Biblical Figures and Their Places in History

In the first part of his book How the Bible Became Holy, Michael Satlow discusses the idea that the Bible has not always been a book of reverence and absolute authority. As such, he explains the likely historical events, as well as the people behind them, which paved the way for the Bible's current status as a holy and authoritative text. This facet of the book, the treatment of religious figures as strictly historical, opens space for discussion of how biblical characters dealt with the social and political climate of the ancient Near East, and how history, displacement, war, and power all shaped the Bible as we know it today.

One point of Satlow’s book which emphasizes the idea of the Bible’s creation and sanctification as a process is how he discusses the various successes and failures of Biblical figures. He includes Ezra and Nehemiah as prime examples, and these characters, each boasting his own book in the Bible, were not as successful as the finished product paints them. The authors of their books were sympathetic to their causes, so naturally they appear to accomplish much while their failures are more ambiguous.

Ezra the scribe, who was confrontational towards the settled community when he returned to Jerusalem to re-establish the law, ultimately saw little success in his endeavors and then proceeded to drop off the map. That is, we do not know what became of him or his legal rulings after the ending report of his book. In such a case, “one would think that the author, who was certainly sympathetic to Ezra, would have informed us if Ezra was successful” (83-84). Nehemiah, a Persian functionary, came with similar goals in mind. However, he was rivaled by Biblical enemies who worshiped the same God in different ways. Against such established individuals and the customs they represented, Nehemiah saw failure as well, and “it is very easy to imagine that as soon as Nehemiah leaves the scene the people revert right back to what they were doing” (91). He and Ezra had only so much political power and could not go about splitting families or destroying the social order without negative personal and political consequences.

The major take-away here is that biblical writers had personal agendas, too. Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah implemented enduring reforms, yet their ambiguous endings and the interested authors of their stories give more hope to these records than seems to have been available. Though Ezra and Nehemiah were almost certainly pious, devout individuals, wrestling with established political and cultural customs was out of their depths.I find such a discussion of biblical characters refreshing and useful in that it encourages readers to consider them as real people with complex social and political agendas. Understanding them as such also brings about greater appreciation for the historical condition of the ancient Near East and the place of the Jews within it.

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. 

Importance of the Changing Interpretations of Biblical Text

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

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

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

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

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.

Scribes in Antiquity and Today

Reading Part I of Satlow’s How the Bible Became Holy has caused me to reflect on what the Bible means to people today in light of how individuals in antiquity interacted with biblical texts. More specifically, the practice of rewriting and ultimately revising biblical texts was very present in antiquity and is arguably still carried out today.

In his book, Satlow refers to the documentary hypothesis, a hypothesis stating that the Pentateuch was created from earlier sources. He also acknowledges that it is a hypothesis and other theories exist which “understand the Pentateuch as the result of a continual process of growth, accretion, and modification” (75). Either way, biblical texts were not written once and preserved as they were until the present day. When I hear the term “scribe”, I immediately think of someone who copies things down word for word. This simply was not true in antiquity. Satlow explains scribes as “scholarly and creative, not human photocopy machines” (39). In reality, scribes “‘corrected’ and revised them according to their tastes” (39).

Last class period we looked at various “Bibles” that most of us did not consider to be actual Bibles. However, these non-conventional Bibles that are published are doing something similar to what the scribes of antiquity did. Individuals are picking up the Bible, and finding it troublesome. Bible publishers understand this, and revise the Bible in a way that appeals to the taste of a targeted demographic. Like the scribes of antiquity, modern day publishers are asserting their own viewpoints into how biblical texts are presented and translated.

Are present day individuals who modify the Bible no different than the scribes of antiquity? Perhaps, though I think the main thing to keep in mind is the context in which they operated in. In today’s context the average person will assume any version of the Bible is authoritative because it is supposed to be ancient text that informs religion. Scribes of antiquity did not function in a society that had high rates of literacy and the ease of disseminating information that we have today. What they wrote wasn’t automatically authoritative in the way a Bible is today. Overall, individuals have been trying to make sense of biblical texts through modification for as long as they have been in circulation. The main difference is the context in which these changes occur, which in turn affects the potential impact these revisions can have.

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.

Is Intermarriage Really Crucial to Maintaining a Religion? Questioning Ezra's Message when Applied to the Status Quo

If Ezra had a checklist after his arrival to Jerusalem, "prevent intermarriage" would most likely have space somewhere on his list. However, ignoring the fact that Ezra would have been "horrified at the idea that genealogically pure semen would end up in the wombs of the impure daughters of the land”, this idea of denying intermarriage to further Judaism, and whether this policy actually even works, is incredibly interesting when applied to the status quo.

What percent of individuals from single religion households maintain their faith throughout their life? While there appears to be some correlation between single religion households and children maintaining their same faith into adulthood, it is not entirely clear that denying intermarriage is the answer to maintaining Judaism, or any religion for that matter. In a Pew study conducted in 2014, those polled who identified as Hindu were the most likely to marry within their own religion (91%). Mormon’s were second (82%) and Muslim’s came in a close third (79%). Seemingly ignoring the idea that denying intermarriage is crucial to prolonging Judaism, those who identified as Jewish came in a distant 6^th – if you combine the different sects of Protestantism – and 7^th if you do not (65%). Clearly, one of Ezra’s more unsuccessful ventures of denying intermarriage did not take hold with the average Jewish follower – both in 500 BCE, and today – especially when you compare the Jewish population to the other major world religions represented in the study. However, you’d be wrong to assume that this low percentage of single religion Jewish households is detrimental to the Jewish population. In fact, the same study predicted that among those surveyed that were Jewish, three quarters of Jews still identify with their childhood religion (75%). This puts the Jewish population in third, when compared to the other eleven religions in the study. Coming in first was Hinduism (80%), with Islam coming in second (77%). This muddles the waters significantly in the “does intermarriage hinder religious expansion” debate. Hinduism and Islam’s strong performance seems to suggest, at the very least, that there may be some correlation to the idea of pushing single religion households. However, Judaism’s strong retention rate seems contradictory to the idea that allowing intermarriage increases the number of children who will later turn their back on their family's religion. Even though in 2014 Judaism was average when compared to other religions at denying intermarriage, they were still one of the most successful religions in terms of retention of followers. 
This is not to say that Ezra was completely wrong or that his thoughts on intermarriage should be completely ignored in the Bible. Rather, this idea that denying intermarriage is crucial for a religion to maintain popularity no longer stands as a clear and infaliable rule in the status quo. It would be harder to marry outside their religion in 500 BCE simply because religions were held in groups, and people rarely were able to branch out. If someone was exposed to a new religion, this exposure was then accompanied by significantly more hostility than we seen today. Overall, this idea of religions being held in small, secluded groups is not seen nearly as frequently and religious followers are free to intermingle with those of different faiths; thus making it significantly easier today to meet someone of a different faith and therefore, more likley that these people will end up married. 
Ezra’s theory could have a plethora of possibilities that make his thoughts on intermarriage more legitimate for that time. First, it may have been more dangerous both physically and societally to marry outside your religion. Mandating same religion marriages could also yield higher birthrates in that one religion family; more kids equals more followers, which is definitely not a negative if you’re a struggling religion roughly 2,500 years ago. Denying intermarriage could also help protect followers from diseases, and help maintain group coercion. Regardless of the potential reasons to justify Ezra's claim, it is clear that denying intermarriage is not the solution to maintaining a religion as previously thought.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-2-religious-switching-and-intermarriage/#interfaith-marriage-commonplace

Overall Part I of, How the Bible Became Holy, was a retelling of the Old Testament. Part I started with the Davidic Monarchy and ended talking about the disappearance of Ezra. This book definitely was helpful as a refresher from what I learned in my Old Testament class.

Satlow argues that scribes were, “engaged in traditional scribal activities such as the reworking of older texts and production of new wisdom” and “were scholarly and creative, not human photocopy machines” (37 & 39). What do we do with this, is my question. If there were scribes that were altering the original texts—which again is not 100 % proven—do we just not believe in the legitimacy of the Bible anymore? I would argue that no, one cannot ignore disprove everything in the Bible. Of course, not everything in the Bible is thought to be accurate, but one could argue that the altering of the text was to make it more applicable to people who were not proficient or educated because “the ability to read, write, and interpret complex texts conferred status” (32). We do not know if the scribes even revised the text—or if they did rework the text, how much they reworked. Satlow provides an example that would prove that the scribe’s did not change the overall message of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy. Satlow argues that, “there is a coherent logic to the revisions” and “At the same time, the revisions tend to humanize the cultic practices found in the Covenant Code” (40). Therefore, I argue that the scribes in antiquity are improving the writing of the original texts while not altering the messages that were provided in the original texts. “Scribes” in society today are publishing thousands of different editions of the Bible. I would argue though that modern “scribes” are modifying the Bible to reflect their personal beliefs and are purposely changing the meaning of the original text as we know it.

As a result, I would argue that scribes in antiquity were reworking the text for the uneducated audience, while “scribes” in today’s society are instead removing anything they do not agree with and adding in personal thoughts. Although we must challenge the Bible and its accuracy, we must not get too involved in criticizing it to where the overall message is lost because like Satlow says, “Today we take for granted the religious authority of texts” (79).

Reinventing the Bible Seminar Blog

Welcome the course blog for RELI 3491-2 Special Topics, aka Reinventing the Bible. We'll use this site for the weekly blog assignments, described here on this site and on our TLearn page.

To help you shake off the rust from the overly long holiday break, here are some things you need to do before our first meeting on January 13.

• Read the first for Chapters of Timothy Beal's The Rise and Fall of the Bible (available on our TLearn site if you haven't purchased the book yet). 
• Go to your Trinity email account and accept the invitation to be an author on this blog. 
• Sign up to receive email updates to this blog by going to the "Follow by Email" widget on the right hand side of this blog. 

While not required in the same way the above items are, we also highly recommend the following:

• Spend a little time looking at the public blog for the course, which you'll find at http://www.reinventingthebible.com/. We've been tracking some of the ways in which the Bible is appropriated or "reinvented" in contemporary settings, making the blog posts a kind of mini-archive of things that have happened in the last few months. 

We're looking forward to this seminar and can't wait to get started.