Jens Schröter on the character of every historical (re)presentation – with special guests Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne

Posted by wmcoppins

I was somewhat amused to see that Chris Keith stole my thunder on Friday by concluding his blog post on Jens Schröter with the same quotation that I had selected for this week’s blog post. But hopefully, this is more a case of “great minds think alike” than “Zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke”.

Like my other Schröter posts on historiography, today’s “key quotation” deals with the relationship between historiography and New Testament scholarship. It is taken from Jens Schröter’s discussion of “the historicity of the Gospels” in From Jesus to the New Testament.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text. As a way of illustrating the different ways that a passage can be translated, I will include both Anthony Le Donne’s earlier translation of this passage in The Historiographical Jesus (thunder stolen once again) and my own translation in From Jesus to the New Testament.

The Historiographical Jesus, p. 75: “If every historical construction represents the relationship between event and story (even those that are written within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness) then a contemporary portrait of Jesus cannot simply set aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. On the contrary, this portrait has to be related to these representations and be reconstructed within the rubric of contemporary epistemology. The outcome is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The outcome is a historical construction which claims to be plausible within the rubric of contemporary epistemology.”

From Jesus to the New Testament, pp. 131-132: “If, however, every historical presentation presents a combination of event and narrative, including the kind that is composed under the conditions of the historical-critical consciousness, then a present-day Jesus presentation also cannot simply disregard the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels. Instead, it has to orient itself to them and put them together anew under today’s conditions of knowledge. The result is not the ‘real’ Jesus behind the Gospels. The result is a historical presentation that claims to be plausible under current conditions of knowledge.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 146: “Stellt jedoch jede historische Darstellung eine Verbindung von Ereignis und Erzählung dar, auch eine solche, die unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins verfasst wird, dann kann auch eine gegenwärtige Jesusdarstellung die narrative Repräsentationen der Person Jesu in den Evangelien nicht einfach beiseite stellen. Sie hat sich stattdessen an diesen zu orientieren und sie unter heutigen Erkenntnisbedingungen neu zusammenzusetzen. Das Ergebnis ist nicht der ‚wirkliche‘ Jesus hinter den Evangelien. Das Ergebnis ist eine historische Darstellung, die den Anspruch erhebt, unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen plausibel zu sein.“

Selective Grammatical Commentary: Although I have translated “Darstellung” as “presentation”, it could also be rendered as “representation”, “portrayal” or “portrait” (Le Donne’s “construction” is more free, but I think it accurately unpacks what Schröter is saying). Here, I think it may be preferable to render Darstellung as “presentation” or “portrayal” so that it can be distinguished from Schröter’s subsequent use of “Repräsentationen”/representations. Similarly, “Verbindung” could also be translated as “linking” or “connection” rather than “combination” (Anthony’s “relationship” is also possible). The fact that the sentence begins with the verb “stellt … dar” followed by a subsequent “dann”, lets the reader know that we are dealing with an “if … then” construction. Anthony’s translation of “beiseite stellen” as “set aside” may well be preferable to my choice of “disregard”. As usual the verbs “verfasst wird” and “erhebt” are pushed to the end of the subordinate clauses in which they appear. I think that Anthony’s translation of “Ergebnis” as “outcome” is probably preferable to my choice of “result”. Although I prefer the word “contemporary” (Anthony) to “current” or “present-day”, I tend to avoid it since there is sometimes ambiguity about whether one means contemporary with the ancient or modern situation. I remain uncertain about Anthony’s translation of “unter den Bedingungen des historisch-kritischen Bewusstseins” as “within the rubric of the historical-critical consciousness” and “unter gegenwärtigen Erkenntnisbedingungen” as “within the rubric of contemporary epistemology”, but this may well represent an improvement on my rather wooden translation of these phrases.

Substantive Analysis: In this quotation Schröter makes clear that both past and present-day historical presentations of Jesus involve a combination/linking of event and narrative. In other words, past and present historical portrayals do NOT differ in this respect, but rather in the conditions of knowledge under which they are composed. On the basis of this view of the nature of all historical presentations/portrayals/representations, Schröter then argues against the practice of disregarding/setting aside the narrative representations of the person of Jesus in the Gospels and for an approach that takes its orientation from these portrayals, with the goal of putting them together anew under the respectively current conditions of knowledge. Against this backdrop, it would be interesting for me to hear more about the extent to which Schröter thinks that the presentations of Jesus in the Gospels could (or should) play a role in shaping present-day conditions of knowledge. I also think that it would be interesting to compare Schröter’s approach with that of Udo Schnelle, another German giant who has attempted to appropriate recent research on the theory of history into his scholarship (e.g., Theology of the New Testament and Apostle Paul). So perhaps this could be a good paper topic for some ambitious young graduate student.

For a complete list of my Schröterposts, see here.

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

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

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and here.

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.

Constructing History with Droysen and Jens Schröter

Posted by wmcoppins

German Mondays

In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I have decided to commit myself to making one post each Monday. Hopefully, I will be able to stick to this plan and it will prove a good way to start the week for me and for others.

Model Sentences

In my last post I commented on the phrase “Es geht um” and the words “Wissenschaft/wissenschaftlich” under the category of “words and phrases”. In this post, I wish to introduce the category of “model sentences”, which will involve an English translation of a German sentence (or several German sentences) that I regard as especially insightful or important as well as a concise grammatical commentary and perhaps some critical analysis. In some cases, I will select these sentences from works that I have translated or am translating, but I also want to invite my readers to submit German sentences that they regard as especially important or insightful. For instructions on doing so, see here.

Constructing History with Droysen with Jens Schröter (pp. 25-26; cf. # 2 on p. 31).

As a number of bloggers (see C. Keith 1, M. Skinner, A. Le Donne, L. Hurtado, C. Keith 2, C. Keith 3) have indicated in their responses to the publication of Jens Schröter’s work From Jesus to the New Testament, this book is especially important for its discussion of the relationship between new developments in historiography and New Testament scholarship. In my own view, it is important not only because of the specific perspectives that Schröter himself advances, but also for the way in which he develops these in relation to earlier phases of (German) research (cf. Schröter’s own assessment on p. xi), especially in chapters 1-4. Here, Schröter’s sustained engagement with Johann Gustav Droysen’s work is particularly important (see esp. pp. 11-12 and 22-32). Accordingly, my first “model sentence” will be taken from a section in which Schröter attempts to show how more recent developments in historiography have moved beyond Droysen. I will first provide the quotation in English and then in German, so that my grammatical commentary directly follows the German quotation.

From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 26: “Rather, the occupation with the historical material represents from the beginning an interpretative, meaning-creating activity that does not first begin, as it still does in Droysen’s conception, after the steps of the heuristic and criticism. Rather, the hermeneutical process must be defined more comprehensively than is the case with Droysen: the selection of the sources and their critical analysis are already interpretive activities and thus constituent parts of historical knowing.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, p. 28: „Die Beschäftigung mit dem historischen Material stellt vielmehr von Beginn an eine interpretierende, sinnstiftende Tätigkeit dar, die nicht erst, wie noch in Droysens Entwurf, nach den Schritten der Heuristik und Kritik einsetzt. Der hermeneutische Prozess ist vielmehr umfassender zu bestimmen, als dies bei Droysen der Fall ist: Bereits die Auswahl der Quellen sowie ihre kritische Analyse sind interpretierende Tätigkeiten und damit Bestandteile des historischen Erkennens.“

Vocabulary Help

“Beschäftigung” can sometimes be translated as “occupation”, but “engagement” is often better. “Vielmehr” can often be translated as “rather” or “instead”, though it sometimes has the force of “to a greater degree”. The most difficult word is “Entwurf”, which I have almost always rendered as “conception” in From Jesus to the New Testament (I hope to devote a blog post to this word in the future).

Grammatical Analysis

As a general rule, remember that the order of German phrases follows the acronym TeCaMoLo (Time, Cause, Mode, Location). Any element, though, can be in the first position, whereas the verb always appears in the second position. Here, the subject stands in the first position, namely “Die Beschäftigung mit dem historischen Material”. Since“mit/with” takes the dative we find “dem Material”. When a verb has two parts, part of it is placed in the second position (stellt) and part of its goes to the end (dar). Here, the compound verb is darstellen, which can often be translated as “present” or “represent”, though “portray” is also a good option in many contexts. “Von Beginn an/from the beginning” comes next, as one would expect since it concerns time (Te). The direct object of darstellen is “eine interpretierende, sinnstiftende Tätigkeit”: “eine Tätigkeit/an activity” is the noun, which is modified by the participles “interpretierende” and “sinnstiftende”. Though I was originally translating the former as “interpreting”, I subsequently decided that this was too wooden (at the prompting of Ron Herms) and settled on “interpretive”, whereas I adopted the awkward solution “meaning-creating” for “sinnstiftende” since it was not desirable to transform this participle into a relative clause here. A relative clause is then introduced by “die”, which is feminine singular because it looks back to “Tätigkeit” and nominative since it functions as the subject of the relative clause. Because it is part of a relative clause, the verb einsetzt moves to the end of the sentence. The construction “ist … zu + verb” in the next sentence is always difficult to render. While the wooden solution “is to be defined” is sometimes preferable, it is usually better to adopt translation options such as “must be defined”, “has to be defined,” or “should be defined”. The use of the comparative “umfassender + als” signals a comparison and the verb “ist“ moves again to the end of the subordinate clause. It is probably best to leave “dies” untranslated. In English, it often works best to translate “Bereits/already” with the verb. “Sowie” can sometimes be rendered with “as well as” but “and” is often better. “Damit” is always very hard to render: often it is best to leave it untranslated, but sometimes it can be conveyed well with “thus”, “with this”, or “thereby”. The infinitive “erkennen” has been transformed into a noun (“Erkennen”) by being capitalized, and the “s” together with “des” lets you know it is genitive.

Substantive Analysis

While I will usually forgo a substantive analysis of my model sentences or keep my comments to a minimum, I will be happy if people wish to tackle this (more important) topic for conversation in their comments. As I see it, Schröter’s point here is that while Droysen represented an advance over many of his peers insofar as he had a heightened awareness of the crucial role that was played by the interpretive activity of the historian for some decisive aspects of the historical task, his successors have taken this insight further by stressing that the entire process of constructing a conception of history is shaped by the historian’s interpretive activity.

For my other Schröter posts on historiography, see here.