The Consciousness of Historical Progress and Theological Disputes: The Dialogue Between G. E. Lessing and S. Kierkegaard

In the intellectual history of Europe during the transitional period from the 17th to the early 19th century, the relationship between “history” and “revelation” was a central issue in Christian theology. The tension between the Enlightenment’s emphasis on universal reason and the particularity of historical revelation fueled theological debates, bringing to the forefront the question of how to bridge the gap between “historical evidence” and “universal truth.” This problem was most clearly articulated by G. E. Lessing, who famously described it as the “ugly broad ditch.” (Lessing, 55)

This paper examines how Lessing’s theology seeks to integrate revelation and reason through the consciousness of historical progress and how Kierkegaard, through Johannes Climacus, radically challenges this framework. By analyzing Lessing’s essays and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, I will show that while Lessing resolves his ‘ugly broad ditch’ by appealing to historical progress, Kierkegaard dismantles the very premise of history as progressive, and its role in faith, arguing that faith is neither dependent on immediate experience nor historical continuity, but rather on a direct relation to the teacher. This study will reveal how Kierkegaard appropriates Lessing’s terms only to fundamentally transform the theological question itself.

To understand how this transformation occurs, it is necessary to first examine Lessing’s attempt to resolve the tension between historical revelation and universal reason. In particular, his famous essay “The Proof of the Spirit and of Power” lays the groundwork for his argument, where he identifies three key dimensions of what he calls the “ugly broad ditch.” Building upon the interpretations of Gordon Michalson and Toshimasa Yasukata, while not fully agreeing with them, I will analyze the multi layers of this gap: the temporal gap, the metaphysical gap, and the existential gap. While Michalson argues that the temporal gap is replaced by the metaphysical gap, I will argue that the temporal gap remains the foundational framework that sustains the other layers, making it central to Lessing’s approach. 

According to my analysis, such a temporal gap is the foundation of historical consciousness as progressive. After arguing the continuity of temporal gap, I will show Lessing’s logics as follows: (a) Those who directly encountered Christ and witnessed miracles had immediate access to faith, but (b) people in Lessing’s time could only rely on historical reports(historical truths), which, due to their contingent nature, were insufficient for faith. Consequently, (c) Lessing’s alternative lay not in historical reports but in the teachings of Christ themselves. I will show how this argument sets the stage for his broader project in “The Education of the Human Race” and “Christianity of Reason”, where he attempts to dialectically reconcile revelation and reason through historical progress.

In these works, Lessing advances a vision in which revelation is progressively understood within the framework of historical development. He argues that revelation is not a static truth but something that humanity gradually assimilates over time. I will show that (d) Lessing’s historical consciousness is intrinsically tied to his theological project: by linking moral progress with theological advancement, he seeks to justify theological claims through historical progression. Thus, (e) his ultimate solution to the “ugly broad ditch” is not to bridge the gap through immediate experience but to overcome it through the dialectical unfolding of history.

This is the context in which I will interpret Kierkegaard, especially Johannes Climacus’ Philosophical Fragments along with Concluding Unscientific Postscript, thereby showing how exactly he refutes Lessing’s theology rooted in progressive history. I will detail how Climacus engages with Lessing’s premises, what aspects he appropriates, and how he systematically deconstructs Lessing’s theological project. Notably, Lessing’s position corresponds well with what Climacus calls the Socratic approach. However, Climacus explicitly rejects this by dismantling the very notion of a temporal gap, which can be interpreted to deconstruct the foundation for Lessing’s reliance on progressive history as a medium for faith.

Through my analysis of Philosophical Fragments, I will argue the following: (a) Johannes Climacus agrees with Lessing that historical reports alone cannot establish faith; both thinkers recognize that reports of past events do not necessarily bind one to truth. However, (b) instead of overcoming the “ugly broad ditch” through historical progress, Climacus renders the very concept of a temporal gap futile for faith. He argues that faith is not established through historical development nor through the advantage of immediate experience. Rather, the condition for faith must be directly given by a teacher, regardless of historical distance. Thus, (c) Lessing’s reliance on teachings as the foundation of faith is misguided; Climacus instead shifts the focus from teachings to the teacher. For Climacus, since the student is totally unconditional and untruthful, as contrasted to Lessing’s theology, becoming a believer in this way is completely indebted to the teacher. Therefore, in this diagram, the object of faith is not the teaching but the teacher. The implication of such an emphasis can only be found when we consider Lessing’s theology seriously, as Kierkegaard did found in his diary: “This [an historical point of departure for an eternal consciousness] is and remains the main problem with respect to the relationship between Christianity and philosophy. Lessing is the only one who has dealt with it. But Lessing knew considerably more what the issue is about than the common herd of modern philosophers.”(emphasis is mine, II:2370)

This paper does not merely explore the relationship between Lessing and Kierkegaard. Rather, by critically engaging with Lessing’s theological response to historical progress, I examine the broader question of how theological disputes are shaped by historical consciousness. Lessing’s progressive vision of history represents one of the most influential Enlightenment attempts to reconcile faith with reason, while Kierkegaard’s critique reveals the limits of such an approach. Ultimately, this study highlights how Kierkegaard’s response to Lessing is not merely a rejection of historical mediation but a radical reconfiguration of faith that invalidates Lessing’s very premise: that revelation can be progressively assimilated into human reason through historical development.