Static vs. Living

Classes are fascinating. Several of them overlap, which enables me to get different perspectives on the same places, times, and words. My favorite class, I think, is "Classical Jewish Texts" which is also covering the early Christian writings (like the Apochrypha). It's so interesting to look at the early words of Christianity and the words of the Talmudic period and to see where they really started to diverge. It's also interesting to see how the Gospel's are different from the rest of the Christian scriptures. There a definite parallel to the differences you see between the writings of the Torah and the law that is practiced in Israel, with particular attention to the Talmudic writings.

There are things that are set down in law in the Torah that the Sages of the Talmud interpret so as to allow for a continued religious practice that extends beyond desert life around 1500 BCE. The Talmudic Sages regarded these words as sacred and holy ... but not particularly practical by the time of the 1st century. It seems to be the same with early Christianity. The words spoken by Jesus in the gospels (particularly the statement that "Whosoever therefore shall break on of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven ... " (Matthew, 5:19)) became impractical by the time of Paul's Acts of the Apostles. The Jews of the time were not cleaving to the words of Jesus in any great number, and there was little chance of getting the gentiles of the time to convert to Judaism and follow all of those laws, PLUS the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, Paul decided that it was not necessary to become a Jew first.

Because of the flexibility of Paul Christianity appealed to a great many Gentiles and won them as converts. They were able to take Christian beliefs and weave their own culture into it. The Celtic gods and goddesses didn't disappear when Christianity came to down ... they were incorporated into the belief system.

Similarly, the foresight of men like Hillel and Johannan ben Zakkai allowed Judaism to transform from a cultic religion focused on one location and the sacrifices to be made there, into a religion of belief ... a tradition that could become a "portable homeland" (The Jews: The Period of the Talmud, Goldin).

Conclusions can then be drawn to modern Constitutional scholarship. Do we interpret the Constitution according to the mindset of people who lived and thought and wrote 222 years ago? Or do we look at the words in their current context? The Bible has been read and translated and interpreted over and over again. It can be found in modern language or in ancient. I am currently reading a King James translation, written in 1611. The words and grammatical syntax don't make a lot of sense to me in 2009. The prose is majestic and it sounds great ... but in terms of applying it do daily life? The words just don't apply. But if you put the words into a more modern vernacular (say, the JPS translation from 1987, or The Good News Bible, from the 90's for the Christian texts), all of a sudden, the words take on a more applicable meaning! Is the Constitution more sacred than the Bible, that it must be kept to it's original context and not EVER looked at with a modern eye? I think not.

The difference between Judaism and Christianity and the other religions that existed from 1000 BCE - 1000 CE is that Judaism and Christianity adopted a LIVING document approach. The moment that societies begin to think of themselves or their primary (be they religious of secular) texts as static is the moment that they cease to be relevant.