So Let It Be Written….
by Jason GodeskyI don’t normally do such simple link posts, but Steve alerted me to a very interesting article by Carl Estabrook titled “The Subversive Commandments.” I think Estabrook’s taken the point a little far–to call the ten commandments atheistic seems almost absurd–but he’s more right than wrong. In fact, I touched on this progressive nature of the Torah in a paper I wrote in 2002, titled “Asceticism as Political Resistance in Roman Judea, 6–66 CE,” [PDF]. G-d’s opposition to kingship is certainly telling; in fact, the remainder of the historical books can be read as the long playing out of G-d’s warning that becoming a civilization was a bad idea. However, the society described in the Torah is very much a Bronze Age society–an incredibly liberal and progressive one, but unmistakably Bronze Age. For the kind of anarchy Estabrook discusses, I think you have to wait for the Second Temple period, and the rise of Essenism with very deep, subversive rejections of authority embodied in the life of the ascetic.
Have to say, thoroughly enjoyed the linked article. I decided to play around with the Commandments attempting (with less than perfect results, I readily admit) to rephrase them using the subversive interpretation and E-prime (which I find a wonderful and different mode of thought). So, here’s sharing them…
TEN COMMANDMENTS REVISITED
Where the Source of all things lies, so do I. All things within the universe form me but I existed first and from this place, from me, all things emerged.
Place no â??godsâ?? before Everything.
Do not worship as the source of all things any carved image â?? any likeness of anything found in the heaven above, the earth beneath, or in the waters of the earth. They form parts of the whole, not the whole itself.
Do not take the Universeâ??s name in vain, claiming its power or divine law for yourself.
Remember a day of rest. When one observes the Universe, one sees that it provides time for both rest and work for its children. Recognize this as holy.
Honor your Elders, for they hold the experience of what happened before you.
Do not murder.
Do not marry those not recognized by your people.
Do not steal from your people.
Do not lie against your people.
Do not covet what another of your people owns.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 18 April 2005 @ 2:07 AM
Amazing. That’s quite a change, and is much, much improved.
I do have a slight issue with this one, though - “Do not marry those not recognized by your people.”
Does that rule out gay/interracial/intercultural marriage? I’m not sure what this means or how people would interpret it. What did you mean?
Great stuff, though.
Devin
Comment by Devin — 23 April 2005 @ 2:43 AM
re: the ‘do not marry’ commandment, I had an interesting time translating that one. Techically, it’s “Don’t commit adultery” but what exactly does that mean? It’s obvious in reading the Bible that their definition is different than ours(the use of concubines to bear children didn’t seem to raise any eyebrows). So what did they intend?
Scarily enough, the answer came from a white supremicist site. They claim (and I haven’t had time to check this up scholastically) that the original translation was “Thou shalt not adulterate.” Of course, they automatically take this to mean “don’t mix races” (not the lesson I’m advocating here).
On a certain level, what they claim makes sense — in order to maintain a cultural identity, tribes ofter set up specific rituals regarding marraige. What they were looking for was some sort of integration to prevent problems that would compromise the tribal culture itself. Often, this ended up being a symbolic ‘marriage’ of the tribes themselves, leading to good relations as long as the two were wed. One of the memebers of the married couple would then go to live with the new tribe and be recognized exclusively as a member of the new tribe, as would any children.
So, to answer your question in a straight manner, interracial and intercultural marriages are absolutely possible within that commandment; there just needs to be recognition that the person is different and some accomodation (by either side) must be made for the union to work.
Now homosexual marriage is an interesting one. I personally mean that if you’re going to accept someone into a tribe, they get all the rights and perks as well. The practice out here (Southern Californai) was to have any bisexual or homosexual automatically declared a part of the sacred class (along with the more traditional shamans, medicine gatherers, basket weavers and culture keepers). These “we’he’pet” were then married to the chief, who offered them a measure of support and high status. That didn’t mean the chief had to have sex with them; sexual liaisons were much looser out here, offering up the opportunity for same-sex to do as they needed within a ’safe’ cultural context.
Does that answer the question
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 24 April 2005 @ 2:51 AM
Yes. Thanks.
Ya know, these ideas (everything here, and at IshCon) really ARE revolutionary. I’ve looked at the world in a completely different way ever since I first joined IshCon (which led me here). It’s just incredible, all of the different aspects of life and culture that are interconnected here.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 25 April 2005 @ 8:32 PM