# Gott ist unsprechlich (Eckhart)



## Löwenfrau

Ich kenne nur _unaussprechlich _und _unsagbar_; _unsprechlich_ hatte ich noch nie gehört: 


»Gott ist unnamelich und über alle Worte in Lauterkeit seines Wesens, da Gott weder Rede noch Wort haben kann, da er unsprechlich ist allen Kreaturen.« (zitiert von Mauthner)

Meint es, dass Gott wie stumm ist, also _Er_ nicht sprechen kann? Oder meint es, dass _man _nichts über Gott sprechen kann?
Aus Kontext würde ich natürlich die zweite Alternative auswählen. Die erste scheint aber doch auch möglich, denn im Grunde Eckhart behauptet beide Sätze.


----------



## wandle

> unsprechlich hatte ich noch nie gehört


DWB says the modern equivalent is _unaussprechlich_. 

'Ineffable' is a traditional English term for the divinity (meaning 'unspeakable' in the sense 'beyond language').


----------



## Löwenfrau

»God is unnameable and above all words in His purity, for God has and cannot have neither discourse nor word, for He is unspeakable to all His creatures.« 
?


----------



## wandle

I suggested the traditional religous expression 'ineffable' because in ordinary language 'unspeakable' means 'appalling', 'indescribably dreadful'.


----------



## Löwenfrau

wandle said:


> I suggested the traditional religous expression 'ineffable' because in ordinary language 'unspeakable' means 'appalling', 'indescribably dreadful'.



I see. In my language (Portuguese) we also say "ineffable" (inefável), but "unspeakable" (indizível) is also used in religious contexts, besides "unpronounceable". But, as you said, "ineffable" leaves no doubt, no ambiguities.

Thank you!


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Why





Löwenfrau said:


> discourse


_... as God can be neither spoken of nor used a word for.
... as one can neither speak of God nor use a word for Him._


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> Why_... as God can be neither spoken of nor used a word for.
> ... as one can neither speak of God nor use a word for Him._



I don't understand this. The sentence 





> da Gott weder Rede noch Wort haben kann


 talks about _God_ not having word: God is subject, and I don't see where or how there is a passive voice in this sentence... I'd appreciate if you explained that to me, Schimmelreiter...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> I don't see where or how there is a passive voice in this sentence.





Löwenfrau said:


> Gott ist unnamelich und über alle Worte in Lauterkeit seines Wesens, da Gott weder Rede noch Wort haben kann, da er unsprechlich ist allen Kreaturen.


Paraphrasing:
_As God purely *is*_, _there's no name for Him and He's above any words, in other words, we cannot speak about Him, nor can there be a word by which to name Him; He's ineffable to all creatures.

_Another, more literal attempt regarding the _Rede/Wort_ part:
_Gott kann weder Rede noch Wort haben. ~ "God can have neither any talk (by us) about Himself nor any word/name to Himself." ~ "God has Himself neither talked about nor named." 
_That's supposed to be more literal. That's not supposed to sound good in English. 
On the other hand, speaking of good English, God, if He did speak English, might well say, mightn't He, _I won't have any talk about Myself._ So much about _Rede haben. _


----------



## Löwenfrau

I have to make some adjustments so it sounds good in Portuguese:

»God is unnameable and remain above all words in His purity, for one cannot talk about God nor use any word to refer to Him, for He is unspeakable to all His creatures.« 
Is that ok?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I don't think





Löwenfrau said:


> in Lauterkeit seines Wesens


means





Löwenfrau said:


> in His purity


since I believe





Löwenfrau said:


> in His purity


means _as He's pure_ whereas I think





Löwenfrau said:


> in Lauterkeit seines Wesens


means _as He purely *is*_, i.e. His existence is nothing but being, it's _pure being_, so no words exist that might describe Him, He has no effable properties.

Permit me an odd-sounding rephrasing of





Löwenfrau said:


> in Lauterkeit seines Wesens


_da er lauter/nur west - as he purely/only *is*_. 

So it's not _Lauterkeit/purity_ as a moral category (there are no categories by which to judge God) but _lauter/only_ as in _​Ich habe lauter/nur Freunde eingeladen.



_PS
_lauter - gänzlich, einzig, bloß _DWB
verb _wesen _DWB


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> God, if He did speak English,


Surely there is no doubt about that, is there? 


> might well say, mightn't He, _I won't have any talk about Myself._


_
This seems quite a strict provision. It would mean God was determined that people would never communicate with each other about Him. 
The relation to God would be entirely individual and silent, with no social dimension: in other words, any form of church is forbidden.

It seems unlikely that that could have been the intention of Eckhart the preacher. 

Could not Rede mean 'address'? For example:

Gott ist unnamelich und über alle Worte in Lauterkeit seines Wesens, da Gott weder Rede noch Wort haben kann, da er unsprechlich ist allen Kreaturen.

'God in the purity of being is nameless and beyond all words, since God can neither be addressed nor defined, being inexpressible to all creatures.'

(Either way, you can see why he could be accused of heresy by a jealous church.)_


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> I don't thinkmeanssince I believemeans _as He's pure_ whereas I thinkmeans _as He purely *is*_, i.e. His existence is nothing but being, it's _pure being_, so no words exist that might describe Him, He has no effable properties.
> 
> Permit me an odd-sounding rephrasing of_da er lauter/nur west - as he purely/only *is*_.
> 
> So it's not _Lauterkeit/purity_ as a moral category (there are no categories by which to judge God) but _lauter/only_ as in _​Ich habe lauter/nur Freunde eingeladen.
> 
> 
> 
> _PS
> _lauter - gänzlich, einzig, bloß _DWB
> verb _wesen _DWB




I didn't realized my translation was going in that direction (because in Portuguese it could mean both things), thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> Could not Rede mean 'address'?


If God can't be addressed, how can he possibly be prayed to?

The idea that not talking about him at all would render any church pointless is certainly true. The intended meaning might be that, beyond what's stated about God in the Bible, i.e. that he's omnipotent, omniscient etc., any speculation as to what he may be like is futile. And the purpose of churches, as far as talking about God is concerned, is not, then, talking about him per se but talking about how best to do his will.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> If God can't be addressed, how can he possibly be prayed to?



approached?


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> If God can't be addressed, how can he possibly be prayed to?


That was my point in saying:


wandle said:


> (Either way, you can see why he could be accused of heresy by a jealous church.)


The statements of the mystic, taken seriously, mean that all verbal communication, either individual or social, with the deity is impossible.
If it was on this ground that he was accused of heresy, it would be a mistake to edit it out in translation.

My reason for suggesting the meaning 'address' for _Rede_ is that otherwise the text is somewhat redundant.
_Rede_ (address) and _Wort_ (definition) become distinct in meaning rather than closely synonymous.


----------



## Löwenfrau

There might be another option in Portuguese: (synonyms in English)

*interpelar*
in.ter.pe.lar
_vt_ *1* to interpellate. *2* to question, interrogate. *3* to summon, cite. *4* to demand official explanations.

This is clearly different from praying to God, if that is a problem as SR has pointed out in #13.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I don't think the passage itself rules out addressing God or praying to him since I don't think it's about _Rede _*with* him. 

God has neither _Rede _nor _Wort _inasmuch as 
(1) regarding _Rede_, talk *about* God and what he may be like is futile beyond what the Bible states about him anyway and
(2) regarding _Wort_, there's no _word _by which to _name _him.   

Being the theological ignoramus I am, I can't tell, however, whether a rigid interpretation of there being no name to God might indeed, by inference, rule out even addressing, and praying to, God. Layman's question: Can't I simply call him _God_​?


----------



## wandle

I suggested 'address' for _Rede_ because _weder Rede noch Wort_ implies that Eckhart sees these two terms as clearly distinct.
'Talk to' makes that distinction greater than 'talk about', because _Wort_ could be seen as including any talk, not just a definition: you could say that any talk about God is defining Him in one way or another.

However, there is a further point. There is a problem in theological terms, whichever way _Rede_ is interpreted.

If _Rede_ means talking about God, then if we take that literally, Eckhart is saying that organising a church is impossible.
Such a thing cannot be done without talking about God. Theology cannot be done without talking about God. In other words, all such activity by humans is meaningless: it is only humans talking to each other and doing things together. That activity is simply not about God at all.

If _Rede_ means talking to God, then if we take that literally, Eckhart is saying that prayer is impossible. Individual prayers, or church services, are meaningless if they are not actually addressing God. They are just people talking to themselves, or to the air.

Now we know that Eckhart had to defend himself repeatedly against charges of heresy. It may be that the present text was one of the grounds on which he was accused. If so, it would be a mistake in translation to change the sense so as to eliminate the above problem. 

Any translation ought to retain the sense intended by Eckhart, whatever it was. It ought not to be adjusted in translation so as to remove a theological difficulty which arises from Eckhart's thought itself.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> If _Rede means talking about God, then if we take that literally, Eckhart is saying that organising a church is impossible.
> Such a thing cannot be done without talking about God. Theology cannot be done without talking about God. In other words, all such activity by humans is meaningless: it is only humans talking to each other and doing things together. That activity is simply not about God at all.
> 
> If Rede means talking to God, then if we take that literally, Eckhart is saying that prayer is impossible. Individual prayers, or church services, are meaningless if they are not actually addressing God. They are just people talking to themselves, or to the air._



I believe Eckhart would agree with both remarks. But I think the first one is more prominent: talking about God is meaningless. The most distinguishing feature of (Christian) mystics, as we know, is that their religious ideas and feelings are not ruled by Church nor by any institution or authority, but consists of a direct and internal relation with God, and, at least in the case of Eckhart, only possible within silence.... All that Eckhart says intends to, paradoxically, lead to silence.

Anyway: wandle, I think that "to approach" saves both points you made, although it sounds more like the first one (which I think is good). I'm sure thinking in Portuguese "abordar": this verb serves to say that you refer to God in a discourse, or that you speak directly to Him. Wouldn't it be very desirable?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Isn't





Löwenfrau said:


> abordar


a cognate of _(coming) aboard_? Don't the mystics teach you can touch/feel/unite with God? Only speech is the problem.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> Isn'ta cognate of _(coming) aboard_? Don't the mystics teach you can touch/feel/unite with God? Only speech is the problem.



Well, the common use of this word is that of speech, even if - you are right - its original meaning is _(coming) aboard_.

It's a shame if I can't use it, because to me it appears to be the only word capable of preserving both possible meanings that wandle pointed out in #18...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Why not evade the problem by a literal _God can have neither speech nor word_, irrespective of what that might mean?


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> Why not evade the problem by a literal _God can have neither speech nor word_, irrespective of what that might mean?



Yes, this is closer to my first intention in #1 





> God has and cannot have neither discourse nor word



We went too far. 

P.S.: That's was actually your idea... 





> _... as God can be neither spoken of nor used a word for.
> ... as one can neither speak of God nor use a word for Him._


----------



## Schimmelreiter

By saying





Schimmelreiter said:


> Why not evade the problem by a literal _God can have neither speech nor word_, irrespective of what that might mean?


I meant to retract, in light of this entire thread, what suggestion I'd made earlier:





Löwenfrau said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> _... as God can be neither spoken of nor used a word for.
> ... as one can neither speak of God nor use a word for Him._
Click to expand...

I don't think





Löwenfrau said:


> discourse


is appropriate since _Rede _isn't necessarily discoursive; it may also be a monologue. I'm aware some use _discourse_ to mean the monological discussion of a given topic but that doesn't seem to be how it's "normally" used.

This entire thread has centred around the preposition in


Schimmelreiter said:


> _as God can be neither spoken *of* [...]_


and whether it shouldn't be *to* or both. Whole councils used to centre around similar issues.  I thus came to the conclusion we'd best stay literal: As we don't know what


Löwenfrau said:


> da Gott weder Rede noch Wort haben kann


means, let alone whether it may not perhaps be purposely ambiguous, let's just shove all its irresoluble ambiguity, be it intended by Eckhart or not, into a literal translation _(When you have a problem, make it somebody else's)_​:


Schimmelreiter said:


> _[as] __God can have neither speech nor word_


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> By sayingI meant to retract, in light of this entire thread, what suggestion I'd made earlier:I don't thinkis appropriate since _Rede _isn't necessarily discoursive; it may also be a monologue. I'm aware some use _discourse_ to mean the monological discussion of a given topic but that doesn't seem to be how it's "normally" used.
> 
> This entire thread has centred around the preposition in
> and whether it shouldn't be *to* or both. Whole councils used to centre around similar issues.  I thus came to the conclusion we'd best stay literal: As we don't know what
> means, let alone whether it may not perhaps be purposely ambiguous, let's just shove all its irresoluble ambiguity, be it intended by Eckhart or not, into a literal translation _(When you have a problem, make it somebody else's)_​:


----------



## wandle

The difficulty with the literal translation 'God can have neither speech nor word' seems to me that it suggests, in English at least, that He is incapable of speech, whereas one thing we know is that Echkart means to say that God is to us inexpressible (_unsprechlich_): we humans are the ones who are incapable in this respect.


----------



## Löwenfrau

wandle said:


> The difficulty with the literal translation 'God can have neither speech nor word' seems to me that it suggests, in English at least, that He is incapable of speech, whereas one thing we know is that Echkart means to say that God is to us inexpressible (_unsprechlich_): we humans are the ones who are incapable in this respect.



In this case, there are some options:

- 'Neither speech nor word suit God'
'- Speech and words are not appropriate to God'
-  God is not subject to speech and word'

Something like that?
-


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> The difficulty with the literal translation 'God can have neither speech nor word' seems to me that it suggests, in English at least, that He is incapable of speech, whereas one thing we know is that Echkart means to say that God is to us inexpressible (_unsprechlich_): we humans are the ones who are incapable in this respect.


The same is true of _Gott kann weder Rede noch Wort haben_: The prima-facie interpretation is He can't speak, and only through consideration of the context can the "opposite" meaning be found out. Why not have the reader of the translation confront the same issue?


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> The same is true of _Gott kann weder Rede noch Wort haben_: The prima-facie interpretation is He can't speak, and only through consideration of the context can the "opposite" meaning be found out. Why not have the reader of the translation confront the same issue?



That's important: in Portuguese, if I use the equivalent for "haben" and "have", there is no ambiguity, but one would read it only as "God possesses neither speech nor word", i.e., God can't talk.
In this case, maybe one of the solutions I posted on  # 27 might work better.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> In this case, maybe one of the solutions I posted on  # 27 might work better.


I suggest you pick the one that best preserves the _spoken to/spoken of_​ ambiguity in Portuguese.


----------



## wandle

In English, perhaps: 
'for with God there is neither speech nor word, as he is inexpressible to all creatures'.


----------

