There’s Something about Mary: Challenges and Prospects for Narrative Theodicy

J. Hernandez
{"title":"There’s Something about Mary: Challenges and Prospects for Narrative Theodicy","authors":"J. Hernandez","doi":"10.12978/jat.2021-9.090811070425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the constraints of narrative theodicy to account for the misery of the powerless and uses Mary of Bethany as a case study as evaluated through the early modern theodical writings of Mary Astell and Mary Hays. Eleonore Stump has pointed out that Mary of Bethany’s misery is interesting because it is so personal; it results from losing her heart’s desire. But, Mary of Bethany’s case fails as narrative theodicy because it cannot (unlike other cases, such as Job) sufficiently demonstrate the power of God in situated expressions of suffering, speak to plight of the powerless, nor put the sufferer in a stronger epistemic position. Astell and Hays provide a solution for the problem of lived experiences of systemic oppression for the project of narrative theodicy (it must be for and about suffering), and in so doing, remind us of the continued significance of their work to the philosophical canon. To succeed, narratives used for theodicy must speak directly to the plight of those who suffer, and must allow the powerless, miserable, unprivileged, and oppressed to have access to religious knowledge of the relationship between God and the one in misery, the one powerless.","PeriodicalId":14947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Analytic Theology","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Analytic Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2021-9.090811070425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper explores the constraints of narrative theodicy to account for the misery of the powerless and uses Mary of Bethany as a case study as evaluated through the early modern theodical writings of Mary Astell and Mary Hays. Eleonore Stump has pointed out that Mary of Bethany’s misery is interesting because it is so personal; it results from losing her heart’s desire. But, Mary of Bethany’s case fails as narrative theodicy because it cannot (unlike other cases, such as Job) sufficiently demonstrate the power of God in situated expressions of suffering, speak to plight of the powerless, nor put the sufferer in a stronger epistemic position. Astell and Hays provide a solution for the problem of lived experiences of systemic oppression for the project of narrative theodicy (it must be for and about suffering), and in so doing, remind us of the continued significance of their work to the philosophical canon. To succeed, narratives used for theodicy must speak directly to the plight of those who suffer, and must allow the powerless, miserable, unprivileged, and oppressed to have access to religious knowledge of the relationship between God and the one in misery, the one powerless.
《关于玛丽的事:叙事神正论的挑战与展望
本文通过玛丽·阿斯特尔和玛丽·海斯的早期现代神学著作,探讨了叙事神正论在解释无权者的苦难方面的局限性,并以伯大尼的玛丽为例进行了研究。埃莉奥诺·斯顿普指出,伯大尼的玛丽的痛苦很有趣,因为它是如此个人化;这是她失去内心渴望的结果。但是,伯大尼的马利亚的案例不能作为叙事的神正论,因为它不能(不像其他案例,如约伯)充分证明上帝的力量在苦难的情境表达中,对无能为力的困境说话,也不能把受苦者置于更强的认知地位。阿斯特尔和海斯为叙述性神正论项目(它必须是为了痛苦和关于痛苦)的系统性压迫的生活经验问题提供了一个解决方案,这样做,提醒我们他们的工作对哲学经典的持续意义。为了取得成功,神正论的叙事必须直接讲述那些受苦的人的困境,必须允许无权、悲惨、没有特权和受压迫的人获得宗教知识,了解上帝与处于痛苦、无权的人之间的关系。
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
0
×
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