Hippie Squared: Goofy old Genesis
As a sort of coda to my last two blog postings about matters spiritual and religious, I thought I’d say a few words coming off seeing the art exhibit of R. Crumb’s illustrated version of Genesis at the Armand Hammer museum. I wrote about it already, over here, in my other Fierce and Nerdy incarnation, “Three Line Lunch,” but three lines only captures a little of what I felt was noteworthy.
A close reading of Genesis reveals a lot. Crumb, in his project of illustrating it, has given it his own close reading. And since he reproduces the text nearly word for word, if you read his version, you do a sort of guided close reading of your own. There’s a lot to notice in that crazy book that doesn’t often get talked about.
I remember reading once that something like 94% of self-identified atheists had read the bible, whereas, for instance, something like 6% of Catholics had. That doesn’t surprise me. There’s so much in there that works only as myth. To take it literally, word-for-word, as fundamentalist Christians do, is simply ludicrous. Anyone who tries to do that is contorting their brain in ways that just can’t be healthy for their overall cognition.
There’s much in Genesis that seems pretty clearly to be a mash-up of different versions of the same basic stories. It’s easy to believe that when the priestly caste got together to codify this thing, they had to resolve various versions from various sub-groups of the overall tribe, to get them to mesh. And they didn’t always mesh all that comfortably. Crumb’s introduction takes up the notion that part of what’s at work in it is an assertion of patriarchy over earlier matriarchal traditions, and it’s not hard to see evidence of this.
For instance, there are the two versions of the creation of man. In the first version, Genesis 1.27, “man” takes no real precedence over “woman” except in the customary listing of man first in the sentence. Both genders are created at once, as a co-equal unit (the only way that makes any real sense biologically).
It’s only in the second version human creation that man’s dominance over woman and over the animals is asserted. In Genesis 2.4. God creates man from the earth, without a human companion. (Of course, this is clearly senseless if one wants to be literal. Male makes no biological sense without female.) In 2.19 and 2.20 man names the animals, but none turn out to be a fit companion for him. (Rude jokes about sheep come easily to mind here.) In 2.22 God takes the man’s rib to make a woman. So man comes first. Of course, again, genetically that’s goofy, because basically man is woman with a y chromosome monkey wrench thrown in. Oh well.
Much more to say, and perhaps I’ll get to it one of these days. But check out the exhibit if you’re in L.A., and check out the Crumb book if you’re not, or just read one of the translations of Genesis all the way through one of these days. Quite illuminating, particularly when considered as the foundation myth of Judeo-Christian culture.
Having recently discovered that Betty loves art museums, I'm planning to trek over to the west side to see this. The only thing is that I might have to wait for CH, b/c it's definitely his kind of exhibit. Yes, that's the interesting thing about the Bible. It's outrageously inconsistent. It used to anger me that people choose how to interpret (i.e. – in ways that most suit their often judgmental purpose), but now that I'm more comfortable with complexity, I consider this one of the Bible's best assets — there's something in it for everyone and all that jazz.
BT-dubs, I took Bible as Literature in college, and I loved actually reading the bible. It was one of my best classes in college and went far in helping me to shape my own theology. Also on a more selfish note, it gives me more authority when I get in religious conversations. Gotta love that party trick.
Having recently discovered that Betty loves art museums, I'm planning to trek over to the west side to see this. The only thing is that I might have to wait for CH, b/c it's definitely his kind of exhibit. Yes, that's the interesting thing about the Bible. It's outrageously inconsistent. It used to anger me that people choose how to interpret (i.e. – in ways that most suit their often judgmental purpose), but now that I'm more comfortable with complexity, I consider this one of the Bible's best assets — there's something in it for everyone and all that jazz.
BT-dubs, I took Bible as Literature in college, and I loved actually reading the bible. It was one of my best classes in college and went far in helping me to shape my own theology. Also on a more selfish note, it gives me more authority when I get in religious conversations. Gotta love that party trick.
I remember reading stats somewhere once about what percentages of people in which religions had read their sacred texts. Something like 98% of atheists had read the bible, as opposed to something like 6% of Catholics. So yeah, you're usually going to be in the minority in most groups in having read it–you've definitely got the drop on most people.
I have not read most of it, myself, but what I read of Genesis was extremely illuminating. I saw all the old stories we all hear, but also lots of other fascinating stuff I'm sure the priests and rabbis are less eager to talk about.
I remember reading stats somewhere once about what percentages of people in which religions had read their sacred texts. Something like 98% of atheists had read the bible, as opposed to something like 6% of Catholics. So yeah, you're usually going to be in the minority in most groups in having read it–you've definitely got the drop on most people.
I have not read most of it, myself, but what I read of Genesis was extremely illuminating. I saw all the old stories we all hear, but also lots of other fascinating stuff I'm sure the priests and rabbis are less eager to talk about.