Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity

by Jonathan Z. Smith

In this major theoretical and methodological statement on the history of religions, Jonathan Z. Smith shows how convert apologetic agendas can dictate the course of comparative religious studies. As his example, Smith reviews four centuries of scholarship comparing early Christianities with religions of late Antiquity (especially the so-called mystery cults) and shows how this scholarship has been based upon an underlying Protestant-Catholic polemic. The result is a devastating critique of traditional New Testament scholarship, a redescription of early Christianities as religious traditions amenable to comparison, and a milestone in Smith's controversial approach to comparative religious studies.

"An important book, and certainly one of the most significant in the career of Jonathan Z. Smith, whom one may venture to call the greatest pathologist in the history of religions. As in many precedent cases, Smith follows a standard he carefully selects his victim, and then dissects with artistic finesse and unequaled acumen. The operation is always necessary, and a deconstructor of Smith's caliber is hard to find."—Ioan P. Coulianu, Journal of Religion

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Academic, Christianity, Theology

160 pages, Paperback

First published September 18, 1990

About the author

Jonathan Z. Smith is the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of the Humanities at the University of Chicago where he is also a member of the Committee on the History of Culture.

Reviews

[Filip Sylwestrowicz]

Drudgery Divine is a very stimulating methodological treatise on comparative study of religions. Smith begins his book by recounting correspondence between Jefferson and Adams about Priestley’s critique of Christianity. This correspondence gives the reader a snapshot of origins of the comparative study of religions. Using these letters as a starting point Smith shows how comparative endeavour was born out of Protestant apologetic explanations of how the pristine early Christianity was gradually corrupted through pagan influences. This topos was subsequently utilised by Unitarians attributing trinitarian dogma to the influence of Platonism and later adopted in various ways by scholars studying early Christianity.

Smith takes several methodological issues with earlier comparative studies. He argues that scholars should abandon the concept of 'uniqueness.' Proper historical study can be, contends Smith, busy only with what is similar and different. He also argues that apologetic origins of comparative enterprise are still visible in various topoi employed by scholars. He expands on how this is visible in the comparative study of words, narratives and settings.

'Drudgery Divine' was an enjoyable read. I was impressed by Smith's erudition and brilliant examples. I found theoretical remarks on methodology to be very helpful. I was much less persuaded by postulated analogy between supposed development of Christianity from more 'locative' religion in earlier Palestinian strata to 'utopian' application of resurrection in Paul and similar development in mystery cults of Attis and Cybele.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book should be required reading for all those studying the history of early Christianity, the religions of Late Antiquity, and/or the New Testament. Smith convincingly demonstrates that most comparisons between early Christianity and the religions of Late Antiquity are more apologetic in nature rather than academic; and even in cases where scholars seek to avoid this, much of the research is mired with Christian assumptions. While I don't agree with all of the research cited, Smith's contention is valid and cannot be ignored by serious scholars. This is a classic.

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is one of the most boring books I've read, I even thought to trash it a few times! Finally got something after my 3 reading!
For this book you need perseverance and a great deal of interest! Otherwise, stay away!
I bet it will be reading a few times more!
This book it is just so unkind, that you get addicted.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes scholars of Christian origins have agendas. Just saying.

[Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an important book, though difficult to get through. It would help to have an understanding of the academic scholarship centered in Late Antiquity and nascent Christianity. I didn't, but that's nothing Wikipedia can't fill in the blank for.

Here is the gist of this book:
The shift toward institutionalization and theological orthodoxy in the 4th century retroactively reshaped how earlier Christianity was remembered and studied. Smith critiques scholars who interpret early Christianity as if it were already on the road to orthodoxy, ignoring its pluralism, messiness, and marginality in its first few centuries. Smith argues that (and provides exampled about how) religious scholars have consistently:
1)Downplayed or ignored ritual practices in early Christianity to emphasize belief or text.
2) Excluded similar religious phenomena from Greco-Roman and Hellenistic contexts (like mystery cults, magical practices, or divine men) to make Christianity look unique.
and 3) Read back later Christian theology or church structure into the first-century material, distorting our understanding of the period before Constantine.

What was hard for me to get my head around at first is that he's not really advocating *for* any specific interpretation, but rather that methodology should be improved form the angle of historiographical best practices rather than biases to confirm the point of view of (usually protestant evangelical) viewpoints that realistically weren't really solidified until well after the cited texts that used to support it were written.

The most edifying fact that I gleaned from it was that all of the imagery of the crucifix and a suffering Jesus did not start until the 5th century. That was kind of a Constantine take on things. Which makes sense given that he was a war guy. All of the Christian iconography that pre-dates him was about peace: lamb, dove, olive branch, palm, fish and vine, the Good Shepherd.

All in all, he emphasizes that Christianity in its early centuries was not a fully formed, internally consistent religion—it was a movement competing in a religiously plural world, shaped by the same pressures, patterns, and problems as the cults, schools, and sects around it. Smith wants scholars to embrace that historical complexity, rather than flatten it with theological or ideological assumptions. That said, this was written in 1990 and I like to think that things have moved in that direction since then.

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 4 out of 5]

The dust jacket blurb effectively summarizes the contents (whatever happened to useful descriptions in blurbs instead of puffery?). It clarifies the scope of Smith’s concern: the history of the investigation into purported parallels between early Christianity and the so-called mystery religions of late antiquity. Taken together, these five lectures provide a primer in method and theory, making them valuable for any project that involves comparing religious traditions. It is a history of scholarship spanning four centuries, more than merely a study of the specific topic.

Among the things that struck me are the caution needed before characterizing something as unique (a term that precludes comparison), the fact that not all analogies can demonstrate genealogy, and the importance of detecting patterns and settings rather than relying on a similarity of single words.

On the matter of single words, Smith demonstrates the shaky support for claims that Paul’s use of musterion can be traced solely to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint).

Something I found enlightening was that the pattern of dying and rising, whether in the context of an individual undergoing a rite (such as baptism or initiation into a mystery) or of a hero, be it Christ or Adonis, is not original to any religious tradition, but rather a development. The question of why this development occurred at roughly the same time in distinct traditions bears further thought.

[Veiltender]

One of the great books in the study of religion, and a book which I was due for a revisit.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important and helpful project for conceptualizing the project of comparison

[Benja Graeber · Rating 3 out of 5]

Se que este libro es un clásico dentro del estudio de las religiones, sin embargo no cumplió mis expectativas, quizás por su detallado análisis de metodología de las religiones comparadas.

Es un libro académico por lo que si no eres alguien que no tiene un estudio o noción previa de la metodología de las religiones comparadas va a ser un poco tedioso y aburrido.

Me gustó especialmente el primer y último capitulo que son más entendidos para un público no instruido en la materia.

Aun así, me abrió un nuevo entendimiento a las formas de ver las religiones antiguas tardías del imperio romano y su relación con el Cristianismo.

[Jared · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dans Drudgery Divine, Smith démasque les programmes idéologiques dans l'histoire de la comparaison paléochrétien. Il donne une généalogie de les connaissances qui, en somme, révèle que le christianisme a été privilégié par les savants protestants jusqu'au point de protection contre la comparaison avec religions de son temps. Contre cela, Smith défend l'importance fondamentale de comparaison non idéologique dans le domaine des études religieuses, et développe par conséquent une méthode de comparaison rigoureusement contrôlée pour compenser cette déficience.

For Smith's efforts to expose bias and the way it works in Christian academics, je suis eternellement reconnaissant. His voice in academia will be dearly, dearly missed.

[Zachary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read a long time ago, but this was my first introduction into theory and method and the study of religion. I need to go back to this, but I remember it being lucid, clear, and compelling. Perhaps one of the most directly relevant theoretical works for Graeco-Roman and Christian "comparison" with a lengthy discussion on the theoretical moves of "comparing" and how that might help us or go wrong depending on our attitudes and employment of comparative tools.

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought-provoking analysis of the pitfalls of how Christian origins have been studied historically.

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who doesn't love JZ? Okay, non-religious-studies geeks may not like him as much as us nerds do.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

classic.