Evading Secularization: Prophecy as a Theological-Political Figure
2. Strauss Hermeneutics of Maimonides’ Theory of Prophecy in Philosophy and Law: A Theological–Political Interpretation
3. The Prophet–Philosopher of Enlightenment
4. The Secularization’s Thesis as the Prophecy of Enlightenment
We of today, concerned with the unity of universal history and with its progress toward an ultimate goal or at least toward a “better world,” are still in the line of prophetic and messianic monotheism; we are still Jews and Christians, however little we may think of ourselves in those terms. But within this predominant tradition we are also the heirs of classic wisdom.
5. Prophetical Anarchic Task in Postmodernity
6. Conclusions: Prophecy as a Theological–Political Figure That Cannot Be Secularized
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
While the most relevant points for understanding Strauss’s Philosophy and Law are presented here, for an extensive exegesis of the topic of prophecy in Maimonides, see: (Kreisel 2001, pp. 148–315).
For a more detailed discussion of this aspect, see: (Kaplan 1977).
Cf. “The revelation of the Law and the revelation of prophecy are both immediately traced to the same source.” (Kreisel 1999, p. 24).
There is a distinction, therefore, between the Mosaic role of legislator and the ruling task of the prophets (Kreisel 2001, p. 258).
As Leo Strauss himself notes in a footnote, it should be observed that the last chapter of his book was written with the intention of being published in 1931 and was eventually published in 1934, prior to Philosophy and Law. He further notes that the objective of this chapter was not to provide a precise interpretation of Maimonides’ prophetology, but rather to “clarify the presuppositions.” Hence, this chapter is fully integrated into Leo Strauss’s philosophical project, which transcends the interpretation of Maimonides (Strauss 1995, p. 145).
The discussion between these two thinkers has been especially studied by Heinrich Meier, who focuses on the confrontation that arose from the publication of The Concept of the Political. See: (Meier 1995). However, scholars such as Michael Zank or Facundo Vega specifically address the theological–political question of this hidden dialogue (Zank 2012; Vega 2017).
The exploration and construction of diverse forms of enlightenment and modernity are not peripheral concerns, but rather integral elements of Strauss’ philosophy (Cf. Pelluchon 2014).
Cf. “Nur neue, unerhörte, ultramoderne Gedanken unsere Verlegenheit beseitigen können,” (Strauss 2013c, p. 27). The original text’s rhetorical charge gives rise to ambiguity regarding the reference to ‘ultra-modern.’ With Kraemer, I am inclined to think that it refers to Maimonides as truly modern, in contrast to the modernity of the Enlightenment. However, Beau Shaw argues that those words refer to Carl Schmitt (Cf. Shaw 2017).
Strauss had also previously dealt with prophecy, commenting on Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise (Strauss 2002a, pp. 139–61).
A more exegetical and textually closer interpretation of Maimonides’ theory of prophecy can be found in Strauss’ later work, such as “How To Begin To Study The Guide of the Perplexed (1963)” or “Notes on Maimonides’ Book of Knowledge (1967).” (Strauss 2013a, pp. 491–568).
Cf. “We thereby admit that the supreme being, as to what it may be in itself, is for us wholly inscrutable and is even unthinkable by us in a determinate manner; and we are thereby prevented from making any transcendent use of the concepts that we have of reason as an efficient cause (through willing) in order to determine the divine nature through properties that are in any case always borrowed only from human nature” (Kant 2006, § 58 AK IV, 359).
Although Strauss omits it in his argument, this does not mean that the Enlightenment eliminates God in its practical philosophy. While Strauss claims to recover God as a political figure, Kant’s Enlightenment places religion and the existence of God as a postulate of practical reason. Cf. “Hence here remains indeed a cognition of God, but only in a practical reference.” (Kant 2002, p. 174. AK, KpR, 138).
Strauss draws inspiration from Cohen, who earlier pointed to Maimonides as the “classical rationalism of Judaism.” However, Strauss’s understanding of Maimonides’ rationalism differs from Cohen’s (Strauss 1995, p. 21). For a discussion of the Maimonides-Cohen-Strauss relationship, see: (Hollander 2021).
At this point, an open discussion can be glimpsed as to whether there is a natural theology in Jewish philosophy and whether Christian philosophy about God is reduced to natural theology. Maimonides’ thought includes reflection on the divine essence and attributes, a question that in Christian thought has been approached from natural theology. On the other hand, proposals such as the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion or the Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar seek to overcome a strictly metaphysical approach to the question of God (Maimonides 1963, pp. 50–70; Frank 2013; von Balthasar 1983; Marion and Jacobs-Vandegeer 2020).
It should be noted that when Strauss refers to miracles he is implicitly alluding to Schmitt’s state of exception. In this sense, for Strauss, being sovereign is embedded within one of the prophetic tasks, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, although Strauss does not aim to justify theocracy as a regime, his proposal of divine law as foundational through the figure of the prophet is still problematic in this regard. His ambiguous position has given rise to various interpretations in this sense. Vatter asserts that Strauss’s prophetology presents a viable solution to what he terms the “paradox of theocracy.” In contrast, Pelluchon firmly maintains that Strauss’s exposition in Philosophy and Law bears no relation to theocracy (Cf. Vatter 2021, pp. 221–22; Pelluchon 2014, pp. 135–36).
Cf. “Medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy suggests a particular interpretation of Platonic political philosophy, which not only places the Nomoi before the Politeia but also understands the Nomoi by way of its medieval reinterpretation and modification. Hence, the project of Philosophy and Law was also a genealogical effort to uncover why the political tradition of Plato’s Nomoi had been lost to modernity” (von Wussow 2020, p. 123). See also: “Not only is the foundation a ‘modification’ of Plato, but this modification implies a ‘critique of Plato’: it exposes some flaw in Plato and achieves progress beyond him.” (Shaw 2017, p. 796).
Vatter argues that it is through the reception of Aristotle rather than Plato that Strauss responds to Schmitt’s political theology. For Strauss, the prophet is more than the philosopher, as he has the ability to figuratively communicate the content of revelation, that is, he has oratorical skills (Cf. Vatter 2021, pp. 191–236).
It is noteworthy that the Modern Enlightenment espouses and employs a unique conception of ‘reason’ that distinguishes it from other intellectual traditions. Specifically, this understanding of reason is characterized by its radically self-contained nature, which results in a direct opposition to faith and revelation. This understanding of reason, with its inherent self-sufficiency, situates it as supreme. Nonetheless, there are alternative conceptualizations of reason that do not ascribe to it such an eminent status (Cf. Pelluchon 2014, p. 87).
Cf. “I have portrayed matters of religion as the focal point of enlightenment, i.e., of man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. This is firstly because our rulers have no interest in assuming the role of guardians over their subjects so far as the arts and sciences are concerned, and secondly, because religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonourable variety of all.” (Kant 1991, p. 59).
Strauss also argues that Spinoza critique of prophecy is an argument against Calvinist via beata (Strauss 2002a, pp. 156–87).
This attitude is contrary to that of Maimonides, who subjects reason to prophetic revelation.
Although Hegel does not accept all the postulates of the Enlightenment and, in particular, rejects its disparagement of faith, it plays a very important role in the development of his thought. As John D. Caputo notes, “by insisting on the historically situated character of reason, and by criticizing the abstract and ahistorical thinking of Enlightenment rationality, Hegel was clearly on to something. However, Hegel never questioned Kant’s Enlightenment idea that reason is a “system,” which led Hegel to argue that the historical process was governed from within by a law of Divine Reason” (Caputo 2019, p. 50). See also: (Moggach and Lledman 1997; Martín Sisto 1996).
Although Hegel rejects prophetic revelation as scientific knowledge, his commentators have seen a prophetic character in his thought. On the one hand, Popper argues that precisely with Hegel philosophy acquires a prophetic character, brought to its climax in Marx (Popper 2020). On the other hand, Danto suggests the prophetic key of the Hegelian thesis of the end of art (Danto 1997).
See: “So far as their influence extends, our politicians do precisely the same thing and are just as lucky in their prophecies.” (Kant 1979, p. 143).
See: “Rational prognosis assigns itself to intrinsic possibilities, but through this produces an excess of potential controls on the world” (Koselleck 1985, p. 19).
It is worth noting that there is no singular form of secularism, but rather multiple variants (See: Calhoun et al. 2011).
See: “It means that in principle, then, we are not ruled by mysterious, unpredictable forces, but that, on the contrary, we can in principle control everything by means of calculation. That in turn means the disenchantment of the world.” (Weber 2004, pp. 12–13).
See: “For Weber, disenchantment was an inexorable process which found its origins in the critical approach of the Hebrew prophets; it emerges from his work as provocative and fragmentary philosophy of history, as the ‘fate’ of the modern world” in (Greisman 1976, p. 495).
Cf. “If he then asks why he cannot deal with both sets of problems in the lecture room, we should answer that the prophet and the demagogue have no place at the lectern.” (Weber 2004, p. 20). Löwith suggests that he is pointing to communism in this critique. In addition, Löwith raises Weber’s incoherence in rejecting prophetism for its lack of science and at the same time proposing the thesis of secularization in a prophetic key (Löwith 1993, p. 46).
It is remarkable that Strauss, in his lectures on Thus Spake Zarathustra, makes no reference to the question of prophecy being Zarathustra a prophet (Strauss 2017, p. 198).
The term post-secular is attributed to Habermas. He uses it to describe a condition in which secularism can no longer be understood as the dominant mode of modern society. According to Habermas, in a postsecular society, religion re-enters the public sphere as a source of cultural and moral pluralism (Habermas 2008). Nevertheless, the term ‘postsecular’ is a contentious concept. Similar to secularism, it encompasses various meanings. In this regard, José Casanova outlines three interpretations of the postsecular derived from three distinct understandings of the secular (Casanova 2013). Additionally, the controversy surrounding this term is due not only to its different connotations but also to its feasibility. Scholars such as Khaled Furani propose that ‘postsecular’ is merely a variant of the secular (Furani 2015). For this article’s purposes, Caputo’s definition, inspired by Derrida, will serve as a reference for comprehending the postsecular. In this sense, it is understood as ‘religion without religion.’ (Caputo 2000).
See: “Religion was dead or dying fast among its learned despisers who confidently predicted that it was destined to disappear as science progressed and the general level of learning rose. But it just did not work out that way” (Caputo 2019, p. 56).
Cf. “Can the whole of Western humanism pass for a secularization of Judaeo-Christianity? Have the rights of man and of the citizen and the new spirit that conquered in the eighteenth century not fulfilled in our minds the promises of the prophets?” (Lévinas 1997, p. 278). See also (Caputo 2000, p. 557).
Cf. “Therefore it must also come for man as His Truth, and as such he cannot experience it otherwise than by appropriating it as his in the Truly. For only that which one receives as gift, only this teaches one to recognize the giver” (Rosenzweig 2005, p. 415).
- Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Batnitzky, Leora. 2006. Leo Strauss and Emmanuel Levinas. Philosophy and the Politics of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bormuth, Matthias, and Ulrich v. Bülow. 2008. Marburger Hermeneutik Zwischen Tradition Und Krise. Göttingen: Wallstein. [Google Scholar]
- Calhoun, Craig, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAtwerpen. 2011. “Introduction”. In Rethinking Secularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, John D. 1997. The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida. Religion without Religion. Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion; Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, John D. 2000. Philosophy and Prophetic Postmodernism: Toward a Catholic Postmodernity. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74: 549–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputo, John D. 2015. The Weakness of God: A Radical Theology of the Cross. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, John D. 2019. On Religion. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, John D., and Michael J. Scanlon, eds. 1999. God, the Gift, and Postmodernism. Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion; Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Carra, Jean-Louis. 1791. Systeme De La Raison, 3rd ed. Paris: EDHIS. [Google Scholar]
- Casanova, José. 2013. Exploring the postsecular: Three meanings of “the secular” and their possible transcendence. In Habermas and Religion. Edited by Craig Calhoun, Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan VanAntwerpen. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 27–48. [Google Scholar]
- Crockett, Clayton. 2003. Post-Modernism and its Secrets: Religion without Religion. Cross Currents 52: 499–515. [Google Scholar]
- Danto, Arthur C. 1997. After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- de Spinoza, Benedictus. 2007. Theological-Political Treatise, 1st ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Derrida, Jacques. 1994. Given Time I. Counterfeit Money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Derrida, Jacques. 1995. The Gift of Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Dooley, Mark, and Jacques Derrida. 2003. The Becoming Possible of the Impossible. In A Passion for the Impossible: John D. Caputo in Focus. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 21–33. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, Daniel H. 2013. Jewish Perspectives on Natural Theology. In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Edited by John Hedley Brooke, Russell Re Manning and Fraser Watts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Furani, Khaled. 2015. Is There a Postsecular? Journal of the American Academy of Religion 83: 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, Kenneth H. 1997. Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish Thinker. In Strauss, Leo. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 1–86. [Google Scholar]
- Greisman, Harvey C. 1976. ‘Disenchantment of the World’: Romanticism, Aesthetics and Sociological Theory. The British Journal of Sociology 27: 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habermas, Jürgen. 2008. Notes on Post-Secular Society. New Perspectives Quarterly 25: 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1977. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Herrero, Montserrat. 2020a. Deconstructing Historical Expectation: Lessons from the Pandemic. Political Theology: The Journal of Christian Socialism 21: 571–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, Montserrat. 2020b. Political Theologies Surrounding the Nietzschean “Death of God” Trope. Nietzsche-Studien 49: 125–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, Montserrat. 2022. Sacred Anarchy Instead of Divine Democracy. Political Theology: The Journal of Christian Socialism 23: 243–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollander, Dana. 2021. Ethics Out of Law: Hermann Cohen and the “Neighbor”. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
- Janicaud, Dominique. 2000. Phenomenology and the “Theological Turn”: The French Debate. Acls Humanities E-Book. New York: Fordham University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, Immanuel. 1979. The Conflicts of Faculties. New York: Abaris Books. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, Immanuel. 1991. An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’. In Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–60. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Critique of Practical Reason. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Kant, Immanuel. 2006. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, Lawrence. 1977. Maimonides on the Miraculous Element in Prophecy. The Harvard Theological Review 70: 233–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koselleck, Reinhart. 1985. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kraemer, Joel L. 2009. The Medieval Arabic Enlightenment. In The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss. Edited by Steven B. Smith. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–70. [Google Scholar]
- Kreisel, Howard T. 1999. Maimonides’ Political Thought: Studies in Ethics, Law, and the Human Ideal. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kreisel, Howard T. 2001. Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Lévinas, Emmanuel. 1997. Difficult Freedom. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Löwith, Karl. 1949. Meaning in History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Löwith, Karl. 1993. Max Weber and Karl Marx, 1st ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Löwith, Karl. 1997. Nietzsche’s Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. California: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Maimonides, Moses. 1963. The Guide of the Perplexed. Edited by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Maimonides, Moses. 1968. The Commentary to Mishnah Aboth. Translated by Arthur David. New York: Bloch Pub. [Google Scholar]
- Maimonides, Moses. 1972. A Maimonides Reader. Edited by Isadore Twersky. New York: Behrman House. [Google Scholar]
- Marion, Jean-Luc, and Christiaan Jacobs-Vandegeer. 2020. The Enigma of Divine Revelation between Phenomenology and Comparative Theology. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Marion, Jean-Luc. 2013. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, Mark. 2006. Exploring ‘the Impossible’: Jacques Derrida, John Caputo and the Philosophy of History. Rethinking History 10: 501–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megill, Allan. 1985. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Meier, Heinrich. 1995. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Moggach, Douglas, and Sven-Eric Lledman. 1997. Hegel and the Enlightenment Project. The European Legacy, Toward New Paradigms 2: 538–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2007. The Gay Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2022. Thus Spake Zarathustra. New York: New York Review Books. [Google Scholar]
- Otto, Rudolf. 2009. Experiencia Profética De Dios. In Ensayos Sobre Lo Numinoso. Madrid: Trotta, pp. 151–64. [Google Scholar]
- Pelluchon, Corine. 2014. Leo Strauss and the Crisis of Rationalism: Another Reason, Another Enlightenment. Edited by Robert Howse. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Poljarevic, Emin. 2023. Introduction to Political Theology: The Next Generation. Religions 14: 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popper, Karl R. 2020. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenzweig, Franz. 2005. The Star of Redemption. Chapel Hill: University of Wisconsin Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt, Carl. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Translated by George Schwab. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, Beau. 2017. Ultra-Modern Thoughts: Political Theology in Leo Strauss’s Philosophy and Law. History of European Ideas 43: 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisto, Horacio Martín. 1996. Hegel, la ilustración y los fundamentos epistemológicos de la moral. Revista de Filosofía y Teoría Política 31–32: 282–94. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 1995. Philosophy and Law: Contributions to the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2002a. Historical-Philological Writings on Spinoza (1924–26). In Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932). Edited by Michael Zank. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 139–200. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2002b. Zionist Writings (1921–32). In Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932). Edited by Michael Zank. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 63–138. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2013a. “How to Begin to Study the Guide of the Perplexed (1963)” and “Notes on Maimonides’ Book of Knowledge (1967)”. In Leo Strauss on Maimonides: The Complete Writings. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 491–568. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2013b. Cohen and Maimonides. In Leo Strauss on Maimonides. The Complete Writings. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 173–222. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2013c. Leo Strauss: Gesammelte Schriften. Band 2: Philosophie und Gesetz–Frühe Schriften. Edited by Heinrich Meier. Berlin: J.B. Metzler Stuttgart. [Google Scholar]
- Strauss, Leo. 2017. Leo Strauss on Nietzsche’s thus Spoke Zarathustra. Edited by Richard L Velkley. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Vatter, Miguel E. 2021. Living Law. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Vega, Facundo. 2017. On the Tragedy of the Modern Condition: The ‘Theologico-Political Problem’ in Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and Hannah Arendt. The European Legacy, Toward New Paradigms 22: 697–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Balthasar, Hans Urs. 1983. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics. Edited by Joseph Fessio and John Riches. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. [Google Scholar]
- von Wussow, Philipp. 2020. Leo Strauss and the Theopolitics of Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, Max. 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Edited by Talcott Parsons and Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, Max. 2004. Science as Vocation. In The Vocation Letters. Edited by David Owen and Tracy B. Strong. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett. [Google Scholar]
- Weidner, Daniel. 2014. The Rhetoric of Secularization. New German Critique 41: 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zank, Michael. 2002. Introduction. In Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932). Edited by Michael Zank. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 2–49. [Google Scholar]
- Zank, Michael. 2012. Strauss, Schmitt, and Peterson, Or: Comparative Contours of the “Theological-Political Predicament”. In German-Jewish Thought between Religion and Politics. Berlin, Boston: DE GRUYTER, vol. 60, pp. 317–34. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Molina, A. Evading Secularization: Prophecy as a Theological-Political Figure. Religions 2023, 14, 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040437
Molina A. Evading Secularization: Prophecy as a Theological-Political Figure. Religions. 2023; 14(4):437. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040437Chicago/Turabian Style
Molina, Almudena. 2023. "Evading Secularization: Prophecy as a Theological-Political Figure" Religions 14, no. 4: 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040437