Skip to main content

Whose Word Is It Anyway? Interpreting Revelation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 279 Accesses

Part of the book series: Contributions to Hermeneutics ((CONT HERMEN,volume 7))

Abstract

Intrinsic to the concept of revelation is that it comes to a subject from beyond. Numerous thinkers have emphasised that any compromise to the absolute nature of this transcendence would entail a compromise to the revelatory character of revelation. However, for revelation actually to occur, there must be some sort of appearing to a subject; that which is transcendent must enter the immanence of experience. Such an entry into immanence could suggest that any occurrence of revelation is impossible by definition because it compromises the absolute character of revelation’s transcendence and entails a self-contradiction.

One way of responding to this concern is to prohibit interpretation of revelation, ensuring that revelation is received with precisely the transcendent character with which it is given. However, this would result in any and every transcendence being welcomed as revelation, solely on the basis of its transcendence. As Richard Kearney argues, such an approach gives us no way of distinguishing between angels and demons. It is also possible that some experiences of revelation may be subjective projections rather than divine revelation.

Therefore, it is very important that a means of distinguishing different experiences of transcendence be identified. There have been two main approaches to this task of critical assessment and selection. First, one can appeal to authority, which offers clarity, but depersonalises and generalises the personal and particular character of revelatory experience. Since Descartes, such appeals are largely discredited as uncritical. Alternatively, Hans-Georg Gadamer proposes an ongoing, provisional, critical hermeneutics in his discussion of dialogue and conversation as models for human understanding. This essay explains how Gadamer’s approach might be applied to the reception of revelation, arguing that his approach allows us to preserve the essential character of both revelation and human experience.

An earlier version of parts of this essay appeared as “Discerning the Transcendent,” Doctrine and Life 67, no. 4 (April 2017): 37–47.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Taylor distinguishes three types of secularity, focussing his analysis on the third of these: (1) a separation of Church and State, in which social activity is divided into various autonomous spheres (political, educational, economic, etc.) that operate solely with values that are internal to themselves, without reference to God or ultimate reality; (2) a decline in religious belief and practice; (3) a shift “from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith … is one human possibility among others” (2007, 2–3).

  2. 2.

    Marion cites three examples of how such a decentring might be conceived: the immanent and originary passivity of self-affectivity (Michel Henry), the self-givenness of originary flesh prior to the distinction between immanence and transcendence (Didier Franck), and the inversion of intentionality when the face of another imposes an ethical injunction on the I (Emmanuel Levinas) (Marion 2008, 14).

  3. 3.

    Marion argues that there already examples of a variety of horizons in different phenomenologies: “objectivity (Husserl), Being (Heidegger), ethics (Levinas), the fleshed body (Merleau-Ponty), etc.” (Marion 2008, 14; translation modified).

References

  • Chrétien, Jean-Louis. 2004. Call and Response. In The Call and the Response. Trans. Anne A. Davenport. Perspectives in Continental Philosophy, no. 33, 5–32. New York: Fordham University Press. French original: 1992. L’appel et la réponse. Philosophie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1990. Meditations on First Philosophy: A Bilungual Edition. Trans. and ed. George Heffernan. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Latin original: 1641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed. Trans. W. Glen-Doepel, trans. revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum. German original: 1960. Warheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeutik. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Kevin. 2003. The Experience of Nonexperience. In Mystics: Presence and Aporia, ed. Michael Kessler and Christian Sheppard, 188–206. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. The Experience of the Kingdom of God. In The Experience of God, ed. Kevin Hart and Barbara Wall, 71–86. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper-Collins. German original: 1927. Sein und Zeit. Halle: Max Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Michel. 2015. Incarnation: A Philosophy of Flesh. Trans. Karl Hefty. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. French original: 2000. Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1960. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. German original: 1950. Cartesianische Meditationen: Eine Einleitung in die Phänomenologie. In Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge, ed. Stephan Strasser. Gessamelte Werke (Husserliana), vol. I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1982. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. Trans. F. Kersten. Collected Works, vol. 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. German original: 1950. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenolgischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. Edited by Walter Biemel. Gessamelte Werke (Husserliana), vol. III/1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. 1996. Spiritual Exercises. Trans. Joseph A. Tetlow. New York: Crossroad. Latin original: 1548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janicaud, Dominique. 2000. The Theological Turn in French Phenomenology. Trans. Bernard G. Prusak. In Phenomenology and the ‘Theological Turn’: The French Debate, ed. Dominique Janicaud et al., 16–106. New York: Fordham University Press. French original: 1990. Le tournant théologique de la phenomenology. Tiré à part. Paris: Éditions de l’éclat.

    Google Scholar 

  • John of the Cross, Saint. 1991. The Spiritual Canticle. In The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, REV. ed., Trans. Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilo Rodriguez, 461–630. Washington, DC: ICS Publications. Spanish original: 1627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, Richard. 2001. The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. A Dialogue with Jean-Luc Marion. Philosophy Today 48: 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Anatheism: Returning to God after God. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. French original: 1961. Totalité et infini: Essai sur l’extériorité. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. French original: 1982. Ethique et infini. Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard et Radio France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. A Man-God?. Trans. Michael B. Smith and Barbara Harshav. In Entre Nous: On Thinking-of-the-Other, 53–60. New York: Columbia University Press. French original: 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marion, Jean-Luc. 2001. The Idol and Distance: Five Studies. Trans. Thomas A. Carlson. Perspectives in Continental Philosophy, no. 17. New York: Fordham University Press. French original: 1977. L’idole et la distance: Cinq études. Paris: Grasset.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002a. Being given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky. Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. French original: 1997. Étant donné: Essai d’une phénoménologie de la donation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002b. In Excess: Studies of Saturated Phenomena. Trans. Robyn Horner and Vincent Berraud. Perspectives in Continental Philosophy, no. 27. New York: Fordham University Press. French original: 2001. De surcroît: Études sur les phénomènes saturés. Perspectives critiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002c. The Intentionality of Love. Trans. Stephen E. Lewis. In Prolegomena to Charity, 71–101. New York: Fordham University Press. French original: 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. The Banality of Saturation. Trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky. In Counter-Experiences: Reading Jean-Luc Marion, ed. Kevin Hart, 383–418. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. French original: 2005. La banalité de la saturation. In Le visible et le révélé, 143–82. Paris: Cerf.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. The Possible and Revelation. Trans. Christina M. Gschwandtner. In The Visible and the Revealed, 1–17. New York: Fordham University Press. German original: 1988. Phänomenologie und Offenbarung (trans. R. Funk). In Religionsphilosophie Heute: Chancen und Bedeutung in Philosophie und Theologie, ed. Lois Halder, Klaus Kinezler and Joseph Möller. Düsseldorf: Patmos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, Jack. 1979. The Habermas-Gadamer Debate. New German Critique 18 (Autumn): 44–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, Susan. 2003. Unmasking the Angel of Light: The Problem of Deception in Martin Luther and Teresa of Avila. In Mystics: Presence and Aporia, ed. Michael Kessler and Christian Sheppard, 118–137. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teresa of Avila, Saint. 1976. Collected Works. 3 vols. Trans. Kieran Kavanagh and Otilio Rodriguez. Washington, DC: ICS Publications. Spanish originals: c. 1563–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Graham. 2015. Embedding Theology. Colloquium 47: 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shane Mackinlay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mackinlay, S. (2020). Whose Word Is It Anyway? Interpreting Revelation. In: Marion, JL., Jacobs-Vandegeer, C. (eds) The Enigma of Divine Revelation. Contributions to Hermeneutics, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28132-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics