The Debate between Wilhelm Schmidt and Raffaele Pettazzoni about Monotheism and the Supreme Being

Öz

The Debate between Wilhelm Schmidt and Raffaele Pettazzoni about Monotheism and the Supreme Being In the 18th century the Enlightenment philosophers, who aimed to re-evaluate the validity of the traditional assumptions considered as invariable, submitted them to the rational criteria. They questioned religious issues and the Bible doctrine of primordial monotheism in terms of philosophical speculation. In the second half of the 19th century, the Science of Religions emerged as a discipline independently of philosophy and theology. After being evaluated from theological and philosophical perspectives, the issue of monotheism was reconsidered as a subject of the Science of Religions, which like other scientific disciplines was searching for its own methodology. However, the discussion on monotheism led to different results because of the lack of a common methodology. Although Schmidt and Pettazzoni claimed to approach the issues of monotheism and the Supreme Being in a scientific fashion, the very fact that they arrived at very different results raises some questions. For the basic nature of the scientific approach is that everyone processing the same data with the same method should obtain the same results. Therefore, if there is a conflicting situation, it must be originating from either the nature of the issue, or the researcher himself, or the method employed. The purpose of this study is to shed some light on the methodological problem in the Study of Religions through Schmidt‟s and Pettazzoni‟s views concerning monotheism and the Supreme Being and the criticisms they leveled against each other. Moreover, this essay provides some important clues about the ideological struggle which has been conducted in the West under the name of science and which has been hardly articulated

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Wilhelm Schmidt, Raffaele Pettazzoni, Andrew Lang, Monotheism, Polytheism

Monoteizm ve Yüce Varlık Konusunda Wilhelm Schmidt ile Raffaele Pettazzoni Arasındaki Tartışma

Öz

18. yüzyılda, değişmez kabul edilen geleneksel varsayımların geçerliliğini rasyonel kriterlere tabi tutarak yeniden değerlendirmeyi amaçlayan Aydınlanma dönemi filozofları, dinî konuları ve bu bağlamda da ilk insanların dininin monoteizm olduğu yönündeki Kitabı Mukaddes öğretisini felsefî spekülasyon konusu hâline getirmişlerdir. 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Din Bilimi, Felsefe ve Teolojiden bağımsız bir disiplin olarak kurumsallaşmaya başlamıştır. Monoteizm meselesi, teolojik ve felsefî perspektiften değerlendirildikten sonra her bilim dalı gibi kendine özgü bir metodoloji arayışı içerisine giren Din Bilimi bağlamında ele alınmış ve ortak bir metodoloji bulunmamasından dolayı da farklı sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Schmidt ile Pettazzoni‟nin monoteizm ve Yüce Varlık meselesini bilimsel bir yaklaşımla ele aldıklarını savunmalarına rağmen, neden çok farklı sonuçlar elde ettikleri hususu, bir takım soruları gündeme getirmektedir. Bilimsel yaklaşımın en temel niteliği, aynı verileri aynı metot ile işleyen herkesin aynı sonuçları elde etmesidir. Dolayısıyla ortada bir ihtilaf varsa, bu mesele ya konunun mahiyetinden, ya araştırmacının kendinden ya da takip edilen metottan kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Schmidt ve Pettazzoni‟nin monoteizm ve Yüce Varlık konusundaki görüşleri ve birbirlerine yönelttikleri eleştiriler bağlamında Din Bilimi‟ndeki metodoloji problemine belirli bir açıdan ışık tutmaktır. Diğer taraftan bu araştırma, Batı‟da bilim adı altında yürütülen ve pek de gündeme getirilmeyen ideolojik mücadeleler hakkında önemli ipuçları sunmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Wilhelm Schmidt, Raffaele Pettazzoni, Andrew Lang, Monoteizm

Kaynakça

1. Adam, Baki, “Katolik Kilisesi‟nin Kurtuluş Öğretisi Açısından Yahudiliğe ve İslâm‟a Bakışı,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 41 (2000), ss.195-224.
2. Aydın, Mehmet, Ansiklopedik Dinler Sözlüğü, Konya: Din Bilimleri Yayınları, 2005.
3. Bianchi, Ugo, The History of Relgions, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975.
4. Bolle, Kees, “Myths and Other Religious Texts,” Frank Whaling (ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, 2 vols, Berlin: Mouton, 1984, ss.297-362.
5. Bowie, Fiona, The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
6. Brandon, Samuel G. F., “Origins of Religion,” The Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip P. Wiener (ed.), New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1973, c.4, ss.93-99.
7. Bros, A., “Aperçu historique sur l'histoire des religions,” Maurice Brillant & René Aigrain (ed.), Histoire des religions c.1, Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1953, ss.111-122.
8. Carpenter, J. Estlin, Comparative Religion, London: Oxford University Press, 1944.

9. Casadio, Giovanni, “Historiography: Western Studies [Further Considerations],” Encyclopedia of Religion, (2nd Edition), New York: MacMillan, 2005, c.6, ss.4042- 4052.
10. Cohen, Percy S., “Theories of Myth,” Man, New Series, 4:3 (1969), ss.337-353.
11. Comby, Jean, Diffusion et acculturation du christianisme (XIXe-XXe siècle), Paris: Éditions Karthala, 2005.
12. David, M. V., “Les idées du 18e siècle sur l'idolâtrie, et les audaces de David Hume et du président de Brosses,” Numen, 24:2 (1977), ss.81-94.
13. Dictionnaire de théologie, c.5, Paris: 1852.
14. Eliade, Mircea, “Myth in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Philip P. Wiener (ed.), New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1973, c.3, ss.307-318.
15. ---------, “Religions: The First Approaches: Philology (Max Müller) and Anthropology (E. B. Tylor),” International Social Science Journal, 29:4 (1977), ss.615-627.
16. ---------, “The Quest for the „Origins‟ of Religion,” History of Religions, 4:1 (1964), ss.154- 169.
17. ---------, Aspects du mythe, Paris: Gallimard, 1963.
18. ---------, La nostalgie des origines, Paris: Gallimard, 1971.
19. ---------, Mythes, rêves et mystères, Paris: Gallimard, 1957.
20. --------- Religion australiennes, 2nd Ed., Paris: Payot & Rivages, 1998.
21. --------- Traité d’histoire des religions, Paris : Payot, 1949.
22. Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Des théories sur la religion des primitifs, Paris: Payot, 2001.
23. Gaillard, Gérald, The Routledge Dictionary of Anthropologists, London: Routledge, 2004.
24. Gandini, Mario, “Pettazzoni, Raffaele,” Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, New York: MacMillan, 2005, c.10, ss.7072-7077.
25. Geisler, Norman L., “Primitive Monotheism,” Christian Apologetics Journal, 1:1 (1998), ss.1-5.
26. Grotanelli, Vinigi, “Ethnology and/or Cultural Anthropology in Italy: Traditions and Developments,” Current Anthropology, 18:4 (1977), ss.593-614.
27. Gusinde, M., “Schmidt, Wilhelm,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, (2nd Edition), Detroit, 2003, c.12, s.744.
28. Harris, Marvin, The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture, London: Routledge, 1968.
29. Haydon, A. Eustace, “Origin and Growth of Religion by Wilhelm Schmidt,” International Journal of Ethics, 42:3 (1932), ss.377-380.
30. Heninger, Joseph & Alessandra Ciattini, “Schmidt, Wilhelm,” Encyclopedia of Religion (2nd Edition), New York: MacMillan, 2005, c.12, ss.8167-8171.
31. Hume, David, Four Dissertations, London, 1757.
32. Jordan, Louis H., “The Study of the History of Religions in the Italian Universities,” The American Journal of Theology, 23:1 (1919), ss.41-60.
33. ---------, Comparative Religion: Its Adjuncts and Allies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1915.
34. ---------, Comparative Religion: Its Genesis and Growth, Edinburgh, 1905.
35. Kluckhohn, Clyde, “Some Reflections on the Method and Theory of the Kulturkreislehre,” American Anthropologist, New Series, 38:2 (1936), ss. 157-196.
36. Lang, Andrew, “Australian Gods. A Reply,” Folklore, 10:1 (1899), ss.1-46.
37. ---------, “Review: L‟origine de l‟idée de dieu,” Folklore, 21:4 (1910), ss.516-523.
38. ---------, Magic and Religion, London: 1901.
39. ---------, Myth, Ritual and Religion, London, 1887 ve 1899, c.I.
40. ---------, The Making of Religion, London, 1898.
41. Lester, Richard Hiatt, Arguments about Aborigines: Australia and the Evolution of Social Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
42. Lowie, Robert H., The History of Ethnological Theory, New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1937.
43. Magli, Ida, Cultural Anthropology: An Introduction, Jefferson: McFarland, 2001.
44. Malinowski, Bronislaw, İlkel Toplum, çev. Hüsen Portakal, Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi, 1998.
45. ---------, “The Role of Myth in Life,” Alan Dundes (ed.), Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984, ss.193-206.
46. Marett, R. R., Anthropology, London: 1912.
47. Mattingly, Gerald L., “Schmidt, Wilhelm,” Encyclopedia of Anthropology, H. James Birx (ed.), California: Sage Publications, 2006, ss.2059-2060.
48. Mensching, Gustav, Histoire de la science des religions, Paris: Lamarre, 1955.
49. Meslin, Michel, “Préface,” Natale Spineto (ed.), L'histoire des religions a-t-elle un sens? Correspondance 1926-1959, Paris Cerf, 1994, ss.7-16.
50. Müler, F. Max, Introduction to the Science of Religion: Four Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution, London: 1873.
51. Özkan, Ali Rafet, “P. Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) Üzerine Biyografik Bir Deneme,” Atatürk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (1999), ss.111-126.
52. Pettazzoni, Rafaella [Doğrusu: Raffaele], Tanrı’ya Dair, çev. Fuat Aydın, İz Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2002.
53. ---------, “Aperçu Introductif,” Numen, 1:1 (1954), ss.1-7.
54. ---------, “Das Ende des Urmonotheismus?,” Numen, 3:2 (1956), ss.156-159.
55. ---------, “Din İlminde Tarih ve Fenomenoloji,” çev. Hüseyin Gazi Yurdaydın, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 5:1 (1956), ss.189-191.
56. ---------, “On the Attributes of God,” Numen, 2:1/2 (1955), ss.1-27.
57. ---------, “The Supreme Being: Phenomenological Structure and Historical Development,” Mircea Eliade & Joseph M. Kitagawa (eds.), The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=580&C=762 (15.05.2009).
58. ---------, “The Truth of Myth,” Alan Dundes (ed.), Sacred Narrative, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984, ss.98-109.
59. ---------, Essays on The History of Religions, Leiden: E.J. Brills, 1954.
60. ---------, The All-knowing God: Researches Into the Early Religion and Culture, New York: Arno Press, 1978.
61. Platvoet, Jan, “Pillars, Pluralism and Secularisation: A Social History of Dutch Sciences of Religions,” G. A. Wiegers (ed.), Modern Societies and the Science of Religions: Studies in Honour of Lammert Leertouwer, Leiden: Brill, 2002, ss.82-148.
62. Ray, Benjamin C., “Lang, Andrew,” Encyclopedia of Religion, (2nd Edition), New York: MacMillan, 2005, c.8, ss.5299-5300.
63. Rennie, Bryan S., Reconstructing Eliade: Making Sense of Religion, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
64. Ries, Julien, “Pettazzoni, Raffaele,” Dictionnaire des religions, Paul Poupard (ed.), 2e édition corrigée, Paris Presses Universitaires de France, 1985, ss.1317-1318.
65. --------- “Schmidt, Wilhelm,” Dictionnaire des religions, Paul Poupard (ed.), 2e édition corrigée, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985, ss.1547-1548.
66. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Oeuvres Complètes, c.2, Paris, 1852.
67. Sabbatucci, Dario, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” Numen, 10:1 (1963), ss.1-41.
68. Schimmel, Annemarie, “Numen,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3:3-4 (1954), ss.119-122.
69. --------- “Roma‟daki Din Bilginleri Kongresi,” Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4:1-2 (1955), ss.16-22.
70. Schmidt, Francis, “Naissance des polythéismes (1624–1757),” Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, 59:1 (1985), s.77-90.
71. Schmidt, Wilhelm, “The Quest of the Supreme Being,” Jaques Waardenburg (ed.), Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion. Aims, Methods and Theories of Research.
72. Volume 1: Introduction and Anthology, The Hague: Mouton, 1973, ss.274-286.
73. --------- Origine et évolution de la religion. Les théories et les faits, Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1931.
74. --------- L’origine de l’idée de dieu. Étude historico-critique et positive, Paris, 1910.
75. Sharpe, Eric J., “Some Problems of Method in the Study of Religion,” Religion, 1:1 (1971), ss.1-14.
76. --------- Comparative Religion: A History, Second Edition, London: Duckworth, 1986.
77. Smart, Ninian, “Religion, Study of,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ultimate Reference Suite, Chicago 2009.
78. Spineto, Natale (ed.), L'histoire des religions a-t-elle un sens? Correspondance 1926–1959, Paris: Cerf, 1994.
79. Spineto, Natale, “L'histoire des religions en Italie entre la fin du XIXe siècle et le début du XXe siècle,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome, 111:111-112 (1999), ss.599- 609.
80. Stausberg, Michael, “Raffaele Pettazzoni and the History of Religions in Fascist Italy (1928- 1938),” Horst Junginger (ed.), The Study of Religion under the Impact of Fascism, Leiden: Brill, 2008, ss.365-395.
81. Stausberg, Michael, “The study of religion(s) in Western Europe (I): Prehistory and history until World War II,” Religion, 37:4 (2007), ss.294-318.
82. Tylor, Edward B., “Animism,” Jaques Waardenburg (ed.),Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion. Aims, Methods and Theories of Research. Volume 1: Introduction and Anthology, The Hague: Mouton, 1973, ss.209-219.
83. Tylor, Edward B., Primitive Culture, London, 1871 c.I-II.
84. Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique, portatif, Londres, 1764.
85. Whaling, Frank, “Comparative Approaches,” Frank Whaling (ed.), Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, 2 vol, Berlin: Mouton, 1984, ss.165-295.
86. Windengren, Geo, “In Memoriam Raffaele Pettazzoni,” Numen, 6:2 (1959), ss.76c-76d.
87. Zimon, Henryk, “Wilhelm Schmidt‟s Theory of Primitive Monotheism and its Critique within the Vienna School of Ethnology,” Anthropos, 81:1-3 (1986), ss.243-260.
88. Zwemer, Samuel Marinus, The Origin of Religion: Evolution of Revolution, New York: Loizeau Brothers, 1945.