Revelation as a Question | Jean-Luc Marion

Good evening, bonis. Thank you all for

being here. My name is Peter Casserella,

the executive director of Fonvite.

Fonvite, for those of you who haven't

heard, is a relatively new initiative at

Duke University that supports the

Catholic intellectual traditions across

the university and across the

disciplines. and we're really delighted

you're here this evening for this very

very special event and to hear our

distinguished lecture. I just want to

say u one or two things before

introducing the person who will

introduce our speaker tonight. Uh the

first is that there is a bit of an

interconnection between Fonvite and our

speaker tonight. Namely, one of his

students, the late Thomas Levergood, who

sadly passed at a young age in 2021, was

also the person who gave a kind of

blessing and inspiration to Reinhardt

Hooter and I when we wrote the vision

statement for for Fonvite. And so, uh,

Professor Marian was not only a teacher

of Thomas, but was his faculty adviser

at the Lumen Christi Institute. And

that's a kind of personal and

intellectual connection that binds us

here today. But my main job here tonight

is to introduce my colleague, Professor

Kevin Hart, distinguished poet and

theologian. Professor Hart in is holds

the Joe Ray Wright University

Distinguished Professorship in the

Divinity School with an appointment in

English and I'll let him introduce our

speaker. So without further ado,

Professor Kevin Hart.

Uh thank you Peter. Well, it's a great

pleasure and an honor for us to have

Jeanluke Marion here in the Divinity

School as the guest of

Fonuiti. For many years now, Marian's

work has been seinal in the study of

Christianity. If one generation of

theologians was challenged by reading

God without

being, another one was equally

challenged by the provocative thesis of

being given. And then today, younger

theologians at Duke and elsewhere are

coming to terms with what might well be

his

magnumopus. Revelation comes from

elsewhere.

Wherever students of divinity have

looked these past few decades, we have

had Marion squarely before

us. Those interested in theology and the

arts are enriched by his thoughts on the

icon and on the bedazzlement we

experience in the visual

arts. Those concerned with scripture

return to his understanding of the

prodical son parable. Those who meditate

on doctrine are nourished by his

thoughts on the resurrection of

Jesus. Scholars of the early church find

that he's written illuminatingly on St.

Augustine while scholars of medieval

Christianity will read him on St. Thomas

Aquinas and so the list goes

on. His contribution to modern theology

as well as to modern philosophy has been

immense.

and he remains as vivid and inventive a

thinker as he's always

been. His current work is on the Song of

Songs and many students of wisdom

literature will be eagerly awaiting the

book's

appearance. We're thankful to Jeanluke

and Kin Marion for making time in their

busy schedule in Boston to visit us in

Divinity at Duke. We wish them a happy

time among us and we anticipate with

great relish this evening's lecture

revelation as question. Please join me

in welcoming Jeanluke Marion.

I would like us to thank you Peter

Garola and my old

friend Kevin Art uh for this

invitation. Uh it is true that

uh after many years in uh the United

States, I

find myself really to some extent at

home in the uh Duke Divinity

School.

Um

well revelation as a question.

uh as I

was uh working on the issue of the

manifestation manifestation of the

phenomena as a phenomenologist

manifestation of God as

a a Christian believer. uh indeed uh I

had to

uh to address the question of

revelation. So I

did and to my great surprise I

discovered two

things one negative the other positive.

The negative one is that in fact

revelation is not a steady

uh concept in the history and in the

landscape of Christian

theology. This discoveries

was really surprising for me. uh you may

check the great uh studies in the

history of the theorical concepts and

the best scholars all agree all of them

there is no single

word which as such in Hebrew ancient

Greek and even in Latin could be

translated as revelation that is our

concept of Revelation is quite recent. I

mean uh

uh revelation became

a

central theme in this story of

Christianity roughly with Thomas

Aquinas. So it is a a long story. I have

no no time to explain everything but

Thomas Aquinas

uh in the

first article or the first question or

the first part of

the

sum asks the question is

it should

we expect from another science than

philosophy the knowledge of

So this question

uh impose itself to Thomas enough

because indeed the answer according to

Aristotle for instance would have been

no philosophy that's enough to reach a

knowledge of the

divine for a Christian theologian indeed

this cannot be admitted and answered

with to care

and sub to arguments that in fact there

is what he called used to call the

doctrina the sacra doctrina that is a

biblical text and the teaching of that

biblical text in the expression of the

church the sacractrina is another

science which should rule philosophy

itself in the case of the knowledge of

god so far so good we are have Not I'm

not I have no intention to explain the

detail of that doctrine but we see that

in that case and and so he he made a

double

uh

he he construct a double theology that

is the theology of

philosophy and the theology of

psychocrina And what we call now

revelation is a theology of sacred

doctrina by opposition to the

philosophical theology. And we we have

kept this divide. In fact, for for a

large

part, this uh

solution had

great advantage in assets, but it had a

um an Eden failure. That is to admit

that the sacra doctrina now called

revelation revelation

uh what was the complement so to speak

and the achievement of the philosophical

understanding of god according to to to

natural reason.

This implied

that the sacra doctrina was and should

be a

science as the uh philosophical

knowledge of

God which was indeed philosophical

science. And uh

the by

upgrading the sacred doctrina the

revelio to the function of an upper

science the queen of

sciences.

Indeed it could appear as a very strong

position

for theology as revelation. But it is

also a very weak position because

it's downsize revelation to the level of

a

science and indeed there is a lot to

learn in the biblical revelation. But is

it the best way to

admit the biblical revelation if we keep

the name as to to to say that it is a

science? To some extent it is less than

a science because in a science you can

demonstrate what you say. you're

supposed but it is much more because you

are not supposed to convert to a science

or to the result and the inunocations

produced by a

science. So the concept

of revelation starting with Thomas Aquas

as the one of the two terms of natural

knowledge philosophical knowledge of the

divine and

Biblical Sakra doctrina as the

revelation. Perhaps this dissension is

not that steady. This was my negative

discovery. The positive

discovery

was could be explained this

way. As a

phenomenologist and all the

phenomenologists will agree about

that the the the starting

point and this this makes the difference

between phenomenology and

usual

metaphysics. In

phenomenology, we try before deciding

whether

uh what we know is

uh

objective is an objective knowledge,

whether it is true, whether it is half

true or completely deceiving and all all

those question. We try to describe what

appears. Whatever may appear, it has

first to be

described. That is uh we have to

describe

indeed clear and

uh uh distinct ideas. But we can

describe as well and lit literature does

that uh our dreams, our imaginations,

our hopes and we can describe everything

which appear

uh no matter whether this thing is an

object, this thing is perfectly known

and so on and so

the the experience has to be taken

seriously.

whatever his origin and his clarity may

uh

be. This is a

principle developed by two greatest and

first

phenomenologist in being in time section

seven when he says

that a phenomenon is what

appears by

itself by itself and and as himself and

himself.

And so a phenomenology is only and it is

not easy to let what appears by itself

appear by itself. This is not

something banal to say that because to

say that what appears appears by itself.

It is a

proposition

criticizing face tof face K because in K

as you know what appears the phenomenon

is precisely

not the thing itself the thing itself

the dingish is precisely what will never

appear as such what appear instead is

always and only the phenomenon. So when

I say that he said well against count we

have to admit that what

manifests itself as a phenomenon is the

thing itself or should be the thing

itself and if we are unable to do that

we are not good philosophers.

User

the

first introducer of phenomenology in the

modern meaning and was the professor

of which I was the assistant professor

as said in the ideas for phenomenology

pure

philosophy volume one section 24 the

very famous principle of all principles.

He says

that I

quote

approximatively not too

approximatively

any

intuition is a source of

right for a thing

to be received as it gave itself.

itself and within the

limit where it give

itself and this is against count

again that is to say

uh for a thing to

appear to appear as

such there is only one thing which is

required only an intuition and Shaong he

said both anchong and

intuition and intuition and this is

enough to give the right for this thing

to appear as a phenomenon. What does

that mean? That means that against

count the intuition is

enough if we have no adequate concept

for that

intuition. Possibly if we have no

intuition at all, it is not an argument

to turn down the appearing

uh thing.

This is

crucial. That is all phenomenon with an

intuition give

itself. And if this giveness is

not as I

say framed so to speak or coined into a

concept or a combination of concepts as

we do in positive

sciences. Nevertheless, this phenomenon

does appear and is allowed to

appear. That is there are

nonconceptual

non-conceptualized

phenomena indeed they are not

object but they are nevertheless

perfectly visible and by saying that

against can't in fact user willingly or

not consciously or not this is not the

point in fact make a rejoinder with

can't because can't in the Third critic

critic of the faculty of judgment de or

craft says about the what what he called

the judgment of beauty the aesthetic

judgment. He says what what is beautiful

is something which can please

everyone

universally as in

science a

demonstration uh is valid universally

for

everyone and everyone has to yield to

that to that demonstration. Same thing.

A real work of

art, a real achievement in art impose

itself or should impose itself to

anyone. And you are you are if you are

well educated, you will agree. And

nevertheless the con says and

this realize itself without concept.

The universality of the uh aesthetic

statement can be achieved without

uh the authority of the concept which is

exactly what user suggest but without

restricting this to the

uh word of art in general phenomenon

provided is given in intuition should be

described as such with or without the

grief without

concept. So this is the common bread of

phenomenology. And what I discovered is

that in the biblical

text, the event of the kingdom of

God, the uh opening

phenomenon as it is described for

instance in the gospel according to Mark

which is exactly about that. The kingdom

of God is now

here. This is

explained

as a

phenomenon

matching the

definition of it by us and

Haidiger. Let us read. You can check

that we have the same

um so to speak proverb or syntag or line

in the three synoptics in Luke

8:17, Mark

4:22 and

Matthew

10:26 which runs this way.

Refraim. There is nothing

uh nothing

um which is covered up. Nothing

hidden which will not

be discovered.

This is Matthew

10:26 with the kingdom of Christ of of

God and with the presence of Jesus of

Nazareth everything will be

uh

open and become visible.

Not only Jesus and the kingdom of God

but everything

around. So it

is as

if there was a universal

phenomenalization of everything because

of the phenomenalization of the kingdom

of God. And this uh this formula is very

surprising because it appears not in in

John, not in Paul but in the

three synoptic gospel which are as

people used to say to say uh which are

not conceptual. So is written by people

who are not not

education a bit stupid and with no good

Greek and so on.

And those lines in addition to that

appears without any context. It is not

in a parable. It is not in a dialogue

with Jesus. They they are suddenly they

appear in different place to the point

that Yas and other great German exeget

and others exe came to the conclusion

that possibly these were words spoken

actually spoken by by by Jesus. That's

why they were recorded and after that

they were put in the in the text and one

place or another because they they had

no context.

So nothing

uh Eden kan or

uh covered

[Music]

upon will remain

such and everything will be discovered.

Apocalyptic

Apocalyptic.

Apocalyptto is a word which is usually

translated rarely because it's not very

often used very often in the New

Testament by

apocalypsis revelation.

This was a positive uh discovery. That

is I asked

myself perhaps the right way or the less

inappropriate way to read the phenomenon

of the New Testament and the Old

Testament as well. in fact would be

precisely to consider that it is a

phenomenological

issue. It is through phenomenology that

we may be able to describe what has

happened

because one of the

uh biggest difficulties of modern uh

biblical sciences

uh in the period in the enlightenment

starting in the with the period of

starting with enlightenment was this and

uh this situation

was made absolutely crystal clear by

Bourman. That is a part of

uh what

is exposed in the new in the Bible old

and and new testament as well is

something that we can understand quite

well can be translated into uh

uh morals stand morals

uh duty uh uh towards the the other the

poor and so on. Uh it can be

even indication that we should uh

celebrate uh the greatness of God in

liturgy and so on. So far so good. But

there is another part which are miracles

uh great uh uh natural events which are

supposed to be the action of God and

many irrational

situations which uh in time of

enlightenment no rational reader can

accept and so we have to make a choice.

A part will be accepted, another part

will be dismissed and it was in the

language of Bman the program of

detoization

detoization and this program is not only

in Bman. He had started with Rena with

Stra with with everyone and with in fact

British empiricism.

This

divide is based on the idea that a

phenomenon which cannot be as they say

explained which mean which cannot be uh

understood with our concepts should be

turned

down exactly that and understand we

understand very well uh how far this

claim is correct. Correct. And how far

this claim can be

discussed? Because

if all the phenomena are

objects and should be objects in that

case the claim of de mythologization is

correct. But if philosophy itself tell

us that the phenomena are

not always

objects detoization should be detoized

itself.

That's the point and for theology indeed

it is a crucial

term. So this was the positive

uh

discovery. After that I asked myself

um what does that mean that the biblical

event to

oversimplify simplify that the biblical

event could be received as a

phenomenon and is it possible?

The answer is it is possible only

if we

uh

admit that this

phenomenon can be compared

to no

other that it is an absolute phenomenon.

Why to make that claim? Very simple. If

this phenomenon is a phenomenon among

others, it is not a revelation.

As Shelling said

once against

eagle, would

revelation in a strong meaning? Would

revelation be only

uh a

continuation and a confirmation of what

we can know. Without it and simply

within the limit of pure reason to speak

account, it would be completely useless

and we would have no need of it at all.

it would deserve no special interest. So

if there is a phenomenon of revelation,

it should be not only exceptional but

absolute. If it is not absolute, it is a

cultural development. There are many

other competing with that. It is not a

big deal.

But in what so in

what could we say that the biblical

phenomenon is an absolute

one? I think there

is some very

clear indication that we can

assume at least that this

phenomenon as shows itself by giving

itself without

uh absolutely without reservation and

that this self-giving

phenomenon has no equivalent

First,

uh

Jesus has said

that he

um in Jesus God has displayed his love.

Let us admit that. That is what the text

says. and he displayed this

love. This is a quotation of John 13:1,

the first line in the story of the

passion death of Jesus in in the gospel

according to John.

The text says, "Having

loved his friends, he loved

them unto the end." I tell us, that

is with an accomplishment.

And de facto when uh

Jesus

dies in John uh 19 28 his last word

is everything is

accomplished. So reach the

telos it is

impossible to go beyond to do more than

that. This claim of the telos in

philosophy philosophical language it's

very powerful for Aristotle the telos it

is the act the

ina led to the extreme point that is

thea the f to be in the tos so we could

say what is the phenomenon of Christ it

is the intela of a

self-giving agape

This is exactly what he says. We can

disagree but it is what he claimed to

be. The second point is that

uh in the history of religion as people

say uh Jesus Christ is the only one to

have claimed first

that I

am

without any sin. Uh John 8, who can

convince me of every of a

sin? To my knowledge, no one ever has

said I am completely innocent of any

sin. And the same

thing Jesus is able to say

this sentence which is absolutely

uh more than surprising

uh about the truth. It it does not say I

tell you the truth. Also uh in John as

the biblical scholar has pointed out uh

to say I agree to something I tell the

truth. This is the

truth. We say amen. And Jesus is the

only one to say amen.

Amen. To

say this is the truth truly.

And why he says that this is a true

story because he does not says he does

not

exhaust does not say the

truth. He says I am the

truth. No

philosopher Socrates has not said that.

uh and uh I think that in Islam the

prophet has not said that and he should

not and uh in the Asian religion as well

no one has ever said I am the

truth for us the truth is not

somebody it is a relation between

something and our mind that is the truth

so there is another meaning of the truth

which is which has a so a claim of an

authority which is

outstanding out the norms

and we have another indication of that

is the fact that Jesus has said ego me I

am

Before Abraham

was ego, I am from the beginning. Say I

am the alpha omega. I am the

ar again. We know what an ar principle,

a first principle, uh, first cause, a

first

rational postulate and thing like that

are what it is. It is what allows us to

uh understand by concept or what

something or what produce something. In

the case of Jesus, he says, "I am the

ar which is a blasphemy after all.

either he is wrong is a blasphemy and it

was a good sin to condemn him to death

or he's true.

So you could say that the consistency

of what Jesus has claimed to achieve and

to be leads to the conclusion that this

phenomenon has presented itself as the

absolute

phenomenon and it is what we

can call a revelation.

So revelation is not a content

uh this or

that part of the biblical text teaching

us this or that thing about God. Indeed

it is but it is fundamentally the event

of the absolute phenomenon. And to

conclude with with that

uh when Jesus when we understand very

well why started with that everything

became

visible

when the kingdom of

God made itself visible everything

else when Jesus is uh uh uh was arrested

and and put to trial against Senator

uh the first question he asked to answer

was uh what did you teach what did you

teach and the answer of Jesus is uh I

have no reason to tell you again what I

have said I've

always spoken

publicly in the open and the

the the the

uh the text

is I've never taught in the uh

uh in cover.

I

always I never it is in in

John 18 2020 20 it is I never said

anything in

crypto in the

secret this phenomenon made everything

visible because everything in that

phenomenon was

visible if we admit the this hypothesis

And this hypothesis has a great

advantage. It is the most consistent

interpretation of the text. The

text refers to such a phenomenon.

In that case, what

would mean to

uh positively accept this absolute

phenomenon? What is the right attitude

in front of this revelation?

Be

careful.

Uh if you

say I am uh in the age of rationality

and enlightenment

uh there is a part of that phenomenon

which can cannot be

understood. I deny the old phenomenon.

So this is an epistemologically speaking

a

very a very questionable

answer. If you

say

I'm a perfect

believer, I take it

all. It is from an epistemical point of

view very questionable as well.

Because

uh do

you

really claim to be able to take it all

although you don't understand

everything? What does that mean?

It's why there is another uh possible

answer and this possible answer is was

we know it because not only we

experience

it and I think any believer Christian

believer experienced it. It was

described for instance in uh John again

John

9 the story of the man born blind

blind.

So this

man says to Jesus do something for

me. And Jesus

uh make this blind man see.

And he

says he he tells him go to the temple

and according to the law uh make

rethread your

healing and be admitted again in the

community of the Rio of the of the of

the right people and you you you may

celebrate again in the temple and things

like that. So the guy goes to the temple

and the priest or the

Pharisees say and they

say not to him but woo as the

ill knew and the blind the former blind

man says uh I don't know who this

guy is but I can tell you I was blind

born and now I

see. So there is always a play in the

gospel in the church in the text of John

about the meaning of I don't know or I

know this is the position of the

witness. The witness is someone who know

for

sure a fact that is an event which

was de facto

achieved. This does not mean that he

understand what was going

on in a crime

novel. very

often the

witness say I'm absolutely sure that the

bad guy was told and things like that

and uh but I don't

know and there is no

contradiction I don't know who is he

where is he and so on and why he has

done that and so there is no

contradiction to say as both time I do

know the event which appeared to me I

don't know the meaning of the event

which is a classical sol situation of

the witness and in a legal process it is

very often like that and strangely the

detective or the police officer may know

more than the witness

uh about what really

happened but He needs the witness

because only the witness has seen uh the

the the

the deed done. He has no interpretation.

The police officer has an interpretation

but the police officer has not the has

not

experienced the deed itself.

So in front of an absolute

phenomenon, the right situation is to be

the

witness to be certain of what we have

experienced. Not

claiming to have a complete

understanding of this

event because we may uh get some insight

about the meaning of the

event. We understand a

bit we have some insight some concept

but not a sufficient concept. So

theology is the attempt to uh find out

uh concept able to uh give a meaning as

as broad as possible but always

incomplete to the event itself.

So the witness is precisely

the correct

epistemological

position between the denial of

the

common

non-believer and the

enthusiasm without good arguments of uh

the uh uh

um the uh

fanatic the real situation is to face

what in my language I call a saturated

phenomenon. A saturated phenomenon is

not it is a phenomenon something happen

and can be seen and described very

precisely in the intuition.

Nevertheless, we have no

uh sufficient

concept or sufficient set of

concepts to give to this

phenomenon the status of an object. An

object is a phenomenon which can

be integrally understood because it can

be measured. He has the same property

and he has only those properties. So we

can describe

itself produce itself because we can

reproduce itself. So the object

is this part of reality which can

be understood cover to cover. Sorry

understood by concept. a technical

object has this property this privilege

to be entirely

conceptualized and so when we have the

concept we can produce the object and it

is exactly what we do in the industry

and all that is what is difficult is to

have the concept of the product once you

have the concept of the product you have

the assembly line it can be automatized

and you produce the concept the object

object without difficulty. A saturated

phenomenon is a concept which cannot be

produced as an object and cannot be

reproduced as well.

It is clear that the work of art the

great work of art was achieved once once

forever and can not only cannot be

reproduced.

He can be reproduced by

picture cannot be

but it is precisely because he cannot be

reproduced that is so precious. And the

other thing we can explain and speak a

lot endlessly about a painting or

about a symphony. But we shall never

explain why this painting is so

beautiful, why this

uh melody is so

uh takes us that way. So to

understand a

painting it is

to reach his

beauty without explanation.

To some

extent this is saturated

phenomenon. In the case of the biblical

event we have the saturated phenomenon

by

excellence. And what is the life of a

disciple? A believer is the that means

this life it is the endless attempt to

understand better something which will

never become an

object. And it's why face is a way to

understand

that that is in front of a saturated the

more I

[Music]

uh I come near to

it. So the more I experience

it, the more I am I trust it.

But the more I know that I shall

never conceive it completely and

adequately by by by

concept. So

uh if you read a poem you will never

find out the concept according to which

this poem uh is a

masterpiece and to enjoy the poem as a

masterpiece means to admit that it is

not an

object. So faith is

really a a way of knowledge. It is

perhaps the only appropriate way of

knowledge. And we have to to keep in

mind this uh word by

[Music]

uh by user in the the

crisis. I should know exactly the Number

of the section is 45

perhaps. He

says what is a thing by opposition to an

object. What is a thing? It is something

that no one will ever

know. A

thing, a non-objective thing is

something which will never be known by

anyone. And don't say that this is

crazy. It is exactly what we experience

in the ordinary life.

uh the other the privilege of the your

partner your

partner you will never know it

completely and I hope so for myself and

for

you as long No as soon as you could

objectify this other your relationship

is

Uh why are we

uh when we are lucky enough to be in

that situation we are uh uh impassionate

in some field of knowledge and we do

that wondering why it is possible to be

paid to uh have so much fun in studying.

and teaching

things. I

think you are in that position when you

have happily given up the idea that you

will understand what you study.

I'm fascinating by philosophy because I

I know that there I will be always a bit

behind what I should be able to

understand and it's why I keep I keep

studying

philosophy and indeed we

uh we can understand

better the great principle of Many

theologians the definition of God is

that God has no

definition

or what is

God because

anyone has an idea of God it's very

important to understand that there was

an an witty humorist was not really

Christian in the 19th century

France we used to

God, God is known by everyone at least

by

name which is absolutely true. We see it

is a best commentary of Exodus

3:14.

So,

but what is our knowledge by name of

God? Well, what is the right by name?

Answer God is

what compared to

which nothing better or greater can be

thought. So God is the maximum of what

can be thought plus one.

So it's

why an non-existing god is lower than an

existing god and so on. But it is a very

good

definition. In fact, it is a comment on

this other argument

by St. Augustine. If you understand what

it is, it is not

him. And this is crucial. If would we

have an object knowledge of God, it

would not be

God. So God can be known only in so far

as it is no not known as an object

because the object by definition is

finite and God by definition is not. So

we have to be consistent epistemology

speaking. I mean, so my claim is that

faith is

an correct epistemological attitude in

some

cases. This being said, there is

a last

point. The last point

There are other points but for today it

will be the last

point. What does that mean to say

something about the revealed saturated

phenomenon speaking as a

witness? What does that mean?

That mean indeed that the speaking

I is not the producer or the landlord or

so to speak of uh what has to be

said. It is not the uh what K used to

call the

transcendental ego.

If what he has to

say is all

about the absolute phenomenon

uh which is not an

object. I cannot speak and think the

same way

uh according to which

I I deal with the

objects. So I cannot be the

transcendental subject

uh building up objects by

uh synthesis as in

countitution as the early

user mental fabrication of the object.

And when we sess when we know an object

and when we describe the

object how do we

speak we make a predication.

This uh was

explained formalized by Aristotle the

first but we have kept that in

all the

contemporary formal mathematical logic.

The predication

uh means that to say is

to utter a

sentence where we say

something, a predicate, a

quality, whatever we call that. We say

something upon

something in Greek to lean

tatinos to make a

predication. You can express this

predication

with symbolic science mathematical

science but at the end it is a

predication.

So in front of the absolute phenomenon

is it possible to uh have

predications and let us think uh back uh

to our point of the departure. Is Sakra

doctrina a science? Because if it is a

science sacred should as well uh use

predications saying something about

something is some properties about God.

God is we can say God is almighty. God

is infinite. God is

uh knowing

everything and so

on. This is a common way

uh of

speaking. Indeed, it is completely wrong

and

illegitimate.

Why? First,

because we don't know if God is

almighty or if God is almighty, we don't

know exactly what it

means. His might. If God is completely

uh he knows

everything, why

not? But what does it mean in the case

of God to know? Is this by sensible

experience? Is this by logical

conclusions? Is this what does that

mean? Does God have an an objective

knowledge of the

things? So So okay.

God has all those properties what they

mean in the case of God. So the point is

that everything we could attribute to

God is perhaps not divine enough to make

sense referred to

God and it is very likely that they are

cannot be referred as such. It's why in

scholasticism there was this doctrine of

analogy. So God is by analogy just by

analogy to our way to understand

justice. But it is it may be another

another

way. This is the first reason because we

we cannot predicate anything about

God. It is a good theology of the

incomprehensibility of God which is a

positive determination of God not a

negative. Because if God could be

perfectly well understandable, it would

not be God. It would be our mate in our

body and not God. But the other reason

why uh we cannot predicate

something about

God as something to say something about

something is because God is not

something is not a thing.

There are things in the world in our

world. There are

phenomena which can be reduced to the

object which can be kept as such and

some are the things. But God is not a

thing or you can say the God is imminent

to the world and so on. In that case the

question of God is if not suppressed at

least

downside. So we cannot say anything

about God as if God could be seen as

something. So what can we

do? And the

answer in theology is always the same.

If we cannot

leain cannot say something about God

uh because God is never equal to the

determination which could be uh selected

uh to uh describe

it. We can praise God as so this was the

great discovery of Dar

Disus this theologian of the 78th

century Syria who wrote who invented the

so-called mystical theology and we have

written the uh three trees of the divine

names and he says that about God. God

has all the names and known. He's both

polonimous and

anonymous. It is precisely because he

has no adequate name that all the names

can be referred to God. not as

properties of God uh given to God by

predication but because as

those names are borrowed from the

created word to some extent they they

come from

God as created things which

uh which are known and described by us

with those

So we can say that God after all is a

rock or a river

or a raging bull bull or anything you

want. A

lion

seducing

female because Yes.

Because all this was given to us by God.

So we

can give all this back to God not as a

determination of God but

as the offer we made to God. We

celebrate

God

under

the under the apparition of of those

determinations. That is we praise God

as oath to praise God as. So the use of

language of

legging about the absolute

phenomenon cannot be the predication. It

has to be the universal

praise. God is the objective of

praise not the object of

knowledge. And it

makes really

It makes sense because it is a way to

understand

why this old

rule is remains true that the lex

krenandi is experienced in the

lexandi prayer is not the

application of our uh intellectual

knowledge of God. It is the

reverse. Our intellectual knowledge of

God is justified only in so far that it

is a

consequence an application of our way of

praising God as or our way of praying or

prayer.

So it is it is central

this this inversion of the and what does

that mean that

uh we

speak in a non-objective being a way

with

God that means

that we don't

speak about God. We speak to

God. And the distinction between

speaking about something and speaking to

someone, we know it very

well. That is in the daily

life. When you call an Uber, for

instance, you have no intention to have

a long

personal conversation with the driver

and the guy has no intention to. So,

he's listen to his to to to his music or

he's speaking with someone else in his

cell phone.

If you may speak to the too long to the

driver, it could be perhaps the

beginning of a romance or or perhaps an

attack and we don't know. But anyway, it

is it is another regime of of the of

speech and we know perfectly well that

there are two ways of speaking.

speaking as

uh transmitting

informations, the exchange of

informations which uh are correct if we

deal with

objects and with and the other being

only

uh

the origin sending us information or the

the goal receiving informations. So in

the situation of exchange, commercial

exchange because informations are uh

something which we can pay for and be

paid

for objects or we we say something to

someone and in that case it is an inter

subjective use of language. It is

completely different.

is it is not the same vocabulary. It is

not the same syntax. It is not the same

uh gestures. It is not the same uh

elocution. It is absolutely different.

You

can if you don't know well a language

foreign

language you can speak to somebody but

it's very difficult to say something

about

something for instance.

So those two use of language is the

difference between them is something we

daily experience. It is

not farfetched sophism and it is exactly

what is at stake in the situation of

revelation and it's why and this will be

my conclusion. What does that mean to

have a

revelation? Because we use this formula

uh time to time without really

uh understanding what we what we say.

The first

time uh you are

able to achieve

something which previously you were

unable to

achieve which you have hopelessly

hopelessness hope to achieve during a

long time and we have in fact already

given up uh this

hope Uh for instance in

in sports to perform something or

in personal relationship with another or

in art or practicing any kind of

art. The moment

you you would like very much to have

done that and you know that you will not

be able to

succeed. And if

suddenly as this young boy who

was dragging back in in class during

years and suddenly once he had uh in

front of him the

equation

3x r

x² give

the how much is x and suddenly This

young boy has a revelation. You have to

divide the two part of the equation by x

and the remaining is three is equal to x

and suddenly everything became clear.

This was a revelation for this young

boy. And we have time to time such a

revelation. For

instance, if you are a very bad player

in uh the say baseball, so you are not

admitted in

the in the lineup. Yes, in the lineup.

So you are not admitted in the lineup,

not even in the far far away. So you are

humiliated but you you see that you

cannot bat correctly, you cannot pitch

correctly and you agree that you are not

good. In in many American

movies, the poor little boy which is

humiliated because he's not in the uh in

the

lineup. There

is one day

He

bats as God and s and suddenly he is in

the lineup. And there is a there there

is a movie

about the young guy who has the dream to

be the quarterback of the fighting Irish

in

Not. And suddenly he is

This is a revelation. The revelation is

not that he's suddenly able to bat or to

uh to uh send the ball to the

receiver. It is not only

that is the fact that he has a new

identity. He's now a big guy, the arrow

and so on. And it is is suddenly the

field has a new dimension for him

because he can master the field. He can

make the other

player score or anything like that. So

the space is different.

The time is different because forever it

will have been the quarterback of Notre

Dame when Notre Dame has defeated Boston

College for so this will remain forever

and they will be on the

wall his name and all all of fame he

will be in the all of Notre Dame and uh

is

is social position which is

modified and in fact his perception of

the entire world. This is a revelation

and very often we use revolution in with

that meaning that is experiencing that

saturated phenomenon although not an

object can be experienced understood and

as the saturated phenomenon is so to

speak bigger than you

are you are transformed by the saturated

phenomenon indeed

uh this uh process

um find this last

achievement I say that because I am I'm

Christian indeed in the absolute

phenomenon of biblical revelation indeed

but it is not without analogy in with

our daily

life we don't live we don't live among

only

objects and the question of revelation

is about

that. So revelation is a very

concrete access to the biblical text

very concrete much more than any

uh say scientific access.

Thank you for for your

attention. Thank you Jean Luke Marion

for that uh very provocative and

intriguing lecture. uh we have some time

for

questions and I'd like to call first

upon any students in the room who may

have a question and then we can go to

other people. Yes. Yes, Eli.

Um oh yeah, thank you. Uh thank you very

much for this lecture. I've been looking

forward to it a long time and it didn't

disappoint. Um I'm interested in Jesus

as um the visible God and the botific

vision given to us through uh through

Jesus. And you say when a saturated

phenomenon is bigger than you are, you

are transformed by it. I wonder can you

be not only transformed by a saturated

phenomenon but also united to it? Yeah.

No, this is your your

final uh line is very

important. When we know a phenomenon as

an

object, we distance ourself of that

object. That is we are never transformed

by an object.

Uh it's why the knowledge of the

object give us the impression of power

and

security because we are not a

stake. We produce it, reproduce it, we

we we rule it.

The reason why the saturated

phenomenon

has an intimidating impact on

us, it is not only because we don't

understand it

completely. In s there are cases where

we are very pleased not to understand

what is going on. No, it is because this

phenomenon attract us. It is no more at

distance. We are involved in it. We are

committed to it because he is always

more powerful than we are. We are not

transcendental object anymore. We are

the

uh the

um witness and we are united to it.

That's the

point. And

it so it is always to be united to a

phenomenon for good. This is not always

it can be frighten when we are addicted

to something. It is

frightening. The union is not always a

good thing. When you are addicted to a

drug, you

are united to it. And this is a terrible

ordeal. But clearly the question of the

union with the saturated fundamental is

central. You are right.

I I have a question about the

relationship between uh the revelation

like a phenomenon and the intentionality

of of

love. Um because

uh revelation amplify stand our

horizont to to practice to to learn a

new way of seeing this kind of

phenomenons. Mhm. And I think maybe our

in intentionality

uh need to be changed. Yes. So what what

kind of intentionality we need to to

uh cultivate? Mhm. Mhm.

Uh what you ask for is I would say is

well known in

fiction. Uh the first meaning of

intentionality is the

uh the intentionality coming

from the ego, the eye.

uh

uh in which goes out to the world. It is

the intentionality the first discovered

by

user. Any consciousness is consciousness

of something which should

be understood that any consciousness is

consciousness of something different

than itself.

So you have

uh an

intentionality through which the

ego display power of knowing the world.

In the case of a saturated

phenomenon we have what live in us. He

was the first to say

that as called a counter

intentionality. That is when you are in

face to face to the the face of the

other, you are in an ethical

relationship and not a theoretical

relationship.

As long as you have a theoretical

relationship with the other, the other

is simply an

articulated animated

object, a

robot. And so it is not

another. You have no commitment, ethical

commitment to it.

The uh other the face of the other start

to

be another another eye. When you feel

yourself under

uh if not the control at least under the

claim, the silent claim of that face and

that gaze of the other.

uh implicitly telling to you you shall

not murder

me which is the first ethical

relationship. In that case the

um the momentum of the

intentionality is

reversed. This is the

counterintentionality. So Levas has

explained expressed that perfectly well

and it was a great

achievement but only in the ethical

relation and I suggested that this

counter intentionality reverted

intentionality has to be used

uh in many other situations in Verotic F

indeed in in in

in

theological experience as well and many

other

cases. So there is a reverse a reversal

of intentionality is absolutely

central questions.

Hello thank you. Um I have a question

about um how the revelation of God um

may in some cases be discontinuous with

saturated phenomenon. Um uh I'm I'm

curious particularly about um the

condition of human sin and how that

changes how God has to reveal himself to

us. Is there a way in which um the

revelation of scripture and the

revelation of God is discontinuous with

other phenomenon that you've been

they've been talking about or is it

simply all the way on the end of a

spectrum that is that is continuous?

Yeah, I don't get your point. Will you

tell me more clearly what your question?

Yeah.

Um it it sounds like um the revelation

you've been describing um of scripture

is um it follows the principle of husel

that it's um manifests according to its

giveness.

Um but um I I'm wondering if there's um

a way in which the revelation of God is

unique. it's different than than that

manifestation in some way or or if it

isn't um um particularly in regards to

to human sin. Is there some resistance

yes to um the revelation of God that um

that adds to to the um description of

phenomenology you're given.

The concept of resistance is central. I

make great use of it in this book. Uh

resistance means that

um the

light shed by uh the absolute fedon

uh is partly

painful because uh

uh he make visible it makes vis visible

not only the around me but I myself as

well

and as many political men I'm not very

pleased to have what what I have done

made

public and in that case we can react but

in order

to cover

up what we have

done to keep it the

secret. We prefer to deny the light

in as all that we prefer that everything

remains uh in the

dark to uh

u to avoid light on my own behavior.

This was explained by Augustine with the

doctrine of veritas luch veritas

redarance

in book 10 of the conventionist. It is

uh the one of the reason why uh divine

revelation is not easily received and

accepted is precisely

because it it it is a

threat for the state of the thing as

they are. And the more uh

Jesus reveals himself, the more he

reveals the state of mind of people

around him, the more he's rejected.

So is it is surprising because the

failure of Jesus to convince

uh

is the people of his generation is

is absolutely complete the complete

failure.

If the final goal

was to be well received, if you want to

be well received, say what people

expect first rule of political life

anyway. Say what people want to hear.

But if you say the

truth and if you are really the

truth, don't be a surprise if this make

you some

arm. And uh this is exactly the

situation.

So what the moral theology calls

sin as

uh an

epistemological

meaning. Not only we are not sinner

because we are bad guy or weak and

things like that. We are sinner because

we are

rational and we want to keep control of

our destiny of our public image of

our self-esteem and so on. So we had

good reason to be sinner and to keep to

stick to our sins.

This is not absurd. It is very

logical terrible logic but is very is

very

logical. Uh thank you very much indeed

uh for this. Uh I want to ask about what

how this responds what you're unfolding

with the reading of scripture and

perhaps to the work of Rur who I know

you know well um uh for instance the I

am uh that you mentioned is so focal and

Jesus is taking us back to God

disclosing Godself as the I am

unknowable and again the alpha and the

omega in the revelation is a version of

this I am the unknowable. So I think

it's been a consensus from the first

century at least that amongst Christian

and Jewish scholars that God is

technically unknowable and and actually

Dianius says you don't take the names

from the created order you take them

only from scripture. Now I think one

thing that ra hesitancy ra has about

phenomenology is he wonders how it's

going to address what you might call the

tessillation of Christian readings of

the text. the fact that we're reading

across scripture, we're finding that

disclosure coming up through us through

many texts, through Exodus, through

Isaiah, through the Psalms. It's not

simply from what Jesus said in the

Gospel. So, I wonder what you would how

you would your position unfolds into a

reading of of scripture more broadly.

Thank you. You know I I gave only

some some very uh simple indications but

indeed what I said about the absolute

phenomenon uh you can document that in

many other

text not only in the New Testament but

in the first testament as well. All the

tanes for instance of the first

testament have to be understood as

saturated phenomena. And I was very

pleased when I started to develop the

idea of the saturated phenomena.

uh the

uh biblique biblical review which is

published by the u the eco biblique the

Jerusalem biblical school in

Jerusalem run by the Dominican brothers

which is a great place for

for the biblical studies and they they

they made a conference and published an

issue

devoted to the fact that you can use

uh it is better to to to use the concept

of saturated phenomenon to explain the

the first testament so I'm exactly

online

with no question about

that thanking