Bible Course Without Bias?

Bias abounds as we have learned in class. Basically everything written has a bias so it is not surprising that, whether the schools meant to or not, they are teaching Bible texts with religious perspectives.

Can public school Bible courses be taught with out bias? Can any bible course be taught with out bias?

The offering of courses on Abrahamic texts famously known as religious texts with out offering courses on other religious texts is a form of bias in its own way.

While many questions stand unanswered, some bible courses taught in Texas school districts are less biased than others. Those that are more inclusive also tend to be more academically rigorous.

Texas has laws concerning Bible education in Texas public schools. One of these laws allows schools to offer courses on the New Testament and the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (House Bill 1287) Bible courses are allowed in schools as long as they are not taught as religious instruction or display religious bias. Also the bible courses should not attempt to convert or indoctrinate. But this is largely not what is going on. Bill 1287 also mandates that Bible course teachers receive special training for the course, but for reasons not stated funds were never allotted to these efforts. More than half of the bible courses taught in Texas teach the Bible with a Christian theological perspective.

Biblical Blunders and the power of scripture in America.

There have been changes in the way American politicians use the bible through 2004-2012. First off the way the bible is seen in the public sphere differs from how the bible is understood by scholars. Those in the public sphere look for answers in the text while those who study the text are more involved in the questions the study of it raises.

There have been a few mentions of biblical scripture from the mouths of politicians that leave us giggling at how such a huge blunder could occur. Example: Rick Santorum’s Chanukah greeting card that was sent to many Jew’s included John 8:12 “I am the light of the world, He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” Even if it was put purposely it was still quite a blunder.

While politician’s quotes of scripture may make a few laugh, is there a correlation to scripture use and getting elected or passing policies? Basically no, sometimes scripture use can even deter moderately religious or non-religious voters. And while some politicians may use scripture to better articulate their promises, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will happen. So why the increase in bold use of scripture by presidential candidates?

Jaques Berlinerblau claims it’s been this way since Justice William Rehnquist dissented with Ishmael Jafree in Wallace v, Jaffree back in 1985. The case was about prayer happening in a public school in Mobile County, Alabama. William Rehnquist reduced the separation of church and state to a “metaphor based on bad history.”  Since he claimed the reasoning was flawed since it was based on writings from Thomas Jefferson. 

Fear of religious tolerance; fear of religious or moral pollution?

Fear of religious tolerance; fear of religious or moral pollution?

 In the story The Stowaway by Julian Barnes, Noah hated the half-breeds so he killed them all. He stated that some animals were clean and some were unclean thus creating a hierarchy. This retelling of the Noah story highlights the harms of hierarchical ideology but this time it pertains to the relationships animals share. (and Humans since we humans often like to think of our selves as a separate class or some how separate from the natural world… we just aren’t, we are animals.)

In Christian teens and Biblezines Revolve hates/fears religious “pollution” by “false” religions, and warns against the cultural concept of tolerance. (paragraph 18) Is this a fear of cultural convergence?  A fear or religious tolerance? The fear of polluting ones own religion is a understandable fear to a good God fearing conservative evangelical. All of their traditions that they value are up for grabs, can be reinterpreted and placed in a different context. I could side with them if it were not for the irony of how much cultural convergence produced Christianity as it is known today, and their rather wanton use of things like princess aesthetics (something that does not come from cultures described in the bible) to indoctrinate or educate their many children.

Following in the same paragraph “false religions” is said to actually be considered “moral pollution”  “the popular idea… that any behavior or lifestyle choice is OK” is false because God hates Sin.” Did the people at Revolve say this or did Hillary Kaell the author of Christian Teens and Biblezines add this later? What paragraph is she referring to in paragraph 18?

While this is said in respect to the dilemma of Christians dating Non-Christians, the philosophy behind this can be used for understanding the conservative evangelical Christian ideologies towards groups of people with a different religion.

Paragraph 21 describes witnessing or prostilitizing techniques teens can use with their non-Christian friends. While teens are told not to have non-Christian boyfriends or girlfriends, they are still allowed to have non-Christian friends.

“The First response counsels asking a direct question (“What do you believe?”) but it is not meant to lead to an open discussion (i.e., “I believe in Jesus Christ and you should too). Instead girls are told to be respectful and seem interested in other people’s faiths so that they can “befriend them and (gradually) lead them to truth of the Good News.” (Paragraph 21)

When it comes to seeming interested it seems like a slippery slope in to the sin of deceit. Cause they really aren’t interested in the other religion.

Here the hierarchy ideology is very visible again.

Biblical Womanhood?

As mentioned before when discussing American bibles there are two major ways of interpreting; an egalitarian view, and a hierarchical view. Enticed by Eden by Linda S. Schearing discusses modern conservative evangelical views of gender hierarchy and the findings have left me feeling rather disturbed. I was aware of the purity balls and the practice of courtship, the eschewing women from careers, but never of the many conventions, the use of Mary Kay, and the most shocking of all; Christian Dominance and Discipline (CDD for short.) CDD is in compliance with conservative evangelical theology and yet seems ironically similar to common BDSM practices.

 The key difference is that instead of spanking for the pleasure of the dominant partner and submissive partner, the spanking is divinely mandated and can only received by the female partner. This allows for much more opportunity for physical and psychological harm since safe words and consent are not considered or allowed since it is believed to be divinely mandated by those who practice it. Although biblical interpretations abound and Christian individuals and denominations disagree with what is changed by the new covenant through Jesus, those who practice CDD argue these practices are congruent with Ephesians 5 (21-33), 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (and most likely 13-15 as well), Titus 2:3-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Romans 13:1,  and Hebrews 13:17.

While Hebrews 13 is the only one to not mention men, women, couples, or positions of power, Kelly, a woman who seems to sincerely enjoy CDD finds this verse “significant” and asserts that men have no real control or authority over their wives if they only control her by her willingly submitting to them. This is the scary part of this; men do not need consent from their wives for anything. Would practitioners of CDD agree that marital rape is apart of their practices?

What women do not learn in Bible study.

Once I sat in a circle on the floor with other women, bibles, and warm cups of tea. It was a women's only bible study that offered a humble and close connection between other women and scripture. We read the writings of Paul one week. 1 Timothy 2 verse 11-15 raised much confusion, and the bible study leaders were quick to offer apologetic musings about the time this was written. Nothing they said made me feel any comfort over how this was still apart of the book we were instructed to turn to for comfort and clarity.

Women poets in America created their own comfort by writing poems using biblical stories, and with the rise of competitive Protestantism, biblical interpretations were growing in number. Elizabeth Cady Stanton published a then radical feminist interpretation of the bible. This publication was appropriately named The Women's Bible, and it includes lengthy commentary from Stanton.

Her commentary for 1 Timothy verses 11-15 explains Paul’s relationship with Timothy as well as condemns what Paul says about women as tyrannical and includes an argument about the under-appreciated teaching skills many women have. She further argues that Paul was not “inspired by infinite wisdom in his utterance.”(pg. 163 Woman’s Bible) She quotes another writing of Paul Galatians 3 verse 28 “ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor Free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” and is perplexed at the inconsistency of Paul. Although he had inclusive ideas about salvation through Jesus, these ideas did not transcend to hierarchical church organization and to the pew.

Stanton’s Women’s Bible is just one of many examples of new biblical interpretation that arose during the proliferation of Protestantism in early America. This rise caused many to further question claims of singular religious authority.  The poems of Sigourney and Howe are just another chapter in the history of the recreation of the bible. This time in Christian history exemplifies the ability to use the bible, a book that had a tremendous amount of authority to many people, to support a plethora of agendas.

Stanton’s bible was not well received when it was published, even the National American Women’s Suffrage Association rejected it, but its safe to say that a majority of women now would agree with many of Stanton’s views. Despite this, many women still open bibles seeking divinely inspired wisdom, and these bibles still include the writings of a ill inspired man who was clueless about the potential women held within them.

Selling Convienience and the Bible

Like many who are raised Christian I tried reading the bible when I was young. Mine was brown with Gold letters on the front yet was made for grade school children and most likely shared some similarities to the bibles with limited vocabulary mentioned in Timothy Beal’s book The Rise and Fall of the Bible pg 139.
 Despite the assumed intentions of the publisher much of the bible still bored me to the point of falling asleep with it still open. It took many years before I finally read the complete bible. The first time I read the Bible it was from an app I downloaded, an action that may cause concern for those who value the medium of the message as well as the message its self.
The experience of reading a scroll, flipping through a book and getting daily notifications to read your bible every morning are indeed different ways of reading scripture. Considering the outdated and unwieldy nature of scrolls and the disappointing statistics on bible reading, maybe those concerned with increasing biblical literacy should judge not. I most likely would not have finished reading the bible if it were not contained in an app that continually knocked on the door to my daily life…and I am still debating how I feel about that and bible related media.
Timothy Beal writes about the unchecked consumerism present in the bible publishing industry, once money is involved bibles start looking very different to meet demand in niche markets. And that is what makes this app different, it’s free. The You version Bible app isn’t fault less they offer reading plans and have added video material however they are still the technological equivalent of the free bibles from Gideon’s international found in hotel rooms and elsewhere.
This app I downloaded offered numerous versions of the bible to choose from it was overwhelming to me since the app lacked a decent summary of how each version was created. Currently it has 1261 versions in 916 languages and still not any version summaries available. After reading about the Geneva bible and its problematic commentaries that latter led to its downfall I can see why YouVersion the creator of the app hasn’t added any summary material. (Or sold advertisement space for that matter) If they later decided to add information about the different versions how could they write with out bias?
 In an attempt to decide which version of the bible to read I read certain passages switching between the versions offered, and sometimes compared them side-by-side. The change of just one word can change meaning and interpretation entirely as in the example on page 142 where The council behind the creation of the RSV Bible decided to use the words “young woman” instead of “virgin” in respects to Mary and experienced the onslaught of angry Christians that thought they were trying to debate or deny the legitimacy of Jesus’s virgin birth. The presence of many versions drew me to contemplate why; there wouldn’t be 1261 versions of the same thing if there weren’t different opinions.
While I can agree that it is wise to avoid adding summary to bibles, I am not against adding more text to this bible app. What if the bible app I used or an entirely different app contained collections of biblical translations like that of the polyglot bibles (pg. 123), Having a collection of not only modern translations but old ones too would be useful for bible reading and make the study of how translations of the bible happened through history available to the general public in an convenient format. With more education bible readers might also clear false assumptions surrounding the King James Bible.
My understanding of the Bible at the time at the time I read it, was that the KJV was the oldest extant bible that had been copied from a long history of bibles that had been collections of text written and collected within 100 years of Jesus’s death.  It took me over a year but I finally read “the bible” I switched between versions sometimes but for the most part kept between an easy to read meaning-based translation and the KJV.
Now, understanding how meaning-based versions continue the long-standing trend of change in biblical history, I would have not made that choice. But I’m not sure I would have kept with the KJV either. The KJV bible was a response to all of the unfavorable notes found in Geneva Bibles, and also a counteraction to the political and religious unrest that was the Protestant reformation.

How Constantine reinvented the Bible

A Roman emperor by the name of Constantine in the midst of a bloody persecution where many believers were martyred decides to pray to the god of the persecuted. He has visions and successfully stamps out his pagan enemy Licinius and his great army; he personally rejects the tradition of his fathers and confesses Christ. We may not know why the sudden change, what political motivations were there? Did Constantine just want the blood shed to end? Did he have a sincere and lasting feeling for the martyred and persecuted Christians? Whither for sincere change in religious beliefs, political maneuverability, or just a deep concern over the amount of bloodshed, Constantine's actions ended a very terrible time! Yet he also paved the path for much more persecution that would continue in to the middle ages and beyond. 
Before completely losing his moderate approach he wrote an edict after his great victory giving everyone religious freedom, this edict was called the edict of Milan. The edict does indeed say that "... both Christians and all men [should have the] freedom to follow the religion which they choose, that whatever heavenly divinity exists may be propitious to us and to all that live under out government." but did this include the Jew's? By the sound of it, it should, but I’m guessing it probably didn’t because Constantine said some really anti-Semitic stuff.
 In a letter he wrote to share the decisions of the Council of Nicaea he shares some of these views while discussing the decision to reject the Jewish way of deciding when to celebrate Easter/Passover. “ It appeared unworthy that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul…”

Constantine’s contradictions grew when he later became impatient with the slow conversion of his citizens that were still pagan, many of them were still stubborn to accept the new religion, so he forced pagan soldiers to recite monotheistic prayers every Sunday and outlawed pagan rituals, so much for freedom to follow any religion that you choose.

A Roman emperor would have never been able to reinvent the bible if it weren’t for Eusebius. And Eusebius would have probably never been able to reinvent the bible (and thus end the public discussion of scripture) if it weren’t for Constantine and the power that comes from being in charge of the Roman Empire. Once Constantine found a liking to the ideas and collection of scripture collected by Eusebius no one in their right mind would keep other scriptures that were not considered orthodox by Eusebius. Or even utter a word about a theological idea or question not already apart of the canon or orthodox tradition, for fear of banishment. (or worse as we see later on in history) This fear kept mouths closed, Christian fringe groups underground, and closed a cannon.

Jesus probably couldn't read... but he could sing text?

Jesus probably couldn't read... but he could sing text?

So let me get this straight. Micheal Satlow agrees that it is improbable to assume or believe that Jesus was literate. Timothy Beal on pg 94 out of 244 (I have an e-book so page #'s may vary) states that "... literacy in the Greco-Roman population was probably around 10 percent, never higher than 20 percent." Yet Timothy Beal says his story about a woman chanting from a codex in a synagogue around the end of the 1st century C.E. is historical fiction.

Chanting words from a book is something only people who are literate can do. Making this historical fiction seem more on the improbable side since a majority of cultures are patriarchal, and might not allow a woman such a job.  Further more Beal claims his historical fiction about the woman would be typical. While we don't know for certain the state of Jesus's literacy, is it possible that if he was literate that he would have sung or chanted from a scroll?

Scrolls made from papyrus were common in the lifetime of Jesus, however Timothy Beal says that Jesus probably read from parchment, since there was a scroll found called “ the Great Isaiah Scroll ”  and that was found on parchment. While I’m sure the possibility of Jesus being illiterate is an uncomfortable thought to some, since we have read the bible today and seen so many images of Jesus reading from a “book” bible rather than a scroll Torah I’m sure the idea of him chanting or singing is less uncomfortable while still being so different than our previous ideas about this important historical and spiritual/ religious figure.

   At Qumran, a place nearby the caves the dead sea scrolls were discovered in, a collection of texts known as the Jubilees had authority and was popular. This text was originally written in Hebrew, and has been well preserved by the Abyssinian Orthodox Church.  The text was however not adopted in to the canon by Judaism or Christianity. This is odd as the text claims divine authority, and obviously held some scriptural authority in its time.

    Crawford claims that this text is to be considered a rewritten scripture, or a scripture intended to present an interpretation. While arguing against Satlow's claims that scribes altered scripture. If the Jubilee text is to be considered rewritten, than why does it offer more details than the versions of the stories that made it in to the cannon? Why would a text that was meant to be read along with the Pentateuch and Torah with out replacing them, have so many more details than the stories that were preserved and read today in the Bible? I don't know how to understand these differences with out assuming that details were added along the way or (a better explanation) that the Jubilees  are older than the versions of the same stories that made it in to the cannon. If this were true then it would make sense that there are more details such as the specific name of the peak that Noah's ark landed, and the stories of the nine extra sons that Eve gave birth in the Jubilees than in the canonical version.

 
We have learned that peoples understanding of the Bible has changed through time,  but what about peoples understanding of God and gods?  We may not think about it but there are options.   If we imagine perusing a merchant of Gods or perhaps deity figurines, there would be choices. Buy one? or buy one get 10 free.  Of course considering the quality of the products would be very important in such a decision. While polytheist have many gods they might consider one to be bigger better or older than the others, as was the case with the Canaanites. According to our reading from Michael Satlow Israelites and Judahites didn't see any problem with the worship of Yaweh, a god previously apart of a monotheist group, with the private worship of other deities. While many faithful today would consider this blasphemy. I find it curious how many faithful, ( the lay people) while openly monotheistic, might give one day to God while not even mentioning him the other 6 days even in private spaces and give so much more thought time and reverence to other things. I remember being very young and participating in art projects that outlined this very problem of idolatry. Idolatry can be the high reverence for basically anything or the worship of a physical thing that is a representation of a god. At my church the idols were fame, money, drugs, war, basically idols with out personification, only we gave them personification by giving them large scary bodies, furthering the message that these were large scary giants to watch out for and avoid. With the case of the polytheistic Canaanites and the monotheistic Israelite's it doesn’t seem that either system is better at dealing with these giants more than the other.