神学的恩赐

IF 0.3 0 RELIGION
Filip Rasmussen
{"title":"神学的恩赐","authors":"Filip Rasmussen","doi":"10.1080/0039338X.2021.1946141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, many theologians, philosophers, and anthropologists have turned to the simultaneously intriguing and problematic question of the possibility of “the gift”. This article compares the way the latter figures and is developed for constructive purposes in the theology of Kathryn Tanner and John Milbank. After having explained the background of the current resurgence of gift-language in the work of Marcel Mauss and Jacques Derrida, the article examines how Tanner and Milbank answer the concerns of the latter and highlight their very different emphases on unilateralism and reciprocity, respectively. As an answer to a question posed by Sarah Coakley, I argue that the differences between Milbank and Tanner, between “purified” gift exchange on the one hand and “unilateral” gift on the other, are more rhetorical than substantial. Nevertheless, I also argue that there is a tension between unilateralism and reciprocity in Tanner’s theology which comes down to a problem of relationality. I argue that Milbank solves this problem in a better way, and that Tanner’s account might be adjusted by bringing themes of reciprocity, although implicitly present, more clearly to the surface, and by nuancing her notions of “pure” and “completely unilateral” gifts.","PeriodicalId":41136,"journal":{"name":"Studia Theologica-Nordic Journal of Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The gift in theology\",\"authors\":\"Filip Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0039338X.2021.1946141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, many theologians, philosophers, and anthropologists have turned to the simultaneously intriguing and problematic question of the possibility of “the gift”. This article compares the way the latter figures and is developed for constructive purposes in the theology of Kathryn Tanner and John Milbank. After having explained the background of the current resurgence of gift-language in the work of Marcel Mauss and Jacques Derrida, the article examines how Tanner and Milbank answer the concerns of the latter and highlight their very different emphases on unilateralism and reciprocity, respectively. As an answer to a question posed by Sarah Coakley, I argue that the differences between Milbank and Tanner, between “purified” gift exchange on the one hand and “unilateral” gift on the other, are more rhetorical than substantial. Nevertheless, I also argue that there is a tension between unilateralism and reciprocity in Tanner’s theology which comes down to a problem of relationality. I argue that Milbank solves this problem in a better way, and that Tanner’s account might be adjusted by bringing themes of reciprocity, although implicitly present, more clearly to the surface, and by nuancing her notions of “pure” and “completely unilateral” gifts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Theologica-Nordic Journal of Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Theologica-Nordic Journal of Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2021.1946141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Theologica-Nordic Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2021.1946141","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

摘要

近年来,许多神学家、哲学家和人类学家都转向了“天赋”的可能性这个既有趣又有问题的问题。本文比较了后者的表现方式,并在凯瑟琳·坦纳和约翰·米尔班克的神学中为建设性的目的而发展。在解释了马塞尔·莫斯(Marcel Mauss)和雅克·德里达(Jacques Derrida)的作品中当前礼物语言复兴的背景之后,本文考察了坦纳和米尔班克是如何回答后者的担忧的,并分别强调了他们对单边主义和互惠主义的截然不同的重视。作为对Sarah Coakley提出的问题的回答,我认为米尔班克和坦纳之间的差异,一方面是“纯化的”礼物交换,另一方面是“单方面的”礼物交换,与其说是实质性的,不如说是修辞上的。然而,我也认为,在坦纳的神学中,单边主义和互惠主义之间存在着一种紧张关系,这种紧张关系可以归结为一个关系问题。我认为米尔班克以一种更好的方式解决了这个问题,坦纳的解释可以通过将互惠的主题(虽然隐含地呈现)更清晰地呈现出来,并通过细微差别她对“纯粹的”和“完全单方面的”礼物的概念进行调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The gift in theology
In recent years, many theologians, philosophers, and anthropologists have turned to the simultaneously intriguing and problematic question of the possibility of “the gift”. This article compares the way the latter figures and is developed for constructive purposes in the theology of Kathryn Tanner and John Milbank. After having explained the background of the current resurgence of gift-language in the work of Marcel Mauss and Jacques Derrida, the article examines how Tanner and Milbank answer the concerns of the latter and highlight their very different emphases on unilateralism and reciprocity, respectively. As an answer to a question posed by Sarah Coakley, I argue that the differences between Milbank and Tanner, between “purified” gift exchange on the one hand and “unilateral” gift on the other, are more rhetorical than substantial. Nevertheless, I also argue that there is a tension between unilateralism and reciprocity in Tanner’s theology which comes down to a problem of relationality. I argue that Milbank solves this problem in a better way, and that Tanner’s account might be adjusted by bringing themes of reciprocity, although implicitly present, more clearly to the surface, and by nuancing her notions of “pure” and “completely unilateral” gifts.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信