
Reading the Bible will make you Plotz
David Plotz, Slate's longtime Washington editor, is one of the rare mainstream journalists who has the ability to swoop in once in a while to do a Jewish story -- and manage to hit the nail on the head (on Foxman, for example).
In 2006, Plotz made what he describes as a rare visit to a synagogue (for a Bat Mitzvah), and shocked to find when leafing through the Chumash a story with which he was unfamiliar -- the rape of Dinah. A few weeks later, he launched the "Blogging the Bible" project:
Like many lax but well-educated Jews (and Christians), I have long assumed I knew what was in the Bible—more or less. I read parts of the Torah as a child in Hebrew school, then attended a rigorous Christian high school where I had to study the Old and New Testaments. Many of the highlights stuck in my head—Adam and Eve, Cain vs., Abel, Jacob vs. Esau, Jonah vs. whale, 40 days and nights, 10 plagues and Commandments, 12 tribes and apostles, Red Sea walked under, Galilee Sea walked on, bush into fire, rock into water, water into wine. And, of course, I absorbed other bits of Bible everywhere—from stories I heard in churches and synagogues, movies and TV shows, tidbits my parents and teachers told me. All this left me with a general sense that I knew the Good Book well enough, and that it was a font of crackling stories, Jewish heroes, and moral lessons.
So, the tale of Dinah unsettled me, to say the least. If this story was strutting cheerfully through the back half of Genesis, what else had I forgotten or never learned? I decided I would, for the first time as an adult, read the Bible. And I would blog about it as I went along.
And now we have ... the book: "The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible." As part of the roll out, Plotz spoke with Shmuel Rosner:
Here's a very serious question: how significant to your reading was the fact that you're Jewish? Did and how this changed your way of reading - and interpreting - it?
It was hugely significant, by far the most important fact in my reading. Christians have the New Testament, which softens and explains and cleans up a lot of the messiness of the Hebrew Bible. Jews don't have Jesus to fall back on. The result, I think, is our amazing tradition of argument. We have a holy book that is full of immoral heroes and an erratic, vindictive God. How do we grapple with that? My Bible reading, though deeply ignorant and naïve, is very much in that Jewish tradition of addressing the holy book by arguing with it, rather than simply accepting it, sheep-like. Also, being Jewish allowed me to be more joking about it. I was not comfortable in blogging the New Testament because it might have been insulting for me to crack jokes about Jesus, a savior I don't believe in. Similarly, I'm not sure a Christian would have been comfortable writing about the Israelites and the God of the Hebrew Bible.
You're an editor (and writer) with a political mind. You wrote a lot about politics, you thought a lot about politics. Did you find the Good Book politically relevant?
Yes, in a couple of ways. The Bible is the book that guides tens of millions of my fellow Americans. They make their decisions about gay marriage, economic policy, education, abortion, etc based on the words in the book. If I want to be able to understand them, and to engage with them, I need to know what they believe. Also, the Bible has many episodes analogous to Biblical events. It's much easier to understand Bill Clinton having read about King David.
Click here for the full Q & A.
1 Comment
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Mark S. Devenow on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- M.A. Kinnaman on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- Steve007 on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- steve ariza on After prayer and punch, Foreman takes Jewish victory lap
- Lauryn on NIF on defense for 'rape' poster demonizing Israel




nathan ullrich
03/04/09 05:10 AM
I read the entire interview on the Jeruslem Post website, and there were 50 ranting comments deriding Plotz for his commentary. I could not help but to be outraged by the intolerance expressed. I commend Plotz for reading scripture with fresh eyes in context and sharing HIS reactions. I was raised catholic, hearing individual passages from the old and new testament in isolation every week at mass. I attended a Jesuit university and for the first time read all four gospels in their entirety and was stunned by how different the experience was from my experience of the bible when I was growing up. I have not read the old testament like this, but i am now intrigued. any person of faith should rejoice at a skeptic reading the Word, and should not fear commentary they do not agree with. Faith does not require proof--that is the point of faith. I do not understand why so-called people of faith feel so threatened by anyone who reacts to sacred words differently than they do. Thomas did not believe in the resurrection until he saw the holy wounds--his belief was not born of faith, nor is a religeous person’s belief true faith if they cannot tolerate skepticism from someone who does not believe. To dismiss the thoughts or words of a skeptic who is truly trying to understand is truly fragile faith at best, and insincere hipocracy and self-deception at worst. If you believe in an all powerful G-D, G-D knows if you truly have faith, and you do not need to strike down someone with different views to prove your faith.