This book attempts to continue in the
tradition of those scholars who have sought to provide a thoroughly (socio-)
historical explanation for the rise of Christianity without having to resort to
theological reasons. It also comes from what may be deemed, from the
perspective of biblical studies, an untypical background. I have not found
anything in particular that makes me think Christianity is in any way superior
to any other movement, and its rise can be explained in human terms of social
context, frequently discussed in' theological language in the primary sources.[1]
One difficulty I see with this statement is that it presents
us with an oxymoron. Namely, that it appears to suggest Christianity would have
occurred naturally without Christ. The author uses a quotation from Jacques
Berlinerblau which, while accurately expressing the study habits of some
religious scholars, also seems to describe some of his own practices. It is for
a believer very difficult not to include theological reasoning when discussing
the rise of Christianity. The (socio-) historical climate to which Crossley
eludes, for me as a Christian, are factors to be taken into account when
considering Paul’s statement, “…when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman,
born under the law…” According to Kittel the Greek word translated
“fullness” has multiple meanings and it is not always easy to determine which
meaning applies to a text. The Contemporary English Version writes, “…when the time was right…” The
situations Crossley uses to support the non-theological causes leading to the
rise of the Jesus movement are the same as those which made the time “right”
for Jesus to be born.
There is nothing unethical about a
given scholar having religious beliefs. Things become potentially objectionable
when a scholar in question studies these very same religious beliefs in his or
her capacity as a scholar. The tendency of so many exegetes to come to
conclusions that perfectly conform to their preexisting creedal convictions is
something that members of our discipline will need to think about.[2]
Berlinerblau’s point is well taken, and I would add that it
is not only religious scholars that “see what they believe”, historians and
scientists produce works biased by the same impulse.
In spite of the admirable surge of
interest in these new or newly understood materials, many historians in this
field have failed to take into account the fresh insights from sociologists,
anthropologists, and philosophers about the social nature of knowledge and
personal identity, and their vital implications for historical study. The
analytical methods derived from the work of sociologists of knowledge
emphatically call into question the theories of historical development and the
categories into which nineteenth- and many twentieth-century historians of
Christian origins have classified the evidence. These historiographical
missteps include the invention of artificial categories (such as the simplistic
distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism'), the
projection of later developments into earlier times, and the rendering of
supposedly historical judgments on the basis of modern philosophical
preferences.[3]
Crossley does a good job in his book of identifying
sociological factors which at the time he believes influenced the teaching of
Jesus and provided the impetus for the development of the Jesus movement. As
stated above, the same factors he suggests gave rise to the Jesus movement, I
believe were components of what made the timing right for Jesus entry into the
human domain. Crossley wrote, “I have not found anything in particular that
makes me think Christianity is in any way superior to any other movement, and
its rise can be explained in human terms of social context…” Crossley specifies
boldly that Christianity is of sociological origins, and not superior to any
other movement. I believe history suggests otherwise. Crossley I suspect came
up with the conclusions he was seeking.
If the anthropological study of
religion is in fact in a state of general stagnation, I doubt that it will be
set going again by producing more minor variations on classical theoretical
themes. …. In art, this solemn reduplication of the achievements of accepted
masters is called academicism; and I think this is the proper name for our
malady also. Only if we abandon, in a phrase of Leo Steinberg's, that sweet
sense of accomplishment which comes from parading habitual skills and address
ourselves to problems sufficiently unclarified as to make discovery possible,
can we hope to achieve work which will not just reincarnate that of the great
men of the first quarter of this century, but match it.
The way to do this is not to abandon the established traditions of
social anthropology in this field, but to widen them. At least four of the
contributions of the men who, as I say, dominate our thought to the point of
parochializing it Durkheim's discussion of the nature of the sacred, Weber's
Verstehenden methodology, Freud's parallel between personal rituals and collective
ones, and Malinowski's exploration of the distinction between religion and
common sense-seem to me inevitable starting-points for any useful
anthropological theory of religion. …. But I, at least, can see no other road
of escape from what, referring to anthropology more generally, Janowitz has
called the dead hand of competence.[4]
Having opened this postscript by
emphasizing the need to study the community structure of science, I shall close
by underscoring the need for similar and, above all, for comparative study of
the corresponding communities in other fields. How does one elect and how is
one elected to membership in a particular community, scientific or not? What is
the process and what are the stages of socialization to the group? What does the
group collectively see as its goals; what deviations, individual or collective,
will it tolerate; and how does it control the impermissible aberration? A
fuller understanding of science will depend on answers to other sorts of
questions as well, but there is no area in which more work is so badly needed.
Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a
group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the
special characteristics of the groups that create and use it.[5]
Kuhn’s comments apply to all disciplines. It is
understandable that Crossley thinks religious scholars as stuck in their ways
and guided by pre-conceived beliefs. It is also reasonable that religious
scholars believe Crossley sees only what he wants to see. Kuhn suggests that
being in different paradigms Crossley and religious scholars are unable if not
unwilling to recognize value in each other’s positions, because they speak
languages restricted to their own groups.
Christians must not discard legitimate findings of
sociologists or historians simply based conclusions generated by their research.
If cultural or sociological findings are accurate they will support the
uniqueness of Christianity. From within his paradigm the sociologist will never
see evidence pointing toward God, but that doesn’t mean there is no God. All
that means is that unless the sociologist expands his paradigm to include the
supernatural, he is incapable of recognizing God. Religious scholars can be
blind to valuable discoveries by sociologists. Bible believers sometimes
dismiss findings that are new to them, or those which do not fit with what they
believe. If religious scholars are set on defending “traditional” truths, they are
simply supporting the work of those who went before. That is a real shame, because
we have so much more information and evidence than any of the scholars who established
“tradition”. The accumulation of sociological or scientific data will never replace
faith. Discoveries in other disciplines can support belief, but not substitute
for faith.
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we
understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is
seen was not made out of things which are visible. …. And without faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of
those who seek Him.[6]
Belief or faith is a Christian’s greatest asset. Faith is the
key to revealing the wonder and glory of God. Faith allows believers to see things
that others are blind to. Unbelievers cannot be expected to see the vast wealth
of evidence which declares God’s existence. But believers see the world as expressed
by the psalmist, “The
heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the
work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals
knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their
line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the
world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun…”[7]
[1]
Why Christianity Happened, James G. Crossley, pp. 33, 34
[2]
Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously,
p110
[3]
Howard Clark Kee, Who Are the People of God? p. 1
[4]
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures
[5]
Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolution, p. 209
[7]
Ps 19:1-4
No comments:
Post a Comment