Hegel's Trinitarian Claim: A Critical Reflection

Preface to the Paperback Edition

ix Preface to the Paperback Edition I would like to thank the State University of New York Press for the gracious offer to make this study available again, and now more widely, with a paperback printing. I am especially grateful to Mr. Andrew Kenyon , Assistant Acquisitions Editor, for his encouragement of this project and for his wise counsel and helpful guidance in carrying it out. I believe the present study has stood the test of time over the years since its first publication in 1984. Between then and now many excellent studies have appeared on Hegel’s philosophy of religion and, more specifically, several on Hegel’s philosophical reading of Trinity, including what would today in theological circles be distinguished as “immanent” and “economic” Trinity. Still, I would suggest that the presentations made and argumentation carried out in the present study have not been superseded in the intervening years since its first publication. Today I would, though, after decades of pondering Hegel’s brilliant thought, probably have written in a kinder and gentler tone. In line with my overall reading of the continuing relevance of the present study, I in fact took as something of at least a partial compliment the oral remark by a respected Hegel scholar who, after reading the book, said that he disagreed with my argument but could not point out any passages from Hegel which I had misread or misrepresented. Fortunately I was able, when carrying out this study, to profit from the pioneering research of Reinhard Heede and especially that of Walter Jaeschke in preparation for a critical text of Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, which he subsequently edited. I profited as well from Peter C. Hodgson’s publication of a trustworthy and insightful translation of parts of these Lectures. Luckily, Chapter Five of the present study works with Hegel’s more fully developed lecture series of 1827 as represented in the then available Lasson edition. This Lasson text is the x Preface to the Paperback Edition one which ended up serving as primary reference for the 1827 lecture series in Jaeschke’s German edition and its full English translation edited by Hodgson. I remain convinced Hegel was right in claiming that to think God as Subject and as personal one must think of God as Trinity. Given his own criteria for making his case, though, he was not able to defend that claim successfully in the public realm of thought and discourse, at least not in the way in which he argued it. In carrying out this study, it seemed strategically wise and indeed necessary not only to treat Hegel’s reading of Trinity more indirectly in his Phenomenology of Spirit and directly in his Encyclopedia and Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, but also to consider seriously his Science of Logic. For Hegel’s entire mature encyclopedic system is a form of argument in favor of his trinitarian claim. So, working with his Logic, the presentation of incarnation in the Phenomenology, and his development of the idea of community in the Christian religion proved to be a good way to cover in this critical reflection all three of Hegel’s “trinitarian” moments. While, then, the original study seems to me to maintain its relevance , republishing it now provides a welcome occasion to make it more readily available and to enhance the text in several ways. For example, this Preface is new, as is the Postscript. The Bibliography has been updated to include references to works which have come to my attention especially, but not only, concerning Hegel on Trinity. Some of them may touch rather tangentially the question of Trinity and are included more because they caught my philosophical fancy. Perhaps, though, at a certain point in life after longer reflection and study, this more serendipitous approach will have some value. In light of suggestions and remarks made over the years, I have here and there added a short phrase in the text itself or in notes to help clarify a particular point. This new printing provides as well an opportunity to correct some of the typographical and stylistic errors found in the first, hardcover edition. There are, however, several points raised by reviewers and others over the years which I would like to address more directly here in the Preface since these points have to do with the overall approach the present study takes and the argumentation it presents. Addressing these points will help...