Avondale College ResearchOnline@Avondale School of Ministry and Theology (Avondale Theology Papers and Journal Articles Seminary) 2009 Religious History in Century 21: Reflections on the Demand for Credible Historiography Arthur N. Patrick Avondale College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/theo_papers Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Patrick, A. N. (2009, January 15-18). Religious history in Century 21: Reflections on the demand for credible historiography. Paper presented at the New Perspectives on Christianity Conference, Cooranbong, Australia. This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Ministry and Theology (Avondale Seminary) at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theology Papers and Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Historiography Religious History in Century 21: Reflections on the Demand for Credible Historiography Abstract Historiography in its secular and religious expressions is not immune from controversy; for instance, secular historians speak of “history wars” and religious historians are aware that intense conflicts can arise from their attempts to write the history of Christianity in general or that of Christian denominations in particular. The communication of religious ideas may never have been easy, even in biblical times: Isaiah asked “Who has believed what we have heard?” and Luke noted the women’s testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection seemed even to the apostles to be “an idle tale” that was unbelievable (see Isaiah 53:1, Luke 24:11, RSV). From its beginnings as recounted in Acts, Christianity has relied upon history as a vehicle for sharing its message. Since it is imperative for Christian historiography to be as sustainable as it is possible for it to be, this paper acknowledges there are problems of credibility in modern and post-modern religious historiography and it seeks to offer constructive reflections for consideration by historians and others who engage with religious ideas. While an exploration of this subject is relevant for Christians in general, the main focus of this presentation is limited to issues that confront Seventh-day Adventists. Introduction The discipline of secular history is often fraught with controversy. Even events that occurred on a global stage like World War II still evoke contrasting interpretations, as when the Holocaust is blamed for the deaths of millions of Jews or discounted almost entirely. Likewise, the history of nations is subject to constant review and frequent debate, a reality that for the United States is aptly illustrated by the disturbing best-seller, Don’t Know Much About History.1 Australia’s past has, in recent times, become a battleground as politicians, professional historians and the populace at large engage in “history wars.”2 It is unsurprising, therefore, that religious historiography attracts similar levels of dispute. 1 See Kenneth C. Davis, Don’t Know Much About History (New York: HarperCollins, c. 2003); cf. the series of volumes that includes Larry Madaras, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History Since 1945, Second Edition (Guilford, Conn: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2003). 2 “The Australia ‘history wars’ started when Keith Windschuttle peppered revisionist historians with shot garnered from his own archival research and fired with his own convictions.” See Deborah Gare and David Ritter, editors, Making Australian History: Perspectives on the past since 1788 (Melbourne: Thompson [Nelson Australia], 2008), 181. On 12 September 2003 Paul Keating, a former Prime Minister of Australia opened an e-journal article with this comment: “The writing of The History Wars is very important. The book will sit on the shelves of libraries as a sort of code stone to help people understand the motivations of players in today's contemporary debate. It sheds light on the political battle which is carried on in the pubs and on the footpaths about who we are and what has become of us. For the protagonists and antagonists in academe are now surrogates in a broader political battle about Australia's future.” Cf. the contents and reviews of Stuart Macintyre and Anna Clark, The History Wars (Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press, 2004). 1 Definitions of history portray it variously as “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events,” or as “the record of past events, esp[ecially] in connection with the human race,” or as “a continuous, systematic written narrative, in order of time, of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc.” (The Macquarie Dictionary).3 Controversy may arise for a complex set of reasons, including absence or paucity of primary sources, the conflicted nature of extant evidence, variant interpretations of data due to factors such as the ethnicity, class, gender, ideology, geography, age, era and education of the historians engaged in the writing of any particular history. Even the best-intentioned historian resides within a particular cultural context and is likely to nurture personal assumptions.4 Christian History John Renard, who claims to offer “an easy-to-use comparative guide for anyone” states the followers of Jesus were first called “Christianoi” in Syrian Antioch perhaps two or three decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. While Renard acknowledges that “it is difficult, if not impossible to assign a precise date to the origins of Christianity” he suggests “Reasonably sound historical information, however, supports a number of general conclusions about the matter.” The ensuing sentence indicates the nature of these conclusions: “Most of the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews who believed that this man from Galilee, a northern sector of the Roman province known as Palestine and administered by the Herodian dynasty of Jewish kings, fulfilled enough of the traditional criteria to be proclaimed Messiah or, to use the Greek equivalent, ‘Christ’.”5 At the outset 3 For what claims to be “a superb guide to historiography through the ages,” see Marnie Hughes- Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History (London and New York: Routledge, Second Edition, 2008). Hughes-Warrington is an associate professor of Modern History at Macquarie University. “The cross- section of debates and thinkers covered is unique in its breadth, taking in figures from ancient China, Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, to the contemporary world” (back cover). 4 Koot van Wyk observes: “Ontology or the way a person lives, has an influence on his/her epistemology or the way a person thinks, and epistemology has an influence on a person's methodology, or the way one goes about doing what should be done, and methodology has an influence on deontology or the final product: sermon, comments, opinion, lecture, article, book, dissertation” (e-mail, van Wyk to Patrick, 22 December 2008). Van Wyk has long reflected upon remarks by Hendrik G. Stoker in Oorsprong en Rigting, ET Origin and Destiny, Vol. 1 (Cape Town: Tablemountain Publishers, 1967), but states he does not “favor the ontological approach as key to unlock preunderstandings for meaning in historiography as did Edward Schillebeeckx (1974) and Bernard Lonergan (1972) with their concept of ‘living experience’ as this key.” Van Wyk adds: “The SDA concept of the triune interaction of Scripture, Spirit and man's regenerated Faith (Reason moving forward on its knees), is a better option as key to unlock preunderstanding towards meaning in historiography.” 5 John Renard, The Handy Religion Answer Book (Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press, 2002), 125. For useful intimations of typical problems in writing Christian history see Euan Cameron, Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches’ Past (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), and note Rosemary Dunn’s review of Cameron, Interpreting Christian History, in Journal of Religious History 32:4 (December 2008), 477-478. 2 of his discussion of Christianity, therefore, Renard alerts his readers to the reality that belief is likely to be of great importance within the interpretive process. In order to understand this particular intersection of history and faith, it is important to observe the significance of the Old Testament’s narration of Jewish history, the accounts of the life of Jesus given in the four Gospels, and the narratives of early Christianity conveyed in the Acts of the Apostles and the New Testament Epistles. Contrasting perceptions of history are fundamental in the conflict between the Apostles and their Jewish contemporaries as recorded throughout the Acts. The reality of an interpretive chasm is signalled in Peter’s sermon reported in Acts 2; it is expressed clearly in Acts 3; it assumes lethal importance when Stephen bears his witness before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7); it is reiterated frequently by Paul (for instance, see Acts 13:13-52; 21:37-23:22; 24:1- 26:32). Luke, writing at a later time in the third synoptic Gospel, indicates that he approached his writing with an eye to historical method (Luke 1:1-3). A debate about the interface of history and theology in the canonical Gospels became inevitable with the Enlightenment (circa 1750) and is far from settled in Century 21. Renard’s “general conclusions” cited above hardly convey the aura of certainty that pervades the New Testament documents, nor do they report Jewish hostility or Roman scorn. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism that was a profound threat to the established body; therefore, Stephen’s alternative view of his nation’s history evoked a tumultuous scene in which Sanhedrin dignitaries become so “enraged” that they “ground their teeth against him, … cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him” before stoning him to death (Acts 7:54-60). Mainstream Judaism could agree that Jewish history was accessible, significant and focused the promise of a Messiah; it anathematised the Christian conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Christ.