Judaism’s Christianity

Cohen and Rosenzweig on the Relationship between Judaism and Christianity

In: The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy
View More View Less
  • 1 Arizona State University

In Book iii of The Star of Redemption, Franz Rosenzweig contrasts Judaism and Christianity: Judaism consists in the eternal passage of a people from creation to revelation; it suspends the divide between God’s presence and his worldly manifestation. For Rosenzweig, being Jewish means to be with God in the world. Christianity, however, defers salvation. While Judaism is with God in the world, Christianity retreats from God and the world. Christianity therefore has no “immediacy.” How can both Judaism and Christianity then live in immediacy with God in the world? Seeking to overcome Rosenzweig’s dichotomy, I endeavor to think an immediate relationship with God in the world by turning to one of Rosenzweig’s “biggest names”: Hermann Cohen. Following Cohen, I take it that Judeo-Christian continuity begins before both religions. I wish to explore the passage from the origin to the prophetic that constitutes the idea of a “pure monotheism” in Cohen’s philosophy.

Abstract

In Book iii of The Star of Redemption, Franz Rosenzweig contrasts Judaism and Christianity: Judaism consists in the eternal passage of a people from creation to revelation; it suspends the divide between God’s presence and his worldly manifestation. For Rosenzweig, being Jewish means to be with God in the world. Christianity, however, defers salvation. While Judaism is with God in the world, Christianity retreats from God and the world. Christianity therefore has no “immediacy.” How can both Judaism and Christianity then live in immediacy with God in the world? Seeking to overcome Rosenzweig’s dichotomy, I endeavor to think an immediate relationship with God in the world by turning to one of Rosenzweig’s “biggest names”: Hermann Cohen. Following Cohen, I take it that Judeo-Christian continuity begins before both religions. I wish to explore the passage from the origin to the prophetic that constitutes the idea of a “pure monotheism” in Cohen’s philosophy.

* I would like to thank Michael L. Morgan for his comments on an earlier version of the article.

1

In this essay I propose to argue that particularly in Book iii of his seminal study on Judaism, The Star of Redemption (Der Stern der Erlösung, 1921), the German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig radicalizes the difficult opposition between Judaism and Christianity, which has been underlying his work since World War i, to the point of an insurmountable, and consequently inacceptable, hiatus. Especially after his important exchange in 1916 with his friend, the historian and sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Rosenzweig seeks to invent a philosophy in which only Judaism can suspend the divine between God’s presence and its worldly manifestation.

Because Judaism experiences an incessant conjunction between creation, revelation, and redemption in the world at all times, it can be with God eternally. In contradistinction, Christianity carries, according to Rosenzweig, the heavy weight of a deferred salvific moment. Constantly in anticipation of the παρουσία, Christianity is forced to live in the moment only, at an everlasting distance from its redeemer, without being able to attain eternity in the present. While Judaism is therefore with God in the world, Christianity remains in a position of retreat from God and the world. Christianity, in other words, has no “immediacy.”

Seeking to overcome Rosenzweig’s dichotomy between Judaism and Christianity, I will inquire into the possibility of thinking an immediate relationship with God in the world that will relegate neither Judaism nor Christianity to the background but will apply to both faiths alike. I will ask how both Judaism and Christianity can live in proximity with God in the world, that is, how a genuinely Judeo-Christian mode of being-in-the-world with God can be conceived.

In order to answer these questions, I will turn my gaze to Hermann Cohen’s philosophy. I will try to illustrate that despite Rosenzweig’s testimony to Cohen’s influence upon him, the dichotomies lie deep. Where Rosenzweig attempts to demonstrate a deep-seated divide between Judaism and Christianity, Cohen wishes to exhibit an originary parallelism between Judaism and Christianity by centering on concepts that are common to both. By focusing on what the two religions share theologically, Cohen indicates that it is possible to arrive at a universal understanding of a “correlation” between man and God that is inherent to both religions. It is this concentration on the basic notions of the “holy spirit,” “martyrdom,” and “resurrection” that allows Hermann Cohen to advance a truly Judeo-Christian theory of prophetism “out of the sources of Judaism” that is able to counter Rosenzweig’s exclusive theological framework.

Throughout, I will sketch these differences in position by looking first at Rosenzweig’s philosophical intensification with respect to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, as it is formulated in his letters to Eugen Rosenstock and in Book iii of The Star of Redemption. In the next step, I will strive to examine in what ways Cohen’s philosophy is conducive to the project of a theological correspondence between Judaism and Christianity.

2

In a letter dated August 17, 1919, addressed to Eugen Rosenstock, Franz Rosenzweig wrote the following about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity:

That we Jews are not the “Judgement Day” (der jüngste Tag) is of course right. Judgement Day is of concern to the whole world. We are just, as you write, “the redeemed component of the world” (der erlöste Bestandteil der Welt). However, when it comes, we will not have to relearn (umlernen). Just to relive (umleben). The Jewish world, the world of the law (Gesetz), in which we lived, will break into pieces (zerbricht) then. But the Jewish God does not become a lie. He remains what he was: God. And that is why one may not call Judaism a delusion. Still, if I really wished to rant, I should concede to stubbornness (Verstocktheit), hardness, blindness, and what you will, all vices of the world. But the truth is ours. In Christianity everything goes the other way around. Its world will not break into pieces. However, the one that it called God—it will no longer be able to call so.

It is a matter of terminological precision, that I don’t measure both limitations (beide Begrenztheiten) by the same yardstick. However, I have to do so because of other reasons too. At best, I can admit to what we miss; but, that I renounce what we have, you cannot ask of me. It would be as if I were to ask you to admit that your way is misguided. And I truly do not ask for that. Since I know that it is not.1

Rosenzweig’s meditation on the similarities and differences between Christianity and Judaism seems at first to be a reflection on the opposition between “be[ing] converted” and being “ ‘chosen’ from birth,” thus echoing his memorable correspondence with Rosenstock during World War i.2 As early as 1916, while stationed in Macedonia, Rosenzweig expounded on the “metaphysical basis” of Judaism with an increasingly growing “polemical intensity,” stressing particularly the “three articles” that are to testify to the “unique[ness]” of Judaism.3 Just three years before communicating to Rosenstock his thoughts on Judaism’s relationship to Christianity, Rosenzweig had already insisted on the veracity of Judaism, its historical self-preservation, and its original claim to intimacy with the Father. Judaism revolves around three pillars: “that we have the truth,” “that we are the goal,” and “that God is our Father is the first and most self-evident fact.”4 Although, according to Rosenzweig in 1916, the three positions of truth, historical fulfillment, and fatherhood are at heart overly “limited and narrow” in their “point of view,” hence needing to be eventually “surpassed,” the three “articles” nonetheless conform to the “simplest Jewish instinct.”5 Judaism is bound to an eternal truth by virtue of its immediacy to God as Father. This, in turn, allows Judaism to bear the truth in history throughout all times. Because Judaism recognized before Christianity that the Father is God, and “as a Christian, one has to learn from someone else, whoever he may be, to call God ‘our Father,’” Judaism could be seen as anticipating Christianity.6 Judaism can therefore become a “preparer-of-the-way” for Christianity, as a result of which it can claim its “pride”—which from a Christian perspective appears to be its “stubbornness”—without having to become an “antithesis” of Christianity.7 As long as Judaism and Christianity both accept the Father as their truth, both faiths can remain “within the same frontiers, in the same Kingdom.”8 However bitter the “enmity” between Judaism and Christianity is, Christianity is to be regarded only as an “internal foe,” for the same Kingdom awaits both faiths.9

In a short excerpt of a poem written subsequent to the correspondence—reprinted in the Schocken edition of the Rosenstock-Rosenzweig exchange from 1971 in an essay by Dorothy M. Emmet—Rosenstock will summarize Rosenzweig’s theological position from 1916 as “Enemies in Space, brethren in Time.”10 In Rosenstock’s view, Rosenzweig perceives the unity between Christianity and Judaism to rest on a historical continuity. This continuity is nonetheless invisible in the world as such. Scholarship has understood Rosenstock’s interpretation of Rosenzweig’s theses from 1916 to demonstrate that “in the realm of the spirit Rosenzweig sees the two faiths both as mutually exclusive and yet complementary.”11

This reading of Rosenzweig’s assessment of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity would be perpetuated in commentaries on his most important work, The Star of Redemption (Der Stern der Erlösung). Even when students of Rosenzweig concede that fundamental differences exist between Judaism and Christianity, they argue that the relationship between the two faiths essentially remains one of inner unity. Thus, Leora Batnitzky writes that “the significance of Rosenzweig’s claims about Christianity is not, as most proponents of Jewish-Christian dialogue in Rosenzweig’s name have maintained, that Judaism and Christianity are mutually affirming. There is rather an insurmountable tension between Judaism and Christianity not because they are so different, but because they share so much.”12 This conciliatory stance nevertheless tends to overshadow the more radical views Rosenzweig holds on Christianity in relationship to Judaism. Especially from 1916 onward, when the foundation for The Star of Redemption is being laid, Rosenzweig will portray the gulf dividing Judaism and Christianity with increasing force.13 With the publication of the first edition of The Star of Redemption in 1921, the insuperable distance between Judaism and Christianity will become fully apparent: “Before God therefore, both, Jew and Christian, are workers on the same task. He cannot dispense with either. Between the two, he sets an enmity for all time, and yet he binds them together in the narrowest reciprocity.”14 Judaism and Christianity can never arrive at a concord in time because, although they relate to the same God, their faith in God is fundamentally different. The theater of history displays this eternally unconquerable gap between Judaism and Christianity precisely by placing both faiths side by side.

In his correspondence with Rosenstock during 1916, Rosenzweig had not yet arrived at this conclusion. For the time being, he maintained that if Christianity can learn the significance of God only from another source, then it cannot be privy to a divine revelation without a previous mediator. Christianity can only experience God when it accepts divine truth as secondary to its existence. Without the Father, Christianity lacks its essence. Christianity’s “destiny” thus depends on its “origin.”15 In order for Christianity to develop a historical presence, that is, a proper historicity, it must rely on accepting a teaching that is not its own. When removed from its “origin” Christianity cannot however find its own destiny. Christianity’s “soul” remains primarily dependent on “externals,” which will eventually prevent the Christian faith from fully entering the Kingdom of God.16

By August 17, 1919, with The Star of Redemption—Rosenzweig’s “to be sure, … Jewish book”—largely drafted and re-edited, Rosenzweig would shed some of his reserve.17

The extremes/distinctions (Gegensätze) are now being fought out and remain:

Judaism and Christianity.

Judaism and Islam.18

The universe, in which The Star of Redemption inscribes itself, seeks to point out oppositions, draw distinctions, and establish frontiers between the different faiths, particularly between Judaism and Christianity. With the emergence of world religions the only modus vivendi is one of combat. This mode is not strictly confined to a battle between the “Church and peoples (Völker)” in everyday life,19 but, so Rosenzweig claims in his letter to Eugen Rosenstock of August 17, 1919, it extends to judgement day.20

On doomsday God as the Father will be present, whereas God as the Son will become part of the mundane world. As a result, only those who believed in God as the Father will belong to the end of days. In contradistinction, those who put their faith in God as the Son will forfeit their right to the name of God. The ability to call God “God” will no longer be available to those believers. When the “youngest day” (der jüngste Tag) arrives, Judaism will be left without the daily world of the law, yet it will preserve its God.21 “The Jewish world, the world of the law, in which we lived, will break into pieces then. But the Jewish God does not become a lie. He remains what he was: God.”22 By contrast, Christianity will continue to remain within the confines of its past world, yet without being able to uphold a relationship with its God. “In Christianity everything goes the other way around. Its world will not break into pieces. However, the one that it called God—it will no longer be able to call so.”23 For Christianity the “end of days,” so Rosenzweig implies, must necessarily announce the end of its own God. The Christian God exists only for the present, for today, in its most immediate sense.

In his letter of August 17, 1919 to Rosenstock, Rosenzweig quite clearly does not deny the validity of everyday Christian life. “I do not expect at all of Christians, to be something other than—Christians.”24 Nevertheless, Judaism and Christianity continue to “speak two kinds of language” in matters of “faith” (Glaube).25 They thus maintain a constant state of separation. To honor these divisions, one can only turn to the most personal of all human feelings, namely “love and hope” (Liebe und Hoffnung).26 Here Rosenzweig seems to recast the celebrated verse from 1 Corinthians 13:13; in Luther’s translation, it reads “Nun aber bleiben Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, diese drei; aber die Liebe ist die größte unter ihnen” (Thus remain faith, hope, love, these three; but love is the greatest amongst them).27 According to Rosenzweig’s singular interpretation of the verse, as πίστις, ἐλπίς, and ἀγάπη no longer constitute a triadic yet inseparable unit, but rather two distinct poles of “that which is” (ἐστιν), the former, faith, can only necessitate the latter, love and hope, by way of consequence.28 “But God makes the first move. God wakens faith. Ardor (Begeisterung) must really come first. We must have it in order to be able to love and hope. And God gives it in faith. Because I am aware of that, I respect you in your faith, which I neither see nor understand; because I know, that of it the love that I feel, the hope, grows.”29

If God is the source of both love and hope, while being at the same time confined to the boundaries of one’s own faith, then ultimately neither love nor hope can reconcile the two faiths. Love and hope remain attached to a distinctly human love, which cannot fathom the intricacies of any other set of beliefs. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity cannot escape being mutually blind to one another in matters of faith; they cannot hear or see each other. While forging The Star of Redemption, Rosenzweig begins to endorse the point of view of a decisive “antithesis, Judaism-Christianity”: the God of Christianity is one of pure presentness and pure worldliness, whereas the God of Judaism contains in his presentness sempiternity.30 Indeed, in The Star of Redemption, Rosenzweig will juxtapose Christianity’s “temporality” (Zeitlichkeit) with Judaism’s “eternity” (Ewigkeit) as part of his “theology … as a new theology.”31

3

It is especially in Book iii of The Star of Redemption that Rosenzweig develops his arguments on Judaism and Christianity into both a comprehensive new “theology” as well as a “new philosophy.”32 Thus Book iii assumes a central role in the complex maze that comprises The Star of Redemption. Amidst a series of “points” and “lines,” each representing the “different features” (verschiedenen Charakter) of philosophical and theological reflection assembled in The Star of Redemption, Rosenzweig attributes to Book iii a “dogmatic warranty” (dogmatische Garantie), which, he admits, he can by no means secure for Books i and ii.33 On December 17, 1919, Rosenzweig writes to Margit Rosenstock (“Gritli”) how much he wishes that Book iii of The Star of Redemption could be the whole book. “If only Part iii could be the entire Star.”34 Rosenzweig’s admiration for Book iii turns on the concrete outline it offers of the “most internal frontier” that “separates” Christianity “from Judaism.”35 “Our community,” so Rosenzweig explains, “is fully inserted into Part ii. Part iii exposes the contrast (bringt die Gegenüberstellung) (iii 1 and iii 2) and finally the contention (Auseinander-setzung).”36

In Rosenzweig’s view, Book iii provides an elaborate account of the theological distinctions inherent to Judaism and Christianity by focusing on the historical evolution of the three categories common to all the Adamitic faiths, namely “Creation” (Schöpfung), “Revelation” (Offenbarung),37 and “Redemption” (Erlösung).38 Not to be confounded with Ritschl’s Kantian “historical theology” that, so Rosenzweig claims, follows in the footsteps of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s “fundamental idea” of a disjunction between “faith in relation to knowledge,” Rosenzweig seeks to tie the knot between the categories of faith and knowledge from a strictu sensu “historical [point] of comparison,” that is, from the respective standpoint of Judaism and Christianity.39 If, according to Rosenzweig, Schleiermacher is responsible for “denying the permanent value of the past and anchoring the always present experience of the feeling of belief in the eternal future of the moral world,” then “theological historicism” since Schleiermacher is primarily concerned with renouncing the experience of “life” in time.40 Without inventing a genuine concept of either past or present, the experience advocated by “theological historicism” rests exclusively on an anticipation of a future that cannot redeem itself.

Any theology committed to the legacy of Schleiermacher’s thought must necessarily espouse the concept of expectation as its endpoint. Neither the past nor the present is its object of knowledge. In “theological historicism,” “for faith, the past could only be a trifling matter.”41 Rosenzweig argues that with Schleiermacher a divorce between present, past, and knowledge is introduced into theology. It is this disjunction between the three concepts, which allows Schleiermacher, so Rosenzweig maintains, to associate the notion of knowledge with the concept of futurity. From Schleiermacher onward, the future is set within an eternal yet uncertain horizon. This indistinct horizon being principally moral, it cannot afford any knowledge of faith. With historicity, faith, and knowledge now fully disjointed, faith becomes nothing more than an abstraction. An “orientation of a personal and momentary experienced faith (er-fahrenen Glaubens) towards the pole of certitude” is denied in the tradition of “theological historicism.”42

Rosenzweig’s interpretation of “theological historicism” from Schleiermacher to Ritschl does not limit itself to an academic analysis of a certain current of thought. To be sure, Rosenzweig’s very brief exegesis of apparently only one page from On Freedom (Über die Freiheit), Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Jugendschrift of 1790–1792, relating predominantly to the notion of perpetual personal moral “improvement” (Besserung) in history, suggests Hegel’s influence on Rosenzweig’s reading of the tradition of theology.43 Theology, specifically Christian theology, is first and foremost concerned with instating a “spirit” that “is objectively for itself.”44 Constantly engaged in a dialectical movement, which attempts to bring about a synthesis between the “contrasting” “finite” and “universal side[s]” of spirit, “Christian religion” consummates itself solely as an “abstract power” in Rosenzweig’s perception of Hegel, thus becoming nothing more than a “process” that awaits its realization in a distant indeterminate future.45 Christianity is hence tantamount to a movement “for thinking” from Rosenzweig’s perspective.46

Significant portions of Book iii of The Star of Redemption are devoted to illustrating this particular concomitance between Christianity and “mere thought,” that is, absolute thought. Although, as has often been pointed out, Rosenzweig is largely indebted to Schelling’s narrative of the Johannine, Petrinian, and Paulinian church, which is invested in Joachim of Fiore’s triadic eschatological model of Christianity, Hegel’s “spirit” pervades Rosenzweig’s reflections on Christian theology in Book iii of The Star of Redemption in equal measure.47

Rosenzweig’s criticism is now directed at the “Idea” (Idee) because it is “invisible.”48 His former contention with Hegel’s concept of an absolutely self-sufficient thought is recast in Book iii by way of an opposition between the “historical Jesus” and “the ideal Christ,” more precisely between his “spirit” (Geiste) and his “body.” As long as Jesus “walks in the marketplace of life and compels life to keep under his gaze,” Christianity was bound to an authenticity of faith free from “any dogma.”49 The concrete physical presence of Jesus made it possible for the Christian to “live one’s life under the rule of another life, the life of Christ and, once this has happened, then to live one’s own life solely in the effect of the power flowing from there.”50 According to Rosenzweig, the convergence between “idea” and Christianity is deeply rooted in the moment of crucifixion itself, particularly in the notion of the “Cross.”51 With Christ on the cross becoming the pivotal figure of Christianity, Rosenzweig portrays how, since the emergence of the Petrine church, Christian faith rests on belief in a concept rather than on belief in divine immediacy.

When Christianity looks to the cross for its symbol, it enters the world of imagination. It participates in an aesthetics of inception in time. “The Cross is always beginning, always starting-point of the coordinates of the world.”52 The symbolism of the cross calls for a constant reflection on a Son, who in a remote past, while still being an entirely historical figure made of flesh and blood, effected the redemption of all who believe in him, and who, in a distant unforeseeable future, may bring about the redemptive moment again. However, without Christ’s “Second Coming” (Wiederkunft), Christianity can receive nourishment only from the idea of a past or a future in Christ. Thus the here and now is subordinate to its past or present “mission.”53 For Christianity the “epoch” is nothing more than a prolonged “statis” (Stillstand), a “moratorium of time” (Stundung der Zeiten) on the way to redemption.54 In the hic et nunc, therefore, Christianity can only expand its influence by preaching the gospel to the adherents of pagan religions, who have not yet been converted to the truth. Christianity can consequently grow in space in a here and now come to a standstill, yet it cannot truly attain temporal “completion.”55 There can be no redemption for Christianity in history.

Seeking to overcome the intertwinement between pure “temporality” (Zeitlichkeit), “space” (Raum), and “redemption” (Erlösung) that comprises the “eternal way” (ewigen Weg)56 of Christianity between “the coming and the coming again of Christ,” Rosenzweig turns to Judaism, since in Judaism “beginning and end, are … at every moment equally near, because both are in that which is eternal.”57 Judaism dwells in every instant of time in a “today,” which redeems Judaism for eternity.58 Judaism lives the eternal moment of redemption in every single instant of time, thus experiencing in history the “unconditional trust” and “nearness to God” original to both revelation and redemption.59 For Judaism a life with God and a life in God inhere within each other.60 “The immediacy of all singular human beings (Einzelne) to God in the consummate community (vollkommenen Gemeinschaft) of all with God, need no longer be attained by traversing the long corridor of a world history (im langen Gang einer Weltgeschichte).”61

With revelation and redemption coinciding in each moment of time for Judaism, that faith constantly participates in a genesis of God’s revelation and redemption in history. Judaism alone can therefore complete at all times the cycle of creation-revelation-redemption, which is constitutive of Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption. It hence departs from the geometrical laws of Christianity, reposing on a “line” “with the possibility of unrestrained extension” by becoming a concrete image, an infinite “point” that is defined by the impossibility of being wiped out.62 By contrast, Christianity continues to remove itself from redemption, and accordingly from creation and revelation, by paradoxically expanding its “way” (Strecke) in time on to infinity.63 Consequently, Christianity proves to be nothing more than the personal declaration of “faith”64 (Glaube) by any “singular human being” (Einzelne), relating to a “testimony refer[ring] to Christ.”65

Rosenzweig’s portrayal of Christianity hinges on the most personal and most private moment of creativity “in the world.”66 Christianity forges a proximity with the Son in an imaginative manner. It conjures up a nearness to God where the distance between revelation and redemption is itself infinite. The revelatory and redemptive moment in Christianity consequently can be regarded as a “resolution” (Vorsatz), an intention toward revelation and redemption, which marks the distance between the two all the more.67 Christianity therefore remains a private, intimate faith invested in the idea that an “individual (der Einzelne) bears witness about his position in relation to an individual.”68 Revelation and redemption are the figment of a creative self in Christianity.

If, in contradistinction to the self-reflexive way of Christianity, Judaism is elected to uphold the simultaneous unity between creation, revelation, and redemption, each necessitating the other,69 then Rosenzweig’s line of argument leads to the following conclusions: In Judaism, (1) the constellation of creation, revelation, and redemption is initially independent of the “singular human being.” (2) In order to avoid the distinct separation between God and the “singular human being,” inherent to Christianity, God must be part of the world. (3) The proximity between God and the “singular human being” in the world must become visible. God as creator and redeemer must reveal himself as a creator and redeemer in time by way of his people.70 In other words, without the Jewish people God cannot become a creator and redeemer. “Even the Creation of the people, like the Creation in general, already carries in itself the last goal, the last purpose, for the sake of which Creation took place.”71 A “unique people” and God thus become complementary concepts in Rosenzweig’s depiction of Judaism.72

In the notorious passages on the Jewish people in Book iii of The Star of Redemption, Rosenzweig ties the cycle from creation to revelation to redemption, intrinsic to Judaism, to two distinct yet interdependent notions. Rosenzweig locates the unbroken passage from creation, to revelation and redemption in a “community of the same blood” as well as in the “holidays.”73 The “renewal” of God’s eternal cycle of creation, revelation, and redemption depends, on the one hand, on the steady transmission across the generations, that is, between “grandson” and “grandfather.”74 On the other hand, the perpetual transition from creation to revelation and redemption relies on the “solid framework” of the Jewish weekly and annual rites.75 The stability of the creational, revelatory, and redemptive moment in time is sustained by ensuring the generational perpetuity of the Jewish people as much as its tradition. Between the Jewish family and the Jewish ritual, God has gained a “present actuality.”76 It is this “status of a reality in the world” that can thwart the Christian model of faith.77

The Star of Redemption revolves around a constant setting apart, an incessant Auseinander-setzung between the world of Judaism, with its endlessly growing proximity to God, and the world of Christianity, with its endless pathway away from God. In Judaism the people find themselves affirmed in God, which, in turn, deepens its own being, while in Christianity the way to God has dissipated, leaving behind an altogether empty idea of God, a God in mente. Judaism thus can experience the plenitude of God in history, whereas Christianity can only fall back on the reconstitution of a God that was once in history but no longer belongs to it. Where Judaism lives God’s creation on a day-to-day basis in its rituals and its laws, Christianity establishes a relationship to God by way of intention and reflection; where Judaism wholly relies on following the divine “commandment” (Gebot) or מִצְוָה, Christianity reposes exclusively on כַּוָּנָה, on “meditation” and “devotion” (Andacht).78

Yet how is one to reconcile the Christian faith with Judaism in the The Star of Redemption? How can Judaism continue to thrive within itself without inevitably eclipsing Christianity? How can the παρουσία live side by side with the rich world of Judaism? In short, how can Judaic law and the Christian doctrine of presence truly become complementary? These questions lead us back to one of Franz Rosenzweig’s “biggest names,” Hermann Cohen, and his concept of “inward religiosity” (innerliche Religiosität).79

4

Much has been written about the intricate relationship between Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig. Certainly, there can be no doubt that after Rosenzweig attends Cohen’s lectures in Berlin in 1913, the latter’s philosophy will become a constant point of reference for him.80 Throughout his career, Rosenzweig will develop a particular affinity to Cohen’s most venerated Jewish work, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism (Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums), released after Cohen’s death in 1919—a carbon copy of which, so Nahum Glatzer recounts, Rosenzweig took from Cohen’s bathroom in Berlin in the previous year.81 Rosenzweig will furthermore devote a number of texts to several of Hermann Cohen’s Jewish writings, some of which will remain unpublished until the release of Rosenzweig’s Collected Works (Gesammelte Schriften).82 Rosenzweig’s writings on Cohen will also include his lengthy and renowned introduction to the posthumously published three-volume edition of Cohen’s Jewish Writings (Jüdische Schriften) published in 1924. Engaging in an ongoing debate with Cohen’s philosophy, as Myriam Bienenstock points out, “ce sont, on le voit, ses propres idées que Rosenzweig glisse dans le vocabulaire et la langue de Cohen.”83 Indeed, Rosenzweig will import key terms and significant philosophical arguments from Cohen’s writings into his own philosophical work in order to reset Cohen’s philosophy from within. In addition to the categories of “Creation” (Schöpfung), “Revelation” (Offenbarung), and “Redemption” (Erlösung), Rosenzweig borrows from Cohen concepts such as the “whole” (All), “soul” (Seele), “self” (Selbst), “chaos” (Chaos), and “personality” (Persönlichkeit).84 Emmanuel Levinas’s memorable words from his introduction to Totality and Infinity (Totalité et Infini) on his profound indebtedness to Rosenzweig—his “work is too often present … to be cited”—may also be applied to Rosenzweig’s philosophical rapport with Cohen.85 An extensive analysis of Rosenzweig’s reading of Cohen’s Jewish writings consequently falls outside the scope of this discussion.

It is nonetheless worthwhile to reflect briefly on Rosenzweig’s criticism of Cohen’s important concept of “correlation” (Korrelation) when seeking to draw a distinction between Rosenzweig’s explicitly Jewish “contention” with Christianity and Cohen’s conjunctive notion of “inward religion.” “ ‘Correlation’ means in German: covenant (Bund), at times just an association (Band),” Rosenzweig explains to his parents in a letter dated March 5, 1918. “He [Cohen] unfortunately bit himself on to this dreadful foreign word.”86 Rosenzweig’s snide comment on Cohen’s notion of “correlation” touches directly on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in Cohen’s Jewish writings. Rosenzweig remarks that by using the term Korrelation instead of Bund or Band, Cohen essentially imposes a category derived from the Greco-Roman world, and subsequently also from Christian tradition, on an essentially Jewish notion originating in the Hebrew Bible. In translations ranging from Martin Luther’s to those of Moses Mendelssohn, Leopold Zunz and his collaborators, and Jehuda Ludwig Philippson, the term Bund designates the covenants (בְּרִיתוֹת) concluded with Noah and with the Children of Israel (Bnai Israel). Given that Zunz’s Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scripture (Die vier und zwanzig Bücher der Heiligen Schrift) was part of the inventory in the Rosenzweig household, Rosenzweig would have been well aware of the Jewish-German translations of בְּרִית when commenting on Cohen’s Korrelation in 1918.87 For Rosenzweig, Cohen’s abandonment of Bund and Band implied a blurring of the lines between Christianity and Judaism in the German world: when Judaism becomes a “correlation” it abandons itself to Christianity, hence allowing Christianity to take its place and succeed it.

Rosenzweig’s elliptic interpretation of Cohen’s use of Korrelation has, despite its inaccuracies, some merit.88 While Cohen does not shy away from using the term Bund in his Jewish writings to designate the covenant between Israel and its people, he also employs the term to circumscribe the bond between “human being” (Mensch) and God.89 Cohen’s religious-philosophical lexicography repeatedly seeks to create a nexus between Judaism and Christianity by pointing to the duplication embedded within the language of “pure monotheism” (reiner Monotheismus).90 This duplication is intended to display the originary nexus between Judaism and Christianity, which is Judaism itself. Christianity should arise from Judaism, yet without suspending it. In other words, Judaism should pave the way for a Christianity that will be able to coincide with Judaism because it is founded on that faith. The language of pure monotheism thus should encapsulate the Jewish past “out of the sources of Judaism,” that is, from the Bible (Tanakh) to the Talmud and Maimonides,91 while it should also anticipate the Christian future from the New Testament to the present day; “pure monotheism” therefore opens itself to the past and future of both faiths at once.

Accordingly, the concept of “pure monotheism” centers predominantly on the passage from “holy spirit” (heiliger Geist / הַקּוֹדֶשׁ רוּחַ) toward its “martyrdom” (Martyrium) and its “resurrection” (Auferstehung / Olam habo / Tchiat Ha’Metim) in and for every human being.92 “Pure monotheism” can therefore affirm the principle of an “eternal new beginning,” which comprises an incessant rebirth of the “holy spirit” in history.93 This history is the history of the human being itself. “Religion (Religion) is the history of the individual (Individuums). And the God of the individual is the God of Religion.”94 The spirit of God determines the history of the individual, and, vice versa, God cannot “accomplish” (vollziehen) his spirit without the human being.95 The spirit of God dies and comes to life again in the individual, while the spirit of the individual rises, falls, and rises again in God. “Human life has its conclusion (Abschluss) in death. Death is not the end but a conclusion, a new beginning.”96

Cohen’s notion of the renascence of the Holy Spirit moves in the opposite direction from Rosenzweig’s eternal cycle of creation–redemption–revelation. If Rosenzweig perceives the realization of a God anterior to the world in history to be dependent on faith itself, meaning on Judaism only, Cohen claims that Jewish monotheism sets the “pathway” (Bahn) toward the completion of the spirit in the individual, which can only be extended by Christianity, if at all.97 Judaism and Christianity hence allow the individual to attain his or her spirit through God. The emergence of both faiths marks the birth of the actual individual in history. The resurrection of the human being simultaneously suggests the resurrection of God and vice versa in both the Jewish and Christian traditions.

Quite clearly Cohen’s philosophy of religion concentrates on illustrating the passage from spirit to its “realization” (Erfüllung) in man in “correlation with God” (Korrelation mit Gott).98 Cohen’s formulation rests on a deliberate abstraction. If in Judaism and Christianity it is the human being’s correlation with God’s spirit that realizes the human being, then neither God nor the human being can attain the visible concreteness of Rosenzweig’s Jewish people. The realization of the spirit remains for Cohen a “mission of the spirit” (Aufgabe des Geistes).99 When Spirit and self unite in their quest for God’s holiness, the birth of the individual also signifies the beginning of the spirit’s endeavor toward God.100 Becoming an individual and “striving for holiness in the archetypal holiness of God” (Streben nach Heiligkeit in der Anerkennung des Urbilds der Heiligkeit in Gott) may therefore be regarded as synonymous in Cohen’s Jewish writings.101

It is this homology between spirit, self, and realization that has often brought upon Cohen the charge of advocating the “freedom of philosophy from doctrinal bias. In this intention Cohen stands firmly in the tradition of Enlightenment.”102 For the sake of its integrity, so the argument runs, Cohen frees philosophy from its religious component. At best, Cohen “defends religion from a philosophical perspective” in order to affirm the enterprise of Enlightenment.103 Indeed, Rosenzweig himself had already famously observed in his introduction to Cohen’s Jewish Writings that Cohen falls prey to “Idealism …, particularly that of Hegel.”104 Cohen would not have refuted Rosenzweig’s allegation. Along with Paul Natorp, Cohen, as is well known, was one of the major “proponents of the so-called Marburgian orientation of Neokantianism.”105 Between 1871 and 1889, Cohen published as well as partially re-edited three studies on Kant’s “theory of experience” (Theorie der Erfahrung), ethics, and aesthetics. Furthermore, Cohen’s reputed System of Philosophy (System der Philosophie) would, in its own manner, follow in the footsteps of Kant’s critical enterprise.106 Nevertheless, Hermann Cohen’s philosophy begs for a distinction between idealism proper, that is, as a “highest ideal,” and an “idealism of the sciences” (Idealismus der Wissenschaften).107 Idealism in itself reposes on a “creative principle” (schöpferischen Lebensgrund), more specifically an “idea” (Idee) of movement toward a “concept” (Begriff).108 On the other hand, an idealism of the sciences rests on “perception” (Erkenntnis), which, according to Cohen, has been, since Plato, an “idealism of apprehension and intuition” (Idealismus der Ahnung und der Schau).109 Distinguishing between an idealism of an idea in movement and an idealism based on pure apperception, Cohen enforces Kant’s concept of “destin[ation],” which is “developed completely and in conformity with [an] end,” with Hegel’s notion of “movement” (Bewegung) and vice versa in order to emphasize the importance of the category of “direction” of the spirit toward itself as much as toward God.110 In Cohen, “the spirit (Geist) is the spirit of the human being, but God gave it (gegeben).”111

By defining the spirit as that which God gives to the human being, Cohen steps away from the history of philosophy and moves to theology—more precisely, religion, and even more exactly monotheism. However, if spirit is associated with religion, then, according to Cohen, it must also be a matter of the “soul” (Seele).112 “Spirit and soul” (Geist und Seele) thus comprise a unity. It is this alliance that displays itself within the confines of religion as vulnerability.113 “The self-awareness (Selbsterkenntnis) of one’s weaknesses is the birthplace (Geburtsstätte) of religion.”114 Religion and “sin” (Sünde / שְׁגָגָה) go hand in hand in Hermann Cohen’s religious writings.115 Although sin “overpowers the human being” (übermannt den Menschen) since the emergence of paganism, the “prototype of religion” (der Urtypus der Religion), only Judaism and Christianity will, according to Cohen, elevate sin to be their theological cornerstone. Christianity will pursue the “awareness (Bewußtsein) of sin that especially Jeremiah and Ezekiel have comprehended (ergründet) in the problem of salvation (Erlösung).”116 Both religions have the trajectory from sin to salvation in common. This passage from sin to salvation rests, in turn, on a human type of “suffering” (Leiden / Leid), which is to be “breached and relinquished” by turning to God because the “true God is the God of love.”117 A heart and a soul free from sin, that is, a “pure heart” and a “pure soul,” originate in the “love from God” and the “love to God.”118

By way of a constant “approximation” (Annäherung) toward a “nearness” to God, the “highest commodity/good (höchste Gut) of religion” is achieved.119 In true religion the human being is always on his or her way toward God. A confluence with God, however, is impossible: “Pure monotheism does not know of a unification (Vereinigung) with God.”120 With God positing (setzt) himself in the human being, and the human being remaining in an interminable quest for God, God does not only redeem the human being from his or her vulnerability in every instant of time, but he also reveals himself to the human being in every moment of history.121 Pure monotheism is thus in Cohen’s religious writings the lieu of eternal “redemption” (Erlösung) from sin.122 However, if redemption is the outcome of God’s givenness to a human being in search of this givenness, it follows that “God’s being” (das Sein Gottes) essentially relies on a revelation, which leads in the direction of the human being’s “future.”123 Revelation hence coincides with a “creation” that will contribute to the conservation of humanity.124

Cohen’s religious writings center on the human being’s eternal movement away from God to the human being’s “reconciliation” (Versöhnung) with the God of love, which simultaneously is a love of the human being.125 Already in 1867, with the anonymous release of his first essay on Jewish matters in “Die Gegenwart”: Berliner Wochenschrift für Jüdische Angelegenheiten, entitled “Heinrich Heine and Judaism” (“Heinrich Heine und das Judentum”), Cohen wrote of an “image (Vorstellung) of ‘God,’” which in the “monotheistic version (Fassung)” makes of God “a spirit” (ein Geist).126 Born in the “darkness of consciousness” (Dunkel des Bewußtseins) this image is “like all that is sublime dark (wie alles Erhabene dunkel).”127 Yet in its darkness this “mental image” (Vorstellung) will assume the “form of something higher, mightier, more original” (Form eines Höheren, Mächtigeren, Ursprünglicheren), namely a “doctrine of creation” (Lehre von der Schöpfung).128 Cohen would develop the above arguments in a large number of short writings as well as in the more extensive Concept of Religion in the System of Philosophy (Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 1915) and finally in his aforementioned religious-philosophical magnum opus, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, on which countless studies have been published, especially in reference to its relationship with Cohen’s System of Philosophy.129

Just three years before writing a chapter in Religion of Reason with the same title, Cohen contributed an entire essay on the notion of The Holy Spirit (Der heilige Geist) to a Festschrift published in 1915 in honor of the seventieth birthday of the rabbi and theologian Jakob Guttmann.130 Cohen purposely chose to address a concept that runs through the Jewish and Christian religions equally in a volume dedicated to a scholar of both medieval Judaism and Christianity.131 In The Holy Spirit Cohen develops and expands on structures and arguments from previous texts in a manner that requires “an orientation through an initially opaque construction.”132 To be sure, Hermann Cohen begins his essay with a short historical introduction into the term; subsequently, he develops the concept of “creation” (Schöpfung); from there he proceeds to a discussion of the connection between messianism and the “legislation of the Sabbath” (Sabbatgesetzgebung); he then returns to expound on the themes of “holy spirit” and “sin” in order to conclude with an elaboration on the ethical dimensions of the holy spirit and their bearing on idealism and pantheism.133

By placing the laws of the Sabbath and messianism in the center of this short text from 1915, Cohen endeavored to demonstrate that it is the inevitable course of the holy spirit to attain its finality in a messianic era, in which “the evolution (Entwicklung) of the correlation between God and human being” is incessantly “concluded” and renewed.134 In Cohen’s view, God represents the eternal “creator, the sculptor of the spirit in the human being.”135 God being the “spirit of holiness” (Geist der Heiligkeit / הַקּוֹדֶשׁ רוּחַ), he “transplants” his holiness into or indeed onto the human being, so as to allow the human being to overcome his or her sins against God and man.136 Whenever the “transfer” of holiness takes place in the human being, he or she pays tribute to God by way of an active pursuit of the “recognition of the Ideal of the holiness in God” (Anerkennung des Ideals der Heiligkeit in Gott).137 Consequently, the messianic era rests on the principle of the “deeds of the human being” in the name of God and the human being.138 The trajectory from כַּוָּנָה (intention) and שְׁכיִנָה (the indwelling of God) to מִצְוָה קְדוּשַת (the sanctification of a deed performed for God and man) should, according to Cohen, be regarded as Judaism’s lesson to the world.139 With Judaism a spirit of holiness that transcends the limits of Judaism enters time. More than an institution or a people, Judaism designates the distribution of God’s plenitude for humanity in history. In Judaism the spirit of holiness emanating from God and flowing toward God stretches across the “earth in its entirety” (der Gott der ganzen Erde), so that God can deliver his spirit to a humanity in constant need of restoration.140

5

I come to my conclusion. Unlike Franz Rosenzweig, Hermann Cohen does not construct a programmatic theory of Christianity. Instead, Cohen repeatedly elaborates on the possibility of a rapprochement between God and man as much as between Judaism and Christianity in his Jewish writings. Until his death in 1918, Cohen continued to insist on a universal God of Judaism “that creates a new heart and a new spirit” in every human being.141 While this did not allow Cohen to cross the threshold toward an understanding of Christianity in which a physical convergence between Father and Son is underway, Cohen would nevertheless endorse a Christianity where the Son can act as a “supplement” (Ergänzung) to the Father and where the Son can bear testimony “from the Father.”142 In Cohen’s version of Christianity, both Father and Son experience an ongoing resurrection in a human heart in search of its own purity. To Cohen this can be the only παρουσία in a world “where ‘practical Christianity’ … is keen to suspect Judaism and even to deny it the priority of monotheism.”143

1 Franz Rosenzweig, Die “Gritli”-Briefe: Briefe an Margrit Rosenstock-Huessy, ed. Inken Ruehle and Reinhold Mayer (Tübingen: Bilam, 2002), 386–387. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

2 Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, ed., Judaism Despite Christianity: The 1916 Wartime Correspondence between Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Franz Rosenzweig (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 115, 113.

3 The correspondence began on May 29, 1916, and was probably suspended in December of the same year. See Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 77, 164. For information on Rosenzweig’s military service, see Harold Stahmer’s preface to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 49, 113. According to Paul Mendes Flohr, “Beginning somewhat hesitantly, their correspondence soon gained a polemical intensity that broke the regnant code of Jewish-Christian relations.” Foreword to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, ix, 131.

4 Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 113.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid., 57.

7 Ibid., 113, 104. Emphasis in the original. The term “preparer-of-the-way” on p. 113 was coined by Eugen Rosenstock.

8 Ibid., 61.

9 Ibid.

10 Reprinted in Dorothy M. Emmet, “The Letters of Franz Rosenzweig and Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy,” in Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 61.

11 Ibid.

12 Leora Batnitzky, Idolatry and Representation: The Philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig Reconsidered (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 2000), 9.

13 “C’est dans les tranchées des Balkans, en pleine guerre, plus précisément entre 1916 et 1918, que Rosenzweig en conçut l’idée.” Pierre Masset, “L’Étoile de la rédemption” de Franz Rosenzweig (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000), 9.

14 Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption, trans. Barbara Galli (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005), 438. For more details about the publication history of The Star of Redemption, see Bernhard Casper’s introduction to the digital edition of Rosenzweig’s work: Bernhard Casper, “Einführung,” in Franz Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung, ed. Albert Raffelt (Freiburg im Breisgau: Universitätsbibliothek, 2002), ii, http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/310/pdf/derstern.pdf (accessed January 3, 2015).

15 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 131.

16 Ibid., 24, 133.

17 “New Thinking,” in Franz Rosenzweig, Philosophical and Theological Writings, ed. Paul W. Franks and Michael L. Morgan (Indianapolis, in: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000), 131. In a letter to Rudolf Ehrenberg dated July 24, 1919, Rosenzweig mentions that a “fair copy” of The Star of Redemption was written between August 22, 1918, and February 16, 1919. Franz Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I: Briefe und Tagebücher, 2 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1979), 2:640.

18 Franz Rosenzweig, “Jüdische Geschichte im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte” (1920, unpublished), in Gesammelte Schriften III: Zweistromland (The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1984), 545.

19 Ibid.

20 “Denn soweit wir sehen sind auch da die Tage getrennt.” Rosenzweig, Die “Gritli”-Briefe, 388.

21 Ibid., 386.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid. Emphasis in the original.

24 Ibid., 87. “Ich erwarte von Christen gar nicht, dass sie etwas anderes sind als—Christen.”

25 Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 387.

26 Ibid.

28 For the Greek text (Nestle-Aland edition), see Das Neue Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1995), 463. See also Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 782; Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 388. For a different interpretation of this verse, see Sonia Goldblum, Dialogue amoureux et dialogue religieux: Rosenzweig au prisme de sa correspondence (Paris: Hermann, 2014), 160–164.

29 Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 388.

30 Franz Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I, 2:639 (letter to Hans Ehrenberg, July 7, 1919).

31 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988), 320; idem, New Thinking, 129.

32 Ibid.

33 Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 344 (letter to Eugen Rosenstock, probably June 24, 1919), 494 (letter to Margrit Rosenstock, December 17, 1919).

34 Ibid., 493. Emphasis in the original.

35 Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I, 1:578 (letter to Hans Ehrenberg, June 13, 1918).

36 Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I, 2:639–640 (letter to Rudolf Ehrenberg, July 14, 1919).

37 Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 114.

38 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 167, 118; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung, 114.

39 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 113, 111, 186.

40 Ibid., 110, 295.

41 Ibid., 111.

42 Ibid., 113.

43 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Schriften und Entwürfe, Band I (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983), 284.

44 G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, vol. 3, The Consummate Religion, ed. Peter C. Hodgson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 164. The lectures were originally published in 1824.

45 Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 163, 164, 173, 195. For a more elaborate reading of the relationship between Christianity and its realization in Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, see Kevin Hart, Kingdoms of God (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 57–69.

46 Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 195.

47 Ibid., 323. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Urfassung der Philosophie der Offenbarung (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1992), 672–681. See also Gérard Bensussan, Franz Rosenzweig: Existence et philosophie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000), 97; Bernhard Casper, Das dialogische Denken: Franz Rosenzweig, Ferdinand Ebner, Martin Buber (Freiburg: Albers Verlag, 2002), 157; Kevin Hart, “From the Star to the Disaster,” Paragraph 30, no. 3 (2007): 84–103, at 90–91.

48 Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 509 (letter to Margit Rosenstock, December 26, 1919).

49 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 437, 388, 301, 295; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 313.

50 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 295.

51 Ibid., 437, 380.

52 Ibid., 380.

53 “In Christ’s earthly wanderings, at least in his death on the Cross and really even in his birth, Redemption has happened.” Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 390–391; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 375.

54 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 359; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 375.

55 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 348.

56 Ibid., 363.

57 Ibid., 363, 360; Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung, 320, 379.

58 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 269.

59 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 199.

60 Ibid.

61 Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 368.

62 Ibid., 379.

63 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 360; Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 377.

64 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364.

65 Ibid., 364. Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

66 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 363; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

67 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 361.

68 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

69 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 426; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 384.

70 Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 325.

71 Ibid., 336.

72 Ibid., 325.

73 Ibid., 318, 335.

74 Ibid., 330, 317.

75 Ibid., 335.

76 Ibid., 198.

77 Ibid.

78 Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I, 2:626 (letter to Mawrik Kahn, February 26, 1919).

79 Ibid., 2:643; Hermann Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3 vols. (Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn, 1924), 2:140.

80 See Alexander Altmann, “Franz Rosenzweig and Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy: An Introduction to Their ‘Letters on Judaism and Christianity,’” in Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 39.

81 Nahum N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (Indianapolis, in: Hackett, 1998), 65.

82 See Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften III: Zweistromland.

83 Myriam Bienenstock, Cohen face à Rosenzweig: Débat sur la pensée allemande (Paris: Vrin, 2009), 172.

84 Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:92, 96 (“Einheit oder Einzigkeit Gottes”); 2:245, 17, 104; Hermann Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens = Werke, vol. 7 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1981), 134, 47, 79. On that particular constellation of terms, see Stéphane Mosès, Système et revelation: La philosophie de Franz Rosenzweig (Paris: Bayard, 2003), 47.

85 Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), 28.

86 Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I. Briefe und Tagebücher, 1:516.

87 Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I. Briefe und Tagebücher, 2:957 (letter to Jakob Horovitz, April 1924).

88 For further information on Rosenzweig’s problematic adaptation of Cohen’s philosophy, see Dieter Adelmann, “Reinige dein Denken”: Über den jüdischen Hintergrund der Philosophie von Hermann Cohen (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2010‬), 299–301.

89 For example, Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:276, 133.

90 Hermann Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie = Werke, vol. 10 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2002), 120.

91 I follow here in the footsteps of Leo Strauss in his seminal introduction to Cohen’s Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism: “The sources of Judaism that Cohen uses for elucidating creation are almost all post-biblical. He derives his main support from Maimonides.” Leo Strauss, “Introductory Essay,” in Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism (Atlanta: American Academy of Religion, 1995), xxvii.

92 Cohen, Religion of Reason, 123; idem, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums: Eine jüdische Religionsphilosophie (1929; repr., Wiesbaden: Marix, 2008), 486, 288, 379; idem, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84. Michael Zank indicates that Cohen borrows terms such as “reconciliation” (Versöhnung) from “Christian soteriology,” yet without drawing conclusions about Cohen’s attachment to Christianity. See Michael Zank, The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen (Providence, ri: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 20. For a distinctly Judeo-Kantian interpretation of Cohen’s “holy spirit,” see Hartwig Wiedebach, “Der heilige Geist bei Hermann Cohen,” in Religion aus den Quellen der Vernunft: Hermann Cohen und das evangelische Christentum, ed. Hans Martin Dober and Mathias Morgenstern (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 28–38.

93 Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 8, 35.

94 Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 101.

95 Cohen, Religion of Reason, 103; idem, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

96 Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 544 (chap. 22); idem, Religion of Reason, 460.

97 Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 177; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 344.

98 Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 248, 37.

99 Ibid., 122.

100 Ibid., 106.

101 Ibid., 103; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

102 Zank, The Idea of Atonement, 208.

103 Ibid.

104 Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:xviii.

105 Wolfgang Röd, Der Weg der Philosophie, vol. 2 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1996), 350.

106 For a brief overview, I refer to Helmut Holzhey and Hartwig Wiedebach’s excellent biographical entry on the website of the European Hermann Cohen Society, http://www.hermann-cohen-gesellschaft.org/hermann-cohen (accessed January 9, 2015).

107 Hermann Cohen, Logik der reinen Erkenntnis = Werke, vol. 6 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1977), 2; idem, Jüdische Schriften, 1:318.

108 Ibid., 1:308.

109 Ibid., 1:309.

110 Immanuel Kant, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 42; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 45; idem, Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, 469.

111 Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:182.

112 Ibid., 3:176.

113 Ibid.

114 Ibid.; Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 54.

115 Ibid.; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 253.

116 Ibid., 54, 125.

117 Ibid., 125–126; Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:127.

118 Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 104, 105, 80. Dieter Adelmann already remarked on the connection between the terms “new heart,” “new way,” and “inwardness” in Cohen’s writings in his groundbreaking dissertation from 1968. Nevertheless, Adelmann concentrates first and foremost on the implication of these notions for Cohen’s philosophical system. Dieter Adelmann, Einheit des Bewusstseins als Grundproblem der Philosophie Hermann Cohens: Vorbereitende Untersuchung für eine historisch-verifizierende Konfrontation der Fundamentalontologie Martin Heideggers mit Hermann Cohens “System der Philosophie” (Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2012), 116–117, http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2012/5849/pdf/adelmann_diss.pdf (accessed January 10, 2015).

119 Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 105.

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid., 46, 48. Emphasis in the original.

124 Ibid., 48.

125 Ibid., 65.

126 I derive this information from the editor’s comments in Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 2:69. For the other quotes see Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 2:7. Emphasis in the original.

127 Ibid., 2:8. Emphasis in the original.

128 Ibid.

129 For more information about the publication of this study, see Andrea Poma, “Einleitung,” in Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 8.

130 For additional information, see Cohen, Religion of Reason, 100–112, as well as the editor’s comments in Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:374.

131 For more on this, see Thomas Meyer, Zwischen Philosophie und Gesetz: Jüdische Philosophie und Theologie, 1933 bis 1938 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 91.

132 Eggert Winter, “Ethik als Lehre vom Menschen,” in Hermann Cohen: Auslegungen, ed. Helmut Holzhey (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994), 323.

133 Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84, 188, 191–196.

134 Ibid., 3:269.

135 Ibid., 3:177.

136 Ibid., 3:176–177, 186, 188.

137 Ibid., 3:186.

138 Ibid., 3:195. Emphasis in the original.

139 Ibid., 3:195, 187.

140 Ibid., 3:185.

141 Ibid., 3:189.

142 Ibid., 3:53. Emphasis in the original.

143 Jakob Klatzkin, Hermann Cohen (Berlin: Jüdische Verlag, 1919), 12.

  • 2

    Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, ed., Judaism Despite Christianity: The 1916 Wartime Correspondence between Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Franz Rosenzweig (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 115, 113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    The correspondence began on May 29, 1916, and was probably suspended in December of the same year. See Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 77, 164. For information on Rosenzweig’s military service, see Harold Stahmer’s preface to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 49, 113. According to Paul Mendes Flohr, “Beginning somewhat hesitantly, their correspondence soon gained a polemical intensity that broke the regnant code of Jewish-Christian relations.” Foreword to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, ix, 131.

  • 4

    Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 113.

  • 6

    Ibid., 57.

  • 7

    Ibid., 113, 104. Emphasis in the original. The term “preparer-of-the-way” on p. 113 was coined by Eugen Rosenstock.

  • 8

    Ibid., 61.

  • 15

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 131.

  • 16

    Ibid., 24, 133.

  • 21

    Ibid., 386.

  • 24

    Ibid., 87. “Ich erwarte von Christen gar nicht, dass sie etwas anderes sind als—Christen.”

  • 25

    Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 387.

  • 29

    Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 388.

  • 31

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988), 320; idem, New Thinking, 129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Ibid., 493. Emphasis in the original.

  • 37

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 114.

  • 38

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 167, 118; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung, 114.

  • 39

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 113, 111, 186.

  • 40

    Ibid., 110, 295.

  • 41

    Ibid., 111.

  • 42

    Ibid., 113.

  • 43

    Friedrich Schleiermacher, Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Schriften und Entwürfe, Band I (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983), 284.

  • 45

    Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 163, 164, 173, 195. For a more elaborate reading of the relationship between Christianity and its realization in Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, see Kevin Hart, Kingdoms of God (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 57–69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 195.

  • 47

    Ibid., 323. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Urfassung der Philosophie der Offenbarung (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1992), 672–681. See also Gérard Bensussan, Franz Rosenzweig: Existence et philosophie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000), 97; Bernhard Casper, Das dialogische Denken: Franz Rosenzweig, Ferdinand Ebner, Martin Buber (Freiburg: Albers Verlag, 2002), 157; Kevin Hart, “From the Star to the Disaster,” Paragraph 30, no. 3 (2007): 84–103, at 90–91.

  • 49

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 437, 388, 301, 295; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 313.

  • 50

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 295.

  • 51

    Ibid., 437, 380.

  • 52

    Ibid., 380.

  • 54

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 359; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 375.

  • 55

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 348.

  • 56

    Ibid., 363.

  • 57

    Ibid., 363, 360; Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung, 320, 379.

  • 58

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 269.

  • 59

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 199.

  • 61

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 368.

  • 62

    Ibid., 379.

  • 63

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 360; Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 377.

  • 64

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364.

  • 65

    Ibid., 364. Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 66

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 363; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 67

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 361.

  • 68

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 69

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 426; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 384.

  • 70

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 325.

  • 71

    Ibid., 336.

  • 72

    Ibid., 325.

  • 73

    Ibid., 318, 335.

  • 74

    Ibid., 330, 317.

  • 75

    Ibid., 335.

  • 76

    Ibid., 198.

  • 83

    Myriam Bienenstock, Cohen face à Rosenzweig: Débat sur la pensée allemande (Paris: Vrin, 2009), 172.

  • 85

    Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), 28.

  • 86

    Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I. Briefe und Tagebücher, 1:516.

  • 89

    For example, Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:276, 133.

  • 92

    Cohen, Religion of Reason, 123; idem, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums: Eine jüdische Religionsphilosophie (1929; repr., Wiesbaden: Marix, 2008), 486, 288, 379; idem, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84. Michael Zank indicates that Cohen borrows terms such as “reconciliation” (Versöhnung) from “Christian soteriology,” yet without drawing conclusions about Cohen’s attachment to Christianity. See Michael Zank, The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen (Providence, ri: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 20. For a distinctly Judeo-Kantian interpretation of Cohen’s “holy spirit,” see Hartwig Wiedebach, “Der heilige Geist bei Hermann Cohen,” in Religion aus den Quellen der Vernunft: Hermann Cohen und das evangelische Christentum, ed. Hans Martin Dober and Mathias Morgenstern (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 28–38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 8, 35.

  • 94

    Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 101.

  • 95

    Cohen, Religion of Reason, 103; idem, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

  • 97

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 177; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 344.

  • 98

    Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 248, 37.

  • 99

    Ibid., 122.

  • 100

    Ibid., 106.

  • 101

    Ibid., 103; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

  • 102

    Zank, The Idea of Atonement, 208.

  • 104

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:xviii.

  • 110

    Immanuel Kant, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 42; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 45; idem, Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, 469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 111

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:182.

  • 114

    Ibid.; Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 54.

  • 115

    Ibid.; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 253.

  • 116

    Ibid., 54, 125.

  • 117

    Ibid., 125–126; Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:127.

  • 118

    Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 104, 105, 80. Dieter Adelmann already remarked on the connection between the terms “new heart,” “new way,” and “inwardness” in Cohen’s writings in his groundbreaking dissertation from 1968. Nevertheless, Adelmann concentrates first and foremost on the implication of these notions for Cohen’s philosophical system. Dieter Adelmann, Einheit des Bewusstseins als Grundproblem der Philosophie Hermann Cohens: Vorbereitende Untersuchung für eine historisch-verifizierende Konfrontation der Fundamentalontologie Martin Heideggers mit Hermann Cohens “System der Philosophie” (Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2012), 116–117, http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2012/5849/pdf/adelmann_diss.pdf (accessed January 10, 2015).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 119

    Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 105.

  • 123

    Ibid., 46, 48. Emphasis in the original.

  • 124

    Ibid., 48.

  • 125

    Ibid., 65.

  • 131

    For more on this, see Thomas Meyer, Zwischen Philosophie und Gesetz: Jüdische Philosophie und Theologie, 1933 bis 1938 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 132

    Eggert Winter, “Ethik als Lehre vom Menschen,” in Hermann Cohen: Auslegungen, ed. Helmut Holzhey (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994), 323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 133

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84, 188, 191–196.

  • 143

    Jakob Klatzkin, Hermann Cohen (Berlin: Jüdische Verlag, 1919), 12.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 2

    Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, ed., Judaism Despite Christianity: The 1916 Wartime Correspondence between Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Franz Rosenzweig (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 115, 113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    The correspondence began on May 29, 1916, and was probably suspended in December of the same year. See Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 77, 164. For information on Rosenzweig’s military service, see Harold Stahmer’s preface to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 49, 113. According to Paul Mendes Flohr, “Beginning somewhat hesitantly, their correspondence soon gained a polemical intensity that broke the regnant code of Jewish-Christian relations.” Foreword to Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, ix, 131.

  • 4

    Rosenstock-Huessy, Judaism Despite Christianity, 113.

  • 6

    Ibid., 57.

  • 7

    Ibid., 113, 104. Emphasis in the original. The term “preparer-of-the-way” on p. 113 was coined by Eugen Rosenstock.

  • 8

    Ibid., 61.

  • 15

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 131.

  • 16

    Ibid., 24, 133.

  • 21

    Ibid., 386.

  • 24

    Ibid., 87. “Ich erwarte von Christen gar nicht, dass sie etwas anderes sind als—Christen.”

  • 25

    Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 387.

  • 29

    Rosenzweig, “Gritli”-Briefe, 388.

  • 31

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung (Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988), 320; idem, New Thinking, 129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Ibid., 493. Emphasis in the original.

  • 37

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 114.

  • 38

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 167, 118; idem, Der Stern der Erlösung, 114.

  • 39

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 113, 111, 186.

  • 40

    Ibid., 110, 295.

  • 41

    Ibid., 111.

  • 42

    Ibid., 113.

  • 43

    Friedrich Schleiermacher, Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Schriften und Entwürfe, Band I (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983), 284.

  • 45

    Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 163, 164, 173, 195. For a more elaborate reading of the relationship between Christianity and its realization in Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, see Kevin Hart, Kingdoms of God (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 57–69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 195.

  • 47

    Ibid., 323. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Urfassung der Philosophie der Offenbarung (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1992), 672–681. See also Gérard Bensussan, Franz Rosenzweig: Existence et philosophie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000), 97; Bernhard Casper, Das dialogische Denken: Franz Rosenzweig, Ferdinand Ebner, Martin Buber (Freiburg: Albers Verlag, 2002), 157; Kevin Hart, “From the Star to the Disaster,” Paragraph 30, no. 3 (2007): 84–103, at 90–91.

  • 49

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 437, 388, 301, 295; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 313.

  • 50

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 295.

  • 51

    Ibid., 437, 380.

  • 52

    Ibid., 380.

  • 54

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 359; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 375.

  • 55

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 348.

  • 56

    Ibid., 363.

  • 57

    Ibid., 363, 360; Rosenzweig, Der Stern der Erlösung, 320, 379.

  • 58

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 306; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 269.

  • 59

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 199.

  • 61

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 368.

  • 62

    Ibid., 379.

  • 63

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 360; Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 377.

  • 64

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364.

  • 65

    Ibid., 364. Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 66

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 363; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 67

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 361.

  • 68

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 364; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 380.

  • 69

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 426; idem, Stern der Erlösung, 384.

  • 70

    Rosenzweig, Star of Redemption, 325.

  • 71

    Ibid., 336.

  • 72

    Ibid., 325.

  • 73

    Ibid., 318, 335.

  • 74

    Ibid., 330, 317.

  • 75

    Ibid., 335.

  • 76

    Ibid., 198.

  • 83

    Myriam Bienenstock, Cohen face à Rosenzweig: Débat sur la pensée allemande (Paris: Vrin, 2009), 172.

  • 85

    Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991), 28.

  • 86

    Rosenzweig, Gesammelte Schriften I. Briefe und Tagebücher, 1:516.

  • 89

    For example, Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:276, 133.

  • 92

    Cohen, Religion of Reason, 123; idem, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums: Eine jüdische Religionsphilosophie (1929; repr., Wiesbaden: Marix, 2008), 486, 288, 379; idem, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84. Michael Zank indicates that Cohen borrows terms such as “reconciliation” (Versöhnung) from “Christian soteriology,” yet without drawing conclusions about Cohen’s attachment to Christianity. See Michael Zank, The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen (Providence, ri: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 20. For a distinctly Judeo-Kantian interpretation of Cohen’s “holy spirit,” see Hartwig Wiedebach, “Der heilige Geist bei Hermann Cohen,” in Religion aus den Quellen der Vernunft: Hermann Cohen und das evangelische Christentum, ed. Hans Martin Dober and Mathias Morgenstern (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 28–38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 8, 35.

  • 94

    Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 101.

  • 95

    Cohen, Religion of Reason, 103; idem, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

  • 97

    Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung, 177; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 344.

  • 98

    Cohen, Begriff der Religion, 248, 37.

  • 99

    Ibid., 122.

  • 100

    Ibid., 106.

  • 101

    Ibid., 103; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 143 (par. 6).

  • 102

    Zank, The Idea of Atonement, 208.

  • 104

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:xviii.

  • 110

    Immanuel Kant, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 42; Cohen, Ethik des reinen Willens, 45; idem, Logik der reinen Erkenntnis, 469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 111

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:182.

  • 114

    Ibid.; Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 54.

  • 115

    Ibid.; Cohen, Religion der Vernunft, 253.

  • 116

    Ibid., 54, 125.

  • 117

    Ibid., 125–126; Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 1:127.

  • 118

    Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 104, 105, 80. Dieter Adelmann already remarked on the connection between the terms “new heart,” “new way,” and “inwardness” in Cohen’s writings in his groundbreaking dissertation from 1968. Nevertheless, Adelmann concentrates first and foremost on the implication of these notions for Cohen’s philosophical system. Dieter Adelmann, Einheit des Bewusstseins als Grundproblem der Philosophie Hermann Cohens: Vorbereitende Untersuchung für eine historisch-verifizierende Konfrontation der Fundamentalontologie Martin Heideggers mit Hermann Cohens “System der Philosophie” (Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2012), 116–117, http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2012/5849/pdf/adelmann_diss.pdf (accessed January 10, 2015).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 119

    Cohen, Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie, 105.

  • 123

    Ibid., 46, 48. Emphasis in the original.

  • 124

    Ibid., 48.

  • 125

    Ibid., 65.

  • 131

    For more on this, see Thomas Meyer, Zwischen Philosophie und Gesetz: Jüdische Philosophie und Theologie, 1933 bis 1938 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 132

    Eggert Winter, “Ethik als Lehre vom Menschen,” in Hermann Cohen: Auslegungen, ed. Helmut Holzhey (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994), 323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 133

    Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, 3:84, 188, 191–196.

  • 143

    Jakob Klatzkin, Hermann Cohen (Berlin: Jüdische Verlag, 1919), 12.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 247 68 0
Full Text Views 189 55 4
PDF Downloads 51 25 1