admin

 

Last month I discussed a role-playing exercise that I did with my class, “Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible,” in which, at the very end of the course, I asked my students to recreate the Christian Bible.  If all the interested parties had a voice — which they assuredly did not — what might the canon have looked like?  I followed with interest the amazing conversation that this generated on James McGrath’s blog, “Exploring our Matrix.”  As some of the comments there suggest (or ask), the intention of my exercise was not to make judgments about each book of the present Christian Bible (and the myriad of other contemporary writings that did not enter the canon), but rather to get students to wrestle in a more general way with the issues of canon and authority.  So without further ado, this is what my students came up with:

1. The canonical Christian Bible would consist of the historical and prophetic writings of the Jewish Bible and more or less the entire New Testament as it now exists.  Both Greek and Latin would be equally authoritative versions;
2. The remainder of the books of the Jewish Bible (including the Pentateuch) would have apocryphal (deutero-canonical) authority;
3. The canon will remain open, to be revisited by council meetings every 50 years (or so)

This result certainly surprised me, but was in line with our class discussions that consistently noted how important the Jewish prophetic books were — more than the written Torah (this is arguable, but I do argue it in my forthcoming book, How the Bible Became Holy) for most Jews and Christians in the first few centuries of this era.  The emperor and his court desired the historical books as helping to give authority to the monarchy; they particular wanted the story of David included.  The bishops were not entirely happy with this outcome, but they also were willing to compromise with the Marcionites and Gnostics in order to keep the peace and preserve an agreement that would not lead to schism.  (Interestingly, the rabbis decided that it would be best if the Jewish Bible was fully excluded from the Christian canon, as they determined that the Jews had no interest in being part of the Christian story.)  The decision not to close the canon was a bone thrown to the Montanists, along with a declaration that female prophecies in the Jewish Bible were to be particularly valued.

I thought that this result was as brilliant as it was historically implausible.  As several of the comments in Exploring our Matrix note (as well as my students in the post-mortem), in reality this process was not a game: many of the participants in these decisions would rather have died than compromised, and the empire decided to crush rather than negotiate with dissidents.  But that said, this solution was rather nifty and makes one wonder what would have happened if the canon was formed by taking into account the concerns of the “heretics.”

Pedagogically, I thought that the exercise was quite a success.  I would change a few things, but I plan on doing it again.  Here are a few student comments:

• The simulation clearly showed the impact of human personality on the development of religion….  The synod also illustrated the ironies associated with negotiating a canon.  In our modern context, it often seems that theological differences lead directly to violence; in our simulation, groups who came to the synod with conflicting views often had the same goals. [Despite their bitter differences], the rabbis broke into applause when the Gnostics argued that the Old Testament should not be held on the same canonical level as the New Testament.
• The simulation itself was an effective way to learn about the roles of several different political groups. By engaging in debate with them, it was much easier to gain an understanding of, absorb, and retain what their stances were on the Bible. I also took away some important lessons about how power and politics influenced and intertwined with religion.
• The simulation tied this course together perfectly. It allowed us to apply what we have learned about authority while we were forced to come to a conclusion of what texts we thought deserved authority and what texts didn’t. It was an exceptional final because not only did we put a lot of effort and work into learning and preparing for this simulation, but we also were able to do all of this in an enjoyable and comfortable manner.
• Most interestingly, the simulation put the idea in my mind of an imaginary future in which the Bible did not include the Old Testament. I am curious how history would have developed in terms of Jewish/Christian relations if the Old Testament had not been ultimately included in the Christian Cannon.
• I learned from this experience that power is not always as centralized as it seems. While we assumed at the beginning of the simulation that the emperor could dictate the outcome as much as he wished, many of the factions could, by means of negotiation and persuasion, achieve at least some of their objectives – even if they did not have a direct vote. It was also quite interesting to see how some individuals were able to sway other peoples’ opinions just by the persuasive manner of their speech.

 

A short interview in which I discuss using different technologies to teach Talmud (in English) to undergraduates.

I refer in the video to C-Map, which can be found here.

 

Yesterday I found some time to drop in on part of a conference on Finance in Religious Law.  While unfortunately I was unable to attend to the entire conference, it seemed that much of it revolved around one particular issue: usury or the charging of interest.  The problem goes back to several biblical verses (e.g., Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:37; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Ezekiel 18:17; Psalms 15:5) that condemn or prohibit the collecting of interest on loans.  Since there is a similar prohibition in the Quran (e.g., 2:275), Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all had to wrestle with this norm as it applies to their commercial activities.   While each religious tradition has extensively debated the precise definition of “interest,” the basic idea behind it – using money to make money – is at the heart of modern finance.

The papers and issues raised at the conference were interesting, if not earth-shattering, and helped me to reflect on the intersection of religion and money.  There were three issues or themes in particular that I saw running through the conference:

1. Actors.  As is well-known, both rabbis and Catholic canon lawyers took the biblical verses (1) to prohibit the charging of any cost for the use of capital if it involves little or no risk on the lender’s part; and (2) to apply only to co-religionists.  This has been seen, quite simplistically but perhaps not without a grain a truth, as leading to the rise of Jewish bankers in northern Europe in the Middle Ages; they supplied the necessary capital to Christian leaders.  At the same time, the Muslim prohibition is a universal one (not just limited to co-religionists), and may thus have played a role in limiting the growth of banking in Islamic lands.  This distinction, though, is hardly as clean as it looks.  Islamic economies were also shot through with credit, and creative ways of raising capital were (as today) used in avoid these strictures.  Religion was not the only potential limiting application, though.  John Calvin was among many other Christians of his day to link the prohibition to its (perceived) social goal, and he thus ended up prohibiting loans with interest only to the poor.  The rich are free to use their capital productively.
2. Religion and Reality.  What is the relationship between religious law and society?  The Jewish case is particularly interesting: whereas northern European rabbis, living among Jews who increasingly made their livings off banking, developed instruments for evading the prohibitions on charging interest, rabbis in Islamic lands did not.  Here would seem to be a case of religious law merely following what the people did anyway.  This, however, was hardly an obvious or necessary step.  Religious leaders are often out of step with their co-religionists, sometimes intentionally and sometimes less so.  The more interesting question is the social place of the individual rabbis, whose economic interests they were most attuned to, and why.  The narrative of religious legal development in this case marginalizes the many rabbis and canon lawyers who continued to oppose the charging of interest.  Were they, as individuals, embedded in different social networks?
3. Morality and Formalism.  Here is what I see as the real nub of the issue:  Why prohibit interest to begin with?  The papers at this conference suggested a real divergence between Christian, on the one hand, and Jewish and Islamic approaches, on the other.  Beginning in the Early Modern period, Christians were increasingly comfortable loosening restrictions on interest and focusing on the underlying goals of social justice and economic equity.  Such moral considerations, though, are largely absent from the formal rules of Jewish and Islamic jurists.  Partly, of course, this is simply due to the genre of religious legal writings.  Nevertheless, the occasional gap between the formal rules and their (supposed?) purpose is striking.  One speaker related that according to some rabbis, the biblical prohibition against interest was meant only for an ancient agrarian society, which, since the prohibition must remain applicable anyway, therefore justifies finding formal legal ways around it.

One final, more personal reflection.  I found the modern Catholic position on the economy – that, to be a bit reductionist and perhaps misrepresent it, the economy should be seen as a means to human flourishing – to be powerfully compelling.  Such a view need not be naive, nor must it deny the right of some people work harder than others in order to achieve greater material comfort.  How that view, which I doubt that many rabbis or muftis would disagree with, can find expression in norms is a matter that should deeply concern us all, religious or not.

What if the Christian Bible emerged not from a long and murky process that involved the bishops, backed by imperial authorities, beating down challenges that they deemed “heretical” but in a kinder, gentler way?  Say, a synod to which those very heresies (and even the Jews!) were invited to attend and participate, even if not on a fully equal footing.  If there were such a synod, a meeting presided over by an emperor who sought at least one small measure that would unify rather than divide the fractured Christian community in late antiquity, would the Christian Bible look the same as it does today?

This was the question that I posed to my students at the end of our course, “Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible” as a concluding exercise.  I set up a role-play exercise modeled somewhat on the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) “games.”  Below is an outline of our game; it is more or less what I gave to the students.  We ran the role-play yesterday.  The results?  That’s for a future post.

Canonizing the (Christian) Bible

Background

We are sometime in the fourth century CE in Constantinople.  The Roman emperor, a devout Christian (and also a practical ruler), spurred by the bishops in his court and concerned about both growing Christian diversity and his own eternal salvation, has recently convened a series of synods to hash out “orthodox” Christian theology.  They have not gone particularly well.  While some bishops were able to develop creeds that they could live with, other participants left angry and alienated.  Chastened by the limited success of these synods, he has decided to address an issue that he hopes will be significantly easier to resolve: the confusing state of “scripture” within the Church.  Does the Church need a cannon, and if so, what should be in it?

You have been summoned to participate in this Synod.  Representatives of the competing parties will attend; the emperor expects you all to arrive at an agreement.  Representatives of the Jewish community have also been invited to participate, although since they are unredeemable heretics they will of course have no direct vote or say.

[N.B.  This Synod is a historical fantasy.  There was no Synod convened at this time to canonize the Christian Bible.  If there was, Jews would not have been invited and some of the other participants would have been long dead.   This is pretend.]

Participants

The Emperor and Royal Authorities.

The Bishops within the Royal Court

Marcionites

Montanists

Gnostics

Rabbis

Procedure and Schedule

 

Prior to first class:  Read background material (distributed) and begin independent research on your role.

First class:  Meet in groups and formulate your victory objectives.  This should be a list of three or four goals that align with your character with points associated with each one.  The total number of points should come to 100.  Each group should submit this list with a brief explanation.  On this document also indicate a bibliography of resources (perhaps 4-6 items) that you have or planning to consult for your role.

N.B.  Some individuals within groups may have been assigned roles that require somewhat different objectives from their groups.  These roles and instructions will be communicated privately and should not be revealed to other group members.

Prior to second class:  Each student must submit an “opening statement” for their group.  This should run 2-3 pages (double-spaced) and is individual work.

Second Class:  Meet in groups to craft the group’s single opening statement.

 Role-Play Day (3 hour block)

1. Each group will denote a representative to deliver its opening statement.  The statement should run 5-7 minutes, no less.  Each statement will be followed by about 5 minutes of questioning.
2. After the opening statements, groups will meet/negotiate for 15-20 minutes.
3. A second round of statements (which can be shorter than the first), each followed by Q&A period.
4. Voting and resolution, in a manner determined by the Emperor.
5. Calculation of victory points.
6. General discussion

 

Follow-up

After the class, submit a document that assesses the simulation: What did you learn from this experience?