Scholars of religion typically employ the category of "scripture" in reference to a closed canon rendered authoritative by a community. Yet upon closer inspection, scriptures prove far more dynamic. They are opened, closed, and occasionally reopened. How, why, and to what end will be explored by the papers in this session. From critiquing Christian ambivalence to the Decalogue, to interrogating how Indian case law spurred a rethinking of the Jain canon, to an interpretation of Nietzsche’s late work as parody of scripture, the papers here challenge us to view scripture less as a static product than an active, culturally sensitive process of making and unmaking religious power.
This paper proposes a new way for religious ethicists to think about the enduring relevance of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity. It argues that contemporary religious ethicists’ ambivalence about the Decalogue stems from a deficient understanding of law in Jewish and Christian thought. I draw upon the thought of historical figures such as Philo of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas, philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe and Julia Annas, and insights from contemporary biblical scholarship (especially the emerging ‘Paul within Judaism’ school of interpretation) to develop a framework for religious ethics that elevates the status of law in moral discernment and moral formation. This framework makes it possible to affirm unequivocally the goodness of the Decalogue and its relevance for Christians, as well as the integrity of its Jewish character. In the process, it offers a radical critique of the supersessionism and Marcionism found in many writings of Christian ethicists.
Is canon closed? Can a community embed new meaning and elevate a text into a canonical space? Do colonial canonization vestiges help us discuss how a community perceives identity and ritual? This paper considers the 2015 court case, Nikhil Soni vs. the Union of India, that outlawed sallekhanā, a ritual fast until death, and the resultant response from the Jain community to address canonical mobility. The court depended on Jains, as defendants, to assert that sallekhanā is a central religious practice. Jain communities found one such instance in the Ratnakaranda Śrāvakācāra(RSK, 2nd century CE). The RSK, an often forgotten text, was superseded by the later text, Hemachandra’s Yogaśāstra (12th century CE). This paper centers on Folkert’s definition of canon to show that the RSK has reached an elevated canonical status. The process of canonization illuminates social and political violence that values scriptural authority over social definitions of religious practice.
This paper argues that the writings of Freidrich Nietzsche pose a profound challenge to guiding assumptions about textuality in the contemporary study of religion. Nietzsche’s texts intentionally parody and ironize conceptions of truth and knowledge that are foundational to modern scholarship, and so confront readers with questions that are prior to or outside of conventional scholarly concerns. The paper begins with an interpretation of Nietzsche’s late works, showing that Nietzsche writes esoterically and parodically to challenge the value of propositional language and knowledge, aiming instead to both describe and induce experiences of human deification. For Nietzsche, conventional scholarship (Wissenschaft) is antithetical to human life, and therefore must be infused with a parodic and playful joyousness. Through Nietzsche, the paper poses foundational questions about how and why we study and teach texts in the study of religion that defy or transcend the parameters of modern scholarship.