Book Review: Biblical Beauty

I'm a huge fan of taking a look at the old and bringing it into the new -- it's Judaism's basic foundation and approach to everything in life. We look at the Torah, we say "what does this mean now," and we go from there. This essentially is what Rachelle Weisberger has done in her new book, Biblical Beauty: Ancient Secrets and Modern Solutions. [I will add the disclaimer here that I got this book for review purposes!]

Is this book for everyone? Probably not. Is this book for me? Not really, no.

The book is divided into Ancient Secrets and Modern Solutions. I immediately was curious if Weisberger took a look at Rachav (who I've written about many times), and there she was! A section on Rachav and her mad makeup skills as the "most legendary prostitute" in the land. I wouldn't say this really is a shining example of Biblical beauty, and as someone familiar with Rachav and her legacy, I have to say that the chapter left me feeling like the author took a shallow approach, making these Biblical women part of a gimmick rather than a lesson in true beauty. Yes, the Talmud details her beauty and the allure she held for men across the land, but her legacy comes from the fact that she saved the Israelites and became a mother to nations of prophets, not because she knew how to do her eyes.

I guess I've never been one to focus on the physical attributes of one's character, which is not to say that I don't believe in getting gussied up every now and again, but I guess I don't really get this book or its purpose. I can see it playing a roll in communities that frown on makeup and attention to physical appearance, and perhaps it can serve some type of inspirational platform for all of those Orthodox teen girls who are starving themselves to be married off at the right age. But I also see the negative impacts of a book like this. It seems to emphasize that it was important for the matriarchs and prolific women of the Tanakh for being physically beautiful, and it offers solutions of how to mimic that care and expertise in the modern period. A little more than 20 pages are devoted to "Inner Beauty" while the rest of the book is devoted wholly to "Outer Beauty."

I guess I'm just not sold on this book helping me find my "unique, intrinsic beauty." It provides a superficial look at some of the most inspiring women of the Tanakh -- from Miriam to Judith to Sarah and so on -- but perhaps it's in my nature to want more than the suggestion that they all cared about how they looked.

What message does this send exactly?

I'm curious what you -- the reader -- would think of this book, so I'm passing this book along in the hopes that maybe a review will follow. Perhaps we can start a review chain? At any rate, if you're interested in reviewing this book (that is, receiving the copy I received in order to review it on your own blog), simply say so in your comment. I'll randomly pick someone by Wednesday around noon to get the book for review.

Reliving the Bible Slap

I posted last week, not to mention in late 2010/early 2011, about this search I'm having for who I am and how I got here. This is another installment, sort of a follow-up to that post, as well as a pairing to go with my Don't Forget to Review the Conversion Manual post, that got a lot of mixed reactions. That post, of a little old man bringing into question my Jewishness, came about in December of 2007, whereas this post came about a year after my conversion in April 2007. From this post below to the one in December, I think I'd been through a lot. The pairing here is that in my Conversion Manual post, it is a Jew that challenges me. In this post, it is a Christian who challenges me (although without knowing that I am a convert). 

--------------------------------------

Date: April 6, 2007

Post title: A Challenge 

I'm sitting in Argo Tea near Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Just by Water Tower place. I'm at a table among tables crowded with people, headphones in, listening to Explosions in the Sky (my Torah music). My Etz Hayim is open to Ezekiel 37:1-14, reading between talking via GChat ...

An older man with bad teeth appears over my shoulder, and with a thick British accent says, "Greek?"

I pull off my headphones and show him the cover, "No, it's Hebrew ... Torah."

He responds very quickly, as if waiting to quiz someone -- anyone -- with, "Ahh, how many Sabbath days in Passover!?"

I, taken aback at his random quizzing because it doesn't appear as a friendly exchange, but rather a challenge of "what do you know there little Hebrew girl?," respond with, "Well, the first two and last two days are treated as holidays." I, being Reform and in the Diaspora, know there are differences in the traditions. But this is the first thing I say, of course.

Wrong! He chides me, says "look it up! look it up!" and points me to Leviticus. There are TWO days, he says. And of course, in tradition, yes, there are. He then retrieves his Christian bible and reads the verses to me. I respond by mumbling the Hebrew translations and he continues to correct me when I say that the harvest was 'raised up' ... in the Christian bible it says it was waived about, I guess.

Then, almost as an insult he says, "You must be Reform, eh? Maybe someday you'll become Orthodox and really know your stuff!" He then talks about Easter and the crucifixion and blah blah blah. A barista approaches, mouthing "Are you okay?" The guy eventually shuts up and walks away.

It was like he was challenging me. Like he could see a sign above my head that says "Pick on me! I'm the Reform girl reading Torah in a tea shop! Please, quiz me!"

But it's bigger than that. He stood above me and I sat. I was below him. He reciting words from his Christian bible proving he knows better than I about the tradition. But I knew. Why didn't I just say "Listen man, this is the Diaspora, we do things differently. Not everything in the bible is word for word nowadays. It isn't the precision that matters, it's the passion." But I didn't. Why? I felt intimidated. Unprepared.

Why?

It's Good Friday. Beware one and all. These used to be the days when the Jews got nervous and skittish. Blood in matzo and all that. Mrph.

What a day. Chunks of meat in my ranch and getting lectured by the Christian on my own holiday. Slap! Slap! Slap!

Understanding the Misunderstood: The Bible

I had the pleasure of listening to the illustrious and brilliant scholar James Kugel not once today, but twice! I mean, this is the man behind The Bible As It Was and How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. I've known his name for years, and every time an amazing scholar enters my orbit, I'm elated. Kugel's big thing is understanding the Bible by understanding those who understood the Bible. Is that confusing? It shouldn't be. Kugel focuses on the evolution of how people understood the Bible and how we understand them and the Bible ourselves. Still confused? Okay, let's do this. Let's talk about what people call the "outside books," those that ended up in the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha. These books essentially attempt to understand the books of the Bible with a particular end in mind.

Kugel sees four points by which people in ancient times (he offered that it likely was around 500 BCE) started to look at the Bible:

1. The Bible is fundamentally cryptic
2. The Bible is a book of lessons -- aim is not merely history, but guidance
3. All texts agree with one another, there is no contradiction
4. All texts are divinely inspired

Okay, so that's good and well, right? But what does it mean for us. Let's look at an example.

In the beginning -- that is, in Genesis -- Adam is told that if he eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he surely shall die. If you recall the story, Adam ate from the tree and didn't die. So what gives? Assuming that the Bible is cryptic, there's a greater meaning here. Assuming the Bible is a book of lessons, there's a lesson here. The text can't be a contradiction, so we have to figure that out, and the text is divinely inspired, so it just has to work. Let's work this out.

Two books -- especially the books of Ben Sira and Fourth Ezra -- tackle this issue in their own special way. The idea is that the "you surely shall die" bit is understood as you are now a "person who WILL die." The assumption, then, is that before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they were meant to be immortal, and after eating from the tree they didn't die instantly, but the result of the sin is that they're meant to die eventually. Then we quip, what about that Tree of Life, then? Was that something from which they would have needed to eat every now and again in order to stay invigorated during eternal life? But let's not go there.

Then we have to ask -- because every explanation in the "outside books" and other commentaries always produces and equally frustrating question -- what about divine justice? Just because Adam and Eve screwed up and their punishment was eventual death, why should their descendants be visited with the sins of the fathers? After all, elsewhere the Bible talks about this not being the protocol. The explanation is simple: It wasn't the act, but the inclination to sin evident in Adam and Eve, that makes us mortal and insists upon eventual death. 

So we figure out the cryptic meaning, the lesson (inclination to sin = bad), the contradiction in the text is gone (even the visiting of sins of the father on the sons), and because all of those items are qualified, the text is provable (er, cough) as divinely inspired. Right? Right. Oh that feels so good. 

Kugel emphasizes the fact that texts are not, despite what we might want to think, immutable. This, of course, is incredibly vivid in my experience as a blogger -- people bring their baggage with them to every post, every text I write up. I can't change that, I can only embrace it and hope that it works itself out in a productive (and not destructive) way. I'd say 60 percent of the time it does, and the other 40 percent, it doesn't. Sometimes, what people bring to a text is far more destructive than productive. 

When considering the Bible and its extant texts, it is clear in the "outside works" that the authors have their own baggage at the table with them while writing/gleaning/revealing the text. We have expectations for texts depending on the genre we identify it as. Kugel gave the example of a letter, which starts "Dear ..." He said, "Dear?! We barely know each other!" The assumption, however, is that within the genre of the letter, "Dear" is a simple, typical, benign letter opener. But you look at a text and see it as a genre and you make your suppositions about it based on that information. 

So, I guess the same could be said for my blog. People come here, see it as a blog post written by me, probably with the assumption that it's about me, for me. Added that you have the baggage that an individual chucks with them, and that's what makes for a recipe for disaster. 

It's a delicate balance, and the theory works for anything and everything that is written -- be it Bible or a blog post. 

Stay tuned! I also want to blog about what he had to say about the two instances of G-d telling Avram to go forth (lech lecha!) and how Jubilees and other texts happen to reconcile the issue. It's fascinating, and maybe I can talk @DovBear into letting me chuck this and the upcoming post on his blog. 

And now? I'm going to finish up what's on my agenda for the night and try to track down a copy of "Life of Brian." Kugel quoted some hilarious lines from the Sermon on the Mount scene regarding the cryptic nature of the Bible :) The great thing about Kugel is that he's 100 percent brilliant, and his knowledge of language and the history thereof is not to be compared. Oh, and he has the perfect balance of jokes/information to keep his listener informed and involved. I only hope to have such mad skills as a teacher someday. 

Sidenote: Of Philo, regarding his birth and death dates, Kugel said: "In one era, and out the other!" I was rolling!

A few randoms.

A few of the randoms to help you sleep at night.

• BIBLES: I bought my first Holy Bible today. It's the Revised Standard Version, and it cost me about $12. Yes, when I say Holy Bible I mean the whole thing -- that Hebrew Bible and the new stuff, too. I don't do the whole "New" and "Old" bit, simply because, well, some people just don't like the way it sounds. Some, they say, think that by calling the Hebrew Bible "old," it's implying false or impractical or completely out of date and obscenely wrong. So I've got the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible (that works, right?) here in my clutches. I owned a Holy Bible once, back in the day, that was a gift from my parents when I was a wee lass. It was a Precious Moments bible, and I loved -- I repeat loved -- that thing because of the neat pictures it had. I remember at a very early age trying to get through Genesis, but all the so-and-sos begatting so-and-sos left me feeling empty, so I went back to the pictures. I will say, though, that it was, well, unsettling to have to buy this Holy Bible. Why? Because I'm moronic sometimes. Yes, every scholar should probably have a copy of the working Holy Bible, but I guess I've just never had a use for it before. But now, with my Bible Topics class, I have to prepare to delve into the Christian side of things. It makes me a little nervous ... everything I've ever read out of Paul just makes me want to ... well, that's a different discussion. Let's just say that I prefer my JPS Tanakh. 
• NAMES: I realized that Chaviva is a more practical name than some might thing. Yes, it might be difficult for the masses (Jew and gentile alike) to pronounce, but when I was walking through the dining hall tonight I kept hearing someone yelling "AMANDA! AMANDA!" and I, of course, looked. It isn't like I know anyone here, but I still had to perk up my old ears because, well, for nearly 25 years people have been yelling "Amanda!" I'd prefer to be able to not perk the ears any more with such a common name. I mean, how often do you hear someone yelling "CHAVI!?!?!" across a college dining hall? Yah, I'd know it was for me.
• NERVES (not of the steel variety): I've decided that the stomach ache I've been nursing since Monday evening is a big pile of nerves mixed with stress stewing in my insides. I get so worked up about things, even when, well, it isn't outwardly obvious. I'm really focused on doing things right, especially this first semester. It will likely result in anti-social behavior (sorry fellow graduate students -- read: Jess!), but I'm going to devote myself to studying olam in the realm of Qohelet, mastering the Hebrew language, and hopefully passing some tests and writing some massively lengthy papers. I figure if I can get through my first semester with brilliant, flying colors, then I will feel a bit better about everything.
• LUNGS: I've also decided that I need to breathe. 
• KASHERING: Unfortunately, I have yet to set foot in the kosher dining facilities. You see, I'm over here, and they're over there, and it's a bit of a jaunt. Yes, there are people who live even further south in the alumni dorms who I know are kosher and who trek over to Nosh for meals, but, I'm just not there yet. I mean, will it be awkward if I go into the kosher dining hall wearing capri pants, a tank top and a cardigan? Is there a typical dress code for fitting into the kosher dining hall? In truth, it isn't that that's keeping me, it really is the distance. It's a schlep and a half, and if the Hillel building were actually functioning, well, it'd be worth going over there for dinner at Nosh, then studying at Hillel. But that's a no-go so my inspiration is nil. On the other hand, I have eaten vegetarian since being here (well, if you don't count the chicken at Panda Express on Sunday when I had visitors), so that's a start, right? No opportunity to mix meat and milk there. 
• GRAD GUIDELINES: Someone really needs to write a book about the tricks to graduate school. On day one I was thinking, so I bought this UCONN t-shirt, right? I figured, school spirit, a new t-shirt, it's a win-win. But then I started thinking ... if I'm a grad student, should my loyalty continue to reside with my undergraduate university? Should I not show grad school pride? Is it one of those, once you're done you can exude pride kind of things? It was suggested that the UCONN t-shirt should be worn passively, perhaps under a sweater or other shirt. As a graduate student, am I to get involved on campus with groups? Or should I steer clear? What are the policies on campus pride, darn't!? I mean, I'm not about to go to football or basketball games, simply because they won't compare to Husker games (I'm a Husker for life), but add to that that I'm a graduate student and it seems to label me "apathetic, disinterested, nose-in-a-book student." Someone, please tell me the rules of the game?

Well, I think that's all for tonight. I'm trying to extend my awake hours so I can adjust for those nights that I really, really need to be awake to study or write or read or cry. This going to bed at 10 p.m. thing just isn't going to fly in this world. 

G-d: He is she is he.

Wow. Firstly, I have to thank Cesar for bringing this article to my attention ... but talk about an interesting and fascinating breakthrough in biblical scholarship. The entire article, "Rabbi unveils a secret of G-d" (hyphen inserted by me) can be found by clicking here. I will have to write more about this later (since I am at work) but I have to get this out into the big bad world of the interwebs and my blog-o-community becuase I think this is a brilliant undertaking academically.

The tradition-bound Western image of a he-man, masculine God may already be thousands of years out of date, says a Westchester rabbi who believes he has unlocked the secret to God's name and androgynous nature.

Rabbi Mark Sameth contends in a soon-to-be-published article that the four-letter Hebrew name for God - held by Jewish tradition to be unpronounceable since the year 70 - should actually be read in reverse. When the four letters are flipped, he says, the new name makes the sounds of the Hebrew words for "he" and "she."

And here is a video with the rabbi discussing his thoughts on this. Brilliant!

A productive, academic day.

Today was a day of grand achievements and productivity. Yes, I actually sat down and did something academic for the first time in a long time -- I worked on my entries to an upcoming Bible Dictionary that will be published (out of Canada, I believe). There was a call for entries and the Kosher Academic was kind enough to pass along the info to me, so I signed up to write the entries for Tzipporah, Mara, and Naomi.

For those in the know, you'll note that Mara and Naomi are essentially one in the same. However, while there is plenty to write about Naomi, writing about Mara -- by which Naomi asks to be called after losing her sons, husband, and her long sojourn in a foreign land -- which means "bitter," has been much harder. For starters there isn't much content, which means I need to fill in elsewhere with interesting facts and tidbits. For Naomi this includes paintings and pieces of artwork or literature in which her story has shown up.

I thought I had it in the bag with Mara, seeing as Tova Reich has a book called "Mara," and the character also appears in Reich's newest (and controversial) book, "My Holocaust." Then I started investigating the proper name "Mara," only to find that the name has many, many meanings and significances in many different cultures around the world. There are folklores with mara, there are goddesses and evil spirits by the name of mara, there is even a Mara people located in India. (For what it's worth, I e-mailed the latter to find out if their identifiying name had anything to do with the biblical Mara. The administrator of the peoples' website got back to me really quick and let me know that no, there is no relation. Blast!) I also e-mailed Tova Reich's publicist in the hopes that Reich can verify whether her book title and character have anything to do with the biblical Mara. In truth, I almost think the character Mara *is* the biblical Mara -- the name meaning bitter, as the Almighty had dealt bitterly with Naomi. Of course, I imagine it'll be days, perhaps weeks, before I hear back from Reich or her publicist.

At any rate, it was a good, productive day and I got most of my entries written. Tzipporah ended up being the longest, and even includes a little tidbit about Michelle Pfeifer doing the voice of Tzipporah in "The Prince of Egypt" -- the 1998 film by DreamWorks. Fascinating, no?

Living biblically.

I'll admit. This guy is pretty admirable.