“The Bush Burned with Fire and the Bush Was Not Consumed”

Miriam Feldmann Kaye
{"title":"“The Bush Burned with Fire and the Bush Was Not Consumed”","authors":"Miriam Feldmann Kaye","doi":"10.1163/15743012-bja10023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper explores the post-metaphysical theology of Richard Kearney (1954–) from a Jewish theological perspective. It seeks to provide an original analysis of his project “anatheism,” considering the prominence of Jewish texts in the development of the concept of anatheism. Rooted in deconstructionist and Continental philosophical discourses, Jewish hermeneutics also plays a central role in anatheism. This discursive intersection has received scarce scholarly attention to date. Biblical and other texts which he interprets, include the rabbinic exegesis of Rashi and of modern Jewish hermeneutical philosophy notably of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas. I analyse elements of Kearney’s interpretation primarily of the “Burning Bush” biblical narrative as a test case for anatheistic reading of Jewish texts as they appear in one particular text “I Am Who May Be” in The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion (2001). Kearney’s textual reading of the Burning Bush offers an unusual example of a Christian engagement with Jewish interpretations of the biblical parable as well as of Levinas, Derrida, and others. Kearney’s effort highlights an approach of a mutual search for ways of interpreting texts not “of” the other, but “with” the other, in a mutual engagement of post-metaphysical theology. More broadly, this examination offers an important contribution to the developing field of post-metaphysical theology in the Jewish and Christian traditions, ultimately posing questions as to how and whether elements of Jewish scriptural interpretative techniques might or can imbue contemporary Christian post-metaphysical theologies. Conversely, the question can be asked as to what a Jewish version of anatheism might look like. This examination presents a test case for possibilities of reading and learning from discourses across different religions.","PeriodicalId":41841,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-bja10023","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

This paper explores the post-metaphysical theology of Richard Kearney (1954–) from a Jewish theological perspective. It seeks to provide an original analysis of his project “anatheism,” considering the prominence of Jewish texts in the development of the concept of anatheism. Rooted in deconstructionist and Continental philosophical discourses, Jewish hermeneutics also plays a central role in anatheism. This discursive intersection has received scarce scholarly attention to date. Biblical and other texts which he interprets, include the rabbinic exegesis of Rashi and of modern Jewish hermeneutical philosophy notably of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas. I analyse elements of Kearney’s interpretation primarily of the “Burning Bush” biblical narrative as a test case for anatheistic reading of Jewish texts as they appear in one particular text “I Am Who May Be” in The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion (2001). Kearney’s textual reading of the Burning Bush offers an unusual example of a Christian engagement with Jewish interpretations of the biblical parable as well as of Levinas, Derrida, and others. Kearney’s effort highlights an approach of a mutual search for ways of interpreting texts not “of” the other, but “with” the other, in a mutual engagement of post-metaphysical theology. More broadly, this examination offers an important contribution to the developing field of post-metaphysical theology in the Jewish and Christian traditions, ultimately posing questions as to how and whether elements of Jewish scriptural interpretative techniques might or can imbue contemporary Christian post-metaphysical theologies. Conversely, the question can be asked as to what a Jewish version of anatheism might look like. This examination presents a test case for possibilities of reading and learning from discourses across different religions.
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
“被火焚烧的灌木并没有被烧毁”
本文从犹太神学的角度探讨了理查德·科尔尼(Richard Kearney, 1954 -)的后形而上学神学。它试图为他的“无神论”项目提供一个原始的分析,考虑到犹太文本在无神论概念发展中的突出地位。植根于解构主义和欧陆哲学话语,犹太解释学在无神论中也起着核心作用。到目前为止,这种话语的交叉很少受到学术的关注。他解释的圣经和其他文本,包括拉比释经的拉希和现代犹太解释学哲学,特别是马丁·布伯,弗朗茨·罗森茨威格和伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯。我主要分析了科尔尼对“燃烧的灌木丛”圣经叙事的解释的元素,作为对犹太文本的无神论阅读的测试案例,因为它们出现在《可能存在的上帝:宗教解释学》(2001)中的一个特定文本“我是可能存在的人”中。科尔尼对燃烧的灌木丛的文本解读提供了一个不同寻常的例子,即基督教与犹太人对圣经寓言的解释,以及列维纳斯、德里达和其他人的解释。科尔尼的努力强调了一种相互寻找解释文本的方法的方法,不是“属于”他者,而是“与”他者,在后形而上学神学的相互参与中。更广泛地说,这项研究为犹太和基督教传统中后形而上学神学的发展领域做出了重要贡献,最终提出了犹太圣经解释技术的元素如何以及是否可能或能够渗透当代基督教后形而上学神学的问题。反过来,我们也可以问,犹太版本的无神论是什么样子的。这次考试为阅读和学习不同宗教话语的可能性提供了一个测试案例。
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
The Salvific City Under Caesar’s Sword Pondering Tibetan Buddhist Alterity in Peter Dickinson’s Tulku Mani and Augustine: Collected Essays on Mani, Manichaeism and Augustine , by Johannes van Oort “God” in Augustine’s Confessions
×
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