An Atheist Explores the Apocrypha Part 21: Gollum, Silly Walks and Ruptured Perineums (Ecclesiasticus 16-20)
Ecclesiasticus
16-20
Gollum, Silly Walks and Ruptured Perineums.
Welcome to the next instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts
(Apocrypha version).
In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the Old
Testament Apocrypha, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as
literature and mythology.
Ecclesiasticus
16
“Desire not a multitude of unprofitable children, neither
delight in ungodly sons”
There are some amusing verses at the start of this
chapter about not breeding loads of stupid children – “better it is to die without children, than to have them that are
ungodly” because “one that is just is
better than a thousand”. Don’t, says ben Sirach, multiply the godless so
that cities are full of sinners. Clearly he’s been on a long haul flight with
somebody else’s misbehaving children sat in the row behind him.
The rest of this chapter is largely concerned with the
notion that “The sinner shall not escape
with his spoils: and the patience of the godly shall not be frustrate[d]”,
listing various times in the Bible where God destroyed people, such as “the old giants, who fell away in the
strength of their foolishness”, the people of Sodom, Pharaoh’s people and “six hundred thousand footmen” for whom I
don’t recognise the reference. Maybe Pharaoh’s troops?
There’s some interesting cosmology tucked away amid
declarations about how great God is, including “the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, the deep, and the earth, and all
that therein is” and “the mountains
also and foundations of the earth”. The deep I would guess is the sea,
possibly thought to extend beneath indefinitely, maybe even around the “pillars of the earth”. And I’d guess
that while “the heaven” is merely the
vault of the sky, the “heaven of heavens”
is the bit above that that contains, I don’t know, God? Angels? Stars? How many
crystal spheres would you like?
Ecclesiasticus
17
“The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it
again”
This is much more of a Poetic chapter than it is a Wisdom
one, discussing the nature of God and man’s relation to Him; and from the
opening line above it come around to the final verse which ends with “and all men are but earth and ashes”,
bringing the theme nicely full circle. It’s the Ciiircle …. No, wait, I’ve done
that one.
The themes touched upon here include the creation of
mankind by God, who grants them the capacity to think and speak – “They received the use of the five operations
of the Lord, and in the sixth place he imparted them understanding, and in the
seventh speech, an interpreter of the cogitations thereof”. I’m guessing that
the “five operations” here are
supposed to be the five senses, which would fit in with following verses about
mankind is able to apprehend God’s creation, and from this “Their eyes saw the majesty of his glory, and
their ears heard his glorious voice”.
I think here I understand the psychology of the
believer a bit more. We’ve seen lots of claims in the Bible, and especially in
the Qur’an, that because things exist and we appreciate them, that means that
they were created by God. To me, that argument doesn’t follow. That we may find
beauty in, for example, a sunset, is down to us, not to it being created for
our appreciation by a deity. But I can see that if you, for some reason, think
that it does, then you may find it hard to reconcile in your mind how a person
can both not believe in a God and also find sunsets beautiful –surely the two
are mutually exclusive? Answer: No, they aren’t.
And, of course, as I’ve made here many times, the
Argument From Trees has a tendency towards the obviously aesthetic, and make a
claim that “ugly” things such as parasites are the work of some Adversary. But
what, then, if you actually find fascinated wonder in the mouthparts of a
hookworm, and admire their singularity of purpose? What does that say about
yourself, God and the Universe?
Also given here is the statement that “Withal he filled them with the knowledge of
understanding, and shewed them good and evil”. No, no He didn’t. God put
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the path of mankind, told them not to
eat it under pain of death and then, when they did, cursed them to grow old and
die, perform agriculture against constant invasive species and suffer a
ruptured perineum during childbirth. That is NOT “shewing them good and evil”.
I seem to have wandered a bit. The rest of the chapter
is largely about how God will forgive sins if you turn to Him, and also
continues the OT theme that there is only the one life – “Who shall praise the most High in the grave, instead of them which live
and give thanks?”
Ecclesiastes
18
“As for the wondrous works of the Lord, there may nothing be
taken from them, neither may any thing be put unto them, neither can the ground
of them be found out.”
The opening verses of this chapter describe how God,
as creator of everything, is an unknowable entity so much greater than mankind
– so far so typical, right? Where this gets somewhat interesting theologically
is that the chapter describes that because “The
number of a man's days at the most are an hundred years”, and because to
God this short span is nothing – “As a
drop of water unto the sea, and a gravelstone in comparison of the sand; so are
a thousand years to the days of eternity” then God is patient with
humanity’s many shortcomings and willing to forgive them. Which I’d not seen it
put that way before and makes God seem somewhat more reasonable than many other
Biblical interpretations.
The rest of this chapter reverts to the typical Wisdom
Tradition bi-part verses, and are generally either truisms of some other kind
of meaningless platitude. There seems to be a theme where the expression
“sickness”, such as in “Learn before thou
speak, and use physick or ever thou be sick” is actually a reference to
spiritual sickness (sin) rather than physical health, for example later on “Humble thyself before thou be sick, and in
the time of sins shew repentance”. I bad-mouth the verses above, but the
general theme is to show humility, be prudent and attempt to understand before
acting, which are largely useful skills to show; in my opinion, though, wisdom
also comes from knowing when to act quickly and when to take pride in
accomplishments. As per Aristotle and Lao Tzu, it’s not the acts themselves
that are bad, it’s an excess or deficiency in either direction.
Ecclesiastes
19
“Admonish
thy neighbour before thou threaten him; and not being angry, give place to the
law of the most High.”
This quote comes from near the middle of the chapter
(Verse 17), and forms a kind of bridge between the two intersecting themes. The
chapter begins by warning against excessive hedonism (“Wine and women will make men of understanding to fall away: and he that
cleaveth to harlots will become impudent”) but then moves onto to mainly
talking about not using gossip and slander, both in speaking it (“If thou hast heard a word, let it die with
thee; and be bold, it will not burst thee”) and in telling it (“Admonish a friend: for many times it is a
slander, and believe not every tale”).
Gaining Wisdom requires “fear” of God (and again, it
occurs to me that perhaps this word doesn’t mean the same in the text as it
does to me. More like, perhaps, the word used in the Qur’an – “Godwary”). There
are several verses to this effect, and the chapter ends describing a very
Gollum-like character – “There is a
wicked man that hangeth down his head sadly; but inwardly he is full of deceit
[…] And if for want of power he be hindered from sinning, yet when he findeth
opportunity he will do evil”. You could see a character like that in a
Dickens novel as well. “A man's attire,
and excessive laughter, and gait, shew what he is”. So stop laughing and
don’t walk funny.
Ecclesiasticus
20
“There
is one that keepeth silence, and is found wise: and another by much babbling
becometh hateful.”
The general theme of this chapter is a familiar one
from Proverbs – keep your mouth shut. The verses are all pretty much variations
on the theme that a wise man only speaks when he has something useful to say
whereas fools babble constantly. It later also adds lying to foolish talk.
Having said that, it starts off ambiguously, with
Verse 1 stating “There is a reproof that
is not comely: again, some man holdeth his tongue, and he is wise”. Okay,
so reproof is not comely and a wise man holds his tongue. But then we are
immediately told in Verse 2 “It is much
better to reprove, than to be angry secretly: and he that confesseth his fault
shall be preserved from hurt”. So… you should say something then? It makes
some sense if you insert a “but” between the two verses – hold your own council
but not to the extent that you let anger build up, perhaps?
Since the rest of the chapter speaks highly of not
speaking (..er?), I can only guess that it must be something like this, but
also the chapter does point out that there are different but also valid reasons
for not speaking out of turn – “Some man
holdeth his tongue, because he hath not to answer: and some keepeth silence,
knowing his time”. But also this should be tempered with confidence, it’s
no use not speaking up if its only through shyness – “There is that destroyeth his own soul through bashfulness, and by
accepting of persons overthroweth himself”.
There are some nice turns of phrase in the chapter; I
liked “To slip upon a pavement is better
than to slip with the tongue”. I was less certain of “As is the lust of an eunuch to deflower a virgin; so is he that
executeth judgment with violence”. I’m guessing that the sense is that both
endeavours are doomed to frustration and pointless, but….
Comments
Post a Comment