comparative theology in search for a hermeneutical framework

7/25/2019 Comparative Theology in Search for a Hermeneutical Framework

1/25

ComparativeTheologyinSearchofaHermeneuticalFramework

MarianneMoyaert

Introduction

Comparative theology is presented as a genuinely adequate

wayto

understand

and

appreciate

the

otherness

of

the

religious

otherwithout losing sight of ones own identity. The proponentsofcomparative theology regard itas the futureof theology:Any theology inany tradition that takes religiouspluralismseriouslymusteventuallybecomecomparativetheology(Tracy1987:454).Still,upuntiltodaycomparativetheologyremainsamarginalandnotwidelyunderstooddisciplinewithintheologicalstudies(Nicholson2005:191).Evenmorestrongly,itisbeing criticized asbeing a deeply ambiguous discipline(Nicholson2007:229), lackinga clear scientific framework. Itshermeneutical presuppositions especially remain underdevel

oped.

Thiscontributionaimstoovercomethiscritiquebysketching the original research profile of the comparative theologyprojectmoreclearly.Inthefirstpart,Iwillsituatecomparativetheologywithin thebroader theological landscape,and in thesecondIwilldevelopahermeneuticalframeworkforcomparative theology.To thatend, Iwillbriefly explore itsmainhermeneutical presuppositions.Next, Iwill further elaborate onthesepresuppositionsbyplacingthemwithinPaulRicoeursinterpretation theory. Iwill point out possible interconnectionsbetween the comparative theology project andRicoeurs hermeneuticalphilosophy.Indoingso,IwillarguethatRicoeurs

texthermeneutics

can

function

as

the

methodological

frame

workcomparativetheologyneeds.

SituatingComparativeTheologywithintheBroaderTheologicalLandscape

Theoriginalityofcomparativetheologyshowsitselfindialogueandinconfrontationwithalreadyexistingpositions.Inthefollowing,Iwillfirstlookattheclassicaltheologyofreligionsand


2/25

162 INTERRELIGIOUSHERMENEUTICSINPLURALISTICEUROPE

explaininwhatsensecomparativetheologypresentsitselfasanalternative to thesocalledsoteriologicalapproach toreligiousdiversity.Next,Iwillexploretherelationbetweencomparativetheologyandpostliberaltheology.Ithasbeenarguedthatcomparativetheologyisfoundedonthegroundworkofpostliberalism (Knitter2002:177). Idispute thispoint,arguing thatcomparative theology displays its newnesspreciselywhere itdepartsfrompostliberalism.Boththeologicalprojectshaveaverydifferentappreciationofreligiousdiversity.Whereaspostliber

alismembraces

an

intratextual

hermeneutics,

comparative

theo

logycanbeunderstoodintermsofintertextuality.

ComparativeTheologyanditsRelationtotheTheologyofReligions

Christiansarebeingchallengedtodaytoreflectonthequestionofhowtheirfaithcommitmentrelatestothecontemporarysituation of religiousdiversity.Theologians respond to this challengebyconsideringthetheologicalmeaningofreligiousdiversity.ThewholeofChristian theologyof religions turnsonsoteriologicalquestions (Merrigan1999:339).What is thenatureand function of nonChristian religious traditions in light of

Christianfaith

in

the

salvific

character

of

the

life,

death,

and

re

surrectionofJesusChrist?AreallreligionsvalidinGodseyesall equally effective inputtingpeople in contactwith theDivine?DoesGodregardotherreligionsasacurseorablessing?Inresponsetothesesoteriologicalquestionsthethreefoldtypology of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism has emerged.TheexclusivistmodelproposedthatonlyChristianscanattainsalvation. Inclusivismacknowledges that,although it ispossiblefornonChristianstobesaved,Christisalwaysinvolvedin this soteriological process. The pluralist view regards religioustraditionsasdifferent,moreorlessequal,salvificpathstoultimate reality.Upuntil today,proponentsof thissoteriologicalapproachare involved inanongoingdebateon thequestionofwhichoneofthesemodelssucceeds informulatingthemost appropriate theological answer to the challenge of religiousplurality. Ido notwant to repeat thisdebate,but Idowant todrawattention to the fact that thisdiscussiondefinesopenness for the religiousotheror the lack thereof in soteriological terms (SchmidtLeukel2005:161).Hence, thedepiction


3/25

INSEARCHOFAHERMENEUTICALFRAMEWORK 163

ofexclusivismasclosed,inclusivismashalfopen,andpluralismasopen.

In recent literatureonecannotean increasingdissatisfactionwiththetheologyofreligions.Thecriticismreadsthatthesoteriologicalapproachamountstoaperversionofthevirtueofopenness. The threefold typology asks Christian questionsandsuggestsChristiananswers.Consequently,ittendstodresstheotherreligioustraditionsinitsownterms:

eitheronebaptizestheotherreligionsandclaimsthatthey

areimplicit

versions

of

ones

own

or

one

develops

aphilo

sophical standpoint fromwhich one claims tobe able to

evaluateallthereligions.(Placher1989:144)

More often than not, these models are abstract designs,developedwithout reference toanyparticular religious tradetion other than theChristian (Clooney 1993: 194).Within theframeworkofsoteriologywhat thereligiousotherasserts,values,practices, andhopesdoesnot seem tobe of real import,andthevoicesofthosewhoarebeingdiscussedareabsentfromthe conversation (Fredericks 2002: 15).Many theologians feelthat the soteriological threefold scheme is both insulting

(Placher1989:

145)

and

patronizing

(Barnes

2002:

15):

the

reli

gious other is understood without being heard. The soteriologicalfixationiscontrarytohermeneuticalopenness.

Comparative theology presents itself as an alternative totheclassicsoteriologicalapproach,avoiding thehermeneuticalbiasesoftheclassicaltheologyofreligions.First,itmovesawayfrom apriori theological interpretation schemes thatdisregardtheselfunderstandingofreligioustraditions.Next,itrejectsthetheologicalassumptionofaglobal,metaperspectiveonreligionthat(implicitly)claimstoknowotherreligionsbetterthantheirownadherents,

whetheras

the

vain

products

of

human

presumption,

as

in

Barths exclusivism, as various expressions of anonymous

Christianity,asinRahnersinclusivism,orasvariousforms

ofRealitycenteredness,as inHickspluralism. (Nicholson

2009:619)

Rather,comparative theologyclaims thatcomprehension (hermeneutics)precedesjudgement.Third,itsetsouttounderstand


4/25


themeaningoftheChristiantraditionbyexploringitinlightoftheteachingsofotherreligioustraditions.

Likecomparativereligion,itsharestheintentionofunderstandingotherreligions in themostobjectiveand fairmindedmannerpossible.Itaimsatarticulatingaviableunderstandingofthe other inwhichtheencountered other isnotmanufactured to the comparativists prejudices and expectations(Clooney1993:7). Insteadofsolvingtheproblemofreligiousdiversitywithatheologicalmetanarrative,comparativetheo

logyaccepts

that

learning

from

the

other

entails

disturbing

ex

periencesofalienation,disenchantment,and friction (Clooney2001:165).Theother is theonewhodoesnot fit intoourpreconceptions andwho challengesus to leave the realm of theknown.Comparativetheologyisnotthedomainofgeneralistsbut ratherof thosewilling toengage indetailed study, tentativelyandover time (Clooney2001:164).Thisdetailedstudyentailsprimarilyaclosereadingofstrangereligioustexts.

Unlike comparative religion, comparative theology remainsa theologicalproject.Thedetailed studyofother traditionshappensbecauseofacommitmenttoGod.Inopeningup

to

the

religious

other

in

and

through

a

detailed

study

of

his

texts,oneachievesafullerknowledgeofGod(Clooney2001:7).Clooney emphasizes the unfinished nature of comparativetheology,notasfactbutinprinciple.Thetheologicalreflectionsthat follow fromdetailed comparisons can onlybe tentativeandshouldnotbetakenasprecludingwhatwillbelearnedinfurther experiments (Clooney 2001: 164). Comparative theology is an ongoing and neverending conversational process:particular comparisons yield particular insights, insights thatmightbe revised in the future under the influence of otherparticular comparisons. In thisway, comparative theology remainspresystematicandpredogmatic.Itdoesnothavethe

ambitionof

leading

up

to

adefinite

theology

of

religions

(Clooney 2008: 176). Thosewho are looking for clearcut answers to clearcutquestions are likely tobedisappointed, formany questions will be left open after indepth study untilmorecommentarialworkhasbeendone,bymoretheologians,over amuch longerperiod of time (Clooney 2008: 184).Theonlyacceptabletheologyofreligionswillbeaposteriori,constructedfromthegroundup.


5/25


ComparativeTheologyanditsSocalledIndebtednesstoPostliberalism

In his book Introducing Theologies of Religions, Paul Knittersituates comparative theologyunder theumbrella ofwhathecallstheacceptancemodel.ThismodelgrewupduringthelasttwodecadesofthetwentiethcenturybothasachildofitstimesandasareactiontotheinadequaciesofothermodelsforaChristiantheologyofreligions(Knitter2002:173).Insketchingtheprofileoftheacceptancemodel,Knitterclaimsthatitrelies

on

the

ground

breaking

and

foundation

laying

work

of

GeorgeLindbeck,whohas launched thismodel and soon attracted a wide following of other theologians and ordinaryChristianbelievers(Knitter2002:177).Knitterherebysuggeststhatcomparativetheology,thoughnotdependentonit,isindebtedtopostliberalismanditsculturallinguistictheoryofreligion. At the very least, it resonateswith postliberalismsgroundwork.

Although there are indeed certain resonances betweenpostliberalism and comparative theology,Knitters categorizationstrikesmeasunfortunate.Itdetractsfromthefreshnessof

thecomparative

theology

project.

Postliberalism

and

compara

tive theology share a deep concern for religious particularities;however,theirhermeneuticaloutlookandtheologicalassumptionsdifferfundamentally.Itisworthexploringtheirrelationfurther,sincethiswillallowustooutlinethenoveltyofthecomparativetheologyprojectfurther.

Underpinningpostliberalism isa theory thatunderstandsreligions tobe analogous to languages and cultures. For thisreason,Lindbeck,who first formulated this theoryof religion,talksaboutaculturallinguistictheoryofreligion.Religionisacomprehensive cultural and/or linguistic framework that en

ables

the

description

of

reality,

the

formulation

of

convictions,

andtheexperienceofreligiousfeelings.Eachreligionhasaspecificvocabulary,which isbothdiscursive andnondiscursive,aswellasagrammardetermininghowthatvocabularycanbemeaningfullyused(Lindbeck1984:33).Becomingreligiousisalongprocessofinteriorization,inwhichpeopleacquirethereligiouslanguageandlearntoperformthereligiouspracticesandrituals inanappropriateway.Onlywhenpeoplespeakareligiouslanguageandacquireparticularreligiousskillsdoesitbe


6/25


comepossibleforthemtohavecertainexperiences.Fromthisitfollowsthat

adherentsofdifferent religionsdonotdiversely thematize

thesameexperience,rathertheyhavedifferentexperiences.

Buddhistcompassion,ChristianloveandFrenchrevolu

tionaryfraternit are not diversemodifications of a single

humanawareness,emotion,attitude,orsentiment,butare

radically (i.e., from the root)distinctwaysofexperiencing

and being oriented toward self, neighbor, and cosmos.

(Lindbeck1984:

40)

Evenifreligionsemploythesamecategories,suchasGod,love,peace,orjustice, thesewordsmean somethingdifferent,preciselybecausetheyderivetheirmeaningfromtheparticularreligion inwhich they function. If there are similarities andcommonalities between the religions, then these are merelysuperficial (Lindbeck 1997: 433).Religions are incommensurable. Lindbeck also concludes that religions are incomparable,forthereexistsnocommon frameworkwithinwhichtocomparethem(Lindbeck1984:49).

The culturallinguisticmodel focuseson the interplaybe

tweendoctrinal

grammar

and

aspecific

vocabulary

from

which

aparticularfaithcommunitydrawsitsidentity.Tounderstanda religion,oneneeds tounderstand this interplay.Meaning isimmanent,derivedfromthewayaspecificlanguageisusedinaparticulartradition.TodeterminethemeaningofGod implies investigating theway it functions within the ChristianreligionandhowitshapesChristianrealityandexperience.Onlyby a detailed familiaritywith the imaginative universe inwhich acts are signs can one comprehend and describe themeaning of these acts for the adherents of a religion (Geertz1975:130).

In

addition

to

the

cultural

linguistic

model,

Lindbeck

de

velopsan intratextual theology. Intratextualitymeans thatonesetsouttoexplainandanayzetheworldoutsidethetextbywayofintratextualcategories.Lindbeckspeaksinthisperspectiveofthemetaphorofabsorption:

Itisthetextsotospeak,whichabsorbstheworld,ratherthan

theworldthetext.Ascripturalworld...isabletoabsorbthe

universe. It supplies the interpretive framework within


7/25


which believers seek to live their lives and understand

reality.(Lindbeck1984:118)

ForChristians, thismeans that theywillnot read theBible inlightofcontemporarychallenges,questions,orexperiencesbutwillreadcontemporarychallenges,questions,andexperiencesinlightoftheBible.Intratextualtheologyaffirms

first, that everyhumanly conceivable reality canbe trans

lated (or redescribed) in thebiblicaluniverseofdiscourse

with a gain rather than a loss of truth or significance,

whereas,second,

nothing

can

be

translated

out

of

this

idiom

intosomesupposedly independentcommunicative system

withoutperversion,diminutionorincoherenceofmeaning.

(Lindbeck1997:429)

Thetheologianismostlyconcernedwithintrasystematiccoherenceratherthanwithconnectingtotruthclaimsorexperiencesbeyondthedefinedbordersofhisculturallinguisticcommunity(Holland2006:75).

Toacertainextent,comparativetheologycouldagreewiththe central culturallinguistic thesis that meaning is immanent.Comparativetheologytoo,searchesforthemeaningofre

ligiousbeliefs

by

turning

to

their

concrete

embedding

(Stosch

2007:510).Onlybybecomingdeeplyandholisticallyengagedinatradition,doesitbecomepossibletounderstandandevaluateareligioustextofanother tradition.Learning the languageof another religious tradition isprerequisite tounderstandingstrange religious texts. Clooney also advocates reading religious texts alongwith their formal traditional commentaries,theirrelatedscripturesandinlightofnormativereligiouspractice.(Clooney1990:30).

AccordingtoClooney,however,thehistoryofreligionsisfarmessier thanLindbecksculturallinguisticmodelacknowl

edges.Lindbeck

tends

to

absolutize

the

differences

between

the

religions.Heseesreligionsasindependent,selfinterpretingincommensurablesemioticsystemsandpayspracticallynoattention to the overlaps and commonalitiesbetween thedifferentreligiouslanguages(Slater1995:69;Ruparell1995:62).Theoutcomeof the culturallinguistic theory isa reifiedviewof religion, leading to theundervaluationof interreligious theology.Over against a reifiednotionof religion,Clooney emphasizes


8/25


that ones religion changes in response to the encounterwithotherreligions.

Verylittleofimportanceincontentbelongssolelytoany

one theological traditionorevenonereligion,even ifsuch

conceptsand themes,asone conceives them inactual cir

cumstances, remaindeeply rooted in theparticularities of

specifictraditions.(Clooney2001:8)

Thehistoryofreligionsisahistoryofencounter,interaction,interrelation,synthesisandconflict,adaptationandrejection,exclusion

and

inclusion.

Whereas postliberalism claims that religions do nomorethan simply talkpast one another,Clooney is convinced thatreasoncanprovidea framework fordialogueamongreligioustraditions(Schmalz2003:135).

Thecommonfeaturesofhumanreasoningmakeitpossible

forbelievers inmanydifferent traditionsat least tounder

standoneanotherandpossibly toagreeon topics suchas

thenatureofGod, thepossibility thatGodmightbecome

embodied, and the idea that God speaks to humans in

particular words. If faith is articulated in reasonable

termsand

defended

reasonably,

then

that

reasoning

pro

videsasharedtheologicalground,andintelligentdisagree

mentsbecomepossibleinaninterreligiouscontext.(Cloon

ey2001:89)

Theology itself is a human and religious activity common tomanytraditions.

Thewaysofcomparativetheologyandpostliberalismpartontheprincipleofintratextuality,whichseemstoimplyasectariantendencyatoddswiththedialogicalattitudeofcomparativetheology.Thissectariantendencyrevealsitselfinthemetaphorofabsorptionespecially,whichLindbeckusestoillustrate

whathe

means

by

intratextuality.

[This metaphor] worryingly suggests a rather unilateral

process whereby the world has nothing to offer to the

Churchanddoesnotinanywaydisruptandchallengethe

narrative traditionsof theChurch, itsreadingandpractice

ofscripture.(DCosta2005:142).


9/25


The principle of intratextuality negates the potential creativepower and theological meaning of extratextual experiencesandinsights.ClooneyacceptsLindbeckspositionthat

ChristiansmustalwaysreadtheworldinChrist,finding

itsmeaninginhisdeathandresurrection,andmustinsome

wayventure theclaim that thismeaningpertains toevery

humanbeing as the single, allembracing horizon for hu

manexperience.(Clooney1990:38)

However,healsoemphasizes that thecomparative theologiantakes

on

avulnerable

and

open

posture:

strange

religious

texts

challengeand influenceChristiantexts.According toClooney,the nonChristian is not a problem tobe solved [intratextually], but rather a possibility that has been given to us(Clooney 1990: 38).Clearly,Clooney does not associate comparisonandencounterwiththepossibilityoflossofmeaningalthoughhedoesrecognizethispossibilityheemphasizesratherthecreativetheologicalpotentialityofencounteringthereligiousother.Hebelievesstronglyinthepossibilityofcrossfertilization and transformation through theological comparisonandexpresses thehope that comparative theologywillwiden

ourtheological

horizons

and

our

spiritual

outlook

(Stosch

2008:

512). Comparative theology entails a rereading of one theologicaltraditioninlightofanother.Thisrereadingconstitutesanewcreativecontextoutofwhichcreative theological insightscanemerge.Comparativetheologyisthuspicturedasacreativeexperimentaltheologicalprocessinwhichthedialoguepartnersaremutuallyenriched.Lindbecksdichotomybetweenthetext(Bible) and the world is overstated. Intratextuality and extratextuality arenot simplyopposed toone anotherbut creativelyandconstructivelyimplyoneanother(Goh2000:237).Inviewofthis,Iwouldwanttoarguethatcomparativetheology

is

actually

a

form

of

intertextual

theology.

TowardsaHermeneuticalFrameworkforComparativeTheology

Comparative theology is a hermeneutical enterprise aimed atunderstanding the otherness of the religious other.However,fundamentalideassuchasacreativeintertext,thetransformativepoweroftext,alienationandunsettlement,defamiliarization, imagination and reconstruction (Lambelin 2008: 67) are


10/25


notreflecteduponwithinamethodologicalframework.Clooneyactuallyadmitsthatheisnotthatinterestedintheories.Heeven seems to reconcilehimselfwith thepossibility thatwhatheandothersaredefactodoingisnotpossibletheoretically:

manypeoplethemselvesarealreadyengagedinclosermore

intensely configured exchanges to which settled meaning

cannotbe easily assigned or denied. Properly or not such

peoplehave crossed religiousboundaries so as to form af

fectiveattachments thatare intelligent, liable toaffirmation

andprovocative

of

changes

in

their

way

of

living.

This

af

fectiveconnectionrootedinpracticeisenormouslyimportant

andconvincing,evenifintheorythecomparativeprocessis

flawed, the learning incomplete, and the consequences il

logicalandunwarranted.(Clooney2005:36768)

Comparative theology attempts to shun frameworks andconstructs of interest of genuinedialogue (Hanson 2006: 89).Theories are treatedwith suspicion.Comparative theologiansdonotstandalonewith theirsuspicion.Since thepostmodernturn,relianceonfoundationalismhasbeenrefuted.Theideaisthatwe shouldnot stressnavigationasmuchas thejourney

itself(Stiver

2003:

170).

Clooney

is

afraid

that

lingering

too

long in theoreticaldiscussionswilldetract from real interreligioustheology.Consequently,thecomparativetheologyprojectlacks a clearly developed hermeneutical framework inwhichClooney laysout itsmethodologicalprinciples.Onecanat themost findhermeneuticalfingerprintsofvariousauthors,suchasFoucault, Iser, Tracy, Gadamer, etc. (Hanson 2006: 3). This,however,givesasomewhateclectic impression,whichstrengthens the critique of ambiguity levelled at comparative theology.Ifcomparative theology istosucceed inovercoming thiscritiqueamorestronglydevelopedhermeneuticalframeworkis

necessary.

In

a

time

of

transition

in

philosophy

and

in

a

time

of flux in theology, being clear about ones [hermeneutical]commitments and presuppositions continues tobe desirable(Stiver2003:175).

To thatend, Iwillelaborate furtheron someof thehermeneuticalpresuppositions (Hanson 2006: 3) of comparativetheologybyplacing themwithinRicoeurs textualhermeneutics. Thismay seem somewhat surprising after all,Clooneydoesnot refer toRicoeur, andRicoeurdidnot applyhisher


11/25


meneutics to the area of interreligious dialogue. However, Itend toagreewithJensMatternthat it isalwayspossiblethat,eventhoughanauthormaytreatthechallengeofreligiousandculturaldiversityonlymarginally,histhinkingcanneverthelessimplicitlycontainessentialfoundationsforanexplicitreflection(Mattern 2008: 13).As Iwill show,Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics entails such basic foundations.Many affinities existbetween the hermeneutical presuppositions of comparativetheology and Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics. Especially Ri

coeursemphasis

on

the

productive

notion

of

distanciation

for textual hermeneutics is of the utmost importance. Thisnotion not only opens up religious texts for interreligiousreadings,italsoexplainswhyRicoeur,likeClooney,doesnotregardstrangeencountersintermsofapotentiallossofmeaningbut as a catalyst to discover newmeanings that had notbeenpreviouslythoughtof.

LetmestartthisprocesswithaquotefromClooney:

Religiousliteratureaimsfortheaffectivetransformationof

the reader whopays attention to the clues available in the text.

Readattentively, the religiousclassicproducesand renders

legible

a

particular

instance

a

situation,

opportunity,

chal

lenge,etc. thatbegs forandprovokes interpretiveandaf

fective response thatenable the reader to fit intelligentlyand

affectively into the religious situation thathasbeenpresen

ted.Again,allofthisseemstruewhetherthereaderisamemberof

an intendedreligiousaudience,or isratheranoutsiderwhofinds

herorhiswaytothattraditionthroughtexts.(Clooney2005:307)

What isstrikinghere is (1) the fact thatstrange religious textscanbecomemeaningfulforthereader,whetherheisamemberoftheintendedaudienceoranoutsider;(2)religioustextsprovokeanaffectiveresponsefromthereader;(3)prerequisitefor

this

is

that

the

reader

finds

a

way

to

decode

the

internal

codes

ofthestrangetext.

CrossingBorders:TheSemanticAutonomyofTexts

Comparative theology rests on the assumption that it isbothpossibleandmeaningfultoreadstrangereligioustexts.Textualmeaningcancrossculturalandreligiousborders.Interestinglyenough,Clooneystatesthatcomparativetheologyentailsreadingtextsthatone isnotauthorizedtoread,therebyagainhigh


12/25


lighting the fact thatone isand remainsanoutsider (Schmalz2003:136).

Comparative theologysbasic faith in themeaningfulnessofcrossreligiousreadinggivesrisetoseveralquestions:Whatismeaning?Whodeterminestextualmeaning?Isittheauthor,thereader,thetext?Whatistheretobeunderstoodwhenreadingastrangetext?Whataretheprescriptionsforinterreligioushermeneutics(Christopher2009:409)?Whodeterminesifaninterpretation isacceptable:theauthor,thereader,orthetext it

self?These

questions

point

at

the

necessity

of

athoroughly

elaboratedtexttheory.InhiswellknownessayWhat isaText?Ricoeur set out to develop the groundwork of such a texttheory,answeringsomeofthequestionsformulatedabove.AlthoughRicoeurhasnotreflectedonhistexttheorywithrespectto interreligiousencounters, this text theory canground comparativetheologyasaviableproject.

Central toRicoeurs text theory iswhat theFrenchphilosopher calls the productivenotion ofdistanciation (Ricoeur1998b: 13144).Within the hermeneutical tradition, distanciationisnaturallyseenassomethingtobeovercome,ratherthan

as

something

positive,

let

alone

productive.

The

common

as

sumption is thatbecause texts are distanced fromus, fromour context, from our outlook, they are strange, and thisstrangeness shouldbe resolvedby removing thedistance.Ricoeur nuances this common assumptionby saying that Verfremdung isnot onlywhatunderstandingmust overcomebutalsowhat conditions it (Ricoeur 1998b: 140).As Iwill show,not only does this original line of thought open up religioustextsforinterreligiousreadings,italsoexplainswhyRicoeur,likeClooney,doesnotregardstrangeencounters intermsofapotentiallossofmeaningbutasacatalystfordiscoveringnewmeanings.

Ricoeuremphasizes

first

of

all

that

distanciation

or

Ver

fremdung isnot theproductofmethodologyandhence somethingsuperfluousandparasitical.Rather,itconstitutesthephenomenonofthetextasawrittenwork.Thereisathreefoldsemanticautonomy: inrelation totheauthors intention, inrelation to the economic, social, and cultural circumstances of itsproduction,andinrelationtoitsreceptionbyitsoriginalaudience(Ricoeur1998a:91).


13/25


First,writingrendersthetextautonomouswithrespecttothe intentionof theauthor (Ricoeur1998a:91):what the textsignifiesno longercoincideswithwhat theauthormeant.RicoeurisreactingheretoRomantichermeneutics(Schleiermacher),which claims that reading a strange text entails reading themindoftheauthor.Tounderstandthetextistounderstandtheintentionoftheauthor.Notonlyhasthehermeneuticaleffortoftryingtoreadthemindoftheauthorprovenunsuccessful,italsoseriouslylimitsthecreativepotentialoftexts.Clooneywould

agreewith

Ricoeur.

He

is

likewise

convinced

that

the

hermen

euticalfocusontheauthor

restricts texts by ordering them to a designated author,

whose intentionsdeterminewhat the texts are allowed to

mean.Authorsareused to confine the encompassing,un

bounded event of language within manageable limits.

(Clooney1987:675)

Clooney states that textualmeaning isnotdeterminedby theauthorbutratherbythetextitself.Thetextyieldsmeaning.Inthissenseithascertainautonomywithregardtoitsoriginalauthor.Themeaningofthetextactuallytranscendstheintentions

ofthe

author.

The

text

possesses

horizons

and

scopes

of

signif

icancewiderthanthosebelongingtoanygivensetofauthors(Clooney 1987: 675). Thanks to the process ofwriting,whatGadamercallsthematterofthetextmayexplode theworldoftheauthor(Ricoeur1998b:139).

Ricoeur not only reflects on the notion of distanciationwithregardtotheauthorsoriginalintentions.Thesemanticautonomyof the textalsoholds true for theoriginalsociologicalculturalandeconomicconditionsof theproductionofthe text(Ricoeur1998a:91).That iswhy thetextopens itself toanunlimited seriesof readings, themselves situated indifferent so

ciocultural

conditions.

The

process

of

distanciation

also

re

movestheaudienceaddressedfromtheoriginalhistoricalandsocialconditions.Textscancrossborders,regardlessofwhetherthelatterarehistorical,culturalorreligious.

Andlast,butnotleast,theemancipationfromauthorialintentionhasaparallelonthepartofthosewhoreceivethetext.Whereasinadialogicalsituation,thevisvisisdeterminedbythecontextofthediscourse,withregardtowrittentextstheaudienceisextendedtoanyonewhocanread.Atextisopentoan


14/25


indefinite number of readers and therefore of interpretation.The texthasauniversalrangeofaddressees (Ricoeur1998c:210). The opportunity formultiple readings is the dialecticalcounterpartofthesemanticautonomyofthetext.

Ricoeurremindsusthatdistanciationisnotsomethingweshouldregret.Onthecontrary,thankstotheprocessofdistanciation,thetextenterstherealmof interpretation.Theautonomoustextisnotahistoricalrelicoranarchaeologicalfossil,butalivingentitywithpotentialrelevanceforcontemporaryread

ers.Thanks

to

its

semantic

autonomy,

atext

can

be

decontext

ualized insuchawaythat itcanalsoberecontextualized.Themost important question is no longerwhat the text used tomeanbutwhatitmeanstoday(Ricoeur1995a:219).

Ricoeurstexttheorychallengestheideathatinsidersaretheonly truepossessorsof their tradition andhence theonlyones authorized to read and interpret their religious texts.Thankstothethreefoldprocessofdistanciation,astrangereligioustextcandiscloseitsmeaningtoattentivereaders,eveniftheydonotbelongtothecommunityforwhichthetextwasoriginallymeant. In view of interreligious hermeneutics, the

importance

of

the

distanciation

of

the

text

should

not

be

under

estimated.Itisactuallypreconditionaltoaninterreligioushermeneutics that presumes that one can also understand thatwhatone isnot, cannotbe,ordoesnotwant tobe (Mattern2008:71).Theprocessofdistanciationmakes strange textsaccessiblebeyondthebordersoftheircultural,religious,andhistorical community.With his notion of distanciation, Ricoeurcounters cultural and religious ethnocentrism and counters amerely intratextual hermeneutics.At the same time, comparativetheologysthrustinintertextualityisvalidated.

TransformationthroughReading

Accordingto

Clooney,

reading

strange

religious

texts

entails

thedisturbing experiences of alienation,disenchantment, andfriction (Clooney 2001: 165).Comparative theology highlightsthecreativepowertextshavetochallenge,interrupt,andtransform the reader.Close readinganddeep learningof religioustextshas imaginative and affective implications. Itoffersnewopportunitiesofunderstandingourselves.AsClooneyputs it,the real fruitsof comparative theologyare tobe found in the


15/25


living interconnections evenwhile reason isbusyponderingwhethersuchaffectiveexchangeacrossreligiousboundaries ispossibleatall (Clooney2005:389). In theend,deep learningthroughclosereadingopensupnewpossibilitiesofbeingintheworld, theoutcomeofwhich is thatones religious identity istransformed.That iswhy comparative theology is fundamentallyadynamicprocess,whichnotonlypresupposes that thereader is open to newmeaningsbut also that texts possesstransformativepower.

Whencethis

transformative

power

of

religious

texts?

How

can we understand the possibility of redescription throughreading?Comparativetheologyclaimsthattextshavethepower to refigure or transform the reader. But how does thistransformationtakeplace?Whencethepowerofreligioustextsto interruptwhat is familiar and to guide the reader into therealmofthepossible?

Thesearecrucialhermeneuticalquestions,whichagainareanswered through reflectingon theparticularnature of texts.Ricoeuraddressesthequestionofthetransformativepoweroftextsinhistexttheory.Hebelievesstronglyinthepowerofreligious texts to interrupt what is familiar and to guide thereader into the realm of the possible. It is one of the centraltenets of his hermeneutical philosophy. Ricoeur explains thistransformativepoweroftextsinthefollowingway.

Atextisfirstofallalinkinacommunicativechain.Oneoflifesexperiencesisbroughtto language;itbecomesdiscourse.Characteristic of any form ofdiscourse is its referential function: someone says something to someone about something.Discoursealways relates to an extralinguistic reality.Ricoeurdistinguishesbetween two forms of discourse: oral discourseandwrittendiscourse.

Inoraldiscoursetheproblemofreferenceisresolvedbythe

ostensivefunction

of

discourse,

in

other

words,

reference

is

determinedby theability topoint to a reality common to

interlocutors. Ifwe cannotpoint to the thingaboutwhich

wespeak,atleastwecansituateitinrelationtotheunique

spatiotemporalnetworkthat issharedbythe interlocutors.

(Ricoeur1998b:141)

Ricoeurconnectstheostensivefunctionofdiscoursebothwithdaily languageandwithscientificdiscourse,which isactually


16/25


inlinewithdaily,descriptivediscourse.Whatisreferredtobelongstotherealmofmanipulableobjects.Heretruthisunderstoodasempiricaltruth,assomethingthatisinprincipleverifiable.

Inwrittendiscourse,thereferentialfunction ismorecomplex than in oral discourse. There is no longer a commonsituationbetween thewriterand the reader.Andat the sametime,theconcreteconditionsfor theactofpointingsomethingoutnolongerexists(Ricoeur1995b:42).Thus,theostensivere

ferentialfunction

is

suspended

within

written

discourse.

A

literary textdoesnot refer to the immediate surroundingcontextas isthecase indialogue, forexample.Rather, itspeaksaboutpossibleworldsinwhichthereadercouldlive.Inwrittendiscourse, thepossibility arises of referring to aworld that isnotgivenintherealmofwhatisknownandfamiliar.Thesuspensionofostensivereferentialityopensthereadertotherealmofwhatisunknownandthestranger.ThatiswhyRicoeurwillneverspeakaboutthehiddenmeaningofthetext,i.e.hiddeninthemindofthewriterorinthestructureofthetext.Hepreferstheideaofmeaningdisclosureinfrontofthetext.Aliterarytext

has

the

capacity

of

unfolding

a

world

in

front

of

itself.

Ricoeur

callsthisthepoeticpowerofthetext.Heobjectstotheideathatreferentialdiscoursestopsatthe

thresholdofpoeticdiscourseorthatpoeticdiscourseonlyrefersto thedeepestandmostpersonal emotionsof the author.Althoughpoeticdiscoursedoesnotaddtoourknowledgeofobjects,thesuspensionofdescriptiveanddenotativediscourseistheconditionofpossibilityforthe

liberationofamoreoriginalreferentialfunction,whichmay

becalledsecondorderonlybecausediscoursethathasade

scriptive function has usurped the first rank in daily life,

assistedinthisrespectbyscience.(Ricoeur1995a:222)

Poeticdiscoursedoesnotrefertotheworldofmanipulableobjects;rather,itreferstothemanywayswebelongtotheworldbeforeweopposeourselvestothingsunderstoodasobjectsthatstandbeforeasubject.Heretruthisatstake,nottruthunderstood in termsofadequatio intellectusat rembut truthasmanifestation, in the sense of lettingbewhat shows itself.Whatshows itself is each time the proposing of aworld, aworldwherein I can project my own most possibilities (Ricoeur


17/25


1995a:223).Whatmustbe interpretedinatextispreciselythetype of beingintheworld unfolded in front of the text(Ricoeur1998b:141).Throughreadingtextsnewpossibilitiesofbeingintheworldareopenedup.Thus,textsnotonlyhavethepotentialtoexplodetheworldoftheauthor,theyalsohavethepotentialtoredescribetheworldofthereader.Everydayrealityis metamorphosed by what could be called the imaginativevariations(Ricoeur1995c).

Ricoeurstextualhermeneuticsbacksupcomparativetheo

logysclaim

that

reading

strange

religious

texts

can

be

enrich

ing.Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics explains how theworldscultural and religious classics canexpansively figure richandfullprojectionsofanotherwayofbeingintheworldthatliberateswhat isessentialby suggestingwhat ispossible.Readingstrangereligioustextsisanopportunitytoentertheworldofthe other and explore the possibilities they present.As such,theyhelpustoseeourselves,others,andoursituationsintermsofaworld thatwemight inhabit. In thisregard textshave thepowertorefigureandtransformtheworldofthereader.

ComparativeTheologyandtheHermeneuticalArc

Religiousliterature

aims

for

the

affective

transformation

of

the reader who pays attention to the clues available in the text(Clooney2005:307).Clooneyisconsciousofhowdemandingitis to understand and appropriate strange religious texts. Hepoints to the fact that readers have certain obligations to thestrange textandexpresses theseobligations inethical language.Thereaderistodojusticetothetextandtobewareofthehermeneuticalpitfallsofprojection.

Toavoidhineininterpretierung,understandingastrangetextimpliesaclosereading.Thecomparativetheologian

mustachieveacertaindistancefromherorhisownstarting

point,in

order

to

learn

from

another

tradition

by

under

standingitonitsownterms,andinawaythatcanneverbe

entirelypredicatedontheexpectationsofoneshometradi

tion,because it reformulates those expectations regarding

thehometradition.(Clooney1993:7)

Theappropriateattitudeofthereader isoneofsubmissionrather than somesortofconsumeristminingof texts in service of a preconceived agenda neglectful of the texts own


18/25


purposes (Clooney 2008: 8). The relation between text andreaderiscomparabletothatofateacherandhisstudent.Textseducatetheirstudents.Thereisaclearasymmetry.Forwhatatextmeansalwaysprecedes,exceeds,andeven supersedes itsreaders(Clooney2008:9).Understandingthetextimpliesacertainselfeffacementbeforethetext;patience,perseveranceandimagination (Clooney2008:13).Only thenwill itbepossibleforthereadertobedrawnintotheworldofthetext.

Comparativetheologyentailsahermeneuticalprocessthat

isquite

similar

to

Ricoeurs

well

known

theory

of

interpreta

tion. The latter consists of three phases, a first nave understanding, critical analysis, and appropriation, which Ricoeuralsocalls thehermeneuticalarc.Tounderstanda textrequirespassing through these three phases.The hermeneutical arc isdrivenby a dialecticbetween understanding and explaining:explainingmore tounderstandbetter.This, so it seems, isexactlywhat Clooneywould endorsewhen he says that closereadingleadstodeeplearning.

The firstphaseof thehermeneuticalarc isapreliminary,precriticalreading.Inthisphase,thereaderapproachesthetext

from

his

own

perspective.

Every

reader

is

always

first

and

fore

most someonewhose identity is formedby a linguistic tradition,aculturalcontext,ahistoricalbackgroundandareligiouscommitment.Everyreaderispartlydeterminedbyhiscultural,religious,historicalbackground.Theprocess of interpretationstarts from there.Every readerguesses at themeaningof thetext,basedontheassumptionofacommunityofmeaning.Ricoeuralsocallsthisanavereading:itisaninterpretationthatis contentwith the immediatemeaning that comes tomindwhenreadingthetextforthefirsttime.Itisreadingatextasifexegesisdoesnotexist.Here theeffectsofcultureandcontextarefullymanifested;theydeterminethespacewithinwhichthe

readermakes

the

text

his

text.

That a strange text appeals to the reader and that thereader can already understand something of it is due to thehorizonofthereader.However,thisfirstnaivereadingneedstobechecked,validated,and,ifneedbe,correctedtoprecludethereaderfromprojectinghisowncultural,religious,orhistoricalbackgroundintothetext.Agoodinterpreteravoidsreadinghisor her own presuppositions into the text.Understanding im


19/25


plies following the inner dynamic of a text. For thatRicoeurclaims thenecessityof a second criticalphase,whichhe callslexgsesavante,whichsetsouttoexplainthetextinamorescientificway.The scientific readingplaces the text at adistance(Ricoeur1993:28):itsgoalisobjectiveobservation.Criticalanalysistreatsthetextasastudyobjectinthehandsofthereader.Thelattercanmakeuseofseveralmethodstodecodetheworldof the text: the historicalcritical method, literary criticism,structuralism,evenpsychoanalysis.Whatevermethod isused,

criticalanalysis

anecessary

phase

in

the

hermeneutical

process.

Itallows the reader to transcenda superficialand toogeneralfirstreadingofastrangetexttoacloseanddeepreading.Understandingthemeaningofastrangetextdemandssuchaconfrontationwith the objectivityof the text.The alternative ismeresubjectivism:onereadswhatonewants.

Clooneywould agreewithRicoeur.What the latter callscriticalanalysisor exgse savante,Clooneycalls close reading.Clooney acknowledges that this close reading is a highlydemanding, intellectualprocess, requiring various critical skills,such as language learning, aswell as cultural, linguistic, andhistoricalstudies.Inthissense,thecriticalworkofcomparativetheologycanalsoberegardedasaformoftextualexegesisthatalsousesseveralcriticalmethods,suchasliterarycriticismandthehistoricalcriticalmethod (Schebera2003:15).Comparativetheologiansneedto

take seriously whole texts, notmerely select ideas or the

moreinterestingpartsoftexts;weneedtonoticethespecific

characteristicsof thewhole literarydocumentsbeforeus in

any given instance, genre,manner ofwriting, and the in

tentionsof theauthor (andredactor)are intrinsic toa texts

significance, inaddition toany thesesorconceptsproposed

inside the text. Strategies for the use of poetry, scriptural

citations,anecdotes,

allusion

to

divine

and

human

spiritual

exemplars, rebukes toopponentsandappeals to readers to

take the teaching to heart in practicalways these are all

substantivedimensionsofwhatwearereadingandwhat is

tobeunderstood,requiringofussomesimilarlycomplexre

sponse.(Clooney2008:6)

Without critical analysis, readerswould projectmeaning intothetextratherthantheotherwayaround.Closereadingisthe


20/25


way to deepermeaning. In this process of close reading, thereader fulfils the role of a commentator,highlighting the factthathispersonalandsubjectivecommitmentsarebracketed.

Critical analysis isbut one step in the process towardstransformation;itis,however,anecessarystep.Certainly,whenreligioustextsarereadacrossreligiousborders,thiscriticalanalysis and commentary proves its importance for theologianstrying tomake senseof the religiousother.However, readerswho regard thephaseof criticalanalysisas the finalhermen

euticalstage,

reduce

the

text

to

adead

body

to

be

dissected.

The

text loses itspotential tospeak, tochallenge, toyieldmeaningfor a current audience. Itbecomesmeaningless. After goingthrough thephaseofcriticalanalysis (explanation), the readerneedstoaskthequestion:Whatdoesthistextmeanformetoday?Thisquestion is central to the lastphaseof thehermeneuticalarc,namelythatofappropriation,whichactualizesthemeaningofthetextforthepresentreader(Ricoeur1998d:158).Appropriation is the ontological grounding of interpretation inlivedexperience.Onlywhenatextisappropriateddoesitrealize itspoeticpower to transform the reader.Nowheredoes

Ricoeur

state

this

more

clearly

than

in

the

following

passage:

ByappropriationIunderstandthis:thattheinterpretationofatext culminates in the selfinterpretation of a subject whothenceforth understands himself better, understands himselfdifferently or simplybegins to understand himself (Ricoeur1998d:158).Itisnotamatterofimposingourfinitecapacityforunderstandingonthetextbutofexposingustothetextandreceivingfrom itanenlargedself.Sounderstandingisquitedifferent from that inwhich the subjectpossesses thekey to theconstitution of the text. Rather, it seems that the reader isconstitutedbythetext.Ricoeurputsitasfollows:asareaderIfindmyselfbylosingmyself.Themovementtowardlistening

requiresgiving

up

(desaissement)

the

human

self

in

its

will

to

mastery, sufficiency, and autonomy (Ricoeur 1995a: 224).Ricoeuralsospeaksaboutladpossessiondusoinarcissique[thedispossession of the narcissistic self] (Ricoeur 1976: 94).Understandingmeans tounderstand oneself in front of the text.Or,asClooneywouldputit,beingtaughtbyastrangetextentailsundergoingaspiritualprocessthatchangesthereaderandperhapsrevealsGodinanunexpectedway.


21/25


Conclusion

Thepasthasnotonlytaughtushowappealingitistorelatetoaprojectedotherbutalsohowdevastatingformsofinterreligioushineininterpretierung can become. At the very least, they hypothecateinterreligiousdialogue.Inanoriginalandrefreshingway,comparative theology setsout toovercome thisproblemby addressing the religious other asOther. It distances itselffrom thesoteriologicalfixationoftheclassicthreefoldscheme:exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.Over against aprioritheological

generalizations,

comparative

theology

places

ade

tailedstudyofthereligioustextsofotherreligions.Moreover,itisconvincedthatthesetextshavethepowertochallenge,interrupt,andtransformoutsiderswhoundertakeaclosereadingof these texts. In thisway, comparative theology dissociatesitselffromthepostliberalprincipleofintratextuality.Comparative theology emphasizes the reflective practice of beingeducatedanewthroughanewcombinationofmaterials,drawnfrommore than one traditionwhich are then tobe read together,inaprocesswhich(gradually)fashionsanewliteracy(Clooney1993:19899).

However,the

originality

of

the

comparative

theology

pro

jectisthreatenedbyitslackofascientificframework.Clooneyssuspicion of theories does not help to take away the aura ofambiguitysurroundingcomparativetheology.Manyofitshermeneutical presuppositions need further elaboration. In thiscontribution I have argued that comparative theologians canfind an ally in Ricoeurs textual hermeneutics. I have highlightedseveralresonancesbetweenthehermeneuticalassumptionsof comparative theologyon theonehand andRicoeurshermeneuticalphilosophyon theother.Ricoeurcanprovideahermeneuticalframeworkforthecomparativetheologyproject,

thereby

giving

the

latter

more

credibility.

This

contribution

shouldbereadasafirststepinthedevelopmentofamoresystematic hermeneutical framework for comparative theology.Moreworkinthisdirectionisneeded.

Bibliography

Barnes,M. (2002).Theology and theDialogue ofReligions.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.


22/25


Christopher,D.(2009).InterreligiousReadingandSelfDefinitionfor

Raimon Panikkar and Francis Clooney. Journal of Ecumenical

Studies44:40931.

Clooney,FrancisX.SJ.(2008).TheTruth,theWayandtheLife:Christian

Commentary on the Three HolyMantras of the Srivaisnava Hindus.

ChristianCommentariesonNonChristianSacredTexts.Louvain:

Peeters

(2006).FrancisXavier,and theWorldWe (DontQuite)Share.

In: Francis X. Clooney SJ (ed.). Jesuit Postmodern: Scholarship,

Vocation,and

Identity

in

the

21st

Century.

Oxford:

Lexington

Books.

Pp.15780.

(2005). PassionateComparison: The Intensification ofAffect in

Interreligious Reading of Hindu and Christian Texts. Harvard

TheologicalReview98:370.

(2001).HinduGod,ChristianGod:HowReasonHelpsBreakDownthe

BarriersbetweenReligions.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

(1996).SeeingthroughTexts:DoingTheologyamongtheSrivaisnavas

ofSouthIndia.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

(1995). Current Theology:Comparative Theology: aReview of

RecentBooks(19891995).TheologicalStudies56:52150.

(1993).

Theology

after

Vedanta:

An

Experiment

in

Comparative

Theo

logy.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

(1990).WhentheReligionsBecomeContext.TheologyToday47:

3038.

(1987). Why the Veda has no Author: Language as Ritual in

EarlyMimamsaandPostmodernTheology.Journalof theAmer

icanAcademyofReligion55:65984.

DCosta,G. (2005).Theology in thePublicSquare:Church,Academyand

Nation.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

Dupuis,J. (1997). Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.

NewYork:OrbisBooks.

Fredericks, J. (2002). Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative

Theologyto

Solidarity.

New

York:

Orbis.

(1995).AUniversalReligiousExperience:ComparativeTheology

asanAlternativetoaTheologyofReligions.Horizons22:6787.

Garcia,L.M. (2008). OnPaulRicoeur and theTranslation Interpre

tationofCulture.ThesisEleven94:7287.

Goh,J.K.(2000).ChristianTraditionToday:APostliberalVisionofChurch

and Word. Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 28.

Louvain:Peeters.


23/25


Hanson,R.(2006).TheHermeneuticsofComparativeTheology.Paper

presented at the Engaging Particularities Conference, 2006;

BostonCollege.

Holland,S. (2006).HowDoStoriesSaveUs?AnEssayon theQuestion

with theTheologicalHermeneuticsofDavidTracy inView.Louvain:

Peeters.

Knitter,P.F.(2002).IntroducingTheologiesofReligions.Maryknoll:Orbis

Books.

Lambelin,J. (2008).AnsweringDiscursiveDestiny: IntegratingCul

turaland

Religious

Diversity

in

Theological

Method.

Intercultural

andComparativeTheologyasPossibilities forFraming Interreli

giousDialogue?Ph.D.Dissertation,FacultyofTheology,Catholic

UniversityLouvain.

Lindbeck,G.A. (1997). TheGospelsUniqueness: Election andUn

translatability.ModernTheology13:42350.

(1984).TheNatureofDoctrine:ReligionandTheologyinaPostliberal

Age.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress.

Mattern,J. (2008).Zwischen kulturellerSymbolik andallgemeinerWahr

heit. Paul Ricoeur interkulturell gelesen. Nordhausen: Traugott

Bautz.

Merrigan,T.(1999).ForUsandforOurSalvation:TheNotionofSal

vationHistoryintheContemporaryTheologyofReligions.Irish

TheologicalQuarterly64:33948.

Mudge,L.S.(1980).PaulRicoeuronBiblicalInterpretation.In:L.S.

Mudge (ed.). Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: For

tress.Pp.140.

Nicholson,H. (2009). Reunification ofTheology andComparison.

JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion77:60946.

(2007).ComparativeTheologyafterLiberalism.ModernTheology

23:22951.

(2005).ACorrelationalModelofComparativeTheology.Journal

ofReligion85:191213.

Pellauer,D.

(1990).

Narrative

Identity

and

Religious

Identity.

In:

R.

DetweilerandW.G.Doty(eds.).TheDaemonicImagination:Biblical

TextandSecularStory.Atlanta:ScholarsPress.

Placher,W.(1989).UnapologeticTheology:AChristianVoice inaPlural

isticConversation.Louisville:JohnKnoxPress.

Ricoeur,P. (2006).OnTranslation.Thinking inAction.Oxford:Rout

ledge.


24/25


(1998a).HermeneuticsandCritiqueofIdeology.In:P.Ricoeur.

Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language,Action

and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.

61100.

(1998b).TheHermeneuticalFunctionofDistanciation.In:P.Ri

coeur. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language,

ActionandInterpretation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Pp.13144.

(1998c).TheModeloftheText.In:P.Ricoeur.Hermeneuticsand

theHuman

Sciences:

Essays

on

Language,

Action

and

Interpretation.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pp.197222.

(1998d) What is aText? Explanation andUnderstanding. InP.

Ricoeur,HermeneuticsandtheHumanSciences:EssaysonLanguage,Action and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Pp.14564.

(1996). Reflections on aNewEthos for Europe. In:R.Kearney

(ed.).PaulRicoeur:TheHermeneuticsofAction.London:Sage.Pp.3

13.

(1995a). NamingGod. In:P.Ricoeur. Figuring theSacred:Reli

gion, Narrative and Imagination.Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Pp.

217

36.

(1995b). Philosophy and Religious Language. In: P. Ricoeur.

Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination.Minnea

polis:FortressPress.Pp.3547.

(1993) Hermneutique:Les finalitsde lexgsebiblique. In:

D.BourgandA.Lion(eds.).Labibleenphilosophie:Approchescon

temporaines.Paris:EditionsduCerf.Pp.2851.

(1976).InterpretationTheory:DiscourseandtheSurplusofMeaning.

FortWorth:TexasChristianUniversityPress.

(1971).Esquissede conclusion. In:X.LeonDufour (ed.).Ex

gseethermneutique.Paris:Seuil.Pp.28595.

Ruparell,S.T.(1995).AMethodologyforInterreligiousTheologizing:

Towardan

Interstitial

Theology.

ARC:

The

Journal

of

the

Faculty

of

ReligiousStudies23:5874.

Schebera,R.(2003).ComparativeTheology:ANewMethodofInter

religiousDialogue.DialogueandAlliance17:718.

Schmalz,M.(2003).TraditionandTransgressionintheComparative

TheologyofFrancisX.Clooney.ReligiousStudiesReview29:130

36.


25/25


SchmidtLeukel,P.(2005).GottohneGrenzen:Einechristlicheundplural

istische Theologie der Religionen. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlags

haus.

Slater,P.(1995).Lindbeck,HickandtheNatureofReligiousTruth.

StudiesinReligion24:5775.

Stiver,D. (2003). TheologicalMethod. In:J.Vanhoozer (ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology. Cambridge: Cam

bridgeUniversityPress.Pp.17085.

Stosch,K.von.(2007).ComparativeTheologyasanAlternativetothe

Theologyof

Religions.

In:

N. Hintersteiner

(ed.).

Naming

and

ThinkingGod inEuropeToday.CurrentsofEncounter32.Amster

dam:Rodopi.Pp.50712.

Tracy,D.(1987).ComparativeTheology.EncyclopediaofReligion.Vol.

14.NewYork:Macmillan.Pp.44655.

Wilhem,J.E. (2004). Hermneutique et traduction: La question de

lappropriationoulerapportdupropreltranger.Meta49:

76876.

comparative theology in search for a hermeneutical framework

Documents