In an attempt to keep my recent focus on stories, I've decided to do a critical reading of the Bible. As the best selling book of all time, it ought to have some pretty good stories. This endeavor will lead me into some shit, I'm sure.
Wisdom is knowing which decisions to avoid. However, being a curious kind of guy, I often make the dubious choice. My attention will be briefly caught by some will-o-wisp of thought until I find myself alone with unfamiliar surroundings. This may be one of those times, but I have notes so it won't be so terrible as all that.
Anyways, if you're interested, I'm operating out of The New American Bible. I found it in a box amongst old pictures and religious documents from my youth. I am going to begin in the beginning, the book of Genesis (no relation to the band, as far as I know).
I can't think of a worse way to start a story than "First Story of Creation". I'm already wondering why we can't just get one story, so before we're even into any story there's mixed messages and confusion. This is a very old book, so perhaps this method of telling tales was more valid when people had more time. They needed extra exposition because they literally did have all night.
Aside from the mixed messages, the second thing I'm really struggling with is the "and it happened" way of writing out events. "God said 'Let there be light' ... and there was light" Which, as you may be able to see, is a terrible example of showing your reader anything. Maybe you could catch some more flies with a bit more honeyed intro:
"God said 'Let there be light' and luminous rays cast down in all directions banishing darkness to all but the deepest recesses in the land, but in those dark places, dark things lurked."
You see? More of a hook and keeping things coherent was out the window when we needed to number our creations so we might as well keep it interesting. My second big issue with the creation story in the book of Genesis is the numbered order of things. The first creation story puts creatures of the water as a creation of the fourth day while land creatures are a sixth day item. My question, of course, has to do with amphibians.
This might be where you throw your hands up in disgust and say "It isn't supposed to be a literal thing, haha, everyone knows that." Which is a fine defense, but my counter argument is that obviously the writers (this is actually an editors thing, I think) should have thought about amphibians. Supposedly educated people continued to pass on these bullshit stories even after encountering creatures that live on land and sea. Would no one have asked a question about this at some point? It's lazy storytelling, and I'm a little personally offended.
The first creation story is the rather straightforward "daily creations" story that should be familiar to a lot of folks. It is in the second creation story where we find mention of the garden of Eden. It is described as a mound from which four rivers are formed. This is clearly the description of a wetland or marsh of some kind, but that's creative license and I kind of like that part.
A cool fact about these rivers is that one of them leads to a land of gold and minerals. An interesting thing to make note of during a time when there wouldn't have been any currency or trade. What are the two people in the world going to do with gold? Maybe they had a lot of jewelry they liked to make in the garden of Eden and so that's why it's relevant.
The order of creation in the second story is much more interesting. First there was man, then trees and stuff (including the tree of knowledge), then animals, and then finally woman. Clearly, man could not have sex with animals forever?
The key point here is that God warned man about the tree before he even made woman. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to biblically blame women for the first sin, since she wasn't even there when the rules were being laid down and the tree gave them knowledge so written rules would have been useless due to the high rate of illiteracy at the time. She'd have to eat the fruit to read the rules, right?
This woman, not "Eve" yet, she starts talking to a serpent while the man (not "Adam" yet) is standing right there. "So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." She can't very well be blamed for listening to the serpent telling her the fruit is good while her man stood there and said nothing. Was he not paying attention? Is this like the original absent minded man joke? Bizarre that these discrepancies are included after all these years, or at least why can't we just make a good blurry translation?
The real bizarre part is what the snake had to say about the fruit if the woman ate it: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." The capitalization and pluralization of God/gods is not mine, it can be found in the printed version I have and it is not a typo because there's a foot note basically saying "God/gods is the same thing". I mean, if you're a pagan and you're reading this creation story and you see those usages of the term "god", it would probably stick out to you.
Then, God finds out about the stolen fruits and blames the man for the shenanigans. He promptly blames the woman who then blames the serpent. The punishment for eating the wrong fruit? The snake is doomed to crawl on the ground, like a snake. The woman is doomed to experience pain during child birth and the man is doomed to have to work the earth for food to grow.
For disobedience, "by the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for you are dirt and to dirt you shall return." Then, God gives them clothes to wear and sends them packing. It's like "well, I made you but not that you know some stuff, I have to get rid of you." Like some powerful magician where his magic project gained sentience and now he has to set it free. Or, if you'd prefer, like some deep learning AI that has achieved sentience and now man wants it to behave.
So, I've read this book before. Not just genesis, but most of the bible. I spent a lot of time during my youth looking for answers to things. I think I eventually found that which I sought, but I didn't find it in this book. Now, as I'd said earlier, I'd like to examine this thing from a certain point of view: how is it as a story?
Overall, the first three chapters from the book of genesis were pretty terrible. They had some plot holes and coherence issues, but it was imaginative for the time, I guess. Again, the lack of struggles involved with making the world make it seem one dimensional and simplistic in the story, even though I know the real world outside is quite vibrant and multi-faceted.
In any re-telling of this tale, there would need to be more mystery and struggle. The characters introduced in the second chapter could also really come alive with better dialogue. Additionally, the scope of the story is ambiguous. Certain things happen immediately and other things seem to happen twice or take some time. The world described in these chapters is chaotic and simplistic, and it ultimately falls flat because it can't choose to be just one thing.
Outside the garden should be the raw cosmos, alternating between possibilities and colors so strange they make you taste things when you look at them and hear things even when there's absolute silence. Simply looking up when you aren't firmly grasping something sturdy will make you start to lose your mind because the chaotic energies surrounding the garden of creation are still too young and untamed.
A critical overview is something I think would be a necessary first step to re-writing the bible, if that's something for which I can find the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment