Phillip J. Long - Discussion of 1 Enoch, Part 1

When was 1 Enoch Written?

https://readingacts.com/2016/05/20/when-was-1-enoch-written/

by Phillip J. Long

May 20, 2016

Of all the apocalyptic material in the Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch is probably the most important. According to John Collins, the publication of 1 Enoch in the early nineteenth century was the major motivation for the study of Second Temple period literature. The book was virtually unknown outside of Ethiopic Christianity until James Bruce brought three copies from Abyssinia in 1773. Although the first translation was made in 1821 by Richard Laurence (1760–1838), it was the 1913 translation by R. H. Charles which brought the book of 1 Enoch to the attention of biblical studies.

The Book of Enoch in Greek in the Chester Beatty Papyri
(P.Mich.inv. 5552)

While the book is a composite of several smaller units, all five major sections are normally dated to the first or second century B.C. The entire collection is known only in Ethiopic, although Greek and Aramaic fragments have been found at Qumran. The earliest manuscripts is written in Ethiopic (Ge’ez) and date to the sixteenth century. There are a few of Latin quotations (only 1:9 and 106:1–18) from the book as well as fragments in Coptic and Syriac.

Aramaic fragments from four of the five sections of the book are attested in the Qumran literature, about one-fifth of the Ethiopic book (4Q201-202, 204-212; The Book of Giants 1Q23-24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 530-533, 6Q8). This confirms a pre-Christian era date for those sections as well as implying a Judean origin. The only section not found at Qumran was the Book of Similitudes (chapters 37-71).

R. H. Charles, who published one of the first editions of 1 Enoch in English, argued for a date between 94 and 67 B.C.E. for the Similitudes based on 38:5. Charles interpreted “the shedding of righteous blood” as the persecution of Pharisees by the Hasmoneans and Sadducees, although few accept this suggestion today.

Józef Milik, who first published the Aramaic fragments found at Qumran, argued for an “Enoch Pentateuch” which did not include the Similitudes, but instead had a “Book of Giants.” The astronomical section was also longer in this hypothetical document. It was not until after C.E. 400 that the book came into the present form (Milik, Enoch, 96-98). As Isaac comments in his introduction, this theory lacks “any solid evidence and has been subjected to serious criticism” (“1 Enoch” in OTP 1:7).

In 1977 and 1978 the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar discussed the Similitudes and came to the consensus that the unit was a Jewish work dated to the first century C.E. Collins points out an additional two sections in Similitudes which appear to refer to historical events (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178).1 Enoch56:5-7 refers to the Parthians, possibly just after the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 B.C.E. 1 Enoch 67:5-13 mentions hot springs, which Collins argues is an allusion to Herod’s attempt to heal himself at the hot springs of Callirhoe (Antiq. 17.6.5, 171-173; War 1.22.5, 657-658). Collins concludes by speculating a date for Similitudes in the mid-first century C.E., before the beginning of the war in C.E. 66. Collins also states the Similitudes was written Aramaic (Apocalyptic Imagination, 178). This date is of critical importance to New Testament studies since the Similitudes contain the “son of man” sayings.

The Enoch collection is therefore the earliest witness to Jewish apocalyptic literature.

* * * * * * * * *

Translations of 1 Enoch

https://readingacts.com/2016/05/23/translations-of-1-enoch/

by Phillip J. Long

May 23, 2016

Dillman’s Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch

I have been asked several times where to get a copy of 1 Enoch to read. As with most books, there are free copies on the internet and expensive books only available in the reserve room at high quality university libraries. For the student looking to read the text, perhaps the free editions will suffice, but there are some problems with these older, free resources.

Richard Laurence published the first English translation of 1 Enoch in 1883, followed by R. H. Charles (Oxford, 1893, revised in 1913). Both are out of print and widely available on the Internet (Pseudepigrapha.com; Sacred Texts). The 1893 edition of Charles’s translation is available in Google Books and it is included 1 Enoch in his two-volume Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). The 1917 edition of 1 Enoch has an introduction to apocalyptic literature by W. O. E. Oesterley (available from Logos). Wipf & Stock sells a reprint of Charles’s 1912 translation and Dillman’s Ethioptic text of 1 Enoch.

The problem with these older, free resources is the limited manuscript evidence available to the translator. Since the Aramaic fragments of the book were not discovered and published until after 1948, Charles relies on limited Ethiopic and Greek witnesses to the text. An additional problem with these older resources is the tendency to affect a biblical tone similar to the KJV Bible.

More recently, the translation by E. Isaac (“1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:5-89) is very readable translation although it is part of a much larger volume. Isaacs states in his introduction there are forty Ethiopic manuscripts of the book, but his translation is based on a fifteenth century manuscript (Kebrān 9/II, Hammerschmidt).

George W. E. Nickelsburg’s commentary on 1 Enoch in the Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) is essential for the study of the book. The first volume covers chapters 1–36 and 81–108. The second volume on chapters 37–82 was completed by James C. VanderKam in 2012. Since Hermenia commentaries are expensive, it is not cost-effective to buy these two volumes just to read 1 Enoch, Fortress has published the translation in a separate paperback volume in 2012. In the introduction to this volume, the authors state they have consulted fifty of the ninety available manuscripts of 1 Enoch as well as the Greek, Aramaic, Coptic and Latin fragments of the book. Nicklesburg attempted to translation the “earliest recoverable text” favoring the Aramaic, then Greek, then Ethiopic manuscripts.

Loren Stuckenbruck has two translations of sections of 1 Enoch: The Book of Giants from Qumran (Text und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) and 1 Enoch 91-108(Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; de Gruyter, 2007). The latter is an 855 major commentary on few chapters of the book. The translation in the commentary “departs significantly from the strategy adopted in the translation published by Nicklesburg” (18), focusing on the Ethiopic rather than an eclectic text. Stuckenbruck offers detailed textual notes after his translation and provides notes and commentary on the text. Unfortunately the book is expensive and will only be found in quality research libraries.

I will offer one verse of comparison, 1 Enoch 91:11. I chose this verse since the Ethiopic is longer and misplaced.

"And after that the roots of unrighteousness shall be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword … shall be cut off from the blasphemers in every place, and those who plan violence and those who commit blasphemy shall perish by the sword." (R. H. Charles, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2:262).

"…and through him the roots of oppression shall be cut off. Sinners shall be destroyed; by the sword they shall be cut off (together with) the blasphemers in every place; and those who design oppression and commit blasphemy shall perish by the knife." Isaacs, OPT 1:72–73.

"And they will uproot the foundations of violence, and the structure of deceit in it, to execute judgment."  (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 434).

"And after that the roots of oppression will be cut off, and the sinners shall be destroyed by the sword; and from every place the blasphemers will be cut off, and those who plan oppression and those who commit blasphemy will be destroyed by the knife."  (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108, 118)

Nickelsburg adds a footnote, “Translation follows 4QEng 1 4:14 (Milik, Enoch, 265)” since he does not follow the longer Ethiopic text, but rather the shorter, Aramaic text from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a translation of the longer text in the footnote in his commentary, but not the shorter paperback translation. Isaacs adds a footnote” “4QEne: “And they will have rooted out the foundations of violence and the structure of falsehood therein to execute [judgment].”

Conclusion: The “best value” translation is the Fortress Press reprint of Nickelsburg and Vanderkam from the Hermenia series. Although it has far less textual annotations, the inexpensive paperback format makes it an easy addition. I am sure there are other translations of 1 Enoch available,, what did I miss?

* * * * * * * * *

Book of Enoch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mätṣḥäfä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]

It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. Most Christian denominations and traditions may accept the Books of Enoch as having some historical or theological interest or significance, but they generally regard the Books of Enoch as non-canonical or non-inspired.[3] It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons, the traditional Ethiopian belief is that the original language of the work was Ge'ez, whereas non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that it was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew; Ephraim Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.[4]:6 No Hebrew version is known to have survived. It is asserted in the book itself that its author was Enoch, before the Biblical Flood.

The authors of the New Testament were familiar with the content of the story and influenced by it: [5] a short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9 or 1 En 2:1 depending on the translation) is quoted in the New Testament, Epistle of Jude, Jude 1:14–15, and is attributed there to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). The text was also utilised by the community that originally collected the Dead Sea Scrolls.

See More on Enoch -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

Why Philosophy is important in the Study of the Persistent Phenomenon of Religion

Below is but one excerpt in the series "What does philosophy of religion offer?" conducted by Dave Rohr found on the blog site "Philosophy of Religion." Below is an example of many more additional commentaries by philosophers and academia. Following the links as given will provide additional investigation into this area. I chose Clayton Crockett because of his interview with Homebrewed Christianity and his background work in Radical Political Theology using Continental Philosophy and Postmodern Theology.

R.E. Slater

May 21, 2016

* * * * * * * * * *

Clayton Crockett on “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?”

http://philosophyofreligion.org/?p=329423

by Dave Rohr

September 28, 2015

Clayton Crockett is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Central Arkansas. We invited him to answer the question “What does philosophy of religion offer to the modern university?” as part of our "Philosophers of Religion on Philosophy of Religion" series.

In many respects, Immanuel Kant defines the theoretical situation for knowledge in the modern university. In his three Critiques, Kant accomplishes a critique of science or philosophy (pure reason), a critique of morality (pure practical reason), and a critique of art (aesthetics) that sets up an idealized model for modern knowledge. This model is institutionally implemented in neo-Kantian terms, as these sciences are divided into disciplines that are then positivized and historicized. In "The Conflict of the Faculties," Kant defends the lower faculty of philosophy, which represents what becomes known as the liberal arts, against the claims of the higher faculties of theology, medicine and law. The higher faculties are the professional schools, that threaten to subsume philosophy, humanities and the liberal arts.

As the contemporary university becomes increasingly corporatized, disciplines and areas of knowledge that are less directly profitable get marginalized. The humanities, liberal arts, and what is sometimes called general education are downsized as administrators, politicians, parents and even students emphasize the value of college as a vocational training program. Students matriculate into degree programs that presumably prepare them for jobs in a precarious global economy. Philosophy and religious studies are not popular areas of study in this context, not to mention philosophy of religion.

It is significant that Kant was unable to develop a critique of religion; he viewed religion as a subset of morality, as a form of practical reason. Modern religion should function within “the limits of reason alone.” It is Hegel who articulated a modern philosophy of religion, because for Hegel religion dialectically leads to philosophy. Religion is a kind of picture-thinking, a representation that shows the true but must give way to the pure reason of the Concept (Begriff). Hegel’s teleology is problematic, but he helps historicize reason and philosophy even as he does so from a Eurocentric perspective. Adopting Freud’s idea of the return of the repressed, we could say that religion consistently returns throughout modernity to haunt reason’s desire to repress it.

A quote I often mention to my classes is one that was given by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013. He stated: “In fact, if I went back to college today, I think I would probably major in comparative religion, because that’s how integrated it is in everything that we are working on and deciding and thinking about in life today.” Despite the pressures to study something that appears more directly useful for a career, understanding the nature and role of religion in the world today is incredibly important and valuable. And this recognition of the value of studying religion occurs within a context where more and more potential employers are recommending that students study the humanities rather than business or STEM-related topics. Recent studies show that many entrepreneurs and CEOs of thriving corporations want students to study and major in humanities subjects.

In the humanities, or more specifically the academic study of religion, philosophy of religion has a crucial role to play. Unfortunately, due to the history of academic religious studies in the United States, philosophy of religion has been devalued in religious studies programs. Kerry affirms the importance of studying comparative religion. The predominant academic model of religious studies in the US today is the comparative world religions curriculum, which replaces the Protestant seminary model for the study of religion. During much of the twentieth century, the study of religion took place under the guise of the Protestant seminary model, and this curriculum continues to influence the field because most of the major US universities have seminaries attached or connected to them. According to a seminary model, religious studies is primarily Christian, and consists of categories like scripture, ethics, church history, and theology. The secular comparative world religions model replaces and updates the Protestant seminary model.

The ascendance of a comparative world religions curriculum for religious studies is mostly a good thing, because it transcends Christian parochialism, but there is one major downside. The world religions model adopts social scientific methodologies from the social sciences. These methodologies are crucial to the academic study of religion, but they leave out any explicitly philosophical approach. Most of the time, philosophy is associated, explicitly or implicitly, with theology. And theology is what the comparative world religions model explicitly opposes. Many scholars of religion demand the expulsion of theology in order for religious studies to be a viable academic discipline. At the same time, the construction of what we call world religions is not neutral, and has a complex history that Tomoko Masuzawa explores in her important book "The Invention of World Religions."

Today we can see the breakdown of a certain kind of modern secularism, defined as the delimitation of religion to a private sphere. The return of religion in political terms indicates what José Casanova calls a deprivatization of religion. The strict opposition between reason and religion, faith and knowledge, deconstructs. This is a crucial task for philosophical understanding, to make sense of what is sometimes called a postsecular world.

My contention is that whatever one thinks about theology and the postsecular, the elimination of philosophy from the academic study of religion is a huge loss. Philosophy of religion is vital to the study of religion, not just a subset of philosophical inquiry. We need an explicitly philosophical commitment to exploring the persistent phenomenon of religion, a word that Jacques Derrida calls “the clearest and the most obscure” in his essay on "Faith and Knowledge." Philosophy of religion studies the word, the meaning, the history, and the situation of religion as it expresses itself in the world today, which is integrated with everything that one works with, decides upon, and thinks about in life today, as Kerry affirms. The modern and contemporary university does not know how to properly value this form of thinking and understanding. But it is blind without it.

* * * * * * * * * *

Philosophy of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on the
Philosophy of religion
Religious concepts[show]
Challenges[show]
God[show]
Theories of religion[show]
Philosophers of religion[show]
Related topics[show]
Philosophy of religion article index
v t e

Philosophy of religion according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is, "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions."^[1]It is an ancient discipline, being found in the earliest known manuscripts concerning philosophy, and relates to many other branches of philosophy and general thought, includingmetaphysics, logic, and history.^[2]

The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief system. It is designed such that it can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.^[3]

As a part of metaphysics

Aristotle

Philosophy of religion has classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, the necessarily prior cause of eternal motion was an unmoved mover, who, like the object of desire, or of thought, inspires motion without itself being moved.^[4] This, according to Aristotle, is God, the subject of study in theology. Today, however, philosophers have adopted the term "philosophy of religion" for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, although it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics.

History

Although the term did not come into general use until the nineteenth century,^[5] perhaps the earliest strictly philosophical writings about religion can be found in the Hindu Upanishads. Around the same time, the works of Daoism and Confucianism also dealt, in part, with reasoning about religious concepts. The Buddhist writing in the Pali canon "contains acute philosophical thinking", and "we have in Buddhism a very shrewd grasp of the nature of religion as philosophy illuminates it."^[6]

Field of study

Kierkegaard

Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God, the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death.^[1] The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation.^[7]

The philosophy of religion has been distinguished from theology by pointing out that, for theology, "its critical reflections are based on religious convictions".^[8] Also, "theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing ... [while] philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence."^[9]

Basic themes and problems

Three considerations that are basic to the philosophy of religion concerning deities are: the existence of God, the nature of God, and the knowledge of God.^[10]

Existence of God

Main article: Existence of God

Aquinas

There are several main positions with regard to the existence of God that one might take:

1. Theism - the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.
   1. Pantheism - the belief that God exists as all things of the cosmos, that "God is one" and "All is God"; [also], God is immanent.
   2. Panentheism - the belief that God encompasses all things of the cosmos but that God is greater than the cosmos; God is both immanent and transcendent.
   3. Deism - the belief that God does exist but does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe; God is transcendent.
   4. Monotheism - the belief that a single deity exists which rules the universe as a separate and individual entity.
   5. Polytheism - the belief that multiple deities exist which rule the universe as separate and individual entities.
   6. Henotheism - the belief that multiple deities may or may not exist, though there is a single supreme deity.
   7. Henology - believing that multiple avatars of a deity exist, which represent unique aspects of the ultimate deity.
2. Agnosticism - (literally, not knowing or without knowledge) the belief that the existence or non-existence of deities or God is currently unknown or unknowable and cannot be proven. A weaker form of this might be defined as simply a lack of certainty about gods' existence or nonexistence.^{[citation needed]}
3. Atheism - the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[11][12]
   1. Weak atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[13][14][15]
   2. Strong atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[16][13]
   3. Antitheism is the decided opposition to the concept of deities or even religion as a whole, and regards religion as detrimental to society.^[17]
4. Apatheism - a complete disinterest in, or lack of caring for, whether or not any deity or deities exists.
5. Possibilianism

These are not mutually exclusive positions. For example, agnostic theists choose to believe God exists while asserting that knowledge of God's existence is inherently unknowable. Similarly, agnostic atheists reject belief in the existence of all deities, while asserting that whether any such entities exist or not is inherently unknowable.

Natural theology

The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is one aspect of what is known as natural theology or the natural theistic project. This strand of natural theology attempts to justify belief in God by independent grounds. There is plenty of philosophical literature on faith (especially fideism) and other subjects generally considered to be outside the realm of natural theology. Perhaps most of philosophy of religion is predicated on natural theology's assumption that the existence of God can be justified or warranted on rational grounds. There has been considerable philosophical and theological debate about the kinds of proofs, justifications and arguments that are appropriate for this discourse.^[18]

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has shifted his focus to justifying belief in God (that is, those who believe in God, for whatever reasons, are rational in doing so) through Reformed epistemology, in the context of a theory of warrant and proper cognitive function.

Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

Problem of evil

Main articles: Problem of evil and Theodicy

This section requires expansion.(November 2014)

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.^[19][20] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.

The nature of God

This section requires expansion.(November 2014)

There exists many understandings of the term "God". It typically differs not only from religion to religion, but also from person to person who share the same religious believes. It is therefore hard to define "God" or list a complete array of characteristics (nature) of God that is applicable to all religions.

For the sake of simplicity, the concept of "God" is often described by philosophers of religion to be an " 1. Omniscient, 2. Omnipotent, 3. Omnibenevolent 4. Being". Any "God" that is referred to in most contexts of philosophy of religion must have the above four characteristics, including being a "Being". Note that this list is not exhaustive. There exists other characteristics of certain "God"s that are not included, for example, "omnipresent".

Above, a simple if relationship exists between "God" and those four characteristics. That is to say. if X is a "God", X must possess all four characteristics. Yet, according to the above statement, the existence of those four characteristics together on Y might not be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that Y is a "God". However, the non-existence of one or more of the four characteristics on an object Z is sufficient to lead to the argument that Z is not a "God" that we have defined above.

Knowledge of God

This section requires expansion.(November 2014)

Analytic philosophy of religion

In Analytic Philosophy of Religion, James Franklin Harris noted that

analytic philosophy has been a very heterogeneous 'movement'.... some forms of analytic philosophy have proven very sympathetic to the philosophy of religion and have actually provided a philosophical mechanism for responding to other more radical and hostile forms of analytic philosophy.^[21]:3

As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.^[22] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.^[23]

Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.^[24] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.^[25] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of thereformed epistemologists like Plantinga.

Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.^[26] Using first-hand remarks (which would later be published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition" and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."^[27] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as a caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.^[28] Responding to this interpretation,Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.^[29]

Continental philosophy of religion

This section requires expansion.(May 2016)

Major philosophers of religion

Main article: List of philosophers of religion

See also

• Comparative theology
• Evolutionary origin of religions
• Evolutionary psychology of religion
• Issues in Science and Religion
• Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion by Hegel
• Major world religions
• Phenomenology of religion
• Theories of religion
• Worldview