Buddhist Antidotes against Greek Maladies: Ritschl, Harnack, and the Dehellenization of Intercultural Philosophy

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION Buddhist-Christian Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/bcs.2023.a907578
Fabien Muller
{"title":"Buddhist Antidotes against Greek Maladies: Ritschl, Harnack, and the Dehellenization of Intercultural Philosophy","authors":"Fabien Muller","doi":"10.1353/bcs.2023.a907578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract: One of the most prolific approaches to the comparative study of Buddhist and Christian philosophy has been the use of Buddhist anti-metaphysicism to overcome the allegedly obsolete metaphysical discourse of Christianity. This approach has been practiced, among others, by Edgar Bruns, Frederik Streng, Joseph O'Leary, and John Keenan. Keenan's 1980–1990s seminal works were determinative in that they appeared to rely on intuitive and evident premises: Christianity became infused with Greek metaphysical concepts early on; consequently, it adopted the forms of essentialism and ontological discourse practiced in metaphysics. That discourse has now become obsolete and must be overcome; Buddhist anti-metaphysicism helps overcome it; hence, Christianity can learn from Buddhism. In this paper, I show that although Keenan presents the first of these claims as self-evident, it is in fact highly polemical. Its origins lie in Albrecht Ritschl's and Adolf von Harnack's Hellenization theory. While the theological and historical background to this theory has been debated, Keenan does not engage in these debates. Even more, he transforms the theory in such a way that it becomes incongruent with its inherent aim. Following the problems implied on these two levels, I suggest that Keenan's project makes itself vulnerable to incoherencies. In the end, I argue for the overcoming of antimetaphysicism as a basis for Buddhist-Christian dialogue.","PeriodicalId":41170,"journal":{"name":"Buddhist-Christian Studies","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Buddhist-Christian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bcs.2023.a907578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

abstract: One of the most prolific approaches to the comparative study of Buddhist and Christian philosophy has been the use of Buddhist anti-metaphysicism to overcome the allegedly obsolete metaphysical discourse of Christianity. This approach has been practiced, among others, by Edgar Bruns, Frederik Streng, Joseph O'Leary, and John Keenan. Keenan's 1980–1990s seminal works were determinative in that they appeared to rely on intuitive and evident premises: Christianity became infused with Greek metaphysical concepts early on; consequently, it adopted the forms of essentialism and ontological discourse practiced in metaphysics. That discourse has now become obsolete and must be overcome; Buddhist anti-metaphysicism helps overcome it; hence, Christianity can learn from Buddhism. In this paper, I show that although Keenan presents the first of these claims as self-evident, it is in fact highly polemical. Its origins lie in Albrecht Ritschl's and Adolf von Harnack's Hellenization theory. While the theological and historical background to this theory has been debated, Keenan does not engage in these debates. Even more, he transforms the theory in such a way that it becomes incongruent with its inherent aim. Following the problems implied on these two levels, I suggest that Keenan's project makes itself vulnerable to incoherencies. In the end, I argue for the overcoming of antimetaphysicism as a basis for Buddhist-Christian dialogue.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
希腊弊病的佛教解药:里奇尔、哈纳克和跨文化哲学的去希腊化
佛教和基督教哲学比较研究中最多产的方法之一是利用佛教的反形而上学来克服基督教所谓过时的形而上学话语。这种方法已经被埃德加·布伦斯、弗雷德里克·斯特朗、约瑟夫·奥利里和约翰·基南等人实践过。基南1980 - 90年代的开创性作品是决定性的,因为它们似乎依赖于直觉和明显的前提:基督教很早就融入了希腊形而上学的概念;因此,它采用了形而上学中本质论和本体论话语的形式。这种说法现在已经过时,必须加以克服;佛教的反形而上学有助于克服它;因此,基督教可以向佛教学习。在本文中,我表明,尽管基南提出的第一个主张是不言而喻的,但它实际上是高度争议的。它的起源在于阿尔布雷希特·里切尔和阿道夫·冯·哈纳克的希腊化理论。虽然这一理论的神学和历史背景一直存在争议,但基南并没有参与这些辩论。更重要的是,他以这样一种方式改变了理论,使其与其内在目标不一致。根据这两个层面隐含的问题,我认为基南的项目本身容易受到不连贯的影响。最后,我主张克服反形而上学,作为佛教与基督教对话的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Buddhist-Christian Studies is a scholarly journal devoted to Buddhism and Christianity and their historical and contemporary interrelationships. The journal presents thoughtful articles, conference reports, and book reviews and includes sections on comparative methodology and historical comparisons, as well as ongoing discussions from two dialogue conferences: the Theological Encounter with Buddhism, and the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies. Subscription is also available through membership in the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies .
期刊最新文献
Vietnamese Catholics in the United States and Americanization: A Sociological and Religious Perspective Earthing The Cosmic Christ of Ephesians: The Universe, Trinity, & Zhiyi's Threefold Truth by John P. Keenan (review) Remarks on Getting Saved in America: Taiwanese Immigration and Religious Conversion The Lord's Prayer in the Light of Shin-Buddhist-Christian Comparative Considerations The Journey of The Mind: Zen Meditation and Contemplative Prayer in the Korean Buddhist and Franciscan Traditions; with Special Reference to "Secrets on Cultivating the Mind" (修心訣 수심결, su shim gyol ) by Pojo Chinul (知訥, 1158–1210) and "The Journey of the Mind into God" ( itinerarium mentis in deum ) by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1217–1274)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1