Contents:

I) On Rudolf Otto

II) On The Idea of the Holy

III) Textual Analysis

I) On Rudolf Otto

Rudolf Otto (1869-1937)

b. Peine, in the Prussian province of Hanover; d. Marburg, Germany

Theologian, philosopher, historian of religion.

Born into a family with 13 siblings, Otto’s father (owner of a malt factory) died when he was 13.  His early studies were in theology—he reports that he wanted to be a pastor from the age of 12—and mostly done at schools known for their conservative approach, although he also studied at a few places known for its liberal interpretations.  He earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology in 1895 with his dissertation on the Holy Spirit in Luther’s thought.  He became a Privatdozent (unsalaried lecturer) in Systematic Theology in 1897 at Göttingen and then became a Professor in 1904 (or 1906, depending on accounts), still at Göttingen.  Systematic Theology is a school of theology that seeks to, literally, systematize Christianity, that is, to offer a rational account of the faith and its beliefs through both its sacred texts and the historical development of its doctrine.  In Göttingen, he was actively participatory with a group of liberal theologians known as The Friends of Die christliche Welt (Die christliche Welt was a liberal Protestant paper/journal).  (His own account of his growing up can be read in his Vita that accompanied his first Examination in Theology, ~~translated here~~.) 

In 1914 or 1915, he was awarded a Chair at Breslau and another in 1917 at Marburg; he spent most of his career, from 1917-1937, teaching as a Professor of Systematic Theology at Marburg-on-the-Lahn.  His teaching was focused on the history of systematic theology and related areas in history and the philosophy of religion.  He also served in politics from 1913 to 1919; he was a representative in the Prussian state legislature and a member of its constitutional convention.  Around this time he also founded an organization called the Religiöser Menschheitsbund, the “Religious League of Humanity,” whose mission was to promote justice through moral and religious means.  In connection to this mission, as well as his intellectual work, Otto went on two extended speaking tours, first in 1911-12 and then in 1927-28 throughout North Africa, South and East Asia, and the Middle East; these are in addition to numerous other travels throughout Europe and America delivering lectures.  His adult life, however, found him often sickly; his death was due to pneumonia in 1937 in Marburg as he was recovering from a fall from a tower (if it was a suicide attempt is unknown) in the previous months. 

Naturalism and Religion (1907) (~~available here~~);

The Life and Ministry of Jesus, According to the Critical Method (1908) (~~available here~~);

The Idea of the Holy (1917) (~~available here~~);

Christianity and the Indian Religion of Grace (1928);

Mysticism East and West (1932), collected lectures from 1924 given at Oberlin College in Ohio;

The Original Gita: The Song of the Supreme Exalted One (1939);

The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man: A Study in the History of Religion (1943).

--note, from this list we can see his movement from a strictly systematic theology to his deep interest in Eastern religions.

His influence is wide.  Most notably, his theory of the numinous influences the famous philosophical historian of religious experience Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), the well known existential philosopher of religion Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the mystically and religiously leaning psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), the well-known religious author C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), with acknowledgement of attention paid to his work by Martin Heidegger (the student of Husserl and most notable pallbearer of phenomenology), Leo Strauss (the ancient and political philosopher), Hans-Georg Gadamer (who worked in philosophical hermeneutics and the ancients), and Max Scheler (who worked in phenomenology and philosophical anthropology and whose system was the subject of Pope John Paul II’s dissertation). 

II) On The Idea of the Holy

The Idea of the Holy (Das Heilige)

written in 1917, translated into English in 1923

~~etext here~~

“It may serve to make the essential nature of the numinous consciousness clearer if we call to mind the manner in which it expresses itself outwardly, and how it spreads and is transmitted from mind to mind.  There is, of course no ‘transmission’ of it in the proper sense of the word; it cannot be ‘taught,’ it must be ‘awakened’ from the spirit.  And this could not justly be asserted, as it often is, of religion as a whole and in general, for in religion there is very much that can be taught ... What is incapable of being so handed down is this numinous basis and background to religion, which can only be induced, incited, and aroused”

--Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, ch.IX, p.60.

The numinous has three aspects, three natures:

Mysterium tremendum et fascinans

As mysterium, the numinous is mysterious, it is the wholly other;

As tremendum, the numinous is creative or provocative of the tremor, of terror;

As fascinans, the numinous is fascinating, it is merciful and full of grace.

A key difference we will see in Otto’s account of the numinous from the mystical experience described by William James is that, for Otto, these experiences are inherently religious whereas, for James, the mystical experience is identified by the subject as being religious or not.  Thus, for Otto, there are uniquely religious numinous experiences, whereas for James, there are numinous experiences that may not be inherently religious.  (Here, do note that I am blurring the distinctions between mystical experiences and religious experiences, for a reason that will become clear below with reviewing Otto.)

III) Textual Analysis

The Idea of the Holy

Das Heilige

(written in 1917, translated into English in 1923)

“The reader is invited to direct his mind to a moment of deeply-felt religious experience, as little as possible qualified by other forms of consciousness. 

Whoever cannot do this, whoever knows no such moments in his experience,

is requested to read no farther; for it is not easy to discuss questions of religious psychology with one who can recollect the emotions of his adolescence, the discomforts of indigestion, or, say, social feelings, but cannot recall

any intrinsically religious feelings”

(Otto, The Idea of the Holy, ch.III, p.8).

Chapter I: The Rational and the Non-Rational (pp.1-4)

An object that can be analyzed by thought, thought through in concepts, is what we term rational.

A religion that recognizes the nature of the deity as such as can be thought rationally is a rational religion.

All theistic conceptions of God are rational--they believe that the deity has various attributes which can be known by analogy to those attributes that we, humans, have, only making our limited attributes infinite and absolute and unqualified when applied to God.

We have a tendency to think that religion begins and ends with the rational.  That the more ration, the better the religion.  That all else is inadequate.  Otto reminds us of the shortsightedness of this presumption.  The depth of religion that is ignored if only the rational is focused upon.  He reveals that these “essential” rational attributes are indeed essential, but only “synthetically” “essential.”  We predicate them of a subject we will not exclusively limit to these attributes--He is more, deeper, more profound than these words name.

Thus, how can we ignore what is deeper in religious experience?  

Most believe, he shows, that the difference between rational and mystical/other religious approaches is on the interpretation of the miraculous.    This is a mistake, Otto argues.  Instead, the debates about miracles are wholly rational--rational approaches to religion give us the presumption to evaluate in terms of cause and effect and other linearities, to think in terms of contradiction, to frame the possibility of the miracle and the terms for its evaluation and interpretation.  

Instead, the difference between the rational and the mystical religions is this: “It resolves itself rather into a peculiar difference of quality in the mental attitude and emotional content of the religious life itself.  All depends upon this: in our idea of God is the non-rational overbourne, even perhaps wholly excluded, by the rational?  Or conversely, does the non-rational itself preponderate over the rational?”  (3).

... More Coming Soon ...