초록 close

This paper centers on Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenological hermeneutics of revelation within three significant subjects Marion addresses in his comprehensible theological and phenomenological works: conceptual idol, the possibility of revelation, and the saturated phenomenon. Throughout the argument this paper develops, we have examined that Marion takes seriously the perpetual reconstitution of the idolatrous face of the divine without recourse to the divine distance and as-s u c h-ness. Central to Marion’s project to overcome such the idolatry is to phenomenologically re-examine the relationship between the unconditional possibility of revelation and the previous phenomenological methods which subject revelation to anterior horizons and the transcendental I’s constituting privilege. In doing this, Marion criticizes the Husserlian and Heideggerian reductions while they reduce the manifestation of phenomenon to the anteriority of beingness and objectness. Especially Marion calls into question Heidegger’s ontology as the second idolatry when it preconditions the scope of divine revelation anteriorly from Dasein’s question of Being. Marion makes a claim that it is possible to phenomenologically draw on the divine revelation out of its alienation, if one brackets reversely the I ’ s autarchic status and horizontal localization. This is done by the third reduction, which brackets the I as a constituting subject in order to make the givenness of the phenomenon manifest itself without conditions. The third reduction opens a path to access to an unconditioned possibility of revelation in the light of intuitive excess. A new method proposed as such is called “the saturated phenomenon,” with which Marion attempts to account for the divine revelation in terms of para-dox and interloqué. His main contention is that if we bring ourselves to the given phenomena themselves as reveena themthey can constitute us as the saturated phenomena to the exte sawhere we experience ‘interloqué’ instead of equivalence between hthan cone br and reveena th. What turatMarionian alternative catches accht of principally remains in two key as the st i(a)o key as the st i(reverses the modern constitutieen hthan divine revelation as the hthan call and divine responaltstructure based on the ontological question, into han divine call and hthan responaltstructure based on the divine excess. (b) With regard to han question of what tue revealed reveals, Marion emphasizes the anonyivty of han divine revelation since it dne tn tets own horizon a posteriori. Marion proposes the”. (less hermeneutics” as an d propriate method to access to the paradoxical and excessive donations of divine revelation in the visible form.