Wow! After this, this there will only be two more posts and then we'll be done with the old testament! I didn't ever think I'd make it this far! And then... Steal This Book! And A Single Man! ...Well, once I finish the new testament too... But considering the new testament is hardly even 200 pages, that should be fairly easy... All right, okay. Let's get on with this.
The Song of Solomon is a love song, it goes from courtship to marriage. It's not overtly religious, but it's considered to be an allegory for God and Israel or God and the church/its people. I can see that allegory working, but at the same time, I like taking this book at face value. It's very sweet.
"Your love is better than wine" Song of Solomon 1:2.
"King Solomon made himself a palanquin from the wood of Lebanon. He made its posts of silver, its back of gold, its seat of purple; its interior was inlaid with love" Song of Solomon 3:10.
"Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love" Song of Solomon 5.
Isaiah is a prediction of doom for Israel, because no-one's paying attention to God. Isaiah, as you may have gathered, was a prophet! Apparently he's a rather important figure in Muslim belief, as he is considered a "true Hebrew prophet".
My very first note has to do with Lilith! In Isaiah 34, she is mentioned for the first time in the Bible. The land of those who have suffered God's judgment will be laid to waste and be eternally barren and unlivable, and jackals and hyenas and other vicious creatures shall live there, along with Lilith. Lilith, according to folklore, was Adam's first wife who left him, because she would not bow to him. (She was supposedly made from the same clay as he, though, not from a rib, so there's the problem right there, eh?) And then she... had sex with an archangel named Samael? That I didn't know... But! She's your average soul-sucking sterility-causing female demon-woman-creature with roots all the way back to Mesopotamia. Again, she's a subject that I've done some research into and that anyone else reading this probably doesn't care about. Oh well--guess which one of us is writing this blog? Bam. But why did it take so long for her to appear, if that is her story (the bit with Adam and Samael)? Well, folklore regarding her didn't really spring up until the eighth century BC... And guess when the book of Isaiah have been dated at? You've got it! So... Yeah. That's cool...
"'There is no peace,' says the Lord, 'for the wicked'" Isaiah 48:22.
One thing that threw me is Isaiah 66:The Worship God Demands. "Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a human being; whoever sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever presents a grain offering is like one who offers swine's blood, whoever makes an offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol" Isaiah 66:3. This is curious, considering, well, these were the only acceptable ways to honour God (in sacrifice, at least). I am curious about this verse's origin--food shortage? Sacrifice become unpopular, considered unsightly or what have you? Swung out of favour? Who knows, actual words of God? Or perhaps I missed something and what Isaiah means is those who sacrifice those things to a false God or idol is one who is like a person who has committed those crimes...? That may be a little more likely, because the frankincense thing--well, Jesus was presented with Frankincense at the time of his birth by one of the three wise men. Which could be one of the reasons why he wasn't accepted by the Jewish/Islamic community as being the bona fide son of God?
The Book of Jeremiah has more prophecies, such as God's promise of restoration after Jerusalem's destruction (wait, wasn't it destroyed already? Or did it just take this long to get there!?) and then other various events that took place during Jeremiah's life. (Surprise, surprise?)
"But in the time of their trouble they say, 'Come and save us!' But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them come, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah" Jeremiah 2:27-28. Though this probably will not be looked upon positively by more religious types, I award this passage (up to the semicolon, at least) the "one of the most badass passages of the Bible" award. It seriously is awesome.
"In vain I have struck down your children; they accepted no correction. Your own swords have devoured your prophets like a ravening lion" Jeremiah 2:30. In which God realizes that his creations are stupid, stubborn and rarely if ever learn from their mistakes; rather, choose to learn from their mistakes.
"Yet you have the forehead of a whore" Jeremiah 3:3. ...I'm going to go with they mean 'mind'. You have the mind of a whore.
"Is there no balm in Gilead?" Jeremiah 8:22. I was going crazy trying to figure out where I'd heard this before, but apparently this exact line has lived on in Edgar Allan Poe's poem, The Raven. Thank you for staving off my insanity for yet one more day, Wikipedia! (Ken Kesey also used it in a book as a euphemism for alcohol. I think that's pretty cool.)
"You [God] show steadfast love to the thousandth generation, but repay the guilt of parents into the laps of their children after them" Jeremiah 32:18. Again, this bothers me a lot: "
"Therefore the time is surely coming, says the Lord, when I will punish her [Babylon's] idols, and through all her land the wounded shall groan. Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, and though she should fortify her strong height, from me destroyers would come upon her, says the Lord" Jeremiah 51:52-53. / "They broke their backs lifting Moloch to heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us! Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!"--Allen Ginsberg, Howl.
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Well, there we go... Next post will probably be seven books long, because, although there are a few exceptions, books pretty much dwindle down to 2-10 pages tops, until we get to the new testament. (And even then there are some two-page books happening.)
What else is up? Well, I'd like to point out that my output for this year is two posts more than my output for the year preceding that. 2011: The year of 62 posts? We'll see. (I'll have to keep on reading epics of these proportions to keep my numbers up!)
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: The View by Modest Mouse
This post's cryptic song lyrics: All you need is love, all you need is love, all you need is love, love--love is all you need
PS. If you can't get the cryptic song lyrics, you lose. Just saying.
Showing posts with label Howl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Howl. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Job
Ugh, look at all those days that passed! Man! Well, merry Christmas to you all/happy Kwanzaa! I had a good Christmas, hope you did too, and... I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But I hope those of you that are are enjoying it too! Oh, also, there was a crazy blizzard last night/this morning so I HAVE BEEN PLAYING IN SO MUCH SNOW! It's good times, even if my snow fort will never be as awesome as that kid's in Snow Day.
Let's see, is that it? Pretty much, yeah. I got addicted to a game I got for Christmas (Book Worm Adventures), which is no surprise because it's so radical! You fight enemies with words. The bigger the word, or depending on what letters are used, you do more damage. I love it. It's turned me into a sorry laptop junky. I NEED ME SOME BOOK WORM!
I guess if I'm going to mention Book Worm, I'm going to mention the two books I got, A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood and Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman. It's hard to stick to the Bible with those two at the foot of my bed, I can promise you that right now. Especially Steal This Book--I've been idly flipping through it and I love the sarcastic bastardness of it. (That's right, it gets its own adjective set up and word synthesis.) I was debating on taking a break from this to sate myself, but I feel like that would be too weird of a transition... Kind of like when I read some of Lord of the Rings and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test... Didn't really work that well.... So, let's get a move on then, before I remove my eyes with a writing utensil out of sheer desire to read Hoffman's book.
I have no notes on Ezra, but to be fair, it's about five pages altogether. Ezra restores adherence to rules set down in the Torah. (Do I italicize Torah?) Next is Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah, the King's servant, goes to rebuild the walls of Judah and attempts to repopulate Judah and again, make sure those repopulating the city are adhering to laws set down in the Torah.
First of all, this is the first time (at least in this edition) that Jewish people are referred to as 'Jews', and not Israelites or anything like that. I just thought that that was worth noting...
So, there's a chronicle of the wall's rebuilding, and who rebuilt which wall. Now, this edition of the Bible has whatever translation they deem right, but occasionally there are alternate translations for sections as well, or sections whose wording has been changed or what have you. In the actual paragraph, a sentence reads as follows: "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their Lord" Nehemiah 3:5. The alternate text from the footnote would make this read as "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their lords". There's a whole lot of difference between those two statements, I must say!
A little later on, there's the "Festival of Booths" to celebrate the success of the rebuilding and repopulation and the reinstitution of the laws. People who have returned to the city and are at the celebration have made "booths" or tabernacles. The Hebrew however (every so often the book will include the Hebrew for a word or phrase) for these things is "Succoth". I can't help but find this interesting, considering--if you remember--Succoth-beneth is one of the false gods who were worshiped. I just find that curious I've been led to believe that tabernacles are holy, and Succoth-beneth clearly is not, yet the word... Of course, beneth would then be some modifier that made the word villainous (most likely), but I don't know.
I'd also like to mention that in the 'National Confession' (9) chapter of Nehemiah, pretty much every book preceding it is summarized. Helpful, but at the same time it makes me pull at my hair in frustration.
A man named Malluch signed the Covenant. Now, he can't help his name, but it certainly sounds familiar. Not to judge, but I'm just saying, if his ears start resembling tombs and begin to smoke, well, let's just say I won't be too surprised.
Nehemiah is pretty short too... My next notes are in the next book, the book of Esther. Esther's story teaches us of the origins of the celebration of Purim, and... Well, I guess Jewish Treats covers the basics, there. The reason why Jewish people had to defend themselves is because Mordecai maddened and thus is targeted for murder by Haman, the prime minister. Haman figures out that Mordecai is Jewish and decides to cook up a plot to murder not just Mordecai but all the Jews of the city. Haman is eventually killed thanks to Esther (though it is sort of inadvertently that she seals his fate), though tension and hate has already been aroused, hence the need for defense.
There is an interesting difference between the translation this publication has chosen to use and the Hebrew that it includes for a particular passage: "In those days, while Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry and conspired to assassinate King AhasuerusJesus's healing powers are referred to as. I don't know, like everything else I've been writing about, I include it because I find it kind of interesting and odd. (Of course, if Jesus's healing powers are referred to as that, that means the meaning came later, but still, if it grew from a root like that...)
I also marked a tad bit about the festival itself, but I guess that got covered with the two links I've given you. Okay, so that's not a complete in-depth description of Purim, but it's probably better to rely on people who actually celebrate it for information rather than someone who only knows it exists thanks to Jewish Tweets (I'm doing a lot of plugging tonight, aren't I? This is unintentional, but really, you must see that I have a valid point)! It's on Wikipedia too, like everything else, so....
Ah, and next is the book of Job! Job was an upstanding, righteous fellow. Satan, making his first real appearance in the Bible (as himself at least--though the serpent is traditionally rendered as Satan I must make note that he is never actually referred to as such) challenges God. God points Job out as being such a great fellow who fears God and so on, and Satan is like, well, what's the point of his fear of you if he's got nothing to fear? If you gave him something to fear he would curse you. And God says all right, will do, let's see what happens. Go mess with him. Job is upset because he is plagued, his children are killed, his livestock is killed, he is struck with boils and sores--and he has not sinned or done anything wrong. In fact, he even sacrifices for his children*. His friends berate him because they're convinced that he must have sinned and to not confess of course doubles his punishment (most of this book is dialog, might I mention). Job, suffering, regrets his birth and his life, but remarkably never once curses God**--he just wants an answer as to why he is being punished. God Himself eventually joins in the dialog and speaks to Job and his cohorts as well.
*"And when the feast days had run their course, Job would send and sanctify [his sons and daughters], and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'. This is what Job always did" Job 1:5.
First of all, in the Hebrew, Satan is ha-satan--and the meaning of that is the Accuser. I am curious if he had any precedents in any other separate religious texts before this point... In those separate texts, if they exist, his origin might to be some extent be explained (Milton had to have gotten the backbone for Paradise Lost somewhere, right?), if not, this is a rather curious introduction for him. "One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it'" Job 1:6-7. Curious.
While reading the challenge Satan makes to God, that whole little section ('Attack on Job's Character'), a passage from Everything is Illuminated was evoked: "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY UNCONDITIONALLY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD PEOPLE They never do" (Everything is Illuminated, 199). I couldn't stop thinking of it, picturing it in my head.
**After his property and children are destroyed: "Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. He said, 'Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord'" Job 1:20-21.
The argument between Satan and God actually seems to be a pessimistic versus optimistic view of human nature, which I guess makes sense. But it makes me question whether the events that occur are even slightly based on any real events at all--or just a struggle with how exactly a man would react to such a situation. You know?
Job's wife suggests he "Curse God, and die" Job 2:9. Or, in the Hebrew, "Bless God, and die". This is after all the events regarding his property and children and livestock have occurred and Satan has stricken Job with terrible boils and sores. I imagine that his wife suggests he do this just to end his suffering once and for all (the release of death). As for the "Bless God"... Perhaps because despite his blessing and veneration for his Lord, he is still being punished to incredible extents, so he might as well bless God and again, end his suffering, because all of his blessings have led him this far...
Actually, Job rather impresses me. he responds to this with, "'Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not the bad?'" Job 2:10. This impressive for anyone to say and truly feel, much less a man who is is being tormented endlessly, and in such ways! I rather respect Job. I like him.
This whole section is incredibly interesting in Job speaking of his vexations and his friends assertions (even if they are deemed incorrect or foolish by God at the end) and God's statement at the end... Oh, and I should mention that the first concept of the afterlife (in the Bible) appears in this book; it is known as Sheol. Sheol is (from what I understand) just a dark... Well, pit. Regardless of your actions in life you are sent there. I guess it would be most similar to purgatory, then, just kind of... waiting. (That is what purgatory is, right? Great, now I've gone completely to the other end of the "I don't really understand this religious concept" spectrum...)
"'My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and come to their end without hope. Remember that my life is a breath'" Job 7:6-7.
"'I loathe my life; I would not live it forever'" Job 7:16.
"'What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, visit them every morning, test them every moment?'" Job 7:17-18. Possibly my favourite desperate statement from Job. I can honestly say that I spent a lot of time in Sunday school wondering exactly that (kids were given paper and crayons during the services, so I didn't really wonder about any theology while actually in church). I have to imagine that mostly everybody who has been brought up with a religious upbringing must wonder that (well, at least anyone with a Judeo-Christian upbringing), and even atheists and agnostics must wonder about it, at least the good ones must.
Job's friend Bildad explains to Job that those of the godless have hope and faith that dies very quickly because without God involved, it is like a spider's web. I just want to point out the irony here because although there's no way the writer of this book could have know, spider's silk is one of the strongest materials around.
"'Do you [God] have eyes of flesh? Do you see as humans see? Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years'" Job 10:4-5. Well... Not yet.
"'For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?'" Job 14:7-10. But is it the same tree? And question number two, are we tentatively poking at the question of rebirth? I'd say so...
So, to ruin any respect I may have garnered from a semi-intelligent and for once semi-coherent post, I just want to mention that "grind" is used as a euphemism. So sue me, I'm only human, it cracked me up.
Another friend of Job, Elihu, makes an interesting point... I apologize for overusing interesting, by the way. It's getting to the point where every time I write it I just hear Bugs Bunny saying it and I want to hide my face out of shame. But, anyways, he says: "'Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice, Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?'" Job 34:12-13. That is, God can't act unjustly because he invented just and unjust.
"'Anyone who argues with God must respond'" Job 40:2.
Well, there we are... The next four books of the Bible. I guess as retrospect, it's pretty easy to tell which books I find the most interesting (cough cough Job). If you're going to blindly pick a book from the Bible to read, I'd certainly suggest Job over most of what else I've read. (If you're going to blindly pick more than one, how about Exodus and Leviticus too?) The books are slowly getting to be more story-like, not that they sound false or anything, but they read better, like a story. So that's good. Of course, next is Psalms, so that trend won't really continue... But hey, that could be the interlude for more! There's only one way to find out, now isn't there?
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Hmm... That's about it for today, no more real updates on my life, other than that I got straight A's in my first semester of college! HOORAY! I haven't failed out! (At least not yet...)
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen
This post's cryptic song lyrics: First it giveth, then it taketh away
Let's see, is that it? Pretty much, yeah. I got addicted to a game I got for Christmas (Book Worm Adventures), which is no surprise because it's so radical! You fight enemies with words. The bigger the word, or depending on what letters are used, you do more damage. I love it. It's turned me into a sorry laptop junky. I NEED ME SOME BOOK WORM!
I guess if I'm going to mention Book Worm, I'm going to mention the two books I got, A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood and Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman. It's hard to stick to the Bible with those two at the foot of my bed, I can promise you that right now. Especially Steal This Book--I've been idly flipping through it and I love the sarcastic bastardness of it. (That's right, it gets its own adjective set up and word synthesis.) I was debating on taking a break from this to sate myself, but I feel like that would be too weird of a transition... Kind of like when I read some of Lord of the Rings and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test... Didn't really work that well.... So, let's get a move on then, before I remove my eyes with a writing utensil out of sheer desire to read Hoffman's book.
I have no notes on Ezra, but to be fair, it's about five pages altogether. Ezra restores adherence to rules set down in the Torah. (Do I italicize Torah?) Next is Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah, the King's servant, goes to rebuild the walls of Judah and attempts to repopulate Judah and again, make sure those repopulating the city are adhering to laws set down in the Torah.
First of all, this is the first time (at least in this edition) that Jewish people are referred to as 'Jews', and not Israelites or anything like that. I just thought that that was worth noting...
So, there's a chronicle of the wall's rebuilding, and who rebuilt which wall. Now, this edition of the Bible has whatever translation they deem right, but occasionally there are alternate translations for sections as well, or sections whose wording has been changed or what have you. In the actual paragraph, a sentence reads as follows: "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their Lord" Nehemiah 3:5. The alternate text from the footnote would make this read as "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their lords". There's a whole lot of difference between those two statements, I must say!
A little later on, there's the "Festival of Booths" to celebrate the success of the rebuilding and repopulation and the reinstitution of the laws. People who have returned to the city and are at the celebration have made "booths" or tabernacles. The Hebrew however (every so often the book will include the Hebrew for a word or phrase) for these things is "Succoth". I can't help but find this interesting, considering--if you remember--Succoth-beneth is one of the false gods who were worshiped. I just find that curious I've been led to believe that tabernacles are holy, and Succoth-beneth clearly is not, yet the word... Of course, beneth would then be some modifier that made the word villainous (most likely), but I don't know.
I'd also like to mention that in the 'National Confession' (9) chapter of Nehemiah, pretty much every book preceding it is summarized. Helpful, but at the same time it makes me pull at my hair in frustration.
A man named Malluch signed the Covenant. Now, he can't help his name, but it certainly sounds familiar. Not to judge, but I'm just saying, if his ears start resembling tombs and begin to smoke, well, let's just say I won't be too surprised.
Nehemiah is pretty short too... My next notes are in the next book, the book of Esther. Esther's story teaches us of the origins of the celebration of Purim, and... Well, I guess Jewish Treats covers the basics, there. The reason why Jewish people had to defend themselves is because Mordecai maddened and thus is targeted for murder by Haman, the prime minister. Haman figures out that Mordecai is Jewish and decides to cook up a plot to murder not just Mordecai but all the Jews of the city. Haman is eventually killed thanks to Esther (though it is sort of inadvertently that she seals his fate), though tension and hate has already been aroused, hence the need for defense.
There is an interesting difference between the translation this publication has chosen to use and the Hebrew that it includes for a particular passage: "In those days, while Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry and conspired to assassinate King AhasuerusJesus's healing powers are referred to as. I don't know, like everything else I've been writing about, I include it because I find it kind of interesting and odd. (Of course, if Jesus's healing powers are referred to as that, that means the meaning came later, but still, if it grew from a root like that...)
I also marked a tad bit about the festival itself, but I guess that got covered with the two links I've given you. Okay, so that's not a complete in-depth description of Purim, but it's probably better to rely on people who actually celebrate it for information rather than someone who only knows it exists thanks to Jewish Tweets (I'm doing a lot of plugging tonight, aren't I? This is unintentional, but really, you must see that I have a valid point)! It's on Wikipedia too, like everything else, so....
Ah, and next is the book of Job! Job was an upstanding, righteous fellow. Satan, making his first real appearance in the Bible (as himself at least--though the serpent is traditionally rendered as Satan I must make note that he is never actually referred to as such) challenges God. God points Job out as being such a great fellow who fears God and so on, and Satan is like, well, what's the point of his fear of you if he's got nothing to fear? If you gave him something to fear he would curse you. And God says all right, will do, let's see what happens. Go mess with him. Job is upset because he is plagued, his children are killed, his livestock is killed, he is struck with boils and sores--and he has not sinned or done anything wrong. In fact, he even sacrifices for his children*. His friends berate him because they're convinced that he must have sinned and to not confess of course doubles his punishment (most of this book is dialog, might I mention). Job, suffering, regrets his birth and his life, but remarkably never once curses God**--he just wants an answer as to why he is being punished. God Himself eventually joins in the dialog and speaks to Job and his cohorts as well.
*"And when the feast days had run their course, Job would send and sanctify [his sons and daughters], and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'. This is what Job always did" Job 1:5.
First of all, in the Hebrew, Satan is ha-satan--and the meaning of that is the Accuser. I am curious if he had any precedents in any other separate religious texts before this point... In those separate texts, if they exist, his origin might to be some extent be explained (Milton had to have gotten the backbone for Paradise Lost somewhere, right?), if not, this is a rather curious introduction for him. "One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it'" Job 1:6-7. Curious.
While reading the challenge Satan makes to God, that whole little section ('Attack on Job's Character'), a passage from Everything is Illuminated was evoked: "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY UNCONDITIONALLY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD PEOPLE They never do" (Everything is Illuminated, 199). I couldn't stop thinking of it, picturing it in my head.
**After his property and children are destroyed: "Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. He said, 'Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord'" Job 1:20-21.
The argument between Satan and God actually seems to be a pessimistic versus optimistic view of human nature, which I guess makes sense. But it makes me question whether the events that occur are even slightly based on any real events at all--or just a struggle with how exactly a man would react to such a situation. You know?
Job's wife suggests he "Curse God, and die" Job 2:9. Or, in the Hebrew, "Bless God, and die". This is after all the events regarding his property and children and livestock have occurred and Satan has stricken Job with terrible boils and sores. I imagine that his wife suggests he do this just to end his suffering once and for all (the release of death). As for the "Bless God"... Perhaps because despite his blessing and veneration for his Lord, he is still being punished to incredible extents, so he might as well bless God and again, end his suffering, because all of his blessings have led him this far...
Actually, Job rather impresses me. he responds to this with, "'Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not the bad?'" Job 2:10. This impressive for anyone to say and truly feel, much less a man who is is being tormented endlessly, and in such ways! I rather respect Job. I like him.
This whole section is incredibly interesting in Job speaking of his vexations and his friends assertions (even if they are deemed incorrect or foolish by God at the end) and God's statement at the end... Oh, and I should mention that the first concept of the afterlife (in the Bible) appears in this book; it is known as Sheol. Sheol is (from what I understand) just a dark... Well, pit. Regardless of your actions in life you are sent there. I guess it would be most similar to purgatory, then, just kind of... waiting. (That is what purgatory is, right? Great, now I've gone completely to the other end of the "I don't really understand this religious concept" spectrum...)
"'My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and come to their end without hope. Remember that my life is a breath'" Job 7:6-7.
"'I loathe my life; I would not live it forever'" Job 7:16.
"'What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, visit them every morning, test them every moment?'" Job 7:17-18. Possibly my favourite desperate statement from Job. I can honestly say that I spent a lot of time in Sunday school wondering exactly that (kids were given paper and crayons during the services, so I didn't really wonder about any theology while actually in church). I have to imagine that mostly everybody who has been brought up with a religious upbringing must wonder that (well, at least anyone with a Judeo-Christian upbringing), and even atheists and agnostics must wonder about it, at least the good ones must.
Job's friend Bildad explains to Job that those of the godless have hope and faith that dies very quickly because without God involved, it is like a spider's web. I just want to point out the irony here because although there's no way the writer of this book could have know, spider's silk is one of the strongest materials around.
"'Do you [God] have eyes of flesh? Do you see as humans see? Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years'" Job 10:4-5. Well... Not yet.
"'For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?'" Job 14:7-10. But is it the same tree? And question number two, are we tentatively poking at the question of rebirth? I'd say so...
So, to ruin any respect I may have garnered from a semi-intelligent and for once semi-coherent post, I just want to mention that "grind" is used as a euphemism. So sue me, I'm only human, it cracked me up.
Another friend of Job, Elihu, makes an interesting point... I apologize for overusing interesting, by the way. It's getting to the point where every time I write it I just hear Bugs Bunny saying it and I want to hide my face out of shame. But, anyways, he says: "'Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice, Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?'" Job 34:12-13. That is, God can't act unjustly because he invented just and unjust.
"'Anyone who argues with God must respond'" Job 40:2.
Well, there we are... The next four books of the Bible. I guess as retrospect, it's pretty easy to tell which books I find the most interesting (cough cough Job). If you're going to blindly pick a book from the Bible to read, I'd certainly suggest Job over most of what else I've read. (If you're going to blindly pick more than one, how about Exodus and Leviticus too?) The books are slowly getting to be more story-like, not that they sound false or anything, but they read better, like a story. So that's good. Of course, next is Psalms, so that trend won't really continue... But hey, that could be the interlude for more! There's only one way to find out, now isn't there?
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Hmm... That's about it for today, no more real updates on my life, other than that I got straight A's in my first semester of college! HOORAY! I haven't failed out! (At least not yet...)
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen
This post's cryptic song lyrics: First it giveth, then it taketh away
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Bible: Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus
Bet you weren't expecting the next post this fast! Anyways, here we are, first three books of the Bible. Still not clear on the italicizing thing, but I feel like everybody will know what I'm writing about and I won't have to worry about getting sued... So, I feel like I should give some background here--I have read the Bible before, though it was sort of the in-between version. What I mean is, in between The Beginner's Bible and the legit (?) Holy Bible, which is the "new revised standard edition". Like when you get kid's versions of classic books but there are still more words than pictures. (Not that there's anything wrong with The Beginner's Bible. I can honestly say that even in just these three books there's a lot I wouldn't have understood without having read that about a million times when I was a kid. I mean, the story of Esau? What the hell is going on, seriously?) But that was a while ago, and now I'm braving what is considered to be one of the most important literary works in existence. So let's go into dangerous waters, then!
So obviously the book we're starting out with is Genesis (how does one treat books of the Bible?).
First of all, here's this: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'" Genesis 1:26. (I'm going to do my best with the citing, too.) I just think it's interesting that God pluralized Himself. I mean, if this wasn't the old testament, I'd say it works into the whole 'Father, son and holy ghost' thing, we're all three that are different, but still the same...
An interesting note is that there is a second account of the seven days that mentions how there are four rivers that branch off of the main river that comes from Eden, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. Just thought it was interesting to mention because it makes sense that these two rivers would be given this credit--some of the earliest major civilizations rose up around the rivers because of how fertile the area was, and undoubtedly still is. So... that's cool....
Fun fact: Adam and Eve aren't given names until after they are cast out--Adam names her. Actually, Adam isn't named at all. He is never once referred to by that name (apparently in Hebrew, Adam is just a generic word meaning 'mankind'....)
Well, let's see. The purpose of all mythology is really to explain nature and things we can't control, right? Not to be rude, but this would be a sort of mythology too. It's explaining the world's creation, where why who what when where, et cetera... The origin of man, the origin of traditions, and so on... In this case, when God reprimands Eve, we learn why childbirth hurts, yet still Eve would desire her husband despite that pain. Adam learns that he must work to live from henceforth. Again, just thought it was worth throwing that out there...
So, we'll skip a little to the end of the story of Noah. Noah is pretty happy that the flood has ended, obviously, and he builds an altar and sacrifices to God. God is pleased and reacts as follows: "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth'" Genesis 8:21. This kind of bothers me. Okay, believe that if you like, and I know there are people that do. But for the creator of the being to think that!? I do not like that, not one bit. I mean, I guess you could say people started out good, but of course that lasted up to the temptation of Eve... And I guess to make people villainous from the start would be a good way to see who is worth saving (the people who would work to overcome their inherent villainous nature)... But still, I feel like that should have been done a little better. Just saying.
And later on there's the story of Abraham. Abraham, as you may or may know, was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. The way I've heard it is that Abraham so loved God and wanted to honour him and not displease him that he goes to do it. This Bible cuts out all of that and just gives it to us straight: he goes to sacrifice his son out fear of God. (Which pleases God.)
And these first few books are repetitive as hell. In Genesis alone--only on page 21, mind you--we repeat this scenario where a man goes into Egypt with his beautiful wife and says she's his sister for fear that they'll kill him (so they can get to her). And when we get to Exodus? I don't know what leaven versus unleavened bread is exactly, but if I ever hear about it again, heads are going to roll. I am so annoyed that I am purposely not looking up these things out of spite! (I think it means that there's no yeast in it.)
Oh, and Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat? How about a "long robe with sleeves" Genesis 37:3? I feel like that's a misconstrued translation for the better. I guess I'd be jealous enough to beat someone up for their amazing technicolour dreamcoat?)
...Well, that's all I've got for Genesis, looks like.
...So now onto Exodus! I daresay it's one of the best-known books of the Bible, it's the story of Moses! Moses's beginnings through the first tabernacle erection, at least. It looks like everything pertaining Moses goes through to Deuteronomy...
First of all, Zipporah's (Moses's wife) father is named Reuel. This made me chuckle, as there is a certain author whose second middle name is this....
The first thing that really interested me were the plagues. There are several involving bugs (gnats, flies, and locusts) that seem to get melded into one. I thought that it was just locusts that also attacked people? I'm no expert on locusts... But, one of these various bug plagues aren't translated correctly. In the original Hebrew, one plague of bugs are actually scarab beetles. So what, you may ask. Scarab beetles (dung beetles) were actually sacred creatures to the Egyptians. The plague of the beetles literally covered everything in them. The people wouldn't have been able to walk without squashing a few and thus insulting their gods and humiliating them. Way to kick them when they're down, I guess. God is actually pretty cruel during all of this. I mean, I never thought the plagues were nice, good acts, but from this perspective, I never really realized how flat-out cruel they were (except for that first-born son thing. That's pretty darned bad no matter how/when you learn about it).
What I mean is, thanks to however you've learned the story of Moses, it's always the Pharaoh who acted stubborn, right? He just wouldn't believe, while you're reading/watching and you're just like, Ramses, is your real name Tommy? (Tommy 'Ramses II' Pharaoh?) Are you seriously not aware of what is going on here and figuring out the cause-and-effects? Well, for plagues 1-5, the Pharaoh "hardens" his heart. However, come plague six, the sentence structure changes a bit: "But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them" Exodus 9:12. Wait wait wait, WHAT? "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them--so that you may know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 10:1-2. Uh, okay. I get the fact that He'd be trying to punish the Egyptians. The way I've always pictured it is He was retaliating for the fact that Ramses was continually being a jerk and super indecisive. But this seems excessive. A point is trying to be proved, yes, and I guess we have to remember that God--Yahweh--is still an 'ancient' God at this point, but wow. That's really kicking them while they're down. Kicking them while they're down about ten or eleven times. Almost to the point of making me uncomfortable...
Speaking of uncomfortable, a few chapters (chapters?) later: "'I will harden Pharaoh's heart and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 14:4. Um... No? I get that being God, He'd like other people to acknowledge that fact--but that stills seems like a lot. "Gain glory"? Sounds suspiciously similar to a certain character of Paradise Lost... Maybe God just has sharing issues and too huge an ego, and that's why Satan was punished... Or He didn't like the fact that He saw that aspect of himself in Satan still (though it would make sense)... I think I just made theology into a soap opera. Uhhh, sorry about this.
Oh, funny story, never realized this, but you know passover? It's to celebrate that the plagues passed over Moses's people. I feel stupid for never making that connection... Though to be completely fair, I was never aware that that was where it came from. Or... I didn't think I was aware? (If I was, I feel like it was a Sunday school sort of thing, and it's been a looooong time since I've darkened the doorway of a Sunday school room...)
"'For I the Lord your God am a jealous God'" Exodus 20:5. Well, at least He knows it.
Oh, and the ten commandments--turns out some of them are a lot longer than a sentence or two. For example, "honour thy father and mother..." goes on to say why exactly you should do this: "so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" Exodus 20:12. This kind of intrigues me. Is it implying that if you do that, so shall you be honoured by your children, thus you will live long because they will care for you as you have cared for your parents, and so on? Also, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"? "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17.
Exodus ends in a lot of laws, and the norms continue into Leviticus. However, a lot of these laws are pretty damned harsh. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, et cetera--fine, I can accept those wholeheartedly, believe it or not. But to be put to death for cursing your parents!? (Imagine how many teenagers we would have to kill!) And then there's laws concerning slaves: interesting, because like I said, the basic law appears to be an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. But with slaves, if you damage their eye(s) or knock out a tooth, they just get set free to compensate. Why? Well, they're still a lower order so even the law is modified for them. They can't strike back because technically, they're still below their masters (they haven't been set free till their master sets them free)--well, they could strike back, but they'd be put to death, most likely. Or hurt again. And since they're slaves they can't be avenged...
One law that's randomly thrown in and gets randomly repeated a few times is "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" Exodus 22:18. I apologize, it made me chuckle every time I read it. (Though you should keep it in mind, it'll be important in a later book....)
Bestiality is also one of the sins that you can be put to death for. Now trust me, I'm not going to defend that. But if you'll recall, in Chuck Palahniuk's Rant, there is a rabies epidemic thanks to Rant. There's a section where they discuss what a problem rabies must have been in the early days--and that's why bestiality was banned really, simply to prevent the disease from spreading, no more, no less. Which is an interesting thing to keep in mind when you read some of the laws, especially regarding that which you can and cannot eat. For example, if you come across something mangled in the field, leave it for the dogs. This seems fairly logical nowadays, but I feel like there was a point in human history where someone would see it and say "FOOD!" and just eat it, and invariably got incredibly sick and most likely died thanks to what had already found the rotting meat. So there we go, the law was a convenient prevention method. Other things too--shellfish is not kosher because it does not have fins or scales and it resides in the water. Well, why? I'd imagine because even if you miscook shellfish even a little, you're bound to get violently ill. Hell, there are certain parts of lobster that can kill you if you eat enough of it. Plus, trying to figure out the edible parts? It's a mess. Of course, the most famous food to be avoided is pork, but that... trichinosis? The fact that pigs are gross? The Hebrews had really weak stomachs and couldn't handle pork? I've got nothing, but I'm down with considering pork 'unclean'.
"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" Exodus 22:21. This is my favourite of the laws of restitution.
The second to last law of restitution is that all first-born males are given to God. As I said earlier, God was still an 'ancient' god at this point, so human sacrifice was completely natural and accepted--though I find it strange because the Canaanites who sacrifice their children to Molech (insatiable devourer of brains and imagination) are abused for it. Maybe God just isn't pleased that their babies aren't being sacrificed in His name?
"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right" Exodus 23:6-8.
Ah, and one thing that bothers me are the Sabbath regulations. Now, I know I've got to keep in mind that there's a LOT of time in between Moses and Jesus--a lot of things changed, indubitably, but man. In the book of Exodus, you get put to death for doing any work on the Sabbath. You're not even allowed to kindle a fire. In one of the books of the new testament (won't know which one it is till I get there, but I remember the pictures of the story from The Beginner's Bible pretty well), a man (possibly one of the disciples) is doing work and a city official gets mad and says that he must be put to death/punished harshly. Jesus steps up and says something like, "Well, you did work today too, didn't you?" And the city official gets mad, denies it. Jesus asks him if he walked his donkey to the water hole/trough today. The official did of course, and Jesus said, "Well now, isn't that work?" And of course, it was. So... yeah, the death thing seems like a little much. Of course, this parable could have been written in an effort to change it purposely because people realized how impossible it was to follow that order of absolutely no work on the sabbath.
The rest of this book is pretty much how to construct a tabernacle, altar, how a priest should dress, et cetera.
Next up is the book of Leviticus! It's quite possibly the best-named book of the Bible. Seriously, I'd name a kid that. Or a chameleon! Or one of those lizards that get up on their hind legs and run across the water with those big flaps? Those look like Leviticuses. ....Um. Leviticus is more of an outline of acceptable offerings and sacrifices, rites, purification laws, penalties and festivals. That said, I've not much to say about this chapter.
Eating blood is prohibited! I did not know that that was actually in the Bible. I figured eating blood was just a more because, well, it's gross. But okay. (It also adversely affects health. Too much and your stomach ruptures. Good times?) It actually kind of makes Dracula and other earlier vampire tales much more interesting. I mean, you figure he/they are damned because they traded their soul away, or because again, that sort of thing is just plain gross. Nope, drinking blood actually renders you "unclean" and you're actually sinning against God to do so. So it's just the icing on the cake to the expulsion of your soul, I guess. You're already damned, so why not? (By the way, Dracula's famous saying--"the blood is the life"--actually comes from this chapter of the Bible. It's Leviticus 17:14.)
There's also all the taboos about incest and any other sexual relation that gets you in trouble still nowadays that are discussed. Might I mention that both of the famous anti-gay quotes from the Bible occur in this chapter: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. These quotes are preceded with God warning the people not to do as they do in Egypt or Canaan... Naturally I'm skeptical in this case, and I'm willing to say that this was a bit of human intervention in the text. Somebody got grossed out by homosexuality and decided it was not okay (all the fleshpots of Egypt, you know)... I feel like I should mention that everybody (else) slept with men for pretty much all of what we'd call the ancient days. Greeks--Spartans, especially--and Romans are the ones that at least everyone knows. I also feel that I should say that I have no problem with homosexuality (wait, there's nothing about women, is there?), I just thought it was worth mentioning. Those two simple quotes are why homosexuality is looked down upon.
It is also said that anyone who provides the Canaanites with sacrifices to Molech shall be punished by death and deserted by God--anyone who turns to follow Molech will effectively cut their whole family off from God. Hm... That name sounds and looks suspiciously familiar... (I hear his love is endless oil and stone and his mind is pure machinery.)
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Ooookay! There we go, first three books of the Bible. So far... Well, Genesis is kind of boring. Exodus gets better, and Leviticus is thus far the most interesting. So hopefully it will continue to improve! The books actually read more like a summary of epics rather than actual in-depth epics, it's almost a little disappointing. It's kind of like reading Sparknotes as opposed to the real text, except this is the real text... (I wonder what the actual Sparknotes for it looks like.) So, we'll see where it goes from here. I am rather intrigued. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: So Hi So Lo by Matisyahu (That's how it's spelled on the album, so I'm going to stick with that)
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Who shot that arrow in your throat, who missed that crimson apple? It hung heavy in the tree above your head. This chaos, this calamity, this garden once was perfect--Give your immortality to me; I'll set you up against the stars
So obviously the book we're starting out with is Genesis (how does one treat books of the Bible?).
First of all, here's this: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'" Genesis 1:26. (I'm going to do my best with the citing, too.) I just think it's interesting that God pluralized Himself. I mean, if this wasn't the old testament, I'd say it works into the whole 'Father, son and holy ghost' thing, we're all three that are different, but still the same...
An interesting note is that there is a second account of the seven days that mentions how there are four rivers that branch off of the main river that comes from Eden, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. Just thought it was interesting to mention because it makes sense that these two rivers would be given this credit--some of the earliest major civilizations rose up around the rivers because of how fertile the area was, and undoubtedly still is. So... that's cool....
Fun fact: Adam and Eve aren't given names until after they are cast out--Adam names her. Actually, Adam isn't named at all. He is never once referred to by that name (apparently in Hebrew, Adam is just a generic word meaning 'mankind'....)
Well, let's see. The purpose of all mythology is really to explain nature and things we can't control, right? Not to be rude, but this would be a sort of mythology too. It's explaining the world's creation, where why who what when where, et cetera... The origin of man, the origin of traditions, and so on... In this case, when God reprimands Eve, we learn why childbirth hurts, yet still Eve would desire her husband despite that pain. Adam learns that he must work to live from henceforth. Again, just thought it was worth throwing that out there...
So, we'll skip a little to the end of the story of Noah. Noah is pretty happy that the flood has ended, obviously, and he builds an altar and sacrifices to God. God is pleased and reacts as follows: "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth'" Genesis 8:21. This kind of bothers me. Okay, believe that if you like, and I know there are people that do. But for the creator of the being to think that!? I do not like that, not one bit. I mean, I guess you could say people started out good, but of course that lasted up to the temptation of Eve... And I guess to make people villainous from the start would be a good way to see who is worth saving (the people who would work to overcome their inherent villainous nature)... But still, I feel like that should have been done a little better. Just saying.
And later on there's the story of Abraham. Abraham, as you may or may know, was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. The way I've heard it is that Abraham so loved God and wanted to honour him and not displease him that he goes to do it. This Bible cuts out all of that and just gives it to us straight: he goes to sacrifice his son out fear of God. (Which pleases God.)
And these first few books are repetitive as hell. In Genesis alone--only on page 21, mind you--we repeat this scenario where a man goes into Egypt with his beautiful wife and says she's his sister for fear that they'll kill him (so they can get to her). And when we get to Exodus? I don't know what leaven versus unleavened bread is exactly, but if I ever hear about it again, heads are going to roll. I am so annoyed that I am purposely not looking up these things out of spite! (I think it means that there's no yeast in it.)
Oh, and Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat? How about a "long robe with sleeves" Genesis 37:3? I feel like that's a misconstrued translation for the better. I guess I'd be jealous enough to beat someone up for their amazing technicolour dreamcoat?)
...Well, that's all I've got for Genesis, looks like.
...So now onto Exodus! I daresay it's one of the best-known books of the Bible, it's the story of Moses! Moses's beginnings through the first tabernacle erection, at least. It looks like everything pertaining Moses goes through to Deuteronomy...
First of all, Zipporah's (Moses's wife) father is named Reuel. This made me chuckle, as there is a certain author whose second middle name is this....
The first thing that really interested me were the plagues. There are several involving bugs (gnats, flies, and locusts) that seem to get melded into one. I thought that it was just locusts that also attacked people? I'm no expert on locusts... But, one of these various bug plagues aren't translated correctly. In the original Hebrew, one plague of bugs are actually scarab beetles. So what, you may ask. Scarab beetles (dung beetles) were actually sacred creatures to the Egyptians. The plague of the beetles literally covered everything in them. The people wouldn't have been able to walk without squashing a few and thus insulting their gods and humiliating them. Way to kick them when they're down, I guess. God is actually pretty cruel during all of this. I mean, I never thought the plagues were nice, good acts, but from this perspective, I never really realized how flat-out cruel they were (except for that first-born son thing. That's pretty darned bad no matter how/when you learn about it).
What I mean is, thanks to however you've learned the story of Moses, it's always the Pharaoh who acted stubborn, right? He just wouldn't believe, while you're reading/watching and you're just like, Ramses, is your real name Tommy? (Tommy 'Ramses II' Pharaoh?) Are you seriously not aware of what is going on here and figuring out the cause-and-effects? Well, for plagues 1-5, the Pharaoh "hardens" his heart. However, come plague six, the sentence structure changes a bit: "But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them" Exodus 9:12. Wait wait wait, WHAT? "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them--so that you may know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 10:1-2. Uh, okay. I get the fact that He'd be trying to punish the Egyptians. The way I've always pictured it is He was retaliating for the fact that Ramses was continually being a jerk and super indecisive. But this seems excessive. A point is trying to be proved, yes, and I guess we have to remember that God--Yahweh--is still an 'ancient' God at this point, but wow. That's really kicking them while they're down. Kicking them while they're down about ten or eleven times. Almost to the point of making me uncomfortable...
Speaking of uncomfortable, a few chapters (chapters?) later: "'I will harden Pharaoh's heart and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 14:4. Um... No? I get that being God, He'd like other people to acknowledge that fact--but that stills seems like a lot. "Gain glory"? Sounds suspiciously similar to a certain character of Paradise Lost... Maybe God just has sharing issues and too huge an ego, and that's why Satan was punished... Or He didn't like the fact that He saw that aspect of himself in Satan still (though it would make sense)... I think I just made theology into a soap opera. Uhhh, sorry about this.
Oh, funny story, never realized this, but you know passover? It's to celebrate that the plagues passed over Moses's people. I feel stupid for never making that connection... Though to be completely fair, I was never aware that that was where it came from. Or... I didn't think I was aware? (If I was, I feel like it was a Sunday school sort of thing, and it's been a looooong time since I've darkened the doorway of a Sunday school room...)
"'For I the Lord your God am a jealous God'" Exodus 20:5. Well, at least He knows it.
Oh, and the ten commandments--turns out some of them are a lot longer than a sentence or two. For example, "honour thy father and mother..." goes on to say why exactly you should do this: "so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" Exodus 20:12. This kind of intrigues me. Is it implying that if you do that, so shall you be honoured by your children, thus you will live long because they will care for you as you have cared for your parents, and so on? Also, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"? "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17.
Exodus ends in a lot of laws, and the norms continue into Leviticus. However, a lot of these laws are pretty damned harsh. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, et cetera--fine, I can accept those wholeheartedly, believe it or not. But to be put to death for cursing your parents!? (Imagine how many teenagers we would have to kill!) And then there's laws concerning slaves: interesting, because like I said, the basic law appears to be an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. But with slaves, if you damage their eye(s) or knock out a tooth, they just get set free to compensate. Why? Well, they're still a lower order so even the law is modified for them. They can't strike back because technically, they're still below their masters (they haven't been set free till their master sets them free)--well, they could strike back, but they'd be put to death, most likely. Or hurt again. And since they're slaves they can't be avenged...
One law that's randomly thrown in and gets randomly repeated a few times is "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" Exodus 22:18. I apologize, it made me chuckle every time I read it. (Though you should keep it in mind, it'll be important in a later book....)
Bestiality is also one of the sins that you can be put to death for. Now trust me, I'm not going to defend that. But if you'll recall, in Chuck Palahniuk's Rant, there is a rabies epidemic thanks to Rant. There's a section where they discuss what a problem rabies must have been in the early days--and that's why bestiality was banned really, simply to prevent the disease from spreading, no more, no less. Which is an interesting thing to keep in mind when you read some of the laws, especially regarding that which you can and cannot eat. For example, if you come across something mangled in the field, leave it for the dogs. This seems fairly logical nowadays, but I feel like there was a point in human history where someone would see it and say "FOOD!" and just eat it, and invariably got incredibly sick and most likely died thanks to what had already found the rotting meat. So there we go, the law was a convenient prevention method. Other things too--shellfish is not kosher because it does not have fins or scales and it resides in the water. Well, why? I'd imagine because even if you miscook shellfish even a little, you're bound to get violently ill. Hell, there are certain parts of lobster that can kill you if you eat enough of it. Plus, trying to figure out the edible parts? It's a mess. Of course, the most famous food to be avoided is pork, but that... trichinosis? The fact that pigs are gross? The Hebrews had really weak stomachs and couldn't handle pork? I've got nothing, but I'm down with considering pork 'unclean'.
"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" Exodus 22:21. This is my favourite of the laws of restitution.
The second to last law of restitution is that all first-born males are given to God. As I said earlier, God was still an 'ancient' god at this point, so human sacrifice was completely natural and accepted--though I find it strange because the Canaanites who sacrifice their children to Molech (insatiable devourer of brains and imagination) are abused for it. Maybe God just isn't pleased that their babies aren't being sacrificed in His name?
"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right" Exodus 23:6-8.
Ah, and one thing that bothers me are the Sabbath regulations. Now, I know I've got to keep in mind that there's a LOT of time in between Moses and Jesus--a lot of things changed, indubitably, but man. In the book of Exodus, you get put to death for doing any work on the Sabbath. You're not even allowed to kindle a fire. In one of the books of the new testament (won't know which one it is till I get there, but I remember the pictures of the story from The Beginner's Bible pretty well), a man (possibly one of the disciples) is doing work and a city official gets mad and says that he must be put to death/punished harshly. Jesus steps up and says something like, "Well, you did work today too, didn't you?" And the city official gets mad, denies it. Jesus asks him if he walked his donkey to the water hole/trough today. The official did of course, and Jesus said, "Well now, isn't that work?" And of course, it was. So... yeah, the death thing seems like a little much. Of course, this parable could have been written in an effort to change it purposely because people realized how impossible it was to follow that order of absolutely no work on the sabbath.
The rest of this book is pretty much how to construct a tabernacle, altar, how a priest should dress, et cetera.
Next up is the book of Leviticus! It's quite possibly the best-named book of the Bible. Seriously, I'd name a kid that. Or a chameleon! Or one of those lizards that get up on their hind legs and run across the water with those big flaps? Those look like Leviticuses. ....Um. Leviticus is more of an outline of acceptable offerings and sacrifices, rites, purification laws, penalties and festivals. That said, I've not much to say about this chapter.
Eating blood is prohibited! I did not know that that was actually in the Bible. I figured eating blood was just a more because, well, it's gross. But okay. (It also adversely affects health. Too much and your stomach ruptures. Good times?) It actually kind of makes Dracula and other earlier vampire tales much more interesting. I mean, you figure he/they are damned because they traded their soul away, or because again, that sort of thing is just plain gross. Nope, drinking blood actually renders you "unclean" and you're actually sinning against God to do so. So it's just the icing on the cake to the expulsion of your soul, I guess. You're already damned, so why not? (By the way, Dracula's famous saying--"the blood is the life"--actually comes from this chapter of the Bible. It's Leviticus 17:14.)
There's also all the taboos about incest and any other sexual relation that gets you in trouble still nowadays that are discussed. Might I mention that both of the famous anti-gay quotes from the Bible occur in this chapter: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. These quotes are preceded with God warning the people not to do as they do in Egypt or Canaan... Naturally I'm skeptical in this case, and I'm willing to say that this was a bit of human intervention in the text. Somebody got grossed out by homosexuality and decided it was not okay (all the fleshpots of Egypt, you know)... I feel like I should mention that everybody (else) slept with men for pretty much all of what we'd call the ancient days. Greeks--Spartans, especially--and Romans are the ones that at least everyone knows. I also feel that I should say that I have no problem with homosexuality (wait, there's nothing about women, is there?), I just thought it was worth mentioning. Those two simple quotes are why homosexuality is looked down upon.
It is also said that anyone who provides the Canaanites with sacrifices to Molech shall be punished by death and deserted by God--anyone who turns to follow Molech will effectively cut their whole family off from God. Hm... That name sounds and looks suspiciously familiar... (I hear his love is endless oil and stone and his mind is pure machinery.)
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Ooookay! There we go, first three books of the Bible. So far... Well, Genesis is kind of boring. Exodus gets better, and Leviticus is thus far the most interesting. So hopefully it will continue to improve! The books actually read more like a summary of epics rather than actual in-depth epics, it's almost a little disappointing. It's kind of like reading Sparknotes as opposed to the real text, except this is the real text... (I wonder what the actual Sparknotes for it looks like.) So, we'll see where it goes from here. I am rather intrigued. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: So Hi So Lo by Matisyahu (That's how it's spelled on the album, so I'm going to stick with that)
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Who shot that arrow in your throat, who missed that crimson apple? It hung heavy in the tree above your head. This chaos, this calamity, this garden once was perfect--Give your immortality to me; I'll set you up against the stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)