2 
The Sacred Book
2 CARL OLSON
Adherents recognize a book as sacred in hindsight after compilers and editors have assembled its parts. A particular book is considered sacred when adherents acknowledge the authoritative nature of the source of the book, which they may believe to be divine or human. When a collection of messages is considered sacred, it is set apart from other types of literature, which are often considered profane or mundane. A sacred book is complete and does not need to be complemented by anything else, although it may invite a commentary to expound its inner meaning. By its very nature, a sacred book represents order, unity, and perfection. A sacred book is also powerful because it can overawe, overwhelm, or inspire a reader or hearer with its message. Although such power is ambivalent because it is both creative and destructive, it also possesses the ability to affect things or persons by forcing them to move or behave in a certain manner, which is indicative of the book’s dynamic power to transform people and events. The power inherent within a sacred book contains, moreover, a compulsive aspect because it can coerce and prohibit actions; in short, it exercises control over people and their behaviour. Because of its foundation in an authoritative source—divine or human—readers or listeners are persuaded by the sacred book’s message, and they are convinced by its truthfulness to accept it and to live their lives according to its injunctions.
Since a sacred book postulates a fundamental religious message, or makes claims without demonstration, it can function as a performative act in the sense of making something happen, which can assume the guise of faith discovered, knowledge gained, or salvation secured. If to postulate is to take an action that is grounded in a social context, it involves performing a sacred utterance. Lacking material significata (on some levels at least), the sacred book is invulnerable to falsification by reference to natural data within the world. Although a sacred book cannot be falsified by empirical or logical means, it also cannot be objectively or logically verified. Instead of looking at the book as an object that is sacred, it is preferable to concentrate on the sanctity of its religious discourse. It is thus, for instance, not Jesus or the Buddha who are sacred; rather, the discourse proclaiming them respectively divine or enlightened is sacred. This does not preclude the sacred book from being treated with respect and even reverence as a sacred object by its adherents, but it refocuses the notion of the sacred book onto its discourse. Although the sacred book can be discovered in many religious traditions, this essay, for reasons of economy, only considers the formative periods of the major monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Because of the large number of sacred books throughout the world, it is impossible to cover all the worthy candidates. Among the sacred books excluded from this survey are: the Book of Mormon revealed to Joseph Smith of the Latter-Day Saints, which shares its status with the Bible for Mormons; the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism: the Yasna, Yashts, and Venidad; the Confucian classics, the products of sages, which include the following five classics: I-Ching (Book of Changes); Shih-Ching (Book of Poetry); Shu-Ching (Book of History); Li-Chi (Book of Rites); and Ch’un-Ch’iu (Spring and Autumn Annals); the sacred books of Taoism contained in the Tao Tsang, a depository of texts that contains such classics as the Tao Te Ching, attributed to Lao Tzu, and the Chuang Tzu, named for the sage of the text.
Passed by oral tradition from one generation to another over centuries, the sacred writings of the ancient Jews did not constitute a single sacred scripture: their literature represented a collection of 24 separate books that they came to call the Bible (Gk biblia, ‘books’)—not the Old Testament, which was assembled later by Christians from a prejudicial and theological position. The separate books of the ancient Jews represented a narrative about God’s interaction with His chosen people. Within this dramatic narrative, the major themes of Israel’s faith were related, which included the promise of the ancient patriarchs to be faithful to their deity, the divine deliverance of Israel from Egypt, divine guidance while wandering in the wilderness, the bestowing of the law at Sinai to the prophet Moses, and the inheritance of the promised land. This narrative is often shortened to and summarized as ‘the Exodus event’, which depicts God’s redemptive work for his people, and not simply a matter of political liberation from servitude. The Exodus event, during which God acted in history, functions as the sign of His revelation and divine presence. Divine intervention for the benefit of His chosen people means that history becomes the acts of God and thus meaningful. Therefore, the narrative of God’s active intervention in history informs the Jewish community about what God has done (past), what God is doing (present), and what God will do (future), which unifies the three moments of time into a meaningful configuration.
The ancient Jews referred to their collection of books as Tanakh, (see 8), a term derived from the first letters of all three divisions: Torah (Law), Nevi’im (prophets), and Kituvim (hagiographa). The initial, most important, and authoritative division is the Torah (Law, also meaning ‘instruction’, ‘teaching’), which includes the so-called Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Scholars refer to the Pentateuch as the Hexateuch, which is derived from the Greek term meaning ‘five scrolls’ (five books plus Joshua). The Torah represented God’s gift to the people of Israel. This gift was, however, conditional upon the people’s acceptance of the divine commandments and their obedience to them as the chosen people.
God’s scriptural gift to his chosen people was given in Hebrew, a divine language. However, that the Jews lost the language before the Bible was finalized is evident in the Book of Daniel, which was composed in Aramaic. By the post-Exilic period, Aramaic had become the preferred language for translating the Jewish scriptures, and the 2nd century BC marked a time when many Jews read a Greek Septuagint or an Aramaic version. An oral tradition which preceded the Jewish scriptures assumed the form of the scroll (Isa. 34:4) or a roll made of papyrus, leather, or parchment (Jer. 36:14; Ezek. 2:9). Hebrew writing used Canaanite characters, which were eventually replaced with an Aramaic form of script known as the ‘square script’. The process of writing was accomplished by using metal implements for the hard surfaces of stone and metal. A stylus was used for writing on clay or wax, a brush for various materials with paint or ink, and a reed pen with ink.
The prophetic literature is divided into the earlier prophets of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, while the later prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. Finally, the mixed collection called Ketubim (writings) includes works such as the Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and the moral stories of Job, Ruth, and Esther. The writings also include the wisdom of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and the historical Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, with both sets of works representing two texts in a single collection. The final collecting, fixing, preservation, and canonization of the Pentateuch occurred during the Babylonian Exile (Ezra 7:14, 25), which was a period centuries removed from the events recounted in the books.
Modern biblical scholars view the Pentateuch as a composite work representing several major traditions that have been artfully woven together. Scholars have identified four main literary strands, signified by the letters J, E, D, and P. The J literary contribution represents the earliest source originating from the period of the early monarchy (950 BC), whereas the E sources can be dated to the time of the Northern Kingdom (about 750 BC). The D literary strand’s best example is the book of Deuteronomy, which dates from the period of the Southern Kingdom (about 650 BC or even later). The P source refers to priestly influence, and dates from the time of the fall of the nation in 587 BC. The entire Pentateuch assumed its present shape around 400 BC. The Pentateuch’s written stage was preceded by at least three centuries of oral transmission, and it came to be recognized as the written Law (Torah). The prophets and hagiographa became canonized after the destruction of the Second Temple.
Along with the written Law, Jews recognized an oral law that was developed by the Pharisaic teachers and their successors. The oral law took the form of scriptural exegesis. Rabbinic law was summarized in the Mishnah, while the gemara consisted of reports of broad discussions about the Mishnaic text, which was the basic text of the oral Torah. Dating to around the 3rd century AD and containing the legal teachings of the Tannaim, or earliest rabbinic authorities, the Mishnah is a collection of originally oral laws divided into six orders according to subject-matter, devoid of direct reference to the Pentateuch (written Torah). In addition, Rabbinic Judaism gave birth to the Talmud, containing analysis and elaboration of rabbinic lore (aggadah), which is prominent in the collection known as the Midrash that originated in the academies of Palestine and Babylonia. Within the Talmud, legal (halakhah) aspects dominate the text.
The early Christian community did not possess its own sacred book, and any such notion would have probably struck its members as strange. It did, however, make use of the Hebrew Bible, although it tended to read predictions of the Christ figure into the text. From the perspective of his followers, Jesus did not bring a scripture. His actions, charismatic persona, and message represent his revelation, or ‘Good News’, to the faithful. When a Christian scripture began to evolve its development was uneven, because of a lack of self-conscious effort and a consistent deliberation about what constituted a scripture.
The letters of Paul are the earliest extant Christian literature, dating from around the mid-1st century, and preserved and gathered into a collection by its end. These letters were called ‘letters to the seven churches’, because seven was a symbol of wholeness in the ancient world and in this context implied the entire Church. Although the letters are addressed to particular congregations and their problems, Paul’s message is intended for a wider audience, an evolving community, and considers its struggle to survive in the hostile sociocultural environment of the Graeco-Roman world. For his message, Paul claimed that his authority came directly from Jesus, the resurrected Lord and Saviour.
Paul’s letters were intended to be read aloud to an audience, which was also true of the Hebrew Bible and other documents of the New Testament. Within the context of the ancient Graeco-Roman world, all reading was performed aloud, as Paul instructed his letters should be read (1 Thess. 5:27). The sense of a text was thus to be gained by listening to its being proclaimed. When Paul’s letters were read aloud, for instance to a church community, the letters evoked the apostle’s presence.
In contrast to Paul’s letters, the Gospels are more narratives and interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus. The word ‘gospel’ is derived from the Greek word evangelion, which means ‘good news’—in the New Testament this becomes the good news of salvation, rather than its prior meaning associated with the welfare of the emperor. The authority of these texts was grounded in the words and deeds of Jesus, which were preserved by memory and transmitted orally. The Gospels were composed by anonymous authors, who named their works after a disciple of Jesus, and they consisted of Mark (composed c.65–70), Matthew and Luke (c.80–90), and John (c.90–100). In an effort to collect and codify various traditions about Jesus and sayings attributed to him, each Gospel writer sought to interpret the meaning of Christianity for his specific constituencies. The anonymous authors derived their authority from the various communal traditions rooted in the teaching and deeds of Jesus. During their formative period, the Gospels were considered valuable historical testimonies; it was not until later that they were considered scripture. The traditions about Jesus were preserved by memory and circulated orally.
If the four Gospels are compared with each other, striking differences emerge between John and the synoptic (meaning that they present a common view) Gospels. Few of the events in Jesus’ life recorded, for instance, in the synoptic Gospels are discovered in John. Besides missing events, the location and chronology of Jesus’ ministry are different in John, along with style and language. The close literary relationship of the synoptics reflects another problem associated with their similarities. There is general agreement among scholars that Mark is the earliest and that Matthew and Luke used it as a foundation for their Gospels. In addition, the writer of Mark was not precisely an author but rather a redactor, connecting units of an oral tradition. Scholars tend to agree that much of Mark is discovered in Matthew and Luke: the arrangement and sequence of material support a theory of dependence on Mark, and numerous parallel passages indicate that Matthew and Luke tried to improve on Mark’s literary style and language. Material missing in Mark is also found in Matthew and Luke. What accounts for the absent material in Mark? Scholars have rejected the possibility that they borrowed from each other, and have concluded that it would be more reasonable to assume they used an independent source. German scholars dubbed this source quelle, which was abbreviated to ‘Q’. This means that Matthew and Luke used two sources: Mark and Q. Scholars think that Q was probably a written document because of the verbal agreements between the two Gospels. Scholars also tend to think that Q (dated around 50 AD) existed prior to Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, Matthew and Luke both had access to oral or written traditions independent of Mark: these are called the M and L sources.
Scholars arrived at this general consensus about the Gospels by using three types of criticism: source, form, and redaction. Source criticism examines the origins of the texts, whereas form criticism is a discipline that goes behind the written sources to examine the period of the oral tradition. Redaction criticism is an analysis of the editorial work in relation to sources.
In addition to the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, what came to be called the New Testament also included the Acts of the Apostles, letters of Peter, James, and Jude, and the Book of Revelation, which was attributed to John, author of the Gospel. As the Christian Church developed, numerous prescriptive lists of authentic texts existed in many Christian assemblies (ekklesiai). These various lists were called canons (Gk kanones, ‘measures’, ‘standards’), so called because connected with criteria associated with authenticity. The formation of the fourfold Gospels occurred, for instance, by the late 2nd century, and was generally accepted by the faithful in the 3rd. The Gospels gained scriptural status as a group rather than as individual texts—a development suggesting that their authority was grounded in their collective nature.
If the early period of the primitive Christian Church emphasized the oral nature of Jesus’ message, why were the Gospels committed to writing? New Testament scholars have offered several plausible reasons for a turn to writing the Gospels. The death of the apostles, or those closest to Jesus during his life, induced a fear about losing the tradition of Jesus. The developing Church wanted to know how to deal with persecution by learning from Jesus. The primitive Church also struggled to define and understand itself separately from Judaism. And it wondered how it could appeal to the Gentiles without losing its original Jewish identity. Finally, the problem associated with the delay of the parousia (second coming of Jesus) and the end of the world served as motivating factors in committing Jesus’ message to writing.
Although Christianity was an apocalyptic sect within Palestinian Judaism and Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, the world of the New Testament was dominated by Greek language and culture; the language itself had been transformed from classical Attic Greek into koinē (common) or Hellenistic Greek, which became the language of the New Testament. Using material such as papyrus, parchment, or wooden tablets, Christians preferred the codex (book-like form), previously used for letter-writing and record-keeping, over the scroll employed in Judaism or for Greek literature. Scholars have offered several reasons for the adoption of the codex, such as economy, compactness, convenience, ease of reference, or usage of an already familiar medium and practical means of communication. A four-Gospel codex was used to preserve the best-known and most widely accepted texts for everyday usage as handbooks for the Christian community.
As New Testament texts gained canonical status, the issue of a sacred language never really developed because Christian scripture spread quickly and into a variety of vernaculars. This situation changed when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin during the 4th century. The Latin version of the scriptures became the sacred language of the Roman Catholic Church until Martin Luther, a former Catholic priest turned Protestant reformer, translated the Bible into German with the purpose of making the text more accessible to ordinary people in the 16th century.
Fifteen years after his marriage to an older woman, the prophet Muḥahmmad, then 40 years old, began to have strange experiences in a cave on Mount Hira, located outside the city of Mecca in Arabia. Some experiences came to him as visions, others as vivid dreams, and some as words on his heart, without his imagining that he had heard anything. An early vision was that of a glorious being standing erect in the sky, who Muḥammad thought was God. Muḥammad later interpreted a voice which spoke to him from behind a veil as being an angel that he finally identified with the angel Gabriel.
When he received his first revelation (96.1–5), Muḥammad was commanded by the heavenly messenger to speak, and he refused at first. After a second command, he asked what he should recite; at the third command, he spoke the 96th sūra of the Qur’ān. The term ‘recite’ (iqra) is derived from the same Arabic root as Qur’ān, which implies a verbal revelation that is closely related to inspiration. Although the command to recite implies that public worship was to be instituted, when Muḥammad began his public preaching in 613 and presented himself to the people of Mecca as God’s messenger, his message was met with opposition. Yet he eventually won adherents to his message about the power and goodness of God, the coming final day of judgement, the need to respond to God with gratitude and worship, and his own vocation as the final prophet.
The process of revelation is called wahy in Arabic; it embodies the connotation of verbal inspiration through the mind or heart (26.193–5). Muslims believe that the revelation of the Qur’ān is based on a ‘heavenly book’ that is preserved in the presence of God, and it is called the ‘Mother of the Book’ (43.1–4) (see 40). The aim of the revelation (6.19) is intended to be a warning to hearers, and what is revealed is the order (amr) or command of God. The command is revealed in Arabic in order to facilitate understanding. The best way for a person to receive the message is to memorize it, a practice that keeps the revelation in one’s mind.
According to the orthodox understanding of its origin, the Qur’ān represents the eternal word of God in book form. The prophet Muḥammad was not the author of the uncreated word; he was only its recipient. In fact, Muḥammad is referred to as ‘the illiterate prophet’ (7.157–8) in order to emphasize that it would have been impossible for him to compose it. The Qur’ān was revealed periodically over a period of about twenty years, not all at one time. The angel Gabriel gave the words of the revelation, although Muḥammad did not write the words himself. There are Islamic traditions that refer to others writing the revelation on available material—such as stones, bones, parchment, leather, palm leaves, and the hearts of men—which led to diverse writings inviting assembly into a coherent collection. According to a traditional account of the collection of the pieces of the revelation, after the battle of Yamanah, not long after Muḥammad’s death, many reciters of the revelation were killed. ’Umar ibn al-Khattāb, who was to become the second caliph, became alarmed about preserving the contents of the revelation, and suggested to Abū Bakr, the first caliph, that it be collected and written down. Zayd ibn Thābit, who was commissioned by Abū Bakr, began to collect the revelation, and the efforts that he initiated led to four early collections in different locations; but none of these texts has survived. Because of serious differences among these four collections, the third caliph, ’Uthmān, urged an end to disputes caused by textual variations by commissioning a revised text. A guiding principle in resolving disputed versions was the preference given to the Quraish tribal dialect of the prophet Muḥammad.
There is a twofold separation of the Qur’ān into a ritual division of 30 approximately equal portions; it is also divided into 114 sūras (a term of Syrian origin, meaning ‘writing’ or ‘text of scripture’). As a general rule, the title of a sūra has no reference to the subject matter of the text. The heading is instead taken from some prominent term in the sūra, such as ‘The Bees’ (16) or ‘The Cave’ (18). Each sūra is dated to either the Meccan or Medinan period, according to where the prophet was living at the time of the revelation. With the exception of sūra 11, all sūras begin with the bismillah phrase: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate’. In 29 of the sūras, this is followed by mysterious letters or a letter of the alphabet. Each sūra is divided into verses (āyāt, ‘sign’). The sūras are written in rhymed prose in verses without metre or definitely fixed length; they end with a rhyme or assonance. The Qur’ān itself acknowledges the composite nature of the sūras when it refers to the piecemeal nature of its delivery (17.106).
Within the sūras, Allah speaks often in the first person singular (51.56). Sometimes God is referred to in the third person, and some passages are clearly spoken by angels (19.65), but only in a few passages does Muḥammad actually speak (27.93). The orthodox position is that the Qur’ān is the literal word of Allah, because it is believed that God is speaking through the angels and the prophet.
A puzzling feature of the Qur’ān to outsiders is its doctrine of abrogation, which stipulates that a later verse might nullify an earlier one. This doctrine fits into a cultural context in which people accepted the existence of spirits and a satanic being that might have deluded Muḥammad into believing that he had received a revelation when in fact he received a demonic message. Such a false passage could be corrected by a later revelation that nullifies the earlier revelation and replaces it with a corrected version in some cases.
The revelation was given in Arabic, or the language of God, according to Muslim tradition, and it was collected in the form of the codex. Arabic presented linguistic challenges for readers because of a lack of vowel signs, diacritical marks, and other orthographic signs, which were necessary in order to differentiate similarly formed consonants. The Qur’ān’s language is pre-Islamic Arabic.
A non-revelatory body of literature distinct from the Qur’ān is the ḥadīth (a term that embodies the connotation of something ‘new’, ‘coming to pass’, and ‘occurrence’). It developed to mean ‘tradition’ in the form of a brief report about what the prophet said, did, approved, or disapproved, although it may also include information in Arabic and preserved in codices about his companions. Besides its textual aspect, the ḥadīth consisted of a transmissional chain (isnād), such as the following example: A says that he heard it from B, who received it on the authority of C, who said this on the authority of D that the prophet said. These reports were accepted as authoritative secondary sources of Islam by the middle of the 9th century. Scholars collected, sifted, and systematized the traditions until six collections became authoritative. When deciding which reports were authentic, scholars focused on the transmissional chain in an attempt to assess the character and reliability of the transmitters’ memories. They also considered the continuity of the transmission and whether or not each link in the transmission was strong and whether any links were broken. The ḥadīth is considered coeval and consubstantial with the sunnah (lit. ‘travelled path’) of the prophet, which embodies his exemplary conduct. The prophetic sunnah represents reports of Muḥammad’s being asked to decide a problem for which no precedent existed. It thereby represents a living tradition for each generation of Muslims, and serves as the norm of the community in the sense of functioning as agreed social practice and social consensus (ijmā‘). It is possible to differentiate sunnah and ḥadīth because the latter represents a report and something theoretical, whereas the former is the same report after it acquires a normative quality and becomes a practical principle as the non-verbal transmission of tradition. Besides the revelation, the Islamic tradition thus recognizes the sunnah, or exemplary conduct, of the prophet as a standard for behaviour.
Ancient Indian religious literature can be distinguished as the revealed (śruti) and that which is remembered (smṛti). The revealed literature includes the Vedas, whereas the remembered body of literature includes the following: Dharma Sūtras (approximate dates of composition 600–200 BC), the epic Mahābhārata (composed between approximately 300 BC and AD 300), the epic Rāmāyaṇa (composed between 200 BC and AD 200), and Purāṇas, which began to be composed around AD 400 (see 41).
The Vedic literature consists of four collections: Rig, Sāma, Yajur, and Atharva. Each of these collections of hymns is further divided into four revealed (śruti) sections: Saṃhita (mantra or sacred formula/utterance collection), Brāhmaṇa (theological and ritual commentary), Āraṇyaka (forest or wilderness texts), and Upaniṣad (speculative and secret philosophical texts). It is believed that divine beings revealed this literature orally to ancient sages (rishis), who heard them, preserved them within their memory, and passed the revealed hymns on to further generations by oral transmission. Eventually, the revealed hymns were written down in order to preserve and protect them from faulty memory and the vicissitudes of time. Although some Vedic seers attached their names to poems, readers should not construe this signature as a claim of authorship. It is merely an acknowledgement of the identity of the person who received the revelation. The divinely revealed origin of the Vedas gives this body of literature an unquestionable authenticity and authority over other bodies of literature that historically followed it.
The Rig Veda is the oldest collection of verses, consisting of 1,028 hymns, arranged in ten books called maṇḍalas (circles). Parts of Books 1 and 10 are the latest additions to the entire corpus followed by Book 9, which embodies hymns recited during the Soma sacrifice. The other books (2–7) are designated the family collections because they were preserved within family clans that memorized and transmitted them for future generations. Book 8 contains several more short family collections, representing the literary products of ancient sages or their patrilinear descendants. In fact, the various books are arranged according to author (i.e. family or clan), deity, and metre. In addition, hymns to specific deities are arranged according to length, with the longest at the beginning of the book. If hymns are of equal length, the hymn with a longer metre is placed first.
It is possible that the Rig Veda antedates the introduction and common use of iron, which means that its origin can be dated to around 1200 BC. According to internal textual evidence, the Vedas originated in northern India and spread to the Punjab and more eastern regions between c.1500 and c.400 BC. Members of the Angirasa and Kāṇva clans formed the bulk of its poets, who treated the hymns as the clans’ private property. In time, Vedic schools called Śākhās (branches) developed to control and protect the transmission of texts, which usually resulted in a school adhering to a specific text. These various schools created an interpretive body of literature as reflected in various Brāhmaṇic and sūtra types of literature.
The Sāma Veda, for instance, represents material drawn from the Rig Veda with the exception of 75 hymns. This collection of hymns is named for the chants (sāmans), which represent the earliest written form of music in Indian history, and is recited during the Soma sacrifice. As the priests recite these verses during the rite, they modify the verses. Finally, the Sāma Veda consists of two parts: an actual text (arcika) and the melodies (gāna).
The sacred formulas (mantras, lit. ‘instruments of the mind’) repeated by priests in rituals form the bulk of the Yajur Veda, or third Vedic collection. The sacred formulas are arranged according to ritual usage, not numerically. By reciting the sacred mantras (syllables, words, or verses), the chanter expresses eternal wisdom and the pre-existent sacred word itself. There were four major types of mantra chant: ṛcs, yajuses, sāmans, and atharvans, which conformed respectively to each of the major Vedic collections. The importance of mantras can be partially grasped by examining Hinduism’s two types of speech. The first type was that of the Asuras, or demonic beings: it was without form or order, uncontrollable and inarticulate, similar to the nature of the demonic forces of existence. The Vedic mantra was its exact opposite.
The Atharva Veda, or fourth Veda, consists of a collection of hymns focusing on magical and healing rites. In addition, there are hymns related to harmful sorcery and to speculative subjects; others are concerned with rites of passage (e.g. initiation and marriage); there are also two appendices. In sharp contrast to the Rig Veda, the collection begins with short works and increases to longer hymns.
Ancient Indian deities gave the Vedic poets a visionary insight that was conceived as a heart/mind transmission from a superior party to another inferior receiver. After receiving it from higher beings, the poet recites/chants the hymn. By orally reciting a hymn, the poet sends his inner spirit back to the realm of the divine beings who originally inspired the poet. Moreover, the uttering of a hymn about a particular deity sends that hymn back to its source, completing the cycle.
Because the ancient Vedic schools represented a priestly family or clan from a specific geographical area, tribe, or kingdom, and the schools distinguished themselves by their ritual procedures and pronunciation of words, there was no single or original canon of texts established and authenticated by an authoritative body of religious leaders. What we have are plural textual canons of different schools. Thus, the Vedic canon was a collective entity of Vedic texts used by various schools. Vedic literature became a canon by about 400 BC. There is evidence that it was acknowledged by the two grammarians: Pāṇini and Patañjali around 150 BC. Prior to this acknowledgement, the Vedas were also mentioned in the Pāli canon of Buddhism around 250 BC.
Attached to each of the four collections of the Vedas were Brāhmaṇas that explained the complex ritual system. Texts were added to various Brāhmaṇas to explain further the esoteric aspects of the rites. Some of these additional texts were called Āraṇyakas, others were called Upaniṣads, although there was no sharp distinction between these new kinds of text. In addition to treating the ritual system, these esoteric texts also engaged in forms of cosmological and metaphysical speculation. Much like the four Vedas, these esoteric teachings were preserved orally for generations before assuming a written form. As with the Brāhmaṇic texts, particular Upaniṣads are associated with one of the four collections of the Vedas. The Aitareya and Kausītakī Upaniṣads are directly connected, for instance, with the Rig Veda, whereas the Kaṭha and Maitrāyanī Upaniṣads are associated with the Black Yajur Veda, and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Īśa Upaniṣads with the White Yajur Veda.
The Hindu religious tradition acknowledges the existence of 108 Upaniṣads, but it is generally agreed that there are thirteen major texts. Although it appears that the Upaniṣads evolved from the Āraṇyakas (forest texts) and it is difficult to distinguish between them, the oldest Upaniṣads are the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya. The Aitareya, Taittirīya, and Kauṣītaka followed these texts historically. This second group was subsequently followed by the composition of the following examples: Kena, Īśa, Ka ha, Śvetāśvatara, Praśna Muṇḍaka, Mahānārayana, Māṇḍūkya, and Maitrī. After the appearance of these thirteen major texts, many later Upaniṣads manifested a sectarian character by focusing on deities such as Śiva and Viṣṇu.
The meaning of the term Upaniṣad suggests sitting down near a teacher to receive secret instructions characteristic of an intimate student-teacher relationship. In addition to being secret and personal, the teaching context was characterized as relational and dialogical. Overall, the Upaniṣads are not the result of a single mind, but rather represent the pedagogical efforts of many ancient Indian teachers during a historical period of great social, economic, and religious change.
The Upaniṣads are called Vedānta (not to be confused with the historically later philosophical school of thought), because they represent the deepest secrets of the Vedas. Although the Upaniṣads develop some notions of the Vedas, they also introduce new ideas (at least in a primitive form) that shape Indian religious culture, and they transform some of the old notions into something fresh and innovative, such as karma (law of cause and effect), rebirth, immortal self (Ātman), ultimate reality (Brahman), and path to liberation (mokṣa).
A prevalent theme in the Upaniṣads is the importance of knowing. Although there are some Upaniṣads that discuss the centrality of devotion to a deity and the necessity of divine grace for salvation, such as the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, most Upaniṣads emphasize the importance of knowledge for attaining liberation, which is to be recovered, because the truth—the object of knowledge—is always present; it has been merely lost, and needs to be recovered and rediscovered. This is not an empirical or rational mode of knowledge, but instead an intuitive insight into the true nature of reality, which is a self-validating, transcendent, and infinite kind of knowledge.
The claim that the Vedic hymns were revealed oral literature suggests that the poets did not create the hymns themselves. They saw or heard the hymns from a deep, mysterious force, and received these messages with their mind and/or heart, which enabled them to grasp the true nature of things. The subtle structure of knowing symbolized by the human mind represented a transformative force that could effect change, produce desired results, and establish connections between humans and divine beings. Likewise, the human heart, which was considered similar to the mind, enabled a person to see what was not normally observable or knowable by ordinary social beings. These gifted, visionary poets were able to receive the revelation because they possessed an insight (dhī) or ability to see concealed truths. Once they possessed their visions, the poets were able to express these truths in the perfect language of Sanskrit, which allowed them an opportunity to conform themselves to the divine forces giving the messages. The visionary message received by the inspired Vedic poets also enabled them to view the cosmos as an integrated totality held together by a hidden structure (ṛta) that was closely associated with the truth (satya) and tapas (creative heat), that ushered into being the cosmos and continuously renewed life. Therefore, the inspired Vedic poets were in close touch with the very fabric of the cosmos and the creative forces that sustained it.
These Vedic poets were also the masters and custodians of Sanskrit, which was the language of the revealed hymns and thereby sacred. Sanskrit was inextricably linked with the inspired poets because it was associated with perfection. Sanskrit embodied brahman, a mysterious and hidden power that was not only contained within the words of the sacred language, but also functioned to hold the universe together. The power of brahman was revealed to the visionary poets. This was considered a sacred power that was directly associated with the sanctity of the scripture preserved in Sanskrit. Nonetheless, the scripture’s sanctity was not directly related to its intelligibility to either its hearer or its reciter. The words’ holiness was more probably inversely related to their comprehensibility. In other words, strange, mysterious, and unintelligible terms were considered more powerful. Moreover, the sanctity of a term was not something extra added to a word; rather, the holiness of a term was intrinsic to the word.
The importance of poetic inspiration and knowledge is further evident in the Sanskrit term veda, because it possesses the root meaning of ‘to see’, ‘vision’, and ‘knowing’. A master of the veda is a person able to see that which is concealed. In short, such a person can witness the eternal, powerful, divine forces of the universe. When the term veda is used as a noun, it signifies sacred knowledge. Becoming master or recipient of the veda is a transforming experience, because knowing the truth radically changes a person. This points to the powerful nature of knowledge—a conviction that runs like a thread throughout Indian cultural history.
Because of its nature and ramifications, revealed literature takes precedence over literature based on human memory. When there is a discrepancy between the two bodies of literature, a person must rely on revealed literature for guidance because it possesses greater authority than remembered literature. Holding revealed literature in higher regard than remembered literature because of its source in divine revelation and inspiration does not imply that the meaning of revealed literature is readily apparent and easy to discern. Scholarly commentaries are necessary to elicit a hymn’s meaning. Within the history of Indian culture, there is a long tradition of textual commentary and interpretation by learned individuals.
The revealed and remembered bodies of literature originated within the cultural context of an oral tradition, which means that the hymns of the Vedas were passed down from one generation to the next via oral transmission after the particular hymns were memorized. In this sense, much of Indian classical literature is related to memory, regardless of its revealed nature. In order to enhance memory and preserve the sacred hymns, priestly scholars devised elaborate methods to assist memory, and particular persons specialized in specific groups of texts to enhance the accuracy of their oral preservation. A person might, for instance, memorize each odd-numbered word of a hymn or every even-numbered term to enhance the correct transmission of the hymn.
Emphasis on the oral nature of ancient Indian sacred literature necessarily implies that scripture is not something written that can be reified. This suggests that scripture in India is not a well-defined entity with clearly established boundaries. The significance of and emphasis upon the oral transmission of hymns can be partially understood by the traditionally negative attitude towards writing in Indian culture. According to the ancient Aitareya Āraṇyaka (5.5.3), which originates in an esoteric section of a ritualistic Brahmanical text, the activity of writing is designated as ritually polluting and a person thus stained should avoid reciting the Vedas along with other polluting actions such as eating meat, seeing blood or a dead body, or after sexual intercourse. This attitude helps to explain the traditionally low social status of scribes in the culture.
Despite this negative attitude towards writing and the emphasis on oral transmission that continues into the present, the Vedas were written down around 1000 BC, according to Alberuni (973–1048), a learned scholar of Indian culture of his time period, in Kashmir. In the north, the earliest Indian MSS were composed on palm leaves using black ink; in the south, a stylus was used to scratch letters onto a leaf, which was subsequently blackened with soot. In Kashmir, birch bark was used, whereas other plant materials were used occasionally in Assam. Leather or parchment was avoided because their use involved the killing of animals and pollution, although Kashmiri Brahmins bound their birch bark books with leather. The words of the Vedas were written in the devanāgiri script (literally, the writing of the ‘city of the gods’).
There is basic agreement among scholars of Buddhism that an extraordinary and charismatic man lived around the 6th to 5th centuries BC in India, during a period of profound political, social, and economic change. This man is Siddhārtha Gautama, who became known as the Buddha (enlightened one). Distressed by the fundamental problems of human existence, he discovered a solution to these difficulties, spent his life wandering from one place to another teaching, established a monastic community that preserved and expounded his teachings for future generations, and died at around the age of 80. A substantial literature based on his teachings evolved after his death (see 41). Much of this claims to capture his actual teachings that were preserved in an oral tradition two centuries before being written down on pieces of bark, palm leaves, or other available material.
Because the Buddha gave instructions in local dialects, it would be inaccurate to refer to an original Buddhist language, although the closest thing was probably Old Māgadhī, which was the primary language for his teaching. Pāli preserves Old Māgadhī, and it was the language used by missionaries when they took the Buddha’s message to Sri Lanka, where it became accepted as a textual language. According to Sinhalese chronicles, writing of the Pāli canon began in the middle of the 1st century BC because of the decline of reciters, war, and famine; the monastic community preserved the canon on wood products bound together by leather strips.
The religious message contained in this literature is not very complicated: the Buddha provides some simple summaries of his basic teachings. These summaries were called the dhamma (Sanskrit dharma). The first summary of his teaching and analysis of human existence is embodied in the Four Noble Truths: (1) all life is suffering; (2) ignorant craving is the cause of suffering; (3) the attainment of Nibbāna (Sanskrit Nirvāṇa) ends suffering; (4) the Eightfold Path is the means of attaining the goal. This path is an interdependent way of wisdom, ethical/moral action, and meditation. The other summary of the Buddha’s teachings is contained in the three marks of existence: (1) impermanence due to the cycle of causation that creates a constant state of flux; (2) suffering; (3) non-self. Since everything within the world is subject to the cycle of causation, there is nothing within the empirical realm that is permanent. Moreover, there is nothing permanent about the self, ego, or soul to which humans can cling. The Buddha’s basic teaching is that it is important to cut out our love of self, which functions as a means of keeping us confined to this realm of suffering, cyclic causation, ignorance, rebirth, and suffering. The teachings are intended to carry a person to a non-empirical realm beyond the cycle of causation and rebirth, freedom from ignorant craving, and liberation from suffering. This transcendent state of Nibbāna, which represents the exact opposite of the characteristics of the world, can only be achieved while one is alive, with an enlightened person gaining a permanent state of liberation after death.
After the Buddha’s death, a series of councils sought to establish the authenticity of his teachings and to create a canon of sacred literature. Buddhism was able to thrive, find stability, and expand within the social, political, and cultural context created by the Mauryan Dynasty (322–183 BC), which advocated tolerance and support for many religious groups. King Aśoka gave royal support for Buddhism, converting to it late in his life. He transformed it into a missionary religion, which helped it to expand to countries in South Asia, and north to Central Asia and into China, whence it spread to Korea and then to Japan.
Ancient Buddhism traces the origin of its scripture to the personal insights of a human being. Moreover, as the historical Buddha became more revered and exalted in the minds and hearts of his followers, his words became a sacred body of literature due to its origin in the utterances of this historical person. There is thus nothing divinely unique about Buddhist scripture—it is not something that occurred once in history. From the Buddhist perspective, its scriptures are facts about the nature of human existence and the world: they are not the revelation of some deity. This lack of uniqueness should not be construed as a negative characteristic. Rather, Buddhists have tended to place the Buddha’s teachings within a broader context because his discourses, based on his personal religious quest and discovery, occurred repeatedly during the lives of previous Buddhas. The historical Buddha merely rediscovered what was known by prior enlightened beings. Thus, the achievement of the historical Buddha represented an awareness of an eternal body of truths that had also been realized by prior figures. This type of belief undermines any possible claim about the uniqueness of the Buddha’s achievement. Consequently, what the Buddha taught is fundamentally the same as that taught by other, prior Buddhas. This teaching is always present as a realized possibility for others. Furthermore, the long line of sequential teaching by Buddhas of the past means that enlightenment is not merely an ever-present possibility, but an actuality. The possibility and actuality of enlightenment suggest that there is always the potential for a newer awakening to the eternal truth that can take place within the Buddhist community. Moreover, this suggests that a sacred Buddhist text possesses no intrinsic value. It is only valuable if someone uses it as a guide. Once such a person attains enlightenment, the sacred text can be abandoned and even rejected because it possesses no further utility.
The Buddhist attitude towards scripture is grounded in its understanding of language, which it views as an impermanent human product. Since it is a basic Buddhist philosophical presupposition that everything within the world is impermanent, the impermanent and non-absolute nature of language means that it does not possess an enduring structure or metaphysical status. Lacking any intrinsic value, words are only valuable in an instrumental way. Thus, the value of words resides in their ability to accomplish something.
During the formative period of the historical evolution of Buddhism, its literature was organized into two baskets: Vinaya-piṭaka (basket of monastic discipline) and Sutta-piṭaka (basket of discourses). According to tradition, this occurred at the first council at Rājagṛha, the capital of Magadha, immediately following the Buddha’s death around 486 BC when monks met to recite from memory the words of the Buddha. In order to assure accuracy, the monks chanted the remembered teachings in unison. The teaching (dhamma) of the Buddha was called āgama (lit. ‘that which has been transmitted’). After a period of oral transmission from teacher to disciple, the teachings were collected and organized into suttas and gāthās (verses). Around the 2nd century BC a third basket was added, the Abhidhamma-piṛaka (basket of additional teachings). Before these three collections were written down to preserve them, oral reciters preserved them through memory, typically by specializing in a particular subject-matter.
The basket of monastic discipline contains the rules and precepts that guide monastic life. This basket of literature is divided into three major categories: Sutta-vibhanga, Khandhaka, and Parivāra. The first category consists of the Pāṭimokkha and its 227 rules, which are arranged according to the degree of seriousness of violating them. The Pāṭimokkha developed from a simple confession of faith made by monks and nuns into a basic code used to guarantee proper monastic behaviour. After it became established in this way, it functioned as a monastic liturgy. Monks and nuns periodically chanted these rules within their respective communities as entire groups, which worked to unify the communities and functioned as a reminder of the rules that bound them together. The group recitation of the Pāṭimokkha occurred twice a month in connection with fast days (Poṣadha) that were historically connected to the religious significance of the new and full moon days in ancient Indian religion. Certain literary features were added to the text as it evolved historically. These included introductory and concluding verses praising monastic virtue and discipline. An introduction (nidāna) to the text functioned to summon the monastic community together, and served as a means of conducting the proper confessional procedure. Finally, after each category of violations, the text contained an interrogatory procedure with the purpose of determining violators of the monastic code and distinguishing pure from impure members.
The Sutta-vibhanga can be literally translated as ‘analysis of a sutta’ (thread/text). (The root derivation of the term sutta or sutra connotes the warp of a woven cloth, metaphorically suggesting that the teachings were made into phrases that could be memorized.) The text in this case is the Pāṭimokkha, which forms the basis of the regulations for monastic life. There are four parts to the Sutta-vibhanga. The initial part is a narrative or narratives that present the actual human circumstances for a particular rule. Secondly, there is the actual rule. Then, there is a commentary on each term of the rule. It concludes with a narrative indicative of any mitigating circumstances, which exemplify exceptions to the rule, and may also relate any changes that could be made regarding punishments. This last aspect suggests the introduction of some latitude into the monastic code. Flexibility is also evident in the use of terms such as ‘grave offence’, ‘light offence’, or ‘offence of improper conduct’. This introduction of elasticity probably reflects the historical development of the Pāṭimokkha into a fixed and closed body of rules. If new rules became inadmissible into the code of conduct, monastic communities discovered that they needed some suppleness in order to respond properly to new incidents that were without much precedent in the established code.
In contrast to the Sutta-vibhanga, the Khandhaka represents a broader body of rules that serves as a supplement to the basic rules of the Pāṭimokkha. The Khandhaka also deals with broader issues of communal disharmony and actions by the larger monastic order, along with procedures for the ceremonial life of the community and regulations for dealing with a schism or the threat of a split within the order. It also treats more mundane issues like the use of shoes and leather objects, proper and improper clothing, correct and incorrect behaviour during probationary periods, procedures for settling disputes, and rules specifically for nuns. Finally, the third major category is the Parivāra, which is a collection of auxiliary texts of different dates or origin.
The discourses of the Buddha are contained in the Sutta-piṭaka, piṭaka (basket) connoting something that is capable of holding items. Besides its connection to the metaphor of weaving, the term sutta (Sanskrit, sūtra) refers to the thread or thong of leather or string used to hold the pages of a text together. In this metaphorical sense, the sutta suggests something that binds pages of a discourse together. A sutta follows a specific form that starts with the words ‘Thus have I heard. At one time …’. This introduction is followed by the name of the location of the discourse, which is followed in turn by a list of names of those in the audience, and concludes with the sermon of the Buddha. This basic format of the text suggests particular historical circumstances after the death of the Buddha. At that time, monks gathered to share and recite from memory the sermons that they had heard and could remember. The disciples of the Buddha were attempting to construct the authentic tradition in order to establish the actual teachings and orthodox tradition. Specifically, the disciples were concerned to transmit accurately their enlightened master’s teachings. They were not concerned about proving or verifying his statements: they thought that any person listening to the message could either accept or reject it.
The Sutta-piṭaka texts are arranged according to length. Among the five major collections of these texts are the long sayings (Dīgha-nikāya), middle-length sayings (Majjhima-nikāya), works connected by their contents (Saṃyutta-nikāya), texts arranged by numerical groupings of items (Anguttara-nikāya) in an ascending order culminating with a list of eleven things, and a collection of minor works (Khuddaka-nikāya). This Pāli canon became fixed and closed by 100 BC.
The final basket to be added historically to the Pāli canon was the Abhidhamma-piṭaka, the prefix abhi meaning ‘above’. This prefix suggests what is beyond or superior to the dhamma (doctrine/teaching) that it is analysing. The meaning of the term Abhidhamma implies that it possesses more authority than the explanations to be discovered in the suttas themselves. Thus, this basket consisted of scholastic analysis of material from the Suttapiṭaka, suggesting that its meaning embodies ‘understanding the teachings’ or ‘analysis of the teachings’. This basket of frequently technical literature probably originated from lists of doctrinal topics that were used to collect and preserve concepts and teachings of the Buddha. This literature reflects an excellent example of Buddhist scholasticism that attempted to analyse the teachings of the Buddha from a variety of viewpoints.
After the establishment of the Tipiṭakạ (triple basket), learned monks wrote commentaries on the texts. During the 5th century AD, Buddhaghosa consolidated, for instance, previous commentaries, and wrote five commentaries on the Nikāya texts. This great Buddhist scholar also composed several works on the Abhidhamma literature. Other scholars followed in the footsteps of Buddhaghosa with their own commentaries.
Each of the five religious traditions considered here uses its sacred book in a performative way in order to make something happen by the reciting of words. The ritual repetition of the monastic regulations periodically by Buddhist monks, for instance, is a performative function of scripture because it unites the members of the monastery into a brotherhood. The performative nature of mantras in Hinduism and Buddhism and prayer in the monotheistic traditions are indicative of the performative aspects of the sacred book that embody mantras and prayers. The oral performance of Paul’s letters evoked his presence in the early churches. It is also obvious that the psalms of the Hebrew Bible were to be read aloud. Similarly, rabbis of Judaism, Muslim mullahs, and Qur’ānic reciters performed their scriptures.
The sacred language of ancient Hinduism is Sanskrit, Arabic for Islam, and Hebrew for Judaism; but there is no single sacred language for Buddhism or Christianity, although Latin played such a role for some centuries for the Catholic Christian tradition. By surveying the historical expansion of Buddhism throughout the east, it is possible to find that it used the languages of different cultures: Pāli, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and others. Beliefs about the impermanent nature of language and lack of a divine revelation within the religious tradition probably formed the context for the use of many languages in Buddhism. Contrary to common presuppositions, the multiple languages for Buddhist scripture did not compromise its authenticity or authority.
These religious traditions also exhibited differences with respect to the issue of the canon, the authoritative and official body of writings of a religious tradition. From a cross-cultural perspective, a canon can be considered closed, as in the cases of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. In the Muslim tradition, the revelation to the prophet Muḥammad ended with his life, and it was accepted as the final perfect revelation. The Qur’ān anoints itself as scripture and confirms its own canonicity, whereas other traditions experienced a long process before individual tradition reached the status of a canon. With respect to Judaism, there can be levels of the canon formed by Talmudic, legal, ritual, and exegetical commentary. In order for a religious literature to reach canonical status, there must be a strong social consensus about the formation of scripture, and the gradualness of this process has been indicated. In the cases of Buddhism and Christianity, a social consensus was reached by a series of learned councils. Muslims call themselves, Jews, and Christians ‘People of the Book’ because the three sacred books had the same source, even though the books are very different. Nonetheless, the Qur’ān and the Hebrew Bible have eternal and invariable heavenly prototypes. Muslims stress the uncreated nature of their text and Jews the created nature of it, whereas the Christ himself is seen as the uncreated Word.
In each of the five religious traditions, the original oral nature of their scriptures played an important role in their historical development into sacred books. This process included making decisions about what was authentic and trustworthy—and what was not. The major criterion for inclusion into a canon was whether or not a discourse of the Buddha, for instance, or a saying attributed to Muḥammad, could be traced directly to that figure, or to one or more authoritative witnesses.
These five religious traditions manifest differences with respect to revelation. For Jews and Muslims, scripture is revelation, whereas Christians encounter revelation in scripture. Hindus are closer to the Jewish and Muslim understanding of the relationship between revelation and scripture, while Buddhist scriptures are sacred because of their source in a historical person who achieved enlightenment, which is the source of his authority. This suggests that a sacred book depends on its source, and often a long historical process, until it reaches social consensus and canonicity.
The revelations of the three monotheistic religions represent a historical act that occurred at a particular time and place. There is no divine revelation in Buddhism, although the Buddha did achieve enlightenment within history. For the Vedic sages, their inspiration was an internal process occurring within the mind or heart of an individual sage, who initiated the process of inspiration by ascending and calling upon the gods for assistance, whereas God takes the initiative in the monotheistic traditions.
There are some important differences between writing and the oral transmission of a text. Writing claims an authority the oral cannot, although such authority does not end the importance of the oral tradition, as is evident in Judaism. Writing encourages textual features that make language an object of aesthetic awareness and an artefact to be decoded, which are features that go beyond the oral text. Finally, writing renders possible the creation of a history different from that produced by an oral tradition.
R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981)
J. Barr, Holy Scripture (1983)
A. Cole, Text as Father (2005)
F. M. Denny and R. L. Taylor, eds., The Holy Book in Comparative Perspective (1985)
W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, tr. J. A. Baker (2 vols, 1961, 1967)
E. Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (1956)
J. Gonda, The Vision of Vedic Poets (1963)
—— Vedic Literature (1975)
B. A. Holdrege, Veda and Torah (1996)
M. Levering, ed., Rethinking Scripture (1989)
K. R. Norman, Pāli Literature (1983)
C. Olson, ed., Original Buddhist Sources (2005)
—— Hindu Primary Sources (2007)
L. Patton, ed., Authority, Anxiety, and Canon (1994)
E. F. Peters, The Monotheists (2003)
S. Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India (2006)
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, tr. D. M. G. Stalker (2 vols, 1962, 1965)
C. K. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (1987)
M. Witzel, ed., Inside the Texts Beyond the Texts: New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas (1997)