Friday Scholarly Notes
11/1/24
Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). Chapter One: Shifting Scholarly Perspectives." In The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. (pages 1-20). Oxford University Press. (Personal Library)
In this chapter, Bradshaw attempts to describe methodological approaches to study of early Christian liturgy (Bradshaw 2002, p. 1). Until the early part of the 20th century, he sees a philological method in operation. In this methodology, scholars would compare liturgical outcomes, particularly pertaining to the Eucharist, then seek out elements which were held in common, reading back in history, to hopefully identify an apostolic view which would be found through those elements. The assumption was that liturgy began as a relatively extensive set of rubrics which were generally reduced in complexity (Bradshaw 2002, p. 2). However, Bradshaw considers that more recent consensus suggests the liturgy tended to increase, rather than decrease, in its complexity (Bradshaw 2002, p. 3). A study of liturgical literature may benefit from historiographical methods, rather than reliance solely on literary analysis. The evidence for early forms of liturgy is scanty and often fragmentary in nature (Bradshaw 2002, p. 4). This poses difficulties in terms of a search for unity of practice.
A second issue Bradshaw identifies is inherent in the purpose and use of liturgical texts. Unlike literary works, a rubric which is preserved normally restricts itself to the current common usage in a particular place (Bradshaw 2002, p. 4). For this reason, Bradshaw expects that liturgical texts may tend to omit material that differs from that current practice. Elements which had become common use could also tend to be added, even if there was no solidly grounded precedent in an earlier liturgical work. This, Bradshaw states, is a tendency which liturgical works have in common with all "living literature" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 5).
Another approach to liturgics is identified as the Structural approach. Bradshaw notes the tremendous influence of Gregory Dix and his 1945 The Shape of the Liturgy (Bradshaw 2002, p. 6). Dix found the unity not in the rubrical approach, but in the actions which accompanied, and, in his opinion, drove the rubrics. Bradshaw considers this assumption to have serious difficulties when faced with the eucharistic portion of the Didache or with the growing understanding that Jewish traditions were not strongly unified in the 1st century (Bradshaw 2002, p. 7). The reality may be that there was a unified stream, but it is also possible that at a later time, such as the fourth century, there were more attempts to unify something that had originally shown considerable diversity. The lack of proof is a challenge in these views (Bradshaw 2002, p. 8).
A third model for scholarship is an "organic" approach. Bradshaw finds this rooted in the 19th century comparative religions scholarship (Bradshaw 2002, p. 9). Comparative religious studies may well be rooted in the 19th century biological studies of Darwin. Applied outside the field of biology, a classification of liturgy based on the survival of the fittest results in a devaluation of the consistency of a culture. Cultures do not necessarily move from simple to more complex, and the adaptation of liturgy is not always consistent with biological speciation (Bradshaw 2002, p. 10). Liturgy defies such a classification. It develops and is refined over time, but it may become more diverse or more unified. An organic methodology requires some sort of straight line of development.
Bradshaw acknowledges that comparisons of liturgical elements are of value (Bradshaw 2002, p. 14). It is necessary to evaluate similarities and differences in liturgical practices. The liturgies are necessarily rooted in something, and commonalities should not be overlooked. However, Bradshaw considers much liturgical study to have been carried on naively.
Cautioned by the failings of a variety of methods, Bradshaw urges a liturgical hermeneutic which is slightly suspicious in nature. The downfall of liturgical scholarship is its failure "to consider such matters as the particular character of the text, the author's aims and intentions in its composition, and the context in which it was written" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 15). He notes that many texts merely allude to parts of Christian worship, and likely leave substantial details out. This may also be the case as regards church orders or conciliar texts, which may only mention what is at issue in that particular setting (Bradshaw 2002, p. 16). Liturgical acts are more comprehensive, in my understanding of Bradshaw's discussion, than whatever is specifically included in rubrics.
Bradshaw specifically warns against automatically accepting authoritative pronouncements as the prevailing custom (Bradshaw 2002, p. 17). While they may be, they may also express a desire for a normalization of a practice. Bradshaw further cautions that liturgical directives may or may not be evidence of actual practices (Bradshaw 2002, p. 18). Conciliar acts normally represent correctives of some sort. They may affirm a commonly used ritual, or may endorse something different. A careful evaluation of the context of the statement is necessary. Third, Bradshaw notes that liturgical studies often attempt to explain the origin of a practice. However, these origins may or may not be true. Some "are the product of a pious imagination" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 19). Historical study weighs the various claims before making a decision.
In conclusion, Bradshaw considers the work of evaluating liturgy in history as a challenging, but worthwhile effort.
11/1/24
Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). Chapter One: Shifting Scholarly Perspectives." In The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. (pages 1-20). Oxford University Press. (Personal Library)
In this chapter, Bradshaw attempts to describe methodological approaches to study of early Christian liturgy (Bradshaw 2002, p. 1). Until the early part of the 20th century, he sees a philological method in operation. In this methodology, scholars would compare liturgical outcomes, particularly pertaining to the Eucharist, then seek out elements which were held in common, reading back in history, to hopefully identify an apostolic view which would be found through those elements. The assumption was that liturgy began as a relatively extensive set of rubrics which were generally reduced in complexity (Bradshaw 2002, p. 2). However, Bradshaw considers that more recent consensus suggests the liturgy tended to increase, rather than decrease, in its complexity (Bradshaw 2002, p. 3). A study of liturgical literature may benefit from historiographical methods, rather than reliance solely on literary analysis. The evidence for early forms of liturgy is scanty and often fragmentary in nature (Bradshaw 2002, p. 4). This poses difficulties in terms of a search for unity of practice.
A second issue Bradshaw identifies is inherent in the purpose and use of liturgical texts. Unlike literary works, a rubric which is preserved normally restricts itself to the current common usage in a particular place (Bradshaw 2002, p. 4). For this reason, Bradshaw expects that liturgical texts may tend to omit material that differs from that current practice. Elements which had become common use could also tend to be added, even if there was no solidly grounded precedent in an earlier liturgical work. This, Bradshaw states, is a tendency which liturgical works have in common with all "living literature" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 5).
Another approach to liturgics is identified as the Structural approach. Bradshaw notes the tremendous influence of Gregory Dix and his 1945 The Shape of the Liturgy (Bradshaw 2002, p. 6). Dix found the unity not in the rubrical approach, but in the actions which accompanied, and, in his opinion, drove the rubrics. Bradshaw considers this assumption to have serious difficulties when faced with the eucharistic portion of the Didache or with the growing understanding that Jewish traditions were not strongly unified in the 1st century (Bradshaw 2002, p. 7). The reality may be that there was a unified stream, but it is also possible that at a later time, such as the fourth century, there were more attempts to unify something that had originally shown considerable diversity. The lack of proof is a challenge in these views (Bradshaw 2002, p. 8).
A third model for scholarship is an "organic" approach. Bradshaw finds this rooted in the 19th century comparative religions scholarship (Bradshaw 2002, p. 9). Comparative religious studies may well be rooted in the 19th century biological studies of Darwin. Applied outside the field of biology, a classification of liturgy based on the survival of the fittest results in a devaluation of the consistency of a culture. Cultures do not necessarily move from simple to more complex, and the adaptation of liturgy is not always consistent with biological speciation (Bradshaw 2002, p. 10). Liturgy defies such a classification. It develops and is refined over time, but it may become more diverse or more unified. An organic methodology requires some sort of straight line of development.
Bradshaw acknowledges that comparisons of liturgical elements are of value (Bradshaw 2002, p. 14). It is necessary to evaluate similarities and differences in liturgical practices. The liturgies are necessarily rooted in something, and commonalities should not be overlooked. However, Bradshaw considers much liturgical study to have been carried on naively.
Cautioned by the failings of a variety of methods, Bradshaw urges a liturgical hermeneutic which is slightly suspicious in nature. The downfall of liturgical scholarship is its failure "to consider such matters as the particular character of the text, the author's aims and intentions in its composition, and the context in which it was written" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 15). He notes that many texts merely allude to parts of Christian worship, and likely leave substantial details out. This may also be the case as regards church orders or conciliar texts, which may only mention what is at issue in that particular setting (Bradshaw 2002, p. 16). Liturgical acts are more comprehensive, in my understanding of Bradshaw's discussion, than whatever is specifically included in rubrics.
Bradshaw specifically warns against automatically accepting authoritative pronouncements as the prevailing custom (Bradshaw 2002, p. 17). While they may be, they may also express a desire for a normalization of a practice. Bradshaw further cautions that liturgical directives may or may not be evidence of actual practices (Bradshaw 2002, p. 18). Conciliar acts normally represent correctives of some sort. They may affirm a commonly used ritual, or may endorse something different. A careful evaluation of the context of the statement is necessary. Third, Bradshaw notes that liturgical studies often attempt to explain the origin of a practice. However, these origins may or may not be true. Some "are the product of a pious imagination" (Bradshaw 2002, p. 19). Historical study weighs the various claims before making a decision.
In conclusion, Bradshaw considers the work of evaluating liturgy in history as a challenging, but worthwhile effort.
RSS Feed