The authenticity of religious traditions has long been a subject of interest for. In fact, I, generally, focus the large part of my research on Ancient Israelite and early Jewish. Eric Hobsbawm is interested in tracing the ‘origin’ of traditions. Moreover, he maintains that often so-called ‘invented’ traditions attempt to root themselves in the past: “In short, they are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasi-obligatory repetition” (2). Moreover, Hobsbawm maintains that traditions typically arise in order to “attempt to establish community with a suitable historic past” (1). I find Hobsbawm’s analysis of tradition rather insufficient. Rather, I find Thomas’ notion that new traditions are established by rejecting previous traditions (227) much more convincing. In particular, I think that the notion of developing religious traditions is much better appropriated to Thomas’ understanding that ‘new’ traditions are those that break with or reject earlier tradition.
I find the entire notion of ‘invented tradition’ difficult to grasp in regards to religion. Consider that amongst the major religious traditions of the world, there is typically at least one core aspect which is used to link the traditions under one banner (for example, Christianity – Jesus). Moreover, there are also key traditions amongst sectarian groups within religious which also unifies these groups yet differentiates them from the religion as a whole. Consider for a moment a Baptist in conversation with a Roman Catholic, and the two begin to discuss the death of the Apostle Peter. “I wonder what happened to Peter?” the Baptist may enquire. “He was crucified upside down in Rome on the very day that St. Paul was martyred” the Catholic may respond. Of course, the primary source of tradition for the Baptist is the Christian Bible, in which, no direct mention is made of Peter’s death; hence, becoming confused, the Baptist might respond “how do you know this? It is not referenced in the Bible.” To this, the Catholic would respond, “It’s Church tradition!”
Christianity is a very broad term encompassing a very broad spectrum of various religious Traditions, and, although, sharing several key commonalities which bind the varying groups together under the common term ‘Christianity’ (such as Jesus and scriptural authority), there are also key divergences which perpetuate divisions within Christianity. One such difference would be to what the Catholic refers to as ‘Church tradition’. ‘Tradition’ in the Catholic sense refers to one of the three sources of authority; namely, ‘tradition’ in Catholicism refers to what is authoritatively passed down through the Church but is not recorded in the Bible. Similarly, to other Christians, they maintain 1) the authority of the Bible; however, they also maintain, 2) Church tradition, and 3) magisterial authority. What I am interested in is the intersection between the first and second tenets (Bible and tradition).
In particular, I find the Protestant departure from Church tradition very interesting. Specifically, within the western Christian tradition, Christianity had been a religious movement which had consistently been open to development since the time of Jesus. Namely, Christianity saw itself as, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, continually developing doctrine since the time the Apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost. Moreover, what is today called the New Testament was itself a gradual development (beginning with the collection of Paul’s letters and later the addition of the Gospels and the other epistles). Furthermore, this collection, likely, became canonized as a source of authority for all Christians in the fourth century A.D. However, Christian religious writings continued to flourish up until and after this time (in papal encyclicals, Hagiography, philosophy, etc.).
Thus, it was an interesting development for the sixteenth century Reformers to maintain “Sola Scriptura” (scripture alone) since until this time tradition and development within western Christianity had been so open to development. Namely, the Protestant Reformers thought of later Church tradition (post-New Testament tradition) as inauthentic or corrupt. Thus, for most Protestants, the Reformation was a sort of grass-roots process that was intended to return Christianity to what was entirely authentic and instituted by Christ. Hence, the only way to properly understand the Bible was through one’s inner grace, which departed from the Catholic view that the Bible must be interpreted through Church Tradition.
This notion of the Protestant Reformation is highly problematic Hobsbawm’s view that traditions arise in order to create group cohesion since the Reformation created such disunity within Christendom which continues to the present time. One might contend, however, that no new tradition was formed through the Protestant Reformation, but, rather, only a rejection of tradition occurred. However, this would be an misunderstanding of the Reformation since Reformers such as Luther and Calvin insisted that the only way to properly understand the Bible was through one’s grace. Moreover, this notion gave rise to five new traditions that became normative for Protestants: 1) solus Christos (Christ Alone), 2) sola scriptura (scripture Alone), 3) Sola fide (faith alone), 4) sola gratia (grace alone), and 5) soli deo gloria (glory to God alone). Although, these five principles do maintain some cohesion amongst Protestants as a whole, they found themselves in opposition to Catholic tradition and created greater (intentional) disunity amongst Christianity as a whole.
I believe that the issue outlined in this paper – namely the splitting of religious (or secular) communities in order to form sectarian communities – poses a problem to Hobsbawm’s understanding that tradition is something designed to create unity within a community. Rather, in the case of the Christian Reformation, the new traditions (which were an attempt to return to older tradition) came about due to the rejection of earlier tradition, which is much more in keeping with Thomas’ position. Moreover, my example of the Christian Reformation problematizes Hobsbawm’s notion of the factitious attribution of continuity of older tradition within new traditions (2), since, for example, all of these five Reformation principles had been present within Christianity since at least the fourth century. What was new about them, however, was the exclusive use of these five principles as the only means of authority. Hence, I believe that rather than thinking in terms of new/old traditions, it is better to consider tradition in terms of development since, ultimately, even ‘old’ traditions develop over the years and may appear almost entirely different from one period of time to another or in one community to another. Similarly, ‘new’ traditions do not arise out of thin air, they are often interpretive developments made by a community in order to move towards what is authentic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Andrew,
I found your discussion of tradition within Christianity very interesting and in many ways similar to ideas within Islam. Your analogy concerning the Catholic and Baptist discussion of tradition can also be seen in Islam with regards to the Qur'ān and the hadith literature. Whereas within the tradition, the Qur'ān is not seen as an historical document the hadith can be understood as recording much of the historical development of the Muslim community, as well as their beliefs, ideas, practices, etc. In an analogy parallel to yours, an individual who is skeptical regarding the hadith literature may ask another more accepting individual, “What exactly happened during the Prophet’s heavenly ascension?”, at which the individual who accepts the hadith traditions would probably narrate a long story regarding the details of this journey. The skeptical individual would likely respond “But none of that information is found in the Qur'ān, so how can you claim it is true?” Hence, the problem you illustrate in your Catholic-Baptist analogy is a very good one, as it can be seen applying to many different traditions and religious points of view.
Your statement: “Namely, Christianity saw itself as, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, continually developing doctrine since the time the Apostles received the Spirit at Pentecost” highlights the concept of continuously-developing religion as understood within traditions themselves. The practice of canonizing or codifying what is “orthodox” is something that occurs many times in opposition to this concept of fluidity that is inherent in the tradition itself, a point you demonstrate when you state: “However, Christian religious writings continued to flourish up until and after this time…” This can also be seen in Islam with the concept of ijtihad or personal reasoning, within the domain of Islamic jurisprudence. From the beginnings of Islam, there existed the notion, supported within the Qur’an, that a person should exercise reason and understanding in all situations and behaviour. The appeal to reason was echoed in the early period of jurisprudential formation, when many scholars advocated the use of reasoning when deriving legal rulings. This allowed the Shariah (Islamic law) to be fluid and applicable to any variety of situations, something that the early scholars of the tradition saw as inherent in the Shariah itself, given that the Qur’an proclaims its “eternal” applicability. However, the famous “closing of the doors of ijtihad” as it is commonly called, was and continues to be seen as a movement counter to the fluidity and rational adaptability inherent in the tradition itself. This closing seems to me to be parallel to the canonization of the Four Gospels, in that it was an attempt by a small group of individuals to suspend (consciously or subconsioucly) the developmental nature that seems inherent in all religious traditions. Hence, the notion of tradition as constantly developing seems more accurate to me than that of “invented” traditions and the dichotomy between invented and authentic.
- Adam
Hi Andrew,
I quite liked your argument that traditions ‘develop’ through tension and strife. I like to think about movement, rather than ‘development’, since the latter term entails some telos, some end and hence an evolution or progress. I quite agree that the movement of tradition is strife ridden and violent. What’s interesting, and something on which I commented in my response to your comment on my blog entry, is that the movement of tradition is itself always a betrayal, yet the parties that are caught up in this movement of betrayal employ very different and oppositional discourses. One, the Catholics in your example, claim that the Protestants have betrayed the tradition, that they are rogues, whereas the Protestants claim that it is they who are being faithful and true to the tradition, originally conceived. Of course both accuse the other of a betrayal and claim a genuineness for themselves, a genuineness of a pure, untainted, originary tradition. What’s also important here is this discourse of ‘origins’, of ‘return’, when a party, a group moves against another and forms a new tradition, which they claim is not actually true, but a return to the origin, the true being of the tradition. What they claim is itself a power move, an attempt to lay claim to the truth, the authority and the purity that they believe tradition makes available to them. Yet in reality, tradition is always already ‘impure’, betrayed by itself, as such movements reveal.
Babak
Post a Comment