I am going to be one of those people who hands in her paper sometime before Tuesday- and here is all I have to say:
"I believe that the greatest trick of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to become religious. If he can sink a man's mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God."
-Blue Like Jazz
It's one of my favorite books of all time. It's full of 'nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality'.... you should read it, & let me know if you do.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Imagery by the Sea
Wallace Stevens’ poetry contains several allusions to some sort of hidden spirituality or concept of a greater power. ‘The Idea of Order at Key West’ is a lulling tale that mixes the rhapsody of a woman’s’ wandering song with the power of the mysterious and yet familiar sea. The confusion as to who is singing the song, the sea or a person walking along its beaches, is parallel to each person’s attempt to try and differentiate between what is human and what is potentially derived from some higher power. The author also asserts independence in the woman’s voice, saying that she ‘strides alone’, she ‘was the single artificer of the world’, and that ‘she was the maker of the song she sang’. The mingling of references to the sky, sea, air, horizon, and water paint a visual picture of the scene, and yet despite this concreteness the imagery points to something much more powerful and otherworldly. By combining the song of a woman by the sea with beautiful visualization and abstract concepts, Stevens’ creates a tale that the reader is free to interpret and mold into something personal and individual.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Guardians of the Secret
When I first looked at ‘Guardians of the Secret’, I immediately received an impression that did not change upon further analysis or class discussion. My interpretation is of four guards guarding the white area, while a bloody mass lies underneath. Because the white box is in the center of the drawing, I believe that the ‘secret’ is behind it, which would make it more of a sheet instead of a box. The guards can see the secret, why is why they are dead/skeletal looking or because they are dead/skeletal looking. The colors on the sheet match the colors in the bloody mass underneath, which gives the impression that the people underneath had at one point tried to permeate the sheet, to discover the secret. The intimidating aura of the guards is what leads to the belief of the blood and gore- if the guards had been clean-cut or less evil and dead like, a viewer would probably never think that the space under the sheet contained dead bodies. Finally, the secret is clearly a very important one. The fact that it requires four scary guards and it has caused the death of many people leads one to believe that the secret must be imperative- and worth giving your life for.
Analyzing art is an interesting comparative to analyzing religion. Many believe that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and that there is no right or wrong method of elucidation. Many apply this subjective view to the religious world, as well. While everyone is influenced by their unique worldviews and perspectives, I believe one of the crucial functions of a religious belief is being confident enough in that faith to assert the existence of a right and wrong- that the world is objective.
When examining a painting, it is interesting to hear the opinions of the class and try to analyze my own thoughts- however I believe, in the end, that the artist had an expressed intent, purpose, motivation for creating the drawing in the first place that may not correspond with interpretations of the class. According to the author, I believe there is a right and wrong way of interpreting the drawing. Many people may disagree with this, but I would argue that even if the artist did not intend to install his own beliefs on his viewers, then this is his expressed intent, purpose, and motivation. The lack of a boundary is its own boundary- if everyone is supposed to have their own interpretation, then this is its own rule of understanding for that painting. For this particular drawing, this is the ‘right’ way of interpretation, and the ‘wrong’ way is to try to enforce individual beliefs on anyone else.
The same is with religion. Because I believe that the author intended for everyone to understand Him, there must be a right and wrong in the universe, and in the conclusions of interpretations of religion.
Analyzing art is an interesting comparative to analyzing religion. Many believe that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and that there is no right or wrong method of elucidation. Many apply this subjective view to the religious world, as well. While everyone is influenced by their unique worldviews and perspectives, I believe one of the crucial functions of a religious belief is being confident enough in that faith to assert the existence of a right and wrong- that the world is objective.
When examining a painting, it is interesting to hear the opinions of the class and try to analyze my own thoughts- however I believe, in the end, that the artist had an expressed intent, purpose, motivation for creating the drawing in the first place that may not correspond with interpretations of the class. According to the author, I believe there is a right and wrong way of interpreting the drawing. Many people may disagree with this, but I would argue that even if the artist did not intend to install his own beliefs on his viewers, then this is his expressed intent, purpose, and motivation. The lack of a boundary is its own boundary- if everyone is supposed to have their own interpretation, then this is its own rule of understanding for that painting. For this particular drawing, this is the ‘right’ way of interpretation, and the ‘wrong’ way is to try to enforce individual beliefs on anyone else.
The same is with religion. Because I believe that the author intended for everyone to understand Him, there must be a right and wrong in the universe, and in the conclusions of interpretations of religion.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Reflection on Reflection
As I was reading my classmates’ blogs, I noticed that Tom wrote about our meditation session from a few classes ago, and I realized that I also had not had a chance to comment on that experience.
I was one of those annoying people who could not sit still; I just kept moving around and watching everyone else, not really trying to calm down and just wishing my desk were about six inches bigger so I could really lie down and fall asleep. For some reason I felt frustrated with the fact that I was being asked to just sit still for twenty minutes. I immediately thought of the reading I had to catch up on for a class, and the reading and paper and project coming up for another. I tried reading some homework, and then felt blatantly obnoxious when I had to turn a page. I found the silence stifling and oppressive, and I felt suddenly forced into the present and my surroundings, as if the moment I was asked not to pay attention and not to focus, paying attention and focusing became inescapable and was the only thing I could think about. This feeling lasted about ten minutes.
The second half I was able to zone out and almost convince myself that I was meditating- or at least not bothering anyone else. I knew I could “meditate”, or pray, but I was nowhere near the correct mindset. I prayed for a while, sure, but I did not feel as though I was mentally into it. So I proceeded to daydream and stare blankly at objects around the room.
Needless to say, I failed miserably in this experience of meditation. However, if I find myself mentally prepared and in the right mindset, I think I’ll be able to succeed in this task someday.
I was one of those annoying people who could not sit still; I just kept moving around and watching everyone else, not really trying to calm down and just wishing my desk were about six inches bigger so I could really lie down and fall asleep. For some reason I felt frustrated with the fact that I was being asked to just sit still for twenty minutes. I immediately thought of the reading I had to catch up on for a class, and the reading and paper and project coming up for another. I tried reading some homework, and then felt blatantly obnoxious when I had to turn a page. I found the silence stifling and oppressive, and I felt suddenly forced into the present and my surroundings, as if the moment I was asked not to pay attention and not to focus, paying attention and focusing became inescapable and was the only thing I could think about. This feeling lasted about ten minutes.
The second half I was able to zone out and almost convince myself that I was meditating- or at least not bothering anyone else. I knew I could “meditate”, or pray, but I was nowhere near the correct mindset. I prayed for a while, sure, but I did not feel as though I was mentally into it. So I proceeded to daydream and stare blankly at objects around the room.
Needless to say, I failed miserably in this experience of meditation. However, if I find myself mentally prepared and in the right mindset, I think I’ll be able to succeed in this task someday.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Frames
This post is in response to a topic discussed at length in the last class session. Professor Smith pointed out that after September 11, people everywhere would never think of watching a basketball game- those games are cancelled, and the news is on 24/7. However, a church- any church- would never close after such an event. Churches stayed open for days and nights, so people could enter at will and seek the comfort that had disappeared from their everyday life. Many people have become Christians after events such as 9/11, and their testimony will often involve something along the lines of ‘it took an event/tragedy such as ___ for me to realize the need I have for Jesus”. This occurrence, this tragic event, has become that person’s ‘ultimate frame’.
While I agree that people as a whole may be assigned frames that include the group as a single, cohesive unit, I also think that each individual also has an ‘ultimate frame’ that shapes and influences every decision that individual makes. This frame can change- and it often does throughout a life- but whatever that frame is, it is the most important authority in that person’s life.
For some people, the frame is their faith, their lack of faith, their family, their job, or their life. What is inside this frame dictates what kind of life that person will lead, and what will constitute a ‘good’ or ‘fulfilled’ life for that person.
What is your frame?
While I agree that people as a whole may be assigned frames that include the group as a single, cohesive unit, I also think that each individual also has an ‘ultimate frame’ that shapes and influences every decision that individual makes. This frame can change- and it often does throughout a life- but whatever that frame is, it is the most important authority in that person’s life.
For some people, the frame is their faith, their lack of faith, their family, their job, or their life. What is inside this frame dictates what kind of life that person will lead, and what will constitute a ‘good’ or ‘fulfilled’ life for that person.
What is your frame?
The Urban Experience
The treasure hunt may finally end! In the ‘Historical Narrative’ section, under ‘Beginnings of Settlement Life in Chicago’, and ‘Garnering Support for Hull-House from the Clergy’ is an enlightening article about the involvement of religiously affiliated people with the establishment of Hull House.
Jane Adams and Ellen Starr clearly had some skill in networking. They garnered the support of Moody, Fourth Presbyterian, and Plymouth Congregational Churches, which then “gave the two young women an entre to the respectable and influential business elite engaged in Christian social outreach in the city associated with these congregations”. This groundwork of support is crucial in launching the Hull House program, as the support of several churches is helpful in validating the presence of the two women, alone in the city. While this public support offers a sense of legitimacy to the aims and goals of Adams and Starr, the article also mentions a clash between the conservative and liberal pastors. Clearly, Adams and Starr had to be careful to maintain the support of arguing benefactors, especially when “Adams and Starr received support from David Swing, originally at Fourth Presbyterian, where his views clashed with the conservative Presbyterian synod and with Cyrus H. McCormick, influential benefactor”. While the founders of Hull House were able to gain the support of several respectable churches in Chicago, these churches were not all united with each other, and their feuding certainly was a cause of concern for Jane Adams and Ellen Starr.
Jane Adams and Ellen Starr clearly had some skill in networking. They garnered the support of Moody, Fourth Presbyterian, and Plymouth Congregational Churches, which then “gave the two young women an entre to the respectable and influential business elite engaged in Christian social outreach in the city associated with these congregations”. This groundwork of support is crucial in launching the Hull House program, as the support of several churches is helpful in validating the presence of the two women, alone in the city. While this public support offers a sense of legitimacy to the aims and goals of Adams and Starr, the article also mentions a clash between the conservative and liberal pastors. Clearly, Adams and Starr had to be careful to maintain the support of arguing benefactors, especially when “Adams and Starr received support from David Swing, originally at Fourth Presbyterian, where his views clashed with the conservative Presbyterian synod and with Cyrus H. McCormick, influential benefactor”. While the founders of Hull House were able to gain the support of several respectable churches in Chicago, these churches were not all united with each other, and their feuding certainly was a cause of concern for Jane Adams and Ellen Starr.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Digression
I have decided to dedicate one of this week’s blogs to an event that has been a predominant factor in my life for the last two weeks. The Pistons-Bulls match up in the second round of the NBA playoffs contains several of the themes that have been discussed over the course of this class. While some may be skeptical as to the relatedness of basketball and the thematic elements of religion, I would strongly argue otherwise.
The amount of fervor and dedication that is generated by die-hard fans contains some of the elements found in any religious belief. While clearly religious belief is much more deep and generally meaningful then the ‘belief’ of committed followers of basketball, some of the underlying methods of thought and reasoning are not necessarily unique to religious contemplation or attention.
Basketball fans attend games, make time to watch matches on TV, follow players, statistics, numbers, drafts, and their favorite teams. There is not a connection between basketball and ‘religion’ per say, but many themes that people affiliate with religious belief, such as the time commitment, passionate involvement, or personal association are clearly similar characteristics.
In addition, the vehemence and vigor with which fans defend their teams, particularly against other rivals, resembles the same defiance and loyalty believers feel toward their faith. The staunchness and allegiance a Pistons or Bulls fan feels while watching a game can also be found in many of the blogs or class discussions. Wherever people feel a deep commitment to any philosophical thought- even as ‘shallow’ as a sports allegiance, passions will fly and debate will be sparked. The land of sports is no different.
The amount of fervor and dedication that is generated by die-hard fans contains some of the elements found in any religious belief. While clearly religious belief is much more deep and generally meaningful then the ‘belief’ of committed followers of basketball, some of the underlying methods of thought and reasoning are not necessarily unique to religious contemplation or attention.
Basketball fans attend games, make time to watch matches on TV, follow players, statistics, numbers, drafts, and their favorite teams. There is not a connection between basketball and ‘religion’ per say, but many themes that people affiliate with religious belief, such as the time commitment, passionate involvement, or personal association are clearly similar characteristics.
In addition, the vehemence and vigor with which fans defend their teams, particularly against other rivals, resembles the same defiance and loyalty believers feel toward their faith. The staunchness and allegiance a Pistons or Bulls fan feels while watching a game can also be found in many of the blogs or class discussions. Wherever people feel a deep commitment to any philosophical thought- even as ‘shallow’ as a sports allegiance, passions will fly and debate will be sparked. The land of sports is no different.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
One aspect of Bob Marley’s lyrics that is specifically influential in his message is his use of inclusive terminology. His repetition of naming his listeners as ‘we’ may subliminally invoke an affiliation toward Marley’s message, and ignite a kind of common bond that breaches the gap between artist and audience.
This system makes sense, because the best way to instigate a gathering is to put yourself at the same level as those you are ‘recruiting’- in a sense. Marley is the master of this method. His lyrics are filled to the brim with ‘we’ ‘our’ ‘ourselves’, etc. A prime example is in ‘Exodus’. “So WE gonna walk…WE’RE the generation…WE know where WE’RE going...WE know where WE’RE from…WE’RE leaving Babylon, WE’RE going to OUR fatherland…” This creates a common group of people with a similar background, shared current struggles, and a unified goal for the future. It is an all-inclusive, feel-good message that anyone can relate to and join because it is vague enough to support anyone’s feelings.
The same holds true with ‘Jamming’ and ‘Redemption Song’.
Jamming: “WE can do it anyhow…WE neither beg nor WE won’t bow…WE all defend the right…”
Redemption Song: “WE forward in this generation triumphantly…none but yourselves can free OUR minds…how long shall THEY kill OUR prophets while WE stand aside and look…”
This separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is another source of unity within the lyrics. Its Marley and his listeners against whatever enemy the audience chooses. The ‘man’, ‘big businesses’, the ‘killers of the prophets’, etc, are all appropriate choices for the ‘them’. The ‘us’ is those who support Marley’s message, which is basically whatever you choose it to be.
Some may argue that it is just music, and the message and lyrics aren’t necessarily used to generate a following. This is true to some extent, but whenever an artist has an agenda for which his music is an outlet, I think independent thinking is vital when listening to this message.
This system makes sense, because the best way to instigate a gathering is to put yourself at the same level as those you are ‘recruiting’- in a sense. Marley is the master of this method. His lyrics are filled to the brim with ‘we’ ‘our’ ‘ourselves’, etc. A prime example is in ‘Exodus’. “So WE gonna walk…WE’RE the generation…WE know where WE’RE going...WE know where WE’RE from…WE’RE leaving Babylon, WE’RE going to OUR fatherland…” This creates a common group of people with a similar background, shared current struggles, and a unified goal for the future. It is an all-inclusive, feel-good message that anyone can relate to and join because it is vague enough to support anyone’s feelings.
The same holds true with ‘Jamming’ and ‘Redemption Song’.
Jamming: “WE can do it anyhow…WE neither beg nor WE won’t bow…WE all defend the right…”
Redemption Song: “WE forward in this generation triumphantly…none but yourselves can free OUR minds…how long shall THEY kill OUR prophets while WE stand aside and look…”
This separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is another source of unity within the lyrics. Its Marley and his listeners against whatever enemy the audience chooses. The ‘man’, ‘big businesses’, the ‘killers of the prophets’, etc, are all appropriate choices for the ‘them’. The ‘us’ is those who support Marley’s message, which is basically whatever you choose it to be.
Some may argue that it is just music, and the message and lyrics aren’t necessarily used to generate a following. This is true to some extent, but whenever an artist has an agenda for which his music is an outlet, I think independent thinking is vital when listening to this message.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Noah in the Zohar
I would like to expand upon my previous post regarding the different perspectives of the biblical character Noah, focusing on the interpretation found in the ‘Zohar’. I would like to try and account for why Noah is presented in such different ways, and how the background and current events surrounding the author may have influenced the stratified outcomes.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the text familiar to one religious tradition says about Noah.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the text familiar to one religious tradition says about Noah.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
Noah in the Zohar
I would like to expand upon my previous post regarding the different perspectives of the biblical character Noah, focusing on the interpretation found in the ‘Zohar’. I would like to try and account for why Noah is presented in such different ways, and how the background and current events surrounding the author may have influenced the stratified outcomes.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the original text says about Noah; because I’m assuming that this is from where the ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra Negast’ first derived the story.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the original text says about Noah; because I’m assuming that this is from where the ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra Negast’ first derived the story.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)