In conversation with Pascal
prompted, no doubt, by the blogpost yesterday, he opens my eyes to something… very interesting.
Solomon- he says- is a liberal. Possibly the first and most important one.
Look at the most famous Solomon story: Two women dispute over a child. One is the mother, one is a theif.
Solomon asked The Lord to be given wisdom, and he got it. It was not balanced by anything else- later in his life he did a lot of really stupid things, because knowing what is right doesn’t mean doing it.
Anyway, Solomon uses his wisdom early on to determine who is the real mother of the child. Very clever, right? Indeed.
What happens to the other woman?
She walks away, so far as we know.
She should have been executed, because she was willing to use the power of the State to murder a child.
When Pascal said this it hit me like a bullet. How appropriate, how perfect. And this has been the gold standard for liberalism since; consequence free nastiness for people who act out.
It certainly does explain the progression of a lot of things.
12 comments Og | Uncategorized
Very appropriate. The power of the state is organized violence. Not a whit of human decency to be found.
And the weakness of Solomon. Willing to murder a child (Ostensibly) but not to punish the woman who would have him do it.
There’s a fair chance that the original oral tradition had it that she was put to death. (It’s not like the Old Testament isn’t awfully bloody-minded when it wants to be. See for instance Amalek, or the two sons of Aaron who brought strange fire to the altar of YHVH.) The Deuteronomist, in the course of redaction, probably deleted any such denouement because the point he (or they) wanted to make was made.
Sadly, you’d think that the point to be made here would be “If you try to fuck with the King’s justice, the King’s justice will fuck with you right back,” rather than how just and wise ol’ Shlomo ben David was. But for whatever reason that didn’t fit the narrative (or so I’m going out on a limb to assume) when the book was redacted.
Yep, Nate, and Pascal is enough of a scholar that he would probably remember such a thing, which was why I trusted him. You’re right about what was the important lesson, though, and that was what lit it up for me.
I don’t know if it was in the original book of Kings or Chronicles or not Nate. What I do know is that I recall reading when I was a kid a kid’s version of the story. And in that one it said that Solomon told the liar to go and sin no more. I am willing to bet that follows the liberal philosophy pretty much for most of my life. Except today that is! Now it is “How dare you suggest that that poor woman sinned!”
Pascal…”How dare you suggest that that poor woman sinned!”, indeed.
There was the sin of envy. (Or perhaps coveting.) She “wanted, really wanted” that baby.
There was the sin of Pride. “I am better (or am a better, or will be a better) mother than she is.”
There is the sin of Lust. (Why does every one assume lust pertains only to the physical pleasure(s) and not desire(s) of any form taken to extreem) Though this one may be out on a limb a bit.
There may be others, but that was what first popped into my little pea brain. YMMV.
And oh to be able to read the original writings … if I even knew the original tongues. Wouldn’t that be something!
If I recall correctly, the Hebrew word for what God took from Adam to make Eve is not “rib”, but more closely translated as “female sexual characteristics”.
Rather odd to think of Adam as a hermaphrodite, yes?
Now recall that God made Adam in his own image.
Lol. Randy you are a shit disturber. I love you man.
Pascal and Og — I may have expressed myself badly. Of course I have no idea what the original pre-redaction said; I’m just saying that I could easily believe that the original story ended with the guilty woman being taken off to be punished. Because that would square with a lot of the rest of the Old Testament.
Remember, Elijah cursed 42 little children who were subsequently devoured by bears simply because they laughed at his bald head. (Would that I had that power. I’d only use it for good, of course. LOL)
Lol. Yep were tracking with you Nathan
For real shit stirring, tell your wife that since the two of you became one flesh upon marriage, that true marriage is a foursome.
After all, one plus one equals two and it takes two to tango, yes?
I take no responsibility for crockery thrown as a result of following my advice.
So THATS why they call you Randy.