Can shared criteria for "sacred text" be formulated that are applicable across traditions (Torah, Gospels, Quran, Vedas), or does each tradition presuppose its own criteria in a circular manner?

This question touches the heart of comparative philosophy of religion and poses a profound methodological problem: is it possible to develop a "neutral" approach for evaluating sacred texts across different traditions, or is every attempt governed by circularity? The question intersects with contemporary debates in philosophy of language, hermeneutics, and comparative methodology.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of the possibility of shared criteria:

"Secular academic standards are completely neutral." A claim that does not withstand critical analysis. Western academic methods carry cultural and philosophical assumptions (individualism, historicism, methodological naturalism) that are not neutral but rooted in a specific historical context. What is considered "neutral" in the Western academic context may be biased from the perspective of other traditions.

"Historical criticism solves the problem objectively." A misleading oversimplification. Historical criticism itself assumes that sacred text can be understood through historical tools alone, and this is an assumption rejected by most religious traditions that see in their texts a dimension that transcends history. Applying a single method to all texts presupposes a homogeneity that may not exist.

"Linguistic and literary criteria are sufficient." A reduction of the religious dimension. Sacred text is not merely literary text, but carries metaphysical and normative claims. Evaluating it by literary criteria alone misses its essence.

From some defenders of the impossibility of shared criteria:

"Each tradition is a world closed unto itself." A radical relativism that negates itself. If traditions were completely closed, how could one even say they are "different"? Judging difference presupposes a shared framework for comparison.

"Comparison between sacred texts is inherently colonial." Excessive politicization of the philosophical question. While some comparative attempts carried colonial biases, this does not mean fair comparison is impossible. Completely rejecting comparison deprives us of deeper understanding of the religious phenomenon.

"There is no meaning in speaking of 'sacred text' as a general category." Extreme deconstructivism. Despite differences, there are family resemblances (Wittgenstein) between what different traditions call "sacred texts" that justify careful comparison.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share in avoiding the real complexity: how do we balance between the need for criteria applicable across traditions (for comparison and understanding) and respect for each tradition's specificity? This is a genuine philosophical tension that requires precise treatment, not reductive solutions.

Nature of the Philosophical Problem

The problem manifests on three levels:

Ontological Level: What is the nature of "sacred text"? Is it:
- Direct divine speech (the Quran in traditional Islamic conception)?
- Inspired human speech (the Gospels in most Christian conceptions)?
- Eternal wisdom manifested in time (the Vedas in Hindu conception)?
- Gradual scriptural recording through history (the Torah in Jewish conception)?

Each definition assumes a different ontology, making unified criteria problematic.

Epistemological Level: How do we know that a text is "sacred"?
- By accompanying miracles?
- By transcendent content?
- By historical impact?
- By institutional authority?
- By spiritual experience?

Each tradition gives different priority to these sources of knowledge.

Hermeneutical Level: How is sacred text read?
- Literally?
- Symbolically?
- In its historical context?
- By the believing community's interpretation?
- By direct spiritual inspiration?

Different hermeneutical methods affect the criteria of evaluation themselves.

Attempts to Formulate Shared Criteria

Despite the challenges, serious philosophical attempts have emerged to formulate trans-traditional criteria:

1. Phenomenology of Religion Approach

Rudolf Otto in "The Sacred" (Das Heilige, 1917) and Mircea Eliade in his works on myth and symbol developed a phenomenological approach: studying how the experience of the sacred manifests in texts across cultures. Criteria include:
- Capacity to evoke the experience of "numinous" (mysterium tremendum et fascinans)
- Universal symbolic dimension
- Foundation for sacred time different from ordinary time

Critique: This approach presupposes a certain concept of the sacred that may not apply to all traditions. Early Buddhism, for example, does not emphasize the "sacred" in the same Ottonian sense.

2. Functional Approach

Ninian Smart in "Dimensions of the Sacred" (1996) proposed seven dimensions of religious phenomena:
- Ritual dimension
- Mythical/narrative dimension
- Experiential/emotional dimension
- Doctrinal/philosophical dimension
- Ethical/legal dimension
- Social/institutional dimension
- Material/artistic dimension

Sacred text is evaluated by the extent to which it activates these dimensions in the believing community's life.

Critique: This approach is more descriptive than normative. It tells us how sacred texts work, but does not tell us which is "more sacred" or "truer."

3. Flexible Epistemological Criteria Approach

Wilfred Cantwell Smith in "What is Scripture?" (1993) proposed that the "sacred" is not a property in the text itself but a relationship between text and community. Criteria therefore must be:
- Dynamic (evolving with time)
- Interactive (studying the text-community relationship)
- Contextual (respecting cultural context)

Critique: This approaches relativism. If sacredness is merely a relationship, does this mean any text can become sacred if a community believes in it?

4. Hermeneutical Intersection Approach

Paul Ricoeur in "Interpretation and Ideology" and Raimon Panikkar in "Intrareligious Dialogue" developed the idea that understanding a sacred text from another tradition requires "hermeneutical entry" into its world of meaning, while maintaining critical distance. Criteria emerge from dialogue, not external imposition.

Critique: This approach is idealistic but difficult to apply. How can one "enter" another tradition without losing critical perspective? And how do we avoid complete relativism?

Critical Analysis of the Circularity Problem

The central problem: is every attempt to establish shared criteria governed by circularity?

Levels of Circularity:

1. Definitional Circularity: To determine what is a "sacred text," we need criteria. But the criteria themselves are derived from texts we already consider "sacred." This is clear circularity.

2. Cultural Circularity: Most proposed criteria (even those claiming neutrality) are rooted in Western/Christian cultural context. Concepts like "revelation," "sacredness," and "text" themselves are not culturally neutral.

3. Hermeneutical Circularity: Our understanding of any sacred text requires entering its "hermeneutical circle" (Gadamer). But this means we accept some of its assumptions beforehand to understand it, making "external" evaluation problematic.

Is Circularity Fatal?

Not necessarily. In philosophy of science, Karl Popper and others showed that a certain degree of circularity exists even in natural sciences (we need theories to interpret observations, and observations to test theories). What matters is that circularity be "virtuous," not "vicious."

Virtuous circularity allows for:
- Gradual modification of criteria
- Openness to criticism
- Learning from other traditions
- Acknowledging methodological limits

Toward a Realistic Integrative Approach

Instead of seeking completely "neutral" criteria (a philosophical illusion) or surrendering to complete relativism, we can develop an integrative approach that recognizes:

1. Family Resemblances:
Despite differences, there are "family resemblances" (Wittgenstein) between sacred texts:
- Claim to transcend ordinary human source
- Foundational role in community life
- Demand for normative authority
- Dimension transcending the temporal and limited

These resemblances make comparison possible without imposing artificial uniformity.

2. Contextual Sensitivity:
Any shared criteria must be:
- Transparent about their cultural origins
- Open to modification through intercultural dialogue
- Modest in their claims to universality
- Respectful of each tradition's internal logic

3. Methodological Pluralism:
Rather than seeking one universal method, we can employ multiple approaches:
- Historical-critical for understanding origins
- Literary for analyzing narrative structures
- Phenomenological for examining religious experience
- Sociological for studying community impact
- Philosophical for evaluating truth claims

Where We Stand Today

The period 2020-2026 witnessed notable developments in this field. Most prominently, the expansion of "Comparative Scripture" projects at universities like Harvard and Cambridge, where the "Scriptural Reasoning" method developed by David Ford and Peter Ochs is used, bringing together readers from different traditions around sacred texts without imposing a single external framework. Similarly, the rise of artificial intelligence in analyzing religious texts (such as computational analysis projects of the Quran and Gospels) raised new questions about whether quantitative tools can transcend cultural biases or reproduce them. Philosophically, works by Mark Siderits and Michael Levin on "Cross-Cultural Philosophy" reinforced awareness that any comparative framework needs transparency about its assumptions rather than claiming neutrality. The current trend leans toward "conscious methodological pluralism" rather than toward one comprehensive standard or absolute relativism.

From the Perspective of Rational Preference (rajḥān ʿaqlī)

This question perfectly embodies the logic of cumulative rational preference (rajḥān ʿaqlī tarkībī), as there is no decisive resolution in either direction. The cumulative reading takes into account:
─ The existence of genuine family resemblances between sacred texts (claims to transcendence, normative authority, foundational role) makes comparison possible and legitimate, not methodological arbitrariness.
─ The depth of ontological differences (direct divine speech versus eternal wisdom versus human inspiration) makes any unified standard overly simplistic if it claims complete comprehensiveness.
─ Hermeneutical circularity is not necessarily vicious; rather, it can be virtuous when coupled with transparency and openness to revision.
─ The preferable outcome: "partial and modest" shared criteria are possible and epistemically useful, provided there is explicit recognition of their limits and the cultural context from which they emerge. The aspiration to a completely neutral comprehensive framework remains closer to a regulative ideal than to actual achievement.