Methodology - Religion (CLASSICAL AND MODERN PERIODS OF THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND PROSPECTIVE POSSIBILITIES)
CLASSICAL
AND MODERN PERIODS
OF THE
STUDY OF RELIGION AND PROSPECTIVE POSSIBILITIES
Introduction
Recently
my attention was drawn to a question about the differences between the
classical and modern approaches to the study of religion. Of course this was
one of the classifications of the various methods used for the scientific study
of religion. Clarification of this concern is the main focus of this paper.
Before
attempting to do so, I shall highlight a few other classifications as well.
Erick J. Lot in his book Visions,
Tradition, Interpretation: Theology Religion, and the Study of Religion quoting
Dudley (Dudley 1977, 31-4) discusses the differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’
approaches to the study of religion and calls for the role of theological method
in the study of religion/s.
For
Lot, ‘hard approaches’ are ‘more rigorously empirical forms of description, in
which objectivity is perhaps an explicit aim’. In other words they are ‘scientific
disciplines, with their greater emphasis on empirical particularity’. They ‘find
it difficult to accept the validity of any integral ‘science of religion’. The
‘hard’ approaches of an interpretive or category framework are taken from a
discipline other than that of religion itself.
On the other hand, soft approaches
‘may attempt to move beyond neutral description, or perhaps give a more
significant role to the subjectivity of the participants’. They ‘aim eventually to work out a systematic
‘science of religion’. The ‘soft’ approach may be more concerned to avoid any
kind of ‘reductionist’ explanatory categories’. Followers of hard approach
consider soft approach ‘as yet another ‘theology of religion’, in which the
integrating principle is probably seen as normative interpretation of what
religion should be, as not inclusively appropriate to all the varied
manifestations of religious traditions’.
The reasons for any polarizing of
approaches are more complex. However, “on
one thing there is general consensus from virtually all scholars in religions:
so diverse and wide-ranging are the phenomena found in religious traditions
that no single approach is competent to deal exhaustively with everything that
constitutes religion without recourse at all to other disciplines or to other
forms of approach.”[1]
The theological method of Lot finds place here.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith in his book, The Meaning and End of Religion argues, it
is clear ‘that the amalgam of inner piety and outer institution that at a
certain stage in their dynamic development was intellectually reified under the
term ‘religion’ and ‘religions’. The ‘religions’ have names because we have
given them names. His proposal ‘is that what men have tended to conceive as
religion and especially as a religion, can more rewardingly, more truly, be
conceived in terms of two factors, different in kind, both dynamic: an
historical ‘cumulative tradition’, and the personal faith of men and women’. ‘The
word ‘religion’ has had many meanings; it too would be better dropped’. ‘The
only effective significance that can reasonably be attributed to the term is
that of ‘religiousness’. To avoid ‘this generic abstraction other words are
available – we could rehabilitate perhaps the venerable term ‘piety’. In any
case, the plural, or with an article, is false’. Smith writes, ‘I have proposed
my pair of concepts, tradition and faith to replace the currently established
single one’.[2]
His proposal too can be insufficient.
Eric J. Sharpe, in his book Comparative Religion: A History suggests
comparative religion, ‘has operated mainly in an academic setting in the
attempt to reduce the study of religion to
'scientific' principles’. It is not to say that ‘the present- day
religious studies enterprise is no more than the older history of religions
line (historical, philological, archaeological) forced into an administrative
(and secular) marriage of convenience with the social sciences’. Rather, a ‘more
contentious, element was brought into the alliance with the re-entry of
theology into the comparative field’. It must be remembered that ‘there are
Jewish, Muslim and Hindu theologies as well as the Christian varieties’.
Sharpe warns that ‘methodological
debates do not, and should not, serve the purpose of trying to impose
uniformity of approach on what cannot be other than a highly diverse field’. Such
an attempt he calls ‘heresy’. He argues that ‘comparative religion has always
been multidisciplinary, and as comparative religion has broadened out into
religious studies, the extent and variety of the available disciplinary options
have increased to a bewildering extent’.
Therefore
‘the only way actually to gain an understanding of religion is to study it long
and hard, in its actual living impressions’. ‘No examination of photographs,
portraits, sketches and cartoons can ever replace contact, however brief, with
the person or persons they represent’.
Whether
we call the enterprise comparative religion, the history of religions or
religious studies, ‘in every case we are confronted both by our own
presuppositions and those of the societies, communities and cultures to which
we belong’.[3]
The agreement that multidisciplinary approach is necessary to study the complex
phenomena of religion is not to suggest that one scholar will be able to work
on all disciplines.
Now I will turn to the main concern, the
differences between classical and modern approaches to the study of religion
based upon the writings of Jacques Waardenburg’s Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion: Aims, Methods and
Theories of Research and Frank Whaling, ed., Theory and Method in Religious Studies: Contemporary Approaches to the
Study of Religion. Unless readers take serious note of the alternate
expression used in these books i.e. classical and modern period, there can be a
serious misunderstanding and confusion. The fact is that though there are
unambiguous references to the founding fathers of science of religion and their
methods as classical methods, the thrusts of the book is to make a distinction
between classical period and modern period. It is to emphasis the fact that
most of the methods we study under modern approaches in their highly developed
and ramified forms existed in classical periods in their simplest forms.
In another way, and also in reality, Jacques
Waardenburg’s book ‘traces the early and classical period in the study of
religion up to the end of the World War II. The fifty years from the end of the
World War II (1945) can be seen as a second period (modern period) in the study
of religion. Of course, from the year 2000 a third era dawned (21st
century).[4]
In reality these two books in principle refer to these historical watersheds.
They also refer to the scholars worked during these historic periods.
1 Classical Approaches
Waardenburg
writes ‘I really admit that the very concept of “classical” approaches is a
construct, useful though it is to distinguish the most important perspectives
in the scholarly study of religion’. Historically, they are those scholars who
must be considered as the Founding Fathers of the scholarly study of religion.
And ‘more systematically, they are those who are still viewed and quoted as
reference figures’. Further, “in terms of research, they are those who may be
considered to constitute the backbone of research tradition of the study of
religion until the mid-20th century.”[5]
1.1 Founding Fathers
Although
there were volunteer researchers, travelers, discoveries etc, it was Max Muller who fervently called ‘to
found comparative mythology and comparative religion according to the model of
comparative linguistics’. Therefore, he ‘may be called the first scholar who
lucidly and imperatively envisaged and proclaimed an autonomous ‘science of
religion’. Hence he is one of the founding fathers.
Cornelis P. Tiele is another founding
father. He was more historically oriented than Max Muller. ‘Tiele worked on the historical religions of antiquity
and was the first to offer a historical survey of a number of religions, based
on the study of source materials in the original languages for Iran,
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Greece’. He later combined his historical
approach with a systematic interest. The result was ‘the evolution of what he
called the ’religious idea’ through its various historical forms from ‘nature’
religions to ‘ethical’ religions’.
After
having outlined the stages and directions of development, he openly proclaimed
the philosophical character of the science of religion, of which
‘phenomenology’ is the first stage and ‘ontology’ the second. According to
Tiele ‘its final aim is to inquire what is permanent in the changing forms and
what elements these forms all have in common’. Tiele is being accused of ‘being
too philosophical and not enough historical’.
Pierre D. Chantepie De La Saussaye is
the third founding father of science
of religion. He, without adhering to any one of the particular schools,
‘considered the various theories merely as ‘preliminary classifications’. He
was interested in a classification of the religious data apart from time and
apace into classes and groups. ‘So this scholar founded phenomenology of
religion as a discipline of classification’. Later he was more interested in
philosophy of religion and ethics and ‘more or less left the discipline, in
part also because of his lack of the necessary knowledge of languages’.[6]
Historians
of religion from the time of Max Muller used anthropological data to develop
comparative studies. They felt that the rationalistic approaches of their time
used the German principle ‘understanding’ not only to explaining religion, but
were explaining it away, reducing it to
something of a non-religious nature. On the other hand, the historians wanted
‘to seize the essence of religion instead of its surface and periphery; to have
access to the irrational life and inspiration that had given birth to the
religious phenomena; and to break through the philosophical schemes that
interposed themselves between the student of religions and the reality of
religion itself’.
Even
those who considered religion as the highest value category (absoluteness that
had been attributed to Christianity) considered that all religious phenomena
could be part of one whole, i.e. religion, which was not a descriptive but a
value category. ‘Consequently, the study of such phenomena had to interpret
them in terms of their religious quality, and such a study separated itself
fundamentally form other disciplines’.[7]
This is how the German categories of understanding and value contributed to the
development of science of religion as different from other disciplines.
1.2 Characteristics of Classical Scholars
Positively,
the founding fathers of Religionswissenchaft
distinguished themselves by the fact that they boldly took religion as their
focus of research. They objectified religious data, whole religions, and even
religion as such’ at a time it was considered impossible.
‘They avoid constructs and did not want to say
more than what the results of empirical factual research allowed them to say.
In the humanities they kept to strict philology, textual research and history,
in the social sciences to sociological and anthropological description. Instead
of spiritualizing or demonizing religion, they restricted themselves to working
on verifiable facts and checking hypotheses’.
Most classical scholars represented
empirical orientation. ‘The empirical approach and the distinction made between
scholarship and private views succeeded in gaining the upper hand and gave the
study of religion a degree of respectability in academics’.
For them religion was a fairly clear
notion, even if they assigned to it very different kinds of reality, social
function, psychological roots or spiritual dimensions. In other words, “all of
them regarded religion as something that could be observed and empirically
studied.”[8]
Negatively, these scholars, ‘apparently
did not see the full implications of the fact that the notion of religion is not
only “constructed” (in this case defined) in research and scholarship but that
religion is also and continuously constructed in the cultures and societies
studied’.
Many of them held personal convictions
about religion and were encouraged by their own group or by society at large to
do so. Therefore, they ‘were then ultimately working in the framework of a
particular theology or philosophy’.
Prior
to the end of the World War II, Europe decided (European dominance) matters
without contributions from Asia and Africa. Everything “religious” in the world
was perceived through particular ‘glasses and colored by the cultural and
religious orientations which prevailed in Europe at the time’. Thus, they took
‘a western concept of religion for granted’ and universalized it. They perceived and studied religions ‘first according
to their historical origin and early development, and second according to their
forms in full bloom’. That is to say, these scholars perceived religions and
religion according to what may be called their “classical” forms.
Therefore,
there was ‘relatively greater stress put upon the data of primal religion,
archaic religion, religions of antiquity, and the classical forms of the major
living religions’.[9]
And they followed ‘the general rules of the humanities and social sciences. It
is not determined by theological, philosophical or ideological discourse’. They
searched ‘for empirical and verifiable truth on the basis of the available data
and reason alone’.[10]
2 CONTEMPORARY PERIOD
This can be analyzed under two points:
the changed situation after the World War II and the developments that took
place in the study of religions in the new context.
2.1 A Changed Situation (Background)
1945
is a significant watershed and symbolic date. It was the time a number of
European empires disappeared. Christian missionaries were less able to go abroad
and engage in proselytisation. Leadership and mission passed into the hands of
local Christians in Africa, India, China, and so on. The independence of former
imperial territories often signaled a renaissance in the religious traditions
of those areas. There was the rapid spread of Marxism out of the USSR and
growth of Marxist studies of religion and the notion of Marxism as ‘secular
religions’[11]also
emerged.
The newly developed nation states
(nationalism), after the empire, ‘had to cope with the pressures of
independence in the light of their own culture’. Nationalism and religion often
intermingled, or nationalism and Marxism often intermingled, in the working out
of independent nationhood. Religious traditions were often important in
promoting, sustaining, or even challenging the nation states that evolved.
Nationalism itself, like Marxism, often developed functionally as a kind of
‘secular religion’ with its own civil religion or capacity for evoking faith.
There were new questions like ‘what is the relationship between religion and
society, between religion and nationalism; in what sense should the study of
religion include the study of ‘secular religions’ such as Marxism and
nationalism; is civil religion a meaningful concept, and if so in what way?’
Services such as education, medicine,
social welfare, and economic affairs came more under the aegis of the state due
to the new models of economic development and modernization in most countries. The process of modernization has influenced
religion itself and the study of religion. ‘The Shah of Iran’s mistake was to
modernize in too western fashion’.
In spite of rapid scientific
developments and success, ‘there has been a dawning sense, that science has no
answer to the basic religious questions of meaning, awe, purpose,
transcendence, value, love and inwardness’. Discussions about the relationship
between science and religion, ‘such as whether they are complementary or
opposed, have spilled over into the study of religion’. Consequently there were
new questions such as: is science in some sense a ‘secular religion’; is
religion a ‘science’, how do they relate?’
In
many parts of the world there has been a shift of the population from villages
into towns or cities on account of fast industrialization. The capacity to
undergo a new experience and to live through it creatively in the new context was
sometimes provided by a religious tradition or a new religious movement. There
are good numbers of scholars of religion and especially social scientists, have
become interested in the social and religious implications of rapid change.
There
has also been ‘the accelerating domination of nature by human beings’.
This has immediate and
far-reaching consequences. Hence there is an anticipation of more interest ‘in
the ecology of religion’.
In the wake of voluntary and
involuntary migration ‘religious movements have accompanied the movement of
various groups of people’. There has also been the ‘steady conversion of
others, including westerners, to those religions’. As a result there has also
been the spread of new religious movements into different parts of the world
and most religions are now world religious in the sense that there are small
numbers of believers in various parts of the world’. In short, much more is
known about different religious traditions by people around the world.
The new sense of living in a global
world teaches that ‘change is a constant in human affair’. There is a really
felt ‘need for global dialogue in which religions would have an important part
to play’.[12]
And the changed context/situation/background brought in new developments in the
study of religion.
2.2 Developments in the Study of Religion
Unlike
the classical period, specialization and diversification of disciplines is rampant
today. There is more developed scholarly disciplines and academic knowledge and
the world itself is a more complex place. The mass of accumulated religious data has multiplied,
so also the variety of methodological reflection upon those data. ‘Growing
specialization within each approach has resulted in a growing ramification of
discussions about religion’.
Communication
has made religious data available in a way undreamt of by early scholars. Now,
the attention in the study of religion has shifted away from an obvious
involvement in the history of past religions to a greater interest in present
developments. As Computers have become part of the apparatus for research, ‘there
is the need for reflection upon the consequences of this trend for the study of
religion’.
Scholars
from independent countries take a deep interest in their own religious and
cultural traditions, leading to a ‘rediscovery of their own culture, of their
own religious heritage, and also to scholarly selections and evaluations which
can be explained by reference to the present-day spiritual, psychological and
social needs of the traditions concerned’.
Added
to this is the rise of ‘research into and discussion about the role of secular
religions in the study of religion’. These include Marxism, secular humanism,
nationalism, and also civil religion (public rituals, symbol – National Flag; ceremonies
on sacred days and at sacred places (such as monuments, battlefields, or
national cemeteries). ‘The rise of inter-faith dialogue and understanding,
especially between Christianity and other religious traditions has ‘an impact
upon the interpretation of present-day religious expressions’.
Therefore,
there is now much discussion about the role of phenomenology of religion
because of the feeling that it adequately emphasizes the components of
‘religion’ ‘by means of its concepts of epoche
(bracketing judgments), Einfublung, (empathizing
with the other positively by walking in their way) and eidetic vision (core vision).
Phenomenology avoids theological value judgments and in some way allows
believers to see the universe through another’s eyes and attempts to give a
greater integration to the study of religion. Phenomenologist agrees that the
believer’s conscious belief is only part of the sum total of her/is
religiousness, not the whole of it. Phenomenology
is ultimately a co-operative and dialogical method.
Theology
by its implied value-judgments, had undervalued the religions of others’ and operated
from within particular religious traditions focusing upon the nature of transcendent reality. The many
theologies within religion and religions necessitate a ‘more far-reaching
contemporary search for a global theology of religion’. The starting point for
such a global theology of religions is the global situation itself. It is
anticipated that ‘a global theology of religion may well develop into a
separate discipline which is relevant to the study of religion and to
particular theologies from its detached viewpoint’.[13]
The
important position of anthropology in the study of religions may be taken over
by present-day sociology of religion as it has a greater interest in
contemporary religion and change.
3 Future of the Study of Religion
The future course of
the study of religion is unpredictable. However, there are some sketches as to
the prospects of the study of religion as continued from the past, operating at
present and moving towards future.
3.1 Complementary Nature of Disciplines
Eric
J. Sharpe underlines the complex growth of some of the disciplines used earlier
for the study of religion. He gives the
example of anthropology. It was earlier, a pure and simple ‘science of man'(sic) but is
now studied under different headings as prehistoric archaeology, physical
anthropology, ethnology, social anthropology, folklore, linguistics, and the
rest. Similarly the material which has ‘accumulated under the general heading
of ‘comparative religion’ is now subdivided into the history of religion, the
psychology of religion, the sociology of religion, the phenomenology of
religion and the philosophy of religion (not to mention a host of auxiliary
disciplines)’.[14]
The
most promising aspect of the study is ‘the cooperation of open-minded
specialists representing different approaches’. There is now room for new approaches
like, interdisciplinary and intercultural. It is to suggest that ‘researchers
with a background not only of different scholarly approaches but also of
different social, cultural and spiritual traditions may work together’.[15]
Therefore there is a need for ‘complementarity of methods and approaches in the
study of religion as ‘it deals with data that involve persons’.[16]
3.2 Newer Concerns
Historical
approach has acknowledged ‘the immense historical diversity of religious
traditions’. Still the question remains,
whether understanding religion as historical phenomena fully (theoretically)
accounted for religion- their inherent, though diverse, claims to embody
trans-historical meanings and values.[17]
The phenomenological method and its
‘stress upon comparison remains deeply relevant[18]
amidst its earlier ‘wide criticism of the intuitive -essentialist approach.[19]
It
is evident that disciplines like psychology, anthropology, and sociology, which
are not in the first place dealing with the past will view religion from other
perspectives, and arrive at rather different approaches and interpretations.[20]
According
to Ninian Smart, the study of religion must include ‘also methods drawn from
history, sociology, anthropology, iconography, and so on’.[21]
Frank
Whaling suggests ‘there is the need to gather together, at various places
around the world, experts within the different areas of the study of religion’.[22]
Eric
J. Lot argues, “in spite of certain distinctive aims and modes of functioning
making it necessary to distinguish
the theological task within a religious tradition from other forms of
systematic investigation found in ‘religious studies’, there are also
significant and substantial areas of interdependence between these two basic
approaches.”[23]
In his words, “what is not adequately
recognized on either side, however, is the extent to which there must also be convergence
of each is to function in ways most appropriate to its own interest.”[24]
For
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, the rich panorama of man’s religious life over the centuries
presents the observer with a bewildering variety of phenomena, and a cacophony
of interpretation. Hence rather than repeating the earlier questions of
religion, an understanding of the variegated and evolving religious situation
of mankind can proceed.[25]
His call is to concentrate on ‘the profoundly personal quality of faith and the
profoundly transcendent quality of its immediate reference’.[26]
3.3 Relationship with other Disciplines
This
links the study of religion with other disciplines. Biblical scholarship has
been contributing to the study of religion. OT scholar J. Wellhausen a
representative of the historical critical school, with his skills in ‘analysis
of texts on their different sources with their respective tendencies’
reconstructed historical developments after his analytical and critical work.[27]
Robertson
Smith’s (biblical scholar) contribution that ‘the development of sacrifice out
of a sacrificial meal which ultimately would go back to an original totem-meal’
places the stress on the element of communion was a departure from the ‘current
view on religion as being an affair of an individuals’. For him religion ‘is
basically a social reality that centers around certain basic institutions which
are considered by the community to be sacred’.
If
Robertson Smith ‘put Hebrew religion in the context of nomadic tribal religion’
another group of Old Testament scholars (panbabylonians) would put it against
the background of earlier Mesopotamian religion and civilization, and interpret
accordingly.
These
scholars ‘had an historical way of tackling the problem of similarities of
religious phenomena at different places and times: the only hypothesis accepted
was that of historical borrowing’.
Likewise, ‘critical historical and
literary scholarship on the New Testament has meant a reversal of traditional
religious views on the scripture’.[28]
For example, the study of the terminology, ideas and cultic forms, for
instance, of the Hellenistic religious world would lead, they hoped, to a
better understanding of certain letters of Paul’.[29]
3.4 Current Concerns
In our times of research there is a
need for discarding the scholar’s own opinion, conviction or belief about what
religion really is or should be. The focus of investigation can be on ‘the ways
in which different kinds of authorities (“religious”’ political, social,
charismatic), institutions and popular orientations delimit and prescribe what
is religiously normative and what is not’. Alternatively, our focus of interest
should be on ‘what different groups of people in fact consider to be “religion”
or “religious”, and how they act on this premise’.
It
is expected that ‘the less the study of religions is confessionalized or
politicized, the better it can perform its tasks’. This will also supply knowledge
to the emerging interreligious and intercultural dialogues.
As
data and theory are interlinked ‘the study of religion has to do with the study
of all religious traditions’.[30]
Presently, “the role of aesthetics in
religion is now receiving more attention. For most of history and for most
people aesthetics in the form of painting, mosaics, music, sculpture,
calligraphy and wider literature has
been more relevant and compelling than studying doctrines or even reading
scripture’. Further ‘the study of the aesthetic side of religion, both in
separate traditions and in comparative studies, is growing apace. It is likely
to continue to grow’.
Another
element which is receiving more attention and study is ‘spirituality and
religious experience’. This is partly due to a rise of interest in spirituality
in the mainstream religions, in new religious movements, and in the western New
Age phenomenon’. This is emerging not only in the work of psychologists of
religion but also in major textual series.[31]
The
concern of global theology ‘is to conceptualize universal theological
categories that transcend the particularities of particular theologies in order
to deal with theology as such rather than the theology of a particular religion’.
There is also a ‘growing interest of the study of religion in global issues and
what might be called global scholarship involving nature, human beings, and
transcendence.
The
study of religion is also becoming more involved in political matters. It is
very likely that the input of the study of religion into politics and political
thinking will grow in the near future.
Another
matter of growing interest to the study of religion concerns the role of women
and gender in religion.
Leaving
aside all the negatives, religion is seen as an impulse to social development and
social regeneration. The theme of emancipation within different contexts call
for more studies of religious liberation movements.
Conclusion
Classification of
different approaches to the study of religion is complex, in spite marked
differences, rather developments, from the classical period to the modern
period. End of the World War II had created newer situations and increasing
emergence of multiplicity of new developments in different disciplines of
studies. Although ‘the future not only of the religions but also of the study
of them is fortunately unpredictable’, there are ample promising investigation
possibilities. In the words of Harvey Cox “religion would either disappear
completely or survive in family rituals, quaint folk festivals, and exotic
references in literature, art, and music. Religion, we are assured, would
certainly never again sway politics or shape culture. But the soothsayers were
wrong. Instead of disappearing, religion – for good or ill – is now exhibiting
new vitality all around the world and making its weight widely felt in the
corridors of power.”[32]
[1] Eric J. Lot, Visions, Tradition, Interpretation: Theology Religion, and the Study of
Religion (Berlin. New
York. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988), 155.
[2] Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, 1st
Fortress Press ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991), 194-95.
[3] Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History, 2nd ed. (London:
Duckworth, 1986), 294-318.
[4] Frank Whaling, ed., Theory and Method in Religious Studies:
Contemporary Approaches to the Study of
Religion (Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,
1995), 2.
[5] Jacques Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of
Religion: Aims, Methods and Theories of
Research, Introduction
and Anthology (New
York. Berlin, 1999), VI.
[6] Jacques Waardenburg, VI-16.
[7] Jacques Waardenburg, 53-54 .
[8] Jacques Waardenburg, VIII-X.
[9] Frank Whaling, ed., 22.
[10] Jacques Waardenburg, XI-XV.
[11] Frank Whaling, ed., 3-4.
[12] Frank Whaling, ed., 4-10.
[13] Frank Whaling, 11-23.
[14] Eric J. Sharpe, XII-XIII.
[15] Jacques Waardenburg, XI-XVI.
[16] Frank Whaling, ed., 35.
[17] Ursula King, “Historical and
Phenomenological Approaches to the Study of Religion,” in Theory and
Method in Religious
Studies: Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, edited by Frank Whaling (Berlin. New
York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995), 99.
[18] Frank Whaling, ed., 33.
[19] Ursula King, 119.
[20] Jacques Waardenburg, 27.
[21] Ninian Smart, “The Scientific Study
of Religion in its Plurality,” in Theory
and Method in Religious
Studies: Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion,
edited by Frank Whaling (Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995), 188-89.
[22] Frank Whaling, ed., 242-43.
[23] Eric J. Lot, 253.
[24] Eric J. Lot, 5.
[25] Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 12.
[26] Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 197.
[27] Jacques Waardenburg,
20. (The conclusion is that the so-called Priestly Code formulating the Law was
written not only after the Jehovist recension,
but also after the redaction of Deuteronomy; thus, its “ancient” appearance is
fictitious…Torah cannot actually have been given by Moses).
[28] Jacques Waardenburg, 22-24.( “A
scholar like David F. Strauss (1808-1874) had concluded that the
whole life of
Jesus was a myth: that, as a historical person, he never existed.”)
[29] Jacques Waardenburg, 26.
[30] Frank Whaling, ed., 25.
[31] Frank Whaling, ed., 35.
[32] Harvey Cox, The Future of Faith (New York: Harper One, 2009), 1.
Comments
Post a Comment