Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

For many years, I have found the study of atheism and skepticism rather fascinating. Whether it is Christopher Hitchen’s intriguing polemic, “God Is NOT Great,” or Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith,” or Richard Dawkin’s attacks on traditional theism, I have always found the questions they pose to be relevant for discussion.

Freud himself often said that the greatest skeptics of religion are not necessarily the atheists, but rather it is the true believer who feels the compulsion to prove the Existence of God. One can easily invert Freud’s position as well: Skeptics, who kvetch about the non-existence of God, are probably closet theists!

I love my atheistic friends; they often speak about God as much as the theists do! This morning, I came across a remarkable story about a new illustrated Bible that was pulled off the shelves of Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart—”The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old Testament by Brendan Powell Smith” (http://www.bricktestament.com).

Smith makes no pretense about his atheism and sardonic wit when it comes to interpreting biblical narratives. Smith uses LEGOs to depict pretty explicit images stressing the more violent and vulgar parts of the biblical narratives. Even if you don’t like Smith’s message, you admit his artwork is irreverently funny. But is his violent depictions of God’s wrath that much different from the great French artist, Gustav Dore (1832 –1883) depiction of the Flood? Actually, Smith’s portrayal is tame by comparison.

In fairness to Smith’s book, the biblical commentators, along with Christian and Jewish clergy tend to ignore the more ethically challenging passages of the Bible that deal with violence. Smith’s theological grasp of the Bible is extremely childish. He illustrates the problem of adults who never outgrow their childish images of God and religion.

Is this the kind of book that you would want to buy for your children as a Christmas or a Bar Mitzvah present? Hardly. Personally, I would not spend a nickle on it. His website pretty much says it all. The book is meant to generate disrespect for the Bible and especially its believers. I think he’s trying to say that the Bible is much too graphic and violent for young people. Is Smith being sarcastic? You betcha!

Whenever I read a book—whether it is written by a theologian or a skeptic—I generally ask myself: what is the scholar or writer trying to say? What kind of world-view is s/he coming from? If I came from a similar cultural background, how would I see or experience the world? I suspect that Smith would probably agree with this statement: Religious people don’t have much of a sense of humor. Guess what? Smith is probably more correct than not. The inability to laugh at some of the more problematic passages of the Bible suggests a seriousness that many of the biblical writers themselves did not share!

Picture God’s revelation to Abraham and Sarah, where God sends three angels to announce that a 99 year old man and a 90 year old mother are going to have a child named, “Isaac,” a name that is associated with wild laughter! God is portrayed by the biblical narrator as a trickster, someone who introduces paradox into the rather incredulous lives of Abraham and Isaac. Granted this kind of humor might not make Saturday Night Live, but the Bible often makes puns to introduce the element of surprise into a narrative. One could almost interpret the binding of Isaac much the same way.

In fact, Woody Allen did exactly that in one of his most profound biblical reflections. After going through the traditional story, Woody Allen’s conclusion is especially worth mentioning:

• And so he took Isaac to a certain place and prepared to sacrifice him but at the last minute the Lord stayed Abraham’s hand and said, “How could thou doest such a thing?”And Abraham said, “But thou said —” “Never mind what I said,” the Lord spake. “Doth thou listen to every crazy idea that comes thy way?” And Abraham grew ashamed. “Er – not really … no.”

• “I jokingly suggest thou sacrifice Isaac and thou immediately runs out to do it.” And Abraham fell to his knees, “See, I never know when you’re kidding.” And the Lord thundered, “No sense of humor. I can’t believe it.”“But doth this not prove I love thee, that I was willing to donate mine only son on thy whim?” And the Lord said, “It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice.” And with that, the Lord bid Abraham get some rest and check with him tomorrow.

It would seem that Woody Allen is the first Jewish interpreter to add a humorous hermeneutic to the story that probably escaped the watchful eye of the early rabbis and Church Fathers. But here’s the real question readers ought to ask themselves: Can the biblical text tolerate a humorous hermeneutic? Consider the following statement: “The Torah speaks in the language of humanity.”[1] What is language without humor and tonality? I would argue that to read a biblical text with a stoic perspective seems to miss the whole point of human language, which is full of paradoxical nuances, inflections-and humor!

Woody Allen is not the only comedian to utilize biblical motifs in a humorous fashion. Bill Cosby did one of the most brilliant parodies on the lives of our Edenic ancestors I have ever seen:

Years ago, comedian Bill Cosby offered a brilliant interpretation explaining the straightforward meaning of the text in a way that is clearer than most rabbinic and non-rabbinic commentaries:

• Whenever your kids are out of control, you can take comfort from the thought that even God’s omnipotence did not extend to God’s kids. After creating heaven and earth, God created Adam and Eve. And the first thing he said was, “Don’t.” “Don’t what?” Adam replied. “Don’t eat the forbidden fruit,” God said. “Forbidden fruit? We got forbidden fruit? Hey, Eve…we got forbidden fruit!” “No way!” “Don’t eat that fruit!” said God. “Why?” “Because I am your Father and I said so!” said God (wondering why he hadn’t stopped after making the elephants). A few minutes later God saw his kids having an apple break and was angry. “Didn’t I tell you not to eat the fruit?” God asked. “Uh huh,” Adam replied. “Then why did you?” “I dunno” Eve answered. “She started it!” Adam said. “Did not!” “Did too!”At least he didn’t say, “No problem.” At least he didn’t say, “No problem.” All right then, “Get out of here! Go forth and be fruitful and multiply.”Having had it with the two of them, God’s punishment was that Adam and Eve should have children of their own. [2]

With respect to many of Smith’s depictions, I frankly found many of them comical. Some of the more sexual passages like Smith’s interpretation of bestiality depicts a man trying to hump a bear—which is pretty stupid and dangerous! The sexual depictions should have been left out by Smith, because they are really unsuitable for children, teenagers, young adults, older adults, etc . . . but I suspect he wanted to say that there are a lot of R rated stories in the Bible. Well, in an age where religious communities censor literature because of its sexual content, perhaps all of us would be wise to remember that the Bible contains not only R rated material, but some X rated sections as well (cf. Song of Songs). As one pundit wrote, “The Good Book has never been particularly prudish about sex, covering rape, marital relations, incest, prostitution and endless begetting. However, Smith may be the only one who has illustrated them with LEGOs.” Say what you want about Smith-he knows how to sell books!!

More to the point, would Smith’s book be so outrageously sacrilegious when we compare it to comedians on prime time television (especially in Israel) doing biblical skits with irreverent humor? No, I don’t think so. Sometimes religious people really lack a sense of humor. Perhaps our tendency towards being overly serious could well be one of the reasons why so many people become skeptics in the first place. Continue Reading