Or, better: Is a culturally Christian scholar better equipped to understand and translate early Christian texts?
Let me stipulate that “culturally Christian” denotes a scholar who was educated in a Christian milieu and knows Christianity from the inside. She might be more or less devout at the present point of her life. This stipulation is needed in order to avoid deciding about the inner life of people, which is, by definition, imperceptible and therefore undecidable.
Now, a culturally Christian scholar surely has some advantages over a non-Christian one, insofar as she will immediately recognise what is meant by short hints in a text. She will probably also be more likely to apply the principle of charity which —in my humble opinion— is a needed approach to the study of ancient philosophy.
However, a non-Christian scholar will have the opposite advantage, namely he will not try to understand small hints found in the text, because he will not immediately see them against the background of their successive evolution.
For instance, let us take the controversial problem of whether Jesus defined himself as God in the synoptic Gospels. The synoptic Gospels, unlike the Gospel of John, do not contain clear statements in this regard. Jesus rather defines himself as “the son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). A culturally Christian scholar knows that Jesus is believed to be the second person of God (no matter how sure she is in her faith) and will therefore interpret the ambiguous statements of Jesus in the Gospels according to this knowledge. By contrast, a non-Christian scholar will be freer to think that perhaps Jesus was not at all claiming to be God in the synoptic Gospels.
Hence the question: Given the same degree of scholarship (and assuming that this can be ascertained), should we prefer scholars who are culturally close to the texts they are going to study and translate? In the case of texts which need to be approached by a team of scholars, should we prefer them to be ALL culturally close to the texts?
Dear Elisa,
Thank you for this interesting post. As this post is categorised under methodology I would like to comment on the methodological point of view in two ways. Firstly, I would like to answer why it is important to have a culturally Christian scholar to understand or interpret the biblical text. As you have pointed it out, it is easy for such scholar to understand the short hints without much reflection. Let’s take the example that you have given, why Jesus defines (or is defined in the synoptic gospels) himself as ‘Son of Man’? A ‘culturally Christian scholar’ would understand that this expression of Jesus has an eschatological expression. Probably, the author of the Gospel, for example Mark, has taken from the book of Daniel (7, 13-14) from the Old Testament. Mark’s gospel is addressed to the people of similar kind (under persecution) found in the book of Daniel. Moreover, the scholars say that Mark kept the messianic secret until the death of Jesus on the cross. Another opinion is that Jesus did not want to manifest himself as a political messiah, whom the jews were waiting for, as his purpose was not to be mere political liberator. Thus it is easy for a culturally Christian scholar to understand better, in the context, the seemingly misleading view of the non-christian scholar. In addition, the Christian tradition, which has undergone different phases, would help the scholar to get the point without much difficulties.
Secondly, we cannot deny the fact that the non-christian scholar’s work in interpreting the biblical texts. Because their work may bring alternative views can enrich the interpretation epistemologically. However, the ontological Truth, from the Christian perspective, bring out the aspect of revelation in the Bible.
Thank you for chiming in, Christopher. I see your point, but, allow me two small rejoinders:
1. Don’t you think that also what you call the “ontological truth” could be better understood with the help of human intellect (according to the idea of fides quaerens intellectum), in an enterprise which is chiefly scholar and to which all scholars are welcome to participate? In other words, don’t you agree that the work of coptic experts, manuscriptologists and philologists has helped even believers in better understanding their Christian texts?
2. You did not answer to my second question, namely whether it would not be better to have at least *also* outsiders in a group, so as to gain the advantage of their different perspective.
Thank you for the reflecting rejoinders. I feel that, unfortunately, I didn’t make my point clear. To your first question in the comment, I agree that the ontological truth can be understood better with reason. I believe that reason provides language for faith. I also agree with the notable works done by the people, whom you have mentioned. However, in my opinion, their contribution remains in epistemological level as revelation cannot be exhausted with reason alone. The revelation in Christianity is not about a book but about a person. Therefore, only few books are considered to be of revelation and called bible. Thus it is an advantage for a Christian scholar to understand the nuances against the background of revelation. Yet, the different approaches like epistemological, philological and hermeneutical can enrich the nuances. For example, in the Gospel of Luke 2: 7, it is written that “…there was no place for them in the inn (l’albergo in Italian.)” The Greek term used for this term κατάλμα which does not mean an inn but also denotes a guest room which also served as a chamber meant for giving birth as contacting with blood is an untouchable act for the Jews. This study does not change the ontological truth, that God took the form of a man in poverty, rather, in my view, enriches the Christian scholar’s study. However, a non-Christian scholar is welcomed to think apart from this fact but, in my opinion, her view would remain in the epistemological level.
Secondly, I affirm a saṃvāda approach which can open up different views in the intellectual enterprise. So it is an advantage in a research work on early Christian texts to include non-christian scholars regardless of their faith. Because both the scholars (christian and non-christian) aim at reaching truth. In matters of Christian texts, I differentiate ontological truth and epistemological truth from the point of view of Christian revelation.
Thank you.
Another different yet related question: is the case the same for all ‘religions’, by which I rather mean the cultural aspect of religion shaping our hermeneutics rather than the belief or religiosity itself? Namely, someone growing up in a Hindu-based culture interpreting Christian-based cultural authors such as Descartes, or to be honest, even later and contemporary authors still anyway conditioned by Christian referential ways of living? The situation just cannot be equated, since any Christian-based scholar has just usually no idea about Hindu-based literature, while the opposite is today certainly not true. Nevertheless, obviously the influences remain. At the end, I guess it depends what you expect. A pure exegesis might seem ‘easier’ for someone from the same background – an interpretation more diverse, ‘obviously’, if you start from a different standpoint. Exegesis and historical preservation versus synthesis and critical (re)interpretation. More interestingly (I think) even, is the fact that the Christian-based interpret of a Hindu-based text tends to be even more conservative in reproducing the historical and hermeneutic details, since she wants to be careful of the context, and will refrain from creative (understand: divergent) interpretations, while the Christian-based might (I say ‘might’, we all know that is not very often the case) feel much freer. So at the end, while we expect to be more creative in reading another religion/culture, we feel more committed to orthodoxy. And yet the potentiality of more diversity remains logically stronger. Isn’t it paradoxical? (but anyway, this is precisely why we need diversity: to avoid orthodoxy from both sides, either in conservative or in overcarefulness – I think :))