Did Schleiermacher Go Overboard? Reading The Star of Redemption and The Christian Faith Together
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for this contribution which continues to work on a desideratum in the interpretation of Rosenzweig's "Star". It was a necessary step to integrate Schleiermachers's "Glaubenslehre" into discussion, and not to be content with the "Reden" Rosenzweig refers to.
Perhaps it could be a deepening of the comparison to add the topic of pantheism which Rosenzweig is very critical of while the thinking of Schleiermacher seems to carry its legacy.
Another point seems to be that Rosenzweig has not accepted the thesis of Schleiermacher that the church "must be separated out from the world", since in his perspective he saw an amalgamation of Christianity with the "world" of nationalism which he only could reject.
This, however, may be the subject of further investigation.
Author Response
I would like to begin by saying that I am grateful that the editors were able to secure reviewers who are so knowledgeable about Rosenzweig and Schleiermacher. I very much appreciate that reviewer 1 understands the importance of reading the Star and the Glaubenslehre together. Reviewer 1 makes a very insightful comment that it would be worthwhile to consider Spinoza and pantheism in Schleiermacher and Rosenzweig. I wholeheartedly agree with that but I think that analysis would require it's own study. I had a significant amount of material to deal with in this article and I wanted to stay away from disputed matters as much as possible. Reviewer 1 also notes that the church is not outside the world for Rosenzweig but just the opposite. That was precisely the point that I was trying to make and I have done my best to clarify that matter in the article. Thank you, again, to reviewer 1 for working through this long and somewhat tedious article!
Reviewer 2 Report
Nice work. I like comparisons of the classical thinkers in religion/theology. Two main points, minor but significant to this reader: 1) The words of the title "Did Schleiermacher go overboard?" don't connect well or describe the paper! Overboard with respect to what? Saying Judaism is dead? Developing a system of theology? Or what? Bulk of paper shows how Rozensweig's Star, against expectations, frames a Judaic argument that approximates some of the Christian theologian's teachings. Better title? Something like: "Friedrich Schleiermacher: An Unlikely Presence in The Star of Redemption?"
2) FS is represented as having departed from the view that divine revelation occurs in history. How does that square with his large treatment of historical theology in Brief Outline of the Study of Theology? Or with his 5th address in Speeches with its commitment to the history of religion(s)? The "heroes of religion," whether Moses, Christ, or others, are steeped in and only flourish in and through history. Author may disagree, but I think the references to Schleiermacher and history need more nuance.
Author Response
Thank you to the editors for finding two reviewers with extensive knowledge of both Rosenzweig and Schleiermacher. I very much appreciate it. I appreciate reviewer 2's concern that the paper might be mistitled. That is a hard topic to bring up! I do not consider myself particularly gifted in titling papers and courses, so I appreciate the input. In this case, I have tried to address the meaning of the title at several points in the paper. It's a bit of a risk but I would like to keep the title as it is. I like the visual nature of Rosenzweig's argumentation/rhetoric and I would like to extend that by implanting the image that Schleiermacher has inadvertently gone overboard (in the secondary scholarship but not the Star). Reviewer 2 is absolutely correct that Rosenzweig's critique of Schleiermacher on the subject of history is deeply flawed and takes no account of Schleiermacher's Brief Outline. I have added a footnote that mentions reviewer 2's comment and my agreement with it. I have also added a number of footnotes related to history throughout the paper that go some way in correcting that the reviewer has rightly identified. The truth is that I am a philosopher of religion masquerading as a historian of ideas and I have limited facility on that score. Thank you, again, to reviewer 2 for giving such a careful read to a long and tedious article.
