Are we in for a new “national nightmare?”  Half the voters in the next election seem to think so…  

*   *   *   *

I just got back from a mini-vacation:  Six days visiting New York City, from a home base in Staten Island.  During much of that trip, conversation centered on November’s presidential election.

Which brings up Matthew 13:44-52, the Gospel for this morning’s Daily Office.

I’m specifically referring to Matthew 13:52, where Jesus told His disciples, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.*”

And a reminder:  The full and accurate name of this blog is “DOR Scribe,” as “Daily Office Reader Scribe.”  So here’s the “what is new” part of Matthew 13:52, from a treasure trove of 65 years’ worth of wisdom.  (Or at least “something new” to consider from the SCRIBE‘s storeroom.  Which link includes the image above left):

No matter who half “plus one” of the American people elect as their next president, the rest of those voters will think we are about to embark on another “long national nightmare.”  Put another way, no matter who the next president is, he or she is going to face intense – if not rabid – opposition from close to half the American people.

If you think I’m exaggerating, check these four links:  For Trump, Trump presidency would be a ‘nightmare,’ says Joseph Stiglitz, and The Trump nightmare is real. Clinton could lose this.

From the other side of the aisle, consider these:  The Nightmare World of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, and A Clinton Presidency: Humanity’s Worst Nightmare.  Or you could Google the term “presidency nightmare,” and add either candidate’s name.

That’s where the “what is old” part of Matthew 13:52 comes in.  Simply put:

We’ve been through worse before!

Think the American Civil War.  Think the Great Depression.  Or think about the episode in our national history that led to the “long national nightmare” quote in the first place.

That quote came from Gerald Ford, when he was sworn in as president after Richard Nixon resigned.  (A result of the Watergate scandal.  For more on Ford’s speech see This Day in Quotes: “Our long national nightmare is over.”  But see also a parody of the phrase – from The Onion, a “digital media company and news satire organization” – which quoted President George W. Bush as saying – on his taking office – “Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity is Finally Over.”)

Be that as it may, here’s the full quote from Gerald Ford’s acceptance speech in 1974:

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.  Our Constitution works;  our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.  Here the people rule.  But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

And that sentiment – about a national nightmare being over – could foreshadow January 20, 2020.  It could well foreshadow how those 40% of voters – disappointed by the outcome of the 2016 election – will feel when – it is entirely possible – a new president takes office.  (And when – it is entirely possible – that new president will be neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton.)

In the meantime, we’ve got to get through the next four years.  (No matter who wins.  But in either case it may be more of a “Jimmy Carter collapsing” endurance run…)

For one thing, there’s the fact that – no matter who wins – he or she will face rabid opposition from at least 40% of the American electorate.  That alone means neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton will be able to do as much damage as their opponents argue.

For another thing, I’ve been surrounded by negativity these past eight years.  (Of Obama’s presidency.)  And – quite frankly – it’s getting very boring.  (I’ve taken to saying “Thank you Obama!” whenever there’s an arch-conservative around and we pass a station with low gas prices.  Not because I believe he’s responsible, but just because it “ticks them off.”)

And third, I feel it’s my duty as an ostensibly-good Christian to take the high road.

For example, consider this from my companion blog:

The Presidents Club gave me a sense that – generally speaking – the men who occupied the White House have been – overall – decent, honorable and capable.  Then too, Life’s a Campaign gave me a sense that maybe the same applies to politicians in general.  (Gasp!)

See “Brother from another mother” and other ex-Prez tales.  And who knows, maybe the same thing is true of both Donald and Hillary.  Maybe beneath all the lies and distortion spread by their political enemies – a practice now more “commonplace” than ever – there are in fact two people who are – deep down – “decent, honorable and capable.”

Then there was  “Great politicians sell hope,” which included the following:

Which seems to indicate the candidate who offers hope rather than fear will win.  (Think Ronald Reagan.)  And that post included some other interesting observations, at least to me.

For one thing, “Maybe today’s politicians are simply a reflection of the nastiness that seems to have taken hold of a large part of our population.”  The flip side of that observation – that today’s politicians simply reflect a generalized nastiness that has taken hold of a large number of voters – is this:  “Swing voters need to figure out what a politician really stands for, beyond those nasty things he has to say to get elected.”

But those observations don’t get us any closer to taking the high road.

For that we could go back to our Baptismal Covenant.  (That’s the question-and-answer “statement of faith [about] how we, as Christians, are called to live out our faith”*):

[Celebrant:]  Will you persevere in resisting evil, and , whenever
you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?

[People:]  I will, with God’s help…

[Celebrant:]  Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
your neighbor as yourself?

[People:]  I will, with God’s help.

[Celebrant:]  Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human
being?

[People:]  I will, with God’s help.

As a practical matter, the “resisting evil” part could reflect how fully 40% of the American people will rabidly oppose the new president, no matter who gets elected.  Then too, if the voters choose the wrong candidate, they will be free – in four years – to undo their mistake.  (To “repent and return.”  For example, if a certain candidate “promises the moon” and fails to deliver, the voters could turn on that candidate-become-president in the proverbial New York Minute.)

Which arguably ties in with my “mini-vacation:  Six days visiting New York City.”  (See “preordained before the beginning of time,” in Judith, Esther, and ANOTHER lady, etc.)

As far as the latter part of the quoted part of the covenant – especially the part about respecting the dignity of every human being – consider Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

When he first took office, Arnold was something of a blowhard himself.

In one notable example, he characterized opponents in the legislature of California as girlie men, in a battle over the state budget.

But in the fullness of time he backed off:

Schwarzenegger then went against the advice of fellow Republican strategists and appointed a Democrat, Susan Kennedy, as his Chief of Staff.  Schwarzenegger gradually moved towards a more politically moderate position, determined to build a winning legacy with only a short time to go until the next gubernatorial election.  [E.A.]

And who knows?  Maybe the next president too will eventually “move towards a more politically moderate position.”  More moderate, that is, than his or her political opponents think possible.

But here’s the point of this post.  (In case I’m being too subtle.)  Each of the three questions above – in the question-answer format – has the same answer:  “I will, with God’s help.”  So maybe we should face the upcoming presidential election with this in mind:  “With God’s help, we can get through anything.  Even if – God forbid! – [fill in the blank] gets elected!”

 *   *   *   *

 Arnold “flexed his pecs” here…

(but later had to retract his girlie men comment).

 *   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Nightmare – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption:  “The Nightmare (Henry Fuseli, 1781).”  The Henry Fuseli link added:

Since its creation, it has remained Fuseli’s best-known work…  Due to its fame, Fuseli painted at least three other versions…  The canvas seems to portray simultaneously a dreaming woman and the content of her nightmare.  The incubus and the horse’s head refer to contemporary belief and folklore about nightmares, but … critics were [also] taken aback by the overt sexuality of the painting…

After noting again that contemporary critics “found the work scandalous due to its sexual themes,” the link pointed out that the main subject of the painting – the woman – seems to have been prompted by “unrequited love.”  It seems that Fuseli had “fallen passionately in love with a woman named Anna Landholdt in Zürich … the niece of his friend, the Swiss physiognomist Johann Kaspar Lavater.”  However, Landholdt “married a family friend soon after” the artist proposed to her…   

*   *   *   *

The Daily Office readings are courtesy of The Lectionary – Satucket Software Home Page.  The readings for September 25, 2016 are:  “AM Psalm 66, 67; PM Psalm 19, 46, Hosea 2:2-14; James 3:1-13; Matthew 13:44-52.  The translation of Matthew 13:52 is the one used in the four-volume Daily Office Readings, as offered – for example – by Amazon.com

The “Jimmy Carter” image is courtesy of ussporthistory.com.   See also Jimmy Carter’s Collapse in a Maryland Road Race Sparks a Moment of Fear.

The quotes from the “Baptismal Covenant” are courtesy of The (Online) Book of Common Prayer, at the link Holy Baptism, at pages 304-305.

The lower image is courtesy of giphy.com.  

“Judith with the Head of Holofernes,”  from one of the gorier stories in the Bible…

*   *   *   *

Here’s one that comes under “preordained before the beginning of time…”

I started a mini-vacation back on Wednesday, September 14.  (To Staten Island, as a base for visits to New York City.)  During that time I’ve also been keeping up with the Daily Office Readings.

On that note, starting Friday, September 16, “Daily” Readers have had a choice of Old Testament readings.*  (The OT readings for September 16 were either Esther 1:1-4,10-19 or Judith 4:1-15.)  In other words, the September 16 readings marked the beginning of both the Biblical Book of Esther and the Book of Judith.

So naturally it surprised me when – visiting NYC’s Metropolitan Museum of Art last Saturday, September 17 – I came across two paintings that tied right in with those readings.

That is, on Saturday, September 17 – after taking the Staten Island Ferry (shown above left) – we visited the “Met,” in New York City.  That’s when I saw the two paintings at the top and bottom of this page:  Esther before Ahasuerus, and Judith with the head of Holofernes.

Starting with the Book of Esther, it tells of a Jewish woman who married a king and in turn saved her people from annihilation.  (Or a fate worse than death, either one of which may sound familiar…)

Here’s what happened.  Ahasuerus was the king of Persia.  (He was also known as Xerxes.)  One day he got drunk with his buddies.  He then sent for his wife – Queen Vashti, who was very beautiful – with orders to come to the party and strut her stuff.  But she refused – she was very proud – so Ahasuerus decided to get rid of her.

Then – in a process very much like today’s American Idol – Esther ended up being chosen as the new queen.  Which was a good thing, mainly because the Grand Vizier for Xerxes – a guy named Haman – hatched a plot against the Jews.  (Of which Esther was one.  This was during the Babylonian exile, one of the times when the Jewish people were carried away into captivity.)

Haman “hatched the plot” as noted because he was insanely jealous of Esther’s cousin Mordecai.  (For reasons including but not limited to the fact that Mordecai “refused to do obeisance” to him; that is, Haman.)  And incidentally, Mordecai had raised Esther “as his own” after she had lost both her mother and father.  (She was an orphan.)

So Haman “pulled a fast one.”  He tricked the king into giving orders to “exterminate this alien race.”  (To execute both Mordecai and all his people.)  To that end, Haman had a tall gallows built, to hang Mordecai on.  But in the readings after September 16, Haman’s plans backfired.  (As shown at right.)

For one thing, Esther finally told the king she was Jewish.

That – and some other factors – led to the king hanging Haman, “on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai.”  (See Esther 7:10, with some translations reading that Haman was “impaled” on the pole he intended to use on Mordecai.)  

More than that, the Jewish people were saved from annihilation, which led to the present-day Jewish festival of Purim.*  (See also “hoist on his own petard,” from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.”)

And incidentally, the readings for Tuesday, September 20, included Esther 5:1-14.  That included Esther 5:3, “The king asked, ‘What is it, Queen Esther?  What is your request?  Even up to half the kingdom, it will be given you.'”

Those words are repeated in Mark 6:23, when Salome – shown at right – danced in a way that led to the beheading of John the Baptist:  “And he swore to her, ‘Whatever you ask of me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom!'”

The point being:  In the case of Esther, the appearance before the king – together with his promise of “up to half my kingdom” – led to the Jewish people being saved.  (But in the case of Salome those factors led to the beheading of John the Baptist.)

Turning to the book of Judith:  Some scholars have called it “perhaps the first historical novel” in history.*

The story revolves around Judith, a daring and beautiful widow, who is upset with her Jewish countrymen for not trusting God to deliver them from their foreign conquerors.  She goes with her loyal maid to the camp of the enemy general, Holofernes, with whom she slowly ingratiates herself, promising him information on the Israelites.  Gaining his trust, she is allowed access to his tent one night as he lies in a drunken stupor.  She decapitates him, then takes his head back to her fearful countrymen.  The Assyrians, having lost their leader, disperse, and Israel is saved.

From which a host of object lessons might be gleaned…

Incidentally, the image at left – of Judith – is just one interpretation of this beguiling story.  (It’s the version done in 1901 by Gustav Klimt.)   Wikipedia said this particular version was “shocking to viewers and is said to have targeted themes of female sexuality that had previously been more or less taboo.”

(See also double-edged sword, both in the secular and Biblical senses.  As to the latter see Hebrews 4:12-13.)

All of which brings up the third lady in the Bible who you “wouldn’t want to ‘tick off.'”

For the Biblical reference see Judges 4:21:  “But when Sisera fell asleep from exhaustion, Jael quietly crept up to him with a hammer and tent peg in her hand.  Then she drove the tent peg through his temple and into the ground, and so he died.”  See also Jael – Wikipedia:

Deborah, a prophetess and judge, advises Barak to mobilize the forces Naphtali and Zebulon on Mount Tabor to do battle against King Jabin of Canaan.  Barak demurred, saying he would go, provided she would also.  Deborah agreed but prophesied that the honor of defeating Jabin’s army would then go to a woman.

Deborah‘s prophecy came true at the hands of Jael.  (When she hammered that tent-peg into the head of Sisera.)  And Wikipedia noted another – “extra-Biblical” – reference to the episode: “And while he was dying, Sisera said to Jael, ‘Behold pain has taken hold of me, Jael, and I die like a woman.’  And Jael said to him, ‘Go, boast before your father in hell and tell him that you have fallen into the hands of a woman.'”  (Getting beat by a woman was especially humiliating…)

All of which sounds very modern somehow.  (Considering some current jibes.)

Incidentally, the “Barak” noted above was a “commander in the biblical Book of Judges.”  It was he who – with Deborah the prophetess – “defeated the Canaanite armies led by Sisera.”

Which may turn out to also come under “preordained before the beginning of time…”

 *   *   *   *

Esther before Ahasuerus, by Artemisia Gentileschi…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Massimo Stanzione | Judith with the Head of Holofernes, from the website for the Metropolitan Museum of Art – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  See also Favourite Paintings – Massimo Stanzione’s ‘Judith with the head of Holofernes:

The head of Holofernes lies with an expression almost of sleep.  A divine light catches Judith’s face, confirming the righteousness of her deed…  I suppose what I like about this picture, and what’s so eye-catching, are the colors and the big, beautiful  rhythms of the composition.  It jumps off the wall at you and captivates you.  Judith’s dress is composed of big triangles of red, blue and yellow ochre, and the directions and movement of this drapery sweeps your eye around the painting…  

Re:  “Choice of OT readings.”  For the sake of completeness, I’ve been reading both Esther and Judith.  Also, the full DORs for Friday, September 16, 2016, are:  “AM Psalm 69:1-23(24-30)31-38;  PM Psalm 73,” along with “Esther 1:1-4,10-19 or Judith 4:1-15; Acts 17:1-15; John 12:36b-43.”

The “Haman’s plans” image is courtesy of Haman (Bible) – New World Encyclopedia.  The caption: “‘The Punishment of Haman,’ by Michelangelo.”  See also On the Bible readings for September 27.

Re: Purim, the “Jewish holiday that commemorates the saving of the Jewish people from Haman, who was planning to kill all the Jews. This took place in the ancient Persian Empire. The story is recorded in the Biblical Book of Esther (מגילת אסתר … in Hebrew).” 

The “Salome” image is courtesy of “her” link in Herodias – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “‘Salomé,’ by Henri Regnault (1870).”

Re:  Judith as “historical novel.”  Wikipedia indicated the book has a number of “historical anachronisms.”  Thus it is accepted as “canonical” by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church, but is “excluded from Jewish texts and assigned by Protestants to the Apocrypha.” 

Re: The Bible and women as leaders.  See also Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, which may turn out to be not such a good idea, considering the three stories noted above. 

The lower image is courtesy of Artemisia Gentileschi | Esther before Ahasuerus | The Met.  

An artist’s rendering of the original scapegoat  –  created by Moses in the Book of Leviticus…  

*   *   *   *

Today – May 2 – was a major Feast Day.  (See Philip and James – Saints…)  Meanwhile, it’s time for an update on some recent Daily Office Bible Readings.

Starting last Sunday – April 24 – the Old Testament readings have been from the Book of Leviticus.   That’s the third book of the Bible.  (I.e., third of the Greek Old Testament in the Christian canon, and third of five books of the Hebrew Pentateuch.)

The English name of the book derives from the Greek meaning “things pertaining to the Levites.”

The title refers to “the Levites, the tribe of Aaron, from whom the Kohanim (‘priests’) descended.”  The Book of Genesis – which Moses wrote during the 40 years of Wilderness Wandering – said that Levi – shown at right – was the third of 12 sons of Jacob.  In turn he was “the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Levi (the Levites.”)

Basically, Leviticus is one long book of rules.  (Having to do with ritual.)  Or as Wikipedia noted, “The instructions of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices rather than beliefs.”  And as Isaac Asimov noted, “It’s instructions are of primary interest to the priesthood.”

It’s also the most boring book in the Bible:  “virtually one long section … given over to ritualistic detail, so that it is easily the dullest book in the Bible to the casual reader.”  (Asimov.)

One result:  If you start reading the Bible as if it were a novel, Leviticus is where you’ll most likely get bogged down.  See for example “Bible basics” revisited:

Unfortunately, many people start reading the Bible as if it were a novel…  They start at the very beginning and move toward the end.  But they tend to bog down in Leviticus.  (If they get that far.)

In turn, “Bible basics” also talked about how Jesus solved the problem by boiling the whole Bible down to two simple shoulds.  (A kind of CliffsNotes summary, as detailed In Matthew 22:37-39.)

But even with that CliffsNote summary from Jesus, Leviticus is still a tough read.  Which reminds us that the key is not to try and read the Bible like a novel, from beginning to end.  

The better way is to read the Bible using the Daily Office.   That’s a cycle of four relatively short readings done “on a daily basis.”  That cycle will get you through virtually the entire Bible in two years.  (And the Psalms and Gospels three to four times.)

Which brings us back to some recent Daily Office Readings.  (Especially recent Old Testament readings from the Book of Leviticus.)  Take – for example – the reading for last Thursday, April 28:  Leviticus19:26-37.  It contained some gems, like Leviticus 19:32.

There are various translations, but the one I like says this:  “Honor the face of an old man.”  (And as a representative of that “discrete and Insular minority,” I appreciate the thought.)

And speaking of the immigration controversy, here’s what the Bible says in Leviticus 19:33–34:

When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.  The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you;  you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. (E.A.)

In other words, the Bible says we here in America should treat “aliens” – legal or otherwise – as “citizens among us.”  Whether conservatives – Christian or otherwise – agree with that thought is an entirely different matter.  I’m merely making the point that those are two of the thought-provoking gems that I found in the OT reading for April 28, as Leviticus19:26-37.

There’s a similar gem in the reading for the day before, Wednesday, April 27.  It held a similar thought on dealing with the poor and downtrodden:  “It is the same with your grape crop – do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground.  Leave them for the poor and the foreigners living among you.”  (You can see the same note in Deuteronomy 24:20 and Ruth 2:2, shown at right.)

Then there were the Old Testament readings for last Monday and Tuesday – April 25 and 26 – to wit:  Leviticus 16:1-19 and Leviticus 16:20-34.  Those readings brought up the idea of a “scapegoat.”  The earliest mention of such a scapegoat came in Leviticus 16:6-10:

“Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household…  He is to cast lots for the two goats – one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat.  Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering.  But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat. (E.A.)

I wrote about these passages in On scapegoating.  

That is, scapegoating – illustrated at left – is “the practice of singling out any party for unmerited negative treatment or blame as a scapegoat.”  (Which itself could allude back to the immigration controversy, noted above.)

For a thoroughly modern take on the phenomenon, see Scapegoating – An Insidious Family Pattern of Blame and Shame on One Family Member. That article was written up by Feeling Expert Lynne Namka:

Scapegoating is a serious family dysfunctional problem with one member of the family or a social group being blamed for small things, picked on and constantly put down.  In scapegoating, one of the authority figures has made a decision that somebody in the family has to be the bad guy.  The mother or father makes one child bad and then looks for things (sometimes real, but most often imagined) that are wrong.

She added,  “Scapegoating is a huge social problem contributing to the hate that exists in the world.”  (Which sounds about right, considering some current political discourse.  See for example Why I Hate the Politics of Hate.)  But was that the Bible’s original idea?

Getting back to Isaac Asimov :  He said that much of Leviticus “deals with the clean and unclean,” but that the “Biblical use of the term of involves religious ritual.”  (As opposed to the purely hygienic sense we use today.)  As Asimov further explained:

Something is clean if it may be offered as a sacrifice for God, or if it may stand in the presence of God.  Something that may not be offered as a sacrifice is unclean…  Perhaps the chief thing [in] the book of Leviticus was to work out a code of behavior that would serve to keep the Jews distinct and their religion intact from the attractions of surrounding cultures.

(156-57)  And incidentally, one of those “attractions of surrounding cultures” was child sacrifice.  I noted that prevailing practice – at the time of Abraham – in Readings for June 29 (2014).  That post included details on the episode where Abraham stood ready to sacrifice his son Isaac.  See also Binding of Isaac (illustrated at right):

[C]hild sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples. . .  [I]n that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.”  [The episode demonstrated] to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent…  God wanted to change some “prevailing practices…”  In this case, God apparently felt a prevailing practice needed to be changed.

And  the point of all that could well be that God is not necessarily “conservative.”  See also On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist?  Sometimes – like when there was rampant child sacrifice at the time of Abraham – God felt the need to step in and change things.

But of course that thought could open up a whole new can of worms.  The point I’m making here is that maybe it’s a good idea to see what Moses originally meant.

Asimov also noted, “the Hebrew word that is translated as ‘scapegoat’ in the King James Version is actually Azazel.” (158)  And you can see the difference in several “non-KJV” translations of Leviticus 16:8.  For example, the English Standard Version reads:  “And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.”

The New Living Translation reads like this:  “He [Aaron] is to cast sacred lots to determine which goat will be reserved as an offering to the LORD and which will carry the sins of the people to the wilderness of Azazel.”  (Emphasis added.)

You can see more background on “Azazel” in On scapegoating.  But there was apparently both a “wilderness of Azazel” and a demon named Azazel, who could be “regarded simply as the personification of wickedness.”   And more than that, he – the demon Azazel – reappeared in 2003 as a “comic book supervillain.”  See Azazel (Marvel Comics) – Wikipedia.  (As shown at left.)  But finally, Asimov noted this:

Azazel is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible save for this one chapter, but it seems quite likely that it is the name of a demon thought of as dwelling in the wilderness.  It might be pictured as an evil spirit that is the source of sin.  In sending the second goat into the wilderness, the sins it carried could be viewed as returning to their source. (E.A.)

(158)  So the original intent of this Bible passage was apparently not to single out one innocent person to suffer for the sins of many.  (As so often happens these days.)

In turn, maybe-  just maybe – it’s high time to make some changes.  Maybe – just maybe – it’s time to stop scapegoating people, just like it was time to stop the prevailing child sacrifice in Abraham’s time.  Maybe – just maybe – it’s time to stop scapegoating any and every person “who, himself innocent, suffers vicariously for the deeds of others.”

But of course, some old habits DO die hard…

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Book of Leviticus – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption:  “The Scapegoat (1854 painting by William Holman Hunt).”

The image of Levi is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Levi, from the Twelve sons of Jacob, Holland c. 1590.”  The “circa 1590” explains the anachronistic style of Levi’s clothing.

Re: Leviticus.  The Isaac Asimov quotes on scapegoat and Leviticus – including that it’s “instructions are of primary interest to the priesthood” – are from Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: Two Volumes in One, the Old and New Testaments, Avenel Books (1981), at pages 156-59.  Asimov also noted that another term translated as “devils” literally meant – in the original Hebrew – “wild goats.”  

Asimov (1920-1992) was “an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books.  Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.”  His list of books included those on “astronomy, mathematics, the Bible, William Shakespeare’s writing, and chemistry.”  He was a long-time member of Mensa, “albeit reluctantly;  he described some members of that organization as ‘brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs.’”  See Wikipedia. 

Also, for a post on the distinction between that book and Deuteronomy, see On the readings for December 7.  Essentially, in Deuteronomy the addresses of Moses – to the Hebrews as they neared the promised land – “recapitulate the events of the Exodus and restate key portions of the law as it was received from Sinai.”  That post concluded that “the Bible was written by people just like us,” to show that “we too can accomplish miracles just like Jesus and the rest of the Bible-writers did.  See John 14:12, “Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.”  (Emphasis added.)

Re: ““discrete and Insular minority.”  See also Suspect classification – Wikipedia.

Re:  “same note.”  See Deuteronomy 24:20:  “When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time.  Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow.”  Also Ruth 2:2:  “And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”  Naomi said to her, ‘Go ahead, my daughter.'”

The “Ruth” image is courtesy of Book of Ruth – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld: ‘Ruth in Boaz’s Field,’ 1828.”

 The image to the left of the first scapegoating paragraph(s) is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Scapegoat, 2012, bronze sculpture.”  Although the Wikipedia article doesn’t include an attribution, the sculpture is apparently the work of Christine JONGEN (1949) – Artprice.com.

See also the Wikipedia article on Dido:  “according to ancient Greek and Roman sources, the founder and first queen of Carthage (in modern-day Tunisia).”  The article included the image at left, with the caption:  “Christine Jongen, Dido, bronze sculpture, 2007-08.” 

I borrowed the lower image from the post, On scapegoating.  The attribution there is from “fridayfunfact.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/scapegoat.jpg.”