Damozel: The Heretic's Handbook

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:28:21 GMT

I am relocating my blog to the following address:

http://theflatlandalmanack.typepad.com/ (THE FLATLAND ALMANACK)

I will continue to maintain this site and everything posted here but will do all my further posting there!

Do stop by for a visit!

Jesus IS the Christian Left

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:05:59 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

Jesus is "the Christian Left."

According to this Washington Post article, progressive Christians are starting to mobilize to push back against the religious right. There are plenty of people as sick as I am at their hijacking of our religion to push political agenda that we're all very sure the Man Himself would never have endorsed.

[quote from Washington Post article by Thomas Ferraro]

Some, like the Rev. Robin Meyers of the United Church of Christ in Oklahoma, marry gay couples and seek to reduce abortions while rejecting calls by the right to outlaw them.

"I join the ranks of those who are angry because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus but whose actions are anything but Christian," declared Meyers, who has written a new book, "Why the Christian Right is Wrong.

According to scholars, the religious left has become its most active since the 1960s when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy -- black and white -- were key figures in the civil-rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.

[quote from Washington Times article by Thomas Ferror ends]

The bad news is that the religious left is, mirroring the Democratic party, exceedingly loosely knit, lacking the awesome skills of the Right in creating a narrow, monolithic point of view with which to address voters. I guess I'm just glad that the dissent is finally being raised and that progressive Christians who take Christ himself literally are asking Christians to take another look at his priorities.

[quote from Washington Times article by Thomas Ferraro begins]

Those on the right say they are not worried by the left's activism. Richard Land, president of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission in Nashville, said, "The religious left is a shadow of what it was in the '60s."

"I'm quite confident that in the struggle for hearts and minds, we've got a lot more boots on the ground than they do."

Amid the war of words, some clergy are making a point to steer clear of labels. Rev. Jim Wallis, who heads a faith-based group in Washington called Sojourners, has been widely viewed as part of the religious left. Yet he rejects the name and preaches the need to bring the nation to "a moral center."

"I'm an evangelical Christian who thinks that justice is a biblical imperative," said Wallis." The monologue of the religious right is finally over and a new dialogue has just begun."

[quote from The Washington Times article by Thomas Ferraro ends]

I don't think that "the left"---i.e., Democrats, because nobody is allowed to be moderate or centrist anymore---should worry so much about the single voice/single agenda problem or rather, I don't think that there is anything we can do about it. Since the Republicans have adopted the "If you're not with us, you're against us" politics of exclusion, it follows that those who are not are going to be branded as 'the left' regardless of how centrist/moderate their actual politics. [As I said during the egregious Joe Lieberman flap, Democrats should not require all members of the party to speak with a single vote. We need to be the party of inclusion, as always. If the other side prevails because of their unity, we need to find better ways to get our message out there and our supporters mobilize, not just do as they do.]

The same applies to smaller parties within the party, including any coalition of Christians who want to bring the strayed sheep back into the fold (as it were). The key is to take seriously Christ's denunciation of the all-too-human propensity to preen oneself on one's superior righteousness and to indulge in judgments adverse to the welfare of one's neighbors.

The "good news" that the Gospels conveyed was that the poor, oppressed, and neglected are worth as much in the sight of God as the lawyers, priests, and other dignitaries who prayed aloud or who indulged in public displays of righteousness.

I know I've said it before, but I can't stop wondering how the Christian Right has missed these passages from the Gospels. Maybe they are using a different version of the Bible or maybe they need to update from the King James Bible ("the true word of God," according to a bumper sticker I saw recently) so they can understand what they're reading. (I can remember someone telling me as a child in sober earnest that the Jesus requires corporal punishment, and why? "Suffer the little children to come to me.") I often wonder if members of the Christian Right aren't just skipping over the stuff that doesn't fit in with what they already believe or that's really hard to do, but maybe they just don't understand the language of King James.

Some passages that can't be repeated too often:

You have learned that they [the Hebrews] were told: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. Give when you are asked to give, and do not turn your back on a man who wants to borrow.

You have learned that they were told, "Love your neighbour, hate your enemies." But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of our Heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? And if you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as our Heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds.

Matthew, Chapter 5, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 8.

Of the fundamentalist Right wingers who claim to take the Bible "literally," how many are pushing a set of political agenda that actually aim to accomplish what Christ specifically instructed his followers to do? It's hard. It's very hard. Christian love and Christian charity (same thing really) isn't a walk in the park; it requires you to remember all the time that even the human beings that seem lowest and most depraved may have a value for God that you can't see and that you need to act accordingly.

It's always been clear to me that when Christ talks about sin, he is telling people to look inside themselves and straighten out that mess and to refrain from the presumption of judging the moral worth of others. I've spent a whole lifetime trying to learn how to do that and yet I continually fail. But---to borrow a line from Salinger---at least I know I'll pay like hell for any judgment I mete out. And at least I really am taking Christ literally. I believe that he meant exactly what he said. I don't see any ambiguity or any need for context.

I take this passage to require something more from Christians confronted with the problem of evil than the usual knee-jerk aversion. It means that there are no easy solutions to dealing with evil because when you look at the serial killer, you must look beyond the deed to the wounded, shattered, broken soul inside and do the best you can to forgive. It means you have to get right down there in the gutter with those who've injured you most and so that you can see what it's like for them and what brought them there. If you see the molested, abused child who has grown up to be a child molester, you have to force yourself to put aside your loathing and horror and try to some common human sympathy.

It's the hardest thing in the world. It also means that deciding how to treat criminals becomes much harder. If punishment is merited, you also ought to think about rehabilitation. You have to try to give love (charity) even to those who in strict human terms deserve your loathing. You must try to see the humanity of those who do wrong and leave judgments to God. (And you're kind of precluded by that from standing outside the state prison holding up signs saying, "Die like a dog" and so forth).

Another thing about Christian love/charity: you keep it to yourself.

[W]hen you do some act of charity, do not announce it with a flourish of trumpets, as the hypocrites do in synagogue and in the streets to win admiration from men. I tell you this: they have their reward already. No; when you do some act of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing; your good must be secret, and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Matthew, Chapter 6, NEB (1971 ed.) at 8-9.

I wonder if it's possible to get credit from God if you also got a tax deduction? Does your motive matter? What if you only did the charitable act to save some taxes? What if you did it out of the goodness of your heart and then just took the tax deduction because it was there?

Kidding. I'm kidding. I am sure Jesus would be all for any governmental policy designed to further the welfare of the poor. My question has to do with the value of the act itself (charity induced by the desire for a financial edge) from the standpoint of God. I'll leave that to God to decide.

No wonder so many Right-wing Christians prefer to get their morality from the Old Testament. Jesus doesn't let you claim credit for anything. He especially loathed people who engaged in public displays of their righteousness, Pat Robertson. I quote:

Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men; if you do, no reward awaits you in your Father's house in Heaven....

Again, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; they love to say their prayers standing up in synagogue and at the street corners, for everyone to see them. I tell you this: they have their reward already. But when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to the Father who is there in the secret place; and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.

In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard. Do not imitate them. Your Father knows what your needs are before you ask him.

Matthew ch. 6, NEB at 8-9 (1971 ed.)

Some of the most impassioned fundamentalists obviously don't take this passage literally.

After telling people to pray "the Lord's prayer" as it's known, Jesus emphasizes the importance of the lines "Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we forgive those who have wronged us." According to him---if you take him literally---one depends on the other. "For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Heavenly Father."

See, it's tough love, Christian-style. "Do as you would be done by" is followed by "be done by as you did." It's a Christian concept of karma. Your fellow Christians don't get to judge your worth; but God certainly can, and the test will be how you comported yourself towards others. A Christian who is really attentive to the words of Jesus and really believes that he meant what he said has a hard row to hoe.

Many Christians---and it must be nice to be them---don't believe that this means what it says. Thanks to St. Paul (not a favorite with me), Protestants* in my dear old Bible Belt, where I grew up and from whence so much damn nonsense emerges, believe that they don't have to do all that soppy, liberal, sinner-hugging forgiveness crap. As long as they don't drink alcohol or engage in same-sex sex, they are going to go straight to Heaven no matter how badly they actually behave because they are saved.

Here's what I was told at a revival I attended with a cousin in South Carolina sometime back in the Seventies: "As long as you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, you are saved." As far as I can tell, that is the main tenet of many born again Christians. They are forgiven for their sins (not doing what Jesus said) because they believe that he is Lord. You---despite the fact that you may lead an exemplary life or a much more exemplary life---are not." It's all so simple once you acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. He'll walk with you and he'll talk with you and he'll always say exactly what you need to hear.

Good for them if it helps them to sleep, but not quite consistent with the Gospels, I think? For instance, this:

Not everyone who calls me "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only those who do the will of my Heavenly Father. When that day comes, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out devils in your name, and in your name perform may miracles?" Then I will tell them to your face, "I never knew you; out of my sight, you and your wicked ways!"

Whoa. That doesn't sound very forgiving, does it? Doesn't it sound to you as if Jesus was saying that salvation depends on actually trying to live life in accordance with the very difficult precepts he laid out? Doesn't it sound as if he literally meant that his followers shouldn't go on spouting "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!" when someone injured them?

Yeah, that's how it sounds to me too. And to the people who heard him too. "When Jesus had finished this discourse the people were astounded at his teaching."

To live a Christian life is really hard to do. Maybe it's actually too hard. I've failed in all sorts of ways and on a daily basis. I wouldn't fault anyone for failing.

But I do fault anyone who uses "Christianity" as a means to achieve political power and to ram their version of "Christianity"---which isn't---down everyone else's throat. That's not a Christian thing to do at all.

Here ends the Heretic's epistle

*I'm not saying that Catholics have it right either. But most of the Catholics I've met personally don't even pretend to know or be interested in the Gospels, or to be relying on them for authority.

Was Jesus married? Why I think not

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:32:44 GMT

I've changed addresses! To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene (or anyone)? Why This Heretic Prefers to Think Not.

1. My initial visceral assent.

I read---nay, devoured---Holy Blood Holy Grail----years ago. In other words, years before The Da Vinci Code essentially incorporated a sizable chunk of its main thesis in a thin--but colorful!---fictional shell. I did NOT like The Da Vinci Code, which I felt presented the same arguments much less stylishly (or coherently), but I loved HBHG.

One of the authors of HBHG recently published The Jesus Papers. A few days back, I discussed a review of the book by Laura Miller, writing in Salon.com, criticized it for---among other things---its amazing leaps in logic. And there are some amazing leaps. I liked it, and I liked HBHG, but only to the extent that both served as food for thought (or for imagination). I know the difference between history and an imaginative construct such as HBHG. I also know that when you start looking for connections, you'll see them everywhere, so I am not surprised that the authors were able to link, for example, Jesus to the Merovingian dynasty or the Merovingians to the Templars. Human beings have changed since the dawn of time, but not THAT much.

Anyway: about this whole Jesus-as-husband-of-Mary-Magdalene deal. First of all, I remember first having the theory called to my attention. It was during one episode in a kick-ass show Chris Carter show called Millenium, in an episode called Amanuensis. I highly, highly recommend it; I much prefer it to The Da Vinci Code. I think I saw it (it was a rerun) in 1998. At the time, I felt chills go down my spine and my scalp prickling and something that a character in Ursula LeGuin refers to as 'the visceral 'yes.'' It seemed right. It felt true. Or I wanted it to be true.

2. Other people who also want it to be true.

Apparently The Da Vinci Code has brought about the emergence of huge numbers of people who reacted to this theory pretty much in the same way I did. I was sitting at a Starbucks with my husband one afternoon shortly after publication of The Da Vinci Code, when a grey-haired lefty-type wearing skin-tight biking gear caught my eye. His own were wild. "Have you read this?" he asked me breathlessly. "Have you read it? It's amazing! It changes everything!" He so wanted it to be true.

So do a lot of other people, it seems. Why? For the same reason, I suppose, that there was a cult of Mary Magdalene in France which either was the same as, or grafted onto, the cult of the Black Virgin. Christians are children of a single-parent household. We want back our mother. It's that longing, I think, that caused my scalp-prickling spine-tingling theory when it first occurred to me that Jesus might really have been married. And if you want to read more about Mary Magdalene, I'd refer you to Margaret Starbid and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, another rather charming piece of imaginative speculation (though her fictional account of MM and the birth of Jesus's daughter, Sarah, set my teeth a bit on edge).

The magic of The Da Vinci Code was that it was apparently the first introduction most people had to the whole HBHG 'underground stream' theory of western history and because of the tremendous appeal of the notion of Christ's marriage. Most Christians---remarkably----didn't know about the Gnostic Gospels; remarkably, these aren't even discussed in most churches, not even discussed for the purpose of debunking them.

Less remarkably, they didn't know about significant events in the history of the church such as the squelching of the Arian heresy at the Council of Niceae, the Albigensien Crusade, or the massacre of the Templars. It's all pretty shocking stuff when you first hear of it, but by the time the Book (I mean The Da Vinci Code) came out, I had outlived my astonishment. And I really did NOT like the book.

3. The Jesus Papers

The Jesus Papers, by one of the original authors of HBHG, really doesn't add a great deal to the mix, though it develops further some ideas that were mentioned in passing in HBHG. I found the central thesis somewhat plausible without feeling that I needed to swallow it. I thought it was an interesting, but it wasn't new to me. The argument that Jesus might have spent some part 'the missing years' in Alexandria and been interested by Egyptian mystery religions was developed by Morton Smith in The Foreigner. Baigent irritates me extremely when he makes assertions that begin with the words "We can be confident that..." or anything similar, since such statements are almost invariably followed by some assertion of which I am not at all confident. Otherwise, I enjoyed reading the book and reflecting on its 'revelations.'

Baigent doesn't spend a lot of time in The Jesus Papers on the Jesus/Mary marriage. He also explicitly states that the evidence for it is 'circumstantial.' Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 111. But the thesis strikes me as questionable, however appealing, and it annoys me that people keep repeating it to me as if it were, uh, gospel.

A young friend of mine who had just heard the good news asked me the other day if I thought it could be true. "Yes, it could be true," I told him. In addition to the oft-cited text in the Gnostic Gospels about Jesus often kissing her and about the disciples being jealous of Christ's fondness, as well as a couple of other references, there are traditions (generally forgotten) that say the two of them were married.

But I regard the question---to my regret----as very far from settled. In fact, after a certain amount of reflection, I've decided (provisionally) that I don't believe in the marriage theory. I don't think the usual reasoning in support of a married Jesus really holds up on close reading of the relevant texts. Here's the abridged version of the argument.

[quote begins]

At the time, the position of the Pharisees, one of the major groups within Judaism in the first century A.D., was that it was "a man's unconditional duty to marry." The contemporary Rabbi Eliezer is credited with stating: "Whoever does not engage in procreation is like someone who spills blood." So if Jesus was unmarried, as the Church would have us believe, why didn't his Pharisee opponents---of which there were many noted in the New Testament---use his unmarried state as a further criticism of him and his teachings? Why didn't the disciples ask Jesus to explain his failure to marry?

[QUOTE ENDS]

Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 107.

It's a fair point about the Pharisees, who certainly criticized him for other aspects of his life-style. There is a bit in Matthew (which I dearly love) where he complains about their criticisms:

How can I describe this generation? They are like children sitting in the market place and shouting at each other,

"We piped for you and you would not dance!"

"We wept and wailed and you would not mourn!"

For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they said, "He is possessed." The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look at him! A glutton and a drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!"

Matthew Chapter 11, New English Bible 1971, at 16.

Heh. You can't win for losing. I prefer the King James version here, which uses "gluttonous and a winebibber." Winebibber is such a great word. Anyway, the point is: He got criticized even for showing a congenial spirit. Why wouldn't they have brought up his unmarried state, if indeed he was unmarried?

5. What Jesus Himself Actually (Seems to Have) Believed

I don't know the answer, but Jesus himself seems to have believed that not every man needed to marry. Doubtless---assuming that he hadn't, or that he wasn't widowed---he'd already have been through this with his apostles.

I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.

The disciples said to him, "If that is the position with husband and wife, it is better not to marry." To this he replied, "That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there aer others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

Matthew, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 27.

This text indicates that Jesus did not agree that it was unlawful or sinful or improper for a man to decide not to marry. He says that some people are appointed by God not to marry. He states that some people were born incapable of marrying (interesting, that; I'd like to know what he meant) and that some were made so by men (castrated, I assume?), but that there are others who have renounced it for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. He seems to be saying that to be celibate for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven is a virtuous or righteous decision.

He doesn't say that he himself has renounced marriage, but I have a hard time understanding what else it could possibly mean. I suppose he might have had in mind the Essenes, who seem to have lived celibate most of the time (though according to Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man they did in fact marry, though they lived apart from their wives). It's possible that he was referring to them and not to himself when he said "Let those accept it who can."

5. The Gnostic Gospels

Since growing older, I've learned that there can be deep and powerful bonds between a man and a woman that have nothing to do with sex. I choose to believe that Jesus and Mary were true soulmates and that it was this which caused the other disciples alarm and despondency. He singled out a woman as the most worthy! That must have really yanked their chains.

I've come to imagine---not based on any particular evidence but by choice---that Mary Magdalene was indeed the 'companion' of the Saviour. I see her differently at different times. In one version, she is an older woman, perhaps a widow or perhaps a woman whose husband has given her a note of dismissal. She is intelligent and---as we middle-aged women will---has had time and leisure to reflect on God and the meaning of life. She is drawn to Jesus because---as is easily seen from the Gospel---he respected and liked women. In other versions, she is the wife of Jesus as posited in HBHG and The Da Vinci Code.

In support of the marriage theory, Baigent and others (including Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code) have cited a text that I read very differently. Note that quite a few pieces are missing from the original:

And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [Jesus Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by it [and expressed disapproval].

Gospel of Philip 63, The Nag Hammadi Library in English at 138 (trans. Wesley W. Isenberg), quoted in Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 112.

Even if the gaps are filled in correctly---and the way they are filled in seems consistent with other parts of this and other Gnostic texts---I am not sure I understand how it proves that MM and Christ were married. Is it merely an allegation that Christ and his wife were more affectionate than convention permitted or tolerated? It just doesn't seem likely to me that Philip's Gospel included this statement in order to illustrate not only that Jesus was married, but that he and his wife were sickeningly affectionate. That's just not in line with the rest of this text.

It seems to me that if Christ offended the disciples by kissing MM on the mouth, it would have to be because the kiss signified special favor. I am not sure of the significance of the kiss; we don't kiss much in our culture except to express familial or sexual affection, but many other cultures kiss much more freely to express approval or to signify special favor.

Unless the disciples were expressing the Aramaic equivalent of "Eew, hey, that's not right; get a room!"---which I just don't believe Philip's Gospel (dealing with the secret teachings of Jesus and the path to illumination) would have bothered to mention---they were complaining because Christ was giving special treatment to a woman: spending time with her, talking to her about matters that he didn't discuss with them, kissing her frequently as a sign of approval and special regard. I think they were angry because he had picked a woman to be his closest friend. (*I read a theory somwhere, perhaps in HBHG though perhaps in one of the books it subsequently spawned, that the unnamed 'beloved disciple' present at the last supper and 'lying in Christ's arms' was not---as is usually assumed---St. John, but Mary M. I wonder.)

I like to imagine that she was his confidante and that their bond was intellectual rather than sexual. If there were undercurrents of anything else, neither acted upon them or would have considered doing so.

6. The wedding at Cana.

I think the authors of HBHG raise a good question when they ask "Who was married at Cana?" It is interesting that Mary and Jesus step in and assist with the catering. But the jump from that 'fact' to the proposition that it was therefore Jesus's wedding is a substantial leap. Say it was his brother's or a cousin's wedding; mightn't they have done the same? It just seems odd that the text refers to Jesus on the one hand and "the bridegroom" on the other.

This is another one of the stories I really like. As a child, I definitely had the impression that this was an example of Jesus getting bossed by his mother, who didn't really understand yet what he was all about, and who saw the water into wine thing as a really practical party trick. "What are you doing? This isn't the time!" But he does it anyway, no doubt in response to one of those prodding looks mothers give you when they want you to do something and are going to stand there till you do. I always pictured her bustling about importantly---"Do just what he tells you!"---while he gets up, sighing, to do the brotherly or neighborly thing. Or, alternatively, maybe it was a family wedding and she was frantically wringing her hands over the shame if they didn't provide adequate refreshments. Maybe he got up because she was staring at him plaintively and he didn't want her to go on looking at him that way.

Who was married at Cana? I don't have a clue, but I'm guessing it was a family member or close friend. I don't think it was Jesus.

7. What was Mary to Jesus & Jesus to Mary?

Perhaps it's because that now I have reached middle-age myself I have become a friend and mentor to several young people, including a couple of young men. The thought that either they or I could stand in any relationship to each other (or even contemplate such a relationship) is too absurd to consider. It's quite possible for a man and a woman to feel disinterested affection toward one another without any wish to 'take it to the next level.'

Furthermore there are people---and I am one of them, so I know---who are not primarily motivated by sex, ever. People who are different don't understand this, and don't believe that it's possible, but I can assure you that it is. Let's say that Mary was a post-menopausal wealthy female friend. Why must there have been more to their relationship?

To me, the emphasis in the Gnostic Gospels on Mary's deep and intuitive understanding of Jesus's teaching and on the jealousy of the apostles argue that she was not his wife? If she were his wife, why would they be indignant that he loved her more than he loved them? It doesn't make sense that they would even ask---what group of men would ask another man why he loves his wife more than he loves them? They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,

"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees light are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

Gospel of Philip 64, The Nag Hammadi Library in English at 138 (trans. Wesley W. Isenberg), quoted in Baigent, The Jesus Papers, at 112. (re: the secondary source, I can't lay hands on my book with the Gospel of Philip in it; but since I'm talking about Biagent's view, it seems fair to use the quotes he provides).

To me, this just doesn't sound like a conversation between a man and his disciples about his wife. It sounds more like professional jealousy. Christ doesn't say, "I love her more because, duh: wife." He explains to them that his preference for MM---presumably for her companionship and conversation since the Gospel describes her as "the companion of the Savior" is based on her superior intuition or intellect. In other words, she gets him; they don't.

Nor do the other statements that are cited in support of his marriage to Mary really seem the sort of thing a man would say about his wife.

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, because women are not worthy of life."

Jesus said, "Behold, I shall guide her so as to make her male, that she too may become a living spirit like you men. For every woman who makes herslef male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Four Gnostic Gospels (trans. Martin Meyer), Codex II at 51.

It sounds to me as if Mary attracted Peter's jealousy because Jesus was treating her as one of the lads, and that this was because he recognized that she was a particularly gifted person. He is explaining to Peter, in language that misogynistic Peter will understand, that Mary is fully capable of serving as a disciple and an apostle.

Anyway, why would Peter have presumed to tell Jesus to send his own wife away? That would be pretty presumptuous, to say the least. Did men back there do that? And if they did, didn't the husbands whose wives had been rebuked get annoyed? I'm thinking that a natural human response would be, "Dude, don't tell my wife what to do!" even among men---men quite unlike Jesus---whose next sentence would be, "I'll tell her what to do if she needs telling."

Therefore, until such time as I have evidence of a marriage, I will think of her as the friend, confidante, and loyal supporter of Jesus; and as "the apostle to the apostles." As my page shows, I believe that there was a close connection between her and Jesus and that she was a de facto disciple. If I get evidence that there was more between them, I will be quite happy to change my views again...

The Marginal Christian’s Reading List: The Jesus Papers, The Jesus Dynasty, and The Gnostic Gospels, and what I Learned from Them.

First, Take that Plank Out of Your Own Eye: A Marginal Christian looks at Leviticus on Sexual Sin, Matthew on Adultery specifically, and what we can learn from Christ’s encounters with two adulteresses.

A Marginal Christian Looks at Corporal Punishment, Sexual Assault, Transvestitism, Divorce, and Crushed Testicles in the Old Testament.

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene (Or Anyone)? Why this Heretic Thinks Not.

Jesus IS the Christian Left.

The Marginal Christian & Deuteronomy

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:40:58 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

A Marginal Christian Looks at Corporal Punishment, Sexual Assault, Transvestitism, Divorce, and Crushed Testicles in the Old Testament

Someone pointed out to me that my discussion of the Bible isn't exactly authoritative. "You aren't a Biblical scholar," he pointed out. "You really aren't qualified to say what it means."

No, that's right. But I am engaging in a little exercise called "Imagine the world if we took the Bible literally just based on what it seems to be saying and didn't read selectively or with regard to its context" That's pretty much what certain right wing Christians do. I'm doing what they do: going through and cherry-picking the particular parts of interest to me.

I will always think it surprising that the Church Fathers saw fit to keep the parts of the Old Testament that didn't directly relate to Jesus. I know---or I think I know; let's say I've been told----that the early church split very early on between the Church led by Jesus's brother James and between the Church led by Paul (who never met Jesus, or at least not while Jesus was alive). The Church of James still followed the law of Moses; Paul decided because, according to him, he had the direct authority of Jesus to do so.

Jesus frequently cited the law of Moses in his disputes with the pharisees and scribes and such, but it's always seemed clear to me----I am telling you my perception, not what know or even "know"-----that in his disputes, he was constantly reinterpreting that law. Indeed, it seems obvious that he was; otherwise, why would they have been trying to nail him on charges of blasphemy. I don't think in sober truth that there is much of it left if you read his remarks closely; he quotes scripture constantly, but he is spinning it toward completely different conclusions, or so it seems. His statement that he came to fulfill the law I take as meaning something entirely different than the fundamentalists I know take it to mean. I understand it to mean---this is just me, unaided by Biblical scholarship----"Now that I am here, you don't need it anymore" or (possibly) "Now that I am here, I will tell you its purpose; if you achieve the purpose, you need not follow it to the letter."

I say all this because----again-----I am continually astonished at the ease with which certain Christians I know (including certain churches I shall not specifically name) jump back and forth between old and new testaments without really seeming ever to read them together.

At my church, there was always an Old Testament lesson and a New Testament lesson on Sunday. Sometimes, if the priest was good at his job, the sermon would discuss and attempt to reconcile them.

But I say you cannot reconcile them, not really. At a certain point----perhaps during the first century when James led the Jerusalem branch of Christianity----it might have been possible to hear a coherent explanation of how Christ's teachings fit in with the Old Testament. I understand why it was important to James to show that they did and to Paul, to show that they didn't (or not so much). I think it's pretty clear that Pauline Christianity won the day; and perhaps it's because I don't understand the other or have the knowledge to see the connection between what Christ was saying and what the Old Testament says that I just can't bring myself to believe that the Old Testament has much relevance to Christianity.

But let's assume that they do. A lot of fundamentalists Christians sincerely believe that they do. Which is why they and I don't get on (or rather, is one of the reasons).

More close reading of what's meant to be the best [Christian-based] reading currently available of the actual text. Again, I am using the New English Bible, which makes the whole verse/chapter thing difficult to discern. I am providing citations, but that's the best I can do. Remember: I am a marginal Christian.

Some people---people who have never read the Bible--- wonder where right wingers get their notions of family life, a woman's place, capital and corporal punishment, and the like.

I give you.....Deuteronomy! And I particularly give it to right-wing Christianists, some of whom might like for it, or parts of it, to apply now. But before starting my compilation of Old Testament quotes for modern Right-wing Christians, I want to say that in CONTEXT, considered in light of the practices that applied elsewhere at the time, the Old Testament laws are very reasonable, insistent on fairness and on giving due regard to the rights of one's neighbors.

For example---and there are lots more that relate to being just and kind to your neighbor---"When you see your fellow-countryman's ass or ox lying on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him to lift it to its feet again." Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 220. And this is sweet and also environmentally friendly:

When you come across a bird's nest by the road, in a tree or on the ground, with fledgling or eggs in it and the mother-bird on the next, do not take both mother and young. Let the mother-bird go free, and take only the young, and then you will prosper and live long.

Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible 1971 at 219.

In context, these laws were also protective, possibly extraordinarily protective, of women (in their way). But they also portray a way of life I for one would not wish to see restored. I imagine that most right wing Christian women would be with me on that score, though possibly Ann Coulter---author of Godless-- would only agree if an exception were made for her.

Here's an instruction to the menfolk on the treatment of captive women. To be fair, it is no doubt extraordinarily compassionate by the standards of those days that applied elsewhere.

Of course it does assume that women are property and that a man who gets hold of one in the course of warfare is entitled to 'have his will of her.' I can't see most of the Christian women I know feeling comfortable about it.

When you wage war against your enemy and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take some of them captive, then if you see a comely woman and you take a liking to her, you may marry her. You shall bring her into your house, where she shall shave her head, pare her nails, and discard the clothes which she had when captured. Then she shall stay in your house and mourn for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have intercourse with her; you shall be her husband and she your wife. But if you no longer find her pleasing, let her go free. You must not sell her, nor treat her harshly, since you have had your will of her.

Deuteronomy Ch. 21 (?), New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 219 [subsequently cited as New English Bible 1971].

Let's read on:

When a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, if they both bear him sons, and the son of the unloved wife is the elder, then, when the day comes for him to divide his property among his sons, he shall not treat the son of the loved wife as his first-born in contempt of his true first-born, the son of the unloved wife.

Deuteronomy Ch. 21 (?), NEB 1971 at 219.

Again, the above is eminently fair. I included it mainly to point up the context in which these laws applied, specifically a context in which a man takes (as we know from various Biblical stories) multiple wives, some loved and some unloved.

Now I don't think certain people on the right would entirely object to this next one; they probably are too soft and civilized to do it to their own offspring, but might be quite happy to see it applied to someone else's. At any rate, a soppy liberal like me can't help but be impressed by the ancients' idea of 'tough love.'

When a man has a son who is disobedient and out of control, and will not obey his father or his mother, or pay attention when they punish him, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of the town at the town gate. They shall say to the elders of the town, "This son of ours is disobedient and out of control; he will not obey us, he is a wastrel and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death, and you will thereby rid yourselves of this wickedness.

Deuteronomy Ch. 21, NEB 1971 at 219-20.

That is some tough love right there.

Man, and to think I used to feel sorry for my dad. When he or his brothers got out of control, they were beaten with switches, hard enough to leave (shallow, or so I assume) cuts. My dad said that he had to go outside and cut them himself. And nowadays everyone moans about, I don't know, the odd occasional assault on a small child! And we think that BOOT CAMPS are tough.

This next one was still being brought up when I was a child and was frequently cited at the turn of the last century, when women had begun to wear 'bloomers' under their skirts.

No woman shall wear an article of man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's dress; for those who do these things are abominable in the sight of the Lord.

Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible 1971 at 220.

I quoted the above partly because of the intriguing picture it gives of ancient life before they got the Word. Nobody would have had to forbid transvestitism if there weren't a lot of it around. But it puts the kibosh on Dame Edna, Eddie Izzard, drag queens, and little old ladies in pantsuits.

Here are a couple of good ones. If we put the next back into effect, we wouldn't HAVE to teach girls about condoms.

When a man takes a wife and after having intercourse with her turns against her and brings trumped-up charges against her, giving her a bad name and saying, "I took this woman and slept with her and did not find proof of virginity [presumably an unbroken hymen] in her," then the girl's father and mother shall take the proof of her virginity [presumably bloodied sheets?] to the elders of the town, at the town gate. The girl's father shall say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, and he has turned against her. He has trumped up a charge and said, 'I have not found proofs of virginity in your daughter.' Here are the proofs."

They shall then spread the garment before the elders of the town. The elders shall take the man and punish him: they shall fine him a undred pieces of silver because he has given a bad name to a virgin...., and hand them to the girl's father. She shall be his wife: he is not free to divorce her all his life long. If, on the other hand, the accusation is true and no proof of the girl's virginity is found, then they shall bring her out to the door of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has committed an outrage...by playing the prostitute in her father's house: you shall rid yourselves of this wickedness.

Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible 1971 at 220-21.

Here are some laws on rape, which---again in the context of the age---seem to make reasonable distinctions, though they may seem a bit hard on the girl who is attacked 'in the town' and gagged, or who is too injured or frightened to scream. Note that there is none of that liberal whinging about 'not blaming the victim.'

When a virgin is pledged in marriage to a man and another man comes upon her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death; the girl because, although in the town, she did not cry out for help, and the man because he dishonoured another man's wife...

If the man comes upon such a girl in the country and rapes her, then the man alone shall die because he lay with her. You shall do nothing to the girl; she has done nothing worthy of death...for the man came upon her in the country and, though the girl cried for help, there was no one to rescue her.

Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible 1971 at 221.

At least if no one could hear you scream, they didn't stone you. And the stoning only applies to a girl who has been pledged to a man. If an un-pledged girl (and she's have to be awfully young, I believe) is raped, they don't get stoned; they get married "because he has dishonoured her."

When a man comes upon a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and forces her to lie with him, and they are discovered, then the man who lies with her shall gie the girl's father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has dishonoured her. He is not free to divorce her all his life long.

Deuteronomy Ch. 22, New English Bible 1971 at 221.

On divorce:

When a man has married a wife, but she does not win his favour because he finds something shameful in her, and he writes her a note of divorce, gives it to her and sismisses her; and suppose after leaving his house she goes off to become the wife of another man, and this next husband turns against her and writes her a note of divorce which he gives her and dismisses her, or dies after making her his wife---then in that case her first husband is not free to take her back to be his wife again after she has become unclean. This is abominable to the Lord.

Deuteronomy Ch. 24, New English Bible 1971 at 222.

A law for widows:

When brothers live together and one of them dies without leaving a son, his widow shall not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall have intercourse with her; he shall take her in marriage and do his duty by her as her husband's brother. The first son she bears shall perpetuate the dead brother's name so that it may not be blotted out from Israel. But if the man is unwilling to take his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name...He will not do his duty by me."

At this the elders of the town shall summon him and reason with him. If he still stands his ground and says, "I will not take her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of his elders; she shall pull his sandal off his foot and declare: "Thus we requite the man who will not build up his brother's family." His family shall be known...as the House of the Unsandalled Man.

Deuteronomy Ch. 25, New English Bible 1971 at 223-24.

I have to believe that the above is an exact transcription of an actual event which was subsequently written into law.

Here's one for the menfolk:

No man whose testicles are crushed or whose organ has been seered shall become a member of the assembly of the Lord.

Deuteronomy Ch. 23, New English Bible 1971 at 221.

Which no doubt explains this:

When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes near to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man's genitals, you shall cut off her hand and show her no mercy.

Deuteronomy Ch. 25, New English Bible 1971 at 219.

I have heard Right-wing Christians who say that the Old Testament---most particularly the declarations that homosexuality and transvestitism are abominations--- is fully binding because Jesus stated he came to fulfill the law of Moses.

So my question is this: what about all the rest of it?

RELATED POSTS:

Whited Sepulchres & the Odor of Sanctimony [progressive Christianity; Christianity v. “Christianism”]

The Morning After Pill: Easier to Legislate than to Persuade

The barbarians at our gates are us---The Duty of a Christian to Oppose the Death Penalty [progressive Christian; Christianity v. Christianism]

“Christianity” v. Christianity [Christianity v. Christianism]

Hijacking My Religion (Taking it Back from the Christian So-Called “Right”)

Hijacking My Religion Part 2 (Fighting Back Against the Christian Right): Why Secular Humanists Need Left-Leaning God-botherers like Me.

A Marginal Christian Looks at Corporal Punishment, Sexual Assault, Transvestitism, Divorce, and Crushed Testicles in the Old Testament.

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene (Or Anyone)? Why this Heretic Thinks Not.

Jesus IS the Christian Left.