Brevard Childs

Udo Schnelle and Eugene Boring on “Geschichte”, “Historie”, and “Historik”: with special guests Jens Schröter, Chris Keith, and Brevard Childs

Posted by

0

Today’s post will discuss a noteworthy quotation from Udo Schnelle on his use of the terms “Geschichte“, “Historie“, and “Historik“, which also includes an instructive translator’s note by Eugene Boring (= MEB). The following quotation is taken from Udo Schnelle. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, p. 27n5:

Main text: How was history (Geschichte) made and how does research and writing about history (Historie) take place? Footnote 5: Regarding terminology: I use the German terms “Geschichte”/“geschichtlich” to refer to what happened, and “Historie”/“historisch” to indicate the ways in which historians attempt to determine what this was. “Historik” refers to the philosophical theory of history. Cf. H./W. Hedinger, “Historik”, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (ed. Karfried Gründer et al.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974). “Geschichte” is never directly available except as “Historie,” but nonetheless the two concepts and terms must be distinguished, because the questions posed from the point of view of philosophical theories of history are not simply identical with “what happened” as that was understood by people in the past. [The German language has two words for “history,” while English has but one. Many German authors, including some quoted by Schnelle, use the two words interchangeably. The nuances distinguished by Schnelle are sometimes difficult to preserve in English. Since the context usually makes clear which meaning is intended, I have generally rendered both words by history and its cognates, though sometimes using event or story for Geschichte to preserve the author’s nuance, or rendering geschichtlich by historic in contrast to historical. See note 2 in § 2.1 below. Here the original reads: “Wie entsteht Geschichte/Historie?” – MEB]

Analysis: This quotation is interesting for several reasons. From the perspective of the subject matter, it is noteworthy insofar as Schnelle recognizes the need to distinguish between two different concepts, namely between “what happened” and “the ways that historians attempt to determine what this was”, and decides to mark this distinction terminologically, namely by using “Geschichte” for the former and “Historie” for the latter. Jens Schröter makes a somewhat comparable move in distinguishing between “past” and “history” (see e.g. From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 98n12 and pp. 22-24), and in his inaugural lecture at St Mary’s University Chris Keith makes a related distinction between “the actual past”, “the (commemorated/received/inherited) past,” and the “present” (see here, esp. 14:22-16:44, 19:20-23:10, 25:18-30:22, 31:47-34:27, 36:21-39:15, 42:30-42:56, 44:00-46:03, 46:04-50:52, 56:32-57:22). Secondly, it is notable that Eugene Boring has difficulty maintaining Schnelle’s terminological distinction in his translation, which could be viewed as an argument against this usage. Thirdly, it is conspicuous insofar as other scholars distinguish between Geschichte and Historie in rather different ways, which is probably an even stronger argument against Schnelle’s usage. For example, in The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul, Brevard Childs writes:

“In a real sense, there is an analogy between his [Gerhard Lohfink’s] categories and those of Martin Kähler between Geschichte and Historie. Geschichte is the historical reflections on events and conditions carried on within a confessing community of faith. Historie is the attempt to understand events from an objective, scientific analysis, applying ordinary experience, apart from any confessional content, as the measure of its credibility” (p. 165; cf. Daniel Driver, Brevard Childs Biblical Theologian for the Church’s One Bible, p. 18).

[Similarly, David Jasper writes: “Historie is a description of how events actually happened; Geschichte is a description of what events mean, both to those who first experienced them and to us now. In other words Geschichte is also concerned with contemporary present-day experience. History is not just about the past; it is about the present” (A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics, p. 93, cited by Walter Moberly, Old Testament Theology, p. 92) and in this vein Karl Barth wrote “Not all history is ‘historical’ [Nicht alle Geschichte ist “historisch”]” (Church Dogmatics III/I:61-94, esp. 80; cited by Walter Moberly, Old Testament Theology, p. 92).]

With a view to all of these observations, I think that Schnelle’s attempt to distinguish terminologically between “what happened” and “the ways that historians attempt to determine what this was” is salutary, but I am not convinced that using Geschichte and Historie to do so is the best way forward, and I also have some reservations about Schnelle’s way of formulating the concepts that need to be distinguished. I find Schröter’s distinction between “past/events” and “history” preferable as a way of speaking about “what happened” and “what (ancient and modern) historians do” (without this being limited to the ways that historians attempt to determine what happened but rather related more closely to the ways in which historians represent the past in the present with reference to the sources that are available to us). If Chris Keith’s more differentiated terminology is drawn upon, then I think it works well to distinguish between “the actual past”, “the inherited past”, and “the present”, whereas I find it somewhat unhelpful to simply speak of “the past” with reference to something other than “the actual past” (even if this usage is widespread in social memory research) since this usage is likely to be misunderstood by many New Testament scholars (for my own confusion on this point and Chris Keith’s helpful clarification, see here: Part II: 41:54-43:50).

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

On preserving the distinction between bewahren and bewähren when tested: A note on the translation of Ernst Käsemann’s book On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene

Posted by

0

Since this post will focus on an issue of translation pertaining to the work of Ernst Käsemann, let me precede the blog post proper with some links to other material pertaining to Käsemann’s life and thought (see here).

The gist of this blog post is simple: readers and translators of German texts must take care not to confuse the similar words “bewahren” and “bewähren”, since confusing these two terms can result in a significant shift of meaning. The two words can be defined as follows:

bewahren: According to dict.cc: “to preserve, to retain, to conserve, to enshrine [fig.], to safeguard, to save, to husband”. According to Linguee: “preserve, keep, retain, save, perpetuate, screen (from), enshrine, conserve”.

(sich) bewähren: According to dict.cc: “to prove oneself, to stand the test”. According to Linguee: “stand the test”, “prove”.

In order to develop the importance of this point, let me develop it further in relation to my interaction with the translation of Ernst Käsemann’s posthumously published essays.

The process of writing my 2011 RBL Review of Ernst Käsemann’s book On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene played an extremely important role in the development of my thinking. In short, it both confirmed and sharpened my conviction that “Every decent theology was, is, and will be a theology of liberation” (Ernst Käsemann; cf. Bob Dylan’s great song Blowin’ in the Wind). As often before, Käsemann helped to shake me from my theological slumber and for this I remain deeply grateful to him and to the editors (Rudolf Landau and Wolfgang Kraus) and translator (Roy A. Harrisville) of this volume.

Prior to reviewing Käsemann’s work, I had greatly benefited from David Way’s 1991 book The Lordship of Christ. Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology, as well as from John Barclay’s 1994 review of this work in Scottish Journal of Theology (Volume 47, Issue 3). With respect to Way’s monograph, I would want to affirm the validity of John Barclay’s criticisms, while placing greater emphasis than Barclay on the abiding strengths and value of this work. Among other things, David Way alerted me to the significance of Ernst Käsemann’s use of “bewähren”. In Way’s words (p. 147n.63; cf. 164 n. 87): “Käsemann’s repeated use of bewähren expresses his understanding of the connection between, on the one hand, the doctrine of justification and, on the other, Christian life and ethics: Christians are not called to do ‘works’ which might be held to earn salvation; nor, however, are they to remain inactive. By service and discipleship, they authenticate, verify, prove, or confirm that they have been transferred to a new lordship” (my emphasis).

Though it is difficult to be certain, I think it was this observation in Way’s book that alerted me to an uncharacteristic slip in Roy Harrisville’s otherwise excellent translation of In der Nachfolge des gekreuzigten Nazareners. In short, while reading the English translation I came across a number of sentences where it seemed to me that the German word “bewahren” lay behind the translation, but where I wondered if the word bewähren may have been present in the German edition. Fortunately, it proved possible to investigate and confirm this hypothesis, and I have attempted to document these findings at the end of my RBL Review.

While this observation may seem minor or trivial to some, for me it has a twofold significance. First, it represents a modest contribution to the study of Ernst Käsemann, since it alerts readers of the English version to a mistake that inadvertently introduced an emphasis on “preservation” that is not characteristic of Käsemann, while simultaneously drawing our attention to one of Käsemann’s more noteworthy emphases, namely his stress on the need for Christians to authenticate, verify, prove or confirm their transfer (and current allegiance) to a new lordship. (As indicated by my addition of the words “and current allegiance”, I wonder if Way’s formulation may be too exclusively backward looking in relation to Käsemann’s viewpoint). Secondly, the fact that a gifted and accomplished translator such as Roy Harrisville appears to have inadvertently mixed up these two terms, reminds the rest of us to remain especially vigilant in our efforts to keep these words distinct.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.