Text Chosen for an English Critical Edition
1. Choice of original text. It was time for a fresh translation of Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith. The admirable and portable one-volume translation (1928) edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart had shown scholars the value of Schleiermacher’s detailed arguments, and their translation quickly superseded the translated excerpts published by George Cross in 1911. But the years have also made visible several significant shortcomings that the volume in your hands seeks to remedy.
2. Major reasons for the choice and implications. This translation is a first English critical edition. The editors have chosen to translate the originally published text of 1830–1831. It was overseen, with his typically rigorous care, by Schleiermacher and possibly by staff of his friend Georg Reimer, the Berlin publisher. We have examined subsequent critical German editions and have found ourselves accepting fewer than ten of the many hundreds of conjectural decisions about words and punctuation appearing in them. Each of these has been discussed in the editorial notes as it appears in the main text. Thus, we have found the original 1830–1831 publication of this second edition of Christian Faith to be a primary source sufficient to provide a carefully annotated critical translation into English.
The need for a critical English edition is most evident in three areas. First, the 1928 translation team of eight scholars did not come to agreement about how to consistently translate terms that Schleiermacher himself used with careful consistency. Hence, some of the interconnected thinking providing the backbone of the entire work was obscured. This result was exacerbated by a necessarily incomplete editing of the entire translation before its release in 1928. Some significant errors crept in along with a number of misunderstandings of the text. The present translation has been scrupulous about consistency in translation of such terms and has made visible many of those choices in the footnotes, so that scholars who read German can recognize the range of meanings in Schleiermacher’s own word choices at key points. All three translators have worked in succession with every proposition, challenging and clarifying choices and instilling consistency across the whole.
Second, Christian Faith is written in conversation with the New Testament, thirty-two confessional documents, fourteen Greek Fathers, ten Latin Fathers, and at least fifteen theologians of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries. Schleiermacher quoted most of them in their original languages of publication, usually Latin or Greek. The 1928 translation left these quotations in those languages, obscuring the ways in which the main text is a direct response to particular formulations proposed in those texts. The two latest, seventh and eighth critical German editions by Redeker and Schäfer (1960 and 2003), have left the original languages too. This present translation has located English translations for every quotation, providing the reader with references to both the translation and an original language source, using widely available sources when possible. The fewer than 120 quotations for which translation was not already available we had translated by Latinists Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Kathleen Kienzle. These are also specified in the footnotes. The conversation which Schleiermacher created with these texts is now fully visible in English.
Third, Schleiermacher himself included footnotes that referred the reader to other propositions within Christian Faith and to several of his other works. His most frequent references are to Brief Outline, which he had recently revised, then reissued earlier in 1830, and to the third, much-revised edition of On Religion (1821), which he also reissued in 1831. This translation has expanded his practice and provided further references to both of those works as well as to his sermons based on New Testament texts that are named in Christian Faith. With these footnotes, several of his technical terms gain clarity, since some of them were developed in other works.
Schleiermacher’s Plan and Ours
3. Schleiermacher’s plan for reorganizing. In 1829, as Schleiermacher was about to begin revising the 1821–1822 edition of Christian Faith, he published two open letters to his friend Friedrich Lücke largely containing replies to its critics but also some plans for revising it. The wise, plenteously annotated English translation of these open letters by James O. Duke and Francis Fiorenza (1981) is an indispensable resource for serving both interests. Therein he expresses puzzlement over the flood of misreadings he had faced and is resolved further to refine the passages on which they had focused, but he also doubts that he can succeed in dissuading many of his critics, presumably because of well-ingrained habits and profound differences (our conjecture). He would “like to condense the book,” already shorn of the long altercations with other contemporary scholars which fill other such textbooks, but with certain restraints placed upon him: (1) he has already been so near to aphoristic conciseness in the propositions themselves that he dare not much reduce the explanatory subsections, and (2) although for him, understanding an author’s writings “as a whole” is a strongly held matter of principle, he also believes that this particular work must be “understandable” in and of itself, not “swollen” with references to his other works (OG 73f.). (Believing that this quandary must be resolved, we have chosen to make some of this large body available at least by reference and to supply a great many more cross-references within the work as well.) For educational reasons given, he would also exclude the customary bibliographical material and references to passages (OG 74f.), which have now been supplied in KGA I/7.3 (1984) to a considerable extent. Despite the large number of patristic texts in the present bibliography, he would also restrict them, if possible, to the oldest and most influential (OG 76).
Now, Schleiermacher did keep to his promises in these two letters, written as he was also about to enter his fiftieth semester as a university professor (OG 87), including clarifications of doctrinal matters. At the same time, however, he promised not to “simplify,” not to let substantive “philosophical” content creep into dogmatics, and not to resort to “ordinary” language. He also held that the main issues dividing those of rationalist and supernaturalist persuasions were themselves based on “misconceptions,” a claim he did try to substantiate in the new edition. One large quandary that he found no clear resolution for, however, was whether he should try largely to reverse the order of the book itself. This would chiefly require that he start with Scripture and the core doctrines regarding Christ and the church, then move to using the Part 1 propositions, and somewhere work in the introductory matter. Adopting this arrangement, however, would lead to confusions of its own making and would not obviate difficulties inherent in the matter to be considered. So, he gave up the whole idea (OG 55–60). That leaves us to make only one recommendation to readers, one definitely not for beginners, however. Be sure to identify where the core of doctrine lies (not a set of detailed bits and pieces), then perhaps you really would like to try to read what he gave us, section by section, backward!
4. Our corresponding plan for translating. First, then, as partly indicated in the guide for readers, all three of the translators entered into this project as extensive, long-term scholars of Schleiermacher’s works, including a goodly number already translated by Tice and Lawler. However, we have put into this translation new learnings gathered in the process. We did a four-plus-stage process to assure precision and quality control. Thereby we constantly checked for overall accuracy, sweep, ease of understanding, and supportive details. Much effort was required by the conciseness of the German text itself. Among all his works, Schleiermacher especially strove for strictness of argument and conciseness of statements in this one.
This is very much a joint work. First and later drafts were done by Tice, as were all but a few of the notes. Each draft was commented on in countless interchanges among the three of us. Germanist Lawler made proposals for revision on nearly every page. Kelsey suggested revisions, also on nearly every page, to smooth the flow of the English and to clarify theological meanings, based also on her close reading of the German text. Final revisions were then determined by agreement between the two editors. Editorial management of the text through these steps to the final text was handled by Kelsey.
5. Following Schleiermacher’s rules for translation. We have followed Schleiermacher’s own recommended procedures for producing a genuine, precise translation. His procedures, in our view, offer the best general theory available for rendering a translation and thus interpreting an author’s text. In doing so, we have followed his rules for hermeneutical and critical interpretation as well.
Schleiermacher was himself a skilled translator. He translated sermons from English into German (1790–1802), then Plato’s dialogues from Greek into German (mostly in 1804–1809). The multiple volumes of sermons were by the eminent London pulpit orator Joseph Fawcett and the masterful Edinburgh preacher and teacher of rhetoric Hugh Blair. They surely gave him fine models of English discourse to reflect on. Plato’s dialogues added further to his ability to provide communication using exact presentation and argument. His now highly influential views on hermeneutics and criticism were significantly informed by his experience as a translator. As translators, we are also quite familiar with his writings concerning translation and have sought to follow his principles in our work. Thus, we have paid close attention to grammatical and stylistic details in his writing. We have taken special notice of his rigorous grammatical and author-related rules, in some respects an effort made easier to fulfill by his example and by his scrupulous, at times almost mathematical style in Christian Faith.
6. The title and German gendered nouns. We have appreciated Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s fine analysis in “On Mistranslated Book Titles” (Religious Studies 20, no. 1 [March 1984]: 27–42), which specifically counseled dropping “The” before Schleiermacher’s title. We have done this in our writings for many years. We have also carefully considered when the English “the” is or is not consistent with Schleiermacher’s meaning. German requires the definite article in situations where English does not. As a result, this work, being one account of faith shared by Christians among many possible accounts in Schleiermacher’s view, translates Der christliche Glaube without the definite article “the” in the title, thus Christian Faith. On the other hand, der heiligen Geist, which refers to one specific place and functioning of one Spirit, is rendered “the Holy Spirit.”
7. Translation of Mensch. In accordance with Schleiermacher’s own views regarding the conventional term Mensch, we translate it as gender-inclusive. Thus we use “humans,” “human beings,” or in a few instances where the word refers to the entire species “humanity.” In rare instances in the singular it specifies “male.”
8. Concise expression in style. We had first to grasp what Schleiermacher had done to shorten Christian Faith as much as he could and still be crystal clear, largely a matter of tracking grammar. We took seriously his shift from carefully measured rhetorical style in sermons and some other works to a scientifically rendered didactic-dialectical style here. As the index will help show, we kept terms of key importance the same in English throughout. The index also shows that, in effect, concepts often take many words to represent, and not only nouns.
9. Shorter sentences and more little words. We broke down his typically long sentences, fortunately guided in his use of “little words” like these: and, but, so, thus, hence, therefore, nevertheless, also, even, though, for, because, since, on account of, for the sake of, in order to. We have always translated doch (nevertheless, nonetheless, etc.) because in Schleiermacher’s usage in this work it is always a logical operator. In short, we used pointers like these, and many others, to identify where and how we could make shorter sentences without diverging from what Schleiermacher’s typically long sentences were conveying. Often we also filled in references proceeding from ever-gendered German nouns that had been replaced by pronouns in the text—sie (she), er (he), and es (it) and counterpart indicators such as diese (this), jene (that). Thereby we have also tried to be sure that the English is as precise as the German.
Occasionally Schleiermacher employed kinds of usage requiring such language as “would,” “could,” and “were.” In his German grammar, present tense is often used where writers of English would use past tense, or past perfect—though these are both available for use in German. On rare occasions, Schleiermacher’s discourse might require a future perfect where he is considering an imagined future event within which he is moving backward in time within or before that event but would only specify that turn with some qualifying term (“before which,” “earlier,” “referring back to,” etc.). We could easily make the past reference clearer to English readers than would be possible using an “is” or “was,” and we regularly did so. Sometimes he can and does use the conditional sense of “would,” and the like, to refer to a condition that specifies an identifying or qualifying meaning, one that might otherwise be missed. He is uneven in this practice, whereas in some cases we could not afford to be so if we were to convey his clear meaning, one already given in context. The subjunctive was not then much in use for specifying various options considered on the way to or from stating one’s own position. Thus, typically he does not employ it, again because he has other ways of separating such views from his own, whereas such stratagems could not be copied or would sound unnecessarily awkward in English. To avoid confusion, we have often needed to resort to subjunctive substitutes for “is,” “was,” “can,” and the like in his explanatory accounts. Through such choices we have sought to achieve in English academic prose the clarity and precision of Schleiermacher’s German.
Supplemental Aids to Understanding
10. Editorial footnotes. In the process of identifying translations for Schleiermacher’s quotations in the footnotes, we have handled the original text of almost everything referred to in his notes and have corrected identifying details provided in the 1830–1831 and, on occasion, later editions. The few exceptions were a small number of obscure seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Latin texts. These were quoted at length in the third accompanying volume to Hermann Peiter’s provision of the KGA’s first edition (1821–1822), KGA I/7.3 (1984), to a few of which we alert the reader. Throughout the notes we have updated the nineteenth-century spellings when we have quoted the German in order to facilitate the curious reader’s being able to find words in a contemporary dictionary. Not surprisingly, providing the 3,148 footnotes to this translation has engaged about half of the total effort of the project.
11. Schleiermacher’s notes. We have made clear which notes are from Schleiermacher himself, in every case further identified and translated, by explicitly beginning every editor’s note with “Ed. note:”. Where his handwritten marginal notes, added to his copy of the 1821–1822 edition, were particularly informative, not simply titles to remind him where he was when lecturing, we translated these. Thönes (1873) provided these texts. Almost all of this apparatus was cooperatively contributed by Tice and Kelsey. This huge effort might seem counter to Schleiermacher’s intention to shave down the text. However, it is very much a part of the interpretive-translative task required for this same work now. This is so, because (a) it has been greatly misunderstood in the past, and (b) it is now even more likely not to be grasped accurately, in an atmosphere of many contending interpretations, old and new. We have tried to include only such commentary as would be useful for understanding what Schleiermacher said, though, despite this principle, admittedly not entirely forsaking our own informed slant.
12. Schleiermacher’s sermons. During the period in which this translation was being completed, the Kritische Gesamtausgabe (KGA) Abteilung III, to appear in more than thirteen sizeable volumes containing Schleiermacher’s sermons, was also being published. We regret not being able to identify all of the sermons that we have cited in their KGA edition as well. However, knowing the date on which a sermon was preached will enable a reader easily to locate the KGA volume containing the desired sermon text. Since the KGA includes some sermon transcripts and sermon outlines never before published, there may be a few sermons on New Testament texts referred to in the notes here that we have not been able to cite. This KGA Abteilung is a wonderful resource, one that significantly enlarges areas for scholarly investigation for readers of German.
13. Grasping the arguments. Always we have asked whether we have understood the argument being made in the German and then asked how to render it in English clearly and in Schleiermacher’s own meaning and linguistic intent. To accomplish this second level of translation, we have viewed the work as an interconnected whole, as he both counseled and facilitated. Moreover, we have seen Schleiermacher’s corpus to be internally consistent to a remarkable degree, particularly in his use of terminology throughout his mature work and his frequent cues in this one. We have rendered his terminology in light of his own usage, itself often defined differently and independently of his predecessors and colleagues. To accomplish this goal, we have paid close attention to definitions of terms found within Christian Faith and to definitions in his other works, particularly Brief Outline. We have also used the notes to refer readers to word usage from one portion to another within Christian Faith. We have taken pains to be consistent in translation of all these terms.
One of our goals has been to continue conversation about the shared faith of Christians. If this translation initiates further conversations, it will have met that key goal.