of this book’s merits, even though the possible criticism that it represents a ‘retreat to commitment’ might also need to be met. In the final chapter, the author has thought-provoking things to say about time, whose importance, he intimates, has been neglected by some recent manifestations of allegedly ‘timeless’ Catholic dogmatism, which are briskly rejected as being themselves symptoms of ‘postmodern inertia’ even though they ‘make a show of resisting a so-called “culture of relativism”’ (p. 290). This thinly veiled broadside is presumably aimed at Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger and his fellow travellers. Whether the author’s suggested remedy of ‘discipleship’ as a way of overcoming the malaise of the age will fare any better than that of the hapless, ‘intellectualist’ (p. 301) metaphysicians he has in his sights, time will no doubt tell. And time, the author assures us, borrowing a gnomic utterance from Pope Francis, ‘is greater than space’ (p. 314). One major difficulty that could surely be raised in relation to Godzieba’s approach is whether his overarching notion that ‘God is love’ is perhaps being used in too undifferentiated, even naïve, a sense. The Jewish tradition, ominously for Christianity it might be argued, refused to move in this direction and to take the risk of defining God as ‘love,’ tout court. Perhaps now the very notion that ‘God is love’ should be handled as if it were a landmine or a time bomb, rather than a comfort blanket. In this context, it may be interesting to note that Nietzsche, in his final clash with Christianity, opposed not, say, Plato, but Dionysos to Christ at the end of Ecce Homo, his brilliant final review of his life and writings (‘Dionysos against the Crucified’). Given that Nietzsche had already sarcastically dismissed Christianity as mere ‘Platonism for the people,’ this may not be too unexpected an opposition. But his pitting of Dionysos, the Greek god of ecstasy and destruction, against the crucified Christ, suggests he saw the real challenge to Christianity not in philosophy at all (thus making any philosophical interpretation of Christianity ultimately irrelevant), but in an altogether different, more visceral realm—in a conflict between the vision of reality to be found in the Greek tragedians and that of the early Christian saints, as Hans Urs von Balthasar (who, significantly, is absent from this tome) once hinted. The God question, in short, may be a debate about the essence of humanity, where we are at least as big a problem as God.

中文翻译：

---

书评：启示：对圣经启示的基督教解释

本书的优点，尽管可能有人批评它代表了“承诺的撤退”，但也可能需要得到满足。在最后一章中，作者对时间说了一些发人深省的事情，他暗示说，时间的重要性被最近一些所谓的“永恒”天主教教条主义的表现所忽视，这些表现被轻快地拒绝为“后现代惰性的症状” '即使他们'表现出抵制所谓的“相对主义文化”'（第290页）。这幅薄薄的侧翼大概是针对本笃十六世/约瑟夫·拉辛格和他的旅伴。作者建议的“门徒训练”作为克服时代弊病的一种方法，是否会比他眼中的倒霉的“知识分子”（p. 301）形而上学家更好，时间无疑会证明。作者借用教皇方济各的一句格言向我们保证，时间“大于空间”（第 314 页）。关于Godzieba 的方法，一个肯定会引起的主要困难是，他的“上帝就是爱”的总体概念是否可能被用于过于无差别甚至幼稚的感觉。犹太传统，对基督教来说是不祥的，它可能会被争论，拒绝朝这个方向前进，并拒绝冒险将上帝定义为“爱”，吹捧法庭。也许现在，“上帝就是爱”的概念应该被当作地雷或定时炸弹来处理，而不是一条舒适的毯子。在这种情况下，有趣的是，尼采在他与基督教的最后冲突中，不是反对柏拉图，而是反对基督的狄俄尼索斯（Ecce Homo），他对他的生平和著作的精彩最后回顾（“狄俄尼索斯反对被钉十字架”）。鉴于尼采已经讽刺地将基督教斥为“人民的柏拉图主义”，这可能不会太出人意料。但是他对希腊的狂喜和毁灭之神狄俄尼索斯与被钉在十字架上的基督的较量表明，他认为对基督教的真正挑战根本不在哲学中（因此对基督教的任何哲学解释最终都变得无关紧要），而是在一个完全不同的地方，更发自内心的领域——正如汉斯·乌尔斯·冯·巴尔塔萨（Hans Urs von Balthasar）曾暗示的那样，希腊悲剧作家和早期基督教圣徒的现实愿景之间存在冲突。简而言之，上帝的问题可能是一场关于人性本质的辩论，