For those of you who missed the exhibit when it was shown at Barcelona's Museu Nacional D'Art de Catalunya last summer, or at Madrid's Biblioteca Nacional over last winter, you can catch it (actually not all of it, but a little less than half of it, I was told) at Washington's National Geographic Society through May. It is called "Peru: Native and Viceregal" and, in spite of the clumsy title (which looks just as clumsy in Catalan and in Spanish), it is worth looking at.
It is a showcase of Peruvian art and crafts from pre-Inca time through the Spanish colonial period. Nothing later.
I went through the exhibit backwards. (If you asked me why, I would tell you that they installed it backwards, but that can't be right, can it?)
The art from colonial Peru is mainly large scale religious painting. And it has its own style. What is it? Well, the colors are distinctive, from which I assume that the dyes used to make the paints in 15th through 18th century Peru were not the same ones they were using in Europe. Particularly, the red dyes. Then, some of the scenes are different, as they mix Indian and Eurochristian (my made up word) material. Then, for some reason, there seems to be a general flatness to the paintings; there is little perspective. Then there are the frames, generally, but not always of rough, painted wood, and which are as interesting as the paintings. The quality of the paintings varies.
The pre-colonial art is more useful and craft oriented, pottery, silver and the like. Some of it is of notable quality. No question about it.
Highlights for me?
First, two extraordinary sculptures, each larger (much larger) than life. One is a silver pelican, almost filigree in some ways, probably 8 feet tall. The other, an 18th century "Archer of Death" by a sculptur named Baltazar Gavilan. A skeleton, wrapped in a skin-tight shroud, holding a bow and arrow.
Then, there is a large portrait of Jesus, with three heads, each identical, growing from each other, representing the Trinity. Considered blasphemous in Europe, this was apparently not a rare depiction in Peru.
Fourth, the religious painting in general, taken as a whole. I did not count the paintings; I would guess there are about 30. (I will go back and check myself).
Fifth, the gold Inca jewelry. Some pieces (breastplates) having more gold than you will find in a standard high class jewelry store. And the designs on the pottery and silver sculptre, including the animal and erotic pieces. (The erotic pieces in the exhibit are a bit toned down, from the ones I saw in the museum in Lima many years ago. American cable tv has nothing on what was being produced back then.)
And finally, the older pieces, many of which were from Nazca.
What didn't we get? Apparently, we did not get two large depictions of Holy Week Processions. We didn't get some of the fabrics (I remember the ancient Nazca fabrics for sale in a small commercial gallery in Santa Fe, which cost about the same as a Rolls Royce).
How do I know what we didn't get? I know in part because I plunked down $5 for an abbrieviated catalogue. The hard cover catalogue is only $30, I think, which is cheap these days. I didn't look at it closely, but since the museum is only a block from my office, I guess I could go back and see.
I would hope that some of you could find your way to see this exhibit, and post your comments. Now that posting is a snap.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
German Class
As some of you know, after a 40+ year hiatus, I have decided to continue my studies of the German language. I just finished a 12 week course at the Goethe Institute, and must have done OK, because at the last class party, when I asked for Rotwein, I got red wine and not white, and when I asked for Nussen, I got nuts and not cheese.
Now I need to decide how to proceed with my studying. As an interim measure, I bought a copy of Stern yesterday (a German weekly news magazine) and read the first portion of an article on the new German pope, Benedict XVI. I learned the following:
Benedict is an orange man with a wild face and cement nose, who in his spare time, likes to berate field mice and sit on oysters and beer bellies.
Fascinating, no? And, believe it or not, I did this without a dictionary!!!!!!
Thank you, Goethe Institute.
Now I need to decide how to proceed with my studying. As an interim measure, I bought a copy of Stern yesterday (a German weekly news magazine) and read the first portion of an article on the new German pope, Benedict XVI. I learned the following:
Benedict is an orange man with a wild face and cement nose, who in his spare time, likes to berate field mice and sit on oysters and beer bellies.
Fascinating, no? And, believe it or not, I did this without a dictionary!!!!!!
Thank you, Goethe Institute.
Wall Street Journal - Today's First Page
and I quote:
"More than 1,000 toads have bloated and burst in Germany and Denmark, and tests have failed to find a reason."
"More than 1,000 toads have bloated and burst in Germany and Denmark, and tests have failed to find a reason."
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Book Report #6. "Boris Yeltsin" by John Morrison
Sometimes, you read a book by accident. It was certainly by accident that I picked up Boris Yeltsin: from Bolshevik to Democrat by Reuters correspondent John Morrison, published in 1991. It was not on my list.
But, over the past weekend, it turned up in my hands when I felt like sitting down and reading something, so I started it, not expecting to finish it, and certainlyl not expecting to read it all over a two day period. (Truth be known, it is under 300 pages, but this is not exactly the topic de jour. Or is it?)
I assume the book was named for Yeltsin because it came out at the height of his influence, and when the influence of Gorbachev was declining. But, in fact, it is almost as much about Gorbachev as Yeltsin and is, more than anything, about their rivalry and their largely conflicting vision.
Without going through great detail, here is the gist:
1. The USSR was in a strange circumstance, where clearly its influence and economic stability was waning, although there had been years of political stability.
2. Gorbachev decided to strengthen the country by breathing some popular decision making and democratic reform into its ethos. His expectation was apparently that this would strengthen the country and the Communist party. Instead, it led to the destruction of communist rule. To Morrison, this was inevitable, and his inability to see the necessary results of his reforms was Gorbachev's biggest shortcoming.
3. Gorbachev decided that democracy would be implemented at the level of the soviet socialist republics making up the USSR, recognizing that some (such as the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) might seek to leave the union altogether.
4. What he did not count on, however, was the spread of nationalism to virtually all parts of the Soviet Union, including Russia. Nor the destablizing effect that would have not only on unified rule at the top, but also on the relationship of various nationalities within each of the SSRs. Just because, for example, there was an Estonian SSR, that did not mean that there were not large numbers of Russians living there, with no knowledge of, or interest in, Estonian language and culture.
5. Russia had an anomolous position, since it was both an equal SSR, and clearly at the same time the predominant SSR. It had the largest population, and no one ever quite understood its position. It was, for example, the only SSR that was itself a federation, containing various smaller enclaves (think Chechniya, for example). The USSR was always a "Russian" society, the successor to tsardom.
6. As various of the SSR's became restless, and attempts were made to draw up contracts between them (to determine what functions would be maintained at what levels, and the extent to which each SSR was expected to contribute to the USSR budget, for example), Gorbachev did not anticipat the Boris Yeltsin would, in effect, become the leader of a Russian nationalist movement, seeking to remove power from the central government and direct it from the Russian republic.
7. As an example of this, it was decided that each republic could create its own communist party, and eventually that the concept of a one-party state should be abolished. This made sense to the Kremlin reformers as a part of perestroika and moving from top down to bottom up controls. But in only made sense outside of the Russian republic. The idea of Russia having a Communist party separate from that of the USSR as a whole was not anticipated, and could hardly be conceived. The more that Russia moved to increase its role and authority, the weaker became the central government and the smaller the influence of the overall Communist party. And when Russia's duma decided to create the position of president (the first of whom, of course, was Yeltsin), the rivalry was deepened.
8. Personalities played a part, of course, Gorbachev the intellectual and Yeltsin the populist, but this is downplayed as, in fact, both were western oriented, although Yeltsin more consistently so. Gorbachev, trying to thread the needle between the reformer he thought he was, and the conservatives and bureaucrats in the USSR heirarachy, wavered between encouraging more reform and democracy, and cracking down on too much reform and democracy. And every move to placate his conservative allies in the central government only served to strengthen Yeltsin politically.
9. In August 1991, a coup took place in Moscow, led by conservatives within Gorbachev's government looking to save the union and Communist Party control, and it appeared that Gorbachev was removed from power.
The coup failed, largely due to the incompetency of the leaders (who were not looking for a military confrontation), the role of the Moscow populace, and the presence and articulation of Yeltsin, who came to support his rival, Gorbachev, and assure the continuation of the reforms.
This is where the book ends (it was probably the first to get out to explain all of this). Morrison does not himself attempt to prognosticate. Whether he has written on the subsequent events, I do not know.
Do you?
But, over the past weekend, it turned up in my hands when I felt like sitting down and reading something, so I started it, not expecting to finish it, and certainlyl not expecting to read it all over a two day period. (Truth be known, it is under 300 pages, but this is not exactly the topic de jour. Or is it?)
I assume the book was named for Yeltsin because it came out at the height of his influence, and when the influence of Gorbachev was declining. But, in fact, it is almost as much about Gorbachev as Yeltsin and is, more than anything, about their rivalry and their largely conflicting vision.
Without going through great detail, here is the gist:
1. The USSR was in a strange circumstance, where clearly its influence and economic stability was waning, although there had been years of political stability.
2. Gorbachev decided to strengthen the country by breathing some popular decision making and democratic reform into its ethos. His expectation was apparently that this would strengthen the country and the Communist party. Instead, it led to the destruction of communist rule. To Morrison, this was inevitable, and his inability to see the necessary results of his reforms was Gorbachev's biggest shortcoming.
3. Gorbachev decided that democracy would be implemented at the level of the soviet socialist republics making up the USSR, recognizing that some (such as the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) might seek to leave the union altogether.
4. What he did not count on, however, was the spread of nationalism to virtually all parts of the Soviet Union, including Russia. Nor the destablizing effect that would have not only on unified rule at the top, but also on the relationship of various nationalities within each of the SSRs. Just because, for example, there was an Estonian SSR, that did not mean that there were not large numbers of Russians living there, with no knowledge of, or interest in, Estonian language and culture.
5. Russia had an anomolous position, since it was both an equal SSR, and clearly at the same time the predominant SSR. It had the largest population, and no one ever quite understood its position. It was, for example, the only SSR that was itself a federation, containing various smaller enclaves (think Chechniya, for example). The USSR was always a "Russian" society, the successor to tsardom.
6. As various of the SSR's became restless, and attempts were made to draw up contracts between them (to determine what functions would be maintained at what levels, and the extent to which each SSR was expected to contribute to the USSR budget, for example), Gorbachev did not anticipat the Boris Yeltsin would, in effect, become the leader of a Russian nationalist movement, seeking to remove power from the central government and direct it from the Russian republic.
7. As an example of this, it was decided that each republic could create its own communist party, and eventually that the concept of a one-party state should be abolished. This made sense to the Kremlin reformers as a part of perestroika and moving from top down to bottom up controls. But in only made sense outside of the Russian republic. The idea of Russia having a Communist party separate from that of the USSR as a whole was not anticipated, and could hardly be conceived. The more that Russia moved to increase its role and authority, the weaker became the central government and the smaller the influence of the overall Communist party. And when Russia's duma decided to create the position of president (the first of whom, of course, was Yeltsin), the rivalry was deepened.
8. Personalities played a part, of course, Gorbachev the intellectual and Yeltsin the populist, but this is downplayed as, in fact, both were western oriented, although Yeltsin more consistently so. Gorbachev, trying to thread the needle between the reformer he thought he was, and the conservatives and bureaucrats in the USSR heirarachy, wavered between encouraging more reform and democracy, and cracking down on too much reform and democracy. And every move to placate his conservative allies in the central government only served to strengthen Yeltsin politically.
9. In August 1991, a coup took place in Moscow, led by conservatives within Gorbachev's government looking to save the union and Communist Party control, and it appeared that Gorbachev was removed from power.
The coup failed, largely due to the incompetency of the leaders (who were not looking for a military confrontation), the role of the Moscow populace, and the presence and articulation of Yeltsin, who came to support his rival, Gorbachev, and assure the continuation of the reforms.
This is where the book ends (it was probably the first to get out to explain all of this). Morrison does not himself attempt to prognosticate. Whether he has written on the subsequent events, I do not know.
Do you?
Wanna Comment on My Blog?
I have changed the settings (I think) so that everyone can comment, whether or not you are a registered blog person.
Try it out, and tell me how much you enjoy My Blog!
Try it out, and tell me how much you enjoy My Blog!
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
"Have a Cognac"
So, years ago, I was traveling by myself in Eastern Europe and found myself in Budapest, a terrific city, populated by very friendly people.
I attended a performance of Rigoletto at the Opera House, and while listening to this first class production in Hungarian (sort of sounded like Rigoletto sung by professionals in baby talk), something flew into my eye.
I blinked and cried through the first act, and then went to the usher (who like all of the ushers then appeared to be old, German speaking, probably Jewish, ladies) and in my best German, said "Wo ist die Toilette, bitte?" (Translation is not necessary; as you see German is an easy language.).
She answered and said "Die cafe ist dort", pointing through a crowded archway. I was sure she did not hear me, so repeated my question, and she repeated her answer. This time I said "Sie nicht verstehen. Ich sagte: Wo ist die Toilette?" and told her I needed to wash out my eye.
Without hesitation, she looked at me and said: (in German): You do not need a bathroom; you need a cognac.
I laughed, bought my cognac, and lo and behold, my eye teared and was fine.
So, today, thirty years later, I am walking down the street at lunch time, and something blows into my eye.
I really need a cognac.
I attended a performance of Rigoletto at the Opera House, and while listening to this first class production in Hungarian (sort of sounded like Rigoletto sung by professionals in baby talk), something flew into my eye.
I blinked and cried through the first act, and then went to the usher (who like all of the ushers then appeared to be old, German speaking, probably Jewish, ladies) and in my best German, said "Wo ist die Toilette, bitte?" (Translation is not necessary; as you see German is an easy language.).
She answered and said "Die cafe ist dort", pointing through a crowded archway. I was sure she did not hear me, so repeated my question, and she repeated her answer. This time I said "Sie nicht verstehen. Ich sagte: Wo ist die Toilette?" and told her I needed to wash out my eye.
Without hesitation, she looked at me and said: (in German): You do not need a bathroom; you need a cognac.
I laughed, bought my cognac, and lo and behold, my eye teared and was fine.
So, today, thirty years later, I am walking down the street at lunch time, and something blows into my eye.
I really need a cognac.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
It's Passover Again
Seems like just last year.
Passover means that my wife is working too hard, and we are having too many people to two seders.
It's also why I have a grocery list (see previous post).
It is nice to see everyone (16 tonight, I think), and the food is always delicious (see previous post).
I figure I have been to 100 or so seders, so they have become a bit routine, and I still object to those portions of the Haggadah which talk about bad things happening to either good or bad people, and to those things which make it appear that the Jewish people are something special. That, of course, is a good portion of the Haggadah.
I particularly object to the plagues, and I don't like the drowning at the Red Sea much either. If I had it my way (which I don't), I would skip them.
I just don't think it is a very nice book, and if people really thought about it, I think they would for the most part agree with me, but most people do not spend much time thinking about such things, if you have not noticed. This is the Haggadah, it has been used for 1000 years or so, so what's your problem? is the more typical response.
Why should the entire Jewish world hold up a glass of wine on Passover and say: "For more than once have they risen against us to destroy us; in every generation they rise against us and seek our destruction."?
Why should God bring the Jews out of Egypt "with great terror"? Why should God himself say: "I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and I will smite all the first born in the land of Egypt from man to beast."?
Why should we recite the ten plagues?
Why, in singing the famous "Dayenu" should we include the verse: "Had he slain their first born and not given us their property, it would have been enough"? Or "Had he drown our oppressors and not helped us forty years in the desert, it would have been enough?"
Why should the following be said: "Pour out thy wrath upon the natons that know Thee not, and upon the kingdoms that call not upon Thy name.....Pour out Thy rage upon them and let Thy fury overtake them. Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the Etneral"?
Or how about: "To Him who smote Egypt through their first born; for His mercy endures forever.......who drowned Pharoah and his host in the Red Sea, for His mercy endures forever....to Him who smote great kings, for His mercy endures forever.."?
Or, "You struck down the first born of Egypt at midnight, and terrified Midian with a loaf of bread in a dream at night".
And there is more.
Sorry, I just do not understand why it is necessary or why it has lasted so long, but it is time for this book to be changed completely. Of course, many people and organizations have done just that, in all sorts of ways, but the traditional Haggadah remains for all "observant" Jews. It appears to me, however, that those who observe, are not necessarily observant.
Passover means that my wife is working too hard, and we are having too many people to two seders.
It's also why I have a grocery list (see previous post).
It is nice to see everyone (16 tonight, I think), and the food is always delicious (see previous post).
I figure I have been to 100 or so seders, so they have become a bit routine, and I still object to those portions of the Haggadah which talk about bad things happening to either good or bad people, and to those things which make it appear that the Jewish people are something special. That, of course, is a good portion of the Haggadah.
I particularly object to the plagues, and I don't like the drowning at the Red Sea much either. If I had it my way (which I don't), I would skip them.
I just don't think it is a very nice book, and if people really thought about it, I think they would for the most part agree with me, but most people do not spend much time thinking about such things, if you have not noticed. This is the Haggadah, it has been used for 1000 years or so, so what's your problem? is the more typical response.
Why should the entire Jewish world hold up a glass of wine on Passover and say: "For more than once have they risen against us to destroy us; in every generation they rise against us and seek our destruction."?
Why should God bring the Jews out of Egypt "with great terror"? Why should God himself say: "I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and I will smite all the first born in the land of Egypt from man to beast."?
Why should we recite the ten plagues?
Why, in singing the famous "Dayenu" should we include the verse: "Had he slain their first born and not given us their property, it would have been enough"? Or "Had he drown our oppressors and not helped us forty years in the desert, it would have been enough?"
Why should the following be said: "Pour out thy wrath upon the natons that know Thee not, and upon the kingdoms that call not upon Thy name.....Pour out Thy rage upon them and let Thy fury overtake them. Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the Etneral"?
Or how about: "To Him who smote Egypt through their first born; for His mercy endures forever.......who drowned Pharoah and his host in the Red Sea, for His mercy endures forever....to Him who smote great kings, for His mercy endures forever.."?
Or, "You struck down the first born of Egypt at midnight, and terrified Midian with a loaf of bread in a dream at night".
And there is more.
Sorry, I just do not understand why it is necessary or why it has lasted so long, but it is time for this book to be changed completely. Of course, many people and organizations have done just that, in all sorts of ways, but the traditional Haggadah remains for all "observant" Jews. It appears to me, however, that those who observe, are not necessarily observant.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Congratulations, David Gregory
Doing a terrific job. Perhaps it should be permanent, if only you could get rid of Bernie.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Burt Lancaster, forgive me!
In my 4/2 posting on Hollywood stars with absolutely no talent, I forgot about Burt Lancaster, who had as little talent as Robert Mitchum, John Wayne, or Natalie Wood.
Burt, please forgive me.
Burt, please forgive me.
Jews of North Africa - #1
Today, perhaps we know that there is still a Jewish community in Morocco, although it is smaller than it once was. Perhaps we know that there were Jewish communities in other parts of North Africa, the members of whom largely emigrated to Israel after the founding of the state. But we generally have no real concept of the size or nature of those communities, or of their history.
My interest in North African Jewry came largely from my reading of some extraordinary books. In a series of entries to My Blog, I will talk about some of the books I have read and what I have learned. You will be very surprised and, I think, equally intrigued.
It started when I was in college, and I was first introduced to Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandrian Quartet". I don't know if anyone reads these novels today ("Justine", "Clea", "Balthazar" and "Mountolive"), but when I was in school, they were very popular reading. Not that I remember a lot about them, but no one can forget the beautiful Justine, a Jewess of Alexandria, and her Coptic Christian husband, whom I think was Nissim. And no one can forget the extraordinarily cosmpolitan and exotic city of Alexandria, Egypt, the setting for the four novels. Were there really Jews in Alexandria, I asked myself? Were they as sophisticated, and as fascinating, as Justine? Were they so well integrated into such a complex society? I had no idea. The books are fiction, of course, but the characterization?
Today, Alexandria, still Egypt's second most populous city, has few if any Jewish residents. But during Greek and Roman times (Alexandria being named for Alexander the Great), when it was the city of Egypt, Philo, the Jewish Aristotelian philosopher, estimated that there were 1,000,000 Jews in Alexandria. And even in the twentieth century, when the city was so much only a shadow of its ancient self, the fiction of prize winning author Naguib Mahfouz, portrays a dowager empress of a city, seasoned by its former elegance, and, from a Jewish perspective the absolutely fascinating memoir, "Out of Egypt" by Andre Aciman, who now teaches creative writing in the United States, speaks of his childhood in Egypt, with his father who was a confidante of King Farouk, and his deaf mother, and his grandparents, and his relatives living in Europe, and Turkey and Palestine. "Out of Egypt" evokes a normal childhood in an extraordinarily abnormal time. And then I remember an article in the New Yorker magazine, perhaps fifteen or even twenty years back, which evoked a Jewish Cairo, again filled with comfort, sophistication and seeming permanence. I wish I remember who wrote this article, or when exactly it was published.
Some of the books that have interested me, and which I think will interest you, are:
Aciman, Andre, Out of Egypt, Farrar Straus Giroux (New York 1994).
de Felice, Renzo, Jews in an Arab Land: Libya, 1835-1970, University of Texas (Austin 1985)
Durrell, Lawrence, Justine, Clea, Balthazar and Mountolive ("The Alexandria Quartet"), originally published in London by Faber and Faber between 1957 and 1960. Reprinted in about one hundred million other editions.
Graham, Cunninghame, Mogreb-el-Acksa: a Journey in Morocco, National Travel Club (New York 1930), reprint of book originally written in 1898.
Romanelli, Samuel Aaron, Travels in an Arab Land (masa ba-Arab), late 18th century narrative, published in many editions.
Slouschz, Nahum, Travels in North Africa, Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia 1927)
Over the next few weeks, I should be posting a number of articles, drawing on these and other sources. Stay tuned, and you will know more on this topic than readers of any other blog (as far as I know).
My interest in North African Jewry came largely from my reading of some extraordinary books. In a series of entries to My Blog, I will talk about some of the books I have read and what I have learned. You will be very surprised and, I think, equally intrigued.
It started when I was in college, and I was first introduced to Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandrian Quartet". I don't know if anyone reads these novels today ("Justine", "Clea", "Balthazar" and "Mountolive"), but when I was in school, they were very popular reading. Not that I remember a lot about them, but no one can forget the beautiful Justine, a Jewess of Alexandria, and her Coptic Christian husband, whom I think was Nissim. And no one can forget the extraordinarily cosmpolitan and exotic city of Alexandria, Egypt, the setting for the four novels. Were there really Jews in Alexandria, I asked myself? Were they as sophisticated, and as fascinating, as Justine? Were they so well integrated into such a complex society? I had no idea. The books are fiction, of course, but the characterization?
Today, Alexandria, still Egypt's second most populous city, has few if any Jewish residents. But during Greek and Roman times (Alexandria being named for Alexander the Great), when it was the city of Egypt, Philo, the Jewish Aristotelian philosopher, estimated that there were 1,000,000 Jews in Alexandria. And even in the twentieth century, when the city was so much only a shadow of its ancient self, the fiction of prize winning author Naguib Mahfouz, portrays a dowager empress of a city, seasoned by its former elegance, and, from a Jewish perspective the absolutely fascinating memoir, "Out of Egypt" by Andre Aciman, who now teaches creative writing in the United States, speaks of his childhood in Egypt, with his father who was a confidante of King Farouk, and his deaf mother, and his grandparents, and his relatives living in Europe, and Turkey and Palestine. "Out of Egypt" evokes a normal childhood in an extraordinarily abnormal time. And then I remember an article in the New Yorker magazine, perhaps fifteen or even twenty years back, which evoked a Jewish Cairo, again filled with comfort, sophistication and seeming permanence. I wish I remember who wrote this article, or when exactly it was published.
Some of the books that have interested me, and which I think will interest you, are:
Aciman, Andre, Out of Egypt, Farrar Straus Giroux (New York 1994).
de Felice, Renzo, Jews in an Arab Land: Libya, 1835-1970, University of Texas (Austin 1985)
Durrell, Lawrence, Justine, Clea, Balthazar and Mountolive ("The Alexandria Quartet"), originally published in London by Faber and Faber between 1957 and 1960. Reprinted in about one hundred million other editions.
Graham, Cunninghame, Mogreb-el-Acksa: a Journey in Morocco, National Travel Club (New York 1930), reprint of book originally written in 1898.
Romanelli, Samuel Aaron, Travels in an Arab Land (masa ba-Arab), late 18th century narrative, published in many editions.
Slouschz, Nahum, Travels in North Africa, Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia 1927)
Over the next few weeks, I should be posting a number of articles, drawing on these and other sources. Stay tuned, and you will know more on this topic than readers of any other blog (as far as I know).
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Cardinals' Convocation Canceled
My Blog has just been informed that the convocation of Cardinals in Rome has been canceled in light of the success of the church in operating without a pope, and that the meeting of the Cardinals has been turned into a old-fashioned party. It has become clear over the past several days that the church's bureaucracy is much more efficient with no pope in place, and with the Cardinals locked in the Sistine Chapel. Things will stay this way until further notice.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Via con Dios
So, I had this daymare today, a religious daymare.
In it, the fundamentalists who believe in the rapture turn out to be correct....., to a great extent. [For information on fundamentalists see Book Report #5 "Under God"]
At any rate, one day the world is just going along its merry way, nothing out of the ordinary, when all of a sudden, there is this great big whoosh, and a substantial number of people are whisked into the sky, called up by God. To that extent, the rapturists have been vindicated.
But, because man cannot ever look into the mind of the deity, they only got it partially correct. In fact, it was not the "believers", or those who have been "born again" or any other assumed category of individuals who were lifted upwards. It was all the people who speak Spanish.
Yes, Spanish turned out to be the divine language, the language spoken by God. All of those scholars who thought God spoke Hebrew.....hah!
Gathering all of the Spanish speakers to his side (including those former Spanish speakers such as Don Quixote, Sancho Panza, Salvador Dali, Juan and Eva Peron, King Alfonso IX, Francisco Franco and all the Jews of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria), God left the remainder of the world to follow its own course.
The United States, of course, fell apart completely. With no one to drive the buses, to repair the streets, to clean the buildings, to pour the coffee, pick the vegetables, drive the trucks, and so forth, the country came to a complete standstill.
In a cold sweat, I woke up and, I am happy to say, realized it was but a dream. After a breakfast burrito, I went to work.
In it, the fundamentalists who believe in the rapture turn out to be correct....., to a great extent. [For information on fundamentalists see Book Report #5 "Under God"]
At any rate, one day the world is just going along its merry way, nothing out of the ordinary, when all of a sudden, there is this great big whoosh, and a substantial number of people are whisked into the sky, called up by God. To that extent, the rapturists have been vindicated.
But, because man cannot ever look into the mind of the deity, they only got it partially correct. In fact, it was not the "believers", or those who have been "born again" or any other assumed category of individuals who were lifted upwards. It was all the people who speak Spanish.
Yes, Spanish turned out to be the divine language, the language spoken by God. All of those scholars who thought God spoke Hebrew.....hah!
Gathering all of the Spanish speakers to his side (including those former Spanish speakers such as Don Quixote, Sancho Panza, Salvador Dali, Juan and Eva Peron, King Alfonso IX, Francisco Franco and all the Jews of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria), God left the remainder of the world to follow its own course.
The United States, of course, fell apart completely. With no one to drive the buses, to repair the streets, to clean the buildings, to pour the coffee, pick the vegetables, drive the trucks, and so forth, the country came to a complete standstill.
In a cold sweat, I woke up and, I am happy to say, realized it was but a dream. After a breakfast burrito, I went to work.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Did you read this week's "Washington Jewish Week"?
If you didn't, there is a lot that you missed. Such as:
1. Rosa Mareno of K's New York Deli in Washington D.C. won the "best matzah ball" award at the Iron Kosher Chef Competition. If only, anyone ever heard of K's New York Deli.
2. The wife of Israel's foreign minister gave a wedding present to Prince Charles - an amulet that had been blessed by an Israeli kabbalist - and reported that "Prince Charles was very charming about it, not at all the drip that Israelis assume he is". Diplomacy at its best.
3. A group of Jews and a group of Mormon church leaders agreed to convoke a committee to look into whether the Mormon church had failed to comply with its 1995 agreement not to baptize dead Jews. As you may know, for fear of postumous baptism, it has been reported that many Jews were living forever.
4. A Jewish representative at a ceremony commemorating the death of 134 people, most Jewish, in a bombing during WWII in London was pelted with eggs and vegetables. I assume that Scotland Yard is rounding up the usual vegetarian terrorist anti-Semitic suspects.
5. At Shalom kosher market, you can by Carmel soup mixes for $3.99 for 15 oz., Rubinsteins red salmon for $4.99 per 14 3/4 oz., onions for $1.09 per 3 lbs., Kedem concord white grape juice for $1.59 for 22 oz., and Sabra spanish eggplant for $2.19 for 7 oz. As a part of the new SATs, you will be expected to look at these numbers, and rank these items per oz. from the most expensive to the cheapest. In 30 seconds.
6. The Conservative movement has announced that it will not change its policy on gays. The article did not say that the policy is/was/will be. It did say that the movement will try "to come to thoughtful and compassionate decisions that can pass the test of time."
7. At Kugler's Home Fashions, for only $18.99, you can buy a singing matzah man. Wow, that's less than $19,00.
8. Balducci's has a full page ad for Passover food "so good, that you may not want to wait for Elijah....". For those of you who are seder afficianados, you may realize that Elijah comes after dinner. I guess maybe you shouldn't buy Passover food from an Italian? Or maybe in Italy the food is so good, that Elijah rushes his appearance?
9. In one of the more interesting stories to come out of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it was reported that the president of Israel shook hands with the president of Iran. President Katzev of Israel said that it was a matter of politeness, and did not signify a policy shift. President Katami of Iran denies that it happens, and says that this is just one more example of a baseless Zionist lie. If Katami says it, it must be true, right? Those zionists!
10. The U.S. State Department has changed its recommendations to Americans from suggesting the deferral of travel to Israel to one of suggesting that the need for travel to Israel be "carefully weighed". The equivalent, I assume, of changing the terrorist level from red to crimson. By the way, how many Americans have been attacked on trips to Israel in the last year or two? I will give you a hint. You cannot count them on the fingers of one hand.
11. On page 53, for the first time anywhere, you can see, sitting right next to each other, advertisements for the Omelette Man and for Mr. Omelette. I have to go with Mr. Omelette. He has an expresso bar. No, maybe not. He only has a "Fresh Fruit Display". I think he ought to let you eat the fresh fruit. Really, that is so petty.
12. In the Men Seeking Women section of the want ads, a "latke" [for you Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists or Zoroastrians, that is a potato pancake] looking for "applesauce", preferably sweet and non-chunky. Do you really think there is anyone out there who is sweet and non-chunky, who is looking for a latke?
13. And to end on a good note, there is an article about the first Jewish-Arab tango orchestra which has been formed in Buenos Aires, and performed at the opening of a new synagogue. There are 250,000 Jews and 900,000 Arabs who live in Argentina.
1. Rosa Mareno of K's New York Deli in Washington D.C. won the "best matzah ball" award at the Iron Kosher Chef Competition. If only, anyone ever heard of K's New York Deli.
2. The wife of Israel's foreign minister gave a wedding present to Prince Charles - an amulet that had been blessed by an Israeli kabbalist - and reported that "Prince Charles was very charming about it, not at all the drip that Israelis assume he is". Diplomacy at its best.
3. A group of Jews and a group of Mormon church leaders agreed to convoke a committee to look into whether the Mormon church had failed to comply with its 1995 agreement not to baptize dead Jews. As you may know, for fear of postumous baptism, it has been reported that many Jews were living forever.
4. A Jewish representative at a ceremony commemorating the death of 134 people, most Jewish, in a bombing during WWII in London was pelted with eggs and vegetables. I assume that Scotland Yard is rounding up the usual vegetarian terrorist anti-Semitic suspects.
5. At Shalom kosher market, you can by Carmel soup mixes for $3.99 for 15 oz., Rubinsteins red salmon for $4.99 per 14 3/4 oz., onions for $1.09 per 3 lbs., Kedem concord white grape juice for $1.59 for 22 oz., and Sabra spanish eggplant for $2.19 for 7 oz. As a part of the new SATs, you will be expected to look at these numbers, and rank these items per oz. from the most expensive to the cheapest. In 30 seconds.
6. The Conservative movement has announced that it will not change its policy on gays. The article did not say that the policy is/was/will be. It did say that the movement will try "to come to thoughtful and compassionate decisions that can pass the test of time."
7. At Kugler's Home Fashions, for only $18.99, you can buy a singing matzah man. Wow, that's less than $19,00.
8. Balducci's has a full page ad for Passover food "so good, that you may not want to wait for Elijah....". For those of you who are seder afficianados, you may realize that Elijah comes after dinner. I guess maybe you shouldn't buy Passover food from an Italian? Or maybe in Italy the food is so good, that Elijah rushes his appearance?
9. In one of the more interesting stories to come out of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it was reported that the president of Israel shook hands with the president of Iran. President Katzev of Israel said that it was a matter of politeness, and did not signify a policy shift. President Katami of Iran denies that it happens, and says that this is just one more example of a baseless Zionist lie. If Katami says it, it must be true, right? Those zionists!
10. The U.S. State Department has changed its recommendations to Americans from suggesting the deferral of travel to Israel to one of suggesting that the need for travel to Israel be "carefully weighed". The equivalent, I assume, of changing the terrorist level from red to crimson. By the way, how many Americans have been attacked on trips to Israel in the last year or two? I will give you a hint. You cannot count them on the fingers of one hand.
11. On page 53, for the first time anywhere, you can see, sitting right next to each other, advertisements for the Omelette Man and for Mr. Omelette. I have to go with Mr. Omelette. He has an expresso bar. No, maybe not. He only has a "Fresh Fruit Display". I think he ought to let you eat the fresh fruit. Really, that is so petty.
12. In the Men Seeking Women section of the want ads, a "latke" [for you Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists or Zoroastrians, that is a potato pancake] looking for "applesauce", preferably sweet and non-chunky. Do you really think there is anyone out there who is sweet and non-chunky, who is looking for a latke?
13. And to end on a good note, there is an article about the first Jewish-Arab tango orchestra which has been formed in Buenos Aires, and performed at the opening of a new synagogue. There are 250,000 Jews and 900,000 Arabs who live in Argentina.
Friday, April 15, 2005
The Balkans and the Baltic Sea
So, it finally struck me. I had no idea why the Balkans (the former Yugoslavia and Albania) were called the Balkans. And no idea why the Baltic Sea (also called the Baltic in Russian, but the East See [die Ostsee] in German) was called the Baltic Sea.
And I bet you don't either (except for you Serbs or Litvaks who occasionally look at this blog).
Well, I now understand that the Turkish word for mountains is Balkan. That explains that.
But the Baltic? I need serious help on this one.
Speaking of Die Ostsee, did you know that the word "See" in German, meaning "lake" is masculine, der See. Except in connection with the two feminine seas, which are die Ostsee and die Nordsee.
Explain that one, bitte.
And I bet you don't either (except for you Serbs or Litvaks who occasionally look at this blog).
Well, I now understand that the Turkish word for mountains is Balkan. That explains that.
But the Baltic? I need serious help on this one.
Speaking of Die Ostsee, did you know that the word "See" in German, meaning "lake" is masculine, der See. Except in connection with the two feminine seas, which are die Ostsee and die Nordsee.
Explain that one, bitte.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Papacy Still an Open Race: McGwire backs out
Mark McGwire informed his fellow Cardinals today that he no longer wants to be considered for the open position of Pope. An early favorite, exuding power and charisma, McGwire refused to tell My Blog exactly why he was withdrawing his name from contention, but did say that it had nothing to do with allegations of performance enhancing drug use. When asked if he thought it would be inappropriate for a Pope to be on steroids, he said: "that's not for me to say."
In the meantime, Bernard Cardinal Law, has apparently recovered from his dismissal as head of the Boston archdiocese in the church pedophilia scandal. Being chosen to have given one of the major eulegies on Pope John Paul II to his fellow communicants, Law has emerged as the possible first American pope. He has denied that, if selected, he will chose the name Pope Michael Jackson I.
And, not to be outdone, Michael Jackson has said that (as soon as he puts his legal problems behind him) a run for the papacy might be in order. When asked what name he would choose, he quickly said "Innocent XIV".
But seriously, folks, John Paul's shoes will obviously be very difficult to fill. My Blog has it, however, on good authority, that we are not to worry. The Cardinals' deliberations will be very careful and we have been guaranteed that, whomever they choose, he will turn out to be infallible.
In the meantime, Bernard Cardinal Law, has apparently recovered from his dismissal as head of the Boston archdiocese in the church pedophilia scandal. Being chosen to have given one of the major eulegies on Pope John Paul II to his fellow communicants, Law has emerged as the possible first American pope. He has denied that, if selected, he will chose the name Pope Michael Jackson I.
And, not to be outdone, Michael Jackson has said that (as soon as he puts his legal problems behind him) a run for the papacy might be in order. When asked what name he would choose, he quickly said "Innocent XIV".
But seriously, folks, John Paul's shoes will obviously be very difficult to fill. My Blog has it, however, on good authority, that we are not to worry. The Cardinals' deliberations will be very careful and we have been guaranteed that, whomever they choose, he will turn out to be infallible.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
National Guard Backs Out of Blog Sponsorship
Wouldn't you know it?
But don't worry. I am deep in negotiations with the Swiss Guard at the Vatican. That would really be a coup.
But don't worry. I am deep in negotiations with the Swiss Guard at the Vatican. That would really be a coup.
National Guard to Sponsor My Blog
We are pleased to announce that we have almost finalized arrangements for the National Guard to sponsor My Blog. In the light of the failure of the Guard to work out an arrangement satisfactory to Senator Warner to acquire the naming rights of RFK Stadium (RFK = Ready for Killing), the Guard immediately turned to yours truly to see if naming rights for My Blog were still available.
While the price and terms must remain confidential, the agreement should be signed in the next day or two. The name of My Blog will be changed to NGMB, as the Guard understandably wanted a name that (a) was easy to remember, (b) was easy to pronounce, and (c) gave the reader a clear understanding that the Guard was involved.
(For those of you readers, and there may be a few, who are not able to read 3rd century Aramaic without the Masoretic symbols, I will give you a hint. NGMB is pronounced Beimigin, with, of course, the emphasis on the 'gin')**
** Some have questioned the word "few" in the parenthical above, telling me that hardly any of my regular readers can read 3rd century Aramaic without the Masoretic symbols. That is not correct. I can count the illiterati on the fingers of one hand.
While the price and terms must remain confidential, the agreement should be signed in the next day or two. The name of My Blog will be changed to NGMB, as the Guard understandably wanted a name that (a) was easy to remember, (b) was easy to pronounce, and (c) gave the reader a clear understanding that the Guard was involved.
(For those of you readers, and there may be a few, who are not able to read 3rd century Aramaic without the Masoretic symbols, I will give you a hint. NGMB is pronounced Beimigin, with, of course, the emphasis on the 'gin')**
** Some have questioned the word "few" in the parenthical above, telling me that hardly any of my regular readers can read 3rd century Aramaic without the Masoretic symbols. That is not correct. I can count the illiterati on the fingers of one hand.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
"Deathwatch: the Reality Show"
I am excited beyond excited that my new tv show, "Deathwatch: the Reality Show", has been accepted for a prime time slot next season on one of the country's major cable networks. [I wish I could identify the network, but cannot until the final papers are signed.]
The premise of the show is simple.
Individuals with what appear to be fatal illnesses, who can provide a doctor's certificate that it is unlikely that they will live more than another six weeks, can apply to be the subject of a mini-series on "D:RS". They (or their heirs or designees) will be well paid if accepted to appear. They will be called the "Subject".
The Host (to be selected at a later date, although John Edwards is the front runner) will be given a proxy by the Subject to make all decisions, including all economic and medical decisions on behalf of the Subject, and the Subject will waive any doctor-patient privilege. This is a necessary precondition to being selected as Subject.
During the course of the show, the Host will interview the Subject on a regular basis, and will communicate with the Subject's medical advisors, family members, and close friends and business associates, all in full view of the camera.
At any point in time, the Host will have the authority to take charge of the Subject's assets, give instructions to the Subject's medical advisors, and rewrite the Subject's last will and testament. (Don't worry, the Host will have signed a conflict of interest statement, guaranteeing that neither the Host, nor the Host's spouse or children shall be made beneficiary of any Subject).
The audience, through interactive arrangements still under development, will also be polled from time to time by the Host. Such as: shall we terminate all medical assitance? shall we decrease pain medication? shall we write the children out of the will? Etc. The results of each poll will be posted, although the Host will not be obligated to follow the poll results.
The family members, friends and business associates will be able to use whatever influence they can muster to encourage the Host to make decisions favorable to them. Survivor-like techniques will be encouraged. Each of these three groups will choose a leader, and two of the three leaders have the right to cancel the authority of the Host. However, upon such an occurrence, each major decision will be required to be presented to the viewing audience, and the substitute Host (that would be, most likely, Bill Maher) will be required to implement the results of the audience poll if more than 2/3 of those polled vote in a similar manner. No appeal would be available.
We hope for a combination of family intrigue, business deception, medical incompetence, mob hysteria -- just like real life. Upon the end of each mini-series, with what we will call not the death of the Subject (too coarse), or the passing of the Subject (too religious), but rather the Segue of the Subject, we hope to develop several other series which will follow: "Funeral: the Spectacle", and then "Afterlife: the Real Story". The development of "Funeral" is well under way, but the production of "Afterlife" will have to wait until we locate some angels.
The premise of the show is simple.
Individuals with what appear to be fatal illnesses, who can provide a doctor's certificate that it is unlikely that they will live more than another six weeks, can apply to be the subject of a mini-series on "D:RS". They (or their heirs or designees) will be well paid if accepted to appear. They will be called the "Subject".
The Host (to be selected at a later date, although John Edwards is the front runner) will be given a proxy by the Subject to make all decisions, including all economic and medical decisions on behalf of the Subject, and the Subject will waive any doctor-patient privilege. This is a necessary precondition to being selected as Subject.
During the course of the show, the Host will interview the Subject on a regular basis, and will communicate with the Subject's medical advisors, family members, and close friends and business associates, all in full view of the camera.
At any point in time, the Host will have the authority to take charge of the Subject's assets, give instructions to the Subject's medical advisors, and rewrite the Subject's last will and testament. (Don't worry, the Host will have signed a conflict of interest statement, guaranteeing that neither the Host, nor the Host's spouse or children shall be made beneficiary of any Subject).
The audience, through interactive arrangements still under development, will also be polled from time to time by the Host. Such as: shall we terminate all medical assitance? shall we decrease pain medication? shall we write the children out of the will? Etc. The results of each poll will be posted, although the Host will not be obligated to follow the poll results.
The family members, friends and business associates will be able to use whatever influence they can muster to encourage the Host to make decisions favorable to them. Survivor-like techniques will be encouraged. Each of these three groups will choose a leader, and two of the three leaders have the right to cancel the authority of the Host. However, upon such an occurrence, each major decision will be required to be presented to the viewing audience, and the substitute Host (that would be, most likely, Bill Maher) will be required to implement the results of the audience poll if more than 2/3 of those polled vote in a similar manner. No appeal would be available.
We hope for a combination of family intrigue, business deception, medical incompetence, mob hysteria -- just like real life. Upon the end of each mini-series, with what we will call not the death of the Subject (too coarse), or the passing of the Subject (too religious), but rather the Segue of the Subject, we hope to develop several other series which will follow: "Funeral: the Spectacle", and then "Afterlife: the Real Story". The development of "Funeral" is well under way, but the production of "Afterlife" will have to wait until we locate some angels.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Jane Fonda
I really want to read her new book.
Although I own a number of actress's memoirs, I have read relatively few of them. I think that is because I did read Ali MacGraw's autobiography. After seeing Love Story and The Getaway, I thought that Ali MacGraw must be an ideal person. Then I read her book, and discovered that (a) she was a jerk, and (b) she either didn't know it or didn't care. So I soured on reading these books.
Now, about six months ago, when I had an hour or so to spare, I did pick up Tanya Tucker' s autobiography. Not that I really had any idea Tanya Tucker was, but the book was in front of me. Boy, was that boring (I stopped when her father had driven her to her umpteenth recording session; not sure what happened after that). That soured me further.
But I really want to read about Jane Fonda.
And, when I finish her, I am going to go to another woman who has intrigued me for years and just written her autobiography, Phyllis Diller ("I discovered my husband wasn't very bright the day he came home from shopping six hours late, and told me he was caught on an escalator during a power failure."). I need more good one liners in my life.
Although I own a number of actress's memoirs, I have read relatively few of them. I think that is because I did read Ali MacGraw's autobiography. After seeing Love Story and The Getaway, I thought that Ali MacGraw must be an ideal person. Then I read her book, and discovered that (a) she was a jerk, and (b) she either didn't know it or didn't care. So I soured on reading these books.
Now, about six months ago, when I had an hour or so to spare, I did pick up Tanya Tucker' s autobiography. Not that I really had any idea Tanya Tucker was, but the book was in front of me. Boy, was that boring (I stopped when her father had driven her to her umpteenth recording session; not sure what happened after that). That soured me further.
But I really want to read about Jane Fonda.
And, when I finish her, I am going to go to another woman who has intrigued me for years and just written her autobiography, Phyllis Diller ("I discovered my husband wasn't very bright the day he came home from shopping six hours late, and told me he was caught on an escalator during a power failure."). I need more good one liners in my life.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Book Review #5 "Under God"
Garry Wills published Under God about 15 years ago, which dates portions of it somewhat, but neither the passage of time, nor the inconsistent quality of the various sections of the book, take away from its value as a book expressing the impact of religion on American government. Wills, a Catholic, takes the position that America has been influenced by Protestant Christianity far more than Catholicism or Judaism (for reasons he well describes), and concentrates on the various Protestant movements and strains that have surfaced over the years.
The organization of the book is odd. For example, the chapters dealing with the relationship of religion to the founding of this country and to the establishment of the doctrine of separation of church and state, are the final chapters of the book, while the early chapters deal with people like Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis and Dan Quayle. The middle of the book is more topical - dealing with such issues as right to life.
Let's start at the end (i.e., at the beginning). These chapters have led me to rethink some of the ideas I had held about the early history of religion in America.
Wills' position, in very short paraphrase is as follows: religious freedom did not develop in this country because the founding fathers believed that all religions were equal (although some came close to that position), but rather because separation of church and state became necessary in light of the English establishment of a church that the majority of American settlers were breaking away from. This quickly led to the idea that any attempt for the government to be involved in religion might easily wind up with an established Church of England or its equivalent (or even worse an established Catholic church that England permitted to continue to exist in Quebec after Canada become under English control in the mid-1800s). The religious communities that developed in North America (and everyone was part of a religious community, more or less), were themselves unforgiving and intolerant for the most part, and could only stay that way if government kept out of their hair.
Thinking in these terms, sometimes history becomes a bit topsy turvy. Roger Williams founded a community with the most religious freedom in Rhode Island exactly because he was one of the least tolerant figures in American religious history. To him, most Protestant sects were as bad a Catholics, and therefore for him to permit Catholics into Rhode Island was no great stretch; it was no more radical for him than permitting those pseudo-Catholics who called themselves Protestants. Jefferson and Madison, although their theological positions were much different from Roger Williams (and in fact they had at that time perhaps never heard of Roger Williams) wanted to keep religion and government separate for much the same reason. And all major figures of 18th and early 19th century American history did share a sincere belief in a powerful God. The Puritans and related sects believed that this God was an intolerant one; Jefferson and Madison believed him to be a tolerant God. But they all expressed what are apparently sincere religious feelings. And feelings which were shared by large numbers of their contemporaries.
And he believes that this sincere religious feeling was a very significant part of American society from the beginning, and that it continues to this day. This is why contemporary (1970s and 1980s) political candidates like Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis failed to inspire the electorate. Putting aside their personal feelings, they ran what were basically secular campaigns and these are bound to fail.
But Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis had very different backgrounds. Gary Hart (who was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 1988, until sidelined by a reported liaison with a young woman on Capital Hill) came himself from a seriously religious background, being raised in a demonination called the Church of the Nazarenes. The Church of the Nazarenes was founded by a preacher named Phineas Bresee, who built on an existing "Holiness" movement, meant to require adherents to live a holy life which, in Bresee's opinion meant a life dedicated to uplifting and helping the poor. One of Bresee's disciples was a man named S. T. Ludwig, who became a Nazarene leader and the president of Bethany-Peniel College, a Nazarene institution. Hart went to Bethany-Peniel where he was (not suprisingly) a student leader, but one with visible and heavy religious perspectives. Ludwig's daughter, another college star, became Mrs. Hart. But Hart's life, once he left college and went on to the Yale Divinity School, was one of broadening away from Nazarene teachings and that denomination, as he (according to Wills) needed to continually remake himself, with all the risks that came with redefinition, while always (because of his narrow background) believing himself the outsider.
The story of Dukakis was quite different. He was a candidate who broke from his Greek Orthodox religious background early, and grew up in intellectual circles in suburban Boston. As governor of Massachusetts, he was very popular and very successful.
In each case, the candidate was attacked on what are identified to many as religious issues: infidelity in the case of Hart (which was true), and being soft on crime in the case of Dukakis (which had no factual basis). Because neither were able to respond except in intellectual terms, neither could defend against their attackers before the American populace.
Other chapters include a fascinating one on the Scopes trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, pitting William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow on the question of creationism vs. Darwinism in the schools. According to Wills, the fight against Darwinism was not then what it is now assumed to be. It was not strictly a question of fundamentalism vs. science (which a similar trial would undoubtedly be today), but must be viewed in connection with the prevalence of "social Darwinism" as a theory, that in society the better/stronger men and women would lead the weaker, and humankind would progress as a result. As this connoted the concept of an elite (as in Plato's philospher kings or Nietzsche's "ubermensch"), this theory did not play well among biblical fundamentalists or others whose adherents were not of the "elite" classes. And, says Wills, this must also be put into context of what was happening in Europe, where the same ideas were being put forth with (in the not too distant future) such horrific results.
Wills also talks about the opposite side of biblical studies from creationism, which is the study of eschatology, or the end of days, and gives a good rundown of American preachers who refined their theories until we wound up with the concept of the "rapture", where living Christians will one day be swept up to heaven, leaving cars to careen off roads, and planes to crash. This, he says, was a natural continuation of the 18th century concerns with purifying society to get ready for the last days, and to weed out any hints of Satan-inspired remnants (although most believed this to be an impossible, but necessary goal). Wills talks not only about the obvious examples (like the Salem witch trials), but puts all of American colonization into this context by stating that the settling of America was viewed by many as a necessary step in preparing the entire world for the end of time, and that one of the main religious goals of many early American religious communities was to destroy (one way or another, and the way was not important) the native American communties, whose presence and practices were believed to have been inspired by the devil.
Moving from St. Augustine in the 4th century to Thomas Acquinas in about 1200, Wills shows how "fundamentalism" as we now know it, played no real part in either of their thinking. And that even Luther's rebellion against the church, although setting the stage for what came later, did not lead to a literalist examination of biblical texts.
But a series of little remembered 19th century fundamentalists changed the way the Bible was studied. Leading to a British preacher named John Nelson Darby developed the theory of the rapture. Darby's followers, including Dwight Moody (whose bible institute educated many future leaders of fundamentalist strains) and Jerry Fallwell, became very influential. Various sects, such as the Disciples of Christ, in which both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were brought up, emphasized end of time thinking. Wills suggests that it is Reagan's religious background, which led him to develop the theory of the Evil Empire, akin to the concept of the Antichrist.
And there are others. An odd, psuedo-intellectual fundamentalist preacher in Houston, Robert Thieme, who became close to the family of Daniel and Marilyn Quayle. Pat Robertson, described as a misfit and an embarrassment to his family, until he discovered television. Abraham Lincoln and his belief in the religious progress of humanity leading to the Second Coming. Jesse Jackson (towards whom Wills appears to have great respect) and Andy Young, and the comparison between them and Robert Bork (clearly an evil oriented individual in Wills' view), with the influence of their religious views on the public positions.
Unfortunately, Wills also dedicates a few chapters to pornography which I found confusing and out of place. But his other discussions of social issues, including a religious history of the right to life issue, from Francis Schaeffer to Randall Terry is interesting, as is his discussion of feminism from a religious and religio-historical perspective.
All in all, a very interesting book, worthy of a longish blog.
Anyone else read it?
The organization of the book is odd. For example, the chapters dealing with the relationship of religion to the founding of this country and to the establishment of the doctrine of separation of church and state, are the final chapters of the book, while the early chapters deal with people like Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis and Dan Quayle. The middle of the book is more topical - dealing with such issues as right to life.
Let's start at the end (i.e., at the beginning). These chapters have led me to rethink some of the ideas I had held about the early history of religion in America.
Wills' position, in very short paraphrase is as follows: religious freedom did not develop in this country because the founding fathers believed that all religions were equal (although some came close to that position), but rather because separation of church and state became necessary in light of the English establishment of a church that the majority of American settlers were breaking away from. This quickly led to the idea that any attempt for the government to be involved in religion might easily wind up with an established Church of England or its equivalent (or even worse an established Catholic church that England permitted to continue to exist in Quebec after Canada become under English control in the mid-1800s). The religious communities that developed in North America (and everyone was part of a religious community, more or less), were themselves unforgiving and intolerant for the most part, and could only stay that way if government kept out of their hair.
Thinking in these terms, sometimes history becomes a bit topsy turvy. Roger Williams founded a community with the most religious freedom in Rhode Island exactly because he was one of the least tolerant figures in American religious history. To him, most Protestant sects were as bad a Catholics, and therefore for him to permit Catholics into Rhode Island was no great stretch; it was no more radical for him than permitting those pseudo-Catholics who called themselves Protestants. Jefferson and Madison, although their theological positions were much different from Roger Williams (and in fact they had at that time perhaps never heard of Roger Williams) wanted to keep religion and government separate for much the same reason. And all major figures of 18th and early 19th century American history did share a sincere belief in a powerful God. The Puritans and related sects believed that this God was an intolerant one; Jefferson and Madison believed him to be a tolerant God. But they all expressed what are apparently sincere religious feelings. And feelings which were shared by large numbers of their contemporaries.
And he believes that this sincere religious feeling was a very significant part of American society from the beginning, and that it continues to this day. This is why contemporary (1970s and 1980s) political candidates like Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis failed to inspire the electorate. Putting aside their personal feelings, they ran what were basically secular campaigns and these are bound to fail.
But Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis had very different backgrounds. Gary Hart (who was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 1988, until sidelined by a reported liaison with a young woman on Capital Hill) came himself from a seriously religious background, being raised in a demonination called the Church of the Nazarenes. The Church of the Nazarenes was founded by a preacher named Phineas Bresee, who built on an existing "Holiness" movement, meant to require adherents to live a holy life which, in Bresee's opinion meant a life dedicated to uplifting and helping the poor. One of Bresee's disciples was a man named S. T. Ludwig, who became a Nazarene leader and the president of Bethany-Peniel College, a Nazarene institution. Hart went to Bethany-Peniel where he was (not suprisingly) a student leader, but one with visible and heavy religious perspectives. Ludwig's daughter, another college star, became Mrs. Hart. But Hart's life, once he left college and went on to the Yale Divinity School, was one of broadening away from Nazarene teachings and that denomination, as he (according to Wills) needed to continually remake himself, with all the risks that came with redefinition, while always (because of his narrow background) believing himself the outsider.
The story of Dukakis was quite different. He was a candidate who broke from his Greek Orthodox religious background early, and grew up in intellectual circles in suburban Boston. As governor of Massachusetts, he was very popular and very successful.
In each case, the candidate was attacked on what are identified to many as religious issues: infidelity in the case of Hart (which was true), and being soft on crime in the case of Dukakis (which had no factual basis). Because neither were able to respond except in intellectual terms, neither could defend against their attackers before the American populace.
Other chapters include a fascinating one on the Scopes trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, pitting William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow on the question of creationism vs. Darwinism in the schools. According to Wills, the fight against Darwinism was not then what it is now assumed to be. It was not strictly a question of fundamentalism vs. science (which a similar trial would undoubtedly be today), but must be viewed in connection with the prevalence of "social Darwinism" as a theory, that in society the better/stronger men and women would lead the weaker, and humankind would progress as a result. As this connoted the concept of an elite (as in Plato's philospher kings or Nietzsche's "ubermensch"), this theory did not play well among biblical fundamentalists or others whose adherents were not of the "elite" classes. And, says Wills, this must also be put into context of what was happening in Europe, where the same ideas were being put forth with (in the not too distant future) such horrific results.
Wills also talks about the opposite side of biblical studies from creationism, which is the study of eschatology, or the end of days, and gives a good rundown of American preachers who refined their theories until we wound up with the concept of the "rapture", where living Christians will one day be swept up to heaven, leaving cars to careen off roads, and planes to crash. This, he says, was a natural continuation of the 18th century concerns with purifying society to get ready for the last days, and to weed out any hints of Satan-inspired remnants (although most believed this to be an impossible, but necessary goal). Wills talks not only about the obvious examples (like the Salem witch trials), but puts all of American colonization into this context by stating that the settling of America was viewed by many as a necessary step in preparing the entire world for the end of time, and that one of the main religious goals of many early American religious communities was to destroy (one way or another, and the way was not important) the native American communties, whose presence and practices were believed to have been inspired by the devil.
Moving from St. Augustine in the 4th century to Thomas Acquinas in about 1200, Wills shows how "fundamentalism" as we now know it, played no real part in either of their thinking. And that even Luther's rebellion against the church, although setting the stage for what came later, did not lead to a literalist examination of biblical texts.
But a series of little remembered 19th century fundamentalists changed the way the Bible was studied. Leading to a British preacher named John Nelson Darby developed the theory of the rapture. Darby's followers, including Dwight Moody (whose bible institute educated many future leaders of fundamentalist strains) and Jerry Fallwell, became very influential. Various sects, such as the Disciples of Christ, in which both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were brought up, emphasized end of time thinking. Wills suggests that it is Reagan's religious background, which led him to develop the theory of the Evil Empire, akin to the concept of the Antichrist.
And there are others. An odd, psuedo-intellectual fundamentalist preacher in Houston, Robert Thieme, who became close to the family of Daniel and Marilyn Quayle. Pat Robertson, described as a misfit and an embarrassment to his family, until he discovered television. Abraham Lincoln and his belief in the religious progress of humanity leading to the Second Coming. Jesse Jackson (towards whom Wills appears to have great respect) and Andy Young, and the comparison between them and Robert Bork (clearly an evil oriented individual in Wills' view), with the influence of their religious views on the public positions.
Unfortunately, Wills also dedicates a few chapters to pornography which I found confusing and out of place. But his other discussions of social issues, including a religious history of the right to life issue, from Francis Schaeffer to Randall Terry is interesting, as is his discussion of feminism from a religious and religio-historical perspective.
All in all, a very interesting book, worthy of a longish blog.
Anyone else read it?
Friday, April 08, 2005
Carolina Trip Highlights - before I forget
1. Petersburg, VA, looks like it has been recently abandoned. The stores are largely empty (or at least a lot of them are), but the buildings (19th century, 3 and 4 stories, commercial red brick row buildings) are all standing. This old, historic city, just south of Richmond, in the middle of Civil War History, near Appomatox, on I-95, should be restored as a tourist mecca. (I thought of what has happened to Galena, IL, which has a similar feel, but a much more remote location). Why isn't anyone doing it? (Why did Petersburg get abandoned? I am told it largely had to do with malls built in neighboring towns.)
2. Wise, NC. Hardly a town, but rather the first agglomeration of rundown buildings south of the VA-NC border on Route 1 (which then parallels I-85, on their way to South Carolina and Georgia), is located on a rather barren section of this historic national highway (i.e., there is nothing nearby..... at all). There is a gas station/cafe/general store there that, from the outside looks quite unattractive. But, when you go inside, there is no way to call this facility unattractive. Rather, it is the most awful commercial establishment in the country. The store looks like things have never been straightened, the cafe looks like a place no one ever ate in twice (perhaps not even once), and the rest rooms, accessed through a hallway disguised as an abandoned warehouse corridor, have never (and I mean never) been cleaned. It is owned by an Indian (not Native American) family. The wife was hidden out of site, somewhere behind the cafe, a young daughter was playing, and the father (clearly the head of the family) was yelling on a cell phone in an unintelligible language, holding the phone at least three feet from his mouth, the entire time we were there. I bought a NC/SC road map for $3 dollars. I felt very lucky he looked at me long enough to hear my question and, snarling at me, say "Over There!!!). They do not look healthy and wealthy in Wise.
3. The Carolina Inn, right at the UNC campus in Chapel Hill, is a little too staid and formal for my taste. They did have a temporary exhibit in the lobby -- of bird houses made by craftsmen. Many, many birdhouses made by craftsmen. The UNC campus looked just fine.
4. Our Chapel Hill meal, at Vespa, was so-so only. Our waitress, new that day, was a native Italian whose Italian was so good, and her accent so authentic, that you were sure that she was faking it, and it irritated you. She needs a different career. Breakfast at the Carolina Coffee House was better. Our waitress had bright pink hair for Easter. She was good.
5. Larry Doby of Cleveland Indian fame, and jazzman Dizzy Gillespie come from almost-neighboring towns, Cameron NC and Cheraw, SC.
6. North of Rockingham, NC, the Nascar track looms over everything. It is enormous. Where do all the fans sleep? (In their cars?)
7. Easter Sunday lunch at the Holiday Restaurant in Rockingham is an experience that can be missed.
8. For a description of the SC state capitol building and grounds, and the history of USC, see previous blog.
9. The food in Columbia was not particularly good, and not particularly bad. Our lunch at a health food store and cafe was quite good. We need that here. They have a couple of them there.
10. Cary NC is a suburb of Raleigh and looks pretty upper middle class suburban. Our La Quinta room was fine and, surprisingly, we had a very good dinner at the restaurant next store, Lucky 32, a casual American restaurant (as another restaurant was described to us, it is an "upscale Friday's").
11. The arboretum of NC State in Raleigh was worth a spot, but Raleigh itself seemed a very brusque and business like place. Grey buildings packed together, busy streets, no trees. It is not Columbia. We did, however, find a mighty fine book store there. Mighty fine.
12. Highlights also, of course, were seeing our friends. That goes without saying.
2. Wise, NC. Hardly a town, but rather the first agglomeration of rundown buildings south of the VA-NC border on Route 1 (which then parallels I-85, on their way to South Carolina and Georgia), is located on a rather barren section of this historic national highway (i.e., there is nothing nearby..... at all). There is a gas station/cafe/general store there that, from the outside looks quite unattractive. But, when you go inside, there is no way to call this facility unattractive. Rather, it is the most awful commercial establishment in the country. The store looks like things have never been straightened, the cafe looks like a place no one ever ate in twice (perhaps not even once), and the rest rooms, accessed through a hallway disguised as an abandoned warehouse corridor, have never (and I mean never) been cleaned. It is owned by an Indian (not Native American) family. The wife was hidden out of site, somewhere behind the cafe, a young daughter was playing, and the father (clearly the head of the family) was yelling on a cell phone in an unintelligible language, holding the phone at least three feet from his mouth, the entire time we were there. I bought a NC/SC road map for $3 dollars. I felt very lucky he looked at me long enough to hear my question and, snarling at me, say "Over There!!!). They do not look healthy and wealthy in Wise.
3. The Carolina Inn, right at the UNC campus in Chapel Hill, is a little too staid and formal for my taste. They did have a temporary exhibit in the lobby -- of bird houses made by craftsmen. Many, many birdhouses made by craftsmen. The UNC campus looked just fine.
4. Our Chapel Hill meal, at Vespa, was so-so only. Our waitress, new that day, was a native Italian whose Italian was so good, and her accent so authentic, that you were sure that she was faking it, and it irritated you. She needs a different career. Breakfast at the Carolina Coffee House was better. Our waitress had bright pink hair for Easter. She was good.
5. Larry Doby of Cleveland Indian fame, and jazzman Dizzy Gillespie come from almost-neighboring towns, Cameron NC and Cheraw, SC.
6. North of Rockingham, NC, the Nascar track looms over everything. It is enormous. Where do all the fans sleep? (In their cars?)
7. Easter Sunday lunch at the Holiday Restaurant in Rockingham is an experience that can be missed.
8. For a description of the SC state capitol building and grounds, and the history of USC, see previous blog.
9. The food in Columbia was not particularly good, and not particularly bad. Our lunch at a health food store and cafe was quite good. We need that here. They have a couple of them there.
10. Cary NC is a suburb of Raleigh and looks pretty upper middle class suburban. Our La Quinta room was fine and, surprisingly, we had a very good dinner at the restaurant next store, Lucky 32, a casual American restaurant (as another restaurant was described to us, it is an "upscale Friday's").
11. The arboretum of NC State in Raleigh was worth a spot, but Raleigh itself seemed a very brusque and business like place. Grey buildings packed together, busy streets, no trees. It is not Columbia. We did, however, find a mighty fine book store there. Mighty fine.
12. Highlights also, of course, were seeing our friends. That goes without saying.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Berte Morisot and the National Museum of Women in the Arts
You recall my rave review of the exhibit of Russian painting at the Ripley Center.
I had hoped for a repeat here, but no such luck.
The exhibit is called "Berte Morisot: an Impressionist and Her Circle" and I found it very disappointing.
Berte Morisot was a member of an upper middle class, artistic French family. She married Eduard Manet's brother, Eugene, and died of pneumonia at the young age of 54. Because of her art work, and her family connections, she became very close to most of the French impressionists of the last decades of the 19th century. She was a friend, a fellow artist and a frequent subject. Her brother in law, for example, painted her portrait at least 14 times. Had he not been her brother in law, I wonder how far her career would have taken her.
The exhibit contains about 50 of her paintings, plus a selection by Manet, Renoir, Degas and other well known impressionists. It also includes some paintings by her niece and her sister.
Morisot's paintings were largely, but not exclusively, portraits of women. She also painted some landscapes. She is considered an impressionist, but I would call her an impressionist-lite. With two exceptions, each of her paintings to me looked unfinished, and insufficiently precise (even in terms of impressionistic precision). The two paintings which I liked, one a self portrait painted in 1885 , and one a portrait of her husband, painted in 1875, were two of the four paintings which found their way on to the program's promotional brochure.
Other than those two paintings, whenver I looked at a wall and my eyes were drawn to a particular piece of art, it was always done by someone else. By Degas, by Renoir, by Manet. You get the picture.
The exhibit closes May 8, but I would not go out of my way to see it (unless, of course, you are interested in seeing if you agree with me).
Because I am not a frequent visitor to the National Museum of Women in the Arts, I did go quickly through a large part of the remainder of the museum. And, I am happy to say, I found the permanent collection and other special exhibits much more rewarding than the Morisot, and well worth a visit (or more).
For example, there is a special exhibit of five large abstract works by Sheila Isham, called her Victoria Series. They were painted after her daughter's death from AIDS, and are unrepresentational, but make a powerful statement with their use of reds, blues and purples, and their boldness and sweep. Second, there is a small selection of dry points by Mary Cassatt that have all of the qualities (finish and precision) that Morisot lacks. There is a large room of etchings in sepia, all of which are of top quality, including two large ones by Anna Massey Lea Merritt, and a series by Kathe Kollwitz that are evocative of Germany during the pre-Hitler years.
There are two Frida Kahlo full body self portraits, one of which was dedicated to Leon Trotsky and donated to the museum by Clare Booth Luce. Try to put that one together. There is a large number of 18th French portraits and landscapes, each of which is of very high calibre.
Finally, they have a room with a special Pueblo pottery exhibit. This includes two large bowls, with intricate dark brown geometric patterns that are beautiful. They are from Acoma Pueblo.
Did I ever tell you about the Jewish head of the Acoma Indians? (One day, when things are slow)
I had hoped for a repeat here, but no such luck.
The exhibit is called "Berte Morisot: an Impressionist and Her Circle" and I found it very disappointing.
Berte Morisot was a member of an upper middle class, artistic French family. She married Eduard Manet's brother, Eugene, and died of pneumonia at the young age of 54. Because of her art work, and her family connections, she became very close to most of the French impressionists of the last decades of the 19th century. She was a friend, a fellow artist and a frequent subject. Her brother in law, for example, painted her portrait at least 14 times. Had he not been her brother in law, I wonder how far her career would have taken her.
The exhibit contains about 50 of her paintings, plus a selection by Manet, Renoir, Degas and other well known impressionists. It also includes some paintings by her niece and her sister.
Morisot's paintings were largely, but not exclusively, portraits of women. She also painted some landscapes. She is considered an impressionist, but I would call her an impressionist-lite. With two exceptions, each of her paintings to me looked unfinished, and insufficiently precise (even in terms of impressionistic precision). The two paintings which I liked, one a self portrait painted in 1885 , and one a portrait of her husband, painted in 1875, were two of the four paintings which found their way on to the program's promotional brochure.
Other than those two paintings, whenver I looked at a wall and my eyes were drawn to a particular piece of art, it was always done by someone else. By Degas, by Renoir, by Manet. You get the picture.
The exhibit closes May 8, but I would not go out of my way to see it (unless, of course, you are interested in seeing if you agree with me).
Because I am not a frequent visitor to the National Museum of Women in the Arts, I did go quickly through a large part of the remainder of the museum. And, I am happy to say, I found the permanent collection and other special exhibits much more rewarding than the Morisot, and well worth a visit (or more).
For example, there is a special exhibit of five large abstract works by Sheila Isham, called her Victoria Series. They were painted after her daughter's death from AIDS, and are unrepresentational, but make a powerful statement with their use of reds, blues and purples, and their boldness and sweep. Second, there is a small selection of dry points by Mary Cassatt that have all of the qualities (finish and precision) that Morisot lacks. There is a large room of etchings in sepia, all of which are of top quality, including two large ones by Anna Massey Lea Merritt, and a series by Kathe Kollwitz that are evocative of Germany during the pre-Hitler years.
There are two Frida Kahlo full body self portraits, one of which was dedicated to Leon Trotsky and donated to the museum by Clare Booth Luce. Try to put that one together. There is a large number of 18th French portraits and landscapes, each of which is of very high calibre.
Finally, they have a room with a special Pueblo pottery exhibit. This includes two large bowls, with intricate dark brown geometric patterns that are beautiful. They are from Acoma Pueblo.
Did I ever tell you about the Jewish head of the Acoma Indians? (One day, when things are slow)
Saturday, April 02, 2005
This week's Torah portion: Sh'mini (MODIFIED)
I gave a Dvar Torah today on Sh'mini, so I thought I should at least give an outline of my remarks. I will try to make it interesting and relevant, even for the pagans in the crowd.
Sh'mini is the third portion of Leviticus, the third book of the Torah. It follows the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness to God's specifications, and two portions on the detailed rules of sacrifice. It is now the time for the first sacrifices to be offered in the new tabernacle. Leviticus, the book of laws, picks up the trail where Exodus left off and continues the historic narrative.
God, through Moses, instructs Aaron on how to perform the sacrifices at the opening ceremony of the tabernacle. Aaron follows these procedures, but then two of his children, Nadab and Abihu, bring "alien fire" and presumably try to sacrifice in a way other than as instructed. They are immediately burned to death through some mysterious fire that emenates from God. Aaron is not allowed to mourn.
Here for now, the narrative ends, and Leviticus, true to its name and major characteristic, continues with the recitation of various divinely given laws. First comes the listing of allowed and forbidden foods, the rules of kashrut, and then rules on ritual cleanliness and purity, all again spoken by God through Moses.
The story of Nadab and Abihu is a very unpleasant one, morally ambiguous at best (and that is probably an exaggeration), and not necessary. The rabbis have tried to rationalize it, but I do not find that they have been successful.
I thought of Thomas Jefferson, and his desire to simplify the bible (he was dealing with the New Testament) by eliminating all of the supernatural and the historical, and sticking only with the ethical teachings of Jesus. He actually re-wrote the bible, thinking that his text would form the quintessential American scriptures. He was wrong of course. You cannot change these texts just because you would like to. But it was a good attempt.
Jefferson was coming at this from a Deistic perspective, with a creator God, who did not intervene in the works or activities of his creation. Judaism, on the other hand, is filled with divine intervention, and its Torah is primarily a story of the Jewish people and their often troubled relationship with God over time.
You can think of God, I believe, as having three different attributes (sorry, I do not think I am becoming trinitarian). First, there is the Internal God, the one you pray to when you are in trouble or need of support, and the one you thank for seeing you through the difficult times; this God appears to be almost universal, irrespective of your particular denominational adherence. Then, there is the Creator God, the one who created the universe, whether in the literal manner set forth in the first chapters of Genesis, or through what is for now known as the Big Bang; the Deists would add this to the Internal God. Finally, there is the Intervenor God, the one who brought the Jews of out of Egypt or sent Jesus to redeem the people or gave the Koran to Mohammed. It is this Intervening God that gets us all into trouble.
There are many sections in the Jewish scriptures (and therefore also the Christian) that show the Intervening God in quite a bad light. Stories that, like Nadab and Abihu, seem ethically indefensible. I am thinking about such things as the killing of the first born in Egypt, the slaughter of at least 75,000 non-Jews following the death of Haman in the book of Esther, Joshua's killing all of the inhabitants of Hazor as he retook Canaan, the killing of all of the men of the village of Dinah's captors, the murder of his daughter by Jephthah to fulfill a vow made to God. And there are many others.
We are not going to rewrite the text a la Jefferson, to alter the reported interventions of God, but perhaps we
can begin to treat these reported events (most of which have little detailed historical evidence, of course) in a different manner.
Now, the killing of the first born is, in effect, celebrated on Passover; the slaughter of the 75,000 non-Jews read from the Book of Esther on Purim in a carnival-like atmosphere; the murder of the inhabitants of Hazor viewed as clearly justified as the Israelites were simply taking The Land back, as had been promised them; and events like the death of Nadab and Abihu rationalized away (they were sons of priests and needed to have exemplary behavior; they were bringing pagan customs into the tabernacle; they were out for their own glory and not for God's, etc.).
If this event in fact occurred, I would think that Nadab and Abihu died because of some freak accident, and not because God ordained their death (but I am not much of an interventionist). So, why can't we interpret it in that way, or in some other way that does not set it up as an example as what happens if you are "over zealous" or if you stray outside of the rules.
By holding on to the current midrashic interpretations, it seems to me that, even in this one parsha Sh'mini, we set ourselves up for a paradoxical result that is untenable, although I have never seen anyone tie these two things together. Here goes:
The rules of kashrut are very clear in the text. Eat this, and do not eat that. There is nothing there about not mixing dairy and meat dishes, or about not eating chicken and cheese together, or waiting a certain amount of time between eating certain foods, or being able to eat cold before hot, but not hot before cold (or whatever the rule is), or about how animals are to be slaughtered.
These additional rules were all rabbinical extrapolations of the text.
What is the difference, when you come right down to it, between Aaron's sons zeal regarding sacrifices at the tabernacle, and the rabbis' zeal regarding increasingly arcane rules of kashrut. If God struck down Abihu and Nadab, why does he not do the same to those who shun chicken Kiev?
Sh'mini is the third portion of Leviticus, the third book of the Torah. It follows the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness to God's specifications, and two portions on the detailed rules of sacrifice. It is now the time for the first sacrifices to be offered in the new tabernacle. Leviticus, the book of laws, picks up the trail where Exodus left off and continues the historic narrative.
God, through Moses, instructs Aaron on how to perform the sacrifices at the opening ceremony of the tabernacle. Aaron follows these procedures, but then two of his children, Nadab and Abihu, bring "alien fire" and presumably try to sacrifice in a way other than as instructed. They are immediately burned to death through some mysterious fire that emenates from God. Aaron is not allowed to mourn.
Here for now, the narrative ends, and Leviticus, true to its name and major characteristic, continues with the recitation of various divinely given laws. First comes the listing of allowed and forbidden foods, the rules of kashrut, and then rules on ritual cleanliness and purity, all again spoken by God through Moses.
The story of Nadab and Abihu is a very unpleasant one, morally ambiguous at best (and that is probably an exaggeration), and not necessary. The rabbis have tried to rationalize it, but I do not find that they have been successful.
I thought of Thomas Jefferson, and his desire to simplify the bible (he was dealing with the New Testament) by eliminating all of the supernatural and the historical, and sticking only with the ethical teachings of Jesus. He actually re-wrote the bible, thinking that his text would form the quintessential American scriptures. He was wrong of course. You cannot change these texts just because you would like to. But it was a good attempt.
Jefferson was coming at this from a Deistic perspective, with a creator God, who did not intervene in the works or activities of his creation. Judaism, on the other hand, is filled with divine intervention, and its Torah is primarily a story of the Jewish people and their often troubled relationship with God over time.
You can think of God, I believe, as having three different attributes (sorry, I do not think I am becoming trinitarian). First, there is the Internal God, the one you pray to when you are in trouble or need of support, and the one you thank for seeing you through the difficult times; this God appears to be almost universal, irrespective of your particular denominational adherence. Then, there is the Creator God, the one who created the universe, whether in the literal manner set forth in the first chapters of Genesis, or through what is for now known as the Big Bang; the Deists would add this to the Internal God. Finally, there is the Intervenor God, the one who brought the Jews of out of Egypt or sent Jesus to redeem the people or gave the Koran to Mohammed. It is this Intervening God that gets us all into trouble.
There are many sections in the Jewish scriptures (and therefore also the Christian) that show the Intervening God in quite a bad light. Stories that, like Nadab and Abihu, seem ethically indefensible. I am thinking about such things as the killing of the first born in Egypt, the slaughter of at least 75,000 non-Jews following the death of Haman in the book of Esther, Joshua's killing all of the inhabitants of Hazor as he retook Canaan, the killing of all of the men of the village of Dinah's captors, the murder of his daughter by Jephthah to fulfill a vow made to God. And there are many others.
We are not going to rewrite the text a la Jefferson, to alter the reported interventions of God, but perhaps we
can begin to treat these reported events (most of which have little detailed historical evidence, of course) in a different manner.
Now, the killing of the first born is, in effect, celebrated on Passover; the slaughter of the 75,000 non-Jews read from the Book of Esther on Purim in a carnival-like atmosphere; the murder of the inhabitants of Hazor viewed as clearly justified as the Israelites were simply taking The Land back, as had been promised them; and events like the death of Nadab and Abihu rationalized away (they were sons of priests and needed to have exemplary behavior; they were bringing pagan customs into the tabernacle; they were out for their own glory and not for God's, etc.).
If this event in fact occurred, I would think that Nadab and Abihu died because of some freak accident, and not because God ordained their death (but I am not much of an interventionist). So, why can't we interpret it in that way, or in some other way that does not set it up as an example as what happens if you are "over zealous" or if you stray outside of the rules.
By holding on to the current midrashic interpretations, it seems to me that, even in this one parsha Sh'mini, we set ourselves up for a paradoxical result that is untenable, although I have never seen anyone tie these two things together. Here goes:
The rules of kashrut are very clear in the text. Eat this, and do not eat that. There is nothing there about not mixing dairy and meat dishes, or about not eating chicken and cheese together, or waiting a certain amount of time between eating certain foods, or being able to eat cold before hot, but not hot before cold (or whatever the rule is), or about how animals are to be slaughtered.
These additional rules were all rabbinical extrapolations of the text.
What is the difference, when you come right down to it, between Aaron's sons zeal regarding sacrifices at the tabernacle, and the rabbis' zeal regarding increasingly arcane rules of kashrut. If God struck down Abihu and Nadab, why does he not do the same to those who shun chicken Kiev?
Robert Mitchum, John Wayne and Natalie Wood
What do they have in common? In my mind, their common characteristics were two. First, they were enormous movie stars. Second, they could not act.
How can this be?
In the same vein, what about Tony Bennett? Everyone loves Tony Bennett? Don't they care that he cannot (and apparently never has been able to) carry a tune?
And, finally, there is Larry King. How is it that Larry King is such a respected interviewer? His questions are pedestrian. He has little ability to ask follow up questions based on the answers of his interviewees. And, if he understands anything about the topics being discussed on his show, he usually hides it completely.
I know I sound like I am belittling these folks, who I am sure are/were terrific individuals and good to their mothers, but I gotta get this out on the table. It's been on my mind, and I'd like to know the answer.
How can this be?
In the same vein, what about Tony Bennett? Everyone loves Tony Bennett? Don't they care that he cannot (and apparently never has been able to) carry a tune?
And, finally, there is Larry King. How is it that Larry King is such a respected interviewer? His questions are pedestrian. He has little ability to ask follow up questions based on the answers of his interviewees. And, if he understands anything about the topics being discussed on his show, he usually hides it completely.
I know I sound like I am belittling these folks, who I am sure are/were terrific individuals and good to their mothers, but I gotta get this out on the table. It's been on my mind, and I'd like to know the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)