The Woman's Bible: A New Religious Movement?

            "Reading and Writing Scripture in New Religious Movements" by Eugene Gallagher serves to explain how New Religious Movements use and abuse the words of the Bible to convince readers that the Bible fits in to the grander scheme of their new religion. While reading the explanation that new religions tend to use the Bible with an interpretive strategy that acknowledges "that's what (you think) it says, but this is what is (really) means," I couldn't help but be reminded of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's The Woman's Bible. In her preface, Stanton acknowledges that her version of the Bible was constructed to revise the texts and chapters that directly referred to women and the ones where women are made prominent by exclusion. In doing so, Stanton and her team wanted to change how the canon and civil law, church and state, priests and legislators, all political parties and religious denominations view and teach women as being "made after man, of man, and for man, an inferior being, subject to man." 
           Though Stanton and her team claim Christian roots, I wonder if her reach for feminism in the Bible could be considered a new religious movement as explained by Gallagher. Because Stanton's Bible alters texts and reinterprets the roles of women in order to show powerful roles of women, I believe her Bible could be considered the beginning of a Feminist Religion. Lastly, Gallagher says "in he shared view of the biblical interpreters in these chapters any intelligent, aware, or open person who reads the Bible will potentially come to read it their (the new religion) way" which was quite literally the goal of the Woman's Bible.

Cheering for Christianity

The book Reading, Writing Religion II by Mark Chancey reminded me of a court case from a few years back concerning high school football and Christian banners held by the cheerleaders before the games began. While Chancey was concerned with how the public schools were not handling their religious curriculum in the right manner, this public school in Kountze, Texas received national news and even comments from Ted Cruz (Presidential nominee 2016), John Cornyn, and Rick Perry concerning how religious signs were being handled by a school district. The Republicans previously named were in  favor of the petitioners (the cheerleaders) rather than KISD who argued that the banners were a direct representation of the school so they must be approved by the school and follow all school ideals, making them "government speech." To explain further: the school originally allowed the cheerleaders to write whatever they wanted on their banners, then they began to put Christian messages, then non-Christians including the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) so they banned religious signs....then the school reinstated the ability to make religious signs but they needed to be approved by the school and be in strict adherence to the school policies which basically meant that the cheerleaders were back to not being able to write religious signs for football games. The public argued that “while all students have the right to practice their faith privately in the public-school setting, official religious promotion alienates and excludes students of minority faiths and nonbelievers and sparks religious tensions and divisiveness within school districts.” At the end of this entire debacle, the Texas government came together to require KISD to exercise their freedom of speech and paint whatever they wanted on their football banners. The relevance of this court case to Chancey's book is that in Texas, Protestant Christian values and views are prominent in schools (which is why the cheerleaders were able to use these signs for weeks before people began to complain), and prominent in Texas government because Republicans like Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Rick Perry were able to weigh in on the case and vote in favor of the cheerleaders. The Bible continues to be taught in some public schools, typically at the hands of a Protestant Christian, and education boards will have a hard time limiting the use of the Bible in schools while the government still favors Christianity. Further, if the school districts change the way the Bible is used in schools whether it be through classroom teaching, football banners, or prayers before graduation, there is a good chance that the public will fight back to have their Christian views restored and the conservative Republican officials representing an Evangelical base will most likely help them achieve these goals. 

Society Versus Politics

          It has been brought to my attention by these three articles that the Presidential election is becoming increasingly religious, though coincidentally, the nation is more inclined to be "politically correct" than ever before. Where Bernie Sanders is being scrutinized by thousands for not using religious rhetoric in his campaign, thousands of people are ridiculed daily on social media platforms for assuming everyone is Christian or assuming everyone is straight, and so on. I understand the importance of Biblical usage in political rhetoric in modern cultural discourse, but how can we expect Medhurst's nine reasons people use the Bible in politics to be true and relevant if everything else tells us not to be exclusive or assume anything? 
           Perhaps this answer would be clearer to me if I was more up to date on the presidential campaign, but it seems strange that politics are still using Biblical references to further their chances of presidency...and why are they winning? In Berlinerblau, it is evident that politicians often use Scripture to explain their reasoning behind decisions or to showcase their credibility as honorable, wholesome, and faithful. With that being said, these politicians are not using verses to make these decisions nor do they believe they are influenced directly from their faith, so there seems to be no need to have religion in the presidential debate during the "politically correct" crisis. As time continues, I am excited to see how religion continues to play a role (or completely loses it's role) in politics with the growing intolerance for anything exclusive in society. 

Cultural Demand Questions Biblical Authority

        Because our Western culture is obsessed with efficiency and fast paced living, there is a push for everything to be simplified. Want to read a Bible on your train to work? There's an app for that. Want to understand the Bible? There are translations for that. Better yet, there are translations on Bible apps for that and they may include commentary on each verse. The cultural demands for simplistic renditions of the Bible are increasing daily and often overlooked by critics that may say these translations are blasphemous or shouldn't hold any authority. "The Stowaway" and Noah are just two of many interpretations and translations of the story of Noah's Ark, one of the Bible's most known tales. Your average Joe may consider these renditions as helpful, entertaining, and an easy way to get to the point of the story...is he wrong to associate these products with the Word of the Lord? 

        According to Beal, contemporary retellings of the Bible like "The Stowaway" and Noah could be considered forms of Biblical interpretations or "niche Bibles." Niche Bibles are translated to speak directly and personally to it's target readers by sticking "to the point in a way the Bible itself does not" (Beal). These retellings interpret Biblical passages for the readers in order "to control meaning, dispelling doubts and questions and directing readers toward specific conclusions" (Beal). By definition, these specific retellings of the Bible would be considered functional rather than form-driven because where form-driven translations remain faithful to the metamorphic language of the Hebrew texts to allow the imagination to make its own images, feelings, and ideas, functional equivalence translations do not stick to the original texts but write something almost completely new though partially inspired by the text.
         If one were to regard a "Women's Bible with Commentary," a niche Bible, as a "real Bible" that should hold authority, then by definition and principle, one should also consider "The Stowaway" and Noah in the same esteem. With that being said, contemporary retellings of the Bible are forms of Biblical interpretations and/or niche Bibles and said Bibles are fulfilling the ever-growing demand for simplistic renditions of famous texts. The cultural demand for simplistic Bibles leads to the creation of such...but also leads to critiques questioning the authority of the them. Is there an app that will end this vicious cycle?

Sex or Celibacy?

Enticed by Eden shows its audience the number of different interpretations people use of Genesis 1-3 in order to justify their actions concerning bible school, marriages, relationships, and sex lives. In chapter three, religious figures talk about their personal feelings with sex and the Bible and how others have responded. Specifically, Kelley has written blogs, written a book, emails, and posts pictures about her sex life and helps other Christian women follow in her footsteps. Chapter one talks about staying celibate until marriage. My concern is how it is preached so much to remain celibate until marriage... And then dramatically change to being submissive women and dominating men in order to stay in God's good graces. There seems to be no middle ground between Christians praising celibacy and then switching whole heartedly into nearly sexually abusive relationships with their soul mates. How else can Genesis 1-3 be misconstrued to make guidelines for sexual behavior among teenagers and newlyweds?

Femininity in Progression

         As a Christian woman, I have read plenty of books, magazines, and articles focused directly on women in the Bible and the way in which they are often portrayed in a negative light or not given nearly enough attention that they deserve. Though I once believed this literature was created in light of the fight for women's rights in the twenty-first century, the articles assigned for today's readings have shown me that the fight for feminism began centuries ago! In a time where women were almost lawfully subordinate to men and held little-to-no power at all, women were still fighting for equality and approached it by increasing the importance and knowledge of Biblical women. Though the push for gender equality is typically studied sociologically, I believe it would be interesting to combine religious studies and sociology. 
         "Women's Bibles" by Shira Wolosky discusses the way women were using the Bible to fight for equality. These women would write poetry with Biblical stories and creatively write exegesis' that would portray women in a better light than they are portrayed in the traditional canon. It is apparent that the women of Early America wanted men to believe women were powerful and equal, so they in turn would believe they themselves were powerful and equal. This relation of convincing others of their status so they will view women differently would fall under "reflected appraisals," often cited by sociologist Cooley, because they describe a person's perception of how others see and evaluate him or her. Furthermore, if others see women in a good light (maybe because their Bible instructs them to), the women will feel more powerful and the cycle continues. 
         More than the reason women were writing about gender equality, the way they went about it can also be analyzed sociologically. Women in Early America were to be homely, reserved, subordinate, quiet, and gentle so expressing their concerns with the religious text would have seemed impossible. While many women genuinely wanted to help change the view of women in the Bible, their role in society prevented them from doing so. Women who wrote poetry about Biblical works were presenting themselves as quiet, humble, poetry writers while their "backstage self" had different purposes for their work. Erving Goffman describes the presentation of self as a dramaturgical production of your everyday life. In this case, the women show their "front stage" self as poets, while their "back stage self" is a feminist fighting for equality. 
         Though we are over 100 years from the creation of the Women's Bible, gender equality is still not achieved and women are still unable to hold positions in most religions. When did the fight for equality stop having Biblical input and how do modern attempts at change help or hurt the process of becoming more equal? Because the attempts at traditional forms of activism can be analyzed sociologically, would understanding them in this light help future forms of activism? 

Hebrew to English, English to....Pictures?

        The King James Bible English translation was protested by many high powered church and government officials in antiquity. At this time, "Wyclif's remains were burned for Englishing the Bible, Tyndale died for it, the Coverdale, Matthew, Geneva, and Rheims translations were made in foreign countries by religious exiles and printed abroad," but today you could find a Bible in any language you could think of. What was all the fuss about? How could translating the Bible into the vernacular language be problematic?

        Further, though it seems crazy to read about how the English translation was contested against by hundreds, isn't that what we are doing today with illustrated Biblical translations? Our country, or better yet the world, would be so remarkably different if the common man couldn't read the words of the Bible. Think about it-- there are Biblical allusions in many government papers and the United States was founded on Christian values. The reason our country was founded on Christian values was because it became more accessible to read the Bible and understand it. In today's world, Biblical literacy is down because people just aren't understanding the concepts. Creating illustrations rendering exactly what was happening, it can be assumed that more people would have access to understanding the Bible. In a few centuries,religious scholars will probably say that our religious authorities were limiting who had access to the Bible just as we often say that in antiquity, the Bible was only for those who could read and understand Greek or Hebrew which limited the audience to a small fraction of the higher class.Not everyone can decode the complicated language and outdated material that flows between the covers of each translation of the Bible, but it's fairly simple to look at a picture and grasp the concept. 

       In a few centuries, are fully illustrated Bible translations going to be the norm? Will future scholars critique the way religious authority figures in the twenty-first century denounce, or rather do not give authority to, these new translations of the Bible?

Example of an illustrated Bible. More information on this work can be found here.

Does Majority Equal Authority?

An Introduction to the Medieval Bible by Frans van Liere has opened my eyes further to the age-old debate: Is the Bible authoritative? By reading the selection that was assigned, it is evident that what is considered the Bible in modern cultural discourse was not the same collection of books a few centuries ago. If more people knew this, would they still find the Bible equally authoritative? Even within specific religions and their different qualifications for their authoritative texts, such as Judaism and the Old Testament, the collection has changed over the centuries and depended largely on where the books were being collected! For instance, the current Hebrew Bible consists of three collections: the five books of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. Over the centuries, many followers have regarded these three collections as authoritative as a whole, though comparatively, different sects of Judaism considered only one of the collections canonical over the others (Saducees believed only the Torah was canonical, etc). Similarly, the Ketuvim seems to be a set in stone collection of writings by most, but Frans Van Liere has made it clear that those writings were up for discussion throughout the ages and regions.
Frans van Liere has completely perplexed me about the authority of the Bible. Though my thoughts were shaken by Michael Satlow and his dismemberment of how the Bible was used in antiquity, how out of context we often use Biblical references today, and an overall disregard to everything I thought I knew, Frans Van Liere has showed me that there is even more to question. Frans Van Liere and Michael Satlow are similar by how they both use historical evidence in a manner that shows discrepancies with common thoughts concerning the Bible. By highlighting the discrepancies, like Van Liere's notion of an unfixed group of texts that is now considered the Bible or Satlow's usage of the Bible in antiquity versus how the Bible is used today, the authors are able to activate the part of every religious scholar's mind that asks "What makes this text authoritative and why do large sums of people follow it?" The answer to this question gets more complicated with each reading we are assigned, but for now I can sum up what I've learned thus far: "Believe what you like, but don't believe everything you read without questioning it."

See the Word Differently, See the World Differently

            Annette Yoshiko Reed's The Afterlives of the New Testament Apocrypha ends with the claim that rather than "diluting the value of biblical studies...NT apocrypha may aid in illuminating neglected elements of the 'Bible as It Was'...[such as the] recovery of some of the dynamics, trajectories, and connections that shaped the worlds of late antiquity and the Middle Ages and also continue to shape our own" (425).  Because of this concluding statement, I began to wonder if analyzing NT apocrypha as if they were just more in depth accounts of specific parts of traditional stories rather than completely different than said stories, would make the popular culture and religious scholars appreciate the parabiblical genre of text more. 
            In other words, I believe the critics of parabiblical literature would reconsider their stances if they approached NT apocrypha as an extension of small details that may have helped shape the worlds of late antiquity that religious scholars may bypass as irrelevant now. For example, Reed notoriously analyzes manga and anime illustrations that refer to Fallen Angels, remarkably similar to those of the Book of Enoch, which could make these illustrations seen as a false, new, irrelevant piece of parabiblical literature...or they could be analyzed as a more in depth narrative reaching to explain the Fallen Angels that are in Enoch to the wider, modern day society or appeal to a different demographic. 
            Ultimately, would changing the way religious scholars and modern-day popular culture critics think about texts, specifically change their analysis' to consider apocrypha as continuations or more in depth explanations of canonical texts, sufficiently alter the hostility that is so often shown toward non-canonical texts in modern cultural discourse? If yes, there could potentially be dozens of NT apocrypha used as resources for hundreds of religious scholars to further the knowledge and research of sacred and profane history in antiquity without the fear of being rendered irrelevant because of the current belief that "apocryphal counterparts [are] inauthentic, inferior, and 'late' (405)." 

Kanon: Rule or Ruler?

          The biggest eye-opener of Dungan's book Constantine's Bible was the use of the word canon, or kanon, in antiquity versus the present. In antiquity, specifically in Greek Polis, canon was used "as a metaphor for accuracy, definiteness, and truth...[for the] sudden thirst for order, clarity, and accuracy" (14). In a society obsessed with mathematical calculations and predictions for everyday things, it was important to use accurate systems of measurement to ensure efficiency and precision. With that being said, the physical ruler that today is used in schools and businesses worldwide stems from the sticks used in antiquity for the same reason, measurement. Because of its accuracy and efficiency, the ruler became a metaphor by the name of kanon. For example, in Polis, there were guidebooks filled with instructions for building things, the majority of which were named Kanon of (insert product name here). 
         While it is understandable that kanon stood as a reference to a metaphor for a ruler in Polis, it is surprising that the ruler later came to stand for rule. Though ruler and rule are spelled similarly, the context in which they are used are very different. Dungan explains that as time continued, kanon came to stand for rule in terms of a list of guidelines or governing principles. It was brought to the readers attention that kanon went from metaphorically standing for ruler, a physical tool for measurement, to rule, an understood list of governing or important guidelines. The differences between the two meanings are exponential which makes me question the use of the word usage in modern cultural discourse. Are religious scholars referring to ruler or rule when they are discussing potential canonical texts? When looking at how kanon was used in antiquity, do scholars take into consideration the earlier meaning of the term or remain using the current definition for the term? Is there a definition of the term kanon?

Melodic Reading of the Bible and the Quran

Reading this selection from The Rise and Fall of the Bible was interesting to say the least, though the most eye-catching part was learning that the scriptures were read in a melodic manner rather than just read aloud as it often is today in many services. Though it is not too surprising, this brings in to mind the information I learned about the Muslim culture, specifically the way the Quran is intended to be read and still is read today in mosques. The Quran is read aloud, or rather chanted, and has specific rules of pronunciation, intonation, and cesuras that were originally established by the prophet Muhammad.

According to this chapter, it was made known that the readings during this time period that are now considered canonical, scriptural, or biblical were only presented in song or in some sort of poetry. Furthermore, the parallels of the way the important documents were handled in the three most popular religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in antiquity really highlight the similarities in religious texts across the country. With that being said, if all religious texts that were instructed to be sung, chanted, or said in a poetic manner from antiquity were put together and translated to one language, then compared to each other, what would the differences be? Is there a pattern? 

Is Authority Based on Location?

An article found on Aleteia written by Phillip Jenkins called "The Other Lost Scriptures" compliments many ideas formed in Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times by Sidnie White Crawford. The overall theme of "The Other Lost Scriptures" is to remind the reader that things, even scriptures, can be found in unusual places and still retain a sense of authority. For example, Jenkins refers to the "otherwise unknown pseudo-biblical book 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch" as being found at random, but because they were found, more pieces of the Biblical puzzle fall in place. The significance of said texts is that they were recently rediscovered in unusual places-- old medieval libraries and religious houses in Europe, and should still be held with authority. Because historians believe "2 Enoch was probably written in Greek and was then translated into other languages, the vast majority of what we know comes from these Slavonic texts. It survives in both longer and shorter versions, and the longer has clearly been adapted for Christian purposes. The shorter, older version takes us back to a work written by an Alexandrian Jew somewhere around the 1st century AD—roughly the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls." With that being said, these texts that were just recently rediscovered could have been deemed important and authoritative had they been found all together in a Judaeo cave by archaeologists who were specifically looking for something of the sort, but instead, there is hostility in rendering them significant.  

Similar to the entire theme of Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, "The Other Lost Scriptures" highlights the inconsistencies between what we have determined as authoritative and important, versus those which we have rendered useless. Even with the evidence that supports the usage of the scriptures referenced in the article, based upon where they were discovered and by whom, they do not receive credibility.

Importance of the Changing Interpretations of Biblical Text

The topic of when the Bible became holy is argued daily by esteemed religious scholars and students alike only to come to a similar conclusion: there is no evidence as to why or when the Bible became what it is in modern cultural discourse. While theories circulate worldwide attempting to make sense of the ever-changing meanings and interpretations of sacred text, two selections of studies in particular have caught my eye this week, Canon: Process, Not Product? by Brennan Breed and How the Bible Became Holy by Michael Satlow. 

As some books and scripture have been classified as belonging to the canon, the worth and legitimacy of said books and scriptures increase and ultimately "the particularities of the various non-canonical and canonical locations of the book of Daniel (for example), likely have affected the way that it has been used, interpreted, or even ignored" by readers (Breed). Though it is true that "canonical collections all preserve a wide variety of ancient voices, theologies, ideologies and preoccupations," Breed suggests we use these resources to understand the difference in interpretation over the centuries, rather than the relevance of the text to our daily lives or the legitimacy of the texts themselves.

Satlow evidences support for Breed's take on the importance of Biblical text by highlighting the impacts that society had on scribes as they were transcribing the texts. Furthermore, Satlow attributes some of the texts from Deuteronomy and Exodus to the creative minds of Israelite scribes who used the texts of the Covenant Code to learn, copy, and know more work. "It was a kind of training exercise, and the resulting copy could be discarded, circulated or, if the scribe was well connected enough, deposited in the temple library" like chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy (Satlow 39). Realizing the true authors of the "sacred texts" could potentially revere them illegitimate in the eyes of readers, as does the potential decanonization of similar texts.  

Taking thoughts and theories of Breed and Satlow in consideration, it is apparent that Biblical text that may have been "creatively written by Israelite scribes" rather than the direct followers of Jesus who have received credit for said texts have become important due to canonization. Because canonization is and was determined by literate, elite, and influential Christians, there is no telling whether these specific texts are authentic, holy, and straight from Jesus' followers as believed by many. Texts written by scribes are revered important due to the canonization they receive, though the canonization is not without fault. With that being said, the legitimacy of canonized Biblical texts are fundamentally equal to non-Canonized texts and should be regarded as such.