Learn how to mow down the enemy with machine guns at Ḥamas summer camp!

Greetings.

Jewish date:  22 ’Av 5770 (Parashath Re’eh).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Days of Eusebius of Vercelli and Peter Julian Eymard (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Robert Goddard (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy causes of the day:  “Ask Your Reps to Support the National Alzheimer's Project Act - The Petition Site”, “Support Clean Energy Jobs - Take Action Today @ The Rainforest Site”, and “Tell the FDA to Come Clean About Gulf Seafood - The Petition Site”.  Also along the lines of something worthy to do:  Save the oak trees.

Note:  I have finished reading The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai and have written a draft review of it.  I hope to present the finished review tomorrow.

Topic 1:  More anti-Semitism (as if you did not know that was coming):  “Israel "Ethnically Cleansing" Bedouin Arabs?” and “Gaza Missile Hits, UK Press Misses” both deal with biased reporting.  The Dry Bones cartoon “No Big Deal”, only less politely.  “Hamas summer camp: Weapons training for leaders' kids” has a title which shows just what is considered important in Gaza.  “From Gibson to Ahmadinejad” notes that anti-Semitism may often be ignored or explained away when other forms of irrational bias are not.

Topic 2:  I cannot make this up:  “Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex”.  The title summarizes it well, though do note the decision was overturned.  References in the Islamic literature permitting marital rape are provided.  Though I cannot say that the Muslim husband did anything wrong according to Islam, I am under the impression that freedom of religion stops when it tramples on the legal rights of other human beings.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor: “Teh Ten Commanments of Ceiling Cat”:


Peace.

Aaron

The Other Bible is not another bible

Greetings.

Jewish date:  12 ’Av 5770 (Parashath Wa’ethḥannan).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of Bridget (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Groucho Marx (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy causes of the day:  “Help Save Africa's Lions from Extinction - Take Action Today @ The Animal Rescue Site”, “Stand Up for the 4.9 Million Displaced Sudanese - Take Action Today @ The Hunger Site”, “Urge Congress to Help End Violence Against Women - Take Action Today @ The Hunger Site”, “ONE | Ask the Senate to deliver their promise to Haiti”, and “Why is the Obama administration listening to right-wing smear merchants?”.

Topic 1:  The Other Bible, edited by William Barnstone.  I wrote about this book over a year ago when I bought it.  This is what I wrote then:

I would like to speak a bit about one of my latest acquisitions, The Other Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone.  The Other Bible consists of religious texts which are not part of the standard Christian Bible from a variety of sources spread over something on the order of 1,500 years:  Jewish apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, mystical, and sectarian texts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls), Christian apocrypha, Gnostic texts, Mandaean texts, Manichaean texts, and even pagan texts.  The groups whose works were utilized are not a single religion, and these works thus form a rather artificial collection.  Also the Pharisaic/Orthodox Jewish contributions, listed under “Haggadah”, “Kabbalah”, and “The Zohar, the Book of Radiance (Kabbalah)”, were never intended to be taken as scripture.  As such, “The”, “Other”, and “Bible” are all rather inappropriate for reference to this collection.  In the introduction, the editor conceives of these works being part of a Judeo-Christian “greater bible” which we now have easier access to.  While I have to agree with the editor that these works are valuable for investigating the development of religious thought, I find the notion of a “greater bible” rather repugnant.  Religion is not a free-for-all with texts playthings to delight in.  To accept a book as scripture is an explicit endorsement of its content.  This is why the New Testament is not part of what Jews consider “Bible”:  they view it as a separate, detached collection and not a continuation of the Hebrew Bible.  Bundling together works from multiple religions under a single rubric to imply they are really part of a greater whole, a collection not endorsed as scripture by any single religion except maybe Bahá’ís (and that is a maybe) is an even worse mistake than bundling the Hebrew Bible together with the New Testament.

These criticisms are every bit as valid now that I have finished reading this collection.  In fact, things are even worse than I thought.  For one thing, it is not whole documents which are necessarily included, but rather sections which the editor thought were interesting.  In some cases, the documents which the editor would like to include are no longer extant, and he resorts to including descriptions of groups written by their enemies—hardly the sort of documents that would be included in a “bible” of any sort.  The choice of materials is also rather skewed.  Most of the Apocrypha, the specific collection of material absent in the Hebrew Bible but included in the Septuagint, are not included in The Other Bible, even though they are the first material one looks at when going beyond the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.  Josephus and Philo are for the most part also ignored.  Rather the emphasis is overwhelmingly on Gnosticism.  To describe Gnosticism extremely briefly, consider the notion of a theological “conspiracy theory” in which the Creator God is evil, this world is a trap for human souls, and one’s salvation is dependent not on good behavior but rather knowing the secrets of the Good God above the Creator God (gnosis).  While the Christian versions of Gnosticism almost always included Jesus as the agent of the Good God, early Christians railed against as a heresy.  It goes without saying that Gnosticism is diametrically opposed to Judaism (“metaphysical anti-Semitism” was the term Dr. Gershom Scholem used), given its denigration of the God of Israel and by extension His Torah and His people.  While I find that a lot of Christianity makes sense of a sort in the light of Gnosticism—with Christianity ending up as a sort of Gnosticism-lite—no one sane deems anything heretical as “bible”.  The Other Bible is worthwhile looking at for getting an introduction to many of the texts sampled therein.  For other purposes, the reader is advised to look elsewhere.

Topic 2:  More contemporary anti-Semitism:  “AP Goes Soft on Hardcore ISM” deals with misreporting on the International Solidarity Movement, which is dedicated to aiding terrorists by acting as human shields.  “Israelis fight terror through US court system” deals with a nonviolent way to deal with terrorism:  suing for reparations and actually winning.  “The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries” deals with how Jews have been treated through history by Muslims and gives sources.  “Rachel Saperstein: Five years after expulsion from Gush Katif, from Women in Green” deals with how Jews who were expelled from Gaza five years ago are doing, and it is not pretty.  Rav Boteach in “Why have Christian organizations remained silent about Mel this time, but supported him 4 years ago?” deals with the current scandal of known anti-Semite Mel Gibson.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor:  No Laughing Matter.  This is a site which pokes fun at the inanities of Middle Eastern politics through mock interviews.  Let’s face it:  comedians can say the unvarnished truth about anything when everyone else fears to do so.  These are the videos they have up currently:



From a different group is the highly sarcastic “(MUST SEE VIDEO) The Humanitarian Crisis of the Gaza Mall: The Horror!”:

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

Aaron

The Gospel According to Mel Gibson

Greetings.

Jewish date:  5 ’Av 5770 (Parashath Devarim).

Today’s holidays:  The Nine Days (Judaism), Feast Day of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Roman Catholicism).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Friends of Israel Initiative”.

Topic 1:  The Passion of the Christ (2004), which might be better titled The Gospel According to Mel Gibson, after the man responsible for this film.  This is the most overtly anti-Semitic of the Gospel films your humble blogger has seen, putting the blame for the death of Jesus directly on the Pharisees, Priests, and a Jewish mob.  Pontius Pilate is exonerated entirely, being backed into a situation where he has no safe option.  If he exonerates Jesus, he is afraid that Caiaphas’s followers will revolt.  If he kills Jesus, he is afraid that Jesus’s followers will revolt.  If he puts down a revolt, Caesar will be very, very angry with him because of all the killing of revolting Jews he has been doing for 11 years which his majesty wants stopped.  Pontius tries getting away with “merely” letting Roman soldiers who enjoy their work too much beat up Jesus, but as this fails to pacify the mob, he gives into their demand for crucifixion.  This is a marvelous piece of work to make Pontius Pilate a sympathetic character (albeit not the bloodthirsty monster historians think he was), but it does nothing to really explain why the Jews would want Jesus dead in the first place.  Despite that Jews are correctly depicted as speaking Aramaic, there is no sign of research into Second Temple Period Judaism or any attempt to understand what Jesus’s Jewish opponents were thinking.  Gibson uncritically buys into the blood libel of the Gospels and simply echoes it in the film.

(Parenthetical tangent:  Romans are incorrectly depicted as speaking Latin when they really should have been speaking Greek, the other common language used over there at the time.  Greek was commonly used enough that the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews during the Second Temple Period.  It took a few centuries more for a Latin version to be created.  But I digress.)

Rather than work out motives for the antagonists, Gibson puts a great deal of effort into depicting the end of Jesus’s life, from the Garden of Gethsemane to the Resurrection.  Standard Christian doctrine is that Jesus suffered and died for our sins so we could receive salvation, and Gibson takes us through all that suffering, step by step, to an extent far greater than any other Gospel film your humble blogger is aware of, to show what Jesus was willing to go through for our sake.  The result is a film which is very dark, very ominous, very violent, and very bloody.  Not to mention this Jesus really looks and sounds beaten up.  Many people will find this too disturbing to watch.  The scenes of torture at the hands of the Romans are interspersed with flashbacks, mostly showing Jesus making predictions and encouraging behaviors opposed to the violence he suffers.

Also unusual in this film is the depiction of Satan.  Most depictions of Satan in Gospel films are dull, with nothing to really show him as evil.  Satan here is surreal and androgynous, neither clearly male nor female, but clearly meant to be attractive.  He(?) interacts with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, releasing a snake which Jesus stomps on, possibly meant as a reference to the Garden of ‘Edhen and the punishment of the original snake (Genesis 3:16).  Satan continues to stalk Jesus throughout the film, unseen by anyone else, evidently as a cause or symbol of the torment Jesus is put through.  Infamously, Satan holds an ugly baby thing while Jesus is being flogged, perhaps a bit of a parallel between the Father and Jesus.  (Or maybe not.)  Satan is also furious at the end, with Jesus successful in what he set out to accomplish.

The Passion of the Christ is great for reviewing all the horrible things which purportedly happen to Jesus at the end of his life.  Unfortunately, the care and detail which went into the making of this film did not go into making the story more believable.

Topic 2:  Your humble blogger is getting annoyed by the translators who created the King James Bible not knowing Hebrew well.  This past week I have come across translations/transliterations of names of groups of people such as “Anakims” (Deuteronomy 1:28, 2:10-11), “Emims” (Deuteronomy 2:10-11), “Horims” (Deuteronomy 2:12), “Zamzummims” (Deuteronomy 2:20), “Avims” (Deuteronomy 2:23), and “Caphtorims” (Deuteronomy 2:23).  The Hebrew suffix -im indicates the plural, mostly of masculine nouns.  In each of these cases the -im of a plural noun has been misinterpreted as an integral part of a collective noun.  There is no excuse for this level of grammatical incompetence in a translator.

Peace and Shabbath shalom.

Aaron