Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine

A L S O BY H A R O L D B L O O M Where Shall Wisdom He Found> (20(H) The lies! Poems of the English Language ( 2 0 ...

Author: Harold Bloom

373 downloads 1642 Views 41MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

A L S O

BY

H A R O L D

B L O O M

Where Shall Wisdom He Found> (20(H) The lies! Poems of the English Language ( 2 0 0 4 ) Hamlet:

Poem Unlimited

(2003)

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Stories and Poems for Extremely Intelligent

Creative

Children

Minds ( 2 0 0 2 )

of All Ages ( 2 0 0 1 )

How to Read and Why ( 2 0 0 0 ) Shakespeare:

The Invention of the Human ( 1 9 9 8 )

Omens oj Millennium

(1996)

The Western Canon

(1994)

The American

Religion

The Book of J

(1992)

(1990)

Ruin the Sacred Truths ( 1 9 8 9 ) Poetics of Influence

(1988)

The Strong light of the Canonical

(1987)

Agon: Towards a Theory of Revisionism

(1982)

The Breaking of the Vessels ( 1 9 8 2 ) The Flight to Lucifer: A Gnostic Fantasy ( 1 9 7 9 ) Wallace

Stevens: The Poems of Our Climate

Figures of Capable

Imagination

Poetry and Repression Kahhalah

(1976)

(1976)

and Criticism

(1975)

A Map of Misreading The Anxiety

(1977)

(1975)

of Influence

(1973)

The Ringers in the Tower: Studies in Romantic

Tradition

Yeafs ( 1 9 7 0 ) Commentary

on David V. Erdman's Edition of

T h e Poetry and I'rose o f William Blake (1965) Blake's Apocalypse The Visionary

(1963)

Company

Shelley's Mythmakmg

(1961) (1959)

(1971)

J

E

S

U

THE

S

Y

and

NAMES

HAROLD

R I V E R H EA D

A

H

2005

E

DIVINE

BLOOM

BOOKS

a m e m b e r o f Penguin G r o u p ( U S A ) Inc. New York

W

H

[Si1 RIVERHEAD

ROOKS

Published by t h e Penguin G r o u p Penguin G r o u p ( U S A ) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, U S A Penguin Group (Canada), 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3, Canada (a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.) London WC2R 0RL, England

Penguin Books l t d , SO Strand,

Penguin Ireland, 25 St Stephen's G r e e n , Dublin 2, Ireland

(a division of Penguin Books Ltd)

Penguin G r o u p (Australia), 250 Camberwell Road.

Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia (a division of Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd) ' Penguin Books India Pvt Ltd. 11 C o m m u n i t y Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi—110017, India

Penguin G r o u p (NZ), C n r Airborne and

Rosedale Roads, Albany, Auckland 1310, New Zealand (a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd)

Penguin Books ( S o u t h Africa) (Pty) Ltd, 24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2 1 % , S o u t h Africa

Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London W C 2 R 0RL, England

Copyright © 2005 by Harold B l o o m All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed o r electronic f o r m without permission. Please do n o t participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation o f the author's rights. Purchase only authorized editions. Published simultaneously in Canada Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data B l o o m , Harold. |esus and Yahweh : the n a m e s divine / Harold B l o o m , p. c m . ISBN 1-57322-322-0 1. Jesus C h r i s t — H i s t o r y o f doctrines.

2. God (Judaism)—History o f doctrines.

3. Christianity and other religions—Judaism.

4. Judaism—Relations—Christianity.

I. Title. BT198.B555

2005

2005046409

232.9'06—dc22 Printed in the United States of America 1

3

5 7 9

10

8 6 4 2

This book is printed on acid-free paper. ®

lloolt design by Marysarah Qmnn

FOR

DONALD

HARMAN

AKENSON

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I a m grateful t o m y editor, C e l i n a Spiegel. I w o u l d also like t o t h a n k m y research assistants, Brad W o o d w o r t h and Brett Foster, as well as m y copy editor, T o n i Rachiele, and m y agents, G l e n Hartley and Lynn C h u , and their associate Katy S p r i n k e l .

CONTENTS

Introduction l Prelude: Eight Opening Reflections 10

Part

I.

JESUS

1. W h o Was Jesus and W h a t H a p p e n e d t o Him? 17 2. Q u e s t s and Q u e s t e r s for Jesus 20 3. T h e Dark S p e a k i n g o f Jesus 26 4. T h e Belated T e s t a m e n t 41 5. St. Paul 52 6. T h e G o s p e l o f M a r k 58 7. T h e G o s p e l o f J o h n 72 8. Jesus and C h r i s t 89 9. T h e Trinity

96

10. N o t Peace B u t a S w o r d o r J)ivine I n f l u e n c e 110

PART

II.

Y a h we h

11. T h e Divine N a m e : Y a h w e h 127 12. Y a h w e h A l o n e

129

13. W h a t D o e s Y a h w e h M e a n by "Love"? 165 14. T h e S o n , 0 H o w U n l i k e t h e F a t h e r 171 15. Jesus and Y a h w e h : T h e Agon for G e n i u s 16. T h e Jewish Sages on G o d 17. Self-Exile o f Y a h w e h

179

193

200

18. Y a h w e h ' s Psychology 217 19. Irreconcilability o f Christianity and Judaism 231 20. C o n c l u s i o n : Reality-Testing

235

T h o t h o u art Worshiped by t h e N a m e s Divine O f Jesus & J e h o v a h , t h o u art still T h e S o n o f M o r n in w e a r y Nights decline T h e lost Travellers D r e a m u n d e r t h e Hill — W I L L I A M B L A K E , " T h e Gates o f Paradise"

JESUS

AND

YAH WE H

INTRODUCTION

T

HIS B O O K c e n t e r s u p o n t h r e e figures: a m o r e - o r - l e s s histor-

ical person, Yeshua o f Nazareth; a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d , Jesus Christ;

and a h u m a n , a l l - t o o - h u m a n G o d , Y a h w e h . T h a t o p e n i n g s e n t e n c e c a n n o t avoid s o u n d i n g p o l e m i c a l , and yet I h o p e o n l y t o clarify (if I c a n ) and n o t t o give offense. A l m o s t e v e r y t h i n g that c a n be k n o w n a b o u t Yeshua e m a n a t e s I r o m t h e New T e s t a m e n t , and f r o m allied o r heretical writings. All these are tendentious: their designs u p o n us, as readers o r auditors, .ire palpable and conversionary. If I call Yeshua " m o r e - o r - l e s s historii al," I m e a n o n l y t h a t nearly e v e r y t h i n g truly i m p o r t a n t a b o u t h i m roaches m e f r o m texts I c a n n o t trust. Q u e s t s for " t h e historical Jesus" invariably fail, e v e n t h o s e by t h e m o s t responsible searchers. Questers, however careful, find t h e m s e l v e s , and n o t t h e elusive and evasive Yeshua, e n i g m a - o f - e n i g m a s . Every Christian believer I k n o w , h e r e o r .ibroad, has h e r or his o w n Jesus. St. Paul a d m i t t e d that he h i m s e l f had

14 H A R O L D B L O O M

b e c o m e all things t o all m e n : t h a t m a y be t h e single a u t h e n t i c affinity t h e great Apostle had with his savior. Though

t h e historical Yeshua, h o w e v e r m a n y yearn for

him,

n e v e r will be available to t h e m , Jesus C h r i s t is a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d presented by rival traditions: Eastern O r t h o d o x y , R o m a n C a t h o l i c i s m , n o r m a t i v e P r o t e s t a n t i s m s — L u t h e r a n i s m , C a l v i n i s m , and their varia n t s — a n d sects old and new, m a n y o f t h e m A m e r i c a n originals. M o s t o f these myriad C h r i s t e n d o m s w o u l d r e j e c t i n s t a n t l y m y c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Jesus C h r i s t and his putative father, Y a h w e h , do n o t s e e m t o be t w o persons o f o n e substance, b u t o f very different substances indeed. Y a h w e h , f r o m Philo o f Alexandria t o t h e present, has been allegorized endlessly, but he is sublimely s t u b b o r n , and c a n n o t be divested o f his h u m a n , a l l - t o o - h u m a n traits o f personality and o f c h a r a c t e r . Since he appears t o have c h o s e n exile o r eclipse, h e r e and now, o r perhaps is guilty o f desertion, o n e sees why t h e o l o g i c a l G o d s have displaced h i m . Jesus C h r i s t , t h e Holy Spirit, and t h e Virgin M o t h e r M a r y have b e c o m e t h e p r a g m a t i c Trinity. Y a h w e h e i t h e r dwindles i n t o a r e m o t e G o d t h e F a t h e r , o r blends i n t o t h e identity o f Jesus C h r i s t . I a m m e r e l y descriptive, and h o p e t o disengage f r o m irony, h e r e as elsew h e r e in this b o o k . M y c u l t u r e is Jewish, b u t I a m n o t part o f n o r m a t i v e Judaism; I decidedly do n o t t r u s t in t h e C o v e n a n t . T h o s e w h o do, or t h o s e o t h e r s w h o accept t h e submission t h a t is Islam, affirm t h a t G o d is O n e , and that Jesus is n o t G o d , t h o u g h Islam regards h i m as a p r o p h e t i c f o r e r u n n e r o f Allah's final m e s s e n g e r , M u h a m m a d . T h e m o n o t h e i s m o f Jews and o f M u s l i m s is strict and p e r m a n e n t . B u t w h a t precisely is t h e value o f m o n o t h e i s m ? G o e t h e , a great

INTRODUCTION

3

ironist, observed, "As s t u d e n t s o f n a t u r e we are pantheists, as poets polytheists, as m o r a l beings m o n o t h e i s t s . " Even Freud, n o t a theist at all, c o u l d n o t divest h i m s e l f o f t h e n o t i o n t h a t m o n o t h e i s m had been a m o r a l advance u p o n p o l y t h e i s m . Freud, an atheist, r e m a i n e d pugnaciously Jewish; b u t again, why does his b o o k translated as Moses and Monotheism so readily a s s u m e t h a t a "progress in spirituality" is t h e p r o p e r j u d g m e n t u p o n t h e m o v e m e n t away f r o m p o l y t h e i s m ? W h y is " t h e idea o f a m o r e a u g u s t G o d " m o r e c o n g e n i a l to psychoanalysis t h a n t h e labyrinthine gods of Egypt o r the fierce gods o f t h e Canaanites? T h e answer appears t o be internalization, b o t h o f a u t h o r i t y and o f f a t h e r h o o d , in t h e Y a h w e h o f Moses. Philip Rieff first saw this, in t h e late 1950s on t o t h e mid-1960s, before t h e C u l t u r a l R e v o l u t i o n gave us t h e wilder F r e u d o f Herbert M a r c u s e and N o r m a n O. B r o w n . Now, in t h e early twenty-first c e n t u r y , a r e t u r n t o Rieff vindicates his insights, w h i c h w e r e anticipated by t h e p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h , w h o s e vision o f t h e C o v e n a n t was t h a t Yahweh w o u l d write t h e Law u p o n o u r inward parts. W h e n Yeshua was t r a n s f o r m e d into a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d , first by t h e New T e s t a m e n t ' s C h r i s t o l o g y , and t h e n less tentatively by Hellenistic philosophy, I c a n n o t be clear as to w h a t degree he was m a l f o r m e d , because Paul had little interest in t h e personality o f Yeshua, and t h e S y n o p t i c Gospels, t h e t h r e e Gospels e x c e p t for J o h n , are so f r e q u e n t l y baffled by h i m . B u t t h e Y a h w e h o f t h e p r i m a l text, already t r a n s m o g rified by t h e R e d a c t o r ' s f r e q u e n t reliance u p o n t h e Priestly A u t h o r and t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t , all but vanishes a m o n g t h e great n o r m a t i v e rabbis o f t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era: Akiba, I s h m a e l , T a r p h o n , and their followers.

r

4

H A RO LD liLOO M

All religion, for Freud, reduces t o a l o n g i n g for t h e father, an Oedipal a m b i v a l e n c e that m a k e s The Future oj an Illusion Freud's weakest b o o k , secretly d e p e n d e n t u p o n its misreading o f H a m l e t , whose a c tual affinities are with M o n t a i g n e and n o t with C h r i s t . Freud's identification

with Moses helps m a k e Moses and Monotheism i n t o o n e o f t h e

strongest o f his m o r e fantastic writings, w h e r e Y a h w e h , t h e w a r r i o r G o d , is civilized by Jewish r e m o r s e f o r t h e Jews' slaying o f Moses, an e v e n t Freud imagines. T h a t civilizing, with all its c u l t u r a l d i s c o m forts, is w h a t F r e u d m e a n s by " m o n o t h e i s m , " a n d is a n astonishing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on his part. T h i s " m o n o t h e i s m " actually is a repression t h a t establishes a benign civilization, while p o l y t h e i s m is seen as a r e t u r n t o a Hobbesian state o f n a t u r e , r e n d e r i n g life i n t o s o m e t h i n g nasty, brutish, and s h o r t . Freud's weird transpositions w o r k because t h e y r e t u r n us t o t h e Y a h w e h o f t h e J Writer o f t h e B i b l e — t h e original writer o f w h a t is strongest in w h a t we n o w call Genesis, Exodus, and N u m b e r s — w h o bestows t h e Blessing o f " m o r e life, o n i n t o a t i m e w i t h o u t boundaries." Freud was obsessed with M i c h e l a n g e l o ' s s c u l p t u r e o f Moses, w h i c h he i n t e r p r e t e d as s h o w i n g t h e p r o p h e t in t h e act o f preserving t h e Tablets o f t h e Law, n o t o f being about to cast t h e m d o w n in his lury o f disillusion with t h e people's w o r s h i p o f t h e G o l d e n Calf. Mosaic s e l f - c o n t r o l is fused w i t h Freudian s u b l i m a t i o n o f instinctual desires. Yahweh is hardly a s u b l i m a t i o n . Is Jesus? In M a r k , no, but in M a t t h e w , as I will explain, yes. Yet it m a y be t h a t t h e Freudian analysis o f h u m a n n a t u r e is irrelevant in regard t o b o t h Y a h w e h and Jesus C h r i s t , w h e t h e r t h e y are t w o G o d s o r o n e . Why in p a r t i c u l a r does it m a t t e r w h e t h e r or n o t C h r i s t i a n i t y represents a r e t u r n t o p o l y t h e i s m , as t h e rabbis and M u h a m m a d in their

INTRODUCTION

5

different ways have insisted? Despite t h e brilliance o f C h r i s t i a n t h e o l ogy, c u l m i n a t i n g in T h o m a s Aquinas, t h e Trinity is a s u b l i m e l y probl e m a t i c s t r u c t u r e , n o t o n l y in separating t h e c o n c e p t o f person f r o m t h a t ot substance, but also in its positing t h e Holy Spirit as a crucial third with the F a t h e r and t h e S o n , u p o n very little N e w T e s t a m e n t evidence. B u t t h e n , I c a n n o t recall a single passage in t h e S y n o p t i c Gospels t h a t u n e q u i v o c a l l y identifies Jesus as G o d : s u c h status c o m e s to h i m only in J o h n , and clearly e m e r g e s f r o m that Gospel's battles with t h o s e it angrily called " t h e Jews." Yet even in J o h n , t h e status is t h e r e w i t h o u t t h e n a m e . Yahweh and Jesus are linked for J o h n but n o t fully fused. M o s t Christians, in t h e United States as elsewhere, are n o t t h e o l o gians, and tend t o literalize d o c t r i n a l m e t a p h o r s . T h i s is hardly t o be deplored, and I suspect this was t r u e o f t h e earliest C h r i s t i a n s also, exc e p t t h a t t h e y w e r e a l m o s t p r e - t h e o l o g i c a l . W h a t is increasingly clear t o m e is that t h e e m e r g e n c e o f Jesus-as-God p r a g m a t i c a l l y created w h a t was to develop i n t o Christian t h e o l o g y . A n o t h e r way o f p u t t i n g this is to say t h a t , f r o m t h e start, Jesus C h r i s t was n o t Yeshua but a t h e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r t h a n a h u m a n G o d . T h e mysteries o f t h e I n c a r n a tion, and the R e s u r r e c t i o n , have little t o do w i t h t h e m a n , Yeshua o f Nazareth, and surprisingly little t o do even with Paul and J o h n , as c o m p a r e d with t h e t h e o l o g i a n s w h o voyaged in their wake.

YAHWEH

WAS

AND

IS t h e u n c a n n i e s t personification o f G o d

ever v e n t u r e d by h u m a n k i n d , and yet early in his career he began as t h e w a r r i o r m o n a r c h ol t h e people we call Israel. W h e t h e r we e n c o u n t e r Y a h w e h early or late, we c o n f r o n t an e x u b e r a n t personality

6

HAROL D B LOOM

and a c h a r a c t e r so c o m p l e x t h a t u n r a v e l i n g it is impossible. I speak o n l y o f t h e Y a h w e h o f the H e b r e w Bible, and n o t o f t h e G o d o f t h a t totally revised w o r k , t h e C h r i s t i a n Bible, with its Old T e s t a m e n t and fulfilling N e w T e s t a m e n t . Historicism, be it older o r n e w e r , s e e m s incapable o f c o n f r o n t i n g t h e total i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f Y a h w e h and Jesus Christ. Jack Miles, Y a h w e h ' s Boswell, in his God: A Biography, depicts a Yahw e h w h o begins in a kind o f s e l f - i g n o r a n c e fused w i t h total p o w e r and a high degree o f narcissism. After various divine debacles, Miles decides, Y a h w e h loses interest, even in himself. Miles rightly r e m i n d s us t h a t Y a h w e h , in II S a m u e l , p r o m i s e s David that S o l o m o n will find a second f a t h e r in t h e Lord, an a d o p t i o n that sets t h e p a t t e r n for Jesus' asserting his s o n s h i p to G o d . T h e historical Jesus evidently insisted b o t h u p o n his o w n a u t h o r i t y t o speak for Y a h w e h , and u p o n his o w n i n t i m a t e relationship w i t h his ahba ( f a t h e r ) , and I see little difference t h e r e f r o m s o m e o f his p r e c u r s o r s a m o n g t h e c h a r i s m a t i c prophets o f Israel. T h e a u t h e n t i c difference c a m e a b o u t with t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e t h e o l o g i c a l G o d , Jesus C h r i s t , w h e r e t h e chain o f tradition indeed is broken. Y a h w e h , aside f r o m all questions o f p o w e r , diverges f r o m t h e gods o f C a n a a n primarily by t r a n s c e n d i n g b o t h sexuality and d e a t h . M o r e bluntly, Yahweh c a n n o t be regarded as dying. Kabbalah has a vision o f t h e erotic life o f G o d b u t severely e n f o r c e s t h e n o r m a tive tradition o f divine i m m o r t a l i t y . I find n o t h i n g in t h e o l o g i c a l Christianity t o be m o r e difficult f o r m e to a p p r e h e n d t h a n t h e c o n ception o f Jesus C h r i s t as a dying and reviving G o d . T h e I n c a r n a t i o n Atonement-Resurrection

c o m p l e x shatters b o t h t h e T a n a k h — a n

a c r o n y m f o r t h e t h r e e parts t h a t m a k e up t h e Hebrew Bible: t h e T o r a h (Five B o o k s o f Moses), Prophets, and W r i t i n g s — a n d t h e Jewish

INTRODUCTION

7

oral tradition. 1 c a n u n d e r s t a n d Yahweh as being in eclipse, desertion, self-exile, but Y a h w e h ' s suicide is indeed beyond Hebraism. I c a n o b j e c t t o m y s e l f t h a t t h e f r e q u e n t l y o u t r a g e o u s Y a h w e h also baffles m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g , and t h a t Jesus C h r i s t is nearly as m u c h an imaginative t r i u m p h as Yahweh is, t h o u g h in a very different m o d e . I a l t e r n a t e endlessly b e t w e e n agnosticism and a mystical gnosis, but m y O r t h o d o x Judaic c h i l d h o o d lingers in m e as an awe of Y a h w e h . No o t h e r representation o f G o d that I have read a p p r o a c h e s t h e p a r a d o x ical Yahweh o f t h e J Writer. Perhaps I s h o u l d o m i t " o f G o d " f r o m t h a t s e n t e n c e , since even S h a k e s p e a r e did n o t invent a c h a r a c t e r w h o s e personality is so rich in contraries. Mark's Jesus, H a m l e t , D o n Q u i x o t e are a m o n g t h e principal c o m p e t i t o r s , and so is t h e H o m e r i c Odysseus t r a n s m u t e d i n t o t h e Ulysses w h o s e story o f quest and d r o w n i n g red u c e s D a n t e t h e Pilgrim to silence. D e n n i s R. M a c D o n a l d , in his The Homeric Epics and the Gospel oj Mark (2000), argues t h a t Mark's literary c u l t u r e was m o r e G r e e k t h a n Jewish, w h i c h I find persuasive in so far as t h e earliest Gospel's e c l e c t i c i s m is t h u s emphasized, b u t a t o u c h dubious, since Mark's G o d r e m a i n s Y a h w e h . M a t t h e w is rightly k n o w n as " t h e Jewish G o s p e l " ; t h e Gospel o f M a r k is s o m e t h i n g else, t h o u g h it m a y well have b e e n c o m p o s e d just after t h e T e m p l e was destroyed, and in the midst o f t h e R o m a n s l a u g h t e r o f the Jews. H a m l e t has s o m e t h i n g o f t h e bewildering m o o d swings o f Mark's Jesus and o f Y a h w e h . If D o n Q u i x o t e c a n be regarded as t h e p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e Spanish scripture, t h e n his e n i g m a s also can c o m p e t e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e M a r c a n Jesus and o f H a m l e t . We c a n n o t k n o w h o w m u c h o f Y a h w e h ' s c h a r a c t e r and p e r s o n a l ity was invented by t h e J Writer, just as Mark's Jesus t o s o m e degree seems to be an original, t h o u g h doubtless i n f o r m e d by oral tradition

8

HAROL D B LOOM

just as j's Y a h w e h was. 1 w o n d e r if t h e a u t h o r o f M a r k is n o t responsible for giving us a Jesus addicted t o dark sayings. In a " c a n n o t k n o w " c o n t e x t , w h e r e w h a t we regard as Pauline faith replaces k n o w l e d g e , Mark's brilliance exploits o u r limits o f understanding. His Jesus asserts a u t h o r i t y , w h i c h s o m e t i m e s masks wistfulness in regard t o t h e will o f Y a h w e h , t h e loving but i n s c r u t a b l e abba. O n l y M a r k ' s Jesus goes t h r o u g h an a l l - n i g h t agony because his death is near. W h e t h e r , as M a c D o n a l d t h i n k s , t h e suffering o f Jesus e m u l a t e s t h a t of H e c t o r at t h e e n d o f t h e Iliad c a n n o t be resolved. Jesus dies after u t t e r i n g an Aramaic paraphrase of Psalm 22, an o u t c r y o f his a n c e s t o r David, a p a t h o s distant f r o m t h e H o m e r i c variety. D o u b t l e s s t h e real Jesus e x isted, but he n e v e r will be f o u n d , n o r need he be. Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine intends n o quest. My sole p u r p o s e is t o suggest t h a t Jesus, Jesus C h r i s t , and Yahweh are t h r e e totally i n c o m p a t i b l e personages, and to explain just h o w and why this is so. O f t h e t h r e e beings ( t o call t h e m t h a t ) , Y a h w e h troubles m e t h e m o s t and essentially usurps this b o o k . His m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s are endless, including by m u c h o f rabbinical tradition, and by suppressed s c h o l a r s h i p — C h r i s t i a n , Judaic, and secular. He r e m a i n s t h e West's m a j o r literary, spiritual, and ideological c h a r a c t e r , w h e t h e r he is called by n a m e s as various as Kabbalah's E i n - S o f ( " w i t h o u t e n d " ) o r t h e Q u r ' a n ' s Allah. A capricious G o d , this stern i m p , he r e m i n d s m e o f an a p h o r i s m o f t h e dark Heraclitus: " T i m e is a child playing d r a u g h t s . T h e lordship is t o t h e child." W h e r e shall w e find t h e meaning o f Y a h w e h , o r o f Jesus C h r i s t , o r o f Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h ; We c a n n o t and will n o t find it, and " m e a n i n g " possibly is t h e w r o n g category t o seek. Y a h w e h declares his u n k n o w ability, Jesus C h r i s t is totally s m o t h e r e d b e n e a t h t h e massive s u p e r s t r u c t u r e o f historical t h e o l o g y , and o f Yeshua all w e rightly can say is

INTRODUCTION

9

t h a t he is a concave m i r r o r , w h e r e w h a t w e see are all t h e distortions e a c h o f us has b e c o m e . T h e Hebrew G o d , like 1'lato's, is a m a d m o r a l ist, w h i l e Jesus C h r i s t is a t h e o l o g i c a l labyrinth, and Yeshua s e e m s as f o r l o r n and solitary as a n y o n e we m a y know. Like Walt W h i t m a n at t h e close of Song oj Myself, Yeshua stops s o m e w h e r e waiting for us.

PRELUDE: EIGHT

OPENING

REFLECTIONS

1. T h e New C o v e n a n t ( T e s t a m e n t ) is t h r o u g h o u t m a r k e d by belatedness in regard t o t h e T a n a k h . B u t t h e partial e x c e p t i o n s are t h e logta, o r sayings, and parables o f Jesus. T h e i r e n i g m a t i c s ( t o coin t h a t ) are s o m e t i m e s u n p r e c e d e n t e d . H a m l e t , Kierkegaard, Kafka are ironists in t h e w a k e o f Jesus. All Western irony is a repetition o f Jesus' e n i g m a s / riddles, in a m a l g a m with t h e ironies o f Socrates.

2. S h a k e s p e a r e a n " s e l f - o v e r h e a r i n g " has o n e s o u r c e in C h a u c e r , b u t perhaps t h e p r i m a r y S h a k e s p e a r e a n p r e c u r s o r is William Tyndale's Jesus in t h e G e n e v a Bible. Internalization in S h a k e s p e a r e gets beyond Jesus', t h o u g h Jesus i n a u g u r a t e d t h e e v e r - g r o w i n g i n n e r self, developed by St. A u g u s t i n e , and w h i c h S h a k e s p e a r e p e r f e c t e d in H a m l e t , after r e i n v e n t i n g it in Falstaff.

PRELUDE:

EIGHT

OPENING

REFLECTIONS

11

3. T h e M a r c a n Jesus m a y be as close t o " t h e real Jesus" as w e c a n c o m e . M a t t h e w softens M a r k . Luke is m o r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f M a r k , and yet also has a Jesus s o m e t i m e s darker t h a n M a t t h e w ' s .

4. Doubtless t h e historical Jesus existed, but he c a n be r e c o v e r e d o n l y in shards, and just a h a n d f u l ( o r fewer) o f historians are o f m u c h use in d e c i p h e r i n g these. "Jesus: A B i o g r a p h y " is always an o x y m o r o n . All t h e o l o g i a n s , f r o m Philo to t h e present, are allegorists, and since alleg o r y is irony, and d e m a n d s literary insight, t h e o l o g i a n s a l m o s t always fail, Plato being t h e grand e x c e p t i o n . S y s t e m a t i c t h e o l o g i a n s are like systematic literary critics: Paul Tillich is a modified success, A u g u s t i n e is a magnificent failure, and N o r t h r o p Frye also sinks. F o r b o t h Augustine and Frye, t h e T a n a k h ceases t o exist, d e v o u r e d as it is by t h e Belated C o v e n a n t . Even Mark, w h o is n o theologian, gives us a Jesus n o t w h o l l y persuasive: his best ironies s o m e t i m e s cost h i m his t e m p e r . W h a t are w e t o d o ; Well, begin by asking y o u r s e l f w h a t and w h o you are. T h o u g h even m o s t Christian scholars

finally

regard Jesus as

Jewish, and clearly h e was Jewish, he is n o w A m e r i c a n : he is m u l t i e v e r y t h i n g . We m a y as well have a S o u t h e r n Baptist o r Pentecostalist o r M o r m o n or M u s l i m o r African or Asian Jesus as a Jewish o n e . His paradoxes always have been universal, but his p e r s o n a l i s m is n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y A m e r i c a n , f r o m t h e C a n e Ridge Revival o f 1801 all t h e way to the circus-like Revivalism o f Charles G r a n d i s o n Finney, p r e c u r s o r of Billy S u n d a y and Billy G r a h a m . E i g h t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f A m e r i c a n s regularly i n f o r m the G a l l u p pollsters t h a t Jesus loves each o f t h e m on a personal and individual basis. T h a t m o v e s m e p e r p e t u al Iv to awe and to n o ironv whatsoever.

12

HAROL D B LOOM

C a n t h e r e be a Real Jesus in this era o f total appropriation? His e n i g m a s b e c o m e particularly c o m p l e x in t h e c o n t e x t o f S e c o n d T e m ple Judahisms, w h e r e t h e r e was n o n o r m a t i v e d o c t r i n e , and yet for h i m it all began and c o n c l u d e d w i t h Y a h w e h a l o n e , by definition t h e m o s t f o r m i d a b l e o f all ironists, ever. If t h e r e is a single principle t h a t characterizes Jesus, it is u n s w e r v i n g t r u s t in t h e C o v e n a n t w i t h Yahw e h . T h a t is t h e essence of t h e Jewish religion, w h e t h e r archaic, S e c o n d T e m p l e , o r t h e subsequent Judaism o f Akiba. N o Jew k n o w n at all t o history c a n be regarded as m o r e loyal to t h e C o v e n a n t t h a n was Jesus o f N a z a r e t h . T h a t m a k e s it an ironv-of-ironies t h a t his followers e m p l o y e d h i m to replace t h e Y a h w e h C o v e n a n t w i t h their NewCovenant.

5. T h e Gospels w e r e n o t i n t e n d e d as w h a t we call biography, but as c o n v e r s i o n a r y inspiration. In this, and in all o t h e r respects, t h e y follow t h e H e b r e w Bible, which paradoxically is n o t h i s t o r y in o u r sense, even t h o u g h it r e m a i n s t h e earliest instance o f history. T h e r e is n o i n d e p e n d e n t a c c o u n t o f King David exclusive o f t h e T a n a k h . B e c a u s e o f Josephus, we at least k n o w t h a t Jesus existed, t h o u g h o n l y as a peripheral figure o f t h e c e n t u r y t h a t c u l m i n a t e d with t h e R o m a n d e s t r u c t i o n o f Y a h w e h ' s T e m p l e in t h e year 70 o f t h e C o m m o n Era.

6.

Endless q u e s t i n g for t h e historical Jesus has failed, in t h a t fewer

t h a n a h a n d f u l o f searchers c o m e up w i t h m o r e t h a n reflections o f their o w n faith o r their o w n skepticism. Like H a m l e t , Jesus is a m i r r o r in w h i c h w e see ourselves. C o n s c i o u s n e s s o f m o r t a l i t y seems to allow few o t h e r options. B l a m e is irrelevant: w h e r e , how, c a n o u r survival be found? Jesus is to t h e G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t w h a t Y a h w e h is t o t h e

PRELUDE:

EIGHT

OPENING

REFLECTIONS

13

H e b r e w Bible, o r H a m l e t t o S h a k e s p e a r e ' s play: t h e vital p r o t a g o n i s t , t h e principle of apotheosis, t h e h o p e for transcendence. F r e u d , r e d u c i n g religion t o t h e l o n g i n g f o r t h e f a t h e r , is r e l e v a n t t o Jesus, w h o c a l l e d Y a h w e h abba. S i n c e H a m l e t is a s k e p t i c , h e q u e s t s f o r n o o n e . Y a h w e h c h o o s e s A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s a n d , if w e s u b m i t t o t h e Q u r ' a n , also M u h a m m a d . T h e H e b r e w G o d c a n n o t be said t o select Jesus, e x c e p t as a n o t h e r p r o p h e t . P r a g m a t i c a l l y , t h e S o n o f M a n f a t h e r s h i m s e l f , o r is t h e F a t h e r his o w n son? T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus has u s u r p e d Y a h w e h , a n d m a y yet h i m s e l f be u s u r p e d by t h e H o l y S p i r i t , as w e f u s e i n t o a P e n t e c o s t a l n a t i o n , m e r g i n g Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and Caucasian A m e r i c a n s into a n e w People o f G o d .

7. T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n E r o s a n d A u t h o r i t y , o r Love a n d t h e Law, is c e n t r a l t o Jesus, t o Paul, t o F r e u d . B u t also it is c r u c i a l in M o s e s , in S o c r a t e s / P l a t o , a n d in King Lear a n d all S h a k e s p e a r e : t h e Henry / V plays, Hamlet,

Twelfth Night in p a r t i c u l a r . P e r h a p s that is t h e " m e a n i n g "

of

S h a k e s p e a r e : t h e a g o n b e t w e e n Eros a n d t h e Law. F r e u d n a m e s t h e Law as T h a n a t o s , t h u s o d d l y j o i n i n g h i m s e l f t o Paul a n d t o L u t h e r . Jesus, u n l i k e any o f t h e s e , e m b r a c e s b o t h l o v e and T o r a h , as s c h o l a r s s l o w l y have c o m e t o u n d e r s t a n d . T h o u g h individualistic t o a d e g r e e w h e r e h e r e f i g u r e d t h e m e s s i a n i c vision, Jesus o u t d o e s t h e Pharisees ( h i s c l o s e s t rivals) in h o n o r i n g t h e Law. His g e n i u s f u s e d love f o r his l a t h e r , Y a h w e h as abba, w i t h love f o r t h e Law, o r a l a n d w r i t t e n , a n d love f o r his p e o p l e . He r e m a i n s t h e J e w - o f - J e w s , t h e Jew p r o p e r , triu m p h a n t over victimage while longing for the Father, and for the K i n g d o m w h e r e l o v e a n d r i g h t e o u s n e s s will be h a r m o n i z e d . t u r n e d t o t h e G e n t i l e s . Jesus, as e v e n t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s

Paul make

c l e a r , c e r t a i n l y did n o t . J a m e s t h e J u s t , b r o t h e r o f Jesus, was his a u -

14 H A R O L D B L O O M

t h e n t i c disciple. S c h o l a r s o d d l y d o n o t see t h a t t h e spirit o f Jesus s t a n d s f o r t h m o s t c l e a r l y in t h e Epistle o f J a m e s , c o m p o s e d by o n e o f t h e E b i o n i t e s , o r Jewish C h r i s t i a n s , w h o s u r v i v e d t h e j u d i c i a l m u r d e r o f j a m e s a n d t h e s u b s e q u e n t sack o f J e r u s a l e m . L u t h e r h a t e d t h e Epistle o f J a m e s , a n d w a n t e d it e x p u n g e d f r o m t h e N e w C o v e n a n t . B u t in it w e h e a r t h e v o i c e o f t h e P r o p h e t s in t h e w i l d e r n e s s , o f Elijah a n d J o h n t h e B a p t i s t , a n d t h e v o i c e o f Jesus h i m s e l f , f o r o n c e a b a n d o n i n g his f o r m i d a b l e irony.

8. T h e N e w C o v e n a n t n e c e s s a r i l y f o u n d s i t s e l f u p o n a m i s r e a d i n g o f t h e H e b r e w Bible. Yet t h e p o w e r o f C h r i s t i a n t r a n s l a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y J e r o m e a n d T y n d a l e , lias o b s c u r e d t h e r e l a t i v e w e a k n e s s — a e s t h e t i c a n d c o g n i t i v e — o f t h e G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t in its a g o n w i t h T a n a k h . E v e n if M a r k w e r e as p o w e r f u l a w ; riter as t h e Y a h w i s t , t h e r e c o u l d be n o c o n t e s t , since T o r a h ( l i k e t h e Q u r ' a n ) is G o d , w h e r e a s t h e e n tire a r g u m e n t o f t h e B e l a t e d T e s t a m e n t is t h a t a m a n has r e p l a c e d Scripture.

PART

I.

JESUS

I .

W H O WAS J E S U S AND HAPPENED TO

HERE

ARE

WHAT

HIM?

NO verifiable facts a b o u t Jesus o f N a z a r e t h . T h e

handful in Flavius Josephus, u p o n w h i c h e v e r y o n e relies, are suspect, because h e had been Joseph ben Matthias, a leader o f t h e Jewish R e v o l t , w h o saved his o w n life by f a w n i n g u p o n t h e Flavian e m p e r o r s : Vespasian, T i t u s , D o m i t i a n . O n c e you have p r o c l a i m e d Vespasian as t h e Messiah, n o o n e again o u g h t to believe a n y t h i n g you write a b o u t y o u r o w n people. Josephus, a s u p e r b liar, looked on c a l m l y as J e r u s a l e m was c a p t u r e d , its T e m p l e destroyed, its inhabitants s l a u g h t e r e d . S c h o l a r s assert t h a t Josephus had little or n o t h i n g t o gain by his few shreds o f apparent i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e Galilean Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew', Jesus in G r e e k ) , but so devious was t h e Quisling historian t h a t his m o t i v a t i o n s , if any, are e n i g m a t i c . Josephus allows us to k n o w t h a t Jesus o f Nazareth had Joseph and Mary ( M i r i a m ) as his parents and Jacob ( J a m e s ) as a b r o t h e r , was baptized by J o h n t h e Dipper, after w h i c h he g a t h e r e d students as a w a n d e r i n g

30

HAROL D B LOOM

t e a c h e r o f w i s d o m , and finally was crucified by t h e R o m a n satrap Pontius Pilate. Reading and m e d i t a t i n g u p o n e v e r y t h i n g available to m e has m a d e m e d o u b t that Jesus was a m o n g t h e m u l t i t u d e o f Pilate's victims. T h e c h a r i s m a t i c rabbi o f N a z a r e t h was a m a s t e r o f evasions and ironic e q u i v o c a t i o n s , a d e t e r m i n e d survivor f r o m c h i l d h o o d o n , o n c e his parents had told h i m t h a t , artisan as he was, his descent placed h i m f o r e m o s t in t h e royal h o u s e o f King David, w h o s e p r o g e n y c a r ried w i t h t h e m irrevocably t h e blessing o f Y a h w e h . T h e

firstborn

of

his Davidic parents, Jesus qualified f o r e l i m i n a t i o n by t h e Herodians and their R o m a n overlords. N o m o r e r e l u c t a n t or l e g i t i m a t e Messiah had existed a m o n g t h e Jews. Heading a nationalist war against t h e R o m a n s and their m e r c e n a r y thugs was totally against t h e n a t u r e o f this Jewish spiritual g e n i u s w h o was t h e legitimate k i n g o f t h e Jews, involuntarily and doubtless u n h a p p i l y . Jesus was n o t a resistance fighter, as Josephus had b e e n , initially, until he a b a n d o n e d s u c h ferocious colleagues as S i m o n bar G i o r a and J o h n o f Gischala, leaders in t h e Jewish War against R o m e , and saved his o w n life at t h e high cost o f his integrity and o f Jewish e s t e e m . We again k n o w n o t h i n g verifiable a b o u t w h a t Jesus t a u g h t ; we do n o t e v e n k n o w t h a t h e perhaps was b o r n f o u r years b e f o r e t h e C o m m o n Era, and supposedly was crucified at w h a t ever since is t e r m e d t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l age o f t h i r t y - t h r e e . I suspect t h a t , as l o r e has it, he had t h e w i s d o m t o escape e x e c u t i o n , and t h e n m a d e his way to Hellenistic n o r t h e r n India, t h e e x t r e m e limit o f Alexander t h e G r e a t ' s c o n quests, w h e r e s o m e traditions place his grave. I follow

Gnostic

tradition in this, if only because t h e G n o s t i c sayings o f Jesus in t h e G o s p e l o f T h o m a s ring m o r e a u t h e n t i c a l l y t o m e t h a n t h e entire

JESUS

19

range o f u t t e r a n c e s attributed t o h i m in t h e S y n o p t i c Gospels and in t h e very late G o s p e l o f J o h n . T h e r e is n o t a s e n t e n c e c o n c e r n i n g Jesus in t h e entire New T e s t a m e n t c o m p o s e d by a n y o n e w h o ever had m e t t h e u n w i l l i n g King o f t h e Jews, unless ( a n d it is u n l i k e l y ) t h e G e n e r a l Epistle o f J a m e s t r u l y is by James his b r o t h e r , r a t h e r t h a n by o n e o f James's followers, t h e Ebionites, or " p o o r m e n , " s o m e of w h o m s u r vived t h e h o l o c a u s t of J e r u s a l e m by departing tor Pella, in J o r d a n , o b e y i n g James's p r o p h e t i c c o m m a n d . S c h o l a r s date St. Paul's epistles as forty years after t h e d e a t h of Jesus, with t h e Gospels straggling a g e n e r a t i o n o r so after, and t h e highly Hellenistic (and q u a s i - G n o s t i c ) G o s p e l o f J o h n at least a full c e n t u r y beyond t h e possible demise o f t h e itinerant t e a c h e r o f t h e p o o r and t h e o u t c a s t . T h e r e are g o o d reasons t o d o u b t all o f this scholarly c o n s e n s u s , e v e n if s o m e o n e else had n o t b e e n crucified in |tlace o f Jesus, as G n o s t i c tradition slyly suggests. James t h e Just, head o f t h e Jewish Christians in J e r u s a l e m , actually c o u l d have b e e n t h e son or even t h e g r a n d s o n o f t h e J a c o b ( J a m e s ) w h o was Jesus' o w n brother.

Readers now, w h e t h e r

Christian

or Jewish o r

Islamic,

w h e t h e r skeptics o r believers, need t o start all over again in sorting o u t t h e hidden story o f t h e c h a r i s m a t i c p r e a c h e r w h o wisely decided n o t t o b e c o m e t h e king o f t h e Jews, but ironically m a y have suffered as such by R o m a n hands.

2.

Q U E S T S AND QU ESTERS FOR

JESUS

NLESS YOU ARE already a professional Jesus-quester, w h o s e s u s t e n a n c e , self-regard, and spiritual h e a l t h depend u p o n y o u r v o c a t i o n , you o u g h t to c h a n g e any plan you e n t e r t a i n to join t h a t c u rious enterprise. Rational w a r n i n g s a b o u n d ; o n e o f m y favorites is t h e sly irony o f an essay by t h e i m m e n s e l y learned J a c o b N e u s n e r , in his t o u g h little b o o k Judaism in the Beginning oj Christianity (1984). In C h a p t e r 4, N e u s n e r gives us " T h e Figure o f Hillel: A C o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e P r o b l e m o f t h e Historical Jesus." T h e a d m i r a b l e Hillel, a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Jesus, was t h e e x e m p l a r y Pharisee. C o n s u l t even an h o n o r a b l e v o l u m e like The American Heritage College Dictionary ( T h i r d Edition, 1993), and you c a n c h o o s e b e t w e e n t w o definitions o f "Pharisee," n e i t h e r o f w h i c h is t r u e or useful, or in any way applicable to Hillel:

1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law. 2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.

JESUS

21

I d o n ' t b l a m e t h e dictionary's editors. Except for Paul and Mark, t h e New T e s t a m e n t endlessly and m u r d e r o u s l y slanders t h e Pharisees. Still, I w o u l d suggest t h a t t h e first definition shed t h e w o r d " s t r i c t " and s u b s t i t u t e "sanctifying." N e u s n e r s h o w s us t h a t t h e great Hillel, t h o u g h he doubtless existed, p r a g m a t i c a l l y is an invention o f rabbis o f t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era and later. He is Judaism's o w n Jesus, since Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h u n d o u b t e d l y existed but effectually was t h e invention o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . I r e c o m m e n d C h a r l o t t e Allen's The Human Christ (1998), a fair and intelligent a c c o u n t (by a C a t h o l i c ) o f t h e h u m a n c o m e d y o f " t h e search for t h e historical Jesus." No d e p r e c a t i o n is intended by m y Balzacian " h u m a n c o m e d y , " o n l y m y wistfulness t h a t Balzac w e r e with us still, to write t h e

fictive

saga t h a t c o u l d o v e r g o e v e n the endlessly c o l o r f u l cavalcade t h a t C h a r l o t t e Allen and o t h e r s have portrayed. A robust s w a r m o f Christians o f m o s t d e n o m i n a t i o n s , very diverse Jews, secularists, and n o v elists good, bad, and indifferent, c r o w d s w h a t c o u l d have been a Balzacian masterpiece, if o n l y we resurrected t h e sole F r e n c h narrative m a g u s t h a t I, in m y deep heart, love m o r e t h a n S t e n d h a l , Flaubert, and Proust, t h o u g h t h e vivacity o f S t e n d h a l , artistry o f Flaubert, and w i s d o m o f Proust are all beyond Balzac. T h e incessant q u e s t i n g for t h e " t r u e " Jesus, " h i s t o r i c a l " and u n c o n t a m i n a t e d by d o g m a , is akin to m y perpetual inability to h o l d fast t h e Protean Vautrin, Balzac's m o s t vivid personage in t h e u n e n d i n g procession o f geniuses in The Human Comedy. Vautrin is Balzac t u r n e d h o m o e r o t i c m a s t e r c r i m i n a l , k n o w n as " D e a t h - D o d g e r " t o t h e police and u n d e r w o r l d alike. Each critic/reader sees his or h e r o w n Vautrin, and every searcher for t h e " h i s t o r i c a l " Jesus invariably discovers again herself or h i m s e l f in Jesus. H o w c o u l d it be otherwise? This is hardly

22 H A R O L D B L O O M

d e p l o r a b l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , w h e r e Jesus has b e e n a n A m e r i c a n n o n d e n o m i n a t i o n a l P r o t e s t a n t f o r t h e last t w o c e n t u r i e s . If t h a t sounds i r o n i c a l , I c e r t a i n l y d o n o t i n t e n d t o b e o t h e r t h a n literal, a n d I do n o t d i s a p p r o v e o f o u r n a t u r a l t e n d e n c y t o h o l d individual c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h a p e r s o n a l Jesus. I d o n ' t see t h a t it m a k e s A m e r i c a n s a n y g e n t l e r o r m o r e g e n e r o u s , b u t o n l y r a r e l y does it m a k e t h e m worse. Except for Shakespeare's H a m l e t , I can t h i n k o f n o o t h e r figure as v o l a t i l e as Jesus; h e i n d e e d c a n be all t h i n g s to all w o m e n o r m e n .

I

MYSF.LF, o n literary a n d spiritual g r o u n d s , p r e f e r t h e G o s p e l o f

T h o m a s to the w h o l e o f the canonical New Testament, because that w o r k is r e p l e t e w i t h m i s i n f o r m e d h a t r e d o f t h e Jews, t h o u g h c o m p o s e d a l m o s t e n t i r e l y by Jews in flight f r o m t h e m s e l v e s , a n d d e s p e r a t e to ingratiate themselves with their R o m a n overlords and exploiters. I read C a t h o l i c s c h o l a r s like F a t h e r R a y m o n d B r o w n a n d F a t h e r J o h n P. M e i e r w i t h a d m i r a t i o n a n d g r a t i t u d e , a n d yet w o n d e r w h y t h e y will n o t a d m i t h o w h o p e l e s s l y little we a c t u a l l y c a n k n o w a b o u t Jesus. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t has b e e n r a n s a c k e d by c e n t u r i e s o f m i n u t e s c h o l a r ship, b u t all t h a t l a b o r d o e s n o t r e s u l t in t e l l i n g us t h e m i n i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n w e w o u l d d e m a n d o n any parallel m a t t e r . N o b o d y c a n say w h o w r o t e the four Gospels, o r precisely w h e n and w h e r e t h e y were c o m posed, o r w h a t s o u r c e m a t e r i a l was relied u p o n . N o n e o f t h e w r i t e r s k n e w Jesus, o r e v e r h e a r d h i m p r e a c h . T h e h i s t o r i a n R o b i n Lane F o x a r g u e s o t h e r w i s e , o n b e h a l f o f t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n , b u t this is o n e o f his r a r e a b e r r a t i o n s . E v e n o u r s o l e s o u r c e , Flavius J o s e p h u s , w o n d e r f u l w r i t e r a n d n o n s t o p liar, is far m o r e i n t e r e s t e d in J o h n t h e B a p t i s t t h a n in Jesus, w h o r e c e i v e s less t h a n a h a n d f u l o f p e r f u n c t o r y m e n t i o n s .

JESUS

Ancient Jewish

23

p r o p h e t s and w o u l d - b e

messiahs o n l y

rarely

c h a n g e d into angels and never into Y a h w e h himself, w h i c h is w h y Jesus C h r i s t ( r a t h e r t h a n Jesus o f N a z a r e t h ) is a Christian and n o t a Jewish G o d . T h e g r a n d e x c e p t i o n is E n o c h , w h o walked w i t h Y a h w e h and Y a h w e h t o o k h i m up t o h e a v e n , w i t h o u t t h e b o t h e r o f dying. U p above, E n o c h is M e t a t r o n , so exalted an angel t h a t h e is " t h e lesser Yahweh," with a t h r o n e u n t o himself. Rabbi Elisha b e n Abuyah, m o s t n o t o r i o u s of ancient Jewish minim ( G n o s t i c s ) , is r e p o r t e d t o have ascended in order to discover t h a t M e t a t r o n and Y a h w e h sat on parallel t h r o n e s . R e t u r n i n g , t h e G n o s t i c rabbi ( k n o w n t o his o p p o n e n t s as Acher, " t h e O t h e r , " o r " t h e S t r a n g e r " ) proclaimed the u l t i m a t e heresy: " T h e r e are t w o G o d s in heaven!" In The Human Christ C h a r l o t t e Allen a c c u r a t e l y r e m i n d s us t h a t t h e Gospels set "Jesus as C h r i s t above T o r a h . " Since T o r a h is Y a h w e h , t h a t places C h r i s t above and beyond Y a h w e h , b r u s h i n g all Trinitarian c o m p l e x i t i e s aside. W h o e v e r t h e historical Jesus was, he certainly w o u l d have r e j e c t e d s u c h b l a s p h e m y (as h e does in t h e Q u r ' a n ) . It s e e m s absurd that Jesus, faithful to Y a h w e h alone, as w e r e Hillel and Akiba, has usurped G o d . Yet Jesus is n o t t h e usurper, n o r was St. Paul (contra Nietzsche and G e o r g e B e r n a r d S h a w ) . Like his m e n t o r , J o h n the Baptist, Jesus c a m e o f the Jews and to t h e Jews. C h r i s t i a n i t y falls back on saying t h a t his o w n received h i m n o t , but all C h r i s t i a n evid e n c e is p o l e m i c a l , suspect, and inadmissible in any c o u r t o f law. A c a d e m i c industries do n o t readily disband, and t h e r e will always be quests for t h e real Jesus. No m a t t e r h o w responsible, I hereby wave 1 h e m aside. Even t h e best scholars a m o n g t h e questers (I t h i n k first o f I'. P. Sanders and F a t h e r M e i e r ) are c o m p e l l e d to a c c e p t as valid c e r tain New T e s t a m e n t passages r a t h e r t h a n o t h e r s , while m a n i f e s t i n g

24

H AROL D B LOOM

sinuous arts of e x p l a n a t i o n as t o their criteria. Necessarily, results seem mixed. I a m u n h a p p y w h e n F a t h e r Meier argues for t h e historicity o f Judas Iscariot, w h o appears t o m e and t o o t h e r s — J e w i s h and G e n t i l e — a t r a n s p a r e n t l y m a l e v o l e n t fiction t h a t has helped to justify t h e m u r d e r o f Jews for t w o t h o u s a n d years. Sanders never darkens m e , b u t I a m puzzled w h e n he exalts t h e u n i q u e c h a r i s m a o f Jesus on t h e basis o f the disciples' loyalty. We o u g h t n e v e r to forget t h e sociologist M a x Weber's w a r n i n g against t h e " r o u t i n i z a t i o n o f c h a r i s m a . " M e r e c h a r i s m a t i c s a b o u n d , and Hitler m e s m e r i z e d an e n tire g e n e r a t i o n o f G e r m a n s . Little can be argued for Jesus' u n i q u e n e s s as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f c h a r i s m a . And yet in w r i t i n g this b o o k , n o t at all a quest for m e , I have been surprised b o t h by Jesus and by Y a h w e h . Yahweh c a n n o t be dismissed, t h o u g h 1 do n o t t r u s t or love h i m , because b o t h absent and p r e s e n t he is indistinguishable f r o m reality, be it ordinary o r an i n t i m a t i o n o f t r a n s c e n d e n c e . At least t w o different versions o f Jesus, in t h e quasiG n o s t i c G o s p e l o f T h o m a s and t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y cryptic Gospel o f Mark, impress m e as a u t h e n t i c , t h o u g h t h e y are f r e q u e n t l y a n t i t h e t i cal t o each o t h e r . Y a h w e h is d e a t h - o u r - d e a t h and life-our-life, but I do n o t k n o w w h o Jesus o f N a z a r e t h was or is. I find h i m n e i t h e r antithetical to Y a h w e h n o r c o m p a t i b l e w i t h Y a h w e h : t h e y are in diverse c o s m i c systems. N o t h i n g a b o u t Y a h w e h is G r e e k : H o m e r , Plato, Aristotle, t h e Stoics, and t h e E p i c u r e a n s all are alien t o h i m . Jesus, like his c o n t e m p o r a r y Hillel and like Akiba a c e n t u r y later, e m e r g e s f r o m a Hellenized Jewry, t h o u g h t h e e x t e n t o f its c o n t a m i n a t i o n by G r e e k m o d e s is disputed and disputable. Yahweh is u n k n o w a b l e , h o w e v e r deeply w e read in T o r a h and Talm u d , and in Kabbalah. Is J e s u s — a s c o n t r a s t e d with t h e Jesus C h r i s t o f

JESUS

37

t h e o l o g y — k n o w a b l e ? T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus is k n o w n intimately, as friend and c o m f o r t e r , by tens o f millions. T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus can be m o r e Pauline t h a n G o s p e l - o r i e n t e d : t h e S o u t h e r n Baptist m o d e r ates f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s u p o n t h e Epistle t o t h e R o m a n s . P e n t e c o s t a l ists, b u r g e o n i n g t h r o u g h o u t the U n i t e d States, pragmatically displace Jesus by their kinetic reliance u p o n t h e H o l y Spirit. M o r m o n s , m o s t A m e r i c a n and surprising o f orientations, regard Joseph S m i t h ' s ( o r t h e Angel M o r o n i ' s ) B o o k o f M o r m o n as A n o t h e r T e s t a m e n t o f Jesus C h r i s t , and yet have m o r e surprising scriptures that their c u r r e n t hie r a r c h y evades in S m i t h ' s The Pearl of Great Price and his Doctrines and Covenants. By now, Joseph S m i t h has ascended and t r a n s m u t e d into E n o c h , and p e r h a p s also i n t o t h e greatest o f t h e angels, M e t a t r o n or t h e Lesser Y a h w e h , a Kabbalistic vision. I do n o t a p p r e h e n d m u c h o f this radiating n o w o u t o f Salt Lake City, but Joseph S m i t h

and

B r i g h a m Y o u n g believed in t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t A d a m and G o d ultim a t e l y w e r e tire s a m e person. T h e h u m a n and t h e divine i n t e r p e n e trate in Joseph S m i t h ' s vision far m o r e radically t h a n in t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h ' s insistence t h a t C h r i s t was b o t h " t r u e m a n " and " t r u e G o d . " It is because A m e r i c a n Religionists (including elite spirits like E m e r son and W h i t m a n ) believed that t h e best and oldest parts o f t h e m w e r e n o t n a t u r a l b u t divine t h a t Jesus c a n be conversed with so freely and so fully by m a n y a m o n g us. T h a t m a y well n o t be t h e "historical Jesus" o f t h e scholarly questers, but he s e e m s to m e quite close to t h e "living Jesus" w h o speaks in t h e G o s p e l o f T h o m a s .

3-

THE

DARK OF

SPEAKING

JESUS

M

Y C O N C E R N S in this b o o k are with t h e personality, c h a r a c ter, and self-recognitions o f Y a h w e h and o f Jesus. W i t h Jesus,

these are revealed o n l y darkly in w h a t we are told w e r e his o w n

words, w h i c h are frequently e n i g m a t i c , and perhaps m o r e ambivalent even t h a n t h e y are a m b i g u o u s . We do n o t k n o w h o w m a n y languages Jesus spoke: A r a m a i c c e r tainly, and s o m e d e m o t i c G r e e k probably. Hebrew he evidently c o u l d read, and p e r h a p s speak. F a t h e r J o h n P. Meier, t h e a u t h o r o f t h r e e magisterial v o l u m e s u n d e r t h e s o m e w h a t misleading title A Marginal few ( w i t h a m u c h - n e e d e d f o u r t h v o l u m e t o c o m e ) , a c c u r a t e l y t e r m s Jesus "a Jewish genius." O n e c a n g o f u r t h e r : Jesus was t h e greatest o f Jewish geniuses. It is as t h o u g h t h e Yahwist or J W r i t e r s o m e h o w was fused with King David, with the Prophets f r o m A m o s t h r o u g h Malachi, with t h e W i s d o m a u t h o r s o f Job and K o h e l e t h (Ecclesiastes), with t h e sages f r o m flillel t h r o u g h Akiba, and with t h e l o n g s e q u e n c e t h a t goes f r o m M a i m o n i d e s t h r o u g h S p i n o z a o n to F r e u d and Kafka. Jesus

JESUS

27

is t h e Jewish S o c r a t e s , and surpasses Plato's m e n t o r as t h e s u p r e m e m a s t e r o f dark w i s d o m . Love, r a t h e r t h a n irony, is w h a t believers seek and find in Jesus. They m a y be in t h e right, for his c o u l d be m o r e an ironic love t h a n a loving irony. I myself, m o r e a k n o w e r t h a n a believer o f any sort, a m c u l t u r a l l y Jewish. N e v e r t h e l e s s I do n o t trust in t h e C o v e n a n t , as Jesus did. F r o m St. Paul o n w a r d , believers have seen Jesus as t h e i n v e n t o r o f a New C o v e n a n t , b u t t h e y m a y have c o n f u s e d t h e m e s s e n g e r with t h e message. Jesus c o n f r o n t s us, nonbelievers and believers alike, with an array o f e n i g m a s . Yet h o w c o u l d it be otherwise? Islam accepts M u h a m m a d as t h e Seal o f t h e Prophets, but grants Jesus a u n i q u e status a m o n g t h e p r e c u r s o r s of the u l t i m a t e , definitive p r o p h e t in a line t h a t s t e m s f r o m A b r a h a m . Jews have a negative relationship t o C h r i s t , b u t n o t necessarily t o Jesus, w h o is scarcely responsible for w h a t supposed Christianity has d o n e in his n a m e . Kierkegaard, a n o t h e r m a s t e r o f irony (which he called "indirect c o m m u n i c a t i o n " ) , r e m a r k e d in his judge for Yourself!: " C h r i s t i a n i t y has c o m p l e t e l y c o n q u e r e d — t h a t is, it is abolished!" Evidently, t h e D a n i s h sage m e a n t t h a t you c o u l d b e c o m e a Christian o n l y in o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e established order. T h i s book disputes C h r i s t e n d o m ' s persuasion t h a t Jesus i n t e n d e d to f o u n d w h a t b e c a m e t h e faith o f St. Paul. But I v e n t u r e n o quarrel with Jesus, w h o s t o o d for " Y a h w e h a l o n e , " while i m p l y i n g capacious c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e hazards o f s u c h a stance. W h e n t h e r e c a l c i t r a n t Moses, in t h e J Writer's t e x t , plaintively asks t h e n a m e o f t h e G o d w h o is sending h i m d o w n into Egypt, Y a h w e h massively p r o c l a i m s , Ehyeh usher ehyeh. T h e traditional r e n d e r i n g is "I A m T h a t I A m , " w h i c h I explicate as "I will be p r e s e n t w h e n e v e r and w h e r e v e r I will be p r e s e n t . "

28

H AROL D B LOOM

T h e terrible irony o f Yahweh's p u n o n his o w n n a m e is t h a t t h e o p p o site also is i m p l i e d : "And I will be absent w h e n e v e r and w h e r e v e r I will be absent," including at the d e s t r u c t i o n s o f his T e m p l e , at t h e G e r m a n death c a m p s , at G o l g o t h a . William Tyndale, Protestant m a r t y r and greatest o f Bible translators (at least since St. J e r o m e ) , r e n d e r e d w h a t w e read in t h e A u t h o rized Version as St. Paul's " F o r n o w we see t h r o u g h a glass darkly" even m o r e powerfully: " N o w we see in a glass even in a dark speaking." " D a r k s p e a k i n g " i n t e r p r e t s t h e G r e e k for " e n i g m a . "

Albert

Schweitzer, p r e a c h i n g in 1905, said, " T h e glorified body o f Jesus is t o be found in his sayings." B u t t h e r e is a difficulty Jesus never intended: which are his authentic sayings? M o s t scholars possess inward criteria for s u c h a u t h e n t i c i t y , and v o t i n g a m o n g and by t h e m does n o t persuade m e . Each o f us, particularly in t h e U n i t e d States, has h e r or his o w n Jesus. M i n e goes back t o c h i l d h o o d , w h e n I first read t h e Gospels in a Yiddish version left at t h e d o o r o f o u r B r o n x a p a r t m e n t by a missionary. A Yiddish N e w T e s t a m e n t (I still have it) c o n s t i t u t e s its o w n irony, reflecting t w o m i l l e n n i a o f Jewish s t u b b o r n n e s s , y e t t h e translation is b o t h skilled and severe. I recall also taking a c o u r s e with Professor Friedrich S o l m s e n in the G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t at C o r n e l l , and have just reread t h a t text after fifty-five years, s o m e w h a t startled at m y a n gry marginal notes, clustered m o s t l y in Paul and t h e Gospel o f J o h n . If y o u r first language, y o u r m o t h e r t o n g u e , was Yiddish, t h e n you have had an apt preparation to receive t h e dark sayings o f Jesus. B o r n in my parents' Eastern Europe, Jesus w o u l d have spoken Yiddish, and w o u l d probably have b e e n m a r t y r e d n o t by t h e R o m a n s but by t h e G e r m a n s . I a m dubious a b o u t t h e phrase " t h e Jewish-Christian tradition."

JESUS

29

N o w it refers t o a p a r t i c u l a r sociopolitical p h e n o m e n o n , and seems part o f t h e alliance b e t w e e n t h e U n i t e d States and Israel. In this b o o k it m e a n s t h e s t a n c e ol James t h e Just, b r o t h e r ot Jesus, and t h e rest o f his family and first followers, w h o o n l y grudgingly a c c e p t e d Paul's mission to t h e G e n t i l e s , and t h e n e v e n t u a l l y were absorbed i n t o t h e Imperial C h u r c h o f C o n s t a n t i n e o r into Islam.

0) I have already w r i t t e n that Jesus' words are f r e q u e n t l y e n i g m a t i c . W h a t is an enigma? It can be a verbal riddle, or a puzzling t h i n g , o r an inexplicable person. Jesus speaks t h e first a l m o s t invariably, his actions give us t h e s e c o n d , and he h i m s e l f is t h e third. T h e w o r d " e n i g m a " goes back f r o m Latin to G r e e k , and has an u l t i m a t e base in a G r e e k word m e a n i n g "fable." W h e t h e r in a p h o r i s m s o r in parables, Jesus speaks riddles. He is t h e poet o f t h e riddle, anticipating D a n t e , S h a k e s p e a r e , C e r v a n t e s , J o h n Donne,

and

even

Lewis

Carroll

and

James

Joyce,

as

well

as

Kierkegaard, E m e r s o n , Nietzsche, Kafka, and m a n y o t h e r s in t h e literary and spiritual tradition o f t h e West. T o m a k e s o m e progress with u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e dark speaking ol Jesus, 1 need to define "riddle," " a p h o r i s m , " and " p a r a b l e " as best I c a n :

1.

RIDDLE T h e w o r d "riddle" goes back t o a G e r m a n i c base m e a n i n g "a ques-

tion or o p i n i o n t h a t needs i n g e n u i t y in c o n j e c t u r i n g an a n s w e r o r

42

HAROL D B LOOM

c o u n t e r s t a t e m e n t . " A n o t h e r m e a n i n g is " a perplexity or mystery," and yet a n o t h e r , "an inexplicable p e r s o n , like Jesus o r t h e Active H a m l e t . "

2.

APHORISM This w o r d goes f r o m F r e n c h t h r o u g h Latin to t h e G r e e k for

" d e f i n i n g " o r " s e t t i n g a h o r i z o n . " Originally t h e n o u n m e a n t a pithys t a t e m e n t bv > a classical writer o r o r a t o r but b e c a m e anvJ m a x i m o r condensed precept.

3.

PARABLE T h e n o u n " p a r a b l e " c o m e s t h r o u g h F r e n c h f r o m t h e Latin for

"comparison,"

thus

leading

to

such

meanings

as

"similitude,"

" p r o v e r b , " and " m y s t i c a l saying," b u t is primarily an i m a g i n e d s h o r t narrative w h o s e lesson or point is spiritually m o r a l .

T h e riddles o f Jesus tend to t u r n u p o n the question o f just w h o Jesus is. S o m e t i m e s he utters t h e m as c h a r m s against S a t a n . C h a r m s are riddles t u r n e d p r a g m a t i c , magical if o n l y because t h e y s o m e t i m e s w o r k . T h e i r f u n c t i o n for Jesus is t o f u r t h e r his e n o r m o u s v e n t u r e in selfidentification. We discover o u r t r u e selves receding f u r t h e r t h e m o r e w e quest to find t h e m . T h e a p o t h e o s i s o f Jesus is t h a t his a u t h e n t i c identity m a y have proved fatal, since he c o u l d well have been t h e aut h e n t i c Davidic heir to t h e K i n g d o m o f Israel and Judah, r a t h e r t h a n t o a r e a l m n o t o f this world. Since t h e family o f H e r o d had assumed all royal a u t h o r i t y , any a u t h e n t i c descendant o f David always was in danger. Shakespeare's H a m l e t , heir to D e n m a r k , s e e m s t o m e shadowed by William Tyndale's Jesus, a r e c o g n i t i o n in w h i c h I follow David

JESUS

31

Daniell, t h e biographer o f the heroic, m a r t y r e d Protestant t r a n s l a t o r and a u t h e n t i c i n v e n t o r o f an English prose style austerely s u b l i m e . B u t why did Jesus f r e q u e n t l y speak in riddles? His parables follow and perfect Hebrew tradition; Y a h w e h himself, t h r o u g h o u t t h e J Writer's text, delights in riddling p u n s , u n a n s w e r a b l y

rhetorical

questions, and fiercely playful o u t b u r s t s t h a t edge u p o n a f r i g h t e n i n g fury. "Like father, like s o n , " a believer aptly c o u l d reply. W h o e v e r w r o t e M a r k , t h e first G o s p e l to be c o m p o s e d , was s u c h a believer, and w e n t back t o Y a h w e h at t h e G o d ' s u n c a n n i e s t in order t o suggest s o m e t h i n g o f t h e s e c r e t o f Jesus. Paul and t h e o t h e r t h r e e Gospel a u t h o r s ( o r traditions) have and partly deserve their literary admirers, yet M a r k stands by itself as t h e e n i g m a - o f - e n i g m a s , endlessly resistant t o analysis. F r a n k K e r m o d e ' s The Genesis of Secrecy (1979) r e m a i n s t h e m o s t brilliant e n d e a v o r t o a m bush t h e ambiguities o f M a r k . R e r e a d i n g K e r m o d e ' s b o o k , after a q u a r t e r c e n t u r y , I a m s t i m u l a t e d t o a u g m e n t his p i o n e e r analysis by swerving f r o m it i n t o s u r m i s e as t o t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f Jesus. Even t h e m o s t refined o f F r e u d i a n psychosexual speculations s e e m t o m e irrele v a n t in regard to Jesus, because his relation b o t h t o his m o t h e r and t o his putative f a t h e r is r e m a r k a b l y disengaged; m y psychologizing h e r e will t h e r e f o r e o w e m o r e to William James t h a n t o S i g m u n d Freud, t h o u g h I c o n s i d e r t h e f o u n d e r o f psychoanalysis t h e p r i m e inc a r n a t i o n o f Jewish genius since Jesus himself. With a c o n s c i o u s n e s s so devoted to Y a h w e h alone, t h e varieties o f religious e x p e r i e n c e c a n be m o r e revelatory t h a n t h e vicissitudes o f t h e psychosexual drive. M y late friend Hans Frei c o n c l u d e d his The Identity of Jesus

Christ

(1975) by c a u t i o n i n g us t h a t we always will lie at a distance f r o m Jesus

32

HAROL D B LOOM

" b e c a u s e he lives to G o d — n o t to t i m e . " Kierkegaard m a d e t h e s a m e observation but with superb doubleness, remarking that disciples c o n temporary

with

Jesus

received

his love w i t h o u t

understanding

it, since Jesus a l o n e understands h i m s e l f perfectly. Disputing Kierkegaard is d a n g e r o u s , and t h e perplexities of Jesus are even m o r e d a n gerous. A n o t h e r late friend, Edward Shils, in his Tradition (1981), followed M a x Weber by finding in Jesus t h e s u p r e m e c h a r i s m a t i c :

It was Jesus' prophetic or charismatic imagination which determined his accomplishment. He had the gift of arousing in others an acknowledgment or attribution of charismatic qualities. He did this by the originality of his message and his own belief in his originality. He had to have the tradition as his point of departure; he had to have an audience which had the same tradition as its point of departure. In that sense he was continuing and developing the tradition, but so for that matter were the rabbis. He developed it in a different and more original way and his message found a reception far beyond Palestine and the Jews. The receptiveness of this wider body of converts, who were won over from paganism and not just from Judaism, might have been a result of the changes in circumstances and of the relative weakness of the traditions of paganism in confrontation with a more highly developed body of religious thought.

B u t did Jesus believe in t h e originality o f his message? Was it n o t t h e s a m e message o f his m e n t o r , J o h n t h e Baptist? And h o w different actually was it f r o m t h e stance o f Hillel? T o w h a t degree can w e distinguish b e t w e e n t h e c h a r i s m a t i c and his p r o c l a m a t i o n s ?

JESUS

33

J E S U S , to m o s t A m e r i c a n s , o f w h a t e v e r origin or d e n o m i n a t i o n , is b o t h u n i q u e and universal. Has he t a k e n t h e place o n c e held by G o d t h e F a t h e r ! If so, t h e n t h e A m e r i c a n Religion w o u l d evade Freud's red u c t i o n o f all religion t o t h e l o n g i n g for t h e father. For a while now, I have r e j e c t e d Marx's n o t i o n t h a t religion was t h e opiate o f t h e people. In t h e United States it is r a t h e r t h e people's poetry, b o t h bad and good. Still, this r e m a i n s t h e Age o f t h e A m e r i c a n Jesus, o m n i p r e s e n t and intensely personal. M o s t people scarcely can read a n y m o r e , and m u c h o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is difficult, relying as it does u p o n incessant reference t o and " f u l f i l l m e n t " o f t h e Hebrew Bible, itself n o t t h e simplest o f verbal s t r u c t u r e s . Vast and magnificent, t h e T a n a k h hardly seems " t h e Old T e s t a m e n t , " led in R o m a n t r i u m p h by its resentful child, " t h e New T e s t a m e n t . " Yet t h e u n p r e d i c t a b l e and a b r u p t Jesus o f t h e Gospel o f M a r k is s m o o t h l y consistent w h e n c o m p a r e d with t h e Yahweh o f t h e oldest s t r a n d o f Genesis, E x o d u s , and N u m bers. Shakespeare's King Lear is to Flamlet w h a t t h e J Writer's Y a h w e h is t o Mark's Jesus. W h e r e shall we l o c a t e t h e m e a n i n g s o f Mark's Jesus? K e r m o d e shrewdly admired Mark's narrative f o r c o n c e a l i n g at least as m u c h as it discloses, e n g e n d e r i n g secrecy even as it cries out t h e G o o d News. Mark's Jesus is n o t m u c h interested in Gentiles, and even a m o n g Jews he seeks only a saving r e m n a n t . S o c o m p l e x is his s t a n c e as a t e a c h e r t h a t he c o u l d n o t survive i n s t i t u t i o n a l review in t h e U n i t e d States ol today, w h e t h e r a c a d e m i c or d e n o m i n a t i o n a l . This Jesus follows Isaiah by e x c l u d i n g those w h o c a n n o t hear his t r u t h s o r see his visions with h i m . An angry p r o p h e t like Elijah or J o h n t h e Baptist is t o o simple a

34

HAROL D B LOOM

p r e c u r s o r for Jesus t o follow. He t u r n s t o Isaiah, t h e Plato a m o n g t h e prophets, as his a u t h e n t i c f o r e r u n n e r . T h e G o s p e l o f M a r k 4:11—12 gives us Jesus paraphrasing Isaiah 6:9—10, with M a r k n o t identifying t h e source. M a t t h e w , h o w e v e r , acknowledges it by direct q u o t a t i o n . K e r m o d e i n t e r p r e t s this difference as an u n h a p p i n e s s in M a t t h e w w i t h " t h e g l o o m y ferocity o f Mark's Jesus." O n e m i g h t also call Mark's Jesus o u t r a g e o u s in his fury. I cite Isaiah h e r e f r o m t h e Jewish Publication Society's T a n a k h , and M a r k i r o m the Revised Standard Version: Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I; send me." And He said, "Go, say to that people: 'Hear, indeed, but do not understand; See, indeed, but do not grasp.' Dull that people's mind, Stop its ears, And seal its e y e s — Lest, seeing with its eyes And hearing with its ears, It also grasp with its mind, And repent and save itself." ISAIAH

6:8-IO

And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'" MARK

4:11-12

JESUS

35

Yahweh's irony is n o t u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h i m , n o r is t h a t ot Jesus. I )o these ironies clash? T h a t of Jesus alludes t o Isaiah 6:9—10, t h o u g h its s h o c k is hardly staled by t h e repetition, any m o r e t h a n R o b e r t f rost's citation o f M a r k , in his great p o e m "Directive," is lessened in impact by its biblical precursors:

1 have kept hidden in the instep arch Of an old cedar at the waterside A broken drinking goblet like the Grail Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it, So can't get saved, as Saint Mark says they mustn't.

In a later c h a p t e r , o n Mark's Gospel, I will r e t u r n t o these p e r plexities.

(3) Jesus, in his reliance u p o n riddles, b o t h e x t e n d s and alters t h e tonalities o f t h e oral tradition o f his people. Here St. Paul has been t h e w o r s t o f all possible guides, w i t h his " T h e letter kills, but t h e spirit gives life" (II C o r i n t h i a n s 3:6). T h a t is antithetical to Jesus o f N a z a r e t h , w h o tells us t h a t " n o t an iota, n o t a dot, will pass f r o m t h e law until all is acc o m p l i s h e d " ( M a t t h e w 5:18). M a t t h e w , t h o u g h evidently Jewish (like Mark, but n o t L u k e ) , hardly gives us an a n t i n o m i a n Jesus, t h o u g h his protagonist is largely free of t h e fury o f Mark's hero, w h o also r e m a i n e d s t u b b o r n l y a Galilean devoted t o Y a h w e h alone. T h e r e are m a n y versions o f Jesus outside t h e canonical New T e s t a m e n t , but this, t o m e ,

HAROLD

BLOOM

s e e m s far less interesting t h a n t h a t t h e r e are at least seven Jesuses in t h e b o o k ot t h e New C o v e n a n t , e m b e d d e d in t h e f o u r Gospels, in Paul, in t h e Epistle o f James, t h e b r o t h e r o f Jesus, and in t h e A p o c a lypse. T h e Jesus o f t h e Acts o f t h e Apostles is so similar t o Luke's t h a t o n e easily accepts t h e scholarly j u d g m e n t that t h e s a m e a u t h o r - e d i t o r or editors c o m p i l e d t h e m b o t h . T h o u g h m y personal distaste for Paul and t h e violently anti-Jewish G o s p e l o f J o h n is considerable, 1 will brood on their Jesuses also, since his personality, c h a r a c t e r , and c o n sciousness ot identity scarcely can be discerned w i t h o u t s o m e resort t o Paul and t o J o h n . T h e first observation t h a t I a m m o v e d t o m a k e is t h a t all o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is obsessed with its anxious relationship to t h e Law and the Prophets, and seeks t o resolve a c o m p l e x anguish resulti n g f r o m that o v e r w h e l m i n g influence, by t h e s t r o n g e s t and m o s t successful creative misreading in all o f textual history. T h e Q u r ' a n is t h e nearest rival I know. N o t h i n g in secular literature, n o t even Shakespeare's t r i u m p h over all o f anteriority, quite m a t c h e s Paul and his successors in their intricate e n d e a v o r t h a t t r a n s f o r m e d t h e Hebrew Bible, strongest o f texts e x c e p t for S h a k e s p e a r e , i n t o " t h e Old T e s t a m e n t . " T h e New T e s t a m e n t is a r e m a r k a b l e ( t h o u g h u n e v e n ) literary a c h i e v e m e n t , b u t n o secular reader ( w h o k n o w s h o w to r e a d ) c o u l d j u d g e it to be o f t h e aesthetic e m i n e n c e o f a l m o s t all o f t h e Hebrew Bible ( e x c l u d i n g Leviticus and the n o n - Y a h w i s t i c parts o f N u m b e r s ) . William F a u l k n e r expressed a persuasive preference f o r t h e i m m e n s e l y varied stories o f t h e Hebrew Bible as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e G r e e k New T e s t a m e n t , w h i c h strives t o tell o n e story and o n e s t o r y only.

JESUS

37

T h o u g h all o f C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y , as well as t h e f o r m i d a b l e D a n t e and his devoted exegetes, avers o t h e r w i s e , nevertheless n o later text ever has "fulfilled" an earlier o n e , o r e v e n " c o r r e c t e d " it. Plato's Republic battles H o m e r ' s Iliad, and Plato gloriously is defeated. Joyce's Ulysses boldly engages b o t h H o m e r ' s Odyssey and Shakespeare's Hamlet, and sublimely loses. Historically, b o t h t h e New T e s t a m e n t and t h e Q u r ' a n have p r a g m a t i c a l l y eclipsed t h e Hebrew Bible, but these s u c cesses are n e i t h e r aesthetic n o r necessarily spiritual, and Y a h w e h m a y n o t yet have s p o k e n his final w o r d u p o n this m a t t e r . We all k n o w t h a t history rides with t h e big battalions and, for a t i m e , favors t h o s e w h o win t h e big wars, but history is an ironist a l m o s t of Jesus' genius, and the signs o f an apocalyptic war b e t w e e n C h r i s t e n d o m ( t o call it t h a t ) and Islam are n o w o m n i p r e s e n t .

(4) S e v e n versions o f Jesus c o u l d be considered in their likely order o f c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n : Paul, M a r k , M a t t h e w , Luke and t h e Acts, James, J o h n , and t h e Apocalypse. I suggest that t h e t e m p o r a l f r a m e is s o m e w h a t irrelevant, since s o m e o f these visions o f Jesus o w e little or n o t h i n g to their f o r e r u n n e r s . J a m e s t h e Just, austerely

sublime

b r o t h e r o f Jesus, is w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t , because his r e m a r k a b l e letter relies u p o n a w h o l l y implicit C h r i s t , w h o s e G o o d News is already grasped by his auditors, t h e " l e t t e r " actually c o n s t i t u t i n g an Ebionite, o r Jewish-Christian, s e r m o n . T h o u g h scholars date t h e Epistle o f James near t h e e n d o f t h e first c e n t u r y , I suspect it was c o m p o s e d less

38

HAROL D B LOOM

t h a n a decade after t h e R o m a n d e s t r u c t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m and t h e T e m p l e . Addressed r a t h e r clearly t o Hebrew C h r i s t i a n s , as I have n o t e d , it may well be t h e w o r k o f an actual disciple o f James. If so, this p a r t i c u l a r f o l l o w e r o f James t h e Just w r o t e a r e m a r k a b l y g o o d G r e e k style, and t h u s c o u l d have e m e r g e d f r o m Alexandrian Jewry and later c o m e i n t o James's c o m p a n y . James was slain s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n 62 and 67 C.E. I c a n n o t care m u c h a b o u t w h o w r o t e his Epistle, in w h a t place o r w h e n , because t h e s t a n c e and a u r a o f Jewish C h r i s t i a n i t y has never been b e t t e r e x emplified t h a n in this e l o q u e n t s e r m o n . And yet James was revered by so w'ide an array o f groups, f r o m G n o s t i c s t o G e n t i l e Christians, t h a t t h e Epistle need n o t have been w r i t t e n by a n y o n e w h o actually k n e w t h e saintly sage. T h e r e are n o explicit references t o Jesus ( o r to Paul) in t h e Epistle o f James, t h o u g h Jesus is directly e c h o e d in 2:8, but t h e e x a m p l e o f Jesus is presupposed t h r o u g h o u t . Since t h e r e is an o v e r t p o l e m i c against Paul, I a m n o t impressed w h e n scholars argue t h a t James and Paul subtly c a n be reconciled. M a r t i n Luther's a n t i - S e m i t i c diatribe against James c o u n t s far m o r e : h e r e a c t e d with fury t o t h e Epistle's " a m a n is justified by w o r k s and n o t by faith a l o n e " (2:24), a m a n i f e s t repudiation o f Paul's "a m a n is justified by faith and n o t by w o r k s " ( R o m a n s 3:28). My c o n c e r n h e r e is with t h e Epistle's internalized vision o f Jesus, t o w h o m James had r e t u r n e d after Jesus' R e s u r r e c t i o n and t h u s r e c o n ciled w i t h his e x t r a o r d i n a r y b r o t h e r . Oral tradition,

presumably

Ebionite, m a y g o v e r n the Jesus we can p e e r at b e t w e e n t h e sentences o f t h e s e r m o n . This Jesus is a p r o p h e t in the great procession that be-

JESUS

39

gan w i t h A m o s in t h e T a n a k h , possibly eight c e n t u r i e s before t h e ( . o m m o n Era. In A m o s , Yahweh declaims:

i loathe, I spurn your festivals, I am not appeased by your solemn assemblies. If you offer me burnt offerings—or your meal offerings— I will not accept them; I will pay no heed To your gifts of fatlings. Spare me the sounds of your hymns, And let me not hear the music ot your lutes. But let justice well up like water, Righteousness like an unfailing stream. 5:21-24

T h e Jewish Publication Society t r a n s l a t i o n , a c c u r a t e and spirited, lacks t h e e l o q u e n c e o f t h e A u t h o r i z e d Version:

But let judgment run down as water, and righteousness as a mighty river.

J u d g m e n t and righteousness are at t h e c e n t e r of James, and o f his Jesus:

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. 5:4

40

H AROL D B LOOM

Jesus p r o m i s e d t h e k i n g d o m t o t h e p o o r , and James calls t h e m t h e " h e i r s " o f t h e c o m i n g of t h e k i n g d o m w h e n t h e risen Lord r e t u r n s . " W i s d o m " is t h e gift of G o d t h a t James beseeches, and tor h i m and Jesus t h e essence o f t h e Law is Leviticus 19:18:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord.

4-

THE

R

EADING

BELATED

STRAIGHT

TESTAMENT

THROUGH

t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , in its

c a n o n i c a l o r d e r i n g , is for m e a u n i q u e experience, b o t h liter-

ary and spiritual. C h r i s t i a n S c r i p t u r e has a relationship t o t h e Hebrew Bible very u n l i k e t h a t o f Vergil to H o m e r , o r S h a k e s p e a r e t o C h a u c e r and to t h e English Bible. Vergil k n e w Lucretius and o t h e r R o m a n works, and a wide r a n g e o f G r e e k literature, including Hellenistic " m o d e r n i s t s , " while S h a k e s p e a r e was eclectic, a magpie c o l l e c t i n g riches f r o m Ovid t o C h r i s t o p h e r M a r l o w e . B u t Yeshua o f Nazareth was p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h t h e T e a c h i n g and t h e Prophets, t h e principal texts o f his o w n people. His followers, w h e t h e r Jewish o r G e n t i l e Christians, were in n o position t o cast o f f t h e writings t h a t had n u r tured their Lord Jesus Christ. And yet increasingly their stance in regard to t h e H e b r e w Scriptures was o n e o f a c u t e ambivalence. This unsteady v e e r i n g b e t w e e n love and hatred o f " t h e Jews" w i t h i n t h e Gospels has inspired a l o n g history o f violence. Paul, a Pharisee by training, is m o s t l y free o f t h e v i r u l e n t intensities o f J o h n ,

42

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

and yet he i n a u g u r a t e d t h e incessant misreadings o f t h e Jewish Bible t h a t c u l m i n a t e d in J o h n . For Paul, t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n , o r C h r i s t event, p r o c l a i m e d t h e death o f T o r a h : since t h e end o f all existence was verynear, m o r a l law b e c a m e irrelevant. T w o t h o u s a n d years after Paul, it is a little bewildering t o absorb w h a t c a n n o t be t e r m e d a m e r e delay in finalities. T h e R e s u r r e c t i o n and t h e Parousia ( S e c o n d C o m i n g ) appear t o exist in quite different worlds, f r o m t h e perspective o f t h e t w e n t y first c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era. D o n a l d A k e n s o n emphasizes t h e paradox that C h r i s t i a n i t y was invented in t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., bejore Rabbinical Judaism developed in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y : Paul precedes Akiba. T h e n o r m a t i v e sages o f t h e second c e n t u r y have n o direct c o n t i n u i t y with t h e Pharisees, o r at least we lack evidence t h a t links t h e m . Yet t h e M i s h n a h , t h e Rabbinical codification o f t h e Oral Law, is a n y t h i n g but belated, and has n o ambivalence toward t h e T o r a h , o r Written Law, which it massively c o m pletes. Akiba m a d e t h e terrible m i s t a k e of p r o c l a i m i n g t h e heroic warrior Bar K o c h b a as Messiah, and t h e rebellion t h e y led t o g e t h e r against R o m e f r o m 132 to 135 C.E. destroyed m o r e Jews t h a n had died sixty years earlier, w h e n t h e T e m p l e was obliterated, t h o u g h at least m a n y of t h e m died fighting. T h e E m p e r o r Hadrian, appalled at his legions' losses in battle, a n n o u n c e d his victory in a message to t h e R o m a n S e n a t e t h a t o m i t t e d t h e usual f o r m u l a : " T h e E m p e r o r and t h e A r m y are well." Akiba o r Jesus Christ? Judaism, by t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y C.E., e x c h a n g e d R o m a n pagan e n e m i e s for R o m a n C h r i s t i a n oppressors.

A s A c R I T I c I have learned to rely u p o n t h e a d m o n i t i o n t h a t o p e n s E m e r s o n ' s first v o l u m e o f

Essays:

t h e r e is n o history, o n l y biography;

JESUS

43

and upon his allied a p p r e h e n s i o n t h a t o u r prayers are diseases o f t h e will and o u r creeds diseases o f t h e i n t e l l e c t . T h e New T e s t a m e n t is m y t h and faith, n o t a factual c h r o n i c l e , and t h e writings o f t h e u n t r u s t w o r t h y Josephus have heen falsified by C h r i s t i a n redactors. Jesus lacks b o t h history and biography, and w h i c h o f his sayings and t e a c h ings are a u t h e n t i c c a n n o t be k n o w n . If you accept t h e I n c a r n a t i o n , n o n e o f this m a t t e r s . Judaism after all is equally unreliable: did t h e Exodus actually happen? Christ's miracles, like Yahweh's, persuade o n l y the persuaded. I c a n t h i n k o f o n l y a handful o r less o f m y c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o are inwardly free t o write a b o u t ancient religious texts w i t h o u t m a n i f e s t ing their o w n spiritual persuasions: D o n a l d H a r m a n A k e n s o n , Robin Lane F o x , F. E. Peters w o u l d be a m o n g t h e m . T h e m o s t t r u s t w o r t h y a u t h o r i t i e s on Jesus, as I have m e n t i o n e d , s e e m to m e J o h n P. Meier and E. P. Sanders, respectively C a t h o l i c and Protestant, but as believers t h e y necessarily share in s o m e blindness, particularly in t h e h o p e that s o m e h o w t h e New T e s t a m e n t c a n reveal t h e actual or historical Jesus. N o o t h e r s c h o l a r is as clarifying o n t h a t tired old horse " t h e Q u e s t for t h e Historical Jesus" as A k e n s o n . As he remarks, with perfect c o n fidence, t h e r e indeed was a Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h w h o e v e n t u a l l y was t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o Jesus t h e C h r i s t by his believers. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , alm o s t e v e r y t h i n g w e are told about h i m is in t h e c a n o n i c a l New Testam e n t , o r in e x t r a c a n o n i c a l Christian texts. F r o m t h e Jewish historian Josephus, we k n o w o n l y t h a t Yeshua was crucified by order ol Pontius Pilate, t h a t his b r o t h e r James t h e Just later was stoned t o d e a t h by o r der o f t h e Jewish S a n h e d r i n , and that J o h n t h e Baptist, Yeshua's f o r e r u n n e r , was e x e c u t e d by t h e Herodians.

44

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

A k e n s o n has a h i g h e r aesthetic j u d g m e n t ot t h e u n i t y o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t t h a n I a m able to achieve. For h i m , it is a single source, and f r o m it we c a n recover a glimpse o r t w o o f Yeshua o f Nazareth. Alter m a n y readings o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t and its best s c h o l a r s , regretfully I m y s e l f have n o t r e c o v e r e d a single clear glimpse. 1 guess, with A k e n s o n , that Yeshua was a Pharisee, since ironically that a c c o u n t s for t h e anti-Pharisaic f u r y o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t , w h i c h needs t o distinguish this p a r t i c u l a r Pharisee f r o m all t h e o t h e r s . Except for t h a t , I have n o o t h e r surmise. T h e central p r o c e d u r e o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is t h e conversion o f t h e Hebrew Bible i n t o t h e Old T e s t a m e n t , so as t o abrogate any stigma ot belatedness t h a t m i g h t be assigned to t h e New C o v e n a n t , w h e n c o n t r a s t e d with t h e " O l d " C o v e n a n t . A c o m p a r i s o n to t h e Q u r ' a n is instructive. M u h a m m a d c o n s t a n t l y refers to biblical personages and stories, w h i c h evidently were familiar t o t h e auditors o f his recitation. F r e q u e n t l y these references s e e m skewed t o us, since t h e y perhaps were based upon Jewish-Christian sources we n o l o n g e r possess. All o f these e v o c a t i o n s o f old stories are freestyle and not particularly prog r a m m a t i c . T h o u g h t h e Jews and Christians w e r e " p e o p l e o f t h e B o o k , " that b o o k was n e i t h e r t h e T a n a k h n o r t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . W h a t e v e r it m a y have been, it i n d u c e d n o anxiety in M u h a m m a d , w h o does n o t rely u p o n these earlier beliefs to provide a design for t h e c o n t o u r s o f Allah's discourse. T h e Seal o f t h e Prophets c o r r e c t s earlier visions while passing t h e m by, but t h e y are source m a t e r i a l and not guidance for him. T h e c a n o n i c a l New T e s t a m e n t writers have an a l t o g e t h e r different relation to t h e T o r a h and t h e Prophets, since their Messiah is for t h e m

JESUS

45

i lie f u l f i l l m e n t b o t h o f t h e G e n e s i s - t o - K i n g s narrative m e l d e d t o g e t h e r in Babylon, and all t h e m e s s e n g e r s f r o m Moses t h r o u g h Elijah t o Malachi. R e a r r a n g i n g t h e T a n a k h ' s o r d e r i n g , so t h a t it ends with Malachi and n o t w i t h II C h r o n i c l e s , is o n l y their o p e n i n g revision o f S c r i p t u r e . T h e New T e s t a m e n t is designed as a prism t h r o u g h which its p r e c u r s o r text is t o be read, revised, and interpreted. Paul is particularly adept at this r e w o r k i n g , but all w h o c o m e after h i m , d o w n t o the a u t h o r s of Hebrews and R e v e l a t i o n , are superbly gifted in t h e arts o f u s u r p a t i o n , reversal, and appropriation. However o n e judges t h e New T e s t a m e n t , w h e t h e r as l i t e r a t u r e o r as spirituality, it is historically t h e m o s t totally successful m a k e o v e r ever a c c o m p l i s h e d . Since Christians worldwide n o w o u t n u m b e r Jews by m o r e t h a n a t h o u s a n d to o n e , you c o u l d assert (if you w i s h e d ) t h a t t h e New T e s t a m e n t rescued t h e Hebrew Bible, but you w o u l d be m i s t a k e n . Christians have saved their Old T e s t a m e n t , to b o r r o w an emphasis f r o m Jaroslav Pelikan. T h e G e n e s i s - t o - K i n g s s e q u e n c e is a narrative fiction m a s k i n g as history. After t h e disasters o f t h e Jewish War and o f t h e Bar K o c h b a rebellion, t h e Jews a b a n d o n e d narrative and history, as Yosef Yerus h a l m i e l o q u e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e d in Zakhor, his e x c u r s u s c o n c e r n i n g Judaic m e m o r y . Rabbinical literature, h o w e v e r impressive, p a r t i c u larly j in t h e B a b y j l o n i a n T a l m u d , does n o t r e s e m b l e t h e T a n a k h . W h a t is n o w t e r m e d Judaism has m u c h m o r e to do with postbiblical w r i t ings. T h e New T e s t a m e n t usurpation o f t h e Hebrew Bible c o n s t i t u t e d a kind o f t r a u m a t h a t prevails a m o n g Jewry. C o m m e n t a r y asserted itself o v e r narrative. In t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , I w o u l d have c h o s e n Kafka, Freud, and G e r s h o m S c h o l e m as t h e m a j o r figures in Jewish

46

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

literary c u l t u r e , and even Kafka was m o r e a parabolist t h a n a n a r r a tor. Now, i n w h a t e v e r particle o f t h e n e w c e n t u r y I r e m a i n h e r e t o see, it is n o t yet clear w h e t h e r our Kafka, Philip R o t h , is p r i m a r i l y e x egete or storyteller.

A T S E V E N T Y - F O U R , I c o n t i n u e m y o w n quest t o resolve s o m e o f t h e e n i g m a s o f t h e i n f l u e n c e process, w h e t h e r in imaginative literat u r e o r b e t w e e n religious texts. T h i s b o o k c u l m i n a t e s f o r m e w h a t began h a l f m y lifetime ago, on m y t h i r t y - s e v e n t h birthday, w h e n 1 w o k e up f r o m a n i g h t m a r e t o begin writing an essay called " T h e C o v e r i n g C h e r u b or Poetic Influence." T h i s was published six years later, m u c h revised, as the o p e n i n g c h a p t e r o f a s h o r t book called The Anxiety of Influence (1973). T h o u g h I did n o t include it in the final b o o k , I r e m e m b e r c o m p o s i n g a s e c t i o n on t h e New T e s t a m e n t ' s anxiety o f influence in regard to t h e Hebrew Bible, w h i c h is t h e subject o f this chapter, " T h e Belated T e s t a m e n t . " I have learned t h a t m y idea, t h e anxiety o f i n f l u e n c e , is very easily m i s u n d e r s t o o d , w h i c h is n a t u r a l , since I base t h e n o t i o n on t h e process o f " m i s r e a d i n g , " by w h i c h I d o n o t i n t e n d dyslexia. Later w o r k s misread earlier ones; w'hen t h e misreading is s t r o n g e n o u g h to be e l o q u e n t , c o h e r e n t , and persuasive t o m a n y , t h e n it will e n d u r e , and s o m e t i m e s prevail. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t f r e q u e n t l y is a s t r o n g misreading o f t h e Hebrew Bible, and certainly it has persuaded m u l t i tudes. Jack Miles, in his provocative God: A Biography, gives a useful f o r m u l a for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e New T e s t a m e n t ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e T a n a k h i n t o its O l d T e s t a m e n t , n a m i n g it " t h e strongest reading o f any classic in literary history." I do n o t agree with t h e e x u b e r a n t

JESUS

47

A k e n s o n that t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a p p r o a c h e s t h e aesthetic e m i n e n c e of the T a n a k h , hut still I a c k n o w l e d g e e x t r a o r d i n a r y if i n t e r m i t t e n t splendors in Paul and Mark, and alas t h r o u g h o u t t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . M a n y o f these, h o w e v e r , are t h e c r e a t i o n of William Tyndale, t h e o n l y t r u e rival o f S h a k e s p e a r e , C h a u c e r , and Walt W h i t m a n as t h e richest a u t h o r in t h e English language. Tyndale's New T e s t a m e n t is t h e staple of t h e A u t h o r i z e d Version, or King J a m e s Bible, and abides ( s o m e w h a t d i m i n i s h e d ) in t h e Revised Standard Version. O n l y Shakespeare's prose is capable o f surviving c o m p a r i s o n with Tyndale's, and part o f m y passion for t h e m a g n i f i c e n t Sir J o h n Falstaff s t e m s f r o m t h e Fat Knight's boisterous parodies o f T y n d a l e ' s style. I n f l u e n c e is a kind o f influenza, a c o n t a m i n a t i o n o n c e t h o u g h t to p o u r in u p o n us f r o m t h e stars. Mark's influenza was c a u g h t by h i m f r o m t h e J Writer, or Yahwist; Paul's and J o h n ' s cases s t e m f r o m t h e Law and t h e Prophets alike. T h e great critic N o r t h r o p Frye ( w h o had c o n t a m i n a t e d m e ) r e m a r k e d to m e t h a t w h e t h e r a later reader e x p e rienced s u c h an effect was entirely a m a t t e r o f t e m p e r a m e n t and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . W i t h a m i a b l e disloyalty I answered t h a t influence anxiety was n o t p r i m a r i l y an effect in an individual, but r a t h e r t h e relation o f o n e w o r k o f l i t e r a t u r e t o a n o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e t h e anxiety o f influence is t h e result, and n o t t h e cause, o f a s t r o n g misreading. With that, we parted ( i n t e l l e c t u a l l y ) forever, t h o u g h in old age I appreciate t h e irony t h a t m y criticism is t o his as t h e New T e s t a m e n t is t o t h e T a n a k h , which is spiritually t h e paradoxical reverse o f o u r spiritual preferences. T h e New T e s t a m e n t a c c o m p l i s h e s its appropriation by m e a n s o f its drastic r e o r d e r i n g o f t h e T a n a k h . H e r e is t h e original s e q u e n c e o f t h e T a n a k h , c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e Christian Old T e s t a m e n t :

HAROLD

OLD

TESTAMENT

BLOOM

TANAKH

Genesis

Genesis

Exodus

Exodus

Leviticus

Leviticus

Numbers

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Joshua

Judges

Judges

Ruth I Samuel

I Samuel

II S a m u e l

II S a m u e l

Kings

Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Twelve M i n o r Prophets

I Chronicles

Psalms

II C h r o n i c l e s

Proverbs

Ezra

Job

Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther

S o n g of S o n g s

Maccabees

Ruth

Job

Lamentations

Psalms

Ecclesiastes

Proverbs

Esther

Ecclesiastes

Daniel

JESUS

49

Song of Songs

Ezra

Wisdom

Nehemiah

Ecclesiasticus ( S i r a c h )

I Chronicles

Isaiah

II C h r o n i c l e s

Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel T w e l v e M i n o r Prophets

T h e King James Bible, w i t h w h i c h readers o f this b o o k are likely t o be m o s t familiar, departs f r o m t h e T a n a k h ' s order initially by inserting R u t h b e t w e e n Judges and I S a m u e l , p e r h a p s because as t h e ancestress o f David, she is t h e r e m o t e ancestress also o f Jesus. T h e n , in a m a j o r c h a n g e , it follows Kings w i t h C h r o n i c l e s , Ezra, N e h e m i a h , Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and S o l o m o n ' s S o n g , b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g to the m a j o r p r o p h e t s Isaiah and J e r e m i a h , w h o s e L a m e n t a tions are t h e n inserted before Ezekiel. T h e n c o m e s Daniel, given t h e status o f a m a j o r p r o p h e t , and t h e n all is c o n c l u d e d with t h e g r o u p ing o f t h e Twelve M i n o r Prophets, f r o m Hosea t h r o u g h Malachi. Aside f r o m t h e inclusion o f t h e a p o c r y p h a l works, t h e crucial C h r i s t i a n revisions are its elevation o f D a n i e l and t h e difference in endings, f r o m II C h r o n i c l e s to M a l a c h i , t h e last o f t h e T w e l v e M i n o r Prophets:

And in the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, when the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah was fulfilled, the Lord roused the spirit of

62

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

King Cyrus of Persia to issue a proclamation throughout his realm byword of mouth and in writing, as follows: "Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: the Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and has charged me with building Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Any one of you of all His people, the Lord his God be with him and let him go up." II CHRONICLES

36:22-23

T h e T a n a k h ' s conclusion is t h e h e a r t e n i n g e x h o r t a t i o n t o " g o u p " t o J e r u s a l e m t o rebuild Yahweh's T e m p l e . ( O f course, today a restored T e m p l e w o u l d be a universal c a t a s t r o p h e , since AI Aksa M o s q u e o c cupies t h e sacred site, and m u s t n o t be r e m o v e d . ) In order t o lead into t h e t h r e e o p e n i n g c h a p t e r s o f t h e G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w , t h e Christian O l d T e s t a m e n t c o n c l u d e s with M a l a c h i , " t h e M e s s e n g e r , " p r o c l a i m ing Elijah's r e t u r n (as J o h n t h e Baptist):

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. MALACHI

4:5-6

Belated T e s t a m e n t as t r u l y it is, t h e New C o v e n a n t is m o s t intense in t h e belated Gospel o f J o h n , w h i c h I find b o t h aesthetically strong and spiritually appalling, even s e t t i n g aside its v e h e m e n t Jewish selfh a t r e d , or Christian a n t i - S e m i t i s m . If t h e New T e s t a m e n t t r i u m p h e d

JESUS

fij

in t h e R o m a n m o d e , a n d it did u n d e r C o n s t a n t i n e , t h e n t h e c a p t i v e led in p r o c e s s i o n was t h e T a n a k h , r e d u c e d t o slavery as t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t . All s u b s e q u e n t Jewish h i s t o r y , u n t i l t h e f o u n d i n g m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y a g o o f t h e S t a t e o f Israel, testifies t o t h e h u m a n c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h a t t e x t u a l slavery.

5-

ST.

PAUL

P

AULUS ( h e n e v e r calls h i m s e l f Saul in his letters) identified h i m s e l f as a Jew f r o m Tarsus, in Cilicia, w h e r e he was b o r n

s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n 5 and 10 C.E. Probably a R o m a n citizen by birth, he p r e s u m a b l y spoke G r e e k as a child, yet c o u l d read Hebrew and speak A r a m a i c , since he was a Pharisee. Acts 22:3 asserts t h a t Paul, p r e s u m ably as a y o u n g m a n , studied in J e r u s a l e m with t h e great sage G a m a l i e l t h e Elder, w h i c h m a vJ have b e e n t r u e . 7

By his o w n boast, Paul began his public activity as a leader o f violence against Jewish Christians, until his f a m o u s e n c o u n t e r with t h e voice o f t h e r e s u r r e c t e d C h r i s t on t h e road to D a m a s c u s . A c c e p t i n g t h e call t o be an apostle o f a figure w h o m he had n e v e r m e t , Paul dev o t e d t h e r e m a i n d e r o f his life t o t h e conversion o f Gentiles t o his o w n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e N e w C o v e n a n t . S o m e t i m e after t h e s u m m e r o f 64 C.E., he was m a r t y r e d in Nero's R o m e , after a t h i r t y - y e a r apostolic labor. T h e r e are seven indisputable letters o f Paul in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ,

J E S U S IJ 3

c o m p o s e d f r o m 51 t h r o u g h 62 ( o r s o ) , w h i c h m a k e s t h e m t h e earliest C h r i s t i a n w r i t i n g s w e possess. I f y o u add t h e h a l f - d o z e n l e t t e r s a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m by his disciples, a n d t h e l a r g e r p a r t o f L u k e ' s B o o k o f Acts, w h e r e Paul is t h e h e r o , t h e n a b o u t a t h i r d o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is Pauline. B e t w e e n his p r i o r i t y , his c e n t r a l i t y in t h e t e x t , a n d his r e i n v e n t i o n o f m u c h o f C h r i s t i a n i t y , Paul is its c r u c i a l f o u n d e r . Y e s h u a o f N a z a r e t h , w h o died still t r u s t i n g in t h e C o v e n a n t w i t h Y a h w e h , c a n n o t be r e g a r d e d as t h e i n a u g u r a t o r o f a n e w faith. T h e v e h e m e n c e a n d v i o l e n c e o f t h e Apostle's p e r s o n a l i t y are r e vealed t h r o u g h o u t his l e t t e r s , w h i c h m o s t l y are a r g u e d against Jewish C h r i s t i a n s , r a t h e r t h a n against Jews a n d J u d a i s m . Pharisees, t h e h a t e d o p p o n e n t s in M a t t h e w , a r e n o t a t a r g e t f o r Paul. He d o e s n o t regard t h e m as p e c u l i a r l y p r o n e t o sin n o r , as t h e i r s t u d e n t , d o e s h e t h i n k o f h i m s e l f in t h a t way. W a y n e M e e k s , w h o s e a p p r e h e n s i o n o f Paul s u b t l y a l l o w s f o r t h e A p o s t l e ' s e n i g m a t i c a n d P r o t e a n n a t u r e , n e v e r t h e l e s s s t a r t l e s m e by d e f e n d i n g t h e A p o s t l e ' s " w a g i n g o f p e a c e . " J a m e s t h e Just o f J e r u s a l e m h a r d l y w o u l d h a v e agreed, a n d a c l o s e r e r e a d i n g o f Paul does n o t d i v u l g e a n i r e n i c t e m p e r a m e n t . Paul's Epistle t o t h e G a l a t i a n s o p poses a g r o u p t h a t s c h o l a r s h i p c a n n o t q u i t e identity, b u t t h e y m u s t h a v e w i n c e d as t h e y read t h e c a t a l o g u e o f t h e i r w o r k s : " i m m o r a l i t y , i m p u r i t y , l i c e n t i o u s n e s s , idolatry, s o r c e r y , e n m i t y , strife, j e a l o u s y , a n g e r , selfishness, d i s s e n s i o n , p a r t y spirit, envy, d r u n k e n n e s s , c a r o u s ing, a n d t h e l i k e . " N o t m u c h has c h a n g e d . C a n a n y o n e like Paul? O n l y m y d e d i c a t e e , D o n a l d A k e n s o n , s h o w s a w r y a f f e c t i o n f o r t h e A p o s t l e in Saittl Saul (2000), p o i n t i n g o u t a c c u r a t e l y t h a t Jesus C h r i s t , in t h e G o s p e l s , has b e c o m e a divinity, w h i l e Paul "is a jagged, flawed, a n d t h e r e f o r e t o t a l l y c o n v i n c i n g h u m a n b e -

54

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

ing." Writing in 1913, in t h e Preface to his Androcles and the Lion, G e o r g e B e r n a r d S h a w c o m p a r e d Paul to Karl M a r x , finding in e a c h a fantastic builder o f e r r o r t h a t exiled all m o r a l responsibility. T h a t s e e m s about right t o m e .

(2)

Paul is m o r e an agitator t h a n a mystical t h e o l o g i a n , let a l o n e a syst e m a t i c t h i n k e r . His Y a h w e h s h r i n k s t o G o d t h e Father, and p r a g m a t ically has little f u n c t i o n e x c e p t in relation t o t h e S o n . Since Paul's C h r i s t is as c u t oil f r o m any historical Jesus as his G o d t h e Father is f r o m Y a h w e h , t h e r e is a c u r i o u s e m p t i n e s s in Pauline d o c t r i n e . It is n o t an accident t h a t Paul emphasizes t h e kenosis, t h e s e l f - e m p t y i n g o u t o f t h e divine t h a t t h e Father and t h e S o n t o g e t h e r u n d e r g o in t h e I n c a r n a t i o n , w h i c h in all Christian t h e o l o g y involves a kind o f m i n gling o f t h e t w o divine natures. N e i t h e r G o d n o r C h r i s t requires personality for Paul, w h o possessed so m u c h o f t h a t quality t h a t he scarcely needed t o seek it outside of himself. B e c a u s e t h e R e s u r r e c tion was, for Paul, entirely spiritual (I C o r i n t h i a n s 15:44), personality b e c o m e s irrelevant. W h e n Freud says t h a t t h e ego is always a bodily ego, he w o u l d n o t p r o v o k e Paul. To Paul, Christ is t h e S o n o f G o d , and n o t t h e S o n o f M a n , t h o u g h Paul n e v e r says t h a t Jesus declared he was t h e Messiah. M a r k in this respect is c o n s o n a n t w i t h Paul, u n l i k e M a t t h e w and J o h n . Paul t r a n s m i t s aspects o f t h e I n c a r n a t i o n - A t o n e m e n t

complex,

w h i c h h e i n h e r i t e d f r o m Hellenistic Christianity, p r e s u m a b l y in A n tioch and D a m a s c u s , w h e r e Diaspora Jewish Christians had been c o n -

J E S U SIJ55

v e r t i n g G e n t i l e s . S c h o l a r s agree t h a t w e d o n o t k n o w w h e r e it was t h a t t h e ideas o f I n c a r n a t i o n a n d A t o n e m e n t w e r e first f u s e d . U n t i l t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n , t h e I n c a r n a t i o n is n o t c e n t r a l , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e it depends upon the Pre-Existence o f Christ, w h o c o m e s down from h e a v e n . Paul e v a d e s I n c a r n a t i o n in f a v o r o f I n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o t h e S p i r i t u a l B o d y o f C h r i s t R e s u r r e c t e d . In t h e Letter t o t h e Philippians (2:6—11), Paul q u o t e s a h y m n , o f u n d e t e r m i n e d origins, in w h i c h kenosis receives its earliest C h r i s t i a n e m p h a s i s :

who, though he was in the form of God, did not c o u n t equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the f o r m of a servant, being born in the likeness of m e n . And being found in h u m a n form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the n a m e which is above every n a m e , that at the n a m e o f Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that [esus Christ is Lord, to the glory o f God the Father.

6 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

T h e Parousia, o r S e c o n d C o m i n g o f C h r i s t , by t h e n t h e fabled e x p e c t a t i o n o f t h e first g e n e r a t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n s , e d g e s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t Paul w r i t e s . It C h r i s t w e r e t o a r r i v e again so s o o n , t h e n I n c o r p o r a t i o n t a k e s o n p a r t i c u l a r u r g e n c y . A d a m t o M o s e s was before t h e Law; M o s e s t o C h r i s t was t h e r e a l m o f t h e Law; n o w t h e C o m i n g E n d is all b u t u p o n Paul, ft s e e m s w r o n g t o s p e a k o f Paul's t h e o l o g y , b e c a u s e t h e rapidly a p p r o a c h i n g c o n c l u s i o n r e n d e r s t h e o l o g y u n n e c e s s a r y . Paul is f a m o u s l y e l o q u e n t , t h o u g h m o r e in t h e E n g l i s h Bible t h a n in t h e o r i g i n a l . Yet h e is a n obsessed c r a n k , w h o c o n f u s e s a n y o n e a t t e m p t i n g a dispassionate s t a n c e t o w a r d h i m . A n d h e is n o t t r u l y a n i n n o v a t o r o r a r e f o r m e r , b u t p r i m a r i l y a p o l e m i c i s t w h o defends a faith t o w h i c h h e has b e e n c o n v e r t e d . N e i t h e r a villain n o r a n e x e m plar, h e is a s i n g u l a r l y s t r a n g e g e n i u s o f s y n t h e s i s w h o c o n c e a l s s o m e t h i n g evasive in his deepest self. O n e s h r u g s o f f s p e c u l a t i o n s as t o his p s y c h o s e x u a l i t y : w h y d o e s t h a t m u c h m a t t e r ? He d i s t r u s t s m y s t i c a l e n t h u s i a s m , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e his c r u c i a l t r u s t is in t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n as an e v e n t in t h e Spirit yet also in o u t w a r d h i s t o r y . Had h e c o n f r o n t e d t h e V a l e n t i n i a n C h r i s t i a n G n o s t i c i s m o f a c e n t u r y later, h e w o u l d have b e e n o u t r a g e d by t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t first Jesus r e s u r r e c t e d , a n d then h e died. S o m e t h i n g like t h a t is w h a t h e c o m b a t s in t h e C o r i n t h i a n s . T h e r e is n o t h i n g G e n t i l e a b o u t Paul, t h o u g h h e was t h e f o r e m o s t a p o s t l e t o t h e m , as w a s c o n f i r m e d by his a g r e e m e n t w i t h J a m e s , t h e b r o t h e r o f Jesus. His ways o f t h i n k i n g a n d feeling e s s e n t i a l l y r e m a i n e d Pharisaic. Y a h w e h a n d Israel, Paul i m p l i e s , will w o r k o u t t h e C h o s e n P e o p l e ' s R e d e m p t i o n . Did Paul, w h o m u s t have died still e x p e c t i n g C h r i s t ' s r e t u r n , r e a l l y believe t h a t Israel w o u l d a c c e p t C h r i s t at that m o m e n t ? I h a v e n o a n s w e r , e x c e p t t h a t Paul's M e s s i a h c e r t a i n l y has l i t t l e in c o m m o n w i t h w h a t t h e Jews e x p e c t e d , s i n c e t h e y awaited a

JESUS

fij

v i c t o r i o u s w a r r i o r . B u t t h e n his C h r i s t also has n o t m u c h in c o m m o n w i t h Y e s h u a o f N a z a r e t h , in a n y o f his G o s p e l v e r s i o n s , e v e n in J o h n . Paul's d e l u s i o n ( w h a t else c o u l d y o u call it?) is t h a t h e lives in t h e E n d T i m e . M y s e l f a G n o s t i c Jew, I c a n n o t p r e t e n d t o u n d e r s t a n d Paul, alm o s t t w o m i l l e n n i a later. Yet w h o c a n u n d e r s t a n d h i m ? His hest e x e g e t e , W a y n e M e e k s , tells us t h a t " o n e m a y r e a s o n a b l y d o u b t w h e t h e r a n a c c u r a t e a n d c o n s i s t e n t j u d g m e n t o l t h e a p o s t l e is possible." We k n o w t o o little a b o u t Y e s h u a o f N a z a r e t h t o m a k e a n y a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t h i m . We k n o w t o o m u c h a b o u t Paul, a n d I a m left baffled by h i m . He c o u l d be a S h a k e s p e a r e a n c h a r a c t e r , as e n i g m a t i c as H a m l e t o r Iago.

6.

T H E G O S P E L OF

MARK

T

HE G O S P E L S , as we n o w possess t h e m , evidently were c o m -

posed f r o m r o u g h l y t h i r t y years to m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y

after t h e C r u c i f i x i o n o f Yeshua. T h e y c o n c e r n t h e m s e l v e s a l m o s t e x clusively with t h e t h r e e final years o f his life, p e r h a p s b e t w e e n t h e ages o f t h i r t y - s e v e n and forty. T h e G o s p e l o f J o h n , h o w e v e r , seems t o deal m o s t l y with his last ten weeks. A s s u m i n g t h a t h e was b o r n a b o u t 6 B.C.E., t h a t m i g h t date t h e C r u c i f i x i o n at about 34 C.E., o r seventeen years before Paul's first surviving epistle. M a r k , a l m o s t certainly t h e earliest Gospel, generally is assigned t o t h e t i m e o f t h e Jewish R e v o l t against R o m e , 66—70 C.E., c u l m i n a t i n g in t h e devastation o f t h e Temple. We do n o t k n o w w h o M a r k was, or w h e r e he w r o t e , e x c e p t that it was n o t in t h e Land o f Israel. He is very unlikely t o have k n o w n Yeshua, as w e r e M a t t h e w and Luke. W h e t h e r Mark, like t h e o t h e r s , relied u p o n an earlier C h r i s t i a n writing, we c a n n o t tell, yet I am always dubious a b o u t t h e p u r e transmission of oral traditions. W h a t is

JESUS

fij

certain is that n o n e o f t h e Gospels in itself represents a reliable acc o u n t o f w h a t their Messiah t a u g h t , w h e t h e r by w o r d or act. As literature, Mark's G o s p e l is considerably m o r e impressive in t h e English Bible t h a n in t h e G r e e k original, w h e r e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y sensibility struggles with i n a d e q u a t e language. M a r k oddly fuses a kind o f Yahwistic realism w i t h an e x t r e m e l y a b r u p t narrative style, in w h i c h speed and i m m e d i a c y are emphasized. Paula Fredriksen, in h e r From jesus to Christ (1988, 2000), r e m a r k s t h a t Mark's protagonist "is a m a n in a h u r r y . " He is also a t o t a l e n i g m a , given t o asking his auditors (and Mark's readers): " W h o do people say I am?" How o p e n is t h a t question? D o e s this version o f Jesus have an initial insight as t o his o w n precise identity, o r does he achieve it o n l y near t h e end? Barry Quails r e m a r k s on t h e affinity b e t w e e n M a r k and t h e Yahwist, and Isaiah, all o f w h o m divide up t h e i r potential a u d i e n c e into those w h o will u n d e r s t a n d and t h o s e w h o c a n n o t c o n f r o n t divine riddling. It is n o t t h a t Jesus, like J's Y a h w e h , is impish. Jesus is n o t playful, and yet at times he is willing t o mystify. Yet b o t h G o d s ( o r aspects o f G o d ) are u n c a n n y , u n e x p e c t e d t h o u g h close t o h o m e . Mark's Jesus also will be present w h e r e and w h e n he chooses. If you haven't read straight t h r o u g h t h e Gospel o f M a r k ( o r n o t rec e n t l y ) , a kind o f s h o c k is inevitable w h e n you a t t e m p t it. C h a l l e n g e is o n l y o n e part o f t h e e n c o u n t e r ; o t h e r s include b e w i l d e r m e n t o f o u r understanding, and a sense o f t h e f o r l o r n in regard t o o u r e x p e c t a tions. Apocalypse h o v e r s t h r o u g h o u t : t h e

final

events are

near.

W h e t h e r t h e Jewish War is o n g o i n g , or J e r u s a l e m already has been destroyed, we are never told, but M a r k lives in w h a t he believes t o be t h e end t i m e . T h e weirdness o f t h e entire N e w T e s t a m e n t is t h a t e v e r y o n e

60

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

in it is utterly persuaded that C h r i s t soon will r e t u r n . T w o t h o u s a n d years later, he has n o t . S o c o m m i t t e d is t h e text to i m m i n e n c e t h a t I m u r m u r , w h i l e rereading, an old rabbinical adage: "Let t h e Messiah c o m e , but m a y I n o t be t h e r e to see it." Mark's a u t h o r , like his Jesus, is h u r r i e d yet secretive, and n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y eager to assist us in interp r e t i n g t h e G o o d News. Like t h e disciples t h e m s e l v e s , w e see w i t h o u t discerning. Poor Peter, dreadfully c o n f u s e d , is r e b u k e d by Jesus with c u s t o m a r y a u t h o r i t y , and is told t h a t , h o w e v e r m o m e n t a r i l y , disciple and Satan are b e c o m e as one. O n l y t h e devils (and M a r k ) invariably k n o w exactly w h a t Jesus is. F r a n k K e r m o d e , in his The Genesis of Secrecy (1979), e m p h a s i z e d t h e peculiar paradoxical quality o f M a r k ' s narrative:

But there are many knots; they occur in the riddling parables, in the frequent collocation of perceptive demons and imperceptive saints, in the delight and gratitude of the outsider who is cured, and the astonishment, fear, and dismay of the insiders, (p. 141)

A l m o s t all New T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r s , and o t h e r believing C h r i s tians, t h i n k t h e y are delighted and grateful insiders. Are they? D o e s their s a i n t h o o d t r a n s c e n d t h a t o f t h e disciples? I hardly t h i n k we as yet have absorbed t h e d i s c o m f o r t t h a t o n l y w h a t is d e m o n i c in us can a c c u r a t e l y perceive t h e identity o f C h r i s t Jesus. M a r k is b o t h a bad w r i t e r and a great o n e : I t h i n k o f Edgar Allan Poe as a n o t h e r rare ins t a n c e o f that paradox, insane as m y j u x t a p o s i t i o n m u s t s e e m . Is t h e strange c o n c l u s i o n o f Mark's Gospel a m a r k (as it w e r e ) o f i n e p t i t u d e o r o f genius? T r u n c a t i o n t h e r e m a k e s us identify with t h e w o m e n at t h e t o m b ; we t o o flee because w e are afraid:

JESUS

fij

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the m o t h e r of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day o f the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. T h e y had been saying to one another, " W h o will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to t h e m , " D o not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead o f you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. MARK

I 6:I - 8

T h e r e t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t o f M a r k c o n c l u d e s ; 16:9—20 is a l a t e r addition a n d p a l p a b l y a n editorial a f t e r t h o u g h t , a t t e m p t i n g t o r e m e d y this s t r i k i n g a b r u p t n e s s . A G o s p e l w h o s e favorite w o r d is " i m m e d i a t e l y " ( s o m e f o r t y o c c u r r e n c e s ) , a n d w h i c h is jagged t h r o u g h o u t , e n d s p r o p e r l y w i t h t h r e e silent a n d d e v o t e d w o m e n h u r r y i n g a w a y f r o m w h a t is n o l o n g e r t h e t o m b o f Jesus. T h e G o s p e l s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o claim t h e G o o d News o f R e d e m p t i o n . Mark ends with "for they were afraid," h a r d l y a t o n a l i t y o f s a l v a t i o n . K e r m o d e c o m m e n t s , " T h e c o n c l u s i o n is e i t h e r i n t o l e r a b l y c l u m s y , o r it is i n c r e d i b l y s u b t l e . " A c h o i c e b e t w e e n t h e i n t o l e r a b l e a n d t h e i n c r e d i b l e is r a t h e r a c h a r m i n g o n e , a n d I s u s p e c t w e n e e d n o t c h o o s e : M a r k , by t u r n s , is b o t h c l u m s y a n d

62 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

s u b t l e ( a g a i n , like P o e ) . We all k n o w s u c h p e o p l e , t h o u g h u s u a l l y t h e y a r e n o t w r i t e r s . B u t t h e n , M a r k is n o t p r i m a r i l y a w r i t e r . P r o b a b l y a r e s i d e n t ot R o m e , h e a n x i o u s l y awaits a n d t h e n r e c e i v e s t h e t e r r i b l e n e w s o f t h e u t t e r d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . In t h e s h a d o w o f Isaiah, h e n e v e r t h e l e s s aspires t o be h i m s e l f a p r o p h e t . He proclaims in a H e braic t r a d i t i o n , a n d w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e a n x i e t y in regard t o his p r i m e p r e c u r s o r , t h e first Isaiah, s u r e l y t h e g r a n d e s t o f t h e p r o p h e t s after M o s e s h i m s e l t . M a r k at o n c e n e e d s Isaiah a n d d o e s n ' t w a n t h i m , b e c a u s e t h e p r o p h e t has t o be s u p e r s e d e d , by f u l f i l l m e n t in C h r i s t . S i n c e M a r k ' s Jesus is s e c r e t i v e , as is M a r k , it is difficult b o t h t o reveal a n d c o n c e a l a t r u t h t h a t t r a n s c e n d s Isaiah's Y a h w i s m . If Isaiah's a u d i t o r s c o u l d be u n c o m p r e h e n d i n g , t h e n M a r k swerves f r o m Isaiah by p o r t r a y i n g t h e disciples as n o t v e r y b r i g h t s t u d e n t s o f a q u i c k s i l v e r m a s t e r w h o b r i n g s " a n e w t e a c h i n g ! " ( 1 : 2 7 ) . P e r h a p s Jesus is i m p a t i e n t , as w o u l d be a n y baffling t e a c h e r w h o tries t o a b r o g a t e a s t r o n g prior m o d e t h a t h e r e is n o t less t h a n T o r a h . T h e disciples, in M a r k , c a n n o t w h o l l y be b l a m e d . It is n o t u n t i l C h a p t e r 1 3 : 1 4 - 2 7 t h a t t h e y are let into the secret:

" B u t when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in (udea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those w h o are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter. For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning ot the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short those days, n o one would

JESUS

fij

he saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. And if anyone says to you at that time, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!' or 'Look, There he is!'—do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything. "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven."

T h e a b o m i n a t i o n o f desolation set up in t h e T e m p l e is f r o m Daniel 9:27 and, m o r e crucially, so is Mark's version o f t h e " S o n o f M a n , " w h i c h in t h e A r a m a i c text only m e a n s " o n e like a h u m a n b e i n g " :

As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a human being Came with the clouds of heaven; He reached the Ancient of Days And was presented to Him.

64

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; All peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, And his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. DANIEL

7:13-14

Mark's persuasive misreading c h a n g e s " o n e like a h u m a n b e i n g " i n t o t h e apocalyptic t e r m " S o n o f M a n . " T h a t leads t o t h e larger paradox o f this c r y p t i c Gospel. Since b o t h M a t t h e w and Luke derive f r o m Mark, it is n o t t o o m u c h to say t h a t t h e M a r c a n highly individual and m y s t e r i o u s Jesus has b e c o m e n o r m a t i v e . Pragmatically, has Mark n o t invented t h e Jesus o f faith? I do n o t m e a n literally invented, since followers of Jesus had been p r o c l a i m i n g h i m as t h e S o n o f G o d for at least a q u a r t e r c e n t u r y before M a r k w r o t e . B u t t h e y left us n o texts, t h o u g h I c o n t i n u e to be c o n v i n c e d t h a t Mark f o l l o w e d

written

sources. Did s u c h earlier works p o r t r a y Mark's highly individual and m y s t e r i o u s Jesus? E n i g m a s , in m y literary experience, d o n o t t r a n s m i t readily and tend t o u n d e r g o considerable modification. Reflect t h a t M a t t h e w and Luke give us a Jesus considerably less capricious t h a n Mark's. Indeed t h e Gospels o f M a t t h e w and Luke scarcely r e s e m b l e Mark's wavering portrait o f an a m b i v a l e n t Jesus w h o m a k e s h i m s e l f i m m e n s e l y difficult t o c o m p r e h e n d . O n c e J o h n t h e Baptist vanishes f r o m Mark's story, e v e r y t h i n g a b o u t Jesus b e c o m e s really a m b i g u o u s . He provokes a s t o n i s h m e n t in all he e n c o u n t e r s , and t h e obsessive e m phasis u p o n t h e s h o c k he evokes is t o o idiosyncratic n o t t o be Mark's o w n invention. Family, disciples, e n e m i e s , and t h e crowds o f witnesses are o v e r c o m e by t h e n e w n e s s t h e y c o n f r o n t .

JESUS

fij

T h e M a r c a n Jesus is a m a s t e r o f silences, w h i c h w e are invited t o understand, ij we can. T h i s is n o t t h e C h r i s t preached by Paul, or t h e S o n o f G o d presented by M a t t h e w and Luke, let a l o n e t h e c o s m i c (Christ ot t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . W h o e v e r c o m p o s e d M a r k is a g e n i u s still t o o original for us t o absorb, t h o u g h a weird Gospel m i g h t s e e m an o x y m o r o n . R a y m o n d E. B r o w n , a s u p e r b New T e s t a m e n t scholar, t o o k a very different stance on this m a t t e r :

Writing disparagingly of much biblical criticism, Kermode stresses Marcan obscurity, so that amid moments of radiance, basically the Gospel remains a mystery like the parables, arbitrarily excluding readers from the kingdom. Leaving aside the critiques of Kermode's book as to whether he has understood exegesis and has not substituted art for science, one may object that he has isolated Mark's writing from its ultimate Christian theology. The motifs of disobedience, failure, misunderstanding, and darkness are prominent in Mark; but the death of Jesus on the cross, which is the darkest moment in the Gospel, is not the end. God's power breaks through, and an outsider like the Roman centurion is not excluded but understands. No matter how puzzled the women at the tomb are, the readers are not left uncertain: Christ is risen and he can be seen. (An Introduction to the New Testament,

1997, p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 )

I w o u l d only reply t o B r o w n t h a t Mark's writing and "its u l t i m a t e C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y " are n o t necessarily identical. T h e c e n t u r i o n m a y understand, but t h e devoted w o m e n at t h e t o m b do n o t , and w i t h o u t t h e later verses added by Christian editors, m a n y readers w o u l d rem a i n very u n c e r t a i n . G o d ' s power breaks t h r o u g h o n l y in t h e t h e o -

66 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

l o g i c a l gloss a p p e n d e d as 16:9—20, w h i c h is n o t a u t h o r e d by M a r k , w h o s e Jesus cries o u t , in A r a m a i c , " M y G o d , m y G o d , w h y hast t h o u f o r s a k e n m e ? " ( 1 5 : 3 4 ) a n d t h e n u t t e r s a l o u d , w o r d l e s s c r y a n d dies. T h e a n g u i s h e d l a m e n t e c h o e s t h e o p e n i n g o f Psalm 22, a n d M a r k ' s t e x t does n o t e l a b o r a t e t h e p a i n a n d despair in w h i c h Jesus dies.

MARK FOLLOWS

I s A I AH c l o s e l y in a passage I find e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y

m e m o r a b l e , a n d w h i c h I have a l r e a d y q u o t e d . H e r e , o n c e again, is Isaiah 6 : 8 - 1 0 , f o l l o w e d by M a r k 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 .

T h e n I heard the voice of my Lord saying, " W h o m shall I send? Who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I; send me." And He said, " G o , say to that people: 'Hear, indeed, but do not understand. See, indeed, but do not grasp.' Dull that people's mind, Stop its ears, And seal its e y e s — Lest, seeing with its eyes And hearing with its ears, It also grasp with its mind, And repent and save itself."

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to t h e m , "To you has been given the secret o f the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that

JESUS

fij

'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'"

K e r m o d e , c o n f r o n t i n g t h e e n i g m a o f M a r k ' s passage a n d its s o u r c e Isaiah, u s e f u l l y j u x t a p o s e s M a t t h e w ' s s o f t e n i n g o f M a r k , in t h e ospel o f M a t t h e w 1 3 : 1 0 - 1 7 :

T h e n the disciples came and asked him, " W h y do you speak to t h e m in parables?" He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom o f heaven, but to t h e m it has not been given. For to those w h o have, m o r e will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those w h o have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. T h e reason I speak to t h e m in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' With t h e m indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: 'You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard o f hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and t u r n — and I would heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.

68

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Truly, 1 tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear w hat you hear, but did not hear it.

T h e Parable o f t h e Sower, w h i c h appears b o t h in M a r k

and

M a t t h e w , represents t h e a t t e m p t by Jesus t o sow t h e Word o f G o d , and in M a r k t h e disciples hopelessly fail to understand. Birds d e v o u r ing t h e Savior's seeds b e l o n g to, indeed are, S a t a n . Does M a r k u n d e r stand e i t h e r t h e parable o r Jesus'

interpretation? T h o u g h

Mark

d o e s n ' t say so, we have to a s s u m e t h a t he k n e w t h a t his Jesus was alluding t o Isaiah's bitter irony, in w h i c h Yahweh sends f o r t h a willing p r o p h e t while r e m a r k i n g t h a t he will n o t be u n d e r s t o o d . M a t t h e w , s o f t e n i n g Mark's harshness, o v e r t l y quotes Isaiah, t h u s giving us a r a t h e r m o r e c o n v e n t i o n a l Jesus, w h o c a n s h r u g o f f any slowness o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w h e t h e r a m o n g t h e people or his o w n disciples. B u t w h a t happens to Mark's utterly characteristic sense o f h o w m y s t e r i o u s Jesus is, if we accept M a t t h e w ' s revision? Barry Quails, following K e r m o d e , i l l u m i n a t e s M a r k f o r m e m o r e s t r o n g l y t h a n critics I have e n c o u n t e r e d elsewhere. Here is Quails, in his essay "Saint M a r k Says T h e y M u s t n ' t " (Raritan Vffl:4 [Spring 1989]):

The New Testament authors provide in their self-consciousness the final examples of this confrontation at work and of the anxieties it produced among writers determined to form a faith that would triumph over the contingencies of history. Only Mark, willing to take "captive" the Hebrew texts, is also at ease with their gaps and resulting ambiguities—and with the work of reading and interpreting those gaps demand.

JLSUS

69

[H]ow unlike the Christian writers who came after him Mark is, and how much he is like the early Hebrew writers, especially the Yahwist. Mark is the Gospel writer who most strongly comprehends, and does not fear, the Yahwist's willingness to entertain the contradictory and the ambiguous, the Hebrew determination to summon the reader to take part in the story. Mark is sublimely at ease with the gaps. "(Let him that readeth understand)," he says in an astonishing parenthesis inserted into the chapter (13:14) where he writes his own apocalypse (with echoes of Daniel). Llnderstanding or, rather, the difficulty of understanding is indeed his theme, as it is the theme of the Hebrew writers who, sure in God's words, must still record how distant those promises seem from the actions and difficulties of human beings. In Mark we glimpse for one last time in the (Christian) Bible the freedom of the Yahwist encountering and recounting, without awe or fear, the acts of his God. After Mark, the text is taken into captivity. But Mark, obsessed with "mysteriousness, silence, and incomprehension," as Kermode says, "prefers the shadows." He prefers to let readers, like his disciples, see, hear, possibly understand, and almost certainly deny.

His strategies of characterization show an author striving for ambiguity. His "Son of God" is always in crowds and always seeking an isolated place, always speaking and yet urging silence, always explaining and yet certain his words will not be understood. His family, who enter the text without introduction, are amazed by his denial of them (3:31—35); his friends are certain "he is beside himself" (3:21); and his enemies, not surprisingly, echo these responses and add others. The

70

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

disciples question "what manner ot man is this" from early on (4:41) and are repeatedly "astonished at his words," questioning what such use of language signifies. (Their idea of kingship involves which of them will "be greatest" in an earthly kingdom; it seems incomprehensible that a kingdom might be compared to a mustard seed, parable or not.) Even Mark's own asserted phrase, "Son of God," is

A

I repeated in such a way as to undercut its authority. Its only appear1 ances in the text after the opening are in the mouths of the demon\ possessed, who have no trouble seeing Jesus' connection with God (see 5:7), and at the end, in the words of the Roman centurion as he hears Jesus cry from the cross: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (15:39). Otherwise, we hear others call him the "son of David." We hear him often name himself the "Son of man." And we hear Peter say, "Thou art the Christ," and then show so little understanding of what he means by the words that Jesus says to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan" (8:29, 33). No wonder we feel so much "astonishment" when the captive Jesus replies to the high priest's question, "Art thou the Christ;": "I a m " (14:62).

W h a t Quails c a p t u r e s is t h e s h o c k i n g i m m e d i a c y o f Mark's stance, his renewal o f the J Writer's f r e e d o m in representing Y a h w e h as an e x alted but a l l - t o o - h u m a n m a n . W h e n I argue, t h r o u g h o u t this book, that the theological God, the Jesus-the-Christ of the Gospel of John and s u b s e q u e n t C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y , is clearly irreconcilable w i t h Yahw e h , I partly m e a n t h a t Trinitarian Jesus Christ is G r e e k and Yahweh is precisely w h a t forever resists G r e e k t h o u g h t in Hebrew tradition. B u t t w o versions o f Jesus, Mark's and aspects o f t h e person revealed in t h e quasi-Gnostic Gospel o f T h o m a s , are p r o f o u n d l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h

JESUS

fij

J's Yahweh. It is a puzzle t o m e t h a t t h e Jesus in M a r k and t h e Jesus in the Gospel of T h o m a s have little t o n o t h i n g in c o m m o n w i t h each o t h e r , b u t t h e wildly capacious, original Yahweh had r o o m e n o u g h for b o t h . M a r k takes a g l o o m y pride in t h e disturbing newness o f his Jesus, but t h e n J's Y a h w e h is forever d i s c o n c e r t i n g also. B o t h m a n - g o d s (a desperate phrase, but w h a t alternative?) break d o w n t h e limits t h a t supposedly define t h e b o r d e r b e t w e e n t h e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c and t h e t h e o m o r p h i c . T h e Jesus o f M a r k is secretive, while J's Y a h w e h is childlike and bold, yet Q u a i l s is clearly justified in linking this Jesus to t h e Yahweh w h o is always m a s t e r o f t h e u n e x p e c t e d . I myself, speaking n o w o n l y as a literary critic, a m n o t persuaded t h a t t h e Jesus o f M a t t h e w or o f Luke is t r u l y t h e S o n o f G o d . Yet, again o n l y as a critic, I w o u l d grant M a r k his c u r i o u s literary p o w e r , Poe-like in its g r o tesqueness, t h a t indeed suggests a S o n o f Y a h w e h is alive in his pages.

7-

T H E G O S P E L OF

Y

OUR

FATHER

ABRAHAM

JOHN

rejoiced that

h e was t o see

my

day; he saw it and was glad.' T h e Jews t h e n said t o h i m , 'You are

n o t yet fifty years old, and have y o u seen A b r a h a m ? ' Jesus said to t h e m , 'Truly, truly, I say to y o u , before A b r a h a m was, I a m ' " ( J o h n

8:56-58). It is n o w a l t o g e t h e r t o o late in Western history for pious or h u m a n e self-deceptions on t h e m a t t e r o f t h e Christian appropriation o f t h e Hebrew Bible. It is c e r t a i n l y m u c h t o o late in Jewish history t o he o t h e r t h a n totally clear about t h e n a t u r e and effect o f t h a t Christian act o f total u s u r p a t i o n . T h e best p r e l i m i n a r y description I have f o u n d is by Jaroslav Pelikan:

What the Christian tradition had done was to take over the Jewish Scriptures as its own, so that Justin could say to Trypho that the passages about Christ "are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours." As a matter of fact, some of the passages were con-

JESUS

fij

tained only in "ours," that is, in the Christian Old Testament. So assured were Christian theologians in their possession of the Scriptures that they could accuse the Jews not merely of misunderstanding and misinterpreting them, but even of falsifying scriptural texts. When they were aware of differences between the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Septuagint, they capitalized on these to prove their accusation. . . . The growing ease with which appropriations and accusations alike could be made was in proportion to the completeness ot the Christian victory over Jewish thought. Yet that victory was achieved largely by default. Not the superior force of Christian exegesis or learning or logic but the movement of Jewish history seems to have been largely responsible for it.

I c o m e back again t o t h e grand p r o c l a m a t i o n o f J o h n ' s Jesus: " B e fore A b r a h a m was, I a m . " H o w s h o u l d t h e s u b l i m e force o f t h a t assertion be described? Is it n o t t h e New T e s t a m e n t ' s antithetical reply to t h e Yahwist's m o s t s u b l i m e m o m e n t , w h e n M o s e s agonizingly s t a m mers, "If I c o m e t o t h e people o f Israel and say to t h e m , ' T h e G o d o f y o u r fathers has sent m e t o you,' and t h e y ask m e , ' W h a t is his name?' w h a t shall I say to t h e m ? " G o d said t o Moses, "I A M W H O I A M . " T h e Yahwist's vision o f his G o d c e r t a i n l y w o u l d s e e m t o c e n t e r with a peculiar intensity u p o n this text o f E x o d u s 3:13—14. B u t t h e e n tire history o f a n c i e n t Jewish exegesis hardly w o u l d lead a n y o n e t o believe that this crucial passage was o f t h e slightest interest

or

i m p o r t a n c e to any o f t h e great rabbinical c o m m e n t a t o r s . T h e Exodus Kabbah offers m o s t l y m i d r a s h i m c o n n e c t i n g t h e n a m e o f G o d t o his potencies t h a t w o u l d deliver Israel f r o m Egypt. But ehyeh asher ehyeh as a phrase evidently did n o t have peculiar force for t h e great Pharisees.

74

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Indeed, Jewish t r a d i t i o n does very little with t h e m a j e s t i c p r o c l a m a tion until, in t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y , M a i m o n i d e s gets t o w o r k u p o n it in The Guide Jor the Perplexed.

O n e o f m y favorite hooks, A r t h u r Mar-

m o r s t e i n ' s fascinating The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, has absolutely n o t a single r e f e r e n c e t o Exodus 3 in its e x h a u s t i v e 150-page section " T h e N a m e s o f G o d . " E i t h e r w e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t ehyeh asher ehyeh had very little significance f o r Akiba and his colleagues, w h i c h I t h i n k probably was t h e case, o r w e m u s t resort t o dubious theories o f taboo, w h i c h have little to do w i t h t h e s t r e n g t h o f Akiba. This puzzle b e c o m e s g r e a t e r w h e n t h e early rabbinical indiffere n c e to t h e s t r i k i n g ehyeh asher ehyeh text is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e C h r i s tian obsession w i t h E x o d u s 3, w h i c h begins in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t and b e c o m e s o v e r w h e l m i n g in t h e C h u r c h Fathers, c u l m i n a t i n g in Augustine's endless p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h a t passage, since for Augustine it was t h e deepest clue to t h e metaphysical essence o f G o d . Brevard Childs, in his c o m m e n t a r y on Exodus, has o u t l i n e d t h e hist o r y o f this long episode in Christian exegesis. Respectf ully, I dissent f r o m his j u d g m e n t that t h e o n t o l o g i c a l aspects o f C h r i s t i a n i n t e r p r e tation h e r e really d o have any c o n t i n u i t y w h a t s o e v e r e i t h e r w i t h t h e biblical text o r w i t h rabbinical traditions. T h e s e " o n t o l o g i c a l overt o n e s , " as Childs h i m s e l f has t o n o t e , s t e m r a t h e r f r o m t h e S e p t u agint's r e n d e r i n g a n d f r o m Philo's very I'latonized paraphrase in his On the Lije of Moses: " T e l l t h e m t h a t I a m He W h o is, t h a t t h e y may learn t h e difference b e t w e e n w h a t is and w h a t is n o t . " T h o u g h Childs insists t h a t this c a n n o t be dismissed as G r e e k t h i n k i n g , it is n o t h i n g b u t t h a t , and explains again w h y Philo was so crucial for C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y and so totally i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f n o r m a t i v e Judaism. T h e c o n t i n u e d puzzle, t h e n , is t h e total lack o f early rabbinical in-

JESUS

fij

terest in t h e ehyeh asher ehyeh text. I labor this p o i n t because I read J o h n ' s greatest subversion o f t h e Hebrew Bible as w h a t 1 call his t r a n s f o r m a tion o f Yahweh's words t o Moses in t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y o u t b u r s t o f J o h n ' s Jesus, " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m , " w h i c h m o s t deeply p r o claims, " B e f o r e Moses was, I a m . " T o m e , this is t h e acutest m a n i f e s t a tion o f John's palpable a m b i v a l e n c e toward Moses, an a m b i v a l e n c e w h o s e m o s t perceptive s t u d e n t has been Wayne Meeks. J o h n plays on and against t h e Yahwist's grand w o r d p l a y on Yahweh and ehyeh. However, w h e n I assert even t h a t , I g o against t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e leading c u r r e n t scholarly c o m m e n t a r y u p o n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l , and so 1 m u s t deal with this difficulty before I r e t u r n to t h e J o h a n n i n e a m bivalence toward t h e M o s e s traditions. A n d o n l y after e x a m i n i n g J o h n ' s agon with Moses will I feel free t o speculate u p o n t h e early rabbinic indifference to God's substitution o f ehyeh asher ehyeh for his proper n a m e . B o t h B. Lindars and C. K. B a r r e t t , in t h e i r standard c o m m e n t a r i e s on J o h n , insist t h a t " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m " m a k e s no allusion w h a t s o e v e r t o "I a m t h a t I a m . " A literary critic m u s t begin by observing t h a t New T e s t a m e n t scholarship manifests a very i m p o v e r i s h e d n o t i o n as t o just w h a t literary allusion is o r can be, even in so e x t r a o r dinary a figuration. B u t t h e n h e r e is B a r r e t t ' s flat reading o f this assertion o f Jesus: " T h e m e a n i n g h e r e is: ISefore A b r a h a m c a m e i n t o being, I e t e r n a l l y was, as n o w I a m , and ever c o n t i n u e t o be." T h e m a s t e r m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r o f J o h n , R u d o l f B u l t m a n n , seems t o m e even less capable o f h a n d l i n g m e t a p h o r . Here is his reading o f J o h n 8:57—58:

T h e Jews remain caught in the trammels of their own thought. How can Jesus, who is not yet 50 years old, have seen Abraham! Yet the

76 11 A R O L D B I . O O M

world's conception of time and age is worthless, when it has to deal with God's revelation, as is its conception of life and death. "Before Abraham was, I a m . " T h e Revealer, unlike Abraham, does not belong to the ranks o f historical personages. T h e ego which Jesus speaks as the Revealer is the "I" o f the eternal Logos, which was in the beginning, the "I" o f the eternal God himself. Yet the Jews cannot c o m p r e h e n d that the ego o f eternity is to be heard in an historical person, who is not yet 50 years old, who as a man is one o f their equals, whose m o t h e r and father they knew. They c a n n o t understand, because the notion of the Revealer's "pre-existence" can only be understood in faith.

In a n o t e , B u l t m a n n t o o d e n i e s a n y a l l u s i o n t o t h e "1 a m t h a t I a m " d e c l a r a t i o n o f Y a h w e h . I find it i r o n i c a l , n e a r l y t w o t h o u s a n d y e a r s after S t . Paul a c c u s e d t h e Jews o f b e i n g literalizers, t h a t t h e leadi n g s c h o l a r s o f C h r i s t i a n i t y are h o p e l e s s literalizers, w h i c h o f c o u r s e t h e g r e a t rabbis n e v e r w e r e . I c a n n o t c o n c e i v e o f a w e a k e r m i s r e a d i n g o f " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m " t h a n B u l t m a n n ' s r e t r e a t i n t o " f a i t h , " a " f a i t h " in t h e " p r e - e x i s t e n c e " o f Jesus. W h i l e I — o r a n y o n e — c a n n o t q u e s t i o n a n a r g u m e n t based s o l e l y u p o n faith, if t h a t is all J o h n m e a n t , t h e n J o h n was a w e a k p o e t i n d e e d . B u t J o h n is at his best h e r e , a n d at his best h e is a s t r o n g m i s r e a d e r a n d t h u s a s t r o n g w r i t e r . As f o r B u l t m a n n ' s polemical point, 1 a m c o n t e n t to repeat a tew remarks m a d e by R a b b i D a v i d K i m h i a l m o s t e i g h t h u n d r e d y e a r s ago:

Tell t h e m that there can be no father and son in the Divinity, for the Divinity is indivisible and is one in every aspect o f unity unlike matter which is divisible.

JESUS

fij

Tell them further that a father precedes a son in time and a son is born through the agency of a father. Now even though each of the terms "father" and "son" implies the other . . . he who is called the father must undoubtedly be prior in time. Therefore, with reference

O - f - J t ^ i K!

to this God whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that part

^oOpVll ^

which you call Father must be prior to that which you call Son, for if

^ ' »^ ^ b ' W k tD DgfM Uf0P

they were always coexistent, they would have to be called twin

1

AlOO^rV ffl

i ^ l

— C s)esos ISo.mel/tWnas* a ^ t o t o s . ) c

b c y v J ^ & o s t's. S o p h i a - A C W U J H U A t^rp&rvt-J

^wev

1 have cited this partly because I e n j o y it so m u c h , b u t also because it raises t h e t r u e issue b e t w e e n Moses and J o h n , b e t w e e n A b r a h a m and Jesus, w h i c h is t h e agonistic triple issue o f priority, a u t h o r i t y , and originality. As I read J o h n ' s trope, it asserts n o t o n l y t h e priority o f Jesus o v e r A b r a h a m (and so necessarily o v e r Moses), but also t h e priority, a u t h o r i t y , and originality o f J o h n o v e r Moses, or as we w o u l d say, of J o h n as writer over t h e Yahwist as writer. T h a t is w h e r e I a m heading in this a c c o u n t o f t h e agon b e t w e e n t h e Yahwist and J o h n , and so I t u r n n o w to s o m e g e n e r a l observations u p o n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l — observations by a literary critic, o f course, and n o t by a qualified N e w T e s t a m e n t believer and/or scholar. J o h n does s e e m t o m e t h e m o s t a n x i o u s in t o n e o f all t h e Gospels, and its anxiety is as m u c h w h a t 1 w o u l d call a literary anxiety as an existential o r spiritual one. O n e sign o f this anxiety is t h e palpable diff e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e a t t i t u d e o f Jesus toward h i m s e l f in t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e o t h e r t h r e e . S c h o l a r l y c o n s e n s u s holds t h a t J o h n was w r i t t e n at t h e close o f t h e first c e n t u r y , and so after t h e S y n o p t i c Gospels. A c e n t u r y is c e r t a i n l y e n o u g h t i m e for apocalyptic

s^m^j . x

S o p h 14 1

78

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

h o p e to have ebbed away, and for an a c u t e sense o f belatedness t o have developed in its place. J o h n ' s Jesus has a certain obsession with his o w n glory, and particularly w i t h w h a t that glory o u g h t t o be in a Jewish c o n t e x t . R a t h e r like t h e Jesus o f G n o s t i c i s m , J o h n ' s Jesus is m u c h given t o saying "1 a m , " and t h e r e are G n o s t i c t o u c h e s t h r o u g h o u t J o h n , t h o u g h their e x t e n t is disputable. Perhaps, as s o m e scholars have surmised, t h e r e is an earlier, m o r e G n o s t i c gospel buried in t h e Gospel o f J o h n . An interesting article by J o h n M e a g h e r o f T o r o n t o , back in 1969, even suggested that t h e original reading of J o h n 1:14 was " A n d t h e Word becamepneuma and dwelt a m o n g us," w h i c h is a G n o s tic f o r m u l a t i o n , yet curiously m o r e in t h e spirit and t o n e o f m u c h o f t h e F o u r t h Gospel t h a n is "And t h e Word b e c a m e flesh." T h e plain nastiness o f t h e Gospel o f J o h n toward t h e Pharisees is in t h e end an anxiety as t o t h e spiritual a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Pharisees, and it m a y be a u g m e n t e d by J o h n ' s G n o s t i c o v e r t o n e s . A Jewish reader w i t h even t h e slightest sense o f Jewish history feels t h r e a t e n e d w h e n reading J o h n 18:28—19:16.1 do n o t t h i n k t h a t this feeling has a n y t h i n g t o do with t h e supposed p a t h o s or p r o b l e m a t i c literary p o w e r o f t h e text. T h e r e is a peculiar w r o n g n e s s a b o u t J o h n ' s Jesus saying, " I f m y kingship w e r e o f this world, m y servants w o u l d fight, t h a t I m i g h t n o t be h a n d e d o v e r to t h e Jews" (18:36); it implies t h a t Jesus is n o l o n g e r a Jew, but s o m e t h i n g else. This u n h a p p y t o u c h is a n o t h e r sign o f t h e pervasive r h e t o r i c o f anxiety in t h e F o u r t h Gospel. J o h n ' s vision s e e m s to be o f a small g r o u p — h i s o w n , p r e s u m a b l y — w h i c h finds its a n a l o g u e and asserted origin in t h e g r o u p a r o u n d Jesus t w o g e n e r a tions before. In t h e general j u d g m e n t o f scholars, t h e original c o n c l u sion o f t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n was t h e parable o f d o u b t i n g T h o m a s , a m a n i f e s t m e t a p h o r f o r a sect or c o v e n u n d e r g o i n g a crisis o f faith.

JESUS

fij

It is within t h a t anxiety o f frustrated expectations, perhaps even of r e c e n t expulsion f r o m t h e Jewish w o r l d , t h a t J o h n ' s a g o n with Moses finds its c o n t e x t . Wayne Meeks has written very sensitively o f the F o u r t h Gospel's a m b i v a l e n c e toward t h e Moses traditions, p a r t i c u larly t h o s e c e n t e r e d u p o n t h e image o f Moses as p r o p h e t - k i n g , a u n i q u e a m a l g a m o f t h e t w o roles t h a t J o h n seeks to e x t e n d and s u r pass in Jesus. J o h n , and Paul before h i m , t o o k on an impossible prec u r s o r and rival, and their apparent v i c t o r y is m e r e l y an illusion. T h e aesthetic dignity o f t h e H e b r e w Bible, and o f t h e Yahwist in p a r t i c u l a r as its u n c a n n y original, is simply beyond t h e c o m p e t i t i v e r a n g e o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t as a literary a c h i e v e m e n t , as it is beyond t h e r a n g e o f i he o n l y surviving G n o s t i c texts t h a t have any aesthetic v a l u e — a few I r a g m e n t s o f Valentinus and t h e G o s p e l o f T r u t h , w h i c h Valentinus m a y have w r i t t e n . T h e r e are so m a n y contests with Moses t h r o u g h o u t t h e New Test a m e n t t h a t I c a n n o t c o n t r a s t J o h n in this regard with all t h e o t h e r references, but I do w a n t to c o m p a r e h i m briefly with Paul, if o n l y because I intend later t o consider s o m e aspects o f Paul's o w n s t r u g g l e with t h e Hebrew Bible. I t h i n k t h e r e is still n o t h i n g so p u n g e n t in all c o m m e n t a r y u p o n Paul as t h e r e m a r k s m a d e by Nietzsche in 1888, in The Antichrist:

Paul is the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Savior; he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred.. . . What he wanted was power; with St. Paul the priest again aspired to power,—he could make use only of concepts, doctrines, symbols with which masses may be tyrannised over, and with which herds are formed.

«o

HAROLD

BLOOM

O f course, Nietzsche is e x t r e m e , b u t can he be refuted? Paul is so careless, hasty, and inattentive a reader o f t h e Hebrew Bible that he very rarely gets any text right; and in so gifted a p e r s o n this kind o f weak m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g c a n c o m e o n l y f r o m t h e dialectics o f t h e power drive, o f t h e will to p o w e r o v e r a text, even w h e n t h e text is as f o r m i d a b l e as t h e T o r a h . T h e r e is little agonistic c u n n i n g in Paul's misreadings o f t h e T o r a h ; m a n y indeed are plain howlers. T h e m o s t celebrated is his weird exegesis o f Exodus 34:29—35, w h e r e t h e text has Moses descending f r o m Sinai, tablets in hand, his face s h i n i n g with G o d ' s g l o r y — a glory so great t h a t Moses m u s t veil his c o u n t e n a n c e after speaking t o t h e people, and t h e n unveil o n l y w h e n he r e t u r n s t o speak t o G o d . Jewish i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , surely k n o w n t o Paul, was t h a t t h e s h i n i n g was t h e T o r a h ' s restoration o f t h e zelem, t h e t r u e image o f G o d t h a t A d a m had lost, and t h a t t h e s h i n i n g prevailed until t h e d e a t h o f Moses. B u t h e r e is II C o r i n t h i a n s 3:12—13:

Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor.

T h e r e isn't any way t o save this, e v e n by gently calling it a " p a r o d y " o f the Hebrew text, as Wayne M e e k s does. It isn't a lie against t i m e , w h i c h is t h e J o h a n n i n e m o d e ; it is just a plain lie against t h e text. Nor is it uncharacteristic o f Paul. Meeks very m o v i n g l y calls Paul " t h e Christian Proteus," and Paul is certainly beyond m y u n d e r s t a n d ing. Proteus is an apt m o d e l for m a n y o t h e r roles, but p e r h a p s n o t for an i n t e r p r e t e r o f Mosaic text. Paul's reading o f w h a t he t h o u g h t was

JESUS

fij

t h e Law increasingly s e e m s t o m e oddly Freudian, in t h a t Paul identifies t h e Law with t h e h u m a n drive t h a t Freud w a n t e d

t o call

T h a n a t o s . Paul's peculiar c o n f o u n d i n g of t h e Law and d e a t h p r e s u m ably keeps h i m f r o m seeing Jesus as a t r a n s c e n d i n g f u l f i l l m e n t o f Moses. Instead, Paul c o n t r a s t s h i m s e l f w i t h Moses, hardly t o his o w n disadvantage. T h u s , R o m a n s 9:3:

For I could wish that I myself were accused and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.

Paul's o u t b u r s t m a y s e e m at first o n e o f Jewish pride, o f w h i c h I w o u l d g r a n t t h e Protean Paul an a u t h e n t i c share, hut t h e Mosaic allusion c h a n g e s its n a t u r e . All exegetes point to Exodus 32:32 as t h e p r e c u r s o r text. Moses offers h i m s e l f t o Y a h w e h as a t o n e m e n t for t h e people after t h e orgy o f t h e G o l d e n Calf: " B u t now, if t h o u wilt forgive their s i n — a n d il n o t , b l o t m e , I pray t h e e , o u t o f thy b o o k w h i c h t h o u hast w r i t t e n . " H o w do t h e t w o offers o f intercession c o m p a r e ? After all, t h e people have sinned, and Moses w o u l d c h o o s e oblivion t o save t h e m f r o m t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f their disloyalty. T h e allusive force o f Paul's offer is t u r n e d against b o t h his o w n Jewish c o n t e m p o raries and even against Moses himself. Even t h e Pharisees ( f o r w h o m Paul, u n l i k e J o h n , has a lingering regard) are worshipers o f t h e golden c a l f o f d e a t h , since t h e Law is death. And all Moses supposedly offered was t h e loss o f his o w n p r o p h e t i c greatness, his place in t h e salvation history. B u t Paul, o u t o f supposed love f o r his fellow Jews, offers t o lose m o r e t h a n Moses did, because he insists he has m o r e t o lose. T o be c u t off f r o m C h r i s t is to die eternally, a greater sacrifice t h a n t h e

82 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

M o s a i c o f f e r t o be as o n e w h o h a d n e v e r lived. T h i s is w h a t I w o u l d call t h e d a e m o n i c c o u n t e r - S u b l i m e o f h y p e r b o l e , a n d its repressive f o r c e is e n o r m o u s a n d v e r y r e v e l a t o r y . B u t I r e t u r n again t o J o h n , w h o s e r e v i s i o n a r y w a r f a r e against M o s e s is s u b t l e r . M e e k s has t r a c e d t h e g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , a n d s o I f o l l o w h i m h e r e , t h o u g h o f c o u r s e h e w o u l d dissent f r o m t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I a m g o i n g t o offer o f this p a t t e r n o f a l l u s i o n . T h e a l l u s i o n s b e g i n w i t h J o h n t h e Baptist c h a n t i n g a typical J o h a n n i n e reversal, in w h i c h t h e l a t e c o m e r truly has priority ( " J o h n bore witness t o h i m , and cried, ' T h i s was h e o f w h o m I said: H e w h o c o m e s a f t e r m e r a n k s b e f o r e m e , f o r h e was b e f o r e m e ' " ) , t o w h i c h t h e a u t h o r o f t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l adds, " F o r t h e law was given t h r o u g h Moses; g r a c e a n d t r u t h c a m e t h r o u g h Jesus C h r i s t " ( J o h n 1:15, 17). Later, t h e first c h a p t e r p r o c l a i m s , " W e h a v e f o u n d h i m o f w h o m M o s e s in t h e law a n d also t h e p r o p h e t s w r o t e , J e s u s o f N a z a r e t h " (1:45). T h e t h i r d c h a p t e r d a r i n g l y i n v e r t s a g r e a t M o s a i c t r o p e in a w a y still u n n e r v i n g f o r a n y Jewish r e a d e r : " N o o n e has a s c e n d e d i n t o h e a v e n b u t h e w h o d e s c e n d e d f r o m h e a v e n , t h e S o n o f m a n . A n d as M o s e s lifted u p t h e s e r p e n t in t h e w i l d e r n e s s , s o m u s t t h e S o n o f m a n be lifted u p " (3:13—14). J o h n ' s u n d o u b t e d r e v i s i o n a r y g e n i u s is v e r y i m p r e s s i v e h e r e m e r e l y f r o m a t e c h n i c a l o r r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t o f view. N o h e a v e n l y r e v e l a t i o n s e v e r w e r e m a d e t o M o s e s . Jesus o n t h e c r o s s will be t h e a n t i t h e t i c a l c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e M o s a i c raising o f t h e b r a z e n s e r p e n t in t h e w i l d e r n e s s . M o s e s w a s o n l y a p a r t , b u t Jesus is t h e f u l f i l l i n g w h o l e . M y a v o i d a n c e o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t y p o l o g y , h e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e , is d e l i b e r a t e . T h e s a m e r a t i o o f a n t i t h e t i c a l c o m p l e t i o n is i n v o k e d w h e n Jesus a n n o u n c e s h i m s e l f as t h e fulfiller o f t h e sign o f m a n n a , as w o u l d be expected o f t h e Messiah. B u t here t h e gratuitous ambivalence toward

J E S U S IJ 3

M o s e s is s h a r p e r : " T r u l y , t r u l y , I say t o y o u , it was n o t M o s e s w h o gave y o u t h e bread f r o m h e a v e n ; m y f a t h e r gives y o u t h e t r u e b r e a d f r o m h e a v e n . F o r t h e b r e a d o f G o d is t h a t w h i c h c o m e s d o w n f r o m h e a v e n , a n d gives life t o t h e w o r l d " (6:32—33). As t h e m e t a p h o r is d e v e l o p e d , it b e c o m e s d e l i b e r a t e l y so s h o c k i n g in a Jewish c o n t e x t t h a t e v e n t h e disciples are s t a r t l e d ; b u t I w o u l d p o i n t t o o n e m o m e n t in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t as m a r k i n g J o h n ' s i n c r e a s i n g v i o l e n c e against M o s e s a n d all t h e Jew r s: " Y o u r f a t h e r s a t e t h e m a n n a in t h e w i l d e r n e s s , a n d t h e y d i e d . . . . I a m t h e living b r e a d . . . if a n y o n e eats o f this b r e a d , h e will live t o r e v e r ; a n d t h e b r e a d w h i c h I s h a l l give f o r t h e life o f t h e w o r l d is m y flesh" (6:49, 51). It is, a f t e r all, g r a t u i t o u s t o say t h a t o u r f a t h e r s ate t h e m a n n a a n d died; it is e v e n m i s l e a d i n g , since h a d t h e y n o t e a t e n t h e m a n n a , t h e y w o u l d n o t h a v e lived as l o n g as t h e y did. B u t J o h n has m o d u l a t e d to a d a e m o n i c c o u n t e r - S u b l i m e , a n d his h y p e r b o l e h e l p s t o establish a n e w , C h r i s t i a n s u b l i m i t y , in w h i c h Jews die a n d C h r i s t i a n s live e t e r n a l l y . R a t h e r than multiply instances o f John's revisionism, I want to c o n c l u d e m y specific r e m a r k s o n t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l by e x a m i n i n g in its full c o n t e x t t h e passage w i t h w h i c h I b e g a n : " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m . " I a m m o r e t h a n a little u n h a p p y w i t h t h e s e q u e n c e I will e x p o u n d , b e c a u s e I find in it J o h n at n e a r l y his m o s t u n p l e a s a n t a n d i n deed a n t i - J e w i s h , b u t t h e r e m a r k a b l e r h e t o r i c a l s t r e n g t h o f " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m " l a r g e l y d e p e n d s u p o n its c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n , as J o h n u n d o e s t h e Jewish p r i d e in b e i n g d e s c e n d e d f r o m A b r a h a m . T h e sequence, extending t h r o u g h m o s t o f t h e eighth chapter, begins with Jesus s i t t i n g in t h e T e m p l e , s u r r o u n d e d b o t h by Pharisees a n d by Jews w h o a r e in t h e p r o c e s s o f b e c o m i n g his believers. T o t h o s e h e has b e g u n t o p e r s u a d e , Jesus n o w says w h a t is c e r t a i n t o t u r n t h e m away:

84 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

"If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." T h e y answered him, "We are descendants o f Abraham, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How is it that you say, 'YOLI will be made free'?" 8:31-33

It s e e m s r a t h e r r h e t o r i c a l l y w e a k t h a t Jesus s h o u l d t h e n b e c o m e aggressive, w i t h a leap i n t o m u r d e r o u s i n s i n u a t i o n s :

"I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak o f what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." 8:37-38

As J o h n ' s Jesus g r a c i o u s l y is a b o u t t o tell t h e m , t h e J e w s ' f a t h e r is t h e devil. T h e y s c a r c e l y c a n be b l a m e d l o r a n s w e r i n g , " A b r a h a m is o u r fat h e r , " o r for a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e i r a c c u s e r has a d e m o n . I l o o k at t h e f o o t o f t h e page o f t h e t e x t I a m u s i n g , The New Oxford Annotated

Bible,

Revised Standard Version (1977), a n d n e x t t o verse 48, o n h a v i n g a d e m o n , t h e e d i t o r s h e l p f u l l y tell m e , "The Jews t u r n t o i n s u l t a n d c a l u m n y " ( p a g e 1300). I r e f l e c t u p o n h o w w o n d e r f u l a discipline s u c h s c h o l a r s h i p is, a n d I m i l d l y r e j o i n t h a t by a n y dispassionate r e a d i n g , J o h n ' s Jesus has m a d e t h e initial " t u r n t o i n s u l t a n d c a l u m n y . " W h a t m a t t e r , s i n c e t h e Jews a r e f a l l i n g n e a t l y i n t o J o h n ' s r h e t o r i c a l trap? Jesus has p r o m i s e d t h a t his believers "will n e v e r see d e a t h , " a n d t h e a s t o n i s h e d c h i l d r e n o f A b r a h a m ( o r c h i l d r e n o f t h e devil?) p r o t e s t :

JESUS

fij

"Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.' Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?" 8:52-53

Jesus responds by calling t h e m liars, again surely r a t h e r gratuitously, and t h e n by e n s n a r i n g t h e m in J o h n ' s subtlest e n t r a p m e n t , w h i c h will bring m e full circle to w h e r e 1 began:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad." T h e Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, 1 say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 8:56-58

W h e n J o h n ' s Jesus says, " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m , " t h e u l t i m a t e allusion is n o t to A b r a h a m but to Moses, and t o Yahweh's declaration m a d e t o Moses, "1 a m t h a t I a m . " T h e m e t a p h o r leaps over A b r a h a m by saying also, " B e f o r e M o s e s was, I a m , " and by hinting u l t i m a t e l y , "I am that I a m " — b e c a u s e I am one with m y father Yahweh. T h e a m bivalence and agonistic intensity o f t h e F o u r t h Gospel achieve an apotheosis with this s u b l i m e i n t r o j e c t i o n o f Y a h w e h , w h i c h s i m u l t a n e o u s l y also is a p r o j e c t i o n or repudiation o f A b r a h a m and Moses. Earlier in this discourse, I confessed m y surprise at t h e n o r m a t i v e rabbinical indifference, in ancient days, t o Yahweh's s u b l i m e declaration ehyeh asher ehyeh. If t h e great Rabbi Akiba ever speculated about t h a t e n i g m a t i c phrase, he k e p t it t o himself. I doubt that he m a d e any

86

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

s u c h speculations, because I do n o t t h i n k that fearless sage was in t h e habit o f h o a r d i n g t h e m , and 1 a m n o t e n o u g h o f a Kabbalist to t h i n k t h a t Akiba h a r b o r e d forbidden o r esoteric k n o w l e d g e . T o t h e n o r m a tive m i n d o f t h e Judaism r o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h Jesus, t h e r e was evidently n o t h i n g r e m a r k a b l e in Y a h w e h ' s declining to give his n a m e , and instead a l m o s t playfully asserting, 'Tell t h e m t h a t I w h o will be w h e n and w h e r e 1 will be a m t h e o n e w h o has sent y o u . " T h a t is h o w Y a h w e h talked, and h o w he was. B u t t o t h e belated a u d i t o r o f t h e F o u r t h Gospel, as t o all o u r belated selves, "I a m t h a t I a m " w;as and is a kind o f mysterium tremendum, t o use R u d o l f O t t o ' s language f r o m his g r e a t b o o k The Idea of the Holy. T h a t m y s t e r y J o h n s o u g h t t o t r a n s c e n d with the f o r m u l a t i o n " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m . " Prior to t h e t e x t o f Exodus was t h e text t h a t J o h n was writing, in w h i c h t h e Jews were to be swept away i n t o t h e universe o f d e a t h , while Jesus led J o h n on to t h e universe o f life. I d o n ' t see h o w any a u t h e n t i c literary critic c o u l d j u d g e J o h n as a n y t h i n g b e t t e r t h a n a very flawed revisionist o f t h e Yahwist, and Paul as s o m e t h i n g less t h a n that, despite t h e peculiar p a t h o s o f his Protean personality. In t h e aesthetic warfare b e t w e e n t h e H e b r e w Bible and t h e New T e s t a m e n t , t h e r e is just n o c o n t e s t , and if you t h i n k o t h e r wise, t h e n bless you. B u t surely t h e issue is n o t aesthetic, I will be r e m i n d e d . Well, w e are all trapped in history, and t h e historical t r i u m p h o f Christianity is fact. 1 am n o t m o v e d t o say a n y t h i n g a b o u t it. B u t I a m m o v e d t o rej e c t t h e idealized m o d e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that t r i u m p h has s t i m u lated, f r o m early t y p o l o g y on to t h e revival otfigura by E r i c h Auerbach and the B l a k e a n G r e a t C o d e o f N o r t h r o p Frye. No text, secular o r religious, fulfills a n o t h e r text, and all w h o insist o t h e r w i s e m e r e l y h o -

JESUS

fij

m o g e n i z e literature. As tor t h e relevance o f t h e aesthetic to t h e issue ot t h e conflict b e t w e e n sacred texts, 1 d o u b t finally t h a t m u c h else is relevant t o a s t r o n g reader w h o is n o t d o m i n a t e d by e x t r a l i t e r a r y persuasions o r convictions. Heading The Book of Mormon, for instance, is a difficult aesthetic e x p e r i e n c e , and I w o u l d grant t h a t n o t m u c h in t h e New T e s t a m e n t s u b j e c t s m e to rigors o f quite that range. B u t t h e n J o h n and Paul do n o t ask t o be read against The Book of Mormon. C a n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t be read as less p o l e m i c a l l y and d e s t r u c tively revisionary o f t h e Hebrew Bible t h a n it actually is? N o t by m e , anyway. B u t don't be t o o quick t o s h r u g o f f a reading i n f o r m e d by an awareness ot t h e ways o f t h e antithetical, o f t h e revisionary strategies devised by those l a t e c o m e r s w h o seek s t r e n g t h , and w h o will sacrifice t r u t h t o get s t r e n g t h even as t h e y p r o c l a i m t h e i n c a r n a t i o n o f t h e t r u t h beyond d e a t h . Nietzsche is hardly t h e favorite sage o f c o n t e m porary New T e s t a m e n t scholars, but p e r h a p s he still has s o m e t h i n g vital to teach t h e m . W h a t do Jews and Christians gain by refusing to see t h a t t h e revisionary desperation o f t h e New T e s t a m e n t has m a d e it p e r m a n e n t l y impossible to identify t h e Hebrew Bible with t h e Christian Old Testam e n t ? Doubtless t h e r e are social and political benefits in idealizations o f " d i a l o g u e , " but t h e r e is n o t h i n g m o r e . It is n o t a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the life o f the spirit o r t h e i n t e l l e c t t o tell lies t o o n e a n o t h e r o r t o o n e s e l f in order to bring a b o u t m o r e affection or c o o p e r a t i o n bet w e e n Christians and Jews. Paul is hopelessly equivocal on nearly every s u b j e c t , b u t t o m y reading he is clearly n o t a Jewish a n t i - S e m i t e ; yet his m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f T o r a h is absolute. J o h n is evidently a Jewish a n t i - S e m i t e , and t h e F o u r t h G o s p e l is pragmatically m u r d e r ous as an anti-Jewish text. Yet it is t h e o l o g i c a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y c e n -

88

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

tral t o Christianity. I give t h e last w o r d t o t h e Sage called R a d a k in Jewish tradition, t h e s a m e David Kimhi w h o m I cited earlier. He q u o t e s as p r o o f - t e x t Ezekiel 16:53: "I will t u r n their captivity, t h e captivity o f S o d o m and her d a u g h t e r s . " And t h e n R a d a k c o m m e n t s , rightly dismissing f r o m his perspective all Christians as m e r e heretics f r o m Judaism, " T h i s verse is a reply t o t h e Christian heretics w h o say t h a t t h e f u t u r e c o n s o l a t i o n s have already b e e n fulfilled. Sodom is still overturned as it was and is still unsettled."

6.

JESUS AND

CHRIST

D

ID JESUS C O N S I D E R h i m s e l f Christ, that is, " t h e anointed

o n e , " o r Davidic Messiah; Unless you value t h e Gospel o f J o h n

over t h e S y n o p t i c Gospels, you are puzzled as to t h e answer. J o h n is n o n s t o p on this m a t t e r , but can be distrusted, partly b e c a u s e o f his anti-Jewish o v e r - a n d - u n d e r song, w h i c h m a y testify t o his group's e x p u l s i o n by t h e Judaic c o m m u n i t y . In t h e Synoptics, Jesus is evasive or secretive in regard t o his identity, as we o u g h t t o e x p e c t , partly b e c a u s e o f d a n g e r o u s situations but clearly also f r o m a considerable a m b i v a l e n c e in his o w n sell-awareness. T h e r e is n o reason t o d o u b t t h a t he and his followers k n e w o f his Davidic descent, and t h e e x e c u tion o f J o h n t h e Baptist was a shadow, if o n l y because h e and Jesus were k i n s m e n , by s o m e a c c o u n t s , quite aside f r o m the Baptist's role as his m e n t o r . Yet h o w w o u l d Jesus have n a m e d himself, besides his r a t h e r a m biguous uses of " S o n o f G o d " and " S o n o f M a n , " b o t h o f t h e m metaphorical? H a m l e t saw h i m s e l f as D e a t h ' s ambassador to us, in an

«o H A R O L D

BLOOM

ironic parody o f Jesus' role as divine envoy, s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n a p r o p h e t yet o t h e r t h a n a messianic king. Jesus did n o t , like M u h a m m a d , see h i m s e l f as t h e seal o f t h e p r o p h e t s , and preferred to delay any precise definition o f his calling, t h o u g h always expressing c e r tainty t h a t Y a h w e h had called h i m . It is unclear w h e t h e r h e foretells c a t a s t r o p h e , t h o u g h scholars t e n d to t h a t view. W h e n Jesus n a m e s h i m s e l f G o d ' s son, he does n o t appear to invite literalization. He probably w o u l d have regarded Joseph o f Egypt and David, b o t h Y a h w e h ' s favorites, as being also " S o n s o f G o d . " All Israel, as c h i l d r e n o f A b r a h a m , were S o n s and D a u g h t e r s o f G o d , as Jesus surely said (despite t h e Gospel o f J o h n ' s insistence t h a t Jesus called his fellow Jews t h e children of t h e devil). O n l y t h r e e t i m e s does Jesus c l a i m G o d as his f a t h e r in M a r k , as opposed to t h i r t y - o n e such assertions in M a t t h e w , and well beyond o n e h u n d r e d in J o h n . And no o n e quite agrees as t o w h a t precisely Jesus intended to m e a n by referring to h i m s e l f as S o n o f M a n . He was probably using t h e A r a m a i c e m p h a sis in w h i c h S o n o f M a n s h a r p e n e d t h e precariousness o f m o r t a l m e n , w h i c h seems to be t h e i m p o r t o f t h e phrase in D a n i e l 7:13. T h e r e is very little basis in t h e S y n o p t i c s for t h e r u n a w a y C h r i s t i a n i t y o f J o h n and o f t h e o l o g i c a l tradition after h i m . Elliptical, ironic parabolist as Jesus was, it m a y well be that he was an e n i g m a even to himself. T h e central irony, f o r a n y o n e w h o is n o t a C h r i s t i a n believer, is t h a t t h e living Jesus o f t h e Synoptics does not believe h e is t h e I n c a r n a tion o f Y a h w e h , and least o f all at t h e m o m e n t ol his d e a t h , w h e n he despairingly asks his abba why he has been abandoned. D e a t h and stories o f r e s u r r e c t i o n m a k e Jesus a N a m e Divine f r o m p r i o r to St. Paul o n w a r d , and necessarily t h e transition f r o m Yeshua o f Nazareth to Jesus Christ was p e r f o r m e d by t h o s e w h o first a c c e p t e d t h e Apostle

JESUS

fij

Paul's c o n v e r s i o n . T h e C h r i s t i a n historical s c h o l a r s w h o most p e r s u a d e m e — F a t h e r J o h n M e i e r a n d E. P. S a n d e r s — a r e n o t ironists and t h e y differ o n their r e c e p t i v i t y t o t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l , a c c e p t e d by M e i e r o n g r o u n d s o f C a t h o l i c faith b u t largely avoided by S a n d e r s , w h o s e Jesus r e m a i n s f i r m l y Jewish, t h o u g h as so a u t o n o m o u s a c h a r i s m a t i c t h a t h e c o n s t i t u t e s his o w n a u t h o r i t y , t r a n s c e n d i n g T a n a k h . S a n d e r s gives us a Jesus w h o had an u n m e d i a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

Yahweh—

p e r h a p s n o t u n i q u e , since p r o p h e t s o n t o J o h n t h e B a p t i s t possessed the same attribute. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t f o u n d s itself u p o n t h e sacred v i o l e n c e o f t h e C r u c i f i x i o n a n d its s u p p o s e d a f t e r m a t h , in w h i c h d e a t h by t o r t u r e t r a n s m o g r i f i e s i n t o rising f r o m t h e dead. T h a t is a very different m o d e from the u n c a n n y turbulence of Yahweh. w h o cuts Covenants with his p e o p l e y e t is p e r f e c t l y free t o b r e a k o u t against t h e m , a n d w a r n s Moses u p o n Sinai t h a t t h e elders privileged t o p i c n i c w i t h h i m are n o t t o a p p r o a c h t o o closely. Realistically, Y a h w e h s h o w s a w a r e n e s s o f his o w n K i n g Lear—like t e m p e r a m e n t , m u c h given t o s u d d e n

furies.

Lear's tragic flaw is t h a t h e d e m a n d s t o o m u c h love, s i l e n t l y and s h r e w d l y derived b y S h a k e s p e a r e f r o m t h e Y a h w e h o f t h e G e n e v a Bible. T h e r e are several versions o f Jesus C h r i s t in t h e G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t , b u t e v e n t h e Jesus o f M a r k , t h e m o s t Yahwistic o f t h e G o s p e l s , is n o t p r o n e t o b r e a k i n g o u t against us. T h e c e n t e r o f t h e c r o s s i n g f r o m Jesus o f N a z a r e t h t o Jesus C h r i s t is a c o n s t e l l a t i o n we c a n n a m e I n c a r n a t i o n

C r u c i f i e d Messiah —•

A t o n e m e n t , w h i c h is n o n - J u d a i c and y e t clearly develops f r o m t h e ferment of Second T e m p l e sectarianism. F r o m about the middle of t h e first c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n E r a — s a y , t w o decades b e f o r e t h e R o m a n d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e in 7 0 C.E.—ideas o f I n c a r n a t i o n

92

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

and A t o n e m e n t w e r e being w o r k e d o u t by a n u m b e r o f u n n a m e d followers o f Jesus, perhaps m o r e in Syria t h a n in t h e land o f Israel, since J a m e s t h e Just and his J e r u s a l e m and Galilean

followers

essentially

w e r e Christian Jews r a t h e r t h a n Jewish Christians. Saul o f T a r s u s pres u m a b l y b e c a m e Paul t h e Apostle at D a m a s c u s or A n t i o c h , and t h e r e after addressed his mission to t h e G e n t i l e s , e v e n t u a l l y by an uneasy a g r e e m e n t with James t h e b r o t h e r o f Jesus, w h o had n o interest in c o n v e r t i n g t h e m . T h e I n c a r n a t i o n distinctly is not a Pauline belief: a Yahweh w h o c o m m i t s suicide m a d e n o sense to Paul, w h o had been a Pharisee-of-the-Pharisees. B u t since Paul's letters are o u r earliest extant C h r i s t i a n texts, t h e entire I n c a r n a t i o n - A t o n e m e n t c o m p l e x l o n g has been misidentified as his. A k e n s o n , in his Surpassing Wonder, traces all t h e c o m p o n e n t s

of

I n c a r n a t i o n - A t o n e m e n t t o a m e d l e y o f Second Temple—era sources. T h e T a n a k h k n o w s o f n o S o n o f G o d , b u t s o m e t h i n g like it hovers in t h e " A r a m a i c Apocalypse" o f Q u m r a n (cave four). S o n o f M a n , greatly altered f r o m t h e B o o k o f Daniel, pervades t h e B o o k o f E n o c h , and t h e s h o c k i n g 4 Maccabees gives instances o f national a t o n e m e n t by v o l u n tary m a r t y r d o m s . N o n e o f this is c a n o n i c a l l y biblical, and all of it is alien to w h a t developed in n o r m a t i v e Rabbinical Judaism. T h e Hebrew Sages w e r e o u t r a g e d by t h e f l a m b o y a n c e o f later e v o l u t i o n s in C h r i s tian doctrine, as f o u r gods e m e r g e d i n t o a n e w p a n t h e o n : Jesus Christ, G o d t h e Father, and t h e w h o l l y original Blessed Virgin M o t h e r and n o n - J u d a i c Holy G h o s t , w h o shows little relation t o t h e spirit o f Yahweh t h a t m o v e d creatively o v e r t h e face o f t h e waters. My p r i m e s u b j e c t in this b o o k is n o t t h e m o v e m e n t f r o m Jesus t o Christ, but the startling juxtaposition o f t w o very different Divine

JESUS

fij

Names, Jesus C h r i s t and Y a h w e h . And yet t h e gap b e t w e e n these t w o versions o f G o d c a n n o t be a p p r e h e n d e d w i t h o u t s o m e sense o f t h e profound abyss b e t w e e n t h e historical Yeshua and t h e t h e o l o g i c a l G o d , Jesus Christ. It is likely t h a t Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h , had he s o m e h o w survived t h e Crucifixion and lived on i n t o old age, w o u l d have regarded Christianity with a m a z e m e n t . T h a t is hardly an original observation on m y part, and is u n a c ceptable to m a n y m i l l i o n s o f A m e r i c a n s , h o w e v e r bewilderingly m u l t i f o r m their visions o f Jesus have b e c o m e . A surprising n u m b e r o f t h e m t h i n k they already live in t h e K i n g d o m o f Jesus, and yet he did n o t suggest that he h i m s e l f was t h e K i n g d o m ; so far as I c a n tell, he m e a n t t h e reign of Y a h w e h alone, h e r e and now, r a t h e r t h a n in a n o t h e r world or in t h e f a r - o f f f u t u r e . W h a t did " K i n g d o m " m e a n to Jesus? E. P. Sanders is clearest on this, in Jesus and Judaism (1985):

The nature of the sayings material will not allow us to be certain about the precise nuance which Jesus wished to give such a large concept as 'the kingdom of God.' We can see that 'kingdom' has a range of meanings in the synoptics, but we cannot see just how much emphasis should be placed on each meaning. We never have absolute certainty of authenticity, and we probably have the original context of any given saying seldom, if ever. Facts allow us to be fairly sure that Jesus looked for a future kingdom. But to some degree conclusions about nuance and emphasis still rest on analysis of sayings, and since this analysis will always be tentative, some things about Jesus' view of the kingdom can never be known with certainty.

94

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Sanders tells us w e c a n n o t k n o w precisely w h a t Jesus e x p e c t e d . C a n o n e suggest t h a t Jesus also did n o t k n o w ! He did n o t c o m m i t w h a t to h i m w o u l d have been b l a s p h e m y : u s u r p a t i o n o f Yahweh's K i n g d o m , a c o n c e p t t h a t Christian t h e o l o g i a n s are still unable to clarify. O t h e r s have usurped, in his n a m e , and doubtless will go on usurping. I c a n find n o transgression o f t h e T o r a h on t h e part o f Jesus, t h o u g h he properly e m p l o y s T o r a h against T o r a h , particularly on div o r c e , toward w h i c h he d e m o n s t r a t e d a kind o f h o r r o r . W h e t h e r t h a t reflected his familial situation, again o n e c a n n o t k n o w . Sanders absolves Jesus o f b l a s p h e m y by observing t h a t speaking for G o d was n o t at all forbidden. Prophets c o u l d be m i s t a k e n , but their m i s i n t e r p r e t a tions w e r e set aside, w i t h o u t violence. T h e i m m e d i a t e followers of Jesus certainly e x p e c t e d t h e K i n g d o m t o c o m e in their o w n lifetimes. Paul, belated Apostle, m u s t have g o n e t o his o w n e x e c u t i o n in R o m e still fully persuaded t h a t Jesus w o u l d r e t u r n at any m o m e n t , an e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t c o n t i n u e s in s o m e C h r i s tians o f every g e n e r a t i o n , even if m a n y o t h e r s secretly t h i n k , "Let h i m c o m e but n o t in m y lifetime." Holv War hardly was invented by t h e C o v e n a n t e r s with Yahweh. It J j J is universal, t h r o u g h o u t t i m e and place, and doubtless represents w h a t Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle c h o s e to call t h e death-drive. 1 suggest that Y a h w e h is close to Freud's Reality Principle, so that w o r shiping h i m is a kind ot reality-testing. Oscar Wilde r e m a r k e d t h a t life is t o o i m p o r t a n t t o be t a k e n seriously. S o m e t i m e s t h a t suggests t h e irony o f t h e J Writer, w h o can hint t h a t Yahweh is t o o i m p o r t a n t t o take seriously. Y a h w e h has a d a n g e r o u s sense o f h u m o r . Perhaps Mark's Jesus does also, but n o t t h e Lord Jesus C h r i s t . Aesthetic criteria c o m p e l p r e f e r e n c e for J's Y a h w e h

over

the

JESUS

fij

T a n a k h ' s o t h e r versions o f G o d , and for Mark's Jesus r a t h e r t h a n t hose o f t h e o t h e r Gospels. A b r u p t n e s s in J and Mark was t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h William T y n d a l e t o Shakespeare's art o f surprise. My s u b j e c t o n l y secondarily is t h e literary s p l e n d o r o f Y a h w e h and o f Jesus. And yet t h e p o w e r o f these figures e m a n a t e s f r o m narrative c h a r a c t e r i z a tion and d r a m a t i c juxtapositions.

9-

THE

T

HE

DOGMA

OF

THE

TRINITY

TRINITY

always

has

been

the

C h u r c h ' s crucial line o f defense against t h e Judaic and Islamic

charge that C h r i s t i a n i t y palpably was n o t a m o n o t h e i s t i c religion. I shall e x p o u n d t h e m y s t e r y o f t h e Trinity here, as best I c a n , while m a k i n g clear m y a d m i r a t i o n for its imaginative and c o g n i t i v e splendor, even as I w o n d e r at its audacity and outrageousness. A mystery, o f course, d e m a n d s faith, and so c a n o n l y be rationalized, m o s t i n g e n iously by St. T h o m a s Aquinas, unless it is irradiated by mysticism in t h e m o d e o f t h e Pseudo-Dionysius, t h e supposed Areopagite (see Acts 17:34), w h o invented so t r a n s c e n d e n t a G o d as to m a k e a m e r e Yahw e h p r o f o u n d l y below t h e t h r e s h o l d o f a mystical n a m e above n a m e s and above b e i n g — i n d e e d , far above even t h e Trinity. Mysticism, particularly o f this s u b l i m e kind, does n o t b e l o n g to t h e s u b j e c t o f this b o o k , but I cite it h e r e to m a r k a l i m i t t o m y a r g u m e n t . In particular, t h e negative t h e o l o g y o f Dionysius, w h i c h insisted t h a t language c o u l d give n o c o h e r e n t a c c o u n t o f t h e divine, inspired t h e Eastern O r -

JESUS

fij

t h o d o x C h u r c h , w h o s e d o g m a s g o b e y o n d t h o s e o f Western C a t h o l i cism and subsequent P r o t e s t a n t i s m . I t u r n back t h e r e f o r e t o t h e Weste r n d o g m a of t h e Trinity, seeking to u n c o v e r it as t h e s t r u c t u r e o f anxiety it m o s t assuredly was, is, and always shall be. Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h , descendant o f David, habitually addressed Y a h w e h as f a t h e r (abba), but stopped well s h o r t o f r e d u c i n g Y a h w e h t o t h e single attribute o f being " o u r f a t h e r w h o art in h e a v e n . " T h a t r e d u c t i o n is C h r i s t i a n , and Yeshua, as we o u g h t n e v e r to b e c o m e weary ol recognizing, was n o t a C h r i s t i a n , but a S e c o n d T e m p l e Jew loyal t o his o w n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Law o f Yahweh. Above all, Yeshua was n o t a Trinitarian, a s t a t e m e n t at o n c e obvious yet also s h a t t e r i n g in its implications. A m e r i c a n F u n d a m e n t a l i s t s eagerly a n ticipate t h e R a p t u r e , in w h i c h Jesus C h r i s t will g a t h e r t h e m up into heavenly i m m o r t a l i t y . T h a t e x p e c t a t i o n is perhaps c e n t r a l to t h e A m e r i c a n Religion, and is perhaps t h e m o s t p o p u l a r p o e m o f o u r clim a t e , b u t while s u b l i m e it c a n n o t be considered Yahwistic. T h e d o g m a o f t h e T r i n i t y takes for g r a n t e d t h a t Y a h w e h already has dwindled into its First Person, G o d t h e Father. Even in t h e w o r k o f as p r o f o u n d a s c h o l a r as Jaroslav Pelikan, o r his p r e c u r s o r Adolph I larnack, no a t t e m p t is m a d e t o a c c o u n t for t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f G o d t h e F a t h e r for t h e startling and m i s c h i e v o u s Y a h w e h . T h e English R o m a n t i c p o e t - p r o p h e t William Blake, still i n a c c u r a t e l y t e r m e d a mystic, saw this w i t h final clarity w h e n he ironically r e n a m e d Yahweh as Nobodaddv, nobody's father. D o u b t l e s s o n e s h o u l d n o t ask Trinitarian d o g m a just w h o its First Person is, if only because t h e secret and principal p u r p o s e o f t h e T r i n ity is t o justify t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e F a t h e r by t h e S o n , t h e Original C o v e n a n t by t h e Belated T e s t a m e n t , and t h e Jewish people by t h e

111 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Gentiles. Jesus C h r i s t is a n e w G o d on t h e G r e c o - R o m a n m o d e l o f Z e u s - J o v e u s u r p i n g his father, C h r o n o s - S a t u r n . T h e E m p e r o r C o n stantine, in establishing Christianity as t h e religion o f R o m a n a u t h o r ity, shrewdly recognized in Jesus C h r i s t a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f pagan tradition. Y a h w e h , like an o u t w o r n S a t u r n , retreated t o t h e r e m n a n t s of Jewry, until he r e t u r n e d as t h e Allah o f Islam. With this as a p r e a m b l e , I t u r n t o t h e Trinity, C h r i s t e n d o m ' s e x traordinary e x p l o i t in s o m e h o w asserting its i n n o c e n c e as t o t h e exiling o f Y a h w e h . M o n o t h e i s m m a y or m a y n o t be an advance u p o n p o l y t h e i s m , b u t Christianity w o u l d n o t c o n c e d e its o w n pragmatic resort to t h r e e G o d s r a t h e r t h a n o n e . W h e r e and h o w did t h e d o g m a o f t h e Trinity begin? In t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era, A t h a n a sius, B i s h o p o f Alexandria, persuaded a m a j o r i t y o f his colleagues t h a t Jesus C h r i s t was G o d , a persuasion b o t h unqualified and yet curiously subtle, since C h r i s t was also m a n . B u t w h a t sort o f m a n ! Was he a c r e a t u r e or not? T h e Jewish Christians, led by James t h e b r o t h e r o f Jesus, had insisted he was, as did Arius, t h e f o u r t h - c e n t u r y o p p o n e n t o f A t h a n a s i u s , but t h e Athanasian C r e e d w o n t h e c o n t e s t , and Jesus C h r i s t b e c a m e m o r e G o d t h a n m a n , in practice if n o t quite in t h e o r y . T h e o l o g y necessarily is a s y s t e m o f m e t a p h o r s , and d o c t r i n e r e p resents its literalization. I a m inclined t o believe t h a t t h e best poetry, w h a t e v e r its intentions, is a kind o f t h e o l o g y , while t h e o l o g y g e n e r ally is bad poetry. Yet t h e o l o g y c a n be w h a t Wallace S t e v e n s called " t h e p r o f o u n d p o e t r y o f t h e p o o r and t h e dead," and for t w o c e n turies n o w in t h e U n i t e d States it has been t h e p o e t r y o f t h e people. T h e Trinity is a great p o e m , but a difficult one, and always a c h a l l e n g e t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Its s u b l i m e a m b i t i o n is t o c o n v e r t p o l y t h e i s m back

JESUS

fij

into m o n o t h e i s m , w h i c h is possible o n l y by rendering t h e H o l y Spirit into a v a c u u m , and by evading t h e f l a m b o y a n t personality o f Y a h w e h . If t h e Trinity t r u l y is m o n o t h e i s t i c , t h e n its sole G o d is Jesus C h r i s t , not Yeshua of N a z a r e t h b u t his hyperbolic expansion i n t o t h e u s u r p e r o f his beloved abba. T h e historical Yeshua, insofar as he c a n be isolated, had his o w n anguishes o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n , including toward his i m m e d i a t e p r e c u r sor, J o h n t h e Baptist, and also to s u c h f o r e r u n n e r s as A b r a h a m , Moses, and Elijah. B u t he apparently suffered no anxiety o f i n f l u e n c e in regard t o Y a h w e h , u n l i k e the m e t a p h o r i c Jesus Christ, w h o s e separate identity d e m a n d e d t h e s u b t r a c t i o n o f all ironic irascibility f r o m Y a h w e h , w h o was after all a failure as a father. Oscar Wilde m o r d a n t l y observed, " F a t h e r s s h o u l d be seen b u t n o t heard; that is t h e s e c r e t o f family life." Athanasius, t h o u g h n o wit, m a y be a c c o u n t e d an ancest o r o f Oscar Wilde, w h o , as Borges said, was always right.

As

A LIFELONG

CRITIC

o f poetry, I a d m i r e t h e p o e m o f t h e

Trinity w i t h o u t loving it. If t h e Trinity is a m y t h , is it also a d r e a m o f love? G o d t h e F a t h e r , a m e r e shade o f Y a h w e h , has t h e p r i m a r y f u n c tion o f loving his S o n , Jesus C h r i s t , and o f loving t h e w o r l d so m u c h t h a t he sacrificed Jesus to save it. Y a h w e h i n t e r v e n e d t o save Isaac f r o m t h e overliteralist A b r a h a m , m o s t obedient o f C o v e n a n t e r s , but was n o t available t o save Jesus f r o m G o d t h e Father. M e t a p h o r r u n s wild in t h e Trinity, and w i t h s o m e q u a l m s I e n t e r i n t o its labyrinths now, b e g i n n i n g by q u o t i n g t h e Athanasian C r e e d , as set f o r t h in 325 at Nicaea:

100

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

We believe in one God, the Father of All Governing [pantokratora], creator [poieten] of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence [reality] of the Father, [ek tes ousias ton patros], God from God, Light from fight, true God from true God, begotten not created [poiethenta], of the same essence [reality] as the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, becoming human [enanthwpesanta]. He suffered and the third day he rose, and ascended into the heavens. And he will come to judge both the living and the dead. And [we believe) in the Holy Spirit. But, those who say, Once he was not, or he was not before his generation, or he came to be out of nothing, or who assert that he, the Son of God, is of a different hypostatis or ousia, or that he is a creature, or changeable, or mutable, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

T h e target h e r e is the h e r e t i c Arius, whose Jesus C h r i s t was created by G o d at a p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t , and so was m u t a b l e . Against Arius, this c r e e d gives us r h e t o r i c t h a t is n o w familiar yet r a t h e r shaky w h e n it speaks " o f t h e s a m e essence as t h e F a t h e r . " T h e r e is n o t h i n g biblical about s u c h a f o r m u l a t i o n , n o t h i n g Yahwistic, and yet w i t h o u t it Jesus m i g h t be o n l y a transitional figure r a t h e r t h a n t h e last Word. A m e t a p h o r c a n be historically persuasive yet still r a t h e r desperate, and homoousion here is an e x t r a v a g a n c e still n o t staled by repetition. B u t Jesus and Y a h w e h are n o t c o n s t i t u t e d " o f t h e s a m e stuff," w h i c h

JESUS

fij

is t h e p r i m a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e G r e e k homooustos, a c o m p o u n d adjective probably t a k e n o v e r by early Christian t h e o l o g i a n s f r o m t h e G n o s t i c heretics. G . L. Prestige, in his useful God in Patristic Thought (1936), c h a r m i n g l y c o m p a r e s t h e G n o s t i c s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e primal A d a m , o r m a n - g o d , resembles G o d as an image b u t was n o t o f t h e s a m e stuff, t o t h e piece o f m a r b l e r e p r e s e n t i n g P r i m e Minister G l a d s t o n e in t h e National Liberal Club:

It is made of different stuff from that which Mr. Gladstone himself consisted: it is in the image of Mr. Gladstone, but not homoousios with him.

A n d yet t h e homoousion increasingly vexed all t h e Patristic t h i n k e r s ( t o call t h e m t h a t ) as it o u g h t to go o n p e r t u r b i n g us, p r i m a r i l y C a t h o l i c s , t h o u g h n o t Unitarians, M u s l i m s , and those Jews w h o still trust in t h e C o v e n a n t , since n o n e o f these give c r e d e n c e t o t h e T r i n ity. Trinitarians had n o t

clarified t h e c e n t r a l d i l e m m a o f their

m e t a p h o r , since t h e C o u n c i l o f Nicaea's C r e e d does n o t resolve t h e question as to t h e fusion o f F a t h e r and S o n . A m e t a p h o r r e m a i n e d a m e t a p h o r . Athanasius, h o w e v e r , insisted t h a t Jesus C h r i s t was n o t c r e a t u r e l y , n o r was t h e Holy Spirit: t h e Trinity was an identity o f substance, and n o t m e r e l y an analogy. B u t if G o d is o n e being, h o w can he also be t h r e e entities, e a c h capable o f separate description? St. Augustine s h r e w d l y relied u p o n t h e a n a l o g u e t h a t a single h u m a n consciousness brings t o g e t h e r t h e will, t h e m e m o r y , and t h e u n derstanding, but t h a t does n o t resolve t h e Athanasian tangle. T h e r e is a gap b e t w e e n Augustine's Latin c u l t u r e and t h e G r e e k Trinity that an inward t u r n c o u l d n o t bridge. T h e G r e e k s saw o n e essence and

102

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

t h r e e substances, w h i l e t h e Latins p r o c l a i m e d o n e essence, or substance, and t h r e e persons. For t h e Latins, t h e Trinity c o m p r i s e d t h r e e subjects; for t h e G r e e k s , t h r e e o b j e c t s — b u t this was largely a linguistic difference, and pragmatically m a d e little real difference. T r i t h e i s m is imaginatively as appealing as any o t h e r p o l y t h e i s m , and Latins and G r e e k s alike had ancestral c u l t u r e s replete with gods, godlings, and oracles. Yahweh and his p r o p h e t s just c o u l d n o t be assimilated by t h e classical world w i t h o u t a t r a n s m u t a t i o n i n t o G e n t i l e f o r m s . Dispassionately I can savor t h e endless ingenuities o f T r i n i t a r i a n i s m , just as t h e equivocal ironies o f Plato's t h e o l o g y inspire m y r e c e p t i o n of his Timaeus, w h i c h is far closer t o A t h a n a s i u s t h a n it is t o I Isaiah. H o w c o u l d it not be! James Joyce's grand c o m i c f o r m u l a was: Jewgreek b e c o m e s G r e e k j e w . F o r all t h e B y z a n t i n e brilliance so m a s terfully c h a r t e d by Jaroslav Pelikan ( h i m s e l f n o w Eastern O r t h o d o x ) , Christianity r e m a i n s polytheistic f r o m t h e Gospel o f J o h n d o w n t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y LJnited States.

WAS

THE

AGNOSTIC

G O E T H E a c c u r a t e in his concession that

m o r a l l y we are m o n o t h e i s t s ! O u r Law is n o t Hebraic o r G r e e k , but ult i m a t e l y R o m a n , and o u r great c h r o n i c l e r , w h o m w e await, w o u l d be an A m e r i c a n Edward G i b b o n , w h o will depict o u r inevitable decline and fall. G i b b o n attributed t h e ruin o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e to the triu m p h o f Christianity. O u r decay and eventual collapse m i g h t be b r o u g h t about by R e p u b l i c a n t r i u m p h a l i s m , doubtless g r o u n d e d u p o n an a m a l g a m o f F u n d a m e n t a l i s m , Pentecostalism, and t h e M o r m o n s , w h o e n f o r c e a m o n o t h e i s t i c m o r a l i t y while tacitly retaining Joseph S m i t h ' s legacy o f a plurality o f gods. T r i n i t a r i a n i s m is dead o r

JESUS

fij

dying in E u r o p e ( e x c e p t for Ireland) and w a n e s in t h e U n i t e d States, w h e r e even t h e n o t very Yahwistic G o d t h e F a t h e r h o v e r s in t h e s h a d o w o f t h e A m e r i c a n Jesus. I r e t u r n to t h e subtle G r e e k Fathers, w h o s m o o t h e d o u t t h e c o n t r a dictions o f the Trinity, or at least wallpapered t h e m over. M u c h the best study here is again Pelikan's Christianity and Classical Culture (1993). Pelikan's heroes are t h e so-called Cappadocians, f r o m t h e Turkish region n o r t h o f A r m e n i a M i n o r and s o u t h o f Pontus: G r e g o r y o f Nazianzus, t h e b r o t h e r s Basil o f Caesarea and G r e g o r y o f Nyssa, and their wise sister M a c r i n a , all o f t h e m f o u r t h - c e n t u r y d o y e n s o f Hellenized Christian t h e o l o g y . T h e y rightly u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e C o u n c i l o f Nicaea had tailed to f o r m u l a t e a sufficient defense against t h e accusation that Trinitarianism was a p o l y t h e i s m . A r m e d w i t h a sophisticated Christian Platonism, they set o u t to provide exactly this. Pelikan implicitly judged t h e m t o have been m o r e successful t h a n A u g u s t i n e and Aquinas in this Q u i x o t i c quest ( t h a t last phrase is m i n e , and n o t Pelikan's). D o n Q u i x o t e was a n y t h i n g but a failure, even if finally he accepted defeat, and Pelikan's C a p p a d o c i a n s w e r e n o t failures e i t h e r , because their secret w e a p o n was negative t h e o l o g y , to w h i c h I confess a lifel o n g a t t a c h m e n t , and o f w h i c h Pelikan is t h e u n m a t c h e d expositor. T h i s m a r v e l o u s m o d e o f linguistic negation insists t h a t all language c o n c e r n i n g t h e divine, w h e t h e r biblical o r n o t , was hopelessly inappropriate, since t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l c o u l d n o t be c a u g h t in words. H a m l e t , unavailable to t h e negative t h e o l o g i a n s , m i g h t have m a d e t h e m d o u b t their o w n p r o c e d u r e s , e x c e p t t h a t Shakespeare's m o s t a r t i c u l a t e c h a r a c t e r breaks t h r o u g h into t r a n s c e n d e n c e o n l y in order t o e m b r a c e nihilism. W h a t was called t h e Word was above words, and divine light far o u t s h o n e n a t u r a l light. Essentially, negative t h e o l o g y

104

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

is a m e t a p h o r i c a l t e c h n i q u e for e x p o s i n g and u n d o i n g

metaphor.

T h a t is a delight for H a m l e t , b u t a rugged trial for questers w h o seek t h e Trinity. Father, S o n , and Holy Spirit all are e x t r e m e m e t a p h o r s , w h e r e a s t h e J Writer's Y a h w e h was a person and a personality, as was Mark's Jesus. Western m o n o t h e i s m , I w o u l d argue, has o n l y t w o persuasive d r a m a t i z a t i o n s o f God: Y a h w e h and Allah. Jesus C h r i s t is a rem a r k a b l y mixed m e t a p h o r , while G o d t h e Father and t h e Holy Spirit are t e n u o u s analogies. T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus is quite a n o t h e r m a t t e r , because he is beyond m e t a p h o r and has s u b s u m e d t h e n a t i o n a l m y t h o f the New People c h o s e n for a f u t u r e o f d r e a m l i k e happiness, c o m p o u n d e d o f e m a n c i p a t e d selfishness and an i n n e r solitude t h a t n a m e s itself as t r u e f r e e d o m . O u r vital p r o p h e t s , E m e r s o n and Walt W h i t m a n , w e r e p o s t - C h r i s t i a n , and so is t h e i r nation, since t h e A m e r i c a n Jesus c a n be described w i t h o u t any r e c o u r s e t o t h e o l o g y .

P E L I K A N ' S C A P P A D O C I A N S n e a t l y (perhaps t o o m u c h s o ) navigated b e t w e e n G r e e k p o l y t h e i s m and strict Y a h w i s m by c h e e r f u l l y a d m i t t i n g t h a t all a n a l o g u e s f o r t h e divine were inadequate. If t h e Trinity was m e t a p h o r i c a l , t h a t did n o t disturb t h e m , since t h e C h r i s tian g o d h e a d by definition was passionless. Still, I a d m i r e t h e C a p padocian

d a n c e o f negations t h a t saves t h e Trinity, o r at

reconciles it with Platonic c u l t u r e . C h r i s t i a n P l a t o n i s m

least

dispenses

w i t h S o c r a t i c irony, at least until t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , with t h e advent o f S o r e n Kierkegaard, w h o s e emphasis began w h e r e t h e Trinitarians ended. H o w can o n e become a Christian, he asks, in a r e a l m t h a t p r o c l a i m s its share in C h r i s t e n d o m ? If Christianity is t o involve t a k i n g o n s o m e o f t h e m y s t e r y o f t h e suffering o f Jesus, is it attainable w h e n

JESUS

fij

t h e n e w believer simply joins herself o r h i m s e l f to m o s t o f society? T h e question w o u l d have m a d e little sense in t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y and w o u l d have oppressed Kierkegaard a m i l l e n n i u m and a h a l f later, and s e e m s u n a n s w e r a b l e in t w e n t y - f i r s t - c e n t u r y A m e r i c a . S c h o l a r s rarely agree as t o h o w and by w h o m t h e Trinitarian c o n troversies were resolved. Pelikan c h a m p i o n s his C a p p a d o c i a n s :

The congruence of Cappadocian Trinitarianism, this "chief dogma," with Cappadocian apologetics, was summarized in their repeated claim that the orthodox doctrine of theTrinity was located "between the two conceptions" of Hellenism and Judaism, by "invalidating both ways of thinking, while accepting the useful components of each." Gregory of Nyssa put this claim boldly: "the Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Logos and by belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the [divine] nature abrogating this imagination of plurality." In sum, therefore, "Of the Jewish conception, let the unity of the [divine] nature stand; and of the Hellenic, only the distinction as to the hypostases, the remedy against a profane view being thus applied, as required, on either side." This apologetic symmetry permitted him to assert: "It is as if the number of t h e T h r e e were a remedy in the case of those who are in error as to the One, and the assertion of the unity for those whose beliefs are dispersed among a number of divinities." To the heretics who asserted that the Son of God was a creature but who nevertheless worshipped him as God, he posed the alternative of committing idolatry by "worshipping someone alien from the true God," or of falling into Judaism by "denying the worship of Christ." He summarized the same polemical point by accusing this

106

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

heretical view of simultaneously "advocating the errors of Judaism and partaking to a certain extent in the impiety of the Greeks," accepting the worst of both while orthodoxy accepted the best of both. (Christianity and Classical Culture, 1993, pp. 249-50)

G e n t l y o n e m i g h t observe t h a t m o r e t h a n "Jewish d o g m a " is destroyed by t h e Word and the Holy Spirit: w h e r e c a n Y a h w e h ' s solitary s u p r e m a c y be l o c a t e d in this still t h o r o u g h l y G r e e k f o r m u l a t i o n ? J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines (revised edition, 1978), tells us t h a t t h e Trinitarians' G o d is "essentially rational." R e m e m b e r i n g t h e J Writer's endlessly surprising Y a h w e h , I a m at first a t o u c h s t u n n e d , b u t a little reassured w h e n Kelly resorts to A u g u s t i n e for a warier u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h u m a n limitations in grasping t h e mysteries o f t h e Trinity:

While dwelling at length on these analogies and drawing out their illustrative significance, Augustine has no illusions about their immense limitations. In the first place, the image of God in man's mind is in any case a remote and imperfect one: 'a likeness indeed, but a far distant i m a g e . . . . The image is one thing in the Son, another in the mirror.' Secondly, while man's rational nature exhibits the trinities mentioned above, they are by no means identical with his being in the way in which the divine Trinity constitutes the essence of the Godhead; they represent faculties or attributes which the human being possesses, whereas the divine nature is perfectly simple. Thirdly, as a corollary from this, while memory, understanding and will operate separately, the three Persons mutually coinhere and Their action is one and indivisible. Lastly, whereas in the Godhead the three

JESUS

fij

members of the Trinity are Persons, they are not so in the mind of man. 'The image of the Trinity is one person, but the supreme Trinity Itself is three Persons': which is a paradox when one reflects that nevertheless the Three are more inseparably one than is the Trinity in the mind. This discrepancy between the image and the Trinity Itself reminds us of the fact, of which the Apostle has told us, that here on earth we see 'in a mirror, darkly'; afterwards we shall see 'face to face.' (pp. 278-79)

If t h e t h r e e m e m b e r s in t h e g o d h e a d are indeed persons, t h e y are not so in o u r m e r e l y h u m a n minds. T h e i m a g e and t h e Trinity itself c a n n o t be reconciled, because n o w w e c o n f r o n t a dark saying, o n e o f t h e e n i g m a s t h a t Paul c o u l d n o t resolve. A u g u s t i n e m u s t be t h e m o s t t e n d e n t i o u s writer in t h e Western w o r l d before S i g m u n d F r e u d , yet h e r e t h e great Bishop o f Hippo ceases to e x p o u n d and tells us t o take it o r leave it, t h o u g h t h e leaving will p u t us in jeopardy. O n e can see why Pelikan prefers his Eastern F a t h e r s t o Augustine, and t o Aquinas w h o c o m e s after, but the issue o f G r e e k polytheism as against Yahwistic o r Islamic m o n o t h e i s m has n o t e x a c t l y been resolved. As a m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n Pelikan and Kelly, 1 t u r n back t o G . L. Prestige, in 1936. His Trinitarian h e r o is t h e totally u n k n o w n sixth-century theologian called t h e Pseudo-Cyril, w h o invented t h e m e t a p h o r o f " c o - i n h e r e n c e , " or " t h e f o r m o f o n e G o d in t h r e e Persons and n o t t h r e e Persons in o n e G o d h e a d . " T r i t h e i s m c o u l d t h u s be averted, but by a d o c t r i n e so intric a t e and subtle t h a t s o m e exasperation seems in order. Is an indivisible Trinity still a t h r e e f o l d entity? Prestige t h i n k s so, b u t h o w far can you g o in literalizing a m e t a p h o r ? I q u o t e Prestige's praise o f PseudoCyril o u t o f m y desire t o be fair, but I w o n d e r w h a t Y a h w e h c o u l d

108

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

have m a d e o f these G r e e k c o n v o l u t i o n s . T h e o l o g y , after all, was inv e n t e d by the Jewish Platonist Philo o f Alexandria, in o r d e r t o explain away Yahweh's h u m a n personality. Here, t h e n , is Prestige on his u n known hero:

However, once found, it is immensely to our unknown author's credit that he perceived the fruitfulness of its application to the Persons of the Trinity. This was indeed his greatest and wisest innovation. It the conception of interpenetration is forced in relation to the natures of Christ, it is an admirable description of the union of the three Persons of God. And it was necessary to find some such simple and expressive term for the purpose. As has been emphasised already, both ousia and hypostasis, the crucial terms in the doctrine of the Trinity, are concrete. It follows that the doctrine, for the sake of completeness, ought to be capable of being defined from the aspect of either term. From the aspect of a single concrete ousia, expressed objectively in three presentations, the being of God is clearly stated, and monotheism is safeguarded in the doctrine of identity of ousia. But owing at first to the accidents of controversy, and later to the abstract tendencies of the sixth century, the aspect in which God came to be more c o m m o n l y regarded was that of three objects in a single ousia. The uppermost term is not hypostasis, and it becomes an eminent practical necessity to formulate a definition which, beginning from the uppermost term, will equally well express the truth of the monotheistic being of God. Without such a definition, the recurrence of tritheism was almost inevitable—not because the truth was unknown or unappreciated, but because in the absence of a convenient and illuminative formula the minds of the unwary are apt to be

JESUS

fij

drawn away from central truths to invent heresies on the perimeter. Nor does 'the unwary' necessarily mean the most obtuse. The ablest minds may be the narrowest. (God in Patristic Thought, 296—97)

T h e " i t " in t h e s e c o n d line o f this q u o t a t i o n is c o - i n h e r e n c e , and Prestige is c o m m e n d i n g Pseudo-Cyril for i n v e n t i n g a b e t t e r m e t a p h o r t h a n any o t h e r Trinitarian had e m p l o y e d . B u t t h o u g h t r i t h e i s m is held off, the e x p e n s e o f spirit is at t h e waste of Christ's h u m a n i t y . B o t h Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h and Yahweh are irrelevant t o t h e Trinity, since t h e y were n o t just m e t a p h o r i c a l and e v e r y t h i n g deposited in t h e Trinity is n o t h i n g but m e t a p h o r .

I

o .

NOT PEACE BUT A SWORD DIVINE

OR

INFLUENCE

HIS B O O K ' S T I T L E e m p l o y s " d i v i n e " b o t h as adjective and verb, because t h e n a m e s Jesus and Yahweh retain t h e i r magical p o t e n c y . Indeed, Jews w h o c o n t i n u e t o trust in t h e C o v e n a n t tend to avoid b o t h n a m e s , t h o u g h for r a t h e r different reasons. At m y age, just t u r n e d seventy-four, I begin by w o n d e r i n g : w h a t is m y book's g e n r e ; A lifelong lover o f great literature, I w r i t e literary criticism, but with an a d m i x t u r e o f w h a t I have learned to call "religious criticism," w h e r e William James is m y distant m o d e l . I a m neit h e r a historical critic o f l i t e r a t u r e n o r o f religion; a s t u d e n t of E m e r s o n , I regard criticism as allied m o r e t o biography t h a n t o t h e m y t h s we call " h i s t o r y . " Yet t h e biography e i t h e r o f Jesus or o f Y a h w e h c a n n o t be c o m p o s e d . Jack Miles did his lively best in God and in Christ, but that d o u b l e biography c u l m i n a t e d in G o d ' s suicide, and Y a h w e h is hardly given t o that crisis. Eclipse, self-exile, wily evasiveness all are Yahwistic proclivities, but suicide? Never.

J E S U S fij

"Jesus" in m y title primarily m e a n s J e s u s - t h e - C h r i s t , a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d . Y a h w e h , in his earlier and definitive career, is n o t at all a t h e o logical G o d , but is h u m a n ,

all-too-human,

and behaves

rather

unpleasantly. Christianity t r a n s f o r m s Jesus o f N a z a r e t h , a historical p e r s o n a b o u t w h o m we possess o n l y a few verifiable facts, i n t o a polytheistic m u l t i p l i c i t y t h a t replaces t h e u n c a n n i l y m e n a c i n g Yahweh w i t h a very different G o d t h e Father, w h o s e S o n is t h e C h r i s t o r risen Messiah. B o t h o f these divinities are s h a d o w e d by a g h o s t l y Paraclete ( C o m f o r t e r ) n a m e d t h e H o l y Spirit, w h i l e M i r i a m , t h e m o t h e r o f t h e historical Yeshua o r Jesus, lingers n e a r b y u n d e r t h e designation o f " T h e Virgin M a r y . " T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus stands s o m e w h a t apart f r o m this p r a g m a t i c p o l y t h e i s m because he is t h e p r i m a r y G o d o f t h e U n i t e d States, and has s u b s u m e d G o d t h e F a t h e r in w h a t I c o n t i n u e t o suggest we call " t h e A m e r i c a n R e l i g i o n . " This Jesus has a b u r g e o n i n g rival in t h e Holy Spirit o f t h e Pentecostalists, and p e r h a p s o u r f u t u r e will see divided rule b e t w e e n t h e s e s o m e w h a t disparate entities. All this m a t t e r s because Christianity w a n e s in E u r o p e (Ireland e x c e p t e d ) and is e x e m plified primarily in t h e A m e r i c a s , Asia, and Africa, c o m p e t i n g in t h o s e latter c o n t i n e n t s with Islam, w h i c h n o w b e c o m e s m o r e m i l i t a n t t h a n at any t i m e since its aggressive i n c e p t i o n . Y a h w e h is t h e p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e T a n a k h , w h i c h is distinctly not identical with t h e Old T e s t a m e n t . Jesus C h r i s t is t h e p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e New, or Belated, T e s t a m e n t , w h i c h revokes t h e C o v e n a n t between Y a h w e h and Israel. Politicians and religious figures (are t h e y still separate characters?) speak o f t h e J u d e o - C h r i s t i a n tradition, but t h a t is a social m y t h . It w o u l d m a k e a b o u t as m u c h sense if t h e y spoke

112

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

o f a C h r i s t i a n - I s l a m i c tradition. T h e r e are t h r e e rival so-called m o n o theisms, b u t t h e Jews are n o w so tiny in p o p u l a t i o n , c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e C h r i s t i a n s and M u s l i m s , t h a t they c o u l d vanish all but c o m pletely in a n o t h e r t w o g e n e r a t i o n s , three at m o s t . T h i s b o o k t h e r e fore is n o t a p o l e m i c favoring Y a h w e h o v e r his usurper. Perhaps it is, in part, an elegy for Y a h w e h . If he has vanished, he still o u g h t t o be distinguished clearly f r o m J e s u s - t h e - C h r i s t a n d even f r o m Allah, w h o in s o m e respects does r e m a i n closer t o t h e G o d o f A b r a h a m and Isaac, Jacob and I s h m a e l , and Jesus o f Nazareth t h a n do t h e Christian deities. I am aware t h a t these t r u t h s are scarcely w e l c o m e , but w h a t t r u t h is: A quest for t h e historical Y a h w e h (so h u m a n t h a t at times h e behaves like a p e r s o n ) is as self-defeating as t h e endless quests for t h e h u m a n o r historical Jesus. Invariably, t h e quester discovers h e r s e l f o r himself, since p r a g m a t i c a l l y t h e individual's identity is p r o f o u n d l y involved. H o w c o u l d it n o t be? After a lifetime spent in t h e c o m p a n y o f scholars b o t h great and s m a l l , I go on learning daily t h a t their " o b j e c tivity" is shallow, and t h a t t h e i r " s u b j e c t i v i t y " can be deep, w h i c h m a k e s f o r t h e a u t h e n t i c differences b e t w e e n t h e m . W h e r e , t h e n , a m I in relation to this book? As a literary critic w h o s e quest, these last f o r t y years, has been f o r s o m e secrets o f t h e d y n a m i c s o f t h e i n f l u e n c e process, I find m y s e l f prepared to e x a m i n e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n s t a n c e ot it, t h e G r e e k New T e s t a m e n t ' s anxiety o f i n f l u e n c e in regard to t h e Hebrew Bible, t h e T a n a k h . Just as t h e Christian Bible, quite aside f r o m including t h e New T e s t a m e n t , is distinctly n o t identical w i t h t h e Bible o f t h e C o v e n a n t b e t w e e n Y a h w e h and Israel, t h e r e is n o t o n e single C h r i s -

JESUS

IJ

113

tian Bible: C a t h o l i c s , Eastern O r t h o d o x believers, and Protestants vary in their inclusions and exclusions. As I have n o t e d , all o f t h e m significantly c h a n g e t h e s e q u e n c e o f t h e Hebrew Bible so t h a t it ends with Malachi, t h e final m i n o r p r o p h e t w h o s e n a m e m e a n s simply " m e s s e n g e r , " and w h o t h u s leads up t o J o h n t h e Baptist at t h e start o f t h e c a n o n i c a l New T e s t a m e n t . T h e T a n a k h c o n c l u d e s with II C h r o n i cles, and a final "let us go u p " t o t h e rebuilding o f J e r u s a l e m and t h e restoration o f Yahweh's T e m p l e .

R E A D I N G THE N E W T E S T A M ENT t h r o u g h f r o m start t o finish is a very m i x e d aesthetic and spiritual experience, w h e t h e r o n e reads t h e original G r e e k text o r t h e m o s t powerful English translation, William Tyndale's, or else t h e Revised S t a n d a r d Version, f r o m which m y q u o t a t i o n s are drawn, unless o t h e r w i s e indicated. I r e m e m b e r being u n h a p p y with N o r t h r o p Frye's literary criticism o f t h e Bible, in his books The Great Code and Words with Power, p r i m a r i l y because t h e T a n a k h c o n t i n u e d its captive status in Frye, and was interpreted as a foretelling o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . W h e n I r e m a r k e d this t o Frye, h e gruffly replied t h a t A n g l o - A m e r i c a n literature was f o u n d e d u p o n t h a t foretelling. Yet Frye was m i s t a k e n : f r o m S h a k e s p e a r e to F a u l k ner, t h e Hebrew Bible is n o t s u b s u m e d by t h e New T e s t a m e n t . J o h n Milton, like W i l l i a m Blake and E m i l y D i c k i n s o n a radical Protestant sect o f o n e , f r o m Frye's viewpoint w o u l d have t o be considered a Ju daizer o f t h e Bible. Paradise Lost gets Jesus on and o f f t h e Cross with u n s e e m l y haste, in six words b r o k e n in h a l f by an e n j a m b m e n t : "so h e dies,/But soon revives." A disciple o f Frye in m y y o u t h ( w e broke

114

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

apart, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y but n o t e m o t i o n a l l y , on m y f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e anxiety o f i n f l u e n c e ) , I r e m a i n startled at finding in Frye's p o s t h u m o u s l y published Notebooks his r e a c t i o n t o t h e Gospels:

I find the Gospels most unpleasant reading for the most part. The mysterious parables with their lurking & menacing threats, the e m phasis placed by Christ on himself & his uniqueness & on a "me or else" attitude, the displaying of miracles as irrefutable stunts, & the pervading sense of delusion about the end of the world—those are things for intellectual ingenuity to explain away, & the fact that they're there recurrently comes to me out of the delicate tissue of rationalization. T h e Christian Church with all its manias had started to form when the Gospels were written, & one can see it at work smoothing things away & making it possible for Christianity to be kidnapped by a deformed & neurotic society. I wonder how long & how far one can dodge or resist the suggestion that the editorial shaping of Scripture is a fundamentally dishonest process.

M a n y readers o f t h e G o s p e l s — p r o b a b l y m o s t — w o u l d disagree with Frye. Since I have n o p e r s o n a l i n v e s t m e n t in t h e Gospels, I neit h e r agree n o r disagree. N o t h i n g I ever have read, and go o n rereading, e x c e p t p e r h a p s for St. A u g u s t i n e , is as t e n d e n t i o u s as t h e Gospels: t h e y have a fixed design u p o n t h e reader, and as c h u r c h l y p r o p a g a n d a m a y have little to d o with t h e historical Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h . We n e v e r will know. T h e Gospels give us a Jesus as m y t h o l o g i c a l as Attis, Adonis, Osiris, o r any o t h e r dying and reviving divinity. A Messiah w h o is G o d I n c a r n a t e , and dies on t h e Cross as an A t o n e m e n t for all h u m a n sin and error, is irreconcilable w i t h the Hebrew Bible.

J E S U S IJ 115

O n l y by a s t r o n g l y c r e a t i v e m i s r e a d i n g o f t h e T a n a k h c o u l d so i m m e n s e a disparity have b e e n redressed. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t

is

h e l d t o g e t h e r by its revisionist s t a n c e t o w a r d t h e H e b r e w Bible. A c o n s i d e r a b l e s p l e n d o r e n s u e s f r o m this r e v i s i o n i s m , w h e t h e r o n e is c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h it o r n o t . T h e persuasive f o r c e o f t h e G o s p e l s , a n d o f t h e e n t i r e N e w T e s t a m e n t s t r u c t u r e , testifies t o t h e p o w e r o f an i m a g i n a t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t , riddled w i t h i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , b u t m o r e

than

large e n o u g h t o h a v e w e a t h e r e d its s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a Jesus w h o s e m i s s i o n i n t e n d s o n l y Jews as beneficiaries, a n d disciples w h o address t h e m s e l v e s o n l y t o G e n t i l e s . W h a t c o u l d Y e s h u a o f N a z a r e t h h a v e m a d e o f M a r t i n L u t h e r ' s o u t b u r s t " D e a t h t o t h e Law!" w h i c h in m a n y G e r m a n L u t h e r a n s w h o served H i t l e r b e c a m e " D e a t h t o t h e Jews!" T h e G e r m a n s w o u l d n o t h a v e c r u c i f i e d Jesus: t h e y w o u l d have e x t e r m i n a t e d h i m at A u s c h w i t z , t h e i r v e r s i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . N o less than

Hillel,

Jesus

affirmed

the

Torah,

Yahweh's

teaching

and

Covenant.

JON

D.

LEVENSON'S

and Historical

Criticism

BOOK

The Hebrew

Bible,

The Old

Testament,

(1993), lucidly c e n t e r s u p o n a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

realization:

To say that the Hebrew Bible has c o m p l e t e integrity over against the New Testament is to cast grave doubt upon the unity o f the Christian Bible. It is like saying one can read the first ten books o f the Aeneiil as if the last two did not exist, and this, in turn, is to say that the last two add nothing essential: the story can just as credibly end without Aeneas's slaying Turnus. Now for Christians to say that the New

n6

HAROLD

BLOO M

Testament adds nothing essential to the Hebrew Bible is on the order of Marxists saying that they have no objection to leaving the means of production in the hands of private capitalists: the assertion belies the speakers' announced identity, (p. 101) O ^

T h e C h i n e s e C o m m u n i s t s c o n t i n u e t o affirm t h e i r M a r x i s m w h i l e relying u p o n capitalism t o increase prosperity, b u t since t h e y hold military p o w e r ,

,-

the contradiction

is p r a g m a t i c a l l y

meaningless.

..

Christian t h e o l o g i a n s are ( h a p p i l y ) n o l o n g e r allied t o state power,

^ ST ^ U_

| yet their a d h e r e n c e t o t h e s h i b b o l e t h o f " J u d e o - C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n " needs m o r e clarification t h a n s o m e are willing to give to it. If t h e t w o traditions w e r e n o t radically different, t h e r e m n a n t s o f Jewry, e n d lessly assaulted, w o u l d n o w have dissolved. Jews r e m a i n s t u b b o r n , partly so as n o t t o yield t o f o r c e and fraud, partly because o f s o m e t h i n g in t h e n u m i n o u s intensity o f Y a h w e h t h a t s o m e h o w will n o t w h o l l y d i m i n i s h . Jews, a c c o r d i n g t o an e l o q u e n c e o f T o n y Kushner's, have t u m b l e d f r o m t h e pages o f books. T h o s e b o o k s — t h e T a n a k h , t h e t w o T a l m u d s of Babylon and J e r u s a l e m , and all t h e s u b s e q u e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s d o w n t o this m o m e n t — h a v e a c u m u l a t i v e s t r e n g t h that defies t i m e and its afflictions.

R o b i n Lane Fox, a properly skeptical historian, in his The Unauthorized Version (1992), insists " w e can be c e r t a i n " t h a t n o biblical text existed, as we have it now, before t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y B.C.E., b u t I disbelieve h i m .

JESUS

IJ 7

E. A. Speiser, a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y s c h o l a r , in his Anchor Bible Genesis, dates t h e earlier l a y e r o f G e n e s i s , E x o d u s , N u m b e r s t o t h e t e n t h c e n t u r y B.C.E., t h e t i m e o f D a v i d a n d S o l o m o n . T h e Y a h w i s t , o r J W r i t e r , c o m p o s e d t h a t m a g n i f i c e n t e a r l y s t r a n d o f w h a t was f u s e d w i t h o t h e r t e x t s by t h e a u t h o r - e d i t o r w h o p u t t o g e t h e r t h e G e n e s i s - t o - K i n g s seq u e n c e d u r i n g t h e B a b y l o n i a n Exile. F o x r i g h t l y t a k e s this s e q u e n c e as fiction,

n o t t r u t h , b u t biblical h i s t o r y is r a r e l y " t r u t h " in t h e r e -

s t r i c t e d s e n s e s o u g h t by p r o f e s s i o n a l h i s t o r i a n s , w h o s e r h e t o r i c allows o n l y a r a t h e r r e d u c t i v e k i n d o f t r u t h . W h e t h e r o r n o t o n e t r u s t s in t h e C o v e n a n t , o r believes t h a t Jesus was t h e C h r i s t , o r s u b m i t s t o A l l a h by a c c e p t i n g M u h a m m a d as t h e seal o f t h e p r o p h e t s , it s c a r c e l y is useful t o r e d u c e Y a h w e h t o a t r u t h / f i c t i o n c h o i c e . If Y a h w e h is a fict i o n , he is m u c h t h e m o s t d i s t u r b i n g fiction t h e West e v e r has e n c o u n t e r e d . Y a h w e h is, at t h e least, t h e s u p r e m e

fiction,

t h e literary

c h a r a c t e r ( t o c a l l h i m t h a t ) m o r e endless to m e d i t a t i o n t h a n e v e n Jesus C h r i s t , o r t h e m o s t c a p a c i o u s S h a k e s p e a r e a n c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s : Falstaff, H a m l e t , I a g o , Lear, C l e o p a t r a . J is Y a h w e h ' s S h a k e s p e a r e but hardly God's inventor. T h e e a r l y c a r e e r o f Y a h w e h p r e c e d e s a n y n a r r a t i v e w e possess, w h i c h s t i m u l a t e s i m a g i n a t i o n . I m u s e o n Y a h w e h a n d desire t o k n o w his f o r e g r o u n d , a n d w h y it t o o k so l o n g f o r h i m t o n a m e h i m s e l f . We get t o k n o w his varied p e r s o n a l i t i e s (I c o u n t s e v e n ) b u t always r e m a i n p u z z l e d as t o his c h a r a c t e r . P e r h a p s h e was p u z z l e d t o o , b e f o r e he n a m e d h i m s e l f Y a h w e h . A f t e r all, h e h a d a b s o r b e d several o t h e r gods a n d g o d l i n g s , a n d a c e r t a i n dyspepsia is o n e o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s . We d o k n o w w h a t he l o o k s like, e v e n t h o u g h h e f o r b i d s all port r a i t u r e o f h i m . H e l o o k s like us, o r r a t h e r w e l o o k like h i m , h a v i n g

118

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

been created in his image. Kabbalah and its a n t e c e d e n t s tell us he is e n o r m o u s , t h e c o s m i c King K o n g o f deities. Jack Miles says o f G o d that he talks t o himself; I w o u l d add t h a t Yahweh n e v e r overhears himself, as t h o u g h he w e r e s o m e o n e else. He is n o t t h e r e f o r e a S h a k e spearean c h a r a c t e r , and S h a k e s p e a r e sensibly kept h i m

offstage.

Y a h w e h , w h o is n o t a Narcissus, m i g h t s e e m o n e . R i c h a r d II is a n a r cissist; H a m l e t is n o t . By definition, Y a h w e h c a n n o t , like Richard II, feel sorry for himself. N e i t h e r c a n t h e Y a h w e h - l i k e King Lear, w h o s e furies cross over i n t o madness. Y a h w e h , w h o suffers fiercely f r o m any ingratitude, and is desperately jealous, crosses over to insanity d u r i n g t h e forty years o f leading t h e Israelites t h r o u g h t h e Wilderness, in t h e crazy trek f r o m Egypt into C a n a a n . A g e n e r a t i o n dies o u t and their c h i l d r e n reach t h e Promised Land. Moses himself, Yahweh's p r o p h e t , is s h o w n t h e land b u t refused e n t r a n c e t o it. Y a h w e h , w h o generally is bad news, is t h e w o r s t possible news w h e n he ends Moses. B u t t h e n , he has been a personal disaster for M o s e s f r o m t h e start. I regret suggesting t h a t he has been a disaster for his c h a m p i o n s m o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t , b u t that is t h e l o n g story o f t h e T a n a k h , and o f m o s t Jewish e x perience since. If o n e doubts t h e I n c a r n a t i o n (even St. Paul did), t h e n t h e Mel Gibsonian recently renewed debate as to t h e guilt o f t h e Jews, r a t h e r t h a n t h e R o m a n s , can be set aside. Yahweh is guilty.

(3) W h e n Y a h w e h , m a n y centuries later, b e c a m e t h e G o d o f Protestant R e f o r m a t i o n , he was regarded as saying t o each Protestant, " B e like m e , but do n o t dare t o be t o o like m e . " T h e Y a h w e h o f t h e J Writer

J E S U S IJ 119

need give n o a d m o n i t i o n e x c e p t t h a t we m u s t refrain e a t i n g f r o m t h e T r e e o f Life, w h i c h w o u l d m a k e us i m m o r t a l . T h e o d o r e Hiebert, in The Yahwist's Landscape (1996), shrewdly observes that this w o u l d have b e e n e t e r n a l life o n e a r t h , r a t h e r t h a n in s o m e r e a l m beyond. J's Yahw e h likes t o walk in t h e c o o l o f t h e day, in t h e G a r d e n o f E d e n , and e n j o y s a picnic with A b r a h a m . Jesus, w h o gives h i m s e l f t o w i n e and h e a r t y eating w h e n he c a n , is never m o r e like Y a h w e h t h a n in such feasting. Nietzsche's " T h i n k o f t h e e a r t h " is Yahwistic, since J's Yahw e h is w o n d e r f u l l y a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c , as w h e n he h i m s e l f closes t h e d o o r o f Noah's ark o r buries Moses in t h e soil w i t h his o w n hands. M o s t significant, Y a h w e h fashions A d a m o u t o f t h e adamah, m o i s t and rich red e a r t h . H o m e r superbly shows us war b e t w e e n gods and m e n ; t h e J Writer goes beyond that, p o r t r a y i n g t h e o m o r p h i c m e n and w o m e n , w h o walk and talk with Y a h w e h . Briefly, J's Y a h w e h is n o t a sky god, but alternates between cultivated fields and m o u n t a i n t o p s . F r a n k Cross e m p h a s i z e s t h e s t o r m god aspect o f Y a h w e h , but o n l y as a b a t t l e music h e r a l d i n g t h e divine w a r r i o r w h o subdues t h e sea ( P h a r a o h ) and t h e e a r t h l y e n e m i e s o f Israel. T h o u g h he will u n d e r g o a r e m a r k a b l y n u a n c e d series o f m a t u r a t i o n s , Y a h w e h begins as an a m bivalent c r e a t o r and destroyer, like Shelley's West Wind. B u t before a d u m b r a t i n g his qualities as a fighter, I w a n t t o g r a n t m y s e l f an e x c u r s u s to describe Yahweh's m o s t surprising quality, his u n c a n n i n e s s . He is n o t primarily a trickster god, and does n o t always delight in mischief, t h o u g h he c e r t a i n l y indulges h i m s e l f w h e n he c o n f o u n d s t h e w o u l d - b e builders o f t h e T o w e r o f Babel. B u t he creates all things, i n c l u d i n g t h e c a t e g o r y o f t h e u n e x p e c t e d . T h e genius o f t h e J Writer, w h i c h bursts t h r o u g h t h e palimpsest o f G e n e s i s - t o - K i n g s , refuses c o n f i n e m e n t . T h e r e are n o boundaries t o Y a h w e h , w h i c h is why his

120

II A R.OL N B L O O M

Blessing is best defined as t h e gift o f m o r e life o n i n t o a t i m e u n b o u n d e d . Heaven on e a r t h is his promise; his K i n g d o m decidedly is ot this world. Hiebert notes t h a t Y a h w e h is n e i t h e r o m n i s c i e n t n o r o m nipresent; he has to go o f f t o investigate m a t t e r s for himself. T h o u g h i m m o r t a l , Y a h w e h has aged, and perhaps he is t o o old t o c a r e a n y m o r e . I do n o t have in m i n d Yahweh's a p p e a r a n c e as t h e A n cient o f Davs in t h e B o o k o f Daniel,' w h i c h William Blake ironicallyj j t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o aged I g n o r a n c e , or " O l d N o b o d a d d y aloft." W h a t impresses m e m o s t about M u h a m m a d ' s Allah is t h a t h e c o n t i n u e s t o care, m u c h t o o ferociously, w h i c h is w h y Islam r e m a i n s p e r p e t u a l l y militant. Christianity's G o d t h e F a t h e r cares, yet he is a d i m i n i s h m e n t o f Y a h w e h , and is lacking in personality. S u c h a w a n i n g is necessary, in t h e fourfold p a n t h e o n he shares w i t h Jesus C h r i s t , t h e Holy Spirit, and t h e Blessed Virgin M a r y . The Muslim fesus (2001), as edited by T a r i f Khalidi, is a key to t h e difference b e t w e e n Allah and G o d t h e Father. T h e Q u r ' a n assigns Jesus a u n i q u e place as t h e p r o p h e t w h o directly anticipates M u h a m m a d , but this is a Jesus stripped o f all C h r i s t i a n i t y and " c l e a n s e d " o f I n c a r n a t i o n , C r u c i f i x i o n , A t o n e m e n t , and

Re-

d e m p t i o n . O n l y t h e Ascension r e m a i n s to distinguish Jesus f r o m p r e vious p r o p h e t s , t h o u g h in Shi'i t h o u g h t and s u b s e q u e n t l y in S u f i s m t h e ascensions o f E n o c h and o f M u h a m m a d ' s g r a n d s o n Hussayn are related t o a G n o s t i c J e s u s — t h e Angel C h r i s t , as h e s o m e t i m e s is t e r m e d . Jesus does n o t die b u t ascends to Allah, and abides w i t h Allah in order t o be p r e s e n t at t h e Ending ( h i n t e d at in Q u r ' a n 43:61). B u t t h e n , Q u r ' a n 61:6 presents Jesus as a n n o u n c i n g

the coming

of

M u h a m m a d as the seal o f all prophecy. Allah c r u c i a l l y is appeased w h e n in Q u r ' a n 5:116 he fiercely asks Jesus w h e t h e r h e and Mary are

I US US 121

t w o gods aside f r o m G o d , and Jesus gently replies t h a t he has said n o such thing. T h e r e are n o Judaic texts in w h i c h Yahweh asks Jesus for a similar disclaimer, but w e c o u l d hardly e x p e c t that. I r e t u r n t o t h e earlier, bellicose Y a h w e h , w h o s e warrior personality is m o s t flamboyant in t h e B o o k o f Joshua, 5:13—15, w h e r e t h e R e d a c t o r softens what is clearly a s t u n n i n g epiphany o f Y a h w e h h i m s e l f a b o u t t o go into battle at Jericho:

Once, when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing before him, drawn sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and asked him, "Are you one of us or of our enemies?" He replied, "No, 1 am captain of the Lord's host. Now I have come!" Joshua threw himself face down to the ground and, prostrating himself, said to him, "What does my lord command his servant?" T h e captain of the Lord's host answered Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy." And Joshua did so.

T h e T a n a k h is a cavalcade o f m e m o r a b l e episodes, b u t this m a n i testation of Y a h w e h as s w o r d s m a n always stays with m e . T h e d r a m a o f this m o m e n t is adroit. Joshua, c o m m a n d e r o f Israel, does n o t recognize t h e soldier and boldly d e m a n d s , " A r e you o n e o f us o r o f o u r enemies?" Y a h w e h replies as himself, n o t m e r e l y as angelic captain, with " N o w I have c o m e ! " and Joshua, requesting orders, is told p r e cisely w h a t Moses receives in E x o d u s 3:4—6, the w a r n i n g t h a t to stand in Yahweh's presence is to stand on holy g r o u n d , sandals r e m o v e d . Abruptly, t h e B o o k o f Joshua p r o c e e d s t o t h e siege o f Jericho, and

S k i t w h L o a U U ) i V K

Mwwikj S f c r

- f ( a k y ) i V i 0 C

fcowiVr>.£)

S M T r d

b ^ S h j

A

cta4)i><

15fi H A R O L D

BLOOM

Y a h w e h d i c t a t e s t h e c r u m b l i n g o f t h e city's walls. O n e d o e s n o t again see t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r w i t h d r a w n s w o r d in h a n d .

(4)

T h o u g h Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y a n d c h a r a c t e r a r e n o t its o v e r t s u b j e c t , I find useful f o r m e d i t a t i n g u p o n Y a h w e h t h e incisive a n d c o m p a c t Sinai andZion:

An Entry into the Jewish Bible, by J o n D. L e v e n s o n (1985). A n -

c i e n t Israelite r e l i g i o n c e n t e r s u p o n M o u n t Sinai, w h e r e t h e T o r a h was given by Y a h w e h , a n d M o u n t Z i o n , w h e r e t h e T e m p l e was b u i l t f o r Y a h w e h by S o l o m o n . L e v e n s o n n o t e s t h e t r u t h t h a t a m a j o r diff e r e n c e b e t w e e n T a l m u d i c J u d a i s m a n d biblical r e l i g i o n is t h a t t h e rabbis h a d t h e Bible as t h e i r f o c u s , a f t e r t h e T e m p l e was d e s t r o y e d . T h e two m o u n t a i n s , of C o v e n a n t and o f Temple, bring

together

Moses and David, Yahweh's p r o p h e t and Yahweh's adopted son. Yahw e h ' s c h o i c e o f t h e h i g h p l a c e s is n o t g r a t u i t o u s , b e c a u s e as w a r r i o r h e d e s c e n d s f r o m m o u n t a i n s t o b a t t l e his e n e m i e s . His T e m p l e , as L e v e n s o n s h o w s ( f o l l o w i n g E z e k i e l in p a r t i c u l a r ) , is s p i r i t u a l l y i d e n t i cal t o t h e l u x u r i o u s G a r d e n o f E d e n , w h e r e h e d e l i g h t e d t o w a l k in t h e c o o l o f t h e day. W h e n E v e a n d A d a m are e x p e l l e d f r o m t h e G a r d e n , lest t h e y b e c o m e g o d s , it g o e s o n existing, g u a r d e d by C h e r u b i m . By implication, t h e destruction o f Yahweh's T e m p l e , whereas o n Sinai h e a t e in c o m m o n w i t h his p e o p l e , w a s also t h e o b l i t e r a t i o n o f E d e n , n e v e r available t o us again u n l e s s t h e T e m p l e is r e b u i l t . B u t if t h e Bible itself r e p l a c e s t h e T e m p l e , t h e n t h e b o o k stands in also f o r t h e G a r d e n , w h i c h m a y b e w h y A k i b a so p a s s i o n a t e l y insisted t h a t t h e S o n g o f S o n g s , w h i c h is S o l o m o n ' s , h a d t o be c a n o n i c a l .

J E S U SIJ123

U n a b l e a n y l o n g e r t o w a l k in E d e n o r feast in his T e m p l e , Y a h w e h resides in t h e Jewish Bible. S o c o m f o r t a b l y is h e at h o m e t h e r e t h a t h e n e e d s n o T h i r d T e m p l e , u n l e s s by n o w (as it s e e m s t o m e , t h o u g h n o t t o t h o s e w h o t r u s t still in t h e C o v e n a n t ) h e has e x i l e d h i m s e l f e v e n f r o m t h e d e l i g h t o f its pages.

PART

II.

YAH W E H

11.

THE DIVINE

NAME

YAHWEH

T

HE F O U R - L E T T E R

YHWH

is God's p r o p e r n a m e in t h e

Hebrew Bible, w h e r e it appears s o m e six t h o u s a n d times. How

t h e n a m e was p r o n o u n c e d we never will k n o w : Yahweh is merely surmise, because oral tradition guarded t h e sacred n a m e . Elias J. Bickerm a n , in an i m m e n s e l y useful essay, " T h e Historical F o u n d a t i o n s o f Postbiblical J u d a i s m " (published in 1949), and n o w m o s t easily available in Emerging Judaism, edited by M i c h a e l E. S t o n e and David S a t r a n (1989), establishes t h a t after Alexander t h e Great's c o n q u e s t o f Palestine, in 333 B.C.E., t h e usage o f t h e Divine N a m e u n d e r w e n t changes. Already, after t h e

fifth-century

B.C.E. r e t u r n f r o m B a b y l o n , t h e N a m e

was taken to be magical and was n o t to be p r o n o u n c e d . Instead G o d was called by e i t h e r E l o h i m (divine being o r beings) or Adonai ( m y Lord). T h e arrival o f t h e G r e e k s , w h o called G o d T h e o s , stimulated the Jews t o refer t o h i m as Kyrios, G r e e k for Adonai or Lord. B i c k e r m a n traces to G r e e k i n f l u e n c e t h e rise o f a n e w Jewish intel ligentsia, secular scribes, essentially civil servants, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and

128

h a r o l d

b l o o m

business advisers, for w h o m Yahweh was a n a m e both archaic and forbidden. By the time o f Hillel and Jesus, you could live out a full life space w i t h o u t ever hearing God's actual n a m e . Since t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e n a m e is as obscure as its pronunciation, this may have been just as well. Yahweh m u s t be a very old n a m e ; it is used in D e b o r a h ' s great War S o n g (Judges C h a p t e r 5), w h i c h is e l e v e n t h - c e n t u r y B.C.E. and c o u l d be t h e oldest text in Hebrew. T h e r e are references to t h e n a m e as early as 1400 B.C.E. in Syria. I m y s e l f d o u b t t h e m y t h t h a t Moses first acquired Yahweh's n a m e by m a r r y i n g t h e d a u g h t e r o f J e t h r o t h e Kenite ( E x o d u s 3:1), b e c a u s e t h e voice o f Y a h w e h p u n n i n g l y p r o c l a i m i n g his t r u e n a m e (ehyeh asher ehyeh—"I

will be w h e r e and w h e n 1 will be" or "1

a m t h a t 1 a m " ) reverberates with s u c h e x t r a o r d i n a r y a u t h o r i t y in Exodus 3:14. S o m e t h i n g w i t h t h e a u r a o f w h a t m u s t have m o v e d a n cient Israelites is evoked w h e n G o d insists u p o n his proper n a m e , which is t h e f o u n d a t i o n for his C o v e n a n t with t h e C h o s e n People. All o f us, s o o n e r o r later, m u s e u p o n o u r o w n n a m e , s o m e t i m e s ruefully. Yahweh is never rueful in affirming his t r u e n a m e , a l m o s t as t h o u g h he h i m s e l f felt t h e c h a r i s m a t i c force and magical suggestiveness o f t h a t o p e n i n g " Y a h . " C o n s i d e r h o w startled we w o u l d be if s o m e o n e were i n t r o d u c e d t o us as " Y a h w e h " Jones or S h e k h i n a h S m i t h . T h e o t h e r day, in New York City, I e n d u r e d a t e l e p h o n e disp u t e with t w o florists n a m e d Jesus and M u h a m m a d , while scarcely reflecting u p o n their n a m e s . Y a h w e h has a s o m e w h a t different effect, at least u p o n m e . Allah (a variant on E l o h i m ) appears to have suffered little loss in n u m i n o s i t v o f n a m e since t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e Q u r ' a n . Perhaps t h e m o s t active o f n u m i n o u s n a m e s today is S a t a n , w h o after all is nearly as p r o m i n e n t in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t as Jesus is.

I 2 .

YAHWEH

ALONE

NLIKE J E S U S ' , Yahweh's characteristic ways o f speaking are n o t primarily e n i g m a t i c . T h e g r a n d e x c e p t i o n is his ehyeh asher ehyeh, t h e p u n n i n g s e l f - n a m i n g t o w h i c h I r e t u r n t h r o u g h o u t this b o o k . Jesus, we c a n a s s u m e , u n d e r s t o o d this terrifying definition o f t h e will o f G o d b e t t e r t h a n we c a n . I do n o t d o u b t t h e Gospels w h e n t h e y s h o w us a Jesus w h o invariably addresses Yahweh as abba, Aram a i c for " f a t h e r . " Jesus longs for Y a h w e h , and for Y a h w e h alone. In Platonic t e r m s , t h e love o f Jesus for G o d t h e F a t h e r is eros and n o t agape ( w h i c h b e c o m e s caritas in Latin, and o u r " c h a r i t y " ) , because eros is t h e desire for s o m e o n e s u p e r i o r to t h e self while philia is love b e t w e e n equals and agape is love o f a h i g h e r being for a lesser o n e . If you accept s o m e variety o f Christianity, h o w e v e r , t h e n t h e love o f G o d directed by Jesus is caritas and n o t longing. In t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y LJnited States, w h e r e Jesus e i t h e r replaces Yahweh o r is fused with h i m , w e easily get this m i x e d up. W h a t e v e r a n y o n e wishes to see in t h e affection o f Jesus for t h e Beloved Disciple, f r e q u e n t l y identified with t h e a u t h o r o f t h e

15fi

HAROLD

BLOOM

Gospel o f J o h n , or for Mary Magdalene, it is m o r e sensible to regard s u c h a t t a c h m e n t s as charity, and n o t eros. J ' 1 do n o t believe t h a t t h e personality o f Jesus c a n be u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t s o m e prior c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e personal qualities o f Y a h w e h . T h e o l o g i a n s f r o m Philo o f Alexandria d o w n t o t h e present have a t t e m p t e d to o b s c u r e Yahweh's f r e q u e n t a p p e a r a n c e in t h e Hebrew Bible as a t h e o m o r p h i c h u m a n . F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e o l o g y fails w h e n c o n fronted by t h e J Writer's Y a h w e h , w h o s e closest literary descendant is Shakespeare's King Lear, at o n c e father, m o n a r c h , and irascible divinity. W. H. A u d e n f o u n d Shakespeare's C h r i s t in Falstaff, a c h a l l e n g i n g t h o u g h i n a c c u r a t e discovery. T h e riddling H a m l e t has t o u c h e s o f William Tyndale's Jesus, but Falstaff is t h e b r o t h e r ot his historical c o n t e m p o r a r y , C h a u c e r ' s Wife of B a t h , a n o t h e r enthusiastic sinner. Had H a m l e t e n c o u n t e r e d t h e g h o s t o f King Lear as his father's spirit, Shakespeare's art c o u l d have given us an a u t h e n t i c e n t r a n c e i n t o t h e l o n g i n g o f Jesus f o r Y a h w e h . W h e t h e r o r n o t N a z a r e t h regarded Jesus as illegitimate w e c a n n o t know, but I find it simplistic t o r e d u c e t h e love o f Jesus for Y a h w e h t o a search f o r an absent f a t h e r . Jesus was a rabbi, w h i c h still m e a n s a teacher, and he t a u g h t T o r a h , t h o u g h with swerves f r o m it very m u c h his o w n . He c a m e n o t to abolish but t o fulfill t h e Law, h o w e v e r fiercely St. Paul, M a r t i n L u t h e r , and m a n y since have labored to m i s a p p r e h e n d this subtlest o f all teachers, w h o s e ironies t r a n s c e n d even those o f Plato's Socrates. S o c r a t e s was n o t a Platonist, and Jesus was n o t a C h r i s t i a n . He w o u l d n o t tell w h o h e was, and n o n e o f u s — C h r i s t i a n s , M u s l i m s , Jews, o r s e c u l a r i s t s — a r e ever likely t o k n o w w h a t only Y a h w e h knows.

Y A H W E HJ45

00 W h o was, w h o is Y a h w e h ? He c e r t a i n l y k e e p s t e l l i n g us, h u t all o f t h e T a n a k h , T a l m u d , Kabbalah, N e w T e s t a m e n t , and Q u r ' a n

together

n e v e r c a n s u f f i c e t o e n c o m p a s s all w e a r e t o l d , a n d y e t n o t t o l d . My l o n g e x p e r i e n c e o f r e a d i n g S h a k e s p e a r e , a n d t e a c h i n g o t h e r s t o read h i m , has m a d e m e d i s t r u s t all a p p r o a c h e s t o h i m , s i n c e h e contains us. O w e n Barfield n o t e d t h a t w e c o u l d e x p e r i e n c e d i s m a y w h e n w e c a m e t o realize t h a t w h a t w e r e g a r d e d as o u r o w n e m o t i o n s f r e q u e n t l y first were Shakespeare's thoughts. Historicizing Yahweh seems to m e even m o r e useless t h a n h i s t o r i c i z i n g S h a k e s p e a r e . W h e t h e r o r n o t y o u believe t h a t G o d m a d e y o u is a s e c o n d a r y m a t t e r h e r e . P r i m a r y is o u r c o n t i n u e d n e e d f o r a u t h o r i t y t o s a n c t i o n t h e self's s o m e t i m e s d e s p e r a t e y e a r n i n g f o r a m o d e o f t r a n s c e n d e n c e . A d a m B. S e l i g m a n , in his Modernity's Wager ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a c c u r a t e l y s t a t e s o u r c u r r e n t i m p a s s e in t h e s o c i o l o g y o f r e l i g i o n : " a G o d t h a t c a n be g r a s p e d , a G o d t h a t c a n be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d is n o t a G o d " ( 3 5 ) . W h e n , in earlier b o o k s , I h a v e c a l l e d S h a k e s p e a r e " a m o r t a l G o d , " m y i n t e n t i o n was t o c o n f r o n t t h e u n g r a s p a b l e H a m l e t , w h o defies all o u r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s . E v e n m o r e d o e s Jesus, b u t n o o n e is as b e y o n d o u r a p p r e h e n s i o n as is Y a h w e h . W h e t h e r y o u r e g a r d h i m as " a l i t e r a r y c h a r a c t e r " o r as y o u r c r e a t o r s c a r c e l y m a t t e r s in this s t r u g g l e t o r e a c h t h e u n r e a c h a b l e . I gain little w h e n h i s t o r i a n s o f religion a c c u r a t e l y i n f o r m m e t h a t Israel's o r i g i n a l g o d was El, w h o l a t e r was identified w i t h Y a h w e h . I c o m m e n d M a r k S. S m i t h ' s a d m i r a b l e The Early History oj God ( 1 9 9 0 ) f o r s t u d e n t s o f Yah w e h ' s r e l a t i o n s t o a n c i e n t Israel's v a r i o u s g o d l i n g s , b u t h i s t o r y is o n l y o n e m o d e , a n d Y a h w e h is b e y o n d a n y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s e x c e p t t h o s e ol t h e T a n a k h at its s t r o n g e s t . W i t n e s s M i l t o n ' s G o d in Paradise Lost, n o t

i H A R O L D

IiLOOM

o n l y t h e g r e a t b l e m i s h o n an o t h e r w i s e m a g n i f i c e n t e p i c , b u t also abs u r d l y i n a d e q u a t e w h e n c o n t r a s t e d t o Y a h w e h as r e n d e r e d by t h e J W r i t e r , t h e Psalmists, a n d t h e P r o p h e t s . O n e learns to s h r u g off references to "cultic rituals" and "cultic sites" in regard t o Y a h w e h . T h e v e r y p h r a s e " c u l t o f Y a h w e h " has a n aura o f the ridiculous. T w o o t h e r t e r m s that to m e appear equally o p a q u e a r e " m o n o t h e i s m " a n d " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m . " Y a h w e h is a person and a personality; the godlings o f C a n a a n are bric-a-brac, w h i l e Y a h w e h is D i v i n e M a n and b e y o n d t h a t , a n d his f a v o r i t e s — A b r a h a m , J a c o b , M o s e s , D a v i d — a r e also t h e o m o r p h i c . David's lineal d e s c e n d a n t , J o s h u a o f N a z a r e t h , is at t h e least t h e o m o r p h i c in ways t h a t t r a n s c e n d t h e s u b t l e c o m p l e x i t i e s o f his p r e c u r s o r s . Y a h w e h ' s o w n c o m p l e x i t i e s are i n f i n i t e , l a b y r i n t h i n e , a n d p e r m a n e n t l y i n e x p l i c a b l e , despite t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y skills at i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Sages o f t h e T a l m u d a n d K a b b a l a h , and o f t h e Sufi m a s t e r s w h o c o n f r o n t e d t h e Q u r ' a n , w h e r e Y a h w e h speaks t h e e n t i r e w o r k , as A l l a h , v o i c i n g t h e full r a n g e o f G o d ' s r e a c t i o n s t o o u r failures in submission t o his will. We c a n be m a d d e n e d by Y a h w e h ' s b e w i l d e r i n g t u r n s at r e v e a l i n g a n d c o n c e a l i n g h i m s e l f , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e , in T o r a h

and

Q u r ' a n alike, his furies c a n s e e m so s u d d e n a n d c a p r i c i o u s . Y a h w e h c o m m a n d s a recalcitrant Moses to descend into Egypt, and t h e n att e m p t s t o m u r d e r his p r o p h e t at a n i g h t e n c a m p m e n t in t h e Negev, o n t h e way d o w n . A n d w e c a n c e a s e all d i s p u t e as t o g u i l t f o r t h e C r u cifixion: Y a h w e h sacrifices Jesus, a n d i n d e e d forsakes h i m , at least in this w o r l d . G n o s t i c i s m , w h e t h e r y o u c h o o s e t o regard it as a religion o r as o n l y a t e n d e n c y , was p r o v o k e d , by p r e c i s e l y t h e s e aspects o f Y a h w e h , i n t o w h a t H a n s J o n a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as an ecstasy o f u n p r e c e d e n t e d n e s s .

Y A H W E HJ45

T h i s s t r o n g r e s p o n s e t o a n o v e r w h e l m i n g l i t e r a r y s t r e n g t h was a reb e l l i o n against b o t h t h e T a n a k h a n d I'lato, a n d p r o d u c e d t h e G n o s t i c Jesus, c e l e b r a t e d by W i l l i a m B l a k e , t h e g r e a t e s t o f E n g l i s h

poet-

p r o p h e t s in t h e w a k e o f J o h n M i l t o n . W i l l i a m B u t l e r Yeats, t h e m o s t e l o q u e n t o f all A n g l o - I r i s h p o e t s , c a r r i e d B l a k e ' s a r g u m e n t i n t o t h e twentieth century, t h o u g h w i t h o u t Blake's love for t h e

figure

of

Jesus. Y a h w e h is h a r d l y t o be dismissed as B l a k e ' s " O l d N o b o d a d d y " o r as J a m e s Joyce's " h a n g m a n G o d . " E i t h e r w e are t r a n s c e n d e n t e n t i t i e s o r m e r e l y e n g i n e s o f e n t r o p y , a n d Y a h w e h , w i t h all his a m b i v a l e n c e s , m a r k s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o possibilities, at least in c u l t u r e s t h a t d e r i v e f r o m H e b r a i s m a n d its H e l l e n i z i n g , i n c l u d i n g t h e rival religions o f J u d a i s m , C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d I s l a m a n d t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t , o n l y partial s e c u l a r i z a t i o n s . If S h a k e s p e a r e c o n t a i n s us ( a n d h e d o e s ) , t h e n Yahweh contains Shakespeare, whether the poet-dramatist

himself

was recusant Catholic, Protestant, Hermetist, or inaugural

nihilist,

u n c a n n y p r e c u r s o r ot e v e r y t h i n g still t o c o m e .

Y A H WE H , t h o u g h a f r i g h t e n i n g i r o n i s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y in his r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s , is e v e n m o r e f r e q u e n t l y given t o h y p e r b o l e , t h e figure o f e x c e s s o r o v e r t h r o w . Jesus, h i m s e l f an a s t o n i s h i n g m a s t e r o f irony, e m u l a t e s Y a h w e h in t h e h y p e r b o l i c a l d e m a n d s o f his t e a c h i n g , w i t h insistence upon perfections that m e r e h u m a n s scarcely can achieve. R h e t o r i c a l excess in Jesus seeks t o p e r s u a d e us t o yield u p easier m o r a l i t i e s f o r m o r e d i f f i c u l t e t h i c a l c h o i c e s , f o r w h a t m i g h t be called t h e S u b l i m e a w a r e n e s s o f o t h e r s at t h e e x p e n s e o f o u r a l l - t o o - n a t u r a l selfishness. S i n c e Jesus, u n l i k e C h r i s t i a n i t y , n e v e r asserted h e was t h e

15fi

HAROLD

BLOOM

Messiah, his hyperbolical ethics are all t h e m o r e u n n e r v i n g . C a n Yahw e h and Jesus be o n e in this regard, since t h e Law, despite St. Paul's misreading of it, does n o t ask us f o r perfection? T h e Pharisees m a d e t h a t clear, and if Jesus s o m e t i m e s argued with and against t h e m , essentially t h e disagreements t u r n e d u p o n his fierce y e a r n i n g s for p e r fection. T h a t m a y be why he asserted t h a t he c a m e t o fulfill t h e Law, and n o t to abolish it.

JESUS

HAD a c o m p o s i t e p r e c u r s o r : A b r a h a m , Moses, Elijah, J o h n

t h e Baptist, but u l t i m a t e l y this discipleship was resolved by t h e e m u lation o f Y a h w e h alone. T h e biblical Y a h w e h o f rugged Galilee was a starker being t h a n t h e T e m p l e - i n h a b i t i n g Yahweh o f J e r u s a l e m in Jesus' t i m e . By t h e t i m e o f Jesus, t h e willfulness o f Y a h w e h had been t r a n s m o g r i f i e d i n t o t h e God's uneasy a l t e r n a t i o n s o f p r e s e n c e and absence. T h e r e he h o v e r e d in t h e Holy-of-Holies o f t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m ple, while p e r m i t t i n g t h e R o m a n s t o o c c u p y his C h o s e n

People's

land, and to carry o u t tens o f t h o u s a n d s o f crucifixions o f Zealots and o t h e r Jews even b e f o r e t h e R e v o l t o f 70 C.E., in w h i c h t h e T e m p l e was destroyed. 1 a m w a r y o f psychobiography as an a p p r o a c h t o Jesus, even w h e n t h e g e n r e o f Erik Erikson is developed as responsibly as it is by J o h n W. Miller in his Jesus at Thirty (1997). O n e wants a m o r e c o m prehensive and literary kind o f biography, such as Jack Miles's adroit p o r t r a i t . B u t t h e s t r o n g misreading o f Yahweh by Jesus, w h e n h e insists u p o n h u m a n perfection, o f f a t h e r by son, is s o m e t h i n g different f r o m e i t h e r p s y c h o h i s t o r y or literary biography. If C h r i s t was, as Jack Miles said, " a crisis in t h e life o f G o d , " t h e n Jesus, n o t yet r e s u r r e c t e d ,

Y A H W E HJ45

c o u l d o n l y be his o w n i n t e r n a l crisis. T h e r e is, t h o u g h , t h e G n o s t i c Jesus o f V a l e n t i n u s o f A l e x a n d r i a , a Jesus c o n c e r n i n g w h o m t h e V a l e n t i n i a n s a f f i r m e d , "First h e r e s u r r e c t e d , a n d then h e died." T h i s b r i l l i a n t b u t difficult f o r m u l a t i o n suggests t h a t w e e m e r g e i n t o t r u e life o n l y by a m y s t i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t h a t l o n g p r e c e d e s o u r d y i n g . T h a t is c l o s e r t o m y c o n c e r n s in this b o o k t h a n a r e t h e a p p r o a c h e s o f M i l l e r a n d o f Miles. W h e t h e r o r n o t Jesus r e s u r r e c t e d after his d e a t h is c r u cial t o C h r i s t i a n i t y , i n d e e d c o n s t i t u t i v e o f it, since o n l y s u c h a r e s u r r e c t i o n m i g h t v a l i d a t e t h e faith t h a t Jesus b e c a m e t h e C h r i s t — t h a t is, t h e Messiah. As I u n d e r s t a n d t h e T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n , w h e r e Jesus a p p e a r s as a t h i r d w i t h M o s e s and E l i j a h , this vision justifies t h e G n o s t i c a n d Sufi c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Jesus first b e c a m e " t h e A n g e l C h r i s t " a n d o n l y a f t e r that r e s u r r e c t i o n did t h e N a z a r e n e r e t u r n t o t h e h u m a n c o n d i t i o n a n d , p r e s u m a b l y , die u p o n t h e C r o s s . I v e n t u r e " p r e s u m a b l y " b e c a u s e o f

^

t h e G n o s t i c and M u s l i m i n s i s t e n c e s t h a t S i m o n t h e C y r e n e , w h o c a r ried t h e C r o s s , was c r u c i f i e d i n s t e a d o f [esus. T h e r e a r e o t h e r tradi-

• c?

t i o n s , e v e n m o r e e s o t e r i c , t h a t t h e R o m a n soldiers w e r e bribed, a n d

~r'

t h a t Jesus was t a k e n d o w n f r o m t h e C r o s s , still alive. B y Jewish Law, w h i c h h e a c c e p t e d , h e h a d b e e n defiled, a n d a f t e r a p p e a r i n g t o his disciples a n d to his b r o t h e r J a m e s t h e Just, h e u n d e r w e n t r e c u p e r a t i o n a n d t h e n c h o s e exile, passing across t h e J o r d a n i n t o t h e l a n d o f N o d , in C a i n ' s t r a d i t i o n . O t h e r legends say t h a t Jesus w a n d e r e d o n , f o l l o w i n g t h e t r a c k o f A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t ' s l e g i o n s , u n t i l at last h e c a m e t o H e l l e n i s t i c N o r t h India. T h e r e , as p r e c u r s o r o f t h e M u s l i m s , w h o 1 still a c c l a i m h i m as a p r o p h e t s u r p a s s e d o n l y by M u h a m m a d ,

the

N a z a r e n e sage lived o u t t h e p e a c e f u l o l d age o f a g e n t l e G n o s t i c Jew,

v5>

136 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

p e r h a p s m u s i n g u p o n t h e ironies o f his d i v i n i z a t i o n by t h e C h r i s tianity he had not sought to found.

(3) E v e n t h a t fanciful Jesus m u s t have c o n t i n u e d his l i f e l o n g m e d i t a t i o n u p o n his f a t h e r , Y a h w e h , w h o m a y h a v e lost i n t e r e s t in a p r o d i g a l s o n w h o a l r e a d y h a d fulfilled t h e p a t e r n a l p u r p o s e . C h r i s t i a n i t y o v e r d e t e r m i n e s a n d o v e r e x p l a i n s t h a t p u r p o s e , by s e e i n g Jesus as t h e f u l fillment

o f G o d ' s e t e r n a l p l a n . As I a m a Jew ( h o w e v e r h e r e t i c a l ) and

n o t a Jewish C h r i s t i a n , I a m c o m p e l l e d t o r e m a i n p u z z l e d as t o G o d ' s p u r p o s e . Jack M i l e s is a f o r m e r Jesuit, like t h e f o r m i d a b l e F. E. Peters, a u t h o r o f t h e m a s t e r l y The Monotheists

(2004), b u t Miles i n t r i g u e s m e

in ways v e r y d i f f e r e n t f r o m m y f a s c i n a t i o n in a b s o r b i n g Peters o n t h e c o n t e s t s b e t w e e n J u d a i s m , C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d I s l a m . M i l e s asks t h e disc o n c e r t i n g q u e s t i o n - o f - q u e s t i o n s a b o u t Y a h w e h a n d Jesus: " R a t h e r t h a n a f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f G o d ' s c h a r a c t e r , does Jesus, t h e L a m b o f G o d , n o t s e e m its t e r m i n a l collapse?" (Christ, 252). "Yes, h e d o e s , " Miles insists, a n d as a s t r i c t l y l i t e r a r y j u d g m e n t , t h a t s e e m s t o m e b e y o n d d i s p u t e , b e c a u s e Jesus w a n t s a m o r e p e r f e c t G o d t h a n Y a h w e h e v e r c o u l d be. B u t I w a n t t o t u r n b a c k t o t h e e n i g m a s o f Y a h w e h ' s c h a r a c ter, n o t so m u c h in d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h m y earlier m e d i t a t i o n o n Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l p s y c h o l o g y ( T h e Book of /, 1990, 2 7 9 - 3 0 6 ) b u t w i t h a h e i g h t e n e d a w a r e n e s s o f Y a h w e h ' s o w n a n x i e t i e s of i n f l u e n c e . Kierkegaard is t h e lion in m y p a t h , b e c a u s e his N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , a f t e r c e a s i n g t o be a g r a s s - e a t i n g b e a s t , m a r v e l s at Y a h w e h :

YAHWEHJ45

And no one knows anything of Him, who was His father, and how He

t

acquired His power, and who taught Him the secret of his might.

£

If N e b u c h a d n e z z a r w e r e speaking o f Jesus, t h e a n s w e r m i g h t s e e m t o be Y a h w e h , but I w o n d e r at that also. J o h n t h e Baptist t a u g h t Jesus

^

( u n c o m f o r t a b l e as t h a t m a k e s t h e Gospels), and like Elijah, t h e Baptist appears to have k n o w n _ t h e secrets o f t h e M e r k a b a h , Yahweh's - c j i a r i o t as seen and described by Ezekiel. Y a h w e h is an a d m o n i s h e r and n o t a teacher: t h a t role he assigns t o Moses and Isaiah, to Hillel and Jesus, to Akiba and M u h a m m a d . Kierkegaard's N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is t h e e p i t o m e o f t h e D a n i s h ironist's sense o f t h e i m m e n s e difficulty o f becoming a Christian w h e n you dwell in C h r i s t e n d o m . T h e u n f a t h e r e d Y a h w e h is o u r hopeless d i l e m m a : W h o was his teacher? How c a n we k n o w a n y t h i n g at all a b o u t Yahweh?

(4)

We have t h e T a n a k h , and t h e Sages w h o i n t e r p r e t e d it in t h e t w o T a l m u d s , o f Babylonia and J e r u s a l e m , and in c o m m e n t a r i e s u p o n t h e m . C o m m e n t a r i e s are akin t o t h e s e q u e n c e o f plays w i t h i n plays within plays t h a t crowd Hamlet, f r o m Act II, S c e n e 2 t h r o u g h A c t III, S c e n e 2. T h e m i n d o f Y a h w e h is m o r e intricately l a b y r i n t h i n e t h a n t h a t o f H a m l e t , infinitely so, but t h e e n i g m a t i c Prince o f D e n m a r k r e m a i n s t h e m o s t advanced i n s t a n c e o f a purely literary r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t we k n o w . Yahweh's S h a k e s p e a r e , t h e J Writer, manifested an irrevere n c e t h a t sparked t h e defensive rise o f t h e o l o g y , w h i c h is always an ef-

^

^ ^y

138 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

f o r t t o e x p l a i n a w a y t h e h u m a n aspects o f G o d ( o r o f Jesus). I p r e f e r K a b b a l a h t o t h e o l o g y as a g u i d e t o Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , a n d I will e x p e r i m e n t also w i t h s o m e Kabbalistic f o r a y s i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f Jesus, t h o u g h not following t h e precedents of Christian^Kabbalah.

THE

E A R L I E S T S T R A N D o f T o r a h c e n t e r s u p o n Y a h w e h , w h o is a

r a t h e r different p e r s o n a g e f r o m C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s G o d t h e F a t h e r and f r o m Islam's A l l a h . T h e J W r i t e r ' s Y a h w e h is i n t i m a t e w i t h us, c l o s e by, w h i l e t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r has r e t r e a t e d i n t o t h e h e a v e n s . A n d Y a h w e h k n o w s his l i m i t s ( w h i c h m a y s p u r his irascibility), b u t A l l a h possesses t o t a l p o w e r s . T h e r e is a c u r i o u s t r a d e - o f f h e r e . As G o d ' s m i g h t a u g m e n t s , his p r e s e n c e w a n e s . Y a h w e h w a l k s and talks w i t h m e n a n d w i t h a n g e l s : h e sits u n d e r t h e t e r e b i n t h t r e e s at M a m r e , d e v o u r i n g a m e a l p r e p a r e d by S a r a h , a n d h e p i c n i c s o n Sinai w i t h s e v e n t y - t h r e e e l d e r s o f Israel. I c a n n o t e n v i s i o n A l l a h o r G o d t h e Fat h e r m o l d i n g a m u d - p i e figurine o u t of t h e red clay, a n d t h e n b r e a t h i n g life i n t o it. If Y a h w e h is u n c a n n y , h e also is as c a n n y as J a c o b , w h o w i n s t h e n e w n a m e o f Israel. M i s c h i e v o u s , inquisitive, j e a l o u s , a n d t u r b u l e n t , Y a h w e h is fully as p e r s o n a l as a g o d c a n be. A l l a h ' s d i g n i t y d o e s n o t p e r m i t s u c h d e s c e n t s i n t o h u m a n vagaries. T h e g r e a t rabbis of t h e T a l m u d t e n d m o r e t o e m p h a s i z e o u r m e r ited fear o f G o d t h a n his c o r p o r e a l i z a t i o n as Y a h w e h , a n u m i n o u s n a m e t h e y s t r i c t l y d e c l i n e t o e m p l o y . I n s t e a d , t h e Sages m u l t i p l y descriptive e p i t h e t s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e n a m e s w i t h a zest t h a t displays i n g e n u i t y , albeit w i t h a t o u c h o f d e s p e r a t e i n v e n t i v e n e s s . A n y s e n s i b l e p a r t i c i p a n t in t h e C o v e n a n t fears G o d , w h o at o n c e p r o c l a i m s his p a r t i c u l a r c a r e for J e w r y a n d p r a g m a t i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e s a m a l i g n n e g l e c t o f his

Y A H W E HJ45

p e o p l e . T o n y K u s h n e r f o l l o w s d i s t i n c t a s p e c t s o f Jewish t r a d i t i o n in Perestroika, w h e r e t h e a n g e l s s u e Y a h w e h f o r d e s e r t i o n , b u t t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d divinity r e t a i n s R o y C o h n as u n b e a t a b l e c o u n s e l f o r t h e d e fense. S h a l l w e say t h a t Y a h w e h

is o v e r a m b i t i o u s a n d

therefore

overworked?

FEARING

YAHWEH

IS S E N S I B L E .

Is t h e r e a n y basis f o r l o v i n g

h i m ? O r is s u c h l o v e o n l y a t r a i n i n g t o j o i n w h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y c a l l e d its martyrs, the "athletes o f death"? Yahweh expects b o t h : love w h e r e t h e r e is fear, a n d fear w h e r e t h e r e is l o v e , a d e s t r u c t i v e f u s i o n w h e n t a k i n g p l a c e b e t w e e n p e r s o n s , b u t a p p r o p r i a t e in regard t o h i m a l o n e . Each o f us n e e d s t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h a t is p r o p e r e i t h e r f o r t h e O r i g inal C o v e n a n t , o r f o r t h e B e l a t e d o n e , o r w h e t h e r i n s t e a d t o s u b m i t t o A l l a h . R e j e c t all t h r e e , a n d y o u are a s e c u l a r i s t , h u m a n i s t , o r nihilist, o r a G n o s t i c w h o dismisses W i l l i a m Blake's N o b o d a d d y . T h e r e m a y be o t h e r o p t i o n s , i m p o r t e d f r o m Asia, b u t B u d d h i s m d o e s n o t c o m e easily t o m e .

(5) Is t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l o v e f o r G o d , a n d f o r w o m e n a n d m e n , w h e n w e c o m p a r e t h e T a l m u d i c Sages a n d Jesus? Plainly t h e r e is, a n d it is a d i f f e r e n c e t h a t t r u l y m a k e s a d i f f e r e n c e , b u t t h e n t h e r e are S a g e s and Sages. Jesus was f r e q u e n t l y a n d f o r m i d a b l y a m b i v a l e n t t o w a r d all b u t a few p e r s o n s , a n d n o t u n s u r p r i s i n g l y h e l a c k e d t h e p a t i e n c e o f t h e g r e a t Hillel, w h o resisted e v e r y e s c h a t a l o g i c a l i m p u l s e .

140 H A R O L D

15 L O O M

E p h r a i m E. U r b a c h , in his a u t h o r i t a t i v e The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (1987), c o n c e d e s t h e severity o f S h a m m a i and t h e a p o c a l y p t i c i n t e n s i t y o f t h e aged A k i b a , w h o e n c o u r a g e d t h e disaster o f t h e Bar K o c h b a r e b e l l i o n against t h e R o m a n s . Hillel, t h o u g h , gave a n e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e T o r a h by v i r t u e o f t h e fact t h a t h e was b o t h saintly a n d h u m b l e . His s a i n t l i n e s s f o u n d e x p r e s s i o n in t h e t e s t i m o n i e s t o his a c t s , w h i c h w e r e all f o r t h e s a k e o f h e a v e n , and t o his a b s o l u t e t r u s t in G o d , w h i c h left n o r o o m f o r misgivings o r fears. T h e attributes o f humility, patience, love o f one's fellows, and the p u r s u i t o f p e a c e , w h i c h Hillel displayed, did n o t d i m i n i s h t h e s t r i n g e n c y o f his e t h i c a l a n d religious d e m a n d s , o r p r e v e n t h i m f r o m p l a c i n g full responsibility o n m a n , w h o m h e r e q u i r e d t o a c t f o r his o w n p e r f e c t i o n a n d f o r t h e p u b l i c w e a l . M a n is obliged t o m a k e e n d e a v o r s , f o r " I f I a m n o t f o r m y s e l f , w h o will be f o r m e ? " B u t h e c a n n o t a c h i e v e m u c h t h r o u g h seclusion and separation, and he m u s t

remember,

" A n d b e i n g f o r m y o w n self, w h a t a m I?" N o r m a y h e f o r g e t t h a t his t i m e is l i m i t e d a n d h e d a r e n o t p r o c r a s t i n a t e — " A n d if n o t n o w , w h e n ? " (Sayings of the Fathers, 1.14). M a n ' s r e l a t i o n s w i t h his f e l l o w m a n w e r e defined by Hillel n o t o n l y in t h e r u l e a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m as a reply t o t h e p r o s e l y t e w h o a s k e d t o be t a u g h t t h e w h o l e T o r a h w h i l e s t a n d i n g o n o n e f o o t — " W h a t is h a t e f u l t o y o u d o n o t d o t o y o u r f e l l o w " — t h e like o f w h i c h t h e w o u l d - b e p r o s e l y t e m i g h t also h a v e h e a r d f r o m o t h e r s , b u t in t h e d e m a n d t h a t o n e m u s t n o t pass h a s t y j u d g m e n t o n t h e a c t i o n s o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n , j u s t as o n e is f o r b i d d e n t o be c o n f i d e n t o f o n e ' s o w n r i g h t e o u s n e s s . T h e p r i n c i p l e is " B e n o t s u r e o f y o u r s e l f u n t i l t h e day o f y o u r d e a t h , a n d j u d g e n o t y o u r f e l l o w u n t i l y o u c o m e i n t o his p l a c e " (Sayings of the Fathers, II.5). H o w e v e r , a m a n ' s h u m i l i t y

Y A H W E HJ45

and self-criticism are n o excuse for keeping aloof f r o m t h e c o m m u nity. Hillel e v e n i n s t r u c t s t h e Sage w h o has a c q u i r e d t h e qualities o f saintliness and humility, "Sever n o t yourself f r o m the c o m m u n i t y . . . a n d w h e r e t h e r e are n o m e n strive t o be a m a n " (Sayings of the Fathers,

11.5-6).

POPULAR

MISCONCEPTIONS

of

Jesus

place

him

far

closer

t o this h u m a n e g e n t l e n e s s t h a n h e a c t u a l l y was. Hillel did n o t c a r r y a s w o r d o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s b u t r a t h e r p e a c e , a n d o n l y p e a c e . S t . Paul's misprisions as t o l e t t e r a n d spirit, Law a n d love, are o b l i t e r a t e d by b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r Hillel a n d Jesus. F o r Hillel, t h e h o l y spirit h a d passed f r o m p r o p h e t s t o t h e c o m m u n i t y o f Israel, a n d a r e m n a n t o f Sages s p o k e t o t h e c o m m u n i t y , a n d did n o t seek t o w o r k m i r a c l e s . N o r did t h e y a t t e m p t t o abolish S a n h e d r i n and T e m p l e , t h o u g h t h e y s p o k e o u t against all m a l f e a s a n c e s in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 1 u n d e r s t a n d

Confucius

o n l y a little, yet h e a n d Hillel h a d t h e i r affinities. Hillel did n o t , like Jesus, divide t h e p o p u l a c e i n t o s h e e p a n d goats, but desired r a t h e r t o m a k e all Israelites i n t o "associates," p a r t n e r s in t h e o n g o i n g R e d e m p tion, n o t in t h e f a r - o f f C o m i n g o f t h e K i n g d o m o f H e a v e n . It is sentim e n t a l i s m t o seek a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n b e t w e e n Hillel and Jesus, h o w e v e r w e l l - m e a n e r s desire this. Hillel indeed said, " W h e r e t h e r e are n o m e n strive t o be a m a n , " r a t h e r t h a n an i n c a r n a t i o n o f G o d . If I c a n find a n y b o n d b e t w e e n Hillel a n d Jesus it w o u l d be in t h e Sage's " B e n o t s u r e o f y o u r s e l f until t h e day o f y o u r d e a t h , a n d j u d g e n o t y o u r f e l l o w until y o u c o m e i n t o his p l a c e . " P e r h a p s 1 m y s e l f n e e d t o reflect m o r e o n that than I tend to do.

(6)

Y a h w e h , " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c " in t h e J T e x t underlying t h e T o r a h , is o n l y in part t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i z e d by t h e Sages. Ever since it was republished in 1968 I have been deeply influenced by Rabbi A r t h u r M a r m o r s t e i n ' s t h r e e - v o l u m e s - i n - o n e , The Doctrine oj Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature and The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, divided i n t o Names and Attributes and Essays in Anthropomorphism.

Zwi Werblowsky,

introducing

these splendid books, bluntly dismisses "arrogant Christian prejudice," w h i c h used t o find in t h e Sages m o s t l y "Pharisaic" self-righteousness swept away by Jesus and by Paul. S o usefully fierce is Werblowsky that 1 happily q u o t e h i m :

Shamayim—a metonymy for "He who dwelleth in Heaven"—no doubt carried overtones of a transcendent, omniscient, numinous God, though not necessarily of a far-away God who is remote from all human concerns. The latter idea, ascribed to the rabbis by, e.g., Bousset, is again one of the vain conceits fondly invented by gentile scholars in order to persuade themselves that Judaism was a religion without vitality and warmth, and devoid of any sense of the nearness of God (and man's nearness to Him). Even more fanciful is the more recent discovery that the phrase "our father in h e a v e n " — which, to an unprejudiced mind, would seem to evince a certain sense of intimacy with God—still exhibits the remoteness of a transcendent God. According to this view the ordinary Jew would at best say "my father" (abi), whilst only Jesus could address God with the more intimate word abba. It is hardly necessary to discuss

these theories seriously in view of the material assembled by Marmorstein. (p. xiii)

T h e paradox o f p r e s e n c e and absence, as tragic for t h e Sages as for Jesus, is that Y a h w e h surpassingly is u n p r e d i c t a b l e . You c a n

en-

c o u n t e r h i m in t h e n e x t bush, or he c a n hide h i m s e l f w h e n m o s t needed. He m a y n o t accept y o u r sacrifice, or m a y t u r n a w a y j r o m it.

^

St. Paul insists that Jesus' self-offering as L a m b o f G o d was accepted,

4r. X.

"21

but w h o can ever k n o w ? J u d a i s m emphasizes t r u s t in t h e C o v e n a n t , - r j r i

^

C<3 ^

v/ 1

C h r i s t i a n i t y professes faith t h a t Jesus h i m s e l f was t h e N e w C o v e n a n t , Islam is submission to t h e will o f A l l a h , b u t trust, faith, submission

'C- A

are n o n e o f t h e m k n o w l e d g e . G n o s i s — w h e t h e r Kabbalah, Christian mysticism, or S u f i s m — r e l i e s u p o n a k n o w i n g and a being k n o w n , but t h a t is hardly t h e e p i s t e m o l o g y o f Aristotle and o f H u m e . M a r m o r s t e i n , with p r o f o u n d i m m e r s i o n in t h e Sages, u n d e r s t o o d t h a t t h e paradox o f Y a h w e h ' s s i m u l t a n e o u s nearness and distance had | n e v e r been r e s o l v e J j A c c o r d i n g to t h e Talmudists, Yahweh's gradual withdrawal i n t o t r a n s c e n d e n c e is c o m p e n s a t e d for by t h e visual (if in t e r m i t t e n t ) radiance t h a t t h e T a l m u d i s t s n a m e as t h e Shekhinah,\an jj

identification vastly expanded in t h e Kabbalah. T h e o l d e r rabbinic d o c t r i n e calls t h e S h e k h i n a h t h e o n g o i n g p r e s e n c e o f Y a h w e h world, jwhere o n c e he w i l l e d j o be h e r e , t h e r e , and~every w h e re] Yah -

^S^*3)^

^

w e h is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e S h e k h i n a h . If t h e " b e a u t y o f

^

Israel" (2 S a m u e l 1:19) indeed was t h e giving and reception o f t h e Law

(

o n f M o u n t Sinai, t h e n t h a t beauty was visible o n l y in t h e S h e k h i n a h . ' Has Yahwgh deserted us? Rabbi Abba bar M i m e l , o n e o f t h e earliest A m o r a i m , q u o t e s Y a h w e h as saying, "I a m n a m e d a c c o r d i n g t o m y

_

.N

of

i k f e

Sophia V

lAJorUrkoSort o t t t o Sl^Ki m h v o k ) <±ivd/-MUL-faiVl b r o t o r ^ f O ^ o S c |2.EADA-PQct?yf>H0 N O V J O H N

)

144

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

acts." W h a t w e r e these acts d u r i n g t h e t w e n t y ostensibly C h r i s t i a n centuries? W h e r e can we see those acts today? A G o d w h o hides h i m self is o n e m a t t e r , but a Y a h w e h w h o dwindles d o w n i n t o an o c c a sional burst o f radiance n o l o n g e r m e r i t s t h e n a m e o f Y a h w e h , w h i c h after all p r i m a r i l y m u s t m e a n being present. Jesus, h o w e v e r he intended to be interpreted, clearly was present during t h e actual year o r so o f his ministry, b u t was Y a h w e h ever present to him? T h e G o s p e l o f J o h n famously has Jesus affirm, " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, I a m . " Yet A b r a h a m talked with Y a h w e h , face-to-face, as had E n o c h , and n o w h e r e does t h e New T e s t a m e n t directly c o n front Jesus with Y a h w e h , n o t even in t h e T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n , w h e r e a lum i n o u s Jesus is seen with Moses and Elijah, b o t h o f t h e m on i n t i m a t e t e r m s w i t h Y a h w e h . Moses perishes by God's kiss, and is buried in an c~ ' ^

u n m a r k e d grave dug by Y a h w e h ' s o w n hands, while Elijah ascends directly i n t o heaven w i t h o u t t h e initial necessity o f dying. Since C h r i s tian t h e o l o g y f r o m Paul o n w a r d insists that Jesus b e c o m e s G o d o n l y

Op 2s:

in and t h r o u g h t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n , t h e r e r e m a i n s little puzzle for be-

o1

lievers in t h e r a t h e r r e m o t e relationship of t h e living Jesus t o Y a h w e h .

' ^

Jesus, so far as we can tell, believed that his h e a v e n l y F a t h e r at least

v ^

visited t h e ] H o l y - o f - H o l i e s j on Y o m Kippur, t h e appointed Day o f A t o n e m e n t . Yet w h y is it t h a t n o t o n c e , even a c c o r d i n g t o t h e C h r i s -

-—I

tian T e s t a m e n t , was t h e r e any face-to-face c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Yahweh and his Son? W h y are t h e Patriarchs and t h e Prophets so m u c h m o r e directly involved with t h e presence o f God? If A b r a h a m , Moses, and Elijah are m o r e t h e o m o r p h i c m e n t h a n was Jesus, o u g h t n o t t h e New T e s t a m e n t t o offer us s o m e e x p l a n a t i o n ? O r is Jesus i n c a r n a t e Y a h w e h f r o m birth, as t h e o l o g y wishes us to believe?

-

YAHWEH

J 45

Prophecy had ceased in Israel after M a l a c h i , " t h e M e s s e n g e r , " but o n l y t h e M u s l i m s regard Jesus as t h e p r o p h e t prior t o M u h a m m a d , Seal o f t h e Prophets. S o m e t h i n g is again missing here, t h o u g h C h r i s tian t h e o l o g y has declined dealing w i t h this c u r i o u s absence.

(7) M a r k T w a i n , hardly a believer, observed t h a t " t h e Christian's Bible is a d r u g store. Its c o n t e n t s r e m a i n t h e s a m e , but t h e m e d i c a l practice c h a n g e s . " T h o s e c o n t e n t s , it is t i m e f o r m e t o observe, are not just t h e G r e e k New T e s t a m e n t dragging a l o n g behind it t h a t captive prize o f t h e Gentiles, t h e Hebrew Old T e s t a m e n t . T h e T a n a k h decidedly is rearranged, as well as strongly misread, by Christianity. Since t h e T a n a k h is t h e B o o k o f Y a h w e h , t h a t m e a n s he t o o is revised by Paul, by t h e evangelists, and by all t h e t h e o l o g i a n s w h o have sailed in their w a k e for t w o m i l l e n n i a . And if Yahweh t h u s ceases t o be Y a h w e h , w h a t is to be m a d e , t h e n , o f a Y a h w e h Incarnate? F r o m A u g u s t i n e t h r o u g h Aquinas d o w n to o u r squalid, m u l t i m e d i a present, responses flood us, b u t t h e question r e m a i n s as u n a n swerable as t h e B o o k o f Job's " W h e r e shall wisdom be found?" Neither Yahweh n o r Jesus is responsible for Jerry Falwell, let a l o n e lor t h e mass m u r d e r e r s w h o have invoked Christianity and Islam as their in spirers. T h e puzzle o f Jesus o f N a z a r e t h always will r e m a i n . Is he t h e a n o i n t e d c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n , w h o s e e m s always l o have k n o w n t h a t he incarnates Y a h w e h , or is he t h e far m o r e prob lematical p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e Gospels o f Mark and o f M a t t h e w ? T h e

146

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

Jesus o f Mark, in particular, u n c a n n i l y quests f o r t h e origins o f his sense o f self, u n l i k e t h e d o o m - e a g e r h e r o - g o d - v i c t i m o f J o h n . Jaroslav Pelikan, c o n c l u d i n g his massive, s u p e r b f i v e - v o l u m e cavalcade The Christian Tradition, c o m e s t o a troubled rest ( p u r e l y m y interpretation, n o t his) w i t h t h e S e c o n d Vatican C o u n c i l o f t h e R o m a n C a t h o l i c C h u r c h ( 1 9 6 2 - 6 5 ) . A g e n e r a t i o n later, I n o t e t h a t Pelikan h i m s e l f is n o w a m e m b e r o f Eastern C h r i s t e n d o m , and finds in " E a s t e r n O r t h o d o x e c c l e s i o l o g y " a h a l l o w i n g free o f t h e " a u t h o r i t a r ian and juridical" tendencies present b o t h in t h e R o m a n C h u r c h and in m a i n l i n e P r o t e s t a n t i s m . T h e late Hans Frei used t o p u z z l e m e by his g e n t l e p r o p h e c y t h a t t h e spiritual f u t u r e o f Christianity had t o i n volve a r e t u r n t o its Judaic origins. I a m hardly a n o r m a t i v e Jew, being G n o s t i c in m y deepest self, yet m y awe o f t h e religion o f Akiba n e v e r abandons m e , and I have n e v e r finally been able to u n d e r s t a n d either Pelikan o r Frei, b o t h o f t h e m s u b l i m e l y n o r m a t i v e sensibilities. T h e paradox o f C h r i s t i a n i t y always will be its conviction t h a t Y a h w e h , m o s t u n s e t t l i n g o f all entities, w h e t h e r actual or fictive, c o u l d in any sense have f a t h e r e d Jesus o f N a z a r e t h , w h o m i g h t have been p r o f o u n d l y disturbed by w hat l a t e c o m e r s have r e w o r k e d as his role. W h o e v e r you are, you identify necessarily t h e origins o f y o u r self m o r e with A u g u s t i n e , Descartes, and J o h n Locke, o r indeed with M o n t a i g n e and Shakespeare, t h a n you do w i t h Y a h w e h and Jesus. T h a t is only a n o t h e r way o f saying t h a t Socrates and Plato, r a t h e r t h a n Jesus, have f o r m e d y o u , h o w e v e r i g n o r a n t you m a y be o f Plato. T h e Hebrew Bible d o m i n a t e d s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y

Protestantism,

but four c e n t u r i e s later o u r t e c h n o l o g i c a l and m e r c a n t i l e society is far m o r e t h e child o f Aristotle t h a n o f Moses. Jesus, even had he been Y a h w e h I n c a r n a t e , c o u l d n o t have a p p r e h e n d e d o r c o m p r e h e n d e d a

Y A H W E HJ45

globe t h a t m i g h t s e e m t o h i m a world u n d e r water, already d r o w n e d , as if even Yahweh's first c o v e n a n t , w i t h N o a h , had n e v e r b e e n c u t . Discoursing on Jesus is closer t o c o n s i d e r i n g H a m l e t t h a n t o m e d itation u p o n S h a k e s p e a r e . Even t h e richest o f S h a k e s p e a r e a n c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s — H a m l e t , Falstaff, lago, Lear, and C l e o p a t r a — s e e m clear w h e n we c o n t r a s t t h e m t o t h e total Jesus o f t h e N e w C o v e n a n t . W h o m c a n Jesus talk to, intimately, w h e n he w o u l d speak o f his o w n self! Y a h w e h p r e s u m a b l y befriends A b r a h a m and Moses, and

finally

adopts David, because even G o d ' s isolate splendor c a n n o t c o n t i n u e for all eternity. Jack Miles e l o q u e n t l y expresses t h e p a t h o s o f Yahweh's p r e d i c a m e n t , and t h u s risks c e n s u r e o f all those, o f w h a t e v e r m o n o t h e i s m , w h o are u n c o m f o r t a b l e with a G o d n o t perpetually transcendent.

(8) As I have m e n t i o n e d , J o h n M i l t o n allows o n l y six words in Paradise Lost t o t h e death and r e s u r r e c t i o n o f Jesus C h r i s t . I n c a r n a t i o n and A t o n e m e n t did n o t interest M i l t o n t h e poet, n o r are t h e y c e n t r a l t o t h e m a j o r traditions o f Western p o e t r y since t h e E u r o p e a n E n l i g h t e n m e n t o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . Wallace Stevens, t h e principal A m e r i c a n p o e t since Walt W h i t m a n and Emily D i c k i n s o n , in his " S u n d a y M o r n ing," contrasts "silent Palestine, j D o m i n i o n o f the b l o o d and sepulc h r e " t o a Nietzschean d a n c e o f "boisterous devotion t o t h e s u n , / N o t as a god but as a god m i g h t be." W h e n I was y o u n g e r , I s o m e t i m e s w o u l d see graffiti scribbled in t h e New York City subway s y s t e m proc l a i m i n g , "Nietzsche is dead! G o d lives!" T h a t has affinities with m a n y

15fi H A R O L D

BLOOM

A m e r i c a n s c h o o l b o a r d s t h a t d e c r e e t h e t e a c h i n g o f C r e a t i o n i s m as —s

against D a r w i n i a n e v o l u t i o n i s m . If Y a h w e h is still alive, h e p e r h a p s has w i t h d r a w n i n t o h i m s e l f .

£

(9)

kOX CL-U.

<> o

It is a n o l d adage t h a t all o f us receive t h e G o d w e d e s e r v e . W h e t h e r

*

w e d e s e r v e a Y a h w e h so irascible, v e n g e f u l , a n d e v e n m u r d e r o u s is, however, a n o t h e r matter. Crusaders choose to forget that Yahweh

©

i i j k

h i m s e l f t o r t u r e s and e x e c u t e s Jesus, by h i g h design, if c r e d e n c e is t o b e

y . . given t o t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . W h a t is t h e h u m a n g u i l t t h a t Jesus m u s t e x p i a t e by Y a h w e h ' s t o r t u r e o f h i m , a n d by s i m i l a r c r u c i f i x i o n s o f h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f o t h e r Jews by t h e R o m a n o c c u p i e r s ? I b e g i n by d i s m i s s i n g S t . Paul's a n d S t . A u g u s t i n e ' s a p o l o g i e s f o r G o d : in A d a m ' s fall, w e s i n n e d all. T h e g r e a t Sages o f t h e T a l m u d h e l d n o s u c h b a r b a r i c d o c t r i n e , a H e l l e n i c i m p o r t a t i o n f r o m t h e m y t h o f t h e fireOyi ^ b r i n g e r P r o m e t h e u s t o r m e n t e d by a sadistic Z e u s , a n d u l t i m a t e l y t h e ^ E " \T < -— V' O r p h i c s h a m a n i s t i c s t o r y of t h e r e v e n g e o f D i o n y s u s u p o n t h o s e w h o JE £-_> first h a d t o r n a p a r t a n d d e v o u r e d t h a t i n f a n t g o d . Y a h w e h is t h e least p F N

s e l f - c o n s c i o u s o f all divinities, e v e r , b u t Jesus, p a r t i c u l a r l y in

the

G o s p e l o f J o h n , is a m i r a c l e o f h e i g h t e n e d s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , i m p l i c i t m o d e l f o r H a m l e t , S h a k e s p e a r e ' s l o n e l y t o w e r a n d a p o t h e o s i s o f selfa w a r e n e s s . S t . J o h n ' s Jesus as G o d I n c a r n a t e is n o t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e H e b r e w Bible, b u t C h r i s t i a n s o d d l y d e f e n d t h i s a b s o l u t e i n c o n g r u i t y by a s s e r t i n g a n equal d i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n T o r a h a n d T a l mud, which

h i s t o r i c a l l y is n o t a n invalid p o i n t . A Y a h w e h

who

i n v e n t s d e a t h is h a r d l y a Y a h w e h w h o s u b s e q u e n t l y c o m m i t s s u i c i d e ,

Y A H W E HJ45

u n l e s s y o u w a n t t o m a k e t h e T a n a k h i n t o a n i r o n i c t r a g e d y , w h i c h is w h a t t h e e m b i t t e r e d a u t h o r o f J o h n ' s G o s p e l a c c o m p l i s h e s . N o text fulfills a n o t h e r , y e t t h e r e a r e revisions a n d revisions: t h e T a l m u d adu m b r a t e s , w h i c h is o n e m o d e ; S t . J o h n i n s t e a d inflicts an O r p h i c sparagmos, o r r e n d i n g a p a r t , u p o n t h e T o r a h , s c a t t e r i n g Y a h w e h ' s limbs as t h o u g h t h e M a s t e r o f P r e s e n c e was a n o t h e r Osiris, o r a c o n t e m p o rary Israeli b l o w n a p a r t in a b u s by a Palestinian

suicide/homicide

b o m b e r . S t . J o h n , f o r Y a h w e h , is b a d n e w s .

(IO)

O u r earliest a n d d e f i n i n g p o r t r a i t o f Y a h w e h is by t h e J W r i t e r , w h o still s e e m s t o m e likely t o have b e e n an a r i s t o c r a t i c w o m a n w h o w r o t e in t h e A g e o f S o l o m o n , w h i l e e x p e r i e n c i n g n o s t a l g i a f o r S o l o m o n ' s h e r o i c f a t h e r , D a v i d , a n c e s t o r o f Jesus, w h o s h o u l d i n d e e d have b e e n t h e King o f t h e Jews, l e a d i n g t h e m in t h e i r h o p e l e s s u p r i s i n g against t h e R o m a n imperialists. I h a v e w r i t t e n a b o u t Y a h w e h at l e n g t h b e f o r e , in The Book of f ( 1 9 9 0 ) , b u t fifteen y e a r s o f r e f l e c t i o n p r o m p t m e n o w t o revise s o m e w h a t m y earlier vision o f t h e e n i g m a t i c G o d o f a l t e r n a t i n g p r e s e n c e a n d a b s e n c e . Hegel, w h o p r o m p t e d all o f G e r m a n P r o t e s t a n t t h e o l o g i c a l scholarship, d o m i n a t e d G e r h a r d Von Rad, whose influence I could n o t e s c a p e in The Book oj J. J a c k M i l e s p l a y f u l l y s u g g e s t e d t h a t I g o a h e a d a n d n a m e t h e J W r i t e r B a t h s h e b a t h e Hittite, q u e e n - m o t h e r ol S o l o m o n , a n o t i o n I gladly a d o p t e d in The Western Canon ( 1 9 9 4 ) a n d again in Genius ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y d e t a c h m e n t o f t h e J W r i t e r in regard b o t h t o Y a h w e h a n d t h e P a t r i a r c h s fits t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a Hit

15fi H A R O L D

BLOOM

t i t e w o m a n w h o h a d m a r r i e d David a n d given b i r t h t o S o l o m o n , a n d p e r h a p s r e n d e r e d h e r o w n s e l f - p o r t r a i t in T a m a r , w h o o u t w i t s J u d a h a n d , by h i m , b e c o m e s t h e a n c e s t r e s s o f David, S o l o m o n , a n d u l t i m a t e l y o f Jesus o f N a z a r e t h . H e g e l i a n - b a s e d biblical s c h o l a r s h i p f r e q u e n t l y f o u n d s i t s e l f u p o n an opposition between a C a n a a n i t e worship o f n a t u r e and t h e Heb r e w e m p h a s i s u p o n Y a h w e h , w h o s e acts c o n s t i t u t e h i s t o r y . 1 r e c a l l e d in The Book o f / t h a t t h e Y a h w i s t h a d n o n o s t a l g i a f o r n o m a d i s m , t h a t h e w a l k s firmly u p o n a g r i c u l t u r a l g r o u n d . T h a t is r e i n f o r c e d f o r m e by T h e o d o r e H i e b e r t ' s The Yahwist's Landscape ( 1 9 9 6 ) , w h i c h p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e is n o l i n g u i s t i c a n t i t h e s i s in a n c i e n t H e b r e w b e t w e e n " n a t u r e " a n d " h i s t o r y , " a n d r i g h t l y assigns t o J's Y a h w e h a n a l t o g e t h e r e a r t h l y r e a l m . His o w n e a r t h is A d a m i c , a n d f o r Y a h w e h w e n e e d e n vision n o h e a v e n . As 1 h a v e n o t e d , h e is n o t a sky g o d , b u t a p l a n t e r o f g a r d e n s , a n d is h a p p y t o p i c n i c in t h e s h a d e o f a t e r e b i n t h t r e e . T o call Y a h w e h a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c is a r e d u n d a n c y . N o G o d has b e e n m o r e human.

(") C a n w e i m a g i n e a d i r e c t c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n Y a h w e h a n d Jesus? If C h r i s t i a n i t y is t r u e , h o w c a n s u c h a n e x c h a n g e n o t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e o n e a r t h , as p r e s u m a b l y it w o u l d in e t e r n i t y ? If t h e y w e r e t w o p e r sons, but o n e substance, surely t h e y k n e w each other? O r are they t w o s e p a r a t e G o d s , e a c h a n t i t h e t i c a l t o t h e o t h e r , as in s o m e a n c i e n t heresies? C h r i s t , by d e f i n i t i o n , is b o t h G o d a n d m a n , b u t so, m o r e s u r p r i s i n g l y , is Y a h w e h , w h o p r e f e r s s h a d e t o e x c e s s i v e h e a t , has a

C t a O ^ W i l b\OOC V )

Y A H W E HJ45

fondness for o u t d o o r

m e a l s , a n d is a

fierce

warrior

(sometimes

a n o n y m o u s , as w h e n h e a p p e a r s t o J o s h u a ) . S i n c e Y a h w e h is a b a t t l e r , a n d Jesus c h o o s e s n o t t o be, w e c o u l d again recall K i n g H a m l e t a n d t h e P r i n c e o f D e n m a r k , w h o like Jesus is q u i t e p u g n a c i o u s e n o u g h , b u t also d e c l i n e s t o lead m e n i n t o w a r . O n e c a n n o t establish a differe n c e b e t w e e n Y a h w e h a n d Jesus m e r e l y in t h e i r b l e n d i n g o f h u m a n a n d d i v i n e identities. B u t again, w h y d o t h e y n o t c o n v e r s e , g r a n t e d t h a t f a t h e r s a n d s o n s u n i v e r s a l l y face difficulties in c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; T h e v o i c e o f Y a h w e h is h e a r d in t h e S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s at b o t h t h e B a p t i s m a n d t h e T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n , in o r d e r t o a f f i r m t h a t Jesus is his b e l o v e d s o n , b u t t h e a u d i e n c e is c o n s t i t u t e d by o u r s e l v e s , t h e r e a d e r s , as R a y m o n d E. B r o w n a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y e m p h a s i z e s . T h e disciples d o n o t s e e m t o a b s o r b t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n e i t h e r o c c a s i o n , a n d e v i d e n t l y Jesus does n o t n e e d it, a n d c e r t a i n l y d o e s n o t r e s p o n d . Yet a g a i n , s o m e t h i n g a p p e a r s t o be m i s s i n g . C a n it be t h a t we a r e t h e o n l y privileged a u d i e n c e o f t h e G o s p e l s , e x c e p t f o r J o h n ' s ; T h e disciples s e e m t o have b e e n c h o s e n by Jesus n o t f o r t h e i r i n t e l l e c t s but f o r r u g g e d n e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Peter, a p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t e v e r y o n e w o u l d n o w call R o c k y , a r o l e in films a b o u t C h r i s t t h a t s e e m s a p t f o r S y l v e s t e r S t a l l o n e . W i t h t h e o t h e r s , Peter t e n d s t o get e v e r y t h i n g w r o n g , as Paul w a s t o c o m p l a i n at a l a t e r moment. We c a n n o t ascribe a n y p e r s o n a l i t y t o t h e H o l y ^ p i r i t , _ b u t n o o n e w o u l d say t h a t Y a h w e h a n d Jesus w e r e t w o p e r s o n a l i t i e s y e t o n e s u b s t a n c e . I t h i n k t h a t t h e s h a r e d u n c a n n i n e s s o f Y a h w e h a n d Jesus d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o t h e w a y t h e y s p e a k . Y a h w e h is t o o irascible f o r a n y e x t e n s i v e r e l i a n c e u p o n riddles a n d parables, w h i l e Jesus surpasses H a m let in e n i g m a t i c wit. P e r h a p s t h e v e r b a l styles o f Y a h w e h a n d Jesus a r e

152

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

simply t o o different for c o n v e r s a t i o n t o be possible. Even S h a k e s p e a r e w o u l d have s m i l i n g l y d e m u r r e d had w e asked h i m t o give us a dial o g u e b e t w e e n King Lear and Prince H a m l e t . W h e r e d o ]esus and Yahw e h m o s t differ? Even in M a r k , w h o is closest to J, Jesus n e v e r c o u l d say that n o t h i n g was impossible for h i m . He c a n n o t p e r f o r m miracles in Nazareth. In J o h n he speaks as Y a h w e h : " B e f o r e A b r a h a m was, 1 a m . " But J o h n is quasi-Gnostic, and even p r o t o - S a b e l l i a n , t h e heresy t h a t t h e S o n fathers himself.

THE

DESPAIR

OF

JESUS c a n n o t be equated to t h e desertion o f

Yahweh ( o r s h o u l d we speak o f Y a h w e h ' s v o l u n t a r y self-exile?). If Jesus said that t h e K i n g d o m o f G o d is w i t h i n us, was t h a t a hint that G o d n o w o n l y exists w i t h i n us? If a great c h a r i s m a t i c m a s t e r o f oral tradition speaks t o us o n l y in ironies and dark stories, t h e n Socrates c o u l d be t h e Savior, as he was f o r Plato and M o n t a i g n e . Set aside Paul and J o h n , and regard Luke w i t h a clear eye as t o his H e l l e n i s m . T h e Jewish Jesus o f M a r k and o f M a t t h e w is n o t Y a h w e h i n c a r n a t e , but r a t h e r a singular and belated p r o p h e t , like t h e Baptist, and p r o p h e c y indeed had ceased a m o n g t h e c h i l d r e n o f A b r a h a m . O u t o f t h e strong c a m e f o r t h n o t sweetness but a sword, o r r a t h e r t w o swords, C h r i s tian crusading, n o w c e n t e r e d in t h e A m e r i c a n Religion, and its foe in Wahhabi Islam. C o u l d we i m a g i n e King Lear as Prince Hamlet's father? J's Yahweh in s o m e respects resembles Lear; Mark's Jesus is o n e o f Hamlet's prec u r s o r s . I m a g i n i n g J's Yahweh as t h e f a t h e r o f Mark's Jesus baffles m y e x p e r i e n c e o f p o n d e r i n g high literature, w h e r e f a t h e r s and sons diverge but do n o t exist in different spheres o f being. T h e o l o g y , itself a

Y A H W E H J 45

c o m p o u n d o f Plato and Aristotle, can i m a g i n e a n y t h i n g , since persuasive representation is n o t o n e o f its burdens. B u t S c r i p t u r e is closer t o S h a k e s p e a r e t h a n t o philosophy. And t h e paradoxes o f a suicidal G o d are m o r e suited t o A t h e n i a n tragedy t h a n t o T a n a k h . T h i s intim a t e s t h a t C h r i s t is Hellenistic while Jesus (in M a r k and M a t t h e w ) is Jewish. Paul is t h e puzzle. Jesus is hardly his c o n c e r n until Easter, t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n . Y a h w e h did n o t say, as Paul's C h r i s t did, t h a t t h e last e n e m y t o be c o n q u e r e d w o u l d be d e a t h . He is t h e G o d o f t h e living; C h r i s t , in yet a n o t h e r e n i g m a , is G o d o f t h e dead. W h o is Jesus? Neit h e r Y a h w e h n o r C h r i s t . Jesus C h r i s t is a n e w G o d , even as C h r i s tianity was a New C o v e n a n t . Believers, scholars, politicians all deny this, b u t Western m o n o t h e ism has b e c o m e a p r o f o u n d puzzle. I a m inclined to argue t h a t Jesus C h r i s t , Allah, and Y a h w e h all are a n t i t h e t i c a l , o n e t o a n o t h e r . F a t h e r R a y m o n d B r o w n w a r n s us n o t t o u n d e r p l a y t h e h u m a n in Jesus, but p r a g m a t i c a l l y believers have reduced t h a t h u m a n t o Gibsonian floggings. T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus is flawless, as he is in t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . A h u m a n c a n n o t be physically r e s u r r e c t e d f r o m d e a t h , and n o t h i n g in t h e Hebrew Bible argues otherwise, w h e r e E n o c h , Elijah, and Elisha go u p directly t o Y a h w e h w i t h o u t dying. St. Paul's u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n o f Jesus was that it was a l t o g e t h e r spiritual, b u t that is n o t t h e view o f t h e Gospels or o f Acts, w h e r e Jesus ( e x c e p t in M a t t h e w ) is raised b o t h spiritually and materially. Since Jesus himself has raised Lazarus and o t h e r s hack i n t o t h e body, as Elijah and Elisha did before h i m , p r e s u m a b l y he is capable o f doing t h e s a m e for himself. C o n s i d e r t h e J Writer's Yahweh in this c o n t e x t , or r a t h e r c a n he be so considered? Jews and M u s l i m s alike say " N o ! " G o d does n o t allow

4 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

h i m s e l f t o be h u m i l i a t e d , w h e t h e r by R o m a n s , G e r m a n s , o r A m e r i c a n s . A c r u c i f i e d Y a h w e h (as in M i l e s ) is o x y m o r o n i c . T h a t c o u l d be O d i n h a n g i n g o n t h e w o r l d - o a k t o gain k n o w l e d g e o f t h e r u n e s , b u t Y a h w e h , as 1 h a v e r e m a r k e d , is n o t a d y i n g and r e v i v i n g G o d . C h r i s t o l o g y is a w e i r d s c i e n c e f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e e i t h e r o f J u d a i s m o r o f I s l a m . I m m e r s i n g m y s e l f in its s t u d y has b e e n a n e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e f o r m e , n o t at all akin t o m y b a f f l e m e n t w h e n I t r y t o a b s o r b Buddism or Hinduism, both o f which evade m e . With Christology, I c u l t i v a t e p a t i e n c e , s i n c e always I s e e k t h e a n s w e r t o o n e q u e s t i o n : h o w c a n Y a h w e h be s e e n as a c c e p t i n g m o r t a l i t y , e v e n as a n o t h e r r o a d t o r e a s s u m i n g his p r i o r s t a t u s a n d f u n c t i o n ? T h e C h r i s t o l o g i c a l reply is t h a t G o d c h o s e t o b e c o m e l o v e , at w h a t e v e r c o s t . F a t h e r R a y m o n d B r o w n , s p e a k i n g w i t h t h e a u t h e n t i c v o i c e o f C h r i s t o l o g y , tells us t h e r e was n o o t h e r w a y by w h i c h t h e divine g e n e r o s i t y t o w a r d h u m a n k i n d c o u l d be m a n i f e s t e d . W. H. A u d e n d i s a p p r o v e d o f P r i n c e H a m l e t o n C h r i s t i a n g r o u n d s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e m o s t gifted c h a r a c t e r in m o d e r n W e s t e r n l i t e r a t u r e loved neither G o d nor o t h e r h u m a n s , nor even himself. Aristotle observed t h a t c o m p l e t e s o l i t u d e was possible o n l y f o r a beast o r a g o d , a n d p e r h a p s H o r a t i o , o n e loyal f o l l o w e r , h o l d s H a m l e t b a c k f r o m t h e c a t e g o r y o f g o d h o o d , w h i c h w o u l d d e s t r o y t h e play. As a C a t h o l i c priest, B r o w n p r o p e r l y insisted t h a t " i f Jesus is n o t t h e ' t r u e G o d o f t r u e G o d , ' t h e n w e d o n o t k n o w G o d in h u m a n t e r m s . " A n d y e t w e c e r t a i n l y d o k n o w an a l l - t o o - h u m a n Y a h w e h in t h e J W r i t e r ' s p o r t r a i t o f an a n x i o u s , p u g n a c i o u s , aggressive, a m b i v a l e n t G o d , w h o h a d fallen in l o v e w i t h K i n g David, displaced b y J i n t o h e r d e p i c t i o n o f J o s e p h as s u r r o g a t e f o r t h e f a s c i n a t i n g w a r r i o r - k i n g w h o h a d f a t h e r e d S o l o m o n . Like all b u t a few C a t h o l i c s c h o l a r - p r i e s t s ,

Y A H W E H J 45

B r o w n seems to find in Yahweh o n l y a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d , a kind o f heavenly university president r a t h e r t h a n a m a n o f war. T h e S y n o p t i c Gospels are n o t t h e o l o g i c a l tractates but stories, highly a m b i g u o u s on t h e m a t t e r o f t h e g o d h e a d o f Jesus. It was n o t until 250 years later, at t h e C o u n c i l o f Nicaea, in 325 o f t h e C o m m o n lira, t h a t Jesus was designated " t r u e G o d ot t r u e G o d . " In M a r k 10:18, Jesus declines t o be praised as a " g o o d t e a c h e r " on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t " N o o n e is g o o d b u t G o d a l o n e . " Paul in I C o r i n t h i a n s 8:6 takes care to distinguish between t h e " o n e G o d , t h e F a t h e r " and " o n e Lord, Jesus C h r i s t . " O n e c o u l d m u l t i p l y instances, but t h e o l o g i a n s in reply g o on citing textual variants, intricacies o f syntax, and a handful o f passages t h a t are n o t so m u c h suspect or equivocal as t h e y are t e n d e n t i o u s l y staged. T h e m o s t f a m o u s is t h e Gospel o f J o h n 20:28, w h e n Jesus appears a week after Easter, and t h e disciple T h o m a s alludes t o Psalms 35:23: " M y G o d and m y Lord." B u t J o h n n o t o r i o u s l y begins with t h e very different identification o f t h e Word w i t h G o d , and logos is a very misleading t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Hebrew davar, w h i c h is at o n c e a w o r d , a t h i n g , and an act. Y a h w e h is a n a m e and so a word, and he is always t h e essence o f act, and hardly to be described as a s u p r e m e t h i n g in a c o s m o s o f things. T h e S y n o p t i c Gospels p l a c e Jesus w i t h i n t h a t category. T h e Yahweh o f t h e J strand in T o r a h is t o o d y n a m i c to be c o n textualized, precisely because davar has n o equivalent in G r e e k . W h a t w o u l d be t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s — f o r religion, c u l t u r e , and socie t y — i f Christianity, o f any d e n o m i n a t i o n , ever a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t it worships t w o , or t h r e e , o r even four G o d s ( Y a h w e h , Jesus, t h e Holy Spirit, and M a r y ) r a t h e r t h a n one? Islam, f r o m its beginnings, has regarded Christianity as a p o l y t h e i s m , t h o u g h it h o n o r s Jesus. Historically, t h e C h u r c h judged Islam t o be a Christian heresy, even as t h e

15fi H A R O L D

BLOOM

s e c o n d - c e n t u r y rabbis r e j e c t e d C h r i s t i a n i t y as a Jewish heresy. A n d y e t I wish t o b r i n g a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , a p r a g m a t i c o n e , t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a r g u m e n t s a b o u t divinity: are w e n o t , in m a n y ways, all o f us p o l y t h e i s t s , in c r u c i a l a s p e c t s o f o u r lives? B y t h a t " w e " I m e a n n o t o n l y Jews, C h r i s t i a n s , a n d M u s l i m s b u t also s e c u l a r i s t s , a g n o s t i c s , e v e n d e c l a r e d a t h e i s t s . A m e r i c a n s a r e n e c e s s a r i l y p o s t p r a g m a t i s t s , as R i c h a r d R o r t y has o b s e r v e d : o n l y d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e t r u l y m a t t e r in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . W o u l d an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t m o n o t h e i s m n o l o n g e r exists m a k e s u c h a difference? Let m e j u x t a p o s e t w o s a g e s — G o e t h e a n d F r e u d — i n t h e i r varied a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d r e l i g i o n . G o e t h e saw h i m s e l f as m o r e a g o d t h a n a C h r i s t i a n , w h i l e F r e u d asserted h e was a g o d l e s s Jew. E x p r e s s i n g h o m age t o Jesus, G o e t h e s c o r n e d Paul a n d all o f C h r i s t i a n i t y a f t e r h i m . W i t h C a t h o l i c V i e n n a all a r o u n d , F r e u d t a c t f u l l y r e f r a i n e d p s y c h o a n a l y z i n g Jesus, w h i l e

finding

from

in M o s e s a p r e c u r s o r , w h o s e

m o n o t h e i s m r e p r e s e n t e d a p r o g r e s s i v e a d v a n c e f o r c u l t u r e , by way o f r e n u n c i a t i o n o f t h e drives. T h e r e is a c u r i o u s leap in F r e u d ' s identific a t i o n w i t h t h e m a n M o s e s , w h i c h h a s l i t t l e r a t i o n a l basis. F r e u d liked t o t h i n k o f h i m s e l f as a spiritual conquistador, w i t h M o s e s as o n e o f his f o r e r u n n e r s , t h o u g h precisely w h y m o n o t h e i s m , in F r e u d i a n t e r m s , was a h u m a n t r i u m p h [ s i m p l y c a n n o t k n o w . If y o u w a n t F r e u d ' s selfi m a g e , c o n f r o n t t h e M o s e s o f M i c h e l a n g e l o , a s c u l p t u r e t h a t to F r e u d was an i c o n . Visions ol l e a d e r s h i p by d e f i n i t i o n a r e a g o n i s t i c ; t h e y

compete

w i t h o n e a n o t h e r f o r t h e u n i q u e p l a c e , high b e y o n d all o t h e r s . T h e H e b r e w Bible o f f e r s M o s e s , David, a n d E l i j a h as its i n s t a n c e s . It is o d d t h a t t h e N e w C o v e n a n t has t o deal w i t h t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f J o h n t h e Baptist, w h o m Jesus b e g a n by f o l l o w i n g . N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e C h r i s -

Y A H W EH

157

tian Bible has defeated and refashioned t h e T a n a k h , and Jesus C h r i s t s u b s u m e s A b r a h a m , Moses, and David, while Elijah and his avatar in J o h n t h e Baptist are reverently set aside. T h e Western vision o f leadership centers u p o n C h r i s t , f r o m C o n s t a n t i n e until t h e Renaissance, w h e n Machiavelli and S h a k e s p e a r e , w h o s e H a m l e t is a c o u n t e r Machiavelli, p r a g m a t i c a l l y disturb t h e c e n t e r . Freud's lasting i m p o r tance, I v e n t u r e , has less to do w i t h t h e science o f m i n d t h a n w i t h t h e images o f leadership in t h e West. Jesus, Machiavelli, S h a k e s p e a r e , and Freud are a c u r i o u s f o u r f o l d , b u t o u r captains o f politics and i n d u s t r y often blend t h e four, generally with o n l y a limited awareness o f their m i x e d heritage. Y a h w e h , archaic and exiled, has yielded leadership to his usurpers. W h e r e , now, are we t o l o c a t e t h e Y a h w e h w h o was t h e c h a r i s m a t i c o f charismatics, w h o defined leadership in ways utterly alien

to

H o m e r and to C o n f u c i u s ? T h o u g h n o public figure, for g o o d reason, will say so overtly, t h e war against t e r r o r r e m a i n s a belated repetition o f t h e wars o f Y a h w e h . O u r second invasion of Iraq was t h e u n h a p p i est o f replays, even a parody o f t h e Crusades. Machiavelli, r e d u c e d t o a p o p u l a r c a r i c a t u r e f r o m t h e English Renaissance o n w a r d , is still t h e Messiah o f geopolitical realism, p r o p h e t i c a l l y o u t l i n e d in Thoughts on Machiavelli

(1958), by Leo Strauss ( 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 7 3 ) , o r a c l e o f t h e n e o c o n s

w h o persuaded G e o r g e W. B u s h t o l a u n c h his Baghdad Crusade. Strauss is e l o q u e n t in s u m m i n g up Machiavelli's r e p l a c e m e n t o f " r e ligion" by " p r u d e n c e " :

It is impossible to excuse the inadequacy of Machiavelli's argument by referring to the things he had seen in contemporary Rome and Florence. For he knew that the notorious facts which allowed him to

8 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

speak o f the corruption o f Italy proved at the same time the corruption o f Christianity in Italy. It is somewhat worthier but still insufficient to excuse the inadequacy o f Machiavelli's argument by the indescribable misuse o f the Biblical teaching of which believers in all ages have been guilty. At any rate, many present-day readers who have some understanding o f the Bible are likely to be less shocked than amazed by Machiavelli's suggestions. T h e y have b e c o m e accustomed, not only to distinguish between the core and the periphery o f the Biblical teaching, but to abandon that periphery as unnecessary or mythical. Machiavelli was unaware of the legitimacy o f this distinction. Recent theology has become inclined to deny that divine punishment is m o r e than the misery which is the natural or necessary consequence o f the estrangement from God or o f t h e oblivion of God, or than the emptiness, the vanity, the repulsive or resplendent misery, or the despair of a life which is not adherence to God and trust in God. T h e same theology tends to solve the difficulty inherent in the relation between o m n i p o t e n c e and omniscience on the one hand and h u m a n freedom on the other by reducing providence to God's enabling m a n to work out his destiny without any further divine intervention except God's waiting for man's response to his call. Machiavelli's indications regarding providence are concerned with that notion o f providence according to which God literally governs the world as a just king governs his kingdom. He does not pay any attention to the fact that the prosperity of the wicked and the afflictions o f the just were always regarded by thinking believers as an essential part o f the mystery of the providential order. We almost see him as he hears the saying "all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword" and answers: "but they who do not take the sword

Y A H W E H J 45

shall also perish by the sword"; he does not stop to consider that only the first, by appealing to the sword, submit entirely to the judgment of the sword and therefore are self-condemned, seeing that no mixed body is perpetual.

We perish by t h e sword w h e t h e r we take it up or n o t , b u t w h a t has h a p p e n e d to t h e terrible swift sword wielded by Yahweh in wars all his own? T h e S h a k e s p e a r e a n question t o ask Y a h w e h w o u l d be " W h a t have you promised yourself?" In t h e C h r i s t i a n view, since Jesus is t h e S o n o f G o d , t h a t translates i n t o t h e r h e t o r i c a l question " W h a t did Yahweh p r o m i s e Jesus?" In Hamlet, as Julia L u p t o n subtly shows, t h e Prince is an anti-Machiavel in parrying Claudius, and yet still an English Machiavel himself, s u b o r d i n a t i n g love t o fear as t h e m o s t reliable

means of inducing

obedience. Y a h w e h

pragmatically

is

indifferent to w h e t h e r he is loved o r feared, because e i t h e r love o r fear yields sacrifices as e m b l e m s o f o u r obedience, a praxis t h a t c u l m i n a t e d in t h e apparent death o f Jesus. Jews and Christians n o longer sacrifice animals upon altars o f blood,

O 'CI ls>

\ ^

b u t Yahwism dispensed with a n i m a l sacrifice o n l y w h e n t h e R o m a n s

^

obliterated t h e T e m p l e , and C h r i s t i a n s c o n t i n u e it, in s u b l i m a t e d

-j- j^J

f o r m , by t h e c o m m u n i o n in which bread and wine are e m b l e m a t i c o f t h e flesh and blood o f Jesus. Sacrifices in t h e ancient m o d e , s u p p o s edlv abolished, are e n a c t e d daily in religious violence t h r o u g h o u t t h e world, in organized t e r r o r , and in war, w h i c h is little else. S i m o n e Weil b l a m e d all this o n t h e Hebrew Bible, while a m a z i n g l y s h e fused t h e Gospels and t h e Iliad as " p o e m s o f f o r c e " t h a t did n o t s a n c t i o n ritual s l a u g h t e r . Achilles, greatest o f killing m a c h i n e s , c o u l d n o t have c o m p r e h e n d e d S i m o n e Weil, b u t t h e n I confess t h a t I also c a n n o t .

U - 3 )j . o r£> A-

15fi H A R O L D

SACRIFICE

BLOOM

IS, t o m e , t h e m o s t u n p l e a s a n t o f s u b j e c t s , b u t a b o o k

c e n t e r i n g o n t h e D i v i n e N a m e s , Jesus a n d Y a h w e h , h a r d l y c a n e v a d e t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t t h e R e d a c t o r , e x i l e d in B a b y l o n , w o v e i n t o his G e n e s i s - t o - K i n g s s t r u c t u r e by i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e Priestly s o u r c e , so different in e v e r y w a y f r o m t h e Yahwistic n a r r a t i v e . J i r o n i c a l l y evaded sacrifice, despite t h e A q e d a h i n c i d e n t ( t h e w o r d " a q e d a h "

means

" b i n d i n g " ) , in w h i c h A b r a h a m a l m o s t sacrifices Isaac t o Y a h w e h , in t h e u l t i m a t e m o d e l for t h e s l a u g h t e r o f Jesus as t h e L a m b o f G o d . S o v e x e d a s u b j e c t is Yahwistic sacrifice t h a t n o m o d e r n s c h o l a r l y a u t h o r i t y has m a t c h e d its s e m i c o n d e m n a t i o n b y t h e

magnificent

S a g e o f t h e t w e l f t h c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era, M o s e s M a i m o n i d e s , w h o in his Guide jor the Perplexed insists t h a t it was a t best a s e c o n d a r y m a t t e r i o r t h e d i v i n e will. M a i m o n i d e s relies u p o n t h e p r o p h e t i c t r a d i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y as e x e m p l i f i e d in S a m u e l ' s r e b u k e t o S a u l :

But S a m u e l said: Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As m u c h as in obedience to the Lord's command? Surely, obedience is better than sacrifice, Compliance than the fat o f rams. For rebellion is like the sin o f divination, Defiance, like the iniquity o f teraphim. Because you rejected the Lord's c o m m a n d . He has rejected you as king. I SAMUEL

15:22-23

YAHWEH

161

M a i m o n i d e s also cites Isaiah 1:11—13 and Jeremiah 7:21—23:

"What need have I of all your sacrifices?" Says the Lord. "I am sated with burnt offerings of rams, And suet of fatlings, And blood of bulls; And I have no delight In lambs and he-goals. That you c o m e to appear before M e — Who asked that of you? Trample My courts no more; Bringing oblations is futile, Incense is offensive to Me. New moon and sabbath. Proclaiming of solemnities, Assemblies with iniquity, I cannot abide."

Thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat! For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them: Do My bidding, that I may be your God and you may be My people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you."

X)

~x) o 5

15fi

HAROLD

BLOOM

W h y did t h e p r o p h e t i c r e j e c t i o n o f sacrifice n o t forestall t h e app a r e n t sacrifice o f Jesus? T h e r e is an a m b i v a l e n c e in t h e rabbinical O r a l Tradition that I myself would trace to the m o v e m e n t f r o m a h u m a n Y a h w e h w h o e n j o y s feasting (as e v i d e n t l y Jesus also d i d ) t o an i n creasingly transcendent God w h o required no n o u r i s h m e n t beyond praise and o b e d i e n c e . U n l e s s y o u are a c o n s i s t e n t v e g e t a r i a n , you c a n n o t c o n v i n c e e v e n y o u r s e l f o f y o u r o w n sincerity in d e p l o r i n g a n i m a l sacrifices in so m a n y o f t h e w o r l d ' s religions t h r o u g h o u t t i m e . B u t s i n c e o n l y a few o f us, p r e s u m a b l y , a r e c a n n i b a l s , h u m a n sacrifice is r a t h e r a different m a t t e r . T h a t m a k e s child sacrifice o n e o f t h e h o r r o r s - o f - h o r r o r s , inc l u d i n g t h e m o r e t h a n a m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n s l a u g h t e r e d by t h e G e r m a n p e o p l e in Hitler's H o l o c a u s t . I t u r n h e r e t o a n o t h e r s t u d y by J o n D. L e v e n s o n , The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, s u b t i t l e d The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity ( N e w H a v e n , 1993). L e v e n s o n ' s a r g u m e n t , t o m e persuasive, finds t h e u l t i m a t e s o u r c e o f t h e sacrifice o f Jesus in Y a h w e h ' s initial c o m m a n d t h a t A b r a h a m i m m o l a t e Isaac. T h e A q e d a h s t u d i e d by L e v e n s o n is n a r r a t e d in G e n e s i s 22:1—19, and always r e n ders m e v e r y u n h a p p y , despite t h e brilliant d e f e n s e offered for it by Kierkegaard

in Fear and Trembling,

o n e o f his i r o n i c

masterpieces.

Kierkegaard i n t e r p r e t s A b r a h a m as t h e K n i g h t o f Faith w h o n e v e r t h e l e s s u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t Isaac will survive. T h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g is m o r e L u t h e r a n t h a n Judaic, and L e v e n s o n clearly d i s t i n g u i s h e s it f r o m t h e exegesis of R a s h i ( e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y C.E.), w h o r e a s o n e d that A b r a h a m t h e p r o p h e t f o r e t o l d his son's escape. R a s h i is m e r e l y sensible, w h e r e a s Kierkegaard r e i n v e n t s t h e a n c i e n t C h r i s t i a n idea o f " t h e a b s u r d . " A b r a h a m , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Q u r ' a n , was a M u s l i m , b u t o n l y

YAHW EH

l63

Kierkegaard regards A b r a h a m as a Christian before t h e fact, as it were: "He believed by v i r t u e o f t h e absurd; for t h e r e c o u l d be n o question o f h u m a n c a l c u l a t i o n , and it was indeed t h e absurd t h a t G o d w h o required it o l h i m s h o u l d t h e n e x t instant recall t h e r e q u i r e m e n t . " I c o m e to t h e c o n c l u s i o n that m o s t o f us m i s u n d e r s t a n d w h a t Yahw e h m e a n s by " l o v e " and "fear." E. P. Sanders in his Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (1990), page 271, m a k e s a splendidly helpful observation:

We now make a great distinction between "inner" and "outer," and those of us who are Protestants, or heirs to the Protestant tradition, distrust external forms. It should be remembered that, to ancient Jews, "love thy neighbor" and "love the stranger" were not vague commandments about the feelings in one's heart, but were quite specific. "Love" meant, "Use just weights and measures"; "Do not reap your field to the border, but leave some for the poor"; "Neither steal, deal falsely nor lie"; "Do not withhold wages that you owe"; "Do not take advantage of the blind or deaf"; "Do not be biased in judgement"; "Do not slander"—and so on through the verses of Leviticus 10 and many others.

Leviticus 10 p r e s u m a b l y is a misprint h e r e for 19:9-17:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I the Lord am your God. You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with

164 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

one another. You shall not swear falsely by My n a m e , profaning the name o f your God: 1 am the Lord. You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not c o m m i t robbery. T h e wages o f a laborer shall n o t remain with you until m o r n i n g . You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am the Lord. You shall not render an unfair decision: do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your kinsman fairly. D o not deal basely with your c o u n t r y m e n . D o not profit by the blood of your fellow: I am the Lord. You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your c o u n t r y m e n . Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord. You shall observe My laws.

Y a h w e h ' s love is C o v e n a n t - k e e p i n g , n o m o r e a n d n o less. I d o n ' t t h i n k Paul g o t t h a t w r o n g , b u t A u g u s t i n e — f o r all his g r e a t n e s s — g o t Paul w r o n g . Jesus in t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k , so far as I c a n t e l l , is Yahwistic in his p r a g m a t i c s e n s e o f love. In o l d age, I b e g i n t o b e d a u n t e d by Leviticus, m y least f a v o r i t e b o o k o f t h e T a n a k h . It m a y be t h a t m o r a l b e n e v o l e n c e is a b e t t e r l o v e t h a n m o s t o f o u r passions.

13-

WHAT DOES M E A N BY

YAHWEH "LOVE"?

Y

A H W E H ' S LOVE for t h e people he c h o s e is C o v e n a n t a l : t h e r e f o r e conditional and revocable. It is a c o m m o n p l a c e o f New

T e s t a m e n t scholarship t o n o t e that Paul and M a r k do n o t set Jesus against t h e Pharisees; Paul's pride in his Jewishness, and in having sat at t h e feet o f t h e great Rabbi G a m a l i e l , is reflected in his respect for t h e Pharisees, earlier associates, while in Mark's Gospel, Jesus interprets t h e Law essentially in Pharisaic m o d e s , t h o u g h with a swerve all ot his o w n . W h i l e Paul a l m o s t follows Jesus in d e n o u n c i n g divorce bet w e e n w o m e n and m e n , t h o u g h Moses had legislated for it, Paul's and Mark's Jesus certainly does n o t see Y a h w e h as having divorced his C h o s e n People. T h e largest paradox o f Christianity in Luke, J o h n , and nearly all t h a t c o m e s after is t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s dismissal o f t h e Jewish people as obsolete (at t h e best), w h i l e still relying all but totally u p o n a revisionary i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Hebrew Bible. W h e n Jestis, in t h e T r a n s figuration, appears alongside Moses and Elijah, their presence i n t i m a t e s

166 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

o t h e r s as w e l l : A b r a h a m , Isaac, J a c o b , J o s e p h , Elisha, a n d a s h a d o w y host drawn f r o m their traditions. Yahweh

again p r o c l a i m s Jesus'

ZTy b e l o v e d s o n s h i p , at t h e m o m e n t o f B a p t i s m , a n d it is vital t h a t t h e S o n ' s p r e c u r s o r s again be w i t h h i m . I c a n n o t recall Y a h w e h e x p r e s s i n g a u t h e n t i c l o v e f o r a n y o n e , e v e n w h e n in I C h r o n i c l e s h e p r o m i s e s David t h a t , a f t e r t h e h e r o ' s d e a t h , S o l o m o n will be t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e h e a v e n l y m o n a r c h ' s l o v e , as i f S o l o m o n w e r e t o be G o d ' s o w n s o n . T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t Y a h w e h ^ i A

has resisted f a l l i n g in l o v e w i t h David, w h o m i g h t be c a l l e d

the

,| H e b r e w H a m l e t : p o e t , s w o r d s m a n , tragic b u t e x u b e r a n t l y c o n s c i o u s q u e s t e r . It is n o t a c c i d e n t a l t h a t Jesus is David's d e s c e n d a n t ,

but

t h r o u g h a y o u n g e r line, n o t S o l o m o n ' s . Y a h w e h , like K i n g Lear, d e m a n d s a b e w i l d e r i n g excess o f l o v e , t h e f r e q u e n t s t i g m a o f bad f a t h e r s . We are n o t p e r m i t t e d t o see Q u e e n Lear, a n d t o s p e a k o f a h y p o t h e t i c a l M r s . Y a h w e h is t h e b l a s p h e m y - o f blasphemies (except for M o r m o n s ) . W h e t h e r we n a m e h e r W i s d o m , vjhO —J

t h e S h e k h i n a h , Eve, o r t h e V i r g i n M a r y , s h e w o u l d b e c o m e an i n c e s t u o u s d a u g h t e r , like Lot's d a u g h t e r s , w h o p e r h a p s w e r e a v e n g i n g t h e m s e l v e s f o r t h e i r f a t h e r ' s o f f e r i n g t h e m u p t o t h e S o d o m i t e s , in order to protect the Angels o f Destruction. Clearly, Yahweh (until a

— n e w

eros e m e r g e s in t h e K a b b a l a h ) loves D a v i d b u t o n l y as Lear loves

^ ^

C o r d e l i a , w i t h a t e n d e r n e s s t h a t m a s k s irascibility at its c o r e .

Or

g, j

rather, since Christianity replaces Yahweh with the benign G o d the F a t h e r , First P e r s o n o f t h e T r i n i t y , t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s fade away f r o m that tenderness. T h i s g a p b e t w e e n Y a h w e h a n d t h e T r i n i t a r i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r is a n o t h e r d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t J u d a i s m is n o t C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s

parent.

R a t h e r , J u d a i s m a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y are e n e m y b r o t h e r s , b o t h s t e m m i n g

YAHWEHJ45

from S e c o n d T e m p l e Judahisms, a t r u t h m o s t p e o p l e o f goodwill try to evade. As t h e r e are well o v e r a billion and a h a l f Christians, and perhaps o n l y f o u r t e e n million o r so self-identifying Jewish survivors, that m a k e s for r a t h e r m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d Christians t o each Jew. Yahweh's i n j u n c t i o n to his C h o s e n , " B e fruitful and m u l t i p l y , " is a horrible irony o n a globe in w h i c h t h e Jews f o r m less t h a n a t e n t h o f o n e p e r c e n t o f t h e world's p o p u l a t i o n . T h a t is a b o u t t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e M o r m o n s in t h e universe, b u t t h e M o r m o n s have a d y n a m i s m ot g r o w t h , while t h e Jews c o n t i n u e t o dwindle. Pragmatically, Christianity and Islam, and t h e religions o f Asia, will i n h e r i t w h a t e v e r e a r t h t h e A m e r i c a n R e p u b l i c a n p l u t o c r a c y allows to survive t h e stripping o f ecology. I a m c o m p e l l e d to c o n c l u d e t h a t Yahweh has exiled himself f r o m t h e Original C o v e n a n t , and is off in t h e o u t e r spaces, n u r s ing his lovelessness. B a r u c h Spinoza's m a g n i f i c e n t a d m o n i t i o n has h a u n t e d m e for m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y : "It is necessary t h a t we learn t o love G o d w i t h o u t ever e x p e c t i n g t h a t he will love us in r e t u r n . " Ethically, t h a t has a certain p o i g n a n c e , but is it h u m a n l y acceptable? If you substit u t e H a m l e t for G o d in Spinoza's observation, t h e n I m i g h t u n d e r stand it far b e t t e r t h a n I do. T h e p o p u l a r C h r i s t i a n definition " G o d is love" fades away in t h e aura o f Spinoza's inspired " i n t o x i c a t i o n , " to use Coleridge's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e great Jewish moralist as .1 " G o d - i n t o x i c a t e d m a n . " If m y reader is G o d - i n t o x i c a t e d , t h e n she wisely will s m i l e b e n i g n l y e n o u g h at m y q u a l m s , b u t was Spinoza n o t talking a b o u t Y a h w e h and n o t Jesus Christ's G o d t h e Father? Spinoza's family, Iberian M a r r a n o s , had r e t u r n e d to Judaism in tolerant A m s t e r d a m , w h e r e t h e synagogue, doubtless m o t i v a t e d by n e r v o u s ness in regard to its Calvinist hosts, r e l u c t a n t l y e x c o m m u n i c a t e d its

68

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

best m i n d for his supposed " p a n t h e i s m , " in w h i c h Y a h w e h and his creation w o u l d n o t always be distinguished. It m a k e s little sense t o say " Y a h w e h is love," or t h a t we m u s t love Y a h w e h . He just is n o t , n e v e r was, and n e v e r will be love. Many, il n o t m o s t , o f us at o n e t i m e or a n o t h e r fall in love w i t h s o m e o n e w h o neit h e r c a n accept love n o r r e t u r n it, t h o u g h she or h e p e r h a p s d e m a n d s it anyway, if o n l y as w o r s h i p or tribute. Until I C h r o n i c l e s , Yahweh sets t h e p a t t e r n for s u c h destructive role-playings, best exemplified in S h a k e s p e a r e by C l e o p a t r a — u n t i l Act V, w h e n she apparently is transf o r m e d in t h e w a k e o f Antony's d e a t h . Even t h e r e , S h a k e s p e a r e e n dows h e r with an equivocal quality t h a t is an endless c h a l l e n g e t o actresses: h o w do you play t h e part o f s o m e o n e w h o n o l o n g e r k n o w s w h e t h e r or n o t she is playing herself? W h e n Y a h w e h , p e r h a p s in love w i t h David, as he m a y have b e e n w i t h Joseph, David's p r e c u r s o r , p r o m i s e s t h a t he will be a f a t h e r to S o l o m o n , can w e i n t e r p r e t t h e p r o m i s e as o t h e r t h a n divine d r a m a t i s m ? I a m aware t h a t I a m c o n t r a v e n i n g t h e Sages ot Judaism as well as t h e Christian t h e o l o g i a n s , b u t t h e y possess in c o m m o n a belated stance in regard t o t h e Hebrew Bible, or Christian " O l d " T e s t a m e n t . Y a h w e h necessarily is free o f t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r ' s anxiety o f influence, and yet he exemplifies w h a t Paul Valery t e r m e d t h e influe n c e o f t h e poet's m i n d u p o n itself. T h e J Writer's Y a h w e h , w h o vitalizes parts o f w h a t we n o w call Genesis, Exodus, and N u m b e r s , is nearly identical with t h e Lord G o d o f 11 S a m u e l , and h o v e r s like t h e G h o s t o f Hamlet's f a t h e r in I C h r o n i c l e s . O f all p r e c u r s o r s , Yahweh is t h e strongest and least escapable. Nietzsche w a r n e d against t h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e a n c e s t o r god t o bec o m e a n u m i n o u s shadow, a h i n t F r e u d t o o k up ( t h o u g h he denied its

Y A H W E HJ45

d e r i v a t i o n ) in his m a r v e l o u s l y m a d Totem and Taboo, w h e r e t h e t o t e m f a t h e r finally is slain by his s o n s , a h o r d e o f e n e m y b r o t h e r s w h o c a n nibalize t h e i r d r e a d e d f o r e b e a r . T h i s g u i l t y a c t , a c c o r d i n g t o F r e u d , is t h e o r i g i n ot all r e l i g i o n a n d o f c u l t u r e . I a m n o t grisly e n o u g h t o s u g gest t h a t t h o s e e n e m y b r o t h e r s are t h e G o d s o f J u d a i s m , C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d I s l a m — t h a t is, t h e v e r y diverse fivefold o f A d o n a i t h e L o r d , G o d t h e F a t h e r , Jesus C h r i s t , t h e H o l y Spirit, a n d A l l a h . F r e u d ' s p o w e r f u l s p e c u l a t i o n is, h o w e v e r , s u g g e s t i v e , in a S h a k e s p e a r e a n way (as o n e should expect). How m u c h o f C h r o ni c l es the great R e d a c t o r o f " T h e A c a d e m y of E z r a " in B a b y l o n

c o m p o s e d , we c a n n o t

know, but certainly

he

a r r a n g e d t h e T a n a k h so t h a t C h r o n i c l e s c o n c l u d e s it. W e a v i n g Y a h w e h i n t o t h e p a l i m p s e s t h e c r e a t e d o f t h e first t h r e e b o o k s o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h , t h e R e d a c t o r ( l i k e H o m e r as m u c h a n a u t h o r as an e d i t o r ) , a t t e m p t e d a r e v i s i o n a r y s o f t e n i n g o f Y a h w e h , b u t t h a t is like a t t e m p t ing to c a l m a whirlwind. Yahweh c a n n o t be tamed. In Shakespearean t e r m s , Y a h w e h fuses aspects o f Lear, Falstaff, a n d H a m l e t : Lear's u n p r e d i c t a b l e furies, Falstaff's s u r g i n g v i t a l i s m , and H a m l e t ' s restlessness o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s . C o n f r o n t e d by Y a h w e h ' s r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s , s u c h as, will L e v i a t h a n a n d B e h e m o t h m a k e a c o v e n a n t w i t h y o u , e i t h e r w e a b h o r o u r s e l v e s like Job, o r w e s t r i k e b a c k v a i n l y like M e l v i l l e ' s C a p t a i n A h a b , m o s t c o u r a g e o u s a n d d o o m - e a g e r o f all Gnostics. We k n o w t h a t , f o r m a n y a m o n g us, Y a h w e h r e m a i n s t h e m o s t a c c u r a t e a n s w e r t o t h e a n g u i s h e d q u e s t i o n " W h o is G o d ? " A B u d d h i s t , H i n d u , o r T a o i s t w o u l d n o t agree, n o r w o u l d m a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y C h r i s t i a n s , M u s l i m s , a n d Jews, b u t m i n e is a l i t e r a r y critic's a n s w e r , a n d f o u n d s itself u p o n t h e f o r c e and p o w e r o f t h e o n l y l i t e r a r y p e r -

170 H A R O L D 15 L O O M

s o n a l i t y t h a t e x c e e d s in vividness a n d m e m o r a b i l i t y e v e n H a m l e t , Falstaff, Iago, Lear, C l e o p a t r a . T o t r a n s p o s e i n t o religious t e r m s , J's Y a h w e h is t h e m o s t persuasive r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t r a n s c e n d e n t

otherness

t h a t I h a v e e v e r e n c o u n t e r e d . A n d y e t Y a h w e h is n o t o n l y " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c " ( a h o p e l e s s t e r m ! ) b u t a b s o l u t e l y h u m a n , a n d n o t at all a p l e a s a n t fellow, b u t t h e n w h y s h o u l d h e be? He is n o t r u n n i n g for office, q u e s t i n g a f t e r f a m e , o r s e e k i n g b e n i g n t r e a t m e n t in t h e m e d i a . If C h r i s t i a n i t y insists t h a t Jestis C h r i s t is t h e g o o d n e w s ( a n a s s e r t i o n t h a t b r u t a l i t y b y C h r i s t i a n s t h r o u g h o u t h i s t o r y has i n v a l i d a t e d ) , t h e n Y a h w e h is bad n e w s i n c a r n a t e , a n d K a b b a l a h tells us h e m o s t c e r t a i n l y has a body, a n e n o r m o u s o n e at t h a t . It is an a w f u l t h i n g t o fall i n t o t h e h a n d s o f t h e living Y a h w e h . I intend neither blasphemy n o r irony here, but urge only s o m e f r e s h p e r s p e c t i v e s . L o v i n g Jesus is an A m e r i c a n f a s h i o n , b u t l o v i n g Y a h w e h is a q u i x o t i c e n t e r p r i s e , m i s d i r e c t e d b e c a u s e it refuses t o k n o w all t h e facts. You c a n r e s p e c t P r o s p e r o a n d o b e y h i m , as e v e r y o n e in The Tempest l e a r n s t o do, b u t o n l y M i r a n d a loves h i m , since h e has b e e n b o t h f a t h e r a n d m o t h e r t o h e r . In t h e G o s p e l s ( e x c l u d i n g J o h n ) , Y a h w e h is t h e f a t h e r o f Jesus o n l y as A b r a h a m was Isaac's, o n t h e sing l e a n a l o g y o f t h e A q e d a h , t h e n e a r sacrifice o f t h e c h i l d as a n o f f e r ing to God.

14-

THE SON, O HOW THE

UNLIKE

FATHER

N

I E T Z S C H E , f o l l o w i n g J a k o b B u r c k h a r d t , distinguished t h e

Hebrews' h o n o r i n g o f their fathers and m o t h e r s f r o m t h e

G r e e k s ' c o n t e s t for t h e f o r e m o s t place. Jesus reveres Y a h w e h as his father; t h e Q u r ' a n has h i m deny t o Allah t h a t he ever s o u g h t equality in t h e divine r e a l m , let a l o n e s u p r e m a c y . W h a t is it t o be like t h e Father? In The God of Old (2003), James Kugel n a m e s a quality h e calls "starkness," w h i c h resists precise definition b u t c o m e s d o w n to t h e aura o f Y a h w e h . Kugel's m e t a p h o r is prof o u n d l y evocative o f t h e Psalms, with their emphasis u p o n o u r brief life span in c o n t r a s t with Yahweh's. T h e i r answers to " W h a t is m a n ? " t e n d t o r e m i n d us o f o u r smallness, t h o u g h rarely with t h e s t u n n i n g voice o f Y a h w e h o u t o f t h e whirlwind at t h e e n d o f t h e B o o k o f Job. Y a h w e h hears w h a t Kugel t e r m s " t h e cry o f t h e v i c t i m , " but starkness renders his response m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c t h a n n o t . Kugel's G o d o f Old tends to stand b e h i n d t h e world, t h o u g h s o m e t i m e s he enters it.

172

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

E v e r y t h i n g depends u p o n perceptiveness, b o t h ours and t h a t o f t h e biblical writers. Is Jesus C h r i s t , like Y a h w e h , a G o d o f this "starkness"? Christianity has insisted t h a t C h r i s t hears t h e c r y o f t h e v i c t i m and intercedes, w h e n he c a n . By definition, Y a h w e h c a n , but all t o o o f t e n declines t o intervene. T h e C h r i s t i a n populist Q u a t e r n i t y ( F a t h e r , S o n , Holy G h o s t , Virgin M o t h e r M a r y ) offers f o u r potential intercessors, and actually m a n y scores o f o t h e r s , angelic saints and saintly angels. Starkness hardly abides w h e n s u c h a c r o w d hears t h e c r y o f t h e v i c t i m . For Kugel, t h e Bible is n o w a lost w o r l d , but t h e n I reaffirm t h e paradox I have invoked in previous books: Christianity (and J u d a i s m ) n o longer are biblical religions, w h a t e v e r t h e i r assertions. I a m incapable o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t so m a n y C h r i s t i a n scholars go on calling " t h e t h e o l o g y o f t h e Old T e s t a m e n t . " T h e T a n a k h has no t h e o l o g y , and Y a h w e h , to keep repeating t h e obvious, is n o t at all a t h e o l o g i c a l G o d . T h e o l o g y was invented in Alexandria by t h e Hellenized Jew Philo, w h o i n t e r p r e t e d t h e Septuagint as Plotinus c o n s t r u e d Plato. Kugelian " s t a r k n e s s " happily is n o t t h e o l o g i c a l , and doubtless approaches t h e perceptions o f S c r i p t u r e by Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h , and n o t at all by t h e Trinitarian Jesus Christ. Y a h w e h disdains theologizing, b u t he is given to t h e o p h a n y , o r self-manifestation. U n b o u n d e d , Y a h w e h still accepts a m o m e n t a r y series o f dwindlings in order t o s h o w himself. Aside f r o m w a r r i o r and s t o r m appearances, these t h e o p h a n i e s gravitate to t h e high places, hardly unique t o Y a h w e h , but evidently p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n g e n i a l to h i m and so in his possession, b o t h at Sinai and on Z i o n , w h e r e S o l o m o n built his T e m p l e and w h e r e Isaiah b e h o l d s t h e e n t h r o n e d G o d . Pres u m a b l y t h e T e m p l e t h r o n e is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a grander, larger

Y A H W E HJ45

t h r o n e t h a t Y a h w e h , o n a m o r e gigantic scale, occupies up above in his h e a v e n l y realms. Does Christianity e x p e c t us to envision t h e C h r i s t as similarly e n t h r o n e d , by t h e side o f his Father? T h e r e are difficulties b o t h aesthetic and spiritual in s u c h a vision. 1 have m e n t i o n e d previously t h a t J o h n M i l t o n , perhaps t o o c o u r a g e o u s in a t t e m p t i n g t o o v e r c o m e these difficulties, gave us a C h r i s t leading a M e r k a b a h a t t a c k against S a t a n in Paradise Last, a passage n o o n e considers a p o e tic success. N o t h i n g in t h e career o f Jesus suggests a role as divine warrior.

(a) Jews w h o c o n t i n u e t o t r u s t in t h e C o v e n a n t do n o t e n c o u n t e r t h e a m b i v a l e n t Y a h w e h 1 describe, just as Christians w h o believe t h a t Jesus was t h e Christ b e h o l d a very different figure f r o m t h e o n e I regard. Perspective g o v e r n s o u r response t o e v e r y t h i n g we read, b u t m o s t c r u c i a l l y w i t h t h e Bible. Learning f r o m scholars, w h e t h e r Christian or Jewish, o n e still questions their c o n d i t i o n i n g , w h i c h t o o f r e q u e n t l y o v e r d e t e r m i n e s t h e i r presentation. Obviously t h a t c a u t i o n applies to m e as well, a literary critic divided b e t w e e n Judaic heritage and a Gnostic discomfort with God. J a m e s Kugel, like K e n n e t h K u n t z , nicely emphasizes t h a t y o u d o n ' t find Y a h w e h in t h e Bible; he seeks you o u t . After all, his very n a m e i n t i m a t e s t h a t his presence depends u p o n his will. T h o u g h he s e e m s to have b e e n absent these last t w o m i l l e n n i a , Kugel r a t h e r g r i m l y indicates t h a t things were n o t m u c h b e t t e r for t h e Israelites w h e n p r e s u m a b l y Y a h w e h was o n t h e job. Is it all, t h e n , o n l y a m a t t e r

174

H A R O L D 15 L O O M

o f perception, t h e n as now? I like D o n a l d A k e n s o n ' s c h e e r f u l r e m a r k "I c a n n o t believe t h a t any sane person has ever liked Y a h w e h . " B u t as A k e n s o n adds, t h a t is irrelevant, since Y a h w e h is reality. 1 w o u l d go a t o u c h f u r t h e r and identify Y a h w e h with Freud's

"reality-testing,"

w h i c h is akin to t h e Lucretian sense o f t h e way things are. As t h e reality principle, Y a h w e h is irrefutable. We are all g o i n g t o have to die, e a c h in h e r or his t u r n , and I c a n n o t agree with Jesus' Pharisaic belie! in t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n o f t h e body. Y a h w e h , like reality, has quite a nasty sense o f h u m o r , b u t bodily r e s u r r e c t i o n is n o t o n e o f his Jewish or Freudian jokes.

(3) T h e appeal of t h e Lord Jesus C h r i s t c a n n o t be in his perfectionism, w h e r e he goes beyond t h e Pharisees. R a t h e r , he is m a d e to offer a release f r o m death's reality, f r o m t h e way things are, and t h e r e f o r e also f r o m Y a h w e h , w h o is replaced by a supposedly s o f t e n e d G o d t h e Father, b o t h e x e c u t i o n e r and suicide, depending on precisely h o w you decide to i n t e r p r e t t h e Trinity. With n o access to t h e historical Jesus, 1 a m puzzled by m y o w n split in receiving t h e literary c h a r a c t e r Jesus. T h e spiritual c o m p o n e n t in m e responds t o t h e at least p r o t o - G n o s t i c Jesus o f t h e G o s p e l o f T h o m a s , while as a literary critic 1 a m fascinated by t h e mysterious Gospel o f Mark. M a t t h e w does n o t find m e , and Luke and Acts arouse only m y skepticism, while J o h n h a t e s m e and I respond in kind. Paul is utterly p e r p l e x i n g in m y view, b u t stands aside anyway f r o m w h a t e v e r Jesus existed in history. D. H. Lawrence had a h o r r o r o f the R e v e l a t i o n of J o h n t h e Divine, w h i c h I share.

y a h w e hj45

DO M O S T P EO P LE in t h e w o r l d , at all t i m e s a n d places, n e e d

WHY

G o d o r t h e gods? O r , w h y does G o d n e e d us? T h e q u e s t i o n s are u n a n s w e r a b l e o r are a n s w e r e d t o o readily. P o e t s n e e d g o d s b e c a u s e p o l y t h e i s m is p o e t r y . Is Y a h w e h a p o e m ? Is t h e Lord Jesus C h r i s t ? C h r i s t e i t h e r n e e d s ( o r c h o o s e s ) to love us, a c c o r d i n g t o m o s t C h r i s t i a n s I e n c o u n t e r , a n d t h e y c h o o s e ( o r n e e d ) t o l o v e h i m . A F r e n c h Jewish philosopher

has

popularized

a radical

notion

that

some

post-

H o l o c a u s t Jews say t h e i r n e e d is t o l o v e t h e T o r a h m o r e t h a n G o d . Yet all K a b b a l a h a n d m u c h T a l m u d f u s e T o r a h a n d Y a h w e h . D o e s T o r a h l o v e us? I s h r u g o f f Y a h w e h w h e n , f o r s o m e m o m e n t o r o t h e r , h e affirms

his l o v e f o r t h e Jewish p e o p l e . Palpably h e d o e s n ' t , a n d not b e -

c a u s e w e killed C h r i s t ; h e did, u s i n g t h e R o m a n s and a few Jewish Q u i s l i n g s as his a g e n t s . If Y a h w e h n e e d e d t h e Jews, o r t h e C h r i s t i a n s , or t h e Muslims, or t h e Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, T a o i s t s , a n d all t h e o t h e r s , it appears h e r e q u i r e d f e e d i n g t h r o u g h s a c rifices, a n d w a n t e d also endless barrages o f praise, prayers, h y m n s o f g r a t i t u d e , a n d i m m e n s e l o v e , u n c e a s i n g l o v e . Is Y a h w e h s i m p l y a c o s m o l o g i c a l a n d t i m e l e s s K i n g Lear, p a t r i a r c h - o f - p a t r i a r c h s ?

(4) S o n s a n d f a t h e r s c a n f a c e o f f vexedly, i n l i t e r a t u r e as in life. F r e u d judged

The Brothers Karamazov

s u p r e m e a m o n g n o v e l s , e v e n as h e

r i g h t l y r e s e n t e d D o s t o e v s k y ' s vicious a n t i - S e m i t i s m . O n e c a n

see

P r i n c e Hal as a b l e n d o f M i t y a and Ivan, w i t h t h e r o l e o f old K a r a m a -

176 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

z o v divided b e t w e e n H e n r y IV a n d Falstaff. C e r t a i n l y

Dostoevsky

g l e a n e d h i n t s f r o m S h a k e s p e a r e , j u s t as F r e u d ( w i t h s o m e bad f a i t h ) a b s o r b e d a g o o d deal m o r e f r o m S h a k e s p e a r e t h a n f r o m D o s t o e v s k y . A n O e d i p a l o r H a m l e t i a n r e a d i n g o f Jesus in regard t o his h e a v e n l y fat h e r is h a r d l y i n n o v a t i v e : t h a t is w h a t t h e G n o s t i c Jesus is all a b o u t , a n d is p i t h i l y e x p r e s s e d by W i l l i a m B l a k e , m o s t vitalistic o f all G n o s tics: " T h e S o n , O h o w u n l i k e t h e F a t h e r . " T h e p e r m a n e n t p u z z l e o f Y a h w e h is t h a t w e h a v e n o a l t e r n a t i v e t o m a k i n g s e n s e o f h i m in h u m a n t e r m s , a n d y e t h e t r a n s c e n d s a n y t e r m s available t o us. His m o r a l c h a r a c t e r defies a u g u r y , a n d his p e r s o n a l i t y is m e r c u r i a l . T h e Jesus o f M a r k s h a r e s in this p u z z l e , as d o e s H a m l e t . T o call t h e T a n a k h ' s Y a h w e h a S h a k e s p e a r e a n r o l e gets t h i n g s t u r n e d a r o u n d : W i l l i a m T y n d a l e p r e c e d e d S h a k e s p e a r e , and I begin finally t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e E n g l i s h Bible, m o r e e v e n t h a n C h a u c e r , t h o u g h in fusion w i t h t h e Tales of Canterbury,

gave S h a k e -

s p e a r e t h e p r e c e d e n t f o r his p r e t e r n a t u r a l g e n i u s in c r e a t i n g w o m e n a n d m e n . T h a t h a r d l y i n t e n d s t o m e a n t h a t S h a k e s p e a r e was a C h r i s tian d r a m a t i s t , t h o u g h c e r t a i n l y h e w r o t e f o r C h r i s t i a n a u d i e n c e s . Y a h w e h ' s b e i n g t h e p r i m e m o d e l f o r Lear, and M a r k ' s Jesus' b e i n g t h e same for Hamlet, do n o t mean the beliefs—whatever they w e r e — o f S h a k e s p e a r e t h e m a n a r e o n t h e stage. A n d vet so pervasive are t h e ironies o f t h e J W r i t e r t h a t I c a n n o t see h o w w e a r e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e g r e e o f t r u s t ( i f a n y ) t h a t s h e h a d in t h e q u i c k s i l v e r Y a h w e h , a G o d u p o n w h o m a b s o l u t e l y y o u c a n n o t rely. N o r t h e r n a n d E a s t e r n gods c a n b e t r i c k s t e r s , a n d p e r h a p s all divinities, Y a h w e h i n c l u d e d , u l t i m a t e l y h a d s h a m a n i s t i c o r i g i n s , n o w f r e q u e n t l y b e y o n d t r a c e . Yet a n o t h e r p a r a d o x is t h a t Y a h w e h a l t e r n a t e s b e t w e e n i m p i s h m i s c h i e f and m o r a l t e r r o r . W h o e v e r initially

Y A H W E HJ45

w r o t e M a r k kept this in m i n d : Yahweh b o t h indulges and exploits w h a t we w o u l d call his o w n narcissism. How c o u l d it he otherwise? O u r m e m o r i e s o f o u r m o t h e r s and lathers, if t h e y have died, or o u r o n g o i n g experiences o f t h e m , have m a n y f u n c t i o n s , but a key o n e is t e m p e r i n g o u r narcissism. Freud regards t h a t as t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e above-I ( s u p e r e g o ) t h r o u g h internalization o f t h e parents. Y a h w e h , s h o c k i n g l y h u m a n , has n o parents, u n l i k e t h e gods o f t h e G r e e k s . |ack Miles, always c h a l l e n g i n g l y on t h e p o i n t , wonders w h a t keeps Y a h w e h going, since he has n o precursors. H a m l e t has t h e G h o s t and G e r t r u d e , and rejects Ophelia, w h o should have b e c o m e his wife. How c o u l d w e grasp H a m l e t if t h e G h o s t did n o t manifest, and if G e r t r u d e and Ophelia w e r e already dead? As I read t h e play, H a m l e t is incapable o f loving a n y o n e . Is Yahweh able t o love? T h e Sages insist u p o n G o d ' s love o f Israel, w h a t e v e r h e r backslidings. Jesus, h e r e at o n e w i t h t h e Sages o f Judaism, is convinced t h a t his abba loves h i m , until at t h e end he cries o u t , " F a t h e r , why have you f o r s a k e n me?" I wish I c o u l d i n t e r p r e t t h e J text and M a r k as s t o ries o f divine love, but 1 c a n n o t , and k e e p asking myself, " W h y not?" Y a h w e h is certainly t h e m o s t impassioned o f gods, zealous and jealous, but as I have n o t e d , t h e r e is n o t h i n g in h i m like Lear's love for Cordelia, or Jacob's for R a c h e l . Love, W i t t g e n s t e i n said, is n o t a feeling. U n l i k e pain, love is p u t to the test. O n e does n o t say, " T h a t was n o t a t r u e pain, because it passed away so quickly." By t h a t test, Yahw e h does n o t e x p e r i e n c e t r u e love, w h e t h e r for Israel or for all h u m a n k i n d . T h e r e are, as I keep a d m i t t i n g , as m a n y versions o f Jesus as t h e r e are people. T h e o n l y t w o t h a t impress m e are i n c o m p a t i b l e with e a c h o t h e r : t h e Gospels o f T h o m a s and o f M a r k , w h i c h is n o t even c o m p a t i b l e with i t s e l f G n o s t i c Jesus teaches p e r c e p t i o n and n o t love;

191 HAROLD15LOOM

Mark's Jesus c a n n o t be said t o love t h e disciples. If t h e r e is any real likeness between J's Y a h w e h and Mark's Jesus, it m u s t be that b o t h go on c o n f o u n d i n g o u r e x p e c t a t i o n s . C a n t h a t be called love? Is a love you c a n n o t live w i t h p r a g m a t i c a l l y love? S h a k e s p e a r e c o u l d n o t live with A n n e Hathaway, t h o u g h he w e n t h o m e to h e r in his final years. Y a h w e h c o u l d n o t marry, e x c e p t m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , and Jesus did n o t m a r r y , a scandal in his tradition. S o c r a t e s loved n e i t h e r his wife n o r his disciples, and c a n n o t be said t o have loved A t h e n s . Jesus w e p t over J e r u s a l e m p r e s u m a b l y o u t o f love for his people.

(5) T h e mass appeal, worldwide, o f Christianity and o f its rival, Islam, is f o u n d e d u p o n simplicity o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Christianity's t r i u m p h o v e r Judaism, in t h e early c e n t u r i e s o f t h e C o m m o n Era, c o u l d not have c o m e a b o u t on a t h e o l o g i c a l basis. "Believe t h a t Jesus was the C h r i s t and you will be saved and live e t e r n a l l y " proved irresistible on t h e p o p u l a r level. Later this was m a t c h e d by " S u b m i t t o Allah o n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f M u h a m m a d , Seal o f t h e Prophets, and you will be rewarded in t h e life to c o m e . " T h e survival o f Yahwism c o u l d be for a r e m n a n t only. It was n o t any supposed distinction b e t w e e n Law and love that isolated Judaism, but an o n g o i n g historical t r a u m a . I expecl no o n e to appreciate m y s u r m i s e t h a t h o l d i n g on to Y a h w e h alone was and is to risk a perpetual t r a u m a . Mark's Jesus, w h o anguished all n i g h t before his end, had been steadfast in devotion t o Y a h w e h alone. If you argue t h a t ]esus has saved c o u n t l e s s o t h e r s , it r e m a i n s clear that himself he c o u l d n o t save.

15-

JESUS AND THE AGON

YAHWEH:

FOR

GENIUS

J

A C K M I L E S locates Y a h w e h as t h e w o u l d - b e a p p r o p r i a t o r o f all Jewish genius; h e n c e t h e C i r c u m c i s i o n b e c o m e s Yahweh's asser-

tion t h a t he alone is t h e f a t h e r i n g force. T h e o t h e r e l e m e n t o f G r e e k

daemon and R o m a n genius is t h u s o m i t t e d : all g e n e r a t i o n is divine, and t h e r e is n o alter ego, until t h e S a t a n enters to c o m m e n c e t h e B o o k o f Job. Jesus in t h e Gospels is t h e manner, o r n a t u r a l child, o f M i r i a m , but directly e n g e n d e r e d by Y a h w e h - a s - Z e u s , w h o t h u s first creates Jewish g e n i u s in Joshua o f Nazareth. W h e n Peter p r o c l a i m s Jesus as Messiah, he is identified by Jesus as t h e apostle o f alter ego: " G e t t h e e behind m e , S a t a n ! " Jesus k n o w s t h a t his Y a h w e h - c o n f e r r e d genius is a death s e n t e n c e , hardly to be evaded. T h e r e is n o Blessing for Jesus as t h e r e was for t h e Patriarchs and f o r King David: t h e last in David's lineage will receive n o e a r t h l y gift o f m o r e life i n t o a t i m e w i t h o u t b o u n d aries. O n l y r e d e m p t i o n for others awaits h i m .

iSo

Is

JESUS,

HAROLD

BLOOM

t h e n , t h e r e s u r g e n c e o f Jewish genius, p r a g m a t i c a l l y

against Y a h w e h , even as it longs for Yahweh? Miles, in his Christ, gets a r o u n d this agon by a total identification o f Y a h w e h and Jesus, heavily reliant u p o n t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n and n o t u p o n M a r k and M a t t h e w , B u t that will n o t w o r k , since Jesus and Yahweh are s u c h different p e r sonalities: " T h e S o n so u n l i k e t h e F a t h e r ! " All t h e s u b s e q u e n t t h e o l o gies o f t h e I n c a r n a t i o n refine St. J o h n ' s but c o u l d n o t care less about personality.

Joyce's S t e p h e n

D e d a l u s endorses t h e

third-century

African heretic Sabellius, "subtlest heresiarch o f all t h e beasts o f t h e field," w h o held t h a t t h e F a t h e r was h i m s e l f his o w n son, t h u s e l i m i n a t i n g any anxiety o f Y a h w e h ' s influence. Here 1 i n t e n d t o develop t h e Sabellian heresy, particularly as regards t h e seizure by Jesus o f Y a h weh's d a e m o n i c , f a t h e r i n g force, t h e S u b l i m e o f Jewish genius. Does it m a t t e r t h a t Jesus and Y a h w e h are r a t h e r antithetical p e r sonalities, since C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y provides f o r a t h r e e - p e r s o n e d G o d , w h o n e v e r t h e l e s s is o f o n e s u b s t a n c e ; W h a t substance, o r which? Did Yahweh f a t h e r himself, and if so, u p o n w h o m ? T h e C a t h o l i c a n swer is very different f r o m m y questions, since t h e Virgin Birth has b e e n a perpetually p o p u l a r c o n c e p t u a l image, a n d Y a h w e h is not involved. It has always been a difficulty for Christian t h e o l o g y t o u n ravel t h e precise relationship b e t w e e n Yahweh and t h e Holy Spirit. C a n it indeed be o n l y his breath t h a t began creation by m o v i n g u p o n t h e face o f t h e waters? " W h e r e shall w i s d o m be f o u n d ? " t h e B o o k o f Job's q u e s t i o n , m i g h t be p u t t o this m a t t e r also. S o m e t h i n g in m e always wishes t o argue for a G n o s t i c Jesus, t h e Angel C h r i s t , a s S u f i s m t e r m e d h i m , w h o h o v -

y a h w e h107

ers f l i c k e r i n g l y in J o h n ' s G o s p e l . S u c h a Jesus c a n he f o u n d in t h e G o s p e l o f T h o m a s , w h e r e c r u c i f i x i o n is t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t . U n f o r t u nately, t h e canonical New T e s t a m e n t maintains historical

priority

o v e r all e x t a n t G n o s t i c texts, t h e earliest o f w h i c h a r e f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E. ( e x c e p t p e r h a p s t h e G o s p e l o f T h o m a s ) , a n d so revise C h r i s t i a n S c r i p t u r e j u s t as t h e y d o h o t h t h e T a n a k h a n d Plato, partic u l a r l y his Timaeus. If t h e r e i n d e e d w e r e still earlier G n o s t i c texts, we h a v e n o t f o u n d t h e m . A n d y e t w e c a n h a r d l y k n o w w h a t o r a l tradi t i o n s w e r e f o r e v e r l o s t in t h e

first-century

R o m a n Holocaust of the

Jews t h a t c u l m i n a t e d w i t h t h e T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n in 70 C.E. G e t s h o r n S c h o l e m , s p e a k i n g w i t h fierce a u t h o r i t y , t o l d m e o n several o c casions that t h e Kabbalah o f M e r k a b a h and o f t h e Divine Man E n o c h / M e t a t r o n h a d t o h a v e b e e n o r a l l y t r a n s m i t t e d s e c r e t s g o i n g b a c k t o at least t h e first c e n t u r y B.C.E. F o r t h i s M i l t o n o f Kabhalistic studies, what h e called t h e m y t h o f Jesus was a n o t h e r p r o d u c t o f t h o s e t r a d i t i o n s . S o m e t h i n g is c u r i o u s l y a b s e n t f r o m a n y h i s t o r y w e possess o f t InS e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d , w h i c h c o v e r s a l m o s t t h r e e h u n d r e d years, f r o m t h e M a c c a b e a n u p r i s i n g against S y r i a t o t h e Z e a l o t r e b e l l i o n against R o m e , d o w n t o Bar K o c h b a a n d Akiba's last s t a n d at Belli,11 against H a d r i a n , a tragic e p i l o g u e m o r e t h a n sixty y e a r s a f t e r t h e cat a s t r o p h i c e n d o f t h e T e m p l e . J a c o b N e u s n e r , u n m a t c h a b l e s c h o l a r ol Judaistic o r i g i n s , d e n i e s all s c h o l a r l y m y t h s o f a n y e a r l y t r a d i t i o n t h a t d e v e l o p e d i n t o " n o r m a t i v e J u d a i s m " — t h a t is, w h a t w e n o w call Rabbinical, T a l m u d i c J u d a i s m . M e r e l y as a l i t e r a r y critic, 1 have t o o b s e r v e t h a t N e u s n e r m u s t be a c c u r a t e . R e l i g i o u s s c h o l a r s a d o r e t h e o l o g y , b u t w h e r e v e r Y a h w e h wills t o be p r e s e n t , t h e r e c a n be n o t h e o l o g y b e c a u s e , as I h a v e a r g u e d t h r o u g h o u t , a b s o l u t e l y Y a h w e h is n o t at all a c o n c e p t . Y a h w e h in h i m s e l f c a n be a d u m b f o u n d e r i n g abyss, b u t

195 HAROLD BLOOM io

t h e r e is a l m o s t as p r o f o u n d an abyss b e t w e e n Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h and J e s u s - t h e - C h r i s t — b e t w e e n "a marginal Jew," as F a t h e r Meier calls h i m , and a t h e o l o g i c a l being w h o is b o t h " t r u e G o d " and " t r u e M a n " in Christian creeds. Y a h w e h and Jesus C h r i s t r e m a i n separate t h o u g h related puzzles. B u t w h a t m a t t e r s m o s t a b o u t t h e G o d o f t h e T a n a k h is t h a t he n a m e s h i m s e l f Y a h w e h , since t h e r e was n o o n e else w h o c o u l d have d o n e it. Z e u s usurps his o w n l a t h e r , C h r o n o s , but Yahweh is u n f a t h e r e d . B e r e s h i t h ( G e n e s i s ) is n o t a beginning/again.

IF

YOU

HAVE

HAD

NO

PARENTS,

t h e n no one has taught

you;

Y a h w e h necessarily is self-educated. Jesus has parents, and yet t h e New T e s t a m e n t has virtually n o interest in Joseph, w h i l e its M a r y ( M i r i a m ) is hardly t h e divinity exalted by t h e p o p e in 1950, w h e n he belatedly p r o c l a i m e d t h a t t h e M o t h e r o f G o d wras " a s s u m e d body and soul i n t o h e a v e n l y g l o r y " u p o n h e r e a r t h l y death. A c e n t u r y earlier, in 1854, she was a c c o r d e d t h e I m m a c u l a t e C o n c e p t i o n , n o t t h e Virgin Birth (which had l o n g been d o g m a ) b u t t h e declaration t h a t Mary's M o t h e r also had been forever virginal. O n e skeptic in 1854 dared t o w o n d e r if Mary's m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r had retained her virginity, and yet t h e C h u r c h ' s t h e o l o g i a n s s h r e w d l y u n d e r s t o o d w h e n to stop. I intend no irony by asking w h a t c o u l d be m a d e o f t h e assertion t h a t M a r y was Y a h w e h ' s m o t h e r , since t h e I n c a r n a t i o n implies that Yahweh e m p t i e s h i m s e l f o f his divinity and so dies as Jesus C h r i s t u p o n t h e Cross. F r o m a perspective t h a t need n o t be regarded o n l y as Jewish or M u s l i m , t h e pagan m y s t e r y aspect o f C h r i s t i a n i t y is h i g h lighted if you are willing t o p u r s u e t h e full c o n s e q u e n c e s o f T r i n i t a r ian d o c t r i n e . T o say, with T e r t u l l i a n , "I believe because it is absurd"

Y A 11 W I II

mt

has a period flavor. Is t h e Crucifixion m o r e I h n i l e i ot ih>

MIMIHI

t h a n it is tragic drama?

F a t h e r Meier has preceded m e in m e d i t a t i n g u p o n Jesus as an i n s t a n c e o f "Jewish genius." Y a h w e h is Jewish g e n i u s i t s e l f — a n unstable genius, yet so is t h e Jesus o f Mark, w h o is restlessly rapid and incessantly m o v e s t h r o u g h crowds. W h e n A m e r i c a n s say "Jesus helps" and "Jesus saves," t h e y u n k n o w i n g l y rely u p o n t h e r o o t m e a n i n g o f t h e n a m e J o s h u a (Yeshua), w h i c h is " Y a h w e h helps" or " Y a h w e h saves." D o Jesus and Yahweh h e l p and save in similar ways? In t h e B o o k o f Joshua, w h e n Y a h w e h is a s w o r d s m a n c o m m a n d i n g t h e Israelite warriors, this aid leads to t h e salvation o f the c o n q u e s t . J o h n M i l t o n , in Paradise Lost, baroquely e x t e n d s this tradition w h e n his C h r i s t leads an arm o r e d a t t a c k u p o n S a t a n i c rebels, driving t h e m i n t o t h e abyss so that

5

r

t h e i r flaming i m p a c t on t h e b o t t o m creates Hell. T h a t is t h o r o u g h l y Yahwistic but hardly c o n s o n a n t with t h e Jesus C h r i s t o f t h e Gospels. As I have m e n t i o n e d , M i l t o n , a radical Protestant sect o f o n e (unless y o u agree with C h r i s t o p h e r Hill t h a t t h e p o e t was a M u g g l e t o n i a n ) , gets Jesus off t h e Cross w i t h startling haste, because he refuses t o acc e p t a s e l f - i m m o l a t e d Yahweh. I repeat that t h e f u t u r e o f Christianity is n o t in E u r o p e o r t h e Middle East, but in t h e U n i t e d States, Africa, and Asia. This c o m i n g C h r i s tianity is d o m i n a t e d by Jesus and t h e Holy Spirit, r a t h e r t h a n by t h e figure o f t h e Father. A p r a g m a t i c separation b e t w e e n Y a h w e h and Jesus widens, and Y a h w e h has n o t survived in Christianity, b u t o n l y in

w 8

'-n

184 HAROLD BLOOM io

t h e Allah o f Islam. T h e dying G o d has also t u r n e d o u t t o be Y a h w e h , and n o t Jesus. All gods age, Y a h w e h included, t h o u g h his dying may n o t prove to be final, since Islam could yet prevail. Gods ebb with c o n t i n e n t a l e c o n o m i e s , and Europe's a u g m e n t i n g godlessness c o u l d be a s y m p t o m o f its final d e c l i n e in relation to globalization. T h e Jesus C h r i s t o f evangelical Protestantism and o f M o r m o n i s m is t h e n o t - s o - h i d d e n G o d o f t h e c o r p o r a t e world in t h e U n i t e d States. W h y was C h r i s t i a n i t y t r i u m p h a n t f r o m its a d o p t i o n by t h e m u r derous E m p e r o r C o n s t a n t i n e until its gradual intellectual displacem e n t since t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t ? If y o u are a believing C h r i s t i a n , t h e r e is n o p r o b l e m : t h e t r u t h has m a d e y o u free. T h a t is also Islam's a n swer. C u l t u r e s rise and ebb:' G i b b o n ironicallyj viewed t h e fall o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e as Christianity's fault. Since t h e A m e r i c a n E m p i r e is o n l y ostensibly C h r i s t i a n , o u r eventual decline and fall will have to be ascribed t o s o m e different culprit. C h i n e s e and Indians w o r k harder t h a n w e do, w h i l e E u r o p e a n s increasingly evade labor. Norwegians, F r e n c h , and m a n y o t h e r nationalities n o t o r i o u s l y e m b r a c e absenteeism. Was Christianity's c o n c e a l e d persistence a kind o f w o r k ethic, i n h e r i t e d f r o m t h e hard existence o f Judea? We still identify capitalism with P r o t e s t a n t i s m , and Puritan ideas pervade o u r m a r k e t e c o n o m y . Business leadership in t h e U n i t e d States is an oddly p r a g m a t i c blend o f A m e r i c a n Jesus and Machiavelli. Agon, t h e ancient G r e e k c o n t e s t for t h e f o r e m o s t place, was c o n trasted by Nietzsche to t h e Hebrews' h o n o r i n g o f their fathers and m o t h e r s , t h e p l a c i n g o f their f o r e r u n n e r s before t h e m s e l v e s . In t h e a g o n b e t w e e n J e s u s - t h e - C h r i s t and Y a h w e h , t h e s t r u g g l e is concealed by d i m m i n g Y a h w e h ' s sublimity i n t o t h e

flickering

candlelight o f

YAHWEH

10 7

G o d t h e Father. W h e n the Gospel o f J o h n ' s Jesus is m a d e t o say, " B e • fore A b r a h a m was, I a m , " s h o u l d we i n t e r p r e t this t o m e a n that he also will be present o n l y w h e n he c h o o s e s to be? In Isaiah, as t h r o u g h o u t the T a n a k h , Yahweh's p r e s e n c e does n o t b e c o m e an absence even w h e n Yahweh eclipses himself. Jack Miles, in his lively God: A Biography, argues t h a t Y a h w e h pulls back i n t o heaven after t h e B o o k o f Job. This withdrawal a c c o u n t s for t h e characteristic anxiety t h a t m a r k s t h e Fie brew narrative; t h e T a n a k h ' s question always is "Will Yahweh act?" T h e u l t i m a t e answer implied is t h a t he will not, and has deserted us, perhaps because h e is c a u g h t up in t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s o f his o w n c h a r a c t e r and personality. T h e Sages o f t h e T a l m u d w o u l d n o t agree with such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and yet p o s t - H o l o c a u s t Jewry is c o n f r o n t e d by this e n i g m a . T h e R o m a n H o l o c a u s t o f t h e Jews, with its first c l i m a x at t h e fall ol J e r u s a l e m and d e s t r u c t i o n o f Yahweh's T e m ple, and a s e c o n d o n e after t h e even larger-scale devastation o f t h e Bar K o c h b a rebellion, resulted in t h e rise and persistence o f Rabbinical Ju daism. A r e m n a n t o f t h a t faith still struggles o n , yet m a n y o f its adh e r e n t s avert t h e m s e l v e s f r o m asking, Is it possible still t o trust in a C o v e n a n t t h a t Y a h w e h p r a g m a t i c a l l y has forsaken? If you have lost y o u r g r a n d p a r e n t s in the G e r m a n death c a m p s , are you t o trust a Yahweh w h o m u s t be either powerless o r uncaring? Jewish Gnosticism, in m y j u d g m e n t , t o o k its inception f r o m t h e initial R o m a n H o l o c a u s t .

(0 O n c e again, w h a t do Christians m e a n w h e n t h e y say t h a t G o d is love? Secularists ironically reverse this i n t o t h e hazardous view that love is

s :

186 h a r o l d

bloom

k, '

G o d . 1 do n o t k n o w a n y o n e w h o l o v e s h e r e n e m i e s a n d w h o prays f o r

•

t h o s e w h o p e r s e c u t e h e r . S t . Paul says t h a t C h r i s t was t h e s o n o f Y a h -

O

w e h ' s love, w h i l e t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n f r e q u e n t l y insists t h a t t o n o t l o v e G o d is t o n o t k n o w h i m , an e x h o r t a t i o n w h i c h has b e c o m e c r e e d a l .

— ^

A n d y e t Paul and J o h n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e p a t h by w h i c h C h r i s t i a n ^ t h e o l o g y a r r i v e d at t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e impassability o f t h e F a t h e r : his

sc^

f r e e d o m f r o m , o r inability t o feel, h u m a n e m o t i o n . T h a t is Plato's

^r

G o d and n o t Y a h w e h the jealous ( o r zealous) G o d o f t h e Hebrews.

Obi-

Plato, by t h e t i m e h e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d his t h e o l o g y , h a d aged b e y o n d ^

his earlier e x a l t a t i o n o f S o c r a t i c eras. S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t a p p e a r in t h e Laws. A n a p a t h e t i c G o d c a n n o t b e identified w i t h l o v e . T h e g r e a t t h e l

o l o g i a n ^ O r i g e n | s e e k i n g t h e p e r f e c t i o n o f a sexless G o d , is said b y

'^j

E u s e b i u s t o h a v e c a s t r a t e d h i m s e l f . G n o s t i c i s m , c o n d e m n e d by t h e

KTj

C h u r c h as h e r e s y , p r e a c h e d t h e i m p a s s a b i l i t y o f C h r i s t , w h o t h u s did

•

n o t suffer, e v e n u p o n t h e C r o s s . T h e r e was t h e r e f o r e n o Passion. Origen and the Gnostics were m o r e consistent than were t h e C h r i s t i a n s , w h o a f f i r m e d t h a t G o d was l o v e a n d still t o t a l l y t r a n s c e n d e n t , e v e n as t h e C r e a t o r . H o w c a n w h a t is so far b e y o n d us also l o v e us? T h e C h r i s t i a n a n s w e r has t o be t h e A t o n e m e n t , in w h i c h t h e e m b o d i m e n t o f G o d ' s l o v e f o r t h e w o r l d a n d its p e o p l e a c c e p t s sacrifice as t h e o n l y m o d e o f r e c o n c i l i n g G o d w i t h t h e m , a n d s o f o r g i v i n g t h e m f o r e v e r y sin, A d a m ' s o n w a r d . A u g u s t i n e , in

consequence,

c o u l d r e s t o r e t h e idea o f G o d as l o v e by s e e i n g G o d as h e w h o l o v e s , his S o n as t h e b e l o v e d , a n d t h e H o l y Spirit as t h e l o v e t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e S o n s h a r e . T h a t f o r m u l a t i o n is m o r e t h a n i n g e n i o u s , t h o u g h it engenders fresh puzzles.

'V y a h w e h

187

(4) My favorite o b s e r v a t i o n in S p i n o z a I have cited b e f o r e : it is n e c e s s a r y t h a t w e l e a r n t o l o v e G o d w i t h o u t e x p e c t i n g t h a t h e e v e r will love us in r e t u r n . A n u n r e q u i t e d l o v e c a n be a n i m a g i n a t i v e b e n e f i t t o p o e t s , h u t n o t to m o s t o f us. S p i n o z a , t h o u g h cast o u t by his t e l l o w Jews in A m s t e r d a m , was i n t o x i c a t e d w i t h Y a h w e h r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e ( ] h r i s tian G o d t h e F a t h e r . Love a n d t h e fear o f Y a h w e h a r e o n e ; I c a n n o t recall t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t s p e a k i n g of t h e tear o f G o d t h e F a t h e r . T h e Yahwist's G o d did n o t create o u t o f l o v e , t h o u g h his m o t i v e was to m a k e a h u m a n in his o w n i m a g e . M o s e s ( D e u t e r o n o m y 6 : 5 ) c o m m a n d s t h e H e b r e w s t o l o v e G o d w i t h all t h e i r h e a r t , s o u l , a n d m i g h t h u t h e does n o t say t h e l o v e will be r e c i p r o c a t e d ; a n d t h e Sages said t h a t " r e v e r e n c e " is w h a t M o s e s m e a n s by l o v i n g G o d , s i n c e t h e c o n t e x t o f this l o v e is t h e C o v e n a n t . T h i s is n o t t o fall i n t o t h e r h e t o r i c o f t h e C h r i s t i a n m i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e " O l d " C o v e n a n t in w h i c h Y a h w e h is W i l l i a m B l a k e ' s N o b o d a d d y . T h e C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r s u p p o s edly c a n b e l o v e d w i t h o u t fear, b u t in f u l l y h u m a n as in spiritual act u a l i t y t h e r e is always a fusion o f l o v e a n d fear, e v e n b e t w e e n equals. Y a h w e h is a p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h o u t a sexual c o m p o n e n t . F o r Sig m u n d Freud, that was n o p r o b l e m , since he cheerfully referred to h i m s e l f as a " g o d l e s s Jew." I m y s e l t find F r e u d ' s p h r a s e a n o x y m o r o n ; Y a h w e h is h a r d t o j u s t dismiss. B u t t h e n , F r e u d was n e v e r t h e l e s s at his least p e r s u a s i v e in The Future of an Illusion. Y a h w e h , c a l l e d Allah by Is l a m , is a v e r y d a n g e r o u s " i l l u s i o n " t h e s e days, a n d so is as m u c h a re ality as e v e r b e f o r e . Like Y a h w e h , A l l a h in t h e Q u r ' a n is p e r p e t u a l l y furious with u s — a tightly regimented fury. Yahweh's C o v e n a n t with Israel d e m a n d s a r e v e r e n t o r loyal l o v e , a n d offers a k i n d o f love in re-

8

h a r o l d 15 l o o m

t u r n , o n e difficult t o describe, s i n c e it c a n n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m c o m p a s s i o n . If a p e r s o n is t o l d o n e loves h e r , a n d s h e replies, "I feel c o m p a s s i o n f o r y o u , " t h a t is n o t w h a t m o s t o f us w a n t f r o m a n o t h e r . It is r a t h e r t o o g o d l i k e , a n d w h o w o u l d a c c e p t it, e x c e p t f r o m G o d ? Christianity

reads

the

Suffering

Servant

passage in

II

Isaiah

(52:13—53:12) as a p r o p h e c y o f t h e C r u c i f i x i o n . T h e S a g e s o f t h e O r a l Law s h r u g g e d this off, s o m e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t was M o s e s a n d o t h e r s t h a t it was also J e r e m i a h t h e p r o p h e t , in f u s i o n w i t h t h e p e o p l e o f Israel. T h e r e is a useful s t u d y o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f J e r e m i a h a n d o f I Isaiah u p o n II Isaiah, A Prophet Reads Scripture, by B e n j a m i n D. S o m m e r ( 1 9 9 8 ) . T h a t t h e S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t " a c c e p t s his fate m o r e readily t h a n J e r e m i a h " ( S o m m e r , 6 6 ) does n o t lessen t h e later p r o p h e t ' s d e l i b e r a t e r e l i a n c e u p o n t h e earlier, as o n I Isaiah, w h o is p a r t o f t h e fused S e r v a n t figure o f S u f f e r i n g Israel, as again S o m m e r s h o w s . T h e G o s p e l s , w h i c h d e c l a r e t h e c r u c i f i e d a n d risen Jesus t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f Israel's p r o p h e t i c t r a d i t i o n , h a v e a far m o r e a n x i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o J e r e m i a h a n d b o t h Isaiahs, a n d Z e c h a r i a h also, t h a n t h e Hebrewprophets have to one another. Does divine love take on a n e w dimension w h e n Yahweh incants t h e m a j o r S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t song? N o r a b b i n i c a l sage o r m o d e r n J e w ish s c h o l a r o f t h e Bible w o u l d wish t o say so, y e t t h a t p r a g m a t i c a l l y a b a n d o n s t h e m a t t e r t o C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s s t r o n g m i s r e a d i n g o f this e x traordinary p o e m :

"Indeed, My servant shall prosper, Be exalted and raised to great heights. Just as the m a n y were appalled at h i m — So marred was his appearance, unlike that of m a n . o ^ t t f c - O a il

Y A H W E H107

His form, beyond human s e m b l a n c e — Just so he shall startle many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, For they shall see what has not been told them, Shall behold what they never have heard." "Who can believe what he have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, Like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty, that we should look at him: No charm, that we should find him pleasing. He w as despised, shunned by men, A man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us. He was despised, we held him of no account. Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing. Our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, Smitten and afflicted by God; But he was wounded because of our sins, He bore the chastisement that made us whole, And by his bruises we were healed. We all went astray like sheep, Each going his own way; And the Lord visited upon him The guilt of all of us." He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, He did not open his mouth;

190 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

Like a sheep being led to slaughter, Like a ewe, d u m b before those w h o shear her, He did not open his m o u t h . By oppressive judgment he was taken away, Who could describe his abode: For he was cut off from the land o f the living T h r o u g h the sin o f my people, who deserved the punishment. And his grave was set a m o n g the wicked, And with the rich, in his d e a t h — T h o u g h he had done no injustice And had spoken no falsehood. But the Lord chose to crush him by disease, That, if he made himself an offering for guilt. He might see offspring and have long life, And that through him the Lord's purpose might prosper. O u t o f his anguish he shall see it; He shall e n j o y it to the full through his devotion. "My righteous servant makes the many righteous, It is their p u n i s h m e n t that he bears; Assuredly, I will give him the many as his portion. He shall receive the multitude as his spoil. For he exposed himself to death And was numbered a m o n g the sinners, Whereas he bore the guilt o f the many And made intercession for sinners."

A r e s o n a n c e is v i b r a n t h e r e t h a t gives Y a h w e h an u n i q u e t o n a l i t y , a n t i c i p a t e d in J e r e m i a h and I Isaiah b u t n o t w i t h this p r e c i s e p a t h o s .

YAHWEH107

T h e G e r m a n - J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r F r a n z Rosenzweig, w h o died in early middle age in 1929, argued t h a t G o d m u s t fall in love with his creation. I do n o t find in t h e T a n a k h any indication t h a t this happened, b u t t h e g e n i u s w h o c o m p o s e d II Isaiah shows us Y a h w e h , c o n fronted by t h e Suffering S e r v a n t , falling in love with t h e t o r m e n t e d people o f Israel. W h a t is s h o c k i n g l y p o w e r f u l a b o u t this m a j o r Sufferi n g S e r v a n t passage is that it is a kind of divine love song. T o m a k e such an observation is very u n c o m f o r t a b l e to m e , f o r reasons both historical and personal. B u t it is f o r m e a burden t h a t Christianity's usurpation o f this astonishing p o e m is imaginatively difficult t o dis p u t e , t h o u g h also u n a c c e p t a b l e f r o m any Jewish perspective. Indebted as he was to his p r e c u r s o r s , II Isaiah is a s t r o n g prophetp o e t , I r i g h t e n i n g l y original in his m e t a p h o r o f t h e S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t . It is i m p o r t a n t t o keep n o t i n g t h a t t h e S e r v a n t is not a Messianic figure in the Hebrew t e x t . II Isaiah celebrates King C y r u s o f Persia, quite e x plicitly, as t h e Messiah, because t h e p r o p h e t ' s p u r p o s e is t o persuade t h e c o m f o r t a b l e Israelites o f Babylon to a b a n d o n their Exile and ret u r n to J e r u s a l e m , a f r e e d o m p r o c l a i m e d f o r t h e m by C y r u s t h e Messiah. T h e B a b y l o n i a n Diaspora can be t h o u g h t o f a s s t a r t l i n g l y like t h e c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n o f A m e r i c a n Jewry, w h i c h is n o t ever g o i n g t o go back to Z i o n . II Isaiah does n o t s e e m to have persuaded m o s t o f t h o s e at ease in Babylon t o c h o o s e an a r d u o u s existence in Jerusalem. T h e Suffering Servant is a plural being, t h e p e o p l e o f Israel, b o t h m e n and w o m e n , and their s t r i c k e n p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h . If t h e great c h a n t is a song of love, this is a love difficult t o distinguish f r o m d e a t h . Walt W h i t m a n ' s songs t h a t fuse love and death are clear analogues. T h e f o r l o r n m a l e seabird o f " O u t o f t h e Cradle Endlessly R o c k i n g " and t h e solitary h e r m i t t h r u s h o f " W h e n Lilacs Last in t h e D o o r y a r d

192 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

B l o o m ' d " a r e c u r i o u s l y akin in t h e i r l o v e s o n g s of d e a t h t o Y a h w e h ' s c o m p a s s i o n a t e l a m e n t f o r his S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t , Israel. P e r h a p s y o u n e e d t o he a b e l i e v i n g C h r i s t i a n t o call Y a h w e h ' s c h a n t an u n e q u i v o cal e x p r e s s i o n o f his love. Kabbalah t u r n s Yahweh into Ein-Sof, " w i t h o u t end," and audac i o u s l y c h a r t s his sexual life w i t h his b e l o v e d S h e k h i n a h , t h e f e m a l e i n d w e l l i n g p r e s e n c e o f Y a h w e h a m o n g us. T h e Kabbalistic b a r o q u e e l a b o r a t i o n s o f t h e S h e k h i n a h relied f o r t h e i r s t a r t i n g p o i n t u p o n t h e c o p i o u s ( b u t c h a s t e ) m u s i n g s o f t h e Sages in t h e t w o T a l m u d s a n d t h e m i d r a s h i m . T h e r e is an i l l u m i n a t i n g i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e T a l m u d i c S h e k h i n a h in E p h r a i m E. U r b a c h ' s The Sages (pp. 3 7 - 6 5 ) . U r b a c h e m phasizes t h a t f o r t h e g r e a t rabbis t h e S h e k h i n a h h a d n o s e p a r a t e exist e n c e o f h e r o w n b u t was a p a r t o f G o d , his p r e s e n c e i n t h e w o r l d . B u t this c h a n g e d in t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y , w h e n t h e S h e k h i n a h begins t o be s p o k e n o f as f e m a l e a n d as h a v i n g h e r o w n e x i s t e n c e . H e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y f l o w e r i n g in K a b b a l a h a s s i m i l a t e d t h e S h e k h i n a h t o t h e Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22-9:6. In t h e P r o p h e t s , t h e S h e k h i n a h is n e v e r a p r o t a g o n i s t , a n d it t o o k the ingenuities o f Kabbalah to associate her with any prophetic c o n t e x t . T h e S u f f e r i n g S e r v a n t is all Israel, b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n , a n d w h a t e v e r c o m p a s s i o n o r l o v i n g - k i n d n e s s t h e S e r v a n t e v o k e s in Y a h w e h is n o t easy t o d e f i n e , a n d y e t is c e n t r a l t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n his f a t h e r l y s t a n c e t o w a r d Israel a n d t h e T r i n i t y ' s G o d t h e F a t h e r ' s s t a n c e t o w a r d his S o n , j e s u s - t h e - C h r i s t . I r e p e a t t h a t t h e S e r v a n t cannot be t h e a n o i n t e d o n e , t h e M e s s i a h , b u t m u s t b e t h e c r y i n g - o u t v i c t i m t h a t C y r u s , as Y a h w e h ' s M e s s i a h , is c o m i n g t o save.

1 6 .

THE JEWISH ON

SAGES

GOD

Y

AH WE H , as a p r o f o u n d l y h u m a n G o d , does n o t yield f r u i t f u l l y to t h e o l o g y , a G r e e k and n o t a H e b r e w m o d e o f t h i n k i n g . As I

h a v e n o t e d , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r is radically d i f f e r e n t f r o m Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y a n d c h a r a c t e r . T h e o l o g y d o e s not ascribe p e r s o n a l i t y t o G o d t h e F a t h e r , t o Jesus C h r i s t t h e S o n , o r t o t h e H o l y S p i r i t . W h e n t h e Kahbalists r e n a m e d Y a h w e h ( h i s n a m e .1 t a b o o ) , t h e y c a l l e d h i m F i n - S o f , " w i t h o u t e n d . " A n d s o h e was, and is, w h e r e v e r o n e n o w t h i n k s h e is. T h e G o d o f t h e G n o s t i c s is c a l l e d t h e S t r a n g e r o r A l i e n G o d , a n d has exiled h i m s e l f f r o m o u r c o s m o s , p e r h a p s f o r e v e r . I d o n o t regard Y a h w e h in t h a t way, b u t h e p e r h a p s last appears in t h e T a n a k h as t h e rather r e m o t e Ancient o f Days o f the B o o k of Daniel (about

164

B.C.E.). T h e t e x t is t h e A r a m a i c C h a p t e r 7, in w h i c h v a r i o u s G e n t i l e t y r a n n i e s m a n i f e s t as t e r r i b l e beasts f r o m t h e sea, a n d t h e n in Verses 9—10 w e see this:

194 h a r o l d

bloom

As I looked on, Thrones were set in place, And the Ancient of Days took His seat. His g a r m e n t was like white snow, And the hair o f His head was like lamb's wool. His t h r o n e was tongues o f flame; Its wheels were blazing fire. A river of fire streamed forth before Him; Thousands upon thousands served Him; Myriads upon myriads attended Him; T h e court sat and the books were opened.

T h a t is a e s t h e t i c a l l y i m p r e s s i v e , b u t n o t v e r y Y a h w i s t i c , s i n c e this is p r e s u m a b l y G o d sitting as t h e p r e s i d e n t o r k i n g o f a h e a v e n l y c o u r t , as in Isaiah o r Job. Jack Miles, e x u b e r a n t l y s h r e w d , t h i n k s Y a h w e h has b e c o m e a s i l e n t old m a n , s o o n t o subside i n t o u t t e r w e a r i n e s s . As a n anxious student o f Yahweh, I a m skeptical, and r e m e m b e r that t h e B o o k o f D a n i e l is r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e C h r i s t i a n T e s t a m e n t t h a n in t h e T a n a k h . F o r C h r i s t i a n s , D a n i e l is a m a j o r p r o p h e t , akin t o Isaiah, J e r e m i a h , a n d E z e k i e l , w h i c h is a n a b s u r d i n f l a t i o n . F o r Jews, D a n i e l is n o t e v e n a m i n o r p r o p h e t , a n d is p l a c e d in t h e K e t h u v i m , or W r i t i n g s , in b e t w e e n E s t h e r a n d Ezra. T h e D e a d S e a C o v e n a n ters at Q u m r a n r e g a r d e d D a n i e l as a p r o p h e t , b u t as a p o c a l y p t i c s t h e y recognized one of their own. T h e J W r i t e r a n d o t h e r a u t h o r s o f saga w e r e n o t a p o c a l y p t i c s , a n d Y a h w e h is u n h a p p y w i t h t h a t m o d e . H e w a l k s a b o u t o n e a r t h , as b e fits a m e d d l e r . T h e Sages o f t h e Jewish p e o p l e w e r e severely c h a l lenged to a c c o m m o d a t e themselves to their u n n e r v i n g God, but they

Y A H W E H107

m a g n i f i c e n t l y c o n f r o n t e d t h e i r task m o s t n o t a b l y in t h e M i s h n a h and in t h e B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d , t w o a m a z i n g w o r k s . T h e M i s h n a h codifies t h e Oral Law u p o n w h i c h R a b b i n i c a l J u d a i s m is f o u n d e d , a n d is tradit i o n a l l y c r e d i t e d t o " R a b b i " h i m s e l f , J u d a h t h e Patriarch ( a b o u t 200 C.E.). Bavli ( t h e B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d ) studies all T o r a h , w r i t t e n a n d o r a l , and really c a n n o t be dated. It m a y h a v e b e e n c o n c l u d e d a n y t i m e f r o m 520 t o 600 C.E., and m a k e s f o r c o n s i d e r a b l y a t t r a c t i v e r e a d i n g and study, in c o n t r a s t t o t h e f o r b i d d i n g M i s h n a h , an i n d u b i t a b l y g r e a t w o r k t h a t depresses m e . As D o n a l d H a r m a n A k e n s o n r e m a r k s , t h e M i s h n a h is b o t h H e r m e t i c and " p e r f e c t , " a p e r f e c t i o n I find d e s t r u c tive. In c o n t r a s t , Bavli is an o p e n s p l e n d o r , inviting a lifetime's e d u c a t i o n , b u t o n l y o n its o w n s t r i n g e n t t e r m s .

I C A N N O T R E C A L L t h a t t h e H e b r e w Bible e v e r e x p l i c i t l y states t h a i t h e Jewish p e o p l e c a n r e n d e r t h e m s e l v e s h o l y t h r o u g h s t u d y , yet I a m o n e o f m a n y t h o u s a n d s w h o w e r e b r o u g h t up t o believe in s u c h in cessant r e a d i n g a n d m e d i t a t i o n . T h e idea n o w s e e m s t o m e Platonic, and r e a c h e d t h e rabbis b o t h o f J e r u s a l e m and B a b y l o n t h r o u g h I lei l e n i s m . It is a p u z z l e t h a t so m a n y of t h e Jewish Sages of t h e first t h r o u g h s i x t h c e n t u r i e s C.E. c o u l d t r u s t in Y a h w e h ' s C o v e n a n t despite reading t h e T a n a k h t h r o u g h P l a t o n i c lenses, as it w e r e . T h e i r Y a h w e h r e m a i n e d a h u m a n god, f r e q u e n t l y t o t h e i r c o n s t e r n a t i o n , as t h e y struggled

t o e x p l a i n away divine " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m " — a

word

t h a t , as I k e e p m e n t i o n i n g , I dislike and r e j e c t in this c o n t e x t . T h e g r e a t e s t Jewish sages r e c o g n i z e d q u i t e t h o r o u g h l y t h a t it was b e t t e r t o see t h e Patriarchs as " t h e o m o r p h i c " m e n t h a n t o view Y a h w e h as an " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c " god. B u t divest Y a h w e h o f his h u m a n p r o p e n s i

196 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

ties a n d a t t r i b u t e s , a n d y o u m a y as w e l l a d o p t t h e G o d o f P l a t o n i c t h e o l o g y . D e s p i t e Philo o f A l e x a n d r i a , p r i n c e o f Jewish P l a t o n i c a l l e gorists, a t r u e n a m e f o r G o d , in t h e t r a d i t i o n o f Rabbi Akiba, is Ish ( m a n ) . E x o d u s 15:3 m a g n i f i c e n t l y i n t o n e s , " Y a h w e h is a M a n of War, t h e Lord is his n a m e . " Y a h w e h reveals h i m s e l f t o t h e e m b a t t l e d legions o f J o s h u a , M o s e s ' g e n e r a l , as a m a n in o r d e r t o sanctify a n d t o s t r e n g t h e n a n Israel e m b a t t l e d t h e n , t h r o u g h t h e ages, r i g h t n o w , a n d d o u b t l e s s f o r e v e r t o c o m e , s i n c e all t h e r o a d m a p s are i l l u s o r y traps t h a t o f f e r o n l y s u i c i d e t o t h e S t a t e o f Israel. O n e reflects t h a t even such suicide would n o t appease t h e rapaciousness o f French and o t h e r E u r o p e a n anti-Semitism, w h i c h contrives to survive even t h e ebbing-away of European Christianity.

THE

G R E A T A K I BA, w h o t r u l y f o u n d e d t h e J u d a i s m w e still r e c -

o g n i z e ( e v e n w h e n w e c a n n e i t h e r a c c e p t n o r r e j e c t it, m y

own

d i l e m m a ) , h e l d s t r o n g to t h e l i t e r a l i s m o f Y a h w e h as Ish, G o d as M a n , d e s p i t e R a b b i I s h m a e l a n d his s c h o o l . Y a h w e h w a l k s a b o u t in E x o d u s 13:21, h o w e v e r

unhappy

such

perambulation

was

to

make

the

P r o p h e t s . 1 find a c r a z y c o m e d y in t h e early e x e g e t e s w h o f o l l o w a s t r o l l i n g Y a h w e h a r o u n d , w h i l e c h i r p i n g , " H e ' s n o t w a l k i n g ! " After all, t h e h a r d w o r k i n g a n d e n e r g e t i c Y a h w e h r e a l l y rests o n t h e s e v e n t h day, d o u b t l e s s l o a f i n g a n d i n v i t i n g his s o u l , r a t h e r in Walt W h i t m a n ' s m a n n e r . A s w o r d s m a n , Yahw 7 eh n e e d s d o w n t i m e , like all m e n o f w a r . A n d Y a h w e h is j o y o u s , o r a n g r y , a n d f r e q u e n t l y h u n g r y . A k i b a s e n s i bly f o u n d all this q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e , b u t it roused his f r i e n d a n d o p p o n e n t Ishmael t o indignant denials that G o d and t h e Angels required

YAHWEH107

s u s t e n a n c e , e v e n t h o u g h the picnics at M a m r e and on Sinai plainly affirm Yahweh's appetite. For m o s t Western people, G o d is e i t h e r personal o r does n o t m a t ter. T h e N e o p l a t o n i c O n e m a y h a v e a h a n d f u l o f s c h o l a r l y a d h e r e n t s worldwide, hut n o t m o r e . C a t h o l i c s pray t o Jesus and t h e Blessed Virgin M o t h e r , b u t rarely to G o d t h e F a t h e r or t h e Holy Spirit. A m e r i can Religionists, w h e t h e r ostensibly Protestant o r C a t h o l i c , talk t o Jesus or, if Pentecostalists, are i m b u e d w i t h t h e Holy Spirit. Y a h w e h , u n d e r o t h e r n a m e s , is still prayed t o by Jews, and u n d e r t h e n a m e ol Allah by M u s l i m s . G o d for all these has t o u n d e r s t a n d and even share m a n y h u m a n feelings, o r h e w o u l d s h r i n k away t o irrelevance. Philo o f Alexandria, even if h e was t h e mystic t h a t Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h described h i m as being, was scandalized by t h e h u m a n Yah weh o f t h e T a n a k h . T h a t helps explain w h y P h i l o was ignored by Rabbinical Judaism, and survived pragmatically o n l y as a t h e o l o g i a n weirdly a d o p t e d by Christianity. W h a t were t h e Jews t o do with Philo's assertion t h a t Y a h w e h "is n o t susceptible o f any passion at all""; Akiba's Yahwistic literalism r e m a i n s refreshing today, since it helped preserve G o d ' s e x t r a o r d i n a r y personality ( n o t to m e n t i o n Akiba's o w n ) . W h a t we call Judaism today, in any o f its varieties, essentially r e m a i n s t h e religion o f Akiba, w h o is t h e d o m i n a n t personality (ano t h e r w o r d w o n ' t d o ) in t h e M i s h n a h , and t h e m a s t e r o f t h e s u p e r b Sages (Judah ben Ilai and Meir p a r t i c u l a r l y ) m o s t often cited t h e r e . Despite s o m e r e c e n t scholarship, I find n o reason to d o u b t t h e historical tradition t h a t t h e aged Akiba (40—135 C.E.) was horribly m a r t y r e d by t h e R o m a n E m p e r o r Hadrian, after t h e defeat o f t h e heroic S i m o n B a r Koziva, w h o m Akiba had p r o c l a i m e d t h e Messiah, and r e n a m e d

198 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

B a r K o c h b a ( " s o n o f a s t a r , " see N u m b e r s 24:17). T h e B a r K o c h b a R e b e l l i o n (132—35 C.E.) was o n an e n o r m o u s scale, d w a r f i n g e v e n t h e disa s t e r o f t h e Jewish War a n d d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e , a n d Akiba's Y a h w i s t i c l i t e r a l i s m was c a r r i e d t h r o u g h i n t o m a r t y r d o m .

THE

AKIBAN

LITERALISM

has a c u r i o u s m o n u m e n t in t h e fa-

m o u s Shi'ur Komah, b r i l l i a n t l y a n a l y z e d by G e r s h o m S c h o l e m in t h e tit l e essay o f On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (1991). T h o u g h w e h a v e n o m a n u s c r i p t s o f Shi'ur Komah earlier t h a n t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y , oral t r a dition assigns this a s t o n i s h i n g b o o k l e t t o Akiba h i m s e l f , n i n e h u n d r e d years earlier, a n d it c e r t a i n l y a c c o r d s w i t h his t e a c h i n g . Shi'ur

Komah

m e a n s s o m e t h i n g like " T h e M e a s u r e o f t h e B o d y , " w h i c h h e r e s h o c k i n g l y is Y a h w e h ' s o w n . W h e n e v e r t h e y w e r e c o m p o s e d , t h e y a r e g r o t e s q u e , as t h e i r Y a h w e h is g i g a n t i c , a c o s m i c g i a n t in h e i g h t , l e n g t h of limbs, facial f e a t u r e s , a n d stride. Akiba was p a r t i c u l a r l y d e v o t e d t o S o l o m o n ' s S o n g o f S o n g s , c a n o n i z e d o n l y t h r o u g h t h e h e r o i c rabbi's i n s i s t e n c e , a n d t h e S o n g o f S o n g s is c l u m s i l y i m i t a t e d in Shi'ur

Komah,

w h i c h is m e r e l y a h e a p o f e s o t e r i c f r a g m e n t s , r a t h e r t h a n a s u b l i m e l y o r d e r e d s u i t e o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y l o v e p o e m s . It is in t h e Zohar, t h e c e n tral w o r k ot all K a b b a l a h , c o m p o s e d by M o s e s de L e o n a n d his c i r c l e in m e d i e v a l S p a i n , t h a t t h e c r u d e s u g g e s t i o n s o f Shi'ur Komah u n d e r g o e x traordinary elaborations.

YAHWEH107

(0 C r e a t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Sages, has t h e simple o b j e c t o f t h e hum.in Y a h w e h had n o o t h e r purpose. And Y a h w e h was m o n i s t i c in his .i|> p r o a c h : Hebrew M a n does n o t divide into flesh against spirit, but is "u living soul." Pauline dualism, w h i c h eventually e n s u e s in t h e Carte sian separation o f m i n d and body, is Platonic and n o t Judaic. Presum ably t h e Christian G o d - t h e - F a t h e r does n o t , like Y a h w e h , have a body, e x c e p t in M o r m o n i s m . I can recall n o text in w h i c h G o d - t h e F a t h e r e m u l a t e s Y a h w e h ' s picnics at M a m r e and on Sinai. I see little difference b e t w e e n Plato's G o d , in The Laws, and Christianity's divinity, and even less b e t w e e n Aristotle's U n m o v e d M o v e r and t h e supposed F a t h e r o f Jesus C h r i s t , t h o u g h Aristotle's G o d c o u l d n ' t care less a b o u t us, and t h e C h r i s t i a n deity sacrifices his S o n so as to save us. A person w i t h o u t a personality w o u l d be an impossible description o f Y a h w e h , b u t it does well e n o u g h for t h e First Person o f t h e Trinity. St. Augustine's G o d is n o t at all distant f r o m t h a t of Plotinus, w h o modified Plato's t h e o l o g y i n t o a d o c t r i n e o f t h e World-Soul. Plato urged us " t o pry t h e soul loose and isolate it f r o m t h e body." Plotinus and Augus tine w e r e glad t o obey; t h e Rabbinical Sages were n o t . Any religion t h a t totally e x p u n g e s t h e " a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c " also t u r n s away f r o m Y a h w e h , w h o is a man o f war, and o f m u c h besides. Rabbi Akiba, as we have seen, insisted t h a t G o d was literally Ish, a m a n . T h e h u m a n aspect o f Jesus, as " t r u e m a n , " is reconcilable with t h a t , but t h e " t r u e g o d " is n o t , since such a G o d was m o r e t h a t o f Plato t h a n o f Moses.

17-

SELF-EXILE

S

o

ENIGMATIC

is

OF

YAHWEH

YAHWEH

that

his

creation

of

man,

w o m a n , and t h e world can be viewed as self-exile. This idea is

not m y o w n , b u t is Kabbalistic, and m a y g o back t o earlier G n o s t i c speculations a b o u t a crisis in t h e i n n e r life o f t h e c r e a t o r , a crisis I will describe in this c h a p t e r . T h e m y t h i c act called self-exile—is

m e n t i o n e d in medieval

zimzum—divine

Kabbalistic texts, and

then

achieves centrality in t h e s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y m a s t e r o f Kabbalah, Isaac Luria, w h o d u r i n g his s o j o u r n in Safed, in T u r k i s h - r u l e d n o r t h e r n Palestine, t a u g h t a G n o s t i c Kabbalah, w h i c h ever since has been vastly influential. S h a u l Magid in BeginningjAgain

(2002) argues t h a t zimzum,

w h i c h is a m e t a p h o r f o r Yahweh's " c o n t r a c t i o n " o r " w i t h d r a w a l " f r o m part o f h i m s e l f in order t o i n a u g u r a t e c r e a t i o n , is a m y t h a b o u t Yahweh's o w n origins. T h e m y s t e r y o f Yahweh is in his s e l f - n a m i n g as a p r e s e n c e w h o can also c h o o s e t o be absent. B o t h t h e glories and the c a t a s t r o p h e s o f Jewish history i m p l y a G o d w h o exiles himsell by w i t h d r a w i n g f r o m his

y a h w e h107

c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e C o v e n a n t . Is this w i t h d r a w a l t h e u l t i m a t e c o s t o f c r e a t i o n ? T a l m u d i c c o m m e n t a r y n e v e r ( s o far as I k n o w ) m e d i t a t e s u p o n Y a h w e h before his act o f c r e a t i o n ; t h a t freed Kabbalah f o r its o w n speculations. Zimzum

is r e l a t e d t o a v e r b m e a n i n g " t o s h a r p l y d r a w in

the

breath." Yahweh had breathing trouble and thus i n a u g u r a t e d o u r c o s m o s . Kafka r e m a r k e d t h a t w e w e r e o n e o f G o d ' s t h o u g h t s o n o n e ot his bad days. T r y h o l d i n g y o u r b r e a t h in as l o n g as y o u c a n : it y o u c a n t h i n k at all, t h e r e will be d i f f i c u l t y in s u s t a i n i n g s u c h t h o u g h t . F e w o t h e r m o m e n t s in l i t e r a t u r e a r e as m e m o r a b l e as Y a h w e h ' s o p e n i n g act in G e n e s i s 2:4—7, t h e w o r k o f t h e ) W r i t e r , r a t h e r t h a n t h e Priestly C r e a t i o n i n G e n e s i s 1 t o 2:3. We are n o t in B a b y l o n i a five c e n t u r i e s later, b u t p r o b a b l y in S o l o m o n ' s r e i g n , a b o u t a t h o u s a n d years b e f o r e t h e C o m m o n Era:

When Yahweh made earth and h e a v e n — w h e n no shrub o f the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, because Yahweh had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the e a r t h — Y a h w e h formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath o f life, and man became a living being.

H o w d e l i b e r a t e is a f o r m i n g o f A d a m f r o m t h e adamah, o r d u s t y red clay? T h e d e s c r i p t i o n a b o v e is r a t h e r like t h a t o f a c h i l d s h a p i n g a m u d figurine

a n d t h e n m a g i c a l l y b r e a t h i n g life i n t o it. We h a v e t o s u r m i s e

Y a h w e h ' s m o t i v e s f o r so e x p a n d i n g a p l a y f u l n e s s as t o h a v e m a d e a c o s m o s t o a c c o m m o d a t e his A d a m . By d o i n g so, G o d a c c e p t s sell

202 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

l i m i t a t i o n : t h e w o r l d h e has c r e a t e d is a reality s e p a r a t e f r o m h i m . O n e c a n r e g a r d this s e p a r a t e n e s s as a u g m e n t a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n d i m i n i s h m e n t , b u t s o o n e n o u g h Y a h w e h e x p e r i e n c e s a n x i e t y at w h a t h e has d o n e . [ [ S a m u e l , c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h t h e Y a h w i s t ( i f n o t i n d e e d also by h e r ) , tells us t h a t G o d g r a n t e d t h e a n g e l s t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f k n o w i n g b o t h g o o d a n d evil. S o m e h o w t h e s e r p e n t has g a i n e d this k n o w l edge, w h i c h h e l p e d aid C h r i s t i a n m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i m as a fallen a n g e l . B u t t h e r e is n o " s o m e h o w " in Y a h w e h ' s o u t b u r s t o f a n x i e t y t h a t A d a m b l i n d l y m i g h t eat o f t h e T r e e o f Life a n d t h u s b e c o m e o n e o f t h e E l o h i m , o r a n g e l s . F o r t h e first t i m e w e are m a d e a w a r e o f t h e violent unpredictability o f Y a h w e h . By c r e a t i n g t h e h u m a r Q f a h w e h e i t h e r has b e c o m e m o r e h u m a n h i m s e l f , o r u n d e s i g n e d l y has r e v e a l e d t h a t h e a l r e a d y was all t o o h u m a n . Zimzum is a n e n a b l i n g a c t , in w h i c h G o d p a r a d o x i c a l l y m u l t i plies by c o n t r a c t i o n . We a r e n o t t o l d w h y o r i f Y a h w e h self-curtailment, t h o u g h f r o m t h e start he manifests

accepts

ambivalence

t o w a r d his c r e a t u r e s . It is t h e p e c u l i a r s t r e n g t h o f K a b b a l a h t h a t it v e n t u r e s w h e r e T a l m u d a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o l o g y did n o t c a r e t o trespass, t h e a m b i g u o u s d o u b l e n e s s in Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , in w h i c h h e b o t h w a n t s us t o be a n d is b o t h e r e d by o u r e x i s t e n c e . Exegesis t h a t avoids e s o t e r i c i s m also evades t h e p u z z l e s o f d i v i n e creativity. T h e T a n a k h gives us n o a c c o u n t o f Y a h w e h ' s o r i g i n . He h a s n o fat h e r a n d n o m o t h e r a n d s e e m s t o t u m b l e o u t o f t h e pages o f a b o o k h e m a y h a v e w r i t t e n . P e r h a p s h e w r o t e b e f o r e h e s p o k e , and had t o f a s h i o n a n a u d i e n c e t o read a n d t o h e a r h i m . S h o u l d t h a t b e his e l u sive m o t i v e for r i s k i n g c r e a t i o n , t h e n h e w o u l d difter o n l y in degree, n o t in kind, f r o m a n y a u t h o r 1 k n o w .

y a h w e h107

T h e r e has t o be a less narcissistic p u r p o s e in G o d ' s

impulse,

t h o u g h I a m h a u n t e d by F r e u d ' s i r o n i c r e m a r k t h a t it is n e c e s s a r y t o fall in love lest t h e e g o c h o k e u p o n its o w n s e l f - d e l i g h t . B u t as I h a v e r e m a r k e d earlier, Y a h w e h , e v e n if h e b e c o m e s i n f a t u a t e d w i t h King David, c a n n o t be said t o m a n i f e s t m o r e t h a n C o v e n a n t - l o v e f o r t h e p e o p l e o f Israel, w h e n t h e y are s u f f i c i e n t l y loyal vassals t o his overl o r d s h i p . His O t h e l l o - l i k e f u r y o f j e a l o u s y p r o v o k e d by Israel's w h o r i n g after s t r a n g e g o d s is c o n s i d e r a b l y surpassed by his

Lear-like

s t o r m y rages a g a i n s t t h e p e o p l e ' s i n g r a t i t u d e . Still t h e q u e s t i o n re m a i n s : W h y did h e e v e r j e o p a r d i z e his m y s t e r i o u s f r e e d o m by b l u n dering into the self-exile o f creation; K a b b a l a h m a t t e r s b e c a u s e it a u d a c i o u s l y a t t e m p t s several m y s t e r i o u s a n s w e r s t o this q u e s t i o n ot o r i g i n s . M o s t p r o f o u n d l y , t h e later, o r " r e g r e s s i v e , " K a b b a l a h o f l s a a c Luria r e o p e n s Y a h w e h t o his s u f f e r i n g s a n d o u r o w n . A c c o r d i n g t o this t r a d i t i o n , t h e r e is a sexual lite ( F r e u d w o u l d say " d r i v e " ) within Y a h w e h , m o s t deftly i n t e r p r e t e d in M o s h c Idel's Kabbalah

and Eros ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T o t h e life-drive, F r e u d j u x t a p o s e s his

d e a t h - d r i v e , t h e radical s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t a n i m a t e s his w e i r d l y e l e g a n t Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1919).

It d e l i g h t s m e t h a t d u r i n g his l a b o r o n

this b o o k , F r e u d briefly e n t e r t a i n e d t h e a l a r m i n g idea t h a t t h e d e a t h drive was f u e l e d by destrudo, a n e g a t i v e e n e r g y , in o r d e r t o c o m p l e m e n t libido in t h e vital o r d e r . F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e G r e a t C o n q u i s t a d o r (as h e liked t o t e r m h i m s e l f ) d r o p p e d destrudo as b e i n g a t o u c h t o o dualistic. O t h e r w i s e w e w o u l d all g o a b o u t a n d lie d o w n m u r m u r i n g a b o u t this e n t r o p i c r o c k e t fuel e v e n as w e a r e p e r s u a d e d w e possess libido, a sepa r a t e sexual e n e r g y , w h i c h in fact does n o t exist. E v e n if, as e i t h e r g o o d o r bad F r e u d i a n s ( w e h a v e n o o t h e r op^

204

h a r o l d 15 l o o m

t i o n s ) , w e b e s t o w libido u p o n Y a h w e h , w e have n o t g o n e a l o n g w a y i n t o a c c o u n t i n g f o r his m o t i v e in m a k i n g ( a n d b o t c h i n g ) t h e c r e a t i o n . Zimzum is a g l o r i o u s m e t a p h o r f o r G o d ' s travail in b r e a k i n g t h e vessels t h a t h e h a d c o n t r i v e d to r e c e i v e his d a n g e r o u s l i g h t b u t t h a t failed t o c o n t a i n his c r e a t i v e e x u b e r a n c e . It is in t h a t e x u b e r a n c e , Y a h w e h ' s e x t r a v a g a n c e o f s h e e r being, t h a t L u r i a n i c K a b b a l a h s u b t l y l o c a t e s t h e s u b v e r s i v e g n o s i s t h a t , f o r s o m e o f us, p a r t l y i l l u m i n a t e s t h e visible darkness o f t h e Hebrew God. In t h e E l d e r Edda o f t h e N o r t h e r n m y t h o l o g y , t h e h i g h g o d O d i n h a n g s u p o n Yggdrasil, t h e World T r e e , n i n e days a n d n i g h t s , in o r d e r t o gain k n o w l e d g e o f t h e r u n e s . H e h o p e s t h u s ( v a i n l y ) t o avert t h e t w i l i g h t o f t h e g o d s , w h i c h t h e r u n e s f o r e t e l l . D o e s Y a h w e h possess full k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f u t u r e ? C a n a n y o n e , if h e r e m e m b e r s n o .past? Y a h w e h defies f o r e g r o u n d i n g . His e a r l y h i s t o r y has b e e n c h r o n i c l e d by t h e J W r i t e r ; t h e c h a l l e n g e is G o d ' s p r e h i s t o r y . Kierkegaard's N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , r e s t o r e d t o h u m a n s t a t u s a f t e r e a t i n g grass like a n o x , asks w h o t a u g h t Y a h w e h his w i s d o m ? B u t Y a h w e h , b e f o r e t h e P r o v e r b s ascribed t o S o l o m o n , h a r d l y was a wise G o d . Isaac Luria's fable o f zimzum a n d shevirat ha-kelim, t h e B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels, h i n t s at Y a h w e h ' s s e c r e t — t h a t in o r d e r t o c r e a t e , G o d h a d t o c u t h i m s e l f d o w n . T h e t r i p l e r h y t h m o f self-exile, b r e a k i n g o f p r i m o r d i a l vessels, a n d s u b s e c j u e n t tikkun ( r e s t o r a t i o n o r r e d e m p t i o n ) d e fines t h e i n n e r life o f G o d , a n d is u n l i k e l y t o h a v e b e g u n w i t h G e n e s i s . T o ask w h a t is t h e o r i g i n o f o r i g i n s e e m s a b s u r d , y e t w h y d o w e find c o h e r e n c e in t h e D e a t h o f G o d , w h e t h e r in t h e N i e t z s c h e a n o r t h e C h r i s t i a n s e n s e , a n d n o t in t h e b i r t h o f Y a h w e h ? C h r i s t i a n s r e v e r e t h e b i r t h o f Jesus t h e C h r i s t - c h i l d , a n d t h e d e s c e n t o f t h e H o l y Spirit, b u t n o theologian wonders about the origin of the Holy Father.

y a h w e h107

W h e t h e r t h e s t r o n g light o f t h e c a n o n i c a l H e b r e w Bible a n d its m i r r o r o f Y a h w e h ' s will c o n s t i t u t e a p e r f e c t i o n t h a t d e s t r o y s ( G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ) o r a b s o r b s ( M o s h e Idel), e i t h e r w a y t h e K a b b a l a h e x ists t o receive t h a t l i g h t . R e c e p t i o n itself is a f u r t h e r b r e a k i n g - a p a r t o f t h e v e s s e l s — a n d so a l t e r s c r e a t i o n , by r u i n i n g e a r l i e r w o r l d s . N o t a Kabbalist, I seek in Luria's dialectic o f c r e a t i o n w h a t t h e s t r o n g p o e t s s o u g h t a n d f o u n d in Plato, t h a t p r o f e s s e d e n e m y o f H o m e r . C a l l ii an u n c e r t a i n p a t h t o t r a n s c e n d e n c e , o r f o l l o w i n g in t h e w a k e o f Yah w e h ' s self-exile.

L U R J A B E G I N S H I S DO C T R I N E o f c r e a t i o n by r e v e r s i n g t h e N e o p l a t o n i c m y t h o f e m a n a t i o n c o m m o n t o all o f K a b b a l a h h e had 111 h e r i t e d . Y a h w e h is t o o h o l y a n a m e l o r t h e Kabbalists, as it was loi t h e T a l m u d i c Sages, w h o called h i m A d o n a i ( f o r t h e m o s t p a r t ) . T h e Kabbalists, t h o u g h , n a m e d h i m E i n - S o f ( " w i t h o u t e n d " ) , e m p h a s i z i n g his i n f i n i t e a n d h i d d e n n a t u r e . B e f o r e Luria's r e v e l a t i o n s in Safed, E i n - S o f c r e a t e d by e m a n a t i n g o u t w a r d i n t o t h e w o r l d as h e m a d e it. B u t in a m a s s i v e a n d d a r i n g t u r n , Luria c e n t e r e d u p o n t h e i n n e r life of God. Luria did n o t i n v e n t zimzum; h e t o o k it f r o m his t e a c h e r , M o s e s (.'ord o v e r o o f S a f e d , w h o h i m s e l f h a d r e c e i v e d it f r o m t r a d i t i o n , b o t h l al m u d i c and Kabbalistic. B u t Luria e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y r e i n v e n t e d it, e v e n as S h a k e s p e a r e i n h e r i t e d t h e h u m a n , i n n e r self f r o m O v i d a n d C h a u c e r , a n d T y n d a l e ' s P r o t e s t a n t biblical t r a n s l a t i o n s , a n d t h e n

remolded

it. We n e v e r will k n o w if S h a k e s p e a r e , like his f a t h e r , was a r e c u s a n t C a t h o l i c , b u t his d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e P r o t e s t a n t Bible m a k e s m e guess o t h e r w i s e . Isaac Luria, t h e s a c r e d Lion o f his p e o p l e , was a m y s t i c saint

206 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

and n o rebel, yet he m u s t have b e e n aware o f t h e subversive potential o f his r e c a s t i n g o f zimzum f r o m a N e o p l a t o n i z e d r a b b i n i c a l t r o p e t o a G n o s t i c o p e n i n g - u p o f an abyss w i t h i n Y a h w e h , a void akin t o o u r o w n aching sense o f emptiness and suffering. All Jewish exegesis, f r o m Hillel a n d Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h t h r o u g h t h e t w o T a l m u d s a n d K a b b a l a h o n t h r o u g h J u d a h Halevi's Kuzari a n d M a i m o n i d e s , a n d p e r h a p s c u l m i n a t i n g in Kafka a n d F r e u d , c a n be t e r m e d a series o f e n d e a v o r s t o o p e n t h e T a n a k h t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l s u f f e r i n g s o f t h e p e o p l e Y a h w e h c h o s e as his ow n. Zimzum, as t h e p r o c e s s c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d , s e e m s t o s u g g e s t t h a t Jewish s u f f e r i n g b e g i n s w i t h i n Y a h w e h h i m s e l f , in his acts o f c r e a t i o n . T h e o r i g i n a l t e r m , in all r a b b i n i c a l usage, m e a n s t h a t G o d has t o fall i n t o h i m s e l f (as it w e r e ) i n o r d e r t o get c r e a t i o n s t a r t e d . I.uria l o c a t e d t h e c a t a s t r o p h e c r e a t i o n in t h e B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels, w h i c h c o u l d n o t sustain t h e r i g o r ot t h e o u t p o u r i n g ot Y a h w e h ' s s t r i c t l i g h t o f j u d g m e n t . B u t t h a t was our c a t a s t r o p h e ; t h e zimzum was G o d ' s .

IN

THE

CAMPAIGN

OF C R E A T I O N , Y a h w e h c o m m e n c e s by re-

treating. P e r h a p s t h e D i v i n e W a r r i o r , wily in his s t r u g g l e against t h e forces o f c h a o s , m a d e a s t r a t e g i c w i t h d r a w a l . Luria is e n d l e s s l y s u b t l e , b u t so was t h e O l d R a b b i n i c D o c t r i n e o f G o d . L a w r e n c e Fine, in his v e r y useful Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos ( 2 0 0 3 ) , t r a c e s t h e p a t h o f S c h o l e m a n d o f Idel in b a c k g r o u n d i n g Luria's o w n s o u r c e s . In o n e rabbinical m i d r a s h , o n E x o d u s 25:8—10, Y a h w e h c u r t a i l s h i m s e l f , really c o n c e n t r a t e s i n t o s c a r c e l y a p r e s e n c e , in o r d e r t o fit i n t o t h e p o r t a b l e a r k o f t h e C o v e n a n t . Is t h e r e a p r a g m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n this J a n e Austen—like d w i n d l i n g i n t o a wifely r o l e a n d Isaac Luria's p u l l i n g -

YAHWEH

10 7

hack o f God? S c h o l e m insisted t h e r e was, but is this a difference t h a t m a k e s a difference? In F r e u d i a n t e r m s , as I o n c e suggested t o S c h o l e m , pre-Kabbalistic zimzum can s e e m r a t h e r like t h e dismal c o m e d y o f Y a h w e h ' s s u p e r e g o p u n i s h i n g t h e divine ego, a n o t i o n t h e majestic S c h o l e m s c o r n f u l l y dismissed. Freud, Kafka wrote, was t h e Rashi o f c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish anxieties, a jest t h a t S c h o l e m gleefully e n j o y e d q u o t i n g to m e . Fine shrewdly points t o o t h e r m i d r a s h i m , w h e r e G o d c o n t r a c t s h i m s e l f i n t o t h e Holy o f Holies in t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e . E i n - S o f m e a n s " w i t h o u t limits," b u t every act o f a l l - t o o - h u m a n Y a h w e h involves acc e p t i n g a f u r t h e r limitation. G n o s t i c i s m , Jewish and Gentile, spoke o f divine degradation, ol a rift o p e n i n g w i t h i n t h e l d e m i u r g i c c o s m o c r a t o r ^ T h e G n o s t i c rebellion, literary to t h e h e a r t o f its darkness, c o m p o u n d e d Plato's

Timaeus

w i t h Genesis, an ironically bitter fusion that Hans Jonas t e r m e d t h e " i n t o x i c a t i o n o f u n p r e c e d e n t e d n e s s , " truly an imaginative m a k i n g it-new. S c h o l e m and [del, in c o n t r a r y ways, suggest t h a t G n o s t i c i s m was m e r e l y a belated repetition o f archaic Judaistic speculations, and indeed pre-Kabbalistic instances o f zimzum c o n f i r m t h e intuitions of S c h o l e m and t h e tentative i n t i m a t i o n s explored by Idel. T h e Alexandrian Valentinus, w h o Christianized G n o s t i c i s m , s e e m s t o m e as Judahistic as Jesus, w h e t h e r in his e l o q u e n t The Gospel of Truth, or in t h e f r a g m e n t a r y p o e m s t h a t are t h e literary S u b l i m e o f G n o s t i c tradition until this day.

T H E G R E A T N AH M AN I DE s ( 1 1 9 4 - 1 2 7 0 ) was t h e principal spiritual a u t h o r i t y o f Spanish Jewry in his day, and his o w n t u r n to Kabbalah

208 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

m a d e it possible f o r this a p p a r e n t e s o t e r i c i s m t o gain a n a u d i e n c e first in C a t a l o n i a a n d t h e n in C a s t i l e . Zimzum was g r a f t e d f r o m m i d r a s h o n t o Kabbalah by N a h m a n i d e s , a n d t h e c o n c e p t w i d e n e d so t h a t by a c e n t u r y or so later S h e m T o v ben S h e m Tov q u o t e s an a n o n y m o u s precursor's marvelous transformation of creation:

T h e Name, our Lord, blessed be He, who is One, Unique and Special, because all needs Him, and He does not need t h e m , His knowledge is united to Him and there is n o t h i n g outside Him. And He is called 'Aleph, the head o f all the letters, corresponding to the fact that He is One . . . and how did He innovate and create the world: Like a man who comprises his spirit and concentrates his spirit, and the world remains in darkness, and within this darkness He chopped rocks and chiseled cliffs in order to extract from there the paths called "Wonders o f Wisdom," and this is the m e a n i n g of the verse "He took out light from the hiddenness," and this is the secret o f "a dark fire on the white fire," and this is the secret of "face and back."

Moshe

Idel, in

his Absorbing

Perfections:

Kabbalah

and

Interpretation

( 2 0 0 2 ) , says t h a t s u c h vital " d a r k n e s s " results f r o m a k i n d o f divine e x c a v a t i o n ( p a g e 5 3 ) . I find t h e passage d i s t u r b i n g b e c a u s e G o d has h e l d in his b r e a t h in o r d e r t o c r e a t e a d a r k m a t t e r f r o m w h i c h h e c a n s c u l p t r o c k y cliffs i n t o p a t h s o f w i s d o m w e will n e v e r w a l k u p o n . In M o s e s C o r d o v e r o t h e c o n c e p t of zimzum is p r e s e n t b u t n o t c e n tral. S w e r v i n g f r o m his t e a c h e r , Isaac Luria c a p t u r e d this m e t a p h o r f o r e v e r . A n d y e t Luria s e e m s t o h a v e w r i t t e n o n l y o n e m i n o r w o r k , a C o r d o v e r a n c o m m e n t a r y o n a s e c t i o n o f t h e Zohar. T h e L u r i a n i c S p e c -

y a h w e h107

u k i t i o n (as w e m i g h t call it) was a n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , c o m m u n i c a t e d t o v a r i o u s disciples, a n d t h e y d o n o t a g r e e u p o n its details. A m e s s i a n i c figure,

Luria r e m a i n s a l e g e n d in Jewish t r a d i t i o n . F o u r m a j o r disci-

pies p r o p o u n d e d his t e a c h i n g s : H a y y i m Vital, J o s e p h Ihn T a b u l , M o s e s J o n a h , a n d Israel S a r u g . S o m e o f t h e p r o b l e m s in J 2

finding

the "au

t h e n t i c " vision o f J e s u s r e p e a t t h e m s e l v e s in regard t o Luria, a n o t h e r messianic "son o f Joseph." Y a h w e h is m y c o n c e r n a n d n o t Luria, b u t 1 seek t o a p p r e h e n d (lie

^

abyss w i t h i n t h e T a n a k h ' s Y a h w e h b y w a y o f t h e L u r i a n i c radical revi

o

• sion o f Y a h w e h - a s - c r e a t o r . As w i t h Walt W h i t m a n in Leaves of Grass •'

VI

( i n w h i c h S c h o l e m l o c a t e d f a s c i n a t i n g a n a l o g u e s t o K a b b a l a h ) , it is v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r m e t o s e p a r a t e o u t t h e literal f r o m

the

m e t a p h o r i c a l in Isaac Luria. T o t h a t e x a l t e d c o n s c i o u s n e s s , w h o h e l d c o n v e r s a t i o n s vvith t h e Sages in t h e i r graves in Safed, s u c h a distim t i o n c o u l d n o t exist, w h i l e W h i t m a n desires his r e a d e r s t o tease o u t literal f r o m

figurative

for t h e m s e l v e s .

S o s u b t l e was Luria in his o r a l t e a c h i n g s t h a t w e m a y n o t be able a n y l o n g e r t o a p p r e h e n d his vision o f c r e a t i o n , disaster, a n d t h e red e m p t i o n o f m e n d i n g , t h o u g h Lawrence Fine, generously acknowle d g i n g t h e g i a n t s o f K a b b a l a h s c h o l a r s h i p , S c h o l e m a n d [del, s e e m s t o m e in this a n a d v a n c e o n e v e r y t h i n g p r i o r t o h i m .

T h e cosmological m y t h Isaac Luria taught is without doubt the most elaborate such story in all o f Jewish tradition. It certainly bears no resemblance to the brevity and elegant simplicity of the biblical account o f creation, and even in comparison to the far m o r e complex cosmogonic m y t h ofSpanish Kabbalah, Luria's teachings are extraor-

210 h a r o l d

bloom

dinarily intricate. While we tend to think of a creation m y t h in terms o f a single, c o h e r e n t narrative that can be told as one does a simple story, Luria's mythological teachings have not c o m e down to us in this way. Instead, we discover a seemingly endless series o f inordinately c o m p l e x notions, presented in often fragmentary and conflicting versions by multiple authors and editors, (p. 124)

As F i n e o b s e r v e s , t h e p r o b l e m is as m u c h Luria's dialectical i n t e n sities as t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y ( e v e n s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y ) rival v e r s i o n s g i v e n by his disciples. W h a t f a s c i n a t e s m e , and c o n s t i t u t e s a c r u c i a l i n s i g h t i n t o Y a h w e h , is t h a t L u r i a saw zimzum as a perpetual p r o c e s s g o i n g o n in G o d , t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h e a c h i n h a l a t i o n a n d e x h a l a t i o n o f t h e divine breath. Try to i m a g i n e t h a t every t i m e you h o l d y o u r breath, and t h e n release it, y o u c r e a t e a n d r u i n a n o t h e r w o r l d . D e a d at t h i r t y - e i g h t , L u r i a c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d as a p o e t i c g e n i u s w h o s e a c h i e v e m e n t was t r u n c a t e d , b u t w h a t w e possess o f his t e a c h ings, h o w e v e r d i s t o r t e d t h e y m a y be in his disciples' v e r s i o n s , c o n t i n ues t o i r r a d i a t e all s u b s e q u e n t J e w i s h religious s p e c u l a t i o n . H e r e I w a n t to t a k e his m y t h o f c r e a t i o n a n d a p p l y it d i r e c t l y t o t h e u n c a n n i n e s s o f Y a h w e h , a k n o w i n g l y p r e p o s t e r o u s q u e s t o n m y p a r t , in m o r e t h a n o n e s e n s e o f " p r e p o s t e r o u s . " T h e p r o p h e t s o f J u d a i s m in m y o w n lifetime w h o m I m o s t w h o l e h e a r t e d l y accept are G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ( 1 8 9 7 - 1 9 8 2 ) a n d M o s h e Idel ( b o r n in 1947). S c h o l e m , in his " T e n U n h i s t o r i c a l A p h o r i s m s o n K a b b a l a h " (first p r i n t e d , in G e r m a n , in 1958), insisted t h a t all a u t h e n t i c spiritual t r a d i t i o n r e m a i n s h i d d e n , and that speech and writing p r o t e c t secrets better t h a n silence does. S i n c e Y a h w e h h i m s e l f is t h e T o r a h , it m u s t be as u n k n o w a b l e as G o d

yahweh

211

is. A c c o r d i n g t o S c h o l e m , Luria's d o c t r i n e s are literally t r u e , as well as m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , so Y a h w e h is as m u c h s u b j e c t t o d i v i n e d e g r a d a t i o n as h e is in t h e V a l e n t i n i a n G n o s t i c s p e c u l a t i o n o r in N a t h a n o f G a z a ' s h e r e t i c a l Treatise on the Dragons. T h e r e has t o be an abyss in t h e will o f Y a h w e h , since w i t h o u t a n e g a t i v e m o m e n t in t h e a c t o f c r e a t i o n , G o d a n d t h e c o s m o s w o u l d f u s e as o n e . T h e Law ( T o r a h ) , s e e n by a Kahbalistic l i g h t , is a l r e a d y a n t i n o m i a n , y e t e v e n Kabbalah is m a r r e d by its N e o p l a t o n i c t h e o r y o f e m a n a t i o n , in w h i c h t h e d i v i n e f u l l n e s s b r i m s a n d o v e r f l o w s . T h i s was c o r r e c t e d by t h e G n o s i s o f M o s e s C o r d o v e r o a n d o f Luria, in w h i c h Y a h w e h a n d his d i v i n e will b r u s h e a c h o t h e r b u t d o n o t c o i n c i d e . E v e n Y a h w e h m u s t b e s e e n at t h a t p l a c e w h e r e e a c h o f us t a k e s h e r o r his s t a n c e , so t h e m a g i c a l tikkun, o r " m e n d i n g , " o f L u r i a is n o m o r e o r less valid t h a n t h e Utopian, M a r x i s t m e s s i a n i s m o f S c h o l e m ' s l i f e l o n g best friend, t h e c r i t i c W a l t e r B e n j a m i n .

Ami

s i n c e t h e n a m e Y a h w e h " c a n be p r o n o u n c e d b u t n o t e x p r e s s e d , " ii r e q u i r e s m e d i a t i o n by t r a d i t i o n if e v e n w e are t o h e a r it, a n d o n l y q u a s i - o c c u l t f r a g m e n t s o f t h e t r u e n a m e c a n reach us, j u s t as u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e as t h e f r a g m e n t s o f F r a n z Kafka, w h o , S c h o l e m tells us, was t h e s e c u l a r h e i r o f K a b b a l a h , a n d w h o s e w r i t i n g s h a v e f o r us " s o m e thing o f t h e strong light o f the canonical, o f that perfection which destroys." As Y a h w e h , T o r a h c a n n o t be r e a d , a n d e v e n its i n a u g u r a l a u t h o r , j, o r t h e Y a h w i s t , is n o t less e s o t e r i c t h a n Luria. A n d t h a t is m y starti n g p o i n t f o r d e f y i n g biblical s c h o l a r s h i p in o r d e r t o s e a r c h f o r t h e zimzum a l r e a d y i m p l i c i t in t h e Y a h w i s t ' s saga. Literary c r i t i c i s m , as I p r a c t i c e it, c o n s i s t s in m a k i n g t h e i m p l i c i t i n t o w h a t w e also n e e d t o e x p e r i e n c e e x p l i c i t l y . B u t I t u r n b a c k first t o s u m m a r i z i n g Luria o n

212 h a r o l d

bloom

c r e a t i o n , f o l l o w i n g t h e g u i d a n c e o f S c h o l e m a n d o f Law ; rence F i n e in particular.

A N Y C O N C E N T R A T I O N of Yahweh's overwhelming presence pragm a t i c a l l y m u s t also be a c o n t r a c t i o n , o r t h e r e c o u l d be n o reality e x c e p t G o d ' s , a n d n o evil e i t h e r . P e r h a p s Y a h w e h w e a r i e d o f his o w n rigor a n d s o u g h t a v a c a t i o n f r o m reality? T h a t j s a t o u c h o u t r a g e o u s , b u t r e c a l l always t h a t Y a h w e h is a h u m a n g o d a n d n o t a t h e o l o g i c a l e n t i t y . Y a h w e h h a d n o t read P l a t o . A b a n d o n e d in t h e void left by t h e zimzum was a mass o f Y a h w e h ' s j u d g m e n t a l s t r i c t n e s s t h a t i r o n i c a l l y p r o d u c e d t h e first G o l e m , a p r e h u m a n m o n s t e r o f m i n d l e s s m a t t e r . Like Walt W h i t m a n ' s , Y a h w e h ' s agonies w e r e o n l y c h a n g e s o f g a r m e n t s . P e r h a p s in a e s t h e t i c r e v u l s i o n (purely m y surmise) Yahweh darted a beam of light into t h e w r e t c h e d G o l e m , and thus created Adam K a d m o n

t h e androgyne\and p r i m a l

h u m a n . Transpose that back to t h e J Writer's a c c o u n t o f creation and a n e w p e r s p e c t i v e o p e n s f o r us c o n f r o n t i n g G e n e s i s 2:7:

Yahweh formed Adam from the adamah [dust o f the earth's moistened red clay] and blew into Adam's nostrils the breath o f life, and man became a living being.

In Luria's v i s i o n , w e b e g a n as t h e G o l e m , a n d _ t h e n Y a h w e h ' s h a n d a n d b r e a t h s h a p e d us. A f t e r a p r o f o u n d i n h a l a t i o n (zimzum),

Yahweh

h a d a d d i t i o n a l b r e a t h w i t h w h i c h t o vivify us. S c h o l e m , p o n d e r i n g L u r i a n i c m y t h , saw m e t a p h o r s f o r S e p h a r d i c exile f r o m Iberia, b u t Idel g e n t l y r e m i n d e d us t h a t Luria was A s h k e n a z i , a n d F i n e e m p h a -

y a h w e h107

sizes t h a t s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Safed a l r e a d y was a c o m m u n i t y o f m y s t i c a l f e l l o w s h i p b e f o r e Luria's a d v e n t as a m e s s i a n i c i n s p i r a t i o n . Luria's g e n i u s gave h i m a n e w a n d u n i q u e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e m i n d o f G o d . T h i s m a k e s m e w o n d e r if t h e L u r i a n i c s t o r y o f c r e a t i o n c a n give us p e r p e t ually fresh p e r c e p t i o n s o f Y a h w e h ' s p e r s o n a l i t y a n d c h a r a c t e r , just as t h e G o s p e l o f M a r k s e e m s t o m e t h e t e x t w h e r e t h e e n i g m a s o f Jesus are best e x p l o r e d . Luria's E i n - S o f b e g i n s in a n a b s o l u t e s o l i t u d e o f l i g h t . T h e w r i t i n g s o f R o n i t M e r o z , m o s t l y n o t y e t available in E n g l i s h , are t h e fullest I h a v e s e e n o n Luria's creativity, a n d I s t r o n g l y r e c o m m e n d M e r o z ' s es say " F a i t h f u l T r a n s m i s s i o n Versus I n n o v a t i o n " in L u r i a a n d his disci pies, p r i n t e d in t h e Proceedings

of an international congress on

the

fiftieth a n n i v e r s a r y o f S c h o l e m s classic Major Trends in Jewish

Mysticism

( T u b i n g e n , 1993). L a w r e n c e F i n e , a c k n o w l e d g i n g M e r o z , p r e s e n t s .1 lucid a c c o u n t o f L u r i a n i c m y t h o n pages 124—49 o f Physician of the Soul, Healer oj the Cosmos, t o w h i c h I a m i n d e b t e d in s o m e o f w h a t fol lows here. W h y d o e s Y a h w e h c h o o s e t o a b a n d o n his solitary, irradiated exis j

/

tence? T h o u g h Luria does n o t explicitly say so, his m y t h s t i m u l a t e s m e t o w o n d e r if t h a t l o n e l y l i g h t h a d b e c o m e d a n g e r o u s l y oppressive f o r a G o d w i t h o u t e n d , l i m i t l e s s in his self-sufficiency. Y a h w e h is u n i q u e l y the h u m a n g o d , b u t I will e x p o u n d u p o n t h a t in m y n e x t c h a p t e r o n his p s y c h o l o g y .

I

WHAT

IS

MOST

DISTURBING

about

Yahweh

is

his

highly

a m b i v a l e n t a t t i t u d e t o w a r d his o w n c r e a t i o n . F o r a G o d all-powerful- u n l i k e Z e u s a n d O d i n — Y a h w e h is p e r p e t u a l l y a n d s u r p r i s i n g l y a n x

'

214 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

ious. All Bible r e a d e r s l e a r n q u i t e rapidly t h a t G o d ' s a c t i o n s a r e n o t predictable. T h e extraordinary e x p l a n a t o r y usefulness o f Kabbalah, p a r t i c u l a r l y o f Luria's, for m e rises f r o m t h e virtual i d e n t i t y o f Y a h w e h a n d zimzum. As a m e t a p h o r , zimzum m i g h t s e e m a p e c u l i a r c a n d i d a t e f o r f u s i o n w i t h t h e divine, b u t j u s t as Y a h w e h is as literal as life a n d d e a t h , y e t also h e is figurative, e v e n in his n a m e , so zimzum is b o t h a literal i n h a l a t i o n o f b r e a t h a n d o f b e i n g , a n d a n i m a g e o f w h a t defies linguistic d e s c r i p t i o n , G o d V i n i t i a ] c a t a s t r o p h e - c r e a t i o n o f a p r i m a l abyss. R e p r i s i n g t h e s i n u o u s a r g u m e n t of G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ' s s u b v e r s i v e " T e n U n h i s t o r i c a l A p h o r i s m s o n K a b b a l a h " s h o u l d clarify t h e p r o j e c t o f s e e k i n g a n e w c o m p r e h e n s i o n of Y a h w e h ' s a m b i g u i t i e s . Like all a u thentic traditions c o n c e r n i n g h i m , Yahweh remains t h e hidden G o d , h e d g e d a b o u t by t h e T a n a k h , t h e t w o T a l m u d s , a n d K a b b a l a h . A n d s i n c e Y a h w e h h i m s e l f is T o r a h , t h e T a l m u d s , t h e Zohar, a n d t h e e n t i r e O r a l Law f r o m M o s e s t o Isaac Luria, all o f t h e m a r e finally as u n k n o w a b l e as h e is. T h a t serves t o f e n c e o f f J e w i s h G n o s i s

from

Basilides, V a l e n t i n u s , a n d all G n o s t i c i s m a f t e r t h e m , i n c l u d i n g S h i ' i t e Siifism, Christian Catharism, and m u c h o f the R o m a n t i c poetry o f the Western C a n o n . S i n c e Luria's s t o r y o f zimzum a n d its c o n s e q u e n t B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels is literal t r u t h , t h e n Y a h w e h p e j [ n w n e n t l y j v o u n d e d h i m s e l f v e r y badly by a n d in t h e a c t o f c r e a t i o n . A s e l f - d e g r a d e d S u p r e m e G o d , so human-all-too-human,

f o r e v e r will b e a m b i v a l e n t t o w a r d

every-

t h i n g and a n y o n e , his C h o s e n P e o p l e in p a r t i c u l a r . If indeed t h e y w e r e his i n t e n d e d n a t i o n e v e n before his travail, h e will a l t e r n a t e l y b a l a n c e and favor t h e m , d e p e n d i n g u p o n his w h i m s . O n his bad days, t h e i r praises a n d T e m p l e o f f e r i n g s s c a r c e l y will suffice.

y a h w e h 10 7

We all live w i t h a n abyss in o u r o w n wills: H a m l e t e x e m p l i f i e s o u r c o n d i t i o n , a n d f e w o f us c a n m a t c h his p r o w e s s in t h i n k i n g his way t h r o u g h t o t h e nihilistic t r u t h t h a t a n n i h i l a t e s . Yet w e s h a r e H a m l e t ' s d i l e m m a s ; w e t o o n e e d t o be n o t h i n g a n d e v e r y t h i n g , in o u r s e l v e s , w h e n w e m u s t face Y a h w e h ( d e a t h ) in a final c o n f r o n t a t i o n . S t . Paul insisted t h a t t h e last e n e m y t o be o v e r c o m e w o u l d be d e a t h , b u t Paul lived and was m a r t y r e d b e f o r e Luria p e r m a n e n t l y f u s e d Y a h w e h a n d zimzum. T h e G n o s t i c s t h a t Paul o p p o s e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y at C o r i n t h , w e r e nowhere that formidable. Luria t u r n e d t h e o p a c i t y o f M o s a i c Law i n t o a t r a n s p a r e n c y in w h i c h Yahweh's limitations are exposed. S c h o l e m , disdaining t h e N e o p l a t o n i s m o f e a r l y Kabbalah w i t h its o r d e r l y e m a n a t i o n o f Sefirot, u r g e d t h e t r u t h o f C o r d o v e r o ' s a n d Luria's Jewish G n o s t i c i s m , w h i c h divides Y a h w e h o f f f r o m t h e M o s a i c Judaic m y t h o f t h e Will o f G o d . T o M o s e s , Y a h w e h willed w h a t e v e r h e w o u l d . In o u r A m e r i c a , Jesus, a n d t h e H o l y G h o s t in P e n t e c o s t a l i s m , t o u c h t h a t Will b u t d e c i d e d l y d o n o t c o i n c i d e w i t h it. T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus and the_rapidly b u r g e o n i n g Paraclete a r e f r e e t o raise C a i n b o t h at h o m e a n d a b r o a d , all in t h e u n w a r r a n t e d n a m e o f Y a h w e h , w h o is n o t t o be m o c k e d w i t h imp u n i t y , as w e a r e b o u n d t o learn again. Isaac Luria, t o t h e surprise o f his disciples, explicitly r e d e e m e d C a i n , w h o h a d b e e n r a n s o m e d l o n g be t o r e his b i r t h ,' bvj t h e zimzum. T h e s c a r y g r e a t n e s s o f S c h o l e m is t h a t h e m a s k e d as a h i s t o r i a n o f e s o t e r i c r e l i g i o n , w h i l e slyly g r o w i n g i n t o a p r o p h e t o f Jewish G n o s t i c i s m , a C o r d o v e r o o r Luria for t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , w h o s e c a t a s t r o p h e s are n o t a b a t i n g d u r i n g o u r e a r l y years o f t h e t w e n t y - f i r s t . It is n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e G o d o f G e r s h o m S c h o l e m ' s K a b b a l a h is

216 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

Utopian a n d h o p e f u l or m a g i c a l a n d m i s c h i e v o u s , o r p e r h a p s all of t h o s e . C a n o n i c a l religious w r i t i n g s — C h r i s t i a n , Jewish, M u s l i m , H i n d u , B u d d h i s t , e v e n T a o i s t — r a d i a t e a p e r f e c t i o n a n d s t r i c t l i g h t t h a t destroys us, h o w e v e r d e v o t e d l y w e l a b o r t o a b s o r b it. E v e n if t h e A m e r i c a n Jesus t r u l y is Y a h w e h ' s s o n , w h o a m o n g us is h o l y e n o u g h t o s u s t a i n t h a t light?

18.

YAHWEH'S

PSYCHOLOGY

I

F Y A H W E H , on a gigantic scale, has a h u m a n shape, and is
o n c e was M a n , t h e n s o m e insight i n t o h i m m a y be r e a c h a b l e

t h r o u g h t h e Kabbalah's tripartite division o f t h e soul: nephesh, much, neshamah. A d o p t i n g Walt W h i t m a n ' s Kabbalah (as G e r s h o m S c h o l e m n a m e d it t o m e ) , w h a t are Y a h w e h ' s "Myself," " R e a l M e or Me My self," and " S o u l " ; Let us i m a g i n e a W h i t m a n i a n Y a h w e h p r o c l a i m i n g :

I believe in you my soul The other 1 Am must not abase itself to you And you must not be abased to the other

Like Y a h w e h , like Walt: t h e " I " is t h e great "I A m T h a t 1 A m , " ehyeh asher ehyeh, "ehyeh" ( " I Will B e " ) p u n n i n g u p o n t h e u l t i m a t e n a m e , Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton YHWH. More outrageously (even), Y a h w e h c o u l d say, " Y a h w e h , o n e o f t h e roughs, an Israelite." H o w pi quant it m i g h t be to have Y a h w e h describe " t h e o t h e r 1 A m , " " R e a l

231 h a r o l d

b l o o m io

\ l e o r M e M y s e l f " as " B o t h in a n d o u t o f t h e g a m e a n d w a t c h i n g a n d w o n d e r i n g at it," w h e t h e r at M a m r e o r t h e Cities o f t h e Plain o r Peniel o r o n S i n a i .

YAHWEH'S

NEPHESH,

o r s o u l , m i g h t be c a l l e d t h e S u p r e m e Fic-

t i o n , G o d ' s p e r s o n a o u t e r e d t o m e d i a t e b e t w e e n his o w n living b e i n g a n d his u n k n o w a b l e neshamah, t h e s o u l t h a t is a m y s t e r y e v e n t o h i m . S o m e h o w b e t w e e n Y a h w e h ' s nephesh a n d neshamah t h e r e i n t e r v e n e s his S h e k h i n a h , d w e l l i n g w i t h i n h i m in p r e c a r i o u s u n i o n w i t h his o w n r«ach, vital i n n e r b r e a t h . In G o d as in M a n ( a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Zohar)

the

initial p a r t o f t h e soul is t h e nephesh, o r i g i n o f all c o n s c i o u s n e s s . B u t o n l y Y a h w e h a n d e l i t e spirits a m o n g us m a n i f e s t ruach, as a full s e n s e o f h o l i n e s s is a t t a i n e d , p a r t l y f r o m T o r a h s t u d y , a t w h i c h G o d h i m s e l f is adept. Neshamah, Y a h w e h ' s o w n s o u l , is t h e h i g h e s t m o d e , reserved l o r masters o f Kabbalah. O r i g i n a l l y t h e c a t e g o r i e s ol Jewish N e o p l a t o n i s m , i n f o r m e d by A r i s t o t l e o n t h e m i n d , t h e s e t h r e e g r a d e s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s b e c a m e so variously defined t h a t n o consistency adheres to t h e m . S o m e t h i n g like t h e " s p a r k , " o r pneurna, o f t h e G n o s t i c s survives in t h e

neshatnah,

Y a h w e h - w i t h i n - u s . In L u r i a n i c K a b b a l a h , a b e w i l d e r i n g m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f t h e sparks defies a n y rapid s u m m a r y . B u t as b e f o r e , Y a h w e h h i m s e l f is m y c o n c e r n . W h a t c a n be l e a r n e d o f this d i s c o n c e r t i n g l y h u m a n G o d f r o m his o w n p s y c h i c c a r t o g r a p h y a n d its vicissitudes? P r e - K a b b a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , p e r h a p s m o r e s t a r t l i n g t h a n Kabbalah itself, insists t h a t T o r a h , in its t r u e , p r o p e r o r d e r ( u n k n o w n t o us), c o n stitutes the a c c u r a t e n a m e o f Y a h w e h , o f w h i c h t h e T e t r a g r a m m a t o n

YAHWEH107 L

J f H W H gives o n l y a hint. In the O r a l T o r a h received by Moses at Sinai,

Q

t h e actual n a m e was fully revealed, w i t h t h e w a r n i n g t h a t it had t h e

^

p o w e r o f m i r a c l e , e v e n o f r e s u r r e c t i n g t h e dead. T o r a h is t h e G r e a t N a m e o f Y a h w e h himself, unifying his tripartite c o n s c i o u s n e s s of being, and indeed c o n s t i t u t i n g his body. B u t as S c h o l e m delighted in o b serving, T o r a h , like Y a h w e h , c a n n o t be k n o w n . J e s u s — w h o at o n c e replaced T e m p l e , T o r a h , and Y a h w e h — i s k n o w n t o so m a n y A m e r i cans (in p a r t i c u l a r ) t h a t all t o o early we c a n lose t h e n u m i n o u s sense o f God's u n k n o w a b i l i t y . T h e Kabbalah o f G e r s h o m S c h o l e m strongly emphasizes h e a r i n g G o d o v e r seeing h i m , perhaps m o r e a Jewish t h a n G r e e k m o d e of a p p r e h e n s i o n . In Through a Speculum That Shines (1994), Elliot R. Woll s o n argues instead for visionary gnosis as being m o r e c e n t r a l to Kab balah. A disciple o f William B l a k e in m v far-off y o u t h , 1 a m receptive to Wolfson's o r i e n t a t i o n , t h o u g h a little skeptical as to seeing t h e N a m e s Divine even w h e n w r i t t e n in black fire u p o n w h i t e fire. Yet Wolfson's insights are s t i m u l a t i n g o n a central p r o b l e m c o n c e r n i n g Y a h w e h : he keeps his visibility while insisting he c a n n o t and must not be seen:

|TJhe Jewish mystics are primarily interpreters of scripture. The pre occupation with visualizing the divine stems directly from the anxiety of influence of biblical theophanies. (p. 394)

For Wolfson, " t h e seeing o f G o d in Jewish mysticism is intensely eroticized." M o s h e Idel's f o r t h c o m i n g Kabbalah and Eros c o n f i r m s Woll son's passionate r e j e c t i o n o f a largely a u d i t o r y Y a h w e h . F o l l o w i n g

220 h a r o l d

bloom

b o t h W o l f s o n a n d Idel, I leap h e r e t o a d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e Y a h w i s t i c - W h i t m a n i a n and S h a k e s p e a r e a n - F r e u d i a n maps o f t h e m i n d . A n e r o t i c a l l y d r i v e n Y a h w e h w h o n e v e r t h e l e s s possesses n o lust ( s i n c e t h e S h e k h i n a h _ a t l e a s t b e g i n s as an i n w a r d d w e l l i n g p r e s e n c e ) s e e m s t o m e p r a g m a t i c a l l y W h i t m a n i a n , like t h e a u t o e r o t i c p o e t otSong of Myself a n d " S p o n t a n e o u s M e . " F r e u d i a n M a n is radically i n c o m p l e t e : like S h a k e s p e a r e ' s w o m e n a n d m e n , h e m u s t fall in l o v e o r c h o k e o n his o v e r f i l l e d i n n e r self, t h e fate o f p o o r M a l v o l i o in Twelfth Night, o f t h e w i d o w e r S h y l o c k , a n d e v e n m o r e o f t h e u n l o v i n g F l a m l e t . Y a h w e h , l i k e W a l t W h i t m a n , does n o t n e e d t o fall in l o v e w i t h a n y individual, t h o u g h King David c o m e s c l o s e s t t o a l m o s t m o v ing t h e s o l i t a r y H e b r e w G o d . W h i t m a n , w h a t e v e r h a p p e n e d t o h i m

5

in s o m e kind o n h o m o e r o t i c d e b a c l e in t h e w i n t e r o f 1859—60, t r u l y emulates Yahweh's relation to t h e S h e k h m a h

by i n t e r n a l i z i n g his

F a n c y - — t h e I n t e r i o r P a r a m o u r , as Wallace S t e v e n s n a m e d t h e M u s e he involuntarily shared with W h i t m a n . Shakespeare's and Freud's m a j o r p r o t a g o n i s t s are n o t p r i m a r i l y p o e t s , b u t Y a h w e h is. Rabbi Akiba b e n J o s e p h , r a b b i - o f - r a b b i s f o r e v e r , insisted t h a t ( S o l o m o n ' s S o n g o f S o n g s be c a n o n i z e d , b e c a u s e h e i n t e r p r e t e d it as Y a h w e h ' s o w n p o e m o f e c s t a t i c c o u r t s h i p , t h e " m y sister, m y s p o u s e " b e i n g t h e S h e k h i n a h . Y a h w e h is m o r e F r e u d i a n in s h a r i n g t h e d e a t h - d r i v e o f Beyond the Pleasure Principle, w h e r e I've m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y t h a t F r e u d i n v e n t e d a n d t h e n r e j e c t e d t h e c o n c e p t o f destrudo, a n e g a t i v e libido w e m i g h t all g o a b o t i t t h i n k i n g w e possessed h a d F r e u d stayed w i t h t h e n o t i o n . Contra F r e u d , libido is a m y t h : t h e r e is n o s e p a r a t e s e x u a l e n ergy. Y a h w e h , like Balzac's m e n a n d w o m e n , s u b s u m e s his s u p p o s e d libido by a g e n e r a l e n e r g e t i c s . F r e u d , t h o u g h he s t u b b o r n l y insisted

'V

YAHWEH

221

£

t

v h e k n e w n o t h i n g o f S c h o p e n h a u e r , exalts a will-to-live far m o r e destructive t h a n Y a h w e h needs t o indulge.

^ V—^

M a c b e t h was Freud's favorite identity in S h a k e s p e a r e , possibly be-

,

cause t h e drive beyond t h e pleasure principle scarcely c o u l d v e n t u r e

-

f u r t h e r — Y a h w e h ' s surrogate in S h a k e s p e a r e is King Lear, w h o inluri ated Tolstov and w h o marks a limit o f literary art. O u t w a r d self, Real

C

Nr u

M e , and soul break apart in t h e m a g n i f i c e n t king, as t h e y do in t h e Y a h w e h o f E x o d u s and N u m b e r s , w h o angrily guides his

covenanted

p e o p l e in a m a d m a r c h t h r o u g h t h e Wilderness, en r o u t e f r o m Egypt to C a n a a n . T h e r e isn't any apt t e r m for Yahweh's relation to his o w n

C

neshamah, or soul. Since h e is, also, m o r e a literary c h a r a c t e r t h a n were

-~~Ct

W h i t m a n and Freud, I a m n o w uneasv in talking a b o u t " t h e psychol o ogy o f Y a h w e h . " He w o n ' t go away, t h o u g h I wish he w o u l d , since I t h i n k o f h i m is t o r e m e m b e r my o w n m o r t a l i t y . And yet in Kabbalah

J^ ^

w e are told t h a t G o d is primordial M a n . T h e Zohar says t h a t o u r obli

h t ^ ^

gation is to pierce t h e g a r m e n t b o t h o f T o r a h and o f G o d , b u t h o w ! A t birth, t h e nephesh e n t e r s us, but Y a h w e h ( u n l i k e Jesus) is n o t b o r n . Still, if zimzum, or s e l f - c o n t r a c t i o n , was his origin, just as it was ours, we can speculate t h a t God's first sharp i n t a k e o f breath i n a u g u r a t e d his nephesh. His ruach p r e s u m a b l y began w h e n he vivified A d a m , but what gave h i m a first awareness o f his o w n nephesh? E v i d e n t l y j h i s unionjwilh ^the S h e k h i n a h , j o r " h i s o w n f e m a l e c o m p o n e n t , ( p r a g m a t i c a l l y creates his overt consciousness o f his o w n , h i g h e r soul. T h e r e are few (if a n y ) parallels t o that in S h a k e s p e a r e and in Freud, t h o u g h t h e r e c e r t a i n l y is a W h i t m a n i a n a n a l o g u e early in Song oj Myself. D. H. Lawrence, w h o like W h i t m a n created a Kabbalah en tirely his o w n , gave us a Jesus w h o similarly finds his h i g h e r soul in

222 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

t h e l a t e , s h o r t n o v e l The Man Who Died. A n E n g l i s h N o n c o n f o r m i s t by religious u p b r i n g i n g , L a w r e n c e v a s t l y o f f e n d e d T . S. Eliot in Eliot's p r i m e r o f m o d e r n h e r e s y , After Strange Gods. W h a t c a n be v e n t u r e d as t o t h e k n o w l e d g e a t t a i n e d by Y a h w e h o f his o w n soul? If zimzum i n a u g u r a t e d b o t h c o s m o s a n d G o d h i m s e l f as Yahweh t r u n c a t e d d o w n to E l o h i m , t h e n he began with an ambivalence toward creation, m e n and w o m e n included. T h e history of t h e Jews is a h e c a t o m b t o t h a t a m b i v a l e n c e t o w a r d t h e C h o s e n . A n y o n e w h o p o n d e r s t h e H e b r e w Bible c a n w o n d e r w h y Y a h w e h n e v e r l a m e n t s t h a t h e has f o r s a k e n h i m s e l f . T h e p r o p h e t i c l i t a n y t h r o u g h o u t t h e T a n a k h is t h a t t h e Jewish p e o p l e have b e t r a y e d t h e i r C o v e n a n t w i t h Y a h w e h . N o t o n c e are w e t o l d t h e o t h e r a n d m o r e a w f u l t r u t h : G o d ' s d e s t r u c t i o n o f his c o v e n a n t e d p e o p l e . As I h a v e m e n t i o n e d , G e r s h o m S c h o l e m , in a r a r e m i s t a k e , associated Isaac Luria's visions o f zimzum a n d shevirat

ha-kelim

w i t h t h e Iberian e x p u l s i o n o f t h e Jews, w h i c h h a d n o d i r e c t r e l e v a n c e t o t h e A s h k e n a z i Ari, as t h e l i o n - l i k e Luria was k n o w n . B u t as a l m o s t always, S c h o l e m i m a g i n a t i v e l y r e c a p t u r e d t h e G n o s t i c e l e m e n t s in K a b b a l a h , w h i c h i m p l i c i t l y addresses i t s e l f t o G o d ' s s o u l a n d his abs e n c e s f r o m it.

(2)

In t h e l o n g h i s t o r y o f t h e Jews, t h e r e is n o m o r e d i s t u r b i n g

figure

t h a n t h e false M e s s i a h [acob F r a n k ( 1 7 2 6 - 1 7 9 1 ) , w h o s e s e c t , m o s t b u t n o t all o f t h e m C a t h o l i c c o n v e r t s , e x i s t e d in P o l a n d a n d e l s e w h e r e

y a h w e h107

until at least t h e late n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d m a y s u r v i v e in a few r e m n a n t s today. J a c o b F r a n k r e p r e s e n t e d t h e last s t a n d o f t h e false Messiah S h a b b e t a i Zevi (1626—1676) o f S m y r n a , w h o c o n v e r t e d I s l a m in 1666, b r i n g i n g a l o n g m a n y o f his f o l l o w e r s .

to

Shabbetai's

p r o p h e t , N a t h a n o f G a z a (1643—1680), d e f e n d e d S h a b b e t a i ' s apostasy as a m y s t i c a l n e c e s s i t y ( w h i c h N a t h a n h i m s e l f , h o w e v e r , did n o t a d o p t ) and c o m p o s e d a w h o l l y G n o s t i c Kabbalah that r e m a i n s t h e m o s t radical d o c t r i n e o f G o d ' s o w n a p o s t a s y in Jewish t r a d i t i o n . In N a t h a n o f G a z a ' s Treatise on the Dragons, t h e Messiah's p s y c h e suffers u l t i m a t e d e g r a d a t i o n , a w a y d o w n a n d o u t t h a t will lead u l t i m a t e l y t o t h e w a y up:

Know that the soul o f the messianic king exists in the lower golem. For just as the primal dragon emerged in the vacant space, even so t h e soul o f the messiah was created by the will of God. This soul existed before the creation of the world, and it remains in the great abyss.

J a c o b F r a n k , w h o s e spirit also c o i l e d b e l o w w i t h t h e d r a g o n s , was r e g a r d e d as t h e l o w p o i n t o f Jewish h i s t o r y by t h e m o s t i d i o s y n c r a t i c

^If/j ^f^PfiW

o f t h e Hasidic m a s t e r s , R a b b i N a h m a n o f Bratslav, w h o r e m a i n s still ^KitJo t h e final g u i d e o f t h e s u r v i v i n g B r a t s l a v i a n s . T h a t was a u n i q u e dis-

q ^

t i n c t i o n until t h e fairly r e c e n t r e f u s a l o f t h e n u m e r o u s L u b a v i t c h e r s

^Hty^y

t o c h o o s e a r e p l a c e m e n t f o r t h e i r late rebhe, M e n a c h e m S c h n e e r s o n .

OPj^'

T h e t w o m a s t e r s e a c h possess m e s s i a n i c e m i n e n c e f o r t h e i r f o l l o w e r s .

(X

I i n v o k e t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y N a h m a n o f Bratslav h e r e b e c a u s e h e possessed m o r e c o n s i d e r a b l e insights i n t o w h a t I w o u l d call t h e t o r m e n t e d p s y c h o l o g y o f G o d t h a n a n y o n e s i n c e Isaac Luria. N a h m a n

224 h a r o l d

bloom

was a g r e a t - g r a n d s o n o f t h e Baal S h e m T o v ( " m a s t e r o f t h e g o o d n a m e " ) , t h e f o u n d e r o f H a s i d i s m , b u t his p e r s o n a l i t y d i v e r g e d s h a r p l y f r o m t h e e c s t a t i c j o y o u s n e s s o f his a n c e s t o r s . E m o t i o n a l l y t u r b u l e n t , a depressive s e l f - t o r m e n t o r , N a h m a n was a l i t e r a r y g e n i u s , w h o s e c a r e f u l l y f o r m e d a l l e g o r i c a l tales a n d obiter dicta r e t a i n t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l \f> ^

power. N a h m a n says little a b o u t his g r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r , a n d n o d i a l o g u e

t5 O O -

w o u l d h a v e b e e n possible b e t w e e n t h e m . R e a d i n g t h e B r a t s l a v e r rebbe, I feel f r e q u e n t l y I a m inside o n e o f R o b e r t B r o w n i n g ' s

dramatic

<3 m o n o l o g u e s , say, Cbilde Roland to the Dark Tower Came. F o r N a h m a n also, t h e q u e s t m o v e s t h r o u g h all t h i n g s d e f o r m e d a n d b r o k e n , u n t i l u n ' N^jf^

aware you c o m e upon t h e place. Alter a lifetime training for the sight, v o u c o n f r o n t a void, f r o m w h i c h t h e o b j e c t o f y o u r q u e s t has d e p a r t e d . R i n g e d by t h e living f r a m e o f y o u r f o r e r u n n e r s ( Z o h a r , Luria, a n d t h e Baal S h e m T o v a m o n g t h e m ) , y o u c o n f r o n t t h e a b s e n c e o f

,3

God. However heroic your response (read the extraordinary thirteen

"5

tales N a h m a n c o m p o s e d ) , y o u t r a n s c e n d e i t h e r v i c t o r y o r d e f e a t .

V,'

H o w m u c h o f Y a h w e h survives in N a h m a n , w h o r e g a r d e d h i m s e l f as the Messiah: "

oO—V

^ N J

G o d in t h e B r a t s l a v e r is n o t m e r e l y a n a b s e n c e d w i n d l e d d o w n f r o m a p r e s e n c e . A l t e r o n e zimzum t o o m a n y , Y a h w e h s h r u n k i n t o

c^J

E l o l i i m c a n n o t be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e c o s m i c v o i d h e w a n d e r s . T o r a h , w h i c h is Y a h w e h , has b e e n revised i n t o N a h m a n ' s i n t e r p r e t a -

f^ 3 j^

tions, w h i c h a r e t o t a l l y f r e e e x c e p t as regards t h e M o s a i c d o m a i n o f r,i g h t c o n d u c t . T h e r e is n o a n t i n o m i a n i s m in N a h m a n , n o t h— ing of C — S h a b b e t a i Zevi's o r J a c o b F r a n k ' s | l i h e r t i n e excess. T h e m o r a l Law p r e vails, b u t its giver, w h o was B e i n g itself, has v a p o r i z e d i n t o t h e void o f Jewish dispersion a n d s u f f e r i n g .

y a h w e h107

A T a l m u d i c m a x i m says o f Y a h w e h , " H e is t h e p l a c e (makom) o f t h e w o r l d , h u t t h e w o r l d is n o t his p l a c e . " N a h m a n relied o n a d a r k e r wis d o m : t h e w o r l d is a p l a c e f r o m w j i i c h G o d h a s w i t h d r a w n . T h e B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels is f o r N a h m a n t h e m o r e c r u c i a l L u r i a n i c vision. A n e n d l e s s l y c o n t r a c t i n g Y a h w e h e n s u e s in a b r e a t h l e s s

God,

w h o s e final s i l e n c e m a y w e l l be t h a t o f s o m e o n e w h o s e p h a r y n x is bad. His v o i c e g o n e , Y a h w e h m a y still be visible, b u t o n l y as D a n i e l ' s A n c i e n t o f D a y s , h a r d l y t h e r o b u s t t r i c k s t e r o f t h e J W r i t e r ' s saga. Hut visible o r invisible, G o d is n o t f o r N a h m a n an a u d i t o r y g u i d e , il a g u i d e is r e q u i r e d at all by this m o s t i n w a r d o f Messiahs, at least since Yeshua o f Nazareth. In h e r p o i g n a n t n o v e l The Seventh Beggar ( 2 0 0 4 ) , Pearl

Abraham

c o m p l e t e s N a h m a n ' s m o s t f a m o u s tale, " T h e S e v e n B e g g a r s , " w h i c h t h e M a s t e r d e l i b e r a t e l y left u n f i n i s h e d . In " T h e S e v e n B e g g a r s , " t h e e n i g m a t i c shnorrers ( w h o a r e b o t h a n c i e n t a n d y o u t h f u l ) tell stories t h e y s o m e h o w r e c a l l , e v e n t h o u g h e a c h also c o u l d say, Ikh gedenk gornisht ( " I c a n ' t r e m e m b e r a t h i n g ! " ) . P l a t o n i c i n t i m a t i o n s o f G o d ' s p r e b i r t h e x i s t e n c e a r e e v o k e d , w i t h t h e B r a t s l a v e r twist s h r e w d l y e x p o u n d e d by A r t h u r G r e e n : t h e w h o l e c o s m o s , a n d all o f us, w e r e as o r i g i n a r y as Y a h w e h . C r e a t i o n i t s e l f g o e s b a c k b e f o r e the C r e a t i o n . Yet o n l y six o f t h e s e v e n P l a t o n i c beggars tells his tale; t h e l a m e o n e ( g e n e r a l l y identified w i t h N a h m a n

h i m s e l f ) does n o t arrive, f o r

w o u l d m e a n t h e Messiah's self-revelation, t h e troubled

that

Nahman's

v i n d i c a t i o n . Pearl A b r a h a m c o u r a g e o u s l y tells t h e s t o r y :

And when the six tales were told, the travelers turned toward me, the beggar without feet, and wondered how without feet I could have traveled far enough to find a tale w o r t h telling. And I told t h e m a tale

226 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

of seven pilgrims who walked the deserts and steppes, over m o u n tains, hills, and dales, through fields and streams, in the icy cold o f winters and the scalding heat o f summers, and while they walked they talked. And exhausted themselves with walking and talking and listening and telling. And I told their six tales word for word, as they had been told to me. And wrhen I arrived at the seventh tale, the tale of the beggar without feet, I told a tale of seven travelers walking, trudging and grudging, tired and mired in leaves and mud, and so forth. And all the while talking, telling tales. And 1 told the tales these pilgrims told, word for word I told their tales, and then I told my tale: a tale o f seven wanderers. And it was agreed that J the beggar without feet, slow and trailing behind, was nevertheless farther and deeper traveled, because within my tale were contained all tales. And 1 talked and walked, and with every step, between o n e step and the next, I dreamed a dream. And in one dream I awoke and saw that the Leviathan had not yet emerged, the story could not be finished. I walked onward, another step, a n o t h e r tale, another dream. Between dream and dream I awoke and found myself in this wedding pit and in this pit a m o n g the wedding guests, was the prince who had s t u m bled into heresy, but as long as he was here, as long as he listened and believed the tales, his wisdom and heresy were restrained. He listened and rejoiced m u c h as his father, the old King, had once rejoiced. To prevent another stumble, I, the beggar without feet, must continue. I pause only to present your wedding gift, that you may be as I am.

If Job's L e v i a t h a n , o r d e a t h , G o d ' s sanctified t y r a n n y o f n a t u r e o v e r an, has n o t yet e m e r g e d , t h e n Kabbalah's p r o m i s e t h a t at t h e R e -

-4-

r

/\-

•

/ -J.^F

'

YAHWEH

227

d e m p t i o n w e all o f us, Job and t h e Zohar's mystical c o m p a n i o n s , will ~ £

feast u p o n t h e f o r m e r l y dread c r e a t u r e c a n n o t yet be fulfilled. T h e

.

bride and b r i d e g r o o m n e v e r t h e l e s s are a n e w Eve and A d a m , t h e

3

— s t u m b l i n g prince is N a h m a n o f Bratslav, and t h e old King is Y a h w e h

v :

in his guise as A n c i e n t o f Days. If s t u m b l i n g , heresy, and wisdom all are o n e , t h a t is because Y a h w e h himself s t u m b l e d i n t o t h e heresy o f t h e B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels. Even as t h e Lurianic E i n - S o f fuses with his perpetual acts of zimzum, so are all of his acts f u r t h e r breakings o f t h e vessels. N a h m a n ' s greatest originality, his great swerve f r o m

Lurianic

Kabbalah, was to d e n y t h e reshimu, t h e r e m n a n t o f G o d ' s light that stayed behind in t h e void o f t h e tehiru, t h e space vacated by Yahweh in t h e initial zimzum. W i t h o u t t h e saving r e m n a n t o f divine light, we s t u m b l e a b o u t in t h e void, beggars w i t h a m p u t a t e d feet. I low m m li o f Y a h w e h ' s soul survives t h e perpetual B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels"; I lold i n g i n his b r e a t h , t h e old King is in p e r p e t u a l suspension, deserting his C h o s e n as t h e worlds go on ruining. W h a t e v e r this Y a h w e h has be c o m e , it is a final irony t o call h i m limitless, t o n a m e h i m : " W i t h o u t End."

r^oA IF

GOD

O

H I M S E L F as E l o h i m is a c a t a s t r o p h e c r e a t i o n , then he

rightly t r a n s c e n d s t h e esoteric Jewish m y t h t h a t says h e m a d e and ru ined m a n y a world before this o n e . Still, t h e Sages did us little good by s c r u b b i n g Y a h w e h o f his i m p e r f e c t i o n s . T h e r e are advantages, moral and aesthetic, o f identifying Y a h w e h as pre-zimzum and as the void or abyss that results f r o m t h e B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels. A breathless, hard

228 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

breathing Y a h w e h , perpetually c o n t r a c t i n g and w i t h d r a w i n g

into

E l o h i m , r e t a i n s his d y n a m i s m a n d his i l l - t e m p e r . We ( m a n y a m o n g u s ) w o u l d like h i m t o g o away b u t h e w o n ' t . F r e u d said w e had t o m a k e f r i e n d s w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f dying, a Yahwistic

observation,

t h o u g h 1 p r e f e r M o n t a i g n e ' s advice: D o n ' t b o t h e r t o p r e p a r e f o r y o u r d e a t h b e c a u s e , w h e n t h e t i m e c o m e s , y o u will k n o w h o w t o d o it w e l l enough. A C h r i s t i a n believes t h a t Jesus was t h e C h r i s t , a n o i n t e d b e f o r e t h e c r e a t i o n in o r d e r t o a t o n e f o r t h e sins o f this w o r l d . M u s l i m s submit t o A l l a h ' s will, s h a t t e r i n g l y set f o r t h in t h e Q u r ' a n . M y o w n

mother

trusted in t h e C o v e n a n t , despite Y a h w e h ' s b l a t a n t v i o l a t i o n o f its t e r m s . S h a k e s p e a r e c o u l d n e v e r have p u t Y a h w e h o n stage, b u t did t h e n e x t best s u b s t i t u t e p o r t r a y a l , o f K i n g Lear, w h o c o u l d w e l l be a n a l y z e d by t h e m y t h s o f L u r i a n i c K a b b a l a h . C a l l Lear's a b d i c a t i o n his zimzum, a n d his m a d n e s s a n d furies a B r e a k i n g o f t h e Vessels.

(3) F r e u d e n d o r s e d e r o t i c s u b s t i t u t i o n as o u r s e c o n d c h a n c e t h a t m i g h t begin t o heal t h e narcissistic s c a r o f h a v i n g lost t h e initial o b j e c t of d e sire, t h e p a r e n t o f t h e o p p o s i t e g e n d e r t o t h e p a r e n t o f t h e s a m e g e n der. I t e n d t o i n t e r p r e t zimzum as " s u b s t i t u t i o n " in s o m e t h i n g like t h e F r e u d i a n s e n s e . By c o n t r a c t i n g , Y a h w e h s u b s t i t u t e s his o w n Will f o r at least p a r t o f his o w n Being. T h a t s u b s t i t u t i o n is s u r e l y n o easy m a t t e r f o r G o d : i n d e e d e v e n b e f o r e Luria, t h e r e w e r e t r a d i t i o n s t h a t Y a h w e h ' s n a m e was always pre-zimzwm, a n d t h a t a f t e r c o n t r a c t i o n ,

he

b e c o m e s E l o h i m . N o t e t h a t as t h e F u l l n e s s o f B e i n g , G o d r e m a i n s

y a h w e h107

Y a h w e h . His W i l l , w i t h d r a w n f r o m h i m , is called E l o h i m . S c h o l e m insisted t h a t w i t h o u t t h e n e g a t i v e m o m e n t o f zimzum, G o d a n d t h e cos m o s fuse as o n e . Idel t r a c e s in a r c h a i c Jewish f r a g m e n t a r y t e x t s t h e o r i g i n s o f zimzum, an idea t h a t C o r d o v e r o i n h e r i t e d a n d t h e n passed o n t o Luria. T h o u g h s o m e s t u d e n t s o f S c h o l e m still r e s e n t ldel, and a n i n f o r m e d l i t e r a r y s c h o l a r like R o b e r t A l t e r a t t e m p t e d t o dismiss Idel, t i m e ' s p e r s p e c t i v e s begin t o s h o w us t h a t Idel is c l o s e r t o S c h o l e m ' s o w n spirit t h a n t h e disciples a r e . S c h o l e m desired a G n o s t i c K a b b a l a h , free o f t h e e m a n a t i o n i s t t h e o s o p h i e s o f N e o p l a t o n i s m , a n d Kiel p e r suasively s h o w s us t h a t G n o s t i c i s m is largely a p a r o d y o f f a s c i n a t i n g e l e m e n t s in a r c h a i c J u d a i s m s . He bases this u p o n a r c h a i c texts, in e l u d i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s o f t h e B o o k s o f E n o c h , in w h i c h t h e ill vision b e t w e e n G o d a n d m a n at t i m e s s e e m s a b o l i s h e d . W h a t t h e s t a n c e s o f b o t h S c h o l e m a n d Idel t e a c h is t h a t Yahweh's p s y c h o l o g y b e c o m e s f u r t h e r h u m a n i z e d by his drive t o c r e a t e ,i c o s m o s and m e n a n d w o m e n s e p a r a t e f r o m h i m s e l f . I m p l i c i t in t h e m also, a n d m a d e p o w e r f u l l y e x p l i c i t by s c h o l a r s like Y e h u d a Liebes and E l l i o t W o l f s o n , is t h e p e c u l i a r p o w e r o f C h r i s t i a n K a b b a l a h , w h i c h f o u n d in Jesus C h r i s t a s e c o n d zimzum, w h i c h c o u l d be c a l l e d a f u r t h e r c o n t r a c t i o n o f E l o h i m o r A d o n a i d o w n t o t h e level o f t h e Trinity's G o d t h e F a t h e r . If J a c k Miles w i s h e s t o see C h r i s t as a crisis in t h e life o f God, I w o u l d agree with him, but only on the premise that t h e ( i o d i n v o l v e d is n o t t h e o r i g i n a r y Y a h w e h b u t r a t h e r G o d t h e F a t h e r , ,i s h a d o w o f Y a h w e h . O n e step f u r t h e r o n , a n d y o u c o m e t o o u r A n u i i c a n m o m e n t , w h e r e G o d t h e F a t h e r has faded away, y i e l d i n g both to t h e A m e r i c a n Jesus a n d t o his i n c r e a s i n g l y s t r o n g rival, t h e Holy Spirit o f o u r P e n t e c o s t a l i s m , w h i c h r i c h l y m i x e s Hispanics, Afric an A m e r i c a n s , a n d dispossessed u r b a n a n d S o u t h e r n w h i t e s .

230 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

A n e w e r s o c i o l o g y o f A m e r i c a n religion m i g h t f o u n d itself o n an intellectual reflection upon t h e m e t a p h o r of Yahweh's

two-staged

zimzum, first t o E l o h i m , a n d t h e n t o G o d t h e F a t h e r sacrificing his s o n f o r t h e c o m m o n g o o d . T h e A m e r i c a n Jesus m a y b e c o m e t o o c o m p r o m i s e d by t h e C h r i s t i a n R i g h t t o g o o n as t h e i n t i m a t e f r i e n d o f t h e dispossessed. T h e H o l y Spirit m a y y e t be t h e r e i g n i n g divinity o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a ( o d d l y p r o p h e s i e d l o n g a g o in T h o m a s P y n c h o n ' s The Crying Lot oj 49).

1 9

IRRECONCILABILITY CHRISTIANITY

HAT EVEN

AND

OF

JUDAISM

THE T I T L E o f this section will seem unfortu

nate t o m a n y readers is an oddity, after t w o thousand ye.us ol plain fact. T h e r e are doubtless political and social benefits, ongoing and crucial, t h a t s t e m f r o m t h e m y t h o f " t h e Judeo-Chrislian tradi tion," but delusions finally p r o v e pernicious, as t h e y did for ( i c r m a n speaking Jewry. " C h r i s t i a n - J e w i s h d i a l o g u e " isn't even a myth, but invariably farce. J a c o b N e u s n e r , o u r s u p r e m e s c h o l a r o f Jewish writ ings f r o m t h e first c e n t u r y b e f o r e t h e C o m m o n Era on t h r o u g h at least t h e sixth c e n t u r y that w e r e u n h a p p i l y shared by Jews and < In is tians, p u n g e n t l y says t h a t t h e t w o religions represent people talking a b o u t different things t o different people" Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition,

"different

(jews and

1991, 1—15).

This difference, t h a t c e r t a i n l y has m a d e a difference, begins with t h e sharp c o n t r a s t classically o u t l i n e d by M a r t i n B u b e r . Jews arc not asked to hefi«vebut r a t h e r to trust in t h e C o v e n a n t cut between Yah writ and t h e Patriarchs and Prophets, f r o m Noah and ^Abraham t h r o u g h

232 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

Moses on

to Jeremiah

and

finally

t h e rabbi-of-rahbis, Akiba b e n

J o s e p h . C h r i s t i a n s believe t h a t J o s h u a b e n J o s e p h was t h e M e s s i a h , t h e G o d Jesus C h r i s t , w h o was i n c a r n a t e d m i r a c u l o u s l y in t h e w o m b o f M i r i a m , his virgin m o t h e r , a n d w h o n o w reigns in e t e r n i t y as t h e v i c e r o y o f G o d his F a t h e r , in t h e c o m p a n y also o f t h e H o l y Spirit, h o s t s o f a n g e l s , a n d t h e m u l t i t u d e s h e has r e d e e m e d a n d saved. T h i s C h r i s t i a n G o d t h e F a t h e r has o n l y t h e s l i g h t e s t r e s e m b l a n c e t o Y a h w e h , G o d H i m s e l f , n a m e d A l l a h in t h e Q u r ' a n , a n d called o n u n d e r several o t h e r n a m e s in Asia a n d in Africa. N i e t z s c h e w a r n e d us t o ask always, " W h o is t h e i n t e r p r e t e r a n d w h a t p o w e r d o e s h e seek t o gain o v e r t h e t e x t ? " T h e r e is a s u p e r b p a r a g r a p h in J a c o b N e u s n e r t h a t s e e m s t o m e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f w i s d o m in c o n t r a s t i n g t h o s e rival G o d s (in m y j u d g m e n t ) j [ e s u s a n d Y a h w e h : <—-—

When, for example, Jesus asked people who they t h o u g h t he was, the enigmatic answer proved less interesting than the question posed. For the task he set himself, as portrayed by not only the Gospels but also Paul and the other New Testament writers, was to reframe everything people know through encounter with what they did not know: a taxonomic enterprise. When the rabbis o f late antiquity rewrote in their own image and likeness the entire scripture and history o f Israel, dropping whole eras as though they had never been, ignoring vast bodies of old Jewish writing, inventing whole new books for the canon o f Judaism, they did the same thing. T h e y reworked what they had received in light o f what they proposed to give. (Jews and Christians, p. 102)

YAHWEH107

T h a t is t h e Jesus o f t h e G o s p e l o f Mark, w h o interests m e m o s t , tog e t h e r w i t h t h e Jesus o f t h e q u a s i - G n o s t i c G o s p e l o f T h o m a s . What absorbs m e far less t h a n t h e original Y a h w e h of t h e J Writer, a u t h o r o f w h a t are t h e earliest layers o f t h e palimpsest o f Genesis, E x o d u s , and N u m b e r s , is t h e Judaism N e u s n e r rightly sees as t h e i n v e n t i o n o f Akiba and his fellow rabbis o f t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y o f t h e C o m m o n Era. T h e i r p o s t - C h r i s t i a n religion (weird as t h a t m u s t s o u n d ) bases itsell u p o n a persuasively s t r o n g m i s r e a d i n g o f T a n a k h m e a n t to

confront

t h e desperate needs o f a Jewish people o c c u p i e d and terrorized by t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . T h e T e m p l e had been destroyed by t h e R o m a n s in 70 C.E., and m o s t o f J e r u s a l e m w i t h it. In 135 C.E., after t h e R o m a n H o l o c a u s t t h a t f o l l o w e d t h e massive Bar Kochba rebellion, Israel's last stand b e f o r e 1947, J e r u s a l e m was obliterated and Akiba was in.11 tyred, at t h e age o f ninety-five, by t h e a b o m i n a b l e Hadrian, w h o massacred m o r e Jews t h a n a n y o n e else in history before Hitler. < ,'hris tianity had replaced t h e T e m p l e by t h e person o f Jesus C h r i s t , while Akiba rebuilt t h e T e m p l e in every Jewish h o u s e h o l d . Y a h w e h , w h o still feels h o m e l e s s after his T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n , seems to m e t o have exiled himself, s o m e w h e r e in t h e o u t e r spaces, until h e r e t u r n e d to Israel in 1948. In t h e year 2004, w h e n I write, o n e c a n o n l y h o p e that he does n o t d e m a n d his T e m p l e again, since A1 Aksa M o s q u e stands u p o n its site, and w ^ J i a v e j . j u t t e e n o u g h religious war already without w h a t c o u l d p r o v e j o b e t h a t final catastrophe. Z e a l o t s in J e r u s a l e m a n d scattered

throughout

American

Protestant

Fundamentalism

conspire incessantly t o destroy t h e j n c o n v e n i e n t m o s q u e , and suit ably pure red heifers are being bred in t h e United States as potential sacrifices t o lure Yahweh back t o his T e m p l e g r o u n d s .

234 h a r o l d bloom

I m e n t i o n this well-attested m a d n e s s o n l y to confess m y uneasy w a n i n g o f skepticism in regard to Y a h w e h . t p o u b t i n g his c o n t h u i e d existence is a rational exercise,\but he hardly is a static entity, like t h e Christian F a t h e r - G o d . Flis f e a r s o m e d y n a m i s m renders even his absences into p o t e n t i a l disturbances. If Jesus C h r i s t , t r u t j ^ o c L a n d l x u e i n a n, is impossibly r e m o t e f r o m Y a h w e h (as p r e s u m a b l y Yeshua o f N a z a r e t h was n o t ) , this is because G r e e k theological f o r m u l a t i o n s and Hebraic experiential m e m o r i e s simply are a n t i t h e t i c a l t o e a c h o t h e r .

2 O .

CONCLUSION: REALITY-TESTING

EPLORING

R E L I G I O N is as useless as c e l e b r a t i n g it. Where

shall t r a n s c e n d e n c e be f o u n d ? T h e r e are t h e arts: Shakespeare, B a c h , M i c h e l a n g e l o still suffice f o r an elite, but hardly for entire peoples. Y a h w e h , u n d e r w h a t e v e r n a m e , Allah included, is not quite t h e universal divinity of a globe b o u n d t o g e t h e r by i n s t a n t a n e o u s in f o r m a t i o n , yet he lingers o n , all b u t everywhere. Jesus is closer to uni versality, but his t h o u s a n d guises are t o o bewildering for coherence, Freud, t h e final Victorian or Edwardian p r o p h e t ,

underestimated

Y a h w e h , Jesus, and M u h a m m a d . He t h o u g h t t h e m illusive, and saw little f u t u r e for t h e m . It seems ironic t h a t t h e greatest o f Jewish geniuses (since Jesus a n y w a y ) failed t o a p p r e h e n d t h e p e r m a n e n t power o f texts that c a n n o t vanish: T a n a k h , New T e s t a m e n t , Q u r ' a n . If asked t h e desert island question, I w o u l d have t o take S h a k e s p e a r e , but the w o r l d c o n t i n u e s d r o w n i n g in t h e b l o o d - d i m m e d tide o f its scriptures, w h e t h e r it reads t h e m o r n o t . Yahweh, w h o m I have evaded t h r o u g h o u t m y t h r e e - q u a r t e r s ot .1

o 236 h a r o l d

TK io

bloom

Sm

c e n t u r y , has a n a w e s o m e c a p a c i t y n o t t o g o away, t h o u g h h e d e s e r v e s t o b e c o n v i c t e d f o r d e s e r t i o n , in regard n o t j u s t t o t h e lews b u t to all s u f f e r i n g h u m a n k i n d . In this b o o k t h e i n t e r p r e t e r is a Jew w h o s e s p i r jjE •=^5 -^ ^-r*—

itualitv r e s p o n d s m o s t f e r v e n t l y t o t h e a n c i e n t t e n d e n c y w e t e r m G n o s t i c i s m , w h i c h m a y o r m a y n o t be a " r e l i g i o n " in t h e s e n s e t h a t

s / —-— 1 W J ^o

J u d a i s m , C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d I s l a m r e m a i n t h e p r i m a r y W e s t e r n traditi i o n s . I v e r y m u c h w a n t t o dismiss Y a h w e h as t h e a n c i e n t G n o s t i c s

^

did, finding in h i m a mere demTurge|who h a d b o t c h e d t h e C r e a t i o n so t h a t it was s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a Fall. B u t I w a k e u p t h e s e days, s o m e t i m e

, ^

— ^

| J s B

b e t w e e n m i d n i g h t a n d t w o A.M., b e c a u s e o f n i g h t m a r e s in w h i c h Y a h w e h s a r d o n i c a l l y a p p e a r s as v a r i o u s beings, r a n g i n g f r o m a H a v a n a — ^

smoking, Edwardian-attired

Dr. Sigmund

Freud to the Book

of

D a n i e l ' s s i l e n t l y r e p r o a c h f u l A n c i e n t of Days. I t r u d g e d o w n s t a i r s g l o o m i l y a n d silently, lest I w a k e m y wife, a n d b r e a k f a s t o n tea a n d d a r k b r e a d w h i l e r e r e a d i n g y e t o n c e m o r e in t h e T a n a k h ,

wide

swatches o f M i s h n a h and T a l m u d , and those disquieting texts t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d A u g u s t i n e ' s City oj God A t t i m e s , in w r i t i n g this b o o k , I d e f e n d m y s e l f o n l y by m u r m u r i n g O s c a r W i l d e ' s a p o t h e g m t h a t life is t o o i m p o r t a n t t o b e t a k e n seriously. Y a h w e h , I r u e f u l l y ?

w o u l d add, is m u c h t o o i m p o r t a n t t o be t a k e n i r o n i c a l l y , e v e n if i r o n y c a n s e e m as m u c h his o w n m o d e as it is Prince H a m l e t s. I b o t h a d m i r e a n d a m r e n d e r e d i r o n i c by a r e c e n t c o g e n t y e t self-

O

c u r t a i l i n g b o o k , The End oj Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, b y

,-C

, , x

S a m Harris ( 2 0 0 4 ) , a n e u r o s c i e n t i s t a n d s e c u l a r h u m a n i s t , w h o is rightly anxious for the future o f American democracy. Pragmatically, I d o n o t differ f r o m Harris, b u t I p a r t f r o m h i m w h e n h e asks e v i d e n c e f o r " t h e literal e x i s t e n c e o f Y a h w e h . " C r e a t o r a n d d e s t r o y e r , Y a h w e h s t a n d s r e m o t e f r o m t h e i n n e r c o s m o s o f n e u r o s c i e n c e . He c o n t a i n s ,

~

^

YAHWEH107

and c a n n o t be c o n t a i n e d , j l e a s o n is n o t an i n s t r u m e n t tor dislodging h i m , h o w e v e r admirably t h a t m i g h t e x t e n d d e m o c r a c y and limit M u s l i m t e r r o r and A m e r i c a n and Israeli c o u n t e r t e r r o r , o r w h a t c o u l d yet be t h e h o r r o r o f H i n d u - M u s l i m n u c l e a r e x c h a n g e s , o r o f Israeli p r e e m p t i v e obliteration in T e h r a n . Y a h w e h , t h o u g h evident o n l y as a literary c h a r a c t e r , reduced us t o t h e status o f m i n o r literary c h a r a c ters, s u p p o r t i n g casts for t h e p r o t a g o n i s t - o f - p r o t a g o n i s t s in a uni verse o f d e a t h . He m o c k s o u r m o r t a l i t y in t h e B o o k of Job: we are dramatically unpersuasive w h e n w e m o c k h i m , and sell destructive w h e n , like A h a b , we h a r p o o n J L e v i a t h a n , king o v e r all the < hildren ofpride. ^ s a ^ ^ i )

^cQ£Safon/Luci(e{/<>k>tiruh/\lm

Yahweh sanctifies t h e t y r a n n y o f n a t u r e o v e r w o m e n and m e n that is t h e harsh wisdom o f Job's tale. St. Paul, a Hebrew ol the 11< brews, tells us t h e last e n e m y t o be o v e r c o m e is d e a t h . Skeptii s, c o n fronting Islam, are quite likely t o agree with S a m Harris: "Islam has all t h e m a k i n g s o f a t h o r o u g h g o i n g c u l t o f d e a t h " (page 123). Harris cites polls o f opinion in M u s l i m c o u n t r i e s totally refilling oui platitudes t h a t suicide b o m b e r s are n o t s u p p o r t e d by substantial majorities o f M u s l i m s : m o s t c e r t a i n l y t h e y are. II Yahweh is .1 m a n "I war, Allah is a suicide b o m b e r .

I

(2) Yet h o w different are Freud's "reality-testing" ami Sam

I l.iu ••.'-.

" N o t h i n g is m o r e sacred t h a n the l.u i s I

William

Blake's " F o r e v e r y t h i n g t h a t lives is holy" to

gn-.nK prefei I

obsessed w i t h his o w n holiness, but neither

)eutrronoim \ BI.IIM

ICIUN

Y . I I J V M II M

I

M\

238 h a r o l d 15 l o o m

w i s t f u l n e s s c a n affect h u m a n l o n g i n g s f o r t r a n s c e n d e n c e . We s e e k secular

transcendence

in art, y e t S h a k e s p e a r e ,

supreme

among

artists, evades t h e h o l y , wisely a w a r e o f t h e l i m i t s o f e v e n his o w n reinvention o f the h u m a n . I d i s t r u s t e d , t h r o u g h o u t this b o o k , e v e r y a c c o u n t available t o us o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l Jesus, a n d I h a v e b e e n u n a b l e t o l o c a t e m u c h o f an i d e n tity b e t w e e n t h e J e w f r o m N a z a r e t h a n d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l G o d Jesus C h r i s t . T h e h u m a n b e i n g Jesus a n d t h e a l l - t o o - h u m a n G o d Y a h w e h a r e m o r e c o m p a t i b l e ( t o m e ) t h a n e i t h e r is w i t h Jesus t h e C h r i s t a n d G o d t h e F a t h e r . I c a n n o t regard t h a t as a h a p p y c o n c l u s i o n , a n d a m all t o o a w a r e o f h o w u n a c c e p t a b l e t o b e l i e v i n g C h r i s t i a n s this m u s t be. Yet 1 n e i t h e r t r u s t in t h e C o v e n a n t n o r in F r e u d n o r in S a m Harris's reductive opposition o f " t h e f u t u r e o f reason" to religious terror. T h e n e e d ( o r c r a v i n g ) f o r t r a n s c e n d e n c e m a y well be a g r e a t u n w i s d o m , b u t w i t h o u t it w e t e n d t o b e c o m e m e r e e n g i n e s o f e n t r o p y . Y a h w e h , p r e s e n t and a b s e n t , has m o r e t o d o w i t h t h e e n d o f t r u s t t h a n w i t h t h e e n d o f faith. Will h e yet m a k e a c o v e n a n t w i t h us t h a t h e b o t h c a n and will keep?

T

here is very little evidence of the historical

Jesus—who he was or what he said. As Harold Bloom writes in Jesus and Yahweh: Ihe Names

Divine, "There is not a sentence concerning Jesus in

the entire New Testament composed by anyone who ever had met the unwilling King of the Jews." And so Bloom has used his unsurpassed skills as a literary critic to examine the charactcr, or as he sees it, the various charactcrs and personalities, of the Jesus of the Gospels. He also examines the characters and personalities of Yahweh, as he is most frequently called in the Hebrew Bible (though, through a spelling error, most of us know him as Jehovah), who Bloom finds has more in common with Marks Jesus than with God the Father of the Christian and the later rabbinic Jewish traditions.

HAROLD BLOOM, Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University, is the author of twenty-seven books. I lis many honors include a MacArthur award and ihe Gold Medal for Belles l.ettres and Criticism from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the International Prize of Catalonia, the Alfonso Reyes Award of Mexico, and the Hans Christian Andersen Prize of Denmark. He is best known for his New York Times bestsellers Shakespeare: Ihe Invention of the Human-, The Western C.anon; and The Book of J, as well as his early classic, 'The Anxiety of Influence.

Harold Bloom shared his genius for explaining literary charactcr in his classic Shakespeare: 'Ihe Invention of the Human, to great acclaim. And he has written about religion and the Bible throughout his career. Now, with Jesus and Yahweh, he has combined these interests in what may be his most disturbing book yet. His conclusion, that the Hebrew Bible of the Jews and the Christian Old Testament are very different books with very different purposes, political as well as religious, brings Bloom to refute any notion of a Judeo-Christian heritage. At a time when religion has come to take center stage in our political arena, Bloom's paradigm-changing,

Jacket design by Honi Werner. Mosaics by Dinit Meticov P$nlo<;riit>fi of thernithormid ofpiositics & Stic Graham Visit our website at: w\eu. rivcrhc;ul!>ooks.Coro

and at times shocking, work of literary criticism will challenge and illuminate Christians and Jews alike, and make us rethink and see anew many "truths" we have come to take for granted. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. www.j7enguin.fom

A brilliant provocative character study of Jesus and Yahweh that will challenge understand our cultural heritage