Anerkannte Kontingenz: Schellings existentiale Interpretation des Johannesprologs in der "Philosophie der Offenbarung"
The question of reality is treated in this paper from the speculative philosophical perspective of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854). In his late work from 1841–42, the Philosophy of Revelation, Schelling focuses primarily on two New Testament texts, John’s Prologue (John 1:1–18) an...
|Published in:||Biblical interpretation|
|Check availability:||HBZ Gateway|
Year: 2005, Pages: 141-154
|Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:||B
Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift Johannesevangelium 1,1-18
B Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von 1775-1854
Volltext (Kostenfrei) |
|Summary:||The question of reality is treated in this paper from the speculative philosophical perspective of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854). In his late work from 1841–42, the Philosophy of Revelation, Schelling focuses primarily on two New Testament texts, John’s Prologue (John 1:1–18) and the christological hymn of Paul’s letter to the Philippians (Phil 2:5–11), in order to unfold his understanding of the Christian religion as a religion of revelation. The author aims to show that Schelling gained his understanding of revelation from his interpretation of the Bible. Thus, Schelling’s Philosophy of Revelation can aptly be called a biblical philosophy of revelation. In his interpretation of John’s Prologue, Schelling shows that the Christ portrayed in John’s Gospel is God’s revelation; Christ is the historical form of the Revealer (John 1:14). What Christ reveals is a historical person who acts and who knows himself to be, on the one hand, free in his relation to the world and, on the other hand, to be essentially related to God. Furthermore, Christ reveals the logos of God who was with God (John 1:1–3). According to Schelling, this logos is both theoretical and practical reason and therefore grounded in God, and as reason, the logos mediates the actualization of the world in history. In bringing forth the world, God remains the world’s ground, particularly the ground of human freedom. The world also exists under the condition that it be known, and it is the logos that mediates this knowledge. As the religion of revelation, Christianity discloses the transcendence of God as the world’s ground, the immanence of the logos in human reason, and the principle of freedom incarnate in a historical individual. The main philosophical question of nineteenth-century transcendental Idealism concerned the ground, the capacity, and the limits of reason. By answering this question in view of his biblical interpretation, Schelling claims that philosophy, rather than biblical studies, glimpses into the deeper meaning of the Bible’s account of revelation. It is through Christ’s revelation that reason is made aware of its incapacity to conceptualize its own ground. Revealed through a contingent historical fact as an instance of human subjectivity, is the knowledge and experience that reason’s relation to its ground is one not within human control, but one that is given to it. What is given is the possibility for self-transcendence. Reason transcends itself when it is placed in relation to its ground. This self-transcendence is not mediated by objective knowledge. Rather, it is given immediately to reason as “being prior to thinking that itself cannot be thought” (unvordenkliches Sein). As such, it inspires religion that has the function to mediate reason’s self-transcendence to its ground. On the basis of the revelation in the Christian religion, philosophy can make claims concerning this relation. With this “negative philosophy” denying reason’s possibility to conceptually exhaust its own ground, Schelling distinguishes his philosophy from both Fichte’s and Hegel’s “positive philosophy” that affirms this possibility. And in his recovery of biblical sources for his own philosophy, Schelling, quite possibly, captures the truth of biblical insights into the transcendent ground’s creation of the world in freedom, to be experienced and never to be entirely determined by reason.|
|Contains:||In: Biblical interpretation
|Persistent identifiers:||DOI: 10.15496/publikation-36799|