitude of the heart. The outward manifestation of the monastic life under the Augustinian rule is multiform and is established in “Augustinian” communities by constitutions or other supplements to the rule. Sources: L. Verheijen, La Règle de Saint Augustin, 2 vols., 1967 ◆ A. Zumkeller, Das Mönchtum des heiligen Augustinus, 21968 ◆ L. Verheijen, Nouvelle approche de la règle de Saint Augustin, 2 vols., 1980–1988. Hellmut Zschoch

503 Augustine’s Theory of Time. In book XI of the Confessiones, Augustine asks what time is and how we measure (the duration of ) motion. The temporal contrast between beginning and ending he connects with the question whether a human being – or only God – can begin and/or end a motion or action on earth or in the heavens. Through counterfactual hypotheses concerning the forms of motion exhibited by heavenly bodies and about our temporal units, Augustine illuminates the conventional aspects of temporal measurement. He observes that the rotation of a potter’s wheel can establish a unit of time as well as the course of a heavenly body. On the contrafactual hypothesis of God’s bringing all movements in the heavens to an end, there is no movement equally accessible to all human beings that could establish a basic unit of time. Augustine knows that the duration of even a minimal standard motion is so long that for every observer its beginning lies in the past and its ending in the future; only a liminal moment lies in the present. Therefore a present recollection of things past, a present awareness of things present, and a present expectation of things to come disclose the temporal components of phenomena that make it possible to measure their duration. But no such cognitive activity can show directly whether the recollected past is part of the present and/or the future, whether the perceived present is part of the past and/or future, and whether the expected future is part of the past and/or the present. Within the limits of these three cognitive abilities, therefore, there takes place a transformation described by Augustine in dramatic semimetaphors: I myself am dismembered into the three temporal dimensions; each of my actions is both temporally extended and temporally fragmented; and insofar as a human life in its entirety consists in such actions, my whole life is a single extension and fragmentation. But if the structure of time amounts to no more than past, present, and future, and if the mind produces this structure through memory, perception, and expectation, then – Augustine suggests skeptically – time itself appears to be an extension of my mind. Resolution of this existential temporal distension must wait until I am merged with God. U. Duchrow, “Der sogenannte psychologische Zeitbegriff Augustins im Verhältnis zur physikalischen und geschichtlichen Zeit,” ZTK 63, 1966, 267–288 ◆ H.-J. Kaiser, Augustinus: Zeit und “memoria”, 1969 ◆ P. Janich, “Augustinus’ Zeitparadox und seine Frage nach einem Standard der Zeitmessung,” AGP 54, 1972, 168–186 ◆ G.J.P. O’Daly, “Time as Distentio and St. Augustine’s Exegesis of Philippians 3:12–14,” REAug 23, 1977, 265–271 ◆ E.P. Meijering, Augustinus über Schöpfung, Ewigkeit und Zeit, 1979 ◆ E.A. Schmidt, Zeit und Geschichte bei Augustin, SHAW.PH 1985 ◆ R. Enskat, “Zeit, Bewegung, Handlung und Bewußtsein im XI. Buch der ‘Confessiones’ des hl. Augustinus,” in: Zeit, Bewegung, Handlung, ed. E. Rudolph, 1988, 193–221 ◆ K. Flasch, Was ist Zeit? Augustinus von Hippo, das XI. Buch der Confessiones, 1993. Rainer Enskat

Augustinian Hermits Augustinian Hermits. In the papal interests of incorporating the religious poverty movement into the centralized discipline of the Roman church, → Innocent IV began in 1243 to combine smaller hermit groups under the Rule of St. Augustine (→ Augustine, Rule of ). This unification into the “Ordo Eremitarum Sancti Augustini” (OESA) was completed under Alexander IV in 1256 with the bull “Licet ecclesiae.” Associated with this unification was a transformation of the hermit communities into a mendicant order charged with municipal pastoral care and theological education. Its structure as a flexible union of persons with elected offices was fixed by the Regensburg Constitutions of 1290 patterned on the → Dominicans. The Augustinian Hermits were able as early as the 13th century to spread quickly throughout large portions of Europe. They worked as pastoral carers and preachers in the cities and as theologians in the developing → universities. The influence of the most important theological representatives of the Augustinian Hermits, → Giles of Rome (d. 1316) and → Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358), remained, however, largely limited to the order. They attempted to integrate elements of monastic theology into scholastic scholarship and to gain acceptance for the authority of the “father” of the order, → Augustine of Hippo ; they did not, however, form their own school. In the late Middle Ages, the general decline in other ecclesial institutions affected the Augustinian Hermits, too; several congregations then formed which with their own structures emulated the ideal of “observantia regularis” and strove for a deeper appropriation of the spiritual bases of monastic life. At the beginning of the 16th century, the Saxon-Thuringian Reform congregation under its Vicar General, Johann von → Staupitz (d. 1524), enjoyed universal respect. It produced the most important theologian of the order, the Wittenberg University professor Martin Luther (1483–1546), who pushed efforts at monastic reform to a climax in his program of an “evangelical” reform of the church, at the same time, however, radically criticizing the order system and traditional ecclesiasticality. As a consequence, the Order of the Augustinian Hermits suffered a severe crisis, especially in Germany, which was overcome in the church as a whole by the work of the Order General H. → Seripando (d. 1563), who was open to reform in the older sense, even though his Augustine-inspired doctrine of justification did not prevail at the Council of → Trent. The Augustinian Hermits were just as involved in the stabilization and internal renewal of the Roman Catholic Church as in its universalization in the work of the overseas mission which they carried out from Spain and Portugal. The order attained its highest membership in the 18th century with approx. 20,000 adherents

Augustinianism before experiencing significant losses in Europe through secularization. Since the general congregation of Villanova, USA, in 1968, at which the constitutions were renewed, the order bears the name “Ordo Fratrum Sancti Augustini” (OSA). In 1997, it had 2900 members worldwide in 480 chapters. Sources: Las primitivas Constituciones de los Agustinos, ed. I. Arámburu Cendoya, 1966 ◆ Bibliographies: “Bibliographie historique de l’ordre de saint Augustin 1945–1975”, AugL 26, 1976, 39–340, with continuous supplements ◆ E. Gindele, Bibliographie zur Geschichte und Theologie des Augustinerordens bis zum Beginn der Reformation, SuR 1, 1977. Bibl.: A. Kunzelmann, Geschichte der deutschen Augustiner, 7 vols., 1969–1976 ◆ B. van Luijk, Le monde augustinien du XIIIe au XIXe siècle, 1972 ◆ D. Gutiérrez & J. Gavigan, Geschichte des Augustinerordens, vols. I/1, I/2, II, IV, 1975–1988 ◆ H. Zschoch, Klosterreform und monastische Spiritualität im 15.Jh., BHTh 75, 1988 ◆ R. Weinbrenner, Klosterreform im 15. Jahrhundert zwischen Ideal und Praxis, SuR 7, 1996 ◆ E.L Saak, Highway to Heaven, 2002. Hellmut Zschoch

Augustinianism in the more limited sense of a further development of certain doctrines of → Augustine into theological or philosophical concepts is to be distinguished from Augustinianism in the broader sense as dependence on Augustine’s formulation of problems and responses, especially concerning humanity’s relationship with God, mystical union with God and monastic life. Many pseudepigrapha attest to Augustine’s significance. Serious alternatives to Augustine’s thought became effective only c. 1250. Dependence on Augustine’s doctrine of grace found expression in the early Middle Ages primarily in the condemnation of southern French semi-Pelagianism (→ Pelagius) at the 2nd Synod of → Orange in 529. The Synods of Mainz (848) and Quierzy (849) condemned the Augustinian → Gottschalk because he maintained dual → predestination. → Peter Lombard transmitted and systematized Augustine’s doctrine in his Sententiae. The so-called “philosophical Augustinianism” of the High Middle Ages (→ Bonaventura , → Henry of Ghent) started, in contrast to the influence of commentators on → Aristotle, from Augustine’s view that the source of all certain knowledge is the divine illumination of the soul. In the order of the → Augustinian Hermits, → Giles of Rome founded an Augustinian school. In the late Middle Ages, representatives of the so-called “Augustinian theology of grace” claimed to have identified a renewed Pelagianism in the notion, directed against Parisian Aristotelians, that creation is contingent, God had not committed himself. Thomas → Bradwardine countered that God is the first mover in all creative actions and foreknows the future decisions of the human will. → Gregory of Rimini postulated for every good human deed a particular assistance from God. J. → Wycliffe maintained that

504 because God had decided before eternity who should be chosen and who rejected, nothing that an individual might do could influence the decision. Late scholastic opponents (Pierre d’ → Ailly, J. → Gerson, G. → Biel ) branded such Augustinianism as “excessive,” claiming at the same time, to be good students of Augustine in their way. Both Aegidius of Rome, who maintained that dominion is only valid if confirmed by the church, and Wycliffe, who wanted to involve lay rulers in the reform of the church, appealed to Augustine (“political Augustinianism”). From the Romans lectures (1515/16) onward, Luther argued against scholastic theologians using Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, especially the De spiritu et littera. After the Leipzig Disputation (1519), he appealed less often to Augustine’s exegesis of Paul. A. → Karlstadt offered a running commentary on De spiritu et littera in 1517/18. Calvin claimed Augustine against his Catholic opponents. J.v. → Hochstraten, G. → Contarini and H. → Seripando appealed to Augustine against the Reformers. In 1567, Pius V condemned theses by M. → Baius concerning original sin, prevenient grace, and the human incapacity for good. L. de → Molina wanted to justify God’s omniscience and human freedom of will through his doctrine of God’s scientia media. In 1611, Paul V prohibited any further discussion. C. → Jansen’s work, Augustinus, published posthumously in 1640, caused a sensation. B. → Pascal sided with the Jansenists. Yet, decisive statements of Jansen were condemned as heretical in 1653 and once again in 1713. Appealing to Augustine, P.K. → Marheineke appealed to Augustine in his polemics against Enlightenment optimism in anthropology. E. Portalié, “Augustinianisme,” DThC I/2, 1931, cols. 2485– 2501; “Augustinisme,” op. cit., cols. 2501–2561 ◆ L. Smits, Saint Augustin dans l’œuvre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols, 1956–1958 ◆ A. Zumkeller, “Die Augustinerschule des MA,” AAug 27, 1964, 167–262 ◆ L. Grane, “Divus Paulus et S. Augustinus, interpres eius fidelissimus: Über Luthers Verhältnis zu Augustin,” in: FS E. Fuchs, 1973, 133–146 ◆ C. Burger, “Der Augustinschüler gegen die modernen Pelagianer,” in: Gregor von Rimini: Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation, ed. H.A. Oberman, 1981, 195–240 ◆ A. Zumkeller, Erbsünde, Gnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehre der Erfurter Augustinertheologen des Spätmittelalters, 1984 ◆ C.M. Kasper, “Der Beitrag der Mönche zur Entwicklung des Gnadenstreites in Südgallien . . .” in: FS C.P. Mayer, 1989, 153–182 ◆ B. Hamm, “HieronymusBegeisterung und Augustinismus vor der Reformation,” in: Augustine . . ., FS Oberman, ed. K. Hagen, 1990, 127–235 ◆ J.M.J. Lange van Ravenswaay, Augustinus totus noster: Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin, 1990 ◆ I. Backus, The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West . . ., 2 vols, 1997. Christoph Burger

Augustinians → Canons Regular of St. Augustine Augustinus (after 1582: Triumphus) of Ancona (1270/73 – Apr 2, 1328). Augustinus Triumphus OESA is noted for his advocacy of papal sovereignty. He taught

505 as lector at the University of Paris in 1297 and lectured on the Sentences c. 1302 to 1306 in Paris and later in Padua. From 1313 to 1315, he taught in Paris as magister. He served as director of the order’s house of studies and as counselor to the king of Naples. He also had ties with → John XXII. He was influenced by → Giles of Rome. His works include NT commentaries and the Summa de ecclesiastica potestate, completed in 1326, which supports papal absolutism: all authority, both sacral and secular, resides in the Pope. U. Horst, “Die Lehrautorität des Papstes nach Augustinus von Ancona,” AAug 53, 1991, 271–303. Christoph Burger

Augustus, Gaius Octavius (Sep 23, 63 bce, Rome – Aug 19, 14 ce, Nola). From May of 44 bce, Octavian was the adopted son and official heir of C. Julius → Caesar ; from Jan 27, his official title was Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, and after his deification in Sep 14, Divus Augustus. With his victory over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium (Sep 2, 31), Augustus put an end to a century of Roman constitutional crises and civil wars. The Empire, expanded between 30 and 14 bce to include several new provinces, was on the threshold of four centuries of peace, marred only by internal conflicts and border skirmishes, under the laws of the Pax Romana (Pax Augusta). In the urban centers of Italy and the provinces, with the ongoing support of Augustus, art, science, and literature flourished greatly. Augustus’s political reforms extended to practically every domain: administration, finance, the courts, the military; social measures played an auxiliary role. Taken as a whole, his political program aimed to secure the enduring power of the emperor. Especially during the initial phase, when the principate was being established as a new form of government, Augustus drew purposefully on republican traditions in the realm of government (imperium proconsulare, tribunicia potestas), religion, and social norms (mos maiorum). In the process, ancient tradition and its late embodiment in the last century of the republic (→ Cicero) went hand in hand with the program of the present, which – retrojected into the past – took on normative force. It would be wrong to view these actions of Augustus, often summarized as the “Augustan renewal” (a vague term, with negative overtones since 1933), as the focus of his policies: wherever new structures were needed, Augustus simply did without restorative elements or freely adapted traditional material. This is true especially of his so-called religious reforms, which should not be considered a “renewal of the official Roman religion”; many of them barely survived his own lifetime. Nevertheless religio, i.e. observance of the ordered relationship with the

Aulén, Gustaf gods, was one of the highest virtues of a ruler. This in turn paved the way for the transference to the princeps of the longstanding practice of divinizing Roman officials, common in the Hellenistic east, for its extension to the west, and thus for the firm establishment of the emperor cult. The major authors of the period participated in varying degrees in the promotion of the ideology surrounding Augustus and his rule. There is a tendency today to find both hopeful and cautionary overtones (“ambivalences”) alongside the affirmative to panegyric elements even in the great poems of → Virgil and the so-called political odes of Horace, not to mention the elegies of Propertius and all of Ovid. The readers of this highly artificial poetry could only have come from the upper classes, not the general populace; its propaganda value for Augustus and his policies was therefore limited. The self-confident competition with earlier Greek and Hellenistic poetry is paralleled in architecture and the graphic arts. The famous iconographic projects (→ Ara Pacis Augustae, the breastplate on the statue of Augustus from Primaporta, etc.; cf. also images on coins) represent only a small part of the art produced during the period. It was probably due less to the Lukan birth legend (Luke 2:1ff.) than to the theologized history of Virgil, which glorified the era of Augustus, that Augustus became stylized as the model of a Christian ruler (cf. Charlemagne as the new Augustus), so that his reign of peace was idealized and understood as an essential condition for the spread of Christianity. G. Binder, ed., Saeculum Augustum, 3 vols., WdF 266, 512, 632, 1987–1991 (bibl.) ◆ D. Kienast, Augustus, 31999 ◆ G. Binder, “Augusteische Erneuerung”, in: FS W. Heilmann, 1993, 279–299. Gerhard Binder

Aulén, Gustaf (May 15, 1879, Ljungby, Sweden – Dec 16, 1977, Lund). Aulén was a student of N. → Söderblom and Einar Magnus Billing. From 1913 to 1933, he was professor of systematic theology at Lund, from 1933 to 1952 bishop of Strängnäs, and from 1944 to 1950 president of the Academy of Music. With A.T.S. → Nygren and Ragnar Bring, Aulén shaped the theology of the Lundensian school and put his stamp on systematic and historical theology in Sweden. In the life of the church, he engaged in the struggle against National Socialism, was an ecumenical pioneer, and promoted liturgical renewal, especially in music. Aulén defined the task of theology as the interpretation of the image of God given in the revelation of Christ and the presentation of its motifs in the conceptual language of the present. In his Christus Victor theology, he emphasized the cosmic dimension of the classical doctrine of the atonement. In the domain of historical theology, Aulén

Aurelius, of Carthage (Saint) turned his back on the notion of development and emphasized the dramatic perspective in the struggle of the gospel with the forces of darkness. Works include: The Drama and the Symbols: A Book on Images of God and the Problems They Raise, 1970 ◆ On Aulén: J. Anderlonis, The Soteriology of Gustaf Aulén, 1988. Sigurd Bergmann

Aurelius, of Carthage (Saint) (place and date of birth unknown). When → Augustine returned to Africa in 388, Aurelius was still a deacon, but by 391 he was already bishop of Carthage. With Augustine’s support, he introduced the feast day of Cyprian (Sep 19/14). At the African synod in 401, he vigorously supported the importance of Sunday and the feasts of the martyrs. As primate, Aurelius presided over the all-African councils and the conference of 411. He inaugurated the long series of African synods beginning Oct 8, 393. These synods served not only to resolve questions of discipline and theology, but also and above all to strengthen the bonds linking the African provinces. The conflict with → Donatism was vigorously pursued by Aurelius, who pursued the line of argument initiated by → Optatus of Milevis. The conflict with paganism was supported by the anti-pagan Theodosian Code. After 411, the struggle with Pelagianism claimed a major share of Aurelius’s energy. Of his voluminous correspondence, only a single letter to the bishops of the province of Byzacena is extant, condemning → Pelagius (PL 20, 1009– 1014 = CPL, 395). The extensive achievements of Aurelius are inconceivable without his close relationship with Augustine, whose theological inspiration transformed the ecclesiastical politician. The Carthaginian calendar gives Jul 20, 429/430 as the date of his death. A.-M. LaBonnardière, “Aurelius episcopus,” AugL I, 1986, 550– 566. Wilhelm Geerlings

Aurifaber (Goldschmidt), 1. Andreas (1514, Breslau [Wrocław] – Dec 12, 1559, Königsberg [Kaliningrad]); brother of 2. From 1527 on he studied and taught at Wittenberg. In 1539 he became rector of the Latin school in Danzig; he move to Elbing in 1541, returned to Wittenberg in 1542, and then studied medicine in Padua. In 1546 he was appointed professor at Königsberg and became the personal physician to the duke. In 1550 a second marriage made him the son-inlaw of A. → Osiander, after whose death he became the leader of the Osiandrist party, exercising great influence on Duke → Albert of Prussia. VD 16, I, 8, 1987, 43f., G2559–2566 ◆ I. Dingel, LThK I, 1993, 1256f. (bibl.). Heinz Scheible

2. Johannes (Vratislaviensis) ( Jan 30, 1517, Breslau [Wrocław] – Oct 19, 1568, Breslau); brother of 1. After studying and teaching at Wittenberg, in 1543 he

506 became the son-in-law of J. → Heß. In 1547 he became rector of a school at Breslau but returned to Wittenberg in 1548 as professor. In 1550 he moved to Rostock with his doctorate in theology to become professor and pastor. He was the primary author of the Mecklenburg church order of 1552. In 1554, as president of the diocese of Samland, he was called to Königsberg. In 1567 be moved to Breslau as pastor. As a faithful disciple of → Melanchthon, he sought to mediate the Osiandric controversy (→ Osiander). VD 16, I, 8, 1987, 44, G2567f. ◆ T. Kaufmann, “Universität und lutherische Konfessionalisierung,” QFRG LVI, 1997 ◆ VD 16, I, 8, 1987, 43f., G2559–2566 ◆ I. Dingel, LThK I, 1993, 1256f. Heinz Scheible

Aurifaber, (Goldschmidt) Vinariensis, Johannes (1519, Weimar – Nov 18, 1575, Erfurt). Aurifaber entered the University of Wittenberg in 1537. In 1544/45 he served as a military chaplain in France. In 1545/46 he became Luther’s assistant. In 1546/47 he became military chaplain to → John Frederick the Magnanimous. In 1547 he became a preacher at the Weimar court, becoming the second court preacher in 1550; after 1556 he was the only court preacher. In 1561 he was deposed because he was a → Gnesio-Lutheran and moved to Eisleben. In 1566 he took a pastorate in Erfurt and after 1572 became senior minister there. Aurifaber undertook professionally the collection, dissemination and edition of Luther’s writings after the latter’s death. His edition of Luther’s dinner speeches has been influential (1566, repr. 1967). VD 16, 1, 8, 1987, 44 G2569f. ◆ H. Junghans, TRE IV, 1979, 752–755 (bibl.). Heinz Scheible

Aurobindo Ghose (Aug 15, 1872, Calcutta – May 12, 1950, Pondicherry), called Sri Aurobindo, was an Indian nationalist thinker and fighter, poet, “yogi” (→ Yoga) and “guru”. Reared in England, he became a teacher of English in the Indian principality of Baroda in 1893. Only then did he occupy himself intensively with Indian culture. Through his publications he became one of the intellectual leaders of the extreme wing of the Indian national movement, which was, from 1906 onward, an underground movement. He was imprisoned in 1908, when he had religious visions. In order to escape renewed imprisonment, he fled in 1910 to the French colony of Pondicherry, where he dedicated himself until his death entirely to developing his own worldview, borrowing from European and Indian sources. In contrast to afterlife-oriented efforts at redemption and asceticism, a person should strive for a spiritual existence by means of “integral yoga,” in which spirit and material develop in relation to one another in an evolutionary, unregulated process. The highest state is the “super-

507

Australia

man.” From 1914 to 1921, he was in close partnership with a Frenchwoman of Turkish origins, Mira Richard, known as “the mother,” who, with his adherents, built around Aurobindo an ashram (→ Āśrama), which today has international influence. Works include: The Life Divine, 1939 ◆ The Human Cycle, 1949 ◆ Sri Aurobindo on Himself and the Mother, 1953 ◆ The Foundations of Indian Culture, 1959. Bibl.: K. Dockhorn, Tradition und Evolution, 1969 ◆ O. Wolf, Sri Aurobindo, 1995 (bibl.). Jürgen Lütt

Auschwitz → Concentration Camp, → Holocaust Ausonius, Decimus Magnus Ausonius (c. 310 Bordeaux – after 393/94, Bordeaux) became professor of grammar and rhetoric in 335, Gratian’s tutor in 365, and held high state office up to the consulate. With the transfer of the Imperial residence from Trier to Milan (381), Ausonius lost his influence to → Ambrose and retired from politics entirely after the murder of Gratian (383), and lived on his lands near Bordeaux. Of particular note in his poetic oeuvre are works in which the autonomous world of art is confronted with and broken open by contemporary reality: the “Mosella poem”, which is reminiscent in passages of the modern sense of nature, the “Bissula songs” inspired by the Alamannic campaign of 368/69, and the poetic exchange of letters with → Paulinus of Nola, which vainly sought to dissuade the “nominal Christian” from renouncing worldly literature in favor of Christian asceticism. Works: R. Peiper, ed., Opuscula, 1886–1976 ◆ R.P.H. Green, ed., The Works of Ausonius, 1991. Bibl: W.-L. Liebermann, “Decimus Magnus Ausonius,” in R. Herzog, ed., Restauration und Erneuerung, Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike V, 1989, 268–308 ◆ H. Sivan, Ausonius of Bordeaux, 1993 ◆ M. von Albrecht, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 21994, 1047–1054. Meinolf Vielberg

Australia I. History of Religions – II. Church History

I. History of Religions 1. Aborigines. By around 1770 the outside world had made contact with some 250 indigenous Australian languages, but there must have been almost twice as many culturo-linguistic groups on the Australian continent and in Tasmania. The precolonial Aboriginal population probably numbered about a million; most lived primarily as nomadic hunter-gatherers in the north, along the eastern coast, and in the outback. Religion and the land formed a unity. Aborigines appear to be literally overwhelmed by their sense of place: all the events of life – not just fundamental rhythms like day and night or the changing seasons but also the succession of generations and ceremonies associated with the life cycle and the prosperity of the collective – continually revivify

the sacred significance of the fatherland or motherland. Aborigines and outside observers agree that place has an absolutely primary significance for Aboriginal communities, although the individual members of the community do not enjoy an exclusive right to a particular place. The Aboriginal “dreamtime,” as a Cape York speaker once emphasized, would be better understood as the “place of settlement,” but in the sense that the land is filled with imperishable events, or better that the incidents of a particular day suggest the “foreverness” of life. If it is legitimate to speak of primal events in Aboriginal thought, we are dealing not with a dream-past thousands of years ago but with enduring elements within and behind important deeds, the evolution of groups, and other events of the day as well as their particular locations. The ceremonies and clearly religious elements in the life of Aborigines reflect this relationship with the land. To the Western observer, the major ceremonies appear greatly protracted; to the indigenous people, however, the time consumed reflects the imperishability of the cosmos. The ceremonies (today often called corroborees) normally bring together two groups that live in different places and sometimes even speak different languages. The participants must cover long distances, and the elders must be equipped to exchange arcane knowledge about myths and ancestors. The rituals are performed at sacred sites or recognized “stopping places” where contact is possible with the creative, ever-active power that constitutes the law of all life. Aboriginal myths are extraordinarily complex and require explanation by local specialists, for theories from outside sometimes tend toward structuralist, psychoanalytic, or other overly theoretical interpretations. Creation narratives like the tradition of “supernatural beings” that awaken under the desert soil of Aranda (central Australia) are easily historicized into “prehistory” by interpreters totally in thrall to the linear Western understanding of time. Rituals often have a regulatory function, especially in increasing the variety of foodstuffs, but a contrary purpose occasionally appears as well. Myths and songs are usually intended to inculcate precepts concerning the acquisition and consumption of food and instructions concerning the dead. Various vital forces emerge from their local universes, so that even a birth normally derives its significance more by association with the place of birth than with the womb. If Aboriginal religion cannot be separated from politics, economy, law, and a sense of “geographical order,” other domains, less well documented, may also have a religious context: occasional military campaigns and the reasons for them, magic, punishments, and healings. Interpretations by outsiders have tended to be too selective and to distort the picture. M. → Eliade, for example, greatly exaggerated the shamanistic elements

Australia

508

Darwin

Cooktown

Wyndham

Cairns Derby

Northern Territory Western Australia

Townsville

Mount Isa

Mackay

Queensland

Rockhampton

Alice Springs Charleville

Brisbane

Geraldton

South Australia Kalgoorlie Perth

Bourke

Broken Hill

Port Augusta

New South Wales Newcastle

Adelaide Canberra

Albany

Sydney

Victoria Melbourne

Aboriginal Settlements in Australia Settlements of Indigenous Peoples/Aboriginals, includes Reservations

Ta s m a n i a

Hobart

Designated areas are common property of groups, clans or tribes

in Aboriginal religion; E. → Durkheim was overly concerned to espouse the rights of Aborigines and was so obsessed by the social aspect of their religion that he forgot the role of those “men of high rank” that Adolphus P. Elkin later overglorified. Since the beginning of the 20th century, a debate has developed between scholars who found no deities at all in what they considered the earliest form of Aboriginal religion (e.g. J.G. → Frazer) and those who maintained that the Aborigines had “high gods” (Andrew Lang). This debate is still in progress; only recently Tony Swain has suggested that the “primal mothers” of the north go back to Makasar traders from southern Sulawesi and that the “primal fathers” go back to cults that originated as a response to the threat posed by white intruders on the east coast. The Aborigines have replied that god has been so obvious to them that they never entered into the questions and theological conceptualizations characteristic of the thought of outsiders. And finally, although today the tendency of Western theoreticians to draw on

Australians to explain the origin and nature of religion in general has evaporated, new and surprising discoveries (rock carvings in the Kimberleys; stone implements from the Nepean Valley, New South Wales, dating from 100,000 bce or even before) may revitalize it. The capitalism of the settlers devastated the indigenous Australians. The Tasmanian Aborigines, for example, were violently expelled from their territories during the 1820s; in the north of Queensland massacres were still taking place at the beginning of the 20th century. A mitigating factor was the missionary work of the Christian churches; the success of their efforts at evangelization was spotty, but their social ministry was to have a lasting effect. The Queensland Kanaka Mission was established in 1886 to work with Melanesian congregations that had emerged from projects employing indentured labor. Its work extended as far as the Solomon Islands – a mark of the influence of Australian missionaries in Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands. Only among the so-called half-caste populations, rec-

509 ognized neither by the foreigners nor by the blacks, could the missions have a fundamental influence, but the Aborigines with their seminomadic background tended to join the mission stations as soon as they were established. The assimilation policy of the government (1901–1967) had horrendous consequences for the family life of the Aborigines when the missions were legally compelled to accept the placement of black children in white families and institutions. After 1911 there was also growing pressure on the Aborigines to live in reservations. In spite of everything, a significant group of Aboriginal Christian leaders began to emerge in the 1980s. At present there are proportionally more actively committed theologians among the blacks than among the other Australians. Among the more important are Bishop Arthur Malcolm, Anne Pattel-Gray, George Rosendale, and Graham Paulson. Behind these developments stands a long history of protest movements and accommodations, presently manifested in the reliance of the newly empowered Land Councils on the knowledge of the elders concerning sacred sites and the defense of the Aboriginal civil rights by urban activists. Aborigines include the Melanesian islanders of the Torres Strait, who have always been affected by developments on the continent. In 1992 a group from Murray Island, in a case based in part on numinous visions, won the so-called Mabo decision from the High Court of Australia, which invalidated the colonial theory of Australia as a terra nullius before the arrival of the Europeans. 2. Other Groups. Other religious groups in Australia besides Christians and Aborigines have their own history. Certain hymn texts of the Yolgnu in northeast Arnhem Land mention Allah, evidence of Islamic ideas among the Makasas, although Afghan camel drivers were the first Muslims to exercise real influence on groups of Aborigines, beginning in 1859. A Jew purportedly arrived with the First Fleet in 1788, and the first official Jewish congregation was established in Sydney in 1831. Most Chinese arrived c. 1850 during the first gold rush. In their joss houses they practiced a hybrid religion combining → Confucianism, → Taoism, → Buddhism, and elements of popular religion. Internal cultural differences led to unrest as early as 1857, and after c. 1880 it was above all hostility to the labor of the “coolies” (and the Melanesian Kanakas) that led to the White Australian Policy. Over the long term, secret societies and a few Chinese churches were the response of the Chinese to the situation in Australia. Among the other Asians drawn into the wave of immigration were Indians; in the 19th century, most of them were Sikhs (→ Sikhism), while only a quarter of the more than 4,000 Indians in Australia c. 1900 were Hindus. Before World War II the number of Jewish immigrants increased rapidly on account of the

Australia persecution in Germany, and their numbers continued to increase after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Their internal life was influenced by Zionism during the 1930s, a democratic resistance to Orthodox rigor after World War II, and differences of opinion between liberals, Orthodox, and adherents of the Lubavich movement. Islam did not become a major influence until roughly 1970, after the immigration laws were changed; along with Buddhism (and the → Mormons), it is the most rapidly growing religion in Australia. Vigorous and successful Zoroastrian (→ Zarathustra) and Parsi (→ Parsism) groups from Iran and southwest India have made an important contribution to Australian economic life. Immigration from South, Southeast, and East Asia has resulted in a dynamic interplay of religious affiliations; Vietnamese → Caodaism is especially interesting. The crown prince of → Laos lives in exile in Sydney, virtually surrounded by a royal Buddhist cultic aura. Hinduism has flourished in Victoria; many neo-Hindu groups scattered about the continent reflect the → New Age movements. The New Age movement itself was anticipated at the beginning of the 20th century by the theosophical movement (→ Theosophy), which shifted the focus of its activities to Sydney around 1920. Since the 1990s, many small syncretistic groups, sometimes organized in communes, have appeared alongside Christianity and other major traditions to constitute an extraordinarily diverse and complex religious mosaic. Although Australia experienced secularization around 1970, in the 1990s a process of desecularization began, albeit with tensions between fundamentalism and “spiritual extravagance” (including Satanism) and with a weakened sense of national identity. R. Brasch, The Eternal Flame, 1958 ◆ T. Strehlow, Central Australian Religion, 1978 ◆ H. Deakin, “Some Thoughts on Transcendence in Tribal Societies,” in E. Dowdy, ed., Ways of Transcendence, 1982, 95–109 ◆ H. Mol, The Faith of Australians, 1985 ◆ F. Walker et al., Islam in Australia, 1985 ◆ J. Jupp, ed., The Australian People, 1988, new ed. 2001 ◆ P. Bilimoria, Hinduism in Australia, 1989 ◆ P. Croucher, A History of Buddhism in Australia 1848–1988, 1989 ◆ J. Roe, Beyond Belief: Theosophy in Australia, 1879–1939, 1989 ◆ J. Hinnells, ed., Who’s Who of Religions, 1991 ◆ T. Swain, Aboriginal Religions in Australia: a Bibliographical Survey, BIRS 18, 1991 ◆ G. Trompf, In Search of Origins, 1991 ◆ T. Swain, A Place for Strangers, 1993 ◆ idem & G. Trompf, The Religions of Oceania, 1995 ◆ H. Carey, Believing in Australia, 1996 ◆ A. Pattel-Gray, ed., Martung Upah: Black and White Australians Seeking Partnership, 1996. Garry W. Trompf

II. Church History 1. 19th Century. Since the beginning of the colonial period, Christianity in Australia was shaped by the European churches and European immigrants and shared in the process by which the land gradually found its identity. The influence of the indigenous population,

Australia who had migrated to Australia 100,000 years earlier, remained minimal. The → Anglican Church was established by law in 1788 in New South Wales and in 1803 in Van Diemen’s Land. The officials governing the penal colony introduced religion as a tool to maintain social discipline. Irish Catholics were not allowed to have priests until 1820; the faithful were forced to attend Anglican services. There were communities of Congregationalists (→ Congregationalism), → Presbyterians, and → Methodists from c. 1820, but they had almost no rights. Attempts to convert and “educate” the Aborigines were mostly unsuccessful; humanitarian ideals were shattered by the brutality of the colonists. The churches showed more interest in the islands of the Pacific (Polynesia, Melanesia). Sydney became the hub of missionary activity as settlement expanded to Western Australia (1826), Victoria (1834), South Australia (1836), and Queensland (1824); settlers of the latter two included a great number of German immigrants. Recognizing the need for local church leadership, the British government appointed Thomas Scott archdeacon of Australia in 1825 and W.G. → Broughton bishop in 1836; Broughton, who was a member of the legislative council in New South Wales until 1844, contributed greatly to the growth of the Anglican Church. John Dunmore Lang, who gained official recognition for the Presbyterians, played an active role in religion, politics, and education. In 1824 Rome appointed John Bede Polding bishop with the task of bringing the marginalized Catholics unity and recognition. All these leaders set their hopes on the emergence of a “Christian Australia,” albeit each from the perspective of his own church. The waves of immigrants and policies of the government frustrated their plans. In 1836, at the urging of Governor Richard Bourke, London agreed to generous subsidies for all the churches. The Anglicans retained the upper hand, but the other churches also grew rapidly and were especially active in pastoral care and educational ministry. Until 1914 the churches saw their primary task as caring for the settlers and establishing local church agencies and parishes. The Anglicans were among the first to recognize the importance of synodal structures. Their Bush Brotherhoods and the Australian Inland Mission of the Presbyterians gained in influence among the settlers living in isolation. More than three quarters of the population had Protestant roots. The Roman Catholics were the second largest group. They were mostly Irish in origin, but German, Italian, and Spanish orders (esp. orders of women) contributed to the development of healthcare, social welfare, the school system, and especially to missionary work among the Aborigines. Caroline Chisholm (1808–1877) with her work among the immigrants and

510 her political activity broke with the traditional religious role of women, as did Mary MacKillop (1842–1909, beatified in 1995), who founded the Josephites to provide free schooling for the poor. Protestant women like the evangelist Emily Baeyertz also labored tirelessly in the educational system, in missions, in social work, and in the temperance movement, as did Catherine Spence, a Unitarian from Adelaide. Female evangelists like Emily Baeyertz likewise helped expand the role of women in the Australian churches. A substantial proportion of the Protestants rejected state subsidies for the church and the educational system. South Australia was the first colony to eliminate subsidies (1851); the others followed. Roman Catholics were at an extreme educational disadvantage because the secular elementary schools refused to enroll their children; they therefore invested substantial financial resources in constructing their own school system, as did the Lutherans in South Australia and Victoria. The Protestants established Sunday schools but also a system of secondary schools and universities. Church influence increased steadily despite the problems created by the enormous distances and financial hardship. The Protestant hope of a “Christian nation” without an established church continued to have an effect: campaigns for strict Sunday observance, abstinence, sexual chastity, and state prohibition of gambling along with an appeal to the individual conscience and a call to conversion characterized the predominant ethos until roughly 1960. European advances in the natural sciences and theology were discussed even in remote towns. At the end of the 19th century, many Christians were politically liberal, while rejecting the influence of labor unions and seeing no need for structural or economic changes. Thus only a few Christian church people supported the striking workers in the 1890s. Only a minority saw that the consequences of the severe depression and the catastrophic drought required solutions beyond individual and collective charity. In the same decade, the churches supported the mention of God in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia while at the same time rejecting official recognition of religious bodies. They would also not tolerate personal inquiries of Commonwealth officials concerning religious affiliation. All the while the Aborigines were left to the mercies of oppressive legislation and the racist administration of the individual states. Only a few Christians protested. The Anglican John B. Gribble condemned slavery but was denounced by his fellow Anglicans and lost a defamation suit. At the same time, the Lutherans in central Australia launched a mission among the Aborigines, whom they thought at the time to be beyond redemption. In Victoria and Queensland, the Moravians (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren: II) were active. The

511 most important mission among the Aborigines, however, was that of Bishop Rosendo Salvado, a Spanish Benedictine in Western Australia. Most of the settlers considered the Aborigines a brake on progress, slew them if they resisted, and hoped for their extinction. In the 20th century, Anglicans, Catholics, and Methodists began missionary work among the Aborigines in remote areas. There was much greater readiness to support the flourishing mission in the islands of the Pacific. While confessional differences were often irrelevant in the outback, rivalry was the order of the day in the towns and villages. Not a few settlers appealed for cooperation among Christians and built shared churches in their districts. This local situation explains why many denominations (including the Methodists and Presbyterians) were able to overcome their internal divisions much sooner in Australia than in their British homeland. Even before the Commonwealth, intercolonial church structures had been established, beginning in 1872 with the Anglican General Synod, which sought to establish a greater Australian identity. After the establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901, the Protestant churches looked for roads to union modeled on the Canadian “Basis of Union.” The Anglicans and Baptists soon withdrew, however, while the Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians continued to pursue their goal – unsuccessfully – until the 1920s. 2. 20th Century. The death of young Australians at Gallipoli in 1915 gave rise to a powerful myth. ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) Day on April 25, commemorating the landing of the troops sent to Europe in World War I, unites Australians in civil and religious observance. While the military chaplains found little Christian faith among the troops, despite the strength of the Australian churches, Christian hopes were aroused for national purification through the war, albeit nurtured more by uncritical patriotism than by the gospel and hence devoid of substance. Racism, injustice, and exploitation of the poor continued unaltered by the experience of war. The status of religion as a private concern was confirmed. The leaders of the Australian churches had learned nothing from the economic collapse of the 1890s and reacted to the severe depression of the 1930s with the same mixture of pious admonition and charitable appeal. Oswald Barnett, Farnham Maynard, and Reginald Nicholls in Melbourne, Robert B.S. Hammond in Sydney, and Samuel Forsyth in Adelaide launched impressive initiatives but could do little to alleviate the suffering. Bishop E.H. → Burgmann of Golburn was one of the few to offer a theological critique of the alliance between Christianity and capitalism. A few like Jock Garden, a Baptist minister, became Communists and argued that revolution was the only hope. But far more Christians joined right-wing groups

Australia like Australia First and the New Guard. Professor Samuel Angus of Sydney, one of Australia’s most able theologians, had to face a heresy trial for his thesis that democracy as such had failed (1933–1943). The first woman to be ordained by one of the major Protestant denominations – the Congregationalists – was Winifred Kiek of Adelaide. In other Protestant churches the ordination of women and their membership on church boards was discussed but rejected. Aborigines remained marginalized and contemned despite the great number of Christians among them. Responsible voices like Sir Douglas Nicholls, James Noble, and David Unaipon pointed out the social potential of the Aborigines. The Anglican diocese of Carpentaria began ordaining Torres Strait Islanders in 1925. Until c. 1960 both Protestants and Catholics took Aboriginal children from their families and placed them in church boarding schools to hasten their assimilation. They did not realize the awful consequences of this action because they had not really listened to the people under their care. The Second World War was a terrible shock for Australia, the more so because there was real danger of a Japanese invasion. Following a postwar change in immigration policy, settlers from Italy, Malta, Greece, Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia flooded over the continent, changing the face of the land and the churches. Among the immigrants were Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. The Orthodox churches saw an increase in numbers, while the Protestants lost influence in legislative committees: laws governing censorship, gambling, consumption of alcohol, and family affairs were amended to reflect the new demographic situation. Loss of membership among the Protestant churches could not be stanched by the great evangelistic campaigns of Sir Alan Walker and Billy Graham or resumption of union conversations among the Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. The introduction of television in 1956 led to noticeable changes in the religious scene throughout the land. → Vatican II brought to an end the time of a Catholic subculture and introduced a new era in relationships with other churches. The reintroduction of government assistance for the schools in 1963 and the referendum of 1967 extending citizenship to the Aborigines were further aspects of renewal. All the major churches approved the ordination of Aborigines and moved away from paternalism toward partnership. The 1970s saw a rapid increase among Pentecostal churches and charismatic groups, especially in Queensland, and demonstrated the importance of lay evangelism as a typical mark of Australian Christianity. Until 1992 the Anglicans were bitterly divided over the ordination of → women (IX); questions of sexual ethics and homosexuality were also debated. Ecumenism

Australia, Baptist Union of nevertheless made gains. In 1977 the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA: Congregationalists, Methodists, and above all Presbyterians) was established; in 1994 the Roman Catholic Church joined the National Council of Churches. At the local level there is significant cooperation everywhere. Church participation in providing social services, in the school system, and disaster response is common and receives government subsidies. Church attendance, however, has clearly declined since the 1960s. Australia is nevertheless far from being a totally secularized nation. B. Chant, Heart of Fire, 1973, rev. ed. 1984 ◆ R. Humphreys & R. Ward, Religious Bodies in Australia, 1986, 21988, 31995 ◆ J. Harris, One Blood: 200 Years of Aboriginal Encounter with Christianity, 1990 ◆ P. O’Farrell, The Catholic Church and Community, 31992 ◆ I. Breward, A History of the Australian Churches, 1993 ◆ S. Piggin, Evangelical Christianity in Australia, 1996. Ian Breward

Australia, Baptist Union of. The first Baptist service in Australia was held in Sydney in 1831. The first effective leader was Rev. John Saunders, who founded the first Sydney Baptist Church in 1836. Baptist churches were commenced in Tasmania (1835), Victoria (1837), South Australia (1837), Queensland (1855) and Western Australia (1895) (→ Baptists: II). Baptist Associations or Unions were formed in each colony during the 19th century and in 1926 the Baptist Union of Australia was established as a union of the separate groups. At the 1991 census Baptists (279,920) were 1.7% of the population. M. Petras, Australian Baptists Past and Present, 1988. Kenneth R. Manley

Australia, Theology in. As in other colonies, the representatives of the various churches – for example, the Anglican bishop William Grant Broughton – brought their own theology and pastoral training with them to Australia. Thereby, from the very outset, its theology received not only a confessional stamp, but also provincial elements. Benjamin Field authored the first systematic theology in 1870; it was a compendium, largely unoriginal, for candidates for the Methodist ministry. The theological disciplines were not taught in universities, but in denominational seminaries. Toward the end of the 19th century, → Free Thinkers and representatives of Protestant churches who wanted to modernize Christianity pressed for an examination of the content of soteriology and eschatology. They met with the opposition of conservative groups that wanted to hold to their respective confessions. Their influence was still evident in the 1930s in the heresy proceedings against the Presbyterian Samuel Angus because of his position on the authority of the Bible and the dogmas. A new era began in the 1950s with the arrival of

512 the British theologians John McIntyre in Sydney and J. Davis McCaughey in Melbourne and with the theological work of the Methodists Eric F. Osborn and Colin Williams in Melbourne, the seat of the United Faculty of Theology which united Anglicans, Jesuits and the Uniting Church. Their impulses and those of the ecumenical movement freed Australian theology from its century-old controversy between liberals and evangelicals. Anglicans like Peter F. Carnley, John Gaden and Max Thomas participated in the ecumenical dialogue. Since → Vatican II, Gerald O’Collins, David Coffey, Anthony Kelly, and others have also contributed from the Catholic perspective to the establishing of an ecumenical and recognizably Australian theology; Brendan Byrne and Francis J. Moloney became known as exegetes. Orthodox theologians such as John Chryssavgis have only recently begun to share their heritage with other Christians. Djiniyini Gondarra and Anne Pattel-Gray publish on the importance of possessing land for the Christian identity of the Aborigenes, as do the Lutheran Norman C. Habel and Geoffrey Lilburne of the Uniting Church. Because the universities offered no academic theological degree, this task was assumed by the so-called Melbourne College of Divinity (MCD) which has coordinated curricula and degrees since 1910. Similar colleges were founded in other major cities in the 1980s. The separation from European theology has made considerable progress. Independent works on medical ethics ( John Henley, Uniting Church) and → genetic engineering (Norman Ford, Roman Catholic) deserve mention. Interreligious dialogue and the restructuring of theological studies in a multi-cultural society require additional work. This work also includes the interpretation of the Christian faith in a public forum at a distance from Christianity. On the whole, one must judge that theology in Australia still awaits its mature form. D. Ritschl, Theologie in den neuen Welten, TEH N.S. 209, 1981 ◆ S. Emilsen, A Whiff of Heresy, 1990 ◆ C. Sherlock, “Protestant Theology: Australia,” in A.E. McGrath, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought, 1993, repr. 1996, 476–480 ◆ G. Treloar, ed., The Furtherance of Religious Beliefs, 1997. Ian Breward

Australian Missions. An overview of the history of missions in → Australia can be divided into three parts: the first 50 years until the departure of the first missionaries; second, a century characterized by small, independent missionary endeavors; and, third, the last 50 years, in which the rebirth of more complete missionary activities finds support and can be noted among the major popular churches. Because the self-sufficient nomadic Aborigines who had lived on the continent for millennia demonstrated no genuine interest in the so-called blessings of Euro-

513 pean civilization, they were considered indolent and ineducable. If the Aborigines questioned and rejected the violence and avarice that characterized the so-called civilization of the intruders, then they were irrevocably condemned by a colonial Christianity that, itself, had no basis for criticizing this so-called civilization. When the churches withdrew, the predatory avarice of the settlers for land was completely unleashed and the natives oppressed even further. Faith missions were established, mostly by conservative, engaged laypersons who were interested in “saving the souls of those of perish.” Groups such as the United Aborigines Mission and the Aboriginal Inland Mission were formed and the missionary settlements in the countryside became something like the Indian reservations in North America, with the distinction that in Australia townships were more likely to provide refuge and not areas or reservations on native territory. These missions were, in truth, paternalistic and aimed at assimilation, which meant that all means were employed to assimilate these people. These included beatings for using a language other than English in the school. The policy of assimilation also served to justify what has come to be known in our day as the scandal of the kidnapped children. The police and social workers forcefully and systematically took young aboriginal children from their parents and housed them hundreds of kilometers away, kept them in dormitories (administered by the missions), or had them adopted by white families to be reared there “for their own good.” In the first half of the 20th century, there was a massive renaissance of missionary interest among the major popular churches. While in the southeast, the destruction of the tribes and the alienation of the land was brutally executed, a few tribes still possessed their own land in the distant wildernesses of the outback and in the extreme north and were only slightly disturbed in their more than 40,000 year old lifestyle. As the tentacles of the settlements extended and the mining companies explored new deposits, new missions financed by the churches were initiated. These new missionary endeavors profited from the experiences of international missions abroad, and a new generation of Australian missionaries concerned themselves with learning the language of the people, created bilingual programs in the mission schools. They also, began programs for the independent development and self-determination of the Aboriginals and served as teachers in the training of many of today’s aboriginal leaders. In recent years, the independent formation of the Aboriginal Evangelical Fellowship as a coalition of churches led by Aboriginals, and of the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress, composed of churches guided and led by Aboriginals, produced other national

Austria Christian Aboriginal organizations in the Catholic and → Anglican Churches and among the → Baptists. It may well be that the prophets and the specific perspectives of the aboriginal exegetes may become invaluable to Australian churches in their struggle for survival in the next millennium. J. Harris, One Blood, 1990 ◆ idem, Rainbow Spirit Theology, 1997 ◆ J. Blacket, Fire in the Outback, 1997. Don Carrington

Austria I. General - II. Non-Christian Religions - III. Christianity

I. General Today’s Republic of Austria (the official designation since 1920) corresponds, with diminished borders, to the Habsburg estate, i.e. the territories in the Danube and eastern Alpine area acquired by the → Habsburgs in the 13th–15th centuries forming the center of the imperial Hausmacht. The name Austria first occurs in 996 in the form “Ostarrichi” (“Eastland”). Originally a reference to what is now Lower and Upper Austria, it subsequently served as a designation for the entire Habsburg Empire. 62.8% of the area of Austria belongs to the eastern Alps. The Danube and the easily accessible Alpine passes make Austria a thoroughfare; ancient traffic routes meet here. Austria was predestined to become a bridge and bulwark. 98% of the population speak German; 2% are old-established minorities, especially Croats, Slovenes and Hungarians. The number of non-German speakers may increase somewhat as the result of contemporary migratory movements. II. Non-Christian Religions 1. History The Jewish community in Vienna was under the protection of the Babenbergs in the High Middle Ages. Toward the end of the 13th century, the first persecutions took place. In the Hussite Wars the Jews were driven out of Austria or executed because of supposed mistreatment of the Host. In 1475, the youth Simon of Trient, found dead, was considered the victim of a ritual murder. Violent anti-Jewish riots took place in Tirol. Only the tolerance laws of → Joseph II radically improved the situation of the Jews: ghettos and Jewish costumes (→ Clothing and Vestments: III) were abolished, all middle-class professions made accessible to them, as were public schools and schools of higher education. Subsequently, they participated in the development of freedom of belief. In the 20th century, National Socialist persecution also befell the Jews in Austria. Historically significant engagements of the church with pre-Christian religions took place on Austrian soil in the 6th–10th centures. The mission to the Slavs (→ Slavic Mission), Avars and Hungarians determined bounderies and peoples in the southeast of

Austria the Franco-German Empire. From the 15th to the 18th centuries, Austria was engaged in a defensive struggle against the → Ottomans. It considered itself the vanguard of Christianity in the struggle against Islam. The annexation of → Bosnia-Herzegovina (1908) brought a significant Islamic population group into Austria. Muslims were granted broad religious autonomy. 2. Statistics The majority of today’s Austrian population is Christian (see below III, 2). The most numerous non-Christian religious community is that of → Islam with 338, 988 members, that is 4.2% of the total population (source: Statistik Österreichs, 2002; according to the census of 1991: 2.0%). The growing proportion of the Islamic population in Austria can be traced primarily to increased immigration in recent decades. Furthermore, there is a small (1991: 0.1% of the population) Jewish community. Other non-Christian religions in Austria add up to a proportion of 1.2%. III. Christianity 1. History a. Antiquity and Middle Ages. From 15 to c. 9 bce, the Romans pushed the borders of the empire to the Danube. The territories of later Austria were subject for the most part to the client principality of Noricum (later a Roman province). The western territories formed the province of Rhaetia, those in the east Pannonia. Presumably, the Romanization and Christianization of the native → Celts proceeded in parallel. Archaeology has uncovered several 5th century episcopal churches: Aguntum-Lavant (East Tirol), Teurnia und Hemmaberg (Kärnten), Lauriacum (Lorch) in upper Austria. The most important source for this period, however, is the Vita Severini of → Eugippius (511). The ascetic → Severin worked as a penitential preacher, aid and advocate of the populace in Ufernoricum in the middle of the 5th century while Roman border security and church organization collapsed. In the second half of the 6th century, in the region of the Alps and the Danube, the Bavarian people developed from assimilated Celto-Romans, Germans, and the Frankish upper class (→ Bavarians). The dukes came from the (Burgundian?) house of the Agilofings. They were Christians, but a more thorough mission in the country and among the people was still wanting. This task was fulfilled first by → Franks and → AngloSaxons (→ Boniface), then increasingly by the dukes and native aristocrats (→ Bavaria). The country of Austria separated from the Bavarian borderland. After Tassilos III lost power, the duchy returned to → Charlemagne. In the 7th–10th centuries, there were repeated incursions of Slavs, Avars and Magyars into the west. Only

514 → Otto the Great’s victory over the Magyars in the battle of Lechfeld (955) disabled for a long period the offensive power of this most dangerous enemy. The long-desired archbishopric for Bavaria and the Marches was established in 798 in → Salzburg. The first holder of the episcopal see was Arn, a confidant of Charlemagne. The Slavic mission was directed in part from → Passau, in part from Salzburg. The Drava constituted the border of the patriarchate of → Aquileia. In the Bavarian Mark, the dynasty of the Babenbergs ruled from 976–1246; after 1156, they bore the title of Duke. Through tenacity and political skill, the Bavarian margraves also gained power in reputation in the realm. In 1156, margrave Henry II (“Jasomirgott”) turned down the Bavarian dukedom and was instead elevated to Duke of Austria. At the same time, he was granted valuable privileges (privilegium minus, Sep 17, 1156). The Babenbergers’ goal was their own kingdom. In order to acquire it, they excessively appropriated church property. The last Babenbergers, Leopold VI and Frederick II, unsuccessfully renewed the old demand for an Austrian bishopric in → Vienna. Resistance came from Passau. Only Emperor Frederick III obtained this objective: in 1469, Pope → Paul II created bishoprics in both Vienna and Vienna Neustadt; Vienna became an archbishopric in 1722. The rule of Ottokar of Bohemia over Austria remained an interlude. As German king (1273–1291) and victor over Ottokar, Rudolf of Habsburg could start to build up his Hausmacht in Austria. His descendants continued this policy. In addition to the Babenberg lands in Austria and the Steiermark, Kärnten and Krain (both in 1335), Tirol (1363), Vorarlberg (1375/1451) and a few smaller regions came under Habsburg control. Salzburg first became part of Austria in 1814/15, although it had been closely connected to Austria since the early Middle Ages. Distributions of estates and political setbacks weakened the dynasty. Nonetheless, through a system of political marriages and alliances, the house of Habsburg grew to become one of the leading European powers. The ambitious Duke Rudolf IV (1358–1365) founded the university in Vienna, the second on Imperial soil, in 1365. After initial difficulties, important teachers gathered here: the theologians → Henry of Langenstein and → Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl, the theologian and historiographer Thomas Ebendorfer (1387–1464) and the astronomer Regiomontanus ( Johann Müller; d. 1476). The Western Schism (1305/1309–1377) shocked Western Christianity. At the Council of → Basel (1431–1437/38), Emperor Frederick III was prepared to negotiate with popes → Eugenius IV and → Nicholas V about questions of church law. He was under the influence of Ena Silvio Piccolomini (→ Pius II). In the Vienna Concordate (1448), the emperor largely accommodated the pope on questions of appointments to church

515 positions and the imposition of fees. The emperor, however, received from the pope lucrative compensation in exchange, so that for him the conciliar era was concluded successfully. In the late Middle Ages, the church was heavily criticized, and not without reason. Emperors Frederick III and → Maximilian I fully exploited their ecclesiastical positions financially. In many cases, monasteries and the clergy did not fulfill their responsibilities. Protests at parliaments and synods remained ineffective. In the first half of the 15th century, the Melker Reform movement (→ Melk) aimed at renewing monastic life. As bishop of Brixen (1450–1464), → Nicholas of Cusa strove for genuine church reform. He failed due to the opposition of the nobility and the duke. Whether the wide dissemination of the → Waldensians in late medieval Austria resulted from particular regional preconditions cannot be determined. b. The Century of the Reformation. The rise and fall of the Reformation belong to the deepest crises in Austrian history. The conditions and course of the Reformation manifest a few peculiarities. The ruler was simultaneously the emperor or a member of the imperial family. Imperial policy and territorial interests could conflict with one another. An important factor, furthermore, was the almost permanent Turkish threat from c. 1450. Austrian estates, primarily in Inner Austria, were directly threatened. Finally, it is noteworthy that the Protestant movement had hardly any institutions for decades and reached its apex only in the 2nd half of the 16th century. The message of the Reformation reached Austria as it did other countries: through personal contacts, sermons, and books. Thus, already in 1521/22, the Dominican J. → Strauß preached Protestant sermons in the mining city of Hall in Tirol, but was soon expelled. The authorities took measures against the “Protestant heresy.” Archduke Ferdinand was firmly rooted in the old faith, as was his imperial brother. He was one of the initiators of the Regensburg Convention in June and July of 1524 and joined the anti-reformation alliance that was founded there. Many → Anabaptists from Switzerland and southern Germany migrated to Austria. The authorities relied on the antiDonatist legislation of late Roman law (Mandates 1527, 1528, 1529). Confessing Anabaptists were executed. Despite bloody persecutions of even the more moderate Evangelicals, the new faith continued to spread. In Austria, the supporters of the Reformation were not the cities (Protestant ideas very quickly found their way into cities, but did not become a significant power factor), but the noble estates, the lords and knights, who demanded freedom of faith as a new right. Thus the grounds for collapse were laid. First, although the Prot-

Austria estant lords were knowledgeable and, in expectation of the universal breakthrough of the Reformation, even prepared to sacrifice, they lacked outstanding theologians. Second, the nobles often failed to ally themselves with the cities. Only slowly was a Protestant church formed. The → Augsburg Confession of 1530 was greeted with enthusiasm in Austria. It became the only common confession in the Habsburg lands. Only in 1549, however, did the estates in Steir declare themselves adherents of the Augsburg Confession. Confessional development lagged behind in Austria. Austrian Protestantism reached the height of its power only in the 2nd half of the 16th century. Ferdinand I (Archduke 1526–1556, Emperor 1556/ 58–1564) wanted to win back the Evangelicals through strict mandates, but was unsuccessful. The established church lacked the will to reform; additionally, Ferdinand was politically dependent on the estates. Therefore, he pursued a policy of tolerance. The Peace of → Augsburg of 1555 once again raised high expectations in Austria. It was thought that it guaranteed religious freedom for Austrian Protestants. Ferdinand rejected this interpretation in 1556: only the ruler had the right to choose the confession. Yet he also declared that he would not force stubborn Protestants to emigrate. Ferdinand and the Protestant estates apparently held the opinion that there could still be a united church. This was in line with the concept of a religious peace. Things changed after the death of Ferdinand I (1564). The new emperor Maximilian II (1564–1576) already ruled Austria above and below the Enns, Archduke Ferdinand (1564–1595) received Tirol and its surroundings, Archduke Karl (1564–1590) Inner Austria. No other Habsburg in the 16th century was as well disposed to the Reformation as Maximilian II. He granted the Protestants in lower Austria “religious assurance” in 1568. The lords and knights were allowed the Augsburg Confession until a religious settlement would have been reached. Cities were exempted from this arrangement. In 1568, the Upper Austrian estates were granted → freedom of religion under the same conditions. It was more difficult to attain such assurances for Inner Austria. Archduke Karl resisted desperately, but had to acquiesce because of the authorization of taxes. He granted “pacification” in Graz in 1572: freedom of conscience and freedom of worship for lords and knights along with their families and subjects. A later declaration (1576) by the archduke established the universal freedom to adhere to the Augsburg Confession. In the Libel of Bruck the Protestants summarized the fundamental documents guaranteeing their religion. The estates extracted religious concessions, but only with a single weapon: their right to authorize taxes. In the face of accusations of disobedience, the

Austria Protestants emphasized their political loyalty. They responded to the Catholic accusation that the Turkish threat was punishment for heresy, that the old church’s unwillingness to repent was the reason for God’s wrath. When, in the 1580s, the Counter-Reformation resorted to violence, the Protestants in Inner Austria did not resist. J. → Andreae in Tübingen recommended that the inhabitants of Inner Austria appeal to the Imperial Diet for assistance but not use force against the civil authority. The passive attitude of the Protestants alone, however, does not explain their rapid collapse. The growing strength of the church after the Council of → Trent also contributed. There was theologically and politically motivated resistance to re-Catholicization only in Upper and Lower Austria. There, emperor Rudolf II (1576–1612) took Counter-Reformation measures. His opponent was the Upper Austrian noble G.E. von → Tschernembl. He was a Calvinist and proposed a right to active resistance. Since 1599, he was a delegate for the estates. In 1609, Archduke Matthias (emperor 1612– 1619) granted the Lower and Upper Austrians religious freedom once again: the “religious capitulation.” Yet, historical developments had already overtaken such partial solutions. Tschernembl counted on Bohemia in the beginning → Thirty Years War and was forced into exile in Geneva in 1620. c. From Absolutism to Josephinism. The CounterReformation prevailed around 1620. The beginnings of a Protestant church organization (a calendar for religious services in Lower Austria, schools, a Ministry of Churches for Inner Austria) were abolished. Emperor Ferdinand II (1619–1637) expelled Protestant preachers and teachers; the remaining Protestants faced the decision between conversion and emigration. Approximately 100,000 Protestants left Austria for the sake of their faith, but some stayed behind. If convicted as “secret Protestants,” they were threatened with transmigration to Hungary or Transylvania. “Secret Protestantism” persisted in remote areas for generations, although the substance of its faith withered in the course of time. The spectacular expulsion of Salzburg Protestants from their homes by archbishop Leopold of Firmian (1731/32) no longer reflected the spirit of the times, even if it did correspond to the letter of the Peace of Augsburg. Many of those expelled settled in eastern Prussia, others went to Georgia (USA). Efforts on the part of the state and the church to make re-Catholicization into a genuine revival of the faith were considerable. The → Jesuits (in Vienna since 1551) were active as preachers and father-confessors, in schools and universities; the → Capuchins tried to gain popularity. The most important Baroque preacher

516 was → Abraham a Santa Clara in Vienna. The Baroque development of splendor in worship and church art was an expression of a major restoration of the church. The emperor himself was perceived as a representative of exemplary “pietas” before God. After the Peace of → Westphalia, the power of the Habsburg empire continued to grow: the victory near Vienna (1683) became the turning point of the Turkish wars. In 1699, the Turks surrendered Hungary. The Hungarians acknowledged the Habsburgs as their monarchs. Religious freedom was retained (with significant limitations; imperial Diets at Ödenburg in 1681 and Preßburg in 1687). In the next century, Austria managed to stave off France. The Habsburg Empire, now extending across Europe, could not longer afford repression in its various regions. → Josephinism, named after Joseph II, and Jansenist ideas (→ Jansenism) profoundly altered the Baroque Catholicism of the 18th century. The epoch of Josephinism stretched from its beginnings under Mari Theresia until c. 1848. State regulation was linked to church reform measures. The contemplative orders were abolished after 1772, the Jesuit order after 1773. Student funds serving higher education were formed from the capital of the Jesuits; a religious fund from the capital of the abolished monasteries: this fund financed the regulation of the dioceses and parishes, i.e. the conformation of dioceses and parishes to the political boundaries as well as a significant increase in parishes. Furthermore, the “Kongrua,” the pastoral salary, was to be assured. The Patent of Tolerance (Oct 13, 1781) guaranteed a “private exercitum” to the “non-Catholics,” i.e. the Protestants of the Augsburg (CA) and Helvetic (HC) confessions, as well as the non-united Greeks. A hundred families could found a congregation, establish “houses of prayer” and schools, and employ pastors and teachers. → Pastoral perquisites were to be paid to Catholic pastors. The “tolerance congregations” lived in extreme penury. Church unity did not exist. Support from abroad was necessary. The most important aid organization was the Evangelischer Gustav-Adolf-Verein (founded in 1832) with headquarters in Leipzig (since 1946 → Gustavus Adolphus Union). It avoided a particularly theological profile in order to be able to render aid without restriction. The Silesian Consistorium originally residing in Teschen was transferred to Vienna in 1789 and functioned as the supreme state church authority. Tendencies toward union were hindered. After 1849, religious freedom existed in Austria in principle, yet the Roman Catholic church held a clear advantage through the Concordat of Aug 18, 1855, which was very accommodating toward the curia. The church policy of neoabsolutism was untenable over time. The Protestant Patent of Apr 8, 1861 brought a degree

517 of balance. It guaranteed Protestants full legal equality with all other citizens of the state and granted the church the status of a “legally recognized religious community.” The constitution of 1867 and the May Laws of 1868 and 1874 continued the dismantling of the privileges of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. the validity of the church marriage law, supervision of schools). The state retained the right to monitor and intervene, which also applied to the Catholic Church. The Concordat of 1855 was cancelled in 1870 because of the doctrine of papal → infallibility. Inevitably, the Protestant Church became involved in the struggle between nationalities in old Austria. The protest against the Baden Language Ordinances in 1873 sparked the “→ Los-von-Rom-Bewegung” (Free-fromRome Movement). Opponents of the Roman Catholic Church were supposed to join the church of the “German” reformer. The church acknowledged its responsibility for bringing politically motivated new members to the gospel. d. The Path to Ecumenical Community. The collapse of the imperial and royal monarchy in World War I shook Protestants in particular. The emperor was the summus episcopus of the Protestant church in Austria; people trusted him. Now, his rights transferred to the federal government. Neither Christian Socialists nor Social Democrats were able to attract the disproportionately high number of middle-class Protestant voters, who felt greatest affinity with the German nationalists. Because of the restrictive regulations of Catholic marital law, the Evangelical Church experienced an influx of former Catholics who wished to enter into a valid marriage, including adherents of all parties. This group presented new tasks of pastoral care. The situation of the Protestants worsened in the authoritarian “corporative state” of 1934–1938. In 1933/34, a new Concordat was concluded. It appeared to be a preferential treatment of the majority church. The Protestant pastorate resisted entry into the “Fatherland Front,” but this led to suspicions of political unreliability. The entry of German troups on Mar 13, 1938 and the annexation into the German Reich led to a hysteria of enthusiasm. Disillusionment soon followed: the churches were treated even worse than in the so-called Old Reich. They were pressed into forming their own system of financial support, religious instruction existed only as a voluntary activity, and diaconal institutions were transferred to the state. In Austria, the repression was tested that would soon be practiced much more harshly in occupied Poland. The common experience of oppression and persecution brought Protestant and Catholic Christians to a new community. Despite occasional tensions, this com-

Austria munity has continued to grow until today. Currently, the relationship of all churches in Austria to the state and parties is good because these keep their distance. The new Evangelical church constitution, long in preparation (Supplement to the Church Constitution of 1891), was adopted in 1949. It is common to the Lutheran (Protestant CA) and the smaller Reformed Church (Protestant HC), although there are some differences. The Lutheran form has three levels (parish community, superintendent’s community, overall community), the Reformed constitution limits itself to parish community and overall community. The presbyterial-synodal principle is valid in all areas of the constitution. The spiritual administration of the church is the responsibility of the bishop (CA) or the national superintendent (HC). The church constitution governs the common responsibilities of both church, but leaves aside the confession and therefore, is not a unity constitution. In 1957, the Austrian federal government recognized the Concordat of 1933 as valid for the Catholic Church. Relations between the Catholic Church and the Austrian state rest on this basis. For the Protestant churches, the Protestant Law was issued in 1961; it regulates church and state matters in a satisfactory manner. The churches meet most of their demands through the church dues, treated legally as membership contributions, not as a tax. Religious instruction is a church matter, but is financed by the state. There are some other state contributions. 2. Statistics According to official Austrian statistics of 2002, the Christian population divides as follows (in parentheses, for comparison, the results of the 1991 census): Of 8,032,926 (7,635,000) inhabitants, the overwhelming majority, namely 73.6%, are Roman Catholic. The Protestant denominations number 4.7% (5.0), of which approximately 5% (thus 0.2% of the total population) belong to the Protestant church of the Helvetic Confession (HC). Members of Orthodox churches are 2.2%. Still 12% (8.69) of Austrians indicate that they have no denominational affiliation; 2% (3.7) made no indication. Bibl.: Österreichische Bibliographie I, 1945ff. ◆ JGPrÖ 1, 1880ff. ◆ MIÖG 1, 1880ff. ◆ ÖAKR 1, 1880ff. ◆ E. Tomek, Kirchengeschichte Österreichs, 3 vols., 1935–1959 ◆ K. Eder, Der Liberalismus in Altösterreich, 1955 ◆ A. Coreth, Pietas Austriaca, 1959, 21982 ◆ J. Wodka, Kirche in Österreich, 1959 ◆ F. Klostermann, ed., Kirche in Österreich: 1918–1965, 2 vols., 1960 ◆ E. WeinzierlFischer, Die österreichische Konkordate von 1855 und 1933, 1960 ◆ E. Zöllner, Geschichte Österreichs, 1961, 61978 ◆ P.F. Barton, 1800 Jahre Christentum in Österreich und Südostmitteleuropa, I, 1975, IV/1, 1985 ◆ R.A. Kann & F. Prinz, eds., Deutschland und Österreich, 1980 ◆ G. Mecenseffy, Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich, 1981 ◆ G. Reingrabner, Protestanten in Österreich,

Autarchy 1981 ◆ A. Wandruszka & P. Urbanitsch, eds., Die Habsburger Monarchie 1848–1918, vol. IV, 1985 ◆ E. Weinzierl-Fischer, Prüfstand: Österreichische Katholiken und der Nationalsozialismus, 1988 ◆ G. Reingrabner & K. Schwarz, eds., Quellentexte zur österreichischen evangelischen Kirchengeschichte zwischen 1918 und 1945, 1989 ◆ M. Liebmann, ed., Kirche in Österreich 1938–1988, 1990 ◆ H. Schwendenwein, Österreichisches Staatskirchenrecht, 1992 ◆ F.M. Dolinar, et al., eds., Katholische Reform und Gegenreformation in Innerösterreich 1564–1628, 1994 ◆ H. Wolfram, ed., Österreichische Geschichte, vols. I–V. 7–10, 1994–2001, 2 supplementary vols. 2000, 2002. Gerhard May

Autarchy. “Autarchy” denotes individual or national economic independence through self-sufficiency, whereas the goal of → autonomy, as a combination of → reason (I) and → freedom (V), is moral self-determination. Theologically, God alone is autarchic (indepedentia dei; → aseity ; → sovereignty), since only God exists a se. Human beings are not autarchic but are dependent on (God’s) Providence (cf. Matt 6:19–32). The NT therefore severely attacks human striving for autarchy (Luke 12:16–21). God’s grace alone brings autarchy, well-being, and sufficiency (2 Cor 9:8; Phil 4:11; 1 Tim 6:6–8). An ascetic or “spiritualizing” sense is far from the intent of the NT (and → Josephus). Philosophically, “autarchy” denotes the virtue of restrained self-sufficiency (→ Stoics, → Cynics). → Socrates was considered the perfect example and prototype of autarchy. H.F.P. Bendtsen, De αὐταρϰεί τ∞ς ἀρετ∞ς πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν, 1811 ◆ W. Warnach, HWP I, 1971, 685–690. Walter R. Dietz

Authenticity → Genuineness/Authenticity Author. The problem of the author results from his claim to be the originator of the text. While the term (from Lat. augeo, augment, make grow) claims legal copyright, it designates the writer of a literary, philosophical or scientific work in general. In this sense the early humanist Heinrich Steinhwel in 1473 spoke for the first time in German of the “auctor dicz büchlis.” In Romance languages the author is also the master of ceremonies and creator, so that, in P. → Calderón’s “autos sacramentales,” God appears as author ( J. von → Eichendorff translates this as “master”). Given the Platonic-Christian notion of one author who speaks through the prophets and dispenses an immense treasure of wisdom in the words of Scripture, the ease with which M.E. de → Montaigne presented his Essais as livre consubstantiel à son autheur (II 18) met with resistance. With the radicalness of the Cartesian cogito in mind, B. → Pascal stresses that the emphasis on the author is an illegitimate break with tradition (Pensées, ed. Brunschvicg, 43). J.G. → Hamann updates the topos of homo secundus Deus when he interpretes authorship as the analogy of man to the Creator (Werke II, 206).

518 → Hermeneutics now turns to the author and believes it understands him as well or better than he understands himself (I. → Kant, J.G. → Fichte, F. → Schleiermacher). F. → Schlegel presupposes this development when he addresses the author as a manufacturer who is functional and useful in a major way (Aph. 367). While this leads to the concept of author as producer (W. → Benjamin, 1934), hermeneutical criticism emphasizes the functional aspect and recants the traditional auctoritas of the author. Inspired by F. → Nietzsche und M. → Heidegger, this line of criticism culminated in the thesis of the author’s death (Roland Barthes, 1968) and disappearance (Michel Foucault, 1969). A. Maas, “Die neuhochdeutsche Bezeichnung für ‘Verfasser literarischer Werke’,” ZDW 9, 1907, 185–205 ◆ R. Heinze, “Auctoritas,” Hermes 60, 1925, 348–366 ◆ T. Borsche, “Wer spricht, wenn wir sprechen? Überlegungen zum Problem der Authorschaft,” AZP 13, 3, 1988, 37–50 ◆ U. Japp, “Der Ort des Autors in der Ordnung des Diskurses,” in Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft, J. Fohrmann & H. Müller, eds., 1988, 223–234 ◆ H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 61990, 177– 201; ET: Truth and Method, 21989 ◆ C. Hesse, “Enlightenment Epistemology and the Laws of Authorship in Revolutionary France 1777–1793,” Representations 30, 1990, 109–137 ◆ M. Biriotti & N. Miller, eds., What is an Author?, 1993. Ralf Konersmann

Authoritative Teaching/Authentikos Logos (NHC VI, 3; AuthLog) → Nag Hammadi Authority I. Comparative Religion – II. History and Theology – III. Practical Theology

I. Religious Studies In human societies, power is wielded by culture-specific structures of authority. Various dimensions of authority may be distinguished, such as the power to control daily matters (family, larger communal units), war, the sacral realm, etc. Segmentary societies distribute authority relatively broadly (although never in an “egalitarian” fashion), with fluid and flexible transitions between the dimensions. In stratified societies, authority is distributed unequally and structured hierarchically, and in the extreme case, concentrated in the monarchy. Ideally, the ruler is simultaneously the highest priest, the owner of the land, lord of commerce, etc., but delegates his tasks (esp. in more expansive territories) to specialists, which can lead to conflicts of authority (e.g. conflicts between court and temple in the Egyptian New Kingdom, between pope and emperor in the Middle Ages). In the modern era, there is an increasing functional differentiation of society; authorities are separated from one another, systems for the exercise of power and decision are formalized. Thus, religion becomes an isolated realm, while religious matters are removed from other subsystems of the society (→ Secularization). The reli-

519 gious aspect of authority represents the experience of the limits of human ability to achieve; uncontrollable realms of transcendence remain; human authority is attempted on the basis of “higher” authority, such as in the ritual legitimization of rule, in the promise of victory over the enemy, in the guarantee of uncertain natural processes, and the possibility of their cultivation. Concrete and specific dealing with these powers can be understood as religious authority in the more limited sense. Functionaries, involved either directly or indirectly with transcendent authority, mediate it. Segmentary societies know of simple specializations of authority (“medicine men,” “shamans,” etc.), while hierarchies of specializations exist in stratified societies. In modern societies, vocational religious roles are subject to professionalization; often, what had been religious authority is transferred to other realms (e.g. psychology or show business). The content of authority is mediated through procedures, images, narratives, formulae, etc., in the context of traditional socialization or specialization. In segmentary cultures, specifically religious authority is broadly distributed; often, for example, slaughter (almost always considered a sacrifice) can be executed by almost all fully responsible members of the community. With the increasing complexity of the society, such procedures become more complicated and their performance the privilege of specialists (slaughter is, then, for example, connected with purity, divinatory practices, etc.). With the literary fixation of the religious tradition, the stock of tradition is conserved and reserved exclusively for the → elite; the need for interpretation strengthens these specialists. Spiritual innovations occasionally call traditional authority into question; in these cases, an opposing authority attains validity which, indeed, also appeals to tradition, but especially to revelatory events. The inner realm of individual experiences is essential in many marginal religious groups (e.g. mysticism). In the modern era, authority (including religious) has been shifted to the inner realm of reason, only to be transferred to the caprice of individual aesthetics. M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, VII– IX 1988, 11920/21; ET: The Sociology of Religion, 31993 ◆ J. Maquet, Herrschafts- und Gesellschaftsstrukturen in Afrika, 1971 ◆ F. Kramer & C. Sigrist, eds., Gesellschaften ohne Staat, 1978 ◆ T. Siebers, Religion and the Authority of the Past, 1993 ◆ J. Scott, Stratification and Power, 1996 ◆ P. Hellström & B. Alroth, Religion and Power in Ancient Greece, 1996. Fritz Stolz

II. History and Theology 1. Fundamental theology. The term authority (Lat. auctoritas) refers to the reputation of persons and their capacity, by means of personal competency and powers of persuasion, to make an impression and

Authority exercise influence. The Roman distinction between potestas as the power of office and auctoritas as personal power has become significant for the ethical and political use of the term authority, and has made the term particularly appropriate for use in theories of perception and learning: in the polarity of authority and → reason, which is concerned with the means of knowledge, in contrast to the polarity of → faith and knowledge, which is concerned the manner of knowledge. → Augustine was the first to apply this polarity to fundamental theology. Authority opens the gate to knowledge; if one wants to learn, one first needs a teacher, on whose authority one relies, before one can understand with one’s own reason what one has learned from the authority. Augustine utilized these ideas on the theory of learning in the question of the path to Christian truth. The authority (Christ, the Bible, the Church) provides the impetus to faith and enables the believer, with the assistance of reason, to understand what was first believed. With this portrayal of the relationship between authority and reason, developed to a certain degree in analogy to the relationship between grace and nature, Augustine became the most important predecessor of Anselm’s credo ut intellegam. Medieval theology followed Augustine closely. Its understanding of knowledge saw the basic texts (Bible, church fathers, doctrinal statements of the church) as authorities that are strengthened and developed by reason through argumentation. The task of scholarship is to recognize the correct doctrine by weighing the doctrinal opinions of various authorities. Matters of form (which authority is especially important?) and content engage one another in this assessment. The Reformation, in contrast, was critical of authority, in that it questioned and criticized the authority of tradition and Church from the perspective of the Bible and thus introduced the modern development of liberation of authority. On the other hand, this liberation movement had roots in strict concentration on the authority of the Bible. Thus, formal and material authority coincide: the authority of God’s Word demands obedience (auctoritas normativa) and, at the same time, produces insight and power (auctoritas causativa, cf. the doctrine of the claritas scripturae). In contrast to the tendencies toward radical critique of authority in the →Enlightenment (fromitsbeginningsup tocriticaltheory), hermeneutical philosophers (Gadamer) and theologians (Ebeling) are concerned with rehabilitating authority – not in the sense of blind obedience, but of knowledgeenhancing trust in the face of convincing power. K. → Barth (CD I) and D. → Bonhoeffer (Sanctorum Communio) distinguished between the absolute authority of God’s Word and the relative authority of the church, and saw the importance of authority also in warding against zealotry.

Authority H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode, 1960; ET: Truth and Method, 21989 ◆ G. Ebeling, Wort Gottes und Tradition, 1964 ◆ K.-H. Lütcke, Auctoritas bei Augustin, 1968 ◆ T. Eschenburg, Über Autorität, 1976 ◆ W. Pannenberg, “Wahrheit, Gewißheit und Glaube,” in: Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, Gesammelte Aufsätze, II, 1980, 226–264; ET: Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays, II, 1971. Karl-Heinrich Lütcke

2. Ethics. The term is ambiguous and plays different roles in political, economical, pedagogical, and psychological discourse. Political discourse understands authority as legitimate dominion. Following Max → Weber, a distinction is made between traditional, formal, and charismatic dominion. The democratic state is legitimized by the rule of law; it explicitly acknowledges its need for assent. Its claim to authority is based on the results it produces for those who submit to its demands of obedience. In political discourse, authority aims at the limitation of power. Intercultural comparisons call attention to culture-specific “authority patterns.” In economic discourse, authority plays a role in the question of the leadership qualities of management. Specialized knowledge, functional bureaucratic structures, division of labor, and competency in communication are regarded as equal in importance to the corporate identity of an endeavor and the structures of the exertion of intra-organizational influence. In terms of the analysis of organizations, authority does not describe a personal quality, but the structure of relations within a system. Pedagogical discourse deals with the relationship between authority and freedom, or between dependence and self-determination. The authority of the educator is not an absolute right of control over the children, but the power of reputation that serves the purposes of rearing independent children. “The authority of education is fulfilled in the independence of the children” (Rendtorff ). In psychological and social-psychological discourse, authority is primarily developed from the perspective of the recipients of authority (authoritarianism research). What mechanisms promote readiness to obey on the part of the recipients of authority? In the so-called Milgram Experiment, stimulated by the question of how it was that people in Nazi Germany were capable of participating in inhuman crimes without observable resistance, monitors asked subjects of the experiment to administer electrical shocks to another person. The readiness to delegate one’s own responsibility to “scientific authorities” was very high. The most recent studies of authoritarianism interpret rigidity, prejudice, hatred of strangers, sexism, etc. more as a socially-conditioned flight to security than as the product of an “authoritarian character” (T.W. → Adorno). Philosophy, especially phenomenological ethics, asks beyond the authority concept that is concerned only with communication and social events; it asks questions

520 concerning the “authority of existence,” concerning its compelling force and binding nature. While imperative norms are always characterized by a potential to be nonobligatory, and commands are only valid as an attempt to produce behavior, there are also non-imperative, obvious matters whose situational authority cannot be avoided: whether “the voice of conscience” or the grip of emotions occasioned by the seriousness of a situation. The individual involved experiences this authority as a power by which “in a marked manner, the obligatory validity of norms is laid upon” him (Schmitz). Even in this case, however, it is true that authority can only be diagnosed in retrospect. The denial of the claim is intrinsic to claims to authority. As the effect of power, authority is independent of any pattern of legitimacy dominating society at a given moment. In pluralistic societies, a plurality of claims to authority must be taken into account. M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 1921; ET: Economy and Society, 1968 ◆ S. Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974 ◆ H. Schmitz, System der Philosophie, III: Der Rechtsraum, 21983 ◆ T. Rendtorff, Ethik, II, 21991 ◆ D. Oesterreich, Flucht in die Sicherheit, 1996. Rolf Schieder

III. Practical Theology The concept of authority is not one of the central categories of contemporary theories of practical theology. Recent outlines of practical theology appeal to contrary concepts, critical of authority, developed by philosophy and sociology, psychology and pedagogics (→ Sovereignty, → Autonomy,→ Emancipation) and emphasize the combination, characteristic for contemporary theology, of the praxis of religious life and individual selfdetermination, as well as of religious faith and rational logic. Theoretical systems based on dogma and obligated to the normative principles of the church’s teaching authority such as pastoral theology, and performances of practical theology centered around the official authority of ecclesial functionaries, are increasingly being superseded by a critical scientific culture inspired by ideas from the Enlightenment. Similarly, practical theology, with its specific methodological theoretical constructs, is based on procedural concepts that do not aim at the authoritative regulation of life, but promise individual gains in personal freedom. Just as contemporary practical theology conceives of the religious social systems – church, community, pastoral vocation – as well as the practice of religion embedded in forms of communication – worship and preaching, pastoral care and religious instructions – as institutions of freedom (Rössler), so it understands itself as an integral element of the modern scientific enterprise obligated to a critique of traditional authority structures. In its critical praxis of both knowledge and action, phenomenologically accented practical theology

521 uncovers the socio-cultural transformation of authority structures in the modern development of the institutionalized praxis of Christianity and, at the same time, expedites it. The generally observable transformation of the conditions of authority as the modern era progresses (Kray, Sennett) – the dissolution of fixed structures of dominion by soft structures of authority (Baruuzi), the restriction of authoritative power as a consequence of pluralization (Rabe) and the differentiation of reciprocal dependencies (Thielicke), the replacement of enduring authority status by temporary and revisable authority relationships (Weber) in the context of the situational construction and deconstruction of complementary social relations (Volmer, Habisch) – is evident in the various types of religious communication. The transformation of religious cultic praxis from ceremonial ritual to celebrations of the religious community led to the dismantling of the hierarchically structured authority gradation between priests and laity. In the highly individualized culture of preaching, the authorization of religious speech does not result from the preacher’s appeal to Scripture and tradition, but from the personal authentication of the truth of religious content on the part of the recipient. The separation of pastoral care from the ritualized authority relations between confessor and confessee, and its embedding in the culture of everyday speech (Hauschildt) and in the therapeutically shaped practice of conversation (Scharfenberg) transposes the person seeking pastoral care into the status of a self-responsible agent. The objective of modern religious education, finally, consists not in the incorporation of the student into a preexistent system of authority, but in the self-formation of the subject in the progress of the story of his individual life (Schweitzer). The dynamization of authority effects the social form of the church and the pastoral vocation (→ Ministry, Concepts of ). The transformation of the church from a transcendentally authorized institution of redemption into an association taxed according to its social and cultural contributions corresponds to the change of the pastoral vocation from an ecclesial office to a civil profession (Möller). In the partially earned, partially bestowed “power of reputation” (Rabe 8) of the pastor, the functional authority grounded in expert competency (Hartmann) and the personal authority based in the “suggested example” (Drehsen) are inextricably interwoven. H. Thielicke, RGG3 I, 1957, 792–794 ◆ H. Hartmann, Funktionale Autorität, 1964 ◆ H. Rabe, Autorität – Elemente einer Begriffsgeschichte, 1972 ◆ J. Scharfenberg, Seelsorge als Gespräch, 1972, 51992 ◆ A. Baruzzi, HPhG 1, 1973, 171–179 ◆ E. Weber, Autorität im Wandel, 1974 ◆ D. Rössler, “Die Institutionalisierung der Religion,” in W. Lohff & L. Mohaupt, eds., Volkskirche – Kirche der Zukunft?, 1977, 41–69 ◆ J. Miethke, R. Mau, E. Amelung & H. Beintker, TRE V, 1980, 17–51 ◆ R. Sennett, Authority, 1980 ◆ F. Schweitzer, Lebensgeschichte und

Autocracy Religion, 1987, 31994 ◆ V. Drehsen, “Die angesonnene Vorbildlichkeit des Pfarrers,” PTh 78, 1989, 88–109 ◆ G. Volmer, Autorität und Erziehung, 1990 ◆ R. Kray et al., eds., Autorität Spektren harter Kommunikation, 1992 ◆ C. Möller, “Zwischen ‘Amt’ und ‘Kompetenz’,” PTh 82, 1993, 460–475 ◆ A. Habisch, Autorität und moderne Kultur, 1994 ◆ D.S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals, 1995 ◆ E. Hauschildt, Alltagsseelsorge, 1996 ◆ R.S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis, 2001. Wolfgang Steck

Autobiography → Biography Autocephaly (from the Greek αὐτός and κεϕαλή, “one’s own head”), an ecclesial term since the 6th century, at first employed in various ways, has become established following the canonist Theodoros Balsamon (died c. 1195) as a reference to the independence of the → Orthodox churches: independent selection and installation of the head of the church and of the – at least four – bishops; with agreement in faith, cult, and church law, and individual responsibility in relations with other churches, and questions, for example, of church order, feasts, canonization, liturgical language, and calendar questions. As an expression of the communion of the church, the primary hierarch of the other autocephalic churches is remembered in the intercessory prayers (→ Diptychs). There is some dispute over who may grant autocephaly. Constantinople claims it as a right and, consequently, does not recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of America as declared by the Moscow patriarchate. No other church acknowledges either the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Macedonia proclaimed in 1967 without the agreement of the Serbian mother church nor the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches – Kiev patriarchate – that split from Russian orthodoxy in 1990. Not autocephalous but autonomous are the churches of Finland and Japan, which regulate their affairs independently under Constantinople and Moscow, respectively. N. Milaš, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche, 21905 ◆ K.C. Felmy, TRE V, 1980, 1–4 ◆ H.-D. Döpmann, Die orthodoxen Kirchen, 1991. Hans-Dieter Döpmann

Autocracy (“self-rule,” from the Greek αὐτοκράτεια) indicates: (a) politically: the sole rule of a (group of ) person(s) who possess unlimited power which the people neither share nor control. According to I. → Kant, the sovereign in the autocratic state has not merely the supreme but the sole power, which even legitimates him to change the constitution. Autocracy is, thus, not necessarily identical with a dictatorship or tyranny. – In the Christian sense, autocracy pertains to no human ruler whatsoever – for their power is derived and limited – but solely to God. God is the truly absolute monarch, whose dominion is subject only to his will and

Autodafé plan. – (b) Philosophically: According to Anaxagoras, â infinite reason (νους/noús) is “autocratic” (Diels-Kranz 59, frgm. B12). The autocracy of the noús is based in its aseity and purity (its unadulterated state). – Autocracy refers to the human being’s rational self-control in contrast to his affects and passions. – (c) Ethically: Kant developed, in his doctrine of virtues (Metaphysik der Sitten [ET: Metaphysics of Morals] = MphS, 1797), the concept of moral autocracy: the autocracy of practical reason denotes the capacity to control the “unruly inclinations” (MphS 383) and, thus, to orient oneself against all the “influences of nature” and according to the moral ideal. “The autocracy of pure practical reason consists for Kant in the capacity to prevail against the objectives of empirical-contingent reason and to make of regard for the law . . . the virtue of the highest objective” (König 198). Autocracy thus insures practical virtue in the context of the rational self-control of the free subject (autonomy; yet Luther disputed the possibility of free moral self-control in his critique of Erasmus in 1525). Kant follows the Stoic concept of virtue here (the ideal of ἀταραξία/ataraxía, “imperturbability”), in which control of the affects is understood as a precondition of sovereign living. C.W. Casinelli, “Autocracy,” IESS I, 1968, 478–480 ◆ F.W. Graf, Theonomie, 1987 ◆ P. König, Autonomie und Autokratie, 1994 ◆ P. Römer, Autonomie ohne Autokratie, 1996. Walter R. Dietz

Autodafé → Inquisition Autogenic Training is an exercise developed by the neurologist Johannes Heinrich Schultz based on the experiences of hypnosis utilized in → psychotherapy, in individual as well as group therapy. It was first presented scientifically and comprehensively in 1932. By nature, autogenic training, also called concentrative self-relaxation, is self-hypnosis. The repetition of fixed formulae induces a state of hypnosis and relaxation that enables a psycho-vegetative alteration of the entire organism (feelings of weight and warmth, heart and breathing practice, regulation of the internal organs, a sense of coolness in the head). This lower stage precedes an upper stage in which, by the use of formulaic resolutions and by practicing free and directed experiences of color and imagery (“autogenic imagogics”), one attains a deeper introspection and self-clarity. The practice is prescribed in cases of functional disruptions of organic activity and states of anxiety. In addition to therapeutic effectiveness, positive effects on healthy people are also evident: improvement in spiritual and physical health and productivity. As a psychotherapeutic method, autogenic training is related to the religious practices of contemplation and → meditation, but, despite the resolutions in the upper stage, it does not have its own

522 life-orienting significance; it is useful as a means of pastoral care, but does not replace Christian-ethical reflection on existence. D. Langen, ed., Der Weg des Autogenen Training, WdF 103, 1968 ◆ J.H. Schultz, Das Autogenen Training, 1970 ◆ B. Hoffmann, Handbuch des Autogenen Training, 1997. Reinhard Schmidt-Rost

Autonomy I. History of the Concept – II. Current State of the Problem

“Autonomy” (Gk αὐτονομία) refers to self-regulation, self-determination, self-normativity. Autonomy can designate the political independence of states, the selfdependence of individuals, or the internal authority of institutions. The theological problem concerns the relationship of the modern concept of autonomy to the human relationship with God. I. History of the Concept Aὐτόνομος/autónomos in Herodotus means: “To behave according to one’s own will.” In classical antiquity, however, it is not independence in this general sense that stands in the foreground, but political independence; representative are Thucydides (III 40; IV 87; V 18, etc.) and Xenophon (Hellenica V 1.36, etc.). Latin did not adopt the concept (with the exception of one passage in Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum VI 2). It was only taken up again in 1586 in Franciscus Burgkardus’s (pseudonym of the imperial adviser Andreas Erstenberger) work, “De autonomia.” Here, “autonomy” has the religiopolitical meaning of “discretion” in the choice of confession which the author harshly rejects in contrast to the Peace of → Augsburg of 1555. After the → Thirty Years War this choice was understood as the freedom of conscience (→ Freedom of Belief ). Since the 18th century, the meaning of “autonomy” has broadened to include both the political → freedom (VIII) of peoples and the legal freedom of individuals. This development, which has parallels in other Western European languages, was elevated by I. → Kant to the principal level of the demarcation from any external determination church or state (cf. Introduction to his Critique of Pure Reason). “Autonomy of the will” is primarily a concept of practical reason and designates “the capacity of the will through which one is a law unto oneself (independent of any condition of the objects of the will). The principle of autonomy is thus: always so to choose that the same volition shall comprehend the maxims of our choice as a universal law” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 440*). This principle of autonomy also applies to theoretical reason for which Kant at first employed it (without yet using the term), and to the power of discernment. J.G. → Fichte sharpened the idea by making autonomy absolutely subject to reason.

523 In the moderate form it had in Kant, the principle of autonomy gained widespread acceptance in the philosophy of the subsequent era, although often not in its original transcendental sense, but in an empirical one. Nonetheless, religiously motivated objections were forwarded quite early from both the philosophical and theological perspectives. Indeed, in a certain way, Kant’s autonomy idea had a precursor in Luther’s thesis that the Christian has the freedom in faith to make a new decalogue (WA 39/I,47.25–30) and, without intervening church authority, to interpret the scriptures (WA 39/ I,47.19f.). Yet, the commitment to the historical selfproclamation of God in Jesus Christ attested in Scripture remained the starting point, which must have seemed heteronomous to Kant, especially in the form that this idea had assumed in Protestant orthodoxy. The fact that God’s determination of human destiny is still often understood in Enlightenment philosophy and especially in Romanticism as heteronomous (something positive) may be seen as distant effects of this idea. This explains the philosophical critique of Kant’s autonomy principle (F.H. → Jacobi, K.L. → Reinhold, F. → Schlegel, F.X.v. → Baader, and especially forcefully S. → Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling). Theology reacted variously to the prevalence of the autonomy idea. Rejection dominated the Roman Catholic side until → Vatican II. This rejection finds expression as late as 1950 in the polemical formulation of the title of Hans-Eduard Hengstenberg’s Autonomismus und Transzendenzphilosophie. Since then one can identify a certain change. In the realm of theoretical reason, this change is evident in the relaxation in the field of scriptural exegesis which had already been anticipated (although the term autonomy played no role) and in the field of moral theology in the new direction of “autonomous morals” (Auer). The intention is an autonomous ethic of conscience (→ Conscience : VI) whose authority rests on the – Thomistically understood – human participation in divine reason. To be sure, here, too, despite the use of latitude in interpretation, the principle of the authority of the church’s teaching office is not abandoned, but is once more strengthened by the Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 1964, 22–25). This is to be taken into account when the Council speaks of the autonomy of earthly realities (Gaudium et spes, 1965, 36). On the Protestant side, the picture is multifaceted. F. → Schleiermacher (without using the term autonomy) subjected human freedom to absolute dependence on God and thus sought to integrate the experience of autonomy of modern human beings into religious faith. The feeling of absolute dependence functioned as the ground of the possibility both for knowing and for acting. Subsequent theology largely withdrew

Autonomy from this position; however W.M.L. de → Wette had already argued against the assumption of limitless moral autonomy with the necessity of religio-moral training. Julius → Müller introduced the objectivity of moral law into the discussion. Lutherans such as F.H.R. → Frank, A.v. → Oettingen, H.L. → Martensen and L. → Ihmels explicitly contrasted the concept of autonomy with the (heteronomously understood) concept of theonomy. On the other side, W. → Herrmann had, from the beginning, emphatically advocated Kant’s understanding of autonomy in ethics, but, in fact, subjected it to dependence on God in Schleiermacher’s sense. Autonomy, then, became the very principle of Herrmann’s theology and of his theoretical thought in distinction from any heteronomy that he perceived primarily in Catholicism. Under the name of theonomy (which Herrmann rejected because he understood it as heteronomous), this position was represented primarily by O. → Pfleiderer (Grundriß der christlichen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre, 61898, 243: “Autonomy without theonomy becomes the caprice of the self-idolizing ego; theonomy without autonomy becomes a theocratic absolutism that destroys the free personality”). P. → Tillich and R. → Bultmann (GuV III, 67) also argued along these lines. Gerhard Ebeling, who has concerns about the concept theonomy only because of the linguistic element “nomos” (law), thinks similarly in the context of the doctrine of justification, as does Trutz Rendtorff in relation to establishing ethics on a theology of creation. Things are quite different for K. → Barth, who polemicized in 1928 against Kant’s “mad autonomism,” but later allowed, in dogmatics as well as in ethics, for a secondary human autonomy in relation to the divine commandment and in contrast to God’s absolute autonomy. This is distinct from the understanding inaugurated by Schleiermacher in that the human response to revelation in the sense of the idea of the covenant is seen not as allowing oneself to be determined by God’s act, but as an act of free obedience made possible through God’s act, yet independent of it. In addition to the autonomy of the individual, that of institutions must also be considered. Here, in the social philosophy of the 20th century, one can observe the shift from an authoritarian understanding of state autonomy or sovereignty as the full power to establish law in an independent decision not subject to review, to a democratic political process of decision-making through discourse. Outside the theoretical discussion, the spectrum of the term reaches to an anarchistic understanding among the leftist splinter groups that arose out of the radical wing of the student movement of 1968. Alongside such an external political autonomy, sociology also speaks of an inner autonomy, namely

Autopoiesis under the term self-normativity. This term, occasionally employed by G. → Simmel and introduced by Max → Weber, designates in a pre-moral sense the course of social processes according to their own inner selfregulation. In contrast to Weber, R. → Seeberg means by “self-normativity” in his system of ethics the natural moral order of an organically grown community. This evaluative conception of the term is to be understood in the context of the neo-Lutheran doctrine of the order of creation (→ Creation, Order of ). Barth and his school – following E. → Troeltsch – have understood the term in this sense as an order dispensed by God’s commandment and used it for their polemic derived from a christologically based ethics against the → Two Kingdoms doctrine. In this polemic, it was not always apparent that indisputably simple self-normativity was not supposed to be condemned in the process. II. Current State of the Problem The concept of autonomy poses two problems. The one problem lies in the paradoxical empirical evidence of autonomy creating dependencies which hinder its own exercise (bureaucracy, economical interdependencies). The other problem has to do with the theological question of how the relationship of modern man’s individual as well as collective experiences of autonomy to God as the “all-determining reality” (Bultmann) is to be defined. To think of autonomy as something that is always empirically tied up in a system of interactions still as autonomy, indeed as God-given freedom, without identifying worldly dependencies deterministically with dependence on God – that remains the “supreme challenge” (A. → Ritschl) of theology. The response may well prove to be antinomian. Ethics, today, claims the right of autonomy for all areas of life. Thus, e.g., the self-determination of nations in the post-colonial era has become a self-evident component of social ethics, just as in medicine the free agreement of the patient to a given treatment represents a central criterion of decision. As especially the second example shows, however, the question of how the right to autonomy can be mediated with the given empirical, perhaps psychological or social, conditions and be brought to agreement with real needs when the issue concerns the degree and form of self-determination possible and justifiable for psychotic patients, causes significant difficulties. F. Burgkardus, De autonomia, das ist von Freystellung mehrerlay Religion und Glauben, 1586 ◆ J. Micraelius, Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum, 21662, repr. 1966, 204f. ◆ J.H. Zedler, Universallexicon der Wissenschaften und Künste, II, 1732, 2nd repr. 1993, 2272) ◆ I. Kant, “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten” (1785), Gesammelte Schriften IV, 1903, 385–463; ET: The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1964 ◆ W. Herrmann, Die Religion im Verhältnis zum Welterkennen, 1876 ◆ M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft,

524 1921 51976; ET: Economy and Society, 1968 ◆ P. Tillich, RGG 2 V, 1931, 1128f. ◆ M. Heckel, “Autonomie und Pacis composition”, ZSRG. K 76, 1959, 141–248 ◆ R. Pohlmann, HWP I, 1971, 701–719 ◆ E. Amelung, TRE V, 1980, 5–17 ◆ A. Auer, Autonome Moral und christlicher Glaube, 21984 ◆ F.-W. Graf, Theonomie, 1987 ◆ D. Lange, “Schöpfungslehre und Ethik,” ZThK 91, 1994, 157–188. Dietz Lange

Autopoiesis. This concept (Gk αὐτοποιός/autopoiós, “self-produced”), which may be traced back to I. → Kant, applies to systems so organized that their principal product is themselves, with no separation between producer and produced. The basic, similar units of such systems can be drawn from different categories (e.g. molecules, genes, cells, organisms). Autopoietic systems are energetically open (cf. “dissipative systems” of I. → Prigogine) but operationally closed. They have the capacity to change as well as reproducing themselves (cf. the “hypercycles” of Manfred Eigen). The concept of autopoiesis helps to explain the notion of a controlling directing agency in living organisms (e.g. the genome); and thus throws new light on the role of natural selection in evolution. The idea of autopoietic systems has been invoked (Niels H. Gregersen) to provide an interpretation of God’s irregular acting in the world as its “structuring cause.” G. Nicolis & I. Prigogine, Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems, 1977 ◆ M. Eigen & P. Schuster, The Hypercycles, 1979 ◆ S.A. Kaufmann, The Origins of Order, 1993 ◆ N.H. Gregersen, “The Idea of Creation and the Theory of Autopoietic Processes,” Zygon 33, 1998. Arthur R. Peacocke

Auxentius of Milan (died 374), was presbyter in Alexandria under bishop Gregory, his Cappadocian compatriot from 338 to 345. As a strict representative of an anti-Nicene subordinationism (→ Nicene Creed) and of the consubstantial church policy of Emperor → Constantius II, he was installed by Constantius after the Synod of Milan in 355 in the place of the deposed and excommunicated bishop → Dionysius of Milan. Despite various attempts by the Nicene party, now dominant in the West, to depose him (Synods of Paris in 360, Alexandria in 369/79, and Rome in 369/71), Auxentius, who apparently had backing from the population, was able to maintain the Milan see unopposed until his death. In relation to an attempt to unseat him, a confession of Auxentius has been preserved which shows him to be a representative of consubstantial theology (→ Homoeans) loyal to the decisions of the Synod of Rimini (359). Sources: H. v. Poitiers, Contra Auxentium, PL X, 609–618 Bibl.: H. Meslin, Les Ariens d’Occident, PatSor 8, 1967 ◆ H.C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer, BHTh 73, 1988 ◆ C. Markschies, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie, BHTh 90, 1995. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Auxiliary Bishop → Episcopal Titles

525 Auxiliary Saints are, in the Catholic view, → saints who are invoked to intercede with God in specific situations of need. The term has existed since the late 12th century. This title has been given to various saints who, based on their vitas, are attributed particular power of intercession in certain predicaments. Beginning in the 14th century, the special group of fourteen auxiliary saints appeared (in missals with a formula for auxiliary saints and in fixed prayers to the auxiliary saints). The first centers of the cult of auxiliary saints were the regions around Regensburg, Nuremberg, and Bamberg. In the diocese of Bamberg, the best-known place of pilgrimage for the Fourteen Saints developed after 1446 after the visions of a shepherd; since 1772, it has a splendid church by Balthasar Neumann. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the veneration of the fourteen auxiliary saints spread throughout the German-speaking regions as an element of popular piety (approx. 850 churches and chapels), as well as in Sweden, Hungary, and Italy. Sacred art produced many painted and carved altar pieces (including those by M. → Grünewald, L. → Cranach, and T. →Riemenschneider). The group of Fourteen Holy Helpers consists, with the exception of Aegidius, of martyrs from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. Each has specific (in different places also varying) areas in which they can be invoked and, in iconography, has specific (locally varying) attributes (→ Saints, Icons and Attributes). The sequence (with main accents on invocations and attributes) is as follows: Achatius (persecution and fear of death; crown of thorns); Giles (epilepsy among humans and cattle; hind); → Barbara (thunderstorm, fire; tower); → Blasius (throat illnesses, bladder condition; two crossed candles); → Christopher (dangers from water and in travelling; Christchild on his shoulder; → Cyriacus (evil spirits, temptations; bound demon); → Dionysius of Paris (head problems, guilty conscience; decapitated head in his hand); Erasmus (illnesses of the abdomen and womb area, distress at sea; windlass with cable); → Eustace (strokes of fate, religious doubt; stag with cross in antlers); → George (snakebite, horse illnesses; knight and dragon-slayer); → Catherine of Alexandria (ignorance, tongue ailments; wheel); → Margaret (temptations, infertility; dragon); → Pantaleon (illnesses, labor problems; ointment box); → Vitus (epilepsy, rabies; oil kettle). Some lists replace Dionysius, Cyriacus, and Eustace with the triad Sixtus, → Nicholas of Myra and → Leonhard. Occasionally, St. Magnus is listed as the fifteenth auxiliary saint. Nowadays, the cult of the auxiliary saints is only cultivated at the major places of pilgrimage (→ Pilgrimage/Places of Pilgrimage). Of special significance are still Blasius (cf. the → Blasius blessing on Feb 3) and Christopher (as the patron saint of modern traffic: insignia on cars).

Avalokiteśvara J. Dünninger, “Sprachliche Zeugnisse über den Kult der Vierzehn Nothelfer im 14. und 15. Jh.,” in E. Ennen & G. Wiegelmann, eds., Studien zu Volkskultur, Sprache und Landesgeschichte, 1972, 336–346 ◆ F. Meingast, Unsere bayerischen Nothelfer, 1982 ◆ F. Kohlschein & B. Schwessinger, “Ihr Vierzehn Heil’gen, groß bei Gott, o helfet uns in Not und Tod!’”: Untersuchungen zu den Wallfahrtsbüern des Wallfahrtsortes Vierzehnheiligen, 1992 ◆ D. Lutz, Der Gnadenaltar in Vierzehnheiligen, 1993 ◆ R. Vogelsang, Helfer und Heilige: Die Vierzehn Nothelfer in Legenden und Märchen, 1993 ◆ A. Grün, Wunden zu Perlen verwandeln: Die 14 Nothelfer als Bilder einer christlichen Therapie, 1997 ◆ A. Bichler, Die vierzehn Nothelfer, 1998. Georg Kraus

Avalokiteśvara, also known as Guanshiyin or Guanyin in Chinese, Kanzeon or Kannon in Japanese; Lokeśvararāja. The name means roughly “the one who looks down upon the world.” He is one of the oldest and most beloved → Bodhisattva-figures of → Buddhism. In eastern Asia, AvalokiteŚvara is often portrayed in a female form; in Tibet the cult of Tārā arose as a female counterpart. The → Dalai Lama (I) is regarded as his incarnation. Associated with the Buddha → Amitābha, the iconography often depicts AvalokiteŚvara in a triad with him and the Bodhisattva Mahāsthāmaprāpta. The best-known documentary source is probably ch. XXV of the → Lotus-Sūtra (Saddharmapu»∂arīka-sūtra, regarded as an independent work in many parts of Asia), which describes Avalokiteśvara’s deeds and attributes in detail. He observes events in the world and is always prepared, because of his knowledge as well as his boundless sympathy, to come to the aid of living beings in distress. Also widespread is the story that, viewing the suffering in the world, he was so overcome with compassion that his head split. This produced several heads, rendering him much better able to see events in the world. The iconography portrays him accordingly, e.g. as the elevenheaded Avalokiteśvara or as Avalokiteśvara with a thousand eyes and arms. In China, Guanyin is very often portrayed as a woman with a child on her arm. Prayers for the blessing of children are addressed to her. As is true for Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara was incorporated in the dogmatic and ritual systems of the → Vajrayāna, where he possesses quite unmistakable characteristics and is responsible for clearly delimited realms. Derived from his regard for events in the world is his wisdom, pratyaveks ̣ana-jñāna, a way of knowing that perceives the boundaries between phenomena and understands their interrelationship. This, then, is the basis of the capacity for rendering appropriate assistance to living beings. C.N. Tay, “Kuan-yin: The Cult of Half Asia,” HR XVI, 1976, 147–177 ◆ O. Divakaran, Avalokiteśvara – from the North-West to the Western Caves, East and West 39, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989, 145–178 ◆ M. Reis, Die Dhāra»ī des großen Erbarmens des Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara mit tausend Händen und Augen, 1993. Ian Astley

Avatāra Avatāra (Sanskrit, masc., lit. “descent”) is the Sanskrit expression, already attested as early as around the 5th century bce, for the appearance or incarnation of a Hindu god, especially of the high god → Viß»u. The → Mahābhārata and → Purā»a texts disseminate the idea that the gods descend from their residences and assume human or animal form in order to preserve world order (→ Dharma). The concept of avatāra permitted the official tradition to assimilate numerous lesser or local cults. Consequently, there are various sectarian lists of avatāras. The ten avatāras of Viß»u, representing classical Hinduism, assume the following forms in the four world eras: fish, turtle, boar, lion-man, dwarf, Rāma with the axe, Rāma DāŚarathi, → K‰ß»a , → Buddha as well as Kalkin, a messianic figure in whom Viß»u will become incarnate at the end of the current era in order to introduce a new era. W. Kirfel, Die Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt, 1920 ◆ P. Hacker, “Zur Entwicklung der Avatāralehre,” WZKSO 4, 1960, 47–70 ◆ G. Parrinder, Avatar and Incarnation, 1970. Axel Michaels

Ave Maria (Lat., “Hail Mary”; antiphon and prayer, also title of a responsorial and an offertory). The first part of the text is a conflation of Luke 1:18 and 1:42, combining Gabriel’s and Elizabeth’s salutations to Mary. The second part (beginning at Sancta Maria) is a late petition (probably 15th cent.); they became inseparable by the early 17th century. The musical settings reflect the origins of the text. The popularity of the text grew with the rise in Marian devotion in the 11th–12th centuries. By the 13th century, it became part of the popular paraliturgical Vespers for devout laity. This type of devotion found its most popular expression in the development of the → rosary. Modern editions tend to use the complete text, but still show interactions between liturgical and devotional usage. For example, Roman Catholic wedding services still often include an unofficial devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. H. Leclerq, “Marie (Je vous salue),” DACL X, 1, 1932, 1043– 1062. William Flynn

Aventinus, Johannes (1477, Abensberg – 1534, Regensburg ) corresponded during his study in Ingolstadt and Vienna with C. → Celtis ; after further study in Cracow and Paris, he became royal tutor at the ducal court in Munich. Appointed official Bavarian historian in 1517, he wrote his chief work Annales ducum Boiariae (1519/21), which he revised as the Bayerische Chronik (1533) and in which he showed himself to be a nationalistic humanist. In 1528, Aventinus, who corresponded with Melancthon, but did not subscribe to reformation doctrine, was suspected of “Protestantism,” being critical of the church, but was released on the rec-

526 ommendation of the chancellor Leonhard von Eck. He spent his last years in Regensburg. Works: Gesammelte Arbeiten 5 vols., S.v. Riezler, ed., 1881– 1886, vol. VI, G. Leidinger, ed., 1907 ◆ On Aventinus: M. Übelein, “Geschichtsbewußtsein,” diss., 1947 ◆ G. Strauss, Historian in an Age of Crisis, 1963. Rainer A. Müller

Averroes, Ibn Rušd (1126, Córdoba – 1198, Marrakesh), Span.-Lat. for “Ibn Rušd” (Abūl-Walīd Mu˙ammad ibn A˙mad) was an Islamic legal scholar, philosopher and physician; through his Aristotle commentary, he was the most important mediator of Arabic → Aristotelianism to medieval Europe. As a judge and teacher, he was a respected authority on Islamic law. His major works were meant as defenses of Aristotelian philosophy and science as the basis for establishing truth, also for Islamic society. The theology and critique of philosophy of → ˝azzālī provided his impetus. Averroes tried to convince Islamic institutions in the style of a legal brief in favor of the philosophical doctrine of evidence as a superior method for using God-given reason and proclaimed the equality of absolute knowledge through reason with the religious symbol of revelation: “The truth does not contradict the truth.” Thesis by thesis, Averroes refuted Al-˝azzālī’s polemic against the philosophers, which had rejected their claim to a system of stringent argumentation for cosmology and theology. By returning to → Aristotle, guarantor of truth “so far as it is humanly comprehensible,” Averroes defended philosophical epistemology and the worldview of Hellenistic philosophy. His commentary on the corpus aristotelicum, on the basic texts, in multiple versions – compendia, explanatory paraphrases, and extensive literal commentaries – presented the logic, physics, and metaphysics of Aristotle as a harmonious system, free of self-contradictions, and justified it over against other doctrines of antiquity (→ Platonism) and of Islam (esp. against → Avicenna) in the light of the peripatetic doctrinal tradition. The method of rational establishment of truth consists of deduction from first principles by way of the syllogism. The basis of the doctrine of principles – metaphysics as ontology, cosmology and philosophical theology – is physics, the doctrine of the processes of reality that point to their causes; metaphysics cannot (contra Avicenna) deduce its own principles, but rather, is to be established on the foundation of substantial reality. In order to resolve the antinomy between God’s eternity and transcendence and his immanence in the becoming and passing of creation, Averroes replaced his predecessors’ neoplatonic doctrine of emanation with his reinterpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine of soul and intellect. The theory of movement of Aristotle’s physics and the theory of knowledge of his psychology explain the nature of the intelligible cosmos as the eter-

527 nal product of the eternal First Cause: the divine Prime Mover is, as an object of the desire for knowledge by the living spheres, the origin of all movement. The universality of its understanding is the basis for philosophy’s claim to leadership: through abstraction from the particulars, the capacity for thought gains the perception of the universals of intelligible reality. The speculative intellect of the perceiving subject owes this insight to the active intellect, which, just as the light makes visible to the eye what is visible, makes visible to the mind what is intelligible. The intelligibilia are eternal as forms of the eternal, universal “material intellect,” yet transitory as forms of the individual act of perception; the highest activity of the spirit – philosophy – survives not in the body-soul individual, which is imprisoned in transitory material, but in the human race. P.W. Rosemann, “Averroes,” BPhM 30, 1988, 153–221 (bibl.) ◆ R. Arnaldez, “Ibn Rushd,” EI 2 II, 1969, 909–920. Gerhard Endreß

Averroism. The collective name “Averroists” (Averroistae) was first used in 1270 by → Thomas Aquinas in De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. At the end of the 15th century, H. → Savonarola first called the Averroisti a school (scuole). The term “Averroism” was first used in 1852 by E. → Renan on the title page of his Averroès et l’averroïsme. Renan claimed that M. → Maimonides (d. 1204) and his disciples were the first to teach a peripatétisme averroistique. Today scholars speak of various kinds of Averroism: Jewish Averroism (represented esp. by E. → Delmedigo and I. → Abrabanel ), Latin Averroism (represented esp. by → Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia), and political Averroism (represented esp. by → John of Jandun and → Marsilius of Padua), all of which embody Aristotelian philosophy as reflected in the commentaries of → Averroes, from the late 13th century to the mid-16th (Agostino Nifo). Since 1957, the Arabic world has spoken of an Arabic Averroism (ru“diyya), based not on Averroes’s commentaries on Aristotle but on his own philosophical works. Renan defines Averroism materialistically: the human race had a natural origin, the immortality of the soul is an invention of law-makers to keep the people quiet; miracles, prayers, invocation of the saints, etc. are an ineffectual illusion. Today five points are generally subsumed under Averroism: the mortality of the soul, the unity of the intellect, the eternity of the world, the theory of double truth, and God’s lack of knowledge of particulars. But there is no known thinker who taught all five of these beliefs. Averroes himself was not an Averroist. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, “Averroista” was nothing more than a term used to denounce enemies of the church such as Raymond → Lull (d. 1315). Averroism was Renan’s invention, part

Avesta of his attempt to find modernism in the Middle Ages. Van Steenberghen has therefore proposed replacing the term “Averroism” with “heterodox Aristotelianism.” A. Renan, Averroès et l’averroïsme, 1852, 31866 ◆ F. van Steenberghen, La philosophie au XIII e siècle, 1966 ◆ P.O. Kristeller, “Le mythe de l’athéisme de la Renaissance et la tradition française de la libre pensée,” BHR XXXVII, 1975, 337–348 ◆ J. Jolivet, ed., Multiple Averroès, 1978 ◆ E. Cerulli, ed., L’Averroismo in Italia, 1979 ◆ M.-R. Hayoun & A. de Libera, Averroès et l’Averroïsme, 1991 ◆ F. Niewöhner & L. Sturlese, eds., Averroismus im Mittelalter und in der Renaissance, 1994 ◆ A. von Kügelgen, Averroes und die arabische Moderne, 1994 ◆ F. Niewöhner, “Averroismus vor Averroes?” Mediaevalia philosophica Polonorum XXXII, 1995, 33–39. Friedrich Niewöhner

Avesta (Pahlavi: abestāg) is the sacred book of the Zoroastrians; many etymologies were suggested for the name of this collection of religious texts; probably it signifies “praise” or “(religious) knowledge.” Avesta literature was orally composed in different periods and places, but the language, which cannot be located with any certainty in a restricted area of the Iranian plateau, belongs to the East Iranian group (while Old Persian is south-western). Two dialect varieties of Avestan are attested: Old Avestan (or Gathic) and Young(er) or Later Avestan. The five “songs”, attributed to → Zarathustra by the tradition, of the Yasna Haptanghāiti, “The Veneration Prayer in Seven Parts”, and some prayers in Yasna 27 are in Old Avestan, while the rest of the Avesta is composed in Later Avestan. Linguistically Old Avestan is more archaic than Later Avestan (roughly contemporary with Old Persian); but the distance in time between both Avesta corpora is connected with the problem of the date of Zarathustra (early 1st mill. or 7th cent. bce). Scholars do not agree on the chronology of the Old Avestan texts, some of them considering (for historico-religious reasons) the Veneration Prayer later than the Gāthās, others contemporary or older. Among the Later Avestan texts the Great Yašts and the Yasna show a noteworthy antiquity and probably are older than most of the Widēwdād. Different texts, learned by heart and orally transmitted (from east to west Iran), were fixed into a canon in the Sassanian period, under the patronage of the Kings of Kings, starting probably in the 4th century ce. The strong alliance between the throne and the altar supported the organization of the state church, thus creating an orthodoxy Zoroastrians opposed their own canon to the sacred writings of the Christians, Manichaeans and Buddhists. A group of priests in Persia invented a special Avestan alphabet in order to express all of the particular nuances of the sacred language, and arranged the different books according to theological, liturgical and literary criteria. As we know from books 8 and 9 of the Pahlavi text Dēnkard, the canon contained 21 books (Nasks) which were divided between three greater collections, seven

Avesta in each, called Gāsānīg (the Gathic Nasks), HādagMānsārīg (the ritual Nasks) and Dādīg (the legal Nasks). The Pahlavi texts also contain some partly legendary accounts on the history of the Avesta. A Pahlavi translation, called Zand, accompanied the Avesta texts with commentaries and explanations. It is useful for the understanding of later sources of the Avesta text and esp. for the understanding of Zoroastrian exegesis. After the Muslim conquest of Iran and the increasing conversions to Islam, the Zoroastrian communities were weakened, and some Mazdeans emigrated to India (esp. Gujarat); they were called Parsis (→ Parsism). A great part of the official canon was lost, while approximately one quarter of it was saved, mainly thanks to manuscripts used for ritual ceremonies or sacrificial training of the priests. Many sources were transmitted in an order which differs from that attributed to them in the Nasks of the canon. This means that already in the Sasanian period some texts (or parts of texts) were extracted from the Nasks and rearranged in a different order into a sort of “missal” for the Yasna ritual. The actual corpus was reconstituted on the basis of Indian and Iranian manuscripts dating from the 2nd millennium (the oldest is K7, 1288 ce) (cf. Geldner’s standard edition). All the extant Avesta manuscripts derive from an already corrupted “original text” of the 9th century ce, which was the last witness of the Sasanian archetype, as shown by K. Hoffmann. The hypothesis of an Arsacid canon, written with an unvocalized Middle Iranian script like Parthian or Pahlavi, has been rejected. But the existence of written Avestan texts in the pre-Sasanian period cannot be excluded a priori; in the Coptic Kephalaia (Polotsky, 1940, 7) → Mani refers to the books of the Zoroastrian priests, while a prayer to → Ahura Mazdā in Aramaic script has been identified by Bogolyubov (1979); an Old Sogdian version of the Ašem vohū has been discovered by Gershevitch (cf. Sims-Williams, 1976, 74–82) in a Manichaean fragment. But the older texts did not have any significant influence on the Sasanian archetype; the new canon was philologically independent of the preceding traditions. The most important texts are as follows. I. The Yasna is the text recited during the sacrifice and the preparation of the haoma (Vedic soma). II. The Wisprad, the prayer dedicated to “all the patrons,” is a supplementary litany to the Yasna in 24 sections. III. The so-called Xorda Avesta, “Little Avesta,” is a collection of prayers recited on different occasions. IV. The two Sīh rēzags, “Thirty Days,” attested in a short and a long version, are an invocation to the 30 gods who protect the days of the month in the Zoroastrian calendar. V. The Yašts are 21 hymns, partly metrical, consecrated to some of the most important deities; a very old group of them, called Great Yts, contains much important information on

528 Old Iranian mythology. VI. The Widēwdād, “The Law against the demons,” in 22 chapters ( fargards), is the only Nask to have been transmitted in its entirety. It is a sort of Zoroastrian Leviticus which shows a strong evolution of dualistic patterns in the opposition between Ahura Mazdā and Angra Mainyu. The first two chapters are concerned with: (1) the creation of the Iranian lands by Ahura Mazdā and the counter-creations of Angra Mainyu, and (2) the wonderful age of Yima, who before the arrival of the demons took refuge in a cave. Apart from ch. 19, dedicated to the temptation of Zarathustra, the other sections of the text contain ritual and purification rules (relating in particular to dead matter and medicine). Other minor texts are attested: the Nērangistān, a priestly manual for the organization of the cult, containing the Hērbedestān; the Pursišniha, “Questions,” a short catechism; the Aogemadaēcā, “We accept,” a liturgy for the dead. The Hādēxt Nask, “The Book of the Scriptures,” celebrates in two sections the prayer Ašem vohū and describes the destiny of the soul in the afterlife. The Frahang ī ōīm is an Avestan-Pahlavi dictionary. The Āfrīn ī Zardušt contains a blessing upon Wīstāsp attributed by the tradition to Zarathustra. The Wīstāsp Yašt, a minor text, derives from the Widēwdād. The Nērang ī Ātaxš is a “fire charm,” the Vaēthā Nask a book on ethics and law. Some minor Avestan fragments were discovered and published by European and Parsi scholars (see the list in Kellens, 1987, 40). Not all the Avesta texts have survived with a corresponding Pahlavi translation; some have a Sanskrit version, preceded by the Zand. Later translations in New Persian and Gujarati are attested. Critical editions: N.L. Westergard, Zendavesta or the Religious Books of the Zoroastrians, 1852–1854 ◆ K.F. Geldner, Avesta, die heiligen Bücher der Parsen, 3 vols., 1886–1895 ◆ Translations: J. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, 3 vols., 1892–1893 ◆ C. Bartholomae, Die Gatha’s des Avesta, 1905 ◆ F. Wolff, Avesta, Die heiligen Bücher der Parsen, 1910 ◆ H. Humbach, Die Gathas des Zarathustra, vols. I–II, 1959 ◆ S. Insler, The Gathas of Zarathustra, 1975 ◆ J. Narten, Der Yasna Haptanghāiti, 1986 ◆ J. Kellens & E. Pirart, Les textes vieil-avestiques, 3 vols., 1989, 1990, 1991 (bibl.) ◆ H. Humbach, The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts, 2 vols., 1991 ◆ Bibl.: H. Lommel, Die Yäšts’s des Awesta, 1927 ◆ I. Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, 1959 ◆ P. Kreyenbroek, Sraosa in the Zoroastrian Tradition, 1985 ◆ A. Panaino, Tištrya, I. The Avestan Hymn to Sirius, 1990 ◆ H. Hintze, Der Zamyād-Yašt, 1994 ◆ Pahlavi-translations: H.J. Jamasp, Vendidād, 2 vols., 1907 ◆ B.N. Dhabhar, Zand-i Khūrtak Avistāk, 1927 (trans. 1963) ◆ idem, Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad, 1949 ◆ B.T. Anklesaria, Pahlavi Vendidād, 1949 (trans.) ◆ Sanskrit translations: F. Spiegel, Neriosengh’s Sanskritübersetzung des Yaçna, 1861 ◆ S.D. Bharucha, Collected Sanskrit Writings of the Parsis, 6 vols., 1906–1933 ◆ Other sources: M.N. Bogolyubov, “Molitva Achuramazde na drevneiranskom jazyke sredi aramejskich nadpisej iz arebsuna,” in: Istorija Iranskogo Gosudarstva i Kul’tury, 1971, 277–285, 347 ◆ H.J. Polotsky & A. Böhlig, Kephalaia, I, 1940 ◆ N. Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian Fragment of the British Library,” IIJ 18, 1976, 43–82 ◆ On Avesta: F.C. Andreas, “Die Entstehung des Awesta-Alphabetes und sein ursprüngli-

529

Avignon

cher Lautwert,” in: Verhandlungen des XIII. Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses, 1902/1904, 99–106 ◆ K.F. Geldner, “Awestaliteratur,” in: Grundriß der Iranischen Philologie, II, 1904, 1–74 ◆ W.B. Henning, “The Disintegration of the Avestic Studies,” TPS, 1942, 40–56 ◆ G. Morgenstierne, “Orthography and Sound-system of the Avesta,” NTS 12, 1942, 30–82 ◆ H.S. Bailey, Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books, 1943 (repr. with new Introduction, 1971) ◆ I. Gershevitch, Old Iranian Literature, HO 4/2, bibl., 1968, 1–30 ◆ K. Hoffmann, Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, I–III, 1975, 1976, 1992 ◆ W. Belardi, “Il nome dell’Avesta: alla ricerca di un significato perduto,” Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, series VIII, 24, 1979, 251–273 ◆ G. Gnoli, “Avestan Geography,” EIr III, 1987, 44–47 ◆ J. Kellens, “Avesta,” EIr III, 1987, 35–44 (bibl.) ◆ K. Hoffmann & J. Narten, Der Sasanidische Archetypus, 1989 ◆ A. Panaino, “Gli Yašt dell’Avesta: metodi e prospettive,” in: Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 1989 [1992], 159–184 ◆ idem, “L’innologia avestica,” in: L’inno tra rituale e letteratura nel mondo antico, AION, Sezione Fil.-Lett. 13, 1991, 107–123 ◆ J. Kellens, “Commentaire sur les premiers chapîtres du Yasna,” JA 284, 1996, 37–108 ◆ For detailed bibl. see B. Schlerath, Awesta-Wörterbuch. Vorarbeiten, I, 1968 ◆ For more recent publications see Abstracta Iranica, supplement series to StIr. Antonio Panaino

Avicebron → Ibn Gabirol, Solomon ben Judah Avicenna (Latin form of Abū aaAlī al-Óusain ibn aAbdallāh Ibn Sīnā; c. 980, Afšana near Bu¢ārā – 1037, Hamadān), a comprehensive scholar, outstanding physician and philosopher, whose thought has exerted lasting influence on later Islamic intellectual history, but also on European scholasticism. Avicenna developed his philosophical doctrines in dialogue with → Aristotle, whose works he knew almost entirely in Arabic and paraphrased interpretively in his own writings. He followed in the essentials the neoplatonic (→ Neoplatonism: IV) interpretations of the Stagirite which were communicated to him through the commentators of Late Antiquity, various pseudepigraphical texts (such as the so-called “theology of Aristotle”), and his immediate Muslim predecessors (→ Kindī and esp. → Fārābī). Avicenna’s own contribution, however, consists in the fact that he systematized Aristotelian philosophy and, as far as possible, linked it with Islamic thought. He was able to do this by explaining basic motifs of religion (prophecy, revelation and its interpretation, the fate of persons in the afterlife) philosophically and portraying philosophy itself such that it could be understood – despite its encyclopedic orientation – as the individual’s guide on the path to God. This position found expression in over a hundred writings of which only a portion have been published to date. They include essays, controversies, poems and allegorical narratives, but primarily the monumental “Kitāb aš-Šifāh,” “Book of Healing,” a comprehensive system that influenced the Latin Middle Ages as the “Liber Sufficientie,” as well as the “Kitāb alIšārāt wat-tanbīhāt” (Book of Hints and Advice), which presented the chief doctrines of logic, physics, and meta-

physics in a new form and became the most important starting point for the reception of Avicenna in Islam. For religious thought, Avicenna’s metaphysics is particularly important. It begins with an analysis of being in which Avicenna essentially follows the Aristotelian model, but emphasizes the distance between divine being and created being. Important here is his distinction between essence and existence, which only coincide in God, whereas in all other things existence does not belong to their essential structure. Accordingly, their being per se is only contingent and requires a cause in order to be actualized. This leads Avicenna to his Proof of the → Existence of God, in which he infers from the existence of contingent things the existence of a necessary being (the “via tertia” in → Thomas Aquinas). This first principle is the origin of the world that proceeds from eternity and, mediated through the ten heavenly intellects, from him. It is also, however, the goal of the efforts of the rational soul of human beings. Avicenna describes his clarification and his path to knowledge in impressive images, portraying the rational soul as a spiritual, indestructible substance and (in the famed argument of “flying persons”) as the seat of our consciousness independent of the body. Editions and translations: A.M. Goichon, Livre des directives et remarques, 1951 ◆ K. aš-Šifāh, ed. I. Madkour et al., 1952–1983 ◆ K. al-Išārāt wat-tanbīhāt, ed., S. Dunyā, 1957–1958 ◆ S. van Riet, ed., Avicenna Latina, 1968–1987 ◆ G.C. Anawati, La métaphysique du Shifāh, 1978–1985 ◆ L. Gardet, La pensée religieuse d’Avicenna, 1951. On Avicenna: A.-M. Goichon, La philosophie d’Avicenna et son influence en Europe médiévale, 21951 ◆ W.E. Gohlman, The Life of Ibn Sina, 1974 ◆ G. Verbeke, Avicenna, Grundleger einer neuen Metaphysik, 1983 ◆ D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, 1988 ◆ J.L. Janssens, An Annotated Bibliography of Ibn Sīnā (1970–1989), 1991 (bibl.) ◆ L.E. Goodman, Avicenna, 1992. Ulrich Rudolph

Avignon (Vaucluse), belongs to the duchy of Provence. It has been an episcopal see since the 4th/5th centuries. Surrounded by Venaissin, a papal duchy since 1274, Avignon, situated favorably for commerce on the Rhône, was the residence of the Avignon papacy from 1309 to 1376, and until 1403 of the antipopes; purchased to become part of the ecclesial state in 1348, France annexed it in 1789. → John XXII, as former bishop of Avignon, resided in the bishop’s castle, and → Benedict XII began to expand it into the monumental papal palace as the center of a curial church administration encompassing all of Europe. As a court, it was already criticized by contemporaries but also promoted painting and craftsmanship. → Boniface VIII founded a university in Avignon in 1303. Curial employees and streams of visitors produced a sharp growth in population in the 14th century which, under the administration of papal vice-legates, diminished again from the 15th century. Since 1475, Avignon has been an

Avitus of Vienne (Saint)

530

archbishopric with the suffragans Montpellier, Nîmes, Valence, and Viviers. M. Albert, LThK3, I, 1993, 1315–1317.

Tilmann Schmidt

Avitus of Vienne (Saint) (Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus; c. 450, Vienne – 518, Vienne). Avitus belonged to the senatorial aristocracy and was related to the emperor Avitus. Having become bishop of Vienne in 494, he mediated between the homoean Burgundians (→ Arius) and the Roman church; in 516 he succeeded in converting Sigismund, the heir to the throne, after Catholic education. In 517, he presided over the Synod of Epao. Avitus sought to keep in touch with leading contemporaries in 86 letters, which are important cultural and linguistic documents; he also wrote homilies, only fragments of which survive. His De spiritalis historiae gestis, a biblical epic dramatizing episodes of the OT, recalls Prudenetius’s Psychomachia in its rhetorical dialogicity. It closes with “De consolatoria castitatis laude,” a poem of comfort addressed to his sister Fuscina, a nun. Works: R. Peiper, ed., Opera quae supersunt, MGH.AA VI/2, 1883 ◆ On Avitus: “Avitus 4,” PLRE II, 1980, 195–196 ◆ D.J. Nodes, ed., The Fall of Man, 1985 ◆ idem, Doctrine and Exegesis in Biblical Latin Poetry, 1993. Meinolf Vielberg

Avot (“Sayings of the Fathers”) is a tractate in the fourth order of the → Mishnah (Neziqin). As a purely haggadic (→ Haggadah) work in the tradition of proverbial wisdom, Avot occupies a special position with respect to both form and content. Rabbinic tradition shows that it did not originally belong to the Mishnah, but it had already been included in the Amoraic period – in a shorter version, different from the form known today. Clearly the concluding sixth chapter (“Qinyan Torah”) is a secondary addition, and probably chapter five as well. Likewise the apologetic chain of tradition that introduces the tractate by tracing the rabbinic tradition back to the → revelation at Sinai can hardly be original. Avot contains sayings (primarily ethical principles) of important Tannaitic scholars (→ Tannaim) from the “Pairs” (zugot) to Rabbi → Judah ha-Nasi. In them, readers often found (and find) expressed the basic religious and ethical views of rabbinic Judaism. The history of the tractate’s interpretation since the Middle Ages documents its resulting central position in Judaism and its enduring popularity to our own day. This popularity was greatly increased by its early inclusion in the prayerbook and the practice of reciting it in synagogues on certain sabbaths. There is neither → Tosefta nor Gemara (→ Talmud) on Avot. The earliest commentaries are the two versions of the extracanonical tractate → Avot de Rabbi Nathan. M.B. Lerner, “The Tractate Avot,” in: S. Safrai, ed., The Literature of the Sages I, 1987, 263–281 ◆ English translation:

J. Neusner, Torah from our Sages: Pirke Avot. A New American Translation and Explanation, 1983. Hans-Jürgen Becker

Avot de Rabbi Nathan. One of the so-called “extracanonical tracts” of the → Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). It is not a “Gemara” (Talmud) to → Avot, but rather a (purely haggadic [→ Haggadah]) commentary and expansion on it in the style of → Midrash and sometimes of the Tosefta. The language is Hebrew, and the rabbis named mostly belonged to the Tannaitic period (→ Tannaim). It is unclear whether the title refers to the Tanna Rabbi Nathan of the same name and whether it is meant to indicate authorship. The Avot R. Nat. has been handed down in two very different versions (A and B) (synoptic edition by Schechter). The two text versions forming the basis of the Avot R. Nat. tract were considerably shorter than the Avot R. Nat. text of the → Mishnah. The differences can be seen in terms of the arrangement, wording and the name of the one who passed down the tradition. One must account for a branched editing process from the end of the 3rd century until the early Middle Ages. The less widelyknown version B seems to have retained an older form than version A. S. Schechter, ed., Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, 1887, corrected edition, 1967; repr., 1979 (Hebrew text of A and B) ◆ J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, 1955 (translation of A) ◆ A.J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, 1975 (commentated translation of B) ◆ H.-J. Becker, ed., Avot deRabbi Natan: Synoptische Edition beider Versionen, 2006. Hans-Jürgen Becker

Avvakum (Nov 25, 1620, Grigorovo beyond the Kudma – Apr 14, 1682, Pústozersk), spokesman for the Russian → Old Believers. Was designated protopope (archpriest) for Jur’evec – Povolžskij in 1652, and after 1653 moved to the forefront of the opposition against the cultic reforms of patriarch → Nikon with the consequence that he was immediately dispatched to Siberia until 1663. Excommunicated in 1666, from 1667 onwards he was held prisoner on the lower reaches of the Pechora. There he carried on with the fight until his death – he was burned at the stake – by composing his own vita (Zhitiye, German translation by R. Jagoditsch in 1930, G. Hildebrandt in 1965) as well as scores of missives and petitions, tracts and letters. His writings are of the utmost value, not only for the history of theology and piety, but also for Russian literary history. The Old Believers church canonized him as a martyr-priest. P. Hauptmann, Altrussischer Glaube, 1963 (bibl.) ◆ V.I. Malyaev, Materialy k “Letopisi žizni protopopa Avakkum,” Drevnerusskaja knižnost, 1985, 277-322 ◆ K. Steinke, “Avakkum und die Erneuerung Russlands,” in: K.C. Felmy, ed., Tausend Jahre Christentum in Rußland, 1988, 549-558. Peter Hauptmann

Azariah, Vedanayakam Samuel

531 Awakening → Revival/Revival Movements Axial Age. The idea of a common “axial age” of human history as the center of all history was developed by K. → Jaspers in his Origin and Goal of History (1959). Jaspers sees in the period 800–200 bce – India (Upanishad, Buddha), Iran (Zarathustra), Palestine (the prophets), and Greece (the poets and philosophers) – new beginnings, characterized by demythologization, spiritualization, and the dawn of human consciousness of being as a whole, of the personal self and its limitations. These start the process of unification of the world as history, the meaning of which consists in “allowing it to become clear what man can be.” This view of history contrasts with the traditional, possibly more plausible thesis that not until Western Christian civilization was a unification of the world set in motion. K. Jaspers, Origin and Goal of History, 1959 ◆ H.A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers, 1957 ◆ G. Simon, Die Achse der Weltgeschichte nach K. Jaspers, 1965 ◆ S.N. Eisenstadt, ed., Kulturen der Achsenzeit, 2 vols., 1987. Karl Woschitz

Axum. The ancient capital of → Ethiopia , located in Tigray (northern Ethiopia). Although founded before the Christian era, the city later became famous as the birthplace of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity. Although destroyed in the 10th and 16th centuries, it is still considered a sacred city by believers, and is called “Our Mother Zion.” “Zion” refers to Mary, symbolized by Moses’ Ark of the Covenant (→ Temple) which is traditionally believed to be kept in St. Mary’s church there. S.C. Munro-Hay, Axum, 1991.

Getatchew Haile

Ayala, Felipe Guamán Poma de (c. 1550 – c. 1619, San Cristóbal de Sondondo, Lucanas [Ayacucho]; place of death unknown). He was a chronicler and a pilgrim “searching for the poor of Jesus Christ” (El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno, 1936, 1109 [1119]; 1988, III, 1015). A descendant of → Inca aristocracy, he left a graphic chronicle comprising more than 400 pen-andink drawings with commentary, in which he castigates religious and political conditions in the Viceroyalty of → Peru and makes proposals for a buen gobierno (good government). From the perspective of the → Native American Indians incorporated into the Spanish empire and Christendom, he takes critical measure of the pastoral reality, judging it against the claims of the gospel. The original manuscript of the chronicle is contained in a codex in Copenhagen, discovered in 1908 by Richard Pietschmann. Sources: El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno, 1615; facsimile ed. 1936, repr. in 3 vols., ed. J.V. Murra & R. Adorno, 21988 ◆ ET: Letter to a King, ed. C. Dilke, 1978 ◆ On Ayala: A. Padilla

Bendezú, Huaman Poma, el indio cronista dibujante, 1979 ◆ R. Adorno, Chronista y principe, 1989 ◆ M. Steiner, Guamán Poma de Ayala und die Eroberer Perus, 1992. Paulo Günter Süss

Ayatollah, “Sign of God.” In Shihite Islam this is an honorary title for the person with the highest spiritual authority. Since the 14th century it has been documented as an individual surname. The title was defined terminologically for the first time in the 20th century in the context of a self-consolidating hierarchy of spiritual dignitaries. Since then it represents the highest category of the mujtahids, i.e. Islamic scholars (aulamā), who are qualified by means of studies and exams to make decisions independently and on their own responsibility (ijtihād) on religious and legal questions (→ Clergy: III). Their decisions and directives are considered fallible and therefore revisable, but are nevertheless binding for their respective – mostly regional – clientele. On the basis of their personal authority, ayatollahs can gain influence beyond their region and reach the status of a recognized Grand Ayatollah (Ayatollah al-auΩmā), considered by Shiites worldwide to be an “instance of emulation” (marjaa at-taqlīd). H. Halm, Die Schia, 1987.

Heinz Halm

Azariah, Vedanayakam Samuel (Aug 17, 1874, Vellalanvilai, South India – Jan 1, 1945, Dornakal), Indian church leader and one of the most distinguished representatives of the early Asian mission and ecumenical movements. The son of a village pastor, he came into contact with diverse Christian groups as the traveling secretary of the → YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) 1895–1901. In 1905 he was among the founders of the National Missionary Society of India. An Indian society under Indian leadership (“Indian men, Indian money, Indian leadership”), this group sought to emancipate themselves from the paternalism of the missionaries (→ India: IV). As one of the few non-western delegates at the World Missions Conference in → Edinburgh in 1910, Azariah caused a stir. In 1912 he was the first Asian consecrated as an Anglican bishop, in the newly founded (and progressively expanded) diocese of Dornakal. In this diocese Indian pastors were given full responsibility for their parishes and afterwards they experienced enormous growth (in 1913 there were 8000 Christians, in 1945 235,000). Co-author of the → Tranquebar Manifesto of 1919, he served the National Christian Council of India from 1923 to 1945 as the first Indian president. At the same time he attended numerous international gatherings and was among the leading persons at the World Mission Conference of Tambaram in 1938 (→ Mission Conferences, International). Although he did not live to experience the union of the South Indian churches into

Azerbaijan the Church of South India in 1947, his contribution to its preparation was crucial. T. Lorch, Vedanayakam Samuel Azariah, 1959 ◆ C. Graham, Azariah of Dornakal, 1973 ◆ idem, “The Legacy of Vedanayakam Samuel Azariah,” IBMR 9, 1985, 16–19 ◆ S.B. Harper, In the Shadow of the Mahatma, 2000. Klaus Koschorke

Azerbaijan is the name both of an Iranian province and of the adjacent Transcaucasian republic to the north. According to Strabo (Geogr. XI 13.1) the designation can be traced back to the name of the Achaemenid satrap in Media, “Atropata.” For the Caucasian part of Atropatene Roman sources also used the designation “Albania.” Medieval Arabic geographers refer to the “land of fire” (“adar” and “baykan”). Historically Azerbaijan encompassed a region southeast of the Great Caucasus. In 1813/28 the region was divided into a Russian and a Persian part. For years the national territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan (86,600 km2; 7,750,000 inhabitants in 1997) included the disputed enclave Nagorno-Karabakh, to which the Armenians lay claim, as well as the autonomous Republic of Nakhichevan as exclave. According to the 1989 census 7,021,000 people (5,805,000 Azeri, 392,000 Russians, 390,000 Armenians, 174,000 Lezgians, 44,000 Avars, 32,000 Ukrainians, 308,000 Jews, 286,000 Tatars, 142,000 Georgians and 112,000 others) lived in Azerbaijan. Since 1989 (war for Karabakh) almost all Armenians left Azerbaijan; currently approximately 800,000 Azerbaijani are refugees. The advance of the Arabs into Transcaucasia in the 7th century did not bring about a complete Islamicization; Judaism, Christianity and elements of Zoroastrianism (→ Zarathustra), Mazdakism (→ Mazdak) and → Manichaeism remained. The advance of the Turkish tribes and Mongols (11th/14th cent.) resulted in an extensive Turkization and Islamicization. After 1502 Shihite Islam (→ Islam: II), under the Persian rule of the Safavids (1502–1722), became the dominant religious orientation. Sunni Islam (c. 25%), of the Hanafite jurisdiction, is represented especially among the people groups settled in the north. The dominant Seveners (Ismahilis) and Twelve Šīaa live mostly in central and southern Azerbaijan; the number of adherents of such sub-groups as the → Bahāhis, Jezides or Ali-Ilahis, however, is difficult to ascertain. The northeast and the Apsheron peninsula are inhabited by Ashkenazi and Tat or “Mountain Jews”; since 1991 the number of Jews (c. 40,000) has dwindled to around 15,000 because of emigration. Christianity is supposed to have become the official religion of Caucasian Albania before 325; its spread is assumed since the 2nd century and associated with the work of the apostle Elias and the Assyrian church. The

532 Christian-Albanian heritage is currently claimed by Armenians and Azerbaijanis in conjunction with the claims to Nagorno-Karabakh. In the 19th century the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church became stronger as a result of the Russian advance. Since 1924 all adherents of religions were equally at the mercy of the Soviet campaigns of atheism. Until 1941 the German churches (colonists since 1818) numbered about 25,000 adherents. The constitution of Azerbaijan (1995) stipulated equal treatment of all religions. Apart from the Albanian descendants, Christianity is professed by Russians, Ukrainians and Georgians and others. An Evangelical Lutheran church community, active in Baku since 1993, is also taking care of about 3,000 German descendants. The capital is the seat of the archimandrite of the Russian Orthodox Church in Transcaucasia. Islam is represented mainly by approximately 1,000 mosques, newly established Qurhān schools and Islamic dignitaries. The Jewish religion is practiced mainly in three synagogues in Baku and in Kuba. V. Minorsky, EI2, I, 1960, 188–191 ◆ C.J.F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranci or Moisey Kaghankatly, 1961 ◆ X. de Planhol et al., EI 3, I, 1989, 205–257 ◆ S. Akiner, Islamic Peoples of the Soviet Union, 1986 ◆ J.M. Thierry, Eglises et couvents du Karabagh, 1991, 13–37 ◆ A. Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks, 1992 ◆ B.A. Wegge, Azerbaijan – Where East Meets West, 1996. Eva-Maria Auch

Azikri, Eleazar (1533–1600 Safed), a leader of the spiritual center in → Safed, kabbalist, preacher, and ethical teacher and mystic. His best-known work is Sefer Haredim (“The Book of the God-fearing”, printed in Venice in 1600), an ethical treatise dedicated to the elucidation of the commandments and instructions concerning a life of devotion and asceticism. In the introduction, he describes the establishment of penitential communities in Safed. With two colleagues he established a group for study and the attainment of perfection and spirituality in personal life. His ethical thought fuses the teachings of the Ashkenazi Hasidim (→ Hasidism) with kabbalistic traditions (→ Kabbalah). He also wrote exegetical works on tractates of the Babylonian Talmud and a commentary on Lamentations (Qol Bokhim, Venice 1601). Asikri wrote a mystical diary, describing his spiritual experiences, visions, emotions and ascensions, often in the form of biblical exegesis. It is a quest of devequt (adherence and communion with God). He wrote several liturgical poems, which were printed at the end of Sefer Haredim; one of them, a mystical poem entitled Yedid Nefesh (“Soul-Beloved”), was included in standard Jewish rituals. M. Pechter, Miley de shemaya by Eleazar Azikri, 1993. Joseph Dan

533

Aztec Religion

Azriel of Girona (1160–1238), was a significant writer of the first generation of Kabbalists in Girona. He probably was a disciple of → Isaac ben Abraham, and with Rabbi Ezra he founded a new center in Catalonia. Many of his ideas influenced the → Zohar and hence the → Kabbalah as a whole. He wrote a commentary on the traditional prayers, in which he identifies the hidden divine power within every word and letter; a commentary on the → Haggadah, which was a major step in presenting a hidden kabbalistic meaning in talmudic sayings; a commentary on the ancient Sefer → Yetzirah and many other treatises. He combined in his treatises the teachings of the Book → Bahir, the earliest work of the Kabbalah, with the kabbalistic school of Provence, thus establishing symbols which became normative for the Kabbalah as a whole. He introduced philosophicalrationalistic terminology into the Kabbalah. He was criticized by his teacher, Rabbi Isaac, for publishing the Kabbalah to the unworthy by the writing of books.

north of the heart of the Basin of Mexico, through the period of Toltec dominance centered in the kingdom of Tollan during the 10th–12th centuries, the central highlands had been the dominant cultural region of central Mesoamerica. Archaeologists and historians of religion agree that the four-quartered city was a massive spatial symbol for the major cosmological conceptions of Aztec religion. When the Aztec precursors, the Chichimecas (chichi “dog” and mecatl “role” or “lineage”), migrated to the lake region in the 16th century, they brought powerful religious cosmologies and ritual practices with them, and impressive amalgamations began to develop. The Chichimecas, who called themselves Mexicas, settled in Tenochtitlán around 1325 ce, and within a hundred years organized a political unit with the capacity to dominate an expanding number of cities and towns in central Mexico.

I. Tishby, R. Azriel’s Commentary on the Agadot, 1946 (Heb.) ◆ G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala, 1962. Joseph Dan

II. Cosmology The image of the capital city as a military citadel transformed into the foundation of heaven, which the Aztecs conceived of as a vertical column of thirteen layers extending above the earth, points to the cosmological conviction underpinning Aztec religion that there existed a profound correspondence between the sacred forces in the universe and the social world of the Aztec empire. This correspondence between the cosmic structure and political state was anchored in the capital of Tenochtitlán where fearless warriors followed the dictates of the High God. A summary view reveals that Aztec life unfolded in a cosmic setting that was dynamic, unstable, and finally destructive. Although the cosmic order fluctuated between periods of stability and chaos, the emphasis in many myths and historical accounts is upon the elaborate ritual strategies to overcome or forestall chaos which repeatedly overcomes the ages of the universe, divine society, and the cities of the past. In 16th-century prose accounts this universe is arranged in a rapid, orderly fashion after the divine pair. Ometeotl, dwelling in Omeyocan, the Place of Duality, at the 13th level of heaven, generates four children, the Red Tezcatlipoca (the Smoking Mirror), the Black Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl (the Plumed Serpent), and Huitzilopochtli (Hummingbird on the Left). They all exist without movement for 600 years when the four children assemble “to arrange what was to be done and to establish the law to be followed.” Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli arrange the universe and make fire, half the sun, “not fully lighted but a little,” the human race, and the calendar. The four brothers reassemble and create water and its divine beings. Then the gods set about creating and destroying the cosmos four times.

Aztec Religion I. Tenochtitlán: Center of the World – II. Cosmology – III. The Aztec Pantheon: Hierophanies of Nature – IV. Creator Gods – V. Fertility and Regeneration – VI. The Warrior God: Huitzilopochtli – VII. Human Sacrifice: Ritual and Cultic Significance

I. Tenochtitlán: Center of the World The formation of Aztec religion was accomplished in the capital city of Tenochtitlán in the central basin of Mexico between the 14th and 16th centuries ce. Throughout the Aztec world, sacred spaces, whether in the form of household shrines, local temples, burial sites, statues of deities, colossal pyramids, monumental ceremonial centers, or capital cities, and extensive ritual actions associated with them, provided the population with profound and varied forms of religious orientation and access to the gods and powers of the cosmos. The Aztec religious tradition combined and transformed a number of ritual, mythic, and cosmological elements from the heterogeneous cultural groups who inhabited the central plateau of Mesoamerica. Seldom has a capital city fit the category of “center of the world” more completely than Tenochtitlán. While the high plateau of Mexico was roughly the center of Mesoamerica, the Basin of Mexico was the heart of the plateau. Interconnected lakes formed the center of the basin, and Tenochtitlán was constructed near the center of the lakes. From the beginning of the Common Era, when the great imperial capital of Teotihuacán (the “Abode of the Gods”) was organized into four great quarters around a massive ceremonial center thirty miles

Aztec Religion The Aztec universe had a geometry consisting of three main levels: an overworld, or celestial space; the middle world, or earthly level; and the underworld, sometimes known as Mictlan (“Place of the Dead”). In some cases there was a → World Tree which joined these three levels with its roots in the underworld, its trunk in the middle world, reaching up with its highest branches into the celestial world. In the celestial realm above the earth there were 13 levels (some sources say nine), each inhabited by diverse gods and supernatural beings, often depicted as conjugal pairs. Each level was characterized by a certain color, power, and name. Below this celestial column of gods, forces, colors, and dualities floated the four-quartered earth in the sacred waters. And below the earth were the nine levels of the underworld. These nine levels served as way stations for the soul of the dead as it passed slowly toward the bottom rung. As with the celestial world, the terrestrial levels were occupied by gods and minor supernatural forces that were capable of escaping into the earthly level and influencing daily life. In some versions of this universe there were four other trees, giant ceiba trees which held up the sky at the four quarters of the world. These trees were also the main entry points of the gods and their influences from the upper and lower worlds into the surface of the earth and the world of humans. These influences and forces radiated along lines of communication called “malinalli” (a revolving double helix) between the four quarters and the central section where the old god, the lord of fire, transformed all things. III. The Aztec Pantheon: Hierophanies of Nature One of the apparent features of the surviving screenfolds which present ritual and divinatory information is the impressive series of deities who populated the Mesoamerican world. Likewise, the remaining sculpture and 16th-century prose accounts of Aztec Mexico present us with a pantheon so crowded that a thorough study of Aztec religion includes a list of over 60 distinct and interrelated names. Scholarly analysis of these many deities reveals that literally all aspects of existence were considered inherently sacred and that these deities were an expression of a numinous quality that permeated the world. Aztec references to numinous forces, expressed in the Nahuatl word “teotl” were always translated by the Spaniards as “god,” “saint,” or “demon.” The Aztec teotl, however, signified a sacred power manifested in natural forces (a rainstorm, a tree, mountain) in persons of high distinction (such as a king, an ancestor, a warrior) or in mysterious and chaotic places. What the Spaniards translated as god really referred to a spectrum of hierophanies which animated the world. Aztec deities were pictorially represented as anthropomorphic beings. Even in cases where the deity has an

534 animal form, as in the case of Xolotl the divine dog, or is in the form of a ritual object, as in the case of Iztli, the knife god, he is disguised with human features like arms, torso, legs, face, etc. Aztec deities dwelled in the different levels of the 13-layered celestial sphere or in the 9-layered underworld. The general structuring principle for the pantheon, derived from the cosmic pattern of a center and four quarters, resulted in the quadruple or quintuple ordering of some gods. While it does not appear that the Aztec pantheon or pattern of hierophanies was organized as a whole, it is possible to discern groups of deities organized around the major cult themes of cosmogonic creativity; fertility and regeneration; and war and sacrificial nourishment of the sun. IV. Creator Gods The Aztecs had a supreme dual god such as Ometeotl (“lord of duality”) or Tloque-Nahuaque (“lord of the close and near”), the celestial, androgynous (→ Androgyny), primordial creator of the universe who was the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent foundation of all things. Ometeotl’s male aspects (Ometecuhtli and Tonacatecuhtli) and female aspects (Omecihuatl and Tonacacihuatl) merged with a series of lesser deities associated with generative and destructive male and female qualities. The male aspect was associated with fire and the solar and maize gods. The female aspect merged with the earth and fertility goddesses and especially the corn goddesses. Ometeotl was more “being” than “action.” It is significant that these supreme gods were rarely represented in material forms. Most of the creative actions to organize the universe were accomplished by the divine couple’s four offspring: Tezcatlipoca, Quezalcoatl, Xiuhtecuhtli, and Tlaloc, all of whom received widespread representations in wood, stone, and pictorial manuscripts. Tezcatlipoca (“smoking mirror”) was the supreme active force of the pantheon. This powerful, virile numen had many appellations and was partially identified with the supreme numinosity of Ometeotl. Another tremendously creative power was Xiuhtecuhtli, the ancient fire god, who influenced every level of society and cosmology. Xiuhtecuhtli was represented by the perpetual “fires of existence” that were kept lighted at certain temples in the ceremonial centers at all times. He was manifested in the drilling of new fires that dedicated new ceremonial buildings and ritual stones. V. Fertility and Regeneration A pervasive theme in Aztec society was fertility and agricultural regeneration. The entire society depended on various forms of intensive agriculture which required well-organized planting, nurturing, and harvesting schedules, and coordination between various groups. The gods of agriculture were crucial to the work and

535 understanding of human beings. In the case of the Aztecs a massive agricultural system of floating gardens that took up large sections of the city’s geographical space supported a population of over 200,000 people. Also, surrounding city-states were required to pay sizable amounts of agricultural goods in tribute to the various capitals or dominant ceremonial centers. While many female deities were to be inspired by rituals to regenerate agriculture, the most ancient and widespread fertility and rain god was Tlaloc, who dwelt on the prominent mountain peaks, where clouds emerged from caves to fertilize the land with life-giving rain. The Aztecs held Mount Tlaloc to be the original source of the waters and of vegetation. Tlaloc was often accompanied by a female counterpart, sometimes known as Chalchiuhtlicue, the goddess of lakes and running water represented in various forms including precious greenstone effigies. The most powerful group of female fertility deities were the “teteoinnan,” a group of voluptuous earthmother goddesses, who were representative of the usually distinct but sometimes combined qualities of terror and beauty, regeneration and destruction. These deities were worshiped in cults concerned with the abundant powers of the earth, women, and fertility. Among the most prominent were Tlazolteotl, Xochiquetzal, and Coatlicue. Tlazolteotl was concerned with sexual powers and passions and the pardoning of sexual transgressions. Xochiquetzal was the goddess of love and sexual desire and was associated with flowers, feasting, and pleasure. A ferocious goddess, Coatlicue (“serpent skirt”) represented the cosmic mountain that conceived all stellar beings and devoured all beings into her repulsive, lethal, and fascinating form. VI. The Warrior God: Huitzilopochtli As indicated by the mythology, Aztec religion was dominated by military themes. The best example of a war god was Huitzilopochtli, the patron of the wandering Mexicas. According to Aztec tradition Huitzilopochtli inspired the Mexica “teomama” to guide the tribe into the Basin of Mexico where he appeared to them as an eagle on a blooming cactus in the middle of the lake following a long and arduous journey. The people constructed a shrine to Huitzilopochtli who instructed his people to build a four-quartered city around the shrine which became the quintessential sacred place in the empire. Known today as the Great Aztec Temple the shrine was destroyed by the Spaniards in 1521 who carried the great image of Huitzilopochtli away. This colossal image of the Aztec god has never been found. The myth of this great warrior god was, however, expressed in the song of his birth, a cosmic event commemorated in oral tradition, pictorial images and sculpture: Coatlicue, Lady with the Serpent Skirt, became pregnant when a ball

Aztec Religion of feathers fell to the floor she was sweeping out in the temple on Coatepec. When her daughter Coyolxauhqui heard of the pregnancy, she enraged her 399 siblings into dressing for war and attacking the mother on Serpent Mountain. When Coyolxauhqui led the warriors to the top to kill her mother, Coatlicue gave birth to the fully grown and armed Huitzilopochtli who dismembered his sister. Her body fell down the mountain and broke into pieces. Huitzilopochtli then destroyed the other siblings. In Aztec ritual, this sacrifice was repeated when women and a great number of captured warriors were sacrificed on top of the Templo Mayor (named Coatepec by the Aztecs) and rolled down the temple steps to the bottom. This myth is also represented by the symmetry of the temple’s architecture where Huitzilopochtli’s shrine sits at the top of the stairway while the colossal stone of Coyolxauhqui’s dismembered image rests at the bottom. VII. Human Sacrifice: Ritual and Cultic Significance As the example of Huitzilopochtli’s cult indicates, human sacrifice was a powerful aspect of Aztec religion. Human sacrifices stood in the context of a larger, more complex ceremonial system in which a tremendous amount of energy, wealth, and time was spent in a variety of ritual festivals dedicated to a crowded and hungry pantheon. The overall dedication towards sacrifice is reflected in the many metaphors and symbols related to war and sacrifice. Human hearts were likened to fine burnished turquoise, and war was “teoatltlachinolli,” meaning divine liquid and burnt things. War was the place “where the jaguars roar,” where “feathered war bonnets heave about like foam in the waves.” And death on the battlefield was called “xochimiquiztli,” meaning flowery death. This crowded ceremonial schedule was acted out in the many ceremonial centers of the city and empire and influenced all aspects of daily life from birth through naming, child rearing, schooling, military and trading, marriage, agriculture, death, and the afterlife. The greatest ceremonial precinct formed the axis of Tenochtitlán and measured 440 meters on four sides. According to some accounts, it contained over 80 ritual temples, skull racks, schools, and other ceremonial structures. The most common sacrifice was the beheading of animals like quail. However, the most dramatic and valued sacrifices were the human sacrifices of captured warriors and slaves. These sacrifices were ritually bathed, carefully costumed, often taught to dance special dances, and sometimes either fattened or slimmed down during the preparation period. They were elaborately dressed to impersonate specific deities to whom they were sacrificed. One of the most interesting aspects of Aztec religion is the view of the afterlife. In general, one’s life after death

Aztec Religion was greatly influenced by the way one died. Warriors killed in war or on the sacrificial stone ascended into the sky to accompany the Sun God on its daily journey of birth, ascent, descent, disappearance, and rebirth. The same fate awaited women who died in childbirth. Children who died in infancy, especially those who died while nursing before they had eaten corn, lived in the house of Tonacatecuhtli and suckled on the tree of life. Many humans, however, whose deaths were unremarkable or caused by sin, suffered the terrible fate of living in Mictlan, the land of the dead where they were both devoured by the Lord of Mictlan and were themselves forced to devour the worst foods.

536 W. Wolf, Sons of the Shaking Earth, 1959 ◆ P. Carrasco, “The Peoples of Central and their Historical Traditions,” Handbook of Middle American Indians II 2, 1971, 459–474 ◆ F. Katz, Ancient American Civilizations, 1972 ◆ T. Sullivan, “The Rhetorical Orations,” in: M.S. Edmonson, ed., SixteenthCentury Mexico, 1974, 79–109 ◆ B. Cartwright Brundage, The Fifth Sun, 1979 ◆ M. Leon Portilla, Native Mesoamerican Spirituality, 1980 ◆ D. Heyden, “Dioses del agua y vegatación,” Anales de Antropologia 20, 1986, 129–145 ◆ J. Broda et al., The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, 1987 ◆ A. Lopez Austin, Human Body and Ideology, 1988 ◆ J. Broda, “Geography, Climate and the Observation of Nature in Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica,” in: D. Carrasco, ed., The Imagination of Matter, 1989 ◆ M. LeónPortilla, Aztec Thought and Culture, 1990 ◆ I. Clendinnen, The Aztecs, 1991 ◆ D. Carrasco, ed., To Change Place, 1992 ◆ L. Lopez Lujan, The Offerings of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, 1994 ◆ D. Carrasco, “Cosmic Jaws,” JAAR 63, 1995, 101–135 ◆ D. Carrasco, “Give Me Some Skin,” HR 35, 1995, 1–26. David Carrasco

B Baader, Franz Xaver von (Mar 27, 1765, Munich – May 23, 1851, Munich). Baader studied medicine at Ingolstadt and Vienna, receiving his Dr. med. in 1785; from 1788 to 1792 he attended the mining academy in Freiberg. After a stay in England (1792–1795), he entered public service as superintendent of mines for Bavaria. In 1808 he was made a member of the Academy of Sciences and ennobled. A memorandum sent by him to the rulers of the three great continental powers in 1814 is reputed to have suggested the → Holy Alliance ; this theory is disputed. It is clear that Baader entertained relations with persons standing close to → Alexander I of Russia ; in 1820 he was appointed literary correspondent of Gallitzin, the minister of education and culture. In the same year, he was retired from his position by the Bavarian government while retaining his title and salary. In the fall of 1822, Baader government undertook a journey to St. Petersburg with the intention of founding a Christian academy there; but he only got as far as Riga when he was expelled from Russia (for reasons still unknown). From 1826 he was honorary professor at the University of Munich. In 1828, in association with J. von → Görres, he initiated a new series of the journal Eos, but the reaction of the liberals forced him to resign at the end of 1829. His teaching activities were also curtailed in 1839: being a layman, he was no longer allowed to lecture on philosophical dogmatics. On the occasion of the Cologne troubles of 1837, Baader publicly expressed reservations about “papism,” thereby alienating himself from his Catholic allies. Baader’s lifelong ambition was to establish a bond between theology and philosophy, seeing this as the only remedy for the crisis of his time. Initially, Baader used I. → Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason (1788) to demonstrate the “need for religion”; very soon, however, he turned to mystical and occult literature (→ Kabbalah, J. → Böhme, J.C. → Lavater). The separation of the sensory and intellectual world was then a commonplace of discussion. Baader saw its roots in the fragility of human reason resulting from the fall of mankind, an event to which he assigned not only a religio-moral but also a physical significance by interpreting the world as the scene of the “struggle” between the good and the evil principle. He aimed to replace the mechanistic understanding of nature with a “dynamic philosophy.” Holy Scripture and the speculative-symbolic tradition were

the cornerstone of Baader’s teaching – hence his polemics against → Pietism and the neological school of Protestantism which even questions the authenticity of the Gospels, but also against modern Catholicism, which he believed to have fallen into a dangerous state of “stagnation.” In spite of his constant polemics against liberalism, Baader was an advocate of “reforms.” Like many other Romantics, he believed that the times were favorable for a repristination of the old “fossilized” institutions. He supported the abolition of the schism between the Christian confessions and opposed papal → primacy. The renewal, however, was not to come from below, “revolutionism” being incompatible with Christian love and organic development. Baader was not a systematic writer. He entrusted his thoughts to essays and pamphlets. Even his major works, Fermenta cognitionis (1822–1824) and Vorlesungen über speculative Dogmatik (1828–1838), were published in installments. He established relationships with almost all the prominent intellectual figures of his time (G. → Jacobi, F.W.J. → Schelling , F. → Schlegel, G.W.F. → Hegel), whom he considered to be kindred spirits; his disappointment was all the greater when one of them broke with him. He enjoyed the loyalty of a small number of disciples who published his works after his death. A Baader renaissance has often been predicted, but only isolated thinkers have expressed a commitment to his ideas. To date, a critical edition of his works has yet to be undertaken. Works: Sämtliche Werke, ed. F. Hoffmann, 16 vols., 1850–1860; repr. 1963 ◆ Seele und Welt: Jugendtagebücher, ed. D. Baumgardt & M. Jarislowsky, 1929 ◆ Lettres inédites, ed. E. Susini, 6 vols., 1942–1983 ◆ On Baader: J. Sauter, “Lebensbild Franz von Baaders und Erläuterungen zu seinen Schriften,” appendix to Baader’s Schriften zur Gesellschaftsphilosophie, 1925, 563-870 ◆ D. Baumgardt, Franz von Baader und die philosophische Romantik, 1927 ◆ E. Susini, Franz von Baader et le romantisme mystique, 2 vols., 1942 ◆ F. Hartl, Franz von Baader und die Entwicklung seines Kirchenbegriffs, 1970 ◆ C. De Pascale, Tra rivoluzione e restaurazione: La filosofia della società di Franz von Baader, 1982 ◆ P. Koslowski, ed., Die Philosophie, Theologie und Gnosis Franz von Baaders, 1993 (bibl.) ◆ Bibl.: J. Jost, “Bibliographie der Schriften Franz von Baaders,” Rheinischer Buchanzeiger, 1929, 135-155 ◆ L. Procesi Xella, Baader: Rassegna storica degli studi, 1977. Claudio Cesa

Baal/Baalat. In the canonical context, the OT creates the impression that the territories adjacent to Israel were dominated by a great god Baal whose orgiastic ritu-

Baal/Baalat als had, for centuries, tempted Israel to forsake Yahweh and thus to break the first commandment. This picture, however, is the result of a retrospective projection from the monotheistic tendencies of a later period. I. In the northwestern Semitic dialects, baaal (in analogy to Akkadian belu[m]) designates the man who has the right to dispose of persons, animals and property at will; applied to divine beings, therefore, baaal does not represent a divine name but rather a divine predicate. Around the middle of the 3rd millennium bce Baal appears in → Ebla as a theophorous element of proper names; towards the end of the 2nd millennium bce Baal is attested more frequently in Ugaritic texts (→ Ugarit) as an epithet of Haddu/Hadad (son of Dagan), a weather god operating with thunderstorms and rain. In → Mesopotamia, roughly at the same time, Bel becomes a common title of → Marduk, the main deity of Babel. For the Ugarites, Baal’s palace stands on Mount Íapon (also ›azi, Casius), 40 km north of Ugarit, from where he exerts his dominion. In mythology Baal is described as a victorious warrior against the disruptive deities of the sea and the deadly drought of summer; in his iconography, he is depicted with the spear of lightning in his hand. As the “Rider of the clouds,” Baal brings the rain that is indispensable for life and is celebrated as “the triumphant one,” as “ruler, Lord of the earth,” and beyond that probably also as the god who saves the dead in the underworld. The virgin goddess → Anath, is his consort; he has sexual intercourse with her, but she does not conceive. Apart from the Baal of Íapon, the lists of deities mention six further Baals, among them a Baal of Ugarit as patron of the capital. The feminine form Baalat is used once for an Anath-figure whose relationship to the male Baal is not clear, but also for a second “Baalat of the house” (of the palace? temple?). During the first millennium bce a Baal of heaven (šamêm/šemayin) appears first in the Phoenician, later also in the Aramaic language areas. He assumes the supreme position in the pantheon, generally without a female partner. For the Phoenicians, Baal Íapon develops into a secondary deity that is relevant to sea voyages (cf. TUAT I, 158f. IV 10’); among the → Arameans the weather god is again only known by the name of Hadad. In his iconography Baal Shamem is characterized by astral symbols. Apart from these, the Phoenicians have a multitude of regional Baal-deities, such as the Baal of Lebanon, of Hermon, Sidon, etc. As the mistress of Byblos, a Baalat becomes the focal point of cultic veneration in this city. II. During the Elohist period in Israel, Baal occasionally appears as a divine predicate in place names, albeit without particular significance (e.g. Josh 11:17; 15:9f.; 19; KBL 138). Does this refer to a local deity or to an autonomous aspect of the great weather god? The nar-

538 ratives of the Pentateuch that are older than source P (→ Pentateuch) know of an influential deity named BaalPeor only among the Moabites (Num 25). The inscription of Kuntillet Adjrud (TUAT II, 563) mentions → El and Baal alongside Yahweh, without considering this to be problematic. When however Saul and David, like others among the people, employ Baal as a theophorous element when naming their sons, it seems probable that a Baal from the Canaanite surroundings who has become familiar as a weather god is being unproblematically equated with Yahweh. The identification of Yahweh and Baal occurs broadly in the cultic poetry of the Solomonic Temple, although the name of Baal itself is shunned. Yet Yahweh is praised here as the “Rider of the clouds,” as the guarantor of fertility (Ps 65), and as the warrior against the sea and its monsters (Ps 74:12ff.) while Zion is equated with Íapon (Ps 48:3), from where Yahweh rules as king of the earth. In Northern Israel, as evidenced by the → Elijah narratives, the first serious conflict between worshipers of Yahweh and Baal takes place in the 9th century bce. A worship of Baal on cultic hills in his own country is assailed in the 8th century bce by the prophet → Hosea and his successors, not least because of the sexual rituals that were meant to support the divine fertilization of the earth by means of imitative magic. In Judah, conflicts over the equivalence of Yahweh with a Baal (Shamen) only begin in the 7th century. As a vassal of the Assyrian king, Manasseh had modified the cult on Mount Zion. The corresponding furnishings were indeed removed during → Josiah’s reform of the cult (2 Kgs 21:3-7; 23:4-12); as demonstrated by → Jeremiah’s polemics ( Jer 7:16–8:3; 19; 44), however, the veneration of astral bodies reasserted itself under Jehoiachin (→ Astrology: II); only with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 bce does it vanish completely. During the Exile, the Deuteronomic History declared Baal (or the plural Baals), mostly without nearer qualification, to be the radical counter-deity to Yahweh; from its beginnings, Israel suffered harm from succumbing to his temptations time and again ( Judg 2:11ff.; 3:7ff. etc.). In the post-exilic period there is no evidence for the further practice of the Baal cult. A lamentation over Hadad-Rimmon in Megiddo, to which Zech 12:11 alludes, may have been practiced by the Arameans. Not until the Seleucid period does the influence of a religion with an astral orientation become noticeable again. The rededication of the Jerusalem temple to a sanctuary of Zeus-Olympos by a faction of Hellenized priests sparked off the Maccabean revolt. Behind the Greek name of the deity stands a Syrian Baal Shamen (cf. 2 Macc 6:2, in the Syriac version). O. Eissfeldt, “Baal Šamem und Jahwe,” ZAW 57, 1939, 1–31 ◆ H. Gese et al., Die Religion Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer, 1970 ◆ TDOT II, 1975, 181-200 ◆ K. Koch, “Zur Ent-

539 stehung der Baal-Verehrung,” UF 11, 1979, 465-475 ◆ M. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” UF 18, 1986, 313-369 ◆ K. Koch, “Baal Samem and the Critique of Israel’s Prophets,” in: A.H.W. Curtis & J.F. Healey, eds., Ugarit and the Bible, 1994, 159–174. Klaus Koch

Bahal Shem Tov (c. 1700, Okop, Ukraine – 1760, Mezibuz, Silesia), acronym: “Besht,” Baal Shem Tov, lit. “Master of the Good Name,” figuratively “Master of White Magic” was actually called Israel ben Eliezer and is considered to be the founder of the modern Jewish religious movement of the “Hasidim” (→ Hasidism). Hasidic tradition makes him the disciple of the prophet Achiya Ha-Shiloni (1 Kgs 11:29), who was, according to midrashic tradition (→ Midrash), the teacher of the prophet → Elijah. The collection of legends known as Shivkhey ha-Besht (“In Praise of the Besht”) relate that Baal Shem Tov spent his first 36 years living in forests, occasionally doing menial jobs or working as a teacher in small towns. In 1736 he began to preach and to spread his teaching, and became known as a healer and magician (hence his title: the master of the good divine name that gives him power to drive away demons and to heal the physically and mentally ill). Baal Shem Tov’s name and the names of some of his followers are included in the tax lists of Mezibuz from the 1750s. He is described in them as a “physician and kabbalist” (→ Kabbalah). From Mezibuz he traveled around with a small group of followers. Among those who came under his influence were Rabbi → Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, Rabbi → Dov Baer of Mezhirech, Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka and others, who also preserved parts of his sermons in their writings. Some treatises are attributed to Baal Shem Tov, though he probably did not write them. One important authentic letter by Baal Shem Tov, describing a mystical and messianic experience from the year 1747, was printed in 1781. His disciples saw him as their teacher in mystical communion with the omnipresent God, as the teacher of an ecstatic, mystical prayer, and as a person with prodigious religious powers who could save others from spiritual and worldly perils. Sources: D. Ben-Amos & J.G. Mintz, trans., In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov, 1970 ◆ On Baal Shem Tov: G. Scholem, “The Historical Besht,” Molad 18, 1960, 335-356 (Heb.) ◆ M. Rosman, “Miedzyboz and Rabbi Israel,” in: G.D. Hundret, ed., Essential Papers on Hasidism, Origins and Present, 1991, 209–225. Joseph Dan

Baalbek (Heliopolis) in the northern Biqah (Bekaa valley, Lebanon) was an ancient Phoencian cult site for → Baal. Construction of the monumental temple of → Zeus-Jupiter, the largest in antiquity, began in the 3rd century bce and was completed between the 1st and 3rd cent. ce; in the 2nd cent. ce further temples were erected, while the city acquired colonnaded streets and public buildings. According to Eusebius of Caesarea

Babai the Great (Vita Constantini III 58), → Constantine the Great had a temple to Aphrodite torn down to make room for a church (location unknown, no remains exist). A very large basilica with wide arcades in the forecourt of the Jupiter temple was probably built in the 5th century; its predecessor was from the time of → Theodosius I (379– 395), when repressive measures were taken against pagan cults. The remains were removed in modern times in order to reconstruct the altars of the Jupiter temple. F. Ragette, Baalbek 1980, 68-71 ◆ R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Die Kirchen von Sobota und die Dreiapsidenkirchen des Nahen Ostens, 1982, 205–208. Guntram Koch

Baba Yaga. Etymology partly uncertain: Baba (Russian “grandmother”), Yaga (from Galician jaza “snake” or Russian užas “terror”). Baba Yaga is a central figure in eastern Slavic and particularly in Russian → fairy tales. She is a mythical figure who embodies the archetypal “old woman.” Attempts have been made to give her a place in the Slavic pantheon or to interpret her mythologically as a personification of natural phenomena in analogy to comparable figures such as Holle and Percht (from Germanic mythology, cf. → nature mythology). Her outward appearance supports her interpretation as a → witch, while the symbolism attached to her person (descent into the underworld, tree, change of form, ordeal, death, rebirth) points to a shamanistic world view (→ shamanism). She is the helping spirit in the initiation of girls and boys (→ Rites of passage), the ancestral mother, the mistress of the animals, the shaper of destiny (positive as well as negative). She has power over the forces of nature, over magic and sorcery. Baba Yaga’s character is ambivalent: she is both gracious and coarse, a deity of nature (→ Nature Deities) and a → mother goddess; she embodies → fertility, death and nature. V.J. Propp, Isoričeskie kornie volčebnoj skazki, 1985 ◆ R. Becker, Die weibliche Initiation im ostslawischen Zaubermärchen, 1990. Angela Schenkluhn

Babai the Great (c. 550–628) became abbot of the “Great Monastery” on Mt. Isla in 604. A monastic reformer, he was against Messalian and Origenistic currents in the church and wrote a commentary on the moderate → Evagrius Ponticus. He was a prolific writer and 36 titles are attributed to him, of which nine (ten) are extant and have largely been edited. He was a proponent of Antiochene Christology in its most differentiated form, as formulated on the basis of the Liber Heraclidis by → Nestorius, and corrected older Christological metaphorics. He was the foremost dogmatist of the “Eastern Church” (the so-called Nestorians). His position is also found in the Creed of 612, which was presented to the Great King of Persia and which polemized against the followers of → Henana and against

Babylas of Antioch

540

→ Monophysites; he has since then been regarded as authoritative by his church.

V. Mayr, LCI V, 1974=1990, 301f. ◆ V. Saxer, LTK3 I, 1993, 1334. Adolf Martin Ritter

Babylon I. Identification and Discovery – II. History and Excavation – III. Appearance in the Neo-Babylonian Period

I. Identification and Discovery The ruins of Babylon lie on the banks of one of the arms of the river Euphrates, 90 km southwest of Baghdad. Known from the OT, the name of the city had always been associated with a mound of ruins in the northernmost part of the area called Babil. In the Middle Ages, the knowledge of the site was preserved by European travelers via the writings of Islamic scholars such as Ibn Haukal, who probably visited Babylon in the 10th century. Benjamin of Tudela came to Babylon between 1160 and 1172 and described, among other things, the ruins of the palace. The search for the “tower of Babel” mentioned by the Bible was a main concern of later visitors, who also held the well-preserved ruins of towers in Borsippa or Aqar Quf to be the tower in question. In 1616 Pietro della Valle brought the first inscribed bricks from Babylon to Europe, while Karsten Niebuhr already made use of → Herodotus for his interpretation of the ruins in 1765. In the early 19th century surveys of the site began; Claudius J. Rich and others brought cylinder seals to England in 1811. In 1850 Austen Henry Layard conducted the first excavations. After 1876 the British Museum acquired especially cuneiform script tablets

Euph rates

2

1 2

eambed tr Ancient S

3

hmac Nin mpel eT Ishtar Gate Temple of Ishtar

ra

me

Ho

Marduk Gate Greek Theatre

4 5

Merkes 6 Zababa Gate Esaglia Gula Temple

Amra n

Ibn A li

Bridge

Babylas of Antioch (d. 250/251). Babylas died as an imprisoned bishop under emperor → Decius (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. VI, 39.4). In the 4th century, he was the most revered Antiochene → martyr (→ Persecutions of Christians) after Ignatius. His relics were moved several times to various sites (initially under Caesar Gallus, 351–354; the first recorded translation of relics in the history of the church), until they were interred in a basilica dedicated to Babylas (across the Orontes?) under Bishop → Meletius of Antioch, where John → Chrysostom delivered his eulogy (published with the other panegyrics of the saints in PG 50, cols. 527–534; ed. M.-A. Schatkin et al., SC 362, 1990).

Processional Way

River

Sources: J.B. Chabot, ed., Synodicon Orientale, 1902 ◆ W. Frankenberg, ed., Euagrius Ponticus, 1912 ◆ A. Vaschalde, ed., Liber de unione, CSCO 79/80, 1915 ◆ On Babai: L. Abramowski, “Babai der Große,” OCA 197, 1974, 219-245; OCP 41, 1975, 289-343; ThPh 54, 1979, 38-49 ◆ G. Chediath, The Christology of Mar Babai the Great, 1982. Luise Abramowski

ll

y Wa

r Cit

Ninurta Temple

Inne

ll

y Wa

r Cit

Oute

N

Urash Gate 0 100 200 300 400 500 m

1 North Wall 4 Throne Room 2 Outwork 5 Vault-Construction 3 South Wall 6 Etemenanki

Ancient City of Babylon

Drawing by Theresa Salmann; Staatliche Museen zu Berlin/ Preussischer Kulturbesitz/Vorderasiatisches Museum

through the efforts of Hormuzd Rassam and Wallis Budge. From 1899 to 1917 Robert Koldewey carried out intensive excavations. Since the 1970s the Iraqi Antiquities Service has allowed parts of the buildings examined by Koldewey to be uncovered and reconstructed. Minor excavations led to the discovery of, for instance, the temple of the god Nabu ša ¢are. II. History and Excavation The name “Babylon” is traced back to “babil(a)” and is thought to be a pre-Euphratic field-name. The Sumerian designation KÁ.DINGIR.RA is first attested c. 2200 bce, while the Semitic writing was Bāb-ili = “Gate of God.” The spelling TIN.TIR.KI dates from the early 2nd millennium bce; as a series title this term can also be traced back to the 12th century bce and contains a description of the city of Babylon. The rise of Babylon began in the 19th century bce during the Amorite dynasty, especially under → Hammurabi. The texts mention city walls, gates, temples; only in the residential area of Merkes did the excavations uncover houses and small finds. Little is known from the period of Kassite rule (15th–12th cents. bce); the statue of Marduk was abducted several times as war booty (to Hana on the middle Euphrates, → Ashur and → Susa in Elam), but always recaptured. An inscription of Sennacherib of Assyria, who conquered Babylon in 689 bce, mentions the destruction of the temple of Esagila and of the tower of Etemenanki. Under Esarhaddon (680–669 bce) and Assurbanipal (668–626 bce) the city was rebuilt with a

541 tower. An ambitious new layout was undertaken by the Chaldean (→ Chaldea) dynasty of Nabopolassar (625– 605 bce) and → Nebuchadnezzar (604–562 bce). In 539 bce Cyrus II (→ Israel and Persia) conquered Babylon and made it his royal residence; his successors had new buildings erected in the palace district. Herodotus describes Babylon around 480 bce; whether or not he visited the city himself is disputed. In 331 bce → Alexander the Great entered Babylon and had the dilapidated tower torn down in order to rebuild it. A Greek theater was built on the rubble heaps of the hill of Homera; old traditions were kept alive in the temple of Esagila, and the city was densely populated. The gradual decline of Babylon under the rule of the Arsacids, which lasted 300 years, began with Mithradates I (171–138 bce). III. Appearance in the Neo-Babylonian Period The German excavations have focused primarily on the layout of the city in the 6th/5th century bce, when Babylon was surrounded by an outer fortification wall (18 km). The inner wall of the city forms a rectangle of 8150 m in circumference, divided by the Euphrates into two unequal parts. The unusual thickness of the walls mentioned by Herodotus and their alleged circumference of 86 km have led to misinterpretations. Eight city gates have been ascertained; the network of streets was aligned with the directions of the wind. In the center, near the Euphrates, lies the temple district of Esagila (“house of the raising of the head”), in which altars were erected near the cella of → Marduk and his wife for other deities. Closely associated with it was the area of the tower of Etemenanki (“house of the foundation of heaven and earth”), which was surrounded by a large Temenos with gates. From here, the stone-paved processional way led to the → Ishtar-gate and proceeded with about 250 m length and 20–24 m width, between high walls, to a new-year’s festival building which has never been found. To the west of the Ishtar-gate lay the southern palace with its four inner courtyards and the throne room with its entrance of colored glazed tiles. In the northeastern corner of the palace, Koldewey found a vaulted structure which he interpreted as “hanging gardens” – something that is now doubted. The Ishtargate was faced with colored glass tiles forming reliefs of oxen and mythical creatures. The following processional street had a colored frieze of striding lions (reconstruction with originals at the Museum of the Ancient Near East in Berlin). The history of the construction of the tower is still a matter of research. On an area of 91.48 × 91.66 m, a massive structure of mud bricks arose with six recessed levels, the seventh consisting of the high temple dedicated to the cult of Marduk. On the south side a monumental flight of steps of approximately 50 m length and 10 m width, with an additional flight of steps

Babylonian Exile on either side, led to the height of the second level. From there it continued inside the tower, according to a more recent reconstruction by Schmid. Owing to a long settlement history and early plundering, only few large-sized and intact finds were made. Among them are spoils of war, such as the large basalt lion and statues from → Mari. The cuneiform documents, among them a list citing Jehoiachin, king of Judah, are an important source of knowledge for the culture, religion and history of Babylon. R. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 1990, 51990 ◆ C. Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede,” OBO 101, 1990 ◆ A.R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40, 1992 ◆ R. Rollinger, Herodots Babylonischer Logos, 1993 ◆ H. Schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon, Baghdader Forschungen 17, 1995 ◆ S. Dalley, “Herodotos and Babylon,” OLZ 91, 1996, 526–532 ◆ E. Klengel-Brandt, OEANE I, 1997, 251–256. Evelyn Klengel-Brandt

Babylonia → Mesopotamia Babylonian Captivity → Babylonian Exile → Papacy Babylonian Exile I. “Babylonian Exile” is the term used to describe a period in the history of Judah, in which much of the upper class was deported to Babylon in the years 598– 587 bce, where they remained until after 539 bce. The period is named after the Neo-Babylonian empire. The notion of a Babylonian captivity is outdated and implies an overly negative view of the events. The Neo-Babylonian Empire which dominated the ancient Near East (ANE) from 605 to 539 bce represents the historical background. The Babylonians adopted the Assyrian strategy of punishing rebellious vassals or provinces by forcing parts of the conquered peoples into exile. II. During the 7th century bce, Judah was a vassal state of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom over a long stretch of time. The collapse of the Assyrian empire led to a power vacuum in the ANE, though the Judean king → Josiah (638–609 bce) was unable to use this to his advantage. Judah became an Egyptian vassal state until 605, when the Egyptian pharaoh Necho was defeated by the Babylonian king → Nebuchadnezzar II in the battle of → Carchemish, thus placing Judah under the Babylonian sphere of influence. Jehoiachin of Judah (609–598 bce) remained a loyal vassal for three years, but then revolted against Nebuchadnezzar II (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1, probably 601 bce). It took a few years before Nebuchadnezzar II could march against Judah. The Babylonian chronicle 5 Rev. 11–13 gives the following account: “Year 7 (= 598 bce): in (the month of ) Kislev the king of Babylon summoned his army, and marched to Hattu (= Syria/Palestine). He set up camp opposite the city of Judah and on the second of (the month of ) Adar he

Babylonian Judaism captured the city and took the king prisoner. He appointed a king of his choice, took heavy tribute, and returned to Babylon.” The king sent into exile was Jehoiachin, who had only been on the throne for a few months. According to 2 Kgs 24:14, not only the king but “all of Jerusalem” went into exile. This is probably an exaggeration. One of the exiles was the prophet → Ezekiel. After a few years, the recently appointed puppet king → Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon. This rebellion was put down more severely. In 587, Nebuchadnezzar took → Jerusalem, destroyed the city and the Temple, killed the rebellious king, and deported the city’s elite to Babylon. Textbooks assign various dates to the fall of Jerusalem: 587, 587/586, or 586 bce. This discrepancy is due to the uncertain chronology of the kings of Judah. As yet, no Babylonian document on the event that is described in detail in 2 Kgs 25 has been discovered. After the capture of Jerusalem the Babylonians appointed Gedaliah as governor of the remaining Judeans, with residence in Mizpah. He had only held this position for a short time, when he was murdered by Ishmael, a member of the royal family (2 Kgs 25:22–26, Jer 40:7–41:15). Stamp seals from this period carry the names Gedaliah and Ishmael, though a positive identification has yet to be made. During this incident a group of Judeans, among them the prophet → Jeremiah, fled to Egypt. 2 Kgs 25:27–30 records that Jehoiachin was released from imprisonment in the 37th year of the Exile. This possibly occurred in the context of an amnesty granted by the new Babylonian king Evil-Merodach on his first New Year’s festival. From the mid 6th century bce, the power gradually shifted to the Persian kingdom. When the Persian king Cyrus plundered Babylon in 539, the Babylonian kingdom came to an end. The event formally marks the end of the Babylonian Exile, but does not mean the end of the presence of a Judean community in Mesopotamia. The “Edict of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1–3a; cf. 2 Chr 36:22–23), which allowed the Judeans to return to their previous homeland, is probably a literary invention. It might, however, reflect the Persian policy towards the exiled minorities. Cuneiform texts show that Judeans, who partly held high social positions, remained in Mesopotamia. The “return from the Exile” is a historical enigma and is insufficiently documented. The 19th-century conception that Judah was empty and uninhabited during the Babylonian Exile is still widely accepted (→ Ezra/Books of Ezra: I, II). Archaeology has proved, however, that there was a continuity of settlement in many places. III. After the Babylonian period the territory of Judah became the Persian province Yehud. It was in this period that Judaism developed. During and after Babylonian times, the religious traditions of Ancient Israel were collected and reworked. This literary activity led

542 to the composition of the → Pentateuch and of the → deuteronomic history. The fundamental changes on the political and social levels, the experience of the fall of the capital city, and the destruction of the Temple led to a profound reflection on Israel as a religious entity. L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 1992, 27–145 ◆ G.W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, JSOT.S 146, 1993, 784– 811 ◆ H.M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land, 1996. Bob Becking ◆ O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule, 2005. Bob Becking

Babylonian Judaism I. Antiquity – II. Middle Ages – III. Modern Times

I. Antiquity The Jewish community in Babylonia was the oldest in the Diaspora. From the days of the biblical Exile, it existed without interruption throughout antiquity. The decentralized, quasi-feudal structure of the state in Babylonia during the Parthian period allowed Jews there to govern themselves in various areas of life, not least in religious matters, and even enabled them to attain a certain degree of political and military power. An example of this is the Jewish state that was founded in the Neharde‘a region of Babylonia in 20–35 ce by the brothers Asinaeus and Anilaeus. It existed under the suzerainty of King Artabanus III, who relied on its assistance in internal struggles with local rulers. The number of Jews increased owing to a large number of conversions. The best-known account is that of the conversion of the king of Adiabene in the middle of the first century ce. The traumatic events that took place in the land of Israel, from the destruction of the temple in 70 ce to the quelling of the → Bar Kokhba-Revolt (132–135 ce), followed by the persecutions associated with the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313 ce, elicited various waves of emigration to Babylonia. Babylonian Jewry was the only major community outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. This massive immigration laid the groundwork for Babylonia’s later status as leader of the Jewish world. Babylonian Jewry settled between the Euphrates and the Tigris. During the Sasanian period, it not only felt responsible for the continuity of Jewish tradition, but also understood itself as the true keeper of Jewish lineage and was particularly strict in matters of marriage. The Talmud established the boundaries of Jewish Babylonia according to the criterion of the preservation of the unconditional purity of lineage. This was accompanied by a considerable degree of mistrust towards all Jews who lived outside the land, even towards the Jews in the land of Israel. The importance and significance of Babylonian Juda-

543 ism is evident in its special administrative institutions, the exilarchate and the yeshivot (→ Yeshivah [academy]). The exilarch (→ Resh Galuta) was the leader of the Babylonian Jews; the Parthian authorities acknowledged his status. He represented the interests of the Jews before the ruling authorities and enjoyed a respected position in the Persian hierarchy. The Jews saw him as the successor of the royal house of David. The first exilarch known by name ruled around the turn of the 2nd to the 3rd century ce. The exilarch played a central role in the supervision of the social and economic life of the Jewish community. His influence was greater than his formal power, and the Babylonian sages as well as the rest of the local community respected him. Nonetheless, several exilarchs were subjected to criticism, primarily because of the manner in which they displayed their power while conducting their business. The great yeshivot of Babylonia were the focal point of the academic activities of the sages and centers of community administration. After the redaction of the → Mishnah was completed in the land of Israel at the beginning of the 3rd century, the two most important yeshivot – Neharde‘a (which later moved to Pumbedita) and Sura – were founded in Babylonia. They became influential centers of spiritual and cultural life, in which halakhot (→ Halakhah) and religious lifestyles were established. The Babylonian Talmud, which was compiled on the basis of the Mishnah, contains the sum of the Babylonian sages’ worldview and the quintessence of their teaching. D. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia, 1975 ◆ A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period, 1983 ◆ I. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era, 1990 (Heb.). Aharon Oppenheimer

II. Middle Ages In the course of the early Middle Ages, Babylonian Judaism became authoritative for Jews around the world. The choice of Baghdad as the capital of the new Islamic empire in 750 ce and the subsequent waves of Jewish migration out of Iraq and Iran into the economically flourishing Islamic Mediterranean countries, including Yemen, accelerated this process. The leadership lay in the hands of the Babylonian Geonim, the heirs of the rabbinate from Talmudic times and the heads of the major academies (Yeshivot), Sura and Pumbedita. In the form of codices, commentaries and responsa written by the Geonim, Babylonian Judaism spread to the rest of the Diaspora, and even to Palestine. Wealthy Iraqi Jews and the income of widely ramified communities financed the academies. The “third column” was the exilarch. Characteristic Judeo-Arabic culture originated essentially in Babylonia. Its foundations were laid by the great → Saadia Gaon. He introduced Arabic as the language of traditional literature, translated the Pentateuch into

Babylonian Judaism Arabic, wrote grammars, composed poems (mostly in archaic liturgical verse), gathered an extensive collection of prayers, and, inspired by the Muslim Kalām, authored a seminal work of philosophy. In the later Middle Ages, the academies were deprived of their former status, in part through their own responsibility. R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, 1998. Mark R. Cohen

III. Modern Times On the last day of the year 1534 the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman al-Qanuni “the Exalted” entered Baghdad accompanied by a number of Jewish scholars and doctors. According to various reports, he had strong support in the Jewish community and was warmly welcomed by them. After a short interlude of Persian rule, the Turks reconquered Iraq in 1638 and remained there until 1917. In spite of a rapid succession of viceroys, the situation of the Jews remained stable during this period. From 1730 to 1831 Iraq was governed by 12 Paschas whose attitudes toward the Jews varied. Nevertheless, the Jews lived under a reasonably tolerant rule. Most of them were active as traders, some as craftsmen, and a few as government officials. Besides Baghdad, where 6000 Jews lived, there was also a significant Jewish community in the north, in Kurdistan, and some smaller communities in the south, in Basra, hAmara and hAna. In the first decades of the 19th century the situation of the Jews in Iraq improved on all levels. Their numbers grew in Baghdad and Basra. Following centuries of decline they resumed their old activities as bank managers and financial consultants. This process reached its apex at the outbreak of the First World War. The Jews were well prepared for the changes that came with the British occupation. Symptoms of Zionist activity, mostly limited to the reading of Hebrew journals and Zionist literature, can be traced back to the 1790s. When the movement gained ground in the 1920s, the Iraqi and British authorities requested the Zionists to exercise restraint. Prominent Jewish figures shared these reservations. In the end, however, their appeals were heeded neither by the Zionists abroad nor by the Arab nationalists in Iraq. When the developments and events in Palestine began to poison the atmosphere in the 1930s, anti-Zionist demonstrations were held against the Jews of Baghdad. In 1941 these events culminated in the revolt led by Rashid hAli al-Gaylani, during which plundering and the murder of Jews took place in Baghdad. On June 1 and 2 of that year, during the Jewish feast of Shavuot, between 170 and 180 Jews were killed and many others wounded. An even greater number of non-Jews – plunderers, security officers, and Muslims who came to the aid of their Jewish neighbors – were killed or wounded during the turmoil, which became known under the

Bacchus Arabic name farhud. At about this time, a group of Zionist emissaries from Palestine appeared in Baghdad and other Jewish population centers of Iraq, usually accompanying British units. They spread knowledge of the Hebrew language and offered help in the creation of self-defense groups. They were most effective, however, in issues concerning emigration. In 1949/1950 Zionist activities intensified to the extent that it became practically impossible to control Iraq’s northern and southern borders. Illegal emigration became a mass movement. The parliament finally passed a law which permitted Jews to leave the country in May 1950, if they gave up their Iraqi citizenship – thus began the great exodus of the Jewish community after 26 centuries of unbroken presence in the land of the two rivers. Between May 1950 and August 1951, during the so-called Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, 107,603 Jews were flown out to Israel. 16,000 left the country by other means. In 1952 the number of Jews in Iraq was estimated at about 6000. After the Six-day War of 1967 their situation continually worsened. In 1970 the Ba’th regime permitted the legal emigration of Jews. At the end of the millennium only about 100 older Jewish men and women remained in Iraq. S.H. Longrigg, Four Centuries of Modern Iraq, 1925 ◆ idem, Iraq 1900 to 1950: A Political, Social and Economic History, 1953 ◆ N. Rejwan, The Jews of Iraq: 3000 Years of History and Culture, 1985 ◆ E. Kedourie, “The Jews of Babylon and Baghdad,” in: Elie Kedourie 1926–1992, 1998. Nissim Rejwan

Bacchus → Dionysos and Bacchus Bach 1. Johann Michael (Aug 9, 1648, Arnstadt – May 17, 1694, Gehren). Son of the Arnstadt organist Heinrich Bach, brother of the grandfather and father-in-law of 2. Through his marriage with one of the five daughters of the Arnstadt town clerk Johann Wedemann, he founded a family clan of musicians and councilmen in the towns of Thurìngia, which was not without significance for the career of 2. Bach was organist and town clerk in Gehren from 1673. Of his compositions, a few organ chorals and about 20 sacred vocal works have been preserved by the so-called “Altbachisches Archiv” (Old Bach Archive). 2. Johann Sebastian (Mar 21, 1685, Eisenach – Jul 28, 1750, Leipzig). a. Life. The youngest of eight children of city musician and “house husband” Ambrosius Bach and his wife Elisabeth (née Lämmerhirt), he was orphaned at the age of nine in 1694/1695, and came to the house of his eldest brother, Johann Christoph, in Ohrdruf. From him, as well as from the Ohrdruf lyceum, he received what in the duchy of Saxony-Gotha was considered a solid education, which he completed in 1700 at the Lüneburg Michaelisschule. After a failed application in Sangerhau-

544 sen, he served six months as court musician in Weimar and was given his first appointment as an independent organist following an audition in Arnstadt, at the Neue Kirche (formerly Bonifaciuskirche; today Bachkirche) of the same town in August, 1703. The 18-year-old collected and assimilated new experiences, notably through his contact with J.C. → Olearius. A period of study in Lübeck had a similar effect, allowing him to meet D. → Buxtehude. Between July 1707 and July 1708 Bach was organist at the Blasiuskirche in Mühlhausen. After only one year, presumably because of what he thought was a lack of possibilities for development, he accepted an appointment as court organist at the castle church of Weimar. Bach’s stay in Weimar ended with his dishonorable dismissal on Dec 2, 1717. The reason for the conflict was a discriminatory decision in the succession arrangements for the post of Kapellmeister (director of music) at the Weimar court. At this point in time, however, he had already secured a position in Köthen, where he officiated as court Kapellmeister from 1717 to 1723. During this period his first wife Maria Barbara, a second-cousin and daughter of 1, died unexpectedly. The twelve-year marriage brought forth seven children, of whom only four reached adulthood, including the known musicians Wilhelm Friedemann and 3. In Köthen, Bach’s confessionalties manifest themselves in a particular manner: in the midst of the Reformed court and city populace, he and his family shared the life of the Lutheran community and school, as well as their fate as a minority. As the 13th applicant, he received the Leipzig Thomas Cantorship in May 1723, after musicians such as G.P. → Telemann, Johann Friedrich Fasch and Christoph Graupner had declined or not been able to accept the post. A year before, he had entered into his second marriage with the court singer Anna Magdalena Wilcke; of thirteen children, only six would reach maturity. Work with the choir of the Thomasschule (later: Thomanerchor), the city pipers and violinists constituted a great challenge. He divided the choristers into four church choirs, the first and second of which alternated on Sundays at the Thomaskirche and Nikolaikirche. Bach was responsible for complete liturgical celebration, including congregational singing, liturgical planning, and the preparations for the printing of cantata texts. The theological responsibility for these texts was also his; his library included 52 theological volumes. Aside from worship duties he was also responsible for occasional services (weddings, funerals and memorials). In the latter years of his life he seems to have led a more secluded life. Yet from this time important pastoral thoughts have been preserved, which he committed to his Bible. Bach died following an unsuccessful eye operation in 1750. b. Works. While in Arnstadt, Bach had begun to compose mostly organ works; in Mühlhausen, he added

545 cantatas to his repertoire, at first only on special occasions. His efforts to perform vocal church music on a regular basis are quite evident. From March 1714, the assignment requiring him to present a cantata of his own composition every four weeks produced, between 1714 and 1717, a series of 12 to 14 cantatas per year (“Himmelskönig sei willkommen” [Welcome, King of Heaven], BWV 182; “Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen” [Weeping, Wailing, Grieving, Fearing], BWV 12; “Erschallet, ihr Lieder” [Sound Out, Ye Songs], BWV 172). The Little Organ Book of Weimar not only provides information on how to arrange chorales with organ accompaniment, but also on Bach’s attempt to create a compendium of such arrangements in the style of the hymnbooks of the time. The discovery of the socalled “Neumeister chorales” (1985) has given a clearer impression on how Bach’s choral editing was carried out at this time. In Köthen, he mostly wrote instrumental works: the Brandenburg Concertos, solo concertos, overtures, and compositions for keyboard. The Leipzig appointment challenged his creative musical energies to an entirely new level of intensity. He first devoted himself to the compilation of yearly cantata cycles. After an initially broader conception, the first cycle adopted the basic structure of Bach’s typical Leipzig church cantata (opening chorale, two pairs of recitatives/arias, closing chorale); in the second, the so-called chorale-cantata year, Bach formulated a principle on the basis of the above-named basic structure – that is, extracting and setting a hymnal text to music, using the first and last verses as opening and closing phrases, and the middle verses as theological material for recitatives and arias. Musically, he experimented with a wide variety of choral arrangements. Without apparent reason, the project came to an abrupt end on the Feast of the Annunciation to Mary. Bach’s obituary speaks of five yearly cycles left behind by him, each consisting of 60 cantatas; somewhat more than three year-cycles (approx. 200 cantatas) have come down to us. After 1728 he only composed church cantatas on exceptional occasions. He first devoted himself to secular works (Collegium musicum) but also to monumental church compositions: three Passions according to John (BWV 245: 1724, 1725, 1728), Matthew (BWV 244: 1727, 1729, 1736), and Mark (BWV 247: 1731 [missing]); the Dresden Missa (BWV 232 I: 1733, Kyrie and Gloria of the later B minor Mass); and the Oratorios for Christmas (BWV 248: 1734/1735), Easter (BWV 249: 1725/1735) and Ascension (BWV 11: 1735). In 1739, at Michaelmas, the third part of the Clavier-Übung was published, a collection of choral arrangements for Kyrie and Gloria songs and Luther’s Catechism chorales, framed by the Prelude and Fugue in E-flat (BWV 552) as well as four duets. In the last decade of his life, Bach was occupied with the canonical variations “Vom Him-

Bachkovo Monastery mel hoch, da komm ich her,” the “Art of the Fugue,” the “Musical Offering,” and the Mass in B minor. c. Influence. The so-called Bach-renaissance, which was initiated esp. by Carl Friedrich Zelter and F. → Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, always creates the impression that Bach had been forgotten for a time. Bach was never forgotten; he lived on, albeit only through a few samples of his complete works. Renowned during his lifetime as a great organist, after his death the motets afforded him recognition as the greatest contrapuntalist of all time. The founding of the Bachgesellschaft [Bach Society] in 1850 arose from this background (the editing of all of Bach’s works), as did the founding of the Neue Bachgesellschaft [New Bach Society] in 1900 (distribution and tending of the works). The 20th century attempted to follow up in a wide variety of ways: A. → Schweitzer’s Bach-interpretation (the so-called Organ Movement); twelve-tone music; new counterpoint (P. → Hindemith); critical Bach research; and critical editions of his work. Theology would later resume the dialogue (Friedrich Smend, W. → Blankenburg) after having been discredited by critical research. What helped in this regard was, more than anything else, the rediscovery of the Calov Bible (A. → Calovius) amid Bach’s belongings – a source of knowledge regarding Bach’s sacred texts and for conducting detailed historical research. 3. Carl Philipp Emanuel (Mar 8, 1714, Weimar – Dec 14, 1788, Hamburg), second-oldest son of 2, after 1750 the “great Bach,” until overtaken again by his father thanks to the Bach renaissance in the 19th century. Schooling in Köthen and Leipzig, studies at the universities of Leipzig and Frankfurt an der Oder from 1731. From 1738 in the service of → Frederick II of Prussia; in 1768 successor of his godfather, G.P. → Telemann, in Hamburg. He carefully preserved his father’s autographs. He is the most significant representative of the “sensitive style,” remarkable for his “Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen” (1753–1762), in addition to works of chamber music and symphonies, as well as his abundant church music. In more recent research, the close interweavement of the biography and work of Bach with his entourage has been particularly emphasized, as well as with the literary and artistic development of the second half of the 18th century. Bach-Jahrbuch, ed., Neue Bachgesellschaft, vol. I, 1904ff. ◆ J.S. Bach, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, vol. I, 1954ff. ◆ BachDokumente, ed. Bach-Archiv Leipzig, 4 vols., 1963–1979 ◆ BTBF I, 1983ff. ◆ H.J. Schulze & C. Wolff, Bach-Compendium, 4 vols., 1986–1989 ◆ Wotquenne, Thematisches Verzeichnis der Werke Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs, 1905, repr. 1964 ◆ J. Marx, ed., Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und die europäische Musikkultur des mittleren 18. Jahrhunderts, 1990. Martin Petzold

Bachkovo Monastery (Bulg. Bačkovski manastir), situated on the northern edge of the Rhodope Mountains

Bachmann, Ingeborg

546

and dedicated to the “Dormition of the Mother of God,” it is the second largest monastery in Bulgaria (→ Bulgarian Monasteries). As one of three → stavropigial monasteries, it stands under the authority of the Holy Synod. It was founded in 1083 as the monastery of the “Holy Mother of God of Petrich” by the Georgian Gregorii Bakuriani, the commander of the region around modern Plovdiv, and his brother Apassii. It was to be totally autonomous and not to accept any Rhomaeans (Greeks) as monks. In the 14th century, under Tsar Ivan Alexander, it became a spiritual center of the second Bulgarian Empire. The 11th-century charnel house with its striking frescoes, built as the resting place of the monastery’s founders, is still standing. The Georgian icon of the Mother of God in the main church, which is reputed to be miraculous, bears an inscription dated to the year 1310. The monastery museum houses precious icons, liturgical objects, and vestments. H.-D. Döpmann, Das alte Bulgarien, 1973 ◆ G.I. Tschavrakov & S. Dobrev, Bulgarische Klöster, 1975. Hans-Dieter Döpmann

Bachmann, Ingeborg ( Jun 25, 1926, Klagenfurt – Oct 17, 1973, Rome) was a lyricist, narrator, translator, essayist, and radio playwright. She studied philosophy, German philology and psychology at Innsbruck, Graz and Vienna, and received her doctorate in 1950 with a dissertation on M. → Heidegger. From 1950 to 1953, she was an editor for the “Red-White-Red” network, from 1953 to 1957 a freelance author in Italy, 1957/1958 a theatrical advisor for Bavarian television. From 1958 to 1962, she divided her time between Rome and Zürich (sometimes with Max Frisch). From 1963 to 1965, she lived in Berlin, after 1965 in Rome. Her breakthrough as a lyricist came in 1952 at a reading of the “Gruppe 47,” whose prize she received in 1953. Several significant awards followed (Büchner Prize 1964). In 1959/1960, as the first guest lecturer in poetics at the University of Frankfurt on the Main, she lectured on “contemporary poetry,” the aim of which lies not in “aesthetics as an end in itself, but in changing the world through a new language.” She was the first German-speaking poetess of the post-war generation who was able to establish a link to literary modernity. Influenced by biblical tradition, in her choice of images she evoked warming memories of the calamitous past, criticized the destruction of spheres of human existence, addressed love and threats to it, but also postulated the never-ending struggle for utopian goals. Works, 4 vols., ed., C. Kosche, I.v. Weidenbaum & C. Münster, 31984 ◆ On Bachmann: P. Beicken, Ingeborg Bachmann, 1988.

Birgit Johanna Lermen

Bachmann, Traugott (Aug 25, 1865, Caana bei Niesky, Oberlausitz – Feb 27, 1948, Niesky). Of rural

background, Bachmann attended the missionary school of the → Bohemian/Moravian Brethren (II) in Niesky from 1890 to 1892, joining the order in 1891. From 1892 to 1916, he was active as a missionary in the Moravian mission territory in German East Africa, working in Rungwe from 1892 to 1899 and setting up a mission station in Mbozi (Nyassa region) from 1899 to 1916. After being held by the English as a prisoner of war, he returned to Germany in 1919, performed diaspora work in Wetzlar, undertook travels and lectures, and resided in Niesky from 1931 onward. In 1895, he married Elisabeth Künzel from Niesky. Bachmann devoted himself to the study of the language and culture of the Nyika in the Nyassa region; he translated portions of the Bible and had other useful texts printed. He developed an independent evaluation of native traditions and took it into account when drawing up practical mission strategies. For example, he interpreted the so-called bride purchase as a social institution with an educational aspect, esp. for the bridegroom. → Polygamy, too, as well as song and dance, had to be understood “in very close relationship to the social situation” (Praktische “Lösung”, 9–10). Bachmann also adhered to the Lutheran teaching of the → adiaphora and tried to separate “what, in the confusion of . . . mores and customs, is to be seen as folklore and what as paganism” (ibid., 3). Significant in terms of cultural theory is Bachmann’s high esteem for the Nyika, “a people . . . that had not yet been spoiled by us, the white race” (Ich gab manchen Anstoß, 125). Such statements are reminiscent of other contemporary German missionaries of rural background, e.g. B. → Gutmann. Bachmann’s specific quality lies in the pragmatic argumentation of his “inductive” mission theology, the Brethren character of which is particularly evident in the way conflicts are openly argued through. Works include: Praktische “Lösung” missionarischer Probleme auf einem jungen Arbeitsfelde, HMK 9, 1912 ◆ Ich gab manchen Anstoß, ed. H.-W. Jannasch, 1956, 1964. Christoph Bochinger

Bachofen, Johann Jakob (Dec 22, 1815, Basel – Nov. 25, 1887, Basel) studied ancient cultures and jurisprudence (in Berlin), became professor of Roman law in Basel in 1841, judge in 1842, and city councilman in 1844. With the exception of his office as criminal judge, he resigned from all public offices in 1844/1845 and became a private scholar. Bachofen’s most notable contribution lies in his discovery, together with → K. Meuli, of → matriarchy (1861). His reflections on hetaerism, amazonism, and demetric gynecocracy helped to make non-patriarchal forms of kinship thinkable and imaginable. The scientific criticism of his work, which already began in his lifetime and remains valid unto this day, focused on his method of argumentation, i.e. his use of myths as a source of historical knowledge and, further,

547 his dualistic construction of the relationship between the sexes. Works: Gesammelte Werke, 10 vols., ed. K. Meuli, 1943–67 ◆ Das Mutterrecht, 2 vols., ed. K. Meuli, 31948 ◆ Der Mythos von Orient und Occident, ed. M. Schroeter, 21956 ◆ Mutterrecht und Urreligion, ed. H.G. Kippenberg, 61984 ◆ On Bachofen: U. Wesel, Der Mythos vom Matriarchat, 1980 ◆ H. Zinser, Mythos des Mutterrechts, 1981 ◆ H.-J. Heinrichs, ed., Das Mutterrecht von J.J. Bachofen in der Diskussion, 1987 ◆ H.J. Hildebrandt, J.J. Bachofen, 1988 ◆ S. Lanwerd, Mythos, Mutterrecht und Magie, 1993. Susanne Lanwerd

Backus, Isaac ( Jan 9, 1724, Norwich, CT – Jan 20, 1806, Middleborough, MA). Backus was a prominent Baptist minister in New England during a period that was marked by two religious revivals, the struggle for → freedom of religion in the American colonies, and the achievement of independence by the USA. Backus lost his father Samuel, a wealthy farmer, at the age of 16. This experience influenced his religious quest. Backus converted in 1741 and joined a Congregationalist church (→ Congregationa lism). Influenced by the sermons of G. → Whitefield he left the church three years later and established a new church on the basis of → articles of faith and of a covenant text written by himself, in Titicut, Middleborough (MA). He was ordained in 1748. In 1751 he switched to the Baptist faith and was baptized. In 1756 he co-founded the First Baptist Church in Middleborough, where he remained a minister until his death. In 1770 Backus published the first of over 50 treatises on religious freedom, for which he was an outstanding campaigner. In 1774 he delivered a plea for the separation of state and church before the delegates of the Continental Congress in Massachusetts, and another in 1780 before the Constitutional Assembly of Massachusetts. Works include: A History of New England, 1777–1796 ◆ Church History of New England from 1602 to 1804, 1804 ◆ The Diary of Isaac Backus, 3 vols., ed. W.G. McLoughlin, 1980 ◆ On Backus: T.B. Maston, Isaac Backus, 1962 ◆ W.G. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition, 1967 ◆ S. Grenz, Isaac Backus, Puritan and Baptist, 1983. Paul R. Dekar

Bacon, Francis (Oct 28, 1909, Dublin – Apr 28, 1992, London), devoted himself to painting as an autodidact in 1931. His first significant paintings (several crucifixions) were made in 1933 under the influence of → Surrealism. Bacon’s independent work started with the → Triptych “Studies of figures at the base of a crucifixion” (1944; Tate Gallery, London); with this and the “Crucifixion” (1965, Staatsgalerie moderner Kunst, Munich) he reintroduced the triptych as a painting form. “Painting” (1946; Museum of Modern Art, New York) is one of his earliest key artworks: the human being with all his conceivable feelings, portrayed in a “non-illustra-

Bacon, Francis, Baron of Verulam tive form” as a physical, sensual, and therefore vulnerable and mortal existence in his/her integration and isolation in the world, becomes an object of painting. Works include: Meine Bilder, mit einem Essay von M. Leiris, 1983 ◆ Entretiens avec M. Archimbaud, 1992, ET 1993 ◆ On Bacon: J. Zimmermann, Francis Bacon, Kreuzigung, 1992 ◆ D. Sylvester, The Brutality of Fact, 31993 ◆ Francis Bacon 1909–1992, Retrospektive (Exhibition catalogue with biography and bibliography, Munich, 1996) ◆ W. Schmied, Francis Bacon, 1996. Katharina Winnekes

Bacon, Francis, Baron of Verulam (London, Viscount St. Albans; Jan 22, 1561, London – Apr 9, 1626, London), an English philosopher and politician. After studying law, he received a seat in the House of Commons at the young age of 23. Initially barred from holding high offices because he criticized the tax policies of → Elizabeth I, he later placed himself unconditionally at the service of the crown in order to further his career and realize his scholarly projects. He espoused an absolutist political and juristic philosophy, which enabled him to enlist the support of King → James I against his opponent Sir Edward Coke. Bacon’s political career was highly successful: in 1618 he finally held the highest public office (Lord High Chancellor). Only three years later, found guilty of taking a bribe, he lost his office and was briefly imprisoned in the Tower. He devoted the rest of his life to scholarly pursuits. At the center of Bacon’s philosophical thought stands the notion of recovering the original power of human beings over nature, which they lost through the → fall of mankind. His plan is outlined in his Instauratio magna and consisted of six parts, of which only the first, The Advancement of Learning (1605), and the second, the Novum Organum (1620), were largely completed. Appropriate organizational and political measures for the purpose of research will enable a hitherto unimaginable increase in knowledge, which will lead to a human mastery over nature. The goal of Bacon’s philosophy lies in the improvement of the human condition, an improvement which he believed only science can effect. The restrictions imposed by religion handicap research; theology and philosophy must therefore be kept strictly separate. New Atlantis (1627, unfinished) describes the organization of a prosperous “ideal” state based on scientific progress. A faulty methodology has so far prevented human dominion over nature. Instead of interpreting nature through induction and allowing for an operative, active science, the attempt was made, by means of formal procedures, to leap from sensory perception to the most general principles, a method that leads to an anticipation of nature but not to its investigation. This faulty methodology is based on Aristotle’s Organon, which Bacon proposed to replace with his Novum

Baden Organum. Bacon’s own concrete research directives hardly met with success. But his identification of the intellectual obstructions that impede the discovery of truth (“idols”) met with considerable interest. With his doctrine of idols, Bacon paved the way for the systematic investigation of the intrinsic structure of reason and of prejudices. Bacon’s empirically oriented philosophy of knowledge marks the dawn of a new age, to which he himself only partly belongs: his thinking is still deeply rooted in the traditions which he seeks to overcome. Nonetheless, he greatly influenced later generations. Without Bacon, British → Empiricism and the classifications of knowledge proposed by C. → Wolff and the Encyclopedists would be inconceivable. Works: The Works of Francis Bacon, collected and ed. J. Spedding, R.L. Ellis & D.D. Heath, 14 vols., 1857–1874, repr. 1961–1963, 1996 ◆ On Bacon: B. Farrington, Francis Bacon, 1949, repr. 1973 ◆ P. Rossi, Francesco Bacone, 1957; ET 1968 ◆ J. Kemp Houck, Francis Bacon 1926–1966, 1968 (bibl.) ◆ B. Vickers, ed., Essential Articles for the Study of Francis Bacon, 1968 ◆ F.H. Anderson, The Philosophy of Francis Bacon, 1971 ◆ A. Quinton, Francis Bacon, 1980 ◆ J.O. Fuller, Sir Francis Bacon, 1981 (biog.) ◆ W. Krohn, Francis Bacon, 1987 ◆ M. Peltonen, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Francis Bacon, 1996 (bibl.). Lothar Kreimendahl

Baden

I. Since 1112, when one of the two family branches of the (titulary) Dukes of Zähringen (near Freiburg in Breisgau) began to title itself “Margrave of Baden” – after its (originally Roman) settlement “Baden on the Oos” (Aquae) –, the name of Baden has also been applied to its territories, including those that were later allotted to the lines of Baden-Durlach and Baden-Baden in the year 1535. Bordering on the Rhine to the west and the south, Baden reached the height of its political autonomy as a Grand Duchy (1806–1918), when its territory extended from the Main River to Lake Constance. The large number of congregations from Baden itself as well as the Lutheran and Reformed congregations that were subsequently added to it (the latter having originally belonged to the Electoral Palatinate) were joined together in the Union of 1821 (→ Unions, Church) to constitute the United Evangelical-Protestant Regional Church. To this day, the church still carries out its assignment in the German federal state of BadenWürttemberg (created in 1952), within the boundaries confirmed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. II. Whereas Luther succeeded, through his writings and the Heidelberg Disputation (Apr 26, 1518), in winning over the city humanists and councilors, but also the imperial knighthood in the Kraichgau and on the Upper Rhine as well as Count Georg of Wertheim to the cause of the Reformation, Ludwig V of the Palatinate and Philipp I of Baden-Baden finally backed away from it. In the Habsburg territories of southwestern Germany (which included Freiburg, Kenzingen, and Waldshut),

548 the Evangelical movement was brutally suppressed. The imperial city of Constance, which had been Evangelical since 1525, was forcibly reconverted to Catholicism by → Charles V through the intervention of Spanish troops. In 1556, following the Peace of Augsburg (1555), the Lutheran Reformation of the Electoral Palatinate (with Heidelberg, Mosbach, and Bretten) was carried out under the Prince Elector Ottheinrich, likewise in Baden-Durlach (with Pforzheim, Emmendingen, Lörrach) under Margrave Ernst, and a second time, if only temporarily (1556–1569), in Baden-Baden (with Ettlingen, Rastatt, and Bühl) under Margrave Philibert. The church orders of the Electoral Palatinate and of Baden, both promulgated in 1556, were largely inspired by the church order of Württemberg (1553) and included the catechism of J. → Brenz. The reform of the University of Heidelberg was carried out by Melanchthon. III. Soon afterwards, the Prince Elector Frederick III of the Palatinate (1559–1576) became the first German imperial prince to adopt the Reformed faith. He dismissed the Lutheran pastors, implemented a Reformed church order as well as the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563, and granted asylum to religious refugees from France and the Spanish Netherlands. Heidelberg became the main center of education for Reformed students, notably from Switzerland, the Netherlands and England. The Palatinate gradually effected the transition from a defensive protector of Calvinism to its most active protagonist. Prince Elector Frederick V (1610– 1632) assumed the leadership of the political-military Protestant Union of 1608 against the Habsburgs and the Counter Reformation. He relied on it (in vain) when he accepted the election to the royal throne of Bohemia, which sparked off the → Thirty Years War. His ally, the Lutheran Margrave Georg Friedrich of BadenDurlach (1610–1622), who held Baden-Baden occupied and carried out the Reformation for a third time, was implicated in the defeat of the Palatinate’s “Winter king” and, like him, subjected to a ban. Although their sons, Karl Ludwig of the Palatinate and Frederick V of Baden-Durlach, were reinstated in their offices through the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Electoral Palatinate had now lost its political standing in Europe, while Baden-Durlach was henceforth forbidden to interfere in politico-confessional matters. → Absolutism and → confessionalism restricted the churches’ autonomy. IV. Following the destruction of their respective cities (1689 and 1693) during the plundering campaigns of Louis XIV, the political and religious course of the two adjoining territories developed in different directions. While the accession to power, in the Palatinate, of the Catholic line of Pfalz-Neuburg (1685) set off a fierce (late) Counter-Reformation, the Lutheran orthodoxy in Baden-Durlach gradually ebbed away. In the

549 newly founded capital and residence city of Karlsruhe (1715), even the Reformists and Catholics were granted permission to hold their own religious services (Edict of Tolerance of 1722). The Lutheran city church was given the wishful name Konkordienkirche (“Church of Concord”). Karl Friedrich of Baden (ruled 1746–1811), a representative of sovereign, enlightened absolutism, was intent on full confessional equality in public life. In close contact with F.G. → Klopstock, J.C. → Lavater and J.H. → Jung-Stilling, he commissioned his Lutheran pastors to instruct the people in the ideals of virtue, of cooperation for the improvement of economic prosperity, and of “felicity” (Glückseligkeit). In the consistory directive of 1797, he advised them to pursue the “midway” between rigid orthodoxy and an overhasty belief in progress. He was able to guide his small political and religious system through the Napoleonic period and even succeeded, as a member of the Confederation of the Rhine, in significantly expanding his dominion by annexing the territories of the Electoral Palatinate situated on the right bank of the Rhine, as well as the Habsburg possessions in southwestern Germany. In the new Grand Duchy (1806), the harmonization of administration and jurisprudence was unavoidable. Karl Friedrich also pursued the goal of uniting the separate Evangelical denominations. To this effect, he successfully lobbied for an administrative union of the church councils. After his death, the – joint Lutheran and Reformed – General Synod of 1821, which was inaugurated by the prelate J.P. → Hebel, carried over the administrative union into a full consensual union of all Protestant congregations. V. The century that followed upon the union (1821– 1918) was dominated by the struggle, between the liberal and the positive pastors and laymen, to determine the course of the still state-controlled regional church. Whereas the liberals supported the self-administration of the church and an open attitude with respect to modern science and culture, the positive faction around pastor A. → Henhöfer of Spöck held on to reformational ideals and to the community concept of the pietistic revival movement. It was they who actively pursued the ideal, following the revolution of Baden (1848/1849), of the “rescuing and helping love” in the context of the → Inland Mission. The Grand Duke Frederick I (in office from 1852 to 1907), who had been forced to acknowledge the autonomy of the Catholic Church in the wake of a fierce conflict with the archbishop of Freiburg (a church province of the Upper Rhine since 1821), finally also granted the Protestant regional church the “unrestricted autonomy of the congregations in all their formations” (1860). This was the beginning of the liberal era. Ever since the general synod of 1861, which had been dominated by the Heidelberg theologian R. → Rothe, the liberal majority had succeeded in impos-

Baden ing its will. In the meantime, the pastoral care of the rural Protestant diaspora as well as the increasing need for counseling in the rapidly expanding cities required the services of all available church members: in the year 1905, Karlsruhe had only eight parishes and six churches for a population of 57,000. VI. After the abolition of the Grand Duke’s ecclesiastical supervision (1918), the synod became the “bearer of the ecclesiastical authority inherent to the regional church,” in accordance with the new church constitution of 1919. The positive faction achieved a majority in the church election of 1920 (32 seats), while the liberals suffered a setback (18 seats). The → religious socialists later gained seven seats (1926), but it was the → Deutsche Christen who, in 1932, finally became the second-strongest churchpolitical faction (24 seats). Following a “re-modeling” of the constitution, the prelate Kühlewein was elevated to the rank of regional bishop (1933–1945). Although the integration of the regional church into the Reichskirche (German National Church) in 1934 was but a short episode, the “confessional community of Baden” (Badische Bekenntnisgemeinschaft), in which the members of the positive faction (including the historian G. → Ritter) joined forces, remained a powerless opposition. It could do nothing to counteract encroachments by the regime, which dispatched special tax commissioners to 71 congregations (1938). At the end of the Second World War, the regional church had lost 69 pastors, while 90 of its buildings were destroyed (in Karlsruhe nine out of ten). VII. The reconstruction that began after 1945 stood under the motto “wealth of need” (Otto Bartning) and was characterized by a renewed interest in the legacy of the Reformation, as promoted by the regional bishop Julius Bender (1945–1963); this led, among other things, to a reorganization of the religious service. The → Barmen Declaration was placed side by side with the older confessional writings. The growth of the Protestant population from 1 to 1.4 million (1963) necessitated a multiplication of church activities and activity categories, which the state generously supported, notably in the sectors of diakonia and school instruction. The commitment to the intra-Protestant ecumenical idea, in which the regional bishop Hans-Wolfgang Heideland (1964–1980) was instrumental, led to the official ratification of the → Leuenberg Concord by the regional church. The approval, by the regional synod, of ecumenical cooperation between local Protestant and Catholic congregations contributed to a noticeable amelioration of the confessional atmosphere. Following its formal admission of guilt and responsibility (1984), the regional church has gone to great lengths to establish new bonds with the Jewish community. K.F. Vierordt, Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in dem Großherzogtum Baden, 1847/1856 ◆ VVKGB 1, 1928ff ◆ W.E.

Bader, Augustin Oeftering, Geschichte der Literatur in Baden, 1930–1939 ◆ F. Hauss & H.G. Zier, eds., Die Kirchenordnungen von 1556 in der Kurpfalz und in der Markgrafschaft. Baden-Durlach, VVKGB 16, 1956 ◆ E. Sehling, Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jh., vol. XIV: Kurpfalz, 1969 ◆ H. Erbacher, ed., Vereinigte Evangelische Landeskirche in Baden 1821–1971, 1971 ◆ A. Hans, Die kurpfälzische Religionsdeklaration von 1705, 1973 ◆ Landeszentrale für politische Bildung, ed., Badische Geschichte vom Großherzogtum bis zur Gegenwart, 1979 ◆ G. Schwinge, ed., Die Erweckung in Baden im 19.Jh., VVKGB 42, 1990 ◆ H. Rückleben & H. Erbacher, eds., Die Evangelische Landeskirche im “Dritten Reich,” vols. I–III, VVKGB 43, 1991; 46, 1992; 49, 1995 ◆ W. Hug, Geschichte Badens, 1992 ◆A. Ernst, Die reformierte Kirche der Kurpfalz nach dem Dreißig jährigen Krieg (1649–1685), 1996 ◆ Geschichte der badischen evangelischen Kirche seit der Union 1821 in Quellen, VVKGB 53, 1996 ◆ C. Flegel, Die lutherische Kirche in der Kurpfalz 1648–1716, 1998. Gustav Adolf Benrath

Bader, Augustin (d. Mar 30, 1530, Stuttgart). The Augsburg weaver Bader, who was released from a brief imprisonment in 1527 following his tactical revocation of his anabaptist beliefs and who fled from Augsburg in 1528, prolonged the unfulfilled eschatological predictions of H. → Hut from 1528 onward by means of his own visionary conception. With only a few followers, he expected the rule of the Turks in 1530 and thereafter a spiritualistically conceived 1000-year empire based on a community of goods, under his newborn son as Messiah. Suspected of agitating on behalf of Duke Ulrich in Württemberg, he was imprisoned and beheaded in 1530. Bader’s actions provided a pretext for the condemnation of chiliasm (→ Millenarianism) in CA 17 (→ Augsburg Confession). G. Bossert, “Augustin Bader von Augsburg, der Prophet und König, und seine Genossen, nach den Prozessakten von 1530,” ARG 10, 1913, 117-165, 209-241, 297-349; 11, 1914, 19-64, 103-133, 176-199 ◆ A. Laube, ed., Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Täuferreich, 1526–1535, vol. II, 1992, 984-996. Volker Leppin

Bader, Johannes (c. 1470, Zweibrücken – Aug 10 or 15, 1545, Landau). Formerly a teacher and chaplain at the court of Zweibrücken, Bader became pastor in Landau in 1518. Because of his Reformational preaching from 1522 onward, the clerical court of Speyer banned him in 1524, but the council of Landau protected him. His work influenced the education of youths (catechism of 1526) and the struggle against Anabaptism (→ Anabaptists). Himself an advocate of a doctrine of communion that emphasized the requirement of worthiness for the recipient, he endorsed the → Wittenberg Concord in 1536. Increasingly influenced by K. von → Schwenckfeld as evidenced by the catechism of 1544, he refrained from celebrating communion in his final years because of a lack of recognizable holiness in the community. “Katechismus von 1526,” in: Die Evangelischen Katechismusversuche vor Luthers Enchiridion, ed. F. Cohrs, vol. I, 1900, MGP 20, 261-280 ◆ “Katechismus von 1544,” in: J.M. Reu, ed.,

550 Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrichts, 1/1, 1904, 228-240 ◆ J.P. Gelbert, Magister Johann Bader’s Leben und Schriften, Nicolaus Thomae und seine Briefe, 1868. Volker Leppin

Baeck, Leo (May 23, 1873, Lissa, Posen – Nov 2, 1956, London). A rabbi and theologian, Baeck had congregations in Oppeln (Silesia) in 1897, Düsseldorf 1907, Berlin 1913–1942 (army rabbi 1914–1917). Baeck played a leading role in German Judaism as the president of, among other things, Bnai Brith (→ Anti-Defamation League), the “Keren Hayesod,” the “Rabbinical Committee,” and the “Jewish pacifist movement.” He was a teacher of homiletics and religious history at the Berlin “Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums” until 1943. He was deported to Theresienstadt (concentration camp/ghetto). He was also the president of the “Reich’s Representation of Jews in Germany” (1933–1938; later the “Reich’s Unification”, Reichsvereinigung). Baeck refused to leave his community – the Jews of Germany. In August 1939 he brought a group of children to London and returned immediately. His bitter struggle for Jewish emigration to Palestine and for Jewish rights in Germany proved his integrity and courage, which was also acknowledged by opponents who criticized some of his decisions. After the war, he was active in England and the USA. Baeck’s open dialogue with Christianity (despite an attack on A. → Harnack) emphasized the Jewish roots of Christian thought. Baeck acknowledged Jesus as an important Jewish personality and the Gospel as a part of Jewish heritage. His description of Judaism as a “classical” and Christianity as a “romantic” religion raises important questions, although the formulation is too absolute. In Das Wesen des Judentums (“The Essence of Judaism”) Baeck portrays the dynamic development of Judaism as an ethic response to God’s commandment and the mystery of revelation. References to the ethics of I. → Kant and H. → Cohen are recognizable. Baeck emphasized the Jewish history of suffering and martyrdom, which exhibits a revelational quality. While in Theresienstadt, Baeck wrote Dieses Volk (“This People”), in which he uncovered a new polarity between the essence and the existence of Judaism, which define each other. Baeck is regarded as paradigmatic for German Judaism and is honored as a prominent voice in the interreligious dialogue. Works include: Harnacks Vorlesungen über das Wesen des Christentums, 21902 ◆ Das Wesen des Judentums, 1905, 61932, 1960; ET: The Essence of Judaism, 1936 ◆ Romantische Religion, 1922 ◆ Wege im Judentum, 1933 ◆ Das Evangelium als Urkunde der jüdischen Glaubensgeschichte, 1938 ◆ The Pharisees and other Essays, 1947 ◆ Dieses Volk, 2 vols., 1955/1957; ET: This People Israel, 1965 ◆ Judaism and Christianity, 1958 ◆ Werke, ed. A.H. Friedlander, vols. I–III, 1996–1998 ◆ On Baeck: H.G. Adler, Theresienstadt 1941–1945, 21960 ◆ L. Baker, Hirt der Verfolgten, 1982 ◆ W. Homolka, Jüdische Identität in der modernen Welt, 1994 ◆ A.H. Friedlander, Leo Baeck, Teacher of Theresienstadt, 1968 (with bibliography). Albert H. Friedlander

551 Baeta, Christian Goncalves Kwami (May 23, 1908, Trans-Volta region, now Ghana – Dec 29, 1994, Accra, Ghana), university lecturer, churchman, ecumenicist and politician. He studied at the “Evangelisches Missionseminar” in Basel (→ Basel Mission) and at King’s College, London, where he received his Doctor of Philosophy in 1959. After his ordination by Ewe (now Evangelical) Presbyterian Church in 1936, Baeta became its synod clerk from 1946 to 1948. From as early as 1938 until his death, he devoted himself to ecumenical work in conjunction with the Christian Council of → Ghana, the → International Missionary Council (IMC), and the → World Council of Churches (WCC). He was chairman of the IMC until it merged with the WCC in 1961. In 1962 Baeta became professor and dean of the Department for the Study of Religions at the University of Ghana in Legon. He was the first African to be appointed professor emeritus by the university in 1971. Baeta was also awarded several honorary doctorates. In 1951 he received the Order of the British Empire, in 1969 the Grand Medal of Ghana, and was president of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences from 1991 to 1992. As a statesman Baeta served on several national bodies and government delegations. Works include: Prophetism in Ghana, 1962 ◆ ed., Christianity in Tropical Africa, 1968 ◆ Theology as Liberation, 1983 ◆ On Baeta: J.S. Pobee, ed., Religion in a Pluralistic Society, FS C.G. Baeta, 1976 ◆ J. Anquandah, Together We Sow and Reap, 1979. Samuel Gyanfosu

Baeumker, Clemens (Sep 16, 1853, Paderborn – Jul 10, 1924 Munich); in 1883, he became professor in Breslau, in 1900 in Bonn, in 1903 in Strasbourg, and in 1912 in Munich. A Catholic historian of philosophy, he drew attention to the historical development and diversity of medieval philosophy in opposition to the unhistorical tendencies of → Neoscholasticism, and contributed decisively to the historical-critical investigation of this period with numerous, still useful works and editions, including a series founded by him in 1891, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters” (“Contributions to the History of Medieval Philosophy”). Baeumker’s academic interests were primarily concerned with the non-theological approaches of artists and their relation to the efforts of the natural sciences of the time, with the Platonic and Neoplatonic streams of the period and their influence on → mysticism, and with medieval thinking, which he described as “light metaphysics.” Works: Witelo: Ein Philosoph und Naturforscher des XIII. Jahrhunderts, 1908, 21991 ◆ Die europaische (2nd ed.: Die christliche) Philosophie des Mittelalters, 1909, 21913 ◆ “Selbstdarstellung,” in: Die Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, ed. R. Schmidt, 21923, 31-60 ◆ Bibl.: M. Grabmann, “Clemens Baeumker und die Erforschung der Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie,” in: Clemens Baeumker: Studien

Bahā"i und Charakteristiken zur Geschichte der Philosophie, insbesondere des MA, 1927, 1-38 ◆ W. Kluxen, “Die geschichtliche Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Philosophie und die Neuscholastik,” in: Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20.Jh., E. Coreth et al., eds., vol. II, 1988, 362-389 ◆ G. Wieland, “Das Ende der Neuscholastik und die Gegenwart mittelalterlichen Philosophie,” ThQ 172, 1992, 209-220. Georg Wieland

Bagot, Richard (1782, London – May 15, 1854, Brighton), a descendant of the → Bolingbroke family. Bagot enrolled at Christ Church College, Oxford, in 1800, became a priest in 1806, Doctor of Divinity in 1829, and in the same year bishop of Oxford. Bagot was a High Churchman and published a number of “Charges to the Clergy” that became famous. In 1840 he was forced to condemn several views of E.B. → Pusey, who had claimed his support. After the publication of J.H. → Newman’s Tract XC, which allowed for the ThirtyNine Articles to be interpreted in a Roman Catholic sense, Bagot demanded the termination of the publication series. In 1845 he was transferred to the bishopric of Bath and Wells at his own request. However, his physical and mental health declined. In 1854 he began a controversy with archdeacon Denison, whom he accused of expounding the → Real Presence at the → Eucharist in a sense precluded by the Articles. Bagot died before the controversy could be resolved. Works: Charges to the Clergy, 1834–1842 ◆ Correspondence with Denison, 1854 ◆ On Bagot: E.G.K. Browne, Annals of the Tractarian Movement, 1891. Mark Edwards

Bahā"i I. History of Religion – II. Missiology

I. History of Religion Bahāhism began as a trend within the Bābī sect of the Twelve Shiha. For the Bahāhī, the establishment of Babism in 1844 marks the beginning of their era, but Bahāhi in the proper sense originated in the 1860s. Babism was a militant messianic movement among the Iranian Shihites that was founded by Saiyid aAlī Mu˙ammad Sīrāzī, the Bāb (Arabic, “gate”; 18191850), who originally claimed to be the gate to the hidden Imam and, ultimately, to the Mahdī (Millenarianism: VI). Approximately 4000 Bābīs died during conflicts in Iran; the Bāb himself was executed in 1850. In 1853, the remaining Bābīs went into exile in Baghdad, where a new leadership arose. After 1860, Mīrzā Óusain aAlī Bahāhullāh (“the brilliance of God”; 1817-1892) claimed to be the messiah of the sect. He radically altered the original Bābī message by preaching pacifism, universal brotherhood and cooperation with the state. He also claimed to be the one promised by all religions. When the Ottoman government exiled him

Bahia, Provincial Council

552

to Istanbul, Edirne and ultimately to Palestine in 1868, he devoted himself to the composition of a comprehensive canon of scriptures containing fundamental laws and doctrines. Bahāhullāh designated his oldest son, aAbbās Effendi aAbdalbahāh (1844-1921), to lead the movement after his death. After 1890, a Bahāhi following arose in Europe and America, requiring aAbbās to travel to the West in 1911 and 1912. His grandson, Shoghi Effendi (18971957), was appointed “Guardian of the Bahāhi Faith.” During his leadership (1921-1957), the Bahāhi developed a very efficient system of internal organization and embarked on a successful worldwide mission. A clearly outlined doctrinal system was developed in the 1920s. The primary objective of Bahāhi is the establishment of universal peace and of a single world order, effectively meaning a Bahāhi world state. The equality of men and women, the unity of the religions, the harmony between science and religion, and the abolition of all forms of prejudice are important aspects of the Bahāhi message. Shoghi died heirless and the leadership passed on without significant conflict, to an elected board of nine men, the “Universal House of Justice.” Its seat is in Haifa, Israel, in the vicinity of the most important Bahāhi sanctuaries. Strictly speaking, there is no Bahāhi clergy, although certain appointed individuals play an important role in the worldwide administration of the religion. Elected boards of nine members each (Local and National Spiritual Assemblies), supported by committees, perform most administrative tasks. It is difficult to precisely determine the number of Bahāhi. The most recent publications indicate a worldwide membership of 4 to 5 million, but this estimate is definitely too high. Nonetheless, the growth of the movement in some parts of the world is impressive. Bahāhi live in over 120,000 locations, of which only 1% lie in Muslim countries and 11% in western countries. Important areas of growth are India, Latin America and parts of Africa south of the Sahara. The Bahāhi community in Iran, the largest religious minority in the country, is subject to severe restrictions in the Islamic Republic, as in other Muslim countries.

through which Bahāhi communities are found today, at least in small numbers, in virtually every nation on earth. The first followers in Iran came mainly from the Shīhite Muslim community, but in Bahāhullāh’s lifetime a few converts also came from Sunni Islam and from the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. After 1880 the tradition began to spread into Central Asia, partly in order to escape persecution in Iran. It reached India and Burma, where Buddhists and Muslims became converts. There is evidence from this time of Bahāhi missions as far east as China and as far south as the Sudan. Under the guidance of aAbdulbahā (1844–1921) the Bahāhi tradition spread to Europe, North America, Australia, the Pacific Islands, China, Japan, Korea, and southern Africa. aAbdulbahā began to set up local and national administration structures, and also devised systematic plans for diffusing the Bahāhi tradition throughout the world. His visits to the West and his efforts there were particularly important with regard to the development of the universalistic goals of the Bahāhi tradition as well as to the greater emphasis on organization in the sense of planned expansion and social liberalization, so that black Americans from rural areas as well as educated urban whites could be integrated. Under Shoghi Effendi (1897–1957), who was the Guardian of the Bahāhī Faith from 1921 to 1957, the spreading of the Bahāhi tradition to Latin America and Africa was intensified. Although Shoghi Effendi died in 1957, the Universal House of Justice established in 1963 took up his work, and declared expansion into the Third World to be of paramount importance. The Bahāhi tradition was now no longer Iranian or Western, but universal. From 1979 (Iranian Revolution) to the present day, the Bahāhi mission has continued, especially in the Third World. Part of the ongoing success of the Bahāhi mission is due to its emphasis on “pioneering work” in the sense of moving to another town or even another country to teach the Bahāhi way. Abdulbaha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, 1977 ◆ Shoghi Effendi, Call to the Nations: Extracts from the Writings of Shoghi Effendi, 1977 ◆ M. Momen, A Short Introduction to the Bahāhī Faith, 1997. Frank Whaling

Denis MacEoin

II. Missiology Mission, in the sense of teaching and spreading the Bahāhī tradition to others without aggression or coercion, has been a characteristic feature of Bahāhi tradition from the very beginnings. The conversion process requires no ritual and anyone who simply accepts Bahāhullāh as the manifestation of God for this present age is considered a Bahāhi. The missionary process began with Bahāhullāh. Although he was exiled to Istanbul, Adrianople, and finally to Palestine, he himself initiated the process

Bahia, Provincial Council. Convoked by the fifth archbishop of Bahia, Dom Sebastião Monteiro da Vide (1701–1722), the provincial council of Bahia convened in São Salvador on June 12–14, 1704; it was attended by the canons, the diocesan clergy, the religious orders, and the secular authorities. Of the suffragan bishops, two from Africa (Angola and São Tomé) and two from Brazil, only Dom Luís Simões Brandão of Angola attended. After the election of the procurators of the clergy, the congregations of the synod continued to meet from June 20 to July 8. The First Constitutions of the Archdio-

553 cese of Bahia (Constituições Primeiras do Arcebispado da Bahia) did not appear in print until 1719 (Lisbon) and 1720 (Coimbra). In 1853 a new, corrected edition was published in São Paulo, Brazil. The Constitutions, consisting of five books containing 279 articles and 1318 paragraphs, replaced the earlier ecclesiastical laws of the archdiocese of Lisbon. The “Regimento do Auditório Eclesiástico” was appended to the Constitutions in 1704. The Constitutions attempted to adapt the canonical regulations and pastoral guidelines to a church existing under a colonial, slaveholding regime and consisting largely of African slaves, Indios, and people of mixed ancestry. The Constitutions survived Brazilian independence (1822), the republic (1889), and the separation of church and state; not until 1900 were they replaced by the guidelines of the Latin American Plenary Council (Rome, 1899), then later by those of the Plenary Council of Brazil (1939). The dioceses of northern Brazil, São Luís in Maranhão and Belém in Grão Pará, both suffragan to the archdiocese of Lisbon, were governed on the basis of the Constitutions of that archdiocese and the norms of the Synod of Belém (1777) until the independence. Constituições Primeiras do Arcebispado da Bahia, 1719 ◆ Mansi, vol. 36C, 913-930 ◆ P.O. Schulte, De primis arquidioesis Bahiae constitutionibus anno 1707 promulgatis, 1962. José Oscar Beozzo

Bahir, Sefer ha-Bahir (“the Book of Brilliance”), also known as the → Midrash of Rabbi Nechunia ben haKanah (after the 2nd-cent. sage to whom the first paragraph in the book is attributed). It is the first work of the → Kabbalah, and was written anonymously around 1185, probably in the Provence or in northern Spain. It contains around 200 paragraphs, which are attributed to various talmudic sages, and is written in imitation of the classical midrashic norms. It is the first work to present the divine powers as a system of superimposed layers, ten in number, often depicted as an inverted tree. Exegesis of the names and shapes of the alphabet, but also the origin and nature of → evil, Satan, and Samael are equally central themes as is the process of → creation. Its kabbalistic character manifests itself through the image of the divine pl¶ roma (Gk πλήρωμα, Heb. maleh, fullness), and through the feminine characterization of the seventh divine power, notions that were absent from any previous Jewish work. The author of the work reinterpreted several biblical verses, midrashic statements, and especially ancient Hebrew esoterical and mystical works, the Sefer → Yetzirah (“Book of Creation”), and the Hekhalot-treatises. (→ Hekhalot Literature) It is unclear whether the development of the pleroma’s ten powers and the femininity of one of them was derived from unknown sources, or whether these ideas are his original contributions. It is fur-

Bahrdt, Carl Friedrich thermore uncertain, whether the school of kabbalists that emerged in the Provence at the turn of the 12th century utilized the ideas of the Bahir, or whether it is simply an independent, though surprisingly similar, phenomenon. G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala, 1962. Joseph Dan

Ba˙īrā Legend. This Christian composition of apocalyptic and apologetic/polemics character, of which Syriac and Arabic versions exist, originates from the 1st half of the 9th century. The text was originally written in Syriac, probably in the area of western Syria. It begins with the account of an apocalyptic vision which is attributed to a certain Ba˙īrā, a monk known in Islamic tradition for his acknowledgment of the prophethood of → Mu˙ammad. The text recounts the assignment given to the monk by Mu˙ammad. The apocalypse foretells the coming rule of the “Ishmaelites”. The instruction of Mu˙ammad emphasizes the perception of the heretical inspiration of both the doctrines of the Muslim prophets and of the → Qurhān. In the Syriac version, the apocalypse dominates the narrative, whilst the apologetic and polemic dimensions are emphasized in the Arabic text. The apocalypse is reminiscent of the one attributed to Pseudo-Methodius of Patara (→ Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius). The instruction of Mu˙ammad reflects the controversies between Muslim and Christian mutakallimūn (theological scholars) in the 9th century. R. Gottheil, “A Christian Bahira Legend,” ZA 13, 1898, 189242; 14, 1899, 203-268; 15, 1900, 56-102; 17, 1903, 125-166 ◆ B. Landron, Chrétiens et musulmans en Irak, 1994 ◆ S.H. Griffith, “Muhammad and the Monk Ba˙īrā,” OrChr 79, 1995, 146-174. Sydney H. Griffith

Bahrdt, Carl Friedrich (Aug 25, 1740 [not 1741], Bischofswerda – Apr 23, 1792, Nietleben near Halle), studied theology in Leipzig, became lecturer there in 1761, and professor in 1766, followed by Erfurt in 1769 and Gießen in 1771; in 1775, he became director of the Philanthropinum in Marschlins (Graubünden), then General Superintendent of Dürkheim on the Haardt in 1776; he fled to Prussia in 1778 and became lecturer in Halle; following the death of → Frederick II, and owing to mounting orthodox pressure, he gave up academic work. In the end, he became an innkeeper and “pre-Jacobin.” His theological development led from orthodox beginnings to pietistic (“Two Sermons on the State of a Soul Which Enjoys the Peace of Jesus,” 1765), neological (“Attempt at a Biblical System of Dogmatics,” 1769/1770), and rationalistic phases (esp. the paraphrase of the New Testament, “The Newest Revelations of God,” 1773), and even to a naturalism rooted

Ba¢tīšū' in freemasonry (“Letters on the Bible in the Vernacular,” 1782). Bahrdt’s inn, “Bahrdtsruhe,” was the seat of the “Deutsche Union,” which he founded as a secret society. During a one-year prison sentence for mocking the Religious Edict of → Wöllner, he wrote the fourvolume autobiography, “The History of His Life, His Opinions and Fates” (1790/1791). Far more than just the enfant terrible of German Enlightenment theology, Bahrdt is a highly interesting, brilliantly extreme representative of his epoch, whose life story can be understood as a “consistent process of radicalization” (Lütkehaus). O. Jacob & I. Majewski, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt Bibliographie, 1992 ◆ G. Sauder & C. Weiss, eds., Carl Friedrich Bahrdt (1740–1792), 1992 ◆ L. Lütkehaus, “Aufklärung über die Gegenaufklärung,” in: Gesellige Vernunft, ed. O. Gutjahr, 1993, 159-171. Albrecht Beutel

Ba¢tīšūa. The Bastishua (Syro-Persian: “Jesus has redeemed”) were a Nestorian family of Syrian descent who practiced medicine in Gondeshapur (southern Iran) and (after 765) in Baghdad. Jurjis ibn Jibril ibn Ba¢tishua (d. after 768) is reputed to have treated the caliph al-Manßūr. His son Ba¢tishua ibn Jurjis (d. 801) was personal physician to Hārūn ar-Rashīd and was in correspondence with Catholicos → Timothy I. His grandson Jibril ibn Ba¢tishua (d. 827) was physician to the caliphs Hārūn ar-Rashīd, al-Amīn, and al-Mahmūn, while his great-grandson Ba¢tishua ibn Jibril (d. 870) was still in the service of Mutawakkil. All these physicians greatly furthered the acceptance of Greek medicine in Baghdad. A descendant called aUbaidallāh ibn Jibril ibn Ba¢tishua (d. after 1058) wrote among other things a compendium of basic medical and philosophical terminology as well as a commentary on Galen’s De prohibenda sepultura. M. Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam, 1970 ◆ B.R. Wilson, “The Bakhtishua,” diss., 1974 ◆ L. Richter-Bernburg, “Ba§tīšūa,” EIr IV, 1990, 333-336. Manfred Ullmann

Bahya ben Asher (ibn Halava; 2nd half of 13th cent., Spain), a prominent exegete, moral preacher, scholar in ethics, and kabbalist (→ Kabbalah), who, according to tradition, was a judge and preacher in Saragossa. Bahya wrote an extensive commentary on the Torah (pr. in Naples, 1492) and a widely circulated ethical work, Kad ha-Qemach (“A Bowl of Flour”), which discusses alphabetically-arranged sermons on themes of Jewish morality. Bahya’s model was → Nachmanides. He presumably also had ties to the kabbalistic circle of Rabbi → Solomon ben Adret. Bahya does not quote any kabbalistic sources other than the Sefer ha → Bahir, the earliest work of the kabbalah, and the writings of Nachmanides. Bahya’s commentary combines literary and

554 midrashic methods (→ Midrash) with those of “sekhel ” (“reasoning”), and thus introduces elements of academic scholarship. Completed in 1291, the Torah commentary contains quotations from the → Zohar (Bahya was a contemporary of its author, Moses de Leon), although he was only acquainted with parts of the work. C.B. Chavel, The Writings of Rabbi Bahya, 1970 (Heb.) ◆ E. Gottlieb, The Kabbalah in the Writings of Rabbi Bahya, 1970 (Heb.). Joseph Dan

Bahya ibn Pakudah, author of Hovot ha-Levavot (“The Duties of the Heart”), the most popular and influential work of Jewish ethics from the Middle Ages. It was originally written in Arabic and remains to this day a classic of Jewish spirituality. Very little is known about the author. He probably lived in Saragossa and was, besides this work, also the author of several Hebrew religious poems (piyyutim), of which two were appended to his book. Rabbi Judah → ibn Tibbon translated the book into Hebrew around 1160; kabbalists and esoterics eagerly embraced this work written by a rationalist, while it was quoted by Safedian mystics in the 16th century and by teachers of modern Hasidism in the 18th century. The book is the prime example for the influence of Islamic Sufism on a Jewish work. It contains many quotations of Sufi parables and aphorisms. The work aims to spiritualize Jewish religiosity through a system of “duties,” in which the use of the body or the senses is avoided (even studying the Torah and prayer are excluded). These duties include the (intellectual) realization of divine unity, trust in God, the observance of his dominion, introspective self-criticism, spiritual abstinence, repentance (in the sense of a purely internal process), and the ultimate duty – the love of God. The work contains mystical expressions such as “to hear without ears, to see without eyes.” Physical needs are neglected. Works: Hovot ha-Levavot, Arabic original ed. A.S. Yahuda, 1912 (ET: M. Hyamson, 1962) ◆ On Bahya: G. Vajda, La théologie ascétique de Bachya ibn Pakuda, 1947 ◆ J. Dan, Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics, 1987. Joseph Dan

Baier, Johann Wilhelm, the Elder (Nov 11, 1647, Nürnberg – Oct 19, 1695, Weimar), began studying philosophy and (Near Eastern) philology at Altdorf in 1664 followed by Jena in 1669. He received his Dr. theol. in 1674 and was appointed professor in 1675. In 1694 he received an appointment at Halle. In 1695 he sat on the consistory and the church council, and was chief court preacher, town pastor, and superintendentgeneral in Weimar. In the conflicts between the theological faculties of Wittenberg and Helmstedt over the → syncretistic controversy, Baier sided with J. → Musäus, whose daughter he married in 1674. Following Musäus’s death in 1681, he considered it his duty, as the “theo-

555 logical executor” of Musäus’s last will (TRE XVI, 560), to demonstrate the orthodoxy of the Jena theology and its conformity with Wittenberg. This was the goal of his major work, the Compendium theologiae positivae (1686, with 11 subsequent editions down to 1750). Because of its terse language, which was largely taken from Musäus, and its critical survey of contemporary Lutheran orthodoxy from the 2nd edition onwards, it lent itself admirably as a textbook, a use that also caused it to be revised in tabular form. The definition of (natural and revealed) theology as scientia practica under retention of dogmatic identity helped preserve the continuity of Jena’s politico-theological option in the contemporary controversy and also enabled it to respond to the challenges of the early Enlightenment and Pietism. Other works: Compendium theologiae homileticae, 1677 ◆ Collatio doctrinae Q uakerorum et Protestantium, 1677 ◆ Collatio doctrinae Pontificiorum et Protestantium, 1686. Ernst Koch

Bailian Jiao (Pai-lien chiao), lit. “White Lotus teaching,” is the common term used by most Chinese sources to designate a popular sectarian tradition that attained great social and religious significance in China from the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) onward. Traditionally, the name Pai-lien (“White Lotus”) is traced back to a society founded by the Buddhist monk Hui-yüan (334–416) in the year 402. In the 12th century, the monk Mao Ziyuan (1086–1166) founded a lay Buddhist movement bearing the same name. The subsequent history of this movement remains obscure until the Ming dynasty. It was originally a lay movement within the tradition of Pure Land Buddhism (→ Ch’ing-t’u). In the 14th century, the revolt of Han Shanton (d. 1355), which precipitated the fall of the Mongolian Yüan dynasty, was linked to the White Lotus sect. Recent studies, however, have cast doubt on this assumption. Since this period, Chinese sources use “Pai-lien chao” as a collective name for various historically related sects that influenced each other but did not constitute a unified organization. None of these sects appears to have called itself “White Lotus teaching.” Many sects of this tradition exhibit clear millenarian features (→ Millenarianism VII). The involvement of a number of sects in revolutionary movements is to be seen in the light of these millenarian expectations, causing the term “Pai-lien chiao” to become synonymous with politically subversive sects. The Ming and especially the Ch’ing dynasty (1644–1911) brought frequent persecutions that forced the sects to go underground. Some of these sects nevertheless attained a considerable degree of social influence. The → I-kuan Tao sect became particularly important in the 20th century. Y.-D.R. Chu, “An Introductory Study of the White Lotus Sect in Chinese History with Special Reference to Peasant Movements,” diss., 1967 ◆ S. Naquin, Millenarian Rebellion

Bainton, Roland Herbert in China, 1976 ◆ D. Overmyer, Folk Buddhist Religion, 1976 ◆ R. Shek, “Religion and Society in Late Ming,” diss., 1980 ◆ B.J. ter Haar, The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious History, 1992. Hubert Seiwert

Baillie, John (Mar 26, 1886, Gairloch, Scotland – Sep 29, 1960, Edinburgh). Baillie studied in Edinburgh, Jena, and Marburg. He taught at Auburn Theological Seminary 1919–1927, at the University of Toronto 1927–1930, at Union Theological Seminary, NY, 1930–1934, at the University of Edinburgh 1934–1956, and became the chairman of the General Committee of the Church of Scotland in 1943 as well as the president of the WCC 1954–1961. Combining scholarship and deep devotion, Baillie’s works concentrated on the problem of our cognizance of God. Even though he agreed with K. → Barth that the essential truth of faith is not our relationship to God, but rather God’s relationship to us, Baillie differed in his opinion that general knowledge of God makes God accessible to all people. Other events and persons may function as a medium through which divine revelation appears as a “mediated immediacy,” although Christ stands as the greatest revelatory encounter with the holy. Works include: The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought, 1956 ◆ Our Knowledge of God, 1939 ◆ Roots of Religion in the Human Soul, 1926. Thomas H. Graves

Bainton, Roland Herbert (Mar 30, 1894, Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England – Feb 13, 1984, New Haven, Connecticut). Historian and educator. Bainton’s long and distinguished teaching career (1920-1962) was spent at Yale Divinity School, where he served as Titus Street Professor of Church History. An expert on the Protestant Reformation and author of thirty-two books, Bainton is perhaps best remembered for his landmark biography of Luther, Here I Stand, and for his sur vey of Christian history, The Church of Our Fathers, which sold more than a million copies. A committed pacifist and conscientious objector who worked with the Red Cross in France during World War I, Bainton dedicated himself to writing about dissent, freedom of expression, and religious tolerance, and published various books on Reformation personalities whose life and work touched upon these subjects, such as → Erasmus of Rotterdam and Michael Servetus. Ever the consummate scholar, and a role model for other Reformation historians, Bainton nonetheless wrote in a lucid style that made his books accessible to a wide readership. He remained very active after his retirement, publishing numerous books and articles, and helping to establish the “American Society for Reformation Research” and the Sixteenth Century Journal. Works: The Church of Our Fathers, 1941 ◆ Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, 1950 ◆ The Travail of Religious Liberty: Nine

Baius, Michael Biographical Studies, 1951 ◆ The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 1952, enlarged edition, 1985 ◆ Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus, 1953 ◆ Christian Attitudes to War and Peace: An Historical Survey, 1960 ◆ Erasmus of Christendom, 1969 ◆ Women of the Reformation, 3 vols., 1971, 1973, 1977. ◆ On Bainton: Cynthia Wales Lund, A Bainton Bibliography, 1998 ◆ S.H. Simpler, Roland H. Bainton: An Examination of His Reformation Historiography, 1985. Carlos Eire

Baius, Michael (1513, Meslin l’Evêque – Sep 16, 1589, Louvain) became a priest in 1542, professor of philosophy in 1544, and professor of theology at the University of Louvain, where he had studied, in 1550. He officiated as dean of Saint-Pierre and vice-chancellor of the university from 1575 onward. He was involved in the debates concerning the problems of → original state, → justification, → freedom, and → grace in the Reformation years. Baius held the view that “iustitia” was inherent to the (intact) human nature in its original state and that it was the fall of mankind that resulted in the loss of this natural justice. Tainted by original sin, the nature of fallen humanity is incapable of good; human beings can only be justified again through grace, and this justification involves the renewal of the will that is mercifully effected by Christ, the Redeemer, and the forgiveness of sins (in the sacrament). Baius invoked Holy Scripture and the church fathers to support this, especially Augustine; he rejected the scholastic method. He published his most important tractates in 1563. In the papa → bull, “Ex omnibus afflictionibus” (Oct 1, 1567), Pius V censured 76 of Baius’s propositions, which Baius then defended in two apologies. When the sentence was confirmed in a → brief (May 13, 1569), Baius formally complied “in the sense of the bull,” although this did not spare him the trial before the Roman Inquisition. In the bull “Provisionis nostrae” ( Jan 29, 1580), Gregory XIII finally confirmed Pius V’s condemnation, which Baius publicly accepted while admitting that his work contained various propositions in the condemned sense. His theses regarding the doctrine of grace influenced C.O. → Jansen and Jansenism.

556 1875), to which he himself contributed melodies, translations, and self-written chorales, including the paraphrase of Ps 23, “The King of Love, my shepherd is.” A high churchman, he held to strict principles as an editor, thereby laying the foundations of congregational singing in the Church of England for the following century with this book. J. Julian, A Dictionary of Hymnology, 1891 (bibl.). Ivor Jones

Bakhtin, Mikhail (Nov 16, 1895, Orel – Mar 7, 1975, Moscow) was one of the most significant moral philosophers of Russia in the 20th century. The works of Bakhtin and his contemporaries included texts on linguistics, psychoanalysis, social theory, historical poetics, literary criticism, axiology and the philosophy of the self. In an attempt to overcome the Kantian (I. → Kant: I) separation of science, ethics, and aesthetics, Bakhtin made a unique contribution to our understanding of the moral and religious roots of human identity and human → action. Concepts such as responsibility and dialogue, act or deed, obligation, marginalization, chronotopes, and unfinalizability were central to his philosophy. Works include: Voprosy literatury i estetiki, 1975 ◆ Estetika slovesnogo tvorcestva, 1979 ◆ The Dialogic Imagination, 1981 ◆ Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i, 1986 ◆ Art and Answerability, 1990. Deborah Haynes

Balaam I. Sources – II. Effects

Works: Michaelis Baii Opera studio A.P. (= Gabriel Gerberon), 1696, repr. 1964 (important documents in the second section) ◆ M. Roca, “Documentos inéditos en torno a Miguel Bayo (1560–1582),” Antología Anual 1, 1953, 303-476 ◆ On Baius: F.X. Linsenmann, Bajus und die Grundlegung des Jansenismus, 1867 ◆ V. Grossi, Baio e Bellarmino interpreti di s. Agostino nelle questioni del sopranaturale, 1968. Manfred Weitlauff

Balaam (Heb. . , LXX Bαλααμ, var. Bαλαμ, son of Beor; on the name forms see HALAT). The name Balaam is associated with the following questions: 1. How do we explain the difference between the depiction of Balaam in Num 22–24 (incorruptible man of God’s word) and Num 31 (a seducer of the people)? 2. Why does the non-Israelite Balaam speak in the name of YHWH, with no mention of foreign gods? 3. What do the Tell → Deir aAlla, inscriptions contribute? 4. How old are the oldest Old Testament accounts? 5. Does one of the traditions have a historical core or is the material entirely fictional? 6. What is Balaam’s theological significance?

Baker, Sir Henry Williams (May 27, 1821, Lambeth, Vauxhall – Feb 12, 1877, Leominster) received his B.A. at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1844 and was ordained in the same year. He served as minister in Monkland near Leominster from 1851 to 1877. Baker is mainly remembered for his promotion and chairmanship of Hymns Ancient and Modern (1861, revised in

I. Sources Research on Balaam and on the sayings of Balaam currently agrees that Num 22–24 is the OT basis on which the other texts depend. According to it, the Moabite king Balak asked Balaam to pronounce a curse over Israel. Balaam bound himself to YHWH’s word and only agreed to follow a second embassy because God

557 only permitted the journey on the condition that Balaam would only pass on his word (22:2–21). During the journey, Balaam’s ass notices a divine messenger in front of him, blocking his way with a bared sword but not forcing him to turn back (22:22–35). Three times, over considerable sacrifices, Balaam speaks a blessing instead of a curse, so that Balak ordered Balaam to flee (22:36–24:14). Before leaving, Balaam predicts defeats for → Moab, → Edom, Amalek (→ Amalekites), the → Kenites as well as → Ashur (?), Eber (?) and the Kittites (24:15–25). It is clearly discernible that 22:22–35 (the donkey) is to be seen as an accretion which does not advance the action. 24:20–24 is usually also considered to be secondary. In 23:25 Balak puts an end to further cursing or blessing, so that 23:27–24:19 represents either a later addition (Groß, Schmitt) or a parallel version. The fact that Balaam does not introduce himself until 24:3b–4, 15b–16 and that his speeches express something new until 24:8a speaks in favor of the latter hypothesis. Regarding the sayings in 23:7b–10, 18b– 24; 24:3b–9, 15b–19, the generally accepted view is that they belong to the narrative in ch. 23, but stand on their own in ch. 24 (though 24:10–14 is fragmentary, cf. Groß), while it remains disputed whether additions (e.g. 23:23) or dependencies (23:22–24:8a) exist. – In my opinion, the JE-redaction (22:22aα, 35; 23:1–2a, 4b–5a, 16f., 27, 29f.; 24:10b, 11, 13) has combined an E-layer with a fragmentary J-layer (24:1–10a, 12, 13b–19, and probably also 22:*4a, *7a, 22–34). – The datings of narrative and sayings vary (pre-state to late Persian period). Late datings (Rouillard, Timm) are not persuasive in my view, because the narrative and the sayings reflect the problematic pre-Assyrian relationship between Israel and Moab in Transjordan, where one of the Tell Deir aAlla inscriptions testifies to the fame of Balaam as a seer at the end of the 9th century (Zenger/ Wenning). The literary-historical dating to the beginning of the 8th century ( J and E) is compatible with this. According to 1 Sam 15, with 24:7b MT (Agag), the tradition points to the time of Saul as terminus a quo in 24:*3b–9. A kingdom “that has (yet) to arise” (v. 7b) is first of all a reference to David (LXX then interprets it messianically: Schmidt). 24:17f. (Moab, Bene Shet and Edom beaten), in this combination, presupposes David’s victories. 23:21a, along with vv. 22, 24, describe a state of undisturbed foreign-political fortune which is brought about by El, the one who led them out of Egypt. The sayings apparently assume fulfillment (esp. in the time of David), but also hold perspectives for a further future. Because of v. 9bb, 23:7b–10 is sometimes interpreted as a demarcation. Verse 9b, however, does not denote anything religious, but a life in safety. 23:7–10, 18b–24 mention the name of YHWH, but 24:3b–9, 15–19 do not (only El in 24:8a)! The Tell

Balaban, Gedeon Deir aAlla texts are unfortunately so fragmentary that they have yet to suggest a discernible date for Balaam. The parallels to 24:3b–4, 15b–16a are noteworthy. The inscriptions suggest that Balaam belongs in an → Ammonite context (22:5cj; Petora/Pitru part of the Ashur-supplement 24:21–23?). 22:*7a; 24:1 contains remnants of Balaam’s mantic practices, in which his foreignness is emphasized. Yet Balaam became the legitimating voice from without for the territories of Israel bordering on Moab! Balak (“Devastator,” minor king at most) still evades precise classification. II. Effects While Mic 6:5 evaluates Balaam in the manner of Num *22–24 JE, there is evidence of exilic/post-exilic alterations. According to Deut 23:5f., it was Moab (not Balak) that hired Balaam to curse Israel, but God turned it into a blessing (cf. Neh 13:2), probably a negative epexegesis of the ass episode (22:22–34). Josh 24:9f. turns Balak’s readiness for war (Num 22:6) into an armed conflict. Num 31:16 accuses Balaam of inciting the Israelites to join in the cult of Baal Pegor with the help of Midianite women (25:16–18). Since Balaam according to Num 24:1, practiced a (later despised) manticism and 22:4, 7 saw the → Midianites as allies of Moab, Josh 13.22a applied the pejorative term . (qosem, “soothsayer”) to Balaam, while Num 31 extrapolated the above-mentioned incitement by Balaam that was supposed to justify his killing (31:8; Josh 13:21f.). – Judaism has two lines of tradition relative to Balaam. In most cases, he is judged negatively: he belongs ‘to the four “private persons” who have no share in the world to come’ (mSan 11:2 and the compendium of Balaam traditions in bSan 105aff.). The New Testament references (2 Pet 2:15f.; Jude 11; Rev 2:14) accordingly point to greed, enticement to immorality, and the offering of sacrificial meat to idols, etc. Some sources, including early ones, conversely see Balaam as equivalent in standing to → Moses, because he was the prophet to the nations of the world (SEZ 191; Sifre Num. 357, 430). In addition to the commentaries, W. Gross, StANT 38, 1974 ◆ D. Vetter, Seherspruch und Segensschilderung, 1975 ◆ J.A. Hackett, The Balaam Texts of Tell Deir aAlla, HSM 31, 1980 ◆ L. Schmidt & P. Schäfer, “Balaam” I and II, TRE VI, 1980, 635-638, 639f. ◆ H. Rouillard, La Péricope de Balaam (Num 22–24), EtB 4, 1985 ◆ S. Timm, “Moab zwischen den Mächten,” ÄAT 17, 1989, 102–146 ◆ W. Gross, “Bileam”, NBL I, 1991, 300f. ◆ E. Zenger & R. Wenning, “Heiligtum ohne Stadt? Stadt ohne Heiligtum?, ZAH 4, 1991, 171–193 ◆ H.-C. Schmitt, “Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet,” in: FS O. Kaiser, 1994, 180–198 ◆ H. Seebass, “Zur literarischen Gestalt der Balaamperikope,” ZAW 107, 1995, 409-419. Horst Seebass

Balaban, Gedeon (1530?–1607), Orthodox bishop of Lemberg (Ukrainian L’viv) from 1569. He opposed the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (1582).

Balai In 1590, he participated in unification negotiations (→ Unions, Church) with the Roman Catholic Church, but remained opposed to union following the conclusion of the Union of Brest in 1569. From 1597, he was the Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In order to strengthen the Orthodox position, he supported the printing and educational institutions of the Orthodox → Brotherhoods, once the quarrel with the Brotherhood of Lemberg over episcopal authority began to abate. M. Bulgakov, Istorija Russkoj Cerkvi, vols. IXf., 1879, 1881, 1994ff. ◆ O. Halecki, From Florence to Brest (1439–1596), repr. 1958. Julia Oswald

Balai → Syria Balamand Monastery. The Orthodox Marian monastery of Balamand (Arab. Dair albalamand; c. 16 km southwest of Tarabulus, the capital of northern Lebanon) can be traced back to a Cistercian abbey founded in 1157. The history of the monastery after the Cistercians abandoned it (end of the 13th cent.) and before the monastery was resettled in 1603 by monks of the Byzantine-Orthodox Church of Antioch is for the most part obscure. In the modern period, the Balamand Monastery has become a spiritually and culturally influential center of the Byzantine-Orthodox church in the Near East. In June 1993, Balamand housed the seventh session of the Mixed Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. C. Asmar, L’Abbaye de Belmont dite Deir el-Balamand, 1972 ◆ S. Slim, Balamand, 1995. Assaad Kattan

Balanos, Dimitrios (Dec 1 or 14, 1878, Athens – Aug 10, 1959, Athens), an Orthodox theologian who first studied law (1893–1895) and then theology (1895– 1899) at the University of Athens, and subsequently theology and philosophy in Jena, Leipzig, Halle, and Breslau (1900–1904). In 1905, he completed his habilitation in the discipline of dogmatics in Athens; he was appointed professor of patristics in 1924. Balanos, who enjoyed high regard as an academic teacher, was repeatedly elected dean and, in 1945/1946, rector of the University of Athens. In 1931, he became a member of the Academy of Sciences of Athens and its president in 1939. Balanos was Minister of Culture in 1935 and 1945. Works include: Patrologia, 1930 ◆ On Balanos: K. Bonis, Δημήτριος Σ. Μπαλᾶνος, EEThS 1957/1958. Theodor Nikolaou

Baldachin. Originally the designation of a silk cloth from Baghdad, baldachin became a special sign of dignity and honor in the Christian Middle Ages: as throne and altar ciboria (→ Altar: III.), but also over shrines and tombs of saints. In addition, stone altar baldachins from the Middle Ages exist in large numbers (e.g. → Maria

558 Laach). G.L. → Bernini’s tabernacle of 1633 over Peter’s tomb in → St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome became a baroque prototype that continued to influence the innumerable chancel baldachins of the 18th century. J. Braun, “Altarbaldachin,” RDK I, 1937, 465–469 ◆ O. Treitinger, RAC I, 1950, 1150–1153. Richard Hüttel

Baldaeus, Philipp (Baelde) (Oct 1629, Delft – Mar 1671, Geervliet). After studying theology in Leiden, Baldaeus entered the service of the United East India Company (VOC) in Batavia in 1655. From 1658 he lived in Ceylon (→ Šri La«ka) and traveled repeatedly to southern India before returning home in 1666 to take over the Geervliet parish. In the year of his death, his three-volume account of his earlier field of activities was published, along with a “description” of → India’s southwestern and southeastern coasts and of the island of Ceylon, and a description of the “idolatry of the east Indian heathen” – the latter, as established by recent research, being a plagiarized version of earlier accounts from the Portuguese period. One noteworthy feature of this work is its inclusion of several textual samples in Tamil accompanied by a Dutch translation, although B. → Ziegenbalg, one of the pioneering missionaries of the Danish-Halle Mission in south Indian → Tranquebar who owned a copy of Baldaeus’s work, did not have a high opinion of the latter’s command of the language. A.J. De Jong, ed., Afgoderye de Oost-Indischen Heydenen door Philippus Baldaeus (1671), 1917 ◆ S. Neill, A History of Christianity in India, vol. I, 1984, esp. 380–383 ◆ S.W. Sunquist, A Dictionary of Asian Christianity, 2001. 54–55. Hans-Werner Gensichen

Balde, Jacob ( Jan 4, 1604, Ensisheim, Alsace – Aug 9, 1668, Neuburg on the Danube), a neo-Latin lyric poet and satirist. Balde discontinued his studies in law (in Molsheim and Ingolstadt) in 1634 and entered the Jesuit order; from 1637 to 1650 he worked at the Munich College as professor of rhetoric and as court preacher and historian of the Bavarian Prince Elector, Maximilian I; from 1654, he was preacher and father-confessor at the Palatine court in Neuburg. His odes (“Lyricorum libri IV. Epodon Liber unus,” 1643; “Sylvarum libri VII,” 1643), his satires (notably “Poema de vanitate mundi,” 1636, Lat./Ger. 1637), elegies (“Urania victrix,” 1663), his drama (“Jephtias,” 1637/1654), and his reflections on the spirit of poetry (“Dissertatio de studio poetico,” 1658) brought him fame throughout Europe. Works: Opera omnia, 8 vols., 1729, repr. 1992 ◆ Dichtungen, ed. and trans. M. Wehrli, 1968 ◆ Deutsche Dichtung, ed. R. Berger, 1983 ◆ On Balde: G. Westermayer, Jakob Balde, 1868 ◆ U. Herzog, Divina Poesis, 1976 ◆ E. Schäfer, Deutscher Horaz, 1976 ◆ J.M. Valentin, ed., Jakob Balde und seine Zeit, 1986 ◆ G. Dünnhaupt, Bibliographisches Handbuch der Barockzeit I, 21990, 234–252. Dieter Breuer

559 Balduin, Friedrich (Nov 17, 1575, Dresden – May 1, 1628, Wittenberg), was the son of a furrier. In 1597, he received his Magister in Wittenberg; in 1602, he became deacon in Freiberg, then superintendent in Olsnitz in 1603. In 1605, he was appointed fourth professor at Wittenberg and received his Dr. theol.; he advanced to Professor Primarius in 1607, and became superintendent of the churches in the region of Wittenberg in 1608. Balduin wrote a commentary on the Pauline corpus (7 complete editions from 1644 to 1710; since 21654 with the systematic guide “Summa universae theologiae” by J. → Olearius) in close association with his homiletic theory and practice, created the literary genre of the “Casus conscientiae” (four editions from 1628 to 1663), and was the first, in contention with V. → Weigel, to give an independent and fundamental treatment of “communio nostri cum Christo.” Balduin’s commentary on Mal 1:1 (1610) was probably the source from which W. → Teellinck (HWP VIII, 1992, 426 n. 126) borrowed the expression “semper in Ecclesia opus esse Reformatione” in 1627. D. Kittsteiner, Die Entstehung des modernen Gewissens, 1991 ◆ J. Kreslins, Dominus narrabit in scriptura populorum, 1992 ◆ T. Mahlmann, “Die Stellung der unio cum Christo in der lutherischen Theologie des 17. Jahrhundert,” in: M. Repo & R. Vinke, eds., Unio, 1996, 79–84, 128–135, 139f. Theodor Mahlmann

Baldwin, James (Aug 2, 1924, Harlem, New York – Dec 1, 1987, Saint Paul de Vence, France), African-American novelist, essayist, and playwright. In his first and perhaps most famous major work, Go Tell it on the Mountain (1953), Baldwin draws on his experiences as a young preacher in a Pentecostal church (→ Pentecostalism) as well as his tormented relationship to his stepfather. In this and several other works, he portrays individuals who are so caught up in an often meaningless and stifling otherworldly religion that they are prevented from realizing the full potential of their humanity. In Giovanni’s Room (1956) and Another Country (1963) he explores the ambiguities and perplexities of sexual identity. The Fire Next Time (1963) and Blues for Mister Charlie are the fruit of his involvement in the American Civil Rights Movement (→ Civil Rights). Although Baldwin spent many years in France, he remained an American citizen and continued to speak out against sexual and racial prejudice. Works include: Notes of a Native Son, 1955 ◆ The Amen Corner, 1968. John O. Hodges

Balfour, Arthur James ( Jul 25, 1848, Whittingehame – Mar 19, 1930, Woking), first Earl of Balfour, a philosopher and prominent conservative statesman. His background and education were characterized by aristocratic, academic, political, and religious

Ball, Hugo orientations. At an early age, and prior to his interest in politics, the conflict between religious and “naturalistic” world-views claimed much of his attention, and prompted preparatory work for his book A Defence of Philosophic Doubt (1879). This work already makes clear what would become a life-long preoccupation with the intellectual standing of religious belief. Throughout his very active political career, he may have viewed his theological and philosophical reflections, of which his early work was a significant forerunner, as more important than politics (cf. MacKay, 15f.). He was deeply interested in contemporary scientific developments and their impact on intellectual life. Balfour developed and elaborated these topics in his Foundations of Belief (1895) and in his two series of Gifford Lectures, Theism and Humanism (1915) and Theism and Thought (1923). Balfour’s political career began with his election to Parliament in 1874. He held several offices, among them those of Secretary for Scotland (1886–1887) and Chief Secretary for Ireland (1887–1891), before becoming prime minister from 1902 to 1905. He was foreign secretary from 1916 to 1919. Among the achievements of his administration, two may be singled out in particular: in home affairs, his role in the promotion of the Education Act of 1902 was of foremost importance; in foreign affairs, his advocacy of the Zionist cause (→ Zionism), which culminated in the so-called Balfour Declaration of 1917 in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine, paved the way for subsequent developments in the 20th century. Throughout his life Balfour maintained a keen interest in the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and the Church of England (Episcopal), of which he was a confirmed member. His interest in the Church of Scotland is illustrated by his active support for the Scottish Churches Act of 1905 (→ Scotland). At the turn of the century, Balfour’s contributions to Christian apologetics and metaphysics were highly respected, but now find little if any favor with either theologians or philosophers in the radically different intellectual climate a century later. Similarly, his achievements as a politician, which received a mixed reception in their day, are variously assessed by later historians. There can be no doubt, however, that his contemporaries regarded him as someone of exceptional standing in both intellectual and political life. A. Cecil, DNB Suppl. 25 (1922–1930), 1937, 41–56 ◆ B.E.C. Dugdale, Arthur James Balfour, 2 vols., 1936 ◆ H.E. Bärchi, “Die Entwicklung vom imperialistischen Reichsgedanken zur modernen Idee des Commonwealth im Lebenswerk Lord Balfours,” diss., 1957 ◆ K. Young, Arthur James Balfour, 1963 (bibl.) ◆ S.H. Zebel, Balfour, A Political Biography, 1973 ◆ M. Egremont, Balfour, 1980 ◆ R.F. MacKay, Balfour, Intellectual Statesman, 1985 (bibl.). James K. Cameron

Ball, Hugo (1886, Pirmasens – 1927, San Abbondio near Lugano, Switzerland), author and founder of Dada. As an exile to Switzerland working on the Freie

Ballou, Hosea Zeitung, he wrote the sharply polemical Critique of German Intelligence (1919), in which he identified Luther as the ultimate source of German militancy. After the First World War, he surprisingly turned back to the Catholic Church, as literarily manifested in Byzantine Christianity (1923), as well as in Flight from Time (1927). E. Teubner, ed., Hugo Ball, 1986 ◆ B. Wacker, ed., Dionysius Dada Areopagita, 1996. Thomas Ruster

Ballou, Hosea (Apr 30, 1771, Richmond, NH – Jun 7, 1852, Boston). The most important leader of the American Universalists (→ Universalism/Particularism), Ballou was a minister of the Second Universalist Church in Boston and author of a widely read introduction to universalist theology, A Treatise on Atonement (1805). In this treatise, Ballou argued that eternal punishment is contrary to the nature of God and that the universal atonement or the reconciliation of humankind with God is the aim of God’s plan of redemption. He thus contradicted the Calvinist doctrine of election and eternal damnation. Ballou later maintained that there was no punishment at all after death, but that the results of sins become apparent to the individual during his life on earth. Ballou’s power of persuasion contributed to the growth of the Universalist Church as well as to the general criticism of Calvinism in 19th-century New England. E. Cassara, Hosea Ballou, 1961 ◆ D. Robinson, The Unitarians and the Universalists, 1985. David M. Robinson

Balogh, Ferenc (Mar 30, 1836, Nagyvarad, now Oradea, Rumania – Oct 3, 1913, Debrecen), Hungarian professor of Reformed theology and church historian. He studied theology in → Debrecen (1854–1858), Paris, London and Edinburgh (1863–1865), as well as at universities in Germany and Switzerland. From 1865, he was professor of church history at the Reformed Theological Academy in Debrecen. He received an honorary doctorate from the University of Geneva in 1909. He advocated a theological “neo-orthodoxy.” His preferred field of study was the history of Hungarian Protestant churches, schools, and missions. S. Szabó, Dr. Balogh Ferenc élete és mu˝vei, 1915 ◆ L. Ötvös, “Balogh Ferenc életmo˝ve,” Diss., 1977. Sándor Ladányi

Balokole. The Balokole fellowship is a movement of revival and spiritual renewal within the Protestant churches of East Africa. Beginning in the Anglican church of → Uganda, it soon began to exert influence on many denominations within East Africa. “Balokole” means “Saved People” in Luganda. The Balokole fellowship shares many characteristics of Western evangelical revival movements (→ Evangelicalism: III) on account of its emphasis on the significance of atonement and

560 of the experience of conversion. Its distinctive profile is especially characterized by sometimes very open individual confessions during the regularly held fellowship meetings. The movement tries not to adopt an institutional form, and claims loyalty to the Protestant churches, though it opposes spiritual lethargy and laxity. Critical of any values and practices in African culture which it deems inimical to Protestantism, the Balokole movement supports the introduction of Christian values into East African society. The efforts to establish group solidarity, provide marriage partners and care for widows within the fellowship makes it evident that Balokole members belong to a new “clan” in which traditional African communal values are perpetuated in a new form. Balokole members have also been regarded as modernizers who strive for a western education for their children. Balokole emphasize the radical equality inherent to the Gospel’s message, calling for equality between black and white, but also between male and female in the highly stratified society of colonial Africa. Women have thus acquired the freedom to preach and to bear witness, as well as greater respect within the family. Two laymen are regarded as the initiators of the movement: the landowner Simeoni Nsibambi, and Joe Church, an English missionary doctor. The Balokole fellowship has mostly avoided divisions, with the exception of the “Reawakened” members, who accused the majority of neglecting the strict principles of the early members. Until the 1960s the Balokole was predominantly a lay movement. Its place within the Protestant churches has become more stable ever since many of its members were ordained, e.g. Festo Kivengere, Anglican bishop of Kigezi in Uganda, J.M. → Kibira, Lutheran bishop of Bukoba, and archbishop Davit Gitari of Kenya. J. Kibira, Church, Clan and World, 1974 ◆ J. Murray, “A Bibliography of the East African Revival Movement,” JRA 8, 1976, 144–147 ◆ J.E. Church, Quest for the Highest, 1981 ◆ K. Ward, “Obedient Rebels,” JRA 19, 1989, 194–227 ◆ idem, “Tukutendereza Yesu,” in: Z. Nthamburi, ed., From Mission to Church, 1991, 113–144. Kevin Ward

Balsamon, Theodoros (1110–1140, Constantinople – after 1195, Constantinople), a Byzantine canonist. As deacon of the → Hagia Sophia, Balsamon combined the supreme authority for all affairs of the patriarchate (as its “Chartophylax”) with a juridical office in the service of the state (“Homophylax”). Having fallen out of favor after 1180, Balsamon became the patriarch of Antioch, although he never left the capital. His chief works – which remain fundamental for Orthodox canon law – are the commentaries on the Nomocanon 14 titulorum and on the Synodal and Patriarchal Canons. Sources: G. Rhalles & M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων 1852–1859 ◆ PG 104, 976–1218; 119, 1162–1224; 137;

561 138 ◆ On Balsamon: K. Horna, “Die Epigramme des Theodors Balsamon,” WSt 25, 1903, 165–217 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, 21977, 657ff. ◆ V. Tiftixoglu, “Gruppenbildungen innerhalb des konstantinopolitanischen Klerus während der Komnenenzeit,” ByZ 62, 1969, 25–72 ◆ idem, “Zur Genese der Kommentaren des Theodorus Balsamon,” in: N. Oikonomides, ed., Byzantium in the 12th Century, 1991, 483–532. Heinz Ohme

Balthasar, Hans Urs von (Aug 12, 1905, Lucerne – Jun 26, 1988, Basel), Catholic theologian (cardinal May 28, 1988) and philosopher of religion. He played an important role as a mediator between literature, philosophy, and theology, while being a critical observer of interconfessional dialogue. He was a very prolific author (85 books, over 500 essays), translator (approx. 100 translations from the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian), and the founder of several secular associations, of a publishing house ( Johannes-Verlag, Einsiedeln), and a journal (Communio). I. After receiving his doctorate in German philology (1928), he studied theology in the Jesuit order (priesthood, 1936). Under the particular influence of H. de → Lubac’s “new theology” and E. → Przywara’s philosophy of the “analogia entis” (→ Analogy), he wrote the “Apocalypse of the German Soul.” This interdisciplinary work examines the eschatological background of individualism since the beginning of the 18th century. It uncovers the structure and failure of the “Prometheus” and “Dionysius” issue which emerged in the Age of Enlightenment as a response to the problem of ethical and epistemological autonomy (Prometheus/Dionysius versus the Crucified one), making use of literature, philosophy, and theology. In addition, his preoccupation with the church fathers → Irenaeus of Lyon, → Origen, → Gregory of Nyssa, → Augustine, → Dionysius Areopagita and → Maximus the Confessor led Balthasar to elaborate on the theological significance of the transcendental values “beauty,” “truth,” and “goodness.” II. The importance of → aesthetics and drama for theology, already prominent in his early writings and further intensified through the mysticism of Adrienne of Speyr (1902–1967), whose works Balthasar partly helped to shape and edit, is elaborated into a theology of majesty, celebration, and of the Word. In an outstanding contribution to the study of culture, his Trilogy (15 vols., plus epilogue) subsumes all encounters in art, drama, and dialogue under the rubrics of the visible, playful, and spoken expressions of love, and relates them to the encounter between God and human being. Balthasar advocated the opening of the Catholic Church (Schleifung der Bastionen), but not in the same sense as K. → Rahner and his theology of the “anonymous Christian” (Cordula oder der Ernstfall). In the dispute sparked off by Hans Küng over the issue of papal → infallibility, Balthasar adopted a mediating position: “How can the

Baltic Countries papacy be integrated into the universal church?” (Der antirömische Affekt). Very important for Protestant theology is, in addition to his preoccupation with Jürgen Moltmann (Theodramatik, vols. III–IV), Balthasar’s friendship and scholarly dialogue with K. → Barth. Barth’s criticism of the analogia entis and his path to the analogia fidei became the object of a major study (Karl Barth) and of a few essays. Works include: Apokalypse der deutschen Seele, 1937–1939, new ed. 1998 ◆ Herrlichkeit, vols. I–III, 1961–1969; ET: The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetic, vols. I–VII, 1982–89 ◆ Theodramatik, vols. I–IV, 1973–1983; ET: Theodrama: Theological Dramatic Theory, vols. I–V, 1988–98 ◆ Cordula oder der Ernstfall, 41976; ET: The Moment of Christian Witness, 1994 ◆ Theologik, vols. I–III, 1985–1987 ◆ Karl Barth, 41987; ET: The Theology of Karl Barth, 1971, 21992 ◆ Epilog, 1987 ◆ Der antirömische Affekt, 21989; ET: Office of Peter and The Structure of the Church, 1986. Bibl.: L. Roberts, Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, 1987 ◆ E. Babini, L’antropologia teologica di Hans Urs von Balthasar, 1988 ◆ C. Capol, Hans Urs vov Balthasar: Bibl. 1925–1990 ◆ T. Krenski, Passio Caritatis, 1990 ◆ E. Guerriero, Hans Urs von Balthasar, 1993 ◆ V. Spangenberg, Herrlichkeit des Neuen Bundes, 1993. Stephan Grätzel

Baltic Countries I. General – II. Non-Christian Religions – III. Christianity – IV. Religion, Society, and Culture in the Present

I. General 1. The name Baltic derives from the term “mare Balticum,” commonly used for the Baltic Sea since the High Middle Ages. At first it applied only to later Estonia and Latvia as the Baltic provinces of the Russian empire, which had earlier simply been called Livonia after one of the many tribes. The 19th-century discovery of the Baltic language family, consisting of Latvian, Lithuanian, and Old Prussian, and the common political fate in the 20th century finally led to the extension of this term to include Lithuania. 2. Geographically, the Baltic countries cover a strip of land along the Baltic coast, extending inland as far as 450 km between the Gulf of Finland and the lower reaches of the Memel. They consist of the republics of Estonia (Eesti) in the north (45,000 km2) with its capital → Tallinn/Reval (503,000 inhabitants), Latvia in the middle (64,500 km2) with its capital → Riga (915,000), and Lithuania (Lietuva) in the south (65,200 km2) with its capital → Vilnius (582,000). 3. Ethnographically, the Estonians (930,000), who have also absorbed the related tribe of the Chuds, belong to the Balto-Finnic branch within the Finno-Ugric language family. A unified written Estonian language was not introduced until the 19th century. The Latvians (1.36 m.) – who are issued from the Baltic tribes of the Semgalls, Sels, and Lettgalls, as well as the mixed people of the Kurs and the originally Balto-Finnish tribe of the Livonians – form, together with the Lithuanians

Baltic Countries (3.07 m.), the Baltic branch within the Indo-European language family. The Lithuanian people – composed of Shemaits or Lower Lithuanians in the northwest and Aukshtaits or High Lithuanians with another four dialect groups – did not acquire their unified written language until the very end of the 19th century. The number of German Balts, who for centuries represented the upper class in present-day Estonia and Latvia, were estimated at 162,000 in 1914. Different from them are the Germans who once resided in Lithuania. After the 1940 deportation of German population groups from the Baltics, only the former East Prussian region of Memel had a German minority worth mentioning. The Russian part of the population, by contrast, greatly increased under Soviet rule and amounts to 27.4% in Estonia, 32.8% in Latvia, and 8.9% in Lithuania.

II. Non-Christian Religions 1. History a. The pagan heritage from pre-Christian times, esp. from the old → Baltic religion, survived subliminally in a variety of Baltic notions and customs well into the 19th and in some cases even into the 20th century. b. When the main focus of Ashkenazi Judaism shifted from middle Europe to Poland after the waves of pogroms in the years 1348–1350, Lithuania, which had merged with Poland in 1386 through a treaty of union, was also heavily affected. After 1388 the Jews in Lithuania enjoyed privileges similar to those in Poland. Vilnius thus became one of the bastions of talmudic scholarship. The Gaon (supreme authority) of Vilnius was an influential leader who presided over Lithuanian Judaism. c. Still in the 14th century, a numerically weaker branch of Judaism – but a very significant one in the history of religion – established itself in Lithuania: a group that only recognized the Hebrew Bible as the sole basis of faith and rejected the entire talmudic tradition, namely the → Karaites. When the Lithuanians defeated the Tatars in 1392, the → Karaites taken captive with them, 330 families in all, were settled in Trakai/Troki, a small city southwest of Vilnius, and granted certain privileges. They held on to their Karaite colloquial and prayer language Crimea, a Tatar dialect with borrowings from Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian. They also settled in other Lithuanian cities, though their spiritual center remained in Troki, where prominent Karaite scholars worked in the 16th and 17th centuries All the Karaite communities in western Russia were still administered from here in the 19th and 20th centuries. 2. Statistics. The once considerable number of Jews in the Baltic countries – esp. in Lithuania, where, after the reintegration of the Vilnius area in 1939, they amounted to more than 250,000 (about 10% of the total popula-

562 tion) – was greatly reduced after World War II. In 1970 there were still 5288 Jews in Estonia (3750 in Tallinn), 36,680 in Latvia (30,581 in Riga), and 23,564 in Lithuania (16,491 in Vilnius). Though the number of Karaites living in Lithuania rose from 1443 in 1897 to 5700 in 1959, only 280 were counted in 1991. III. Christianity 1. Church History a. Christianization. Apart from sporadic Christian influences from the Slavic East, the church history of the Baltic countries began with the arrival of the Augustinian canon Meinhard of Segeberg who accompanied German merchants to the mouth of the Dvina. Around 1184, he erected a church in Üxküll, 15 km upstream, and performed the first baptisms. In 1186, archbishop Hartwig II of → Hamburg-Bremen consecrated him as bishop of Livonia. After missionary work had already suffered extreme setbacks toward the end of the 12th century, efforts were made to secure it through a connection with the crusade movement. In 1198, under Meinhard’s successor Bertold, the first armed campaign of German crusaders thus came to Livonia, while his successor → Albert of Buxhöveden (1199–1229) led no fewer than 14 crusader armies to the Dvina. In 1202, during his absence, the Cistercian Theodoric of Treiden also founded the religious order of knights of the so-called Brothers of the Sword, which was absorbed by the → Teutonic Order in 1237. Albert transferred his episcopal see to the city of Riga, which he had founded in 1201, and established the diocese of Leal in 1210 (moved to Dorpat [→ Tartu] in 1224) the diocese of Ösel-Wiek in 1228. In 1234 Kurland also received a diocese with its seat in Pilten. Although already removed from the authority of the Bremen metropolitan in 1214, the diocese of Riga did not become an archdiocese until 1255. The northern part of Estonia, which had been conquered by the Danes in 1219, and the city of Tallinn (Reval) founded by them in 1228 were purchased by the Teutonic Order in 1346, but belonged to the ecclesiastical province of Lund until 1374. Around 1290, the number of Livonian parishes finally reached about 180 and remained so until the end of the Middle Ages. The Lithuanians were the last European people to be won over to Christianity. When they entered the history of the east Baltic toward the end of the 12th century, the power of their princes was already far too great for a militarily secured mission from outside. The Samagitian prince Tautvilas had been baptized in 1248, and his powerful antagonist Mindaugas, who sought to unite the small Lithuanian principalities under his sovereignty, followed this example in 1253, after which Pope → Innocent IV had him crowned king. But Mindaugas was murdered in 1263, and his son, an orthodox Christian, also had

563 to abdicate in 1267. Gediminas succeeded his brother as overlord of all the small principalities in 1315/1316 and set Lithuania’s rise to a major power in motion. He and his sons raised the prospect of converting to Christianity but never did so. Nonetheless, there were Christians among their nearest relatives, and Franciscans were already permitted to work in Vilnius. The decision only came with the agreement of Krewo of Aug 14, 1385, on the incorporation of Lithuania to Poland through the marriage of Grand Prince Jogaila with Queen Jadwiga. Baptized in Krakow in 1386, wedded with Jadwiga, and crowned king of Poland, Jogaila returned to Lithuania at the beginning of 1387 and initiated the Christianization of the country with the establishment of the diocese of Vilnius. In 1417 another diocese was established for the Samagitians, though the mission in northwest Lithuania was not concluded until the 16th century. b. Reformation and Counter-Reformation. As early as 1523 Luther could rejoice with the words “To the elect dear friends of God, all Christians in Riga, Reval, and Tartu in Livonia” (WA 12.147–50) over the miracle of God that the gospel should also be preached and believed in this remote area along the Baltic Sea. Iconoclastic disputes were dealt with by the magistrates. In 1533, those three cities were given a binding church order devised by J. → Briesmann and A. → Knöpken. The knights also gradually joined the Reformation, which was finally completed after the collapse of the old confederation in the Livonian War (1558–82). In 1561, the last Livonian superior general, G. → Kettler, was given Kurland, a portion of the order’s former territory, as a secular duchy, his “little God’s land,” which developed into a flourishing state entity. Up to this point, Polish sovereignty had remained without effect on church life, but the former territories of the order north of the Dvina, which, together with the earlier diocese of Riga, had been incorporated into the Grand Principality of Lithuania in 1566 as the Duchy of Livonia, did suffer from re-Catholicization attempts until the conquest by Sweden in 1621. Latgale, however, remained Polish and was ultimately completely re-Catholicized. As much as a quarter of the Latvian people were led back to Catholicism. The history of the Reformation in Lithuania was closely linked to that of Poland and took a similar course. An education-seeking nobility turned first to Lutheranism and then to Calvinism, only to be finally won back to Catholicism by the Jesuits. In the 2nd half of the 16th century, Reformed worship was celebrated at 190 locations in Lithuania, but in 1775 there were no more than 30 Reformed and five Lutheran congregations in the whole land. c. Awakening of national consciousness in the church. While successful efforts were made, since the Reformations, to establish worship services and create an

Baltic Countries ecclesial literacy in Estonian and Latvian, the care of the “non-German” rural population by German pastors remained totally inadequate in the isolated parishes. The Moravian movement (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren) now entered this vacuum. The visit of N.L. von → Zinzendorf to Livonia in 1736 was followed by the arrival of some 50 Brethren. Prohibited in 1743, the Moravian church was reauthorized in 1817 with 144 congregations, numbering some 30,000 members with only 44 German but approx. 1000 Estonian and Latvian leaders. The Moravian awakening not only concluded the Christianization of the Estonian and Latvian rural populations, but also gave the Estonians and Latvians a new self-consciousness in both a religious and a national sense. Among pastors, however, it was only with the advent of the 20th century that Estonians and Latvians gained the majority. After the fall of the Russian empire, the Evangelical Lutheran churches of Estonia and Latvia were constituted on a national scale from the three consistorial districts of the empire’s Baltic provinces. For the minority congregations, the Estonian bishop was assisted by a German and a Swedish provost, the Latvian archbishop by a German bishop. In Lithuania, the Catholic clergy actively participated in the Lithuanian cultural movement that arose at the beginning of the 19th century in the wake of a popular romantic enthusiasm and ultimately acquired political aspirations, implementing, in addition to Latin, the use of Lithuanian instead of Polish in the churches. Resistance came not only from the already Polonized nobility and citizenry, but also from the church hierarchy, which feared that Catholicism might be weakened through the dissolution of the Polish-Lithuanian union. In fact, the dispute over Vilnius, which belonged to Poland from 1920 to 1939, led to serious tensions between Lithuanian and Polish Catholicism. d. The incursion of Orthodox Christianity. As early as the turn of the 17th to the 18th century, fleeing from persecution in the Moscow Tsardom, Russian → Old Believers settled in the Baltic countries, where they founded numerous congregations that still survive today. The influx of Orthodox inhabitants, which started with the beginning of Russian hegemony in the 18th century and increased in the 19th, led to a corresponding increase of Orthodox congregations. In the wake of a deliberate Russianization policy in the 40s and 80s of the 19th century, regular Orthodox conversion movements were initiated through the nourishment of unfounded hopes for economic help; in Lithuania, Polish rebellions were followed by proselytizing waves among the Catholic farmers, as well as the settlement of Russian colonists. Finally, Orthodoxy in the Baltics was consolidated by Russian emigrants after 1917. e. Under the Communist oppression of religion. In 1918–1919, forty Lutheran pastors lost their lives, after

Baltic Countries five had already been murdered following the revolution of 1905. Along with a bishop and an Orthodox priest, they have gone down in history as the Baltic martyrs. After the Soviet Union’s violent annexation in 1940, its restrictive religious laws were also extended to the Baltic countries. In the process, the churches lost all their property and could celebrate worship only in a limited number of church buildings, as determined by the authorities. With the tenth of the Estonian and Latvian populations that fled before the advance of the Red Army in 1944– 1945, half of all Lutheran pastors also left the land. The resulting shortage of pastors remained one of the main problems affecting both churches. The education of future pastors in correspondence courses, through theological institutes in Tallinn and Riga following the closing of the theological schools in Tartu/Dorpat and Riga, was subject to restrictions. Similarly, the Catholic seminaries in Kaunas and Riga were, because of admission restrictions imposed on them, unable to compensate for the shortage of priests caused by flight and arrests. Most Catholic bishops were hindered in the exercise of their office; at times, the Catholics in the Baltic countries were completely without a bishop. Nevertheless, the Catholic church was almost able to maintain its level of membership, whereas the Lutheran churches lost the majority of their followers. Among the Lithuanian Lutherans, the annexation of the Memel region brought a modest compensation. The Orthodox churches received a certain degree of preferential treatment, since they seemed suitable to the Soviets as a means of Russianization. 2. Ecclesiastical statistics. Since official statistics concerning church membership are not available, it is necessary to work with estimates, which often vary widely because of differing criteria. Data on congregations and clergy were gathered on various dates and are subject to rapid change. Since the regaining of independence in 1991, however, there has been a tendency toward growth. In Estonia, the Lutheran Church is reckoned to have between 70,000 and 100,000 believers in approx. 165 congregations with over 100 clergy; the Orthodox Church: 50,000 believers in 84 parishes with one bishop and 41 priests (partly under the jurisdiction of Moscow, partly under Constantinople); the Old Believers: (10,000) adherents in 12 congregations; and the Catholic church: 2500 believers in six congregations with three priests. The Baptists have 60, the Methodists 21, and the Adventists 22 mostly smaller congregations. In the Catholic church of Latvia, 290,000 believers are cared for by three bishops and 98 priests; 70,000 to 100,000 Lutheran believers have 109 clergy in 288 congregations; the Old Believers have 90,000 adherents in 87 congregations; in the Orthodox church, 35,000 to 40,000 believers in 94 congregations are under one bishop; and 5000 Baptist believers are organized in 68 churches. In Lithua-

564 nia, the Catholic church has over 2 million believers with ten bishops. and over 800 priests in 721 parishes; the Old Believers: 35,000 adherents in 54 churches; the Orthodox church: approx. 40,000 believers in 46 congregations with one bishop and 40 priests; the Lutheran church: 25,000 to 30,000 believers in 54 congregations with 15 clergy; and the Reformed church: 4000 to 12,000 believers in 11 churches with only one pastor. IV. Contemporary Religion, Society, and Culture 1. The social structure in the Baltic countries corresponds to that of northern and eastern Europe. The middle class is underdeveloped. Lithuania is still largely dominated by its agricultural economy; Latvia is the most heavily industrialized. 2. The symbolism of all churches in the Baltic area shows them to be the most conservative within their confessional branches. Thus, the Orthodox church is represented here more strongly by the Old Believers, its strictly tradition-bound offshoot, than by its own congregations. In the Catholic church, the liturgical reforms of → Vatican II are only reluctantly implemented, while the Latvian archbishop Jānis Vanags, following his election in 1993, rescinded the already introduced ordination of women, receiving a partly positive response in the sister churches of Estonia and Lithuania. 3. Religion and culture in the Baltic countries stand in about the same relationship to each other as in the rest of Europe. One peculiarity, however, is the characteristic enthusiasm for singing shared by all three peoples. Since the middle of the 19th century, this has found its strongest expression in large singing festivals, which became voices of national self-consciousness and were therefore banned for a time by the Soviets. These events preserve folklore, which still contains notions from Baltic paganism, as well as Christian folk songs. The work of Arvo Pärt (b. 1935), the first Estonian composer to achieve worldwide recognition, is strongly influenced by religion. 4. From its beginnings in the Reformation period, literature in the Baltic countries went through an independent development from the 18th century on, reaching the European level of contemporary realism toward the end of the 19th century. Notable poets and writers of the 20th century in Estonia are Anton HansenTammsaare (1878–1940) and Jaan Kross (b. 1920), in Latvia Jānis Jaunsudrabiflnš (1877–1962; lived near the Möhnesee after 1945) and Kārlis Skalbe (1879–1945), and in Lithuania Balys Sruoga (1896–1947), Eduardas Mieželaitis (b. 1919), and Justinas Marcinkevičius (b. 1930); among the German Balts W. Bergengruen and E. → Schaper. R. Wittram, ed., Baltische Kirchengeschichte, 1956 ◆ M. Hellmann, Grundzüge der Geschichte Litauens und des litauischen Volkes, 1966

565

Baltic Religion

◆ G. von Rauch, Aus der baltischen Geschichte, BBG 9, 1980 ◆ W. Kahle, ed., Lutherische Kirche im baltischen Raum, 1985 ◆ F. Scholz, Die Literaturen des Baltikums, 1990 ◆ G. von Pistohlkors, ed., Baltische Länder, Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas 3, 1994. Peter Hauptmann

Baltic Religion I. Definition – II. Sources – III. General Description – IV. Gods and Human Beings

I. Definition The Old Prussians, Lithuanians, and Latvians constitute the Baltic group within the Indo-European family of nations. Old Prussian, which was spoken in West Prussia well into the 17th century, is known to us from documents of the 14th–16th century and a translation of Luther’s Small Catechism. The oldest Lithuanian and Latvian texts are preserved in the form of two catechisms, one Catholic and one Protestant, passed down from the 16th century. The Indo-European heritage of the Balts, their position vis-à-vis the German, Scandinavian, and, later, Russian world, is reflected by historical and religious sources. Starting in the 12th century, the so-called Nordic crusades led to the intervention of highly heterogeneous powers. The territories of the independent kingdom of Lithuania, as well as those of the Prussian and Latvian tribes, became the coveted prizes of colonial powers or popes, bishops, but also of the military and the Hanseatic middle class, who, however, seldom agreed on how to proceed with regard to the practical implementation or the solving of theoretical problems that arose in the wake of missionary activities. Though the military conquest of Old Prussia and Latvia was completed in the 13th century, full conversion to Christianity was not achieved until the 17th century through Reformational mission groups and Jesuits, and even then only with a strong survival of pagan elements in rural areas in the form of the folkloric heritage, which survived in stories and rites and which today still defines large parts of the popular identity. Research into Baltic paganism is based on sources of the most varied nature, origin, and age, which together assist in the reconstruction of the religious system of the individual Baltic peoples, as well as of Baltic religion as a whole. These two necessary steps in the reconstruction receive support from comparative Indo-European studies, which shed light on the often astonishing documents. II. Sources Basically there are two types of documents: 1. Texts that come from the Christian milieu of the Middle Ages and are thus contemporaneous with Baltic paganism but belong to a different cultural context: the accounts of Henry of Livonia (Chronicon Livoniae, 1225–1227), the Rhyme Chronicle of Livonia (1290–1296), and the

reports of Wigand of Marburg and Peter of Dusburg (1326) seem to be reliable. They contain traces of mythology and scattered elements of theology, theonyms, and ritual acts. A few travel accounts and Russian annals complete the text material. Since the conquest, chronicles such as that of Simon Grunau in Prussia (1519–1529), official decrees of the church, and reports of the Jesuits (17th cent.) provide us with reliable information. 2. Autochthonous sources, which come from the pagan environment but only began to be collected in the 19th century: These include esp. stories and short sung pieces in verse with archaic content (Lithuanian “dainos,” Latvian “daiflnas”), whose wide diffusion requires a separate investigation. The historical circumstances were not conducive to the preservation of extensive epics and independent commentaries, a situation that is not unusual in Indo-European cultures with an oral structure. The state of documentation, however, should not be interpreted as a “thinning out” of national cults or as the “early stages” of religion, as was done in the context of “manistic” or “totemic” interpretations, which have now been abandoned. The source material exhibits traditional constants, the explanation of which requires an appropriate methodology. The new field of research known as comparative mythodology is a great help in this respect, esp. with regard to everything that has to do with cosmic gods (sun, moon, Dioscuri). – To be added to these two groups of sources are ritual-folkloristic material and archaeological elements, the value of which is not to be underestimated, even if they represent testimonies of an unwritten kind. III. General Description Baltic religion is to be regarded as an ethnic religion that stands in close relationship to the life of the people. When → Jerome of Prague had the sacred trees felled, the Lithuanians emigrated. The group leader (head of the family, clan chief, or king) is also the one who performs the cult. There seems to be no independent class of functionaries for word and cult, despite the significance of the priest Krive of Ramove in Nadrovia, who is mentioned by Peter of Dusburg. An organic polytheism guarantees continuity between divine, human, and natural realities “in accordance with the diversity of places, people, and their needs,” as a pagan priest explained to the Jesuit Stribing in 1606. Numerous trees, forests, and sacred springs represent the world divinity. The functional Indo-European tripartite division (G. → Dumézil) was known at least to the Prussians. They illustrate the three levels of Baltic gods: the old man Patollo is a frightening sovereign; to Perkuno, the flame-crowned, one consecrates the eternal fire; and Potrimp(p)o is a young man crowned with swords. The theonyms point to natural forces, be it as representatives of a natural phenomenon (bangputys, Lithuanian, “who

Baltzer, Eduard Wilhelm blows over the waves”), as bearers of a function (laukasargai, Lithuanian: “protector of the field”), or as abstract personifications. The numerous Latvian mother-divinities (wind, forest, yeast) represent the potency inherent to the phenomena. The genealogical kinship of the gods underlines their common theological features. IV. Gods and Human Beings The opposites “deiva” and “velina” represent the “day sky” and the “night sky” of the Indo-European “cosmic religion” (Haudry). Le Dìevs (Latvian), Diēvas (Lithuanian), is a divinity of light who serves as guarantor of sincerity and harmony. Velns (Latvian), Velinas (Lithuanian), presides over the spirits of the dead (veli-), whose name later went into the “devil” of the Christians. Saule (Latvian), the virgin and later divine consort, is the sun (goddess) who is assigned to the Dioscuri “sons of Dìevs,” who accompany her and, according to numerous “daiflnas,” also court her. Aušriné (Lithuanian) is the dawn, whereas Auseklis (Latvian) is the helper of Saule. As in India, Baltic religion has also preserved the memory of a hostile dawn that one must tear away from the sun. Ménesis, the moon, is the Latvian god of war who presides over nocturnal “male alliances.” In Lithuania, by contrast, Ménuo is the messenger of fortune who, newly in love, has to endure numerous trials. Both triumph over night (in accordance with a “heroic” conception of divinity). The most important Baltic divinity is without doubt Perkùnas (Lithuanian), Pērkons (Latvian), the thunderbolt-hurling god and lord of the storm, who thus – secondarily, as the guarantor of fruitfulness – became the recipient of sacrifices. In the “daiflnas,” he fought against Velns with his sword. Holy fires, which were lit by the first mythical king, burned for him in the vicinity of Vilnius. In addition to the gods of the universe, who originated from Indo-European cosmology, the gods and spirits of the “third function,” such as the Jumis (“twins”) of linen, have also kept the favor of the farmers. Also attested are the goddesses of fate, such as Laima/Nelaima “fortune/misfortune,” and Karta, “the one who apportions fate.” The Lithuanian cosmogonies attest to a conception of world eras and to several generations of gods, giants, and humans, who are assigned to cyclical periods. People and gods live in a cooperative relationship with each other. Plants and animals were sacrificed to the forces of nature according to their function, and sometimes prisoners to the god of war. For a long time people venerated sacred stones and kept snakes in the family in order to consult the omens. Apart from public cultic performances, the local spirit (Dimstipatis, Lithuanian) was worshipped in prayer. Stribing has described the group experience of sacred festivals: the

566 god is called, hosted, bidden farewell, and everyone takes part in the banquet. Eastertide, the date of the pagan festival of the northern lights, and the solstice (Saulgreizi, Lithuanian) are cultically significant parts of the year. The purpose of associations, in addition to strengthening solidarity in general, was to ward off demons in dangerous times. Not until the CounterReformation were any attempts undertaken to suppress them, together with the wolf sickness (lycanthropy), as acts of witchery. The cult of the spirits of the dead represents a different conception of the hereafter, according to which the soul of the dead person is either taken up into the community of dead spirits (vċlės, Lithuanian) or else ascends into the world of light. Both “ways,” which are well attested in the daiflnas, correspond to archaic Indo-European conceptions. Historically, in the Baltic area, burial and cremation have superseded each other or existed side by side. Funerary meals are described by all commentators. The cultic place of assembly was often the forest, though specific cultic facilities are also attested. K. Barons, Latvju Daiflnas, vols. I–VIII, 21922 ◆ W. Mannhardt, Letto-preußische Götterlehre, 1936 ◆ H. Biezais, “Die Religionsquellen der baltischen Völker und die Ergebnisse der bisherigen Forschungen,” Jahrbuch der Gustav Adolf Akademie 9, 1953, 65–128 ◆ H. Biezais, “Baltische Religion,” in: A.V. Ström & H. Biezais, Germanische und Baltische Religion, 1975, 311–91 (bibl.) ◆ A.J. Greimas, Des Dieux et des Hommes, 1985 ◆ J.Haudry, La religion cosmique des Indo-Européens, 1987 ◆ P. Jouët, Religion et Mythologie des Baltes, 1989. Philippe Jouët

Baltzer, Eduard Wilhelm (Oct 24, 1811, Hohenleina, district of Merseburg – Jun 24, 1887, Durlach). After theological studies in Leipzig and Halle (1834– 1838), and a diaconate in Delitzsch (1841), Baltzer’s election to a pastorate in Nordhausen (previously Halle) was not confirmed by the consistory because of his intercession on behalf of the → Lichtfreunde (Friends of Light). He thereupon founded a “free Protestant congregation” in Nordhausen. Until 1881, Baltzer was also the head of the “Union of Free Protestant Congregations.” His struggle for a free Christianity corresponded to his commitment to democracy (Frankfurt Preliminary Parliament, Prussian National Assembly, chairman of city councils) and the implementation of social reforms (1851: first Prussian kindergarten; 1867: first German vegetarian society). Baltzer is among the most important and original representatives of the Lichtfreunde (Friends of Light). Works include: Delitzsch-Halle-Nordhausen oder mein Weg aus der Landeskirche in die freie protestantische Gemeinde, 1847 ◆ Alte und neue Weltanschauung, 1850–1852 ◆ Ideen zur socialen Reform, 1873 ◆ On Baltzer: H. Heine, “Eduard Baltzer,” in: Mitteldeutsche Lebensbilder, vol. IV, 1929, 322–341. Helmut Obst

567

Banerjea, Krishna Mohan Bamberg.

I. City – II. Diocese – III. Bishopric – IV. Archbishopric

I. City Though Bamberg is not documented until the 10th century, excavations on the Domberg (the site of the castle) have revealed traces of occupation dating from the period of the Hallstatt culture and from the 8th century. After changing hands a number of times, the main settlement on the Domberg became the seat of a territorial dominion (with corresponding church) and fell to Heinrich II of Germany, who donated it to his wife Cunigunde of Luxemburg in 997 and began the construction of a church on the Domberg in 1002. This became the cathedral of the diocese of Bamberg, which was founded in the year 1007. One of the major urban centers of the Holy Roman Empire from the 11th to the 13th century, Bamberg consisted of a church-dominated settlement with cathedral, episcopal residence, capitular curiae, townhouses belonging to the nobility and the cloisters, a market town at the foot of the Domberg (im Sand ), and a Jewish settlement. Ecclesiastical immunity was granted to the four monasteries. There were two city parishes as well as hospitals and convents founded by the burghers for the mendicant orders. A cathedral school existed during the High Middle Ages, a church seminary from 1586, an academy from 1647. The latter became a university in 1773, but lost this status in 1803 and subsequently functioned as a lyceum for philosophy and theology. It merged with the college of education in 1972 to form the comprehensive academy, which became a university in 1979. II. Diocese Created in 1007 by King Heinrich II for political, missionary and personal reasons, the diocese of Bamberg was put together from parts of the dioceses of → Würzburg and → Eichstätt and declared exempt in 1020. It was granted the pallium in 1053, parallel to the curtailment of the metropolitan privileges of Mainz. Bishop Suidger became Pope → Clement II (tomb inside the cathedral). Prince bishops belonging to the nobility were active as builders and sponsors of social-charitable initiatives (hospital). In the wake of the Reformation in the 16th century, only 150 parishes remained from 500. III. Bishopric Donations by Heinrich II formed the basis of the dominion of the bishops, whose castle-protected territories extended into the diocese of Würzburg. Election capitulations through which the cathedral chapter exerted influence on governance are attested from 1328. This temporal dominion was abolished in 1802 in the wake of secularization.

IV. Archbishopric As a consequence of the Bavarian Concordat, the archbishopric was created for northern Bavaria in 1817. It encompassed the suffragans of Eichstätt, Würzburg, and → Speyer and became a metropolitan chapter in 1821. Pastoral care was extended to the diaspora of the 19th century and further intensified after 1945. The Catholic population numbers 795,775 (compared to 1.18 million non-Catholics), organized in 21 deaneries, 306 parishes, 34 curates, and 27 subsidiary church congregations. J. Looshorn, Die Geschichte des Bisthums Bamberg, 7 vols., 1886– 1907 ◆ J. Kist, Fürst- und Erzbistum Bamberg, 1962 ◆ J. Urban & W. Zeissner, Das Bistum Bamberg in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4 vols., 1992–1996 (bibl.). Josef Urban

Bancroft, Richard (1544, Farnworth, Lancashire – Nov 2, 1610, London), opponent of Puritanism (→ Puritans and Puritanism) and advocate of episcopacy. Educated in Cambridge, he became bishop of London in 1597 and archbishop of Canterbury in 1604. His efforts to safeguard the independence of ecclesiastical courts failed, but he did reestablish the episcopacy in Scotland. R. Bancroft, A Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline, 1593, repr. 1972 ◆ W.H. Frere, ed., Puritan Manifestoes, 1907 ◆ A. Peel, ed., Tracts ascribed to Richard Bancroft, 1953 ◆ On Bancroft: S.B. Babbage, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, 1962. Frederick V. Mills Sr.

Banerjea, Krishna Mohan (May 24, 1813, Calcutta – May 11, 1884, Calcutta). Born into an orthodox Brahmin family in Calcutta, Banerjea began to have doubts about his ancestral religion while still in school. He found a new perspective through his encounter with the Scottish missionary A. → Duff, under whose influence he was baptized in 1832 in a Presbyterian church. His theological studies ended with his ordination in an Anglican congregation, which he left to become professor of theology at Bishops College, Calcutta – a career that seemed perfectly in tune with Duff ’s model of a synthesis combining Christian faith with Western education. When Banerjea retired from active teaching in 1867, however, he came forward with a new conception that assured him a special place in the history of Indian Christian theology: going beyond → Hinduism and Christianity, Banerjea returned to the → Vedas, the earliest stratum of religious tradition in India. He believed that sacrifice could be identified as the central concept of the Vedas, especially in the self-sacrifice of Prajāpati, the lord of the universe, which he viewed as presaging the ultimate fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ – a grandiose scheme of a “cosmic religion” that seemed to open a path of salvation for India. Modern Hinduism with all its various schools had nothing comparable to

Báñez, Domingo offer. After 1875, Banerjea developed this concept in The Arian Witness, basing it in part on the theory that the Jewish and Indo-Arian races shared a common origin, as did Hebrew and Sanskrit. Banerjea did not attract a following in his own time, but has recently become the object of renewed interest as one of the “pioneers of indigenous Christianity.” K. Baago, Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, 1969 ◆ M.M. Thomas & P.T. Thomas, Towards an Indian Christian Theology, 1992 ◆ T.V. Philip, Krishna Mohan Banerjea, Christian Apologetic, 1982. Hans-Werner Gensichen

Báñez, Domingo (Bañes) (Feb 29, 1528, Valladolid – Oct 21, 1604, Medina del Campo) was a Spanish theologian of Basque extraction. He entered the Dominican order in 1547, studied theology in Salamanca from 1548 to 1552 under D. de → Soto and M. → Cano, and taught in various educational institutions belonging to his order from 1552 to 1577. During his assignment in Ávila (1561–1566), he was father confessor and adviser to → Theresa of Avila. From 1577 to 1599, he was professor of theology at the University of → Salamanca . Báñez’s scholastic commentaries, which represent a successful synthesis of the work of his predecessors, display, in conscious distance to humanistically-influenced theological literature, a strict logical argumentation aimed, in contrast to the first representatives of the school of Salamanca, at a rigorously exclusive Thomism (→ Thomas Aquinas). Báñez played a prominent role in the controversy over the doctrine of grace that arose between → Dominicans and → Jesuits. P. di Vona, Studi sulla scolastica della Controriforma, 1968 ◆ U. Horst, “Kirche und Papst nach Dominicus Báñez,” FZPhTh 18, 1971, 213–254 ◆ Miscelánea Beltrán de Heredia, vol. 3, 1972, 7–165 ◆ F. Domínguez Reboiras, Gaspar de Grajal (1530–1575): “Frühneuzeitliche Bibelwissenschaft im Streit mit Universität und Inquisition”, see diss., 1998, 561–597. Fernando Domínguez Reboiras

Bangladesh (autochthonous religions, → India). Bangladesh covers an area of 143,998 km2 and has a population of 141 million, of which 98% are Bengali. Thus, Bangladesh is an ethnically, culturally, and religiously homogeneous country. 87% are Muslims (mostly Sunni); 12% Hindus; 0.6% Buddhists; 0.3% Christians, primarily members of lower Hindu casts and castless groups as well as ethnic minorities (as of 1998). – Bangladesh is one of the countries most affected by global warming and will lose, according to the prognosis of the World Commission for Climate Change, roughly a third of its land surface by the year 2030. The first Catholic missionaries came with Portuguese traders in the 16th century. The first diocese, however, was only established in 1886. The Catholic Church developed best in the urban context, especially

568 in Dacca. Today, 0.2% of the population are Catholic. All four bishops are from Bangladesh, while up to 75% of the priests come from abroad. – Protestant missionary work began in 1793 with W. → Carey, i.e. by AngloSaxon Baptists. Since approx. 1850, Australian and New Zealand Baptist missionaries have been working in what is today Bangladesh. At the end of the civil war and the beginning of Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the Baptist church received the name “Bangladesh Baptist Sangha” or “Baptist Union of Bangladesh,” with 35,000 members the largest Protestant denomination. It is dedicated primarily to the medical care of the population. The Church of Bangladesh has approximately 18,000 members; it owes its existence to the missionary work of the English Anglicans (→ Anglican Church: II) and → Presbyterians (III) in the 19th century and encourages inter-religious contact between Hindus and Moslems. Its membership includes small farmers and poor classes in particular. They maintain elementary schools and hospitals and are engaged in programs for family planning. In addition, there is the Garo Baptist Union supported by Australian missions (c. 18,000 members), the Sylhet Presbyterian Synod (c. 10,000 members), the Evangelical Christian Church (c. 15,000 members), the Northern Evangelical Lutheran Church, the result of the Santal Mission, which received the support of Lutheran mission societies in Norway, Denmark, and the USA, and finally the Church of Sylhet founded by Welsh Presbyterians. The East Pakistan Christian Council, today the Bangladesh National Council of Churches (BNCC), comprising 10 churches along with mission societies and other institutions, was founded in 1954. The Bangladesh Baptist Sangha and the Church of Bangladesh belong to the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA) and the → World Council of Churches. The churches in Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries on earth, have distinguished themselves through comprehensive aid programs, both during the civil war (1971– 1972) as well as during the frequent flood catastrophes. After the independence of → Pakistan, the Republic of Bangladesh was at first a secular socialist state that guaranteed religious freedom by explicitly anchoring it in the constitution of 1972. The fact that Islam has been the state religion since 1975 requires special understanding on the part of the Christian minority, especially in its cooperation with the Islamic state regarding institutions of education and health. S. Islam, ed., History of Bangladesh, 3 vols., 1992 ◆ A. Datta, ed., Die neuen Mauern, 1993 ◆ idem, “Bangladesh,” in: D. Nohlen & F. Nuscheler, eds., Handbuch der Dritten Welt VII, 1994, 162–191 ◆ D. Reinhardt, Die Katastrophe, die Not und das Geschäft, 1997. Wolfgang Gern

569 Banishment I. Comparative Religion – II. Biblical – III. Church History

I. Comparative Religion The terminology and conception of banishment develop primarily in the context of legal language. Commandments and prohibitions require sanctioning, must become authoritative, and are thus connected with magical incantations (→ Magic). In popular culture, the verbs “to ban” and “to arrest” refer to magical acts and words (spells) that are intended to render objects, living things or humans harmless, to temporarily paralyze, impede or otherwise impair or influence them. Apart from exorcising demons (→ Exorcism), the Roman Catholic Church also practices liturgical exorcisms of objects that are thought to have magical salvific effects. The problem of banishment refers first of all to the legal, religious or religio-legal sanctioning of the corporative group identity. By means of legal and/or magical acts, the community’s socio-moral or religio-cultic integrity is to be secured. Protective measures may include killing, expulsion, confiscation or destruction of the property of individuals or groups that violate the internal order. In order to keep the life-enabling community (the village or nomadic group) pure, ordered and holy, the death and expulsion penalties are standardized. The Decalogue and Islamic ˙aad-penalties (Koranic punishment), as well as apostasy and heresy partially belong in the context of banishment. The socio-moral identity, which is to be protected from transgressions, is symbolically set apart as a holy person, object, group or sacred sphere by means of offerings that are to be destroyed (see below II). The inwards and outwards directed dimensions of power and aggression, which are characteristic of the social-moral magical processes of identity-building, converge in the religious concept of the “holy.” In Germanic laws, outlawry (proscription) was imposed as a legal penalty for murder, homicide, severe bodily harm, robbery, theft, arson, witchcraft, infidelity, perjury, defamation, rape, incest, abduction of a woman, etc. The regulations concerning violations of the sanctity of the home in the Lex Visigothorum Recessvindiana VI, 4, 2 (6th cent.; Aqvist) secured the territorial and social sphere of the household against armed aggressions. If the intruder was killed, no compensation claims could be made. Similar conceptions are also found in non-European tribal laws. The murder of parents and incest are dealt with by means of social isolation and the institutionalization of religio-magical sanctions. The person who gravely violates the social and communicative principles of the communal group is banished. In ancient law and sacral law, banishment exists in a wide variety of forms (e.g. the Roman law code of the

Banishment Twelve Tables, the Greek procedure of ostracism, etc.). Religious conceptions have produced complex articulations of the fundamental experience that the identityconstituting communal group represents the sphere of life, while exclusion from the group is tantamount to death. Thus, the authority to impose communal imprecatory-magical sanctions is also a matter of (religio-) legal power structures. These ancient, (ancient) Near Eastern, and tribal conceptions are found, inter alia, in Islamic regulations concerning apostasy and in modern religious communities (so-called cultic groups). In the context of banishment, the authority of the various sacral laws to “bind and loose” secures basic resources such as territoriality and compliance witht the fundamental norms regulating the exercise of power, the distribution of goods, and the building of consensus. H. Siuts, Bann und Acht und ihre Grundlagen im Totenglauben, 1959 ◆ P. Bohannan, ed., African Homicide and Suicide, 1960 ◆ G. Haenel, ed., Lex Romana Visigothorum, 1962 ◆ F. Steiner, Taboo, 1965 ◆ P. Bohannan, ed., Law and Warfare, 1967 ◆ H. Aqvist, Frieden und Eidschwur, 1968 ◆ W. Speyer, “Fluch,” RAC VII, 1969, 1160–1288 ◆ I.-M. Greverus, Der territoriale Mensch, 1972 ◆ S. Roberts, Order and Dispute, 1979 ◆ T. Malmberg, Human Territoriality, 1980 ◆ R.D. Sack, Human Territoriality, 1986 ◆ H.-P. Hasenfratz, Die toten Lebenden, 1988 ◆ M. Daly & M. Wilson, Homicide, 1988 ◆ H. Motzki, Die Anfänge der islamischen Jurisprudenz, 1991 ◆ D. Flach, Die Gesetze der frühen römischen Republik, 1994 ◆ A. Demandt, ed., Mit Fremden leben, 1995. Hermann Schulz

II. Biblical 1. Old Testament. “Banishment” is the translation of Hebrew .  (˙erem). I. The common Semitic root ˙rm appears in the context of “segregation,” “prohibition,” and “consecration” (Lohfink, 201). Óerem denotes religiously motivated war practices and civil cultic acts. That which is to be banned for YHWH is excluded, used separately or destroyed. There is no historical evidence, in Israel itself, for the use of ˙erem in the sense of a “destructive consecration,” although the Moabite King Mesa (→ Moab; KAI 181,17) does employ it as an act of war in one isolated case. Both in Moabite and in Hebrew, “˙erem = extermination” is always accompanied by verbs of killing and destruction. Óerem is the means whereby a conflict between YHWH, Israel and a third-party is resolved. Exod 22:19, the oldest text referring to ˙erem, threatens the one who offers sacrifice to another god with banishment. This means exclusion from the group of those who participate in the cult of YHWH. The integrity of the cult-community of YHWH is based on the exclusivity of the sacrifice to YHWH. The one belonging to it must be holy (Exod 22:30a); the one to be excluded is ˙erem (Exod 22:19; Ezra 10:8). Óerem is the antithesis to the sphere of the holy (Lev 27:28–30; Josh 7:12f.). Offerings consecrated to YHWH may be designated as ˙erem; their

Banishment use is reserved for priests alone (Lev 27:21, 28; Ezek 44:29). In the OT, YHWH is Lord of the ˙erem performance. In the prophetic books, YHWH or Zion/Judah acts as the subject in the execution of the ban, while the nations are its object (Isa 11:15; 34:2, 5; Jer 50:21; 51:3; Mic 4:13). When Israel neglects the agreement with YHWH, it is itself threatened with ˙erem ( Jer 25:9; Isa 43:28; Mal 3:24). In all other texts, Israel is the subject of the ˙erem; other nations or members of its own people are the object. According to Deuteronomic theory, the nations of Canaan are a religious threat to Israel, as they could entice them into worshipping other deities. Hence, they are subject to the ˙erem (Deut 20:17ff.). This conception of the consecration for destruction by order of YHWH is developed within the framework of the conquest fiction. The depiction of the wars of ˙erem is influenced by ancient Near Eastern war ideology (Younger). In Josh 2–8, the execution of the ˙erem is the criterion for Israel’s obedience to YHWH (Mitchell, 51–82). Violation of the first commandment by an Israelite city renders it subject to the consecration for destruction (Deut 13:13–18). The submission to the will of YHWH is the reason for the sparing of Rahab and Gibeon ( Josh 2:9–13; 9:9, 24). C.H.W. Brekelmans, De ˙erem in het Oude Testament, 1959 ◆ N. Lohfink, art. “. ,” ThWAT III, 1982, 192–213 (ET: TDOT V, 1986, 180–199) ◆ K.L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, JSOT.S 98, 1990 ◆ G. Mitchell, Together in the Land. A Reading of the Book of Joshua, JSOT.S 134, 1993 ◆ C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Bedeutung und Funktion von Óerem in bibl.-hebr. Texten,” BZ 38, 1994, 270–275. Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger

2. New Testament. In the LXX ἀνάϑεμα/anáthema (for Attic ἀνάθημα/anáthēma; → anàthema) – meaning “sanctified,” “offered” – and its corresponding verb serve to translate the Hebrew forms of .  (cf. above II, 1). In the NT (Acts 23:12, 14, 21), the verb designates a conditional self-curse with the same meaning as in the Greek of 1 En. 6:5 (cf. also Mark 14:71). Apart from Acts 23:14, the verb occurs only in the writings of Paul in the NT. In Rom 9:3, Paul expresses the unrealizable wish to become ἀνάθεμα in favor of his Jewish brothers (cf. Moses, Exod 32:32). Here as in 1 Cor 12:3, the use of ἀνάθεμα possibly indicates that Jewish opponents had cursed Paul and Jesus (Brun, 127, 118). Ἀνάθεμα ἸησοËς is not likely to have been shouted in the Corinthian worship service; Paul attributes this hypothetical outburst to demonic inspiration (12:2) and confronts it with the Corinthian confession “Jesus is Lord.” The ἀνάθεμα spoken in 1 Cor 16:22 is addressed to outsiders rather than to the participants in the worship who had been dismissed before communion (cf. Did 9:4; Forkman, 171, contra Bornkamm). – Ἀνάθεμα is not employed as a formula of excommunication in the NT. For the → excommunication of a

570 wrongdoer, Paul uses an eschatological curse (1 Cor 5:5, “handing over to Satan” is understood as a formal parallel to the handing over of humans to the demons of the underworld). By means of the conditional curse upon himself in Gal 1:8–9, Paul avoids the public curse of others (Betz, 53), which was forbidden in early Christian → parenesis (Matt 5:44 par.; Rom 12:14; Jas 3:9; Did 1:3). From the 4th century on the church used “let him be accursed” (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, Gal 1:8–9) as a formula for excommunicating heretics; this use is perhaps already suggested in the Gnostic Testim. Truth (NHC IX, 3, 73: 18–22). L. Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum, 1932 ◆ K. Behm, ἀνάθεμα, ἀνάθημα, κατἀθεμα, ThWNT I, 1933, 356f. (ET: TDNT I, 1964, 354f .) ◆ G. Bornkamm, “Das Anathema in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsliturgie,” ThLZ 75, 1950, 227–230 ◆ K. Hofmann, “Anathema,” RAC I, 1950, 427 ◆ W. Wiefel, “Fluch und Sakralrecht,” Numen 16, 1969, 211–233 ◆ G. Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community, CB.NT 5, 1972 ◆ H.D. Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia, 1979 ◆ C.-H. Hunzinger, “Bann” II/2, TRE V, 1980, 164–167. Birger A. Pearson

III. Church History Since the early Middle Ages, banishment (also) characterizes the full authority of the bishop, especially with reference to → excommunication in cases involving notorious offences. This gave rise to an ecclesiastical adjudication procedure ( forum externum) that was increasingly distinguished from the penance procedure ( forum internum). Banishment is a legal act with the didactic aim of effecting an improvement in behavior. Until his readmittance upon betterment, however, the person affected by the ban is not merely excluded from the external church as a sacramental community, but also from any entitlement to salvation. The banished individual loses all ecclesiastical privileges, whereas the legal claim of the church to his person remains fully valid by virtue of the indelible effect of baptism. At first, banishment was solely imposed upon individuals following a proper adjudication procedure (excommunicatio ferendae sententiae); since the 12th century, excommunication is generally decreed for those who commit certain offences (excommunicatio latae sententiae; papal bull In coena Domini, first issued in 1363). While the Minor Banishment (excommunicatio minor) only excluded from the community of the sacraments, the Major Banishment (excommunicatio maior) had far more serious consequences in the Middle Ages and also involved a considerable curtailment of wordly privileges in the military and judicial sectors (Ger. “Acht,” as in a decree of Frederick II from 1220 and in the Sachsenspiegel). Since the → Investiture Controversy, the ecclesiastical use of banishment as an instrument of (attempted) executive power became inflated. A significant innovation is the extension of the threat of banishment to other areas of jurisdiction,

571 for instance as a contractual penalty in the loan sector. While wrongfully imposed banishment is invalid, it becomes valid as soon as the banished person violates it, as this makes him guilty of stubbornness. Luther (“Sermon on banishment,” 1519) greatly reduced the scope of banishment: not the external disciplinary sanctioning of the constitutional church, but only sin in the strict sense of unbelief is capable of depriving the Christian of salvation. He approves of the Minor Banishment as a temporary exclusion of grave sinners from the sacramental community, but rejects the Major Banishment with the legal consequences that turn it into a secular punishment. Lutheran conceptions of church order increasingly shift the authority to impose banishment away from the church and its pastors, and toward the superintendent and the consistory. Since the issuing of M. → Bucer’s “Discipline of Ziegenhain,” the power of banishment in the jurisdiction area of the Reformed Church remains the responsibility of the individual congregation and is exercised in cooperation with ministers and elders. Here again, various entanglements with the legal practices of secular authorities tend to occur. In both contexts, the separation between “Minor” and “Major” Banishment was not applied consistently in practice. → Church discipline and banishment became sanctions that considerably diminished the legal civic status of those affected; indeed, they virtually became duplicates of civil penalties. As a result of the possibility afforded to the affluent to avert banishment through monetary payments, and of the rulers to grant dispensations, the credibility of this ecclesiastical method of discipline was altogether undermined. During the 18th century, the practice of banishment was, if at all, settled monetarily. H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. I, 1962 ◆ M. Muster, “Das Ende der Kirchenbusse,” Dissertation, 1983 ◆ R. Merz, Die numinose Mischgestalt, 1994 ◆ L. Schorn-Schütte, Geistlichkeit in der Frühneuzeit, QFRG 62, 1996 ◆ T. Kaufmann, Die Rostocker Theologieprofessoren im konfessionellen Zeitalter, QFRG 64, 1997. Martin Ohst

Banks provide several basic services: they facilitate saving and investing, provide capital, help people build homes or purchase durable goods, and enable monetary transactions. They also provide tools for individual and commercial cash management. By accepting funds as deposits and extending loans, they function as intermediaries between savers and investors. They consolidate many small savings accounts to finance large-scale investments. They mediate between the expectations of savers concerning the time their deposits are held and the expectations of investors concerning loan periods; they assume the risk when savings are passed on as loans. Thus, banks can make the necessary transformation of savings into investments more efficient. This is their central macroeconomic function. They also have

Banner a social function: in accordance with the autonomous laws of → economy and → commerce as well as the principle of economic rationality, they enhance the power of commerce and hence the economic foundation for social progress. Profit realized through competition shows that the activity of banks contributes to the increased availability of desired goods and services. Ethical responsibility arises both from the immediate business relationships of banks and from their position in the economic system. Banks have an obligation to the depositors who entrust their money to them, relying on their financial soundness. As partners in commercial enterprises, banks must share the responsibility for their long-term success. The solid economic foundation of individual banks is also important for the stability of the whole financial system. The state must create a framework for the banking system: regulations governing the activities of banks, supervision ensuring that the regulations are followed, and a stable currency, for which the central bank is primarily responsible. A stable currency is necessary for people to be willing to save, for banks to be prepared to offer long-term loans at a fixed interest, and for financial markets to be able to carry out their functions in support of the real economy. Experience shows that monetary instability penalizes people with low and fixed incomes. A.-F. Jacob, ed., Bankenmacht und Ethik, 1990 ◆ N. Kloten & J.H. von Stein, eds., Geld-, Bank- und Börsenwesen, 1993 ◆ H. Pohl, ed., Europäische Bankengeschichte, 1993 ◆ H. Hesse & O. Issing, eds., Geld und Moral, 1994. Hans Tietmeyer

Banner I. Liturgy – II. Art History → Sacred Objects

I. Liturgy Nowadays, the liturgical use of banners in the Catholic Church is mostly limited to processions. The former custom of decorating the triumphal cross with a victory banner during Eastertide was derived from the symbolism of the banner as the victory banner of the risen Lord. The Rituale Romanum 9, I, 5 requires church banners to be real banners. Ecclesiastical organizations are allowed only flags and pennants. The church does not use banners as tokens of sovereignty such as the banners and flags of secular states. In Protestantism, a banner with a purple cross on a white background has become the symbol of the churches of the Reformation since 1926. – The church banner probably inspired the velamen (“veil”) covering the → monstrance displayed on the altar during the sermon, in order to shield it from the gaze of the congregation (Congregatio rituum, May 10, 1890, no. 3728.2). J. Braun, Die liturgischen Paramente, 1911, 21924, 236–239 ◆ G. Stuhlfanth, RGG2 III, 1929, 881–882 (bibl.) ◆ F. Santy, ed.,

Banns of Marriage

572

Met Vlag en Wimpel: Een banistische kijk op de christelijke arbeidersbeweging in Vlaanderen, Exhibition Gent 1985, 97–143.

II. Art History The banner (vexilla) consists of a cruciform standard, usually of wood, with a long shaft. The fabric, which is normally decorated on both sides, is attached to the movable crossbar with loops or rings; its bottom edge is decorated with scallops or fringes, and tassels are sometimes attached to the top. In the course of the 19th century, its originally small dimensions increased until it reached a length of more than 8 feet. The basic fabric (silk, less often linen), bearing religious motifs or symbols, may be painted or printed, but is usually decorated with various embroidery techniques. Banners need not correspond to the canon of liturgical colors. The prototype of the church banner is the → labarum of → Constantine the Great (Eus. Vita Const. I, 28), which derives from the standards of the Roman army; the symbolism of the banner as the victory banner of the risen Lord was suggested in turn by Isa 7:14. The earliest representations of banners are found in the Troparion of Prüm (c. 990) and a fresco in the lower church of San Clemente in Rome (c. 1070). They are first mentioned in the decretals of → Lanfranc (d. 1089). From the 12th or 13th century onward, banners increasingly appear in inventories, rituals, and liturgical works by authors such as → Rupert of Deutz, → Honorius of Autun, and Guillaume Durand (d. 1296). Since the Renaissance, banners have been sketched by painters (→ Raphael, A. → Dürer). C. Erdmann, Die Wappen und die Fahne der römischen Kirche, 1931 ◆ O. Neubecker, Fahnen und Flaggen, 1939 ◆ R.W. Witte, Das katholische Gotteshaus, 1939, 21951 (bibl.) ◆ R. Fattlinger, Liturgisch-praktische Requisitenkunde, 1955 ◆ F. SchmidtClausing, RGG3III, 1959, 1418–1419 ◆ T. Gebhard, Die Fahne der Passauer Marianischen Bürgerkongregation, BJVK, 1961 ◆ B. Tietzel, Paramente des 19. Jahrhunderts aus Kölner Kirchenbesitz, Exhibition Cologne 1981, 42–51. Gudrun Sporbeck

Banns of Marriage. At an early stage in the development of legal systems, it was common practice to make public announcements of legal proceedings that were of general concern; this practice extended to projected marriages. When the church expanded its authority to include → marriage, it published the banns of forthcoming marriages, primarily to bring any obstacles to light. Following Luther’s instructions (Traubüchlein, 1529), the churches of the Reformation used the publishing of banns as an occasion for liturgical intercession, a practice still provided for in today’s liturgy. In the future, German laws governing civil marriage will drop the practice. W. Ogris I, HDRG I, 1971, 247–250.

Dietrich Pirson

Bantu. The term “Bantu” was introduced into African linguistics in 1858 by W.H.I. Bleek to designate the prefixing class languages. He chose the word bantu (“people”), since it appears in similar form in almost all these languages. The Bantu live south of a line running from Mount Cameroon to the Tana delta in Kenya. It is difficult to identify common cultural traits shared by all Bantu. They practice hoe cultivation and raise small cattle. In eastern and southern Africa, however, they show a stronger tendency to animal husbandry. For all Bantu, the ancestor cult plays an important role in everyday religious life, as do spirits and fetishes. Creator gods are always present, but are never the object of intense devotion. Many supreme beings are conceived in terms so general and abstract that they really cannot be called deities. Pictorial representations of creator gods are almost unknown, but ancestors and the dynamic magical spirits known as nkisi (fetishes) are represented in many forms: anthropomorphic figurines, masks, abstract figures, even unsightly medicine pouches. Many Bantu creator gods exhibit hermaphrodite traits or possess a chthonic and a celestial aspect. In the old Congo mission, the figure on the cross was sometimes represented as both man and woman, since many Bantu believe that anything great must necessarily be both male and female, just as the masculine heaven and the female earth constitute a whole. J.S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, 1969 ◆ idem, Concepts of God in Africa, 1970 ◆ W. MacGaffey, “Comparative Analysis of Central African Religions,” Africa 42, 1972, 21–31 ◆ J.F. Thiel, Ahnen, Geister, Höchste Wesen, 1977 ◆ W.J.G. Möhlig, “Stratification in the History of the Bantu Languages,” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika III, 1981, 251–316 ◆ H. Jungraithmayr & W.J.G. Möhlig, eds., Lexikon der Afrikanistik, 1983 ◆ J.F. Thiel, “Zur Diachronie des Nzambi-Namens in Bantu-Afrika,” ZE 108, 1983, 105–131. Josef F. Thiel

Baptism I. History of Religion – II. New Testament – III. Church History – IV. Dogmatics – V. Practical Theology – VI. History of Liturgy – VII. Law – VIII. Missions – IX. Art

I. History of Religion From the standpoint of the history of religion, baptism is not a general type of rite (→ Rite and Ritual) but a lustration ritual that is carried out not only in Christianity but also in historically related religions such as → Judaism and → Mandaeanism. Baptism developed from the lustration rituals of ancient Near Eastern river civilizations, but the details of this development remain largely hidden. In the late period of the Second Temple, baptism was practiced in various forms in several communities, by the → Essenes (→ Qumran), → John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus (but not by Jesus himself ), the → Elkesaites, etc.

573 In the 19th century the term baptism was also applied to rituals serving as rites of admission similar to Christian baptism: for example, the naojote in → Parsism. Even within the context of the baptismal rite of religions emerging from the world of ancient Judaism, the numerical and socio-political dominance of Christianity makes use of the term baptism problematic, because Christian practice often constitutes the archetype of baptism, and the history of baptism since ancient times is effectively identical with the history of the Christian rite of baptism. In almost all cases, baptism denotes a washing of the head or the whole body. As in bathing, the most often used medium of baptism is → water, e.g. the “living” – i.e. flowing – water of baptism, the yardna (“→ Jordan”), in which the Mandaeans practiced their rite of baptism (masbuta). Whereas the Mandaeans had a triple total immersion, in Christianity there is a great variety of baptismal rituals: the sprinkling of infants (as refreshment and thus a symbol of the gift of the Spirit), pouring (washing away as a symbol for the forgiveness of sins), or a single or triple immersion (baptism of death, cf. Rom 6); further, baptism occurs in the name of the Trinity, in the name of Jesus, etc. Correct baptismal practice was the subject of hot dispute during the Reformation, leading to splits in Christian communities (→ Anabaptists). In addition to water, other means of baptism were known: for example, washing with oil, which is usually called → anointing, and washing with the blood of a sacrificed animal, as in the taurobolium in ancient mystery cults (→ Mystery Religions: I; II; → Mithraic Religion: II), can be regarded as a kind of baptism. Pentecostal Christians (→ Pentecostalism) know a baptism of the Holy Spirit, a spontaneous and emotional experience of the presence of the Spirit of God, which is manifested esp. in → glossolalia. Metaphorically one also speaks of a baptism by → fire; in ancient times martyrdom (→ Martyr) was understood as a substitute for baptism. In the NT (see II below) the Greek term βαπτίζειν/ baptízein is sometimes used in reference to lifeless objects, whereas today baptism denotes almost exclusively the washing of a human being. While as a rule the baptism candidate personally receives the baptism, in some cases baptism by proxy is also known; Mandaeans and → Mormons even practice a baptism by proxy for the dead; in the baptism of infants in Christianity, → Godparents are understood as a kind of proxy, although they do not participate in the water rite. Moreover, baptism is not self-washing (cf. e.g. purification rites in the Ganges [→ Hinduism], or lustrations before prayer in → Islam) but is almost always performed by a specially qualified official, such as the priest (Christianity, Mandaeanism) or the rabbi ( Judaism; in Jewish proselyte baptism three

Baptism rabbis must be present). There is disagreement, esp. in Christianity, as to whether the efficacy of the baptismal rite is dependent on the quality of the person who performs the baptism. As a kind of ritual washing, baptism – either onceand-for-all (Christianity) or repeated (Mandaeanism) – cleanses one from religiously significant impurity, such as sin (→ Clean and Unclean). Often, however, baptism has a further symbolic aim: according to Mandaean thought, living water belongs to the world of light, and repeated baptism promotes the communion of human beings with the pure, transcendent world. According to Paul, through baptism the Christian participates in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Judaism and Christianity, baptism is above all a means of entrance into and membership in the community. Whereas Jews baptize only → Proselytes, in the Christian understanding a person becomes a Christian through baptism. The ancient practice of baptizing people at the point of death is no longer customary. Usually baptism is performed as a rite after birth (Catholicism, Orthodox Church, Protestantism) or on the basis of a decision willingly expressed by a person of responsible age – as with the → Baptists and other Protestant denominations (→ Free Churches, → Pentecostalism and Charismatic Movements) – yet with more social significance. K. Rudolph, Die Mandäer, vol. II, 1961 ◆ G. Barth, Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit, 1981, 22002 ◆ J. Neusner, The Judaic Law of Baptism, 1995 ◆ J.J. Buckley, The Mandaeans, 2002 ◆ T.M. Vial, Liturgy Wars: Ritual Theory and Protestant Reform in NineteenthCentury Zürich, 2004. Gregory D. Alles

II. New Testament 1. John the Baptist’s Baptism of Repentance The model of Christian baptism is the “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4) that → John the Baptist dispensed in the Jordan to those who repented (→ Repentance: IV) in response to his preaching of imminent judgment. At the same time, this baptism of repentance was an (apotropaic?) anticipation of a baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that would be performed by one coming after John, “who is more powerful than I” and who would bring destruction to the unrepentant (Luke 3:16f.; similarly a saying of Jesus also calls destruction “baptism” [Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50]). In what way immersion in the Jordan is supposed to effect forgiveness of sins is not clear from the Gospels. → Josephus thinks that it serves only the “healing of the body,” for those baptized had purified their souls “ahead of time through righteousness” ( Jos. Ant. 18.117). The historical and functional proximity to the immersion baths of the community of → Qumran, however, allows the assumption that John understood his baptism as effective → purification (IV) from guilt or

Baptism at least as a binding expression of the forgiveness granted by God (→ Sin, Guilt and Forgiveness: V). According to the understanding of Qumran and the Essenes, the purification from sin is inseparably connected with the elimination of Levitical (i.e. cultic-ritual) impurity; the water rite does both at the same time (1QS III, 4–12). If John shared this view, both Josephus’s account and that of the Gospels can be seen as one-sided reductions; the former omitted the ritual elimination of sin; the latter, the element of Levitical purification. Whereas the Essenes performed their water rites by self-immersion and repeated them according to need (regularly, esp. before meals: Jos. Bell. 2.129), John’s baptism was a one-time event in the face of imminent judgment (→ Divine Judgment: III, IV), and it was received passively. Both aspects also characterize Christian baptismal practice, an indication that it developed historically from the baptism of John. The NT reflects this connection by designating both rites with the same expressions (βαπτίζειν/baptízein, βάπτισμα/báptisma) and placing them side by side in their partial functional equivalence (Acts 19:1–7; also John 4:2f.; see 4 below). Whether and to what extent the Baptist left behind non-Christianized groups of disciples who continued his baptismal practice in its original form after his death is in dispute. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the baptism of John – along with Christian baptism – also influenced the immersion baths of the desert ascetic Bannus ( Jos. De sua vita, 11) and the washing rites of later Jewish and Jewish-Christian sects. 2. The Beginnings of Christian Baptismal Practice While there is no doubt about the derivation of Christian baptism from Johannine baptism, other attempts to derive it have not led to satisfactory results. The Jewish conversion ritual of the → Proselyte immersion bath (b. Yeb. 47a–b) appeared only after the destruction of the Second Temple, and the influence of mystery piety can be presumed at best in latent form for the Pauline understanding of baptism, but hardly for the origins of baptism in Jewish Christianity. In addition to the traits Christian baptism has in common with John’s baptism, there are others that distinguished the two early on. Christian baptism was performed in the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11; Acts 2:38; etc.; calling on the name of Jesus: Acts 22:16); it is connected with the reception of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Acts 2:38f.; etc.; → Spirit/Holy Spirit: III); and it functions as → rite of passage for acceptance into the Christian community (Gal 3:26–28; Acts 2:41; etc.). The traditional material of Acts indicates that the development of these specifically Christian traits stretched over a certain period of time: according to 8:16, the evangelist → Philip practiced in Samaria a

574 baptism in Jesus’ name, yet without the bestowal of the Spirit; and if the “disciples” of 19:1–7 are not those of John but are Christian disciples, then in the earliest period Christian baptism was indistinguishable from that of John, for these disciples received their first baptism neither in the name of Jesus nor in connection with the Holy Spirit. If one disregards the Pentecost story of Acts 2, which bears a heavy Lukan stamp and so is not historically reliable, the first attested case of a Christian baptism is that of → Paul in the early 30s (Acts 9:18; cf. Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 12:13), which in turn presupposes an already established Christian practice of baptism. But nothing more specific can be said about the time and place of this event. Indications that baptism was already practiced by Jesus or his disciples in his lifetime ( John 3:22; 4:2f.) may have been designed as etiologies of Christian baptism and are thus historically uncertain. Rather, the unquestionably historical report of Jesus’ baptism by John suggests the possibility that many of Jesus’ disciples were likewise baptized by John. In any case, the NT makes no mention of these pre-Easter disciples being baptized after → Easter in the name of Jesus. (The idea occurs for the first time implicitly in Herm. Sim. IX 16.5; also a late construct is the idea that Jesus first baptized Peter and then Peter baptized other disciples, → Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, V Frgm. 6 [in John → Moschus, GCS 17, 196]). Rules for the performance of baptism were first written down in Did. 7.1–4: after instruction and one or two days of common → fasting (III) by those baptizing and being baptized, baptism takes place “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” preferably in flowing cold water; permitted alternatives are immersion in warmed water and the pouring of water over the head three times. This is the outline of the late 1st century standard. Earlier baptism occurred only in the name of Jesus (Paul, Acts); baptism followed without special instruction immediately after → conversion (III; always so in Acts); no regular baptismal fasting is attested (Paul’s fasting in Acts 9:9 is independent of his baptism); Acts 8:36–38 describes an immersion in natural waters, but the extent to which that was the rule in the oldest period remains an open question. 3. Paul It is characteristic of Paul to state that the communion that baptism conveys to believers binds them to Christ. The metaphorical language in which he clothes this thought is not clear, yet the implications and consequences that he draws from it show that he regarded the intended relationship as entirely real. In Gal 3:26–29 he develops the idea soteriologically: whoever is “baptized into Christ” (literally, “immersed into Christ”), has “put on” Christ, is now “in Christ”

575 (in Paul this is the most general expression for the new being of believers; see also 2 Cor 5:17), has become a → child of God (II), and thereby shares in the promise given to → Abraham (II). In 1 Cor 12:12f. the idea finds ecclesiological expression: “in the one Spirit . . . baptized into the one body,” believers become members of this body, who with their manifold gifts of the Spirit (→ Charisma: II) are unavoidably dependent on each other, like the parts of a human body. The aim of Rom 6:3f. is a basis for Christian → ethics (III): Those “who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death.” If they “have been buried with him by baptism,” then they are also enabled, “just as Christ was raised from the dead,” to “walk in newness of life,” no longer a life in service to sin but a life for God (6:6–11). Incidentally, Paul asserts that union with Christ in a death like his (→ Cross/Crucifixion: III) will also bring union with him in a → resurrection (II) like his (6:5). When in 1 Cor 1:13, in reaction to the problem of party formation in the Corinthian church, Paul suggestively asks whether the addressees were “baptized in the name of Paul,” behind the question is the idea of the baptismal founding of the church: baptism in the name of Christ unites believers with Christ and excludes all other affiliations. In Gal 3:28 and 1 Cor 12:13 Paul notes, moreover, that baptism has abolished the social antagonisms of free and slave, male and female, Jews and Greeks. This motif goes beyond the argumentative aims of both contexts; thus it seems that here Paul has adopted already coined verbiage, perhaps from an early liturgy of baptism. Formulaic baptismal material is also presumed in other Pauline passages, but certain proof is, to be sure, impossible, since the texts give no clear indications. Conjectures about influences from → mystery religions have been prompted esp. by the idea of salvific equation with Christ’s death and resurrection in Rom 6:3–5. Comparable phenomena in mystery cults, however, are documented only from the post-NT period. → Apuleius of Madaura, who in Metamorphoses XI has his novel hero Lucius penetrate the nocturnal consecration of Isis (→ Isis and Osiris) right to the “threshold of Proserpina,” wrote in the 2nd century. More recent are the descriptions of an Osiris or Attis ritual in → Firmicus Maternus (De errore profanarum religionum 22.1.3) and of the → Cybele cult with its taurobolium in → Prudentius (Peristephanon 10.1001–1050). This does not exclude mystery influence behind Rom 6:3f. and similar texts by Paul, but suggests, rather, that such passages contain genuine Pauline formulations. Even Paul’s typical suggestive shortening of the formula εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ/ eis tó ónoma Christoú (“in the name of Christ”) to εἰς Χριστόν/eis Christón (“in Christ,” “into Christ”) reflects a highly creative individual treatment of the basic elements of the Christian tradition.

Baptism More conventionally formulated is 1 Cor 6:11. The motifs of washing, → sanctification (II), and justification “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” point to the forgiveness of sins traditionally connected with baptism, which was given to the addressees and obligates them to the responsible use of their Christian → freedom (II). With a similar interest, in 1 Cor 10:2 Paul interprets Israel’s passage through the Sea of Reeds as baptism “into Moses.” Like Israel’s eating of “spiritual food” and drinking of “spiritual drink” in the wilderness, that baptism “into Moses” could not keep some of the people from falling away and being struck down – a monitory example for the Christian → community (III). According to 2 Cor 1:21f., God “establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.” If Paul has in mind here the effects of baptism and not the preceding coming to belief – which is supported by the similarity of the motif of establishment “in Christ” to that of the baptismal union with Christ in Gal 3:27 etc. – then this passage is the oldest attestation of the description of the event of baptism as “sealing” and “→ anointing” (III; cf. Eph 1:13; 4:30; Herm. Sim. IX 16.4; 1 John 2:20, 27). Here Paul is probably not thinking of a separate rite of anointing connected with baptism; it seems rather that in a daring statement he is focusing the believers’ participation in Christ as a participation also in Christ’s messianic anointing. For the development of a baptismal anointing of the kind first attested in Tert. Bapt. 7.1, however, he could thereby have given offense. With the designation of baptism as a seal, he could possibly be dependent on a corresponding, esp. rabbinically attested designation of circumcision (see also Rom 4:11). A peculiar custom of the Corinthian church is addressed in 1 Cor 15:29: members let themselves be baptized vicariously “on behalf of the dead.” Presumably these dead are relatives or friends who sympathized with the Christian faith but were prevented by an early death from making a complete conversion. That a so-called → vicarious baptism was performed for them – which Paul accepts as a legitimate Christian custom – allows the conclusion that there was a strong consciousness that baptism was necessary for salvation. 4. The Gospels and Acts In their description of the baptism of Jesus by John (Mark 1:9–11 par.) the synoptic Gospels also make implicit reference to Christian baptismal practice. The fact that Jesus receives the Holy Spirit (see also Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) and is proclaimed the Son of God resonates with ideas that are associated with the baptism of Christians (Gal 3:26f.; 1 Cor 6:11, etc.) and to that extent has an etiological character. The fact that the → Messiah

Baptism (IV) and → Son of God submitted to the Baptist’s ritual of repentance, however, makes some uneasy: Matthew shifts the motif of the forgiveness of sins given in Mark 1:4 from the Baptist pericope into the words of the cup in the Last Supper (→ Eucharist/Communion: I; Matt 26:28) and through a supplementary dialogue before Jesus’ baptism makes it clear that for Jesus this does not mean subordination to the Baptist (3:14). John suppresses Jesus’ baptism entirely (versus 1 John 5:6!) in order to stylize the Baptist instead as the first witness to the “→ Lamb of God” (I) who himself takes away the “sins of the world” (1:29). According to Ign. Eph. 18.2, Jesus’ baptism has the purpose of “purifying the water through suffering.” The commandment of the risen Jesus to baptize is found only in Matthew, who in 28:19 offers the earliest attestation for the Trinitarian formula “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Did. 7.1), and in the secondary ending of Mark 16:16, which emphasizes esp. the necessity of baptism for salvation. In John 3:5 the pre-Easter Jesus becomes the founder of Christian baptism when he declares → regeneration (II) “of water and the Spirit” as a condition for admission into the → kingdom of God. In Luke 24:47 the risen Jesus announces that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations (see also John 20:23), but the idea that this is to happen in connection with baptism is first made clear by the appeal for baptism with which Peter ends his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:38). The ending of the Pentecost pericope offers at the same time a short summary of the Lukan understanding of baptism: Christian baptism presupposes repentance, is performed “in the name of Jesus Christ,” has the aim of forgiveness of sins, is linked to the reception of the Holy Spirit, and leads to admittance into the fellowship of disciples (Luke 2:38f., 41). The conversion stories in the middle part of Acts frequently take up this motif, sometimes with variations. The connection between baptism and reception of the Spirit is so compelling that, according to the Lukan account, the apostles Peter and John follow baptism with the bestowal of the Spirit in Samaria through the → laying-on of hands (III) (Acts 8:17), and for the same purpose with some “disciples” in Ephesus Paul repeats the complete water rite (19:5f.). The Lukan double volume presents the miracle of Pentecost as the baptism of the Holy Spirit proclaimed by the Baptist and then also by the risen Jesus (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16). It is the only one of the many pneumatic miracles in Acts that Luke calls a “baptism with the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps he understands it as specially for the pre-Pentecost circle of disciples, as a substitute for water baptism, which this oldest group of disciples had not received.

576 5. The Post-Pauline Letters The reception and extension of the Pauline statements on baptism appear most clearly in Col 2:12: placed here beside the motif, known from Rom 6:4, of being buried with Christ in baptism is not the resurrection of Christ and the resulting imperative of walking in newness of life, but the resurrection of believers as an already accomplished fact. In contrast to Rom 6, the aim of the assertion is not ethical but soteriological: if the addressees were dead because of their trespasses, their resurrection with Christ means the remission of all sins in accordance with the erasing of the “record of guilt” at the cross (2:13f.). The contrast here between baptism as a “circumcision made without hands” and the “circumcision of the flesh” (2:11, 13) shows that baptism now functions as the Christian equivalent of the traditional Jewish ritual of conversion. Baptism achieves a soteriological central position in Eph 4:5f., where, chiastically framed by God and Christ, it is placed alongside faith: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” According to Eph 5:25–27, Christ cleansed his church with the “washing of water” in order to present it to himself in spotless glory – a model for Christian husbands loving their wives. The motif of the “seal” of the Holy Spirit in Eph 1:13 and 4:30 may be a description of baptism (cf. 2 Cor 1:22; see 3 above). Both passages are eschatologically accentuated: according to 4:30 the sealing takes place “for the day of redemption,” and 1:14 calls the Spirit a “pledge of our inheritance” for believers. Titus 3:5 describes baptism as the “water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” and contrasts it, in a variation of a Pauline topos, with the ineffectiveness for salvation of “any works of righteousness that we have done.” In 1 Pet 3:20f. baptism is compared typologically with the saving of “eight persons . . . through water” in Noah’s ark and explains it, in dependence on the old idea of baptismal forgiveness, “as an appeal to God for a good conscience” and “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” The hypothesis, popular in the early 20th century, that 1 Peter was on the whole a baptismal sermon or liturgy in letter form is, in general, no longer maintained today. Hebrews 10:22 interprets baptism as preparation “to enter the [heavenly] sanctuary” (10:19), makes it implicitly parallel to the purification rites of the temple, and consequently describes it not only as a heart “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” but also as a washing of the body with “pure water.” Heb 6:2 includes “instructions about baptisms [and] laying on of hands” in the content of elementary Christian education. The layingon of hands may mean, as in Acts 19:6, the ritualized conveyance of the Spirit at baptism. The use of the term “baptisms” in the plural has evoked manifold attempts at explanation, but it remains puzzling.

577 6. Exegetical Controversies a. The formula εἰς τὸ ὄνομα/eis tó ónoma . . . (“in the name of . . .”) in Hellenistic commerce served to give the name of the recipient of payments and other transfers of property. Heitmüller concludes form this that baptism “in the name of Jesus” was understood as a handing over of the baptized person to Jesus as the new master. The opposite result is obtained by Delling’s attempt to derive the baptismal sense of the formula from its usual application in the NT: it is not a question of the handing over of the baptized person to Christ but of the granting of salvation to that person. But since the baptismal use of the formula comes presumably from Palestinian Jewish Christianity and in any case is older than the NT references, the explanation of the formula must also take into consideration analogous expressions in rabbinical literature (circumcision “in the name of the Covenant,” redemption of a slave “in the name of a free person,” i.e. for liberation, etc.). Such a derivation has been recently supported, esp. by Hartman, who on this basis defines the function of the formula as the “meaning-giving reference of the rite” (61). b. Both 1 Cor 1:16 and Acts 16:15, 31–33 speak of the baptism of a “→ house” (III; οἶκος/oíkos), i.e. of a whole family. Jeremias, among others, concludes from this that on such occasions baptism was also given to small children. Against this it has been rightly objected that in none of the named passages are children mentioned, whereas in Acts 10:2 the topic is → fear of God (II) and in Acts 18:8 the coming to faith of a “house,” which excludes small children. There is nonetheless a certain justification – also in regard to the ecclesiastical practice of infant baptism – in the NT uses of oikos to the extent that they indicate a community connection between faith and baptism that is not reducible to the individual experience of decision. The fact that in NT times baptism was actually sometimes performed on behalf of people who were not capable of making their own decision is shown by the vicarious baptism in Corinth (1 Cor 15:29; see 3 above). c. When 20th-century exegesis speaks of baptism as a “→ sacrament,” it usually has in mind its effectiveness as a means of → salvation. That the NT actually understands baptism as a sacrament in this sense has, nevertheless, been radically disputed by M. Barth: “Within the work of salvation, only the Spirit has the effective function”; baptism is merely the grateful answer of the church (315). This can be harmonized with many NT assertions without problem, but this interpretation can be placed on others only by force. Thus for burial with Christ in Rom 6:4, any reference to the conveying of salvation is excluded, as is a reference to water baptism for “water and Spirit” in John 3:5 and any baptismal connection at all for the washing in 1 Cor 6:11. Hence Barth’s thesis has found little agreement within exegetical scholarship.

Baptism d. Whereas in Pauline and Johannine texts baptism and the bestowing of the Spirit form a unity, they are sometimes separated in Acts (8:14–17; 19:1–7; also 10:44–48). Traditional Catholic exegesis has found here the biblical basis for the sacrament of confirmation (Adler); Pentecostals have found support for a postbaptismal charismatic preparation for mission (Menzies). On the Protestant side, by contrast, Dunn in particular has also asserted for Acts the unity of baptism and the bestowing of the Spirit (as “conversion-initiation”). In fact, both Acts 2:38f. and the immediacy with which the bestowing of the Spirit occurs in 8:14–17 and 19:1–7 reveal a clear consciousness that the coming of the Spirit is intimately connected with baptism. Only then would cases in which baptism and receiving of the Spirit are separated require explanation, and much depends on whether one interprets them as historically or factually contingent exceptions, or as normal, inherently regular cases. W. Heitmüller, “Im Namen Jesu,” 1903 ◆ J. Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie, 1935 ◆ R. Schnackenburg, Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus, 1950 ◆ N. Adler, Taufe und Handauflegung, 1951 ◆ M. Barth, Die Taufe – ein Sakrament? 1951 ◆ J. Jeremias, Die Kindertaufe in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten, 1958 ◆ G. Delling, Die Zueignung des Heils in der Taufe, 1961 ◆ G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 1962 ◆ P. Weigandt, Zur sogenannten “Oikosformel,” NovT 6, 1963, 49–74 ◆ J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 1970, 51979 ◆ H. Frankemölle, Das Taufverständnis des Paulus, 1970 ◆ G. Kretschmar, “Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes in der alten Kirche,” Leit. V, 1970, 1–348 ◆ A. Manrique, Teología bíblica del bautismo, 1977 ◆ G. Barth, Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit, 1981, 22002 ◆ U. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 1983, 21986 ◆ M. Quesnel, Baptisés dans l’Esprit, 1985 ◆ H. Lichtenberger, “Täufergemeinden und frühchristl. Täuferpolemik im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts,” ZThK 84, 1987, 36–57 ◆ A.J.M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection, 1987 ◆ K. Backhaus, Die “Jüngerkreise” des Täufers Johannes, 1991 ◆ R.P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology, 1991 ◆ P.R. Tragan, ed., Alle origini del battesimo cristiano, 1991 ◆ L. Hartman, “Auf den Namen des Herrn Jesus”. Die Taufe in den neutestamentlichen Schriften, SBS 148, 1992; ET: “Into the Name of the Lord Jesus”. Baptism in the Early Church,1997 ◆ S. Légasse, Naissance du baptême, 1993 ◆ A. Benoît & C. Munier, Die Taufe in der Alten Kirche, TC 9, 1994 ◆ O. Hofius, “Glaube und Taufe nach dem Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments,” ZThK 91, 1994, 134–156 ◆ S.J.D. Cohen, “Is ‘Proselyte Baptism’ Mentioned in the Mishnah?” in: J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen, eds., Pursuing the Text, FS B.Z. Wacholder, 1995, 278–292 ◆ A.K. Petersen, “Shedding New Light on Paul’s Understanding of Baptism,” STL 52, 1998, 3–28 ◆ H. Umbach, In Christus getauft – von der Sünde befreit, 1999 ◆ K.-H. Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos, 2000 ◆ F. Avemarie, Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte, 2002. Friedrich Avemarie

III. Church History 1. Early Church and Middle Ages a. Beginnings in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries As a distinguishing feature of Christianity, baptism was fundamental in the churches from the beginning, although there were great differences in baptismal the-

Baptism ology and practice. Its core components included the idea of the unrepeatability of baptism (linked with its character as initiation), the connection with water (thus the firm concept “dip, immerse,” βαπτίζειν/baptízein), and performance with a formula “in the name” (. & / lešem, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα/eis tó ónoma; see II). In the earliest witnesses the specific reference of Christ in baptism was still frequently expressed by the formula “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13, cf. also ActPaul 34), before the Trinitarian formula from Matt 28:19 generally prevailed (Did. 7.1; Just. 1 Apol. 61.3). The laying-on of hands was added to the baptismal bath as an expression of the bestowing of the Spirit (before: ActThom 121, 132, 157 or afterward: Acts 8:16f.; 19:6). The motif of the forgiveness of sins (→ Sin, Guilt and Forgiveness: VI), which came from the baptism by John, soon led to the question of how to deal with sins after baptism and thus the question of second → repentance (IV; Herm. Mand. IV 3.1–4, vs. Heb 6:4–6). These discussions put the churches through a severe test of endurance, which under the pressure of persecutions was even to lead to schism (→ Novatian); yet at no point did it lead to the logical consequence of a second baptism. The once given “seal” (Herm. Sim. IX 16.3–7; → Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae 12.9; ActThom 26.131; probably already the Inscription of → Abercius) was valid and could at most be broken (resulting in exclusion from the community) but not repeated. This corresponds to the idea (esp. widespread in the Latin West) of baptism as binding vow and act of law: baptism is transfer to Christ, passage from the kingdom of demons to the kingdom of God (Tert. Cor. 3.2; Herm. Mand. VI 2.9). This was given expression in the rite of baptism through the renunciation (abrenuntiatio) of Satan; in the preliminaries to baptism was a broadly developed series of → exorcisms (→ Traditio apostolica 20). These stood in the context of a more and more institutionalized baptismal preparation often lasting years in the 3rd century, which in addition to the ritual driving out of demons and fasting immediately before baptism (Did. 7.4; Just. 1 Apol. 61.2), was characterized by instruction and testing. Although instruction was already a prerequisite to baptism from the beginning, from c. 200 → catechesis (I) and → catechumenate gained an independent profile and importance. There was an enrollment and formal acceptance; teachers and exorcists prepared the way, while baptism itself was reserved for the bishop. Because baptism presupposed thorough knowledge of the Bible and Christian teachings, → Tertullian (Bapt. 18) concluded that minor children did not yet come into consideration, though his position was probably not a generally accepted rule. On the contrary, it is probable, or at least not out of the question, that in the baptism of whole households occasionally children were also bap-

578 tized (see II above). The pre-Nicean church had not yet regarded the question as a general theological problem. Candidates for baptism, the catechumens, formed their own class of not (yet) baptized Christians in the church. Baptism moved from the fringe of the community to its center. In time of persecution, therefore, the question arose whether Christians could receive forgiveness of sins and → redemption even without baptism. Martyrdom (→ Martyr) could replace baptism as a “baptism in blood” (Traditio apostolica 19); in boundary situations even self-baptism would suffice (Acts Paul 34) or a playfully performed mock baptism (→ Chronicon Paschale, Ad annum 297). More difficult was the question – also raised in time of persecution – whether the baptism of schismatic or heretical communities was to be recognized or not, that is, whether converts were to be baptized again or merely received into the church with the laying-on of hands. In the so-called → Rebaptism Contoversy in the mid-3rd century, → Cyprian of Carthage represented the former view (Ep. 70; 72), → Pope Stephen I the latter (Cyp. Ep. 74.1; Eus. Hist. eccl. VII 3). Although the quarrel initially remained without tangible outcome, the recognition of baptism by heretics did, in fact, prevail – with the proviso that it had to have been performed in the name of the Trinity and with water. Whereas at first baptisms were → ministerial offices in the sense that they were performed on a case-by-case basis and according to need, the growing numbers and fixed catechetical courses led to preset times at which larger groups of candidates were baptized by the bishop. When that time was → Easter (Hipp., In Danielem, I 17), the theme of “death and resurrection” was added as a supplemental motif of theological interpretation – a motif that was not to be broadly developed until the post-Constantinian period. Then Easter also became the generally ideal time for baptism. b. Development in the 4th and 5th Centuries The changed social position of the church after → Constantine had massive consequences for baptism – just through the growing number of candidates. The exclusion of certain occupational groups (soldiers, actors, etc.; cf. Traditio apostolica 16) no longer obtained; people from all strata streamed into the church. This was particularly true of membership in the “noncommittal” form of the catechumenate, which could now be consciously expanded independently from baptismal instruction; sometimes baptism was postponed for life and not performed until just before death (“clinical baptism”). The most prominent example is Emperor Constantine himself (Eus. Vita Const. IV 62). If baptism was not to be fully relegated to the fringe of church life, new forms and strategies had to be developed in order to substantiate and explain it and to make it attractive. This affected

579 the catechumenate, first of all, which was subdivided into various stages and carefully structured in terms of both content and didactics. The final instruction was given in several sermons by the bishop himself, which were sometimes preserved in writing. Thus several series of important baptismal catecheses are extant (→ Cyril of Jerusalem, John → Chrysostom, → Theodore of Mopsuestia, → Ambrose of Milan). In all of these texts a certain role is played by the didactic concept of → secret teaching, that is, the tendency to pass on parts of Christian teaching and ritual only after a certain stage of the “initiation.” This is carried to an extreme by the Jerusalem catechism, which explains the baptismal liturgy itself to the candidates only after the actual experience in the Easter night. The phenomenon of secret teaching comes from the tradition of the → mystery religions; in both concept and content, there were further borrowings (and it is also certain that Christianity had a reverse effect). Μυστήριον/ mystē´rion became the technical term for the Christian → sacraments, and the → liturgy was cultically “staged” in a comparable way. Baptism – from time immemorial called ϕωτισμός/phōtismós, “illumination” ( Just. 1 Apol. 61.12) – became a celebration of initiation in the night; light, white clothes, and various oils acquired symbolic significance in the formulation. Parallel to the celebration of the community in the Easter night, those being baptized were given new life, so that they could then celebrate the Eucharist (→ Eucharist/Communion: II) with the whole community. Here and only here did the Pauline baptismal theology of Rom 6 come into its own: baptism was structured and experienced as immersion into death and resurrection into new life, that is, as Christ mimesis (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses mystagogicae 2.5; Aug., Enchiridion 13.42). This idea was especially intense when baptism was experienced in the places of Jesus’ historical ministry; in the 5th century a regular pilgrimage business began for baptism in the Holy Land ( Jerusalem or Jordan; → Egeria, Itinerarium 47) but also to other pilgrim destinations (e.g. → Qalaat Seman). Baptism thus structured also demanded an appropriate external context: beside the community room a dedicated baptismal wing with various adjoining rooms was required. The monumental → baptistries arising from the 4th century on (first: Rome, Lateran) met these practical needs, and at the same time – for the first time in Christianity – they put theological symbolism into concrete structural form. The (commonly found) octagonal shape was interpreted by Ambrose in the inscription of the baptistery in Milan to refer to the eighth day as the day of the new creation and resurrection (ILCV 1,1841). Reference to the baptism of Jesus was common in artistic decoration (Ravenna). Symbolic considerations also play a role when the → baptismal font (piscina) is cruciform. These fonts had their own water supply, in order to do justice at

Baptism least symbolically to the ancient requirement to be baptized in “living water” (Did. 7.1–3). The water generally reached a height of approx. 80 cm, so that baptism could be effected both by immersion and by pouring; which of the two forms was the rule is hard to determine. In the West, in particular, baptismal theology was given an important expansion through → Augustine’s teachings on sin. If sin means not only individual sinful deeds but a general condition of humankind (→ Original Sin), a person needs forgiveness through baptism at any age (Enchiridion 13, 43–47), indeed, this forgiveness cannot happen too soon. Such ideas meant that the baptism of children became not only unproblematic but also the rule in the now almost totally Christianized society of both the West and the East at the end of antiquity. c. Baptism and Mission The idea that baptism was the sealing of a completed → mission and mission was the presupposition for baptism had been taken for granted since NT times (Matt 28:19; Acts 8:38). This connection gained a new dimension when the missionizing of entire peoples, some outside the Roman Empire, led to collective baptism (Soz. Hist. eccl. II 6.3). Often the baptism of the sovereign – for example Constantine – had a signal function. In many cases the introduction of Christianity went hand in hand with the invention of a new alphabet, translation of the Bible (→ Bible Translations), and the rise of national written cultures (Armenians, Georgians, Ethiopians, Goths, Slavs). While, for example, in the conversion of the Armenians the mass baptism that eventually took place is presented as the conclusion of a comprehensive work of Christianization (→ Agathangelos, Historia Armeniae, 809–836), by the time of the baptism of → Clovis 498/99, the conversion of the tribal prince or king – often with primarily military-political motivation – was the first step (Greg. T. Hist. II 30f.). The subsequent baptism of the people as a “corporate act” (Kretschmar), later sometimes even in the form of a collective compulsory baptism, was a precondition and no longer the conclusion of the Christianization. This, in combination with the baptism of children as the norm, robbed the early church catechumenate of its meaning; it still survived only in ritual rudiments (esp. the so-called scrutinies, originally the testing in the preparation for baptism). d. Baptism in the Middle Ages The liturgical texts of the Middle Ages anticipated a long continuation of the episcopal “cathedral baptism” in the night before Easter, yet already in the Carolingian period this was an occasional, theoretical, special case. Most baptisms were performed as individual celebrations in parish churches with corresponding privileges. The result of this shift was (at least in the West) the sepa-

Baptism ration of the postbaptismal → anointing (IV) into a rite of its own, which remained reserved to the bishop and was regarded as a separate sacrament. Performed with consecrated chrism and the laying-on of hands, → confirmation was interpreted as the sign of the bestowing of the Spirit (→ Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV d.7.3). A further result of the shift was the increased importance of the office of → godparents: they had to confess the faith on behalf of the baptism candidate and thus became the spiritual fathers and mothers of the child. The baptismal formula itself, which had previously had an interrogatory character in the West (following the three articles of the creed), now became declaratory (“I baptize you . . .”). Associated with baptism, which came right after birth if possible, was the giving of a name; in the course of the Middle Ages the tendency prevailed to choose the name of a saint as personal “patron,” sometimes the saint of the day. The demise of the immersion form of baptism, however, is not a necessary consequence of infant baptism (it is still practiced today in the East); nevertheless, it was replaced by sprinkling (aspersio) in the West. One reason may have been the stronger emphasis on the forgiveness of sins in the theological interpretation (instead of the mimesis of death and resurrection in the baptismal bath). Through baptism original sin (peccatum originale) is no longer attributed to the individual; desire (concupiscentia) to commit further sins is weakened but is still present (Peter Lombard, Sententiae II d.32.2). Scholasticism (baptismal treatise of → Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3 q.66–71) describes baptism in the Aristotelian categories of → form and → matter: the baptismal formula and water are regarded, respectively, as such; the intention of the baptizer must be added – thus finally in the fixing of the teaching office by Pope → Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence in 1439 (→ Basel, Council of; DH 1314f.). Whereas the West, through the separation of confirmation and the now meaningless rite of baptismal preparation, reached a theological and liturgical concentration on the water rite, the Christian East retained more of the richness of Early Church baptism, particularly the connection between baptism, anointing, and (first) Communion (see IV, 2 below). The postbaptismal anointing (sealing, σϕραγίς/sphragís) is performed with the → myron consecrated by the metropolitan and in this way expresses the ecclesial dimension beyond the local congregation. Richly developed are the prayers of consecration for oil and water, the latter with theological parallels to the festival → water blessing at Epiphany, in which the connection with the baptism of Jesus is prominent. The theological interpretation emphasizes baptism more strongly than in the West as a this-worldly omen of the new life in Christ in the next world; it is directed toward human → divinization (N. → Kabasilas, Vom Leben in Christus, book 1).

580 Sources: N. Cabasilas, La vie en Christ, ed. M.-H. Congourdeau, SC 355, 361, 1989/90 ◆ John Chrysostom, Catecheses baptismales, ed. R. Kaczynski, FChr 6/1–2, 1992 ◆ Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogicae catecheses, ed. G. Röwekamp, FChr 7, 1992 ◆ A. Benoît & C. Munier, Die Taufe in der Alten Kirche, TC 9, 1994 ◆ Bibl.: J.D.C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, ACC 47, 1965 ◆ G. Kretschmar, “Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes in der alten Kirche,” Leit. V, 1970, 1–348 ◆ B. Neunheuser, Taufe und Firmung, HDG 4/2, 21983 ◆ B. Kleinheyer, Sakramentliche Feiern, vol. I,1, GDK 7,1, 1989 ◆ P.F. Bradshaw, “‘Diem baptismo sollemniorem’: Initiation and Easter in Christian Antiquity,” in: E. Carr et al., eds., ΕΥΛΟΓΕΜΑ, FS R. Taft, ALit 17, 1993, 41–51 ◆ R. Cabié, Les sacraments de l’initiation chrétienne, BHC 32, 1994 ◆ S. Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, JbAC.E 27, 1998 ◆ W. Kinzig, “‘. . . natum et passum etc.’ Zur Geschichte der Tauffragen in der lateinischen Kirche bis Luther,” in: idem, C. Markschies & M. Vinzent, Tauffragen und Bekenntnis, AKG 74, 1999, 75–183 ◆ E.J. Yarnold, “Baptism” III, TRE XXXII, 2001, 674–696 ◆ O. Pasquato & H. Brakmann, “Katechese (Katechismus),” RAC XX, 2003, 422–496 ◆ M. Metzger, W. Drews & H. Brakmann, “Katechumenat,” ibid., 497–574. Martin Wallraff

2. Reformation to the Present a. Preliminary Remarks Today the Orthodox churches still preserve the unity of baptism as an initiation rite (use of water, anointing, first Communion) even in the generally practiced baptism of infants. The performance with infants and children of rites clearly designed for adult catechumens is made possible concretely through representation by godparents in questions addressed to the baptismal candidate and theologically through the maintenance of the biblically and patristically attested causative character of the ritual act. The catechetical problems do not lead to a fundamental questioning of the baptismal practice or to a discussion of baptism. Often baptism is surrounded by rites – sometimes nationally colored – and anchored in the everyday life of people (see IV, 2 below). During this period in the West, by contrast, the breakdown of initiation into individual rites, with the concomitant failure to respond to the catechetical implications and requirements, is the obvious underlying factor, which was only gradually discovered to be a problem in the 20th century. Essentially initiated by the basic thrust of the Reformation, the focus was increasingly on the task of making baptism understandable to the people; this quickly led to fundamental questions about traditional baptismal practice, begun by the Anabaptists and Baptists (on the terminological problems see esp. J.M. Stayer, “Täufer/Täuferische Gemeinschaften” I, TRE XXXII, 2001, 597–617, esp. 597) and continuing through current attempts at a new interpretation of baptismal practice. b. Basic Problems At least since the Reformation, the question of the justification of the baptism of infants (and small children) has accompanied the practice and discussion of baptism,

581 sometimes explosively, sometimes under the surface. This question – which cannot be clearly decided on the basis of Scripture but can be pondered theologically – has proved to be closely associated with the question of the appropriate organization of the church, first in regard to its relationship to authorities and to concrete lifestyles (→ Church Discipline), discussed since the 19th century increasingly under the key terms → People’s church (Volkskirche) and → Voluntary church. In addition, the option for infant baptism (made by the vast majority of churches), prompts the question of its concrete form; that is, how to cater ritually for the different possibilities of reception of infants and small children in comparison with adults. Closely related to this set of questions is the question of the connection of baptism with other rites, the Lord’s Supper (or → First Communion), → confirmation, and also penance. Also relevant here are, in the broader sense, the question of the catechetical (or educational) implications of baptism and its organizational realization (keywords: catechumenate, → confirmation classes, → religious education, → Sunday school as forms of catch-up catechesis or instruction), as well as the task of baptismal reminders (→ Baptism Renewal/Reminder). Likewise the object of repeated reform attempts is the use of nonverbal symbols in the ritual. On the one hand, the basic question of the significance of signs perceived by the senses in addition to the spoken word was and is controversial; on the other hand, individual elements – esp. exorcism and abrenuntiatio diaboli, but also obsignatio crucis, datio salis, exsufflatio, baptismal → candles and clothing – are sometimes omitted, sometimes used, etc. Finally, running through the history of baptismal praxis is the question of the appropriate place (church, and then as a separate service or as a component of normal congregational worship) and time (set times, such as Easter, Epiphany, Pentecost, or Sundays, or at any time). Here it is also always a question of defining the relationship of baptism to → community and → family as the two most important relational and influential entities. In the (not always universally retained) office of godparent these two entities meet directly and with the potential for conflict (catechetical demands versus family ties). In the following discussion, which is arranged in historical sequence, these individual questions and problems cannot be treated in detail. Rather, the attempt is to sketch the intertwining, and sometimes opposition, of celebratory form and church teaching; in so doing, popular piety – as far as it can be inferred from the sources – again requires quite individual accents and points to the efforts of people, beyond theological and pastoral quarrels and endeavors, to give meaning to baptism for concrete, everyday life.

Baptism c. Reformation Impulses Fundamental to developments in the future, and to disputes over proper baptismal praxis and doctrine, was the Reformation effort to lead people to a faith for which they could take personal responsibility and which was an understanding faith. Thus the first edition of Luther’s little book on baptism (Taufbüchlein, 1523, WA 12.42– 48; see also VI, 4), which closely follows a Latin model, is distinguished by the fact that it brings the entire ritual into German. The reduction of doublets undertaken in this led, along with the deletion of further symbols, to a simplification of the ritual in the second version (1526, WA 19.537–541), which had a lasting influence on subsequent developments. The aim was to make baptism, which was central to Luther’s personal faith, accessible to the people. Lutheran → church architecture also demonstrated this concern by placing the baptismal font – previously found mainly at the western entrance area – near the altar “in facie ecclesiae.” Luther kept his focus on the traditional formula designed for adults, and in time he formulated various dogmatic constructions to try to solve the problems emerging from the relationship between → faith and sacrament in his theology (Taufe auf den Glauben und das Bekenntnis der Paten [Baptism upon faith and the confession of godparents; WA 6.538.4–7]; Kinderglaube [WA 17/II,78.30– 82.33]). That this could not be the only possible position to come out of the Reformation (see Spinks 710–713, who systematically distinguishes five forms of baptismal order in the Reformation tradition) is shown by the clearly divergent position of Zwingli. In 1525 he wrote the first baptismal order related specifically to children (CW, ed. E. Egli, vol. IV, 1927, 188–337). Beforehand, however, he had indicated reservations about infant baptism and through his ethical understanding of the sacraments – and against his will – he opened the gates for a fundamental opposition to infant baptism (→ Anabaptists). In Zürich a fundamental critique of infant baptism arose, based on the emphasis on a decision of faith (K. → Grebel), which quickly led to the practice of baptizing (in the opponents’ view: rebaptizing) adults who had been baptized as children; this was banned in 1529 by the Imperial Diet in Speyer on penalty of death. The requirement (and practice) of adult baptism – associated with protests against authorities, against economic and social evils, and with growing religious longings and awakenings – finally led to a branch of the Reformation churches that, again in many different ways, has maintained itself or reconstituted itself under the impulses of → revival movements and kept alive ecumenically the quest for an appropriate baptismal praxis and church organization. Similar far-reaching consequences came from the – nominalistically formulated – decision of Luther to tie the understanding of the ritual exclusively to faith and to

Baptism deny the inherent meaning of the symbols. The resulting “arbitrary” nature of the symbols (Roosen) worked against the Reformation concerns, in a sensitive place. This eventually led – after the Reformation awakening had begun to flag – to an increasing divergence between ecclesiastical interpretations of baptism (ultimately only verbally represented) and the meanings actually attached to the rite by church members. In the Roman Catholic Church this problem became even more acute – in spite of openness to the inherent meaning of the symbols in Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, 3 q.60, 66–71). For despite all efforts, evident for example in the baptismal order of the Rituale Romanum (1614), toward the reform of baptismal praxis, the ritual was celebrated in Latin – apart from the occasional admonition and in many places also the questioning of the godparents in the vernacular. d. Interests of Folk Piety In continuation of medieval traditions, fears, cares, and hopes accompanied the new theological interpretations and ecclesiastical changes. The practices that developed formed the background – only gradually fading in the last half of the 20th century – for official ecclesiastical action and had in common the tendency to understand baptism as a family rite of passage. Anxiety about the welfare of children remained basic, which was only too understandable in view of high infant mortality rates. In addition to regional prophylactic practices – supplemented by the use of baptismal water (facilitated in the Catholic Church by holy water), for example, in actions of healing or other types of improvement – symptoms of this anxiety included pressure for an early baptism, which did not diminish until the 20th century. Also an expression of this tendency was the closely related practice of emergency baptism, which was usually performed by midwives and rejected only in Reformed churches. In Catholic regions this also led to the use of baptism during birth – indeed, even in the 19th century to the baptism of a child not yet in the birth canal through the squirting of water (A. Mößmer, “Die Ausführung der Nottaufe mittels einer zinnernen Taufspritze” [The performance of emergency baptism by means of a tin baptismal syringe], Volkskunst 13/2, 1990, 30–35). Baptismal praxis also reflected current class and moral views. Thus, from the 17th century in the higher Protestant classes, there were house baptisms (naturally, a custom also performed in part for practical reasons in cold winters). Because already in the 18th century ecclesiastical procedures were varied, privacy was sought in the baptism of children born out of wedlock for reasons related to moral punishment. Here, for example, the sounding of the baptismal bell was omitted, and those present included only the mother, midwife, and perhaps a godparent. In many places such baptisms could not take place on a Sunday or in connection with other litur-

582 gical celebrations. One consequence – with greater religious freedom – was a significantly lower baptism rate among the illegitimate children of Protestant mothers, which persists today. In the general blessing of mothers anticipated in baptismal formulas (cf. → Churching of Women) are found old ideas of impurity through sexuality, which is removed by the → blessing. Tensions between church and family interests often became evident, for example, in the question of the choice and number of godparents (here the Reformed churches, lacking an office of godparent, went their own way). From the church’s point of view, the selection criteria should include esp. the good reputation and mental health of the godparent; and traditional family obligations, varying according to region, also had to be taken into account. For the multiplicity of – ideally well-off – godparents, which was repeatedly criticized by the church, there were tangible reasons in terms of the gifts expected from godparents. Grounded in controversial theology but with good connections to daily life, by contrast, was the requirement of the Catechismus Romanus (1566) and Rituale Romanum(1614) that baptism be connected with the giving of a particular name, specifically that of a saint (see Kranemann 83–85). This offered – via the → nameday – a good way of reminding people of the baptism. Finally, mention should be made of a baptismal custom that developed only in the 20th century and which took up both the theme of protection, and thus quick baptism, and the often excessive demands of a family celebration (on the extravagances see A.K. Thurnwald, Kind, du bist uns anvertraut [Child, you are entrusted to us], 1994, 127–133), and which fit in with the development of modern medicine: the hospital baptism. It was soon opposed by the church, however, because of the lack of a parish context. e. Marginalization of Baptism in the Early Modern Period Only against the background just sketched can one understand the reform attempts of Pietist and Enlightenment theologians, who variously sought to correct liturgical and religious abuses, in order to facilitate committed and contemporary Christian living; in the case of baptism these efforts led to a disturbing development which contradicted biblical insights and church doctrine. Although only a few, like T. → Großgebauer, basically reduced the fundamental importance of baptism for the Christian life, the requirement of confirmation marginalized baptism in terms of practical everyday life. The development of confirmation as a festively celebrated rite of majority in the Enlightenment reinforced this tendency for a long time and thus was comparable to the high estimation of confirmation that was criticized by the Reformers. In modern terms, baptism ulti-

583 mately became a ministerial office related to the context of home and family at the transition in life occasioned by birth. Theologically, this development found final justification in F. → Schleiermacher, who pointed out the need for the expansion of infant baptism (H. Peiter, ed., Kritische Gesamtausgabe, part 1, vol. VII/2, § 155b). This tendency toward the secularization of baptism also had its effect on church architecture. Already at the beginning of the 17th century movable baptismal bowls began to replace the previous fixed baptismal fonts, also ornate baptismal angels (A. Schelter, Der protestantische Kirchenbau des 18. Jh. in Franken, 1981, 26f.; H. de Cuveland, Der Taufengel, 1991), which were introduced into the church fabric outside of baptism. While attention has customarily been paid only to the baptism of infants as the commonest form of baptism, it is worth noting briefly that from time to time there were baptisms of adults, esp. of Jews but also of Turkish prisoners of war and their children (H. Helker, “Türkentaufen um 1700 – ein vergessenes Kapitel der fränkischen Bevölkerungsgeschichte,” Frankenland 39/5, 1987, 115–272). For the most part, however, these baptisms were – and sometimes still are – performed without great fanfare, so as to avoid ostracism. They thus avoided disturbing the assumption of many church members that baptism “belongs” to birth. This policy, however, meant opportunities to reform baptismal praxis for the unchurched were long wasted. f. 19th and 20th Century This problematic development came to an end, as it were, in Germany esp. through very large churches in the main cities, where there were “mass baptisms” of several hundred children at a time (F. Niebergall, Praktische Theologie, vol. II, 1919, 238). So it is no wonder that – after the compulsory baptism enforced by the authorities was relaxed – the number of baptisms began to decline (T. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918, vol. I, 21991, 505). Nonetheless, in most areas of Germany baptism soon after birth still belonged to the normal biography well into the second half of the 20th century. With the church growth movement at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, the importance of the local church for the Christian life again moved to center stage. In the so-called struggle of the church (Kirchenkampf; → National Socialism: I) this tendency – theologically grounded by K. → Barth – was reinforced. For baptismal praxis the consequences were ambiguous. Certainly, baptism was now celebrated in community worship on Sunday morning, which was supposed to emphasize its ecclesiological significance. At the same time, however, its “insertion” led in many places to a problematic abbreviation of the ritual, which only confirmed its marginality. In addition, there developed a problematic exclusive identification of parish and church in the theological

Baptism sense. Only gradually – stimulated not least by changes in baptismal praxis – were there reinforced efforts in Protestant and Catholic churches to restructure baptism (see V below). Here the aim was also to regain the unity of the initiation rite (→ Rites of Passage). g. The Present In a worldwide perspective it may be noted that the fastest growing charismatic churches (→ Charismatic Movement) place a low value on baptism connected with water, and important confessional groups like the → Baptists (see IV, 3, c below) emphasize the decision of the individual, while attributes connected biblically with baptism, such as being “born again,” are assigned to personal experience. Without it being thoroughly discussed thus far, there has been a hardening of the old difference between the churches that understand baptism essentially as an act of God and the others that focus on the ethical decision and therefore take a critical position vis-à-vis infant baptism. It remains to be seen whether the attempt in the → Lima Declarations to point out the various problems to both sides will lead to further developments. B. Jordahn, “Der Taufgottesdienst im Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart,” Leit. 5, 1970, 349–640 ◆ B. Kleinheyer, Sakramentliche Feiern, vol. I, 1, GDK 7,1, 1989, 136–167 ◆ B. Kranemann, “Sakramentliche Liturgie im Bistum Münster,” LQF 83, 1998, 81–141 ◆ R. Roosen, Taufe lebendig, 1990 ◆ B.D. Spinks, art. “Taufe VI,” TRE XXXII, 2001, 710–719. Christian Grethlein

IV. Dogmatics 1. Catholicism In spite of differing emphases, there is, by and large, a basic Christian consensus on baptism. Specific formulations of the Catholic understanding of baptism must be seen in the light of this general paradigm. a. Traditional Catholic Baptismal Doctrine An authoritative summary of Catholic baptismal doctrine going back to the theology of → Thomas Aquinas is found in the “Decree for the Armenians” (1439) issued by the Council of Florence (see III, 1, d above). It asserts: “The first place among all the sacraments is held by holy baptism, which is the gateway to spiritual life, for by it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church” (DH 1314). The decree then speaks of the necessity of baptism for salvation; the material of the sacrament (true and natural water) and its form (Trinitarian formula of administration) are mentioned. There follows a definition of the main source from which baptism draws its power (the holy Trinity [→ Trinity: IV]) and of the relevant instrumentalities (the minister who performs the baptismal act correctly). Normally, the prescribed administrator of baptism is the priest, but in an emergency it may also be administered “by a layman

Baptism or a woman, or even a pagan or heretic . . . as long as he respects the form of the church and has the intention of doing what the church does” (DH 1315). The effect of baptism consists, above all, in the “forgiveness of all original and incurred guilt, as well as of any punishment owed for the guilt itself.” In contention with the doctrinal positions of the Reformation, and even more with the Anabaptists, the 7th session of the Council of → Trent (1547) issued a summary of Catholic baptismal doctrine (DH 1614– 1627). The Council placed particular emphasis on the redemptive effect for the individual (forgiveness of sins, grace), the necessity of baptism for salvation, the legitimacy, indeed necessity, of infant baptism, and the unrepeatable nature of baptism. Moreover, the decree stressed the fact that three → sacraments (II), baptism, → confirmation, and → blessing (I), are necessary to stamp the soul with a “character,” i.e. with “a spiritual and indelible sign” (→ Character indelebilis) (DH 1609). In comparison with the biblically justified doctrine of baptism of the early church, the following may be noted: Attention is disproportionately focused on the dispenser of baptism; the redemption from → original sin is overly emphasized (as had already been the case since → Augustine). Furthermore, baptism (like all sacraments) is seen less as a spiritual encounter than as an instrument in the hand of God which effects on ontological transformation of the individual (baptismal character, grace). The “social” aspect of the consequences of baptism, namely the salvific integration into the → church, is assigned a secondary role or retains only legal significance (baptism makes one a Catholic Christian). The liturgical framing of baptism and its symbolic character also suffer a loss of significance. Finally, the baptismal ceremony tends to be seen as an isolated event in time. b. Vatican II as a Program for a Renewed Understanding of Baptism Anticipated, among other things, by the → liturgical movement (I) of the 20th century, → Vatican II set new accents for the understanding of baptism. In its justification of the salvific effect of baptism, SC mentions the induction into the → Paschal mystery of Christ, i.e. into the death and resurrection of Christ, and the bestowing of the spirit of childship (→ Child of God: III). Wishing to make clear that baptism does not work like a “physical tool” but both presupposes and underlies faith, the Council, among other measures, reestablished the → catechumenate as a time of initiation into and practice of faith. New aspects introduced by the Council are: (1) in addition to the salvific effect for the individual, the induction into the church that takes place through baptism; (2) in addition to its “objective” effect, its dialogical character in the sense of an encounter with

584 Christ – and thus with God – in faith, which takes place in symbolic acts of both performative and didactic nature; (3) in addition to what is fundamental in the administration, the additional character of baptism as the beginning of the path of faith. In this constellation, baptism is now again seen as the first of the sacraments of initiation (baptism, confirmation, and → Eucharist: III). The ecumenical significance of baptism, moreover, is given due regard: in conjunction with faith, it effects justification before God and incorporates the individual into the body of Christ. Thus, all Christians are connected, each in their own way, with the church of Christ, though this fundamental unity awaits full realization. c. Current Tasks in Baptismal Theology First, the character of baptism as a performative symbolic act – not only the actual baptismal act, but also the liturgy of baptism – requires further elaboration. Furthermore its communicative character needs to be developed: baptism is an interactive event between the administrator, who embodies Christ and the church, and the beneficiary as a member of the church or congregation. Not least, the dialogical character of baptism must be clarified. In Christ, God calls the baptized person by name; participation in the Passover mystery becomes a fundamental reality and basic law of his or her life. In this participation, a person may and should, once and for all, respond in faith to the creative call of God, that he or she may thus partake of baptismal grace and of God’s eternal life in the Holy Spirit, both of which are guaranteed by the baptismal seal. This seal can be understood as the creative effect of God’s unceasing willingness to allow himself to be found by this very person and to enable his or her response in faith, hope, and love. Finally, in view of the recognition that people may attain salvation without receiving baptism, the meaning of the NT commandment of baptism is in need of clarification. Whereas the conditions recognized by tradition for the salvation of the unbaptized included only → blood baptism, martyrdom (→ Martyr), and the longing for baptism, possibly just the parenthetical wish to be baptized, Vatican II did away with this unsatisfactory construction (LG 16). It is necessary to show that the integration into the Church that occurs through baptism is itself a dimension of salvation. God’s “Yes” to humanity must also be mediated by fellow believers. On this background, the meaning of child or infant baptism becomes readily apparent. While not only the baptism of children but at times also of adults may give rise to the question whether baptism by water requires a subsequent affirmation of faith in order to unfold its full effect – perhaps in the context of a biographical event which, for instance, is known in the Catholic “charismatic renewal” as a baptism in the Spirit or as a second

585 conversion – the following should nevertheless be kept in mind: In the order of salvation established by the NT, baptism by water is linked to God’s act of new creation and his personal call, both of which cannot simply be lost, but await the human response of faith once and for all, and time and again. In baptism, God confers a new capacity to achieve this. R.A. Duffy, “Baptism and Confirmation,” in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, vol. II, ed. F.S. Fiorenza & J.P. Galvin, 1991 ◆ G. Koch, “Sakramentenlehre – Das Heil aus den Sakramenten”, in: W. Beinert, ed., Glaubenszugänge. Lehrbuch der Katholischen Dogmatik, vol. III, 1995, 381–403 ◆ A. Jilek, Eintauchen – Handauflegen – Brotbrechen, 1996 ◆ E.-M. Faber, Einführung in die katholische Sakramentenlehre, 2002, 75–94 (bibl.). Günter Koch

2. Orthodox Church The first invitation to conversion and baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” in conjunction with the associated promise of the “gift of the Holy Spirit,” was articulated by → Peter at the close of his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:38). This call was answered by 3000 people, who “were added” (2:41), i.e. to the 120 (1:15) upon whom the Holy Spirit had come directly (2:4), thereby founding the church as God’s Spirit-gifted people, without themselves having had need of water baptism. Post-Pentecost baptism, as the continuation of → Pentecost thus added new members to the church. The precondition of their admittance was the at least incipient, recognition of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and a profession of faith (→ Confession of Faith) to him as the Redeemer of the world; its consequence was the complete forgiveness of all sins (→ Sin, Guilt and Forgiveness: VII), and the admittance to the → Kingdom of God. The baptismal event has a Trinitarian character in that the arrival of the Spirit puts into effect the redemptive deed of the Son for the individual person, in fulfillment of the will of the Father (Matt 26:39). This Trinitarian character finds its expression in the proclamatory baptismal formula (“The servant of God is baptized . . .”; Matt 20:18) as well as in the textual structure of the → NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed, to which the candidate for baptism or the godparent was required to commit himself beforehand. As a concrete form of baptism, total immersion is favored, as it most clearly expresses the communion of the baptized with Christ in the latter’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3f.). Dousing or even sprinkling are viewed as exceptions necessitated by unusual situations. Valid salvation-bestowing substitutes of baptism are the martyrdom of an unbaptized individual (blood baptism), as well as a person’s desire for baptism that remains unfulfilled upon his death. In principle, baptism is regarded as necessary for salvation. However, it can only receive and unfold its effectiveness for salvation if accompanied by the corresponding measure of faith (Matt 16:16). The resulting question concerning the possibility of child baptism – which also applies in a similar way to the

Baptism “feeble-minded” and the mentally disabled of all ages – is already answered in the NT. On the one hand, albeit under certain social conditions, the possibility of a communal decision of faith is afforded or perhaps even prescribed (Acts 1:14; 16:15; 31–33; 18:8). On the other, it is the will of the Lord himself that children be granted unhindered access to him and thus to the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:14 par.) This is plainly confirmed by Num 14:29–31 and Deut 1:39, where the children are explicitly and permanently excluded from the punishment of being barred from entering the Promised Land, as inflicted by God upon the people because of their failure to obey his commandment. With respect to the question of the baptism of children and of the mentally disabled, the resulting conclusion is that their inability to disbelieve is sufficient, as long as this condition endures and to the extent that a post-baptismal turn to faith seems reasonably possible. Distinct, though not independent of baptism, is the anointing with → myron as the “seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” (formula of administration), which is usually performed immediately following baptism. Without this, the baptized are like those Samaritans who had already been baptized by Philip, but for whose reception of the Spirit the apostles Peter and John had to be summoned (Acts 8:5–17). Consequently, it is not so much the mental attitude but the anointing with myron that is viewed as an absolutely necessary requirement for the admission of the baptized to the Eucharist. Conversely, this also implies a dependency of every performed baptism on the apostolic office of the church. While baptism may, in an emergency, be administered by any baptized person, the anointing with myron in the tradition of the NT remains the privilege of bishops and by the way of delegation, of priests as the successors of the twelve apostles. The participation of bishops as holders of the full spiritual office of the church in every completed Christian initiation is upheld by the fact that the consecration of the holy myron remains their exclusive prerogative (in fact, it is today performed solely by the foremost hierarch of an autocephalous church). The structured linking of baptismal administration to the ecclesial hierarchy demonstrates how the granting of sacramental admittance to the church, or its refusal, is to be seen as the primary locus of the apostolic power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18). Against this background, the still unsettled question of the recognition of a baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church remains an ecclesiological problem and an indication that the so-called → Rebaptism Controversy of antiquity (see III, 1, a above) was never really resolved in Orthodoxy. A. Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit, 1974 ◆ L. Heiser, Die Taufe in der orthodoxen Kirche, 1987 ◆ K.C. Felmy, Die orthodoxe

Baptism Theologie der Gegenwart, 1990, 177–187 ◆ G. Sava-Popa, Le baptême dans la tradition orthodoxe et ses implications oecuméniques, 1994 ◆ P. Plank, “Theologie und pastorale Reflexionen zur orthodoxen Taufpraxis,” OrthFor 12, 1998, 229–239. Peter Plank

3. Protestantism a. Lutheran According to the Lutheran definition, baptism is the only medium salutis (→ Salvation, Means of ), next to the Eucharist and the sermon (→ Preaching: III), through which the human being, as a consequence of the nonimputatio peccati, is “admitted and accepted into the Covenant of God and made to partake of the deed of Christ, childship, and eternal blessedness” (N. → Hunn, 1683, 389). The essential criterion is the idea that in, with, and under the element of water (and not outside of it) the entire Trinity effects the forgiveness of sins and regeneration (Tit 3:5); as in the verbum externum of the sermon, God is present in the baptismal water and thus transforms it into “aqua vitae” ( J. → Gerhard, vol. IV, 297; cf. John 4:10f.). For this reason, baptism – unlike the spiritualist (and ultimately also the Reformationist) definition – is considered an organum seu signum efficax (K. → Dieterich, 1640, 809) that not merely designates spiritual goods but also administers them in an effective manner. As in the Eucharist, the constituents of baptism are signum, verbum Dei, and fides (WA 2.727.24f.). Baptism is not “simply water” (BSLK 515) but water that is “consubstantial . . . with God’s word” (696), whereby the union of the material and the spiritual is to be understood as an analogy to the → hypostatic union of divine and human nature in Christ (WA 37.632.19f.), which permeate each other in their communicative interrelationship (→ Communicatio idiomatum). Contrary to the Anabaptist view (cf. c), → faith is not a prerequisite for baptism, but something effected by it, inasmuch as baptism stands for the verbum visibile, i.e. for the preaching of the Word of God which itself effects faith, → justification, as well as the mystical union of the baptized with Christ (with whom they die and are resurrected), and therefore constitutes the church. Baptism is necessary for salvation ( John 3:5), which is why children should be baptized (CA 9). The Christian, who is simul iustus et peccator, fulfills the purpose of baptism through his lifelong adherence to its virtues in reditus ad baptismum (BSLK 706), until death and resurrection bring it to its completion. In contrast to the traditional Roman Catholic view, baptism is more than the mere bestowal of a gratia prima that must be completed through the acquisition of subsequent → grace; rather, the → repentance (IV) effected through the daily drowning of the old Adam – which is not a sacrament in itself, but is coupled with the function of baptism (WA 2.733.27ff.) –

586 reaffirms the certainty that sin is no longer imputable. In conformity with the dialectical definition of faith as progression through constant regression (e.g. through → challenges to faith [I]) to the point of departure (WA 4.344.12f.), the crawling back under the cover of baptism also illustrates that the latter represents an eschatological and processual that lasts “until the Day of Judgment” (WA 2.728.33); which is why the regeneratio bestowed by baptism is regarded as fully valid, while the renovatio (Titus 3:5) awaits eschatological fulfillment (Gerhard, vol. IV, 324). Constitutive for the Lutheran conception of baptism is the strong accentuation of its soteriological aspects, as evidenced, for instance, by the recognition of emergency baptism (as opposed to Calvin, cf. b.), but also by reflections on the genuine presence of the blood of Christ in the baptismal water (“a red flood, colored by Christ’s Blood” [EG 202, 7; Gerhard, vol. IV, 299f.]), through which the removal of all sins (1 John 1:7) and appeasement of the → wrath of God may be effected, and which is often referred to as medicamentum spirituale (BSLK 699) or the like. In the 20th century, baptism was also rediscovered by Lutheran theology as an “ecumenical sacrament.” In context of the → Leuenberg Concord, the focus of interest shifted from the emphasis on the doctrinal differences between the Lutheran and Reformed position to a concentration on the common Reformational basis of the concept of baptism, whereupon baptism came to be interpreted from the standpoint of the notion of justification. As the “deed of God” (BSLK 692f.), baptism effects deliverance from the power of sin through the integration of the human being in the death and resurrection of Christ, thereby leading to a redefinition of human identity and to the constitution of the community of the church. J. Gerhard, Loci theologici, 1610–1622, 9 vols., new edition ed. E. Preuss, 1863–1875 ◆ C. Dieterich, Institutiones catecheticae, 1613, 1640 passim ◆ N. Hunnius, Epitome credendorum, 1625, 1683 passim ◆ C.H. Ratschow, Die eine christliche Taufe, 1972, 41989. Johann Anselm Steiger

b. Reformed The Reformed theology derived from Calvin regards baptism with water as the image of the purification of the human being from sin effected through Christ’s blood. Particular emphasis is placed on the forgiveness of sins, the redefinition of life in communion with Jesus Christ, assurance of being a child of God, incorporation into the body of Christ, and the basis for church membership. The confessional character of baptism that was predominant for Zwingli is secondary and, as a rule, subordinate. The causative element of the appropriation of salvation through baptism gives way to the elective deed of God (→ Election: III. → Predestination). Thus, baptism does not make one a child of God, but

587 lends expression that it already exists; it clearly documents human existence under God’s covenant of grace (→ Covenant: V; → Covenant Theology). As an instrument of salvation, baptism serves as a quarantee of salvation. In conformity with 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30, it is regarded as the seal of God’s “Yes” to the baptized and, as such, as a “token of the Covenant” (→ Heidelberg Catechism, 74). God’s “Yes” is irrevocably attested and confirmed in the process of baptism, although it preceded it and is not dependent upon it. Because the reception of → salvation (III) is distinguished from the function of baptism, Reformed theology has rejected the practice of emergency baptism as misleading and unnecessary. The children of Christian parents are to be baptized. The baptism of infants is justified with the idea of the covenant and through the establishment of a parallel to the OT rite of → circumcision (II, 1). The current debate is essentially dominated by two developments: the new conception of the doctrine of baptism advanced by K. → Barth and the convergence of Reformed Protestants and Lutherans in sacramental theology. With the differentiation of Spirit baptism and baptism by water, the interpretation of water baptism as the voluntary and obedient human response to God’s exclusive action in the baptism of the Spirit, and the resulting rejection of infant baptism, Barth absorbed and intensified specific elements of Reformed theology, such as the correspondence between divine action and the human practice of the baptismal act as well as the aspect of confession that goes back to Zwingli. Because of the unresolved problems inherent to it, Barth’s revision of baptismal doctrine did not prevail, though it must be regarded as an ongoing challenge. In connection with the Leuenberg Agreement, the Protestant churches of Europe developed a common understanding of baptism. Here as in the ecumenical dialogues, the emphasis of Reformed theology on the aspect of the appropriation of salvation that is connected with God’s acting in favor of the individual is worthy of acknowledgement, as is the character of baptism as an “effective sign” (signum efficax) of the event of reconciliation between God and humankind. J. Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, 1559, IV, 15–16 ◆ W. Kreck, RGG3 vol. VI, 1962, 647f. ◆ O. Weber, Grundlagen der Dogmatik, vol. II, 1962, 71987, 656–678 ◆ K. Barth, KD IV/4, 1967 ◆ W.H. Neuser, Die Tauflehre des Heidelberger Katechismus, TEH.NF 139, 1967 ◆ F. Viering, ed., Zu Karl Barths Lehre von der Taufe, 1971 ◆ U. Kühn, Sakramente, HST 11, 1985, 21990, 100–129, 166–169, 174–182 (bibl.). ◆ J. Rohls, Theologie reformierter Bekenntnisschriften, 1987, 245–260 ◆ W. Hüffmeier, ed., Zur Lehre und Praxis der Taufe/Zur Lehre und Praxis des Abendmahls, Leuenberger Texte 2, 1995, 15–45 ◆ E. Geldbach, Taufe, BenshH 79, 1996. Michael Beintker

c. Baptists For a denomination which finds so much of its distinctiveness in its particular baptismal practice, → Baptists

Baptism have a remarkably undeveloped theology of baptism. This is partly due to the circumstances surrounding the debates on baptism within Protestantism itself, which are more concerned with the correct nature and performance of baptism than with its strict theological foundation. Thus, scholarly discussions are often devoted to the elaborate defense of the basic exegetical assumption that the NT speaks only of believer baptism, as well as to the etymological thesis that βαπτίζω/baptízō and cognates denote baptism by immersion. A baptismal theology describing God’s role in baptism or its significance in the process of justification and → sanctification is largely lacking. Through most of their history, Baptists have shared theological positions on baptism with others and expressed disagreement with them only in questions regarding the execution and the nature of baptism. In the 17th century, common roots in English → Separatism and, subsequently, the shared experience of persecution led to consensus and collaboration with other English → dissenters; in the 2nd half of the 18th century, however, British and American Baptists largely adopted an evangelical tradition which they shared with the supporters of infant baptism. In the 20th century, many Baptists found much in common with Christians of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements (→ Pentecostalism and Charismatic Movements). History points to a number of important changes in the baptismal theology of Baptists. Up to the 19th century, the Baptists shared the standard positions of Reformed theology, sometimes more along the Zwinglian line, according to which the sacraments are only to be understood as signs, sometimes tending more to the Calvinist stream, according to which God operates through the sacramental life of the church, thus implying that baptism and Eucharist are to be seen as means of grace (cf. b above). With the emergence of evangelical movements and in particular with the rise of → ritualism (II) within Tractarianism (→ Oxford Movement) in the English-speaking world, in which the Baptists represented the largest denomination, the Zwinglian conception became predominant. If one may speak of a specifically Baptist theology of baptism, it has two centers: the relationship between baptism and ecclesiology on the one hand, and the role of baptism as an act of witness on the other. The first is a constant, through often implicit, theme in Baptist accounts of baptism: believers’ baptism is the only legitimate mode of admittance into a church of believers; in this respect, congregational ecclesiology and believers’ baptism belong together. If the church in its most fundamental form is to be seen as actually realized in congregations that arise as local associations of professing Christians, then baptism as a rite of admission can

Baptism be offered only to those who profess Christianity and are ready to enter into a covenant with other believers in discipleship to Christ. The second topic derives from the practice of restricting baptism to confessing believers. The sacramental act then becomes a demonstration of → conversion and is often accompanied by a personal testimony (→ Witness/Testimony) of faith. Of particular significance for the German-speaking world is the still ongoing debate on baptismal theology begun by J.G. → Oncken’s “Confession of Faith” (1837), which strives for a biblical-theological understanding of baptism. According to it, faith takes chronological and objective precedence over baptism, which only comes in second place as a baptism of responsible faith taking the form of a publicly confessed conversion of the person and which is received only once (hence, the allegation of “rebaptism” is unjustified), thereby bringing that person into the membership of a local church. In the latest ecumenical discussions, some Baptist theologians have made a point of insisting on the normativity of the Baptist practice of baptism, while at the same time allowing for a certain theological margin within which other understandings of baptism may be recognized as valid or even appropriate. The outcome of the dialogue held between the European Baptist Federation (EBF) and the “Gemeinschaft evangelischer Kirchen in Europa” (GEKE [Fellowship of Protestant Churches in Europe]) was a final declaration entitled “The Beginning of the Christian Life and the Nature of the Church” (2004), in which a mutually acceptable understanding of the gospel, baptism, and ecclesiology was reached. In this document, the churches recognize any baptism performed in accordance with the gospel. In addition, the declaration takes note of the existing opposition in the administration of the sacrament of baptism (discussion of so-called “rebaptism”), which rules out a community of churches in accordance with the Leuenberg Concord. Nevertheless, the document encourages the member churches and unions to continue cooperative work despite these differences. In recent years, and perhaps as a response to an increasing appreciation of the importance of sacramental theology within Baptist life, a number of Baptist theologians, particularly in Britain, have attempted to develop theological accounts of baptism which, whilst not surrendering Baptist distinctives, are able to give an account of infant baptism as “improper but not invalid”. This approach has very recently been deployed in the context of ecumenical conversation, in Pushing at the Boundaries of Unity. J.M. Ross, “The Theology of Baptism in Baptist History,” BQ 15, 1953, 100–112 ◆ G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 1962 ◆ G. Balders & U. Swarat, eds., Zur Tauftheologie im deutschen Baptismus, 1994 ◆ B. Marchlowitz, Freikirchlicher Gemeindeaufbau, APrTh 7, 1995, esp. 233–350 ◆ A.R. Cross,

588 Baptism and the Baptists, 2000 ◆ W. Kerner, Gläubigentaufe und Säuglingstaufe, 2004 ◆ Pushing at the Boundaries of Unity: Anglicans and Baptists in Conversation, 2005 ◆ P.S. Fiddes, Tracks and Traces: Baptist Identity in Churh and Theology, 2003. Stephen R. Holmes

d. Anglicanism Regardless of the recognition of its decisive shaping by the Reformation, Anglicanism emphasizes its continuity with the doctrinal teachings of the first five centuries (consensus quinquesecularis) and is marked by the increasing re-Catholicizing tendencies of the 17th through 19th centuries, which includes the emphasis on the incarnational character of the church and the appreciation of the sacraments as its expression. Thomas → Cranmer et al. revised the baptismal liturgy in order to stress the forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, and incorporation into the Christian community. Baptism became a public rite of a covenantal nature. The following official ecclesiastical sources may be regarded as authoritative for the Anglican doctrine of baptism: “Public Baptism of Infants” in the → Book of Common Prayer of 1662, the 39 Articles of Religion (esp. art. 25–27), and the currently valid baptismal liturgies of the churches belonging to the Anglican Communion in connection with the relevant orders of baptism (for the → Church of England: Canons B21–28). According to Anglican teaching, baptism with water is to be performed on a previously unbaptized candidate in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of representing the action of the one Church. Baptism is therefore unrepeatable. Baptism is an “effectual” means of grace, the sacrament of rebirth or regeneration through the Holy Spirit, through which the gift of the Spirit is received. In compliance with church order, it is administered to children within the visible church and to adults following repentance and profession of faith, in both cases by an ordained minister, preferably by the bishop or else by the priest or the deacon – in an emergency also by a layperson – by means of sprinkling, dousing, or immersion. It represents the foundation sacrament of Christian initiation, which also includes → catechesis, liturgical confession of faith, confirmation of the Holy Spirit through the laying-on of hands by the bishop, and participation in the Eucharist and reception of the Communion gifts. Baptism makes the candidate for baptism a member of the body of Christ and is therefore both an ontological and a relational event. It is an essential prerequisite for participation in Holy Communion, is accompanied by the → sign of the cross on the forehead, calls for a human response of faith and discipleship, and can be appropriated and entered into throughout one’s life. According to the catechetical definition of the Book of Common Prayer, a sacrament is “an outward and vis-

589 ible sign of an inward and spiritual grace bestowed upon us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof ” (1874, 226). The Anglican doctrine of baptism is thus philosophically realist: the sacrament is not a purely human symbolic action, but actually effects what it signifies. Theologically, the accent lies on → eschatology: the meaning and effect of the sacrament are only partially realized in this life. The tension between these two aspects may be contained by understanding baptism both personally and relationally – the importance of this approach for covenant theology is obvious. Present-day Anglicanism follows the ecumenical consensus in seeing baptism as the necessary, but not sufficient condition for Christian ministry and as (with the baptismal Trinitarian faith) the foundation of Christian unity. R. Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book 5, 1597, LVI–LXVI ◆ G.W. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 1951 ◆ G.W. Bromiley, Baptism and the Anglican Reformers, 1953 ◆ S.W. Sykes, Unashamed Anglicanism, 1995, 3–23. Paul Avis

V. Practical Theology Baptismal practice lies in the area of overlap between the various disciplines of practical theology, including church law (→ Canon Law/Church Law) and the → sociology of the church. Attendant complexity is evident in countries where for centuries baptism shortly after birth has been taken for granted, but where the current widespread changes in baptismal practice call for a new theoretical and practical orientation of church practice in the area of baptism. 1. Changes in Baptismal Practice On the one hand, the number of regions in which children are automatically baptized shortly after birth is decreasing; at the same time, unbaptized people are also migrating from non-Christian countries into mostly Christian ones. On the other hand, baptism continues to be attractive for many people. Taken together, both factors have led to an increasing pluralism in the time of baptism, even in churches that traditionally practice so-called infant baptism. This diversity with respect to baptismal age has a variety of consequences when combined with further changes in baptismal practice. Accordingly, the motives that lead people to seek baptism for their children or themselves are becoming more varied. In addition to the weakening influence of tradition and the desire to mark the transition of birth ritually in the first few months of life, other motives may be recorded, such as a “religiosity of generational provision” (H.-O. Wölber, Religion ohne Entscheidung, 1959, 117), aesthetic-ritual interests, and among older people also a personal decision. All of this increases the need for prebaptismal education and for the care of the baptized, whenever it is appropriate to relate the above motives to the biblical perspective on

Baptism baptism. The social frame of reference for the wish to baptize children is usually the → family, which also hands down a variety of customs relating to baptism (e.g. baptismal robes); in the case of older baptismal candidates, however, a larger role is played by the → community. 2. Innovations The intermittent contempt for baptism displayed by theologians committed to rational enlightenment (e.g. M. Ferel, “Taufe,” PThH, 21975, 565–585) has lately given way, in practical theology, to an increasing interest in the analysis and improvement of baptismal practice. This represents an opportunity to develop the essential, biographically related content of Christian faith. The increasing differentiation between the various stages of life in the liturgical formularies (Roman Catholicism: Ordo baptismi parvulorum, 1969; Ordo initiationis Christianae adultorum, 1972/1974; Die Eingliederung von Kindern im Schulalter in die Kirche, 1986; similarly in the baptismal manual of the EKU in 2000) is an appropriate liturgical reaction to the pluralization of baptismal age. Recommendations regarding communication of the meaning of baptism deserve special attention. Thus, practical theologians are attempting to formulate new interpretations of baptism that relate to the present, for example as a “sacrament of rescue in a threatened world” (Cornehl, 735–737). More deeply anchored in the rite itself are recommendations for the liturgical staging (and didactic treatment, e.g. in baptismal classes) of the baptismal symbols: cross, name, water, light, hand (Grethlein, Grundfragen, 209–211); their ambiguity enables, among other things, consideration for baptismal candidates with handicaps. In addition, to some extent in conjunction with these recommendations, practical theological efforts regarding the importance of baptism for → church growth in various countries and confessions should be mentioned: In Lutheran Norway, for example, church growth is largely oriented toward baptism (Dåpspraksis); the VELKD attempted to transfer this model, which is largely oriented toward the practice of infant baptism (Blank/Grethlein), to (West) Germany. The Roman Catholic Church of France (Zodrow, 275ff.) and the USA (Tebartz-van Elst), now followed by a number of German dioceses, practice various forms of a liturgically structured and graded → catechumenate for adult candidates to baptism. Both conceptions recommend fixed dates for baptism (esp. Easter) because of the better possibility of joint baptismal preparation and remembrance (→ Baptism Renewal/Reminder) but also in order to reestablish the link between baptism and → Passover mystery, and thus also between baptism and the rest of church life. In these concepts, liturgical, (church) educational, and cybernetic considerations are closely interwoven.

Baptism 3. Further Tasks The sketched changes in baptismal practice call attention to problems that require further consideration: The differentiation of initiation into water baptism, → first communion, and confirmation, which resulted from the isolating of → confirmation and the prohibition of → children’s communion in the Western churches, appears problematic with regard to the baptism of youths or adults. The above-mentioned Roman Catholic concept of a graded catechumenate restores this unity, which is still preserved today in the Orthodox church. On the Protestant side, the problem poses itself esp. in connection with the so-called confirmation baptism. The increasingly common children’s communion is at least a step in the direction of the replacement of the unbiblical “confirmatio est admissio” by “baptismus est admissio.” The connection between baptism and → church membership has become an increasingly frequent topic of discussion (Lienemann-Perrin). In pastoral practice, the problem of how to deal with those who have left the church is often encountered. In this regard, the rediscovery of the meaning of baptism has, from a pastoral perspective, led among other things to the insight that the church is committed to the ongoing pastoral care of those who have left the church (→ character indelebilis of baptism). Only in part do the suggestions to establish, in addition to baptism, a separate → dedication of children (or thanksgiving) correspond to dogmatic criticism of child baptism, which has met with little success in practice. A new development is the pedagogical justification (capacity for remembering the event) of the recommendation to confer baptism at the age of about nine or ten years. The problems resulting from this – such as confusion with baptism, the marginalization of baptism, and the like – still need to be clarified. Finally, the function of the → godparent is problematic owing to factors such as relocation, possible alienation from the parents, and a general uncertainty regarding the precise function of the godparent. At the same time, however, the task of providing assistance in a Christian life carries great weight – not least in the case of adolescent and adult candidates for baptism. In the Roman Catholic Church, the support of baptismal candidates by the godparents, which is anchored in the baptismal catechumenate, points to an interesting possibility for Protestants as well. Dὰpspraksis og dὰpsoplæring i Den norske kirke, ed. Institut for Kristen Oppseding, 1982 ◆ C. Lienemann-Perrin, ed., Taufe und Kirchenzugehörigkeit, 1983 ◆ R.L. Browning & R.A. Reed, The Sacraments in Religious Education and Liturgy: An Ecumenical Model, 1985 ◆ C. Grethlein, Taufpraxis heute, 1988 ◆ D.S.M. Hamilton, Through the Waters: Baptism and Christian Life, 1990 ◆ R. Stuhlmann, “Kindertaufe statt Säuglingstaufe,” PTh 80, 1991, 184–204 ◆ R. Blank & C. Grethlein, eds., Ein-

590 ladung zur Taufe – Einladung zum Leben, 2 vols., 1993/1995 ◆ F.-P. Tebartz-van Elst, Der Erwachsenenkatechumenat in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1993 ◆ L. Zodrow, Gemeinde lebt im Gottesdienst, 2000, 275–295 ◆ P. Cornehl, art. “Taufe,” VIII, TRE XXXII, 2001, 734–741 ◆ C. Grethlein, Grundfragen der Liturgik, 2001, 188–214. Christian Grethlein

VI. History of Liturgy Baptism arose out of the transformation of a prophetic symbolic action, the baptism of John (→ John the Baptist, see II above), into a ritual of initiation (→ Rites of Passage) within the Christian congregation. Since Christian baptism, unlike the baptism of John, also represents a baptism of the Spirit and acceptance into the new community of Christians, it has developed into a ritual complex, the essential components of which are the administration of baptism by water, a rite of bestowing the Spirit (→ Laying-On of Hands, → Anointing: V), and the baptismal Eucharist. 1. Beginnings Very little is known about the oldest forms of the baptismal service in NT times. The expression “to baptize in the name of Jesus (Christ),” frequent esp. in Acts (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. also 1 Cor 1:13, 15; 6:11), allows the inference of a name epiclesis (calling out of the name of Jesus in the sense of handing over the baptized) during baptism (cf. also Herm. Sim. VIII, 6.4); the tripartite baptismal commission in Matt 28:19 attests to the development of the triadic → epiclesis, which became normative for all traditions from the 2nd century onward. The Pauline baptismal theology in Rom 6 (baptism in the sense of being buried with Christ) actually suggests a baptism by immersion, although no concrete information on the rite of baptism is found in Paul. The requirement of the → Didache (7.1) to baptize, if possible, in “living [i.e. flowing] water” is reminiscent of the origin of baptism in Johannine baptism in the Jordan. The Didache attests a preparation for baptism consisting of a period of fasting that lasted several days; the teaching of the Two Ways (Did. 1–6) represents the catechetical foundation of baptismal preparation. Especially important for the development of baptism as a ritual complex are the two reports in Acts (8:14–17; 19:1–7) according to which hands are laid on the baptized for the transmission of the Holy Spirit. 2. Early Church Two traditions of differing ritual structure and theological interpretation are attested for the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In Syria (cf. esp. the → Acts of Thomas; also the → Pseudo-Clementines, → Didascalia, Syr. Acts of John [→ John, Acts of ]), water baptism is preceded by an anointing of the head in conjunction with an epiclesis of the Spirit; the → Eucharist (II, IV) constitutes the end of the ritual. The anointing of the head is a ritualization of the bestowing of the Spirit on Jesus on the occasion

591 of his baptism (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:37f.). The → oil poured over the head represents the Holy Spirit, who is called down upon the baptized during the procedure (“Come, Spirit of holiness” [Acts Thom. 27]). The anointing is an assimilation of the baptized to the Spirit-bearer Jesus and is to be understood as a royal messianic anointing. In a second, historically no doubt younger stratum of tradition, the anointing of the head is expanded to include an anointing of the entire body; the epiclesis of the Spirit is now spoken over the oil, in the sense of an oil consecration (Acts Thom. 157). The administering of water baptism is accompanied by an invocation of the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and thus probably preserves the original name epiclesis. In a later stage, it was reworked into the indicative baptismal formula (“N. is baptized in the name of the Father . . .”; John → Chrysostom, Catecheses baptismales, 2/3.3; → Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae catecheticae, 14.15). Traces of this ancient Syrian tradition are preserved most clearly in the Armenian rite. The Mediterranean tradition can be best reconstructed for North Africa from the writings of → Tertullian and → Cyprian of Carthage. Here, baptism is formulated as a cathartic process in which → exorcisms play an important role. Through the agency of baptism and of the foregoing preparation for it, which became institutionalized as the → catechumenate from c. 200 onward, the candidates for baptism move out of the dominion of the → devil and into the sovereignty of Christ. The negative aspect of this change of lordship is marked by the baptismal exorcism, in which Christ, the exorcist, devotes himself to the candidates. Finally, before the actual act of baptism, the candidates freely renounce Satan, his pomp, and his angels (Tert. Spect. 4.1; Cor. 3.2). Anointment rites with an exorcizing and reinforcing effect later also appear in this context of liberation and renunciation (Ambr. Sacr. 1.4). Here, the central act of water baptism is not accompanied by a name epiclesis, but performed in conjunction with an interrogatory baptismal confession (questions of faith; → Confession [of Faith]). The candidate is questioned about his or her faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the church (Tert. Cor. 3.3; Prax. 26.9; Cyp. Ep. 69.7.2; 70.2.1) and immersed in the water following each affirmative answer. Baptism is formulated here as induction into the faith in the sense of a divine specification mediated by the church as the locus of the Spirit. In analogy to the Syrian attestations of oil consecration, a prayer in continuous use since Tertullian (Bapt. 4.4f.; cf. Cyp. Ep. 70.1.3) in the context of the consecration of baptismal water formulates the theology of baptism in a most impressive way. In the Mediterranean tradition the historically predominant rite of bestowing the Spirit is that of the laying-on of hands

Baptism in conjunction with a prayer for the Holy Spirit (Tert. Bapt. 8.1; Res. 8.3), though even here the anointing of the head makes an early appearance as a postbaptismal rite (Tert. Bapt. 7.1; Marc. 1.14.3; Res. 8.3; Cyp. Ep. 70.2.2). The western interpretation of this anointment particularly emphasizes the priestly element in connection with the OT anointing of priests (e.g. Exod 29:7). A consignation (making the → sign of the cross on the forehead) closes the baptismal rite; this sign shows that the baptized person belongs to Christ; it is the mark of property and of protection (cf. the sealing with the taw in Ezek 9). Here too, baptism ends with the baptismal Eucharist, in which the newly baptized make their first appearance as full-fledged Christians. A particular ritual feature of this Eucharist is the variously attested (e.g. Tert. Marc. 1.14.3; Cor. 3.3) bestowal of a cup of milk and honey, the gifts of the promised land. The period of the imperial church in the 4th and 5th centuries brought ecumenical unification processes in the form of the baptismal worship service. In Syria, the prebaptismal anointing was reinterpreted: as a cathartic exorcism ( John → Chrysostom, Catecheses baptismales, 2.3, 7; 3.2, 24) or as whole-body anointing in the sense of being clothed with the robe of paradise or the resurrection body (→ Theodore of Mopsuestia, Homiliae catecheticae, 14.8). As in the West, a postbaptismal anointing was introduced for this purpose (first attested in Jerusalem: → Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses mystagogicae, 3.1). Exorcisms now also played a role in this tradition (Theodore of Mopsuestia, op. cit., 12.22). Though the doctrinal positions were not adopted, the renunciation was expanded to include a formula in which the baptized submit to Christ (Theodore of Mopsuestia, ibid., 13.13). The wording of the Byzantine rite is esp. beautiful in this respect: After the candidate, who is naked (i.e. having divested himself of his old self ) and facing west – the realm of evil –, has renounced Satan three times and blown in his direction, the candidate turns to the east and repeats three times “I attach myself to Christ,” as well as the symbolum. He is then asked again: “Have you joined Christ?” – “I have joined [him],” whereupon he or she is invited to worship Christ. The postbaptismal anointing with → myron seals the baptism with the gift of the Holy Spirit (according to the accompanying Byzantine formula: “Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit”). A similar form of the baptismal liturgy is attested by → Ambrose of Milan in his mystagogic catecheses De sacramentis (Sacr.) and De mysteriis (Myst.). A special custom in Milan (Sacr. 3.4–7; Myst. 31–33; also attested in North Africa [→ Augustine, Ep. 55.18, 33] and Gaul [→ Caesarius of Arles, Sermones, 204.3]) is a baptismal → footwashing, the historical roots of which are unclear (Syria?), but to which Ambrose obviously attached great importance (forgiveness of sins).

Baptism With this, the baptismal liturgy reached a stage of development that was earlier often regarded as its classic form: water baptism, anointing or laying-on of hands, and baptismal Eucharist. The theological background of this ecumenical unification of baptism from the 4th century is the reception of the Pauline baptismal theology in Rom 6: immersion in water is interpreted as the death of the old self, and emergence as resurrection with Christ; from this perspective, the gift of the Spirit can only be ritualized postbaptismally. The outward appearance of the → baptismal font frequently also corresponds to the new theological interpretation: it is shaped as a tomb or as a cross. 3. Latin Middle Ages The Roman Catholic rite of baptism of the early Middle Ages is best doumented in the old Gelasian → Sacramentary (→ Liturgical Books) and in Ordo Romanus XI. Although the baptisms performed at the time of the composition of both sources were – esp. in consequence of the Augustinian theology of original sin – conferred almost solely on children, the catechumenate had undergone broad ritual development; the baptismal worship service itself took place on → Easter night. Deprived of its actual purpose (conversion to faith), the preparation for baptism consisted of seven scrutinies (examinations in the sense of test exorcisms) carried out during the Lenten Quadragesima (→ Fasting: III; → Passiontide). The normal scrutinies are a series of exorcisms for combating the devil. In the first scrutiny, the rites of admittance into the catechumenate take precedence: signing with the cross on the forehead and the offering of salt (as a foretaste of the Eucharist; → Salt). In the third scrutiny, the fundamental texts of faith (confession of faith, → Paternoster, gospels) are handed over; the seventh scrutiny on Easter Saturday represents the final preparation for baptism: redditio symboli, renunciation, rites of exorcism (ephphatha rite in connection with Mark 7:34; anointing). The baptismal worship service on Easter night begins with the prayer over the baptismal water (main theme: the fecundation of the water by God’s Spirit, so that it might become the motherly womb for the rebirth of the baptism candidates). This is followed by the triple immersion in conjunction with the questions of faith and the anointing of the head. The ritual complex of bestowing the Spirit, known as consignatio in the Roman Catholic tradition, forms the conclusion: the prayer for the sevenfold Spirit (following Isa 11:2f.) and the final signing on the forehead with chrism. In Rome, this consignatio was always the prerogative of the bishop; thus, following the reception of the Roman rite north of the Alps in the Carolingian period, the consignatio acquired an independent status as the episcopal confirmatio (→ Confirmation). Into the 12th century the baptismal Eucharist (→ First Communion) remained linked

592 to baptism; only then did the Latin liturgy of baptism become divided into three chronologically sequenced rites (baptism, confirmation, first communion; in the Early Modern period and until the present day in the Roman Catholic church, the order is usually baptism, first communion, confirmation). In the course of the High Middle Ages, the rites of the catechumenate were integrated into the baptismal worship service itself; there arose a more complex rite containing several exorcisms, with a somewhat simplified variant for infant baptism. Only the prayer over the water was kept in the liturgy of Easter night (which was no longer used for baptism). There was a notable change in the central water act: the questions of faith were asked before the immersions; the central statement of water baptism, which also became the baptismal formula, was modeled after Matt 28:19: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father . . .” The medieval rites of baptism differed from case to case; variants of the baptismal rite that arose in the Middle Ages continued to be used in the Roman Catholic church into the modern period; extensive changes were not implemented until the 20th century. 4. Reformation By and large, the baptismal liturgy of the Lutheran Reformation is characterized by a continuity with medieval tradition. Luther’s Taufbüchlein (ET: Baptismal Booklet) from 1523 is shorter with regard to exorcisms, but otherwise an almost literal translation of a late medieval baptismal liturgy (Agenda communis, 1512). The newly added “flood prayer,” in which the baptismal event is given a biblical interpretation, may perhaps have been composed by Luther himself. As in Luther’s baptismal hymn “Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam” [Christ our Lord came to the Jordan] (EG 202), it offers a short summary of Lutheran baptismal theology (drowning of the old Adam, admission into the ark of the church). In the Taufbüchlein of 1526, which is still normative for Lutheran baptism, Luther further shortened the exorcisms and deleted a number of ritual actions (gift of salt, ephphatha rite, postbaptismal anointing). The formula accompanying the last of these is reworked into the votum postbaptismale: the anointing motif becomes the encouragement motif. Of particular importance for the Lutheran baptismal liturgy is the meaning attache to the children’s gospel (Mark 10:13–16), following which the laying-on of hands on the candidate is performed during the Lord’s Prayer. Adapted from medieval tradition, this sequence of rites is reinterpreted as the personal allocation of the promissio in faith. The retention of exorcism corresponds to Luther’s conception of baptism as a battle against the devil, although baptismal exorcism already became a problematic issue in Lutheranism in the 16th

593 century and ceased to be practiced, at the latest, in the wake of pietism and Enlightenment. The Reformed baptismal order (e.g. Zwingli 1525, Calvin 1543) corresponds to the minimizing of the relationship between baptism and God’s action in Reformed baptismal theology. Baptism is first and foremost understood as a public testimony of the child’s acceptance into the → Covenant (V; corresponding to circumcision), not as God’s actual deed upon the baptismal candidate. In consequence, all elements of exorcism are deleted, as are all ritual actions with the exception of the water act that takes place under the baptismal formula. Characteristic features of Reformed baptismal liturgy are the admonitions to the parents and godparents, as well as the public nature of baptism in the worship service of the congregation into which the candidate is received. A number of characteristics of the Reformed tradition are also shared with the Anglican baptismal liturgy as laid down in the → Book of Common Prayer of 1552. While the first edition of 1549 was still largely dependent upon medieval tradition, the order of 1552 was radically simplified as a consequence of the criticism of M. → Bucer, but also under the influence of the “Cologne Reformation” of 1543. Exorcism was deleted and of the ritual actions, only the signing on the forehead was retained (as a postbaptismal rite). 5. Ecumenical Unification in the 20th Century In the second half of the 20th century, ecumenical harmonization tendencies similar to those of the 4th and 5th centuries become noticeable. The origins of this development lie, apart from the → Ecumenical movement (II), in a supraconfessional reflection on patristic traditions, which led to a renewed consciousness of baptism as a ritual complex and to a ritually translated appreciation of the symbolism of water baptism. This is least true of the Reformed liturgies in German-speaking areas, which continued to concentrate on the central act of water baptism and the acceptance into the congregation (Reformed Liturgy of 1999, which still includes a prayer over the baptismal water with a petition for its blessing; Liturgie [German-speaking Switzerland], vol. IV, in which a shortened Roman Catholic order is however adopted – an ecumenically noteworthy aspect). The → Worship Directory (Manual) III/1 of the VELKD (1988) largely follows Luther’s Taufbüchlein. In the votum postbaptismale, the hand is laid on the candidate; a variation of Luther’s votum mentions the effects of the Holy Spirit, which places the ritual act in vicinity of Roman Catholic confirmation. The handing over of the baptismal candle and the putting on of the baptismal robe are optional rites. Worthy of note are the “Reflections on the baptismal water” appended to Luther’s flood prayer. Richer in terms of liturgical com-

Baptism plexity is the baptismal worship service in the American Lutheran Book of Worship (1978). After the opening, a prayer is recited over the baptismal water; then come the renunciation and the questions of faith, followed by water baptism with the baptismal formula. The postbaptismal rites are modeled after the tradition of the Roman consignatio: prayer for the Spirit (inspired by Isa 11:2f.) in conjunction with laying-on of hands and signing on the forehead as a property mark. For the latter, oil can be used. In the → Anglican Church of the middle of the 20th century, the theological debates on the meaning of confirmation as a rite supplementing water baptism through the conferment of the Spirit also exerted influence on the baptismal worship service. After the water rite comes the donning of the baptismal robe and perhaps the signing and a votum, which may be followed by anointing. The postbaptismal rites are aimed at preserving baptism in life (“you may daily be renewed by his anointing spirit”). The sequence of “renunciation – prayer over the baptismal water – questions on faith” is convincing. In normal practice, baptism is regarded as a precondition within the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic Church following → Vatican II, the order for the baptism of infants was adapted to the situation of the children and structured along a unified pattern for the entire church, but with possibilities of accommodation (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, 21986). The rites of the catechumenate were radically shortened and exorcism replaced by a prayer for deliverance from evil. The questions concerning renunciation and faith are now addressed to the parents and godparents. Baptism is performed by immersion or through dousing with water. The formula for postbaptismal anointing speaks of identification with Christ, priest, prophet, and king. A separate rite exists for older children (Die Eingliederung von Kindern im Schulalter in die Kirche [The integration of children of school age into the church], 1986). Of greater ecumenical significance, and in part already acting as a stimulus for the baptismal orders of other churches, is the new graded rite for the incorporation of adults into the church, formulated on the model of the early church (Ordo initiationis christianae adultorum, 1972). The catechumenate is restored as a time of congregational apprenticeship in faith and life and structured through a series of worship celebrations (acceptance into the catechumenate, admission to baptism, handing over of the symbolum and Lord’s Prayer, etc.). The baptismal worship service, which is preferably to be held on Easter night and in any case before the assembled congregation, comprises not only the baptismal rites, but also confirmation (which is no longer reserved for the bishop) and the first Communion. In this configuration, the baptismal set of rites is once more convincingly reestablished in its structural unity.

Baptism A. Stenzel, Die Taufe, 1958 ◆ G. Kretschmar, “Die Geschichte des Taufgottesdienstes in der alten Kirche,” Leit. 5, 1970, 1–348 ◆ B. Jordahn, “Der Taufgottesdienst im Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart,” ibid., 349–640 ◆ A. Kavanagh, The Shape of Baptism, 1978, 21991 ◆ G. Winkler, Das armenische Initiationsritual, 1982 ◆ Baptism, Eucharist & Ministry, Faith and Order Paper No. 111, World Council of Churches, 1982 ◆ Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft der liturgischen Kommissionen im dt. Sprachgebiet ed., Die Eingliederung von Kindern im Schulalter in die Kirche, 1986 ◆ V. Saxer, Les rites de l’initiation chrétienne du IIe au VIe siècle, 1988 ◆ The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998 ◆ B. Kleinheyer, Sakramentliche Feiern, vol. I, 1, GDK 7, 1, 1989, ◆ M.E. Johnson, ed., Living Water, Sealing Spirit, 1995 ◆ idem, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 1999 ◆ Kirchenkanzlei der EKU, ed., Taufbuch, 2000 ◆ E.C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, 32003. Reinhard Meßner

VII. Church Law Because baptism is a salvific act of basic importance within the Christian church, it has a fundamental ecumenical dimension. The common property of all Christian churches, it is a visible bond of unity transcending all ecclesiological differences. In accordance with the Gospel tradition, most churches administer it with the Trinitarian formula accompanying the symbolic act of immersion in water or affusion with water. Many Christian churches reciprocally recognize baptism performed in this manner (but cf. IV, 2 above). Following on from earlier regional agreements, there are now efforts toward a reciprocal recognition of baptism among the larger and some of the smaller Christian churches in Germany in the form of a general baptismal compact. In ecumenical theological discussions, however, differing views on the appropriate age for baptism are expressed, revealing fundamentally different understandings of baptism. Churches that practice infant baptism understand it as a salvific act that incorporates the baptized individual into the fellowship of the faithful; churches that baptize only individuals who can personally confess their faith consider it primarily an expression of personal → conversion. Because this fundamental difference impedes mutual recognition of baptism and can lead to repetition of the baptismal act, ecumenical discussions based on the convergence declarations of the WCC Commission for Faith and Order concerning baptism, Eucharist, and ministry (→ Lima Declarations) have striven for rapprochement in practice. From the perspective of church law, most churches generally agree that baptism, in its function as a → sacrament, is not primarily a legal matter. It can be administered only once. It cannot be repeated, because it conveys indelible character (→ Character indelebilis) and thus establishes an unbreakable bond whose spiritual import cannot be dissolved even by leaving the church. From the legal perspective, baptism is the condition for membership in the one, holy, catholic (universal),

594 and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, instantiated in particular churches and congregations (→ church membership admission). Its administration is governed by legal norms (CIC 1983, canons 849–878; → worship directories and church rules). As a rule, infant baptism is customary; in the Roman Catholic Church it is obligatory. Baptism may be postponed, however, if the parents cannot provide a Christian upbringing or want their children to decide for themselves later. The community has a responsibility for instructing these “unbaptized” individuals in the Christian faith. Baptism is preceded by preparatory instruction, the subject of which is the Christian faith and the promise and duty of baptism. Before the child’s baptism, parents and → godparents are instructed in their responsibility for bringing up the child in the Christian faith. Godparents must be members of the church in which the child is to be baptized. In most Protestant churches, godparents may be members of other churches in communion with their own; in the Roman Catholic Church, non-Catholics are allowed to serve only as witnesses. As a rule, baptisms are performed in the church or baptistery during Sunday worship, by a duly authorized minister of the church in question. Private baptism is exceptional, generally in cases of emergency. Such an emergency baptism can be performed by any baptized person, and indeed according to Roman Catholic law by any person at all. It is valid if performed with water and the Trinitarian formula. An emergency baptism must be reported promptly to the appropriate local church so that it can be registered and recorded officially. Since baptism cannot be repeated (and rebaptism forbidden), in cases of doubt permission is granted only if, after careful examination, doubts concerning the fact of baptism or its validity prove to be justified. Baptisms are entered and recorded in baptismal registers or → church registers. Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church establishes → church membership with all its rights and obligations. This membership is instantiated in the → diocese where the member resides. VIII. Missiology Conversion and → evangelism (III) led to increased contact between European Christians and non-Western, non-Christian peoples as well as Christians belonging to the Eastern churches, making baptism a central issue. The early Spanish conquests, conceived in terms of → Crusade, strove to incorporate the lands they conquered into a Christian world with the laws and customs of Europe. The forced substitution of the Christian → liturgy (VI) for indigenous cults led to a general conviction that the indigenous population must be baptized as soon as possible; these mass baptisms were performed, through

595 coercion if necessary, especially by the → Franciscans, justifying compulsion by Jesus’ command “Compel them to come in” (Luke 14:23). Catechetical instruction was not required, since, influenced by the eschatology of → Joachim of Fiore, they viewed their work as a sign of the dawning Great Age of the Church. What mattered was conversion, not teaching; the → sacrament was complete in itself. There were, however, other views, especially among → Dominicans. B. de → Las Casas opposed forced baptism, supporting invitation to baptism preceded by baptismal instruction. Over time some convergence developed: → catechesis before or after baptism became more common and went hand in hand with efforts to learn the language of the indigenous people, as in the Nahuatl catechism of Pedro de Gante. Thus there emerged in Latin America an ethnically mixed population, baptized in infancy. But the increasing disappearance of baptismal catechesis after the close of the 16th century was not addressed at the provincial councils of → Mexico (1582) or → Lima (1585) – perhaps because it was not addressed at → Trent. Some believed that indigenous Indians, even though baptized, should not be admitted to → confession (V) or the → Eucharist (VI), including the → viaticum given during extreme unction; this view was repudiated by J. de → Acosta at the end of the 16th century. Some missionaries also complained that settlers were exploiting the indigenous population and not affording them even the possibility of baptism or instruction in Christianity. After the importation of slaves from Africa began, slaves were baptized but provision for catechesis was limited. In Rome around 1680, the black Brazilian L. da Silva de → Mendouça attacked the enslavement of baptized Christians. In the mid-19th century, Catholic converts of the Yoruba (→ Yoruba religion) began returning to their homeland. Pa Antonio, a layman, maintained the ritual of baptism among them until the arrival of priests from Europe. The Kongo Kingdom was a Christian country from the baptism of its leading chieftains in 1493 until its fall; in general, however, the Portuguese sphere of influence did not see the mass baptisms of populations that accompanied the Spanish conquests. There were conversions – some voluntary, some forced – in the relatively small Portuguese enclaves; acts of policy included the statutory baptism of orphans. Most of the Christians in → Goa, → Macao, and Amboyna (Ambon), however, were Eurasian and had already been baptized as infants. There were also communities such as the Paravas and other peoples on the southeastern coast of India who accepted baptism as part of alliance with the Portuguese. Baptism seems to have meant little more than the adoption of Portuguese names until F. → Xavier instituted catechesis and church order.

Baptism In regions beyond Portuguese control like → China, Japan and → Vietnam, missionaries had to make allowance for local conditions. To Christianize such lands, they concentrated on the ruling clases, but had to be content with the conversion of individuals and family groups, making culturally conditioned alterations in the baptismal rite. One of the complaints raised against the → Jesuits, who were treating the cultures they encountered with great caution, had to do with their drastic reduction of the baptismal liturgy. The baptism of fifty female members of the imperial Chinese court, for example, who were forbidden all contact with men outside the family, was carried out at court by other women or by Christian palace eunuchs. The centrality of the baptismal ritual in Japan became clear after Christianity was strictly proscribed during the 17th century. The Kirishitan (→ Japan II) or crypto-Christians maintained baptism – without priests or missionaries – over many generations. After Trent, the position of Rome toward the Eastern churches hardened. The most serious dispute over baptism was in → Ethiopia in 1625, when the Roman representative challenged the validity of the sacraments of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and demanded universal rebaptism based on the Latin rite, destroying any hope of union. With the ebb of Roman Catholic missionary activity in the 18th century, Protestant missionary work increased, inheriting the criticism that had been directed against Roman Catholic missionaries for relying too much on the mere ritual of baptism and conferring it too easily. Some Protestant baptismal disputes were less important in the mission field than in the West. Despite irreconcilable differences over whether the Chinese translation of baptism should imply the notion of immersion, the theme of believers’ baptism was of secondary importance. At the outset, adult baptism was almost universal; the question of baptizing the children of believers arose later. The → missionary societies also sought to minimize conflict through an agreed division of the mission field. The → China Inland Mission and a few other interdenominational missionary societies assigned their missionaries who practiced infant baptism and their Baptist missionaries (→ Baptists: III; see IV, 3, c above) to different regions. Most of the earliest Protestant missionaries and many of their successors had Pietist or evangelical leanings and viewed baptism primarily as a symbol of spiritual regeneration. The Moravians (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren: II), who pioneered Protestant missionary work, baptized only after clear evidence of conversion. Identification of such signs, however, proved problematic, especially because marks of evangelical conversion such as deep conviction of sin were often absent. In

Baptism general the missionaries looked for a clear break with ancestor worship, participation in worship, acknowledgment of Christ, and a readiness to follow Scripture, supported by evidence of a Christian and moral way of life. Against the objections of a few individuals such as J.W. → Colenso, most missionary societies refused to baptize polygynous males, but usually accepted their wives. Those missionary societies that strove to make the church a separate world apart from society tended to harbor stricter views than those – notably German missions with a People’s Church (Volkskirche) ideal and Anglicans of the catholic tradition – that sought to Christianize a whole society. A special problem was the question of baptizing the mentally handicapped; as late as the turn of the 20th century, for example, a cognitive understanding of baptism led the → Hermannsburg Mission to refuse to do so (Strasser, 94). Active hostility broke out in the new colony of → Sierra Leone when its governor, Charles MacCarthy, who supported those who wanted to adopt a European lifestyle, asked the missionary William A.B. Johnson to baptize more people, arguing that baptism was an act of civilization. Johnson insisted, however, that he could baptize only the truly converted. This development led inevitably to the association of baptism with a period of instruction and probation, testing, and finally literacy. The Protestant stress on Scripture as the guide to Christian life made the school a necessary part of the church. In many East African languages, “to read” is synonymous with “to be a catechumen.” While baptism meant joining the church, it did not always convey all the rights of membership. The first missionaries of the → London Missionary Society in the Pacific region, who considered the practice of the British churches useless in their present situation, introduced a two-stage membership, with the second stage including admission to communion. Evangelical missionaries, who viewed conversion as a personal matter, found that family and kin groups often responded readily to the gospel. In India entire communities, for the most part impoverished and oppressed groups outside the caste system, sought baptism. Despite the first missionaries’ fear of encouraging “rice Christians,” the movement survived and became a political issue in the early 20th century. Bishop V.S. → Azariah declared that baptism abolished → caste, thus raising the status of the oppressed. Among caste Hindus, baptism was the barrier to church membership and often a cause of family crisis. The history of the use of baptismal names in the mission field is complex. Since the beginning of the 17th century at the latest, ecclesiastical factors favored biblical names or saints’ names, social factors favored the names of colonial overlords, and cultural and missiological considerations favored indigenous names.

596 The Liberian prophet W.W. → Harris was the first of a series of preachers from outside the missionary societies who brought thousands of Africans into the churches in the 1920s and 1930s. A culturally independent development within African Christianity gave birth to new churches that revived the early Christian practice of → exorcism (V) in the context of baptism, associated baptism (and salvation) with healing (→ Sickness and Healing: VII), or provided for a repetition of baptism in cases of backsliding. Pentecostal missionaries (→ Pentecostalism: IV) have sometimes introduced other elements of Early Church practice, such as baptism in the name of Jesus. Bishop Azariah insisted on the connection between baptism and mission: in the context of his baptismal liturgy, during the imposition of hands the newly baptized said, “I am a baptized Christian; woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” This emphasis accords both with the position of → Vatican II and the focus of recent Protestant missiology: baptism is ordination to mission. J. de Acosta, Historia natural y moral de las Indias, 1590; ET: Natural and Moral History of the Indies, 2002 ◆ E. Strasser, Die Taufe in der Geschichte der deutschen evangelisch-lutherischen Mission, 1925 ◆ H.-W. Gensichen, Das Taufproblem in der Mission, 1951 ◆ A. Hastings, The Church in Africa 1450–1950, 1994 ◆ A.C. Ross, A Vision Betrayed, 1994 ◆ S.B. Harper, In the Shadow of the Mahatma, 2000. Andrew F. Walls

IX. Art The iconographic representation of Christ’s baptism derives from the description of his public baptism in the Gospels (Matt 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21f.). For both iconography and exegesis, the crucial interpretive problem is whether only Jesus and → John the Baptist, all those present, or Jesus alone heard the voice of God declaring Jesus to be his Son. The earliest extant representations in Christian art are the (damaged) 3rd-century frescoes from the → catacombs (II) of → Callistus I and SS. Pietro e Marcellino, a 3rdcentury sarcophagus, and the throne of → Maximian of Ravenna, likewise probably dating from the 3rd century and decorated with 6th-century ivories. As in the biblical accounts, the distinctive elements in these representations are Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist, the → hand of God, the → Jordan, and the → dove. Iconographic comparison of the 6th-century vault mosaics in the Baptistery of the Arians with those of the Baptistery of the Orthodox – both in Ravenna – brings to light the differences in the biblical accounts that led to theological and liturgical controversies over the significance of this lustration ritual. These controversies involved the different positionings of the dove and John the Baptist as well as the depth of the river, which suggested purification either by total immersion or simply by sprinkling with holy water. Especially in Western Christendom, the composition and symbolism

597

Baptismal Font

Fig. 1. Master of the St. Bartholomew Altar, The Baptism of Christ, c.1485–1500. (Samuel H. Kress Collection, Image © 2004 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington , DC).

in representations of Christ’s baptism, initially reflecting the ceremonies accompanying baptism and fostered by penitential theology, became increasingly complex. Analysis of bodily posture, ritual gesture, and the manner in which the holy water is dispensed in Christian art provides visible evidence for the theological and liturgical history of the baptismal sacrament. Among Christians of the East (see also IV, 2 above), the custom of total immersion of the baptism candidate is suggested by the depth of the water in the Jordan, which usually reaches the waist or above the chest of the unclothed Jesus, as in 11th/12th-century vault mosaics of the monastery churches at Daphni, near Athens, and Hosios Loukas in Phocis. The Western Christian practice of pouring or sprinkling holy water on the head of the candidate is illustrated by works such as The Baptism of Christ (c. 1330/1340) by the Master of the Life of John the Baptist. Potential theological and liturgical differences between Roman Catholicism and the Reformation traditions are symbolized by the vessels used to dispense the holy water. Ironically, these visible tokens first appeared in the Christian art of the Middle Ages, when southern European painters represented the Baptist holding a shell, as in → Piero della Francesca’s Baptism of Christ (1440). Northern European artists represented him instead with a jug or jar, as in The Baptism of Christ (1485/1500) by the Master of the St. Bartholomew Altarpiece (c. 1475–c. 1510; see illus.). Both northern and southern European artists represented Christ as half or totally unclothed, and the water of the Jordan usually covers only his feet or, in extreme cases, his knees. This popular motif appears on altarpieces and → baptismal fonts in baptisteries, chapels, and cathedrals.

G. Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. I, 1966, 31981 ◆ D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 1994 ◆ P. and L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996 ◆ G.-H. Baudry, Le baptême et ses symboles, 2001 ◆ S. Zuffi, Episodi e personaggi del vangelo, 2002; ET: Gospel Figures in Art, 2003. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Baptismal Font I. Liturgy – II. Art History

I. Liturgy The baptismal font shows how baptism was administered: decorations indicate the theological meaning of baptism, and changes in the form of the font point to changes in the liturgical significance of the rite. Early Christian → baptism was probably administered in flowing waters, either by pouring these over the head of the candidate or by immersion. From the third century onward, we have evidence of baptisteries (→ Baptistery) with a pool in the floor into which the candidate descended and was baptized. From the fifth or sixth century, there are fonts which stood on the floor level; a ciborium was sometimes constructed over the font, and curtains shielded the naked candidate from the eyes of others. For infant baptism, the font was raised and set on a pedestal; this font was large enough to allow the complete immersion of the child. In medieval churches, the font usually stood at the entrance: only the baptized were allowed to enter the church. With the introduction of infusion and aspersion, it was sufficient to have a shallow bowl into which a jug with water could be placed. A baptismal shell was also used to pour water over the head of the candidate. Baptism was now to be performed in the full view of the community, i.e. in the altar area, and fonts were set up

Baptismal Renewal / Reminder there. Bowls with baptismal water could be placed on existing baptismal stones or on the altar, and these were also used when baptism was administered in a home. From the 17th to the 19th centuries, baptismal angels were popular: these figures were let down from the ceiling of the church holding a bowl for baptism. In the Orthodox Church, a large cauldron is usually used as a baptismal font. G. Kretschmar, B. Jordahn & E. Schlink, Taufgottesdienst, Leiturgia 5, 1970 ◆ E. Färber, “Der Ort der Taufspendung,” ALW 13, 1971, 36–114 ◆ idem, “Der Ort der Taufspendung in nichtkatholischen Kirchen,” ALW 14, 1972, 56–70 ◆ H. de Cuveland, Der Taufengel, 1971. Jörg Neijenhuis

II. Art History After Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, it took on new forms, which found expression in the imperial style of church architecture and the splendid baptisteries. They contained circular or octagonal fonts that were works of art. These were either embedded in the ground or slightly raised above floor level, and were surrounded by a low wall. The candidate stepped down over this wall into the font, and ascended in the same way. The number of steps had a symbolical meaning. The fonts were so large that several catechumens could be baptized at the same time, and they were less than one meter in depth, since the partial immersion of the candidate continued until the 8th century. During the period of transition from adult to infant baptism, structural changes in the height of the stone wall were undertaken to make infant baptism easier. After this had become the standard liturgical praxis, the importance of the baptismal stones and their location increased considerably, because they now replaced the baptisteries. In the 10th century, the font usually consisted of a circular or square bowl which was raised on a pedestal. With the emergence of baptism by pouring water over the head of the candidate, the font became smaller and was raised to a height that made infant baptism easier. Medieval fonts were decorated with artistic symbols, viz. Romanesque dragons, griffins, and winged lions as a demonstration of the devil’s power (→ Devil), which is destroyed by the gift of the sacrament (abrenuntiatio). Calendars, astrological symbols, and signs of the zodiac denoted the passage of time and the promise of → eternal life. An important source of metaphorical inspiration was the Speculum maius (c. 1250) by → Vincent of Beauvais. From the 13th century onward, the images found on fonts became increasingly conventional, since the preferred form was to be octagonal, in keeping with the “new creation” accomplished by the resurrection of Christ (→ Numerology II) and recalling the biblical rite of circumcision and the bestowal of a name on the eighth day after birth.

598 The scenes portrayed on the font were now exclusively biblical. Elaborate lids over the font were introduced, in order to protect the holy water from theft and from misuse by → witches. The simple form of baptism by infusion, initially practiced only in the northern countries, became the usual form from the 13th century onward, and this required a narrower and flatter font. After the Reformation, the location and form of the font varied in keeping with the place in the church where baptism was to be administered: either at the door, or in front of the altar or the pulpit. In the Middle Ages, the baptismal font was located right at the door, since baptism symbolized admission to the Christian community. After 1660, the → Anglican Church returned to this tradition; the Reformation tradition, on the other hand, preferred to place the font in front of the pulpit, and the Roman Catholic Church preferred a position in front of the altar. D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 1994 ◆ P. & L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996 ◆ Thesaurus des objects religieux, 1999 ◆ G.G. Baudry, Le baptême et ses symbols, 2001. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Baptismal Renewal / Reminder. → Baptism is the foundational sacrament of Christian life and identity. Consequently, a series of forms for commemorating baptism and symbolically recalling baptism has developed: the use of → holy water as a sign of the anniversary of one’s baptism, the confession of faith (symbolum[→ Confession (of Faith): IV]), the → Paternoster and aspersion with holy water before the Sunday Eucharist. In the Middle Ages, holy water was seen as apotropaic, and the celebration of the annual baptismal commemoration died out, the meaning of the symbolum and the Paternoster in relation to baptism was lost, and only the rite of aspersion survived. The renewal of sacramental theology (and the theology of the symbol in the area of memorial/remembrance) and the ecumenical movement’s accentuation of baptism as the sacrament of Christian unity (→ Lima Declaration of 1982) led to the revival of the praxis of baptismal renewal. The → Missale Romanum of Paul VI contained a renewal of baptism on Easter Sunday morning. Ecumenical renewal of baptism services developed as a new form of worship and have become common at church of congress (→ Katholikentage and → Kirchentage). T. Maas-Ewerd, “Tauferinnerung und -erneuerung in der Osterzeit,” in Die Feier der Sakramente in der Gemeinde: FS H. Rennings, 1986, 179–191 ◆ A. Heinz, “Gottesdienstliche Formen des Taufgedächtnis,” in H. Ritt, ed., Gottes Volk: Bibel und Liturgie im Leben der Gemeinde, V, 1989, 113–123. Anthony William Ruff

Baptist Missionary Society. The Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) was founded in 1792 by a group of Particular (Calvinistic) → Baptists, including A. → Fuller

599 and W. → Carey. Its original name was “The ParticularBaptist Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” The BMS sent its first missionaries to North India (1793), and later began work in Sri Lanka (1812), the Caribbean (1814), Cameroon (1841), China (1859), and the Congo (1879). During the 1820s, BMS was afflicted by controversy, but the Victorian period saw considerable expansion, notably in the Congo and China. Missionary numbers reached their peak in 1921/1922. As a result of BMS work there are numerous Baptist churches today in North-East India (Orissa and Mizoram), Jamaica, the → Congo (Democratic Republic), and Angola. The BMS also assists Baptist communities founded by other missions, as in Brazil, which it entered 1953. It remains active today as a voluntary society supported by Baptists in England, Wales, and Scotland. B. Stanley, The History of the Baptist Missionary Society 1792– 1992, 1992. Brian Stanley

Baptist World Alliance. In 1905, Baptists from all over the world met in London to form the Baptist World Alliance (BWA). The BWA is a worldwide fellowship of 189 Baptist conventions and unions in more than 200 countries. In 1997, there were about 42 million adult baptized believers in the member organizations of the BWA. (This number does not include the more than 10 million independent Baptists worldwide which do not belong to the BWA.) Missiologists indicate that if one included children and sympathizers the memberhip of the BWA would rise to more than 100 million persons. Every five years a Baptist World Congress brings together thousands of Baptists from around the world for community interaction and networking. The relief organizations “Baptist World Aid” and the Departments of Evangelism, Education, Communications, Promotion and Fundraising, and Research enable members to cooperate in worldwide missionary activities. The Divisions of Men, Women, and Youth are entrusted with the important task of encouraging the laity in their testimony for Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There are six regional fellowships which enable Baptists living closely together in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, and North and South America to cooperate in evangelism and mission. The Baptist World Journal is the official journal of the BWA. C.W. Tiller, The Twentieth Century Baptist: Chronicles of Baptists in the First Seventy-Five Years of the Baptist World Alliance, 1980. Denton Lotz

Baptistery. Since the beginning of the 4th century, this word refers to the Christian baptismal room (previously only in → Dura Europos c. 230); baptism had previously been performed in flowing water. The name

Baptistery comes from the bathing basin of the frigidarium in ancient Roman baths. In the middle of the structure stands the piscina, which is sunk into the floor and often decorated with mosaics. Three or seven steps descend into the basin, which is thus too shallow to permit the immersion of adults. It is square, round (in Syria often in an otherwise uncommon apsis), polygonal, or cruciform. A ciborium sometimes stands above it. The outline of the structure was originally square (Trier 4th cent.) and, in Greece, Syria, and North Africa, connected to the church. The freestanding central structure (from the middle of the 5th cent.) with niches (Ravenna 452), rarely with an inner peristyle (Rom, Lateran, 440), dominated in Italy, southern France, Dalmatia, and the Alpine region. Because of the confirmatio administered by the bishop, the baptistery is generally found in the vicinity of the cathedral. When the confirmatio of the East began to be performed with oil consecrated by the bishop, several new baptisteries were erected there. Furthermore, there are baptisteries at major pilgrimage sites (Qalaat Simaān). There is no rule for their position in relation to the church. The architectural form is derived from profane quadratic baths or from the → Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, depending upon the interpretation of → baptism as a washing away of sin or as a death and resurrection with Christ (Rom 6). The octagon originated in Milan; the piscina in north-east Italy is often a hexagon. The number 6 refers to the sixth day of the week and thus to Good Friday. In the inscriptions of the Thecla baptistery in Milan, Ambrose interprets the number 8 as a reference to the new creation. Common to both architectural forms is the perpendicular axis that places the individual in the middle. Wall decorations are only rarely preserved (Naples 400, Ravenna 452, Albenga, 5th cent.). They depict themes such as those found in sepulchral art, or the feeding of the 5000 and the wine miracle at Cana (Naples) in reference to the Eucharist. The stag by the water is often chosen because of a contemporary exegesis of Ps 42:1. The baptistery can have adjoining rooms for changing clothes, exorcism, and confirmation (Naples). With the end of adult baptism, baptisteries ceased to be built, giving way to baptismal stones which were set up in the churches. Only in Italy did baptisteries continue to be built into the 13th century (Florence 1050–1150, Parma 1196–1260, Pisa 1153–1380). In the 20th century, baptisteries were once again erected in some Catholic churches. F.J. Dölger, “Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Taufhauses,” AuC 4, 1934, 153–187 ◆ J.G. Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism, 1962 ◆ S. Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, JbAC.E 27, 1998. Peter Poscharsky

Baptists Baptists I. Denomination – II. Church History – III. Missions

I. Denomination Because the Baptists came into existence in a situation of persecution, they have consistently held to the doctrine of freedom of conscience as one of their most fundamental convictions. This is the basis for the Baptists’ historically conditioned refusal to publish a dogmatic declaration that claims to speak for all Baptists or could be seen as binding on individuals or churches. Instead, they produced confessions of faith affirming their faith for the benefit of themselves and others. A confession is a statement of dogmatic claims by a specific Baptist body at a specific time in a specific place. Any Baptist body can develop and publish a confession whenever it seems appropriate. Since Baptists consider the writings of the Old and New Testaments as the sole authority for faith and practice, confessions can only be aids to interpretation. The first published confession was “A Declaration of faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland” (1611). With the declaration, Baptists pursued the objective of clarifying their differences with the Dutch → Mennonites. It stated the view that a Christian can be a magistrate, rightly bear the sword and swear an oath in legal matters. The declaration reflected the → Calvinism of its Puritan roots (→ Puritans and Puritanism), but moved in an Arminian direction (→ Arminians), especially with respect to the doctrine of election. Seven congregations from London published the first confession issued by more than one congregation: ‘The First London Confession” of 1644. It seems to have been influenced by “A True Confession” (1596), a document from Puritan Separatism, and had a moderately Calvinist tone. It argued for election to redemption (→ Predestination), but not to damnation, and demanded that the gospel be preached to all persons. It dealt with almost all the fundamental doctrines that can be held by Baptists, including the baptism of believers (→ Baptism) by immersion and freedom of conscience that were specifically Baptist concerns in this period. Subsequently, it proved to be rather influential in the life of Baptists. Perhaps the most influential Baptist confession is the “Second London Confession” of 1689, also known as the “Assembly Confession.” Composed in 1677 in reaction to the restoration of the monarchy (1660) and the persecution of → Dissenters, a general assembly of Calvinist Baptists gathered in London in 1689 adopted it. By putting forward a measured Calvinism and adopting major portions of the Presbyterian → “Westminster Confession” and a selection of ecclesiastic doctrines from the Congregationalist “Savoy Confession,” (→ Congregationalism) the Baptists attempted to dem-

600 onstrate the similarities of their theology with that of other large groups of Dissenters. The first Baptist association of congregations, the Philadelphia Association, adopted this confession in the early 17th century. Since then, it has been known in the USA as the “Philadelphia Confession” and has become the most influential confession among Baptists there. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when Baptists came under the influence of the → Revival Movement, the Philadelphia Confession fell into disuse. In 1833, a group of Baptists in the New England states developed the “New Hampshire Confession,” which mitigated the Calvinism of the earlier confession and seemed more amenable to the theology of the Revival Movement. Although at the time of its origin it excited little attention, through its publication in various church handbooks, it later became the best-known confession among Baptists in the USA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This phenomenon was also an indication that the strict Calvinism of the early Baptists had disappeared. When the largest Baptist denomination in the USA, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), decided to develop a new confession to abet a controversy, it employed the “New Hampshire Confession” as its point of departure. In 1925, they adopted the new confession called the ‘The Baptist Faith and Message.” When the SBC faced a new controversy in 1963, it adopted a revised version of this confession. In the 1980s and 1990s, this confession itself became the point of departure for a dispute when some Baptists attempted to employ it more as a binding determination of specific statements of faith than as a voluntary confession of one’s own faith. Because of fear of such misuse, some Baptist bodies have refused to claim a specific confession as their own. Thus, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland refused to issue a confession when they were enmeshed in the Down Grade Controversy with C.H. → Spurgeon. Instead, they relied on an announcement of their principles, namely that Christ as revealed in the Scriptures is the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, that every church has the right to its own interpretation, that only believers should be baptized by immersion, and that Christians should bear witness to the gospel. Also out of fear of misuse, the Northern Baptist Union strictly refused to adopt a confession. Instead, it affirmed, “that the New Testament is the completely sufficient basis for our faith and action, and we need no other expression.” In 1946, it then passed a resolution affirming this earlier statement and confirming its renewed surrender to Christ and the communication of the gospel. While many Baptist bodies have followed this pattern and have only adopted a declaration of principles or a brief exposition of theology in some form or other, others have continued to develop confessions of faith. German-speaking Baptists from Germany, Austria

601 and Switzerland developed in the 1970s what may be the most thorough Baptist confession. The strict Calvinism of early confessions has disappeared. Even though it deals with all the major theological themes and maintains the priority of God working in the relationship between God and mankind, this confession is composed in a narrative style and a warm evangelical tone. It also establishes quite unequivocally that it is not to be employed as a “compelled law of faith.” Perhaps the clearest and most pregnant modern Baptist confessional document is “Towards a Baptist Identity,” a statement by the Commission on Baptist Heritage of the → Baptist World Alliance (BWA) in 1989. The preamble expressly characterizes it as a working paper and as a “more descriptive than confessional statement.” Subsequent, clear narrative sections formulate the Baptist understanding of scripture, gospel, church and discipleship. Although the confessions of faith that Baptists have adopted in their history seem rather varied, most of them nonetheless contain a few statements common to all Baptists. These common elements provide the clearest expression of the commonly held Baptist statements of faith. First, Baptists see themselves as part of the historical Christian church, at all times standing in sequence with the saints. When Baptists from all over the world assembled for the first meeting of the BWA in London in 1905, their first act to was stand and recite the Apostles’ Creed. Most of their statements of faith presuppose this historical understanding of faith. Second, Baptists regard themselves as part of the Protestant expression of the church and affirm the fundamental statements of the Reformation. They acknowledge the authority of the Bible. For them, the Bible is the definitive and allsufficient criterion in all matters of faith and practice. They affirm redemption by grace alone through faith. Redemption is the believing response to God’s offer of grace and involves trust in God through Jesus Christ and the acceptance of discipleship. The third principle, the → priesthood of all believers, follows from the first two. Baptists hold these matters in common with other Protestant Christians. Baptists differ, however, with respect to the deduction of further consequences for the doctrine of the church. This difference is rather evident in their confessions. First, redemption by faith alone means that all individuals must confess their relationship to God through Jesus Christ independently. No one can do this for another, it may not be coerced, no church can convey it, and it does not come automatically with birth. Every individual must freely and personally make this confession. Second, the Bible alone leads people to this profession of faith. The church nourishes faith, but does not dictate it. The Bible is the sole authority. Third, the church should consist only of those who, led by the Bible, have made this personal profession of their faith.

Baptists The church is the church of believers, the family of the children of God. Fourth, since the church consists solely of believers and baptism means inclusion in the church, baptism is reserved for believers. According to their understanding of baptism in the New Testament, Baptists proceed further on the assumption that baptism must proceed by immersion. Fifth, all members of the church through their confession of Christ are equal as members of the church. The church must, therefore, be congregationally (→ Congregationalism) governed. Consequently, no person or church has authority over another person or church. In addition, although Baptist bodies often cooperate in associations, conventions or unions, none of these cooperative bodies has binding authority over any other congregation. Baptist congregations are democratic, congregational and autonomous. Sixth, → freedom of religion is necessary in order to put all this into practice. People must have the freedom to say “no” to God so that their “yes” can have true meaning. Seventh, Baptists believe that an additional principle must be observed as the precondition for freedom of religion namely the separation of → church and state. They insist that the state has no claim to authority in spiritual matters. Finally, for broad periods of their history, Baptists were strong proponents of → evangelism and → mission (II). They believed that in order to give people the opportunity to respond to God’s offer of grace, they must be involved in bearing witness to the gospel. Baptist confessions of faith have not only expressed these fundamentals, but Baptists have also lived by them in their history. The statements were based on the Bible and limited by it. They have never claimed authority over the conscience of anyone. Baptists have insisted that their confessions may not be used to restrict freedom of thought. They were regarded as neither infallible nor final. The ideas formulated in them were subject to continued revision. Thus, Baptist notions of confession have never been final and definite; they are always open to new insights of faith. W.L. Lumpkin, ed., Baptist Confessions of Faith, 1969 ◆ G.K. Parker, ed., Baptists in Europe, 1982 ◆ W.H. Brackney, ed., Baptist Life and Thought: 1600–1980, 1983 ◆ H.L. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 1987 ◆ idem, ed., A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, 1990 ◆ W.B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity, 1993. G. Thomas Halbrooks

II. Church History 1. Europe. Baptists are represented in all European countries, although only as a small minority. They began in England in the 17th century in two traditions: the General Baptists ( J. → Smyth, Thomas Helwys), whose beginnings date to 1611, advocated a universal atonement, while, in the view of the Particular Baptists (Richard Blunt, William Kiffin), who formed between

Baptists 1638 and 1641, Christ died only for the elect. Both rejected pedobaptism and practiced believers’ baptism, initially through aspersion, later through immersion (→ Baptism: IV); their name derives from this practice. There are Mennonite influences, but their immediate background is Puritan Separatism. Consequently, the ecclesiology of the “gathered community” into which baptism incorporates the catechumen is important. The movement became known through public disputations, pamphlets, books and confessions. Persecutions abated under O. → Cromwell, but resumed all the more vigorously with the Restoration (1660; J. → Bunyan). The Glorious Revolution brought tolerance in 1689; Baptists were barred admission to the universities until 1871, however. Therefore they established their own colleges, four of which exist today (Bristol 1679, Regent’s in Oxford 1810, Spurgeon’s 1856 and Manchester 1964). In the 18th century, some General Baptist congregations became → Unitarians, while the Particular Baptists tended toward a hyper-Calvinism ( John Gill, 1697–1771; John Brine, 1703–1765). In contrast, the New Connexion was formed among General Baptists. W. → Carey conducted foreign missions and formed a mission society (1792), while A. → Fuller overcame the paralyzing Calvinism and took new paths of evangelistic preaching. The 19th century brought structures: the Baptist Union was founded in 1813, the merger of the General and Particular Baptists followed in 1891. Many societies and home missions were organized. Baptists opposed slavery (William Nibb, 1803–1845 in England and Jamaica) and were involved in the temperance movement. The most famous preacher was C.H. → Spurgeon with his Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. He left the Baptist Union in 1887, however, and isolated himself. John Clifford (1836–1923) wrote socialist pamphlets for the Fabian Society. Under John H. Shakespeare (1857–1928), the Union became ecumenically engaged and pushed for the establishment of the BWA in 1905. The Union belongs to the British Council of Churches, the → World Council of Churches (Ernest A. Payne), and the → Conference of European Churches (two general secretaries: Glenn G. Williams, Keith Clements). Baptists came to Scotland and Ireland with Cromwell’s troops, although the congregations did not survive. A society for evangelizing Ireland was created in London and Dublin in 1813/14. The Irish Baptist Union originated in 1895. John Rockefeller from the USA gave money for the construction of an institute, now the Irish Baptist College in Belfast. The Irish supported Spurgeon and are still conservative even today. In Scotland, Baptists returned in the middle of the 18th century. The Sunday celebration of Communion continued to be characteristic. The Baptist Union of Scotland was organized in 1869. John Miles (1621–1683)

602 began the work in Wales, although Baptists suffered persecution after 1660. The Baptist movement experienced a major upswing through the work of Christmas Evans (1766–1838). Around 1900, over 100,000 Baptists were members of the Union founded in 1866. Two of three colleges still exist: South and North Wales Baptist Colleges in Cardiff (1807) and Bangor (1862), respectively. Economic developments caused a decline. The Revival Movement stood behind the spread of Baptism on the continent. Its chief agent was J.G. → Oncken. Together with Julius Köbner (1806–1884), the son of a rabbi from Denmark, and G.W. → Lehmann from the Herrnhut tradition in Berlin, and faithful to his motto “every Baptist a missionary,” Oncken exploited his relations with England and the USA (e.g. fundraising trips) to work throughout northern, central and eastern Europe. He sent artisan missionaries who, functioning as colporteurs, distributed Bibles and tracts and founded congregations. The starting point was usually Germans living in eastern and southeastern Europe. In 1849, a union of Baptist congregations in Germany and Denmark was founded; later, representatives from Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Russia and the Balkans joined. Oncken and his emissaries worked everywhere: Friedrich Maier in southern Germany and Switzerland, Julius Köbner in Holland and Denmark, Frederick O. Nilsson in Sweden (the first Baptist seminary – “Bethel” – was established in 1866), Heinrich Meyer in Budapest; August Liebig in Yugoslavia from 1863; Karl Scharschmidt from 1856 in Rumania; occasionally, they were also colporteurs for the British and Foreign Bible Society. Everywhere, there was open animosity, persecution and manifold discrimination on the part of church and state offices, most harshly in Germany and Russia. In the West, the year 1848 brought mitigation. The Russian Revolution of 1917 brought relief in the East, but harsh persecutions began in 1929, so that by 1940 the number of Baptists had fallen well below that of 1900. In the Roman Catholic countries of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Belgium, persecution was so marked that only small congregations arose. Here, missionaries from the USA were active (exception: Eric Lund from Sweden, who worked for a long period in Spain). In 1867, Martin Kalweit baptized the businessman Nikita Woronin, the leader of the Caucasian “Molokans,” who had parted from Orthodoxy and of whom many converted to the Baptists. Vassaly Pavlov and Ivanov Klyschnikov were outstanding figures in the first generation; Ivan S. Prochanow (1869–1935) founded the → All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists. A second center in the Russian Empire lay in the Ukraine, where from 1869 on Oncken, Peter Lysenko and others succeeded in winning major elements of → Stundism to the Baptist movement. In St. Petersburg, a third center

603 developed among circles of awakened aristocrats through the activity of the Englishman Lord Radstock. Colonel Pashkov, Count Korff and Count Bobrinsky were converted. Pashkov did not succeed in founding a union in either 1879 or 1884. The formation of the Evangelical Christian-Baptists occurred as late as 1920. Because of ecclesiastic and social discrimination, Baptists emigrated to the USA and Canada and there established ethnic unions that gave assistance to the old homeland. American missionaries came in greater numbers in the 20th century, so that in 1920 at a conference in London, Europe was divided into spheres of influence between the American and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The financial superiority of the SBC is still evident today. Missionaries from Brazil worked in Portugal. The 20th century brought more tolerant conditions in the West, also in Catholic countries, as the result of Vatican II. In the USSR, Baptists, Pentecostals (→ Pentecostalism) and Mennonites were forced to join in an “All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians and Baptists,” monitored and sometimes vigorously persecuted. Not wishing to cooperate with the government, nonregistered congregations (“initiativnikis”) arose after 1961. Since the political changes in 1989/90, discrimination in Orthodox regions (Bulgaria, Rumania, Ukraine, Russia) has increased markedly. Returnees to Germany integrated into existing congregations only with difficulty and establish their own congregations. Unions failed in the face of totalitarian political systems, despite the heroic persistence of individuals. They wanted to obtain freedom for a peaceful congregational life and for evangelization; they did not want to overthrow the systems. The world wars with their shifts of boundaries and ethnic conflicts (e.g. White Russia–Poland–Germany; Rumania–Moldavia–Hungary; the Baltic) devastated the Baptist movement. In 1950, the European Baptist Federation (EBF) was founded as a forum for communication and mutual assistance. Today, it includes 500 unions with 10,000 congregations and approx. 800,000 members (→ Evangelical-Free Church Congregations). The → European Baptist Mission conducts foreign missions. As the result of social discrimination, Baptists lead a mostly withdrawn life; furthermore, they were and are concentrated in the weaker social classes, yet an “ascent,” including an increase in academic education, can be noted. In the former Eastern Block, new seminaries and Bible schools have recently been founded in great numbers. The seminary established in Rüschlikon/Zürich in 1949 moved to Prague, but suspended its curriculum in 1998. In many countries, new confessions were composed in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. the Statement of Faith for German-speaking Countries, in 1977). In questions of doctrine and practice, Baptists are divided (e.g. attitudes toward Holy Scripture, the ordination of

Baptists women, open or closed celebration of communion, eschatology, the use of cosmetics, the consumption of alcohol and nicotine, attending the theater); a gradation can be observed from West to East in the sense of an increasingly conservative attitude. Diaconal work encompasses a large scope, and is carried out in part by motherhouses and diaconates (Salem in Switzerland, Bethel, Tabea, Albertinen in Germany); great significance is also placed on work with children and young people and on choirs. Only a few unions belong to the World Council of Churches, although most are members of the Conference of European Churches and national groups. Almost all unions are also engaged in the Lausanne Movement or the → Evangelical Alliance. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Pentecostal movement produced divisions in a few unions (e.g., the Orebro Mission in Sweden), while, more recently, the charismatic movement has caused divisions and para-ecclesiastical organizations have caused tensions in congregations because of their lifestyle, their special methods, and their music. In many European countries, the Baptists belong to the founders of the councils of the free churches. A. W. Wardin, ed., Baptists around the World, 1995 (bibl.). Erich Geldbach

2. North America. The Puritan dissenter R. → Williams founded the first Baptist congregation in North America in 1639 in Providence, RI. He had been expelled from Massachusetts because he attacked the alliance between state and church in this colony. The sect persecuted in the 17th century became the largest Protestant group in North America in the 20th century with more than 30 million adherents. Theologically, Baptists cover a range from freedom of the will to predestination and from Arminianism to Calvinism. Their defining characteristics include the recognition of the Bible as their sole guide, freedom of conscience (→ Freedom of Belief ), the believer’s church, the autonomy of congregations, baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament, freedom of religion and a tendency toward controversy, in North America, more than ninety different denominations claim the designation “Baptist.” Generally, Baptists place great value on their support for religious freedom, their connection with the New Testament church, and, in most cases, their missionary or evangelistic zeal. Baptist groups support objectives as varied as freedom of religion and school prayer, slavery and its abolition, liberalism and fundamentalism, the → Social Gospel and the Moral Majority. Engagement in favor of freedom of religion was a trademark of early Baptist churches. In Rhode Island, R. Williams and J. → Clarke fought for a charter that gave freedom of religion equally to believers and unbelievers. In all the colonies, there were “Particular,”

Baptists “General” and Seventh-Day Baptists. In New England and Virginia, Puritan and Anglican elites persecuted Baptists. In the central colonies, Baptists prospered, especially near Philadelphia, where the first American association was established in 1707 and the “Philadelphia Confession of Faith” was adopted in 1742. The Revival Movement in the middle of the 18th century divided Baptists with regard to Revival theology and procedures. The Separate Baptists supported the Revival, nurtured spontaneity in prayer and showed evangelical zeal. The Regular Baptists rejected the practices of the Revival Movement, emphasized orderly prayer and preferred a learned sermon. For the most part, Baptists were strong proponents for American freedom and independence. I. → Backus, a pastor from New England, worked as an appointed lobbyist at the Continental Congress on behalf of Baptists in favor of freedom of religion. In Virginia, the Baptist leader John Leland (1754–1841) worked to anchor these rights in the → Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the 1840s, Baptists grew to become one of the largest denominations in America. Their growth was based on successful Renewal camp meetings beyond the colonial borders. Their congregational polity permitted the rapid and uncomplicated establishment of new congregations. “Farmer-preachers,” who worked the land and preached the gospel, usually without an education, often led these congregations. They stood in contrast to the “gentleman-theologians,” who ministered in the congregations of the urbane North and South and often held higher theological qualifications. The emphasis on missionary endeavors led in 1814 to the foundation of the Triennial Convention, the Baptists’ first national organization. This society financed the first Baptist missionaries, Adoniram and Ann (Hasseltine) → Judson, who took up their work in Burma. A “Home Mission Society” was established in 1832. The College of Rhode Island, later Brown University, began its work in 1764. These societies were, like the congregations, quite independent, devoted to very specific tasks, and financed by individuals, congregations and unions of congregations. Disputes were the order of the day. The → Antimission movement attacked the mission societies, and insisted that the New Testament knows of no comparable institutions. Others with strict Calvinist views called attention to the fact that evangelizing or missionary endeavors are the work of mere human beings who wish to take the place of God’s actions. The Primitive Baptists rejected Revivals, Sunday schools and mission societies as un-biblical and un-Baptist. The disputes over slavery produced the most fundamental divisions when the Home Mission Society refused to appoint a known slave owner as a missionary to the Native Americans. Baptists in the South, who defended slave ownership as permitted

604 by the Bible, separated from the Triennial Convention and founded the SBC in 1845. They created a close-knit system of missionary, pedagogical and publication ministries. In the 20th century, the SBC became the largest Protestant denomination in America. The Northern Baptist Convention was formed in 1907 and became the → American Baptist Churches in the USA in 1972. In the period after the Civil War, Baptists came under the influence of Landmarkism and the Social Gospel movement. The former attempted to bind the Baptist churches to the true church of the New Testament; the latter was a response to the capitalism of industrialization. Adherents of the Landmark movement maintained that Baptists could trace their roots back to the time of the New Testament and possessed the only true signs of the church. All other denominations were only “societies” of Christians that did not belong to the true church. W. → Rauschenbusch, the father of the Social Gospel, was a German Baptist preacher and professor. He and others criticized the excessive wealth entrepreneurs gained by exploiting workers. He called upon Christians to participate in realizing the kingdom of God on earth. He called this kingdom “humanity organized according to the will of God.” Originating in the period of slavery, Afro-American Baptist churches became a central element in establishing the identity and community of an entire people. Denominations such as the Incorporated and the Unincorporated National Baptist Conventions and the Progressive National Baptist Convention provided organizational resources. A significant part of the → Civil Rights movement began under the leadership of preachers such as Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., M.L. → King (Sr. and Jr.) and Ralph David Abemathy in black Baptist churches. In Canada, there are approximately 230,000 Baptists in 2,000 congregations. The Canadian Baptist Federation is a union of various regional Baptist groups and constitutes the largest Baptist organization. The first Baptists lived on the east coast around 1760. Since 1953, the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada has been the conservative answer to disputes on doctrinal issues. Other Canadian Baptist churches reflect various ethnic traditions from French, German and Swedish Baptist congregations. In the 20th century, Baptists were split in the dispute over Fundamentalism and Modernism. Several fundamentalist sub-groups came into existence, including the Independent Baptists and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. The liberal H.E. → Fosdick from New York and the fundamentalist J. Frank Norris from Texas personified this century-long dispute. There were vigorous debates concerning the role of women: some churches accepted women as pastors and deacons, while others excluded them from these offices.

605 W. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 1969 ◆ P. Dekar & M. Ford, eds., Celebrating Canadian Baptist Heritage, 1985 ◆ L. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 1987 ◆ J. Washington, Frustrated Fellowship (African American Baptists), 1988 ◆ B. Leonard, ed., The Dictionary of Baptists in America, 1994. Bill J. Leonard

3. Worldwide. Baptist origins lie in Europe and North America; consequently, all Baptists in other parts of the world came directly or indirectly from these two regions. New congregations were founded through the work of immigrants, colonists or missionaries. Most missionaries came from one of three main missionary institutions. The British Baptist Missionary Society (BMS) began work in 1792. The union of Baptists in the USA, known by various names and currently called the American Baptist Churches (ABC), dates to 1814. The third organization originated when a group of congregations in the southern USA split from the American organization in 1845 and constituted the SBC. Ironically, none of these institutions founded the first community of Baptists outside Europe and the USA, but the preaching of a freed slave in Jamaica did. In 1783, George Liele emigrated from Georgia, USA to Jamaica where he preached and founded a congregation. When the BMS sent their missionaries there in 1814, Liele’s congregation already had over 500 members. Another freed slave, Prince Williams, sailed from the USA to the Bahamas and founded a Baptist congregation in Nassau in 1790. Since these beginnings, Baptist congregations and unions have spread over the Caribbean and by 1995 numbered over 1,000 congregations with almost 200,000 members. In Asia, missionary work based on the efforts of W. → Carey and his co-workers was more extensive. When Carey went to India in 1793 on the commission of the BMS, a new epoch of Protestant missions began, especially in the area of Bible translation. Others came to support the mission in India: The ABC, the SBC and Baptists from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The number of Baptists in India grew more dramatically than anywhere else in Asia and attained approximately 2 million members by 1995. Two decades after Carey, A. and Ann Judson went to Burma, now Myanmar, on the commission of the ABC. Initially, they had little success, but, finally, Baptists began to spread and founded the current → Myanmar Baptist Convention. Of all Asian countries, only India has more Baptists. The growth of Baptists in other regions of Asia progressed much more slowly. Many missionaries went to China in the 1830s and to Japan in the 1870s, but in 1995 Baptists in China numbered only 17,000 members and in Japan only 40,000. The spread of Baptism in the Philippines after 1900 was somewhat stronger so that, by 1995, there were over 3 million members in 21,000

Baptists congregations. The first Baptists in Africa were settlers in → Sierra Leone from Nova Scotia at the beginning of the 19th century. Around 1820, British immigrants arrived in South Africa. Growth progressed slowly, but in 1877, five congregations formed the Baptist Union of South Africa. Various other nationalities joined the British members, and, in 1892, they founded the South African Baptist Missionary Society and extended their work to other African countries. Only a year after arriving in South Africa, Baptists also came to Liberia. In 1821, the African Baptist Missionary Society, founded by black Baptists in the USA, sent the freed slaves Lott Carey and Colin Teague with a ship full of emigrants, financially supported by the American Colonization Society. Not far from Monrovia, they organized the Liberia Baptist Missionary and Educational Convention. Of all African countries, however, Baptists experienced their most noteworthy growth in Nigeria. Work there began under the patronage of the SBC in 1850. In 1914, despite some difficulties, delegates from 31 congregations, 14 of which were independent churches, met in Ibadan and created what would ultimately become the Nigeria Baptist Convention. The growth of the Baptists in Africa was considerable. By 1995, there were almost 14,000 congregations with over 2 million members. Baptists gained ground in Australia through colonization. Under the preaching of John McKaeg, a Scottish pastor, they founded a congregation in Sydney in 1831. After McKaeg retired in 1834, the congregation continued to grow under John Saunders, a preacher requested from England. In 1858, four Baptist congregations formed the New South Wales Baptist Association. A decade later, this union of eleven congregations reorganized to form the Baptist Union of New South Wales in 1870. Baptists also spread throughout the other territories and gathered in 1912 to found the Australian Baptist Foreign Mission Society. In Sydney in 1926, they called the Baptist Union of Australia (→ Australia, Baptist Union of ) to life. South America was the continent reached by Baptists. The first Baptists were emigrants from the Southern States who came to Brazil after the Civil War and established a colony in Santa Barbara near São Paolo. In 1871, Baptists founded a congregation there and requested supported from the USA. In 1881, William Buck and Anne Luther Bagby came and assumed important leadership tasks. With continued growth in membership and congregations, Baptists created the Brazilian Baptist Convention in 1907. This association promoted the expansion and organization of Baptist life and the development of a comprehensive program. By 1995, Baptists in Brazil numbered nearly 6,000 congregations with over 1 million members and had missionaries in a dozen other countries. In Argentina, the

Bar Hebraeus, Gregor first congregation was founded under the leadership of the Swiss pastor Pablo Beeson, who had arrived in 1881. Missionary work, thousands of European immigrants, and the rapid rise of indigenous leaders contributed to the spread of the Baptist movement, leading in 1905 to the establishment of the Evangelical Baptist Convention in Argentina. Soon, it also supported Baptists in Chile, where colonists from Germany had founded a congregation. The spread of Baptists in other countries in South and Central America did not attain the same scope, and they often received the assistance of larger Baptist unions from neighboring countries. By 1995, Baptists in South and Central America numbered nearly 1.4 million members in over 8,500 congregations. Since their beginnings in Europe and North America, Baptists grew beyond these regions so that by 1995 the number of Baptists outside these regions of origin amounted to approximately 7.3 million members in nearly 46,000 congregations. K.S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, V and VI, 1943 ◆ D.B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia, 1982 ◆ Baptist World Alliance, ed., Celebrate Christ: The Hope of the World! 17th Baptist World Congress, 1995. G. Thomas Halbrooks

III. Missions Baptist Christians have been prominent in foreign missions following the founding of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792. The news that the American Congregationalist missionaries A. → Judson and Luther Rice had become Baptists upon their arrival in Bengal in 1812 led to the formation of the General Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions in 1814. This organization, also known as the Triennial Convention, supported Judson’s work in Burma and initiated missions in Thailand (1833), India, and China (1836). The Convention also sponsored a mission in Liberia, begun in 1820 by African-Americans from Virginia. For many years, American Baptists left the African mission in the hands of African-Americans, believing that blacks were more suited than whites to survive there. In 1880, AfricanAmerican Baptists created the Baptist Foreign Mission Convention of the USA, whose missions contributed to the growth of Pan-Africanism. In 1845, the Triennial Convention broke up over the issue of slavery. Baptists in the Southern States seceded to form the Southern Baptist Convention. The northern Baptists founded the American Baptist Missionary Union (ABMU). In an effort to shake off the stigma of being in favor of slavery, Southern Baptists developed a marked preference for foreign missions. Their fields of activity lay in China and West Africa, later also in Latin America, Japan, and Europe. The ABMU conducted successful missions

606 among the tribal populations of Burma and North East India, reached Japan in 1873, the Philippines in 1899, and took over the Livingstone Inland Mission in the Congo in 1884. In 1910, the ABMU became the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society (ABFMS). Both the northern and southern Baptist mission agencies suffered from the economic depression after 1929. The ABFMS was also faced with theological dissensions that led to the formation of the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society in 1943. In 1976, the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most aggressive movements among the modern Protestant missions, launched a campaign to recruit 5,000 missionaries by the year 2000. By 1992, however, the number of missionaries had risen no higher than 3,918, partly owing to theological dissensions which afflicted the Convention after 1979. In Canada, overseas missions spurred the Baptists to engage in national cooperation as had happened earlier in the USA. In 1912, the various Baptist conventions merged their mission agencies to form the Canadian Foreign Mission Board. Similarly, in 1950, the Australian Baptist Missionary Society was formed as a union of the missionary societies in the various Australian federal states, the oldest of which (South Australia) dates from 1864. New Zealand Baptists formed their missionary society in 1885, and South African Baptists theirs in 1892. The small Baptist community in continental Europe established the → European Baptist Mission in 1954. R.G. Torbet, Venture of Faith, 1955 ◆ W.R. Estep, Whole Gospel – Whole World, 1994. Brian Stanley

Bar Hebraeus, Gregor (Arab. Abūhl-Fara<; 1225/ 1226, Melitene [Malatya] – 1286, Marāgheh). Bar Hebraeus was ordained Syrian Orthodox bishop in 1246; in 1264, he became chief prelate (maphrian) of the East, with his primary residence in Azerbaijan. He was a famous physician. Educated in Aristotelian philosophy, he became a notable encyclopedist with a compendium of ecclesiastical tradition (and its classical heritage) and of the entire knowledge of his time (including natural science), also taking into account the works of Arabic philosophy. As a historian and grammarian, he laid the foundations for Syriac studies in the West. Particularly worthy of mention among his more than 30 works (mostly in Syriac, some in Arabic) are his Lamp of the Sanctuary (a summa theologica) and his Chronography (a history of the world and the church down to 1285/1286, in three parallel parts). W. Hage, TRE XIV, 1985, 158–164 (bibl.).

Wolfgang Hage

Bar Hiyya, Abraham (c. 1065–1136) was the first Jewish rationalistic philosopher and scholar to write

607

Barabbas

in Hebrew. His many trips to Northern Spain and the Provence, where Jews were no longer familiar with Arabic, prompted him to write his treatises in Hebrew. His main philosophical works are Hegyon ha-Nefesh (“The Meditation of the Soul”) dealing with creation of the world, the nature of the soul, and repentance, and Megillat ha-Megalle (“The Scroll of the Discoverer”) dealing with creation and cosmology with a strong messianic undertone. Bar Hiyya was an ambitious scholar and wrote a series of treatises on geography, astrology, and other subjects. In all his works he contributed to the creation of a Hebrew philosophical and scientific terminology. Hegyon ha-Nefesh is divided into four sermons, corresponding to the specific dates of the High Holidays. The first sermon begins with a neoplatonic description of the creation of the world, which is followed by the hermeneutical demonstration that the first chapter of Genesis contains the teachings of all philosophers. In MegillahaMegalle, Bar Hiyya uses several neoplatonic sources, some of which are not known from other works. G. Wigoder, Hegyon ha-Nefesh, 1969.

Joseph Dan

Bar Kokhba Revolt. The Bar Kokhba Revolt was the second Jewish war against Rome (132–135 CE), named after its leader Simon bar Kosiba whose name has been interpreted both positively (bar Kokhba – “Son of the star”: Num 24:17) and – after the failure of the rebellion – negatively (bar Koziba – “Son of the liar”). The official designation of Bar Kokhba was the title “Nasi” (prince) that goes back to Ezek 37:24ff. and the Qumran tradition and is known from coins depicting the uprising and from documents from the Judean desert. It is uncertain whether Bar Kokhba regarded himself as a Messiah ( y. Taan. 4.8, fol. 68d). The sources mention the following causes of the revolt: the prohibition on circumcision by → Hadrian (Historia Augusta, Vita Hadriani 14.2); Hadrian’s intention to rebuild the city of Jerusalem as a Roman colony with a pagan temple (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, LXIX, 12); Hadrian’s breaking of his promise to rebuild the Jewish temple (Gen. R 64.10). Of these the foundation of the colony Aelia Capitolina is the most probable, perhaps combined with the ban on circumcision. No history of deliberate Roman oppression or systematic preparations for war on the part of the Jews can be deduced from the sources. Little is known about the exact course of the revolt. To date there is no concrete evidence either for the conquest of Jerusalem by the rebels (no Bar Kokhba coins in Jerusalem) nor for the successful resumption of the cult of the temple. A priest Eleazar is mentioned on the coin legends. This would tend to support the view that Bar Kokhba was assisted by priestly groups, but does not prove that a high priest was appointed to the

newly erected temple. The finds from the Judean desert and rabbinic literature limit the revolt to a narrow core area inside the province of Judea. The nasi Bar Kokhba reigned with unlimited authority during the uprising (military command, implementation of religious regulations). As the tenancy contracts concluded in his name show, the territory conquered by the Romans passed to the official ownership of the nasi as the representative of the new Israel. The Romans suppressed the rebellion with difficulty and great loss of life (numerous legions participated in it; the Syrian governor Publicius Marcellus and the commander Iulius Severus who was summoned from Britain intervened). Rabbinic sources ( y. Taan 4.8, fol. 69a) describe in detail the conquest of the fortress of Bethar. The consequences were catastrophic. The economic structure of Judea was extensively destroyed; the entire spiritual and economic life of the Jews of Palestine was shifted to Galilee. Jerusalem finally became a Roman colony (Colonia Aelia Capitolina); Jews were forbidden on pain of death to enter the city. A persecution of Jews suggested by some of the rabbinic sources is however doubtful. P. Schäfer, Der Bar-Kochba Aufstand, 1981 ◆ B. Isaac & A. Oppenheimer, “The Revolt of Bar Kokhba,” JJS 36, 1985, 33– 60 ◆ P. Schäfer, “Hadrian’s Policy in Judea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in P.R. Davies & R.T. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes, 1990, 281–303 ◆ P. Schäfer, ed., The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered, 2003. Peter Schäfer

Bar Mitzvah (literally: “son of the commandment”), someone who commits himself to the observance of Jewish religious and legal obligations. This initiation rite (→ rites of passage) is performed for boys at the age of 13 and one day, and for girls at the age of 12 and one day. The term appears in the → Talmud, though it was not used in this sense until the 15th century. The ceremony includes being called to the Torah, reading the weekly portion of the Torah or at least part of it, reading the Haftara, putting on the Tefillin, and giving a speech. I. Rivkind, Bar Mitzvah: A Study in Jewish Cultural History, 1942 ◆ R. Weinstein, <       , <   1995, 77–99. Kimmy Caplan

Barabbas (Aramaic  '*  ' , “son of the father”, Greek Bαραββᾶς ) is an unspecified patronymic, commonly used according to the Talmud (b. Ber. 18b) and also attested in Greek inscriptions (SEG I 7,489,1). In the story of the Passion, Barabbas appears 11 times in the context of the Passover amnesty. As this Barabbas is not attested anywhere else outside the NT, details regarding his person can only be deduced on the basis of the few pieces of information available within the context of the trial of Jesus. As a rebel charged with high treason and murder, Barabbas, like Jesus, faced a trial of life and death. As the ruler of the province,

Baraita Pilate was at all times entitled to implement the abolitio (the dismissal) of a charge. However, he also had to expect that the prosecutors would complain to the emperor if they did not agree with the abolitio (Mark 15:10; John 19:12). Yet Mark 15:6–15 speaks of the custom of an annual Passover amnesty, a custom that cannot be corroborated by other historical sources; Matt 27:15–21 and John 18:39 claim that it was a regular special custom (whereas Luke 23:13–25 differentiates somewhat more). The abolitio for a rebel called Barabbas may have occurred independently of the trial of Jesus, though it might also have taken place at the same time. The alternative choice between Jesus and Barabbas, on the other hand, is the result of an unhistorical construction limiting the abolitio to one prisoner (Mark 15:6; Matt 27:15–21; John 18:39). According to ancient historiography, Barabbas is the antithesis of Jesus, the “so-called” “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:12). A link to the contemporary Jewish revolt (66–70 CE) sparked off by the → Zealots is mentioned briefly. As Jesus’ “shadow”, Barabbas acquired a broad theological significance. J. Merkel, “Die Begnadigung am Passafest.” ZNW 6, 1905, 293–316 ◆ W. Waldstein, Untersuchungen zum römischen. Begnadigungsrecht, 1964 ◆ D. Dormeyer, Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell, NTA 11, 1974 ◆ R. Hoppe, Barabbas, NBL I, 1991, 239f ◆ W. Bösen, Der letzte Tag des Jesus von Nazaret, 1994. Detlev Dormeyer

Baraita → Talmud Barbara, Saint (day: Dec 4; since 1969 no longer in the festival calendar of the Catholic Church). According to the legend that probably originated as early as the 7th century in Byzantium, the time and place of her martyrdom is usually given as Nicomedia during the time of Emperor Maximianus (306). The legend was adapted by, among others, → John of Damascus (PTS 29, 247–278) and Symeon Metaphrastes (10th cent.; PG 116, 301–316). Barbara, the historically undocumented single child of a pagan dignitary by the name of Dioscorus, was locked up by him in a tower to keep her from marrying any man. Having converted to the Christian faith, she fled, was captured, and suffered various ordeals, until she was finally beheaded by her father, who was promptly struck by lightning. Before her death, Barbara received the promise that all those who called upon her would be granted forgiveness for their sins. Various motifs in her legend caused Barbara to become the patroness of miners, construction workers, artillerymen, and dying people; she is one of the 14 → auxiliary saints. L. Petzold, LCI V, 1973, 304–311 ◆ W. Schmitz, EdM I, 1977, 1210–1212 ◆ E. Wimmer, LMA I, 1980, 1432f. Robert Volk

608 Barbelo and Barbeliots. “Barbelo” is the name or epithet of a female entity who appears in Gnostic texts as the first emanation of the (androgynous) supreme being and as the cause for the appearance of the pleroma (including the heavenly Christ). The meaning of the Semitic/Aramaic name is uncertain (“God is in the four,” “daughter of the lord,” “mighty through God”). Barbelo comes from a semi-Jewish wisdom tradition. Irenaeus calls one Gnostic group “Barbelo Gnostics” (Haer. I, 29; possibly from a gloss); the same group appears again in Epiphanius under the name “Barbeliots” or → “Borborians.” Barbelo is frequently mentioned in the → Nag Hammadi texts: in the Apocryphon of John (parallel to Irenaeus Haer. I, 29), the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Three Steles of Seth, Allogenes, Melchizedek, Marsanes, and Zostrianos, as well as in the Pistis Sophia and the Books of Jeû. Sources: see under → Gnosis/Gnosticism and → Nag Hammadi ◆ Bibl.: L. Cerfaux, “Barbelo-Gnostiker,” RAC I, 1950, 1176–1180 ◆ K.L. King, ed., Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, 1988 (bibl.) ◆ G. Cassadio, “Donna e simboli femminili nella gnosi del II secolo,” in: U. Mattioli, ed., La donna nel pensiero cristiano antico, 1992, 305–329. Kurt Rudolph

Barclay, John ( Jan 28, 1582, Pont à Mousson, Lorraine, where his father, a lawyer from Scotland, taught at the university – Aug 15, 1621, Rome) lived from 1606 until 1616 in London during the reign of → James I. A roman à clef criticized celebrities of the time, but also the Puritans, the papacy, and the Jesuits (Euphormio, 1605–1607, with indexes; Apologia, 1611). Icon Animorum (1614) reproduced national stereotypes. As a Catholic, Barclay was unable to obtain an influential position and went to Rome in 1617, where he established himself by a Paraenesis ad Sectarios (1617). In 1621, he managed to complete the great historical-moral-political novel Argenis. Well into the 18th century, his collected Latin works were published throughout Europe and translated, for example by M. → Opitz. DNB I, 1931, 1082ff. ◆ D.A. Fleming, “The First Satirical Roman à Clef,” MPh 65, 1967/68, 95–102 (bibl.). Martin Ohst

Barclay, Robert (1648, Gordonstown, Morayshire – 1690, near Aberdeen), Quaker apologist. His father, David Barclay (1610–1686) became a → Quaker in 1665, the son in 1667. Barclay had previously studied at the Roman Catholic Scots College (Paris). He was one of the six most important personalities that shaped Quakerism. A ten year series of publications culminated in a Apology (Latin 1676, translated into English by himself in 1678), still the standard reference book of Quakerish faith. E. Trueblood, Barclay, 1967 (bibl.).

Dean Freiday

609

Barlaam of Calabria

Bardesanes (Syriac Bardaißan; 154, Edessa – 222, probably Edessa). Bardesanes was the court philosopher of King Abgar VIII (177–212) of → Edessa . Nothing remains of his many Syriac works except for a few fragments of his hymns preserved by → Ephraem Syrus. Also extant in Syriac is the Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries, a dialogue on fate and freedom written by one of his disciples. Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic authors also preserve, in various different versions, accounts of Bardesanes’ cosmological ideas and other views. The polemic writings of Ephraem Syrus, who became aquainted with the followers of Bardesanes in Edessa, constitute a major source. Where Ephraem, the cosmological material, and the Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries agree, we can reconstruct Bardesanes’ teachings: the world came into being by chance, when the inactive darkness mingled with the pure elements. The goal of the whole cosmic process is to drive away the darkness; this process was initiated by the word of thought, which is also identified with Jesus the teacher. Bardesanes interpreted → MiddlePlatonism in a Christian sense. He taught a fundamental monotheism and therefore polemicized against the → Marcionites (e.g. in the Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries). Bardesanes’ dualism within a monotheistic framework has led some scholars to see him as the teacher of → Mani, in whose system Bardesanes’ inactive darkness becomes an active principle. Bardesanes can be viewed as the first Christian humanist who attempted to reconcile the problem of evil and human freedom with the assumption of one god. Post-Nicene orthodoxy gradually turned him into a heretic, and as a result his writings were almost entirely lost. H.J.W. Drijvers, Bardaißan of Edessa, SSN VI, 1966 ◆ idem, TRE V, 1980, 206–212 (bibl.) ◆ idem, “Bardaißan’s Doctrine of Free Will, the Pseudo-Clementines, and Marcionism in Syria,” in: G. Bedouelle, ed., Liberté chrétienne et libre arbitre, 1994, 13–30. Han J.W. Drijvers

Barefoot Friars (Discalceates). The term for religious people who, as an expression of penitence and in reference to Jesus’ missionary instructions, wear no shoes or only sandals: in the Middle Ages, these were at first the → Camaldolese and especially the → Franciscans, who came to be known as Barefoot Friars in Germany; in the modern period, especially the → Passionists. Going barefoot is also characteristic for reform movements in some of the older orders since the 16th century (→ Carmelites → Augustinian Hermits, → Trinitarians, → Mercedarians). E. Pacho, “Scalzatura,” DIP VIII, 1997, 1006–1014. Ulrich Köpf

Barion, Hans (Dec 16, 1899, Düsseldorf – May 15, 1973, Bonn), consecrated to the priesthood on Aug

14, 1924 in Cologne, was active for many years as pastor; he was Dr. theol. (Bonn) and Dr. jur. can. (Rome), gained his Habilitation in church law under A.M. → Koeniger and taught in Braunsberg from 1931 to 1938. A report on the question of the sterilization of persons with hereditary illnesses resulted in a one-year suspension from teaching (1934/35). His appointment as university professor in Munich in 1938 led, as a consequence of the initial refusal of Archbishop Faulhaber to accept him, to the closing of the Catholic theology faculty. Barion was then appointed to the professorship of church law in Bonn, where he taught from 1939 to 1945. After the end of the war, the state prohibited him from resuming his chair. Barion’s ideal as a scholar was the “correct canonist,” characterized by strict scholarship and adherence to ecclesial authority. He followed the developments that were set in motion by → Vatican II with increasing concern; he sharply criticized the weakened statements of the Council in matters of doctrine, church order, and ecumenism. H. Flatten, “Hans Barion,” AKathKR 142, 1973, 71–79 ◆ Hans Barion, Kirche und Kirchenrecht: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. W. Böckenförde, 1984 ◆ G. May, “Hans Barion – Kirche und Kirchenrecht,” Der Staat 24, 1985, 577–588. Georg May

Barlaam and Joasaph are the heroes of an edifying Greek novel from the mid-Byzantine period that narrates the conversion of prince Joasaph, son of the Indian king Abenner, by the hermit Barlaam. Joasaph also becomes a hermit, converts his father, and distinguishes himself by performing various miracles. The path by which this originally Indian fable came to be attributed to the Greek author who clothed it in Christian garb can no longer be determined. The theological basis of the work lies in the richness of its traditional argumentation with respect to pedagogical and apologetic observance, including the Greek original of the now lost Apology of → Aristides. The strongest claim to the authorship of the novel continues to be that of → John of Damascus. CPG 3, 8120 ◆ F. Dölger, Der griechische Barlaam-Roman: Ein Werk des Heiligen Johannes von Damaskos, 1953. Jürgen Dummer

Barlaam of Calabria (c. 1290, Seminara, Calabria – 1348, Avignon) came to Constantinople as a monk in 1325, where he conducted a debate over philosophy and astronomy in 1330. He discussed theological issues with legates from Pope → John XXII in 1334/1335 and wrote a series of treatises directed against the → Filioque and papal → primacy. He used a political mission to Avignon (1339) as an opportunity for unification discussions (→ Unions with Rome) with → Benedict XII. After his return, he resumed the polemic against the Divine

Barlach, Ernst Energies doctrine of Gregory → Palamas, which he already begun in 1336. Condemned in 1341 by a synod in Constantinople, Barlaam fled to Avignon, converted to the Catholic Church, and became bishop of Gerace in southern Italy. Along with Gregorios Akindynos, Barlaam is the most important anti-Palamite theologian in the line of the humanistic and sometimes antimonastic tradition in Byzantium. Works: A. Fyrigos, ed., Barlaam Calabro – Opere contra i Latini, 1998 ◆ On Barlaam: idem, LThK III, 2, 1994, 6f. (bibl.). Gerhard Podskalsky

Barlach, Ernst ( Jan 2, 1870, Wedel, Holstein – Oct 24, 1938, Rostock), sculptor, graphic artist, and poet. He spent his childhood in Schönberg in Mecklenburg, studied in Hamburg and Dresden, made trips to Paris, and was a ceramics instructor. A journey to southern Russia in 1906 marked a decisive turning point: works in porcelain, terracotta, and bronze were inspired by the sketches of his “Russian Diary,” likewise his first artworks in wood. He was impressed by the vastness of the Russian landscape and the natural simplicity of its inhabitants. Following his emancipation from Art Nouveau, he developed an altogether individual expressionistic vocabulary (→ Expressionism) and began to have success; even his eccentric literary work now attracted the attention of publishers. From 1910 on, Güstrow in Mecklenburg became the focal point of his private and creative life. Barlach’s reaction to the outbreak of the First World War was at first enthusiastic like many of his contemporaries, although this soon changed. After 1927, the memory of the gruesome and useless suffering and dying in the war became the primary source of inspiration for the moving memorials created by Barlach in the secular and ecclesial sectors. While his works are today found in a wide variety of ecclesial contexts, where they usually have an illustrative function, only a few people, such as the Güstrow pastor Johannes Schwartzkopff, supported Barlach’s search for sacral spaces during his lifetime. The slandering of his works began when he received commissions to set up cenographs. The traits of his figures, it was claimed, were too “Slaviceastlike,” in appearance and lacked the “heroic.” From the beginning, the shrill concert of Barlach’s opponents also included ecclesiastic voices. Barlach was at first able to hold his ground, while the year 1930 also brought him his first significant theatrical success with Der blaue Boll. However, the attacks intensified. In 1932, he was denounced as a Jew and a Communist; commissions for additional memorials failed. After the NSDAP seized power and a brief period in which the pro-Expressionist wing of the Nazi party sought to win over Barlach, his works were branded as “degenerate” and banned from museums. Those on public dis-

610 play were removed or destroyed, last of all the Angel of Gustrow in 1937. Paintings: Vision, 1912 ◆ Der Gekreuzigte, 1916 ◆ Die Wandlungen Gottes (7 woodcuts), 1922 ◆ Begegnung, 1926 ◆ Der Güstrower Engel, memorial in the Gustrow Cathedral, 1927 (also in the Antonite Church in Cologne) ◆ Der Geistkämpfer, memorial in the Kiel University chapel, 1928 ◆ Memorial for the Magdeburg Cathedral, 1931 ◆ Three figures in the Church of Katherine in Lübeck, 1930–1933 ◆ Crucifix in the Elizabeth Church in Marburg, 1931 ◆ Hamburg Memorial, 1931 ◆ Monks reading, 1932 ◆ The Listeners Frieze, 1935 ◆ The Doubter, 1937 ◆ Writings: “Der Tote Tag,” 1912 ◆ “Der Arme Vetter,” 1918 ◆ “Die Echten Sedemunds,” 1920 ◆ “Der Findling,” 1922 ◆ “Die Sündflut,” 1924 ◆ “Der Blaue Boll,” 1926 ◆ “Ein selbsterzähltes Leben,” 1928 ◆ “Die Gute Zeit,” 1929 ◆ Die Briefe, 2 vols., ed. Fr. Dross, 1968/1969 ◆ Die Prosa, 2 vols., ed. F. Dross, 21973–1976 ◆ Der gestohlene Mond, 1987 ◆ On Barlach: R.v. Walter, Ernst Barlach, 1929 ◆ C.D. Carls, Ernst Barlach, 1931 ◆ W. Flemming, Ernst Barlach, 1958 ◆ F. Schult, ed., Ernst Barlach: Werkverzeichnis, 3 vols., 1958–1971 ◆ P. Schurek, Ernst Barlach, 1961 ◆ K. Badt, Ernst Barlach der Bildhauer, 1971 ◆ F.W. Bautz, BBKL I, 1975, 374f. (bibl.) ◆ E. Piper, Ernst Barlach und die nationalsozialistische Kunstpolitik, 1983 ◆ C. Krahmer, Barlach, 1984 ◆ E. Jansen, Ernst Barlach, 1984 ◆ K.W. Hooper, Ernst Barlach’s Literary and Visual Art, 1987 ◆ J. Metzinger, “Ernst Barlach ‘bewältigt’?” KuKi 52, 1989, 220– 222 ◆ E. Jansen, in: G. Meissner, ed., Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, VII, 1993, 83–85. Jörg Metzinger

Barletta, Gabriel (born in Barletta, southern Italy, died after 1481) was a → Dominican, for a time teacher of theology in Parma, prior in Siena, and preacher of repentance in several northern Italian cities. He relaxed the customary manner of scholastic preaching somewhat through the use of many examples and, occasionally, by means of an earthy humorous tone. His sermons were widely distributed. According to the proverb, Nescit praedicare, qui nescit barlettare. A. Alecci, DBI VI, 1964, 399f ◆ SOPMA II, 1975, 4f. Joachim Weinhardt

Barlow, Thomas (1607, Westmoreland – Oct 8, 1691, Buckden), bishop of Lincoln. He was educated at Queen’s College, Oxford. Barlow’s career at Oxford and in the church was marked by an ability to adapt to the most varied situations. Having retained his position as librarian of the Bodleian Library during the Civil War and Protectorate (1642–1660), he became provost of Queen’s College in 1657. During the Restoration, he proved adaptive once again and was appointed Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity (1660). Installed as archdeacon of Oxford in 1664, he became bishop of Lincoln in 1675, a diocese he probably never visited. Barlow was best known for his defense of → Calvinism and his efforts to integrate the Protestant → Dissenters into the Church of England. Among his students at Oxford was J. → Owen. He fought against the expansion of Arminianism (→ Arminians) within the Church of England and against the threat of Roman Catholicism

Barmen Declaration, The

611 from without. In 1685, he overcame his anti-papalism and pledged allegiance to the Catholic James II. P. Pett, ed., The Generous Remains of Dr. Thomas Barlow, 1693. Robert Cornwall

Barlow, William (c. 1565, London or Barlow – Sep 7, 1613, Lincoln), bishop of Lincoln. He was educated at St. John’s College in Cambridge (M.A. 1587). Having gained a certain reputation for his learning, he was elected fellow at Trinity Hall from which he received a Doctor of Divinity in 1599. Archbishop J. → Whitgift made him his chaplain and appointed him rector of St. Dunstan’s-in-the-East at the Tower of London in 1597. On recommendation of Whitgift, he became chaplain to Queen → Elizabeth I, whom he impressed with his preaching. Barlow was a fierce opponent of the Puritans. He played a leading role in the → Hampton Court Conference of 1604 and in the preparation of the Authorized Version of the Bible commissioned by the very same conference. → James I elevated him to the bishop’s see of Rochester in 1605 and of Lincoln in 1608. E. Venables, DNB I, 1912, 1151–1153.

Glenn Hinson

Barmen Declaration, The I. The First Confessing Synod of the German Protestant Church (DEK) – II. The Barmen Declaration

I. The First Confessing Synod of the German Protestant Church (DEK) 1. The first → Confessing Synod of the German Protestant Church (Deutsche Evangelische Kirche = DEK) took place from May 29–31, 1934 in the Reformed Gemarker Kirche in Wuppertal (Barmen). It had been prepared by the organizational panel of the Confessing Community and was chaired by K. → Koch, the president of the Confessing Synod of Westphalia. Approximately 140 representatives drawn from almost all the German regional churches took part in the synod; these included fifty-three participants who were not theologians. This was the first meeting of a Confessing Synod representing the whole German Reich. The following events led up to it. In spring 1934, various groups opposing the → Deutsche Christen (German Christians) and the church administrations dominated by them (this opposition included those regional churches not under German Christian leadership, the → Pastors’ Emergency League and the free synods of churches under German Christian administration) joined together to form the Confessing Community of the DEK. On April 22, 1934, at a rally in Ulm protesting against the illegitimate policy of integration by the national church leadership, this community for the first time declared itself to be the “legitimate

Protestant Church of Germany.” Setting up a synodal body of representation for the Confessing community – which now called itself → Confessing Church – was the consequence of the claim made in Ulm. The representatives invited to the synod by Koch were drawn exclusively from “confessing” congregations and churches, i.e., from those opposed to the German Christians. 2. The organizational panel of the Confessing Community had established three committees to prepare the synod: one for theological, one for legal and one for practical issues. At the synod, H. → Asmussen spoke for the theological committee; E. → Fiedler, W. → Flor and Hans Meinzolt (1887–1967) for the legal committee; and Georg Schulz (1889–1954) for the practical committee. While the “Theological Declaration on the Present Situation of the DEK” and the “Declaration on the Legal Position of the Confessing Synod of the DEK” were accepted unanimously, the declaration drafted by the Committee for practical issues was not presented to the synod. A paper distributed in its stead was discussed, but withdrawn. The “Declaration on the Practical Work of the Confessing Synod of the DEK” that was eventually published, was not written until after the end of the synod. In order to carry out its “specified tasks,” the synod appointed a → Council of Brethren in order to replace the former organizational panel of the Confessing Community. Important decisions were referred to this representative committee for further action. This council was given the legal committee’s draft of “Our Conception of the Correct Constitution of the DEK” as “material for further work”; it was also entrusted with “the spiritual guidance and responsibility for the needs of young theologians” and was given the task of assisting “non-Aryan” theologians in order that these might be admitted to ministries in the Confessing Church. Furthermore, the council was to contact state institutions regarding the control of the church press and to work for the “preservation of the holiness of Sunday.” Finally, the synod approved an appeal by the council with the title “To the Protestant Congregations and Christians in Germany.” The synod was followed by a Church Study Day on the theme “Under the Word”; this attracted approximately 15,000 visitors from the Rhineland and Westphalia. 3. The first Confessing Synod of the DEK led to the transformation of the former Confessing Community into the Confessing Church, whose representative organs consisted of the Confessing Synod and the Council of Brethren. In terms of church law, this was a complete innovation. In its “Declaration Concerning the Legal Position of the DEK,” the Confessing Synod followed the “Ulm Declaration” and declared that the official national church leadership had, by reason of its constitutional and legal infractions, abandoned the church con-

Barmen Declaration, The stitution of July 11, 1933 and had thus ceased to be the “legitimate leadership of the DEK.” Furthermore, the synod emphasized: “The only persons called to speak and act legally in the name of the DEK are those who remain loyal to the Holy Scripture and the commitment to the Church as its inviolable foundation and who wish to see both regain this status in the DEK.” However, they neither wanted to cause a schism nor to take the place of the official DEK. Rather, they saw their task as “gathering and representing the Confessing Congregation within the DEK,” i.e. to integrate the Confessing Church in the official church on the basis of church constitution, with the aim of redirecting the official church to its true constitutional and confessional path. II. The Barmen Declaration 1. Background and Development. The Barmen Declaration, more accurately the “Theological Declaration Regarding the Present Situation of the DEK” is effectively the Magna Carta of the Confessing Church. It was initiated by the organizational panel of the Confessing Community, which, on May 2, 1934, commissioned H. Asmussen, K. → Barth, T. → Breit and somewhat later also H. → Sasse to work on the “theological program” for the planned Confessing Synod (see I above). Barth submitted a first draft of a “Theological Declaration Regarding the Present Situation of the DEK” at the first meeting of this theological committee, from which Sasse was absent due to illness. This draft was edited and approved by the other members, and Asmussen was asked to present it at the Synod. However, objections to the “Concord of Frankfurt” of May 15, 1934 (as Barth called it) were soon raised in the panel itself as well as by Sasse and other Bavarian Lutherans. They not only criticized its content, which was strongly influenced by Barth’s theology, but also expressed doubts as to the legitimacy of the synod to issue formal theological statements, seeing that its composition was irregular and thus legally questionable, but especially on account of its multi-denominational character. These reservations resulted in complicated negotiations both before and during the synod, leading to the drafting of several revised versions of the “Concord of Frankfurt” and even of entirely new proposals. Before the Synod, the Lutherans envisioned a compromise solution: a preliminary synodic draft based largely on the “Concord of Frankfurt” was to be presented at the Synod and explained by Asmussen. It should then be discussed in denominational conventions (which had not yet been constituted!) in the sense of an itio in partes. While the adoption of the synodic draft introduced at the synod presented no problems for the representatives of the Reformed and United Churches, the Lutheran convention was only able to reach a consensus after long and arduous discussions. The Lutherans

612 finally declared that they were ready to agree to a common statement under certain conditions: the draft was to be reviewed by an inter-denominational synodic commission in the light of Lutheran misgivings, and could then be presented once more to the synod together with two further motions (see 3. below). This procedure was adopted. An “Advisory Commission” consisting of eight members reexamined almost all the objections raised by the Lutheran side, whereby Barth largely reformulated the politically controversial fifth thesis. The redrafted Barmen Theological Declaration and the two motions were then passed without further discussion. 2. Contents. The Barmen Declaration consists of an introduction, six theses and a final statement. Each thesis exhibits an identical structure: an opening scriptural quote, followed by affirmative comments, in turn followed by statements of rejection. The introduction emphasizes that the Confessing Synod is rooted in the constitution of the DEK and specifies its background and motives, namely the growing threat posed by the “increasingly evident doctrinal position and policy of the German Christians and of the church organization dominated by them.” It then goes on to describe the specific confessional and ecclesiological problems addressed by the synod: the “representatives of the Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of the free synods, church congresses, and congregational groups” affirm their loyalty to the DEK as a “union of confessing churches,” but also to the community established by the actual declaration of faith: “Precisely because we seek to be true and to remain loyal to our different confessions, we dare not be silent, for we believe that we have been given . . . the Word of God in order to proclaim it with one voice.” The synod was quite aware that such a joint statement of theological truths would have denominational consequences: “We leave it to God to decide what this might mean for the relation between the various individual denominational churches.” Like the introduction, the six theses are primarily formulated as an open rejection of the theological principles and ecclesiastical policies of the German Christians. They also contain elements of disapproval with the ideology of National Socialism. With its basic statements on revelation theology and Christocentrism, the first thesis lays the foundation of the entire Barmen Declaration. Alluding to the solus Christus – sola scriptura of the Reformation, this thesis is a pledge of loyalty to Jesus Christ as “the one Word of God” revealed in Holy Scripture. It rejects the “false teaching” that the Church could or should seek the source of its faith independently of or in addition to this one Word of God and refuses to accept that other events or powers, personalities or truths might also constitute divine revelation. The second thesis expands upon the Chris-

613 tological approach of the first in order to reject any dualistic understanding of the causalities that make the world what it is; it also emphasizes the (shared) responsibility of the Church to promote public and social welfare. The thesis mentions “God’s promise that all sins will be forgiven,” but also “his claim to our whole life”; through Christ “do we experience joyful deliverance from the godless bonds of this world to free, thankful duty towards his creatures.” There exist – as formulated in the statement of rejection – no “areas of our life in which we are placed under another lord, no areas in which we do not need the justification and sanctification through Jesus Christ.” The third thesis addresses the church itself, its essence and order, elaborating on the tension between the church of faith and the church as it is really experienced. It confesses to a church conceived of as a “community of brothers” that may neither change “the form of its message and of its order in any arbitrary way nor adapt it to current popular opinions or political convictions.” Christ alone being our Lord, as the fourth thesis maintains, the various ministries of the church establish no claim to a hierarchical structure in the sense that “one should have authority over the others”; for this reason, the church must reject “leaders claiming to be vested with absolute authority.” In the tradition of the Reformation, the fifth thesis describes the role of the state along the lines of the → Two Kingdoms doctrine, i.e. as a responsibility for “justice and peace in a world which has not yet been redeemed . . . on the basis of human judgment . . . under the threat and through the use of force.” The existence of the church alongside the state is a “reminder of the Kingdom of God, of his commandments and of his justice, and thus of the responsibility of the rulers as well as of the ruled.” The thesis refuses to recognize a state that sees itself as “the exclusive and absolute order of human life” but also rejects a church that attempts to “appropriate for itself, beyond the necessities of its own special task, the appearance, the responsibilities, or the dignity of a state.” The sixth thesis returns to the “responsibility of the church,” which is to “proclaim the message of God’s free mercy for all . . . in Christ’s stead and thus in the service of his Word” and may not “in human self-importance, use the Word and works of God for arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.” 3. Significance. The Barmen Declaration should not only be understood as a rejection of the aberrant doctrine of the German Christians. It is in fact a formulation of fundamental “Evangelical truths” that remain valid regardless of the specific historical situation, and thus it is also an attempt to bring forth a binding doctrine. This binding quality could only be reached through a consensus which, at the urging of the Lutherans, required the passing of two additional – and in fact

Barmen Declaration, The contradictory – motions: “1. This synod accepts the Theological Declaration on the present situation of the DEK, in conjunction with the paper delivered by Pastor Asmussen, as a Christian, biblical-reformational testimony of faith, and assumes full responsibility for its wording. 2. This Synod passes on this declaration to the denominational conventions, so that these may submit it to a responsible degree of interpretation in the light of their own confessional positions.” While the first motion gave Asmussen’s paper an almost canonical status, the second explicitly recognized the need for flexibility and interpretation with respect tot he Barmen Declaration. Shortly after the synod ended, controversial discussions on the significance of the Barmen Declaration arose both within the Confessing Church and in affiliated groups. As the denominational conventions were only partially able to complete their task, these discussions persist to this day. The more the Barmen Declaration came to be used as an instrument of fundamentalist or church-political interests, the more its binding character was downplayed by Lutheran theologians, although they themselves had initially stressed its conformity to the Lutheran doctrinal position. The fact that the constitutions of the majority of German Protestant churches and even of a number of ecumenical churches refer, in some way or other, to the Barmen Declaration, may nevertheless be taken as a sign of its general acceptance. It is either mentioned in the fundamental articles of the church, where it is assigned to the articles of faith, or is paraphrased as a still binding testimony of the Gospel, or it is quoted in explicit distinction to the respective confessional positions. The historical importance of the Barmen Declaration lies not only in the fact that it represents an important step on a path that brought together Evangelical churches of different denominations into a community of churches. It is also the most significant testimony to the struggle of the Confessing Church to preserve the freedom of its mission and its order in the face of the threat emanating from the totalitarian claims of the National Socialist regime. Sources: K. Immer, ed., Bekenntnissynode der DEK Barmen 1934. Vorträge und Entschließungen, 1934 ◆ G. Niemöller, Die erste Bekenntnissynode der DEK zu Barmen, 2, AGK VI, 1959 ◆ C. Nicolaisen, Der Weg nach Barmen. Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Theologischen Erklärung von 1934, 1985. Bibliography: E. Wolf, Barmen, 1957, 21970 ◆ G. Niemöller, Die erste Bekenntnissynode der DEK zu Barmen, 1, AGK V, 1959 ◆ A. Burgsmüller & R. Weth, eds., Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung, 1983 51993 ◆ R. Schulze, ed., Barmen 1934–1984, 1983 ◆ K. Nowak et al., Barmen und das Luthertum, 1984 ◆ W.-D. Hauschild et al., eds., Die lutherischen Kirchen und die Bekenntnissynode von Barmen, 1984 ◆ W. Hüffmeier & M. Stöhr, eds., Barmer Theologische Erklärung 1934–1984, 1984 ◆ E. Jüngel, Mit Frieden Staat zu machen. Politische Existenz nach Barmen V, 1984 ◆ K. Scholder, Die Kirchen und das Dritte Reich, vol. II, 1985 ◆ W.-D. Hauschild, “Zur Erforschung der Barmer Theologischen

Barnabas Erklärung von 1934,” ThR 51, 1986, 130–165 ◆ J. Mehlhausen, “Die Erste Bekenntnissynode der DEK in Barmen und ihre Theologische Erklärung. Ein Literaturbericht (1983–1989),” VF 34, 1989, 33–83 ◆ A. Burgsmüller, “Der Ausschuß für praktische Arbeit auf der Bekenntnissynode in Barmen 1934,” ZKG 104, 1993, 49–85 ◆ M. Honecker, Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte, 1995 ◆ A. Burgsmüller et al., eds., Vorträge und Voten aus dem Theologischen Ausschuß der Evangelischen Kirche der Union: Barmen I und VI, 2 vols., 1994 and 1993; Barmen II, 1974; Barmen III, 2 vols., 1980 and 1981; Barmen V, 1986. Carsten Nicolaisen

Barnabas ( Joseph Barnabas). Barnabas was an early Christian missionary of Jewish descent, mentioned four times by Paul: once in Col, but frequently in the first part of Acts. Since Paul always mentions him without any further introduction, he was obviously known to the congregations. According to Gal 2:1, 9, Barnabas was involved, together with Paul, in the process that led to the mission agreement of the →“Apostolic Council” (cf. Acts 15:2, 12). The fact that neither of them has to work (1 Cor 9:6) demonstrates the closeness of their missionary activities. After the dispute in Antioch, in which Barnabas sided with Peter (Gal 2:11–14), a separation took place (cf. Acts 15:36– 39). In Col 4:10, Barnabas is only mentioned as the cousin of John Mark. Acts provides additional details: According to 4:36f., Barnabas’s real name was Joseph; the surname Barnabas, which has incorrectly been interpreted as “son of consolation,” is in fact a theophoric name: “son of [the god] Nabu”. The specifications “a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus” cannot be verified. The sale of property in favour of the congregation might be historical, just as the information in 9:27 that Barnabas had established the first contact between Paul and the original congregation. 1:22–30 suggests that he held a leading position in → Antioch. According to Acts 13f., Barnabas and → Paul, as apostles of the Antiochene congregation (14:4, 14), were the first travelling missionaries (Cyprus, Asia Minor). Nothing further is known of Barnabas after the Apostolic Council. J. Schmid, RAC I, 1950, 1207–1217 ◆ W.H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 1979, 14–17, 206–215. Andreas Lindemann

Barnabas, Epistle of. Traditionally attributed to the → Apostolic Fathers, this anonymous writing does in fact contain some epistolary elements (1:1–5; 6:5; 21:9). On the whole, however, it is intended as a fundamental instruction in the Christian way of life and in the correct understanding of the Old Testament. First attributed to the “Apostle → Barnabas” by → Clement of Alexandria, who quotes Barnabas several times, the Epistle of Barnabas is usually thought to have been composed around 130–132, should the statements concerning the rebuilding of the temple (16:3f.) actually refer to such plans in

614 the reign of → Hadrian (not so Paget, who dates it to 96–98 [Nerva]); it does yet seem to have any knowledge of the 2nd Jewish uprising (132–135). Exactly which readership the author addressed is as uncertain as the geographical location where he wrote the text, both Egypt (i.e. Alexandria) and Syria being possible. The complete text of the Epistle of Barnabas has come down to us through the biblical Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.; where the Epistle of Barnabas is inserted between the Book of Revelation and Hermas, thus indicating that it was probably not viewed as canonical), but also through the Codex Hierosolymitanus (1056; it also contains the Didache and both letters of Clement). By means of extensive biblical quotations (mostly following the LXX) and their typological or allegorical interpretation, the Epistle of Barnabas attempts to demonstrate that the Old Testament generally points to Christ by prefiguring the account of Jesus, his baptism, and the cross (11:12). It is also contains quotes from the Jesus tradition (Matt 22:14 in 4:14). The cultic commandments are to be understood strictly from a “spiritual” or “moral” perspective (10); the Scripture is also said to teach that the older nation ( Jews) will serve the younger nation (Christians), thereby confirming the one covenant (13:14). The literary style of the Epistle of Barnabas is uniform, but makes use of tradition, as is already evident in 2–16 and especially in the Doctrine of the Two Ways, in which the “path of light” is clearly distinguished from the “path of darkness” (18–20; cf. Did. 1–5). As an independently working theologian, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas strove to make the biblical texts relevant to the present, much in the same way as the author of Hebrews; his exegetical methods were those of 1st-century Alexandrian Judaism (→ Alexandria : II). P. Prigent & R.A. Kraft, Épitre de Barnabé (SC 172), 1971 ◆ K. Wengst, Schriften des Urchristentums II, 1984, 101–202 ◆ A. Lindemann & H. Paulsen, Die Apostolischen Väter, 1992, 23–75 ◆ Bibl.: H. Windisch, Der Barnabasbrief, 1920 ◆ K. Wengst, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbrief, 1971 ◆ J.C. Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 1994 (bibl.). Andreas Lindemann

Barnabites. The Barnabites were regular clerics (originally sons) of St. Paul (CRSP), later named after the mother-house of St. Barnabas in Milan, where the order was established in 1530. Its founders were Antonius Maria Zaccaria, an advocate of Catholic reform in Lombardy and Venetia, Bartholomew Ferrari and Jacob Morigia. The purpose of the order was to provide intensive spiritual support, but also to function as a people’s mission. Finally approved in 1543, the order was active in France, Spain and Austria from the 17th century onward, especially in the field of youth education, in grammar schools and universities. The 19th century (the German-speaking province ceased to exist as a result of secularisation) witnessed a revival under

615

Baroque

Cardinal Franciscus Fontana. The Barnabites currently number approx. 400 members, mostly in Italy. Heimbucher II, 51987, 106–110 ◆ A. Gentili, I Barnabiti, 1967 ◆ DIP II, 1975, 945–974 ◆ AnPont 1996, 1434. Manfred Heim

Barnett, Samuel Augustus (Feb 8, 1844, Bristol – Jun 17, 1913, Hove), a theologian and social reformer. He was educated at home and at Wadham College, Oxford (B.A. 1865). His curacy in the inner city of London confronted him with the problems of a large city. In 1869, he founded the Charity Organization Society. In 1873, he was sent to St. Jude’s in Whitechapel, a parish with a high rate of criminality. He used innovative methods such as music, art, and literature to reach people and sought to improve living conditions. He was among the first to speak out for old-age pensions (1883), to take notice of the danger of unemployment, and to propose that university academics be confronted with life in the cities. Although he resigned his office in 1894 to become a canon in Bristol, he kept in touch with his parish throughout his life. From 1906 to 1913 he was Canon and finally Sub-Dean of Westminster. H.O. Barnett, Life, 2 vols., 1918 ◆ J. Wells, DNB I, 1912, 31f. Glenn Hinson

Baronius, Caesar (Oct 30/31, 1538, Sora, Kingdom of Naples – June 30, 1607, Rome). After studying law, Baronius entered the Oratory of Philip Neri at Rome; he became superior general of the order in 1593 and was made a cardinal in 1596. He was the librarian of the Vatican Library as well as the confessor and advisor of Clement VIII. He was himself a candidate in the papal election of 1605. He participated in the revision of the Roman → Martyrologies and the reform of the → Breviary. His major work, Annales ecclesiastici (Rome 1588–1607), seeks to demonstrate the historical continuity of the institutions of the Roman church, defending them against the theory of decay put forward in the Magdeburg Centuries. A. Molien, DHGE VI, 1932, 871–882 ◆ H. Liebing, RGG3 I, 1957, 892 ◆ A. Pincherk, DBI VI, 1964, 470–478 ◆ H. Jedin, Kardinal Caesar Baronius, 1978 ◆ VD16, II, 1984, 71f. ◆ K. Ganzer, LThK3 II, 1994, 31 ◆ C.K. Pullapilly, ER 1, 1996, 122–124. Heribert Smolinksky

Baroque I. Use and History of the Term – II. Architecture and Landscaping – III. Painting and Sculpture – IV. Literature – V. Music

I. Use and History of the Term Initially a pejorative designation for irregular and unnatural elements of architecture following the → Renais-

sance, the term “Baroque” has, since J. → Burckhardt (1855) and Heinrich Wölfflin (1888), been revaluated into a term describing an artistic, literary, and musical style and period. It has not however, been fully clarified. Undisputed in German-speaking art and literary history, other branches of historiography employ the term much less often or not at all. These branches of historiography prefer the period designation “Early Modern Times,” which begins earlier than the actual Baroque period. The use of the concept “Baroque” in the history of philosophy and theology is problematic. Catholic historiography uses it to refer to the academic education initiated by the Council of → Trent and cultivated mainly by the Jesuits. Also known as “Baroque scholasticism” (Karl Eschweiler), it is characteristic of the piety of the Counter-Reformation. In this context, the concept of “Baroque theology” is set in contrast to “early Protestant orthodoxy.” It is, nonetheless, indisputable that the development of philosophy and theology in the Protestant universities exhibits many structural parallels that to the Catholic universities, such as concepts of logic and metaphysics which differ from that of → humanism. Here, where dogmatic controversies were only indirectly relevant, it appears justified to speak of an inter-denominational “Baroque philosophy” (Wundt). In significant aspects it takes up the humanistic model of science and develops it further into the “universal topic” (SchmidtBiggemann), which is still present in the system of G.W. → Leibniz. In theology, the concept of “confessionalization” or of the “confessional era” seems to have established itself. The period meant by this term, c. 1580 to c. 1720/1740, roughly corresponds to the chronological span of the concept of the Baroque. In most recent times, interdisciplinary and international approaches have employed the concept of the Baroque more frequently in the context of a historiography that is concerned with the expressions of culture in the broadest sense. It denotes a related style of cultural behavior by using the period designation “Baroque”. In its politico-social and ecclesio-religious usage as well as in the academic disciplines (including philosophy and theology), a series of characteristics can be identified which reflect if not a homogenous, then at least a relatively uniform mentality. Such characteristics include the transnational and trans-confessional European horizon which gradually acquired global dimensions; the (still) cosmological or metaphysical way of looking at things that subsumes the plethora of extremely complex experiences under a unifying central perspective and in which the infinitely expanding macrocosm and the finite human microcosm correspond to each other – if only in a fragile way (affects, “sin”); higher demands upon the rational and radically systematic foundation of cognition (mathematics, encyclopedics, polyhistory) as well as the equally heightened

Baroque stimulation of the emotions through surrounding nature (in endless artistic variation, but also, e.g., in physical theology [→ Existence of God, Proofs of the]) and through preoccupation with the inner meaning (e.g. in → Pietism, → mysticism, pansophy); the significance of representative, rhetorically and theatrically enacted publicness, but also of cultural elites (e.g. linguistic societies) and more cryptic circles (e.g. the → Rosicrucians), but also incipient → atheism; the mimetic recourse to antiquity and its “Golden Middle”; and, simultaneously, the advent of a “chiliastic” consciousness that rejected the traditional view of (salvation) history in favor of a belief in the renewal and improvement of the labyrinthal human garden. P. Hankamer, Deutsche Gegenreformation und deutches Barock, 1935 ◆ M. Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17.Jahrhundertes, 1939 ◆ W. Philipp, Das Werden der Aufklärung in theologiegeschichtlicher Sicht, 1957 ◆ W. Flemming, Deutsche Kultur im Zeitalter des Barock, 1970 ◆ R.T. Petersson, The Art of Ecstasy: Teresa, Bernini & Crashaw, 1970 ◆ H. Lehmann, Das Zeitalter des Absolutismus, 1980 ◆ W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Topica universalis: Eine Modellgeschichte humanistischer und barocker Wissenschaft, 1983 ◆ D. Breuer, ed., Frömmigkeit in der frühen Neuzeit, 1984 ◆ S. Wollgast, Philosophie in Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung, 1988 ◆ E. Trunz, Weltbild und Dichtung im deutschen Barock, 1992 ◆ U.G. Leinsle, Einführung in die scholastische Theologie, 1995 ◆ S. Breuer, ed., Religion und Religiosität im Zeitalter des Barock, 1995 ◆ J. Wallmann, Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock, 1995 ◆ W. Adam, ed., Geselligkeit und Gesellschaft im Barockzeitalter, 1997. Walter Sparn

II. Architecture and Landscaping Having long been the object of contempt, Baroque architecture was finally deemed worthy of sympathy and academic attention, primarily through the efforts of Gurlitt. Wölfflin decisively shaped the stylistic concept and defined Baroque forms in contrast to those of the Renaissance. The most accurate and, to this day, structurally outstanding description of Baroque architecture was given by Riegl, who also emphasized the importance of Rome for the development of the style. The origins of Baroque architecture lie in 16thcentury Rome. Following the Council of Trent, church buildings were embellished with impressive facades and theatrically decorated interiors (Il Gesù, 1577; S. Andrea della Valle, 1591). In contrast to earlier art history, which defined Baroque exclusively as a “Jesuit style,” Haskell stressed the contribution of other CounterReformatory orders to the art of Rome, especially that of the → Oratorians. He saw their Chiesa Nuova as a “cradle of the Baroque.” Significant impulses of this new art grew out of the competition between Rome’s Counter-Reformatory orders, to which the → Theatines also belonged. The characteristic features of high Baroque, however, did not appear until the 17th century, when they were developed by G.L. → Bernini (1598–1680) and F. → Borromini (1599–1667). These included magnificent, scenographically designed piaz-

616 zas (e.g. the semi-circular colonnades in St. Peter’s, 1657–1667 by Bernini), the bending of straight lines (S. Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, 1638–1641, by Borromini), the calculated spatial and light effects (e.g. Scala Regia in the Vatican, 1663–166 by Bernini), the oval layout (e.g. S. Andrea al Quirinale, 1658–1661), and a rich decorative style. In the 17th and 18th centuries, a series of other centers of Baroque architecture established themselves in addition to Rome, especially Paris and Vienna. The competition for the renovation of the Louvre in Paris (1667) had the objective of replacing Roman-Berninesque architecture with a Francoclassical style. The austere elegance of the east façade of the Louvre did in fact exert considerable influence on Baroque architecture. However, the construction of Versailles (by Louis Le Vau and Jules Hardouin-Mansart), had far greater consequences. Its elongated Court of Honor (Cour d’honneur), lavish stairwell, sumptuous interior decoration, and massive dimensions, established Versailles as the paradigm of the Baroque château. Versailles was also the most remarkable example of Baroque landscape architecture: André le Nôtre, who had created his first significant landscape in Vaux-le-Vicomte (1656), began working in Versailles in 1661 and surpassed everything previously known with numerous fountains, canals, thickets, flower beds, vantage points, the axial system, and the subordination of the whole to a sophisticated iconological program. In comparison to the Dutch style of gardens from the beginning of the 17th century, with its characteristic flat landscape, abundance of water, orderly flower beds, wealth of blossoms, hedges, alleys, and rows of statues, the “French garden” created by Le Nôtre was to assume an exemplary role in Europe. Following Rome and Paris/Versailles, Vienna developed into a center of courtly Baroque. The imperial capital was surrounded by gardens and castles, among which the Belvedere of Prince Eugene and particularly Schönbrunn were meant to compete with Versailles. Finally, the Karlskirche (Church of St. Charles Borromeo in Vienna (1716–1733) by Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach was an attempt to establish an imperial language of architecture in the Holy Roman Empire. In analogy to his “Outline of a Historical Architecture” (1721), Fischer von Erlach designed it as an ambitious church edifice of exceedingly rich symbolism. Although Baroque architecture originated in Rome, its repertoire was expanded through the more courtly-absolutist contribution of France and the bourgeois-classical variant of Holland. Europe’s Baroque architecture from Portugal to Poland is highly pluralistic and pluriform. Perhaps the most original contribution to Baroque are the 18th century sacral structures in southern Germany (Diessen, Steinhausen, Vierzehnheiligen, Wies, Zwiefalten, etc.), where architec-

617

Church of St. Charles Borromeo in Vienna, Austria. (Photo: Photo Archive Marburg)

ture, ornamentation, and frescos constitute a new unity; architecture becomes pictorial and contributes to the “transfiguration” (Rupprecht) of space. C. Gurlitt, Geschichte des Barock-Stiles . . ., 1887–1889 ◆ H. Wölfflin, Renaissance und Barock, 1888 ◆ A. Riegl, Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom, 1908, repr. 1977 ◆ W. Weisbach, Der Barock als Kunst der Gegenreformation, 1921 ◆ B. Rupprecht, Die bayerische Rokoko-Kirche, Münchner kunsthistorischen Studien V, 1959 ◆ H. Jedin, “Das Tridentinum und die bildenden Künste,” ZfKG 4th ser., XII, LXXIV, 1963, Issues 3/4, 321–339 ◆ R. Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy 1600–1750, 1973 ◆ I. Dennerlein, Die Gartenkunst der Régence und des Rokoko in Frankreich, 1981 ◆ K. Harries, The Bavarian Rococo Church: Between Faith and Aestheticism, 1983 ◆ S. Mayer-Himmelheber, Bischöfliche Kunstpolitik nach dem Tridentinum, 1984 ◆ F. Polleross, ed., Fischer von Erlach und die Wiener Barocktradition, Frühneuzeit-Studien 4, 1995 ◆ F. Haskell, Maler und Auftraggeber: Kunst und Gesellschaft im italienischen Barock, 1996 ◆ C.B. Mitchell, Baroque Gardens, 1996 ◆ J.C. Smith, Sensuous Worship: Jesuits and the Art of the Early Catholic Reformation in Germany, 2002. Richard Hüttel

III. Painting and Sculpture Baroque painting and sculpture did not emerge as an explicit countermovement to tradition, but through a creative development of existing beginnings. For religious works, regulations made by the Council of Trent concerning images were influential. Art as a didactic medium was subjected to both formal and thematic specifications. In times of frequent military and diplomatic confrontations, the need for legitimization and representation was decisive in the shaping of courtly art. The objective was to fulfill the rhetorical requirement of “edification, entertainment, instruction.” Its characteristics were dynamism and gestural expression (e.g. Bernini, P.P. → Rubens), the quest for realism, the use of

Baroque techniques such as illusion, lighting effects, or the conscious interplay between the lighting of the exhibition space and chiaroscuro painting (M. → Caravaggio, Caravaggism). An essential aspect, however, was the intricate combination of various genres – architecture, stucco work, panel, mural and ceiling painting, sculpture, and the handicrafts – which has been described as a “total work of art”. Stimuli from stagecraft were especially instructive for mural and fresco painting, which were influenced by Andrea Pozzo and his tractate on the use of perspective in painting and architecture (1696), for the purpose of expanding space. The “total work of art” also was the aim of the curricula in the academies of the arts that came into existence in the 16th century and spread throughout Europe in the 17th century as municipal, princely or communal foundations (e.g. Augsburg). In the late Barogue (Rococo), the genres fused into a new, formally most refined manner, in that each seemed to assume the other’s tasks in a reinterpreted illusionism (Dominicus Zimmermann). Sculpture, which became more and more expansive, interacted purposefully with architecture in theatrical stagings (Rohr, Weltenburg). The broad canon of disciplines which the artists had to master in order to meet these expectations, but also the profitably managed art businesses (e.g. Rubens, → Rembrandt) were faced with an opposite trend towards specialization in the Netherlands, where the motif-painting workshops were established that specialized in the representation of animals, in individual branches of the genre, or in still-lifes. The spirit of the merchants’ Calvinism also led to the emergence of the art market in 17th-century Holland. Further development was influenced by the “classical landscape” formulated in the 17th century (e.g. C. → Lorrain), which was to continue to have effect, not least because of the Grand Tour, the educational journeys of early tourists, in the production of vedutas. A. Pigler, Barockthemen, 1956, 21978 ◆ V. Loers, Rokokoplastik und Dekorationssysteme, Münchner kunsthistorischen Abhandlungen 8, 1976 ◆ J.R. Martin, Baroque, 1977 ◆ A. Blunt, ed., Baroque and Rococo: Architecture & Decoration, 1978 ◆ F. Matsche, Kunst im Dienst der Staatsidee Kaiser Karls VI., BKuG B 16, 1981 ◆ R. Feuchtgmuller & E. Kovács, eds., Welt des Barockes, 2 vols., 1986 (exhibition catalogue, St. Florian Foundation ◆ H. Beck & S. Schulze, eds., Antikenrezeption im Hochbarock, Schriften des Liebighauses, 1989 ◆ R. Wittkower, J. Montagu, J. Connors, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600–1750, I–III, 1999–2000. Barbara Mikuda-Hüttel

IV. Literature 1. Characteristics, Backgrounds, Regional Centers. As the designation of a literary period, Baroque refers to complex developments of literary production and reception in the 17th century, which took place under the regulative supervision of the princedoms centered around the court and the ideal of moral “discipline” in

Baroque both public and private life propagated especially in the cities. It encompasses the history of cultural institutions (such as schools, universities, the printing industry, the theatre, and courtly representation), of the media (such as leaflets and pamphlets), of technical and commercial literature, as well as of public groups, public attitudes, and intellectual affiliations. In this period, simple everyday literature as well as the ambitious cultivation of sophisticated language, later stigmatized as “affected” mannerism, essentially followed the norms of a learned traditionalism – even though the older archetypes were transcended in a formal innovation or superseded by new “genres” arising from the syncretistic combination of traditional patterns. In the course of the 17th century, the broad stream of rhetorical and poetological instructional literature, which now also informed the vernacular-speaking public and supplemented the still cultivated tradition of academic-Latin scholarly prose, was decisive for the understanding of poetry as a teachable and, at least in principle, generally acquirable skill. The founding document of this instructional literature was the Buch von der deutschen Poeterey (Book on German Poetry) (1624) by the Silesian author M. → Opitz. Under the influence of the French Pléiade and of the non-German “Petrachism,” but also in continuation of humanistic doctrines, he treated new rules of meter (preservation of the natural accent in verse), stylistic characteristics of elegance, the catering to a courtlyelite public, as well as genre specific models of lyricism (sonnet, ode, song, epigram), of epic verse, and of drama (comedy, tragedy). Subsequent theoreticians, especially those from the circle of Nuremberg authors under the leadership of Georg Philipp Harsdörffer (1607–1658) and Sigmund von Birken (1626–1681), developed refined variations of verse and strophe, integrated theorems of onomatopoeia or of the “polysemic” structuring of ideas, and broadened the spectrum of the forms of international literature that were gradually being translated (novels, varieties of pastoral literature). They were supported in this effort by a theoretical-linguistic literature motivated by cultural patriotism which – as in the case of Justus Georg Schottelius (1612–1676) – freed the models of stylistic elegance from antiquarian constraints and anchored them in concepts such as the doctrine of natural languages, of the theory of etymology, and of the rational inner organization of the German language. The territorial and confessional fragmentation of the Empire and the effects of the → Thirty Years War corresponded to the divergent profile of literary centers and traditions. While the literary ambitions of the Heidelberg Calvinist School, the literary life of Strasbourg, as well as the early blooming of courtly literature in Württemberg were soon caught up in the turmoil of military catastrophes, Silesia was able to preserve its

618 reputation, established by Opitz and his first adherents, as the leading German literary landscape until the end of the century, as represented by the “mystical Baroque” epigrams of Johannes Scheffler (Angelus Silesius) and D. → Czepko, both of which were influenced by J. → Böhme, the satirical epigrams of Friedrich von Logau (1604–1655), but, above all, by the great triad of → Gryphius, Daniel Casper von Lohenstein (1635–1683) and Christian Hof(f )mann von Hof(f )mannswaldau (1616–1679), to whom one could justifiably add other authors such as the dramatist Johann Christian Hallmann (1640–1704) and the brilliant outsider J. C. → Günther. Younger Leipzig students such as P. → Fleming and a series of wordlyentertainment songwriters also understood themselves as “Opitzians.” In Königsberg, a circle of authors assembled around S. → Dach represent a similar case of typical contemporary coexistence of wordly-entertaining songwriting and the production of learned texts. Owing to the absence – in contrast to France and England – of one cultural center, the trans-regional interaction of authors primarily took place in the so-called linguistic societies. The “Fruitful Society,” established in 1617 on the model of the Italian academies, found a literarily versed leader in Prince Ludwig of Anhalt-Köthen (1579–1650). The “German-Minded Fraternity” had a more “bourgeois” profile. Its founder, Philipp v. Zesen, divided it into regional “guilds,” thus making it just as trans-local as the “Order of the Swans of the Elbe” headed by the Lutheran pastor, hymnist, and author, J. → Rist. The “Pegnesian Order of Flowers,” established in Nuremberg, presented the most aesthetically advanced positions, combining pious convictions with a virtuose culture of style and reaching far beyond the German nation in translations and academic receptivity. Here, the patrician and great man of letters Harsdörffer as well as Johann Klaj (1616–1656) were joined by the professional author von Birken. Representatives of the Austrian nobility who had emigrated for religious reasons, including the foremost spiritual lyricist of the century, Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg (1633–1694), also sought to be integrated into the Nuremberg circle. In contrast, Catholic literature primarily found support in the educational institutions of the Jesuit order, whose educational curriculum also included the cultivation of theatrical entertainment – with authors such as Jacob Bidermann (1578–1639) and Nicolaus of Avancini (1611–1686) – and a catechesis encompassing all areas of life (internationally dominated by Jeremias Drexel, 1581–1638). The Jesuits, notably the lyricist Johannes Bisselius (1601–1682) and the lyricist, satirist, and literary theoretist, J. → Balde, continued to write in Latin. Contact with the older theorems of Renaissance literature (such as in the theory of drama) was preserved

619 through the use of Latin, although the court at Munich also promoted translations in the service of pastoral care and ascetism. Even the most important German-speaking lyricist of Catholic Germany, the Jesuit F. → Spee von Langenfeld (1591–1635), employed refined techniques of Ignatian spirituality in his collection of poems entitled Trutznachtigall (written in the years following 1632, printed in 1649), although he also had simpler songforms at his disposal. The influence of his work persists in current songbooks. While the Munich court adopted the Jesuit theatrical culture, only a few Protestant courts initially distinguished themselves as literary centers of repute. Worthy of mention are → August, Duke of Braunschweig-Lüneburg , and his son Anton Ulrich (1633–1714), who became famous as a songwriter and as the author of dramatic festival poems and of two novels about the constitution of the state. 2. Songwriting, Lyricism, and Epic verse. Regardless of the attractiveness of new novel forms (sonnet, madrigal), the thematic and functional variety of strophic songwriting asserted itself in the symbiosis of text and music. Spiritual lyricism, traditionally devoted to comfort, warning, and “admonition” (thus still in Rist’s Neue Musikalische Katechismus Andachten, 1656), kept its distance from the polemics of religious parties and served, written in exemplary first person or addressed to an appellative second person, less the needs of the church communities than those of private devotion and family piety, i.e. the needs of the “renewal of the inner person” (thus Rist in: Frommer und Gottseeliger Christen Alltäglich Hausmusik, 1654) or of the social events of pious conventicles. Older traditions were evident in the broader perspective, as in the lyricism reflecting the times of the day (e.g. P. → Gerhardt’s Abendlied or a group of sonnets by Gryphius), in the reversion to preReformation mysticism (Pseudo-Bernhard, J. → Tauler), and even, as in Q. → Kuhlmann, in the free adaptation of texts by → John of the Cross (Kühlpsalter, 1684–1986). Poems of consolation and prayer in situations of personal affliction, obviously also in the distress of the Thirty-Years War (such as, J. → Stegmann’s Erneuerte Hertzen-Seufftzer, 1633) complemented lyrical passion meditations (Gryphius’s Tränen über das Leiden Jesu Christi, 1652, 1657) or renditions of the Lutheran theology of the cross (Rist’s Neue Musikalische Kreutz- TrostLob- und Dank- Schuhle, 1659). Paraphrastic biblical poetry occupied a prominent place: in conjunction with older pericopal songs and in the areas of circulation of pertinent postils, as in Gryphius (Sonn- und Feiertagssonette, 1639, influenced by J. → Heermann), in the form of widely distributed renditions of the Psalms (Opitz, Fleming, Weckherlin, sometimes emblematically illustrated as in Wolfgang H. von Hohberg’s Lust- und Artzeney-Garten des

Baroque Königlichen Propheten Davids, 1675), of the Klagelieder Jeremia (Opitz), or the sometimes virtuoso tone, verse, and graphic artistry, as, for example, in his rendition of the Song of Songs (1657) by Zensen. Because the poems were arranged in cycles, sometimes even assuming the character of an allegorical novel of the soul (as with the Capucian Laurentius of Schnüffis, 1633–1702), and very often also integrated in works of religious prose or in anthologies of several authors, they addressed the current needs of pious lifestyles. In a Protestant context, the call for a praxis pietatis that would overcome theological intellectualism, as formulated by Johann → Arndt in his Vier Büchern vom Wahren Christentum (1605–1609), but also by J.V. → Andreae with his contemporary-critical visions of a renewed Christianity, had particularly strong repercussions. In contrast to 16th century literature, the motifs of a congenial experiencing of God (Love of Jesus tradition, cults of the blood and wounds) and the argumentation systems of an edifying natural theology found broad resonance. New combinations of text and illustrations (in the formation of a spiritual emblematics) made it easier to meet the requirements of an aesthetically demanding public, as did the possibilities, favored by Catholics, of adapting established secular text models (Christian pastoral poetry, transformation of the Petrarchic romantic situation as in Spee and → Angelus Silesius). The casual lyricism which dominated in secular verse, from the occasional friendship poem to the highly rhetorical praise of a ruler, usually grouped in lyrical “woods” (sylvae), was supplemented by texts motivated by the politics of the day (e.g. in leaflets). With forms of expression appropriated from Italian and French Petrarchianism and Germanized by Opitz and Georg Rudolf Weckherlin (praise of women, description of physical charms, the paradoxical identity of love’s desire and love’s pain), traditions of popular song lyrics and the motifs of the older Anacreontic poetry soon overlapped. The literary hedonism cultivated here led to the lyricism of Hof(f )mann von Hof(f )mannswaldau, with its often lascivious tone, its use of affected metaphors and humorous allusions, and its rehabilitation of natural desires. His poems prefigured – as did the biographically transparent, often emotional verse of J. C. Günther – 18th-century literary formations. Although the major eulogies of rulers occasionally drew on epic verse traditions, the historical epic found only isolated echoes in the 17th century. In contrast, mixed didactic forms dominate in the works of Opitz, whether in the overlapping with conceptual patterns of rustic poetry (demands for moral autonomy, autarchy, and individual happiness), or in topical moralism, as in the most important political work of the 17th century, Opitz’s Poems of Consolation in the Misfortune of War,

Baroque which combined Calvinistic resistance against aggressive re-Catholicization, harsh criticism of the period, Lutheran theology of suffering, and a humanistically motivated parenesis concerning the “real” truth, betraying the influence of → Lipsius. In spiritual poetry, tendencies to expand lyrical poetry into declamatory speech dramas manifested themselves, especially in the “speech oratorios” of the Nuremberg author Johann Klaj, innovations that were only taken up in later oratorio composition. 3. Theater and Drama. The theater of the 17th century was dominated by traveling theaters, some originating from England and Italy, by a few court centers that favored forms of allegorical-mythological plays (Wolfenbüttel, but also Weissenfels in Saxony and Rudolstadt in Thuringia) and encouraged the development of opera (texts by Opitz, Harsdörffer, Anton Ulrich, etc.), but, above all, by the rhetorical training frequently dispensed by schools and academies, which also included the historical roleplay of the students as a socio-pedagogical education measure. On the Protestant side, the theatrical school of Strasbourg occupied a leading position until the beginning of the Thirty Years War. Here, it was possible to observe what Opitz confirmed in his translation of Seneca’s Trojan Women (1625) and of Sophocles’ Antigone (1636): namely, the strong interest in a historico-political tragedy that did everything to elicit emotion and in which the court, elevated to a “Theatrum Mundi,” as the site of most extreme danger and the most extreme test of Christian virtues, simultaneously produces suffering through and in history as well as the possibility of overcoming the world for the lone subject. With Gryphius and Lohenstein, and, subsequently, Hallmann and August von Haugwitz (1645–1707), the theatrical school in Breslau gained national literary status. Yet, the Saxon cities also made their contribution to the further development of a productive theatrical culture: in the political plays of Sebastian Mitternacht (1613–1679), but especially in the dramatic works of Christian Weise (1642–1708), who made use of biblical motifs and politico-didactic examples as well as of the possibilities of comedy for the purposes of an educational program. In the capitals, the Jesuit theater was integrated into the courtly festival culture, attracting audiences with technically elaborate productions, and relying on a theory of drama developed in the poetics of, for example, Jacob Masen (1606–1681) who corrected Aristotelianism in keeping with the times. After beginnings in the service of Catholic propaganda, the Jesuits soon addressed problems of political rationality and autocratic governance. Biblical and legendary materials gradually re-ceded in the face of historical plays that demonstrated the antimony of height and fall, of the illusion and reality of worldly splendor. At the same time, Jakob Bidermann’s Cenodoxus

620 (staged in 1602) attacked the subtle “hubris” of the late humanistic ideal of cultivation and education. Gryphius also knew and translated standard pieces from the Jesuit theater, but was also stimulated by protagonists of Dutch drama and Italian comedies. In his martyrdom dramas (esp. Catharina of Georgia, published in 1657), he mingled a stoicist heroism that overcomes worldly anxiety with the readiness to suffer which is prefigured in the passion of Christ. → Charles I of England, executed in 1649, was also portrayed as a Christian martyr (Carolus Stuardus, written 1650, pub. 1657), whereby Gryphius, in conformity with Lutheran social theology, distanced himself from supporters of the Puritan Revolution. Gryphius’s Papinian (1659), in which the protagonist rejects all temptations of political opportunism at the cost of his life, addresses the contemporary problem of absolutism, the discrepancy between the arbitrariness of governance and the Christian and natural morality demanding loyalty toward the state. A direct line leads from Gryphis to Lohenstein’s tragedies, which, following the political tractates inspired by Tacitus, discover in the cruelties of the Roman Imperial period analogies to a world that is increasingly devoid of meaning and guided only by historical “fate.” The myth of the Roman Empire formed the background for a bewildering interplay of political unscrupulousness and moral resistance. “Baroque” comedy, beginning with the pieces by Heinrich Julius, Duke of Braunschweig (1564–1613), which were in turn stimulated by the traveling theaters, attained tragi-comic effects primarily from the contrast between appearance and reality, and almost always relying on strategies of figural and linguistic comedy based on the hierarchy of the classes. In his Horribilicribrifax (1663), Gryphius drew a panorama of social failure that ridiculed the impoverished nobility as much as the great protagonists of the past war who had become alienated from the culture of courtly conduct. Comedy gained psychological depth especially with Weise. On the periphery of the normative distinction between comedy and tragedy, new dramatic hybrid forms appeared (such as Gryphius’s paired plays Verlibtes Gespenst and Die geliebte Dornrose, 1660), including pastoral plays that were increasingly composed in musical form (by Harsdörfer, Birken and Dach, etc.), and festival plays, sometimes containing contemporary criticism, commemorating the peace of 1648 (e.g. by Birken and Rist). 4. Novel and Prose Forms. Although the short-story (kurzprosa) of the century of the Reformation continued to be used in the novels of individual authors (including Harsdörffer), its significance was overshadowed by the highly sophisticated novels that soon streamed in from other countries, primarily from France and Italy. In its conception of narrative, plot, style, and problem, the German adaptation of the contemporary courtly-heroic

621 novel of state, Opitz’s translation of J. → Barclay’s Argenis (1626), opened up new possibilities and paved the way for the monumental Geschicht-Gedichten (History Poems) (v. Birken) of Anton Ulrich von Braunschweig (Die Durchleuchtige Syrerin Aramena, 1669–73; Octavia, Römische Geschichte, 1677ff ) and Lohenstein (Grossmüthiger Feldherr Arminius oder Herrmann, 1689/ 90). The fictional fable, which is linked to the fate of one or more romantic couples whose virtue is put to the test in every imaginable way, becomes intertwined with polyhistorically authenticated, at times allegorically encrypted historiography. In the tension resulting from the antagonism of affects and moral-political norms of behavior, the major figures embody the coexistence and opposition of dynasties, states, and other politicocultural powers. In keeping with the archetype of the novel from late antiquity (Heliodorus), the historical backgrounds of primary events are told retrospectively in complicated narrative regressions. Indeed, this reconstruction of the past sometimes gained such prominence that the complex pattern of private, yet simultaneously political conflicts and developments is only resolved at the end, within a nexus of counterbalancing justice. This type of novel was soon expanded upon through various hybrid and special forms, as first evidenced by the pastoral variations of the longer narrative inspired by Honoré d’Urfé (Astrée), and P. → Sidney (Arcadia). In Germany, the “prose eclogue” inspired by Opitz, but above all the leaner form of the “individual pastoral”, concentrated on the intimate world of the landed gentry and middle class, making room for biographical realism and subtle psychological character development, and suggesting possibilities for a more sensitive culture of feeling. This category included the first German “original novels,” such as Zesen’s Adriatische Rosemund (1645), the story of a love that failed because of a confessional conflict. The later gallant novels had more in common with French salon culture than with the calculation of meaning in the heroic-political prose epic. This corresponded to an increased interest in experienced reality, which Weise and Johann Riemer (1648–1714) taught to judge by the measure of political cleverness in their “political novels”. Christian alternatives to the Amadis tradition, but also to the secular tendencies of the feudal novel, were indebted to Andreas Heinrich Buchholtz (1607–1671), but were also pursued in novels of biblical history such as Zesen’s Assenat (1670) and Simson (1679). In style, perspective, and social characterization, the “lower” novel, introduced in Germany through the fictitious biography of a child who grew up in the Thirty Years War, became the antithesis of the “high” novel which mirrored the preservation of aristocratic-dynastic virtues and the theocratic interpretation of history: Der

Baroque Abentheurliche Simplicissimus Teutsch (1668, continuatio = Book 6, 1669), from the pen of the former soldier H.J. C. von → Grimmelshausen. In the tension between edifying and satirical elements, Grimmelshausen recounted the autobiography of a subject who sought in vain to live up to his Christian identity in a series of uncertain, adventurous episodes: not only under the impression of a dreadful and godless omnipresent reality, but also in the fundamental discrepancy between the biblical message and the sinful temptations of power, prestige, wealth, and erotic desire. The various mixed genres of satires and of homiletic and didactic literature aimed at improving the lifestyle of the broader classes can also be understood as documents of an often critically and patriotically tinged Christian moralism. In several installments, Johann Michael Moscherosch (1601–1669) published his Gesichte Philanders von Sittewalt (1640ff.), indebted to the Mennipean tradition. With its critique of the culture of courtly behavior, but also through its novelistic treatment of the reality of the war on the Upper Rhine, it found even more attentive readers than Grimmelshausen, well into the 19th century. The Hamburg preacher J.B. → Schupp, though harshly criticized by his colleagues, also made use of the techniques of satirical alienation and fabulous fictionality, the socio-critical aggressiveness of which was seemingly comparable, on the Catholic side, to the coarse, but actually artistically calculated preaching-style of the Augustinian → Abraham à Sancta Clara. Between Johann Arndt and the literary development of pietism inspired by P.J. → Spener and A.H. → Francke lies a broad continent of homiletic and didactic literature, to which professors, pastors, and teachers from all regions, and especially from the cities, contributed in nearly inexhaustible productivity: e.g. V. → Herberger in Silesia, J.M. → Dilherr and J. → Saubert (1592–1646) in Nuremberg, J.K. → Dannhauer in Strasbourg, J. → Gerhard in Jena, J.M. → Meyfart (1590–1642) in Coburg and Erfurt, to say nothing of influential “bestsellers” such as the writings of Grimmelshausen’s protégé, C. → Scriver. Despite a few recent studies and initial bibliographies of the publications of Catholic homilies, research into the literary history of this spiritual-didactic prose has barely begun. On 1: W. Barner, Barockrhetorik, 1970 ◆ S.E. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature, 1972 ◆ J. Dyck, Athen und Jerusalem: Die Tradition der argumentativen Verknüpfung von Bibel und Poesie im 17. und 18.Jh. . . ., 1977 ◆ J.-M. Valentin, ed., Gegenreformation und Literatur, 1979 ◆ B.K. Lewalski, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Lyric, 1979 ◆ W. Kühlmann, Gelehrtenrepublik und Fürstenstaat: Entwicklung und Kritik des deutschen Späthumanismus in der Literatur des Barockzeitalters, 1982 ◆ D. Breuer, ed., Frömmigkeit in der frühen Neuzeit: Studien zur religiösen Literatur des 17.Jh. in Deutschland, 1984 ◆ H. Steinhagen & B.v. Wiese, eds., Deutsche Dichter des 17.Jh.,

Baroque 1984 ◆ W. Brückner et al. eds., Literatur und Volk im 17.Jh.: Probleme populärer Kultur in Deutschland, 2 vols., 1985 ◆ H. A. Glaser, ed., Eine Sozialgeschichte, III, 1572–1740 . . ., 1985 ◆ B. Bauer, Jesuitische “ars rhetorica” im Zeitalter der Glaubenskämpfe, 1986 ◆ G. Hoffmeister, Deutsche und europäische Barockliteratur, 1987 ◆ G. Dünnhaupt, Personalbibliographie zu den Drucken des Barockes, 6 vols., 1990–1993 ◆ I. Pyritz, ed., Bibliographie zur deutschen Literargeschichte des Barockzeitalters, part 1: Kultur und Geistesgeschichte-Poetik-Gattungen . . ., 1991 ◆ V. Meid, Literaturlexikon XIII, 1992, 77–85 ◆ D. Breuer, ed., Religion und Religiosität im Zeitalter des Barockes, 2 vols., 1995 ◆ K. Garber, Fischer Lexikon der Literatur I, 1996, 190–249 ◆ R.G. Bogner, Die Bezähmung der Zunge: Literatur und Disziplinierung der Alltagskommunikation in der frühen Neuzeit, 1997 ◆ H. Jaumann, Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturwissenschaft I, 1997, 199–204. ◆ On 2: M. Bircher & A.M. Haas, Deutsche Barocklyrik: Gedichtinterpretationen von Spee bis Haller, 1973 ◆ H.-H. Krummacher, Der junge Gryphius und die Tradition: Studien zu den Perikopensonetten und Passionsliedern, 1976 ◆ W. Mauser, Dichtung, Religion und Gesellschaft im 17.Jh.: Die “Sonnette” des Andreas Gryphius, 1976 ◆ I. Scheitler, Das geistliche Lied im deutschen Barock, 1982 ◆ H.-G. Kemper, Deutsche Lyrik der frühen Neuzeit, I ff., 1987ff. ◆ I. Bach & H. Galle, Deutsche Psalmendichtung vom 16. bis zum 20.Jh. . . ., 1989. ◆ On 3: A. Schöne, Emblematik und Drama im Zeitalter des Barockes, 1964, 31993 ◆ J.M. Valentin, Le Théâtre des Jésuites dans les Pays de Langue Allemande: Repertoire Bibliographique, 2 vols., 1983/84 ◆ R.J. Alexander, Das deutsche Barockdrama, 1986 ◆ J.A. Parente, The Religious Drama and the Humanist Tradition: Christian Theater in Germany and in the Netherlands 1500–1680, 1987 ◆ On 4: W. Brückner, ed., Volkserzählung und Reformation, 1974 ◆ V. Meid, Der deutsche Barockroman, 1974 ◆ U. Herzog, Der deutsche Roman des 17.Jh., 1976 ◆ G. van Gemert, Die Werke des Aegidius Albertinus, 1979 ◆ H. Koopmann, ed., Handbuch des deutschen Romans, 1983 ◆ H.-H. Krummacher, “Überlegungen zur literarischen Eigenart und Bedeutung der protestantischen Erbauungsliteratur im frühen 17.Jh.,” Rhetorik 5, 1986, 97–113 ◆ U. Herzog, Geistliche Wohlredenheit: Die katholische Barockpredigt, 1991. Wilhelm Kühlmann

V. Music The term “Baroque” has been accepted in music history since 1920. Some theoreticians (H. → Riemann) describe the period as the era of basso continuo. Throughout all its phases (early, high, and late), the relationship between music and language remained constitutive. Speaking music was the initial idea, the unity of word and tone the intellectual objective in high Baroque. In the late phase, language was relegated to the background of the music in favor of the instrumentation. a. Music and Language. The turning point occurred in Italy around 1600. The predominance of Dutch vocal polyphony (equal valuation of all voices) was abandoned in favor of the recitative univocal canto (monody) in order to open up new possibilities of linguistic expression. In 1605, C. → Monteverdi characterized the new stile recitative o concertato as follows: The expression of the word, the mediation of the affect should be the primary goal of the composer. H. → Schütz made music speak for the German-speaking public by precisely accentuating the German prose in Luther’s Bible translation, since, in contrast to Latin, word accent and mean-

622 ing coincide in German. In the high Baroque period, the tonal vocabulary developed according to the stylistic devices of rhetoric. In the tonal language of J.S. → Bach, the arrangement of instrumental movement had precedence over the treatment of language even in figural music. Finally, in the 18th century, the language of music became independent and purely instrumental music arose. In this late phase, the language became the textbook whereas the instrumentation constituted the structure. Thus the period of Sturm und Drang (→ Sentimentalism/Sturm und Drang ) took the path that would eventually lead, via the so-called “sentimental” style (the contrast of forte and piano, the great importance of the melodic and the cantabile) of C.P.E. and J. C. → Bach, in the direction of classicism. b. Genre and Forms. Recitative voice and aria as complete musical pieces carried by a single affect were the basic elements of the opera that originated in Florence on the model of Greek tragedy ( Jacopo Peri, Giulio Caccini and Monteverdi in Venice). In France, the very individual style of the “tragedy lyrique” developed ( JeanBaptiste Lully, Jean-Philippe Rameau). Early forms of opera in 17th-century England may be seen in the works of H. → Purcell, in which the old English tradition of the “masques” is carried on. An absolute culmination point, in the 18th century, are the operas of G.F. → Handel (Opera seria). Following the reform of the opera at the beginning of the 18th century, “Opera seria and Opera buffa” were stylistically distinguished from one another. In the commercial centers of Venice, Naples, Hamburg, and London, the previously aristocratically oriented opera became an expression of bourgeois musical culture. Forms from the opera, such as overtures, arias, recitatives, and dances, also found their way into compositions of spiritual music and expanded the formal canon of the polyphonic style (“stile antico,” “motettes”) in combination with the new contrapuntal forms of ricercar and fugue. The sung “stile concertato” was also transferred to instrumental playing. The development of musical instruments and of the various tuning modes created new possibilities for virtuoso performance (Italy: Arcangelo Corelli, A. → Vivaldi). New forms arose such as the sonata da chiesa (church sonata), the sonata da camera (chamber sonata) and the concerto. “Concertare” refers to the competition of musical groups (soli and tutti), making music in the church with several choirs, and the placing of individual voices over a bass-line (concerti). The concerto grosso, with its terraced dynamics, corresponded to the architectural aesthetics of the time. Through the association of the newly-developed array of forms and the setting to music of both bound (Protestant choral) as well as unbound madrigal verse, the church cantata was created. E. → Neumeister effected a cantata reform (high point, J.S. Bach) in 18th-century Germany through the

623 introduction of the Italian chamber cantata (recitative, aria). The spiritual cantata was a work of art for religious meditation, a kind of musical sermon, in which the choir took on a unifying function as the model of the singing and praying congregation. The Protestant church song was an expression of the existential mood of the Baroque person. Victory over the worldly vale of tears (the period of the Thirty Years War) through hope in the heavenly combined with the absolute certainty of faith gave rise to important verse compositions (P. → Gerhardt, P. → Nicolai) as well as vocal and instrumental (organ) renditions of them (precursors J. → Crüger, J. → Pachelbel, Georg Böhm, D. → Buxtehude, culminating in J.S. Bach’s use of the choir). The expansion of the cantata form through the addition of elements from history plays paved the way for the grand oratorio (hey day in the 18th century with G.F. Handel’s Messiah and J.S. Bach’s Christmas oratorio and Passions). The Baroque display of splendor in liturgy had a paradigmatic function as a reference to the coming heavenly majesty, in which wordly pleasures and prestige also played an important role in the high Baroque. The musical versions of the Ordinarium Missae of the Catholic liturgy were also influenced by the stilus modernus of the opera and accentuated the magnificent and splendid. The Baroque composer was commissioned by the court, the church, or the municipality. From the time of the → Renaissance, the idea of musica poetica had remained persistent. The composer created a work which, as an “opus,” was to point beyond himself and gain “enduring” value. Under the influence of → Enlightenment and with the arrival of the “sentimental style,” the subject of the creative artist and the display of his personal feelings increasingly stepped into the foreground. c. Further development. The music of J.S. Bach was already considered to be old-fashioned during the last years of his service in Leipzig. No fugues were yet written when Johann Adolph Scheibe criticized him because of his “academic and ornate” style. The contrapuntal style, however, attained its absolute apex in the late Baroque, although the fugue form was no longer modern. Subsequent generations always oriented and measured themselves with respect to the fugue style of Handel and Bach. (W.A. → Mozart’s Requiem and L. v. → Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis). F. → MendelssohnBartholdy and his renewed performance of J.S. Bach’s Matthew Passion in 1829 led to a renaissance of the Baroque. T. Georgiades, Musik und Sprache, 1954 ◆ H.H. Eggebrecht, H. Schütz, 1959 ◆ F. Blume, Geschichte der Evangelischen KirchenMusik, 21965 (bibl.) ◆ C. Dahlhaus, “Die Musik des 18. Jh.,” Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, 1985, 21994, (bibl.) ◆ M. Reaburn & A. Kendall, eds., Heritage of Music (German: Geschichte der Musik, 1993) ◆ G.J. Buelow, ed., The Late Baroque Era: From the 1680s to 1740, 1993 ◆ C. Price, ed., The Early Baroque Era: From the Late 16th Century to the 1660s, 1993 ◆

Barrow, Isaac R. Dammann, Der Musikbegriff im deutschen Barock, 1995 (bibl.)

◆ D. Schulenberg, Music of the Baroque, 2001 ◆ G.J. Buelow, A History of Baroque Music, 2004.

Doris Hagel

Barrington, Shute (May 27, 1734, Becket – Mar 25, 1826, Durham), Bishop of Durham. Barrington was educated at Eton and Merton College, Oxford. He was ordained priest in 1756. In 1761, he became a canon of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1768 canon at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, and in 1776 canon of Windsor. In 1779, he was consecrated bishop of the Welsh see of Llandaff, the poorest in Britain, and was transferred to Salisbury in 1793 and to Durham in 1791, the richest diocese in the Church of England after Canterbury. Barrington strongly opposed the restrictions on the books used in the schools of the National Society for Promoting Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church. His sermon before the House of Lords in 1799, in which he presented the French Revolution as the result of the corruption of Roman Catholicism, attracted a great deal of attention. He followed up on it in 1806 with A Charge, Delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, which was republished in 1807 as The Grounds on which the Church of England Separated from the Church of Rome. In it, he accused Roman Catholics of making themselves guilty of idolatry by adoring the Host. A large corpus of literary polemics was published by Barrington’s supporters and his opponents. G. Townsend, The Theological Works of the First Viscount Barrington, 3 vols., 1828. Sheridan Gilley

Barrow, Henry (Barrowe; c. 1550 – April 6, 1593, Tyburn), a devout English Puritan and supporter of → Separatism. In 1586, he was arrested on account of a visit to the Separatist J. → Greenwood and imprisoned until his death. In 1590, he was charged with the publication of the rebellious book A True Description of the Visible Congregation of the Saints, &c. (1589). He and Greenwood were hanged for sedition. L.H. Carlson, ed., The Writings of Henry Barrow, 1970. Donald K. McKim

Barrow, Isaac (1630, London – May 4, 1677, London), Anglican clergyman and mathematician. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, despite his royalist inclinations. Out of favor during the Interregnum because of his royalist sympathies, he eventually left England and traveled throughout Europe from 1655 to 1659. He was ordained upon returning to England. The Restoration in 1660 afforded Barrow more career and social opportunities. Appointed Professor of Greek at Cambridge in 1660, he was subsequently made Professor of Geometry at Gresham College.

Barsanuphius Appointed the first Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge in 1663, he resigned the professorship in 1669 in favor of his student I. → Newton. He devoted himself to his theological studies and later became court chaplain to Charles II and was awarded the Doctor of Divinity by royal decree in 1670. In 1672, Charles II appointed him Master of Trinity College, whereupon he was made vice-chancellor of the University in 1675. Known as one of England’s greatest scholars in the 17th century, Barrow was a charter member of the Royal Society and a forerunner of Newton and G.W. → Leibniz in the invention of calculus. His published works in science and mathematics included his Lectiones Opticorum Phaenomenon (1669) and Lectiones Opticae et Geometricae (1669, 1670, 1674). His theological genius became evident in the posthumously published Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy (1680), which provided a lucid and logical examination of the doctrine of papal supremacy. It also represented a decided apologia of the Anglican position on the pope’s authority. Though not particularly popular during his lifetime, he has come to be regarded as one of the foremost Anglican preachers of his day. A. Napier, ed., The Theological Works of Barrow, 9 vols., 1859 ◆ P.H. Osmond, Barrow: His Life and Times, 1944 ◆ M. Feingold, ed., Before Newton: The Life and Times of Barrow, 1990. Robert Cornwall

Barsanuphius (Barsanorius; feast: Feb 6), an ascetic author of Egyptian origin. He died c. 545 as a hermit in the monastery of Abba Seridos near Gaza. Together with the hermit John “the prophet,” he gave spiritual advice by answering letters sent to him by monks, bishops, and laypersons. Approx. 850 such questions and responses were collected (biblos psychophelestate). They afford deep insights into the life of the Palestinian church in the 5th/6th centuries, attest to the reception of the ascetic doctrines of → Evagrius Ponticus under rejection of his “Origenism” (→ Origenistic Controversies), and were influential in eastern monasticism. By virtue of their inclusion in the 1782 edition (by → Nicodemos the Hagiorite) of the → Philocalia and of their translation into Russian (Dobrotolubie), they have remained a decisive factor in orthodox spirituality unto this day. Sources: CPG 3, 7350 ◆ D.J. Chitty, ed., Barsanuphius, PO 31/3, 1966 ◆ On Barsanuphius: S. Vailhé, “Les lettres spirituelles de Jean et Barsanuphios,” EOr 7, 1904, 268–276; 8, 1905, 14–25, 154–160. Heinz Ohme

Barsumas of Nisibis (born 1st quarter of 5th cent. – died before 496). Metropolitan of → Nisibis (435– ?), Barsumas was a prominent figure in the Apostolic Church of the East. He attended the dyophysite school (→ Christology, → Antiochene Theology) in → Edessa ,

624 was a supporter of → Ibas (who became bishop of Edessa in 435), and in turn fostered the school in Nisibis. As a confidant of the Persian emperor and leader of the opposition against the Catholicos Babowai, he was a pioneer of Nestorianism (→ Nestorius) and of the Nestorian rejection of monasticism (he married a former nun). However, recent studies suggest that the traditional depiction of Barsumas should not be taken at face value (including his bloody persecution of his opponents). The literature often confuses the Nestorian metropolitan with an archimandrite of the same name (d. 457), who attended the Council of → Ephesus in 449 as a Eutychian (→ Eutychian Controversy). I. Ortiz de Urbina, Patrologia Syriaca, 21965 ◆ S. Gero, Barsauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century, CSCOSub 63, 1981. Wolfgang Hage

Barth, Carola (Sep 24, 1879, Bad Salzschlierf – May 17, 1959, Frankfurt a.M.). A teacher of religion and school principal, Carola Barth graduated from Jena in 1907 as the first woman to receive a degree in theology from a German university. She was awarded an honorary doctorate in 1927. She served repeatedly on the city council of Frankfurt, before 1933 as a representative of the German Democratic Party (DDP) and after 1945 as a delegate of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). She argued in favor of a religious education based on developmental psychology and the history of religions. In the field of church politics, Barth was committed to women’s issues and ecumenism. D. Henze, Zwei Schritte vor und einer zurück: Carola Barth, eine Theologin auf dem Weg zwischen Frauenbewegung und Kirche, 1996. Dagmar Henze

Barth, Christian Gottlob ( Jul 21, 1799, Stuttgart – Nov 12, 1862, Calw). Barth served as Lutheran pastor in Möttlingen (Black Forest) from 1824 to 1838. A journalist and author, he founded (1833) and directed the Calwer Verlag (1838–1862). He was an internationally renowned, pioneering ecumenical figure of the Württemberg → Revival Movement. A man of many talents and great energy, he led a highly productive life: He wrote for the general public and for young people (Christliche Kirchengeschichte, 1835, 241905, 37 translations; Jugendblätter, 1836–1951; his Biblische Geschichten, 1832, 4831945, 87 translations, became a worldwide bestseller). He supported the activities of the → Inland Mission and of the foreign → missions (founder of a children’s aid society in Calw-Stammheim, 1827; Calwer Missionsblatt, 1828–1918; “secret inspector of the → Basel Mission”). He composed hymns (“Der Du in Todesnächten,” EG 257), was a preacher of great originality, and a noted collector of natural history specimens. Rooted in the biblicist tradition of Württemberg

625 → Pietism (esp. F.C. → Oetinger) and the pragmatic idealism of his age, Barth’s theology was dominated by the eschatological kingdom of God in the context of salvation history. He deemed it essential to “integrate oneself ” into this history in order to hasten the coming of the kingdom. K. Werner, Christian Gottlob Barth, 3 vols., 1865–1869 ◆ W. Kopp, Christian Gottlob Barths Leben und Wirken, 1886 ◆ Lexikon der Kinder- und Jugendliteratur, IV, 1982, 31f. ◆ M. Brecht, “Christian Gottlob Barths ‘Zweimal zweiundfünfzig biblische Geschichten,’ ” PuN 11, 1985, 127–138 ◆ R. Schenda, Volk ohne Buch, 31988, 166–170 etc. ◆ W. Raupp, Christian Gottlob Barth: Studien zu Leben und Werk, 1998 (bibl.) ◆ Christian Gottlob Barth Archiv, Adelberg bei Göppingen (private archives of W. Raupp). Werner Raupp

Barth, Karl (May 10, 1886, Basel – Dec 10, 1968, Basel) I. Life – II. Work – III. Influence

I. Life Karl Barth, Reformed theologian (dogmatics), son of Fritz Barth, professor of church history and New Testament in Basel. – Barth studied theology in Bern, Berlin, Tübingen, and finally Marburg, where he was strongly influenced by W. → Herrmann. In 1908/1909 he was editorial assistant of M. → Rade in Marburg, helping with the publication of Christliche Welt. In 1909–1911, he served as an assistant pastor in Geneva, and in 1911–1921 as a pastor in Safenwil (Aargau). In 1921, he became an honorary professor in Göttingen, in 1925 a full professor in Münster, and in 1930 in Bonn. At the height of his career in Germany, Barth decisively influenced the formation of the → Confessing Church in 1933/1934. He was expelled from Germany in 1935 for refusing to swear the prescribed oath of allegiance to Hitler. He subsequently lectured as a professor in Basel until his retirement in 1962 (spending two guest semesters in Bonn in 1946/1947), working continually on his major publication, the Church Dogmatics, and participating attentively and critically in contemporary affairs. II. Work Barth’s experiences as a pastor and the outbreak of the First World War caused him to engage in a process of deep reflection that ultimately led him to disavow the key interpretative categories of 19th and early 20thcentury theology, which had primarily stood under the influence of F. → Schleiermacher, A. → Ritschl, and the latter’s students. Encounters with H. → Kutter and C. → Blumhardt as well as the intensive exchange of ideas with his friend E. → Thurneysen resulted in a growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the dominant, anthropologically oriented and subject-based theology of neo-Protestant-

Barth, Karl ism. In two different editions (1919, 1922, the latter a completely revised version of the former), Barth put forward an interpretation of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in which he sought, in a hermeneutical approach to speaking of God, to find a new justification of theology that would redefine fundamental theological principles within a universal concept of religion. The second edition of this work and the accompanying publications of 1921/1922 show Barth at the height of → “dialectical theology”. He found support and inspiration in F.C. → Overbeck’s critique of theology, but also in the (long underestimated) influence of neo-Kantianism in the interpretation of his brother Heinrich Barth, and, at least conceptually, in S. → Kierkegaard’s paradox dialectics. At the same time, Barth began to work in close cooperation with F. → Gogarten, E. → Brunner, and R. → Bultmann. The journal Zwischen den Zeiten served as their discussion forum from 1922 until the dissolution of the group in 1933. Barth attempted to put into words the sovereignty of the living God whose superiority approaches us in judgement and in grace, a sovereignty that eludes precise definition in religious, speculative-conceptual, or ethical perspective. Both at the linguistic and the material level, dialectically arranged forms of articulation were (at first) to ensure the inaccessibility of divine speech and action, and to make room for the event of God’s self-revelation. Human knowledge of God is effected by God alone and is rooted exclusively in the – with respect to humans – fundamentally superior divine initiative and intervention in revelation. Barth’s criticism of natural theology was already implied in the transition from the first to the second edition of his work on the Epistle to the Romans, though its thematic elaboration into an uncompromising position was not reached until the dispute of 1933/1934 over National Socialistoriented theology and “German Christian” ideology, when he categorically opposed E. Brunner’s interest in finding an anthropologically determinable “connection point” for the Christian proclamation (1934; “No!”). Barth’s entry into the field of academic teaching led to further changes. His theology, initially only meant to be “corrective,” was now productively expanded into a doctrine drawing upon the fruitful perspectives of the classical history of theology (the significance of which was deemed to have been underestimated) and striving for the formulation of a dogmatic alternative. During this learning process (1924–1926: Instruction in the Christian Religion; 1927: Christian Dogmatics), Barth developed the main fundamental positions of his dogmatics: a deepening of the revelatory-theological approach on the basis of Trinitarian theology; the distinction of the three forms of God’s Word in revelation, scripture, and homily; his initial insights into the

Barth, Karl constitutive status of Christology; the structuring differentation of the three dimensions of divine action in creation, reconciliation, and redemption. In his study on Anselm (Fides quaerens intellectum, 1931; → Anselm of Canterbury), Barth composed the de facto preface to his Church Dogmatics (CD), thus definitively putting an end to his phase of dialectical theology. In conformity to the program of theological rationality that is discernible in Anselm, Barth disassociated the validity of God’s truth from the entire sphere of human ability of cognizance and reasoning, allowing theological reflection to be carried – in marked opposition to → Cartesianism and → transcen-dental philosophy – by the self-justifying and self-verifying veritas divina. Barth always remained true to his ultimate goal of providing an authentic expression of God’s reality and truth in the face of all human attempts to falsify or exploit it. His relentless pursuit of this goal and his untiring willingness to learn while endeavoring to elaborate and explicate it over and over again led to continuous changes in the various solutions sought and attained by him. Barth’s way of thinking was constantly subjected to modifications within the fixed frame of his unchanging guiding principle. Whereas the intervals between such phases of restructuring were at first comparatively short (1916ff.: phase of the first edition of Romans; 1920ff: phase of the second edition of Romans; 1923–1927: transition to dogmatic theology; 1928–1931: transition to the positions of CD), they became decidedly longer when Barth began work on the CD. In the latter context, the steadily intensified and substantiated understanding of the person of Jesus Christ became particularly significant for the interpretation of the reality of God, of the reality of human beings, and of their mutual relationship. The confession to Jesus Christ as the one Word of God (cf. Barmen I → Barmen Declaration: II) represents the crystallization point that gradually absorbed and transformed all of Barth’s theological statements. The Christonomous “systematics” of CD first appeared in CD I/2 (§ 15). It was also evident in the revised version of the Doctrine of Election (CD II/2), which Barth himself came to regard as the “sum of the Gospel”, because God in Jesus Christ elected man to partake of his glory and submitted himself to the punishment of sinful man. This position led to a soteriological finalization of God’s act of creation through which creation and salvation became closely interwoven (creation as the external cause of the Covenant of Grace, the Covenant of Grace as the inner cause of creation [CD III/1]), but also to the adoption of a cognitive approach based on the Christological vere homo (CD III/2) to a theological anthropology. This Christocentrically oriented reformulation of the dogmatic topoi culminated in the Doctrine of Reconciliation of CD IV. In an elabo-

626 rate theological construct which remains, with respect to its conceptual ingenuity and consistency, unparalled in the history of modern theology, Barth was able to relate the various dimensions of soteriology to one another in strict orientation to the acts and ministry of Jesus Christ, notably under the aspects of Christology, hamartiology, justification, ecclesiology, pneumatology, and ethics. The guiding principle of the sovereignty and divinity of God was accordingly deepened through a “theanthropological” perspective: God demonstrates his divinity precisely by revealing his own humanity in Jesus Christ and by stepping down in order to elevate the human being to his autonomous counterpart. It seems inappropriate, in this context, to qualify Barth’s Christological concentration and focusing as reductionistic. His concentration on the convergence of God and human being in Christ is rather to be seen as a resolute expression of universal salvation which objects to the common abstraction of reality under forfeiture of its vital and fundamental reference to Christ. The aspect of inclusiveness associated herewith also permitted cautious new approaches to non-Christian forms of cognition and thus fulfilled a requirement of natural theology by assigning it to its legitimate explicatory horizon (CD IV/3, 122–188*: Jesus Christ and the “true words”, less precise: “Doctrine of the Lights”). Although Barth did not live long enough to write an explicit eschatology (planned as CD V), its basic features may nonetheless be deduced from the Doctrine of Reconciliation. III. Influence No other contemporary Protestant theologian stimulated and influenced the theological debate of the 20th century as much as Karl Barth, both among those who followed him, but also where he met with disagreement and criticism. As the leading figure of dialectical theology in the 1920s, he presided over the most prominent and influential renewal movement of the time. As the principal author of the → Barmen Declaration (1934), he was destined to play a crucial role in the conflict between the Church and National Socialism. As a prominent dogmatics teacher in the Protestant Church, he initiated a revision of the fundamental principles of Reformation theology, as evidenced by the reevaluation of the relationship between → law and gospel, the correlation of justification and justice, or the manifest reinterpretation of the sacrament concept in the Doctrine of Baptism. Barth’s work met with a great deal of interest in Catholic theology and in ecumenism. His distinguished, yet invariably polarizing commentaries on the theological and church-related developments that followed upon the end of the Second World War carried considerable weight in recent German Protestantism.

627 The influence of his theology decreased noticeably after 1970. The controversial debates over his significance in the latter history of theology were either unilaterally focused on the sociopolitical aspects of his thinking or on the fundamental question regarding his relationship to modern history. The theoretical approaches of neo-Protestantism, which Barth had decidedly rejected, found renewed interest and promoted a critical reception of Barth’s theology. Barth – without any doubt “the most eminent Protestant theologian since Schleiermacher, whom he strove to overcome while remaining indebted to him in several ways” ( Jüngel, TRE, 251) – left an uncommonly rich, complex, and innovative oeuvre which represents an untiring, critical-constructive dialogue with modernity, most of all in connection with the reevaluation of the classical topoi of theology. The assertive tone underlying his work bestows a sense of imperturbability and freedom upon his thinking, while his insistence on the compatibility of truth and theological cognition is directed against everything that seems arbitrary or noncommittal in theology, thereby demonstrating the responsibility of theological work. Several significant insights from the theology of Barth, notably from his Doctrine of Reconciliation, have yet (apart from a few exceptions) to be adequately received or further reflected upon with the necessary degree of differentiation. In this respect, the real reception history of Barth’s theology has yet to come. Works: Karl Barth – Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] in German, 1971ff.: I (Sermons), II (Academic Works), III (Individual Lectures and Brief Works), IV (Conversations), V (Letters), VI (From Karl Barth’s Life) ◆ Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: I/1–IV/4, 1932–1970 (13 vols. and index), 1936ff. ◆ On Barth: ◆ O. Weber, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. An Introductory Report on Volumes I.1 to III.4, 1953/1954 ◆ H.U. v. Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, 1971 ◆ G. Gloege, RGG3 I, 1957, 894–898 ◆ G.C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, 1956 ◆ T.F. Torrance, Karl Barth. An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910–1931, 1962 ◆ H. Hartwell, The Theology of Karl Barth: An Introduction, 1964 (with bibl.) ◆ H. Küng, Justification. The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection, 1964/1981 ◆ H. Bouillard, Karl Barth, 3 vols., 1957 ◆ E. Jüngel, Gottes Sein ist im Werden, 1966; ET: God’s Being is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl Barth: A Paraphrase, 1976 ◆ E. Mechels, Analogie bei E. Przywara und Karl Barth, 1974 ◆ E. Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, 1976 ◆ C. Gestrich, Neuzeitliches Denken und die Spaltung der dialektischen Theologie, BHTh 52, 1977 ◆ W. Kreck, Grundentscheidungen in Karl Barth’s Dogmatik, 1978 ◆ E. Jüngel, TRE V, 1980, 251–268 ◆ idem, Barth-Studien, ÖTh 9, 1982 ◆ G. Sauter, ed., Karl Barth Gesamtausgabe, VF 30/2, 1985 ◆ C. Frey, Die Theologie Karl Barths, 1988, 21994 ◆ T.F. Torrance, Karl Barth. Biblical and Evangelical Theologian, 1990 ◆ W. Härle, LThK3 II, 1994, 35–37 ◆ E. Busch, “Weg und Werk Karl Barths in der neueren Forschung,” ThR 60, 1995, 272–299, 430–470 (with bibl.) ◆ B.L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology, 1995 ◆ A.-K. Finke, Karl Barth in Großbritannien, 1995 ◆ J. Webster, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 2000. ◆ Bibl.: M. Kwiran, Index to Literature on Barth, Bonhoeffer and Bultmann, 1977 ◆ Bibliographie Karl Barth, ed.

Bartholomew’s Day, Massacre of H.M. Wildi.: 1. Veröffentlichungen von Karl Barth, 1984; 2. Veröffentlichungen über Karl Barth, I, A–Z, II, Index, 1992. Michael Beintker

Bartholomew → Twelve, The (Disciples) Bartholomew, Gospel of. The designation “Gospel of Bartholomew” is attested in ancient sources ( Jerome; Decretum Gelasianum) and has been applied by scholars to two different apocryphal writings. Both refer to a tradition that identifies Bartholomew with → Nathanael and present him as the sole witness to the fulfilment of the vision predicted in John 1:51. In the first text, the “Questions of Bartholomew” (2nd to 4th cent.; Greek original, Latin and Slavic versions), Bartholomew is instructed by the risen Jesus on Christ’s journey into hell, the virgin birth, and the origin and fall of Satan. The second text, “The Book of the Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle,” is only preserved in Coptic and probably originated in Egypt in the course of the 5th century. It expands John 20 with a report on the Easter visions experienced by Bartholomew. J.-D. Kaestli, L’évangile de Barthélemy d’après deux écrits apocryphes, Apocryphes 1, 1993 (French trans. with detailed introduction). Jean-Daniel Kaestli

Bartholomew’s Day, Massacre of (Aug 24, 1572), refers to the massacre of the → Huguenots in the night before Bartholomew’s Day during the wedding festivities of the Protestant Henri de Navarre with the Catholic Marguerite de Valois (Parisian Blood Wedding). It was triggered by the attempted assassination of the leader of the Huguenots and admiral, G. de → Coligny. The bloody terror in Paris robbed the Huguenots of their leading elite, claimed Catholic victims as well, and continued in the province. Pope Gregory XII and Philipp II of Spain expressed their approval. Navarre and his cousin Condé converted. The Massacre of Bartholomew’s Day had far-reaching effects through the stimulus that it gave to monarchomachian literature, but also because it succeeded, for the time being, in smashing the organization of Protestantism, which had grown into a power factor, and in neutralizing the aggressive policy of Coligny. Even though contemporary pamphlets stigmatized the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, as the cold-blooded initiator of the bloodbath and thus influenced historiography, contemporary research has shed doubt on the assumption that the action was planned long beforehand. The attack on Coligny seemed to have been the only possibility of freeing Charles IX from the Admiral’s influence and thus of ensuring the continuity of Catherine’s policy of confessional compromise. P. Erlanger, Bartholomäusnacht, 1966 ◆ I. Mieck, “Die Bartholomäusnacht als Forschungsproblem,” HZ 216, 1973,

628

Bartning, Otto 71–110 ◆ J. Garrisson, 1572, La Saint-Barthélemy, 1987 ◆ D. Crouzet, La nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy, 1994 ◆ idem, “Charles IX ou le roi sanglant malgré lui,” BSHPF 141, 1995, 323–340 ◆ E. Viennot, “A propos de la Saint-Barthélémy et des Mémoires de Marguerite de Valois,” RHLF 96, 1996, 894–917. Irene Dingel

Bartning, Otto (Apr 12, 1883, Karlsruhe – Feb 20, 1959, Darmstadt), was an architect and an important renewer of Protestant → church architecture in the first half of the 20th century. Besides approximately 150 churches and congregational centers, he also erected outstanding domestic buildings and hospitals. Stemming from a liberal-Protestant family, he undertook his first church construction in 1906 in Peggau, Steiermark. By 1914, 17 diaspora churches were erected in Austria and Silesia. In 1918, Bartning joined the “Working Council for Art” and developed an academic reform plan that influenced the curriculum of the Bauhaus in Weimar. From 1926 until 1930, Bartning was able to implement his pedagogical concept as director of the State Academy of Architecture, the successor of the Bauhaus. Between 1922 and 1930, he came up with trend-setting church designs based on the ideas concerning Protestant preaching and congregational architecture which he had developed in his book On the New Church Architecture (1919). He maintained “that the architectural ambiance of the space must correspond to the liturgical ambiance of the church service, must complement one another.” The expressionistic Sternkirche [“Church of the Star”], designed in 1922, was not built, though it did serve as the model of the Circular Church erected in Essen in 1929/1930. Here, the seats are arranged concentrically around the altar, cross, and pulpit. In contrast, the Stahlkirche [“Church of Steel”], which was assembled in 1928 in Cologne from prefabricated steel beams and glass walls, emphasized the path character within a parabolic layout that established the unity of congregational and altar space. The demountable structure, which was moved to Essen, was destroyed in the war. The same fate was shared by the Gustaf-Adolf Church in BerlinCharlottenburg, which was erected from 1932 to 1934, and reconstructed in 1950/1951 under the supervision of Bartning himself (fan-shaped). With the construction of the Christ Church in Bad Godesburg in 1953, Bartning developed the fan form into a room arrangement offering the possibility of creating additional side rooms with the help of folding walls, thus introducing an innovative solution for flexibility and variable use in the Protestant church architecture of the post-war period. Re construction after 1945 is linked with Bartning’s work in many ways. He initiated the Berlin architectural exhibition Interbau 1957 and played a decisive role in the reconstruction of the island of Helgoland. He was one of the re-founders of the German labor union and

officiated as President of the Union of German Architects from 1950 until his death in 1959. As co-founder of the working committee of the Protestant Congress of Church Architecture, he was responsible for the publishing of the journal Kunst und Kirche from 1957 on. With the planning of 48 emergency churches between 1947 and 1951, Bartning reached the end of his career as an architect. On behalf of the Charitable Society of the Protestant church, he developed a pre-manufactured wooden framework with roof structure, the outer walls of which could be completed from various locally available materials. In their layout, the 43 emergency churches that were actually completed adopted the basic design of the preaching space from the Stahlkirche of 1928. In their extreme simplicity, these churches stand as witnesses of the period and constitute the architect’s most complete body of work. Works include: Vom neuen Kirchenbau, 1919 ◆ Erdball, 1947 ◆ Erde Geliebte, 1956 ◆ Spannweite, 1958 ◆ Vom Raum der Kirche, 1958. Bibl.: H.K.F. Mayer, Der Baumeister Otto Bartning und die Wiederentdeckung des Raumes, 1951 ◆ J. Bredow & H. Lerch, Materialien zum Werk des Architekten Otto Bartning., 1983. Friedhelm Grundmann

Baruch, Books of I. (First Book of ) Baruch II. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch III. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch

Various writings are associated with the name of Baruch, the scribe and companion of → Jeremiah ( Jer 33; 36; 45). I. (First Book of ) Baruch Not included among the books of the Hebrew Bible, Bar belongs to the apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings of the OT and is first attested in the Greek LXX. Bar 1–5 consists of four parts: 1. 1:1–15aα serves as an introduction to the self-contained composition 1:15aα–5:9 and relates the circumstances surrounding the writing of the book, its reading aloud by Baruch among the deportees in Babylon, and its subsequent forwarding to Jerusalem for public recitation; 2. the following passage contains Israel’s admission of guilt and prayer for mercy in the face of the scattering of the people of God; 3. 3:9–4:4 is an exhortation to Israel to renew its commitment to the Law, which will guarantee its return to life; 4.4:5–5:9, finally, provides Israel and Jerusalem with a comforting outlook on the future by promising the return of all exiles to their homes. With the possible exception of 3:38 (early Christian?), Bar is considered to be a late Israelite work, although just about everything surrounding its composition is still a matter of dispute. All portions of the text appear to have originally been written in Hebrew. The stylistic, dramatic, situational, and the-

629 matic discrepancies found in Bar and its individual parts have often led to literary-critical subdivisions of the text, although the formal and conceptual characteristics of Bar are more suggestive of a unified composition. Bar would thus reconstruct a fundamental orientation, to be represented at all times and everywhere in worship by the people of God, so that these might endure the continuing exile of Israel with patience and hope. The formulation of Bar is consciously anchored in the Bible text, as the words and deeds of Baruch are meant to correlate with those of the prophets who preceded him (esp. Moses, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah), but also of those who came after him (esp. Joshua/Zerubbabel, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah). An author such as Baruch, whose words and deeds are written and performed with an outlook on the total(!) length of the Israelite exile, lends uniformity to what may appear objectionable from the specific analytical standpoints of literary criticism. Bar was most likely composed in the period of the Maccabees (c. 163/162 bce; Goldstein) as a programmatic summarizing and updating of Israelite tradition. As such, its intention was to provide a consensual, unifying perspective for a regained religious autonomy which may, owing to a temporizing loyalty toward the Seleucid dominion, have vanished in the Israelite homeland, but retained its vitality in the Diaspora (central theme!) and survived through the agency of early Christian reception. J.J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, 1879 ◆ J.A. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch,” PAAJR 46–47 1979–1980, 179–199 ◆ D.G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch, SBL.SCSt 10, 1982 ◆ O.H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch, FRLANT 160, 1993 ◆ idem et al., “Das Buch Baruch,” ATD Apokryphen V, 1998, 11–68. Odil Hannes Steck

II. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch The primary textual source for 2 Bar is a manuscript from the 6th or 7th century discovered in 1871 in the Ambrosian Library in Milan. It represents the translations of a lost Greek version of the text, which many scholars believe to have been the translation of a Hebrew original. Others postulate a Greek or Aramaic original. Two small fragments are included among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (403), while three shorts excerpts are also found in Jacobite lectionaries. A late Arabic translation (10/11th cent.) makes only minor additions to the original text. Written in Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 CE, the narrative frame of 2 Bar is reminiscent of 4 Ezra, which was written in the same historical context, and employs the motif of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 bce to reflect upon the present catastrophe. The fact that 2 Bar knows nothing of Bar Kokhba (→ Bar KokhbaRevolt) would would seem to imply a date between 70

Baruch, Books of and 132 CE. Because of the many similarities between 2 Bar and 4 Ezra, the relationship between both texts is a much discussed issue. The current discussion favors the assumption that 4 Ezra represents the older text and that 2 Bar was in part formulated as an answer to 4 Ezra skeptical questioning of divine justice (Collins). In both texts, the seers address their questions to God (2 Bar) or an angel (4 Ezra); while Ezra casts doubts upon God’s justice, Baruch is soon satisfied with God’s explanations and subsequently endorses these in his eloquent address to the people. 4 Ezra and 2 Bar share common traditions with L.A.B. 2 Bar reflects upon the destruction of Jerusalem from different perspectives. It attributes the destruction to the sins of the people, but also claims that the punishment will last “only a little while.” Jerusalem was not destroyed by the Babylonians, but by the angels of God. Because of Jeremiah’s and Baruch’s righteousness, the destruction could only take place once they had left the city. The Temple’s furnishings were removed beforehand to prevent their defilement. God’s vow to protect Jerusalem (Isa 49:16) did not apply to the earthly, but to the celestial city to be revealed at the end of time. For 2 Bar, obedience to the Law is the key to the right relationship to God in the present, and to salvation after death. As Baruch receives a direct revelation of the eschatological scenario in which the good are to be rewarded and the evil punished in the coming age, 2 Bar expounds an apocalyptic solution to the problem of the destruction of Jerusalem. Its emphasis on the fundamental importance of the Law after the destruction of the Temple is particularly remindful of rabbinic teachings. The book also emphasizes individual responsibility, as reflected by the assertion that “every human” is “the Adam of his own soul” (54:19). It consists of seven parts, the exact delimitations of which are disputed (Murphy). The seventh part consists entirely of a letter of Baruch to the nine and a half tribes in the Assyrian exile (78:1– 86:1). It would appear to have had a transmission history of its own. Current research, however, believes it to have been an integral part of the original text. Like other apocalypses, 2 Bar borrows elements from the most varied traditions. P.M. Bogaert, L’Apocalypse de Baruch, SC 144, 145, 1969 ◆ S. Dedering, Apocalypse of Baruch, 1973 (Syriac text) ◆ J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1984 ◆F.J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch, 1985. Frederick J. Murphy

III. Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 3 Bar is one of several apocalypses written in response to the destruction of the Second Temple. Still extant in Greek and Slavonic versions, its concern for the destruction of the Temple suggests a date at the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century CE. Most scholars consider it an Egyptian Jewish work, but in its present form

Base Communities in Latin America it contains a number of clearly Christian elements. 3 Bar opens with Baruch’s lament over the destruction of Jerusalem. In response, an angel appears and leads Baruch on a tour of the heavens. Most of the sights Baruch is allowed to behold concern the reward and the punishment of souls after death. He also sees cosmological phenomena. The apocalypse concludes with a description of the archangel Michael in the fifth heaven, offering to God the good deeds of humanity. Since Michael descends when returning from the offering of the deeds to God, it is clear that the fifth heaven is not the highest heaven in the cosmology of 3 Bar. This suggests that God dwells in the seventh heaven. This is the most common location for God’s throne in ascent apocalypses. While Baruch never receives an explicit response to the problem of the destruction of Jerusalem and the annihilation of his people, the ascent through the heavens provides a measure of consolation by assuring Baruch that the evil will receive their punishment and the righteous their reward even in the absence of the Temple. Text: J.C. Picard, Apocalypsis Baruchi Graece, PVTG 2, 1967 ◆ On 3 Bar: R. Bauckham, “Early Jewish Visions of Hell,” JThS 41, 1990, 355–385 ◆ D.C. Harlow, The Greek “Apocalypse of Baruch” in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, SVTP 12, 1996 (bibl.). Martha Himmelfarb

Base Communities in Latin America. Ecclesiastical base communities are organisms of the Catholic Church. A comprehensive definition of this experiment is difficult to formulate, although a number of essential features can be singled out: local orientation, regular worship, responsibility for the poor, a dynamic relationship between faith and life. Base communities enable a new type of participation in the life of the Catholic Church and promote a unique form of social commitment. A characteristic element is the centrality of the Bible, which is permanently confronted with real-life situations. The pertinence and plausibility of the experiment are anchored in its ecclesial dimension: “base community” stands for a new way to exist as a church. The truly innovative, church-constituting aspect of the base communities, however, is a new way of life, which combines Christian → discipleship with a responsibility for the poor and their liberation. Base communities are church congregations that consist of Christians who have come together because of their faith and who partake in the community of the Church as a whole. They represent congregations of faith, community, and sacramental life. They exist in the awareness of being deeply rooted in the Church as a whole. They are known as base communities, because they constitute individual cells of the great community which is the Church. They are not – and have no intention of being – the only ecclesial structures, though they do represent a driving force behind the new way of existing as a church

630 that appeared in Latin America in the years that followed → Vatican II. Among the major factors that contributed to the genesis of base communities, particular mention should be made of the initiatives of pastoral theology. Undertaken in the 1960s, these were approved and sanctioned by Vatican II, and confirmed in Latin America by the bishops’ conferences of Medellin (1968) and Puebla (1979). Vatican II led to a hitherto unknown intensification of church activities in the Latin American context, in that it made the Catholic Church sensitive to social issues and allowed for creative and innovative experiments. The bishop conferences of Medellin and Puebla extended the spirit of renewal initiated by the council to the social engagement of the Catholic Church, a development that prompted the courageous decision to side with the poor and their struggle for unrestricted freedom. It should be pointed out that the political reality of continental Latin America in the 1970s and early 1980s was characterized by a general climate of ruthlessness and human rights violations that led to the appearance of social and ecclesial opposition movements and mobilized support in favor of the civil rights of the underprivileged. Base communities spread primarily among the impoverished and marginalized social classes of the rural and suburban slum populations. Their beginnings go back to the 1960s, notably in Brazil. The initiative was bolstered by Medellin (1968) and spread to other Latin American countries – Panama, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. In other countries such as Argentina and Mexico, the movement did not enter its major phase of expansion until after Puebla (1979). In the 1970s and 1980s, the experiment of the base communities went through a period of consolidation. They took over very important functions within the new definition of pastoral work. In times such as these, when all forms of popular organization were brutally suppressed, the base communities succeeded in establishing popular opposition movements in the suburban slums by promoting solidarity and by reviving the hopes of the poor. The congregations strengthened the civic awareness of the poor as both church and social subjects. Encouraged by the unifying power of the Word of God, the base communities enabled the poor to voice their concerns. Through the experiencing of community, an awareness of dignity and self-worth arose among the underprivileged, whose status as subjects thus acquired a new intensity. As a result, active initiatives aiming to effect social changes began to develop. Faith was always present as a constitutive aspect of all these events. It not only led to the formation of a new consciousness and of

631 a new public behavior, but also to the affirmation of the Christian dignity of the poor. The influence of the base communities on the shaping of the new profile of Latin American Catholicism is undeniable. In Brazil alone, the number of base communities distributed among the near 250 dioceses is estimated at 60 to 80,000, i.e. at ten times the number of parishes (7500). A strong interest in overcoming isolation through the creation of a dense network of communication manifests itself in the congregations. In Brazil, this form of intercommunication profits from the innerecclesial meetings of the base communities that began in 1975 and are repeated in intervals of three or four years. In recent years, base communities have concerned themselves with two major challenges: the preservation of the missionary vitality and popular basis of the congregations, and the challenge of conducting a liberating enculturation and of initiating an ecumenical church project that will be open to differences and to dialogue in a pluralistic world. F. Teixeira, A Fé na Vida, 1987 ◆ idem, Os Encontros Intereclesiais de CEBs no Brasil, 1996 ◆ C. Boff et al., As Comunidades de Base em Questão, 1997. Faustino Teixeira

Basedow, Johannes Bernhard (Sep 11, 1724, Hamburg – Jul 25, 1790, Magdeburg) studied theology in Leipzig and Kiel after an unhappy childhood in humble conditions. From 1749 a private tutor, he was professor of morals and eloquence from 1753 to 1761, later theology professor at the Danish Academy for the Sons of Noblemen in Sorø. In 1761, he was relegated to the grammar school in Altona on account of his unorthodox, enlightened theological views, though he later accepted an appointment as professor in Dessau (1771), where he founded and administered the Philanthropinum from 1774 to 1778. He subsequently led a secluded life as an author in Dessau, Leipzig, Halle and Magdeburg. Basedow was one of the key figures of Enlightenment pedagogy in Germany and laid the foundations of the philanthropic movement with his programmatic work Vorstellung an Menschenfreunde (“A Presentation to Friends of Humanity”; 1768). Therein, he developed a comprehensive educational reform plan, spoke out in favor of a religiously neutral school system in the sense of “an institution dedicated to promotion of human happiness,” and also called for a fundamental reform of didacticism (encouragement of the practical and useful, of physical exercise and personal hygiene; rejection of learning through memorization; illustrative and playful teaching techniques) as well as good school libraries, for which he offered to write the books himself. To this purpose, in 1774, he published the fourvolume opus Elementarwerk – Ein geordneter Vorrat aller nötigen Kenntnisse der Jugend (“Elements of Education –

Basel A systematic compilation of all things that young people should know”). Founded in the very same year, the Philanthropinum became “the focal point of the pedagogical movement of the time in Germany” (Reble) for almost twenty years. Basedow was a brilliantly inspiring and persuasive educational reformer who “proved very talented in dismantling old misconceptions” (C.G. Salzmann), through his unsteady character impaired his capacity for detailed and sustained work. J.-B. Basedow, Ausgewählte pädagogische Schriften, ed., A. Reble, 1965 ◆ W. Finzel-Niederstadt, Lernen und Lehren bei Herder und Basedow, 1986. Rainer Lachmann

Basel I. City and Diocese – II. University

I. City and Diocese The beginnings of the city and diocese are unclear. The name “Basilia” for the settlement at the bend of the Rhine is first mentioned around 374. The earliest evidence of Christian presence comes from the fort of Kaiseraugst, which lies not far from Basel. Only in the Carolingian period, from 740, is Basel attested as the permanent residence of the bishop. The diocese covered an area that hardly changed until the 18th century: the territories between the Aare and the Rhine, Upper Alsace, and the Jura all the way to Pierre-Pertuis and the Doubs. In 912, the diocese fell to the kingdom of → Burgundy. After 1000, the city and diocese were increasingly influenced by the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Henry II assisted in the rebuilding of the cathedral and was present at its consecration in 1019. During the High Middle Ages, the power of the prince-bishopric and of the city grew noticeably. The council convened in Basel from 1431 to 1449 (see below). In 1460, the university founded by Pius II opened its doors (see II below). In 1501, under the administration of the guilds, Basel joined the Swiss Confederation. It sided with the Reformation in 1529, whereupon the bishop moved to Pruntrut and later to Solothurn. Following this disruption, Jacob Christoph Blarer of Wartensee (1542–1608) reorganized the prince-bishopric, which existed until the Napoleonic period. The diocese was again reorganized as a result of the Concordat of 1828. The canton of Basel, which had been created in the wake of the French Revolution in conjuction with the establishment of equal rights for city and countryside, was split up into two half cantons in 1833. Today, the diocese encompasses the cantons of Aargau, Basel-Territory, Basel-City, Bern, Lucerne, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, Thurgau, and Zug. In the canton of Basel-City, 49% of the population still belongs to one of the two established churches (28% Protestant and 21% Roman Catholic).

Basel Confession R. Wackernagel, Geschichte der Stadt Basel, 3 vols. 1907–1924, index from 1954 ◆ P. Burckhardt, Geschichte der Stadt Basel. Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, 21957 ◆ G. Boner, “Das Bistum Basel. Ein Überblick von den Anfängen bis zur Neuordnung” 1828 FDA 88, 1968, 5–101 ◆ A. Bruckner, ed., Das alte Bistum Basel/Das neue Bistum Basel HelSac I 1, 1972, 127–362 & 363–436 ◆ R. Teutenberg, Basler Geschichte, 21988. Martin Sallmann

II. University The University of Basel is the oldest academy of higher education in the territory of present-day Switzerland. During the period of the Council of Basel, a council university was established there in 1432, itself an innovative step in medieval education. It offered curricula in theology, law, and probably also in medicine. In 1440, following the deposition of Pope → Eugenius IV, the Alma universitas studii curiae Romanae opened its doors to students. When the council ended in 1448, higher education was discontinued in Basel. The longing for a university, however, persisted. Accordingly, the new city council successfully pleaded for a papal foundation bull, which enabled the opening of the university on Apr 4, 1460, with the faculties of law, medicine, and arts. Unto this day, the University of Basel remains one of the smaller German-speaking universities, with just below 8000 students in the year 1996. By the late 15th century, the UB had become a place of thriving intellectual activity. Prominent teachers in the early years of the university included Johannes → Geiler and Heinrich Loriti, also known as Glarean. In the faculty of law, both canonical and civil law were taught; in the early years, the lecturers in these disciplines came from Italy. → Paracelsus and Felix Platter were among the most notable lecturers in the faculty of medicine. At the beginning of the 16th century, the importance of the university declined. In the 1520s, fierce debates erupted over the position of the university with respect to the Reformation. In 1523, the city council discontinued the salaries of three professors who opposed the Reformation and appointed – against the will of the university – J. → Oecolampadius and K. → Pellikan in their stead. Following the proclamation of the Reformation order (1529), several professors and students left the city, thus bringing the university to a standstill. Teaching was nonetheless resumed in 1532, presumably through the efforts of Oecolampadius. In the second half of the 16th and in the early 17th century, the University of Basel experienced a period of prosperity, which came to an end with the outbreak of the → Thirty Years War. Only in the early 19th century, with the reorganization of 1818, did it begin to flourish again. For a time, the separation of the cantons (1833) considerably slowed down the recovery of the university. In 1890, Emilie Frey enrolled as the first female student in medicine. The university law of 1937 split up the faculty of philosophy

632 into philosophical-historical and philosophical-scientific faculty. A further important reform took place in 1970 with the reorganization of the advisory board, to which only full professors had originally belonged. It now also included associate professors, private lecturers, students, and representatives of the university administration. An attempt to reform the university failed in 1980, but a new university law from 1995 allows academic self-determination and strategy free from state interference. The university was officially granted autonomy on Jan 1, 1996. On Jan 1, 1997, the newly constituted faculty of economics was added to the five already existing faculties. The new legal status provides for an adequate participation of all university members in the decision-making process. Prominent scholars of the university include S. → Brant, J. Oecolampadius, Paracelsus, the mathematicians Jakob and Johann Bernoulli (1667– 1748), J.J. → Bachofen, J. → Burckhardt, F. → Nietzsche, K. → Jaspers, K. → Barth, and Adolf Portmann (zoologist, 1897–1982). Nobel Prizes were awarded to the chemist Tadeusz Reichstein (1950) and the molecular biologist Werner Arber (1978). From the onset, the theological faculty was endowed with two professorships for OT and one for NT. In 1647 a third professorship was established for loci communes et controversiae. The Reformed high orthodoxy (→ Orthodoxy : II) was at first represented by L. → Gernler and Johann Rudolf Wettstein. Theological and didactic innovations were introduced by S. → Werenfels, a follower of “rational orthodoxy.” In 1818, the canon of disciplines within the theological faculty was considerably expanded. As a consequence of the appointment of W.M.L. de → Wette in 1822, the faculty began to arouse greater interest in the scholarly world. In 1855, a fourth professorship was established through the initiative of the theologically “positivistic” (pietistic) Verein für christlich-theologische Wissenschaft (“Society for the Promotion of Christian-Theological Science”). It was first held by J.T. → Beck. A fifth positivist professorship was added in 1866, and a sixth one in 1872. Following the partial separation of church and state in 1911, protest against the theological faculty was repeatedly voiced, even going as far as demanding its outright abolition. K. Barth came to Basel in 1935. A. Staehelin, Geschichte der Universität Basel 1632–1818, 1957 ◆ idem, Geschichte der Universität Basel 1818–1835, 1959 ◆ E. Bonjour, Die Universität Basel von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart 1460–1960, 21971 ◆ G. Kreis, Die Universität Basel 1960– 1985, 1986. Thomas K. Kuhn

Basel Confession. The Basel Confession was presumably composed under the supervision of O. → Myconius on the basis of preliminary work by J. → Oecolampadius. In a concise, clear form and a moderate tone, it elaborates the positions of Reformational faith and draws distinc-

633 tions between itself and Roman, Lutheran and Baptist views. After its approval by the councils, it was submitted to the guilds and citizens for their consent (1534). R. Stauffer, “Das Basler Bekenntnis von 1534,” in: H.R. Guggisberg & P. Rotach, eds., Ecclesia semper reformanda. Vorträge zum Basler Reformationsjubiläum 1529–1979, 1980, 28–49 ◆ See also → Articles of Faith: I. Martin Sallmann

Basel, Council of. The Council of Basel was a reform council that convened from 1431 to 1437/1449 (it moved to Lausanne in 1448). It concerned itself with church reform, the Hussite controversy, but also with peace in Christendom and negotiations with the Eastern Church. The council summoned in 1431 under Martin V in conformity with the Decree of Constance (“Frequens”) was immediately dissolved by → Eugenius IV, but he was compelled to confirm it in 1433. The code of order of the council, which was based on university and municipal corporations, opened the meeting to the middle and lower clergy and divided the participants into nations, and delegated the main tasks to deputations and granted general voting rights. In analogy to the Roman Curia, several administrative bodies were created. From 1437 onward, the Council was split in rival factions. While those faithful to Rome moved to Ferrara-Florence, those remaining in Basel brought forth a radicalized ecclesiology, bestowed dogmatic status upon the Constance Superiority Decree “Haec Sancta” in 1439 (the Council draws its authority directly from God and stands above the pope), deposed Eugenius IV, and elected → Felix V (Amadeus of Savoy) as counter-pope (the last Papal Schism). On May 5, 1449 the Council dissolved itself. The Council issued numerous reform decrees that were still frequently cited in the 16th century, reached an agreement with the moderate Hussites (Utraquists; → Hus, Jan/Hussites) in the Basel (1433) and Iglau (1436) Compactates, and strove to achieve European peace through delegations. Its conciliarism and the tractate literature that justified this position elicited numerous counter-writings in which the → Dominicans particularly distinguished themselves as supporters of an extreme Papalism. J. Helmrath, Das Basler Konzil 1431–1449, Forschungsstand und Probleme, 1987 ◆ H. Müller, Die Franzosen, Frankreich und das Basler Konzil, 1990 ◆ U. Horst, Autorität und Immunität des Papstes, 1991 ◆ T. Prügel, Die Ekklesiologie Heinrich Kalteisens OP in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Basler Konziliarismus, 1995. Heribert Smolinsky

Basel Mission I. Overseas Work – II. Organization and Work up to 1914 – III. Twentieth Century – IV. Ecumenical Relations and their Significance

The Basel Mission (Evangelical Missionary Society in Basel) was founded in 1815, initially to train missionaries, though it soon began its own missionary work.

Basel Mission I. Overseas Work After a brief attempt to conduct missionary work in the Caucasus in 1820, the Basel Mission mainly operated in the following areas: southeastern Ghana from 1828 (languages: Twi and Ga); southwestern India from 1834, in the present-day states of Karnataka and (North) Kerala (languages: Kannada with Tulu and Malayalam); China from 1847, in Hong Kong and the eastern Canton province (using the Hakka dialect of Chinese); Cameroon from 1885, especially in the later Anglophone provinces (languages: Duala, Basa, Mungaka); from 1900 the later Malaysian federal state of Sabah, especially in Chinese immigrant congregations; after 1945 among the indigenous peoples Rungus and Dusun (using the Momogun language); in Indonesia (Kalimantan), where the Basel Mission took over the work of the Rhenish Mission (→ United Evangelical Mission) in the early 1920s (language: Ngadju Dayak); after the Second World War, the Basel Mission joined the American → Church of the Brethren in its work in northeastern Nigeria. Since the end of the Second World War, the Basel Mission has abandoned its narrow geographical focus and begun working with churches and other organizations in Latin America. II. Organization and Work up to 1914 The Mission was founded by members of the pietistic urban elite of Basel. The so-called Basel Mission Committee provided stability and directed the affairs of the community in every respect. The permanent staff in Basel was recruited by the committee and consisted of pietistic theologians from Württemberg. The committee recruited young men who attended a five year training program at the Basel Mission Seminary, and who subsequently, due to their rural background, conducted missionary work from the perspective of a pre-industrial village context. The Basel Mission received substantial support from rural pietistic groups. Not suprisingly, the organization made considerable investments in communication with these sponsors (network of itinerant preachers, mission journals, early use of photography as a means of communication, etc.). Prior to 1914, the overseas work of the Basel Mission was characterized by an intensive presence in relatively small areas (approx. 400 overseas collaborators around the year 1900, husbands and wives not included). The school system was based on the indigenous languages, which were regarded as essential for education and ecclesial life (publication of grammars, dictionaries, and compilations of the traditional literature). Adequate, village-oriented approaches were developed for agriculture and smallscale industry. In India, however, the latter developed into large-scale industrial projects by 1900. The mission’s own trading company already attempted to practice “fair

Basho, Matsuo Munefusa trade” in the second half of the 19th century. The systematic subordination of women’s activities was typical of the period preceding 1914. The importance of medical missions was only recognized at a relatively late stage. III. Twentieth Century The Basel Mission took several decades to recover from the aftermath of the First World War (it was classified as an enemy organization by the Entente because of its strong ties to Germany, and only allowed to resume work from c. 1925, albeit with restrictions), but also from the Nazi period, the Kirchenkampf in Germany, as well as the Second World War, during which it was forced to split up in a German and a Swiss branch. The recovery of the organization did not set in until the German currency reform of 1948. The worldwide restructuring of political order at the end of the Second World War brought radical changes in the Basel Mission. Prior to 1939, the ecumenical partnership principle was already being introduced in South China, Borneo, and Ghana. The necessity of such a step became increasingly apparent with the beginning of decolonization. Especially the Chinese Revolution led to the realization that a general process of intellectual and structural decolonization had become necessary. IV. Ecumenical Relations and their Significance After the Napoleonic wars the Basel Mission became the German-speaking nucleus of an international network of Protestant activities. The Mission drew support from all Germany, was integrated in the program of the francophone Protestant mission, and trained approx. 80 missionaries who entered in the service of the British Church Missionary Society. The nationalist tendencies of the mid-19th century weakened the international and ecumenical cooperation, and led to the founding of further regional and confessional missionary societies in the German-speaking world. The Basel Mission developed into a primarily pietistic organization in southern Germany and German-speaking Switzerland. The Mission nevertheless continued to draw support from Lutheran and Reformed Christian circles. In the course of 20th century, the organization became more and more oriented toward the ecumenical movement. As a result of the integration of the International Missionary Council in the → World Council of Churches, new organizational structures were developed in the mission’s home areas. The German Protestant Mission in Southwest Germany (Stuttgart), of which the German branch of the Basel Mission is a founding member, brings together missionary societies and regional churches in a unified structure. Parallel structural modifications also took place in Switzerland with the foundation of the Association of Protestant Churches in German, Italian and

634 Rhaeto-Romanic Switzerland, and of the Département Missionnaire des Eglises de la Suisse Romande. The structural changes within the Basel Mission led to the “Gwatt Process” (1990–1995) and to the attempt to integrate the organization more firmly in the church context of Central Europe, while simultaneously strengthening its character as an international fellowship of equal partners on six continents. H. Balz, Where the Faith Has to Live, 1984–1995 ◆ J.N. Dah, Missionary, Motivations and Methods, 1984 ◆ G. Shiri, ed., Wholeness in Christ, 1985 ◆ W. Haas-Lill, Erlitten und Erstritten, 1994 ◆ J. Miller, The Social Control of Religious Zeal, 1994 ◆ Landeskirchliches Museum Ludwigsburg, ed., Der ferne Nächste, 1996 ◆ P. Haenger, Sklaverei und Sklavenemanzipation an der Goldküste, 1997. Paul Jenkins

Basho, Matsuo Munefusa (1644, Ueno, Iga Province, Japan – 1694, Osaka), master of the seventeensyllable haikai/haiku and of the related renku/renga forms of poetry. On the death of his overlord in 1666, he gave up his warrior status and settled down as a successful poet and teacher in Edo. The last ten years of his life were marked by the study of → Zen and a series of journeys (“The Narrow Road to the Deep North”, Oku no hosomichi). In the tradition of wandering priestpoets such as the 12th-century Saigyo, Basho attained a symbiosis of nature, religion, and poetry: poetry and travel are practiced as religious disciplines, and Buddhist imagery is used to describe the natural world. Works include: Bashô bun-shû, Nikon koten bungaku taikei 46, 1959 ◆ On Basho: M. Ueda, Matsuo Basho, 1970 ◆ W.R. LaFleur, The Karma of Words, 1983 ◆ M. Ueda, Basho and His Interpreters, 1991. Sybil Anne Thornton

Basic Trust. According to E.H. → Erikson, basic trust is the result of the first, oral phase of the problems concerning identity. It develops in a favorable environment and in a stable constellation of persons surrounding the child, especially in the presence of a caring mother, and represents the “cornerstone of a healthy personality” (Life Cycle). At the same time, the ritualization in the feeding and hygiene of the child plays an important role in the fostering of a sense of reliability. Traumatic disturbances in a child’s early development result in a lack of → trust in its environment and in the world, followed by periodic or chronic depressive moods which may later lead to pathological conditions such as mania, → depression, addiction (→ Drug and Alcohol Addiction), hypochondria, impulsive neuroses, and organic neuroses (→ Neurosis). In the second half of the first year of life, however, the child invitably experiences disappointment as the mother reduces her activities. This generates a certain amount of “basic distrust,” though this will remain within the child’s frustration tolerance as long as the element of trust remains predominant.

635 A supportive role in the consolidation of basic trust is played by religion, the “oldest and most enduring process for the ritual re-establishment of a feeling of trust in the form of faith” (Youth, 107; faith as the symbolic representation of the foundation of trust). Religiosity is both the expression and the motive of basic trust. A stabilizing religious attitude enables the → parents to impart to the child (→ Child and Childhood) a stable and optimistic outlook on → life. For the psychologist, the decisive question is “whether or not religion and tradition represent active psychological factors which create, in the personality of the parents, the kind of trust and conviction that can strengthen the child’s basic trust in the reliability of the world” (Growth). “Hence, whoever asserts that he has religion must be able to draw from it a faith of his own which he can pass on to his children in the form of trust; whoever claims that he has no need of religion must draw this trust from other sources” (ibid.). E.H. Erikson, Childhood and Society, 1950 ◆ idem and J.M. Erikson, “Growth and Crisis of the Healthy Personality,” in: M.J.E. Senn, ed., Symposion on the Healthy Personality, 1950, 91–146 ◆ idem, Identity and the Life Cycle, 1959 ◆ idem, Identity, Youth and Crisis, 1968 ◆ H.-J. Fraas, Glaube und Identität, 1968 ◆ F. Schweitzer, Lebensgeschichte und Religion, 1987. Hans-Jürgen Fraas

Basil of Ancyra. Originally a physician, Basil became the successor of Marcellus as bishop of Ancyra and metropolitan of Galatia in 336; he was an adherent of the subordinationist three-hypostases theology that was critical of Nicaea (“Eusebians”; → Christology: II). Condemned by the “Western” Council of Sardica in 342, he played a leading role in the deposition of Marcellus’s disciple Photinus in 351. In 357/358, he protested against the support of the “neo-Arians” → Aetius and Euomius by Eudoxius of Constantinople. After the Synod of Ancyra (358), he and → George of Laodicea became the leaders of the → Homoiousians, who determined the ecclesiastical policy of → Constantius II in 358/359. He played a decisive role in the preparations for the Council of Ariminum/Seleucia in 359 (→ Homoeans), but lost his influence over the emperor. He was deposed by the “Homoean” Synod in 360 and exiled to Illyria; his attempt at rehabilitation under emperor Jovian failed, and he died sometime after 363. According to Jerome (Vir. ill. 89), he was the author of many lost works; only the synodal documents survived (CPG 2825f.). The treatise De virginitate (CPG 2527) is ascribed to him. J.N. Steenson, Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy, 1983 ◆ W. Löhr, Die Entstehung der hömöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenparteien, BBKL II, 1986 ◆ T.D. Barnes, “The Crimes of Basil of Ancyra,” JTS 47, 1996, 550–554. Hanns Christof Brennecke

Basil the Great (Saint) Basil of Ochrid (1145 – c. 1169). When Basileios, archbishop of Thessalonica, was asked to support the union proposal of Pope → Hadrian IV to the emperor → Manuel I, he demanded concessions from the Latins on the → Filioque clause, the use of unleavened bread, and on the issue of papal primacy, which he rejected. In 1154, as on other occasions, he debated with the papal legate → Anselm of Havelberg in Constantinople. PG 119, 928–933 ◆ J. Schmidt, ed., Des Basilius aus Achrida, Erzbischof von Thessalonich, bisher unedierte Dialoge, 1901 ◆ SC 118, 1966 ◆ DHGE VI, 1160f. (bibl.) ◆ I. Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata arkhiepiskopiia, Sofia 1924 ◆ H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, 31989, 626. Hans-Dieter Döpmann

Basil of Seleucia (died after 468) was bishop of Seleucia in Cilicia and an adherent of the Cyrillian Christology on which the formula of the Council of Chalcedon (451) rests. This Christology is based on an interpretation of the Formula of Union (433) inspired from the Laetentur letter of → Cyril of Alexandria (CPG 3, 5339), which incorporates the second letter of Cyril to → Nestorius (CPG 3, 5304) as accepted by the Council of → Ephesus (431). Basil defended this view against → Eutyches at the Endemousa Synod presided over by → Flavian of Constantinople (448), but yielded to pressure from → Dioscorus of Alexandria at the so-called Robber Synod of Ephesus (449). Important documents from the postChalcedonian period are his response (CPG 3, 6655) to the Codex Encyclius of Emperor Leo I (457/458) and his correspondence with → Theodoret of Cyrrhus (esp. Ep. 85 and 102). An extensive corpus of homiletic writings by Basil is also extant (CPG 3, 6656–6673). Works: CPG 3, 6655–6675 (bibl. to 1978) ◆ On Basil: F.W. Bautz, BBKL I, 1970, 409 (earlier bibl.) ◆ P. Maas, “Das Kontakion,” BZ 19, 1910, 285–306 ◆ A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, I, 1979, 733; II 1, 1985, 260–262; ET: Christ in the Christian Tradition, vol. I, 1996 ◆ J.M. Tevel, De preken van Basilius van Seleucië, 1990 (survey of the ms. tradition; critical ed. of CPG 3, 6656: 7, 11, 31, 35). Karl-Heinz Uthemann

Basil the Great (Saint) (329/330, Caesarea – Jan 1, 370, Caesarea). Basil the Great was the brother of → Gregory of Nyssa and a friend of → Gregory of Nazianzus. Born into an aristocratic family in which the spirituality of Origen and the spirit of the martyrs were very much alive, Basil was educated at eminent schools (esp. Athens), as befitted his social standing. He chose to be baptized in 356/357 and simultaneously committed himself to an ascetic way of life (→ Asceticism). After visits to Egyptian, Palestinian, Syrian, and Mesopotamian ascetics, he withdrew as a hermit to the Iris/Pontus region. During this period, he composed – among other things – elementary rules for an ascetic

Basil, Liturgy of Saint community (Moralia) and possibly (with Gregory of Nazianzus) a florilegium of material by → Origen (Philocalia). He was ordained priest c. 364 and became bishop of his home city and metropolitan of → Cappadocia in 370, where he founded a famous poorhouse and hospital (Basilias) that served as a model for many others. As an independent theologian trained in the school of Origen, he increasingly assumed a leading position among the neo-Niceans of the East (→ Nicea) and opposed – among others – the shrewd neo-Arian → Eunomius (Adversus Eunomium I–III) and his former friend → Eustathius of Sebaste (De spiritu sancto, 375), as well as the “homoean” emperor Valens (→ Homoeans). Basil did much to lay the groundwork for the dogmatization of the doctrine of → Trinity in 381. Sometimes less than skillful and successful in ecclesiastical politics, he is rightly considered one of the great teachers and preachers of the Orthodox Church, especially as the founder and organizer of its monastic life (→ Basilian Orders). Works: CPG II, 2835–2914 ◆ PG 29–32 ◆ SC 17 bis, 26 bis, 160, 299, 305 ◆ Important individual editions and translations: Y. Courtonne, 3 vols., CUF, 1957–1966 ◆ E. Amand de Mendieta & S.Y. Rudberg, TU 66, 1958 (Old Lat. trans. of the Hexaemeron homily) ◆ W.-D. Hauschild, 3 vols., BGrL 3, 17, 32, 1973–1993 (trans. of the letters with commentary) ◆ K.S. Frank, Die Mönchsregeln, 1981 (trans. of the Basilian rules) ◆ K. Zelzer, CSEL 86, 1986 (Rufinus’s trans. of the Basilian rule) ◆ S.Y. Rudberg, GCS NF2, 1997 (Hexaemeron homily) ◆ On Basil: W.-D. Hauschild, TRE V, 1980, 301–313 (bibl.) ◆ P.J. Fedwick, Basil of Caesarea, 2 vols., 1981 (bibl.) ◆ J. Gribomont, Saint-Basile, 2 vols., 1984 ◆ B. Gain, L’église de Cappadoce . . ., OCA 225, 1985 ◆ Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont, SEAug 27, 1988 ◆ K. Koschorke, Spuren der Alten Liebe, Par 32, 1991 ◆ P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea, 1994 ◆ V.H. Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Cäsarea, FKDG 66, 1996. Adolf Martin Ritter

Basil, Liturgy of Saint. In the Orthodox Church, steeped in Byzantine tradition, the liturgy of St. Basil is used only ten times each year. Until the 11th/12th century, however, it was the principal liturgy of Constantinople, to which the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (→ Chrysostom, Liturgy of Saint John), which later became the principal liturgy, was adapted. Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Syriac liturgical formularies are also named after → Basil the Great. Their similarities are almost exclusively restricted to the eucharistic prayer (→ Anaphora). Only here may Basil’s influence be conjectured. Engberding and Capelle advanced the theory that Basil reworked a version of the anaphora corresponding to the present-day Egyptian liturgy of St. Basil, inserting numerous quotations from scripture and the church fathers to accommodate it . This redaction would represent his particular contribution to this, in theological perspective, unusually rich liturgy. M.I. Orlov, Liturgiia sv. Vasiliya Velikogo, 1909 ◆ H. Engberding, Das eucharistische Hochgebet der Basileiosliturgie, 1931 ◆

636 B. Capelle, “Les liturgies ‘basiliennes’ et saint Basile,” in: J. Doresse & E. Lanne, eds., Un témoin archaïque de la liturgie copte de s. Basile, 1960. Karl Christian Felmy

Basil, Rule of Saint → Monasticism Basilian Orders, the designation applied by the Latin Middle Ages to Eastern monasticism. It was based on the erroneous assumption that the latter generally followed the “rule” of Saint → Basil the Great (4th cent.), nothwithstanding the fact that the Orthodox Church knows no such thing as a monastic order and that each Orthodox monastery has its own rule. The name referred particularly to the Greek-Albanian monks in Sicily and southern Italy. In the 16th century, its meaning became associated with the Basilian Order of the Latin rite that originated in Spain. After the Union of Brest in 1595/1596, five monasteries first joined together as “Basilians” in 1617, under the leadership of their Kievan metropolitan J. → Rutsky (1613–1637) and of Saint Josafat Kuncevic (died 1623), who had come to be venerated as the “Apostle of the Union.” The resulting religious order (Ordo Sancti Basilii Magni) soon assumed the spiritual leadership of the Unionists. Unlike the policies of the Unions of Florence (1439) and Brest, the Basilians began to seek harmonization with the Latin rite and the Tridentine doctrines (→ Trent, Council of ). Though abolished in 19th century Russia, the Basilians and their branches spread in other countries, and especially overseas, finally returning to the Ukraine in 1990. In 1991, the order consisted of 57 monasteries and approx. 540 members (330 priests). Branches of the order also exist for nuns. In the controversy over the allegation of “latinization” with which the exempt Basilians have been confronted, prominent Unionists – in agreement with the decree of → Vatican II concerning the Eastern Catholic churches (Nov 21, 1964) – point to the order of the → Studites, who aspire to revive the original Eastern tradition of piety. I. Patrylo et al., An Outline of the History of the Basilian Order between 1743 and 1839, 1992 (Ukrainian) ◆ H.-D. Döpmann, “Zur Problematik des erneuten ‘Uniatentums’,” in: W. Kasack, ed., Kirchen und Gläubige im postsowjetischen Osteuropa, ATSl 63, 1996, 53–74). Hans-Dieter Döpmann

Basilica I. Art History – II. Church Law

I. Art History The Latin name “basilica” (Greek βασιλικός, basilikós, “royal”) acquired the meaning “great hall” and was used in reference to a number of public and private buildings that seemed royal because of their unusual architectural form in dimension and purpose. From the 4th century onward, all Christian churches were known as basilicas; in Christian usage, therefore, the word is both an archi-

637 tectural and an ecclesial term, a name from which a specific stylistic form was later derived. The oldest known basilica was built in 184 ce by Cato. An example of the pre-Christian type is Trajan’s 2nd century Basilica Ulpia with its interior colonnades and apses at the end of the nave. It was often imitated in Italy and the western provinces; the 3rd century Basilica Severiania in Leptis Magna (Tripolitania), dedicated in 217 ce, constitutes an example. Other imperial basilicas such as those in Timgad and Tipasa (3rd cent., → Algeria) and the basilica in → Trier from the early 4th century also display this form, even though the latter has no aisles. → Eusebius of Caesarea (Vita Constantini III,24–43, 51–53) described other basilicas erected by → Constantine the Great. The basilica that most influenced the subsequent history of western architecture was → St. Peter’s Basilica on Vatican Hill; a new and unmistakable feature was added to it in the form of a large transept situated at the western end of the nave across from the entrance. The “circular” basilicas, such as St. Agnes and the Basilica Apostolorum under St. Sebastian, which are associated with the graves of martyrs or the mausoleums of members of the imperial family, are also attributed to the Constantinian period. They were erected in the immediate vicinity of the graves; their characteristic feature is the prolongation of the aisles in the form of a corridor going around the back of the → apse ; hence their name. The so-called “double basilicas” – examples are found in → Aquileia and Trier – are parallel, linked churches that were built simultaneously, often with baptismal chapels; they also originated in the early 4th century. The theory of the Constantinian origin of the basilica (Ward-Perkins) has been widely accepted; it appears plausible to the extent that the Constantinian structures were erected on public land and required extensive financial means. Nonetheless, the classical Roman basilica is mostly restricted to Italy and Palestine (in the holy sites, it is used for churches as well as for the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem). Since there are so many variations in the form of specific basilicas, the term does not designate a single design or blueprint. Nevertheless, the Roman basilica constitutes the theoretical model. According to this model, the basilica was a large, rectangular hall with at least three naves; it opened into an apse, the breadth of which corresponded, as a rule, to that of the central or main nave. Opposite the apse lay the entrance. The central nave was broader than the aisles (ideally in a 2:1 proportion). Evidence of up to nine naves has been found in North Africa. The wooden roof was normally supported by columns; an architrave, later replaced by arches, lay on the capitals. An additional storey with windows above the main nave provided light. In countries in which there was a shortage of wood or in those, such as Syria, that enjoyed a favorable climate,

Basilica a variant was developed which was characterized by the use of large stone blocks, thus creating the impression of monumentality. A few churches had open galleries, socalled “matronea,” above the aisles and looking out onto the main nave; their function is unknown. The orientation of the building resulted from the position of the apse; this too varied by region. Constantinian buildings were oriented on an east-west axis; many had their entrances on the eastern side. From the 5th century onward, the entrance was usually situated at the western end. The apse was normally semicircular, although there are also polygonal examples (St. Bertrand-de-Comminges). Sometimes, esp. in Syria and North Africa, two additional rooms were added, traditionally called “prothesis” and “diakonikon” (→ Church Architecture: II); however, these are liturgical designations and it remains unclear whether the rooms served any specific purpose. The roof of the apse was, as a rule, a half dome of cement, stone or terracotta pipes, and rested on a “triumphal arch.” In contrast, the basilicas in Aquileia and in the northern Adriatic region have no apses. These general features can be expanded to include others, such as the → atrium or the → narthex, segments that grew out of local and specific requirements. As a rule, the main entrance is situated at the front of the building; in northern Syria, however, the main doors could be placed on the side and open to a lateral inner court. As in the case of the Basilica of St. Peter, a transept could be added, the origin and function of which still remains controversial. In the case of the old St. Peter’s, the assumption is that it served to facilitate the flow of pilgrims. The most important differences between the secular model and its Christian adaptation seem to be attributable to the requirements of the liturgy, which exercised greater influence on the design and execution than did architectural style. These differences lie, primarily, in the lengthening of the hall, with the → altar or the tomb representing the point of reference, and in the accentuation of the light. The longitudinal axis leading from the entrance to the apse dominated the Christian basilica. Liturgical requirements best explain this emphasis on the spatial element, the most important and essential aspect of the Christian basilica. Further, the churches, including the cemetery churches, presuppose a large number of priests. They sat on the inner circle of the apse; in their midst stood the bishop’s elevated seat (“cathedra”). From the 5th century onward, the seats for the clergy (“sedilia”) were firmly anchored, and the apse acquired the name “presbyterium.” The altar, developed from the Roman dinner table, usually consisted of a rectangular marble slab, approx. 1.20 m in length and often lying above the shrine or tomb of a martyr, and usually stood under a canopy (“ciborium”). In a few regions, the ambo, a pulpit-like stage for speaking and preaching, had its place in the middle, facing the congregation; dual ambos

Basilides/Basilidians are also known. The apse was usually separated from the central nave by small barriers called “cancelli,” sometimes also by a choir screen equipped with curtains. The usual method of lighting was the chandelier (“corona lucis,” “polycandelon”), a series of lamps placed on one or more metal rings. Many churches were richly decorated with marble and mosaics. Recent studies have shown that earlier forms of church architecture still survived long after the basilica had become the norm. The current state of the evidence would thus seem to demand a refinement of the Constantinian theory. A closer examination reveals that the monumental basilica was developed under Constantine, while other churches continued to be built according to earlier patterns. The process can best be traced in Rome, where several of the earlier congregational churches (“tituli”) remained unaffected by the new Latin style. The best known and most thoroughly researched case is that of St. Clemente, the archaeological history of which exhibits a sequence of buildings ranging from the Roman Republic all the way to the Christian basilica built on the site in the Baroque period. Studies have shown that factors other than liturgical played a role in the development of the basilica. Thus, the basilica has come to be viewed in its social and cultural evolution, and is placed in a historical context that goes far beyond the history of Constantine. The intermediary state between domus ecclesiae and basilica, the aula ecclesiae or church hall, has been investigated. The type of development seems to have been a function of the social context of the Christian community of the time. In the 6th century, under the influence of developments in Constantinople, the basilica was replaced in the East by the church with central room and cupola; an example of this is the → Hagia Sophia (532–537). In the West, the schema underwent further development in the Romanesque and Gothic periods; even in the 20th century, the basilican style was consciously revived in order to satisfy the demands of the modern liturgical movement. K. Liesenberg, Der Einfluß der Liturgie auf die frühchristliche Basilika, 1928 ◆ E. Kirschbaum, “Der Raumcharakter der altchristlichen Basilika,” RivAC 13, 1936, 271–303 ◆ R. Krautheimer, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, 5 vols., 1937–1980 ◆ Atti del IV Congresso di Archeologia Cristiana, 1938 ◆ A. Orlandos, I xulostegos palaiocristianike Basilika, 3 vols., 1952–1957 ◆ J.B. Ward-Perkins, “Constantine and the Origins of the Christian Basilica,” PBSR 22, 1954, 69–90 ◆ N. Duval, “Les origines de la basilique chrétienne,” L’Information d’Histoire de l’Art 7, 1962, 1–19 ◆ E. Langlotz, Der architekturgeschichtliche Ursprung der christlichen Basilika, RhWAW.G 172, 1972 ◆ R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 41986 ◆ L.M. White, Building God’s House in the Roman World, 1990 ◆ idem, The Christian Domus Ecclesiae and its Environment, HThS 36, 1990 ◆ N. Duval, “Church Buildings,” EEC I, 1992, 168–175 ◆ I. Gui, N. Duval & J.P. Cailler, Basiliques chrétiennes de l’Afrique du Nord, 2 vols., 1992–1994. Mary Charles Murray

638 II. Church Law Basilica is a superior rank granted by the Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments to certain churches with the status of “basilica maior” – to which only the five patriarchal churches of → Rome (IV) as well as two churches in → Assisi belong – and of “basilica minor.” A.P. Frutaz, “Il II centenario della elevazione a basilica patriarcale e cappella papale della chiesa di San Francesco in Assisi,” EL 68, 1954, 261–262 ◆ M. Lessi, “Basilici Minori,” Not. 25, 1989, 234–236. Herbert Kalb

Basilides/Basilidians. With his son and disciple Isidore, Basilides was active as a teacher of theology in the time of the emperors → Hadrian (117–138) and → Antoninus Pius (138–161). His Exegetica was a commentary on what was probably his own recension of Luke; two fragments have been preserved: Clement of Alexandria, Strom. IV, 81.1–83.1, and Acta Archelai 67.4–12. Fragments of the following works of Isidore have been preserved: Ethica (Clem. Alex. Strom. III, 1–3), On the Attached Soul (Strom. II, 112.1–114.2), and An Explanation of the Prophet Parchor (Strom. VI, 53.2–5). Additional doxographical excerpts appear in Clement and Origen. The references to the Basilidian system in → Irenaeus of Lyon (Haer. I 24.3–7) and → Hippolytus of Rome (Haer. VII, 20–27; X, 14) probably do not derive from Basilides and Isidore. – Basilidian theology distinguished the God of the OT from the supreme God. It sketched a theodicy in which the suffering of Christian martyrs is interpreted as a punishment for hidden sins. The Basilidian doctrine of the soul, which included the postulate of transmigration, is platonizing; it expounds the fulfillment of humanity through control of the emotions, and is rounded off with an intellectualizing concept of faith. Basilidian ethics are noteworthy for drawing on the methods of pagan philosophical counseling. Basilides and Isidore belong in the context of the free theological schools of the 2nd century, which presented Christianity as a “philosophy” due to their competition with the pagan philosophical schools; they thus stand at the beginning of Christian theology. → Clement of Alexandria learned from Basilides and Isidore. CPG 1, 1127 ◆ W.A. Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule, WUNT 83, 1996 ◆ Y. Tissot, “A propos des fragments de Basilide sur le martyre,” RHPR 76, 1996, 35–50. Winrich A. Löhr

Basnage, a Huguenot family from Rouen (Normandy). Prominent members include: 1. Benjamin (1580, London – Jul 23, 1653, Sainte-Mère-Eglise). Pastor at Sainte-Mère from 1601 onward, he vigorously supported the political and financial interests of the → Huguenots, played an important role in the Assemblée Politique in La Rochelle, and was active as a mediator in the dispute concerning M. → Amyraut and the solidarity

639

Basques

within the National Synod of the Huguenot Church. – 2. Jacques (Aug 8, 1653, Rouen – Dec 22, 1723, Rotterdam), the grandson of Benjamin; he studied classical languages, theology, and philosophy at Geneva and Sedan. He served as pastor in Rouen, then in Rotterdam and finally in The Hague, where he also assumed diplomatic functions. He was a synod member and later served as secretary in the governing body of the Reformed Walloon church. Basnage believed that a return of the Réfugiés was impossible; he opposed the armed millenarian resistance of those who had stayed in France and, from 1697 onward, urged them to emigrate. He also used diplomatic channels to alleviate the repressive measures against the Huguenots in France. In ecclesiastical politics, Basnage strove for mediation and integration of the Réfugiés into the Walloon church. A prolific writer, he attained particular prominence as a moral theologian and as a source-critical scholar in church history and the history of religion. Jacques Basnage’s works include: Traité de la conscience, 1696 ◆ Histoire de l’église, depuis Jesus Christ jusqu’à présent, 1699 ◆ Histoire des Juifs, 1706/1707 ◆ On Benjamin and Jacques Basnage: E. Haag, La France protestante, II, 1847 ◆ G. Cerny, Theology, Politics and Letters at the Crossroads of European Civilization: Jacques Basnage and the Baylean Huguenot Refugees in the Dutch Republic, 1987. Thomas Klingebiel

Basques I. Pagan Period – II. Christianization – III. Basque Christianity

The language of the Basques in southwestern France and north-central Spain is unrelated to any other known language. As a result, some scholars consider the Basques to be Europe’s oldest culture. They are perhaps the direct descendants of the continent’s Cro-Magnon population, and it seems highly probable that they had already settled in their current Pyrenean homeland prior to the arrival, in the second millennium bce, of the Indo-European population groups that ultimately determined the continent’s current ethnic configuration. I. Pagan Period The Basque country is situated midway between the famous cave painting sites of → Lascaux and Altamira, and has a number of remarkable examples of its own to offer. For this reason, the Basques or proto-Basques have become a significant factor in the speculations concerning the beliefs and religious practices of Upper Paleolithic populations. The depiction, on cave walls and bone carvings, of bison, horses, goats, and other game animals, as well as anthropomorphic figures are suggestive of a belief in the potency of magic as a means of influencing the outcome of the hunt, but also of a belief in the effectiveness of religious art as a means of

increasing the fertility of certain animal species or possibly even of achieving a totemic identification with them. There is clear evidence that the Basques engaged in pastoralism by 2000 bce. The existence of a belief in afterlife may be deduced, in particular, from the collective cave burials and the numerous dolmens (→ Megalithic culture) found throughout the mountainous pastoral landscapes.The deceased were provided with drinking vessels and adorned with amulets and other jewelry. During the 1st century bce, the Romans occupied the central and southern plains of present-day Alava and Navarra. Consequently, certain areas of the Basque country offer ample evidence for the cults of particular Roman gods and goddesses, as well as of syncretistic divinities bearing Basque names. II. Christianization Christianity was first introduced by the Romans in the more accessible districts of the Basque country. In other areas, there is no clear evidence of organized christianization prior to the arrival of the Germanic tribes in the 5th century CE. By the 10th century, several Basque Romanesque churches had been built, mostly along the pilgrimage route to → Santiago de Compostela, which passed through the Basque country. Around 1140, however, the pilgrim Aimery de Picaud still bitterly complained about the maltreatment that he and others travelers suffered at the hands of barbaric, semi-pagan Basques. – It is evident that Christian missionaries, in evangelizing the Basques, adopted many local pagan beliefs and practices. The female forest deity known as Mari was simply assimilated to the Catholic Marian belief. By the late Middle Ages, the Basques had become monotheists who applied the epithet “Jaungoikoa” or “Lord on High” to their now Christian god. III. Basque Christianity Though the Basques took a long time to become Christians, they embraced the religion with enthusiasm. In the 16th century, they provided the key figures in Spain’s mission to the New World. Meanwhile, in Europe, → Ignatius of Loyola founded the → Jesuit Order as the phalanx of the Roman Catholic CounterReformation. Extending on both sides of the emerging French-Spanish border, the Basque country accordingly became an ideological battleground between Catholic Spain and heretical France. When the kingdom of Navarra was conquered by King Ferdinand’s forces in 1512, the d’Albret monarchs of Navarra fled to France. The last d’Albret queen, Jeanne, embraced Protestantism and converted much of the Bearn and of the French Basque country to the Protestant confession, prompting Phillip II to obtain a papal bull removing part of his Spanish Basque possessions from the jurisdiction of

Bastgen, Hubert the diocese of Bayonne. In the early 17th century, the French Basque country was once again the center of an alleged heresy. From 1612 to 1614, C. → Jansen officiated as director of the College of Bayonne with the support of the Abbot of St. Cyran. After Jansen’s death, the abbot became a staunch advocate of → Jansenism. During the 18th century, the seminary became a bastion of Jansenist doctrine to which many in the lower clergy adhered in opposition to their bishops. The doctrine also exerted considerable influence over the adjacent Spanish Basque area and may have proved constitutive for the extreme moral asceticism of modern Basque Catholic practice and belief. During the 17th century the Basque borderlands were also the scene of spectacular witch trials. In the past centuries, the Basques have been among the world’s staunchest Roman Catholics. However, they also share several popular religious beliefs with other western European cultures. In the spring, for example, it is customary for rural priests to bless the fields in order to ward off floods and epidemics. Basque mortuary ritual is strongly mingled with popular religious beliefs and practices. Until the 18th century, each household was assigned a burial place, or plot, inside the church and the deceased were buried directly beneath the church floor. This burial place retains its function, although it is no longer in use. Every housewife is expected to light vigil candles and to perform other rituals for more than a year following the death of a member of her household. Each village also has a map of death roads. If the corpse is not brought to its funeral in the church on the appropriate death road and without the least deviation, its soul will return to haunt the living. Upon the death of the male head of the household, the bees in their hives must be informed or they will die as well. Over the past decades, the Basque Church has experienced the same crises as most of the Catholic world. The lack of young priests has led to the closure and merging of several seminaries, monasteries, and convents. Basque missionary activity has declined accordingly, while rural parishes suffer most from the lack of priests. J. Caro Baroja, Los vascos, 21958 ◆ W.A. Douglas, Death in Murelaga, 1969 ◆ G. Henningsen, The Witches’ Advocate, 1980 ◆ E. Sorazu Ugartemendia, Antropologia y religión en el pueblo vasco, 21980. William Douglas

Bastgen, Hubert (Aug 21, 1876, Cochem – May 4, 1946, Schäftlarn Abbey, Isar valley). Hubert Bastgen was a prominent and unusually productive church historian. Ordained priest in 1900, he earned doctorates in theology (Breslau [Wrocław], 1906), philosophy (Berlin, 1907), and canon law (Rome, 1908; Athenaeum S. Apollinare, now the Lateran University). He completed his habilitation in Strasbourg in 1910 and conducted

640 research from 1920 to 1932 in the Vatican archives, as well as in the archives of Berlin, Vienna, and Munich. He published many documents pertaining to German church history in the first half of the 19th century. After being barred from the Vatican archives in 1932, he retired to the Benedictine Abbey of Schäftlarn, taking Beda as his religious name. R. Haas, “Hubert Bastgen (1876–1946) und seine Forschungen aus dem Vatikanischen Archiv,” RQ 88, 1993, 156–186. Joseph Listl

Bastholm, Christian (Nov 2, 1740, Copenhagen – Jan 25, 1819, Copenhagen). After studying theology, philosophy, and natural science at Copenhagen, the writer and theologian Christian Bastholm served as pastor of the German congregation in Smyrna from 1768 to 1771. In 1772, he became pastor of Copenhagen Castle, and went as pastor to Helsingør in 1777. He served as court preacher from 1778 to 1800. – Bastholm was the most influential representative of Enlightenment theology in Denmark. Dissatisfied with the prevailing mode of preaching, he wrote a handbook of spiritual rhetoric in 1775 (Den geistlige Talekonst), which also attracted attention outside of Denmark. His Jødiske Historie (1777–1782) displays neological tendencies (→ Enlightenment, → Rationalism), as does his Danish translation of the NT (1780). His Den christelige Religions Hoved-Lærdomme [The Chief Teaching of the Christian Religion], however, which appeared in 1783, adopts more traditional doctrinal positions – probably out of consideration for the conservative ecclesiastical authorities of the Guldberg period. With the change of government in 1784, Bastholm stated his neological positions more clearly. He harshly criticized current liturgical practice, but failed to win acceptance for his own reform proposals. His later writings, now fully imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment, do not always display clear theological positions. Presupposing the unity of reason and revelation, Bastholm sought to adapt the teachings and rituals of the church to the principles of Enlightenment in order to secure the future existence of the church. Works include: Religions-Bog for Ungdomme, 1785 ◆ Den Hensigt, som den christelige Religions-Stifter havde med sine Bestræbelser for Verden, 1793 ◆ Viisdoms od Lyksaligheds Lære, 1794 ◆ Korte Tanker til nærmere Eftertanke over Den geistlige Stand, 1794 ◆ On Bastholm: M. Neiiendam, Christian Bastholm: Studier over Oplysningens Teologi og Kirke, 1922 ◆ B. Kornerup, “Oplysningstiden 1746–1799,” DKH V, 1951, 363–370, 396–401, 436f. Manfred Jakubowski-Tiessen

Bat Qol → Heavenly Voice Bataillon, Pierre-Marie ( Jan 6, 1810, St-Cyr-lesVignes, Loire – Apr 11, 1877, Wallis Island, South

641 Pacific). Bataillon was one of the first missionaries of the Society of Mary, which had been founded in 1836 for the Catholic evangelization of the South Pacific. The year after Queen Pomaré, who had been converted to Protestantism, expelled him from Tahiti, he landed in the Wallis archipelago with a Marist coadjutor. Once there, he was able to capitalize on the rivalries between the archipelagic chieftains and gained the support of one of them, Lavélua, which gave rise to a conversion movement in 1841 and to mass baptisms in 1842. Having become bishop of Central Oceania (Wallis and Futuna, Tonga, Fiji, and Samoa), he traveled widely to visit and advise the missionaries sent to him by the Society. His evangelization methods, which were comparable to those of the Protestant missionaries on the Loyalty Islands, was to establish an indigenous priesthood among the natives, so-called katekita (“catechists”), who were specifically trained for the evangelization of the islanders. Soakimi from Tonga, the first islander to be ordained priest, followed Bataillon to Rome in 1856 and returned to Futuna in 1867. However, conflicts between the brothers of the Society of Mary and the native priests soon put an end to the experiment. Bataillon’s own domineering behavior provoked many conflicts, both with the Society, which stopped sending missionaries to his district from 1848 to 1854, as well as with the missionary sisters, despite the fact that he himself had arranged for them to come in 1846. Archives des Pères maristes (Vila Maria, Via A. Poerio 63, Rome), Fond Océanie ◆ R.M. Wiltgen, The Founding of the Roman Catholic Church in Oceania, 1981 ◆ J. Gadille & J.F. Zorn, “Les missions chrétiennes . . . en Australasie et Océanie,” in: J. Gadille & J.-M. Mayeur, eds., Histoire du Christianisme, XI: Libéralisme, industrialisation, expansion européenne, 1995, 1089–1111. Jean-François Zorn

Batak Churches. The Batak churches of northern Sumatra essentially go back to the initiative of the Rhenish Mission (→ United Evangelical Mission), which started working there in 1861. The first missionaries, J.H. Meerwaldt and esp. I.L. → Nommensen, strove to strip the traditional legal and moral system (→ Adat) of its religious elements, in order that it might be integrated into the church order as “civil law.” As a result, particularly strong bonds with the traditions of a small-scale society became the typical characteristic of the Batak Christians. The formation of native teachers began as early as 1867, the training of native missionaries and pastors in 1883. Nommensen passed away in 1918 and left behind a church that already numbered 180,000 members, including dozens of local preachers and missionaries, as well as approx. 800 elementary school teachers. The members of the various Batak churches have close ethnic and cultural bonds. The autonomous regional churches were organized on

Batak Churches the basis of the main dialects: the Christian-Protestant Toba-Batak Church (HKBP) in 1940; the Protestant Karo-Batak Church (GBKP) in 1941; the ChristianProtestant Simalungun-Batak Church (GKPS) in 1963; the Christian-Protestant Anglo-Batak Church (GKPA) in 1975; the pressure to establish an autonomous church in the Pakpak-Dairi province has become particularly strong in the past years. The creation of other Batak churches, such as the Indonesian Christian Church (HKI) and the Christian Batak Community Church (GPKB) in 1927, as well as the ChristianProtestant Church in Indonesia (GKPI) in 1964, is essentially the result of non-theological factors, and especially of differing political and social interests. The HKBP belonged to the founding members of the → World Council of Churches in 1948. In 1952, it was the first Batak church to be granted membership in the → Lutheran World Federation under recognition of its own confessional identity. The GBKP, which initially arose from the work of a Dutch missionary society, became a member of the → World Alliance of Reformed Churches in 1970. The above-named Batak churches are associated with other Protestant churches of the country within the frame of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia (PGI), and simultaneously members of the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA). They stand in a constitutional relationship to the Vereinigte Evangelische Mission (United Evangelical Mission) in Wuppertal, and have established exchange partnerships with further churches in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, etc. As a result of the migration of workers to other islands and to the large cities, the Batak churches and their 3.5 million members are present today in the entire Indonesian archipelago. Their profile is characterized by a strong involvement in the fields of social work and lay activities, but also in their intensive support of young people and women. While individual personalities such as T.S.G. Mulia, A.M. Tambunan or T.B. → Simatupang had, the past, already taken on important political tasks in a society dominated by an Islamic majority, the present church leaderships and congregations are being confronted with problems resulting from a growing socio-political polarization within the country. Efforts to effect a structural modernization, but also their participation in social developments and upheavals have led to considerable inner tension, notably within the HKBP. The same factors have also placed the HKBP on a confrontation course with the government and the military. The further development of the Batak churches will depend upon their capability to preserve and strengthen their unity, and also upon the future willingness of the state to respect the limitations of its authority as established by the legislation pertaining to religion.

642

Bath J. Pardede, “Die Batakchristen auf Nordsumatra und ihr Verhältnis zu den Muslimen,” diss., 1975 ◆ W. Lempp, ed., Sprossende Saat, 1976 ◆ J.R. Hutauruk, “Die Batak-Kirchen vor ihrer Unabhāngigkeit (1899–1942)”, diss., 1980 (bibl.) ◆ U. Beyer, Und viele wurden hinzugetan, 1982 ◆ L. Schreiner, Das Bekenntnis der Batak-Kirchen, repr. 1984 ◆ D. Becker, ed., Mit Worten kocht man keinen Reis, 1987 ◆ J. Aritonang, Mission Schools in Batakland (Indonesia) 1861–1940, 1994 ◆ L. Schreiner, ed., Nommensen in Selbstzeugnissen, 1996 ◆ D. Becker, “Ein Streit ohne Ende?,” in: idem, ed., Ohne Streit kein Frieden?, 1998. Dieter Becker

Bath → Purification Batiffol, Pierre ( Jan 27, 1861, Toulouse – Jan 13, 1929, Paris), a distinguished French church historian and liturgical scholar. Batiffol spent most of his life at the Collège Ste.-Barbe in Paris, except for ten years (1898–1908) as rector of the Institut Catholique in Toulouse. His book Eucharistie was placed on the index in 1907; a second, revised version appeared in 1913. His reputation suffered during the conflict over Modernism although he opposed the movement. His Histoire du bréviaire romain was first published in 1893. During his later years, he worked extensively on the early history of the church. He was made monsignor and canon of Paris and Oxford, and received an honorary doctorate from Louvain (Leuven). His studies did much to encourage French research on the early history of the Church, especially with respect to the papacy and to liturgy. J. Rivière, Monseigneur Batiffol, 1929.

James F. White

Baudelaire, Charles (Apr 9, 1821, Paris – Aug 31, 1867, Paris), French poet. Baudelaire’s father died when he was six years old. After leaving the lyceum, Baudelaire pursued a literary career and acquired a questionable reputation which culminated in the successful prosecution, for breach of public morality, of his great volume of poetry Les Fleurs du Mal (ET: The Flowers of Evil, 1857). For a long time his reputation rested mainly on this work and on his translations of the stories of Edgar Allan Poe. Since the 1970s critical interest has increasingly shifted to Le Spleen de Paris; (ET: Paris Spleen, 1869), an unfinished volume of prose poems, but also to his literary and remarkable art criticism which was praised by, among others, Eugène Delacroix, Camille Corot, Honoré Daumier, F.J. de → Goya , and Eugène Boudin. His concept of modernity found its ultimate expression in Le Peintre de la vie moderne (1863; ET: The Painter of Modern Life). In his poems, Baudelaire evokes the anguish of a modern sensibility that is torn apart by the contradiction of striving for ideals, while at the same time being trapped in the depraved and discordant reality of the modern city. More dramatically than any other French writer in the 19th century, Baudelaire lends expression to the tensions resulting from a belief in a doctrine of sin that affords no compensating redemp-

tion such as that assured through the passion of Christ. His poetry had a profound influence on → symbolism and on several prominent personalities of the 20th century. Works: C. Pichois, ed., Correspondance, 1973 ◆ C. Pichois, ed., Oeuvres complètes, 2 vols., 1975/1976 ◆ On Baudelaire: M.A. Rulff, L’Esprit du Mal et l’esthétique baudelairienne, 1955 ◆ I.J. Austin, L’Univers poétique de Baudelaire, 1956 ◆ F.W. Leakey, Baudelaire and Nature, 1966 ◆ B. Johnson, Défigurations du langage poétique, 1979. J. A. Hiddleston

Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm, Count (Sep 26, 1847 on the estate of Sophienhof near Kiel – Feb 6, 1926, Berlin), studied theology and ancient Near Eastern cultures (most important teacher, F. → Delitzsch ; doctorate in Leipzig, 1874), and was professor of Old Testament at Strasbourg (1876–1881), Marburg (1881–1900), and Berlin (from 1900). A sober conservative on the basic issues of OT research, his pioneering treatment of what was known at the time (that is, before the discovery of the texts from → Ugarit) of Phoenician-Canaanite and Aramaic religion led to better understanding of the Israelite-Jewish concept of God. Works include: Studien zur Semitischer Religionsgeschichte, 2 vols., 1876/1878 ◆ Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, 1901 ◆ Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, 4 vols., 1929 ◆ Bibl. in: Abhandlungen zur Semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft: Wolf Wilhelm Graf von Baudissin zum 26.9.1917, BZAW 33, 1918 ◆ On Baudissin: O. Eissfeldt, “Vom Lebenswerk eines Religionshistorikers,” ZDMG 80, 1926, 89–130, in: idem, Kleine Schriften I, 1962, 114–142 ◆ O. Eissfeld & K.H. Rengstorf, eds., Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Delitzsch und Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin 1866–1890, ARWAW 43, 1973. Rudolf Smend

Baudouin, François (Balduinus) ( Jan 1, 1520, Arras – Oct 24, 1573, Paris), was of patrician origin, studied jurisprudence in Louvain, converted to the Reformed confession in 1539/1540 as a student of Charles Dumoulin in Paris, and was thus forced to leave his native city in 1545. He became Calvin’s secretary in 1547. From 1548 to 1555, he was professor of Roman law in Bourges. In 1555/1556, he taught at the Gymnasium in Strasbourg and from 1556 to 1561 in Heidelberg, where he participated in Melanchthon’s reform of the University in 1557. His attempt, in 1561, to take part in the religious discussion at Poissy on the side of the reconciliation party, an endeavor in which he was supported by G. → Cassander, led to a breach with Calvin and, in 1563, to his return to the Catholic faith. In the Netherlands, he also failed in his attempt to mediate between the religious camps in 1566/1567. From 1569 professor in Angers, he eventually became adviser to Count Henry of Anjou. In addition to his efforts to reach an interconfessional compromise, Baudouin also made important contributions to humanistic jurisprudence, not only as one of the pioneers of Gallic law, but also because of his source critical work on

643 Roman law and Patristic literature. The most important works in which he established links with theology, while adopting a methodologically well-founded approach to history, are Constantinus Magnus sive de Constantini . . . legibus ecclesiasticis atque civilibus (1556) and De institutione historiae universae et eius cum iurisprudentia coniunctione (1561). In addition to numerous commentaries on portions of the civil code, he also composed detailed reports for the Magdeburg Centuriators. M. Erbe, François Baudouin (1520–1573), 1978 (bibl.) ◆ M. Turchetti, Concordia o tolleranza? François Baudouin (1520– 1573) e i “Moyenneurs”, 1984 (bibl.). Michael Erbe

Bauer, Bruno (Sep 6, 1809, Eisenberg, Thüringen – Apr 13, 1882, Rixdorf, near Berlin). I. Life – II. Work – III. Influence

I. Life The son of a porcelain painter, Bauer studied philosophy and theology in Berlin. He was one of the most talented students of G.W.F. → Hegel, who recommended him in 1829 for the Prussian prize in philosophy for his work De pulchri principiis (D. Moggach & W. Schultze, eds., 1996 [bibl.]). He cultivated close contacts with J.K.W. → Vatke and P.K. → Marheineke, who supported him. In 1834, under the deanship of E.W. → Hengstenberg , he habilitated in the philosophy of religion and OT. In several publications, Bauer developed a speculative and analytic exegetical method (→ Speculative theology) aimed at demonstrating that the historicity of the biblical traditions, which had been questioned by → biblical criticism, was anchored in the concept of religion itself (Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung. I. Die Religion des Alten Testaments in der geschichtlichen Entwicklung ihrer Principien dargestellt, 2 vols., 1838). With the Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie (1836–1838), he provided → Hegelianism with its own publication platform. The publication of his Herr Dr. Hengstenberg: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des religiösen Bewußtseins (1839) made promotion in Berlin impossible, leading him to accept an appointment in Bonn. There, K. → Marx was among those who attended his lectures (cf. Rosen, 127–132). Bauer edited the new edition of Hegel’s lectures on the philosophy of religion and, in contention with D.F. → Strauß, extended his exegetical studies to the NT. In the course of this process, he came to discard his previous views. His theory regarding the “literary origin” of the Gospels (see II below), published in 1841, gave J.A.F. → Eichhorn the pretext he needed to ask all the Protestant theological faculties in Prussia for an advisory opinion on Bauer. Although the response was not entirely negative, Bauer was deprived of his academic position on

Bauer, Bruno Mar 3, 1842. Bauer responded with provocative pamphlets of a polemical nature, in which he uncompromisingly attacked the normative foundations of theology and church, state and society (Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit, 1842; Das entdeckte Christentum, 1842, of which all but a few copies were destroyed by the censors, republished in 1927 by E. Barnikol and in 21989 by R. Ott [bibl.]). His insistence on “pure criticism” and his refusal to show solidarity with the political revolution led to a break with Marx in 1843/1844. In 1848/1849, he tried in vain to obtain a mandate for the Berlin Assembly. In the period that followed, Bauer wrote several books on the political and intellectual movements that he wished to “bring to completion” with his own work (above all the Enlightenment and the French Revolution). After 1850, he turned into a publicist for conservative issues. Increasingly isolated, he tried to earn a living by producing a steady flow of new literary works (many anonymous contributions to periodicals and reference books; no complete bibliography exists). The general public hardly took notice of the death of the “hermit of Rixdorf.” II. Work Bauer’s early exegesis, carried out in the spirit of speculative theology, represents one of the most original and sharp-witted products of the right-wing Hegelian efforts to achieve a positive mediation between philosophy and religion. The dominant interest of Bauer’s works in developing the subjective elements of the Hegelian concept of religion laid the groundwork for his later shift to a radical criticism of religion (→ Religious Criticism)(cf. also A. → Ruge). From 1841 onward, Bauer sought to “expose” all heteronomous interpretations of theological, philosophical, social, and political dimensions of consciousness as illusions, for “only the I is, and not the object; it exists only as something known, its being exists only as a known being” (Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel den Atheisten und Antichristen: Ein Ultimatum, 1841, 139; ET: The Trumpet of the Last Judgment against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist. An Ultimatum, 1989). He demanded that the tendency to make objects of the contents of thought, sc. by ascribing existence to them, is rectified by “campaigns of pure criticism” (Saß); only thus might the self-liberation of human consciousness be achieved. Bauer’s NT studies culminated in his theory of the “creative proto-evangelist”: not just the form, but also the content of the Gospels, he maintained, was of “literary origin, and free creation of self-consciousness” (Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker I, 1841, XV). “The question . . . as to whether Jesus was the historical Christ has been answered by our demonstration that everything which the historical Christ is, which is said of him, and which

Bauer, Georg Lorenz we know of him belongs to the world of imagination, namely of Christian imagination; it has nothing to do with a human being who belongs to the real world. The question is answered by abolishing it once and for all” (Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes, III, 1842, 308). In his Christus und die Cäsaren (1877), Bauer interpreted the origins of Christianity against the intellectual background of → Josephus, → Philo, and → Seneca ; the new faith arose not in Palestine but in Rome and Alexandria. In his final political writings, Bauer warned that the imperialism of Western Europe faced cultural decline and predicted the rise of Russia to a world power. He called upon Germany to overcome its “sullenness and predisposition to disgruntlement”; “above all, let it curb its delight in self-glorification and its sense of superiority” (Zur Orientirung über die Bismarck’sche Ära, 1880, 317). III. Influence With the exception of F.C. → Overbeck, contemporary theology quickly dismissed the radical theories of Bauer. Many of his exegetical insights were not taken seriously until much later and in totally different contexts (cf. W. Schmithals, TRE X, 591). His criticism of religion continued to exert its influence on → Marxism for long time. Bauer’s antisemitic pamphlets, in which he attacked the Jewish religion as fiercely as he did Christianity, attracted a great deal of attention (Die Judenfrage, 1843; Die Juden und der deutsche Staat, 1861; Das Judentum in der Fremde, 1863; etc.). These writings cast a shadow over the intellectual brilliance of his life’s work, through which he sought to lead self-consciousness to the “certainty of its own freedom.” Works include: Die evangelische Landeskirche Preußens und die Wissenschaft, 1840 ◆ Hegel’s Lehre von der Religion und Kunst von dem Standpuncte des Glaubens aus beurtheilt, 1842 ◆ Geschichte der Politik, Cultur und Aufklärung des 18. Jahrhunderts, 4 vols., 1843– 45 ◆ Der neu eröffnete Edelmann, 1847 ◆ Die bürgerliche Revolution in Deutschland, 1849 ◆ Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, 3 vols., 1850–51 ◆ Kritik der paulinischen Briefe, 3 vols., 1850–52 ◆ Die theologische Erklärung der Evangelien, 1852 ◆ Rußland und das Germanenthum, 1853 ◆ Philo, Strauß und Renan und das Urchristenthum, 1874 ◆ H.-M. Sass , ed., Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, 1968 ◆ On Bauer: E. Barnikol, Bruno Bauer: Studien und Materialien, 1972 ◆ Z. Rosen, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx, 1977 ◆ G. Lämmermann, Kritische Theologie und Theologiekritik, BEvTh 84, 1979 ◆ J. Mehlhausen, “Die religionsphilosophische Begründung der spekulativen Theologie Bruno Bauers,” in: idem, Vestigia Verbi, 1998, 188–220 (bibl.). Joachim Mehlhausen

Bauer, Georg Lorenz (Aug 14, 1755, Hiltpoltstein – Jan 13, 1806, Heidelberg). From 1789 professor of eloquence, oriental studies, and ethics and from 1793 professor of Biblical Exegesis at Altdorf. From 1805 professor of oriental studies and practical exegesis; and member of the church council in Heidelberg. Within

644 the theology of the Enlightenment, Bauer was the most important exponent of a strictly historical “biblical theology.” He was the first to call this approach programmatically “historical-critical” (Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1794, 31806). His goal was to reconstruct the gradual development of the biblical religion through rigorous historical analysis. Of special importance was his work on biblical myths, for which he developed categories and rules of interpretation. Bauer combined the work of C.G. → Heyne, J.G. → Eichhorn, and J.P. → Gabler (“mythical school”) in an integrative presentation of the Hebrew mythology of the OT and NT, with parallels from the mythology of other nations, primarily the Greek and Romans (Hebräische Mythologie des Alten und Neuen Testamets, mit Parallelen aus der Mythologie anderer Völker, vornehmlich der Griechen und Römer, 1802). For Bauer, exegesis, especially the interpretation of myths, leads to a general theory of hermeneutics (Entwurf einer Hermeneutik des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 1799). The distinction between grammatical interpretation (“understanding the words”) and historical interpretation (“understanding the matter”) is fundamental. In his reflections on the problem of understanding, Bauer is still to be discovered as a theoretician of hermeneutics, going beyond the work of J.J. → Rambach and J.A. → Ernesti, and paving the way for F. → Schleiermacher. Other works: Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1796 ◆ Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1800–1802 ◆ Breviarium theologiae biblicae, 1803 ◆ Biblische Moral des Alten Testaments, 1803–1805 ◆ Biblische Moral des Neuen Testaments, 1804–1805 ◆ On Bauer: C. Hartlieb & W. Sachs, Der Ursprung des Mythosbegriffs in der modernen Bibelwissenschaft, 1952 ◆ O. Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit, 1972. Albrecht Beutel

Bauer, Walter Felix (Aug 8, 1877, Königsberg – Nov 17, 1960, Göttingen), became assistant professor in Marburg (1903), associate professor in Breslau (1913) and in Göttingen (1916), and was professor there from 1919 to 1945. As a New Testament scholar, he combined liberal historical-critical research (→ Exegesis: IV; → Liberal Theology: I) with a history of religions approach (→ History of Religions School: I). His method owed much to reconstruction. He recognized the significance of → heresies in the early church. Individual studies flank his chief lexicographical work. Works include: Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Polyk, 1920, rev., H. Paulsen, HNT 18, 1985 ◆ Griechischdeutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, 61988 (new rev. ed., K. & B. Aland); ET: W.F. Arndt & F.W. Gingrich, rev. & ed. F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 32000 ◆ On Bauer: C.H. Hunzinger, “Bibliographie Walter Bauer,” ThLZ 77, 1952, 501–504; 86, 1961, 315f. ◆ G. Strecker, TRE V, 1980, 317–319 ◆ Photographic portrait: NTS 9, 1962/63. Otto Merk

645 Bäumer, Gertrud (Sep 12, 1873, Hohenlimburg – Mar 25, 1954, Bethel), politician and writer. After being trained as a teacher, she began studying in Berlin (PhD in 1904). She was a leading representative of the middleclass women’s movement and published the journal Die Frau [The Woman] (1893–1944) in cooperation with H. → Lange, as well as the Handbuch der Frauenbewegung [Handbook of the Women’s Movement] (5 vols., 1901ff.). From 1910 to 1919 she presided over the Bund deutscher Frauenvereine [League of German Women’s Associations]. Through the mediation of J.F. → Naumann, she came into contact with the Christiansocial movement and became co-editor of the journal Hilfe [Help]. Together, they founded the DDP (German Democratic Party), for which Bäumer was a delegate in the Reichstag from 1919 to 1932. From 1920 onward, she officiated as the first German woman in the function of ministerial advisor to the interior ministry, but was removed from office by the National Socialists in 1933. In the following period she spent most of her time writing historical and biographical novels. In 1945, Gertrud Bäumer was one of the joint founders of the CSU (Christian Social Union). Works include: Lebensweg durch eine Zeitenwende, 1933 (autobiogr.) ◆ E. Beckmann, ed., Des Lebens wie der Liebe Band: Briefe, 1956 ◆ On Bäumer: W. Huber, Gertrud Bäumer: Eine politische Biographie, 1970 (bibl.) ◆ M.d.R., 31994, 18–20 (no. 52). Jette Balzer

Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb ( Jun 17, 1714, Berlin – May 26, 1762, Frankfurt/Oder), German philosopher. In 1730, he began the study of philosophy and Protestant theology in Halle. He became adjunct professor of philosophy there in 1737, and finally full professor in Frankfurt/Oder in 1740, where he remained until his death. Baumgarten’s handbooks were widely used in German universities. He essentially adopted the positions of C. →Wolff, with occasional nuances of his own. Baumgarten’s most original accomplishment lies in the justification of → aesthetics as a philosophical discipline. Baumgarten coined the term “aesthetics” and defined it as the science of sensory cognition. This meaning is still present in I. → Kant’s discussion of the epistemic role of sensory perception, which he addressed as “transcendental aesthetics.” Works: Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus, 1735 (Lat.-Ger. by H. Paetzold, 1983) ◆ Metaphysica, 1739, 2nd repr. 1982 (Ger. by G.F. Meier, 1766) ◆ Ethica philosophica, 1740, repr. 1969 ◆ Aesthetica, 2 vols., 1750/1758, 3rd repr. 1986 (partial trans. by H.R. Schweizer, 1973) ◆ On Baumgarten: M. Casula, La metafisica di A.G. Baumgarten 1973 (bibl.) ◆ H.R. Schweizer, Ästhetik als Philosophie der sinnlichen Erkenntnis, 1973 ◆ F. Solms, Disciplina aesthetica, 1990. Lothar Kreimendahl

Baumgarten, Michael Baumgarten, Michael (Mar 25, 1812, Haseldorf near Hamburg – Jul 21, 1889, Rostock), OT and NT scholar, known for his struggle against the Lutheran church officialdom as represented by T. → Kliefoth. As a student, this intensely religious farmer’s son was influenced in Kiel by C. → Harms and in Berlin by E.W. → Hengstenberg , from whose rigid orthodoxy he later distanced himself in favor of J.C.K. von → Hofmann’s salvation-historical theo log y. After a habilitation attempt in Halle, which failed on account of the opposition of W. → Gesenius and J.A.L. → Weg scheider, he worked as a private lecturer in Kiel from 1839 to 1846. In the treatise Liturgie und Predigt (1843), he developed the concept of a church that is not frozen in rigid structures, but lives in the freedom of the Spirit, while loving the world and addressing it with prophetic sermons. The historical events during his time as pastor in Schleswig (1846–50) opened his eyes to the necessity of replacing the state church with a popular church in which compulsion would be abolished (“Twelve Theses on the Present and Future of the Church,” 1848) and brought him into politics. He became one of the leading figures of the Schleswig-Holstein uprising, and was compelled to flee after its defeat (1850). Soon thereafter, having attracted attention with the outline of a commentary on the entire OT (“Theologischer Kommentar zum Pentateuch,” 2 vols., 1843/1844), he received a professorship in Rostock. Critical statements against the church in his commentaries, his objections to a “Jewish legalistic” procedure in the hallowing of Sunday (1856), and his interpretation of the Athaliah pericope (2 Kgs 11) as a possible justification of violent revolutions led to a conflict that cost Baumgarten his professorship in 1858, in an illegal procedure (the basis of the verdict was a “consistorial opinion” written by Otto Karsten Krabbe). Neither his own objections to this measure nor the intercession of colleagues, schools, and churches could bring about a revocation of this decision. For a time (1863–1876), he allied himself with the → Protestantenverein. In the Reichstag (1874–1881), he defended the Zivilstandgesetz (Civil Status Law) and opposed A. → Stoecker’s church-political views, esp. his anti-Semitism. As an exegete, he was soon forgotten because of his lack of affinity to the questions and answers of the historical-critical research of his time. Works include: Die Apostelgeschichte oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom, 3 vols., 1852 ◆ Die Nachtgesichte Sacharias: Eine Prophetenstimme an die Gegenwart, 2 vols., 1854/1855 ◆ Mein kirchlicher Kampf in Mecklenburg, 1865 ◆ Stöckers gefälschtes Christentum, 1881 ◆ On Baumgarten: R.H. Studt ed., Prof. Dr. theol. Michael Baumgarten, 2 vols., 1891 ◆ W. Nigg, Kirchliche Reaktion: Dargestellt an Michael Baumgartens Lebensschicksal, 1939 (bibl.) ◆ F. Heyer, Schleswig-Holsteinisches biographisches Lexikon I, 1970, 65–67. Rudolf Smend

Baumgarten, Otto Baumgarten, Otto ( Jan 29, 1858, Munich – Mar 21, 1934, Kiel). Baumgarten was professor of practical theology at Jena (1890–1894) and Kiel (1894–1926). As a practical theologian, he was an important reformer; he understood his discipline to be an empirical science, to be based no longer on history or systematic theology but rather on actual experience, in accordance with the traditions of pastoral theology. He was a co-editor of the RGG and a member of the Vereinigung der Freunde der → Christlichen Welt [Association of Friends of the Christian World] and the → Evangelisch-Sozialer Kongreß [Protestant Social Congress], of which he became president in 1911, succeeding A. von → Harnack. During the First World War, he supported the struggle of the moderates against the expansionist propaganda of Pan-Germanism. In 1918/1919, he resolutely supported the Republic. In the early years of the Weimar Republic, he belonged to the inner leadership circle of the German Democratic Party (→ Parties). In 1919, he was appointed to the Berlin Expert Commission in negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles. In the presidential election of 1925, his support of the Centrist politician W. → Marx caused a sensation. After retirement, he devoted himself with increased energy to the campaign against → antiSemitism and was publicly attacked for this by the National Socialist German Students’ League as early as the fall of 1930. O. Baumgarten, Meine Lebensgeschichte, 1929 ◆ C. Schwöbel, “Gottes Stimme und die Demokratie,” in: R. Ziegert, ed., Die Kirchen und die Weimarer Republik, 1994, 37–68 (bibl.). Hasko von Bassi

Baumgarten, Siegmund Jacob (Mar 14, 1706, Wolmirstedt – Jul 4, 1757, Halle) was an influential transitional theologian between Old and New Protestantism who was praised for his erudition by → Voltaire and G.E. → Lessing. Baumgarten combined Pietism and Wolffianism (C. → Wolff ), was increasingly convinced of the necessity of expanding historical knowledge and consciousness, methodology and hermeneutics, and had several disciples of both neological and conservative inclination, the most important being J.S. → Semler. The son of a Berlin Pastor, he moved to Halle in 1722 – following the death of his father, who had stood in contact with A.H. → Francke – together with his brothers (among these, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten). He studied there and worked in the local orphanage, became an assistant preacher in 1728, and also an assistant to the faculty in 1732. In Halle, Baugmarten was seen as a great hope for the preservation of the unity between practical edification and theology, but his appointment as professor in Berlin as early as 1734, which involved a release from his institutional duties, came as a surprise. His great success as a teacher, the scientific approach in

646 his teachings as well as the fact they were clearly indebted to those of C. → Wolff, who was still banished at the time, led to a futile attempt to expel him in 1736 ( Joachim → Lange). Thereafter, Baumgarten was able to pursue his work unchallenged by anyone and became increasingly famous through his publications in all areas of theology (the more detailed German textbooks on the basis of his lectures were only published posthumously), through his numerous and extensive translations and revisions of foreign, esp. English works on world and church history, through his antideistic apologetics (information effect!; → Deism), and not least through his literary journal (Nachrichten von einer Hallischen Bibliothek 1748–1751, Nachrichten von merkwürdigen Büchern 1752–1758). Important essays are found in many prefaces and in the Theologische Bedenken (collection 1–7, 1743–1750). His essentially Lutheranorthodox “doctrine of faith,” in which the reasons for duty and consolation are carefully considered, is based on the general theme of the “union of man and God” in the Arndt-Spener tradition ( J. → Arndt, P.J. → Spener), which is of central importance for the concept of theology, in that it is primarily understood as a cognitive event; the “unio mystica” is also strongly intellectualized. Baumgarten misses no opportunity to demonstrate that the theological postulates are susceptible of “proof ” from nature and reason as well, in the sense of the Leibniz-Wolffian harmony of reason and revelation (G.W. → Leibniz), especially in the doctrines of God and creation, the understanding of miracles, anthropology and ethics. Occasionally, this results in an overextending of the pure method of demonstration, as for example in Christology and in the decisive rational proof of the divinity of the written word. Baumgarten unconditionally holds on to verbal inspiration, although he simultaneously defuses the issue: not God, but human beings are the “actual” authors. He promotes the advancement of hermeneutics through his resolute consideration of the text itself as a historical “fact.” This was continued by Semler in his criticism of the canon. Baumgarten’s interest in history had more far-reaching consequences than his Wolffianism. Works include: Unterricht vom rechtmäßigen Verhalten eines Christen oder theologische Moral, 1738 ◆ Unterricht von Auslegung der heiligen Schrift, 1742 ◆ Evangelische Glaubenslehre, 3 vols., 1759–60 ◆ Untersuchung Theologischer Streitigkeiten, 3 vols., 1762–1764 ◆ Geschichte der Religionsparteien, 1766, repr. 1966 ◆ On Baumgarten: J.S. Semler, Ehrengedächtnis Baumgartens, 1758 ◆ E. Hirsch, Geschichte der neuern Evangelischen Theologie 2, 1951, 370–388 ◆ M. Schloemann, S.J. Baumgarten, FKDG 26, 1974 (bibl.) ◆ idem, Wegbereiter wider Willen, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 41, 1988, 149–155 ◆ U. Arnoldi, Pro Judaeis, SKI 14, 1993 ◆ L. Danneberg “S.J. Baumgartens biblische Hermeneutik,” in: A. Bühler ed., Unzeitgemäße Hermeneutik, 1994, 88–157 ◆ S. Ehrhardt-Rein, Zwischen Glaubenslehre und Vernunftwahrheit, 1996. Martin Schloemann

647 Baumgarten-Crusius, Ludwig Friedrich Otto ( Jul 31, 1788, Merseburg – May 31, 1843, Jena). Baumgarten-Crusius studied classical philology and theology in Leipzig. After completing his habilitation in 1809 in the philosophical faculty there, he became associate professor of theology in 1812 and full professor of theology in 1817 in Jena. Baumgarten’s erudition is demonstrated by his numerous articles on ancient philology and church history as well as in his New Testament commentaries, which appeared towards the end of his life and posthumously. Early in life, he proved receptive to the ideas of F. → Schleiermacher ; accordingly, K.A.v. → Hase characterizes him as a “historian of the religious spirit.” In his Grundzüge der biblischen Theologie, (1828), he aimed to “formulate a system of purely biblical terms”, “such as should be used as a basis and standard for the doctrine of faith and as a startingpoint for the history of dogma” (VII). Furthermore he attempted “to follow as much as possible the accepted ideas and models of our church and science as well as of our time” (Grundriß der evangelisch-kirchlichen Dogmatik [“Overview of Protestant Dogmatism”], 1830, IV). Works include: Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1832 ◆ Kompendium der Dogmengeschichte, 1840/1846 ◆ Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften, 1843/1845 ◆ Complete bibl. in: Neuer Nekrolog der Deutschen, 1845, 415ff. ◆ NDB I, 1953, 662 ◆ K. Heussi, Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät zu Jena, 1954, 227–231. Christoph Markschies

Bäumker, Wilhelm Friedrich (Oct 25, 1842, Elberfeld – Mar 3, 1905, Rurich) was a Catholic priest and hymnologist. After studying theology in Münster and Bonn, he entered the Cologne seminary in 1866 and was ordained as a priest in 1867. He was school chaplain in Bergerhof, became curate in Alfter in 1868 and pastor in 1869 in Niederkrüchten, where he began his studies in church music and hymnology. In 1880, he was also a school inspector. In 1889, he received an honorary Dr. theol. in Breslau. From 1892 until his death he officiated as priest in Rurich, where he also had the opportunity to undertake research. Bäumker became a leading Catholic hymnologist of the 19th century whose editions of melodies for Catholic hymns, despite their problems, are still in use today owing to a lack of adequate modern compilations. His main work Das katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen [“Settings of Catholic German Hymns”], 4 vols., 1883–1911, repr. 1962 (begun by Severin Meister, completed by Joseph Gotzen) was the source of the hymn versions found in numerous Catholic hymn books Franz Karl Prassl of the 20th century. Baumstark, Carl Anton (Aug 4, 1872, Konstanz – May 31, 1948, Bonn). Orientalist and founder of the comparative studies of liturgy in 1899–1904, he stayed

Baur, Ferdinand Christian in Rome at the Campo Santo Teutonico, was the editor of the newly-founded journal Oriens Christianus, and in 1905 returned to Germany and was teacher at a private school. Through numerous publications, particularly on Syrian literature and liturgy, he earned a high international reputation. In 1921, he became honorary professor at the University of Bonn; in addition, he taught semitic languages and liturgy in Nijmegen, from 1926 in Utrecht, and from 1930 in Münster. In 1925, he received an honorary doctorate from the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Bonn. With his, even today, unsurpassed knowledge of sources regarding the Christian Orient and his demonstration of the laws operative in the historical development of the liturgy, he established standards of scholarly work that remain valid. Works include: Festbrevier und Kirchenjahr der syrischen Jakobiten, 1910 ◆ Nichtevangelische syrische Perikopenordnungen des 1. Jt., 1921 ◆ Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, 1922 ◆ Liturgie comparée, 1939 ◆ Nocturna Laus. Typen frühchristlicher Vigilienfeier, published posthumously, 1957. Gabriele Winkler

Baur, Ferdinand Christian ( Jun 21, 1792, Schmiden, near Stuttgart – Dec 1, 1860, Tübingen). I. Life – II. Work – III. Influence

I. Life The eldest son of a Württemberg pastor, Baur studied theology at Tübingen (1809–1814) and served briefly as a curate and Repetent (tutor). In 1817, he became professor at the Minor Seminary in Blaubeuren, where he taught ancient languages, laying the groundwork for his general erudition. Here, in 1821, he married Emilie Becher (1802–1836), the daughter of a Stuttgart physician. When the Protestant theological faculty of the university of → Tübingen was reorganized in 1826, Baur was appointed to the chair of church history and historical theology, which he held until his death. In this capacity, he also lectured on symbolics, ecclesiastical law, and the history and philosophy of religions, but above all on the NT. In addition, he held a preaching position at the collegiate church (Stiftskirche) in Tübingen, and in 1837 was appointed to the office of superintendent of that college. In 1841, he became Rector of the university. II. Work Baur’s intellectual development was influenced less by his Tübingen teachers, representatives of the Old Tübingen School (G.C. → Storr and his students), than by J.G. → Fichte, F.W.J. → Schelling , and F.D.E. → Schleiermacher. Under the influence of Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre, he published his first work while still in Blaubeuren, the result of extended study of Classical literature: Symbolik

Baur, Ferdinand Christian und Mythologie oder die Naturreligion des Altertums (1824/25). In the preface – where Baur frequently placed programmatic utterances in later years as well – he already emphasizes the need to employ systematic methods in reconstructing historical facts. His oft-quoted (and oftmisunderstood) statement that “for me history without philosophy is always dead and dumb” (XI) expresses the insight that particular phenomena and historical forms of intellectual life cannot be understood apart from the “idea” that gives them their inner coherence. Baur always held fast to this notion, which he extended in his later works. At Tübingen, he devoted many years to research in the field of the history of religion, dealing with the OT and Judaism, → Manichaeism, and the relationship of → Antiquity and Christianity. The connection between the history of religions and the history of Christian theology was presented in his great work Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche Religions-Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung [Christian Gnosis, or the Historical Development of the Christian Philosophy of Religion] (1835). This work already clearly exhibits Baur’s interest in G.W.F. → Hegel, who had been studied intensively at Tübingen since the early 1830s and had been discussed by D.F. → Strauß, who was then Repetent, in the college in his lectures (1832/33). Baur’s studies in historical theology appeared primarily in his monographs Die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung [The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation] (1838) and Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes [The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of God] (1841/43). These lengthy thematic studies were followed by a short Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte [Handbook of the History of Dogma] in 1847. Disputes with J.A → Möhler, his Catholic colleague at Tübingen, which went on from 1833 to 1836, led Baur to present the doctrinal constructs of Catholicism and Protestantism, which had been the subject of comparative lectures since 1828: “Der Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus, nach den Principien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Hrn. D. Möhler’s Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten, nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnißschriften” [The Differences between Catholicism and Protestantism According to the Principles and Main Dogmas of both Teachings, with Special Consideration of Mr. D. Möhler’s ‘Symbolism’ or Exposition of the Dogmatic Contrasts of Catholicsand Protestants in their Public Confessional Writings] (TZTh 1833; published as a monograph in 1834,21836). By contrast, only gradually did Baur publish the results of his NT studies, which he undertook with the goal of critically reconstructing the early history of Christianity. As his starting point he took the kind of source criticism that he had already applied to Roman

648 historiography at Blaubeuren, following the model of B.G. → Niebuhr. First, he identified the development of competing movements – a Jewish-Christian movement appealing to Peter, and a Gentile Christian movement appealing to Paul – as a driving force in the history of primitive Christianity (“Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom” [The Christ Party in Corinthian Community, the Differences between Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the Oldest Church, the Apostle Peter in Rome] (TZTh 1831). Several studies of the letters ascribed to Paul, in which among other things Baur denied the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Letters (1836), laid the groundwork for his Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi: [. . .] Ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte des Urchristentums [Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity] (1845, 21866/67). In applying historical-critical analysis to the Gospels, an approach that was most offensive to the sensibilities of the Church, Baur had been preceded in 1835 by D.F. Strauss. The violent arguments over Strauss’s Leben Jesu [Life of Jesus] convinced his teacher, who distanced himself to a degree from his student’s project (“Abgenöthigte Erklärung gegen einen Artikel der Evangelischen Kirchenzeitung” [Enforced Statement against an Article in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung], TZTh 1836), to exercise particular care and caution in this area. In his own works, which culminated in Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniß zueinander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung [Critical Researches into the Canonical Gospels, their Relation to One Another, their Nature and Origin] (1847), he gave particular offense by concluding – like Strauss – that the Beloved Disciple had not written the Fourth Gospel. By contrast, his firm belief in the priority of Matthew’s Gospel left him lagging behind current scholarship on the Synoptic Problem. In his final years, Baur undertook a general survey of Church history, of which only two parts appeared before his death: Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte [Christianity and the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries] (1853, 21860) and Die christliche Kirche vom Anfang des vierten bis zum Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts [The Christian Church from the Beginning of the Fourth until the End of the Sixth Century] (1859). The final three volumes appeared posthumously (1861, 1863, 1862); the fourth and fifth (which extended down to the present) were based on his lectures. Baur prepared the way for this great work summarizing his studies by a critical examination of earlier conceptions, in which he defined the task of history as “the ever deeper explora-

649 tion of the historical context of all phenomena belonging to its subject matter” (Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung [The Epochs of Ecclesiastical Historiography], 1852, 263). In his magisterial studies of historical theology, he had already set himself the goal of understanding “the historical data – not just outwardly, in this or that chance context which happens to interest the researcher – but according in their essential inward relationship” (Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit [The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity], part I, XIX). In order to reconstruct this historical relationship, he assumed that all human life is subject to certain conditions, not excepting Christianity itself – even in its beginnings. Consequently he would not recognize a “miracle” in the history of Christianity, for in the face of a “miracle, all explanation and comprehension ceases” (Die Tübinger Schule und ihre Stellung zur Gegenwart [The Tübingen School and its Position Regarding the Present], 21860, 45). The approach that Baur demanded and employed is not content with simply identifying what has been transmitted; it always includes criticism as well: a kind of discriminatory art that leads from textual criticism through literary criticism to content criticism and halts for no authority, not even Holy Scripture and church doctrine. This criticism is not imposed on history by the historian but emerges from the history itself, so that “the deeper one digs, the more the history of Christian dogma turns out to be one’s own inward criticism of this history, which moves forward continually with irresistible force” (Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, part I, XXIV). III. Influence Baur’s consistently historical approach, which never shrank from any critical insight, marked an epoch in historical theology. As leader of the New Tübingen School, he was the target of frequent and intense hostility, which was unable to shake his position. But access to teaching positions at theological faculties remained barred to his most important disciples: D.F. Strauss, F.T. → Vischer, C. → Märklin, A. → Schwegler, E. → Zeller, K.R. Köstlin, K.C. Planck – all of them Württembergers, many of whom had been his students in Blaubeuren. A few non-Württembergers who did succeed in gaining professorships later denied that they had studied under him (A. → Hilgenfeld ) or turned their backs on him (A. → Ritschl ). Many younger church historians, however, who never had the chance to know Baur personally – such as F. → Overbeck and K. → Holl – considered themselves his students. The advance of scholarship has superseded many details of Baur’s work – e.g. his acceptance of only Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians as genuinely Pauline, his belief in the priority of Matthew, and the sharp antithesis between

Bavaria Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the primitive Church; but the historical-critical method has gained general acceptance in NT studies and church history. By pointing out internal relationships, Baur overcame the approach of earlier historiography, which merely listed the material in order of appearance and presented individual and pragmatic interpretations. Subsequent church historiography has given up his claim that the study of history makes it possible to “recapture the eternal thoughts of the eternal spirit” (Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, part I, XIX) and his Hegelian schematization of historical development. But his demand that sources be subjected to thorough historical-critical analysis and that Christian historiography look for internal relationships still influences the present. Works: Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben, ed. K. Scholder, 5 vols., 1963–1975 ◆ Briefe I, ed. C.E. Hester, 1993 ◆ On Baur: P.C. Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology: A Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur, 1966 ◆ H. Harris, The Tübingen School, 1975 ◆ U. Köpf, “Ferdinand Christian Baur als Begründer einer konsequent historischen Theologie,” ZThK 89, 1992, 440–461 ◆ Historisch-kritische Geschichtsbetrachtung: Ferdinand Christian Baur und seine Schüler, ed. U. Köpf, 1994. Ulrich Köpf

Bautain, Louis-Eugène-Marie (Feb 17, 1796, Paris – Oct 15, 1867, Viroflay, Seine et Oise). A student of Victor Cousins, Bautain was a rationalist professor of philosophy in Strasbourg (1817). He found the way back to faith, which thereafter he took (fideistically) as the basis also of thought. Via his student Alphonse Gratry, he had an impact on Léon Ollé-Laprune and M. → Blondel. The bishop of Strasbourg deprived him, on account of his fideism and traditionalism, of the leadership of the episcopal seminar. In 1835 and 1840, Bautain subscribed to theses presented by the bishop (DH 2751–2756), and in 1844 to principles formulated in Rome (DH 2765–2769). As vicar general and professor of Morality at the Sorbonne, he could further promote his “Christian philosophy” and his interpretation of the relationship between the church and modern society. Works: La Philosophie du Christianisme, 1835, repr. 1968 ◆ On Bautain: P. Poupard, Un essai de philosophie chrétienne au XIXe siècle, 1961 ◆ K.H. Neufeld, “Die christliche Philosophie von L. Bautain,” in: E. Coreth, ed., Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20.Jh., vol. I, 1987, 486–498. Karl H. Neufeld

Bavaria I. In 1998, the Free State of Bavaria covered 70,551 km2 (27,240 sq. miles) and had 12,043,000 inhabitants, making it the largest state by area in the Federal Republic of Germany and the second most populous after North Rhine-Westphalia. The constitution of

Bavaria 1946 defines Bavaria as a Free State with its own indigenous legal, cultural, and social institutions. The parliament, prime minister, and the Bavarian constitutional court are the highest public authorities in the state, which (in 1997) is subdivided into seven governmental districts (Upper and Lower Bavaria, Upper Palatinate, Swabia, Upper, Middle, and Lower Franconia) and into 71 districts, 25 district-free towns, and 2056 communities. The state capital is Munich. For the 7,329,000 Catholics (as of 1987) in Bavaria, church life is divided into the archdioceses of Munich-Freising and Bamberg, the bishoprics of Augsburg, Passau, Regensburg, Eichstätt, and Würzburg, and into 4122 parishes. 2,627,000 people (as of 1987) belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Bavaria, which is divided into the church districts of Ansbach-Würzburg, Augsburg, Bayreuth, Munich, Nürnberg, and Regensburg, and into 1358 parishes. The Evangelical-Reformed Church is represented by fourteen church communities and approx. 15,000 members in Bavaria as a member church of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), and since 1989 in the Evangelical-Reformed Church in Germany, and the Synods of the Evangelical Reformed Churches in Bavaria and Northwest Germany. Protestants predominate in the governmental districts of Upper and Middle Franconia, elsewhere Catholics. Approx. 375,000 belong to other religious communities, including 215,228 Muslims. II. The history of the Free State of Bavaria essentially goes back to the early medieval duchy of Bavaria, known from the 6th century. The Swabian and Franconian parts of the state, annexed in 1803/06, underwent for the most part a different, more varied state development under ecclesiastical, aristocratic, and municipal authorities that were generally closely allied with the German empire. During the Middle Ages and into the 13th century, the Terra Bavariae was usually understood as comprising the territory of Bolzano and its surrounding area in the south, the Lech and Regnitz basins in the west, the Fichtel Mountains and Upper Palatinate and Bohemian forest in the northeast, and beyond Vienna to the edge of the Puszta as far as Carniola and Istria in the southeast. The heart of Bavaria was the area between the Danube and the Alps. Up till 788 under the dukes of Agilofing, the tribe of the “Bajuvarians” (Bavarians) (see below) developed this area – in political cooperation with and sometimes opposition to the kingdom of the Franks – into a cultural and political state unity. As early as the period of Roman rule north of the Alps, the religions of the earlier Celtic population were displaced by religious traditions deriving from the Roman cultural sphere. Although the Romans also introduced Christianity into Bavaria, only in a few locations (e.g. Augsburg) did it survive the age of the Germanic invasions (Völkerwanderung). The expansion of the Franks into

650 southern Germany provided new stimulus for Christianization, which from the 7th century was conducted largely by itinerant Irish-Scottish monks; in the 8th century, the Anglo-Saxon → Boniface, summoned by the pope, reorganized the diocesan structure and oriented it toward Rome. Individual administrative districts included → Salzburg, → Passau, → Regensburg, → Freising, for a time also Neuburg, then → Eichstätt and Säben, and finally for the Main-Frankish sphere → Würzburg, → Erfurt, and Büraburg, and for the Bavarian-Swabian sphere → Konstanz and → Augsburg. The wave of monastery-foundings during the early Middle Ages, supported by the dukes, aristocracy, and bishops, played an important role in the Christianization of the region. During the eastward Bavarian expansion, it was from the monasteries and dioceses of Freising, Regensburg, Passau, and Salzburg that missions were undertaken to Christianize Bohemia, Moravia, and the Danube basin as far as Hungary. Frankish Würzburg played a considerable role in the Christianization of the → Saxons, whom Charlemagne had defeated. The mission to the Slavs was also served by the diocese of Bamberg, which the emperor Henry II had created in 1007 largely from the Würzburg diocesan administrative district. Even though Bavaria became a kingdom, a partial regnum, and a province of the Frankish empire after the removal of the Agilofing line in 788, the area’s unity was preserved and continued to be respected by the elevation of Salzburg in 798 to the status of archdiocese and center of the Bavarian ecclesiastical district, while the dioceses of Augsburg, Würzburg, and Eichstätt were assigned to the ecclesiastical province of Mainz. During the first half of the 10th century, the line of the Luitpolding was the first aristocratic line to succeed once more in establishing itself as hereditary dukes of Bavaria. During these decades and during the wars against the Hungarians, the borders of the duchy increasingly expanded eastward, and an Eastern March was established. After 955 and under the → Ottonians and → Salians, Bavaria became an imperial land and as it were the secundogeniture of the royal house. It was not until 1061, especially with the → Guelphs from 1070, that the duchy of Bavaria could begin anew. The concentration of power among the Guelphs prompted the emperor to separate the Eastern March from Bavaria in 1156 and to constitute it as an independent duchy. In 1180, Styria was also separated off, and later → Tirol also became independent. As a result of these developments, Bavaria lost what was originally Bavarian territory along with its expansion possibilities to the south and east. III. The Wittelsbach line, which had been enfeoffed with the duchy of Bavaria since 1180, was able to develop a largely self-enclosed territory. Only a few noble families along with (especially) the bishops, and Regensburg, the former capital of the duchy, with its imperial monaster-

651 ies, were able to escape the territorial rule of the Wittelsbach line. From the 13th century, bishops increasingly acquired secular powers over part of their possessions and were able to develop their own territories and bishoprics, all of which would ultimately last until → secularization in 1803. In Franconia (→ Franks), where, as in → Swabia, ducal power was unable to assert itself, the bishoprics of Würzburg, Bamberg, and Eichstätt developed in competition especially with the city of → Nürnberg (Nuremberg) and with the Zollern burgraves, the later margraves of Ansbach, Kulmbach, and Bayreuth, and also with the lesser nobility and the → Teutonic Order. In Swabia, the splintered bishopric of Augsburg could develop only in a limited fashion in competition with the imperial city of Augsburg and with the lesser imperial cities, the eastern possessions of the house of → Habsburg, and with the line of the Wittelsbach. In Swabia, certain monasteries also managed to establish territorial rule in a slow process extending on into the 18th century, whereas in the duchy of Bavaria itself under Emperor → Louis IV the Bavarian, the remaining imperial monasteries were mediatized. During the High Middle Ages and in connection with church and monastic reforms, Bavaria once again experienced a wave of monastery-foundings, frequently by the new canon orders. Mendicant orders began settling in the cities during the later Middle Ages. Between 1255 and 1505, the duchy of Bavaria was repeatedly subdivided by the ruling house of Wittelsbach, which in 1214 had acquired the status of Count Palatinate on the Rhine. These subdivisions weakened the political power of Bavaria, costing it, among other things, its royal electoral privilege. Nonetheless, within these smaller political entities a more intensive administration became possible in the partial duchies of Upper and Lower Bavaria and then also in Upper Bavaria-Munich, Upper Bavaria Ingolstadt, Lower Bavaria-Landshut, and Lower Bavaria-Straubing-Holland. From the 13th century, a comprehensive administrative organization also serving the regional ecclesiastical government developed in the form of state and district courts (Pfleggerichte) located in the newly established cities. Alongside these, the Landstände (assemblies of estates) developed from the 13th century on as a constitutional institution whose members included not only the nobility and the cities, but also the clergy, and among the latter especially representatives of the prelate monasteries. IV. After the unification of the larger parts of the duchy of Bavaria in 1505, the dukes, especially Albrecht V (1550–79), expanded the residence city of Munich, its court, and its increasingly modernized central administration to form the center of the state. In opposition to the Reformation and through the concordat made with the bishops of the duchy in 1583 – a concordat which

Bavaria regulated the relationship between church and state to the end of the Old Empire – the duke acquired increasing influence over the church. The regional Spiritual Council, established in 1556, oversaw church life. With its decision against the Reformation – which was able to establish itself only in a few locations, for instance in Regensburg and in a few aristocratic territories such as Ortenburg – and in favor of a reform of the Catholic church, Bavaria was for a time the most important Catholic power in the empire, and as such remained closely connected to the Romanic cultural sphere. Inside the church itself, reform was driven primarily by the duke and by the Jesuits, who dominated higher education until their dissolution in 1773. The principle of exclusive Catholicism influenced Bavarian religious and ecclesiastical policies up to the end of the Old Empire, culminating in the Baroque age, when it decisively shaped both society and culture. In Franconia and Swabia, it was especially the princes and the imperial cities who accepted the Reformation from the 1520s. The imperial city of Nürnberg and the margraves of Ansbach and Bayreuth in Franconia and Augsburg in Swabia along with the principality of Palatinate-Neuburg (established 1505) acquired considerable importance in spreading the Reformation in upper (southern) Germany. The regionally structured organization of the Lutheran Church, frequently modeled on the Brandenburg-Nürnberg church order of 1533, was able to establish itself on a permanent footing after 1555 following imperial legal recognition. Formidable powers associated with the CounterReformation within the kingdom included the Würzburg prince-bishop J. → Echter von Mespelbrunn and Maximilian I of Bavaria. During the Thirty Years War, he acquired the Palatinate electorship for Bavaria in 1623, then also the Upper Palatinate, which after 1505 had been given to the later reformed Palatinate line of the Wittelsbachs and was now Catholicized anew. He also initiated the conversion of the Neuburg Count Palatine Wolfgang Wilhelm to Catholicism in 1613 and successfully continued the Wittelsbachian imperial ecclesiastical policies, which from 1583 to 1761 were of great significance along the lower Rhine, especially with respect to the archdiocese of Cologne. A daring foreign policy motivated by dynastic politics and repeatedly undertaken in alliance with France once again led the electorate of Bavaria onto the stage of high European politics during the first half of the 18th century, but the ambitions of Max II Emanuel toward the Spanish succession and the emperorship of Charles VII Albrecht (1743–45) overtaxed the resources of the electorate of Bavaria, which at the time had just one million inhabitants. All the territories of the Wittelsbach line were united in 1778 and 1799, when the Palatinate line in Munich acquired the right of succession.

Bavaria V. In 1806 and in dependence on Napoleon, the Kingdom of Bavaria was created from older Bavarian, Frankish, Swabian, and Palatine territories; a small group of enlightened upper-level officials under the guidance of state minister M.J. → Montgelas along with the constitutions of 1808 and 1818 established a new legal and administrative basis for the state. The secularization of bishoprics and monasteries in 1803 in the Catholic territories naturally constituted a radical change not only for the ecclesiastical, but also for the economic and social life of a broad spectrum of the population. Among the 3,160,000 inhabitants of Bavaria in 1815, 752,000 were Protestants. The progressive religious edicts of 1803, 1809, and 1818 resulted in parity between Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed. Reformed and Lutherans united in 1817 in the Palatinate. State religious policies created the foundation for the development of the Protestant regional church in Bavaria, which came about in 1808 with the establishment of the General and High Consistory in the Ministry of the Interior, the consistories in Ansbach, Bayreuth, and Speyer, and the superintendency (Dekanat) in Munich and several aristocratic consistories (until 1851). The king exercised the summepiscopate until 1918. The concordat of 1817 secured extensive rights for the Kingdom of Bavaria over against the Catholic Church, particularly with regard to the nomination of ecclesiastical dignitaries. The Bavarian dioceses were assigned to two ecclesiastical provinces. Augsburg, Passau, and Regensburg now became suffragan dioceses of the archdiocese Munich-Freising, while Würzburg, Eichstätt, and Speyer became suffragan dioceses of the archdiocese Bamberg. Although Jews were granted religious freedom in 1813, they acquired full civil and legal equality only in stages in 1861 and 1871 (→ Emancipation III). The preference given to Catholics by King Louis I resulted in tensions which were to be addressed by the establishment of a ministry of culture in 1847 with jurisdiction over church questions. In 1853 the Evangelical-Reformed Church was recognized as the third state church in Bavaria. The relatively progressive constitution of 1818 constituted the basic legal framework for political developments during the 19th century and up to 1918, which were influenced by the formation of political parties after 1848 and by industrialization, which began in the late 1840s and then quickly expanded at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. In the dispute between Prussia and Austria for predominance in Germany, after the defeat of Austria by Prussia in 1866 Bavaria joined the lesser German empire of 1871. Domestic and national politics in Bavaria were basically shaped by the tension between liberal ministries answerable to the king, on the one hand, and a conservative, emphatically nationally oriented Catholic majority in parliament, on the other,

652 resulting in severe disputes during the → Kulturkampf between 1870 and 1890. Political Catholicism became the strongest political power first as the Patriot Party, and then as the Center, though it was only after 1906 that it gained ministerial control. VI. For Bavaria, which found itself in an evolutionary process of change ultimately leading to a democratization of the political system, the end of the monarchy in the revolution of 1918, the ensuing Conciliar Republic and civil war along with the centralization of the Weimar constitution constituted a profound upheaval in the traditions and political culture of the country. In reaction, and despite the new democratic Bamberg constitution of 1919, radical right-wing elements and the nascent NSDAP found a fertile breeding-ground in Munich. After the Hitler putsch of 1923 was put down, various elements under the leadership of the Bavarian People’s Party, which had been established in 1918 by former Bavarian centrist politicians, managed to stabilize the Weimar democracy in Bavaria. The new regulations governing the relationship between church and state also contributed to this stabilization. The constitution of 1919 brought an end to the state guardianship of churches as well as to the summepiscopate of the king. The Evangelical Lutheran Church then called a general synod and drew up its own constitution with a church president (from 1933: regional bishop [Landesbischof]), a regional church council, a regional synod, and ecclesiastical districts in Ansbach, Bayreuth, and Munich (from 1935 also Nürnberg). The concordat with the Holy See and the church agreements with the Evangelical Lutheran Regional Church of 1924 comprehensively regulated the relationship between the Free State of Bavaria and the churches. Bavaria was the last Reich state to be brought into line with National Socialist policies (1933). The Evangelical Lutheran Church, split into → Deutsche Christen (German Christians) who supported the National Socialist state and the → Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) which opposed it, suffered repressions in maintaining its own, independent Bavarian regional church. Because the Catholic Church in Bavaria was involved in what were often quite hostile disputes with the National Socialist regime, it was also subject to more extensive persecution. After the capitulation in 1945, the American occupational forces made it possible for a quick national renewal to be implemented in Bavaria, a renewal manifesting itself in the constitution of the Free State of Bavaria of 1946. The relationship between the churches and the new Free State was regulated by a re-uptake of the concordat and the church treaties of 1924. Changes affected especially those parts involving education and university matters and included the integration of theological study and teacher training

653 into the state universities as well as the dissolution of the denominational schools in Bavaria in 1968. The occupation forces separated the Palatinate from Bavaria, a separation confirmed by a people’s referendum in the Palatinate in 1956. Although the Bavarian parliament rejected the constitution of 1949 because of alleged shortcomings with regard to regional (state) rights, it was at the same time integrated into the new Federal Republic of Germany which granted, urged above all by Bavaria, considerable federal rights to the states, including independence in cultural and educational matters and the right of codetermination in federal politics by way of the national parliament. With state responsibility for regional structural policies, Bavaria has been able since the 1950s to enduringly alter the economic and social foundations of the state in the context of wideranging general change. The Bavaria that was for a long time an agrarian and then (from the early 20th cent.) an agrarian-industrialized state ultimately developed into a state shaped by industry, the service sector, science, and technology, a state exhibiting Bavarian, national and international cultural characteristics. Sources: Dokumente zur Geschichte von Staat und Gesellschaft in Bayern, ed. Kommission für bayerische Landesgeschichte, 1974ff. ◆ Bibliography: M. Spindler & A. Kraus, eds., Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte, 4 vols., 1967–74, new ed. 1981 ◆ C.-J. Roepke, Die Protestanten in Bayern, 1972 ◆ K.E. Haas, Die Evangelisch-Reformierte Kirche in Bayern, 21982 ◆ W. Brandmüller, ed., Handbuch der bayerischen Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., 1991–98. Ferdinand Kramer

Bavarians, Germanic tribe. The Bavarians or Bajuvarians make their first archeologically recorded appearance in the area between Danube, Alps, Lech and Enns around the turn of the 5th to the 6th century, where their presence manifests itself through row graves and the burial objects contained therein. The earliest written sources mentioning them by name date from the middle of the 6th century and include Jordanes’ history of the Goths (Baibaros, c. 551), the poems of Venantius → Fortunatus (Baiovarius, c. 565), as well as the writings of → Paul the Deacon (Baioariorum populus, c. 589). They came from the Bohemian Basin – the name Baiu(o)varii is interpreted as “Men from Bohemia” – and formed the tradition-building nucleus of the Bajuvarian tribe, which subsequently received an afflux of people from other population groups. Situated in the midst of the spheres of influence of → Franks, → Goths, → Alemanni, → Lombards, Avars, and Slavs, and placed under the leadership of the Agilolfing Dukes and of five families of high nobility, the 6th century saw the Bajuvarians begin to constitute a cultural and political national entity in their settlement territories, the Duchy of Bavaria, with its main settlement at → Regensburg. The duchy was characterized by a legal and social order

Baxter, Richard which was deeply marked by the lasting Christianization of the Bajuvarians (from the 7th cent.) and received its codification in the Lex Baiuvariorum (see above). Sources: H. Zeiss, “Quellensammlung für die Geschichte des bairischen Stammesherzogtums bis 750,” Der bayerische Vorgeschichtsfreund VII/VIII, 1927/1928/1929, 38–66; 43–58 ◆ K.-L. Ay, Altbayern vom Frühmittelalter bis 1800, Dokumente zur Geschichte von Staat und Gesellschaft I, 1, 1974 ◆ Bibl.: A. Kraus, “Die Herkunft der Bajuwaren,” Augsburger Beiträge zur Landesgeschichte Bayerisch-Schwabens 1, 1979, 27–46 ◆ K. Reindel, “Die Bajuwaren,” DA 37, 1981, 451–473 ◆ H. Wolfram & A. Schwarcz, eds., Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn, 2 vols., 1985 ◆ H. Dannheimer & H. Dopsch, eds., Die Bajuwaren. Von Severin bis Tassilo 488–788, 1988 ◆ Die Bajuwaren, Hefte zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur 6, 1988 ◆ H. Wolfram, Salzburg, Bayern, Österreich, 1995. Ferdinand Kramer

Bavinck, Herman (Dec 13, 1854, Hoogeveen – Jul 29, 1921, Amsterdam) studied – despite his membership of the Old Reformed Church, which had split from the Dutch Reformed Church – at the Theological Faculty in Leiden, which was marked by theological modernism. He was a pastor in Franeker (1882), professor of dogmatics in Kampen (1883–1902), and after 1902 in Amsterdam. In his last years, he worked more in the areas of pedagogy, philosophy, and politics. In his four-volume chief work Gereformeerde Dogmatiek [Reformed Dogmatics] he sought – on the grounds of traditional scholastic, reformed theology – an open dialogue with modern theology and science in general, to fashion a connection between nature and grace, reason and revelation, in part with the intention of protecting his own Church from sliding into sectarianism. Works: A.A. van Ruler, RGG3 I, 1957, 939 ◆ On Bavinck: R.H. Bremer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus, 1961 ◆ idem, Herman Bavinck en zijn tijdgenoten, 1966 ◆ E.P. Meijering, Klassieke gestalten van christelijk geloven en denken, 1995, 258–274. Eginhard Peter Meijering

Baxter, Richard ( Jan 12, 1615, Rowton – Dec 8, 1691, London), a Puritan clergyman, who dedicated his life to reconciliation between the conflicting parties in religion and politics of Britain’s revolution. Under the Puritan influence of his home he turned to God. After a brief stay at the court at Whitehall he become a minister of the Church of England. Ordained in 1638, he was called to Kidderminster in 1640. When the Civil War broke out (1642), Baxter was a member of the Presbyterian party in the Church. In 1645, he became military chaplain to Colonel Whalley’s regiment in Cromwell’s army. Seriously ill, he left the army in 1647 and returned to Kidderminster, where he began to write down his most popular work The Saints’ Everlasting Rest (1650). He welcomed the restoration of the monarchy and was appointed as one of the chaplains of Charles

Bayle, Pierre II. In 1662, he married Margaret Charlton. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 that drove 2000 non-conformist ministers from their pulpits was a turning point in Baxter’s career and marked the start of an unstable time for the Church of England. Compelled to leave Kidderminster, Baxter passed laborious days writing more of his 135 published works (listed in Nuttall) and was engaged in extensive correspondence (calendar in Nuttall). After being arrested for preaching and after having sold his library he continued, in feeble health, as “a pen in God’s hand.” The Glorious Revolution and abdication of James II that brought the rule of king William and the Act of Toleration in 1689 gave Baxter, the champion of reconciliation between the parties and sects, a brief time of peace before his death. During his life Baxter was charged with being a Papist, then an → Arminian, then a → Socinian, until in 1681 he wrote: “I am a Christian, a mere Christian . . . If the name Christian be not enough, call me a Catholic Christian” (cf. Nuttall, 121). He taught that all who confessed Christ as Lord belonged to the true Catholic Church, which is composed of the believers from all Christian denominations. Baxter was an apostle of Christian unity at a time when the Civil War and its complex patterns of religious and political strategies caused divisions that have persisted in the English-speaking world to the present time. His importance has been emphasized during the last forty years by scholarly work on his letters, treatises, and his relationships to the most important personalities and events of his time, with a special interest in the history of Puritanism, of English nonconformism, and the history of Christian unity. G.F. Nuttall, Richard Baxter, 1965 ◆ N.H. Keeble, Richard Baxter, Puritan Man of Letters, 1982.William L. McClelland

Bayle, Pierre (Nov 18, 1647, Le Carla, Languedoc – Dec 28, 1706, Rotterdam), came from a family of Reformed clergymen, as a young man converted to Catholicism for a short time, and had to leave France after his re-conversion. He studied theology in Geneva and deepened his knowledge of the philosopher R. → Descartes. He risked a return to France and taught philosophy at the Reformed academy of Sedan. After the academy was closed in 1681, Bayle went to the Gymnasium illustre in Rotterdam. Following a conflict among the Réfugiés about their attitude towards France, in which Bayle advocated political tolerance, he was relieved of his teaching position. From now on he dedicated his efforts entirely to the Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697, 21702; ET: The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, 21734), a biographical and bibliographical reference work that became the “bible of the Enlightenment.” In the extensive notes and digressions of his dictionary, as already in the Pen-

654 sées diverses sur la comète (1683) and other works, Bayle fights against fanaticism, superstition, and prejudices, against which he presents the “facts.” His critical rationalism, far from system thinking, his skepticism, his advocating of tolerance, also towards atheists, cannot be disconnected from his Protestant upbringing. Bayle emphasizes the insufficiency of reason in issues of faith. Against his → Manicheism (the problem of → Evil in the world), G.W. → Leibniz directed his Theodizee (ET: Theodicy, 1985). E. Labrousse, in: F. Ueberweg, Grundriß der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhundert, vol. II, 1993, 1025– 1050 ◆ T.M. Lennon “Pierre Bayle”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2003 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2003/entries/bayle/. Ulrich Kronauer

Bayly, Lewis (c. 1573, probably Carmarthen, Wales – Oct 26, 1631, Bangor). After his studies at Exeter College in Oxford he became vicar of Evesham and headmaster of the grammar school in 1600. He preached a series of sermons there that formed the basis of his famous devotional work The Practise of Pietie: directing a Christian how to walke that he may please God (1613, latest repr. 1994) which was popular in Puritan circles, published in many editions and translated into many languages. Bayly’s Puritan leanings brought him some disfavor at court and in parliament as well as in his parish. He was ordained bishop of Bangor on Dec 8, 1616. Though court chaplain of → James I, he spoke against Roman Catholics, the Spanish marriage and, the Book of Sports (a book listing the leisure activities permitted on a Sunday), and was opposed by W. → Laud, then bishop of St. David’s. The growing influence of the → Arminians and the Anglican party (→ Anglican Church) brought him growing disfavor due to his Puritan attitude. For a short time he was imprisoned in the Fleet prison. Later, he was accused in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons of promoting unworthy ministers and ordaining clergy who did not accept unconditionally the discipline and doctrine of the Church. He successfully rebutted these charges by showing that he had promoted preaching by example and precept, had exercised careful supervision over his clergy, had offered hospitality beyond his means and spent his own funds on the restoration of his William L. McClelland cathedral. Bea, Augustin (May 28, 1881, Riedböhringen, Baden – Nov 16, 1968, Rome). After studying Catholic theology at Freiburg, Bea became a Jesuit in 1902. He pursued his philosophical and theological studies in the Netherlands at Valkenburg and was ordained priest in 1912. He served as professor of OT exegesis at Valkenburg from 1917 to 1921. From 1921 to 1924, he lived

655

Beatification

in Munich as provincial of the Jesuit province of Upper Germany. He held various academic positions from 1924 to 1928, finally becoming rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (1930–1949). Pope John XXIII made him cardinal deacon on Dec 14, 1959, and appointed him as first president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. As herald, advocate, and trustworthy guarantor of the ecumenical movement within the Roman Catholic Church, Bea merits kudos both for his work during → Vatican II and for its reception. He received the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade in 1966, and is acknowledged today as an ecumenical pioneer within the Roman Catholic Church.

ment. The most celebrated bear festival is practiced by the Ainu on the islands of Hokkaido and southern Sakhalin. Ainu families capture young bear cubs, referred to as the “deity-grandchild” (kamui mis) and raise them for over a year as the family’s guest. At the end of the winter the bear is ritually slain in a ceremony (“seeing the deity off ”). Purified and with its head and paws intact, the bear is honored as a visitor from the gods and is sent back to the mountains with a report of his correct treatment and with gifts. The ritual includes the distribution and eating of appropriate parts of the bear by community members, and the correct disposal of the bear’s bones.

B. Leeming, Agostina Cardinal Bea, 1964 ◆ M. Buchmüller, ed., Augustin Kardinal Bea, 1971 ◆ On Bea: S. Schmidt, Augustin Bea, 1989 (bibl.) ◆ E.M. Jung-Inglessis, Kardinal Bea, 1994. Aloys Klein

A. Irving Hallowell, Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere, thesis, 1924 ◆ R. Landes, Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin, 1968 ◆ E. Ohnuki-Tierney, The Ainu of the Northwest Coast of Southern Sakhalin, 1974 ◆ J. Walker, Lakota Belief and Ritual, 1980. John A. Grim

Bear Festival. Many small-scale, indigenous societies in Eurasia and North America venerate bears (Grizzly, Black, Polar, and Kodiak). This continues one of the oldest ritual practices among hominids in which the human skeletal remains have been arranged with bear bones. Because of their anthropomorphic qualities bears are also revered in ceremonies, remembered in myths and stories of the hunt, and evoked in rituals especially for healing. Bears are likened to humans because of their ability to walk on their hind legs, their ferocious concern for their young, their communicative sounds suggestive of human language, and their hibernation. In some cultural settings bears are seen as messengers between the realms of the spirits and the human world. The relationship between human hunters and the spirits of animals that give their body to hunters, is of great importance. This ritualistic relationship rests on the proper treatment of slain animals and their remains. While the slaughter and distribution of the animals is subject to varying rules among different peoples, the remains of bears are conspicuously sacred. Among the Anishinaabe/Ojibwa peoples of the Great Lakes Region in the USA the bear played a major role in the festivals and the social structure of the secret organization, the Midewiwin. According to their myths, the bear appears on his mythical journey, covered in shells and cowry, and brings the Midewiwin healing ceremony. As Ashinaabe peoples moved westward in the 17th to 19th centuries, this story was reenacted and played an important role for the unity of the people and the stability of their national identity. The Cree of Northern Canada refer to the bear-spirit during hunts, ritual slaughter, and ceremonial treatment of bones. Many circumpolar peoples (→ Arctic religion) celebrate bear festivals in which these animals are dispatched to the spirit realms with a report of their favorable treat-

Beatification. By means of beatification and → canonization, the Catholic Church expresses its certainty that certain deceased members of the Church “have exercised the virtues in a heroic manner and lived in fidelity to the grace of God” (CCC 828), so that they can be venerated as models and intercessors. In the first millennium, there was no distinction between beatification and canonization; subsequently, a differentiation developed between episcopal beatification and papal canonization as a consequence of papal reservation. In contemporary practice, beatification always precedes canonization and since 1634 has definitively been reserved to the pope. It permits the cultic veneration of the new “blessed” in particular dioceses or in a religious congregation. In the Middle Ages, beatification was the translation by the bishop of the relics of a candidate on the basis of an already existing veneration. Today, beatification takes place at the end of a lengthy process. After investigations by the local bishop, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum) in Rome examines with historical exactitude the life and writings of the candidate; the virtuous and saint-like character of his or her life must be demonstrated. Usually, the proposal to beatify a candidate, which must exclude all error as far as is humanly possible, must be confirmed by a miraculous answer to prayer. The pope is free to decide whether or not to proceed to beatification, which takes place at the beginning of Mass, usually in Rome. John Paul II emphasized the Church’s vocation to holiness by carrying out more beatifications and canonizations than all the preceding popes together. Paul VI and John Paul II performed this act in person; Benedict XVI reverted to the earlier practice of delegating beatification to a cardinal.

Beatitudes M. Sieger, Die Heiligsprechung. Geschichte und heutige Rechtslage, 1993 ◆ F. Dell’Oro, Beatificazione e canonizzazione. “Excursus” storico-liturgico, 1997 ◆ W. Beinert, “Wie wird man ein Heiliger und was ist man dann?,” StZ 220, 2002, 671–684. Winfried Haunerland

Beatitudes are an emphatic assurance of → salvation or of a fulfilled life, and are employed in sapiential, prophetic, liturgical, and other (even profane) contexts; this genre is related to → blessings and to oracles of salvation. In general, the beatitude is signaled by a predicate (’ašrê in Hebrew with the character of an interjection, makários in Greek, tūbēi in Aramaic), which is followed by a subject qualified by relative and conditional clauses or participles, and sometimes by a future, in the New Testament an eschatological, concretization of the salvation or fulfillment of life. The c. 45 beatitudes in the Old Testament are formulated in the third person (the second person is found only in Deut 33:29; Ps 128:2; Qoh 10:17; Isa 32:20; it is frequent in rabbinic literature). They are common in sapiential texts (Prov 14:21; 16:20; 20:7; 29:18; programmatic are Prov 3:13; 8:34) and occur 26 times in the Psalms (the composition of Pss 1f. emphasizes the beatitude; possibly derived from liturgical use). Beatitudes are pronounced to all who fear God, observe the Torah, practice righteousness, care for those in distress, visit the Temple, trust in Yahweh, etc. (Pss 2:12; 41:2; 65:5; 84:5f.; 106:3; 112:1; 119:1f.; 128:1; etc.). In a → deeds and consequences context, beatitudes serve to prefigure the salvation which comes from God and provide a basis for → parenesis; when, however, those who do what is right do not immediately receive a reward, the beatitude praises those who are put to the test by God ( Job 5:17; Tob 13:16; Pss. Sol. 10:1; Jas 1:12). Less frequently, we find unconditional beatitudes in the context of the theology of God’s election of the nation (Ps 33:12; Deut 33:29). This linguistic form is reflected in everyday language in formulae of congratulation (Gen 30:13; 1 Kgs 10:8; Prov 31:28); it has been plausibly argued that the beatitude is influenced by Egyptian stylistic forms used in learned sapiential literature and liturgy. In the intertestamental period, we find many beatitudes in sapiential texts (frequently in Sir, e.g. 14:1f., 20–15:10; Wis 3:13), in apocalyptic parenesis (1 En. 58:2; 81:4; 82:4; 99:10; 4 Ezra 7:45; Sib. Or. 3:371f.; 4:24–26; 22 times in 2 En.), in hymns (Pss. Sol.), and in narrative texts (4 Macc 7:15; 18:13). Beatitudes also occur as a personal assurance of salvation in which a specific person is named (b. Ber. 61 b; cf. the parents of a prophet in Luke 1:42, 45, 48; 11:27; 2 Bar. 54:10). – In the Greco-Roman sphere, the piety linked with the mysteries is expressed in beatitudes (Homeric Hymn to Demeter 480–483; Euripides, Bacchae 73–82). Beatitudes are frequent in other contexts too (Virgil, Georgics 2.490–494).

656 The beatitudes in the New Testament number between 37 and 44, and often stand at the beginning or end of a compositional unit. They are linked to apocalyptic traditions. They were an important stylistic resource for the historical Jesus for proclaiming eschatological salvation (other speakers: Luke 1:45; 11:27; 14:15). Mark has no beatitudes, John only one, in 20:29 (cf. 13:17). The translation “happy are . . .” fails to do justice to the character of the NT beatitudes as eschatological proclamations. Although they are mostly found as individual sayings, we also find pairs (Ps 84:5f.), triads (Sir 25:8f.; Luke 6:20f.), and sequences of macarisms, e.g. nine and seven in 2 En. 42:6–14; and 52:1–14, respectively, and at least five in the sapiential Hebrew list in 4Q525 (DJD 25, 1998, 115–178) which obviously concludes with a look ahead to the eschaton. In the sequence of macarisms in Matt 5:3–12 (par. Luke 6:20–23), the underlying text (Q 6:20f.) goes back to the historical Jesus, and verses 22f. perhaps go back to the redaction of Q. Luke adds the exclamations of woe (Luke 6:24–26) and limits the disciples’ experience of suffering (“now,” “on that day”). Matthew (perhaps drawing on other traditions) expands by means of 5:4, 5, 7, 8, 9, composes v. 10, eliminates Q6:21b, and introduces his own interpretation by means of the terms “spirit” and “righteousness.” His cyclic construction in 5:3–10 with eight or seven beatitudes – 5:5 is possibly secondary from a text-critical point of view; verse 11 stands outside the sequence – has a parenetic focus. Typically, Jesus’ beatitudes establish a nexus between a paradoxical reversal of values and an eschatological promise. Luke 6:20f. (Q ) does not intend to glorify a situation of social and economic distress, but describes the existential conditions of the imitation of Christ in the light of the eschaton (addressed are the disciples; no difference in meaning between Matt 5:3 and Luke 6:20b). It remains unclear to what extent Isa 61.1f. functions as a text of reference (cf. Q 7:22; Luke 4:16–21), and whether the second person (Luke) or the third person (Matt) is older. For beatitudes in a personal dialogue, cf. Luke 11:27f.; for beatitudes in a parable, cf. Luke 12:37, 43. In Matt 16:17–19, Peter is called “blessed” as the receiver of revelation; Q10:23f. praises the disciples as witnesses of the salvation that is accomplished in Jesus (cf. Luke 14:15; Isa 31:9 LXX; 32:20; Pss. Sol. 17.44; 18.6; Sib. Or. 3.371). Other NT texts are Rom 4:7f. (cf. Ps 32:1f.); 14:22; Jas 1:12; and Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7 (the parenesis urges the hearers to be steadfast). Cf. also 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14; Acts 20:35. Makarismós, a technical term since Aristotle, is found in Rom 4:6, 9; 1 Clem 50:7; the usage in Gal 4:15 is different. Further developments are the summaries of the proclamation of the gospel in the form of macarisms in

657 Acts of Paul Thecla 5 and Acts of Thom. 94, and they combine synoptic and non-canonical macarisms (Gos. Thom. 54, 68–69, 79 and 7, 18, 19, 49, 58, 103, respectively). This literary form was destined to have a long after-life. The sequence of macarisms in the → Sermon on the Mount became a central inspiration of Christian piety and an existential model for the Christian life. As performative speech, the NT beatitudes give their addressees certainty in assuring eschatological salvation, and they proclaim this salvation – as the realm where God’s mighty power is made known – precisely by linking the promise to ethical imperatives. Billerbeck I, 1922, 189–232, 663f.; II, 1924, 187f. ◆ G. Bertram & F. Hauck, ThWNT 4, 1942, 365–373 ◆ J. Dupont, Les Béatitudes, 3 vols., 1958–1973, 1, 21969, 31973 ◆ H. Cazelles, ’šrj, ThWAT I, 1973, 481–485 ◆ I. Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt, 1986 ◆ H.D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, Hermeneia 50/1, 1995 (bibl.) ◆ M. Hengel, “Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana,” in idem, Kleine Schriften II, 1999, 219–292 ◆ B. Viviano, “Beatitudes,” in: L.H. Schiffman, EncDSS I, 2000, 89f. ◆ T. Hieke, “Q6:20–21,” Documenta Q, 2001 ◆ D. Zeller, NBL III, 2001, 564f. Marco Frenschkowski

Beato/Beata. Christian texts such as 1 Pet 2:18–20, 1 Tim 6:1, and Tit 2:9–10 contain references to slaves who escaped their masters in order to serve God. From the 4th century, there were complaints that monasteries accepted escaped slaves. In the course of history, they were designated by various terms, including, among others, “beatus,” usually in reference to men and women who practiced Christianity as celibate laypersons, in poverty, and at the fringes of society. In the context of → popular Catholicism in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Beatos made Christianity acceptable in the colonized territories. The Beatos also built and maintained popular sanctuaries and cemeteries, constructed fountains, canals, bridges, and paths, and founded schools, hospitals, and orphanages. E. Hoornaert, História do Cristianismo na América latina e no Caribe, 1994. Eduardo Hoornaert

Beatus Rhenanus (Rinower, or “Bild,” his father’s name; Aug 22, 1485, Schlettstadt, Alsace – Jul 20, 1547, Strasbourg ) was educated in the Schlettstadt Latin school in the spirit of Christian humanism and German nationalism as formulated by J. → Wimpfeling . From 1503 to 1507, he studied rhetoric, poetics, and especially Aristotelian philosophy and the Greek church fathers in Paris. After 1507, he lived in → Basel and Schlettstadt as an independent scholar. He was the most important associate of → Erasmus, superintending the printing of the latter’s major publications. In 1540, he published the posthumous edition of Erasmus’s collected works. His editions of and commentaries on classical authors and church fathers important

Beausobre, Isaac de for the theological debate proved him a brilliant philologist. His Rerum Germanicarum libri tres, a history of the Germanic world from Tacitus to the Ottonian period, demonstrated his critical skills and intellectual acumen. Initially he joined Erasmus and the reformers in criticizing the old established Church, but after 1523 he also distanced himself from the Reformation. Correspondence, ed. A. Horawitz & K. Hartfelder, repr. 1966 ◆ Annuaire de la Société des Amis de la Bibliothèque Humaniste de Sélestat 35, 1985 ◆ J.F. D’Amico, Theory and Practice in Renaissance Textual Criticism, 1988 ◆ U. Muhlack, Geschichtswissenschaft im Humanismus und in der Aufklärung, 1991 ◆ U. Muhlack, “Beatus Rhenanus,” in: P.G. Schmidt, ed., Humanismus im deutschen Südwesten, 1993, 195–220. Dieter Mertens

Beauduin, Dom Lambert (Aug 4, 1873, Rosoux-lesWaremme – Jan 11, 1960, Chevetogne). Beauduin was a Belgian Benedictine monk, who forged links between the revival of Eucharistic worship and a renewal of social conditions of industrial workers on the eve of the First World War, thereby launching the 20th-century → liturgical movement. Inexpensive weekly liturgical guides, reviews, and pamphlets were issued from 1909 by Beauduin and his confreres at the Abbey of MontCésar. Human work tempered by the rhythm of constant worship and nourished by the liturgy became a monastic ideal shared by Beauduin and contemporaries in his manifesto of 1914, La Piété de l’Église. S. Quitslund, Beauduin: A Prophet Vindicated, 1973. R. William Franklin

Beausobre, Isaac de (père; Mar 8, 1659, Niort, Poitou – Jun 5, 1738, Berlin). After studying theology at Saumur, the rhetorically gifted pastor and church historian was ordained in 1683 and appointed pastor of the congregation at Châtillon-sur-Indre. In 1685, he fled to Rotterdam. In 1686, he was given a preaching appointment by Henrietta of Orange, the wife of the prince of Anhalt-Dessau (Dessau, Oranienbaum). He moved to Berlin in 1693, where he became court preacher and pastor of the French Reformed Church; in 1707 he became a member of the Consistoire Supérieur, director of the French hospice, and superintendent of the French secondary school. In 1708 he was made superintendent of the French churches in Brandenburg. Theologically a strict Calvinist, he devoted his erudition primarily to church history. He was a member of the cosmopolitan Société des Anonymes in Berlin and one of the founders of the journal Bibliothèque germanique (50 vols., 1720–1740). Works: Défense de la doctrine des Reformés, 1693 ◆ Histoire critique de Manichée et de manichéisme, 1734/1739 ◆ On Beausobre: E. Haag, La France protestante, vol. II, 1847, 123–130 ◆ E. Haase, Einführung in die Literatur des Refuge, 1959. Thomas Klingebiel

Beautiful, The Beautiful, The. The “beautiful” is an aesthetic category of pleasure (subjectively) and of unity within multiplicity (objectively). The preeminent organ of perception associated with the beautiful is sight, as is indictated in the etymology of, inter alia, the German das Schöne, which is connected to schauen [to behold]. The English word, however, derives from Latin bellus [pretty] which is connected with bonus [good]. The triad of “the beautiful, the good, and the true” is an old and widespread topos in intellectual history (→ Beauty) summarizing and equating the “qualities of quality”: the beautiful, which makes the highest quality optically perceivable; the → good, which allows us morally to perceive and pragmatically experience the highest quality (in the sense of “things should be thus”); and the true (→ Truth), which allows us to recognize the highest quality of being in the sense of something being real amid mere appearance. The beautiful, as it were, represents the sensuous quality of the good and the true. In association with these other two qualities as that which is solely right and correct, the beautiful in its own turn acquires normative meaning and power: the beautiful acquires the tendency to define how something should appear. Hence the beautiful was early on (→ Augustine) also viewed as a category of unity within diversity (→ Unity/ diversity), of totality within multiplicity, and of cohesion within dispersion. As an attribute of beauty, clarity is a function of the complete and the simple (→ Thomas Aquinas). The beautiful makes it possible to perceive clearly and unequivocally the one, the whole, and the coherence underlying the complex diversity of nature. In this sense, perception of the beautiful acquires the ability to enhance knowledge. Thus, the image is frequently understood as a means of attaining a better understanding by way of the beautiful. Within the paradigm of the natural sciences, however, this idea sinks to the status of Birkhoff ’s formula of informational aesthetics, according to which the degree of pleasure can be calculated from the quotient of order and complexity. Some conceptual images in the natural sciences still draw from the idea of the simplicity and clarity of the beautiful as an expression of the true. In modernity – as the second stage of the modern era beginning around 1750 – the aesthetic category (→ Aesthetics) of the beautiful becomes doubtful and begins to crumble. Emphasis on the individual eventually causes the subjective character of the beautiful to become so excessively emphasized that, e.g., for W.H. → Wackenroder (Herzensergießungen . . . [Outpourings of the heart ...]) the term cannot even be discussed. The assignment, during the 18th century, of the beautiful to the authority of taste – about which, as the saying goes, one cannot argue – also makes the beautiful suspect.

658 Alternative systems of aesthetics are developed based on categories other than that of the beautiful, including that of the sublime, of the picturesque or pittoresque, of the interesting, even (albeit not very consequentially) of the ugly, and (especially consequentially) of the characteristic. This latter, as the element of the intrinsic or essential, competes in art as well (→ Art and Religion) with the element of the beautiful for the status as the essence of any given appearance. Today the estimation of the beautiful fluctuates between its redefinition through the element of the characteristic and its condemnation as mere superficiality, be it the ephemeral beauty of → fashion and as giving an attractive presentation to what is essentially unjust. J.K .F. Rosenkranz, Ästhetik des Häßlichen, 1853 ◆ W.J. Hipple Jr., The Beautiful, the Sublime and the Picturesque in 18th-century British Aesthetic Theory, 1957 ◆ E. Grassi, Die Theorie des Schönen in der Antike, 1962 ◆ R. Assunto, Die Theorie des Schönen im Mittelalter, 1963 ◆ H.R. Jauss, ed., Die nicht mehr schönen Künste, 1968 ◆ M.Jäger, Die Theorie des Schönen in der italienischen Renaissance, 1990 ◆ J. Schönwälder, Ideal und Charakter. Untersuchungen zu Kunsttheorie und Kunstwissenschaft um 1800, 1995. Daniel Spanke

Beauty I. History of the Concept – II. Bible and Theology – III. Systematic and Practical Theology

I. History of the Concept Beauty – Gk τὸ καλόν/tó kalón, Lat. pulchritudo/pulcher, Ger. die Schönheit, Fr. la beauté – is the positive aesthetic attraction which an object exercises on the beholder by virtue of its felicitous form. In contemplative, aesthetic, and erotic experience beauty is experienced as harmonious and stimulating, as something that kindles enthusiasm and gives delight thus leading to a heightened attention and attraction to the object. From the beginnings of Western philosophy, beauty – whether linked to, or demarcated from, that which is proper, useful, and functional, but above all in its link to the true and the good – has been discussed in metaphysics, ontology, and ethics as an element of the human relationship to one’s own self and to the world. In the modern period, it became the subject of → aesthetics and the → philosophy of art. In Antiquity, the paradigm of beauty is the human being with a fine physique, in the modern period it is the work of art. Less attention has been paid to the beauty of nature. Philosophers have discussed both the objective nature of beauty (i.e. as a property of the object) and its effect on the experience of the subject. Until the modern period, the speculative intuition was frequently propounded that beauty is the expression, perceptible to the senses, of an inherent or essential good state, and that there exists a correspondence between the → Good, the

659 True, and the → Beautiful. We can trace down through the ages the dialectic of the rehabilitation and the sublimation of the sensuous phenomenon in the concept of the Beautiful. For → Plato, the Beautiful and the Good are inseparable. Their common characteristic is the right measure which creates order and harmony (Philebos 64e). The Symposium and Phaedrus seek to demonstrate that human striving, i.e. → love (IV) in all its forms (ἔρος/éros), is orientated towards the beautiful. The beautiful is that which appears most clearly (ἐκϕανέστατον/ekphanéstaton) and that which is most charming (ἐρασμιώτατον/ erasmiØtaton); even the idea of beauty shines with a particular splendor among the other ideas (Phaedrus 250d). It works on the soul like a pleasant balsam (ibid. 251a–c). The beautiful is the medium of intellectual and of bodily procreation (Symposium 206e); → Socrates describes the striving to attain beauty in the account he gives of the famous discourse of the wise Diotima, as an ascent which begins with desire for a beautiful body and has its goal in the intellectual vision of “the beautiful itself,” i.e. of its idea (ibid. 210a–c). Medieval theology and philosophy develop and differentiate the Platonic and neoplatonic definitions of the beautiful, adding claritas to the classical essential characteristics of this concept (i.e. harmony, symmetry, size, color) and drawing on the definition of beauty as unity in diversity (→ Unity and diversity), which goes back to → Augustine and has survived in numerous variants into the modern period. In addition to the identification of the beautiful with the good ( John Scotus → Eriugena, → Thomas Aquinas, etc.), we frequently find the idea that God is the highest beauty or the absolutely beautiful (→ Boethius, → Bonaventura, → Nicholas of Cusa, etc.), so that the beautiful in the world can be understood as a radiation or manifestation of the divine essence. In the 18th century, the beautiful becomes an aesthetic concept (A.A.C. → Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, D. → Hume, etc.), and soon forms one part of the dualism between the beautiful and the → Sublime (E. → Burke, I. → Kant, etc.). A.G. → Baumgarten, whose Aesthetica (1750–1752) gave the new discipline its name, understands beauty as the “perfectio phaenomenon” which makes itself known to the senses. In keeping with his “Copernican revolution” with regard to the conditions that make experience possible in the intellectual accomplishments of subjects, Kant studies beauty by analyzing the significance of aesthetic judgments about beauty: something “beautiful” is the object of a “disinterested pleasure,” i.e. something that brings the noetic powers (the imagination and the understanding) into play, the intrinsic fittingness of which is experienced in a universally communicable feeling of pleasure, enabling one to form a judgment about it which does not employ

Beauty concepts but nevertheless makes a claim to universal validity (Kant 205–240). Since it permits → freedom to be experienced in this reflection, the beautiful is “the symbol of that which is ethically good” (353). Although Kant maintains the aesthetic primacy of nature here, he considers the only “ideal of the beautiful” to be the human person, as the only being with the ability to determine by means of free insight the goals of its activity (233). F. von → Schiller, in an approach which initially opposes the Kantian subjectivism but then returns to its methodology, defines the beautiful as “living form” and as “freedom in the phenomenon.” Schiller modifies Kant’s view of the human capacity for knowledge and action by means of his theory of instincts; accordingly, he links the so-called instinct for play (→ Play: III) to the beautiful as its object. For G.W.F. → Hegel, beauty is the sensuous appearing of an idea, the felicitous correspondence between concept and external phenomenon, for which Hegel reserves the term → ideal. F. → Nietzsche formulates the ideal of serenity and a harmonious relaxation, employing the concept of beauty, against the background of his theory of life as the will to take power: “When power is benevolent and descends into the realm of the visible: I call such a descent ‘beautiful’!” (Nietzsche 152). In the framework of his “anthropo-biology,” which takes up insights in the modern biological study of behavior, A. → Gehlen attempts to understand beauty as the “trigger” which attracts our attention because its existence is improbable in its natural environment. The sublime was a central concept in the 18th century; in the 19th century, with Romanticism, other aesthetic intensities occupied central stage. In the 20th century, beauty came increasingly under suspicion on the part of a critique of ideology: it was accused of being merely delightful, and hence entailing an uncritical affirmation and glossing over of ugly social conditions. We see this e.g. in T.W. → Adorno, whose negative dialectic of society and of knowledge sees beauty at best as “the charm beyond the charm,” i.e. the fragile indicator of a possible liberation from the domination of the universal blinding which Adorno (explicitly following Kant here) sees above all in the beauty of nature. Gadamer, however, in a hermeneutical approach defends “the Aktualität [meaning both reality and contemporary relevance] of the beautiful” in art, in the anthropological process categories of play, symbol, and feast. I. Kant, Kritik der Urtheilskraft (1790), in: Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. Königlich-Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abt. 1, vol. 5, 1908, 165–485 ◆ F. Schiller, Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen, 1793–1795 ◆ G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, 3 vols., 1837–1838 ◆ F. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1883–1885, critical study edition, vol. IV, 1980 ◆ H.G. Jauss, ed., Die nicht mehr schönen Künste, 1968, 31991 ◆ T.W. Adorno, “Ästhetische Theorie,” in: idem, Gesam-

Beauty melte Schriften VII, 1970, et al. ◆ H.-G. Gadamer, Die Aktualität des Schönen. Kunst als Spiel, Symbol und Fest, 1977 ◆ A. Gehlen, “Über einige Kategorien des entlasteten, zumal des ästhetischen Verhaltens,” in: D. Henrich & W. Iser, eds., Theorien der Kunst, 1982, 237–251 ◆ M. Mothersill, Beauty Restored, 1984 ◆ G.W. Most et al., “Das Schöne,” HWP 8, 1992, 1343–1385 ◆ C. McGinn, Ethics, Evil and Fiction, 1997. Birgit Recki

II. Bible and Theology In the Old Testament, “beautiful” ( yāpāh tôb, kābôd, ’addîr, hādār, ˙en, šāfār, etc. and their derivatives) is one of the attributes of God (→ Divine attributes, Exod 33:19; Ps 104:1, 31) which are celebrated above all in the cult (Ps 147:1). The perception and the elaboration of these attributes is the basis of all hymnic and mystic theology. When he bestows blessings, God gives a share in his own beauty to all that is created (Qoh 3:11f.), especially to kings (→ Saul: 1 Sam 9:2; → David: 1 Sam 16:12; 17:42; Ps 45:3) and queens (Esth 1:11), but also in a “democratic” manner to all men and women. Much of the Bible’s love poetry consists in the praise of the beauty of the beloved. Later generations have always understood these descriptions of beauty as transparent symbols and allegories of the relationship between God and his people. A beautiful work and a beautiful word are signs of particular divine blessing. The frequent combination with the nouns “form” and “appearance” shows that beauty refers primarily to external characteristics (Gen 12:11; 29:17; 39:6; 41:18; Esth 1:11). Westermann has, however, correctly shown that beauty is understood in the Old Tetament not as something static, as an ideal of beauty, but as a dynamic personal event. For example, → Jacob served seven years for the beautiful Rachel, which “seemed to him but a few days, so great was his love for her” (Gen 29:17–20). Unlike the Hellenistic καλοκἀγαϑία/kalokagathía, beauty is profoundly ambivalent. On the one hand, it promises something good (e.g. Gen 41:4f.,18,22), since it is able to call forth admiration and love (Song 1:15f.; 4:7,10; 6:4; 7:2, etc.) and can even save life (in the case of → Moses, Exod 2:2, and of prisoners of war, Deut 21:11f.). It is an “open letter of recommendation” to everyone (e.g. David in 1 Sam 17:42; Abigail in 1 Sam 25:3; Absalom in 2 Sam 16:12; → Esther in Esth 2:7; → Daniel in Dan 1:4; → Sarah in Tob 6:12). On the other hand, beauty is dangerous to the one who possesses it, for it also activates criminal energies. Victims of the lust for beauty are e.g. the daughters of humans (Gen 6:2), Sarah (Gen 12:11,14), → Joseph (Gen 39:6), Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2), Tamar (2 Sam 13:1), and Susanna (Dan 13:2, 31). Beauty can lead to sinful pride (Isa 3:16–24; Ezek 27:3ff.; for Israel as a people, cf. Isa 5:1–7; Jer 11:16; cf. the fate of Egypt according to Ezek 31) and can be misunderstood as a “substitute” for the observation of the Torah: “Like a

660 golden ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman without understanding/shame” (Prov 11:22; 31:30; cf. Jer 4:30; 11:16f.; Ezek 16:13ff.; 31:7ff.). Besides this, beauty is quick to disappear, “like the flower of the field” (Isa 40.6–8). No earthly beauty can truly represent God (cf. esp. Isa 40:18–26; Bar 6). In the New Testament, beauty (καλός/kalós and derivatives) is no longer an aesthetic category. It is understood in ethical and religious terms. “Beautiful” is that which is pleasing to God. The rhetorical device of contrast makes the point that it is precisely not the beautiful, the prudent, and the rich who are significant in God’s eyes, but that which is despised by the world – including that which is ugly (1 Cor 1:28). Christian beauty is not to be something external (1 Pet 3:3f.). Theologically speaking, beauty has primarily an eschatological importance. The metaphors of city, bride, clothes, and jewels express the eschatological union with God as beauty. G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I, 1957, 41962, 361–366; ET: Old Testament Theology, vol. I, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, 1962 ◆ M. Augustin, Der schöne Mensch im Alten Testament und im hellenistischen Judentum, BEAT III, 1983 ◆ C. Westermann, “Das Schöne im Alten Testament,” in: idem, Erträge zur Forschung am Alten Testament, Gesammelte Studien III, TB 73, 1984, 119–137 ◆ O. Kaiser, “Von der Schönheit des Menschen als Gabe Gottes,” in: A. Graupner, H. Delkurt & A.B. Ernst, eds., Verbindungslinien, FS for W.H. Schmidt, 2000, 153–163. Manfred Oeming

III. Systematic and Practical Theology 1. From the perspective of Reformation theology, the beautiful, whether existing in nature or made by human beings (“natural” or “artificial” beauty), is indeed understood as a symbolic reference – for Calvin, a “mirror” – to God and to the world as his creation, or to the creative power of the human person which is analogous to that of the divine creator (→ Creation). On the other hand, however, the human senses are darkened by → sin, and the danger is that the “beautiful appearance” may prevent insight into the reality that the world and the human person are in need of God’s justifying action (cf. → Prohibition of Images, Iconoclasm). This is why Luther prefers music, especially song, as an aesthetic medium for religious expression. The human person’s ability to perceive beauty and to create beautiful things in play is a gift from God and a characteristic of the justified and liberated person: beauty is per se an eschatological phenomenon. Reformation theology, therefore, draws attention both to the fundamental significance of the beautiful for our being human and to the fact – based in the ambivalence of our relationships to the beautiful – that the beautiful requires interpretation. In view of recent philosophical criticism of the beautiful as the leading concept in aesthetics or in art, this task of interpretation

661 can be satisfactorily achieved only in the framework of an overarching theory of the relationship between religious and aesthetic experience. This aesthetic-receptive approach to the beautiful is born of the insight that the beauty which is received does not exist a priori as an objective cosmological constellation, but takes form in the process of reception, with the active participation of the intellect and the will of the subject. Accordingly, like every human “work,” it requires in practice God’s liberating justification; on the theoretical level, it requires an appropriate culture of theological interpretation. Reflection on the beautiful has the potential to affect the structures of the wide-ranging contemporary discussion in systematic and practical theology, by examining the normative structures of a theological aesthetics. 2. The general philosophical foundations of a theory of the aesthetic reception of the beautiful were laid (or systematized) by Kant in his Kritik der Urteilskraft (ET: Critique of Judgment, 1952) (see I above). Among the theories inspired by Kant, the most influential were Schiller’s moral-aesthetic theory of play, the aesthetics of F.W.J. → Schelling and Hegel with their theory of absoluteness, and the hermeneuticpoetological aesthetics of F. → Schleiermacher. Leading theologians after World War I accused these philosophical-theological aesthetics of subjectivism and aestheticism. A few attempts were made, following K. → Barth, to deduce a theological doctrine of the beautiful from material dogmatics in terms of the theology of revelation, but (with the exception of H.U. von → Balthasar) these remained somewhat sketchy, and in fact rather frequently resort to conceptions of German → Idealism (e.g. H. → Vogel, Eduard Buess), have neoscholastic traits (Robert W. Jenson), or display a somewhat (programmatic) eclecticism in their theoretical foundations (Rudolf Bohren, Zeindler). Barth’s own theological doctrine of the beautiful subordinates this to the divine glory and understands it as a medium in which the mighty power of God’s self-attestation finds expression. With this approach, the modern, aesthetic-receptive background to the theory remains dominant in Barth. Today’s theological theory points back, either indirectly ( Jüngel, Albrecht Grözinger) or directly (U. Barth, Gräb) to the theoretical tradition initiated by Kant, and is thus able to enter a debate with contemporary theories of aesthetic experience (Adorno, Hans Robert Jauß, Rüdiger Bubner, Wolfgang Welsch) and hence also with modern art. 3. A contemporary phenomenology of aesthetic reception can modify and unite various elements from Kant’s concept of the beautiful and the sublime. Systematically speaking, we can discern three aspects (each of which is complex) which are essential for the aesthetic experience of the beautiful. (a) The element of interruption

Beauty and event: the aesthetic experience of the beautiful is a discontinuity in everyday experience; it can indeed be conditioned by the subject of the experience, but it is not really something this subject can produce on his/her own. It takes place contingently, as an event at a particular moment, and the subject cannot determine whether or not it will succeed; the beautiful is “breathtakingly beautiful.” – (b) The element of transcendence: the aesthetic experience of the beautiful transcends everyday experience; it goes qualitatively and quantitatively beyond what one can expect, and language can grasp it only approximately; the beautiful is “wonderfully beautiful.” – (c) The element of fulfillment of → meaning the aesthetic experience of the beautiful is per se full of coherent meaning and therefore has the effect of imparting fulfillment of meaning; the beautiful is “beautiful as a picture.” In all three aspects, aesthetic experience has unmistakable points of contact with religious experience as interpreted by Christians. One could refer the element of interruption to the Second Person of the Trinity (Christ the Son), the element of transcendence to the First Person (the Father), and the element of meaning to the Holy Spirit as Third Person. The distinction between Christian religious experience and aesthetic experience lies in the fact that the former interprets all individual experiences by pointing to an experience of Jesus Christ which transcends all experience, to the christological “experiencing of experience.” Against this background, the aesthetic experience of the beautiful can be perceived as a symbolic concentration and fulfillment of the ethical-religious life, as “religion with style” (Dietrich Korsch), in which the “mortality” of the beautiful (Schiller, Adorno, Jüngel), rooted in its momentary and specific character, is embedded in an existential horizon which transcends it. 4. The specific task of practical theology is to elaborate how the constitutive reference to aesthetic experience affects the Christian way of life. Here, the following topics are particularly relevant: (a) the investigation, both theological and in terms of the theory of culture, of the conditions which make aesthetic-religious experience possible in the (post-)modern, “aestheticized” mass-media society; (b) liturgy as the central religious-aesthetic cluster of symbols and actions; (c) the aesthetics of church buildings; (d) the relationship between Christianity and modern art; (e) the possibilities of a contemporary religious-aesthetic symbolic language of faith. E. Jüngel, “ ‘Auch das Schöne muss sterben’ – Schönheit im Lichte der Wahrheit,” ZThK 81, 1984, 106–126 ◆ P. Fuller, Theoria: Art and the Absence of Grace, 1988 ◆ M. Zeindler, Gott und das Schöne, 1993 ◆ W. Gräb, “Der inszenierte Text. Erwägungen zum Aufbau ästhetischer und religiöser Erfahrung in Gottesdienst und Predigt,” IJPT 1, 1997, 209–226 ◆ R. Viladesau, Theological Aesthetics: God in Imagination, Beauty, and Art, 1999 ◆ U. Barth, “Religiöse und ästhetische Erfahrung,” in:

Bebel, August idem, Religion in der Moderne, 2003, 235–262 ◆ D.B. Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 2003. Georg Pfleiderer

Bebel, August (Feb 22, 1840, Cologne – Aug 13, 1913, Passugg, Switzerland) was the most famous German and international social democrat of the imperial era (→ Social Democrats). From a simple background, he became a lathe operator, joined the civic educational association in Leipzig, participated, along with Wilhelm Liebknecht, in the establishment of the Saxon People’s Party and co-initiated the Social Democratic Labor Party founded in 1869, which united in 1875 with Lassalle’s German Worker’s Party to form the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany. During and after the Socialist Law (1878–1890), Bebel became the most important labor leader in Germany and, in the Reichstag, the social-democratic opponent of O. v. → Bismarck, the conser vatives, the national liberals, and the center. With skillful rhetoric he campaigned against Prusso-German militarism, the arms race of the imperialist states, and exploitive colonial policy. In the revisionism dispute in his party, he represented a middle position between Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein in favor of K. → Kautsky. His program was revolutionary; his praxis was open to parliamentary and legislative collaboration. Inexorably, he rejected the cultural and political influence of the churches and denominations. In popular writings, he proposed the principle that Christianity and socialism relate to one another like fire and water. He explicated his socialist image of the future, a world without religion, in his bestseller Woman and Socialism (1879). Just as one can conceive him politically as the anti-emperor, this book was the anti-Bible of socialism based on materialism and atheism. The few Christians who were social democrats for Christian motives (such as C.G. → Blumhardt and P. → Göhre), remained strangers to him. Protestantism was, for him, the epitome of the religion of private property and capitalism. Works include: Christentum und Sozialismus, 1874 ◆ Die Frau und der Sozialismus, 1879, 501910 ◆ Aus meinem Leben, 3 vols., 1910–1914. Bibl.: C. Stephan, ed., August Bebel, 1981 ◆ B. Seebacher-Brandt, Bebel, 1988. Günter Brakelmann

Beccus, John (c. 1225, Nicea? – 1297, in the fortress of St. George near Nicomedia). After ordination to the diaconate, Beccus served as chartophylax (archivist) and chief sacristan of the Hagia Sophia; ultimately he became patriarch following the Second Council of Lyon (1274), which approved reunion with the Western Church. Beccus initially opposed the union espoused by → Michael VIII but then – after studying the Latin church fathers in prison – supported it and later held to it unswervingly. When Andronicus II

662 returned to Orthodoxy, Beccus abdicated, but, together with two like-minded supporters, refused to renounce the reunion. As a result, he spent his last 15 years again in prison. Beccus’s literary legacy comprises several letters to the pope as well as apologetic polemics in which he defends the → Filioque clause and his views on ecclesiastical politics. Sources: PG 141, 9–1032 ◆ RAPC 1, 4, 211–242 ◆ V. Laurent & J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon, 1976. Gerhard Podskalsky

Beck, Johann Tobias (Feb 22, 1804, Balingen – Dec 28, 1878, Tübingen), son of a soap-boiler who was influenced by the Enlightenment and of a pietistic mother, Beck attended the Urach seminary from 1818 to 1822, studied theology at Tübingen (1822–1827), married Luise Fischer from Balingen, became a minister at Waldthann near Crailsheim in 1827, became town parson in 1829, and at the same time principal of the Gymnasium in Mergentheim, where he wrote his first academic publications for the TZTh after 1831. Supported by the Tübingen professors J.C.F. → Steudel and C.F. Schmid, he was appointed in 1836 as extraordinary professor of theology in Basel on the recommendation of the “Society for the Support of Christian-Theological Studies and Christian Life,” in order to counter the liberal orientation of W.M.L. de → Wette. After the death of his first wife (1838) Beck married the Tübinger Mathilde Märklin in 1839. In 1843 he was appointed in Tübingen as full professor thanks to the support of F.C. → Baur, who wished for a prominent adversary. Besides giving lectures in systematic theology, Beck also gave lectures in exegesis and practical theology. His seminars and sermons were highly regarded. For reasons of health he stopped his sermons in the Stiftskirche in 1867. His friend W. → Hofacker characterized Beck as an “irascible person with a lot of will-power and mental energy” (Riggenbach 178). Beck has been interpreted as a “figure between all fronts” (Schäfer 274f.). He fought against the activism of the → Revival movement, → Orthodoxy and historical-critical → Biblical studies. Beck was deeply influenced by the → Pietism of Altwürtemberg, especially by J.A. → Bengel and F.C. → Oetinger, and by the Romantic era’s understanding of nature. The speculative thread of his thought shows influences of G.W.F. → Hegel. Beck can be characterized as a speculative biblicist. Theology, according to Beck, should portray the “eternal and historical abundance of God’s revelation” (Einleitung, 151) as it is contained in the Holy Scriptures, that is it should develop the “real organism” of the biblical doctrine as “concept organism” (Glaubenslehre, I, 545). Beck does not feel tied to the early church and reformation doctrinal tradition. The biblical scriptures testify in detail to

663 the respective “level of revelation and work of the spirit”; altogether they are the “system of perfect truth, perfected in living unity, the Word of God” (Einleitung, 246). Beck does not consider the Bible to be verbally inspired, but considers its content to be a complete, infallible system of revealed truth. An interpreter of Scripture must himself be led by its spirit, that is he must be a “believer.” The central concept of Beck’s theology is the basileía tōn ouránōn, the “kingdom rule of heaven,” which starts in the world, “grows” here (cf. Mark 4:26ff.) and comes to completion in a new world. The central figure of this kingdom is Christ. Beck advocates a subordinationist logos-christology. The Son (Logos) and the Holy Spirit are only God, “to the extent that they participate in the divinity of the Father as the one God” (Glaubenslehre, II, 124). The Logos only obtained independent “subsistence” “in the transition towards the creation of a world economy” (op. cit. II, 127). Christ initially developed “the divine spiritual life in his own person” (op. cit. I, 388). The “life system thus centralized in him” generates “the gradual genesis of new humans, of a new history, and eventually of a new world” (op. cit. I, 383). Justification does not give reason for “a simply judicial relationship” of Christians with God, but is the “natural disposition for correspondingly righteous behavior” (op. cit. II, 603). The Christian community that is “the total of born-again individuals” (op. cit. I, 383), has historical impact in as far as it unfolds its moral life in the context of “basic social relations,” among which Home and State as “divine natural foundations” are the most important. In contrast to this the church is the “divine covenant foundation” (Ethik, I, 159). The last stage of history is the Millennium, in which Christ will rule visibly with the saints in peace. Believers who have died beforehand will be called to him on his return. The Millennium will be followed by the universal resurrection. Unbelievers will fall to eternal damnation. Beck’s biblicist Kingdom of God theology has had an effect far beyond the borders of Würtemberg and up to Finnland. Those influenced by Beck include H. → Cremer, M. → Kähler, A. → Schlatter und K. → Barth (in his interpretation of Romans, 1919). Beck’s Kingdom of God thought has been further developed by his Tübingen pupil C.F. → Blumhardt to religious socialism ( → Religious Socialists). Works: Einleitung in das System der christlichen Lehre, 1837 (citations from 21870) ◆ Die Christliche Lehr-Wissenschaft, 1841, 21875 ◆ Umriß der biblischen Seelenlehre, 1843 (31871) ◆ Christlisches Reden (6 Collections), 1834–1870 ◆ Edited posthumously by J. Lindenmeyer: Vorlesungen über christliche Ethik, 1882 ◆ Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, 2 vols., 1884 ◆ Vorlesungen über christliche Glaubenslehre, 2 vols., 1886, 1887 ◆ On Beck: B. Riggenbach, Johann Tobias Beck, 1888 ◆ R. Kübel, RE III 2, 1897 ◆ K. Barth, Die protestantische Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert, 31960 (= 11946), 562–569 ◆ G. Sentzke, Die Theologie Johann Tobias Becks und ihr Einfluß

Beckmann, Joachim in Finnland, 1949, 1957 ◆ G.J. Lindijer, Johann Tobias Beck, 1951 ◆ A. Köberle, RGG3 I, 1957 ◆ H.M. Wolf, Becks Christliches Reden, 1967 ◆ W. Hoffmann, “Das Verständnis der Natur in der Theologie von Johann Tobias Beck,” diss., 1975 (bibl.) ◆ T. Harjunpaa, “Beckian Biblicism and Finland,” LuthQ 28, 1976, 290–330 ◆ H.M. Wolf, TRE V, 1980, 393f. ◆ Kyung Sik Pae, “Eschatologie bei Johann Tobias Beck,” diss., 1989. Siegfried Raeder

Becker, Cornelius (Oct 24, 1561, Leipzig – May 25, 1604, Leipzig ), studied in Leipzig, in 1588 collega tertius at the Thomas school; in the same year he was archdeacon at Rochlitz, in 1592 at St. Nicholas in Leipzig. In 1594, Becker was minister in Leipzig. His licentiate in 1597 and his doctorate in 1599 led to a professorship of theology. In 1601, he was suspended from all offices for six months on account of his too sharp anti-Calvinist polemics. In this period, he is said to have rewritten the entire book of Psalms (including 12 older psalms of the Lutheran hymn book) in versed poems “in order to comfort himself.” In 1602, Der Psalter Davids Gesangweis auf die in Lutherischen Kirchen gewöhnlichen Melodeyen zugerichtet was published in Leipzig. This work, still today considered synonymous with Becker’s name, had mainly spiritual effects. It replaced the psalter of A. → Lobwasser for confessional reasons and had appeared in over 25 editions by 1712; musical settings: S. → Calvisius (1605), H. → Schütz (1627) et al. W. Blankenburg, “Vorwort,” in: H. Schütz, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, vol. VI: Der Psalter, 1957. Martin Petzoldt

Becket, Thomas → Thomas Becket Beckett , Samuel (Apr 13, 1906, Foxrock near Dublin – Dec 22, 1989, Paris), writer. Having had a strict Protestant upbringing, Beckett studied Romance languages and literature in Dublin. In 1937, he moved to Paris. He won the Nobel prize for literature in 1969. Beckett’s stories, novels, plays, radio dramas, and poems, written in English and French, create a world that is as comfortless and God-forsaken as it is tragicomic. Though at first there are honest figures from the margins of society who are on a journey or in a state of waiting, like parodies on the homo viator, they are steadily reduced, until they eventually exist only in and as consciousness. The character of Godot (Waiting for Godot, 1952) has been considered to be a deus absconditus. H. Kenner, Samuel Beckett, 1961 ◆ H. Beckmann, Godot oder Hiob, 1965 ◆ K. Elam, “Dead Heads,” in: Cambridge Companion to Beckett, ed. J. Pilling, 1994, 145–166 ◆ K. Reichert, “Endlose Enden,” in: Das Ende, ed. K. Stierle & R. Warning, 1996, 495– 514 ◆ J. Knowlson, Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett, 1996. Klaus Reichert

Beckmann, Joachim ( Jul 18, 1901, Wanne-Eickel – Jan 18, 1987, Haan), Dr. phil., lic. theol., D. (Bonn

Beckmann, Max 1954) was regional pastor for → Inland Mission in Wiesbaden (1926–1928), pastor of the Westphalian Women’s Aid, Soest (1928–1933), and pastor in Düsseldorf (1933–1948). As a determined opponent of the → Deutsche Christen, he was one of the initiators of the → Confessing Church. In the summer of 1933, Beckmann founded the Pastoral Brotherhood of the Rhineland. As a member of the National Brotherhood Council of the Confessing Church (CC) and the Council of the Protestant → Confessing Synod of the Rhineland, he was continually watched by the Gestapo because of “political unreliability.” In extensive lectures and publications, with clever tactics and cautious politics, but unequivocal theology, he represented the position of the CC. In 1945, he became chair of the new church administration of the Rhine Church. In 1948, he became theological director, in 1958, president of the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland until 1971. Beckmann gave essential impetus to questions of church order, ecumenism, social ethics, and the political responsibility of the church (treaties with the East, rearmament), etc. KJ 1948ff. ◆ Im Kampf für die Kirche des Evangeliums, 1961 ◆ Kirche in diesen Jahren: FS on his 70th birthday, 1971 ◆ ed., Rheinische Bekenntnissynoden im Kirchenkampf, 1975 ◆ ed., Die Briefe des Coetus reformierter Prediger 1933–1937, 1976 ◆ So schwach waren wir, 1985 ◆ Das Wort Gottes bleibt in Ewigkeit, 1986. Günther van Norden

Beckmann, Max (Feb 12, 1884, Leipzig – Dec 27, 1950, New York), painter. He studied art in Weimar 1900–1903 and in Berlin 1904–1914. In 1914/1915, he was a medical orderly in the First World War. In 1929, Beckmann became professor at the Städel school of Frankfurt am Main, where he was dismissed in 1933. In 1937, his paintings were removed from German museums. His work was represented by eight or nine paintings in the exhibition of “degenerate art.” Beckmann emigrated to Amsterdam on the day after the exhibition’s opening. In 1947, he moved to the USA. The main pieces of his early period are multi-figured monumental paintings. Under the impact of his war experiences, Beckmann’s style becomes jagged, brittle, and expressionist (→ Expressionism), as, for example, in the biblical paintings of 1917: Adam and Eve, Removal of the body from the cross, Christ and the Sinful Woman. At the end of the war he painted The Night: a band of criminals assailing a family in an attic room, an “existential image” of the riddle of human life. In the post-war years, Beckmann created significant etchings and lithographs. In the late 1920s, he produced colorful portraits, landscapes, and still-lifes. Space becomes a metaphor for transcendence. Ten of his triptychs are considered major works of the 30s and 40s. Energetic sensuality and metaphysical effort unite under the influence of Indian

664 mythology and Gnostic esotericism. Beckmann’s paintings belong to the decisive artistic interpretations of the world in the 20th century. Sources: Briefe im Kriege, coll. by M. Tube, 1984 ◆ Die Tagebücher 1940–1950, ed. M.Q. Beckmann, 1984 ◆ On Beckmann: F.W. Fischer, Max Beckmann, 1972 ◆ E. & B. Göpel eds., Katalog der Gemälde, 2 vols., 1976 ◆ Max Beckmann – die Triptychen im Städel, ed. K. Gallwitz, 1981 ◆ Max Beckmann: Retrospektive, ed. C. Schulz-Hoffmann, 1984 ◆ B.C. Buenger, “Max Baekman’s Ideologues: Some Forgotten Faces,” ArtB 71.3, 1989, 453–479 ◆ B. Sthehlé-Akhtar, R. Śpieler, et al., Max Beckman in Exile (exhibition catalogue), 1997. Günter Rombold

Beckx, Pierre Jean (Feb 8, 1795, Sichem, Brabant – Mar 4, 1887, Rome), 1819 ordination as priest in Mecheln and entry into the Society of Jesus (→ Jesuits) in Hildesheim, seminary professor for church law from 1823 to 1826 in Hildesheim, then father confessor of Duke Ferdinand of Anhalt-Köthen, thereafter of his widow Julia in Vienna from 1830 to 1848. He then became rector of the Jesuit study house in Leuven in 1850, provincial of Austria in 1852, was elected the 22nd Jesuit superior general on Jul 2, 1853 and retired on May 11, 1884. The growth in membership and the organizational success of the Jesuits under Beckx (creation of districts, missions, journals: CivCatt, Études, StML, ZKTh) were marked by his antiliberalism, the observance of which he admonished in Études in 1866. In contrast, he argued in favor of a more moderate infallibilism than that promoted in the Civiltà Cattolica. Works include: Der Monat Mariä, 1838 (over 30 editions) ◆ W. Bangert, A History of the Society of Jesus, 21986 ◆ K. Schatz, Vaticanum I, vols. I–II, 1992–93. Hubert Wolf

Becoming. “Becoming” (Werden) is the antithetical concept to → “Being” (Sein). The distinction between these concepts has been attributed to the different philosophical approaches of → Heraclitus (“Becoming”) and → Parmenides (“Being”). Although this categorization finds strong support in the descriptions of the philosophy of the Heracliteans and of Parmenides in → Plato’s Theaetetus (179d–181b), it is in fact questionable, since this distinction is already heralded in the two sections of Parmenides’s didactic poem. Plato was the first to make an explicit distinction between “Becoming” and “Being,” in the form of the → phenomenon which comes into being and disappears again, on the one hand, and the existent and eternal → idea, on the other hand: cf. Phaedo 78b–79a; Timaeus 28a–29d; Parmenides 130a–133a. Although this distinction suggests a theory of two worlds, Plato himself doubts this (cf. Parmenides 131a–133a; Philebus 15b–c), since he understands “Becoming” not only as transient (→ Transience), but also as “Becoming directed to Being” (cf. Philebus 26d), i.e. as a “Becom-

665 ing” which itself constructs a bridge from the transient to that which is existent and abiding. “Becoming directed to Being” denotes the coming into existence or fashioning of something (→ Praxis/Poiesis). In order that something specific can come into existence or be fashioned, something hitherto unlimited, mutable, and formless must be given boundaries (cf. ibid. 26b, 8–10): it is thus that “Becoming” is brought to “Being.” This, however, requires a cause (cf. ibid. 264e). Plato is already familiar with the final cause and the effective cause (cf. ibid. 26e–27a, Phaedo 97c–99d); → Aristotle adds two further causes (cf. Metaphysics 7.7–9), and devotes his treatise De generatione et corruptione to an analysis of “Becoming” and passing away. – G.W.F. → Hegel’s description of “Becoming” as a “unity of Being and of nothing” (cf. Wissenschaft der Logik, 1812–1816, in Werke V, 1986, 83) explains why the concept of “Becoming” can apply both to coming into being and to passing away: this concept describes both the transition from nothing into Being and the transition from Being into nothing, i.e. both coming into existence and passing away. This is why “Becoming” is necessarily related both to “Being” and to “nothing” (cf. ibid. 111f.). F. → Nietzsche speaks of the transient character of “Becoming” and sees this as offering the potential of a continuously flowing vitality of thought and life. This is why his philosophy gives precedence to “Becoming” over “Being,” and why he declares “Being” a fiction. G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven & M. Schofield, Presocratic Philosophers, 1982, 21983 ◆ U. Hölscher, Anfängliches Fragen: Studien zur frühen griechischen Philosophie, 1986 ◆ D. Frede, Platon. Philebos, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 1997 ◆ G. Figal, Nietzsche: Eine philosophische Einführung, 1999. Friederike Rese

Bede, the Venerable, Saint (c. 672–735). Bede entered the monastery of Wearmouth at the age of seven where he was educated by → Benedict Biscop. Around 686, he moved to Jarrow, a new foundation, which inherited the substantial library of Benedict Biscop after his death in 689. This library became the basis of Bede’s writings in every field of knowledge. He is the outstanding representative of the Northumbrian renaissance and one of the most important scholars of the early Middle Ages. His writings cover a broad spectrum, from school textbooks (De arte metrica, De schematibus et tropis sacrae scripturae, De orthographia) to theological works (In Apocalypsin, In Acta, In Genesim, etc.), saints’ lives (Vita Sancti Cudbercti), treatises on chronology (De temporibus and De temporum ratione, with dates beginning with the “year of the incarnation”), and works on the natural sciences (De natura rerum) as well as historiography. His Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, completed in 731, is probably the most important

Beecher historical work of the early Middle Ages. Its scholarly assessment of sources and its use of the “years of the incarnation” chronology, which Bede introduced, made it the standard for historiography both in England and on the continent. Sources: PL 90–95 and PLS 4, 2215–2276 ◆ CCL 118a–123c ◆ Opera historica, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols., 1896 ◆ On Bede: P.H. Blair, The World of Bede, 1970, 21990 ◆ G. Bonner, ed., Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the 13th Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede, 1976 ◆ H.G. Brown, Bede the Venerable, 1987. Jörg O. Fichte

Beecher 1. Lyman (Oct 12, 1775, New Haven, CT–Jan 10, 1863, Brooklyn, NY). After graduating from Yale College in 1797, Beecher become pastor in East Hampton, NY; in 1810, he moved to Litchfield, CT. During these years he gained a reputation as a social reformer who opposed dueling, intemperance, and the separation of church and state. Moving to Hanover Street Congregational Church in Boston (→ Congregational Christian Churches) in 1826, Beecher attacked the → Unitarians and C.G. → Finney, whose revivalist-theological techniques he believed to jeopardize the Calvinistic doctrines of divine sovereignty and original sin. Beecher eventually moderated this position and later welcomed Finney to Boston. In 1832, Beecher became president of Lane Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he was pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church (→ Presbyterians). Convinced of the importance of the West for the development of the United States and of Protestant Christianity, he published A Plea for the West (1835), demanding Protestant action to prevent a Catholic takeover of that region. Opposed by Presbyterians who questioned his theological views on human action, Beecher was faced with charges of heresy. Although acquitted, these hearings revealed growing tensions within the Presbyterian Church that resulted in a split in 1837. Retiring from the pastorate in 1843 and from Lane Seminary in 1850, Beecher devoted his later years to writing and lecturing. Increasingly marked by old age, Beecher spent his last years in the home of his son Henry Ward, where he died in 1856. The Autobiography of Lyman Beecher, ed. B.M. Cross, 1961 ◆ M. Caskey, Chariot of Fire, 1978. Edward L. Queen II

2. Henry Ward ( Jun 24, 1813, Litchfield, CT – Mar 8, 1887, Brooklyn, NY), son of 1. Beecher studied at Amherst College and Lane Theological Seminary, before achieving fame as pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church (→ Plymouth Brethren) in Brooklyn from 1847 to 1887. Beecher’s popular sermons were not so much characterized by theology as by a picturesque language that appealed to the listeners’ emotions. He avoided being too clear on issues of Christology and the Last

Beer-Sheba

666

Judgement, preferring to hark back to the simple moral truths that reflected the middle-class piety of his time. He addressed all major social issues, matters of current interest, from opposition to → slavery to the industrial revolution. He embraced no new ideas or radical measures, but expressed a specifically American confidence in the progress which human nature can achieve in a free environment. Many of his ideals were liberal, but his actions were moderately conservative. Especially his views on labor unions and labor problems were uncompromising. However, the crowds came to listen to his eloquent sermons, in which he showed great imagination in embellishing commonly held platitudes. His ability to catch the public mood made him one of the most outstanding clergymen in mid-19th century America.

(following Aharoni), but more probably to be identified with Ziklag, which would fit both the history of occupation and the careful planning of the city in the monarchic period. The finds uncovered on Tell es-Sebaa are thus not relevant to the history of Beer-Sheba. If Tell es-Sebaa is to be identified with Ziklag and Bīhr es-Sebaa with BeerSheba, then Beer-Sheba may have been a meeting-place for shepherds as well as a cultic and trading site.

Works include: Yale Lectures on Preaching, 3 vols., 1872–1874 ◆ Evolution and Religion, 1885 ◆ On Beecher: W.G. McLoughlin, The Meaning of Henry Ward Beecher, 1970 ◆ C.E. Clark, Henry Ward Beecher, 1978. Henry Warner Bowden

Beethoven, Ludwig van (baptized Dec 17, 1770, Bonn – Mar 26, 1827, Vienna), a composer as well as a prominent pianist and improviser. Having become hard of hearing at an early age, he suffered from total deafness by 1819, whereupon he composed his grandiose late work. The considerable fame attained by Beethoven in his own lifetime established him as the embodiment of the middle-class composer-genius, notably on account of his 9 symphonies, 16 string quartets, and 32 piano sonatas, to which his only opera Leonore/Fidelio must be added. In comparison to other composers such as J. → Haydn, W.A. → Mozart, and L. → Cherubini, he gave less attention to church music, writing only two → masses (IV) (C major op. 86, 1807; Missa solemnis in D major op. 123, completed in 1823). His contribution to church music also includes the oratorio Christus am Ölberge [Christ on the Mount of Olives] (which was initially controversial because of the singing Christ) op. 85 (1804, rev. until 1811) and the six songs based on C.F. → Gellert, op. 48 (1798–1802). Though there seems to be no reason to question Beethoven’s Catholic faith, it is nonetheless true that his work could easily be understood in the sense of the secularized artificial religion which manifests itself in the 19th century as a surrogate for religion.

Beer-Sheba (“seven wells,” interpreted in popular etymology as “well of the oath,” cf. Gen 21:31; 26:33). A location in the Negev, which, in the pre-Priestly historical narrative, is linked to the → patriarchs → Abraham (I) (Gen 21:27–32a, 33) and → Isaac (Gen 26:23–33). The mention of . * 0  (’el aôlám), “God everlasting” (Gen 21:33), suggests an ancient cultic site, though this will hardly have been dedicated to a local deity. Rather, a sanctuary for Yahweh is explained with the theophany to Abraham. Most mentions attest to its continued existence during the monarchy. A sanctuary in the monarchy is presupposed in Amos 5:5; 8:14. Apart from 1 Sam 8:2, Beer-Sheba is also mentioned in Josh 15:28; 19:2 and 1 Kgs 19:3. In the phrase “from Dan to Beer-Sheba,” which is limited to the early monarchic period (1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; cf. Judg 20:1; 1 Kgs 5:5), “Beer-Sheba” designates the southernmost fixed point of the state. In the Persian and Hellenistic periods, Beer-Sheba is not mentioned, but according to the sources it was still in existence in Roman and Byzantine times (references in P. Thomsen, Loca Sancta, 1907, 42f.; G. Reeg, Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur, 1989, 74). In Late Antiquity, the equites Dalmatae Illyriciani were stationed there in a military camp. Presumably, Beer-Sheba, like all other cities in the Negev, was abandoned after the Arabian conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. The name is preserved in Bīhr es-Sebaa, a group of wells in the area of Wādī esSebaa. The new city of Beer-Sheba, founded during the First World War to the north of these wells on top of Byzantine and Iron Age remains, was named after it. Tell es-Sebaa, approximately 4 km further to the east, which at the beginning of the 20th century still bore the name Tell el-Mšāš, is certainly not identical with Beer-Sheba

R. Gophna & Y. Yisraeli, “Soundings at Beer-Sheba (Bir esSebaa),” in: Y. Aharoni, ed., Beer-Sheba I. Excavations 1969– 1971, 1973, 115–118 ◆ V. Fritz, “Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur historischen Topographie am Beispiel von Ziklag,” ZDPV 106, 1990, 78–85 ◆ idem, “Jahwe und El in den vorpriesterlichen Geschichtswerken,” in: “Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?”, FS O. Kaiser, 1994, 111–126. Volkmar Fritz

Sources: G. Kinsky & H. Halm, Das Werk Beethovens. Thematisch-bibliographisches Verzeichnis, 1955 (suppl. by K. Dorfmüller, 1978) ◆ Werke, published by the Beethoven-Archiv Bonn, 1961ff. ◆ K.-H. Köhler et al., eds., Konversationshefte, 10 vols., 1968–1993 ◆ M. Solomon, Beethovens Tagebuch, ed. S. Brandenburg, 1990 ◆ Briefwechsel, ed. S. Brandenburg, 6 vols., 1996 ◆ On Beethoven: A.W. Thayer, The Life of Beethoven, ed. E. Forbes, 1964 etc. ◆ D. Douglas, A. Tyson, & R. Winter, The Beethoven Sketchbooks, 1985 ◆ A. Riethmüller et al., eds., Beethovens Interpretationen seiner Werke, 2 vols., 21996. Albrecht Riethmüller

Beguines/Beghards. The Beguines signaled a new approach in the lay religiosity of the High Middle Ages. Toward the end of the 12th century, mulieres religiosae suddenly appeared in the cities of what is now Belgium and the Rhineland, then later throughout western and

667

Behavioral Research

southern Europe. These “semi-clerics” practiced a way of life that lay between that of clergy and laity. Several explanations have been proposed for the phenomenon: it might have been a spontaneous religious movement (Grundmann), a women’s rebellion (Dinzelbacher), or a response to the call by pope → Innocent III to strengthen the penitential orders (Wehrli-Johns). The name may allude to their undyed beige woolen robes. Beguines lived either alone, in beguinages (in the Netherlands: beguinage courts), taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, or in association with a convent. They supported themselves through handiwork (cloth production). Major figures include → Mary of Oigniès, → Hadewijch of Antwerp, → Marguerite Porète, and → Mechthild von Magdeburg . Their motivation was to revive the vita apostolica: prayer and contemplation as vita passiva, instruction of girls and attending to the sick and departed (vigils) as vita activa. The Beghards were the male counterparts to the Beguines, appearing primarily in what is now Belgium from the middle of the 13th century onward. Toward the end of the 13th century, mendicant Beguines and especially Beghards roamed through Germany, southern France, and Italy. The Curia strove to incorporate them into regular orders. Despite the special status granted to them by the pope in 1216 at the urging of → Jacob of Vitry, they were often persecuted. As a result, many Beghards joined the Franciscan Third Order (→ Franciscans) or adopted the Augustinian Rule (→ Augustine, Rule of ). In southern Germany and Switzerland, many Beguines joined the → Dominicans. The Beguines existed into the 19th century in the Ruhr region; there are still a few in the Netherlands. Through their spiritual mentors (usually Dominicans), their fervent devotion to the Passion, the Eucharist, and the infant Jesus, often combined with mystic phenomena (visions, ecstasies), exerted influence on German → mysticism and → the devotio moderna.

concluded – e.g. from the concentration and heredity of “ingenuity” in some families – that connections exist between behavior and heredity transmission (→ Inheritance). He was the first to discuss the difference between natural predispositions and education in the development of human behavior. Human behavior is the result of a complex interaction of genes and environment. Environment is everything that influences us beyond our genes. Thus, the question is not “natural predisposition” versus “education,” but rather “predisposition” and “education,” because nearly every facet of human behavior is shaped by a complex interaction of genes and environmental influences. The traditional method employed by behavioral genetics to separate biological components from behavioral components that are linked to the environment consists of examining twins, families and adopted children. Now that the entire human gene sequence is known, science is trying to allocate individual genes or groups of genes to certain behaviors – e.g. the willingness to take risks or to accept new ideas. The relationships between genetics and behavior are extremely complex. It is difficult to prove that a certain gene contributes to a certain behavior, because a specific characteristic – e.g. shyness – is the result of complex interactions between several genes. Even if shyness should successfully be linked to specific genes, the question will remain whether or not and to what extent other genes and influences from the environment affect behavior. Genes do not determine fate. Nevertheless, it may become possible to develop genetic tests to predict the probability that an individual will exhibit a certain type of behavior. This possibility raises important ethical and theological questions, since it relates to the definitions of “normal” and “abnormal,” → dignity (→ Human dignity), → free will, and moral → responsibility.

H. Grundmann, Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter, 41977 ◆ P. Dinzelbacher & D. Bauer, eds., Religiöse Frauenbewegung und mystische Frömmigkeit im Mittelalter, 1988 ◆ I. Geyer, Maria von Oignies, 1992 ◆ J. Asen et al., Zahlreich wie die Sterne des Himmels: Beginen am Niederrhein zwischen Mythos und Wirklichkeit, BPr 70, 1992 ◆ A.M. Hollywood, The Soul as Virgin Wife: Mechtild of Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete, and Meister Eckhart, 1995 ◆ W. Simons, Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries, 1200–1565, 2001. Iris Geyer

R.A. Carson & M.A. Rothstien, eds., Behavioral Genetics, 1999 ◆ R. Plomin, et al., Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era, 2003 ◆ E. Parens, “Genetic Differences and Human Identities,” HCR Special Suppl. 34/1, 2004, 1–36. Margaret R. McLean

Behavioral Genetics. → Genetics is the study of the hereditary factors of biological variation. Human behavioral genetics seeks to understand how and to what degree genes affect behavior, and how those genes affect → intelligence and personality (→ Behavioral research). F. → Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, was the first to study behavior and genetics systematically. Galton

Behavioral Research I. Concept, History of Doctrine – II. Science – III. Behavioral Research and Ethics, Practical Theology and Pedagogy

I. Concept, History of Doctrine Today, behavioral research or ethology, which also includes → behaviorism, represents an increasingly ramified field of research that is particularly determined by → biology and evolutionary concepts (→ Evolution). Sub-disciplines include: behavioral physiology (neurological and endocrinological), behavioral phylogenesis

Behavioral Research and ontogenesis, the investigation of learning processes, → sociobiology (the biological adequacy of social behavior), and evolutionary → psychology. The formerly common distinction between animal and human ethology hardly attracts attention nowadays, even though there are relatively few research results pertaining to human behavior (e.g. because of the lack of experiments for reasons of research ethics, etc.). Behavioral research has received considerable attention since the 2nd half of the 20th century. It is however, in many respects, indebted to the philosophical anthropology of the 17th and 18th centuries (T. → Hobbes, D. → Hume, etc.) and to the → sensualism and → materialism of that period. The term ethology stems from the 19th century (Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Jean-Henri Fabre, William Morton Wheeler). For the 20th century, one should particularly mention, in addition to behaviorism, Oskar Heinroth, Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen, and Irenäus EiblEibesfeldt, as well as Edward O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins in sociobiology. The scientific basis of behavioral theories includes several different insights: the observation and description of animal behavior in (inter alia) nature, (laboratory) experiments, neurological and endocrinological investigations, brain research, → genetics, psychological and sociological or social-psychological studies, etc. Equally broad is the spectrum of investigated behaviors – from simple behavioral sequences among animals to highly complex phenomena of human interaction and culture. In this respect, this is less a self-contained scientific discipline than an open field of research. An understanding of behavior as an organismic steering and regulating of environmental conditions as well as the interpretation of this behavior in terms of evolutionary theory provide the common denominator. In earlier behavioral research, the focus lay on the survival of the species, whereas the individual genes and their “egoistic” tendency to self-preservation now stand in the center of attention. Important controversies are concerned with the relationship between innate and acquired, the importance of instincts, aggressive behavior, etc. The relationship between evolutionary heritage and the contributions of culture has not yet been satisfactorily clarified. The problem of anthropomorphism in behavioral research has been recognized but by no means resolved. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Grundriß der Vergleichenden Verhaltensforschung: Ethologie, 1967, 81999 ◆ P.N. Lehner, Handbook of Ethological Methods, 1979, 21996 ◆ I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens, 1984, 31995 ◆ R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976 ◆ W. Wuketits, Die Entdeckung des Verhaltens: Eine Geschichte der Verhaltensforschung, 1995 ◆ E. Voland, Grundriß der Soziobiologie, 22000. Friedrich Schweitzer

II. Science As is well known, the Apostle Paul was astonished at his own behavior: “For I do not know what I do. For

668 I do not do what I want; rather, that which I hate, that I do” (Rom 7:15). Were he still alive today, Paul may have turned his attention to the field of behavioral research, which attempts to understand why we humans do what we do. Ethology concentrates on everything that an animal or human being does in order to survive and reproduce. In the 1950s, anthropologists downplayed the importance of the biological foundations of human behavior in favor of cultural explanation models. This attitude changed with the beginning of the Human Genome Project in 1990, which resulted in increased attention to the influence of the genes on human behavior. Current studies on the biological foundations of animal behavior – from paramecia to flies, apes and humans – indicate that genes play a decisive role in the steering of behavior and that the functioning of the latter proves extremely complicated. Any given behavior is the result of a coordinated interaction of many genes and of the interaction of the entire genome with the environment (→ Behavioral Genetics). Behavior is best described on the level of the entire organism. Behavior can nevertheless be investigated on several levels, from the observation of the behaviors of an organism in reaction to external stimuli, e.g. bright light, to the correlation of specific gene sequences and interactions with an observed behavior, e.g. → aggression. For humans, whose capacity for decision is centralized within a complex nervous system, behavior can be conceived as the manifestation of the brain’s reactions to information received from without and from within the body. Because the environment affects the person through the mediation of the nervous system, an important branch of behavioral research concerns itself with neuro-transmitters and their receptors. Neuro-transmitters are chemical messengers that transmit information from one nerve cell to the next and to other cells in the body. Thus, for example, variations in the concentration of the neuro-transmitter serotonin have been associated with behaviors ranging from → depression to aggression. Persons suffering from depression have a lower serotonin level in the central nervous system, which involves the incapacity to adequately evaluate a specific situation and ultimately leads to a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. The appearance of medications known as “selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI),” such as Prozac, permits a modification of behavior for some depression patients through an increase of serotonin levels in the brain. Remarkably, it has been observed that prozac leads to fundamental changes in the character of some patients, which once again raises questions, as yet unanswered, concerning the nature of psychological illnesses and what actually constitutes the “true” → self (see also → Identity).

669 Behavioral research, as well as recent genetics and brain research, raises questions for contemporary theology, e.g. whether these biological influences on human behavior are responsible for what Christians understand under → original sin. P.D. Kramer, Listening to Prozac, 1997 ◆ W.R. Clark & M. Grunstein, Are We Hardwired? The Role of Genes in Human Behavior, 2000 ◆ Department of Health and Human Services, United States National Institutes of Health, Description of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 2000 ◆ T.A. Shannon & J.J. Walter, The New Genetic Medicine: Theological and Ethical Reflections, 2003. Margaret R. McLean

III. Behavioral Research and Ethics, Practical Theology and Pedagogy Behavioral research has attracted attention especially in ethics and pedagogy, but only selectively in practical theology. Challenges are posed by the ethological claim concerning innate aggression or an aggressive drive, and assumptions concerning innate behavioral dispositions in relation to → learning and → education, but also with respect to a conception of humanity and society based on social Darwinism (→ Darwinism: IV), which, however, is now rejected even in behavioral research. The → evolutionary ethics currently being sought in behavioral research may indeed be combined with other ethical approaches, albeit under the precondition that behavioral research establishes no claim to a conclusive insight into fundamental ethical and anthropological questions such as the nature and destiny of human beings, good and evil, war and peace, the capacity to learn or the determination of ethical goals. A tendency toward reductionist explanations has reached a certain degree of dominance in behavioral research, a tendency that seeks to demonstrate the untenable and meaningless character of ethical norms and objectives (→ Teleology) by referring to evolutionary and genetic factors (→ Teleonomy). Frequently, cultural evolution is not assigned its own weight in comparison to previous natural and genetic history. Socio-biology in particular, with its interpretive perspective of genetic egoism (Dawkins), has cast doubts upon an → altruism justified in terms of theology and philosophical ethics, without sufficiently clarifying, e.g., epistemological questions regarding the interpretation of behavior in relation to conscious → action. So far, practical theology has only sporadically taken notice of behavioral research, but, where it has, then with great emphasis such as, for example, in liturgics with the ethological interpretation of worship ( Josuttis) or in religious education as an ethics of survival based on a biological, ethological, and evolutionary theory as well as on education for peace (Nipkow; → Peace movement and peace education). For pedagogy, one should mention, in addition to the early works of H. → Spencer

Behavioral Therapy and biological aspects of pedagogical anthropology, the comparatively recent reception of behavioral research in the context of evolution and systems theory, in particular: general pedagogy on an evolutionary basis (Treml) as well as evolutionary didactics (Scheunpflug). Here as well, important questions of → epistemology and of the relationship between pedagogy and behavioral research remain unclarified. It is necessary to distinguish both between the various types of behavioral research, which also represent various claims, and between a legitimate consideration of the insights afforded by behavioral research and the problematic use of behavioral research as an exclusive fundamental theory for other disciplines. K. Lorenz, Das sogenannte Böse: Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression, 1963 ◆ W. Wickler, Die Biologie der Zehn Gebote, 1971 ◆ M. Josuttis, Der Weg in das Leben: Eine Einführung in den Gottesdienst auf verhaltenswissenschaftlicher Grundlage, 1991 ◆ K. Bayertz, ed., Evolution und Ethik, 1993 ◆ D. Neumann, et al., eds., Die Natur der Moral: Evolutionäre Ethik und Erziehung, 1999 ◆ A.K. Treml, Allgemeine Pädagogik, 2000 ◆ A. Scheunpflug, Biologische Grundlagen des Lernens, 2001 ◆ idem, Evolutionäre Didaktik, 2001 ◆ “Evolutionäre Pädagogik,” ZP 48/5, 2002, 649–740) (thematic volume) ◆ K.E. Nipkow, God, Human Nature and Education for Peace, 2003. Friedrich Schweitzer

Behavioral Therapy. Behavioral therapy is an important aspect of → psychotherapy that offers a broad spectrum of specific forms of therapy in order to alleviate those conditions that are caused by the particular behavior associated with the dysfunction. Four principles characterize behavioral therapy. 1. It is based on scientific results: The behaviors to be altered and the objectives and methods of treatment are exactly defined, and their effectiveness is documented through controlled empirical studies. 2. It is action-oriented: Patients learn specific behaviors to alleviate their problems. Therapist and patient collaborate on a treatment plan that is often implemented in the everyday environment of the patient with the assistance of other important persons (e.g. parents, partners). 3. It focuses on the present: Although the causes of a patient’s problems may lie in the past, these causal circumstances no longer exist. If similar conditions continue to be effective, they are regarded as upholding conditions in the present. 4. It is based on learning processes (→ Psychology of learning): Since the problems of patients are developed and maintained through learning, behavioral therapy employs principles such as reinforcement. Furthermore, behavioral therapy has four common characteristics: 1. Standardized methods of treatment are customized individually. 2. The procedure is implemented in steps, perhaps beginning with the less threatening aspects of a problem. 3. Several methods are employed in order to increase effectiveness. 4. Behavioral therapies are short-term.

Behaviorism The theoretical model of human behavior underlying behavioral therapy concentrates on open and concealed behaviors (cognitions [→ Cognitive science] and → emotions) instead of on personality traits or mental conditions. According to this model, the upholding conditions or causes of a patient’s problematic behavior lie in the current, immediate circumstances and consequences of this behavior. The consequences of the behavior determine the likelihood that the person in question will exhibit the behavior again. The likelihood increases with positive (favorable) and decreases with negative (unfavorable) consequences. Behavioral therapy encompasses seven interrelated steps: 1. The problems described by the patient are identified and classified in terms of importance. 2. The therapeutic objectives are defined. 3. Therapist and patient isolate a limited, single aspect of the problem behavior that is to be altered, making sure that it can be unequivocally defined and measured. Behavioral therapy treats only one or two aspects at the same time; if there are several problem areas, they are treated in sequence. 4. The current, upholding conditions of the problem behavior are identified. 5. A treatment plan with individually customized therapeutic procedures is established in order to alter the upholding conditions of the problem behavior. 6. The treatment plan is implemented. 7. The success of the treatment plan is examined on the basis of three criteria: (a) significant changes in the patient’s problem, (b) the transfer from the therapy situation into everyday life, and (c) the long-term continuation of the change. Methods of behavioral analysis are employed in order to obtain information concerning the upholding conditions of the problem behavior and to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. The most common methods are: behavioral interviews, self-evaluation questionnaires, checklists and ratings scales, self-observation, systematic behavioral observation, simulated observation, roleplay and physiological measurements. Behavioral therapies can be divided into four categories: 1. The form of therapy known as behavioral modification alters the consequences of the behavior. Reinforcement and penalty are employed, in this sequence, in order to increase the frequency of favorable behavior and to reduce that of the unfavorable. Complex applications of reinforcement are evident in the token economy and in contingency management. 2. In exposure therapy for the treatment of anxiety, patients are exposed to threatening situations or behaviors. They learn to endure these situations and to control the anxiety. The exposure can occur in various ways. In the course of systematic desensitization, patients first learn a relaxation technique, then told to imagine, briefly and repetitively, anxiety-producing situations while they are relaxed (this counteracts the association of anxiety and muscular tension). The confrontation pro-

670 ceeds in a slow progression, during which the imagined situations become increasingly anxiety-producing (the so-called hierarchy of anxiety). In contrast, overstimulation or “flooding” relies on exposure in vivo with events that produce high anxiety. Without permitting any inhibitive reactions, the patient is exposed to the situation until the anxiety is overcome through habituation. 3. In imitation therapy (model learning, observational learning), the patient observes a model which performs the competency that is to be learned. Imitation, inculcation and formation of behaviors (reinforcement of the gradual approaching of the behavior) are the chief components of skills training, which is meant to remediate deficits such as those that appear in autism, mental disability and → schizophrenia. 4. The most common type of behavioral therapy is cognitive therapy. It employs a broad spectrum of methods in order to directly or indirectly alter cognitions that are associated with mental dysfunctions (thoughts, convictions, expectations). Cognitive restructuring alters dysfunctional cognition directly by urging the patients to replace dysfunctional with functional cognition; it is an essential component of cognitive therapy (Aaron T. Beck) and of rationalemotive behavioral therapy (Albert Ellis). Cognitivebehavioral therapies aimed at devising coping strategies give patients strategies for coming to terms with dysfunctional cognitions and behaviors through, e.g., methods of self-instruction or stress management and problem-solving training. Behavioral therapy occurs as individual or group therapy (couple and family therapy). Beyond the treatment of mental dysfunctions, behavioral therapy has also been applied in other areas: in so-called behavioral medicine to treat and mitigate somatic illnesses, to increase compliance with medical treatments and to support patients in their dealings with medical procedures. Additional areas of implementation are: the handling of (school) classes, children’s education, problems with aging, the improvement of athletic performance, and the solving of social problems in areas such as security and the environment. M.D. Spiegler & D.C. Guevremont, Contemporary Behaviour Therapy, 42003. Michael D. Spiegler

Behaviorism I. Concept – II. Practical Theology – III. Ethics

I. Concept Behaviorism has tried, like its historical antecedents, to explain human nature on the model of the animal or the machine. In 1913, John-Broadus Watson (1878–1958) established behaviorism as a modern research trend in psychology. Following Darwinist evolution theory, behaviorism argues that we can understand and control animals without examining their state of consciousness.

671

Behaviorism

Using the same methods we can also understand and control human nature. Behaviorism arrives at an “exact science of human behavior” by disregarding consciousness, thought, feeling, and individuality in its research, by demanding strict objectivity of the observer, and allowing only empirical criteria for determining truth. Watson accepts Iwan Petrowitsch Pawlow’s (1849–1936) famous experiments with dogs and the formulation of the “conditioned reflex” in his behaviorist theories. This so-called classical conditioning argues that an unconditioned stimulus – e.g. food – causes an unconditioned response, i.e. salivation. However, a conditioned stimulus, such as the sound of a bell, could be associated with the food due to the simultaneousness of stimulus and reaction (the principle of contiguity), so that the bell without the food would also elicit the salivation. In this way, salivation becomes a conditioned response. Watsonian behaviorism assumed that all human behavior could not only be explained, but predictably controlled by so-called S(timulus)-R(esponse) bonds. More recently, B.F. Skinner (1904–1990) developed a refinement of Pavlov’s position and called it “operant conditioning.” The basic principle is that test subjects will repeat rewarded behavior. An “operant” is a pattern of behavior (a pigeon pressing on a lever to obtain a food pellet) which can be rewarded on a schedule that will turn that behavior into a habit or a learned form of action. Skinner, in effect, reverses the S-R bond. The subject is to perform the desired action in a state of food deprivation. Then the action is rewarded. R(espondent or operant) brings forth S(timulus) so that R will be repeated. Skinner’s approach to learning transposed into human situations has produced remarkable results with teaching machines. His teaching methods are also effective in certain therapeutic contexts (→ Behavioral therapy) such as in conditioning the behavior of hyperactive children. In specific, controllable situations, Pavlov’s and Skinner’s insights help to explain how human beings learn patterns of emotions and actions. However, behaviorist theories beyond these limits are unconvincing. James E. Loder

II. Practical Theology With regard to practical theology, behaviorism is relevant and potentially helpful whenever the theory of learning is of significance. Beyond these limited cases, behaviorism can, however, be considered as either illconceived or reductionistic. The following are five standard criticisms of behaviorist thought: 1. The connection between stimulus and response is by no means an unambiguous causal connection. Most obvious in humans, less obvious in animals, an “autonomously acting” organism stands between S(timulus) and R(esponse). 2. Behaviorism fails to account for the uniqueness of the

human use of language. 3. As a comprehensive understanding of human nature, behaviorism’s determinism falls prey to the deterministic paradox. If all behavior is (pre)-determined, then the theory can never be verified or falsified, since whatever proof might be offered is also (pre) determined. 4. The notion that all behavior can be conditioned is implicitly totalitarian. 5. Behaviorism emulates an outmoded view of natural science. Postmodern science recognizes the necessity: (a) to eliminate observer neutrality and to integrate the observer into the research; (b) to alternate between holistic and particular approaches; (c) to include the principle of uncertainty and relativity into any explanation; (d) to distinguish between science and technology. The former deals with an open-system explanation, the latter with closed systems of explanation and the predictable control of nature. A discovery in technology is patented, whereas a discovery in science belongs to everyone. Behaviorism is not a science, at best a technology of human behavior. B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior, 1953 ◆ J.G. Benjafield, A History of Psychology, 1996. James E. Loder

III. Ethics The consequences of behaviorism for ethics (2.) arise from the reduction of action to behavior (1.b) as well as from its scientific, epistemological, and ontological requirements (1.a). 1. a. Scientific theory prerequisite: scientific theories compile rules, according to which changes of a dependent variable depend on the changes of a (relatively) independent variable so that explanation, prognosis, and – by intervention in the field of the independent variables – the technical manipulation of dependent variables becomes possible. Epistemological prerequisite: only observable facts are recognizable: the responses of systems to stimuli from their environment. Ontological prerequisite: the only real events occur through the regular stimulation of a change in dependent variables by a change in (relatively) independent variables. b. Under these conditions, human action can only be thought of as behavior: as the causally regulated response of organic systems to their physical environment (which also includes their “social” environment), dependent upon environmental stimuli and their processing in the inner environment of the responding organism, which in turn is structured by conditioning. Even the exchange of symbols, speech included, represents conditioned behavior, the “self ” conditioned inner environment, the result of a chain of responses and only as such a condition of response. 2. Where this reduction of action is divided into behavior and its conditions – e.g. already in early socio-psychology (K. Marx, G.H. Spencer, W. James, G.H. Mead), in behavioral research (K. Lorenz), ethology, sociobiology (Dawkins), the economy of human behavior

Behemoth (F.A. Hayek, G.S. Becker) and certain varieties of system theory (N. Luhmann) – the consequences for ethics are the following: ethics becomes the theory of an existing – genre or group-specific – ethos (“culture”) which permits the explanation of its existence as well as the prognosis and methodic “steering” of its development – in the case of individuals through techniques of learning and therapy (→ Behavioral therapy), in the case of communities through “cultural planning.” Preferences expressed in the respective existing response patterns are not founded in norms, but in achievements conducive to the survival of individuals and groups. This explains altruism (sacrifice of the individual for the whole) as well as the limitations on the demands made by the whole on individuals in a liberal culture that peacefully promotes individual independence. The development of scientific theory and the method of steering behavior are themselves understood as a behavior that follows survivalistic preferences. Their misuse is detrimental to survival, an evolutionary mistake, concepts of freedom and of the person’s dignity are programmatic, practically excluded from duty, guilt, and responsibility. The ethos of the individual is also causally determined in the context of the development of the ethos genre. This follows from the consistent orientation towards a complete interpretation of reality as a causally regulated evolutionary process. The position is, of course, highly consistent in its logic and largely immune to immanent criticism. Nevertheless, it must be noted: it owes its existence to ontological conditions that cannot be attained through experience, and it does not do justice to the phenomenon of personal freedom with its ambivalent dynamics, rather, it denies it. In an ethics that stands up to the phenomenon of freedom this must be viewed as ethically negative. Moments of truth in behaviorism must, however, be noted: its insights into the conditions of physical freedom. J.B. Watson, Behaviorism, 1925 ◆ B.F. Skinner, Walden Two, 1948 ◆ idem, Science and Human Behavior, 1953 ◆ C.S. Pittendrigh, “Adaption, Natural Selection and Behavior,” in: A. Roe & G.G. Simpson, eds., Behavior and Evolution, 1958 ◆ K. Lorenz, Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression, 1963 ◆ W. D. Hamilton, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1964, 1–32 ◆ H. Rachlin, Modern Behaviorism, 1970, 21976 ◆ B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971 ◆ G.S. Becker, Ökonomische Erklärung menschlichen Verhaltens, 1976 ◆ R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976 ◆ N. Luhmann, “Soziologie der Moral,” in: N. Luhmann & S.H. Pfürtner, eds., Theorietechnik und Moral, 1978, 8–16 ◆ K. Bayertz, Evolution und Ethik, 1993 ◆ B. Gräfrath, Evolutionäre Ethik?, 1997 ◆ V. Hösle & C. Illies, “Der Darwinismus als Metaphysik,” in: P. Koslowski & R. Schenk, eds., Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover 9, 1998, 97–127 ◆ Journals: Ethik und Sozialwissenschaft, 1990ff. ◆ Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1981ff. ◆ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1978ff. Eilert Herms

672 Behemoth → Leviathan Behm, Martin (Böhme; 1557–1622), senior priest in Lauban from 1586. His roughly 500 church hymns, his compilations of sermons (e.g. “Spectaculum passionis”, which contains 150 Passion sermons of pronounced emblematic character) and spiritual dramas testify to the influence of the new, internalized form of piety that had just begun to spread throughout Silesia (cf. M. → Moller), in conjunction with a consciously upheld, unpolemical Lutheran orthodoxy. J. Mützell, Geistliche Lieder der Evangelischen Kirche aus dem 16.Jh., 1855 ◆ R.E. Schade, M. Böhme (1557–1622), 1976. Elke Axmacher

Being. The German Sein, which can be either the infinitive of the verb “to be” or a noun (“being”), is translated by English-language philosophers as “Being” (often capitalized). One who inquires into Being seeks to know what it means for something to exist – whether specifically or in general. In Greek philosophy, which set the terms of this debate, Being in this sense is expressed not only by means of a definite article plus infinitive, το εἶναι/tóeînai, but also by means of the article plus participle τὸ ὄν/tò ón (“that which is/exists”). From → Plato onwards, the noun οὐσία/ousía (literally, “existingness”) also becomes common. → Aristotle coined the expression “that which exists, to the extent that it exists” (τὸ ὄν ᾗ ὄν/tó ón h¶ ón) to indicate what the question about “Being” alludes to (Metaphysics 4.1; 1003b, 21). The current designation of the philosophical discussion of “Being,” viz. → ontology, is no older than the early modern period, and probably originated in the Lexicon philosophicum (1613) of Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius). It was → Parmenides who discovered Being. His didactic poem communicates the insight that the world can be thought of as a unity on the basis of Being. We must say that everything that can be mentioned also exists, irrespective of whether it is before us to behold or – in terms of our capacity to discern it – absent. Accordingly, to think of something means to think of it as existing, and since everything must be thought of in this way, the reason (noús) sees everything as linked to everything else by virtue of its existence: “comparable to the mass of a well-rounded sphere” (Fragment B 8.43). Naturally, this insight is not readily attainable: according to the “Didactic Poem”, it is a revelation by a goddess and reaches beyond the normal understanding of common “mortals” (Fragment B 6.4) whose attention is caught by that which is specific. Being “double-headed” (Fragment B 6.5), they posit a difference between Being and non-Being, becoming and withering (Fragment B 8.38–40). Reason, however, transcends this opinion (which is held captive by language) and pushes forward to

673 the unity of Being. Since Being is accessible only to reason, Parmenides can understand perception and Being as “one and the same” (Fragment B 3). Being is the sole correlative of reason, and reason as such the perception of Being. But Parmenides did not provide an answer to the question of how we are to understand more precisely that something exists. He did not explain the relationship between the plurality of things and their unified Being. These two questions prompted the discussion of Being in Plato’s late dialogues. His answer to Parmenides begins with the observation that the definition of something per se can only be formulated in a series of definitions; when these are linked, we get a more or less differentiated picture of the thing which is to be defined. The link is always established by the expression “is,” so that this act of linking can itself be understood as the meaning of the word “is.” Being is the capacity to form links (dýnamis epikoinōnías, Soph. 252d), since it only “is” when one definition is linked to another – otherwise, it is only a potential for comprehensibility and understanding or (as Plato would put it) an isolated idea. The fact that “something” is, means that it presents itself as a framework of definitions, which we perceive in the particular way in which they are linked to one another. Being is itself one definition among others. Its special character is that it represents one of the “great genres” (megísta gen¶, Soph. 254a) which have a function in the definition of things comparable to that of vowels in a language: they run through all the others and unite them (Soph. 253a). Aristotle is also indebted to the Platonic program which insists that Being must be understood in relation to that which is defined, though he holds that the Platonic understanding of Being is too unspecific to do justice to this program. Accordingly, he makes a crucial change to the approach of his teacher. For Aristotle, the “is” does not simply link definitions of equal value. Rather, it always links definitions to definitions of an exceptional character, and it is only for this reason that we can say of the linked definitions, which are dependent on one another in this way, that they actually exist. Aristotle holds that there is a fundamental type of definition, from which the linking function of the “is” acquires its meaning. Although one can speak in many ways of that which exists, all these point in one single direction, viz. to that which constitutes its nature (Metaphysics 4.2; 1003a, 33–34). Aristotle calls the fundamental way of defining Being ousía. The ousía of something is that which something – this autonomously existing thing – is. All other definitions, such as quality, quantity, or relationship, are meaningful only in relation to the ousía. With his modification of Plato’s approach, Aristotle linked the understanding of Being to the individual

Being things. On the other hand, he remains Plato’s student in that he defines the meaning of the individual thing as its idea (eidos). Aristotle does justice to this distinction between the individual thing and its Being by understanding the eîdos as the reality (enérgeia, Metaphysics 8.2–3; 1043a5–1043b2) of the specific individual thing. Being means being real in a specific form, which as such constitutes the reality of something. When he defines the unmoved God, who yet moves all that is the world, as an absolute reality, he lets his discussion of Being culminate in philosophical theology. For Plato, the question of Being remains integrated into the context of the philosophy of ideas, while Aristotle completely subordinates his theoretical philosophy to the question of Being. This is one of the principal reasons why his conception of Being achieved a dominant position; its solutions and problems defined the area within which later clarifications, discussions, and controversies were to take place. Accordingly, the question of Being lost its significance as soon as the Aristotelian philosophy lost its power to convince people, or was simply marginalized. This happened in the philosophy of the modern period. When I. → Kant insists in the Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft, KrV, 1781, 21787) that the “proud name of ontology” must “give place to the modest name of a mere analysis of pure reason” (KrV A247, B303), he is not only formulating his own philosophical program, but also summarizing its antecedents in the thinking of R. → Descartes and English → Empiricism. For Kant, the question what something is no longer has any connection with the question of its Being. Nothing more can be added to the “concept” of a thing than the fact that it is thought of as “absolutely existing.” Accordingly, the “is” – unless it represents, “in the logical use,” the mere link between subject and predicate – has only the meaning of a “position” (KrV A598–A599, B626–B627), i.e. the thing conceived is brought into a specific circumstance by means of the verb “is.” Not only the definition of a thing, but also its Being is derived from the activity of subjectivity, without allowing for the possibility of defining it in its Being. Just as the marginalization of Being went hand in hand with a decline of interest in Aristotle, so too the renewed attention to Being was accompanied by the rediscovery of Aristotle, though this took place in very varied ways in modern philosophy. G.W.F. → Hegel, the most important Aristotelian of the 19th century, accepts the Aristotelian definition of Being to a greater extent than any other philosopher of his age, but he does not retain the idea of Being in this definition: for Hegel, Being is the “pure immediacy” of that which is completely without content, the empty act of looking at something (Werke V, 1834, 82), but also that which is

Beissel, Georg Conrad completely specific, viz. the “idea” which has permeated all definitions and has thus become absolute (Werke VI, 1840, 572); Being is the beginning and end of the scholarly history of understanding, which reaches completion in a comprehension of itself that requires no further mediation. M. → Heidegger, an anti-Aristotelian who was nevertheless the most important Aristotelian of the 20th century, places the idea of Being in the center of his own philosophy. He also claims that Plato was exclusively interested in Being. This is precisely why the question of Being has never been formulated appropriately in the philosophical tradition. We must therefore go back behind the tradition in order to ask what it has generated and what it has maintained. Heidegger made two great attempts at an elaboration of this program. In the early period of his thought, which led to the publication of Sein und Zeit (ET: Being and Time, 1962) in 1927, he accepts the Aristotelian idea of the leading fundamental definition of Being and at the same time attempts to go beyond Aristotle. The fundamental definition of Being should now no longer be sought in the orientation to individual things, but in human existence. An essential requirement of human existence is that it “is concerned with its Being in this Being itself ” (Sein und Zeit §4; GA II, 16). Since existence is thereby determined by an “understanding of Being” (ibid.), the question of Being can be made comprehensible only on the basis of the Being of existence. This is how Heidegger sees things, though his project fails, because the analysis of existence which he develops in Sein und Zeit is limited to the pre-philosophical existence. – Heidegger made a fresh start in the 1930s and developed an understanding of Being as an event of “being present” (GA IX, 259), an event understood in philosophy on the basis of the present existence of each specific reality. His intention is the same in both cases: Heidegger wants to reach back before the Aristotelian definition of Being as reality in order to point to a possibility that will make reality as such comprehensible. Possibility is “the final positive ontological definition” (Sein und Zeit §31; GA II, 191), not only with regard to human existence, but also with regard to Being as a whole. Heidegger’s understanding of Being as possibility leads back to the Platonic definition of Being as the capacity to create a link; Heidegger himself saw this in his exposition of the Sophist (GA XIX, 478–480; ET: Plato’s Sophist, 1997). But the Platonic solution can now also be understood as an alternative to the idea of Being, namely as an event of presence which is antecedent to all reality. Heidegger himself uses the term “event” in this context (cf. Zur Sache des Denkens, 1976, 22; ET: On Time and Being, 1972): all that is real is determined only in connection with other things. This definition

674 is not the mass of a well-rounded sphere which reduces everything to equality. Rather, it belongs in a network of definitions which is constantly being linked anew by the possibility of the “is.” M. Heidegger, “Kants These über das Sein,” 1961, in: GA IX, 1976, 445–480 ◆ P. Aubenque, Le problème d’être chez Aristote, 1962, 42002 ◆ M. Frede, Prädikation und Existenzaussage in Platos “Sophistes,” 1967 ◆ C. Kahn, The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek, 1973, repr. 2003 ◆ R.E. Schulz, “‘Sein’ in Hegels Logik: ‘Einfache Beziehung auf sich’,” in: H. Fahrenbach, ed., Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, FS. W. Schulz, 1973, 365–383 ◆ U. Hölscher, Über den Sinn von Sein in der älteren griechischen Philosophie, 1976 ◆ G. Figal, Martin Heidegger, Phänomenologie der Freiheit, 1988, 32000. Günter Figal

Beissel, Georg Conrad (not: Johann; Mar 1, 1691, Eberbach/Neckar – Jul 6, 1768, Ephrata, PA), a radical pietist (→ Pietism). In the Palatinate as well as in the counties of Ysenburg and Wittgenstein, the itinerant baker came into contact with Pietistic groups, especially → Inspirationist Communities and → Anabaptists (Church of the Brethren), and emigrated to Pennsylvania in 1720. He joined the Anabaptists, though his Böhmist (S. → Böhme) and Sabbatarian (→ Sabbatarianism: II) ideas led to a breach in 1728. In 1732, Beissel founded the monastic Ephratah Community (celibate men and women in addition to married “householders”), whose Gothic handwriting, choral music (cf. T. → Mann’s Doctor Faustus) and book-printing attained culturalhistorical significance. Descendants of the “householders” constitute what is today the small German Seventh Day Baptist Church. D.F. Durnbaugh, Radikaler Pietismus als Grundlage deutsch-amerikanischer kommunaler Siedlungen, PuN 16, 1990, 112–131 ◆ D.F. Durnbaugh, Fruit of the Vine, 1997 ◆ J.A. Bach, “The Voices of the Turtle-Doves,” diss. 1997 (bibl.). Hans Schneider

Bekker, Balthasar (Mar 20, 1634, Metslawier, Friesland – Jun 11, 1698, Amsterdam). Following philosophical and theological studies in Groningen and Franeker, Bekker became a Reformed pastor in 1657, serving from 1679 to 1692 in Amsterdam. On account of his provocative opinions on the great questions of his time as well as his critical, even mocking behavior, he became involved in conflicts. In 1668, he showed in his work De philosophia cartesiana admonitio candida et sincera that → Cartesianism was in no way threatening to the church and to theology. Anti-Cartesianminded opponents hampered the publication of his wide-ranging catechism commentaries (De vaste spijze der volmaakten, 1669–1673). Bekker attacked superstitious theories about comets, witchcraft, and belief in demons on the basis of his scholarly understanding of Scripture, but also from the deeply held conviction that only the Lord God holds all power. His De betoverde wereld ([The World Bewitched] 1690–1693)

675 brought him international recognition; the book was reprinted and translated several times. (As late as 1781, J.S. → Semler published a three-volume, abbreviated edition, Die bezauberte Welt). He was charged with propagating theses that ran counter to the confession and relieved of his office in 1692. Works include: De betoverde wereld (1690–1693), German: Die bezauberte Welt (1693), photographically reproduced new edition with an introduction, ed. W. von Bunge, 1997 ◆ On Bekker: A. van der Linde, Balthasar Bekker bibliografie, 1869 ◆ W. P.C. Knuttel, Balthasar Bekker de bestrijder van het bijgeloof, 1906 ◆ J. van Sluis, Bekkeriana, 1994 (bibl.; catalogue from the auction of Bekker’s library) ◆ BLGNP II. Aart de Groot

Bel → Daniel, Additions to Bel, Matthias (Mátyás; Mar 24, 1684, Ocsova [Ocova] – Aug 29, 1749, Pozsony [Bratislava]). A Protestant theologian and historiographer, Bel studied at Halle. In 1714, he became rector at Pozsony, and in 1719 pastor of the German congregation there. He introduced the pedagogical method of A.H. → Francke in Hungary. Bel was the most important representative of Pietism in Hungary, but remained within the doctrine of Orthodoxy. He was typical of the Hungarian scholars who used, as needed, the current languages spoken in the kingdom of Hungary. He wrote textbooks in Hungarian, Czech, German, and Latin, composed and translated devotional manuals, and saw to the publication of the Bible in Hungarian and Czech. Emperor Charles VI supported his historiographic work. Bel was a member of the scholarly academies of Berlin and London, as well as of the Learned Society of Olomouc. L. Haan, Matthias Bel, 1879 ◆ Matej Bel, Personálna bibliografia, compiled by B. Belák, 1984 ◆ Bél Mátyás kéziratos hagyatékának katalógusa (catalogue of mss.), ed. N.L. Szelestei, 1984 ◆ J. Tibenskÿ, Velká ozdoba Uhorska (“Magnum decus Hungariae”), 1984 ◆ Bél Mátyás levelezése (correspondence), ed. N.L. Szelestei, 1993. László Nagy

Belaya Krinica. From 1846, when the converted Metropolitan Ambrosios of Sarajevo ordained the first bishops for the Old Believers in Belaya Krinica, Bukovina, this religious community became an important center for the Old Believer groups that retained the priesthood (→ Old Believers, Russian). Their congregations have since been under the “hierarchy of the Agreement of Belaya Krinica.” The community’s facilities, which had been maintained and expanded with the help of contributions from wealthy Old Believers in Russia, fell into total decay during the Soviet period, but have been rebuilt since 1986. In 1990, a monastic community of men was reestablished there. P. Hauptmann, “Aus dem russischen Altgläubigentum,” KO 33, 1990, 155–177; 35, 1992, 160–189, esp. 167–170 (bibl.). Peter Hauptmann

Belgium Belgium I. General – II. Non-Christian Religions – III. Christianity – IV. Belgian Missions – V. Religion, Society and Culture at Present

I. General Since 1830, Belgium has officially been the Kingdom of Belgium, French Royaume de Belgique, Dutch Koninkrijk België. Belgium is located on the northwest European plain and borders on France and the Archduchy of Luxembourg to the south, the Netherlands to the north, the North Sea to the west, and on Germany to the east. Its surface area totals 30,528 km2, its population 10,022,000. The capital city is Brussels. Belgium is a trilingual country: Dutch (57.8%) is spoken in the north (Flanders), French (31.9%) and German (0.7%) in the south (Wallonia); Brussels (9.6%) has a bilingual statute. The state reforms begun in 1970 have transformed Belgium into a federal state divided into regions (territorial) and cultural communities, with language as the distinguishing criterion, which exercise a continually growing autonomy. The proportion of foreigners amounts to 9%. II. Non-Christian Religions 1. History a. Judaism. With the recognition of the Jewish religion in 1830, the Belgian government continued a policy from the beginning of the 19th century in Napoleonic France. The Central Israelite Consistorium, whose doctrine was originally inspired from the Grand Sanhédrin established by → Napoleon in 1808, and which understood Judaism more as a religion than as a nationality, followed the doctrine of the Belgian community until the beginning of the 20th century. World War II also resulted in the death of many Jews in Belgium, including that of the Chief Rabbi, Joseph Wiener, although the church and private hiding networks saved a considerable number of Jewish lives. The Central Israelite Consistorium still represents the civil interests of Judaism on the state level and speaks in the name of fourteen state-accredited and financially supported congregations of various orientations: five Ashkenazi and one Sefardic in Brussels, two Ashkenazi and one Sefardic in Antwerp, and one congregation each in Arlon, Charleroi, Liège, Ghent and Ostende. The community in Antwerp can still be described as a “Stetl” and is thus one of the last traditional communities to exist in Europe. The Jews in Brussels, by contrast, are more secularized and do not constitute a unified community. b. Islam. Only since 1970, when the immigration of migrant workers from Muslim countries began, has Islam existed in Belgium too. Its followers are primarily of Turkish and Moroccan origins. Most of them live in

Belgium Brussels. In 1974, Belgium was the first European state to officially recognize Islam, a step in which, on the background of the oil crisis and the trade agreement with Arab states, diplomatic interests also played a role. In the absence of an official representative organ on the state level, however, the complete implementation of this recognition has not yet been realized, e.g. in the area of worship and in the financing of religious instruction and buildings, although Islamic instruction is offered in public schools. The difficulty in forming an organ to represent Islam is due to the great number of Islamic organizational structures that have arisen since 1974, partly on the initiative of Arab governments and their respective missionary programs, and partly by trans-national or para-religious organizations. Since July 1996, the Exécutive des musulmans de Belgique has been the official voice of the Islamic community; it exercises authority in the selection of Islam teachers and prison clergymen. c. Non-Christian Sects and New Religious Movements. Sects and new religious movements have never had a significant membership potential in Belgium. A typical Belgian sect, however, that has also been able to attract members in France, is Antoinism, which was founded in 1910 by a metalworker from Liège. Although it had 150,000 Belgian members at the beginning of the century, its current membership has significantly diminished. Since the decline of traditional faith at the end of the 1960s, a few groups have been active, although of a lower level. Best-known is the → Scientology Church. The relative lack of success, however, can be explained by the still partly retained traditional binding to the Catholic Church. 2. Statistics 1.5% of the Belgian population or 290,000 people belong to Islam, of these 160,000 are Moroccans and 100,000 Turks. 0.3% are Jewish, i.e. roughly 35,000 people. Of these, 22,000 live in Brussels, 12,000 in Antwerp, 1,000 in Liège, 700 in Charleroi and 250 in Ghent. III. Christianity 1. History a. Protestantism. Catholicism was the dominant religion in the independent Belgium of 1830, so that not only other religions, including other Christian religions, constituted a very small minority, but even the legislation concerning the churchstate relationship bore a distinct Catholic imprint. Protestantism in its diversity, the largest group of nonCatholic Christians in Belgium, thus found it necessary to accommodate itself, despite its entirely different tradition with respect to hierarchy and state, by presenting itself to the state as a more-or-less organized interest group. Although the Reformation was able to attract many new believers in the southern Netherlands, the south was re-Catholicized after the renewed Spanish

676 occupation (1585) under Alexander Farnese. As a result of a major wave of emigration to the northern Netherlands, England or Germany, only a few Protestant congregations survived. After the Belgian Revolution, religious freedom, actually a demand by Catholics who sought unrestricted independence in matters of religion, was officially established in the constitution, so that the 17 Protestant church councils with 5,000 members and seven pastors that remained in the new state were granted legal status. Though they had belonged to the Dutch Reformed (hervormde) Church (→ Reformed Churches), which had been the state church during the Dutch regime, the revolution resulted in their withdrawal from this church. From 1832 onward, the first efforts were made to form a synod in order to attain legal recognition and financial security, which led in 1839 to the establishment of the Union des Églises protestantes évangéliques, which gained state recognition. The Société évangélique belge, founded in 1837, and the Église missionaire belge, founded in 1848, originated in the Réveil and were inspired by the ideas of the Swiss theologian A. → Vinet. In contrast to the union, they chose financial independence from the Belgian state. In 1888, the Église liberale de Belgique was founded in Brussels as a free Protestant church, after the 1865 publication of Le protestantisme libéral by Théophile Bost had caused a stir. After World War I, Pentecostal (→ Pentecostalism) and → Revival movements, Mennonite (→ Mennonites), Lutheran-Free Church, and Methodist Episcopal congregations arose in Belgium, as did a fundamentalist Protestant group called the Mission évangélique belge, all of chiefly American origin. Under the name Église protestante évangélique de Belgique, they began collaborating more closely in the union in 1957, whereupon they united their 46 congregations with the 16 congregations of the Église évangélique méthodiste-Conférence belge in 1969. Currently, there is on the one hand the Union des Églises évangéliques, a union of the Église protestante évangélique de Belgique of the Reformed Church of Belgium (the former Mission évangélique) and of the Classis België van de gereformeerde kerken (New Reformed), a group of churches strongly tied to the Netherlands inspired by A. → Kuyper. This union has been in existence since 1978. A Fédération des Églises protestantes de Belgique founded in 1923 and a common Protestant Theological University created in 1950, as well as a common policy concerning school education were steps along the path to union. The Belgian state now recognizes the Union des Églises évangéliques as the official representative of Protestantism. In addition, various free churches also exist, among which the Evangelical churches, the Baptists, the → Plymouth Brethren and the Pentecostal movement are the most important.

677 Protestants are found primarily in the large and middlesized cities in Belgium and in the industrial region of Wallonia. b. Catholicism. Although Catholicism is still the most important religion in Belgium today, it was much more so in the 19th century. The role of the Catholic Church in the opposition against the unified monarchy of the Netherlands and in the building of the new state from 1830 onward, under the archbishops François Antoine De Méan and Engelbert Sterckx guaranteed it a particularly powerful position. Partly inspired by Lammenais’ liberal Catholicism, it assumed a pragmatic position with respect to political liberalism by demanding that religious freedom be guaranteed in exchange for the acceptance of freedom of opinion in the constitution, thereby aiming at the corresponding possibilities for development without the despised political interference. Thus, religious freedom paradoxically led to a privileged relationship between the state (and especially the monarchy) and the Catholic Church. In 1834, the Belgian bishoprics were reestablished. Belgian Catholicism around 1840 knew a degree of pluralism, while even enlightened members of the middle class and orthodox Stevenists accepted it; this changed with the increasing institutionalization of the church and its ideological shift in an Ultramontanist direction (→ Ultramontanism). Characteristic for the growing polarization between clerics and anti-clerics were the church’s condemnation of the → Freemasons (1839), the failure of the union policy and the founding of the Liberal Party (1856), the simultaneous founding in 1834 of a Catholic (first in Mechelen, later in Leuven) and of a free university (Brussels), and the battle over the schools that involved the fulfillment of the legally insured freedom of the schools and the development of a neutral network of schools (1879–1881). The Catholic electoral victory in the latter case assured the Catholic Church a position of political predominance until World War I. The development of a network of schools begun immediately after 1830 by the church with the aid of the Jesuits, the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine and the Sisters of Notre Dame, among others, as well as the development of Catholic social organizations and the reestablishment of religious orders strengthened the sphere of Catholic influence. Thus, the number of members in religious communities per inhabitant rose from 1:783 (1829) to 1:127 (1910); in 1896, only 2% of primary students had no religious instruction. The → secularization that was increasing under the influence of industrialization, especially in the major cities and in the southern part of the country, resulted in the abandonment, since the end of the 19th century, of the long awaited utopia of a completely Catholic society and led to the development of an appropriate Catholic environment. The encyclical

Belgium Rerum Novarum of → Leo XIII, who knew the Belgian situation well, exerted considerable influence, especially in the social sphere (1891). Even in the period between the wars, a major portion of the population remained firmly anchored in the Catholic environment, although attendance at church decreased. If the social question, in particular, had been a point of dispute within the church before World War I, involvement in the Flemish Movement became the new issue in the period between the wars. Initiatives such as the Jeunesse ouvrière chrétienne, founded in 1919 by Abbé Cardijn (1882–1967), were also a great success internationally and effected a transformation of the → Catholic Action into more specialized movements. After World War II, new bishoprics (Antwerp: 1961, Limburg: 1968) and parishes arose as the result of population growth. In the time from 1950 to 1958, a new school conflict arose concerning the subsidizing of denominational schools; it was resolved through an agreement on schools between the three major parties. Until 1960, the number of members in religious orders remained very high (10,414), afterward, in the course of secularization, a marked decrease became apparent. The same was true for church attendance and church marriages, but other Catholic offices (baptism, burial) remain steady. 2.1% of Belgians are Protestant, 68% Catholic (Flanders: 72%, Wallonia: 66%, Brussels: 56%). → Jehovah’s Witnesses are estimated at 49,000 members. IV. Belgian Missions A missionary movement also took place in the 19th century in Belgium, although one cannot speak of Belgian missions until 1860, but only of Belgian missionaries. In this period, the USA was the primary objective of Catholic missions, for which purpose the American College was founded in Leuven where, before 1914, more than 100 Belgian missionaries were trained. In 1862, Théophile Verbiest founded the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Scheut), while a postsecondary school for missionaries was established in Turnhout in 1872. The Fathers of Scheut worked until 1888 in Mongolia, from 1907 also in the Philippines, while the → Jesuits worked from 1859 onward in India and Ceylon. Belgian missions were also established in the Punjab (→ Capucinians), Quilon (→ Carmelites), and Ichang (→ Franciscans). Under pressure from King Leopold II, who favored a Belgian mission in the context of the colonization of the Congo, a vicariate was founded that included almost the entire Belgian colony. The number of orders present in the Congo grew to more than 20. Common missionary methods such as the lodging of children and adults in chapel courtyards ( Jesuits) and the development of a network of schools (Scheut), as well as the intermixture of colonial and

Belgrade catholic interests came under increasing criticism from liberal and Protestant circles. Protestants founded the Société belge de Missions protestantes au Congo in 1910; it took over the former German congregations in Rwanda in which a total of 25 missionaries of both genders were active. In the period between the wars, V. → Lebbe and P. → Charles played a major role in the renewal of Catholic missiology, emphasizing the cultural uniqueness and the institutional autonomy of the mission churches. On operative level, this was hardly accepted, however, nor did it influence institutions for long. After World War II, Belgium experienced yet another climax of missionary activity with 10,070 missionaries. Thereafter, this number declined rapidly in the course of secularization and decolonization. In Belgium, too, → “inculturation” had become a central concept of missiology. V. Religion, Society and Culture at Present This section will be limited to Catholicism. 1. Social Structure. In Belgium, too, milieus have formed as separate worlds in the state, with confession or political ideology as distinguishing criteria. One distinguishes between a Catholic, a socialist and a liberal milieu. The formation of the Catholic milieu began at the end of the 19th century. It is understood as a response to increasing secularization with the intention of isolating Catholics from its influence. They were offered a complete social network, with numbers of members such that one could also apply political pressure. In contrast to the liberal and socialist milieus, all social layers were supposed to be able to come to terms with it. The Catholic milieu did not dissolve in the great wave of secularization in the 1960s, but was modernized and modified in its selfconception. At the moment, there is a positive relationship between belonging to the older generation and living in the country on the one hand, and the rate of religiosity on the other. Gender and language group, as well as social origin (excluding the core membership, who often belong to the middle class – see above) exert only limited influence. 2. Religion/Religions as a Symbol System. Since the 1960s, the authority of the Catholic Church in Belgium has diminished markedly. The population divides into core church members (9%), average church members (22%), marginal church members (38%) and the undenominational (31%). With increasing frequency, one can identify a selective relationship to the practices of faith (e.g. church attendance, contraception) and the contents of faith (e.g. a personal God), while even the interpretation of the contents of faith often diverges from church doctrine. Some themes, however, such as belief in God, the soul, and the afterlife, remain common property, but are combined with elements of other, sometimes esoteric-mystical religions (e.g. 12% believe in reincarnation).

678 One may conclude, from the observation that even the undenominational utilize religious rites, practices and symbols in politics and advertising, that a very significant proportion of the population understands Catholic symbols and regards them as a common heritage. 3. Religion and Culture. As a consequence of the increasing differentiation in society, in which religion is no longer regarded as an all-encompassing social system, and of the resulting professionalization in the Catholic milieu, church Catholicism in Belgium has been replaced by a socio-cultural Christianity. J. Art, “Kerk en religie 1844–1914,” Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 12, 1977, 167–182 ◆ H. Gaus, “Het cultureelmaatschappelijk leven in België 1918–1940,” Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 14, 1979, 256–284 ◆ R. Aubert, HKG(J) – 6/2, 1973, 112–120 ◆ R. Aubert, 150 ans de vie des Églises, 1980 ◆ L. Voyé, et al., eds., La Belgique et ses Dieux: Églises, mouvements religieux et laïques, 1985 ◆ K. Dobbelaere, Het ‘Volk-Gods’ de mist in? Over de kerk in België, 1988 ◆ K. Matthijs, Belgoscopie, 1988 ◆ L. Courtois & J. Pirotte, Foi, gestes et institutions religieuses aux 19 e et 20 e siècles, 1991 ◆ J. Kerkhofs, et al., eds., De versnelde ommekeer: De waarden van Vlamingen, Walen en Brusselaars in de jaren negentig, 1992 ◆ K. Dobbelaere & L. Voyé, Des transformations du catholicisme en Belgique. Pratiques et valeurs, Courier Hebdomandaire 1548, 1997 ◆ On missions: J. Masson, Les Missionaires Belges, 21944 ◆ C. Dujardin, “Van pionier tot dienaar: Profiel van de Belgische missionaris in historisch perspectief (1800–1989),” in: R. Boudens, ed., Rond Damiaan, 1989, 115– 187 ◆ Da Mihi Belgas, “De Nederlanden en hun missie,” Trajecta 5, 1996, 4. Lutgard Vrints

Belgrade. Capital of Serbia and of former Yugoslavia, situated at the confluence of the Save with the Danube. It is the seat of the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church (who is also archbishop of Belgrade). The seminary (since 1836) and the theological faculty (since 1920, separated from the university in 1953) are situated there. Belgrade is also the seat of a Roman Catholic archbishop. The city has a Celtic origin (Singidunum), but after the time of the migrations, the city was re-founded with the Slavic name Belgrade (“white city”). In the Middle Ages it was under Byzantine, Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Serbian rule. From 1521, it was Osman (1718–1739 Austrian); from 1815, the capital of Serbia, from 1918 of former Yugoslavia. It is first mentioned as the seat of a bishop in the 4th century, and again in 878. Since then it has largely enjoyed continuity as the seat of a bishop. After the late Middle Ages, the bishop bore the title of → Metropolitan; during the time of Matthias Corvinus (1458–1490) the metropolitan was supreme pastor of the Orthodox Christians living under Hungarian rule. From 1831, the bishop was given the title of Chief Hierarch of the autonomous and, since 1879, autocephalic (→ Autocephaly) Orthodox Church of Serbia. D. Slijepčevič, Istorija srpske pravoslavne crkve, 1962 ◆ P. Plank, “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der orthodoxen Kirche im Südosten und im Osten Europas,” HOK 1, 1984, 133–208 (bibl.). Ekkehard Kraft

679 Belize, a state located in Central America and covering 22.965 km2; culturally, it belongs to the → Caribbean. British colonial rule of Belize – then called British → Honduras – dates back to the mid-17th century and lasted until 1981, when Belize gained its political independence. Belize has a population of 200,000 (1991), comprising many different ethnical groups. Most Belizeans are of mixed ancestry: → Mestizos (44%) are of Spanish and → Maya descent, → Creoles (30%) are descendents of the slaves, brought from Africa and the West Indies, and of British settlers and later of immigrants from Africa and people of African origin. In addition, there are Maya (11%), Garifuna (7%) – a mixture of Amerindian Caribs and Africans –, whites (4%), East Indians (2%), Chinese, and recently many refugees from the wars in Central America. Some Maya have continuously lived in certain parts of Belize since ancient times. The Mopan Maya have preserved several religious traditions. The Yucatec Maya, refugees who immigrated from Yucatan at the time of the Caste War (1846–1848), have been Hispanicized. The Kekchi Maya are refugees from the Vera Paz area of Guatemala. They have kept their own religious rituals and have integrated them into Catholic rites. The first Garifuna came to Belize in 1802. They too held on to their own culture and religious traditions, based on African traditions, and are usually also practising Catholics. The Anglicans (12% of the population) started their mission in 1776 (→ Anglican Church: II), the → Baptists (III) in 1822 (1%), and the → Methodists (III) came in 1824 (6%). With the arrival of the → Jesuits in 1851 to evangelize the refugees of Yucatan, the Catholic Church developed rapidly (62%). Another established Church is the Presbyterian. These historically anchored Churches exert a strong influence on the educational system. Recently, the → Adventists and especially the Pentecostal Churches (→ Pentecostalism) have attracted large crowds. The → Mennonites, who came to Belize after 1958 and have hardly had any effect beyond their congregations, are also an important religious factor. On the one hand, the process of Creolization of society continues and thus the Africanization of Christianity remains a challenge. On the other hand, there are other cultural movements, so that Belize will remain culturally and politically pluralistic. W.R. Johnson, A History of Christianity in Belize, 1985 ◆ O.N. Bolland, Colonialism and Resistance in Belize, 1988. Armando Lampe

Bell, George Kennedy Allen (Feb 4, 1883, Hayling Island – Oct 3, 1958, Canterbury), bishop of Chichester (1929–1957). Bell was a leading ecumenicalist, chairman of the World Alliance, which led to the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948. He was a supporter of peace movements and of the Con-

Bellarmine, Robert, Saint fessing Church in Germany during the Struggle of the Church (→ Kirchenkampf → National Socialism: I). He had contact with D. → Bonhoeffer in London (1933– 1935) and later in Germany. He presented plans for the overthrow of the Nazi regime to the British government following talks in Sweden in 1942. Bell was a spokesman of refugees from Germany before the war, of internees during the war, and of the German people during the occupation. He was an active member of the House of Lords 1937–1958, where he opposed the bombing of German cities and insisted on the existence of an “other Germany” opposed to the Nazis. Bell was honored by Christians and Jews alike for his support of refugees. He was an advocate of peace, unity, and humanity. Works include: The Church and Humanity, 1946 ◆ On Bell: R. Jasper, Bell, Bishop of Chichester, 1967 ◆ E. Robertson, Unshakable Friend: Bell and the German Churches, 1995 ◆ A. Chandler, ed., Brethren in Adversity. Bishop George Bell, the Church of England and the Crisis of German Protestantism 1933– 1939, 1997. Edwin Robertson

Bellamy, Joseph (Feb 20, 1719, Wallingford – Mar 6, 1790, Bethlehem, CT), Congregationalist minister. Bellamy was a student and follower of J. → Edwards and pastor of the church in Bethlehem. He became famous because of his powerful sermons, his leadership in the ecclesiastical politics of western New England, his polemical treatises, his support of the American Revolution, and his private theological school for future ministers. He opposed religious liberals by stressing the compatibility of → Calvinism and → vice law. He emphasized God’s moral government of the world through divine law and developed a theodicy based on the doctrine of → expiation and the conception of the millennial kingdom. His system had great influence on the movement that became known as “New England’s New Divinity” or as the “Edwardsean Movement,” which flourished from 1760 to 1790. Works: The Works of Joseph Bellamy, 3 vols., 1811 ◆ On Bellamy: M. Valeri, Law and Providence in Bellamy’s New England, 1994. Mark Valeri

Bellarmine, Robert, Saint (Oct 4, 1542, Montepulciano, Tuscany – Sep 17, 1621, Rome). Bellarmine entered the Jesuit order (→ Jesuits) in 1560 and studied philosophy and theology at various universities: Rome, Florence, Mondovi in Piedmont, Padua, Louvain. From 1570, he taught at Louvain, the theological tradition of which influenced him; from 1576 to 1588, he held the chair of controversial theology at the Collegium Romanum. He had numerous responsibilities within the order, e.g. from 1592–1594 as rector of the Collegium Romanum and from 1594–1597 as provincial of Naples. In 1599, he was made cardinal, and in 1602 archbishop of Capua; he resigned in 1605 and returned to Rome, where he worked primarily in the service of the Roman Curia. In

Bellini, Giovanni the embarrassing question of the revision of the Vulgate by Sixtus V, he defended the pope in a preface to the SixtoClementine edition. Bellarmine was also involved in the Louvain conflict with M. → Baius over nature and grace, and later in the conflict over grace between the → Dominicans and the Jesuits, as well as the controversies surrounding the English Catholics’ oath of allegiance to King → James I and the conflict over the Republic of Venice. As a member of the Holy Office, he was involved in the trials of both G. → Bruno and → Galileo ; he proved to be relatively open-minded toward the latter. Methodologically, Bellarmine combined speculative and historical-exegetical evidence, creating an impressive scholarly œuvre. At Louvain, he wrote a commentary on the Summa theologiae of → Thomas Aquinas to enhance Thomas’s status and devoted himself to the doctrine of predestination and grace. Bellarmine’s teaching office in Rome led to his most important work, the Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, which was published in three volumes in Ingolstadt in 1586–1593 and triggered intense confessional controversies. In his ecclesiology, true to the Counter-Reformation in its focus on the visible church and its hierarchy, Bellarmine defined the church as the body of those united in the threefold recognition of the Christian faith, the sacraments, and the Roman pope, whose authority represented for him the final guarantee of truth. He sought to address the mystical aspect of the church by distinguishing between its body and its soul. His work on the indirect authority of the pope in temporal affairs, De potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus temporalibus, published in 1610 in answer to the English jurist William Barclay, was controversial even within the Roman Church. Besides his scholarly publications, he composed catechetical and spiritual works. Bellarmine continued to influence Ultramontane theology (→ Ultramontanism) well into the 19th century. He was beatified in 1923, canonized in 1930, and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931. BCJ 1, 31960, 1151–1254; 8, 31960, 1797–1807 (works) ◆ G. Galeota, TRE V, 1980, 525–531 (works and bibl.) ◆ VD16 II, 1984, 240–245 ◆ G. Galeota, DSp 13, 1988, 713–720 ◆ idem, “Robert Bellarmin,” in: E. Iserloh, ed., Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, vol. V, 1988, 152–167 ◆ idem, ed., Roberto Bellarmino, 1990 ◆ R. de Maio et al., eds., Bellarmino e la Controriforma, 1990 ◆ M. Biersack, Initia Bellarminia, 1991 ◆ T. Dietrich, LThK3 II, 1994, 189–191 ◆ idem, Die Theologie der Kirche bei Roberto Bellarmin (1542–1621), 1999. Heribert Smolinsky

Bellini, Giovanni (Giambellino; after 1430, Venice – 29 Nov, 1516, Venice). The painter Giovanni Bellini initially worked in the workshop of his father Jacopo. In the 1470s, he created great altarpieces, in which he perfected the representation of the sacra conversazione.

680 With his appointment as pictor nostri Domini in 1483, Bellini became the leading painter of Serenissima Veneta. In addition to altarpieces like the Pala di San Giobbe (Academia, Venice) and the Pala di San Zaccaria (San Zaccaria, Venice), he painted huge historical pictures for the Doges’ Palace, which were destroyed by fire in 1577. The late Feast of the Gods (National Gallery, Washington) is an outstanding example of his work with secular (here mythological) subjects, while the portrait of the doge Leonardo Lordean (National Gallery, London) is the culmination of his portraiture. Bellini laid the foundations for Venetian → Renaissance painting , on which Giorgione and → Titian were to build at the beginning of the 16th century. G. Robertson, Giovanni Bellini, 1968 ◆ N. Huse, Studien zu Giovanni Bellini, 1972 ◆ A. Tempestini, Giovanni Bellini, 1992 (bibl.). Jürg Meyer zur Capellen

Bells I. History of Religion, Church History – II. Art History – III. Church Law

I. History of Religion, Church History Bells are used in several contexts and with a number of meanings. Their jingling and ringing wards off harmful influences: on the harnesses and collars of animals and children, the garments of priests and shamans, doors of houses and roofs, from the church tower during storms, and in the performance of rituals. Confucian chimes symbolized ruling power and assured social harmony. The sound of handbells in Buddhist ritual evokes the transience of the visible world and simultaneously calls for awakening and enlightenment. In a few Buddhist schools (in Tibet, among the Shingon and Tendai in Japan), the bells represent the feminine principle. The sound of bells marks high points in the ritual, e.g. in the → pùjà of the Hindus, in the Roman Catholic mass (transsubstantiation), in the Protestant worship service (Paternoster). One strikes single and dual iron bells in rites, dances and processions in western and central African tribes. Hindus summon the attention of the deity of a temple by striking a bell; in the Shinto shrine, one rings a closed bell. In Christian and Zen Buddhist monasteries (with different types of bells), bell tones signal the stations of the daily schedule and call the community together. 108 strokes of the mighty Buddhist temple bell introduce the new year. The bell tone from the towers of Christian churches signifies the invitation to worship and the summons to prayer. In popular belief, bells have their own life, fly to Rome in Passion Week, ring on their own to give warning or to reveal injustice; their sound promotes the fertility of the fields, parts of them heal, protect and banish.

681 Early Christianity officially rejected the bells used in the surrounding mystery cults as “pagan.” Coptic monasteries adopted the signal function in the 4th century, regulating the course of the day with sounding board and handbells. Irish and Breton monks influenced by the Copts summoned people to hear the mission message with handbells and furnished the communities they founded with bells, which thus spread throughout the European mainland from the 6th/7th centuries, first in France, Spain and Italy, and thence to Germany. In the Carolingian period, not precisely dateable, one began to cast tower bells, whose peal from churches and monasteries became the “organizing framework” for church and everyday life. With the major churches of the Middle Ages (→ Church Architecture: II), great bells of enormous weight came into use, then polyphonic bell ensembles such as those that are common even today. The casting of bells was first carried out in Benedictine monasteries (from the 6th cent.; Theophilus’s textbook, 10th cent.), but was entrusted to craftsmen in the 12th century, though it remained a special act that may be accompanied by the prayers of a congregational delegation Martin Kraatz even today. II. Art History The art history of the bell (with and without clapper) begins in Asia (China, India, etc.), where it includes a variety of materials, sizes, forms, methods of production, and religious or non-religious uses. Via Etruria, Greece and Italy (Canino bell, 8th/9th cent.; Vatican Museum, Rome), the cast bell (with clapper) reached northern and central Europe in the form of the “nutshell bell” through the Iro-Scottish mission and the Benedictine monasteries. The first record of bell casting and forming (in a wax-form procedure) comes from them (Theophilus, i.e.: Roger of Hellmarshausen, c. 1110–1140). The bell type named after him (c. 9th–12th cents.) exhibits a basket shape with and without knurled or linear ornamentation on the skirt, neck and shoulder, with and without indented characters (e.g. bell of Ashara, Thüringen; Apolda Bell Museum). The transition from the basket to the sugar-loaf form (mid-12th century), brought the transition to today’s false-bell technique, and thus the embossed adornment in characters (initially Roman capitals, later uncials) and figurative ornamentation (by scoring the removed bell cope or placing wax models on the false bell). The new technique is the basis for the possibilities of decorating the surface of the bell with images. At first (from c. 1150), the neck and sometimes the skirt of the bell were adorned with embossed characters (initially uncials, from c. 1230 Gothic majuscules) and simple ornamentation, still without graphic portrayals; later (from 1200), bells were also decorated with lines (knurls and bars) and ornamentation. The

Bells casting of very large, deep-toned bells since 1200 offered possibilities for the decoration of bell surfaces with characters at first (from c. 1300 in Gothic minuscules) and later figurative decoration. The frequent use of pilgrim signs, which extended the protection of the depicted saint to the bell and its environs, constitutes a peculiarity. The apex in the configuration of the bell is the work of Gerhard van Wou from Kampen, Netherlands (c. 1450–1527), who gave the bell its classic shape. The Renaissance and Baroque periods resumed capital characters and present the apex of graphic portrayal through the collaboration of major sculptors and stucco artists ( Joseph Anton Feuchtmayer; Ignaz Günther, etc.). The 19th century, which indulged in classicist and neogothic forms, made independent contributions of high artistic Hartwig A.W. Niemann value. III. Church Law Church bells enjoy particular constitutional protection under the Basic Law of Germany alongside the fundamental guarantees of religious freedom and property. Regulations dealing with bells are the responsibility of the churches themselves (→ Church and State: II). The guarantee of → church property protects their religious purpose regardless of their ownership. The limitations on the freedom of ownership, such as social obligations, do not apply. As → res sacrae, bells may not be compulsorily secularized. Their ecclesial dedication may not be affected, even if they are not the property of a church. Nonetheless, their use is bound by the “limits of common law.” Sounding bells is consequently subjected to the general requirements of noise control. In individual cases, the courts have regarded the nocturnal sounding of the hours as overstepping the boundaries. In contrast, liturgical ringing is reasonable for neighbors because it is socially appropriate in a secular society under the principle of mutual tolerance, and because, outside of evening hours (10pm–6am), less strict noise limitations apply (BVerfGE 68, 62ff./66–69). The Catholic Church refrained from issuing specific regulations concerning bells in the recodification of the CIC 1983. In the Protestant church, dedication does not take the form of a “bell baptism,” but of a simple bell dedication or bell festival with scripture reading, sermon and prayer. In the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, the bell regulation for Protestant-Lutheran churches and congregations of May 15, 1956 is valid. Otherwise, local congregations determine bell regulations according to local custom. The church administrative offices have published guidelines. They also have bell experts who can be called upon to deal with problems. Civil communities also have partial rights of usage according to local custom. Bibl. on I–III.: Theophilus Presbyter, Diversarum artium schedula: Book 3, W. Theobald, trans. and comm., 1933, repr.,

Beloved Disciple 1983 ◆ Deutsches Glockenatlas, B. Bischoff, ed., 4 vols., 1959– 1985 ◆ H.A.W. Niemann, TRE XIII, 1984, 446–452 (bibl.) ◆ K. Kramer, ed., Glocken in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2 vols., 1986 and 1997 ◆ M. Schilling, Glocken – Gestalt, Klang und Zier, 1988 ◆ Jahrbuch für Glockenkunde, vols. 1–10, 1989–1998 ◆ A. Hense, Glockenläuten und Uhrenschlag: Der Gebrauch von Kirchenglocken in der kirchlichen und staatlichen Rechtsordnung, 1998. Christian Heckel

Beloved Disciple. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” describes an anonymous figure in the Gospel of John (→ John, Gospel of ); he appears along with Peter at the Last Supper (13:23), at the foot of the cross (19:26f.), and in the Easter narrative (20:2–20; 21:7, 20–23). John 21:24 says that he wrote the Gospel, thus inseparably linking him with the question of the Gospel’s authorship. It is an open question whether the anonymous former disciple of John the Baptist in 1:35–40 and the disciple known to the high priest in 18:15f. can also be identified with this person; neither passage uses the expression. The Beloved Disciple is mentioned explicitly only as a witness to Jesus’ death and resurrection. However, John 1:35–40 suggests an association with one of the first disciples mentioned in Mark 1:16–20 and thus enables the traditional (historically unlikely) identification of the author with → John the son of Zebedee, as accepted explicitly by Irenaeus (Haer. III 1.1 = Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 8.4) and → Polycrates of Ephesus (Eusebius Hist. eccl. V 24.3). The attempts to identify the Beloved Disciple with other figures such as Paul, → Apollos, Jesus’ brother Judas (→ Brothers and Sisters of Jesus), John Mark (Acts 12:12), the rich young man (cf. Mark 10:21), → Nathanael, → Thomas Didymus, or → Lazarus (cf. John 11:3, 5, 36) have little to offer. While preserving the disciple’s anonymity, John depicts him as an ideal disciple: he (in competition with Peter) is closest to Jesus (13:24ff.), he remains at the cross, he is the first to believe on Easter day (20:8) and the first to recognize the Lord (21:7), he testifies to the saving nature of Jesus’ death and “remains” (21:22f.) faithful to this true testimony (19:35; 21:24). Despite these ideal features, the interpretation of the Beloved Disciple as a symbol or a fictional figure (e.g. to legitimate the Johannine tradition in opposition to Peter or the “greater church”) is hardly satisfying: in 21:20–23, the redaction corrects a saying of the Lord that went around the community, to the effect that the Beloved Disciple was to remain alive until the parousia. This apologetic correction cannot simply be taken as a fiction: it shows that the death of this figure had actually taken place and provoked a reaction. Probably, therefore, the Beloved Disciple was a tradition bearer familiar to the Johannine redaction (and the Johannine community), the head of the school, to whom the redaction ascribes its posthu-

682 mously edited work. Historically (with the subscriptio and identification of the writer of 2 and 3 John), the most likely identification is that proposed by → Papias (Eusebius Hist. eccl. III 39.4): the “presbyter” John, a figure distinct from the apostle John. It is still disputed whether all mentions of the Beloved Disciple stem from the Johannine redaction or if the expression was used by the author himself in John 13–20 – possibly as a reference to himself, claiming a particularly intimate understanding of Jesus. The Beloved Disciple passages have influenced the iconography of the apostle John in two groups of motifs: Mary and John at the foot of the cross, with John supporting the mother entrusted to him by Jesus (also the descent from the cross and the lamentation), and the Last Supper, with John occupying the place of honor next to Jesus (“by Jesus’ breast”). In depictions of Late Antiquity, which presuppose the custom of reclining at meals, he is lying next to Jesus. Later, when meals were taken sitting, a literal reading of 13:25 shows him leaning toward Christ and resting his head on Jesus’ breast or on the table. Here, he is usually depicted as youthful and beardless. J. Kügler, Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte, 1988 ◆ M. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage, WUNT 67, 1993 ◆ R.A. Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee, 1994, 56–88 ◆ J.H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 1995 ◆ Iconography: G. Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. II, 1968 ◆ M. Lechner, “Johannes der Evangelist,” LCI 7, 1974, 108–130. Jörg Frey

Bema I. Orthodox Church – II. Synagogue

I. Orthodox Church Bema (from Gk βῆμα, step) describes a step or platformlike rise of the floor in the most important section of the church building (as in the so-called house church of → Dura-Europos, as early as 256), which marks the place of the congregation leader (bishop) and of the altar. Generally, the entire → “choir” is elevated by one or (later) more steps, so that the term soon came to mean the entire chancel including the → apsis, where the step(s) were placed directly in front of the Templon. The Ambo, or lectern, and its access from the chancel are also raised by about one step above the general level of the church floor, which was however called the “solea.” The so-called “Syrian Bema” is a horseshoe-shaped platform (with seats for the clergy) which lies in the nave on a plinth. It was used for liturgical readings. G. Tchalenko & E. Baccache, Églises de village de la Syrie du Nord, I Planches, 1979, Il Album, 1980 ◆ T. Ulbert, Die Basilika des Heiligen Kreuzes in Resafa-Sergiupolis, 1986, 25–32. Marcell Restle

683

Ben Israel, Menasseh

II. Synagogue The Hebrew word *'(bima, pl. bimot) refers to raised platforms within → synagogues upon which Scripture is read, the liturgy is pronounced, and sermons are delivered. The earliest mention of a synagogue bima (bema) is in t. Meg. 4:7, which describes “a wooden platform in the center” of a synagogue in Alexandria. In the Byzantine period the bima was often a broad platform against the Jerusalem-facing wall of the synagogue. Later, all architecturally distinctive liturgical platforms were called bima. The placement of the bima became a point of modern dispute between liberal and traditionalist Jews in Europe and America. Modernists did away with the central bima, and placed it against the Jerusalemfacing wall, modeling this on church architecture. In recent times the construction of the central bima and a frontal bima have became a defining characteristic of Orthodox synagogues in North America. Many liberal congregations follow this example. C.H. Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning, 1985 ◆ S. Fine, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue during the Greco-Roman Period, 1998. Steven Fine

Bembo, Pietro (May 20, 1470, Venice – Jan 18, 1547, Rome), prepared a philologically revised print edition of F. → Petrarca’s poems and of → Dante’s “Commedia” (1501/1502), an occupation that prompted him to write “Prose della vulgar lingua” (1525), which established him as the founder of Italian vernacular philology. Bembo himself was also productive as a writer: “Gli Asolani” (dialogue on love), poems, “Historiae venetae libri XII,” etc. Unsuccessful in the public career track of his native city, Bembo lived for a time at the court of Urbino from ecclesiastical benefices, although he had a concubine. After she died, his scholarly achievements paved his way to cardinalship (1539) and to the office of bishop (1541 Gubbio, 1544 transfer to Bergamo). He maintained cordial relations with the Reformation-friendly circles in the curia (R. → Pole, G. → Contarini). G. Belloni, Laura tra Petrarca e Bembo, 1992. Joachim Weinhardt

Bemidbar Rabbah (Numbers Rabbah). A → Midrash on the Book of Numbers consisting of two parts: Part 1 (three-fourths of the total length) is a haggadic (→ Haggadah) reworking of Num 1–7 on the basis of the Midrash Tanchuma, compiled in the 11th or 12th century by Moshe ha-Darshan or his school (Narbonne, southern France) from various rabbinical and other sources. Part 2 is a homiletic Midrash on Num 8–36. This section is largely identical with Tanchuma on the corresponding scriptural pericopes; two additional interpolations (18:15–18; 20:5–6) are attributable to

Moshe ha-Darshan or his school. The two parts were combined c. 1300. M.A. Mirqin, Bemidbar Rabba, Midrash Rabba, vols. 9–10, 1964 (Hebr. text and comm.) ◆ J.J. Slotki, Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, 31961. Hans-Jürgen Becker

Ben Gurion, David (Oct 16, 1886, Plonsk, Poland – Dec 1, 1973, Sdeh Boker, Israel), the first prime minister of the state of → Israel following his vigorous leadership of the Zionist movement (→ Zionism); on May 14, 1948, Ben Gurion declared the state of Israel’s independence. He remained in office with a short interval until 1953. As minister of defense, he led Israel through two wars and shaped the Israeli citizen army. He dedicated most of his efforts to the immigration of Jews to Israel. During his term in office the population quadrupled. Ben Gurion published several books and wrote extensive diaries. Some immigrants from Asian countries referred to him in messianic terms. Ideologically, Ben Gurion believed that the establishment of the state represented a return to pre-exilic times. It was his aim to restore Jewish national identity as it existed, he believed, in the land of Israel until the destruction of the Second Temple. His vision of the state was one of a modern, secular democracy. Nevertheless, he conceded several areas of life to the responsibility of the rabbinic authorities in Israel, e.g. marriage, divorce, and burial, and allowed the institution of the separate orthodox educational system. One of his most controversial decisions was the exemption of → Yeshivah rabbinic students from army service, which led to the alienation of the entire ultra-orthodox segment of society from Israeli-Zionist social life. M. Bar-Zohar, The Armed Prophet, 1967 ◆ S. Tevet, Ben Gurion, 1969. Joseph Dan

Ben Israel, Menasseh (1604, Madeira – Nov 20, 1657, Middelburg, Netherlands), scholar and leader of the Jewish community of Amsterdam. Ben Israel was one of the first Jewish writers to dedicate a significant part of his literary religious activity to presenting Judaism to non-Jewish European audiences. He played a leading role in the negotiations with O. → Cromwell to enable the return of Jews to England. Ben Israel was born in Madeira to a family that had converted to Christianity but returned to Judaism once they had emigrated to the Netherlands. Among his numerous treatises in Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin, the exegetical work Conciliador (1632) stands out; Esperanza de Israel (1650) deals with messianic expectations (including the claim that the ten lost tribes have been discovered in America); De Creatione (1635) presents the Jewish concepts of creation in Latin; Thessouro dos Dinim (1645–1647) is a description of Jewish law (also for the benefit of

Ben Maimon, Moses converts in Spain and Portugal who wished to return to Judaism). His main work in Hebrew is Nishmat Óayyim (“The Breath of Life”) on the eternal life of the soul. In this work Ben Israel quotes numerous sources, among them classical and medieval philosophers, scholastics, Renaissance humanists, and kabbalistic texts. C. Roth, Life of Menasseh ben Israel, 1934 ◆ J. Dan, “Menasseh ben Israel’s Nishmat Hayyim and the Concept of Evil in 17th Century Jewish Thought,” in: I. Twersky & B. Septimus, eds., Jewish Thought in the 17th Century, 1987, 63–75 ◆ Y. Kaplan et al., eds., Menasseh ben Israel and His World, 1989. Joseph Dan

Ben Maimon, Moses → Maimonides, Moses Ben Nakhman, Moses → Nachmanides, Moses Benares, Indian city on the Ganges. The name is an anglicized rendering of the name Vārā»asī, “city between the rivers Vara»ā and Asī.” Benares is a sacred place for Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists. Founded around the 6th cent. bce, the city numbered more than a million residents in 1991. It is a pilgrimage destination, a center of Sanskrit scholarship, a meeting place for various ascetic groups, and the location of the sanctified death at the Ma»ikar»ikā Ghāt. According to mythology, the high god Shiva resided in Benares; he is venerated esp. in the Viśvanātha Temple in the city center. Pilgrims are required to bathe at one of the numerous bathing spots along the sacred river Ganges, which have been embellished with sumptuous palaces, temples, and hospices for ascetics over many centuries. D.L. Eck, Benares, 1989 ◆ N. Gutschow & A. Michaels, Benares, 1993. Axel Michaels

Benedicamus → Liturgical Formulae Benedicite → Canticle Benedict XII, Pope 1334–1342 ( Jacques Fournier, from Saverdun near Toulouse) was a Cistercian who became master of theology in Paris, then abbot of Fontfroide in 1311; as bishop of Pamiers (1317), he pursued Cathari heresies (→ Cathari), notably in the Pyrenean village of Montaillou; he became bishop of Mirepoix in 1326 and cardinal in 1327. Unwilling to transfer the papal see back to Rome, he enlarged the former episcopal palace in → Avignon for the Curia, which was becoming increasingly differentiated. He gave the penitentiaria a statute of organization regulating its authority and function; he sought to curb abuses in the Curia and in the benefice system through chancellory rules and regulations concerning the residential obligation of the clergy, combating the accumulation of benefices and introducing tests of the suitability of candidates for positions, as a result of which the Avignonese administration of

684 the church seemed to many contemporaries, including F. → Petrarca, even more complicated, costly and offensive. Personally modest and familiar with life in religious orders, he attempted to reform the orders by having commissions elaborate statutes for Cistercians, Benedictines, Franciscans, Canons Regular and Servites, though these were hardly applied by the orders because their traditions and peculiarities were not sufficiently taken into account; the Dominicans hindered the reform initiative. He distanced himself from the viewpoint of Pope John XXII concerning the visio beatifica and attempted, although without success, to overcome the conflict with → Louis IV, the Bavarian, and to mediate in the erupting Franco-English war. F.J. Felten, “Die Ordensreformen Benedikts XII. unter institutionengeschichtlichem Aspekt,” in: G. Melville, ed., Institutionen und Geschichte, Norm und Struktur 1, 1992, 369–435. Tilmann Schmidt

Benedict XIV, Pope Jul 17, 1740 – May 3, 1758 (Prospero Lambertini, b. Mar 31, 1675, Bologna). From an old noble family, he rose rapidly in the curial administration after theological and legal studies in Rome (1694: Dr. theol. et iur.), became titular bishop of Theodosia in 1725, cardinal in petto in 1726 (made public in 1728), archbishop of Ancona in 1727, and archbishop of Bologna in 1731. Elected pope as a compromise candidate after a conclave which lasted more than six months, Benedict sought to normalize relations with the Catholic powers, which had been troubled for decades, adopting a policy of clever moderation and willingness to compromise (concordats with Naples-Sicily in 1741, with Spain in 1753, with Austria for Milan in 1757). He also strove to achieve a modus vivendi of the church with non-Catholic states. In the question of the imperial elections of 1740 (Charles VII) and 1745 (Francis I), he adopted a neutral position, but was, nonetheless, unable to prevent the church state from being drawn into the Austrian war of succession (1740–1748), from which it suffered heavily. The burdens of war notwithstanding, Benedict tried to mend the finances of the church state through administrative reforms as well as tax and economic measures. The reforms within the church that he introduced dealt primarily with marriage law (“Matrimonia quae” declaration of Nov 3, 1741, which, disregarding the Tridentine form, declared marriages among non-Catholics and with Catholics to be valid), liturgy (breviary reform following historical-critical perspectives, further development of church music), the system of religious orders, the reduction of the (all too many) holidays, the reorganization of curial authority and an improvement of the “Index of forbidden books.” In contrast, his negative decision (1742/1744) in the dispute over

685 the permissibility of including Chinese and Indian ceremonies in the liturgy (rites dispute) was less fortunate. Benedict was the author of a number of historical and canonistic works. Above all, his two historicallybased works concerning beatification and canonization (De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonisatione, 4 vols., 1734–1738) and the diocesan synod (De synodo dioecesano, 1755) were of fundamental significance for the development of the history of church law. Benedict (who also kept free of nepotism) was one of the most learned popes. Benedicti XIV Opera, 17 vols., 1839–1846 ◆ T. Bertone, Il Governo della Chiesa nel pensiero di Benedetto XIV, 1977. Manfred Weitlauff

Benedict XV, Pope Sep 3, 1914 – Jan 22, 1922 (Giacomo della Chiesa, b. Nov 21, 1854). Of ancient Genovese nobility, he became archbishop of Bologna in 1907 and cardinal in 1914. Following the serious disputes over → “Modernism”, → “Reform Catholicism” and Brazilian Integralism (→ Integralism, Brazilian) in the pontificate of → Pius X, Benedict brought a phase of inner-church pacification. His peace efforts in World War I, in which he maintained strict political neutrality, met with failure on account of the conflicting interests of both adversaries and allies. His peace note of Aug 1, 1916, was as unsuccessful as his plea during the peace negotiations that the vanquished, especially Germany, be treated justly. Ecclesiastically significant was the promulgation of the → Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), in which the doctrine of primacy established as a dogma by → Vatican I found its consistent legal application. Benedict’s encyclical “Maximum illud” of Nov 30, 1919, broke with the “Europeanism” of missions which had its roots in the old patronage and protectorate thinking, and developed a future-oriented program which gave the practice and theory of the Catholic world mission a fundamental reorientation (→ Mission: II). Through his diplomatic finesse, Benedict’s brief pontificate laid the foundation for a consolidation of the church in the old and new countries as well as for a normalization of relations between church and state. Together with his cardinal state secretary P. → Gasparri, he also paved the way for a solution to the “Roman question” that was satisfactory to all sides. Among other things, he created the prerequisites for the concordat policy of his successor → Pius XI. F. Hayward, Un pape méconnu: Benoît XV, 1955 ◆ W.H. Peters, The Life of Benedict XV, 1959 ◆ W. Steglich, Der Friedensappell Papst Benedikts XV. vom 1. August 1917 und die Mittelmächte, 1970 ◆ G. Schwaiger, TRE V, 1980, 533–535 ◆ S. Samerski, “Der Heilige Stuhl und der Vertrag von Versailles,” ZKG 107, 1996, 355–375. Manfred Weitlauff

Benedict Biscop, Saint (Benedict Baducing ; 627/628, Northumbria – Jan 12, 689, Jarrow). A mem-

Benedict of Aniane, Saint ber of the nobility, he served king Oswiu as a young man. Briefly abbot of the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at → Canterbury, he later founded a monastery at two locations, Wearmouth (674) and Jarrow (681/682), where he served as an abbot. A seasoned traveler (five journeys to Rome, including stays in Gaul), he endowed → Wearmouth-Jarrow with an extensive collection of books and artworks from Italy and St. Gaul, introduced architecture influenced by Gallic models, and a rule that, although predominantly Benedictine, drew upon the customs of 17 monasteries that he had visited, including Lérins. → Bede the Venerable, a monk at WearmouthJarrow, wrote his biography. T. Allison, “Benedict Biscop,” CQR 107, 1928, 57–79 ◆ E.S. Duckett, Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars, 1947 ◆ R. Cramp, “Monkwearmouth and Jarrow: The Archeological Evidence,” in: G. Bonner, ed., Famulus Christi, 1976, 5–18. Rebecca Weaver

Benedict, David (Oct 10, 1779, Norwalk, CT – Dec 5, 1874, Pawtucket, RI). Converted in 1799, Benedict graduated from Brown University in 1806. He was ordained and assumed his only pastorate, a tenure of 23 years, at the recently constituted First Baptist Church at Pawtucket. Benedict devoted his whole life to writing Baptist history. In 1813, he published A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America and Other Parts of the World in two volumes. Benedict obtained material through numerous travels, extensive correspondence, and the work of his predecessors, I. → Backus, and Morgan Edwards. His use of Edwards was both uncritical and extensive. Benedict’s pioneering work has been widely used and is still a favorite for “successionists,” because he attempted to trace a line of Baptists back to the first century. Benedict was a pioneer in the formation of Baptist Sunday schools and was an advocate of education. He served as a trustee of Brown University for 56 years. W. Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881.

Douglas Weaver

Benedict of Aniane, Saint (actually Witiza; c. 750 – Feb 11, 821). Abbot Benedict of Aniane was the son of a Visigothic count. In 774, he entered the monastery of St. Seine near Dijon; around 780, he was leading a semi-eremitical life in southern France, following a mixed rule. In 787, he adopted the Rule of St. Benedict (→ Benedict, Rule of ). In Aquitania, he founded the great monastery of Aniane, with 300 monks, and several other cells. He played a leading role in combating → Adoptionism. He joined the court at Aachen in 814 and became abbot of Maursmünster; around 816, he became abbot of Inda (Kornelimünster/Aachen). With the support of → Louis I the Pious, he led the reform of Frankish monasticism. He produced writings against

Benedict of Nursia, Saint Adoptionism and also authored works on monasticism, above all to spread the Rule of St. Benedict. Thanks to him, the Benedictine Rule came to be the only monastic rule used in the West until the 13th century. His → Consuetudines shaped Benedictine monasticism well into the late Middle Ages. J. Semmler, “Benedictus II: Una regula – una consuetudo,” in: W. Lourdeaux & D. Verhelst, eds., Benedictine Culture 750– 1050, 1983, 1–49 ◆ P. Engelbert, “Benedikt von Aniane und die karolingische Reichsidee,” StAns 103, 1990, 67–103. Pius Engelbert

Benedict of Nursia, Saint (c. 480, Norcia, Umbria – Mar 21, 547, Monte Cassino; according to some scholars, between 550 and 560). Benedict studied liberal arts in Rome, but soon retired into isolation near Affide, c. 60 km east of Rome. Thence, he went to Subiaco (75 km east of Rome), where he lived for three years as a hermit in a cave (today: Sacro Speco). Elected abbot by a neighboring group of monks, Benedict failed after a brief period. Between 520 and 530, he moved to → Monte Cassino, c. 150 km southeast of Rome, after establishing twelve monastic cells for his students in Subiaco. After the destruction of ancient sanctuaries, he erected the Monte Cassino Abbey and dedicated it to St. Martin. There, he composed the Regula Benedicti, which is characterized by wise moderation (→ Benedict, Rule of ). The chief source for the biography of Benedict are the edifying dialogues of → Gregory I, books II; III, 16 and IV, 8–9. Sources: A. de Vogüé & J. Neufville, La règle de saint Benoît, SC 181–186, 1972–1977 ◆ A. de Vogüé, Grégoire le Grand: Dialogues, SC 251; 260 and 265, 1978–1980 ◆ On Benedict: A. de Vogüé, TRE V, 1980, 538–549 (bibliogr.) ◆ N. Esser, ed., Fünfhundert Jahre Benedikt und die Benediktiner (Bibliographie), 1993, 7–12. Ferdinand R. Gahbauer

Benedict, Rule of Saint (Regula Benedicti, RB) is a Latin monastic rule that is currently observed by approx. 35,000 women and men worldwide (→ Benedictines). Its beginnings were humble: abbot → Benedict of Nursia (d. c. 550) composed a rule for his monastery of → Monte Cassino in which he reworked and shortened his model, the (anonymous) Master Rule (Regula Magistri, RM), by two-thirds. Initially, the Germanic veneration of Rome contributed to its diffusion (earliest evidence in southern Gaul around 625), later also the Carolingian reform that subordinated all monks to the RB (→ Benedict of Aniane). Even afterwards, the RB remained the foundation of all western monastic reforms (Benedictines, → Cistercians, → Trappists). Like every ancient monastic rule, the RB was also based on Holy Scripture and proven monastic tradition. It is arranged by category: The institutional and spiritual foundations (prologue, chs. 1–7) are followed by liturgical regula-

686 tions (chs. 8–20); chs. 21–52 regulate life in the cloister, chs. 53–66 relations with the external world, induction and hierarchy; chs. 67–73 are Benedict’s own addition. The advantage of the RB lies in its spiritual permeation of daily life, its wise balance of prayer, work and spiritual reading, its moderate asceticism and its positive view of the world and humanity. It is thus, in genre, very close to OT wisdom literature. After approx. 100 years of academic research and 33 years of RB-RM controversy, the priority of the RM was recognized in 1971; critical editions also appeared at this time. Today, RB exegesis (which operates like biblical exegesis) seeks to demonstrate the autonomy of the RB despite its dependence on the RM. The source question and that concerning its theological statement remain controversial. If one takes its various redactions into account, however, its theology can be summarized as follows: At the center stands the individual monk, the “hearer of the Word,” to whom Christ shows the way of life (prologue). Remaining responsible to the “congregatio” of brothers and incorporated into the chain of authority and obedience (chs. 1–72), he grows in his responsorial-communicative freedom (chs. 49; 68). Editions: CSEL 75, 1960 ◆ SC 181–183, 1972 ◆ Latin/German.: Beuron, 1992 ◆ Commentaries: SC 184–186, 1971 (A. de Vogüé) ◆ On RB: A. Böckmann, Perspektiven der Regula Benedicti, 1986 (bibl.). Michaela Pfeifer

Benedictines I. Benedictine monasticism regards → Benedict of Nursia as its founder and spiritual father. However, he did not want to found an order, but rather, like numerous literates in the Early Church, to live in solitude as a monk. Since, however, people with a similar objective gathered around him, he gave them a rule. II. The dissemination of the Regula Benedicti (RB, → Benedict, Rule of ) and of Benedictine life did not take place in a linear progression. In the 7th/8th century, various rules determined monastic life (the era of mixed rules). Iro-Frankish monasticism was important for the spreading of the RB (Luxeuil). The monks → Benedict Biscop (d. 689) and → Wilfrith of York introduced the RB in England. From there, it conquered Europe. In Italy, the rule of Monte Cassino was made into the “Regula Romana.” This and the policy of the Frankish rulers helped the RB to attain its monopoly status. → Charlemagne and his successor, → Louis I the Pious, along with the reformer → Benedict of Aniane, expanded the territory in which the RB was valid. The Aachen legislation of 816–819 made the RB binding for all monasteries. Those monasteries that did not want to accept the RB chose the life of canons. Thus, in this period, the equation: monk = Benedictine was valid. The monasteries were entrusted with schools, scribal activity, mission,

687 colonization and handicrafts. The service of monks in basilicas and sanctuaries led to the clericalization of monasticism. With the decline of the Frankish kingdom, the monasticism shaped by Benedict of Aniane faced a crisis. This crisis was overcome by 10th century reform movements, of which the best known were those of → Cluny, → Gorze, Brogne, and St. Maximin in Trier. By drawing on the RB, each of these developed their own → Consuetudines monasticae. These centers gave rise to additional centers of reform in the 10th century and especially in the 11th century. The best-known among these is → Hirsau. → Exemption from the authority of the bishops and the secular lords was decisive for the success of the reform. Yet, the multitude of consuetudines led to a certain splitting of Benedictine monasticism into various monastic trends with tendencies toward eremitic (e.g. → Camaldolese) and cenobitic lifestyles (e.g. → Vallombrosans). In the context of the clericalization and the seclusion of the monks from the world, the institution of the → Lay Brothers, who were not considered monks, arose. The → Cistercians, who consciously wanted to take up a life of simplicity, understood themselves as an alternative to Cluny. In the 13th century, the mendicant orders arose as important competitors to the Benedictines. New Benedictine communities, such as the → Silvestrines, → Olivetanians and Celestines attempted to integrate the poverty movement into Benedictine monasticism. The demise of medieval feudalism also led the Benedictines into a crisis, since they had been linked to it. The fact that not a few abbeys were subject to ecclesiastical princes, who were hardly concerned with the promotion of monastic life, but with the rights to the property of the monasteries, intensified this crisis. Furthermore, abbeys provided maintenance for several noble conventuals. In order to stop the decline, pope → Benedict XII decreed in the 1336 bull “Summi Magistri” that the Benedictine monasteries should unite into 30 provinces and hold province chapters and visitations every three years. In the 15th century, far-reaching reform movements issued from the following abbeys: → Kastl, → Bursfelde, → Melk, S. Giustina, Valladolid, Lissier. The Reformation led to the loss of approximately two-thirds of the monasteries in Germany and to the demise of all in England. The religious wars (1562–1593) endangered many monasteries even in France. The continuity of Benedictine monasticism was best preserved in Italy and Spain. In the period of the Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Benedictine life bloomed anew. The Council of Trent gave impetus to the renewed formation of congregations, especially in the German-speaking countries. Scholarship received essential support, especially from the → Maurists, who rendered outstanding services through their critical editions of the church fathers. At the university founded

Benedictions in Salzburg in 1617, research and teaching became the joint task of the Benedictines of all German-speaking congregations. Furthermore, art (theater, music) and humanities bloomed in individual abbeys. In the 18th century, Benedictines introduced the disciplines of history and geography into the curriculum. A renewed setback came with the secularization (1803), especially in Germany. Numerous monasteries were abolished and valuable stores of books were taken away and, in part, destroyed. After the secularization, king Louis I of Bavaria sponsored the Benedictines and supported the revival of some of their monasteries, in order to guarantee Catholic education in the Benedictine schools. In 1863, the brothers Wolter established the monastery of → Beuron, which became leading in the liturgical movement. From there, Father Andreas Amrhein established St. Ottilien as a missionary monastery in 1884. Abbot Bonifaz Wimmer of Metten founded St. Vincent in the USA, while the Swiss-American Benedictine Congregation originated from Einsiedeln. Since 1893, the Benedictines have maintained an international university with three faculties in St. Anselmo, Rome. III. The Benedictines form a confederation which is divided into 21 congregations for the male branch and 41 for the female branch. A few monasteries belong to no congregation. World-wide (as of 1996), 26,907 Benedictines live as follows: 8694 monks in 325 monasteries and 10,570 sisters (sorores) and 7643 cloistered nuns (moniales) in 345 abbeys. In addition to celebrating the liturgy, the tasks of the Benedictines comprise missionary activity, schools, pastoral care, hospitality, and scholarship. Like the monks, Benedictine nuns follow the Rule of Benedict, which was adapted for nuns in the 8th century. There are two branches: the strictly cloistered nuns (moniales, since the 7th cent.), who are more oriented toward contemplation with a solemn profession, and the sisters (sorores, since the 15th cent.) in apostolic service with a simple profession. The history of the female branch has followed a course similar to that of the male branch. Sources: Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum, 1963ff. ◆ Bibl.: P. Schmitz, Histoire de l’Ordre de saint Benoît, 7 vols., 1942–1956 ◆ Germania Benedictina, Bavarian Benedictine Academy, 1970ff. ◆ K.S. Frank, TRE V, 1980, 549–560 (bibl.) ◆ N. Esser, ed., Fünfhundert Jahre Benedikt und die Benediktiner (bibl.), 1993. Ferdinand R. Gahbauer

Benediction → Blessing and Curse, → Sacramentals Benedictions I. Old Testament – II. Judaism

I. Old Testament The term “benedictions” refers to statements of blessing by which the speaker directs the powers of blessing

Benedictions to the addressees, in contrast to statements of cursing or imprecations (maledictions; → Blessing and curse). Within Old Testament literature, one can observe a transition from an older, unspecific use (God or human as speaker; God, human or things as addressees; flexible formulation) to a younger, specific use (liturgical thanksgiving to and praise of God by humans; chief indicator: the pronunciation of the so-called baruch formula: “blessed be YHWH”). Palestinian archaeology has multiplied the extrabiblical attestations of benedictions from the 10th century bce onward. For the older usage of benedictions, one can distinguish three basic forms: (a) Passive blessing formulas (blessed is/be a person by a deity) in which the human speaker directs divine blessing to an addressee. A typical feature is their “indicative-jussive ambiguity” (Müller) and the openness of their timeframe (cf. the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud no. 3, Ein Gedi no. 2, Khirbet el-Qom no. 3 and OT parallels in daily or solemn greetings: Judg 17:2; Ruth 2:20; 3:10; 1 Sam 15:13; 23:21; 2 Sam 2:5; in cultic greetings: Gen 14:19; Ps 115:15). (b) Active blessing formulas (a person blesses someone in relation to/before/through a deity); cf. the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud nos. 8, 9, the Arad ostraca nos. 16:2f.; 21:2f.; 40:3; in OT literature, this formula found no direct successor; priestly blessings are comparable (1 Sam 2:20; 2 Sam 6:18; 1 Chr 16:12; 1 Kgs 8:14, 55; 2 Chr 6:3), such as those by the Levites (e.g. Deut 10:8; 21:5; 1 Chr 23:13) and the priests (e.g. Lev 9:22f., Num 6:23[, 27]; 1 Chr 23:13 and Pss 118:26; 129:8b. (c) A wish or request for a blessing (may the deity bless someone); cf. the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud no. 9, from Ketef Hinnom, nos. 34, 35, the royal dedicatory inscription from Tell Miqne/Ekron, in the Old Testament, e.g. Num 6:24–26; Ruth 2:4; Ps 129:8a; the Sitz im Leben is the everyday greeting, the prescript to letters, dedicatory and tomb inscriptions, ancient Near Eastern treaty texts and, derived from the latter, cultic relationships. Within the Old Testament, benedictions play notable roles in three areas: They appear in the → primordial history (e.g. Gen 9:26f. or Gen 1:22, 28; 2:3; 5:2; 9:1–6, 26f. as part of the Priestly Document; → Pentateuch) and in the ancestral narratives with traces of family wishes for blessing (Gen 24:60; 27:1–40) and integrated into the lines of the theology of history (Gen 12:1–4a; 17; 28:1–9). Furthermore, they occur in Deuteronomy, which extends the blessing to the products of the land and the returns of labor (Deut 12:7; 26:15) and links blessing, following ancient Near Eastern treaty traditions, with the realization of the social order (Deut 7:12–16; 11:26–28; 14:29; 15:4–6, etc.; esp. 28:1–14 with the series of benedictions in vv. 3–6). The third concentration is found in the Psalter

688 (→ Psalms). It offers benedictions in broad abundance and variation that increases toward the end (esp. in the latter third). At the same time, it attests to the change in the use of benedictions from spontaneous expressions of thanksgiving to the cultic-ritual praise of YHWH, from concrete thanksgiving in prayer to a marker of literary composition, from blessings for people (e.g. for the king, Pss 21:4, 7; 72:15, 17) to (theological) doxologies (e.g. at the end of the first four books, Pss 41:14; 72:18f.; 89:53; 106:48). The first Davidic Psalter employs that promise of praise with brk (pi‘el) or the bārûk formula with a divine subject in prayers of request or complaint at the transition from the request to praise (Pss 16:7; 26:12; 28:6; 31:22) or at the beginning or conclusion of prayers of thanksgiving (Pss 18:47; 34:2). The request for blessing on the people that stems from the temple cult is inserted secondarily in Pss 3:9b; 28:9; 29:11. In the second Davidic Psalter, the benedictions concentrate in the middle section, the group of hymns and songs of thanksgiving, Pss 65–68. Here, they mark the beginning and end of the thanksgiving portions of the prayer (Pss 66:8, 20; 68:20, 27, 36) or shape the entire Psalm as in Ps 67:2, 7f. In the Psalms mentioned, the influence of the temple liturgy and, especially, of the Aaronic blessing is perceptible. In the fourth book of Psalms (Pss 80–106), the conclusion of Ps 100:4 (the climax of the YHWH-is-king Psalms) stands out alongside Ps 96:2 because it contains all the key words (hll, brk, ydh) and primary formulas of structural significance for the latter third of the Psalter. The call to praise (103:1f., 20–22; 104:1, 35) frames and joins the pair of Psalms, 103 and 104. In the fifth book of Psalms (Pss 107–145), the benedictions concentrate at the beginning, middle and conclusion of the Egyptian Hallel (113:1–3; 115:12–18 and 118:26f. under the influence of the Aaronic blessing). Cultic benedictions are the connecting element of the pilgrimage Psalms (cf. 121:5,7f.; 124:6; 128:4f.; 129:8; 133:3; and the blessing liturgy of the concluding Psalm 134). Ps 135:19–21 varies the praise of Ps 118:2–4 as a benediction functioning as a finale. The re-reading of the royal Psalm 18 in Ps 144 begins with the benediction of Ps 18:47. The Davidic Psalter, 138–145, and the fifth book of Psalms close with the praise-dominated Ps 145:1f., 10, 21. The concluding Hallel of the entire Psalter, Ps 146–150, avoids the keyword brk. Because of their differences, the doxologies at the end of the first four books of Psalms probably originated in succession. In position and configuration, they are inspired by the secondary request for blessing on the people in the first (see above) and by Pss 66:20; 68 (29,) 36 in the second Davidic Psalter. Cf. → Sacramentals. J. Scharbert, “Die Geschichte der bārûk-Formel,” BZ 17, 1973, 1–28 ◆ E. Jenni, “Zu den doxologischen Schlußformeln des

689 Psalters,” ThZ 40, 1984, 114–120 ◆ H.P. Müller, “Segen im Altes Testament,” in: idem, Mythos-Kerygma-Wahrheit, BZAW 200, 1991, 220–252 ◆ J. Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften, 2 vols., HAE 1; 2, 1, 1995 ◆ S. Gitin, T. Dothan & J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 47, 1997, 1–16. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld

II. Judaism 1. Antiquity. In ancient Judaism the practice of benedictions was transferred from temple liturgy to the → synagogue and home. Formulations thereby also changed. In rabbinic literature, benedictions are mentioned as → Aaronic blessings within the daily prayers, e.g. as the framework of the → Shema Isra’el. They are also mentioned as sections of the Eighteen Benedictions (→ Shemone Esre), as part of the Havdala-ceremony concluding the Sabbath and festivals, and as individual thanksgivings for material goods (harvests, meals and wine, clothes) and for divine providence (miracles, rain, eradication of idols, good and bad fate) (see m. Ber.). The so-called Birkat ha-Minim was originally directed against various groups of Jewish sectarians in general. Only later, possibly at the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, does it appear to refer especially to JewishChristians (Nazoraeans). In the Tannaic (→ Tannaim) and Amoraic (→ Amoraim) periods, certain customs did develop in Palestine and in Babylonia with regard to situations in which benedictions were spoken, but neither the number nor the order of the benedictions in the liturgy, nor the formulations were standardized by Rabbis. The benedictions were first standardized in the Gaonic period (→ Gaon) together with the rest of the liturgy.

Benedictus tions can be found throughout the Middle Ages and the modern era, many of which originated from different geographical locations as well as from various religious groups such as the Ashkenazim and → Sephardim, Hassidim (→ Hasidism) and Mitnagdim. During the modern era, the Reform movement and later the Conservative movement brought significant changes to the text and language of the benedictions. L. Finkelstein, “The Development of the Amidah,” JQR 16, 1925/1926, 1–43 ◆ M. Liber, “Structure and History of the Tefilah,” JQR 40, 1949/1950, 331–357. Kimmy Caplan

Benedictus I. New Testament – II. Liturgy

I. New Testament Zechariah’s song (Luke 1:68–79), consisting of two parts: vv. 68–75 sing the praise of God’s acts for his people in the form of a hymn, which is similar to the OT (Psalms) and early Jewish texts (1QM XIV, 4–7; Pss. Sol. 2.33–37); vv. 76–79 display an early form of the Hellenist genethliacon and predict John the Baptist as an eschatological mediator of salvation. Both parts may be of Jewish origin. Luke, however, found them already combined and, by inserting an editorial v. 69f., gave the whole a messianic interpretation. Verses 76–79 originate from Baptist circles, whereas the hymn could point to the early period of the Jewish War with the initially successful rebellion against Rome.

I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 41962 ◆ L.A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service, 1979 ◆ B.M. Bokser, “Ma’al and Blessing over Food,” JBL 100, 1981, 557–574. Catherine Heszer

R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 21983, 377–392, 656–661 ◆ S. Farris, The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives, JSNT.S 9, 1985, 127–142 ◆ T. Kaut, Befreier und befreites Volk, BBB 77, 1990, 172–265 ◆ W. Radl, Der Ursprung Jesu, HBS 7, 1996, 76–132. Bernhard Heininger

2. Middle Ages and Modern Times. By the Middle Ages, we find clear definitions of benedictions relating to prayers for various situations and occasions, and of those said before or after performing a mitzvah. The main development by the Middle Ages relates to the forming of the prayers, the core of which is based upon a series of benedictions. The first attempts to write complete prayer books took place toward the end of the Gaonic period. The most famous compilers of this era were Rabbi Amram the Gaon (9th cent.) and → Saadia Gaon (10th cent.). Noticeable differences exist between their styles, though, both differ significantly from the formulas of benedictions composed in Eretz Israel. M. → Maimonides devoted several chapters of his famous 14-volume work on Jewish Law (Mishne Torah) to benedictions. Those dealing with prayers are mainly concentrated in the second book, the “Book of Love.” Slight differences in the wording of the benedic-

II. Liturgy The Benedictus of mass is the second section of the → Sanctus (I) and follows the first “Hosanna.” It consists of the phrase “Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domine,” followed by a second “Hosanna.” This text refers to Matt 21:9, a messianic acclamation, derived from Ps 118:26. The Benedictus entered Western Eucharistic liturgies (→ Eucharist/Communion: IV) as an addition to the original Sanctus and gained wide usage from the late 7th century. Later, the Benedictus was separated from the Sanctus with its musical elaborations; the consecratory prayer was inserted between the Sanctus and the Benedictus. In the 16th century, Lutheran and other Reformed Eucharistic liturgies omitted the Benedictus, except for the Anglican → Book of Common Prayer (1549). Since → Vatican II, reforms in the Roman Catholic Church and a few Protestant Churches have restored the Sanctus and Benedictus to their unity; they

Benedictus Levita follow the preface of the Eucharistic Prayer as the people’s acclamation. Benedictus is also the title of canticle Luke 1:68–79, sung every day in the Lauds or Anglican Matins (Morning Prayer). J.A. Jungmann, Missarum sollemnia, 1949 ◆ J. Thannabaur, Das einstimmige Sanctus der römischen Messe, 1962 ◆ B.D. Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer, 1991. Don E. Saliers

Benedictus Levita is the name assumed by the alleged author of a collection of laws in three books purporting to be the continuation of the “capitularies” of Ansegis of Fontenelle. Some of the manuscripts also contain appendices. The work consists partly of forged, but partly also of authentic texts (esp. → capitularies, synodal decrees, etc.). Like the → Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which also originated around 850, it follows the tendency to suppress lay power in the church. MGH.L 2/2, 39–158 ◆ H. Fuhrmann, Einfluß und Verbreitung der pseudoisidorischen Fälschungen, vol. I, 1972, 163–167. Wilfried Hartmann

Benediktbeuern (in the Bavarian dialect, “Pfaffenwinkel”) was founded in 740 by the noble family of the Huosi, according to legend dedicated by St. → Boniface, and placed under the Benedictine rule (→ Benedict, Rule of ). With one interruption (955–1031), it was a Benedictine monastery and enjoyed princely patronage from Louis IV, the Bavarian, until the → secularization. In the Middle Ages (scriptorium, historiography) and after the Melkite Reform (→ Melk) it flourished, as it did in the → Baroque period (Carl Meichelbeck, d. 1734). After 1803, it was used as a factory, barracks, and invalid home, among other things; from 1930 in the possession of the → Salesians of Don Bosco, it housed a philosophicaltheological college (1931); in 1971, it became a professional school for social work and, in 1992, a theological faculty. J. Hemmerle, Die Benediktiner-Abtei Benediktbeuern, 1991 ◆ L. Weber, Das 1250-jährige Jubliäum des Klosters Benediktbeuern, 1991. Rainer A. Müller

Benefice/Prebend. As a concept belonging to canonical law, “benefice” serves to designate a church → office which is permanently endowed with a patrimonial estate, the exploitation and revenues of which are meant to secure the livelihood of the office-holder. Until the introduction of a salary-based compensation system, the benefice represented the major source of income for clerical office-holders. The concept of prebend is largely identical with → beneficium. Already in the early Middle Ages, the regional churches had developed into autonomous economical institutions that kept their own estates separate from the rest of diocesan property and appointed their own clerics to

690 administer and exploit these at their discretion. From the 8th/9th century, clerics were not only entrusted with individual estates upon the conferment of the benefice, but also with the complete local church and its property. Following the generally binding introduction of the tithe (→ Tithing), the 9th century saw the lower churches carry out a division of church property into patrimonial estates (benefice property), alms moneys and church maintenance funds. The same division was carried out similarly, if somewhat later, by the cathedral and collegiate churches. Benefice (also known as beneficium or also, in the context of cathedral and collegiate churches, as praebenda) and church office were subsequently viewed as an indivisible unit. Exploitation rights and revenues could be drawn from a wide variety of sources belonging to the church estate (→ Property of the Church) for instance rights of abode, harvest yields, income from the rental of real estate, impositions and donations [→ Foundations/Endowments] from the faithful). In the High and late Middle Ages, the responsibilities attached to the offices were increasingly overshadowed by the benefice itself: in spite of prohibitions by church law, the growing concentration of clerical offices in the hands of single persons and the simultaneous neglect of the responsibilities attached to these offices eventually led to an outright accumulation of benefices; the bartering and ceding of benefices was a common phenomenon. On the other hand, the holders of a benefice were required by common canon law to assume the subsidiary building responsibilities for the church buildings. The benefice system was carried on in the Anglican and Evangelical churches (and only overcome in the 19th century with the implementation of a salary-based compensation system [→ Stipend, Ministerial]); in Catholic canon law, the benefice system was not fully abolished until the promulgation of CIC 1983. U. Stutz, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens von seinen Anfängen bis auf die Zeit Alexanders III., 21961 ◆ H.E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, 51972 ◆ T. Lindner, Baulasten an kirchlichen Gebäuden, 1995. Thomas Lindner

Benefices, System of. In the barter economy of the early Middle Ages, the bestowal of useful goods gained increasing significance. Against this background, → bene ficium, in its most comprehensive meaning, referred to any grant which, owing to the advantages associated with it, represented a benefit to the recipient. In its early medieval development, the beneficium (the property law component) was associated with vassalage (the personal law component). The → Carolingians already attempted to bind their vassals to themselves by allocating church property. The king granted the benefices, but the recipient entered into a precaria

691 with the church and had to pay it a tithe “precariae verbo regis.” This association of vassalage and beneficium determined the structure of the medieval feudal state (grants). Increasingly, the imperial church was also entangled in the feudal system of the Middle Ages as bishops and abbots became liege lords themselves. Around the middle of the 12th century, the grant system established itself in the church state and became an instrument of papal policy. In the more restricted sense, the ecclesial benefice system refers to the development of the ecclesial beneficium. U. Stutz, Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesen von seinen Anfängen bis auf die Zeit Alexanders III., 21961 ◆ A. Pöschl, “Die Entstehung des geistlichen Benefiziums,” AKathKR 106, 1926, 3–121, 363–471 ◆ J. Deér, Papsttum und Normannen: Untersuchungen zu ihren lehnsrechtlichen und kirchenpolitischen Beziehungen, 1972 ◆ P. Landau, “Beneficium,” TRE V, 1980, 577–583 ◆ H. Mitteis, Lehnsrecht und Staatsgewalt, 1993. Herbert Kalb

Beneficium. In the concluding definition of terms in the CIC 1917, a beneficium (benefice) is a permanent church office established by the responsible church authority that is endowed with a profitable estate and that qualifies the respective officeholder to enjoy its yield (c. 1409). The development of this classical (ecclesial) benefice began in the Middle Ages. The concept of the church office as an annex of the endowment led to the investiture of priests by means of the bestowal of a local church and its appurtenances (“local grant of a church following the right of benefice”). The benefice in the more limited sense originated when the grant was restricted to the endowment for the support of the clergy. In this meaning, canon law closely associated benefice with the → office and developed it into one of the most important forms of office and endowment. The Evangelical Church in Germany adopted the canon law of benefices; it was only replaced by a salary system in German regional churches toward the end of the 19th century. In the Catholic Church, the CIC 1983 abolished the benefice, although it has been preserved in the specific laws of Germany and Austria. H.E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, 51972 ◆ P. Landau, TRE V, 1980, 577–583 (bibl.) ◆ H. Heimerl & H. Pree, Handbuch des Vermögensrechts der katholischen Kirche, 1993. Herbert Kalb

Bengel, Ernst Gottlieb (von) (Nov 3, 1769, Zavelstein – Mar 23, 1826, Tübingen) was the grandson of J.A. → Bengel. In 1806, he became professor of theology in Tübingen, in 1810 full professor, in 1820 prelate. He was the student of J.C. → Storr. Bengel devoted himself esp. to biblical studies and historical theology. His studies on Socinianism, which has a line of thinking close to his own, were highly appreciated by F.C. → Baur, his student and successor. Bengel considered the difference between

Bengel, Johann Albrecht the Catholic and the Protestant doctrine of → justification to be logomachy. He interpreted faith as transformation of and improvement in attitude. Thanks to his personal charisma, Bengel was highly esteemed as a teacher of theology. Works: “Ideen zur historisch-analytischen Erklärung des sozinianischen Lehrbegriffs”, J.F. Flatt & F.G. Süskind, eds., Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, 14–16, 1808/1810 ◆ Der reinesittlich-religiöse Vernunftglaube in seiner Hinneigung zum Glauben an eine Offenbarung wie die christliche, 1825 ◆ On Bengel: Neuer Nekrolog IV, 1826, 162–165 ◆ K. Klüpfel, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Universität Tübingen, 1849 (repr. 1977), sect. 2., 241–245 ed., F.C. Baur ◆ C. Kolb, Die Aufklärung in der württembergischen Kirche, 1908. Siegfried Raeder

Bengel, Johann Albrecht ( Jun 24, 1687, Winnenden – Nov 2, 1752, Stuttgart). The teacher, pastor, and later prelate and consistorial councilor is the most important Württembergian Pietist of the 18th century. His contributions to exegesis and to NT → text criticism and his chiliastic theory (→ Millenarianism) are significant. He exerted influence through writings and, indirectly, through numerous students. Bengel was the son of a pastor and, through the agency of his godfather David Wendelin Spindler, came into contact with radical → Pietism in 1693–1703. As a student in Tübingen (1703–1706), he was also under Pietist influence. He did not experience a “conversion” in the style of Halle, yet he recorded in his diary: “God touched my heart.” In 1707, his teacher J.W. → Jäger allocated him the topic of mysticism (Dissertatio de theologia mystica). After a period as collegiate tutor in Tubingen and as vicar in Metzingen, Nürtingen, Tübingen, and Stuttgart (1708–1713), he undertook a study trip to Halle. In 1713, Bengel became teacher at the boarding school in Denkendorf (near Esslingen), where he was to prepare future theologians for their studies. In his 28 years as “monastery preceptor,” he taught a total of c. 300 students and authored academic works. In 1734, his textcritical edition of the NT appeared. It brought Bengel approval as well as criticism in the scholarly world. In the methodical introduction, he established the rule: “The more difficult variant is to be preferred over the easier one,” but nonetheless largely insisted on the textus receptus. In his exegesis, Bengel held on to verbal inspiration and the principle of interpreting the Scripture by the Scripture. For him, everything communicated in the Bible was important and right. In 1742, his Gnomon Novi Testamenti appeared, a strictly philological exegesis of the NT (still used by pastors in the 20th cent. in sermon preparation), and posthumously (1753) a translation of the NT with annotations. In the “Interpreted Revelation of John” (1740) and in the “Sixty Edifying Sermons on the Revelation of John” (1747), Bengel developed his theology of salvation history and deduced

Benin a dichiliastic and post-millennialist eschatology from Rev 20: in 1836 (by computation on June 6), the first of two consecutive millennial kingdoms was supposed to begin, before the → Parousia , the end of the world, the Last Judgment, and the new creation. Bengel had an eighteen-year-long dispute with → Zinzendorf, in which theological differences and personal aversions played a role. The originally good relationship between the Unity of Brethren (→ Bohemian/Moravian Brethren) and the Württembergian Pietists was thus permanently disrupted. In the end, Bengel held offices in church administration and politics: in 1741, he became prelate of Herbrechtingen (near Heidenheim), in 1749 abbot of Alpirsbach (titular prelate), and thus consistorial councilor in Stuttgart. In 1747, he was elected to the major, in 1748 to the minor house of parliament. In 1751, Bengel, who had long hoped for a professorship in Tübingen, was granted an honorary Dr. theol. After his death, students and friends preserved his memory and disseminated his ideas, esp. regarding the course of the end of history. His most important student was P.D. → Burk, though F.C. → Oetinger and P.M. → Hahn should also be mentioned. K. Hermann, Johann Albrecht Bengel, 1937 (repr. 1987) ◆ G. Mälzer, Bengel und Zinzendorf, 1968 ◆ idem, Johann Albrecht Bengel, 1970 ◆ idem, Die Werke der württembergischen Pietisten des 17. und 18.Jh., 1972, 77–85 (bibl.) ◆ M. Brecht, TRE V, 1980, 583–589 (bibl.) ◆ J. Wallmann, Der Pietismus, 1990, 129–137. Martin H. Jung

Benin. The modern city of Benin represents, as the former royal capital, the nucleus of the kingdom of Benin and is inhabited by Edo-speaking peoples – the Bini, Ishan, Ivbiosakon, Afenmai, Isoko, and Urhobo. Their territory extends from the Kukuruku hills in the north, to the southern fringes of the coastal mangrove forest, and is bounded in the west and east by Yoruba and Igbo peoples. In the heyday of the kingdom, Benin encroached upon Yoruba, Igbo, Dahome, and Congo areas, making them vassal states under the political sovereignty of the Benin monarch. The origin and earliest history of Benin is unknown. However, there are migration traditions leading to the east (Egypt) through Sudan and Ile-Ife. Local historical traditions explain Benin’s existence as a city ab initio. The Benin kingdom was the center of a large and powerful political entity dating back to around 900 ce, the time of the first dynasty under the “Ogisos” (“kings”). The migration of Oranmiyan (Oduduwa’s son), an Ife prince, to Benin in 1170 ce marked the beginning of a new epoch. The banishment and abdication of Oba Ovonramwen in 1914 ended the second dynasty, while the third dynasty, which still endures, began with Eweka II. In the pre-colonial era, the socio-political organization was dominated by the special status of the “Oba” (“king”). He united the

692 supreme religious and political authority in his person and exerted enormous influence on the kingdom. Benin City is called “Edo” by its inhabitants, who either speak “Edo” or closely related dialects (from the group of the Kwa languages). Despite linguistic, social, and political differences, they share a certain cultural identity, linguistic affinity, and common socio-cultural features. The traditional cosmology of the inhabitants is characterized by the belief in a Supreme Being, “Osanobua,” and in deities who are mainly associated with the natural elements (e.g. “Olokun,” “Obiemwen,” and “Ogiuwu”) and the ancestors. The “Olukun” cult occupies a central position, as “Olokun” is identified with the great waters that surround the earth. According to Edo mythology, he is the eldest son of “Osanobua.” He is associated primarily with female fertility, health, and good fortune. Women assume important functions as priestesses in the Edo religious sphere. At the time of the British punishment expedition in 1897, Benin had already experienced over four centuries of contact with Europe. Early evangelization attempts by Portuguese missionaries from 1485 onward failed as these were motivated more by matters of commerce than by matters of faith. Christianity was reintroduced to Benin by missions in the first half of the 20th century. Among these missionary groups are the Church Missionary Society (1902), the → Baptists (1921), the Roman Catholic Church (1924), the → Salvation Army (1926), and the United Native African Church (1930). J.U. Egharevba, A Short History of Benin, 1968 ◆ A.F.C. Ryder, Benin and the Europeans 1485–1897, 1969 ◆ R.E. Bradbury, The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of South-western Nigeria, 1970 ◆ J.U. Egharevba, The City of Benin, 1971. Afe Adogame

Benjamin, Walter ( Jul 15, 1892, Berlin – Sep 27, 1940, Port Bou, France) left a rich oeuvre as a writer, translator, and philosopher. In the center of Benjamin’s thought stands the attempt to rehabilitate religious, magical, and speculative experience in the medium of language. Benjamin wishes to regard the phenomena of the world from the perspective of their inevitably materializing meaning, and to interpret them as the anticipation of a messianically redeemed world. – Benjamin received his Ph.D. in Bern in 1919. After his attempt to habilitate himself in Frankfurt-am-Main had failed, he lived as a freelance writer mainly in Berlin and, after 1933, in Paris. In the late 1920s, Benjamin admitted his adherence to an undogmatic → Marxism, without giving up the metaphysical orientation of his thinking. His fragmentary Passagen-Werk, an attempt at formulating a cultural physiognomy of the 19th century, was to effect a blending of the materialistic and speculative intention. After Benjamin’s death – he committed suicide while

693 fleeing from occupied France – T.W. → Adorno, in particular, promoted the work of his friend. With his influence on Adorno, Benjamin is one of the most significant inspirers of → critical theory. Main works: Selected Writings, vols. I–IV, 1996–2002 ◆ The Arcades Project, 1999 ◆ Der Begriff der Kunstkritik in der deutschen Romantik, 1919 ◆ Zur Kritik der Gewalt, 1921 ◆ Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften, 1924 ◆ Der Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels, 1928 ◆ Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, 1936 ◆ T.W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Briefwechsel 1928–1940, ed. H. Lonitz, 1994 ◆ Gesammelte Schriften, 7 vols., 1974–1989 ◆ On Benjamin: R. Tiedemann, Studien zur Philosophie Walter Benjamins, 1973 ◆ W. Fuld, Walter Benjamin, 1979 ◆ B. Witte, Walter Benjamin, 1985 ◆ R. Markner & T. Weber, Literatur über Walter Benjamin, Kommentierte Bibliographie 1983– 1992, 1993 ◆ M. Brodersen, Walter Benjamin: eine kommentierte Bibliographie, 1995; ET: Walter Benjamin, A Biography, 1996. Günter Figal

Benn, Gottfried (May 2, 1886, Mansfeld – Jul 7, 1956, Berlin), poet. The son of a minister, Benn studied theology, philosophy, and medicine. He received a grant from the academy for military education and collaborated on expressionist publications (relationship with E. → Lasker-Schüler. He practiced as a hospital doctor in 1912, as a military doctor from 1914 to 1917, and from 1918 ran a practice for skin and venereal diseases in Berlin. Excluded from the medical association in 1935, he became a military doctor. His ceremonial address for Heinrich Mann in 1931 and his inaugural speech at the Prussian Academy of the Arts (Der Nihilismus und seine Überwindung, 1932) caused him to be accused of blindness towards National Socialist ideas. Benn called for new morals and a new metaphysics of form. Art as an actual life-task is not to define the human being materialistically, but metaphysically, as he is part of the invisible, the incalculable. “Whoever runs with time, is run over by time, but things come to him who stands still.” (The new literary season, radio talk, 1931). At the end of 1934, he revised politically risky statements. In 1938, he was prohibited to write; what he wrote in that period, Benn published in 1949. Despite heated debates about his character and his work, Benn continually found recognition (Büchner prize, 1951). His wife Edith Osterloh died in 1921; his second wife Herta Wedemeyer committed suicide while fleeing from the Soviet army. In 1946, he married Ilse Kaul. Benn’s expressionist style (Morgue, 1912; Söhne, 1913; Fleisch, 1917; Schutt, 1924), a radical break with tradition, led to a revaluation of poetry. His professional experience of medicine (materials, professional jargon) generated an eruptive, even cynical linguistic power (unmasking social and aesthetic norms). Benn’s philosophical phase was no less linguistically creative. His prose tends towards and accompanies poetry; the essay is directed against the threat to poetical freedom and inner transcendence

Benson, Edward White (Ausdruckswelt, 1949; autobiography Doppelleben, 1950; Probleme der Lyrik, 1951). Language alone, or more precisely: the word in the innermost reaches of the self is for Benn (in contrast to the heteronymous world of experience) “form as being.” Artistic form (Statische Gedichte, after 1938; Destillationen, 1953; Apreslude, 1955), as “creative nihilism” or pure expression, acts as a universal barrier to coincidence. Only in the artistic act may true transcendence and eternity be discerned. Where religion loses this insight, it loses itself in the institution (cf. Fragmente, 1951). Works include: Über mich selbst 1886–1956, 1956 ◆ GW, ed. D. Wellershoff, 4 vols., 1958–1961, repr. 1977 ◆ Das gezeichnete Ich, 1962 (Letters) ◆ Briefwechsel mit P. Hindemith, 1978 ◆ GW in der Fassung der Erstdrucke, ed. B. Hillebrand, 4 vols., 1982–1990 ◆ Gottfried Benn: Sämtliche Werke, ed. G. Schuster, 5 vols., 1986– 1991 ◆ On Benn: E. Lohner, Gottfried-Benn-Bibliographie, 1956, new edition extended by T. Zenner, 1985 ◆ O. Söhngen et al., eds., Totenreden für Gottfried Benn, 1956 ◆ G. Loose, Die Ästhetik Gottfried Benns, 1961 ◆ H.D. Balser, Das Problem des Nihilismus im Werk Gottfried Benns, 1965 ◆ H.E. Holthusen, Gottfried Benn, 1986. Rainer Volp

Bennett, William James Early (Nov 15, 1804, Halifax, Nova Scotia – Aug 17, 1886, Froome), liturgical innovator. Bennett was educated at Westminster (1816–1823) and Christ Church, Oxford (MA 1829). Ordained in 1831, he gained a substantial reputation as a preacher. Low Church liturgical practices, which he introduced at St. Paul’s in Knightsbridge and St. Barnabas in Pimlico, led to censure by the bishop and to Bennett’s resignation in 1850. The Marchioness of Bath, who had been a member of an earlier congregation in which he had served, thereupon appointed him vicar of Frome Selwood in Somerset. He continued to be at the center of the controversy over the acceptance of various liturgical practices in the → Church of England. In 1870, however, he was cleared of charges of having violated church law. He wrote extensively on the Eucharist and other subjects. W.P. Courtney, DNB, Suppl. I, 1901, 169–171.

Glenn Hinson

Benno of Meißen, Saint, (d. after 1095, allegedly Jun 16, 1106) was bishop of Meissen from 1066 onward. From 1075 to 1085, he opposed king → Henry IV. His canonization (May 31, 1523) was based on his missionary activity among the Slavs. His remains were transferred to Munich in 1576; he is the patron saint of this city. W. Petke, LMA 1, 1980, 1916f.

Wilfried Hartmann

Benson, Edward White ( Jul 14, 1829, Birmingham – Oct 11, 1896, Hawarden), Archbishop of → Canterbury. Benson was educated at King Edward’s School and Trinity College, Cambridge (1848–1852). He taught at Rugby (1852–1859) and served as headmaster of Wellington

Benson, Louis Fitzgerald

694

College (1859–1872). In 1872, he was appointed chancellor of Lincoln Minster, and bishop of the newly formed see of Truro in 1877. He became archbishop of Canterbury in 1882. As archbishop, he was energetic as pastor of his diocese, led the fight to prevent the separation of the church and state, took an active role in the worldwide mission work of the Church of England, sought closer ties with other churches, and revived the Anglican see of Jerusalem. However, he did not respond favorably to overtures by the Roman Catholic Church. Benson wrote several books, including a classic biography of → Cyprian of Carthage, published posthumously. A.C. Benson, The Life of Edward White Benson, 2 vols., 1899 ◆ A.J. Mason, DNB, Suppl. I, 1901, 171–179. Glenn Hinson

Benson, Louis Fitzgerald ( Jul 22, 1855, Philadelphia – Oct 10, 1930, Philadelphia), influential Presbyterian minister, composer, editor, and scholar of hymnology. He attended the Episcopal Academy of Philadelphia and studied law at the University of Pennsylvania. Benson practiced law for seven years. After this, he began theological studies at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1887. He was ordained the same year and worked as a pastor for six years in Philadelphia. In 1894, Benson joined the Presbyterian Board of Publication and compiled and published its Hymnal (1895), thus setting a standard for the whole of 20th-century America. He was also co-editor of the church’s first Book of Common Worship. Benson is regarded as America’s foremost hymnologist; he compiled a total of nine hymnals and wrote several influential works on hymnology. His chief work, The English Hymn: Its Development and Use (1915), is considered to be definitive. Works include: Studies of Familiar Hymns, 2 vols., 1903, 1923 ◆ On Benson: M. Noyes, Benson, Hymnologist, 1955. Paul R. Powell

Benson, Richard Meux ( Jul 6, 1824, London – Jan 14, 1915, Cowley), founder of the Society of St. John the Evangelist. Benson was educated at home and through travels in Germany and Italy with his sister Sarah. Meetings with leading Catholic theologians and a private audience with pope → Gregory XVI moved him to study the Roman Catholic Church thoroughly, but not to give up his own Anglican tradition. He continued his education at Christ Church, Oxford (M.A. 1849). In 1850, he became vicar of Cowley, where he devoted himself to the cultivation of the inner life and the promotion of retreats. A sermon preached by J. → Keble in July 1893 inspired him to found a community for men. With the approval of bishop W. → Wilberforce, the Society of St. John the Evangelist was formally constituted on December 27, 1866. In 1870, Benson established a branch in Boston. S.L. Ollard, DNB, 1912–1921, 38–39.

Glenn Hinson

Bentham, Jeremy (Feb 15, 1748, London – Jun 6, 1832, London). After studying law, Bentham concentrated on the development and practical implementation of his own work. His declared goal was to introduce reform plans into the program of the government (“Traité de Législation civile et pénale” [1802], “Catechism of Parliamentary Reform” [1817], “Constitutional Code” [1830]). By tracing back all motives of action to pleasure and suffering, Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) provided a justification for → utilitarianism. Its principle was “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” and was directed against both the – Christian – “ascetic morality” of the multiplication of suffering and a Kantian ethics of principle. Happiness-furthering actions, by contrast, are to be promoted through physical, religious, political, and moral sanctions. Along with his disciple J.S. → Mill, Bentham exerted considerable influence on contemporary criminal law and welfare policy in particular. Works: The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. J.H. Burns & L.H.A. Hart, 1970 ◆ On Bentham: H.L.A. Hart, Essays on Bentham, 1982 ◆ D. Lyons, In the Interest of the Governed, 21991 ◆ O. Höffe, Einführung in die utilitaristische Ethik, 21992. Jean-Christophe Merle

Bentley, Richard ( Jan 27, 1662, Oulton – Oct 1742, Westminster), English classical scholar. His Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion (1692) and his attack on the free-thinker A. → Collins (1713) established him as a Christian apologist. His classical studies included the restoration of corrupt passages in → John Malalas. He was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, published abundantly, and reedited J. → Milton’s Paradise Lost. The Works, ed. A. Dyce, 3 vols., 1836–1838.

Donald K. McKim

Berdyayev, Nikolai Aleksandrovich (Mar 6, 1874, Kiev – Mar 23, 1948, Clamart). The philosopher Nikolai Berdyayev was a prominent representative of the Russian religious and cultural renaissance in the early 20th century. He sought to achieve a synthesis of the Western European and Russian intellectual traditions on the basis of existential personalism. Born to an aristocratic family, he was forced to leave the university of Kiev in 1894 because of his Marxist activities. Along with other Russian intellectuals, he deserted Marxism for idealism and later for religious philosophy. Characteristic of Berdyayev’s philosophy was his fundamental notion of primordial freedom, developed under the influence of J. → Böhme. Notions about “God’s hardship in the act of creating humanity” found expression in his book The Meaning of the Creative Act (1916, ET 1955). Under the influence of the First World War and the Russian revolution of 1917, Berdyayev’s interest in social and

695 historiosophical themes grew. In this period, he wrote Sud’ba Rossii (“The Fate of Russia”, 1918), Filosofiia neravenstva (“The Philosophy of Inequality”, 1923), and The Meaning of History (1923, ET 1936). After banishment in 1922, he moved to Berlin, where he wrote The End of Our Time (1924, ET 1933), which brought him international fame. After 1924, when he moved to France, criticism of all forms of objectification, based on the illusion of an objectified world, became increasingly important to him. By overcoming objectification, a person returns to true reality. For Berdyayev, knowledge of the world gained through existential human experience goes hand in hand with personalism, which rests on belief in the primacy of the human individual over all aspects of objectified “universality,” and of the morality of the unique person over group morality and universal authoritative values. These ideas are reflected in Freedom and the Spirit (1927, ET 1935), The Destiny of Man (1931, ET, 1937), and Slavery and Freedom (1939, ET 1943). At the same time, he continued to ponder the modern situation and Russian history. His late works, some published only posthumously, reflect his feeling for the world’s eschatological crisis and for the contrast between paths of transcendence leading to a transfigured and liberated world and to a growing trivialization of life. Works include: Vekhi/Landmarks, 1994 ◆ On Berdyayev: W. Goerdt, Russische Philosophie, vol. I, 1984. Vladimir Ivanov

Berengar of Tours (c. 1000, Tours – Jan 6, 1088, St. Côme near Tours). Berengar studied with → Fulbert in Chartres, and became the head and chancellor of the school of Tours, where he taught the Trivium (→ Artes liberales). He advised the count of Anjou and was archdeacon of Angers. His eucharistic doctrine, over which he became embroiled in a fierce dispute with → Lanfranc of Pavia , was condemned in 1050 at synods in Rome and Vercelli, and, finally, in 1079, in Rome. In 1054 and 1059, he was required to make an orthodox confession in Tours and Rome, a confession which he later interpreted according to his understanding. Berengar based his understanding of the sacraments on → Augustine and → Ratramnus of Corbie. Through logical-grammatical analysis, he came to reject the sensualist understanding, shared by → Paschasius Radbertus and Lanfranc, of the real transsubstantiation in the Eucharist, which he understood symbolically and spiritually, without denying the real presence. Sources: Rescriptum contra Lanfrancum (= De sacra coena), R.B.C. Huygens, ed., 1988 ◆ C. Erdmann & N. Fickermann, eds., Briefe, MGH.B5, 1950, 132–172 ◆ On Berengar: J. de Montelos, Lanfranc et Bérenger, 1971 ◆ A. Cantin, “‘Ratio’ et ‘auctoritas’ dans la première phase de la controverse entre Berengar et Lanfranc,” RE Aug 20, 1974, 155–186 ◆ M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bec, 1978 ◆ H. Chadwick, “Ego Berengarius,” JTS NS 40, 1989,

Berggrav, Eivind Josef 414–445 ◆ P. Ganz, R.B.C. Huygens & F. Niewöhner, eds., Auctoritas und Ratio. Studien zu Berengar von Tours, 1990. Reinhold Rieger

Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah). Exegetical → Midrash on the book of Genesis. Depending on the manuscript, it consists of 97 to 101 sections (“Parashot”) that usually begin with prooemia (“Petichot”) in which verses taken from other biblical books serve as the basis for the interpretation of the respective verse of Genesis quoted at the beginning of the paragraph. In addition to short explanations of words and verses, Bereshit Rabbah also includes lengthy haggadic ( → Haggadah) traditions, notably several parables. The dominant language (apart from Galilean Aramaic) is Hebrew, interspersed with numerous Greek and Latin loanwords. It displays numerous thematic parallels to the Targumim and the → Talmud Yerushalmi in particular, but also to → Philo of Alexandria and → Josephus. Many quotations from the Mishnah and other tannaitic sources (→ Tannaim) are found. Bereshit Rabbah originated in the rabbinic academies of Palestine; the most intensive phase of compilation and editing was around 400 ce, though the manuscripts display evidence of accretions and alterations from as late as the Middle Ages. J. Theodor & C. Albeck, eds., Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, 21965 (Heb. text ed., 3 vols.) ◆ J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah. The Judaic Commentary on Genesis, 1985 (ET, 3 vols.). Hans-Jürgen Becker

Berg, Franz ( Jan 31, 1754, Frickenhausen – Apr 6, 1821, Würzburg), a Catholic theologian of the Enlightenment. He was ordained priest in 1777, became professor of patristics in 1785, of church history in 1790, and of universal history in 1811, all in Würzburg. As a student of Enlightenment theologians in Würzburg (F. → Oberthür ; M.I. → Schmidt), but especially influenced by English deists (including D. → Hume ; → Deism) and French materialists, Berg practiced a radical criticism of revelation and expounded the Christian religion in terms of cultural history. Although he defended the → Enlightenment, he was opposed to → secularization. His philosophical skepticism was coupled with a rejection of I. → Kant and especially of F.W.J. → Schelling. Works include: Die Unrechtmäßigkeit der Säcularisierungen, 1799 ◆ Lob der allerneuesten Philosophie, 1802 ◆ Sextus oder die absolute Erkenntniß von Schelling, 1804 ◆ Epikritik der Philosophie, 1805 ◆ On Berg: J.B. Schwab, Franz Berg, 21872 ◆ A. Schindling, “Die Julius-Universität im Zeitalter der Aufklärung,” in: 400 Jahre Universität Würzburg, 1982, 77–127 ◆ idem, “Professor Franz Berg,” RoJKG 3, 1984, 35–43. Arno Schilson

Berggrav, Eivind Josef (Oct 25, 1884, Stavanger – Jan 14, 1959, Oslo), Norwegian bishop. In 1908, after theological studies, Berggrav became a teacher and a

Bergius, Johann collaborator of the journal Kirke og kultur [church and culture] and in 1919 pastor in Hurdal, diocese of Oslo. In 1929, he was appointed bishop (1937–1951 in Oslo). Deeply imbued with the specific traits of Norwegian cultural and church tradition, he became one of the leading international figures of contemporary church history. Berggrav advocated a mediating Lutheranism in his numerous publications on the status of the church in modern society. His contributions to political ethics gained international relevance on account of his determination to distinguish himself from his contemporary colleagues in German Lutheranism. From the late 1930s onward, Berggrav sought in vain to convince ecumenical organizations to assume the role of peace mediators in the face of increasing tensions in Europe. He became the central figure in the Norwegian church conflict. After the occupation of Norway by German troops and the installation of the puppet regime of Vidkun Quisling, Berggrav initiated the formation of a church advisory committee that became the nucleus of ecclesial resistance. On Easter Sunday of 1942, the declaration “Kirkens Grunn” [the foundation of the church], which had largely been formulated by Berggrav, was read aloud in most Norwegian churches and proclaimed the end of ecclesial obedience to the government. The majority of the pastors also resigned as state officials. Berggrav remained under house arrest until the end of the war. He used the time to write his major opus on political ethics, Staten og mennesket [the state and the individual] (1945, trans. into Swedish, German, and English). After the war, he elaborated on the insights gained in the process of writing this book on lecture trips and in further publications, his new interpretation of the Lutheran → Two Kingdoms Doctrine attracting international attention. He played a decisive role in the formation of the → Lutheran World Federation (1947) and of the → World Council of Churches (1948). G. Heiene, Eivind Berggrav En biografi, 1992 (Ger. 1996) ◆ A. Heling, Die Theologie Eivind Berggravs im norwegischen Kirchenkampf, 1992. Jens Holger Schjørring

Bergius, Johann (Feb 24, 1587, Stettin – Dec 27, 1658, Berlin), Reformed theologian. Bergius’s studies at Neuhausen, Heidelberg, Strasbourg, and Cambridge, and his visits to schools in Danzig, Oxford, Leiden, and Saumur familiarized him with international Calvinism, encouraging him to develop his irenic theology and absolutist view of political authority. He served Brandenburg’s → Hohenzollern rulers from 1614 to 1658, first as professor at Frankfurt/Oder, after 1624 as court preacher in Berlin, and from 1637 as councilor of the consistory. He had contacts with G. → Calixtus and John Dury and developed a theory of the fundamental unity of Lutheranism and Calvinism. Bergius encour-

696 aged harmony among the denominations, and during the → Thirty Years War promoted political cooperation among Germany’s Protestant princes. In order not to jeopardize Lutheran-Reformed relations, he declined to attend the Synod of → Dort (1618/1619) or to accept the Brandenburg superintendency (in 1632 and again in 1637). The confessional statements that he helped formulate – the Leipzig Protocol (1631) and the Thorn Declaration (1614) – together constituted the Confessio Sigismundi (1614), the official position of Brandenburg’s Reformed Church. Works include: Relation der Privat-Conferentz . . . zu Leipzig im Jahr 1631, 1635 ◆ Unterscheidt und Vergleichung der Evangelischen/ In Lehr und Ceremonien, 1635 ◆ Apostolische Regell/Wie man in Religionssachen richten solle, 1641 ◆ On Bergius: R.v. Thadden, Die brandenburgisch-preußischen Hofprediger im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, 1959 ◆ B. Nischan, “Johann P. Bergius,” in: G. Heinrich, ed., Berlinische Lebensbilder: Theologen, 1990 ◆ idem, Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg, 1994. Bodo Nischan

Bergson, Henri (Oct 18, 1859, Paris – Jan 4, 1941), became professor of philosophy at the Collège de France in 1890 and a member of the Académie Française in 1914. He was president of the “Commission for intellectual cooperation” of the League of Nations from 1922 to 1925, and received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1927. He is one of the most important theoreticians of the problem of time among 19th and 20th-century philosophers, and the program running through his entire oeuvre is the attempt to unite metaphysics and empiricism. In his critique of the methodologies of psychoanalysis, neurophysiology, the theory of evolution, and of physical objectivism in the scientific thinking in the modern period, Bergson attacked above all the tendency to employ only the instruments of quantification in interpreting temporal processes such as life, movement, thinking, or action. Quantities may be divided without losing their essence, but time is a quality which loses its essence through division. Quantification gives us control over things, but it is essentially impossible to control time, which is durée, i.e. a heterogeneous, virtual plurality, a stream of irreplaceable moments. Like his two first main works (Essai sur les données immédiates . . . and Matière et Mémoire), his two later main works (L’évolution créatrice and Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion) can be interpreted as practical applications of the theory of durée to the field of science. Bergson criticizes the tendency towards detemporalization in biological evolutionism, a tendency manifested in the explanation of processes of life according to the logic of mere reproduction; his own thesis of creative evolution is meant to show that the reduction of the theory of the emergence and development of life to a physics of life fails to do justice to the élan vital as creative energy.

697 In the same way, the distinction made in his later essay on morality and religion between a closed and an open society, or a static and a dynamic religion, is meant as an attempt to demonstrate the principle of the durée or of the élan vital as a principle of societal formation and of religious life. Bergson’s philosophy led to the appearance of a philosophical tendency known as “Bergsonism,” which has influenced contemporary French philosophy up to the present day. Works include: Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience, 1889 ◆ Matière et Mémoire. Essai sur la relation du corps à l’esprit, 1896 ◆ Le rire. Essai sur la signification du comique, 1900 ◆ Introduction à la métaphysique, 1903 ◆ L’évolution créatrice, 1907 ◆ Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion, 1932 ◆ On Bergson: V. Jankéléwitch, Henri Bergson, 1931, 21959 ◆ G. Deleuze, Bergson zur Einführung, 1989 ◆ A. Philonenko, Bergson, 1994 ◆ Lawlor, Leonard, Moulard, Valentine, “Henri Bergson”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2004), ed., E.N. Zalta, URL = . Enno Rudolph

Berkeley, George (Mar 12, 1685, Kilkenny – Jan 14, 1753, Oxford). Irish philosopher and theologian. His philosophy had a theological motivation: he sought to defend the Christian faith against skepticism, materialism, atheism, free thinking, and other forms of irreligion. This task was to be performed through the fundamental philosophical principle of the “immaterial hypothesis,” according to which the Being of things consists in their being perceived or in their perceiving. In 1700, Berkeley entered Trinity College, Dublin, where he studied the modern philosophical systems. In 1704, he took his Bachelor’s degree, and became Master of Arts in 1707. He was ordained priest in 1709. His Philosophical Journal was written in these years. After publishing his first written work, An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (which already contains essential elements of his philosophy of immaterialism) in 1709, he published his principal work, the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, only one year later. In 1713, he presented his ideas in dialogue form: Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. In 1732, he published Alciphron, an apology of Christianity in dialogue form. In 1734, he was appointed bishop of Cloyne. He refuted → skepticism and → atheism by rejecting the → materialism in which both of these have their roots. Materialism holds that there is a bodily world which exists independently of the consciousness which perceives it; materialism itself is based on the successes of modern Newtonian science (I. → Newton) and of the dominant philosophy of J. → Locke. In his debate with mathematical natural philosophy, Berkeley points out that mathematics too must ultimately rest on the tiniest entities perceptible to the senses (minima sensibilia). This enabled him to relativize the degree of certainty already acquired in that field, and to dampen the faith in progress held by

Berlin Mission (BM) scientists in the Enlightenment age. In the course of his critique of Locke, Berkeley rejects the representationist model of knowledge, since this entails an unnecessary and ontologically untenable doubling of the world. Ideas are ultimate instances which do not represent anything, but stand only for themselves. Each idea is originally an individual notion; it takes on a general character only by becoming the representative of other similar ideas. As a result of his elimination of bodies that exist independently of consciousness, Berkeley’s ontology knows only ideas and spirits. Ideas are passive; they exist only in the spirit. The spirit is active and can be the cause of ideas. The ideas generated by the human spirit are called “images of things”; the ideas brought about by God are called “real things.” The rules which God follows when bringing about ideas in us are called natural laws. There is no necessary link between two ideas. This notion prefigurates D. → Hume’s analysis of causality. I. → Kant was challenged by Berkeley’s immaterialism to a refutation of what he called Idealism. Works: The Works of George Berkeley, ed. A.A. Luce & T.E. Jessop, 9 vols., 1948–1957, repr. 1964, 1979 ◆ On Berkeley: T.E. Jessop, A Bibliography of George Berkeley, 1934, 21973 ◆ A.A. Luce, Berkeley’s Immaterialism, 1945 ◆ idem, The Life of George Berkeley, 1949, repr. 1968 ◆ I.C. Tipton, The Philosophy of Immaterialism, 1974 ◆ C.M. Turbayne, ed., Berkeley, 1982 (with bibl.) ◆ A. Kulenkampff, George Berkeley, 1987 ◆ W.E. Creery, ed., George Berkeley. Critical Assessments, 3 vols., 1991 ◆ Downing, Lisa, “George Berkeley”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004), ed., E. N. Zalta, URL = . Lothar Kreimendahl

Berleburg Bible → Bible Translations Berlin Mission (BM). The German missionary society that was founded on Feb 29, 1824 by a number of Prussian officials, nobles, and professors, and which was known until 1908 under the name “Society for the Promotion of Protestant Missions among the Heathen.” Until the middle of the 19th century, however, its protagonists came mainly from the neo-Pietist → revival movement, predominantly from the eastern provinces of Prussia. As the Berliner Missionswerk, the BM still preserves its Lutheran character within the Church of the Union. In the first years of its existence, the BM served as a support agency for other European mission societies, until it sent its first own five missionaries to South Africa in 1833. Until the end of the 1870s the BM’s areas of activity covered almost the entire territory of the current Republic of South Africa. Activities in Mashonaland, in present-day Zimbabwe, were eventually discontinued. Since 1891, the BM has also been present in southern Tanzania. In 1882, the BM began work in China. The expansive phase of the BM was shaped by the leadership of its director Hermann Theodor Wangemann (1865–1894). His

Berlin, University of predecessor, Johann Christian Wallmann (1857–1865), had already begun implementing stricter operative principles. Under Wangemann’s directorate, a well-organized home organization was set up with local associations, support groups, and mission festivals. In the course of his rather extensive inspection journeys, he gained firsthand insights into the work of the Berlin missionaries in South Africa (1866/1867 and 1884/1885) and developed a missionary structure. His successor Martin Gensichen (1894–1913) carried on work in the same vein. The profile of the BM was particularly marked by its director Siegfried Knak (1921–1949). While activities both at home and overseas had already been seriously hampered in the period between the wars and under the rule of the National Socialists, the division of Germany brought entirely new difficulties. As the headquarters of the society were located in East Berlin, its overseas work became subject to hindrances by the GDR until 1989. During these years, the society’s activities were mainly characterized by the leadership of its directors Ferhard Brennecke (1949–1968), Heinz Blauert (1970–1985) and Christfried Berger (1985–1991). Following various intermediate legal and administrative stages, which, since 1961, served to promote the integration of mission and church, the Ecumenical Missionary Center/Berlin Mission Society was formed on Jan 1, 1986, as an initiative of the Bund der Evangelischen Kirchen in der DDR [→ Union of Evangelical Churches in the GDR]. In 1991, this institution merged with the Berliner Missionswerk der Evangelischen Kirche in Berlin-Brandenburg, which had been founded in 1973 in West Berlin and largely taken over the responsibility for the BM’s overseas work until the German reunification in 1990. As the successor of the BM, the Berliner Missionswerk maintains contacts with its partner churches in the former missionary areas in South and East Africa, as well as in Asia (China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan), in the Near East (Egypt, Palestine), and in Latin America (Cuba). H. Lehmann, 150 Jahre Berliner Mission, 1974 ◆ J. Richter, Geschichte der Berliner Missionsgesellschaft, 1924. Ulrich van der Heyden

Berlin, University of. The University of Berlin (UB; from 1828, the University of Friedrich-Wilhelm, since 1949, Humboldt University [HUB], was founded in 1809 and began offering classes in 1810/1811. In 1879, a Technical College (since 1946, Technical University, TU) was founded, and in 1948, during the Berlin blockade, the “Free University” (FU). The new “General Educational Institute in Association with the Academy of Sciences” (cabinet order of Aug 16, 1809) was not intended to be a technical school, but, following W.v. → Humboldt’s intention, was supposed to provide higher education in the sciences. The philosophical faculty

698 (which still included the mathematical and scientific disciplines) thus obtained particular importance alongside the three professional faculties of theology, law and medicine. Already during the golden age of philosophy ( J.G. → Fichte until 1813, G.W.F. → Hegel 1819–1831, F.W.J. → Schelling 1841–1850), however, the university developed in terms of specialized disciplines and, during the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic, thereby gained its leading rank in many disciplines in Germany, as documented by the heavy attendance from Europe and abroad. The fact that F. → Schleiermacher, as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, regularly lectured on philosophy at the philosophical faculty in competition with the speculative, idealistic systems of Fichte and Hegel characterized the first period. Subsequently, the experimental and empirical sciences gained precedence. Of the great scholars, one may mention A. → Boeckh, Karl Lachmann, Franz Bopp, L.v. → Ranke, Hermann v. Helmholtz, Rudolf Virchow, H.v. → Treitschke, T. → Mommsen, A. (v.) → Harnack, E. → Troeltsch, G. → Schmoller, W. → Dilthey, and F. → Meinecke. The reputation of the UB rests on this tradition; admittedly, scholarly nationalism (since Treitschke), the dismissal of Jews after 1933 and political infiltration in the National Socialist and GDR periods led to a decline that could as a rule only be avoided in some of the “ideology-free” disciplines (e.g. Asian studies, linguistics, natural sciences). The situation differed in the TU founded in 1946 in the West, and in the “Free University” established in 1948 following an exodus of students and professors from the old university. It earned an international reputation, although it became in fact a university for the masses in which entire disciplines lost their reputation after the student revolts of 1967/1968 and the introduction of the group university. With the reunification of Germany in 1990, the group model was also applied to the Humboldt University; parts of the old curriculum fell victim to disciplinary and political revision. A multitude of new faculty appointments (mostly from West Germany) led to somewhat complicated internal conditions, and the discontinuation of the subsidy for the united “capital city” of East and West Berlin in 1997 brought a reduction in personnel. Provisions were made for 85,000 students by the year 2000 in the three Berlin universities and technical schools (1910: Friedrich Wilhelm University approx. 9,000 students; 1810: 256). In 1811, the University of Frankfurt an der Oder was dissolved in favor of Berlin, and after 1989, the new state of Brandenburg established its own three universities (Potsdam, Frankfurt an der Oder, Cottbus). The UB was (against Fichte’s advice) founded with a theological faculty which still remains despite controversies after 1900 (religious studies or theology?) and plans

699 to dissolve the faculty (1944 and 1946ff.). Initially, it had four chairs (Schleiermacher, P.K. → Marheineke, W.M.L. de → Wette, 1813 A. → Neander), to which a chair for practical theology was added in 1821 (1906: 7, 1933: 10). During the church struggle (Kirchenkampf, 1935– 1941), it competed with the “Theological College for Reformed Theology,” which was reopened in 1946 as the “Kirchliche Hochschule.” With the division of Berlin, its East Berlin component (“Sprachenkonvikt,” “Language House”) developed into a second de facto college. The FU acquired an Institute for Protestant Theology in 1957, as well as a Seminary for Catholic Theology. The Sprachenkonvikt was united with the theology faculty of the HUB on Mar 1, 1991, as was the West Berlin Kirchliche Hochschule in June 1993. The new faculty was supposed to include 18 chairs, but the diminished budget necessitates reductions. The plan to found a Catholic Theology faculty has been temporarily delayed. The faculty experienced its heyday in the founder generation and after its reconfiguration in the Kaiserreich. Schleiermacher, who lectured in all theological disciplines except the OT, attracted an elite of non-theologians with his extra-philosophical lectures, although he did not match the audiences of A. Neander who, especially with his “practical” interpretations of NT documents, attracted the most students, even from other disciplines. The idea of union that guided Prussian church policy also found expression in faculty politics and reached its apex with Reformation Day 1817, the simultaneous agreement to unite in worship (not confession), and Marheineke’s assumption of the Lutheran office of pastor at the Dreifaltig-Keitskirche in 1821 (alongside the Reformed Schleiermacher who had been officiating there since 1809). With the restoration policy of 1819 onward, the Prussian state exerted greater influence in favor of the selection of church-friendly, renewal and union-minded professors. The nomination of F.A.G. → Tholuck as Extraordinarius in 1821 and, especially, of E.W. → Hengstenberg as de Wette’s successor in 1826 introduced the decades-long effect of the theology of Revival. All except Marheineke agreed in rejecting Hegel. Hegel influenced students (L. → Feuerbach) and a few lecturers (W. → Vatke, B. → Bauer), however. With the call of A. → Twesten as Schleiermacher’s successor, a mediating solution between the fronts of radical critique (D.F. → Strauß) and belligerent confessionalist renewal (Hengstenberg) was found. The so-called “theology of mediation” gained strength with the appointment of K.I. → Nitzsch in 1847 as Marheineke’s successor. Similarly, Hengstenberg’s influence reached its apex after the revolutionary year of 1848; he hindered appointing the learned C.W. → Niedner as Neander’s successor for political reasons. With Twesten, Nitzsch, I.A. → Dorner

Berlin, University of (1862–1884), however, the faculty had a learned and ecclesiastical core of “mediating theology,” and not a few instructors of status began their careers here (Hermann Weingarten, G. → Heinrici, K. → Müller, et al.). The reconstruction of the faculty began after Hengstenberg’s death (1869) with the appointment of the orientalist August Dillmann, who was the first member of the faculty since Schleiermacher and Neander to be elected to the Academy. In 1875, O. → Pfleiderer was appointed as Twesten’s successor, and in 1876 Bernhard Weiß received the first chair (until 1908) devoted solely to the NT. From 1880 to 1899, he was also active as the university adviser in the Ministry of Education and Culture and, through a clever examinations policy, made it possible, against the objection of the Protestant Supreme Council, for A. Harnack to be appointed as church historian. As a brilliant teacher and re-organizer of patristic research, Harnack promoted the international status of the faculty. He nurtured K. → Holl and H. → Lietzmann. The picture of the renewal of the faculty also includes the nomination of the systematician J. → Kaftan and the practical theologian P. → Kleinert. Church opposition to Harnack’s critique of dogmas and his position in the → Apostolicum Controversy moved the ministry to establish an additional professorship in 1893, to which A. → Schlatter was first called, and in 1898 the “modern-positive” dogmatist R. → Seeberg. Patriotic fever in 1914 had the strongest effect on R. Seeburg and K. Holl, the least on the New Testament scholar A. → Deißmann (appointed in 1908), while Harnack had already distanced himself in 1915/1916. Holl gained international reputation by virtue of his studies on Luther. This “Luther Renaissance” should be seen in the context of the theological renewal through → dialectical theology and other neo-Reformed systems. Holl’s successor in 1927 was E. → Seeberg , who, without belonging to the party, became the key figure in the failure of theology in Berlin in the Nazi period. The faculty experienced radical interruptions in 1933, 1945 and 1990. E. Seeberg became dean on May 2, 1933; the later deans (1934–1945) were members of the NSDAP and the → Deutsche Christen. After 1934, the majority of students no longer took their examinations with the state-recognized (“German Christian”) church authorities, but with the → Confessing Church. In 1945, surviving members of the party were dismissed. The reopening in January 1946 occurred under the deanship (until 1949) of Lietzmann’s student, Walter Eltester. As Ordinarius for OT, Leonhard Rost came from Greifswald to Berlin in 1946 (1949, second deanship, went to Erlangen in 1956); M. → Albertz and H. → Vogel were taken from the faculty of the old Kirchliche Hochschule at the church’s wish; they represented the theological tradition of the Confessing Church.

Berlioz, Louis Hector The faculty came under increased pressure in the 1950s: in 1952, the deregistration of students living in West Berlin, in 1958, the prohibition of participation in the conference of Protestant faculties, in 1959, the commitment of the students to the “peace policy” of the GDR, state influence on the appointment of lecturers. After the closing of the sector boundaries in 1961, tensions heightened and faculty members had to find their own way, between scholarship, responsibility to the church, and conformity to the state. In the course of the third post-secondary reform in the GDR, the faculty was transformed on Mar 1, 1971 into the “theology section” under a section director with two representatives for research and formation. Section leadership was designated by the state with the aim of conformity to the “peace policy” of the GDR. During the reconfiguration after 1989, a “commission on structure and appointments,” instituted by the Senate of Berlin, recommended dismissing a number of faculty members because of their lack of qualifications. M. Lenz, Geschichte der Königlichen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, 3 vols., 1910, vol. II/2, 1918 ◆ W. Elliger, 150 Jahre Theologische Fakultät Berlin, 1960 ◆ K. Aland, ed., Glanz und Niedergang der deutschen Universität: 50 Jahre deutscher Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Briefen von und an Hans Lietzmann, 1979 ◆ H. Klein, ed., Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Dokumente 1810–1985, 1984 ◆ Zur Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultät Berlin, WZ der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Geisteswissenschaftliche, Reihe 34, 1985, H.7 ◆ G. Besier & C. Gestrich, eds., 450 Jahre Evangelische Theologie in Berlin, 1989 ◆ K. Meier, Die Theologischen Fakultäten im Dritten Reich, 1996. Kurt-Victor Selge

Berlioz, Louis Hector (Dec 11, 1803, La CôteSaint-André – Mar 8, 1869), leading composer of French Romanticism. Berlioz studied at the Paris Conser vatoire and lived all his life in Paris, though he traveled widely as a conductor. He published, among others, three books of essays and an important treatise on orchestration (published in 1844). His best-known works are in the area of the symphony and the opera, but his sacred choral music is a major contribution to the repertoire. Although he was brought up as a Catholic, Berlioz abandoned his faith, but nevertheless often treated sacred subjects in his music. His first major work was a Messe solenelle, which was rediscovered in 1992. His Grande messe des morts (1837) is a monumental work that draws on the traditions of the French Revolution. Its counterpart is the Te Deum (1849) for double chorus, large orchestra, and organ. Berlioz’ most successful sacred work on a smaller scale is the narrative and reflective L’enfance du Christ (1854). Works include: Mémoires, 1870, Germ. 1985 ◆ J. Barzun, Berlioz and the Romantic Century, 1950 ◆ D. Kern Holoman, Berlioz, 1989. Hugh Macdonald

700 Bern I. City – II. University (Cf. → Bern, Synod of )

I. City Founded c. 1191, Bern, in the late Middle Ages, endeavored to consolidate its partly indirect, partly direct sovereignty as the center of a large city-state. Ecclesiastically, Bern belonged to the dioceses of → Constance, → Basel, Lausanne, and Sitten. The promotion of ecclesiastical life and the supervision of monasteries and clergy were constant factors of its politics. Although the Reformation marked a turning point on Bern’s way to a modern territorial state, Bern hesitated to unite with Zürich. Not until the disputation of 1528 on the ten theses of Franz Kolb and B. → Haller did the city council opt in favor of the Reformation. The council was influenced neither by Lutheran tendencies nor by the Church model of Calvin, whose Reformation it had politically strengthened in 1536, not without self-interest in regard to the district of Vaud. It assumed the administration of the church, which it understood as its authority and its duty to care for; the municipal church council had only advisory powers. The synodal structure faded away – not coming back to life in the sense of the Reformation until 1852 –, while the moral and choir-courts, established according to the Zurich model, received limited disciplinary powers. In this form and on the basis of the ten theses (1528), the Synod of → Bern, and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566, → Confessio Helvetica) the Bern State Church survived until the end of the Ancien Régime (1798). Between 1803 and 1831, under new conditions, it experienced a renaissance, until it was directed towards a regional church in the liberal, democratic context of the 19th century. Between 1799 and 1864, the Catholic congregation assembled in Protestant churches. Their first house of God was given to the Christian Catholics in 1875. In 1899, the Catholic community consecrated another church; its public, legal recognition followed in 1939. Since 1876, Bern has been the seat of the Christian-Catholic bishop, and since 1920 of the Swiss Protestant Church League. In addition to the three regional churches, Bern houses representatives of all the larger Christian denominations. Out of the Bern Revival movement of the 19th century, the Evangelisches Gemeinschaftswerk and the Freie Evangelische Gemeinde emerged. Since 1915, B. has been the home of the national headquarters of the Salvation Army for Switzerland, Austria, and Hungary. The Jewish congregation founded in 1848 was legally recognized in 1997 as a religious community. An Islamic center has existed since 1979. K. Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte, 1958 (bibl.) ◆ 450 Jahre Berner Reformation, 1980 (bibl.) ◆ R. Dellsperger,

701 Staat, Kirche und Politik im Kanton Bern von der Reformation bis in die Mitte des 20. Jh., in: idem, Kirche – Gewissen des Staates?, 1991 (bibl.).

II. University The university, founded in 1834, evolved from the institution of higher education that the Bern council had began in 1528 after the introduction of the Reformation and in the manner of the Zürich “Profezei”. From this arose, as in Lausanne and Geneva, a new type of university that represented the peak of a comprehensive educational institution conceived on the foundation of a Christian republic. Initially, there were two professorships, one for biblical languages (divided in 1574), and one for theology (doubled in 1686). The future pastors were to be trained in true reverence for God, in pure religion, and in Christian faith; they were supposed to acquire a solid general education, forms of social intercourse, and ancient languages. Lectures, worship services, group singing, and Bible readings structured the school day and offered a chance to practice spiritual life. In the 16th century B. → Aretius and W. → Musculus, scholars of high rank, were active in Bern. The systematic theologians Christoph Lüthard (1590–1663) and Johann Rudolf Rudolf (1646–1718) were worthy representatives of high and late orthodoxy. In the 18th century, new disciplines were established beside theology: jurisprudence, elocution, mathematics, natural science, and medicine. This development reached its goal in 1805 with the transformation of the institution of higher education into an academy comprising four faculties. The university was the creation of political Liberalism. The theological faculty appointed new professors accordingly. It enjoyed a significant scholarly reputation, thanks e.g. to M. → Schneckenburger, K.B. → Hundeshagen, and S. → Lutz, to which the Baur student E. → Zeller also contributed. By offering him the chair, the government provoked a crisis in 1847, but prevailed and thereby laid the groundwork for the longterm reign of a theological free spirit, represented by the brothers Ernst Friedrich (1829–79) and Eduard Langhans (1832–91), F. → Nippold and Rudolf Steck (1842– 1924). Not until in 1880 did the conservatives come on board with, in particular, A. → Schlatter, whose legacy was taken up by Fritz Barth (1856–1912). Since L. → Ragaz rejected an appointment in 1905, and the attempt to offer the chair to K. → Barth in 1927 was unsuccessful, the → Religious Socialists and → dialectical theology were not able to establish themselves as expected. Between 1930 and 1960, the faculty experienced great tensions; the principal adversaries were the liberal dogmatician Martin Werner (1887–1964), who was influenced by A. → Schweitzer, the conservative exegete Wilhelm Michaelis (1896–1965), and the practical theologian Albert

Bernadotte, Oscar Carl August Schädelin (1879–1961), an independent companion of Barth. These fronts were successfully overcome in view of new theological and ecumenical questions. Since the 70s, the teaching staff and academic assistants have been successively increased. The chairs for OT, NT, and historical theology now each have two professors. The discipline of practical theology is now represented by three chairs, and new part-time lectureships have been created for ecumenical theology, and feminist theology and the interdisciplinary Institut für Religionswissenschaft und Jadaistik. Women now make up 50% of the students. Several agreements connect the faculty to other faculties in and beyond Switzerland. Particularly close relations exist with the Christian Catholic faculty of the University of Bern, which was founded in 1874 during the → Kulturkampf and was supposed to provide a clergy that would be independent of Rome. It remained small, but produced important teachers such as E. → Herzog , Arnold Gilg (1887–1967), Ernst Gaugler (1891–1963), and Urs Küry (1901–76). Committed to the concept of early church catholicity, it was and is – together with its church – an important member and forum of the ecumenical movement. In 2001 the two faculties merged. A. Lindt, TRE V, 1980, 638–642 ◆ U. Im Hof et al., Hochschulgeschichte Berns 1528–1984, 1984. Rudolf Dellsperger

Bern, Synod of. The Berner Synodus (BS) of 1532, the first pastoral order of the Reformed Bern church, is a compilation of Reformational tenets of faith in the style of the → Devotio moderna. The model for the synod of Jan 9–12 came from W. → Capito, who was unexpectedly spending time in Bern. The BS addresses topics such as (1) the preaching of Christ and (2) questions of ecclesial order, of the relationship to civil authorities, and of the pastors’ conduct of office and life. It is not a comprehensive confession of doctrine but rather a source of pastoral assistance and guidance to unpolemical argumentation in controversial issues. Arousing little attention in the time of → confessionalism, Bern’s pietists rediscovered its highly internalized Christianity, its close linking of justification and sanctification, and its Christocentric piety c. 1700. N.L. von → Zinzendorf made extensive use of it on account of its Christocentrism. Der Berner Synodus von 1532, ed. “Forschungsseminar für Reformationstheologie” under the direction of G.W. Locher, vol. I: Edition, 1984; vol. II: Studien und Abhandlungen, 1988 ◆ E. Saxer, “Zinzendorf und der Berner Synodus, UnFr 29/30, 1990, 157–175. Rudolf Dellsperger

Bernadette of Lourdes → Soubirous, Bernadette Bernadotte, Oscar Carl August (Nov 15, 1859, Stockholm – Oct 4, 1953, Stockholm) Prince, Count of Wisborg, second son of King Oscar I; due to his marriage to Ebba Henrietta Munk av Fulkila in 1888, he forfeited

Bernanos, Georges his eventual claim to the Swedish throne. Navy officer, 1897 rear admiral, 1903 admiral of the Swedish fleet; retirement into private life. 1892–1943 president of the Swedish KFUM [YMCA]. In 1898, Bernadotte seized the initiative with the “Södertäl Conference for the Deepening of Spiritual Life”; in the same year, he became president of the Lapland Missionary Union. He officiated as a Sunday school teacher, offered pastoral care to soldiers and prisoners, and became involved in the Society for Sobriety. President of the Swedish section of the → Evangelical Alliance. His book “In the Forecourts of Eternity” (1938) shows two characteristic currents of his thought: (1) the Anglo-Saxon influenced revival piety of the Swedish high nobility, and (2) a Swedish Lutheranism. For Bernadotte, this essentially meant emphasis on the ordo salutis and a Christocentric interpretation of dogmatics. Vocation, inspiration, conversion, and rebirth are described as perceptible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Interpreted as something genuine, justification by grace alone is seen as effecting a change in the person, despite subsequent sins. In matters of sanctification, the law becomes the guiding principle of the new way of life. Bernadotte’s influence in Sweden decreased with the waning significance of the revival movement. O. Bernadotte, I evighetens förgὰrdar, 1938, 41951. Aleksander Radler

Bernanos, Georges (Feb 20, 1888, Paris – Jul 5, 1948, Paris), one of the most prominent Catholic writers and polemicists of the 20th century. An ardent monarchist, Bernanos was attracted to the Action Française as a student and served as a “Camelot du roi”, though he distanced himself from the movement after the First World War. His first novel Sous le soleil de Satan (1926) focuses on the girl Mouchette and Abbé Donissan: the former an adolescent driven to suicidal despair by the hypocrisy and exploitation of the adult world; the latter a priest assailed by the powers of evil – the prototype of the priest-hero who plays a central role in the author’s spiritual vision. To convey the presence of evil, Bernanos frequently abandons the conventions of literary → realism. L’Imposture (1927) and La Joie (1929, Prix Fémina) form a diptych. The former opposes the obscure Abbé Chevance to Abbé Cénabre, an apostate church historian. Finally, the doctrines of the community of saints and of the allocability of → merits motivate Cénabre’s salvation through the sacrifice of Chantal de Clergerie (Bernanos’ tribute to St. → Teresa of Lisieux). La Grande Peur des Bien-Pensants (1931) is a polemical homage to Édouard Drumont, the anti-capitalist, anti-Dreyfus editor of La Libre Parole. It is Drumont’s anti-Republicanism, rather than his anti-Semitism that Bernanos admired, though he is not altogether immune to the latter. Financial problems caused Bernanos to

702 move to Majorca with his large family in 1934. There, he wrote Journal d’un curé campagne (1936, Grand Prix du Roman de l’Académie Française), the diary of the essentially unsuccessful attempts of the Curé d’Ambricourt to bring life into his parish, while himself dying from an undiagnosed cancer. The Spanish Civil War influenced his next two books, Nouvelle Histoire de Mouchette (1937) and Le Grand Cimetière sous la lune (1938). The latter denounces the methods employed by Francisco Franco’s supposedly Catholic forces. The former’s depiction of the brutalized youth of the eponymous heroine offers a microcosm of contemporary violence. Style, symbols, and imagery make of this short novel Bernanos’ artistic triumph. In 1938, Bernanos emigrated to Brazil, where he continued his polemical works. He also finally completed Monsieur Ouine (1943, begun in 1931). Some critics see this dream-like text as a precursor of the experimental “nouveau roman.” The protagonist, whose name simultaneously implies “oui” and “non,” stands for spiritual emptiness. In 1945, Bernanos complied with Charles de Gaulle’s request to return to France, but, disappointed by the post-war atmosphere, he moved to Tunisia, where he completed the script for Dialogue des Carmélites (1949). This adaptation of Gertrud von → Le Fort’s novel Die Letzte am Schafott, a meditation before the impending execution, was produced as a theatre piece, a film, and as an opera. Works include: Oeuvres romanesques, 21974 ◆ Essais et écrits de combat, 2 vols., 1971–1995 ◆ On Bernanos: A. Béguin, Bernanos par lui même, 1954 ◆ Études Bernanosienne, vol. I, 1960ff. ◆ M. Milner, Georges Bernanos, 1967 ◆ P. Le Touzé, Le Mystère du réel dans les romans de Bernanos, 1979 ◆ P. Renard, Bernanos ou l’ombre lumineuse, 1990. Paul Cooke

Bernard, John Henry ( Jul 27, 1869, Sooree, Bengal – Aug 29, 1927, Dublin). Bernard attended Trinity College, Dublin, and received a fellowship in mathematics, though his real interests were in theology and philosophy. In 1888, Bernard was appointed to the Archbishop King’s Lectureship at Trinity College. His influence through teaching and publications left a lasting impact on the Church of Ireland. He preached frequently at Westminster Abbey, in Cambridge, and in Oxford, forging strong links between the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. In 1915, Bernard was elected archbishop of Dublin and participated in the 1916 convention that attempted to frame a constitution for the future government of Ireland within the empire. He advocated self-government for Ireland. In 1919, he accepted the position of provost of Trinity College. Despite the political chaos of Ireland in the 1920s, Bernard led the school to accept the new Free State Government and made many improvements to the college. Bernard’s writings include subjects from I. → Kant to the Gospel of John. Bernard’s most ambitious

703 literary project was perhaps his “International Critical Commentary” on the Gospel of John. R.H. Murray, Life of Archbishop Bernard, 1931. Lindan McKinnish Bridges

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090/1091, Fontaines-lès-Dijon – Aug 20, 1153, Clairvaux). I. Life – II. Work – III. Influence

I. Life Bernard, son of the Burgundian nobleman Tescelin le Saur and of Aleth of Montbard, was educated by the secular canons of St. Vorles in Châtillon. In 1113, along with 30 young noblemen, he entered the abbey of Cîteaux, whose abbot was Stephan Harding. In 1115, he was commissioned to found Clairvaux; he remained its abbot until his death. He decisively influenced the institutional development and spiritual formation of the → Cistercians, establishing new monasteries and reforming existing ones: in 1153, there were approximately 170 daughter houses of Clair vaux, including some 70 new foundations. He quickly extended his work beyond his own monastery and order; he mediated in secular and ecclesiastical conflicts, criticized → Cluny (expulsion of Pontius as abbot) and Cluniac monasticism, served as consultant to new orders (→ Carthusians, → Knights, Orders of ), intervened in at least 16 episcopal elections in French, English, upper Italian, and Spanish dioceses, and undertook many journeys through France, Italy, and Germany in pursuit of his political goals within the church. In the schism of 1130– 1138, he successfully supported Innocent II against Anacletus II. At the provincial council of Sens in 1140/1141, he engineered the condemnation of P. → Abelard, who then took refuge at Cluny; shortly before Abelard’s death (1142), he and Bernard were reconciled. In 1144/1145, Bernard opposed → Arnold of Brescia and urged emperor Conrad III to go to Rome. In 1145, with the cardinal legate Alberich of Ostia, he campaigned against heretics in southern France; the Cistercians became the agents of the → Inquisition. At the Court Day of Vézelay on Mar 31, 1146, Bernard began his spectacular preaching campaign for a new → crusade, which took him through Flanders, along the Rhine to Constance, and on to Zürich (Dec 15/16, 1146). The failure of the crusade (1147–1149) placed him on the defensive and cast a shadow over his final years. In 1148, at the Council of Reims, he forced bishop → Gilbert of Poitiers to retract his doctrine of the Trinity. II. Work His extant writings comprise (1) more than 500 letters, including theological tractates (Ep. 11 on the love

Bernard of Clairvaux of God, 42 on the way of life and duties of bishops, 77 on baptism, etc.); (2) 8 treatises: De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae (based on ch. 7 of the Benedictine Rule, 1124); Apologia ad Guilelmum, addressed to → William of Saint-Thierry (on true monasticism, against Cluny, 1125); De diligendo Deo (on the love for God, 1126/ 1141); De gratia et libero arbitrio (on grace and free will, 1128); De laude novae militiae (a program for the Templars, c. 1130); De praecepto et dispensatione (on the obligation of rules and vows, 1141/1145); Vita of St. → Malachy, bishop of → Armagh (1149/1150); De consideratione (concrete advice to pope → Eugenius III, Bernard’s student, along with theological expositions, 1145/1153); (3) a large homiletical corpus: 86 sermons on Song 1:1–3:1 (1135–1153), short sermon series on the Magnificat and Ps 90, some 120 individual sermons on the festivals of the church year, and almost 500 short texts, often extremely brief, many of which are simply homiletic topoi. Bernard was a spellbinding speaker and a brilliant writer. His sermons, however, have not been preserved as they were delivered or originally recorded; they were disseminated as literary sermons, revised by him and his secretaries, often through multiple redactions. Well into the 20th century, admiration for his style, which earned him the title Doctor mellifluus, uncritical use of his medieval Vitae and of works erroneously ascribed to him, together with a one-sided emphasis on his opposition to early Scholasticism, resulted in his being appreciated only as “the outstanding religious genius of the 12th century” (A. Harnack), a mystic, and a great author of edifying literature, but not as a theologian. É. → Gilson laid the groundwork for a reassessment of Bernard in 1934, when he demonstrated the systematic character of his thought and pointed out the role played in it by the Benedictine Rule. J. → Leclercq revealed a more profound understanding of Bernard by painting him as the climactic figure of → monastic theology. More recent scholarship has deepened this understanding. Today, Bernard is seen as both a biblical theologian and an empirical theologian. Most of his theological work involves scriptural interpretation with the aid of allegory; he develops his theology of mysticism in an interpretation of the Song of Songs that follows the model of → Origen. A central role is played by his concise, clearly thought-out concept of → religious experience, which allows him to relate his own experience to the experience of others and to draw upon Holy Scripture as a treasury of recorded experiences. In contrast to the traditional theology of his age, he did not accept the unquestioned authority of tradition as a basis for drawing conclusions, but inquired into its foundation in experience. A central systematic element of his theology is his justification of the pursuit of knowledge on the grounds of its salvific

Bernard of Clairvaux function. Bernard affirms only the craving for knowledge that seeks to edify others or to promote one’s own edification and defines its content through the dialectical cooperation of self-knowledge and the knowledge of God (Super Cantica 34–38). His thought opened new avenues in Christology. He was the first to replace the previously dominant objectifying view of Christ with the question of Christ’s significance for the religious subjects (“for us”: pro nobis, propter nos). In Bernard’s treatment of Christ, each of the two natures of the Godman is brought out to its advantage. By interpreting the loving dialogue between bride and bridegroom in the Song of Songs as signifying the interaction of the soul with Christ, the divine Word, he interprets experiences of the spiritual life, especially prayer (in the divine office as well as in private devotion), with the aid of images drawn from the mysticism of spiritual marriage and metaphors of the inward senses. At the same time, he uses the Song of Songs to unfold his devotion to Christ’s sufferings, from his childhood to his death on the cross. Bernard was the first to treat Christ’s passion consistently as the focus of devout contemplation and theological reflection, to the point of an exclusive concentration on the crucified Christ (drawing on Gal 6:14 and 1 Cor 2:2). This – likewise purely verbal – concentration on Christ’s human traits also reveals a new psychological sensibility. Bernard bases his anthropology on the ascetic ideal, presupposing the ability of individuals to achieve heroic virtue, but also recognizes their weaknesses in practice. He bases his anthropology once again on his own experiences and that of others, which reveals the human person as a contradictory being, to the point of compulsive failure in the face of God’s demands (De gratia et libero arbitrio). The gulf between demand and response is bridged from both sides by love. Bernard places this concept, which is also a central concept of the Cistercian understanding of community (Carta caritatis, 1119), at the heart of his understanding of God as well as of his apology of the monastic way of life (De diligendo Deo). III. Influence Bernard’s greatest influence was on his own order, which in many areas (constitution, spirituality, theology, art, etc.) bears his imprint to this day. The order worked zealously for his canonization, in view of which his secretary Gottfried of Auxerre had been gathering material since 1145; this material was incorporated into the Vita prima (1st version 1155/1156, 2nd 1164/ 1165). He was canonized on Jan 18, 1174, by Alexander III. Beyond his own order, he stimulated Benedictine spirituality and monastic theology in general. Bernard influenced his contemporaries and posterity in a variety of ways: the power of his own personality, the eloquence of his spoken and written words, his original writings

704 (more than 1500 extant manuscripts), as well as excerpts, translations, florilegia, and adaptations. Bernard was the most quoted medieval author during the Middle Ages. As a result of his dominant authority, many other texts came to be circulated under his name. These falsely attributed texts – in part entire works (the most important being William of Saint-Thierry’s Epistula aurea), in part short functional texts (prayers, meditations for religious “benefit,” etc.) –, most of which adapt or expand Bernard’s ideas, have influenced the history of spirituality (→ Piety, History of ) as much as the genuine works. Bernard’s mysticism of spiritual marriage had enormous influence on the religious women’s movement, while his devotion to Christ’s cross and passion shaped the whole → Passion piety and mysticism of the High and late Middle Ages. In the 13th century, the → Franciscans in particular carried on his ideas and his incentives; → Bonaventura combined Bernard’s monastic theology with aspects of Scholasticism. → Devotio moderna, late medieval reform theology ( J. → Gerson), and → humanism are heavily indebted to him. Bernard’s influence was greatest on Luther (concept of experience, hermeneutics, the structural relationship of knowledge of God to self-knowledge, theology of the cross, etc.), but other reformers also borrowed central ideas from him (e.g. A. → Karlstadt and Calvin). The spirituality of early Protestant orthodoxy and of Pietism were also influenced by him, as is modern Catholicism. Not until the Enlightenment was his previously unblemished reputation called into question. Since the 19th century, the study of medieval theology has caused Catholics (neo-Thomism and studies of early Scholasticism) to dismiss him as an obscurantist or at least to devalue him in comparison with Scholasticism; Protestants (e.g. A. → Ritschl) have neglected him as representing a narrowly Catholic piety. Even today, his qualities as a theologian and his influence on Luther are questioned on differing confessional grounds. Works: Opera, ed. J. Leclercq et al., 8 vols., 1957–1977 ◆ Sämtliche Werke: lateinisch/deutsch, ed. G.B. Winkler, 1990– ◆ On Bernard: É. Vacandard, Vie de Saint Bernard, abbé de Clairvaux, 1895 ◆ É. Gilson, La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard, 1934 ◆ Saint Bernard théologien, 1953 ◆ J. Leclercq, Études sur Saint Bernard et le texte de ses écrits, ASOC 9, 1953, fasc. 1–2 ◆ idem, Recueil d’études sur Saint Bernard et ses écrits, 5 vols., 1962–1992 ◆ A.H. Bredero, Bernhard im Widerstreit der Historie, 1966 ◆ A. Altermatt, “Christus pro nobis,” ACi 33, 1974, 3–176 ◆ U. Köpf, Religiöse Erfahrung in der Theologie Bernhards von Clairvaux, BHT 61, 1980 ◆ idem, “Bernhard von Clairvaux,” in: H. Fries & G. Kretschmar, eds., Klassiker der Theologie, 1981, vol. I, 181–197 ◆ La dottrina della vita spirituale nelle opere di San Bernardo di Clairvaux, ACi 46, 1990 ◆ M. Diers, Bernhard von Clairvaux. Elitäre Frömmigkeit und begnadetes Wirken, BGPMA NF 34, 1991 ◆ K. Elm, ed., Bernard de Clairvaux: histoire, mentalités, spiritualité, SC 380, 1992 ◆ K. Elm, ed., Bernhard von Clairvaux. Rezeption und Wirkung im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 6, 1994 ◆ D.R. Bauer & G. Fuchs, eds., Bernhard von Clairvaux und der Beginn der Moderne,

705 1996 ◆ A.H. Bredero, Bernhard von Clairvaux (1091–1153). Zwischen Kult und Historie, 1996 ◆ L. Janauschek, Bibliographia Bernardina, 1891, repr. 1959 ◆ G. Hendrix, Conspectus bibliographicus Sancti Bernardi, 1995. Ulrich Köpf

Bernard of Cles → Cles, Bernard of Bernard of Toledo (1040/1045, Sauvetat – Apr 1124/ 1126, Toledo). Bernard entered the Cluniac monastery of St. Orientius in Auch in 1070 and was sent to Spain by the abbot, → Hugo of Cluny. There, he succeeded Robert as abbot of Sahagún in 1080. In 1086, after the capture of Toledo by the troops of Alfonso VI (1085), Bernard became archbishop of → Toledo. He was made primate of Hispania in 1088, but conflicts (e.g. with → Santiago de Compostela) prevented him from asserting his absolute authority. The extent to which Bernard was able to initiate certain reform measures (above all the Roman rite and church order) is a matter of debate. J.F. Rivera Recio, El arzobispo de Toledo Don Bernardo de Cluny (1086–1124), 1962 ◆ A. Kohnle, “Abt Hugo von Cluny (1049– 1109),” Francia. B, 32, 1993, 98f. ◆ R. González, “La sede de Toledo,” in: F. López Alsina, ed., El papado, la iglesia leonesa y la basilica de Santiago a finales del siglo XI: El traslado de la sede de Iria a Compostela en 1095, 1999. Klaus Herbers

Bernardino of Siena, Saint (degli Albizzeschi) (Sep 8, 1380, Massa Marittima – May 20, 1444, Aquila) was canonized in 1450. Reared in Siena, where he later studied canon law, the theologically trained → Franciscan gained great fame as a preacher in many Italian cities. In 1415, he became Vicar General for the Tuscan, and in 1438–1442 for the Italian Observance. Living strictly according to the rule himself, he sought to reach a compromise with the → Conventuals in his policy regarding the orders. He did not share the apocalyptic attitude and the radical critique of the church by the → Spirituals, his spiritual teachers. Charges of heresy because of his Name-of-Jesus Cult were dismissed. His sermons reflected his scholastic education and had a vibrant impact because of his command of the language, his concentration on the Christian life in family and commune, and his capacity to respond to the experiences of the bourgeoisie. R. Manselli, “Bernardino da Siena,” DBI IX, 1967, 215–226 ◆ Prediche volgari, ed. C. Delcorno, 1989. Joachim Weinhardt

Bernardus Guidonis OP (c. 1261/1262–1331). From 1307 to 1323, he was inquisitor of Toulouse, from 1324 bishop of Lodève (Languedoc). He was a theological teacher and a productive author (hagiographer, historiographer). His Practica officii inquisitionis (written 1314–1324) sometimes offers precise information concerning the doctrines and the mentality of the heretics in the situation of persecution and attests to the

Bernhart, Joseph beginnings of the extension of the inquisition to popular superstitions (sorcery). Bernard Gui et son monde, CFan 16, 1981.

Kurt-Victor Selge

Bernardus Silvestris. The poet and natural philosopher Bernardus was a native of Tours, worked there as a teacher (e.g. of Matthaeus de Vendôme), and died probably after 1159. He presumably wrote a commentary on Aeneis I–VI and on → Martianus Capella . His thinking reveals the early influence of the Arab transmission of → Aristotelianism (→ Aristotle, Reception History), but remains determined by the Platonism of Chartres (Thierry). His main opus, the Cosmographia (1145/1153), is based on Plato’s Timaios, as well as on Calcidius, → Asclepius, → Macrobius, Martianus Capella, and presents an allegorical-mythical as well as theodicy-critical treatment of the Platonic and biblical concepts of creation. Mathematicus and Experimentarius are poetic illustrations of → astrology. Bernardus influenced → John of Salisbury and → Alain of Lille. Editions: Experimentarius, ed. M. Brini Savorelli, RCSF 14, 1959, 283–342 ◆ Commentum super Vergilium, ed. H.W. Jones & E.F. Jones, 1977 ◆ Cosmographia, ed. P. Dronke, 1978 ◆ Commentum in Martianum, ed. H.J. Westra, 1986 ◆ Mathematicus, ed. and trans. by J. Prelog et al., 1993 ◆ On Bernardus: B. Stock, Myth and Science in the Twelfth Century, 1972 ◆ P. Dronke, Fabula, 1974 ◆ C. Ratkowitsch, Die Cosmographia des Bernardus Silvestris: Eine Theodizee, 1995. Reinhold Rieger

Bernhart, Joseph (Aug 8, 1881, Ursberg – Feb 21, 1969, Turkheim), studied philosophy and Catholic theology in Munich 1900–1904; was ordained priest in 1904; received his doctorate in theology in 1910; studied philosophy in Jena 1911–1912; secretly married Elizabeth Nieland in 1913; removed from the priesthood in 1919, he lived thenceforth from his work as a Catholic author. In 1928, he received his doctorate in philosophy; he was reconciled to the church in 1939 or 1942; in 1942, the state prohibited him from publishing. At the center of his manifold work on the history of philosophy and theology stands the “search for meaning,” the problem of faith and knowledge, especially the question of evil in history (Tragik im Weltlauf, 1917). He was especially interested, at first, in mysticism, particularly the Christian mysticism of the Middle Ages, of → Augustine, as well as of high Scholasticism, but also in modern figures including F. → Nietzsche. From the beginning of the 1930s, he took up the question of the meaning of history. Works include: Erinnerungen 1881–1930, 1992 ◆ Tagebücher und Notizen 1935–1947, 1997 ◆ On Bernhart: R. Bendel, Das Kirchenbild Joseph Bernharts, 1993 ◆ M. Weitlauff, “Joseph Bernhart,” in: idem & A.P. Kustermann, eds., Joseph Bernhart (1881–1969), 1995, 113–174. Otto Weiß

Berning, Wilhelm Berning, Wilhelm (Mar 26, 1877, Lingen – Nov 23, 1955, Osnabrück), was bishop of → Osnabrück (1914–1955). Berning dedicated himself especially to questions involving social and educational policy. At several → Eucharistic conferences, he earned an international reputation. By means of numerous functions in the Fulda → Bishops’ Conference he assumed a key position in the German episcopacy from 1933 to 1945. Because of his initially optimistic attitude toward the Nazi regime, Berning was sharply criticized after 1945. Most recent research paints a more nuanced picture in which resistance is apparent (esp. in sermons). K.-A. Recker, Bischof Berning im Dritten Reich, 1998 (bibl.). Joachim Mehlhausen

Bernini, Gian Lorenzo (Dec 7, 1598, Naples – Nov 28, 1680, Rome), was an architect, sculptor, and stage designer. After the election of pope → Urban VIII (1623), he played a leading role in the Roman art world, which he maintained, apart from a brief phase of alienation from the papal court during the pontificate of Innocent X and a successful journey to Paris (1655) – where his plans for the Louvre were not executed. The erection of the bronze canopy in the transept (1624–1633) marked his activity in the renovation of St. Peter’s. In the Cornaro Chapel (1647), in the “Ecstasy of St. → Theresa of Avila,” he worked out the idea of the “composto”: the interplay of architecture, sculpture, and painting which allows the observer to participate sensually in the depicted mystical experience. I. Lavin, Bernini and the Unity of Visual Arts, 1980 ◆ M. Fagiolo, Gian Lorenzo Bernini et le arti visive, 1987 ◆ G. Careri, Flights of Love, 1995 ◆ R. Wittkower, Bernini: The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque, 41997. Giovanni Careri

Bernoulli, Carl Albrecht ( Jan 10, 1868, Basel – Feb 13, 1937, Arlesheim, BL), studied theology in Neuenburg, Basel (especially with F.C. → Overbeck), Strasbourg, and Marburg. He received the Lic. Theol. in 1894, was a lecturer in church history at Basel from 1895 to 1897. In 1897, he published the autobiographical novel Lukas Heland (under the pseudonym Ernst Kilchner), as well as Die wissenschaftliche und die kirchliche Methode in der Theologie (“Scholarly method and ecclesial method in theology”), which he saw as a summary of Overbeck’s theological critique (against which Overbeck protested). This work made it impossible for him to hold a chair, so that he renounced the Venia legendi and became a poet, journalist, and academic publisher in Paris, London, Berlin (1898–1905), and in Arlesheim (until 1937). In 1922, he became lecturer for the history of religions at Basel, and, in 1926, professor of church history. His writings (8 novels, 23 dramas, 5 volumes of poetry) are relatively insignificant, but his editorial work (esp. of

706 F.C. Overbeck’s Christentum und Kultur, 1919, among other works from the latter’s literary legacy) – although not unproblematic from a contemporary perspective – as well as his studies (esp. F. Overbeck und F. Nietzsche, eine Freundschaft, 1908/1909) are very significant for the interpretation of Overbeck and Nietzsche. O. Kleiber, BaJ, 1938 ◆ O. Spiess, NDB II, 1955, 128 ◆ E. Bernoulli, Erinnerungen an meinen Vater, 1987. Niklaus Peter

Bernstein, Leonard (Aug 25, 1918, Lawrence, MA – Oct 14, 1990, New York), American composer, conductor, pianist; his œuvre includes dramatic compositions, musical theatre, and orchestral works. Bernstein sought to express a spirituality that he drew from his Jewish upbringing and his efforts to be a humanist. JeremiahSymphony (1943) and Symphony No. 3 “Kadish” employ themes from Jewish music, often from hymnal recitations of biblical texts. Bernstein also composed several liturgical pieces such as “Hashkivenu” for cantor, choir, and organ (1945), with lyrics taken from Friday evening services. A postmodernist composer, Bernstein drew upon a variety of musical styles, especially from the 20th century. His Mass (1971) and Chichester Psalms (1965) also use religious texts. Works include: Findings, 1982 ◆ On Bernstein: J. Gottlieb, “A Jewish Mass or a Catholic Mitzvah?” Journal of Synagogue Music 3, 1971, 2–7 ◆ idem, “Symbols of Faith in the Music of L. Bernstein,” Journal of Synagogue Music 10, 1980, 45–53 ◆ P. Gradewitz, Leonard Bernstein, 1987. Mark L. Kligman

Bernward of Hildesheim (b. c. 960) came from the Saxon high nobility and entered the cathedral school in Hildesheim sometime before 976. There, he became familiar not only with the → artes liberales, but also obtained an education in engineering, architecture, and craftsmanship. As a member of the court chapel (from 987), empress Theophanu commissioned him with the education of young king Otto III in 989. Ordained bishop of → Hildesheim in 993, he founded the monastery of St. Michael c. 1001. Bernward accompanied Otto III to Italy, participated in several battles, and made pilgrimages to St. Denis and Tours. He surrounded the cathedral precinct in Hildesheim with a wall. Bernward is one of the outstanding representatives of Otto’s imperial episcopacy by virtue of his artistic, engineering, and architectural activities. His most notable construction work is the abbey church of St. Michael in Hildesheim. The Bernward gates and cruciform columns attest even today to his artistic sensibility. He was particularly interested in the goldsmith’s art. In addition, he supported the scriptorium in Hildesheim. Bernward died in 1022 and was beatified in 1192. F. Lotter & V.H. Elben, LMA I, 1980, 2012–2014. Sönke Lorenz

707 Berosus (340–270 bce). The spelling Bηρωσσος is preferable to Bηρῶσος, since the Akkadian form behind the name is Bēl-rēaû-su, “Bēl is his shepherd.” Berosus was a priest of Esagila, the temple of Bēl/Marduk in Babylon. Some years before his death, he is reported to have moved to Cos, where he founded a school for astronomers. Around 281, he wrote (in Greek) his Babyloniaca, in which he recorded creation (book 1) and the history of the kings before and after the Flood down to the Persian period (book 2); book three probably dealt with Babylonian “culture,” including astronomical and astrological knowledge. The Greek world paid little attention to the work, especially since its mythologizing approach, typical of the ancient Near East, remained for the most part alien to Hellenistic rationalism. Because of its OT parallels, however, it attracted some interest among Jews and Christians. Only a few quotations are extant, primarily in the works of → Josephus and → Eusebius of Caesarea ; these quotations in turn come from a compendium that goes back to Alexander Polyhistor, parts of which have been preserved only in an Armenian translation. P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, 1923, repr. 1968 ◆ G. Komoróczy, “Berosos and the Mesopotamian Literature,” AAH 21, 1973, 125–152 ◆ R. Drews, “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” Iraq 37, 1975, 39–55 ◆ S.M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus, 1978 ◆ A. Kuhrt, “Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia,” in: A. Kuhrt & S. Sherwin-White, eds., Hellenism in the East, 1987, 32–56. Karl Hecker

Bersier, Eugène (Feb 5, 1831, Morges, Switzerland – Nov 19, 1889, Paris). A Protestant pastor, he helped French Protestantism discover a new sense of identity. After a stay in America (1848–1850), he studied theology in Geneva at the dissident Faculté de l’Oratoire (1850–1854). In 1854/1855, he visited the theological faculties at Halle and Göttingen to hear F.A. → Tholuck and I.A. → Dorner. In 1855, Bersier married into a middle-class Parisian family with ties to the → revival movement and the free Reformed churches. He took charge of a newly established evangelization center and contributed many articles to the Revue chrétienne, founded in 1854. In 1860, he began his ministry at the Free-church Chapelle Taitbout. His preaching, apologetic and unpolemical, was formed in the school of A. → Vinet and A. → Monod. His sermons, which aimed at “moral uplift” through the gospel, were highly esteemed (Sermons, 7 vols., 1864–1884, many editions and partial translations). In 1866, Bersier was appointed pastor at Neuilly. His response to the Commune de Paris (1870/1871) was conservative and humanitarian: horror at the disrespect for existing laws (with little comprehension of the structural injustice experienced by the working class) coupled with pity for the “strayed” and suffering. After 1871, Bersier was increasingly drawn to

Berthold of Regensburg the officially recognized Concordat Church. In 1874, he founded the Église de l’Étoile, for which he composed a Liturgie à l’usage des Églises réformées (11874, 21876, 31881). This liturgy, with its dialogic character and focus on Communion, is his most original and enduring contribution to French Protestantism. In 1877, Bersier finally separated from the so-called Free churches and joined the officially recognized Reformed church, though without losing contact with the former. He took part in the debate, initiated by Jules Ferry, over the “declericalization of public life” and devoted himself to the history of Protestantism, writing books about Coligny (1882, 21888) and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1886, repr. 1985). Author of many minor works (speeches, lectures, articles for periodicals and reference works, apologetic discussions of his decision to leave the Free Church) ◆ On Bersier: M. Bersier, ed., Recueil de souvenirs de la vie d’Eugène Bersier, 1911 ◆ A. Encrevé, “Les Protestants et la Commune de Paris en 1871,” CSoc 79, 1971, 368–417 ◆ A. Encrevé & D. Robert, “Eugène Bersier,” BSHPF 122, 1976, 211–228 ◆ L. Gagnebin, Encyclopédie du Protestantisme, 1995, 112f. ◆ S. Ludbrook, “Eugène Bersier,” RRef 49, 1998/2, 59–70. Jean Marcel Vincent

Berthold of Moosburg (Maisberchensis; attested c. 1318–1361). The → Dominican Berthold of Moosburg served primarily as lector at the order’s studium generale in Cologne. The last representative of the socalled German Dominican School, he wrote a monumental commentary on the Elementatio theologica of the philosopher → Proclus, in which he attempted to combine the Aristotelian theory of science (→ Aristotle) with neoplatonic henology (→ Neoplatonism) and assemble the entire neoplatonic legacy of the Dionysian and Augustinian schools in a single large-scale compilation. Reacting against scholastic Aristotelianism and the dominant Thomism (→ Thomas Aquinas) of his order, Berthold sought to restore a metaphysics of unity, with the divinization of humanity as its highest goal. Works include: Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, ed. M.R. Pagnoni-Sturlese et al., 1984– (in progress, 4 vols. published). Ruedi Imbach

Berthold of Regensburg (c. 1210–1272). The Franciscan preacher Berthold of Regensburg, who may have studied at Magdeburg, began his preaching ministry in 1240. Extended preaching tours took him to lower Bavaria, the upper Rhine, Switzerland, and probably also France and Hungary. Five voluminous sermon collections have circulated under Berthold’s name; however, they should not be regarded as translations of sermons he actually preached, since they were compiled later, probably between 1250 and 1255. The German sermons of Berthold are likewise not authentic, but were assembled and edited for spiritual edification c. 1275, probably by

Bertram, Adolf → Franciscans at Augsburg. Eight major manuscripts and some 18–20 manuscripts containing individual sermons have been preserved. Berthold’s German sermons are distinguished for their harsh criticism of social injustice, concrete accusations, and direct address to their fictive audience. They focus on concern for the social order (ordo) and the mutual welfare of individual classes. The sermons reflect social changes taking place in the 13th and 14th centuries. They include demonstrations of the extraordinarily persuasive power of Berthold’s eloquence, along with a wide range of miracles and miracle stories. Actual historical experiences gave rise to a legend that shaped the Berthold tradition until the beginnings of critical analysis in the 19th century. Berthold von Regensburg: Vollständige Ausgabe seiner Predigten, ed. F. Pfeiffer, 2 vols., 1862–1880, repr. 1964–1965 ◆ A.E. Schönbach, Studien zur Geschichte der altdeutschen Predigt, vols. II–VIII, 1900–1907 ◆ D. Richter, Die deutsche Überlieferung der Predigten Bertholds von Regensburg, 1968 ◆ Berthold von Regensburg: Vier Predigten, ed. & trans. W. Röcke, 1983. Werner Röcke

Bertram, Adolf (Mar 14, 1859, Hildesheim – Jul 6, 1945, Schloss Johannesberg, Bohemia). Following his studies, Bertram was ordained priest in 1881, and received his doctorate in theology and canon law in 1883/1884. The intelligent, politically cautious priest served initially in the administration of his home diocese. In 1905, he became vicar-general and in 1906 bishop of → Hildesheim. In 1914, he was elected princebishop of Breslau, succeeding cardinal Georg von Kopp. He became cardinal in 1916. After Breslau had become an archdiocese (1930), Bertram also held the office of metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of East Germany. As president of the Fulda Bishops’ Conference (from 1920), he became the spokesman for the German bishops during the struggle between church and state (Kirchenkampf, → National Socialism). But his cautious policy of accommodation made him a somewhat controversial figure and, in 1940, brought him into conflict with bishop K. von → Preysing . As a pastor and chief shepherd, however, Bertram was highly esteemed by his diocesan clergy. His death coincided with the end of the old archdiocese of Breslau. Akten deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche 1933–1945, 6 vols., 1968–1985 ◆ L. Volk, ZLB 1, 1973, 274–286 ◆ B. Stasiewski, in: Die Bischöfe der deutschsprachigen Länder 1785/1803 bis 1945, 1983, 43–47 ◆ A. Leugers, ASKG 47/48, 1989/90, 7–35. Ulrich von Hehl

Beryllus of Bostra. Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia ( Jordan), was one of the “learned churchmen” (Eusebius Hist. eccl. VI, 20) of the 3rd century. His writings and letters were kept in the library established by → Alexander of Jerusalem, but none have been preserved. Historical theology knows Beryllus for denying the →

708 pre-existence of Christ and Christ’s independent divinity (so-called dynamic → Monarchianism). Among those who took part in the controversy was → Origen, who – in a public disputation between 238 and 244 – brought him back to the church’s teaching. The proceedings and his correspondence with Origen have been lost. Sources: Eusebius Hist. eccl. VI, 20; 33, 1–3 ◆ Jerome Vir. ill. 60 ◆ Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. III, 7.6; GCS, NF 1, 1995, 198 ◆ On Beryllus: O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, II, 21914, 273–275, repr. 1966 ◆ A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I, 21958, 514f. ◆ DHGE VIII, 1935, 1136f. ◆ P. Nautin, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des IIe–IIIe siècles, 1961, 134–137, 209–219 ◆ J.A. Fischer, “Synoden mit Origenes,” OS 29, 1980, 97–117. Wolfgang A. Bienert

Beschi, Costanzo Giuseppe (Nov 8, 1680, Castiglione delle Stiviere – Feb 4, 1747, Ambalakat, North Kerala). Beschi joined the Jesuits in 1698; in 1710 the order sent him to the Madurai mission in South India. Quite by accident, continuing the ministry of R. de → Nobili was to become his real life’s work: focus on members of the upper castes, assimilation both in outward lifestyle and in language (Tamil as well as Sanskrit), literature, and science. At the same time, Beschi was the first Catholic missionary who had to confront the nearby Lutheran mission, which had been established in 1706, and its expansion – a challenge that did not rule out limited cooperation with the print shop of the → Tranquebar mission. Beschi did not live to see the suppression of the Jesuit mission in 1759 (→ Jesuiten). Above all, it was his voluminous literary production that extended his influence beyond that time of crisis. His most important work is the didactic poem “Tēmbavani” comprising 3615 strophes in Tamil and dedicated to St. Joseph; it is still read in Tamil Nādu. His many linguistic studies also contributed to the development of Tamil. Beschi had only scorn for the Tamil translation of the Bible produced by his Lutheran neighbors in 1728. But even he had to recognize that it marked a decisive advance for the South India mission. L. Besse, Father Beschi of the Society of Jesus, 1918 ◆ A. Amaladass, ed., Jesuit Presence in Indian History, 1988, esp. 171–181. Hans-Werner Gensichen

Besold, Christoph (Sep 22, 1577, Tübingen – Sep 15, 1638, Ingolstadt). After studying at Tübingen, he received the degree of Doctor of Civil and Canon Law in 1591 and practiced law before the aulic court at Tübingen until 1610, when he was appointed professor of the Pandects. He served as rector of the university several times until 1635, when he was appointed government counsel of Stuttgart. In 1636, be became professor of the Codex and the Ius Publicum at Ingolstadt. – As early as 1622, Besold was accused of departing from Lutheran orthodoxy and embracing fanaticism, where-

709 upon he broke with the Lutheran Church. The most controversial stage in his life was his secret conversion to Catholicism in 1630. His wide-ranging knowledge, his literary scholarship, and his library are representative of late humanistic and early baroque culture. In addition to being a legal scholar, he was a highly committed political writer, defending freedom of critical expression in politics and religion. He maintained that heresy was not a political offence and therefore did not belong in the criminal code. Works include: Axiomata philosophico-theologica, 1616 ◆ De verae philosophiae fundamento discursus, 1618 ◆ Politicorum libri duo, 1618 ◆ Synopsis doctrinae politicae, 1620 ◆ Axiomatum philosophiae christianae, 1628 ◆ Thesaurus practicus, 1629 ◆ Documenta rediviva monasteriorum, 1636 ◆ Christlich und erhebliche Motiven, 1637 ◆ On Besold: J.F. Jugler, Beyträge zur juristischen Biographie, vol. I, 1773, 82–126 ◆ E. Niethammer, “Christoph Besold Professor des Rechts, 1577–1638,” SLB V, 1941, 11–34 ◆ B. ZellerLorenz, “Christoph Besold (1577–1638) und die Klosterfrage,” diss., Tübingen, 1986 ◆ R. van Dülmen, Die Utopie einer christlichen Gesellschaft, 1986, 59–64 ◆ M. Brecht, “Chiliasmus in Württemberg im 17. Jahrhundert,” PuN 14, 1988, 32–36 ◆ C. Gilly, Cimelia Rhodostaurotica, 21995, 61–68. Gizella Hoffmann

Bessarion ( Jan 2, 1403, Trabzon – Nov 18, 1472, Ravenna). Bessarion came to Constantinople around 1415 and became a monk in 1417/1418. He studied literature under John Chortasmenos and rhetoric under George Chrysokokkes; from 1431 to 1436, he studied philosophy with G. Gemisthos → Plethon in Mistra. Ordained deacon in 1425 and priest in 1431, he became archbishop of Nicea in 1437 and was made cardinal on Dec 18, 1439. Bessarion began his public ministry in 1425 as preacher and rhetor at the imperial court; after finishing his wide-ranging studies on the Peloponnese in 1436, he became abbot of the Basilian monastery in Constantinople. Along with Patriarch Joseph II, he was a protagonist at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (arrival in Venice: Feb 8, 1438). An outstanding theologian, he distinguished himself, along with Mark of Ephesus, as a leader of the → filioque controversy (at first only on the general justification of a supplement to the creed). In addition to demonstrating the identity of the formulas “through / from the Son,” he pressed for religious union between East and West; he also helped frame the Decree of Union (Laetentur coeli). On Feb 1, 1440, the Greek delegation returned to Constantinople, but already in December of the same year Bessarion returned to Rome to receive his insignia as cardinal (titular church: the church of the Twelve Apostles, where he is also buried). There, he signed the Decree of Union on Feb 5, 1442, on behalf of the Jacobites; he also reformed the Greek monasteries in (southern) Italy according to the Rule of St. Basil. From 1450 to 1455, he was papal legate in Bologna, seeing to the welfare of the city’s university. Twice his Greek ancestry prevented his election as pope

Bet Din (to succeed → Nicholas V or Callistus III). After the fall of Constantinople (1453), Bessarion went to Germany as legate of → Pius II, trying in vain to promote a crusade against the Turks. After 1464, he devoted himself increasingly to philosophical studies (e.g. whether the philosophy of Aristotle or Plato should have precedence), and retreated to the abbey of Grottaferrata outside Rome. As a cultured humanist and linguist (Greek, Latin, Italian), Bessaron attracted many scholars; he translated Greek authors into Latin (e.g. → Basil the Great). He also frequently revised his own works – the most important is In calumniatorem Platonis (1469), written against George of Trebizond. In 1468, he donated his own library (more than 100 Greek and Latin manuscripts) to the city of Venice (today: Biblioteca Marciana). Besides his scholarly contributions, as a Greek patriot he was always a hospitable and helpful protector of refugees and a compassionate friend of the poor. Sources: PG 161 ◆ On Bessarion: L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, 1927–1942 ◆ A. HeviaBallina, “Bessarion de Nicaea, humanista cristiano,” Studium Ovetense 1, 1974, 22–31 (bibl.) ◆ J. Gill, TRE V, 1980, 725–730 (bibl.). Gerhard Podskalsky

Bestiary (from the Latin bestiarius, “concerning the beasts”). A bestiary is an Old-French moralizing natural history, which merged the 4th-century Greek → Physiologus with local myths, legends, and symbols of animals. Rivaling the Bible in popularity, bestiaries described the training, breeding, and medical care of animals (mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish). Typically, a bestiary recounted the history, legends, natural characteristics, and symbolism of 100 animals, while the Greek and Latin editions of the Physiologus described only 49 (or 50) animals. Bestiaries were the illustrated sourcebooks that medieval artists used in their iconographies, in which the moral tales of animals paralleled those of their human counterparts. F. Carmody, NCE II, 1967, 367–369 ◆ P. Murray & L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture, 1996, 55 ◆ D. Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art, 21997, 59. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

Bet Din (“House of Judgment”), the term used in rabbinic sources for a Jewish court of law. This legal institution has undergone many changes throughout Jewish history, which reflect social, cultural, and religious trends within Jewish society. Moses served as a magistrate and later appointed judges in a hierarchical system. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce, the bet din of → Yohanan ben Zakkai in Jabneh became a cultural and political center, succeeding the great → Sanhedrin. In the Middle Ages, the bet din became one of the strongholds of Jewish autonomy and

Bet Midrash served as part of the self-government of the community. This legal system continued into the modern era, as its power gradually decreased. In modern times, the bet din usually handles religious matters. The state of Israel has given rabbinic courts the jurisdiction over issues of personal status and other religious matters. S. Asaf,      / / , 1924 ◆ M. Elon, Jewish Law, 1973 ◆ S. Safrai & S. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, 1974–1976. Kimmy Caplan

Bet Midrash (“House of Study”), an institution which began in the early Second Temple period, serving as a study center where people came to listen to words of wisdom, lessons, and halakhic discussions (→ Halakhah). During the mishnaic period (→ Mishnah) it became independent from the synagogue and many Jewish sources considered it to be a holier place than the synagogue. Although the bet midrash tended to merge with the synagogue in the Middle Ages, prayer remained secondary to study and discussion. The bet midrash usually held a library of different genres of rabbinical literature for public use. They also served yeshivas and their students as lodging premises, as well as hostels for occasionally travelers. Both scholars and lay people learned in the bet midrash. These institutions were built by communities or philanthropists. S. Asaf, 3< 3    , 1925–1943 ◆ J. Frenkel, <   , 1991 ◆ J. Katz, Tradition and Crisis, 1991. Kimmy Caplan

Betanzos, Domingo de (1480, León – Sep 13, 1549, Valladolid). After studying law in Salamanca, Betanzos entered the Dominican order (→ Dominicans) in 1511. With the first Dominican missionaries in the New World, he committed himself to protecting the indigenous Americans, who were being oppressed by the Spanish settlers. He cooperated with P. de → Córdoba and B. de → Las Casas. After the conquest of → Mexico by H. → Cortés, Betanzos carried on missionary work there (1526); in 1535 he became provincial of the newly established Dominican province. He came into conflict with the order, in large part because of his increasing hostility toward the Dominicans’ pro-Indian missionary practice and his sudden support of the → encomienda system. D. Ulloa, Los predicadores divididos, 1977 ◆ A.R. Sierra, “Una aproximación a Domingo de Betanzos,” in: Los dominicos y el Nuevo Mundo: Actas del II. Congreso Internacional, 1990, 227–258 ◆ P.F. Rodriguez, Los dominicos en el contexto de la primera evangelización de México, 1994. Thomas Eggensperger

Bethany, now al-Azariya (“Lazarus’ place”), lies east of the Mt. of Olives on the road to the Jordan Valley. It was settled in the Bronze and Iron Ages. – Bethany

710 is closely associated with the raising of → Lazarus ( John 11), the meeting with Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38– 42) and the anointing (Matt 26:6–13, etc.). According to Matt 21:17//Mark 11:11–12, Jesus spent the night before the entry into Jerusalem in Bethany. – The tradition concerning the site of the raising of Lazarus at a burial cave is already attested in 330/40 (Eusebius of Caesarea, Pilger of Bordeaux) and by a church at the end of the 4th century ( Jerome, Etheria; a three-naved basilica with mosaic floors, partially excavated). A monastery is attested in the 7th century by Arculf; in the Crusader period (1138–1259), a Benedictine nunnery, in ruins in the 15th century; a new structure was consecrated by the Franciscans in 1954. S. Saller, Excavations at Bethany 1949–1953, 1957 ◆ G. Kroll, Auf den Spuren Jesu, 81980, 371–384 (bibl.). Hanswulf Bloedhorn

Bethar → Bar Kokhba Revolt Bethel (  ', “House of God or El”) was an Israelite cultic center on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim (→ Tribes of Israel), also / ' (bêt’ôn, “place of strength, splendor, might”) Josh 7:2; 18:12; 1 Sam 13:5; 14:23, since Hosea / * ' (bêt ’āven, “house of sin”; Hos 4:15; 5:8; 10:5). The degree to which the tradition that the earlier name of the place was " (Gen 28:19; Judg 1:23) applies may be set aside since " (lûz, “almond tree”) seems rather to be a territory name that may have existed alongside Bethel. Nothing commends a division of the names to the place and the cultic site extra muros (Wüst). A farming settlement at the end of the 3rd millennium was followed by a Middle Bronze Age city and, after a lacuna in the Late Bronze I Age, a Late Bronze II city. Despite destruction, the transition to the Iron Age indicates continuity in the population. From the 12th to the 10th centuries, Bethel was less important; apparently, Shechem (Gen 33:18*–20) and not Bethel (Gen 28:11–22; 35:1–8, 14–15) was the west Jordanian locus of the Jacob tradition. According to 1 Kgs 12:26–33, → Jeroboam I elevated Bethel to a royal sanctuary and commemorated the Exodus tradition there (v. 28). While this text speaks of two animal pedestals (for YHWH and his paredros), of which only one must have been the image of a bull, YHWH, ’Anat-YHWH (or ’Anat-Bet-El) and Išim-Bet-El (or ˙aram-Bet-El) were venerated there as late as the 8th century bce, a constellation in remarkable continuity with the Late Bronze Age for which a triad of Ba’al-Hadad, ’Anat and ’Attart is attested in Bethel. After the fall of the northern kingdom, Bethel became wholly a cultic and cultural center of Israel (2 Kgs 17:28) and flourished into and beyond the 6th century (not destroyed between 622 and 582 bce). In the course of the 7th century, the following may have originated in Bethel:

711 the “Haran version” of the Jacob cycle (Gen 27–35*); the “book of saviors” ( Judg 3–9*) and the “book of Hosea” (Hos 4–11*) which, on the evidence of Jer 2–4, the young → Jeremiah from Anatoth studied there; since he appeared as a prophet only after 609, a destruction of the sanctuary of Bethel (with school and library) by → Josiah in 622 bce (2 Kgs 23:25) seems unlikely. Presumably, Bethel was joined to Judah at that time since in the post-exilic period it belonged to the sub-province of Yehud. Its prominence in the 7th and 6th century bce may explain many references to Bethel (including Judg 1:23–25; 1 Kgs 12:26–33 [?]; 13; Amos 3:14; 4:4; 5:5f.; 7:10–17). Fortified by Jonathan (→ Maccabees: 1 Macc 9:50), Eusebius (Onomasticon 40, 20–24) still knew Bethel as a village. A. de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob, 2 vols., EtB, 1975 ◆ E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, BWANT 110, 1979 ◆ G. Schmitt, “Bet-Awen,” in R. Cohen & G. Schmitt, Drei Studien zur Archäologie und Topographie Altisraels, BTAVO.B 44, 1980, 33–76 ◆ E.A. Knauf, “Beth Aven,” Bib. 65, 1984, 251–253 ◆ H. Utzschneider, “Die Amazjaerzählung (Am 7:10–17) zwischen Literatur und Historie,” BN 41, 1988, 76–101 ◆ H. Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, 1988 ◆ O. Keel & C. Uehlinger, “Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole,” QD 134, 1992, 215–220 ◆ H.M. Niemann, Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat, FAT 6, 1993 ◆ J.-D. Macchi, Les Samaritains, 1994, 47–72 ◆ C. Levin, “Amos und Jerobeam I.,” VT 45, 1995, 307–317 ◆ A. de Pury, Le Prophète et le Patriarche, OBO, forthcoming. Ernst Axel Knauf

Bethel Confession. The Bethel confession was formulated in the latter half of 1933 under the guidance of F.v. Bodelschwingh, Jr. and at the instigation of the → Reformed Youth Movement. It was an attempt to put forth a contemporary Lutheran confession of faith in rejection of “German Christian” tendencies (→ Deutsche Christen) and in opposition to the introduction of the Aryan paragraph in the statutes of the Evangelical Church. Yet the statements of solidarity with the discriminated-against Jews were so watered down by the time of the sixth and final version of the confession that D. → Bonhoeffer, one of the main contributors, could not bring himself to sign the document. Church-political issues also dissuaded the other major collaborators von Bodelschwingh, H. → Sasse, and G. → Merz from signing. M. → Niemöller finally took over the responsibility for publication of the Bethel Confession, which appeared around the beginning of 1934 under the title: “The Confession of the Fathers and the Confessing Church: Offered for Consideration by a Circle of Protestant Theologians and Published in Their Name by M. Niemöller.” The considerable mitigation of the doctrinal statements and the delaying tactics in their publication were the main reasons for the minimal impact in the church of this otherwise rather noteworthy confession. C.-R. Müller, Bekenntnis und Bekennen. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Bethel (1933): Ein lutheranischer Versuch, 1989. Christine-Ruth Müller

Beth-Haccerem Bethel Mission. In the wake of the euphoria at the beginning of Germany’s conquests in Africa and the South Seas, mission-interested circles around the adventurer Carl Peters founded the “Evangelische Missionsgesellschaft für Deutsch-Ostafrika” [Evange lical Mission Society for German East Africa] (EMDOA) in 1886, which was thus initially often regarded as an offshoot of the German East African Company. While the church and missionary influence on the EMDOA was at first minimal, this changed around 1890 with the intervention of F. von → Bodelschwingh, who exerted great influence on the leadership of the society. In 1906 the central administration of the society was transferred to Bethel, whereupon it adopted the name “Bethel Mission” in 1920 and began to cooperate closely with the “Church of Zion” in Bethel. In the course of the integration of church and mission, representatives of the church entered into the executive management of the mission from 1965 onward. The work area was at first Zanzibar, Dar es Salaam, and vicinity, but moved further inland in East Africa after the → Berlin Mission took over these locations at the beginning of the 20th century. Mission stations were established in the Usambara mountains and in Rwanda (1907). In 1910, the first station was set up in Bukoba. The church of Usambara became independent during the First World War. Before the beginning of the Second World War, in the course of which Skandinavian and US-American mission societies took over the administration, the Bethel Mission operated some 20 stations with approx. 100 staff members, who have been working in an international Lutheran cooperation program since the end of the war. The independent churches that have emerged out of their work now form, in conjunction with other churches, the northwest or northeast diocese of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania. In 1971, the Bethel Mission joined with the Rhenish Mission to form the → United Evangelical Mission (Vereinigte Evangelische Mission [VEM]). G. Menzel, Die Bethel-Mission, 1986.

Ulrich van der Heyden

Beth-Haccerem is a place near Jerusalem; mentioned in Jer 6:1 along with → Tekoa , in Neh 3:14 it designates a district in the Persian period. “Karem” in the LXX of Josh 15:59a may refer to the same place. Beth-Haccherem is identified today with Rāmat Rā˙ēl (›irbat Íāli˙) on the southern boundaries of modern Jerusalem. Within a walled area (approx. 2 hectares), a complex (approx. 50 × 75m) has been exposed that many take to be a summer palace for Judean kings, built on older residue, with casemate walls from the end of the 7th century. It is comparable to the royal residence/ acropolis of → Samaria.

Bethlehem

712

A. Kuschke, BRL2, 1977, 45f. ◆ H. Weippert, Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, Handbuch der Archäologie II/1, 1988, 597–599 ◆ Y. Aharoni, “Ramat Rahel,” NEAEHL IV, 1993, 1261–1267. Hartmut N. Rösel

councils. Latin, Greek and Syriac captions attest to this “contest” at a local Syro-Palestinian workshop. Still other memorial sites are depicted on site: the “house of Joseph,” the “milk grotto”; a shepherd’s field adjoins to the east.

Bethlehem (“House of bread”) is located 10 km south of Jerusalem on the watershed of the Judaean mountains. Bethlehem extends on a spur joined to the east by a fertile plain. The name alludes to agricultural use (agriculture and herding). The derivation of the name Bethlehem from the goddess La˙amu has been refuted. While it is true that excavations have attested a settlement as early as pre-historic times and in the Iron Age, Bethlehem is first attested historically in the middle Iron Age by Old Testament reports (marriage of → David ), though some are legendary (Rachel and the Book of Ruth (→ Ruth, Book of )), and Mic 5:1–3 associates it with an alternative concept of dominion. Bethlehem first took the limelight in Jesus’ birth narrative (Matt, Luke). Around 150, a cave was first mentioned as Jesus’ birthplace (→ Justin). As early as the middle of the 3rd century, a cave in Bethlehem was venerated (→ Origen); this cave is not identical, however, with the cultic cave of Adonis (Tammuz) in a grove mentioned by → Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem from 384 to 420. At the Council of → Nicea (325), Bethlehem was included in → Constantine’s “setting of the credo in stone” program of church construction: a basilica at the birthplace (= Bethlehem), one at the place of death (Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem), and one at the site of the ascension (Eleona on the Mt. of Olives). The church consists of a forecourt, a five-naved → basilica joined to the east and an octagonal structure over the grotto which pilgrims can view through an opening in the rock. After 386, a monastery and a nunnery were erected. In the course of the 5th century, the church was renovated; the precise occasion has not been transmitted, however, and the reports are otherwise very sparse. A narthex has been placed between court and basilica, the octagon demolished and replaced by a three-domed structure; the basilica and the site of the cave were fused more closely into one structure. The exterior of this church structure is still preserved, apart from minor changes. The interior is shaped by the rich furnishing of mosaics in the Crusader era (before 1169), but it is only partially preserved and has been thoroughly restored in recent decades; medieval descriptions, however, give an idea of its previous wealth and permit reconstruction of the program. Alongside the christological mosaics in the domes, the aisles display portrayals of councils from the two competing Western and Eastern churches. The northern wall of the basilica depicts six provincial councils, on the southern wall seven ecumenical

C. Kopp, Die Heiligen Stätten der Evangelien, 21964, 10–85 ◆ G. Kroll, Auf den Spuren Jesu, 81980, 44–67 ◆ O. Keel & M. Küchler, OLB 2, 1982, 611–638 ◆ G. Kühnel, Wall Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1988, 1–147 ◆ D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. I, 1993, 137–157, nos. 61–63 ◆ G. Kühnel, “Die Konzilsdarstellungen in der Geburtskirche in Bethlehem,” ByZ 86–87, 1993–1994, 86–107. Hanswulf Bloedhorn

Bethlehem Mission Immensee → Immensee, Bethlehem Mission Beth-Saida (“House of Fish”), renamed Iulias in 30 ce under Herod Philipp in honor of Livia (Iulia Augusta), lies approx. 2.5 km north of the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, east of the Jordan, on an elevation (et-Tell). It was settled in the Early Bronze I/ II period, renovated in Iron Age II with a temple and public buildings; their foundations were reused in the resettlement that began in 300 bce. Mentioned in Matt 11:21//Luke 10:13; Mark 6:45 and 8:22–26 (healing of the blind man), Beth-Saida is designated a “polis” in Luke 9:10, a designation that may point to the expansion and renaming under Herod Philipp ( Jos. Ant. XVIII, 28). John 1:44 mentions it as the home town of Andrew, Peter, and Philip. Abandoned by its inhabitants after the battles at the beginning of the first Jewish Revolt, Beth-Saida was resettled during the Roman period as attested by archaeological and literary witnesses as late as the 6th century. G. Kroll, Auf den Spuren Jesu, 81980, 298–300 ◆ R. Arav & R.A. Freund, eds., Bethsaida, vol. I, 1995. Hanswulf Bloedhorn

Beth-Shean (Tell el-Husn) is located at an important strategic location in north Israel. The mound, about 10 acres, is located on a steep natural hill in the midst of a fertile, well-watered valley. The site was settled intermittently from the Late Neolithic period until the Middle Ages. More than 20 occupation layers were discovered during excavations. The earliest layer dates to the Pottery-Neolithic period. Beth-Shean was inhabited during the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze periods, and it became the stronghold of Egyptian government of the New Kingdom in northern Canaan. Temples, public buildings, private houses, as well as Egyptian steles and statues were found, dating from the 15th to the 12th centuries bce. Towards the end of the 12th and 11th centuries bce, the area became independent owing to the decreased influence of Egypt, and it remained thus into the early Israelite monarchial period. The

713

Betke, Joachim

transition to the period of Israelite influence is unclear. In 732 bce, Beth-Shean was destroyed by the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser III. The site was resettled during the Hellenistic period. In the 1st century ce, a Roman city was founded at the foot of the hill and continued to flourish during the Byzantine and early Islamic periods. Beth-Shean is mentioned in several Egyptian sources of the New Kingdom, such as Tuthmosis III’s topographic lists, the Amarna letters, the topographical lists of Seti I and Ramses II, and Papyrus Anastasi I from the time of Ramses II. During this period, Beth-Shean was an Egyptian administrative center, second in importance only to Gaza. In the Bible, Beth-Shean is listed as one of the cities which the Israelites did not conquer ( Josh 17:11, 16; Judg 1:27). On its walls the → Philistines impaled the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sam 31:10; 2 Sam 21:12). It is mentioned as a city in the so-called fifth district of Solomon (1 Kgs 4:12). Beth-Shean is also mentioned in the list of cities conquered by Pharaoh Shishak during his campaign shortly after the so-called division of the monarchy. During the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods, the city was known as Nysa or Scythopolis (2 Macc 12:29) and is mentioned in many historical sources as one of the most important cities in Palestine. During the early Islamic period, the city was called Beisan, thus retaining its ancient semitic name. A. Mazar et al., NEAEHL I, 1993, 214–235 ◆ idem, OEANE I, 1997, 305–309. Amihai Mazar

Beth-Shearim was a Jewish settlement located on a hill in lower Galilee. Flavius Josephus and Greek inscriptions give its name as Besara. In the → Talmud it is generally called Beth-Shearim. At the end of the Second Temple period, it served as an administrative center for the estates in the Jezreel valley belonging to queen Berenice, great granddaughter of → Herod and sister of → Agrippa II. The Patriarchate and leadership of the sages moved to Beth-Shearim in the days of rabbi → Judah ha-Nasi (about 180–220 ce). It is reasonable to suppose that Yehudah ha-Nasi received the leasehold of the lands around Beth-Shearim from the Roman authorities, who had taken them from the Herodian dynasty. Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi was buried in BethShearim, which became the central Jewish necropolis in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The dead were often buried in ornamented sarcophagi and were not only brought from the land of Israel, but also from the diaspora. BethShearim was probably destroyed when emperor Gallus put down the Jewish revolt of 351 ce. N. Avigad et al., Beth She’arim, 1973–1976. Aharon Oppenheimer

Beth-Shemesh (“House of the Sun God”), a border city of Judah, now Tell er-Rumeileh, in the northeast of

the Shephelah. The city, which according to 1 Kgs 4:9 was in Solomon’s second administrative district, is mentioned in Josh 19:41 (‘ir shamesh), in the ark narrative (1 Sam 6), and in the times of the kings (e.g. 2 Kgs 14:11; 2 Chr 28:18). In earlier excavations six occupational levels were detected. Stratum III held the occupation of Iron Age I, which might have been fortified. The flourishing city of Iron Age II (Stratum IIa–c), well situated between the hill country and the coastal plain, was at least occasionally surrounded by a city wall. Probably it was destroyed in 701 bce by Sennacherib, rather than in 587/586. S. Bunimovitz & Z. Lederman NEAEHL I, 1993, 249–253 (bibl.) ◆ G. Lehmann, H.M. Niemann & W. Zwickel, “Zora und Eschtaol,” UF 28, 1996, 343–442 ◆ S. Bunimovitz & Z. Ledermann, “Beth-Shemesh,” BAR 23/1, 1997, 42–49, 75–77. Hartmut N. Rösel

Beth-Zur (Heb. " ' , present-day Khirbet e†ˇubeiqah) is located 7 km north of → Hebron. The name was preserved in the nearby Bur[ eß-Íur. The site (approx. 3.2 acres) was first inhabited during the Early Bronze Age. Middle Bronze Age II–III (c. 18th–16th cent. bce): first citadel. Late Bronze Age: some sparse activity, perhaps of a pastoral nature. Iron Age I (c. 1200–1050 bce): a short-lived settlement. The citadel was re-erected around 700 bce and existed up to the Hellenistic period. Archaeological and biblical accounts show that Beth-Zur first gained renown in the Iron Age under → Hezekiah (or → Zedekiah) (2 Chr 11:6; Josh 15:58). Halfway through the 5th century the district center of Beth-Zur assisted in the building of → Jerusalem’s walls (Neh 3:16). 1 Chronicles 2:45 indicates that in the 5th/4th century bce Jews from Maon in the part of Judah (→ Tribes of Israel) that had become Edomite resettled in Beth-Zur, situated 23 km to the north in the Persian province of Yehud. In the Hasmonean period (→ Maccabees) Beth-Zur was a disputed settlement on the southern border (1 Macc 4:29, 61; 6:7; 9:52; 11:65; 14:7, 33; 2 Macc 11:5; 13:19). R.W. Funk, NEAEHL I, 1993, 259–261 ◆ A. Ofer, “The Highland of Judah during the Biblical Period,” diss. (Heb. with Engl. summary), 1993 (esp. I/2, 65–73; I/3, 27). Hermann Michael Niemann and Avi Ofer

Betke, Joachim (Oct 8, 1601, Berlin – Dec 12, 1663, Linum), mystical spiritualist and church critic. After study in Wittenberg, Betke was village pastor in Linum. Under the influence of the → Thirty Years War he wrote several accusatory writings, in which he ascribed the decline of Christianity above all to the unchristian living of the pastors and their externalized doctrine. He called for discipleship to the crucified Christ and stood for the priesthood of all believers. His writings appeared, some in several editions, until the beginning of the 18th

Bettelheim, Bruno century. He influenced spiritualists such as C. → Hoburg and F. → Breckling , and early radical and ecclesiastical pietists. His main work, Excidium Germaniae, appeared posthumously (1666). M. Bornemann, “Der mystische Spiritualist Joachim Betke und seine Theologie,” diss., 1959 ◆ idem, TRE V, 1980, 763–765 ◆ G. Dünnhaupt Bibliographisches Handbuch der Barokliteratur I, 21990, 544–549 ◆ M. Brecht, in: idem, ed., Geschichte des Pietismus, I, 1993, 221–223. Gertraud Zaepernick

Bettelheim, Bruno (Aug 28, 1903, Vienna – Mar 13, 1990, Silver Spring, MD), Jewish pioneer of psychoanalytical education. Stimulated by the circle of S. → Freud’s disciples, Bettelheim developed methods to treat children with extreme emotional disorders. After his emigration to the USA (1939) Bettelheim was able to work analytically through the extreme experiences he had suffered during his imprisonment in a German concentration camp, in order to deepen his therapeutic approach (Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations, 1943). From 1944 until 1973 Bettelheim was professor of children’s and youth psychology at the University of Chicago and ran the children’s clinic there, the Sonia Shankman Orthogenic School. Mainly as an author of numerous books, Bettelheim had worldwide influence in the development of a milieu-therapeutic education, grounded in psychoanalysis, which included the principle of refraining from punishment and violence where children expressed themselves aggressively. As a social psychologist for contemporary issues, Bettelheim advocated the personal autonomy of mass society (1986). Works include: Symbolic Wounds: Puberty Rites and the Envious Male, 1954 ◆ The Informed Heart: Autonomy in a Mass age, 1960 ◆ Dialogue with Mothers, 1961 ◆ Social Change and Prejudice, 1964 (with M. Janowitz) ◆ The Empty Fortress: Infantile Autism and the Birth of the Self, 1967 ◆ The Children of the Dream, 1969 ◆ A Home for the Heart, 1974 ◆ The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning & Importance of Fairy Tales, 1976 ◆ Freud and die Seele des Menschen, 1984 ◆ A Good Enough Parent: A Book on Child Rearing, 1987 ◆ Themen meines Lebens, 1990 (autobiographical). On Bettelheim: J. Mehlhausen, Leben lernen, 1991 ◆ R. Kaufhold, ed., Annäherung an Bruno Bettelheim, 1994 (bibl.) ◆ N. Sutton, Bruno Bettelheim, 1996 ◆ R. Pollak, The Creation of Dr. Bettelheim, 1997. Joachim Mehlhausen

Beurlin, Jakob (1520, Dornstetten – Oct 28, 1561, Paris). While a student at Tübingen (matriculation 1533, baccalaureate 1537, M.A. 1541), he became a supporter of the Reformers’ teaching. From 1546 to 1553 he served as pastor in Derendingen, near Tübingen (1549 in Sulz am Neckar). Upon graduation in 1551, he became professor of theology at Tübingen. The subjects he lectured on included Melanchthon’s Loci, John, Hebrews, Romans, and 1 John. He served temporarily as rector and after 1557 as vice chancellor.

714 Duke → Christopher sent him in 1551 to Langensalza for discussions with theologians from Saxony and Strassburg, twice in 1551/1552 to the Council of Trent, in 1554 to Königsberg to mediate the → Osiander controversy, and in 1561 to Erfurt for discussions with other Protestants. In 1557 he published a commentary on 1 John; in 1561 he participated in the defense of the Württemberg Confession against P. de → Soto. On the way to the Colloquy of Poissy he died of the plague. Despite his more than local importance as a representative of Württemberg Lutheranism, scholars have paid little attention to Beurlin. G. Bossert, RE3 II, 1897, 671–674 ◆ F.W. Bautz, BBKL I, 1975, 568 (bibl.). Martin H. Jung

Beuron. I. Abbey of St. Martin. The Augustinian Canons Regular institution founded c. 1077 in the Danube valley, which was never of transregional significance, was secularized in 1802 along with its 17th/18th century monastery and church (dedicated 1738) and promised to the principality of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1850, Prussian). Re-established as a Benedictine priory in 1863 under Prior Maurus Wolter, it was elevated in 1868 to an abbey and, during the exile of the monastery (1875–1887) forcibly elevated by the → Kulturkampf, to archabbey. Linked from the beginning to → Solesmes in its liturgical rigidity, Beuron became the center of the renewal of worship and monasticism beyond Germany (Anselm Schott, German missal 1884). From 1870 to 1930 it was also home to the “Beuron School of Art” founded by P. Desiderius Lenz (1832–1928), which aimed at the “ideal art form.” After a studio for palimpsest photography (1911) and preliminary work on an edition of the Old Latin Bible (beginning 1920), the ecumenical Vetus-Latina Institute was established after World War II (since 1962 in its own quarters). II. As archabbey, Beuron has been the headquarters since 1885 of the Beuronese Congregation, whose constitutions had already been approved by the Roman Curia in 1884. Since the establishment of the first daughter abbey in Arnstein/Lahn (only 1869–1871), the Beuronese Congregation has assumed or newly founded numerous establishments, though today only the monasteries in Gerleve, → Maria Laach, Neresheim, Neuburg, Nütschau, Seckau, Tholey, Weingarten, Wimpfen, and Las Condes (Chile) and the nunneries in Bertholdstein, Eibingen, Engelthal, Herstelle und Kellenried still belong to it. After → Vatican II, the nunneries Säben, Varensell, St. Maria in Fulda, and the priory Åsebakken (Denmark) joined. V. Fiala, ed., Beuron 1863–1963, 1963 ◆ idem, “Beuron/Beuron, Congregazione benedettina di,” DIP I, 1974, 1427–1436 ◆ J. Buschmann, Beuroner Mönchtum, 1994. Ulrich Köpf

715 Beuys, Joseph (May 12, 1921, Krefeld – Jan 23, 1986, Düsseldorf ). Beuys was one of Germany’s most important artists. Following military service and imprisonment (1941–1945), from 1947 to 1954 he studied at the Kunstakademie in Düsseldorf, where he held the chair of monumental sculpture from 1961 to 1972. He received numerous international honors. Major exhibits include documenta III–VIII in Kassel, the Venice Biennale in 1976, the São Paulo Biennale in 1979, and an exhibition at the Guggenheim in New York in 1979. Beuys based his work on the anthropological constants of art. For him, all human questions were questions of creative form, i.e. the degree to which individuals can work creatively with reference to the total social context (an extended concept of art). Beuys used new materials: fat, felt, blood; bones, animals; plants, stone; ultimately every object that documents the search for a humane intellectuality. His work developed in three phases: (1) early sculptures and drawings to 1957; (2) the Fluxus period, with the element of movement and actions, extending into the 70s; and (3) large-scale installations. A central concept in Beuys’s thought is the Christ impulse: in Christ, one can promote thinking and at the same time face and overcome the mortal dangers conjured up by thought. A. Temkin & B. Rose, Thinking is Form, 1993 ◆ G. Adriani, W. Konnertz & K. Thomas, Joseph Beuys, 1994 ◆ Kunsthaus Zürich, publ., Joseph Beuys, 1994 ◆ U.M. Schneede, Joseph Beuys: Die Aktionen, 1994 ◆ F. Mennekes, Joseph Beuys, 1996. Friedhelm Mennekes

Beveridge, William (baptized Jan 21, 1637, Barrow, Leicestershire – Mar 5, 1708, London), Anglo-Catholic churchman. Beveridge was educated at Cambridge and ordained a priest in 1661. In 1684 he became a promoter of societies for “reformation of manners.” In 1704 he became bishop of St. Asaph. Beveridge was a noted scholar in mid-Eastern languages and a restorer of “primitive piety” of the early church in the tradition of W. → Laud, John Cosin (1594–1672) and J. → Taylor (→ Caroline Divines). T.H. Horne, ed., The Works of the Right Rev. William Beveridge, 9 vols., 1824 ◆ The Theological Works of William Beveridge, 12 vols., LACT, 1842–1848. Frederick V. Mills Sr.

Beyer, Hartmann (Sep 9, 1516, Frankfurt/M. – Aug 11, 1577, Frankfurt). Following twelve formative years in Wittenberg, Beyer was appointed preacher in 1546 in his native town, which was Upper German in orientation (ordained by J. → Bugenhagen). Against the advice of Luther, he immediately attempted to introduce the Saxon order of liturgy. When the council accepted the → Augsburg Interim in 1548, Beyer published two polemical pamphlets under the pseudonyms Cephalus and Epitimius. In 1552, he secured the expulsion of

Beyschlag, Willibald Theobald Thamer by the council. In 1561, he obtained the closure of the Weißfrauenkirche, where church services were held by the Reformed refugees who had been granted asylum in Frankfurt since 1554/1555 and whom Melanchthon had strongly supported in 1557. They emigrated to the Palatinate. VD 16, I, 2, 1984, 388 B2487–2499 ◆ F.W. Bautz, BBKL I, 1970, 570f. Heinz Scheible

Beyschlag, Willibald (Sep 5, 1823, Frankfurt/M. – Nov 25, 1900, Halle), New Testament scholar and practical theologian, influential church politician and publicist. The son of a bank employee, he studied in Bonn, Berlin and again in Bonn from the winter semester 1840/1841 to the summer semester 1844, initially hesitating between theology and philology. Decisively influenced by A. → Neander and K.I. → Nitzsch, who had been stimulated by F. → Schleiermacher and the → Revival movement , Beyschlag counted himself amongst the mediating theologians. From 1844 to 1849, he lived as a candidate in Frankfurt, where he took part in the political events of 1848/1849 with nationalist and royalist convictions. Lay preacher in Trier from 1850 onward, he became confronted with a Catholicism that fought Protestantism with all available means and whose Ultramontane orientation (→ Ultramontanism) stood in the way of a loyal integration into Protestant Prussia. When Beyschlag published a paper rejecting J.M.v. → Radowitz’s opinion that the salvation of the German nation lay in its return to Catholicism, he was arraigned on a charge of showing contempt for the Catholic Church and only acquitted on appeal. In 1856, he became court preacher in Karlsruhe. Having become acquainted with the church union and the relative independence of the church vis-à-vis the state in the Rhine province, he adopted these principles himself during the → Agendenstreit and the church constitution dispute in Baden, but nevertheless sided with K. → Ullmann and K.B. → Hundeshagen in opposition to the ecclesiastical-liberal party around D. → Schenkel and R. → Rothe, which supported a democratic church constitution. As professor of practical theology in Halle (since 1860), he was constantly engaged in NT research and regarded his publications in this field as his main contribution to scholarly theology. In his exegesis and christology (Leben Jesu, 2 vols., 1885/1886, 31893; Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2 vols., 1891/1892, 21896), he dismissed parts of the dogmatic tradition (→ Two Natures Doctrine, Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory [→ Anselm of Canterbury]), but opposed the views of the Tübingen and → History of Religions Schools by adopting a very conservative approach to the Gospels (the virgin birth being the only major notion he critically rejected). As

Beza, Theodore a member of the Saxon provincial synod and the Prussian general synod, he organized the “Evangelische Mittelpartei”, publishing the Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter as its organ from 1876 onward. He was engaged in a fierce conflict with the parties of the Confessional Union and the Positive Union, who later constituted the synodal majority. He rejected both rigid adherence to the Lutheran confessions and restrictions on the freedom of teaching in theology or the plan to concentrate church power in the hands of Protestant bishops. Beyschlag’s ecclesiastical and political ideal was that of a partnership between a monarchy conceived on the basis of the liberal spirit of the Reformation and a state-supporting, yet autonomous, synodally constituted union of Protestant churches. At the end of the → Kulturkampf, which brought extensive state concessions to the Catholic Church, Beyschlag founded the “→ Evangelischer Bund zur Wahrung der deutsch-protestantischen Interessen” in 1886 in order to counter Catholic propaganda, which was meant to overcome the spiritual and geographic fragmentation of Protestantism, and to support the Old Catholic Church (→ Old Catholics). K. Pahncke, RE3 XXIII, 1913, 192–203 ◆ G. Maron, ed., Evangelisch und ökumenisch, KiKonf 25, 1986.

Beza, Theodore ( Jun 24, 1519, Vézelay – Oct 13, 1605, Geneva). Poet and reformer, successor of Calvin. Beza came from an aristocratic family in the province of Nivernais France and studied in Orléans under Melchior Volmar, a humanist from Rottweil. After completing legal studies, he dedicated himself in Paris to the art of Latin poetry. His “Poemata” (Paris, 1548) were greatly admired. Attracted by the Reformation, he went through a deep religious crisis following a serious illness: He renounced his benefice and fled to Geneva where he married Claudine Denosse, his lifelong companion. From 1549 onwards, he taught Greek at the academy in Lausanne. There, he also translated 100 psalms into French verse. The Psalter by Marot and Beza, set to music by Claude Bourgeois, enjoyed great success. An estimated 200,000 copies were printed at that time (psautier huguenot). Another significant literary work of his time in Lausanne was the tragedy “Abraham sacrifiant” (Abraham’s Sacrifice, 1590), a vivid example of Protestant religious poetry which, in contrast to the antiquated and profane works of the French circle of poets known as the “Pléiade,” strove for simplicity. From 1559 onwards, Beza taught theology in Geneva at the side of Calvin. In 1561, he then was invited to the colloquium of Poissy, an attempt by the “Moyenneurs” (followers of a moderate reform who did not envisage a separation from the Catholic Church) to deal with the religious conflicts in France. Poissy proved to be a failure: the Catholic Church refused to give its

716 approval and Beza, spokesman of the Protestant delegation, rejected the compromises. Immediately afterwards, the first Religious War broke out in France and Beza took part in it as an advisor to the Prince of Condé and author of reform manifestoes. Back in Geneva, he soon had to assume the succession of Calvin (died 1564) and was from then on the leader of the Calvinist Protestants. He continued to write Latin poetry, though his writings were now primarily polemical and exegetical in nature. His polemical writings were directed against S. → Castellio, against the → Antitrinitarians from Poland, against the papists, but especially against the → Gnesio-Lutherans : J. → Brenz, J. → Andreae (1528–1590), M. → Flacius, N. → Selnecker. He tirelessly refuted the arguments for the ubiquity doctrine. In addition to the doctrinal grounds for this dispute, there were also political ones: If the German princes were to become persuaded by their “polemical theologians,” these might no longer support the French → Huguenots who were dependent on military assistance. Beza wanted to prevent the Huguenots from being regarded as heretics. Beza’s exegetical work is extensive. He criticized the interpretations of → Erasmus and → Origen who, under the pretext that the Bible contained contradictions, had taken too many exegetical liberties. Beza himself defended the perspicuitas of the Bible: If one sees contradictions in it, then only because of the imperfection or the sinfulness of the reader. Beza explains these passages with the “Analogy of Faith.” This is the reason for his uncompromising attitude towards heretics of all persuasions, the “Académiques” (Castellio), the Erasmians etc. At that time, the “Annotationes” exerted great influence, in particular on the English commission that established the textus receptus of the King James Version of the Bible. Beza made an important contribution to the cohesion of the French Reformation until the end of the 17th century. Works include: Volumen primum (alterum, tertium) tractationum theologicarum, 31582, 3 vols. fol. ◆ On Beza: P.-F. Geisendorf, Théodore de Bèze, 1949 ◆ W. Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Th. Beza, 1967 ◆ J. Raitt, The Eucharistic Theology of T. Beza, 1972 ◆ B. Roussel, “Bèze et Origène,” in: Origeniana Sexta. Origène et la Bible, 1995, 759–772. Alain Dufour

Bezzel, Hermann Theodor Friedrich Ernst (May 18, 1861, Wald, Altmühltal – Jun 8, 1917, Munich). From 1879 to 1883, he studied classical philology and Protestant theology in Erlangen; he first became an assistant, then a teacher of religion at the “Neues Gymnasium” in Regensburg, while also officiating as an inspector and transforming the Alumneum into a model educational institution. From 1891 rector of the deaconess institute in Neuendettelsau as the second successor of W. → Löhes, from 1909 until his death president of the Munich high consistory, president of the Bavarian general synods of Ansbach (1909) and Bayreuth (1913),

717 since 1912 first chairman of the Eisenach church conference. With his sermons and lectures, but also through his highly competent leadership, the impact of Bezzel’s work reached far beyond Bavaria. In opposition to modern liberal theology, he combined basic elements of the Erlangen Lutheran experiential theology with the idea of the condescendence of God taken up by J.G. → Hamann and passed on by A. → Harleß, J.C.K. → Hofmann, and C. → Krafft, among others: God, the “great deacon”, demonstrates his divinity by his self-humiliation in becoming human in Christ; he took it upon himself to achieve the ultimate with humble means and within the smallest space” (Der Knecht Gottes, 14). Works include: Auf ewigem Grund (Sermons on the Gospels), 1914 ◆ Der Dienst des Pfarrers, 1916 ◆ Sendlinger Predigten, 1919 ◆ Der Knecht Gottes, 1921 ◆ On Bezzel: J. Rupprecht, Hermann Bezzel Sein Leben, Wesen und Wirken, 1937 ◆ H. Kemner, Christus oder Chaos, 1959 ◆ M. Seitz, Herrman Bezzel. Theologie seiner Verkündigung, 1960 ◆ F.W. Kantzenbach, “Die Herablassung Gottes,” ZW 32, 1961, 655–666 ◆ M. Seitz, TRE V, 1980, 774–777. Volker Drehsen

Bhagavadgītā (lit. “Song of the Lord”) is one of the best-known, most discussed, and for many Hindus most authoritative texts of Hinduism; it comprises 18 chapters (700 verses) from book 6 of the → Mahābhārata epic. Greatly simplified, the teachings contained in the Bhagavadgītā fall into three categories: 1. Reflections on competing ideals of salvation and proper social order: ascetic renunciation, yogic contemplation, → Sāákhya philosophy, and deliverance from imprisonment in the connectedness of all actions (→ Karma Theory) versus maintenance of a mundane social order through performance of ritual acts and the exercise of royal power (the authority of the Veda [→ Vedas]; sacrifice [→ Sacrifice: VII]; the caste system [→ Caste: I]; the power and privileges claimed by Kßhatriyas and → Brahmins). 2. Presentation of a concept of God and a relationship with God (→ bhakti), in part through the doctrine of divine compassion for the world (→ K‰ß»a, → avatāra doctrine). 3. Elaborations of the theoretical bases of knowledge of salvation, the picture of God and the world, and the relationship of human beings to God. The text as it stands cannot be traced back beyond the 5th century ce; the subjects discussed (sovereignty and authority, conflicting notions of salvation) comport best with the religious and historical situation of the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce. G. von Simson, “Zur Einschaltung der Bhagavadgītā im Bhīßmaparva des Mahābhārata,” IIJ 11, 1968/1969, 159–174 ◆ M. Ježić, “Textual Layers of the Bhagavadgita as Traces of Indian Cultural History,” in: K. Morgenroth, ed., Sanskrit and World Culture, 1979, 628–638 ◆ R. Minor, Bhagavad-gita, 1982 ◆ P. Schreiner, Die Bhagavad-Gita, 1991 ◆ P. Flamm & H. von Stietenecron, eds., Epic and Purā»ic Bibliography, 1992 ◆ A. Malinar, Rājavidyā, 1997 (bibl.). Peter Schreiner

Bhakti Bhakti I. History of Religions – II. Missiology

I. History of Religions Bhakti (Sanskrit, “participation, devotion, love”) is a devotional, in some respects ecstatic, adoration of God and personal experience of God. It originated in southern India in the 7th century and spread to northern India from the 12th/13th centuries. The novelty in this often popular bhakti piety was the fact that it rejected Vedic sacrificial ritualism, extreme ascetic corporal mortification, and esoteric devotion and thereby – or so the claim – was also open to lower castes and women. Practitioners cultivate a Hinduistic religiosity of grace, total surrender and eroticizing love for God, an emotional, mystical union with the almost monotheistically venerated High God: predominantly → Śiva, → Viß»u (Nārāyaņa), → Rāma and → K‰ßna. Accordingly, the bhakti literature consists in great part of hymns, songs and chants, and bhakti religiosity involves much music and dance. Believers often understand themselves as servants, slaves, children of God, who must seek grace by degrees; at the highest level, one is supposed to attain the unio mystica, not infrequently expressed through the image of a united couple of lovers. South Indian bhakti has a śaiva and a vaiß»ava tradition, the one focused on the god Muruka«, who was later identified with Skanda, Śiva’s son, the other on the god Tirumāl, a manifestation of Viß»u. In the 10th century, the texts of 63 śaiva Nāyanmārs and 12 vaiß»ava Alvārs were codified as guides. The philosophy of the Tamil śaiva school was reflected especially in the system of Śaiva Siddhānta and the Āgama texts and, beginning in the 12th century, in the southern Indian cultic community of the Vīraśaivas (“heroic śaivas”). The vaiß»ava tradition was further developed, among others, in the Śrīvaiß»ava system and by the latter’s most famed proponents – Rāmānuja (11th cent.), who proposed a modified monism (Viśi߆ādvaita), and Madhva (1199–1278), who proposed a dualism (Dvaita-Vedānta). Northern and central Indian bhakti includes three movements differentiated by high god or orientation: 1. the Rāmavats or Rāmānandīs ( → asceticism: VIII), among them the poet Tulsīdās (1532–1623) with his muchesteemed version of the Rāmāya»a, the Rāmcaritmānas (“ocean of Rāmas deeds”). They primarily venerate the heroic god Rāma; 2. the following cultic communities focus on the flute-playing shepherd god K‰ßna and his love for his consort Rādhā, the cowherd: beginning in the 13th century, the cultic community of the Vārkarī Panth (“pilgrim’s path”) in Māhāra߆ra, who regarded their god Vi††hala or Vi†hobā as an incarnation of K‰ßna and in whose tradition stand a number of poet-saints (Nāmdev, Jñāneśvara, Eknāth, etc.); the Vallabhacārīs

Bhaktivedanta in and around Mathura, who trace back to the Telugu Brahman Vallabha (1479–1531) and his successors, who venerated K‰ßna primarily as a youth (Bālagopāla or Bālak‰ßna); and the Bengali Vaiß»avas, among whom Jayadeva (12th cent.) with his influential Gītāgovinda (“Song about K‰ß»a”) and → Caitanya (1485–1533) stand out; 3. sants (“saints”) influenced by Islam such as → Kabīr (14th or 15th century), Dādū (1544–1603) and also → Nānak (1469–1538), the founder of → Sikhism, for whom God is without characteristics (nirgu»a) and who are sometimes only loosely organized. J. Gonda, Die Religionen Indiens, vol. II: Der jüngere Hinduismus, 1963 ◆ M. Thiel-Horstmann, ed., Bhakti in Current Research 1979–1982, 1983 (bibl.) ◆ F. Hardy, Viraha Bhakti, 1983 ◆ idem, The Religious Tradition of India: Power, Love and Wisdom, 1994 ◆ D. Lorenzen, Bhakti Religion in North India, 1995 ◆ idem, Poems to a Formless God: Nirgu»ī Texts from North India, 1996. Axel Michaels

II. Missiology Bhakti is the deep, unselfish love of the whole human person for God. The only English word which can adequately render “bhakti” is “love” and the Tamil Bhaktihymns use love as a synonym for bhakti. 1. Bhakti is the undivided love for God, free from any attachment to worldly objects. 2. Bhakti cannot be overshadowed by knowledge and action and is the highest goal. 3. Bhakti is manifested in thought, word, and deed. The savior God K‰ß»a proclaims thus in the Bhagavadgītā: “Abandoning all religious rites, take refuge in me alone. Be not grieved for I shall release thee from all evils” (18.66). In the Bhakti tradition stress is laid on the grace (anugraha) of God. Liberation depends entirely on the grace of God. The divine grace is natural (svābhāvika) and unconditional (nirhetuka). God only waits for humans to take refuge (prapatti) in him/her. The medieval bhakti saints almost unanimously advocated the opening of the path of God-realization through bhakti to all sections of society. A few of them themselves belonged to the underprivileged classes. Hindus and Muslims stood side by side among Caitanya’s disciples, as they had done under Rāmānanda. This is true of Kabīr, Nānak, and Dādū Dayāl. All these great bhaktas disregarded caste distinctions. In South India the bhakti movement, from the mid-6th century ce, was a dynamic social force with elements of dissent, protest, and reform. It emphasized castelessness, waived sexual discrimination, and accorded women the highest honor of direct communion with God. In India there have been many Christian bhaktas, prominent among them being Sadhu Sundar → Singh (1889–1929). The gospel he preached was the ever-living presence of Christ. The dominant characteristic of Dhanjibhai Fakirhbhai’s (1895–1967) outlook was a bhakti bhāva. His philosophy of love speaks of a synthesis of the three mārgas (paths);

718 Shrikhrista Gītā is a dialogue between the bhakta and his or her Lord, and Prenopanißad is a collection of the writings of bhaktas of both East and West. The aim of A.J. → Appasamy’s (1891–1975) theology was to relate Christianity to the bhakti school of Hinduism. Two points stand out. First, love, concentrated solely on God, is nowhere so well manifested as in the bhakti tradition. All who are interested in understanding the different aspects of true theism should approach it with reverence. Second, the bhakti tradition’s fight against caste and sex discrimination proclaims to all who wish to develop Dalit theology (→ Contextual theologies) that Hinduism is not as oppressive as it is often made out to be. A Dalit theology is emerging from the bhakti tradition itself. S. Neill, Bhakti Hindu and Christian, 1974 ◆ S. Pande, Medieval Bhakti Movement, 1989 ◆ K.-P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, 1995. K.P. Aleaz

Bhaktivedanta, (Sep 1, 1896, Calcutta – Nov 14, 1977, Vrindavan, India), known as A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Bhaktivedanta was the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, popularly known as the “Hare Krishnas,” the most successful missionary movement of Hindu bhakti devotion (→ Hinduism) in modern times. Works include: KRSNA, The Supreme Personality of Godhead, 1972. On Bhaktivedanta: L.D. Shinn, The Dark Lord, 1986. Robert S. Ellwood

Bhutan. Bhutan encompasses the area enclosed by the Himalayas between India and the autonomous region of Tibet (People’s Republic of China) (47,000 km 2). The population numbers c. 2.1 m. (2002), though with a growth rate of 3.2%. Although small in size, Bhutan comprises four climatic zones, from tropical in the south to thinly settled high alpine mountainous zones in the north at 7,600 m altitude. The population consists mainly of Tibetans of Mongolian origin (c. 700,000), primarily farmers and cattle-breeders who occupy the high middle and northern areas of the country. The south of Bhutan is populated mainly by immigrant Nepalese and Indians. Bhutan (from the Indian designation Bhotānta “end of Tibet”), known to the natives under the name Brug yul, meaning “land of the dragons” or “land of the Brug-pa school,” is culturally religiously and historically closely connected with the earlier → Tibet. Capital: Thimphu (50,000 inhabitants). Only with the founding of the kingdom by Zhabs-drung Ngag-dbang rnam-rgyal (1594–1651) did this region, which had formerly been divided in rival princedoms, become a unified state with a central government. Under its third king (1928–1972) the “father of modern Bhutan,” the country opened itself

719 to the outside world; Bhutan became a member of the United Nations in 1972. Government reform: constitutional monarchy since 1907; the throne has been held since 1972 by the fourth king hJigs-med sangs-rgyas dbang-phyug. According to tradition, → Buddhism was introduced into Bhutan by the Indian Tantra master → Padmasambhava as early as the 8th century However, it seems more probable that missionary efforts by the Tibetan Buddhist schools actually led, in the 13th century, to the establishment of → Mahāyāna Buddhism. Today a form of Buddhism associated with → Tantrism has a solid institutional basis in Bhutan. With the arrival of Zhabs-drung

Bhutan in the 17th century, a theocracy similar to that of Tibet was constituted and administered by a monastic clergy (→ Dalai Lama), under the authority of a chief abbot and of a regent versed in worldly matters. This dual governing system persisted until the introduction of the monarchy, whereafter only the institution of the chief abbot remained. Bhutan is the last existing Mahāyāna-buddhist kingdom in the world. M. Aris, Bhutan, 1979 ◆ G. Bonn, Bhutan. Kunst und Kultur im Reich der Drachen, 1988 ◆ Padma Tsewang et al., The Treasure Revealer of Bhutan, 1995 ◆ C. Schickelgruber & F. Pommaret, Bhutan, 1997. Per K. Sørensen