宗教有多私密?私人与公共宗教的神学争论:18世纪后期普鲁士维尔纳宗教法令的背景

Thea Sumalvico
{"title":"宗教有多私密?私人与公共宗教的神学争论:18世纪后期普鲁士维尔纳宗教法令的背景","authors":"Thea Sumalvico","doi":"10.1086/724777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1788, the new king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm II published an edict on religion under the auspices of his minister of state, Johann Christoph Woellner. The edict is very often interpreted as the renunciation of the tolerant religious policy of the late Friedrich II, who is generally regarded by historians as a promoter of tolerance and enlightenment. In contrast, I argue that the edict needs to be seen in the context of theological arguments, formulated among others by theologians who understood themselves as enlightened, such as Johann Salomo Semler. They distinguish between a public religion bound to certain dogmas and a private religion, independent from institutionalized religion and leading to increasing religious insight. This distinction is implicitly taken as a basis for Woellner’s edict, where religious attitudes differing from the “mainstream” are permitted, but they are to be kept in the private sphere. To interpret the edict rather in context of so-called enlightenment theology then as part of the counter-enlightenment also challenges our interpretation of the enlightenment as epoch of tolerance and religious freedom.","PeriodicalId":187662,"journal":{"name":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Private Is Religion? Theological Debates on Private and Public Religion as a Background for Woellner’s Edict on Religion in Late Eighteenth-Century Prussia\",\"authors\":\"Thea Sumalvico\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/724777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1788, the new king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm II published an edict on religion under the auspices of his minister of state, Johann Christoph Woellner. The edict is very often interpreted as the renunciation of the tolerant religious policy of the late Friedrich II, who is generally regarded by historians as a promoter of tolerance and enlightenment. In contrast, I argue that the edict needs to be seen in the context of theological arguments, formulated among others by theologians who understood themselves as enlightened, such as Johann Salomo Semler. They distinguish between a public religion bound to certain dogmas and a private religion, independent from institutionalized religion and leading to increasing religious insight. This distinction is implicitly taken as a basis for Woellner’s edict, where religious attitudes differing from the “mainstream” are permitted, but they are to be kept in the private sphere. To interpret the edict rather in context of so-called enlightenment theology then as part of the counter-enlightenment also challenges our interpretation of the enlightenment as epoch of tolerance and religious freedom.\",\"PeriodicalId\":187662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/724777\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1788年,普鲁士新国王弗里德里希·威廉二世在他的国务大臣约翰·克里斯托夫·维尔纳的主持下发布了一项关于宗教的法令。这项法令经常被解释为放弃了已故弗里德里希二世(Friedrich II)宽容的宗教政策,历史学家通常认为弗里德里希二世是宽容和启蒙运动的推动者。相反,我认为该法令需要放在神学论证的背景下看待,这些论证是由约翰·萨罗莫·塞姆勒等自认为开明的神学家制定的。他们区分了受某些教条束缚的公共宗教和独立于制度化宗教的私人宗教,并导致越来越多的宗教洞察力。这一区别被隐含地作为威尔纳法令的基础,在该法令中,与“主流”不同的宗教态度是允许的,但它们被保留在私人领域。在所谓启蒙神学的背景下解读圣旨作为反启蒙运动的一部分也挑战了我们对启蒙运动作为宽容和宗教自由时代的解读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How Private Is Religion? Theological Debates on Private and Public Religion as a Background for Woellner’s Edict on Religion in Late Eighteenth-Century Prussia
In 1788, the new king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm II published an edict on religion under the auspices of his minister of state, Johann Christoph Woellner. The edict is very often interpreted as the renunciation of the tolerant religious policy of the late Friedrich II, who is generally regarded by historians as a promoter of tolerance and enlightenment. In contrast, I argue that the edict needs to be seen in the context of theological arguments, formulated among others by theologians who understood themselves as enlightened, such as Johann Salomo Semler. They distinguish between a public religion bound to certain dogmas and a private religion, independent from institutionalized religion and leading to increasing religious insight. This distinction is implicitly taken as a basis for Woellner’s edict, where religious attitudes differing from the “mainstream” are permitted, but they are to be kept in the private sphere. To interpret the edict rather in context of so-called enlightenment theology then as part of the counter-enlightenment also challenges our interpretation of the enlightenment as epoch of tolerance and religious freedom.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Transcreation and Postcolonial Knowledge Chomsky versus Foucault, and the Problem of Knowledge in Translation When Dragons Show Themselves: Research, Constructing Knowledge, and the Practice of Translation A Critique of Provincial Reason: Situated Cosmopolitanisms and the Infrastructures of Theoretical Translation Translation and the Archive
×
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