San Antonio and the Jewish Community

    After reading Dr. Chancey's article, I was curious to see if their were any schools in San Antonio that taught religion classes. Unfortunately none do which is interesting because we have many religious private and charter schools. Maybe this is why the public schools do not offer any religion classes because they could always go to one of these alternative schools. This is just a theory, albeit a very bad one, rationalizing why these courses are not offered. Another reason could be because since about 30% of San Antonio's population consists of Catholics which a lot of private schools cater to. Fortunately students can form clubs to talk about their own religious beliefs but in my experience, as well as looking on the web, the most common club that is formed are Christian groups like the Christian Fellowship Association.
No public school in San Antonio, that I know of, has a organization that caters for the Jewish community.       However, with the examples that Dr. Chancey provides when discussing how Judaism is taught in public schools is disturbing. These classes contain "the theme that the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament consists of numerous prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament permeates some courses" which is not a very academic way of teaching those courses (41). They try and draw any comparison they can about how the Hebrew bible relates to Jesus.
     In San Antonio there is one charter school that caters to the Jewish community called the Eleanor Kolitz Hebrew Language Academy located on NW Military Hwy. This school caters to the needs of the Jewish children by not only providing the standard education required by the state of Texas, but also offering classes on the Hebrew Bible, Jewish history and Hebrew language. There has been a lot of attention on this school because there is no separation of the church and the school but is that really problematic? In this one article, Trying to Keep Religion Out of Charter School Classes Egar Walters, he talks about the school and how it is run. In my opinion I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Here is a place where these children could go to learn about their religious culture without having it skewed based on the beliefs of a teacher. My question is though is why have the San Antonio schools not permitted religious classes even though there is the a law that says they can? Then should the private and charter schools be looked criticized because they allow their students to partake in these classes?

A Christian Government

     I find it interesting that there has been an increasing trend of politicians, especially those in presidency, using scripture and religious language to guide their agendas. Continuously, the United States has claimed to not be a Christian nation but was founded with strong Christian ideals. Thomas Jefferson famously stated, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." The clause in the First Amendment in the Constitution allows people to exercise their own religious practices without persecution. Why then has both the US presidency, Senate or Congress been completely immersed in Christianity. Below is a list of the religious denominations of all of the Presidents and as you can see, there have only been three non-Christians who have sat in the presidency seat. 

     In conducting my search of religious affiliations in political positions, I discovered that until recently in 2012 there had never before been any Middle Eastern religious practices in one of the three power houses that run our country. Again I ask, why has it taken so long to accept these non-Christian denominations into power? One possibility could be that with the changing societal norms, people have finally reached the mind set that if we can have an African American as a President, we can begin to accept others who have previously been rejected from these places of political power.
History in the Making

Biblezines: Scripture or Not?

Biblezines are the up and coming new form of bibles for adolescents. They are serving as children’s bibles but for the older youths. These biblezines are what they sound like: a magazine with biblical scriptures. Similar to magazines like Seventeen, they contain content designed to capture its your audience’s attention. However, the scripture in the magazine is sparse and limited in the forms of trivia and cartoons. Can these magazines be called ‘bibles’?

In my opinion, comic book bibles contain more credibility than these biblezines. At least in the comic book bibles, they focus more on actually biblical text. I don’t think these magazines are an acceptable substitution for bibles. Yes, we need to find a way to keep these new generations involved in the church and make sure that they know the scripture, but is this really the way? In Beal’s book The Rise and Fall of the Bible, he states that “On every page, the plain biblical text is overwhelmed by bold and colorful callouts, special columns, and other extras laid out in catchy fonts and colors” (43). In my experience with magazines-as well as my friends-when they read magazines, they typically don’t read everything but instead jump around and look at the articles with catching titles and are colorful.

Despite my reservations to these biblezines, I can see how they can be effective. Since I still had reservations after reading the texts, I went and looked for more information on these bibles and the effects they have with these youths. In an article in Christianity Today titled Ten Things You Should Know About The New Girls' Biblezine, they talk about all the pros that these substitute bibles have on girls. The responses to these magazines have been mainly positive so they are obviously reaching their intended audience. My only question, though, is that even though this media source seems to be effective, can they be considered scripture or not?

Online Princess

In reading the book Enticed by Eden both Linda S. Schearing and Valarie H. Ziegler tell of the different views on the story of Adam and Eve. In the first chapter, they give an outline to how a girl needs to be raised in order to be a good Christian and remain pure. Having a strong father-daughter relationship will always benefit the morals instilled into the daughter from an early age. Also training these girls to be Princesses is another way to instill their purity. Parents are supposed to prepare these girls for their future Prince Charming but learning the secrets to beauty and skin care. The one hiccup with this ideology is that the girls are not allowed to actively seek out dates or ask a male out on one. That responsibility rests with the man. The woman is to wait until the ‘perfect’ man approaches her but conservative evangelicals say that dating is not allowed.  

Now there are online dating. The funny thing about these dating websites is that in a way, when the women signs up they are seeking out a man. How are these women still being true conservative Christians if they are breaking this one rule? These websites taint the people that use them. For instance, eHarmony was founded by an evangelical Christian for other Christians to find their true loves. Over time, he has abandoned these original beliefs and has developed this site so that it no longer applies to his own religious group. I understand why people would use this form of media to find a relationship in today’s society. However, if the women would just seek out relationships on their own, they would have an easier time.

The Bible in America

The transition of the bible into the America’s is an interesting one. No one really thinks about how the bible was assimilated into the New World because we have been exposed to the Bible for centuries; that and with the amount of religious history in the United States, no one takes into account that we could have ever had difficulties with acquiring Bibles. There are two things that are bothering me about our history of the bible. In the reading In the Beginning: The King James Bible in America, McGrath notes that “the first English bible to be brought to the New World was the Geneva Bible” (293). I found this interesting since settlers didn’t arrive in the Americas until 1607, but the Geneva Bible was claimed to be too radical for the church in 1568. Did they take those bibles with them because that’s what they could afford?

Another hiccup I have is with Robert Aitken. This man “did not wait for congressional approval before” he produced the first English Bible in America (297). I understand that since their trade with Europe was cut off because of the war and they had no way of importing any bibles, that the people were desperate to get more bibles. However, not only did Aitken go through with printing the King James Bible without permission, he went ahead and changed it by omitting the Apocrypha in the original bible. If he had gained consent from either the church or the government officials, I would probably not feel so bad about his actions, but as it stands even though he took the back ways of fulfilling his own ambition he was eventually given permission to continue making copies of the bible.

Formal vs. Functional Translations

Throughout the century’s the Bible has been re-written and transcribe in order to spread the word among the people. In today’s society, though, not as many individuals devote themselves to the bible as they use to. Those that do go to biblical sermons, the pastor or priest usually have to cite which translation of the bible they are reading from because there are so many translations of the bibles in today’s society. However, there are some individuals that will claim a religion without ever picking up a bible. Why is that?

One of the most challenging aspects of the bible is that it is not easy to read. The text is out of date and due to the multitude of translations over the centuries, the original text becomes skewed. Part of the reason that the most biblical text is so difficult to read because the transcribers try to copy an older version of the bible usually in another language. Not every language is the same. This leaves gaps in the text where words could/should be added to make the read easier. This approach to translations is, as Eugene Nida would say, formal which only allows for the word for word translation. Thankfully both Nida and I don’t agree that formal translations are the best but functional, thought for thought, translations are better. This allows the transcriber to fill in the blanks which does not mean they are completely altering the texts, just wording it so as the target society will have a better understanding of the texts.

I know during the course of this semester, we have been debating what is scripture and authority and what does not; If altering a script’s text will take away its authority. By translating texts ‘functionally’, I believe that would make it easier for the readers to read. There is not a different message. The text is not saying something completely different. Instead, it is making the text more available to the general public and might even draw back in some of the followers that the church lost.

Questionable Decisions

In this week’s readings, we had to read a chapter from the book An Introduction to the Medieval Bible by Frans van Liere. In reading chapter 3 The Medieval Canon, Liere addresses how the medieval bible differs from the Christian bible. One of the interesting points that Liere brings up is that the medieval bible contains Old Testament apocrypha which are were never canonized. It’s interesting that some of these texts are non canonical, yet in the Greek translation called Septuagint (which is grouped with the Old Testament apocrypha), it has raised some debates because of the legend of its origin. This "legend eventually became a Christian argument for the superiority of the Greek biblical traditions over the Hebrew ones." (The Medieval Canon 62). However, the true origins of this scripture was that it was written for the diasporic Jews.  

Looking at the differences on the origin of how the Septuagint came into existence, why would Christians have these debates over Greek traditions and Hebrew ones. If the argument is being formulated based on the legend of how this scripture came into being, wouldn’t their argument collapse on itself because the legend in based on Jewish beliefs? Augustine was one who thought the Greeks traditions were better because of the Septuagint translation. I’m also having difficulty understanding why these texts were rejected by the Jewish communities. These scriptures were written for them. Liere states that “the canonicity of these texts among Christians in this ancient world may even have been a factor in the rejection of these texts from the Jewish canon” (Liere 63). Why would you reject a text that was made for you just because someone you don’t like likes it too? That’s like saying you don’t want to eat a hamburger because a person you hate wants a hamburger as well. The rejection of these texts, in my opinion, was immature of the Jewish community of that time.

Baby Jesus

There have been a lot of stories that have been re-written and almost completely altered to show different perspectives. When writings are popular among the people, others try to retell them in different ways. Most popularly are the retelling of the Grim Fairytales in Disney films and books. They took these dark, morbid stories and changed them to be light hearted so that children could enjoy the tales too. However, some authors don’t always turn the dark to light, but they also turn light hearted stories dark.

In reading the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I was disturbed by how violent Jesus was portrayed as a child. I just don’t understand why this gospel needs to portray Jesus as a temperamental child. The beginning of the gospel was mainly of Jesus going around cursing people until his temper tantrum was over. What message are children supposed to gain from this version of baby Jesus? That it’s okay to have a temper tantrum and do all these awful things if you have the power to undo it. I’m not okay with that message. Yes, towards the end of the gospel Jesus behaves better but not by much. This version of baby Jesus portrayed him as a self entitled jerk that did whatever he wanted because he was the son of God.

Anyway, that is my interpretation of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. After reading it, I would say that it should be labeled as an apocrypha writing. I want to know what others thought of this gospel. What message did y’all gather from reading this writing?

Cantillon Melodies

    When reading The Rise and Fall of the Bible, the most interesting part for me was when Beal was mentioning how Jesus would have read the Bible. I never put any thought into how Jesus would have read the Bible to the masses. I guess I always imagined him surrounded by a lot of people just preaching to the masses. The fact that Jesus was first and foremost a Jew, never fully registered in my mind.
    On page 95, Beal states that "Jesus would have chanted the passages in an elevated, melodic style. He would have sung it into speech." This idea seems really intriguing to me so I went ahead and did some research. The majority of synagogues still use cantillon melodies. Two of the many melodies are the Torah and Haftarah. Within both of these styles of chanting, there are variations when reading different scriptures. To read from the Song of Songs and then to read from the Luke, the melody would change.
    In today's society, the different ways of chanting are more than likely different from the chanting that Jesus did, however, it is nice to have an idea of how it was done. Both in the Greco-Roman world and the twenty-first century, the chanting assisted those who were not literate. The speakers needed ways to capture their audience's attention, and what better way is there to do that than through music/melody. Below I have inserted a video of a man going through a few of the different chants as well as a link that you can use to compare the different accents that are used in both the Torah and Haftarah melodies.

Cantillon Chanting

Credibility in Jubilees

    One of the main points that Crawford brings up in his writings is that he believes that people shouldn't use the term 'Bible' but instead they should use the term scripture. His reasoning makes a lot of sense to me, but I am having difficulty understanding why some people give authority to texts that can be questioned. I'm talking about if you are using Crawford's spectrum on scriptures, there is 1) recognized authority, 2) New compositions, 3) scribal manipulation, and 4) non-authoritative scriptures. I'm having difficulty understanding why people would give authority to scriptures that have room for doubt.
    For example, chapter 4 focuses on how Jubilees was created and its purpose. Crawford categorizes Jubilees as a new composition because it was rewritten by one scribe. It is based on the books Genesis and Exodus with slight alterations. These alterations are what give me pause. One of the purposes of Jubilees was to elevate their ancestors by making them completely righteous. They believed that it was unacceptable if there was room to question the motives of these important figures. In the case of Abram, they added more information (altering the story) so the people did not doubt why he let the emperor take his wife. It calls to question what in these scriptures are even real.
    Now I'm not that familiar with the bible, but for those who are why would they give authority to scriptures that they know have been altered? Again I recognize that a lot of scripture has been altered over the course of history but some shifts are just too dramatic to overlook.

The Three Authorities In Application

In the book How the Bible Became Holy, Michael Satlow covers the material in the Old Testament starting with King David and ending with Ezra. Satlow argues that "Jews and Christians gave to the texts that constitute our Bible only very limited and specific kinds of authority until well into the third century CE and beyond" (3). Satlow then defines the three different kinds of authority: normative, literary, and oracular.

The question I had was would it be possible to use Satlow's breakdown of authority to determine what is a bible and what is scripture? For example, the first day of class we examined different mediums of the bible from the children's bible to the comic book. Looking at the comic book by itself, I would say that it has oracular authority but not normative or literary. Since it only fit one of the authorities, I would say that it is a scripture instead of a bible. 

These different mediums exist because society is always trying to produce new texts that will reach wider audiences. The scribes of Judah, like today's writers, also tried to reach more people by creating more texts, however, "a claim to authority is not the same as actual authority and...some texts were better received than others" (32). This is especially true when looking at mediums focusing too much on the sexual context of the bible (yes, I'm talking about that pornographic bible we looked at in class).

Finally, I do agree that if a Bible meets each of Satlow's authorities, they constitute as a true Bible and is inherently holy.