What does the privileging of the ‘scripture in context’ approach say about Van Voorst’s viewpoint?
Robert Van Voorst defines the approach he uses and advocates (Asian scripture in the context of its use, ‘how it comes alive in the total life of the religion’) against the two earlier approaches in the study of religion: the initiation of creating and studying reliable translations in mid-19th century, and the later ‘History of Religions’ school (focusing on ritual, myth, symbol, and other non-textual elements). His view of this method, then, is articulated as one that came about due to a natural or historical progression. That is to say, it was the logical step in method in the study of religion.
Or more precisely comparative religions.
The comparative aspect is key to understanding what underlies his view: that a certain categorization of traditions and their aspects is, if not the end goal, an important facet in the differentiation.
While defining elements or natures of religions is necessary to explain them in an academic setting, any taxonomy will inevitably reveal a bias, which Van Voorst admittedly cautions against and addresses -- especially in terms of the existence of the study of religion itself as an endeavour made possible and informed by the Enlightenment and Protestantism. In other words, he reaffirms the very idea that there can be a social scientific approach to culture or any part of it, and also the primacy of the written word. As well, the use of the written word assumes literacy on the part of the audience. This historically and even currently is not the case for the majority of the population, even without language barriers (this Van Voorst does acknowledge in terms of scripture itself).
BUT this leaves in question what or whom academic work is for: that it is created by and for a group with a certain level of literacy and knowledge and opportunity, not accessible to everyone (in other words, is, for instance, Asian scripture, being studied and explained by a group for that group?).
Working within that academic setting, Van Voorst gives several examples of the categorization of religions and concepts used in the study: insider/outsider, different kinds of scripture (narrative, law, poetry, philosophy, etc.), cognitive/non-cognitive and informative/performative uses of scripture and ‘religions of the book’ (for example Judaism and Islam), therefore using language to designate both concrete and abstract aspects of religions. And however much an academic bias is acknowledged, the act of applying language to anything boxes it in. That is to say that in defining a use of scripture, for example in meditation, contains it. And by repeating the terms and labels for the uses or behaviours, etc., they become more enshrined.
Also within Van Voorst’s view is the frequent use of binaries, such as cognitive/non-cognitive and more importantly in his discussion of the ‘especially sacred’ nature of scripture for the religious community. It could be said that by making that particular distinction (sacred/profane, even if it is a definition of convenience for the intended audience) imposes a worldview that makes a specific distinction about objects and space. Even though Van Voorst likely intends to impart the specialness of the texts, the word "sacred" has another dimension to it (known to its intended audience) This, of course, would not hold necessarily true for the religions discussed within Van Voorst’s text.
Exterior shot of the Temple of Religion at the 1939 World's Fair in New York.
4 comments:
I see what you are saying about the bias created by comparing religious texts, considering vastly different meaning and use of language across the world. How could we say that people without the use of written language are without religion at the source? I like how you ask the question, who is religious text for if the majority doesn't have access to it? This raises the long standing problem of priests, brahmins, Saducees, or any other group of religious leaders who maintain power over a religious group by being the only ones who have access to the text. What does that say for the meaning of scripture to the majority?
Hi Jennifer,
I thought you made some really great points. In particular I really liked how you brought out the distinction between the groups being discussed (those who adhere to Asian scripture), and those who the book is addressed to: an academic audience who is (hopefuly!) aware of the limitations of taxonomy, but also how it is almost necessary, in some sense, as a sort of short hand, in order to have a coherent discussion. Or am I reading too much into what you said? If so, sorry, and I really liked all of your other points!
Hi Jen,
I really liked the question you posed which reminds us that one must be aware of the intended audience for the academic work - whether it is for those outside or inside the religions mentioned. I think it makes one more aware not just of the biases present but of the approach taken by the author of the work as well. The written work itself is already limiting as you have mentioned, considering the majority of the population are illiterate, and then the issue with the language barrier and of course accessibility. Even the religious practitioners themselves may only be receiving the second hand version of the scripture, or a commentary of it due to limitations in terms of access to the text and illiteracy. This in itself I'm sure creates some sort of limitations in the study.
Your line of reasoning is interesting, especially how you defined the term sacred towards the end of your blog. I also liked how you posed the question who is religious text for? Thus, applying who gets to interpret religous texts and what gives them this power. Does these "outsiders" (people outside of the religion) get to say or determine how a religious text is used?
Post a Comment