ABSTRACT
This chapter is about Schleiermacher’s arguments against the usefulness, and even coherence, of any account of the fall of the Devil. Schleiermacher makes these arguments not only to criticize the particular tradition of demonic temptation (widely held historically by figures like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, and sometimes defended today) but also, more importantly, to show that any source of sin prior to Adam’s supposed fall requires more explanation than it offers in explanatory power in return. This chapter introduces important principles of action, agency, and intelligibility, themed around the ways insanity and irrationality undermine culpability. It begins to reveal the ways Schleiermacher’s criticisms turn on the adoption, not rejection, of ancient premises. This chapter also reflects on how Schleiermacher’s arguments relate to issues of authority and theological contestation in, for example, how Schleiermacher navigates scripture and the Protestant confessions.
