Talk:Religious text/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this article on sacred texts or http://www.sacred-texts.com/ ?

---

Are there any studies to show that the composition of sacred texts generally accompanied the introduction of writing in ancient communities? I am interested in learning more about the history of religion, particularly in whether the monopoly of learning held by priests in many communities can account for statements such as "And the Word was God" as occurs in St John's Gospel. Could it be that the origin of sacred texts was actually the result of common people believing priests' claims that the magic of writing was god-given? When writing was introduced it must have given immense power to the people who understood it (a bit like the internet today), and therefore it seems plausible that the notion of sacred texts was useful to them in retaining their position of power. Matt Stan 11:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If such a connection could be shown and accepted then that knowledge could help to undermine fundamentalism, or at least prevent its spread among informed people? Matt Stan 11:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you are mixing things up. At the time when the Christian scripture was written, in the 1st century, there was absolutely nothing sacred seen about writing. In fact, people back then were much more literate than you may give them credit for. But obviously, writing was a way to distribute the information that needed to be distributed, just like it is now. If Jesus Christ were crucified and risen today, his followers would have used Internet to spread the message, no doubt, even though nobody sees anything sacred about it. Back then all they could do was write it down.

In general, the writing done of the scripture has to do first and foremost with preservation of the faith and doctrine. The Pentateuch presumably was written so that the priests could study the unadelturated Law and be able to teach it properly. It merits noting that only religions that have openly published written scripture have actually historically survived, some of them at least. Those that relied largely oral tradition or on "hidden" sacred texts, like the ancient Egyptian or Greek religions, got wiped out. Watcher

---

Someone just redirected Scripture to Sacred text. They aren't really the same thing, are they? There are several sacred texts listed here that are *not* considered "scripture". Scripture implies a divine origin, but a sacred text does not. I for one, as a Pagan, am very uncomfortable seeing Pagan texts listed under "Scripture" since we don't believe there is such a thing. --Dmerrill

Don't we???

---

The American Heritage Dictionary entry for 'scripture' from dictionary.com:

Scrip·ture (skrip' ch@r) n.
  1a. A sacred writing or book.
  1b. A passage from such a writing or book.
  2. The sacred writings of the Bible (...) .
  3. scripture A statement regarded as authoritative.

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Neither subsense of the first sense mentions anything about divine origin. In my mind, this justifies my #REDIRECT. --Damian Yerrick

---

Some of these, such as the Hawaiian mythology (and the Maori mythology) one, are not actually sacred texts. I know I'm the one that added it, and I do think it should be on this list (or a similar one at a different title) but it is not a text. IIRC, it's actually taboo to write it down; at the very least, it is traditionally spoken only. Any suggestions about a new title, or just a new paragraph explaining that "text" may not be entirely accurate. Sacred works, maybe? I don't really like that one, but it's the best I can come up with. Tokerboy 01:36 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

What is "A Course In Miracles" and of which religion is it a sacred text? -- Zoe

ACIM is a "New Age" religion based on this book, the author of which is supposedly Jesus Christ. That'S about all I know about it, except that it is significant enough a movement to warrant an article. Mkweise 18:29 21 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I've noticed a couple of examples of sacred texts that don't appear to belong here:

• Finnish mythology: Kalevala -- The Kalevala was written by Elias Lönnrot in 1849, long after Finnland had embraced Christianity. He assembled the materials -- oral traditions furnished people who were also at least nominal Christians -- assuming that originally it was a unified epic, along the lines of Homer's Iliad. I am unaware anyone has ever treated the Kalevala as a sacred text.
• Welsh mythology: The Mabinogion -- Again, another collection of stories assembled in the 19th century in a country that had long embraced Christianity from sources (in this case, medieval texts) who were also at least nominal Christians. Again, I am unaware anyone has ever treated the Mabinogion as a sacred text.

These works, however, are of interest as preserving mythological materials, much as Bulfinch's Mythology. Not all myths have a religious purpose; not all religious texts have narratives which could (or could not) be understood as myths. -- llywrch 18:35, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. only texts who are claimed to be divinely inspired at least in parts should be listed. Certainly not texts like the Kalevala or the "Charge of the Goddess" for which there is no claim of inspiration. I'm removing some of those. dab 12:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

dog bites man

From the article:

Even non-believers often capitalize the names of sacred scriptures as a mark of respect or of tradition.

Aren't names normally capitalized, regardless of sacredness, respect, or tradition? It might be better to say that non-believers occasionally decapitalize names as a mark of deliberate disrespect, if that is what is being alluded to [I know similar happens with "God" used as a proper name.] —Muke Tever 06:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Content removal

In this edit, User:Dbachmann removed (obviously in good faith) a number of texts, stating that "a Religious text is not the same as a Sacred text". While that is true, religious text redirects here, so I think either they should be returned (possibly in a separate list) or a full article on religious texts chould be made. Comments? Nikola 12:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)