¹ The Classic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

² “Foundational Theology and Theological Education,” Theological Education 20/2 (Spring 1984): 107–24.Google Scholar

³ Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), pp. 54–59Google Scholar, considers this double-sidedness not a strength but a weakness of reception hermeneutics.

⁴ The reference to reception as dangerous stems from Yves Congar's classic essay on reception: see Congar, Yves, “La ‘Réception’ comme réalité ecclesiologique,” Revue des sciences philosophies et théologiques 56 (1972): 369–403.Google Scholar

⁵ Interestingly Schleiercnacher was regarded by some contemporaries as a foundationalist and by others as an anti-foundationalist—to use present day categories. Protestant Neo-orthodoxy has generally regarded him as a foundationalist, whereas Roman Catholic theology has had the opposite interpretation. For his own explanation, see Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E., On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, Intro., ed., and trans. Duke, James and Fiorenza, Francis; AAR Texts and Translations 3 (Chicago, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁶ Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), esp. pp. 222–31.Google Scholar