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 grew to hate the Bible," he told a press conference for the international launch of "Robert Crumb's Book of Genesis", which he called a "gruelling" four year project. The book hits bookshelves in late October in Europe, Brazil and the United States.
"The idea of millions of people taking this so seriously is totally nuts," he added. "The Bible doesn't need to be satirised. It's already so crazy."
Crumb's 220-page epic take on the Book of Genesis painstakingly mirrors every twist and turn, from God's Creation of the world through the meanderings of Noah's Ark and the adventures of Jacob of the "coat of many colours".
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.
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?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
-- Exodus 20: 4 (KJV)
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
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.
Trimegistus · September 29, 2009 11:51 AM
Ohhhh! How subversive. Why, nobody makes fun of Christians or the Bible because they're so scary.
Even worse than huffy emails Trimegistus, they'll pray for his soul!!
Bastids.
I for one am truly outraged over the illustration linked.
We all know Eve was hot, Crumb has her looking like a neanderthal with hairy legs and stuff.
Makes you wish for a bigger fig leaf.
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:
> 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 2:38 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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
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.