Morphological Approach In Classification Of Religions From The Past To Present

Öz

Extended Abstract 

The origins of researching the religious beliefs of others by modern historians of history, it is based to the 5th centuries BC. Therefore, evolving and expanding data about religious beliefs and practices in the historical process made it necessary to use different methods and approaches that will enable to understand and analyze this data in a correct, systematic and comprehensively way. In this context, the method of classifying religions according to certain categories within in the framework of the religious materials obtained has been formed and has been used by updating by many Eastern and Western religious researchers from the past to the present. From the second half of the nineteenth century, approaches of classification of religions have take over with increasing the number of classification of religions attempts and their using in religious studies.

It is possible to evaluate the views of the source of religion, especially used in religious studies in the West until the mid-twentieth century, prevailed in the second half of the nineteenth century as the first manifestations of the classification of morphological religions. Because, in these theories, religions were evaluated according to a categorical scale that reached from the understanding of the monotheistic god to the politeist understanding of God. In this discussion atmosphere that is animated by evolutionary theories, Max Müller’s classification of religions in the context of language theory when gives an academic impetus to studies, basically Tiele, who is one of the architects of the Religion Phenomenology, has gained the title of being the scholar who systematized the classification of the morphological religions.

Tiele who offers to examine the religions as a whole and with minds that is refined from all kinds of prejudice by drawing attention to the morphological and ontological aspects of religions stipulates to make comparisons in order to gain the scientific characteristic of the History of Religions. Therefore, he aims to classify the religions in morphological style and to make comparisons and to show similarities and differences of religions with other religions. In this respect, Tiele’s making the categorization of religions as moral religions and including the category of universal / world religions under this category became a turning point in terms of the classification of morphological religions and had a significant impact on the following classification of the religions. The most important contribution of Tiele to the field of religious studies in the context of the classification of morphological religions is opening the door slightly to the spread of the concept of world religions, previously used in different languages, in the academic circles dominated by English language and raising awareness about the issue. As a matter of fact, this process has extended up to shaping academic and popular studies, in places that History of Religions studies are concentrated notably in America and England, on the axis a list of religions that the religions of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are permanent members; Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism are also frequently used. 

Since the 1960s, in academia and the world of education notably in the United States and England, because of the widespread use of the concept of world religions, criticisms of the classification of religions of morphological character have also been made in this context. In this process, Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Ninian Smart, who were particularly influential in their field, were the first religious scholars who challenged to studies representing the paradigm of world religions in similar ways. Following them, Jonathan Z. Smith's view that the Western History of Religions literature was shaped by the Western-Eastern dilemma inspired Tomoko Masuzawa’s work The Invention of World Religions (2005) and the views of two religious scientists have allowed James L. Cox to describe the using and dominating of Western religions categories and concepts in religious studies as the paradigm of world religions. In this context, based on the examples of studies of History of Religions, it is possible to see that the category of world religions in morphological character is being used as a top category under these studies, regardless of which religions are classified and say this situation covers many studies in the field.

In general, it is accepted as the criticisms of the paradigm of world religions in the context of the morphological approach are based on theological and political assumptions and the signing essences serve the domination of Christianity or the great religions. As emphasized by various scholars, such as Cox, different understandings has emerged such as the concept of religion should be reassessed and the religions cannot be understood by isolating from their contexts, believers, sociocultural and global themes for overcoming the paradigm of world religions. This emphasizes the need for religious studies that cover all aspects of religion, believer oriented, inter-disciplinary, and socio-cultural and sensitive global issues rather than addressing religions around certain categories.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• History of Religions,Religion,Classification,Morphology,World Religions

Geçmişten Günümüze Dinler Tasnifinde Morfolojik Yaklaşım

Öz

XIX. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren dinler tasnifi teşebbüslerinin artarak çoğalması ve ortaya çıkan tasniflerin dini araştırmalarda kullanılmasının sonucunda dinleri tasnif etme yaklaşımları ön plana çıkmıştır. Dinler Tarihinde coğrafi yaklaşımın yaygınlığına rağmen morfolojik yaklaşımın yadsınamaz şekilde cezp ediciliğe sahip olduğu ve konunun ilk defa bu bağlamda belli bir sistematiğe kavuştuğu ve dinamik hale geldiği belirtilmektedir. XIX. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısında hâkim olan ve XX. Yüzyılın ortalarına kadar Batı’daki dini araştırmalarda kullanılan dinin kaynağına ilişkin teoriler morfolojik dinler tasnifinin ilk tezahürleri niteliğindedir. Morfolojik dinler tasnifini sistematize eden din bilimcisi olma payesini ise Din Fenomenolojisinin mimarlarından Cornelius Petrus Tiele hak etmiştir. Çünkü Tiele’nin dinleri ahlaki dinler olarak kategorize edip evrensel dinlere/dünya dinlerine alt kategoride yer vermesi morfolojik dinler tasnifi açısından bir dönüm noktası olmuş ve yapılan morfolojik dinler tasniflerini etkilemiştir. Tiele’nin dünya dinleri kavramını İngilizceye kazandırması akademik ve popüler Dinler Tarihi çalışmalarının, Hıristiyanlık, Budizm, İslam, Hinduizm ve Yahudilik dinlerinin daimî üye olduğu; Konfüçyanizm, Taoizm, Şintoizm, Caynizm, Sihizm ve Zerdüştilik dinlerinin ise sıklıkla kullanıldığı bir dinler listesi ekseninde şekillenmesine kadar uzanmıştır. Jonathan Z. Smith ve Tomoko Masuzawa gibi din bilimcilerinin politik ve teolojik varsayımlara dayandığı gerekçesiyle eleştirdikleri bu durum, James L. Cox tarafından dünya dinleri paradigması şeklinde nitelendirilmiş ve dinleri daha iyi anlamak ve yerli dinleri de araştırmalara dâhil etmek için aşılması gereken bir problem olarak görülmüştür. Günümüzde özellikle batılı Dinler Tarihi çalışmaları incelendiğinde dünya dinleri kavramının üst bir kategori olarak kullanılmakta olduğunu ve belli başlı dinleri kapsayan bir dinler listesi sunduğunu görmek ve bu durumun alandaki pek çok çalışmayı kapsadığını söylemek mümkündür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dinler Tarihi,Dinler,Tasnif,Morfoloji,dünya dinleri

Kaynakça

1. ADAM, Baki. “Din Hakkında Genel Bilgiler”. Dinler Tarihi El Kitabı. Ed. Baki Adam. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları, 2015.
2. ADAMS, Charles Joseph. “Classification of Religions”. Erişim: 01 Aralık 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/classification-of- religions.
3. ALICI, Mustafa. “Dinler Tarihini Popülerleştirmek: Yaşayan Dünya Dinleri Adlı Çalışma Üzerine Bir Kaç Söz”. Milel ve Nihal: İnanç, Kültür ve Mitoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi 4/2 (2007): 163- 171.
4. ALICI, Mustafa. Dinler Tarihinin Batılı Öncüleri. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2011.
5. ALICI, Mustafa. Evrimci Politeizm Devrimci Monoteizm: Erken Kültürlerde Yüce Varlık Fikrine Etnolojik ve Fenomenolojik Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Rağbet Yayınları, 2013.
6. ARCHER, John Clark. Faiths Men Live. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1934.
7. AYDIN, Mahmut. Ana Hatlarıyla Dinler Tarihi: Tarih, İnanç ve İbadet İstanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2015.
8. AYDIN, Mehmet. Dinler Tarihine Giriş. İstanbul: Literatürk Academia, 2015.

9. BALDRICK-MORRONE, Tara- GRAZIANO, Michael- STODDARD, Brad. “Not a task for amateurs: Graduate instructors and Critical Theory in the World Religions classroom”. After World Religions: Reconstructing Religious Studies. Ed. Christopher R. Cotter, David G. Robertson London, 37- 47. New York: Routledge, 2016.
10. BOUQUET, Alan Coates. Comparative Religion: A Short Outline. London: Penguin Books, 1953.
11. COX, James L. From Primitive to Indigenous: The Academic Study of Indigenous Religions. Hampshire, Burlington: Ashgate, 2007.
12. COX, James L. “Before the ‘After’ in ‘After World Religions’- Wilfred Cantwell Smith on the meaning and end of religion”, After World Religions: Reconstructing Religious Studies. Ed. Christopher R. Cotter, David G. Robertson. XII- XVIII. London, New York: Routledge, 2016.
13. ELIADE, Mircea. Ebedi Dönüş Mitosu. Çev. Ümit Altuğ. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 1994.
14. GÜNDÜZ, Şinasi. “Giriş”. Yaşayan Dünya Dinleri. Ed. Şinasi Gündüz. 17-33. Ankara: D.İ.B. Yayınları, 2007.
15. HUME, Robert Ernest. The World’s Living Religions. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924.
16. KARATAŞ, İbrahim Ethem. Max Müller: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Dinler Tarihindeki Yeri. Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2006.
17. KELLET, Ernest Edward. A Short History of Religions. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1933.
18. KING, Richard. “Taking on the guild: Tomoko Masuzawa and The invention of world religions”. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 20/2 (2008): 125-133.
19. KNOTT, Kim. “How to Study Religion”. Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. Ed. Linda Woodhead, Christopher Partridge, Hiroko Kawanami. 15-40. London: Routledge, 2016.
20. KUŞCU, Emir. “Türkiye’de Din Fenomenolojisiyle İlgili Yayınlar Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”. İ.Ü. İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 2/1 (2011): 127-154.
21. KÜÇÜK, Abdurrahman- TÜMER, Günay- KÜÇÜK, Mehmet Alparslan. Dinler Tarihi. Ankara: Berikan Yayınevi, 2009.
22. LEEUW, Gerardus Van der. Religion in Essence and Manifestation Princenton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986.
23. MARTIN, Douglas- HEVESI, Dennis. “Huston Smith, ‘Author of the Worlds Religions’, Dies at 97”. Erişim: 12 Ocak 2019.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/01/us/huston-smith-author-of-the-worlds-religions-dies-at-97.html.
24. MASUZAWA, Tomoko. “World Religions”. Encyclopedia of Religion (Second Edition). Ed. Lindsay Jones. 14: 9800-9804. New York: Macmillan Reference, 2005.
25. MASUZAWA, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.
26. MOLENDIJK, Arie L. “Religious Development: C.P. Tiele’s Paradigm of Science of Religion”. Numen 51/3 (2004): 321-351.
27. MÜLLER, Max. Introduction to the Science of Religion. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1882.
28. NOSS, David S.- GRANGAARD, Blake R. A History of the World's Religions. New Jersey: Pearson Higher Education, 2011.
29. NOSS, David S.- NOSS, John B. A History of the World's Religions. New York: Macmillan, 1990.
30. NOSS, John B. Man’s Religions. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949.
31. NOSS, John B. Man’s Religions. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963.
32. OWEN, Suzanne. “The World Religions paradigm Time for a Change”. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 10/3 (2011): 253- 268.
33. PARTIN, Harry B. “Classification of Religions”. Encyclopedia of Religion (Second Edition), Ed. Lindsay Jones. 3: 1817-1822. New York: Macmillan Reference, 2005).
34. SAUSSAYE, Chantepie de la. Manual of the Science of Religion. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1891.
35. SHARPE, Eric. J. Nathan Söderblom and The Study of Religions. London: University of North California, 1990.
36. SHARPE, Eric J. Dinler Tarihi: Tarihsel Bir Anlatı. Çev. Fuat Aydın. Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi Kültür Yayınları, 2013.
37. SMART, Ninian. The Religious Experience of Mankind. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969.
38. SMART, Ninian. Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs, Berkeley. London: Harper Collins, University of California Press, 1996.
39. SMITH, Huston. The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. New York: Harperone, 1998.
40. SMITH, Jonathan Z. Map is Not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978.
41. SMITH, Jonathan Z. Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
42. SMITH, Jonathan Z. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2004.
43. SMITH, Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religion. New York: Mentor Books, 1964.
44. TAIRA, Teemu. “Doing Things with ‘Religion’: A Discursive Approach a Rethinking the World Religions Paradigm”, After World Religions: Reconstructing Religious Studies. Ed. Christopher R. Cotter, David G. Robertson. London, New York: Routledge, 2016.
45. TIELE, Cornelius P. “Religions”. The Encyclopedia Britannica. 20: 358-371. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1886.
46. TIELE, Cornelius P. Outlines of the History of Religion to the Spread of the Universal Religions. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1896.
47. TIELE, Cornelius P. Elements of the Science of Religion: Part I. Morphological. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1898.
48. TÜMER, Günay. “Din”. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. 9: 312-320. Ankara: TDV Yayınları, 1994.
49. TYLOR, Edward Burnett. Primitive Culture: Researches Into The Development Of Mtyhology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1871.
50. ÜNAL, Mustafa. Din Fenomenolojisi: Tarihçe, Yöntem ve Uygulama. Kayseri: Geçit Yayınları, 1999.
51. WHITNEY, William D. “On the So-Called Science of Religion”. Princeton Review 57/1 (1881): 429-452.
52. WOODHEAD, Linda- FLETCHER, Pau- KAWANAMI, Hiroko- SMITH, David (Eds.). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. London: Routledge, 2002.
53. WOODHEAD, Linda- PARTRIDGE, Christopher- KAWANAMI, Hiroko (Eds.). Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations. Ed. Linda Woodhead, Christopher Partridge, Hiroko Kawanami. London: Routledge, 2016.