“Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled to obedience from their subjects.”The words aren’t mine, nor are they from this century.That, however, makes them no less true.Jonathan Mayhew was an eighteenth-century clergyman arguing that Bible’s admonition to obey government officials did not apply to those who abused power.In reading these words I felt a sense of loss in a very basic way.No, I’m not a fan of turning back the clock—it can’t really be done anyway—but when the word of a single book was not disputed those tempted to follow tyrants could be made to justify it with a Good Book that could also be used to refute it.We no longer have a common frame of reference, but tyrants still exist.
Shouting matches have been substituted for discussions because those who support tyrants can’t see how they are also being oppressed.It’s one of the ironies of history.This internet age has only found a way of magnifying people’s differences on the political scale, even as it has brought us to the common marketplace of culture.Who doesn’t use Amazon?Tyranny, by definition, is the arbitrary use of power.One might think of, oh, declaring a national emergency when none exists just to get what one wants.One might think of surrounding oneself with criminals against the nation just to get what one wants.One might think of business practices meant to ruin others just to get what one wants.There seems to be a common theme here and it’s one on which the Bible has a great deal to say.The only Scripture that gets quoted is that which supports tyranny, eh, Mayhew?
When the debate was about the Good Book we were largely all on the same page.Not all colonials wanted to break with King George III.Some profited from the connection.Others thought Holy Writ prevented revolutions rather than inspiring them.Tyrants have always been with us.You’d think that with all the media we have these days that we’d be able to spot one fairly easily.The camera, however, has a way of giving the lie to the Good Book.Anyone can say they read it.Or claim they obey it.Its own test seems to be “by their fruits you will know them.”The words aren’t mine.They’re from a distant century past.But it seems the fruit is dying on the tree, even as spring begins.
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.
Dystopia reading and/or watching may be more practical than it seems.History often reveals authors who may be accused of pessimism more as prophets than mere anxious antagonists.Two books, according to the media, took off after November 2016.One was George Orwell’s 1984,and the other was Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.I’d read both long before I started this blog, but I recently asked my wife if she’d be interested in seeing the movie of the latter.While teaching at Rutgers, I had a 4-hour intensive course and to give students a break from my lecturing I’d have us discuss Bible scenes from secular movies.The Handmaid’s Tale was one of them.Watching it again last night, I realized the problematic nature of Holy Writ.
The Handmaid’s Tale is a movie (and novel) that involves what I call “Bible abuse” in Holy Horror.That is to say, the Bible can be used to oppress rather than to liberate.To cause human suffering instead of eliminating it.Sure, to make Atwood’s dystopia work a future catastrophe of fertility has to occur, but the military state, the assumed superiority, and the will to control on the part of men are all too real.We’ve witnessed this in the United States government over the past two years.A lot more has been revealed than personal greed—that side of human nature that quotes the Good Book while doing the bad thing.In the movie it’s literally so, while our “leaders” are only a metaphoric step away from it.Although it’s not horror, it’s a terrifying movie.I still have trouble watching The Stepford Wives.Why is equality so easy in the abstract, but so difficult when it comes to actual life?
Aggression is not a social value.This is perhaps the most ironic aspect of using Scripture to enforce oppressive regimes.The whole point of the New Testament is self-denial for the sake of others.That may be why the only Bible reading in the movie comes from the Hebrew Bible, the story of Jacob and Rachel.Although this isn’t one of the traditional “texts of terror,” to borrow Phyllis Trible’s phrase, it nevertheless illustrates the point well.A culture that values women only for their reproductive capacities is dystopian to its very core.When a book, no matter how holy, is divorced from its context it becomes a deadly weapon of blunt force.Atwood moves beyond Orwell here—the government that sees itself as biblical can be far more insidious that one that only weighs evil on the secular scale. Not only the Bible ends up being abused.
There’s a weird silent time, after a book is published, when you start wondering how it’s doing.Holy Horror was apparently released November 29, and published December 29, if done according to standard publishing practice.The release date is when stock is received in the warehouse.The book is printed and technically available, but not yet published.Publication is about a month later when the sellers, distributors, etc., have received their orders and can begin sending them out.Publishing, as I’ve noted before, is a slow business.Somewhere around this point you start wondering how your book is doing.Reviews take some time to appear.The publisher falls silent (I know this from the editorial perspective as well).You start thinking, did it really happen?
This is the internet syndrome.We’ve become used to instant results and it’s difficult to believe that can get by without minute-by-minute updates.The problem is publishing is slow.Reading a book takes time.Not all readers review.It’s perhaps the kind of malaise you expect in late winter.In my case, however, my book was an autumn book that missed its release date by a few months.Yes, hardcore horror fans are still chomping at the bit for upcoming features like Us, but the public in general is well on its way to Valentines Day and what comes after.We are pretty much a holiday-driven culture and Holy Horror was a Halloween book released after Christmas.That, and the combination of Bible and horror is unexpected, with many, I’m guessing, thinking the book is something it isn’t.
Often at work I ponder how publishing has changed, even if it runs like sap in January.Professional writers—those who lived from their books alone—used to be rare.Most authors were otherwise employed, and many of them worked in publishing.It stands to reason when you think about it.I’ve worked for three publishers and finding other writers is, and has been, a rarity.Instead editorial boards consist of people who largely don’t have the experience of writing a book of their own talking about author expectations.A disconnect has emerged where writers find employment in other industries and find themselves wondering why publishers do things the way they do.Even with that background knowledge, I do wonder how my little book is doing.It’s only natural.And now that we’ve progressed to February, it’s only eight months more until October.
Oxford Biblical Studies Online is a subscription service for institutions that gives access to many biblical studies resources produced by the press.It also features current essays that stand on this side of the paywall, written on contemporary issues.In a shameless self-promoting plug, I’d direct you to this link to see my latest publication.You see, I’m not alone in looking at Bible through the lens of horror.As the acknowledgements to Holy Horror reveal, many conversations were going on that led to that book.While the ideas contained in it are my own, I’m by no means the only one to have noticed that the Good Book makes guest appearances in genre fiction.One of the points I made to my students when I held a teaching post was that the Bible is ubiquitous in our culture, whether we know it or not.Just look at the Republican Party and beg to differ.
The idea is not without precedent.For those who read the Bible real horror isn’t hard to find.The Good Book can be quite a scary book.Consider for just a moment the final installment—Revelation, apart from being full of amazing imagery, is an amazingly violent book.Attack helicopters and atomic bombs may not yet have been invented, but there was no shortage of ways to kill people in the pre-gunpowder world.Revelation paints the world in the throes of horrible suffering and death.Indeed, the completely fictional Left Behind series rejoices in the death of the unrighteous who are, well, left behind.Even today there’s a significant segment of “Christianity” that rejoices in the chaos Trump has unleashed.
In the OBSO article I sketch a brief history of how this came to be.The history could work in the other direction as well.The fact is the Bible and horror have always gone fairly well together.Among genre literature, however, horror is a distinctive category only after the eighteenth century (CE).Early horror novels, under the guise of Gothic fiction, often involve religious elements.Culture was already biblically suffused then.This is a natural outgrowth of a would steeped in violence.Personally, I don’t like gore.I don’t watch horror to get any kind of gross-out fix.My purposes are somewhat different than many viewers, I suspect.What we do all have in common, though, is that we realize horror has something honest to say to us.And it has been saying it to us since from in the beginning.
Pseudepigrapha always struck me as a great name for a pet guinea pig.Neither members of the porcine family nor from Guinea, these rodents are remarkably companionable.But like the word pseudepigrapha, this post isn’t about guinea pigs.I’ve been reading various documents among this sprawling category of texts, and I can see the fascination they hold for scholars of Second Temple Judaism.My own specialization was on the earlier end of the spectrum—Ugarit had ceased to exist even before a first temple was built and provided clues to how this whole religion got started in the first place, but that’s a story for another time.The account of the pseudepigraphacannot be summarized easily.Some of the documents have been known to scholars for a very long time.Others have been (and continue to be) discovered, some quite recently.
Not a pig.
The documents classified as pseudepigrapha generally bear the name of someone who couldn’t have been their “author.”We now know that ancients didn’t think of writing the same way we do.They didn’t publish books like modern writers do, and scholars have been exploring how the category of “book” distorts even the Bible, let alone books that didn’t make the cut.None of this diminishes the intrigue of these ancient texts.The world into which Jesus of Nazareth was born contained many texts and traditions.There was no Bible as we know it today—it was still being written (or compiled)—and no canon, literally a measuring stick, existed to determine what was holy and what was not.
As discoveries in Mesopotamia have made clear, although few could read or write, writing itself was prolific, at least given the technological limitations.Today if one wishes to specialize the literature of one subsection of one time period, and probably even some subdivision of that, has to be selected.Universities don’t see the point, and much of this ancient material is understudied because there remains money to be made in looking at economically viable topics.The pseudepigrapha have nevertheless come into their own.Perhaps because some of the stories these documents contain have made their way into pop culture.Even as I make my way through many of these texts that are young in my eyes, I realize the proliferation of writing made such growth almost inevitable.There remains, however, a high-pitched squealing that demands attention, regardless of what the exact genus and species of the creature may be.
“Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.”I recently came across this quote from Ananda K. Coomaraswamy.Coomaraswamy was a philosopher and metapmhysist from Ceylon, and like many eastern thinkers had a more holistic view of the world than western rationalism.We’re taught from a young age that myth is something false, not true.This colloquial use of the word is so common that those of us who’ve specialized in myth slip into it during everyday conversation.Words, however, have uses rather than meanings.Coomaraswamy was engaging this reality in the quote above.Words can take us only so far in exploring reality when we have to break into either formulas or poetry.Although they are under-appreciated poets are the purveyors of truth.
Having studied ancient mythology in some detail, it became clear to me as a student that these tales weren’t meant to be taken literally.Instead, they were known to be true.It takes a supple mind to parse being true from “really happened,” as we are taught in the western world that on what “really happened” is true.In other words, historicism is our myth.Meaning may not inhere in words, but when we use words to explore it we run up against lexical limits.Is it any wonder that lovers resort to poetry?On those occasions when I’ve been brave enough to venture to write some, I walk away feeling as if I’ve been the receiver of some cosmic radio signal.We have been taught to trust the reality of what our senses perceive.Myth, and poetry, remind us that there’s much more.
The Fundamentalist myth is that the Bible is literally true.If they’d stop and think about it, they’d realize the mockery such thinking makes of Holy Writ.The Good Book doesn’t look at itself that way.In fact, it doesn’t even look at itself as a book—an idea that developed in later times.The time and the cultures that produced the Bible were cool with myth.They may not have called it that but the signs are unmistakable.Ananda Coomaraswamy knew whereof he wrote.The closest to absolute truth we can come takes us to the end of declarative, factual writing.Scientists writing about the Big Bang devolve into complex mathematical formulas to explain what mere words can.Myth is much more eloquent, even if we as a society, dismiss it along with other non-factual truth.