Yet Another Citation Examination

There is a quote I have seen online attributed to Søren Kierkegaard (sometimes written Soren Kierkegaard), a famous Danish Lutheran theologian. That quote is this one:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ."

However, no one I have found gives a citation any more specific than saying he wrote it in "The Journals", and some do not even give that. Such a vague citation by itself means one should be skeptical of this quote, but I was nevertheless curious and decided to try to look into it for myself.

To give spoilers, the quote is not accurate. Everything up through "Christ the Atoner" does take thing Kierkegaard actually said, but changes the words a bi by removing or adding things, and then stitches things he said in different places together without giving any indication it is doing such. It's an edited jumble. The next sentence about Martin Luther I can find nowhere in his works. The last sentence is similar to something Kierkegaard said (though it is still different), but it was not about Paul, but about people who Kierkegaard viewed as misusing his works. Thus the particularly anti-Paul statements we see above are manufactured or actually referring to something else. Even the more valid parts of it are edited and stitched together from completely different journal entries of Kierkegaard's, despite being presented above as if this is all one quote. So we can really consider it a false quote.

Now, "The Journals" must refer to the "Journalen" (Danish for journals), which were... well, journals. Kierkegaard wrote a lot of his thoughts in them, and they were later published. The problem is that simply saying "The Journals" is not particularly useful when one considers the fact that taken altogether, these are thousands of pages long. This is how we know those who copy this have not verified it, for if they had they would be more specific about where it was found.

The good news for us is that the Journals have been translated into English, but they are very lengthy; the English translation I consulted is seven volumes, including an index. However, simply telling us it's in "The Journals" gives us little hint as to where it is.

The English translation I am using is the one from the 1970's entitled "Søren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers". This one does not present the journal entries in the original order, but instead reorders them by subject matter; however, it does present the original locations they were found, which I will include in my citations in parentheses. Now, searching through thousands of pages is infeasible for obvious reasons. But, again, there is an index. On pages 70-71 the Index volume has an entry for Paul (and sub-entries for "Life of Paul" and "Writings of Paul"), which give a list of all the times he is mentioned. So, I decided to look up every single one of these (including the subcategories) to see if I could find this quote.

For the record, most of the volumes are available online. Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 4, and Volume 7 (Index). Unfortunately, volumes 3, 5, and 6 do not seem to be; I had to get the physical copies from a library.

Having looked through every case in the index where it says Paul is mentioned, it appears that the above quote is a hoax. Or, more accurately, the latter portion of it is. The opening can be found, although edited and cobbled together from several different quotes, but everything from "What Martin Luther, at the Reformation" to the end appears made up.

However, even the less inaccurate beginning portion is not exactly accurate either, being an edited conglomeration of multiple separate things Kierkegaard says. In #4455, page 296 of volume 4 (X1 A 383 n.d. 1849) he writes the following:

"As soon as the religious leaves the existential present, where it is sheer actuosity, it immediately becomes milder. The process of religion's becoming milder and thereby less true is directly recognizable by its becoming a doctrine. As soon as it becomes doctrine, the religious does not have absolute urgency.* In Christ the religious is completely present tense; in Paul it is already on the way to becoming doctrine.
One can imagine the rest! And the tendency to become essentially a matter of doctrine, the complete departure from the religious begins, and this trend has been kept up for God knows how many centuries.
In margin: * Note. There comes to be more and more delay before I get around to doing it, and finally (when the religious has become doctrine completely) it all becomes total delay."

Bolded is the section from the quote. So we do see "is completely present tense". However, this does not quite match the quote; in the actual statement he says "In Christ the religious is completely present tense" but the alleged quote swaps it to "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense." This difference, perhaps, can be ascribed to difference of translation. What cannot be ascribed to translation difference is the fact that the alleged quote follows this with "Jesus is the prototype", but this is nowhere to be found in the actual quote, which continues differently. The next sentence of the alleged quote is from Kierkegaard, but from a different part of his work entirely. So the alleged quote has simply plucked one sentence out of context and then, without using any kind of ellipsis to admit it, acts as if what came afterwards came right after.

The next portion of the alleged quote is "Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner". This is an edited version of something Kierkegaard says in another entry altogether. In section 1877 (x3 A 409 n.d., 1850) it says, on pages 333-334 of volume 2:

"When Jesus Christ lived, he was indeed the prototype. The task of faith is not to be offended by this particular man who is God, but to believe–and then to imitate [følge efter] Christ, become a disciple.
Then Christ dies. Now, through the apostle Paul, comes a basic alteration."

I have bolded the sections that match the quote (or at least sort of match it); the bracketed text is in the translation I consulted. As one can easily see, the quote skips over various things Kierkegaard said with no indication it is doing so. Kierkegaard goes on in this entry, and the quote then skips over multiple sentences until it reaches the next part of the quote which I bolded:

"He puts infinite stress on the death of Christ as the Atonement; the object of faith becomes the atoning death of Christ.
In this way the prototype qua prototype is shifted further away. As long as Christ was living and the prototype walked and stood here on earth, existence [Tilværelsen] was as if shattered–the absolute always shatters existence.
Now comes the alteration: the prototype is turned in such a way that his very death, his death of Atonement, becomes particularly emphasized.
While the apostle is enunciating this doctrine, his life meanwhile expresses imitation. But in order that no blasphemy may appear, as if the apostle thought he could attain to Christ by imitating him, he draws attention away from imitation and fixes it decisively upon the death of Christ the Atoner.
This is Christianity for us men. Christ's life on Earth is Christianity, which no man can endure."

So the alleged quote skips over all of those sentences until it reaches the bolded part, which it cuts into mid-sentence, removing the context. After that the alleged quote turns to being severely critical of Paul, which is not what Kierkegaard does at all afterwards. Here is the rest of that entry, showing what he actually said:

"Then in the course of time imitation or discipleship, again misconceived, is emphasized.
Then Luther puts the relationship straight again.
But then Luther is misused. Imitation is excluded completely and "grace" is taken in vain.
Imitation there must be, but not in such a way that one becomes self-important by it or weeks thereby to earn salvation. No, grace is the decisive factor.
But if the relationship is to be true, then it is particularly "grace," grace alone, which must be declared by the person whose life nevertheless expresses imitation in the strictest sense. If the person who is preaching grace is someone whose life expresses the opposite of imitation, then it is taking grace in vain. No, but when someone whose life rigorously expressed imitation preaches grace, then the relationship is true–grace, in very truth, is kept at par value. The more it might seem, humanly speaking, as if such a person were almost looking for credit, the more true his proclamation is that it is sheer grace by which a man is saved.
Here we see again that Christianity is related to the person who proclaims it–consequently it is as far as possible from a "doctrine.""

Outside of sharing a mention of Luther, this bears no resemblance to the rest of the quote attributed to Kierkegaard (claiming "Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ"). 

Is the rest of the quote ("What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.") found anywhere else? The only thing I have found is the following statement in section 3213 (XI2 A 325 n.d., 1854), where on page 480 we see:

"And so it is with my observation (which is so extremely necessary, particularly in Protestantism, because all Christendom's knavish tricks are connected with a continued effort, under the name of progress, of getting rid of the master and taking one's stand with the disciple, and then taking advantage of the fact that the apostle, who personally did not compromise, gave in a little, and while perfecting Christianity, threw Christianity away completely, turning it upside down, getting it to be just the opposite of what it is in the Christian proclamation)–my observation that the apostle's proclamation in the quoted examples does not have the passion of the unconditioned, as the master's did." 

This matches up--somewhat--with "threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ" although not quite--there are some differences that don't seem to be something one could attribute simply to an alternate translation. But at least the general substance is the same. However, we run into a big problem: The alleged quote explicitly puts Paul at the start ("Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away...") which is not found above. Now, the above quote is written in a confusing fashion that leaves it unclear (from itself) whether Kierkegaard is saying it was Paul or later people misusing Paul who threw Christianity away, but looking at the larger context makes it clear Kierkegaard is referring to later people.

For those wondering what the "quoted examples" above are, Kierkegaard is saying that Paul "gave in a little" to the masses. His first example is Jesus's "Everyone who looks at a women lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28, and yes, the English text does say "a women"; I do not know if this was an error of translation or them faithfully transcribing an error in the original language). Kierkegaard reads this as absolute, but reads Paul's "it is better to marry than to burn" as more conditional, and says that over time this concession of marriage is changed into the idea that everyone must marry. The other is Paul's statement "Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach" (1 Timothy 5:23) which he views as a concession compared to Jesus's "Hate yourself; if your right hand tempts you, cut it off". It is hard for me to see how these statements of Paul's are giving in, as Kierkegaard reads them; Jesus said not to look at women with lust or else it is adultery (although not explicitly stated, the context clearly means this does not apply to one's own wife), so all Paul is doing is saying that getting married averts this sin. The other example barely seems to even relate; how is Paul suggesting one drink a little wine for your stomach in any way a concession in regards to Jesus's metaphorical statement about cutting your hand off? The only thing I can think of is perhaps Kierkegaard reads Jesus's statement as in referring to alcohol and that one should cut off alcohol, whereas Paul permits it in limited cases... but apart from the fact Jesus said nothing about alcohol in that quote, Jesus's water into wine miracle indicates there is no blanket opposition to alcohol. Now, those who assert the Bible absolutely prohibits alcohol normally explain this by asserting that the Greek word in John 2:9 (describing he water to wine) does not necessarily mean an alcoholic beverage, but then the same thing can be asserted for Paul's statement, as he uses the same word.

Regardless, even if one accepts Kierkegaard's interpretation, Kierkegaard's problem is not really with these supposed concessions of Paul and rather with what later people did with them. He indeed explicitly says "No one, unless he deliberately wants to, can misunderstood me, as if I did not show the apostle the honor due to him, something no one does more willingly or promptly than I." So the statement of "threw Christianity away completely, turning it upside down, getting it to be just the opposite of what it is in the Christian proclamation" is referring to later people misusing Paul. The word "Paul" is misleadingly inserted into the alleged quote despite not being there in the actual quote and in context not referring to Paul.

In regards to the remaining portion of the quote, namely "What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ", as far as I can tell it is not anywhere in there. That portion appears completely made up (not that the other portions were exactly accurate, but at least they were sort of from it).

I did rely on the Index, so there is a possibility that it was missed in the Index. The problem is, having read all of the other things in the journals that mention Paul, Kierkegaard is clearly positive about him. Does one think the same man who wrote " I do not listen to Paul because he is brilliant or incomparably brilliant, but I submit to him because he has divine authority" would be claiming Paul subverted Christianity? (the quote I gave is from from 3088, page 405 of volume 3 (VII2 B 256:9 n.d., 1846-47)).

However, someone might claim that Kierkegaard changed his mind and the alleged quote comes from later in his life. Now, it is true that Kierkegaard, later in life, grew very disillusioned by what he referred to as "Christendom", most specifically the Church of Denmark, and as we'll see in the upcoming quote, even disclaimed the title of Christian due to dislike of what it meant in the modern day. Here is the following from "The Instant, No. 10" in the section entitled "My Task" which is dated to September 1, 1855. This is found in the work "Attack upon Christendom" (1963 English translation) which on pages 282-283 states the following in a lengthy footnote he made:

"NOTE. Inasmuch as I have made a critical comment upon "the Apostle," the following is to be noted. (1). I am entirely within my rights, for the Apostle is only a man. And my task requires that it must be followed out to the extreme. If in the teaching of the Apostle there is found even the least degree anything that can be related to what in the course of the centuries has become the sophistic which consumes all true Christianity, I must raise an outcry, lest the Sophists at once appeal to the Apostle. (2). It is of great importance, especially for Protestantism, to straighten out the prodigious confusion Luther has brought about by inverting the relationship, and in effect criticizing Christ by Paul, the Master by the disciple. I on the other hand have not criticized the Apostle, as though I were something, I who am not even a Christian. What I have done is to hold up Christ's preaching alongside the preaching of the Apostle. (3). One thing it is to be able intellectually to make a true observation, it is something else to want to belittle, to weaken, the Apostle, from which certainly I am as remote as anybody."

Kierkegaard is clearly objecting to what he views as misuse of Paul, but explicitly says he has not criticized Paul, does not want to belittle or weaken Paul, and that he holds up the preaching of Jesus alongside Paul. These are not the words of someone who would say "Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ." And this is from September of 1855, only two months before he died, so it is rather implausible he should have had such a turnaround to being so strongly anti-Paul.

So the alleged quote seems to have taken several separate things Kierkegaard actually said, changed them a bit (including inserting "Paul" in a place his name was not found, in order to change Kierkegaard complaining about misuse of Paul into Kierkegaard actually attacking Paul himself), edited them together with no indication it was taking things from different writings, and then adding in some things that were just made up. The most honest part are the beginning sentences, but those are also the ones that lack he controversy of the later ones, which are made up or misrepresented. This quote is usually held up as showing Kierkegaard had some kind of dislike of Paul, but one has to misrepresent his actual words to reach that conclusion when Kierkegaard disavows it. It is indeed ironic that Kierkegaard himself says "No one, unless he deliberately wants to, can misunderstood me, as if I did not show the apostle the honor due to him, something no one does more willingly or promptly than I." It seems that whoever cobbled this misrepresented quote together was very much deliberately misunderstanding Kierkegaard! I think we can ultimately call this alleged quote a hoax.

I understand that not everyone has the time to do what I did, but surely the vagueness of the citation--not giving any page number or edition--should be a tip-off that the quote is questionable and people should avoid citing it without verification? And yet, as is the case with so many of these sorts of vaguely cited quotes, some people see them and just assume they're accurate when they're not. And if someone does not care enough about getting things right to avoid a mistake like this, why should one believe that they care enough about getting other things right, such as any other vaguely cited quotes they offer?

(this post was updated with some more information on 12/8/25)