Q: “Even if we follow [Mullers] advice and read the great/high works of a religious tradition, in so doing we are adding our own interpretations to all the other interpretations that exist on those particular texts. Such a reading is simply a starting point; it cannot be taken as the primary basis for ‘knowing’ or ‘understanding’ the religious tradition.”
Nye, Malory. Religion: the Basics. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.
C: In this passage, Nye proposes a synthesis between textual study and cultural study, arguing that if one were to read religious texts without cultural reference (as Muller proposed), one would simply be interpreting said religion in one’s own perspective, wholly missing both the point of textual study, cultural study, and religious study. He instead proposes that one should study texts, but do so within the context of the practitioner—both modern and ancient.
Ultimately, I think the validity of Malory’s opinion solely rests upon the intention of the scholar—whether they want to study texts for literature or for religious studies. If one is looking to study the almost-pure, untouched text and analyze it as a reader, then Muller makes a good point. However, if one is looking to see how a text affects the modern practitioner, then it is impossible not to study the modern practitioner themselves, and see how they apply and interpret that text.
No comments:
Post a Comment