Tower of Babel and the Internet

Post Fact era has got me thinking about the internet. The internet, at its core, has the potential for universal communication- and that was how it was marketed when it first arose. The internet would bring people together, allow us all to reach each other and meet common ground through this online platform. And it has, in many ways. But, as we have seen now with all the propaganda and fake news, it has as much of a potential to convolute communication and separate people. We are all talking, but no one is understanding, or discussing the same thing.

This reminded me of the Tower of Babel story- after the Great Flood, humans were unified, speaking one language, and wished to live in the heavens by building this tower. As a lesson in humility, God scatters the people and changes their languages. Something similar has happened with the internet- it began as an open source potential for growth and evolution, and then things became convoluted and no one can bridge the gaps. Sub-reddits are a prime example of this- a area designated for specific language involving one specific thing. It does not appeal to everyone, and cannot be understood by everyone.

"Babel" itself is a link to the Hebrew word balal- to confound or confuse. And, primarily, the internet is a confusing place.

How do we foster communication and understanding? Why do we seem to inherently misunderstand each other? Can we salvage the platform of the internet?

Generations of Prayer

            The beginning of Lawrence Hoffman's Sacred Myths chapter really made me think: “a human desire to see ourselves as the continuers of a heritage that surpasses our own meager immediate life-space.” The Jews, generation by generation, choose to categorize themselves as more than an individual. They make themselves seem, by continuing past practicing and engaging in heritage activities that recall what has come before them, to be more even than a generation. It is as if they are representing their generation as a whole and whether they continue the “correct” Jewish way of life and worship or not.

           

            I think it is interesting that Hoffman talks about how it is vital to continue heritage, but, on the other hand, it is brave to go in directions other than the old way of doing things. This gives a believer a unique path of worship as well as independence.

            Generations upon generations have prayed. Not only that, but you can pray for others, those who are less fortunate, and your religious community as a whole. Over the last three years, I have been more and more aware of my actions. There has been a corresponding rise in the amount of my prayer. This is my reality. I am grateful to be alive and have a higher power to thank for that and serve. This brings me back to Jewish prayers and religious events that allow believers to give thanks and express their desire to serve.

            In my own personal experiences, prayer really works for some people but does not for others. This does not necessarily mean that if you are not praying you are not upholding your religion or beliefs. I myself consider myself a Christian but I do not pray every single day. While I sometimes feel badly about this, I understand that my prayer functions within my faith differently than others. It does not lessen my stance as a Christian.

            Prayer often revolves around what someone is living: his or her reality. What is good or bad is different for everybody. Hoffman also states that a prayer “is exposed . . . as having a certain origin, a response to Roman persecution, let us say,” so a prayer holds a meaning for a reason. What you have gone through is often what you derive your prayer from. I believe this is a good thing; it allows people to have something to fall back on: hope. This examination of prayer ties into the desire of what you hope for.

International Relations and the Bible

"Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land." Exodus 1:10

This quote from Exodus because of the political situation it proposes. This is the pharaoh of Egypt that knows not of Joseph and so he severely misunderstands the Jewish people under his rule. He wishes to stop their expansion because he is afraid that they will eventually find an enemy nation and attack Egypt with this outside force. The Israelites are getting too big and their growing numbers represent their growing power that can and will be realized by the children of Abraham violently. Their population expansion can be seen in the modern context as a rising economic power like that of modern day China. The Israelites represented the potential for conflict, like in the eyes of many Americans and International Relation theorists, the economic might of China can and is being translated into military power. This military power is seen as a threat to the power of the United States and is the reason why some believe a conflict with China is eminent. But can we learn something from the situation of pharaoh and the Israelites?

"lest they multiply", Pharaoh should know that this is an inevitability that these people will multiply, its God's divine will, they're his chosen people, there is even a covenant between these people and this non-human entity. As Exodus tells us, "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph" Ex 1:8, so obviously he is completely unaware of the agreement and the divine choice and the promise. He is completely under informed about the enemy he is naming, sounds like an American President who could have been a burning Bush if one's pants actually lit on fire when one lies. A common problem between leaders is not knowing your enemy, which we know is a grave mistake, as Pharaoh learned with his relationship with Moses and as America learned with our endeavors in the Middle East (and Vietnam). 

Know your enemy. The United States should ensure its well informed on a Chinese enemy if they choose to make China an enemy. That is they should be well informed on China's view of themselves in the international system. As well as understand Chinese culture and traditions; lest America try and punish them, like pharaoh who, "made their lives bitter with hard bondage"Ex 1:14, and then when that didn't work ordered the genocide of Jewish males. If the U.S. trys to enact a modern day punishment against the rising power, like economic sanctions to try and deter the Chinese economy, the equivalent to the hard labor and murder of Jewish children ordered by pharaoh, then America might end up with a stronger China than before, like the Egyptians saw with Israelites. 

A new realization

There is no doubt that this was a great week in class.  Our first assignment was to look for the eight characteristics of the biblical narrative in the first 27 chapters of Genesis.  This proved to be very different for me because I thought this was going to be much easier for me since I had a great deal of Catholic school in my

growing years.  I was proven wrong because i realized that I never looked at the

bible as a great masterpiece of literature.  Therefore to read and see the bible through the literary lens was very interesting, yet challenging.  In addition, I thought I would have an advantage with my Catholic background but it is far different to

analyze the bible than to actually regard it as a reference point of history.

When I was a toddler, my mum told me that she was really surprised that I sat so quietly and still during the Sunday masses.  Unlike all the other toddlers and children ridden to the back of the church and separated by a glass partition due to their

lack of patience, I was always very present in my pew.  In retrospective, my mum realized that I was completely intrigued with all the movement and formal procedures.  It was almost like I was watching a performance on stage.  After all,

everybody was dressed in a robe of some sort.  And through the eyes of a child,

it looked very colorful, unique and opulent.  

In addition, there was always wonderful music that filled the very high ceiling.  If it was the early morning Sunday mass, the choral was always present.  Approximately twenty singers would rally together and joyfully jazz up some of the more classic hymns.  Saturday vigil mass or Sunday evening mass was substituted by guitar music and a soloist.  These masses had a more casual feeling than the morning Sunday masses.  Nonetheless, music was always present and began each mass as well as ended it.  It would not be a mass without some form of music and of course rejoicing.  

Dressing for mass was always a comforting routine.  We have gotten very casual in our days for attending mass; however, my mum never allowed jeans or denim.  Thus this was always a deliberating matter of what to wear.  I usually brought out

my usual black slacks or leggings with a dressier sweater.  However, I do recall that others definitely lacked in any sort of effort to look any better than attending a soccer match on a  rainy Saturday afternoon.  

I definitely enjoyed the donuts at the reception hall after mass.  I was always bewildered why we never had any delicious sweets in my Sunday catholic study classes.  Despite everyone always trying to be on better behavior than average, there was always a warm openness in class.  The nuns and priests as our teachers were always interesting and their presence added great formality and comforting tradition to the day.  This is probably one of the reasons that I truly find relaxation in religion class.  Not only is it fascinating, but there is definite structure in all different types of religion.  There are never any surprises, but a real system.

Perhaps why i really embraced being Catholic was probably the rigidness and the extreme set of rules and beliefs.  It is all very clear and no room for bending the rules or even questioning the rules.  It is hard and steadfast.  And this is how it has been for centuries.  Living in today's unpredictable world, it is always wonderful to know that some things just never and will not change.  

Women and Babies

            In Half the Kingdom, the women studying the Torah find that by bringing a woman’s perspective to learning, there is more to be discovered and examined. Text study is “the most important point of all; Jewish life is a life of constant study. One’s Jewish learning is never complete” (JCM 134). There is more to be discovered and more meaning to still be found in Scripture. It thus gives support to the idea that there is space for women’s voices in the Jewish religion.

            When we spoke in class about how women are now starting to not only interpret but add a modern view of the Torah and how it is read. The Scripture was written for men and for men to read, but women are finding a way to not only interpret their text differently but create their own path within the Torah. This is giving them their own expression and a value they are working to make equal to men when it comes to the Scripture.

            I thought it was moving when they showed a baby girl being born and women gathered recited prayers together and bless the baby even though this is not the common tradition amongst Jews: Usually, just when a male baby is born does the Scripture get read within a group, with prayers for the health of the baby, like a religious baby shower.

            I would be interested in seeing how much more of a progression there has been within the Jewish culture and women’s role with Scripture since this movie was made. Based on my experiences with the strong feminist movement that things have continued to change for the better, but I know that religions can move more slowly.

I found it powerful that some women in the movie were struggling with the fact that Judaism is very patriarchal. Many of them were deciding to leave their temples and their faith. I found it impressive that women were taking it upon themselves to change this. I would hope that this could only continue as the years went on.

Cult Classic

           I find rereading Exodus unexpectedly interesting. It struck me that the Lord in Exodus is giving all of these rules all his followers should obey. They sound like ultimatums. “If you don’t do this, this will happen...” It threw me off: it made me feel like Christianity was cultish WHILE reading the Bible. The little things were made sound so black and white—life or death. To be close to God, in my experience, I understand following a proper, Christian way of living is good. You do not, however, have to do everything right in order to be a good Christian. 

 

            One of the themes that made me keep thinking about this is how all the people, after being given the Ten Commandments, get frightened by the thunder and lightening from the mountain. They are able to express this to Moses: “Speak to us yourself and we will listen, but do not have God speak to us or we will die” (Exodus 19:16). In a cult, there is generally one leader whom everyone is scared of and will do anything to make happy. Hearing how terrified the people waiting for God’s commandments are is disturbing. 

            The way God is speaking in the Bible would be less accepted, at least in most of America and the European world because people have more rights and choice today. Today there is more choice in what an individual can do or say he or she believes. I think this is a good thing; it allows people to be themselves more. This, I think, means that faith is able to be more truthful today. For me, I feel guilty when I do something that I “shouldn’t” do as a Christian, but I am not worried about the threat of death. If I was worried that I might die as a result of my actions, I would likely be more scared and more of a “perfect Christian” simply because I am scared instead of this being a result of my beliefs.

Sacred and Scripture

           Starting to read the encyclopedia entry for “Scripture,” I started to think about sacred texts and feeling or understanding my religious beliefs...or what would be “sacred” for me. Until I became a religion major, I had not spent much time reading scripture, even for my own beliefs. I heard scripture in church but somehow that seems different to me. 

            The last six months or so, I have been visiting a place I find spiritual outside of church: My special place is the bench on the edge of the Wheaton soccer field, dedicated to three former Wheaton soccer players who have passed away over the last few years: friends. I chose this place specifically because it reminds me of my four years playing soccer at Wheaton. It allows me to not only reminisce on those times and positive memories, but this place serves as a sanctuary for me. This feels more sacred.

            During a hard semester last fall, I felt spiritually centered when I sat on my bench. Originally, I think, this came from the love I have for soccer. It gives me the most calm. Being calm, I have realized through my time on this bench and in more traditional sacred spaces, allows me to become spiritually connected. I struggle to connect with written words in particular, so maybe that is why it is easier for me to feel more spiritually connected to a place than to the Bible.

Now vs. Then

Having read the Hebrew bible again recently, I am reminded that the way the we were told to do things like celebrate were different from the way we celebrate now.many of the celebrations the Jewish people were told to have are still celebrated today but in a different way.

Passover is one of the celebrations that has changed and evolved over time. In the bible we are told to celebrate the freeing of the Hebrews from Egypt but we are only told this in vague terms, "For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast." (Exodus 12:15). Now, however, we celebrate this with Passover. Passover is a seven night celebration of the freeing of the Hebrews. Many of the things we are asked to do in the bible are the same today, such as during Passover, we only eat unleavened bread. But many things have been added. One addition is to leave out a cup of wine for the prophet Elijah and leave a door cracked open so he may enter the house. another addition to the celebration is reciting of the words of the four children.

Another celebration that has changed is Shabbat. Shabbat is the celebration of the Sabbath on Friday nights. In the Bible we are told to rest and not do any work on the Sabbath, "but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns" (Exodus 20:10). The way the sabbath is celebrated is very different. We still do no work, but we have a special dinner to celebrate the sabbath. We eat a special bread called challah, and we light candles and drink a ceremonial cup of wine.


We have thousands of years of history and that has caused us to change the way we partake the celebrations and ceremonies described in the bible. It gives one the feeling of being involved in the way we interpret the bible.

Whose narrative? Repetition and non-repetition of Pharaoh's hardened heart, in the Torah and now

The original experience of the signs and miracles may have been overwhelming.  But when the Torah repeatedly urges their transmission to the future, in the form of narrative, triumphant simplicities disappear in the dazzle and blur of memory. The question arises: "Whose narrative?"   (Avivah Zornberg, The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus)

I have been thinking a lot lately about how one deals with people who seem impervious to communication or paying attention to data that might change their minds, or as the Torah puts it, whose "hearts are hardened."  Last week, the weekly Torah portion read in Jewish synagogues was chapters 10-13 of Exodus, which covers the last few plagues when Pharaoh's heart is hardened, explicitly by God, as well as the first Passover laws intended to keep the Israelites from suffering the plague of the death of the firstborn. Among these laws is the command to tell this story to future generations of Israelites. Avivah Zornberg, in her commentary to Exodus,  discusses this, and suggests that the Biblical narrative includes a kind of subversive subtext of narrative, a way of saying you shouldn't necessarily believe exactly what your eyes have seen (or what your ears have heard).  There might be multiple ways of interpreting the events before your eyes - the signs and wonders God accomplished in the Egyptians and Israelites, right before their eyes.  Though not right before the eyes of subsequent generations of Israelites, that is, "your child who will ask" what the laws instituted in Ex 12-13 mean.  The narrative non-repetitions in the story of the plagues open other possible interpretations.

There are discrepancies and non-repetitions in what, how, and why God says specifically about Pharoah's heart being hardened. In Ex. 7:3-5, the Lord says:

But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 When Pharaoh does not listen to you, I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my people the Israelites, company by company, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. 5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.

In Ex. 10:12, before the 8th plague of the locusts, the Lord says,

Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, 2 and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them—so that you may know that I am the Lord.

It's not just for the Egyptians to to know, but also so that you - Israelites, including your children and grandchildren- "may know that I am the Lord" - by telling them how He made fools of the Egyptians.
Not exactly what God said earlier.

Moreover, did God Himself harden Pharaoh's heart, or did he harden it himself?  Certainly God predicts that he will harden Pharaoh's heart, but does that mean that God was directly responsible for every instance that Pharaoh's heart was hardened?  The narrative offers a mixed message: sometime Pharaoh himself, sometimes God hardened it. For the first five plagues, it seems to be Pharaoh himself. Pharaoh is the subject of sentences referring to his hardening his heart; it doesn't say explicitly God hardened it, i.e., 7:22: after the blood plague, "Pharaoh remained obstinate (as the Lord had foretold)"; after the frogs, "he became obdurate  as the Lord had foretold;" after the lice, 8:19: "Pharaoh remained obstinate  (as the Lord had foretold); and so on after the swarms of flies (8:32),  the plague of the animal disease (9:12). Only after the plague of hail, while at first it says Pharoah remained obstinate (9:35), does it say explicitly (with God speaking), that "I have made him [Pharaoh] and his courtiers obdurate" (Ex 10:1), and then after the plague of locusts, "The Lord made Pharaoh obstinate" (10:20), after the plague of darkness, " "the Lord made Pharaoh obstinate" (10:27; 11:9).

So does this break in the pattern suggest that Pharaoh at least at first had free will, and only later did God make him harden his heart?  Or did God's foretelling it make it so, as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? The non-repetition makes us question who's pulling Pharaoh's strings, or when?  Also, in several of Pharaoh's refusals to let the Israelites go, he first assents (sometimes with conditions unacceptable to Moses), and then changes his mind.  That sounds more like a flexible, rubbery heart, not an inflexible heart of stone - despite the fact the text says Pharaoh's heart was "hardened."

So this is one set of particularly significant breaks from the repeated pattern of "plague followed by Pharaoh's heart-hardening." This break also parallels more or less another break - plagues affecting all of Egypt, vs. plagues specified as affecting only the Egyptians, and sparing the the Israelites.  That sets up the last big break from the pattern, God's legislation of the Passover laws in Ex 12 between the 9th and last plague killing the Egyptians' first born sons.  By observing those laws, by doing that actions commanded by God, the Israelites will be be spared from the fate of having their first born sons killed unlike the Egyptians; God will "pass over" the Israelites' homes. An interesting and notable connection between narrative and law in the Torah! The laws have a function in the narrative - to break the pattern and to advance the plot!

OK - so much for the details. The big question is what's the point of these repetitions and breaking the pattern? I think it's to address the the bigger question, the one I began with - how do we explain and how do we deal with people like Pharaoh who are impervious to persuasion and change, and who seek to harm us? The Torah "answers" this by basically having God set Pharaoh up, staging a performance in which Pharaoh thinks and acts as if he's in control, but he's really not.  God plays him like a puppet, and shows him to be a self-deluded fool before the eyes of his Egyptian subjects, and before the eyes of the Israelites.  Pharaoh doesn't really ever have to be convinced decisively to change his mind, since he is overcome by events, regardless of his intentions.  God uses Pharaoh's  intransigence to make a point,  a point made not only to the the Egyptians and Israelites at the time, but to subsequent generations of Israelites, by commanding the Israelites to tell and retell the story of what God did for them and to Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

But at what cost?  A lot of innocent Egyptians had to suffer because of the hard-heartedness of their ruler; their animals and land devastated, a lot of dead first-born sons! All to make a point!? What kind of God does this?  What kind of  people worship and serve a God who would do this?  The narrative raises as many questions as it "answers." The holes in the narrative, the discrepancies, the repetition/non-repetitions leave room for these questions.  And so does the command to tell the story in subsequent generations, because each retelling has to confront anew these questions, gaps, discrepancies.  We see and embrace both the patterns and the breaks from the patterns.   The Torah text leaves room for subversive narratives, different ways of telling "the same story."

And the new circumstances in which we retell the old stories also bring out new resonances, new meanings. What do you think of now, when you hear the story of the heart-hardened Pharaoh, impervious to persuasion, to facts, to the advice of his advisors, to the suffering of his own subjects, and to the suffering of the Others in his midst?