Scriptures and Classics as Iconic Texts
Keywords:scripture, classic (both “cultural” and “religious”), categories/genres of literature/texts, cultural
We consider first some difficulties of facilely differentiating “religious” from “cultural” phenomena, and similarly “scriptures” from (“religious” or “cultural”) “classics.” Texts in the latter three categories can be identified by their “iconic” status within a given tradition or context, but only on the basis of their social function, not by their form or content. We then consider how it may be possible to study “scriptural” texts constructively in shared discourse with scholars of differing religious backgrounds. Such a common discourse would be facilitated by a heuristic model of scripture as a text extending functionally in two directions, towards the human through interpretation and towards an Absolute or Transcendent ontologically (allowing it to participate in or mediate something of the Absolute to contingent human beings). Finally, we consider whether this model is applicable to “classics” as well as “scriptures” and conclude that on balance it is not. The model thus confirms one of the differences between classics and scriptures.
Coburn, Thomas. 1989. “‘Scripture’ in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life,” in Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, edited by Miriam Levering, 102–128. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Eckel, Malcolm David. 1992. To See the Buddha: A Philosopher’s Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Geertz, Clifford. 1976. “Art as a Cultural System.” Modern Language Notes 91: 1473–1499. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2907147
Graham, William A. 1986. “Scripture.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade et al., 13: 133–145. New York: Macmillan.
———. 1994. “Das Schriftprinzip in vergleichender Sicht.” In Gott ist Schön und Er Liebt die Schönheit/God is Beautiful and He Loves Beauty, Festschrift für Annemarie Schimmel, edited by Alma Giese and J. Christoph Bürgel, 209–226. Berlin: Peter Lang.
———. 2011. “On the Concept and Functions of Scripture.” In Sacred Texts and Print Culture: The Case of Qur’?n and Bible of the Orthodox Churches During the 18th and 19th Century, edited by Nadia al-Bagdadi and Mushirul Hasan, forthcoming. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Griffiths, Paul J. 1994. On Being Buddha. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hirsch, E. and H. Rückert, eds. 1929. Luthers Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief nach der vatikanischen Handschrift. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Holdrege, Barbara A. 1987. “Veda and Torah: The Ontological Status of Scripture in the Hindu and Judaic Tradition,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Hurwitz, Leon, trans. 1976. Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kern, H. 1884. “Saddharma-Pundar?ka or The Lotus of the True Law.” Vol. 21 of Sacred Books of the East, edited by F. Max Müller. Reprinted New York: Dover, 1963.
Luther, Martin. 1883– . D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: H. Böhlau.
McDermott, James P. 1984. “Scripture as the Word of the Buddha.” Numen 31(1): 22–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852784X00086
Leipold, Johannes and Siegfried Morenz. 1953. Heilige Schriften: Betrachtungen zur Religionsgeschichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Tucci, G. 1947. “Prajñ?p?ramit?pind?rtha of Dign?ga.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1: 53–75.
Watts, James W. 2006. “The Three Dimensions of Scriptures,” Postscripts 2(2–3): 135–159.
Zachariae, Theodor. 1921. Goettingische gelehrte Anzeigen (Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften).
How to Cite
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.