We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In the introduction to his helpful edition of selected writings from Ernst Bloch, Hans Heinz Holz recognises that Christian theologians feel themselves drawn towards Bloch's philosophy, and have in fact ‘appropriated it (and obviously also his person, as the Festschrift for his eightieth birthday shows)’. The theologians in question are principally Jürgen Moltmann, J. B. Metz, W.-D. Marsch and Gerhard Sauter. Of these Moltmann and Metz were among the contributors to the Festschrift, Ernst Bloch Zu ehren. These theologians, Holz complains, by their ‘inadequate reception’ and ‘incorrect interpretation’ of Bloch's Marxist thought have ‘falsified’ his intention. In this article I want to consider that verdict, putting three questions. What is the particular form of Marxism that Bloch sets before us? How have these theologians found his thought relevant and helpful? In their use of Bloch do they in fact incorrectly interpret and falsify his intention? I am not concerned here to ask whether the account of Christianity put before us by Moltmann and the others is acceptable or not.
page 129 note 1 Ernst Bloch, Auswahl aus seinen Schriften (hereafter Auswahl) (Frankfurt, 1967), p. 30.Google Scholar
page 129 note 2 See his Theologie der Hoffnung (Munich, 1st ed. 1964, 6th ed. 1966)Google Scholar; the 5th ed. 1966 will be cited as T.d.H. The English translation of the 5th ed. by J. W. Leitch (London, 1967) will be cited as E.T.
page 129 note 3 See his ‘The Church and the World’, The Word in History, ed. Burke, T. P. (New York, 1966), pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
page 129 note 4 See his Gegenwart Christi in der Gesellschaft (Munich, 1965)Google Scholar, and his introduction to the life and work of Bloch, Hoffen-worauf? (Hamburg, 1963)Google Scholar.
page 129 note 5 See his Zukunft und Verheissung (Zürich, 1965).Google Scholar
page 129 note 6 Ed. S. Unseld (Frankfurt, 1965); this work will be cited as E.B.
page 129 note 7 Auswahl, p. 30.
page 129 note 8 I argue that it is acceptable in an article to appear in Interpretation for January 1968.
page 130 note 1 Frankfurt, 1959; this work will be cited as P.H.
page 130 note 2 P.H., p. 1521.
page 130 note 3 Tübingener Einleitung in die Philosophie (Frankfurt, 1964), 2, p. 45.Google Scholar
page 130 note 4 P.H., p. 1504.
page 130 note 5 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 49.Google Scholar
page 130 note 6 P.H., p. 254.
page 130 note 7 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 51.Google Scholar
page 131 note 1 P.H., p. 1406.
page 131 note 2 ibid., p. 1523; cf. pp. 1515ff.
page 131 note 3 Tübingener Einleitung, 1, p. 199.Google Scholar
page 131 note 4 Naturrecht und Menschlidu Würde (Frankfurt, 1961).Google Scholar
page 131 note 5 P.H., p. 1628.
page 131 note 6 ibid., pp. 258–87.
page 131 note 7 ibid., p. 285.
page 131 note 8 ibid., p. 280f and p. 4.
page 132 note 1 ibid., p.
page 132 note 2 ibid., p. 225.
page 132 note 3 Auswahl, p. 54.
page 132 note 4 P.H., p. 247.
page 132 note 5 Tübingener Einleitung, I, p. 160f.Google Scholar
page 132 note 6 P.H., pp. 241, 364 etc.
page 132 note 7 Tübingener Einleitung, I, pp. 151ff.Google Scholar
page 132 note 8 In the theories of natural law Bloch finds hints of a revolutionary passion for that human dignity which has not yet been realised (Naturrecht und Menschliche Würde).
page 133 note 1 P.H., pp. 1214ff.
page 133 note 2 Tübingener Einleitung, I, p. 136.Google Scholar
page 133 note 3 ibid., I, p. 137.
page 133 note 4 2nd ed., Frankfurt, 1959.
page 133 note 5 P.H., p. 280. For Aristotle dynamsi on is as such pure passivity; Bloch follows Avicenna, Giordano Bruno and others in understanding matter as itself spontaneously producing its forms (cf. Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 83Google Scholar; P.H., pp. 237ff.; Avicenna und die Aristotelische Linke (Frankfurt, 1963)Google Scholar), as permeated with tendencies and—in terms of the young Schelling's thought—‘fermenting matter’, matter in process ‘with all its forms of tendency and latency’ (Tübingener Einleitung, 2, pp. 77, 84Google Scholar).
page 133 note 6 P.H., pp. 929ff.
page 133 note 7 Cf. Holz, , Auswahl, p. 18, n. 18.Google Scholar
page 133 note 8 Subjekt-Objekt Erläuterungen zu Hegel (Frankfurt, 1962), pp. 477ff.Google Scholar
page 133 note 9 Verfremdungen, I (Frankfurt, 1962), p. 219.Google Scholar
page 134 note 1 P.H., p. 285.
page 134 note 2 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 178.Google Scholar
page 134 note 3 P.H., p. I.
page 134 note 4 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 166.Google Scholar
page 134 note 5 T.d.H., p. 12; E.T., p. 16.
page 135 note 1 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 50.Google Scholar
page 135 note 2 Moltmann, , ‘Die Menschenrechte und der Marxismus’, Kirche in der Zeit, 17 (1962), p. 122.Google Scholar
page 135 note 3 T.d.H., p. 28; E.T., p. 33. In his paper, ‘The Category of the New in Christian Theology’, to be delivered at a symposium at the John XXIII Institute in Chicago in October 1967, Moltmann points out how the New Testament characteristically thinks of God in terms of the future and the hope which is aroused by the promise of a new creation.
page 135 note 4 Cf. Metz, , ‘Verantwortung der Hoffnung’, Stimmen der Zeit, 91 (1966), p. 453.Google Scholar
page 135 note 5 Zum Hermeneutischen Problem in der Theologie (Tübingen, 1960), p. 148.Google Scholar
page 135 note 6 T.d.H., p. 209; E.T., p. 229.
page 135 note 7 T.d.H., p. 53f.; E.T., p. 62.
page 136 note 1 In a review of Das Prinzip Hoffnung Moltmann asks: ‘Isn't the reduction of apocalyptic to the “eschatological moment” and the defamation of cosmic eschatology as “myth” merely the expression of and justification for a Christian-bourgeois individualistic culture?’ (‘Messianismus und Marxismus’, Kirche in der Zeit, 15 (1960), p. 291Google Scholar).
page 136 note 2 T.d.H., p. 60; E.T., p. 69.
page 136 note 3 Tübingener Einleitung, I, p. 199.Google Scholar
page 136 note 4 P.H., p. 285.
page 136 note 5 T.d.H., p. 37F.; E.T., p. 44f.
page 136 note 6 ‘Die Kategorie Novum in der christlichen Theologie’, E.B., p. 254f.Google Scholar; cf. T.d.H., p. 57f.; E.T., p. 65f.
page 136 note 7 T.d.H., p. 37; E.T., p. 43.
page 136 note 8 T.d.H., p. 262; E.T., p. 284.
page 136 note 9 E.B., p. 253.
page 137 note 1 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 50.Google Scholar
page 137 note 2 T.d.H., p. 97; E.T., p. 108.
page 137 note 3 T.d.H., p. 139; E.T., p. 154.
page 137 note 4 cf. Sauter, , Zukunft und Verheissung, p. 202.Google Scholar
page 137 note 5 T.d.H., p. 12; E.T., p. 16.
page 137 note 6 T.d.H., p. 262; E.T., p. 282.
page 137 note 7 T.d.H., p. 105f; E.T., p. 117f.
page 137 note 8 T.d.H., p. 108; E.T., p. 119.
page 137 note 9 T.d.H., p. 106; E.T., p. 118.
page 137 note 10 ‘Der Gott der Hoffnung’, Gott Heute, ed. Kutschki, N. (Mainz and Munich, 1967), p. 125.Google Scholar
page 137 note 11 Tübingener Einleitung, I, p. 185.Google Scholar
page 138 note 1 T.d.H., p. 176; E.T., p. 194.
page 138 note 2 cf. Bloch, : ‘The new thing in the Christian myth’ is ‘the resurrection and the life, as a completely new factor in history’ (Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 154f).Google Scholar
page 138 note 3 T.d.H., p. 148; E.T., p. 163.
page 138 note 4 T.d.H., p. 260; E.T., p. 283.
page 138 note 5 Geschichte—Element der Zunkunft (Tübingen, 1965), p. 67.Google Scholar
page 138 note 6 T.d.H., p. 280; E.T., p. 304.
page 138 note 7 T.d.H., p. 300; E.T., p. 325.
page 138 note 8 T.d.H., p. 301; E.T., p. 326.
page 138 note 9 T.d.H., p. 3O3; E.T., p. 328.
page 138 note 10 T.d.H., p. 299; E.T., p. 324.
page 138 note 11 T.d.H., p. 308; E.T., p. 334.
page 139 note 1 T.d.H., p. 74; E.T., p. 84.
page 139 note 2 T.d.H., p. 110; E.T., p. 122.
page 139 note 3 ‘Hope without Faith’, Concilium 6 (1966), p. 18.Google Scholar
page 139 note 4 Stimmen der Zeit 91 (1966), p. 458.Google Scholar
page 139 note 5 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 177Google Scholar; cf. Verfremdungen, I, pp. 211–219Google Scholar; T.d.H., pp. 331–4.
page 139 note 6 cf. Moltmann, , Kirche in der Zeit, 15 (1960), p. 295.Google Scholar
page 139 note 7 T.d.H., p. 304; E.T., p. 329.
page 140 note 1 T.d.H., p. 309; E.T., p. 335.
page 140 note 2 ‘We are beings who are simply set on the future’ (Goll Heute, p. 116)Google Scholar; ‘striving and seeking, breaking out and hoping—characterise man before God in history’ (Das Gespräch, 35 Der Verborgene Mensch (Wuppertal, 1961), p. 27)Google Scholar.
page 140 note 3 cf. Metz, , The Word in History, p. 73.Google Scholar
page 140 note 4 cf. Bultmann's, Glauben und Verstehen, III (Tübingen, 1960), p. 196.Google Scholar
page 140 note 5 ‘Angewandte Eschatologie’, Pastoraltheologie—Wissenschaft und Praxis 55 (1966), PP. 397ff.Google Scholar
page 140 note 6 ibid., p. 385.
page 141 note 1 Zukunft und Verheissung, pp. 277–354.Google Scholar
page 141 note 2 This article originally appeared in Evangelische Theologie, 23 (1963), pp. 537–557.Google Scholar
page 141 note 3 cf. pp. 95ff.
page 142 note 1 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 174Google Scholar; cf. P.H., pp. 1297ff.
page 142 note 2 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 175Google Scholar; cf. P.H., pp. 1385ff.
page 142 note 3 pp. 326–30.
page 142 note 4 Auswahl, p. 58.
page 142 note 5 cf. Holz, , Auswahl, p. 15f.Google Scholar
page 142 note 6 Tübingener Einleitung, I, p. 198.Google Scholar
page 142 note 7 cf. Moltmann, , Kirche in der Zeit 15 (1960), p. 294.Google Scholar
page 142 note 8 P.H., p. 248; cf. Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 44.Google Scholar
page 142 note 9 T.d.H., p. 321.
page 143 note 1 ‘The Controversy about the Future of Man’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 4 (1967), p. 228.Google Scholar
page 143 note 2 ibid., p. 226.
page 143 note 3 There are other differences and difficulties, for example, the theology of the Cross, the resurrection of the dead (as something to be compared with God's creating the world ex nihilo), the justification of the godless. In his Chicago paper Moltmann points out how by hoping in God who creates what is new out of nothing, a novum ex nihilo, Christian belief goes beyond the hope of Bloch who looks for the new from what has not yet come to be.
page 143 note 4 Tübingener Einleitung, 2, p. 176.Google Scholar
page 144 note 1 I, p. 24.
