Talk:Religious text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Suggesting Merge

I'm going to suggest here that we merge the content of Holy Writ and Holy Scripture into a subheading if we feel that it is in keeping with the topic of this page. Disagreements? Support? Kevin Smith 12:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and merge them, I support this. They are the same subject, rather than needlessly spread across several seperate independent articles. 208.102.209.167 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Joshua
Please note that the quality of my merge paragraph is the best I could bang out given my limited knowledge. If anyone would like to add or edit, or if anyone protests my merge and redirection, please note it here. Kevin Smith 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Canonical Status

Fellow editors, I wanted to bring to your attention why I feel this article is in serious need of revision and correction. There are a few titles/works that are listed under specific religions, when that religion does not regard the aforementioned work as canonical. A good example of this is how the article gives the sacred text of Jainism as Tattvartha Sutra, however no sect or denomination affords it canonical status, admittedly it is highly regarded and cherished. It's the same way the Roman Catholic Church highly regarded the works of Aristotle, but dare not give it canonical status, only the Bible was given that authority, yet the RCC all but crystalized aristotelianism. The Shvetambara canon consists of the 11 Angas (“Parts”; originally there were 12, but one, the Drishtivada, has been lost), 12 Upangas (subsidiary texts), 4 Mula-sutras (basic texts), 6 Cheda-sutras (concerned with discipline), 2 Culika-sutras (appendix texts), and 10 Prakirnakas (mixed, assorted texts). The Digambara give canonical status to two works, the Karmaprabhrita (“Chapters on Karman”), also called Shatkhandagama (“Scripture of Six Sections”), and the Kashayaprabhrita (“Chapters on the Kashayas”). Those are the only canonical works in Jainism, all else is commentative, or simply traditional. Next, I wanted to approach the issue of Lingayatism and the Lingayat or Virashaiva canon. I was the one who added the seperate section for Lingayatism, namely because they are non-Vedic and do not accept the authority of the Vedas, which in India, is by law and government, considered what binds and unites Hinduism. Secondly because the followers do not consider themselves Hindus. It is simply Hinduism's attempt to co-opt them in the fold, to persist that they are a denomination with Hinduism. I've contacted scholars on the issue and apparently no one knows what the Lingayat canon is, I added Basava Purana since the Encyclopedia Britannica calls it one of the sacred texts of the Lingayats. Vachanas, Mantra Gopya, Shoonya Sampadane, Shaivite Agamas. Those could and should be added. Another subject I want to approach is the canon of Mandaeanism. The article lists only the Ginza (right and left), however the Mandaean canon is quite extensive and includes, Asafar Malwasha/Book of the Zodiac, Qulasta, Book of John the Baptist, Diwan Abatur, 1012 Qestions/Alf Trisar Suialia, Coronation of Shislam Rba, Baptism of Hibil Ziwa, and a few others. Also the section on Buddhism only includes the Theravada canon while categorizing all Mahayana canon under the sentence "and other Buddhist texts". That's hardly fair treatment for the numerous denominations of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, all differing in canon, such as the Pure Land sutras for the Pure Land sects. That's similar to putting under Hinduism, listing just the Vedas and then "other Hindu texts." Too ambiguous I think. 208.102.209.167 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Joshua

We need you! Please register a User name so we can talk to you. Please come to WikiProject religious texts and be a member. Alastair Haines 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Most wikipedia editors don't seem to like me, though. I appreciate your vote of confidence. 72.49.203.96 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
I've actually added quite a few non-canon texts to this article, despite what I've said above. I think it's fair to distinguish between canon and non-canon though in the article, what do you think? Or should the article be speificially about canonical texts only? 72.49.203.96 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
The article cannot be about exclusively canonical texts, imo ,for two reasons. Firstly, within any tradition canonicity usually only arises because there is already a dispute about what is inspired, authoritative, authentic, etc. Neutrality requires we report the wider canon, while noting what is disputed. Secondly, canonicity is not mutually recognized across traditions. Muslim's recognize Torah, Psalms and Gospels, at least in theory. Bahai specifically recognizes an even wider set of books. But those kinds of views are pretty exceptional.
I desire to document Egyptian and Babylonian religious texts, which do not as yet seem to be listed. These are notable for their antiquity and comparison to Abrahamic religious texts. For me, a religious text is defined by 1. content = religious (not sure how to actually define that though) 2. text = script, written, "permanent" medium of transmission, as such amenable to objective textual criticism, paelography, diachronic linguistics, hermenuetics, etc., (hence not including reconstructed oral traditions, from artifacts, graphics, text or modern oral remnants.)
I've not read carefully enough to see if the new project defines its scope as I would. I'd be surprised if it was more exclusive. Alastair Haines 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You said above you weren't sure how to define religious content in a document. It's easy for people to confuse religion and philosophy with each other, the two are sometimes mutual, sometimes not. I will briefly outline the different between the two and how to identify religious content in any document. Let us take christianity as a prime example. For those who observe and follow the ceremonies of Christianity, then it is a religion. For those who observe and follow the morality of Christianity, then it is a philosophy of life. For most christians, christianity is both a religion and philosophy and serves a dual purpose. Philosophy is about empirical knowledge, metaphysics, cosmology, and above all, ethics. 72.49.203.96 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Thank you Joshua, that sounds fair. It's a very important idea that religion and philosophy (and science) are not mutually exclusive. In particular, religion informs ethics, it is not identitical with it. The Code of Hamurabi is ethics with a little underlying religion. Plato argued from theology in discussions of matters other than ethics. Religion is not such an easy thing to define really. People probably share similar intuitions about what counts as religion, while having greater or lesser degrees of what they include or exclude from it. Some may have ad hoc definitions that suit their case depending on what particular point they want to make. That's something we might have to clarify eventually. Alastair Haines 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of canonicity is pretty confused. Eg the semi-official view of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that the Apocrypha are part of the scriptures but not canonical. On the other hand, the Tibetan Tenjur is usually described by Western scholars as canonical, though it's not scripture, & what is regularly described by Western scholars as the Chinese Buddhist canon mixes scriptures & non-scriptural writings. Peter jackson (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Ching

I removed the I Ching as a scripture of the religion Taoism/Daoism as it is not a scripture or text of that religious movement. It does not appear in any previous or current version of the Taost canon, it's commentaries are that of Confucians and Neo-Confucians, part of the text itself is attributed to Confucius. Thus I have added Confucianism, which according to the United Nations, is a religion.

[edit] chronology

Is there somewhere a chronological list of religious texts, and would it be encyclopaedic to have one on WP? Hakluyt bean 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The date or origin for most scriptures is conjectural. The Bible for example, is a compilation of over 50 books written over a long period of time, and therefore would not fit on such a chronology.
Good point about biblical books being written over a long period, so biblical books need separate entries in some cases.
Most written documents can be dated within a couple of hundred years, even in the worst cases where our knowledge is backed by very little evidence. Egyptian and Babylonian texts can be dated quite well because we have a lot of evidence. During the 19th century up to the late 20th century many writers have speculated various alternative datings for major religions, especially ones popular in the West. I'm not aware of this being so popular any more, though. It is true, however, that there are books of the Hebrew scriptures that still do have much debated dates, but the Septuagint provides an upper limit, and the events they record provide a lower limit in many cases.
The 27 books of the New Testament are known to have been written after 30 AD (for obvious reasons), some are known to have been written before the deaths of their authors in the 60s. The latest date of the latest book in the most sceptical opinions is about 100 AD. As such, the New Testament fits easily into almost any chronology.
The Qur'an can be dated easily, and so can many other books. So YES to your question Hakluyt. Yes it is encyclopedic, we need to do it carefully. If we source everything, and if we go for centuries rather than years or decades, we can give a good impression of when books were written.
I'll work on this as I have time. I like the idea of a "synoptic chart" that shows mesopotamian, asian and meso-american texts side by side in columns, with time as a vertical axis (or vice versa). Or please, anyone, beat me to it! Alastair Haines 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not correct to say "The latest date of the latest book in the most sceptical opinions is about 100 AD." In fact most scholars place 2 Peter after 100 AD, often about 130. And that's not the most sceptical scholars. Peter jackson (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reg. Judaism & Hindu section

Should the Kaballah be incorporated in that section? In the Hindu section I beleive the Tantras were listed though.

These seems to be more of sects or cults within these mainstream relgion. Never the less they do have their main texts.

Bill-

Oct 12, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.191.43 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. I'm not even sure that Kabbalah has a canon per say. Many would point to the Zohar, but to be intellectually honest, the Zohar is but one of numerous, numerous kabbalic texts coming from both jewish and non-jewish sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.118.153 (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Error

Changed incorrect spelling: "Dao de jing" to correct spelling: "Tao Te Ching". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.80.144 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "error". There are 2 main systems of transcribing Chinese. I understand that most schoalrs have recently adopted the 1 where Dao de jing is "correct", though the other is probably more familiar to most readers. Peter jackson (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posts moved below Table of Contents

Posts moved below Table of Contents--Editor2020 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro somewhat to so that it starts by discussing religious texts in general. Since the phrase "Word of God" as I understand it is gnenerally associated with monotheism, I felt that should be clearer and not the first bit of info in the intro. If their are actually any polytheistic or other non-monotheistic religions that use the phrase "word of god" when discussing their texts then something about that could be added. --Cab88 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Under Shinto it says this:

Shinto The Kojiki The Nihon Shoki or Nihingi

Are you guys sure it's the "Nihingi?" In the Wikipedia article about Nihon Shoki it says that it's also called the "Nihongi." I'm at a public library as we speak and just checked out a book entitled Nihongi Chronicles of Japan fromt he Earliest Times to A.D 697.

It seems to have been a typo, I've changed it. QVanillaQ 13:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I felt that this article might use some clean up on neutrality. I feel like it randomly talks about certain religious texts at the beginning, and that it places a bias on monotheistic religions in the intro. Finn zee Fox 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I'm going to experiment by moving the "Word of God" comment into the "views" subheading. If there are any disagreements feel free to revert or edit as needed as I'm not particularly married to this change. Kevin Smith 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't understand the discussion here, what's the problem? Put it in laymen's terms please. 208.102.209.167 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Joshua

[edit] Re-thinking religious "texts"

My sense is that emphasizing written texts is inherently prejudicial, meaning that the effort cannot be done objectively.

Consider the problem this way.

In the Jewish tradition, the TANANKH is called the written law, and the Talmud is called the oral law. Both, however, are now written. Sometime shortly after the beginnings of Christianity, according to tradition, the Jewish canon is fixed. In logical terms, however, first one needs to have an idea of canon (sending scholars down the path of asking the question about what "canon" means in either literal or practical terms).

The Christian tradition seems to accept the idea of canon from the Jewish tradition (though it identified different writings, and had different rules). So, it looks like we can talk about fixed texts and meanings (so far!).

The Muslim tradition works fine here too, since in concept it too has an idea of a fixed, meaningful text. Any comparison will get a bit slippery at points (all three mean SOMETHING when they point to a written text, but they mean different things).

The problem comes when we assert that we are comparing like things when we discuss religious traditions that do not make "texts" a primary component of their ways of thinking about themselves.

Max Mueller, in the 19th century, was one of the driving forces for creating the texts that we now regard as standard for other religions in the world. My sense is that his efforts are pretty much uniformly regarded by scholars of religion to have been crucially important--but also that he brings forward concepts that are foreign to many of these religions (ideas such as "religious text").

If I could offer a suggestion, it would be this. The final article would need to divide the discussion of religious text into two parts. One would discuss those religious traditions that assert the importance of "religious texts." I am thinking here mainly of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--but that question would be left open to consideration. The other would discuss texts of other religions, but would need to be careful to show in what ways "text" misconstrues or wrongly emphasizes elements of that religion.

Dr. Davidson (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reformated your remarks to make them readable in the usual WP display system.
To illustrate the confusion of terminology, here are 2 quotations from reputable scholarly authorities on Buddhism:
"...scriptures and other canonical texts": Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004, vol 1), p142
"... scriptures fall into three categories: canonical, commentarial and pseudo-canonical." Bechert & Gombrich, World of Buddhism, Thames & Hudson, London, 1984, p79
Thus scholars use the same terms in precisely opposite senses.
I'm not sure how you're thinking of this distinction between religions that emphasize texts & those that don't. Obviously, tribal religions may not have anything describable as texts, but apart from that it's not clear what the basis for the distinction might be. It's not obvious to me, without specialist academic knowledge, that the attitudes of Buddhists to Buddhavacana & Hindus to the Veda are more different from those of Catholics & Protestants to the Bible & Muslims to the Koran than those attitudes are different from each other. Peter jackson (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)