Page History

SCANNED PDF

I  quite overlooked an important difference in concluding that Kant's 
own position, finally,  is that of the Jewish prophets. 
I quite overlooked an important difference in concluding that Kant's own s own position, finally, is  is that of the Jewish prophets. 

I should have recognized that Kant, in his way, already makes the same point that Bultmann makes later  about Israel-namely, that,  although it publicly places human beings under God's demand, the laws it imposes as expressive of this demand (1)  are only partly moral, while in another part ceremonial or ritual; and (2) have to do, even in the case of the moral laws, exclusively with the "what" of action, to the exclusion of its  "how," i i.e.,  "the whole the whole realm of inner disposition  disposition or attitude"  (Religion: 74; Existence and Faith: 203 74;  Existence  and Faith:  203). Therefore Therefore, while the prophets do indeed succeed in purifying the laws the laws in the direction of making the obedience God demands primarily, if not purelynot purely, moral, they still do not manage to deal with the inner disposition of actionof action, with the exception, possibly, of Jeremiah and then, finally, Jesus. if it is the later prophets, especially Jesus, whose position is in question.

I should have recognized that Kant, in his way, already makes the same point that Bultmann makes later about Israel-namely, that, although it publicly places human beings under God's demand, the laws it imposes as expressive of this demand (1) are only partly moral, while in another part ceremonial or ritual; and (2) have to do, even in the case of the moral laws, exclusively with the

Assuming that this account  account is essentially correct, one may say that Kantthat Kant's position is that of the prophets only if it is the later prophets, especially Jesus, whose position is  in question. 

26 June 2000