|
September 29, 2009
Taking Literalism literally?
There are those who believe that taking the Bible literally can be a form of satire, and cartoonist R. Crumb is one of them: PARIS -- Subversive US cartoonist Robert Crumb, whose take on the Bible is about to be released worldwide, says people are "totally nuts" for taking the book so seriously for so long.I've looked at some of the drawings, and they are so loyal to the text that had Crumb instead announced that he had found God, he'd have likely been proclaimed a new Jack T. Chick. Via Ann Althouse, here's a link to Crumb's pictorial representation of Sodom and Gomorrah. From a religious perspective, the book violates the Second Commandment: Certainly from a Jewish perspective, it violates the second of the Ten Commandments. And it won't go down well with traditional Muslims either. But for Christians, it's no big deal.Few Christians have religious objections to Michelangelo's depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel. But if Crumb thinks the Bible is nuts, his depictions are unlikely to be appreciated, no matter how loyal they may be to the text. Had an atheist made the same version of "The Passion" as Mel Gibson, it would have had a very different reception -- on both sides. Yet isn't there a paradox here? If we assume the Second Commandment controls depictions of God, wouldn't it be more binding on believers than on unbelievers? If Crumb thinks a religious law is nonsense, how can he be said to have violated it? Here's the relevant portion of the Second Commandment (which I've had a lot of trouble interpreting: If you take that literally, it kind of ruins things for art and photography. But if you don't take it literally, then how slippery is the slope? (I don't worry about these things too much, because even though I'm not an atheist where it comes to belief in God or gods, I have serious logical problems with the idea of God as text.) posted by Eric on 09.29.09 at 10:55 AM
Comments
Ohhhh! How subversive. Why, nobody makes fun of Christians or the Bible because they're so scary. I for one am truly outraged over the illustration linked. If he says anything about being "brave" for doing this, he's an idiot as well as a girly-boy. As you said, do one on Mohamed or the Koran and then talk to me about being brave. Veeshir · September 29, 2009 12:07 PM Veeshir, women who look like "neanderthal with hairy legs and stuff" are precisely what turns Crumb on. While it never occurred to me that this was in any way "brave," I certainly agree that it would have been brave for him to portray Mohamad. However, considering his portrayal of the prophet Abraham, I'd say he'd already be considered a candidate for an Islamic fatwa: http://www.tcj.com/messboard/viewtopic.php?p=101936&sid=f09ce570110aa0153a6f0cc386d0619e In any event, I would not want to be caught with his book in Saudi Arabia. I don't know whether I was being brave, but I got lots of huffy comments when I featured the Mohamad cartoons: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2006/01/cartoons_your_n.html I wasn't intending to be brave, though. I just don't like being told what I can and cannot do. Eric Scheie · September 29, 2009 12:27 PM BTW, there is nothing in the Koran which forbids images of Mohammad specifically; there's a Mohammad image right on the U.S. Supreme Court building! http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11107 How dare they try to have it sandblasted off! Eric Scheie · September 29, 2009 12:39 PM > If you take that literally, it kind of ruins things for art and photography. > But if you don't take it literally, then how slippery is the slope? To the extent that you are asking a serious question, and not just making a rhetorical point, this question has been asked, and answered, in Talmud. To simplify considerably: (a) a "graven image" is carved or otherwise constructed in three dimensions. A photograph, tapestry, or painting does not count. (b) the prohibition is against a graven image used for idol worship. This would include (e.g.) a statue of Buddha or Ganesh, or a Catholic crucifix. Trying to understand Jewish law from Torah while ignoring Talmud is like trying to understand physics by studying Aristotle while ignoring Newton, Liebniz, and so forth. Lyn Thomas · September 29, 2009 02:38 PM Actually, I was asking a serious question, and also making a rhetorical point. Thanks for your answer. But now I'm also wondering... Shouldn't those who believe in literal interpretations of Old Testament law also be consulting the Talmud? Or does all analysis begin and end with the words of the KJV? Eric Scheie · September 29, 2009 02:45 PM Time to return to the Old Time Religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. M. Simon · September 29, 2009 04:13 PM Pelagius · September 29, 2009 05:00 PM It all depends on the canonicity issues, Eric. The analysis should by rights begin and end with the original language manuscripts, rather than any translations and/or commentaries (which is, after all, what the Talmud is from the Christian perspective). The Jewish canon includes the Talmud and the Mishna, but the Christian canon does not, and vice versa for the New Testament. Yes, it is a good idea to study them to understand what the Jews were thinking at the time. Lyn, The Catholics do not *worship* the crucifix, or any other representation of the cross. At least, I would hope not. I would be interested to know what the Talmud thinks about holograms, though. Ultimately also, it's not *literal* interpretation; it's *plain* interpretation. Some passages are obviously poetical in nature and should be evaluated as such. Others are obviously historical in nature and should be evaluated as such. Gregory · September 29, 2009 10:51 PM A plain reading will tell you only what the text says, not what law is binding, or on whom. According to the Council of Jerusalem, most Jewish religious laws were held NOT to be binding on Christians. But then why would the Council of Jerusalem be binding on Christians if it is not in the Bible? These things are not clear at all, and to characterize human disputes and human writings as God talking strikes me as illogical, if not ridiculous. Eric Scheie · September 29, 2009 11:03 PM Ahem? The Council of Jerusalem, the one spoken about in the Acts of the Apostles, one of the books of the Bible? That one? Methinks either your logic is missing something or my comprehension is somewhat lacking somewhere. NONE of the Old Testament laws are binding on ANY Christian ANYWHERE. This is because the Law of Moses was given to the Israelites during the time of National Israel and no one else. However, even Paul marvels that even though Gentiles don't have the Law, somehow they still act as if they possessed a form of the Law anyways. God also states that He will write His laws on the hearts of all men, instead of inscribing them on stone tablets. Christians referring to Leviticus and Deuteronomy had better understand that it's not that the Law of Moses is binding, but that it reveals exactly how God feels and thinks about certain actions. Basic Christian Theology 201 stuff, if you ask me. Gregory · September 30, 2009 01:29 AM I'm glad you think it's Basic Christian Theology 201 stuff, because the people who want to "restore God's law" have a totally different view. As to the Council of Jerusalem, I've discussed it before: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2003/11/christian_heres.html And there's a Wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem My point is, many of the people most loudly calling themselves Christians simply do not consider themselves bound by the Council of Jerusalem at all, yet they do consider themselves bound by Old Testament law. Who gets to decide what God said or meant? And on whose behalf? Eric Scheie · September 30, 2009 11:33 AM Eric, you asked why the Council of Jerusalem would be binding on Christians if it's not in the Bible. I'm saying that it *is* in the Bible - even your citations agree. I'm confused by what you mean, is all. You will notice that at the time of the Council, there was a large amount of friction between 'Judaisers' and Gentile believers. The Judaisers reasonably maintain their Jewish traditions, seeing as Jesus, the Twelve and St Paul were all Jews. Their position was therefore that Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promises - which He is. And therefore, those who wanted to have a share in God's promises should be bound by God's Law. But Peter pointed out that Jesus has fulfilled the Law - and hence it is no longer binding on either Jew or Gentile. The four compromises you note? Those were considered *necessary* compromises - because there was no way on earth any Jew would associate with an unclean person, which any of those four would have done, and that would have defeated their mission to witness. Paul later on goes and says that people are free, but that freedom has responsibilities; if your brother is weaker, do not stumble his walk with the Lord. Is it still necessary to follow those four prohibitions? I argue that if you are witnessing to people who consider those sinful, then yes, it is necessary. Foe example, though, seeing as Chinese eat everything under the sun, chances are you can go ahead and eat congealed pigs' blood and they will still listen to you and take you seriously. Through the Law, we know what God considers sinful. The Twelve and Paul had apostolic authority; only they could author or dictate Scripture. Again, this should be BCT 201 stuff. PS I hope you don't mind my taking up bandwidth on this blog post. Let me know if you do. Gregory · September 30, 2009 10:08 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2009
September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"having children changes things"
WB-8 Contract Progress "You have to eliminate it" Is Kevin Jennings Fit For Office? Can a "child" make a "mistake" deliberately? Cutthroats and Thieves Just fooling around with blanks Flaky food for flaking off Chicago Loses Olympic Bid Should I just ignore it in the hope that it goes away?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Sigh. Another brave soul strikes out at Christianity.
If R. Crumb really wanted to strike a blow against religious oppression, he'd do an illustrated, historically-accurate life of Muhammad.
...but of course that would get him killed. Those horrible oppressive Christians will maybe write some huffy emails. It's a good thing we have brave souls like R. Crumb to protect us from Christians and their huffy emails.