Overview of Scriptural Scholarship

Scriptural Scholarship

19^th century primarily Protestant focus on translation of individual texts as the basis of doctrine and belief and the channel for understanding them
20th century focus on religious praxis; the study of myth, ritual and symbol
The text as a reflection of praxis and vice versa; text and praxis as interactive and interrelated religious phenomena

The “Protestant Bias” in the Study of Religious Scriptures

In the United States, Protestantism is in the blood, regardless of what one’s particular ecclesial background might be (cf. Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism)
“People of the Book:” “book” (textual) religions are superior to “non-book” (oral) religions; the textual is the record of the truth
Likewise, “later” is often seen as a corruption of “earlier;” the primitive has more integrity, because we read of it “in the book”
Roman Catholics were deemed guilty of “priest-craft;” the priest is seen as a mediator between the laity and the holy, particularly the text of the Bible, as the laity is somehow not qualified to see it
Ritual (works) is suspect; belief alone (faith through grace) is essential to salvation
When ritual is performed, it must therefore be accompanied by interior belief in order for it to be efficacious
“Personal experience” is primary, i.e., unmediated (by a priest, etc.)
The Protestant mindset spread via global mission (and via colonialism, imperialism)
Therefore, the Protestant “clean-up” of Asian religions is but a reflection of the strong Protestant reaction against the ritual/sacramental focus of the Roman church
Example: the late 19^th c. creation of State Shinto in Japan, as assisted by the mindset of the Protestant mission: it is OK to have government sanction of Shinto because it is only about “ritual action” but not about “belief.” Therefore, it is not really a “religion”