There are days when the quote from an author is the best thing to happen to me.You probably know those kinds of days—days when there’s nothing really to stay up for so you go to bed early.Lengthy days when your Muse wins easily any game of hide-and-seek.You see, I save most of my fiction reading for bedtime.If I turn in soon enough I can read quite a bit before falling asleep.Not to sell you a false bill of goods, but that’s not the source of the quote.It actually came to me from an unrelated email about the Bible.The quote, while lengthy, comes from Thomas Hardy:
By the will of God some men are born poetical. Of these some make themselves practical poets, other are made poets by lapse of time who were hardly recognized as such. Particularly has this been the case with the translators of the Bible. They translated into the language of their age; then the years began to corrupt that language as spoken, and to add grey lichen to the translation; until the moderns who use the corrupted tongue marvel at the poetry of the old words. When new they were not more than half so poetical. So that Coverdale, Tyndale, and the rest of them are as ghosts what they never were in the flesh.
This comes from a letter to Professor D. A. Robertson of the University of Chicago, dated to February 1918.Hardy was a known critic of religion, but like most writers of his day he knew the Bible.Now, I’d never generally put myself on the same page with Hardy, but something similar to this thought had occurred to me long before I saw this quote.We treasure ancient writing simply because it has survived.This should be a sobering thought to any of us who try to forge our thoughts into words.We have no way of knowing if, at the time, an author was considered great.Merely the passage of time can make writing unfashionable in its age appear brilliant.Like rocks tumbling over each other at the base of a cataract, they find polish over time.
My particular context for receiving this emailed quote was the King James Version of the Bible.Often considered sacred in that translation, it was not uniformly well received when first published.There had been English Bibles before, and since the Good Book is the foundation of western literature, a new translation commanded attention.It had its critics, but over the centuries the translation itself became holy, whether it deserved it or not.Similarly, Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible helped to codify the German language.We shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss Scripture, not for its theology, but for its immense influence on western thought.As Hardy noted, it may be the passage of time that makes writing great.Even so we might be wise to pay attention.
As someone always interested in origins, I reflect on how I’ve ended up the way I have.I mean, who plans to end up a Bibles editor?In the grand scheme of a universe with a sense of humor, it’s an odd job.I grew up reading the Bible, but lots of people do.Most of them end up with ordinary people jobs.Obviously, working on a doctorate in the field is admittedly strange, but then, my interests have always been to get to the truth.The other day I spotted a book on my shelf—the book that arguably started it all.The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden.These days I would recognize this for what it is, a cheap reprint of a book published quite some time ago (1926 and 1927).No “value added content.”Just a reprint.But why did this book have such influence?
It was the first time I’d realized—and growing up in poverty with parents lacking college educations you have to teach yourself a lot—that there were other books about as old as the Bible.The idea fascinated me.Somehow my fundamentalist upbringing had convinced me the Bible was the first book ever written—after all, its author was God and how much more primordial can you get?Now this particular book (Lost Books of the Bible etc.) contains some apocryphal Gospels.Not having a strong grasp on the concept of canon, I wondered why these books had been excluded, or, to use the title conceit, “lost” and “forgotten.”In college I would learn about the canonical process.I’d hear more about it in seminary.There I would learn that even older sources existed.In the pre-internet days, in a rural town without so much as a public library, how would you find out about such things?
Helmer Ringgren’s Israelite Religion captured my imagination in seminary.Even there, however, nobody on the faculty seemed to know much about what had come before the Bible.Harrell Beck told us of ancient Egypt in our classes, but clearly there were further depths to plumb.I learned about James Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, which I bought at the Harvard Divinity School bookstore.Other texts went back beyond Holy Writ.Just how far would have to wait until the University of Edinburgh.I sometimes wonder if I might’ve taken a different turn here or there had anyone been able to answer my young, unformulated questions about the origins of the Bible and other ancient books.Now we just have to ask the internet.
The history of Israel and its neighbors has been appropriated deeply in the mindset of western cultures.Both the British and Americans, for example, have thought themselves the “new Israel,” for once a people is chosen so all people wish to be.I’ve been thinking about this in linguistic terms of late.To get to the main point, we need to read a little history—it’ll be painless, I assure you.Israel was a nation frequently conquered.The imperial powers to the east, beginning with Assyria and continuing through Babylonia and Persia, overran the land. This hostile takeover involved not only Israel, but its neighboring nations as well.These early, violent attempts at globalization worked themselves out linguistically, in part, by the necessity to communicate in a common language.
In the broad sweep of world history, the conquering nation tends to impose its language on the conquered.Think of Alexander of Macedon and the adoption of Greek as the “lingua franca”—the official language of empire.Ironically—and this is what captures my attention—when Assyria overran Israel, it also conquered “Aram.” (Aram was the area north of Israel, roughly what we think of as Syria today.Their language was Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew.)Instead of the Assyrian language being imposed on the defeated peoples, the invaders adopted Aramaic as the official imperial language.Some of this may have to do with the fact that Aramaic, being alphabetic, was much easier to learn to write than syllabic Assyrian (known generically as Akkadian, along with Babylonian and its dialects).It may have been the last time a conquering nation admitted at least some of the culture of the defeated was superior. (Ironically, the Romans felt that way about the Greeks. Those who have ears…)
Aramaic continued in favor even as the conquered adopted Alexander’s Indo-European Greek centuries later.Lingering into Roman times many of the people of what was left of Israel were bilingual, knowing Greek and Aramaic. The latter was the language of Jesus.Aramaic later survived in the form of Syriac, but the area was overrun by Arab invaders and Arabic became the lingua franca.Still, nestled in the middle of this linguistic history is that episode of the ascension of Aramaic to imperial levels.That’s the thing about globalization—it’s an exercise in compromise.Many distrust and hate it, and even today some sub-cultures fear they’re being wiped out by granting too much to those who “don’t belong.”In some ways it’s an understandable fear.Learning new languages is hard, especially for adults.There is perhaps a lesson in the survival of Aramaic, though, that might still come in handy when cultures collide.
Even in the 1960s, if I recall, Dracula and Frankenstein really weren’t that scary.I mean this in the sense of the 1931 Universal movies that began the entire trend of “horror” films.They were, nevertheless, monarchs among those of us who claim the sobriquet “monster boomers.”(I’ve never considered myself as part of any generation, but there’s so many people that you’ve got to sort us somehow.)Recently I talked my wife into watching/re-watching these two films with me. The pacing makes it seem like everything in the 1930s was stuck in slow motion.The frights are difficult to feel, given what we’ve seen in movies since then.And they are both, it occurs upon reflection, movies in which religion is the norm against which we measure monsters.God is assumed.
Dracula, of course, fears the crucifix.His chosen home in England is a ruined abbey.Although the source of his monstrosity is never discussed, he is intended to be an embodiment of evil, draining the life of innocents.Renfield craves flies and spiders in order to ingest their life.Christianity can’t tolerate such evil and Dracula must be staked (off screen).Frankenstein’s monster is much more obviously theological.Opening with a warning to the audience that the film may shock due not only to its frights, but also because of Henry’s desire to create life, the film has philosophical discussions between Henry and his associates, and ends with the moral dilemma of what to do with an evil created by human hands, yet clearly alive like other people.
Metaphorically speaking, these first two horror films set the stage for later developments in the genre.It isn’t so much fear and startles that define the genre as it is a deep dread of offending the powers that be.Childhood was so long ago that I can no longer recall just which movies I saw on Saturday afternoons, but these two were among them.Even as I was beginning the spiritual journey that would assure my job was never far from the Bible, I recalled with fondness the frissons of watching Dracula and Frankenstein—and then the host of other Universal monsters such as The Wolf-Man, The Invisible Man, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (the last being scary in the classical sense).The world in which they operated was deeply religious, for even the gill-man was an implicit condemnation of evolution.These monsters were informing a religious outlook that would last a lifetime.Going back to Dracula and Frankenstein is like turning back to the first page of Genesis and beginning again.
One thing you can say for the Bible—it’s been interpreted six ways to Sunday.This point was brought home to me in reading Michael Willett Newheart’s “My Name Is Legion”: The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac.Part of the Interfaces series, now apparently defunct, it takes an unusual biblical character and explores it.Them, in this case.The story of the Gerasene or Gadarene demoniac is one of the more famous episodes in the Synoptic Gospels.Jesus and the disciples cross the Sea of Galilee and the possessed man runs out at them.He has superhuman strength, and he lives among the tombs.Jesus asks the man, or the demon, its name only to receive the reply “Legion.”He then casts the demons into a herd of swine that drown themselves in the lake.
Newheart approaches the story creatively, first by considering the Gospel of Mark as a book, and then treating his version of the story via narrative criticism.This was pretty good, and I learned quite a bit from his analysis.The book then moves on to psychological criticism.I have to admit that this approach is one I haven’t ever used and, like many reader-response methods, it can seem somewhat arbitrary.That’s not to suggest it shouldn’t be utilized, but rather to note that results could be uneven.Your psyche’s not my psyche, savvy?Subjective approaches may be all that we really have when considering an ancient text, but I always tend to look at things historically.
This book caught my attention because I’m researching demons.You can’t really ignore a book with this title if you’re trying to figure out how the New Testament looks at them.In any case, the historical method seems to me the only way we can really engage the question of what the ancients thought demons were.I don’t want to say too much or you won’t have any reason to buy my next book.(That’s a joke, by the way, before anyone suggests I’m exploiting my readers.)Newheart doesn’t really raise the question of what demons are.He does briefly mention The Exorcist, but it isn’t his main interest.The character of Legion, however, is difficult to place if we can’t really say what demons are.I did find the allusion to the Roman occupancy to be worthy of consideration.The demoniac, however, may have begged to differ.It couldn’t have been easy being an unnamed character in the Good Book.And demons are often not what they seem.
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”(Please pardon the sexist translation, but the King James is in the public domain.)That verse, and many others, have been going through my head since my former United Methodist Church decided to close its doors to those who are different.The reason this verse sticks out is pretty obvious—according to the Good Book we’re all sinners.The “Christianity” that the UMC has embraced is that of Paul, not that of Jesus.In fact, Jesus seems to have exited, stage left.You see, only with a great deal of casuistry of exegetical caliber can anyone claim that Jesus (aka God) said anything about homosexuality.Not a single word.His response in the famous story of an adulteress (what of the adulterer who partnered in her crime?) caught in flagrante delicto, he gave our opening quote.
At one point Peter, exasperated with his master’s kindness, sputtered how many times did he have to forgive—seven times?More like seven times seventy.The one without sin has itchy fingers where stones are abundant.Once at Nashotah House we had a student from Kenya.He was already a priest, and he had a family back home.At one point I asked him about his wife.He informed me that his brother now had her as wife while he was gone.It was the way of their culture.This same student—for we are all students all the time—had harsh words for American sexual practices.He later tried to find a way to stay in the United States, leaving family behind.The Bible may turn a blind eye to polygamy, but polyandry is definitely stone-worthy.Who is without sin?
Ironically the UMC has lined up against the Gospels.Christianity’s sexual hangups began with the apostle from Tarsus, not the carpenter from Nazareth.We have been forced to see, time and again, what comes of making priests remain celibate.It’s against nature, and none of us has a free hand to grope for a stone.Instead, we queue up ready to judge.Love, the church says, is wrong.God, says the Gospel, is love.There’s a mansion with many rooms above our heads.We’re not told if the doors come with locks or not.Unless this seem unnaturally profane, anyone who has truly loved another knows it is more than just a physical act.Such spiritual intimacy is difficult to spread too thinly without cheapening it to the point of a tawdry sit-com.Even then, however, we shouldn’t judge.There aren’t stones enough in the world for that.
There was quite a windstorm that blew through here yesterday.It reminded me rather forcefully of Weathering the Psalms.Firstly, it blew loudly enough to wake me up a few times in the night.When I finally climbed out of bed, listening to the blustery concussions beating the house, I remembered that the first chapter of Weathering was about the willful wind.That’s not just a poetic phrase—according to the Psalter, the wind does the will of God.Like much of the weather, it’s weaponized by the Bible.Seeing what the wind can do, the reasons for this should be obvious.Hurricanes are tremendous windstorms (although unknown in the land of the Bible), but they are also known for their tremendous rain.Tornadoes, however, are pure wind and are among the most destructive forces on the planet.(Before people came along, anyway.)Wind commands respect.We’re a very long way from taming it.
When thinking of meteorology, it’s easy to forget wind.Rain and snow are pretty obvious.Even desert heat is impossible to ignore.The wind, invisible and powerful, is perhaps the most godlike of weather’s many features.To the ancient way of thought, it was also inexplicable.We understand the earth’s rotation and temperature differentials between water and land and the uneven heating between the surface of the ground and air aloft.The ancients understood it more to be a pure act of God.The wind certainly can seem spiteful.It’s not difficult to attribute agency to it.Such things go through my mind when the howling is loud enough to wake me.
Invisibility suggests power.It wasn’t so much the “monotheism” of Israel that made it distinctive as it was the inability to see its deity.That lack of visual confirmation not only necessitates a kind of faith, but it also veils a threat.We humans tend to be visually focused.We fear the dark.Foggy, misty settings can give a story an atmosphere of foreboding.Placing the divine out of site only enhances supernatural powers.So it is with the wind.As is to be expected, the windstorm has mostly blown itself out by now—moving on to another location until the temperature differentials even out and its howl becomes more of a whimper.It will have done its work, however, for even as it passed through it brought to mind the proper respect for that which cannot be seen.