Nobody loves the Song of Songs

15 thoughts on “Nobody loves the Song of Songs”

1. Michael September 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm

   Rabbi Hillel might have disagreed about the appropriateness of having a favorite verse: “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary.”

   Reply ↓
2. Vardibidian October 1, 2007 at 10:33 am

   Which would put Mr. Russert in the character of the asshole who demanded to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one foot. And who, in the version of the story I know, was so shamed by R. Hillel’s response that he stayed and studied, and became learned in the law.

   Of course, R. Shammai had a point, too.

   Thanks,
   -V.

   Reply ↓
3. Will October 1, 2007 at 11:15 am

   V., I like your personal response to Mr. Russert’s question. But it strikes me that your response is coming from a very different perspective than the Democratic candidates’: they are all (nominally, at least) Christian and all refer to (if not cite) specific passages or ideas from the New Testament.

   Is this representative of a great difference in how Jews and Christians view Scripture? I think it’s not uncommon for Christians to cite specific passages to forward political agendas (though I think of this as characteristic of fundamentalist televangelists seeking support for very specific (anti-gay, etc) agendas rather than of candidates for national office), but perhaps it’s a general Jewish/Christian paradigm difference? Is it perhaps generally perceived as “ok” for Christians to have a “favorite, guiding verse or single principle” rather than to try to follow the Word as a whole?

   Personally, I agree with your perspective on this (regard the whole rather than a part), but I come at this from the perspective of more of an observer of organized religion and general non-Christian and non-Jewish deist (who happens to also like the social and traditional aspects of both Judaism and Christianity), and don’t regard any particular Scripture as we have it–the Tanakh, the Gospels, the Koran, etc–as The Be-All End-All but rather A Very Good Thing To Read And Understand And Be Able To Cogently Talk About Because It Is In Its Various Forms Deeply Meaningful To Many People Who Should Really Understand It Better IMNSHO.

   In other words, I too think this question of Mr. Russert’s was out of line and atrocious bunk, and that the candidates’ answers were meaningful only insofar as they display each candidate’s degree of unfamiliarity with Scripture.

   Reply ↓
4. Anonymous October 1, 2007 at 12:29 pm

   Which would put Mr. Russert in the character of the asshole who demanded to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one foot.

   Yes, exactly. I cannot imagine a more fitting character.

   Reply ↓
5. Vardibidian October 1, 2007 at 1:48 pm

   Will, my hypothetical answer was meant as much as a rhetorical gambit as the only defensible theological position. I do think it’s the obvious theological position, and that our human tendency to have favorites is more an admission of weakness than anything else—human weakness, and humanity, which are Good Things, so I’ve no objection to R. Hillel’s patient answer to an impatient asshole, although traditionally, for all that R. Hillel is approvingly quoted, it’s R. Shammai that sets the precedent (which is a frequent occurrence).

   And I am not in a position to say definitively, but I think that both Christian and Jewish orthodoxy insist on the Scriptures being viewed as a whole, indivisible. Some people are more or less strict about playing to our preference for favorites, but that’s within a context that generally accepts the unity of Scripture.

   That’s separate, of course, from the practice of seeking advice by picking a verse at random. In that case, you aren’t seen as picking and choosing, but as letting the Word speak as it will.

   Thanks,
   -V.

   Reply ↓
6. Michael October 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm

   I appreciate your point about not choosing favorites from the Word of God, but in any given situation there are verses which are more easily instructive, more transparently applicable. In any study session, there are verses which are more richly challenging, more surprising, or more educational. Those verses naturally should and do change. The answer I would have found more illuminating would have ignored the vague “favorite” scheme of the questioner and instead chosen a verse and explained how it can be particularly helpful in approaching one of the challenges we face today as a nation. Perhaps the idea of faith informing policy outlook would have seemed too intrusive, but I personally would be comfortable seeing faith used as a springboard rather than a hedge around the secular law.

   Reply ↓
7. Jed October 2, 2007 at 1:32 am

   My perspective on this may be irrelevant, being an unbeliever and all, but in addition to what Michael said, I suspect that most Christians would say that some verses are more important than others. For example, compare Genesis 1:1 with Genesis 5:12: “And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:” Wouldn’t it be acceptable to find the former of more interest, value, and relevance than the latter?

   And as for “it does not hold together if picked apart,” don’t scholars (both Rabbinical and secular) spend a great deal of time picking apart the scriptures? I know you said “we are human, how can we help having favorites,” but it sounds to me like you’re saying that that’s a flaw in us, and that we should aspire to finding all parts of the Tanach equally valuable–indeed, should aspire to not being able to separate it into parts at all. I feel like I’m probably missing the point of your argument here.

   I also feel like I’m missing something in your finding the question “egregiously inappropriate.” Do you feel that way for political reasons or religious reasons, or both? It seems to me that there are a couple things going on with that question, in the context of modern American politics and of Democratic candidates being asked. For example:

   1. Most Americans are at least somewhat religious (specifically Christian); most Americans seem to want a leader who’s at least somewhat religious (specifically Christian) (I would love to see a non-Christian have a chance to be elected President, but it seems unlikely to happen); most Americans seem to feel that a candidate’s religion is likely to inform their values, and thus that a candidate who isn’t religious enough won’t share the right values; asking a Christian what their favorite Bible verse is seems like a plausible way of gauging whether they’re familiar enough with the Bible to have a favorite. These candidates demonstrated, as you noted, that they’re not very familiar with the Bible; on the other hand, the level of familiarity they displayed is probably similar to that of many voters.

   2. I would expect that in modern America, any Christian candidate for political office would expect to face questions designed to let them show their familiarity with the Bible. They might not have expected such questions until after they won the nomination (at which point they could expect questions from conservative Christians), but I’m kinda surprised the candidates weren’t better prepared for this.

   3. In addition to the religious side of the question, it’s an indirect way of asking the candidates about their core values, and I think in that regard it mostly worked reasonably well; the candidates’ answers suggest more about their values (or what they want their values to be seen as being) than about their religion. (As I think you suggested in a couple of your comments.)

   I should add that I know very little about Tim Russert, so if your unhappiness with the question had to do with the fact that he was the one to ask it, that may explain some of my confusion.

   …Btw, I did a quick Google and found a blog entry from Melissa Rogers, who suggests, among other things, that Biden may have been indicating “that religious people sometimes focus on external signs of piety to the detriment of internal transformation”; which may have been a roundabout criticism of Russert’s question. Dunno.

   …Interesting aside: I just learned that, according to Wikipedia, 4 to 5 of the Democratic candidates are Catholics (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, and former candidate Vilsack), as are 3 or 4 of the Republican candidates (Brownback, Giuliani, Keyes, and former candidate Tommy Thompson). Is that common in Presidential campaigns these days? I vaguely thought that the anti-Catholic sentiment that was a factor in the Kennedy election was still widespread enough to cause problems for Catholics seeking the Presidency, but maybe not.

   Reply ↓
8. irilyth October 2, 2007 at 10:31 am

   I’m not sure I see the hoopla either — is it worse than asking someone what their favorite movie is, or their favorite quote from that movie? My intuition isn’t to read “favorite” as “best” or “most important” or anything, but more as “particularly spoke to me”, in the way that someone might say “I used to think of religion as a boring duty, until I read the parable of the Good Samaritan, and then I realized how much more meaningful it could be”, or something.

   Reply ↓
9. Vardibidian October 2, 2007 at 12:32 pm

   First, to Jed: the Rabbis spend a good deal of time looking at individual verses (and words), but in the context of the larger scripture. Gen 5:12 may not be anybody’s favorite, but it, along with all the others, is essential; it helps us understand the others, it provides clues for interpreting the others. You can’t properly read Gen 5:21-24 without having closely read Gen 5:6-20. And so on. It is in a sense a flaw that we, as humans, tend to pick and choose, but then, from a believer’s point of view, it’s also an aspect of humanity to be celebrated, as you can’t possibly interpret that the Lord made us this way as a mistake.

   Again, my hypothetical response was a rhetorical gambit, not the only correct theological position; I think that all the Democrats came off quite badly, and would have been better served by attacking the question and the questioner. Thinking about it, a better response would be something like You know, in last week’s service we were reading Deuteronomy 32, and there was a verse in there saying something like “Remember the days of old, and the lessons of past generations; ask your fathers and the elders of the community.” And I started thinking about the ways that our previous generations had sacrificed … In the home liturgy of the candidate, of course.

   Now, as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the question, a large number of people object to it as skating close to the religious test that is expressly forbidden in our Constitution. Given the feeling of a lot of people (including Sen. McCain, depending on when you ask him) that they would prefer a religious test, I, too, found the question unsettling. Mostly, though, it treated something that is (if important at all) quite important and complicated as if it were along the lines of a favorite color or flavor of ice cream. There was no conversation about Scripture and the world, just a one-liner; the question afterward was Sox or Yankees. Whether one is offended by that (and I am, at least somewhat), it’s dumb and useless.

   Further, the question and the debate come in a context of a generation of Republican attacks on Democrats, claiming that they hate the Bible and hate religion. It’s clearly meant to be a gotcha moment (all of which are annoying). Further, it’s an unfair question, as there is no answer that is going to actually be persuasive. Or, at least, any possible answer will be worse than three or four or a dozen answers that were not given, and since by the nature of the question it isn’t possible to give a dozen answers, the person who answers the question loses. That’s why I believe the best rhetorical gambit is to refuse the question, if it’s possible to do it without succumbing to the gotcha.

   For context, can I point out that the Hartford Courant’s front page that very next Sunday that ever was featured Rosa’s Faith, helpfully subkicked “DeLauro Defiantly Shakes Off Her Party’s Reluctance To Talk About Religion”. What reluctance? Did you hear reluctance? That claim of reluctance is a slander, and Mr. Russert was (slyly) compounding it.

   Thanks,
   -V.

   Reply ↓
10. Michael October 2, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    I think your point about needing to take verses in context is contained in the premise of the question. We assume that a politician has a favorite verse or six, because we assume the politician is frequently and regularly exposed to Bible verses. Politicians go to church, and listen to sermons, and ask their priest/bishop/cardinal for counsel, and are generally carrying out their official duties as soldiers of God.

    That’s part of why the question is so disturbing, because it does assume all that. And it’s part of why the incompetence of the answers is so disturbing, because it exposes that the displays of religiosity are a hypocritical sham.

    Reply ↓
11. Jed October 2, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    Fair enough.

    Btw, I wasn’t aware when I wrote my comment of the current brouhaha over McCain’s recent remarks, so I feel like I should clarify, in order to distance myself from anything that sounds like I’m agreeing with McCain on this. I certainly don’t personally consider Christianity to be a prerequisite for my supporting a candidate; however, regardless of the religious test being forbidden, I can’t imagine a non-Christian being elected President anytime soon. (Then again, I would’ve said I can’t imagine a Quaker being elected President, so what do I know?)

    Reply ↓
12. Matt Hulan October 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Nixon was a Quaker? Weird.

    My ideal candidate would have said, “Well, I liked the seminal “hello, world” example. Almost all Bibles since have used an example like this, if not… Oh, I’m referring to Kernighan and Ritchie. Which Bible were you referring to?”

    But my ideal candidate would not get elected, so I’ll probably have to make do with yet another hypocritical lip-service Christian.

    peace
    Matt

    Reply ↓
13. Vardibidian October 2, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    I agree that in practice there is essentially zero chance that this country will elect a candidate who does not profess to Christianity (although we chose a Jewish Vice-President, who could in theory have succeeded to the Presidency or even been elected in his own right, had the electors not installed someone else altogether). The history of our Chief Executives actually attending church services might come as a surprise. Our Only President, for instance, does not seem to have a home church (or have had one before taking office). Our Previous President was a regular church-goer and bible-reader. Neither of the previous two were regular churchgoers, either. The man before that (famously) was and is a volunteer Sunday-School Teacher. I don’t know about the previous (unelected) office-holder, but the one before that, the Quaker, was given to odd fits of what might be viewed as religious mania, asking his close advisors to kneel with him in prayer.

    Correlation of Good Presidency with Churchin’ seems to be nonexistent.

    Oh, and it was pretty clear that John F. Kerry let himself in for much more bad press than he had to, because he would not stop going to church on Sunday, even after it became clear that every time the man took communion, people would use it as a stick to hit him with. Given how close the election was, it may well be that he gave up the Presidency for the sake of his soul.

    Thanks,
    -V.

    Reply ↓
14. Matt Hulan October 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

    Yeah, I liked John Kerry. Shame about that.

    peace
    Matt

    Reply ↓
15. Matt Hulan October 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    This had some pretty good questions, too.

    peace
    Matt

    Reply ↓