Real New Religion

            The tale of a man claiming to have been given secret information by extraterrestrial beings, who have telepathically chosen him and lead him to a specific meeting spot sounds like the plot of an X Files episode. However, as much as Scully would shake her head in disbelief, this is not a story for entertainment purposes.  This is what Claude Vorilhon, known now as the prophet Raёl, experienced.  These aliens, the Elohim, bestowed upon him the knowledge that they, in fact, had crated the human race and had inspired the Bible.  Unfortunately, they had created humans unable to understand science, thus leading to many problems in the future.

            While this story seems far-fetched and unbelievable, it is not so strange that Raёl has not had success in developing a following.  The idea that a person could be visited by powerful beings and be given sacred, secret knowledge not a new concept by far. Prophets are a staple in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all of them claiming divine intervention.  Raёl ties himself to these prophets by equating his experience with Ezekiel’s and claiming to have the same father as Jesus Christ.  When faced with declarations such as these, the initial reactions for most people consist of shock, disbelief, possibly scorn.   While these are the general reactions to outlandish claims, I would argue that the real issue here is not the fantastic nature of the claims, but the newness and unfamiliarity of the claims.  In the Bible, there are many-eyed angels, beasts with multiple heads and talking horns, and quite a few people who claim divine knowledge.  These are all accepted as religious truths that do their own work, and they are old enough to have gained a sort of gravitas; they are not seen as frivolous hoaxes, as new religions and prophets are.

            This is all to say that new religions, biblically based or otherwise, have a place in the sea of ancient religions.  They may be outlandish to be introduced to, but they can be just as genuine and inspirational as any ancient text or group.  Their newness alone is no reason to be dismissive.

Bible Benchmarks

            It seems that many of the issues in teaching the Bible in public schools stem from issues of proper teacher training, lack of funding for that training, and (intentional or not) teachers supporting their own beliefs and biases in class. While biases are unavoidable, many of the other issues that affect Bible teaching in schools are able to be remedied.

The Texas law on teaching the Bible states that a minor in religious or biblical studies is ideal for a Bible teacher, but the majority of the Texas teachers in Chancey’s study had done no coursework in the fields.  Regardless of how smart, devoted, or skilled a teacher is, having them try to teach a class in a subject that they have no experience in will not end well.  This applies to all fields of teaching but is especially important in this case.  Since there is no state funding for public school teachers to receive training for the subject of Bible studies, there is no chance for them to learn how to go about the rather delicate task of educating children and avoiding personal influence. Also due to this lack of funding and training, there are no real benchmarks that teachers must meet in order to qualify to teach the courses. This makes it all the more important for school districts to hire and maintain teachers who do have the knowledge and training necessary, or not offer the class if it is going to be taught improperly.

Public schools face significant issues in regards to proper teaching, funding, and training in all subjects, but Bible courses in particular are vulnerable.  Because of the total lack of state funding, and the issues of bias and teachers’ personal beliefs, students enrolled in bible courses may find themselves receiving less than what they bargained for. 

Political Issues

            Politics and the Bible have a rather tenuous relationship in the United States, given that there is a separation between Church and State, but political delegates are often religiously affiliated.  As seen by the current presidential primary debates, many candidates see the Bible as a tool to use in order to secure votes.  Usually, the usage is backed up by the candidate’s personal beliefs, but it is nonetheless a tool for their success.

            Clearly, political use of the bible and biblical rhetoric is seen differently by politicians and by academics.  The political side sees the text as providing answers, whereas an academic reader sees the same text as a question (Berlinerblau 15).  This difference in reading dictates the action that the person will take with it.  Instead of looking for discrepancies and context, it is much more likely that the politician or candidate will simply use the verse that suits their needs.  While this has proven effective, it has also caused quite a few problems.  In the case of political arguments that Leviticus disallows gay marriage, the usual response is that Leviticus also disallows mixed fabrics.  The lack of context in the initial claim is enough to anger opponents and cause a general ruckus in the political realm. More recently, the “two Corinthians” debacle with Donald Drumpf has called attention to the importance of knowing more than the text alone—a political candidate can fall under fire for not being familiar with the specific title of a section of the bible.

            While church and state are ‘separated,’ they remain intertwined, and knowledge of both realms is crucial for the success of political candidates.  It does not matter which party or what stance, a familiarity with the text and knowledge of the terminology associated are helpful for any politician. 

The Puzzle of Noah

            The story of Noah and the Ark is one of the most well-known, retold stories that appears in the books of the Bible.  Most children’s bibles include the story, even when much of the rest of Genesis is left out, and there have been countless film adaptations of it.  This trend, I believe, stems from the fact that the actual text of the story in the Bible is both rather vague, and oddly specific.  Noah receives his instructions to build an ark of exactly 300 cubits, for two each (and seven of the clean) of every animal on the earth, except a few specific ones, he does so, the floods come, recede, and the world is new.

The version that is in the Bible is such a bare-bones text, dotted with specifics, it nearly begs to be embellished.  This has given rise to works like Barnes’s The Stowaway, a ‘true’ telling of the Ark narrative from the point of view of a serpent, hiding on one of the arks.  Versions like this add elements of humor and answer questions that are not pointed out in the text of the Bible, like how the animals were chosen, how they all fit in the ark (or in Barnes’s case, arks).  The lack of detail has also allowed other writers to explain the non-existence of some animals as the Irish Rovers do in their song The Unicorn (the animals, tragically, do not make it onto the ark). 

The logistic puzzle and the sporadic details that the Ark story provides are extraordinarily tempting, and have given rise to countless retellings and calculations to posit just how Noah could have pulled this off.

Eden Extremes

            Enticed by Eden has been extraordinarily plain and blunt about many of the ways that modern Christians have interpreted the first book and first couple of the Bible.  Adam and Eve are not only seen as the first people, but the first people to experience romance.  From their example, evangelical Christians have attempted to recreate this first relationship in a myriad of ways.  From the courtship fad, to eschewing dating, then turning to online dating and the corporations that claim to be able to find the perfect mate for you (or at least someone compatible enough that a marriage can be muddled through, love being an unnecessary factor), and to Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD). 

The range in interpretation is fascinating.  Both extremes of treating women are present, from seeing wives and daughters as princesses to be cared for and doted upon, to CDD which meets nearly every legal marker of physical abuse.  When examined on a surface level, the clear ‘better’ way is treating women like princesses.  However, this is, while not as clearly abusive, still harmful to the women that it targets.  They are encouraged not to explore their own interests or educations, instead, staying home to learn to worship their fathers and their future husbands (who are chosen for them).  Marriage offers them no more freedom; married women are then expected to pop out babies as soon as possible, and teach their own daughters not to chafe under restriction.

Though the interpretation of Adam, Eve, and Eden covers an enormous range in the evangelical Christian community, neither extreme of interpretation is optimal for women.  Either they are set on pedestals and required to bear children as fast as possible, or they face scheduled physical abuse in order to keep them submissive and ‘happy’ in their marriages.  Though these two are not the only options out there for evangelical Christian women (as seen by the women on ChristianCafe who stand up for feminism) they are real options, and real dangers for women in the community. 

Re-Forming Canon

            As we have discussed in class prior, the subject of canon is an extremely complicated one, and it is often defined differently for different people.  Canon does not seem to be a real thing, the more and more we talk about it, and the more I have learned about it.  The development of the printing press and mass-produced texts have certainly aided in the solidification of the text that we now know as the Bible, but this solidification does not mean that the Biblical Canon has become immovably fixed. The canon has been broadened more than once after the printed versions of the Bible began circulating.  Notably, in America, where two new branches and texts have been produced.  These new groups, Mormons and the followers of the teachings of Christian Science, each have their own text, one as a replacement for the Bible, the other as an extra-biblical guide to the text.

            Though The Book of Mormon is not an addition to the canon, it relies heavily upon the text of the Christian Bible, and is singularly focused upon Jesus.  This text seems to me to be much like some of the apocrypha; it does not tell the same tales as the text of the Canon Bible, but it is heavily influenced by and refers to those texts in many places.

            Mary Baker Eddy’s text Health and Science is a guide of sorts to reading the Bible.  This text seems to be not unlike the Bible with notes that circulated heavily around the reformation.  The notes, or guide in this case, are the focus as much as the actual text.

            When there are cases like these, with texts supplementing and replacing the Canonical Bible text, the idea that it is a closed, fixed, canon washes away.  The Canon is canon to those who follow it, but it is not a universally finished piece.  Instead, it is more open scripture, to be taken in whatever way that suits its readers best.

Collecting a Canon

            Reading about the formation of the bible as we know it today, the versions, translations and controversy that surround the process make it clear that there was nothing particularly smooth about bringing the different scriptures together into a single book. This is no surprise.  The apocryphal works of scripture are not unknown, and the issues regarding translation are easy to find.  The interesting point for me, however, is that, initially, there was no intent to compile the different texts into a single piece.

 The texts found in the bible were not originally written as books, but were handwritten on scrolls of parchment, each scroll comprised of the skins of numerous animals.  A scroll large enough to fit the entirety of the bible would be utterly impractically large, extraordinarily expensive, and require countless hides to fabricate.  Scrolls did not facilitate any sort of cross-referencing, as they were tedious to roll through, so having multiple texts in a single scroll would not be useful.  Even when codices became more popular in the early Christian circles, a codex with all the books of the modern bible as extraordinarily rare. The issue with the parchment would still stand, the text becoming unwieldy and heavy.  The oldest surviving copy of the Vulgate Bible dates to the eighth century, and is impractical: at thirteen inches wide and seven inches thick, it weighs seventy five pounds (Beal 119). 

All the fuss around the canon and apocryphal texts has been going on for hundreds of years, but the initial followers and composers of the writings themselves had no intention of the texts being brought together to form a single work.  Such emphasis is put on canon and non-canon, when the intent was initially just scripture.

Interpretation and Illumination

            Interpreting the bible is not an easy job; the numerous translations, languages, fragmented manuscripts, and expectations that people have for the text all contribute to the difficulty. Sometimes, the difficulty does not come from the many complexities present in the history and content of the text, but trouble occurs when a line is taken out of its context. In the case of the second commandment, often cited as a prohibition of art, the misinterpretation is a result of not reading quite far enough.

            As is clear by the numerous medieval illuminated Bible manuscripts as well as records of mosaics and of Jews painting murals on the walls of their homes, this interpretation was not how the passage was understood in the medieval period.  Instead, the next line was included as well, specifying that sculptures and images were not to be bowed to or worshipped (37).  This issue also comes up in reference to Muslim art, where it has been asserted that Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of humans, at the very least.  In fact, animal and human forms were often depicted in art (38).  There have been some arguments made that part of the commandment was added on, though which part was the original is unclear.  Even in this case, the artists clearly did not care if part was a later addition or not, and just took the commandment as a whole.

            This sort of interpretation is fascinating to me.  The misunderstanding is so very easily cleared up: by just reading the next line, the thought that the second commandment prohibits art is dismissed. If not by the text itself, the artifacts and evidence that the readers and followers of the text made art and accepted it (even within the pages of the holy book itself!) are plenty to prove that art and the human form were not prohibited.  It is not a difficult mistake, but it is also not difficult to remedy, and that it has maintained a foothold as an interpretation of the text is indicative of how important context and careful reading are to interpretation. 

In Search of the Truth

             In the internet world of clickbait headlines and fantastic articles, it is not rare to see a title advertising “The Truth About Jesus” or “What Would Jesus Really Do?” or something along those lines.  While the style of these articles is a new take, the idea of revealing the ‘True’ Jesus has been around for quite a while.  Each new document or artifact found that relates to Jesus or the New Testament is eagerly awaited by the popular community, temped by the possibility of newly revealed ‘Truth’.

            This desire for the truth is not a new phenomenon.  It has not always been, however, based upon new discovery.  As far back as the second century, there were those seeking to protect the truth (407). In this case, Irenaeus did this by denouncing the New Testament Apocrypha as “spurious writings” intended to deceive the less knowledgeable (407).  Later, he would be refuted by those who believed that the apocrypha held more truth than the rigidly defined canon. This debate, still, to a degree, in motion today, has been argued from both sides countless times.  While the debate is not exactly over, it has shifted somewhat from a focus on preserving the dictated canon to a curiosity for unknown texts.

            Today, with more focus on newly discovered, previously unknown texts, there is a fascination with revealing secret information that will unveil truth.  This shift from seeking to preserve truth to pursuing new discoveries is an interesting one, something that appears to reveal a dissatisfaction with the set canon.  While both extremes have their values, it seems that both preservation and discovery are equally important, and can both reveal information, Truth or not, that is valuable to history and scholarship.

            

Is Canon a Fallacy?

            In Dungan’s first chapter, he examines the definition of scripture, and goes over what canon means to a religious collection of works.  This discussion struck me, and added to the discussions that we have had in class this semester.  The idea of a real set canon seems fundamentally false. 

            Works seen as authoritative and necessary for a tradition tend to change dramatically over the course of history, from the Upanishad example that Dungan offers (2), to the collections of texts that Christianity looks to.  In the Christian tradition, authority has been granted to a slew of books, their acceptance shifting with politics and society, from Gnostic texts and those works now labeled the Apocrypha, to the modern Christian Bible.  Even now, the Bible is not a solid canon: the hundreds of translations shift the meaning of each line just enough to notice, there are comic book and illustrated Bibles, and some books that are accepted by certain sects and dismissed by others.  Each of these versions and additions to the Biblical canon hold their own authority, and are accepted as canon to their own people.  While canon could be seen as an individually determined sort of thing, that rather defeats the purpose of setting it out.

            It seems to me that canon is not something that can really and truly be determined.  Instead, scripture is the determining identifier; scripture is an ever-changing, developing set of sacred works that people turn to.  Instead of setting out deceptively distinct borders around ‘canonical’ texts, it seems that scripture is a much more accurate descriptor for sacred texts in the past and today.

Context of Authorship

As I was reading chapter five of Timothy Beal’s The Rise and Fall of the Bible, the importance of authorship and time differences between author and subject really came into focus. The section of the Bible that Beal spends the majority of this chapter examining is a passage from Luke.  This passage depicts Jesus reading from a text in front of a group, offering an interpretation, and the subsequent reaction of the crowd.  Beal does not focus on the crowd or Jesus’s interpretation of the text he reads, but focuses instead upon the way that Jesus would have read it.

Beal’s description of the scroll that was read and the setting that Jesus would have been in is very detailed, but what I find interesting is that the person who wrote down this story would not have actually been there to see Jesus read.  Luke was written at least half a century after this would have taken place (96). Not being able to see this event firsthand, and being aware of the existence of other Gospels, the author of Luke would have been conscious of the changes that  they were making to the history as well as the interpretation. The author of this gospel was writing about their own Christian scriptural culture at least as much as they were writing about the culture of Jesus’s time.

This example of a text being written significantly after the events it describes is not the only time it has occurred, and I cannot imagine that it represents the one with the most changes between history and writing.  This section of Beal has made me wonder just how much more has been changed because of the historical and cultural contexts of the writers in opposition to the actual events that the writings describe.

Determining Authority

The two texts that we have examined in this class thus far have been concerned with the authority of texts.  They have each looked at the role of scribes and scribal changes in the development of texts, and how the alteration and invention of texts effects the authority of both those texts and the texts adjacent to them. In Sidnie Crawford’s Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, Crawford names Jubilees an authoritative book for the Jews at Qumran, though it is not usually seen as an authoritative text today. She names it thus for a number of reasons, but, significantly, it is authoritative because it is referred to in two other Qumran texts. 

  This method of determining authority seems to me to be an accurate one, combined with the other reasons that Crawford gives; if a text is important enough to be noted in other texts, it clearly has high standing in that group of people.  However, this aspect of determining authority makes me wonder how accurate it is; there does not seem to be any of determining how authoritative the texts that refer to Jubilees are.  These texts could easily be on the fringes of writing, and may not be indicative of the majority or the respected writers or thinkers of the day. 

  If this specific aspect of determining authority was used today, there would be many a text granted much more authority than its due, what with millions of texts written by millions of people.  While modern society is full of writing and opinion, far removed from the specialized world of ancient scribes and rewriting, the possibility of miss-assigning authority to any number of texts seems like a real issue.

Textual Interpretation and Change

Michael Satlow’s main focus in the first part of his book How the Bible Became Holy is on how the authority and meaning of the Biblical texts has changed.  The authority that the Pentateuch has gleaned through history was not always a given.  The text of the books has changed and been edited by many scribes, writing and rewriting the words.  In particular, the book of Deuteronomy was created by the rewriting of the Covenant Code (pg 44). While the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy have remained clearly separate in history, there is no way of knowing how much other books may have been changed before they reached the form that is accessible today.

Not only are the words themselves changed, but the interpretations have been thoroughly shifted.  Throughout these first five chapters, Satlow will give a textual example, and then follow it up with the different interpretations that the example has come to receive.  In particular, Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s dislike of ‘intermarriage’ has often been interpreted very differently than what Ezra initially meant.  “Since the Holocaust, Jews have framed the argument against intermarriage in terms of survival of the people” (p 81). This is not an unreasonable interpretation, but it is not what was concerning Ezra or Nehemiah.  They were more focused on Jewish men’s “holy seed,” and how it could be polluted by intermingling with outside women.

Satlow focuses upon the changes in interpretations and changes in content that have occurred through the creation and existence of the texts of the Bible, and how they have come to be accepted as authorities for religious belief.  While the interpretations are often understandable, and the changes inevitable (such as meaning being lost in translation), Satlow brings into focus how important it is to look back at the meanings that the text initially had.