So Abram and his family, and Lot and his family, have been kicked out of Egypt. Why Lot got kicked out when it was Abram who did the things necessitating being kicked out is uncertain. Maybe Abram made Lot come along. "So Egypt is getting too hot to hold someone of my awesomeness. Come on Lot, let's hit the road."
"But I've got a home and lands and friends here..."
"They're not your friends. You need to come with us."
"But..."
"Come on Lot."
Well, turns out that the land they go to can't support both of their families and flocks. Or maybe Lot remembered being dragged out of Egypt by Abram. There's fighting between the clans.
Abram has a solution. "Why don't you go over there, and I'll go over here. The land is wide and full of resources.
Or maybe Lot said, "Listen, Abram, I... need to be alone for a while. It's not you, it's me."
The Bible makes sure we know that there were Canaanites and Perizzites living on the land too. That's probably because we're foreshadowing some things, but it might also be to point out that Abram and Lot were in hostile territory. To me, it just points out the total land grab that's going on here. I'm not bashing Abram and Lot; they're not going around lopping off Perizzite heads or anything to conquer the territory. But it does smack a bit of the white man landing on the shores of America and claiming the land because hey, no one's living... sorry, could you brown people move out of my sight line... as I said, no one is living here.
Lot heads to Sodom. Sodom is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. We'll get back to them.
God says to Abram, "Hey, so this land is all yours and you're going to have so many descendants that they'll be like specks of dust." Are the Canaanites and Perizzites consulted? Of course not.
But there are other ways to read this: God is still obsessed with the "being fruitful and multiplying" thing. At the time, if you were an extremely beset-upon tribe like Israel, pumping out the offspring was probably not just a good idea but a matter of survival. I'm not even talking about the horrifying infant mortality rates: they're living in lands which, while God has given the land to them, are still occupied by other tribes who might not be friendly. Increasing the size of the clan was for safety as well as anything else.
These are just-so stories, people. There's nothing wrong with that. Why does Israel live here now? Why do we have these lands? Why are people trying to oppress us? See, there was this guy named Abram...
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Holy Moly: Land Grab
Topics:
Holy Moly
Genesis 12 begins with Abram, Sarai, and Lot, along with the family, continuing the journey to Canaan. Only it doesn't. It begins with God telling Abram to leave his home and head to Canaan. Let's remember the strange chronology of the Bible and move on.
God says to Abram, "Head to Canaan and I will bless you and all people through you. This land will be yours."
I can't help but wonder what the Canaanites thought about this. Some guy shows up, says, "Hey, so, this land is mine because God gave it to me."
But the Bible doesn't really care about the Canaanites, as has been amply demonstrated already. So this part is more important because it's a continuation of God making certain people His chosen. Abram is, if not the first Jew, at least the father of Judaism. He's the chosen.
Where's Canaan? Why, it's the area where Israel is today. See, God gave it to His chosen people, which is why that particular area of the globe is so peaceful and no one ever fights about land.
I'm not going to bash Israel (the state, not the character in the Bible) because I'm not really interested in being called anti-Semitic. But if you want to know the origins of the problems in that part of the Middle East, they're right here, where God gives Canaan to the ancestor of the Israelites. I'm not blaming the Israelites for taking God up on the offer at all. It's choice real estate. But that's why Israel is where it is and not, say, North Dakota.
Abram doesn't stay long though. He's a nomad so he travels the land, going where the flocks go or where the water is or where the food is available. He becomes something of an absentee landlord of Canaan, which I can't help but thinking that the Canaanites probably appreciated.
Famine strikes the land and Abram and his retinue head for Egypt. Egypt, at this point, was probably the place to go if famine was striking. The Nile delta is a fairly reliable food source, and the infrastructure could support a larger population. That's not to say that Egypt never had famines, but it was more stable than the desert of Canaan.
So Abram heads there. I imagine that he was probably just one of many refugees from the famine, and I can also imagine that the Egyptians might have been a little hesitant to take in more people. But the problem isn't that Abram will be turned away at the border, but rather than apparently the Pharaoh wants to increase his harem.
Abram knows his wife is a looker, and he knows that Pharaoh tends to take a shine to new female faces, but he also knows that Pharaoh doesn't like those new faces to be married. He's worried that if the officials find out that Sarai is his wife, they'll kill him and she'll wind up with the Pharaoh.
So he does the only logical thing and attempts to disguise her as an ugly woman... no, just kidding, he totally tells them she's his sister, and yes, absolutely, she would love to join the Pharaoh's court. It doesn't say, but I'm pretty sure Sarai didn't just go to court to be a pretty face. Pharaoh makes her his wife. So Abram is pimping out his own wife to save his skin. Classy.
God gets pissed, as God is wont to do, and sends plagues down on Pharaoh. Which seems like a pretty shitty thing to do: Pharaoh may be in the market for wives, but he didn't know the woman was already married. He even treats her and her "brother" quite well. But God doesn't care.
Pharaoh finds out what's happening and kills Abram... no, only kidding again, he tells Abram, "Jeez dude, why did you tell me she was your sister? Now your God is pissed at me. I wouldn't have married her if I knew. So, be a bro, take her back and get the fuck out of dodge before God makes it worse."
That, at least, is what he means. Maybe we're supposed to read it as Pharaoh punishing Abram by exiling him, but frankly, had I been Pharaoh and had I gotten a reputation for killing men and taking their hot wives, I would have just killed Abram. We never see any evidence that Abram was right in his paranoia. Again, maybe we're supposed to just know that Egyptians are bad and everything Abram says is true, but if so, why does Pharaoh let him keep all his profits from pimping his wife?
I'm pro-Egyptian, as has probably become evident. I'm not anti-proto-Israelite, but it seems like Abram gets off lightly in this story. Maybe Pharaoh doesn't kill him because Pharaoh's pretty sure that if marrying Abram's wife makes God pissed, then God will be really pissed if Pharaoh kills Abram. It's a story written from the point of view of worshipers of Yahweh rather than Horus, so Yahweh is obviously going to be the most powerful.
The Egyptians didn't survive to pass on a Bible, or at least their religion didn't. It's a shame, because I'd like to read the opposite side of this story. But frankly, I have a feeling that even if the ancient Egyptian Pantheon were still being worshiped today, Abram wouldn't merit a mention in their Bible. That's not to say that the story is false, just that people tell legends of things which make them look good or make their gods look powerful. Maybe it's spin. Maybe it's not. But in any case, I feel like Pharaoh acted pretty well, given the circumstances.
God says to Abram, "Head to Canaan and I will bless you and all people through you. This land will be yours."
I can't help but wonder what the Canaanites thought about this. Some guy shows up, says, "Hey, so, this land is mine because God gave it to me."
But the Bible doesn't really care about the Canaanites, as has been amply demonstrated already. So this part is more important because it's a continuation of God making certain people His chosen. Abram is, if not the first Jew, at least the father of Judaism. He's the chosen.
Where's Canaan? Why, it's the area where Israel is today. See, God gave it to His chosen people, which is why that particular area of the globe is so peaceful and no one ever fights about land.
I'm not going to bash Israel (the state, not the character in the Bible) because I'm not really interested in being called anti-Semitic. But if you want to know the origins of the problems in that part of the Middle East, they're right here, where God gives Canaan to the ancestor of the Israelites. I'm not blaming the Israelites for taking God up on the offer at all. It's choice real estate. But that's why Israel is where it is and not, say, North Dakota.
Abram doesn't stay long though. He's a nomad so he travels the land, going where the flocks go or where the water is or where the food is available. He becomes something of an absentee landlord of Canaan, which I can't help but thinking that the Canaanites probably appreciated.
Famine strikes the land and Abram and his retinue head for Egypt. Egypt, at this point, was probably the place to go if famine was striking. The Nile delta is a fairly reliable food source, and the infrastructure could support a larger population. That's not to say that Egypt never had famines, but it was more stable than the desert of Canaan.
So Abram heads there. I imagine that he was probably just one of many refugees from the famine, and I can also imagine that the Egyptians might have been a little hesitant to take in more people. But the problem isn't that Abram will be turned away at the border, but rather than apparently the Pharaoh wants to increase his harem.
Abram knows his wife is a looker, and he knows that Pharaoh tends to take a shine to new female faces, but he also knows that Pharaoh doesn't like those new faces to be married. He's worried that if the officials find out that Sarai is his wife, they'll kill him and she'll wind up with the Pharaoh.
So he does the only logical thing and attempts to disguise her as an ugly woman... no, just kidding, he totally tells them she's his sister, and yes, absolutely, she would love to join the Pharaoh's court. It doesn't say, but I'm pretty sure Sarai didn't just go to court to be a pretty face. Pharaoh makes her his wife. So Abram is pimping out his own wife to save his skin. Classy.
God gets pissed, as God is wont to do, and sends plagues down on Pharaoh. Which seems like a pretty shitty thing to do: Pharaoh may be in the market for wives, but he didn't know the woman was already married. He even treats her and her "brother" quite well. But God doesn't care.
Pharaoh finds out what's happening and kills Abram... no, only kidding again, he tells Abram, "Jeez dude, why did you tell me she was your sister? Now your God is pissed at me. I wouldn't have married her if I knew. So, be a bro, take her back and get the fuck out of dodge before God makes it worse."
That, at least, is what he means. Maybe we're supposed to read it as Pharaoh punishing Abram by exiling him, but frankly, had I been Pharaoh and had I gotten a reputation for killing men and taking their hot wives, I would have just killed Abram. We never see any evidence that Abram was right in his paranoia. Again, maybe we're supposed to just know that Egyptians are bad and everything Abram says is true, but if so, why does Pharaoh let him keep all his profits from pimping his wife?
I'm pro-Egyptian, as has probably become evident. I'm not anti-proto-Israelite, but it seems like Abram gets off lightly in this story. Maybe Pharaoh doesn't kill him because Pharaoh's pretty sure that if marrying Abram's wife makes God pissed, then God will be really pissed if Pharaoh kills Abram. It's a story written from the point of view of worshipers of Yahweh rather than Horus, so Yahweh is obviously going to be the most powerful.
The Egyptians didn't survive to pass on a Bible, or at least their religion didn't. It's a shame, because I'd like to read the opposite side of this story. But frankly, I have a feeling that even if the ancient Egyptian Pantheon were still being worshiped today, Abram wouldn't merit a mention in their Bible. That's not to say that the story is false, just that people tell legends of things which make them look good or make their gods look powerful. Maybe it's spin. Maybe it's not. But in any case, I feel like Pharaoh acted pretty well, given the circumstances.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Holy Moly: Shem's Descendants
Topics:
Holy Moly
We're going to breeze through some more geneology here because we should now all understand that yes, it's important, but no, it's not terribly interesting. Shem begets Arpachshad, who begets other (male) people, and it's not until the children of Terah (or rather, the male children, because I bet you there were some daughters in there) that it gets interesting. But let's step back for a moment.
Who the hell built the Tower of Babel? Because according to the Bible, everyone but Noah's family was wiped out by a great flood. See, if I were writing the Bible I would have put the Babel story somewhere else, after Noah and kin have gotten to the business of repopulation. But I didn't write the Bible. Nobody did. It's a collection of stories and legends and history that got lumped together thousands of years after the fact.
So let's assume that Babel actually took place somewhere in the hundreds of years of geneology which comes after it and move on, shall we?
Terah's son Abram is going to be important. So is his grandson Lot. And it's important that we know right up front that Abram's wife Sarai is unable to bear children. That will come up later. But at the end of the passage, Terah and his sons Abram and Nahor, plus his son Haran's son Lot, plus their assorted family units, have left the land of their birth and are heading to Canaan. Cliff hanger!
Since this is a short one, let's talk briefly about the division of chapter and verse in the Bible. It's not very good. It breaks up stories or puts stories together. I'm not sure exactly how it came to be, but I can tell you that it didn't come to be because some guy named Moses sat down at a certain point and wrote it all down and divided it thus. Why am I dividing my discussion of the Bible up by chapters? It's easier.
Also, Haran is a place and a person. Who came up with this? It probably means something, but I'm not even sure the people who collected the stories know for certain. Maybe Haran just happened to be on the way to Canaan. Anyway, that's where Terah dies, and his descendants are going to head to Canaan because God told them to.
Who the hell built the Tower of Babel? Because according to the Bible, everyone but Noah's family was wiped out by a great flood. See, if I were writing the Bible I would have put the Babel story somewhere else, after Noah and kin have gotten to the business of repopulation. But I didn't write the Bible. Nobody did. It's a collection of stories and legends and history that got lumped together thousands of years after the fact.
So let's assume that Babel actually took place somewhere in the hundreds of years of geneology which comes after it and move on, shall we?
Terah's son Abram is going to be important. So is his grandson Lot. And it's important that we know right up front that Abram's wife Sarai is unable to bear children. That will come up later. But at the end of the passage, Terah and his sons Abram and Nahor, plus his son Haran's son Lot, plus their assorted family units, have left the land of their birth and are heading to Canaan. Cliff hanger!
Since this is a short one, let's talk briefly about the division of chapter and verse in the Bible. It's not very good. It breaks up stories or puts stories together. I'm not sure exactly how it came to be, but I can tell you that it didn't come to be because some guy named Moses sat down at a certain point and wrote it all down and divided it thus. Why am I dividing my discussion of the Bible up by chapters? It's easier.
Also, Haran is a place and a person. Who came up with this? It probably means something, but I'm not even sure the people who collected the stories know for certain. Maybe Haran just happened to be on the way to Canaan. Anyway, that's where Terah dies, and his descendants are going to head to Canaan because God told them to.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Easter
It's a busy time of the year for Josh (to whom we've spoken previously) so it took me a few days to schedule and then we both had to cancel because he was slated to appear on a waffle in Reno and I had a rehearsal for a play. But I finally got to sit down with Jesus again to talk a bit about Easter.
Intransitive Lie (IL): Okay, I think we're recording now. First off, congratulations on your anniversary.
Joshua ben Joseph (JC): Which one, the Good Friday one or the Easter Sunday one? (laughs)
IL: I imagine there are some folks who would probably congratulate you on the former.
JC: I think we talked about that a bit before. It's not a day I forget, but I don't celebrate it per se. I'm usually doing seder around then anyway, so my time is taken up hiding the afikomen for the kids to find. That's the way we do it in our family, anyway. I have total respect for the families that have the kids hide it though.
IL: So do you celebrate Easter?
JC: Of course. It might seem a little egotistical of me, but I've got reasons.
IL: Such as?
JC: Well, first off, Eostre throws a heck of a party, so I always make it over there for that.
IL: So you're saying that Easter is really a pagan holiday co-opted by the Christians?
JC: Come on, learn your history. Easter is called Easter in the Anglo-Saxon world because of the festival. And the whole fertility thing? Sure, that's from the Germanic tribes. But Easter is celebrated when it is because of Jewish holidays, so while it's a happy coincidence, Easter is Easter. Give the Christians a little credit. They may have brought in some other traditions, but they didn't decide that I got my ass handed to me by the Romans because it nicely coincided with a fertility festival.
IL:Well then, how about the other reasons?
JC: It was a good day. It didn't last, but it was a good day.
IL: Because you were resurrected?
JC: Sure, why not? No, actually, not at all. I don't celebrate Easter because it was the day I came back. But it was the day when all my brothers and sisters realized that the story doesn't end with death.
IL: So the resurrection is important?
JC: It was important to them.
IL: How so?
JC: Because despite Christians really trying to make my life the story of my death, or the story of Pentecost, my brothers and sisters really wanted everyone to know about Easter Sunday (or Saturday, or Tuesday, or whatever day it was because we didn't keep good calendars back then).
IL: So they wrote it in because they wanted you to come back when you didn't?
JC: This is turning pretty controversial, ain't it? No, they didn't retcon my death out because the fans didn't like the ending. They told the story of Easter because it was important for you to know that love wins. I know a lot of folks say that the resurrection is blatantly tacked on to the end of the story, but that's what it is, a story. And the story only works with Easter at the end.
IL: So you weren't resurrected?
JC: Does it matter?
IL: To a lot of people.
JC: That's because they're hung up on Good Friday. Or they're hung up on Revelation and are expecting a Second Coming. Quick aside: it never made sense to me that you call it "the Second Coming of Christ" when you believe in the resurrection. Shouldn't it be "the Third Coming of Christ?" God, Mary Magdalene and I used to make such horrible jokes about how I was just the Son of Man and three times might be asking a bit much. Can I say that here?
IL: Yeah, we go blue relatively frequently.
JC: Mary's a card. She tells the worst "I like my women like I like my..." jokes ever. And she was doing it in Aramaic before it was cool.
IL: Step back to what you were saying about Christians being hung up on Good Friday.
JC: Right, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, lots of people want my resurrection to be historical fact, like pix or it didn't happen. But that doesn't matter.
IL: In what way?
JC: If you're hung up on the symbol of me on the cross, then you've got to have the resurrection because that way you don't have to feel too guilty. If you're hung up on Revelation (the book, not the concept) then you've got to have the resurrection because that's what you're expecting will happen to you at some point when I come back and wail on the antichrist. But the resurrection wasn't about that.
IL: Then what was it about?
JC: It was about... well, two things. And nice red uniforms. I'll come in again.
IL: They get Python in Heaven?
JC: And unscrambled Skinemax too, but no one watches it.
IL: Sounds boring.
JC: Wait 'til you meet God. Porn doesn't hold a candle to that.
IL: I'll take your word for it.
JC: And no, we didn't kill Graham so we could have him all to ourselves. But all joking aside, two major reasons for the resurrection. First, because it shows love wins.
IL: You said that, yes.
JC: And second, you can't really blame them. Their guru was dead. They weren't looking for proof of life after death. They just wanted me to stop by and tell them it was okay. Hell, Peter was pretty sure he'd killed me himself. The guilt on those guys. So the resurrection is important for you because it shows that love wins, but for them, for my brothers and sisters, they just wanted to know if I was okay. If anything I'd said was true. And that's what the resurrection meant to them. Later on it got made into this big deal and people started hoping it would happen to them too, but I never said it would.
IL: What about all the, "resurrection and life and he who believeth in me shall never die," routine?
JC: You guys have a real problem with taking things literally. Like the whole bread and wine thing. Understand metaphor, for Christ sake.
IL: So...
JC: You're going to die. Every last one of you.
IL: Thanks for clearing that up.
JC: I did. I was killed by a bunch of assholes. Chances are you won't go that way, but does it really matter whether it's crucifixion or heart disease?
IL: So you were lying?
JC: I was speaking of a greater truth. Believe in love and you won't "die." Sure, you're going to shuffle off the mortal coil, cease to be, ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible...
IL: You really do like Python, don't you?
JC: You're going to kick it, in the vernacular. But there's death and there's Death, and you won't capital-D Die if you believe in love.
IL: We're all very confused now.
JC: Read the parts I said in the Bible. It's all there.
IL: So you're not going to give us a straight answer on the resurrection?
JC: You wouldn't understand it if I did. I mean that in the nicest way.
Intransitive Lie (IL): Okay, I think we're recording now. First off, congratulations on your anniversary.
Joshua ben Joseph (JC): Which one, the Good Friday one or the Easter Sunday one? (laughs)
IL: I imagine there are some folks who would probably congratulate you on the former.
JC: I think we talked about that a bit before. It's not a day I forget, but I don't celebrate it per se. I'm usually doing seder around then anyway, so my time is taken up hiding the afikomen for the kids to find. That's the way we do it in our family, anyway. I have total respect for the families that have the kids hide it though.
IL: So do you celebrate Easter?
JC: Of course. It might seem a little egotistical of me, but I've got reasons.
IL: Such as?
JC: Well, first off, Eostre throws a heck of a party, so I always make it over there for that.
IL: So you're saying that Easter is really a pagan holiday co-opted by the Christians?
JC: Come on, learn your history. Easter is called Easter in the Anglo-Saxon world because of the festival. And the whole fertility thing? Sure, that's from the Germanic tribes. But Easter is celebrated when it is because of Jewish holidays, so while it's a happy coincidence, Easter is Easter. Give the Christians a little credit. They may have brought in some other traditions, but they didn't decide that I got my ass handed to me by the Romans because it nicely coincided with a fertility festival.
IL:Well then, how about the other reasons?
JC: It was a good day. It didn't last, but it was a good day.
IL: Because you were resurrected?
JC: Sure, why not? No, actually, not at all. I don't celebrate Easter because it was the day I came back. But it was the day when all my brothers and sisters realized that the story doesn't end with death.
IL: So the resurrection is important?
JC: It was important to them.
IL: How so?
JC: Because despite Christians really trying to make my life the story of my death, or the story of Pentecost, my brothers and sisters really wanted everyone to know about Easter Sunday (or Saturday, or Tuesday, or whatever day it was because we didn't keep good calendars back then).
IL: So they wrote it in because they wanted you to come back when you didn't?
JC: This is turning pretty controversial, ain't it? No, they didn't retcon my death out because the fans didn't like the ending. They told the story of Easter because it was important for you to know that love wins. I know a lot of folks say that the resurrection is blatantly tacked on to the end of the story, but that's what it is, a story. And the story only works with Easter at the end.
IL: So you weren't resurrected?
JC: Does it matter?
IL: To a lot of people.
JC: That's because they're hung up on Good Friday. Or they're hung up on Revelation and are expecting a Second Coming. Quick aside: it never made sense to me that you call it "the Second Coming of Christ" when you believe in the resurrection. Shouldn't it be "the Third Coming of Christ?" God, Mary Magdalene and I used to make such horrible jokes about how I was just the Son of Man and three times might be asking a bit much. Can I say that here?
IL: Yeah, we go blue relatively frequently.
JC: Mary's a card. She tells the worst "I like my women like I like my..." jokes ever. And she was doing it in Aramaic before it was cool.
IL: Step back to what you were saying about Christians being hung up on Good Friday.
JC: Right, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, lots of people want my resurrection to be historical fact, like pix or it didn't happen. But that doesn't matter.
IL: In what way?
JC: If you're hung up on the symbol of me on the cross, then you've got to have the resurrection because that way you don't have to feel too guilty. If you're hung up on Revelation (the book, not the concept) then you've got to have the resurrection because that's what you're expecting will happen to you at some point when I come back and wail on the antichrist. But the resurrection wasn't about that.
IL: Then what was it about?
JC: It was about... well, two things. And nice red uniforms. I'll come in again.
IL: They get Python in Heaven?
JC: And unscrambled Skinemax too, but no one watches it.
IL: Sounds boring.
JC: Wait 'til you meet God. Porn doesn't hold a candle to that.
IL: I'll take your word for it.
JC: And no, we didn't kill Graham so we could have him all to ourselves. But all joking aside, two major reasons for the resurrection. First, because it shows love wins.
IL: You said that, yes.
JC: And second, you can't really blame them. Their guru was dead. They weren't looking for proof of life after death. They just wanted me to stop by and tell them it was okay. Hell, Peter was pretty sure he'd killed me himself. The guilt on those guys. So the resurrection is important for you because it shows that love wins, but for them, for my brothers and sisters, they just wanted to know if I was okay. If anything I'd said was true. And that's what the resurrection meant to them. Later on it got made into this big deal and people started hoping it would happen to them too, but I never said it would.
IL: What about all the, "resurrection and life and he who believeth in me shall never die," routine?
JC: You guys have a real problem with taking things literally. Like the whole bread and wine thing. Understand metaphor, for Christ sake.
IL: So...
JC: You're going to die. Every last one of you.
IL: Thanks for clearing that up.
JC: I did. I was killed by a bunch of assholes. Chances are you won't go that way, but does it really matter whether it's crucifixion or heart disease?
IL: So you were lying?
JC: I was speaking of a greater truth. Believe in love and you won't "die." Sure, you're going to shuffle off the mortal coil, cease to be, ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible...
IL: You really do like Python, don't you?
JC: You're going to kick it, in the vernacular. But there's death and there's Death, and you won't capital-D Die if you believe in love.
IL: We're all very confused now.
JC: Read the parts I said in the Bible. It's all there.
IL: So you're not going to give us a straight answer on the resurrection?
JC: You wouldn't understand it if I did. I mean that in the nicest way.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Holy Moly: Babble
Topics:
Holy Moly
The start of Genesis 11 is a story which doesn't get brought up much by the "literal" Bible folks because it's just such a just-so story that it's hard to read it as anything but. But it's worth talking about for two reasons.
The first is that God comes off as quite a dick.
You've probably heard a version of the story that runs something like this:
You've probably heard that it all relates to Babylon too. The writers of the story certainly thought it related to Babylon, because they set the story there. I have a feeling the Babylonians might have taken issue with this reasoning behind the name of their city, but if they wanted to complain, they should have written their own Bible.
The thing is, that's all bogus. Let's read the real story from the Bible... or rather one translation of it (The Contemporary English Version; while I frequently use the Common English Bible, this translation read a bit more like the story to me in this instance), because I don't read Hebrew and I'm willing to be that most of you don't either. If you do, feel free to correct the translation. I've looked at plenty of translations and they all seem reasonably consistent on the details.
There's a very interesting translation (The Amplified Bible, which is entirely too Christian for my taste but which does provide some parenthetical context not present in the text itself) which spells out exactly what's going on.
Well fuck you, people who yearn for stability and cohabitation. No communication for you.
So God fucks their shit up and they get back to wandering around the Earth being unable to communicate with one another. Like the Lord intended. Seems a bit dickish to me. But it's a just-so story. Why are there different languages and cultures? Babylon. Now go fetch Grandpa another bourbon.
The second reason this story is worth talking about is the questions it raises about "literal" readers of the Bible. Firstly, while there's all sorts of furor about evolution, you don't hear too many Christians protesting the teaching of linguistics in schools. Probably because it's too complicated for them to satisfactorily protest, but that's neither here nor there. If there was a Noah and an ark and Genesis is literal truth and not myth, then there should be no evidence that languages evolved either, because clearly that's not true: languages all came into being at some point several thousand years ago.
Similarly, sociology should be a problem too. Culture as we know it didn't evolve, it came into being at some point several thousand years ago when God cast our ancestors to the four winds. I'm not even talking about the problems of a 6000 year timeline for this; there should be no evidence that culture evolved. It simply came into being.
Beyond that, if gathering together to build great cities with great towers is evidence that humanity is violating God's will, why don't we see people standing in front of skyscrapers with placards reading, "God Hates Cities?" I know that the fundamentalist types are worried about one world government and language and so forth, but it seems to me that Genesis 11 trumps anything later than it in the Bible, and all the homosexuality stuff didn't inspire God to create the division of languages and cultures, so all of that seems like small potatoes. If you're a Biblical "literalist" then you should abandon civilization and move to Antarctica or something to make sure you're not in violation of one of the original instructions given by God to mankind.
Of course, we don't see any of that happening because it's much easier to tell the kiddies that the story of Babel is about people trying to build a tower to Heaven and God punishing their pride.
In the end, it's a just-so story about why we don't all talk and act the same way. I think I prefer space aliens.
The first is that God comes off as quite a dick.
You've probably heard a version of the story that runs something like this:
Humans decided that they were going to build a tower to Heaven because they could. It was pride, pure pride, and they thought they could rival God by building a tower so high that it would put them higher than Him. God saw that and, because He wasn't in the commandment-giving mood, decided to change the languages all the people were speaking so they wouldn't be able to understand each other. Thus, the people weren't able to work together any more and they failed in their pridefulness.And that's how humans all came to speak different languages, kids.
You've probably heard that it all relates to Babylon too. The writers of the story certainly thought it related to Babylon, because they set the story there. I have a feeling the Babylonians might have taken issue with this reasoning behind the name of their city, but if they wanted to complain, they should have written their own Bible.
The thing is, that's all bogus. Let's read the real story from the Bible... or rather one translation of it (The Contemporary English Version; while I frequently use the Common English Bible, this translation read a bit more like the story to me in this instance), because I don't read Hebrew and I'm willing to be that most of you don't either. If you do, feel free to correct the translation. I've looked at plenty of translations and they all seem reasonably consistent on the details.
At first everyone spoke the same language, but after some of them moved from the east and settled in Babylonia, they said:Let's unpack that a bit. First of all, a footnote tells us that "from the east" might also be "to the east" which tells you the problems of translation. Second, some translations use "Shinar" instead of "Babylonia" which is probably more accurate but means essentially the same thing to the ancient Jew. Thirdly, some translations give more explicit explanations of what Babel really means to your average ancient Jew, but the crux of it is that it's a play on words based on the Hebrew for "to mix up" or something similar. Essentially, the city was called Babel because God mixed the people up there.
"Let’s build a city with a tower that reaches to the sky! We’ll use hard bricks and tar instead of stone and mortar. We’ll become famous, and we won’t be scattered all over the world."
But when the Lord came down to look at the city and the tower, he said:
"These people are working together because they all speak the same language. This is just the beginning. Soon they will be able to do anything they want. Come on! Let’s go down and confuse them by making them speak different languages—then they won’t be able to understand each other."
So the people had to stop building the city, because the Lord confused their language and scattered them all over the earth. That’s how the city of Babel got its name.
There's a very interesting translation (The Amplified Bible, which is entirely too Christian for my taste but which does provide some parenthetical context not present in the text itself) which spells out exactly what's going on.
They said, “Come, let us build a city for ourselves, and a tower whose top will reach into the heavens, and let us make a [famous] name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered [into separate groups] and be dispersed over the surface of the entire earth [as the Lord instructed].” Now the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one [unified] people, and they all have the same language. This is only the beginning of what they will do [in rebellion against Me], and now no evil thing they imagine they can do will be impossible for them.So now we see what the ancient Jew would have understood: that the problem wasn't pride, but rather that God had said previously that the descendants of Noah were supposed to go forth across the Earth and be fruitful and multiply and so forth, and these folks were gathering together and not spreading out. Sure, there's a certain pridefulness there, but basically, God said to move on and these people weren't doing it.
Well fuck you, people who yearn for stability and cohabitation. No communication for you.
So God fucks their shit up and they get back to wandering around the Earth being unable to communicate with one another. Like the Lord intended. Seems a bit dickish to me. But it's a just-so story. Why are there different languages and cultures? Babylon. Now go fetch Grandpa another bourbon.
The second reason this story is worth talking about is the questions it raises about "literal" readers of the Bible. Firstly, while there's all sorts of furor about evolution, you don't hear too many Christians protesting the teaching of linguistics in schools. Probably because it's too complicated for them to satisfactorily protest, but that's neither here nor there. If there was a Noah and an ark and Genesis is literal truth and not myth, then there should be no evidence that languages evolved either, because clearly that's not true: languages all came into being at some point several thousand years ago.
Similarly, sociology should be a problem too. Culture as we know it didn't evolve, it came into being at some point several thousand years ago when God cast our ancestors to the four winds. I'm not even talking about the problems of a 6000 year timeline for this; there should be no evidence that culture evolved. It simply came into being.
Beyond that, if gathering together to build great cities with great towers is evidence that humanity is violating God's will, why don't we see people standing in front of skyscrapers with placards reading, "God Hates Cities?" I know that the fundamentalist types are worried about one world government and language and so forth, but it seems to me that Genesis 11 trumps anything later than it in the Bible, and all the homosexuality stuff didn't inspire God to create the division of languages and cultures, so all of that seems like small potatoes. If you're a Biblical "literalist" then you should abandon civilization and move to Antarctica or something to make sure you're not in violation of one of the original instructions given by God to mankind.
Of course, we don't see any of that happening because it's much easier to tell the kiddies that the story of Babel is about people trying to build a tower to Heaven and God punishing their pride.
In the end, it's a just-so story about why we don't all talk and act the same way. I think I prefer space aliens.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Holy Moly: Why We Hate Them
Topics:
Holy Moly
I'll take the opportunity to skim Genesis 10 because it's entirely genealogical. Not that it's not important, but there's no plot. Before I skip over him, I'd like to point out a passage:
But enough of poor Nimrod.
Myths are awesome. They tell us how people thought about the world when the myth was created, or written down, or whatever. And much of the early parts of Genesis are myth. We learn why the rainbow got its... rainbow? We learn why man is the master of the earth. We learn why we don't live forever in paradise. And we learn why it's okay to hate certain people.
Remember Ham and his unfortunate son Canaan? Well, let's see if we recognize any of Ham's other children. "Ham’s sons: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan." Egypt is a gimme. Cush refers to a region of Africa to the south of Egypt. Put is probably the legendary Punt, an ever farther portion of Africa that even the Egyptians were pretty vague about. And Canaan is a region of the Middle East. Together, we've got all the unpleasant (to the Israelites) peoples of the world to the south. Cush fathers Nimrod, who goes on to found Babylon (Babel, about which more later) and Nineveh. From Cush is also descended Sheba (the Queen of Sheba, anyone?). Egypt even fathers children "from which the Philistines came." And we really hate the Philistines.
So sure, if you've got a degree in ancient history, you probably recognize the names of some of Noah's other descendants. You can probably even talk about how it's terribly anachronistic to have them all happen at the same time, when their civilizations weren't contemporaneous. The Bible is older than dirt. I get that. Hopefully you get that.
But notice that Ham, who saw his father's robe serpent, is the father of all the bad guys in what will be our story from here on in. And we haven't gotten there yet (that will take a bit more genealogy) but Shem is the progenitor of Abram, who grows up to be the first Jew. And remember what Noah said?
Now the Israelites have plenty to dislike about Egypt and Babylon. We'll get there, believe me. But when you start telling stories about how there's a primal reason, beyond simple grievances, that it's okay for you to hate someone because they're different from you, that's why myths stop being awesome.
Don't tell your kids that it's okay to hate people because it just is. Because their great great great great great granddaddy saw his father in the alltogether. Because their great and so on granddaddy stole your great and so on granddaddy's plot of land in a place that doesn't even exist any more because it's older than dirt. Because of anything that's "just so."
Cush fathered Nimrod, the first great warrior on earth. The Lord saw him as a great hunter, and so it is said, “Like Nimrod, whom the Lord saw as a great hunter.”Yeah, like I always say, "Like Nimrod, whom the Lord saw as a great hunter." And at a certain point, possibly Calvin and Hobbes, "Nimrod" became a pejorative. One can only imagine the stories of Nimrod which got left out of the Bible to make room for more genealogy. Once again, the Bible was clearly not written by people looking to pitch movies to Hollywood.
But enough of poor Nimrod.
Myths are awesome. They tell us how people thought about the world when the myth was created, or written down, or whatever. And much of the early parts of Genesis are myth. We learn why the rainbow got its... rainbow? We learn why man is the master of the earth. We learn why we don't live forever in paradise. And we learn why it's okay to hate certain people.
Remember Ham and his unfortunate son Canaan? Well, let's see if we recognize any of Ham's other children. "Ham’s sons: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan." Egypt is a gimme. Cush refers to a region of Africa to the south of Egypt. Put is probably the legendary Punt, an ever farther portion of Africa that even the Egyptians were pretty vague about. And Canaan is a region of the Middle East. Together, we've got all the unpleasant (to the Israelites) peoples of the world to the south. Cush fathers Nimrod, who goes on to found Babylon (Babel, about which more later) and Nineveh. From Cush is also descended Sheba (the Queen of Sheba, anyone?). Egypt even fathers children "from which the Philistines came." And we really hate the Philistines.
So sure, if you've got a degree in ancient history, you probably recognize the names of some of Noah's other descendants. You can probably even talk about how it's terribly anachronistic to have them all happen at the same time, when their civilizations weren't contemporaneous. The Bible is older than dirt. I get that. Hopefully you get that.
But notice that Ham, who saw his father's robe serpent, is the father of all the bad guys in what will be our story from here on in. And we haven't gotten there yet (that will take a bit more genealogy) but Shem is the progenitor of Abram, who grows up to be the first Jew. And remember what Noah said?
“Bless the Lord,So in other words, this, kids, is why it's okay for us to hate Egyptians, Africans, and Babylonians, and why it's okay for us to subjugate pretty much everyone who isn't us. Just so.
the God of Shem;
Canaan will be his servant.
May God give space to Japheth;
he will live in Shem’s tents,
and Canaan will be his servant."
Now the Israelites have plenty to dislike about Egypt and Babylon. We'll get there, believe me. But when you start telling stories about how there's a primal reason, beyond simple grievances, that it's okay for you to hate someone because they're different from you, that's why myths stop being awesome.
Don't tell your kids that it's okay to hate people because it just is. Because their great great great great great granddaddy saw his father in the alltogether. Because their great and so on granddaddy stole your great and so on granddaddy's plot of land in a place that doesn't even exist any more because it's older than dirt. Because of anything that's "just so."
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Holy Moly: Poor Canaan
Topics:
Holy Moly
So the first thing Noah does upon being told that the Earth is his is to plant a vineyard so he can get blotto. I suppose that would be a priority for a lot of people: survive horrible flood, find dry land, get shitfaced. I guess when you've been alive for 600 years, you can wait the months it takes to make wine from your newly-planted grape vines.
But Noah is a crazy drunk, so he gets stinking and gets naked. He does it in his tent, so who's complaining really? Haven't we all hit that point in the drinking day where clothes seem not only superfluous but downright restrictive?
Ham, one of Noah's three sons, sees his dad's junk. Which turns out to be a HUGE mistake. I guess it was a thing back then. Anyway, Ham sees Noah naked and goes to tell his brothers. We're not told what he told them, so I asked Ham, who said, "Yeah, I told them Dad was drunk, again, and naked, again, and that if they didn't want to see that, they'd better avert their eyes." Seems reasonable. If my father was wandering around the house stark, I would probably warn people.
Shem and Japheth, Noah's other sons, pull off an elaborate plan involving walking backward in order to throw a robe over their drunken father. Why they couldn't just cover their eyes, I don't know. But anyway, Noah is now sleeping off his drunk, covered in a robe. Seems like crisis averted, huh?
Noah, upon waking up and wondering just whose robe he's wearing and what the hell was in those grapes, learns of his son Ham's iniquity. Specifically, that he saw Noah's John Thomas. Again, I guess it was a thing back then (seeing your father naked, not Noah's tallywacker, although that I'm sure was a thing too, given that he had at least three kids). And Noah gets butt-hurt and curses... Canaan?
Canaan is Ham's firstborn son. Canaan did absolutely nothing in this story. But Noah lays into the kid (although maybe he's 300, since Noah's 600 at this point) like Canaan had stolen Noah's stereo or something.
Now I'd like to take a moment to talk about incest before we continue. Because if you thought Adam and Eve were the problem, they aren't. We hear from the Bible that the Nephalim were also there, and the sons of Adam and the Nephilim interbred, so it's possible to hand-wave away any concerns that all the humans who are and have ever been might be the product of siblings getting down. Also, it's never explicitly said that Adam and Eve are the only people God made. Maybe God made a bunch more. You can read the Bible "literally" and skirt the incest there.
But not with Noah. Because Noah and family are the only people left. No more Nephilim. No more rest of society. Noah and family are it. God wiped out everyone else. Which means that everyone who is and has ever been, if you read the Bible "literally" is a product of Noah's kids boning. And since we never hear about Noah's daughters, that's even more problematic.
I don't personally hold this to be true. For one thing, I don't believe it ever happened "literally." And for another, I'm pretty sure that we're all the product of siblings boning anyway. There's a lot of incest in human history and prehistory. It happened. It's not really worth worrying about.
Why am I bringing this up right now? Because it's important to remember that Noah and family are it, and the logical problems that come therewith.
Now, back to Canaan. Why is it important that Noah and family are it? Because Canaan becomes a very important name later on in the Bible. And this extremely unjust curse of Noah is a just-so story about how the Canaanites are fit to be subjugated by the Israelites.
So when Israelite kids asked their parents, "Why are we always bashing the Canaanites?" their parents could respond with this story. Because Canaan's dad saw his dad's junk.
Bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on Noah. Canaan did absolutely nothing to deserve this. And I'm pretty sure the Canaanites did nothing to deserve being subjugated by the Israelites. The Bible isn't always pleasant. And if you read it "literally" it'll probably make you unpleasant too.
But Noah is a crazy drunk, so he gets stinking and gets naked. He does it in his tent, so who's complaining really? Haven't we all hit that point in the drinking day where clothes seem not only superfluous but downright restrictive?
Ham, one of Noah's three sons, sees his dad's junk. Which turns out to be a HUGE mistake. I guess it was a thing back then. Anyway, Ham sees Noah naked and goes to tell his brothers. We're not told what he told them, so I asked Ham, who said, "Yeah, I told them Dad was drunk, again, and naked, again, and that if they didn't want to see that, they'd better avert their eyes." Seems reasonable. If my father was wandering around the house stark, I would probably warn people.
Shem and Japheth, Noah's other sons, pull off an elaborate plan involving walking backward in order to throw a robe over their drunken father. Why they couldn't just cover their eyes, I don't know. But anyway, Noah is now sleeping off his drunk, covered in a robe. Seems like crisis averted, huh?
Noah, upon waking up and wondering just whose robe he's wearing and what the hell was in those grapes, learns of his son Ham's iniquity. Specifically, that he saw Noah's John Thomas. Again, I guess it was a thing back then (seeing your father naked, not Noah's tallywacker, although that I'm sure was a thing too, given that he had at least three kids). And Noah gets butt-hurt and curses... Canaan?
Canaan is Ham's firstborn son. Canaan did absolutely nothing in this story. But Noah lays into the kid (although maybe he's 300, since Noah's 600 at this point) like Canaan had stolen Noah's stereo or something.
“Cursed be Canaan:Seems a bit harsh, right?
the lowest servant
he will be for his brothers.”
He also said,
“Bless the Lord,
the God of Shem;
Canaan will be his servant.
May God give space to Japheth;
he will live in Shem’s tents,
and Canaan will be his servant.”
Now I'd like to take a moment to talk about incest before we continue. Because if you thought Adam and Eve were the problem, they aren't. We hear from the Bible that the Nephalim were also there, and the sons of Adam and the Nephilim interbred, so it's possible to hand-wave away any concerns that all the humans who are and have ever been might be the product of siblings getting down. Also, it's never explicitly said that Adam and Eve are the only people God made. Maybe God made a bunch more. You can read the Bible "literally" and skirt the incest there.
But not with Noah. Because Noah and family are the only people left. No more Nephilim. No more rest of society. Noah and family are it. God wiped out everyone else. Which means that everyone who is and has ever been, if you read the Bible "literally" is a product of Noah's kids boning. And since we never hear about Noah's daughters, that's even more problematic.
I don't personally hold this to be true. For one thing, I don't believe it ever happened "literally." And for another, I'm pretty sure that we're all the product of siblings boning anyway. There's a lot of incest in human history and prehistory. It happened. It's not really worth worrying about.
Why am I bringing this up right now? Because it's important to remember that Noah and family are it, and the logical problems that come therewith.
Now, back to Canaan. Why is it important that Noah and family are it? Because Canaan becomes a very important name later on in the Bible. And this extremely unjust curse of Noah is a just-so story about how the Canaanites are fit to be subjugated by the Israelites.
So when Israelite kids asked their parents, "Why are we always bashing the Canaanites?" their parents could respond with this story. Because Canaan's dad saw his dad's junk.
Bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on Noah. Canaan did absolutely nothing to deserve this. And I'm pretty sure the Canaanites did nothing to deserve being subjugated by the Israelites. The Bible isn't always pleasant. And if you read it "literally" it'll probably make you unpleasant too.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Another Small Prayer From Another Source
My previous prayerful outpourings were not inspired by this, but it is a bang-up prayer, originally from The Atlantic's poetry section.
Small Prayer
Elizabeth Spires
If my heart were scoured,
if my soul were remade
into a new and shining garment,
then would I have to die?
Lord, if perfection is death,
let me stay here
a little while longer,
spotted and stained.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Holy Moly: All the Animals?
Topics:
Holy Moly
And God said to Noah, "Everything that lives and moves will be your food. Just as I gave you the green grasses, I now give you everything."
God then introduces the kosher concept that one cannot eat meat which still has blood in it. But God just said, "Bro, eat all the animals. Like, all of them."
Because Genesis 9 doesn't originate from when kosher was a thing, kids. Remember that. It's just as silly to believe that kosher has always been a thing as it is to believe that hala'al has always been a thing. Or that parts of Daniel are talking about 21st century life. Or, despite the fact that the writers of the Gospels definitely want to convince us that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies, that the prophets in the Old Testament would have agreed. The Bible is a collection of oral history written down way later and collected way later than that.
I also spoke to Noah, briefly, with regard to the covenant, and he said, "Note that God didn't say He would never wipe out all life again. He just said it wouldn't be a flood. So if you're worried about climate change being divine wrath, just remember that all life isn't going to be wiped out in a flood. Mass starvation, wars, disease, drought, wildfires, and tornadoes maybe, but you just stay put in your coastal cities because you're the most important people in the history of ever and God said there wouldn't be another flood. To me, a proto-Jew. Yeah, you people are idiots."
I tried to get him to elaborate, but he just chuckled and took a sip of his beer. Then he devoured a giant ham hock.
God then introduces the kosher concept that one cannot eat meat which still has blood in it. But God just said, "Bro, eat all the animals. Like, all of them."
Because Genesis 9 doesn't originate from when kosher was a thing, kids. Remember that. It's just as silly to believe that kosher has always been a thing as it is to believe that hala'al has always been a thing. Or that parts of Daniel are talking about 21st century life. Or, despite the fact that the writers of the Gospels definitely want to convince us that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies, that the prophets in the Old Testament would have agreed. The Bible is a collection of oral history written down way later and collected way later than that.
I also spoke to Noah, briefly, with regard to the covenant, and he said, "Note that God didn't say He would never wipe out all life again. He just said it wouldn't be a flood. So if you're worried about climate change being divine wrath, just remember that all life isn't going to be wiped out in a flood. Mass starvation, wars, disease, drought, wildfires, and tornadoes maybe, but you just stay put in your coastal cities because you're the most important people in the history of ever and God said there wouldn't be another flood. To me, a proto-Jew. Yeah, you people are idiots."
I tried to get him to elaborate, but he just chuckled and took a sip of his beer. Then he devoured a giant ham hock.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Holy Moly: The Thing About Birds
Topics:
Holy Moly
I've been through this already but I'm going to have to go through it again. And then again. And pretty much every single time I hit it in the Bible, which is going to be a lot.
This book was not handed down by God to King James I, who then had some type-setters print it out. It's a collection of extremely old stories which were told for a long, long time before they ever got written down, probably in a language which changed as the stories were retold. And then it was written down. Not in English. And then it was copied. Still not in English, but into other languages than the original. For a long time. And then it was translated into English. By a bunch of different people. This cannot be stressed enough. Basically, the Bible I'm reading is about as far from the stories in the Bible, textually, as... well, as anything can be. Yes, there are a few works which have come down from a longer history, and probably some which had a more convoluted history before they were ever translated for the first time, but the Bible is up there. One could even make the argument that the Christian Bible is more convoluted than the Jewish Torah, which has a lot of what I've just said baked into it.
So the Bible is as old as the hills. Older than the hills. As old as dirt. But there are, as I said, possible a few things older than it, and one of them is the story of Gilgamesh. We've got written versions of Gilgamesh from back when Noah was probably just a Semitic name that some tribal storyteller gave to a part of the Gilgamesh story to make it applicable to his particular tribe. Or hers. I'm better his, because of what we know about Semitic tribes, but who knows? We don't.
Oddly enough though, that Gilgamesh has a flood story in it isn't proof that Noah was just ripping off Gilgamesh. There are other flood stories too, all of them from the "older than dirt" school of literature. And the thing is, the Flood isn't in Gilgamesh so much as it's talked about in Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim, the immortal man, tells Gilgamesh his story, which involves the Flood. And that story is found elsewhere too.
Why am I telling you all this? What does this have to do with birds? Give me a second.
Let's get back to Noah. After some more time jumps (told you, collected oral history and that means it doesn't always make sense with itself) Noah gets the bright idea to check whether the flood has gone down enough that he can finally let all of the passengers out of what must have been a stinky boat. So he sends out some birds to check things out. This isn't the stupidest idea in the Bible, let me tell you. Maybe not the smartest, but certainly well within the realm of smartness. He sends out one bird and it flies around until the water dries up. Then he sends out another because this is collected oral history and it doesn't make any goddamn sense, again to see if the water has dried up. No dice; the bird comes back without being able to land anywhere. He sends it out again and it brings him back some plant material, so he knows that the water has subsided. Then he sends it out again and it doesn't come back, so... he knows the water, etc.
Let me race through the rest so I can get back to the point at hand: Noah then opens up the hatch and takes a shufty and low and behold, water gone. And then the water was gone, and the water was gone again. You'd think that they would have edited out the repetitions that internally conflict, but they didn't. I'm really not trying to say that the Bible is bad because it contains these internal inconsistencies. It is what it is and I'm just addressing them as I come to them. Wait until we hit David and Goliath.
Then, in the capstone to this story, the part that everyone takes away, God says to Noah, "Okay, I promise I will never again kill everyone with a flood, so no need to freak out if you see a storm brewing. And here's a rainbow to remind me and you that I said that." And that should have been the end of Chapter 8, but instead it's dragged into Chapter 9, half and half. I am going to criticize the later, much later, people who numbered and divided chapters and verses. That's your button, assholes. Come back when you've workshopped it a bit more.
So that's the point of the story and Noah is great and God isn't mad any more.
But let's go back to Utnapishtim. Turns out Utnapishtim had the same bright idea about birds when he washed up on what could easily have been the only dry land in the universe. He sent out three birds, one after another, until the last one didn't come back and he knew there had to be dry land somewhere. Why he didn't just look out the damn window is anyone's guess, but they didn't have glass back then and maybe the windows had to stay shut so as not to swamp the boat. Whatever.
Utnapishtim sent a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the raven didn't come back. Ravens are smart birds. Maybe there's a just-so story there. But for our purposes, the raven was last.
Noah also sent out a raven. First. And it, seemingly, found dry land, because, if you read it, "it flew back and forth until the waters over the entire earth had dried up." So I'm calling shenanigans on the Noah story here. This, more than anything, is my textual clue that there might be a bit of borrowing going on. And if that had been all there was to it, I wouldn't highlight this particular part, but rather I'd go on and hit that Covenant button like everyone else.
But that's not all there is to it. Noah sends a second bird, and he sends a dove this time. Ravens can probably fly further than doves, so maybe it was insurance to make sure that the raven hadn't found dry land fifty miles away or something. And if the dove had flown out and not flown back, that would be all there is to it.
But the dove brings back proof. It brings back a plant, specifically an olive leaf. That's good proof: olives are important and if the water has gone down in the olive groves, that means the cast-aways have something to snack on. And maybe that's all there is to it.
But remember the last time you saw a dove bearing an olive branch? It wasn't the international symbol for, "Floodwaters Receding." Before Noah leaves the ark, before he burns those offerings that are somewhat anachronistic, before God even thinks to Himself, "I don't think I should do that again," let alone tells Noah or sets up the rainbow, before all that, a bedraggled dove, who failed previously to find any dry land, brings back a scrap of olive branch.
And that's why the Bible is the Bible and Akkadian myths are Akkadian myths. Because the Bible doesn't end with the raven or with dry land. The Bible lets you know that the dove is the important bird. Because even way, way back then, God wasn't just concerned with power or intelligence or greatness. Even back then, God, and God's people, loved a bedraggled dove and the message it brought to those who thought they'd never see the end of the Flood.
And that's what God's about. God's not just about rainbows and promises and being fruitful. God's about terrified people huddling in a ship on the top of a mountain, just praying that their dove comes back to them.
This book was not handed down by God to King James I, who then had some type-setters print it out. It's a collection of extremely old stories which were told for a long, long time before they ever got written down, probably in a language which changed as the stories were retold. And then it was written down. Not in English. And then it was copied. Still not in English, but into other languages than the original. For a long time. And then it was translated into English. By a bunch of different people. This cannot be stressed enough. Basically, the Bible I'm reading is about as far from the stories in the Bible, textually, as... well, as anything can be. Yes, there are a few works which have come down from a longer history, and probably some which had a more convoluted history before they were ever translated for the first time, but the Bible is up there. One could even make the argument that the Christian Bible is more convoluted than the Jewish Torah, which has a lot of what I've just said baked into it.
So the Bible is as old as the hills. Older than the hills. As old as dirt. But there are, as I said, possible a few things older than it, and one of them is the story of Gilgamesh. We've got written versions of Gilgamesh from back when Noah was probably just a Semitic name that some tribal storyteller gave to a part of the Gilgamesh story to make it applicable to his particular tribe. Or hers. I'm better his, because of what we know about Semitic tribes, but who knows? We don't.
Oddly enough though, that Gilgamesh has a flood story in it isn't proof that Noah was just ripping off Gilgamesh. There are other flood stories too, all of them from the "older than dirt" school of literature. And the thing is, the Flood isn't in Gilgamesh so much as it's talked about in Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim, the immortal man, tells Gilgamesh his story, which involves the Flood. And that story is found elsewhere too.
Why am I telling you all this? What does this have to do with birds? Give me a second.
Let's get back to Noah. After some more time jumps (told you, collected oral history and that means it doesn't always make sense with itself) Noah gets the bright idea to check whether the flood has gone down enough that he can finally let all of the passengers out of what must have been a stinky boat. So he sends out some birds to check things out. This isn't the stupidest idea in the Bible, let me tell you. Maybe not the smartest, but certainly well within the realm of smartness. He sends out one bird and it flies around until the water dries up. Then he sends out another because this is collected oral history and it doesn't make any goddamn sense, again to see if the water has dried up. No dice; the bird comes back without being able to land anywhere. He sends it out again and it brings him back some plant material, so he knows that the water has subsided. Then he sends it out again and it doesn't come back, so... he knows the water, etc.
Let me race through the rest so I can get back to the point at hand: Noah then opens up the hatch and takes a shufty and low and behold, water gone. And then the water was gone, and the water was gone again. You'd think that they would have edited out the repetitions that internally conflict, but they didn't. I'm really not trying to say that the Bible is bad because it contains these internal inconsistencies. It is what it is and I'm just addressing them as I come to them. Wait until we hit David and Goliath.
Then, in the capstone to this story, the part that everyone takes away, God says to Noah, "Okay, I promise I will never again kill everyone with a flood, so no need to freak out if you see a storm brewing. And here's a rainbow to remind me and you that I said that." And that should have been the end of Chapter 8, but instead it's dragged into Chapter 9, half and half. I am going to criticize the later, much later, people who numbered and divided chapters and verses. That's your button, assholes. Come back when you've workshopped it a bit more.
So that's the point of the story and Noah is great and God isn't mad any more.
But let's go back to Utnapishtim. Turns out Utnapishtim had the same bright idea about birds when he washed up on what could easily have been the only dry land in the universe. He sent out three birds, one after another, until the last one didn't come back and he knew there had to be dry land somewhere. Why he didn't just look out the damn window is anyone's guess, but they didn't have glass back then and maybe the windows had to stay shut so as not to swamp the boat. Whatever.
Utnapishtim sent a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and the raven didn't come back. Ravens are smart birds. Maybe there's a just-so story there. But for our purposes, the raven was last.
Noah also sent out a raven. First. And it, seemingly, found dry land, because, if you read it, "it flew back and forth until the waters over the entire earth had dried up." So I'm calling shenanigans on the Noah story here. This, more than anything, is my textual clue that there might be a bit of borrowing going on. And if that had been all there was to it, I wouldn't highlight this particular part, but rather I'd go on and hit that Covenant button like everyone else.
But that's not all there is to it. Noah sends a second bird, and he sends a dove this time. Ravens can probably fly further than doves, so maybe it was insurance to make sure that the raven hadn't found dry land fifty miles away or something. And if the dove had flown out and not flown back, that would be all there is to it.
But the dove brings back proof. It brings back a plant, specifically an olive leaf. That's good proof: olives are important and if the water has gone down in the olive groves, that means the cast-aways have something to snack on. And maybe that's all there is to it.
But remember the last time you saw a dove bearing an olive branch? It wasn't the international symbol for, "Floodwaters Receding." Before Noah leaves the ark, before he burns those offerings that are somewhat anachronistic, before God even thinks to Himself, "I don't think I should do that again," let alone tells Noah or sets up the rainbow, before all that, a bedraggled dove, who failed previously to find any dry land, brings back a scrap of olive branch.
And that's why the Bible is the Bible and Akkadian myths are Akkadian myths. Because the Bible doesn't end with the raven or with dry land. The Bible lets you know that the dove is the important bird. Because even way, way back then, God wasn't just concerned with power or intelligence or greatness. Even back then, God, and God's people, loved a bedraggled dove and the message it brought to those who thought they'd never see the end of the Flood.
And that's what God's about. God's not just about rainbows and promises and being fruitful. God's about terrified people huddling in a ship on the top of a mountain, just praying that their dove comes back to them.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
A Prayer
Dear God,
if there is one,
and I'm not sure,
make me whole in my broken places
and strong in my weak places
because I'm scared.
I'm so scared.
But if there is no God,
if it's all a lie
and the dead don't merely sleep
and hope fails
and love doesn't conquer all,
the only thing that matters
is that I keep pretending
because if I can make it better
I should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)