A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount

284 Pages·1986·17.299 MB·English

by  Andreij Kodjak

Vision, Tradition, Interpretation
Religion and Reason 35
Method and Theory
in the Study and Interpretation of Religion
GENERAL EDITOR
Jacques Waardenburg, University of Lausanne
BOARD OF ADVISERS
Th. P. van Baaren, Groningen
R. N. Bellah, Berkeley
U. Bianchi, Rome
H. J. W. Drijvers, Groningen
S. N. Eisenstadt, Jerusalem
C. Geertz, Princeton
K. Goldammer, Marburg
P. Ricoeur, Paris and Chicago
M. Rodinson, Paris
K. Rudolph, Marburg
N. Smart, Lancaster and Santa Barbara, Calif.
G. Widengren, Stockholm
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin • New York • Amsterdam
Vision, Tradition, Interpretation
Theology, Religion, and the Study of Religion
Eric J. Lott
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin • New York • Amsterdam 1988
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Lott, Eric J.
Vision, tradition, interpretation.
(Religion and reason ; 35)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Religion — Study and teaching. 2. Theology — Methodo-
logy. I. Title. II. Series.
BL41.L68 1987 291'.01 87-7321
ISBN 0-89925-347-4 (alk. paper)
CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek
Lott, Eric J.:
Vision, tradition, interpretation : theology, religion, and the study
of religion / Eric J. Lott. — Berlin ; New York ; Amsterdam :
Mouton de Gruyter, 1987
(Religion and reason ; 35)
ISBN 3-11-009761-3
NE: GT
Printed on acid free paper.
© Copyright 1987 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. All rights reserved, including
those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form - by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted, nor
translated into a machine language without written permission from Mouton de Gruyter,
a Division of Walter de Gruyter 8c Co., Berlin.
Typesetting: Asian Research Service, Hongkong. — Printing: Ratzlow-Druck, Berlin. —
Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin. Printed in Germany.
To Cara, Dave and Debs

Preface
This book serves a dual function. It is intended in the first place as a 'textbook'
for students in religious studies, especially those who wish to examine in a
more sustained way than is usually the case how theology and religious studies
relate to each other. This has naturally meant a rather close look both at the
theological process within any religious tradition and the various other system-
atic studies of religion(s) that have emerged in the past century or so. As an
attempt to discuss the interdependence, as well as the distinctive roles, of
Theology and the Science of Religion, what I have written is also an essay in
self-understanding. In moments of introspection I am a trifle baffled to find
myself playing out two roles that some scholars would obviously like to see
as quite disjunct, and which others would see as indistinguishably one. Neither
extreme seems to me entirely plausible. Though I would plead for much greater
interaction than is usually the case between these two approaches to religious
traditions, as a 'religionist' I accept, in the appropriate place, the 'neutralising'
rules required if one's account of religious traditions is to be fair to the tradi-
tion^) concerned. To be 'neutral' at the proper time is not to be for ever
theologically neutered, as it were; as a theologian I have some fairly clear
convictions about how things are in this universe of ours. Yet this does not, I
believe, entail a disjunctive schizophrenia, two worlds that coexist but never
converge or creatively interact.
Nor do their points of interplay necessarily diminish their distinctiveness.
Theology and 'Religion' can engage in a dialectical interaction which enhances
the validity and authenticity of each; but if schizophrenic disjunction is to be
avoided, we need to allow these two 'disciplines' to bed down together to the
extent of enjoying conjugal consummation from time to time. This does not
mean that the offspring which might result from such times of union will
necessarily be a new integral 'theological science of religion', though this is
perhaps what a growing number of scholars seem to envisage; and if such is a
felt necessity of our times there is no point in the champions of methodological
rigour on either side of the marital bed saying this must not be. My own
position is that while we have to move beyond either polarised antagonism or
tolerant co-existence, the greater interdependence desired will in fact more
viii Preface
fully authenticate the distinctiveness of the two approaches. But in view of the
intrinsic interdependence, to delineate any precise methodological autonomy
for each will call for great subtlety, or the distinctiveness will be overstated
and oversimplified.
Our understanding of either approach, and certainly of their interrelation-
ship, must hinge largely on our analysis and interpretation of the intrinsic
character of religion (and here we have to affirm the incongruity of setting
'faith' over against 'religion', even if in perhaps all religions there are core
points of experience that seem to transcend the tradition). In particular it is
in the interdependent, perhaps dialectical, relationship between the primal
vision, the diverse forms manifest in the tradition, and the interpretive process
(in further interaction with contextual life) that provides the key for under-
standing how theology is to relate to religion and thus to religious studies.
The early chapters, therefore, attempt to delineate what I find to be typical
features of religious traditions and of the 'theological' process in these tradi-
tions, looked at phenomenologically. For confirmatory material I have referred
most frequently to the religions of India, with occasional reference to tradi-
tions such as Islam and Christianity (also 'religions of India' of course). In
particular, and without apology, I have drawn considerably on the diverse
types of Vedantic theology as illustrative, perhaps even paradigmatic, of ways
in which theology can be seen to relate to its religious grounding. Then, more
explicitly 'methodological' discussion, with reference to numerous kinds of
approach to the investigation of religions, is taken up in later chapters. Naturally,
I have had to be selective throughout; I trust that the selection is of sufficiently
representative types, even if some writings of great importance may have
been missed.
There are many people to whom I am indebted in the writing of this book.
Professors Ninian Smart, Nicholas Lash and John Hick, Dr. Timothy Mark and
Revd Kenneth Cracknell offered very helpful comments on an earlier and
brief draft of this work. I have also benefitted greatly from frequent discussion
with Dr. Christopher Duraisingh, until recently a colleague here at U.T.C.
Professor Jacques Waardenburg, the General Editor of this series, has been
very patient and encouraging. And my indebtedness to my wife and children is
immense; it is they who, in recent years, have most shaped my own vision and
interpretation of life.
United Theological College,
Bangalore, S. India
Contents
Introduction: Relating Theology and Religious Studies 1
1 Religion: A Preliminary Analysis 15
2 The Visionary Centre of Religious Life 39
3 The Theological Process in Religious Traditions 63
4 Identifying Ultimate Goals: Integrating Lesser Goals 93
5 Drawing Out Implicit Patterns of Coherence 107
6 Interpreting Symbols, Myths and Mystic Experience 119
7 Coherence of Cultic Practice and Cosmic Vision 141
8 Ways of Investigating and Interpreting Religion:
a) Historical, Behavioural, Analytical 155
9 Ways of Investigating and Interpreting Religion:
b) Phenomenological, Comparative, Dialogical 179
10 An Integral Science of Religion (and Theology)? 203
11 The Contribution of Religion to the Theological Task 229
Conclusion 253
Bibliography 257
Index 267