Could I Create Scripture??? Pt. 2, The Creation of Hartungism

Raëlism is a religion, created by a guy named Rael. Rael claims that extraterrestrials (that we call Elohim) created the world through scientific means and that the Bible is evidence of their creation and influence on the world. In Intelligent Design, Message from the Designers Raël lists the Bible verses that are important, claiming the rest is "merely poetic babblings of which I will say nothing" (11). Well, following Raël's format, I present to you The Book of Hartungism, an adaptation of Raëlism showing that I too, can create scripture by using the same lines from the Book of Genesis that are used by Raël.

Starting from the beginning...

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Similar to Raëlism, I too rely heavily on a Hebrew translation of the name Elohim, meaning "those who came from the sky". However, "those" who came from above are not just any aliens of higher intellegence, but actually members of the Jedi Counsil, who came to Earth from a Galaxy Far, Far Away. They were attempting to create a new civilization sheltered from the perversions of the Dark Side: they believed that the greatest way to bring balance to the force, was to create a society of individuals who were not force sensative, individuals who through their very nature would strive for balance (this balance, is what we now call morality). By not having the force be overtly known to the Earthlings, they hoped to acheive balance. 

And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

Actually, Raël was pretty close to right here. The Jedi Order did reconnaissance flights to study the Earth in an attempt to find any evidence of medichlorians, in order to establish whether this new world would be capable of acting as host to a world without force sensative indivuduals. 

And Elohim saw the light, that it was good. Genesis 1:4

The "light" found was just good news. The Jedi were pleased, becauase at this point the world showed no sign of holding any force sensative life. 

Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. Genesis 1:9

After conducting an examination, both physically and through medatation, the Jedi Order decided this planet on the outer reaches of the known galaxy, would be a fine host for their new society. Using their combined powers, they raised the land from the waters in order to create the land and the sea as we know it today.

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth. Genesis 1:11

This verse is just an account showing the ways that the Jedi continued to transform the Earth into a life sustaining planet. Fruit, grass and seed are just some of the many food and water sources that the Jedi created to help bring life to their new society.

Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. Genesis 1:20

Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing adn beast of the earth, each according to its kind. Genesis 1:24

What Happens When Public Schools Mimick Private?

Mark Chancey, in the beginning of his Section II: Pseudoscience and the Bible, begins by stating that, "Courts have repeatedly ruled that advocating creation science in public school science courses is unconstitutional" (51). While pondering this statement, I thought back to my own high school experience in Kingwood, Tx (a North Houston Suburb). My thinking goes as followed:

Private schools are able to teach to specific religions or reprimand students in a different manner than public schools are able to because they rely on independent funding, typically in the form of tuition or grants from parents and alumni. Keeping with this idea, what happens if public schools move towards a similar model? If a public school begins to receive a majority of funding from outside, non-governmental entities, does and should the clear line between church and state continue to be so concrete? If a public school receives 65% of its funding from property taxes and thus, a public school is 65% funded directly from the pockets of parents within that district, should the public school reflect the majority decision of those parents who a provide the school with a majority of its funding? The gut answer is probably not: mostly because if the KKK gathers in one district, this could result in a KKKHS. It seems that because public schools are a public good that is free to all, they therefore should strive to not alienate a group of people for the satisfaction of another.

However, it seems that this may be exactly what is occurring in many public schools throughout the south: not KKKHS, but a blurring between church and state. In Texas, during the 2011-2012 school year, property taxes accounted for 41.9% of all public school funding, at just under $20,766,669,000. This is the largest sum accounted for, with all state funding coming in a close second at $20,341,491,000 (41.1%). If 65% is not the appropriate percentage to override the separation of church and state, what about 83%? At least in Texas, 83% seems to be the magic number. Over the last decade or so, the line between church and state in Texas has been attacked on a multitude of fronts (link). If the state and the individuals who fund the school through property taxes (it is important to note, 77% of Texans associate as some form of Christian) both believe a Christian based education system is the best form of education for their public school, can and should the school consent in this request and begin teaching creationism?

If this is the case (as it appears it is), what does this mean for the teaching of religions in primary and secondary education? It genuinly scares me that many public schools throughout the south are so completely controlled by parents and political parties that they can mold early minds to be biased towards one ideology. While this is innevitable in some households, it seems this molding is now extending beyond the home and into the school. If students are pre-disposed to think towards or in favor of one religion, what is likely to happen in 30 years when the 5-12 year olds in Texas elementary schools become the scholars of tomorrow? This intensional warping of facts and biased mentality against religions (hint hint, Islam) can have long-reaching and incredibly harmful ramifications for religious studies in the future.

The Most Unpredictable Relief Pitcher in the World: "The Donald"

Jacques Berlinerblau was so close to getting it all right. In recent memory, Berlinerblau's been batting 3 for 3 (his evaluation of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections) and until recently, he had shown no sign of letting up. Hell, if you can get political theory "hits" against the likes of George W. Bush, Herman Cain, Barack Obama, Rick Perry, John Edwards and Mitt Romney, who could possibly stop you in the 2016 election!?

The answer should be pretty obvious...

In defense of Berlinerblau, there's no way he could have ever predicted that the religious right-wing would take a turn like it has. And, if you ignore "The Donald" and focus on the rest of the political field, Berlinerblau's looking like he would get yet another impressive "hit". But, good luck ignoring "The Donald". The Republican voters have chosen the most unpredictable relief pitcher in recent memory. He's not even throwing pitches we knew existed! Trump is changing the game completely. It's no wonder that political and religious theorists, including Berlinerblau, aren't able to get a hit on this guy.

So what happens to Berlinerblau's theory that "the old cite-and-run techniques of 2008 may increasingly yield, at least among Republicans, to the longer-form interventions" that look more like sermons than speeches? He was almost right. Look at the rest of the Republican hopefuls. Rubio, a serious candidate for arguably less than a month, struggled with having little to no solid religious base to characterize himself on (link).  Ben Carson was on the other side of the spectrum as the "most religious" candidate. Lastly, Ted Cruz has made his mark on the race by characterizing himself as "a Christian first, American second". Cruz has completely dismissed the "cite-and-run" technique and,with the help of his Preacher father, shaped nearly every aspect of his campaign around his faith. Although Carson has dropped out, his campaign existed significantly longer than it probably should have, I'd argue, because of his close religious characterization. Rubio, who on paper looked like the easy choice for the Republican's, tanked as he only won 1 state before dropping out. Keeping the baseball metaphor alive, all three candidates seem to be a clear "hit" for Berlinerblau and his theory.

So what about Trump? With 2 clear front-runners, we see Berlinerblau's theory personified (Cruz, maybe Kasich?) against the completely unpredictable. Interestingly enough, the same lines separate the establishment candidates (Kasich, maybe Cruz?) from the "Oh God, please, anyone but this guy" candidate. Does this mean that, keeping with Berlinerblau's theory, the Republican party is just becoming more and more religious? Or, was Berlinerblau totally off base: just another political theoriest left in the wake of Trump's remarkable campaign?

From a religious studies perspective, the implications of Donald's campaign can have lasting and telling complications. What happens if Trump does win the nomination? The Presidency? The support of Trump's transparently pseudo-religious campaign will signify a major divide in the way religion is viewed among religious scholars and the way it is viewed by the public (like there wasn't one before, HA). Does a Trump presidency show that the detail-oriented work of religious scholar's has completely lost base with the way the world actually thinks about these issues? If a majority of American's want, or at least, are ok with their religious discussions "Trumpified", what does this mean for religious scholars and the way their findings work in the world outside of higher education? What does this mean for religious discussions socially? The truly unbelievable aspect of Trump's campaign is that he has HUGE support. He's no longer being supported by only your crazy neighbor down the street who flies a confederate flag and that one fraternity guy who thinks it's cool. Trump's significant support seems to suggest that popular opinion prefers his ideologies to the more "traditional" Republican beliefs and to the findings typically expected from religion scholars.

If this is the case, will Republican's follow suit? Will religious discussions move away from the details and focus on just quick and possibly flawed religious references? Under a Trump presidency, will we all be forced to read "The Art of the Deal?

Could I Create Scripture??

The movie "Noah" is weird. Maybe it's because seeing the Watchers, Noah, a massive flood and glowing snakeskin in the same rough hour on my laptop in a cramped dorm, while pondering if this movie is scripture, just sends my mind in a circle. However, is this movie with its $125,000,000 budget and star-studded cast that was produced in 2014, scripture? Your gut, mind, eyes, ears, head, shoulders, knees and toes all aggressively want to tell you "NO". But is it? Noah, at its core, is just a re-telling of one of the most popular Biblical stories. Why does changing the medium that this story is being told through, change the story of Noah's Arch from being absolutely scripture (if you actually read in the Book of Genesis) to something that we so viscerally discredit at such?

The Book of Mormon is absolutely scripture (at the very least, it is scripture to Mormons). The Book of Mormon is significantly farther, at least in terms of subject matter, from the more traditional stories found in the Torah, Quran or Christian Bible. Yet, because the Book of Mormon -- and potentially even other, somewhat similar, religious texts such as Christian Science's Science and Health -- can be considered scripture, it seems that even texts that tell new stories, can still be regarded as scripture.

If subject matter doesn't determine what is scripture, then maybe the major deciding factor should be whether people actually follow the text. For example, if I wrote a text called The Way's to Follow Hartungism, detailing Hartungism, my new religion and all the way's one can be a devout follower of this religion, I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to call this scripture. However, what about Scientology? There are plenty of people who would refer to the texts of Hubbard as scripture. But honestly, why is a story such as this, any different than the nail-bitingly wonderful stories found in my The Way's to Follow Hartungism.

The story of Noah, even in movie form, seems to fit both of these categories. The content is fairly close to the story told in the Book of Genesis and the story of Noah has millions of followers. It seems that even in Blockbuster form, the story of Noah should be considered scripture. After all, why should the slight differences between the movie and the text make all that much of a difference? There are plenty of discrepancies within the canon of the Christian Bible, let alone all the other texts that can also be considered scripture. Therefore, it seems logical that the Hollywood-fueled, Russell Crow style story of Noah should be able to, at the very least, sit comfortably in the gray area of "What is scripture?", if not be outright given a "yes" on that question.

So, content and followers. If some Hollywood producer can produce something that is, at the very least, questionably scripture, can I?  If I have the two, is it possible for anyone to create scripture? I honestly don't know. My gut, mind, eyes, ears, head, shoulders, knees and toes tell me yes. Now, do I have the followers? No. Do I have text that can be followed? No. BUT, hypothetically, should I get those two (along with other details not discussed here), I believe that there's a chance.

Why Do Some Still Think that the Bible is Sexist?

Enticed by Eden spends significant time and resources discussing the negative implications of a "strict" interpretation of Genesis 1-3, along with other passages found in the bible: I'm using "strict" as a word for an interpretation we typically consider more conservative, or literal. Citing instances of how the Bible has been used to suppress women -- as seen in instances where the Bible is used to push women into only the traditional housewife job -- it seems clear that more than a handful of people had perverted these specific passages (or they haven't, and the Bible actually does support ideas that culturally we would describe as sexist).

While one could spend a career discussing whether the Bible actually is sexist or if it is just misinterpreted by some, I found myself more drawn to a different concept: a concept that can be found in Enticed by Eden, but not out right addressed. It's a simple idea: why? Why in a modern, significantly more liberal 21st century world, is this one concept still heavily shown in some Christian circles? There are plenty of "laws" or expectations found in the Bible that have somewhat died out, or that very few (>1%) actually still follow. So why are the passages that promote sexism still so strong? If the answer is simply that there are more passages that promote sexism in the Bible, then why aren't other laws that are mentioned multiple times equally as prevalent? Genesis, similar to any other book, can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. That doesn't answer, however, why this particular interpretation has such a stranglehold on the way (clearly, according to Enticed by Eden) that many view the Book of Genesis.

The Chicken or the Egg

Robert's "Pen of Iron" is an account of how the King James Bible has been declining in popularity in America for centuries. Giving reference to famous speakers and writers including Abe Lincoln, Robert's discusses the link between the declining King James version of the Bible and the decrease in literary talent that has left us today praising "flat and banal writing or prose of the most purple hue" (10).

However, is the decline in literary skill seen today a result of the decreasing availability of the King James Bible, or is it the other way? As America continued to mature away from its British roots, would it not make sense that certain texts -- such as the King James translation of the bible, a text that is dripping in English elements -- would begin to become obsolete? While Robert's views today's authors as below those of the past, this complaint seems subjective. That being said, it is clear that the rhetoric used today is significantly different from the writing 300 years ago. While the King James may be a translation from the time when America was first being colonized, newer versions such as the NRSV may just be a version that more appropriately reflects the rhetoric used today.

Therefore, Robert's may actually be off on his assessment of the King James' popularity. It could be simply that -- and this is what I believe is more likely to have happened -- as America grew away from English influence and began to develop its own style of language, the King James began to become essentially "out of date". This isn't to say that it should be done away with entirely, but more that for the layman reading the Bible, the King James became too distant from the way they lived their life opening the gap for a more "up to date" version?

Did Symbolism Significantly Change the Bible?

The Bible relies heavily on symbolism, frequently seen in the usage of numbers. Among the many, 40 is a commonly seen number in both the Old and New Testament. Either God just has a certain affinity for a handful of numbers and any reference to "40" should be taken literally, or this is a part of the Bible that represents something else -- was there actually 40 day's and nights of flooding in Genesis, and did Jesus really spend 40 days in the desert? Probably not exactly.

Clearly symbolism was important in antiquity. But what happens when symbolism results in edits to these biblical stories in a significant way? The story of Noah and the flood told in Genesis is seen in places other than the Bible -- specifically here in the Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia. The flood story in Gilgamesh parallels Genesis, almost to a "t". It is not too much of a stretch to claim that the flood story recounted in Genesis was modeled to some extent on the older, very similar Mesopotamian story. However, one of the few noticeable changes in Genesis's account of the flood is its length. Why? The easy answer is that the change from 6 days worth of flooding (as told in Gilgamesh) to a much longer and symbolic 40 days seems to suggest that writers had no qualms about editing their story for a greater purpose -- in this case, promoting the importance of symbolism through numbers which they do frequently in both the Old and New Testament.

When reading Van Liere's "An Introduction to the Medieval Bible", the idea of symbolism reared its head again. Van Liere states that the Codex Amiatinus has 70 books -- 70 another symbolic number. This didn't just happen by chance, as "two letters of Peter are taken as one, and the book of Lamentations was regarded as a part of Jeremiah"(54). This got me thinking, did this emphasis on symbolism have a grander effect on the canon as we know it today than just the changing of some stories as seen in Genesis? For example, the Hebrew Bible has 24 books in total, another symbolic number seen frequently in the Old Testament. If the writers in antiquity were willing to edit, blend, and cut stories in order to reach the number 70, did this occur in other cases still seen today such as the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (similar to where Van Liere discusses the 22 books put together by Jerome, and the symbolism of the number 22)? It certainly seems that Van Liere is suggesting this importance of symbolism had a much greater affect on the Bible than we previously may have given credit.

Why Age Shouldn't Matter

Similar with the popularity of the “anti-hero” or the new spins on classic stories, (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) it seems like everyone is looking for a new way to look at the classics we all know and love. While some will use the non-canonical texts in order to contradict the Bible – as seen in the idea floated around of “Did Jesus have a twin brother”? – I believe that an emphasis on these newer texts actually can be good for promoting not just understanding from a scholarly perspective, but also for understanding from a religious one.

             It can hardly be debated that whether you believe these scriptures are true or not, the non-canonical writings can provide insight on many issues and ideas that were prevalent in society during their writing. For scholars, this new light can help provide better details about the way the world worked, about the issues people were debating over, as well as a whole host of things we haven’t even considered yet. But from a religious perspective, a deeper evaluation into say the PGJ can simulate a deeper discussion, and critical analysis of the stories in the Bible. Grounded in many of the same questions that scholars are likely to ask, a deeper appreciation for these texts could also open doors religiously that were previously less likely to be open: could Mary also have been born from an immaculate conception, for example. In all, it seems somewhat silly to deny these newly found scriptures their time simply because they aren’t as old as some others. 

Questioning (or not) Constantine's Faith

            I was not raised in a “traditionally” religious house; in fact the subject was hardly talked about with any great detail. Because of this, I was baffled by the way and extent that Constantine was able to change the Church. Dungan says that the motivation behind Constantine’s conversion is highly debated (94): why? It never seemed to me that Constantine was being anything other than honest with his faith.

            In fact, it doesn’t seem that even Dungan believed that Constantine had any mal-intention during his conversion. According to Dungan, “Constantine risked everything time and again, trusting the Christian God to lead and protect him” (95). A large part of any religion is faith. It seems clear – at least from this account of how Constantine led his life and made decisions – that Constantine was not lacking any of this. It is true that Constantine’s status and influence in the Church helped him socially, but that does not seem like reason to doubt that he didn’t also believe in his religion.

            Dungan discusses how during Constantine’s time, the Church became less open to discussion, and more prone to banishing those who did not believe as they should. The Constantine Bible seemed to take control and no Bishop would dare use anything that differed. This is clearly bad. However, was this stranglehold on religious discussion because those in power believed so strongly in what they were talking about? Or, was it more simply that the status quo benefited them, so they were incentivized to enforce the rules in a manner that kept them on top (this seems somewhat like what Satlow was talking about: those on top would alter, and “pick and choose” verses that benefited themselves in order to keep those in power in their positions). To question Constantine’s motivations seems to be comparable – at least from the perspective in Dungan’s novel – to question any religious leaders motivations when they are benefiting.

The Importance of Interpretation Both Today, and in Antiquity

Although there have been plenty of interesting topics discussed under the broad umbrella of “reinventing the Bible”, one idea has stuck with me. From Professor Satlow’s comment that “no one” read the bible in antiquity, to Beal’s idea that no one actually read a book ever, I have been fascinated with how people in antiquity viewed the scriptures and applying this to the way we view the same (sort of) texts today. Because the studies of religious students and religious individuals in the status quo revolve around literature, it is hard to separate ourselves from the idea that religions are built on a foundation of inflexible, rigid scriptures. However, to me, the most interesting and potentially the most telling factor of religion come from the oral aspects of religion, not simply the texts themselves.

Because of the low literacy rate, and few privately owned collections of texts in antiquity, “literature needed to be shared publicly, through oral performances and discussions called recitatios” (Beal, 95). Regardless of your thoughts on antiquity, it seems hard to argue that religion in antiquity was seen most frequently orally within the town/city/etc. No one could read and people would gather to worship, not just because culturally that was what was required, but also because the idea of doing bible study alone was nearly impossible and the town would need to come together to “read” the only version of that text in the town.

Does this same thing happen today? Obviously the texts that would later become the Bible – and those that would not become canonized – are easier to come by. However, I found myself questioning if the practice of gathering to hear, rather than read, still happens today. Beal seems to suggest that in antiquity, there was no solid interpretation or version of these texts and that they were used as a foundation for greater interpretation, rather than a solid, unchangeable text. Although the Bible is not changed, different groups frequently get different teachings out of nearly the same text depending on how that text is spun (Westboro Baptist, for example). I think that there is not enough emphasis on how –even with a concrete, closed Bible – the way people discuss, and interact orally with these texts have a heavy influence on the way that we view the Bible.

A Plea for Greater Evaluation and Critical Thought on the Texts of Antiquity (and Today)

“What was once old is frequently made new again”. While this idea is commonly linked to ideas of food and fashion, it seems that there are some old ideas specifically during the times of religion in antiquity, that also abide by this pseudo-law. In Crawford’s “Rewriting Scripture in the Second Temple Times”, one specific theme jumped out to me as most applicable to the saying above.

When discussing the transition that the texts in antiquity went through as they started to become the authoritative texts that we know today, Crawford references another scholar, Ulrich, saying that, “in Second Temple Judaism, it was the book, rather than its specific textual form, that was considered scared” (6). This seems incredibly similar to the way that the Bible is viewed in modern religions. While the texts have changed somewhat, and the culture absolutely has changed, this seems to be one of the aspects of religion that has remained: people focus more on the culture, and the physical book itself, rather than work to develop a deeper analytical understanding of what the text says and means.

Looking back to Beal’s “The Rise and Fall of the Bible”, although nearly 66% of adults belief that the Bible answers at least most of the basic questions of life, “28 percent of them admit that they rarely or never read it” (33). Modern religions clearly place a higher importance on the culture (going to a mega church, wearing your Sunday best, etc.), rather than the specific biblical texts. If this was not the case, more people would reportedly read the Bible, not just talk about how great it is. Mention of the bible – Donald Trump’s classic “I love the Bible”, followed by his reference to One Corinthians, along with the common biblical references that stop short after simply calling a situation a "classic David and Goliath" – shows that merely talking about the Bible is enough; anything followed is just an addition. Modern society seems to be stimulated by the physical bible itself, not by the potentially deep evaluation that these texts support.

This focus on overall culture makes perfect sense for those in antiquity. The texts of antiquity could act as a symbol of religious coercion throughout the village, town, etc., while the emphasis on culture norms maintains that everyone falls in their respective ranks, and keeps the communal wheel rolling. The texts were not open to interpretation or a critical discussion simply because nearly no one was there to do the reading necessary to even begin this discussion. By using symbols, and pushing culture norms, the religious group is more likely to be united under one God, making it easier to move forward, together.  

However, I’m not entirely sure this is one of those old world things that is good for the world we live in today. With the promotion of education, the “average Joe” now possesses the cognitive ability to critical examine these religious texts, in one-way or another. However this is not the case, people are not reading the Bible on their own, they are just using the physical book as a symbol for something much larger. Is it simply laziness? It certainly is easier to have someone talk to you about their interpretation, rather than ponder a text thousands of years old. Perhaps this lack of critical thought is just because people don’t want to push against their respective religious organization? If a specific verse means one thing to me, yet my religious leaders say something else, it may be easier to just follow the group. Regardless of the reason, it seems that the benefits of ignoring analytical discussions to better follow the communal culture, and an emphasis on only the physical texts, is a waste of the cognitive ability that humans now possess and only works to hinder the way that people think about these greatly important texts.

The importance of religious evaluation is important regardless of if one believes in a religion that uses these texts. If you’re not religious, or are religious but do not use the texts now found in the Hebrew Bible, a deep understanding of these incredibly influential texts can help shine a light on why some cultures are the way they are. A majority of the world is religious in one way or another, and two of the world’s largest religions both use the Hebrew Bible. Critical evaluation of these texts can only help solve why the world is the way it is, and can create a greater understanding between those who are religious, and those who are not. If you are religious and you do use the texts found in the Hebrew Bible, then these texts are the word of God; need I say more? Regardless of your feelings on the matter, it is hard to build a case against critically engaging these influential texts.