New Religions? New Gods?

(Posted on behalf of Marissa Battle)

UFO enthusiasts have a pretty bad rap. Most people think their ideas are too out there to believe- how
could there be these alternate beings surrounding us without having any true sightings or interactions? In theory it makes sense. Isn’t God also an alternate being surrounding us, and do we not also lack any provable evidence of his existence? In Intelligent Design, all the basic bases are covered. Why no one else had the same interaction, why we cannot see these beings, why they are here, our creation story. The most interesting was the biblical interpretation, going verse by verse explaining how each line is meant to tell the origin of life on earth through alien DNA experimentation. For the most part, in his context, I could place most of it into context. However, some of it was still a stretch to me. The bible, Rael believes, is meant to try and explain the history of how mankind and all living things on earth were made in succession. Adding the known history of the bible to the mix, there are a good many reasons supporting is claims. The origin of the words for Elohim and God, Jerusalem being the first major establishment, the Garden of Eden being where the best scientists made the most beautiful creatures, and also how we as experiments were angry at our creators for not giving us full knowledge. Even Lucifer as a fallen angel can be explained by the scientist who gave the knowledge in the first place. Looking at the bigger picture, many of the claims made by Rael are no more far-fetched than believing that there in a singular omnipotent omnipresent God who created all and rules over all. Could it be that the only reason this ladder notion is not construed and ridiculed by popular culture, as is belief in extraterrestrials, is because it is simply not popular culture? Let us say for a moment that Rael is correct, and that the majority of the world is wrong in its beliefs. One day, an encounter happens just as Rael describes, but instead of only one man as a witness, let us say that it was a whole city, or even a worldwide broadcast. What is the popular belief now? Who is actually God? Let us consider another hypothetical situation where Rael’s beliefs are the more widely celebrated traditions on the planet. Would not the minority who believes in a singular all powerful being not be ridiculed and chastised for believing something so outrageous and far-fetched?

Noah- Movie vs Text

As it is well known, many different interpretations of biblical stories have been taken throughout history; some with more artistic interpretation that others. The modern film interpretation Noah is one of those more loosely, yet realistic interpretations of the popularized biblical story of Noah and the Ark. Although there are many aspects of the film accurate to modern biblical interpretations of the Creation story and also the Great Flood. For example, as well as having the main plotlines of Genesis 6-9 such as the flood and the animals gathering, the movie also keeps details like the rainbow after the flood and covering the ark with pitch. As for the realistic approach the movie takes on the story, it makes the audience differentiate between the preschool ideology of Noah’s Ark that one is taught in bible school and what the actual, terrifying, gory act of flooding the earth may look like. Sadly, I found the humanistic aspects of the movie believable; the main theme of man in inevitable internal conflict between right and wrong holds an abundance of truth.

                On the other hand, there were certain parts of the plot that stretched the concept of artistic interpretation very, very thin.  For example, I have trouble placing the roaming fallen-angel rock figures in the biblical narrative. The family dynamic is a stretch as well, although I can see how they fit into the text. In Genesis 6: 18, God tells Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” In the movie, that technically happens when Ila births two daughters to become Ham and Japheth’s wives. However, probably for dramatic movie purposes, the plot ended up that way, as well as adding Tubal-Cain as a stowaway on the ship as well as Noah and his family. Another interesting aspect was the depiction of the creation story. As Noah was telling the story of God building the earth in 6 days, the viewer could see millions of years of earth’s formation and the evolution of species go by, including the evolution of man. Usually, theories of evolution are usually avoided in religiously affiliated productions. The scene of Adam and Eve in the garden are very representative of the idea of free will, as Adam stops to pick up the snake skin (symbolizing humanity’s goodness) and Eve continues on to pick fruit the forbidden tree (symbolizing humanity’s temptation for evil). The fate of Ham changes dramatically from the text to the movie. Biblical accounts show Ham fated to be slave to his two brothers and shamed from the family. In the movie, he is somewhat lost and disoriented form the rest of his family, which plays a big factor in his deciding to peacefully leave them at the end of the movie.

                Although one may think they know the story of Noah well, a quick read through Genesis 6-9 may change that understanding. The biblical narrative of the Great Flood is contradictory towards itself several times. Most of this is mathematical. At one point, there claims to be pairs of animals aboard the Ark (two of each, one male and one female), while at another point it is stated that there should be seven pairs of clean animals and birds. Does this mean of the same species, or seven random pairs of birds? (Seeing that the concept of species was not around in biblical times, this is hard to tell). Another number mix-up is the lifespan of people of that time period. In the beginning of Genesis 6, God proclaims that people should live no longer than one hundred and twenty years. However, we see Noah in his six-hundredth year of living, and later dies at the ripe old age of nine-hundred and fifty. Does that mean this new rule only applies to newborns? The text is organized in an interesting fashion as well, with some of the same plot points repeating themselves with slight differentiations right next to each other (as we also see in other stories of Genesis). One of the main claims as to why this pattern appears is that different accounts of the same story are interwoven together, making it impossible to truly distinguish which is the ‘original’ or ‘true’ version. Overall, the movie, as dramatic and influenced by popular media themes as it may be, was for the most part true to the text of the biblical accounts of the story of Noah. 

People's Problems with Personal Purity

I do not typically consider myself an outspoken feminist activist. Do I believe men and women should be considered equally in all aspects-yes. However, you will rarely see me outwardly rant to someone about it. This post is one of those rare exceptions. Schearing and Ziegler have some good points that they bring to the table. I agree with, probably out of my own biased personal experience, that men struggle with and have a big sex drive, while women tend to be more emotional creatures. This is not to say that men are stone cold and women hate sex- It just seems like genders have their own struggles in this area. I cannot conform to any notion, because of this reason or really any reason for that matter, that women are designed to entirely submit to their husbands, or to any prominent male figure in their lives. Growing up with a solid religious background, I am familiar with the notion of having an intimate, loving relationship with Jesus, no matter what gender you are. Having Jesus as the most prominent figure in your life is the main goal to consistently keep in your life as a Christian. However, I have trouble accepting the idea that it is a woman’s role to submit to men in her life. I believe that people can be submissive or perhaps more passive by nature- not by gender or by supposed divine ruling.

Reading through Schearing and Ziegler’s book, I found the section about princess the most personally intriguing, and also probably the most frustrating. I’m a daddy’s girl. I’ll admit it. I have been shaped and influenced by the teachings and examples set out for me by my dad. I also love the fact that I share many interests with him, such as a love of the outdoors, science fiction, and even physical traits such as our eyes. However, none of the things I claim to share with my father are born out of a twisted religious ideal that to be a good little Christian girl I have to please him, and then afterwards my husband, at every turn. There is no pressure to impress or submit to the wishes of my father. In fact, I think he would hate that. If you would ask him today, I believe he would wish for me to grow into an independent, strong willed, sharp minded individual; not some submissive ready-to-please doll. Growing up, my dad took me out camping and hiking, to museums and state parks. He taught me about Science fiction films and nature. Setting a table and other such stereotypical ‘princess’ work was never an interest to me. Proper etiquette was learned and expected, as it should be for any good mannered individual of either gender, however this was never emphasized as a perfected life necessity for being a female in my household. I recognize myself as lucky because I have a father who cares more about my head and my heart than my social and hierarchic standing.

 All of the princess programs for little girls mentioned in the book make me sad. It is almost like brainwashing these little girls to associate their purity with material reward before they are even going the struggle of sexual temptation. Positive reinforcement towards keeping your virginity is followed by something even more scarring; negative social repercussions of losing it. Girls who go through this childhood process of being praised for their purity become the label- they are proud and unique because of it. Perhaps they even see themselves on a level other than their sinful peers. Say they have sex before marriage- What would their parents do? What would people at church think or say? Could I ever go back? And probably the scariest one of all- Does God hate me now? In the book, Harris talks about how saving sex for marriage made the entire process more enjoyable for him and his wife. However, I know this not always to be the case. Women who grow up with this ‘Jesus’ Princess’ label on their foreheads can be persuaded so much into keeping their purity that even after marriage sex feels morally wrong and socially unacceptable. If you grow up proud and known for you unique pureness, and all of a sudden after a few vows lose this part of yourself forever, what does your new label become?

Retranslation- good or bad?

Throughout what comparatively little experience I have in studying the history and evolution of the bible, one immensely frustrating question has been lurking in the back of my mind. Why, after learning about the extensive time and effort people have put into trying to assemble a book that has the true messages and teachings of God, would someone wish to purposely go and change such sacred text to fulfill their own personal, political, or reformative desires? Think about it; a thousand years from now, someone may find a misshapen interpretation of the bible popular today and wonder about its purpose and significance, and why it opposes so many other versions found (the same way we may think about a less known scripture, or even those of the Gospels). In the past, scribes would rewrite stories of ancient times for nothing more than practice, or change the original stories to sound more interesting for nothing more than the sake of entertainment. Constantine was able to influence the bible simply because he had power and an opinion. Later, in the formation of early America, after the invention of the printing press let English bibles become more accessible, people took the direct teachings of the KJB and ran with it; anyone had the ability to use or abuse the authority of the scriptural texts as they saw fit. Now, once again, we see people rewriting the bible to bring to light the divine jurisdiction their own opinion or political stance has, when in reality scripture can be twisted to approve of any argument. We see evidence of this today in works such as Jefferson’s Bible, the African American conjurational canon, the Woman’s Bible, and even in translations that occurred through the formation of different denominations, including but not limited to The Book of Mormon.  

However, I would like to take a moment to play devil’s advocate. Perhaps to some people this view may not be seen as such, but to me it is. For as long as I have known that people of the past and present change, reshape, and retranslate the bible for any reason, I have viewed this as being a bad thing. Why go about fixing something that isn’t broken? On the other hand, I have to think about all of the knowledge of past history and culture available today that was gained through close analysis and contrasting viewpoints of holy scriptures of the past. Scribes may have made mistakes and mistranslations in their copies, yes, but that means there were more copies likely to survive and pass throughout time, and evidence of lost culture embedded in their more dramatic writings come to the surface. Constantine may not have bade the best decisions, however we have learned just how much power leaders of his time period truly had. Today, scripture is also changing along with our basic humanistic beliefs as a culture; the bible is literally a reflection of the significant issues and viewpoints prominent today. Another question pops into my head; yes, the bible is originally a literal embodiment of the word of God, but, for those of us who identify with the belief, are we not supposed to fill our ever changing lives with the teachings and promises of God’s word anyways? As our lives change, and new problems arise, what is so wrong with reinterpreting the bible to help teach others the lessons of Christ? In a thousand years, people may be struggling to understand the many biblical interpretations that we now have accepted today. However, they will also have something possibly just as valuable; a piece of our then probably lost culture, and a peek into the values, arguments, and cultural norms of our society today.

Translation in Conflict

Hamlin and Jones make many good points in their introduction to The King James Bible After 400 Years. Once the bible came together as one (mainly) finalized text, the next challenge was crossing the language barrier. However, it seems there is always a conflict between the church as a majority power and the advancement of the text as it parallels the changing of cultures and technologies. The church as a whole likes having authority over the text, and because it is not available to all people in a more common language, they can shape the text to mean whatever they want it to, which lets them stay in power because of their ultimate hold over all biblical knowledge. However, once the bible is translated into English, even more problems arise, because now the sacred texts are available for anyone’s translation and interpretation. Not only does the text and interpretation change, but the authority of the bible itself seems to lessen; taking the mystery and limited availability out of the text creates less of a divine appeal to the book. Not only that, but people begin to study the bible in an academic setting, or simply for the entertainment a normal book may provide. It seems that the more available the bible becomes, the less sacred it appears.

Another issue to address is that of the printing press. The KJB and the Geneva bible have wrestled with popularity for so long; that is, until the authority of the printing press takes over and establishes the KJB as the standard, simply due to nothing more than wise business decisions and marketing agendas. The printing companies basically dictated what people of that time period would read, because they were the main source of availability for texts. I wonder what would have happened if the Geneva bible had won, and was the most popularly printed book of that time period. Would it have the same authority we see in the KJB today? Chances are, I believe, it would. 

Talk About Baby Jesus

Why are people so afraid to personify Jesus the child? We are aware through readings in today’s New Testament that Jesus is the son of God just as well as he is the son of man. We also have a widely accepted notion that Jesus was carried and born to Mary as a BABY. Therefore why is it so difficult to assume Jesus in the form of a child? Much less believable notions exist and are accepted today. In the Infancy Gospel on Thomas, we are introduced to a wise, yet emotionally immature Jesus with extraordinary divine power. But as one can imagine, as wise and knowing as Jesus is, there is still cases of him having to learn to control and master his emotional outbursts, as any adolescent does. At one point the people of the town come and threaten Joseph, saying, “Because you have this boy you cannot live with us in this village. If you wish to be here, teach him to bless and not to curse” (Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Chapter 11). Can you imagine? Learning one day that the boy you threatened to kick out of town would grow to become the savior messiah? However it is the other part of the threat I would like to focus in on; the people wish for Joseph to TEACH Jesus something apparently unfamiliar to him within his vast understanding of all- how to be human.

But why is this concept not accepted? Infancy scriptures of Jesus are accepted among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We see this in art work across the ages. Yet, somehow the text itself was deemed unworthy to become a part of the New Testament as it is known today. Annette Yoshiko Reed illustrates the many times throughout history where scripture has been reviewed, rewritten, and debated as to whether or not that particular piece was worthy or correct enough to be invited into the world of canonization. Different established religious groups of people over time have reviewed scripture, defying the term and limitations of what each believes supports their own ideals of Christianity. However, this is greatly affected by the views and values of each time period. Unfortunately, that also means that as time goes by, less and less scripture survives due to ‘unworthy’ texts being destroyed after each successive meeting. Therefore, at one point, it seems that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, as well as other Infancy apocrypha floating around, were rejected and never made it into the actual canonized New Testament that we accept today. 

Canon vs. Canon vs. Canon

Perhaps in today’s society we cannot differentiate between canon and scripture because the use of the word canon has changed so much throughout time and has had so many different meanings and contexts, as described by Dungan. Originally, there were simply many different texts, or scripture, that were floating around the ancient world. Bringing together Dungan’s many different attempts to describe canonization, it is my understanding that for a document to truly be a canon, in the author’s opinion, the texts within the work must 1) be sacred, as most scripture of the time were, 2) be set in stone; unchanging and set in place without being removed or replaced by another text, and 3) be set in place for a specific need or purpose of the time. That, however, is in the modern context of the word ‘canon.’ Before this, while there were many different spellings and forms of the original word, canon would mean a ruler, a judicial ruling, or just simply a metaphor for accuracy. Either way, canon has always referred to a unit that brings order to the chaos, and consists of a set of established rules. In this view, it is easy to understand the confusion between canon and scripture; a lot of scripture that has not been canonized is assumed to somehow support a belief or ideal, which in turn comes with its own restrictions. This begs the question; why were some of these authoritative scriptures, although similar to the works chosen and put in the popular biblical canon today, chosen to be left behind? How did these particular documents get weeded out while others were chosen to go down in history forever?

Different Translations, Same Message

It is very clear that the bible is not a reliable source for any kind of historical documentation of events or happenings. Or is it? Timothy Beal says very well in his book The Rise and Fall of the Bible that, “…when it comes to the origins of the bible… the further you go back in history, the less uniformity there is.” The bible grew into what it is today by deduction, translation, and many rewritings of texts; this much is for sure. But is this really so surprising, or so easy to denounce? There have been many times throughout the course of history where a new interpretation of a text mixed with a cultural need for change or explanation has created new beliefs, new denominations, and even new religions. America and all of its unique classes of Christianity is a prime example of this ideal.

The points that Beal says about what texts would have looked like and been made of in Jesus’ time are interesting, but it does not really affect the way we view the scripture itself today. However, the way the text itself was expressed by each speaker is an interesting concept to think about. Perhaps the parts of the ‘story’ that were expressed as important by the speaker changed the way that people themselves told each story. Perhaps that was one factor that helped dumb-down the tales into their basic structures; the basic plot points if you will. Later, when they were written down, it was found that scribes and other people rewriting the texts would add details and elaborate the stories and histories to make them more interesting, or perhaps towards one party’s political favor. But who is to say that the main points of the texts, the ones that are consistent throughout the main translations, are not historically accurate?

Going through the texts of 1 Samuel, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, and the Proto-gospel of James, it is obvious the similarities and differences between the texts. Many of the details, especially if the Proto-gospel of James, differ widely of one another. But in the end, their main message gets across to the reader. The Virgin Mary gave birth to the baby Jesus who was the son of God. There was a barren couple who prayed to God for a child of which they received and gave to the church to be a servant of God. The translations may be different, and may even be of different accounts (Matthew and Luke), but in the end the reader is fully informed of the grace and mercy of God, and the unique birth of the baby Jesus. 

Reading what Sidnie White Crawford had to say about the origin of Jubilees in her book Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times reminded me in many ways of what Michael Satlow had said about ancient scribes. Professor Satlow talked about the different theories of authority people had given biblical texts throughout time, and how these different authorities had given different values to the texts in a certain time period. I was not uncommon, back then, for scribes (typically elite scholarly men) to rewrite texts either as scribal practice or for personal enjoyment or even to fit a particular political stance. Therefore the same stories ended up changed and revised, leaving us today with no real knowledge of what the original manuscript of ancient texts contained. Two of these authorities were Scribal Authority and Cultural authority. A text with reference to popular or well-known authors helps the reader relate more to the text (Scribal), as well as having reference to specifics of one’s everyday life (Cultural). This relativity is what gave the texts power. Jubilees is a perfect example of a text written based off of biblical texts given in order capture the reader’s attention of what the author favors in the text. However, as Crawford points out, the text has its downfalls, including dates and years that do not add up, and certain opinions the author has that makes the text biased at points. For example, the scribe (as Crawford points out) likes to emphasize the mistakes and sins of biblical authoritative figures. The fact that Jubilees has a theme of “predictive history” also relates to an authoritative theory talked about by Dr. Satlow; oracular. This states that premeditated information, or basically anything decreed by the divine, gives a text authority to peoples as well. As discussed by Crawford, the author of Jubilees, “believed the end times were rapidly approaching,” an ideal that comes through in his writing. What comes to my attention after all of this analysis is the fact that there is still one of Satlow’s modes of authority that Jubilees does not fit into; normative. There some people who credit this text the same way as many Christians today may read the bible for advice on difficult life questions. However, for some reason, Jubilees did not make it into modern day Jewish or Christian scriptures. 

The relationship between different biblical texts and how they all seem to tie into each other raises questions about the timing, legitimacy, and overall formation and purpose of the texts. Josiah (as seen in 2 Kings 22-23) becomes knowledgeable of a text that leads him to completely turn his life upside down. He begins to live his life and rule his country as a God fearing one. The description of the text is eerily familiar to what we see in Deuteronomy, which gives the command to, “break down (false gods and idols’) altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places (Deuteronomy 12: 3)”  In 2 Kings, Josiah was compelled by the readings of this new found ‘Book of the Law’ to, “(burn) the high place, crushing it to dust; he also burned the sacred pole (2 Kings 23:15).” The fact that both texts ended up sewn in the bindings of the same book that has been transcribed and interpreted hundreds of times begs the question; what was the original intent? In his book How the Bible Became Holy, Michael Satlow explains many theories and historical uses of the bible that help to understand why the bible is formulated the way it is today. One of his main arguments focuses on the opinion that interpretation of the bible, both today and in the past, has shaped the way that both the individual and society view the bible. Over time, biblical texts have gone from being in the background of religious activities, to being practice work for scribes, to being a luxury for the elite eyes only, and finally to a group of texts available for the whole public to see. However, through this process, the bible itself has to have been rearranged, translated, rewritten and interpreted by all sorts of scholars and religious figures. In Nehemiah, as Ezra read from ‘the book of the law of Moses’, several men, “read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense so that the people understood the reading (Nehemiah 8:8).” Well, what does that mean? Did they need to translate because of a language barrier? Perhaps dumb it down to a simpler level of general understanding? Or, perhaps, they took it upon themselves to interpret the meaning behind the text, as more of a normative authority type of translation, as Satlow would call it. It is because of interpretive conundrums like this that fuel the ongoing debate attempting to fully understanding the original purpose of biblical texts.