In griechischem oder orientalischem Geist? Moses Mendelssohn im Religionsdiskurs der Aufklärungszeit

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Kathrin Wittler
{"title":"In griechischem oder orientalischem Geist? Moses Mendelssohn im Religionsdiskurs der Aufklärungszeit","authors":"Kathrin Wittler","doi":"10.1515/asch-2022-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While Moses Mendelssohn’s reputation as a modern Socrates is well-known to scholars of eighteenth-century intellectual history, the opposite tendency to orientalise him has received less attention than it deserves. The paper discusses some examples, highlighting the interdependence of Greek and Oriental attributions. In their critical reactions to Mendelssohn’s Phädon (1767), a modern version of Socrates’ dialogues on the immortality of the soul, radical Pietist Johann Daniel Müller and Lutheran orthodox theologian Gottfried Joachim Wichmann sought to invalidate the Jewish Enlightener’s case for reason by orientalising him. At the end of the century, the religious tensions inherent in the uses of Greek and Oriental models for different Jewish and Christian denominational positions became visible in Johann Gottfried Schadow’s drawing Sokrates im Kerker (1800), a work commissioned by David Friedländer, whose Sendschreiben von einigen Hausvätern jüdischer Religion (1799) had just caused a stir with its bold statements in the spirit of Deism.","PeriodicalId":40863,"journal":{"name":"Aschkenas-Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte und Kultur der Juden","volume":"32 1","pages":"69 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aschkenas-Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte und Kultur der Juden","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/asch-2022-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract While Moses Mendelssohn’s reputation as a modern Socrates is well-known to scholars of eighteenth-century intellectual history, the opposite tendency to orientalise him has received less attention than it deserves. The paper discusses some examples, highlighting the interdependence of Greek and Oriental attributions. In their critical reactions to Mendelssohn’s Phädon (1767), a modern version of Socrates’ dialogues on the immortality of the soul, radical Pietist Johann Daniel Müller and Lutheran orthodox theologian Gottfried Joachim Wichmann sought to invalidate the Jewish Enlightener’s case for reason by orientalising him. At the end of the century, the religious tensions inherent in the uses of Greek and Oriental models for different Jewish and Christian denominational positions became visible in Johann Gottfried Schadow’s drawing Sokrates im Kerker (1800), a work commissioned by David Friedländer, whose Sendschreiben von einigen Hausvätern jüdischer Religion (1799) had just caused a stir with its bold statements in the spirit of Deism.
是希腊精神还是东方精神?摩西的门德尔松在明争暗斗中的教义
虽然门德尔松作为现代苏格拉底的名声为18世纪思想史学者所熟知,但将他东方化的相反倾向却没有得到应有的关注。本文讨论了一些例子,突出了希腊语和东方语的相互依存关系。门德尔松的《Phädon》(1767)是苏格拉底关于灵魂不朽的对话的现代版本,激进的虔诚主义者约翰·丹尼尔·米勒和路德派正统神学家戈特弗里德·约阿希姆·威希曼对门德尔松的批判反应,试图通过将这位犹太启蒙者东方化来推翻他的理性主张。19世纪末,在约翰·戈特弗里德·沙多(john Gottfried Schadow)的画作《苏格拉底与克尔克》(Sokrates in Kerker, 1800)中,不同的犹太教和基督教宗派立场所固有的宗教紧张关系变得明显起来。这幅作品是大卫·Friedländer委托创作的,他的《Sendschreiben von einigen Hausvätern j discher Religion》(1799)刚刚以其大胆的自然神论精神声明引起了轰动。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信