Defining Scripture

All of the so-called "World Religions" -- and a great many of the other religions as well -- have "scriptures." It would seem a simple thing, then, to say what that means. But a definition of the word "scripture" is surprisingly elusive. On the surface, it is simply the Latin word for a "written thing." But that would include pretty much anything from the "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. We are going to need to find a definition that allows us to draw some line between those and the special texts of Hinduism, Islam, Christian Science and the rest. We have two options. We can define the word, then include anything that meets the criteria of our definition. Or we can list the various things we call "scripture," and try to find the common characteristics.

One suggestion might be to define "scripture" as "sacred text." That simply pushes the question over a step. What makes a text "sacred?" Is there something inherent in a sacred text that is not present in an "unsacred" text? If we argue that the subject matter of a sacred text is "God," we will meet objections from two sides. First, there are many texts whose subject is "God" that are not recognized by anyone as scripture, such as Dostyoevsky's novella The Grand Inquisitor. From the other side, there are many works that are recognized as scripture that do not concern themselves with "God" at all - the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) includes the book of Esther, in which "God" is not even mentioned.

Perhaps one might argue that "sacred" lies in a text's ultimate origin. If the source of the text is divine, it is thereby sacred. There are a number of problems here, as well. First, how does one know that the source is divine? While the Qur'an is unambiguous in its claim to come from Allah, neither the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Rig Veda, or Tao Te Ching lay any such claim for themselves. Even in the case of the Qur'an, the claim does not necessarily make it so. Many of the Jewish apocryphal works of the 100s B.C.E. and 100s C.E. make such a claim, but the claim was never accepted. A second question is simply, "What does it mean to have a divine origin?" Does such an assertion mean that the words themselves are "God's" own words? Or does the notion of "an inspired work" mean something more like we mean when we say Mozart's "Requiem" was inspired?

Others might simply argue that "scripture" is "true revelation." This, of course, needs a prepositional statement: "True revelation" about what? Chilton's might offer a "true revelation" about the engine in my car, but few seriously use the word "scripture" for this. Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time may offer true revelation about the workings of the universe, but no one calls that "scripture" either. But if one were to try to restrict the "true revelation" to "God," the question returns to the way we might evaluate such a claim. The Qur'an, Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Avesta (of Zoroastrianism) make very different assertions about "God." An honest reader will admit that refereeing their claims is simply not possible. After all, the Hebrew Bible asks, "Who has ascended into heaven and returned?" (The Christian assertion that Jesus has is not going to help much, since Jesus himself did not write a single scripture.) The fall-back on "faith" as the witness to truth simply forces us to ask, "Whose faith?"

Furthermore, the application of "true revelation" to "God" is a de facto expulsion of the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics," and many other texts that are accepted as scripture by one group or another. They simply do not concern themselves with "God." And why should they? The one who answers that question is reflecting their own bias in whatever answer they offer.

In the end, to embrace an a priori definition is an act of subjectivity. What makes the story in Genesis of Noah's ark in the flood scripture and the Akkadian story of Atrahasis' boat in the flood not? Is it simply that there are no Akkadians here today to stand up for Atrahasis?

Our other option is to gather all the various things called "scripture" and ask, "What do they hold in common?" Even an abbreviated list of such texts is daunting:

The list varies in literary genre, degree of antiquity, understanding of authorship, central concerns, and role and function. What they share, however, is the conviction of each text's community that THIS text is different from other texts. For different reasons, religious groups sanctify a particular work. That is to say, the sacredness of a text is the product of tradition. One generation of believers decides that THIS text is special, and they teach the next generation that such is true. As long as successive generations accept what their predecessors have taught, the text is "scripture."

"Scripture" is perhaps defined more by what a text does than by what it says. This phenomenology is ex post facto, a judgment of the recipients of a text rather than of its creator. In this, defining "scripture" is only slightly different from defining a literary "classic." A literary classic must, for instance, offer an enjoyable reading experience, but moreover it must offer some depth. The difference between a Sue Grafton novel and an For Whom the Bell Tolls is not the pleasure, but the possibilities. "Scripture," on the other hand, may or may not actually make for a pleasurable read. But it does offer a number of its own rewards. It may

• provide a reasonable moral system
• make sense of the seeming chaos of daily life
• direct us to a path to a satisfying individual life
• create a community from disparate peoples
• provide a widely accepted justification of a political, social or economic system

Few texts will meet all of these, but it is safe to say that "scripture" always meets at least one, usually more.

But history is littered with texts that once were scripture and are no more. The Enuma Elish (Babylon), the Shepherd of Hermas (Christianity), and the Táin Bó Cúailnge (Irish) have all fallen into disuse and thus no longer merit the title "scripture."

There are, however, many texts that are still used, are still considered special, and yet are not normally called "scripture." The Nicene Creed of Christianity is recited weekly by perhaps hundreds of millions of believers in congregations of several denominations. It is normative, in that a believer who rejects any of its assertions (such as the trinitarian understanding of "God," the incarnation, or the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) is deemed outside "the true faith." It is a written text and it is 1700 years old. Yet, is it "scripture"? That same question can be asked of the Hadith of Islam, the poetry of Rumi, and even the American Declaration of Independence.Indeed, there may already exist "scriptures" that simply await the imprimatur of time and tradition.