« Who Screws Labor? | Main | Democratic Plan To Win The War On Terrorism »
Pub Quiz Board of Appeals
I was at Fado playing their Monday night trivia game with the usual team, when down came the question, "what does the Jewish holiday of Passover commemorate?" Naturally enough, everyone turns to the Jew (EDIT: i.e., me, I realize that this post might be construed as offensive without that tidbit), who says it commemorates the slaying of the firstborn children of Egypt and the sparing of the Jews. Our people were told to mark our doors with lambs' blood so that when the Angel of Death came through he would know to pass over the Jewish households and spare their children. Hence, Passover. But no, the powers that be at Brainstormer declared that the correct answer was "liberation from Egypt" or something like that. I'm going to have to stick with my original answer. The Haggadah covers a lot of ground (blood, flies, unleavened bread, eating while reclining, bitter herbs, etc.), but they could have named the thing "Liberation Day" if that's what they'd meant to call it. I blame the delicate sensibilities of wussy Christians who aren't down with the whole "vain and jealous God" scene and just can't understand why a group of people would organize one of their major festivals around an act of genocidal mass murder. The problem, as Heather MacDonald has argued is that such carpers fail to understand that extreme measures are often necessary in defense of liberty. Admittedly, things got a bit out of hand at times, but we were welcomed as liberators in the desert on the other side of the Red Sea!
January 24, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8346f5cc969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pub Quiz Board of Appeals:
Comments
Reed Sea buddy, Reed Sea. Translation error.
Reed Sea is something more like a marsh and historically the egyptians sank into the mud. Which is still pretty cool.
Posted by: Mimiru | Jan 25, 2005 12:04:19 AM
Matt, it's actually called Pesach, but in Hebrew. That still refers to the lamb, unless I'm mistaken. But the focus of the Haggadah is the story of the exodus from Egypt. I think the slaying of the first born gets about a paragraph in the story.
So the pubby folks were right.
Sorry.
Posted by: Ethan | Jan 25, 2005 12:13:06 AM
I blame the delicate sensibilities of wussy Christians who aren't down with the whole "vain and jealous God" scene and just can't understand why a group of people would organize one of their major festivals around an act of genocidal mass murder.
They tried to kill us. We won. Let's eat.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Jan 25, 2005 1:16:27 AM
t's actually called Pesach, but in Hebrew. That still refers to the lamb, unless I'm mistaken
You are correct, but for reverse causation. The verb "pasach" means passed over or skipped (so the English name is a literal translation). Because the crux of the story is the bit Matt pointed out, both the holiday and the lamb bone on the seder plate were named after the key verb in the biblical text. More puzzling to me is that it passed into Arabic where "Pascha" means Easter, a holiday which as far as I know lacks both sheep blood and dead babies.
Posted by: Ruth | Jan 25, 2005 1:36:06 AM
More puzzling to me is that it passed into Arabic where "Pascha" means Easter, a holiday which as far as I know lacks both sheep blood and dead babies.
I don't know about Arabic, but the phrase "blood of the lamb" is pretty relevant to Easter.
And -- "historically" the Egyptians sank into the mud? I thought that the current state of Egyptology is that the whole Jews-in-slavery bit is non-reality-based.
Posted by: DonBoy | Jan 25, 2005 1:41:32 AM
I don't know about Arabic, but the phrase "blood of the lamb" is pretty relevant to Easter.
And one of the dominant images of Christ in Christian iconography is the baby Jesus, so in a sense you've got the dead baby thing, to (and, as God's "only begotten son", he is a first-born, too).
Posted by: cmdicely | Jan 25, 2005 2:44:21 AM
I have a dim recollection that Trivial Pursuit had a question in the Sports category asking "When is a baseball game over?" to which the official answer was "After the last out."
Idiotic Canadians never saw their home team get a winning run in the last inning?
Posted by: bad Jim | Jan 25, 2005 5:09:49 AM
To answer your question of why the holiday isn't named "Liberation Day" or something similar, the holiday of Passover actually has several additional names. In the bible, Passover is usually referred to as "Hag Hamatzot" - roughly translated as the Festival of Matza or "unleavened bread" - which commemorates the fact that the Jews left Egypt so hastily they didn't have time to let the dough rise when they were preparing their bread, and therefore it is forbidden to eat leavened bread (or more precisely, any food derived from wheat, rye, oats, barley and spelt) throughout the entire holiday. From this name it is evident that the main focus of the holiday is the redemption aspect, rather than the "slaying of the firstborn children of Egypt and the sparing of the Jews", which was one of the ten plagues whose ultimate purpose was freeing the Jewish people from Egyptian bondage. Other names of Passover include "Hag HaAviv" - the Spring Festival (reflecting the season when this holiday occurs), and "Zman Herutenu" - the Time of Our Freedom, which also demonstrates the essential focus of the holiday on the liberation from Egypt.
Posted by: David | Jan 25, 2005 7:46:43 AM
I blame the delicate sensibilities of wussy Christians who aren't down with the whole "vain and jealous God" scene
Not completely true. Many Christians love to turn to the "Old Testament" when they seek a Biblical basis for hate. Regretably, Jesus (a liberal!)just didn't get into hating whole groups of people which can really cramp their style.
ie, See the Gospel according to St Luke
This is why I always say, beware of Christians quoting the Old Testament.
Posted by: Don | Jan 25, 2005 8:11:11 AM
I don't know about Arabic, but the phrase "blood of the lamb" is pretty relevant to Easter.
This is at least partly because the Last Supper/Crucifixion bit happened to coincide with--wait for it--Passover.
Posted by: bobo brooks | Jan 25, 2005 8:41:02 AM
I don't know about Arabic, but the phrase "blood of the lamb" is pretty relevant to Easter.
This is at least partly because the Last Supper/Crucifixion bit happened to coincide with--wait for it--Passover.
Well, yes, but it goes deeper than mere calendric coincidence. Jesus as the sacrificial lamb is a direct echo of the Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac, where once again the father (God) offers up his son (JC) as sacrifice. One midrash interprets the blood of the Pesach lamb as in fact being that of Isaac - when God sees the blood marking the doorways he is reminded of Abraham and Isaac's faith and accordingly spares the Jews from the final plague. The Christians merely take this story and plug in Jesus as Isaac - the blood of the lamb at that first Passover not only looks backward but forward as well, presaging the coming of Christ (whose sacrifice ups the ante all around).
That the Passion itself culminated during the feast of Passover is either a fortuitous coincidence or some good retroactive storytelling on the part of the Gospel authors. I'm thinking it was the latter...
Pesach becomes Pascha in Greek as well, an interesting transformation because there is a Ancient Greek verbal root pasch- which means "to suffer" (in Latin, pati-), which leads to the conflation of the Passion with idea of the suffering of Christ.
I don't know about the Arabic lineage of the word, but I do know that this past weekend Muslims celebrated Eid al-Adha, which commemorates Abraham's sacrifice - only of Ishmael, not Isaac. So all three traditions have thinly-veiled excuses to dig a hole in the backyard and roast a lamb on a spit!
Posted by: oodja | Jan 25, 2005 9:20:14 AM
On the other hand, what happened on the other side of the Reed Sea (after that whole 40-years-in-the-desert thing) was hardly liberation -- the Torah commandments concerning the Canaanites are quite literally genocidal, and if you're a Bible literalist, you believe they were carried out. Which obviously has nothing to do with contemporary Jewish doctrine or practice -- most rabbis are deeply embarrassed by this stuff and do their best to sweep it under the rug. For that matter, plenty of other religious doctrines have been used to rationalize genocidal campaigns quite a bit more recently. But if you want an instance of wussing out on the old testament, it's hard to think of a clearer example...
Posted by: Charles Dodgson | Jan 25, 2005 9:32:09 AM
I was at that pub quiz. We got the answer right -- Passover commemorates the Exodus generally, not the slaying of Egyptian first-born particularly. You're just being too literal. That is why you fail.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 25, 2005 9:50:29 AM
"This is at least partly because the Last Supper/Crucifixion bit happened to coincide with--wait for it--Passover."
Well, maybe it was no coincidence at all. If you were a radical cleric and you were trying to stir trouble against the "old school" clerics and the Roman occupation, it could be a good idea to do it during a massive religious-nationalistic festivity. Being arrested and executed was a logical consequence.
Posted by: Carlos | Jan 25, 2005 10:10:03 AM
My insticts as an evangelical are to agree with Matt. Looking at the text in Exodus 12:26-27 (NIV):
"And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD , who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.'"
This issue is certainly confused somewhat by the fact that the night of the Passover is also the night of the Exodus, but they aren't quite the same thing.
Posted by: pentegamer | Jan 25, 2005 10:34:40 AM
Whether the Passover/Easter coincidence is one of accident or design depends on how historical you consider the Gospels. If they record events accurately, then it's certainly not implausible that the Passion happened when it happened because Jesus was in Jerusalem for Passover.
If you read the Gospels as more mythic than historic, then the Gospels locate Jesus in Jerusalem, and conflate Passover with the Crucifixion, purely to reinforce the spiritual message.
The fact that the Passion conventiently transpires during the course of one day strikes me as narratively contrived -- as if the author was scripting a liturgy for a 24-hour vigil.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jan 25, 2005 10:47:04 AM
Brief reminder of the end of the story: on the other side of the Red Sea, after 40 eyar of wandering and additional random acts of genocide, the Jews were not welcomed as liberators, but were shot out from inside the walls. The Jews prevailed by going nuclear, unleashing Joshua's horn to make the walls of Jerusalem go a tumbling down.
Posted by: old guy | Jan 25, 2005 11:04:14 AM
If you read the Gospels as more mythic than historic, then the Gospels locate Jesus in Jerusalem, and conflate Passover with the Crucifixion, purely to reinforce the spiritual message.
Whether actual or manufactured, it still goes a long way toward reinforcing the "lamb of God" rhetoric.
Posted by: bobo brooks | Jan 25, 2005 11:05:43 AM
unleashing Joshua's horn to make the walls of Jerusalem go a tumbling down.
Jericho. The Israelites didn't conquer Jerusalem until David, IIRC.
Posted by: mg | Jan 25, 2005 11:16:10 AM
Old Guy: Jericho, not Jerusalem.
The God of the Moses/Pharoah kerfluffel was a piker compared to Noah's deity: Genocidal slaughter of all of humanity, and all of everything else living on land, minus a statistically insignificant handful of folk and animals floating around on a boat. I have never understood why anyone wants me to believe in THAT god.
Posted by: John Casey | Jan 25, 2005 11:19:25 AM
I was at that pub quiz. We got the answer right -- Passover commemorates the Exodus generally, not the slaying of Egyptian first-born particularly. You're just being too literal. That is why you fail.
Oh, please. Matt wasn't being too literal; he was being 'too' precise. And this is a particular pet peeve of mine: brainless trivia questions that penalize anyone who knows more than the people who wrote the question.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jan 25, 2005 11:28:47 AM
"I have never understood why anyone wants me to believe in THAT god."
For that matter, Pharaoh's god wasn't without charm. Could turn staves into snakes as well as Jehovah; they just didn't think to have their staff-snake eat the other one. Thus, the staff-snake gap.
Posted by: Grumpy | Jan 25, 2005 11:42:03 AM
Don said:
"[B]eware of Christians quoting the Old Testament."
Not all the Old Testament is that vicious. Our church sings Micah 6:8 as the response to the offering.
Posted by: josh | Jan 25, 2005 1:47:15 PM
For funny descriptions of non-wussy Old Testament stories, see Jay Pinkerton's Back of the Bible series. From the introdction:
"But keep in mind, the Bible's as thick as a phone book. For every chapter about Jesus wind-sprinting across a lake to tell you how much he loves kittens, there's another with God making a smoking peasant fireball because they sacrificed a goat to Him with the wrong knife."
Posted by: MC | Jan 25, 2005 1:59:32 PM
We didn't have any Jewish team members at Fado's last night... we put exactly what Matt put, and got it wrong.
Guess I listened too well in Sunday School.
Posted by: asdf in DC | Jan 25, 2005 3:02:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.