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.

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.

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.

Nationalism and Identity

Carissa mentioned in her blog ‘Ethiopia and Zion’ how the Ethiopians believed themselves to be of equal status as the Israelites, only lacking in wisdom. When they acquired the Arc of the Covenant, this gave Ethiopia even more status. This is a very important aspect of the narrative, and it sheds light on what may be the purpose for its creation. The continuous and underlying theme of ‘pro-Ethiopia’ throughout the text definitely alludes to a type of prehistoric propaganda that is repeated again and again throughout history- the methods have not changed. As discussed in class today, the ‘Kebra Negast’ gives an identity to all Ethiopians. It creates an ‘us’ that a specific group can relate and adhere to, and it provides a sense of unity much like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or the Communist Manifesto. This text caters to the individual and group by offering a mentality that can fit all people of a certain group on the basis of similar nationality. I believe this is a great part of the appeal of the text, and the reason for its popularity- it provides a centralization and unification of a broad group of people; a bond that unites a nation.

The Importance of Narrative

For some reason, reading parts 1 and 2 of Kebra Negast reminded me of the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ series I used to love when I was growing up. I believe the reason for this is the way in which the writers of this text seem to choose which direction they were going to take the story- as based on the solidified previous publication of the Bible. They deviated from the set structure when it was appropriately vague enough to fill in their own detail, while always returning to the basic storyline. This separation and reunion gives the entire work an air of legitimacy and authority- the connection to a text already accepted and allocated authority automatically puts this new text within the same realm and with the potential to have the same status. This method is the most logical way to present new information, as molded to the needs of the writers.

This system most accurately fits the narrative storytelling as seen in the readings. The narrative voice gives the recording of events an air of a legitimate sequence of occurrences as vouched for by the personal author, who is in direct appeal to the readers. This is not a message as relayed through time and storytellers, but a straight and undeviating narrative voice that severs the margin for disbelief and contradictions (it is hard to find contradictions when the whole story is told by the same author with a singular point of view).

If I were to try and make up a story to fit my specific agenda, taking a widespread and popular text and expanding upon its vaguer points would be the most intelligent means toward accomplishing this goal. The narrative voice then compliments this mission perfectly.

Noah: Good or Bad?

One interesting distinction between ‘The Queen of Sheba and her only Son Menyelek’ and the ‘Zohar’ is the approach taken in regard to Noah. The ‘Zohar’ reproached Noah because he did not ‘shield his generation and did not pray for them like Abraham…he did not care and did not ask for mercy, he just built the ark and the whole world was destroyed’ (pg 58-59, Zohar). The Kebra Negast, however, says ‘…as for Noah, he humbled himself, and offered up sacrifice, and he cried out, and groaned, and wept. And God held converse with Noah, who said, “If Thou wilt destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, blot Thou me out with those who are to perish” And God said unto him, “I will make a covenant with thee that…I, on My part, that I will not destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, and that I will give unto thy children Winter and Summer, Seedtime and Harvest, Autumn and Spring.’ (6-7, Kebra).

These two interpretations portray Noah in drastically different lights. In ‘Zohar’, Noah is made accountable for the flood because he did not stand up for his people and plead to God on their behalf. Noah is chastised for not being as caring or protective as Abraham or Moses, both of whom pledged their pledged their lives in the attempt to save their people. In ‘Kebra’, Noah is presented precisely as Abraham and Moses are in ‘Zohar’. He pleads to God, and he asks that he be killed with his people if God decides to flood the world again. When God then promises that he will never again destroy the world by flood, Noah may be credited for this security.

These two differences demonstrate how different perspectives and authors influence the writings of historical texts. The portrayal of one book or work may create a person worthy to be praised, or it may make that same person into an example of what not to do. The ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra’ both offer different portrayals of Noah and his actions regarding the flooding of the world.

Response to Catrina

I believe that Catrina’s post ‘Religion and Music’ exemplifies one of the most fundamentally important aspects of belief. It is when events such as the Virginia Tech tragedy occur that people most clearly feel the peace and comfort that God provides every hour of every day to every person in the world. While Catrina refers to music as its own religion, I strongly believe that the deeper sense of security and knowing that reunion with the people taken from us will one day occur comes from not some vague idea or concept of ‘religion’, but from the strength and love of God that resonates in the heart of each human being, in some way.