Similarity Within (Ultimate) Dissimilarity: Burrell and Milbank on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology

This article examines the influential analogical schemas of David Burrell and John Milbank. While Milbank emphasises that analogy must be understood as primarily an ontological doctrine, much of Burrell’s work focuses on semantic rather than ontological issues. Milbank has strongly criticised one of...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Tromans, Oliver (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Wiley-Blackwell 2019
In: Heythrop journal
Year: 2020, Volume: 61, Issue: 5, Pages: 749-762
RelBib Classification:KAJ Church history 1914-; recent history
NAB Fundamental theology
NBC Doctrine of God
VA Philosophy
Online Access: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)
Description
Summary:This article examines the influential analogical schemas of David Burrell and John Milbank. While Milbank emphasises that analogy must be understood as primarily an ontological doctrine, much of Burrell’s work focuses on semantic rather than ontological issues. Milbank has strongly criticised one of Burrell’s early books for construing Aquinas too much in terms of the agnosticism of Kant. It is demonstrated, however, that Burrell is increasingly led in his reading of Aquinas to acknowledge the necessity of a similitude of participation between creatures and God. Analysis of the disagreement between Burrell and Milbank shows one of the reasons why the via analogia matters. We need not privilege the apophatic over the cataphatic, nor the cataphatic over the apophatic. The way of analogy transcends this unpalatable either/or. As relying on the proper exercises, on practical know-how, analogy allows theology a powerful pedagogical tool to govern God-talk, while yet affirming the continual revelation and discovery of something ever-greater.
ISSN:1468-2265
Contains:Enthalten in: Heythrop journal
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/heyj.13282