| HOME | OTHER WRITING |
In his fourth apology for remarks he made on December 6, 2002, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said in part:
I apologize for reopening old wounds and hurting so many Americans. I take full responsibility for my remarks and only hope that people will find in their heart to forgive me for this grievous mistake. Not only have I seen the destruction wrought by the racist and immoral policies of the past, I will do everything in my power to ensure that we never go back to that kind of society again. I am humbled by the American dream because I have lived the American dream. To those who believe I was implying that this dream is for some and not for all, I truly apologize. |
In the days and months to come, I will dedicate myself to undo the hurt I have caused and will do all that I can to contribute to a society where every American has an equal opportunity to succeed. |
As a man of faith, I have read the Bible all of my life. I now fully understand the Psalm that says: "a broken spirit: a contrite and humbled heart." |
Do we believe the Senator that his remarks were inadvertent and misinterpreted, and that — realizing how a sinister interpretation was not only possible but likely he now sincerely regrets the comments and the hurt that they caused?
Slate.com reports that "at an African-American social club in Lott's hometown of Pascagoula, Mississippi, many of those who gathered to watch the broadcast interview scoffed and even laughed at some of Lott's statements -- including his statement that he regretted voting (in 1983) against establishing a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and would vote for one now.
|
‘I think he would say anything now that he thinks black Americans want to hear,’ said one viewer." |
Not knowing Trent Lott, we must bring our own experiences and interpretations to his words. A hundred years from now historians may have even more difficulty understanding what was behind the thoughts of this powerful leader
We are in the same situation as we attempt to understand the stories and characters in our great national literature.
There are two great questions about the Bible for Secularists:
Email lists about secular Judaism and Humanistic Judaism are constantly abuzz with the question of whether there are "humanistic values" in the Bible — and if so, where and what they are. One correspondent wrote
|
"I have made it a point to identify certain books of the Bible as predominantly humanistic: Ruth, Jonah, Job, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. […] I also see value in Nathan's reprimand of King David, Elijah's reprimand of King Ahab and Samuel's warning against monarchy… |
|
The Torah, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, too tribalistic to meet humanistic criterion. There is a strong social justice message in portions of the Torah, but it comes in the form of commandments, rather than explanations, and is therefore hard to swallow." |
Another writer who believes that there is more of a humanistic message to find referred to "the party line on not valuing humanistic antecedents because they came from trayf people."
There are many ways to understand a particular text — and many reasons for understanding it. Scholars have many different approaches to a piece of text: they look at the meanings and histories of words, at style, at types of stories (such as the common theme of meeting at a well, or the 2nd son being the successful one), at politics, at theology, at ritual, and a host of other possibilities. Some believe that the text should be studied only in its context, others prefer to treat the text as self-contained literature, without any reference to the accumulated history and volumes of prior criticism.
If you’re into it, this can be a lot of fun. But most of us are caught up on the fringe of these debates asking one question: as a Jewish Humanist — or just as a Humanist — what value do these ancient writings have for me? We say, "When I read about impossible and unconscionable acts performed in the name of an adolescent (or bipolar) supernatural being I feel alienated and uncomfortable. If these are my Jewish roots, I may need a transplant. If this is the source of my ethics, maybe I should be locked up before I kill an Amalekite."
There are many reasons that we feel distant from these texts. But, except for one, we would have the same reasons for feeling distant from the Greek myths, or the African trickster tales of Anansi the spider. That one is the religious weight that these tales seem destined to carry. That weight seems particularly heavy because the tales are so spare. Look for a moment at the favorite whipping boy of Humanists: The Akeda. Here’s the Cliff Notes version: God says "Hey Abraham." Abraham answers "Hinay --Here I am." God says go to that distant mountain and sacrifice your son." So Abraham loads up, takes Isaac, trudges off to the mountain, ties Isaac up and is about to do the deed when an angel of God says, Wait! New Plan. God wants lambchops instead." Oy: child sacrifice, blind obedience and, perhaps worst, inscrutable characters. Why doesn’t Abraham argue — as he did for Sodom — or complain, or get teary-eyed? Where’s the drama? Where’s the characterization. Oh, give me those jolly Greek myths. Let’s reject Isaiah and rejoice in the Iliad.
But wait. let’s visit the Odyssey for a moment. Here’s a scene near the end. Odysseus has returned to his home but not revealed himself to Penelope. His old nurse Euryclea is washing his feet and sees a scar. The text begins:
|
Then the old woman took the cauldron in which she was going to wash his feet, and poured plenty of cold water into it, adding hot till the bath was warm enough. Ulysses sat by the fire, but ere long he turned away from the light, for it occurred to him that when the old woman had hold of his leg she would recognise a certain scar which it bore, whereon the whole truth would come out. And indeed as soon as she began washing her master, she at once knew the scar as one that had been given him by a wild boar when he was hunting on Mt. Parnassus with his excellent grandfather Autolycus--who was the most accomplished thief and perjurer in the whole world--and with the sons of Autolycus. Mercury himself had endowed him with this gift, for he used to burn the thigh bones of goats and kids to him, so he took pleasure in his companionship. It happened once that Autolycus had gone to Ithaca and had found the child of his daughter just born. As soon as he had done supper Euryclea set the infant upon his knees and said, "Autolycus, you must find a name for your grandson; you greatly wished that you might have one." |
We then get the story of how Odysseus got his name, and a promise that when he later visits Mt. Parnassus he’ll get a present. So he does visit, in good time.
His grandmother Amphithea threw her arms about him, and kissed his head, and both his beautiful eyes, while Autolycus desired his sons to get dinner ready, and they did as he told them. They brought in a five year old bull, flayed it, made it ready and divided it into joints; these they then cut carefully up into smaller pieces … |
But when rosy-fingered Dawn later appears, the sons of Autolycus go hunting, and take young Ulysses with them. They climb the mountain
and soon reached its breezy upland valleys; but as the sun was beginning to beat upon the fields, fresh-risen from the slow still currents of Oceanus, they came to a mountain dell. The dogs were in front searching for the tracks of the beast they were chasing, and after them came the sons of Autolycus, among whom was Ulysses, close behind the dogs, and he had a long spear in his hand. |
Wouldn’t you know that little Ulysses was the first to go for the boar? And he got it, but not before the boar bored into his knee. So the boar dies, groaning, Ulysses’ wounds are bound up, he’s brought back, and so on and so on. Finally we get back to the present:
As soon as Euryclea had got the scarred limb in her hands and had well hold of it, she recognized it and dropped the foot at once. The leg fell into the bath, which rang out and was overturned, so that all the water was spilt on the ground; Euryclea's eyes between her joy and her grief filled with tears, and she could not speak, … |
Believe it or not, I’ve left out quite a bit of the detail. The Odyssey, as Eric Auerbach notes, "… leave[s] nothing which it mentions half in darkness and unexternalized." Any new character or object is "described as to its nature and origin." When a god appears Homer tells us "where he last was, what he was doing there, and by what road he reached the scene."
Compare this, as Auerbach does, with the Akeda.
|
And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham; and he said, Behold, here I am. |
Where in space and time are these characters? Did God walk up to Abraham? What was Abraham doing? What is God’s reason for this test? Is Abraham standing or kneeling? The narrator doesn’t care. Nor does the story have much else in the way of detail:
|
And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and broke the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went to the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place far away |
That lifting of the eyes is the "only gesture, indeed the only occurrence during the whole journey… Everything remains unexpressed."
Does this sparseness of the text mean that it is hardly literature at all? Auerbach says otherwise: "[the characters] in the Biblical stories have greater depths of time, fate, and consciousness than do the human beings in Homer… their thoughts and feelings have more layers, are more entangled. […]Abraham’s actions are explained not only by what is happening to him at the moment, nor yet only by his character (as Achilles’ actions by his courage and pride…), but by his previous history; he remembers, is constantly conscious of, what God has promised him and what God has already accomplished for him — his soul is torn between desperate rebellion and hopeful expectation; his silent obedience is multilayered; has background."
Auerbach goes on to develop this comparison in considerable detail. His essay has changed my way of looking at the text — that single sentence,
Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place far away, |
has power for me that it never had before, and the progression to Mount Moriah now reminds me of one of the richest tales of bleakness I know, that of the Fellowship of the Ring travelling, equally unwillingly, toward a different Moriah.
But Auerbach isn’t here to interpret every line of text for us, and — for me at least, the sparseness of the text does make it hard for me to see the "background" that Auerbach talks about. There are other ways than having a personal literature trainer for us to experience the human (and philosophical) richness of the text.
One, on which I’ll touch only briefly, is to browse the collection of Rabbinic writings, primarily Midrash, and their more modern successors, such as Anita Diamant’s The Red Tent.
Consider the well-known story of Cain and Abel. The rabbis attempted to find every possible drop of meaning in the stories, and recorded their discussions. Exactly what happened there, they wondered — and why should they not, for this was the world’s first quarrel, and the world’s first murder. One thread goes like this, from the modern telling by the great poet Chaim Bialik:
|
101."Cain said to Abel his brother" (Gen. 4:8). What Cain said to Abel was: Come and let us divide the world between us. Abel replied: Very well. So Cain said: You take chattel [meaning things], and I will take land. And it was stipulated between them that neither should have any claim against the other about this division. Nevertheless, when Abel proceeded to graze the flock, Cain said: The land you are standing on is mine. Abel replied: The wool you are wearing is mine. "Strip!" said Abel. "Seat!" said Cain. At that, "Cain rose up against Abel his brother" (Gen. 4:8). Cain proceeded to chase Abel from hill to dale and from dale to hill, until the two grappled. Abel overcame Cain, so that Cain fell underneath Abel. Cain, aware how badly it was going with him, began to plead aloud: Abel my brother, there are only two of us in the world. What are you going to tell our father? Abel, filled with compassion for his brother, let him go. At once Cain rose up against him and slew him. |
It is certainly worth noting that the Rabbis were not afraid of the "big" questions, as if the cause of the first murder wasn’t big enough. In another collection we read this commentary — some might consider it incipiently Humanistic --on God’s retort to Cain’s famous evasion "Am I my brother’s keeper. "God says "The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground." And among the commentaries we read
|
Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai said: It is difficult to say this thing and the mouth cannot utter it plainly. Think of two athletes wrestling before the king; had the king wished he could have separated them. But he did not so desire, and one overcame the other and killed him, the victim crying out before he died ‘Let my cause be pleaded before the king.’" |
That is, Rabbi Simeon asked, does this verse not condemn God himself for the murder? But that takes us down paths we don’t have time for. Rather, I’d like to conclude by tossing the ball out to you. In a very famous episode in the Book of Samuel, we see King David behaving rather poorly. The story begins:
|
at the time when kings go forth to battle, […] David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbah. But David remained still at Jerusalem. 2. And it came to pass one evening, that David arose from his bed, and walked on the roof of the king’s house; and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. 3. And David sent and inquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba […], the wife of Uriah the Hittite? 4. And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in to him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness; and she returned to her house. 5. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. |
So what does David do? He has Uriah the Hittite brought back from the battlefield. He says to Uriah,
Go down to your house, and wash your feet. |
That is — go sleep with your wife, feet being a common euphemism for genitals.
|
9. But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house. |
David asks Uriah the next day what gives, and Uriah answered:
|
The ark, and Israel, and Judah, remain in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing. |
David, who for reasons we can only guess at is not out there fighting as kings usually do, ignores this snub and, seeing that plan A didn’t work, he tries to get Uriah drunk. That also fails. Plan C is to send Uriah back to the camp with a sealed letter for the general. The letter says, put Uriah in the front and when the fighting gets fierce, pull back from him. So Uriah is killed. David marries Bathsheba.
Then Nathan the Prophet comes to David. Nathan says
|
There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. 2. The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3. But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it ate of his own food, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was to him as a daughter. 4. And there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take from his own flock and of his own herd, to prepare for the traveller who came to him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who came to him. 5. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord lives, the man who has done this thing shall surely die; 6. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. |
David being a little slow on the uptake, Nathan spells it out.
Now, David does repent and feel remorse, or so the text says. Indeed, his remorse is also expressed in a Psalm (the same one that Senator Lott liked so much!). My question to you is whether either of these texts, in your eyes, expresses true remorse and repentance. If so, which one does. This is a discussion that I think is best held in small groups. Afterward, I’d like you to vote for the portrayal that seems to you to be more genuine — if you were David’s judge which would be more likely to sway you. If you were his defense attorney, which would you advise him to tell on the stand?
Samuel II 12:13. And David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David, The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.
14. But because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child who is born to you shall surely die.
15. And Nathan departed to his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it was very sick.
16. David therefore prayed to God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth; but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he would not listen to our voice; how will he then harm himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19. But when David saw that his servants whispered, David understood that the child was dead; therefore David said to his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his garment, and came to the house of the Lord, and bowed down; then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he ate.
21. Then said his servants to him, What thing is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child, while he was alive; but when the child was dead, you did rise and eat bread.
22. (K) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23. But now he is dead, why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
24. (K) And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord loved him.
Psalm 51: 1. To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, 2. When Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.
3. Be gracious to me, O God, according to your loving kindness; according to the multitude of your mercies blot out my transgressions.
4. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
5. For I acknowledge my transgressions; and my sin is always before me.
6. Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight; so that you are justified in your sentence, and clear in your judgment.
7. Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
8. Behold, you desire truth in the inward parts; therefore teach me wisdom in the inmost heart.
9. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
10. Let me hear joy and gladness; that the bones which you have broken may rejoice.
11. Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
12. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a constant spirit inside me.
13. Do not cast me away from your presence; and do not take your holy spirit from me.
14. Restore to me the joy of your salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit.
15. Then I will teach transgressors your ways; and sinners shall return to you.
16. Save me from bloodguiltiness, O God, you God of my salvation; and my tongue shall sing aloud of your righteousness.
17. O Lord, open you my lips; and my mouth shall declare your praise.
18. For you do not desire sacrifice; or else would I give it; you do not delight in burnt offering.
19. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.