Heidegger’s Pauline and Lutheran Roots

1. Short Outline of Project: The project examines Heidegger's theological thinking and its influences via a close reading of his lectures on the Phenomenology of Religious Life and his recently published text Contributions to Philosophy. The first part of the manuscript lays out the existing readings of Heidegger's philosophy of religion and articulates a different position (chapter 1). It also articulates the elements of Luther's theology necessary for showing how Heidegger might have been influenced by him (chapter 2) and how Lutheran concepts are at work in Heidegger's interpretation of Paul's letters or his philosophy more generally (chapter 3). It goes on to provide an exegesis of Heidegger's early lectures on Paul (chapter 4) and sets the insights gained into the context of Heidegger's magnum opus Being and Time, showing that similar structures are at work in both sources (chapter 5). The second part of the project, after providing some context (chapter 6) engages in a close reading of Heidegger's Contributions (chapters 7 & 8) and articulates the notion of the 'last God' put forward in that text and in Heidegger's later work more generally (chapter 9). The manuscript as a whole articulates Heidegger's theological project, its 'Pauline' inspiration (in a Lutheran mode), and engages with competing interpretations to show their shortcomings and misinterpretations (the latter most fully in chapter 10). 2. Contribution to Field: The manuscript makes an important contribution to the field. While it focuses primarily on the work of one thinker, it seeks to be not merely explicative, but tries to show connections between Heidegger's works and to set out his theological project in comprehensive fashion. It thus crosses disciplinary lines between philosophy and theology. The manuscript focuses on a recent text by Heidegger, to which almost no scholarship has been devoted so far, but also sets this text in context of Heidegger's larger corpus and its theological inspiration. It promises to provide not only a close reading of that particular text, but also articulates Heidegger's philosophy of religion and his stance on the divine more broadly. It hence makes a useful and original contribution. 3. Engagement with recent Scholarship: The proposal engages recent scholarship and takes it forward-that is one of its explicit intents. More specifically, the author responds to four readings of Heidegger in the recent literature and refutes each of these interpretations of Heidegger's theological project. As the proposal currently stands, these readings are laid out in the first chapter (which also serves as introduction) and then the author returns to them in the final chapter (the conclusion). (I think it would be even better to engage them more fully throughout the manuscript instead of lumping them together at beginning and end.) 4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Proposal: Strengths: The manuscript's strengths are its focus on Heidegger's theological project as a whole, its close reading of several texts (among them the very early lectures and the comparatively late Contributions), its engagement with the Lutheran 'inspiration' of Heidegger's work (who converted to Lutheranism around the time of writing the earlier texts), and its response to several prominent readings of Heidegger's thinking about God. It also frequently refers to the German texts. Weaknesses/Suggestions for Changes: * Some of the chapters provided sound a bit too much like a dissertation. Although one of the strengths of the manuscript lies in its close reading of key or relatively unknown texts, the manuscript could engage in a bit more interpretation and analysis than it does so far. Some of it reads a bit too much like straight-forward summary. * It might also be good to work out even more fully the implications of the 'theological project' identified in Heidegger and possibly to engage more explicitly with contemporary philosophy or phenomenology of religion. This is to some extent implied in the criticisms of Marion, Caputo, and Kearney, but they are not merely commentators on Heidegger, but important philosophers of religion in their own right. Does this critique of their reading of Heidegger and the analysis of Heidegger's project provided here give us further insight into their larger projects and/or phenomenology of religion more generally? What is Heidegger's contribution to this contemporary discussion? * The manuscript also has a significant number of misspellings and some grammar problems. Obviously these should be fixed. I would also suggest that the author not refer to him- or herself in the plural, but switch to singular consistently (occasionally the singular is used). * Finally, I would urge the author to integrate and draw on the secondary literature throughout the manuscript instead of discussing it primarily/solely in the introduction and the conclusion (cf. above). 5. Qualifications of Author: The author seems fully qualified to produce a manuscript on this topic. He/She is clearly very familiar with the primary text and thoroughly conversant with the secondary sources. 6. Series: I am not aware of the book being considered for a particular series. 7. Appeal: I think the book will have international appeal, especially among Heidegger scholars. It has inter-disciplinary appeal to the extent that it engages religious questions in Heidegger's work. Thus, philosophers and theologians should be interested in it. 8. Competing Titles: I am not immensely familiar with current Heidegger scholarship. As far as I know there is no work specifically on his Contributions to Philosophy, a text that has only recently been published and translated. Obviously, various contemporary philosophers engage Heidegger's work more broadly, but few of them focus on religious questions in his work or even specifically on the Lutheran influence in his writings. 9. Recommendation: I recommend that the press offer an initial contract and solicit the full manuscript. The full manuscript should be sent out for a further review to a (or several) Heidegger scholars.