Religion & Beliefs
Biblical Bellylaughs
By Haim Watzman / January 28, 2009
”Humor in the Tanakh”, Daniel Saunders promises us on Jewcy. And what a relief to find some lighthearted biblical exegesis amidst the posts like Jamie Sneider’s account of interfaith sex with her not yet ex-husband, Mia Rut’s three-way date with a Jewish guy and a Russian cat (sorry I keep picking on you, Miz Rut), and Lilit Marcus’s account of her multicultural conquests (why do my old flames never blog about me? Was I that boring?). Although, come to think of it, all that stuff can be found in the Bible, too, except the cat. Saunders disappoints, however. The passages he adduces are not exactly rib-tickling. In fact, they are about as funny as the Gospel according to John, which is probably the most unfunny religious text ever written. I mean, Jeremiah’s pun about the almond tree? Generations of scriptural commentators haven’t even figured out what the hell he meant by it. I guess you had to be there. Good humor is subversive. And, fortunately for us, our holy book is auto-subversive in a way undreamed of by the average portentous sacred text. So with apologies, Daniel, for stealing your idea, here’s my own selection. Let’s start with the same book you start with, Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s an annoying guy. He spends his entire book berating his fellow-Judeans for their sins and warning them of the punishment that God will mete out to them through the agency of the king of Babylonia. You’re so far gone that even if you stop worshiping foreign gods, you can’t avert disaster. Jeremiah’s deal is: don’t repent, get conquered, slaughtered and exiled. Repent, just get conquered and slaughtered. Not much of an incentive, you might think, but some Judeans took him up on it. And what happens? They get conquered, slaughtered, and the few survivors, righteous Jeremiah among them, end up in exile in Egypt. You’d think this exasperating prophet would let up now that everything he said has come true. But no, he keeps berating his fellow Jews. And finally, Chapter 44, verse 16, the people get fed up. “This stuff you are telling us in God’s name—we’re not going to listen any more!” There we were, loyally observing the customs handed down to us from our fathers and our fathers’ fathers, burning incense to the Queen of Heaven, and no Babylonians bothered us, and life was pretty good. Then you came along and told us to stop—and we did. And look what happened. I mean, QED, Jeremy. Look at the facts. Empirically, you’re wrong. Now that’s funny. In a black, ironic way, true, but it’s funny. My second choice comes from I Kings, chapter 22. Yehoshafat, the king of Judea, makes an alliance with the king of Israel to conquer the Gilad Heights from Aram. The two kings meet, muster their armies together, but before setting out for battle, Yehoshafat thinks it might be a good idea to consult some prophets. So he asks his Israeli colleague whether there are any prophets around. The northern king calls 400 prophets together and asks them if he should go conquer Gilead. “Go up! For the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king!” the prophets shout in unison. Yehoshafat, being of the Davidic line, knows that getting 400 prophets to agree on anything is pretty nigh impossible, so he asks if there might not be some other prophet around. The king of Israel grumbles and equivocates and finally admits: “There is one other man, Mikhayahu the son of Yimla.… but I hate him, for he does not prophesy good of me.” Is this starting to sound eerily contemporary? So they haul in Mikhayahu and ask him what he thinks of the proposed war. The poor guy comes in, sees both kings in their official royal robes, sitting on thrones, and 400 prophets are there cheering them on. Verse 13: “And the messenger that was gone to call Mikhayahu spoke to him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like one of them, and speak that which is good.” But poor Mikhayahu. He’s a real prophet and can only speak the truth. I won’t give away the punch line. You can go read it for yourself. But it’s pretty funny, in a sad, subversive sort of way. Or maybe you’ve had too much irony, and you’d rather read about interfaith, intercultural, inter-species dating. Come to think of it, maybe I would, too. Read more by Haim at South Jerusalem
POST A COMMENT
I must demur about John’s being bereft of humor.
First, there was this "Fool for Christ," with his day-glo Afro, who used to station himself in front of the camera at golf tournaments with a John 3:16 sign.
OK, so that’s not really John being funny.
OK then, there’s Jesus’s first miracle (John 2:1-11):
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
______________
I mean, first, there’s Jesus’s mom (is she Mrs. Morgenstern or what?) coming up beside him and murmuring, "Ahem, they’re outta wine."
Then, Jesus is saying, "Aw Mom, not now!"
He watches helplessly as Mom ignores his plea and mobilizes the servants. (It’s not even her party!)
Then, there’s the steward, who’s not in on the miracle, complaining to the bridegroom about wasting the good stuff on the drunks.
This whole scenario strikes me as hilarious, not to mention the revelation that even 2000 years ago hosts were practicing the old switcheroo.
Finally, as the last verse suggests, turning water to wine as a first miracle was a brilliant career move.
???? ???
Although, come to think of it, all that stuff can be found in the Bible, too, except the cat.
Heh-heh. As I recently wrote elsewhere, if you’re ever on Jeopardy!, the most correct answer to the "cats in the Bible" question would be:
"What is the apocryphal book of Baruch, Alex?"
The sixth chapter of Baruch has a passage dissing the carved idols of Babylon:
3: Now shall ye see in Babylon gods of silver, and of gold, and of
wood, borne upon shoulders, which cause the nations to fear. [...] 11:
Yet cannot these gods save themselves from rust and moth, though they
be covered with purple raiment. [...] 21: Upon their bodies and heads sit bats,
swallows, and birds, and the cats also. 22: By this ye may know that they are no gods: therefore fear them not.
Of course I realize that Baruch is not counted among the books of the Tanakh. Still, I assume that Jews would say that Baruch (and Judith and Maccabees, et al.) are "not part of the Bible" in an entirely different sense than, e.g., the Christian NT or the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an are "not part of the Bible"!
?????
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!