So many books, so little time/money/me.

” I think that some of the hesitation among Christians toward embracing this work, is Crumb’s past works. Many of his creations (Mr. Natural, Fabulous Furry Freak Bros, et al …) are iconic for many sins that the Christian establishment have traditionally stood against. ”

What I find interesting is that a beloved author was once an atheist and was a writer of science fiction, before penning works such as Mere Christianity and The Screw tape Letters, much less the Narnia Chronicles.

But then I think it matters less what the religious affiliation matters less then what one can glean from a work of art, be it music, written word or visual art. Art is subjective, appealing to some people, rarely to all. To get all hot and bothered that a non-Christian did this piece to me misses the point.

I think your first point about what you find frustrating about religion is interesting because it is the exact reason I enjoy it so much: there is never going to be an absolute answer and hence it is a source of never-ending learning and discussion. I would go further to say that it is probably unfair to expect concrete answers out of any subject area, whether it be religion or science or anything. Humans just aren't physically capable of absolute understanding so even if we have an idea that somehow matches what would be known as an "absolute" Truth in the universe, we would have no way of knowing it. THAT is what frustrates me: when people claim to know something as "absolute" Truth as opposed to having the best theory that they can have with the available information. At least science is honest about this in terms only having theories based on current evidence that can be negated at any moment if new evidence gives a better understanding. I just wish more people were more mature when it came to discussing religion (or even science) with others who might have a different understanding and I am glad that we have been able to do so. I think part of the problem is that "typical" Christianity and Islam (which most people grow up with) work on the premise that there is only one path to God whereas many (or most) other religions (such as Judaism and Hinduism) accept that there are many paths to God.

Regarding the "oddness" of the primary religious text being cryptic and requiring expert knowledge, I would say that it depends on the intention of the text. The intention of the Torah is not such that any person can read it and automatically know what God wants. My understanding is that requiring expert knowledge also requires human interaction: religion (Judaism, at least) isn't about the individual only and their relationship with God, but about the reader and their relationship to BOTH God AND other people. Studying the Torah requires interacting with other humans. Proverbs 27:17 states: "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another". The idea is that by interacting with each other (discussing these ideas) we work through our thoughts and help the other person work through theirs. This is why in yeshiva's (Jewish religious schools) people study the Torah and Talmud in pairs and not individually. So in this sense the obscurity is specifically useful . Also keep in mind that the brain is like a muscle in that it does not get stronger if not exercised; if the answers were given to us then we would have much less opportunity to grow intellectually.

Thanks for the elucidation. I guess the reason I consider talking about these things a bit of a waste of time, even though I find it interesting, is that there is no way to ever come to a conclusion or pin anyone down to a final answer, it is always up in the air and a matter of personal opinion. There is no concordance among religions or even within religions. One could (and many do) spend a lifetime stuying these books and traditions and still not have any solid answers to fundamental questions that spring to mind from having existence.

I must say, having a religious text that the average person "should" find mystifying is an odd way to go about spreading knowledge. If you need an expert to tell you what it means perhaps it is too obscure to really be useful, or even true in any significant way. However, I suppose science also works this way, I accept the law of gravity as stated by Newton and Einstein even though I would never have come up with it on my own.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and reply to my statements, however inadequate they are. You are a thoughtful person and it shows.

I wonder if Mr. Crumb would find this discussion interesting?

I think your questions here regarding translations and word-choice are very good questions. The reason why I mentioned that most people only ever approach the Bible from a Christian perspective is because there are many ways to approach a text (again, not just in religion). But when it comes to discussing the Bible people tend to take a very narrow approach, typically only accepting a literal interpretation. This is not valid in Judaism. The Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament) is a Jewish book (whereas the New Testament is a Christian book and they are written in different styles let alone different languages) and I think it is important to consider how Judaism approaches its primary text before rendering judgments on it.

In Judaism there are actually four different and equally valid ways of reading the Bible (again, everything prior to the New Testament): Literal, Symbolic, Mystical (Kabbalistic), and I can’t remember the fourth (sorry). Looking at the exact same passages in these different ways can produce different understandings but yet they are all valid understandings. This is a slightly difficult concept for most people brought up in the standard Christian approach where there is a single meaning or approach to the text.

In conjunction with these four ways of approaching the text there is the universally (within Judaism) accepted idea that this text is NOT the sum-total of revelation from God. The Torah (the “written” tradition) was only part of the religious tradition with the other part being the explanation of the Torah know as the Talmud (the “oral” tradition). It would be fair to ask why the “oral” tradition is in a written form (the Talmud is a rather large collection of books) and there is a reason but that is out of scope here. Suffice it to say that nobody who ever claimed the Torah as religiously meaningful for the first 1500 years it existed (until Christianity came around and claimed it as well) ever took it at face value as most Christians do and as you are attempting to do with trying to render your own interpretations on it in terms of word-choice. The “oral” tradition was designed to be that commentary and explanation that existed in such a way that as language and cultures evolved, the explanations could be reworded over time to have the same meaning but not be locked into 3000 year old language structures that often are not meaningful anymore. To this point, as Jews we are not allowed to read the Bible on its own but only in conjunction with the commentary or with someone who is already learned in it to provide explanation. It is accepted that the Torah was written in a very brief and cryptic way so as to require detailed study of it. Christians are told to just read the Bible and pray for understanding but as Jews we are told to not read it if we do not have the commentary available since that provides the explanation via the Sages and without it we will certainly be lead into misunderstanding it.

So, the questions you are raising about “image” and “likeness” as well as the usage of “Our” instead of “My” have been greatly discussed and commented on for 3000 years now. For example, keep in mind that Hebrew is a conceptual language and sometimes pluralizations are used to express vastness or greatness. So the word “Elohim” (pronounced el-oh-heem) which means “God” (who is always singular) is actually a plural form since it ends with “im”. Christians use this “fact” of the word being plural to be a reference to the Trinity. However, this is not so since the pluralization is only to imply the greatness of God that cannot be encapsulated in the singular form (since this is a conceptual language). Hence, there is no singular form of that word; it only exists in the plural. And it is not the only word like that: water and sky / heaven(s) are also words that only exist in the plural form.

And there is commentary relating to everything including the Ten Commandments. For example, the commentary on the commandment for “Thou shalt not steal” states that the real meaning is not theft of inanimate objects (since that prohibition is covered later in the rest of the 613 total commandments) but instead a prohibition against kidnapping. Why doesn’t it just say “don’t kidnap” then (I’m sure you were going to ask ? I don’t know but I’m sure there has been discussion about that over the past 3000 years.

Lastly, I think it is ok to see some of the stories as fables. I certainly do not take literally most, if not all, of Genesis. And from what I have read, while there are elements of historical truth to the story of Exodus, it is likely that it didn’t happen exactly as told. But that is fine since the stories can still give us understanding just like any fable or parable (which Jesus was fond of). I am not sure that the Bible is claiming itself to be an exact historical record (and certainly NOT a science book!) so saying that it contains fables is a non-issue for me as I would agree with that as much as I would agree that it does contain some historical accuracy in so far as what archaeology has proven.

Sorry for this to be so long. It wouldn’t look so bad on a slightly wider page .

PS. Since you did mention Islam I will just say that I do not believe that they are rendering an interpretation of the Hebrew Bible but instead of similarly worded passages in the Qur’an.